Water, Air, and Soil Pollution

, Volume 80, Issue 1–4, pp 923–926 | Cite as

Impacts of mercury contamination in the southeastern United States

  • C. Facemire
  • T. Augspurger
  • D. Bateman
  • M. Brim
  • P. Conzelmann
  • S. Delchamps
  • E. Douglas
  • L. Inmon
  • K. Looney
  • F. Lopez
  • G. Masson
  • D. Morrison
  • N. Morse
  • A. Robison
Part IX Mercury in Fish and Wildlife

Abstract

Mercury (Hg) contamination from a variety of point and non-point sources, including atmospheric inputs, is currently considered to be the most serious environmental threat to the well being of fish and wildlife resources in the southeastern United States. Fish consumption advisories have been issued in all ten states comprising the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Southeast Region. Both freshwater and marine species have been affected with levels ranging as high as 7.0 ppm in some individuals. Many other species, including various species of reptiles, birds and mammals (including humans) are also contaminated. Impacts noted range from reproductive impairment to mortality.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Cormier, K.: 1994, personal communication.Google Scholar
  2. Delfino, J. J., Crisman, T. L., Gottgens, J. F., Rood, B. E. and Earle, C. D. A.: 1993.Spatial and temporal distribution of mercury in Everglades and Okefenokee wetland sediments, v. 1. Dept. of Environmental Engineering Sciences, Univ. of Florida, Gainesville. 140pp.Google Scholar
  3. EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc. (EAES&T): 1992.Remedial Investigation Report, Cold Creek Swamp, Mobile, Alabama.Google Scholar
  4. Eisler, R.: 1987. Mercury hazards to fish, wildlife, and invertebrates: a synoptic review.U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv. Biol. Rep. 85(1.10). 90pp.Google Scholar
  5. Folmar, H.: 1994, personal communication.Google Scholar
  6. Geise, J.: 1994, personal communication.Google Scholar
  7. Hale, M.: 1994, personal communication.Google Scholar
  8. KBN Engineering and Applied Sciences (KBN): 1992.Mercury emissions to the atmosphere in Florida. Prepared for the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation, Tallahassee.Google Scholar
  9. Ogden, J. C., Robertson, W. B., Davis, G. E. and Schmidt, T. W.: 1973.Poly chlorinated Biphenyls and Heavy Metals in Upper Food Chain Levels, Everglades National Park and Vicinity, South Florida Environ. Rep. DI-SFEP-74-16.Google Scholar
  10. Roelke, M. E.: 1990.Florida panther biomedical investigation: Health and reproduction. Final Performance Report, Endangered Species Project E-1 II-E-6 7505, Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, Gainesville. 176pp.Google Scholar
  11. Roelke, M. E., Schultz, D. P., Facemire, C. F., Sundlof, S. F. and Royals, H. E.: 1991.Mercury Contamination in Florida Panthers, A Report of the Florida Panther Technical Subcommittee to the Florida Panther Interagency Committee, 47pp.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • C. Facemire
    • 1
  • T. Augspurger
    • 2
  • D. Bateman
    • 3
  • M. Brim
    • 3
  • P. Conzelmann
    • 4
  • S. Delchamps
    • 5
  • E. Douglas
    • 4
  • L. Inmon
    • 6
  • K. Looney
    • 2
  • F. Lopez
    • 7
  • G. Masson
    • 8
  • D. Morrison
    • 9
  • N. Morse
    • 9
  • A. Robison
    • 10
  1. 1.U.S. Fish and Wildlife ServiceAtlantaUSA
  2. 2.U.S. Fish and Wildlife ServiceRaleighUSA
  3. 3.U.S. Fish and Wildlife ServicePanama CityUSA
  4. 4.U.S. Fish and Wildlife ServiceLafayetteUSA
  5. 5.U.S. Fish and Wildlife ServiceDaphneUSA
  6. 6.U.S. Fish and Wildlife ServiceVicksburgUSA
  7. 7.U.S. Fish and Wildlife ServiceBoqueronUSA
  8. 8.U.S. Fish and Wildlife ServiceBrunswickUSA
  9. 9.U.S. Fish and Wildlife ServiceVero BeachUSA
  10. 10.U.S. Fish and Wildlife ServiceCookevilleUSA

Personalised recommendations