### January

## 25 2013

This 

### document presents data regarding existing water qualitystandards 

### adapted bystates Indian Tribes

### and territories but does not necessarily reflect 

### EPAs policy regarding or expectations ofwaterquality standards orcriteria 

### EPA offers 

### no assurances as to the completeness ofthis 

### document EPA Region Entity

### Type Entity Fish 

### consumption Rate Additional Information Risk Level for Additional information Carcinogens 1 State Connecticut 

### 175 gramsday or 

## 173 gramsday used for 

### most 

## 106 65 gramsday parameters 1 State 

### Maine 322 gramsday 

## 106 Maine recently adopted a 

### new arsenic criteria based 

### on a 

## 104 cancer risk level 

### and a FCR of 138 

## gday 1 State Massachusetts 

### 175gramsday or 

## 106 65 gramsday 1 State 

## New Hampshire 

## 65 gramsday 

## 106 1 State 

### Rhode Island 

### 175 gramsday 

## 106 1 State 

### Vermont 

## 65 gramsday 

## 106 2 State 

## New Jersey 

### 175 gramsday 

## 106 2 State 

## NewYork 33 

### gramsday 

## 106 2 Territory Puerto Rico 

### 173 gramsday 

## 105 2 Indian Tribe Saint Regis 

## Mohawk Tribe 33 

### gramsday 

## 106 2 Territory 

# US Virgin Islands 

### 175gramsday 

## 106 3 State Delaware 

### 175gramsday 

## 106 3 State District of Columbia 

### 175 gramsday 

## 106 3 State Maryland 

### 173gramsday 

## 105 3 State Pennsylvania 

### 173 gramsday 

## 106 3 State Virginia 

### 175 gramsday 

## 105 3 State 

### West Virginia 

### 175 gramsday 

## 106 4 State 

### Alabama 30 

### gramsday 

## 106 Except forArsenic which uses 

## 105 4 State Florida 

## 65 gramsday Florida is proposing to update 

## 106 criteria with an approach that calculates the criterion level necessary to achieve the 

### minimum riskto Floridas population This approach is currently being reviewed as part ofthe public 

### comment process 4 State Georgia 

### 175gramsday 

## 106 4 State Kentucky 

### 175gramsday 

## 106 rate 

## may or

## may not be specified in a 

### WC25 

## document 1

### January

## 25 2013

This 

### document presents data regarding existing waterquality standards 

### adopted bystates Indian Tribes

### and territories butdoes notnecessarily reflect 

### EPAs policy regarding or expectations of water qualitystandards orcriteria 

### EPA offers 

### no assurances as to the completeness ofthis

### document EPA Region Entity

### Type Entity Fish 

### consumption Rate Additional Information Risk Level for Additional Information Carcinogens 4 Indian Tribe Miccosukee Tribe Indians of Florida 

