Evaluation Overview of the Cache River and Black Swamp in Arkansas

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
Evaluation Overview of the Cache River and Black Swamp in Arkansas
Physical Description:
Report
Language:
English
Creator:
Odum, Howard T.
Romitelli, Silvia
Tighe, Robert
Publisher:
Center for Environmental Policy
Place of Publication:
Gainesville, FL
Publication Date:

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
emergy
swamp
river
permitting
Spatial Coverage:
United States -- Arkansas -- Cache River and Black Swamp
Coordinates:
34.7 x -91.33

Notes

General Note:
128 Pages

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
System ID:
AA00004014:00001


This item is only available as the following downloads:


Full Text




Evaluation Overview of the Cache River and
Black Swamp in Arkansas


Howard T. Odum, Silvia Romitelli, and Robert Tighe







Final Report on Contract #DACW39-94-K-0300
Energy Systems Perspectives for Cumulative Impacts Assessment
between Waterways Experiment Station, U.S. Dept. of the Army,
Vicksburg, Miss. and University of Florida







Center for Environmental Policy
Environmental Engineering Sciences
University of Florida, Gainesville, 32611


January 10, 1998







Evaluation Overview of the Cache River and
Black Swamp in Arkansas*


Howard T. Odum, Silvia Romitelli, and Robert Tighe


Environmental Engineering Sciences
University of Florida, Gainesville, 32611


Dec 10, 1997





*Part II and Final report of Contract # DACW39-94-K-0300: Energy
Systems Perspectives for Cumulative Impacts Assessment, between
Waterways Experiment Station, U.S. Dept. of the Army, Vicksburg, Miss.
and the Center for Environmental Policy, Dept. of Environmental
Engineering Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville. Dr. Jean O'Neill,
was scientific advisor and contract officer.

Part I was a progress report entitled Energy Systems Perspectives on
Cumulative Impacts in the Black Swamp, Cache River Arkansas (H.T.Odum
and R. Tighe, Sept .30, 1994). It contained energy systems diagrams
aggregating the Black Swamp as a whole. To show qualitatively how
complex interactions developed cumulative impact, diagrams with
highlighted pathways were supplied for each of 6 functional sectors of the
system that had been recognized to be of concern: (a) waters, (b)
sediments, (c) biodiversity, (d) forestry, (e) fisheries, and (f) deer. If the
user has been taught the symbols and their meaning, inspection of these
networks provides a quick guide to components and interactions which
have to be considered in permitting. The appendix contained the
equations for each of the models and highlighted impact relationships.
These equations show the impact relationships in mathematical form, a
translation of the energy language diagrams, ready for simulation. An
example is the simulation of impact on groundwater in the Black Swamp
included in this final report.






CONTENTS
Page
Title Page ........................................... .............. 1
Contents .................................. ................... 3
Legends for the Figures ............................... .......... 5
List of Tables ................... ..... .......................... 7
Abstract .... ................................................ 9
Introduction ....................... .......................... 11
Cumulative Impacts............................. 11
Simulating Impacts ...................... ............ 11
Concepts ............. ................. .. .... .............. 12
Emergy and Energy Hierarchy....................... 12
Maximum Empower Principle and Environmental
Management ................................. 14
Transformity ................... .................. 14
Empower density .................................. 14
Empower of Arkansas, Cache River Basin and Black
Swamp ..................... ............ ..... ... 14
Emdollars and Real Wealth .......................... 15
Emergy Indices..................... ................. 15
Study Areas ............................................... 15
State of Arkansas ................................. 15
Cache River Basin ................................... 16
Black Swamp .............................. .......... 16
Background of Previous Study............................. 16
Cache River Basin ....... ......... ................... 16
Black Swamp ..................................... 24
Content of This Study ..................................... 26
Methods ....................................................... 27
Developing Systems Models from Verbal Concepts ............. 27
Emergy and Emdollar Evaluation......................... 27
Simulating Impacts .................... ..... .............. 29
Results ................ .... ...... ................ ............ 31
Arkansas ............................................... 31
Energy Systems Diagram ...................... ..... 31
Emdollar Evaluation Table ............... ......... ... 31
System Indices .................. ..... .............. 31
Comparisons ..................... .................... 31






Page
Cache River .............................................. 52
Energy Systems Diagram ............................ 52
Emdollar Evaluation Table ........................... 52
Emergy Indices ..................................... 52
Comparisons ......................................... 67
Black Swamp .............................................. 67
Energy Systems Diagram .............................. 67
Emdollar Evaluation Table ........................... 67
Emergy Indices ................ .................... 67
Comparisons ......................................... 75
Simulating Impacts on the Black Swamp ...................... 75
Simulating Effects of Separate Impacts .................. 76
Simulating Cumulative Impacts ....................... 76
Discussion ..................................................... 81
Principal Resources ....................................... 81
Evaluating Change ........................................ 82
Use of Evaluations for Permitting .......................... 82
Appendix A. Details of Impact Simulation ........................ 85
Appendix B. Calculation of Transformities ........................ 95
Transformities of Global Water Flows ....................... 95
Transformities of Migrant Birds............................ 97
Transformities of Agricultural Commodities ................... 97
Literature Cited ............................................... 119






Legends for the Figures

Figure 1. Three scales of watershed evaluation (1) as part of Arkansas; (2)
the Cache River Watershed; (3) the Black Swamp.

Figure 2. Map of the Cache River Basin (Adapted from: Corps of Engineers,
1974).

Figure 3. Map of the Black Swamp (Source: Baker and Killgore, 1994).

Figure 4. A series of energy transformations forming an energy hierarchy
from left to right with each measured by its transformity. (a) Energy
transformation series based on one energy source with calculation of solar
transformity of energy of the flows downstream to the right; (b) main
energy flows and transformations contributing to the Black Swamp.

Figure 5. Empower (emergy flow) and money circulation in a state. (a)
Energy systems diagram; (b) emergy to money ratio used to evaluate
emdollars of environmental contribution.

Figure 6. Emdollar indices used to evaluate environmental developments.

Figure 7. Energy systems diagram of Arkansas with main empower inputs
in solar emjoules per year. (a) Complex diagram; (b) aggregated summary;
(c) three arm summary.

Figure 8. EMERGY signature of environment and economy in Arkansas.

Figure 9. Energy systems diagram of the Cache River Watershed (a) with
main empower inputs in solar emjoules per year (b) water budget overlay.

Figure 10. EMERGY signature of environment and economy of the Cache
River Watershed.

Figure 11. Energy systems diagram of the Black Swamp with main
empower inputs in solar emjoules per year.

Figure 12. EMERGY signature of a hectare of Black Swamp Ecosystem.

Figure 13. Overview simulation model of impacts on waters of the Cache
River watershed affecting the Black Swamp. (a) With mathematical
equations; (b) with values of flows and storage used for calibration from
Appendix Table Al.







Figure 14. Simulation of the Black Swamp water model in Figure 13a as
calibrated with values in Figure 13b. (a) Water inputs; (b) sunlight,
primary production, and water level. See Appendix Figures Al A8.

Appendix Figures:

Figure Al. Simulation of the groundwater model with calibration
conditions before impact.

Figure A2. Impacts of cutting Biomass.

Figure A3. Impacts of lowering groundwater.

Figure A4. Impacts of diverting the river inflows.

Figure AS. Cumulative impacts of lowering groundwater and cutting
biomass.

Figure A6. Cumulative impacts of lowering groundwater and diverting
river inflow.

Figure A7. Cumulative impact of cutting biomass and diverting river
inflow.

Figure A8. Cumulative impacts of lowering groundwater, diverting river
and cutting biomass.

Figure Bl. Diagram of global hydrology for evaluating transformities. (a)
Global emergy basis; (b) global water flows from L'vovich (1974); (c)
energy flows.

Figure B2. Emergy signature for rice production in Arkansas.

Figure B3. Emergy signature for soybean production in Arkansas.

Figure B4. Emergy signature for wheat production in Arkansas.

Figure BS. Emergy signature for sorghum production in Arkansas.

Figure B6. Emergy signature for corn production in Arkansas.

Figure B7. Emergy signature for broiler production in Arkansas.






List of Tables

Table 1. Definitions

Table 2. Emergy per Unit

Table 3. Annual Emergy Flows of Arkansas

Table 4. Export and Import Exchange Between Arkansas and Other States

Table 5. Emergy Indices for Arkansas

Table 6. Annual Emergy Flows of the Cache River Basin

Table 7. Exchange Between the Cache River Basin and Other Parts of the
United States

Table 8. Emergy Indices for the Cache River Basin

Table 9. Annual Emergy Flows in the Black Swamp

Table 10. Annual Emdollar Values in one Hectare of Black Swamp

Table 11. Simulated Impacts on the Productivity and Biomass of the Black
Swamp

Table 12. Steps for Emdollar Evaluation of a Proposed Change

Appendix:

Appendix Table Al. Data Used for Calibration (Table A2) of the Water
Simulation model in Figure 13

Appendix Table A2. Calibration Spreadsheet for the Water Simulation
model for the Black Swamp (Figure 13)

Appendix Table A3. Simulation Program in BASIC (for Macintosh QBASIC)

Appendix Table Bl. Emergy of Migrant Birds

Appendix table B2. Emergy Evaluation of Rice Production in Arkansas

Appendix Table B3. Emergy Evaluation of Soybean Production in Arkansas




8



Appendix Table B4. Emergy Evaluation of Wheat Production in Arkansas

Appendix Table B5. Emergy Evaluation of Sorghum Production in
Arkansas

Appendix Table B6. Emergy Evaluation of Corn Production in Arkansas

Appendix Table B7. Emergy Evaluation of Poultry Broiler Production in
Arkansas






ABSTRACT

This is the second and final report applying energy systems methods for
overview, evaluation, and management of watersheds, with the Cache River
in Arkansas as an example. The first report included systems models
(diagrams and mathematical expressions) for showing environmental,
ecological, and economic interactions in the Cache River watershed, and a
portion of its floodplain known as the Black Swamp, for synthesizing
knowledge and understanding cumulative impacts.

This second report uses the systems overviews to evaluate influences and
processes affecting the area on 3 scales, from the large scale down: (1) the
state of Arkansas, (2) the Cache River watershed, and (3) the Black Swamp.
Emergy and emdollars were used to determine what is important for
environmental management and permitting. (Emergy is the available
energy in units of one kind of energy previously used up directly and
indirectly to make a product or service. Emdollars (em$) are the part of
the gross economic product due to an emergy contribution).

Policy for decisions on environment can be based on the maximum
empower principle, which defines choices as best which maximize
empower and emdollar contributions of environment and the economy
together. (Empower is the rate of emergy use per year). Decisions on
permitting of a development proposal should be those that maximize the
emdollar production of the system.

The state evaluation showed Arkansas to have a high level of indigenous
real wealth (a high emergy/money ratio, and high emergy levels per
person) compared to the United States as a whole. About 37% of the state's
total emdollars were contributed by water, soils, natural gas and other local
resources and 63% from fuels, goods, and services purchased from out of
state. Only 11% was renewable. Twice as much real wealth (emergy) was
sold out of state as rice and other commodities than was received in
monetary payments.

Evaluation of the Cache River watershed with its intensive rice production
showed about half of the area's total emdollars were contributed by ground
and river water uses and half from fuels, goods, and services purchased from
out of the area. Forty two percent of the production was unsustainable,
based on non-renewable use of soils and groundwater storage.

Evaluation of the Black Swamp showed annual contributions to a hectare
were: 1608 em$ in the inflow of sediments and 4847 em$ as organic.






Physical energy contributed 449 em$ (geopotential energy used up).
Forest productivity contributed $372 em$ using the chemical potential
energy of water used by forests for their evapotranspiration. Swamp
based fish production was 633 em$.

Per hectare, the Black Swamp, with 7640 em$/year, was more valuable
than the average Cache River watershed area with 4111 em$/year and the
average for Arkansas with 4738 em$/year. For permitting, the burden of
proof is on a developer to show that a proposed economic use of a swamp
area will generate a greater annual emdollar value.

Since energy systems models define mathematical equations, the models
can be calibrated with observed data and simulated to determine the
consequences of the relationships shown in the model. A model of the
water budget of the Black Swamp and its groundwater was calibrated and
simulated considering several "what if" alternatives. Cutting forest, and
diverting the river had small effects on the groundwater compared to the
larger effect of direct pumping. However, large cumulative impacts on the
forest resulted from the three factors affecting the water budget together.

As with any initial overview evaluation, closure was obtained by using
whatever estimates and approximations were readily available. The
numerical results therefore are uneven and preliminary, inviting
refinement by specialists with better data.






INTRODUCTION

Understanding watersheds and their ecosystems requires that their roles
in the surrounding economy and landscape be quantitatively evaluated.
Since maximum economic benefits are not achieved by diminishing the life
support functions of watersheds, decisions by those planning and
authorizing developments need to be made according to the principle of
maximizing the real wealth productivity of both the ecosystems and the
dependent economy. This paper overviews and evaluates the developed
Cache River watershed in Arkansas and the contributions of the original
floodplain forest ecosystem now represented by a remnant, the Black
Swamp.

Energy systems diagrams are used to identify and summarize the main
components and processes on three scales shown in Figures 1-3: (1) State
of Arkansas; (2) Cache River Watershed; and (3) Black Swamp. Then the
principal contributions to real wealth in these systems are evaluated with
EMERGY, spelled with an "m", and expressed as emdollars for comparison
with economic values on a common basis. Patterns over time are explored
with simulation models. Those considering changes in the watershed can
use the results by comparing emdollars of existing environmental and
economic contributions with emdollars of the systems to result from
proposed changes. Changes which do not increase emdollar value should
not be authorized.

Cumulative Impacts
Most cumulative impact evaluations have been concerned with the effects
accumulating on one property of the landscape, such as groundwater or
biodiversity. By contrast, a systems overview of an ecosystem in relation
to its surroundings shows the interplay of all variables on each other. By
expressing each variable in a measure that applies to them all, it is
possible to add up all impacts, or examine them separately to identify
principal actions. This study evaluates various changes taking place in the
Cache River watershed that impact the floodplain forest remnant
represented by the Black Swamp.

Simulating Impacts
Quantitative estimates of impacts of changes and proposed changes can be
obtained by computer simulation of overview models, calibrated with local
values for flow and storage. Included in this study is an example of the
simulation of ground water response with an overview model that has
water flows, storage, and interactions highly aggregated so that the






process and result are easily understood. Overview assessment and
decision making require simplicity, while including details considered to be
important. Simulating aggregate water responses for this purpose, to learn
"what if," is different from the detailed and expensive simulation of water
distribution spatially. Each approach has its place in impact evaluation,
depending on the scale of the questions.

Concepts

Emergy analysis is a procedure for environmental accounting of the
cumulative work required for a product or service in units of one kind of
energy. It allows the user to define the proportion of the regional
economy due to a specific natural resource. It measures what an
environmental resource is contributing to the regional economy. A brief
explanation of emergy concepts and measures follows, with definitions
summarized in Table 1.

Emergy and Energy Hierarchy
Because of the second energy law, all the processes of nature and the
economy can be arranged in a series, representing the hierarchy of energy.
All processes use up some of the potential of energy (its availability) to do
work, dispersing that energy in degraded form. Therefore, the product of
useful processes has less available energy in its output than its inputs.
This means that processes may be arranged in an energy transformation
series like Figure 4a. In each block, available energy is dispersed. Total
energy flow (power) decreases from left to right, but becomes more
concentrated. Examples are food chains, stages in the hydrological cycle,
and steps in the production sectors of the economy.

Energy is abundant but low quality on the left, whereas energy is less but
of higher quality on the right, capable of doing more per calorie. It would
be misleading, if not wrong, to consider a calorie of energy on the right
equivalent to one on the left. For example, a calorie of human service is
many times more valuable than a calorie of sunlight. A calorie of a hawk's
work in the ecosystem contributes and controls much more than a calorie
of a leaf. It takes many calories on the left to make a calorie on the right.

However, energies of different kinds may be appropriately compared by
expressing each in units of one kind of available energy previously used
up. In the approach used in this report, solar energy is used. Thus, Solar
Emergy is defined as the available solar energy previously used directly
and indirectly to make a product or service. The unit of emergy is the
emcalorie or the emjoule. Whereas joules of energy are in a piece of wood,






Table 1
Summary of Definitions


Available Energy =



Useful Energy =


Power =

EMERGY =




Empower =


Transformity =


Solar EMERGY =



Solar Empower =


Solar Transformity =


Potential energy capable of doing work and being
degraded in the process
(units: kilocalories, joules, etc.)

Available energy used to increase
system production and efficiency

Useful energy flow per unit time

Available energy of one kind
previously required directly and
indirectly to make a product or service
(units: emjoules, emkilocalories, etc.)

EMERGY flow per unit time
(units: emjoules per unit time)

EMERGY per unit available energy
(units: emjoule per joule)

Solar energy required directly and
indirectly to make a product or service
(units: solar emjoules)

Solar EMERGY flow per unit time
(units: solar emjoules per unit time)

Solar EMERGY per unit available energy
(units: solar emjoules per joule)


____ __ __I_ __ ___ __ _____ 1_________1__






emjoules refer to the available energy that was previously used up to
make the wood. We sometimes call emergy the "energy memory."

Maximum Empower Principle and Environmental Management
The flow of useful emergy is also called empower (Table 1). The maximum
power principle has long been advocated as a general principle for self
organizing systems, including those of nature and of the economy. Stated
so as to represent different kinds of energy appropriately, this principle is:
Self organizing systems develop designs of components and relationships
that maximize the intake and efficient use of emergy. Designs with more
empower displace those with less.

Consequently, either by reason or by trial and error, the landscape with
environment and economy will develop maximum empower designs.
Public attitudes, environmental management and permitting, to be
successful in the long run, need to arrange for maximum empower during
development.

Transformity
Whereas the energy flow decreases through an energy transformation
series, the emergy flow stays the same or increases if more inputs are
added. Transformity is defined as the energy per unit energy. It
increases from left to right (Figure 4a). It is a measure of energy quality.
Transformities are useful for making calculation of emergy from data on
energy. Solar emergy = (energy)(solar transformity).

Empower Density
Self organizing systems develop centers of energy processing. Hierarchical
centers have high concentrations of empower. The spatial concentration of
empower is measured as areal empower density. For example, on a small
scale, empower is concentrated in trunks of trees and in the bodies of
animals. On a large scale empower is concentrated in flowing streams and
human settlements.

Empower of Arkansas, the Cache River Basin, and the Black Swamp
As summarized in Figure 4b, sunlight, tides, and heat from the deep earth
drive the geobiosphere, including the state of Arkansas. From the global
processes, rains, geological contributions, and inputs from the economy
operate the Cache River watershed. Climatic inputs and river waters
operate the Black Swamp. In Figure 4b these are arranged from left to
right in order of decreasing energy flow but increasing transformity.






Emdollars and Real Wealth
Figure 5 shows the main inputs to the economy of any area, including
those free from the environment and those purchased and transported in.
Through many processes and transformations these inputs develop the
real wealth of the area such as forests, clean waters, clothing, food,
housing, transport, information and aesthetics. Within that area the money
circulating among the people facilitates efficient buying and selling, often
measured by the gross economic product. Since emergy measures the real
wealth on a common basis, dividing the annual emergy use by the gross
economic product provides a useful emergy/money ratio for relating real
wealth to money. The emdollar is defined as the emerge divided by the
emergy/money ratio. Emdollars put environmental resource contributions
on a common basis with contributions purchased by the economy.
Environmental management can maximize empower by arranging
developments and permits so that they maximize emdollars of the
economy and environment.

Emergy Indices
Various ratios of emergy flows are useful for evaluating a system and its
potential. Two are defined in Figure 6. The emergy yield ratio is
calculated by dividing the emergy of the yield (Y) flowing into the
economy on the right by the feedback of emergy (F) the economy is
supplying from the right. A system with a large net emergy ratio is
contributing much more real wealth than it requires for the process.
Examples are rich mineral deposits and abundant fresh waters. In recent
years the main sources of fuels that operate the nation have a net emergy
ratio between 4 and 10, fluctuating with prices of fuels (Odum, 1996).

The intensity of regional economic development and use of environment is
given by an emerge investment ratio defined as the ratio of emergy
purchased from the economy (F) to the emergy used free from the local
environment (E). In wilderness parks the ratio is less than one. Typical
development in the U.S. has an investment ratio of 7. By offering more
free local inputs than usual, developments less than 7 tend to cost less,
capture markets, and compete economically.

Study Areas
State of Arkansas
Arkansas, in the center of the United States, includes the Ozark mountain
highlands on the west and the Mississippi River alluvial valley on the east.
The latter includes the floodplain and old channels of the Mississippi River,
as well as current streams and tributaries, such as the Cache River (Figure
la).





Cache River
Basin



Iphis

Black Swamp
Stud Site


Ft. Smith -









Texarkana


.-* Mississippi
River








(b)

Figure 1. Three scales of watershed evaluation (1) as part of Arkansas; (2)
the Cache River Watershed; (3) the Black Swamp.







Cache River Basin
The Cache River rises in southeastern Missouri, and flows south-southwest
through northeast Arkansas to its confluence with the White River (Figure
2). It is one of several rivers traversing the Western Lowlands, an alluvial
plain in the upper portions of the Mississippi River Valley. The landscape
is flat and fertile, and has thus been conducive to the establishment of
agriculture, primarily crops such as soybeans, rice, cotton, and wheat.

Beginning with initial clearing and drainage in the early part of this
century, more than 80% of the former forestland of the Cache River basin
has been converted to agriculture. Of the little natural area that remains,
most is floodplain forest along the watercourses of the alluvial plain. In
the Cache River basin, this is primarily concentrated in several clumps
found along the lower portions of the river.

Black Swamp
The Black Swamp Wildlife management area is a part of the remaining
bottomland hardwood area in the lower Cache River Basin (Figure 2).
These are not virgin forests, but many patches have grown 100 or more
years since cutting.

Background of Previous Studies

The Cache River Basin
The Cache River basin was the subject of a major Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS)(COE 1974), based on proposals for renovation and
extension of the previously completed channelization of portions of the
river. The previous channel works occurred in the upper basin, for 89
miles from river mile 114 near the town of Grubbs to the headwaters of
the river near Qulin, Missouri, and partial completion of the lower 10.5
miles of the river at its confluence with the White River (Figure 1). The
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) contains detailed information on
various aspects of the ecology and economy of the basin, and some history
of human use in the area.

Mauney and Harp (1979) studied the effects of this channelization on the
fisheries of the Cache River and its main tributary Bayou DeView. They
found a general decline in fish populations in those areas that were
channelized, as compared to natural stretches of the streams.

Because of the drastic effect of rice irrigation on depleting the alluvial
aquifer in extensively-farmed areas of the Western Lowlands, substantial








Watershed


Walnut


Cache River


White River


Roads


Black Swamp
Study Site


Scale

0 10 20
Miles


Figure 2. Map of the Cache River Basin (Adapted from: Corps of Engineers,
1974).






-i Gauging Station
f, ePatterson

.--.---Cache River
*Gray





Study Site

Bottomland
Hardwoods

Black Swamp
Wildlife
Management
Area


Gauging Station
<..


Figure 3. Map of the Black Swamp (Source: Baker and Killgore, 1994).


a)







Energy flow, Calories per time


Transformity = Solar Emergy/Energy


1000
1000
1000


1000 10
100


1000
-=100
10


1000 =1000
1


Global Rain
GeobiosphereBough
nputs
-- --------- v ^ --- -. -----------------------

Arkansas

Cache i River
Watershed
Black
--- -Swamp




(b)

Figure 4. A series of energy transformations forming an energy hierarchy
from left to right with each measured by its transformity. (a) Energy
transformation series based on one energy source with calculation of solar
transformity of energy of the flows downstream to the right; (b) main
energy flows and transformations contributing to the Black Swamp.















Sales out of State


Empower Use Emergy/money Ratio
Gross Economic Product




Figure 5. Empower (emergy flow) and money circulation in a state. (a)
Energy systems diagram; (b) emergy to money ratio used to evaluate
emdollars of environmental contribution.


Arkansas


21
Fuels
Purchase Materials
Out of State Goods & Serv.
-- $ Electric
Power
1




















Emergy Investment Ratio =


F
E


Emergy Yield Ratio =


Figure 6. Emdollar indices used to evaluate environmental developments.


Y
F






study was made of the hydrology of this region, including the Cache River
basin. As early as 1953, an unreplenished decline of the aquifer in the
western portions of Cross, Poinsett, and St. Francis counties was noted, as
well as an alteration in the general flow direction of the aquifer in this
area (Counts and Engler 1954).

Broom and Lyford (1982) and Ackerman (1989) modelled the interactions
of irrigation and water movement throughout the surface and groundwater
systems of the region. Their efforts showed the depletion of the aquifer
affecting surficial hydrology of the region, capturing streamflow from the
Cache River as a source of recharge for the lowered aquifer.

Smith and Saucier (1971) mapped and described the geomorphology of the
Western Lowlands region as part of a larger effort to map the entire
Mississippi River Valley Alluvial Plain. They provide descriptions of
historic and current locations of the rivers of the region, and include a
portfolio of maps showing plan-view and cross-section analyses of the
geologic formations that currently occupy the area.

A special issue of the journal Wetlands in 1996 included 12 papers on the
Cache River Basin and the Black Swamp, the results of an intensive study
starting about 1987. The cooperative effort of the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (COE), the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), and several other
Federal and State agencies (Clairain and Kleiss, 1989) was designed to
consider biological, chemical, and physical aspects of bottomland hardwood
ecosystems including work to assess fisheries, hydrology, sedimentation,
spatial information, vegetation, water quality, and wildlife (Kleiss 1993,
1996).

In her summary of this special issue, Kleiss (1996) explains the way the
clearing of bottomland hardwoods, first for soybeans and then for rice,
with heavy groundwater pumping for part of the year, changed water
levels, hydroperiod, and ecology for the remaining bottomland hardwoods
in the rest of the basin. Kress, Graves, and Bourne (1996) mapped the land
use changes, with forest cover decreasing from 65% to 15% from 1935 to
1975. Remaining forest, mostly on hydric soils, is fragmented with a large
edge/area ratio.

Gonthier and Kleiss (1993) and Gonthier (1996) analyzed the records of
groundwater wells located throughout the Black Swamp, which penetrated
to varying depths in the underlying geologic units, including the alluvial
aquifer and its overlying confining unit. Groundwater levels of the basins,
including that under the bottomland hardwoods (Black Swamp), varied






seasonally and year to year with the heavy pumping for rice agriculture.
Floodplains that once received groundwater inputs were often recharging
groundwaters. During periods of rising stream flow, the Cache River
contributes recharge to the alluvial aquifer, while during falling stream
levels the aquifer discharges to the river.

Walton and Chapman (1993) and Walton, Chapman, and Davis (1996)
presented their spatial hydrologic simulation model of the watershed with
67 nodes synthesizing the interactions of precipitation, canopy
interception, overland flow, channel flow, infiltration, evapotranspiration,
and horizontal groundwater flow. The model generated a reasonable fit to
a hydroperiod graph of number of days versus water level of the Cache
River. The model provided an estimate of hydroperiod for sampling plots
located throughout the swamp.

Wilber, Tighe, and O'Neill (1996) found the low river flows in summer to
be related to drawdowns of the groundwater by rice agriculture and not to
climate. At the end of summer, when pumping ceases, groundwater levels
in the drawdown areas rise, albeit to levels lower than those preceding
withdrawal.

Black Swamp
Walton, Davis, Martin and Chapman (1996), analyzing the hydrology of the
Black Swamp, found that the highly channelized Cache River watershed
had downstream constrictions, causing overbank flooding and wetland
hydroperiod dependent on rains in the short-run. Nestler and Long (1994)
and Long and Nestler (1996) found that the hydroperiod in the swamps
has become erratic in dry periods with a loss of base flow that may be
attributed to groundwater pumping.

Hupp and Morris (1990) found that, prior to the late 1940's, deposition of
sediment in the swamp was consistent with normal sedimentation rates in
other, unimpacted alluvial floodplains. After that time, however, sediment
accumulation rates in the floodplain increased substantially, more than
doubling from previous years. Kleiss (1996) measured the sediment
budget and deposition for the Black Swamp, finding sedimentation at 1
cm/yr, removing 14% of the sediments from the river, most in the bottom
of the floodplain. Main factors affecting sedimentation rate were flood
duration, tree basal area and distance from the river.

With the help of a model of water detention on the floodplain Dortch
(1996) evaluated the removal of suspended solids, total nitrogen, and total
phosphorus from floodwaters. With a retention time of 5 days, sediment






removal was 6.6%/day, total nitrogen 4.8% per day, and total phosphorus
0.58% per day, rates less than in marshes.

Boar, Delaune, Lindau and Patrick (1993) and Delaune, Boar, Lindau, and
Kleiss (1996) measured denitrification process in the Black Swamp, finding
that 9 parts per million nitrate nitrogen in floodwaters were reduced
between 59 to 82% in 40 days. Experiments showed that the organic
carbon available to the sediment process was a limiting factor.

Smith (1996), analyzing the vegetation with gradient ordination methods,
found four main types in the Black Swamp, typical of southeastern United
States. These were named by dominant trees and related to flood depth
and duration:

In river-swamp forest with nearly continuous flooding:
1. Water Tupelo and Bald Cypress,

With 50% flooding, two types of lower hardwood swamp forest,
with more species:
2. Nuttall's Oak and Green Ash
3. Overcup Oak and Water Hickory

With flooding 30% of the year, diverse backwater forest
4. Willow Oak and Sweetgum

Baker and Killgore (1994) and Kilgore and Baker (1996) evaluated the
Black Swamp's role as a fisheries nursery by study of fish populations and
larval fish abundance. The fish community was comprised almost entirely
of flood-exploitative species. Larval fishes of 35 taxa were found, more in
the floodplain than in the river, and more in years of greater flood area.

Wakeley and Roberts (1994, 1996) evaluated small bird populations in
transects across the Black Swamp and related these to the gradient of
water flooding and the four vegetation types, including analysis of
structural characteristics of vegetation, snags, tree heights, etc. Because of
the fragmented patchiness with edge, more birds were found in the Black
Swamp than in some continuous forest. Although number of species in the
four types of habitat was similar, the dominant species were different and
arranged on a scale of water gradient. Birds were fewer in winter;
migrants were a small percentage.




26

Content of This Study

This study includes energy systems models, emergy, and emdollar
evaluations of the state of Arkansas, the Cache River Watershed and a
hectare of Black Swamp. Included is an example of simulation of an
overview model. Because overview models at the level of human verbal
thinking are relatively simple, calibrating and simulating can be done in a
day or two and does not require a major project authorization. A model of
the Black Swamp interaction with waters was simulated to evaluate
potential impacts of some changes in watershed management on ground
water and other variables.






METHODS

Developing Systems Models from Verbal Concepts

Energy System Diagramming
Developing an overview model starts with the drawing of a diagram of the
system of interest. After defining the physical boundary, important
outside sources are listed and drawn around the boundary from left to
right in order of their transformity, which marks their position in the
energy hierarchy (sun, wind rain, river, geology, fuel, chemicals, goods,
services, tourists, market, etc.). The main internal components and
processes in the system are identified and drawn inside the system frame,
such as forest, agriculture and industrial producers, urban areas, water
storage, etc. Pathways, interactions, and money transactions are
connected. The first diagram may be complex because minor components
and processes may be included. Next the diagram is simplified to those
parts and pathways that are found to be most important.

Emergy and Emdollar Evaluation

Emergy analysis tables were prepared on three scales: the state using
1992 data on Arkansas, the watershed and the swamp. For each system
an emergy evaluation table was prepared with a line item for each input,
output, and other items of special interest. An emergy evaluation table
typically has 6 columns: (1) number of the line item and its footnote, (2)
the name of the item to be estimated, (3) data in units of energy, mass or
cost, (4) emergy per unit, (5) solar emergy and (6) emdollars. Energy
flows are calculated from standard formulae from physics, chemistry,
geology, economics, engineering, etc. Emergy per unit was obtained from
previous emergy studies (Table 2).

Solar emergy of each line item was estimated by multiplying the data in
column 3 by the solar emergy per unit from column 4. Finally, the real
wealth value in emdollars was calculated by dividing emergy by the
emergy/money ratio of the country, state or region. Emergy/money ratio
was obtained by dividing the gross economic product by the total
contributing emergy used by that system. Finally, summations and indices
defined in Table 1 and Figure 6 were calculated to interpret the condition
of the system. Full explanation of methods is given in a recent book on
environmental accounting (Odum 1996).






Table 2
Emergy per Unit


Item Value and Unit Source


Direct sunlight
Wind
Rain chemical potential
Runoff geopotential
River geopotential
Earth cycle
Coal
River chemical potential
Natural gas
Petroleum
Sorghum & cotton
Topsoil losses
Groundwater
Electricity (nuclear)
Rice & soybean
Hydroelecetricity
Wheat
Poultry
Migrants birds
Livestock production
Fish production
Forest products


Soil losses
Bromine
Potassium
Phosphorus
Nitrogen
Pesticides


1 sej/J
1.5 E3 sej/J
1.81 E4 sej/J
2.8 E4 sej/J
2.8 E4 sej/J
3.4 E4 sej/J
4.0 E4 sej/J
4.8 E4 sej/J
4.8 E4 sej/J
5.4 E4 sej/J
6.0 E4 sej/J
7.4 E4 sej/J
1.6 E5 sej/J
1.7 E5 sej/J
1.7 E5 sej/J
1.7 E5 sej/J
2.2 E5 sej/J
7.0 E5 sej/J
9.7 E5 sej/J
2.0 E6 sej/J
2.0 E6 sej/J
2.8 E8 sej/J

1.0 E9 sej/g
1.0 E9 sej/g
1.1 E9 sej/g
3.9 E9 sej/g
4.6 E9 sej/g
1.48 E10 sej/g


Odum, 1996
Romitelli, Appendix B
Brown and McClanahan, 1995
As fluorite, Brown and McClanahan, 1995


-






Simulating Impacts

Starting with an overview systems diagram previously drawn, a simplified
model diagram was drawn retaining the components of interest, the
impacting influences, and the important pathways. In this study, as an
example, groundwater fluctuations were observed as the Black Swamp
system was impacted by different water-related processes. The simplified
model of the Cache River system included pathways delivering influence
from outside and from other parts of the system.

Equations for each of the storage compartments of the diagram were
written following the nearly automatic translation of the systems symbols
to mathematical form. Each equation has positive terms for flows into
storage and negative terms for flows going out.

To calibrate the model, quantitative values for the inputs, storage and
flows were fed into the model using summary data where available.
Otherwise, data from similar systems were used or indirectly calculated
from relationships between variables (e.g., retention time = ratio between
volume of storage and flows).

A spreadsheet program was used to estimate the values of coefficients (the
k's in the program equations). Values of flows and storage were assigned
to each variable in the mathematical terms for flows. After the terms
were set equal to the flows, the term was manipulated with k's on one side
equal to the numerically evaluated expression on the other side. The
calculations were built into the spreadsheet so that changing one value
automatically changed all other places affected. For example, Appendix
Table 1 was used for the calculation of coefficients of the groundwater
impact model. Explanations were given in footnotes to the spreadsheet
table for each item.

The program for the simulation of cumulative impacts on groundwater in
the Black Swamp is written in QBASIC and included as Appendix Table A2.
It includes statements to introduce the starting variables, the coefficient
values, the equations for change on each iteration, and plotting statements.
The model was run first with the calibration data to simulate pre-impact
conditions operating in steady state conditions. Then the main program
was modified to include statements that would simulate impacting actions,
including groundwater pumping, river diversion and forest cutting.

To simulate effects of groundwater pumping, values of Jg were reduced by
increments of 1 E7 m3. This represents decrease of about 30, 60 and






90% of the outside groundwater flows feeding the alluvial aquifer below
the Black Swamp. River diversion was simulated by deducting equal
incremental volumes of 2 E7 m3/month from the Cache River inputs (Jc).
These represent reductions of 17, 35 and 52% of the average flow of Cache
River now running through the Black Swamp. Forest cutting was
simulated, reducing starting values of the hardwood forest biomass (B) by
increments of 5 E4 tons. It simulates cutting 13%, 26%, and 39% of original
forest.

Graphs of groundwater levels and other variables over time obtained from
simulation are included as Appendix Tables Al-A11. From these a table of
impact changes was prepared summarizing the many runs. See Odum
(1983, 1996) for more extensive explanations of the methodology of
energy systems modelling and simulation.






RESULTS

Arkansas

Energy Systems Diagram
Figure 7a is the overview model of the state of Arkansas with the water
components and flows darkly shaded.

Emdollar Evaluation Tables
Table 3 has the energy and emdollar evaluation of the important sources,
imports, and exports. Table 4 has the exchanges with the rest of the
United States based on the percentage of workers in various occupations.
Contributions to real wealth from the tables are shown in bar graph form
in Figure 8 from left to right in order of their transformity (position in
natural energy hierarchy). Major contributions come from the rain's
chemical and geopotential energy, the fossil fuels used within the state,
and the goods and services purchased from outside the state. Rainfall over
the land does work on the landscape which is measured as runoff
geopotential. Arkansas has an uneven relief with mountains and plateaus
over its west side and the Mississippi floodplain in its east side. Therefore,
it has a relatively high runoff geopotential (~30% of its renewable emergy).
The state has a diversified economy with important industrial agriculture
requiring imports of pesticides and fertilizers. Fuels represents 31% of
state imports. Goods and services are 46% of state imports. The state
exports meat and services embodied in its agricultural and industrial
production.

Emergy Indices
State indices derived from the emergy evaluation tables are listed in Table
5. Arkansas is 58% self sufficient. Its ratio of resources added by the
economy to the environmental renewable resources is 2.9. With 48 inches
of rain, water is 13% of the state's annual source of real wealth.

Comparisons
The emergy basis for the state is summarized in an aggregated diagram in
Figure 7b. Arkansas has a higher percentage of its economic basis supplied
from environmental emergy than the more developed states of Florida and
Texas, but less than that of Alaska and Maine. The state is also relatively
rich in non-renewable mineral resources that are intensely used by the
economy. Its natural gas reserves provides the amount used by the state
and supply the state with 28% of its energetic needs (EIA, 1994).









Flow


Arkansas


(a)
Figure 7. Energy systems diagram of Arkansas with main empower inputs
in solar emjoules per year. (a) Complex diagram; (b) aggregated summary;
(c) three arm summary.


























------ Billion $ per year
E20 solar emjoules per year


780


E20 Sej/year


Solar Emergy/Money =


1347 E20 sej/year
39 E9 $/year


= 3.45 E12 sej/$


Figure 7 (continued)


567




S1230









Table 3
Annual Emergy Flows of Arkansas


Note Item Data Units Emergy/Unit EMERGY 1990 Emdollars
J, g, $/yr sej/unit E20 sej E6 Em$


Renewable Resources
1 Direct sunlight
2 Wind
3 Runoff geopotential
4 Rain chemical pot.
5 Inflow river geopot.
6 Inflow river chem. pot.
7 Earth cycle

Indigenous Renewable Energy
8 Rice & soybean
9 Wheat
10 Sorghum & cotton
11 Poultry
12 Livestock production
13 Forest products
14 Fish production
15 Hydroelec.


793 E20
1.51 E18
8.55 E16
7.91 E17
9.77 E16
7.12 E15
1.35 E17


9.71
1.32
1.40
1.38
6.34
8.13
8.71
3.67


1
1496
27874
18199
27874
48459
34377


1.70 E5
2.20 E5
6.00 E4
7.00 E5
2.00 E6
2.75 E8
2.00 E6
1.70 E5


E16
E16
E16
E16
E15
E12
E13
E16


8
23
24
144
27
3
46
198

165
29
8
97
127
22
2
62
513


230
653
690
4174
789
100
1344


4785
845
243
2808
3675
648
50
1811








Table 3 (continued)


Indigenous Non-renewables Resources
16 Groundwater 2.88 E16
17 Bromine 1.71 Ell
18 Coal 1.33 E15
19 Natural gas 2.32 E17
20 Petroleum 6.44 E16
21 Soil losses 1.34 E13
22 Topsoil losses 2.44 E16
23 Electricity (nucl.) 1.27 E17


Imports
24 C
25 P
26 I'
27 P
28 P
29 P
30 C
31 S

Exports
32 F
33 L
34 C
35 S


:oal
petroleum
nitrogen
hosphorus
'otassium
'esticides
koods
services


'oultry
.ivestock
;oods
services


2.32 E17
2.38 E17
1.32 Ell
6.99 E9
6.82 E10
5.60 E10

1.85 E10


1.35 E16
3.99 E15

2.24 E10


1.60 E5
1.31 E10
3.98 E4
4.80 E4
5.30 E4
1.00 E9
7.40 E4
1.70 E5


3.98 E4
5.30 E4
4.60 E9
3.90 E9
1.10 E9
1.48 E10

1.75 E12


7.00 E5
2.00 E6

3.45 E12


46
22
1
111
34
134
18
215
582


92
126
6
0
1
8
9
324
567

94
80
2
774
1231


1336
650
15
3228
990
3892
522
6243
16876


2673
3654
176
8
22
240
263
9386
16421

2730
2313
61
22440
35675





Footnotes for Table 3

Area of the State = 1.35 E11 m2

1. Sunlight: 385 ly/day = 3850 kcal/m2/day (Weather Atlas of US)
Energy = (3850 kcal/m2/day)(1.35 Ell m2)(365 days/yr)(4186
J/kcal) = 7.93 E20 J/yr

2. Wind energy
Calculated as Odum, 1996, Appendix B, with eddy diffusion
coefficient and vertical gradient coefficient (Odum, Diamond and
Brown, 1987)
= (height)(density) (diff coefficient) (wind gradient) (area)
= (1000 m)(1.23 kg/m3)(14.74 m3/m2/s)(4.42 E-3 m/s/m)2
(area)(sec/yr) = 1.51 E18 J/yr

3. Rain geopotential energy
= (area)(runoff/yr) (ave elev gradient) (1000 kg/m3)(9.8m/s2)
average rain = 48 in/yr = 1.22 m/yr
Energy
((1.34 E9 m2)(450m) + (1.78 E10 m2)(390 m) + (2.67 E10 m2)
(120 m) + (8.92 E10 m2)(75 m))(0.50 m)(1000 kg/m3)(9.8 m/s2)
= 8.55 E16 J/yr

4. Rain chemical potential
(Water used in evapotranspiration) = 55 in (Weather Atlas of US)
pan coefficient = 0.85 (Scott, H.D. et al., 1987)
= 46.75 in/yr = 1.19 m/yr
Energy = (area) (evaporation) (1 E6 g/m3)(4.94 J/g) = 7.91 E17 J/yr

5 River geopotential
Major Inflowing rivers Arkansas and Mississippi Rivers
Flow in Arkansas River = 872 m3/s (Water Data-USGS, 1971)
Change in elevation (210 m 30.5 m)
Energy = (volume) (density) (height in height out)(gravity)
= 4.84 E16 J/yr
Flow in (Mississippi River) = 13300 m3/s
Change in elevation: (45 21 m)
= 9.86 E16 J/yr
Assumed 1/2 used in the State = 4.93 E16 J/yr
Total River Geopotential = 9.77 E16 J/yr






Footnotes for Table 3 (continued)

6. River chemical potential in major inflowing rivers:
Arkansas River flow = 872 m3/s
Gibbs Free Energy in = 4.92 J/g (200 mg/1 dissolved solids)
Gibbs Free Energy out = 4.88 J/yr (400 mg/1 dissolved solids)
Energy = (volume)(density) (Gibbs Free Energy)
Energy in = 1.35297 E17
Energy out = 1.34472 E17
In Out = 8.24982 E14
Mississippi River flow = 13300 m3/s
Energy in = 2.06 E18
Energy out = 2.05 E18
In out = 1.26 E16 J/yr
Arkansas state total = 6.29 E15 J/yr
Total river chem potential = 7.12 E15 J/yr

7. Earth Cycle Energy = (land area)(heat flow/area)
= Assumed heat flows = 1 E6 J/m2/yr
Energy = 1.35 E17 J/yr

Notes 8-10. Agricultural production data on Arkansas from Census of
Agriculture (1992): Sorghum 5.93 E8; wheat 9.59 E8; rice 3.42 E9;
cotton 3.43 E8; soybeans 2.70 E9
Energy calculated as in Odum, H.T. et al.(1987)
Energy = (mass)(energy/unit)

8. Rice and Soybeans
Rice = (3.43 Ell g)(3.60 kcal/g)(4186 J/kcal) = 5.17 E15 J/yr
Soybeans = (2.70 E12 g)(4.03 kcal/g)(4186 J/kcal) = 4.56 E16 J/yr
Total = 5.07 E16 J/yr

9. Wheat (3.42 E12 g)(3.30 kcal/g)(4186 J/kcal) = 4.73 E16

10. Sorghum and Cotten
Sorghum = (9.59 Ell g)(3.32 kcal/g)(4186 J/kcal) = 1.33 E16 J/yr
Cotton = (2.70 E12 g)(4.0 kcal/g)(4186 J/kcal) = 4.52 E16 J/yr
Total = 5.86 E16 J/yr






Footnotes for Table 3 (continued)

Notes 11-12. Animal production data for Arkansas from Census of
Agriculture (1992): Cattle 1.63 E6; cattle sold 8.18 E5; hogs & pigs
7.25 E5; pigs sold 2.02 E6; sheep 1.20 E4; chicken 2.21 E7;
broilers 8.62 E8
Calculated as in Odum, H.T. et al. (1987)
Energy = (annual production mass)(energy/mass)

11. Poultry Broilers
= 2.13 kcal/g (US Department of Agriculture Handbook 8)
(number produced)(1.8 kg/animal)(2.13 kcal/g)(4186 J/kcal)
= 1.38 E16 J/yr

12. Livestock
Energy contents from US Department of Agriculture Handbook 8
Beef = 2.92 kcal/g; pork = 3.76 kcal/g

(Cattle sold)(3.5 E5 g/animal)(2.92 kcal/g)(4186 J/kcal)
= 3.48 E15 J/yr

Pigs: (pigs sold)(9 E4 g/animal)(3.76 kcal/g)(4186 J/kcal)
= 2.86 E15 J/yr

13. Forest Production Data from US Department of Agriculture -
Southern Forest Experimental Station, Vissage, J.S. and P.E. Miller -
Southern Pulpwood production, 1990

Pulpwood production for 1990;
4.99 E6 cords = 6.38 E8 ft3 = 1.81 E7 m3
Density assumed 450 kg/m3 (specific density = 0.45)

Forest production = 8.13 E9 kg/yr = 8.13 El2 g/yr

Energy = (weight)(3.6 kcal/g)(4186 J/kcal)
= 1.23 E17 J/yr

14. Fish production data from Census of Agriculture, 1992,
on fish sales in Arkansas: 4.45 E7 lb = 2.02 E7 kg
Energy = (mass)(energy/mass)
= (92.02 El0 g fish)(1.03 kcal/g)(4186 J/kcal) = 8.71 E13 J/yr






Footnotes for Table 3 (continued)

15. Hydroelectricity production data from EIA Electrical Power Annual
(1992) = 3.48 E13 Btu
Energy = (3.48 E13 Btu)(1055.87 J/yr/Btu) = 3.67 E16 J/yr

16. Groundwater data from US Geological Survey
Open File Report 91-203 on 1989 water use for Arkansas:
Groundwater consumption:
4.25 E3 = million gal/day = 5.88 E9 m3/yr
Chemical potential energy of groundwater:
(volume)(1 E6 g/m3)(4.9 J/g) = 2.88 E16 J/yr

17. Bromine data from The Mineral Yearbook, 1992
Bromine production = 1.71 E5 ton/yr = 1.711 Ell g/yr

18. Coal production data for Arkansas from Energy Information
Administration Coal production (1992)
= 4.60 E4 short ton = 4.17 E4 ton/yr
Energy = (41731.2 ton)(3.18 El0 J/ton) = 1.33 E15 J/yr

19. Natural gas production data for Arkansas from Energy Information
Agency/ Natural gas annual 1992, Vol. 1
= 2.11 Ell cubic feet
= (2.11 E8 thsd cubic ft)(1.1 E9 J/thsd cubic feet) = 2.32 E17 J/yr

20. Petroleum production data for Arkansas from Energy Information
Administration/Petroleum Supply Annual 1992, Vol. 2
= 1.026 E7 barrels
Energy produced:
= (10260 E3 barrels)(6.28 E9 J/barrel) = 6.4433 E16 J/yr

21. Soil loss erosion in Arkansas cropland = 500 g/m2/yr (Odum et al.,
1983); cropland area = 2.69 E10 m2
(500 g/m3/yr)(2.69 E10 m2) = 1.34 E13 g/yr

22. Topsoil Energy Losses:
Assuming 3% organic content and 5.4 kcal/g
(Soil weight per year)(organic fraction)(5.4 kcal/g)(4186 J/kcal)
= 9.10 E15 J/yr






Footnotes for Table 3 (continued)

23. Electricity (nuclear) data from EIA- Electrical Power Annual, 1992
Nuclear energy = 1.20 E14 Btu
(1.20 E14 Btu)(1055.87 J/Btu) = 1.27 E17 J/yr

24. Coal import data for Arkansas from Energy Information
Administration State Energy Data Report, 1992
= 12536 E3 short tonn = 220.7 trillion Btu
Coal energy use = (220.7 E12 Btu)(1055.87 J Btu) = 2.33 E17 J/yr
Coal Imported = (use produced) = 2.32 E17 J/yr

25. Petroleum import data from Energy Information Administration/
Petroleum Supply Annual 1992, Vol. 2
4.29 E7 barrels = 2.29 E14 Btu = 2.38 E17 J/y

Notes 26-28. Fertilizers estimated for crops and area planted:
using kilograms per hectare as follows:

N P205 K20

Sorghum 37.8 3.4 0.9 (Pimentel, 1980)
Wheat 89.7 1.12 0 (Pimentel, 1980)
Rice 134.5 0 33.6 (Pimentel, 1980)
Cotton 40.0 16.0 17 (Kohee & Lewis, 1984)
Soybeans 5.61 0 33.6 (Pimentel, 1980)


26. Nitrogen use in kilograms/yr:
For sorghum 5.28 E6; wheat 2.96 E7; rice 7.42 E7; cotton 1.54 E7;
soybeans 7.19 E6
Total N used (g/yr) = 1.32 E11 g/yr

27. Phosphorus use in kilograms/yr:
Sorghum 4.75 E5; wheat 3.70 ES; rice 0; cotton 6.14 E6; soybeans 0.
Total P use = 6.99 E9 g/yr

28. Potassium use in kilograms/yr:
Sorghum 1.26 E5; wheat 0; rice 1.85 E7; cotton 6.52 E6;
soybeans 4.30 E7
Total P used = 6.82 E10 g/yr






Footnotes for Table 3 (continued)

29. Pesticides data for Arkansas from US Dept. of Commerce, Bureau of
Census, 1994 1992 Census of Manufactures Agricultural
Chemicals
= 2.02 E8$/yr
Average price of pesticides
= 3.60 $/kg pesticides
Weight of pesticides used in the State = Expenses/Average Price
= 5.60 E7 kg = 5.60 E10 g/yr

30. Goods imported into Arkansas were estimated as a fraction of U.S.
imports of basic mineral and metal production in 1992. Arkansas
population is 0.94% of U.S. population.

U.S. Imports (1994 US Statistical Abstract):

Item Quantity Emergy/g Emergy, sej/yr

Iron Ore 1.25 E13 g 1.00 E9 1.25 E22
Steel Prod. 1.73 E13 g 2.64 E9 4.57 E22
Aluminum 1.16 E12 g 1.60 E10 1.86 E22
Copper ref 2.89 Ell g 6.80 E10 1.97 E22
9.64 E22

Emergy = (9.64 E22 sej/yr)(0.0094) = 9.06 E20 J/y

31. Services supplied to Arkansas with imports

a. Services with fuels

Btu $/1 E6 Btu $ Expenditures

Coal 2.17945 E14 1.66 3.62 E8
Petroleum 2.28576 E14 7.82 1.79 E9
Total 2.15 E9


b. Services with imported manufactured goods estimated as fraction
of U.S. imports for 1992 less petroleum, meat, and gas;
Arkansas population 0.94% of U.S. population
(4.76 Ell dollars)(0.0094) = 4.46 E9 $/yr






Footnotes for Table 3 (continued)

c. Relative services imported from other parts of U.S. as given in
Table 4 = 1.02 E10 $

d. Federal benefit to Arkansas in 1992 = 1.69 E9 $

Total imported services = 1.85 E10 $/yr

Notes 32-33. Animal production sold out of state estimated as the
difference of production and consumption in the State.
Per capital consumption from 1994 US Stastitistical Abstract -
Data as boneless weight with data on pounds divided by
0.70, the percent of meat in the whole animal weight


32. Poultry broiler sales out of state:
Production 1.55 E12 g
Consumption per capital 1.80 E4 g
Consumption 4.3 E10 g
Weight exported 1.51 E12 g
Broiler energy exported:
(1.51 E12 g exported)(2.13 kcal/g)(4186


J/kcal) = 1.35 E16 J/yr


33. Livestock sales out of state:


Production
Consumption per capital
Consumption
Weight exported
Cattle energy:


Beef
2.86 Ell g
4.07 E4 g
9.75 E10 g
1.89 Ell g


= (1.89 E11 g)(2.92 kcal/g)(4186 J/kcal)
Pork energy:
= (1.07 Ell g)(0.76 kcal/g)(4186 J/kcal)
Total Livestock exports = 3.99 E15 J/yr


Pork
1.81 Ell g
3.11 E4 g
7.45 E10 g
1.07 Ell g

= 2.31 E15

= 1.68 E15


34. Goods exports were estimated as fraction of U.S. exports of iron and
steel products in 1992 5.3 E6 tons (1994 US Statistical Abstract)
Weight = (5.3 E6) (907 kg/ton)(l E3 g/kg) = 4.81 E12 g
Emergy = (4.8 E15 g)(4.65 E9 seJ/g) = 2.24 E22 sej
In proportion to population
Iron & Steel products from Arkansas
= (2.24 E25)(0.0094) = 2.10 E20 sej/yr




43


Footnotes for Table 3 (continued)

35. Services exported = (value of total production)(percent exported)
a. Animals exported:
(production 2.44 E9 $/yr)(0.85 exported) = 2.08 E9 $/yr
b. Foreign Export from Arkansas in 1992 = 1.32 E9 $
(1994 Statistical Abstract of the United States)
c. Relative exports to other States from Table 4 = 1.63 E10 $
d. Federal Taxes in 1992 = 2.75 E9 $
(1994 Statistical Abstract of the United States)
Total Export = 2.24 E10 $/yr








Table 4
Export and Import Exchange Between Arkansas and Other States


Agr. Min. Constr. Manuf. Transp. Wholes. Retail Finance Serv. Gov't


U.S. average

State average

Difference

$/employee

#/employees

Export/import $


0.03

0.01

-0.02

34579

-18729

-6.48 E8


0.01

0

-0.01

149096

-9365

-1.40 E9


0.06

0.04

-0.02

34365

-18729

-6.44 E8


0.17

0.24

0.07

50971

65552

3.34 E9


0.07

0.05

-0.02

58460

-18729

-1.1 E9


0.04

0.05

0.01

75550.89

9365

7.08 E8


0.17

0.18

0.01

26341

9365

2.47 E8


0.07

0.04

-0.03

125580

-28094

-3.5 E9


0.35

0.23

-0.12

25541

-112375

-2.9 E9


0.05

0.16

0.11

116726

103011 t

1.2 EIO


Imports: -1.02 E10 $/yr

Exports: 1.63 E10 $/yr

Net Export: -6.14 E9 $/yr

(Calculation done considering the difference in percent of employment per sector for U.S. and State and the relative
contribution of employee of each sector to the country GNP)






Footnotes for Table 4


EXPORTS
1. Animal production (GOODS)
Production Per capital
grams consump
Beef 5.56 Ell 114044.8
Pork 1.81 Ell 72640.0
Broiler 2.16 E12 50303.2
Total 2.89 E12


State
consump
2.73 E11
1.74 Ell
1.2 Ell


Export

2.83 E11
7.59 E9
2.04 E12
2.33 E12


Energy
J/yr
5.07 E15
1.76 E14
2.04 E16
2.56 E16


Production = (number of animals)(average weight)


Assuming
Cattle =
Pork =
Broiler =


average weights for
680 kg
90 kg
2.5 kg


Per capital consumption (Data from 1994 US Statistical Abstract, pounds of
commodity consumed per capital in 1992, Table 220)
Information was given in terms of boneless weight. Therefore, pounds in
commodity per capital was divided by a factor (0.25 or 0.3), assumed to be
the percent of meat in the whole animal weight.
State consumption = (per capital) (State population)
Export = production consumption

Energy = (weight (g))(caloric content (kcal/g))(4186 J/kcal)
Caloric content of cattle = 4.26 kcal/g
Pork = 5.53 kcal/g
Broiler= 2.39 kcal/g

2. Value of animal exports (SERVICES)
Value of total production = 2.44 E9 $
Percent exported = 3.19 E12/3.76 E12 = 0.848
Value Exported = (value of total production)(percent exported)
= 2.07 E9 $






Footnotes for Table 4 (continued)


3. Grain exported (GOODS)
Production
grams
Sorghum 5.93 E11
Wheat 9.59 E11
Rice 3.42 E12
Cotton 3.43 Ell
Soybeans 2.7 E12
Hay 2.11 E12
Total 1.01 E13


Internal
consumption
0
1.5 Ell
1.83 E10
0
0
0
1.69 E11


Protein
produced
4.74 E10
1.15 Ell
4.79 Ell
1.37 E10
9.18 Ell
2.32 Ell
1.81 E12


Protein produced = (production) (percent protein)
% protein: Sorghum, 8%; Wheat, 12%; Rice, 10%; Cotton, 4%; Soybean, 34%;
Hay, 11%


Animal Consumptiom **1
Production Prot weight
grams % protein
Beef 5.56 Ell 0.2
Pork 1.81 Ell 0.13
Broiler 2.16 E12 0.2


Feed prot/
grams
1.11 E11
2.36 E10
4.31 Ell


Tot feed
prot weight
15.5
10.5
5.5


protein
1.72 E12
2.48 Ell
2.37 E12
4.34 E12


**1 from Pimentel, 1979
** Considering that 60% of protein come from another source that is not
grains, (Pimentel, 1979), we have:
Protein for feeding = (0.4)(total feeding protein)
= 1.74 E12 g/protein
Therefore, the amount required for feeding is about the same amount that
is produced in the State.
NO NET GRAIN EXPORT

4. Export of Services
State Foreign Export (SERVICES)
(1994 Statistical Abstract of the United States)
Foreign Exports in 1992 = 1.32 E9 $
Relative exports to other States (SERVICES), According with Table 1
= 1.63 E10 $






Footnotes for Table 4 (continued)

5. Value of taxes (SERVICES) (referring to 1992 taxes)
(1994 Statistical Abstract of the United States)
Federal Taxes = 2.75 E9 $
TOTAL SERVICES EXPORTED = 2.24 E10 $

6. Iron and Steel Products (GOODS)
U.S. Export of Iron and Steel products in 1992 (from 1994 US Statistical
Abstract)
= 5.3 E6 tons
(5.3 E6)(907 kg/ton)(1 E3 g/kg) = 4.81 E12 g
(4.8 E15 g)(4.65 E9 sej/g) = 2.24 E22 sej
Considering the State contribution proportional to its population
contribution to U.S.:
Iron/Steel products from Arkansas = (2.24 E25)(0.0094)
= 2.1 E20 sej


IMPORTS SERVICES
1. Value of the fuels
Btu $/1 E6 Btu Expenditures
$
Coal 2.18 E14 1.66 3.62 E8
Petroleum 2.29 E14 7.82 1.79 E9
Total 2.15 E9

2. Manufactured goods (SERVICES)
Calculating U.S. imports for 1992 less petroleum, meat, and gas
= 475697 million dollars
Estimating the amount shared by the State, considering the percent of U.S.
population living in Arkansas (0.94% of U.S. population)
Therefore, the share of foreign imports
= 4.46 E9 $

3. Relative Services
Considering the relative services imported from other parts of U.S. (as
shown in Table 1)
Relative services = 1.02 E10 $





Footnotes for Table 4 (continued)

4. Federal benefits
Federal aid for Arkansas in 1992 = 1.69 E9 $
Therefore, total imported Services = 1.85 E10 $

5. Imports (GOODS)
Imports of basic mineral and metal products by U.S. in 1992 (1994 US
Statistical Abstract)


Item

Iron Ore
Steel Prod
Aluminum
Copper ref


Quantity
g
1.25 E13
1.73 E13
1.16 E12
2.89 E11


Energy


Transformity


1.00 E9
2.64 E9
1.60 E10
6.8 E10


Considering the State is 0.94% of U.S. population, the amount of Emergy
imported for basic mineral and metals for Arkansas is:
Basic minerals = (9.64 E22)(0.0094)
= 9.06 E20 J/y


Emergy
J/yr
1.25 E22
4.57 E22
1.86 E22
1.97 E22
9.64 E22





Table 4.1.a
State GDP Generated per Employee


by Sector


Sector Number of Gross State Dollars per % of total
Employees* Product# employee employees
E9 $


Agriculture 5641 2 354547 0.01
Construction 34565 1 28931 0.04
Manufacturing 228683 10 43729 0.24
Wholesale trade 46527 2 42986 0.05
Retail trade 167215 4 23921 0.18
Finance 37676 5 132710 0.04
Services 212954 5 23479 0.23
Transportation 49915 4 80136 0.05
Mining 3286 2 608643 0.00
Government 150000 0 0.16
936462

* 1992
# 1990
Table 4.1.b
U.S. Employment per Industry, 1992


Sector Employees GNP Dollars per % of total
thousands E9 $ employee employees


Agriculture 3210 111 34579 0.03
Mining 664 99 149096 0.01
Construction 7013 241 34365 0.06
Manufacturing 19972 1018 50971 0.17
Transportation 8245 482 58460 0.07
Wholesale 4765 360 75551 0.04
Retail sale 19589 516 26341 0.17
Finance 7764 975 125580 0.07
Services 40758 1041 25541 0.35
Government 5620 656 116726 0.05
117600 5499 46760










Emergy signature for Arkansas State


C f
o .c iS
ai


Figure 8. EMERGY signature of environment and economy in Arkansas.


