Welcome to the landscape, your show about America's
parks and public lands. I'm Erin Weiss with
the Center for Western Priorities in Denver. And
I'm Kate Gretzinger in Salt Lake City.
Today on the pod, we've got two discussions
about recent executive orders that affect public lands.
The first covers Trump's recent EO aimed at
increasing mining on BLM lands, and the second
is about an EO aimed at ramping up
logging in our national forests.
We'll get to those in a sec, but
first, the news.
Well, the big news today is that lawmakers
in Congress are talking openly about selling off
America's public lands to try to pay for
a massive budget reconciliation
bill that would advance president Trump's massive spending
and tax cut plan.
Now this isn't necessarily
new. Earlier this year, the House Ways and
Means Committee Republicans
released a list of possible cuts and revenue
raisers for reconciliation.
Their aim is to both cut taxes and
ramp up border security by throwing more money
at the border, so federal land sales were
on that list.
The house rules package that was adopted in
January
waived budget offset requirements
for selling or giving away public lands. In
other words, it wouldn't count as a loss
of revenue even if taxpayers got ripped off.
Now Bruce Westerman, who is the chair of
the House Natural Resources Committee,
told E and E News this week that
the land they are considering selling off would,
quote, just be in areas where you can't
get affordable housing like gateway
communities. Now it's unclear how selling land at
market rates, presumably in those expensive gateway communities,
could in any way address affordable housing.
This basically just sounds like Mike Lee's houses
act, which as we've talked out before on
this podcast,
proposes selling off lands for trophy homes with
no guardrails
anywhere
for affordability.
Now
this is exposing some rifts within the Republican
party. That includes senator Steve Daines and representative
Brian Zinke, both from Montana,
who are saying they will not support a
bill that includes a public lands sell off.
Senator Martin Heinrich of New Mexico also emphatic
about his opposition to including public land sales
in any reconciliation
bill. Of course, senator Heinrich somewhat less relevant
to that conversation
since the whole point of a reconciliation bill
is that you can pass it with just
50 votes.
Democrats don't need to be involved.
We will, of course, track all of this
closely and keep you updated.
Our guest today is Mitch Friedman. He's the
founder and executive director of Conservation
Northwest.
His group works to connect and restore wildlands
and wildlife from the Washington Coast to the
British Columbia Rockies. Mitch, thank you very much
for being on the pod. Thanks for having
me here.
So there is a lot going on with
our national forests right now from potentially
illegal forest service personnel cuts that may be
getting
uncut
to executive and legislative efforts to fast track
logging and clear cuts in our national forests.
We're gonna try and touch on all of
this. Hopefully, you can connect some of the
dots for us. I wanna start with president
Trump's executive order from March 1.
It calls for, quote,
immediate expansion of American timber production.
What is in that order?
Well, it's a clear indication
of the president's intentions.
It directs
the agencies, the departments
to come back
in certain timelines
starting within a month and and drawing out
over the next several months
with
proposals
for new rulemaking
to
shortcut
federal process.
So the executive order
itself doesn't do anything
except
kick start these potential
future process tweaks.
So we know what the president wants to
do. The question is
how
does he get there?
Since it sounds like there's not much using
executive authority alone,
he can use to speed up logging. Is
that that fair summary of where we're at
right now?
A fair summary,
there are only
two
buckets
touched on in the executive order.
One is environmental
policy, so environmental analysis under the National Environmental
Policy Act. The other is the endangered species
act,
but there's no mention in the executive order
about the National Forest Management Act.
So the president may intend to generate more
logs, but how he's gonna get there from
here is
altogether unclear.
I wanna go back to something we've touched
on this podcast a couple times
last year, which was the Northwest
Forest Plan.
Amending that plan, that is something that the
Biden administration
was working on. They released an environmental review
last November, but then never finalized it. So
what is going on with the Northwest Forest
Plan, and how does that fit in to
the extent we know with what president Trump
and his cabinet are doing now? The Northwest
Forest Plan
was adopted under president Clinton
in the mid nineties whose reaction to the
spotted owl and the ancient forest wars,
and it's unique.
The Northwest forest plan is the only plan
in the country that aggregates
a bunch of different national forests.
So it's a regional plan, and it's
it's a remarkable
you know, it's probably the most and best
science driven land management plan in the world.
So the Biden administration set up a process
to update it, to amend it.
