Legislature(2023 - 2024)ADAMS 519
02/20/2023 01:30 PM House FINANCE
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Overview: Wildland Fire Suppression Costs | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
February 20, 2023
1:33 p.m.
1:33:55 PM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Johnson called the House Finance Committee meeting
to order at 1:33 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Bryce Edgmon, Co-Chair
Representative DeLena Johnson, Co-Chair
Representative Julie Coulombe
Representative Mike Cronk
Representative Alyse Galvin
Representative Sara Hannan
Representative Andy Josephson
Representative Dan Ortiz
Representative Will Stapp
Representative Frank Tomaszewski
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Neal Foster, Co-Chair
ALSO PRESENT
Helge Eng, Director, Division of Forestry and Fire
Protection, Department of Natural Resources; Norm McDonald,
Deputy Director, Wildland Fire and Aviation Program,
Division of Forestry and Fire Protection, Department of
Natural Resources.
SUMMARY
OVERVIEW: WILDLAND FIRE SUPPRESSION COSTS
Co-Chair Johnson reviewed the meeting agenda.
^OVERVIEW: WILDLAND FIRE SUPPRESSION COSTS
1:35:02 PM
HELGE ENG, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF FORESTRY AND FIRE
PROTECTION, DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, introduced
himself and staff.
NORM MCDONALD, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, WILDLAND FIRE AND AVIATION
PROGRAM, DIVISION OF FORESTRY AND FIRE PROTECTION,
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, provided a PowerPoint
presentation titled "Fire Suppression Costs: Wildland Fire
Suppression Budget" (copy on file). He planned to discuss
the history of the state's responsibility for fire
protection and challenges with the changing conditions. He
relayed that over the past two decades there had been a
significant change in the fire sizes and length of the fire
season. He would also discuss how Alaska worked with
federal agencies. He noted there had been confusion in the
past about who was responsible for what and how fires were
paid for and reimbursed.
Mr. McDonald began with a history of Alaska's wildland fire
suppression on slide 2. He explained that before the mid-
1970s all of the fire protection in Alaska had been done by
the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). The responsibility had
transferred to the state Division of Forestry in the mid-
1970s to mid-1980s through a contract. The last piece had
been completed in 1985 when the state had picked up the
McGrath area. In 2019, the division made a statute change
to reflect its mission. The division's mission to protect
the natural resource values at risk had been expanded to
encompass the protection of Alaskan values at risk
including homes, infrastructure, and communities. In 2021,
a reorganization of the division began. He elaborated that
the division had been divided into a Fire Protection
program and a Forestry program, which enabled the division
to put emphasis and expertise in each of the missions.
1:38:00 PM
Mr. McDonald turned to slide 3 titled "Alaska Interagency
Fire Management Plan."
Co-Chair Johnson looked at the end of slide 2 and asked if
the division had divided into two branches and subsequently
reverted back to one branch. She asked for details on the
reorganization.
Mr. McDonald answered that the Fire Protection branch and
Forestry branch were included under the Division of
Forestry and Fire Protection. There was a deputy director
of each of the branches, which enabled the division to
focus on both subjects.
Co-Chair Johnson observed that in 2021 the division had
been divided into two branches. She asked if the change in
2022 had been limited to a renaming of the division and did
not include changes to the management structure.
Mr. McDonald answered that the reorganization process began
in 2021, which would take about three years. He explained
it involved some changing of positions. The division
anticipated the process would be complete by 2023; the
process was currently about 80 percent complete.
Representative Ortiz looked at the timeline on slide 2
beginning with 1960 when the BLM established a contract
with the state to provide fire protection of state lands.
He assumed the federal government had paid for fire
suppression prior to that time. He asked if the contract
included federal funding to support fire suppression or if
the state took on funding responsibility when it took on
management responsibility.
Mr. McDonald answered that Alaska had assumed the
responsibilities after statehood [in 1959] and it had taken
several years to make the transition. He elaborated that in
1960 the state paid a contract to BLM for protection on all
state lands and through the 1970s it switched to the
Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Division of Forestry.
Representative Ortiz asked for verification that the
federal government had no role in supporting the state
financially for the state's duty to suppress fires.
Mr. McDonald replied that he would answer the question on a
later slide. He turned to slide 3 and addressed the Alaska
Interagency Fire Management Plan. The plan included state,
federal, and Native land management organizations. He
reviewed the fire management options beginning with
"critical" as the highest level of protection, primarily
including roadside communities, villages, and life safety.
The second highest level of protection was "full" and
included natural resource values and remote cabin and lodge
sites where there was value but not an immediate threat to
life safety. The "limited" category was the lowest level
where fire played its natural role in the landscape. All
agencies in Alaska followed the Interagency Fire Management
Plan for fire suppression.
1:42:07 PM
Mr. McDonald turned to slide 4 titled "Interagency
Cooperation" and answered Representative Ortiz's question.
He looked at a map of Alaska on the left side of the slide
showing protection agencies. He detailed that the north
portion of the map highlighted in yellow was under BLM fire
protection. The southern portion of the state shown in blue
was State of Alaska protection, and the far south and
southeast portion of the state was covered by the U.S.
