Reorganizing the US Forest Service with Tom Schultz

Chief Tom Schultz, welcome back to Idaho, kind of. You are the chief of the United States Forest Service, right? Which is fantastic. You're also from Idaho, which is great. You and I met uh uh several months back at uh at a nuclear and energy energy convention. The US Forest Service is going through a large reorganization. Um, and there are a lot of ins and outs of this. We're moving uh operations closer to where the actual resources are, which is interesting. We're consolidating research areas.

There's concern about employment bases, which already took a big hit in in 2025. A lot of things going on. Talk to me about what's going on with the US Forest Service. Yeah, I think one of the first things I wanna do is for your audience is let them know that um the Forest Service is strong, the Forest Service has got a good vision ahead, the the President and the Secretary have

made it very clear what our priorities are and we're executing on priorities. We had a tremendous year in twenty five. We exceeded targets, whether it was reforestation, whether it was our timber sale program. Recreation given what we were doing. Um, fire. We had a tremendous fire season last year. We had more starts than we've seen the last ten years. We had burned half as many acres.

So I would say the four service is in a good direction. Um from a restructuring perspective, there's a lot there is a lot going on. Um and we are in a in a nutshell what we're doing is we are moving the action, we're moving the direction closer to where the forests are and closer to where many of the public is that we serve on a daily basis. Um in terms of the impacts to employees, there's been a lot out there about Different things. This does not involve any riffs.

It will require that we move probably somewhere between four hundred and five hundred people out of an agency that's greater than thirty thousand people, so that's approximately one and a half percent. of the employees we expect will have to relocate in some fashion. Um we're I think we've estimated about two hundred sixty would move from the Washington office to Salt Lake or Fort Collins or another location.

The headquarters will move from Washington, DC, out to Salt Lake, which we think will better serve the American public. Um additionally we do have anticipated closing the regional offices. That will not happen until after the Western fire season. So for folks that could be concerned about our ability to respond in a quick and swift fashion this fire season, there would be no impacts there. Um and then when we do start transitioning the regional offices

Many of those employees will have opportunities to work on local forests. We've identified certain hubs or service centers that they can work at. And we've also identified a state based system where um some of those folks will have opportunities to work under a state director office. And for instance in Idaho, we're gonna have a state director office in Boise. Um and we were replicating that pattern across the West and in the East as well. So we see this as being um good for the American public.

It's something that is needed. It's needed to have been done for years. The Forest Service has been looking at reorganization since two thousand seven. There's been a lot of efforts to study this, a lot of efforts to consider reorganization. But we're actually doing it. And we do think um it's gonna better align the resources that we have with the work that we do um and be better available to the public. So that's kind of a question of what we're doing.

Okay. Uh a a few questions if you don't mind. Uh the the the the Forest Service um the Bureau of Land Management moved already, correct? So and of the first Trump administration they moved folks out of DC to Grand Junction. Okay. So there's also this so there's already a precedence for like, hey man

Why are we here when the action's over here? So that like the fact that the Forest Service is now moving uh to the West, where we have a lot of management that needs to be done is not is not unique or something special at this point.

No, it's not unique. It's not something special, but I think what people point to is that when the move to Grand Junction occurred, a lot of people left. And then I think a subsequent administration moved some of those folks back. So one of the the questions we get on a regular basis is

Well, if you do this, is this durable? And what I would argue is that Grand Junction is a different location than Salt Lake. Salt Lake has a lot of amenities, it's very family friendly. Um, it's got a tremendous airport, it's probably one of the better airports in the country in terms of accessibility. Um so it's a different location. Um and we think that, you know, we've had a lot of employees in the agency that live and work in and around. We have we have an office in Ogden right now. We have

national forest. We have eight million acres in national forest in Utah. So many of the the families and employees that work in Utah um find that as a very positive place to live and raise a family. So we think that's gonna It's a different experience maybe than living in Grand Junction, which could be more isolated than maybe you would see in Salt. Gotcha. Now for the people that engage in the forest service because they like wild lands and they like forest.

