# # #

# # # # #

#

# #

# # #

# # # #

# #

# #

# # ## # # #

# # #

# # # #

# # # # #

# #

# # #

#

# # # #
# # #

# # # # #

# ## # # # # # # # # #

# #

# #

# # # # # #

# # # # # # # # # # # # # ## #

# # # #

# # # #

# ##

# ## # # #

# #

# # # # #

# # # #

# # ## # # # # #

# # # #

# #

# # # # # # #

# # #

# # ## # # #

# #

# #

# #

#

# # #

#

# # # #

# #

# # # # #

# #
#

# # # # # #

# # # # #

# # #

# # ## # # #

#

# # #

# # #

# #

# # # #

# #

# # # #

#

# # #

# # # #

# # # # # # #

# # # #

# # # # # #

#

# #

# #

# #

# # # # #

# #

# #

# ## # # # # # # #

# # #

# # # # #

# # # # #

# # # #

## # # # # # #

# # #

# # # # # ## # # #

# # #

# # # # # # # #

# #

# # # # # # # #

# #

# # #

# # # # # # # # #

#

# # # # # #

# # #

# # #
# #

# #

# # # #

# # #

# # # # #

# #

#

# # #

# # # # # # # #

#

#

# # #

# # #

# # # # # # # #

# # #

# # # # ## #

# #

# # # # # # # # # #

# # # # # #

#

# # ## # # # #

# # #

# # # # # # ## # # #

# # ## # # # # # #

#

# # # # # ## #

# # # # ## ##

# # # # #

# # # # #

# # # #

#

# #

#

# # # # # # ## #

# # # # # # # # #

# #

## # # #

# # #

# #

# # # #

# # # # ## #

# # # # # # #

# # # # # # #

# #

# # # # #

#

# #

#

# # # # # # # # # # # # #

# # #

# # # # # # # # # # # # # #
# # # # # #

# # #

# # # # # # #

# # # # #

# # # # # # # #

# #

#

# # # #
# # #

# # # # # # # # #

# # # # # # # # #

# # # #

# # # # #

# #

#

# # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # #

# # # #

# # # # # #

# # # # # # # # #

# # # # # # # #

# # #
#

# # # # #

#

# # # # # # # # # # # # # # #

# #

# # #

#

# # # # # #

# # # # # # # # # # # # #

# # #

#

# # # # #

# # # #

# #



# MINNESOTA STATEWIDE MERCURY TOTAL MAXIMUM DAILY LOAD

Final* March 27, 2007

*Approved by US EPA March 27, 2007 wq-iw4-01bwq-iw4-01b

## Contents

Contents ........................................................................................................................................................i

Tables ..........................................................................................................................................................iv
Figures.........................................................................................................................................................iv
Acknowledgements .....................................................................................................................................v

Executive Summary .............................................................................................................. .....................vi

Abbreviations .................................................................................................................. ...........................xi

Definition of Terms............................................................................................................ .......................xii

1 Introduction.........................................................................................................................................1

2 Background Information......................................................................................................... ...........2

2.1 Mercury Cycle .................................................................................................................. ...........2
2.2 Data Collection and Assessment ................................................................................................. 2
2.3 Other State and Federal Re gional Mercury TMDLs ...................................................................3
3 Applicable Water Quality Standards............................................................................................. ...4

3.1 Mercury Numeric Water Quality Standards................................................................................4
3.2 Fish Consumption Advisory...................................................................................................... ..5
3.3 Basis for Assessment of Fish Contaminants – Narrative Standards............................................6
3.3.1 Minnesota Rule Chapter 7050.................................................................................................6
3.3.2 Selection of Single Fish Meal-Per-Week Impairment Threshold ...........................................6
3.3.3 Fish Tissue Criterion for Mercury...........................................................................................7
4 Minnesota’s Regional Approach.................................................................................................. ......7

4.1 Land Cover and Water Quality................................................................................................... .7
4.2 Ecoregions ...................................................................................................................................8
4.3 Baseline Year: 1990............................................................................................................ .........9
4.4 Target Levels of Fish Mercury Concentration...........................................................................11
4.4.1 Standard Size Predator Fish ..................................................................................................11
4.4.2 Applying the Target Level to the 90 th Percentile Fish Concentration ...................................13
4.4.3 Achieving Water Quality Criteria for Mercury.....................................................................18
5 Source Assessment and Trends................................................................................................... .....18

5.1 Sources of Mercury in Minnesota Fish......................................................................................18

i5.2 Principle of Proportionality for Mercury in Air and Biota ........................................................23
5.3 Trends in Mercury Emi ssions and Deposition...........................................................................26
5.3.1 Trends in Use and Emission of Mercury...............................................................................26
5.3.2 Trends in Atmospheric Deposition of Mercury ....................................................................29
5.4 Interaction Between Sulfate Depos ition and Mercury Methylation ..........................................30
5.5 Point Sources to Water ......................................................................................................... .....31
5.6 Environmental Trends ........................................................................................................... ....32
5.6.1 Summary of Scientific Information.......................................................................................32
5.6.2 Predicting Response Time.....................................................................................................33
5.6.3 Trends in Fish Contamination...............................................................................................33
6 TMDL Development ............................................................................................................... ..........35

6.1 TMDL Formulation ............................................................................................................... ....35
6.2 Baseline Mercury Load for 1990...............................................................................................35
6.3 Wasteload Allocations (WLA) ..................................................................................................37
6.4 Load Allocations (LA).......................................................................................................... .....38
6.5 Reserve Capacity ............................................................................................................... ........40
7 Margin of Safety............................................................................................................... .................40

8 Seasonal Variation and Critical Conditions ...................................................................................41

9 Final TMDL..................................................................................................................... ..................41

10 Monitoring & Research Plan ..................................................................................................... ......42

11 Projected Implementation....................................................................................................... .........42

11.1 Background..................................................................................................................... ...........42
11.2 General Approach............................................................................................................... .......42
11.3 Implementation for Wasteload Allocation.................................................................................43
11.4 Implementation for Load Allocation .........................................................................................44
11.4.1 Short-term Actions ............................................................................................................. ...45
11.4.2 Reduction Targets and Milestones ........................................................................................46
11.4.3 Regulatory Actions............................................................................................................. ...47
12 Reasonable Assurance ........................................................................................................... ...........47

12.1 Assurances Occur at Multiple Levels........................................................................................47
12.2 State Level Assurances......................................................................................................... .....47
12.3 National and International Assurances ......................................................................................50
13 Public Participation ........................................................................................................... ...............51

14 References..................................................................................................................... .....................52

iiAppendix A Impaired Waters Covered by the Statewide Mercury TMDL
Appendix B NPDES Permits Covered by the Statewide Mercury TMDL

iii

## Tables

Table ES- 1 Summary of Minnesota's Regional Mercury TMDLs...........................................................viii Table 1 Fish Tissue Mercury Concentrations for MDH’s Levels of Consumption Advice.........................5 Table 2 Regional Differences in Land Cover and Water Quality.................................................................9 Table 3 Mercury Concentrations for Northern Pike (NP) and Walleye (WE) Collected from 1970 to 2002

............................................................................................................................... .............................14 Table 4 Mercury Concentrations Standard Si ze Northern Pike and Walleye for 1988-1992 ....................16
Table 5 Reduction Factors Base d on the Baseline Year: 1990 ..................................................................17
Table 6 Bioaccumulation factors for 14 representative lakes in Minnesota ..............................................18 Table 7 Mercury Load Input s and Estimates for 1990............................................................................ ...36 Table 8 Mercury Load Reductions for Each Region ............................................................................... ..38 Table 9 Mercury Load Allocation for In -State and Out-of-State Emissions .............................................39 Table 10 Minnesota’s Mercury TMDL Emissions Reduction Goal ..........................................................40 Table 11 WWTP Mercury Reduction Plan .......................................................................................... ......43 Table 12 Summary of Reduction Targets ......................................................................................... .........46 Table 13 Summary of Mercury Reduction Stra tegies Used in Minnesota Since 1990...............................48 Table 14 Summary of Regional, National and International Mercury Reduction Initiatives .....................51



## Figures

Figure ES- 1 Minnesota's 2004 Im paired Waters by Pollutant...................................................................v i Figure ES- 2 TMDL Regional Areas an d Mercury-Impaired Waters........................................................vii Figure 1 Impaired Waters by Pollutant for 2004 303(d) List.................................................................... ...1 Figure 2 TMDL Regional Areas a nd Mercury-Impaired Waters...............................................................10 Figure 3 Average Fish Tissue Mercury Concentrati on Greater Than 0.2 ppm by Species and Size Class

............................................................................................................................... .............................12 Figure 4 Size Class Distributions by Region (NE, SW) and Species (NP, WE) ........................................13 Figure 5 Standard size northern pike and walleye distribution................................................................. .15 Figure 6 Mercury Distributions by Species and Region for 1988-1992 ....................................................16 Figure 7 Upper percentiles for northern pike (NP an d walleye (WE) in the NE, SW, and Metro Regions

............................................................................................................................... .............................17 Figure 8 Annual Mercury Flux at Mercury De position Network (MDN) Sites in Minnesota...................21 Figure 9 Sources of Mercury Deposition and Estim ated Mercury Emission Sources in Minnesota .........22

ivFigure 10 Proportionality between atmospheric merc ury deposition and mercury concentrations as predicted by the E-MCM model for largemouth bass in the Everglades............................................24 Figure 11 Mercury Consumption in the United States............................................................................ ...27 Figure 12 United States Mercur y Emissions by Category......................................................................... 27 Figure 13 Minnesota Statewide Mercury Emissions Trend by Source......................................................28 Figure 14 USEPA's anthropogenic mercury emissions in U.S. .................................................................29 Figure 15 Mercury Accumulation Record in the Fremont Glacier, Wyoming ..........................................30 Figure 16 Predicted Dynamic Responses of Fish Ti ssue Mercury Concentrati ons Following Reductions in Mercury Deposition .......................................................................................................... ..............33 Figure 17 Comparison Between Recent and Historical Fi sh Mercury Levels in 176 lakes (Northern Pike and Walleye; Standard Lengths)................................................................................................. ........34 Figure 18 Proportional relationship between mercury deposition and fish mercury concentration in the two TMDL regions ............................................................................................................... ..............38



## Acknowledgements

The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency acknowledges the important contribution of the many stakeholders that have participated in Minnesota’s Mercury Reduction Initiative and the Impaired Waters Program. We appreciate the support and encouragement of the USEPA’s Region 5 and Headquarters staff. The main contributors to this mercur y TMDL are the Mercury TMDL Project Technical Committee: Howard Markus, Bruce Monson, Ed ward Swain, Ned Brooks, and Anne Jackson.

vvi 

## Executive Summary Mercury is a neurotoxin, meaning it damages the central nervous system. The developing nervous system is at the greatest risk for damage. Mercury is al so a global pollutant; it is transmitted around the world and accumulates to levels in fish that are potentiall y toxic to humans and wildlife. This report sets a target for fish tissue concentration of mercury th at is generally safe for human consumption, and translates the target to reduction goals for mercury sources.
Environmental contaminants are usually treated as medi a-specific—an air, water, or soil contaminant. Mercury is a multimedia pollutant: transported by air, stored in soil, and chemically transformed and bioaccumulated in water. Mercury reductions needed to achieve the target for safe fish consumption are translated to mercury emissions reductions, because 99 percent of mercury load to Minnesota’s lakes and streams is from atmospheric deposition.
Because this report includes jargon from the Clean Wa ter Act and the Clean Air Act, the following point of clarification is needed: this report will refer to water releases of merc ury as “discharges” and air releases as “emissions.” While stacks from air emissi on sources may be referred to as point sources in the air-permitting arena, the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) concept arises from the Clean Water Act, where “point sources” refer to identifiable pipe c onveyances and include wastewater and stormwater, which have National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits. Therefore, air sources (i.e., stacks) will be referred to as “point source emissions” and water sources (i.e., pipes) will be referred to as “point source discharges.”
Impaired Waters List Section 303(d) of the Federal Clean Water Act requires every state to prepare a list of impaired waters. Minnesota’s 2004 303(d) Li st (“Impaired Waters List”) includes water quality impairments in 1892 lakes and river reaches. Two-thirds of those waters are impaired because of mercury ( Figure ES- 1 ). The 1239 impairments by mercury consis t of 820 lake impairments and 419 river impairments. Twelve lakes and 20 river reaches are impaired for mercury in fish tissue and in the water column; 808 lakes and 399 river reaches are impaired for fish tissue only.
Impaired Waters, 2004

Low DO, 45, 2% Other PBTs, 129, 7%

Excess nutrients, 153, 8%

Ammonia, 10, 1% Biotic community, 103, 5% Mercury, 1239, 66%

River Impairments, 419, 22% Lake Impairments, 820, 44% Others (pH, T., Cl), 6, 0%

Turbidity, 118, 6%

Fecal coliform, 89, 5%

Figure ES- 1 Minnesota's 2004 Impaired Waters by Pollutant Each impaired water is required to have a total maximum daily load study (TMDL). The TMDL is an evaluation of (1) pollutant sources, (2) pollutant lo ad reduction needed to meet water quality standards and (3) allocation of the acceptable load to all sour ces. Because the source of essentially all mercury in Minnesota waters is atmospheric and, therefore, shared by all mercury-impaired waters of the state, thepollutant allocation to atmospheric sources will be the same for these waters. Seventy percent of atmospheric mercury deposition is from anthropoge nic sources (i.e., from human activities) and the remaining thirty percent is from natural sources, su ch as volcanoes. Although state waters share common mercury sources, their capacity to assimilate the pollutant load varies because of differences in geography, water chemistry, and food webs. These differe nces are apparent in the geographic variation of mercury concentrations in fish, which is addressed through a regional approach.
Regional Approach The state is divided into two regional mercury TMDLs: northeast (NE) and a southwest (SW). The the two regions are separated by ecoregion boundaries ( Figure ES- 2 ); NE comprises 41% of the state and SW covers 59% . Land-water mercury transport processes and concentrations in fish differ between the two re gions. Land cover and geology controls transport processes and, consequently, water quality. NE regi on is dominated by forest and wetlands, and SW region is dominated by cultivated lands. Because there are similarities and differences between the two regions, the regional mercury TMDLs were developed (and described) in parallel.

Northern Lakes and Forests Northern Minnesota Wetlands Red River Valley

North Central Hardwood Forest Northern Glaciated Plains

Western Corn Belt Plains Driftless Area 

### TMDL Regional Area Northeast (NE) Southwest (SW) Minnesota Pollution

Control Agency



### Impaired waters

are highlighted

Figure ES- 2 TMDL Regional Areas and Mercury-Impaired Waters TMDL Development The TMDL development follows a seri es of logical scientifically-based steps, beginning with establishment of the regi onal target level or endpoint goal ( Table ES- 1 ). Both regions have the same fish tissue target level; however, becau se fish mercury concentrations differ by region, the

viiviiiTable ES- 1 Summary of Minnesota's Regional Mercury TMDLsRegionThis table summarizes the six steps to develop Minnesota’s MercuryTMDL. See referenced report sections for moreinformation about eachstep.UnitsNESWRegional Area in Minnesotakm290,151129,674(1) The State is divided into two regions—Northeast (NE) and Southwest(SW)—based on differences in mercury’s movement through theenvironment and fish tissue concentrations. [Section4]Percent of total state area41%59%Target Level and Reduction FactorTarget fish mercury concentrationmg/kg0.20.2Mercury concentration for standard length walleye (WE4090)mg/kg0.5720.405(2) The TMDL target is the water quality criterion for mercury in fish. The90thpercentile fish tissue mercury concentration for a standard lengthwalleye (40 cm) is compared to thefish tissue mercury criterion. TheReduction Factor is the percent reduction needed for fish to meet thewater quality criterion. [Section 4.4]Reduction Factor[RF=(WE4090- 0.2)/WE4090]65%51%Mercury Load for Baseline Year – 1990Point Source Load (PSL; wastewater discharge)kg/yr267PSL percent of Total Source Load2.2%0.4%Nonpoint Source Load (NPSL; atmospheric deposition)kg/yr11271621(3) Loads from mercury sources are summed by region for the 1990mercury load that was either discharged from wastewater or depositedfrom air emissions. About 99% ofthe statewide mercury load was fromnonpoint (air) sources in 1990. Nonpoint source load is the product ofatmospheric deposition (12.5 grams per square kilometer per year) andregional area. Wastewater sourcescontribute about one percent of thetotal load in 1990 [Section6.2][1]Total Source Load (TSL)kg/yr11531628Final TMDLMercury TMDL Loading Goal [TSL• (1– RF)]kg/d1.102.18Wasteload Allocation (WLA)kg/d0.010.02(4) The Mercury TMDL is a loading goal equal to 1990 Total Source Loadmultiplied by (1- Reduction Factor), and is equal to wasteload allocation(WLA) plus load allocation (LA). The WLA consists of water point sourcedischarges; it is set at one percent ofthe TMDL or equal to the estimatedpoint source load, whichever is lower. The remainder of the TMDL is LA,which are atmospheric deposition sources. [Section 9][2]Load Allocation (LA)kg/d1.092.16Mercury Load Allocation for In-stateand Out-of-state Deposition Sources[3]In-State contribution to LA [0.143•LA)kg/d0.160.31Out-of-State contribution to LA[(1-0.143)•LA]kg/d0.941.86Mercury TMDL Atmospheric Deposition Goalg km-2yr-14.46.1(5) To achieve the Mercury TMDL Goal, all load reductions must comefrom anthropogenic sources, which are 70% of the total atmosphericmercury deposition and are divided into in-state and out-of-state emissionsources. In-state emission sources contribute 10% of the total mercurydeposition, or 14.3% ofthe anthropogenic sources. The load is allocatedto in-state and out-of-state contributions for both regions. The TMDL goalis converted to a mercury deposition flux (g km-2yr-1) when divided by theregional area. [Section 6.4]Necessary reduction from anthropogenic emission sources(RF ÷ 0.7)93%73%Minnesota's Mercury TMDL Emissions Reduction GoalStatewideState's mercury emissions for 1990lb/yr11,272Emissions Reduction Goal (0.93 •1990 Emissions)lb/yr10,483Minnesota's TMDL Mercury Emissions Goal(1990 Emissions – Reduction Goal)lb/yr789Emissions reductions as of 2005 (70% of 1990 emissions)lb/yr7,931Emissions reduction remaining as of 2005 to achieve goallb/yr2,552(6) Because atmospheric mercury deposition is uniform across the entirestate and in-state emissions disperse across both regions, the greaterreduction goal, established for thenortheast, becomes the statewidemercury load reduction goal, which is a 93% reduction in anthropogenicemissions. Subtracting the emissionsreduction goal from the 1990 stateemissions gives the state’s TMDL mercury emissions goal. Since thisTMDL uses 1990 as the starting point, it is informative to determineprogress the state has made from 1990 to 2000. Between 1990 and2005, 76% of the mercury emissions reduction goal was achieved,leaving 24% still to be met. [Section 6.4]Percent of 1990 Emissions Reduction Goal remaining as of 200524%[1] For discussion of Reserve Capacity see Section 6.5[2] For discussion of Margin of Safety see Section 7[3] Minnesota’s mercury deposition sources are 30% natural and 70% anthropogenic. Theanthropogenic share is comprised of 30%global and 40% regional sources; one-fourth of the forty percentis from sources within Minnesota; therefore, the state’s anthropogenic sources are 10% of total deposition (0.25 * 0.4). Thereare no significant natural sources (e.g., volcanoes and natural mercurymineral ores) in Minnesota. Mercury in Minnesota’s soils is from atmospheric deposition.ix necessary load reductions to achieve the goal differ by region. Minnesota’s target level for mercury in fish is 0.2 mg/kg (parts per million, ppm), based on the EPA’s development of a methylmercury criterion for fish tissue to protect human hea lth. Minnesota’s fish tissue mercury criterion is lower than EPA’s 0.3 ppm criterion because of the higher fish consumption ra te in the state. The 0.2 ppm corresponds to the Minnesota fish consumption advisory threshold fo r one meal per week—above that mercury concentration the consumption advice is one meal per month—fo r women who are pregnant or intending to become pregnant and children under 15 years of age.

Load reductions must be calculated relative to an appropriate baseline annual load. The most recent research that establishes total mercury deposition in Minnesota took place from 1988 to 1990. In addition, a baseline year of 1990 for this TMDL corre sponds to the baseline year for Great Lakes mercury reduction goals and Minnesota’s mercury emissions reduction goals. Prior to 1990 mercury use was relatively high and dropped precipitously beginn ing around 1990 as mercury was removed from many common products. Mercury deposition and mercury in fish tissue were probably in a relative steady state through 1990; therefore, comparing mercury deposition and fish tissue concentration in 1990 is most likely valid because of the steady state conditions l eading up to 1990, but we have since entered a nonsteady state period as mercury deposition declines.
For these regional TMDLs, target levels of mercury c oncentrations were determined in standard size top predator fish: northern pike ( Esox lucius ) and walleye ( Sanders vitreus ). Because mercury bioaccumulates and biomagnifies, concentration is highest at the top of the food web; therefore, achieving the mercury target concentration in the top predator fi sh will result in the whole food web, including the water column, achieving the target level. For the 1990 baseline year, fish tissue data were combined for each region for a five-year period—1988 to 1992— to account for annual weather fluctuations.
The target level of 0.2 ppm was applied to the 90 th percentile mercury concentration. By protecting for the 90 th percentile we expect to achieve the target level for other biota and for water concentrations of mercury. The difference between the regional 90 th percentile concentration for the standard size fish and 0.2 ppm is the reduction factor (RF) needed to meet wa ter quality standards. The RF is greater for the NE than the SW for both walleye and northern pike. Merc ury concentrations in walleye were slightly higher than northern pike levels in both regions and, ther efore, the RF for walleye was selected for load reduction calculations to provide a margin of safety. The resulting RFs are 65% for the NE and 51% for the SW.
The total source load (TSL) is the sum of the point source loads (PSL) and the non-point source loads (NPSL). Point source loads include the NPDES permitte d facilities in the state, excluding cooling water discharges. PSL for the region is the product of fac ility design flow and the average measured effluent mercury for wastewater treatment plants in the state (5 ng Hg/L). Non-point source load is the product of atmospheric deposition flux in 1990 (12.5 g km -2 yr -1 ) and regional surface area. The subsequent 1990 TSLs for NE and SW regions were 1153 kg/y and 1628 kg/y, respectively. About one percent of the TSL is attributable to PSL.
Mercury TMDL Goal for Minnesota Total mercury deposition in 1990 was 12.5 g km -2 yr -1 throughout the state. To achieve the target levels in fi sh tissue, the mercury deposition goals are 4.4 g km -2 yr -1 for the NE and 6.1 g km -2 yr -1 for the SW.
Mercury load reduction goals for each regional TMDL we re calculated by applying the RF to the baseline mercury load. Reductions can only come from anthr opogenic sources; therefore, load reduction goals require anthropogenic source reductions of 93% (65% reduction goal divided by 70% of total that is anthropogenic) in the NE region and 73% (51% of reduction goal divided by 70% anthropogenic) in the SW region.
Ten percent of the mercury deposition is attributed to anthropogenic sources within the state. Since natural sources cannot be controlled and are not expect ed to change, all mercury reductions must comefrom anthropogenic sources. The state’s percentage of the anthropogenic sources is 14.3% (10% of total divided by 70% of total). The state’s contributions to the load allocations (LA) are 0.16 kg/d for the NE and 0.31 kg/d for the SW. The out-of-state contributions to the LA are 0.94 kg/d for the NE and 1.86 kg/d for the SW.
Mercury Emission Reduction Goals Mercury load reduction goals ar e applied to emission reductions for the state. Atmospheric deposition of mercury is considered uniform across the state, and in-state emissions disperse across both regions; therefore, the em issions goal is applied statewide rather than by region. The northeast’s greater regional reduction goa l (i.e., 93% of anthropogenic sources) determines the TMDL’s emission reduction goal. In 1990, the total mercury emissions from in-state sources were 11,272 lbs (5513 kg); the TMDL emissions goal is seven percent of the 1990 emissions: 789 lbs (358 kg). Minnesota’s 1990 mercury emissions were reduced 70% by 2005, which is equivalent to 76% statewide emissions reduction goal, leaving 24% of the emissi ons reductions goal remaining. Going from 3,341 lbs mercury emissions in 2005 to the emissions goal of 789 lbs constitutes another 76% reduction in mercury emissions.
TMDL Implementation To achieve the mercury reductions goa ls, Minnesota will develop a detailed implementation plan. An implementation plan is not required in a TMDL; it is developed after the TMDL plan is approved by the USEPA. A section on project ed implementation is included in this report to inform the public and to aid in the discussion on reasonable assurance. The implementation and reasonable assurance sections summa rize initiatives that the MPCA believes have already reduced fish contamination in Minnesota and will maintain a path of reduced fish contamination in the future. Although wastewater point sources are very minor cont ributors to the total mercury load, the MPCA will continue to pursue mercury reductions from thes e sources through mercury minimization plans and other permit conditions. For mercury emission sources, sector-specific reduction milestones are presented, along with an outline of regulatory and non-regulatory mercury reduction strategies to be considered in the detailed implementation planning. The Great La kes Initiative (GLI) requires wastewater dischargers in the Lake Superior basin to meet a mercury wate r quality standard of 1.3 ng/L and implementation of this mercury TMDL does not in any way super cede or conflict with the GLI requirements.

