For a cleaner Chesapeake Bay, start with the maintenance crew | Pollution & Solutions

It all begins with a single, innocuous raindrop.

Instead of splattering onto soil and oozing into the ground, as it would have done a half-millennium ago, the droplet lands on a roof, road or parking lot. From there, it zips along one hard surface to another. Until this tiny traveler finds a larger body of water — a ditch, a creek, the Potomac River — it is fair game for any pollutant that wants to tag along.







Chesapeake Landscape Professional training group

Landscape architect Kelley Oklesson, kneeling, confers with (standing, left to right) Maureen Robinson of the Association of Professional Landscape Designers, neighborhood activist and gardener Jean Lee Cole and landscape architect Maya Mule during training for the Chesapeake Landscape Professional program. 



And that’s why, as far as the Chesapeake Bay is concerned, cities and towns are vast pollution factories, said Kelley Oklesson, a landscape architect based in Hyattsville, MD.

“Water moves downhill, so as it moves, it picks up a lot of things … that can go with it, like heavy metals, oil and trash,” she said. “And then it just continues to go to the low point, and that’s our Bay.”

For Oklesson, it isn’t enough for a client’s yard to look pretty. It must also be designed to prevent raindrops from destroying the fragile health of the largest U.S. estuary. So, she incorporates into her designs things from nature to capture and filter stormwater before it leaves the yard or garden.

Where did Oklesson gain the knowledge and skills to pull off such Bay-friendly projects? Not from her college degree, or even from a decade of experience in the landscaping industry. It mostly came, she said, from the Chesapeake Bay Landscape Professional certification program, which provides training for designers, installers and maintenance personnel in the landscaping field.

Since its inception in 2016, the program has certified more than 800 professionals in Maryland, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Virginia and the District of Columbia. The first class in Delaware began meeting earlier this year.

Reducing pollution from urban and suburban stormwater is one of the most important and ambitious aims of the multistate and federal Bay restoration effort. The training program’s leaders say they work to ensure that a qualified workforce is available across the 64,000-square-mile watershed to help carry out that objective.

“It’s a living system you’re installing,” said Joyce Kelley, a landscape designer and one of the program’s instructors. “There’s nothing worse than these projects that go in that [cost] several hundred thousand dollars that look terrible in five years or get mowed over.”

Making progress

In 2010, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency issued a “pollution diet,” officially called the total maximum daily load, aimed at making states more successful and accountable in the regional effort to clean up the Bay. The TMDL outlines limits for the amounts of pollutants each jurisdiction could send downstream. That set into motion a renewed cleanup effort with a 2025 deadline.







Chesapeake Landscape Professional training

Kelley Oklesson (left) talks with neighborhood activist and gardener Jean Lee Cole at the Contee-Parago park in Baltimore. Oklesson worked with the area residents to redesign the park and will oversee the work of volunteers who will plant native species there. 



The Chesapeake Bay Program, a federal-state partnership that oversees the effort, recognizes more than 400 pollution controls, known as best management practices or BMPs, that landowners can use to reduce water pollution. They can take many shapes and sizes — rain gardens, pervious pavers and bioswales are just some examples — but the general idea is the same: slowing drainage toward the Bay, giving pollutants like nutrients and sediment the means and the time to separate from the water.

Installing a BMP, though, is only the first step. Each state is required to track the BMPs and verify that they’re achieving their pollution-reduction goals. That means they must be maintained properly throughout their life cycle to continue receiving credit toward the cleanup.

The maintenance responsibility falls to whoever owns the property — whether it’s a hospital, public school system, town government, private landowner or homeowners association.

A 2012 study commissioned by the Hampton Roads Planning District Commission found evidence of tens of millions of dollars worth of BMPs already installed on private properties in Virginia — but nothing to indicate whether those practices were installed properly or are being maintained.

The study led to a statewide summit of industry, environmental, governmental and academic leaders. One of their top recommendations was to “build an effective and integrated network of powerful water quality and stormwater experts and advocates.” Afterward, members of the Virginia-based group Wetlands Watch, the author of the BMP study, began building financial and technical support to launch what became the Bay Landscape Professional program.

“Early on,” said Shereen Hughes, assistant director of Wetlands Watch and the Virginia coordinator of the landscape training program, “we saw that these stormwater practices were being implemented across the watershed to meet the TMDL. But when you look at those practices, they’re not always being maintained.”

