AGAIN I ASK--FOR YOUR Help on this--geo.

[capt.george]

---How Many ounces OR Pounds ot Nitrogeon is there in one Cubic Yard of SNOW

[BILL H]

With all due respect Captain. There are too many unknowns. You need the water content of the snow and the concentration of nitrogen in that water. i assume you don't care about the nitrogen in the air spaces in the snow. The water content could vary from a very low percentage in new dry snow, to quite high for wet snow or snow compacted by something like a snowplow. I'll make a couple of guesses and provide a SWAG.

If the water concentration of nitrogen were .5 mg/l, which is not an unreasonable value, and the snow was compacted to be 50 percent water, the amount of nitrogen would be less than 1/2 pound. Even if the snow were heavily compacted to approach 100% water, the amount of nitrogen would be less than one pound. That is if my math and conversion factors are correct.

[Matt]

I don't know either but its the right question - rian and snow cause a huge portion of nutrient loading in the bay. Depending on how you break out the numbers, you could probably attribute most of the nutrient problem to rain and such, with a growing and undesirable amount of it coming from impermeable surface like roads and houses, where the goal tends to be moving that water away as fast as possible, often running raw rainwater directly into tidal water.

[BILL H]

With all due respect Captain. There are too many unknowns. You need the water content of the snow and the concentration of nitrogen in that water. i assume you don't care about the nitrogen in the air spaces in the snow. The water content could vary from a very low percentage in new dry snow, to quite high for wet snow or snow compacted by something like a snowplow. I'll make a couple of guesses and provide a SWAG.

If the water concentration of nitrogen were .5 mg/l, which is not an unreasonable value, and the snow was compacted to be 50 percent water, the amount of nitrogen would be less than 1/2 pound. Even if the snow were heavily compacted to approach 100% water, the amount of nitrogen would be less than one pound. That is if my math and conversion factors are correct.

Captain, my answer above was vague enough to be correct, but after I went to bed, I couldn't sleep thinking that I had made a mistake in my calculations. It bothered me enough that I had to get out of bed and get out my pencil and calculator again. With the assumptions above, at 100% water, the nitrogen content would be 0.013 ounce (.00084 pound). I originally had computed 13 ounces, but the conversion from milligrams to pounds tripped me up because I was careless. At least I got a glass of milk and a slice of home-made sour cherry pie as my reward and slept better afterward.

[capt.george]

Thanks for your Efforts , Let me fill ya in on my thoughts --

--@---As a Farm boy in Va. we were Taught that Snow & Rain gathers Nitrogen out of the Air
--@ this Winter we in the Chesapeake Region ( Annapolis) within sight of the State house & the 5 star Hotel , where important Persons stay to meet Gov. , Senators & Delagates were a first hand Wittness to the DUMPING of Snow in our BAY ,, Melting water with water ---How Disgusting & Laughable this musta been for those whom know of the Above First Sentence --Where was our Agriculture Sect. Asleep ? Where was Mr. Baker ?, Where were the Saviors of the Bay & the Doom & Gloom Reporters & Shutterbugs ,AS some one said , we cleaded the lots, & streets of ALL our oil spills, animal Extrement, paper & Trash buried in the White Blanket , Am I Extreem ?, No just Pissed off ., that the ones that Scream foul all year were curled up next to a Fire & not down at Ego ally , For the "Great Dumping Party of 2010" ---nuff said --geo.

[Cabyn Fever]

Thanks for your Efforts , Let me fill ya in on my thoughts --

--@---As a Farm boy in Va. we were Taught that Snow & Rain gathers Nitrogen out of the Air
--@ this Winter we in the Chesapeake Region ( Annapolis) within sight of the State house & the 5 star Hotel , where important Persons stay to meet Gov. , Senators & Delagates were a first hand Wittness to the DUMPING of Snow in our BAY ,, Melting water with water ---How Disgusting & Laughable this musta been for those whom know of the Above First Sentence --Where was our Agriculture Sect. Asleep ? Where was Mr. Baker ?, Where were the Saviors of the Bay & the Doom & Gloom Reporters & Shutterbugs ,AS some one said , we cleaded the lots, & streets of ALL our oil spills, animal Extrement, paper & Trash buried in the White Blanket , Am I Extreem ?, No just Pissed off ., that the ones that Scream foul all year were curled up next to a Fire & not down at Ego ally , For the "Great Dumping Party of 2010" ---nuff said --geo.

If the snow were left to melt naturally, the same amount would end up in the bay from the run off.

[capt.george]

---How about the other Polluants

[Cabyn Fever]

---How about the other Polluants

Do you mean trash that may have been scooped up also or other "pollutants" that are dissolved in the moisture that made up the snow? Like nitrogen which makes up over 78% of the air we breathe, anything dissolved in the moisture that makes up snow stays with it when it melts and will eventually make its way to the bay in run off.

I don't recall which one but, an environmental group did bring this up when it was occurring and it was covered by the news media, they ended up going home with their tails between their legs once they understood this.

[Alley Cat]

I would be more concerned about the chemicals they dump on the roads that quickly end up in the storm drains.