xxi 

## Abbreviations
# - number
% - percent A – area b – bioavailability factor
C – mercury concentration
Cl – chloride
D y – annual air deposition of mercury
d – day
DA – Driftless Area ecoregion
DDT – dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane
ECOS – Environmental Council of States
EPA – US Environmental Protection Agency
EU – European Union
FCA – fish consumption advisory

g – gram Hg – mercury kg – kilogram
km – kilometer
L air – air deposition mercury load
L – liter
LA – load allocation
LaMP – Lake area Management Plan
lb – pound
MACT – Maximum Achievable Control Technology
MDH – Minnesota Department of Health
MDNR – Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
Metro – the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area
MFCA – Minnesota Fish Consumption Advisory

mg – milligram
Minn R ch – Minnesota Rules Chapter Minn R p – Minnesota Rules part
MMP – mercury minimization plan
MOS – margin of safety MPCA – Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
NCHF – North Central Hardwood Forest ecoregion
NE – northeast

ng – nanogram NGP – Northern Glaciated Plains ecoregion
NLF – Northern Lakes and Forests ecoregion
NMW – Northern Minnesota wetlands ecoregion
NP 55 – standard length Northern Pike – 55 cm
NPDES – National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NPSL – nonpoint source load
PCBs – polychlorinated biphenyl compounds
POPs – persistent organic pollutants

ppm – parts per million
PSL – point source load Q – flow

r – runoff coefficient or delivery ratio
RF – reduction factor
RRV – Red River Valley ecoregion
SA – surface area
SRB – sulfate reducing bacteria Subp – subpart
SW – southwest
T – temperature TSL – total source load
TMDL – Total Maximum Daily Load
USGS – United States Geological Survey
WCBP – Western Corn Belt Plains ecoregion
WE 40 – standard length Walleye – 40 cm
WLA – wasteload allocation WQS – water quality standards
WWTP – wastewater treatment plant

yr – year

## Definition of Terms

Air Sector – sources that emit wastes into the air Anthropogenic Mercury Emissions – the mobilization or release of geologically-bound mercury by human activity that results in a mass transfer of mercury to the atmosphere. Atmospheric deposition – the mass transfer of gaseous, aerosol, or pa rticulate contaminant fr om the atmosphere to the earth’s surface (see mercury dry deposition and mercury wet deposition)
Bioaccumulation – increase in contaminant concentration through a food web; includes uptake through food and water or air. Bioconcentration refers to uptake only through the water or air, not food. Biomagnification is increase in contaminant concentration between trophic levels. Chlorophyll- a – a pigment in green plants, including algae. The concentration of chlorophyll-a, expressed in weight per unit volume of water, is a m easurement of the abund ance of algae.
de minimis – insignificant; reference to the phrase de minimis non curat lex : “The law does not concern itself with trifles;” - a principle of law, that even if a technical violation of a law appears to exist according to the letter of the law, if the effect is too small to be of consequence, the violation of the law will not be considered as a sufficient cause of action, whether in civil or criminal proceedings. For the mercury TMDL, wast ewater point sources are considered de minimis if they represent less than one percent of the TMDL of mercury to the region. Dystrophic – a high concentration of dissolv ed humic organic matter in the water, causing the water to have a brown color; also, typically low in nutrients. Ecoregion – an area of relative homogeneity in ecological system s based on land use, so ils, land and surface form, and potential natural vegetation. Fish consumption advisory – guidelines issued by Minnesota Department of Health for how often certain fish can be safely eaten, based on the data collected in Minnesota’s fish contaminant monitoring program.
Global Scale – refers to emissions transported on a global scale; it does not refer to the sum of all emissions on Earth, but rather that portion of total emi ssions that are transported around the globe. Great Lakes Initiative (GLI) – the Great Lakes Water Quality Initiative required states in the Great Lakes region to adopt strict water quality standa rds for bioaccumulativ e chemicals of concern, which includes a mercury water quality standard of 1.3 ng/L. Minn. R. ch. 7052 codified the GLI requirements and is , therefore, referred to in Minnesota as the GLI rule.
Half-life – The time required for the amount of a substance to de crease to half its initial value (see Residence Time). Hot spot – refers to a mercury concentration in fish or water that is obviously (1) higher than other concentrations in the area and (2) caused by a local source. Impaired water – a water body that does not meet applicable wa ter quality standards or fully support applicable beneficial uses, due in whole or in part to water pollution from point or nonpoint sources, or any combination thereof.
LaMP – Lake areawide Management Plan – a watershed mana gement plan required for each of the Great Lakes.
Local scale – A relative term, used to describe the area with in which emissions can travel in one diurnal cycle (generally within 100 km of a source). Local influences are characterized by measurable concentration gradients with relatively large fluctuations in air concentrations ca used by meteorological factors such as wind direction (Expert Panel 1994) Lognormal – a variable, such as mercury concentration in fish, that has a skewed distribution (median is much lower than the mean), but the logarithms of the values have more of a normal distribution (mean and median are approximately equal).
MACT – Maximum Achievable Control Technology—a pollution regulatory program administered through the USEPA.
Mechanistic model – a computer model that is based on known physical, biological, and chemical processes. Mercury dry deposition – mass transfer of gaseous, aerosol, or partic ulate mercury species from the atmosphere to the earth’s surface (either aquatic or terrestrial, including tr ees and other vegetation) in the absence of precipitation.

xiiMercury wet deposition – mass transfer of dissolved gaseous or pa rticulate mercury species from the atmosphere to the earth’s surface (either aquatic or terrestrial) by precipitation. Methylation (Methylated) – process of adding a methyl (CH 3 - ) group to a mercury ion (Hg 2+ ). Methylation can occur either biotically or abiotically, but sulfate-reducing bacteria are considered the pr imary methylators in aquatic systems (i.e., wetlands and lakes). Methylmercury – CH 3 Hg + or MeHg – a cation that is the biologically active form of mercury; it has a very high affinity for sulfur-containing compounds, such as the amino acid cysteine; this is the form of mercury that accumulates in fish and is t oxic to humans and wildlife.
National – for the purposes of this TMDL, national is the United States except Minnesota; thus, mercury emission sources include Minnesota sources, national so urces, global sources, and natural sources. Natural mercury emissions – mobilization or release of geologically-bound mercury by natural biotic and abiotic processes that result in mass transf er of mercury to the atmosphere. Nonpoint sources – diffuse sources of pollution to water from land use or atmospheric deposition of pollutants. Oligotrophic – low nutrient concentration, resulting in low plant and animal productivity. Many lakes in northern Minnesota are oligotrophic. The contrasting condition is eutrophic – high nutrient concentration and biological productivity.
Point sources – wastewater discharges and all other pollutant sour ces that enter the receiving water through a pipe or channel. Reference Dose (RfD) – an estimate of a daily oral exposure to the human population (including sensitive subgroups) that is likely to be without an appreciab le risk of deleterious effects during a lifetime. Regional scale – a relative term, defining that area requiring mo re than one diurnal cycle emission transport time (about 100 to 2000 km from a source). The regional scale describes areas suffic iently remote or distant from large emission sources so that concentration fields are rather homogeneous, lacking measurable gradients (Expert Panel 1994). Reserve capacity – pollutant load allocation to account for uncertainty and future growth.
Residence time - average time that a substance resides in a design ated area (e.g., atmosphere or water body). Standard length fish – a set total fish length that is used to compare mercury concentrations among lakes and over time. The standard lengths used by the MPCA are 55 cm northern pike (NP55) and 40 cm walleye (WE40). Mercury concentrations for a standard length fish are dete rmined from a linear regression of measured mercury fish tissue concentration versus fish length. Steady state – occurs when there is a balance between inflows and outflows of a system; also referred to as dynamic equilibrium; for the mercury TMDL, this refers to a cond ition when inflows and outflows are not changing rapidly with respect to changes fish tissue con centrations, which can take 5-10 years to respond to changes in mercury load.
Taconite – low-grade iron ore processed by crushing and concentrating to yield a pellet for use in iron smelters. Taconite has low mercury concentrations but large volume s of the material are heated during processing, which releases significant quantities of mercury into the atmosphere.
TMDL – Total Maximum Daily Load. The maximum amount of a pollutant that a wate rbody can receive and still meet water quality standards. TMDL also refers to the process of allocating pollutant loadings among point and nonpoint sources.

xiiiMN Statewide Mercury TMDL 27MAR07_final.doc 1 

## 1 Introduction Mercury is a toxic pollutant and eating mercury-contamin ated fish is the primary route of exposure for most people and wildlife. Mercury has accumulated in fish throughout the world because of human activities that emit mercury to the environment. Even lakes in natural pris tine areas contain fish with high mercury concentrations, because mercury is deposited from the atmosphere a nd can travel long distances from its emission source.
Two thirds of the waters on Minnesota’s 2004 Impair ed Waters List are impaired because of mercury concentrations in fish or water ( Figure 1 ). Waters are listed as impaired if mercury in fish tissue is greater than 0.2 ppm, which corresponds to a fish consump tion advisory threshold for sensitive populations 1 that is more restrictive than one meal per week. Waters are also listed as impaired if mercury in water exceeds the water quality standard for mercury: 1.3 ng/L in the Lake Superi or Basin and 6.9 ng/L elsewhere in the state. The 1239 impairments by mercury consist of 820 lake impairments and 419 river impa irments. Twelve lakes and 20 river reaches are impaired for mercury in fish tissue and in the water column; 808 lakes and 399 river reaches are impaired because of fish tissue only.
Impaired Waters, 2004

Low DO, 45, 2% Other PBTs, 129, 7%

Excess nutrients, 153, 8%

Ammonia, 10, 1% Biotic community, 103, 5% Mercury, 1239, 66%

River Impairments, 419, 22% Lake Impairments, 820, 44% Others (pH, T., Cl), 6, 0%

Turbidity, 118, 6%

Fecal coliform, 89, 5%

Figure 1 Impaired Waters by Pollutant for 2004 303(d) List

To ensure the continued good health of people that eat fish in Minnesota, the MDH issues guidelines—Minnesota Fish Consumption Advisory (MFCA)—for how often certa in fish can be safely eaten (MDH 2004). The MFCA is strictly advisory, the goal being to help people that eat fish make intelligent decisions on which fish to eat and which to avoid. In contrast, the 303(d) [Impaired Waters] List identifies waterbodies that do not meet legally enforceable water quality standards, requiring a study of the total maximum daily load (TMDL) that is necessary to meet the water quality standard.
This report describes the statewide, regional approach that Minnesota has taken to developing total maximum daily loads for mercury. The two regions—Northeast and Southwest—provide clear distinctions for assessing mercury loads to surface waters based on differences be tween the regions in watershed transport processes and mercury bioavailability.

1 Women who are pregnant or intending to become pregnant and children under 15 years old.

## 2 Background Information

2.1 Mercury Cycle Mercury has unique properties as a multi-media pollutant, cycling through the air, water, land, and biota. The Mercury Study Report to Congress (USEPA 1997) gave the following summary of the mercury cycle:
Mercury cycles in the environment as a result of natural and human (anthropogenic) activities. The amount of mercury mobilized and released into the biosphere has increased since the beginning of the industrial age. Most of the mercury in the atmosphere is elemental mercury vapor, wh ich circulates in the atmo sphere for up to a year, and hence is widely dispersed and transpor ted thousands of miles from the likely sources of emission. Most of the mercury in water, soil, sediments, or plants and animals is in the form of inorga nic mercury salts and organic forms of mercury (e.g., methylmercury). The inorganic fo rm of mercury, when either bound to airborne particles or in a gaseous form, is readily removed from the atmosphere by precipita tion and is also dry deposited. ... Even after it deposits, mercury commonly is emitted back to the atmosphere either as a gas or associated with particles, to be re-deposited elsewhere. As it cycles between the atmosphere, land, and water, mercury undergoes a series of complex chemical and physical transforma tions, many of which are not completely understood.
Mercury accumulates most efficiently in the aquatic food web. Predatory organisms at the top of the food web generally have higher mercury concentrations. Nearly all the mercury that accumulat es in fish tissue is methylmercury. Inorganic mercury, which is less efficiently absorbed and more readily elim inated from the body than methylmercury, does not tend to bioaccumulate.


## 2.2 Data Collection and Assessment
This section describes how data are collected and assessed for possible inclusion in the 303(d) list. Essentially all of the discussion is excerpted from the MPCA TMDL guidance document (MPCA 2004a). A link in the aquatic food chain: a walleye pursuing a yellow perch

The MPCA uses data collected over the most recent 10-year period for all the water quality assessments, except in the case of fish contaminated with mercury. There is no age limit for the use of mercury fish tissue data, for the following reasons. A state-wide trend analysis of mercur y fish tissue concentrations measured over the last 10 – 15 years indicates only a very slight average rate of decline of about one percent per year. This is not a large enough downward trend to justify using only the latest 10 years of data. Also, there have been no significant changes in sampling or analytical procedures associated w ith the fish tissue data that would invalidate the older data. It would not be justifiable to remove a wate rbody from the 303(d) list simply because the mercury fish tissue data for that waterbody were collected more than 10 years ago. With the increased interest in evaluating trends in mercury contamination, more lakes and rivers are being resampled. If new data indicates a waterbody is no longer impaired, it is removed from the impaired waters list (i.e., “delisted” ). No mercury-impaired water has been delisted.
The fish contaminant monitoring program is a multi-agency program that includes the MPCA, the Department of Natural Resources (MDNR), the Department of Agriculture , and the Minnesota Department of Health (MDH). The primary purpose of the fish contaminant monitoring h as been to support MDH’s fish consumption advisory. Fish contaminant data are also used by the MPCA to determine where site-specific studies are needed, to help identify sources of pollutants, and to look for trends in fish tissue levels. Each year some waterbodies are sampled for the first time and some waterbodies are re-sampled. Sample locations are determined by the following:

MN Statewide Mercury TMDL 27MAR07_final.doc 2• Where MDNR personnel will be conduc ting fish population surveys,

• Waterways where fishing pressure is relatively high,

• Where previous data are more than ten years old, or

• Where information is needed for special studies or trend analysis.
Minnesota has been collecting fish for mercury and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB) tissue analysis since the 1970s. Over the years other bioaccumulative pollutants, such as DDT, dioxins and toxaphene have been analyzed in fish tissue samples, but only at very limited locations where potential problems were suspected.
The edible portion, which is a skin-on fillet, is prepared in the MPCA fish processing lab by DNR personnel. Curren tly, fish samples are analyzed by the Department of Agriculture analytical lab. Since fish bioaccumulate these pollutants, concentrations below method detection limits are not usually an issue. When they do occur, one half of the method det ection limit (less-than value) is used in the assessments. The data for each lake or river reach are separated by sp ecies and by individual size classes: 5-15, 15-20, 20-25, 25-30 and 30 + inches. Data collected in the five-year period that includes the most recent sampling is averaged. That is, the assessment program identifies the most recent data point, then searches back five years for additional data from the same waterbody, same species, same size class, and averages them. MPCA Biomonitoring Unit’s Mike Feist holding a stream resident

Fish can be very mobile and difficult to attribute to a discrete portion of a lake or river reach; therefore, all fish tissue information from a lake are aggregated unless there is evidence to s how that fish from certain parts of a lake are isolated and may be exposed to different levels of contamination. For rivers, fish are collected with nets or electrofishing gear in a range of river miles generally not more than five miles apart. Sampled sections of a river are associated with river reaches in the USGS hydrologic unit code system. However, fish tissue data from one or more sampling station may be considered representative of more than just the reach from which they were collected. Adjacent river reaches may be listed as well as the reach from which the fish were collected based on general information about the home range of the species, location of upstream or downstream fish barriers such as falls and dams, and significant river tributaries. MDNR staff processing fish samples for mercury analysis 

## 2.3 Other State and Federal Regional Mercury TMDLs Other mercury TMDLs have been completed prior to comp letion of this TMDL for mercury-impaired waters in Minnesota. This section provides a synopsis of some of those completed mercury TMDLs.
TMDLs for Lakes Listed for Mercury in Fish Ti ssue for the Ouachita River Basin, Arkansas – There are fish consumption advisories (FCA) throughout the basin (FTN 2003). The Mercury Action Level in Arkansas is 1.0 mg/kg; the target goal is 0.8 mg/kg, using a 20% margin of safety.
The TMDL had a two-step approach. The first step es timated the mercury loads from all sources. The second step, using largemouth bass tissue mercury concentration, estimated the reduction needed to meet water quality

MN Statewide Mercury TMDL 27MAR07_final.doc 3standards (WQS). A linear relationship was assumed between mercury in fish and mercury loading. The fish tissue mercury reduction goals were used to determine the load reductions necessary.
Less than 1% of the existing mercury load is from water point sources. Estimated re ductions in mercury loading to the basin resulting from the implementation of emission reduction regulations and erosion BMPs were calculated.
Mercury TMDLs for Subsegments Within Mermen tau & Vermilion-Teche River Basins, Louisiana – the reaches in these basins are listed b ecause of excess mercury in fish tissue (U SEPA 2001a). The regional approach is justified because atmospheric deposition of mercury is the predominant in these b asins. They determined a 67% reduction in mercury in fish tissue is required to meet WQS. They assumed a linear relationship between loading reductions and fish tissue reductions. A ten ye ar implementation schedule was projected. The Binational Toxics Strategy sets a national challenge of a 50% reduction of mercury releases by 2006, so that is the interim goal. Because of water body mercury recycling and runoff from land surfaces, afte r deposition reduction goals are met, it will be several decades before attainment is met.
Mercury TMDLs for Little River and Ca tahoula Lake Watershed, Louisana – these reaches are not meeting WQS because of excess mercury in fish tissue (Parsons 2003). An endpoint of 0.5 mg/kg methylmercury in edible fish tissue is the target. An estimated 99.5% of current mercury loading is from atmospheric deposition. Loadings must be reduced by 32% to meet WQS. Poin t sources are less than 1% of the load, so are given no reduction goal. Since conservative assumptions are made th roughout, there is no explicit margin of safety. The Binational Toxics Strategy reductions of 50% w ill easily cover the 32%, according to the TMDL.
Total Maximum Daily Load [TMDL] for Total Mercury in Fish Tissue Residue in the Middle & Lower Savannah River Watershed, Georgia – EPA interpreted Georgia’s WQS and has determined that the applicable WQS for total mercury in the ambient water of the Sa vannah River Basin is 2.8 ng/L (USEPA 2001b). At this concentration, or below, fish tissue residue concentr ations of mercury will not exceed 0.4 mg/kg, which is protective of the general population from consumption of freshwater fish. The TMDL was developed by using modeling. Ninety-nine percent of the mercury load is from atmospheric deposition. Based on the modeling, a 44% reduction goal is required to achie ve a water column concentration of 2.8 ng/L. Water point sources will be required to create mercury minimization plans.



## 3 Applicable Water Quality Standards

3.1 Mercury Numeric Water Quality Standards Mercury numeric water quality standards are based on total (particulate + dissolved) concentrations and thus, total mercury measurements in water are used in assessments. Minnesota has two Class 2 water quality standards for total mercury: the human health-based statewide standard in Minn. R. ch. 7050 and the wildlife-based standard applicable to just the waters of the Lake Superior Basin in Minn. R. ch. 7052. These standards are:

• 6.9 ng/L. chronic standard, Minn. R. pt. 7050.0222

• 1.3 ng/L. chronic standard, Minn. R. pt. 7052.0100 (ng/L = nanogram per liter, or parts per trillion)

MN Statewide Mercury TMDL 27MAR07_final.doc 4Minnesota R. ch. 7052 is the Great Lakes Water Quality Initiative (GLI), which focuses on the reduction of bioaccumulative toxic chemicals in the Great Lakes ecosystem as a whole. 2 The GLI was mandated by a 1987 amendment to the Clean Water Act; it was promulgated as a federal rule by EPA in 1995 and adopted in Minnesota in 1998. The GLI has been adopted by all eight Great Lakes States, including six states in Region 5. The GLI requires wastewater dischargers in the Lake Superior basin to meet a mercury water quality standard of 1.3 ng/L and implementation of this mercury TMDL do es not in any way supercede or conflict with the GLI requirements.
To accurately measure the low levels of mercury in natural waters, the MPCA began using clean sampling techniques (EPA Method 1669) and low-level analysis for mercury (EPA Method 1631 or equivalent) in 1996; only data collected in this manner are used to assess mercur y concentration in water. Mercury levels are assessed by comparing concentrations in water to the ambient standards shown above, and by assessing the mercury in fish tissue directly (described below). The analysis of merc ury in fish tissue does not require as sensitive a method as used for water, because of bioaccumulati on, and the mercury detection limits for fish tissue have not significantly changed since fish tissue analysis began in the mid-1960s.
In 2001, the USEPA issued a fish tissue residue crite rion for methylmercury to protect human health (USEPA 2001c). The federal methylmercury fish tissue criterion is 0. 3 mg/kg. The fish tissue criterion is expected to be used by states to establish or update water quality stan dards. The USEPA chose to express the water quality criterion as a fish tissue value rather than a water column value because consumption of fish is the primary route of human exposure. MPCA is proposing to adopt this cr iterion in addition to the 6.9 ng/L mercury water quality standard; however, Minnesota’s mercur y standard would be 0.2 mg/kg because of higher fish consumption rates in the state (See Section 4.3.2 and 4.3.3 for more details).


## 3.2 Fish Consumption Advisory To ensure the continued good health of people that eat fish in Minnesota, the Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) issues guidelines for how often certain fish can be safely eaten, based on the da ta collected by the fish contaminant monitoring program. These guidelines are ca lled the Minnesota Fish Consumption Advisory (FCA) (MDH 2004). The MDH, with the help of extensive EPA toxicity and risk assessments for mercury and PCBs, establishes the concentrations of contaminants in fish th at trigger the various levels of advice – from “unlimited consumption” to “do not eat” ( Table 1 ). The FCA is strictly advisory, the goal being to help people that eat fish make decisions on which fish to eat and which to avoid. Prior to 2001, the MDH published in booklet form a list of all the lakes and rivers that had fish tested and the subsequent consumption advice for those lakes. As of 2001, the list of individual water bodies is available on the MDH web site, but it is no longer published as a booklet. Instead, the MDH publishes a brochure giving general advice applicable to all fishing lakes (and rivers) in Minnesota, regardless of whether the fish from a given la ke or river have been tested; exceptions with more restrictive consumption advice are listed individually.
Table 1 Fish Tissue Mercury Concentrations for MDH’s Levels of Consumption Advice Mercury Concentration in Fish, ppm MFCA for Mercury < 0.05 0.05 - 0.2 >0.2 - 1.0 > 1.0 Consumption Advice:* Unlimited 1 meal/week 1 meal/month Do not eat *Consumption advice for young children and women of child-bearing age.

2 Minn. R. ch. 7052.0210 imposes restri ctions on mixing zones for bioaccumulativ e chemicals of concern (BCCs). Allowance for mixing zones for BCCs are scheduled to end in 2007 (See Section 10.3).