We don't know what the Trump administration
will do in terms of that amendment process.
So I'll take these comments, and
I guess we'll be hearing from them in
the months ahead.
Alright. So a lot of unknowns
on the agency front and on the
on, I guess, the the administrative front
and and the White House.
At the same time, you have Congress and
a bill called the Fix Our Forests Act.
It's moving through Congress with some amount of
bipartisan
support. It looks like it may pass.
What what's the deal with that bill? How
does it align with what president Trump is
trying to do or not align?
Well, president Trump,
his executive orders bump up against
statutory limitations.
Executive orders cannot
roll back what Congress has passed in statute,
but Congress can.
And the fix our forests
act
is an attempt by congressional leaders to
well, I would I would say to generate
more logging
that directs the agencies
to organize
fire vulnerable
national forest by fire sheds.
And within
priority fire sheds,
there would be less environmental
process and more,
oh, I guess, support
agency support
to try to get up to large scale
projects to reduce
wildfire risk.
For instance,
within a designated fire shed,
you could use a categorical
exclusion, which is a short form for environmental
analysis
on a project of up to 10,000 acres.
And that's massive. 10,000 acres, that's what about
15 square miles
within which you
could
do prescribed burning. You could remove trees.
There aren't even sideboards for whether you could
remove old trees or snags.
You could put in
so called fuel breaks or fire breaks, which
are controversial.
So it's a it's a big deal, the
Fix Our Force Act. It's passed the house.
It's in the senate now. It almost certainly
will pass.
There's a bipartisan team of four senators working
on it.
Conservation groups are giving input through the democratic
side to try to, you know, at at
least make some improvements.
I'll get subjective here for a second. You
know, I've been doing this for a long
time, and I remember when, you know, George
w Bush was president and his
the guy who ran his forest service from
Department of Agriculture was an old timber industry
lobbyist who was our nemesis, Mark Ray.
That guy was brilliant, and he knew the
law inside and out.
And he got a statute passed by Congress
that we were all freaked out about at
the time.
But in the end, it didn't really change
all that much. And I suspect
that everything we're talking about here, Aaron, the
executive orders,
the the act in congress, all of these
things
are not going to change as much on
the ground
as some of the staffing or funding
issues that we might talk about.
So yeah. So so why is that? Is
that truly you need more people to do
these timber sales and these management? Or or
is it that without
all those things, you can't follow the law
that still exists, whether it's NEPA or the
Endangered Species Act? Yeah.
Where what's the gap between what's what Trump
is trying to do or what previous
secretaries or foresters have tried to do in
terms of more logging versus what actually happens
on the ground?
I think that there is a secret
answer to that question that's hidden inside a
golden ring that's buried under the ocean.
You know, as part of the bipartisan infrastructure
law that passed
three years ago,
Congress gave the Forest Service literally billions of
dollars.
You know, 3,200,000,000.0
for this and that plus another couple. I
mean, through a ton of money at the
agency.
Last fall, so still under the Biden administration,
the forest service found that they were a
half billion dollars in the hole and
laid off a ton of seasonal workers.
You know, so this
a a process we're in now of the
forest service being gutted of personnel and capacity
started even before Trump.
And that's because the forest service
is a mess.
Alright. I'm gonna I'm gonna lay some cards
on the table. I'm not a process guy.
I don't believe that
rigid NEPA,
rigid environmental analysis is the way to get
great
environmental decisions or great government action.
And I am an active management guy.
You know, I started out as I'm one
of the first tree climbers in the nineteen
eighties. I was an Earth First organizer. I'm
I'm a pro wild guy, but I've come
to very much believe that good science based
biodiversity
driven
outcomes on our federal lands and our forests
requires active management in a lot of areas.
So I want
a lot more prescribed burning. I want
good thoughtful
forest management restoration projects that thin out
small trees. I want rural communities to engage
in these things and have jobs and the
mills to be vibrant and the forest to
be healthy.
I cannot tell you how to get there
from here. I want the forest service to
be a great functional successful agency. We need
it to be.
But it is a mess, and pumping money
in at what end
does not mean logs or biodiversity
or any other predictable outcome other than gridlock
pops up the other.
But I do think one can say that
gutting the agency
isn't gonna fix any of that.
So
it's not firing 7,000 foresters.