It was not a problem confined to Virginia. In 2014, the Bay Program’s Local Government Advisory Committee, whose members include local officials from around the watershed, said that increasing the pool of qualified employees and contractors to carry out restoration and protection projects was one of its top priorities.

“There’s a disconnect in the maintenance,” said Beth Ginter, executive director of the Chesapeake Conservation Landscaping Council, which co-manages the program with Wetlands Watch. She said she has too often seen property owners receive hefty grants to install a BMP, only to allow it to fall into disrepair because they lack the funding and expertise to maintain it.







Beth Ginter, Chesapeake Conservation Landscaping Council

Beth Ginter, executive director of the Chesapeake Conservation Landscaping Council, directs a Chesapeake Bay Landscape Professional certification class in Seaford, DE. 



Brent Jett, a senior project engineer with the firm George, Miles and Buhr, said some of his own projects have deteriorated across the Delmarva Peninsula for lack of proper care.

“It’s disappointing,” he said. “You understand budget constraints and man hours. You hope for the best. But at the end of the day, it’s not your money and it’s not your land.”

An education in dry ponds

On a sunny and chilly February morning, Jett guided a group of about a dozen maintenance professionals on a driving tour in and around Seaford, DE, a former manufacturing hub in the southwest corner of the state. Once known as the “Nylon Capital of the World,” Seaford these days derives most of its economic vigor from its community hospital, a Walmart and a recently opened Amazon distribution center.







Brent Jett of George, Miles and Buhr

Brent Jett, a project engineer with George, Miles and Buhr, talks about a stormwater pond with participants in the Chesapeake Bay Landscape Professional Certification program in Seaford, De. Jett said some of his stormwater projects on the Delmarva Peninsula have deteriorated for lack of proper care. 



None of those institutions were on the tour. Instead, the itinerary included stops at a bioretention pond and bioswale outside a Catholic church, a fenced-in pond behind a government services building, and a “submerged gravel wetland” beside a medical office complex, which turned out to be a rock-strewn low spot tucked into a narrow strip between a parking lot and a dam-widened pond.

Clad in a black windbreaker outside a second medical complex, Jett steered the group toward a BMP with an oxymoronic name: a “dry pond.” It consisted of a shallow bunker rimmed with shrubs. As the moniker suggests, it’s intended to be dry most of the time, gathering water only after heavy rains, he said.

Local regulations require such ponds to handle stormwater during 10-year rain events, downpours that have a 10{6d6906d986cb38e604952ede6d65f3d49470e23f1a526661621333fa74363c48} chance of occurring in a given year. That equates to 5.6 inches of rainfall during a single event. But Jett said he routinely designs the ponds to store more water — up to 7 inches of falling rain — because climate change is triggering heavier cloudbursts.

“It literally rains differently now,” he told the group. “When we get 2 inches in a half-hour, it just blows everything out.”

Trailing along with the clipboard-carrying pack was Lisa Wool, executive director of the Nanticoke Watershed Alliance. This class — Delaware’s first — grew out of her concern that the region lacked the technical expertise to implement the new stormwater controls.

She acknowledged that the new methods involve more work and time. For example, workers may need to pull weeds with their hands instead of spraying an herbicide, which might kill desirable native plants, Wool said.

“A lot of these guys want to weed-whack, spray and then get out,” she said.

Wool directed grant money from the Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control to bring the Bay Landscape Professional Program to the state. Initially, she and other organizers struggled to attract participants. So, they also used the money to fund scholarships, and the slots quickly filled up.

Rob Mason, who owns a landscape maintenance company based in West Ocean City, MD, said he hopes that the program can be a gateway to a new line of business. “There are not a lot of landscapers in this field,” he said as he leaned against his truck at the end of the Seaford tour.

He added that the program’s advice sometimes conflicts with his landscaper’s instincts to keep grass trimmed low and to avoid messiness at all costs. His new outlook: “Let it do what it’s supposed to do.”

Designing with nature

To become certified, participants must pass a final exam with a score of 75{6d6906d986cb38e604952ede6d65f3d49470e23f1a526661621333fa74363c48} or higher. The program offers a Level I certification, which emphases maintenance practices. Level II is available to graduates of the first level and provides an advanced course in design and installation.