Forest Service. A map of Alaska on the right of the slide
reflected the different jurisdictions or landowners. The
state was reflected in blue, BLM was shown in yellow, and
Native land was indicated in red. He explained that whether
Native land fell within BLM jurisdiction or state
jurisdiction, the jurisdictional agency was responsible for
fire suppression costs. He explained that if the state was
providing protection on federal lands it was reimbursed by
the federal government. Likewise, the federal government
was reimbursed by the state for providing protection on
state lands.
Representative Hannan looked at slide 3 and the fire
management categories. She looked at Utqiagvik (labeled
Barrow on the map) that was depicted as critical. She
initially thought it was listed as critical because it was
the North Slope; however, it was not marked as Prudhoe Bay.
She asked if there was a fire history in the area. She
wondered why some areas were designated as critical even
though it seemed the protection of human life would be in
other areas.
Mr. McDonald replied that he would follow up. He answered
that the fire management options were selected by the land
managers. Lands under the state's purview included state,
private, and municipal. The division worked with
communities to define what protection level they received.
He could not speak to the North Slope and the reason for
the critical designation shown on the map. He assumed it
was population based. He stated it was in Alaska fire
service protection. Historically, there had not been a
significant fire workload in the area, although it had
changed over the past several years. He would follow up.
Representative Hannan thought it seemed the state would
want to ensure wildfires did not spread in critical
infrastructure areas in Prudhoe Bay. She wondered whether
the state could weigh in on the fire management option in
the specific region versus the local land managers. She
reasoned that a wildland fire spreading into a petroleum
producing area would be very bad.
Mr. McDonald agreed. He clarified that a coordinating group
and a group of land managers worked together to prioritize
where the state's minimal resources would be. He confirmed
that under a scenario where a wildfire was threatening oil
infrastructure, it would receive a high level of
protection.
1:46:45 PM
Mr. McDonald advanced to slide 5 titled "Alaska's Changing
Wildfire Environment." He pointed to a chart on the upper
right of the slide showing the Alaska wildfire acreage
seasonal total from 1950 to 2022. The red bars on the chart
reflected years where over 3 million acres burned,
including 2022. The state was seeing an increase in large
fires, which correlated directly with increasing
temperatures in Alaska and expanding fire seasons.
Mr. McDonald moved to slide 6 and continued to speak about
the state's changing wildfire environment. The map of
Alaska on the left of the slide depicted the number of
fires in the past couple of decades. He detailed that just
under 32 million acres had burned in Alaska [between 2001
and 2020], which was over 2.5 times more than the previous
two decades. The state was seeing more fires, larger fires,
and difficult to suppress fires. He reported that the most
concerning of the images on the slide was the chart in the
center reflecting wildfires in the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta.
From 1950 through the mid-2000s there had been very little
fire in the region. Fires in the region were tundra based
and there had been a significant spike in the past 10
years. He elaborated that there were villages requiring
protection in the region and fires in the past year had
really disrupted the lifestyle of the communities and
required some evacuations of people with health issues. He
noted that the state had not been faced with the issue in
the past and it had become a reality. The graph on the
right showed the lengthening fire season from the first to
last large fires in a season. Since the 1990s, Alaska's
fire season had expanded by about 45 days.
1:48:53 PM
Mr. McDonald moved to slide 7 titled "Alaska's Growing
Wildland Urban Interface." He reported that just under 70
percent of homes in Alaska were located in the wildland
urban interface (WUI) areas and 85 percent of new homes
were being built in the WUI or fire prone areas. In
addition to the larger and more frequent fires, the area
the Division of Forestry and Fire Protection was being
asked to protect was increasing as well. Slide 7 showed
images of relatively recent fires and the associated
challenges. In 1996, the Millers Reach Fire in Mat-Su
burned 350 homes and 450 structures. In the last seven
years the McKinley Fire and Sockeye Fire, both located in
Willow, had seen 55 homes lost (in each fire), damage to
many other structures, and caused large-scale evacuations.
He referenced Representative Hannan's questions related to
protecting infrastructure and pointed to the Aggie Creek
Fire at the bottom right of the slide as an example. The
division was tasked to protect the pipeline corridor,
powerlines, cell towers, infrastructure, mines, and remote
operations.
Mr. McDonald stated that along with the cost of fire
suppression, there was the cost of recovery (slide 9). He
used the Sockeye and McKinley Fires in Willow as an example
and detailed that the Mat-Su Borough estimated the recovery
cost at $200 million apiece.
1:51:04 PM
Representative Josephson asked what was meant by recovery
and what it excluded. He asked if it excluded the man hours
in putting out a fire. He asked how it was paid for (i.e.,
claims through insurance companies).
Mr. McDonald replied the recovery took place through
multiple means. He expounded that some may be through the
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), insurance,
people rebuilding on their own without insurance, and
utility companies (for damage to power lines and cell
towers). Additionally, some of the recovery resided with
the community. For example, the Willow school had been shut
down for about three weeks resulting in costs associated
with parents having to stay home from work with their
children. The borough calculated the recovery costs, which
included what it took to get people back on their feet and
back to life as normal. He stated that the cost of putting
out and securing a fire was separate.
Representative Josephson stated the legislature was used to
seeing $50 million and $100 million increments for the cost
of suppression alone. He cited the McKinley Fire as an
example and asked if it could mean $200 million for
recovery and $100 million for suppression.