It's not just throwing
money at the agency without a plan. So
if if you had a magic wand,
what would what would you waive it at
to get to
more prescribed burns, to get to
thinning of the small stuff and not the
old growth?
How how do you do that?
There are two poles in management.
There's prescription and there's discretion.
I think I used to be a prescription
guy that congress
and
and people like me
through the courts or whatever should tie the
hands of the agencies so that they should
never do anything bad.
And the outcome of that is that they
just don't do very much good either.
They become demoralized
and ineffectual
and process driven.
On the other end is discretion.
You know,
in the early days of the forest service
and through, I'd say, until about the mid
nineteen eighties when,
you know, the battle over ancient forest really
changed things,
each national forest, each
ranger district, the subunits of each national forest,
each district ranger
had a lot of authority and discretion, and
these were people
who who could get stuff done on the
ground. They knew their valleys, their districts,
and they were in touch with their communities,
and there was an efficiency to that.
But they got taken over by the timber
industry.
They made a mess. They cut too much,
and we whacked them back.
And now the forest service lacks for an
identity
or a clear mandate.
They're demoralized.
If I were in charge,
if I were the chief,
I would
boy. There would be a lot to do.
But what you aspire to
is good government. It cannot be our goal
as activists to have bad dysfunctional government.
So we want an agency
that
that has high morale and high capacity and
high functionality,
but we wanted to have those things
for biodiversity,
for quality management,
not for industry driven
get the cutout.
I wanna get back to
the Trump administration and the Trump EOs,
because this does tie into
the fights over the ancient forests or the
timber wars or whatever you wanna call it.
And
these executive orders and
secretary Doug Burgum's secretary of the orders
talk about regularly
convening something called the God Squad.
What is this committee? Why haven't we generally
heard of it?
And what could it potentially
do here
in light of
the Endangered Species Act, in light of the
these
struggling, if not failing management policies?
The Endangered Species Act is one of the
clear and strongest
and most remarkable laws perhaps in the in
the world. Right? When it's working, it puts
the needs of a rare species
first.
What the god squad
allows, it's one section in in in the
Endangered Species Act that
gives a president
the option of pulling together this committee
to consider overriding
the prohibitions
where there's a public interest that should or
may overwhelm
the public interest in this protected species.
And the god squad has only been convened
three times
in the, what, fifty years or so of
that the Endangered Species Act has been around.
And so what
president Trump has proposed in this executive order
is novel.
It's more of a proactive
convening of the god squad.
In the statute, the god squad is reactive.
You know, when when things are so held
up by the needs of a species
and it's a it's a real problem, the
president can pull these folks together, and they
can figure out what to do about
it. The executive order takes the opposite approach.
It says, let's get the grad squad together
to figure out how to screw species.
I tend to think that whatever they would
come up with
would not pass
muster
of judicial review. I think the courts would
block it, but I'm not a lawyer.
I mean, would would that be potentially just
saying, okay. We've tried to save this the
northern spotted owl.
We've failed. Therefore,
we're gonna just let the spotted owl go
extinct. I mean, is that the the
lengths to which they could go potentially?
What drives the Northwest Forest Plan
isn't the Endangered Species Act, but the National
Forest Management
Act. The endangered species act says spotted owl
shouldn't go extinct, and it describes what should
happen for that. The National Forest Management
Act requires
that the agency
manage
for all native
and desired non native vertebrates to have viable
populations.
So you could the god squad could not
toss the Northwest forest plan because it still
hangs by a National Forest Management Act frame.
Also, spotted owls are not the only listed
species in the landscape. There's a lot of
listed
salmon and steelhead stocks
and and other organisms.
So
I tend to think that that was a
political move. You know, it's a sop to
the timber industry.
I don't think it's gonna have a lot
of impact.
I'm trying to think about how all of
this
comes together. Obviously, a lot of question marks
here over these orders, a lot of question
marks
over the courts, a lot of question marks
over how many people there are going to
be
working for the forest service.
What's the path forward?
Well, I've never seen anything like this.
You know, when I came into
activism under Reagan, and I lived through
Bush and Trump won. And I know all
of those situations,
we always thought that there were people we
could go talk to. I had a good
relationship with Mark Ray. I met with him
a a fair amount.
And when Doug Burgum was appointed,
you know, I talked to friends in the
Dakotas. He had a good reputation.
You know? Yeah. He's an oil and gas
guy, but
seem to like wildlife.
