### Response s to Comments on EPA’s Final Withdrawal of Certain Federal

Aquatic Life Water Quality Criteria Applicable to Wisconsin Comments received on March 16, 2011 from Julian Adler, organization unknown. Comment : While the differences between Wisconsin allowance of concentration of chronic and acute copper and nickel, and chronic endrin and selenium are slight and in some cases Wisconsin's proposed equations for concentration of metals in water is stricter than that of the EPA, it should be noted that the formula for the concentration for Chronic Nickel Criteria for cold water, warm water sportfish, warm water forage fish, and limited forage fish is more lax than that set out by

the EPA. While this is merely a note and not a demand for action, the EPA would do well to remember that giving any amount of autonomy

to a State in terms of environmental protocol opens the gate for more autonomy . In the future it might be best if all rules adopted b y State s were as strict a s or stricter than the national rules. EPA Response : After promulgating the 1995 Water Quality Guidance for the Great lakes Sy stem (the Guidance), Great Lakes States, including Wisconsin , were required to adopt criteria consistent with those published in the Guidance within two years (CWA Section 118(c)(2), 33 U.S.C. 1268)

. States have the authority to adopt water quality standards that are more or less stringent than the Guidance criteria based on site

- specific circumstances as specified in Procedure 1 of Appendix F of 40 CFR Part 132. As further described in this section and in CWA Section 131.11(a) , a State’s water quality standards must be based on a sound scientific rationale and be protective of the designated use

. Per CWA 131.11(b)(1), State s and a uthorized Tribes have the flexibility to adopt water quality standards based on :

 EPA’s CWA Section 304(a) Guidance , including the 1995 Great Lakes Guidance ,  M odif ications to the CWA Section 304(a) or Guidance criteria to reflect site

- specific conditions , or
 O ther scientifically

defensible methods. In deriving Wisconsin’s revise d chronic nickel aquatic life criteria equation for C old W ater, W arm W ater S portfish, W armwater F orage F ish, and L imited F orage F ish uses , the State calculated a slightly different intercept than EPA . While Wisconsin used a different intercept (0.0591 instead of 0.0584), the difference is so slight (only 0.0007) that when plugged into the State’s equation, the resulting criterion is virtually identical to EPA’s at a given hardness . For example, at a hardness of 200 mg/L as CaCO 3 , using either the federal or Wisconsin’s equation results in a chronic nickel criterion of 88.5 μ g/L. EPA approved WI’s method for revising the chronic nickel criteria for these uses as acceptable, scientifically defensible, site

- specific modifications of EPA’s Guidance criteria . Moreover, EPA believes the equation used b y Wisconsin to calculate the chronic nickel criteria for these uses , results in criteria that are protective of the des ignated use, and are therefore consistent with CWA Sections 101(a)(2) and 303(c)(2), and 40 CFR Parts 131 and 132.Comments received on March 26, 2011 from Tracy Leonard, Student, American Public

University System
. Comment: Through m y business law class this proposal has been brought to my attention. Iwanted to take the time to inform you that I am against this proposal. I am against this proposal because I consume the fish in the Great Lakes. More importantly , the blue gill, rainbow trout, and other pan fish in Lake Michigan. I believe this proposal was requested to benefit the companies dumping into my Great Lakes and I hope that the citizens eating these animals will be considered when a ruling is made on this proposal. EPA Response: States adopt different sets of water quality criteria for the protection of aquatic life or human health. The purpose of this rule is to withdraw the federal aquatic life criteria, not human health criteria, for chronic and acute copper and nickel, and chronic endrin and selenium for certain waters in the Great Lakes S ys tem in Wisconsin designated for aquatic life use. The removal of the federal aquatic life criteria will allow the State to implement its adopted and EPA

- approved aquatic life criteria, and w ill not impact any human health water quality criteria that are already adopted b y the State

. Therefore, the level of protection currentl y provided b y the State for fish consumption will not change with this rulemaking.