Classes typically take place December to March and June to September to avoid landscapers’ busy seasons in the spring and fall.

Another early realization, Ginter said, was that there was no textbook for the region’s landscape professionals looking to green up their practices. So, with funding support from the DC Department of Energy and Environment, program officials wrote an 83-page Sustainable Landscape Maintenance Manual.

During the pandemic, organizers moved some of the education online and purchased equipment to make in-person interactions safer. But the health crisis did little to stem the program’s growth. Last fall, instructors integrated the curriculum — previously only available to working adults — with a class at a high school in Portsmouth, VA, and repeated the project this spring at a school in Gloucester. Some of the program’s partners are working to develop a Spanish language version.







Kelley Oklesson, landscape architect

Kelley Oklesson leads training for the Chesapeake Landscape Professional program at Contee-Parago Park in Baltimore.



Oklesson, the Hyattsville landscape architect, is certified in both levels.

She now tries to incorporate BMPs into her work even if they aren’t required by local regulations.

“Nature has had it figured out for so long,” she said. “We have so much to learn ourselves with how to design with nature.”

For information about Chesapeake Bay Landscape Professional training, visit cblpro.org.

Amazon forests capture high levels of atmospheric mercury pollution from artisanal gold mining

  • 1.

    NRDC. Artisanal Gold: Opportunities for responsible investment-Summary. Investing in Artisanal Gold Summary v8 https://www.nrdc.org/sites/default/files/investing-artisanal-gold-summary.pdf (2016).

  • 2.

    Asner, G. P. & Tupayachi, R. Accelerated losses of protected forests from gold mining in the Peruvian Amazon. Environ. Res. Lett. 12, 9 (2017).

  • 3.

    Espejo, J. C. et al. Deforestation and forest degradation due to gold mining in the Peruvian Amazon: A 34-year perspective. Remote Sens. 10, 1–17 (2018).


    Google Scholar
     

  • 4.

    Gerson, J. R. et al. Artificial lake expansion amplifies mercury pollution from gold mining. Sci. Adv. 6, eabd4953 (2020).

    ADS 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 5.

    Dethier, E. N., Sartain, S. L. & Lutz, D. A. Heightened levels and seasonal inversion of riverine suspended sediment in a tropical biodiversity hot spot due to artisanal gold mining. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 116, 23936–23941 (2019).

    ADS 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 6.

    Abe, C. A. et al. Modeling the effects of land cover change on sediment concentrations in a gold-mined Amazonian basin. Reg. Environ. Chang. 19, 1801–1813 (2019).

  • 7.

    UNEP. Global Mercury Assessment https://www.unep.org/resources/publication/global-mercury-assessment-2018 (2018).

  • 8.

    Markham, K. E. & Sangermano, F. Evaluating wildlife vulnerability to mercury pollution from artisanal and small-scale gold mining in Madre de Dios, Peru. Trop. Conserv. Sci. 11, 194008291879432 (2018).

  • 9.

    Alvarez-Berríos, N. et al. Impacts of small-scale gold mining on birds and anurans near the Tambopata Natural Reserve, Peru, assessed using passive acoustic monitoring. Trop. Conserv. Sci. 9, 832–851 (2016).


    Google Scholar
     

  • 10.

    Ashe, K. Elevated mercury concentrations in humans of Madre de Dios, Peru. PLoS One 7, 1–6 (2012).


    Google Scholar
     

  • 11.

    Langeland, A., Hardin, R. & Neitzel, R. Mercury levels in human hair and farmed fish near artisanal and small-scale gold mining communities in the Madre de Dios River Basin, Peru. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 14, 302 (2017).

    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 12.

    Gonzalez, D. J. X., Arain, A. & Fernandez, L. E. Mercury exposure, risk factors, and perceptions among women of childbearing age in an artisanal gold mining region of the Peruvian Amazon. Environ. Res. 179, 108786 (2019).

    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 13.

    Gutleb, A. C., Schenck, C. & Stalb, E. Giant otter (Pteronura brasiliensis) at risk? Total mercury and methylmercury levels in fish and otter scats, Peru. Ambio 26, 511–514 (1997).


    Google Scholar
     

  • 14.

