Scott Pruitt Archives - Page 2 of 2

Pruitt’s EPA puts brakes on Pebble Mine proposal in Bristol Bay, Alaska

January 31, 2018 — Activists fighting a proposed gold and copper mine in Bristol Bay, Alaska breathed a sigh of relief on Friday, 26 January, when the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) upheld an Obama-era declaration that the proposed Pebble Mine, which would sit in the watershed for the world’s biggest sockeye salmon run, could cause irreversible harm to area fisheries.

Fishermen, native groups, and conservationists fought against the mine proposal for years, and won a temporary victory with a 2014 EPA ruling that stated mining could lead to “significant and irreversible harm” to local fishing grounds. But after years of eyeing the site, the project’s main backer, Northern Dynasty Minerals, filed for its first federal application in December 2017, just a month after President Donald Trump was elected, and fanned fresh concerns with activists opposing the mine.

EPA head Scott Pruitt issued a statement Friday that the order does not block the mine outright, but does shelve the permitting process until further environmental impact reviews can be conducted.

“It is my judgement at this time that any mining projects in the region likely pose a risk to the abundant natural resources that exist there,” Pruitt said in the statement. “Until we know the full extent of that risk, those natural resources and world-class fisheries deserve the utmost protection. Today’s action allows the EPA to get the information needed to determine what specific impacts the proposed mining project will have on those critical resources.”

Read the full story at Seafood Source

EPA halts plans to lift proposed mine restrictions in Alaska

January 29, 2018 — The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency on Friday halted plans to withdraw proposed restrictions on mining activity near a major Alaska salmon fishery, drawing praise from opponents of the Pebble Mine project.

Last year, in settling a legal dispute with the Pebble Limited Partnership, which wants to build a copper and gold mine in Alaska’s Bristol Bay region, the EPA agreed to initiate a process to withdraw restrictions proposed during the Obama administration.

But in a release Friday, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt said based on comments the agency has received, “it is my judgment at this time that any mining projects in the region likely pose a risk to the abundant natural resources that exist there.”

“Until we know the full extent of that risk, those natural resources and world-class fisheries deserve the utmost protection,” he said.

About half of the world’s sockeye salmon is produced by Bristol Bay, the EPA has said.

Tom Collier, CEO of the Pebble partnership, said the EPA’s announcement does not deter the project. Pebble recently filed a permit application with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, which will trigger an environmental review of the project.

“We believe we can demonstrate that we can responsibly construct and operate a mine at the Pebble deposit that meets Alaska’s high environmental standards,” he said in a release. “We will also demonstrate that we can successfully operate a mine without compromising the fish and water resources around the project.”

The restrictions on development proposed under President Barack Obama were never finalized; a judge had ordered the agency to stop work related to that process while the litigation between Pebble and the EPA played out.

The EPA said Friday’s announcement doesn’t derail the permit application process but said the application “must clear a high bar, because EPA believes the risk to Bristol Bay may be unacceptable.”

The agency said it plans to solicit additional public comment.

U.S. Sen. Lisa Murkowski, a Republican, said Pruitt is taking a balanced approach that lets Pebble enter the permitting process but also acknowledges EPA’s duty to protect the region’s fisheries.

Read the full story from the Associated Press at the New Jersey Herald

EPA: New Bedford Harbor among top opportunities in New England

January 18, 2018 — NEW BEDFORD, Mass. — New Bedford Harbor has been identified by the U.S. Environmental Protection agency as one of two Superfund sites in New England with the greatest potential for redevelopment and commercial use.

No funding comes with the designation, but additional staff time and attention could be devoted to the sites, EPA spokeswoman Kelsey Dumville said in an interview.

No. 1 on the Port of New Bedford’s priority list is extending North Terminal by 800 feet, Port Director Edward Anthes-Washburn said. The space would add more room to dock commercial fishing boats, and it could serve other purposes in the future, he said. Boats are rafted three and four deep on the docks in the central waterfront.

“We definitely have a small supply and high demand for dockage,” he said.

The city could also use the space for cargo or offshore wind-related operations, he said.