MN Statewide Mercury TMDL 27MAR07_final.doc 5The MDH fish consumption advice and the MPCA impa irment determinations are based on the same EPAderived reference dose. Reference dose, expressed in units of daily dose, is an estimate of the daily exposure to human populations, including sensitive sub-pop ulations, that is likely to be wit hout appreciable risk of deleterious effects over a lifetime. A good summary of the toxicity assessment and derivation of the reference dose for mercury is included in the most recent USEPA mercury criterion document (EPA 2001c).
While the FCA is not mandatory, the 303(d) list of impaired waters is mandatory, listing waterbodies that do not meet legally enforceable water quality standards, and requiring Total Maximum Daily Load studies of those impaired waters.

Contaminants in fish can be a threat to wildlife consum ers of fish and other aquatic organisms as well as humans. Minnesota does not have a program to analyze whole fish samples for the purpose of assessing risks to wildlife; however, the water quality standard for the Lake Superior basin (1.3 ng Hg/L) is based on wildlife toxicity of mercury via fish consumption.


## 3.3 Basis for Assessment of Fish C ontaminants – Narrative Standards

3.3.1 Minnesota Rule Chapter 7050 The basis for assessing the contaminants in fish tissu e is the narrative water quality standards and assessment factors in Minn. R. pt. 7050.0150, subp. 7 which is quoted below:
Subp. 7. Impairment of waters relating to fish for human consumption. In evaluating whether the narrative standards in subpart 3, which prevent harmful pesticide or other residues in aquatic flora or fauna, are being met, the commissioner will use the residue leve ls in fish muscle tissue established by the Minnesota Department of Health to identify surface waters supporting fi sh for which the Minnesota Department of Health recommends a reduced frequency of fish consumption for the protection of public health. A water body will be considered impaired when the recommended consumption frequency is less than one meal per week, such as one meal per month, for any member of the population. That is, a water body will no t be considered impaired if the recommended consumption frequency is one meal per week, or an y less restrictive recommendation such as two meals per week, for all members of the population. The impaired condition must be suppor ted with measured data on the contaminant levels in the indigenous fish.


### 3.3.2 Selection of Single Fish Meal -Per-Week Impairment Threshold The EPA has promulgated a methylmercury criterion for fish tissue because the consumption of fish is the most important route of exposure of mercury to humans. The two aspects of a criterion are toxicity and exposure. The MPCA relies on the assessments of mercury toxicity to hum ans by the experts within EPA and MDH. Exposure varies with how often people eat fish and with the mercur y concentrations in the fish they eat. The EPA assumes people eat 17.5 grams per day for purposes of calculating their human health-based aquatic life criteria (EPA 2000c). This generic assumption applies to everybody in th e U.S. The MPCA uses a higher consumption rate for determining exposure because of the prevalence and importa nce of sport fishing in Minnesota. Minnesota human health-based water quality standards are calculated assuming people eat 30 grams of fish per day, which is the 80 th percentile fish consumption rate of s port-caught fish for the angling popula tion, based on several surveys of the fish eating habits of upper Midwest anglers ( not the population as a whole) (MPCA 2000).
The surveys from which the 30 g/d value was derived indicat e that less than 20 percent of anglers and less than 95 percent of the whole population in the upper Midwest eat more sport-caught fish than one meal-per-week averaged over a lifetime (MPCA 2000). A more recent surv ey of fish consumption habits of people living in Minnesota and North Dakota suggests that 30 g/d may be more protective than these earlier surveys indicate (EERC 2001). The 95 th percentile consumption rates of sport-caugh t fish for all Minnesotans with fishing licenses reported in the EERC survey is 30.4 g/ d (32.1 g/d in a log normal distribution).

MN Statewide Mercury TMDL 27MAR07_final.doc 6Thirty grams per day equals about a half-pound meal pe r week (0.463 pounds/week). The single fish meal-perweek consumption rate (or 30 g/d) is the basis for a ll Minnesota human health-based water quality standards in both Minn. R. chs. 7050 and 7052. Therefore, “fish cons umption” use is supported if it is safe to eat one fish meal per week (over a life time), consistent with the assu mption inherent in the numeric water quality standards. In other words, MDH’s advice to limit consumption to “ no more than one meal-per-week” (or advise that allows more consumption) is not considered an exceedance of the mercury water quality sta ndards, and waterbodies with such advice are not listed as impaired. Advice to limit cons umption to less than one meal per week, such as one meal per month, for any member of the population, indicates impairment.


### 3.3.3 Fish Tissue Criterion for Mercury Relevant to the assessment of mercury in fish is th e issuance by EPA of a revised human health-based water quality criterion for methylmercury (EPA 2001c). This ne w criterion is unique among all EPA (Clean Water Act section 304(a)) criteria in that the medium for the acceptab le mercury concentration is fish tissue rather than water. A fish tissue criterion for mercury is logical because it is fish that are the main source of methylmercury exposure to both humans and wildlife. Also, a tissue-b ased criterion eliminates the need for a bioaccumulation factor in the criterion calculation, which can be a significant source of uncertainty. The bioaccumulation factor is the ratio of fish concentration to water concentration. The new EPA criterion is 0.3 mg/kg (ppm) methylmercury in fish muscle tissue. Since nearly 100 percent of the mercury in fish muscle is methylmercury, it is essentially a total mercury criterion.
In the determination of the 0.3 ppm criterion, EPA assum es people eat 17.5 grams of fish per day, as mentioned above. If the EPA criterion is re-calculated assuming peopl e eat 30 g/day, the criterion becomes 0.17 ppm. This EPA criterion and the MFCA are both based on the same EPA-derived reference dose of 0.1 μ g/kg/day. The difference between the MDH value of 0.2 ppm and the re -calculated EPA criterion of 0.17 ppm, both of which assume a single half pound meal of fish per week, has to do with how the consumption of marine fish is taken into account. The MFCA is advice about eating fish from any source, sport-caught, store-bought, marine or freshwater. The EPA aquatic life criteria (applicable in Minnesota) apply only to freshwater habitats. But, in the calculation of freshwater criteria, EPA assumes people eat a certain amount of marine fish in addition to the 17.5 g/d of freshwater fish. As a result, the freshwater crite rion is lowered to allow for this “outside” source of mercury (this is standard procedure in EPA criteria and MPCA standard calculations). Thus, the re-calculated mercury criterion ends up at 0.17 rather than 0.2 ppm. The MPCA believes that the use of 0.2 ppm, rather than 0.17 ppm as the basis for impairment decisions is appropriate for the following reasons:

• EPA rounded the reference dose of 0.1 μg/kg/day to one significant figure; thus, 0.17 and 0.2 ppm could

be considered essentially the same number,

• The use by MPCA of the more protective fish consumption amount (30 g/d),

• The use of safety factors in the criterion calculation (again, standard procedure),

• Uncertainties inherent in criteria development, and

• The importance of maintaining consis tency in the MPCA/MDH approaches.



## 4 Minnesota’s Regional Approach

4.1 Land Cover and Water Quality The primary source of mercury to the state’s water b odies is atmospheric deposition, which is approximately uniform across the state (See Section 5.1 ). Mercury concentrations in fish, however, vary widely on both large and small scales. A major factor causing this spatial va riability in fish mercury levels is land cover and use,

MN Statewide Mercury TMDL 27MAR07_final.doc 7which affects watershed transport of mercury, background water chemistr y, and nutrients. The water quality differences, influenced by the nutrient loading, in turn influence the bioa vailability of mercury. Wetlands – an important land cover in Minnesota – ar e important sites of mercury methyla tion, because sulfate-reducing bacteria (SRB) are the primary methylators and they thrive in we tlands. Additional sulfate to a wetland can stimulate SRB activity, leading to increased mercury methylation (See Section 5.4). Methylmercury associated with dissolved organic carbon released from wetlands is conveyed to surface waters (Driscoll et al . 1995). Consequently, wetland density is correlated with mercury concentrations in water and fish (e.g. Greenfield et al. 2001, Knights et al . 2005). Compared to wetland and forested lands, cultivated lands are typically sources of high suspended solids because of soil erosion. Research in Minnesota has shown mercury is associated with the high suspended solids loads (Balogh et al 1997, Balogh et al . 1998), although most of the mercury associated with the solids has low bioavailability, because only a smal l fraction is methylmercury.

A concise literature review of the re lationship between lake trophic status and fish mercury concentration was provided by Fink et al. (2001). Studying Swedish lakes, Johnels et al . (1967) observed that high fish mercury levels were less likely in nutrient-enriched or eutrophic lak es than in unenriched or oligotrophic lakes. The same observation was made by D’Itri et al. (1971) and Hakanson (1974); and was attributed to the buffering or dilution effect caused by an increase in susp ended solids of biological origin. Se veral processes may contribute to this “biodilution” effect: (1) increased biomass for sorbing the mercury, (2) increased settling rate of biomass, which removes sorbed mercury from the water column, and (3) increased growth rate of fish, resulting in larger size for a given age class (Norstrom et al., 1976). The biodilution effect has been demonstrated in laboratory microcosms (Pickhardt et al. 2002) and in empirical field studies (Chen and Folt 2005)


## 4.2 Ecoregions Regional patterns in lake water quality have been documented for ecoregions in Minnesota (Heiskary, Wilson, and Larsen 1987). The State is divided into seven Leve l III ecoregions (Omernik and Gallant 1988): Northern Lakes and Forest, Northern Minnesota Wetlands, Red Rive r Valley, North Central Hardwood Forests, Northern Glaciated Plains, Western Corn Belt Plains, and Driftl ess Area. The principle that land use influences water quality has been put to good use in the development of nut rient criteria for the state. Phosphorus criteria have been proposed based on ecoregions (Heiskary and Walker 198 8). A similar approach is proposed for this TMDL to assess mercury loading.
For the purposes of the Minnesota mercury TMDL, the Nort hern Lakes and Forest ecoregion and the Northern Minnesota Wetlands ecoregion are combined to form th e Northeast (NE) region; the other ecoregions are combined to form the Southwest (SW) region ( Table 2 ; Figure 2). Differences between the NE and SW regions are described below. Impaired reaches along the NE/SW boundary were examined and some river reaches were reassigned to maintain a TMDL connection with down stream reaches. A Twin Cities Metro region was considered, based on the dominance of urban land use (i .e., impervious area); however, the fish tissue mercury concentrations for the Metro region were the same as the SW; therefore, the Metro region was combined with the SW region (See Section 4.4 ).
NE and SW regions are distinct in terms of land cover/use and in water quality ( Table 2 ). The NE region is dominated by wetlands and has less than ten percent cultivat ed land; the SW region, ov erall, has less than ten percent wetlands and is dominated by cultivated land . The NE region has an abundance of dystrophic and oligotrophic lakes; the latter is evident by the very low total phosphorus and chlorophyll a concentrations ( Table 2 ). In contrast, the SW region has chlorophyll concentra tions that are 2 to 10 times higher than the NE region levels. The regional differences in mercury transport and transformation processes result in significantly different average fish tissue mercury concentrations (see Section 4.4 ).

MN Statewide Mercury TMDL 27MAR07_final.doc 8Table 2 Regional Differences in Land Cover and Water Quality

Region Ecoregion Wetlands (%) Cultivated (%) Hay/ Pasture

(%) Lake TP (μg/L) Stream TP (μg/L) Lake Chl a (μg/L) Stream Chl a (μg/L) NMW 58.9 8.3 4.6 14 – 27 40 – 90 2-10 3.2 NE NLF 26.9 3.6 6.5 14 – 27 20 – 50 2-10 2.1 NCHF 14.9 35.0 23.4 23 – 50 60 – 150 5 – 22 15.8 RRV 7.3 78.8 6.6 23 – 50 110 – 300 5 – 22 22.1 NGP 4.6 73.5 16.5 130 – 250 90 – 250 30 – 55 27.1 DA 4.5 23.8 27.1 N/A 60 – 150 N/A N/A SW

WCBP 2.9 76.8 12.2 65 – 150 160 – 330 30 – 80 23.6 NMW: Northern Minnesota Wetlands RRV: Red River Valley NLF: Northern Lakes and Forests NGP: Northern Glaciated Plains NCHF: North Central Hardwoods Forests DA: Driftless Area WCBP: Western Corn Belt Plains Land cover data from 1992 (USGS, 1999. Minnesota Land Cover Data Set) Total phosphorus (TP) and chlorophyll a (Chl a) ranges are typical summer lake water quality conditions and typical annual stream water quality conditions for minimally impacted waters (MPCA. 2003. Comparison of typical Minnesota water quality conditions. http://www.pca.state.mn.us/publications/wq-s1 -02.pdf ). Lake data were collected 1985-1988 (Heiskary and Wilson 1989) and stream data were collected 1990-1992 (McCollor and Heiskary 1993).



## 4.3 Baseline Year: 1990 The baseline year for the Minnesota mercury TMDL is 1990, because (1) the most recent measurement of total (wet and dry) mercury deposition in Minnesota is based on lake sediment cores collected around 1990, (2) it is a well-established baseline for mercury emissions inventories and, most importantly (3) it represents the end of a period when mercury emissions and fish concentrations we re most likely in a steady state. Minnesota’s Mercury Emissions Inventory (MPCA 2005; see Figure 13 on page 28 ) and goals established in Minnesota’s Mercury Reduction Law are based on the 1990 baseline. The U SEPA has also used 1990 as the baseline for presenting U.S. mercury emissions (see Figure 12 on page 27 ). The Great Lakes Binational Toxics Strategy ( http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/p2/bns.html ) and the Lake Superior Lakewide Management Plan (http//www.epa.gov/glnpo/lakesuperior/chapter3.html) u se 1990 for assessing reductions in mercury releases.
This regional mercury TMDL relies on me rcury deposition being in a dynamic equilibrium, or steady state, with mercury in fish. No one knows how long it takes for fish mercury levels to reflect change in mercury use and emissions, but the lag time is most likely more than 5 years, because of lags in mercury disposal, deposition, methylation, and fish growth. There were rapid cha nges in mercury use and emissions in the 1990s, as mercury use was eliminated in products (paint , golf course fungicides, alkaline batteries) and incinerator emissions were progressively controlled (see Section 5 ). As a result, one would not expect fish to be in steady state with contemporaneous mercury emissions af ter 1990. Therefore, this TMDL establishes the relationship between mercury emissions and fish contamin ation using data from 1990 or earlier, when conditions had been relatively stable for 10 years (see Figure 11 on page 27 ).
The best estimate of total mercury deposition is based on sediment cores from Minnesota lakes (Swain et al

. 1992). Total mercury deposition includes wet and dry deposition. Wet deposition is measured through the Mercury Deposition Network (beginning in 1996) at five locations within or very close to Minnesota, as well as other places throughout the country (http ://nadp.sws.uiuc.edu/mdn/). Dry depos ition cannot be measured directly, like wet deposition. Therefore, it is not possible to measu re total mercury deposition directly. The best measure of total deposition generally accepted among scientists is based on sediment core analysis. Based on sediment cores collected in Minnesota lakes, the best estimate for total mercury deposition around 1990 is 12.5 g km -2 yr -1

. This total mercury deposition value cannot be correla ted with wet deposition measurements, because wet

MN Statewide Mercury TMDL 27MAR07_final.doc 9Figure 2 TMDL Regional Areas and Mercury-Impaired Waters

MN Statewide Mercury TMDL 27MAR07_final.doc 10deposition monitoring began later. Therefore, we cannot use the measured wet deposition to derive a reasonable estimate of total mercury deposition for 2000 or 2005. Sedi ment cores have a time resolution of about ten years. Because of the difficulty measuring total mercury deposition, mercury emissions goals are more practical for the TMDL.


## 4.4 Target Levels of Fish Mercury Concentration

4.4.1 Standard Size Predator Fish The fish tissue mercury concentration of 0.2 ppm is the mercury TMDL target level. This section describes how the target level is used to derive a me rcury reduction factor for each region.
The Minnesota Fish Consumption Advisory (FCA) divides meal advise into five size classes (5-15, 15-20, 20-25, 25-30, 30+ inches); the 0.2 ppm fish tissue mercury concentr ation is compared to the average for a particular size class of a specific species within a specific water body. Fo r example, a river reach would be considered impaired if the average mercury concentration for the 20-25 inch size class carp was above 0.2 ppm. In the SW region, there are 24 species that had a size class exceed the 0.2 ppm threshold and 32 species in the NE region (Figure 3). Most of these species are only representative of one or two wa terbodies. It is not practical to assign a target value for every species for the purposes of this TMDL. Rather, our choice is to use top predators – northern pike and walleye– as the target species, because they have the hi ghest mercury concentrations and are the most common species representing impaired waters. If the top predator s meet the water quality standard, then other species and the water column will too.
For temporal and spatial comparisons of mercury concentrations in the top predator fish, we calculate a mercury concentration for a standard length fish. When fish are captured for mercury analysis, the number and size of fish will vary among lakes and among trips to the same lake. Because mercury concentrati on increases with fish age and fish increase in length with age, comparing the average mercury concentrations among lakes would not account for this relationship to the size of the fish. A sample set from one year could have a higher average mercury concentration than another year because the average fish size was larger the first year; therefore, average concentrations would represent a change in average fish size rather than a real change in mercury concentration.
To account for this size-dependency of mercury concentra tions, the mercury concentration is compared for the same size fish, which we refer to as the standard size or standard length fish. One cannot simply select the standard length fish from the collection of fish each time be cause lengths of collected fish vary from year to year (and lake to lake). The mercury concentration in the st andard length fish is calcula ted for each collection using a linear regression statistical procedure, which gives a mercury concentration per length of fish. The linear regression is done mathematically. It is illustrated by plo tting mercury concentration (on the vertical axis) versus the fish length (on the horizontal axis) and drawing a best fit line through the points. The line represents the best estimate of mercury concentration per fish length and can be used to predict mercury concentration for any fish length under the line. In other words, this process allo ws one to predict the mercury concentration for a predetermined size of fish based on the available fish data. A collection may have as few as three fish or up to fifty fish, which are used to predict the standard length fish me rcury concentration. That single value for the standard length fish can then represent the mercury concentration for the fish from that collection. If the standard length fish mercury concentration decreases between sample coll ections (and the relationship between age and length of fish does not change), we know that mercury concentra tions in that fish species from that water body has decreased and has not changed simply becau se the collected fish are smaller.

MN Statewide Mercury TMDL 27MAR07_final.doc 11MN Statewide Mercury TMDL 27MAR07_final.doc12Hg (=>0.2) NE RegionBigmouth BufBlack BullheBlack CrappiBluegill SunSPECIESBowfinBrook Trout012345 H GBrown BullheBrown TroutBurbotCarpChinook SalmCisco012345 H GLake TroutLake WhitefiLargemouth BMuskellungeNorthern PikRainbow Trou012345 H GRedhorse SucRock BassSaugerShorthead ReSilver RedhoSiscowet012345 H GSmallmouth BSnapping TurSplake

5 - 1 5 1 5 - 2 0 2 0 - 2 5 2 5 - 3 0 3 0 +SIZECLASSSucker

5 - 1 5 1 5 - 2 0 2 0 - 2 5 2 5 - 3 0 3 0 +SIZECLASSWalleye

5 - 1 5 1 5 - 2 0 2 0 - 2 5 2 5 - 3 0 3 0 +SIZECLASSWhite Sucker

5 - 1 5 1 5 - 2 0 2 0 - 2 5 2 5 - 3 0 3 0 +SIZECLASS012345 H GYellow Bullh

5 - 1 5 1 5 - 2 0 2 0 - 2 5 2 5 - 3 0 3 0 +SIZECLASSYellow Perch

5 - 1 5 1 5 - 2 0 2 0 - 2 5 2 5 - 3 0 3 0 +SIZECLASS012345 H GHg (=>0.2) SW RegionBassBlack BullheBlack CrappiBluegill SunSPECIESCarpChannel Catf0.00.51.01.52.0 H GCiscoCrappieFreshwater DLargemouth BMuskellungeNorthern Pik0.00.51.01.52.0 H GRedhorse SucRock BassShorthead ReSilver RedhoSmallmouth BSnapping Tur0.00.51.01.52.0 H GWalleye

5 - 1 5 1 5 - 2 0 2 0 - 2 5 2 5 - 3 0 3 0 +SIZECLASSWhite Bass

5 - 1 5 1 5 - 2 0 2 0 - 2 5 2 5 - 3 0 3 0 +SIZECLASSWhite Crappi

5 - 1 5 1 5 - 2 0 2 0 - 2 5 2 5 - 3 0 3 0 +SIZECLASSWhite Sucker

5 - 1 5 1 5 - 2 0 2 0 - 2 5 2 5 - 3 0 3 0 +SIZECLASSYellow Bullh

5 - 1 5 1 5 - 2 0 2 0 - 2 5 2 5 - 3 0 3 0 +SIZECLASSYellow Perch

5 - 1 5 1 5 - 2 0 2 0 - 2 5 2 5 - 3 0 3 0 +SIZECLASS0.00.51.01.52.0 H GFigure 3 Average Fish Tissue Mercury ConcentrationGreater Than 0.2 ppm by Species and Size ClassMN State NP 55 is 21.65 in (~22 in) and WE 40 is 15.75 in (~16 in); therefore, they are in the 20-25 inch and 15-20 inch size classes used by the FCA. Size class distri butions of northern pike and walleye within the two regions indicate the mode (most common or highest frequency) size class for northern pike (NP) in both regions is 20-25 inches and the mode size class for walleye (WE) in both regions is 15-20 inches (Figure 4 Error! Reference source not found. ). Therefore, the standard lengths provide a good correspondence to the most common size class for northern pike and walleye throughout Minnesota. The 55 cm northern pike (NP 55 ) has represented the standard length fish in many scientific mercury studies. Sweden has used the 1-kilogram northern pike —which is approximately e quivalent to a length of 55 cm—for mercury studies since the 1960s (Johnels et al. 1967). That standard fish length was used by Sorensen et al . (1990) in their study of mercury in northern Minnesota lakes. They compared a range of walleye and northern pike fish lengths and found that a 39 cm walleye had the best correlation to a 55 cm northern pike. The MPCA has continued to use the NP 55 and a 40 cm walleye (WE 40 ) as the standard length fish to compare among lakes and rivers. An important aspect of the standard size fish mercury c oncentration is that it is based on a set of data from a water body, not a single data point; therefore, unlike a single data point, a measure of uncertainty (such as a confidence interval) can be assigned to the value. The measure of uncertainty will vary with the number of data points available and the variability of the data. For future assessments, the standard size fish mercury concentrations can be evaluated to see if there has been a statistically significant change in fish tissue mercury concentrations.

wide Mercury TMDL 27MAR07_final.doc 13 NE,NP



### 4.4.2 Applying the Target Level to the 90 th 

### Percentile Fish Concentration To achieve water quality standards and protect wate r bodies from impairment, an appropriate statistic must be selected to meet the target level of 0.2 ppm. Rather than using a measure of central tendency, such as the mean or median, the 90 th percentile (90%) was selected to provide greater protection. The 90 th percentile of samples from a given waterbody has b een used as assessment guidance by the USEPA (i.e., Figure 4 Size Class Distributions by Re gion (NE, SW) and Species (NP, WE) C o u n t C o u n t

100

200 300 100 200 300 400 500 600

5-15 15-20 20-25 25-30 30 + SIZECLASS 0

0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4

P
r o p o r t io n p e r B a r NE,WE

5-15 15-20 20-25 25-30 30 + SIZECLASS 0 100 200 300 400 500

C o u n t

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4

P
r o p o r t io n p e r B a r

SW,NP

5-15 15-20 20-25 25-30 30 + SIZECLASS 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4

P
r o p o r t io n p e r B a r 100 150 200 250

50 SW,WE

5-15 15-20 20-25 25-30 30 + SIZECLASS 0 C o u n t

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4

P
r o p o r t io n p e r B a rno more than 10% of the samples can exceed the stan dard). Achieving the target level for the 90 th percentile of standard size predator fish ensures that 100% of the smaller predator fish and fish at lower trophic levels will meet the target level.
Selecting a higher percentile is not necessary or reasona ble. As fish mercury levels are reduced and the 90 th percentile approaches 0.2 ppm, the c oncentration difference between the 90 th and the 99 th is likely to be very small. Futhermore, the 90 th percentile allows for outliers that may have unique circumstances. The outliers can be addressed individually as part of the adaptive watershed management approach to TMDL implementation.
The median (50%) and 90 th percentile (90%) mercury concentrations for NP and WE in the two regions are shown in Table 3 , based on the period of record (1970-2002). Median mercury concentrations in the 20-25 in size class of NP are similar to the median fo r the standard length NP for both regions; and the similarity also holds for the 90 th percentiles. For WE, the match between mode size class (15-20 in) and standard fish length is not as good as in NP. The WE mercury concentrations are lower, which is not surprising since the standard length WE (16 in.) is near the small end of the 15-20 inch size class and mercury concentrations generally increase with fish length; nonetheless, there is less than a 20% difference between the median and 90 th percentile statistics.
Table 3 Mercury Concentrations for Northern Pike (NP) and Walleye (WE) Collected from 1970 to 2002 Species: NP WE
Region Size Class (in): 20-25 Std 22 (NP55) 15-20 Std16 (WE40) N 433 712 375 584 Median 0.310 0.320 0.318 0.268 NE 90% 0.645 0.641 0.677 0.631 N 207 265 174 220 Median 0.190 0.187 0.212 0.185 SW 90% 0.425 0.368 0.470 0.390

To establish the target level for the baseline year , data from 1988 through 1992 were used to provide a five-year dataset centered around 1990. Five years of fish tissue data provides some accounting for year to year variability in weather, sampling locations, and natural variability in fish populations. The spatial distribution of the fish tissue data reflects distributi on of lakes throughout the state; most of the lakes are in the NLF and CHF ecoregions ( Figure 5 ). Many of the lakes had both walleye and northern pike collected and were usually closely matched in fi sh mercury concentration. The highest mercury concentrations are clearly shown in the northeastern area of the NE region, which includes the Voyageurs National Park and Boundary Waters Wilderness Canoe Area.
Not all mercury impaired waters are included in th is mercury TMDL. To ensure that water quality standards are met when the TMDL reduction goal is ach ieved, only lakes and streams with fish size class mercury concentrations less than 0.572 mg/kg are included (see Appendix A). In other words, only impaired waters with fish size class mercury concentr ations that require a reduction of 65% or less are included in this mercury TMDL. MPCA will contin ue to monitor and assess the other mercury impaired waters, and where feasible, develop waterbody-specific mercury TMDLs.

