WILDLAND FIRE 

MANAGEMENT

Improvements Needed 

in Information, 

Collaboration, and 

Planning to Enhance 

Federal Fire Aviation 

Program Success

Report to Congressional Requesters

August 2013

GAO-13-684

United States Government Accountability Office
United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-13-684, a report to 

congressional requesters

August 2013

WILDLAND FIRE MANAGEMENT

Improvements Needed in Information, 

Collaboration, and Planning to Enhance Federal Fire 

Aviation Program Success

Why GAO Did This Study

The Forest Service and Interior 

contract for aircraft to perform various 

firefighting functions, including 

airtankers that drop retardant. The 

Forest Service contracts for large 

airtankers and certain other aircraft, 

while Interior contracts for smaller 

airtankers and water scoopers. 

However, a decrease in the number of 

large airtankers, from 44 in 2002 to 8 in 

early 2013—due to aging planes and 

several fatal crashes—has led to 

concerns about the agencies’ ability to 

provide aerial firefighting support.

GAO was asked to review agency 

efforts to ensure the adequacy of the 

firefighting aircraft fleet. This report 

examines (1) Forest Service and 

Interior efforts to identify the number 

and type of firefighting aircraft they 

need and (2) the Forest Service’s 

approach to modernizing the large 

airtanker fleet and the challenges it 

faces in doing so. GAO reviewed 

agency studies and strategies, 

assessing the extent to which they 

included key elements important for 

understanding fire aviation needs;

reviewed large airtanker planning and 

acquisition documents; and 

interviewed agency officials and 

representatives of the fire aviation 

community selected to represent state 

agencies, aircraft vendors, and others. 

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends, among other 

things, that the Forest Service and 

Interior expand efforts to collect 

information on the performance and 

effectiveness of firefighting aircraft and 

enhance collaboration across agencies 

and the fire aviation community. The 

agencies generally agreed with GAO’s

findings and recommendations.

What GAO Found

The Department of Agriculture’s Forest Service and the Department of the 

Interior have undertaken nine major efforts since 1995 to identify the number and 

type of firefighting aircraft they need, but those efforts—consisting of major 

studies and strategy documents—have been hampered by limited information 

and collaboration. Specifically, the studies and strategy documents did not 

incorporate information on the performance and effectiveness of firefighting 

aircraft, primarily because neither agency collected such data. While government 

reports have long called for the Forest Service and Interior to collect aircraft 

performance information, neither agency did so until 2012 when the Forest 

Service began a data collection effort. However, the Forest Service has collected 

limited data on large airtankers and no other aircraft, and Interior has not initiated 

a data collection effort. In addition, although firefighting aircraft are often shared 

by federal agencies and can be deployed to support firefighting operations on 

federal and nonfederal lands, the agencies have not consistently collaborated 

with one another and other stakeholders to identify the firefighting aircraft they 

need. Many agency officials and stakeholders GAO contacted noted concerns 

about limited collaboration, and many cited shortcomings with the formal 

mechanism for collaboration—the National Interagency Aviation Committee. The 

committee has implemented some leading practices for collaboration such as 

defining and articulating a common purpose, but it has not taken additional steps 

to monitor and evaluate its collaborative activities, another leading practice. 

Collectively, additional information on aircraft performance and effectiveness and 

collaboration across agencies and with stakeholders could enhance agency 

estimates of their firefighting aircraft needs to more accurately represent national 

needs for such aircraft, and as a result, better position the agencies to develop 

strategic planning documents that represent those needs. 