This this seems to be a way better option than hanging out in DC all the time. Now look, like I'm not, you know, bagging on DC, but I have been there. I'm like, this is not like like every time I go, I can't wait to get back to Idaho. So I have to imagine for people that

you know, want to engage in this work, it would not be a bad option for them. Right. So for people who are like, oh, it's going to ruin everything. It's like, yeah, or not, because people don't, you don't join the Forest Service. So you can hang out in an office building in the middle of DC.

Right. What I don't want to diminish though, I I think there's two audiences here. There's both an external and an internal audience. So from the external perspective for the public, I think it better serves the public. Um and the other thing people fail to talk about sometimes is, you know, we've heard the term

Um, you know, when I'm in D C, it's uh not uncommon to have many people come into my office that are looking for something, right? They do a fly into D C. Um, they want my ear, they want to bend my ear, they wanna influence the process. For them to come to Salt Lake, it's gonna be a little more challenging, right? So they're gonna have to really wanna come out. So I would argue that when you think about politics, a lot of people are saying the Forest Service will have less influence.

I would argue that by being in Salt Lake, it's really gonna take an effort by somebody to wanna come to influence me in a way that they would do in a flying in D C. So when you think about whatever you wanna call D C, whether you call it the swamp or whatever But it's gonna take more effort to someone to come out to try to influence the process in Salt Lake than being in D C.

When you talk about an internal audience, um, we do have folks that you know, we've got I think over three hundred about three hundred and fifty people that are in the national capital region in the office there. So it really will impact them, regardless of what they might like to do recreation wise.

Um they have families, they have spouses, they have kids in schools, right? So there will be impact. So I don't want to diminish the impact of those employees. But what we are trying to communicate is that for those employees, there will be opportunities for them to have jobs. There are no riffs with this.

Um and we will also be working with them to relocate them um over a time frame that works for their family and for the Forest Service. So we we're trying to be compassionate in this process, but also we do think the reason we're doing this is ultimately to better serve the public.

Understood. Understood. Appreciate all of that. Um, going from a regional based model where I believe you had eight or nine separate regions, to a state based model where it's I think you're gonna have like fifteen individual state bases and then like a couple, I think it's like six centralized centralized kind of operational hubs. Do you anticipate this allowing for better service and response time for individual states? Because one of the big things that people worry about in Idaho is like

Yeah, you know, I w I was up at uh uh I believe it was two years ago, I was up at Redfish and we left on a Thursday. And quite literally, it was an hour or two after we left. um and we went over to Rigby. Um the the large fire up there started and it was this mass like, hey man, get this thing put out right away. I mean, you could see smoke coming coming over those hills.

There's an anxiety around response time and response propriety if there's uh you know this is being managed from afar. So do you think that the having the state-based model instead of the region-based model will offer better and more appropriate responses for state level concerns?

I do. So if you think about it right now, um in Idaho, we have two regions. We have Region Four and Region One. So basically you're looking at north and south of the salmon, right? So we've got forests that are managed out of Ogden and forests that are managed out of Missoula. This will enable those forests. The supervisor will sit in Boise, and they will have direct supervision over those forests in the state of Ida.

So whether you're a tribe, whether you're the state, whether you're the county, you're gonna have local leadership in the state of Idaho. Right, and they're gonna have that responsibility. Um, and a big function is gonna be as a liaison. So right now you think about it, we have a single regional forester that is over the states of California, Oregon, Washington, and Alaska.

So tr think about trying to maintain those relationships across that scope and spectrum, right? Whereas when a state-based model, you're gonna have in many of the states in the West, now it's not the same in the East because we have less of a footprint for the National Forest.

But you're gonna have that that ability to have contact and those relationships should be more meaningful. They should be more regular in terms of communication. Um, we think it's just gonna be a better approach, whether you're a tribe. Whether you're the state, whether you're a county, having that representation and that leadership within that state, we think it's a much better approach. So currently under the current iteration of regional management.