350


300


* 250
C4
N
3U 200


> 150


( 100
uJ
50


0






Table 5
Emergy Indices for Arkansas


Item Name of index Expression* Quantity


Renewable use R

Indigenous non-renewable N

Imported emergy I

Total emergy used U=R+N+I U

Total exported emergy E

Emergy used from home sources (N+R)/U

Imports-exports I-E

Ratio of export to imports E/I

Fraction used, locally renewable R/U

Fraction of use purchased outside I/U

Fraction used, imported service Import ser./U

Ratio of economic to free (U-R-N)/(R+N)

Use per unit area (1.35 El m2) U/area

Use per person (2.39 E6 persons) U/population

Arkansas State Econ. Product (1990) GSP

Ratio of emergy use to GSP, Ark. U/GSP

Ratio of emergy use to GNP for U.S. U/GNP


1.98 E22 sej/y

5.82 E22 sej/y

5.67 E22 sej/y

1.35 E23 sej/y

1.23 E23 sej/y

0.58

-6.64 E22 sej/y

2.17

0.15

0.42

0.24

0.73

9.98 Ell sej/m2

5.64 E16 sej/indiv.

39 E9 $/yr

3.45 E12 sej/$

1.75 E12 sej/$


* For letters see Figure 7. U sum of inputs = R + N + I.






Cache River Basin

Energy Systems Diagram
Figure 9a is the overview model of the Cache River Basin with an overlay
diagram of the water components and flows given in Figure 9b. The basin
is rural with a few human settlements. Groundwater-irrigated rice and
some catfish aquaculture are based on the large water volumes.

Emdollar Evaluation Tables
Table 6 has the emergy and emdollar evaluation of the important sources,
imports, and exports. Table 7 has the exchanges with the rest of the
United States based on the percentage of workers in various occupations.
Contributions to real wealth from the tables are shown in bar graph form
in Figure 10 from left to right in order of their transformity (position in
natural energy hierarchy).

Cache River Basin is well served by rain (~48 in) during the whole year,
and with high evapotranspiration rates during summer and early fall
months. The Cache River basin is basically a flatland, and water has little
geopotential energy. The water evapotranspired by vegetation measures
the contribution of rain chemical potential. Rain chemical potential emergy
is the highest source of natural renewable emergy.

The Cache River basin is basically an agricultural area largely based on
indigenous soils and waters. The intensive agriculture of recent years has
used soils and groundwater faster than their normal rate of restoration.
Groundwater has been nonrenewable with about 70% of the recharge of
the Mississippi river valley alluvial aquifer diverted to irrigation in 1972
(Ackerman, 1989). Groundwater emergy represents, respectively, 28% and
26% of non-renewable energy used in the state and the basin. Soil formed
in the past makes up about 74% of the nonrenewable emergy use and 28%
of total emergy use in the basin. The agricultural production depends on
goods and services, fuel, and fertilizers brought into the basin from
outside. Goods and services make up about 24%.

Outside sales of grain carry high emergy, much more than is in the buying
power of the money received. Both areas export much more emergy than
they import.

Emergy Indices
Indices for the Cache River Basin derived from the emergy evaluation
tables are listed in Table 8. Although rural, the basin is only 48% self
sufficient. Its ratio of resources added by the economy to the






















Cultivation, 1 -><-
Irrigation, -
Processing
Rice & Catfish
Aquaculture


Cache River Basin, Arkansas


(a)
Figure 9. Energy systems diagram of the Cache River Watershed (a) with
main empower inputs in solar emjoules per year (b) water budget overlay.























X / J Irrigation,
Processing
Rice & Catfish
Aquaculture


Water Flows in the Cache River Basin

Water Budget Overlay Diagram for Cache River Model

(b)

Figure 9 (continued)
Figure 9 (continued)






Table 6
Annual Emergy Flows of the


Cache River Basin


Note Item Data & Units Emergy/unit Emergy U.S. Em$*
E20 seJ E6


Renewable Resources
1 Direct sunlight
2 Wind
3 Rain geopotential
4 Rain chemical pot.
5 Earth cycle


2.87
5.45
4.29
2.86
4.88


E19 J/yr
E16 J/yr
El5 J/yr
E16 J/yr
E15 J/yr


Indigenous Renewable Energy
6 Rice and soybeans 1.24 E16 J/yr
7 Wheat 1.30 E15 J/yr
8 Others 1.84 E15 J/yr
9 Poultry 4.24 E12
10 Livestock prod. 4.37 E13 J/yr
11 Fish prod. 2.53 E12 J/yr

Indigenous Non-renewable Energy
12 Losses of earth 1.54 E12 g/yr
13 Losses of topsoil 1.05 E15 J/yr
14 Groundwater 3.62 El5 J/y


Imports
15 Coal used
16 Natural gas
17 Petroleum
18 Electricity
19 Nitrogen
20 Phosphorus
21 Potassium
22 Pesticides
23 Goods & services

Exports
24 Rice & soybeans
25 Goods & services


8.43 E15 J/yr
8.65 E15 J/yr
1.09 E16 J/yr
6.93 E14 J/yr
1.66 E10 g/yr
5.18 E8 g/yr
8.08 E9 g/yr
5.03 E9 g/yr
5.95 E8 $/y


1.20 E16 J/yr
7.57 E8


1
1496
10488
18199
29000


1.70 E5
2.20 E5
6.00 E4
7.00 E5
2.00 E6
2.00 E6


1.00
7.40
1.60


3.98 E4
4.80 E4
5.30 E4
1.70 E5
4.19 E9
1.42 E10
9.50 E8
1.48 E10
2.3 E12


1.70 E5
3.45 E12


*U.S. $ 1990


0.29
0.81
0.45
5.21
1.41


21.08
2.86
1.11
0.03
0.87
0.05
26.00

15.4
0.78
5.79
22.01

3.35
4.15
5.79
1.18
0.70
0.07
0.08
0.74
13.69
29.75

20.33
26.11
46.43


8
24
13
151
41


611
83
32
1
25
1
754

448
22
168
638

97
120
168
34
20
2
2
22
397
862

589
757
1346






Footnotes to Table 6


Area of the Cache basin = 4.88 E9 m2

1. Direct sunlight
Insolation for Arkansas (from US Env. Data Serv. 1975: Weather
Atlas of the US) = 385 Langleys/day = 3850 kcal/m2/day
Energy = (3850 kcal/m2/day)(4.88 E9 m2)(365 days)(4186) J/kcal
= 2.87 E19 J/yr

2. Wind calculated with eddy diffusion coefficient and vertical gradient
coefficient (Odum, Diamond and Brown, 1987; Odum, 1996)
Energy = (height) (density) (diff coefficient) (wind gradient) (area)
= (1 E3 m)(1.23 kg/m3)(14.74 m2/s)(4.42 E-3 /s)(4.88 E9 m2)
= 3.15 E16 J/yr = 5.45 E16 J/yr

3. Rain geopotential with average rainfall = 48 in/yr = 1.22 m/yr
Elevational gradient = 483 ft = 147.22 m
Energy = (area)(rain/yr) (elev. gradient) (1000 kg/m3)(9.8 m/s2)
= 4.29 E15 J/yr

4. Rain chemical potential as water used in evapotranspiration
Evaporation = 55 in (from US Env. Data Serv. 1975: Weather
Atlas of the US)
Pan coefficient = 0.85 (Scott, H.D. et al., 1987)
Water evapotranspired = 46.75 in = 1.19 m/yr
Energy = (area) (water evaportranspired) (1 E6 g/m3)(4.94 J/g)
= 2.86 E16 J/yr

5. Earth cycle energy = (land area)(heat flow/area)
= 4.88 E15 J/yr
where heat flows assumed = 1 E6 J/m2/yr

Notes 6-8. Agricultural Production
For the main crops of Arkansas, data from Census of Agriculture,
1992 were multiplied by the percent area of each county in the
basin. Production was estimated in kg/yr:
Sorghum 9.30 E7; wheat 9.42 E7; rice 4.98 E8; cotton 2.06 E7; and
soybeans 2.90 E8
Energy = (mass)(energy/unit) calculated as in Odum et al. (1987)






Footnotes for Table 6 (continued)

6. Rice and soybeans
Rice = (4.98 Ell g)(3.60 kcal/g)(4186 J/kcal) = 7.51 E15 J/yr
Soybeans = (2.90 Ell g)(4.03 kcal/g)(4186 J/kcal) = 4.89 E15 J/yr
Total weight: 7.88 E11 g; Total energy: 1.24 E16 J/yr

7. Wheat
(9.42 E10 g)(3.30 kcal/g)(4186 J/kcal) = 1.30 E15 J/yr

8. Others
Sorghum = (9.30 E10 g)(3.32 kcal/g)(4186 J/kcal) = 1.29 E15 J/yr
Cotton = (2.06 E10 g)(4.0 kcal/g)(4186 J/kcal) = 3.44 E14 J/yr
Hay = (1.64 E10 g)(3.0 kcal/g)(4186 J) = 2.06 E14 J/yr
Total energy: 1.84 E15 J/yr

Notes 9-10. Animal Production
Data from Census of Agriculture, 1992 for Arkansas.
Production data for the main animals were multiplied by the percent
area of each county in the basin. Energy was calculated
= (animals sold)(mass of each)(energy/mass) as in Odum et al. (1987)
Number of animals sold per year in Cache River Basin:
Cattle 13215; cattle sold 6964; hog & pigs 4514; pigs sold 9831;
sheep129; broilers 2.64 E5

9. Poultry energy
= (number of broilers)(2.5 E3 g/animal)(2.39 kcal/g)(4186 J/kcal)
= 4.24 E12 J/yr

10. Livestock
Cattle = (cattle sold)(3.5 E5 g/animal)(2.92 kcal/g)(4186 J/kcal)
= 2.98 E13 J /yr
Pigs = (pigs sold)(9 E4 g/animal)(3.76 kcal/g)(4186 J/kcal)
= 1.39 E13 J/yr
Total: 4.37 E13 J/yr

11. Fish production data from Census of Agriculture,1992 for Arkansas.
Production data for fish production in counties of the basin were
multiplied by the percent area of each county:
Production = 5.87 E5 kg/yr
Energy = (grams fish)(1.03 kcal/g)(4186 J/kcal) = 2.53 E12 J/yr






Footnotes for Table 6 (continued)

12. Losses of earth
Cropland Erosion = 500 g/m2/yr
Cropland area = 3.09 E9 m2
Soil Losses = (500 g/m2/yr)(3.09 E9 m2) = 1.54 E12 g/yr

13. Topsoil Losses = 1.54 E12 g/yr
Typical soils are = 3% organic matter and 5.4 kcal/g org.
Energy
= (loss per year)(organic fraction)(5.4 kcal/g)(4186 J/kcal)
= 1.05 E15 J/yr

14. Groundwater data from Arkansas Summary for 1989
(US Geological Survey- Open File Rep 91-203)
Total water use = 0.39 E8 m3/yr
Chemical potential of basin groundwater
(volume/yr)(1 E6 g/m3)(4.9 J/g) = 3.62 E15 J/yr

15. Coal data from Energy Information Administration State Energy
Data Report for1992:
State consumption = 12536 E3 short ton = 220.7 trillion Btu
Consumption in proportion to basin area, 0.036 fraction of state area
Energy:
(220.7 E12 Btu/yr)(0.036) = 7.98 E12 Btu/yr = 8.43 E15 J/yr

16. Natural gas consumption data from State Energy Data report 1992.
Arkansas total = 225 billion cubic feet = 226.6 trillion Btu
Consumption in proportion to basin area, 0.036 fraction of state area.
Energy = (226.6 E12 Btu)(0.036) = 8.19 E12 Btu/yr = 8.65 E15 J/yr

17. Petroleum data from Energy Info Administration State energy data
report forl992:
Arkansas consumption = 53115 E3 barrels = 286.3 trillion Btu
Consumption in proportion to basin area, 0.036 fraction of state area
Energy = (286.3 E12 Btu)(0.036) = 1.04 E13 Btu/yr =1.09 E16 J/yr

18. Electrical power data from Energy Information Administration
4707 million Kwh = 155.7 trillion Btu
Consumption in proportion to basin area, 0.036 fraction of state area
Energy: (155.7 E12 Btu)(0.036) = 5.63 E12 Btu/yr = 6.93 E14 J/yr







Footnotes for Table 6 (continued)

Notes 19-21. Fertilizers
Calculated considering occupied areas and the fertilizer
concentrations (kg/ha) used in the different cultures

19. Nitrogen used in the basin = 1.66 E7 kg/yr

20. Phosphorus applied in the basin = 5.18 E5 kg/yr as P205

21. Potassium applied in the basin = 8.08 E6 kg/yr as K20

22. Pesticides chemicals in the basin; 3.6 $/pesticides from Table 3;
(expenditure $)(1000)(basin % of state area) = 1.81 E7 $/yr
weight in kg/yr = (chemicals costs in $)/3.6 $/kg of pesticides
= 5.03 E9 g/yr

23. Goods and services brought into Arkansas estimated from costs
a. Services with imported fuels, estimated from coal, petroleum,
electricity and natural gas consumption = 2.32 E8 $/yr

b. Services with foreign imports:
(4.49 E9 $/yr)(0.94% of state population in basin) = 4.21 E7 $/yr

c. Purchases from other states of the U.S. based on relative
employment in different economic sectors in the basin compared
with averages outside, as given in Table 7.1 = 3.50 E8 $/yr

d. Federal services estimated as percent (in population terms) of the
federal transfer payments to Arkansas in 1992 = 1.69 E9 $ (1994
US Statistical Abstract)
= (0.009)(transfers to Arkansas) = 1.59 E7 $/yr
Total Imported Services = (a + b + c + d) = 5.95 E8 $/yr

24. Exports: Rice and soybeans energy calculated as:
(product weight) (caloric content in kcal/g)(4186 J/kcal)
Rice: 4.98 Ell g/yr yields 7.50 E15 J/yr
Soybeans: 2.64 Ell g yields 4.45 E15 J/yr
Total energy 1.20 E16 J/yr





Footnotes for Table 6 (continued)

25. Goods and services leaving the basin:

a. Foreign grain exports: 0.09 percent (basin proportion of state
population) of Arkansas foreign exports of grains; prices from 1994
US Statistical Abstract table 1113 Principal Crops production,
supply and disappearance, 1989/1993 = 1.54 E8 $/yr

b. Basin foreign exports (services)
Arkansas contribution to U.S. foreign exports: 1.32 E9 $/yr
Basin contribution: 1.24 E7 $/yr

c. Relative exports to other parts of U.S. using Table 6.1, computing
the relative differences in employment in economic sectors between
the basin and average for the U.S. = 5.61 E8 $/yr


d. Services equivalent to tax money estimated as a fraction of
federal taxes paid by the state = 2.75 E9 $/yr
Basin federal taxes 2.58 E7 $/yr


Total services going out of the basin = 7.53 E8 $/yr











Emergy signature for the Cache River basin


03 0

*i *
a: a: -


Figure 10. EMERGY signature of environment and economy of the Cache
River Watershed.


I-

10
0 10

U


i6


E
4
4


2


0








Table 7
Exchange Between Other Parts of the U.S. and the Cache River Basin
Estimated from the Percent of Employees in Occupational Sectors


Agr. Mng. Constr. Manuf. Transp. Wholes. Ret. Fin. Serv. Govt.


U.S. average 0.03 0.01 0.06 0.17 0.07 0.04 0.17 0.07 0.35 0.05

Basin 0.01 0 0.03 0.3 0.04 0.05 0.17 0.03 0.19 0.18

Differences -0.02 -0.01 -0.03 0.13 -0.03 0.01 0 -0.04 -0.16 0.13

$/employee 34579 149096 34365 50971 58460 75551 26341 125580 25541 116726

#/employees -497 -249 -746 3233 -746 249 0 -995 -3979 3233

Exp/Imp -1.72E7 -3.71E7-2.56E7 1.65E8 -4.36E7 1.88E7 0.00E -1.25E8 -1.02E8 3.77E8

Imports: 3.50 E8 $

Exports: 5.61 E8 $

Net Export: 2.11 E8 $

($/employee portion of the GNP generated by employee by sector in U.S.)






Footnotes For Table 7


IMPORT SERVICES
1. Value of imported fuels
Btu
Coal 7.979 E12
Natural Gas 8.192 E12
Petroleum 1.035 E13
Elecricity 5.629 E12


$/1 E6 Btu
1.66
3.44
7.82
19.56


Total Expend.
1.325 E7
2.818 E7
8.094 E7
1.1 E8
2.32 E8 $


2. Manufactured goods (Services)
Estimating the amount of foreign goods imported by Arkansas
Estimated foreign goods imports by Arkansas = 4.49 E9 $
Basin = 0.94% of state population
Therefore, imports of manufactured goods (Services) = 4.21 E7 $

3. Relative services
Imports from U.S. outside basin (based on relative differences on different
industrial sectors in the basin and outside, as shown in Table 3a)
Relative services = 3.50 E8 $

4. Federal benefits (Services)
Estimating as percent (in population terms) of the Federal Aid transferred
to Arkansas
Federal Aid to Arkansas, 1992 = 1.69 E9 $ (1994 US Statistical Abstract)
Basin Aid = (0.009385)(Arkansas Fed Aid) = 1.59 E7 $

TOTAL IMPORTED SERVICES = 5.95 E8 $


EXPORTS
1. Grain exported
Production
g/yr
Sorghum 9.30 E10
Wheat 9.42 E10
Rice 4.98 E11
Cotton 2.06 E10
Soybeans 2.90 Ell
Hay 1.64 E10
1.01 E12


Consumption


4.48
5.45


Remaining
production
9.299 E10
8.9746 E10
4.9785 Ell
2.0554 E10
2.8982 Ell
1.637 E10
1.0073 E12


I






Footnotes for Table 7 (continued)

Consumption calculated as per capital consumption of flour and cereal
multiplied by number of persons in the basin


Animal Feeding
# of animals


Beef
Pig
Broiler


Sorghum
Wheat
Rice
Cotton
Soybeans
Hay


20179
14345
264181


Weight
(grams)
1.37 E10
1.29 E9
6.6 E8


Production

9.299 E10
8.9746 E10
4.9785 E11
2.0554 E10
2.8982 E11
1.637 E10


Protein
content
0.08
0.12
0.1
0.04
0.34
0.11


Feed protein
ratio (g/g)
15.5
10.5
5.5


Protein
available
7.44 E9
1.08 E10
4.98 E10
8.22 E8
9.85 E10
1.80 E9
1.69 E11


Protein

4.254 E10
1.762 E9
7.265 E8
4.503 E10

Protein for
feeding
7.44 E9
0
0
0
8.76 E9
1.80 E9
1.80 E10


Production
available
0
8.9746 E10
4.9785 Ell
2.0554 E10
2.6406 Ell
0


Considering 60% of needed protein is coming from other sources,
protein needed for animal = 1.8 E10 g
(assuming that protein is provided by hay and sorghum and soybeans)


Grain production available for export


Wheat
Rice
Cotton
Soybeans


Production
(grams)
8.97 E10
4.98 Ell
2.06 E10
2.64 E11


Energy
J/yr
1.25 E15
7.5E15
3.44 E14
4.45 E15
1.35 E16


Sales
$
1.07 E7
6.46 E7
2.49 E7
5.39 E7
1.54 E8


(Grain Prices from 1994 US Statistical Abstract, Table 1113)
Principal Crops- production, Supply and Disappearance, 1989/1993
Grain Export (GOODS) = 1.35 E16 J/yr
Grain Export (SERVICES) + 1.54 E8 $






Footnotes for Table 7 (continued)


2. Animal Production
Weight Internal
(grams) consumption
Beef 1.37 E10 8.14 E9
Pig 1.29 E9 5.34 E8


1.50 E10
Animal Prod (GOODS) =


Counties

Butler
Clay
Craighead
Greene
Jackson
Lawrence
Monroe
Poinsett
Prairie
Woodruff


Sales/county
1000 $
3538
3127
3248
5001
1979
6354
832
1794
7286
372


Exp/
imp.
5.58 E9
7.57 E8


6.34 E9
1.175 E14 J/yr


% basin

0.095755
0.354792
0.303259
0.462598
0.450701
0.15494
0.228013
0.183625
0.068496
0.695715


Energy
J/yr
9.997 E13
1.752 E13
1.175 E14


Sales-basin
1000$
338.78
1109.43
984.99
2313.45
891.94
984.49
189.71
329.42
499.06
258.81
7900.07


Total Sales 7.9 E6 $
Export = (% exported)(total sales) = 3.34 E6 $
Animal Prod (SERVICES) = 3.34 E6 $


3. Basin Foreign Exports (SERVICES)
Taken as percent (in population terms) of Arkansas foreign exports:
Arkansas contribution to U.S. foreign exports = 1.32 E9 $
Basin contribution = 1.24 E7 $

4. Relative Exports to others parts of U.S. (SERVICES)
Calculated as shown in Table 3a, computing the relative differences
between Basin and average U.S. in employment in different industry
Relative Exports from Basin = 5.61 E8 $

5. Value of Taxes (SERVICES)
Estimating as percent of Federal Taxes paid by the State
Arkansas Federal Taxes = 2.75 E9 $
Basin Federal Taxes= 2.58 E7 $


EXPORTS (SERVICES) Total = 7.57 E8 $






Table 8
Emergy Indices for Cache River Basin


Item Name of Index Expression Quantity


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14


Renewable use R

Indigenous non-renewable N

Imported emergy I

Total emergy used, U=R+N+I U

Total emergy exported E

Emergy from home sources R+N/U

Imports exports I- E

Ratio of exports/imports E/I

Fraction locally renewable R/U

Fraction purchased I/U

Fraction imported services Imp ser/U

Ratio of economic to free (U-N-R)/(R+N)

Use per unit area (4.87 E9 m2) U/area

Use per person U/population


5.66 E20 sej/y

2.20 E21 sej/y

2.98 E21 sej/y

5.74 E21 sej/y

4.64 E21 sej/y

0.48

-1.67 E21 sej/y

1.56

0.10

0.52

0.24

1.06

1.18 E12 sej/m2

8.0 E16 sej/person






environmental renewable resources is 5.3. Water use is 20% (10%
groundwater) of the total source of real wealth, but the agricultural
economy based on the water including the imported inputs to agriculture
is 45% of the total emergy budget.

Comparisons
Emergy Indices of the Cache River basin were compared with those for the
whole Mississippi River basin in Table 6 (Diamond, 1984; Odum, Diamond
and Brown, 1987). The Cache River basin like the Mississippi River basin
used half of its emergy from home sources, but just 10% were locally
renewable. Compared to the rest of the state the Cache River basin used
less emergy from home (~48%), although a larger fraction came from
renewable resources (18%). Like the Mississippi basin and Arkansas as a
whole, the Cache River basin was an emergy exporter. The ratio between
exports and imports was 2.17 for the state, 1.50 for the Mississippi basin,
and 1.56 for the Cache River basin. Imported services were 24% for the
state, 29% for the Mississippi basin and 24% for the Cache River basin.
Annual emergy use per area in the Cache River basin(1.12 E12/m2/yr)
was greater than in the Mississippi basin and Arkansas state (~9 Ell/m2).
Emergy per person was very high (8 E16 sej/person) compared to that in
the larger areas of Arkansas and the United States as a whole.

Black Swamp
Energy Systems Diagram
Figure 11 is an overview model of the main parts and processes in a
hectare of Black Swamp. An efforts was made to include the parts and
processes considered important by those making recent studies such as
those in the special issue of the Wetlands Journal in 1997.

Emergy Evaluation Tables
Typical emergy flows were evaluated in Table 10 and represented in the
bar graph as a function of transformity in Figure 12. Water transpiration
and work of physical motions of water were the principal basis for this
ecosystem. There were also inputs by human managers and users.

Emergy Indices
Managed for its natural characteristics the ratio of economic inputs to the
natural environmental value was small (0.25), a ratio less than found in
national parks.






































Figure 11. Energy systems diagram of the Black Swamp with main
empower inputs in solar emjoules per year.






Table 9
Annual Emergy Flow in the Black Swamp


Note Item Raw units Emergy Solar Emdollars!
per unit Emergy 1992
J, g, $ sej/unit E16 sej/yr E3 $/yr


1 Solar energy, J 9.26 E16 1 9 27
2 Wind energy, J 1.76 E14 1496 26 76
3 Rain chemical pot., J 9.48 E13 18199 173 500
4 River geopotential, J 5.37 E13 27764 149 432
5 River chem potential, J 4.80 E13 48459 232 674
6 Forest evapotransp, J 9.23 E13 18199 168 487
7 Migratory birds, J 1.29 Ell 9.70 E5 12.5 36
8 Fish influx, J 2.43 E10 1.00 E6 2.4 7
9 Recreational uses, $ 1.75 E5 4.70 E12 82 239
10 Gross production, J 9.88 E13 33610* 332
Total Emergy = 414 1201

! 3.44 E12 sej/$

Area = 3888 acres (Coe, 1974) = 1.57 E7 m2 =1573 ha

* Sum (#4 + #6 + #7+ #8) = 332 E16 sej/yr
Solar transformity = (3.32 E18)/(9.88 E13) = 33610 sej/J

1. Solar energy = 385 ly/day = 3850 kcal/m2/day
(3850 kcal/m2/d)(1.57 E7 m2)(365 d)(4186 J/kcal) = 9.26 E16 J/yr

2. Wind energy
= (height) (density) (diffusion coefficient) (wind gradient) (area)
(1000 m)(1.23 kg/m3)(14.7 m2/s)(3.16 E7 s/yr)(0.0044/s2)
(1.57 E7 m2) = 1.76 E14 J/yr where diffusion coeff = 14.72 m3/m/s
and wind gradient = 0.00442 m/s/m

3. Rain chemical potential:
(1.22 m precip)(1.57 E7 m2)(1 E6 g/m3)(4.94 J/g) = 9.48 E13 J/yr






Footnotes for Table 9 (continued)

4. River geopotential
Flow in and out = 1.37 E9 (from average USGS data, 1987-
1993); (from Dortch, 1996, p. 361)
Elevation change = (57 m 53 m) (from Walton et al., 1996)

Geopotential energy used:
(volume/yr)(1000 kg/m3)(9.8 m/s2)(4 m drop) = 5.37 E13

5. River chemical potential
Mean annual river flow (Patterson) estimated from 5-year data
from US Geological Survey Water Data reports from Arkansas,
1987-1990 (1993). Flows from Dortch, (1996, p. 361)

Used chemical potential:
100 mg/l to 500 mg/1 (Kadlec & Knight, 1996)
Change in total dissolved solids = 400 150 mg/1
(1.37 E9 m3/yr)(1 E6 g/m3)(4.925 4.89 J/g) = 4.79 E13 J/yr

6. Bottomland hardwood evapotranspiration
Evapotranspiration to pan evaporation ratio = 0.95 (cyp. riverine
from Lugo A., 1990)
Pan evaporation = 55 in = 139.7 cm (from US Env. Data Serv. 1975:
Weather Atlas of the US)
Assuming transpiration/pan evap =0.85
Transpiration rates = 118.745 cm
Forest transpiration energy
= (1.187 m)(1.57 E7 m2)(1 E6 g/m3)(4.94 J/g) = 9.2 E13 J/yr

7. Birds migrants
Abundance of migrants during breeding season
1.5 birds/0.48 ha plot = 3.125 birds/ha
(3.125)(1573) ha = 4916 birds
Average weight = 19 g/bird = 9.5 g dry weight/bird
Bird dry weight/swamp = 4.67 E4 g dry wt
Respiration = (dry weight) (conversion factor) (23 6g/yr)
= 1.10 E7 g/yr (Costanza et. al, 1983)
Energy = (1.1 E7 g/yr)( 5.6 kcal/g)(4196 J/kcal)(0.5 yr)
= 1.29 Ell g/seas






Footnotes for Table 9 (continued)

8. Fish Influx as larvae
Larvae in floodplain in spring = 1.81 ind./m3
In spring + early summer = 1.33 ind./m3
For the whole season assume = 1.0 ind./m3
Volume of inundation water into the floodplain = 5.0 E6 m3

Based on transects and water stages (Kleiss, 1996)
5.0 E6 larvae in spring; average larval weight = 2 g
Total weight = (2 g/ind.)(5 E6 ind) = 1.0 E7 g
Energy
= (1 E7 g)(0.2 dry)(5.8 kcal/g)(4186 J/cal)(0.5 yr) = 2.43 E10 J

9. Recreational uses
Area demand: 3.10 E6 man/hours (Corps of Engineers, 1974)
Rec. areas in the region = 78,000 acres
Black Swamp = 3880 acres
Black Swamp percent = 0.0497
Black Swamp share 5% of demand = 1.55 E5 man/hours
Energy
(1.55 E5 man/hour)(104 kcal/h)(4186 J/kcal) = 6.7478 El0 J/yr

Counting by trips
Trips demands for hunting/fishing = 116,900 trips/year
Black Swamp area = 5% available area in the region
Black Swamp's trips = 5845 trips/year
Estimated cost/trip = $3.3/trip (Corps of Engineers, 1974)
Estimated expenses/trip = $20.00/trip (assumed)
Total expenses = 175,350 $/year
(Solar emergy)/(emergy/money for Arkansas)
In 1992 Emergy/money ratio = 4.70 E12 sej/$

10. Black Swamp gross primary production
= (5900 tonne/swamp/yr)(1 E6 g/tonne)(4 kcal/g)(4186 J/kcal)
= 9.88 E13 J/yr






Table 10
Annual Emdollar Values in one Hectare of the Black Swamp
For value of 1.57 E3 hectares of Black Swamp, multiply by 1570


Item Baseline River River Pumped
Evaluation Diverted Channelized Groundwater


1 Forest productivity 309 295 280 342
2 Sediment retention 1335 1135 0 1335
3 Organics retention 4023 3419 0 4023
4 Fish production 525 92 0 0
Total 6192 4941 280 5700


* Emdollars calculated by dividing emergy values by Arkansas emergy/dollar
ratio for 1992 = 3.45 E12 sej/$

Emergy per unit used to evaluate emergy:
Forest production 4916 sej/J
Sediment retention 1.7 E9 sej/gram
Organic matter retention 6.24 E4 sej/J
Fish production 2 E6 sej/J

1. Forest productivity:
Baseline evaluation: floodplain from inundation frequency in a natural
floodplain (Brinson, 1990) with 25% transition
Floodplain =11.5 t/ha/yr; transition = 7 t/ha/yr; upland = 10 t/ha/yr
Production/ha = (0.25)(1 ha)(7t/ha) + (0.75)(1 ha)(11.5 t/ha)
= 10.375 t/ha/yr
Energy = (10.375 t/ha/yr)(1 E6 g/t)(5 kcal/g)(4186 J/kcal) = 2.17 Ell J/yr

Evaluation of swamp with diverted river: using upland, 15%; transition
30%; floodplain 55% with production, respectively: 10 t/ha, 7 t/ha,
11.5 t/ha.

Evaluation of channelized river: using upland, 80%; transition 20%;
floodplain 0% with production, respectively: 10 t/ha, 7 t/ha, 11.5 t/ha.

Evaluation of pumped groundwater impact: using upland, 0%; transition
25%; floodplain 75% with production, respectively: 10 t/ha, 7 t/ha, 13 t/ha.






Footnotes for Table 10 (continued)

2. Baseline sediment retention 2.75 tonne/ha/yr
River diversion 85% sediment retention
Channelization 0% sediment retention
Groundwater pumping, normal sediment retention

3. Baseline organic retention 1.07 E7 g/ha/yr
River diversion 85% retention
Channelization 0% retention
Groundwater pumping, normal retention

4. Baseline fish production 187 kg/ha
With river diversion 85%
With channelization 0%
With groundwater pumping 70%













Emergy signature for Black Swamp


.5
(0


-4----


E

i 3


-- -


E


Figure 12. EMERGY signature of a hectare of Black Swamp Ecosystem.


1


250





200


0 150-
--




uJ
U1
Q
QI
5 100 -


E
uJ






Comparisons
The annual emergy uses and flows are high comparable with other more
productive ecological systems.

Simulating Impacts

Diagram of the overview ground water model in Figure 13a has the
equations beneath the diagram and the mathematical terms for each
pathway or storage. Figure 13b has the values of flows and storage used
in the calibration based on calculations in Appendix Table Al. The
coefficients for the simulation model were calculated in Appendix Table
A2.

Figure 14 has the results of simulating the model calibrated with pre-
impact conditions. River water is the main water input to the swamp
(Figure 14a). Average standing water in the swamp varied from less than
0.10 m in the summer to 1.20 m in the winter and early spring months.
Water levels followed the annual sine-wave fluctuation supplied to
represent sunlight, rain and river. When river waters receded, the water
inputs to the swamp were provided by rainfall and groundwater. These
inputs were critical for the forest production because they occurred during
summer season when sunlight was maximum in the area.

The seasonal pulsing of sunlight and rain produces corresponding pulses in
photosynthetic production (Figure 14b). Similar graphs were obtained for
the several impact conditions (Appendix A), and these differences from the
base calibration run are summarized in Table 11. To understand the
impact interactions, the reader might use a finger to trace the pathways in
the model (Figure 13a) to see how each management action causes the
changed values reported in the summary Table 11.

The results of simulated effects of the various conditions on average gross
primary production and the swamp are given in Table 3.1.

Included in Appendix A are 26 year simulations of the overview model
(Figure 13a) for various conditions. Yearly fluctuations of the gross
primary production are displayed in the top panel, forest biomass and
water level of the swamp on the middle panel, and groundwater level and
the groundwater influx into the underlying aquifer on the bottom panel.
Impacts simulated separately were:
Pre-impacted conditions Figure B.1.
Effect of cutting forest Figure B.2.
Effect of lowering groundwater Figure B.3.







































Figure 11 with water pathways highlighted.






Effect of diverting river flows Figure B.4.
Simulation of combined actions (= cumulative impacts) were:
Effect of lowering groundwater and cutting forest Figure B.5.
Effect of lowering groundwater and diverting river Figure B.6.
Effect of diverting river and cutting forest Figure B.7.
Effect of lowering groundwater, diverting river and cutting forest -
Figure B.8.

Simulated Effects of Separate Impacts
According to the model predictions, cutting 10 or 20% of the forest did not
cause major impacts in the system production. In 7 to 10 years the forest
returned to the pre-impact conditions.

Reducing groundwater inputs and lowering the average groundwater level
in the area caused a 20% reduction in the groundwater inputs and caused
forest production and biomass to be reduced to 67% and 74% of the pre-
impacted values, respectively. Diverting 20% of river waters caused forest
production and biomass to decrease to 61% and 69% of the pre-impacted
conditions, respectively.

Simulation of Cumulative Impacts
Cutting biomass did not increase the larger impacts of lowering
groundwater or diverting the river. However, there were cumulative
synergistic effects of river diversion and lowering groundwater. Reducing
these two water inputs by 20% caused the forest production and biomass
to decrease to just 31% and 45% of the pre-impact values. The strongest
impact came from a scenario with 20% reduction in forest biomass,
groundwater and river water inputs. In this case, forest production and
biomass were reduce to 28% and 39% of the initial conditions, respectively.
































L = 1 + 0.5*Sin[(T+8)*0.523]


R = R1 + R2 *Sin(T*0.523) Lr = L/(1 + k1 1*S*B)
Jc = Jo + J1*Sin[(T + 13)*0.523]
Js = k4*[(Jc/Jcl)-2]
J5 = k5*{ [(S/S1)-hO]-[(A/A1) h1 ]}

dA/dt = Jg k*A +J5
dB/dt = k30*P -k31*P-k32*B -k33*B
dS = R + Js k7*P K3*S -k6*S -J5

(a)

Figure 13. Overview simulation model of impacts on waters of the Cache
River watershed affecting the Black Swamp. (a) With mathematical
equations; (b) with values of flows and storage used for calibration from
Appendix Table Al.


Product: P = Lr*S*B






























050


Figure 13 (continued)







(a) Water Inflow to Swamp

4- 35
c 30
S25 River
E 25
20
E 15
S10 Rain
o 5
2 -5 "- -------Ground water
Years



Sunlight Water Level Production
1.5 -- 12
.-c
10 4
o


I-
: 1.0 8


0 Oo
0.5 4

0 0 0
Years 5
(b) Swamp Characteristics



Figure 14. Simulation of the Black Swamp water model in Figure 13a as
calibrated with values in Figure 13b. (a) Water inputs; (b) sunlight,
primary production, and water level. See Appendix Figures Al A8.






DISCUSSION

Principal Resources

Sunlight and its derived natural energy flows (wind, rain, etc.) work in many
ways over the state and its river basin. However, it is in the form of rain that
it provides higher emergy for these areas, and the way it will be taken into
account in this analysis. Rain fallen over the land and working in the
landscape is measured as runoff geopotential. The water evapotranspired by
vegetation is measured as rain chemical potential. The state and the Cache
River basin are well served by rain (~48 in) during the whole year and
present high evapotranspiration rates during summer and early fall months.
Therefore, rain chemical potential emergy is the highest source of natural
renewable energy in both systems.

Arkansas has an uneven relief, with mountains and plateaus over its west side
and the Mississippi floodplain in its east side. Therefore, it has a relatively
high runoff geopotential (-30% of its renewable emergy). The Cache River
basin is basically a flatland, and water has little geopotential energy there.

The state is relatively rich in nonrenewable resources. It has a good deal of
mineral resources that are intensively used by the present economy. Its
natural gas reserves provide the amount used by the state and supply the
state with 28% of its energetic needs (EIA, 1994). The Cache River basin,
however, has no fuel reserves and depends on imports to supply its energetic
consumption.

The Cache River basin is basically an agricultural area, and therefore the
indigenous nonrenewable resources most used in the area are soil and
groundwater. Groundwater was taken as nonrenewable because about 70% of
the recharge of the Mississippi River valley alluvial aquifer was already used
by irrigation in 1972 (Ackerman, 1989). Groundwater emergy represents 22%
and 14% of nonrenewable energy used in the state and the basin, respectively.

The most striking fact is the agricultural cost in terms of erosion in the Cache
River basin. Soil formed in the past is now intensively used. Soil loss makes
up about 84% of nonrenewable emergy used and 42% of total emergy used in
the basin.

The agricultural production in the basin depends on imports of goods and
services, fuel and fertilizers. Goods and services make up about 36% of the
whole basin emergy import.






The state has a more diversified economy. However, it is still largely
agricultural and dependent on some kind of imports. Fuels represent 31% of
state imports. Goods and services make up 46% of state imports. The basin
exports its high grain production and services embodied in such production.
The state exports meat and services embodied in its industrial production.
Both areas export much more emergy than they import.

Evaluating Change

Perspectives on the roles of various processes, inputs or impacts can be
obtained by comparing the annual emdollars of different flows in the
evaluation tables. Emdollars provide the resource contribution to the dollar
economy, the gross economic product. For example, Table 10 gives the value
of a hectare of Black Swamp and compares effects of river diversion,
channelization, and strong groundwater pumping.

Another way to evaluate the impacts is to observe the effects of a changed
input to a computer simulation model. The simulation automatically includes
synergistic and cumulative impacts. Table 11 has the results of simulating the
water model in Figure 13, showing the percentage decline in emdollar values
for different impacts separately and together. Table 11 has the model's
indications of impact on swamp forest productivity and biomass.

Use of Emergy Evaluation in Permitting

Emdollar evaluation allows environmental resources, their contributions to the
economy, and the impacts to be placed on familiar monetary terms. Whereas
the systems diagrams show pathways of contribution or impact, the
evaluations give substance, indicating how important they are and their
cumulative impacts, as we have shown with examples in Tables 9, 10, and 11
for the Black Swamp.

For those responsible for permits or other decisions about environment, Table
12 summarizes the steps to obtain an emdollar evaluation of a proposed
action. By evaluating the changes anticipated in the environment and the
associated economic development, the new may be compared with the pre-
condition. The general guideline can be to authorize developments that
maximize the annual emdollar production and use (including that of the
environment and the economic uses).






Table 11
Simulated Effects on the Productivity and Biomass of the Black Swamp


Action & % of Initial % of Initial
Impact Intensity Productivity Biomass


Cutting biomass
%/o 100 100
10%/ 99 97
20% 97 94
Diverting river flow
0% 100 100
10%/ 79 84
20% 61 69
Lowering groundwater
P/0o 100 100
10% 79 84
20%/ 61 74
Cutting biomass +
Lowering groundwater
0%/o 100 100
10%/ 80 81
20% 67 68
Cutting biomass +
Diverting river flow
0P0 100 100
10% 79 80
20% 65 63
Diverting river flow +
Lowering groundwater
0%o 100 100
10% 78 67
20% 58 45
Cutting biomass +
Diverting river flow +
Lowering groundwater
0% 100 100
10%/ 59 64
20% 31 39






Table 12
Steps for Emdollar Evaluation of a Proposed Change
(See Also Previous Section on Concepts)


1. Identify the changes by looking at a systems diagram for the
environmental system and its interface with economic use and impact.
Diagrams are already available for most ecosystems and environmental
use systems.

2. List the main changes. For example, replacing a swamp with a
development will have items that are lost and items from the economy
that will be added.

3. Obtain estimates of each of these in the normal every-day or
scientific units. For example, estimates may be appropriate for area of
land use changed, energy of sunlight, volume of water, number of ducks,
dollars spent on construction, etc. It is desirable to evaluate any large
storages--such as water, minerals, soil, forest wood, etc. It is also
necessary to evaluate the annual contribution in amounts contributed per
year.

4. Multiply each of these measures by the emergy per unit from unit
emergy tables. For example, emergy per gram, emergy per individual,
emergy per area, transformity (Table 1). The results of this step are
emergy of the stored quantities and annual emergy flows.

5. Next divide the emergy values from step #4 by the emergy/money
ratio for a recent year. The results are in emdollars. Emdollars include
nature's contribution and the money paid to people on the same scale.

6. Finally compare the alternative proposals including the original
condition to see which represent an increase in total emdollars. A proposal
which decreases total emdollars should not be authorized. Instead, better
designs for development may be found that use the work of nature and
that of the economy in a symbiotic way (called ecological engineering).





Appendix A
Details of Impact Simulation
Appendix Table Al
Data Used for Calibration of the Water Simulation Model in Figure 13

Flows In and Out of Standing Water Storage (S):

1. Rainfall into the area (R)
Average rainfall = 49.2 in (COE, 1974) = 1.25 m/yr
Annual rainfall = (area)(average rain)
= (10,000 m2)(1.25) = 12,500 m3/yr/ha
Considering the Black Swamp area (1573.5 ha)
= (12500 m3/yr/ha)(1573.5 ha) = 19.7 E6 m3/yr/swamp
= 1.64 E6 m3/month
Rainfall was varied during the year, with the sine equation:
R = (R1 + R2)(sin t)(0.523)
R1 = 1.60 E6 m3/month
R2 = 0.40 E6 m3/month
For the calibration month, R = 1.96 E6 m3/month

2. Standing water storage (S)
Assuming an annual average water level in the swamp of
0.30 m, the volume of water retained in the swamp
= (water level)(area) = (0.3)(10000 m2) = 3000 m3/ha
Considering the whole swamp
Volume = (3000 m3/ha)(1573.5 ha) = 4.72 E6 m3/swamp
Volume (assumed) = 5.00 E6 m3/swamp

3. Evaporation and transpiration
According to Lugo, A.E. (1990), evapotranspiration of riverine
cypress in Florida = 95% of pan evaporation.
Assumptions for the Black Swamp ecosystem:
Evaporation = 15% of pan evaporation
Evapotranspiraton = 85% of pan evaporation
Cache R. area: average pan evaporation = 55 in -1400 mm/yr
Ground level evaporation E ~ 200 mm/yr = (0.2 m)(10000 m)
2000 m3/ha
(2000 m3/ha)(1573.5 ha) = 3,147,000 m3
= 3.15 E6 m3/yr/swamp
Canopy evapotranspiration (ET) = 1400 200 = 1200 mm/yr
= (1.2 m/yr) (10000 m2/ha) = 12000 m3/ha/yr
= (12000 m3/ha/yr)(1573.5 ha) = 18.88 E6 m3/yr/swamp
= 1.47 E6 m3/month






Appendix Table Al (continued)

4. River flooding in the swamp
River water inflow is about 14 times the rainfall.
(Annual water budget for Black Swamp, Walton et al., 1996)
River inflow (-14)(1.96 E6 m3) = 2.74 E7 m3
Assumed = 3.0 E7 m3/month

5. Runoff leaving the swamp
The flow needed to empty floodwaters in the swamp in a
period of 4 to 6 months (flooding time).
Flows in = rainfall + river flooding
= 19.7 E6 m3/yr + 89.24 E6 m3/yr = 108.94 E6 m3/yr
Flows out = evaporation + evapotranspiration + runoff
= 3.15 E6 m3/yr + 18.88 E6 m3/yr + runoff
Then Runoff = 108.94 E6 m3/yr 22.03 E6 m3/yr
= 86.91 E6 m3/yr = 7.25 E6 m3/month
Assumed runoff for the calibration month (January)
= 8 E6 m3/month.

6. Groundwater inflow
Groundwater draining to the alluvial water storage (A) found
below the Black Swamp area assumed from the whole
northwest zone of the Mississippi river valley alluvial aquifer
(from its NW boundary to the east Crowley Ridge divide south
to Black Swamp area), about 11,840 km2 which represents
14.3% of the whole aquifer area.
Water budget estimated for the aquifer by Ackerman (1989)
Percent of the aquifer considered:
Flows in layer 1-whole aquifer-1178 cfs; NW zone-168.3 cfs
Flows in layer 3-whole aquifer-2065 cfs; NW zone-295 cfs
Total groundwater flowing into the storage (A) is 463.3 cfs
= 13.12 m3/s = 413.77 E6 m3/yr = 3.46 E7 m3/month






Appendix Table Al (continued)

7. Alluvial water storage
The alluvial aquifer groundwater storage (A) was calculated as
the volume of the water of the Mississippi River valley
alluvial aquifer stored below the Black Swamp area. This
volume was estimated from the average depth (30.45 m)
and the average porosity (0.30) (Ackerman, 1989).
Therefore: volume = (depth) (porosity) (area)
= (30.45 m)(0.30)(10,000 m2/ha) = 91350 m3/ha
= (91350 m3/ha)(1573.5 ha/swamp) = 1.44 E8 m3/swamp

8. Groundwater contribution to swamp
Water flow calibrated from swamp to the aquifer during wet
periods and from the aquifer to swamp in dry periods of late
summer. Flow from swamp to the aquifer:
= 5.0 E5 m3/month (about 25% of rainfall)

9. Groundwater out of the alluvial storage (A) calculated as the
water to balance other flows going in and out of the storage.
Groundwater flow in = 3.46 E7 m3/month + 5 E5 m3/montth
= 3.46 E7 m3/month

10. Cache River flow into the Black Swamp (Jc)
Average flow at Patterson (upstream gauging station)
= 1000 cfs = 28.32 m3/s
Annual flow = (28.32 m3/s)(365)(24)(3600 s/yr)
= 8.93 E8 m3/yr (7.44 E7 m3/yr)

11. The inflow river was oscillated according to the equation:
Jc= (JO+ J1)(sin ((t+13)(0.523))
JO = 1.2 E8 m3/month and J1 = 5 E7 m3/month

12. Storage of plant biomass (B) of riverine forest ranges from 100
to 300 ton/ha (Brinson, M.M., 1990). Standing biomass for
bottonland forest at Black Swamp assumed 250 ton/ha.
Total biomass = (standing biomass/ha)(area, ha)
= (250 ton/ha)(1573.5 ha) = (393375 ha) = 3.93 E5 ha




00


Appendix Table Al (continued)

13. Gross production of biomass
Net production in riverine forest like the Black Swamp
13.5 ton/ha/yr, where litterfall is about 5.5 ton /ha/yr
(Brinson, M.M., 1990). Respiration about 70% of gross
production; net production about 30%; gross production
= (13.5 ton/ha/yr)/0.3 = 45 ton/ha/yr
(45 ton/ha/yr)(1573.5 ha) = 70807.5 ton/yr
= 7.1 E4 ton/swamp = 5900 ton/month

14. Biomass used in feeding back into production (Figure 13b)
Net production of litterfall of riverine forest
= (5.5 ton/ha/yr)(1573.5 ha/swamp) = 8654.25 ton/yr
= 8.65 E3 ton/yr/swamp (720 ton/month)

15. Net production to consumers equal the remaining net production
(woody production 8.0 ton/ha/yr)
(8.0 ton/ha/yr)(1573.5 ha/swamp) = 12588 ton/yr/swamp
= 1.26 E4 ton/yr/swamp (1050 ton/month).

16. Biomass production used by respiration about 70% of the gross
production = (45 ton/ha/yr)(0.70)(1573.5 ha/swamp)
= 49,565 ton/yr/swamp = 4130 ton/month

17. Sunlight: assumed forty percent of incident sunlight used by the
trees. However, production of the tree biomass proportional to
the 60% unused remainder (Lr) (Odum, H.T.,1983).
Sunlight varied during the year with a sine function
L= (1 + 0.5)(sin ((t+ 8)(0.523))





Al Before Impacts
Productivity J30

Standing Water S
Biomass B


Groundwater A/Ao

Groundwater Inflow Jg
ij


A3 Lowering Ground Water


A2 Cutting Biomass


J t F h '. f : .




.. --. -. .
', :: .,: : :! : : :: ..". :: i.".


A4 Diverting River Inflow




WWMWW-...


Years 26 Years
Figure Al. Simulation of the groundwater model with calibration
conditions before impact.
Figure A2. Impacts of cutting Biomass.
Figure A3. Impacts of lowering groundwater.
Figure A4. Impacts of diverting the river inflows.


ifAknA~A~h i RAAMA,;B1";FI!T 'J


-~----J




A5 Lowered Ground Water A6 Lowered Ground Water &


& Cut Biomass

Productivity J30


Standing Water S
Biomass B



Groundwater A/Ao


Groundwater Inflow Jg


A7 Diverted River & Cut Biomass








: ?; ;"T ; 1: ;' J .w ^' t ^'s:-;?; -^^A"1


I r
Years 26
Figure A5. Cumulative impacts
biomass.

Figure A6. Cumulative impacts
river inflow.


Diverted River


A8 Cut Biomass, Diverted River
& Lowered Ground Water


Years 26
of lowering groundwater and cutting

of lowering groundwater and diverting


Figure A7. Cumulative impact of cutting biomass and diverting river
inflow.

Figure A8. Cumulative impacts of lowering groundwater, diverting river
and cutting biomass.







Table A2
Calibration Values for the Water Simulation Model for the Black Swamp


Expression Value Coefficient Value


R = 1.96 E6
Jc*= 1.58 E8
Jcl = 3.94 E7
Jg= 3.45 E7
Lr = 0.6
Jr= 1.36 E8
S1 = 1.57 E7
A= 1.44 E8
B= 3.15 E5
S = 5.00 E6
Al = 1.57 E7
hO = 2.00 E-l
hl= 9.12


kl*A = 3.46 E7 kl = 2.41 E-l
k3*S = 8.00 E6 k3 = 1.60 EO
k4*((Jc/Jc )-2.0))= 3.00 E7 k4 1.49 E7
k5*(((S/S1)-h0))-((A/A1)-hl))= 5.00 E5 k5 = 5.84 E6
k6*S = 2.625 E5 k6 = 5.25 E-2
k7*Lr*S*B = 1.47 E6 k7 = 1.56 E-6
k11*Lr*S*B = 0.4 kll = 4.23 E-13
k30*Lr*S*B = 5900 k30 = 6.24 E-9
k31*Lr*S*B = 720 k31 = 7.62 E-10
k32*B = 4130 k32 = 1.31 E-2
k33*B = 1050 k33 = 3.33 E-3






Appendix Table A3
Black Swamp Water Simulation Program in BASIC

10 REM BSWF Calibrated without impacts
20 CLS
30 SCREEN 12
40 LINE (0, 0)-(319, 400), 3, B
41 LINE (0, 240)-(319, 240)
42 LINE (0, 90)-(319, 90)
45 REM OPEN "C:\excel\bswpre.dat" FOR OUTPUT AS #1
50 REM SCALING FACTORS
55 t =0
60 DT = .5
70 SO = 500000
80 BO = 6000
85 AO = 10000000
90 JGO = 500000
91 JCO = 2000000!
100 RO = 500000
101 tO = 1
102 LO = .1
103 j40 = 500
110 REM INITIAL QUANTITIES
120 R1 = 1604671
125 R2 = 397671
135 Jcl = 3.94E+07
136 JO = 1.2E+08
137 J1 = 5E+07
140 JG = 3.45E+07
150 A = 1.444E+08
155 Al = 1.57E+07
160 S = 5000000!
161 S1 = 1.57E+07
162 hO = .2
165 hi = 9.12
170 B = 315000
220 REM COEFFICIENTS
230 K1 = .241
240 K3 = 1.6
250 k4 = 1.49E+07
260 KS = 5480000!
270 k6 = .0525
280 K7 = 1.56E-06
310 KI1 = 4.23E-13
360 K30 = 6.24E-09
370 K31 = 7.62E-10
375 k32 =.013111
376 k33 = .003333
380 REM EQUATIONS
383 Jc = JO + J1 SIN((t + 13)* .523)
384 L = 1! + .5 SIN((t + 8) .523)
392 Js =k4 ((Jc / Jcl) -2!)
393 IF Js < 0 THEN Js = 0






Appendix Table A3 (continued)

395 R = R1 + R2 SIN(t* .523)
400Lr=L/(1 +Kl1 *S*B)
401 J5 = KS (((S / Sl) hO) ((A / Al) hi))
402J7 = K7 Lr S B
403 J3 = K3 S
404 J11 = K11 Lr* S B
410 DA = JG (K A) + K5 (((S / S) hO) ((A / Al) hi))
420 DS = R + Js k6 S K7* Lr S B K3 S J5
430DB = K30 Lr S B K31 Lr S* B k32 B k33 B
431 J30 = K30 Lr S B
432 J32 = k32 B
440 REM CHAngING EQUATIONS
450A=A+DA*DT
455 IFA < 0 THEN A = 0
460 S = S + DS DT
465 IF S < 0 THEN S = 0
470 B = B + DB DT
475IF B < THENB=0
480 REM PRINT #1, USING "#############"; R; L; Jc; S; S / SI; B; Js; J5; J7; 13;
J30; J32; A; A / A1; 11
490 REM PLOTTING EQUATIONS
500 PSET (t / tO, 400 A / Al 10), 3
510 PSET (t / tO, 240 S / SO), 2
520 PSET (t / tO, 240 B / BO), 1
525 PSET (t / tO, 90 J30 /j40), 3
526 PSET (t / tO, 400 JG / JGO), 2
528 REM PRINT j5
530 t = t+ DT
540 IF t / tO < 320 GOTO 380









Appendix B
Calculation of Transformities

Transformities of Global Water Flows

Global chemical potential fresh water flows transformities were estimated
following the same rationale that was applied for H.T. Odum (1996) in
calculating transformities for other Earth processes (such as wind, rain,
streams, waves, etc.). It is understood is that all these Earth processes are
interdependent of each other and they require the whole empower budget
contributing to the Earth (9.44 E24 sej/yr) to operate each individual
process. As aggregated in Figure Bla, all the fresh water pathways are
necessary to the global system and thus are coproducts of the total
geobiospheric system.