Mr. McDonald answered that the McKinley Fire had been on
the lower cost end of around $10 million and under 6,000
acres. There had been many firefighters on the fire and the
fire had been relatively short term; therefore, the damage
was much larger than the suppression cost. He explained
that expression costs were extremely high in some instances
because fires were long in duration and larger. He relayed
that the McKinley and Sockeye Fires were relatively small
(under 6,000 acres). The damage was high, but the size of
the fires was relatively small.
1:53:43 PM
Mr. McDonald turned to slide 10 titled "Alaska wildfire
2022 statistics." He relayed that 3.1 million acres had
th
burned in 2022, which was the 7 largest acreage since
1950. He relayed it was the highest acreage burned in 2022
nationwide, which was not uncommon for Alaska. He reported
that 95 percent of the wildfires burned in a six-week
period, whereas typically large fire seasons occurred over
the course of a summer. He elaborated that until the rain
arrived in Southcentral in mid-July, the season had been
unprecedented and one of the busiest the division had
experienced. Slide 11 showed that 270 fires (approximately
half of the fires) were human caused and 277 were caused by
lightning. He noted there were also fires resulting from an
undetermined cause. He explained that the normal fire
season saw lightning, dry weather, and winds, but it was
typically in a smaller geographic area. In 2022, there had
been fires farther west on the Aleutian Islands than ever
before and all the way to the Canadian border.
1:55:28 PM
Mr. McDonald turned to slide 12 and discussed the unusual
start to the 2022 wildfire season. He explained there had
been a relatively high snow pack, which usually meant a
later start to the fire season, but it had melted quickly
and April through June were the driest months on record.
The chart on the top right showed the lack of precipitation
followed by record days of lightning during the first week
in June. He reported there had been about 100 new fires in
two days across the state. The division had prioritized the
values and where it put its resources.
Mr. McDonald moved to slide 13 titled "Multiple Fires and
Complexes within DNR Jurisdiction." The list on the left
showed a list of 2022 fire complexes, which were groups of
fires managed by a single management team. For example, the
Lime Complex was in Southwest Alaska on 22 million acres of
land with 18 fires, all managed under one group. The slide
included a partial map of Alaska and the blue sections
reflected state jurisdiction. The majority of the fires in
2022 were under state jurisdiction, which resulted in the
state's most expensive fire season. He noted there were
subsequent slides explaining it was unusual for the state
to have so much of the burden of the cost on one agency.
1:58:05 PM
Mr. McDonald advanced to slide 14 showing increased fire
management costs to the state. The 2022 calendar year
estimated fire suppression costs were $120 million. He
noted that the final cost would take another 12 months of
auditing and recalculating. The slide showed how the funds
were paid out via emergency declarations submitted to the
governor's office and funded by the legislature. The
state's average fire season was about $70 million per year.
He explained that the costs were driven by the importing of
Lower 48 resources. In 2022, the state brought up over
3,000 firefighters to assist and over 100 aircraft. He
elaborated that when the division ran out of Alaskan
vendors it went to the Lower 48 for the aircraft. In 2022,
there had been 27 incident management teams to manage the
fires.
Co-Chair Edgmon asked if the pattern was typically fires
happened earlier in the season in Alaska and later in the
Lower 48, which allowed for a swapping of resources. He
asked specifically about tundra fires. He underscored that
tundra fires were very scary and had not occurred in the
past. He asked about the interfacing between firefighters
in the Lower 48 and in Alaska.
Mr. McDonald agreed that fires near Dillingham were rare
and had not happened much in recent history. He detailed
that having fires in the region was new, challenging, and
required logistics and aircraft. He stated that the
situation had spread the division thin in 2022 because it
had been protecting values in the Dillingham area in
addition to much of the highway corridor simultaneously.
He did not include a slide but could follow up with
additional information. He stated that the Alaska and Lower
48 fires did not usually overlap. He elaborated that the
Alaska season started earlier in April through July,
whereas the Lower 48 season typically began in mid-July
into August. Although there was some overlap, firefighters
from the Lower 48 were able to help support Alaska when it
needed assistance and in return, Alaska sent resources
south as the fire season picked up in the Lower 48. In
2015, 2019, and 2022 the state brought in more resources
than it had sent out, whereas in 2020 and 2021 it sent out
a significant number of firefighters to support the Lower
48. His concern was that when overlapping seasons occurred,
the state did not receive the resources when it needed
them. He noted the Lower 48 was facing the same reality
where fire seasons were expanding and beginning in mid-June
instead of mid-July. He relayed there was potential for a
lack in resources.
2:01:24 PM
Representative Cronk asked for the number of state-based
fire crews in Alaska.
Mr. McDonald answered there were three State of Alaska
crews, and the division was currently having challenges
filling the positions. Additionally, there were three
contract crews in Alaska through Native corporations and
EFFs [emergency firefighters] that were typically village-
based in rural areas. He noted the department was currently
trying to rebuild the EFF crews. He detailed that 10 to 12
years earlier there had been around 56 to 60 crews based
out of rural Alaska that the state would call up. He
relayed that the division had more training available
currently than in the past; however, he believed the number
of crews [in rural Alaska] was down to about six. The state
was well below its normal crew capacity for a variety of
reasons. He expounded that the state was trying to remedy
the situation through training, fuels work, and other
things made available to the department in 2022. He stated
the situation was a challenge and the department was trying
to turn it around.