We have two zones, zone w I think you said zone one and zone four in Idaho. Neither of those are controlled by an office in Idaho. They are controlled either by Missoula or I think you said Ogden, was it? That is correct. Okay. I don't like that. And I don't know anything about force management. And and just having somebody split across like split through the state, that also seems

Well we have the same thing in Wyoming. In Wyoming we have two regions in the state of Wyoming. So when you talk to state foresters in both of those states, many times they're they struggle because people want to what they want consistency at a state level, right? They don't want to have

one national forest system that has getting direction from Ogden, another national force getting direction from Missoula, and sometimes that direction is not always consistent. So we think this will provide for greater consistency. at the state level with all of those cooperators. Um and in many cases it's counties that have a lot to say as well. So we think it'll better serve the public, better serve in the liaison role. The other thing I I really need to point this out

Um when you think about what we're doing here, like what is the impact on the ground? I'm a big proponent of operations. Right, we are a field based organization. We are gonna focus on operations and drive that down. When you when you have regional offices and a in a Washington office that is that is staffed at a level that creates more overhead, right? So we're trying to flatten the organization.

You have less resources available to the actual forest and the districts on the ground. So in the flattening of this organization, we expect to actually drive over time more resources, funding and staff.

to the districts and to the forests where the work is done, whether it's fighting fire Whether it's land management, whether it's interfacing in recreation with the public on a daily basis, we think this is a better way to deliver services, reduce middle management, and push that that resource to the ground. So in the end we do see that this being a much improved model for communication, for liaison, for relationship building, and ultimately delivery of service to the public.

I appreciate that. Um when you're talking about delivering a service to the public. There are a lot of things. There is obviously fire suppression and and and forest management, things of this nature, right? But there are the one of the big things through the forest surface is also research. Right. And as it it's my understanding that the current iteration of research is that you have researchers across across the West, but really across the nation working on various and assorted things.

And this reorganization is going to bring a centralized research hub. At least again, that's my understanding. So correct me if I'm wrong. And the argument here is. Hey, look, you might have 10 different research hubs. Okay. Now mind you, we're dealing with a wide variety of environments, you know, humidity levels, soils, different, different um species types, all these different things. So we have a a a big need for a lot of research across across the United States. However,

some of these problems that people are solving. Like we might be solving a problem in Idaho that is already solved or is currently being working on uh worked on also in Arkansas. Which means it's like, well, we don't have to like bug X that goes after the bark. I don't know what the bug is, right? But we have bug X and it's going after bark in both Idaho and in Arkansas. And we have these resources, very skilled researchers that are both going after this bug X. And it's like, okay, well

The problem is they're not talking to each other every single day. So they're gonna keep humming along their merry way and likely arrive at a valuable conclusion. But if it takes a year and they both arrive at the conclusion after a year, we just lost a whole, you know, team's worth of a year because

They were both working on it. So the idea is, hey, let's reduce the capacity for duplicative work and actually centralize this so we have individual we're we're leveraging our resources and research um to the max capacity. Is that is that kind of the So let me let me the research thing, I think you've got

Part of it right, part of it I think is even simpler than what you're you're suggesting here. So first and foremost, research is important to the Forest Service. We make science based decisions on a daily basis. I can tell you I've been all over California, whether it's in fire, whether it's in forest management. The work that we do with silviculture, the work that we do in fire suppression, safety, a lot of that, some of the coolest research in the country has come from the Forester.

There's something called environmental DNA. I don't know if you remember ever hearing of shocking streams to see if fish are in the streams or what types of fish, what species. The Forest Service actually designed and developed a model where you just basically you can sample water.

You can test the DNA of all of the macroinvertebrates in fish that could be basically just from their genes in the water and you can determine from like a whole stretch of a stream what's actually in the water system. That is forest service research that was developed.

So research is key. That's the first thing. So people saying that we're dismantling research is fundamentally false. Okay, that premise is false. The Forest Service values research, and we're aligning this differently. With the problem we have right now is we have 130 facilities. Hundred and thirty facilities around the country.