MN Statewide Mercury TMDL 27MAR07_final.doc 14Figure 5 Standard size northern pike and walleye distribution

MN Statewide Mercury TMDL 27MAR07_final.doc 15NP

NE WE



### 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0

F
r a c t io n o f D a t a

SW



### 0.0 0.1 1.0 HGPPM 0.0 0.1 1.0 HGPPM 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0

F
r a c t io n o f D a t a

Figure 6 Mercury Distributions by Species and Region for 1988-1992

Figure 6 shows the distribution of mercury concentrati ons for each standard length species, within each region; the vertical dashed line indicates the 0.2 ppm Hg concentration. Our general goal is to shift the distribution to the left, but for the purpo se of assigning a goal or target level, a single statistic is necessary.

The medians and 90 th percentiles for 1988-1992 are similar to the whole period of record—1970-2002 (Table 4). The median mercury concentrations in th e SW region are actually close to the 0.2 ppm target concentration. Applying the target concentration to the median would clearly not be sufficient to achieve water quality standards in most of the impaired waters within that region.
Table 4 Mercury Concentrations Standard Size Northern Pike and Walleye for 1988-1992 Region Statistic NP WE N 138 156 Median 0.293 0.262 NE 90% 0.545 0.572 N 66 74 Median 0.203 0.218 SW 90% 0.373 0.405

The 90 th percentile mercury concentration provides greater protection than the median and, therefore, was selected as the basis for establishing reduction factors ( Table 5 ). The reduction factor (RF) is the percent reduction needed to achieve 0.2 ppm Hg for the 90 th percentile of the standard length fish mercury concentration. Mercury concentrati ons in standard length walleye (WE40 90 ) were higher than standard length northern pike (NP55 90 ) in both regions; therefore, the walleye require a greater reduction factor MN Statewide Mercury TMDL 27MAR07_final.doc 16than the northern pike, and achieving the target level for walleye provides a greater level of protection. Consequently, we selected the more protective red uction factors of 51% for the SW region and 65% for the NE region

.
Table 5 Reduction Factors Based on the Baseline Year: 1990

Region Target Species Hg* (mg/kg) RF** NP55 90 0.545 63% NE WE40 90 0.572 65% NP55 90 0.373 46% SW WE40 90 0.405 51%
* 90 th percentile for fish mercury data from 1988-1992 ** RF: Reduction Factor = (NP55 90 - 0.2)/NP55 90 or = (WE40 90 - 0.2)/WE40 90

As mentioned in Section 3, a third, Metro region, defined by the seven county Twin Cities metro area, was considered. The Metro region was separated from the SW region because presumed greater predominance of impervious land cover in the metr o region, and potentially higher mercury loading via stormwater. As shown in Figure 7 , the SW and Metro had identical 90 th percentiles for standard size northern pike (NP), and the walleye (WE) differed by only 0.028 mg/kg (relative percent difference: 7%). The difference between Reduction Factors for SW and Me tro WE was only three percent. Given that the Metro region would otherwise be included in SW region and the similarity of the 90 th percentiles would result in the same reduction factors, the data from th e Metro region were combined with the SW for the final mercury TMDL calculations.

95th %'tle 95th %'tle

90th %'tle 90th %'tle

75th %'tle 75th %'tle

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7Fish Hg (ppm-ww)

95th %'tle 0.657 0.657 0.390 0.458 0.427 0.508 90th %'tle 0.545 0.572 0.372 0.372 0.391 0.419 75th %'tle 0.402 0.422 0.301 0.303 0.313 0.319 NE/NP NE/WE SW/NP METRO/NP SW/WE METRO/WE error bars ± 5%

Figure 7 Upper percentiles for northern pike (NP and walleye (WE) in the NE, SW, and Metro Regions

e Mercury TMDL 27MAR07_final.doc 17 MN Statewid

### 4.4.3 Achieving Water Quality Criteria for Mercury Water column impairments for total mercury are expected to meet water quality standards when the fish tissue target is reached. Minnesota’s water column chronic standards for total mercury are 6.9 ng/L statewide and 1.3 ng/L in the Lake Superior basin. Th e fish tissue target concentration is 0.2 mg/kg. The 0.2 mg/kg fish tissue target can be divided by a representative bioaccumulation factor (BAF) to get a comparable water column mercury concentration. Our best set of BAFs for fish mercury concentrations and total mercury concentrations comes from 14 la kes representing three geographic areas of Minnesota ( Table 6 ). The lakes representing the agricultural ar ea (“Ag”) and the Twin Cities metropolitan area (“Metro”) are in the SW region; lakes representing the forested area (“Forest”) are in the NE region.

Water column concentrations are based on five samples collected in 2000-2001, and standard size northern pike and walleye mercury concentrations are from 1999-2001. Table 1 shows the geometric mean for the 14 BAFs is 388,424 L/kg.
Using the geometric mean BAF, the calculated wa ter concentration for a 0.2 mg/kg fish mercury concentration is 0.52 ng/L; well below the statewide and Lake Superior basin water quality standards. The fifth percentile of the 14 lake BAFs gives a co mparable water column mercury concentration of 1.3 ng/L. Therefore, these results provide reasonable assu rance that the water column mercury concentration will be met when the fish tissue target is reached.
Table 6 Bioaccumulation factors for 14 representative lakes in Minnesota

REGION DOWID WATERWAY SP-YR N NP 55 (mg/kg) Water (median,

ng/L) BAF (NP 55/ Water) Ag 07-0053 Duck NP-00 7 0.034 1.057 32,587 Ag 47-0082 Dunns NP-99 5 0.256 1.180 216,875 Forest 38-0231 Tettegouche NP-00 24 0.258 1.090 236,676 Ag 41-0089 Shaokatan WE-00 22 0.203 0.753 269,495 Metro 62-0056 Owasso NP-01 24 0.148 0.423 351,046 Forest 38-0242 Wolf WE-99 14 0.184 0.523 352,242 Forest 38-0068 Windy NP-99 10 0.708 1.753 404,178 Metro 27-0016 Harriet WE-00 19 0.231 0.488 473,875 Metro 27-0031 Calhoun WE-00 24 0.262 0.495 528,474 Metro 27-0039 Cedar NP-00 6 0.356 0.599 594,455 Ag 47-0088 Richardson NP -99 15 0.305 0.496 614,931 Forest 29-0015 Williams NP-99 24 0.264 0.425 622,780 Metro 27-0137 Christmas NP-01 26 0.223 0.229 971,214 Forest 29-0043 Shingobee NP-00 7 0.342 0.240 1,426,490 Min: 0.034 0.229 32,587 Max: 0.708 1.753 1,426,490 Geomean: 0.270 0.696 388,424



## 5 Source Assessment and Trends

5.1 Sources of Mercury in Minnesota Fish Pollutant sources to water are divided into point sources and nonpoint sources. Point sources include any discharge to a water body via a pipe or channel, in cluding publicly owned wast ewater treatment plants, industrial waste dischargers, and municipal stormw ater discharge. Nonpoint sources, as the name implies, include all other sources, such as the diffuse sources of runoff and air deposition.
In the late 1960s, when mercury contamination of fish was first discovered in Sweden, Canada, Minnesota and other places in the United States, the source of mercury was unknown. It was unclear whether the mercury was derived from local geology or delivered by the atmosphere. Scientists knew
MN Statewide Mercury TMDL 27MAR07_final.doc 18that mercury must be methylated before it can be accumulated by fish, but they did not know where methylation occurred, whether it was in soil, water, sedime nt or in the gut of the fish itself. Nevertheless, without mercury there could be no mercury methylation. In the early 1970s, steps were taken to eliminate the obvious sources of mercury to rivers and lakes. These steps included greatly reducing activities that could cause mercury to be discharged to waterways, such as the use of mercury fungicides in paper making and by mercury cell chlor-alkali plants. But b ecause fish were contaminated in remote lakes that never received any industrial discharge, some scientis ts suspected that the atmosphere was delivering significant quantities of mercury. Significant geol ogical sources of mercury are localized in cinnabar deposits in such places as the coastal range of California and in Almaden, Spain. The geology of most of the United States, including Minnesota, does not contain concentrated sources of mercury.
Much has been learned about environmental mercury in the decades since. By the early 1990s, it was clear that the atmosphere is the main source of mercur y to most surface waters. By 1994, an expert panel (Expert Panel 1994) was able to conclude that anthropogenic activities accounted for 50 to 75% of mercury emissions to the atmosphere , and hence 50 to 75% of mercury deposition to aquatic systems. A more recent study in Minnesota (Engstrom and Swain 1997) indicated anthropogenic sources contribute 70% of the mercury deposition to the state.
The 70% proportion was calculated by the relative change in mercury accumulation in seven rural lakes, as presented in Swain et al. (1992). According to those calculations, atmospheric mercury deposition in the rural upper Midwest increased from 3.7 g km -2 yr -1 ) in 1850 to 12.5 g km -2 yr -1 in 1990. If 3.7 was the natu ral deposition rate, then natural sources contributed 30% of total deposition in 1990, leaving 70% as anthropogenic. Between 10 and 15 sediment cores from each of seven lakes were needed to account for the total mercury deposition. This type of data collection has not b een performed on a national scale.

Our ability to understand and model the atmospheric transport and deposition of mercury is hampered by the various chemical forms that mercury can assume. Mercury can be emitted from anthropogenic (human) sources as either elemental or divalent forms, and most likely can interconvert in the atmosphere through chemical reactions. Essentially all mercury emitted to the atmosphere will eventually deposit on the Earth’s surface. Because of uncertainty about at mospheric chemistry, predicting where or when will deposit is difficult. The fundamental chemical un certainty is the conversion from elemental mercury vapor to divalent mercury. Elemental mercury vapor is relatively inert, and therefore may remain in the atmosphere up to one year, allowing long-distance di spersal before deposition to terrestrial or aquatic systems. Divalent mercury, on the other hand, is mu ch more readily removed from the atmosphere in rain (“wet” deposition) because it is water soluble and tend s to stick to surfaces, including those of airborne dust, vegetation, and even dew (“dry” deposition). Sc ientists use complex computer models to simulate the atmospheric processes and deposition. The m odels are continually refined as new scientific understanding becomes available, but because much re mains unknown, there is considerable uncertainty in the predictions. Ed Swain and Dan Engstrom collecting a sediment core

After mercury deposits on to the Earth’s surface only a small proportion of mercury becomes geologically immobilized through burial in the sediments of lakes, oceans or river deltas. Mercury deposited to soils is held for a geologically short time (tens or hundreds of years), from which it can be leached, eroded or volatilized back to the atmosphere. A small propor tion of the deposited mercury makes its way to environments where it may be methyl ated (wetlands, lakes and rivers).
Worldwide trends in mercury emissions and depositi on must be in approximate balance, because any emitted mercury must come down somewhere, sometim e. Gaseous elemental mercury has an average

MN Statewide Mercury TMDL 27MAR07_final.doc 19atmospheric residence time of up to one year, therefore, time lags in deposition should not be significant when viewed on a multi-year basis. Volatilization from soils of atmospherically deposited mercury may produce a significant lag, or smoothing, of depositio n compared to primary anthropogenic emissions, but this effect has not been adequately studied and quan tified. Erosion or leaching of mercury to aquatic systems from terrestrial soils is known to be signifi cant in some watersheds (e.g., Balogh et al. 1997, Balogh et al. 1998, Balogh et al. 2003), but their effect on time lags also has not been adequately studied.
Despite the difficulty in fully understanding and mode ling the chemistry of mercury in the atmosphere, analysis of lake sediments does yield empirical evidence on mercury deposition. Because local geological sources of mercury are relatively rare, merc ury in sediments of lakes that never received industrial discharges usually can be attributed to atmospheric deposition. In Minnesota, analysis of sediments accumulated in lakes over the past sever al hundred years allowed the following conclusions (Swain et al. 1992; Engstrom and Swain 1997; Engstrom et al. 1999):

• About 70% of current mercury deposition in Minnesota is a result of anthropogenic emissions.

• Annual atmospheric deposition as of 1990 was 12.5 micrograms per squa re meter per year (total of wet plus dry deposition). By comparing to sediment cores from coastal Alaska, we can attribute recent (1990s) atmospheric sources to Minnesota as follows: 30% natural from outside the state (e.g., volcanoes), 30% global pollution, and 40% regional pollution (Engstrom and Swain 1997). Several recently published modeling studies (using different models) of global mercury cycling agree w ith this relative contribution from natural sources (Mason & Sheu 2002, Lamborg 2002, and Seigneur et al . 2004).
Atmospheric deposition of mercury in some parts of Minnesota peaked in the 1970s, and has declined slightly since then. Wet deposition rates sin ce 1996 (when mercury depos ition network monitoring began) appear relatively uniform around the state, as shown by overlap in annual mercury deposition fluxes from fixed monitoring stations in Minnesota and Brule Wisconsin ( Figure 8 ); the inset bar chart shows the station mean annual fluxes are not significantly different for the period 1996-2003. There is a significant precipitation gradient from northeast to southwest Minnesota, but this does not apparently determine the mercury deposition pattern. The uniformity in deposition indicates that sources causing locally elevated atmospheric deposition have been removed. Likely local sources include poorly controlled waste incineration, mercury fungicide use in paper making, and coal combustion in urban areas for space heating.
Despite removal of many mercury sources, significant mercury emissions sources remain within Minnesota and contribute to mercury deposition in the state. Jackson et al. (2000) estimated that onequarter of the 40% regional pollu tion, or 10% of tota l deposition within Minnesota, is because of emissions within the state. The balance of the regi onal sources was attributed to the rest of the United States.
Engstrom and Swain (1997) apportioned the 70% of atmospheric deposition that is anthropogenic into 30% global and 40% regional, by comparing mercury increases in northern Minnesota to coastal Alaska. By assuming that Alaska is so far from sources that it represents global deposition (which is also a component of Minnesota’s deposition), and noting th at Minnesota’s increase over natural is 3.4-fold, while Alaska’s increase is just 2.0-fold, one can cal culate that in 1990 the source areas of Minnesota’s deposition was 30% natural global, 30% anthropoge nic global, and 40% anthropogenic regional.
Unfortunately, there was no way to know the exact ge ographic extent of the sources contributing to the regionally elevated mercury depositio n. Jackson et al. (2000) apportioned the source region as follows, using qualitative knowledge of source strengths and likely transport distances: “...the United States is assumed to be the regional area that Engstrom and Sw ain determined contributes 40% of the deposition in Minnesota. The 40% is then subdivided: 10% being local deposition from Minnesota emissions; 15%

MN Statewide Mercury TMDL 27MAR07_final.doc 20from the rest of the Midwest and the remaining 15% from U.S. sources outside of the Midwest.” The 10% proportion will decline over time as incinerato rs and other sources of divalent mercury are controlled. We expect that models of later emissi on years will show a lower and lower in-state percent contribution to overall deposition in Minnesota.

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003g Hg km-2yr-1 Marcell (MN16) Fernberg (MN18) Ripley (MN23) Lamberton (MN27) Brule (WI08) Average

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Marcell (MN16) Fernberg (MN18)

Ripley (MN23) Lamberton (MN27) Brule (WI08) Mean Annual Flux ± 95% C.I.(g km -2 ) for 1996-2003

Figure 8 Annual Mercury Flux at Mercury Deposition Network (MDN) Sites in Minnesota The 10% in-state contribution is supported by at mospheric modeling of mercury for a domain that includes the continental United States, southern Ca nada, and northern Mexico (Atkinson, 2003). For Minnesota, the USEPA modeling show ed total annual emissions of mercury from Minnesota were 2571 kg in 1998, and 586 kg were deposited within the domain. According to model results, of the 586 kg of mercury, 48% (281 kg) was deposited within the stat e, which is 10.9% of the 2571 kg emitted by the state. Model results showed annual atmospheric me rcury deposition in Minnesota was within the range of 10 to 30 g/km 2 , which is 2200 to 6600 kg/y for the whole state. The 281 kg deposited by Minnesota sources, therefore, represents 4% to 13% of the tota l deposition to the state. Thus, the 10% estimated state contribution to mercury deposition within the state, from Jackson et al. (2000), is within the bracketed range from USEPA’s model results.
One concern when evaluating mercury sources is the likelihood of “depositiona l hotspots” where mercury deposition far exceeds the norm. Engstrom and Swain (1997) discuss sediment data that show greater mercury loading in 1990 to lakes in urban Minneapolis and agricultural areas of western Minnesota, compared to northern Minnesota (findings confirmed by later unpublished sediment core work). However, it is uncertain if the greater loading is de livered by the atmosphere. In agricultural areas, the mercury load to lakes is likely enhanced by soil erosion. In urbanized areas, the mercury load may have been enhanced by development of impervious surf aces or indirectly from the use of mercury-preserved latex paints. Regardless of the indication of some hi storical localized higher mercury loading rates, there is no evidence of subsequently higher fish mercury levels (i.e., no biological hotspots).

e Mercury TMDL 27MAR07_final.doc 21 MN StatewidAn alternative to sediment core data as the basis for total mercury deposition is computer modeling. There has been no effort to correlate Minnesota’s fish concentrations to any atmospheric modeling, such as that of Atkinson (2003). There is a great deal of vari ation in fish concentrations from lake to lake, even in rural areas far from emission sources that receive equal atmospheric mercury deposition. We know that the average mercury concentrations of fish in the Minneapolis-St. Paul metropolitan area are not significantly different from concentrations in the rest of the SW region. Even though lake to lake variation is greater than any increment because of urban deposition, our working assumption is that the mercury concentrations of fish in all lakes will d ecline when a steady state is approached after the atmospheric loading is reduced. The EPA model output (Atkinson, 2003) shows greater deposition near Minneapolis for the 1998 emission year. The greater deposition was driven by two incinerators in Goodhue County, a rural area over 40 miles southeast of Minneapolis. By 2000, mercury emissions from these facilities were reduced from about 300 pou nds to less than 5 pounds per year.
In the 1990s there were three incinerators operati ng in Goodhue County, one in Cannon Falls, and two in Red Wing. Lake and stream data for mercury are sparse in the Goodhue Coun ty area, largely because there is not much surface water aside from the Mississippi River and some tributaries. One tributary, the Cannon River, flows in an easterly direction in Rice County and then flows into Goodhue County, near the northern county line. The Cannon River discharges into the Mississippi about 5 km NE of the city of Red Wing, the site of the other contributing incine rator. The headwater reaches in Rice County are impaired, and listed for excess mercury in fish. In addition Byllesby Reservoir is listed as impaired because of fish that were sampled in the 1980s. Byllesby Reservoir is adjacent to the city of Cannon Falls, the location of one of the two incinerators that contributed to the modeled elevated mercury deposition. However, the incinerator did not start ope rating until the 1990s, after the fish were sampled. The Cannon River between Byllesby Reservoir and Welch, MN was sampled in 1992 and the fish (carp, smallmouth bass, and walleye) were not impaired and these reaches are not listed for excess mercury.
One basic tenet of the TMDL program is to make the best TMDL possible with the data available. Our available fish data, albeit sparse in some locations, do not support the presence of a hotspot in terms of fish mercury concentrations in Goodhue County. Once the reduction goals are established, a phased adaptive watershed management approach will re-assess subsequent data as needed.



### Minnesota Mercury Emissions (2000)

Coal 46%

Petroleum 5% Wood 0.3% Natural gas 0.0% Volatilization from disposed products 7% Municipal solid waste combustion 5% Smelters that recycle cars and appliances 5% Sewage sludge incineration 3% Dental preparations 3% Crematories 2% On-site household waste incineration 2%

Recycling mercury from products 1.4% Fluorescent lamp breakage 0.9%

Medical waste incineration 0.2% Taconite processing 21% Soil roasting 0.4%

Energy 51% Material Processing 21%

Purposeful Use 28% 

### Sources of Atmospheric Mercury Deposition to Minnesota

Natural Emissions 30% Global Emissions 30% Regional Emissions 40% MN Emissions

(~10%) 

### Minnesota Mercury Emissions (2000)

Coal 46%

Petroleum 5% Wood 0.3% Natural gas 0.0% Volatilization from disposed products 7% Municipal solid waste combustion 5% Smelters that recycle cars and appliances 5% Sewage sludge incineration 3% Dental preparations 3% Crematories 2% On-site household waste incineration 2%

Recycling mercury from products 1.4% Fluorescent lamp breakage 0.9%

Medical waste incineration 0.2% Taconite processing 21% Soil roasting 0.4%

Energy 51% Material Processing 21%

Purposeful Use 28% 

### Sources of Atmospheric Mercury Deposition to Minnesota

Natural Emissions 30% Global Emissions 30% Regional Emissions 40% MN Emissions

(~10%)

Figure 9 Sources of Mercury Deposition and Estimated Mercury Emission Sources in Minnesota Mercury from anthropogenic emission sources (i.e., emitted to the atmosphere because of human activities) is divided by the MPCA into three categori es: (1) emissions related to energy production, (2) emissions because of purposeful use, and (3) emissions because of material processing (Figure 9). Although emissions from fossil fuel combustion and the processing of metal ores are both the result of the incidental release of trace contaminants of natural ge ological materials, we have placed them in separate categories (energy production and material processing, respectively). As of 2000, 51% of Minnesota’s mercury emissions are from energy sources, 21% from taconite processing, and 28% from purposeful

uses.