A global water budget done by L'vovich, 1974 (in Gleick, 1993) was used to
identify the average annual water flows in the pathways. According to the
data, the global average flows are: Precipitation- 110,305 km3/yr,
evaporation- 71,475 km3/yr, groundwater runoff- 11,885 km3/yr, and
surface water runoff- 26,945 km3/yr (Figure Blb).

The chemical potential energy of the water flows was then calculated from
the volume flows using the following equations:
Evapotranspiration (J/yr) = (m3/yr)(1 E6 g/m3)(Gibbs Free Energy, 4.94 J/g)
River flows (J/yr) = (volume/yr)(1 E6 g/m3)(Gibbs Free Energy, 4.93 J/g)
Groundwater (J/yr) = (m3/yr)(1 E6 g/m3)(Gibbs free energy, 4.89 J/g).

The Gibbs Free Energy in the flows was estimated considering the free
energy of the fresh water relative the to salty ocean water (Figure B2c).
Concentrations of dissolved solids were assumed to be about 5 mg/1 for
precipitated/evaporated water, around 150 mg/l for river waters and
around 342 mg/l for the groundwater (Lee and Fetter, 1994).

Transformities were calculated as emergy divided by energy.
Evapotranspired rain = (9.44 E24 sej/yr)/(3.53 E20 J/yr) = 26,735 sej/J

River waters = (9.44 E24 sej/yr)/(1.88 E20 J/yr) =48,850 sej/J

Groundwater = (9.44 E24 sej/yr)/(5.82 E19 J/yr) = 162,165 sej/J





















(a) Empower: E24 sej/yr


(b) Global Water Cycle: E3 km3/year 12 /iNC'2 2
by L'vovic (Gleik, 1993) ro
Water


.88
3.52
Atomosphere 5.45
& Ocean
& Oc n 1.88 Rivers


(c) Flow of Chemical Potential Energy 0.58 roun 58
of Water: E20 Joules/year Wat


Figure Bl. Diagram of global hydrology for evaluating transformities. (a)
Global emergy basis; (b) global water flows from L'vovich (1974); (c)
energy flows.






Transformities of Migrant Birds

Preliminary transformities of migrant birds were estimated by estimating
the emergy required to support the birds in a hectare of northern nesting
area in summer (Hubbard Brook, New Hampshire) and a winter support area
in Florida. Energy flows in the birds were estimated from respiration rates.
See Appendix Table B1.

Transformities for Agricultural Commodities

Transformities for agricultural products rice, soybeans, wheat, sorghum, corn,
and broiler chickens were evaluated in Appendix Tables B2-B7. The emergy
signatures of these inputs to each of these production processes are shown in
graphical form in Figures B2-B7.






Appendix Table B1
Emergy of a Migrant Bird


Note Item Emergy use Energy use Transformity
sej J sej/J


1 Bird inWinter months 2.49 El 3

2 Bird in Summer months 2.60 E13

3 Annual Support 5.09 E13 5.27 E7 9.7 E5


1. Chemical potential energy of rain transpiration per hectare in 6
months as approximation for ecosystem productivity in southern
wintering area: Rainfall = 140 cm/yr; 35% in fall and winter
Transpiration = 75% of rainfall; Seasonal transpiration
= (140 cm/yr)(0.35/season)(0.75 transpired) = 0.37 m/season
Energy = (0.37 m/season)(1 E4 m2/ha)(1 E6 g/m3)(4.94J/g)
= 1.83 E10 J/6 months
Emergy support per bird the product of energy use and the solar
transformity of rain over land, multiplied by 43% going into
migrants, and divided by 5.75 birds/ha
(1.83 E10 J/yr)(1.82 E4 sej/J)(0.43)/5.75 = 2.49 E13 sej/6 mo/bird

2. As in note #1 except with data for summer months using data from
Hubbard Brook, New Hampshire: Energy =
(130 cm rain/yr)(0.40 transp/season)(1 E8 cm2/ha)(4.94J/g)
= 2.57 E10 J/ha/season; Emergy =
(2.57 E10 J/6 mo)(1.82 E4 sej/J)(0.84 migrants)/(15 birds/ha)
= 2.6 E13 sej/6 months/bird

3. Annual emergy basis per migrant bird sum of winter and summer.
Bird energy used from annual respiration:
63% of annual consumption of bird 9.5 g
Energy = (annual respiration per bird)(5.6 kcal/dry wt)(4186 J/kcal)






Appendix Table B2
Emergy Evaluation of Rice Production
Annual Rates per Hectare


Note Items Data Emergy/Unit Emergy
unit/yr sej/J E13 sej/yr


1 Sun, J 1.05 E13 1 1
2 Rain transpired, J 1.48 E10 1.82 E4 27
3 Soil used up, J 9.92 E8 6.30 E4 6
4 Groundwater 3.72 E10 1.60 E5 596
5 Fuel 1.35 E10 6.60 E4 89
6 Machinery, oil equiv. 2.87 E8 6.60 E4 2
7 Pesticide, oil equiv. 3.97 E9 6.60 E4 26
8 Nitrogen 2.92 E8 1.90 E6 55
9 Potassium 2.36 E7 3.00 E6 7
10 Seed, oil equiv. 2.63 E9 6.60 E4 17
11 Electricity 3.78 E9 1.70 E5 64
12 Service, US $ 1977 730 4.40 E12 321


13 Rice production 6.95 E10 1211
14 Transformity 1.76 E5 sej/J


Footnotes
Data on rice plantation at Grand Prairie,


AR, (Pimentel, 1980, p. 95)


1. Solar insolation = 1.00 E6 kcal/m2/yr
Growing season = 3 months = 0.25 yr
(1 E6 kcal/m2/yr)(1 E4 m2/ha)(0.25 yr)(4186 kcal/J)
= 1.05 E13 J/yr

2. Transpiration Energy = (3000 m3/yr)(1 E6 g/m3)(4.94 J/g)
= 1.48 E10 J/yr

3. Soil used up assumed 10 ton/ha/yr (as in Odum, 1996)
Organic Fraction = 0.44% of dry matter
Energy = (weight)(0.0044 org)(5.4 kcal/J)(4186 J/kcal)
= 9.95 E8 J/yr






Footnotes for Appendix Table B2 (continued)

4. Groundwater irrigation = 0.76 m/ha = 7600 m3/yr
Chemical potential energy
= (7600 m3/yr)(1 E6 g/m3)(4.90 J/g) = 3.72 El0 J/yr

5. Fuel (Pimentel, 1980): Gasoline 8.70 E5 + Diesel 2.34 E6 kcal/ha
Energy = (3.21 E6 kcal)(4186 J/kcal) = 1.35 +10 J/yr

6. Machinery (embodied fuel in the machinery, Pimentel 1980)
Energy = (6.86 E5 kcal)(4186 J/kcal) = 2.87 E8 J/yr

7. Pesticide
1.1 kg of 2,4,5-T =1.10 E5 kcal/ha
4.5 kg propanil = 4.50 E5 kcal/ha
3.4 kg molinate = 2.94 E5 kcal/ha
Total 9.50 E5 = kcal/ha
Energy = (9.5 E5)(4186 J/kcal) = 3.97 E9 J/yr

8. Nitrogen fertilizer = 134.5 kg/ha
Chemical potential = 2.17 E6 J/kg
Energy = (134.5 kg/yr)(2.17 E6 J/kg) = 2.92 E8 J/yr

9. Potassium fertilizer = 33.6 kg/ha
Chemical potential = 702 J/g
Energy = (33.6 E3 g/yr)(702 J/g) = 2.36 E7 J/yr

10. Seed 156.9 kg; embodied fuel 6.28 E5 kcal/ha
Energy equivalent: (6.28 E5 kcal/yr)(4186 J/kcal) = 2.63 E9 J/yr

11. Electricity in irrigation fuel 0.76 m/ha pumped up 38.1 m
Energy = (7600 m3)(38.1 m)(9.8 m/s2)(1000 kg/m3)/(0.75 eff.)
3.78 E9 J/yr

12. Service as price = 7.02 $/Cwt (CYB, 1978) = $ 0.154 $/kg
(4742 kg production)(0.154 $/kg) = $730

13. Production = 4742 kg/ha
Energy = (4.72 E6 g)(3.5 kcal/g)(4186 J/kcal) = 6.95 E10 J/yr

14. Transformity = (1.22 E16 sej/yr)/(6.95 E10 J/yr) = 1.76 E5 sej/J




Full Text

PAGE 1

Evaluation Overview of the Cache River and Black Swamp in Arkansas Howard T. Odum, Silvia Romitelli, and Robert Tighe Final Report on Contract #DACW39-94-K-0300 Energv Systems Perspectives for Cumulative Impacts Assessment between Waterways Experiment Station, U.S. Dept. of the Army, Vicksburg, Miss. and University of Florida Center for Environmental Policy Environmental Engineering Sciences University of Florida, Gainesville, 32611 January 10, 1998

PAGE 2

1 Evaluation Overview of the Cache River and Black Swamp in Arkansas* Howard T. Odum, Silvia Romltelli, and Robert Tighe Environmental Engineering Sciences University of Florida, Gainesville, 32611 Dec 10, 1997 *Part II and Final report of Contract # DACW39-94-K-0300: Energy Systems Perspectives for Cumulative Impacts Assessment. between Waterways Experiment Station, U.s. Dept. of the Army, Vicksburg, Miss. and the Center for Environmental Policy, Dept. of Environmental Engineering Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville. Dr. Jean O'Neill, was scientific advisor and contract officer. Part I was a progress report entitled Energy Systems Perspectives on Cumulative Impacts in the Black Swamp, Cache River Arkansas (H.T.Odum and R. Tighe, Sept .30, 1994). It contained energy systems diagrams aggregating the Black Swamp as a whole. To show qualitatively how complex interactions developed cumulative impact, diagrams with highlighted pathways were supplied for each of 6 functional sectors of the system that had been recognized to be of concern: (a) waters, (b) sediments, (c) biodiversity, (d) forestry, (e) fisheries, and (f) deer. If the user has been taught the symbols and their meaning, inspection of these networks provides a quick guide to components and interactions which have to be considered in permitting. The appendix contained the equations for each of the models and highlighted impact relationships. These equations show the impact relationships in mathematical form, a translation of the energy language diagrams, ready for simulation. An example is the simulation of impact on groundwater in the Black Swamp included in this final report.

PAGE 3

3 CONTENTS Page Title Page. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Contents ....................................................... 3 Legends for the Figures. . . . . . . . . . . 5 List of Tables. . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Abstract. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Cumulative Impacts. . . . . . . . . .. 11 Simulating Impacts. . . . . . . . . .. 11 Concepts. . . . . . . . . . . . .. 12 Emergy and Energy Hierarchy. . . . . . .. 12 Maximum Empower Principle and Environmental Management. . . . . . . . .. ... 14 Transformity . . . . . . . . . .. 14 Empower density .................................... 14 Empower of Arkansas, Cache River Basin and Black Swamp ......................................... 14 Emdollars and Real Wealth. . . . . . . .. 15 Emergy Indices. . . . . . . . . . .. 15 Study Areas. . . . . . . . . . . . .. 15 State of Arkansas. . . . . . . . . .. 15 Cache River Basin. . . . . . . . . 16 Black Swamp. . . . . . . . . . 16 Background of Previous Study. . . . . . . . 16 Cache River Basin. . . . . . . . . 16 Black Swamp. . . . . . . . . . 24 Content of This Study. . . . . . . . . . 26 Methods ...................................................... 27 Developing Systems Models from Verbal Concepts. . . .. 27 Emergyand Emdollar Evaluation. . . . . . . 27 Simulating Impacts .. . . . . . . . . . 29 Results ....................................................... 31 Arkansas ................................................ 31 Energy Systems Diagram. . . . . . . . 31 Emdollar Evaluation Table ............................ 31 System Indices ...................................... 31 Comparisons ........................................ 31

PAGE 4

4 Page Cache River. . . . . . . . . . . . .. 52 Energy Systems Diagram. . . . . . . . 52 Emdollar Evaluation Table. . . . . . . .. 52 Emergy Indices. . . . . . . . . . .. 52 Comparisons . . . . . . . . . .. 67 Black Swamp. . . . . . . . . . . .. 67 Energy Systems Diagram. . . . . . . . 67 Emdollar Evaluation Table. . . . . . . .. 67 Emergy Indices . . . . . . . . . 67 Comparisons. . . . . . . . . . .. 75 Simulating Impacts on the Black Swamp. . . . . .. 75 Simulating Effects of Separate Impacts. . . . .. 76 Simulating Cumulative Impacts. . . . . . .. 76 Discussion. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 81 Principal Resources. . . . . . . . . . .. 81 Evaluating Change. . . . . . . . . . .. 82 Use of Evaluations for Permitting. . . . . . . .. 82 Appendix A. Details of Impact Simulation. . . . . . . 85 Appendix B. Calculation of Transformities . . . . . .. 95 Transformities of Global Water Flows. . . . . . 95 Transformities of Migrant Birds. . . . . . . .. 97 Transformities of Agricultural Commodities. . . . . .. 97 Literature Cited ............................................... 119

PAGE 5

5 Legends for the Figures Figure 1. Three scales of watershed evaluation (1) as part of Arkansas; (2) the Cache River Watershed; (3) the Black Swamp. Figure 2. Map of the Cache River Basin (Adapted from: Corps of Engineers, 1974). Figure 3. Map of the Black Swamp (Source: Baker and Killgore, 1994). Figure 4. A series of energy transformations forming an energy hierarchy from left to right with each measured by its transformity. (a) Energy transformation series based on one energy source with calculation of solar transformity of energy of the flows downstream to the right; (b) main energy flows and transformations contributing to the Black Swamp. Figure 5. Empower (emergy flow) and money circulation in a state. (a) Energy systems diagram; (b) emergy to money ratio used to evaluate emdollars of environmental contribution. Figure 6. Emdollar indices used to evaluate environmental developments. Figure 7. Energy systems diagram of Arkansas with main empower inputs in solar emjoules per year. (a) Complex diagram; (b) aggregated summary; (c) three arm summary. Figure 8. EMERGY signature of environment and economy in Arkansas. Figure 9. Energy systems diagram of the Cache River Watershed (a) with main empower inputs in solar emjoules per year (b) water budget overlay. Figure 10. EMERGY Signature of environment and economy of the Cache River Watershed. Figure 11. Energy systems diagram of the Black Swamp with main empower inputs in solar emjoules per year. Figure 12. EMERGY signature of a hectare of Black Swamp Ecosystem. Figure 13. Overview simulation model of impacts on waters of the Cache River watershed affecting the Black Swamp. (a) With mathematical equations; (b) with values of flows and storages used for calibration from Appendix Table AI.

PAGE 6

6 Figure 14. Simulation of the Black Swamp water model in Figure 13a as calibrated with values in Figure 13b. (a) Water inputs; (b) sunlight, primary production, and water level. See Appendix Figures Al A8. Appendix Figures: Figure AI. Simulation of the groundwater model with calibration conditions before impact. Figure A2. Impacts of cutting Biomass. Figure A3. Impacts of lowering groundwater. Figure A4. Impacts of diverting the river inflows. Figure AS. Cumulative impacts of lowering groundwater and cutting biomass. Figure A6. Cumulative impacts of lowering groundwater and diverting river inflow. Figure A7. Cumulative impact of cutting biomass and diverting river inflow. Figure A8. Cumulative impacts of lowering groundwater, diverting river and cutting biomass. Figure BI. Diagram of global hydrology for evaluating transformities. (a) Global emergy basis; (b) global water flows from L'vovich (1974); (c) energy flows. Figure B2. Emergy signature for rice production in Arkansas. Figure B3. Emergy Signature for soybean production in Arkansas. Figure B4. Emergy signature for wheat production in Arkansas. Figure BS. Emergy signature for sorghum production in Arkansas. Figure B6. Emergy signature for corn production in Arkansas. Figure B7. Emergy signature for broiler production in Arkansas.

PAGE 7

7 List of Tables Table 1. Definitions Table 2. Emergy per Unit Table 3. Annual Emergy Flows of Arkansas Table 4. Export and Import Exchange Between Arkansas and Other States Table 5. Emergy Indices for Arkansas Table 6. Annual Emergy Flows of the Cache River Basin Table 7. Exchange Between the Cache River Basin and Other Parts of the United States Table 8. Emergy Indices for the Cache River Basin Table 9. Annual Emergy Flows in the Black Swamp Table 10. Annual Emdollar Values in one Hectare of Black Swamp Table 11. Simulated Impacts on the Productivity and Biomass of the Black Swamp Table 12. Steps for Emdollar Evaluation of a Proposed Change Appendix: Appendix Table AI. Data Used for Calibration (Table A2) of the Water Simulation model in Figure 13 Appendix Table A2. Calibration Spreadsheet for the Water Simulation model for the Black Swamp (Figure 13) Appendix Table A3. Simulation Program in BASIC (for Macintosh QBASIC) Appendix Table Bl. Emergy of Migrant Birds Appendix table B2. Emergy Evaluation of Rice Production in Arkansas Appendix Table B3. Emergy Evaluation of Soybean Production in Arkansas

PAGE 8

8 Appendix Table B4. Emergy Evaluation of Wheat Production in Arkansas Appendix Table BS. Emergy Evaluation of Sorghum Production in Arkansas Appendix Table B6. Emergy Evaluation of Corn Production in Arkansas Appendix Table B7. Emergy Evaluation of Poultry Broiler Production in Arkansas

PAGE 9

9 ABSTRACT This is the second and final report applying energy systems methods for overview, evaluation, and management of watersheds, with the Cache River in Arkansas as an example. The first report included systems models (diagrams and mathematical expressions) for showing environmental, ecological, and economic interactions in the Cache River watershed, and a portion of its floodplain known as the Black Swamp, for synthesizing knowledge and understanding cumulative impacts. This second report uses the systems overviews to evaluate influences and processes affecting the area on 3 scales, from the large scale down: (1) the state of Arkansas, (2) the Cache River watershed, and (3) the Black Swamp. Emergy and emdollars were used to determine what is important for environmental management and permitting. (Emergy is the available energy in units of one kind of energy previously used up directly and indirectly to make a product or service. Emdollars (em$) are the part of the gross economic product due to an emergy contribution). Policy for deciSions on environment can be based on the maximum empower principle, which defines choices as best which maximize empower and emdollar contributions of environment and the economy together. (Empower is the rate of emergy use per year). DeciSions on permitting of a development proposal should be those that maximize the emdollar production of the system. The state evaluation showed Arkansas to have a high level of indigenous real wealth (a high emergy/money ratio, and high emergy levels per person) compared to the United States as a whole. About 37% of the state's total emdollars were contributed by water, soils, natural gas and other local resources and 63% from fuels, goods, and services purchased from out of state. Only 11% was renewable. Twice as much real wealth (emergy) was sold out of state as rice and other commodities than was received in monetary payments. Evaluation of the Cache River watershed with its intensive rice production showed about half of the area's total emdollars were contributed by ground and river water uses and half from fuels, goods, and services purchased from out of the area. Forty two percent of the production was unsustainable, based on non-renewable use of soils and groundwater storages. Evaluation of the Black Swamp showed annual contributions to a hectare were: 1608 em$ in the inflow of sediments and 4847 em$ as organics.

PAGE 10

10 Physical energy contributed 449 em$ (geopotential energy used up). Forest productivity contributed $372 em$ using the chemical potential energy of water used by forests for their evapotranspiration. Swamp based fish production was 633 em$. Per hectare, the Black Swamp, with 7640 em$/year, was more valuable than the average Cache River watershed area with 4111 em$/year and the average for Arkansas with 4738 em$/year. For permitting, the burden of proof is on a developer to show that a proposed economic use of a swamp area will generate a greater annual emdollar value. Since energy systems models define mathematical equations, the models can be calibrated with observed data and simulated to determine the consequences of the relationships shown in the model. A model of the water budget of the Black Swamp and its groundwater was calibrated and simulated considering several "what if' alternatives. Cutting forest, and diverting the river had small effects on the groundwater compared to the larger effect of direct pumping. However, large cumulative impacts on the forest resulted from the three factors affecting the water budget together. As with any initial overview evaluation, closure was obtained by using whatever estimates and approximations were readily available. The numerical results therefore are uneven and preliminary, inviting refinement by specialists with better data.

PAGE 11

11 INTRODUCTION Understanding watersheds and their ecosystems requires that their roles in the surrounding economy and landscape be quantitatively evaluated. Since maximum economic benefits are not achieved by diminishing the life support functions of watersheds, decisions by those planning and authorizing developments need to be made according to the principle of maximizing the real wealth productivity of both the ecosystems and the dependent economy. This paper overviews and evaluates the developed Cache River watershed in Arkansas and the contributions of the original floodplain forest ecosystem now represented by a remnant, the Black Swamp. Energy systems diagrams are used to identify and summarize the main components and processes on three scales shown in Figures 1-3: (1) State of Arkansas; (2) Cache River Watershed; and (3) Black Swamp. Then the principal contributions to real wealth in these systems are evaluated with EMERGY, spelled with an "m", and expressed as emdollars for comparison with economic values on a common baSis. Patterns over time are explored with simulation models. Those considering changes in the watershed can use the results by comparing emdollars of existing environmental and economic contributions with emdollars of the systems to result from proposed changes. Changes which do not increase emdollar value should not be authorized. Cumulative Impacts Most cumulative impact evaluations have been concerned with the effects accumulating on one property of the landscape, such as groundwater or biodiversity. By contrast, a systems overview of an ecosystem in relation to its surroundings shows the interplay of all variables on each other. By expressing each variable in a measure that applies to them all, it is possible to add up all impacts, or examine them separately to identify principal actions. This study evaluates various changes taking place in the Cache River watershed that impact the floodplain forest remnant represented by the Black Swamp. Simulating Impacts Quantitative estimates of impacts of changes and proposed changes can be obtained by computer simulation of overview models, calibrated with local values for flow and storages. Included in this study is an example of the simulation of ground water response with an overview model that has water flows, storages, and interactions highly aggregated so that the

PAGE 12

12 process and result are easily understood. Overview assessment and decision making require simplicity, while including details considered to be important. Simulating aggregate water responses for this purpose, to learn "what if," is different from the detailed and expensive simulation of water distribution spatially. Each approach has its place in impact evaluation, depending on the scale of the questions. Concepts Emergy analysis is a procedure for environmental accounting of the cumulative work required for a product or service in units of one kind of energy. It allows the user to define the proportion of the regional economy due to a specific natural resource. It measures what an environmental resource is contributing to the regional economy. A brief explanation of emergy concepts and measures follows, with definitions summarized in Table 1. Emergy and Energy Hierarchy Because of the second energy law, all the processes of nature and the economy can be arranged in a series, representing the hierarchy of energy. All processes use up some of the potential of energy (its availability) to do work, dispersing that energy in degraded form. Therefore, the product of useful processes has less available energy in its output than its inputs. This means that processes may be arranged in an energy transformation series like Figure 4a. In each block, available energy is dispersed. Total energy flow (power) decreases from left to right, but becomes more concentrated. Examples are food chains, stages in the hydrological cycle, and steps in the production sectors of the economy. Energy is abundant but low quality on the left, whereas energy is less but of higher quality on the right, capable of doing more per calorie. It would be misleading, if not wrong, to conSider a calorie of energy on the right equivalent to one on the left. For example, a calorie of human service is many times more valuable than a calorie of sunlight. A calorie of a hawk's work in the ecosystem contributes and controls much more than a calorie of a leaf. It takes many calories on the left to make a calorie on the right. However, energies of different kinds may be appropriately compared by expressing each in units of one kind of available energy previously used up. In the approach used in this report, solar energy is used. Thus, Solar Emergy is defined as the available solar energy previously used directly and indirectly to make a product or service. The unit of emergy is the emcalorie or the emjoule. Whereas joules of energy are in a piece of wood,

PAGE 13

13 Table 1 Summary of Definitions Available Energy = Potential energy capable of doing work and being degraded in the process (units: kilocalories, joules, etc.) Useful Energy = Available energy used to increase system production and efficiency Power = Useful energy flow per unit time EMERGY = Available energy of one kind previously required directly and indirectly to make a product or service (units: emjoules, emkilocalories, etc.) Empower = EMERGY flow per unit time (units: emjoules per unit time) Transformity = EMERGY per unit available energy (units: emjoule per joule) Solar EMERGY = Solar energy required directly and indirectly to make a product or service (units: solar emjoules) Solar Empower = Solar EMERGY flow per unit time (units: solar emjoules per unit time) Solar Transformity = Solar EMERGY per unit available energy (units: solar emjoules per joule)

PAGE 14

14 emjoules refer to the available energy that was previously used up to make the wood. We sometimes call emergy the "energy memory." Maximum Empower Principle and Environmental Management The flow of useful emergy is also called empower (Table 1). The maximum power principle has long been advocated as a general principle for self organizing systems, including those of nature and of the economy. Stated so as to represent different kinds of energy appropriately, this principle is: Self organizing systems develop designs of components and relationships that maximize the intake and effiCient use of emergy. Designs with more empower displace those with less. Consequently, either by reason or by trial and error, the landscape with environment and economy will develop maximum empower designs. Public attitudes, environmental management and permitting, to be successful in the long run, need to arrange for maximum empower during development. Transformity Whereas the energy flow decreases through an energy transformation series, the emergy flow stays the same or increases if more inputs are added. Transformity is defined as the emergy per unit energy. It increases from left to right (Figure 4a). It is a measure of energy quality. Transformities are useful for making calculation of emergy from data on energy. Solar emergy = (energy)(solar transformity). Empower Density Self organizing systems develop centers of energy processing. Hierarchical centers have high concentrations of empower. The spatial concentration of empower is measured as areal empower density. For example, on a small scale, empower is concentrated in trunks of trees and in the bodies of animals. On a large scale empower is concentrated in flowing streams and human settlements. Empower of Arkansas, the Cache River Basin, and the Black Swamp As summarized in Figure 4b, sunlight, tides, and heat from the deep earth drive the geobiosphere, including the state of Arkansas. From the global processes, rains, geological contributions, and inputs from the economy operate the Cache River watershed. Climatic inputs and river waters operate the Black Swamp. In Figure 4b these are arranged from left to right in order of decreasing energy flow but increasing transformity.

PAGE 15

15 Emdollars and Real Wealth Figure 5 shows the main inputs to the economy of any area, including those free from the environment and those purchased and transported in. Through many processes and transformations these inputs develop the real wealth of the area such as forests, clean waters, clothing, food, housing, transport, information and aesthetics. Within that area the money circulating among the people facilitates efficient buying and selling, often measured by the gross economic product. Since emergy measures the real wealth on a common basis, dividing the annual emergy use by the gross economic product provides a useful emergy/money ratio for relating real wealth to money. The emdollar is defined as the emergy divided by the emergy/money ratio. Emdollars put environmental resource contributions on a common basis with contributions purchased by the economy. Environmental management can maximize empower by arranging developments and permits so that they maximize emdollars of the economy and environment. Emergy Indices Various ratios of emergy flows are useful for evaluating a system and its potential. Two are defined in Figure 6. The emergy yield ratio is calculated by dividing the emergy of the yield (Y) flowing into the economy on the right by the feedback of emergy (F) the economy is supplying from the right. A system with a large net emergy ratio is contributing much more real wealth than it requires for the process. Examples are rich mineral deposits and abundant fresh waters. In recent years the main sources of fuels that operate the nation have a net emergy ratio between 4 and 10, fluctuating with prices of fuels (Odum, 1996). The intensity of regional economic development and use of environment is given by an emergy investment ratio defined as the ratio of emergy purchased from the economy (F) to the emergy used free from the local environment (E). In wilderness parks the ratio is less than one. Typical development in the U.S. has an investment ratio of 7. By offering more free local inputs than usual, developments less than 7 tend to cost less, capture markets, and compete economically. Study Areas State of Arkansas Arkansas, in the center of the United States, includes the Ozark mountain highlands on the west and the Mississippi River alluvial valley on the east. The latter includes the floodplain and old channels of the Mississippi River, as well as current streams and tributaries, such as the Cache River (Figure la).

PAGE 16

Ft. Smith (a) (b) -,.--Cache River Basin is Black Swamp Study Site Figure 1. Three scales of watershed evaluation (1) as part of Arkansas; (2) the Cache River Watershed; (3) the Black Swamp.

PAGE 17

17 Cache River Basin The Cache River rises in southeastern Missouri, and flows south-southwest through northeast Arkansas to its confluence with the White River (Figure 2). It is one of several rivers traversing the Western Lowlands, an alluvial plain in the upper portions of the Mississippi River Valley. The landscape is flat and fertile, and has thus been conducive to the establishment of agriculture, primarily crops such as soybeans, rice, cotton, and wheat. Beginning with initial clearing and drainage in the early part of this century, more than 80% of the former forestland of the Cache River basin has been converted to agriculture. Of the little natural area that remains, most is floodplain forest along the watercourses of the alluvial plain. In the Cache River basin, this is primarily concentrated in several clumps found along the lower portions of the river. Black Swamp The Black Swamp Wildlife management area is a part of the remaining bottomland hardwood area in the lower Cache River Basin (Figure 2). These are not virgin forests, but many patches have grown 100 or more years since cutting. Background of Previous Studies The Cache River Basin The Cache River basin was the subject of a major Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)(COE 1974), based on proposals for renovation and extension of the previously completed channelization of portions of the river. The previous channel works occurred in the upper basin, for 89 miles from river mile 114 near the town of Grubbs to the headwaters of the river near Qulin, Missouri, and partial completion of the lower 10.5 miles of the river at its confluence with the White River (Figure 1). The Environmental Impact Statement (IS) contains detailed information on various aspects of the ecology and economy of the basin, and some history of human use in the area. Mauney and Harp (1979) studied the effects of this channelization on the fisheries of the Cache River and its main tributary Bayou DeView. They found a general decline in fish populations in those areas that were channelized, as compared to natural stretches of the streams. Because of the drastic effect of rice irrigation on depleting the alluvial aquifer in extenSively-farmed areas of the Western Lowlands, substantial

PAGE 18

White River Black Swamp Study Site Cache River 18 o Roads Scale I 10 Miles 20 Figure 2. Map of the Cache River Basin (Adapted from: Corps of Engineers, 1974).

PAGE 19

Station __ ... -.--Cache River Gauging Station Study Site IKUiI -Bottomland Hardwoods Black Swamp Wildlife Management Area Figure 3. Map of the Black Swamp (Source: Baker and Killgore, 1994).

PAGE 20

20 Energy flow, Calories per time 10 1 1000 10 1 910 81 8 -Transformity = Solar Emergy/Energy 1000 = 1 1000 Geobiosphere 1000 = 10 100 (a) 1000 = 100 10 1000 = 1000 1 ____________________________ ---------._-_ ... --------------------_ .. -_. -------------------------------_.-------.----------------.-.--------------------------------------------------------(b) Figure 4. A series of energy transformations forming an energy hierarchy from left to right with each measured by its transformity. (a) Energy transformation series based on one energy source with calculation of solar transformity of energy of the flows downstream to the right; (b) main energy flows and transformations contributing to the Black Swamp.

PAGE 21

Sun,Wind Tide, Rain Earth Heat Rivers 21 Purchase Out of State -------.$ I 1..----, I" Gross '\ t Economic I \. product ...... ..---Arkansas Sales out of State __ .::.Em-!;.p_o_w_e_r _U_s_e ___ = Emergy/money Ratio Gross Economic Product Fuels Electric Power Figure S. Empower (emergy flow) and money circulation in a state. (a) Energy systems diagram; (b) emergy to money ratio used to evaluate emdollars of environmental contribution.

PAGE 22

Environment, E Local, Free System Emergy Investment Ratio = F E Feedback, F Yield, Y Main Economy Emergy Yield Ratio = _:L F Figure 6. Emdollar indices used to evaluate environmental developments.

PAGE 23

23 study was made of the hydrology of this region, including the Cache River basin. As early as 1953, an unreplenished decline of the aquifer in the western portions of Cross, Poinsett, and St. Francis counties was noted, as well as an alteration in the general flow direction of the aquifer in this area (Counts and Engler 1954). Broom and Lyford (1982) and Ackerman (1989) modelled the interactions of irrigation and water movement throughout the surface and groundwater systems of the region. Their efforts showed the depletion of the aquifer affecting surficial hydrology of the region, capturing streamflow from the Cache River as a source of recharge for the lowered aquifer. Smith and Saucier (1971) mapped and described the geomorphology of the Western Lowlands region as part of a larger effort to map the entire Mississippi River Valley Alluvial Plain. They provide descriptions of historic and current locations of the rivers of the region, and include a portfolio of maps showing plan-view and cross-section analyses of the geologic formations that currently occupy the area. A special issue of the journal Wetlands in 1996 included 12 papers on the Cache River BaSin and the Black Swamp, the results of an intensive study starting about 1987. The cooperative effort of the u.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE), the u.S. Geological Survey (USGS), and several other Federal and State agencies (Clairain and KleiSS, 1989) was designed to consider biological, chemical, and physical aspects of bottomland hardwood ecosystems including work to assess fisheries, hydrology, sedimentation, spatial information, vegetation, water quality, and wildlife (Kleiss 1993, 1996). In her summary of this special issue, Kleiss (1996) explains the way the clearing of bottomland hardwoods, first for soybeans and then for rice, with heavy groundwater pumping for part of the year, changed water levels, hydro period, and ecology for the remaining bottomland hardwoods in the rest of the basin. Kress, Graves, and Bourne (1996) mapped the land use changes, with forest cover decreasing from 65% to 15% from 1935 to 1975. Remaining forest, mostly on hydric soils, is fragmented with a large edge/area ratio. Gonthier and Kleiss (1993) and Gonthier (1996) analyzed the records of groundwater wells located throughout the Black Swamp, which penetrated to varying depths in the underlying geologic units, including the alluvial aquifer and its overlying confining unit. Groundwater levels of the basins, including that under the bottomland hardwoods (Black Swamp), varied

PAGE 24

24 seasonally and year to year with the heavy pumping for rice agriculture. Floodplains that once received groundwater inputs were often recharging groundwaters. During periods of rising stream flow, the Cache River contributes recharge to the alluvial aquifer, while during falling stream levels the aquifer discharges to the river. Walton and Chapman (1993) and Walton, Chapman, and Davis (1996) presented their spatial hydrologic simulation model of the watershed with 67 nodes synthesizing the interactions of precipitation, canopy interception, overland flow, channel flow, infiltration, evapotranspiration, and horizontal groundwater flow. The model generated a reasonable fit to a hydroperiod graph of number of days versus water level of the Cache River. The model provided an estimate of hydroperiod for sampling plots located throughout the swamp. Wilber, Tighe, and O'Neill (1996) found the low river flows in summer to be related to drawdowns of the groundwater by rice agriculture and not to climate. At the end of summer, when pumping ceases, groundwater levels in the drawdown areas rise, albeit to levels lower than those preceding withdrawal. Black Swamp Walton, Davis, Martin and Chapman (1996), analyzing the hydrology of the Black Swamp, found that the highly channelized Cache River watershed had downstream constrictions, causing overbank flooding and wetland hydroperiod dependent on rains in the short-run. Nestler and Long (1994) and Long and Nestler (1996) found that the hydroperiod in the swamps has become erratic in dry periods with a loss of base flow that may be attributed to groundwater pumping. Hupp and Morris (1990) found that, prior to the late 1940's, deposition of sediment in the swamp was consistent with normal sedimentation rates in other, unimpacted alluvial floodplains. After that time, however, sediment accumulation rates in the floodplain increased substantially, more than doubling from previous years. Kleiss (1996) measured the sediment budget and deposition for the Black Swamp, finding sedimentation at 1 cm/yr, removing 14% of the sediments from the river, most in the bottom of the floodplain. Main factors affecting sedimentation rate were flood duration, tree basal area and distance from the river. With the help of a model of water detention on the floodplain Dortch (1996) evaluated the removal of suspended solids, total nitrogen, and total phosphorus from floodwaters. With a retention time of 5 days, sediment

PAGE 25

25 removal was 6.6%/ day, total nitrogen 4.8% per day, and total phosphorus 0.58% per day, rates less than in marshes. Boar, Delaune, Lindau and Patrick (1993) and Delaune, Boar, Lindau, and Kleiss (1996) measured denitrification process in the Black Swamp, finding that 9 parts per million nitrate nitrogen in floodwaters were reduced between 59 to 82% in 40 days. Experiments showed that the organic carbon available to the sediment process was a limiting factor. Smith (1996), analyzing the vegetation with gradient ordination methods, found four main types in the Black Swamp, typical of southeastern United States. These were named by dominant trees and related to flood depth and duration: In river-swamp forest with nearly continuous flooding: 1. Water Tupelo and Bald Cypress, With 50% flooding, two types of lower hardwood swamp forest, with more species: 2. Nuttall's Oak and Green Ash 3. Overcup Oak and Water Hickory With flooding 30% of the year, diverse backwater forest 4. Willow Oak and Sweetgum Baker and Killgore (1994) and Kilgore and Baker (1996) evaluated the Black Swamp's role as a fisheries nursery by study of fish populations and larval fish abundance. The fish community was comprised almost entirely of flood-exploitative species. Larval fishes of 35 taxa were found, more in the floodplain than in the river, and more in years of greater flood area. Wakeley and Roberts (1994, 1996) evaluated small bird populations in transects across the Black Swamp and related these to the gradient of water flooding and the four vegetation types, including analysis of structural characteristics of vegetation, snags, tree heights, etc. Because of the fragmented patchiness with edge, more birds were found in the Black Swamp than in some continuous forest. Although number of species in the four types of habitat was similar, the dominant species were different and arranged on a scale of water gradient. Birds were fewer in winter; migrants were a small percentage.

PAGE 26

26 Content of This Study This study includes energy systems models, emergy, and emdollar evaluations of the state of Arkansas, the Cache River Watershed and a hectare of Black Swamp. Included is an example of simulation of an overview model. Because overview models at the level of human verbal thinking are relatively simple, calibrating and simulating can be done in a day or two and does not require a major project authorization. A model of the Black Swamp interaction with waters was simulated to evaluate potential impacts of some changes in watershed management on ground water and other variables.

PAGE 27

27 METHODS Developing Systems Models from Verbal Concepts Energy System Diagramming Developing an overview model starts with the drawing of a diagram of the system of interest. After defining the physical boundary, important outside sources are listed and drawn around the boundary from left to right in order of their transformity, which marks their position in the energy hierarchy (sun, wind rain, river, geology, fuel, chemicals, goods, services, tourists, market, etc.). The main internal components and processes in the system are identified and drawn inside the system frame, such as forest, agriculture and industrial producers, urban areas, water storages, etc. Pathways, interactions, and money transactions are connected. The first diagram may be complex because minor components and processes may be included. Next the diagram is simplified to those parts and pathways that are found to be most important. Emergyand Emdollar Evaluation Emergy analysis tables were prepared on three scales: the state using 1992 data on Arkansas, the watershed and the swamp. For each system an emergy evaluation table was prepared with a line item for each input, output, and other items of special interest. An emergy evaluation table typically has 6 columns: (1) number of the line item and its footnote, (2) the name of the item to be estimated, (3) data in units of energy, mass or cost, (4) emergy per unit, (5) solar emergy and (6) emdollars. Energy flows are calculated from standard formulae from physics, chemistry, geology, economics, engineering, etc. Emergy per unit was obtained from previous emergy studies (Table 2). Solar emergy of each line item was estimated by multiplying the data in column 3 by the solar emergy per unit from column 4. Finally, the real wealth value in emdollars was calculated by dividing emergy by the emergy/money ratio of the country, state or region. Emergy/money ratio was obtained by dividing the gross economic product by the total contributing emergy used by that system. Finally, summations and indices defined in Table 1 and Figure 6 were calculated to interpret the condition of the system. Full explanation of methods is given in a recent book on environmental accounting (Odum 1996).

PAGE 28

Item Direct sunlight Wind Rain chemical potential Runoff geopotential River geopotential Earth cycle Coal River chemical potential Natural gas Petroleum Sorghum & cotton Topsoil losses Groundwater Electricity (nuclear) Rice & soybean Hydroelecetricity Wheat Poultry Migrants birds Livestock production Fish production Forest products Soil losses Bromine Potassium Phosphorus Nitrogen Pesticides a Odum,1996 b Romitelli, Appendix B Table 2 Emergy per Unit Value and Unit 1 sej/] 1.5 E3 sej/] 1.81 E4 sej/] 2.8 E4 sej/] 2.8 E4 sej/] 3.4 E4 sej/] 4.0 E4 sej/] 4.8 E4 sej/] 4.8 E4 sej/] 5.4 E4 sej/] 6.0 E4 sej/] 7.4 E4 sej/] 1.6 E5 sej/] 1.7 E5 sej/] 1.7 E5 sej/] 1.7 E5 sej/] 2.2 E5 sej/] 7.0 E5 sej/] 9.7 E5 sej/] 2.0 E6 sej/] 2.0 E6 sej/] 2.8 E8 sej/] 1.0 E9 sej/g 1.0 E9 sej/g 1.1 E9 sej/g 3.9 E9 sej/g 4.6 E9 sej/g 1.48 E10 sej/g c Brown and McClanahan, 1995 d As fluorite, Brown and McClanahan, 1995 Source a a a a a a a a a a b a c a b a b b b c a c a d a a a a

PAGE 29

29 Simulating Impacts Starting with an overview systems diagram previously drawn, a simplified model diagram was drawn retaining the components of interest, the impacting influences, and the important pathways. In this study, as an example, groundwater fluctuations were observed as the Black Swamp system was impacted by different water-related processes. The simplified model of the Cache River system included pathways delivering influence from outside and from other parts of the system. Equations for each of the storage compartments of the diagram were written following the nearly automatic translation of the systems symbols to mathematical form. Each equation has positive terms for flows into storage and negative terms for flows going out. To calibrate the model, quantitative values for the inputs, storage and flows were fed into the model using summary data where available. Otherwise, data from similar systems were used or indirectly calculated from relationships between variables (e.g., retention time = ratio between volume of storage and flows). A spreadsheet program was used to estimate the values of coefficients (the k's in the program equations). Values of flows and storages were assigned to each variable in the mathematical terms for flows. After the terms were set equal to the flows, the term was manipulated with k's on one side equal to the numerically evaluated expression on the other side. The calculations were built into the spreadsheet so that changing one value automatically changed all other places affected. For example, Appendix Table 1 was used for the calculation of coefficients of the groundwater impact model. Explanations were given in footnotes to the spreadsheet table for each item. The program for the simulation of cumulative impacts on groundwater in the Black Swamp is written in QBASIC and included as Appendix Table A2. It includes statements to introduce the starting variables, the coefficient values, the equations for change on each iteration, and plotting statements. The model was run first with the calibration data to simulate pre-impact conditions operating in steady state conditions. Then the main program was modified to include statements that would simulate impacting actions, including groundwater pumping, river diversion and forest cutting. To simulate effects of groundwater pumping, values of ]g were reduced by increments of 1 E7 m 3 This represents decrease of about 30, 60 and

PAGE 30

30 90% of the outside groundwater flows feeding the alluvial aquifer below the Black Swamp. River diversion was simulated by deducting equal incremental volumes of 2 E7 m 3/month from the Cache River inputs (Jc). These represent reductions of 17,35 and 52% of the average flow of Cache River now running through the Black Swamp. Forest cutting was simulated, reducing starting values of the hardwood forest biomass (B) by increments of 5 E4 tons. It simulates cutting l3%, 26%, and 39% of original forest. Graphs of groundwater levels and other variables over time obtained from simulation are included as Appendix Tables AI-All. From these a table of impact changes was prepared summarizing the many runs. See Odum (1983, 1996) for more extensive explanations of the methodology of energy systems modelling and simulation.

PAGE 31

31 RESULTS Arkansas Energy Systems Diagram Figure 7a is the overview model of the state of Arkansas with the water components and flows darkly shaded. Emdollar Evaluation Tables Table 3 has the energy and emdollar evaluation of the important sources, imports, and exports. Table 4 has the exchanges with the rest of the United States based on the percentage of workers in various occupations. Contributions to real wealth from the tables are shown in bar graph form in Figure 8 from left to right in order of their transformity (position in natural energy hierarchy). Major contributions come from the rain's chemical and geopotential energy, the fossil fuels used within the state, and the goods and services purchased from outside the state. Rainfall over the land does work on the landscape which is measured as runoff geopotential. Arkansas has an uneven relief with mountains and plateaus over its west side and the Mississippi floodplain in its east side. Therefore, it has a relatively high runoff geopotential (-30% of its renewable emergy). The state has a diversified economy with important industrial agriculture requiring imports of pesticides and fertilizers. Fuels represents 31 % of state imports. Goods and services are 46% of state imports. The state exports meat and services embodied in its agricultural and industrial production. Emergy Indices State indices derived from the emergy evaluation tables are listed in Table 5. Arkansas is 58% self sufficient. Its ratio of resources added by the economy to the environmental renewable resources is 2.9. With 48 inches of rain, water is 13% of the state's annual source of real wealth. Comparisons The emergy basis for the state is summarized in an aggregated diagram in Figure 7b. Arkansas has a higher percentage of its economic basis supplied from environmental emergy than the more developed states of Florida and Texas, but less than that of Alaska and Maine. The state is also relatively rich in non-renewable mineral resources that are intensely used by the economy. Its natural gas reserves provides the amount used by the state and supply the state with 28% of its energetic needs (ElA, 1994).

PAGE 32

I I o Arkansas (a) Figure 7. Energy systems diagram of Arkansas with main empower inputs in solar emjoules per year. (a) Complex diagram; (b) aggregated summary; (c) three arm summary. I I I I I I I co N

PAGE 33

33 Natural Capital 780 Sun Wind Taxes -----------.. Rivers Rain 198 l A,k.n,,, / ------Billion $ per year --E20 solar emjoules per year (b) 780 567 1230 Exports Services Attractions Arkansas 1 230 E20 Sej/year 1347 E20 sej/year $ Solar Emergy/Money ______________ = 3.45 E12 sej/ 39 E9 $/year (c) Figure 7 (continued)

PAGE 34

Note Item Renewable Resources 1 Direct sunlight 2 Wind 3 Runoff geopotential 4 Rain chemical pot. 5 Inflow river geopot. 6 Inflow river chern. pot. 7 Earth cycle Indigenous Renewable Energy 8 Rice & soybean 9 Wheat 10 Sorghum & cotton 11 Poultry 12 Livestock production 13 Forest products 14 Fish production 15 Hydroelec. Table 3 Annual Emergy Flows of Arkansas Data 793 E20 1.51 E18 8.55 E16 7.91 E17 9.77 E16 7.12 E15 1.35 E17 9.71 E16 1.32 E16 1.40 E16 1.38 E16 6.34 E15 8.13 E12 8.71 E13 3.67E16 Units J,g,$/yr J J J J J J J J J J J J g J J Emergy IU nit sej/unit 1 1496 27874 18199 27874 48459 34377 1.70 E5 2.20 E5 6.00 E4 7.00 E5 2.00 E6 2.75 E8 2.00 E6 1.70 E5 EMERGY E20 sej 8 23 24 144 27 3 46 198 165 29 8 97 127 22 2 62 513 1990 Emdollars E6Em$ 230 653 690 4174 789 100 1344 4785 845 243 2808 3675 648 50 1811 w .jO-

PAGE 35

Table 3 (continued) Indigenous Non-renewables Resources 16 Groundwater 2.88 E16 J 1.60 E5 46 1336 17 Bromine 1.71 Ell g 1.31 EIO 22 650 18 Coal 1.33 E15 J 3.98 E4 1 15 19 Natural gas 2.32 E17 J 4.80 E4 111 3228 20 Petroleum 6.44 E16 J 5.30 E4 34 990 21 Soil losses 1.34 E13 g 1.00 E9 134 3892 22 Topsoil losses 2.44 E16 J 7.40 E4 18 522 23 Electricity (nuc!.) 1.27 E17 J 1.70 E5 215 6243 582 16876 Imports w 24 Coal 2.32 E17 J 3.98 E4 92 2673 en 25 Petroleum 2.38 E17 J 5.30 E4 126 3654 26 Nitrogen 1.32 Ell g 4.60 E9 6 176 27 Phosphorus 6.99 E9 g 3.90 E9 0 8 28 Potassium 6.82 EIO g 1.10 E9 1 22 29 Pesticides 5.60 EIO g 1.48 EIO 8 240 30 Goods 9 263 31 Services 1.85 EIO $ 1.75 E12 324 9386 567 16421 Exports 32 Poultry 1.35 E16 J 7.00 E5 94 2730 33 Livestock 3.99 E15 J 2.00 E6 80 2313 34 Goods 2 61 35 Services 2.24 E10 3.45 E12 774 22440 1231 35675

PAGE 36

36 Footnotes for Table 3 Area of the State = 1.35 Ell m 2 1. Sunlight: 385 ly/day = 3850 kcallm2/day (Weather Atlas of US) Energy = (3850 kcal/m2/day)(1.35 Ell m 2)(365 days/yr)(4186 J/kcal) = 7.93 E20 Jlyr 2. Wind energy Calculated as Odum, 1996, Appendix B, with eddy diffusion coefficient and vertical gradient coefficient (Odum, Diamond and Brown, 1987) = (height)(density)(diff coefficient)(wind gradient)(area) = (1000 m)(1.23 kg/m3)(14.74 m 3/m2/s)( 4.42 E-3 m/s/m)2 (area)(sec/yr) = 1.51 E18 Jlyr 3. Rain geopotential energy = (area)(runofflyr)(ave elev gradient)(1000 kg/m3)(9.8m/s2 ) average rain = 48 in/yr = 1.22 m/yr Energy .34 E9 m 2)(450m) + (1.78 ElO m 2)(390 m) + (2.67 E10 m 2 ) (120 m) + (8.92 ElO m 2)(75 m(0.50 m)(lOOO kg/m3 )(9.8 mls2 ) = 8.55 E16 J/yr 4. Rain chemical potential (Water used in evapotranspiration) = 55 in (Weather Atlas of US) pan coefficient = 0.85 (Scott, H.D. et ai., 1987) = 46.75 in/yr= 1.19 m/yr Energy = (area)(evaporation)(l E6 g/m3)(4.94 JIg) = 7.91 E17 J/yr 5 River geopotential Major Inflowing rivers Arkansas and Mississippi Rivers Flow in Arkansas River = 872 m 3/s (Water Data-USGS, 1971) Change in elevation (210 m 30.5 m) Energy = (volume)(density)(height in height out)(gravity) = 4.84 E16 Jlyr Flow in (Mississippi River) = 13300 m 3/s Change in elevation: (45 21 m) = 9.86 E16 Jlyr Assumed 112 used in the State = 4.93 E16 Jlyr Total River Geopotential = 9.77 E16 J/yr

PAGE 37

:)1 Footnotes for Table 3 (continued) 6. River phemical potential in major inflowing rivers: Arkansas River flow = 872 m 3/s Gibbs Free Energy in = 4.92 J/g (200 mg/l dissolved solids) Gibbs Free Energy out = 4.88 J/yr (400 mg/l dissolved solids) Energy = (volume)(density)(Gibbs Free Energy) Energy in = 1.35297 E17 Energy out = 1.34472 E17 In Out = 8.24982 E14 Mississippi River flow = 13300 m 3/s Energy in = 2.06 E18 Energy out = 2.05 E18 In -out = 1.26 E16 ]Iyr Arkansas state total = 6.29 E15 J/yr Total river chern potential = 7.12 E15 ]Iyr 7. Earth Cycle Energy = (land area)(heat flow/area) = Assumed heat flows = 1 E6 J/m2/yr Energy = 1.35 E17 ]Iyr Notes 8-10. Agricultural production data on Arkansas from Census of Agriculture (1992): Sorghum 5.93 E8; wheat 9.59 E8; rice 3.42 E9; cotton 3.43 E8; soybeans 2.70 E9 Energy calculated as in Odum, H.T. et al.( 1987) Energy = (mass)(energy/unit) 8. Rice and Soybeans Rice = (3.43 Ell g)(3.60 kcal/g)(4186 J/kcal) = 5.17 E15 J/yr Soybeans = (2. 70 g)( 4.03 kcal/g)( 4186 J/kcal) = 4.56 E16 ]Iyr Total = 5.07 E16 ]Iyr 9. Wheat (3.42 E12 g)(3.30 kcal/g)(4186 ]Ikcal) = 4.73 E16 10. Sorghum and Cotten Sorghum = (9.59 Ell g)(3.32 kcal/g)(4186J/kcal) = 1.33 E16J/yr Cotton = (2.70 E12 g)(4.0 kcal/g)(4186 ]Ikcal) = 4.52 E16 J/yr Total = 5.86 E16 ]Iyr

PAGE 38

Footnotes for Table 3 (continued) Notes 11-12. Animal production data for Arkansas from Census of Agriculture (1992): Cattle 1.63 E6; cattle sold 8.18 E5; hogs & pigs 7.25 E5; pigs sold 2.02 E6; sheep 1.20 E4; chicken 2.21 E7; broilers 8.62 E8 Calculated as in Odum, H.T. et al. (1987) Energy = (annual production mass)(energy/mass) 11. Poultry Broilers = 2.13 kcaVg (US Department of Agriculture Handbook 8) (number produced)(1.8 kg/animal)(2.13 kcaVg)(4186 Jlkcal) = 1.38 E16 J/yr 12. Livestock Energy contents from US Department of Agriculture Handbook 8 Beef = 2.92 kcaVg; pork = 3.76 kcaVg (Cattle sold)(3.5 E5 g/animal)(2.92 kcaVg)( 4186 Jlkcal) = 3.48 E15 Jlyr Pigs: (pigs sold)(9 E4 g/animal)(3.76 kcal/g)(4186 J/kcal) = 2.86 E15 J/yr 13. Forest Production Data from US Department of Agriculture -Southern Forest Experimental Station, Vissage, ].S. and P.E. Miller -Southern Pulpwood production, 1990 Pulpwood production for 1990; 4.99 E6 cords = 6.38 E8 ft3 = 1.81 E7 m 3 Density assumed 450 kg/m3 (specific density = 0.45) Forest production = 8.13 E9 kg/yr = 8.13 E12 g/yr Energy = (weight)(3.6 kcal/g)( 4186 J/kcal) = 1.23 E17 Jlyr 14. Fish production data from Census of Agriculture, 1992, on fish sales in Arkansas: 4.45 E7 lb = 2.02 E7 kg Energy = (mass)(energy/mass) = (92.02 ElO g fish)(1.03 kcaVg)(4186 J/kcal) = 8.71 E13 J/yr

PAGE 39

39 Footnotes for Table 3 (continued) 15. Hydroelectricity production data from EIA Electrical Power Annual (1992) = 3.48 E13 Btu Energy = (3.48 E13 Btu)(1055.87 J/yr/Btu) = 3.67 E16 Jlyr 16. Groundwater data from US Geological Survey Open File Report 91-203 on 1989 water use for Arkansas: Groundwater consumption: 4.25 E3 = million gal/day = 5.88 E9 m 3/yr Chemical potential energy of groundwater: (volume)(l E6 g/m3 )(4.9 J/g) = 2.88 E16 Jlyr 17. Bromine data from The Mineral Yearbook, 1992 Bromine production = 1.71 E5 ton/yr = 1. 711 Ell g/yr 18. Coal production data for Arkansas from Energy Information Administration Coal production (1992) = 4.60 E4 short ton = 4.17 E4 ton/yr Energy = (41731.2 ton)(3.18 ElO J/ton) = 1.33 E15 Jlyr 19. Natural gas production data for Arkansas from Energy Information Agency/Natural gas annual 1992, Vol. 1 = 2.11 Ell cubic feet = (2.11 E8 thsd cubic ft)( 1.1 E9 J/thsd cubic feet) = 2.32 E17 Jlyr 20. Petroleum production data for Arkansas from Energy Information Administration/Petroleum Supply Annual 1992, Vol. 2 = 1.026 E7 barrels Energy produced: = (10260 E3 barrels)(6.28 E9 Jlbarrel) = 6.4433 E16 J/yr 21. Soil loss erosion in Arkansas cropland = 500 g/m2/yr (Odum et aI., 1983); cropland area = 2.69 ElO m 2 (500 g/m3/yr)(2.69 E10 m 2 ) = 1.34 E13 g/yr 22. Topsoil Energy Losses: Assuming 3% organic content and 5.4 kcal/g (Soil weight per year)(organic fraction)(5.4 kcal/g)( 4186 J/kcal) = 9.10 E15 J/yr