Representative Cronk asked if there was a number or
percentage of firefighting dollars that went to outside
crews and businesses.
Mr. McDonald replied there was a slide reflecting the cost
difference between the Alaska fire crew and Lower 48
[crew]. Another slide reflected the number of outside crews
the state had brought in. He offered to follow up with the
specific numbers.
Representative Cronk stated that for several years in the
past there had been a fire academy located in Tok. He
remarked that it had been so good that former Governor Sean
Parnell had requested a ten-year extension of the academy.
He asked why the academy had been stopped.
Mr. McDonald replied that the specific academy was
outstanding and the model had been used for the McGrath
area as well. He stated the model was being used again.
Unfortunately, there had been budget cuts in 2015 and the
Tok academy had been cut. He elaborated that with support
from Representative Cronk and the governor in 2022, the
funding had been made available and the division was
bringing the academies back. The division would have six
academies in 2023 including some virtual academies. The
department was working to rebuild the state's homegrown
fire resources and the academies were a big part of the
equation.
Representative Cronk asked how EFF pay was established. He
had been on an EFF crew in the 1990s and he did not know
what he had been paid per hour. He stated that village
crews were critical to fighting fires in Alaska. He
considered whether the crews were paid at a federal rate
and asked how to able to get the people working again.
Mr. McDonald did not have the entry rate for an entry level
EFF position. He relayed that the state modeled its EFF
(call when needed) crews after the federal rates. He stated
that every year there was a small wage increase, but he did
not believe it had kept up with some of the other available
opportunities, which was part of the reason for the
shortage in crews. He added that back in the 1990s the
positions were paid relatively well compared to some of the
industry, but the wages had not been keeping up.
2:05:35 PM
Representative Josephson asked how long a state firefighter
could expect to work in a year. He asked if it was six
months or longer.
Mr. McDonald responded that most permanent seasonal
positions were about six months. The positions could be
extended up to eight months when they went to the Lower 48
for an extended season. He relayed that with an emphasis on
fuels work, sometimes the positions were extended out to 10
months. The six months included training time in order to
be prepared for the fire season.
Representative Josephson asked how the dollars flowed. He
stated the legislature typically saw the funding of the
exercises in late winter early spring after the fact. He
asked if the division received the funding in the summer.
If not, he wondered how the workers were being paid.
Mr. McDonald responded that a subsequent slide helped
answer the question. The funding received through
declarations were primarily used to pay vendors for
aircraft, dozers, boats, and other equipment called on at
the time of an emergency. The funding also included the
importing of resources from the Lower 48.
2:07:43 PM
Mr. McDonald spoke to slide 15 showing an illustration of
the 2022 fire season financial timeline. One of the
challenges was that the fire season crossed two fiscal
years. He highlighted that the months represented in red
reflected FY 22. He detailed there had been declarations
during that timeframe as well. He explained that the $120
million for the 2022 fire season included two fiscal years
(FY 22 and FY 23). The slide illustrated the timing of the
declarations and what they covered. He clarified that the
last declaration showed funding of $8 million in February
2023 that would help cover for some of the unaccounted for
expenses in fire season 2022 and set the division up for
the start of fire season 2023.
Mr. McDonald turned to slide 16 and explained that the fire
program had two primary budget components including fire
suppression preparedness and fire suppression activity.
Fire suppression preparedness included base wages and
covered the fixed cost of doing business. Fire suppression
activity funds went towards fighting fires and were used
when declarations were issued. The suppression activity
funds covered outside crews working in Alaska, aircraft,
emergency equipment (i.e., dozers, excavators, boats), and
emergency fire travel around the state.
Mr. McDonald turned to slide 17 titled "Costs of Using
Lower-48 Resources." He relayed that an in-state Alaskan
crew was about $6,500 per day versus an imported out-of-
state crew costing about $13,500 per day. The graph on the
right of the slide illustrated the number of resources the
state brought in from the Lower 48 in 2022. In 2022, about
4,200 personnel had been used on Alaskan fires and over
3,000 of the total came from out-of-state.
2:10:49 PM
Mr. McDonald discussed how fire suppression costs were
accrued, used, and spent on slide 18. He used the 2022
Clear Fire as an example. The fire had started in early
June with a lightning strike and had received full
protection. The division did not have all of the resources
available to contain the fire on a smaller acreage and it
had become a larger complex fire. The division had been
tasked with protecting some of the values in the region
including the City of Clear and its four rural subdivisions
with about 100 residences. The city was previously an Air
Force base and was currently a Space Force base with
infrastructure of about $5 billion along the highway
corridor. He noted the highway corridor had been shut down
in previous fire seasons and it was critical to keep it
open as the lifeline between Southcentral, the Interior,
and up the haul road to the North Slope. The division had
used several management teams and hundreds of people had
been rotated through the fire. He pointed out it was the
one fire in 2022 that qualified for Fire Management
Assistance Grant (FMAG) funding through FEMA. The division
worked with FEMA to get reimbursed for 75 percent of the
costs and anticipated bringing back $20 million from the
incident.
