Ed Arnett

October 4, 2018

Look Before You Lease in Big Game Habitat

A recent flurry of energy leasing in and around critical big game habitats may limit options for conserving the West’s iconic big game populations

Fall is in the air, sportsmen and women clad in camouflage and blaze orange are hitting their favorite haunts, and animals are on the move! Soon, winter will be upon us, and for that reason, mule deer, pronghorn and elk are scarfing up every bit of energy-rich forage they can find. These animals must build fat reserves to survive the colder months ahead, and, for many Western big game herds, this means long journeys to access the very best-available food.

As we all know, our public lands are managed for multiple uses – grazing, recreation, wildlife habitat, and energy development, to name a few. While these different uses can, generally speaking, be compatible with one another, striking that critical balance requires that land managers give careful consideration to avoiding potential conflicts, particularly if one use may cause irreparably harm to another resource. And this is just the case when it comes to managing for the conservation of migratory big game animals.

Unfortunately, recent policy directives issued by the Department of Interior on energy dominance and big game habitat conservation may be developing into just such a scenario. Here’s why, and how it can be avoided:

Courtesy: BLM Wyoming
On the Move – But Not Too Fast

Big game animals can live in remote and harsh areas in the West, but only if they can move freely across the landscape at key times of the year to access nutritious food. Emerging science and new technologies have pinpointed actual, well-defined corridors traveled by animals during these migrations and measured how much time they spend in certain places along the way. We now know that, like migrating waterfowl and songbirds, big game animals utilize what are called stopover habitats, where animals spend more time – sometimes several days or even weeks – during their spring and fall movements. These vital areas offer food as well as security both from the elements and from predators, of the two- and four- legged varieties alike.

Recent studies also tell us that human development in the wrong places can disrupt the normal day-to-day patterns of migrating ungulates. In Wyoming, migrating mule deer move faster through developed areas, reduce time spent in stopovers, and avoid traditional stopovers altogether where development is most intensive. Researchers in Wyoming also recently discovered that mule deer continue to avoid areas within a half-mile of well pads used in oil and natural gas drilling for more than 15 years after the development of these sites, meaning that herds don’t habituate to these disturbances. And, contrary to what some may think, big game animals don’t simply find somewhere else to go. They exhibit strong fidelity to their traditional routes, meaning they aren’t likely to abandon their known paths and preferred habitats even when they become unusable.

These behavioral changes could mean that a migrating animal eats less food and burns more energy negotiating human structures like oil pads and roads. Furthermore, researchers in Wyoming recently found that on mule deer winter ranges every 1 percent of available forage directly lost from the physical footprint of infrastructure also resulted in an additional 4.6 percent loss of forage from herd’s avoidance of well pads. Such a situation can translate into poorer animal condition, higher winter mortality, lower reproduction, and overall fewer deer for hunters to pursue. In fact, studies in Wyoming demonstrate that one particular mule deer herd declined by 36 percent during a period of development in its habitat.

The effects of development on migrating animals do vary by location. Researchers studying deer in north-west Colorado found that steep and varied topography and pinyon-juniper forest vegetation can lessen the impacts on mule deer compared to the open sagebrush ranges in Wyoming. But there is, of course, a tipping point for development in any habitat, and keeping corridors and critical winter range mostly free of infrastructure and human activity would be prudent across the West.

Courtesy: BLM Wyoming
Competing Policies?

Although biologists have known for decades that big game animals need to migrate, what has been missing is the policy and specific guidance to land management agencies regarding the conservation of these habitats. Fortunately, Secretary of the Interior Ryan Zinke signed an order last February, S.O. 3362, directing agencies to better conserve critical big game habitats like migration corridors and winter range.

Sportsmen and women lauded this policy as an encouraging first step. The order directs Interior agencies, particularly the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), to assess migration corridors early in the land-use planning process and to develop site-specific management plans to conserve and restore these habitats. State wildlife agencies have submitted their top winter range and migration corridor priorities to DOI and are currently working with BLM to develop those conservation plans for each of these priorities across the West.