PAGE 40

40 Footnotes for Table 3 (continued) 23. Electricity (nuclear) data from ElA-Electrical Power Annual, 1992 Nuclear energy = 1.20 E14 Btu (1.20 E14 Btu)( 1055.87 J/Btu) = 1.27 E17 J/yr 24. Coal import data for Arkansas from Energy Information Administration -State Energy Data Report, 1992 = 12536 E3 short tonn = 220.7 trillion Btu Coal energy use = (220.7 E12 Btu)(1055.87 J Btu) = 2.33 E17 J/yr Coal Imported = (use -produced) = 2.32 E17 J/yr 25. Petroleum import data from Energy Information Administration/ Petroleum Supply Annual 1992, Vol. 2 4.29 E7 barrels = 2.29 E14 Btu = 2.38 E17 J/y Notes 26-28. Fertilizers estimated for crops and area planted: using kilograms per hectare as follows: N P20s K20 Sorghum 37.8 3.4 0.9 (Pimentel, 1980) Wheat 89.7 1.12 0 (Pimentel, 1980) Rice 134.5 0 33.6 (Pimentel, 1980) Cotton 40.0 16.0 17 (Kohee & Lewis, 1984) Soybeans 5.61 0 33.6 (Pimentel, 1980) 26. Nitrogen use in kilograms/yr: For sorghum 5.28 E6; wheat 2.96 E7; rice 7.42 E7; cotton 1.54 E7; soybeans 7.19 E6 Total N used (g/yr) = 1.32 Ell g/yr 27. Phosphorus use in kilograms/yr: Sorghum 4.75 E5; wheat 3.70 E5; rice 0; cotton 6.14 E6; soybeans O. Total P use = 6.99 E9 g/yr 28. Potassium use in kilograms/yr: Sorghum 1.26 E5; wheat 0; rice 1.85 E7; cotton 6.52 E6; soybeans 4.30 E7 Total P used = 6.82 E10 g/yr

PAGE 41

41 Footnotes for Table 3 (continued) 29. Pesticides data for Arkansas from US Dept. of Commerce, Bureau of Census, 1994 -1992 Census of Manufactures -Agricultural Chemicals = 2.02 E8$/yr Average price of pesticides = 3.60 $/kg pesticides Weight of pesticides used in the State = Expenses/Average Price = 5.60 E7 kg = 5.60 ElO g/yr 30. Goods imported into Arkansas were estimated as a fraction of U.S. imports of basic mineral and metal production in 1992. Arkansas population is 0.94% of U.S. population. U.S. Imports (1994 US Statistical Abstract): Item Quantity Emergy/g Emergy, sej/yr Iron Ore 1.25 E13 g 1.00 E9 1.25 E22 Steel Prod. 1.73E13g 2.64 E9 4.57 E22 Aluminum 1.16 E12 g 1.60 E10 1.86 E22 Copper ref 2.89 Ell g 6.80 ElO 1.97 E22 9.64 E22 Emergy = (9.64 E22 sej/yr)(0.0094) = 9.06 E20 J/y 31. Services supplied to Arkansas with imports a. Services with fuels Btu $/1 E6 Btu $ Expenditures Coal Petroleum Total 2.17945 E14 2.28576 E14 1.66 7.82 3.62 E8 1.79 E9 2.15 E9 b. Services with imported manufactured goods estimated as fraction of U.S. imports for 1992 less petroleum, meat, and gas; Arkansas population 0.94% of U.S. population (4.76 Ell dollars)(0.0094) = 4.46 E9 $/yr

PAGE 42

42 Footnotes for Table 3 (continued) c. Relative services imported from other parts of U.S. as given in Table 4 = 1.02 E10 $ d. Federal benefit to Arkansas in 1992 = 1.69 E9 $ Total imported services = 1.85 E10 $/yr Notes 32-33. Animal production sold out of state estimated as the difference of production and consumption in the State. Per capita consumption from 1994 US Stastitistical Abstract -Data as boneless weight with data on pounds divided by 0.70, the percent of meat in the whole animal weight 32. Poultry broiler sales out of state: Production 1.55 E12 g Consumption per capita 1.80 E4 g Consumption 4.3 E10 g Weight exported 1.51 E12 g Broiler energy exported: (1.51 E12 g exported)(2.13 kcaVg)(4186 ]/kcal) = 1.35 E16]/yr 33. Livestock sales out of state: Production Consumption per capita Consumption Weight exported Cattle energy: Beef 2.86 Ell g 4.07 E4 g 9.75 E10 g 1.89 Ell g Pork 1.81 Ell g 3.11 E4 g 7.45 E10 g 1.07 Ell g = (1.89 Ell g)(2.92 kcaVg)(4186]/kcal) = 2.31 E15 Pork energy: = (1.07 Ell g)(0.76 kcaVg)(4186]/kcal) = 1.68 E15 Total Livestock exports = 3.99 E15 ]/yr 34. Goods exports were estimated as fraction of U.S. exports of iron and steel products in 1992 5.3 E6 tons (1994 US Statistical Abstract) Weight = (5.3 E6) (907 kg/ton)(l E3 g/kg) = 4.81 E12 g Emergy = (4.8 E15 g)(4.65 E9 selig) = 2.24 E22 sej In proportion to population Iron & Steel products from Arkansas = (2.24 E25)(0.0094) = 2.10 E20 sej/yr

PAGE 43

43 Footnotes for Table 3 (continued) 35. Services exported = (value of total production)(percent exported) a. Animals exported: (production 2.44 E9 $/yr)(0.85 exported) = 2.08 E9 $/yr b. Foreign Export from Arkansas in 1992 = 1.32 E9 $ (1994 Statistical Abstract of the United States) c. Relative exports to other States from Table 4 = 1.63 E10 $ d. Federal Taxes in 1992 = 2.75 E9 $ (1994 Statistical Abstract of the United States) Total Export = 2.24 ElO $/yr

PAGE 44

Table 4 Export and Import Exchange Between Arkansas and Other States Agr. Min. U.S. average 0.03 0.01 State average 0.01 0 Difference -0.02 -0.01 $/employee 34579 149096 #/employees -18729 -9365 Export/import $ -6.48 E8 -1.40 E9 Imports: -1.02 ElO $/yr Exports: 1.63 E10 $/yr Net Export: -6.14 E9 $/yr Constr. Manuf. Transp. Wholes. Retail Finance Servo Gov't 0.06 0.17 0.07 0.04 0.17 0.07 0.35 0.05 0.04 0.24 0.05 0.05 0.18 0.04 0.23 0.16 -0.02 0.07 -0.02 0.01 0.01 -0.03 -0.12 0.11 34365 50971 58460 75550.89 26341 125580 25541 116726 -18729 65552 -18729 9365 9365 -28094 -112375 103011 t -6.44 E8 3.34 E9 -1.1 E9 7.08 E8 2.47 E8 -3.5 E9 -2.9 E9 1.2 E10 (Calculation done considering the difference in percent of employment per sector for U.S. and State and the relative contribution of employee of each sector to the country GNP)

PAGE 45

Footnotes for Table 4 EXPORTS 1. Animal prod uction (GOODS) Production Per capita Beef Pork Broiler Total grams 5.56 Ell 1.81 Ell 2.16 E12 2.89 E12 consump 114044.8 72640.0 50303.2 45 State consump 2.73 Ell 1.74 Ell 1.2 Ell Export 2.83 Ell 7.59 E9 2.04 E12 2.33 E12 Production = (number of animals)(average weight) Assuming average weights for Cattle = 680 kg Pork = 90 kg Broiler = 2.5 kg Energy J/yr 5.07 E15 1.76 E14 2.04 E16 2.56 E16 Per capita consumption (Data from 1994 US Statistical Abstract, pounds of commodity consumed per capita in 1992, Table 220) Information was given in terms of boneless weight. Therefore, pounds in commodity per capita was divided by a factor (0.25 or 0.3), assumed to be the percent of meat in the whole animal weight. State consumption = (per capita)(State population) Export = production consumption Energy = (weight (g) ) (caloric content (kcal/g( 4186 J/kcal) Caloric content of cattle = 4.26 kcal/g Pork = 5.53 kcal/g Broiler = 2.39 kcal/g 2. Value of animal exports (SERVICES) Value of total production = 2.44 E9 $ Percent exported = 3.19 E12/3.76 E12 = 0.848 Value Exported = (value of total production)(percent exported) = 2.07 E9 $

PAGE 46

46 Footnotes for Table 4 (continued) 3. Grain exported (GOODS) Production Sorghum Wheat Rice Cotton Soybeans Hay Total grams 5.93 Ell 9.59 Ell 3.42 E12 3.43 Ell 2.7 E12 2.11 E12 1.01 E13 Internal comsumption o 1.5 Ell 1.83 E10 o o o 1.69 Ell Protein produced 4.74 E10 1.15 Ell 4.79 Ell 1.37 E10 9.18 Ell 2.32 Ell 1.81 E12 Protein produced = (production)(percent protein) % protein: Sorghum, 8%; Wheat, 12%; Rice, 10%; Cotton, 4%; Soybean, 34%; Hay, 11% Animal Consumptiom **1 Production Prot weight grams % protein Beef 5.56 Ell 0.2 Pork 1.81 Ell 0.13 Broiler 2.16 E12 0.2 **1 from Pimentel, 1979 Feed prot/ Tot feed grams prot weight 1.11 Ell 15.5 2.36 E10 10.5 4.31 Ell 5.5 protein 1.72 E12 2.48 Ell 2.37 E12 4.34 E12 ** Considering that 60% of protein come from another source that is not grains, (Pimentel, 1979), we have: Protein for feeding = (O.4)(total feeding protein) = 1.74 E12 g/protein Therefore, the amount required for feeding is about the same amount that is produced in the State. NO NET GRAIN EXPORT 4. Export of Services State Foreign Export (SERVICES) (1994 Statistical Abstract of the United States) Foreign Exports in 1992= 1.32 E9 $ Relative exports to other States (SERVICES), According with Table 1 = 1.63 ElO $

PAGE 47

47 Footnotes for Table 4 (continued) 5. Value of taxes (SERVICES) (referring to 1992 taxes) (1994 Statistical Abstract of the United States) Federal Taxes = 2.75 E9 $ TOTAL SERVICES EXPORTED = 2.24 ElO $ 6. Iron and Steel Products (GOODS) U.S. Export of Iron and Steel products in 1992 (from 1994 US Statistical Abstract) = 5.3 E6 tons (5.3 E6)(907 kg/ton)(l E3 g/kg) = 4.81 E12 g (4.8 E15 g)( 4.65 E9 sej/g) = 2.24 E22 sej Considering the State contribution proportional to its population contribution to U.S.: Iron/Steel products from Arkansas = (2.24 E25)(0.0094) = 2.1 E20 sej IMPORTS SERVICES 1. Value of the fuels Btu Coal Petroleum Total 2.18 E14 2.29 E14 $/1 E6 Btu Expenditures $ 1.66 3.62 E8 7.82 1.79 E9 2.15 E9 2. Manufactured goods (SERVICES) Calculating U.S. imports for 1992 less petroleum, meat, and gas = 475697 million dollars Estimating the amount shared by the State, considering the percent of U.S. population living in Arkansas (0.94% of U.S. population) Therefore, the share of foreign imports = 4.46 E9 $ 3. Relative Services Considering the relative services imported from other parts of U.S. (as shown in Table 1) Relative services = 1.02 ElO $

PAGE 48

48 Footnotes for Table 4 (continued) 4. Federal benefits Federal aid for Arkansas in 1992 = 1.69 E9 $ Therefore, total imported Services = 1.85 E10 $ 5. Imports (GOODS) Imports of basic mineral and metal products by u.S. in 1992 (1994 US Statistical Abstract) Item Quantity Energy Transformity Emergy g J/yr Iron Ore 1.25 E13 1.00 E9 1.25 E22 Steel Prod 1.73 E13 2.64 E9 4.57 E22 Aluminum 1.16 E12 1.60 ElO 1.86 E22 Copper ref 2.89 Ell 6.8 E10 1.97 E22 9.64 E22 Considering the State is 0.94% of U.S. population, the amount of Emergy imported for basic mineral and metals for Arkansas is: Basic minerals = (9.64 E22)(0.0094) = 9.06 E20 ]/y

PAGE 49

49 Table 4.1.a State GDP Generated per Employee by Sector Sector Agriculture Construction Manufacturing Wholesale trade Retail trade Finance Services Transportation Mining Government 1992 # 1990 Sector Agriculture Mining Construction Manufacturing Transportation Wholesale Retail sale Finance Services Government Number of Employees* 5641 34565 228683 46527 167215 37676 212954 49915 3286 150000 936462 Gross State Product# E9 $ 2 1 10 2 4 5 5 4 2 Table 4.1.b Dollars per % of total employee employees 354547 28931 43729 42986 23921 132710 23479 80136 608643 o 0.01 0.04 0.24 0.05 0.18 0.04 0.23 0.05 0.00 0.16 U.S. Employment per Industry, 1992 Employees thousands 3210 664 7013 19972 8245 4765 19589 7764 40758 5620 117600 GNP E9 $ 111 99 241 1018 482 360 516 975 1041 656 5499 Dollars per % of total employee employees 34579 0.03 149096 0.01 34365 0.06 50971 0.17 58460 0.07 75551 0.04 26341 0.17 125580 0.07 25541 0.35 116726 0.05 46760

PAGE 50

.." o'Q' iil 00 tTl 3: tTl '" _. (JQ iil o (D _. a ::s ::s [ o S a '< 5' 2;> ::s Direct sunlighl Wind Rain chemicalpoi Runoff geopotentlal Inflow River Geop Earth Cycle Coal Natural gas Inflow River Chern Pot Petroleum Topsoil losses Groundwater Electricity( nucl) Soil losses Potassium Nitrogen Bromine Pesticides Goods 0 t '" o Emergy/ year ( E20 sej/yr) o o g: g N g: o '" '" o 0<; m i '< iii cc' ::s ii1 0... i III

PAGE 51

51 Table 5 Emergy Indices for Arkansas Item Name of index Expression* Quantity 1 Renewable use R 1.98 E22 sej/y 2 Indigenous non-renewable N 5.82 E22 sej/y 3 Imported emergy I 5.67 E22 sej/y 4 Total emergy used U=R+N+I U 1.35 E23 sej/y 5 Total exported emergy E 1.23 E23 sej/y 6 Emergy used from home sources (N+R)/U 0.58 7 Imports-exports I-E -6.64 E22 sej/y 8 Ratio of export to imports E/I 2.17 9 Fraction used, locally renewable RlU 0.15 10 Fraction of use purchased outside IIU 0.42 11 Fraction used, imported service Import ser.lU 0.24 12 Ratio of economic to free (U-R-N)/(R+N) 0.73 l3 Use per unit area (1.35 Ell m 2 ) U/area 9.98 Ell sej/m2 14 Use per person (2.39 E6 persons) U / population 5.64 E16 sej/indiv. 15 Arkansas State Econ. Product (1990) GSP 39 E9 $/yr 16 Ratio of emergy use to GSP, Ark. UlGSP 3.45 E12 sej/$ 17 Ratio of emergy use to GNP for U.S. UlGNP 1.75 El2 sej/$ For letters see Figure 7. U sum of inputs = R + N + 1.

PAGE 52

Cache River Basin Energy Systems Diagram Figure 9a is the overview model of the Cache River Basin with an overlay diagram of the water components and flows given in Figure 9b. The basin is rural with a few human settlements. Groundwater-irrigated rice and some catfish aquaculture are based on the large water volumes. Emdollar Evaluation Tables Table 6 has the emergy and emdollar evaluation of the important sources, imports, and exports. Table 7 has the exchanges with the rest of the United States based on the percentage of workers in various occupations. Contributions to real wealth from the tables are shown in bar graph form in Figure 10 from left to right in order of their transformity (position in natural energy hierarchy). Cache River Basin is well served by rain (-48 in) during the whole year, and with high evapotranspiration rates during summer and early fall months. The Cache River basin is basically a flatland, and water has little geopotential energy. The water evapotranspired by vegetation measures the contribution of rain chemical potential. Rain chemical potential emergy is the highest source of natural renewable emergy. The Cache River basin is basically an agricultural area largely based on indigenous soils and waters. The intensive agriculture of recent years has used soils and groundwater faster than their normal rate of restoration. Groundwater has been nonrenewable with about 70% of the recharge of the Mississippi river valley alluvial aquifer diverted to irrigation in 1972 (Ackerman, 1989). Groundwater emergy represents, respectively, 28% and 26% of non-renewable energy used in the state and the basin. Soil formed in the past makes up about 74% of the nonrenewable emergy use and 28% of total emergy use in the basin. The agricultural production depends on goods and services, fuel, and fertilizers brought into the basin from outside. Goods and services make up about 24%. Outside sales of grain carry high emergy, much more than is in the buying power of the money received. Both areas export much more emergy than they import. Emergy Indices Indices for the Cache River Basin derived from the emergy evaluation tables are listed in Table 8. Although rural, the basin is only 48% self sufficient. Its ratio of resources added by the economy to the

PAGE 53

Uplands, Agriculture, Forest --' I Cultivation, Rice & Catfish Aquaculture Cache River Basin, Arkansas Ca) Irrigation, Processing \ <::::::: Figure 9. Energy systems diagram of the Cache River Watershed (a) with main empower inputs in solar emjoules per year (b) water budget overlay. Other values en w

PAGE 54

ET Uplands, Agriculture, Forest Black Swamp I iCultivation, Rice & Catfish Aquaculture Water Flows in the Cache River Basin Irrigation, Processing ""'= Water Budget Overlay Diagram for Cache River Model (b) Figure 9 (continued) '" -I>

PAGE 55

55 Table 6 Annual Emergy Flows of the Cache River Basin Note Item Data & Units Emergy/unit Emergy U.S. Em$* E20 seJ E6 Renewable Resources 1 Direct sunlight 2.87 E19 J/yr 1 0.29 8 2 Wind 5.45 E16 ]/yr 1496 0.81 24 3 Rain geopotential 4.29 E15 ]/yr 10488 0.45 13 4 Rain chemical pot. 2.86 E16 J/yr 18199 5.21 151 5 Earth cycle 4.88 E15 ]/yr 29000 1.41 41 Indigenous Renewable Energy 6 Rice and soybeans 1.24 E16 ]/yr 1.70 E5 21.08 611 7 Wheat 1.30 E15 ]/yr 2.20 E5 2.86 83 8 Others 1.84 E15 ]/yr 6.00 E4 1.11 32 9 Poultry 4.24 E12 7.00 E5 0.03 1 10 Livestock prod. 4.37 E13 ]/yr 2.00 E6 0.87 25 11 Fish prod. 2.53 E12 J/yr 2.00 E6 0.05 1 26.00 754 Indigenous Non-renewable Energy 12 Losses of earth 1.54 E12 g/yr 1.00 E9 15.4 448 13 Losses of topsoil 1.05 E15 ]/yr 7.40 E4 0.78 22 14 Groundwater 3.62 E15 J/y 1.60 E5 5.79 168 22.01 638 Imports 15 Coal used 8.43 E15 ]/yr 3.98 E4 3.35 97 16 Natural gas 8.65 E15 J/yr 4.80 E4 4.15 120 17 Petroleum 1.09 E16 ]/yr 5.30 E4 5.79 168 18 Electricity 6.93 E14 ]/yr 1.70 E5 1.18 34 19 Nitrogen 1.66 ElO g/yr 4.19 E9 0.70 20 20 Phosphorus 5.18 E8 g/yr 1.42 E10 0.07 2 21 Potassium 8.08 E9 g/yr 9.50 E8 0.08 2 22 Pesticides 5.03 E9 g/yr 1.48 E10 0.74 22 23 Goods & services 5.95 E8 $/y 2.3 E12 13.69 397 29.75 862 Exports 24 Rice & soybeans 1.20 E16 ]/yr 1.70 E5 20.33 589 25 Goods & services 7.57 E8 3.45 E12 26.11 757 46.43 1346 *U.S. $1990

PAGE 56

)b Footnotes to Table 6 Area of the Cache basin = 4.88 E9 m 2 1. Direct sunlight Insolation for Arkansas (from US Env. Data Servo 1975: Weather Atlas of the US) = 385 Langleys/day = 3850 kcallm2/day Energy = (3850 kcal/m2/day)(4.88 E9 m 2)(365 days)(4186) J/kcal = 2.87 E19 J/yr 2. Wind calculated with eddy diffusion coefficient and vertical gradient coefficient (Odum, Diamond and Brown, 1987; Odum, 1996) Energy = (height)(density) (diff coefficient)(wind gradient)(area) = (1 E3 m)(1.23 kg/m3)(14.74 m2/s)(4.42 E-3 /s)(4.88 E9 m 2 ) = 3.15 E16 J/yr = 5.45 E16 J/yr 3. Rain geopotential with average rainfall = 48 in/yr = 1.22 m/yr Elevational gradient = 483 ft = 147.22 m Energy = (area)(rain/yr)(elev. gradient)(lOOO kg/m3 )(9.8 mls2 ) = 4.29 E15 J/yr 4. Rain chemical potential as water used in evapotranspiration Evaporation = 55 in (from US Env. Data Servo 1975: Weather Atlas of the US) Pan coefficient = 0.85 (Scott, H.D. et aI., 1987) Waterevapotranspired = 46.75 in = 1.19 m/yr Energy = (area)(water evaportranspired)(l E6 g/m3)(4.94J/g) = 2.86 E16 J/yr 5. Earth cycle energy = (land area)(heat flow/area) = 4.88 E15 J/yr where heat flows assumed = 1 E6 J/m2/yr Notes 6-8. Agricultural Production For the main crops of Arkansas, data from Census of Agriculture, 1992 were multiplied by the percent area of each county in the basin. Production was estimated in kg/yr: Sorghum 9.30 E7; wheat 9.42 E7; rice 4.98 E8; cotton 2.06 E7; and soybeans 2.90 E8 Energy = (mass)(energy/unit) calculated as in Odum et al. (1987)

PAGE 57

57 Footnotes for Table 6 (continued) 6. Rice and soybeans Rice = (4.98 E11 g)(3.60 kcal/g)(4186 J/kcal) = 7.51 E15 jlyr Soybeans = (2.90 E11 g)(4.03 kcal/g)(4186 J/kcal) = 4.89 E15 jlyr Total weight: 7.88 E11 g; Total energy: 1.24 E16 jlyr 7. Wheat (9.42 ElO g)(3.30 kcal/g)(4186 J/kcal) = 1.30 E15 J/yr 8. Others Sorghum = (9.30 EI0 g)(3.32 kcal/g)(4186 J/kcal) = 1.29 E15 J/yr Cotton = (2.06 E10 g)(4.0 kcal/g)( 4186 jlkcal) = 3.44 E14 jlyr Hay = (1.64 ElO g)(3.0 kcal/g)(4186 J) = 2.06 E14 J/yr Total energy: 1.84 E15 J/yr Notes 9-10. Animal Production Data from Census of Agriculture, 1992 for Arkansas. Production data for the main animals were multiplied by the percent area of each county in the basin. Energy was calculated = (animals sold)(mass of each)(energy/mass) as in Odum et al. (1987) Number of animals sold per year in Cache River Basin: Cattle 13215; cattle sold 6964; hog & pigs 4514; pigs sold 9831; sheepl29; broilers 2.64 E5 9. Poultry energy = (number of broilers)(2.5 E3 g/animal)(2.39 kcal/g)( 4186 jlkcal) = 4.24 E12 jlyr 10. Livestock Cattle = (cattle sold)(3.5 E5 g/animal)(2.92 kcal/g)( 4186 J/kcal) = 2.98 E13 J /yr Pigs = (pigs sold)(9 E4 g/animal)(3. 76 kcal/g)( 4186 jlkcal) = 1.39 E13 jlyr Total: 4.3 7 E13 jlyr 11. Fish production data from Census. of Agriculture, 1992 for Arkansas. Production data for fish production in counties of the basin were multiplied by the percent area of each county: Production = 5.87 E5 kg/yr Energy = (grams fish)(1.03 kcal/g)(4186 J/kcal) = 2.53 E12 jlyr

PAGE 58

Footnotes for Table 6 (continued) 12. Losses of earth Cropland Erosion = 500 g/m2/yr Cropland area = 3.09 E9 m 2 58 Soil Losses = (500 g/m2/yr)(3.09 E9 m 2 ) = 1.54 E12 g/yr 13. Topsoil Losses = 1.54 E12 g/yr Typical soils are = 3% organic matter and SA kcal/g org. Energy = (loss per year)(organic fraction)(5A kcal/g)( 4186 J/kcal) = LOS E15 Jlyr 14. Groundwater data from Arkansas Summary for 1989 (US Geological SurveyOpen File Rep 91-203) Total water use = 0.39 E8 m 3/yr Chemical potential of basin groundwater (volume/yr)(l E6 g/m3)(4.9 J/g) = 3.62 E15 J/yr 15. Coal data from Energy Information Administration -State Energy Data Report for1992: State consumption = 12536 E3 short ton = 220.7 trillion Btu Consumption in proportion to basin area, 0.036 fraction of state area Energy: (220.7 E12 Btu/yr)(0.036) = 7.98 E12 Btu/yr = 8043 E15 J/yr 16. Natural gas consumption data from State Energy Data report 1992. Arkansas total = 225 billion cubic feet = 226.6 trillion Btu Consumption in proportion to basin area, 0.036 fraction of state area. Energy = (226.6 E12 Btu)(0.036) = 8.19 E12 Btu/yr = 8.65 E15 Jlyr 17. Petroleum data from Energy Info Administration -State energy data report for1992: Arkansas consumption = 53115 E3 barrels = 286.3 trillion Btu Consumption in proportion to basin area, 0.036 fraction of state area Energy = (286.3 E12 Btu)(0.036) = 1.04 E13 Btu/yr =1.09 E16 J/yr 18. Electrical power data from Energy Information Administration 4707 million Kwh = 155.7 trillion Btu Consumption in proportion to basin area, 0.036 fraction of state area Energy: (155.7 E12 Btu)(0.036) = 5.63 E12 Btu/yr = 6.93 E14 J/yr

PAGE 59

59 Footnotes for Table 6 (continued) Notes 19-21. Fertilizers Calculated considering occupied areas and the fertilizer concentrations (kg/ha) used in the different cultures 19. Nitrogen used in the basin = 1.66 E7 kg/yr 20. Phosphorus applied in the basin = 5.18 E5 kg/yr as P205 21. Potassium applied in the basin = 8.08 E6 kg/yr as K20 22. Pesticides chemicals in the basin; 3.6 $/pesticides from Table 3; (expenditure $)(lOOO)(basin % of state area) = 1.81 E7 $/yr weight in kg/yr = (chemicals costs in $)/3.6 $/kg of pestcides = 5.03 E9 g/yr 23. Goods and services brought into Arkansas estimated from costs a. Services with imported fuels, estimated from coal, petroleum, electricity and natural gas consumption = 2.32 E8 $/yr b. Services with foreign imports: (4.49 E9 $/yr)(0.94% of state population in basin) = 4.21 E7 $/yr c. Purchases from other states of the U.S. based on relative employment in different economic sectors in the basin compared with averages outside, as given in Table 7.1 = 3.50 E8 $/yr d. Federal services estimated as percent (in population terms) of the federal transfer payments to Arkansas in 1992 = 1.69 E9 $ (1994 US Statistical Abstract) = (0.009)(transfers to Arkansas) = 1.59 E7 $/yr Total Imported Services = (a + b + C + d) = 5.95 E8 $/yr 24. Exports: Rice and soybeans energy calculated as: (product weight)(caloric content in kcal/g)(4186 J/kcal) Rice: 4.98 Ell g/yr yields 7.50 E15 ]/yr Soybeans: 2.64 Ell g yields 4.45 E15 J/yr Total energy 1.20 E16 J/yr

PAGE 60

60 Footnotes for Table 6 (continued) 25. Goods and services leaving the basin: a. Foreign grain exports: 0.09 percent (basin proportion of state population) of Arkansas foreign exports of grains; prices from 1994 US Statistical Abstract -table 1113 Principal Crops -production, supply and disappearance, 198911993 = 1.54 E8 $/yr b. Basin foreign exports (services) Arkansas contribution to U.S. foreign exports: 1.32 E9 $/yr Basin contribution: 1.24 E7 $/yr c. Relative exports to other parts of U.S. using Table 6.1, computing the relative differences in employment in economic sectors between the basin and average for the U.S. = 5.61 E8 $/yr d. Services equivalent to tax money estimated as a fraction of federal taxes paid by the state = 2.75 E9 $/yr Basin federal taxes 2.58 E7 $/yr Total services going out of the basin = 7.53 E8 $/yr

PAGE 61

61 """!N&S'II Q) saP!O!tsad ..c:: u SnJ04dsoqd Q) -5 U&6oJl!N '-0 >, )0 sassol S 0 s:: 0 Wn!SSelOd U Q) "0 AliO!JI""I3 s:: (Ij ... s:: "'11!MPU11OJ!) Q) S s:: 1!0sdo.L)0 sassol 8 .> s:: WI18JOJIOd Q) '-0 Q) sefileJnleN ... ::s ... (Ij pasn leo:) s:: 01) .'" >< 0. IOdIOO!UJaIIO et::"O u.lQ) Q) ..... I"lJU
PAGE 62

Table 7 Exchange Between Other Parts of the u.s. and the Cache River Basin Estimated from the Percent of Employees in Occupational Sectors Agr. Mng. Constr. Manuf. Transp. Wholes. Ret. Fin. Servo u.S. average 0.03 0.01 0.06 0.17 0.07 0.04 0.17 0.07 0.35 Basin 0.01 0 0.03 0.3 0.04 0.05 0.17 0.03 0.19 Differences -0.02 -0.01 -0.03 0.13 -0.03 0.01 0 -0.04 -0.16 $/employee 34579 149096 34365 50971 58460 75551 26341 125580 25541 #/employees -497 -249 -746 3233 -746 249 0 -995 -3979 Exp/lmp -1. 72E7 -3. 71E7 -2.56E7 1.65E8 -4.36E7 1.88E7 O.OOEO -1.25E8 -1.02E8 Imports: 3.50 E8 $ Exports: 5.61 E8 $ Net Export: 2.11 E8 $ ($/employee -portion of the GNP generated by employee by sector in U.S.) Govt. 0.05 0.18 0.13 116726 '" '" 3233 3.77E8

PAGE 63

Footnotes For Table 7 IMPORT SERVICES 1. Value of imported fuels Coal Natural Gas Petroleum Elecricity Btu 7.979 E12 8.192 E12 1.035 E13 5.629 E12 $/1 E6 Btu 1.66 3.44 7.82 19.56 Total Expend. 1.325 E7 2.818 E7 8.094 E7 1.1 E8 2.32 E8 $ 2. Manufactured goods (Services) Estimating the amount of foreign goods imported by Arkansas Estimated foreign goods imports by Arkansas = 4.49 E9 $ Basin = 0.94% of state population Therefore, imports of manufactured goods (Services) = 4.21 E7 $ 3. Relative services Imports from U.S. outside basin (based on relative differences on different industrial sectors in the basin and outside, as shown in Table 3a) Relative services = 3.50 E8 $ 4. Federal benefits (Services) Estimating as percent (in population terms) of the Federal Aid transferred to Arkansas Federal Aid to Arkansas, 1992 = 1.69 E9 $ (1994 US Statistical Abstract) Basin Aid = (0.009385)(Arkansas Fed Aid) = 1.59 E7 $ TOTAL IMPORTED SERVICES = 5.95 E8 $ EXPORTS 1. Grain exported Production Sorghum Wheat Rice Cotton Soybeans Hay g/yr 9.30 ElO 9.42 E10 4.98 Ell 2.06 E10 2.90 Ell 1.64 ElO 1.01 E12 Consumption Remaining o 4.48 E9 5.45 E8 o o o production 9.299 E10 8.9746 E10 4.9785 Ell 2.0554 E10 2.8982 Ell 1.637 ElO 1.0073 E12

PAGE 64

64 Footnotes for Table 7 (continued) Consumption calculated as per capita consumption of flour and cereal multiplied by number of persons in the basin Animal Feeding # of animals Weight Feed protein Protein (grams) ratio (gig) Beef 20179 1.37 E10 15.5 4.254 E10 Pig 14345 1.29 E9 10.5 1.762 E9 Broiler 264181 6.6 E8 5.5 7.265 E8 4.503 E10 Production Protein Protein Protein for Production content available feeding available Sorghum 9.299 ElO 0.08 7.44 E9 7.44 E9 0 Wheat 8.9746 ElO 0.12 1.08 E10 0 8.9746 E10 Rice 4.9785 Ell 0.1 4.98 ElO 0 4.9785 Ell Cotton 2.0554 E10 0.04 8.22 E8 0 2.0554 ElO Soybeans 2.8982 Ell 0.34 9.85 E10 8.76 E9 2.6406 Ell Hay 1.637 ElO 0.11 1.80 E9 1.80 E9 1.69 Ell 1.80 ElO Considering 60% of needed protein is coming from other sources, protein needed for animal = 1.8 E10 g (assuming that protein is provided by hay and sorghum and soybeans) Grain production available for export Wheat Rice Cotton Soybeans Production Energy (grams) J/yr 8.97 ElO 1.25 E15 4.98 Ell 7.5E15 2.06 E10 3.44 E14 2.64 Ell 4.45 E15 1.35 E16 Sales $ 1.07 E7 6.46 E7 2.49 E7 5.39 E7 1.54 E8 (Grain Prices from 1994 US Statistical Abstract, Table 1113) Principal CropsprodUction, Supply and Disappearance, 1989/1993 Grain Export (GOODS) = 1.35 E16J1yr Grain Export (SERVICES) + 1.54 E8 $ 0

PAGE 65

Footnotes for Table 7 (continued) 2. Animal Production Weight Internal Exp/ (grams) consumption imp. Beef 1.37 E10 8.14 E9 5.58 E9 Pig 1.29 E9 5.34 E8 7.57 E8 1.50 E10 6.34 E9 Animal Prod (GOODS) = 1.175 E14 Jlyr Counties Butler Clay Craighead Greene Jackson Lawrence Monroe Poinsett Prairie Woodruff Sales/county 1000 $ 3538 3127 3248 5001 1979 6354 832 1794 7286 372 Total Sales = 7.9 E6 $ % basin 0.095755 0.354792 0.303259 0.462598 0.450701 0.15494 0.228013 0.183625 0.068496 0.695715 65 Energy Jlyr 9.997 E13 1.752 E13 1.175 E14 Salesbasin 1000 $ 338.78 1109.43 984.99 2313.45 891.94 984.49 189.71 329.42 499.06 258.81 7900.07 Export = (% exported)(total sales) = 3.34 E6 $ Animal Prod (SERVICES) = 3.34 E6 $ 3. Basin Foreign Exports (SERVICES) Taken as percent (in population terms) of Arkansas foreign exports: Arkansas contribution to U.S. foreign exports = 1.32 E9 $ Basin contribution = 1.24 E7 $ 4. Relative Exports to others parts of U.S. (SERVICES) Calculated as shown in Table 3a, computing the relative differences between Basin and average U.S. in employment in different industry Relative Exports from Basin = 5.61 E8 $ s. Value of Taxes (SERVICES) EStimating as percent of Federal Taxes paid by the State Arkansas Federal Taxes = 2.75 E9 $ Basin Federal Taxes= 2.58 E7 $ EXPORTS (SERVICES) Total = 7.57 E8 $

PAGE 66

66 Table 8 Emergy Indices for Cache River Basin Item Name of Index Expression Quantity 1 Renewable use R 5.66 E20 sej/y 2 Indigenous non-renewable N 2.20 E21 sej/y 3 Imported emergy I 2.98 E21 sej/y 4 Totalemergy used, U=R+N+I U 5.74 E21 sej/y 5 Total emergy exported E 4.64 E21 sej/y 6 Emergy from home sources R+N/U 0.48 7 Imports -exports 1E -1.67 E21 sej/y 8 Ratio of exports/imports E/I 1.56 9 Fraction locally renewable RlU 0.10 10 Fraction purchased lIU 0.52 11 Fraction imported services Imp ser/U 0.24 12 Ratio of economic to free (U-N-R)/(R+N) 1.06 13 Use per unit area (4.87 E9 m 2 ) U/area 1.18 E12 sej/m2 Use per person U/population 8.0 E16 sej/person

PAGE 67

67 environmental renewable resources is 5.3. Water use is 20% (10% groundwater) of the total source of real wealth, but the agricultural economy based on the water including the imported inputs to agriculture is 45% of the total emergy budget. Comparisons Emergy Indices of the Cache River basin were compared with those for the whole Mississippi River basin in Table 6 (Diamond, 1984; Odum, Diamond and Brown, 1987). The Cache River basin like the Mississippi River basin used half of its emergy from home sources, but just 10% were locally renewable. Compared to the rest of the state the Cache River basin used less emergy from home (-48%), although a larger fraction came from renewable resources (18%). Like the Mississippi basin and Arkansas as a whole, the Cache River basin was an emergy exporter. The ratio between exports and imports was 2.17 for the state, 1.50 for the Mississippi basin, and 1.56 for the Cache River basin. Imported services were 24% for the state, 29% for the Mississippi basin and 24% for the Cache River basin. Annual emergy use per area in the Cache River basin(1.12 E12/m2/yr) was greater than in the Mississippi basin and Arkansas state (-9 E1l/m2). Emergy per person was very high (8 E16 sej/person) compared to that in the larger areas of Arkansas and the United States as a whole. Black Swamp Energy Systems Diagram Figure 11 is an overview model of the main parts and processes in a hectare of Black Swamp. An efforts was made to include the parts and processes considered important by those making recent studies such as those in the special issue of the Wetlands Journal in 1997. Emergy Evaluation Tables Typical emergy flows were evaluated in Table 10 and represented in the bar graph as a function of transformity in Figure 12. Water transpiration and work of physical motions of water were the principal basis for this ecosystem. There were also inputs by human managers and users. Emergy Indices Managed for its natural characteristics the ratio of economic inputs to the natural environmental value was small (0.25), a ratio less than found in national parks.

PAGE 68

Black Swamp, Cache River, Arkansas Figure 11. Energy systems diagram of the Black Swamp with main empower inputs in solar emjoules per year. '" ex

PAGE 69

69 Table 9 Annual Emergy Flow in the Black Swamp Note Item Raw units J, g, $ 1 Solar energy, J 9.26 E16 2 Wind energy, J 1.76 E14 3 Rain chemical pot., J 9.48 E13 4 River geopotential, J 5.37 E13 5 River chern potential, J 4.80 E13 6 Forest evapotransp, J 9.23 E13 7 Migratory birds, J 1.29 Ell 8 Fish influx, J 2.43 E10 9 Recreational uses, $ 1.75 E5 10 Gross production, J 9.88 E13 Total Emergy = 3.44 E12 sej/$ Emergy per unit sej/unit 1 1496 18199 27764 48459 18199 9.70 E5 1.00 E6 4.70 E12 33610* Solar Emergy E16 sej/yr 9 26 173 149 232 168 12.5 2.4 82 332 414 Area = 3888 acres (Coe, 1974) = 1.57 E7 m 2 =1573 ha Sum (#4 + #6 + #7+ #8) = 332 E16 sej/yr Solar transformity = (3.32 E18)/(9.88 E13) = 33610 sej/J 1. Solar energy = 385 ly/day = 3850 kcal/m2/day Emdollars! 1992 E3 $/yr 27 76 500 432 674 487 36 7 239 1201 (3850 kcal/m2/d)(1.57 E7 m 2)(365 d)(4186 J/kcal) = 9.26 E16 J/yr 2. Wind energy = (height)(density)(diffusion coefficient)(wind gradient)(area) (1000 m)(1.23 kg/m3)(14.7 m 2/s)(3.16 E7 s/yr)(0.0044/s2) (1.57 E7 m 2 ) = 1.76 E14 J/yr where diffusion coeff = 14.72 m3/m /s and wind gradient = 0.00442 m/s/m 3. Rain chemical potential: (1.22 m precip)(1.57 E7 m 2 )(1 E6 g/m3)(4.94 Jig) = 9.48 E13 J/yr

PAGE 70

70 Footnotes for Table 9 (continued) 4. River geopotential Flow in and out = 1.37 E9 (from average USGS data, 1987-1993); (from Dortch, 1996, p. 361) Elevation change = (57 m 53 m) (from Walton et aI., 1996) Geopotential energy used: (volume/yr)(1000 kg/m3 )(9.8 m/s2)(4 m drop) = 5.37 E13 5. River chemical potential Mean annual river flow (Patterson) estimated from 5-year data from US Geological Survey Water Data reports from Arkansas, 1987-1990 (1993). Flows from Dortch, (1996, p. 361) Used chemical potential: 100 mg/l to 500 mg/l (Kadlec & Knight, 1996) Change in total dissolved solids = 400 150 mg/l (1.37 E9 m 3/yr)(1 E6 g/m3)(4.925 -4.89 JIg) = 4.79 E13 ]/yr 6. Bottomland hardwood evapotranspiration Evapotranspiration to pan evaporation ratio = 0.95 (cyp. riverine from Lugo A., 1990) Pan evaporation = 55 in = 139.7 cm (from US Env. Data Servo 1975: Weather Atlas of the US) Assuming transpiration/pan evap = 0.85 Transpiration rates = 118.745 cm Forest transpiration energy = (1.187 m)(1.57 E7 m 2 )(1 E6 g/m3)(4.94 JIg) = 9.2 E13 Jlyr 7. Birds migrants Abundance of migrants during breeding season 1.5 birds/0.48 ha plot = 3.125 birds/ha (3.125)(1573) ha = 4916 birds Average weight = 19 g/bird = 9.5 g dry weight/bird Bird dry weight/swamp = 4.67 E4 g dry wt Respiration = (dry weight)(conversion factor)(236g/yr) = 1.10 E7 g/yr (Costanza et. aI, 1983) Energy = (1.1 E7 g/yr)( 5.6 kcal/g)(4196 Jlkcal)(0.5 yr) = 1.29 Ell g/seas

PAGE 71

71 Footnotes for Table 9 (continued) 8. Fish Influx as larvae Larvae in floodplain in spring = 1.81 ind.lm3 In spring + early summer = 1.33 ind.lm3 For the whole season assume = 1.0 ind.lm3 Volume of inundation water into the floodplain = 5.0 E6 m 3 Based on transects and water stages (Kleiss, 1996) 5.0 E6larvae in spring; average larval weight = 2 g Total weight = (2 g/ind.)(5 E6 ind) = 1.0 E7 g Energy = (1 E7 g)(0.2 dry)(5.8 kcal/g)(4186 J/cal)(O.5 yr) = 2.43 E10 J 9. Recreational uses Area demand: 3.10 E6 man/hours (Corps of Engineers, 1974) Rec. areas in the region = 78,000 acres Black Swamp = 3880 acres Black Swamp percent = 0.0497 Black Swamp share 5% of demand = 1.55 E5 man/hours Energy (1.55 E5 man/hour)(104 kcal/h)(4186 J/kcal) = 6.7478 ElO J/yr Counting by trips Trips demands for hunting/fishing = 116,900 trips/year Black Swamp area = 5% available area in the region Black Swamp's trips = 5845 trips/year Estimated cost/trip = $3.3/trip (Corps of Engineers, 1974) Estimated expenses/trip = $20.00/trip (assumed) Total expenses = 175,350 $/year (Solar emergy)/(emergy/money for Arkansas) In 1992 Emergy/money ratio = 4.70 E12 sej/$ 10. Black Swamp gross primary production = (5900 tonne/swamp/yr)(l E6 g/tonne)(4 kcal/g)(4186 J/kcal) = 9.88 E13 J/yr

PAGE 72

Item /L Table 10 Annual Emdollar Values in one Hectare of the Black Swamp For value of 1.57 E3 hectares of Black Swamp, multiply by 1570 Baseline Evaluation River Diverted River Channelized Pumped Groundwater 1 Forest productivity 2 Sediment retention 3 Organics retention 4 Fish production 309 1335 4023 525 6192 295 1135 3419 92 4941 280 o o o 342 1335 4023 o 5700 Total 280 Emdollars calculated by dividing emergy values by Arkansas emergy/dollar ratio for 1992 = 3.45 E12 sej/$ Emergy per unit used to evaluate emergy: Forest production 4916 sejl] Sediment retention 1. 7 E9 sej/gram Organic matter retention 6.24 E4 sejl] Fish production 2 E6 sejl] 1. Forest productivity: Baseline evaluation: floodplain from inundation frequency in a natural floodplain (Brinson, 1990) with 25% transition Floodplain =11.5 tlha/yr; transition = 7 t/ha/yr; upland = 10 tlha/yr Production/ha= (0.25)(1 ha)(7t/ha) + (0.75)(1 ha)(11.5 tlha) = 10.375 t/ha/yr Energy = (10.375 t/ha/yr)(1 E6 g/t)(5 kcal/g)(4186 ]Ikcal) = 2.17 Ell ]Iyr Evaluation of swamp with diverted river: using upland, 15%; transition 30%; floodplain 55% with production, respectively: 10 tlha, 7 t/ha, 11.5 t/ha. Evaluation of channelized river: using upland, 80%; transition 20%; floodplain 0% with production, respectively: 10 t/ha, 7 t/ha, 11.5 tlha. Evaluation of pumped groundwater impact: using upland, 0%; transition 25%; floodplain 75% with production, respectively: 10 tlha, 7 t/ha, 13 tlha.

PAGE 73

73 Footnotes for Table 10 (continued) 2. Baseline sediment retention 2.75 tonne/ha/yr River diversion 85% sediment retention Channelization 0% sediment retention Groundwater pumping, normal sediment retention 3. Baseline organic retention 1.07 E7 g/ha/yr River diversion 85% retention Channelization 0% retention Groundwater pumping, normal retention 4. Baseline fish production 187 kg/ha With river diversion 85% With channelization 0% With groundwater pumping 70%

PAGE 74

/4 xnijU! S Q) .... Vl >. Vl SPJ!8 .lJojeJB!ViI 0 0. S C-'" 0:: r.t.l IIBJaua PU!M r.t.l N ...... MlJaua JelOS ;::3 eo ."'" (JJIi,fes JeeJli ,Jli6JeW3

PAGE 75

75 Comparisons The annual emergy uses and flows are high comparable with other more productive ecological systems. Simulating Impacts Diagram of the overview ground water model in Figure 13a has the equations beneath the diagram and the mathematical terms for each pathway or storage. Figure 13b has the values of flows and storages used in the calibration based on calculations in Appendix Table AI. The coefficients for the simulation model were calculated in Appendix Table A2. Figure 14 has the results of simulating the model calibrated with preimpact conditions. River water is the main water input to the swamp (Figure 14a). Average standing water in the swamp varied from less than 0.10 m in the summer to 1.20 m in the winter and early spring months. Water levels followed the annual sine-wave fluctuation supplied to represent sunlight, rain and river. When river waters receded, the water inputs to the swamp were provided by rainfall and groundwater. These inputs were critical for the forest production because they occurred during summer season when sunlight was maximum in the area. The seasonal pulsing of sunlight and rain produces corresponding pulses in photosynthetic production (Figure 14b). Similar graphs were obtained for the several impact conditions (Appendix A), and these differences from the base calibration run are summarized in Table 11. To understand the impact interactions, the reader might use a finger to trace the pathways in the model (Figure 13a) to see how each management action causes the changed values reported in the summary Table 11. The results of simulated effects of the various conditions on average gross primary production and the swamp are given in Table 3.1. Included in Appendix A are 26 year simulations of the overview model (Figure 13a) for various conditions. Yearly fluctuations of the gross primary production are displayed in the top panel, forest biomass and water level of the swamp on the middle panel, and groundwater level and the groundwater influx into the underlying aquifer on the bottom panel. Impacts simulated separately were: Pre-impacted conditions Figure B.l. Effect of cutting forest Figure B.2. Effect of lowering groundwater Figure B.3.

PAGE 76

Black Swamp, Cache River, Arkansas Figure 11 with water pathways highlighted. Species Fuels Goods & Services Elect. Markets ,$ Tourists' Hunters

PAGE 77

/I Effect of diverting river flows Figure BA. Simulation of combined actions (= cumulative impacts) were: Effect of lowering groundwater and cutting forest Figure B.S. Effect of lowering groundwater and diverting river Figure B.6. Effect of diverting river and cutting forest Figure B. 7. Effect of lowering groundwater, diverting river and cutting forestFigure B.8. Simulated Effects of Separate Impacts According to the model predictions, cutting 10 or 20% ofthe forest did not cause major impacts in the system production. In 7 to 10 years the forest returned to the pre-impact conditions. Reducing groundwater inputs and lowering the average groundwater level in the area caused a 20% reduction in the groundwater inputs and caused forest production and biomass to be reduced to 67% and 74% of the preimpacted values, respectively. Diverting 20% of river waters caused forest production and biomass to decrease to 61 % and 69% ofthe pre-impacted conditions, respectively. Simulation of Cumulative Impacts Cutting biomass did not increase the larger impacts of lowering groundwater or diverting the river. However, there were cumulative synergistic effects of river diversion and lowering groundwater. Reducing these two water inputs by 20% caused the forest production and biomass to decrease to just 31% and 45% of the pre-impact values. The strongest impact came from a scenario with 20% reduction in forest biomass, groundwater and river water inputs. In this case, forest production and biomass were reduce to 28% and 39% of the initial conditions, respectively.

PAGE 78

Water, Black Swamp Product: P = Lr*S*B R = R, + R2 *Sin(T*0.523) J c = J o + J,*Sin[(T + 13)*0.S23] JS = kS*{ [(S/S1)-hO]-[(AlA1) -h,]} dAidt = J g -k,*A + JS L = 1 + 0.5*Sin[(T +8)*0.523] Lr = LI(l + k11*S*B) Js = k4*[(Jc/Jc, )-2] dB/dt = k30*P -k3,*P-k 32*B -k33*B dS = R + J s k7*P -K3*S -k6*S -J5 (a) Figure 13. Overview simulation model of impacts on waters of the Cache River watershed affecting the Black Swamp. (a) With mathematical equations; (b) with values of flows and storages used for calibration from Appendix Table AI.

PAGE 79

1050 (b) Figure 13 (continued)

PAGE 80

.c: .... c: o E ...... ('f) E cu (a) Water Inflow to Swamp 35 30 25 20 1 5 10 5 o -5 17\ 1\ f\ 1'\ 1\ /' v H .-Years 5 River Rain Ground water Water Level Sunlight .c: 10 2 0 .... .c::> Ql.... 6 c: COO ::l 4 l-f./") 0.5 "U .... 0 CI) c: .... 2 ro o CI) VI :::E OJ......-=----=--:..=....--.:=-----'-..... O 5 Years 5 .:: (b) Swamp Characteristics Figure 14. Simulation of the Black Swamp water model in Figure 13a as calibrated with values in Figure 13b. (a) Water inputs; (b) sunlight. primary production, and water level. See Appendix Figures Al A8.

PAGE 81

81 DISCUSSION Principal Resources Sunlight and its derived natural energy flows (wind, rain, etc.) work in many ways over the state and its river basin. However, it is in the form of rain that it provides higher emergy for these areas, and the way it will be taken into account in this analysis. Rain fallen over the land and working in the landscape is measured as runoff geopotential. The water evapotranspired by vegetation is measured as rain chemical potential. The state and the Cache River basin are well served by rain (-48 in) during the whole year and present high evapotranspiration rates during summer and early fall months. Therefore, rain chemical potential emergy is the highest source of natural renewable energy in both systems. Arkansas has an uneven relief, with mountains and plateaus over its west side and the Mississippi floodplain in its east side. Therefore, it has a relatively high runoff geopotential (-30% of its renewable emergy). The Cache River basin is basically a flatland, and water has little geopotential energy there. The state is relatively rich in nonrenewable resources. It has a good deal of mineral resources that are intensively used by the present economy. Its natural gas reserves provide the amount used by the state and supply the state with 28% of its energetic needs (EIA, 1994). The Cache River basin, however, has no fuel reserves and depends on imports to supply its energetic consumption. The Cache River basin is basically an agricultural area, and therefore the indigenous nonrenewable resources most used in the area are soil and groundwater. Groundwater was taken as nonrenewable because about 70% of the recharge of the Mississippi River valley alluvial aquifer was already used by irrigation in 1972 (Ackerman, 1989). Groundwater emergy represents 22% and 14% of nonrenewable energy used in the state and the basin, respectively. The most striking fact is the agricultural cost in terms of erosion in the Cache River basin. Soil formed in the past is now intensively used. Soil loss makes up about 84% of nonrenewable emergy used and 42% of total emergy used in the basin. The agricultural production in the basin depends on imports of goods and services, fuel and fertilizers. Goods and services make up about 36% of the whole basin emergy import.

PAGE 82

The state has a more diversified economy. However, it is still largely agricultural and dependent on some kind of imports. Fuels represent 31% of state imports. Goods and services make up 46% of state imports. The basin exports its high grain production and services embodied in such production. The state exports meat and services embodied in its industrial production. Both areas export much more emergy than they import. Evaluating Change Perspectives on the roles of various processes, inputs or impacts can be obtained by comparing the annual emdollars of different flows in the evaluation tables. Emdollars provide the resource contribution to the dollar economy, the gross economic product. For example, Table 10 gives the value of a hectare of Black Swamp and compares effects of river diversion, channelization, and strong groundwater pumping. Another way to evaluate the impacts is to observe the effects of a changed input to a computer simulation model. The simulation automatically includes synergistic and cumulative impacts. Table 11 has the results of simulating the water model in Figure 13, showing the percentage decline in emdollar values for different impacts separately and together. Table 11 has the model's indications of impact on swamp forest productivity and biomass. Use of Emergy Evaluation in Permitting Emdollar evaluation allows environmental resources, their contributions to the economy, and the impacts to be placed on familiar monetary terms. Whereas the systems diagrams show pathways of contribution or impact, the evaluations give substance, indicating how important they are and their cumulative impacts, as we have shown with examples in Tables 9, 10, and 11 for the Black Swamp. For those responsible for permits or other decisions about environment, Table 12 summarizes the steps to obtain an emdollar evaluation of a proposed action. By evaluating the changes anticipated in the environment and the associated economic development, the new may be compared with the precondition. The general guideline can be to authorize developments that maximize the annual emdollar production and use (including that of the environment and the economic uses).

PAGE 83

83 Table 11 Simulated Effects on the Productivity and Biomass of the Black Swamp Action & Impact Intensity Cutting biomass CWo 100;& 20% Diverting river flow (}l;& 100;& 20% Lowering groundwater (}l;& 10% 200;& Cutting biomass + Lowering groundwater (}l;& 100;& 2(J>;& Cutting biomass + Diverting river flow (}l;& 100;& 2(J>;& Diverting river flow + Lowering groundwater (}l;& 100;& 2(J>;& Cutting biomass + Diverting river flow + Lowering groundwater (}l;& 1(J>;& 200;& % of Initial Productivity 100 99 97 100 79 61 100 79 61 100 80 67 100 79 65 100 78 58 100 59 31 % of Initial Biomass 100 97 94 100 84 69 100 84 74 100 81 68 100 80 63 100 67 45 100 64 39

PAGE 84

84 Table 12 Steps for Emdollar Evaluation of a Proposed Change (See Also Previous Section on Concepts) 1. Identify the changes by looking at a systems diagram for the environmental system and its interface with economic use and impact. Diagrams are already available for most ecosystems and environmental use systems. 2. List the main changes. For example, replacing a swamp with a development will have items that are lost and items from the economy that will be added. 3. Obtain estimates of each of these in the normal every-day or scientific units. For example, estimates may be appropriate for area of land use changed, energy of sunlight, volume of water, number of ducks, dollars spent on construction, etc. It is desirable to evaluate any large storages--such as water, minerals, soil, forest wood, etc. It is also necessary to evaluate the annual contribution in amounts contributed per year. 4. Multiply each of these measures by the emergy per unit from unit emergy tables. For example, emergy per gram, emergy per individual, emergy per area, transformity (Table 1). The results of this step are emergy of the stored quantities and annual emergy flows. S. Next divide the emergy values from step #4 by the emergy/money ratio for a recent year. The results are in emdollars. Emdollars include nature's contribution and the money paid to people on the same scale. 6. Finally compare the alternative proposals including the original condition to see which represent an increase in total emdollars. A proposal which decreases total emdollars should not be authorized. Instead, better designs for development may be found that use the work of nature and that of the economy in a symbiotic way (called ecological engineering).