I don't think any of that matters. I
think the way that we used to look
at these appointments
has kind of been thrown out
by this more
performative and polarized
and
legally
highly questionable
approach of Doge.
I mean, we're starting to get towards a
core question of
what happens if you got the federal government.
If there's nobody there to do the work,
what work gets done?
Whether that work is cutting trees or putting
out fires
or fixing trails and cleaning latrines at trailheads.
I see I see big problems,
and maybe that's the plan. I mean, there
are people that take a conspiracy theory approach
to this that,
you know, if you've
if you
reduce the workforce of, say, the forest service
to such a degree that they can't maintain
the trails
and can't answer their phones and they can't
clear brush and small trees and they can't
respond effectively to wildfire,
then, you know, the public outcry you you
break government, and then the public says, oh,
government
government's broken.
Let's get rid of government. Okay. Let's sell
the public lands.
There are some people that draw those connections.
I don't believe that. I don't think there's
a master plan here.
You think it's
just chaos at this point?
Yes.
Well, I'm afraid this is one of those
episodes where we're gonna leave
with
not many answers and a lot more questions.
So I'll just say, Mitch, I hope we
can get you back on here
in in six months or nine months, and
we will check back
to see where things are at with our
forests and what has happened
with the God Squad and with these forest
ranger cuts and everything else.
Mitch Friedman
is the founder and executive director of Conservation
Northwest.
Mitch, really
appreciate your perspective
as it's important for folks to hear.
Thank you, Aaron. Appreciate being on.
Our next guest today is Rachel Hamby. Rachel
is our policy director here at the Center
for Western Priorities.
She's going to break down Trump's executive order
on mining and critical minerals. Rachel, welcome back
to the pod.
Thanks. Always great to be on.
So Trump issued this order back in mid
March that's essentially an effort to ramp up
mining on public lands. Can you summarize the
different provisions in the order? I know it
was sort of a grab bag,
before we get into the details.
Yeah. And even before we talk about this
executive order specifically,
let's talk about executive orders or EOs in
general.
The thing to remember about these is that
they do not overwrite
existing law. These are the president directing agencies
to do different things.
But if the president is directing an agency
to do something that is illegal or unlawful,
they're gonna run into problems, whether it's with
congress or by getting sued and having to
deal with it in the courts. So I
think it's important to remember that these are,
I've seen them described variously as glorified press
releases or
memos but on fancy stationery. So it's important
to keep in mind that these are not
writing new laws.
However, we have also learned that whenever the
Trump administration
says that they're gonna try something,
they're serious.
So we can't just dismiss this or any
other EO.
We have to take them seriously. These are
real threats because they are saying clearly what
they want to do.
So with all of that in mind, let's
look at this executive order specifically.
It is immediate measures to increase American mineral
production.
A big thing that this EO does at
the outset is
issue a new,
very broad, very generous definition of minerals
to include
not only minerals that are already on the
official critical minerals list, but also,
as you said, a grab bag of other
materials
like uranium
and gold
and other stuff.
And it also gives Doug Burgum
the authority under this EO
to
add other stuff to that list as he
sees fit, whether it's at his own discretion
or at Trump's direction.
So what everything else that follows from this
EO
is following that very generous definition of minerals.
The EO then goes on to lay out
a number of actions that Trump wants the
interior department to take to prioritize
mining
and mineral production
on federal lands. And I think that that
distinction is important because
we all kind of have an idea of
what mining is. It's a giant pit in
the ground. There's a lot of construction materials.
But the EO also provides for a number
of other types of mineral production, and that
could be a facility where they're
taking
materials and processing them into different products or
refining them in some way. So there's a
lot more activities
that this EO is seeking to promote than
just mining.
The other thing about this EO is that
the pretext for all of this is
national security,
which is being used to create
a sense of fear and urgency to disguise
what is really a giveaway of our national
public lands
to private industry.
So you mentioned that this creates sort of
a new list of minerals. We already had
a list called the critical minerals list that
essentially
was defined as minerals that are important for
national security and have a threatened supply chain.
Why create this new list instead of just
adding
minerals to the old list?
Yeah. That's a great point. So we do
have an official critical minerals list,
which is required by a law that congress
passed, and it lays out a number of
very specific criteria that a mineral has to
meet in order to be added to the
list,
a process for minerals to be evaluated for
inclusion,
people who have to weigh in. So it's
a whole process
to make sure that we're not just adding
stuff
willy nilly at someone's whim to the list.