### 175 gramsday 

## 106 4 State Mississippi 

## 65 gramsday Mississippi completed a

# WQS 106 revision in June 

### 2012 with criteria based 

### on a consumption rate of 

### 175 gramsday will be submitted to

# EPA 4 State North Carolina 

### 175 gramsday 

## 106 4 Indian Tribe Seminole Tribe of Florida 

### 175 gramsday 

## 106 4 State Carolina 

### 175 gramsday 

## 106 4 

### South State Tennessee 

### 175gramsday 

## 106 5 Indian Tribe 

### Grand Portage Band ofthe Minnesota 

### 1424gramsday 

## 106 Concentrations of 

### Chippewa Tribe carcinogenic chemicals from pointor

### nonpoint sources singly or in mixtures 

### mustnot exceed risk levels of

### one chance in 

## 1000000 in surface 

### waters
5 State Illinois 15 

### gramsday Great Lakes 

### 105 GLI 

### Basin 20 

### gramsday outside Great Lakes Basin

5 State Indiana 15 

### gramsday Great Lakes 

### 105 GLI 

### Basin 

## 65 gramsday outside Great Lakes Basin

5 Indian Tribe Lac du Flambeau 

### Band of Lake Superior 32 

### gramsday 

## 106 Chippewa Indians ofthe Lac 

### du Flambeau Reservation 5 State Michigan 15 

### gramsday Great Lakes 

## 105 GLI 

### Basin 15 

### gramsday outside Great Lakes Basin

rate 

## may or 

## may not 

### be specified in a 

# WQS document 2

### January

## 25 2013

This 

### document presents data regarding existing waterquality standards 

### adopted bystates Indian Tribes

### and territories but does not necessarily reflect

### EPAs policy regarding or expectations of waterquality standards orcriteria 

### EPA offers 

### no assurances as to the completeness ofthis 

### document EPA Region Entity

### Type Entity Fish 

### consumption Rate Additional Information Risk Level for Additional Information Carcinogens 5 State Minnesota 30 

### gramsday Great Lakes 

### 105 GLI 

### Basin 30 

### gramsday outside Great Lakes Basin

5 Indian Tribe 

### Mole Lake 

### Band ofthe Lake Superior 15 

### gramsday Tribe of the 

### Chippewa Indians 

### Sokaogon Chippewa Community

5 State Ohio 15 

### gramsday Great Lakes 

### 105 GLI 

### Basin 

## 65 gramsday outside Great Lakes Basin 5 Indian Tribe 

### The Fond du Lac Band ofthe Minnesota 60 

### gramsday Chippewa Tribe 5 State Wisconsin 20 

### gramsday Great Lakes 

### 105 GLI 

### Basin 20 

### gramsday outside Great Lakes Basin 5 Indian Tribe Bad River 

### Band ofLake Superior Tribe 

### 1424 gramsday of

### Chippewa Indians ofthe Bad River Reservation

# WI 6 State Arkansas 

## 75 gramsday 

## 105 6 State Louisiana 20 

### gramsday 

## 65gramsday for 

### Monte Sano 

## 106 Except for

# 2378 Bayou Tetrachlorodibenzop dioxin 

# 2378TCDD and hexachlorocyclohexane 

### lindane 

## gamma 

# BHC in which case 

### 105 is 

### used 6 State 

## New Mexico 

### 175 gramsday mixof

## 105 and 

## 106 6 Indian Tribe 

### Ohkay Owingeh formerly Pueblo of 

### 175 gramsday 

## 106 San 

### Juan 6 State 

### Oklahoma 

## 65gramsday Oldahoma intends to update 

### 105 criteria using 

### 175gramsday in next triennial revision 6 Indian Tribe Pueblo ofAcorna 

### 175 gramsday 

## 106
rate 

## may or

## may not 

### be specified in a

# WQ5 document 3

### January 

## 25 2013

This 

### document presents data regarding existing water qualitystandards 

### adopted bystates Indian Tribes

### and territories but does not necessarily reflect 

### EPAs policy regarding orexpectations ofwater qualitystandards orcriteria 

### EPA offers 

### no assurances asto the completeness ofthis

### document EPA Region Entity

### Type Entity Fish

### consumption Rate Additional Information Risk Level 

### forAdditional Information Carcinogens 6 Indian Tribe Pueblo of Isleta 

## 65 gramsday Mercury criterion uses 

## 106 175 

## gramsday 6 Indian Tribe 

### Pueblo of

## Nambe narrative criteria 6 Indian Tribe Pueblo of Picuris narrative criteria Mercury criterion uses 

### 175 gramsday 6 Indian Tribe Pueblo of Pojoaque narrative criteria 6 Indian Tribe Pueblo ofSandia 

### 175 gramsday 

## 106 6 Indian Tribe Pueblo of Santa Clara 

## 65 gramsday 106 6 Indian Tribe Pueblo ofTaos narrative criteria 6 Indian Tribe Pueblo of

### Tesuque narrative criteria 6 State Texas 

### 175 gramsday Mercury criteria use 

### 105 carcinogens 

## 56 10 

### gramsday fresh 

### water and 

### gramsday noncarcinogens 15 

### gramsday salt

## water childhood exposure factors 7 State Iowa 

### gramsday 

## 105 7 State Kansas 

## 175 65 gramsday or Criteria in National Toxics Rule 

## 106 175gramsday are alsoapplicable Kansas is proposing to adopt updated criteria based 

### on EPAs recommended 

## §304a criteria in its current revision

7 State Missouri 

## 65 gramsday 

## 106 7 State Nebraska 

## 65 gramsday Mercury criterion uses 

## 106 324 gramsday 8 Indian Tribe Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes ofthe Fort 

### 175 gramsday 

## 106 Peck Indian Reservation 8 State Colorado 

# 175 gramsday 

## 106 8 Indian Tribe Confederated 

### Sash and Kootenai 

### 175 gramsday 106 Tribes ofthe Flathead Indian Reservation 8 State 

### Montana 175 gramsday 105 8 State North Dakota 

### 175 gramsday 

## 106 8 State South

# Dakota

gramsday 