PAGE 85

Appendix A Details of Impact Simulation Appendix Table Al Data Used for Calibration of the Water Simulation Model in Figure 13 Flows In and Out of Standing Water Storage (S): 1. Rainfall into the area (R) Average rainfall = 49.2 in (COE, 1974) = 1.25 m/yr Annual rainfall = (area)(average rain) = (10,000 m 2 )(1.25) = 12,500 m 3/yr/ha Considering the Black Swamp area (1573.5 hal = (12500 m 3/yr/ha)(1573.5 hal = 19.7 E6 m 3/yrlswamp = 1.64 E6 m3/month Rainfall was varied during the year, with the sine equation: R = (R1 + R2)(sin t)(O.523) R1 = 1.60 E6 m 3/month R2 = 0.40 E6 m 3/month For the calibration month, R = 1.96 E6 m 3/month 2. Standing water storage (S) Assuming an annual average water level in the swamp of 0.30 m, the volume of water retained in the swamp = (water level)(area) = (0.3)(10000 m 2 ) = 3000 m3/ha Considering the whole swamp Volume = (3000 m 3/ha)(1573.5 hal = 4.72 E6 m 3/swamp Volume (assumed) = 5.00 E6 m 3/swamp 3. Evaporation and transpiration According to Lugo, A.E. (1990), evapotranspiration of riverine cypress in Florida = <)5% of pan evaporation. Assumptions for the Black Swamp ecosystem: Evaporation = 15% of pan evaporation Evapotranspiraton = 85% of pan evaporation Cache R. area: average pan evaporation = 55 in -1400 mm/yr Ground level evaporati0n E -200 mm/yr = (0.2 m)(10000 m) = 2000 m3/ha (2000 m 3/ha)(1573.5 hal = 3,147,000 m 3 = 3.15 E6 m 3/yrlswamp Canopy evapotranspiration (ET) = 1400 200 = 1200 mm/yr = (1.2 m/yr)( 1 0000 m 2/ha) = 12000 m 3/ha/yr = (12000 m 3/ha/yr)(1573.5 hal = 18.88 E6 m 3/yrlswamp = 1.47 E6 m 3/month

PAGE 86

86 Appendix Table Al (continued) 4. River flooding in the swamp River water inflow is about 14 times the rainfall. (Annual water budget for Black Swamp, Walton et al., 1996) River inflow (-14)(1.96 E6 m 3 ) = 2.74 E7 m 3 Assumed = 3.0 E7 m 3/month 5. Runoff leaving the swamp The flow needed to empty floodwaters in the swamp in a period of 4 to 6 months (flooding time). Flows in = rainfall + river flooding = 19.7 E6 m 3/yr + 89.24 E6 m 3/yr = 108.94 E6 m 3/yr Flows out = evaporation + evapotranspiration + runoff = 3.15 E6 m 3/yr + 18.88 E6 m 3/yr + runoff Then Runoff = 108.94 E6 m 3/yr 22.03 E6 m 3/yr = 86.91 E6 m 3/yr= 7.25 E6 m 3/month Assumed runoff for the calibration month (January) = 8 E6 m 3/month. 6. Groundwater inflow Groundwater draining to the alluvial water storage (A) found below the Black Swamp area assumed from the whole northwest zone of the Mississippi river valley alluvial aquifer (from its NW boundary to the east Crowley Ridge divide south to Black Swamp area), about 11,840 km2 which represents 14.3% of the whole aquifer area. Water budget estimated for the aquifer by Ackerman (1989) Percent of the aquifer considered: Flows in layer I-whole aquifer-1178 cfs; NW zone-168.3 cfs Flows in layer 3-whole aquifer-2065 cfs; NW zone-295 cfs Total groundwater flowing into the storage (A) is 463.3 cfs = 13.12 m 3/s = 413.77 E6 m 3/yr = 3.46 E7 m 3/month

PAGE 87

Ij/ Appendix Table Al (continued) 7. Alluvial water storage The alluvial aquifer groundwater storage (A) was calculated as the volume of the water of the Mississippi River valley alluvial aquifer stored below the Black Swamp area. This volume was estimated from the average depth (30.45 m) and the average porosity (0.30) (Ackerman, 1989). Therefore: volume = (depth)(porosity)(area) = (30.45 m)(0.30)(1O,000 m 2/ha) = 91350 m 3/ha = (91350 m 3/ha)(1573.5 ha/swamp) = 1.44 E8 m 3/swamp 8. Groundwater contribution to swamp Water flow calibrated from swamp to the aquifer during wet periods and from the aquifer to swamp in dry periods of late summer. Flow from swamp to the aquifer: = 5.0 E5 m 3/month (about 25% of rainfall) 9. Groundwater out of the alluvial storage (A) calculated as the water to balance other flows going in and out of the storage. Groundwater flow in = 3.46 E7 m 3/month + 5 E5 m 3/montth = 3.46 E7 m 3/month 10. Cache River flow into the Black Swamp (Jc) Average flow at Patterson (upstream gauging station) = 1000 cfs = 28.32 m 3/s Annual flow = (28.32 m 3/s)(365)(24)(3600 s/yr) = 8.93 E8 m 3/yr (7.44 E7 m 3/yr) 11. The inflow river was oscillated according to the equation: Jc = (JO + J1)(sin t+13)(0.523)) JO = 1.2 E8 m 3/month and J1 = 5 E7 m 3/month 12. Storage of plant biomass (B) of riverine forest ranges from 100 to 300 ton/ha (Brinson, M.M., 1990). Standing biomass for bottonland forest at Black Swamp assumed 250 ton/ha. Total biomass = (standing biomass/ha)(area, ha) = (250 ton/ha)(1573.5 ha) = (393375 ha) = 3.93 E5 ha

PAGE 88

00 Appendix Table Al (continued) 13. Gross production of biomass Net production in riverine forest like the Black Swamp 13.5 ton/ha/yr, where litterfall is about 5.5 ton /ha/yr (Brinson, M.M., 1990). Respiration about 70% of gross production; net production about 30%; gross production = (13.5 ton/ha/yr)/0.3 = 45 ton/ha/yr (45 ton/ha/yr)(1573.5 ha) = 70807.5 ton/yr = 7.1 E4 ton/swamp = 5900 ton/month 14. Biomass used in feeding back into production (Figure 13b) Net production of litterfall of riverine forest = (5.5 ton/ha/yr)(1573.5 halswamp) = 8654.25 ton/yr = 8.65 E3 ton/yr/swamp (720 ton/month) 15. Net production to consumers equal the remaining net production (woody production 8.0 ton/ha/yr) (8.0 ton/ha/yr)(1573.5 ha/swamp) = 12588 ton/yr/swamp = 1.26 E4 ton/yr/swamp (1050 ton/month). 16. Biomass production used by respiration about 70% of the gross production = (45 ton/halyr)(O. 70)( 1573.5 halswamp) = 49,565 ton/yr/swamp = 4130 ton/month 17. Sunlight: assumed forty percent of incident sunlight used by the trees. However, production of the tree biomass proportional to the 60% unused remainder (Lr) (Odum, H.T.,1983). Sunlight varied during the year with a sine function L= (1 + 0.5)(sin t+ 8)(0.523

PAGE 89

A 1 Before Impacts /Productivity J30 /Standing Water S l_ /Biomass B A2 Cutting Biomass t .... '. ,', ,': :\ ,I: ,l, :l. :' .. '. .. : .' ':,' ,: ......... -... .. ... ...... : .. : ...... Groundwater AI Ao \ Groundwater Inflow Jg A3 Lowering Ground Water A4 Diverting River Inflow u v,J.)) J 111 HoJ.Ji,j,j 1. H JJ Years 26 Years Figure AI. Simulation of the groundwater model with calibration conditions before impact. Figure A2. Impacts of cutting Biomass. Figure A3. Impacts of lowering groundwater. Figure A4. Impacts of diverting the river inflows. 26

PAGE 90

AS Lowered Ground Water & Cut Biomass Productivity J30 Standing Water S Biomass B Groundwater AI Ao Groundwater Inflow Jg A 7 Diverted River & Cut Biomass A6 Lowered Ground Water & Diverted River III J 1H. .' .. '" 1 -. i 0 ;;.' .". ... .. A8 Cut Biomass, Diverted River & Lowered Ground Water tH.': ili111.A n lJj.J.j3 tt t' H -j: 1'" 1<'-'.'\-01.-... ;t:."I..;.' '!U" ';' ,-': Years 26 Years 26 Figure AS. Cumulative impacts of lowering groundwater and cutting biomass. Figure AG. Cumulative impacts of lowering groundwater and diverting river inflow. Figure A7. Cumulative impact of cutting biomass and diverting river inflow. Figure AB. Cumulative impacts of lowering groundwater, diverting river and cutting biomass.

PAGE 91

91 Table A2 Calibration Values for the Water Simulation Model for the Black Swamp Expression R= ]c*= ]cI = ]g= Lr = ]r= SI = A= B= S= Al = hO= h1= k1*A = k3*S = k4*((Jcl]c1)-2.0 = k5*( ((S/SI)-hO) H (AlAI )-h1= k6*S = k7*Lr*S*B = kil *Lr*S*B = k30*Lr*S*B = k31 *Lr*S*B = k32*B = k33*B = Value 1.96 E6 1.5B EB 3.94 E7 3.45 E7 0.6 1.36 EB 1.57 E7 1.44 EB 3.15 E5 5.00 E6 1.57 E7 2.00 E-1 9.12 3.46 E7 B.OO E6 3.00 E7 5.00 E5 2.625 E5 1.47 E6 0.4 5900 720 4130 1050 Coefficient k1 = k3 = k4= k5 = k6= k7 = kll = k30 = k31 = k32 = k33 = Value 2.41 E-1 1.60 EO 1.49 E7 5.B4 E6 5.25 E-2 1.56 E-6 4.23 E-13 6.24 E-9 7.62 E-10 1.31 E-2 3.33 E-3

PAGE 92

Appendix Table A3 Black Swamp Water Simulation Program in BASIC 10 REM BSWF Calibrated without impacts 20CLS 30 SCREEN 12 40 LINE (0, 0)-(319, 400), 3, B 41 LINE (0, 240)-(319, 240) 42 LINE (0, 90)-(319, 90) 45 REM OPEN "C:\exeel\bswpre.dat" FOR OUTPUT AS #1 50 REM SCALING FACfORS 55t=0 60 DT =.5 70 SO = 500000 80 BO = 6000 85 AO = 10000000 90 JGO = 500000 91 JCO = 2000000! 100 RO = 500000 101tO=1 102 LO =.1 103j4O= 500 110 REM INITIAL QUANTITIES 120 Rl = 1604671 125 R2 = 397671 135 Jel = 3.94E+07 136 JO = 1.2E+08 137 11 = 5E+07 140 JG = 3.45E+07 150 A = 1.444E+08 155Al = 1.57E+07 160 S = 5000000! 161 SI = 1.57E+07 162 hO =.2 165 hI = 9.12 170 B = 315000 220 REM COEFFICIENTS 230 Kl = .241 240 K3 = 1.6 250 k4 = 1.49E+07 260 K5 = 5480000! 270 k6 = .0525 280 K7 = I.56E-06 310 Kll = 4.23E-13 360 K30 = 6.24E-09 370 K31 = 7.62E-1O 375 k32 = .013111 376 k33 = .003333 380 REM EQUATIONS 383 Je = JO + 11 SIN((t + 13) .523) 384 L = 1! + .5 SIN((t + 8) .523) 392 Js = k4 ((Je / JeI) 2!) 393 IF Js < 0 THEN Js = 0

PAGE 93

Appendix Table A3 (continued) 395 R = RI + R2 SIN(t .523) 400 Lr = L I (1 + Kll S B) 401 J5 = K5 (S I SI) hO) A I AI) hi 40217=K7*Lr*S*B 40313=K3*S 404 Jll = Kll Lr S B 93 41ODA=JG (KI A) +K5 (SI SI) -hO)-AI AI) -hI)) 420 DS = R + Js k6 S K7 Lr S B -K3 S J5 430 DB = K30 Lr S B -K31 Lr S B k32 B k33 B 431 130 = K30 Lr S B 432 132 = k32 B 440 REM CHAngING EQUATIONS 450 A = A + DA DT 455 IF A < 0 THEN A = 0 460 S = S + DS DT 465 IF S < 0 THEN S = 0 470 B = B + DB DT 475 IF B < 0 THEN B = 0 480 REM PRINT #1, USING "############.##"; R; L; Jc; S; S lSI; B; Js; J5; 17; 13; 130; 132; A; A I AI; 111 490 REM PLOTTING EQUATIONS 500 PSET (t I to, 400 -A I Al 10),3 510 PSET (t I to, 240 -S I SO), 2 520 PSET (t I to, 240 -B I BO), 1 525 PSET (t I to, 90 130 I j40), 3 526 PSET (t I to, 400 JG I JGO) 2 528 REM PRINT j5 530t=t+DT 540 IF t I to < 320 GOTO 380

PAGE 95

Appendix B Calculation of Transformities Transformities of Global Water Flows Global chemical potential fresh water flows transformities were estimated following the same rationale that was applied for H.T. Odum (1996) in calculating transformities for other Earth processes (such as wind, rain, streams, waves, etc.). It is understood is that all these Earth processes are interdependent of each other and they require the whole empower budget contributing to the Earth (9.44 E24 sej/yr) to operate each individual process. As aggregated in Figure BIa, all the fresh water pathways are necessary to the global system and thus are coproducts of the total geobiospheric system. A global water budget done by L'vovich, 1974 (in Gleick, 1993) was used to identify the average annual water flows in the pathways. According to the data, the global average flows are: Precipitation110,305 km3/yr, evaporation-71,475 km3/yr, groundwater runoff-11,885 km3/yr, and surface water runoff-26,945 km3/yr (Figure BIb). The chemical potential energy of the water flows was then calculated from the volume flows using the following equations: Evapotranspiration (J/yr) = (m3/yr)(1 E6 g/m3 )(Gibbs Free Energy, 4.94 J/g) River flows (J/yr) = (volume/yr)(1 E6 g/m3)(Gibbs Free Energy, 4.93 JIg) Groundwater (J/yr) = (m3/yr)(1 E6 g/m3)(Gibbs free energy, 4.89 JIg). The Gibbs Free Energy in the flows was estimated considering the free energy of the fresh water relative the to salty ocean water (Figure B2c). Concentrations of dissolved solids were assumed to be about 5 mg/l for precipitated/evaporated water, around 150 mg/l for river waters and around 342 mg/l for the groundwater (Lee and Fetter, 1994). Transformities were calculated as emergy divided by energy. Evapotranspired rain = (9.44 E24 sej/yr)/(3.53 E20 J/yr) = 26,735 sej/J River waters = (9.44 E24 sej/yr)/(1.88 E20 J/yr) =48,850 sej/J Groundwater = (9.44 E24 sej/yr)/(5.82 EI9 Jlyr) = 162,165 sej/J

PAGE 96

Atomosphere Rain & Ocean Geobiosphere (a) Empower: E24 sej/yr Atomosphere 110 & Ocean (b) Global Water Cycle: E3 km 3/year by L'vovic (Gleik, 1993) Atomosphere .... ... & Ocean (c) Flow of Chemical Potential Energy of Water: E20 Joules/year Land 12 Figure Bl. Diagram of global hydrology for evaluating transformities. (a) Global emergy basis; (b) global water flows from L'vovich (1974); (c) energy flows.

PAGE 97

Transformities of Migrant Birds Preliminary transformities of migrant birds were estimated by estimating the emergy required to support the birds in a hectare of northern nesting area in summer (Hubbard Brook, New Hampshire) and a winter support area in Florida. Energy flows in the birds were estimated from respiration rates. See Appendix Table Bl. Transformities for Agricultural Commodities Transformities for agricultural products rice, soybeans, wheat, sorghum, corn, and broiler chickens were evaluated in Appendix Tables B2-B7. The emergy signatures of these inputs to each of these production processes are shown in graphical form in Figures B2-B7.

PAGE 98

Appendix Table Bl Emergy of a Migrant Bird Note Item Emergy use Energy use Transformity sej J sej/J 1 Bird inWinter months 2049 E13 2 Bird in Summer months 2.60 El3 3 Annual Support 5.09 El3 5.27 E7 9.7 E5 1. Chemical potential energy of rain transpiration per hectare in 6 months as approximation for ecosystem productivity in southern wintering area: Rainfall = 140 cm/yr; 35% in fall and winter Transpiration = 75% of rainfall; Seasonal transpiration = (140 cm/yr)(0.35/season)(0.75 transpired) = 0.37 m/season Energy = (0.37 m/season)(1 E4 m 2/ha)(1 E6 g/m3)(4.94J/g) = 1.83 ElO J/6 months Emergy support per bird the product of energy use and the solar transformity of rain over land, multiplied by 43% going into migrants, and divided by 5.75 birds/ha (1.83 EI0 J/yr)(1.82 E4 sej/J)(0043)/5.75 = 2049 El3 sej/6 mo/bird 2. As in note #1 except with data for summer months using data from Hubbard Brook, New Hampshire: Energy = (l30 cm rain/yr)(Oo4O transp/season)(1 E8 cm2/ha)(4.94J/g) = 2.57 EI0 J/ha/season; Emergy = (2.57 ElO J/6 mo)( 1.82 E4 sej/J)(0.84 migrants)/( 15 birds/ha) = 2.6 El3 sej/6 months/bird 3. Annual emergy basis per migrant bird sum of winter and summer. Bird energy used from annual respiration: 63% of annual consumption of bird 9.5 g Energy = (annual respiration per bird)(5.6 kcal/dry wt)(4186 J/kcal)

PAGE 99

99 Appendix Table B2 Emergy Evaluation of Rice Production Annual Rates per Hectare Note Items 1 Sun,J 2 Rain transpired, J 3 Soil used up, J 4 Groundwater 5 Fuel 6 Machinery, oil equiv. 7 Pesticide, oil equiv. 8 Nitrogen 9 Potassium 10 Seed, oil equiv. 11 Electricity 12 Service, US $ 1977 13 Rice production 14 Transformity Footnotes Data unit/yr 1.05 E13 1.48 ElO 9.92 E8 3.72 ElO 1.35 E10 2.87 E8 3.97 E9 2.92 E8 2.36 E7 2.63 E9 3.78 E9 730 6.95 ElO Emergy/Unit sej/J 1 1.82 E4 6.30 E4 1.60 E5 6.60 E4 6.60 E4 6.60 E4 1.90 E6 3.00 E6 6.60 E4 1.70 E5 4.40 E12 1.76 E5 sej/J Emergy E13 sej/yr 1 27 6 596 89 2 26 55 7 17 64 321 1211 Data on rice plantation at Grand Prairie, AR, (Pimentel, 1980, p. 95) 1. Solar insolation = 1.00 E6 kcal/m2/yr Growing season = 3 months = 0.25 yr (1 E6 kcal/m2/yr)(1 E4 m 2/ha)(0.25 yr)(4186 kcal/J) = 1.05 E13 J/yr 2. Transpiration Energy = (3000 m 3/yr)(1 E6 g/m3)(4.94 J/g) = 1.48 E10 J/yr 3. Soil used up assumed 10 ton/ha/yr (as in Odum, 1996) Organic Fraction = 0.44% of dry matter Energy = (weight)(0.0044 org)(5.4 kcal/J)( 4186 J/kcal) = 9.95 E8 Jlyr

PAGE 100

100 Footnotes for Appendix Table B2 (continued) 4. Groundwater irrigation = 0.76 m/ha = 7600 m3/yr Chemical potential energy = (7600 m3/yr)(1 E6 g/m3)(4.90 Jig) = 3.72 ElO Jlyr 5. Fuel (Pimentel, 1980): Gasoline 8.70 E5 + Diesel 2.34 E6 kcal/ha Energy = (3.21 E6 kcal) ( 4186 J/kcal) = 1.35 +10 ]/yr 6. Machinery (embodied fuel in the machinery, Pimentel 1980) Energy = (6.86 E5 kcal)(4186 ]/kcal) = 2.87 E8 ]/yr 7. Pesticide 1.1 kg of 2,4,5-T =1.10 E5 kcal/ha 4.5 kg propanil = 4.50 E5 kcal/ha 3.4 kg molinate = 2.94 E5 kcal/ha Total 9.50 E5 = kcal/ha Energy = (9.5 E5)(4186 ]/kcal) = 3.97 E9 J/yr 8. Nitrogen fertilizer = 134.5 kg/ha Chemical potential = 2.17 E6 ]/kg Energy = (134.5 kg/yr)(2.17 E6 ]/kg) = 2.92 E8 J/yr 9. Potassium fertilizer = 33.6 kg/ha Chemical potential = 702]/g Energy = (33.6 E3 g/yr)(702 Jig) = 2.36 E7 ]/yr 10. Seed 156.9 kg; embodied fuel 6.28 E5 kcal/ha Energy equivalent: (6.28 E5 kcal/yr)(4186 J/kcal) = 2.63 E9 ]/yr 11. Electricity in irrigation fuel 0.76 m/ha pumped up 38.1 m Energy = (7600 m3)(38.1 m)(9.8 m/s2)(1000 kg/m3)/(0.75 eff.) = 3.78 E9 J/yr 12. Service as price = 7.02 $ICwt (CYE, 1978) = $ 0.154 $/kg (4742 kg production)(0.154 $/kg) = $730 13. Production = 4742 kg/ha Energy = (4.72 E6 g)(3.5 kcal/g)(4186 J/kcal) = 6.95 E10 ]/yr 14. Transformity = (1.22 E16 sej/yr)/(6.95 E10 ]/yr) = 1.76 E5 sej/J

PAGE 101

Appendix Table B3 Emergy Evaluation of Soybean Production Annual Rates per Hectare Note Items 1 Sun,] 2 Rain transpired, ] 3 Soil used up,] 4 Groundwater 5 Fuel 6 Machinery, oil equiv. 7 Pesticide, oil equiv. 8 Phosphate 9 Nitrogen 10 Seed, oil equiv. 11 Electricity 12 Service, US $ 1977 13 Soybean production 14 Transformity Footnotes Data unitlyr 1.05 E13 1.48 ElO 9.92 E8 1.47 ElO 3.60 E9 8.81 E8 1.29 E9 1.56 E6 1.22 E7 2.45 E9 1.49 E9 5.85 E2 3.73 E10 Emergy/Unit sej/] 1 1.82 E4 6.30 E4 1.60 E5 6.60 E4 6.60 E4 6.60 E4 1.00 E7 1.90 E6 6.60 E4 1.70 E5 4.40 E12 1.62 E5 sej/] Emergy E13 sejlyr 1 27 6 235 24 6 9 2 2 16 25 257 609 Data on irrigated soybean plantation in Nebraska (Pimentel, 1980 p. 120) 1. Solar insolation = 1 E6 kcal/m2/yr Growing season = 3 months = 0.25 yr (1 E6 kcal/m2/yr)(1 E4 m 2/ha)(0.25 yr)(4186 kcal/]) = 1.05 E13 Jlyr 2. Transpiration Energy = (3000 m 3/yr)(1 E6 g/m3)(4.94]/g) = 1.48 E10 ]/yr 3. Soil used up assumed 10 ton/ha/yr (as in Odum, 1996) Organic Fraction = 0.44% of dry matter Energy = (weight)(0.0044 org)(5.4 kcal/J) (4186 Jlkcal) = 9.95 E8 Jlyr

PAGE 102

lUL Footnotes for Appendix Table B3 (continued) 4. Groundwater irrigation = 3000 m3/yr Chemical potential energy = (3000 m 3/yr)(1 E6 g/m3)(4.90 Jig) =1.47 E10 J/yr 5. Fuel (Pimentel, 1980) Gasoline 2.43 E5 kcal + Diesel 6.16 E5 kcal Energy = (8.59 E5 kcal)(4186 Jlkcal) = 3.6 E9 Jlyr 6. Machinery (embodied fuel, Pimentel, 1980) 11. 7 kg/ha = 2.10 E5 kcallha Energy = (2.10 E5)(4186 Jlkcal) = 8.81 E8 Jlyr 7. Herbicide (embodied fuel, Pimentel, 1980) 3.08 kg/ha = 3.08 E5 kcallha Energy = (3.07 E6)(4186 J/kcal) = 1.29 E9 Jlyr 8. Phosphate application = 4490 g/ha Chemical Potential = 348 JIg Energy = (4490 g/yr)(348 Jig) = 1.56 E6 J/yr 9. Nitrogen Application = 5.61 kg/ha Chemical Potential = 2.17 E6 J/kg Energy = (5.61 kg/yr)(2.17 E6 J/kg) = 1.22 E7 J/yr 10. Seed Quantity = 73.2 kg; embodied fuel = 5.86 E5 kcallha Energy used (5.86 E5 kcallyr)( 4186 Jlkcal) = 2.45 E9 J/yr 11. Irrigation electricity as fuel = 1.62 E6 kcal/ha Assumption: 0.30 m water Iha pumped 38.1 m; efficiency = 0.75 Energy = (3000 m 3)(38.1m)(9.8 m/s2)(1000 kg/m3)/0.75 = 1.49 E9 Jlyr 12. Service producing 2210 kg; price = 721 $/bushel (CYE, 1978) 7.21 $/27.24 kg = 0.265 $/kg (2210 kg)(0.265 $/kg) = 585.65 $/ha 13. Production = 2210 kg Energy = (2.21 E6 g/yr)(4.03 kcal/g)(4186 Jlkcal) = 3.73 EI0 J/yr 14. Transformity = (6.09 E15 sej)/(3.73 E10) = 1.62 E5 sej/J

PAGE 103

lUJ Appendix Table B4 Emergy Evaluation of Wheat Production Annual Rates per Hectare Note Items 1 Sun,] 2 Rain transpired,] 3 Soil used up, ] 4 Groundwater 5 Fuel 6 Machinery, oil equiv. 7 Pesticide, oil equiv. 8 Phosphate 9 Nitrogen 10 Seed, oil equiv. 11 Electricity 12 Service, US $ 1977 13 Wheat production 14 Transformity Footnotes Data unitlyr LOS E13 1.48 ElO 9.92 E8 1.76 E10 4.98 E10 1.32 E9 1.79 E8 3.9 ES 1.95 E8 9.11 E8 1.79 E9 2.60 E2 3.81 E10 Emergy/Unit sej/] 1 1.82 E4 6.30 E4 1.60 ES 6.60 E4 6.60 E4 6.60 E4 1.00 E7 1.90 E6 6.60 E4 1.70 ES 4.40 E12 2.21 ES Data on irrigated wheat in Kansas (Pimentel, 1980, p. 111) 1. Solar insolation = 1.00 E6 kcal/m2/yr Growing season = 3 months = 0.25 yr (1 E6 kcal/m2/yr)(1 E4 m 2/ha)(0.2S yr)(4186 kcal/J) = LOS E13 ]Iyr Emergy E13 sej/yr 1 27 6 282 329 9 1 0.39 37 6 30 115 843 2. Transpiration Energy = (3000 m 3/yr)(1 E6 g/m3)(4.94 Jig) = 1.48 ElO Jlyr 3. Soil used up assumed = 10 ton/ha/yr (as in Odum, 1996) Organic Fraction = 0.44% of dry matter Energy = (weight)(0.0044 org)(S.4 kcal/])(4186 ]lkcaI) = 9.95 E8 ]Iyr

PAGE 104

104 Footnotes for Appendix Table B4 (continued) 4. Groundwater irrigation = 0.36 m/ha = 3600 m 3/yr Chemical potential energy = (3600 m 3/yr)(1 E6 g/m3)(4.90 JIg) = 1.76 ElO J/yr 5. Fuel (Pimentel, 1980) Gasoline 3.52 E5 kcal/ha; Diesel 5.65 E5 kcal/ha; Nat gas 1.10 E7 kcal/ha Energy = (1.19 E7 kcal)(4186 J/kcal) = 4.98 ElO j/yr 6. Machinery (embodied energy in the machinery, Pimentel 1980) 17.5 kg/ha = 3.16 E5 kcal/ha Energy = (3.16 E5 kcal/ha)(4186 J/kcal) = 1.32 E9 J/yr 7. Pesticide embodied fuel energy 0.22 kg herbicide 2.20 E4 kcal/ha; 0.24 kg insecticide 2.09 E4 kcal/ha Energy = (4.28 E4 kcal/ha)(4186 J/kcal) = 1.79 E8 J/yr 8. Phosphate = 1.12 kg/ha; Chemical potential = 348 J/g Energy = (1.12 E3 g/yr)(348 JIg) = 3.90 E5 J/yr 9. Nitrogen = 89.7 kg/ha; Chemical potential = 2.17 E6 j/kg Energy = (89.7 kg/yr)(2.17 E6 J/kg) = 1.95 E8 j/yr 10. Seed embodied fuel energy 72.5 kg = 2.18 E5 kcal/ha Energy used = (2.2 E5 kcal/yr)(4186j/kcal) = 9.11 E8 j/yr 11. Irrigation electricity as fuel = 1.62 E6 kcal/ha Assumption: 0.36 m water/ha pumped 38.1 m; efficiency = 0.75 Energy = (3600 m 3)(38.1 m)(9.8 m/s2)(1000 kg/m3)/0.75 = 1.79 E9 j/yr 12. Services from production = 2600 kg; price = 2.73 $/bushel (CYB, 1978) 2.73 $/27.21 kg = 0.100 $/kg (2600 kg/yr)(0.10 $/kg) = $260 13. Wheat Production Energy = (2.6 E6 g)(3.5 kcal/g)(4186 j/kcal) = 3.81 E10 J/yr 14. Transformity = (8.43 E15 sej/yr)/(3.81 ElO j/yr) = 2.20 E5

PAGE 105

1U) Appendix Table 85 Emergy Evaluation of Sorghum Production Annual Rates per Hectare Note Items 1 Sun,] 2 Rain transpired, ] 3 Soil used up, ] 4 Fuel 5 Machinery, oil equiv. 6 Pesticide, oil equiv. 7 Phosphate 8 Nitrogen 9 Potassium 10 Seed, oil equiv. 11 Service, US $ 1977 Data unit/yr 1.05 E13 1.48 E10 9.92 E8 2.99 E9 5.27 E8 5.78 E8 1.18 E6 8.20 E7 6.31 E5 1.97 E8 1.47 E2 12 Sorghum production 3.81 ElO 13 Sorghum Transformity Footnotes Emergy/Unit sej/] 1 1.82 E4 6.30 E4 6.60 E4 6.60E4 6.60 E4 1.00 E7 1.90 E6 3.0 E6 6.60 E4 4.40 E12 3.81 E4 sej/] Emergy E13 sej/yr 1 27 6 20 3 4 1 16 1 1 65 145 Nonirrigated sorghum production in Kansas, (Pimentel, 1980, p.104) 1. Solar insolation = 1 E6 kcal/m2/yr Growing season = 3 months = 0.25 yr (1 E6 kcal/m2/yr)(1 E4 m2/ha)(0.25 yr)(4186 kcal/J) = 1.05 E13 ]/yr 2. Transpiration energy = (3000 m3/yr)(1 E6 g/m3)(4.94 Jig) = 1.48 ElO Jlyr 3. Soil used up assumed 10 ton/ha/yr (as in Odum, 1996) Organic Fraction = 0.44% of dry matter Energy = (weight)(0.0044 org)(5.4 kcal/])(4186 ]/kcal) = 9.95 E8 ]/yr

PAGE 106

lUb Footnotes for Appendix Table Bs (continued) 4. Fuel (Pimentel, 1980) Gasoline 2.05 Es kcal/ha Diesel 4.90 Es kcal/ha Lp gas 2.00 E4 kcal/ha Energy = (7.15 Es kcal)(4186 Jlkcal) = 2.99 E9 Jlyr 5. Machinery embodied fuel energy (Pimentel, 1980) (126,000 J/ha)(4186 Jlkcal) = 5.27 E8 Jlyr 6. Pesticide 1.0 kg herb. = 8.90 E4 kcal/ha 0.6 kg insect. = 4.90 E4 kcal/ha Energy = (1.38 E5)( 4186 Jlkcal) = 5.78 E8 Jlyr 7. Phosphate = 3.4 kg/ha; Chemical potential = 348 Jig Energy = (3.4 E3 g/yr)(348 Jig = 1.18 E6 Jlyr 8. Nitrogen = 37.8 kg/ha; Chemical potential = 2.17 E3 Jig Energy = (37.8 kg/yr)(2.17 E6 Jlkg) = 8.20 E7 J/yr 9. Potassium = 0.9 kg/ha; Chemical potential = 702 Jig Energy = (900 g/yr)(702 JIg) = 6.31 E5 Jlyr 10. Seed = 3.4 kg Embodied fuel energy = 4.70 E4 kcal/ha Energy = (4.7 E4 kcal/yr)(4186 J/kcal) = 1.97 E8 JlyT 11. Services from production = 1840 kg and Price = 3.62 $Icwt (CYE, 1978) 3.62 $/45.36 kg = 7.98 E-02 $/kg (1840 kg)(7.98 E-2 $/kg) = 147 $ 12. Sorghum Production = 2600 kg/ha/yr Energy = (2.6 E6 g)(3.5 kcal/g)(4186 J/kcal) = 3.81 E10 J/yr 13. Transformity = (1.45 E15 sej/yr)/(3.81 EI0) = 3.81 E4

PAGE 107

107 Appendix Table B6 Emergy Evaluation of Corn Production Annual Rates per Hectare Note Items 1 Sun,] 2 Rain transpired, ] 3 Soil used up, ] 4 Fuel 5 Machinery, oil equiv. 6 Pesticide, oil equiv. 7 Phosphate 8 Nitrogen 9 Potassium 10 Seed, oil equiv. 11 Electricity 12 Service, US $ 1977 13 Corn production 14 Transformity Footnotes Data unitlyr 1.05 E13 1.48 E10 9.92 E8 6.82 E9 4.14 E9 9.28 E8 1.81 E7 2.68 E8 4.0 E7 1.29 E9 6.85 E7 3.53 E2 5.72 E10 Emergy/Unit sej/] 1 1.82 E4 6.30 E4 6.60 E4 6.60 E4 6.60 E4 7.70 E6 1.69 E6 2.62 E6 6.60 E4 1.70 E5 4.40 E12 5.95 E4 sej/] Data from corn plantation in Alabama (Pimentel, 1980, p. 80) 1. Solar insolation = 1.00 E6 kcal/m2/yr Growing season = 3 months = 0.25 yr (1 E6 kcal/m2/yr)(1 E4 m 2/ha)(0.25 yr)(4186 kcal/]) = 1.05 E13 Jlyr Emergy E13 sej/yr 1 27 6 45 27 6 14 45 11 9 1 15 313 2. Transpiration energy = (3000 m 3/yr)(1 E6 g/m3)(4.94]/g) = 1.48 ElO ]/yr 3. Soil used up assumed 10 ton/ha/yr (as in Odum, 1996) Organic Fraction = 0.44% of dry matter Energy = (weight)(0.0044 org)(5.4 kcal/J)( 4186 ]/kcal) = 9.95 E8 ]/yr

PAGE 108

Footnotes for Appendix Table B6 (continued) 4. Fuel (Pimentel, 1980) Gasoline 7.01 E5 kcallha Diesel 7.85 E5 kcal/ha LP gas 1.42 E5 kcallha Energy = (1.63 E6 kcal) (4186 J/kcal) = 6.82 E9 Jlyr 5. Machinery embodied fuel (Pimentel 1980) 35.3 kg/ha 9.90 E5 kcallha Energy = (9.9 E5 kcallha)(4186 J/kcal) = 4.14 E9 Jlyr 6. Pesticide embodied fuel energy (Pimentel, 1980) 1.21 kg/ha = 1.21 E5 1.16 kg/ha = 1.01 E5 Energy = (2.22 E5 kcallha)(4186 J/kcal) = 9.28 E8 J/yr 7. Phosphorus = 52.1 kg/ha; Chemical potential energy = 348 JIg Energy = (52.1 kg/yr)(348 Jig) = 1.81 E7 Jlyr 8. Nitrogen = 123.35 kg/ha; Chemical potential = 2.17 E6 Jlkg Energy = (123.35 kg/yr)(2.17 E6 Jlkg) = 2.68 E8 Jlyr 9. Potassium = 57.18 kg/ha; Chemical potential = 702 Jig Energy = (5.72 E4 g/yr)(702 Jig) = 4.0 E7 Jlyr 10. Seed = 12.3 kg Embodied fuel = 3.08 E5 kcallha Energy = (3.08 E5 kcallyr)(4186 J/kcal) = 1.29 E9 J/yr 11. Electricity = 19.02 kwh/yr Energy = (19.0 kwh)(3.60 E6 Jlkwh) = 6.85 E7 Jlyr 12. Service from production = 3902 kg/yr and Price = 2.30 $/bushel (CYE, 1978) 2.3 $/25.42 kg = 0.0904 $/kg (3902 kg/ha)(0.09$/kg) = 353 $/ha 13. Corn production = 3902 kg/ha Energy = (3.9 E6 g)(3.5 kcallg)(4186 J/kcal) = 5.72 E10 Jly 14. Transformity = (3.40 E15)/(5.72 E10) = 5.95 E4 sej/J

PAGE 109

Appendix Table B7 Emergy Evaluation of Poultry Broiler Production Rates for 50,000 Broilers on One Hectare Raised in 3 Months Note Items Data unit/yr Emergy/Unit sej/] Emergy E13 sej/yr 1 Sun,] 1.05 E13 1 2 Rain transpired,] 1.48 ElO 1.82 E4 3 Soil used up, ] 9.95 E8 6.30 E4 4 Groundwater 1.79 ElO 1.70 E5 5 Fuel 2.66 Ell 6.60 E4 6 Machinery, oil equiv. 1.64 ElO 6.60 E4 7 Ration, corn 1.35 E12 6.00 E4 8 Ration, soybean 5.82 Ell 1.60 E5 9 Electricity 2.7 E10 6.60 E4 10 Buildings, oil equiv. 2.98 Ell 6.60 E4 11 Service, US $ 1977 8.02 E4 4.40 E12 12 Broiler production 13 Transformity 8.02 Ell 7.11 E5 Footnotes Data for 1000 broilers (Pimentel, 1980) 1.5 square feet/bird = 0.139 m2/bird (Nesheim et aI., 1979) Birds/ha = ,000)/0.14)(0.75) = 53571.43 birds/ha Assumed 50,000 broiler per ha 1. Solar insolation = 1.00 E6 kcal/m2/yr Growing season = 3 months = 0.25 yr (1 E6 kcallm2/yr)(1 E4 m 2/ha)(0.25 yr)(4186 kcall]) = 1.05 E13 ]/yr 2. Evapotranspiration = 1.2 m 3/m2/yr = 12000 m 3/yr 3 months growth = 3000 m 3/3 months Energy = (volume)(l E6 g/m3)(4.94 Jig) = 1.48 ElO J/yr 1 27 6 304 1756 108 8123 9283 178 1968 35288 57042

PAGE 110

110 Footnotes for AppendLx Table B7 (continued) 3. Soil used = 10 ton/ha/yr (as in Odum, 1996) Organic Fraction = 0.44% of dry matter Energy = (1 E7 tonne/ha/yr)(0.0044 org)(S.4 kcal/J)( 4186 jlkcal) = 9.95 E8 J/yr 4. Groundwater = 20-380 l/day/lOOO broilers (100 l/day/thsd broilers)(36S d/yr)(lOO thsd broilers)/lOOO l/m3 = (3650 m 3/yr) Chemical potential or water used = (3650 m 3/yr)(1 E6 g/m3)(4.90 JIg) = 1.79 ElO J/yr 5. Fuel (Pimentel, 1980) Propane = 1.27 E6 kcal/lOOO broilers 6.36 E7 kcal/SO,OOO broilers Energy = (6.36 E7 kcal) ( 4186 J/kcal) = 2.66 Ell jlyr 6. Machinery Embodied fuel energy (Pimentel, 1980) 3.78 kg 7.81 E4 kcal/lOOO broilers 3.91 E6 kcal/SO,OOO broilers Energy = (3.91 E6)(4186 jlkcal) = 1.64 ElO jlyr 7 -8. Broiler rations 3182 kg 9.24 E6 kcal/lOOO broilers 4.62 E8 kcal/SO,OOO broilers Assumed 70% corn and 30% soybean (3.23 E8 kcal corn)(4186 J/kcal) = 1.35 E12 J/yr (1.39 E8 kcal soybeans)(4186 J/kcal) = 5.82 Ell jlyr 9. Electricity is fuel: 1.288 ES kcal/1000 broilers (Pimentel, 1980) 6.44 E6 kcal/SO,OOO broilers Energy = (6.44 E6 kcal/ha)(4186 J/kcal) 2.7ElO J 10. Building area = 69.7 m 2 /lOOO broiler (Pimentel, 1980) Used = 100 m 2 /lOOO broiler; 5000 m 2/S0,000 broilers Embodied oil in buildings = 1.425 E6 kcal/1000 broilers Energy = (7.13 E7 kcal/SO thsd broil/yr)( 4186 J/kcal) = 2.98 Ell J/yr

PAGE 111

LLl Footnotes for Appendix Table B7 (continued) 11. Service with production = 90,000 kg Price (1977) = 0.405 $/lb (Commodity Year Book, 1978) 0.405 $/0.454 kg = 0.892 $/kg (9.0 E4 kg)(0.892 $/kg) = 8.02 E4 $/yr 12. Broiler production: (50,000 broiler)(average weight 1.8 kg ea) = 90,000 kg Energy = (9 E7 g)(2.13 kcal/g) (4186 J/kcal) = 8.02 Ell ]lyr 13. Transformity = (5.71 E17 sej)/(8.02 Ell) = 7.11 E5

PAGE 112

U6 'OO!1\J1lS .w.>!JlOaI3 A!nba I!O 'paIlS II) vi ell wn!sselOd II) :::! {($ c '" ell '$' t:: of 0 .l2 c:( 0 ua60JI!N .... 0 -A!nba I!O 'ap!:msad u 0 .::I .... u e A!nba ::s c: Q. l!! no .tIaU!lPer.! CD I-U 0. 'C Q) .. lan,:l u .2 ..... .... ::I ..9 -ell C Cl ::s 'iii .... {($ >. t:: 00 .CD '" E >-. w r'dn pasn I!OS Q) S U-l r'paJ!dsueJI N r 'uns ::s 00 .e !;j 8 0 (.L., ras n3 'e4 Jad J;6JaW3

PAGE 113

1-1..> LL6 '80!Nag !II vi til !II CIS C ,,!nbe I!O 'peas '" til C of c( :::! .:r: c ua60JI!N c c 0 .0 0 C :;:: 0 () 0 alBlIdsolld 0 ::I '" ..... 'C u e II ;:l ,., '0 Q. g 8 c /\lnbe I!O 'aPP!lSad til .E 0.. CD If) C .c c: >-\! CIS 0 I-/\lnbe I!O 'NaU!lI:>erl Q) !II .0 ... ;>., J2 0 '" lan:l .... ::I .2 til Q) C .... CI ;:l 'in JajeMPunOJE) .... CIS >-c e' OJ) .CD r'dn pasn I!OS '" E ;>., w e.o Q) r'peJ!dsueJj S U-l M r 'uns '" ;:l Ii! 0 OJ) .'"'"' fas 'elj Jad

PAGE 114

LL" 'a:)!l\Jas .-::s "C g '0 e Alnbe e Q. .e 'Iii III I!O 'app!lSad 0. c: .... G) l!! i Q) A!nbe ..c:: ... I!O ',(jaU!l(.lBv.t 0 ... I-. e .2 :I lan:l IV C ::s .... Cl .;; I: >-00 .ell G) r'dn pasn I!OS >.. E 00 I-. W Q) 8 r' peJ!dsueJI t.U .f r 'uns ::s 00 @ In 0 .r.t. res 'elf Jed JliBJeW3

PAGE 115

Emergy signature for sorghum production in Arkansas ro'I------------------------------------------------, ro .ii)' 50 UI M ... W ci> ..c ... 8. ;..30 e' W 20 10 0 -, .: (J) <--, a; I LL i V) c: '0 c: CI) 'm Ir Transfonnily = 36.000 sej/J Q) c: Q) co :if :if :if =s "" '0 '0 z .r:; c:-o; 0.. ,,; "0 ., Q) '0 Q) c: (J) 'iii Q) co 0.. ;:'i; Figure BS. Emergy signature for sorghum production in Arkansas. ..... .... '" ... CI) => 8 C8 e e L

PAGE 116

.Llb 'SO!A1as III I III C vi (lj I c(
... .e .E e III c ::::I e to-I C CI 'iii >-e' w c ... lI!nba I!O 'apP!lSad 0 u ... <2 lI!nba Q) I!O .... =' .... (lj C 0.0 .. r'dn pasn I!OS Q) a U.l r'paJ!dsueJI \Q i:Q r 'uns ::s 0.0 .0 >.L.. fas 'elf Jad ,4;6JaW3

PAGE 117

Lli '9:l!/lJas -=' :::I E "0 e e woo a 0. Il. III c: ... .. '" Q) .!! I-,,!nbe .-'e 0 I!O 'AlaU!40ew .... ,Q .D '0 ... 2! Ian;:! <2 Q) :::I ... III =' c: .... CI $ 'iii JalBMpUnOJE> t:: OJ) >-'Vi e' >. GI r'dn pasn I!OS OJ) E ... w Q) 8 r..u r'paJidsUeJI I'--!Xl r 'uns =' OJ) ,->.L. 0 ras '(ell SJslIOJq 000'09 Jad Arusw3

PAGE 119

LITERATURE CITED Ackerman, D.J. 1989. Hydrology of the Mississippi River valley alluvial aquifer, south-central United States--a preliminary analysis of the regional flow system. U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 88-4028. 74 pp. Bahr, L.M., R. Costanza, J.W. Day, Jr., S.E. Bayley, C. Neill, S.G. Leibowitz, and J. Fruci. 1983. Ecological Characterization of the Mississippi Deltaic Plain Region: A Narrative with Management Recommendations. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: FWS/OBS-82/69. 189 pp. Baker, J.A and K.J. Killgore. 1994. Use of a flooded bottomland hardwood wetland by fishes in the Cache River system, Arkansas. Technical Report WRP-CP-3, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. Baker, N.T. and C.A Manning. 1991. Summary of reported water use for Arkansas counties, 1989. US Geological Survey, Open File Report 91-203. Bedford, B.L. and E.M. Preston (eds.). 1988. Cumulative effects on landscape systems of wetlands. Environmental Management 12(5):561-775. Boar, R.R., R.D. Delaune, C.W. Lindau, and W.H. Patrick, Jr. 1993. Denitrification in bottomland hardwood soils of the Cache River, Arkansas. Technical Report WRP-CP-1, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. Brinson, M.M. 1990. Riverine forests. pp. 87-141 in Ecosystems of the World, AE. Lugo, M.M. Brinson and S. Brown, eds. Elsevier Science Pub!., Netherlands. Broom, M.E. and F. P. Lyford. 1982. Alluvial aquifer of the Cache and St. Francis River basins. Arkansas Geological Commission, Water Resources Circular No. 13. 48 pp. Brown, M.T. 1986. Cumulative impacts in landscapes dominated by humanity. pp. 33-50 in E.D. Estevez, J. Miller, J. Morris, and R. Hamann (eds.), Managing cumulative effects in Florida wetlands. Conference proceedings, New College Environmental Studies Program, Sarasota, FL. ESP Publication #38. Omnipress: Madison, WI.

PAGE 120

Brown, M.T. and T.R. McClanahan. 1992. Emergy Analysis Perspectives of Thailand and Mekong River Dam Proposals. Report to The Cousteau Society, Contract No. 89092601. 60 pp. Also, 1996, Ecol. Model. (in press). Brown, M.T. and T.R. McClanahan. 1995. Emergy analysis perspectives of Thailand and Mekong River dam proposals. Ecol. Model. 91:105-130. Brown, M.T. and R.E. Tighe. 1991. Techniques and guidelines for reclamation of phosphate mined lands final report to Florida Institute of Phosphare Research Project #83-03-044. Center for Wetlands, Univ. of Florida, Gainesville. Cada, G.F. and R.B. McLean. 1985. An approach for assessing the impacts on fisheries of basin-wide hydropower and development. Pp. 367-372 in F.W. Olson, R.G. White, and R.H. Hamre (eds.), Proceedings of the Symposium on Small Hydropower and Fisheries, American Fisheries Society, Aurora, CO. Canadian Environmental Assessment Research Council (CEARC). 1986. Cumulative environmental effects: a binational perspective. Minister of Supply and Services Canada. Clairain, E.]., Jr. and B.A. Kleiss. 1989. Functions and values of bottomland hardwood forests along the Cache River, Arkansas: implications for management. Pp. 27-33 in D.D. Hook and R. Lea (eds.), Proceedings of the symposium: the forested wetlands of the southern United States. General Technical Report SE-50, U.S. Forest Service, Southeastern Forest Experiment Station, Asheville, NC. Cline, E.W., E.c. Vlachos, and G.c. Horak. 1983. State-of-the-art and theoretical basis of assessing cumulative impacts on fish and wildlife. Eastern Energy and Land Use Team, Office of Biological Services, Fish and Wildlife Service, Kearneysville, WV. Coats, R.N. and T.O. Miller. 1981. Cumulative silvicultural impacts on watersheds: a hydrologic and regulatory dilemma. Environmental Management 5: 147-160. Commodity Yearbook. 1978. Commodity Research Bureau, Inc., New York. Corps of Engineers. 1974. Final Environmental Impact Statement Cache River Basin Project, Arkansas, Vol. 1.

PAGE 121

iLl Costanza, R., C. Neill, S.G. Leibowitz, ].R. Fruci, L.M. Bahr, Jr., and ].W. Day, Jr. 1983. Ecological Models of the Mississippi Deltaic Plain Region: Data Collection and Presentation. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: FWS/OBS82168. 339 pp. Counts, H.B. and K. Engler. 1954. Changes in water levels in deposits of quartenary age in eastern Arkansas from 1938 to 1953. Agricultural Experiment Station Report Series 42, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville. 56 pp. Dames and Moore, Inc. 1981. Methodology for the analysis of cumulative impacts of permit activities regulated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Institute for Water Resources, Fort Belvoir, VA. Delaune, RD., RR. Boar, C.W. Lindau and B.A. Kleiss. 1996. Denitrification in bottomland hardwood wetland soils of the Cache River. Wetlands 16(3):309-320. Diamond, C. 1984. Energy Basis for the Regional Organization of the Mississippi River Basin. M.S. Thesis, Environmental Engineering Sciences, Univ. of Florida, Gainesville. 129 pp. Dickert, T.G. and A.E. Tuttle. 1985. Cumulative impact assessment in environmental planning: a coastal wetland watershed example. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 5:37-64. Dortch, M.S. 1996. Removal of solids, nitrogen and phosphorus in the Cache River wetland. Wetlands 16(3):358-365. Elder, J.F., S.D. Flagg and C.H. Matthraw, Jr. 1988. Hydrology and Ecology of the Apalachicola River, FL. US Geological Survey Water Supply Paper 2196-D. 46 pp. Emery, RM. 1986. Impact interaction potential: a basin-wide algorithm for assessing cumulative impacts from hydropower projects. Journal of Environmental Management 23:341-360. Energy Information Administration. 1992. Gas Supplies of Interstate Natural Gas Pipeline Companies 1991. DOE/EIA-0167(91). Energy Information Administration. 1992. US Crude Oil, Natural Gas and Natural Gas Liquids Reserves. 1991 Annual Report. DOE/EIA-0216(91).

PAGE 122

Energy Information Administration. 1993. Coal Production 1992. DOE/EIA-0118(92). Energy Information Administration. 1993. Petroleum Supply Annual 1992-Vol. 2. DOE/EIA-0340(92)/2. Energy Information Administration. 1994. State Energy Price and Expenditure Report 1992. DOE/EIA-0376(92). Energy Information Administration. 1994. State Energy Data Report 1992. Consumption Estimates. DOE/EIA -0214(92). Estevez, E.D.,]. Miller,]. Morris, and R. Hamann (eds.). 1986. Managing cumulative effects in Florida wetlands. Conference proceedings, New College Environmental Studies Program, Sarasota, FL. ESP Publication #38. Omnipress: Madison, WI. Gleick, P.H., ed. 1993. Water in Crisis. Oxford Univ. Press, UK. 472 pp. Gluckman, D. 1986. The history behind the legislative history of the cumulative effects of wetlands destruction. Pp. 229-234 in E.D. Estevez,]. Miller,]. Morris, and R. Hamann (eds.), Managing cumulative effects in Florida wetlands. Conference proceedings, New College Environmental Studies Program, Sarasota, FL. ESP Publication #38. Omnipress: Madison, WI. Gonthier, G.]. 1996. Ground-water-flow conditions within a bottomland hardwood wetland, eastern Arkansas. Wetlands 16(3):334-346. Gonthier, G.]. and B.A. Kleiss. 1993. Ground-water flow patterns of Black Swamp, eastern Arkansas. Draft manuscript, U.s. Geological Survey and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Gosselink, ].G. and L.c. Lee. 1989. Cumulative impact assessment in bottomland hardwood forests. Wetlands 9:83-174. Gosselink, ].G., L.c. Lee, and T.A. Muir. 1990. Ecological processes and cumulative impacts: illustrated by bottomland hardwood wetland ecosystems. Lewis Publishers: Chelsea, MI. 708 p.

PAGE 123

Hall, H.D. and V.W. Lambou. 1990. The ecological significance to fisheries of bottomland hardwood systems: values, detrimental impacts and assessment: the report of fisheries workgroup. pp. 481-531 in Ecological Processes and Cumulative Impacts Illustrated by Bottomland Hardwood Wetland Ecosystems, ].G. Gosselink, L.c. Lee and T.A. Muir, eds. Lewis Publ., MI. Harris, L.D. and ].G. Gosselink. 1990. Cumulative impacts of bottomland hardwood conversion on hydrology, water quality, and terrestrial wildlife. Pp. 259-322 inJ.G. Gosselink, L.c. Lee, and T.A. Muir (eds.), Ecological processes and cumulative impacts: illustrated by bottomland hardwood wetland ecosystems. Lewis Publishers: Chelsea, Ml. 708 p. Horak, G.c., E.c. Vlachos, and E.W. Cline. 1983a. Fish and wildlife and cumulative impacts: is there a problem? Eastern Energy and Land Use Team, Office of Biological Services, Fish and Wildlife Service, Kearneysville, wv. Horak, G.c., E.C. Vlachos, and E.W. Cline. 1983 b. Methodological guidance for assessing cumulative impacts on fish and wildlife. Eastern Energy and Land Use Team, Office of Biological Services, Fish and Wildlife Service, Kearneysville, WV. Hupp, C.R. and E.E. Morris. 1990. A dendrogeomorphic approach to measurement of sedimentation in a forested wetland, Black Swamp, Arkansas. Wetlands 10(1):107-124. Johnston, c.A., N.E. Detenbeck, J.P. Bonde, and G.]. Niemi. 1988. Geographic information systems for cumulative impact assessment. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing 54(11):1609-1615. Kadlec, R.H. and R.L. Knight. 1996. Treatment Wetlands. CRC/Lewis Publ., Boca Raton, FL. 893 pp. Killgore, K.]. and J.A. Baker. 1996. Patterns of larval fish abundance in a bottomland hardwood wetland. Wetlands 16(3):288-295. Kleiss, B.A. 1993. Cache River, Arkansas:studying a bottomland hardwood (BLH) wetland ecosystem. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS, Wetlands Research Program Bulletin 3(1):1-6.

PAGE 124

Kleiss, B.A 1996. Sediment retention in a bottomland hardwood wetland in eastern Arkansas. Wetlands 16(3):321-333. Klopatck, J.M. 1988. Some thoughts on using a landscape framework to address cumulative impacts on wetland food chain support. Environmental Management 12:703-711. Kress, M.R., M.R. Graves and S.G. Bourne. 1996. Loss of bottomland hardwood forests and forested wetlands in the Cache River basin, Arkansas. Wetlands 16(3):258-263. Leibowitz, S.G., B, Abbruzzese, P.R. Adamus, L.E. Hughes, and j.T. Irish. 1992. A synoptic approach to cumulative impact assessment. EPA/600/R92/167, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Research Laboratory, Corvallis, OR. Long, K.S. and j.M. Nestler. 1996. Hydroperiod changes as clues to impacts on Cache River riparian wetlands. Wetlands 16(3):379-396. Lugo, AE.; S. Brown and M.M. Brinson. 1990. Concepts in wetland ecology. pp. 53-85 in Ecosystems of the World 15 -Forested Wetlands, AE. Lugo, M.M. Brinson and S. Brown, eds. Elsevier Science Pub!., Netherlands. L'vovich, M.1. 1974. World Water Resources and Their Future. Mysl' Publishing, Moscow. (1979 Translation from American Geophysical Union, Washington, D.C.) Mauney, M. and G.L. Harp. 1979. The effects of channelization on fish populations of the Cache River and Bayou DeView. Arkansas Academy of Science Proceedings 33:51-54. Merson, A and K. Eastman. 1980. Cumulative impact assessment of western energy development: will it happen? University of Colorado Law Review 51:551-586. Minerals Yearbook. 1992. Bureau of the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Govt. Printing Office, Washington, DC fiHtsch, W.j. and j.G. Gosselink. 1986. Wetlands. Van Nostrand Reinhold. 539 pp. Molinas, A, G.T. Auble, C.S. Segelquist, and L.S. Ischinger (eds.). 1988. Assessment of the role of bottomland hardwoods in sediment and erosion control. NERC-88/U, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Ecology Research Center, Ft. Collins, CO. 1.16 p.

PAGE 125

HJ Muir, T.A., e. Rhodes, and ].G. Gosselink. 1990. Federal statutes and programs relating to cumulative impacts in wetlands. Pp. 223-236 in].G. Gosselink, L.e. Lee, and T.A. Muir (eds.), Ecological processes and cumulative impacts: illustrated by bottomland hardwood wetland ecosystems. Lewis Publishers: Chelsea, MI. 708 p. Nestler, ].M. and K.S. Long. 1994. Hydrologic indices for cumulative impact analysis of wetlands. Draft Technical Report, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. Odum, H.T. 1971. Environment, Power and Society. John Wiley, NY. 331 pp. Odum, H.T. 1983. Systems Ecology: An Introduction. John Wiley, NY. 644 pp. Odum, H.T. 1996. Environmental Accounting: EMERGY and Decision Making. John Wiley, NY. 370 pp. Odum, H.T., e. Diamond and M.T. Brown. 1987. Energy Systems Overview of the Mississippi River Basin. Center for Wetlands, Univ. of Florida, Gainesville. Odum, H.T., M.]. Lavine, F.e. Wang, M.A. Miller, ].F. Alexander, Jr. and T. Butler. 1983. A Manual for Using Energy Analysis for Plant Siting with an Appendix on Energy Analysis of Environmental Values. Final report to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG/CR-2443 FINB-6155. Energy Analysis Workshop, Center for Wetlands, University of Florida, Gainesville. 221 pp. Olson, F.W., R.G. White, and R.H. Hamre (eds.). 1985. Proceedings of the Symposium on Small Hydropower and Fisheries, American Fisheries Society, Aurora, CO. Pimentel, D. 1980. Handbook of Energy Utilization in Agriculture. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL. 475 pp. Pimentel, D. and M. Pimentel. 1979. Food, Energy and Society. John Wiley, NY. 165 pp. Rieser, A. 1987. Managing the cumulative effects of coastal land development: can Maine law meet the challenge? Maine Law Review 39:321-389.

