Please note below that there is a 15 day comment period in which to influence
this settlement:


http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/07/01/BAO518HNC9.DTL

EPA ready to settle Bay Area pesticide suit
Jane Kay, Chronicle Environment Writer

Wednesday, July 1, 2009(07-01) 20:10 PDT -- The U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency announced today a proposed settlement of a lawsuit that could result in
scrutiny of how dozens of dangerous pesticides affect threatened and endangered
species living around San Francisco Bay.

If the EPA decides to settle the suit filed by the Center for Biological
Diversity, it would require reviewing the health effect of 74 pesticides on 11
imperiled species by June 2014.

The pesticides can endanger wildlife by direct contact or by destroying the
animals' habitat or food supply.

Some of the problem pesticides, the suit said, are malathion, an insecticide
suspected of harming the delta smelt and the California tiger salamander, and
sodium nitrate, a hazard to the San Joaquin kit fox, the Alameda whipsnake and
San Francisco's own garter snake.

Other species that would receive review under the proposed settlement are the
salt marsh harvest mouse, California clapper rail and California freshwater
shrimp. Insects are the bay checkerspot butterfly and the valley elderberry
longhorn beetle. A fish is the tidewater goby.

Scientists say methyl bromide, an agricultural fumigant used on strawberries and
tomatoes, can poison small mammals and reptiles. Permethrin, a common
insecticide used in homes and croplands, can run into waterways and hurt
crustaceans and insects at the base of the aquatic food chain, they say.
Chlorpyrifos, an insecticide banned in households but available to apple and
grape growers, threatens a broad range of species.

The environmental group filed the lawsuit in 2007 in the U.S. District Court in
San Francisco, where the group has offices.

The suit alleges that the EPA failed to comply with the Endangered Species Act.
The act requires federal agencies to ensure that their decisions don't hurt
imperiled species by consulting with scientists at government wildlife agencies
such as U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Yet, according to the suit, the EPA hadn't sought review of the pesticides that
it registers, and some of the pesticides already registered by the EPA did,
indeed, damage 11 species of mammals, birds, reptiles, fish and insects in the
Bay Area.

The EPA made the announcement Wednesday through publication in the Federal
Register. The EPA's public affairs office in San Francisco referred comments on
the matter to the headquarters in Washington, D.C., where no one was available
for comment.

The EPA is accepting comments on the proposed settlement agreement for 15 days,
and then will make a decision whether to agree. To become final, the settlement
must be signed by a judge in the U.S. District Court in San Francisco, where the
suit was filed.

Environmental groups are expected to favor the agreement while chemical
manufacturers are expected to oppose it.

The Bush administration had eliminated the section of the Endangered Species Act
that requires that federal government agencies consult with wildlife scientists
on pertinent decisions. But the Obama administration reinstated the rule.

E-mail Jane Kay at jkay@....--
This e-mail, along with attachments, if any, and any replies thereto, are
covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Sections
2510-2521 and are legally privileged. This information is confidential.