## 106 8 State Utah 

# 175 175 gramsday 

## 106 8 Indian Tribe Ute 

### Mountain Ute 

### 175 gramsday 

## 106 rate 

## may or 

## maynot be specified in a 

# WQS document 4

### January 

## 25 2013

This 

### document presents data regarding existing waterquality standards 

### adopted bystates Indian Tribes

### and territories butdoes notnecessarily reflect 

### EPAs policy regarding orexpectations of waterqualitystandards or criteria 

### EPA offers 

### no assurances as to the completeness ofthis 

### document EPA Region Entity 

### Type Entity Fish 

### consumption Rate Additional Information Risk Level 

### forAdditional information Carcinogens 8 State 

### Wyoming 175gramsday 

## 106 9 Territory American 

### Samoa 175 gramsday 

# 106 9 State 

### 175 gramsday 

## 106 9 Arizona Indian Tribe Big Pine Paiute Tribe ofthe 

### Owens 175 gramsclay 

## 106 Valley 9 Indian Tribe Bishop Paiute 

### 175 gramsday 

## 106 9 State California 

## 65 gramsday Mercury criterion uses 

## 106 187 gramsday fresh 

### water enclosed bays and estuaries and 

### 195gramsday ocean waters More recent site specific mercury criteria in 

### CA apply the 

### methymercury tissue criterion 

### and a rate of32 

## gramsday Criteria in the National Toxics Rule and California Toxics Rule are also applicable 9 Territory 

### Commonwealth ofthe Northern 

### 175 gramsday 

## 106 Mariana Islands 9 Territory 

## Guam 65gramsday Mercury criterion uses 

## 106 187 gramsday 9 State Hawaii 

### gramsday 

## 106 9 Indian Tribe 

# 199 Hoopa Valley Tribe 

## 65 gramsday Mercury criterion uses 

## 106 187gramsday 9 Indian Tribe Hopi Tribe 

### 175 gramsday 

## 106 9 Indian Tribe Hualapai Tribe 

### 175 gramsday Mercury criterion uses 

## 106 187gramsday Hualapai Tribe has adopted criteria based 

### on 175 gramsday intriennial revision which will be submitted to 

### EPAsoon 9 Indian Tribe Navajo Nation 

### gramsday 106 9 State 

### Nevada 

# 175 65 gramsday Mercury criterion uses 

## 105 187 gramsday Criteria in National Toxics Rule are also annlirabie rate 

## may or 

## may not be specified in a

# WQS document 5

### January 

## 25 2013

This 

### document presents data regarding existing water qualitystandards adopted bystates Indian Tribes

### and territories but does not necessarily reflect 

### EPAs policy regarding or expectations ofwater qualitystandards orcriteria 

### EPA offers 

### no assurances as to the completeness ofthis 

### document r 

### EPA Region 1 Entity

### Type Entity Fish 

### consumption Rate Additional Information Risk Level 

### forAdditional Information Carcinogens 9 Indian Tribe Pyramid Lake Tribe 

## 65 gramsday Mercury criterion uses 

### 106 175 gramsday 9 Indian Tribe 

### White Mountain Apache 

## 65 gramsday 

## 106 10 State Alaska 

## 65 gramsday Criteria in National Toxics Rule 

### 105
are also applicable 10 Indian Tribe Confederated Tribes ofthe Chehalis 

## 65 gramsday 

## 106 Reservation 10 Indian Tribe Confederated Tribes ofthe Colville narrative criteria 

## na Reservation 10 Indian Tribe Confederated Tribes ofthe Umatilla 389 

### gramsday 

## 106 Indian Reservation of Oregon 10 Indian Tribe Confederated Tribes of the

## Warm 170 

### gramsday 106 Springs Indian Reservation of

### Oregon 10 Indian Tribe Couer

# DAlene 

### 175 gramsday Initial 

# WQS submission 

### EPA has 

## 106 not acted on the submission

10 State Idaho 

## 65 gramsday Idaho proposed a rate of

### 175 

## 106 gramsday in

### 2006 which 

### was disapproved by

### EPA in 

### 2012
10 Indian Tribe Kalispel Indian 

### Communityof the 

### 175gramsday Nickel arsenic and chloroform 

## 106 Kalispel Reservation use a FCR of

## 65gday

10 Indian Tribe 

### Lummi Nation 

### 1424gramsday 106 10 Indian Tribe 

### Makah Tribe 

### 1424gramsday 106 10 State 

### Oregon 175 

### gramsday 

## 106 Except for arsenic which uses 

## 105 for organism only and 

## 104 for water 

### +organism 10 Indian Tribe Port 

### Gamble SKlallam Tribe 

### 1424 gramsday 

## 106 10 Indian Tribe Puyallup Tribe of Indians 

## 65 gramsday Pullyap Tribe has proposed rate 

## 106 of

### 1424

## gramsday but has not submitted to 

## EPA

rate 

## may or 

## may not 

### be specified in a

# WQ5 document 6

### January

## 25 2013

This 

### document presents data regarding existing water quality standards 

### adopted bystates Indian Tribes

### and territories but does not necessarily reflect 

### EPAs policy regarding or expectations of water quality standards orcriteria 

### EPA offers 

### no assurances as to the completeness ofthis

### document EPA Region Entity

### Type Entity Fish

### consumption Rate Additional Information Risk Level for Additional Information Carcinogens 10 Indian Tribe 

### Spokane Tribe of Indians 

### 863 gramsday Spokane Tribe submitted revised 

## 106 standards to 

### EPA in 2010 using rate of 865 

## gramsdaybut 

### EPA has not acted on this submittal

10 State Washington 

## 65 gramsday Applicable 

### human health criteria 

## 106 are in the National Toxics Rule

rate 

## may or

## may not 

### be specified in a

# WQS document 7