PAGE 126

Roelle, J.E, G.T. Auble, D.E. Hamilton, R.L. Johnson, and c.A. Segelquist. 1987a. Results of a workshop concerning ecological zonation in bottomland hardwoods. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Ecology Center, Fort Collins, CO. NEC-87/14. 141 p. Roelle, J,E, G.T. Auble, D.B. Hamilton, G.c. Horak, R.L. Johnson, and c.A. Segelquist. 1987b. Results of a workshop concerning impacts of various activities on the functions of bottomland hardwoods. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Ecology Center, Fort Collins, CO. NEC-87 lIS. 171 p. Roelle, J,E, G.T. Auble, D.B. Hamilton, R.L. Johnson, and c.A. Segelquist. 1987c. Results of a workshop concerning assessment of the functions of bottomland hardwoods. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Ecology Center, Fort Collins, CO. NEC-87116. 173 p. Scott, W.O. and S.R. Aldrich. 1970. Modern Soybean Production. S & A Publications, Illinois. Smith, D.R. 1996. Composition, structure, and distribution of woody vegetation on the Cache River floodplain, Arkansas. Wetlands 16(3):264278. Smith, F.L. and R. T. Saucier. 1971. Geological investigation of the Western Lowlands area, lower Mississippi valley. Technical Report S-71-5, U.s. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. Stakhiv, EZ. 1988. An evaluation paradigm for cumulative impact analysis. Environmental Management 12:725-748. Standiford and Ramacher (eds.). 1981. Cumulative effects offorest management on California watersheds: an assessment of status and need for information. University of California, Agricultural Sciences Special Publication 3268, Berkeley, CA. 109 p. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE). 1974. Final environmental impact statement, Cache River basin project, Arkansas. USACOE, Memphis District. 6 vol. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Census. 1993. 1990 Census of Population and Housing Population and Housing Units Counts Arkansas.

PAGE 127

iLl u.s. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Census. 1994. 1992 Census of Agriculture, Vol. 1. Geographic Area Series Part 4 -Arkansas State and County Data. u.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Census. 1994. 1992 Census of Manufactures Preliminary Report Industry Series -Agricultural Chemicals. u.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Census. 1994. Statistical Abstract of the United States 1994 -The National Data Book. u.S. Environmental Data Service. 1975. Weather Atlas of the United States. Gale Research Co., Detroit, MI u.S. Geological Survey. 1989. Open File Report 91-203: Water Resource Data for Arkansas. Vissage, J.S. and P.E. Miller. 1992. Southern Pulpwood Production, 1990. Resource Bulletin SO-175. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Forest Experimental Stateion, Louisiana. Wakeley, J.S. and T.H. Roberts. 1994. Avian distribution patterns across the Cache River floodplain, Arkansas. Draft Technical Report, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. Wakely, J.S. and T.H. Roberts. 1996. Bird distributions and forest zonation in a bottomland hardwood wetland. Wetlands 16(3):296-308. Walker, D.A., P.]. Webber, E.F. Binnian, K.R. Everitt, N.D. Lederer, E.A Nordstrand, and M.D. Walker. 1987. Cumulative impacts of oil fields on northern Alaskan landscapes. Science 238:757-761. Walton, R. and R.C. Chapman. 1993. Development of an integrated wetland hydrology Ihydrodynamic numerical model for wetland processes and function evaluation. Interim report, prepared for CERC, u.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. Walton, R., R.S. Chapman and J.E. Davis. 1996. Development and application of the wetlands dynamic water budget model. Wetlands 16(3):347-357.

PAGE 128

lLO Walton, R., ].E. Davis, T.H. Martin and R.S. Chapman. 1996. Hydrology of the Black Swamp wetlands on the Cache River, Arkansas. Wetlands 16(3):279-287. Wharton, C.H., W.M. Kitchens, E.C. Pendelton, and T.W. Sipe. 1982. The ecology of bottomland hardwood swamps of the Southeast: a community profile. FWS/OBS-81137, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Biological Services Program, Washington, D.C. 133 p. Wilber, D.H., R.E. Tighe and L.]. O'Neil. 1996. Associations between changes in agriculture and hydrology in the Cache River basin, Arkansas, USA. Wetlands 16(3):366-378. Williamson, S.c. and K. Hamilton. 1989. Annotated bibliography of ecological cumulative impacts assessment. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Biological Report 89( 11), Washington, D.C. Winn, D.S. and K.R. Barber. 1985. Cartographic modeling: a method of cumulative effects appraisal in the Greater Yellowstone ecosystem. Pp. 35-41 in R.D. Comer, T.G. Baumann, P. Davis, ].W. Monarch,]. Todd, S. VanGytenbeek, D. Wills, and J. Woodling (eds.), Issues and technology in the management of impacted western wildlife. Proceedings of a symposium, Thorne Ecological Institute, Boulder, CO. Witmer, G.W. 1986. Assessing cumulative impacts to wetlands. Pp. 204208 in J.A. Kusler and P. Riexinger (eds.), Proceedings of the National Wetland Assessment Symposium, ASWM Technical Report 1, Portland, Maine.



PAGE 1

Evaluation Overview of the Cache River and Black Swamp in Arkansas Howard T. Odum, Silvia Romitelli, and Robert Tighe Final Report on Contract #DACW39-94-K-0300 Energv Systems Perspectives for Cumulative Impacts Assessment between Waterways Experiment Station, U.S. Dept. of the Army, Vicksburg, Miss. and University of Florida Center for Environmental Policy Environmental Engineering Sciences University of Florida, Gainesville, 32611 January 10, 1998

PAGE 2

1 Evaluation Overview of the Cache River and Black Swamp in Arkansas* Howard T. Odum, Silvia Romltelli, and Robert Tighe Environmental Engineering Sciences University of Florida, Gainesville, 32611 Dec 10, 1997 *Part II and Final report of Contract # DACW39-94-K-0300: Energy Systems Perspectives for Cumulative Impacts Assessment. between Waterways Experiment Station, U.s. Dept. of the Army, Vicksburg, Miss. and the Center for Environmental Policy, Dept. of Environmental Engineering Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville. Dr. Jean O'Neill, was scientific advisor and contract officer. Part I was a progress report entitled Energy Systems Perspectives on Cumulative Impacts in the Black Swamp, Cache River Arkansas (H.T.Odum and R. Tighe, Sept .30, 1994). It contained energy systems diagrams aggregating the Black Swamp as a whole. To show qualitatively how complex interactions developed cumulative impact, diagrams with highlighted pathways were supplied for each of 6 functional sectors of the system that had been recognized to be of concern: (a) waters, (b) sediments, (c) biodiversity, (d) forestry, (e) fisheries, and (f) deer. If the user has been taught the symbols and their meaning, inspection of these networks provides a quick guide to components and interactions which have to be considered in permitting. The appendix contained the equations for each of the models and highlighted impact relationships. These equations show the impact relationships in mathematical form, a translation of the energy language diagrams, ready for simulation. An example is the simulation of impact on groundwater in the Black Swamp included in this final report.

PAGE 3

3 CONTENTS Page Title Page. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Contents ....................................................... 3 Legends for the Figures. . . . . . . . . . . 5 List of Tables. . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Abstract. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Cumulative Impacts. . . . . . . . . .. 11 Simulating Impacts. . . . . . . . . .. 11 Concepts. . . . . . . . . . . . .. 12 Emergy and Energy Hierarchy. . . . . . .. 12 Maximum Empower Principle and Environmental Management. . . . . . . . .. ... 14 Transformity . . . . . . . . . .. 14 Empower density .................................... 14 Empower of Arkansas, Cache River Basin and Black Swamp ......................................... 14 Emdollars and Real Wealth. . . . . . . .. 15 Emergy Indices. . . . . . . . . . .. 15 Study Areas. . . . . . . . . . . . .. 15 State of Arkansas. . . . . . . . . .. 15 Cache River Basin. . . . . . . . . 16 Black Swamp. . . . . . . . . . 16 Background of Previous Study. . . . . . . . 16 Cache River Basin. . . . . . . . . 16 Black Swamp. . . . . . . . . . 24 Content of This Study. . . . . . . . . . 26 Methods ...................................................... 27 Developing Systems Models from Verbal Concepts. . . .. 27 Emergyand Emdollar Evaluation. . . . . . . 27 Simulating Impacts .. . . . . . . . . . 29 Results ....................................................... 31 Arkansas ................................................ 31 Energy Systems Diagram. . . . . . . . 31 Emdollar Evaluation Table ............................ 31 System Indices ...................................... 31 Comparisons ........................................ 31

PAGE 4

4 Page Cache River. . . . . . . . . . . . .. 52 Energy Systems Diagram. . . . . . . . 52 Emdollar Evaluation Table. . . . . . . .. 52 Emergy Indices. . . . . . . . . . .. 52 Comparisons . . . . . . . . . .. 67 Black Swamp. . . . . . . . . . . .. 67 Energy Systems Diagram. . . . . . . . 67 Emdollar Evaluation Table. . . . . . . .. 67 Emergy Indices . . . . . . . . . 67 Comparisons. . . . . . . . . . .. 75 Simulating Impacts on the Black Swamp. . . . . .. 75 Simulating Effects of Separate Impacts. . . . .. 76 Simulating Cumulative Impacts. . . . . . .. 76 Discussion. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 81 Principal Resources. . . . . . . . . . .. 81 Evaluating Change. . . . . . . . . . .. 82 Use of Evaluations for Permitting. . . . . . . .. 82 Appendix A. Details of Impact Simulation. . . . . . . 85 Appendix B. Calculation of Transformities . . . . . .. 95 Transformities of Global Water Flows. . . . . . 95 Transformities of Migrant Birds. . . . . . . .. 97 Transformities of Agricultural Commodities. . . . . .. 97 Literature Cited ............................................... 119

PAGE 5

5 Legends for the Figures Figure 1. Three scales of watershed evaluation (1) as part of Arkansas; (2) the Cache River Watershed; (3) the Black Swamp. Figure 2. Map of the Cache River Basin (Adapted from: Corps of Engineers, 1974). Figure 3. Map of the Black Swamp (Source: Baker and Killgore, 1994). Figure 4. A series of energy transformations forming an energy hierarchy from left to right with each measured by its transformity. (a) Energy transformation series based on one energy source with calculation of solar transformity of energy of the flows downstream to the right; (b) main energy flows and transformations contributing to the Black Swamp. Figure 5. Empower (emergy flow) and money circulation in a state. (a) Energy systems diagram; (b) emergy to money ratio used to evaluate emdollars of environmental contribution. Figure 6. Emdollar indices used to evaluate environmental developments. Figure 7. Energy systems diagram of Arkansas with main empower inputs in solar emjoules per year. (a) Complex diagram; (b) aggregated summary; (c) three arm summary. Figure 8. EMERGY signature of environment and economy in Arkansas. Figure 9. Energy systems diagram of the Cache River Watershed (a) with main empower inputs in solar emjoules per year (b) water budget overlay. Figure 10. EMERGY Signature of environment and economy of the Cache River Watershed. Figure 11. Energy systems diagram of the Black Swamp with main empower inputs in solar emjoules per year. Figure 12. EMERGY signature of a hectare of Black Swamp Ecosystem. Figure 13. Overview simulation model of impacts on waters of the Cache River watershed affecting the Black Swamp. (a) With mathematical equations; (b) with values of flows and storages used for calibration from Appendix Table AI.

PAGE 6

6 Figure 14. Simulation of the Black Swamp water model in Figure 13a as calibrated with values in Figure 13b. (a) Water inputs; (b) sunlight, primary production, and water level. See Appendix Figures Al A8. Appendix Figures: Figure AI. Simulation of the groundwater model with calibration conditions before impact. Figure A2. Impacts of cutting Biomass. Figure A3. Impacts of lowering groundwater. Figure A4. Impacts of diverting the river inflows. Figure AS. Cumulative impacts of lowering groundwater and cutting biomass. Figure A6. Cumulative impacts of lowering groundwater and diverting river inflow. Figure A7. Cumulative impact of cutting biomass and diverting river inflow. Figure A8. Cumulative impacts of lowering groundwater, diverting river and cutting biomass. Figure BI. Diagram of global hydrology for evaluating transformities. (a) Global emergy basis; (b) global water flows from L'vovich (1974); (c) energy flows. Figure B2. Emergy signature for rice production in Arkansas. Figure B3. Emergy Signature for soybean production in Arkansas. Figure B4. Emergy signature for wheat production in Arkansas. Figure BS. Emergy signature for sorghum production in Arkansas. Figure B6. Emergy signature for corn production in Arkansas. Figure B7. Emergy signature for broiler production in Arkansas.

PAGE 7

7 List of Tables Table 1. Definitions Table 2. Emergy per Unit Table 3. Annual Emergy Flows of Arkansas Table 4. Export and Import Exchange Between Arkansas and Other States Table 5. Emergy Indices for Arkansas Table 6. Annual Emergy Flows of the Cache River Basin Table 7. Exchange Between the Cache River Basin and Other Parts of the United States Table 8. Emergy Indices for the Cache River Basin Table 9. Annual Emergy Flows in the Black Swamp Table 10. Annual Emdollar Values in one Hectare of Black Swamp Table 11. Simulated Impacts on the Productivity and Biomass of the Black Swamp Table 12. Steps for Emdollar Evaluation of a Proposed Change Appendix: Appendix Table AI. Data Used for Calibration (Table A2) of the Water Simulation model in Figure 13 Appendix Table A2. Calibration Spreadsheet for the Water Simulation model for the Black Swamp (Figure 13) Appendix Table A3. Simulation Program in BASIC (for Macintosh QBASIC) Appendix Table Bl. Emergy of Migrant Birds Appendix table B2. Emergy Evaluation of Rice Production in Arkansas Appendix Table B3. Emergy Evaluation of Soybean Production in Arkansas

PAGE 8

8 Appendix Table B4. Emergy Evaluation of Wheat Production in Arkansas Appendix Table BS. Emergy Evaluation of Sorghum Production in Arkansas Appendix Table B6. Emergy Evaluation of Corn Production in Arkansas Appendix Table B7. Emergy Evaluation of Poultry Broiler Production in Arkansas

PAGE 9

9 ABSTRACT This is the second and final report applying energy systems methods for overview, evaluation, and management of watersheds, with the Cache River in Arkansas as an example. The first report included systems models (diagrams and mathematical expressions) for showing environmental, ecological, and economic interactions in the Cache River watershed, and a portion of its floodplain known as the Black Swamp, for synthesizing knowledge and understanding cumulative impacts. This second report uses the systems overviews to evaluate influences and processes affecting the area on 3 scales, from the large scale down: (1) the state of Arkansas, (2) the Cache River watershed, and (3) the Black Swamp. Emergy and emdollars were used to determine what is important for environmental management and permitting. (Emergy is the available energy in units of one kind of energy previously used up directly and indirectly to make a product or service. Emdollars (em$) are the part of the gross economic product due to an emergy contribution). Policy for deciSions on environment can be based on the maximum empower principle, which defines choices as best which maximize empower and emdollar contributions of environment and the economy together. (Empower is the rate of emergy use per year). DeciSions on permitting of a development proposal should be those that maximize the emdollar production of the system. The state evaluation showed Arkansas to have a high level of indigenous real wealth (a high emergy/money ratio, and high emergy levels per person) compared to the United States as a whole. About 37% of the state's total emdollars were contributed by water, soils, natural gas and other local resources and 63% from fuels, goods, and services purchased from out of state. Only 11% was renewable. Twice as much real wealth (emergy) was sold out of state as rice and other commodities than was received in monetary payments. Evaluation of the Cache River watershed with its intensive rice production showed about half of the area's total emdollars were contributed by ground and river water uses and half from fuels, goods, and services purchased from out of the area. Forty two percent of the production was unsustainable, based on non-renewable use of soils and groundwater storages. Evaluation of the Black Swamp showed annual contributions to a hectare were: 1608 em$ in the inflow of sediments and 4847 em$ as organics.

PAGE 10

10 Physical energy contributed 449 em$ (geopotential energy used up). Forest productivity contributed $372 em$ using the chemical potential energy of water used by forests for their evapotranspiration. Swamp based fish production was 633 em$. Per hectare, the Black Swamp, with 7640 em$/year, was more valuable than the average Cache River watershed area with 4111 em$/year and the average for Arkansas with 4738 em$/year. For permitting, the burden of proof is on a developer to show that a proposed economic use of a swamp area will generate a greater annual emdollar value. Since energy systems models define mathematical equations, the models can be calibrated with observed data and simulated to determine the consequences of the relationships shown in the model. A model of the water budget of the Black Swamp and its groundwater was calibrated and simulated considering several "what if' alternatives. Cutting forest, and diverting the river had small effects on the groundwater compared to the larger effect of direct pumping. However, large cumulative impacts on the forest resulted from the three factors affecting the water budget together. As with any initial overview evaluation, closure was obtained by using whatever estimates and approximations were readily available. The numerical results therefore are uneven and preliminary, inviting refinement by specialists with better data.

PAGE 11

11 INTRODUCTION Understanding watersheds and their ecosystems requires that their roles in the surrounding economy and landscape be quantitatively evaluated. Since maximum economic benefits are not achieved by diminishing the life support functions of watersheds, decisions by those planning and authorizing developments need to be made according to the principle of maximizing the real wealth productivity of both the ecosystems and the dependent economy. This paper overviews and evaluates the developed Cache River watershed in Arkansas and the contributions of the original floodplain forest ecosystem now represented by a remnant, the Black Swamp. Energy systems diagrams are used to identify and summarize the main components and processes on three scales shown in Figures 1-3: (1) State of Arkansas; (2) Cache River Watershed; and (3) Black Swamp. Then the principal contributions to real wealth in these systems are evaluated with EMERGY, spelled with an "m", and expressed as emdollars for comparison with economic values on a common baSis. Patterns over time are explored with simulation models. Those considering changes in the watershed can use the results by comparing emdollars of existing environmental and economic contributions with emdollars of the systems to result from proposed changes. Changes which do not increase emdollar value should not be authorized. Cumulative Impacts Most cumulative impact evaluations have been concerned with the effects accumulating on one property of the landscape, such as groundwater or biodiversity. By contrast, a systems overview of an ecosystem in relation to its surroundings shows the interplay of all variables on each other. By expressing each variable in a measure that applies to them all, it is possible to add up all impacts, or examine them separately to identify principal actions. This study evaluates various changes taking place in the Cache River watershed that impact the floodplain forest remnant represented by the Black Swamp. Simulating Impacts Quantitative estimates of impacts of changes and proposed changes can be obtained by computer simulation of overview models, calibrated with local values for flow and storages. Included in this study is an example of the simulation of ground water response with an overview model that has water flows, storages, and interactions highly aggregated so that the

PAGE 12

12 process and result are easily understood. Overview assessment and decision making require simplicity, while including details considered to be important. Simulating aggregate water responses for this purpose, to learn "what if," is different from the detailed and expensive simulation of water distribution spatially. Each approach has its place in impact evaluation, depending on the scale of the questions. Concepts Emergy analysis is a procedure for environmental accounting of the cumulative work required for a product or service in units of one kind of energy. It allows the user to define the proportion of the regional economy due to a specific natural resource. It measures what an environmental resource is contributing to the regional economy. A brief explanation of emergy concepts and measures follows, with definitions summarized in Table 1. Emergy and Energy Hierarchy Because of the second energy law, all the processes of nature and the economy can be arranged in a series, representing the hierarchy of energy. All processes use up some of the potential of energy (its availability) to do work, dispersing that energy in degraded form. Therefore, the product of useful processes has less available energy in its output than its inputs. This means that processes may be arranged in an energy transformation series like Figure 4a. In each block, available energy is dispersed. Total energy flow (power) decreases from left to right, but becomes more concentrated. Examples are food chains, stages in the hydrological cycle, and steps in the production sectors of the economy. Energy is abundant but low quality on the left, whereas energy is less but of higher quality on the right, capable of doing more per calorie. It would be misleading, if not wrong, to conSider a calorie of energy on the right equivalent to one on the left. For example, a calorie of human service is many times more valuable than a calorie of sunlight. A calorie of a hawk's work in the ecosystem contributes and controls much more than a calorie of a leaf. It takes many calories on the left to make a calorie on the right. However, energies of different kinds may be appropriately compared by expressing each in units of one kind of available energy previously used up. In the approach used in this report, solar energy is used. Thus, Solar Emergy is defined as the available solar energy previously used directly and indirectly to make a product or service. The unit of emergy is the emcalorie or the emjoule. Whereas joules of energy are in a piece of wood,

PAGE 13

13 Table 1 Summary of Definitions Available Energy = Potential energy capable of doing work and being degraded in the process (units: kilocalories, joules, etc.) Useful Energy = Available energy used to increase system production and efficiency Power = Useful energy flow per unit time EMERGY = Available energy of one kind previously required directly and indirectly to make a product or service (units: emjoules, emkilocalories, etc.) Empower = EMERGY flow per unit time (units: emjoules per unit time) Transformity = EMERGY per unit available energy (units: emjoule per joule) Solar EMERGY = Solar energy required directly and indirectly to make a product or service (units: solar emjoules) Solar Empower = Solar EMERGY flow per unit time (units: solar emjoules per unit time) Solar Transformity = Solar EMERGY per unit available energy (units: solar emjoules per joule)

PAGE 14

14 emjoules refer to the available energy that was previously used up to make the wood. We sometimes call emergy the "energy memory." Maximum Empower Principle and Environmental Management The flow of useful emergy is also called empower (Table 1). The maximum power principle has long been advocated as a general principle for self organizing systems, including those of nature and of the economy. Stated so as to represent different kinds of energy appropriately, this principle is: Self organizing systems develop designs of components and relationships that maximize the intake and effiCient use of emergy. Designs with more empower displace those with less. Consequently, either by reason or by trial and error, the landscape with environment and economy will develop maximum empower designs. Public attitudes, environmental management and permitting, to be successful in the long run, need to arrange for maximum empower during development. Transformity Whereas the energy flow decreases through an energy transformation series, the emergy flow stays the same or increases if more inputs are added. Transformity is defined as the emergy per unit energy. It increases from left to right (Figure 4a). It is a measure of energy quality. Transformities are useful for making calculation of emergy from data on energy. Solar emergy = (energy)(solar transformity). Empower Density Self organizing systems develop centers of energy processing. Hierarchical centers have high concentrations of empower. The spatial concentration of empower is measured as areal empower density. For example, on a small scale, empower is concentrated in trunks of trees and in the bodies of animals. On a large scale empower is concentrated in flowing streams and human settlements. Empower of Arkansas, the Cache River Basin, and the Black Swamp As summarized in Figure 4b, sunlight, tides, and heat from the deep earth drive the geobiosphere, including the state of Arkansas. From the global processes, rains, geological contributions, and inputs from the economy operate the Cache River watershed. Climatic inputs and river waters operate the Black Swamp. In Figure 4b these are arranged from left to right in order of decreasing energy flow but increasing transformity.

PAGE 15

15 Emdollars and Real Wealth Figure 5 shows the main inputs to the economy of any area, including those free from the environment and those purchased and transported in. Through many processes and transformations these inputs develop the real wealth of the area such as forests, clean waters, clothing, food, housing, transport, information and aesthetics. Within that area the money circulating among the people facilitates efficient buying and selling, often measured by the gross economic product. Since emergy measures the real wealth on a common basis, dividing the annual emergy use by the gross economic product provides a useful emergy/money ratio for relating real wealth to money. The emdollar is defined as the emergy divided by the emergy/money ratio. Emdollars put environmental resource contributions on a common basis with contributions purchased by the economy. Environmental management can maximize empower by arranging developments and permits so that they maximize emdollars of the economy and environment. Emergy Indices Various ratios of emergy flows are useful for evaluating a system and its potential. Two are defined in Figure 6. The emergy yield ratio is calculated by dividing the emergy of the yield (Y) flowing into the economy on the right by the feedback of emergy (F) the economy is supplying from the right. A system with a large net emergy ratio is contributing much more real wealth than it requires for the process. Examples are rich mineral deposits and abundant fresh waters. In recent years the main sources of fuels that operate the nation have a net emergy ratio between 4 and 10, fluctuating with prices of fuels (Odum, 1996). The intensity of regional economic development and use of environment is given by an emergy investment ratio defined as the ratio of emergy purchased from the economy (F) to the emergy used free from the local environment (E). In wilderness parks the ratio is less than one. Typical development in the U.S. has an investment ratio of 7. By offering more free local inputs than usual, developments less than 7 tend to cost less, capture markets, and compete economically. Study Areas State of Arkansas Arkansas, in the center of the United States, includes the Ozark mountain highlands on the west and the Mississippi River alluvial valley on the east. The latter includes the floodplain and old channels of the Mississippi River, as well as current streams and tributaries, such as the Cache River (Figure la).

PAGE 16

Ft. Smith (a) (b) -,.--Cache River Basin is Black Swamp Study Site Figure 1. Three scales of watershed evaluation (1) as part of Arkansas; (2) the Cache River Watershed; (3) the Black Swamp.

PAGE 17

17 Cache River Basin The Cache River rises in southeastern Missouri, and flows south-southwest through northeast Arkansas to its confluence with the White River (Figure 2). It is one of several rivers traversing the Western Lowlands, an alluvial plain in the upper portions of the Mississippi River Valley. The landscape is flat and fertile, and has thus been conducive to the establishment of agriculture, primarily crops such as soybeans, rice, cotton, and wheat. Beginning with initial clearing and drainage in the early part of this century, more than 80% of the former forestland of the Cache River basin has been converted to agriculture. Of the little natural area that remains, most is floodplain forest along the watercourses of the alluvial plain. In the Cache River basin, this is primarily concentrated in several clumps found along the lower portions of the river. Black Swamp The Black Swamp Wildlife management area is a part of the remaining bottomland hardwood area in the lower Cache River Basin (Figure 2). These are not virgin forests, but many patches have grown 100 or more years since cutting. Background of Previous Studies The Cache River Basin The Cache River basin was the subject of a major Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)(COE 1974), based on proposals for renovation and extension of the previously completed channelization of portions of the river. The previous channel works occurred in the upper basin, for 89 miles from river mile 114 near the town of Grubbs to the headwaters of the river near Qulin, Missouri, and partial completion of the lower 10.5 miles of the river at its confluence with the White River (Figure 1). The Environmental Impact Statement (IS) contains detailed information on various aspects of the ecology and economy of the basin, and some history of human use in the area. Mauney and Harp (1979) studied the effects of this channelization on the fisheries of the Cache River and its main tributary Bayou DeView. They found a general decline in fish populations in those areas that were channelized, as compared to natural stretches of the streams. Because of the drastic effect of rice irrigation on depleting the alluvial aquifer in extenSively-farmed areas of the Western Lowlands, substantial

PAGE 18

White River Black Swamp Study Site Cache River 18 o Roads Scale I 10 Miles 20 Figure 2. Map of the Cache River Basin (Adapted from: Corps of Engineers, 1974).

PAGE 19

Station __ ... -.--Cache River Gauging Station Study Site IKUiI -Bottomland Hardwoods Black Swamp Wildlife Management Area Figure 3. Map of the Black Swamp (Source: Baker and Killgore, 1994).

PAGE 20

20 Energy flow, Calories per time 10 1 1000 10 1 910 81 8 -Transformity = Solar Emergy/Energy 1000 = 1 1000 Geobiosphere 1000 = 10 100 (a) 1000 = 100 10 1000 = 1000 1 ____________________________ ---------._-_ ... --------------------_ .. -_. -------------------------------_.-------.----------------.-.--------------------------------------------------------(b) Figure 4. A series of energy transformations forming an energy hierarchy from left to right with each measured by its transformity. (a) Energy transformation series based on one energy source with calculation of solar transformity of energy of the flows downstream to the right; (b) main energy flows and transformations contributing to the Black Swamp.

PAGE 21

Sun,Wind Tide, Rain Earth Heat Rivers 21 Purchase Out of State -------.$ I 1..----, I" Gross '\ t Economic I \. product ...... ..---Arkansas Sales out of State __ .::.Em-!;.p_o_w_e_r _U_s_e ___ = Emergy/money Ratio Gross Economic Product Fuels Electric Power Figure S. Empower (emergy flow) and money circulation in a state. (a) Energy systems diagram; (b) emergy to money ratio used to evaluate emdollars of environmental contribution.

PAGE 22

Environment, E Local, Free System Emergy Investment Ratio = F E Feedback, F Yield, Y Main Economy Emergy Yield Ratio = _:L F Figure 6. Emdollar indices used to evaluate environmental developments.

PAGE 23

23 study was made of the hydrology of this region, including the Cache River basin. As early as 1953, an unreplenished decline of the aquifer in the western portions of Cross, Poinsett, and St. Francis counties was noted, as well as an alteration in the general flow direction of the aquifer in this area (Counts and Engler 1954). Broom and Lyford (1982) and Ackerman (1989) modelled the interactions of irrigation and water movement throughout the surface and groundwater systems of the region. Their efforts showed the depletion of the aquifer affecting surficial hydrology of the region, capturing streamflow from the Cache River as a source of recharge for the lowered aquifer. Smith and Saucier (1971) mapped and described the geomorphology of the Western Lowlands region as part of a larger effort to map the entire Mississippi River Valley Alluvial Plain. They provide descriptions of historic and current locations of the rivers of the region, and include a portfolio of maps showing plan-view and cross-section analyses of the geologic formations that currently occupy the area. A special issue of the journal Wetlands in 1996 included 12 papers on the Cache River BaSin and the Black Swamp, the results of an intensive study starting about 1987. The cooperative effort of the u.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE), the u.S. Geological Survey (USGS), and several other Federal and State agencies (Clairain and KleiSS, 1989) was designed to consider biological, chemical, and physical aspects of bottomland hardwood ecosystems including work to assess fisheries, hydrology, sedimentation, spatial information, vegetation, water quality, and wildlife (Kleiss 1993, 1996). In her summary of this special issue, Kleiss (1996) explains the way the clearing of bottomland hardwoods, first for soybeans and then for rice, with heavy groundwater pumping for part of the year, changed water levels, hydro period, and ecology for the remaining bottomland hardwoods in the rest of the basin. Kress, Graves, and Bourne (1996) mapped the land use changes, with forest cover decreasing from 65% to 15% from 1935 to 1975. Remaining forest, mostly on hydric soils, is fragmented with a large edge/area ratio. Gonthier and Kleiss (1993) and Gonthier (1996) analyzed the records of groundwater wells located throughout the Black Swamp, which penetrated to varying depths in the underlying geologic units, including the alluvial aquifer and its overlying confining unit. Groundwater levels of the basins, including that under the bottomland hardwoods (Black Swamp), varied

PAGE 24

24 seasonally and year to year with the heavy pumping for rice agriculture. Floodplains that once received groundwater inputs were often recharging groundwaters. During periods of rising stream flow, the Cache River contributes recharge to the alluvial aquifer, while during falling stream levels the aquifer discharges to the river. Walton and Chapman (1993) and Walton, Chapman, and Davis (1996) presented their spatial hydrologic simulation model of the watershed with 67 nodes synthesizing the interactions of precipitation, canopy interception, overland flow, channel flow, infiltration, evapotranspiration, and horizontal groundwater flow. The model generated a reasonable fit to a hydroperiod graph of number of days versus water level of the Cache River. The model provided an estimate of hydroperiod for sampling plots located throughout the swamp. Wilber, Tighe, and O'Neill (1996) found the low river flows in summer to be related to drawdowns of the groundwater by rice agriculture and not to climate. At the end of summer, when pumping ceases, groundwater levels in the drawdown areas rise, albeit to levels lower than those preceding withdrawal. Black Swamp Walton, Davis, Martin and Chapman (1996), analyzing the hydrology of the Black Swamp, found that the highly channelized Cache River watershed had downstream constrictions, causing overbank flooding and wetland hydroperiod dependent on rains in the short-run. Nestler and Long (1994) and Long and Nestler (1996) found that the hydroperiod in the swamps has become erratic in dry periods with a loss of base flow that may be attributed to groundwater pumping. Hupp and Morris (1990) found that, prior to the late 1940's, deposition of sediment in the swamp was consistent with normal sedimentation rates in other, unimpacted alluvial floodplains. After that time, however, sediment accumulation rates in the floodplain increased substantially, more than doubling from previous years. Kleiss (1996) measured the sediment budget and deposition for the Black Swamp, finding sedimentation at 1 cm/yr, removing 14% of the sediments from the river, most in the bottom of the floodplain. Main factors affecting sedimentation rate were flood duration, tree basal area and distance from the river. With the help of a model of water detention on the floodplain Dortch (1996) evaluated the removal of suspended solids, total nitrogen, and total phosphorus from floodwaters. With a retention time of 5 days, sediment

PAGE 25

25 removal was 6.6%/ day, total nitrogen 4.8% per day, and total phosphorus 0.58% per day, rates less than in marshes. Boar, Delaune, Lindau and Patrick (1993) and Delaune, Boar, Lindau, and Kleiss (1996) measured denitrification process in the Black Swamp, finding that 9 parts per million nitrate nitrogen in floodwaters were reduced between 59 to 82% in 40 days. Experiments showed that the organic carbon available to the sediment process was a limiting factor. Smith (1996), analyzing the vegetation with gradient ordination methods, found four main types in the Black Swamp, typical of southeastern United States. These were named by dominant trees and related to flood depth and duration: In river-swamp forest with nearly continuous flooding: 1. Water Tupelo and Bald Cypress, With 50% flooding, two types of lower hardwood swamp forest, with more species: 2. Nuttall's Oak and Green Ash 3. Overcup Oak and Water Hickory With flooding 30% of the year, diverse backwater forest 4. Willow Oak and Sweetgum Baker and Killgore (1994) and Kilgore and Baker (1996) evaluated the Black Swamp's role as a fisheries nursery by study of fish populations and larval fish abundance. The fish community was comprised almost entirely of flood-exploitative species. Larval fishes of 35 taxa were found, more in the floodplain than in the river, and more in years of greater flood area. Wakeley and Roberts (1994, 1996) evaluated small bird populations in transects across the Black Swamp and related these to the gradient of water flooding and the four vegetation types, including analysis of structural characteristics of vegetation, snags, tree heights, etc. Because of the fragmented patchiness with edge, more birds were found in the Black Swamp than in some continuous forest. Although number of species in the four types of habitat was similar, the dominant species were different and arranged on a scale of water gradient. Birds were fewer in winter; migrants were a small percentage.

PAGE 26

26 Content of This Study This study includes energy systems models, emergy, and emdollar evaluations of the state of Arkansas, the Cache River Watershed and a hectare of Black Swamp. Included is an example of simulation of an overview model. Because overview models at the level of human verbal thinking are relatively simple, calibrating and simulating can be done in a day or two and does not require a major project authorization. A model of the Black Swamp interaction with waters was simulated to evaluate potential impacts of some changes in watershed management on ground water and other variables.

PAGE 27

27 METHODS Developing Systems Models from Verbal Concepts Energy System Diagramming Developing an overview model starts with the drawing of a diagram of the system of interest. After defining the physical boundary, important outside sources are listed and drawn around the boundary from left to right in order of their transformity, which marks their position in the energy hierarchy (sun, wind rain, river, geology, fuel, chemicals, goods, services, tourists, market, etc.). The main internal components and processes in the system are identified and drawn inside the system frame, such as forest, agriculture and industrial producers, urban areas, water storages, etc. Pathways, interactions, and money transactions are connected. The first diagram may be complex because minor components and processes may be included. Next the diagram is simplified to those parts and pathways that are found to be most important. Emergyand Emdollar Evaluation Emergy analysis tables were prepared on three scales: the state using 1992 data on Arkansas, the watershed and the swamp. For each system an emergy evaluation table was prepared with a line item for each input, output, and other items of special interest. An emergy evaluation table typically has 6 columns: (1) number of the line item and its footnote, (2) the name of the item to be estimated, (3) data in units of energy, mass or cost, (4) emergy per unit, (5) solar emergy and (6) emdollars. Energy flows are calculated from standard formulae from physics, chemistry, geology, economics, engineering, etc. Emergy per unit was obtained from previous emergy studies (Table 2). Solar emergy of each line item was estimated by multiplying the data in column 3 by the solar emergy per unit from column 4. Finally, the real wealth value in emdollars was calculated by dividing emergy by the emergy/money ratio of the country, state or region. Emergy/money ratio was obtained by dividing the gross economic product by the total contributing emergy used by that system. Finally, summations and indices defined in Table 1 and Figure 6 were calculated to interpret the condition of the system. Full explanation of methods is given in a recent book on environmental accounting (Odum 1996).

PAGE 28

Item Direct sunlight Wind Rain chemical potential Runoff geopotential River geopotential Earth cycle Coal River chemical potential Natural gas Petroleum Sorghum & cotton Topsoil losses Groundwater Electricity (nuclear) Rice & soybean Hydroelecetricity Wheat Poultry Migrants birds Livestock production Fish production Forest products Soil losses Bromine Potassium Phosphorus Nitrogen Pesticides a Odum,1996 b Romitelli, Appendix B Table 2 Emergy per Unit Value and Unit 1 sej/] 1.5 E3 sej/] 1.81 E4 sej/] 2.8 E4 sej/] 2.8 E4 sej/] 3.4 E4 sej/] 4.0 E4 sej/] 4.8 E4 sej/] 4.8 E4 sej/] 5.4 E4 sej/] 6.0 E4 sej/] 7.4 E4 sej/] 1.6 E5 sej/] 1.7 E5 sej/] 1.7 E5 sej/] 1.7 E5 sej/] 2.2 E5 sej/] 7.0 E5 sej/] 9.7 E5 sej/] 2.0 E6 sej/] 2.0 E6 sej/] 2.8 E8 sej/] 1.0 E9 sej/g 1.0 E9 sej/g 1.1 E9 sej/g 3.9 E9 sej/g 4.6 E9 sej/g 1.48 E10 sej/g c Brown and McClanahan, 1995 d As fluorite, Brown and McClanahan, 1995 Source a a a a a a a a a a b a c a b a b b b c a c a d a a a a

PAGE 29

29 Simulating Impacts Starting with an overview systems diagram previously drawn, a simplified model diagram was drawn retaining the components of interest, the impacting influences, and the important pathways. In this study, as an example, groundwater fluctuations were observed as the Black Swamp system was impacted by different water-related processes. The simplified model of the Cache River system included pathways delivering influence from outside and from other parts of the system. Equations for each of the storage compartments of the diagram were written following the nearly automatic translation of the systems symbols to mathematical form. Each equation has positive terms for flows into storage and negative terms for flows going out. To calibrate the model, quantitative values for the inputs, storage and flows were fed into the model using summary data where available. Otherwise, data from similar systems were used or indirectly calculated from relationships between variables (e.g., retention time = ratio between volume of storage and flows). A spreadsheet program was used to estimate the values of coefficients (the k's in the program equations). Values of flows and storages were assigned to each variable in the mathematical terms for flows. After the terms were set equal to the flows, the term was manipulated with k's on one side equal to the numerically evaluated expression on the other side. The calculations were built into the spreadsheet so that changing one value automatically changed all other places affected. For example, Appendix Table 1 was used for the calculation of coefficients of the groundwater impact model. Explanations were given in footnotes to the spreadsheet table for each item. The program for the simulation of cumulative impacts on groundwater in the Black Swamp is written in QBASIC and included as Appendix Table A2. It includes statements to introduce the starting variables, the coefficient values, the equations for change on each iteration, and plotting statements. The model was run first with the calibration data to simulate pre-impact conditions operating in steady state conditions. Then the main program was modified to include statements that would simulate impacting actions, including groundwater pumping, river diversion and forest cutting. To simulate effects of groundwater pumping, values of ]g were reduced by increments of 1 E7 m 3 This represents decrease of about 30, 60 and

PAGE 30

30 90% of the outside groundwater flows feeding the alluvial aquifer below the Black Swamp. River diversion was simulated by deducting equal incremental volumes of 2 E7 m 3/month from the Cache River inputs (Jc). These represent reductions of 17,35 and 52% of the average flow of Cache River now running through the Black Swamp. Forest cutting was simulated, reducing starting values of the hardwood forest biomass (B) by increments of 5 E4 tons. It simulates cutting l3%, 26%, and 39% of original forest. Graphs of groundwater levels and other variables over time obtained from simulation are included as Appendix Tables AI-All. From these a table of impact changes was prepared summarizing the many runs. See Odum (1983, 1996) for more extensive explanations of the methodology of energy systems modelling and simulation.

PAGE 31

31 RESULTS Arkansas Energy Systems Diagram Figure 7a is the overview model of the state of Arkansas with the water components and flows darkly shaded. Emdollar Evaluation Tables Table 3 has the energy and emdollar evaluation of the important sources, imports, and exports. Table 4 has the exchanges with the rest of the United States based on the percentage of workers in various occupations. Contributions to real wealth from the tables are shown in bar graph form in Figure 8 from left to right in order of their transformity (position in natural energy hierarchy). Major contributions come from the rain's chemical and geopotential energy, the fossil fuels used within the state, and the goods and services purchased from outside the state. Rainfall over the land does work on the landscape which is measured as runoff geopotential. Arkansas has an uneven relief with mountains and plateaus over its west side and the Mississippi floodplain in its east side. Therefore, it has a relatively high runoff geopotential (-30% of its renewable emergy). The state has a diversified economy with important industrial agriculture requiring imports of pesticides and fertilizers. Fuels represents 31 % of state imports. Goods and services are 46% of state imports. The state exports meat and services embodied in its agricultural and industrial production. Emergy Indices State indices derived from the emergy evaluation tables are listed in Table 5. Arkansas is 58% self sufficient. Its ratio of resources added by the economy to the environmental renewable resources is 2.9. With 48 inches of rain, water is 13% of the state's annual source of real wealth. Comparisons The emergy basis for the state is summarized in an aggregated diagram in Figure 7b. Arkansas has a higher percentage of its economic basis supplied from environmental emergy than the more developed states of Florida and Texas, but less than that of Alaska and Maine. The state is also relatively rich in non-renewable mineral resources that are intensely used by the economy. Its natural gas reserves provides the amount used by the state and supply the state with 28% of its energetic needs (ElA, 1994).

PAGE 32

I I o Arkansas (a) Figure 7. Energy systems diagram of Arkansas with main empower inputs in solar emjoules per year. (a) Complex diagram; (b) aggregated summary; (c) three arm summary. I I I I I I I co N

PAGE 33

33 Natural Capital 780 Sun Wind Taxes -----------.. Rivers Rain 198 l A,k.n,,, / ------Billion $ per year --E20 solar emjoules per year (b) 780 567 1230 Exports Services Attractions Arkansas 1 230 E20 Sej/year 1347 E20 sej/year $ Solar Emergy/Money ______________ = 3.45 E12 sej/ 39 E9 $/year (c) Figure 7 (continued)

PAGE 34

Note Item Renewable Resources 1 Direct sunlight 2 Wind 3 Runoff geopotential 4 Rain chemical pot. 5 Inflow river geopot. 6 Inflow river chern. pot. 7 Earth cycle Indigenous Renewable Energy 8 Rice & soybean 9 Wheat 10 Sorghum & cotton 11 Poultry 12 Livestock production 13 Forest products 14 Fish production 15 Hydroelec. Table 3 Annual Emergy Flows of Arkansas Data 793 E20 1.51 E18 8.55 E16 7.91 E17 9.77 E16 7.12 E15 1.35 E17 9.71 E16 1.32 E16 1.40 E16 1.38 E16 6.34 E15 8.13 E12 8.71 E13 3.67E16 Units J,g,$/yr J J J J J J J J J J J J g J J Emergy IU nit sej/unit 1 1496 27874 18199 27874 48459 34377 1.70 E5 2.20 E5 6.00 E4 7.00 E5 2.00 E6 2.75 E8 2.00 E6 1.70 E5 EMERGY E20 sej 8 23 24 144 27 3 46 198 165 29 8 97 127 22 2 62 513 1990 Emdollars E6Em$ 230 653 690 4174 789 100 1344 4785 845 243 2808 3675 648 50 1811 w .jO-

PAGE 35

Table 3 (continued) Indigenous Non-renewables Resources 16 Groundwater 2.88 E16 J 1.60 E5 46 1336 17 Bromine 1.71 Ell g 1.31 EIO 22 650 18 Coal 1.33 E15 J 3.98 E4 1 15 19 Natural gas 2.32 E17 J 4.80 E4 111 3228 20 Petroleum 6.44 E16 J 5.30 E4 34 990 21 Soil losses 1.34 E13 g 1.00 E9 134 3892 22 Topsoil losses 2.44 E16 J 7.40 E4 18 522 23 Electricity (nuc!.) 1.27 E17 J 1.70 E5 215 6243 582 16876 Imports w 24 Coal 2.32 E17 J 3.98 E4 92 2673 en 25 Petroleum 2.38 E17 J 5.30 E4 126 3654 26 Nitrogen 1.32 Ell g 4.60 E9 6 176 27 Phosphorus 6.99 E9 g 3.90 E9 0 8 28 Potassium 6.82 EIO g 1.10 E9 1 22 29 Pesticides 5.60 EIO g 1.48 EIO 8 240 30 Goods 9 263 31 Services 1.85 EIO $ 1.75 E12 324 9386 567 16421 Exports 32 Poultry 1.35 E16 J 7.00 E5 94 2730 33 Livestock 3.99 E15 J 2.00 E6 80 2313 34 Goods 2 61 35 Services 2.24 E10 3.45 E12 774 22440 1231 35675

PAGE 36

36 Footnotes for Table 3 Area of the State = 1.35 Ell m 2 1. Sunlight: 385 ly/day = 3850 kcallm2/day (Weather Atlas of US) Energy = (3850 kcal/m2/day)(1.35 Ell m 2)(365 days/yr)(4186 J/kcal) = 7.93 E20 Jlyr 2. Wind energy Calculated as Odum, 1996, Appendix B, with eddy diffusion coefficient and vertical gradient coefficient (Odum, Diamond and Brown, 1987) = (height)(density)(diff coefficient)(wind gradient)(area) = (1000 m)(1.23 kg/m3)(14.74 m 3/m2/s)( 4.42 E-3 m/s/m)2 (area)(sec/yr) = 1.51 E18 Jlyr 3. Rain geopotential energy = (area)(runofflyr)(ave elev gradient)(1000 kg/m3)(9.8m/s2 ) average rain = 48 in/yr = 1.22 m/yr Energy .34 E9 m 2)(450m) + (1.78 ElO m 2)(390 m) + (2.67 E10 m 2 ) (120 m) + (8.92 ElO m 2)(75 m(0.50 m)(lOOO kg/m3 )(9.8 mls2 ) = 8.55 E16 J/yr 4. Rain chemical potential (Water used in evapotranspiration) = 55 in (Weather Atlas of US) pan coefficient = 0.85 (Scott, H.D. et ai., 1987) = 46.75 in/yr= 1.19 m/yr Energy = (area)(evaporation)(l E6 g/m3)(4.94 JIg) = 7.91 E17 J/yr 5 River geopotential Major Inflowing rivers Arkansas and Mississippi Rivers Flow in Arkansas River = 872 m 3/s (Water Data-USGS, 1971) Change in elevation (210 m 30.5 m) Energy = (volume)(density)(height in height out)(gravity) = 4.84 E16 Jlyr Flow in (Mississippi River) = 13300 m 3/s Change in elevation: (45 21 m) = 9.86 E16 Jlyr Assumed 112 used in the State = 4.93 E16 Jlyr Total River Geopotential = 9.77 E16 J/yr

PAGE 37

:)1 Footnotes for Table 3 (continued) 6. River phemical potential in major inflowing rivers: Arkansas River flow = 872 m 3/s Gibbs Free Energy in = 4.92 J/g (200 mg/l dissolved solids) Gibbs Free Energy out = 4.88 J/yr (400 mg/l dissolved solids) Energy = (volume)(density)(Gibbs Free Energy) Energy in = 1.35297 E17 Energy out = 1.34472 E17 In Out = 8.24982 E14 Mississippi River flow = 13300 m 3/s Energy in = 2.06 E18 Energy out = 2.05 E18 In -out = 1.26 E16 ]Iyr Arkansas state total = 6.29 E15 J/yr Total river chern potential = 7.12 E15 ]Iyr 7. Earth Cycle Energy = (land area)(heat flow/area) = Assumed heat flows = 1 E6 J/m2/yr Energy = 1.35 E17 ]Iyr Notes 8-10. Agricultural production data on Arkansas from Census of Agriculture (1992): Sorghum 5.93 E8; wheat 9.59 E8; rice 3.42 E9; cotton 3.43 E8; soybeans 2.70 E9 Energy calculated as in Odum, H.T. et al.( 1987) Energy = (mass)(energy/unit) 8. Rice and Soybeans Rice = (3.43 Ell g)(3.60 kcal/g)(4186 J/kcal) = 5.17 E15 J/yr Soybeans = (2. 70 g)( 4.03 kcal/g)( 4186 J/kcal) = 4.56 E16 ]Iyr Total = 5.07 E16 ]Iyr 9. Wheat (3.42 E12 g)(3.30 kcal/g)(4186 ]Ikcal) = 4.73 E16 10. Sorghum and Cotten Sorghum = (9.59 Ell g)(3.32 kcal/g)(4186J/kcal) = 1.33 E16J/yr Cotton = (2.70 E12 g)(4.0 kcal/g)(4186 ]Ikcal) = 4.52 E16 J/yr Total = 5.86 E16 ]Iyr

PAGE 38

Footnotes for Table 3 (continued) Notes 11-12. Animal production data for Arkansas from Census of Agriculture (1992): Cattle 1.63 E6; cattle sold 8.18 E5; hogs & pigs 7.25 E5; pigs sold 2.02 E6; sheep 1.20 E4; chicken 2.21 E7; broilers 8.62 E8 Calculated as in Odum, H.T. et al. (1987) Energy = (annual production mass)(energy/mass) 11. Poultry Broilers = 2.13 kcaVg (US Department of Agriculture Handbook 8) (number produced)(1.8 kg/animal)(2.13 kcaVg)(4186 Jlkcal) = 1.38 E16 J/yr 12. Livestock Energy contents from US Department of Agriculture Handbook 8 Beef = 2.92 kcaVg; pork = 3.76 kcaVg (Cattle sold)(3.5 E5 g/animal)(2.92 kcaVg)( 4186 Jlkcal) = 3.48 E15 Jlyr Pigs: (pigs sold)(9 E4 g/animal)(3.76 kcal/g)(4186 J/kcal) = 2.86 E15 J/yr 13. Forest Production Data from US Department of Agriculture -Southern Forest Experimental Station, Vissage, ].S. and P.E. Miller -Southern Pulpwood production, 1990 Pulpwood production for 1990; 4.99 E6 cords = 6.38 E8 ft3 = 1.81 E7 m 3 Density assumed 450 kg/m3 (specific density = 0.45) Forest production = 8.13 E9 kg/yr = 8.13 E12 g/yr Energy = (weight)(3.6 kcal/g)( 4186 J/kcal) = 1.23 E17 Jlyr 14. Fish production data from Census of Agriculture, 1992, on fish sales in Arkansas: 4.45 E7 lb = 2.02 E7 kg Energy = (mass)(energy/mass) = (92.02 ElO g fish)(1.03 kcaVg)(4186 J/kcal) = 8.71 E13 J/yr

PAGE 39

39 Footnotes for Table 3 (continued) 15. Hydroelectricity production data from EIA Electrical Power Annual (1992) = 3.48 E13 Btu Energy = (3.48 E13 Btu)(1055.87 J/yr/Btu) = 3.67 E16 Jlyr 16. Groundwater data from US Geological Survey Open File Report 91-203 on 1989 water use for Arkansas: Groundwater consumption: 4.25 E3 = million gal/day = 5.88 E9 m 3/yr Chemical potential energy of groundwater: (volume)(l E6 g/m3 )(4.9 J/g) = 2.88 E16 Jlyr 17. Bromine data from The Mineral Yearbook, 1992 Bromine production = 1.71 E5 ton/yr = 1. 711 Ell g/yr 18. Coal production data for Arkansas from Energy Information Administration Coal production (1992) = 4.60 E4 short ton = 4.17 E4 ton/yr Energy = (41731.2 ton)(3.18 ElO J/ton) = 1.33 E15 Jlyr 19. Natural gas production data for Arkansas from Energy Information Agency/Natural gas annual 1992, Vol. 1 = 2.11 Ell cubic feet = (2.11 E8 thsd cubic ft)( 1.1 E9 J/thsd cubic feet) = 2.32 E17 Jlyr 20. Petroleum production data for Arkansas from Energy Information Administration/Petroleum Supply Annual 1992, Vol. 2 = 1.026 E7 barrels Energy produced: = (10260 E3 barrels)(6.28 E9 Jlbarrel) = 6.4433 E16 J/yr 21. Soil loss erosion in Arkansas cropland = 500 g/m2/yr (Odum et aI., 1983); cropland area = 2.69 ElO m 2 (500 g/m3/yr)(2.69 E10 m 2 ) = 1.34 E13 g/yr 22. Topsoil Energy Losses: Assuming 3% organic content and 5.4 kcal/g (Soil weight per year)(organic fraction)(5.4 kcal/g)( 4186 J/kcal) = 9.10 E15 J/yr

PAGE 40

40 Footnotes for Table 3 (continued) 23. Electricity (nuclear) data from ElA-Electrical Power Annual, 1992 Nuclear energy = 1.20 E14 Btu (1.20 E14 Btu)( 1055.87 J/Btu) = 1.27 E17 J/yr 24. Coal import data for Arkansas from Energy Information Administration -State Energy Data Report, 1992 = 12536 E3 short tonn = 220.7 trillion Btu Coal energy use = (220.7 E12 Btu)(1055.87 J Btu) = 2.33 E17 J/yr Coal Imported = (use -produced) = 2.32 E17 J/yr 25. Petroleum import data from Energy Information Administration/ Petroleum Supply Annual 1992, Vol. 2 4.29 E7 barrels = 2.29 E14 Btu = 2.38 E17 J/y Notes 26-28. Fertilizers estimated for crops and area planted: using kilograms per hectare as follows: N P20s K20 Sorghum 37.8 3.4 0.9 (Pimentel, 1980) Wheat 89.7 1.12 0 (Pimentel, 1980) Rice 134.5 0 33.6 (Pimentel, 1980) Cotton 40.0 16.0 17 (Kohee & Lewis, 1984) Soybeans 5.61 0 33.6 (Pimentel, 1980) 26. Nitrogen use in kilograms/yr: For sorghum 5.28 E6; wheat 2.96 E7; rice 7.42 E7; cotton 1.54 E7; soybeans 7.19 E6 Total N used (g/yr) = 1.32 Ell g/yr 27. Phosphorus use in kilograms/yr: Sorghum 4.75 E5; wheat 3.70 E5; rice 0; cotton 6.14 E6; soybeans O. Total P use = 6.99 E9 g/yr 28. Potassium use in kilograms/yr: Sorghum 1.26 E5; wheat 0; rice 1.85 E7; cotton 6.52 E6; soybeans 4.30 E7 Total P used = 6.82 E10 g/yr

PAGE 41

41 Footnotes for Table 3 (continued) 29. Pesticides data for Arkansas from US Dept. of Commerce, Bureau of Census, 1994 -1992 Census of Manufactures -Agricultural Chemicals = 2.02 E8$/yr Average price of pesticides = 3.60 $/kg pesticides Weight of pesticides used in the State = Expenses/Average Price = 5.60 E7 kg = 5.60 ElO g/yr 30. Goods imported into Arkansas were estimated as a fraction of U.S. imports of basic mineral and metal production in 1992. Arkansas population is 0.94% of U.S. population. U.S. Imports (1994 US Statistical Abstract): Item Quantity Emergy/g Emergy, sej/yr Iron Ore 1.25 E13 g 1.00 E9 1.25 E22 Steel Prod. 1.73E13g 2.64 E9 4.57 E22 Aluminum 1.16 E12 g 1.60 E10 1.86 E22 Copper ref 2.89 Ell g 6.80 ElO 1.97 E22 9.64 E22 Emergy = (9.64 E22 sej/yr)(0.0094) = 9.06 E20 J/y 31. Services supplied to Arkansas with imports a. Services with fuels Btu $/1 E6 Btu $ Expenditures Coal Petroleum Total 2.17945 E14 2.28576 E14 1.66 7.82 3.62 E8 1.79 E9 2.15 E9 b. Services with imported manufactured goods estimated as fraction of U.S. imports for 1992 less petroleum, meat, and gas; Arkansas population 0.94% of U.S. population (4.76 Ell dollars)(0.0094) = 4.46 E9 $/yr

PAGE 42

42 Footnotes for Table 3 (continued) c. Relative services imported from other parts of U.S. as given in Table 4 = 1.02 E10 $ d. Federal benefit to Arkansas in 1992 = 1.69 E9 $ Total imported services = 1.85 E10 $/yr Notes 32-33. Animal production sold out of state estimated as the difference of production and consumption in the State. Per capita consumption from 1994 US Stastitistical Abstract -Data as boneless weight with data on pounds divided by 0.70, the percent of meat in the whole animal weight 32. Poultry broiler sales out of state: Production 1.55 E12 g Consumption per capita 1.80 E4 g Consumption 4.3 E10 g Weight exported 1.51 E12 g Broiler energy exported: (1.51 E12 g exported)(2.13 kcaVg)(4186 ]/kcal) = 1.35 E16]/yr 33. Livestock sales out of state: Production Consumption per capita Consumption Weight exported Cattle energy: Beef 2.86 Ell g 4.07 E4 g 9.75 E10 g 1.89 Ell g Pork 1.81 Ell g 3.11 E4 g 7.45 E10 g 1.07 Ell g = (1.89 Ell g)(2.92 kcaVg)(4186]/kcal) = 2.31 E15 Pork energy: = (1.07 Ell g)(0.76 kcaVg)(4186]/kcal) = 1.68 E15 Total Livestock exports = 3.99 E15 ]/yr 34. Goods exports were estimated as fraction of U.S. exports of iron and steel products in 1992 5.3 E6 tons (1994 US Statistical Abstract) Weight = (5.3 E6) (907 kg/ton)(l E3 g/kg) = 4.81 E12 g Emergy = (4.8 E15 g)(4.65 E9 selig) = 2.24 E22 sej In proportion to population Iron & Steel products from Arkansas = (2.24 E25)(0.0094) = 2.10 E20 sej/yr