The New Bedford Harbor Development Commission has applied for a $15 million federal grant for the North Terminal bulkhead and dredging.

Mayor Jon Mitchell’s office has said the project would not only finalize cleanup of the harbor and create more dockage, but also create at least 900 new jobs and spur millions of dollars in private investment.

“The purpose of this project is to promote growth in the Port of New Bedford across multiple industries: fishing, offshore wind, cargo, and island freight,” Mitchell said in a press release in October.

The New England regional EPA office in Boston made recommendations about sites to be named among the 31 nationally with the most redevelopment potential, EPA spokeswoman Emily Bender said. The other New England site is Raymark Industries Inc., a former manufacturer of automobile brakes, clutches and other parts in Stratford, Conn.

Read the full story at the New Bedford Standard-Times

Seafood Council backs NOAA nominee

December 11, 2017 — The issue of who exactly will run NOAA for the Trump administration is gathering steam within the Beltway and without, with various special interest groups — fishing stakeholders, environmentalists, scientists, politicians et al — weighing in on the nomination of Barry Myers.

Myers, who most recently served as the chief executive officer of the private weather forecasting company AccuWeather, has been criticized in some quarters for lack of a scientific background and fears that he might begin dismantling the National Weather Service to give private weather forecasting companies an advantage.

There also has been concern that Myers would fall in line with other Trump appointees, such as EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt and Energy Secretary Rick Perry, in downplaying the human role in climate change.

And what of fishing? Several stakeholders, such as the Northeast Seafood Coalition, have endorsed Myers’ candidacy, hoping that he will bring a new perspective to the ongoing battle between fishermen and NOAA Fisheries’ science team.

“In our region, NOAA science has struggled to accurately measure the abundance of fish stocks while fisheries management has been guided by management that has served the ‘weakest link’ in the complex,” NSC Executive Director Jackie Odell wrote in the coalition’s endorsement of Myers. “We believe Mr. Myers will bring a fresh and much-needed perspective and approach to strengthening the science underlying the management of our fishery, along with a commitment to achieving sustainability of not only these fish stocks, but also the fishing businesses that rely upon a well-managed fishery.”

Read the full story at the Gloucester Times

Bill Mook: Pruitt ignoring science consensus could have dire consequences for Maine

March 13, 2017 — I spent Valentine’s Day making a whirlwind trip to Washington, D.C., on behalf of my company, Mook Sea Farm, an oyster farm on the Damariscotta River. For 32 years we’ve been raising oysters from egg to market size and selling seed oysters to other East Coast farms. I made the trip to oppose Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt’s nomination to be the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.

On the trip to Washington, I thought long and hard about what I might say that would make a difference, especially to Sen. Susan Collins, who at that time had not yet announced her position on the Pruitt nomination. It seemed unnecessary, given the widely publicized information about his record, to point out Pruitt’s lack of fitness for the position. So, I decided to focus on my own story.

I talked about almost being forced out of business in 1998 by illegal dumping of septic and chemical waste next to my hatchery, and the personal anguish and stress this caused for an entire year. Mook Sea Farm would likely not have survived had it not been for the Clean Water Act.

I also explained that a decade or so later, the impact of carbon emissions suddenly became very real – no longer an abstract, future problem. Carbon dioxide emissions, dissolving in the ocean and changing precipitation patterns in the Northeast, had slowly degraded the lifeblood of my company: the seawater we pump into the hatchery. Our shellfish larvae were having a tough time growing shells in seawater as it became increasingly acidic. Production became erratic, forcing us to adopt a suite of remedies that include buffering our seawater (think of taking Tums).

Read the full opinion piece at the Portland Press Herald

Trump budget plan would slam Bay

March 7, 2016 — The Chesapeake Bay Program and other federal initiatives that could impact the Bay have been targeted for steep cuts in preliminary Trump administration budget plans sent to federal agencies, prompting alarm from conservation groups and lawmakers alike.

According to a report in The Washington Post, a budget blueprint for the 2018 federal fiscal year, which begins Oct. 1, would cut the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s budget by nearly a quarter, from $8.2 billion to $6.1 billion, and slash its workforce from 15,000 to 12,000.