Mr. McDonald moved to slide 19 and showed two pie charts
reflecting fire cost categories. The Clear Fire cost just
under $27 million and the expenditure breakdown was
illustrated in a pie chart on the left of the slide. A
large portion of the cost was attributed to the water
scooping and retardant dropping aircraft including the
flight time to bring the aircraft to Alaska when needed.
Line equipment included boats, dozers, and excavators used
to build the fire line. The crew component included the 20-
person fire crews and just under half of the cost went to
supporting crew members with food, medical attention,
equipment needed, and a place to sleep. The right side of
the slide showed the 2022 Middle Tanana Complex, which had
been a remote fire where the division provided point
protection of the Pogo Mine and cabins along some of the
river corridors. The fire had been a bit higher on
logistics and aircraft support. He stated that at the time,
there had been fewer firefighters available; therefore, the
strategy had been limited to protecting a few of the most
critical items. He relayed that the pie charts reflected a
common breakdown of Alaska fire costs.
2:14:04 PM
Representative Josephson looked at slide 19 and asked if
the funding reflected base dollars or declaration dollars.
Mr. McDonald answered that because the costs went to fire
suppression, they came out of the suppression component. He
explained that if there were insufficient funds in the
suppression component, a declaration was issued. He
detailed that the fire suppression account had started off
with $13.6 million on July 1, 2022. The funds had been used
within three weeks and the first declaration had been
issued in July to cover anticipated costs for multiple
fires.
Representative Josephson referenced the $13.6 million and
asked how the department received additional funding when
the legislature was not in session.
Mr. McDonald replied that an emergency declaration was
issued through the governor's office as part of an
emergency response. He believed it was similar to what
would occur in the event of another type of natural
disaster.
Representative Josephson thought it sounded like a
statutory delegation of appropriation power.
Representative Coulombe looked at slide 18 and asked for
the percentage of FEMA reimbursement and how long it took
to get reimbursed.
Mr. McDonald answered that it took about one week to apply
for the federal funding and to learn whether or not the
application was successful. The division worked closely
with regional FEMA representation and funding was based on
the number of threatened values within a vicinity. The
Clear Fire had qualified for the funding. The state paid
all of the suppression fees upfront and was reimbursed.
Typically, the state was reimbursed about 75 percent of the
cost. He characterized it as a bit of an accounting problem
because the state started receiving the reimbursement after
a year or two, but it took up to five years to receive the
full reimbursement. He noted it varied from fire to fire
and year to year.
Representative Coulombe asked where the reimbursement funds
went when they were received by the state.
Mr. McDonald answered that the funds went back to the
general fund.
2:17:27 PM
Mr. McDonald turned to slide 20 titled "Federal vs. State
Fiscal Responsibility." The pie chart on the left showed
the five-year average fiscal responsibility and the chart
on the left showed the 2022 fire season fiscal
responsibility. He noted it was based on where the fire
started and where suppression was needed. He noted that
2022 had been an extremely rare year in many senses, with
the fiscal responsibility being at the top of the list [the
pie chart showed the state as responsible for 92 percent of
the 2022 fire costs].
Co-Chair Johnson looked at the right chart and asked if it
was just by happenstance.
Mr. McDonald answered that it was a result of where the
lightning had struck, whether the location was in full or
critical protection areas, and where the values were. He
stated that a significant portion of the fires suppressed
the previous year were in state protection. There had been
a lot of fires in federal protection on state land. The
division worked closely with the Alaska Fire Service to
make fiscally responsible decisions. The Alaska Fire
Service provided the protection and the division had
representatives working with the agency on tactics and
actions being taken. The Alaska Fire Service did the same
for the state when there were fires on federal land.
Co-Chair Edgmon stated that the Dillingham area basically
had two summers in 2022. The early summer was very hot, and
the second part was excessively rainy. He remarked that
November of 2021 had been the coldest in 80 years followed
by a tremendously stormy December. He stated that things
were changing, and he was hoping to ask more about slide 3
[showing the Alaska Interagency Fire Management Plan].
Mr. McDonald agreed that things were changing. He had
witnessed the change over the course of his career
beginning in 1989 on a fire crew. He had seen fires in
places he never thought would occur. He highlighted
examples including a 900-acre fire on Adak and lightning
fires near Dillingham that had grown more than ever before
in 2022. He relayed that there was interesting research
being done by the University of Alaska Fairbanks about how
rapidly things were changing and what the future was
looking like in terms of fires.
Representative Hannan thought back to 2019 when there had
been never ending fires. She understood the fires had been
largely on federal land, but the state had provided much of
the response. She understood the accounting nightmare and
the multiple years it took [for the state to receive
federal reimbursement]. She asked if there were legal
fights or accounting fights between the state and federal
government. She highlighted the rhetoric around the
building using the term statehood defense. She provided a
scenario where the state prevailed on a portion of water
being state jurisdiction because it was navigable yet the
surrounding land remained federal. She wondered what it
meant for the state's response and ability to cover the
cost. She stated that on the fire line, no one was worried
about land jurisdiction at the time of fighting the fire.
She elaborated that the state and BLM had worked it out
through decades of joint response and let the accountants
determine who was responsible for what cost. She wondered
if they were starting to have lawyers weighing in where the
state did not want to act on something it deemed federal
responsibility.