PAGE 43

43 Footnotes for Table 3 (continued) 35. Services exported = (value of total production)(percent exported) a. Animals exported: (production 2.44 E9 $/yr)(0.85 exported) = 2.08 E9 $/yr b. Foreign Export from Arkansas in 1992 = 1.32 E9 $ (1994 Statistical Abstract of the United States) c. Relative exports to other States from Table 4 = 1.63 E10 $ d. Federal Taxes in 1992 = 2.75 E9 $ (1994 Statistical Abstract of the United States) Total Export = 2.24 ElO $/yr

PAGE 44

Table 4 Export and Import Exchange Between Arkansas and Other States Agr. Min. U.S. average 0.03 0.01 State average 0.01 0 Difference -0.02 -0.01 $/employee 34579 149096 #/employees -18729 -9365 Export/import $ -6.48 E8 -1.40 E9 Imports: -1.02 ElO $/yr Exports: 1.63 E10 $/yr Net Export: -6.14 E9 $/yr Constr. Manuf. Transp. Wholes. Retail Finance Servo Gov't 0.06 0.17 0.07 0.04 0.17 0.07 0.35 0.05 0.04 0.24 0.05 0.05 0.18 0.04 0.23 0.16 -0.02 0.07 -0.02 0.01 0.01 -0.03 -0.12 0.11 34365 50971 58460 75550.89 26341 125580 25541 116726 -18729 65552 -18729 9365 9365 -28094 -112375 103011 t -6.44 E8 3.34 E9 -1.1 E9 7.08 E8 2.47 E8 -3.5 E9 -2.9 E9 1.2 E10 (Calculation done considering the difference in percent of employment per sector for U.S. and State and the relative contribution of employee of each sector to the country GNP)

PAGE 45

Footnotes for Table 4 EXPORTS 1. Animal prod uction (GOODS) Production Per capita Beef Pork Broiler Total grams 5.56 Ell 1.81 Ell 2.16 E12 2.89 E12 consump 114044.8 72640.0 50303.2 45 State consump 2.73 Ell 1.74 Ell 1.2 Ell Export 2.83 Ell 7.59 E9 2.04 E12 2.33 E12 Production = (number of animals)(average weight) Assuming average weights for Cattle = 680 kg Pork = 90 kg Broiler = 2.5 kg Energy J/yr 5.07 E15 1.76 E14 2.04 E16 2.56 E16 Per capita consumption (Data from 1994 US Statistical Abstract, pounds of commodity consumed per capita in 1992, Table 220) Information was given in terms of boneless weight. Therefore, pounds in commodity per capita was divided by a factor (0.25 or 0.3), assumed to be the percent of meat in the whole animal weight. State consumption = (per capita)(State population) Export = production consumption Energy = (weight (g) ) (caloric content (kcal/g( 4186 J/kcal) Caloric content of cattle = 4.26 kcal/g Pork = 5.53 kcal/g Broiler = 2.39 kcal/g 2. Value of animal exports (SERVICES) Value of total production = 2.44 E9 $ Percent exported = 3.19 E12/3.76 E12 = 0.848 Value Exported = (value of total production)(percent exported) = 2.07 E9 $

PAGE 46

46 Footnotes for Table 4 (continued) 3. Grain exported (GOODS) Production Sorghum Wheat Rice Cotton Soybeans Hay Total grams 5.93 Ell 9.59 Ell 3.42 E12 3.43 Ell 2.7 E12 2.11 E12 1.01 E13 Internal comsumption o 1.5 Ell 1.83 E10 o o o 1.69 Ell Protein produced 4.74 E10 1.15 Ell 4.79 Ell 1.37 E10 9.18 Ell 2.32 Ell 1.81 E12 Protein produced = (production)(percent protein) % protein: Sorghum, 8%; Wheat, 12%; Rice, 10%; Cotton, 4%; Soybean, 34%; Hay, 11% Animal Consumptiom **1 Production Prot weight grams % protein Beef 5.56 Ell 0.2 Pork 1.81 Ell 0.13 Broiler 2.16 E12 0.2 **1 from Pimentel, 1979 Feed prot/ Tot feed grams prot weight 1.11 Ell 15.5 2.36 E10 10.5 4.31 Ell 5.5 protein 1.72 E12 2.48 Ell 2.37 E12 4.34 E12 ** Considering that 60% of protein come from another source that is not grains, (Pimentel, 1979), we have: Protein for feeding = (O.4)(total feeding protein) = 1.74 E12 g/protein Therefore, the amount required for feeding is about the same amount that is produced in the State. NO NET GRAIN EXPORT 4. Export of Services State Foreign Export (SERVICES) (1994 Statistical Abstract of the United States) Foreign Exports in 1992= 1.32 E9 $ Relative exports to other States (SERVICES), According with Table 1 = 1.63 ElO $

PAGE 47

47 Footnotes for Table 4 (continued) 5. Value of taxes (SERVICES) (referring to 1992 taxes) (1994 Statistical Abstract of the United States) Federal Taxes = 2.75 E9 $ TOTAL SERVICES EXPORTED = 2.24 ElO $ 6. Iron and Steel Products (GOODS) U.S. Export of Iron and Steel products in 1992 (from 1994 US Statistical Abstract) = 5.3 E6 tons (5.3 E6)(907 kg/ton)(l E3 g/kg) = 4.81 E12 g (4.8 E15 g)( 4.65 E9 sej/g) = 2.24 E22 sej Considering the State contribution proportional to its population contribution to U.S.: Iron/Steel products from Arkansas = (2.24 E25)(0.0094) = 2.1 E20 sej IMPORTS SERVICES 1. Value of the fuels Btu Coal Petroleum Total 2.18 E14 2.29 E14 $/1 E6 Btu Expenditures $ 1.66 3.62 E8 7.82 1.79 E9 2.15 E9 2. Manufactured goods (SERVICES) Calculating U.S. imports for 1992 less petroleum, meat, and gas = 475697 million dollars Estimating the amount shared by the State, considering the percent of U.S. population living in Arkansas (0.94% of U.S. population) Therefore, the share of foreign imports = 4.46 E9 $ 3. Relative Services Considering the relative services imported from other parts of U.S. (as shown in Table 1) Relative services = 1.02 ElO $

PAGE 48

48 Footnotes for Table 4 (continued) 4. Federal benefits Federal aid for Arkansas in 1992 = 1.69 E9 $ Therefore, total imported Services = 1.85 E10 $ 5. Imports (GOODS) Imports of basic mineral and metal products by u.S. in 1992 (1994 US Statistical Abstract) Item Quantity Energy Transformity Emergy g J/yr Iron Ore 1.25 E13 1.00 E9 1.25 E22 Steel Prod 1.73 E13 2.64 E9 4.57 E22 Aluminum 1.16 E12 1.60 ElO 1.86 E22 Copper ref 2.89 Ell 6.8 E10 1.97 E22 9.64 E22 Considering the State is 0.94% of U.S. population, the amount of Emergy imported for basic mineral and metals for Arkansas is: Basic minerals = (9.64 E22)(0.0094) = 9.06 E20 ]/y

PAGE 49

49 Table 4.1.a State GDP Generated per Employee by Sector Sector Agriculture Construction Manufacturing Wholesale trade Retail trade Finance Services Transportation Mining Government 1992 # 1990 Sector Agriculture Mining Construction Manufacturing Transportation Wholesale Retail sale Finance Services Government Number of Employees* 5641 34565 228683 46527 167215 37676 212954 49915 3286 150000 936462 Gross State Product# E9 $ 2 1 10 2 4 5 5 4 2 Table 4.1.b Dollars per % of total employee employees 354547 28931 43729 42986 23921 132710 23479 80136 608643 o 0.01 0.04 0.24 0.05 0.18 0.04 0.23 0.05 0.00 0.16 U.S. Employment per Industry, 1992 Employees thousands 3210 664 7013 19972 8245 4765 19589 7764 40758 5620 117600 GNP E9 $ 111 99 241 1018 482 360 516 975 1041 656 5499 Dollars per % of total employee employees 34579 0.03 149096 0.01 34365 0.06 50971 0.17 58460 0.07 75551 0.04 26341 0.17 125580 0.07 25541 0.35 116726 0.05 46760

PAGE 50

.." o'Q' iil 00 tTl 3: tTl '" _. (JQ iil o (D _. a ::s ::s [ o S a '< 5' 2;> ::s Direct sunlighl Wind Rain chemicalpoi Runoff geopotentlal Inflow River Geop Earth Cycle Coal Natural gas Inflow River Chern Pot Petroleum Topsoil losses Groundwater Electricity( nucl) Soil losses Potassium Nitrogen Bromine Pesticides Goods 0 t '" o Emergy/ year ( E20 sej/yr) o o g: g N g: o '" '" o 0<; m i '< iii cc' ::s ii1 0... i III

PAGE 51

51 Table 5 Emergy Indices for Arkansas Item Name of index Expression* Quantity 1 Renewable use R 1.98 E22 sej/y 2 Indigenous non-renewable N 5.82 E22 sej/y 3 Imported emergy I 5.67 E22 sej/y 4 Total emergy used U=R+N+I U 1.35 E23 sej/y 5 Total exported emergy E 1.23 E23 sej/y 6 Emergy used from home sources (N+R)/U 0.58 7 Imports-exports I-E -6.64 E22 sej/y 8 Ratio of export to imports E/I 2.17 9 Fraction used, locally renewable RlU 0.15 10 Fraction of use purchased outside IIU 0.42 11 Fraction used, imported service Import ser.lU 0.24 12 Ratio of economic to free (U-R-N)/(R+N) 0.73 l3 Use per unit area (1.35 Ell m 2 ) U/area 9.98 Ell sej/m2 14 Use per person (2.39 E6 persons) U / population 5.64 E16 sej/indiv. 15 Arkansas State Econ. Product (1990) GSP 39 E9 $/yr 16 Ratio of emergy use to GSP, Ark. UlGSP 3.45 E12 sej/$ 17 Ratio of emergy use to GNP for U.S. UlGNP 1.75 El2 sej/$ For letters see Figure 7. U sum of inputs = R + N + 1.

PAGE 52

Cache River Basin Energy Systems Diagram Figure 9a is the overview model of the Cache River Basin with an overlay diagram of the water components and flows given in Figure 9b. The basin is rural with a few human settlements. Groundwater-irrigated rice and some catfish aquaculture are based on the large water volumes. Emdollar Evaluation Tables Table 6 has the emergy and emdollar evaluation of the important sources, imports, and exports. Table 7 has the exchanges with the rest of the United States based on the percentage of workers in various occupations. Contributions to real wealth from the tables are shown in bar graph form in Figure 10 from left to right in order of their transformity (position in natural energy hierarchy). Cache River Basin is well served by rain (-48 in) during the whole year, and with high evapotranspiration rates during summer and early fall months. The Cache River basin is basically a flatland, and water has little geopotential energy. The water evapotranspired by vegetation measures the contribution of rain chemical potential. Rain chemical potential emergy is the highest source of natural renewable emergy. The Cache River basin is basically an agricultural area largely based on indigenous soils and waters. The intensive agriculture of recent years has used soils and groundwater faster than their normal rate of restoration. Groundwater has been nonrenewable with about 70% of the recharge of the Mississippi river valley alluvial aquifer diverted to irrigation in 1972 (Ackerman, 1989). Groundwater emergy represents, respectively, 28% and 26% of non-renewable energy used in the state and the basin. Soil formed in the past makes up about 74% of the nonrenewable emergy use and 28% of total emergy use in the basin. The agricultural production depends on goods and services, fuel, and fertilizers brought into the basin from outside. Goods and services make up about 24%. Outside sales of grain carry high emergy, much more than is in the buying power of the money received. Both areas export much more emergy than they import. Emergy Indices Indices for the Cache River Basin derived from the emergy evaluation tables are listed in Table 8. Although rural, the basin is only 48% self sufficient. Its ratio of resources added by the economy to the

PAGE 53

Uplands, Agriculture, Forest --' I Cultivation, Rice & Catfish Aquaculture Cache River Basin, Arkansas Ca) Irrigation, Processing \ <::::::: Figure 9. Energy systems diagram of the Cache River Watershed (a) with main empower inputs in solar emjoules per year (b) water budget overlay. Other values en w

PAGE 54

ET Uplands, Agriculture, Forest Black Swamp I iCultivation, Rice & Catfish Aquaculture Water Flows in the Cache River Basin Irrigation, Processing ""'= Water Budget Overlay Diagram for Cache River Model (b) Figure 9 (continued) '" -I>

PAGE 55

55 Table 6 Annual Emergy Flows of the Cache River Basin Note Item Data & Units Emergy/unit Emergy U.S. Em$* E20 seJ E6 Renewable Resources 1 Direct sunlight 2.87 E19 J/yr 1 0.29 8 2 Wind 5.45 E16 ]/yr 1496 0.81 24 3 Rain geopotential 4.29 E15 ]/yr 10488 0.45 13 4 Rain chemical pot. 2.86 E16 J/yr 18199 5.21 151 5 Earth cycle 4.88 E15 ]/yr 29000 1.41 41 Indigenous Renewable Energy 6 Rice and soybeans 1.24 E16 ]/yr 1.70 E5 21.08 611 7 Wheat 1.30 E15 ]/yr 2.20 E5 2.86 83 8 Others 1.84 E15 ]/yr 6.00 E4 1.11 32 9 Poultry 4.24 E12 7.00 E5 0.03 1 10 Livestock prod. 4.37 E13 ]/yr 2.00 E6 0.87 25 11 Fish prod. 2.53 E12 J/yr 2.00 E6 0.05 1 26.00 754 Indigenous Non-renewable Energy 12 Losses of earth 1.54 E12 g/yr 1.00 E9 15.4 448 13 Losses of topsoil 1.05 E15 ]/yr 7.40 E4 0.78 22 14 Groundwater 3.62 E15 J/y 1.60 E5 5.79 168 22.01 638 Imports 15 Coal used 8.43 E15 ]/yr 3.98 E4 3.35 97 16 Natural gas 8.65 E15 J/yr 4.80 E4 4.15 120 17 Petroleum 1.09 E16 ]/yr 5.30 E4 5.79 168 18 Electricity 6.93 E14 ]/yr 1.70 E5 1.18 34 19 Nitrogen 1.66 ElO g/yr 4.19 E9 0.70 20 20 Phosphorus 5.18 E8 g/yr 1.42 E10 0.07 2 21 Potassium 8.08 E9 g/yr 9.50 E8 0.08 2 22 Pesticides 5.03 E9 g/yr 1.48 E10 0.74 22 23 Goods & services 5.95 E8 $/y 2.3 E12 13.69 397 29.75 862 Exports 24 Rice & soybeans 1.20 E16 ]/yr 1.70 E5 20.33 589 25 Goods & services 7.57 E8 3.45 E12 26.11 757 46.43 1346 *U.S. $1990

PAGE 56

)b Footnotes to Table 6 Area of the Cache basin = 4.88 E9 m 2 1. Direct sunlight Insolation for Arkansas (from US Env. Data Servo 1975: Weather Atlas of the US) = 385 Langleys/day = 3850 kcallm2/day Energy = (3850 kcal/m2/day)(4.88 E9 m 2)(365 days)(4186) J/kcal = 2.87 E19 J/yr 2. Wind calculated with eddy diffusion coefficient and vertical gradient coefficient (Odum, Diamond and Brown, 1987; Odum, 1996) Energy = (height)(density) (diff coefficient)(wind gradient)(area) = (1 E3 m)(1.23 kg/m3)(14.74 m2/s)(4.42 E-3 /s)(4.88 E9 m 2 ) = 3.15 E16 J/yr = 5.45 E16 J/yr 3. Rain geopotential with average rainfall = 48 in/yr = 1.22 m/yr Elevational gradient = 483 ft = 147.22 m Energy = (area)(rain/yr)(elev. gradient)(lOOO kg/m3 )(9.8 mls2 ) = 4.29 E15 J/yr 4. Rain chemical potential as water used in evapotranspiration Evaporation = 55 in (from US Env. Data Servo 1975: Weather Atlas of the US) Pan coefficient = 0.85 (Scott, H.D. et aI., 1987) Waterevapotranspired = 46.75 in = 1.19 m/yr Energy = (area)(water evaportranspired)(l E6 g/m3)(4.94J/g) = 2.86 E16 J/yr 5. Earth cycle energy = (land area)(heat flow/area) = 4.88 E15 J/yr where heat flows assumed = 1 E6 J/m2/yr Notes 6-8. Agricultural Production For the main crops of Arkansas, data from Census of Agriculture, 1992 were multiplied by the percent area of each county in the basin. Production was estimated in kg/yr: Sorghum 9.30 E7; wheat 9.42 E7; rice 4.98 E8; cotton 2.06 E7; and soybeans 2.90 E8 Energy = (mass)(energy/unit) calculated as in Odum et al. (1987)

PAGE 57

57 Footnotes for Table 6 (continued) 6. Rice and soybeans Rice = (4.98 E11 g)(3.60 kcal/g)(4186 J/kcal) = 7.51 E15 jlyr Soybeans = (2.90 E11 g)(4.03 kcal/g)(4186 J/kcal) = 4.89 E15 jlyr Total weight: 7.88 E11 g; Total energy: 1.24 E16 jlyr 7. Wheat (9.42 ElO g)(3.30 kcal/g)(4186 J/kcal) = 1.30 E15 J/yr 8. Others Sorghum = (9.30 EI0 g)(3.32 kcal/g)(4186 J/kcal) = 1.29 E15 J/yr Cotton = (2.06 E10 g)(4.0 kcal/g)( 4186 jlkcal) = 3.44 E14 jlyr Hay = (1.64 ElO g)(3.0 kcal/g)(4186 J) = 2.06 E14 J/yr Total energy: 1.84 E15 J/yr Notes 9-10. Animal Production Data from Census of Agriculture, 1992 for Arkansas. Production data for the main animals were multiplied by the percent area of each county in the basin. Energy was calculated = (animals sold)(mass of each)(energy/mass) as in Odum et al. (1987) Number of animals sold per year in Cache River Basin: Cattle 13215; cattle sold 6964; hog & pigs 4514; pigs sold 9831; sheepl29; broilers 2.64 E5 9. Poultry energy = (number of broilers)(2.5 E3 g/animal)(2.39 kcal/g)( 4186 jlkcal) = 4.24 E12 jlyr 10. Livestock Cattle = (cattle sold)(3.5 E5 g/animal)(2.92 kcal/g)( 4186 J/kcal) = 2.98 E13 J /yr Pigs = (pigs sold)(9 E4 g/animal)(3. 76 kcal/g)( 4186 jlkcal) = 1.39 E13 jlyr Total: 4.3 7 E13 jlyr 11. Fish production data from Census. of Agriculture, 1992 for Arkansas. Production data for fish production in counties of the basin were multiplied by the percent area of each county: Production = 5.87 E5 kg/yr Energy = (grams fish)(1.03 kcal/g)(4186 J/kcal) = 2.53 E12 jlyr

PAGE 58

Footnotes for Table 6 (continued) 12. Losses of earth Cropland Erosion = 500 g/m2/yr Cropland area = 3.09 E9 m 2 58 Soil Losses = (500 g/m2/yr)(3.09 E9 m 2 ) = 1.54 E12 g/yr 13. Topsoil Losses = 1.54 E12 g/yr Typical soils are = 3% organic matter and SA kcal/g org. Energy = (loss per year)(organic fraction)(5A kcal/g)( 4186 J/kcal) = LOS E15 Jlyr 14. Groundwater data from Arkansas Summary for 1989 (US Geological SurveyOpen File Rep 91-203) Total water use = 0.39 E8 m 3/yr Chemical potential of basin groundwater (volume/yr)(l E6 g/m3)(4.9 J/g) = 3.62 E15 J/yr 15. Coal data from Energy Information Administration -State Energy Data Report for1992: State consumption = 12536 E3 short ton = 220.7 trillion Btu Consumption in proportion to basin area, 0.036 fraction of state area Energy: (220.7 E12 Btu/yr)(0.036) = 7.98 E12 Btu/yr = 8043 E15 J/yr 16. Natural gas consumption data from State Energy Data report 1992. Arkansas total = 225 billion cubic feet = 226.6 trillion Btu Consumption in proportion to basin area, 0.036 fraction of state area. Energy = (226.6 E12 Btu)(0.036) = 8.19 E12 Btu/yr = 8.65 E15 Jlyr 17. Petroleum data from Energy Info Administration -State energy data report for1992: Arkansas consumption = 53115 E3 barrels = 286.3 trillion Btu Consumption in proportion to basin area, 0.036 fraction of state area Energy = (286.3 E12 Btu)(0.036) = 1.04 E13 Btu/yr =1.09 E16 J/yr 18. Electrical power data from Energy Information Administration 4707 million Kwh = 155.7 trillion Btu Consumption in proportion to basin area, 0.036 fraction of state area Energy: (155.7 E12 Btu)(0.036) = 5.63 E12 Btu/yr = 6.93 E14 J/yr

PAGE 59

59 Footnotes for Table 6 (continued) Notes 19-21. Fertilizers Calculated considering occupied areas and the fertilizer concentrations (kg/ha) used in the different cultures 19. Nitrogen used in the basin = 1.66 E7 kg/yr 20. Phosphorus applied in the basin = 5.18 E5 kg/yr as P205 21. Potassium applied in the basin = 8.08 E6 kg/yr as K20 22. Pesticides chemicals in the basin; 3.6 $/pesticides from Table 3; (expenditure $)(lOOO)(basin % of state area) = 1.81 E7 $/yr weight in kg/yr = (chemicals costs in $)/3.6 $/kg of pestcides = 5.03 E9 g/yr 23. Goods and services brought into Arkansas estimated from costs a. Services with imported fuels, estimated from coal, petroleum, electricity and natural gas consumption = 2.32 E8 $/yr b. Services with foreign imports: (4.49 E9 $/yr)(0.94% of state population in basin) = 4.21 E7 $/yr c. Purchases from other states of the U.S. based on relative employment in different economic sectors in the basin compared with averages outside, as given in Table 7.1 = 3.50 E8 $/yr d. Federal services estimated as percent (in population terms) of the federal transfer payments to Arkansas in 1992 = 1.69 E9 $ (1994 US Statistical Abstract) = (0.009)(transfers to Arkansas) = 1.59 E7 $/yr Total Imported Services = (a + b + C + d) = 5.95 E8 $/yr 24. Exports: Rice and soybeans energy calculated as: (product weight)(caloric content in kcal/g)(4186 J/kcal) Rice: 4.98 Ell g/yr yields 7.50 E15 ]/yr Soybeans: 2.64 Ell g yields 4.45 E15 J/yr Total energy 1.20 E16 J/yr

PAGE 60

60 Footnotes for Table 6 (continued) 25. Goods and services leaving the basin: a. Foreign grain exports: 0.09 percent (basin proportion of state population) of Arkansas foreign exports of grains; prices from 1994 US Statistical Abstract -table 1113 Principal Crops -production, supply and disappearance, 198911993 = 1.54 E8 $/yr b. Basin foreign exports (services) Arkansas contribution to U.S. foreign exports: 1.32 E9 $/yr Basin contribution: 1.24 E7 $/yr c. Relative exports to other parts of U.S. using Table 6.1, computing the relative differences in employment in economic sectors between the basin and average for the U.S. = 5.61 E8 $/yr d. Services equivalent to tax money estimated as a fraction of federal taxes paid by the state = 2.75 E9 $/yr Basin federal taxes 2.58 E7 $/yr Total services going out of the basin = 7.53 E8 $/yr

PAGE 61

61 """!N&S'II Q) saP!O!tsad ..c:: u SnJ04dsoqd Q) -5 U&6oJl!N '-0 >, )0 sassol S 0 s:: 0 Wn!SSelOd U Q) "0 AliO!JI""I3 s:: (Ij ... s:: "'11!MPU11OJ!) Q) S s:: 1!0sdo.L)0 sassol 8 .> s:: WI18JOJIOd Q) '-0 Q) sefileJnleN ... ::s ... (Ij pasn leo:) s:: 01) .'" >< 0. IOdIOO!UJaIIO et::"O u.lQ) Q) ..... I"lJU
PAGE 62

Table 7 Exchange Between Other Parts of the u.s. and the Cache River Basin Estimated from the Percent of Employees in Occupational Sectors Agr. Mng. Constr. Manuf. Transp. Wholes. Ret. Fin. Servo u.S. average 0.03 0.01 0.06 0.17 0.07 0.04 0.17 0.07 0.35 Basin 0.01 0 0.03 0.3 0.04 0.05 0.17 0.03 0.19 Differences -0.02 -0.01 -0.03 0.13 -0.03 0.01 0 -0.04 -0.16 $/employee 34579 149096 34365 50971 58460 75551 26341 125580 25541 #/employees -497 -249 -746 3233 -746 249 0 -995 -3979 Exp/lmp -1. 72E7 -3. 71E7 -2.56E7 1.65E8 -4.36E7 1.88E7 O.OOEO -1.25E8 -1.02E8 Imports: 3.50 E8 $ Exports: 5.61 E8 $ Net Export: 2.11 E8 $ ($/employee -portion of the GNP generated by employee by sector in U.S.) Govt. 0.05 0.18 0.13 116726 '" '" 3233 3.77E8

PAGE 63

Footnotes For Table 7 IMPORT SERVICES 1. Value of imported fuels Coal Natural Gas Petroleum Elecricity Btu 7.979 E12 8.192 E12 1.035 E13 5.629 E12 $/1 E6 Btu 1.66 3.44 7.82 19.56 Total Expend. 1.325 E7 2.818 E7 8.094 E7 1.1 E8 2.32 E8 $ 2. Manufactured goods (Services) Estimating the amount of foreign goods imported by Arkansas Estimated foreign goods imports by Arkansas = 4.49 E9 $ Basin = 0.94% of state population Therefore, imports of manufactured goods (Services) = 4.21 E7 $ 3. Relative services Imports from U.S. outside basin (based on relative differences on different industrial sectors in the basin and outside, as shown in Table 3a) Relative services = 3.50 E8 $ 4. Federal benefits (Services) Estimating as percent (in population terms) of the Federal Aid transferred to Arkansas Federal Aid to Arkansas, 1992 = 1.69 E9 $ (1994 US Statistical Abstract) Basin Aid = (0.009385)(Arkansas Fed Aid) = 1.59 E7 $ TOTAL IMPORTED SERVICES = 5.95 E8 $ EXPORTS 1. Grain exported Production Sorghum Wheat Rice Cotton Soybeans Hay g/yr 9.30 ElO 9.42 E10 4.98 Ell 2.06 E10 2.90 Ell 1.64 ElO 1.01 E12 Consumption Remaining o 4.48 E9 5.45 E8 o o o production 9.299 E10 8.9746 E10 4.9785 Ell 2.0554 E10 2.8982 Ell 1.637 ElO 1.0073 E12

PAGE 64

64 Footnotes for Table 7 (continued) Consumption calculated as per capita consumption of flour and cereal multiplied by number of persons in the basin Animal Feeding # of animals Weight Feed protein Protein (grams) ratio (gig) Beef 20179 1.37 E10 15.5 4.254 E10 Pig 14345 1.29 E9 10.5 1.762 E9 Broiler 264181 6.6 E8 5.5 7.265 E8 4.503 E10 Production Protein Protein Protein for Production content available feeding available Sorghum 9.299 ElO 0.08 7.44 E9 7.44 E9 0 Wheat 8.9746 ElO 0.12 1.08 E10 0 8.9746 E10 Rice 4.9785 Ell 0.1 4.98 ElO 0 4.9785 Ell Cotton 2.0554 E10 0.04 8.22 E8 0 2.0554 ElO Soybeans 2.8982 Ell 0.34 9.85 E10 8.76 E9 2.6406 Ell Hay 1.637 ElO 0.11 1.80 E9 1.80 E9 1.69 Ell 1.80 ElO Considering 60% of needed protein is coming from other sources, protein needed for animal = 1.8 E10 g (assuming that protein is provided by hay and sorghum and soybeans) Grain production available for export Wheat Rice Cotton Soybeans Production Energy (grams) J/yr 8.97 ElO 1.25 E15 4.98 Ell 7.5E15 2.06 E10 3.44 E14 2.64 Ell 4.45 E15 1.35 E16 Sales $ 1.07 E7 6.46 E7 2.49 E7 5.39 E7 1.54 E8 (Grain Prices from 1994 US Statistical Abstract, Table 1113) Principal CropsprodUction, Supply and Disappearance, 1989/1993 Grain Export (GOODS) = 1.35 E16J1yr Grain Export (SERVICES) + 1.54 E8 $ 0

PAGE 65

Footnotes for Table 7 (continued) 2. Animal Production Weight Internal Exp/ (grams) consumption imp. Beef 1.37 E10 8.14 E9 5.58 E9 Pig 1.29 E9 5.34 E8 7.57 E8 1.50 E10 6.34 E9 Animal Prod (GOODS) = 1.175 E14 Jlyr Counties Butler Clay Craighead Greene Jackson Lawrence Monroe Poinsett Prairie Woodruff Sales/county 1000 $ 3538 3127 3248 5001 1979 6354 832 1794 7286 372 Total Sales = 7.9 E6 $ % basin 0.095755 0.354792 0.303259 0.462598 0.450701 0.15494 0.228013 0.183625 0.068496 0.695715 65 Energy Jlyr 9.997 E13 1.752 E13 1.175 E14 Salesbasin 1000 $ 338.78 1109.43 984.99 2313.45 891.94 984.49 189.71 329.42 499.06 258.81 7900.07 Export = (% exported)(total sales) = 3.34 E6 $ Animal Prod (SERVICES) = 3.34 E6 $ 3. Basin Foreign Exports (SERVICES) Taken as percent (in population terms) of Arkansas foreign exports: Arkansas contribution to U.S. foreign exports = 1.32 E9 $ Basin contribution = 1.24 E7 $ 4. Relative Exports to others parts of U.S. (SERVICES) Calculated as shown in Table 3a, computing the relative differences between Basin and average U.S. in employment in different industry Relative Exports from Basin = 5.61 E8 $ s. Value of Taxes (SERVICES) EStimating as percent of Federal Taxes paid by the State Arkansas Federal Taxes = 2.75 E9 $ Basin Federal Taxes= 2.58 E7 $ EXPORTS (SERVICES) Total = 7.57 E8 $

PAGE 66

66 Table 8 Emergy Indices for Cache River Basin Item Name of Index Expression Quantity 1 Renewable use R 5.66 E20 sej/y 2 Indigenous non-renewable N 2.20 E21 sej/y 3 Imported emergy I 2.98 E21 sej/y 4 Totalemergy used, U=R+N+I U 5.74 E21 sej/y 5 Total emergy exported E 4.64 E21 sej/y 6 Emergy from home sources R+N/U 0.48 7 Imports -exports 1E -1.67 E21 sej/y 8 Ratio of exports/imports E/I 1.56 9 Fraction locally renewable RlU 0.10 10 Fraction purchased lIU 0.52 11 Fraction imported services Imp ser/U 0.24 12 Ratio of economic to free (U-N-R)/(R+N) 1.06 13 Use per unit area (4.87 E9 m 2 ) U/area 1.18 E12 sej/m2 Use per person U/population 8.0 E16 sej/person

PAGE 67

67 environmental renewable resources is 5.3. Water use is 20% (10% groundwater) of the total source of real wealth, but the agricultural economy based on the water including the imported inputs to agriculture is 45% of the total emergy budget. Comparisons Emergy Indices of the Cache River basin were compared with those for the whole Mississippi River basin in Table 6 (Diamond, 1984; Odum, Diamond and Brown, 1987). The Cache River basin like the Mississippi River basin used half of its emergy from home sources, but just 10% were locally renewable. Compared to the rest of the state the Cache River basin used less emergy from home (-48%), although a larger fraction came from renewable resources (18%). Like the Mississippi basin and Arkansas as a whole, the Cache River basin was an emergy exporter. The ratio between exports and imports was 2.17 for the state, 1.50 for the Mississippi basin, and 1.56 for the Cache River basin. Imported services were 24% for the state, 29% for the Mississippi basin and 24% for the Cache River basin. Annual emergy use per area in the Cache River basin(1.12 E12/m2/yr) was greater than in the Mississippi basin and Arkansas state (-9 E1l/m2). Emergy per person was very high (8 E16 sej/person) compared to that in the larger areas of Arkansas and the United States as a whole. Black Swamp Energy Systems Diagram Figure 11 is an overview model of the main parts and processes in a hectare of Black Swamp. An efforts was made to include the parts and processes considered important by those making recent studies such as those in the special issue of the Wetlands Journal in 1997. Emergy Evaluation Tables Typical emergy flows were evaluated in Table 10 and represented in the bar graph as a function of transformity in Figure 12. Water transpiration and work of physical motions of water were the principal basis for this ecosystem. There were also inputs by human managers and users. Emergy Indices Managed for its natural characteristics the ratio of economic inputs to the natural environmental value was small (0.25), a ratio less than found in national parks.

PAGE 68

Black Swamp, Cache River, Arkansas Figure 11. Energy systems diagram of the Black Swamp with main empower inputs in solar emjoules per year. '" ex

PAGE 69

69 Table 9 Annual Emergy Flow in the Black Swamp Note Item Raw units J, g, $ 1 Solar energy, J 9.26 E16 2 Wind energy, J 1.76 E14 3 Rain chemical pot., J 9.48 E13 4 River geopotential, J 5.37 E13 5 River chern potential, J 4.80 E13 6 Forest evapotransp, J 9.23 E13 7 Migratory birds, J 1.29 Ell 8 Fish influx, J 2.43 E10 9 Recreational uses, $ 1.75 E5 10 Gross production, J 9.88 E13 Total Emergy = 3.44 E12 sej/$ Emergy per unit sej/unit 1 1496 18199 27764 48459 18199 9.70 E5 1.00 E6 4.70 E12 33610* Solar Emergy E16 sej/yr 9 26 173 149 232 168 12.5 2.4 82 332 414 Area = 3888 acres (Coe, 1974) = 1.57 E7 m 2 =1573 ha Sum (#4 + #6 + #7+ #8) = 332 E16 sej/yr Solar transformity = (3.32 E18)/(9.88 E13) = 33610 sej/J 1. Solar energy = 385 ly/day = 3850 kcal/m2/day Emdollars! 1992 E3 $/yr 27 76 500 432 674 487 36 7 239 1201 (3850 kcal/m2/d)(1.57 E7 m 2)(365 d)(4186 J/kcal) = 9.26 E16 J/yr 2. Wind energy = (height)(density)(diffusion coefficient)(wind gradient)(area) (1000 m)(1.23 kg/m3)(14.7 m 2/s)(3.16 E7 s/yr)(0.0044/s2) (1.57 E7 m 2 ) = 1.76 E14 J/yr where diffusion coeff = 14.72 m3/m /s and wind gradient = 0.00442 m/s/m 3. Rain chemical potential: (1.22 m precip)(1.57 E7 m 2 )(1 E6 g/m3)(4.94 Jig) = 9.48 E13 J/yr

PAGE 70

70 Footnotes for Table 9 (continued) 4. River geopotential Flow in and out = 1.37 E9 (from average USGS data, 1987-1993); (from Dortch, 1996, p. 361) Elevation change = (57 m 53 m) (from Walton et aI., 1996) Geopotential energy used: (volume/yr)(1000 kg/m3 )(9.8 m/s2)(4 m drop) = 5.37 E13 5. River chemical potential Mean annual river flow (Patterson) estimated from 5-year data from US Geological Survey Water Data reports from Arkansas, 1987-1990 (1993). Flows from Dortch, (1996, p. 361) Used chemical potential: 100 mg/l to 500 mg/l (Kadlec & Knight, 1996) Change in total dissolved solids = 400 150 mg/l (1.37 E9 m 3/yr)(1 E6 g/m3)(4.925 -4.89 JIg) = 4.79 E13 ]/yr 6. Bottomland hardwood evapotranspiration Evapotranspiration to pan evaporation ratio = 0.95 (cyp. riverine from Lugo A., 1990) Pan evaporation = 55 in = 139.7 cm (from US Env. Data Servo 1975: Weather Atlas of the US) Assuming transpiration/pan evap = 0.85 Transpiration rates = 118.745 cm Forest transpiration energy = (1.187 m)(1.57 E7 m 2 )(1 E6 g/m3)(4.94 JIg) = 9.2 E13 Jlyr 7. Birds migrants Abundance of migrants during breeding season 1.5 birds/0.48 ha plot = 3.125 birds/ha (3.125)(1573) ha = 4916 birds Average weight = 19 g/bird = 9.5 g dry weight/bird Bird dry weight/swamp = 4.67 E4 g dry wt Respiration = (dry weight)(conversion factor)(236g/yr) = 1.10 E7 g/yr (Costanza et. aI, 1983) Energy = (1.1 E7 g/yr)( 5.6 kcal/g)(4196 Jlkcal)(0.5 yr) = 1.29 Ell g/seas

PAGE 71

71 Footnotes for Table 9 (continued) 8. Fish Influx as larvae Larvae in floodplain in spring = 1.81 ind.lm3 In spring + early summer = 1.33 ind.lm3 For the whole season assume = 1.0 ind.lm3 Volume of inundation water into the floodplain = 5.0 E6 m 3 Based on transects and water stages (Kleiss, 1996) 5.0 E6larvae in spring; average larval weight = 2 g Total weight = (2 g/ind.)(5 E6 ind) = 1.0 E7 g Energy = (1 E7 g)(0.2 dry)(5.8 kcal/g)(4186 J/cal)(O.5 yr) = 2.43 E10 J 9. Recreational uses Area demand: 3.10 E6 man/hours (Corps of Engineers, 1974) Rec. areas in the region = 78,000 acres Black Swamp = 3880 acres Black Swamp percent = 0.0497 Black Swamp share 5% of demand = 1.55 E5 man/hours Energy (1.55 E5 man/hour)(104 kcal/h)(4186 J/kcal) = 6.7478 ElO J/yr Counting by trips Trips demands for hunting/fishing = 116,900 trips/year Black Swamp area = 5% available area in the region Black Swamp's trips = 5845 trips/year Estimated cost/trip = $3.3/trip (Corps of Engineers, 1974) Estimated expenses/trip = $20.00/trip (assumed) Total expenses = 175,350 $/year (Solar emergy)/(emergy/money for Arkansas) In 1992 Emergy/money ratio = 4.70 E12 sej/$ 10. Black Swamp gross primary production = (5900 tonne/swamp/yr)(l E6 g/tonne)(4 kcal/g)(4186 J/kcal) = 9.88 E13 J/yr

PAGE 72

Item /L Table 10 Annual Emdollar Values in one Hectare of the Black Swamp For value of 1.57 E3 hectares of Black Swamp, multiply by 1570 Baseline Evaluation River Diverted River Channelized Pumped Groundwater 1 Forest productivity 2 Sediment retention 3 Organics retention 4 Fish production 309 1335 4023 525 6192 295 1135 3419 92 4941 280 o o o 342 1335 4023 o 5700 Total 280 Emdollars calculated by dividing emergy values by Arkansas emergy/dollar ratio for 1992 = 3.45 E12 sej/$ Emergy per unit used to evaluate emergy: Forest production 4916 sejl] Sediment retention 1. 7 E9 sej/gram Organic matter retention 6.24 E4 sejl] Fish production 2 E6 sejl] 1. Forest productivity: Baseline evaluation: floodplain from inundation frequency in a natural floodplain (Brinson, 1990) with 25% transition Floodplain =11.5 tlha/yr; transition = 7 t/ha/yr; upland = 10 tlha/yr Production/ha= (0.25)(1 ha)(7t/ha) + (0.75)(1 ha)(11.5 tlha) = 10.375 t/ha/yr Energy = (10.375 t/ha/yr)(1 E6 g/t)(5 kcal/g)(4186 ]Ikcal) = 2.17 Ell ]Iyr Evaluation of swamp with diverted river: using upland, 15%; transition 30%; floodplain 55% with production, respectively: 10 tlha, 7 t/ha, 11.5 t/ha. Evaluation of channelized river: using upland, 80%; transition 20%; floodplain 0% with production, respectively: 10 t/ha, 7 t/ha, 11.5 tlha. Evaluation of pumped groundwater impact: using upland, 0%; transition 25%; floodplain 75% with production, respectively: 10 tlha, 7 t/ha, 13 tlha.

PAGE 73

73 Footnotes for Table 10 (continued) 2. Baseline sediment retention 2.75 tonne/ha/yr River diversion 85% sediment retention Channelization 0% sediment retention Groundwater pumping, normal sediment retention 3. Baseline organic retention 1.07 E7 g/ha/yr River diversion 85% retention Channelization 0% retention Groundwater pumping, normal retention 4. Baseline fish production 187 kg/ha With river diversion 85% With channelization 0% With groundwater pumping 70%

PAGE 74

/4 xnijU! S Q) .... Vl >. Vl SPJ!8 .lJojeJB!ViI 0 0. S C-'" 0:: r.t.l IIBJaua PU!M r.t.l N ...... MlJaua JelOS ;::3 eo ."'" (JJIi,fes JeeJli ,Jli6JeW3

PAGE 75

75 Comparisons The annual emergy uses and flows are high comparable with other more productive ecological systems. Simulating Impacts Diagram of the overview ground water model in Figure 13a has the equations beneath the diagram and the mathematical terms for each pathway or storage. Figure 13b has the values of flows and storages used in the calibration based on calculations in Appendix Table AI. The coefficients for the simulation model were calculated in Appendix Table A2. Figure 14 has the results of simulating the model calibrated with preimpact conditions. River water is the main water input to the swamp (Figure 14a). Average standing water in the swamp varied from less than 0.10 m in the summer to 1.20 m in the winter and early spring months. Water levels followed the annual sine-wave fluctuation supplied to represent sunlight, rain and river. When river waters receded, the water inputs to the swamp were provided by rainfall and groundwater. These inputs were critical for the forest production because they occurred during summer season when sunlight was maximum in the area. The seasonal pulsing of sunlight and rain produces corresponding pulses in photosynthetic production (Figure 14b). Similar graphs were obtained for the several impact conditions (Appendix A), and these differences from the base calibration run are summarized in Table 11. To understand the impact interactions, the reader might use a finger to trace the pathways in the model (Figure 13a) to see how each management action causes the changed values reported in the summary Table 11. The results of simulated effects of the various conditions on average gross primary production and the swamp are given in Table 3.1. Included in Appendix A are 26 year simulations of the overview model (Figure 13a) for various conditions. Yearly fluctuations of the gross primary production are displayed in the top panel, forest biomass and water level of the swamp on the middle panel, and groundwater level and the groundwater influx into the underlying aquifer on the bottom panel. Impacts simulated separately were: Pre-impacted conditions Figure B.l. Effect of cutting forest Figure B.2. Effect of lowering groundwater Figure B.3.

PAGE 76

Black Swamp, Cache River, Arkansas Figure 11 with water pathways highlighted. Species Fuels Goods & Services Elect. Markets ,$ Tourists' Hunters

PAGE 77

/I Effect of diverting river flows Figure BA. Simulation of combined actions (= cumulative impacts) were: Effect of lowering groundwater and cutting forest Figure B.S. Effect of lowering groundwater and diverting river Figure B.6. Effect of diverting river and cutting forest Figure B. 7. Effect of lowering groundwater, diverting river and cutting forestFigure B.8. Simulated Effects of Separate Impacts According to the model predictions, cutting 10 or 20% ofthe forest did not cause major impacts in the system production. In 7 to 10 years the forest returned to the pre-impact conditions. Reducing groundwater inputs and lowering the average groundwater level in the area caused a 20% reduction in the groundwater inputs and caused forest production and biomass to be reduced to 67% and 74% of the preimpacted values, respectively. Diverting 20% of river waters caused forest production and biomass to decrease to 61 % and 69% ofthe pre-impacted conditions, respectively. Simulation of Cumulative Impacts Cutting biomass did not increase the larger impacts of lowering groundwater or diverting the river. However, there were cumulative synergistic effects of river diversion and lowering groundwater. Reducing these two water inputs by 20% caused the forest production and biomass to decrease to just 31% and 45% of the pre-impact values. The strongest impact came from a scenario with 20% reduction in forest biomass, groundwater and river water inputs. In this case, forest production and biomass were reduce to 28% and 39% of the initial conditions, respectively.

PAGE 78

Water, Black Swamp Product: P = Lr*S*B R = R, + R2 *Sin(T*0.523) J c = J o + J,*Sin[(T + 13)*0.S23] JS = kS*{ [(S/S1)-hO]-[(AlA1) -h,]} dAidt = J g -k,*A + JS L = 1 + 0.5*Sin[(T +8)*0.523] Lr = LI(l + k11*S*B) Js = k4*[(Jc/Jc, )-2] dB/dt = k30*P -k3,*P-k 32*B -k33*B dS = R + J s k7*P -K3*S -k6*S -J5 (a) Figure 13. Overview simulation model of impacts on waters of the Cache River watershed affecting the Black Swamp. (a) With mathematical equations; (b) with values of flows and storages used for calibration from Appendix Table AI.

PAGE 79

1050 (b) Figure 13 (continued)

PAGE 80

.c: .... c: o E ...... ('f) E cu (a) Water Inflow to Swamp 35 30 25 20 1 5 10 5 o -5 17\ 1\ f\ 1'\ 1\ /' v H .-Years 5 River Rain Ground water Water Level Sunlight .c: 10 2 0 .... .c::> Ql.... 6 c: COO ::l 4 l-f./") 0.5 "U .... 0 CI) c: .... 2 ro o CI) VI :::E OJ......-=----=--:..=....--.:=-----'-..... O 5 Years 5 .:: (b) Swamp Characteristics Figure 14. Simulation of the Black Swamp water model in Figure 13a as calibrated with values in Figure 13b. (a) Water inputs; (b) sunlight. primary production, and water level. See Appendix Figures Al A8.

PAGE 81

81 DISCUSSION Principal Resources Sunlight and its derived natural energy flows (wind, rain, etc.) work in many ways over the state and its river basin. However, it is in the form of rain that it provides higher emergy for these areas, and the way it will be taken into account in this analysis. Rain fallen over the land and working in the landscape is measured as runoff geopotential. The water evapotranspired by vegetation is measured as rain chemical potential. The state and the Cache River basin are well served by rain (-48 in) during the whole year and present high evapotranspiration rates during summer and early fall months. Therefore, rain chemical potential emergy is the highest source of natural renewable energy in both systems. Arkansas has an uneven relief, with mountains and plateaus over its west side and the Mississippi floodplain in its east side. Therefore, it has a relatively high runoff geopotential (-30% of its renewable emergy). The Cache River basin is basically a flatland, and water has little geopotential energy there. The state is relatively rich in nonrenewable resources. It has a good deal of mineral resources that are intensively used by the present economy. Its natural gas reserves provide the amount used by the state and supply the state with 28% of its energetic needs (EIA, 1994). The Cache River basin, however, has no fuel reserves and depends on imports to supply its energetic consumption. The Cache River basin is basically an agricultural area, and therefore the indigenous nonrenewable resources most used in the area are soil and groundwater. Groundwater was taken as nonrenewable because about 70% of the recharge of the Mississippi River valley alluvial aquifer was already used by irrigation in 1972 (Ackerman, 1989). Groundwater emergy represents 22% and 14% of nonrenewable energy used in the state and the basin, respectively. The most striking fact is the agricultural cost in terms of erosion in the Cache River basin. Soil formed in the past is now intensively used. Soil loss makes up about 84% of nonrenewable emergy used and 42% of total emergy used in the basin. The agricultural production in the basin depends on imports of goods and services, fuel and fertilizers. Goods and services make up about 36% of the whole basin emergy import.

PAGE 82

The state has a more diversified economy. However, it is still largely agricultural and dependent on some kind of imports. Fuels represent 31% of state imports. Goods and services make up 46% of state imports. The basin exports its high grain production and services embodied in such production. The state exports meat and services embodied in its industrial production. Both areas export much more emergy than they import. Evaluating Change Perspectives on the roles of various processes, inputs or impacts can be obtained by comparing the annual emdollars of different flows in the evaluation tables. Emdollars provide the resource contribution to the dollar economy, the gross economic product. For example, Table 10 gives the value of a hectare of Black Swamp and compares effects of river diversion, channelization, and strong groundwater pumping. Another way to evaluate the impacts is to observe the effects of a changed input to a computer simulation model. The simulation automatically includes synergistic and cumulative impacts. Table 11 has the results of simulating the water model in Figure 13, showing the percentage decline in emdollar values for different impacts separately and together. Table 11 has the model's indications of impact on swamp forest productivity and biomass. Use of Emergy Evaluation in Permitting Emdollar evaluation allows environmental resources, their contributions to the economy, and the impacts to be placed on familiar monetary terms. Whereas the systems diagrams show pathways of contribution or impact, the evaluations give substance, indicating how important they are and their cumulative impacts, as we have shown with examples in Tables 9, 10, and 11 for the Black Swamp. For those responsible for permits or other decisions about environment, Table 12 summarizes the steps to obtain an emdollar evaluation of a proposed action. By evaluating the changes anticipated in the environment and the associated economic development, the new may be compared with the precondition. The general guideline can be to authorize developments that maximize the annual emdollar production and use (including that of the environment and the economic uses).

PAGE 83

83 Table 11 Simulated Effects on the Productivity and Biomass of the Black Swamp Action & Impact Intensity Cutting biomass CWo 100;& 20% Diverting river flow (}l;& 100;& 20% Lowering groundwater (}l;& 10% 200;& Cutting biomass + Lowering groundwater (}l;& 100;& 2(J>;& Cutting biomass + Diverting river flow (}l;& 100;& 2(J>;& Diverting river flow + Lowering groundwater (}l;& 100;& 2(J>;& Cutting biomass + Diverting river flow + Lowering groundwater (}l;& 1(J>;& 200;& % of Initial Productivity 100 99 97 100 79 61 100 79 61 100 80 67 100 79 65 100 78 58 100 59 31 % of Initial Biomass 100 97 94 100 84 69 100 84 74 100 81 68 100 80 63 100 67 45 100 64 39

PAGE 84

84 Table 12 Steps for Emdollar Evaluation of a Proposed Change (See Also Previous Section on Concepts) 1. Identify the changes by looking at a systems diagram for the environmental system and its interface with economic use and impact. Diagrams are already available for most ecosystems and environmental use systems. 2. List the main changes. For example, replacing a swamp with a development will have items that are lost and items from the economy that will be added. 3. Obtain estimates of each of these in the normal every-day or scientific units. For example, estimates may be appropriate for area of land use changed, energy of sunlight, volume of water, number of ducks, dollars spent on construction, etc. It is desirable to evaluate any large storages--such as water, minerals, soil, forest wood, etc. It is also necessary to evaluate the annual contribution in amounts contributed per year. 4. Multiply each of these measures by the emergy per unit from unit emergy tables. For example, emergy per gram, emergy per individual, emergy per area, transformity (Table 1). The results of this step are emergy of the stored quantities and annual emergy flows. S. Next divide the emergy values from step #4 by the emergy/money ratio for a recent year. The results are in emdollars. Emdollars include nature's contribution and the money paid to people on the same scale. 6. Finally compare the alternative proposals including the original condition to see which represent an increase in total emdollars. A proposal which decreases total emdollars should not be authorized. Instead, better designs for development may be found that use the work of nature and that of the economy in a symbiotic way (called ecological engineering).

PAGE 85

Appendix A Details of Impact Simulation Appendix Table Al Data Used for Calibration of the Water Simulation Model in Figure 13 Flows In and Out of Standing Water Storage (S): 1. Rainfall into the area (R) Average rainfall = 49.2 in (COE, 1974) = 1.25 m/yr Annual rainfall = (area)(average rain) = (10,000 m 2 )(1.25) = 12,500 m 3/yr/ha Considering the Black Swamp area (1573.5 hal = (12500 m 3/yr/ha)(1573.5 hal = 19.7 E6 m 3/yrlswamp = 1.64 E6 m3/month Rainfall was varied during the year, with the sine equation: R = (R1 + R2)(sin t)(O.523) R1 = 1.60 E6 m 3/month R2 = 0.40 E6 m 3/month For the calibration month, R = 1.96 E6 m 3/month 2. Standing water storage (S) Assuming an annual average water level in the swamp of 0.30 m, the volume of water retained in the swamp = (water level)(area) = (0.3)(10000 m 2 ) = 3000 m3/ha Considering the whole swamp Volume = (3000 m 3/ha)(1573.5 hal = 4.72 E6 m 3/swamp Volume (assumed) = 5.00 E6 m 3/swamp 3. Evaporation and transpiration According to Lugo, A.E. (1990), evapotranspiration of riverine cypress in Florida = <)5% of pan evaporation. Assumptions for the Black Swamp ecosystem: Evaporation = 15% of pan evaporation Evapotranspiraton = 85% of pan evaporation Cache R. area: average pan evaporation = 55 in -1400 mm/yr Ground level evaporati0n E -200 mm/yr = (0.2 m)(10000 m) = 2000 m3/ha (2000 m 3/ha)(1573.5 hal = 3,147,000 m 3 = 3.15 E6 m 3/yrlswamp Canopy evapotranspiration (ET) = 1400 200 = 1200 mm/yr = (1.2 m/yr)( 1 0000 m 2/ha) = 12000 m 3/ha/yr = (12000 m 3/ha/yr)(1573.5 hal = 18.88 E6 m 3/yrlswamp = 1.47 E6 m 3/month

PAGE 86

86 Appendix Table Al (continued) 4. River flooding in the swamp River water inflow is about 14 times the rainfall. (Annual water budget for Black Swamp, Walton et al., 1996) River inflow (-14)(1.96 E6 m 3 ) = 2.74 E7 m 3 Assumed = 3.0 E7 m 3/month 5. Runoff leaving the swamp The flow needed to empty floodwaters in the swamp in a period of 4 to 6 months (flooding time). Flows in = rainfall + river flooding = 19.7 E6 m 3/yr + 89.24 E6 m 3/yr = 108.94 E6 m 3/yr Flows out = evaporation + evapotranspiration + runoff = 3.15 E6 m 3/yr + 18.88 E6 m 3/yr + runoff Then Runoff = 108.94 E6 m 3/yr 22.03 E6 m 3/yr = 86.91 E6 m 3/yr= 7.25 E6 m 3/month Assumed runoff for the calibration month (January) = 8 E6 m 3/month. 6. Groundwater inflow Groundwater draining to the alluvial water storage (A) found below the Black Swamp area assumed from the whole northwest zone of the Mississippi river valley alluvial aquifer (from its NW boundary to the east Crowley Ridge divide south to Black Swamp area), about 11,840 km2 which represents 14.3% of the whole aquifer area. Water budget estimated for the aquifer by Ackerman (1989) Percent of the aquifer considered: Flows in layer I-whole aquifer-1178 cfs; NW zone-168.3 cfs Flows in layer 3-whole aquifer-2065 cfs; NW zone-295 cfs Total groundwater flowing into the storage (A) is 463.3 cfs = 13.12 m 3/s = 413.77 E6 m 3/yr = 3.46 E7 m 3/month

PAGE 87

Ij/ Appendix Table Al (continued) 7. Alluvial water storage The alluvial aquifer groundwater storage (A) was calculated as the volume of the water of the Mississippi River valley alluvial aquifer stored below the Black Swamp area. This volume was estimated from the average depth (30.45 m) and the average porosity (0.30) (Ackerman, 1989). Therefore: volume = (depth)(porosity)(area) = (30.45 m)(0.30)(1O,000 m 2/ha) = 91350 m 3/ha = (91350 m 3/ha)(1573.5 ha/swamp) = 1.44 E8 m 3/swamp 8. Groundwater contribution to swamp Water flow calibrated from swamp to the aquifer during wet periods and from the aquifer to swamp in dry periods of late summer. Flow from swamp to the aquifer: = 5.0 E5 m 3/month (about 25% of rainfall) 9. Groundwater out of the alluvial storage (A) calculated as the water to balance other flows going in and out of the storage. Groundwater flow in = 3.46 E7 m 3/month + 5 E5 m 3/montth = 3.46 E7 m 3/month 10. Cache River flow into the Black Swamp (Jc) Average flow at Patterson (upstream gauging station) = 1000 cfs = 28.32 m 3/s Annual flow = (28.32 m 3/s)(365)(24)(3600 s/yr) = 8.93 E8 m 3/yr (7.44 E7 m 3/yr) 11. The inflow river was oscillated according to the equation: Jc = (JO + J1)(sin t+13)(0.523)) JO = 1.2 E8 m 3/month and J1 = 5 E7 m 3/month 12. Storage of plant biomass (B) of riverine forest ranges from 100 to 300 ton/ha (Brinson, M.M., 1990). Standing biomass for bottonland forest at Black Swamp assumed 250 ton/ha. Total biomass = (standing biomass/ha)(area, ha) = (250 ton/ha)(1573.5 ha) = (393375 ha) = 3.93 E5 ha

PAGE 88

00 Appendix Table Al (continued) 13. Gross production of biomass Net production in riverine forest like the Black Swamp 13.5 ton/ha/yr, where litterfall is about 5.5 ton /ha/yr (Brinson, M.M., 1990). Respiration about 70% of gross production; net production about 30%; gross production = (13.5 ton/ha/yr)/0.3 = 45 ton/ha/yr (45 ton/ha/yr)(1573.5 ha) = 70807.5 ton/yr = 7.1 E4 ton/swamp = 5900 ton/month 14. Biomass used in feeding back into production (Figure 13b) Net production of litterfall of riverine forest = (5.5 ton/ha/yr)(1573.5 halswamp) = 8654.25 ton/yr = 8.65 E3 ton/yr/swamp (720 ton/month) 15. Net production to consumers equal the remaining net production (woody production 8.0 ton/ha/yr) (8.0 ton/ha/yr)(1573.5 ha/swamp) = 12588 ton/yr/swamp = 1.26 E4 ton/yr/swamp (1050 ton/month). 16. Biomass production used by respiration about 70% of the gross production = (45 ton/halyr)(O. 70)( 1573.5 halswamp) = 49,565 ton/yr/swamp = 4130 ton/month 17. Sunlight: assumed forty percent of incident sunlight used by the trees. However, production of the tree biomass proportional to the 60% unused remainder (Lr) (Odum, H.T.,1983). Sunlight varied during the year with a sine function L= (1 + 0.5)(sin t+ 8)(0.523

PAGE 89

A 1 Before Impacts /Productivity J30 /Standing Water S l_ /Biomass B A2 Cutting Biomass t .... '. ,', ,': :\ ,I: ,l, :l. :' .. '. .. : .' ':,' ,: ......... -... .. ... ...... : .. : ...... Groundwater AI Ao \ Groundwater Inflow Jg A3 Lowering Ground Water A4 Diverting River Inflow u v,J.)) J 111 HoJ.Ji,j,j 1. H JJ Years 26 Years Figure AI. Simulation of the groundwater model with calibration conditions before impact. Figure A2. Impacts of cutting Biomass. Figure A3. Impacts of lowering groundwater. Figure A4. Impacts of diverting the river inflows. 26

PAGE 90

AS Lowered Ground Water & Cut Biomass Productivity J30 Standing Water S Biomass B Groundwater AI Ao Groundwater Inflow Jg A 7 Diverted River & Cut Biomass A6 Lowered Ground Water & Diverted River III J 1H. .' .. '" 1 -. i 0 ;;.' .". ... .. A8 Cut Biomass, Diverted River & Lowered Ground Water tH.': ili111.A n lJj.J.j3 tt t' H -j: 1'" 1<'-'.'\-01.-... ;t:."I..;.' '!U" ';' ,-': Years 26 Years 26 Figure AS. Cumulative impacts of lowering groundwater and cutting biomass. Figure AG. Cumulative impacts of lowering groundwater and diverting river inflow. Figure A7. Cumulative impact of cutting biomass and diverting river inflow. Figure AB. Cumulative impacts of lowering groundwater, diverting river and cutting biomass.