At the same time, DOI is also subject to Executive Order 13783, aimed at promoting the administration’s goals of energy independence and economic growth, and has ordered its agencies to advance energy development on public lands. At the end of 2017, the BLM estimated that about 26 million acres were under lease to oil and gas developers, of which about 12.8 million acres were currently producing in viable quantities. In 2018 alone, millions more acres across the western U.S. have already been offered up for leasing, many of which overlap existing migration corridors and winter range – among them some top priorities identified by state wildlife agencies, like the Red Desert-to-Hoback corridor in Wyoming.

While energy development at lower levels (generally less than 1.5 well pads per 640-acre section) may be compatible with big game use of habitats, this recent acceleration of leasing and development has created a potential impediment to successful conservation efforts. Leasing and actual development, however, aren’t the same thing, so understanding the current predicament requires a bit of knowledge about the process of leasing and development on federal lands.

In 2018 alone, millions more acres across the western U.S. have already been offered up for leasing, many of which overlap existing migration corridors and winter range…

Leasing vs. Development, and Why It Matters for Conservation

To be frank, this is a complex subject with numerous relevant statutory laws and administrative rules, as well as considerable volume of case law. But there are some basic processes and issues surrounding development that you should know.

Virtually all federal acres – unless specially designated, for example, as a wilderness area or national park – are open to exploration and nomination for leasing of minerals resources under the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920. By law, the BLM must offer quarterly lease sales by competitive bid wherever it has jurisdiction over federal mineral rights. Prior to any lease sale, however, the agency is legally required to allow the public the chance to file an administrative protest. In addition, the BLM can publish a list of lands under consideration for leasing and accept public comments, often giving state wildlife agencies additional opportunities for input given their special expertise.

Before sale, these agencies have several ways to see that conservation priorities, including those pertaining to S.O. 3362, are not negatively affected. They can ask for outright deferral of lease parcels that overlap migration corridors, effectively setting these parcels aside for some period of time and perhaps to be permanently withdrawn at a later date. They can also request that certain leases include protective stipulations required by the local Resource Management Plan (RMP), an underlying management framework for each of the BLM’s local administrative units, or request that the BLM add new stipulations that are more protective, such as limits to the amount of land that can be disturbed at any given time or restrictions on when particular areas of the lease can be occupied.

State agencies may also ask that the BLM add Conditions of Approval to be included in any permits to drill issued under the lease. These are mandatory requirements that can prescribe times of use for the lease, roads, or other associated facilities. Lastly, wildlife agencies can request “special lease notices” that require the purchaser of certain lease parcels to meet with the agency to discuss preferred development approaches that would minimize impacts on wildlife, such as the timing of construction or road blading.

Courtesy: USFWS Mountain-Prairie

Unlike protective stipulations, which would make the necessary conservation measures legally binding prior to the sale of a nominated lease parcel, special lease notices do not require the leaseholder to follow the state agency’s recommendations. While most operators are likely to do so, wildlife remain at considerable risk should a less-conscientious developer purchase the lease. Once the lease is sold, the purchaser has a valid and existing right to develop those minerals. If the BLM is only relying on a lease notice, the agency is left to negotiate with the operator to see that conservation priorities are safeguarded.

Even after the sale, as noted before, the purchaser and/or developer must still submit an Application for Permit to Drill (APD) before actually developing the resource. At this stage, the BLM imposes Conditions of Approval as part of the final permitting process, and a state wildlife agency can weigh in here as well. While these conditions are often specified at the time of lease issuance, opportunities to comment and propose further measures can arise at the time of permitting. Given that the leaseholder already possesses development rights, however, those Conditions of Approval cannot unreasonably impede the ability of the operator to fully develop the mineral resource – which could limit options for conservation.

Our Current Predicament

In short, once leases have been sold, the implementation of new conservation measures is dependent on the developer and the many factors that affect how mineral resources can and will be extracted.

Concurrently – yet independently – the BLM is actively leasing numerous parcels of land that overlap state priority big game winter range and migration corridors. This was true with the recent third quarter 2018 Wyoming BLM oil and gas lease sales, which saw the sale of parcels for leasing that overlap the Red Desert-to-Hoback migration corridor, a top conservation priority for state wildlife officials. An upcoming fourth quarter sale will include more parcels that overlap the same and another priority migration corridor. The same scenario is sure to unfold elsewhere in the very near future.

In short, once leases have been sold, the implementation of new conservation measures is dependent who the developer is and the many factors that affect how mineral resources can and will be extracted.