So that already exists, and there's a process.
And then I think it just to make
sure that people know, there's the Department of
Interior's list, which is managed by the US
Geological
Survey,
And then there's also a separate
critical materials
list, which is maintained by the Department of
Energy. And they are related,
but similar in that there are specific criteria
and there's a process to put things on
those lists and they come out at certain
time frames.
So by creating
a whole another definition
of minerals,
this seems to be president Trump trying to
get around
the law that was passed by congress to
define the minerals,
the process that is laid out to add
minerals to that list, and just pretend all
of that doesn't exist and ignore it and
try to get the interior department to do
what he wants
on our public lands.
The fact that there are not defined criteria
gives Trump and Burgum and whoever a lot
of latitude
to add minerals and other materials
at their convenience for whatever what for whatever
purpose
they want, and they don't have
to meet any specific
goals that are in the national interest in
order to do that.
So I think that I mean, it's obviously
a theme across this administration here. We're gonna
ignore congress, do whatever the heck Trump wants.
And in doing so,
ironically
or maybe not, we're going to create entirely
new levels of federal bureaucracy and more committees
that did not exist before,
all in the name of government efficiency or
something.
So that brings up this National Energy Dominance
Council,
and
interior secretary Doug Burgum is now the head
of this new thing. What the heck is
it? So that's another thing that was created
by another Trump executive order. And like you
said, it's growing the government. It's creating another
council
that's gonna hold meetings and do various bureaucratic
stuff.
I think
part of the thinking here is to more
closely
integrate
the interior department,
public lands, and natural resources
with
national
security
and global trade type of issues because that
helps give them
more of a pretext, more of a justification
for
exploiting
and abusing our public lands and our natural
resources
under the guise of things like national security
and defense.
So the EO also directs Burgum as chair
of the National Energy Dominance Council
to develop a proposal for congress
to clarify the treatment of waste rock tailings
and mine waste disposal under the Mining Act
of 1872.
That sounds
confusing, but it's pointing to something,
kind of obvious. Right? Can you tell us
about that and, like, what the what that's
all about?
Sure. I will give you guys sort of
the short version of what is a long
story.
So for the longest time
actually, okay. Let me I'm gonna go back
even further.
Let me give you guys
the short version of what is a pretty
long story.
So in The United States, under the mining
law of 1872,
which still governs mining to this day,
anyone can go out and stake a mining
claim on national public lands.
There's an additional step, though, that you have
to do, which is
prove that your claim is valid. You have
to show that there are
minerals on that claim that are economically
recoverable, that it makes sense
to actually mine them, and you have to
do that in order for your claim to
be valid.
So for the longest time,
mining companies would stake a mining claim
and prove that it was valid,
but then they would stake more claims and
use those to dump the waste from their
mining operations
on public lands
without being forced to show that those other
claims were valid. So they were getting away
with something by dumping mine waste on our
public lands.
There was recently a court decision,
which, again, long story short,
found that, no. You can't do that anymore.
You have to follow what the law says,
which is that you have to show that
you have a valid mining claim even on
lands where you want to dump your mine
waste. And it also says that the federal
land management agency
has to verify that. You can't just take
the company's word for it. So the company
has to demonstrate that it's a valid mining
claim,
and the land manager has to
verify that on their own before a company
can just use our public lands to dump
their mine waste.
So and that is referred to as the
Rosemont
decision as a shorthand.
So mining companies don't love this because they
don't wanna have to go through all that.
So they are hoping that
either the president or congress will come in
with a fix for the Rosemont decision
that puts them back to the situation they
were in before where they can freely dump
their mind waste on public lands. And this
element of the executive order seems intended to
try to do that.
And, I mean, this is me possibly being
Pollyanna ish, but
is this the year then finally with Rosemont
that you end up with something resembling
1872
mining reform?
And could it be something that is
actually good in some way,
puts a a a royalty
on
hard rock minerals, things like that? Or is
that just
no chance that congress does this or something
along these lines tries to get, like, snuck
into reconciliation
in a way that would not require bipartisan
support?
You know, it is just so difficult to
speculate
now, but we have seen
we've seen, for years and years efforts to
reform the Mayan law of 1872.
That that's always been an uphill battle. We
have seen, as you mentioned, efforts to
sneak fixes to
Rosemont
into things like the National Defense Authorization Act.