MN Statewide Mercury TMDL 27MAR07_final.doc 22

## 5.2 Principle of Proportionality for Mercury in Air and Biota Ideally, the link between emissions and mercury bi oaccumulation in fish would be known quantitatively and the effect of a given reduction in emissions accurate ly modeled. Such models are under development. In the absence of a validated model that accurate ly incorporates the complexities of atmospheric chemistry, watershed transport, methylation, an d bioaccumulation in fish; we rely on the following rationale (Jackson et al . 2000):

a. A reduction in emissions from sources in a given s ource area (local, regional or global) results in a proportional reduction in the rate of deposition in Minnesota attributable to those sources.

b. A reduction in deposition results in a proportional reduction in me rcury loading to water bodies.

c. Within a given water body, a proportional reduction in mercury loading in the water results in a proportional reduction in mercur y concentrations in fish.
For example, a 50% reduction in mercury emissions from Minnesota sources is projected to result in a 5% reduction in deposition in Minnesota (50% of 10% state share), and, therefore, a 5% reduction in mercury contamination of fish. A 50% reduction applied to an thropogenic global sources is projected to result in a 35% reduction in deposition in Minn esota (50% of 70%), and, therefore, a 35% reduction in mercury contamination of fish.
This assumption of proportionality between mercur y deposition and fish bioaccumulation acknowledges that lakes differ in the proportion of atmospherica lly deposited mercury that is methylated and the efficiency that methylmercury is accumulated in fish. This is described below as the bioavailability factor. Proportionality assumes that these factors are constants, unaffected by the rate of atmospheric mercury deposition.
A variety of physical processes could cause time lags , including delayed release of mercury from the terrestrial watershed around surface water, and release from sediments contaminated from earlier atmospheric deposition. However, mercury in terrestri al systems will eventually reach a new steady state with atmospheric deposition, and total loading of mercury to surface water will be proportional to atmospheric deposition.
Similarly, sediments eventually will also equilibra te with atmospheric deposition, but perhaps through different mechanisms than do terrestrial soils. For example, if the sediment is in a depositional zone, new, cleaner sediments may simply cover up and bury the older, more contaminated sediment.
Mechanistic models for mercury predict proporti onality between atmospheric deposition and fish contamination. The Pilot Mercury TMDL exercise for the Florida Everglades found “The E-MCM model predicts a linear relationship between atmospheric mercury deposition and merc ury concentrations in largemouth bass....The slight offset from a 1:1 relations hip results from slow mobilization of historically deposited mercury from deeper sediment la yers to the water column....” (Atkeson et al. 2002; Figure 10 ).
Similarly, the EPA’s Mercury Maps project exam ined the MCM model and the IEM-2M watershed model, and found they both predict proportiona lity between atmospheric deposition and fish contamination (USEPA 2001d). The following approach follows the Mercury Maps discussion on the proportionality between change in at mospheric deposition and change in fish tissue concentration. The Mercury Maps report describes the relationship as 

# ( ) ( ) 1, 1, 2, 2,

1, 2,

tother tair tother tair

tfish tfish 

### LL LL C C

+ +

= (1)

MN Statewide Mercury TMDL 27MAR07_final.doc 23where, C fish,t1 and C fish,t2 are the mercury concentrations in fish at times 1 and 2, which could be the baseline and target concentrations; L air,t1 and L air,t2 are the air deposition Hg loads to a waterbody, including direct deposition and indirect deposition via the watershed; and L other is loading from other sources. There are no known significant natural geol ogic sources of mercury in the state. For this mercury TMDL, the only other sources considered are wastewater discharges (NPDES permitted discharges). The wastewater sources are insi gnificant compared to air sources (See Section 6.3 ) and, therefore, drop out of the simplified equation.



### 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9

1

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 Fraction of Current Mercury Deposition (L air,t2 

### /L air,t1 

### )Fraction of Current Fish Mercury Conc.(Cfish,t2/Cfish,t1) 

### E-MCM Predicted Proportional Response

Figure 10 Proportionality between atmospheric mercury deposition and mercury concentrations as predicted by the E-MCM model for largemouth bass in the Everglades Atmospheric loading is the product of area and air de position; total area can be split into water area and land area to distinguish direct atmospheric loading from indirect watershed loading. To account for mercury that is buried in the soil or volatilized to the atmosphere, the watershed loading can be discounted by a runoff coefficient, which remains constant for a given region as long as there are no significant changes in land cover/use. This was tested by comparing land cover changes between 1982 and 1997 (http://www.mn.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/nri/ta bles/lcu_change.htm), applying standard runoff coefficients to each of the general land cover types. Although there were obvious increases in urban land use, the effect of the change was not significant to the composite runoff coefficient for the state: composite runoff coefficients were 0.289 for 1982 and 0.287 for 1997.
The air deposition mercury loading can be described as

(2) 

## ( W Ly air 

### ArADL +⋅⋅= 

## )

where D y is the annual air deposition flux of mercury (g km -2 y -1 ); r is the runoff coefficient (also known as the delivery ratio); A L and A W are the areas of land and water (km 2 ). Assuming areas and r for each region do not change from t 1 to t 2 , Substituting this definition of L air into equation 1, areas will not change from t 1 to t 2 and, therefore areas drop out of the equation. In addition, we can include a bioavailability factor to account for the fraction of divalent mercury (Hg 2+ ) converted to methylmercury (MeHg). Combining Equations 1 and 2, as well as, including the bioavailability factor, the relationship becomes

MN Statewide Mercury TMDL 27MAR07_final.doc 241 2

1 2

1, 2,

1, 2,

t t

t t

ty ty

tfish tfish 

### b b

r r D D C C

⋅⋅= (3)

where b is the bioavailability factor. An operational definition for b is the MeHg fraction of total Hg, because MeHg is the form of mercury that bioaccu mulates; however, it could also include labile Hg 2+ that is readily converted to MeHg. Bioavailability is influenced by a variety of factors that control methylation and MeHg mobility, such as wetland density, sulfate deposition, and dissolved organic carbon production.
For the estimate of the TMDL for mercury, we are assuming r and b do not change over time; therefore, their t2/t1 ratios are equal to one, they can drop out of the equation, and Equation 3 simplifies to

1, 2,

1, 2,

ty ty

tfish tfish 

### D D C C

= (4)

We can rearrange Equation 4 to solve for a target atmospheric deposition (D y ), substituting the baseline and target values for the t 1 and t 2 values, respectively:

baseliney baseline fish ettfish etty 

### D C C D

,

, arg, arg, 

### ⋅ = (5)

To calculate a target atmospheric mercury lo ad, we are not concerned with the values of r and b because we assumed they do not change over time; however, it is plausible that r and b could change. We can consider what affect changing these coefficients will have on achieving the target fish tissue concentration. The combined effect of r and b determines how much Hg is available for uptake by the aquatic food chain. We expect r to be greater in the SW region than in the NE region and the converse for b . In other words, in the SW waters, such as the Mi nnesota River, we expect a high transport rate of Hg off the watershed, but a small fraction of that runo ff Hg is bioavailable; whereas, in the NE, we expect a low transport rate, but a high fraction of bioavailable Hg.
Neither proportionality, nor any other model, is able to deal accura tely with short-term perturbations in equilibrium, such as accelerated erosion of soil that contains mercury from past atmospheric deposition. It is not clear, for instance, whether the mercury asso ciated with eroded soil is just as likely to become methylated as other sources of mercury. New researc h suggests that more recently deposited mercury is more bioavailable (Hintelman et al. 2002). Nevertheless, intentional reduction of r through watershed best management practices could contribute to load reductions. This is reasonable for the SW region, where we have evidence of Hg associat ed with suspended solids, but not the NE region, where Hg is more often associated with dissolved solid s (i.e., dissolved organic matter). On the other hand, fish mercury concentrations in the NE region could be reduced by reducing b via reduced air deposition of sulfate, which can reduce methylation rates by reducing the ac tivity of sulfate reducing bacteria (See Section 5.4 ). Reducing sulfate deposition is not likel y to have an effect in the SW region because sulfate concentrations are relatively very high and wetland acreage has si gnificantly decreased over the last 100 years.
Although there is little research on the interaction of r and b , it is likely that in SW Minnesota, r and b are not entirely independent of each other. For example, when r is high, soil erosion delivers suspended solids and phosphorus, as well as mercury, to the surface water. These materials probably reduce bioavailability ( b ) of Hg. The suspended solids sorb divalent mercury, perhaps reducing interaction with methylating bacteria. Greater phosphorus increases the biomass of all levels of the food chain, decreasing the concentration of methylmercury in fish (i.e., biodilution).

MN Statewide Mercury TMDL 27MAR07_final.doc 25We can also consider a change in the loading fro m the “other” sources. Point sources are treated as insignificant in the loading calculations, but they could be included in the equation for the sake of discussing potential reductions in point source loads. Point source loads are the product of discharge flow and mercury concentration. It is likely that the av erage mercury concentrations in many wastewaters will be reduced in the future through changes in dental practices and improved wastewater treatment methods, such as “Bio-P” and “Chem-P,” which reduce mercury co ncentrations in the effluent by reducing solids (G. Kimball, MPCA; personal communication).


## 5.3 Trends in Mercury Em issions and Deposition

5.3.1 Trends in Use and Emission of Mercury While some of the mercury used in products is recycl ed and reused, some is released into the environment when it is spilled or when it is disposed of in a dr ain or garbage. Historically, many intentional uses presumed mercury dissipated into the environment and was not harmful (e.g,. fungicides: seed coatings, golf course treatments, latex paint preservatives). As understanding about the bioaccumulation of mercury in the aquatic food chain grew , these uses of mercury were banned.
Mercury use peaked in the 1960s in the United States at more than 2,000 metric tons per year and by 1990 declined significantly to about 600 metric tons ( Figure 11 A; Engstrom and Swain 1997). Worldwide consumption followed this same pa ttern ((Hylander and Meili 2003). U. S. industrial consumption of mercury has consistently been about 25% of globa l production of mercury (Engstrom and Swain 1997). As noted above, only a portion of the mercury consum ed in manufacturing and products is emitted to the atmosphere. However, mining and the use of mercury was historically conducted on such a massive scale that if only 10 to 15% of this mercury were emitte d, it would easily exceed mercury emissions from other sources. In Figure 11 A one can see that the mercury used as f ungicides in agriculture, paper, and paint totaled about 400 metric tons in 1970, and presumabl y all volatilized to the atmosphere within a few years. Compare that total to the mercury content of coal ( Figure 11 B), which approaches 80 metric tons in the 1990s, of which about 50 tons were emitted (USEPA 1997). Given the significant decline in mercury use, one would expect mercury emissions to have declined significantly in recent years.
Future mercury emissions from manufacturing and fuel combustion are expected to decline worldwide. Pirrone et al. (1996) concluded that on a global basis, total anthropogenic emissions of mercury peaked in 1989 at about 2,290 metric tons, and have been decrea sing at the rate of about 1.3% per year. Use of mercury in manufacturing and products will continue to decline world wide, resulting in lower emissions. Mercury emissions associated with coal combustion are also expected to eventually decline worldwide; however, growth in Asia may significantly delay the expected reductions.
A historical reconstruction of emissions in the United States from 1930 to 2000 ( Figure 12 ; Pollman and Porcella 2002) shows a significant decline in total me rcury emissions since about 1980, accelerating after 1990 because of the elimination of mercury from late x paint. The pattern was also seen in mercury emissions from 1870 to 2000 in Maritime Canada (S underland and Chmura 2000). Therefore, the amounts of mercury used and released in Minnesota, the United States and the rest of the world have undoubtedly been cut dramatically over the past few decades.

MN Statewide Mercury TMDL 27MAR07_final.doc 26

### Total Utility 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 Othe r
Control Instruments Electrical Appara tus
Pha rma ce uticals
Dental
Chlor-Alka li
Paint Agriculture/Paper

0

0 20 40 60 80

0 200 400 600 800

1900 1920 1940 1960 1980 2000 YEAR Industrial Mercury Consumption (metric tons)

Coal Combustion

(millions of metric tons) Mercury In Coal ( metric tons) A

B

Figure 11 Mercury Consumption in the United States

Figure 12 United States Mercury Emissions by Category

Annual mercury releases, as of 2000, in Minnesota ar e about one-third what they were in 1990 (See MPCA 2005). Current MPCA estimates indicate that statewide releases in 2000 were about 1,650 kg (3,638 lb), 68% below estimated 1990 levels ( Figure 13 ). Nearly all reductions since 1990 are because of product-related uses: restricting the intentional use of mercury in products such as paint and batteries, improved management and substitution of mercury-containing products (thermostats, fluorescent lamps, etc.), reduction in uncontrolled incineration, and em ission controls on waste-combustion facilities.

MN Statewide Mercury TMDL 27MAR07_final.doc 27724 756 759 679 8,881

1,738 1,045 671

1,667 1,779 1,834 1,825

0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000

1990 1995 2000 2005 (projected) YearMercury (pounds) Product Use & Disposal Other (mostly taconite production) Energy (mostly coal and oil)

68% Reduction from 1990

70% Reduction from 1990

Figure 13 Minnesota Statewide Mercury Emissions Trend by Source

Given existing trends in decreased use of mercury in products, increases in mercury-product recycling and controls on sewage-sludge incinerators, the MPCA expects emissions to continue to decline, falling below 70% of 1990 levels by 2005. Taconite data shows an increase of 4.8% from 1990 to 2000, and energy production shows an increase of 10.0% over that time period. Because of an 88% decrease in mercury emissions from Product Use and Disposal, a mu ch bigger category, there was an overall decrease of 68% in Minnesota Hg emissions from 1990 to 2000. Because of this large overall decrease, and because both of these sectors mostly emit elemental me rcury (about 90% elemen tal), we do not expect any noticeable effect of these mod est increases on local deposition or mercury concentrations in fish. These increased emissions are calculated into the st ate’s overall trend since 1990, and do not affect the establishment of the 1990 baseline. This informati on will, however, be a key component of subsequent implementation planning.
Anthropogenic emissions in the U.S. have decr eased 45% between 1990 and 1999, according to the USEPA ( Figure 14 ). This mercury emissions summary does not include area sources, such as latex paint and fungicides, which are included in the Minneso ta Mercury Emissions Inventory (MPCA 2005). Before the USEPA banned the use of mercury in inte rior paint in 1990 and exterior paint in 1991, the paint sector was using 150-350 tonnes per year. Mercur y was estimated to volatilize from paint at the rate of 75% per year (Barr Engineering 2001). In 1989, 211 tonnes (465,170 pounds) of mercury were used by the U.S. paint industry. Thus, if emissions fro m paint were included in the U.S. emissions summary, the 1990 emissions estimate would be much larger a nd the decline in mercury emissions would be much larger than the 45% decline show in Figure 14 (USEPA 2004).

MN Statewide Mercury TMDL 27MAR07_final.doc 280 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000 350,000 400,000 450,000 500,000

1990 1996 1999 YearMercury (pounds) Other

Institutional Boilers

Gold Mines

Chlorine Production

Hazardous Waste Incineration

Medical Waste Incinerators
Municipal WasteCombustors
Utility Coal Boilers

Source: Fish Advisories Briefing FINAL 082404v1.ppt; EPA 1990, 1996 NTI and EPA 1999 NEI. Short tons per year. Adjusted for gold mines in 1990 and 1996.

Figure 14 USEPA's anthropogenic mercury emissions in U.S.



### 5.3.2 Trends in Atmospheric Deposition of Mercury A number of lines of evidence support the conclusion that atmospheric mercury has declined because of decreased mercury use and emissions. An analysis of air concentrations from around the world since the 1970s shows significant decreases of about 20% since about 1990 (Slemr et al . 2003).

Lichens and mosses have been used to monitor atmospheric mercury con centrations. Utilizing lichens in a national park in North Dakota as a natural collect or of atmospherically de posited metals, Bennett and Wetmore (2000) found that mercury concentrations decreased by about 30% fro m 1983 to 1998. Based on nationwide surveys of moss as a collector of atmospheric deposition of metals, Steinnes et al. (2003) showed that mercury concentrations in 2000 we re 30% lower than they had been in 1985.
Evidence of declines from contemporaneous measur ement of mercury in precipitation is more problematical because mercury deposition is highly dependent on the quantity of precipitation, which varies significantly from year to year. The statistical effect of precipitation variability should become less once a few decades of data are collected. Unfortuna tely, a permanent, long-term national monitoring program — the Mercury Deposition Network ( http://nadp.sws.uiuc.edu/mdn/ ) — was not begun until 1995. In a monitoring program funded by the State of Minnesota, Glass and Sorensen (1999) saw slight increases in mercury deposition in the Upper Midw est from 1990 to1995. Between 1994 and 1999, with a different monitoring program, Watras et al . (2000) reported a 40% decrease in mercury deposition in northern Wisconsin.
The initial evidence that mercury deposition rates had decreased over the p ast few decades came from sediment cores from a number of lakes in Minnesota (Engstrom and Swain 1997), although there was not yet evidence for global declines. Sediment core studies from lakes in Minnesota and elsewhere show slight declines in atmospheric deposition relative to a peak in the 1970s and 1980s. There is some evidence that concentrations of mercury in fish have also declined, but not to the point of eliminating

MN Statewide Mercury TMDL 27MAR07_final.doc 29concerns about fish consumption (see Section 5.6 ). But, it is encouraging th at efforts to reduce the use and release of mercury appear to have resulte d in measurable environmental improvement.

e Mercury TMDL 27MAR07_final.doc 30 2002).

Figure 15 Mercury Accumulation Record in the Fremont Glacier, Wyoming



## 5.4 Interaction Between Sulfate Deposit ion and Mercury Methylation Further evidence for declines in mi dcontinental North America comes from the analysis of an ice core from the Fremont Glacier in the Wind River Range, Wyoming ( Figure 15 ; Schuster et al. 2002). From this historical trend reconstruction, one can see th e approximate magnitude of the pre-industrial (or natural) background level of mercury cycling through the environment, and spikes in mercury caused by events such as volcanoes. The ice core record shows a distinct d ecline since the 1980s. Evidence of declines in atmospheric deposition of mercury in New England has been found from bog cores in Maine (Norton et al. 1997) and multiple lake cores in Vermont and New Hampshire (Kamman and Engstrom

Mer cury contamination of fish is expected to be pr oportional to atmospheric deposition of mercury if the proportion of mercury that is methylated is consta nt. However, it is likely that the proportion has increased, relative to natural levels, because of other anthropogenic changes. Sulfate-reducing bacteria (SRB) have been shown to be responsible for most of the transformation of deposited mercury into methylmercury. Atmospheric deposition of sulfate is thought to have stimulated the activity of SRB in geographic areas that are naturally sulfate-poor and, therefore, have increased the proportion of mercury that is methylated (Gilmour and Henry 1991, Gilmour et al. 1992, Branfireun et al. 1999, Jeremiason et al. 2003, Jeremiason et al. 2006).

MN StatewidTherefore, it is possible that decreases in sulfate deposition as a result of the Clean Air Act of 1990 may decrease the efficiency of mercury methylation. A ccordingly, we would expect two synergistic forces working to decrease mercury concentrations in fish : (1) decreased mercury deposition and (2) decreased

y in fish fro m Little Rock Lake (in northern Wisconsin) decreased by roughly 30% between 1994 and 2000 because of decreased atmospheric ad ing from

WWTPs) that discharge to Minnesota’s Ps di scharge to receiving waters covered under this gion and 67 in the NE region (Appendix B). Most of the

-fired

e

be added to the waste stream and a conservatively estimated 1% is from drinking water. USEPA (2001d) reported th e Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies sis

y

stormwater source water is precipitation runoff. As such, the relative percenta ges of background source and direct anthropogenic

rict

ee if ate a significant direct anthropogenic source in urban areas that is not seen in rural areas. Measurements of mercury concentrations in runoff

002 activity of the sulfate-reducing bacteria that methylat e mercury. This synergism is a margin of safety because it is not factored in to the TMDL calculations
As noted above, northern Wisconsin has seen a 40% d ecrease in mercury deposition. In a more recent study, Hrabik and Watras (2002) co ncluded that mercur
mercury deposition, and 5% because of decreased atmo spheric sulfate deposition (30% in a basin that h been isolated and acidified as an experiment). An ongoing study in northern Minnesota includes add sulfate to a wetland and the response has been incr eased methylmercury concentrations and export the wetland (Jeremiason et al . 2003, Jeremiason et al. 2006).


## 5.5 Point Sources to Water There are 580 NPDES permitted wastewater treatment plants (

mer cury impaired waters; 270 of those WWT statewide mercury TMDL: 203 in the SW re dischargers are publicly owned treatment works (POT Ws). In addition, the following facilities were included in the point source mercury load estimates: NE region has one electricity-generating coal power plant, four pulp & paper mills, and seven taconite processing facilities; the SW region has two electricity-generating coal-fired power plants a nd one petroleum refinery. Other major NPDES discharges are cooling water, which do not contain adde d mercury and were, therefore, not included in th point source mercury load estimates.
Wastewater is comprised of source water and anth ropogenic wastewater inputs. Essentially all the mercury (99%) in WWTPs is assumed to
(AMSA) had done a study of 24 POTWs in six states, using clean techniques for sampling and analy that reported a median mercury concentration of 5. 0 ng/L in POTW effluents. MPCA has requested similar monitoring from 37 NPDES facilities (POTWs and industrial) in Minnesota; the central tendenc of mercury concentrations in effluent has been in th e range of 4 to 6 ng/L; therefore, 5 ng/L was used as the typical mercury concentration for NPDES facilities in Minnesota.
Stormwater is considered wastewater as well, and is comprised of source wa ter (atmospheric deposition) and direct anthropogenic inputs (wastewater). Un like other wastewater,
sources are approximately opposite the WWTP influe nt proportions and essentially all mercury in stormwater is attributed to source water (See Section 6.2 ). The Western Lake Superior Sanitary Dist has been doing detailed evaluations of mercury in fluents for a decade and stormwater has not been identified as a mercury source to the POTW (WLSSD 1997).
The MPCA compared mercury concentrations in ru noff from cultivated land and urban land use to s the latter had higher mercury concentrations, which would indic
from agricultural field snowmelt and urban stormwater runoff are very limited. In 1996 and 1997, two studies measured snowmelt runoff from agriculture fields (Balogh et al. 2000; Sloan et al. 2001). In 2 and 2003, the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Boar d (MPRB) conducted a pilot study of mercury in stormwater at two locations (one residential and one industrial) for the Minneapolis-St. Paul NPDES Municipal Stormwater Permit. Mercury and total su spended solids grab samples were collected at the two sites during storm events. The median mercury concentration for agricultu re runoff was 19.1 ng/L and the median for the urban runoff (i.e., stormwater) was 21.7 ng/L. Consid ering that the measured agriculture runoff was only snowmelt, whereas the ur ban runoff data included storms throughout the

MN Statewide Mercury TMDL 27MAR07_final.doc 31summer, more overlap in agriculture and urban me rcury concentrations would be expected if the agriculture runoff included runo ff from summer storm events. These results indicate there is no significant difference between agricultural and urban st ormwater runoff; therefore, the additional merc contribution to stormwater from sources other than atmospheric deposition is essentially zero. In words, wet and dry deposition account for all of the mercury observed in stormwater and there ar significant direct anthropogenic sources of mercury added to the stormwater.
MPCA also has data for mercury concentrations in taconite processing facilities effluents. Based on th state’s NPDES discharge monitoring database, a typical mercury concentration ury other

e no

e for effluent from these facilities is 1.5 ng/L. USEPA (2001d) reported average mercury concentrations in effluent from pulp &

ed e discharge on the immediate receiving water. Although theoretically an issue in Minnesota, ther e is no documented case of locally elevated fish



## 5.6 Environmental Trends

l Minnesota surface waters sition of of

ional and

n l

ve cales (i.e., local, regio evidence includes changes in the mercury concentrations in sediment, ice co ion 5.1 ).

d and elsewhere. Sulfate deposition can stimulate the activity of sulfate-reduc ing bacteria (SRB), which are responsible for the paper mills of 13 ng/L; therefore, this value was used in mercury loading estimates in 1990 because insufficient information for Minnesota mills. Recent monitoring from Bois e Cascade had average mercury concentrations of 1.6 ng/L and data coll ected from Wisconsin paper mills showed an average effluent mercury concentration of 2 ng/L (Mugan 2005).
The mercury contribution from a point source may be in significant on a state, regional, or even watersh scale, but there would remain the issue of the impact of th
contamination because of a point-source water dischar ge. Minnesota is building a database of mercury concentrations in wastewater effluent by relying on the wastewater treatment plant operators to routinely collect samples for mercury using clean techniques and low-level mercury analysis.