While all Western states have identified priority areas for DOI, the relevant state and federal agencies have yet to determine specific actions needed to ensure the long-term conservation and enhancement of these vital habitats. By committing to land-management decisions under the direction of aging RMPs that do not acknowledge or consider big game migration corridors, the BLM is limiting its own options and creating unnecessary conflict between energy and big game habitat directives. What’s more, this also puts the onus on state wildlife agencies, leaving them in the difficult position of requesting deferrals and other measures to conserve winter range and corridors after leasing decisions have already been made.

So, what should be done to get migration corridor conservation back on track?

Courtesy: USFWS Mountain-Prairie
Hitting the “Pause” Button and Finding Balance

Ultimately, the success of S.O. 3362 hinges on striking that critical balance between energy development and conserving big game habitats. Leasing in migration corridors and winter range, especially those identified by the states as top priorities, poses serious risk unless management plans and science-based guidance are already in place. We need to move away from reactive decision-making to more proactive approaches and better upfront planning.

It’s time to hit the “pause” button and take a step back. Sportsmen and women are not asking BLM to withdraw all areas in migration corridors permanently. Rather, we are simply asking that they defer leasing all portions of nominated parcels that overlap migration corridors and critical winter range until adequate management plans for those habitats can be developed. The BLM should continue working with state wildlife agencies to finalize action plans for the conservation and enhancement of individual migration corridors, and integrate those conservation objectives into appropriate BLM RMPs.

Consultation with governors and wildlife agencies in each Western state will be key to ensuring balance among competing land uses. Recently, DOI and the state of Wyoming agreed to defer about 5,000 acres of lease parcels that encompassed the Red Desert-to-Hoback corridor – a move applauded by the sporting and conservation communities. However, there are still several thousand acres that remain on the lease sale block with only special lease notices attached.

Such a situation calls into question whether migration corridors and winter range indeed will be balanced with energy development and whether these habitats will remain functional for the long-term survival and health of our Western big game herds. All could be well and good for big game in most or all of these leased acres, but once the leases are sold that all depends on the developer and their willingness to cooperate while also exercising their mineral rights.

Mr. Zinke’s initiative on big game migration corridors and seasonal habitat could clearly be a model for federal policy being shaped by the best-available science. We see this as a critical issue for the future of wildlife and hunting, and we applaud the leadership on this issue demonstrated by S.O. 3362. To see it through, however, we need to keep all options open for striking the balance needed to maintain the biological integrity and functionality of the Wests’ great wildlife migrations.

 

Top photo courtesy: BLM Wyoming

4 Responses to “Look Before You Lease in Big Game Habitat”

  1. Can these leases be sublet? If so, groups like RMEF, SCI, MDF, and the Nature Conservancy could then purchase the leases, then sub-lease them to the oil & gas and minerals companies, but with conditions that the BLM doesn’t stipulate. The protection of the migration corridors, winter habitat, and stopover habitat must be protected at those vital times when they are being utilized by wildlife.

    Please check into this option. If leases can be sublet, its time to contact the big money conservation groups and buy said leases, put in wildlife friendly conditions, then lease them to industry. Hope that helps.

  2. Diana Stransky

    Money seems to always win out over wildlife. It is time people stop breeding, stop thinking we are entitled to anything and everything, and put the survival of other species first. This means the ability to migrate, safe passage over busy highways, and places where they are not pressured, so they can calve undisturbed by people, dogs, and especially bicycles!

  3. william h. skinner

    Nature conservation groups should work together to purchase leases that are in critical wildlife habitat and keep them undeveloped. I do not think there is a time limit on when the leased property must be developed.

Do you have any thoughts on this post?

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

Kristyn Brady

October 2, 2018

Farm Bill Expiration Brings Uncertainty for Landowners, Sportsmen, and the Rural Economy

Without a new five-year bill, conservation and voluntary access incentive programs are currently unavailable to well-intentioned landowners

On Sunday night at midnight, the 2014 Farm Bill expired, effectively hitting the pause button on a number of vital conservation programs. If Congress can’t get a new five-year bill reauthorized by the end of this Congress, it could have profound impacts on future funding for conservation programs and begin to influence whether farmers and ranchers across the nation even want to take advantage of conservation incentives.

