CFAA Agreement


I need to make a point, this IS NOT aimed at the boots on the ground folks. It’s aimed at the management folks in the big Ivory towers…
ok. I’m from the USFS. Don’t you trust me? NO I DON’T!
5 yrs ago the USFS fought the battle of NOT to pay portal to portal. Just when they thought they won that one they found out that due to previous union contracts and previous pay practices they had to pay Calfire and local Gov. Portal to portal anyway. Boy oh boy were they pissed! What comes next? Your guess is as good as mine but, I still don’t trust em. The next 5 yr agreement meetings will be interesting.
So, Let the battle begin in the big office upstairs and if you wear yellow, blue or even green, lets hang tight out there on the fire lines.


More details please? Official email, or speculation? To or from FS, or OES?

1 Like

Firescope meeting early this week, passed through op area to zone chiefs in San Diego


Well that’s encouraging. Thanks for the info


What did this letter say exactly , can it be posted? Are many departments that decided to pull out of Fed fires this season going back in now because of this letter?

split this topic #126

7 posts were split to a new topic: AB 1299


Does the Forest Service think that next year they will be able to force CA resources into a 16 hour work day?? This is going to be a non starter.

I can understand wanting resources to work a 12 or 16, because lets be honest the 24 on 24 off schedule on a fire is ineffective at best, and wasteful at worst. With that said, you are still going to have to compensate me 24 hours a day for being away from my family. I know that myself and many others that will not go backwards in this regards and will flat refuse to be apart of anything that is not portal to portal .

The other shoe that has not been mentioned in this is the increased cost to departments to track costs and audit everything. Additionally it sounds like the FS wants exact cost accounting for that time, instead of a percentage. you start cutting into the areas that help pad the pocketbooks, you are going to see much more thought on whether it is worth the wear and tear on equipment and risk of injury to personnel to assist.


This is the main issue for LG refusing to go to fed fires currently…when you don’t pay portal to portal or overtime for the person covering behind you at the Fire station (your going to subsidize the federal government) Example a line paramedic goes out for two weeks to a fed fire, his/her dept must backfill behind with an overtime paramedic, but the feds only want to pay straight time back to your agency when the line medic is on duty at the incident…But the person back at the station is working overtime to cover the open shift…16 hrs will not work either…


Chapp, another thing to consider is how many positions the FS can not fill in their own forests. With fire hire only done in the early year and no ability to hire any other time, they are doing their best to make themselves unable to do the job they were created for. Others won’t participate and they cannot fill their own positions. That is a bad combination especially when you consider their experienced personnel are being hired away by the agencies they don’t wish to compensate properly.
24 hour shifts do not put the work that 2 twelve hour shifts do. 24 hour shifts tend to have people napping on the fire at night which is both dangerous and non-productive.


That’s is why the Divisions and Branches must be doing there job. Making sure those resources, “ whatever color or dept” are accomplishing the task at hand. In the first burning and extended burning period, 24hr shift are very effective as we all know this. But also reflex time has to be factored in to the 12hr or 16hr shift, with drive times, distance to access the fire line etc. There is a time and place for 12hr shifts and 16hr shifts.


The Forest service can have a fire hire every other Tuesday and still would be short firefighting resources. Not enough applications.


Exactly, the pool is very small. And the trend is someone to be in their positions 1 to 2 years then promoting to fill the gaps. Promoting just because its a name meeting minimum quals and not sifting through a list of highly qualified personnel. At some point we’re going to see more accidents, or at the very least a safe and aggressive agency is not tangible. Hence the increasing need to get support from other agencies via agreements.


Agree. More injuries. Less experienced. Reduced talent pool.


If anyone has access to the email mentioned below, can you post it, or DM me please?

[Just saw email USFS going to follow agreement this year, work on changes for next years new agreement
Firescope meeting early this week, passed through op area to zone chiefs in San Diego]

1 Like

Yes I would also much appreciate any copy thats floating around . I want to see the letter or email Im hearing about . I haven’t been able to find anything yet.


The latest information posted by Forest Service is on R5 home page. There’s a link to the CFAA with the FS statement and a link to questions and answers.


I don’t see anything new in there. You have a link of something with an associated date?


I’m not accepting any rumors of changes until Chief Marshall from OES announces that LG is covered!


This was the latest information I saw from the FS but there is no date when it was posted.


Yea, that’s been up for about 2 months now.