### 5.6 .1 Summary of Scientific Information Mercury contamination of fish in almost al will u ltimately reach a steady state with atmospheric depo mercury. Therefore, changes in anthropogenic emissions atmospheric mercury that are deposited in Minnesota control changes in fish concentration. Sources of atmospheric mercury deposition to Minnesota include natural (about 30% of total) and local, reg global anthropogenic sources (totaling the remaining 70%). To the extent that emissions from these three geographic categories are reduced, fish contamination in Minnesota will also be reduced, although, (a) reductions in sources farther from Minnesota will have correspondingly less benefit and (b) lag times of unknown duratio will occur because of delayed release of mercury from terrestria systems and release from contaminated sediments.
According to emission-inventory re ports, emissions of mercury ha been significantly reduced on all three geographic s Ed Swain adjusting experimental sulfate addition to a wetland

nal, and global). Supporting res, moss and lichens, and changes in air concentrations from remote areas of the globe (See Sect
In addition, reduced sulfate deposition because of mandate d controls sulfur dioxide emissions is expecte to magnify the benefit of reduced mercury deposition in many lakes in Minnesota
transformation of mercury into methylmercury, th e form that bioaccumulates in fish (See Section 5.4 ).

MN Statewide Mercury TMDL 27MAR07_final.doc 32

### 5.6.2 Predicting Response Time The Everglades ecosystem differs significantly from aquatic systems in Minnesota, but the principle of proportionality between atmospheric mercury deposition a nd fish mercury concentrations is expected to hold in any ecosystem that does not have local geological sources. In the Everglades, the E-MCM model predicted slow recovery after reductions in atmo spheric deposition because macrophyte roots mobilized historically deposited mercury from sediment as deep as 48 cm. Atkeson et al . (2002) found that even after 200 years of model simulation, deep sediment laye rs had not fully adjusted to changes in mercury loadings in the system, and continued to supply Hg(II) and methylmercury to the overlying system. After running simulations for 200 years with current lo ads to approximate steady state, they reduced atmospheric deposition as a step function and continue d the simulation for an additional 200 years. Modeling results indicated the time required to achieve 50% of the ultimate response is approximately 10 years ( Figure 15 ; Atkeson et al. 2002); 90% of the ultimate response is projected to occur within 30 years. Projections would, of course, vary for other ecosyst ems, but this modeling exercise does give an idea of the response time following reductions in atmospheric mercury deposition.

Figure 16 Predicted Dynamic Responses of Fish Tissue Mercury Concentrations Following Reductions in Mercury Deposition



### 5.6.3 Trends in Fish Contamination Declines in mercury emission and deposition should re sult in reduced mercury concentrations in fish. There is evidence of lowered fish contamination levels from Minnesota, Wisconsin (Hrabik and Watras 2002) and Florida (Atkeson et al. 2002). Mercury in fish is difficult to monitor and communicate as a uniform measurement because concentrations vary by species and size. Nevertheless, it is possible to monitor temporal trends in fish contamination by monitoring a single fish species, and, within that species, normalizing to a standard length. For exam ple, in Little Rock Lake, Wisconsin, Hrabik and Watras (2002) documented that mercury in fish decreased by roughly 30% between 1994 and 2000, mostly because of decreased atmospheric mercury deposition and partly because of decreased sulfate deposition. There is also evidence that mercury con centrations in largemouth bass in the Everglades have declined in response to lower mercury deposition (Atkeson, pers. com.).

MN Statewide Mercury TMDL 27MAR07_final.doc 33In Minnesota, spatial and temporal trends in fish me rcury concentrations have been examined using the fish tissue concentration in standard size northern pike and walleye. Results discussed in Section 4.3 demonstrated significantly higher mercury concentrations in northern pike and walleye in the NE region compared to the SW region. Lakes in the NE region tend to have lower pH, lower conductivity and higher color (i.e., dissolved organic carbon).
Another approach to looking at temporal trends in standardized fish tissue mercury concentrations has been on an individual lake basis. Changes over time in fish mercury concentrations within lakes were evaluated by comparing a recent sample year to an ear lier year, which were at least five years apart. Recent sample years were 1995 or later and at least th ree fish (or composites) were analyzed each year. Of the 176 lakes meeting these criteria, 87 lakes (49%) showed a decrease in mercury concentrations, 45 lakes (26%) had increased fish-Hg, and 44 lakes di d not show a significant difference between years ( Figure 17 ). A Chi-square statistical test shows that significantly more lakes declined in fish contamination than increased (p<0.01).

87

44 45

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Decreased Increased No Change# of Lakes Lake Selection Criteria : 1. Last collection 1995 or later 2. At least 5 years between collections 3. More than 2 samples per lake each year 4. Hg vs. fish length regression slope >0

Figure 17 Comparison Between Recent and Historical Fish Mercury Levels in 176 lakes (Northern Pike and Walleye; Standard Lengths)

Selecting only the lakes with an historical collection around 1990 and a recent collection around 2000, the average change in fish mercury concentration was -11%; in other words, during the decade of the 1990s, there was a general decline in fish mercury concentrati ons of slightly more than one percent per year. Although it is not possible to relate the 68% reduction in state mercury emissions to this reduction in fish mercury levels during the same period because of th e unknown response time, it does indicate there have been noticeable reductions in fish mercury levels that correspond with reductions in mercury emissions and deposition. The MPCA has a goal to continue th at trend through the next decade (i.e., 10% reduction in fish tissue Hg concentration by 2010 compared to 2000).

MN Statewide Mercury TMDL 27MAR07_final.doc 34

## 6 TMDL Development

6.1 TMDL Formulation The TMDL formulation used for these regional mercury TMDLs is similar to the approach used in the EPA-approved TMDL for the Ouachita River Basin, Arkansas (FTN 2002, FTN 2003). The Ouachita TMDL for lakes (FTN 2003) has a section, “TMDL Formulation,” in which they define TMDL= (EL/RF) x SF, where EL is total existing load, RF is reduction f actor, and SF is site specific factor. The Minnesota Mercury TMDL, Equation 6, uses the concept of total existing load (we call it “total source load”) and reduction factor to define the needed TMDL. SF is not used in Equation 6, but the concept of a variable for site-specific factors was used previously (Section 5.2 ) with the introduction of runoff coefficient (“r”) and bioavailability factor (“b”). As discussed prev iously, these factors cancel out of the equation that shows the change in fish tissue mercury is propor tional to the change in deposition is proportion.
Annual loads are more appropriate than daily loads for mercury because the concern in this TMDL study is the long term accumulation of mercury rather than th e short term acute toxicity events. The three-step process to determine the TMDL is (1) estimate existing load for point and nonpoint sources; (2) define the target loads; and (3) calculate load reduction factors necessary to achieve target values. The total source load and reduction factor are then combined to give the total maximum daily lo ad in units of mass per time.


### ⎟ ⎠ ⎞ ⎜ ⎝ ⎛

−⋅= 100 1 RF TSL TMDL (6)

where, TMDL is total maximum daily load as an annual load (kg/yr); TSL is total source load during the baseline year; RF is the reduction factor, as a percen tage. RF is based on the reductions needed to achieve target fish mercury concentrations (see Section 4.4 ). The RF accounts for differences in mercury transport and bioavailability of the estim ated load for each region (see Section 5.2 ). Ultimately, the TMDL is presented in the basic equation form.
(7) 

### MOSLAWLA TMDL ++=
where, WLA is Wasteload Allocation (wastewater & stormwater sources), LA is Load Allocation (nonpoint sources), and MOS is Margin of Safety. Each of these TMDL components is discussed below.


## 6.2 Baseline Mercury Load for 1990 Total Source Load (TSL) of mercury, in kg/yr, is simply the sum of point source and nonpoint source loadings.
(8) 

### NPSL PSLTSL +=
where PSL is point source load and NPSL is nonpoint source load. PSL is estimated for each region based on the facilities total design flow and th e average effluent mercury concentration.

avgi 

### CQPSL ⋅=



# ∑ (9)

where Q i is the design flow for each permitted facility and C avg is the estimated average mercury concentration in effluent ( Table 7 ). Wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) were separated into the two regions and their design flows were summed for e ach region for the wasteload calculations. A state average mercury concentration for wastewater effluent was used in the wastel oad calculation, because the wastewater effluent was not considered different between regions. The design flow is a conservative assumption of WWTP mercury load because actual discharges are approximately 70% of design flows

MN Statewide Mercury TMDL 27MAR07_final.doc 35and very few WWTPs achieve their design flow. Th e current discharge information was used for the wastewater treatment plant design flow. Actual wastewater discharge has undoubtedly increased since 1990, with increasing population; howev er, the design flow is not considered an excessive overestimate because the number of wastewater treatment plants has not changed significantly since 1990 (see Section 5.5 ). A drinking water correction factor was applied to the point source load calculation to account for the one percent of influent to a wastewater treatment system that consists of drinking water. This one percent is not given as a credit because the 1990 tota l point source load was only 1.2% of the total mercury load.
Table 7 Mercury Load Inputs and Estimates for 1990
SW NE (a) WATER Metro WWTP Other WWTPs Total WLSSD WWTP Other WWTPs Taconite Pulp & Paper Total

No. Point Sources 1 515 516 1 98 19 [3] 4 122 Mean Effluent Mercury Conc. (ng/L) 11 5 355 5 1.5 13 Sum of Design Flows (mgd) 251 455 706 49 46 169 82 346 PS Mercury Load (kg/yr) [1][2] 3.8 3.2 7.0 23.7 0.7 0.3 1.5 26.2

(b) ATMOSPHERE SW NE Atmospheric Deposition (g km -2 yr -1 ) 12.5 12.5 Region Area (km 2 ) 129,674 90,151 NPS Mercury Load (kg/yr) 1,621 1,127

(c) SUMMARY (kg/yr) SW NE Point Source Load (PSL) 7.0 26.2 Nonpoint Source Load (NPSL) 1,621 1,127 Total Source Load (TSL) 1,628 1,153 [1] Effluent - drinking water correction factor is 0.99 [2] Anthropogenic sources to stormwater are included but the load is zero. Stormwater from precipitation is accounted for in the nonpoint source load. [3] Seven taconite facilities each have 2-3 NPDES permi ts; 15 of the 19 facilities have design flows greater than 0.05 mgd.

Stormwater, if addressed in a TMDL, is usually includ ed with the point source load and included in the wasteload allocation (see Section 5.5 ). Because the source of most mercury to stormwater is atmospheric deposition—the same as for nonpoint source loads—th e atmospheric deposition source of mercury to stormwater is accounted for in the nonpoint source load calculation. The contribution of mercury from other sources to stormwater is accounted for in the wasteload calculation and is estimated to be insignificant (i.e., estimated as zero).
The only significant nonpoint source load (NPSL) is from atmospheric deposition:

(10) ry 

### SADNPSL ⋅=

MN Statewide Mercury TMDL 27MAR07_final.doc 36where D y is atmospheric deposition (g km -2 yr -1 ) and SA r is regional surface area. The atmospheric mercury deposition for 1990 was 12.5 g km -2 yr -1 . The SW region covers 59% of the approximately 220,000 km 2 in Minnesota.
Based on these calculations of point source and nonpoint source mercury loads, the 1990 TSL was 1628 kg/yr for the SW region and 1153 kg/yr for the NE re gion. PSL was 0.4% of the SW region baseline load and 2.2% of the NE region baseline load. Combined , the water point sources contributed 1.2% of the baseline mercury load to the state’s waters in 1990.


## 6.3 Wasteload Allocations (WLA) The calculated allowable load (TMDL) of mercury that will not cause an exceedance of the applicable water quality standard is the sum of the load allocation (atmospheric deposition) and wasteload allocations (NPDES sources); therefore, the total allowable load must be apportioned between the atmospheric and wastewater point source loads. For both regions combined, the PSL was 1.2% of the total source mercury load. Clearly, all significant decreases in mercury loading will come from reductions in atmospheric deposition (i .e., load allocation). Therefore, the WLA is set at one percent of the TMDL or the 1990 PSL, whichever is lower. The resulting WLA is 4 kg/yr for the NE region and 7 kg/yr for the SW region. Assigning one percent to the WLA is equivalent to the cutoff USEPA’s Mercury Maps model used to screen watersheds fo r significant point source impact (USEPA 2001d).
The WLA is by region and is not specific to each s ource, thereby providing a cap for the region that includes reserve capacity. Rather than assign an a llocation to each source based on their current design capacity, continued mercury reduction will be enc ouraged through mercury minimization plans and enhanced phosphorus removal. EPA has determined, as a matter of policy, that NPDES point sources known to discharge mercury at levels above the am ount present in the source water should reduce their loadings of mercury using appropriate, cost-effective, mercury minimization measures to ensure that the total aggregate point source mercury discharges are at a level equal to or less than the WLA specified in this TMDL. The reserve capacity in the WLA allows for permitting of additional wastewater discharges, but does not preclude the requirement of mercury minimization plans.
There are no known local hotspots. The MPCA looked at possible impacts from large water and air sources and did not see local impacts in elevated fish mercury concentrations compared to the background regional levels. The concern for local impacts fro m wastewater discharges are primarily where they discharge to effluent dominated streams (i.e., the d ilution ratio is less than 10:1). In those cases, the NPDES permit requires stringent controls for solids a nd BOD removal. In the most restrictive cases the CBOD-5 limit is 5 mg/L. These restrictive effluent limits to protect receiving waters have the added benefit of low mercury concentrations in the efflue nt because most of the mercury is associated with solids. The MPCA has mercury data on two POTWs that have CBOD-5 limits of 5 mg/L. The mercury concentrations from these facilities are the two lowest values in a dataset of 30 POTWs: 0.90 ng/L and 1.30 ng/L.
There is an increasing use of the “Bio-P” process to meet 1 mg/L phosphorus effluent limits in Minnesota; at least 25 Minnesota facilities will be using it within their current permit cycle. This process greatly reduces solids and in so doing reduces mercury discharge. The MPCA has mercury concentrations from three facilities currently using Bio- P; the average mercury concentrations at the three facilities are 2.56 ng/L, 3.26 ng/L, and 3.65 ng/L. Th e MPCA will propose for rulemaking in 2006 that new or expanding dischargers get the 1 mg/L limit fo r total phosphorus if they discharge more than 1800 lbs TP per year.
In keeping with the adaptive watershed management approach and as part of the TMDL implementation plan, the MPCA will continue to investigate potential local impacts of point sources in effluent dominated streams, and where warranted, look to additional permit limitations and then, if necessary, develop a sitespecific mercury TMDL.

MN Statewide Mercury TMDL 27MAR07_final.doc 37

## 6.4 Load Allocations (LA)
The total source load is the basis for the load allocation because all significant mercury load reductions are expected to come from atmospheric emission re ductions. The regional reduction factors of 51% for the SW and 65% for the NE, multiplied by the total source loads yield mercury reductions of 830 kg/yr and 749 kg/yr, respectively ( Table 8 ). Subtracting the load reduction goals from the baseline loads results in regional mercury load allocations of 79 8 kg/yr for the SW and 404 kg/yr for the NE. The needed reductions are similar for the two regions, bu t the mercury load allocation for the NE region is about one-half the SW region’s load allocation.
Table 8 Mercury Load Reductions for Each Region Region
SW NE Total Source Load (kg/yr) 1628 1153 Reduction Factor (see Table 5) 51% 65% Load Reduction Goal (kg/yr) 830 749 Mercury Load Allocation (kg/d) 2.18 1.10 Regional Area (km 2 ) 129,674 90,151 Mercury Deposition Goal (g km -2 yr -1 ) 6.1 4.4

Up to this point no assumptions are made about wher e the mercury reductions will come from, although it is clear from the estimate of total source load that th e reductions must come from atmospheric deposition. If we therefore assume all mercury reductions mu st come from atmospheric deposition, dividing the mercury loading goal by the regional areas giv es the areal mercury deposition goals of 4.4 g km -2 yr -1 for the NE region and 6.1 g km -2 yr -1 for the SW region.

4.4 

## NE

6.1 

## SW

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7

0 2.5 5 7.5 10 12.5 15
Atmos. H g Deposition (g k m -2 

### y r -1 

### )90th Percentile Fish Hg (mg/kg) 

### 1990

GOAL

Figure 18 Proportional relationship between mercury deposition and fish mercury concentration in the two TMDL regions

e Mercury TMDL 27MAR07_final.doc 38 MN StatewidThe reductions in fish mercury concentrations (90 th percentile) in proportion to atmospheric mercury deposition are illustrated for each region in Figure 18 . Atmospheric mercury deposition in 1990 was 12.5 g km -2 yr -1 for both the NE and SW regions; while the 90 th percentile mercury concentrations for standard size walleye were 0.572 mg/kg in the NE region and 0.405 mg/kg in the SW region. As discussed in Section 5.2 , mercury concentrations in the fish are exp ected to eventually decrease in proportion to the decrease in atmospheric mercury deposition. The lin es connecting the 1990 fish mercury concentrations to the graph’s origin represent the proportional decrease. The ultimate goal is to achieve 0.2 mg/kg fish mercury level in both the NE and SW, which requir es a 65% decrease in the NE and a 51% decrease in the SW. Assuming the mercury deposition continues to be uniform across the state, the NE will not meet its goal when the SW has met its goal; therefore, the lower mercury deposition goal of 4.4 g km -2 yr -1 becomes the necessary goal for the whole state.
As described in Section 5, atmospheric sources of mercury in Minnesota are categorized as 70% anthropogenic and 30% natural. Na tural sources cannot be controlled a nd are expected to remain at the same long term average; therefore, all mercury reductions must come from anthropogenic sources. Taking load reductions from anthropogenic sources re sults in a 93% reduction for the NE and 73% reduction for the SW ( Table 9 ). State sources are 10% of all me rcury deposition (0 .25 • 40% regional sources) and 14% of the anthropogeni c sources (10% ÷ 70% = 0.143).
Table 9 Mercury Load Allocation for In-State and Out-of-State Emissions TMDL Region
SW NE Load reduction from anthropogenic sources (RF ÷ 0.7) 73% 93%
State’s fraction of anthropogeni c sources (10% ÷ 70%) 0.143 0.143 In-State contribution to the TMDL Load Allocation (0.143 • LA) 0.31 kg/d (249 lb/y) 0.16 kg/d (126 lb/y) Out-of-State contribution to the TMDL Load Allocation [(1- 0.143) • LA] 1.86 kg/d (1,495 lb/y) 0.94 kg/d (756 lb/y)

Consequently, the in-state load allocations of the TMDL are 0.31 kg/d and 0.16 kg/d for the SW and NE regions. The remaining load reductions must come from outside the state and are, therefore, the out-of-state load allocations

. The state’s load reduction goals can be translated to emission reduction goals based on the 1990 baseline year emissions and deposition. Atmospheric deposition of mercury is considered uniform across the state, and emissions dispersion within the state overl aps the two regions; therefore, the greater regional reduction goal must be applied to a statewide emis sions goal to achieve the goal in the more sensitive region. 3 Total mercury emissions in Minnesota were estimated to be 5113 kg in 1990. A 65% reduction in total deposition translates to a 93% reduction of an thropogenic deposition. The state’s contribution to emissions must be reduced 93%, along with other an thropogenic sources to meet the 65% reduction in total deposition ( Table 10 ). The state’s emissions must be reduced from 11,272 lb (5113 kg) in 1990 to 789 lb (358 kg) as a final annual emissions goal ( Table 10 ).

3 This approach is consistent with th e accepted approach to environmental prot ection; for example, dissolved oxygen (DO) water quality standards are applied at a point in a r eceiving water where the DO c oncentration is lowest (the “DO Sag”) or to the early mo rning hours when DO is lowest within a diurnal cycle.

MN Statewide Mercury TMDL 27MAR07_final.doc 39Table 10 Minnesota’s Mercury TMDL Emissions Reduction Goal
Annual Statewide Mercury Emissions State mercury emissions fo r 1990 11,272 lb (5,113 kg) Mercury Emissions Reduction Goal (0.93 • 1990 emissions) 10,483 lb (4,755 kg) Mercury Emissions Goal (1990 Emissions – Reduction Goal) 789 lb (358 kg)
Emissions reduction as of 2005 (70% of 1990 emissions) 7,931 lb (3,597 kg)
Emissions reduction remaining as of 2005 to achieve goal 2,552 lb (1,158 kg) Percent of 1990 Emissions Reduction Goal remaining as of 2005 24%

Based on the mercury emissions inventory for 2005, 76% of this emissions reduction goal has been achieved; therefore, as of 2005, 24% of the reduction goal remains

.



## 6.5 Reserve Capacity Reserve capacity refers to load that is available for future growth when actual lo ads are less than the load allocation. There is no reserve capacity for nonpoint sources, because actual nonpoint source loads are far in excess of the Load Allocation. Reserve capacity is available for water point sources, because the actual mercury load is less than the Wasteload Allocation. The wasteload allocation for this mercury TMDL is set at one percent of the TMDL or equal to the 1990 point source load, whichever is lower. The one percent level is 4 kg for the NE region and 8 kg for the SW. The 1990 point source load in the SW was 7 kg; therefore, the wasteload allocation is set at 7 kg rather than 8 kg. One percent is considered a de minimus level, meaning mercury load at, or below, this le vel is insignificant. Therefore, any changes in load below the de minimus level are insignificant. The estimated mercury point source load in 2004 was about 7 kg for the state, resulting is a reserve capacity of about 4 kg. The mercury TMDL implementation plan will establish a procedure to account for the reserve capacity potentially available for new and expanded sources.



## 7 Margin of Safety A Margin of Safety (MOS) is required in the TMDL to account for uncertainty in the TMDL calculations. MOS can be either explicit (e.g., additional 10% load reduction), implicit in the calculations, or a mix of the two. In conventional TMDLs, uncertainty ari ses through the use of water quality models and Best Management Practice (BMP) choices. An implicit MOS can include using the most conservative parameters when there is a range from which to choose or using the most conservative effectiveness assumption when selecting BMPs. In this mercur y TMDL, uncertainty arises from the mercury movement through the environment, and, in par ticular, the conversion of inorganic mercury to methylmercury. Very important, but still poorly un derstood, are the sulfate-reducing bacteria, which methylate the mercury and are abundant in wetlands.
The greater abundance of wetlands in the NE region and the associated sulfate-reducing bacteria is thought to be one of the major reasons why fish me rcury concentrations are significantly higher than in the SW region. Research by the Agency and others are actively pursuing this important link between sulfate reduction and fish tissue methylmercury levels . Lowering sulfate load to wetlands could reduce

MN Statewide Mercury TMDL 27MAR07_final.doc 40the sulfate-reducing bacteria activity and thereby reduce the methylation of inorganic mercury. Consequently, the needed mercury load reduction would have to be less.
We know sources of atmospheric sulfate are actively being reduced through a variety of activities at the federal and state levels. We believe the reduction in fish mercury thr ough reductions in sulfate could be significant. The Agency believes the relationship between sulfate concentrations and methylmercury concentrations is adequately established, but not to the degree that we can determine an explicit MOS. Thus, for this initial phase of the TMDL, it will be the primary implicit MOS for the NE region.
The SW region has an explicit MOS, because the TM DL goal is a statewide 93% reduction in mercury emissions. This is protective of the NE region but over-protects for the SW region, which has only a 73% mercury emission reduction goal. Un iform deposition across the entire state is the reason for the more protective requirement in the SW region.



## 8 Seasonal Variation and Critical Conditions
Seasonal variations and “... critical conditions for stre am flow, loading, and water quality parameters” are discussed in 40 CFR 130.7(c)(1). Fish accumulate enough mercury over the years of their lifespan to become a health hazard to humans and wildlife. Me rcury deposition and water concentrations fluctuate based on seasonal rainfall patterns; however, seasonal vari ations are not significant to this TMDL because it is expressed as an average annual load. The mercury concentration in the fish represents an integration of all temporal variation up to the time of sa mple collection. Variability among fish because of differences in size, diet, habitat, and other undefined factors are expected to be greater in sum than seasonal variability.
Critical conditions, such as dawn period for low dissolv ed oxygen, are not relevant to mercury in fish because the fish tissue concentrations reflect integration over time of various factors. However, there are critical conditions in the sense of water bodies that are more sensitive to mercury loading because of their water chemistry. This aspect of critical conditi ons has been addressed in this TMDL by using the regional approach and acknowledging that the NE region is more sensitive to mercury loading than the SW region.