“Farmers, ranchers, and forest owners across the country depend on Farm Bill conservation programs for the tools they need to protect and improve soil, water, and wildlife habitat on working lands, and this failure to pass an on-time Farm Bill means that farmers and ranchers will no longer be able to enroll in the full suite of conservation programs over the coming weeks,” says Aviva Glaser, director of agriculture policy at the National Wildlife Federation. “We call on Congress to come together quickly to pass a strong, bipartisan, and conservation-friendly Farm Bill.”

Until lawmakers resolve debate and vote to pass a new bill, well-intentioned landowners—whose demand for conservation programs already outstrips the funding available—can’t enroll in important programs and services that benefit wildlife, water quality, and outdoor recreation.

“Farmers, ranchers, and landowners need these conservation tools available to them to address natural resource concerns on their property,” says Jim Inglis, director of governmental affairs for Pheasants Forever and Quail Forever. “Right now, for example, enrollment in the Conservation Reserve Program—one of our country’s most successful conservation programs that provides tremendous benefits for wildlife while reducing soil erosion and improving water and air quality—is not possible. This means a loss of habitat benefits for pheasants, quail, and many other species across the country that we enjoy pursuing each fall.”

The lapse in authorization could also create confusion for hunters and anglers who rely on private land for access. “By missing the September 30 deadline, Congress has created tremendous uncertainty among sportsmen and women who enjoy the conservation and public-access benefits of the Voluntary Public Access and Habitat Incentive Program, a farm bill program that has opened hundreds of thousands of private acres for walk-in access to hunting and fishing,” says Alex Maggos, director of agriculture and private lands for the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership. “This could cause ripple effects in rural communities that typically see an influx of spending during the fall hunting season.”

Any bill that passes should contain strong conservation provisions and funding for key programs. “The Farm Bill plays a critical role in keeping America’s working lands in working hands and yields significant economic benefits to farms, ranches, and communities across our nation,” says Lori Faeth, government relations director of the Land Trust Alliance. “We urge Congress to pass a Farm Bill that restores funding for the Agricultural Conservation Easement Program to $500 million annually and enacts common-sense changes to make the Agricultural Land Easement program more efficient and effective. But Congress must act now. Every day we lack a new Farm Bill is another day we stand to lose another farm or ranch.”

“The expiration of the Farm Bill shuts the door on farmers, ranchers, and forest landowners trying to voluntarily protect and enhance their lands through the Regional Conservation Partnership Program,” says Jenny Conner Nelms, senior policy advisor for agriculture at The Nature Conservancy. “These innovative projects bring together public and private partners, who in the first five years have matched federal funding with more than $2 billion in local and private funding, to tackle local natural resource concerns and boost conservation nationwide. This popular program brings new partners to the table and has already funded projects from irrigation efficiency and soil health to base buffering around military installations—all of this will be on hold until Congress passes a new farm bill.”

“With nearly two-thirds of America’s forests under private ownership, mostly in the hands of families and individuals, the Farm Bill is a critical tool for forest conservation that benefits big game and upland birds,” says Brent Rudolph, director of conservation for the Ruffed Grouse Society and American Woodcock Society. “Improving stewardship of private and family-owned forests should be as bipartisan as any issue out there, especially considering that the Farm Bill is a resource for safeguarding clean air and water, providing incredible recreation and habitat value, and supporting more than 2.4 million rural jobs, as well. The inability to move a Farm Bill that provides such support is a missed opportunity and true disappointment.”

Contact your lawmakers in support of a timely Farm Bill with strong conservation provisions and funding NOW.

Joel Webster

October 1, 2018

Act Now For Alaska’s Roadless Areas

With an Alaska roadless rule on the way, sportsmen and women need to advocate for habitat, clean water, and quality hunting and fishing opportunities

The US Forest Service has announced plans to rewrite the rules for the management of 16.8 million acres of roadless backcountry in the Tongass and Chugach National Forests in Alaska.

The lands under consideration have never been roaded or developed, and they provide enormous benefits for hunters, anglers, and the commercial fishing industry right now, just the way they are.

These areas are currently managed under the direction of the 2001 roadless rule, and a re-write of their management could result in industrial development, impairing streams important to salmon and disturbing valuable big game habitat.