PAGE 91

91 Table A2 Calibration Values for the Water Simulation Model for the Black Swamp Expression R= ]c*= ]cI = ]g= Lr = ]r= SI = A= B= S= Al = hO= h1= k1*A = k3*S = k4*((Jcl]c1)-2.0 = k5*( ((S/SI)-hO) H (AlAI )-h1= k6*S = k7*Lr*S*B = kil *Lr*S*B = k30*Lr*S*B = k31 *Lr*S*B = k32*B = k33*B = Value 1.96 E6 1.5B EB 3.94 E7 3.45 E7 0.6 1.36 EB 1.57 E7 1.44 EB 3.15 E5 5.00 E6 1.57 E7 2.00 E-1 9.12 3.46 E7 B.OO E6 3.00 E7 5.00 E5 2.625 E5 1.47 E6 0.4 5900 720 4130 1050 Coefficient k1 = k3 = k4= k5 = k6= k7 = kll = k30 = k31 = k32 = k33 = Value 2.41 E-1 1.60 EO 1.49 E7 5.B4 E6 5.25 E-2 1.56 E-6 4.23 E-13 6.24 E-9 7.62 E-10 1.31 E-2 3.33 E-3

PAGE 92

Appendix Table A3 Black Swamp Water Simulation Program in BASIC 10 REM BSWF Calibrated without impacts 20CLS 30 SCREEN 12 40 LINE (0, 0)-(319, 400), 3, B 41 LINE (0, 240)-(319, 240) 42 LINE (0, 90)-(319, 90) 45 REM OPEN "C:\exeel\bswpre.dat" FOR OUTPUT AS #1 50 REM SCALING FACfORS 55t=0 60 DT =.5 70 SO = 500000 80 BO = 6000 85 AO = 10000000 90 JGO = 500000 91 JCO = 2000000! 100 RO = 500000 101tO=1 102 LO =.1 103j4O= 500 110 REM INITIAL QUANTITIES 120 Rl = 1604671 125 R2 = 397671 135 Jel = 3.94E+07 136 JO = 1.2E+08 137 11 = 5E+07 140 JG = 3.45E+07 150 A = 1.444E+08 155Al = 1.57E+07 160 S = 5000000! 161 SI = 1.57E+07 162 hO =.2 165 hI = 9.12 170 B = 315000 220 REM COEFFICIENTS 230 Kl = .241 240 K3 = 1.6 250 k4 = 1.49E+07 260 K5 = 5480000! 270 k6 = .0525 280 K7 = I.56E-06 310 Kll = 4.23E-13 360 K30 = 6.24E-09 370 K31 = 7.62E-1O 375 k32 = .013111 376 k33 = .003333 380 REM EQUATIONS 383 Je = JO + 11 SIN((t + 13) .523) 384 L = 1! + .5 SIN((t + 8) .523) 392 Js = k4 ((Je / JeI) 2!) 393 IF Js < 0 THEN Js = 0

PAGE 93

Appendix Table A3 (continued) 395 R = RI + R2 SIN(t .523) 400 Lr = L I (1 + Kll S B) 401 J5 = K5 (S I SI) hO) A I AI) hi 40217=K7*Lr*S*B 40313=K3*S 404 Jll = Kll Lr S B 93 41ODA=JG (KI A) +K5 (SI SI) -hO)-AI AI) -hI)) 420 DS = R + Js k6 S K7 Lr S B -K3 S J5 430 DB = K30 Lr S B -K31 Lr S B k32 B k33 B 431 130 = K30 Lr S B 432 132 = k32 B 440 REM CHAngING EQUATIONS 450 A = A + DA DT 455 IF A < 0 THEN A = 0 460 S = S + DS DT 465 IF S < 0 THEN S = 0 470 B = B + DB DT 475 IF B < 0 THEN B = 0 480 REM PRINT #1, USING "############.##"; R; L; Jc; S; S lSI; B; Js; J5; 17; 13; 130; 132; A; A I AI; 111 490 REM PLOTTING EQUATIONS 500 PSET (t I to, 400 -A I Al 10),3 510 PSET (t I to, 240 -S I SO), 2 520 PSET (t I to, 240 -B I BO), 1 525 PSET (t I to, 90 130 I j40), 3 526 PSET (t I to, 400 JG I JGO) 2 528 REM PRINT j5 530t=t+DT 540 IF t I to < 320 GOTO 380

PAGE 95

Appendix B Calculation of Transformities Transformities of Global Water Flows Global chemical potential fresh water flows transformities were estimated following the same rationale that was applied for H.T. Odum (1996) in calculating transformities for other Earth processes (such as wind, rain, streams, waves, etc.). It is understood is that all these Earth processes are interdependent of each other and they require the whole empower budget contributing to the Earth (9.44 E24 sej/yr) to operate each individual process. As aggregated in Figure BIa, all the fresh water pathways are necessary to the global system and thus are coproducts of the total geobiospheric system. A global water budget done by L'vovich, 1974 (in Gleick, 1993) was used to identify the average annual water flows in the pathways. According to the data, the global average flows are: Precipitation110,305 km3/yr, evaporation-71,475 km3/yr, groundwater runoff-11,885 km3/yr, and surface water runoff-26,945 km3/yr (Figure BIb). The chemical potential energy of the water flows was then calculated from the volume flows using the following equations: Evapotranspiration (J/yr) = (m3/yr)(1 E6 g/m3 )(Gibbs Free Energy, 4.94 J/g) River flows (J/yr) = (volume/yr)(1 E6 g/m3)(Gibbs Free Energy, 4.93 JIg) Groundwater (J/yr) = (m3/yr)(1 E6 g/m3)(Gibbs free energy, 4.89 JIg). The Gibbs Free Energy in the flows was estimated considering the free energy of the fresh water relative the to salty ocean water (Figure B2c). Concentrations of dissolved solids were assumed to be about 5 mg/l for precipitated/evaporated water, around 150 mg/l for river waters and around 342 mg/l for the groundwater (Lee and Fetter, 1994). Transformities were calculated as emergy divided by energy. Evapotranspired rain = (9.44 E24 sej/yr)/(3.53 E20 J/yr) = 26,735 sej/J River waters = (9.44 E24 sej/yr)/(1.88 E20 J/yr) =48,850 sej/J Groundwater = (9.44 E24 sej/yr)/(5.82 EI9 Jlyr) = 162,165 sej/J

PAGE 96

Atomosphere Rain & Ocean Geobiosphere (a) Empower: E24 sej/yr Atomosphere 110 & Ocean (b) Global Water Cycle: E3 km 3/year by L'vovic (Gleik, 1993) Atomosphere .... ... & Ocean (c) Flow of Chemical Potential Energy of Water: E20 Joules/year Land 12 Figure Bl. Diagram of global hydrology for evaluating transformities. (a) Global emergy basis; (b) global water flows from L'vovich (1974); (c) energy flows.

PAGE 97

Transformities of Migrant Birds Preliminary transformities of migrant birds were estimated by estimating the emergy required to support the birds in a hectare of northern nesting area in summer (Hubbard Brook, New Hampshire) and a winter support area in Florida. Energy flows in the birds were estimated from respiration rates. See Appendix Table Bl. Transformities for Agricultural Commodities Transformities for agricultural products rice, soybeans, wheat, sorghum, corn, and broiler chickens were evaluated in Appendix Tables B2-B7. The emergy signatures of these inputs to each of these production processes are shown in graphical form in Figures B2-B7.

PAGE 98

Appendix Table Bl Emergy of a Migrant Bird Note Item Emergy use Energy use Transformity sej J sej/J 1 Bird inWinter months 2049 E13 2 Bird in Summer months 2.60 El3 3 Annual Support 5.09 El3 5.27 E7 9.7 E5 1. Chemical potential energy of rain transpiration per hectare in 6 months as approximation for ecosystem productivity in southern wintering area: Rainfall = 140 cm/yr; 35% in fall and winter Transpiration = 75% of rainfall; Seasonal transpiration = (140 cm/yr)(0.35/season)(0.75 transpired) = 0.37 m/season Energy = (0.37 m/season)(1 E4 m 2/ha)(1 E6 g/m3)(4.94J/g) = 1.83 ElO J/6 months Emergy support per bird the product of energy use and the solar transformity of rain over land, multiplied by 43% going into migrants, and divided by 5.75 birds/ha (1.83 EI0 J/yr)(1.82 E4 sej/J)(0043)/5.75 = 2049 El3 sej/6 mo/bird 2. As in note #1 except with data for summer months using data from Hubbard Brook, New Hampshire: Energy = (l30 cm rain/yr)(Oo4O transp/season)(1 E8 cm2/ha)(4.94J/g) = 2.57 EI0 J/ha/season; Emergy = (2.57 ElO J/6 mo)( 1.82 E4 sej/J)(0.84 migrants)/( 15 birds/ha) = 2.6 El3 sej/6 months/bird 3. Annual emergy basis per migrant bird sum of winter and summer. Bird energy used from annual respiration: 63% of annual consumption of bird 9.5 g Energy = (annual respiration per bird)(5.6 kcal/dry wt)(4186 J/kcal)

PAGE 99

99 Appendix Table B2 Emergy Evaluation of Rice Production Annual Rates per Hectare Note Items 1 Sun,J 2 Rain transpired, J 3 Soil used up, J 4 Groundwater 5 Fuel 6 Machinery, oil equiv. 7 Pesticide, oil equiv. 8 Nitrogen 9 Potassium 10 Seed, oil equiv. 11 Electricity 12 Service, US $ 1977 13 Rice production 14 Transformity Footnotes Data unit/yr 1.05 E13 1.48 ElO 9.92 E8 3.72 ElO 1.35 E10 2.87 E8 3.97 E9 2.92 E8 2.36 E7 2.63 E9 3.78 E9 730 6.95 ElO Emergy/Unit sej/J 1 1.82 E4 6.30 E4 1.60 E5 6.60 E4 6.60 E4 6.60 E4 1.90 E6 3.00 E6 6.60 E4 1.70 E5 4.40 E12 1.76 E5 sej/J Emergy E13 sej/yr 1 27 6 596 89 2 26 55 7 17 64 321 1211 Data on rice plantation at Grand Prairie, AR, (Pimentel, 1980, p. 95) 1. Solar insolation = 1.00 E6 kcal/m2/yr Growing season = 3 months = 0.25 yr (1 E6 kcal/m2/yr)(1 E4 m 2/ha)(0.25 yr)(4186 kcal/J) = 1.05 E13 J/yr 2. Transpiration Energy = (3000 m 3/yr)(1 E6 g/m3)(4.94 J/g) = 1.48 E10 J/yr 3. Soil used up assumed 10 ton/ha/yr (as in Odum, 1996) Organic Fraction = 0.44% of dry matter Energy = (weight)(0.0044 org)(5.4 kcal/J)( 4186 J/kcal) = 9.95 E8 Jlyr

PAGE 100

100 Footnotes for Appendix Table B2 (continued) 4. Groundwater irrigation = 0.76 m/ha = 7600 m3/yr Chemical potential energy = (7600 m3/yr)(1 E6 g/m3)(4.90 Jig) = 3.72 ElO Jlyr 5. Fuel (Pimentel, 1980): Gasoline 8.70 E5 + Diesel 2.34 E6 kcal/ha Energy = (3.21 E6 kcal) ( 4186 J/kcal) = 1.35 +10 ]/yr 6. Machinery (embodied fuel in the machinery, Pimentel 1980) Energy = (6.86 E5 kcal)(4186 ]/kcal) = 2.87 E8 ]/yr 7. Pesticide 1.1 kg of 2,4,5-T =1.10 E5 kcal/ha 4.5 kg propanil = 4.50 E5 kcal/ha 3.4 kg molinate = 2.94 E5 kcal/ha Total 9.50 E5 = kcal/ha Energy = (9.5 E5)(4186 ]/kcal) = 3.97 E9 J/yr 8. Nitrogen fertilizer = 134.5 kg/ha Chemical potential = 2.17 E6 ]/kg Energy = (134.5 kg/yr)(2.17 E6 ]/kg) = 2.92 E8 J/yr 9. Potassium fertilizer = 33.6 kg/ha Chemical potential = 702]/g Energy = (33.6 E3 g/yr)(702 Jig) = 2.36 E7 ]/yr 10. Seed 156.9 kg; embodied fuel 6.28 E5 kcal/ha Energy equivalent: (6.28 E5 kcal/yr)(4186 J/kcal) = 2.63 E9 ]/yr 11. Electricity in irrigation fuel 0.76 m/ha pumped up 38.1 m Energy = (7600 m3)(38.1 m)(9.8 m/s2)(1000 kg/m3)/(0.75 eff.) = 3.78 E9 J/yr 12. Service as price = 7.02 $ICwt (CYE, 1978) = $ 0.154 $/kg (4742 kg production)(0.154 $/kg) = $730 13. Production = 4742 kg/ha Energy = (4.72 E6 g)(3.5 kcal/g)(4186 J/kcal) = 6.95 E10 ]/yr 14. Transformity = (1.22 E16 sej/yr)/(6.95 E10 ]/yr) = 1.76 E5 sej/J

PAGE 101

Appendix Table B3 Emergy Evaluation of Soybean Production Annual Rates per Hectare Note Items 1 Sun,] 2 Rain transpired, ] 3 Soil used up,] 4 Groundwater 5 Fuel 6 Machinery, oil equiv. 7 Pesticide, oil equiv. 8 Phosphate 9 Nitrogen 10 Seed, oil equiv. 11 Electricity 12 Service, US $ 1977 13 Soybean production 14 Transformity Footnotes Data unitlyr 1.05 E13 1.48 ElO 9.92 E8 1.47 ElO 3.60 E9 8.81 E8 1.29 E9 1.56 E6 1.22 E7 2.45 E9 1.49 E9 5.85 E2 3.73 E10 Emergy/Unit sej/] 1 1.82 E4 6.30 E4 1.60 E5 6.60 E4 6.60 E4 6.60 E4 1.00 E7 1.90 E6 6.60 E4 1.70 E5 4.40 E12 1.62 E5 sej/] Emergy E13 sejlyr 1 27 6 235 24 6 9 2 2 16 25 257 609 Data on irrigated soybean plantation in Nebraska (Pimentel, 1980 p. 120) 1. Solar insolation = 1 E6 kcal/m2/yr Growing season = 3 months = 0.25 yr (1 E6 kcal/m2/yr)(1 E4 m 2/ha)(0.25 yr)(4186 kcal/]) = 1.05 E13 Jlyr 2. Transpiration Energy = (3000 m 3/yr)(1 E6 g/m3)(4.94]/g) = 1.48 E10 ]/yr 3. Soil used up assumed 10 ton/ha/yr (as in Odum, 1996) Organic Fraction = 0.44% of dry matter Energy = (weight)(0.0044 org)(5.4 kcal/J) (4186 Jlkcal) = 9.95 E8 Jlyr

PAGE 102

lUL Footnotes for Appendix Table B3 (continued) 4. Groundwater irrigation = 3000 m3/yr Chemical potential energy = (3000 m 3/yr)(1 E6 g/m3)(4.90 Jig) =1.47 E10 J/yr 5. Fuel (Pimentel, 1980) Gasoline 2.43 E5 kcal + Diesel 6.16 E5 kcal Energy = (8.59 E5 kcal)(4186 Jlkcal) = 3.6 E9 Jlyr 6. Machinery (embodied fuel, Pimentel, 1980) 11. 7 kg/ha = 2.10 E5 kcallha Energy = (2.10 E5)(4186 Jlkcal) = 8.81 E8 Jlyr 7. Herbicide (embodied fuel, Pimentel, 1980) 3.08 kg/ha = 3.08 E5 kcallha Energy = (3.07 E6)(4186 J/kcal) = 1.29 E9 Jlyr 8. Phosphate application = 4490 g/ha Chemical Potential = 348 JIg Energy = (4490 g/yr)(348 Jig) = 1.56 E6 J/yr 9. Nitrogen Application = 5.61 kg/ha Chemical Potential = 2.17 E6 J/kg Energy = (5.61 kg/yr)(2.17 E6 J/kg) = 1.22 E7 J/yr 10. Seed Quantity = 73.2 kg; embodied fuel = 5.86 E5 kcallha Energy used (5.86 E5 kcallyr)( 4186 Jlkcal) = 2.45 E9 J/yr 11. Irrigation electricity as fuel = 1.62 E6 kcal/ha Assumption: 0.30 m water Iha pumped 38.1 m; efficiency = 0.75 Energy = (3000 m 3)(38.1m)(9.8 m/s2)(1000 kg/m3)/0.75 = 1.49 E9 Jlyr 12. Service producing 2210 kg; price = 721 $/bushel (CYE, 1978) 7.21 $/27.24 kg = 0.265 $/kg (2210 kg)(0.265 $/kg) = 585.65 $/ha 13. Production = 2210 kg Energy = (2.21 E6 g/yr)(4.03 kcal/g)(4186 Jlkcal) = 3.73 EI0 J/yr 14. Transformity = (6.09 E15 sej)/(3.73 E10) = 1.62 E5 sej/J

PAGE 103

lUJ Appendix Table B4 Emergy Evaluation of Wheat Production Annual Rates per Hectare Note Items 1 Sun,] 2 Rain transpired,] 3 Soil used up, ] 4 Groundwater 5 Fuel 6 Machinery, oil equiv. 7 Pesticide, oil equiv. 8 Phosphate 9 Nitrogen 10 Seed, oil equiv. 11 Electricity 12 Service, US $ 1977 13 Wheat production 14 Transformity Footnotes Data unitlyr LOS E13 1.48 ElO 9.92 E8 1.76 E10 4.98 E10 1.32 E9 1.79 E8 3.9 ES 1.95 E8 9.11 E8 1.79 E9 2.60 E2 3.81 E10 Emergy/Unit sej/] 1 1.82 E4 6.30 E4 1.60 ES 6.60 E4 6.60 E4 6.60 E4 1.00 E7 1.90 E6 6.60 E4 1.70 ES 4.40 E12 2.21 ES Data on irrigated wheat in Kansas (Pimentel, 1980, p. 111) 1. Solar insolation = 1.00 E6 kcal/m2/yr Growing season = 3 months = 0.25 yr (1 E6 kcal/m2/yr)(1 E4 m 2/ha)(0.2S yr)(4186 kcal/J) = LOS E13 ]Iyr Emergy E13 sej/yr 1 27 6 282 329 9 1 0.39 37 6 30 115 843 2. Transpiration Energy = (3000 m 3/yr)(1 E6 g/m3)(4.94 Jig) = 1.48 ElO Jlyr 3. Soil used up assumed = 10 ton/ha/yr (as in Odum, 1996) Organic Fraction = 0.44% of dry matter Energy = (weight)(0.0044 org)(S.4 kcal/])(4186 ]lkcaI) = 9.95 E8 ]Iyr

PAGE 104

104 Footnotes for Appendix Table B4 (continued) 4. Groundwater irrigation = 0.36 m/ha = 3600 m 3/yr Chemical potential energy = (3600 m 3/yr)(1 E6 g/m3)(4.90 JIg) = 1.76 ElO J/yr 5. Fuel (Pimentel, 1980) Gasoline 3.52 E5 kcal/ha; Diesel 5.65 E5 kcal/ha; Nat gas 1.10 E7 kcal/ha Energy = (1.19 E7 kcal)(4186 J/kcal) = 4.98 ElO j/yr 6. Machinery (embodied energy in the machinery, Pimentel 1980) 17.5 kg/ha = 3.16 E5 kcal/ha Energy = (3.16 E5 kcal/ha)(4186 J/kcal) = 1.32 E9 J/yr 7. Pesticide embodied fuel energy 0.22 kg herbicide 2.20 E4 kcal/ha; 0.24 kg insecticide 2.09 E4 kcal/ha Energy = (4.28 E4 kcal/ha)(4186 J/kcal) = 1.79 E8 J/yr 8. Phosphate = 1.12 kg/ha; Chemical potential = 348 J/g Energy = (1.12 E3 g/yr)(348 JIg) = 3.90 E5 J/yr 9. Nitrogen = 89.7 kg/ha; Chemical potential = 2.17 E6 j/kg Energy = (89.7 kg/yr)(2.17 E6 J/kg) = 1.95 E8 j/yr 10. Seed embodied fuel energy 72.5 kg = 2.18 E5 kcal/ha Energy used = (2.2 E5 kcal/yr)(4186j/kcal) = 9.11 E8 j/yr 11. Irrigation electricity as fuel = 1.62 E6 kcal/ha Assumption: 0.36 m water/ha pumped 38.1 m; efficiency = 0.75 Energy = (3600 m 3)(38.1 m)(9.8 m/s2)(1000 kg/m3)/0.75 = 1.79 E9 j/yr 12. Services from production = 2600 kg; price = 2.73 $/bushel (CYB, 1978) 2.73 $/27.21 kg = 0.100 $/kg (2600 kg/yr)(0.10 $/kg) = $260 13. Wheat Production Energy = (2.6 E6 g)(3.5 kcal/g)(4186 j/kcal) = 3.81 E10 J/yr 14. Transformity = (8.43 E15 sej/yr)/(3.81 ElO j/yr) = 2.20 E5

PAGE 105

1U) Appendix Table 85 Emergy Evaluation of Sorghum Production Annual Rates per Hectare Note Items 1 Sun,] 2 Rain transpired, ] 3 Soil used up, ] 4 Fuel 5 Machinery, oil equiv. 6 Pesticide, oil equiv. 7 Phosphate 8 Nitrogen 9 Potassium 10 Seed, oil equiv. 11 Service, US $ 1977 Data unit/yr 1.05 E13 1.48 E10 9.92 E8 2.99 E9 5.27 E8 5.78 E8 1.18 E6 8.20 E7 6.31 E5 1.97 E8 1.47 E2 12 Sorghum production 3.81 ElO 13 Sorghum Transformity Footnotes Emergy/Unit sej/] 1 1.82 E4 6.30 E4 6.60 E4 6.60E4 6.60 E4 1.00 E7 1.90 E6 3.0 E6 6.60 E4 4.40 E12 3.81 E4 sej/] Emergy E13 sej/yr 1 27 6 20 3 4 1 16 1 1 65 145 Nonirrigated sorghum production in Kansas, (Pimentel, 1980, p.104) 1. Solar insolation = 1 E6 kcal/m2/yr Growing season = 3 months = 0.25 yr (1 E6 kcal/m2/yr)(1 E4 m2/ha)(0.25 yr)(4186 kcal/J) = 1.05 E13 ]/yr 2. Transpiration energy = (3000 m3/yr)(1 E6 g/m3)(4.94 Jig) = 1.48 ElO Jlyr 3. Soil used up assumed 10 ton/ha/yr (as in Odum, 1996) Organic Fraction = 0.44% of dry matter Energy = (weight)(0.0044 org)(5.4 kcal/])(4186 ]/kcal) = 9.95 E8 ]/yr

PAGE 106

lUb Footnotes for Appendix Table Bs (continued) 4. Fuel (Pimentel, 1980) Gasoline 2.05 Es kcal/ha Diesel 4.90 Es kcal/ha Lp gas 2.00 E4 kcal/ha Energy = (7.15 Es kcal)(4186 Jlkcal) = 2.99 E9 Jlyr 5. Machinery embodied fuel energy (Pimentel, 1980) (126,000 J/ha)(4186 Jlkcal) = 5.27 E8 Jlyr 6. Pesticide 1.0 kg herb. = 8.90 E4 kcal/ha 0.6 kg insect. = 4.90 E4 kcal/ha Energy = (1.38 E5)( 4186 Jlkcal) = 5.78 E8 Jlyr 7. Phosphate = 3.4 kg/ha; Chemical potential = 348 Jig Energy = (3.4 E3 g/yr)(348 Jig = 1.18 E6 Jlyr 8. Nitrogen = 37.8 kg/ha; Chemical potential = 2.17 E3 Jig Energy = (37.8 kg/yr)(2.17 E6 Jlkg) = 8.20 E7 J/yr 9. Potassium = 0.9 kg/ha; Chemical potential = 702 Jig Energy = (900 g/yr)(702 JIg) = 6.31 E5 Jlyr 10. Seed = 3.4 kg Embodied fuel energy = 4.70 E4 kcal/ha Energy = (4.7 E4 kcal/yr)(4186 J/kcal) = 1.97 E8 JlyT 11. Services from production = 1840 kg and Price = 3.62 $Icwt (CYE, 1978) 3.62 $/45.36 kg = 7.98 E-02 $/kg (1840 kg)(7.98 E-2 $/kg) = 147 $ 12. Sorghum Production = 2600 kg/ha/yr Energy = (2.6 E6 g)(3.5 kcal/g)(4186 J/kcal) = 3.81 E10 J/yr 13. Transformity = (1.45 E15 sej/yr)/(3.81 EI0) = 3.81 E4

PAGE 107

107 Appendix Table B6 Emergy Evaluation of Corn Production Annual Rates per Hectare Note Items 1 Sun,] 2 Rain transpired, ] 3 Soil used up, ] 4 Fuel 5 Machinery, oil equiv. 6 Pesticide, oil equiv. 7 Phosphate 8 Nitrogen 9 Potassium 10 Seed, oil equiv. 11 Electricity 12 Service, US $ 1977 13 Corn production 14 Transformity Footnotes Data unitlyr 1.05 E13 1.48 E10 9.92 E8 6.82 E9 4.14 E9 9.28 E8 1.81 E7 2.68 E8 4.0 E7 1.29 E9 6.85 E7 3.53 E2 5.72 E10 Emergy/Unit sej/] 1 1.82 E4 6.30 E4 6.60 E4 6.60 E4 6.60 E4 7.70 E6 1.69 E6 2.62 E6 6.60 E4 1.70 E5 4.40 E12 5.95 E4 sej/] Data from corn plantation in Alabama (Pimentel, 1980, p. 80) 1. Solar insolation = 1.00 E6 kcal/m2/yr Growing season = 3 months = 0.25 yr (1 E6 kcal/m2/yr)(1 E4 m 2/ha)(0.25 yr)(4186 kcal/]) = 1.05 E13 Jlyr Emergy E13 sej/yr 1 27 6 45 27 6 14 45 11 9 1 15 313 2. Transpiration energy = (3000 m 3/yr)(1 E6 g/m3)(4.94]/g) = 1.48 ElO ]/yr 3. Soil used up assumed 10 ton/ha/yr (as in Odum, 1996) Organic Fraction = 0.44% of dry matter Energy = (weight)(0.0044 org)(5.4 kcal/J)( 4186 ]/kcal) = 9.95 E8 ]/yr

PAGE 108

Footnotes for Appendix Table B6 (continued) 4. Fuel (Pimentel, 1980) Gasoline 7.01 E5 kcallha Diesel 7.85 E5 kcal/ha LP gas 1.42 E5 kcallha Energy = (1.63 E6 kcal) (4186 J/kcal) = 6.82 E9 Jlyr 5. Machinery embodied fuel (Pimentel 1980) 35.3 kg/ha 9.90 E5 kcallha Energy = (9.9 E5 kcallha)(4186 J/kcal) = 4.14 E9 Jlyr 6. Pesticide embodied fuel energy (Pimentel, 1980) 1.21 kg/ha = 1.21 E5 1.16 kg/ha = 1.01 E5 Energy = (2.22 E5 kcallha)(4186 J/kcal) = 9.28 E8 J/yr 7. Phosphorus = 52.1 kg/ha; Chemical potential energy = 348 JIg Energy = (52.1 kg/yr)(348 Jig) = 1.81 E7 Jlyr 8. Nitrogen = 123.35 kg/ha; Chemical potential = 2.17 E6 Jlkg Energy = (123.35 kg/yr)(2.17 E6 Jlkg) = 2.68 E8 Jlyr 9. Potassium = 57.18 kg/ha; Chemical potential = 702 Jig Energy = (5.72 E4 g/yr)(702 Jig) = 4.0 E7 Jlyr 10. Seed = 12.3 kg Embodied fuel = 3.08 E5 kcallha Energy = (3.08 E5 kcallyr)(4186 J/kcal) = 1.29 E9 J/yr 11. Electricity = 19.02 kwh/yr Energy = (19.0 kwh)(3.60 E6 Jlkwh) = 6.85 E7 Jlyr 12. Service from production = 3902 kg/yr and Price = 2.30 $/bushel (CYE, 1978) 2.3 $/25.42 kg = 0.0904 $/kg (3902 kg/ha)(0.09$/kg) = 353 $/ha 13. Corn production = 3902 kg/ha Energy = (3.9 E6 g)(3.5 kcallg)(4186 J/kcal) = 5.72 E10 Jly 14. Transformity = (3.40 E15)/(5.72 E10) = 5.95 E4 sej/J

PAGE 109

Appendix Table B7 Emergy Evaluation of Poultry Broiler Production Rates for 50,000 Broilers on One Hectare Raised in 3 Months Note Items Data unit/yr Emergy/Unit sej/] Emergy E13 sej/yr 1 Sun,] 1.05 E13 1 2 Rain transpired,] 1.48 ElO 1.82 E4 3 Soil used up, ] 9.95 E8 6.30 E4 4 Groundwater 1.79 ElO 1.70 E5 5 Fuel 2.66 Ell 6.60 E4 6 Machinery, oil equiv. 1.64 ElO 6.60 E4 7 Ration, corn 1.35 E12 6.00 E4 8 Ration, soybean 5.82 Ell 1.60 E5 9 Electricity 2.7 E10 6.60 E4 10 Buildings, oil equiv. 2.98 Ell 6.60 E4 11 Service, US $ 1977 8.02 E4 4.40 E12 12 Broiler production 13 Transformity 8.02 Ell 7.11 E5 Footnotes Data for 1000 broilers (Pimentel, 1980) 1.5 square feet/bird = 0.139 m2/bird (Nesheim et aI., 1979) Birds/ha = ,000)/0.14)(0.75) = 53571.43 birds/ha Assumed 50,000 broiler per ha 1. Solar insolation = 1.00 E6 kcal/m2/yr Growing season = 3 months = 0.25 yr (1 E6 kcallm2/yr)(1 E4 m 2/ha)(0.25 yr)(4186 kcall]) = 1.05 E13 ]/yr 2. Evapotranspiration = 1.2 m 3/m2/yr = 12000 m 3/yr 3 months growth = 3000 m 3/3 months Energy = (volume)(l E6 g/m3)(4.94 Jig) = 1.48 ElO J/yr 1 27 6 304 1756 108 8123 9283 178 1968 35288 57042

PAGE 110

110 Footnotes for AppendLx Table B7 (continued) 3. Soil used = 10 ton/ha/yr (as in Odum, 1996) Organic Fraction = 0.44% of dry matter Energy = (1 E7 tonne/ha/yr)(0.0044 org)(S.4 kcal/J)( 4186 jlkcal) = 9.95 E8 J/yr 4. Groundwater = 20-380 l/day/lOOO broilers (100 l/day/thsd broilers)(36S d/yr)(lOO thsd broilers)/lOOO l/m3 = (3650 m 3/yr) Chemical potential or water used = (3650 m 3/yr)(1 E6 g/m3)(4.90 JIg) = 1.79 ElO J/yr 5. Fuel (Pimentel, 1980) Propane = 1.27 E6 kcal/lOOO broilers 6.36 E7 kcal/SO,OOO broilers Energy = (6.36 E7 kcal) ( 4186 J/kcal) = 2.66 Ell jlyr 6. Machinery Embodied fuel energy (Pimentel, 1980) 3.78 kg 7.81 E4 kcal/lOOO broilers 3.91 E6 kcal/SO,OOO broilers Energy = (3.91 E6)(4186 jlkcal) = 1.64 ElO jlyr 7 -8. Broiler rations 3182 kg 9.24 E6 kcal/lOOO broilers 4.62 E8 kcal/SO,OOO broilers Assumed 70% corn and 30% soybean (3.23 E8 kcal corn)(4186 J/kcal) = 1.35 E12 J/yr (1.39 E8 kcal soybeans)(4186 J/kcal) = 5.82 Ell jlyr 9. Electricity is fuel: 1.288 ES kcal/1000 broilers (Pimentel, 1980) 6.44 E6 kcal/SO,OOO broilers Energy = (6.44 E6 kcal/ha)(4186 J/kcal) 2.7ElO J 10. Building area = 69.7 m 2 /lOOO broiler (Pimentel, 1980) Used = 100 m 2 /lOOO broiler; 5000 m 2/S0,000 broilers Embodied oil in buildings = 1.425 E6 kcal/1000 broilers Energy = (7.13 E7 kcal/SO thsd broil/yr)( 4186 J/kcal) = 2.98 Ell J/yr

PAGE 111

LLl Footnotes for Appendix Table B7 (continued) 11. Service with production = 90,000 kg Price (1977) = 0.405 $/lb (Commodity Year Book, 1978) 0.405 $/0.454 kg = 0.892 $/kg (9.0 E4 kg)(0.892 $/kg) = 8.02 E4 $/yr 12. Broiler production: (50,000 broiler)(average weight 1.8 kg ea) = 90,000 kg Energy = (9 E7 g)(2.13 kcal/g) (4186 J/kcal) = 8.02 Ell ]lyr 13. Transformity = (5.71 E17 sej)/(8.02 Ell) = 7.11 E5

PAGE 112

U6 'OO!1\J1lS .w.>!JlOaI3 A!nba I!O 'paIlS II) vi ell wn!sselOd II) :::! {($ c '" ell '$' t:: of 0 .l2 c:( 0 ua60JI!N .... 0 -A!nba I!O 'ap!:msad u 0 .::I .... u e A!nba ::s c: Q. l!! no .tIaU!lPer.! CD I-U 0. 'C Q) .. lan,:l u .2 ..... .... ::I ..9 -ell C Cl ::s 'iii .... {($ >. t:: 00 .CD '" E >-. w r'dn pasn I!OS Q) S U-l r'paJ!dsueJI N r 'uns ::s 00 .e !;j 8 0 (.L., ras n3 'e4 Jad J;6JaW3

PAGE 113

1-1..> LL6 '80!Nag !II vi til !II CIS C ,,!nbe I!O 'peas '" til C of c( :::! .:r: c ua60JI!N c c 0 .0 0 C :;:: 0 () 0 alBlIdsolld 0 ::I '" ..... 'C u e II ;:l ,., '0 Q. g 8 c /\lnbe I!O 'aPP!lSad til .E 0.. CD If) C .c c: >-\! CIS 0 I-/\lnbe I!O 'NaU!lI:>erl Q) !II .0 ... ;>., J2 0 '" lan:l .... ::I .2 til Q) C .... CI ;:l 'in JajeMPunOJE) .... CIS >-c e' OJ) .CD r'dn pasn I!OS '" E ;>., w e.o Q) r'peJ!dsueJj S U-l M r 'uns '" ;:l Ii! 0 OJ) .'"'"' fas 'elj Jad

PAGE 114

LL" 'a:)!l\Jas .-::s "C g '0 e Alnbe e Q. .e 'Iii III I!O 'app!lSad 0. c: .... G) l!! i Q) A!nbe ..c:: ... I!O ',(jaU!l(.lBv.t 0 ... I-. e .2 :I lan:l IV C ::s .... Cl .;; I: >-00 .ell G) r'dn pasn I!OS >.. E 00 I-. W Q) 8 r' peJ!dsueJI t.U .f r 'uns ::s 00 @ In 0 .r.t. res 'elf Jed JliBJeW3

PAGE 115

Emergy signature for sorghum production in Arkansas ro'I------------------------------------------------, ro .ii)' 50 UI M ... W ci> ..c ... 8. ;..30 e' W 20 10 0 -, .: (J) <--, a; I LL i V) c: '0 c: CI) 'm Ir Transfonnily = 36.000 sej/J Q) c: Q) co :if :if :if =s "" '0 '0 z .r:; c:-o; 0.. ,,; "0 ., Q) '0 Q) c: (J) 'iii Q) co 0.. ;:'i; Figure BS. Emergy signature for sorghum production in Arkansas. ..... .... '" ... CI) => 8 C8 e e L

PAGE 116

.Llb 'SO!A1as III I III C vi (lj I c(
... .e .E e III c ::::I e to-I C CI 'iii >-e' w c ... lI!nba I!O 'apP!lSad 0 u ... <2 lI!nba Q) I!O .... =' .... (lj C 0.0 .. r'dn pasn I!OS Q) a U.l r'paJ!dsueJI \Q i:Q r 'uns ::s 0.0 .0 >.L.. fas 'elf Jad ,4;6JaW3

PAGE 117

Lli '9:l!/lJas
-=' :::I E "0 e e woo a 0. Il. III c: ... .. '" Q) .!! I-,,!nbe .-'e 0 I!O 'AlaU!40ew .... ,Q .D '0 ... 2! Ian;:! <2 Q) :::I ... III =' c: .... CI $ 'iii JalBMpUnOJE> t:: OJ) >-'Vi e' >. GI r'dn pasn I!OS OJ) E ... w Q) 8 r..u r'paJidsUeJI I'--!Xl r 'uns =' OJ) ,->.L. 0 ras '(ell SJslIOJq 000'09 Jad Arusw3

PAGE 119

LITERATURE CITED Ackerman, D.J. 1989. Hydrology of the Mississippi River valley alluvial aquifer, south-central United States--a preliminary analysis of the regional flow system. U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 88-4028. 74 pp. Bahr, L.M., R. Costanza, J.W. Day, Jr., S.E. Bayley, C. Neill, S.G. Leibowitz, and J. Fruci. 1983. Ecological Characterization of the Mississippi Deltaic Plain Region: A Narrative with Management Recommendations. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: FWS/OBS-82/69. 189 pp. Baker, J.A and K.J. Killgore. 1994. Use of a flooded bottomland hardwood wetland by fishes in the Cache River system, Arkansas. Technical Report WRP-CP-3, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. Baker, N.T. and C.A Manning. 1991. Summary of reported water use for Arkansas counties, 1989. US Geological Survey, Open File Report 91-203. Bedford, B.L. and E.M. Preston (eds.). 1988. Cumulative effects on landscape systems of wetlands. Environmental Management 12(5):561-775. Boar, R.R., R.D. Delaune, C.W. Lindau, and W.H. Patrick, Jr. 1993. Denitrification in bottomland hardwood soils of the Cache River, Arkansas. Technical Report WRP-CP-1, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. Brinson, M.M. 1990. Riverine forests. pp. 87-141 in Ecosystems of the World, AE. Lugo, M.M. Brinson and S. Brown, eds. Elsevier Science Pub!., Netherlands. Broom, M.E. and F. P. Lyford. 1982. Alluvial aquifer of the Cache and St. Francis River basins. Arkansas Geological Commission, Water Resources Circular No. 13. 48 pp. Brown, M.T. 1986. Cumulative impacts in landscapes dominated by humanity. pp. 33-50 in E.D. Estevez, J. Miller, J. Morris, and R. Hamann (eds.), Managing cumulative effects in Florida wetlands. Conference proceedings, New College Environmental Studies Program, Sarasota, FL. ESP Publication #38. Omnipress: Madison, WI.

PAGE 120

Brown, M.T. and T.R. McClanahan. 1992. Emergy Analysis Perspectives of Thailand and Mekong River Dam Proposals. Report to The Cousteau Society, Contract No. 89092601. 60 pp. Also, 1996, Ecol. Model. (in press). Brown, M.T. and T.R. McClanahan. 1995. Emergy analysis perspectives of Thailand and Mekong River dam proposals. Ecol. Model. 91:105-130. Brown, M.T. and R.E. Tighe. 1991. Techniques and guidelines for reclamation of phosphate mined lands final report to Florida Institute of Phosphare Research Project #83-03-044. Center for Wetlands, Univ. of Florida, Gainesville. Cada, G.F. and R.B. McLean. 1985. An approach for assessing the impacts on fisheries of basin-wide hydropower and development. Pp. 367-372 in F.W. Olson, R.G. White, and R.H. Hamre (eds.), Proceedings of the Symposium on Small Hydropower and Fisheries, American Fisheries Society, Aurora, CO. Canadian Environmental Assessment Research Council (CEARC). 1986. Cumulative environmental effects: a binational perspective. Minister of Supply and Services Canada. Clairain, E.]., Jr. and B.A. Kleiss. 1989. Functions and values of bottomland hardwood forests along the Cache River, Arkansas: implications for management. Pp. 27-33 in D.D. Hook and R. Lea (eds.), Proceedings of the symposium: the forested wetlands of the southern United States. General Technical Report SE-50, U.S. Forest Service, Southeastern Forest Experiment Station, Asheville, NC. Cline, E.W., E.c. Vlachos, and G.c. Horak. 1983. State-of-the-art and theoretical basis of assessing cumulative impacts on fish and wildlife. Eastern Energy and Land Use Team, Office of Biological Services, Fish and Wildlife Service, Kearneysville, WV. Coats, R.N. and T.O. Miller. 1981. Cumulative silvicultural impacts on watersheds: a hydrologic and regulatory dilemma. Environmental Management 5: 147-160. Commodity Yearbook. 1978. Commodity Research Bureau, Inc., New York. Corps of Engineers. 1974. Final Environmental Impact Statement Cache River Basin Project, Arkansas, Vol. 1.

PAGE 121

iLl Costanza, R., C. Neill, S.G. Leibowitz, ].R. Fruci, L.M. Bahr, Jr., and ].W. Day, Jr. 1983. Ecological Models of the Mississippi Deltaic Plain Region: Data Collection and Presentation. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: FWS/OBS82168. 339 pp. Counts, H.B. and K. Engler. 1954. Changes in water levels in deposits of quartenary age in eastern Arkansas from 1938 to 1953. Agricultural Experiment Station Report Series 42, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville. 56 pp. Dames and Moore, Inc. 1981. Methodology for the analysis of cumulative impacts of permit activities regulated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Institute for Water Resources, Fort Belvoir, VA. Delaune, RD., RR. Boar, C.W. Lindau and B.A. Kleiss. 1996. Denitrification in bottomland hardwood wetland soils of the Cache River. Wetlands 16(3):309-320. Diamond, C. 1984. Energy Basis for the Regional Organization of the Mississippi River Basin. M.S. Thesis, Environmental Engineering Sciences, Univ. of Florida, Gainesville. 129 pp. Dickert, T.G. and A.E. Tuttle. 1985. Cumulative impact assessment in environmental planning: a coastal wetland watershed example. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 5:37-64. Dortch, M.S. 1996. Removal of solids, nitrogen and phosphorus in the Cache River wetland. Wetlands 16(3):358-365. Elder, J.F., S.D. Flagg and C.H. Matthraw, Jr. 1988. Hydrology and Ecology of the Apalachicola River, FL. US Geological Survey Water Supply Paper 2196-D. 46 pp. Emery, RM. 1986. Impact interaction potential: a basin-wide algorithm for assessing cumulative impacts from hydropower projects. Journal of Environmental Management 23:341-360. Energy Information Administration. 1992. Gas Supplies of Interstate Natural Gas Pipeline Companies 1991. DOE/EIA-0167(91). Energy Information Administration. 1992. US Crude Oil, Natural Gas and Natural Gas Liquids Reserves. 1991 Annual Report. DOE/EIA-0216(91).

PAGE 122

Energy Information Administration. 1993. Coal Production 1992. DOE/EIA-0118(92). Energy Information Administration. 1993. Petroleum Supply Annual 1992-Vol. 2. DOE/EIA-0340(92)/2. Energy Information Administration. 1994. State Energy Price and Expenditure Report 1992. DOE/EIA-0376(92). Energy Information Administration. 1994. State Energy Data Report 1992. Consumption Estimates. DOE/EIA -0214(92). Estevez, E.D.,]. Miller,]. Morris, and R. Hamann (eds.). 1986. Managing cumulative effects in Florida wetlands. Conference proceedings, New College Environmental Studies Program, Sarasota, FL. ESP Publication #38. Omnipress: Madison, WI. Gleick, P.H., ed. 1993. Water in Crisis. Oxford Univ. Press, UK. 472 pp. Gluckman, D. 1986. The history behind the legislative history of the cumulative effects of wetlands destruction. Pp. 229-234 in E.D. Estevez,]. Miller,]. Morris, and R. Hamann (eds.), Managing cumulative effects in Florida wetlands. Conference proceedings, New College Environmental Studies Program, Sarasota, FL. ESP Publication #38. Omnipress: Madison, WI. Gonthier, G.]. 1996. Ground-water-flow conditions within a bottomland hardwood wetland, eastern Arkansas. Wetlands 16(3):334-346. Gonthier, G.]. and B.A. Kleiss. 1993. Ground-water flow patterns of Black Swamp, eastern Arkansas. Draft manuscript, U.s. Geological Survey and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Gosselink, ].G. and L.c. Lee. 1989. Cumulative impact assessment in bottomland hardwood forests. Wetlands 9:83-174. Gosselink, ].G., L.c. Lee, and T.A. Muir. 1990. Ecological processes and cumulative impacts: illustrated by bottomland hardwood wetland ecosystems. Lewis Publishers: Chelsea, MI. 708 p.

PAGE 123

Hall, H.D. and V.W. Lambou. 1990. The ecological significance to fisheries of bottomland hardwood systems: values, detrimental impacts and assessment: the report of fisheries workgroup. pp. 481-531 in Ecological Processes and Cumulative Impacts Illustrated by Bottomland Hardwood Wetland Ecosystems, ].G. Gosselink, L.c. Lee and T.A. Muir, eds. Lewis Publ., MI. Harris, L.D. and ].G. Gosselink. 1990. Cumulative impacts of bottomland hardwood conversion on hydrology, water quality, and terrestrial wildlife. Pp. 259-322 inJ.G. Gosselink, L.c. Lee, and T.A. Muir (eds.), Ecological processes and cumulative impacts: illustrated by bottomland hardwood wetland ecosystems. Lewis Publishers: Chelsea, Ml. 708 p. Horak, G.c., E.c. Vlachos, and E.W. Cline. 1983a. Fish and wildlife and cumulative impacts: is there a problem? Eastern Energy and Land Use Team, Office of Biological Services, Fish and Wildlife Service, Kearneysville, wv. Horak, G.c., E.C. Vlachos, and E.W. Cline. 1983 b. Methodological guidance for assessing cumulative impacts on fish and wildlife. Eastern Energy and Land Use Team, Office of Biological Services, Fish and Wildlife Service, Kearneysville, WV. Hupp, C.R. and E.E. Morris. 1990. A dendrogeomorphic approach to measurement of sedimentation in a forested wetland, Black Swamp, Arkansas. Wetlands 10(1):107-124. Johnston, c.A., N.E. Detenbeck, J.P. Bonde, and G.]. Niemi. 1988. Geographic information systems for cumulative impact assessment. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing 54(11):1609-1615. Kadlec, R.H. and R.L. Knight. 1996. Treatment Wetlands. CRC/Lewis Publ., Boca Raton, FL. 893 pp. Killgore, K.]. and J.A. Baker. 1996. Patterns of larval fish abundance in a bottomland hardwood wetland. Wetlands 16(3):288-295. Kleiss, B.A. 1993. Cache River, Arkansas:studying a bottomland hardwood (BLH) wetland ecosystem. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS, Wetlands Research Program Bulletin 3(1):1-6.

PAGE 124

Kleiss, B.A 1996. Sediment retention in a bottomland hardwood wetland in eastern Arkansas. Wetlands 16(3):321-333. Klopatck, J.M. 1988. Some thoughts on using a landscape framework to address cumulative impacts on wetland food chain support. Environmental Management 12:703-711. Kress, M.R., M.R. Graves and S.G. Bourne. 1996. Loss of bottomland hardwood forests and forested wetlands in the Cache River basin, Arkansas. Wetlands 16(3):258-263. Leibowitz, S.G., B, Abbruzzese, P.R. Adamus, L.E. Hughes, and j.T. Irish. 1992. A synoptic approach to cumulative impact assessment. EPA/600/R92/167, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Research Laboratory, Corvallis, OR. Long, K.S. and j.M. Nestler. 1996. Hydroperiod changes as clues to impacts on Cache River riparian wetlands. Wetlands 16(3):379-396. Lugo, AE.; S. Brown and M.M. Brinson. 1990. Concepts in wetland ecology. pp. 53-85 in Ecosystems of the World 15 -Forested Wetlands, AE. Lugo, M.M. Brinson and S. Brown, eds. Elsevier Science Pub!., Netherlands. L'vovich, M.1. 1974. World Water Resources and Their Future. Mysl' Publishing, Moscow. (1979 Translation from American Geophysical Union, Washington, D.C.) Mauney, M. and G.L. Harp. 1979. The effects of channelization on fish populations of the Cache River and Bayou DeView. Arkansas Academy of Science Proceedings 33:51-54. Merson, A and K. Eastman. 1980. Cumulative impact assessment of western energy development: will it happen? University of Colorado Law Review 51:551-586. Minerals Yearbook. 1992. Bureau of the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Govt. Printing Office, Washington, DC fiHtsch, W.j. and j.G. Gosselink. 1986. Wetlands. Van Nostrand Reinhold. 539 pp. Molinas, A, G.T. Auble, C.S. Segelquist, and L.S. Ischinger (eds.). 1988. Assessment of the role of bottomland hardwoods in sediment and erosion control. NERC-88/U, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Ecology Research Center, Ft. Collins, CO. 1.16 p.

PAGE 125

HJ Muir, T.A., e. Rhodes, and ].G. Gosselink. 1990. Federal statutes and programs relating to cumulative impacts in wetlands. Pp. 223-236 in].G. Gosselink, L.e. Lee, and T.A. Muir (eds.), Ecological processes and cumulative impacts: illustrated by bottomland hardwood wetland ecosystems. Lewis Publishers: Chelsea, MI. 708 p. Nestler, ].M. and K.S. Long. 1994. Hydrologic indices for cumulative impact analysis of wetlands. Draft Technical Report, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. Odum, H.T. 1971. Environment, Power and Society. John Wiley, NY. 331 pp. Odum, H.T. 1983. Systems Ecology: An Introduction. John Wiley, NY. 644 pp. Odum, H.T. 1996. Environmental Accounting: EMERGY and Decision Making. John Wiley, NY. 370 pp. Odum, H.T., e. Diamond and M.T. Brown. 1987. Energy Systems Overview of the Mississippi River Basin. Center for Wetlands, Univ. of Florida, Gainesville. Odum, H.T., M.]. Lavine, F.e. Wang, M.A. Miller, ].F. Alexander, Jr. and T. Butler. 1983. A Manual for Using Energy Analysis for Plant Siting with an Appendix on Energy Analysis of Environmental Values. Final report to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG/CR-2443 FINB-6155. Energy Analysis Workshop, Center for Wetlands, University of Florida, Gainesville. 221 pp. Olson, F.W., R.G. White, and R.H. Hamre (eds.). 1985. Proceedings of the Symposium on Small Hydropower and Fisheries, American Fisheries Society, Aurora, CO. Pimentel, D. 1980. Handbook of Energy Utilization in Agriculture. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL. 475 pp. Pimentel, D. and M. Pimentel. 1979. Food, Energy and Society. John Wiley, NY. 165 pp. Rieser, A. 1987. Managing the cumulative effects of coastal land development: can Maine law meet the challenge? Maine Law Review 39:321-389.

PAGE 126

Roelle, J.E, G.T. Auble, D.E. Hamilton, R.L. Johnson, and c.A. Segelquist. 1987a. Results of a workshop concerning ecological zonation in bottomland hardwoods. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Ecology Center, Fort Collins, CO. NEC-87/14. 141 p. Roelle, J,E, G.T. Auble, D.B. Hamilton, G.c. Horak, R.L. Johnson, and c.A. Segelquist. 1987b. Results of a workshop concerning impacts of various activities on the functions of bottomland hardwoods. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Ecology Center, Fort Collins, CO. NEC-87 lIS. 171 p. Roelle, J,E, G.T. Auble, D.B. Hamilton, R.L. Johnson, and c.A. Segelquist. 1987c. Results of a workshop concerning assessment of the functions of bottomland hardwoods. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Ecology Center, Fort Collins, CO. NEC-87116. 173 p. Scott, W.O. and S.R. Aldrich. 1970. Modern Soybean Production. S & A Publications, Illinois. Smith, D.R. 1996. Composition, structure, and distribution of woody vegetation on the Cache River floodplain, Arkansas. Wetlands 16(3):264278. Smith, F.L. and R. T. Saucier. 1971. Geological investigation of the Western Lowlands area, lower Mississippi valley. Technical Report S-71-5, U.s. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. Stakhiv, EZ. 1988. An evaluation paradigm for cumulative impact analysis. Environmental Management 12:725-748. Standiford and Ramacher (eds.). 1981. Cumulative effects offorest management on California watersheds: an assessment of status and need for information. University of California, Agricultural Sciences Special Publication 3268, Berkeley, CA. 109 p. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE). 1974. Final environmental impact statement, Cache River basin project, Arkansas. USACOE, Memphis District. 6 vol. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Census. 1993. 1990 Census of Population and Housing Population and Housing Units Counts Arkansas.

PAGE 127

iLl u.s. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Census. 1994. 1992 Census of Agriculture, Vol. 1. Geographic Area Series Part 4 -Arkansas State and County Data. u.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Census. 1994. 1992 Census of Manufactures Preliminary Report Industry Series -Agricultural Chemicals. u.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Census. 1994. Statistical Abstract of the United States 1994 -The National Data Book. u.S. Environmental Data Service. 1975. Weather Atlas of the United States. Gale Research Co., Detroit, MI u.S. Geological Survey. 1989. Open File Report 91-203: Water Resource Data for Arkansas. Vissage, J.S. and P.E. Miller. 1992. Southern Pulpwood Production, 1990. Resource Bulletin SO-175. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Forest Experimental Stateion, Louisiana. Wakeley, J.S. and T.H. Roberts. 1994. Avian distribution patterns across the Cache River floodplain, Arkansas. Draft Technical Report, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. Wakely, J.S. and T.H. Roberts. 1996. Bird distributions and forest zonation in a bottomland hardwood wetland. Wetlands 16(3):296-308. Walker, D.A., P.]. Webber, E.F. Binnian, K.R. Everitt, N.D. Lederer, E.A Nordstrand, and M.D. Walker. 1987. Cumulative impacts of oil fields on northern Alaskan landscapes. Science 238:757-761. Walton, R. and R.C. Chapman. 1993. Development of an integrated wetland hydrology Ihydrodynamic numerical model for wetland processes and function evaluation. Interim report, prepared for CERC, u.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. Walton, R., R.S. Chapman and J.E. Davis. 1996. Development and application of the wetlands dynamic water budget model. Wetlands 16(3):347-357.

PAGE 128

lLO Walton, R., ].E. Davis, T.H. Martin and R.S. Chapman. 1996. Hydrology of the Black Swamp wetlands on the Cache River, Arkansas. Wetlands 16(3):279-287. Wharton, C.H., W.M. Kitchens, E.C. Pendelton, and T.W. Sipe. 1982. The ecology of bottomland hardwood swamps of the Southeast: a community profile. FWS/OBS-81137, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Biological Services Program, Washington, D.C. 133 p. Wilber, D.H., R.E. Tighe and L.]. O'Neil. 1996. Associations between changes in agriculture and hydrology in the Cache River basin, Arkansas, USA. Wetlands 16(3):366-378. Williamson, S.c. and K. Hamilton. 1989. Annotated bibliography of ecological cumulative impacts assessment. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Biological Report 89( 11), Washington, D.C. Winn, D.S. and K.R. Barber. 1985. Cartographic modeling: a method of cumulative effects appraisal in the Greater Yellowstone ecosystem. Pp. 35-41 in R.D. Comer, T.G. Baumann, P. Davis, ].W. Monarch,]. Todd, S. VanGytenbeek, D. Wills, and J. Woodling (eds.), Issues and technology in the management of impacted western wildlife. Proceedings of a symposium, Thorne Ecological Institute, Boulder, CO. Witmer, G.W. 1986. Assessing cumulative impacts to wetlands. Pp. 204208 in J.A. Kusler and P. Riexinger (eds.), Proceedings of the National Wetland Assessment Symposium, ASWM Technical Report 1, Portland, Maine.