    Júnior, J. A. M. A. Y., Quigley, H. & Hoogesteijn, R. Mercury content in the fur of jaguars (Panthera onca) from two areas under different levels of gold mining impact in the Brazilian Pantanal. An. Acad. Bras. Cienc. 90, 1–11 (2017).

  • 15.

    Stylo, M., De Haan, J. & Davis, K. Collecting, managing and translating data into National Action Plans for artisanal and small scale gold mining. Extr. Ind. Soc. 7, 237–248 (2020).


    Google Scholar
     

  • 16.

    Hilson, G., Hu, Y. & Kumah, C. Locating female ‘Voices’ in the Minamata Convention on Mercury in Sub-Saharan Africa: The case of Ghana. Environ. Sci. Policy 107, 123–136 (2020).


    Google Scholar
     

  • 17.

    Clifford, M. J. Future strategies for tackling mercury pollution in the artisanal gold mining sector: Making the Minamata Convention work. Futures 62, 106–112 (2014).


    Google Scholar
     

  • 18.

    Spiegel, S., Keane, S., Metcalf, S. & Veiga, M. Implications of the minamata convention on mercury for informal gold mining in sub-Saharan Africa: From global policy debates to grassroots implementation? Environ. Dev. Sustain 17, 765–785 (2015).


    Google Scholar
     

  • 19.

    Lodenius, M. & Malm, O. Mercury in the Amazon. Rev. Environ. Contam. Toxicol 157, 25–52 (1998).

    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 20.

    Driscoll, C. T., Mason, R. P., Chan, H. M., Jacob, D. J. & Pirrone, N. Mercury as a global pollutant: Sources, pathways, and effects. Environ. Sci. Technol. 47, 4967–4983 (2013).

    ADS 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 21.

    Paige Wright, L., Zhang, L. & Marsik, F. J. Overview of mercury dry deposition, litterfall, and throughfall studies. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 16, 13399–13416 (2016).

    ADS 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 22.

    Gerson, J. R., Driscoll, C. T., Hsu-kim, H. & Bernhardt, E. S. Senegalese artisanal gold mining leads to elevated total mercury and methylmercury concentrations in soils, sediments, and rivers. Elem. Sci. Anthr. 6, 11 (2018).

  • 23.

    Hsu-Kim, H. et al. Challenges and opportunities for managing aquatic mercury pollution in altered landscapes. Ambio 47, 141–169 (2018).

    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 24.

    Witt, E. L., Kolka, R. K., Nater, E. A. & Wickman, T. R. Influence of the forest canopy on total and methyl mercury deposition in the boreal forest. Water. Air. Soil Pollut. 199, 3–11 (2009).

    ADS 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 25.

    Asner, G. P., Llactayo, W., Tupayachi, R. & Luna, E. R. Elevated rates of gold mining in the Amazon revealed through high-resolution monitoring. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 110, 18454–18459 (2013).

    ADS 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 26.

    Sprovieri, F. et al. Atmospheric mercury concentrations observed at ground-based monitoring sites globally distributed in the framework of the GMOS network. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 16, 11915–11935 (2016).

    ADS 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 27.

    Sprovieri, F., Pirrone, N., Ebinghaus, R., Kock, H. & Dommergue, A. A review of worldwide atmospheric mercury measurements. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 10, 8245–8265 (2010).

    ADS 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 28.

    Guo, Y. et al. Distribution and wet deposition fluxes of total and methyl mercury in Wujiang River Basin, Guizhou, China. Atmos. Environ. 42, 7096–7103 (2008).

    ADS 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 29.

    Jiskra, M. et al. A vegetation control on seasonal variations in global atmospheric mercury concentrations. Nat. Geosci. 11, 244–250 (2018).

    ADS 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 30.

    Fay, L. & Gustin, M. Assessing the influence of different atmospheric and soil mercury concentrations on foliar mercury concentrations in a controlled environment. Water. Air. Soil Pollut. 181, 373–384 (2007).

    ADS 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 31.

    Ericksen, J. A. et al. Accumulation of atmospheric mercury in forest foliage. Atmos. Environ. 37, 1613–1622 (2003).

    ADS 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 32.

    Fu, X. W. et al. Observations of atmospheric mercury in China: A critical review. Atmos. Chem. Phys. Discuss. 15, 11925–11983 (2009).