We in many of those facilities we have one, two, or three people. Okay? We have a facility in Hawaii that has 80 people in it. Only eight of those are Forest Service employees. So in many cases, we have maintained legacy facilities to the tune of we have a three billion dollar shortfall in deferred maintenance on these facilities. So you think about it, a as you look at the buildings that we have, the footprint that we cover

We are going to maintain the research, but we have to reduce the facility footprint. And in the and really the question that is put to you and me, if you were to manage a a research program like we have, would you rather maintain facilities? or we maintain the research because in many cases we cannot do both.

Our budget in fiscal year twenty-six for facilities is about thirty-seven million dollars less than it was in fiscal year twenty-five. So Congress actually provided us with a substantial reduction in facilities. So we are unable to maintain the footprint, the physical footprint that we have today into the future. So really what this is, this is the Forest Service in the administration being prudent and fiscally responsible with the taxpayer dollars.

We cannot continue to do this. We care about the research. The research is important. The people are important. So what we're going to do is we're going to reduce the footprint from roughly 130 facilities down to 20. We're going to look at other ones that could be evaluated for retention. But in many cases, the research will continue. They might locate researchers on a forest. They could be in one of those hubs you mentioned. They could be in Fort Collins.

So this is not a dismantling of research. This is not a dismissal of research. This is the Force Service being fiscally prudent, stewards of the taxpayer dollar, and recognizing that we cannot maintain The facility footprint, and we are going to prioritize research over facility management. That's what this is about. It's that simple.

That is a lot more simple than I said. I very much agree with you. Yeah. So bottom line, it's like, listen, you'd like to, you know, again, continue on with the research. You're just burning burning resources with fit maintaining physical brick and mortar. That's right. Buildings that are in many cases thirty, forty, fifty years old, plumbing doesn't work.

Three billion dollars in deferred maintenance. Let's take that billions of dollars in deferred maintenance off the taxpayer rolls. If a university wants to take over the building, they're more than welcome to. If a partner wants to take over the building, they're more than welcome to. In some cases, we're going to have our researchers work at universities so they can better partner with the universities. In some cases, they could be in other federal buildings.

In some cases they'll be on on national forest. So this is not about dismantling, which that word drives me crazy. It's not about dismantling research or dismantling the Forest Service. It's about being prudent stewards of the taxpayer dollars and reducing the footprint and prioritizing the work that matters most for the national forest and the American public.

Um w w I I was actually gonna ask you about housing the researchers in in universities. I had a wonderful interview with uh natural resource um dean Des Becker up at U of I a few months back. Yeah, great, great guy, great interview. You know the problem whenever I talk about natural resources, it's so vast and it's so complex. I just it's like I can't I don't even know where to start unpacking it, right? But the point is like I have to imagine that there is There is a capacity up at U of I

to engage you know, to essentially house and give a bench to a lot of the researchers if they lose uh you know, their their standard brick and mortar offices without like a gigantic cost to the taxpayer. If UVI is doing incredible research, so is ISU. I mean, all of these places

Man, you know who I talked to last week, you don't know who I talked to. I talked to this guy named Keith Weber at ISU. Fantastic guy. He's working on using LIDAR to find ladder fuels within like these gigantic tree, you know, stand areas. Who's like because look, we'll let it burn through on the bottom. We just have to stop ladder fuels. We don't have great resources or excuse me, unlimited resources as far as teams to go out and clear areas.

So but we could use LIDAR and find where the highest probability of this ladder fuels existing. So no matter how many strikes we'll lightning strikes we get, the fires will likely stay in the ground and not not go up to the top fifty, uh fifty percent of the trees. It's like God. These are wild times. So again, we have these great universities. Um we have these great universities throughout Idaho. Do you anticipate some of the researchers migrating that area in into those areas?

I do. I think you're gonna see increased partnerships. Like for instance in Missoula, we already have people that co locate with the University of Montana there, the School of Forestry. The same thing with College of Natural Resources.