[capt.george]

My Devils Advocate Tail is Fully tucked Away --geo.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_RTYcZOicek

[OldSalt46]

CB...I believe you are mistaken. The melting process of the snow releases much of the nitrogen that is not released in solid form.

[BILL H]

We are flogging the wrong horse here. According to this NADP report, (http://nadp.sws.uiuc.edu/lib/brochures/nitrogen.pdf)nitrogen contribution to the Bay comes from 3 major sources. About 60 percent comes from non-point sources (I read this as primarily agriculture, but it would include lawn fertilizer runoff and dog crap), about 20 percent from point sources, and the remaining 20 percent from atmospheric deposition (rain, snow, dry deposition).

This report had three other items of interest:
1. Highest concentrations are in the upper Bay (most effected by the agricultural runoff and high atmospheric deposition rates in the Susquehanna River, in my opinion), but the concentrations decrease toward the mouth of the Bay.
2. Bay water with higher nitrogen concentrations tend to overlay Bay water with lower concentrations
3. Modeling results, which take into account rainfall patterns, sampling data, and terrain effects, predict that the total atmospheric deposition of nitrogen (per unit of land surface) is lower near the Bay itself and higher in the upland areas that contribute runoff to the Bay (especially in the Central Pennsylvania Area).

[Matt]

Its interesting how agriculture continues to be on the same list as atmospheric deposition, but seriously, how does agriculture cause nitrogen pollution without atmospheric deposition.

The facts is, storm water runoff is the number one problem. We need to find more ways to contain raw storm water, whether its running off the road or off farm fields. I think the list advocates all generally agree urban storm water runoff is growing more quickly than any other kind, and agricultural runoff is actually decreasing.

[capt.george]

That WAS my main Concern , this & the other Things in the Snow--

[Barefoot]

how does agriculture cause nitrogen pollution without atmospheric deposition

fertilizer, whether it comes from the store, or the back end of the animals.

[Matt]

fertilizer leaves the field without rain?

[Matt]

When we talk about fertilizer polluting the bay I think it’s a chicken and egg discussion. Fertilizer costs money. For a farmer to just let it run off the field is like throwing away money, so lets be clear, there is incentive for farmers to keep the fertilizer, in whatever form, on his fields so those nutrients can be delivered to his crops. I also think its also safe to say that consumers depend on the success of our farmers and even our chicken ranchers to deliver reasonably priced food. Simply stopping the use of fertilizer in agriculture is not practical. A better idea is to curtail the runoff. Contrary to suggestions above, very little of the total nutrient load leaves farm fields without rain, in the form of runoff. Some simple and some not so simple practices have been widely encouraged and even mandated to build green rings surrounding farm fields, and to install mitigation basins to slow the migration of excessive nutrients into tidal water. Unfortunately, we're not living in a perfect world. Agriculture comes at a cost to the environment - nutrient pollution is one of those costs. I think the most productive goal concerned citizens can take on is to find ways to manage storm water where we live. As a waterfront dweller, I have a significant voluntary personal investment (cost and time) in storm water management. I now have five rain barrels and a 2000 gallon cistern, with another 2000 gal cistern in the plan. Virtually all off my runoff that was getting diverted to the tidal creek is now caught in some kind of holding device where I can use it for irrigation later, so most of the raw nutrients can be absorbed by my landscape.

Here's a picture of three of my barrels.

http://www.metrocast.net/~shark/House/rain3.jpg

[BILL H]

Matt, I agree with much that you say. However, agricultural fertilizer, whether it is in the form of manure or chemical fertilizer is not atmospheric deposition. so it is not treated as such in the discussion of sources of nitrogen to the bay. Runoff is simply the mechanism by which it is delivered to the bay; it is not the source.

Sure, farmers don't want to lose any fertilizer to runoff, but they do. And they lose it in amounts that are detrimental to the Bay. In a perfect world, the farmers would apply just enough to ensure their crops had adequate yield, and the plants would take up all the nutrients, and none would be lost to runoff or groundwater contribution to the streams. However, last time I checked, the world was not quite perfect. The imperfections arise from ignorance, greed, lack of enforceable standards, lack of enforcement, lack of political will, acts of nature, crappy luck, and a host of other causes.

Farmers need to be held responsible for their pollution to the Bay, and need to internalize the costs for its mitigation into the cost of their products. Until this happens, we will have a lot of mini-BPs contaminating our waterways, and selling products which do not reflect their true costs (including environmental damage mitigation).

[Matt]

I'm not trying to defend agriculture. I'm merely calling attention to the impracticality of blaming something we really can't fix. Holding farmers more accountable might be the right thing, but in the end we'll all pay for it in higher prices for goods and services. When we talk about damage to the bay, how would we estimate that damage? Farmers were farming when rockfish rebounded. Farmers were tilling their fields and applying fertilizer when crabs and oysters were in perennial abundance. Are we saying the ills of farming are a recent problem? Again, not defending agriculture, but what yardstick are we measuring what problem? Meanwhile, the facts clearly show that runoff i.e. rain is a primary source of nutrient pollution. As a mechanism or an agent to carry pollutants to tidal water, it’s also a problem that needs to be dealt with like govt requires developers to deal with storm water. As a source, unmitigated rain is the fastest growing source of nutrient loading. We might not be able to fix this problem but I know we can collectively nibble at the edges and make a pretty good dent. Collecting rain water has been an eye opener for me. In about five minutes of down pour, I can fill those 60 gallon containers.