The Forest Service plans to modernize the large airtanker fleet by obtaining large 

airtankers from various sources over the near, medium, and long term, but each 

component of this approach faces challenges that make the continued availability 

of such aircraft to meet national fire suppression needs uncertain. In the near 

term, the agency plans to rely on a mix of contracted “legacy” airtankers as well 

as supplemental aircraft available through additional contracts and agreements 

with other governments and the military. However, agency concerns exist 

regarding the availability, capability, and costs of these resources. In the medium 

term, the Forest Service has awarded contracts for “next-generation” large 

airtankers that are faster and more up-to-date than most “legacy” aircraft, but it is 

uncertain when all of these aircraft will begin supporting fire suppression 

activities. Specifically, bid protests delayed contract issuance, and most of the 

aircraft receiving awards have not been fully tested and approved. In the long 

term, the Forest Service's plan includes purchasing certain large airtankers and 

obtaining others through intergovernmental transfer at no initial cost if they are 

declared surplus by the military—a shift from its long-standing practice of 

contracting for rather than owning aircraft. However, the Forest Service was 

unable to justify its previous plans for purchasing large airtankers to the Office of 

Management and Budget, and concerns exist regarding the retardant capacity

and operating cost of the other airtankers it would obtain through 

intergovernmental transfer. 

View GAO-13-684. For more information, 

contact Anne-Marie Fennell at (202) 512-3841 

or fennella@gao.gov.
Page i GAO-13-684 Wildland Fire Management

Letter 1

Background 5

Agencies’ Efforts to Identify Firefighting Aircraft Needs Have Been 

Hampered by Limited Information and Collaboration 11

The Forest Service’s Approach to Modernizing the Large Airtanker 

Fleet Faces Challenges, Resulting in Uncertainty over Continued 

Large Airtanker Availability 21

Conclusions 36

Recommendations for Executive Action 37

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 37

Appendix I Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 39

Appendix II 2013 Forest Service and Interior Firefighting Aircraft 

Availability and Rates 42

Appendix III Summary of Agency Efforts Since 1995 to Identify Number 

and Type of Firefighting Aircraft They Need 44

Appendix IV Comments from the Department of Agriculture 47

Appendix V Comments from the Department of the Interior 49

Appendix VI GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 50

Tables

Table 1: Firefighting Aircraft Categories and Functions 6

Table 2: Type, Number, and Cost Rates for Federally-Contracted 

Firefighting Aircraft 42

Contents
Page ii GAO-13-684 Wildland Fire Management

Table 3: Purpose, Methodology, and Recommendations of Major 

Efforts to Identify Federal Firefighting Aircraft Needs, by 

Date 44

Figures

Figure 1: Examples of Single-Engine and Large Airtankers Used in 

Wildland Fire Suppression 3

Figure 2: Key Elements Included in Major Forest Service and 

Interior Efforts Since 1995 to Identify Number and Type 

of Firefighting Aircraft They Need 12

Figure 3: Example of a DC-10 Very Large Airtanker Dropping 

Retardant 25

Figure 4: Example of MAFFS-equipped C-130 28

Figure 5: Example of a “Next-Generation” Large Airtanker (BAe146) 30

Abbreviations

CAL FIRE California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection

DOD Department of Defense

MAFFS Modular Airborne Firefighting System

OMB Office of Management and Budget

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety 

without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain 

copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be 

necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.
Page 1 GAO-13-684 Wildland Fire Management

441 G St. N.W.

Washington, DC 20548

August 20, 2013

The Honorable Ron Wyden

Chairman

The Honorable Lisa Murkowski

Ranking Member

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

United States Senate

The Honorable Dianne Feinstein

United States Senate

The Honorable Jon Tester

United States Senate

The Honorable Mark Udall

United States Senate

Over the last 5 decades, aircraft have played an important role in wildland 

fire suppression activities throughout the country by conducting aerial 

surveillance, delivering supplies and firefighters, and dropping retardant 

to slow fire growth or water to suppress fires. Federal, state, and local 

governments rely on firefighting aircraft—including fixed-wing airtankers, 

helicopters, and other aircraft—to help protect communities and natural 

resources from wildland fire, and experts project that, as fire seasons 

become longer and more severe, the need for firefighting aircraft will 

continue to grow. The federal government plays a central role in wildland 

fire response, including the use of firefighting aircraft, for which it largely 

relies on private vendors that own and operate the aircraft under contract 

to the government.