So I've previously served on the board of the College of Natural Resources, the Advisory Board. So I'm very familiar with the research that's done there, the student-based, when you look at the University of Idaho, one of the programs that's growing faster than any of the other programs is the College of Natural Resources. those kids that come out of that school, they're they're placed in jobs, whether it's the range program, whether it's the forestry program, environmental science is like

They are getting after it. They've got a two-year program on logging operations, one of the unique programs in the country. And that's one of the areas we really have to increase looking at how do we increase the opportunity to to increase infrastructure. I'm talking logging infrastructure. I'm talking truck drivers, right? So the University of Idaho has taken that on, developed a two year program.

both for nursery management, logging operations, really trying to get in the forefront of these things. So the extent that we can better locate some of our researchers and universities like that and increase those partnerships, it's a win-win for the public and the taxpayers.

I had Tara King from the Idaho Forest Group on uh a a couple months back. Great conversation with her, but it seems that the bottleneck. around forestry really does come down to infrastructure. You have very expensive mills. You don't the the market for for timber is not, you know, what it once was.

And because of that, we've just we we have far fewer mills than we used to. And then even transporting, I was talking to a guy who was through the um, I can't remember exactly what the program was called, but um essentially he's just saying just transporting logs. from an area where we could harvest them and we do need to reduce the fuel load to the mill is is cost prohibitive. It's like that's that's the weak link in the uh in the chain.

Do you anticipate uh, you know, having the capacity to to start chipping away at that issue? So what you're talking about are markets, right? So markets are something that they're international markets in many cases, prices. So prices for the last couple of months have been fairly flat. Um, but we have seen a decline over the last several years. So the markets have been pretty tough in the wood products industry. At the same time

During COVID we saw inflation up nine, ten percent, right? So what happened is over the last six years, operating costs have increased in many cases twenty five to thirty percent. So imagine that your margin, your your revenue stream

is the same or less less than it was, yet your operating costs are up thirty, thirty five percent. That is the biggest challenge right now. The cost to log in a haul with insurance, with labor cost, with equipment costs, you see the price of fuel right now, all of those things are contributing to squeezing margins.

for folks in the infrastructure community. So what that puts pressure on is log price, right? The most expensive part of running a mill, it's not labor, it's not equipment, it's raw material. Two-thirds of the cost to operate a sawmill, it's in the price of the raw material. So that's where the Forest Service comes in. If we can be predictable and provide a supply of raw material.

And in Idaho, we provide probably anywhere between ten to twenty percent of the raw material in the state of Idaho comes from the national forest. And that number could increase and should increase over time. But if that volume can be provided in a way that is consistent and sustainable over time, you're gonna see mills

If they can lower their costs, they will make investments in the infrastructure. And that investment at the mill will then spur investment in the logging community and the trucking community. So what we can do is be consistent in what we do and increase over time our production. Got it.

I would love to see that. I would love to see building materials come down in price or at least not be affected so much by inflation. I mean, we have this gigantic conversation in the state of Idaho right now about housing attainability. There are all kinds of bills that are trying to liberate Or m you know, not I don't wanna say liberate, but you know, decreased difficulties and barriers to entry with with

construction. It's like, dude, if we could just decrease the cost of materials and decrease the cost of labor, that would go a really, really long way. Then you could keep whatever building code you want. It would just be cheaper for everybody to get the houses. You don't want me to do that. You're bringing a a good point up. People have a misunderstanding of the the cost of a house and how much of that is due to the price of a lumber package. So I built my house in North Idaho.

during COVID. I think I we moved in in twenty twenty one. So if you're ever gonna buy a lumber package, that was about as expensive as it was ever going to be. Price of a house, about two percent of the price of a house is tied to the lumber package. Two percent. When you think about your appliances, labor All the the land cost, all of those other things dwarf the price of lumber.