## 9 Final TMDL The conventional equation for a TMDL is as follows: TMDL = WLA + LA + MOS. As described above, the Margin of Safety (MOS) is implicit for the NE re gion and, therefore, not quantifiable. The MOS for the SW region was given in terms of the anthro pogenic emissions reduction goal (i.e., 93% reduction matching the NE, rather than 73%). If the MOS fo r the SW were interpreted as applying the NE Reduction Factor of 65%, instead of 51%, the LA for the SW is reduced from 2.16 kg/d to 1.55 kg/d, which leaves a MOS of 0.62 kg/d. The NE and SW regional TMDLs fit the TMDL equation as follows:
NE Region TMDL (1.10 kg/d) = WLA (0.01 kg/d) + LA (1.09 kg/d) + MOS (implicit) (11)
SW Region TMDL (2.18 kg/d) = WLA (0.02 kg/d) + LA (1.55 kg/d) + MOS (0.61 kg/d) (12)
The WLA is defined for these mercury TMDLs as one pe rcent of the TMDL to ensure that water point source mercury load remains de minimus

. As required by Federal law, this TMDL is not applicable to waters in Indian Country.

MN Statewide Mercury TMDL 27MAR07_final.doc 41

## 10 Monitoring & Research Plan Monitoring to detect environmental change to changing atmospheric mercury deposition will follow the recommendations of Mason et al. (2004). Monitoring options that are being considered include the following:

• Fish contaminant monitoring of previously sampled lakes and rivers (this is ongoing)

• Sentinel lakes: 4-5 lakes around each of the MDN sites in Minnesota; monitor air, water, & fish tissue (biopsy)

• Lake sediment cores and recalculation of mercury deposition for representative lakes

• NPDES upstream/downstream monitoring for traditional wasteload allocation studies

• Continued air monitoring for wet deposition; new m onitoring stations required for dry deposition and urban areas
The MPCA and its research partners in Minnesota ar e studying factors affecting mercury contamination of fish. Widely cited Minnesota research in the 1990s analyzed lake sediment cores to estimate historical mercury deposition and its sources. Current work is focused on understanding the local factors, such as land cover effects and food chain structure, which might explain the observed variability in mercury bioaccumulation among lakes. Another research project in the state is testing the effect of increased sulfate deposition on mercury methylation in a wetland (Jeremiason et al. 2003). The outcomes of these studies will help refine the implementation of the mercury TMDLs.



## 11 Projected Implementation

11.1 Background According to USEPA’s Guidance for Water Quality-based Decisions: The TMDL Process (EPA 440/4- 91-001), TMDL development activiti es consist of the following process – selection of the pollutant to consider, estimation of the waterbody’s assimilative capacity, estimation of the pollution from all sources to the waterbody, determination of total allowable load, and, finally, allocation (with a margin of safety) of pollution reductions such that water quality standa rds are met. This has been accomplished in the preceding sections.
Implementation planning is not a formal requirement of the TMDL process. This is very clear in Figure 2 on page 21 of the 1991 TMDL Guidance document noted above – detailed im plementation planning occurs after the TMDL plan is approved by USEPA . The Clean Water Act describes implementation planning in the section following TMDL requirements, Section 303(e). However, it is has long been recognized that the TMDL planning document shoul d contain at least the outline of the specific implementation planning needed to meet the pollution reduction goals set in the TMDL. This informs the public and aids in the discussion on reasonable assurance.
Once this TMDL pollution reduction plan is appr oved by USEPA, the reduction goals are legally enforceable to the extent that lega l authorities exist. This TMDL will not generate new legal authorities. Draft implementation planning is not legally enforceab le – they are approaches that the Agency believes are appropriate, but subject to change based on fu rther refinement as th e implementation planning becomes more developed.


## 11.2 General Approach
The best available information was used to establish this TMDL; nevertheless, uncertainty warrants an adaptive watershed management approach to impl ementation (Dilks and Freedman 2004). The TMDL

MN Statewide Mercury TMDL 27MAR07_final.doc 42implementation will incorporate the adaptive wate rshed management approach by establishing a monitoring plan, interim targets, and a timeline. Fu ture information and analys is may warrant revisions in the goals or the tools used to assess progress toward the goals.
An important component in developing a strategy to m eet water-quality standards is to consider the value and effectiveness of efforts already in place. As noted previously, from 1990 to the present Minnesota’s mercury emissions were reduced more than 70%. This section summarizes initiatives that the MPCA believes have already reduced fish contamination in Minnesota and will maintain a path of reduced fish contamination in the future. In addition to reducti ons from Minnesota sources, reductions in air emissions of mercury by national and international sources will be needed to meet Clean Water Act standards in Minnesota, because there is significant mercury deposition in Minnesota from these sources.
Reduced deposition of mercury is proj ected to have beneficial human-h ealth and environmental effects, which produce economic benefits. To estimate the total economic value of improvements in environmental goods and services, a state-wide contingent-valuation study was completed in 1999 (Hagen et al. 1999). The study was designed to elicit the willingness of Minnesota households to pay for reductions in adverse health and environmental ef fects that result from mercury deposition. A major conclusion was a best estimate annual state willingn ess to pay of $212 million for a policy that was projected to reduce mercury deposition in Minnesota by approximately 12%. The willingness to pay was greater for greater reductions in mercury deposition; th erefore, it follows that the reductions outlined in this TMDL report (i.e., 65% reduction in mercury depos ition) would translate to a much greater economic benefit within the state. These reductions will also significantly reduce health risks associated with ingesting fish containing excess mercury.


## 11.3 Implementation for Wasteload Allocation Despite the relatively very minor contribution of poin t sources to the total mercury load, the Agency will continue to strive to reduce me rcury from all sources inside the state, including point source water discharges. To do so, the permitted facilities will establish mercury minimization plans ( Table 11 ). In receiving water segments that are discharge-dominated, the dischargers will be subject to permit conditions that address ambient fish tissue monitoring. This monitoring will determine the relationship of the de minimus assumption with actual fish tissue conditions on a more localized basis and could result in mercury limitations in NPDES permits.
Table 11 WWTP Mercury Reduction Plan WWTP Average Wet Weather Flow (g/d) Sampling per Year Mercury Minimization Plan (MMP) Required Less than 200,000 0 NO 200,000 – 500,000 1 YES Greater than 500,000 4 YES

The sum of municipal WWTP, stormwater & industrial WWTP WLA loads shall remain de minimus , i.e. less than 1% of the atmospheric deposition load or 11 kg per year. This includes both existing WLA facilities, expanding facilities, and new facilities. MMPs and monitoring will be required for those facilities with a wet weather design flow of 0.2 m gd or greater. MMPs will include minimization of mercury in solids as well as in discharge.
Additional restrictions will be required if the de minimus is exceeded. For new/growth permits in the SW region, the focus will be trading, either with [1] N PS sediment reductions (the ratio must be agreed upon), [2] stormwater sediment reductions in the areas that are growing (the ratio must be agreed upon), and/or [3] trade-up in treatment to Bio-P or Chem-P, either of which will reduce the effluent mercury to below the new WQS after out-of-state reduction goals are met. Bio-P seems to reduce mercury to about one-half to one-third of the previous average effluent concentration.
MN Statewide Mercury TMDL 27MAR07_final.doc 43For the NE region, new/growth permits will focus on trading, either with [1] air sources for sulfur reductions and/or mercury reductions, [2] stormwater sediment redu ctions, and/or [3] inflow/infiltration (I/I) reductions. Bio-P is also an important option.
The exception to the de minimus provisions for the WLA portion of this TMDL originates with the water quality rules for the Lake Superior Basin, Chap ter 7052, and the GLI Guidance from which it was derived. Provisions for the phase-out of mixing zones for existing dischargers by March 23, 2007, and for not allowing mixing zones for new or expanded dischargers at commencement of discharge are specific to GLI and Chapter 7052. These provisions apply when establishing a TMDL. Therefore, all dischargers in the Basin will initially or eventually need to meet the 1.3 ng/l mercury water quality standard and mass caps as a waste load allocation for their discharge.


## 11.4 Implementation for Load Allocation Minnesota clearly is dependent upon other areas to reduce emissions, and Minnesota has set an example that other areas should emulate. Minnesota has, through both voluntary and regulatory approaches, reduced mercury emissions by 68% between 1990 and 2000 (See section 5.3.1), and the MPCA expects to meet the mandated reduction goal of 70% by 2005. (The 68% reduction of the 1990 mercury emissions is equal to 73% of the mercury TMDL reduction goal.) Mercury reductions outside the State have not been quantified, although USEPA reports national emissions have been reduced at le ast 45% between 1990 and 1999 (See section 5.3.1).
Attempting to reduce Minnesota’s fish contamina tion by exporting more of our emissions—through higher stacks or intentional conversion of divalent mercury emissions to elemental mercury—invites other areas to also export mercury, which probably would r esult in greater fish contamination in Minnesota. Therefore, Minnesota’s mercury TMDL emission reduc tion strategy is to calculate the percent reduction that is needed and reduce mercury emissions by that degree without regard for where the emissions will be deposited.
To maintain economic fairness while focusing on m eeting water quality standards, the Agency will employ a phased approach to achieve a goal of 789 pounds of mercury emitted from all Minnesota sources. Short-term actions, check-in points, and futu re action options are described below. The sectorspecific reduction milestones will be used as guideposts by the MPCA to decide whether reductions are on track in the future. If emission reductions are not on track, the MPCA will review the current state of knowledge about mercury deposition and control options and costs, and develop a strategy to obtain further reductions to achieve the milestone. The st rategy will contain regulator y controls as necessary to reach target goals.
Recognizing the overall goal of reducing mercury depo sition in the state, one sector might reduce more than the sector goal, while another sector is not ab le to reduce as much, yet the reduction strategy may still achieve its goal. The same is true for the ratio of in-state to out-of-sta te reductions. If national, international, and other state reductions are large enough, those reductions may obviate the need for some reductions in Minnesota. This is important because over the past decade Minnesota has reduced mercury emissions using cost-effective steps that others may not yet have taken.

Section 12 outlines the mercury reduction programs underway in Minnesota, nationally, andinternationally. It provides the assurance that several robust mercury control programs are wellestablished and have been very effective. Section 5 provides context that fish tissue concentrations have been in decline in recent years, me rcury emissions are trending down in all relevant emission inventories, and that reduced sulfate concentrations from sulfur dioxide emission reduction programs may magnify the benefit of reduced mercury emissions.
After finalizing and submitting this TMDL to USEPA for approval, the MPCA will begin to work with stakeholders to develop an implementation plan. As explained above, the implementation plan is not a

MN Statewide Mercury TMDL 27MAR07_final.doc 44formal requirement of the TMDL process. The TMDL is expected to contain an outline of the specific implementation planning needed to meet the TMDL goal. The MPCA expects to conduct in-depth implementation planning in 2005-2006 after this TM DL is approved. The implementation planning process will need to involve a careful review of the cost and efficacy of technically available control options, and the development of federal regulations that would reduce mercury emissions from source categories like power plants, mini-mills and industrial boilers.


### 11.4.1 Short-term Actions New and Expanding Sources of Mercury to the Atmosphere
To limit growth of mercury emissions because of construction of new or expanding emission sources in Minnesota, the MPCA will develop a permitting strate gy for new and/or expanding air emissions sources of mercury that considers the following:

• Establishing an appropriate facility de minimus emissions rate

• Requiring new or expanding sources to use state-of-the-art mercury control technology if the de minimus rate is not feasible/achievable/possible

• Investigating how to allo w offsetting reductions
Develop Monitoring and Reporting Protocol

The MPCA will work with air emission sources to de velop a monitoring and reporting protocol with the goal of better quantifying annual mercury emissions. An improved Minnesota air emissions inventory is needed to track progress at meeting reduction targets. Current Reduction Strategies
The MPCA will continue to employ strategies already in place as described below to continue the trend of decreased air emissions. The MPCA expects interim a nd final targets will be met, especially considering pending federal regulations and a strong commitment to voluntary reductions by existing facilities.
Continue existing state regulations and programs to collect mercury. Existing regulations, including product bans, disposal requirements and pollution control equipment at waste combustors will continue to reduce product-sector emissions. Additionally, the MPCA and the Minnesota Office of Environmental Assistance continues to identify and provide educatio n to industrial sectors and Minnesota citizens about proper storage and management of mercury-bearing wastes.
Support voluntary reductions. Under the MPCA’s current mercury strategy, the MPCA expects facilities to voluntarily reduce air emissions whenever po ssible. The MPCA will continue to work with air emission sources to encourage reductions.
Encourage the development of federal regulations: MPCA believes that a national program regulating mercury emissions from existing and future emission sources holds the most promise, by addressing the substantial contribution by sources outside of Mi nnesota to Minnesota water bodies while minimizing competitive disadvantages that a state-level only regu lation could create. The MPCA will continue to work with EPA to implement control standards/progr ams that require substantial reductions from electric utilities, steel mini-mills, crematories and other emissions sources across the country. The MPCA filed detailed comments with USEPA in 2004 urging pr omulgation of strong federal mercury reduction requirements for the electric power sector.
Evaluate impacts of federal regulations. The MPCA will continue to assess the impacts of federal actions to inform potential additional state regulator y actions. In particular, the MPCA will closely follow the development and implementation of the fe deral mercury emission reduction program for power

MN Statewide Mercury TMDL 27MAR07_final.doc 45plants: the Clean Air Mercury Rule. The Implementation Pl an will thus be able to consider the effect of that standard on power plant emissions. At the sa me time, USEPA is finalizing a new regulation that would reduce sulfur dioxide emissions in the eastern US by 70%. MPCA will continue to investigate whether sulfur dioxide reductions of this scale will magnify the effect of mercury emission reductions, and the impact of the program on Minnesota’s reduction targets.
Investigate regional state cooperation. In the absence of strong federal regulations, reductions in Minnesota may be more effectively and equitably achieved by cooperating with other states in the region to develop strategies to reduce emissions sources. The MPCA will actively coordinate the above strategies and consider regional regulations if needed to meet reduction targets.


### 11.4.2 Reduction Targets and Milestones Substantial reductions are necessary from existi ng sources to achieve a 93% reduction in overall anthropogenic emissions from 1990 levels. To initia te development of an implementation plan, the MPCA has set overall and sector-specific reduction targets ( Table 12 ) for the in-state energy, taconite and products sectors with interim outcome-based target s. These targets will guide the MPCA in its implementation planning. They will aid in establishing set intervals for the MPCA to evaluate progress, reviewing recent developments in controlling mercury emissions, and assessing on new strategies.
An example of ways that future federal regulations might affect Minnesota’s goals is the proposed mercury cap and trade program. Mercury emission c ontrol on power plants is expensive, and becomes more expensive as the reduction target moves from 70% to 80% to 90%. The Acid Rain program of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments showed that a cap and trade program is extremely cost-effective in meeting emission reduction targets because it driv es reductions to the place where larger, cheaper reductions can be made. The USEPA has adopted a cap and trade program as the basis for the Clean Air Mercury Rule (issued March 15, 2005). In the Mercury TMDL implementation plan, the MPCA will consider the appropriateness of keeping a state sector target if the national trading program will assure that the national power sector will reach an adequa te percentage reduction in mercury emissions.
Table 12 Summary of Reduction Targets

Sector 1990 Emissions 2000 Emissions Target #1 Target #2 Target #3 Energy 1,667 1,834 675 470 313 Material Processing 723 758 550 280 138 Products 8,881 1,045 475 350 338 All sources 11,272 3,638 1,700 1,100 789

For Target #1, when the national emission reductions are expected to reach 65% from 1990, the state target of 1700 pounds [Target #1] must be reached. If the state target is not met, regulatory tools will be developed as necessary to reach target goals, unless ach ieved national reductions exceed their target and obviate the need for some of the state reductions.
For Target #2, when the national emission reductions are expected to reach 80% from 1990, the state target of 1100 pounds [Target #2] must be reached. If the state target is not met, regulatory tools will be developed as necessary to reach target goals, unless ach ieved national reductions exceed their target and obviate the need for some of the state reductions.
For Target #3, when the national emission reductions are expected to reach 93% from 1990, the state target of 789 pounds [Target #3] must be reached. If th e state target is not met, regulatory tools will be developed as necessary to reach target goals, unless ach ieved national reductions exceed their target and obviate the need for some of the state reductions.

MN Statewide Mercury TMDL 27MAR07_final.doc 46

### 11.4.3 Regulatory Actions The MPCA has identified potential regulatory opti ons for ensuring reasonable progress towards achieving the targets of the TMDL, some of which were se lected from the 1999 Mercury Contamination Reduction Initiative Advisory Council’s Source Reduction Feasibility and Redu ction Strategies (SRFRS) Committee Report on Options & Strategies for Reducing Mercury Releases 4 . If current reduction strategies, including upcoming federal regulations and voluntar y measures, under-achieve by not reaching interim or final target goals, the agency will need to consider further voluntary strategies and enact regulatory approaches to meet TMDL reduction requirements to ensure that the final reduction target are reached. These strategies might include:

• Technology-based limits for emissions sources

• Establish a sector-level cap

• Establish a state-level cap and trade system

• Impose fees on mercury emissions



## 12 Reasonable Assurance

12.1 Assurances Occur at Multiple Levels A complete TMDL evaluation requires reasonable assurance that the impaired waters will attain water quality standards. When water point sources domi nate as pollutant sources, reasonable assurance is straightforward: implement reduction in NPDES perm its. This is not the case when nonpoint sources are the major source of the pollutant. For this Minneso ta Mercury TMDL, there are reasonable assurances in the past actions on state, federal, and internationa l levels that had a measurable affect on sources of mercury. Can we also see a measurable affect on environmental concentrations of mercury, and especially on the endpoint: mercury in fish? The first subsection below summarizes what reasonable assurances we can determine from research and monitori ng of mercury in the environment. Other aspects of reasonable assurance are present and future decisions: will actions to reduce mercur y contamination continue, and what new or proposed actions will reduce mercury? Subsections below summarize what we consider positive steps to reduce mercury on the three governmental levels.


## 12.2 State Level Assurances Minnesota has been a national leader in reducing mercury releases to the air, water and land since the early 1990s. The state employs an array of voluntary, regulatory, incentive-based and educational tools that involve local governments, state agencies and businesses. In concert with similar initiatives on the Federal level, Minnesota’s efforts have contributed to a 70% reduction in mercury emissions over the last 13 years ( Table 13 ). The Minnesota Mercury Emissions Inventory (MPCA 2005) describes the specific statewide mercury emissions in 1990, 1995, and 2000. The MPCA mercury emission inventory has an earlier baseline and is more inclusive than the USEPA inventory. The USEPA inventory tends to exclude sources that are more difficu lt to quantify or verify. The best example of such a source is the large amounts of mercury that must have volatilized from latex paint until it was no longer added to paint after 1992. Carol Hubbard and Clancy inspecting a classroom for mercury

4 MPCA, 1999. available at http://www.pca.state.mn.us/air/mercury-mn.html#initiative

MN Statewide Mercury TMDL 27MAR07_final.doc 47Table 13 Summary of Mercury Reduction Strategies Used in Minnesota Since 1990 Voluntary Programs Health Care Outreach Education on management & reduction of mercury-containing equipment. Household/Small Business Hazardous Waste Collection Many county-run programs accept mercury-containing items from homeowners and businesses.

Dental Office Outreach Municipal wastewater treatment pl ants and the Minn. Dental Assoc. established best management practices and goals for 100% participation. Thermostat Take-back Through a reverse distribution system in volving contractors and wholesalers, manufacturers take back out-of-service units. Mercury Switches in Automobiles Law requires “good faith effort” to remove mercury switches prior to crushing; bounty of $1/switch offered by major steel recycler. Mercury-Free Zone Program Schools pledge to be mercury free and receive an assessment and educational visit by the MPCA’s mercury educator, Carol Hubbard, and Clancy, its mercury-detecting dog. Voluntary Reduction Agreements Large emitters enter into voluntary agreements to reduce emissions. http://www.pca.state.mn.us/air/mercury-mn.html Regulatory Programs Waste Combustor Standards Sets air emission limits on mercury and requires mercury reduction plans for municipal and medical waste incinerators. Water Discharge Standards Waste water dischargers are required to monitor for mercury using EPA Method 1631; mercury effluent limits are set in some cases State Laws Fluorescent Lamp, Other Product Disposal Ban Requires businesses and households to recycle fluorescent lamps, stimulating development of recycling infrastructure.
Mercury-containing Product Bans Toys, games, apparel and thermometers that contain mercury may not be sold in Minnesota Dairy Manometer Ban and Buy-back Bans the sale, installation and repair of mercury-containing manometers, establishes $100 incentive for turning in old gauge. Relay Manufacturer Responsibility Requires manufactures of mercury displacement relays to provide education and incentives, cover costs of managing out-of-service units. Battery Mercury Reduction Bans mercuric oxide batteries and the addition of Hg to alkaline batteries. Establishes a 25-mg limit in button batteries. Mercury in Construction/Demolition Law prohibits disposal, implying removal prior to demolition. Education and enforcement conducted. Mercury Reduction Law (1999) Requires the state to pursue Advi sory-Council-recommended strategies, establishes a goal of 70% reducti on in emissions by 2005 based on 1990 levels. Final report due in 2005.

Many of Minnesota’s mercury-reduction initiatives ha ve become national models. For example, the thermostat industry’s voluntary take-back program fo r mercury thermostats star ted as a collaborative pilot in Minnesota and is now a nationwide program. The Mi nnesota Legislature passed some of the first laws in the country banning mercury in certain produc ts, some of which (e.g., zero mercury in alkaline batteries) led to similar national laws.
Minnesota also adopted rules setting standards for m unicipal and medical waste incinerators ahead of federal requirements that call for stricter emissions li mits than the current federal standard. These waste combustor standards, coupled with increased mercur y product management and reduction, led to a 93%

MN Statewide Mercury TMDL 27MAR07_final.doc 48decrease in emissions from municipal and medical waste incinerators, dropping from 1,053 kg (2,322 lb) in 1990 to 76 kg (167 lb) in 2000. 5
In 1996, the MPCA initiated the Mercury Contamin ation Reduction Initiative aimed at reducing mercury contamination of fish in Minnesota lakes and rivers . As part of the initiative, the agency formed a stakeholder advisory council to develop recommendati ons on mercury-reduction strategies. The advisory council’s recommendations were adopted by the Minnesota Legislature in 1999 and continue to form the basis of Minnesota’s mercury-reduction program. These strategies include establishing reduction goals, national and international strategies, research, re ducing purposeful use, and voluntary agreements. Minnesota’s statewide mercury-reduction goal, reco mmended by the advisory council and set in state statute, is to reduce annual mercury releases 60% by 2000 and 70% by 2005, comp ared to 1990 levels. The MPCA estimates statewide emissions in 2000 of 1,650 kg (3,638 lb), a 68% reduction from estimated 1990 levels. Minnesota mercury emissions sour ces and trends are discussed in more detail in Section 5.3.1

. The 1999 law established a voluntary mercury-reduc tion agreement program encouraging the largest emitters in the state to enter into agreements w ith the MPCA to voluntarily reduce their mercury air emissions. Participants in the program are expected to implement cost-effective, technologically feasible reduction measures. The MPCA agreed not to pursue additional state regulations, at least until 2005, as long as adequate progress is made in reducing emissions (MPCA 2002).
Twelve companies and two regional waste manageme nt jurisdictions participate in the voluntary agreement program and have implemented steps to re duce emissions, pledged reductions or engaged in research in the hope of discovering future reducti on strategies. Progress reports are available at http://www.pca.state.mn.us/air/mercury-mn.html . When fully implemented, reduction agreement actions initiated to date will result in additional reduction in annual emissions of an estimated 155 kg (342 lb) by 2008, or about 9.4% of 2000 emissions. These actions include fuel switching and increased controls by electric utilities [a 120 kg (264 lb) annual decrease, or 16% reduction for the sect or] and added controls on sewage-sludge incineration [35 kg (78 lb) or 70% sect or reduction]. In additi on, participants have removed from their plants and properly managed hundr eds of pounds of mercury-containing equipment, mercury that could have been released to the environment.