Among firefighting aircraft, large airtankers—those able to carry at least 

1,800 gallons of fire retardant—are key resources for the federal 

government because they have the ability to fly to remote areas and 

quickly assist in containing small fires before they become larger, costlier, 

and more dangerous. However, the number of large airtankers available 

under federal contract decreased substantially in the last decade, from 44 

in 2002 to 8 in early 2013.1

 1

Unless otherwise specified, all years cited in this report refer to calendar years.

The decrease of large airtankers in the federal 
Page 2 GAO-13-684 Wildland Fire Management

fleet is, in part, the result of aircraft being retired due to their age—the 

average large airtanker is more than 50 years old—as well as agencies’

concerns about the airtankers’ safety and capability to perform a 

demanding fire aviation mission, which involves maneuvering aircraft at 

low speeds and altitude and enduring significant structural wing stress. 

Safety issues arose from two fatal crashes in 2002, both of which were 

caused by structural failures—specifically, wings separating from the 

aircraft during flight. These safety-related concerns led the government in 

2011 to terminate contracts for eight large airtankers, which represented 

more than 40 percent of the federally-contracted large airtanker fleet at 

the time. Three additional crashes in 2012, two of which resulted in 

fatalities, further increased public concerns regarding the federal 

government’s ability to provide continued aerial support for wildland 

firefighting activities.

Aircraft availability is also limited by the market characteristics for each 

type of aircraft. In particular, large airtankers are less available than other 

aircraft such as single-engine airtankers, helicopters, and surveillance 

aircraft.2 Large airtankers have historically consisted of larger aircraft—

typically surplus from the military—that were not designed to drop liquids 

and have undergone retrofitting to perform that mission. (See fig. 1 for 

examples of single-engine and large airtankers). According to the federal 

government’s 2009 wildland fire aviation strategy, the availability of 

single-engine airtankers and helicopters is sufficient to meet national fire 

demands over the next 15 to 20 years, and the availability of aerial 

surveillance and smokejumper aircraft is adequate, but the Forest 

Service’s recent large airtanker strategy notes that the economic difficulty 

for new vendors to enter the market or existing vendors to upgrade their 

fleets demonstrates the uncertainty regarding the continued availability of 

large airtankers.

 2

Single-engine airtankers are often agricultural aircraft designed to operate at low altitudes 

and configured to drop retardant rather than pesticides or fertilizer. Helicopters can 

perform multiple roles—including oil and gas, logging, and fire suppression support—and 

surveillance aircraft are typically general-purpose civilian aircraft. 
Page 3 GAO-13-684 Wildland Fire Management

Figure 1: Examples of Single-Engine and Large Airtankers Used in Wildland Fire Suppression

Note: Large airtankers are defined by the agencies as aircraft with capacities of at least 1,800

gallons. Small, single-engine airtankers generally have capacities of 500 to 800 gallons.

The Department of Agriculture’s Forest Service and the Department of 

the Interior’s land management bureaus have a responsibility to respond 

to wildland fires on federal lands.3 States and other entities—including 

tribal and local fire departments—have primary responsibility for 

responding to wildland fires on tribal, state, local, and private lands. 

Fighting wildland fires—which can burn across federal, state, and local 

jurisdictions—can require significant investments of personnel, aircraft, 

equipment, and supplies and can result in substantial fire suppression 

expenditures, with firefighting aircraft contributing to these costs. From 

2007 through 2012, these agencies reported that more than $2.4 billion 

was spent on federally-contracted firefighting aircraft, fuel, and retardant.4

In light of questions about the availability of needed aerial support for 

firefighting—in particular the decrease in large airtanker availability—you 

 3

The Department of the Interior includes four land management agencies: the Bureau of 

Indian Affairs, Bureau of Land Management, Fish and Wildlife Service, and National Park 

Service.

4

This amount includes expenditures for both federal and nonfederal use of these 

contracted aircraft.
Page 4 GAO-13-684 Wildland Fire Management

asked us to review federal agencies’ efforts to ensure the adequacy of the 

federal firefighting aircraft fleet. This report examines (1) Forest Service 

and Interior efforts to identify the number and type of firefighting aircraft 

they need, and (2) the Forest Service’s approach to modernizing the large 

airtanker fleet and the challenges it faces in doing so.