2:22:43 PM
Mr. McDonald replied that he had the opportunity to travel
around the country for fires and was on the incident
management team that traveled wherever fires were located
in Alaska and the Lower 48. He had seen some terrible
fights during a fire about who was responsible for what. He
stated they were lucky in Alaska to have a good fire plan
and cooperative agreement that took a lot of the fight out
of it. The state had not had to use attorneys.
Additionally, the state had accountants who reviewed the
[fire cost] information and there was good record keeping;
therefore, Alaska did not have the same challenges as other
states. He highlighted that the fire plan had been put
together in the 1980s and 1990s and the state needed to
make sure it was updated. There were areas where the state
was protecting federal assets next to state land and the
division was working with BLM and other agencies to ensure
the state was not being asked to do something that it was
not asking the federal government to do. He underscored
that the state's relationship with its federal cooperators
was very strong. The state and federal government shared
resources and figured their problems out with some phone
calls, which was not the case everywhere.
Representative Stapp stated there was a supplemental
appropriation for an additional $50 million for fire
services. He observed an additional $6.8 million was needed
on top of the amount based on the governor's amended
budget. He believed it meant the $50 million had already
been spent and more funding was needed. He read that the
supplemental increment was supposed to cover the state's
fire priority needs until June 2023. He remarked there had
been numerous serious fires during the year. He asked if
the additional $6.8 million would be adequate to cover what
would likely be a higher expense.
Mr. McDonald replied that the number was based on an
average year. He explained that if the year was average or
below average, the cost would be $6.8 million or less.
However, if the fire season was similar to 2015, 2019, or
2022, the funding would not be sufficient and the division
would have to request a declaration to cover the additional
expenses. The division would start to gain an understanding
of what type of fire season it would be beginning in March
or April.
2:26:23 PM
Representative Stapp asked how far $6 million went in fire
suppression. For example, he asked if it covered three fire
days depending on the fire.
Mr. McDonald responded that he did not have the daily burn
rate for 2022. He estimated that $6 million likely covered
about three days of suppression during a peak season like
2022 with six to eight teams out managing large fires. He
noted that the issue was not a concern on an average year.
Representative Cronk stated that an ounce of prevention was
a pound of cure. He highlighted that the conversation had
been limited to fighting fires and had not covered
preventing fires. He expected a lot out of the Division of
Forestry and Fire Protection. He wanted to ensure all of
the state's communities were somewhat protected by
prevention. He highlighted prevention methods such as the
mechanical removal of hazardous materials and opening up
sales for firewood for timber harvest. He shared that in
past conversations with Native elders he had learned that
Natives would do controlled burns. He stated it had helped
protect from fires and had created habitat for various
animals. He had never heard about controlled burns in the
current day. He would rather spend $30 million on
prevention than $130 million on suppression. He hoped the
tables could be turned over the next several years to lean
towards prevention. He understood the state had to be ready
[for fire suppression]. He wanted to ensure there were
plans in place for every community in Alaska. He thought
the road system was a little easier. He asked about the
expense of removing an acre of hazardous material with
equipment rather than by hand.
Mr. McDonald replied that he viewed prevention as
preventing human caused fires. He reported that human
caused fires in Alaska's communities were the most
expensive. He elaborated that reducing human caused fires
could be done through education, enforcement, and changing
some of the regulations. He stated it was an important part
of the fire program and was something the division was
investing in as much as possible. The other part of
prevention was the fuels component. The division had been
doing fuels reduction projects since the 1990s, but not at
a fast pace. The work had been federally funded with a WUI
grant and the projects had been very small. He shared that
three years ago the division had received $17 million in
CIP [capital improvement projects] funds for fuels
reduction. Additionally, the state was just starting to see
federal infrastructure funding coming into Alaska for fuels
work. The division had fuels projects in every community
currently that were underway or being planned for the near
future.
Mr. McDonald referred to Representative Cronk's question
about the cost of fuel removal and offered to follow up
with a briefing paper containing some examples about the
cost. The division had a current project in Mat-Su called
the Sunset, which was a seven-mile fuels break. The project
had started in November and would be complete at the start
of the coming fire season. He added that the work was all
mechanized with a small amount of hand cleanup. He stated
there were other places that were more sensitive around
schools, infrastructure, or homes that were done by hand
because they were not ideal locations for excavator work.
He confirmed that fuel removal by hand was much more
expensive per acre. There was a place for both methods and
the division looked for the best tool for the job.
Mr. McDonald shared that the division had numerous projects
that were just starting to come to fruition and it had a
good five-year plan to continue the work. Work had been
started in roadside and rural communities.
2:32:25 PM
Representative Galvin addressed recruitment and retention.
The legislature was hearing about the topic with every
agency doing as much as possible because they did not have
enough employees. She asked if the fire crews were large
enough for the initial response. She wondered if there was
any sense the division would like the ability to get to the
fires on the front end to put them out faster. She
understood sometimes there were some competing efforts with
the Lower 48 for resources.
Mr. McDonald replied that recruitment and retention was the
division's top challenge at present. He stated that the
issue was very difficult currently. He elaborated that fire
management was a substantial challenge that required people
with experience who understood the conditions and fuels in
Alaska to make sound decisions. Keeping people at that
level had been challenging. The division currently had
three agency crews and it would really struggle to get one
full crew and potentially two half crews. He reiterated it
was the division's number one challenge and it was looking
at ways to address the issue.