So a lot of times there's a lot of confusion that people talk about the price of lumber really being an impediment to housing. That is not accurate. Price of lumber, less than two percent of the cost of a house. So just keep that in mind. So I know the president's been very concerned about affordability. That's something he's been pushing on. And affordable housing, a lot of housing affordability can be increased by increasing supply for housing, right? So as we increase supply.

that will reduce prices. So that's something that out there I think the more you talked about building codes, the easier it is to build in communities and that can be approved quicker. I think you will see increased supply and that will drive down pricing. Something just to keep in mind. I really appreciate that. Uh I did not know that that was the price breakdown. And again

Uh the I uh if we could make it two percent and make it down go down to one percent, that would be great. But obviously y you know, you're splitting hairs at that point. So I suppose bigger fish to fry. There are bigger fish to fight. The other thing though too is like keep in mind we need that infrastructure to manage the national forces.

Like when you think about cost, talk about cost for a minute. To burn an acre of forest prescribed fire is about five hundred bucks an acre. When you talk about mechanized treatments, mastication, thinning could be thirty five hundred bucks an acre. That's if you have a mill. That's if you have an outlet for that material. If you don't, those costs can be eight to ten thousand dollars an acre.

So it's critical to reduce fire hazards and protect communities to be able to manage the national forest system. So looking at the infrastructure that exists, both the milling infrastructure, the trucking infrastructure, the logging capacity. Retaining what we have and providing opportunities to increase that is absolutely essential if we're going to manage the national forest system for health.

Productivity and reducing risk to communities. So maintaining that infrastructure is absolutely essential, and then looking for opportunities to expand where we can, that's something we've got to keep focused on.

Got it. Um, talk to me about employment, right? Because last year the the four service took a big uh uh cut as far as employees. And some of those, it's my understanding, got got brought back. What do you think this reorganization will do as far as the employment base? Now, mind you, I'm I'm coming from the perspective that the Forest Service is here to serve the United States citizens and our resources.

not necessarily maintain jobs for everyone. Like I'm not trying to be insensitive to people who who have lost jobs, but that's the proper orientation, which is like we don't just have jobs just to have jobs. We have jobs for a specific end. Um but what what do you anticipate this will do as far as the number of people employed?

Yeah, that's a great question. So there's a lot of um myths out there about what has happened with regard to this. So initially back in February, March of last year, there was a look at probationary employees and the Forest Service let go. A little over two thousand employees that were probationary employees. Many of them were brought back. Okay, so and then there was an effort that we allowed people the opportunity to retire, basically. There was a program called DRP or deferred resignation.

We had several thousand people that took that opportunity. They were not fired. They were not riffed. They took that opportunity voluntarily. Now some of them may say that they had limited options, but they took that voluntarily. Currently, today we have just over 30,000 employees. So as we move forward, there are no RIFs being proposed. And I my apologies, what is that word? Rift? Yeah, gotcha. Bob is being eliminated. That is not what is on the table.

Of the roughly 30,000 employees, we expect less than 500 that will be expected to relocate as a part of this restructuring effort. So that's about 1.5% of the organization will be asked to relocate. Of those of that four fifty to five hundred people, um, I don't know how many of those folks will relocate versus leave the agency.

But you're asking me what do I think the direct impact will be? I would I would venture to say we'll probably have less than three hundred people that will leave the agency due to having to move. Understood. Understood. Okay. Great. Great to understand there. As far as actual fire management, the at least

least for Idaho, we're still gonna be dealing with like the national interagency um centers, right? The one one in Boise. We're not gonna have the this shouldn't substantially or significantly affect the the fire response or fire service um availability for these forests, correct?

Absolutely not. You're you're spot on. So we have these geographic area centers across the country, the GACS is what they're called, the acronym. Um those will be retained as they sit today. The National Interagency Fire Center, Boise, that will continue to remain What you've seen is a consolidation within the Department of Interior. So they used to have so the Fish and Wildlife Service, uh the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the Bureau of Land Management.

And the National Park Service all had their own fire programs. So Brian Nifsey has been identified and hired as the fire chief for the National Wildland Fire Service within the Department of Interior. So he's been consolidating those resources and he's headquartered in Boise.