Take a few moments right now to submit a letter in support of safeguarding these critically important hunting and fishing lands. We have developed the below talking points to help you write your letter.

Comments will be accepted until October 15, so make your voice heard today!

Suggested Talking Points

  • As a sportsman, I am concerned by the US Forest Service’s actions to rewrite the management of national forest roadless areas on the Tongass and Chugach National Forests in Alaska.
  • These lands provide enormous benefits for hunters, anglers, and the commercial fishing industry, and the current 2001 roadless rule is doing its job of ensuring they continue to do so.
  • Alaska’s national forest backcountry lands provide incredibly valuable habitat for salmon, Sitka black-tailed deer, moose, Dall sheep, and bear.
  • I ask that you support our hunting and fishing traditions by maintaining strong safeguards for Alaska roadless areas and preventing rollbacks that would open them to industrial development.

 

Photo courtesy: Forest Service Alaska Region, USDA

John Cornell

September 12, 2018

New Mexicans: Ensure Our Public Lands Are Managed Responsibly

This is YOUR chance to play a role in how our public lands are managed and ensure that sportsmen and women have a say about the places where we love to hunt and fish

The BLM’s Carlsbad Field Office encompasses over two million acres across southeast New Mexico, including the Guadalupe Mountains, Pecos River, Delaware River, and the Black River. These landscapes provide some of the finest hunting, fishing, and outdoor recreation opportunities in the state, as well as important habitat for big game and fish.

Currently, the Bureau of Land Management is revising the plan that will determine the future management of these lands. The Carlsbad Field Office’s Draft Resource Management Plan was released in August with a 90-day public comment period, and sportsmen and women must get involved to ensure that the best habitats are conserved and that these lands are managed responsibly for multiple-use.

Please attend one of eight local public meetings in the next few weeks (see schedule below). These events will offer updates on the planning process, allow the public to share their ideas and opinions on the draft plan, and explain ways for interested citizens to stay involved.

The best way to see that our priorities are included in the plan is to have a presence and provide input at these meetings. Meeting dates, locations, and times, as well as suggested talking points are listed below.

Thank you for taking the time to support our public lands, and I hope to see you at one of the following meetings.

Where and When
 Meeting Location  Date   Time  Address
Carlsbad September 17  12:30 – 3pm;  5:30 – 8pm  Pecos River Village Conference Center, 711 Muscatel Avenue
Artesia  September 18  12:30 – 3pm  Central Valley Electric Cooperative, 1403 N. 13th Street
Roswell  September 18 5:30 – 8pm  Holiday Inn Roswell, 3620 North Main Street
Hope  September 19  5:30 – 8pm  Village of Hope, 408 South 2nd Avenue
Albuquerque  September 20  12:30 – 3pm  Holiday Inn Albuquerque, North I-25, 5050 Jefferson Street NE
Jal  September 25  12:30 – 3pm  Jal Community Center, 109 W. Panther Ave
Hobbs  September 25  5:30 – 8pm  New Mexico Junior College, 5317 N Lovington
Midland, TX September 27  12:30 – 3pm  Midland County Centennial Library, 2503 Loop 250 Frontage Rd

 

Suggested Talking Points
  • Conserve big-game seasonal habitat and migration corridors: Elk, mule deer, and antelope utilize a variety of landscapes throughout the year, and the long-term health of these areas—particularly those contiguous, high-quality wildlife habitats that are not yet developed—should receive special consideration under the plan.
  • Additional resources for responsible stewardship: Funding for the reclamation and restoration of abandoned and orphaned well sites and energy infrastructure should equal that spent on new development. Additionally, the agency should provide the resources necessary to effectively monitor and enforce existing rules and regulations.
  • Responsible energy development: Oil and gas development on these lands should be conducted thoughtfully and in balance with other multiple-uses. Wildlife-dependent recreation and the hunting and fishing opportunities in places such as Serpentine Bends, or on the clear waters of the Black River, Delaware River and Pecos River should be safeguarded as this area undergoes further development.

