Skip to content

Menu

LexBlog, Inc. logo
NetworkSub-MenuBrowse by SubjectBrowse by PublisherJoin the NetworkGet StartedSubscribeSupportContact
Search
Close

EPA Foregoes ESA Consultation on Final Cadmium Water Criteria, Says Consultation More Appropriate During State Adoption

By Andrea Wortzel & Patrick Fanning on April 6, 2016
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn

In its response to comments calling for a Section 7 consultation under the Endangered Species Act (“ESA”) for its recently revised Cadmium Water Criteria, EPA determined that the appropriate time for ESA consultation is during the state adoption process. Several groups, including the National Marine Fisheries Service (“NMFS”), the Center for Biological Diversity, and the California State Water Resources Control Board all submitted public comments on the proposed criteria changes recommending ESA consultation. The groups argued that due to the frequent adoption of the federal criteria by states, EPA should consult with NMFS in order to insure species protection. The groups further argued that deferring consultation until the state adoption process resulted in a “piecemeal approach” that leaves EPA’s adoption process “legally vulnerable.”

In rejecting the commenters’ requests, EPA noted that the federal criteria are non-binding and must be adopted by states and subject to EPA approval. EPA stated that it believes that if ESA consultation occurred during federal criteria development, states may be more likely to modify the criteria by making them less stringent than the federal criteria in instances where a particular state does not have species-specific concerns resulting from an ESA consultation. In responding to NMFS, EPA noted that NMFS indicated that even if consultations occurred at the federal level, consultations during state criteria adoption would also be necessary.  Requiring consultation both during the federal adoption process and again during state adoption process would be duplicative.  Moreover, it would be difficult to perform an ESA assessment at the national level, given the diversity in habitat and species across the country.  Prior to approving any state adoptions of the revised Cadmium criteria, EPA intends to consult with the Services to the extent it determines such approval may impact a listed species.

EPA’s Cadmium criteria were last updated in 2001. The revised criteria slightly reduce the freshwater acute criterion from 2.0 micrograms per liter to 1.8 micrograms per liter, while slightly increasing the freshwater chronic criterion from 0.25 micrograms per liter to 0.72 micrograms per liter based on the latest scientific information.

EPA’s Federal Register Notice of the criteria is available here.

For more information, contact Andrea Wortzel or Patrick Fanning.

Photo of Andrea Wortzel Andrea Wortzel

Andrea focuses her practice on water quantity and water quality issues, including water rights, water supply planning, and water withdrawal permitting, as well as discharge permitting and TMDL development and implementation. She coordinates a growing and influential stakeholder group focused on water supply…

Andrea focuses her practice on water quantity and water quality issues, including water rights, water supply planning, and water withdrawal permitting, as well as discharge permitting and TMDL development and implementation. She coordinates a growing and influential stakeholder group focused on water supply issues in the Commonwealth of Virginia. Beyond her water practice, Andrea advises clients on endangered species issues, landfill permitting and compliance, waste permitting, environmental compliance and audit programs and environmental enforcement defense. Andrea also regularly counsels clients on legislative and regulatory strategies to promote her clients’ objectives.

Read more about Andrea WortzelEmailAndrea's Linkedin Profile
Show more Show less
  • Posted in:
    Environmental and Climate
  • Blog:
    Environmental Law & Policy Monitor
  • Organization:
    Troutman Pepper Locke
  • Article: View Original Source

Call us at 1-800-913-0988 or email sales@lexblog.com.

Facebook LinkedIn Twitter RSS
The Library at LexBlog
  • About LexBlog
  • The Field We Built
  • Library at LexBlog
  • Our Beliefs
  • Our Team
  • Contact LexBlog
  • Disclaimer
  • Editorial Policy
  • Terms of Service
  • Get Started
  • Publishing Solutions
  • Compass
  • Submit a Request
  • Support Center
  • System Status
Copyright © 2026, LexBlog, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Law blog design & platform by LexBlog LexBlog Logo