To examine Forest Service and Interior efforts to identify their firefighting 

aircraft needs, we identified and reviewed agency studies and strategy 

documents and interviewed agency officials responsible for managing fire 

aviation programs. We focused on those efforts conducted since 1995, 

when the Forest Service and Interior jointly conducted the first major 

study of their large airtanker needs. For each effort, we reviewed the 

methodologies used and identified the extent to which they included 

analysis of key elements, which we identified as important for 

understanding firefighting aircraft needs based on our reviews of multiple 

academic and agency studies and interviews with numerous stakeholders 

throughout the fire aviation community. The key elements we identified 

are: aircraft types, basing options, acquisition models, aircraft capabilities, 

suppression methods, and aircraft performance and effectiveness. We 

also interviewed agency officials about each effort to determine the extent 

of federal interagency collaboration involved. We compared the agencies’

practices with GAO-identified leading practices for interagency 

collaboration.5

 5

See GAO, Results-Oriented Government: Practices That Can Help Enhance and Sustain 

Collaboration among Federal Agencies, 

To examine the Forest Service’s approach to modernizing 

the large airtanker fleet and any challenges it faces in doing so, we 

reviewed agency documents related to large airtanker acquisition, 

management, and operations as well as planning and acquisition 

documents, such as the 2009 Interagency Aviation Strategy, the Forest 

Service’s 2012 Large Airtanker Modernization Strategy, and Forest 

Service airtanker contract solicitations, which lay out the agency’s 

approach to obtaining large airtankers. For both objectives, we 

interviewed members of the fire aviation stakeholder community, 

including officials involved in the management and operations of aerial 

firefighting from the Forest Service, Interior and its four land management 

bureaus, the Department of Defense (DOD), and six state agencies that 

we selected based on input from federal agencies and the National 

Association of State Foresters; representatives from eight of the nine 

vendors we identified that own and operate large airtankers and that have 

GAO-06-15 (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 21, 2005).
Page 5 GAO-13-684 Wildland Fire Management

responded to the most recent Forest Service contract solicitations;6 and 

two national trade organizations, which we identified based on 

conversations with agency officials and vendor representatives. We also 

conducted site visits to the National Interagency Fire Center in Boise, 

Idaho;7 the facilities of the only two private vendors with active Forest 

Service “legacy” large airtanker contracts, located in Minden, Nevada and 

Missoula, Montana; and the headquarters of California’s fire aviation 

program—part of the California Department of Forestry and Fire 

Protection (CAL FIRE) in Sacramento.8

We conducted this performance audit from August 2012 to August 2013 

in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 

sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 

findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that 

the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and 

conclusions based on our audit objectives.

The results of our interviews and 

site visits are not generalizable. Appendix I provides a more detailed 

description of our objectives, scope, and methodology.

For decades, the federal government has relied on firefighting aircraft to 

assist in wildland fire suppression activities. These aircraft perform 

various firefighting activities, including gathering intelligence by detecting 

fires and conducting assessments of ongoing fires; delivering supplies 

such as water, food, and ground-based firefighting equipment; 

transporting firefighters; providing coordination and direction to aerial and 

ground-based firefighters; and delivering retardant or water to extinguish 

or slow the growth of fires. The federal government uses different types of 

firefighting aircraft, including large airtankers, very large airtankers, 

single-engine airtankers, amphibious fixed-wing water scoopers, 

helicopters, and fixed-wing surveillance and smokejumper aircraft to 

 6

Representatives of the ninth vendor did not respond to our attempts to contact them.

7

The National Interagency Fire Center is the nation’s logistical support center for 

controlling and extinguishing wildland fires and coordinates the mobilization of fire 

suppression supplies, equipment, and personnel at the federal, regional, and local levels. 