Included was a massive 93 percent cut — from $73 million to $5 million — to its Bay Program Office, which coordinates the state-federal partnership. The funding supports research, monitoring and modeling efforts, but the lion’s share — 72 percent — goes to states and local governments to support cleanup efforts.

“The proposed reduction in federal investment in Chesapeake Bay would reverse restoration successes,” said Chesapeake Bay Foundation President Will Baker. “The EPA role in the cleanup of the Chesapeake is nothing less than fundamental. It’s not just important, it’s critical.”

He noted that a bipartisan group of 17 House members from the Bay watershed last month called on the Trump administration to preserve full funding for the EPA’s Bay efforts, and said he hoped the agency’s new administrator, Scott Pruitt, would support the program.

The budget proposal was developed by the White House Office of Management and Budget, without input from agencies.

During his confirmation hearing, Pruitt said the Bay effort was something that should be a “model” for the nation, and that “EPA plays a leadership role in mediating cross-state air and water pollution.”

Besides the Chesapeake Bay, funding for the Great Lakes, the Gulf of Mexico and Puget Sound were also slated for similarly massive cuts of 90 percent or more.

Read the full story at The Bay Journal

Environmental and fishing groups sue to save salmon

February 24, 2017 — Environmental and fishing groups are suing the federal government to provide cooler habitat for migrating fish in the Columbia River system of Washington and Oregon.

The lawsuit was filed in federal court in Seattle against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Scott Pruitt, President Donald Trump’s choice to lead the agency.

The lawsuit was filed by Columbia Riverkeeper, Snake River Waterkeeper, Idaho Rivers United, Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations, and the Institute for Fisheries Resources.

It seeks to compel the EPA to create a temperature pollution budget for the river system, to keep rivers cool enough to support salmon and steelhead runs in the face of global warming.

Giant dams on the Columbia and Snake rivers create reservoirs that cause water temperatures to rise in summer months, hurting fish.

Read the full story from the Associated Press here

Alaska’s US senators push Trump nominees to guard fisheries, rural areas while cutting regulations

January 23, 2017 — WASHINGTON — Alaska Sens. Lisa Murkowski and Dan Sullivan pressed Cabinet nominees to consider Alaska’s uniqueness, the difficulties of rural areas and the nation’s largest fisheries at a spate of confirmation hearings this week.

Senators can publicly question President-elect Donald Trump’s Cabinet selections when they sit on the committee holding a confirmation hearing. For Murkowski, that means the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, which held the first of two confirmation hearings for Health and Human Services nominee Rep. Tom Price, R-Ga., on Wednesday, and a hearing for Education nominee Betsy DeVos on Tuesday night.

For Sullivan, that meant a hearing for Commerce secretary nominee Wilbur Ross, and the Environmental Protection Agency administrator-to-be, Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt.

Several of those nominees faced controversy and opposition from Democrats. Hallways were packed with supporters and protesters Wednesday in a Senate office building where three hearings were happening simultaneously.

Murkowski pressed her nominees on how they would adjust some their conservative stances to meet her needs for rural and Native populations in Alaska. Sullivan focused on the state’s fishing industry. Both urged peeling back regulations they said are onerous and often a barrier to economic growth or healthy public services.

Read the full story at the Alaska Dispatch News

Sen. Whitehouse Mentions RI Fishermen During Pruitt Hearings

January 19, 2017 — WASHINGTON — U.S. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse quizzed President-elect Trump’s nominee for Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency about his support for Rhode Island fishermen.

During Senate hearins today, Whitehouse asked Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt if “he would support the fishing and aquaculture industries in the face of climate change, and whether he would protect Rhode Islanders from out-of-state polluters.”

“As we discussed when you and I met, the oceans off our Ocean State are warming due to fossil fuel-driven climate change,” said Whitehouse. “It is crashing our fisheries, like lobster and winter flounder, and making earning a living harder for our fishermen. I see nothing in your career to give those fishermen any confidence that you will care one bit for their well-being, and not just the well-being of the fossil fuel industry.”

Read the full story at Patch Narragansett