[BILL H]

Matt,
You have hit the nail on the head: "but in the end we'll all pay for it in higher prices for goods and services". That is exactly what we need to do. For too long, we (me included) have worshiped at the altar of "the cheapest price", and chose to ignore the environmental cost. We cannot continue to do that. I don't object to paying another five cents per pound for my chicken if the farmers are held to enforceable nutrient standards. Of course, if another farmer can meet those for four cents per pound, then that farmer will probably prosper more than the one that needs ten cents. The market (if it is forced to recognize environmental mitigation costs) will reward the efficient, punish the inefficient, and encourage innovation.

What effect do your rain tanks have on nitrogen to the Bay? Are you saying that when you temporarily retain a small portion of the rainfall it no longer has the potential to enter the rest of the hydrologic system and deliver nutrients to the Bay through a pathway other than surface runoff? You are just postponing the problem. According to the USGS (http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs05300/), "A significant percentage of the total nitrogen load to the Bay is carried by ground water that flows through the surficial (unconfined or water-table) aquifer and discharges to streams as base flow. Base flow is the part of total streamflow derived from ground-water discharge rather than from storm runoff."

So unless you are de-nitrifying your tank contents, all you are doing is delaying the input to the Bay, by 20 years or so. And the use of basin-wide barrel technology to "mitigate rainfall" across the entire watershed is not practical.

It's not "demon rainfall" that causes the problem in agricultural areas; it is the use and abuse of fertilizers in a laughably lax enforcement environment, combined with a lack of recognition of environmental costs.

[Matt]

As a way to reduce unmitigated runoff from impervious surface, rain barrels are widely regarded as a good low cost solution. As you note, the process is less than perfect, but the benefits of catching rainwater are numerous. It allows nutrient laden rainwater to be placed where plants can beneficially absorb nitrogen. When the water is cycled through the ground before it is returned to surface water, it enters the surface cooler and more desirable to aquatic life. It also can be reabsorbed by the riparian buffer. Thats why they call it "mitigation." Its not perfect, but calling rain barrels impractical is uninformed. By reusing plastic food storage barrels in this manner, we're taking unwanted refuse out of the environment, putting it to work to do something beneficial. A decent 50+ gallon drum can be obtained for ~$20, plumbing fixtures might run about $5 - $10, What we're talking about is a simple low cost solution by any reasonable standard. Fixing agriculture not so simple. You may not mind paying more for chicken and corn, but I think I speak for many, I want to know uncle sam is really fixing something before I pay for it. You're talking about some kind of environmental bailout without entering the deal with a scientific measure of costs or returns. All the while other protein mongers are allowed even encouraged to kill marine life for profit...? For now I'll stick to catching every drop I can, and maybe someday someone will convince me that I'm not doing enough for the bay.

[Matt]

also its worth noting that by using rain to water my plants, I'm not using water from the aquifer, or placing additional deman on coal burning eletrical stations to pump water 100 feet out of the ground. This in itself is a water conservation measure that gets to another significant water quality issue. If you think the bay is in trouble, check the deal with our local aquifers.

[BILL H]

Matt,
I believe this cat is just about as flat as we can make it, but I will run over it just one more time.
Rain barrels for limited impervious surfaces are not impractical on the micro-scale, although they do little to address the vast majority of the nitrogen contamination that reaches the Bay, so they are not a significant solution on the macro-scale (and that seemed to be original subject of this post, but it is hard to tell at this point). However, you are taking positive steps and are accomplishing something, and have every right to feel good about it.

I can't address your suspicions about the effectiveness of government controls, but we have tried the no-enforceable limit, voluntary, approach, and it is failing miserably. And you know what the definition of insanity is.

[Matt]

Thanks Jim. I will openly admit my primary goal for harvesting rain water was to reduce my dependence on the aquifer. My interest grew as my 35 yr old jet pump well was approaching the end of its service life. I refused to run the hose on my landscape or garden knowing there was a relatively limited number of cycles left on my old well. In 2008 that old well finally blew out. I replaced it with an agricultural grade system, but my interest in collecting every drop of rain did not wane. I have almost 5000 square feet of roof tops between my house and outbuildings. In about five minutes of heavy downpour, I can literally fill my 2000 gallon cistern. With a relative small amount of energy I can deliver harvested rain water to any part of my property. I think its a win-win any way we look at it, but obviously some people don't think it makes a difference. If you google "rain barrel cheasapeake" you'll get around 17,000 hits. Clearly there's a lot of interest in doing this by all the local environmental agencies. Also worth noting, the implemting notes accompanying Maryland's Stormwater Management Act of 2007 speaks to the benfit of harvesting rain.