In revising the Comprehensive Conservation Plan and balancing competing visions for the future of the refuge, I ask that you
give substantial weight to the energy needs of Alaskans and the United States in your review and planning process. First, I am encouraged at the recognition of the role of Congress in designating wilderness areas and determining the future of the 10-02 area in the planning documents provided. However I am concerned that focusing solely on issues related to oil and gas development in the planning process may undermine other potential development in the region. Over the past several years the State of Alaska has invested substantial state resources to encourage the development of renewable energy resources in our rural communities.  The development of small scale, renewable and locally available energy resources is critical to promoting sustainable communities in rural  Alaska.

I urge you to consider the impact plan revisions may have on the permitting or development of these resources in the communities
located in, or around the refuge. If, in order to preserve subsistence and wilderness uses within the refuge, the federal processes close the  door on the development of local renewable energy resources, you just may doom those communities to an unsustainable dependency on diesel fuel. A truly Comprehensive Conservation Plan should include provisions that allow for the expedited permitting of renewable energy resources and encourages sustainable communities in and around the planning area.  

Further, I ask that in developing the plan you consider that the communities in and around the refuge are in fact, subdivisions
of the State. Any move by a federal agency that promotes, either directly or indirectly, the locking up of the 10-02 area with an
artificial wilderness status threatens the long-term sustainability of the State of Alaska and its communities. It has been the responsible development of the petroleum reserves at Prudhoe Bay that has enabled the State of Alaska to partner with the federal government in providing infrastructure and assistance for residents in the region. Declining throughput in the Trans-Alaska Pipeline threatens the very economic foundation of the State and an indirect lockup of the 10-02 region would unnecessarily remove an important option from Alaska’s, and indeed the United States’ energy portfolio.

When Congress passed the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, it reserved the power to determine whether exploration for oil and gas would occur in the area. With Congress currently poised to begin considering comprehensive energy legislation and a tragedy  unfolding in the Gulf of Mexico, it is critical that the most promising onshore oil and gas development play be reserved, without regulatory  obstacles or agency interference, to Congress for consideration. As the President recently recognized, America will need all of the options available if we are to transition away from our current dependence on foreign oil and into a cleaner, more sustainable future.

In summary, as you develop a revised Comprehensive Conservation Plan for the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge I would encourage you do simply “do no harm.” The men and women of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service have done an admirable job of managing the multiple demands on the refuge for more than a generation. I sincerely hope that the revised Comprehensive Conservation Plan maintains the status quo and fully recognizes the needs of Alaskans by keeping overly
restrictive designations to a minimum.

Thank you again for holding hearings in Alaska and your work on behalf of the citizens of the United States.

Sincerely,
Lesil McGuire