Minnesota continues to work with stakeholders to reduce mercury releases to the environment from product-related uses, taconite processing and energy pr oduction. Continued reductions in product-related emissions are expected as mercury use in products declines and sound management increases. However, achieving significant reductions beyond the progress to date will require reductions in mercury emissions in the taconite and power-generation sectors. Curre ntly, no cost-effective re duction technologies have been identified for taconite-processing operations. Th e MPCA and the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources are working with Minnesota’s taconite indus try to identify future control technologies and funding research to develop these technologies.
In 2000, as part of a commitment to reduce emis sions under the state’s voluntary mercury-reduction agreements, Minnesota Power substitu ted lower-mercury coal to achieve a 32 kg (70 lb) annual reduction in mercury emissions from its operations.
In December 2003, the Public Utilities Commission approved Xcel Energy’s Metropolitan EmissionsReduction Program (MERP) that will re-fire two coal plants with natural gas and upgrade the pollutioncontrol equipment at a third, metro-area plant. When fully implemented in 2009, the MERP will result in an estimated annual mercury reduction of 77 kg (170 lb).

5 Changes in mercury emissions after 1990 are not included in the TMDL calculation, since the TMDL is based on the 1990 baseline year.

MN Statewide Mercury TMDL 27MAR07_final.doc 49Taken together, Minnesota Power’s lower-mercury coal and Xcels’ MERP will result in a reduction of 109 kg (240 lb), a 16% reduction in utility-sector em issions and a 6.3% reduction in total emissions compared to 2000 levels. These reductions will account for a 2% reduction in total emissions when fully implemented (based on 1990 levels). The MPCA is awaiting the outcome of Clean Air Act standards development for power plants and several multi-pollutant proposals in Congress that have the potential to significantly decrease mercury emissions from power generation.
Metropolitan Council Environmental Services (MCES) operates two sewage sludge incinerators. Mercury emissions from these plants dropped from 112 kg (247 lb) in 1990 to 51 kg (112 lb) by 2000 largely because of reducing mercury inputs to the w astewater. The MCES is constructing a new sewage sludge incinerator at its metro plant (scheduled to go on line in mid-2004) and expects mercury emissions to be reduced by approximately 35 kg (78 lb).
MPCA will propose for rulemaking that new or e xpanding dischargers get 1 mg/L limit for total phosphorus if they discharge more than 1800 lbs phosphorus per year. The new limit will result in more facilities adding Bio-P or Chem-P processes to re duce phosphorus; these processes have already been added to a number of large WWTP in Minnesota and data collection has shown reductions in mercury concentrations as well, by one-half to two-thirds. Therefore, continued merc ury reductions from WWTPs are expected as the 1 mg/L phosphorus limit is implemented.


## 12.3 National and International Assurances Because of long-range transport of mercury in th e atmosphere, reductions in mercury air emissions outside of Minnesota will eventually lead to re duced mercury deposition in Minnesota and reduced contamination of Minnesota fish. A variety of programs, initiatives and regulations exist in North America and internationally to reduce mercury emissions ( Table 14 ). Notably in 2003, the United Nations Environmental Programme determined that me rcury is a Pollutant of Concern that warrants international action and established a mercury program to assist developing countries with identification and reduction of mercury emissions. Given these pr ograms, the success of me rcury-reduction initiatives in developed countries and the eventual transfer of technology to the developing world, the MPCA expects that these initiatives will even tually lead to reductions su fficient to reduce fish mercury concentrations in Minnesota water bodies. However, uncertainties about the timing of implementation of reduction efforts world-wide and the complexity of mercury cycling make it difficult to predict when the effects of these actions will result in significant improvements in Minnesota.
Minnesota participates, where it can, in these nationa l and international mercury reduction initiatives. Minnesota has been involved to a certain extent in all the national and regional initiatives listed in Table 14 , as well as some international activities.
Mercury emissions from coal combustion in the United States are expected to decline because of technological innovation under the MACT or the Clear Skies Initiative, and that cost-effective mercury control will be adopted world wide following its de velopment in the United States. These additional emissions reductions are expected to result in additiona l reductions in mercury contamination of fish after a dynamic equilibrium is reached.

MN Statewide Mercury TMDL 27MAR07_final.doc 50Table 14 Summary of Regional, National and International Mercury Reduction Initiatives Program Description Comments Regional Initiatives Lake Superior Programs Binational Progr am, LAMP Virtual elimination by 2020 Great Lakes Binational Toxics St rategy 50% reduction by 2006 St. Louis River (northern Minnesota) Area of Concern Remedial Action Plan National Initiatives EPA’s Proposed Rules for Coal-fired power plants - 2004 CAAA Section 112 Maximum Achievable Control Technology standard or Section 111 standards 68% reduction in current emissions by 2018 under Section 111 standards (15 ton emissions cap) Mercury Legislative Proposals — Coal-fired Utility Various proposals currently before Congress including the President’s “Clear Skies Initiative” Proposals vary; 47-90% reduction, 2008-2018 implementation.
National Voluntary Sector Initiatives Medical, electrical, automotive, chlor-alkali 75% reduction by chlor-alkali sector, others pledged. State Efforts ECOS, individual states, northeastern states Reduction goals, programs and initiatives Product Bans (Use, sales, ingredients, etc.) Latex paint, seed coatings, batteries, fungicides, misc. Product bans account for substantial emissions reductions to date. International Initiatives International Agreements Aarhus (long-range transport), Basel (haz. waste), Stockholm (POPs) All address mercury

United Nations Environment Programme Established “Capacity Building” Mercury Program for developing countries Concluded in 2003 that mercury is a pollutant of concern.

Commission for Environmental Cooperation U.S., Mexico and Canada Reduce emissions by 50% by 2006

European Union European Community Legislation on Mercury All member countries of the EU must implement a variety of legislated requirements. Individual Countries Sweden, others Individual countries, most notably Sweden have implemented proactive mercury initiatives.



## 13 Public Participation The goals of public participation include building trus t, developing partnerships, encouraging creativity, facilitating learning, increasing levels of commitment , maximizing participation, and reaching consensus (Smolko et al. , 2002). The Agency is committed to a robust effort that meets with a wide range of stakeholders, listens to new ideas a nd approaches, and remains flexible.
The Agency met with key stakeholders throughout the development of the regional mercury TMDLs, including USEPA Region 5 and headquarters. The draft TMDL was available through the Agency TMDL web site, a series of public meetings were held across the state, and a 90-day formal public comment period ended on October 18, 2005. All comme nts received during that formal comment period, plus Agency responses, will be included in the draft TMDL package that is delivered to Region 5 EPA for their review and approval.
The Agency received more than 975 comments. The summary of the comments, and the Agency responses, can be found at http://www.pca.state.mn.us/water/tm dl/tmdl-mercuryplan.html#comments

.

MN Statewide Mercury TMDL 27MAR07_final.doc 51

## 14 References Atkeson, T., D. Axelrad, C. Pollman, and G. Keeler. 2002 . Integrated Summary Integrating Atmospheric Mercury Deposition and Aquatic Cycling in the Flor ida Everglades: An approach for conducting a Total Maximum Daily Load analysis for an atmospherically derived pollutant . Prepared for: United States Environmental Protection Agency, October, 2002. ftp://ftp.dep.state.fl.us/pub/labs/assessment/mercury/ tmdlreport.pdf
Atkinson, D.R. 2003. Air Deposition Modeling and the TMDL Program. Mercury Loadings to States and Regions. http://www.northstar.sierraclub.org/campaigns/air/mercury/ epaMercuryDepositionReport2003.pdf Accessed July 29, 2004
Balogh SJ, Meyer ML, Johnson DK. 1997. Mercur y and suspended sediment loadings in the lower Minnesota River. Environmental Science and Technology 31: 198-202.
Balogh SJ, Meyer ML, Johnson DK. 1998. Transpor t of mercury in three contrasting river basins. Environmental Science and Technology 32: 456-462.
Balogh SJ, Huang Y, Offerman HJ, Meyer ML, Johnson DK. 2002. Episodes of elevated methylmercury concentrations in prairie streams. Environmental Science and Technology 36: 1665-1670.
Balogh SJ, Huang Y, Offerman HJ, Meyer ML, Johnson DK. 2003. Methylmercury in rivers draining cultivated wetlands. Science of the Total Environment. 304: 305-313.
Barr Engineering. 2001. Substance Flow Analysis of Mercury in Products. Prepared for Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. August, 2001. http://www.pca.state.mn.us/air/mercury-mn.html#publications

. Bennett, J. P,. and C. M. Wetmore. 2000. 16-Year tr ends in elements of lichens at Theodore Roosevelt National Park, North Dakota. Science of the Total Environment 263:231-241.
Branfireun, B. A., Roulet, N. T., Kelly, C. A., Rudd, W. M. 1999. In situ sulphate stimulation of mercury methylation in a boreal peatland: towa rd a link between acid rain and methylmercury contamination in remote environments. Global Biogeochemical Cycles 13, 743-750.
Chen, C. Y. and C.L. Folt. 2005. High Plankton Densities Reduce Mercury Biomagnification. Environmental Science and Technology 39: 115-121.
D'Itri, F.M., C.S. Annett and A.W. Fast. 1971. Comparison of mercury levels in an oligotrophic and eutrophic Lake. J. Mar. Technol. Soc . 5(6): 10-14.
Dilks, D.W. and P.L. Freedman. 2004. Improved Consideration of the Margin of Safety in Total Maximum Daily Load Development. Journal of Environmental Engineering. 130: 690-694.
Driscoll, C.T., Blette, V., Yan, C., Schofield, C.L., Mu nson, R., and J. Holsapple. 1995. The role of dissolved organic carbon in the chemistry and bioava ilability of mercury in remote Adriondack lakes, Water Air and Soil Pollution 80: 499-508.

EERC. 2001. Fish consumpt:ion survey: Minnesota and North Dakota. Energy and Environmental Research Center . University of North Dakota, Grand Forks.
Engstrom, D. R., and E. B. Swain. 1997. Recen t declines in atmospheric mercury deposition in the Upper Midwest. Environmental Science and Technology 31:960-967.

MN Statewide Mercury TMDL 27MAR07_final.doc 52Engstrom, D. R., K. Thommes, S. J. Balogh, E. B. Swain, and H. A. Post. 1999. Trends in Atmospheric Mercury Deposition across Minnesota: Evidence from Dated Sediment Cores from 50 Minnesota Lakes. Final Report to the Legislative Commission on Minnesota Resources.
Expert Panel on Mercury Atmospheric Processes. 1994. Mercury Atmospheric Processes: A Synthesis Report . Convened March 16-18, 1994 Tampa, Florida, U.S.A. EPRI/TR-104214.
Fink, L.E. 2001. Appendix 7-11: The Effect of Surface and Pore Water Quality on Mercury Bioaccumulation . 2001 Everglades Consolidated Report.
FTN Associates, Ltd. 2002. TMDLs for Segments Listed for Mercury in Fish Tissue for the Ouachita River Basin, and Bayou Bartholomew, Arkansas and Louisiana to Columbia. Prepared for USEPA Region VI, Dallas, TX. Approved December 18, 2002.
FTN Associates, Ltd. 2003. TMDLs for Lakes Listed for Mercury in Fish Tissue for the Ouachita River Basin, Arkansas . Prepared for USEPA Region VI, Dallas, TX. DRAFT November 20, 2003.
Gilmour, C. C., and E. A. Henry. 1991. Mercur y methylation in aquatic systems affected by acid deposition. Environmental Pollution 71:131-169.
Gilmour, C. C., E. A. Henry, and R. Mitchell, 1992 . Sulfate stimulation of mercury methylation in freshwater sediments. Environmental Science and Technology 26:2281-2287.
Glass, G. E., and J. A. Sorensen. 1999. Six-year trend (1990-1995) of wet mercury deposition in the Upper Midwest, U.S.A. Environmental Science and Technology 33:3303-3312.
Greenfield, B.K., Hrabik, T.R., Harvey, C.J., and S.R. Carpenter. 2001. Predicting mercury levels in yellow perch: use of water chemistry, trophic ecology, and spatial results. Canadian Journal of Fisheries & Aquatic Sciences 58: 1419-1429.
Hagen, D.A., J.W. Vincent, and P.G. Welle. 1999. Economic benefits of re ducing mercury deposition in Minnesota. Conducted on behalf of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and the Legislative Commission on Minnesota Resources. http://www.pca.state.mn.us/publications/reports/mercuryeconomicbenefits.pdf
Hakanson, L. 1980. The quantitative impact of pH , bioproduction and Hg-contamination on the Hgcontent of fish (pike). Environ. Pollut. (Series B) 1: 285-304.
Heiskary, S.A., C.B. Wilson, and D. P. Larsen. 1987. Analysis of regional patt erns in lake water quality: using ecoregions for lake management in Minnesota. Lake and Reservoir Management, 3: 337-344. www.pca.state.mn.us/data/eda/wqguide.html
Heiskary, S.A., and W.W. Walker, Jr. 1988. Deve loping Phosphorus Criteria for Minnesota Lakes. Lake and Reservoir Management 4(1): 1-9.
Heiskary, S.A., and C.B. Wilson. 1989. The Regional Nature of Lake Water Quality Across Minnesota: An Analysis for Improving Resource Management. Journal Minnesota Academy Science 55(1): 71-77.
McCollor S, and Heiskary S. 1993. Selected wate r quality characteristics of minimally impacted streams from Minnesota's seven ecoregions. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, St. Paul, MN.

MN Statewide Mercury TMDL 27MAR07_final.doc 53Hintelmann H., R. Harris, A. Heyes, J.P. Hurley, C. A. Kelly, D.P. Krabbenhoft, S. Lindberg, J.M. Rudd, K.J. Scott, and V.L. St. Louis. 2002. Reactivity and Mobility of New and Old Mercury Deposition in a Boreal Forest Ecosystem during the First Year of the METAALICUS Study. Environmental Science and, Technology. 36: 5034-5040

. Hrabik, T. R., and C. J. Watras. 2002. Recent declin es in mercury concentration in a freshwater fishery: isolating the effects of de-acidification and decr eased atmospheric mercury deposition in Little Rock Lake. The Science of the Total Environment 297:229-237.
Hylander , L.D. and M. Meili. 2003. 500 years of mercury production: global annual inventory by region until 2000 and associated emissions. The Science of the Total Environment 304: 13-27.
Jackson, A. M., E. B. Swain, C. A. Andrews, and D. Rae. 2000. Minnesota’s Mercury Contamination Reduction Initiative. Fuel Processing Technology 65-66 (2000):79-99
Jeremiason, J. D., E. B. Swain, E. A. Nater, J. B. Cotner, B. M. Johnson, D. R. Engstrom, and J. E. Almendinger. 2003. Sulfate Addition Enhances Con centrations and Export of Methylmercury from a Treated Wetland. Abstract. Presented at the Amer ican Society of Limnology and Oceanography annual meeting, Salt Lake City. February 2003.
Jeremiason, J. D., D. R. Engstrom, E. B. Swain, E. A. Nater, B. M. Johnson, J. E. Almendinger, B. A. Monson, and R. K. Kolka. 2006. Sulfate a ddition increases methylmercury production from an experimental wetland. Environmental Science and Technology , IN PRESS.
Johnels, A.G., T. Westermark, W. Berg, P.I. Pe rsson, and B. Sjöstrand. 1967. Pike ( Esox lucius L.) and some other aquatic organisms in Sweden as indicators of mercury contamination in the environment. Oikos 18: 323-333.
Kamman, N. C., and D. R. Engstrom. 2002. Historical and present fluxes of mercury to Vermont and New Hampshire lakes inferred from 210 Pb dated sediment cores. Atmospheric Environment 36:15999- 1609.
Lamborg, C.H., W.F. Fitzgerald, J. O’Donnell, and T. Torgersen. 2002. A non-steady-state compartmental model of global-scale mercury bioge ochemistry with interhemispheric atmospheric gradients. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 66(7): 1105-1118.
Mason, R.P. and G. R. Sheu. 2002. Role of the ocean in the global mercury cycle. Global Biogeochemical Cycles 16 (4), 1093.
Mason, R.P., M.L. Abbott, R.A. Bodaly, O. R. Bullock , Jr., C.T. Driscoll, D. Evers, S.E. Lindberg, M. Murray, and E.B. Swain. 2004. Monitoring the environmental response to changing atmospheric mercury deposition. Environmental Science & Technology (In Review).
Minnesota Department of Health (MDH). 2004. Eat Fish Often? A Minnesota Guide to Eating Fish. http://www.health.state.mn.us/divs/eh/fish/index.html
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA). 2000. Guidelines for the devel opment of surface water quality standards for toxic subs tances for protection of aquatic life, human health, and wildlife

. Environmental Outcomes Division. August 2000.
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA). 2002. Mercury Reduction Program: Progress Report to Minnesota Legislature . January 2002. http://www.pca.state.mn.us/hot/legislature/reports/2002/mercury02.pdf

MN Statewide Mercury TMDL 27MAR07_final.doc 54Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA). 2004a. Guidance Manual for Assessing the Quality of Minnesota Surface Waters: for the Determination of Impairment 305(b) Report and 303(d) List . January 2004. http://www.pca.state.mn.us/publications/manuals/tmdl-guidancemanual04.pdf
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA). 2004b. Estimated Mercury Emissions in Minnesota for 1990, 1995, & 2000: March 2004 Update. http://www.pca.state.mn.us/air/mercury.html
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA). 2005. 2005 Mercury Reduction Progress Report to Minnesota Legislature: Appendix A Merc ury Emissions Inventory for Minnesota. http://www.pca.state.mn.us/publications/reports/lrp-mercury05-appa.pdf
Mugan, T. ( Tom.Mugan@dnr.state.wi.us ). 10 October 2005. RE: Mercury Data Summaries. E-mail to Matthew Gluckman ( Gluckman.Matthew@epamail.epa.gov ).
Norstrom, R. J., A.E. McKinnon and A.S.W. DeFreita s. 1976. A bioenergetics-based model for pollutant accumulation by fish. Simulation of PCB and MeHg residue levels in Ottawa River yellow perch ( Perca flavescens ). J. Fish Res. Board Can. 33: 248-267.
Norton, S. A., G. C. Evans, and J. S. Kahl. 1997. Comparison of Hg and Pb fluxes to hummocks and hollows of ombrotrophic Big Heath Bog and to nearby Sargent Mt. Pond, Maine, USA. Water, Air, and Soil Pollution 100:271-286.
Omernik, J.M., and A.L. Gallant. 1988. Ecoregions of the Upper Midwest States . EPA/600/3-88/037. Corvallis, OR: United States Environmental Protection Agency. 56 p.
Pacyna, E.G., and J.M. Pacyna. 2002. Global emissi ons of mercury from anthropogenic sources in 1995. Water, Air, and Soil Pollution 137:149-165.

Parsons. 2003. Mercury TMDLs for Little River and Catahou la Lake Watershed: Subsegments 081601, 081602, 081603, and 081605 TMDL Report. Prepared for USEPA Region VI, Dallas, TX. February 2003.
Pickhardt, P. C.; Folt, C. L.; Chen, C. Y.; Klaue, B.; Blum, J. D. Algal blooms reduce the uptake of toxic methylmercury in freshwater food webs. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A

. 2002
, 99 , 4419

- 4423.
Pirrone, N., G. J. Keeler, and J. O. Nriagu. 1996. Regional differences in world-wide emissions of mercury to the atmosphere. Atmospheric Environment 30:2981-2987.
Pollman, C. D., and D. B. Porcella. 2002. Trends in mercury emissions and concentrations in biota in South Florida: A critical analysis. Final report to the Florida Electric Power Coordinating Group (FCG). 49 pp. typescript.
Rae, D. 1997. Impact of Mercury Reductions in Mi nnesota. Report prepared for the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and Hagler Bailly Se rvices, Inc., September 30, 1997.
Schuster, P.F., D.P. Krabbenhoft, et al., 2002. Atmospheric Mercury Deposition during the Last 270 Years: A Glacial Ice Core Record of Natural and Anthropogenic Sources . Environmental Science & Technology. 36(11):2303-2310. http://toxics.usgs.gov/pubs/FS-051-02/pdf/fs-051-02.pdf
Seigneur, C., P. Karamchandani, K. Vijayaraghavan, K. Lohman, R.-L. Shia, and L. Levin. 2003. On the effect of spatial resolution on atmospheric mercury modeling. The Science of the Total Environment 304:73-81.

MN Statewide Mercury TMDL 27MAR07_final.doc 55Seigneur, C., K. Vijayaraghavan, K. Lohman, P. Ka ramachandani, and C. Scott. 2004. Global source attribution for mercury deposition in the United States. Environmental Science & Technology 38(2): 555- 569.
Slemr, F., E.-G. Brunke, R. Ebinghaus, C. Temme, J. Munthe, I. Wangberg, W. Schroeder, A. Steffen, and T. Berg. 2003. Worldwide trend of atmospheric mercury since 1977. Geophysical Research Letters 30(10):1516
Smolko, B.A., R.R. Huberd, and N. Tam-Davis. 2002. Creating meaningful stakeholder involvement in watershed planning in Pierce County, Washington. JAWRA 38(4): 981-994.
Sorensen J.A., G.E. Glass, K.W. Schmidt, J.K. Hube r, and G.R. Rapp, Jr. 1990. Airborne Mercury Deposition and Watershed Characteristics in Relation to Mercury Concentrations in Water, Sediments, Plankton, and Fish of Eighty Northern Minnesota Lakes. Environmental Science & Technolology 24(11): 1716-1727.
Steinnes, E., T. Berg, and T. E. Sjobakk. 2003. Te mporal and spatial trends in Hg deposition monitored by moss analysis. The Science of the Total Environment 304:215-219.
Sunderland, E. M., and G. L. Chmura. 2000. An inve ntory of historical mercury emissions in maritime Canada: implications for present and future contamination. The Science of the Total Environment 256:39-57.
Swain, E. B., D. R. Engstrom, M. E. Brigham, T. A. Henning, and P. L. Brezonik. 1992. Increasing rates of atmospheric mercury deposition in midcontinental North America. Science 257:784-787.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1997. Mercury Study Report to Congress

. EPA-452/R-97-005. http://www.epa.gov/oar/mercuy.html
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2001a . Mercury TMDLs for Subsegments within Mermentau and Vermilion-Teche River Basins. January 19, 2001.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2001b. Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) for Total Mercury in Fish Tissue Residue in the Middle & Lower Savannah River Watershed . February 28, 2001.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2001c. Water Quality Criterion for the Protection of Human Health: Methylmercury. Office of Science and Technology, Washington, D.C. EPA-823-R-01-001. http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria/methylmercury/
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2001d. Mercury Maps: A Quantitative Spatial Link Between Air Deposition and Fish Tissue. Peer Reviewed Final Report. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. EPA-823-R-01-009.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2004. Press Briefing Presentation on Fish Consumption Advisories, August 24, 2004. http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/fish/advisories/briefing.pdf
Watras, C. J., K. A. Morrison, R. J. M. Hudson, T. M. Frost, and T. K. Kratz. 2000. Decreasing mercury in northern Wisconsin: temporal patterns in bulk precipitation and a precipitation-dominated lake. Environmental Science and Technology 34:4051-4057.
Western Lake Superior Sanitary District (WLSSD). 1997. Blueprint for Mercury Elimination: Mercury Reduction Project Guidance for Wastewater Treatment Plants.

MN Statewide Mercury TMDL 27MAR07_final.doc 56MN Statewide Mercury TMDL 27MAR07_final.doc

# Appendix A Impaired Waters Covered by the Statewide Mercury TMDL

MN Statewide Mercury TMDL 27MAR07_final.docMN Statewide Mercury TMDL 27MAR07_final.docMN Statewide Mercury TMDL 27MAR07_final.doc 

# Appendix B NPDES Permits Covered by the Statewide Mercury TMDL