    ADS 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 33.

    Zhou, J. et al. Examination of total mercury inputs by precipitation and litterfall in a remote upland forest of Southwestern China. Atmos. Environ. 81, 364–372 (2013).

    ADS 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 34.

    Teixeira, D. C., Lacerda, L. D. & Silva-Filho, E. V. Mercury sequestration by rainforests: The influence of microclimate and different successional stages. Chemosphere 168, 1186–1193 (2017).

    ADS 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 35.

    Nebel, G., Dragsted, J. & Vega, A. S. Litter fall, biomass and net primary production in flood plain forests in the Peruvian Amazon. For. Ecol. Manage. 150, 93–102 (2001).


    Google Scholar
     

  • 36.

    Shanley, J. B. & Bishop, K. H. Mercury in the Environment: Pattern and Process (ed. Bank, M.) 119–141 (University of California Press, 2012).

  • 37.

    Gerson, J. R. et al. Deposition of mercury in forests across a montane elevation gradient: Elevational and seasonal patterns in methylmercury inputs and production. JGR. Biogeosciences 122, 1–18 (2017).


    Google Scholar
     

  • 38.

    Fadini, P. & Jardim, W. Is the Negro River Basin (Amazon) impacted by naturally occurring mercury? Sci. Total Environ. 275, 71–82 (2001).

    ADS 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 39.

    Hartman, J. S. et al. Application of a rule-based model to estimate mercury exchange for three background biomes in the continental United States. Environ. Sci. Technol. 43, 4989–4994 (2009).

    ADS 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 40.

    Magarelli, G. & Fostier, H. Quantificacao de fluxos de mercurio gasoso na interface solo/atmosfera utilizando camara de fluxo dinamico: Aplicacao na bacia do Rio Negro. Quim. Nova 28, 968–974 (2005).

    CAS 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 41.

    Ullrich, S. M., Tanton, T. W. & Abdrashitova, S. A. Mercury in the aquatic environment: A review of factors affecting methylation. Crit. Rev. Environ. Sci. Technol. 31, 241–293 (2001).

    CAS 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 42.

    Hsu-Kim, H., Kucharzyk, K. H., Zhang, T. & Deshusses, M. A. Mechanisms regulating mercury bioavailability for methylating microorganisms in the aquatic environment: A critical review. Environ. Sci. Technol. 47, 2441–2456 (2013).

    ADS 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 43.

    Rudd, J. W. M. Sources of methyl mercury to freshwater ecosystems: A review. Water, Air, Soil Pollut. 80, 697–713 (1995).

    ADS 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 44.

    Roulet, M., Guimaraes, J. & Lucotte, M. Methylmercury production and accumulation in sediments and soils of an Amazonian floodplain—effect of seasonal indundation. Water Air Soil Pollut. 128, 41–60 (2001).

    ADS 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 45.

    Biswas, A., Blum, J. D., Klaue, B. & Keeler, G. J. Release of mercury from Rocky Mountain forest fires. Global Biogeochem. Cycles 21, 1–13 (2007).


    Google Scholar
     

  • 46.

    Kumar, A., Wu, S., Huang, Y., Liao, H. & Kaplan, J. O. Mercury from wildfires: Global emission inventories and sensitivity to 2000–2050 global change. Atmos. Environ. 173, 6–15 (2018).

    ADS 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 47.

    Monzon, E. V. Plan de negocios 2007-201: SIAMAZONIA (2007).

  • 48.

    MacArthur, R. H. & MacArthur, J. W. On bird species diversity. Ecology 42, 594–598 (1961).


    Google Scholar
     

  • 49.

    Ozanne, C. H. P. et al. Biodiversity meets the atmosphere: A global view of forest canopies. Science 301, 183–186 (2003).

    ADS 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 50.

    Vuohelainen, A. J., Coad, L., Marthews, T. R., Malhi, Y. & Killeen, T. J. The effectiveness of contrasting protected areas in preventing deforestation in Madre de Dios, Peru. Environ. Manage. 50, 645–663 (2012).

    ADS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 51.

    Porvari, P., Verta, M., Munthe, J. & Haapanen, M. Forestry practices increase mercury and methyl mercury output from boreal forest catchments. Environ. Sci. Technol. 37, 2389–2393 (2003).