You must pass legislation where people are trying
to offer amendments to sneak things like this
through. And so far, those have not been
successful.
And we have seen standalone
just normal legislation
to try and address this situation. There was
the Mining Regulatory Clarity Act,
last congress.
So
I wouldn't be surprised if we see any
number of those types of efforts
again.
I do think it's interesting that you bring
up the opportunity
to
add a royalty or a leasing system to
hard rock minerals similar to that that we
already have for oil and gas leasing
with the efforts
to find ways to get more revenue from
our public lands
and all of the,
DOGE efforts to eliminate waste.
If we were to have a royalty on
minerals, that would be a significant
new revenue source for the federal government at
a time when they are
looking around for that
and trumpeting their various efforts to profit more
off of our
national public lands.
And I suppose that gets into $33,000,000,000,000
in selling off public lands to eliminate the
national debt, but we will, you know, get
there in some some other episode.
Back to this mining executive order,
it gave secretary Burgum,
a whopping ten days to compile a list
of all federal lands
known to hold mineral deposits and reserves,
that was over ten days ago. Do you
think we're ever going to see this list?
Does it already exist
from the USGS?
Or,
I mean, why put something like that into
an executive order?
Well, I'm not exactly holding my breath over
here that it is gonna be released publicly.
So we've seen other executive orders directing the
interior department to come up with
other action plans and recommendations
and lists, and we have not seen those
released
publicly. So I'm not holding out hope for
this one either.
I think what we would see
is all of a sudden, there are actions
being taken. Like, you know, one day you
wake up and someone has got construction equipment
because they're suddenly building their new mine on
your public lands where you used to go
out and hike on the weekends.
That's how we're
gonna
know what their plans are.
So, finally, the EO directs the secretaries of
all federal land management agencies
to identify as many sites as possible that
may be suitable for mineral production and to
enter into extended use leases with private companies
for mineral production.
That to me sounds like it's saying put
mining ahead of all other uses
on
these on as many sites as possible.
Of course, we have the federal land and
Management Policy Act, which established the concept of
multiple use.
Does this EO essentially,
like,
run counter to that law that is, in
fact, that was passed by Congress that manages
our public lands?
Well, it certainly tries to, and they say
that explicitly. The EO says
that where the interior department has identified
reserves of minerals under
national public lands,
that
mineral
production
be made the primary use of those lands.
And you're exactly right. Under
enabling legislation
like the Federal Land Policy Management Act, which
governs use of Bureau of Land Management lands,
Congress specifically
said that those lands should be managed for
multiple use
and sustained yield. And as we were saying
at the beginning,
this this is just an executive order. It's
directing agencies to to do stuff, but it
is not overriding laws,
although they they certainly seem to be wanting
to try that.
But they are gonna run into problems when
agencies are trying to do things that are
against the law.
So once again, back to the courts
for the Trump administration. Well, I guess we
will leave it there today. Rachel Hamby, Center
for Western Priorities policy director, thank you as
always for being with us. Thanks for having
me on.
In good news this week, lawmakers in Montana
are pushing back against public land sell off
bills in their state legislature.
The Montana house killed a resolution that expressed
support for Utah's land grab lawsuit, which aimed
to force the federal government to give national
public lands to the state.
While the supreme court refused to hear that
lawsuit, the state of Utah could still refile
it in federal court.
The Montana house also amended a bill to
disallow the sale of state trust land after
public outcry.
Meanwhile, the Montana senate voted to table a
bill that would ask congress to remove protections
for all wilderness study areas in Montana.
Between these actions and Montana's federal lawmakers standing
strong against public land sell off, it's looking
like Montana may be emerging as a leader
in the fight against privatizing public lands in
the West.
All the credit to lawmakers from both parties
there in Montana for recognizing and listening
to voters in their state.
That will do it for us today. As
always, you can reach us podcast at westernpriorities.org,
and if you haven't already, go subscribe to
Look West. That is our daily public lands
newsletter. We get up early and read everything,
so you don't have to. You get just
the highlights, the most important,
best, and
these days often worse news,
about our public lands, and if that's too
much for you every day, we also have
a monthly newsletter.
We will drop the link to subscribe to
all of that in the show notes.
Thanks again to Mitch and Rachel for their
time, and thank you for listening to The
Landscape.