Oh, there are a lot huge problems with a bifurcated approach but the longer Vallejo negotiates in bad faith or not at all, the less likely there is to be a satisfactory agreement that all parties can live with. And in the end, it is the public who suffers, especially those who you correctly identified who live in or have buskin Federal DPA or true FRA. Since Vallejo was the ones making a mountain out of a mole hill, they are the ones who need to negotiate in much better faith quit placing the safety of the public at risk to save a few bucks. Especially given that they are the ones who cannot properly staff equipment, stations or teams.
1 Like
This there any chance that OES has thrown in the towel and willing to leave us small departments and volunteer departments on our own?
I would hope not, but I’ve also learned to never say never. Information about what is or is not on the table is very scarce. I would hope that OES recognizes that they have the much stronger hand in this as the Feds need OES resources much more than the other way around. Also, the Feds significantly tipped their cards when they attempted to re-negotiate the now expired Agreement almost a year ago. Given the political animosity between CA and the Feds at all levels, this will be a battle of wills.
2 Likes
I really don’t know, but wasn’t the basis of the blow up last year the result of someone, at some level of the Federal Government found that the existing policies have (always?) been our of Federal Regulations? If that is the issue then R5 may have it’s hand tied until either Congress changes a law or the bureaucracy changes the regulations. Just because no one followed the rules in the past does not make it any more allowable.
Couple of things.
- The bifurcation has always been there in cost share(you order, you pay). If you look at any IAP and go thru the 204, the fed resources stick to Fed DPA & the State resources stay in SRA. LG goes where they are told, based on who orders them.
- the last 2 years, I have personally seen more & more out of state LG resources on fires. Betting this is a direct response to the CFAA/OES rates issue. Also, on the Rim fire, the IMT didn’t order R5 CWN Dozers & Tenders as much as they did from R3. The thinking was they were saving money. When in reality they spent more because of travel time & mileage.
- With the Feds(NWCG) having changed the requirements & specifications for Dozers & Water Tenders that are not anywhere near that of Calfire or even FIRESCOPE now(Yes Calfire has different specs) The bifurcation and operational issues will only get more complex.
- 2020 is an election year. NOTHING WILL GET DONE. As long as fire seasons out west are slow, the Feds will get away with this.
- The balance of acres is being adjusted again. I would be willing to bet that Balance of Acres & CFAA are part of the same conversation.
Finally, looking at what happening in Australia has to be a wake up call on some level. However, until disasters more frequently & larger than those that happened in NorCal in 17 & 18 to get the political attention they need. Don’t hold your breath. I see more & more GREEN & BLUE camps doing seperate missions
4 Likes
That’s a good point Mack. However I am thinking that’s not the case here since the Feds caved last June/July and agreed to use the current agreement through the remainder of the agreement life (12/31/2019). Then in Dec extended the agreement until April 2020. If its policy or regulation issues, they must not be that important.
Regarding the last part of number #2 above about dozers. I have a headache now, so thanks for providing that bit of information.
Typically I would think balance of acre discussions would be in CFMA, however it wouldn’t surprise me if it was made part of the discussion.
Feds will not to able to balance out all WUI acres including small communities, homes and other infrastructure within the fed DPA. The green guys will always need those engines. Always.
1 Like
This was sent out to our operational area this week.
On January 6, 2020, the California Fire Assistance Agreement (CFAA) committee met at Cal OES Headquarters in Mather, California. This was the first formal meeting to begin the renegotiation of the CFAA. The current CFAA has been extended until April 30, 2020
- There are six major items that have been prioritized as the first items to be discussed and agreed upon.
- Several other minor to moderate important sections will also be discussed in an effort to complete the process around the first of March.
o This will allow for the necessary legal review and signature process to be completed in a timely manner.
The CFAA committee, which is made up of representatives from the Federal Firefighting agencies, Cal Fire, Local Government, and chaired by Cal OES will make a concerted effort to keep all stakeholders advised of the renegotiation status.
The goal is to have a fully executed CFAA Agreement prior to the start of peak fire season.
Yes we
Brian S. Marshall
State Fire and Rescue Chief
3 Likes
I couldn’t disagree more about the 24hr on - off shift. Every fire is different and op periods and staffing shifts need to fit the situation. I have experienced incidents where they stayed fully on 24’s for to long.
The key benefits are for fires that need active staffing at all times the 24’s provide that along with adequate time for the resources off shift to rehab and re supply the equipment as well as quality rest for the personnel. This is critical when travel times to and from exceed an hour. Division sups get crushed with 12-12’s . By time you get everyone off, including shift tickets, brief oncoming, report to base or whoever, resupply, Do some Intel and be at the beginning of morning briefing. 5 hours to sleep is a dream, usually a bit less and that doesn’t work for more than a few shifts.
Many other reasons 24’s are appropriate
for some fires.
6 Likes
Any update on Cfaa? About 2 weeks out until lights out.
1 Like
1 day out, and still no word about a new agreement or an extension of the existing.
Word is the FS came back with a host of new edits last week. Some Chief from OES went off and reportedly it’s now going through a signature process. Can’t confirm.
1 Like
Ditto. Sounds as if the USFS will not sign it will become the 6 party agreement.
So how will that work for joint response to incidents? Does that mean Fed only incidents and state/local gov only incidents? Or does it revert to the previous agreement? Or will each incident be individually negotiated?
Sorry if these are dumb questions, I’m just not getting to a point in my career where I need to understand more than just “one foot in front of the other.”
1 Like
FS is the number two user of it. Maybe number 1. They will sign it. Political nightmare if they don’t.
1 Like
No dumb questions. IMHO.
Cfaa’s focus is the movement of engines and overhead. Feds, mostly forest service, have direct protection responsibility of lands next to and within the WUI all over the state. Although they don’t have structure protection responsibility in these areas, they do have a responsibility to put the fire out. Not having access to order large quantities of LG engines and overhead during those uh-oh moments via the CFAA would prove not to be a sustainable business model for the forest service.
4 Likes
Its all up to the USFS to sign the agreement. I don’t know what will happen IF they don’t. Might be a negation ploy to raise a fuss after you agreed verbally and then when it gets very close to the time you need it to balk. Not a good faith posture but that’s the Feds. Remember, it’s been the Feds that have been raising a fuss about the CFAA agreement for about a yr and a half. Time to get to work and put this to bed. We are all in this together.
5 Likes
Tick Tock…
3 Likes
Any update?
It has been signed and is being distributed as we speak.
3 Likes