    ADS 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 52.

    Veiga, M. M. & Meech, J. A. Mercury pollution from deforestation. Nature 368, 816–817 (1994).

    ADS 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 53.

    Magarelli, G. & Fostier, A. H. Influence of deforestation on the mercury air/soil exchange in the Negro River Basin, Amazon. Atmos. Environ. 39, 7518–7528 (2005).

    ADS 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 54.

    Cardo, M. A. & Vargas, P. M. Proyecto: Plan nacional de accion sobre mercurio en el sector de la mineria de oro artesanal y de pequena escala en el Peru (2017).

  • 55.

    Veiga, M. M. & Chouinard, R. Results of the awareness campaign and technology demonstration for artisanal gold miners: Summary report (2008).

  • 56.

    Rimmer, C. C. et al. Mercury concentrations in Bicknell’s thrush and other insectivorous passerines in montane forests of northeastern North America. Ecotoxicology 14, 223–240 (2005).

    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 57.

    Rimmer, C. C., Miller, E. K., McFarland, K. P., Taylor, R. J. & Faccio, S. D. Mercury bioaccumulation and trophic transfer in the terrestrial food web of a montane forest. Ecotoxicology 19, 697–709 (2010).

    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 58.

    Evers, D. Encyclopedia of the Anthropocene 5 (Elsevier Inc., 2018).

  • 59.

    Ackerman, J. T. et al. Avian mercury exposure and toxicological risk across western North America: A synthesis. Sci. Total Environ. 568, 749–769 (2016).

    ADS 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 60.

    Myers, N., Mittermeier, R. A., Mittermeier, C. G., de Fonseca, G. A. B. & Kent, J. Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature 403, 853–858 (2000).

    ADS 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 61.

    Obrist, D. et al. A review of global environmental mercury processes in response to human and natural perturbations: Changes of emissions, climate, and land use. Ambio 47, 116–140 (2018).

    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 62.

    Saiki, M. K., Martin, B. A., May, T. W. & Alpers, C. N. Mercury concentrations in fish from a Sierra Nevada foothill reservoir located downstream from historic gold-mining operations. Environ. Monit. Assess. 163, 313–326 (2010).

    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 63.

    McLagan, D. S. et al. A high-precision passive air sampler for gaseous mercury. Environ. Sci. Technol. Lett. 3, 24–29 (2016).

    CAS 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 64.

    Stupple, G. W., McLagan, D. S. & Steffan, A. In situ reactive gaseous mercury uptake on radiello diffusive barrier, cation exchange membrane, and teflon filter membranes during atmospheric mercury depletion events. In 14th International Conference on Mercury as a Global Pollutant (2019).

  • 65.

    Schulenberg, T. S. et al. Birds of Peru (Princeton University Press, 2010).

  • 66.

    Almeida, D. R. A. et al. Monitoring the structure of forest restoration plantations with a drone-lidar system. Int. J. Appl. Earth Obs. Geoinf. 79, 192–198 (2019).

    ADS 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 67.

    Biswas, A., Blum, J. D., Bergquist, B. A., Keeler, G. J. & Xie, Z. Natural mercury isotope variation in coal deposits and organic soils. Environ. Sci. Technol. 42, 8303–8309 (2008).

    ADS 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 68.

    McLagan, D. S. et al. Global evaluation and calibration of a passive air sampler for gaseous mercury. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 18, 5905–5919 (2018).

    ADS 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 69.

    Munson, K. M., Babi, D. & Lamborg, C. H. Determination of monomethylmercury from seawater with ascorbic acid-assisted direct ethylation. Limnol. Oceanogr. Methods 12, 1–9 (2014).


    Google Scholar
     

  • 70.

    Hintelmann, H. & Nguyen, H. T. Extraction of methylmercury from tissue and plant samples by acid leaching. Anal. Bioanal. Chem. 381, 360–365 (2005).

    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 71.

    Tseng, C. M. et al. Rapid and quantitative microwaveassisted recovery of methylmercury from standard reference sediments. J. Anal. At. Spectrom. 12, 629–635 (1997).

    CAS 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 72.

    Rahman, M. & Kingston, H. Development of a microwave-assisted extraction method and isotopic validation of mercury species in soils and sediments. J. Anal. At. Spectrom. 20, 183–191 (2005).