 

Photo courtesy of BLM New Mexico

Joel Webster

September 7, 2018

Roadless Rule for Alaska Should Follow the Examples Set in Idaho and Colorado

If the forest service and Alaska are going to develop a state-focused roadless rule, they should stick to the standards set by previous efforts

Sometimes the world of public lands policy makes me feel like I’m helping my young daughter with her latest Lego set. She and I might spend hours assembling a boat or car, one piece at time until it’s completed and functional, and then she’ll play with it for a few days before deciding that it’s time to tear it apart and start all over again.

Such a process resembles the current situation of public land management in Alaska, where a carefully crafted conservation plan has been working with success since its establishment seventeen years ago, but the Forest Service must return to the drawing board to create a new plan for managing 14.7 million acres of some of the world’s most productive salmon and Sitka blacktail deer habitat.

And in this case, rather than the few hours it takes to rebuild my daughter’s plastic toys, the decision to scrap this carefully crafted policy will require millions of public dollars and years of committed work by our already overworked management agencies.

That’s right, the U.S. Forest Service recently announced that it has agreed to work with the state of Alaska to develop a state-specific rewrite of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule, which is designed to conserve undeveloped backcountry public lands that have never been roaded or developed. These areas in the Tongass and Chugach National Forests provide enormous benefits right now for hunters, anglers, and the commercial fishing industry, and the current roadless rule is doing its job of ensuring they continue to do so.

With that said, since it is now clear that a new plan will be rewritten for Alaska, we want to outline how this process must unfold in order for it to succeed. About a decade ago, the states of Idaho and Colorado followed a similar path and developed state-based rules for roadless areas within their borders, and the TRCP played a leading role in seeing that these efforts produced plans that benefitted wildlife, conserved habitat, and safeguarded quality hunting and fishing opportunities.

Below are the lessons learned along the way that the Forest Service and state of Alaska must heed if they hope to develop a workable and supportable Alaska roadless rule.

Must-Dos for Roadless Rule Planning

First, in order to generate broad buy-in and support, an Alaska roadless rule must be, on balance, as strong as or stronger than the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. In order to do this, any new allowances for development in roadless areas must be counterbalanced with increased conservation measures. This was the approach taken in both Colorado and Idaho, where negotiations for provisions allowing new roads, more aggressive timber harvest, and mineral extraction in some areas resulted in additional safeguards for what were deemed the highest value roadless areas. This model enabled solutions-focused stakeholder groups to collaborate over the management of these lands and develop an end product with support from multiple interests. A similar expectation must be established for an Alaska roadless rule to help drive cooperation and compromise, and the rule’s ultimate success.

Second, any changes to the current management of roadless areas must result from a collaborative process that includes pragmatic representatives from a wide array of state and national stakeholder groups. The Forest Service’s memorandum of understanding with the state of Alaska indicates that the state will establish a state-driven collaborative to develop recommendations on the management of these lands. Both the Idaho and Colorado roadless rules succeeded, however, because the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the U.S. Forest Service, and the states themselves supported the inclusion of stakeholders representing both state and, critically, national interests in the collaborative process. Because of this diverse level of involvement, these management rules were able to pass muster and be supported both locally and nationally.

Finally, the rule-making process should require as much public participation as possible. The success of Idaho and Colorado rules was dependent on strong public participation, and a number of key refinements to these rules were suggested by the public. The USFS should not only embrace and fully consider input from a broad range of voices, but also hold public meetings in the lower 48, in addition to the state of Alaska. Right now, the planned public meeting schedule does not include any meetings outside of Alaska, despite the fact that these lands are owned by all Americans. Ample commenting opportunities for the public to weigh-in officially will ensure that a variety of perspectives and interests will be heard in the planning process.

We’ve been here before, and if policymakers are serious about developing a roadless rule for Alaska that will be supported by stakeholders and provide for balanced management, they would do well to heed the lessons learned in the Idaho and Colorado roadless rule processes. With so much at stake, there’s no excuse to reinvent a proven model.

 

Photos courtesy: Forest Service Alaska Region, USDA

HOW YOU CAN HELP

WHAT WILL FEWER HUNTERS MEAN FOR CONSERVATION?

The precipitous drop in hunter participation should be a call to action for all sportsmen and women, because it will have a significant ripple effect on key conservation funding models.

Learn More
Subscribe

You have Successfully Subscribed!

You have Successfully Subscribed!

You have Successfully Subscribed!