Wished this was being done up and down Sierra’s in a larger scale. I really liked on the steeper slope they were pulling the needle cast and leaf litter away from the trees. Heads up move so much less impact on the trees and roots. Small steps so to become large Foot Prints I hope in the Foothills etc. Enough of these properties touch each other then it becomes a shaded fuel break in a lot of cases. Great work you guys are doing a long with the home owners. This burn window is one we usually get in March or April.
5 Likes
The air quality could be a limiting factor if more people were trying to do it right now - we’ve been in no-burn status for many days, lately, and the mixing heights have stayed low. It gets tougher as you move farther south in the Valley… The Northern Sac Valley has had decent AQI most days.
3 Likes
We made a couple hundred burn piles disappear near Forest Ranch this week, with the Butte County Resource Conservation District, Butte County Fire Safe Council, CAL FIRE Butte Unit, Mechoopda Indian Tribe of Chico Rancheria, the Big Chico Creek Ecological Reserve RX Fire Crew (BCCER), and The Lookout!
Cal Fire has recently provided direction to their individual units on how to better engage, operationally, with local partners. This includes the ability for Cal Fire personnel to actively engage on projects like this, igniting piles or prescribed burns, or taking an active role in operations - even if Cal Fire isn’t the lead agency, and (with a few caveats) regardless if the project has been thru CEQA.
My understanding is that Cal Fire can engage on projects that haven’t been through CEQA, as long as they are not actually committed to the incident, and have the ability to leave to respond to other calls.
This is a big deal for us in Butte County. For years, due to liability concerns, Cal Fire firefighters here in the Butte Unit have been under orders to stand by and watch other people doing the work. On this project, operational burn leadership was provided by the RCD and BCCER, and Cal Fire lit piles and helped chunk and mop them up.
I’m interested to hear how this conversation is rolling out on other units across the state?
Our winter burn window is wide open, here in NorCal.
4 Likes
Careful with interpretation, as it is not fact.
Temporary Directive you spoke in reference but didn’t identify, speaks in general terms that satisfies governor’s EO’s.
It is up to Unit Chief as too interpretation.
It can be said that your “understanding” is just that…but there is no policy or procedures.
All want to get work done, but there is absolutely no way CF would engage in something that would not SATISFY CEQA. Therefore there would have to be a NOE,EIR or similar, submitted to the clearinghouse… Or the cf resource is in place as, SME, standby, not ignitions or ops.
If you remove the statement your reference about CEQA, the remainder is mostly accurate. The “liability” you speak to is still landowner or lead agency, as there is no RM-75 or indemnification to assuming liability ( must have CEQA compliance)
Not being inflammatory,being accurate.
1 Like
2 Likes
I like the part in the proposed law about letting previous Federal or State training port into qualification as a CARX State Burn Boss - right now Fed folks with 30 years of experience and RXB1 or RXB2, and State employees qualified as Prescribed Fire IC still have to take the Fire Marshal class to become recognized as a CARX. Also like that they’d extend the time between refresher classes from 1 to 3 years.
These are a few of the minor flaws in the current CARX process, which to be fair, was created out of thin air by a agency (Fire Marshal’s Office) that had very little experience with rx fire…
Here is a synopsis from Lenya Quinn Davidson on the bills, and link to a place you can sign on in support:
--------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Lenya N Quinn-Davidson
Date: Thu, Feb 5, 2026 at 10:46 AM
Subject: New bill - Good Fire Act - AB1699
Good morning PBAs, CARXs, and other fire friends!
I am advising on two assembly bills this session, and I think you all will be very interested/excited about both of them. The first was introduced to the legislature on Tuesday and is ready for letters of support. The second will be introduced in the coming days, so I will reach out again when it is ready. Both bills are coming out of our same little policy group that advanced the Claims Fund (SB926), the gross negligence standard (SB332), SB310, etc. See below for details on the bill.
Pacific Forest Trust, the primary bill sponsor, has provided a sign-on letter: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSfeE3QajI5HRq-KsNeEbl8q5h0rJMRt8CAFiGFLunOg9CPNNA/viewform
This bill will directly support all of our community-based burning efforts, so I hope to see lots of support from PBAs, RCDs, FSCs, VFDs, private contractors/companies, and NGOs, etc.! You can sign onto the group letter or submit your own, but try to have letters/sign-ons come from organizations, not individuals. PFT would like letters to be submitted by Feb. 17.
Good Fire Act, AB1699, authored by Assemblymember Chris Rogers
-
Makes the Prescribed Fire Claims Fund permanent by eliminating the 2028 sunset
-
Codifies some of the actions from the Governor’s October EO on beneficial fire:
-
Allows CAL FIRE to assist on partner-led prescribed fire projects without triggering CEQA
-
Makes CAL FIRE permit site visits optional for burn bosses and cultural practitioners
-
Expands access to the Claims Fund, making it available to more practitioners and properties. Note: the bill expands access further than the EO did, including RCDs and VFDs, but also other types of entities who need coverage (e.g., open space/water districts, contractors working for public entities, universities, etc., etc.). We realized that adding only RCDs/VFDs was still too narrow to cover the groups the Claims Fund was intended for.
-
-
Improves efficiencies for CA State-Certified Burn Boss program
-
Changes refresher requirement to every 3 years instead of annual
-
Requires State Fire Training to look into ways to expand the instructor pool, including use of non-agency instructors
-
Creates a crosswalk for NWCG burn bosses and CAL FIRE Rx Fire Incident Commanders to become CARXs so they can maintain currency after they leave their agency jobs
-
-
Clarifies that overtime should be allowed for state grants that fund beneficial fire projects
You can find the bill language HERE, and a more detailed letter explaining the bill HERE. Please feel free to share this info with others who may be interested.
Let me know if you have questions. Thanks so much!
Lenya
Note: I am advising on these bills in my role as a prescribed fire practitioner/researcher, and the views in this email are mine and do not necessarily represent the official views or position of the University of California.
3 Likes
This makes me reflect on words from a Type 1 Incident Commander (Opliger) at one of our Academy Graduations. He shared that in order to become a Type 1 or 2 I.C. (or Rx Burn Boss) you will have at least 10x more direct hands on experience doing the actual job before being “blessed” than a Heart Surgeon will have when they’re given the green light to crack another humans chest and put hands on a heart!
Its an order of magnitude more actual training & direct experience that our fire folks have compared to a doctor!! And thats not putting doctors down - it’s just the facts.
Ive never looked at training & experience & qualification in the fire service the same since that keynote address… 
3 Likes
The 1/15/2026 Cal Fire Temporary Directive refers to the October 2025 Executive Order suspending the requirement for Cal Fire assistance on landowner burns to comply with CEQA.
(Public Resources Code - DIVISION 13. ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY [21000 - 21189.3])
CF staff can engage in ignition and holding operations, not just standby or SME, as long as they are available to leave for other business as needed.
1 Like