Representative Galvin asked if in light of recruitment and
retention challenges, the division may have a more
difficult time reaching the end goal if there were not
enough [workers] there.
Mr. McDonald answered it was a problem. The way the
division would work around the situation would be to bring
in fire crews from out of state. He understood it was more
expensive and there was a desire to keep jobs local, but it
was necessary to be prepared to protect Alaska's
communities.
Co-Chair Johnson asked about the idea that the Alaska Long
Trail could be a potential fire break. She asked if the
topic had been discussed within the division or if it was
something someone came up with as a way to sell the
project.
Mr. McDonald responded that had not heard the idea.
2:35:48 PM
Representative Stapp stated that there was much recent
discussion on carbon offsets and sequestration. He asked
what happened if a fire burned down the trees that the
state was receiving a carbon offset for. He asked if it
would mean the state would be obligated to pay a refund.
Mr. McDonald answered that the division was just starting
to look at the issue and what it would entail. He deferred
to his colleague Mr. Eng for additional detail.
Mr. Eng replied it was always a risk in any project. He
agreed that some willing buyer would have paid millions of
dollars to keep the trees standing and there was a question
about what would happen if the trees burnt down. He
elaborated that there was an insurance pool built into most
of the registries. He explained that under the American
Carbon Registry every project developer paid 18 percent of
their proceeds into an insurance pool; therefore, if a
project suffered from a fire, it would be covered through
the pool. However, going forward from that point if the
entire forest burnt down, there would be no future payment
received, but the state would not be obligated to pay the
funding back.
2:37:48 PM
Co-Chair Edgmon looked at the Alaska interagency fire
management plan on slide 3. He observed that the
predominant color on the map was dark green reflecting the
"limited" lowest priority category. He referenced the
uptick in fires in the past ten years in the Yukon
Kuskokwim area, including part of his district and lower
Southwest Alaska. He reasoned that in five to ten years the
map could look different with increases in the brown,
yellow, and red sections if the current warming trends
continued. He considered that if fire suppression costs
were $60 million to $70 million in the supplemental budget,
they could be significantly more expensive in the future.
Mr. McDonald responded that the critical category indicated
areas with high values. He explained that an increase to
the critical category would be driven by an increased
number of mines or communities. He believed state and
federal strategies would change if they could not stop a
fire in the initial attack. He explained that in 2022 there
had been fires where the best resources had been used
(i.e., smoke jumpers and hot shot crews) to try to keep a
fire under 10 acres; however, the efforts had been
unsuccessful. He stated it was an indicator that some of
the strategies used in the past may not work. He stated
that the future would be looking at how to protect values
ahead of time. He elaborated that fuels projects and fuels
breaks would be instrumental in the protection of villages,
communities, and infrastructure. There was an understanding
that a fire may not be able to be suppressed in time, but
there would be a place to work from in order to protect
values. He believed the critical management option could
grow as communities expanded along the road system. He
noted the division evaluated the road system annually to
determine whether an area was critical. For any of the
protection levels, the division had a nonstandard response
process where it evaluated whether a fire in a limited area
could potentially threaten critical infrastructure. He
explained that if the fire was deemed to threaten areas of
value, the division would take action regardless of the
predesignated options.
Co-Chair Edgmon stated that it underscored there were not
enough fire crews in the villages. He highlighted the
village of New Stuyahok in his district that had a fairly
new fire department building but no fire truck. He surmised
the response time would be swift if there was a fire
similar to the 2022 season near a village; however, the
inability for a community to contribute to the response was
an area the legislature needed to focus on. He referenced
the fire academies and the importance of growing the
state's own fire crews. He thought it was likely a fairly
lucrative job, but it had to be one of the toughest jobs
around. His takeaway from the current meeting was that the
issue was huge. He was a lifelong Alaskan and had been on
the committee for almost a decade and had been watching the
increase. He remarked that he knew people who had lost
their homes in the Miller's Reach Fire in 1996. He
appreciated the presentation and how it underscored the
magnitude of the issue as something that needed the
dedication of time and resources.
2:43:30 PM
Representative Hannan referenced the Swan Lake Fire that
had jumped the Sterling Highway and fires that had jumped
the Parks Highway. She asked for the standard dimensions of
a fire break. She understood that wind and fuels building
up the speed of a fire played into the issue. She reasoned
that if the Long Trail were to be considered a fire brake,
it would need to be the appropriate width.
Mr. McDonald answered that it varied depending on the fuel
types and whether or not the terrain was sloped or not. He
clarified that the fuel breaks did not stop a fire from
spreading, but it provided firefighters with a location to
have a tactical advantage to work from. Typically, fire
crews were burning out from a preexisting line to remove
fuels located between the fire and values under protection.
The breaks were not built with the idea that a fire would
burn up to the break and stop. There were places where a
100-foot line was sufficient and other locations that
called for a 300-foot line. He remarked that on a bad day a
fire would cross the Yukon River.
Representative Josephson referenced prevention and
suppression and asked which was less expensive.
Mr. McDonald replied that if a human caused fire could be
prevented from starting it was the way to save suppression
dollars. He cited the Clear Fire caused by lightning that
had cost almost $27 million. He explained that if it had
been a human fire that could have been prevented through
education or enforcement, it would save suppression
dollars.