    CAS 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 73.

    Hintelmann, H. & Evans, R. D. Application of stable isotopes in environmental tracer studies—measurement of monomethylmercury (CH3Hg+) by isotope dilution ICP-MS and detection of species transformation. Fresenius J. Anal. Chem. 358, 378–385 (1997).

    CAS 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 74.

    Fostier, A. H. et al. Mercury fluxes in a natural forested Amazonian catchment (Serra do Navio, Amapa State, Brazil). Sci. Total Environ. 260, 201–211 (2000).

    ADS 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 75.

    Batjes, N. H. & Dijkshoorn, J. A. Carbon and nitrogen stocks in the soils of the Amazon Region. Geoderma 89, 273–286 (1999).

    ADS 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 76.

    ‘R Core Team’. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2014).

  • 77.

    Obrist, D. et al. Mercury distribution across 14 U.S. Forests. Part I: Spatial patterns of concentrations in biomass, litter, and soils. Environ. Sci. Technol. 45, 3974–3981 (2011).

    ADS 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 78.

    Gerson, J. R. et al. Chemistry of surface water, precipitation, throughfall, leaves, sediment, soil, and air near artisanal gold mining in Madre de Dios, Peru. Ecology Data Papers (2022). In Press.

  • Landscaping Businesses In California Bans Small Electric Off-Road Engines To Cut Noise And Pollution

    Lawnmowers and leaf blowers driven by gas, as perfectly as any other machines utilizing small off-road engines (SOREs), will no for a longer time be offered in California following Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a ban on their sale previously this month, in accordance to CNET.

    Lawnmowers and leaf blowers driven by gasoline, as nicely as any other devices applying compact off-highway engines (SOREs), will no extended be marketed in California right after Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a ban on their sale earlier this month. (Picture: Fox Organization)

    California Governor Indications Monthly bill

    Governor Gavin Newsom of California has signed a invoice banning the sale of compact off-street engines by 2024 as section of his thrust for a state with 100 percent zero emissions. Compact motor-driven equipment account for a large proportion of carbon emissions and air pollution in the surroundings.

    According to Autoweek, it is a great deal even worse for the ecosystem to use smaller fuel-run devices like leaf blowers and generators, which is why California’s Air Resources Board pushed condition politicians to act. Just 1 hour of fuel leaf blower use is equal to driving 1,100 miles, and a 300-mile drive with a gasoline garden mower would be the equivalent of operating for the similar interval.

    California is house to 16.7 million small engines. 77 per cent of the electrical energy is made use of to electric power lawn and yard tools in the property. In comparison, 11 per cent is employed to ability federally controlled building and farming machinery, and 9 percent of the full is attributable to professional lawn and garden services, as per California Air Source Board.

    Read through Also: Nationwide Archives Reveals Previous President Donald Trump Tries To Block Files Relating To January 6 Capitol Siege

    Lawnmowers and leaf blowers run by gasoline, as effectively as any other tools working with smaller off-highway engines (SOREs), will no extended be bought in California just after Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a ban on their sale earlier this thirty day period. (Image: The Pushed)

    SORE Emissions Regulation

    At least 50,000 compact organizations of this form are positioned in California, according to estimates. Dan Walters stated in his revealed short article in Moments of San Diego that it is one particular issue to mow your garden after a 7 days, but professionals do it up to a dozen occasions a day to feed and property their families. They’d have to buy dozens of batteries and chargers, as well as the amenities to recharge those batteries, like more than enough electric powered ability materials.

    According to The Guardian, supporters of the bill’s environmental provisions are considerably less anxious. They mentioned that although there is no denying that electric powered designs are more high priced than their gas-powered counterparts, they also issue out that they offer you lengthy-term price savings to modest enterprises.

    By July 1, 2022, the state hopes to have SORE emission regulations in area. Starting off on July 1, 2024, providers will be prohibited from providing SORE machines, and in the extended run, the intention is to have SOREs emit zero emissions in California. The condition suggests that this will be completed in 2035.

    Examine Associated Short article: Practically 3 Million Persons Indicators A Petition For A Regular monthly $2000 Stimulus Check out Senior Citizens Ask Lawmakers For $1,400 Payment