At the same time, the Forest Service has a fire program led by Sarah Fisher, who's doing a great job as our fire director. She also is invoicing. So we expect no changes this fire season in the fire program for the Forest Service. We do know, however, that it's a priority of the administration, and you'll see that reflected in the President's budget to ultimately unify and consolidate both the the fire program and the Forest Service and within the Department of Interior.

What we also know is that Congress is looking at this closely and they have directed us in our budget for fiscal year twenty six to conduct a study, which we expect to have an RFP on the street sometime in the next several weeks. that we will have vendors come in look at that and analyze what it would look like and what needs to be considered as part of any kind of unification process. So that will be studied over this upcoming

three, four month period. Um, and they'll come out with their recommendations, what needs to be considered. Um, but right now you'll see in the twenty seven budget, the president's budget continues to direct us to unify between Department of Interior and USDA. But no impacts are expected at all this upcoming fire season.

Okay, great. With all of this, um, I was talking to again, Rob Shoplock this this morning uh from the professional firefighters. There's a big concern about the fire season coming up. And again, I know this doesn't necessarily have to do with reorganization, but

You know, what are your thoughts as we move out of at least in Idaho, like a very unseasonably warm winter, like very low precipitation, very low snowpack, right? So we did get some rain, but you know, we're not really designed to set up the for that. Are you are you concerned at all as we move into the summer of twenty six and the fire season?

Yeah, so we have very dry conditions, not just across Idaho, but across the West, right? So there's good information. So actually NRCS, I'll put a plug in for one of our US DAA sister agencies. They do they have snow tail sites across the West. So you can actually look in all these different watersheds across Idaho and see what the current snowpack is compared to averages. So it varies. So in North Idaho we're about sixty five percent of

of our average snowpack in some parts of southern Idaho, we're we're below forty percent, right? So it varies across the state. The Owahis look pretty pretty bleak right now. Um but in terms of preparedness and readiness, Um, we're above where we were last year in terms of hiring staff at this point in time. So in terms of firefighters coming on.

We're gonna be fully staffed by fire season. Um in terms of direction this year, we we were very aggressive last year with initial attack. We'll be aggressive again this year. We also are going to continue to focus on safety. Um safety we did have a firefighter killed, if you might remember, this past year in Idaho. Um it was an IDL employee. She was actually working on a prescribed fire on the on the national forest, uh on the Nez Perce Clearwater Forest. So

We cannot neglect safety. At the same time we need to make sure we protect communities. So it's something that we will be ready for this fire season. Um we used a lot of retardant last year. I would expect we'll use a lot of retardant this year.

Um but any good fire manager will tell you it's really hard to predict the fire season, right? You know, we've see the moisture levels there today. Um but I can tell you like come October, November, I'll be in a much better position to tell you what the fire season looks like. Gotcha. Gotcha. That's a joke. Well I I I felt well, it wasn't a joke two years ago when we had trucks going out in October. Yeah, I know

Yeah. And I I I got your meaning. But anyhow, um the Chief, I really appreciate you taking the time today. Is there anything you want to hit here at the end? I know you got a busy day. You know, I just uh I wanna pr make sure the confidence is built for the public to know that the Forest Service is moving in the right direction. The President, the Secretary have given us clear direction. We're hitting on all cylinders, we're exceeding targets.

whether it's on recreation, timber, uh reforestation, um, our firefighting activities that we're participating in, it's wildfire suppression. Um, we are moving in a way that's gonna reduce regulation, drive decision making to the ground, better support the public. We're gonna increase public access across the the landscape. Recreation remains a focus for us.

So the things that Idahoans care about, the forest service is aligned. This structure will better serve Idahoans as we go forward. Um and we look forward to working with the public and we will continue to remain open for business. And look forward to increasing customer experience. So that's what I God bless it. Thank you for taking the time today, Chief, and hopefully we can do this in person next time you're in the area. You bet. Thank you.