Representative Josephson clarified he was referring to
mitigation efforts taken prior to a fire season such as
fire breaks.
Mr. McDonald answered that fire breaks could reduce
suppression costs by keeping a fire smaller. The real value
in the fuels work was to protect infrastructure and homes.
He relayed that completing mitigation efforts ahead of time
was much cheaper because it could be done through different
means than an emergency declaration.
Representative Josephson believed the state's law did not
treat wildland firefighters the same as urban firefighters.
He asked if the law should be changed and whether it was a
source of upset for wildland firefighters.
2:47:51 PM
Mr. McDonald replied that wildland fires were an issue that
needed to be addressed nationally, which included having
the right people with the right skillsets and training. He
believed things were moving in that direction, but it
required continued improvement.
Representative Tomaszewski hoped that one of the Division
of Forestry's missions was to put the Division of Fire
Protection out of business. He clarified he wanted to see
an aggressive stance on getting resources out to private
industry, especially around cities and easily accessible
areas. He noted there had been an issue in a state park in
Fairbanks in the current year where the Forest Service had
come in and downed numerous trees, cleaned up the park,
piled up the wood, and opened it up to the public. He had
been one of the individuals who had shown up to fill his
truck with firewood. He elaborated that people had shown up
quickly to benefit from the wood. He reiterated his hope to
get resources out to private industry in order for similar
situations to occur in a more organized way.
Representative Tomaszewski looked at slide 17 and observed
that a 22-person Alaskan crew cost $6,500 per day. He
shared that he had been an emergency firefighter on a 16-
person crew about 30 years ago. He noted the slide showed
that 75 percent of the firefighters in Alaska came from out
of state in 2022. He asked if the division was aggressively
recruiting more emergency firefighters. He shared it had
been a great job for him during college. He elaborated on
his time fighting fires. He asked if the 22-person crews
worked seven days a week at 16 hours per day. He wondered
if it was the same for crews from the Lower 48 who came to
fight fires in Alaska.
Mr. McDonald answered there were firefighter safety rules
including the 2:1 work to rest ratio. In most circumstances
firefighters in Alaska did not work past 16 hours and after
two weeks on, they were required to take two days off. He
believed it had changed since the 1990s. He elaborated that
safety standards had been set to ensure firefighters were
rested prior to being put back on the line. He relayed it
had been abused for many years and some avoidable injuries
had occurred as a result. He stated his understanding of
the question and replied that the division was doing
everything it could to recruit within Alaska. The division
was working with village corporations and Native
corporations, every community, universities, and high
schools. Additionally, the division had advertisements in
movie theaters and on social media. He reiterated the
division was doing everything it could to recruit within
the state and was making the training available to as many
people as possible. He recognized the job was hard work and
he believed every kid should do something like it for a
couple of years.
Mr. McDonald responded to Representative Tomaszewski's
suggestion about making resources available to the private
sector. The division tried to make the firewood available
and help communities out when there was a fuels project. He
relayed that wood generated from work the division did in
villages typically went to elders. He underscored that the
division was taking whatever steps it could to recruit
Alaskans and put Alaskans to work in Alaska.
2:54:19 PM
Representative Cronk stated there was a harvestable timber
abundance in the state and a value-add business. He stated
that long-term sales were needed and harvesting mature
timber reduced fire risk. He elaborated that putting access
roads to harvestable timber would open other access for
firewood, subsistence, and recreational activities.
Additionally, it improved habitat for moose and other
animals. He mentioned carbon sequestration and the growth
of new trees. He stated that the precedent was set for good
forestry practices in Alaska. He asked if the state
followed federal guidelines for EFFs. He remarked there
were numerous people in villages who could not fight fires
any longer because perhaps they had committed a crime in
the past. He stated there were people who had made mistakes
in the past who wanted to work. He stated that firefighting
was in the DNA of people living in his region and was
something to be proud of. He wondered how to prevent the
exclusion of individuals from the much needed workforce.
Mr. McDonald answered there were restrictions on who the
division could hire related to criminal history and
background. He relayed there were processes where an
individual could work with a judge to work through the
situation and get hired by the division. The division had
worked with individuals to enable them to work on fire
crews, especially in rural areas. He remarked it was
something the department could do some research on to
determine if more could be done. He stated it was less of a
Division of Forestry and Fire Protection issue and more
about state hiring practices.
Representative Cronk highlighted fire technicians as an
example and noted there was a base in Delta that was
struggling to hire positions. He knew the wage was not
great. He stated a bump up of a few dollars an hour made
all the difference in the world. He wanted to work with the
division to get the positions filled.
Mr. McDonald appreciated it and would take Representative
Cronk up on the offer when the time was right.
Mr. Eng agreed with Representative Cronk's statements about
long-term timber sales, access roads, harvesting mature
timber, and fuels reduction. He noted the concepts
reflected the governor's priorities as well. He looked
forward to working together on the issue.
Co-Chair Johnson thanked the presenters. She reviewed the
schedule for the following day.
ADJOURNMENT
2:58:48 PM
The meeting was adjourned at 2:58 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HFIN DNR Forestry and Fire Protection Presentation 2023 02 20.pdf |
HFIN 2/20/2023 1:30:00 PM |