Document J3G111pzpbbjr2JNjQ69zr4VK

STATE CAPITOL RO. Box I 10001 juneati. AK 998 I I -0 0 0 1 907-465-8500 fax: 907-465-3552 September 25, 2017 Governor Bill Walker STATE OF ALASKA 5 50 West Seventh Avenue, Suite 1700 Anchorage, AK 9 9 5 0 1 907-269-7450 fax 90 7-2 69-7 461 www, Gov. Alaska.Gov Governor@Alaska.Gov Wate.t Docket U.S, Environmental Protection Agency Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW -2017-0203 Submitted electronically at: http: / / www.tegoktions.gov Re: State o f Alaska's Comments on the Proposed Recodification o f the Pre-Existing Definition o f the "Waters o f the United States" Dear Administrator Pruitt and Deputy Assistant Secretary Lamont: The State o f Alaska (State) submits the following comments in support o f the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) and the Army Corps o f Engineers' (Corps) (collectively, " the federal agencies" ) proposed interim rule to rescind the "Waters o f the United States" (W 0TUS) definition in order to re-codify die pre-existing W OTUS definition. The original proposal to rescind die W OTUS definition was published in the Federal Register (FR) on July 27, 2017 at 82 FR 34899, and the original proposal was later revised on August 22, 2017 at 82 FR 39712 to extend the public comment period to September 27, 2017. The State appreciates the opportunity to review and provide comments on the federal agencies' proposal to rescind die 2015 W OTUS definition and recodify the pre-existing definition. The Public Comments Section o f the FR announcement indicates the federal agencies are soliciting " comment as to whether it is desirable and appropriate to re-codify in regulation the status quo as an interim first step pending a substantive rulemaking to reconsider the definition o f `waters o f the United States' and the best way to accomplish it." The FR further elaborates that the federal agencies are not using the current comment period to solicit comment on the scope o f the definition o f W OTUS that: the agencies will ultimately adopt: in the second step o f the proposed two-step process, as the agencies will address all o f those issues, including those related to the 2015 Rule, in the forthcoming notice and comment period to adopt a revised definition o f WOTUS. The State supports die federal agencies' approach for rescinding the 2015 WOTUS definition and re-codifying in regulation the status quo o f the previously promulgated W OTUS definition. State and federal regulators, and the regulated public, are all completely familiar with the pre-2015 W OTUS definition and regulatory requirements. There are certainly differing opinions on the strengths and shortcomings o f the pre-2015 W OTUS definition. But, all interested parties will agree that we have been operating under those rules for decades. Re-codifying die pre-existing WOTUS definition will provide certainty and regularity" nationwide during the interim period when the federal agencies conduct a substantive re -evaluation o f the definition. On the other hand, should the stay on the 2015 rule expire, there would be major disruptions as the federal agencies attempted to make the major program changes necessary to implement the 2015 Rule during that same interim period. Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA Tier 10 ED 002061 00129513-00001 Water Docket U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Docket ID No, EPA-HQ-OW -2017-0203 September 25, 2017 Page 2 Thus, it is desirable and appropriate to recodify the pre-2015 regulations for the interim period until a substantive re evaluation o f the WOTUS definition has been completed. As the agencies proceed with the next step to substantively revise the W OTUS definition, the State encourages the federal agencies to use a cooperative federalism approach, a concept championed by tire Environmental Council o f States, The State o f Alaska has previously provided extensive comments regarding the W OTUS definition --outlining unique circumstances in Alaska and die challenges presented by regulatory efforts that, fail to take those circumstances into consideration. Others, including numerous Alaska State legislators, have also attempted to highlight Alaska-specific circumstances. For example, Senator Bishop brought to out attention a February 20, 2017 letter to the agencies regarding permafrost and wedand delineations. To ensure the revised W OTUS definition provides clarity with respect to Alaska's unique waterbody features, it is critical that the agencies take the time to meaningfully engage with the State. To this end, we propose either regional listening sessions (similar to the ten listening sessions already established for specific stakeholder groups) or meeting with states individually. The information compiled from such an approach will help the agencies develop a revised W OTUS definition that is practicable, implementable, and defensible. In addition, publishing a proposed final rule for additional public review and comment prior to finalization will also help ensure stakeholder interests are accurately captured and addressed. The State supports the recodification of die pre-existing W OTUS definition to provide stability pending a subsequent rulemaking and strongly encourages the federal agencies to continue using a cooperative federalism approach throughout the course o f this important rulemaking effort. Sincerely, Bill Walker Governor cc: The Honorable Lisa Murkowski, United States Senate The Honorable Dan Sullivan, United States Senate The Honorable Don Young, United States House o f Representatives The Honorable Click Bishop, Alaska State Senate The Honorable Sam Gotten, Commissioner, Alaska Department o f Fish and Game The Honorable Larry Hartig, Commissioner, Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation The Honorable Marc Luiken, Commissioner, Alaska Department o f Transportation and Public Facilities The Honorable Andrew Mack, Commissioner, Alaska Department o f Natural Resources Donna Downing, Office o f Water, Environmental Protection Agency Headquarters Stacey Jensen, Regulatory Community o f Practice, United States Army Corps o f Engineers Andrew Hanson, Federalism Contact, Environmental Protection Agency Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA Tier 10 ED 002061 00129513-00002