8

CAL FIRE operates a fleet of airtankers, helicopters, and surveillance aircraft to assist in 

fire suppression activities. The federal government reimburses the state of California when 

these aircraft support fire suppression activities on federal lands.

Background
Page 6 GAO-13-684 Wildland Fire Management

perform these aerial fire suppression activities. Table 1 describes these 

firefighting aircraft and their functions. In general, multiple types of aircraft 

operate simultaneously to suppress fires. For example, airtankers that 

drop retardant or water often work in tandem with surveillance aircraft—

lead planes—that coordinate the firefighting operation and guide the 

airtankers in dropping the retardant or water in the correct location. The 

2013 Interagency Standards for Fire and Fire Aviation Operations defines 

several types of federal firefighting aircraft—including large and very large 

airtankers, large and medium helicopters, and surveillance and 

smokejumper aircraft—as national resources that can be deployed 

anywhere in the country and support fire suppression operations in any 

jurisdiction, including federal lands and nonfederal lands in accordance 

with relevant intergovernmental agreements.9

Table 1: Firefighting Aircraft Categories and Functions

Aircraft category Aerial firefighting function(s)

Large and very large airtankers Deliver a minimum of 1,800 gallons (for large airtankers) or 8,000 gallons (for very large 

airtankers) of retardant to help suppress wildland fires; their range allows for rapid deployment 

over long distances, enabling them to support fire suppression activities across geographic 

boundaries

Single-engine airtankers Deliver smaller amounts of retardant—currently, up to 800 gallons—to help suppress wildland 

fires; due to their small size and aerodynamics, they are capable of great accuracy in rough 

terrain

Water scoopers Deliver water collected from sources such as rivers or lakes for use in suppressing wildland fires; 

currently-contracted aircraft carry up to 1,400 gallons

Helicopters Perform various firefighting functions, including transporting firefighters or supplies as well as 

delivering water or retardant

Surveillance aircraft Provide command and control of aerial resources assigned to a fire as well as coordination and 

direction of ground forces engaged in fire suppression activities; one type—lead planes—guide 

airtankers over fires to assist in accurately targeting retardant delivery

Smokejumper aircraft Deliver firefighters and supplies quickly to remote fires by parachute; the aircraft’s mobility allows 

for rapid support on emerging fires

Source: GAO analysis of agency documents.

 9

Single-engine airtankers and small helicopters are not defined as national resources by 

the Interagency Standards for Fire and Fire Aviation Operations. Officials told us that such 

aircraft are limited in their range and speed, and as a result, they are generally deployed 

within a specific geographic area.
Page 7 GAO-13-684 Wildland Fire Management

In most instances, firefighting aircraft that drop retardant or water do not 

extinguish wildland fires but instead slow the spread of fires or reduce 

their intensity as firefighters on the ground work to contain or suppress 

fires. Firefighting aircraft that deliver retardant or water support groundbased firefighters by performing two main functions: (1) dropping 

retardant around wildland fires to slow fire growth to provide groundbased firefighters additional time to build or reinforce fireline and (2) 

reducing the intensity of fires by dropping water directly on them.10 In 

general, airtankers deliver retardant around fires to slow their spread, 

water scoopers drop water directly on fires to reduce their intensity, and 

helicopters can perform either function. Currently, all large and very large 

airtankers in the federal fleet are aircraft initially designed for other 

purposes—such as maritime patrol or civilian passenger transport—that 

have been retrofitted for the aerial fire suppression mission through the 

incorporation of retardant delivery systems—tanks affixed to aircraft that 

hold and release retardant.11 Conversely, single-engine airtankers and 

water scoopers are built to drop retardant and water, respectively, to fight 

wildland fires.12

Fire suppression activities can generally be categorized as initial attack, 

extended attack, or large fire support. Initial attack activities include those 

conducted during the first “operational period” after the fire is reported, 

generally within 24 hours.

Traditionally, airtankers have used retardant delivery 

systems that rely on gravity to evacuate retardant via doors that open in 

the bottom of the aircraft. However, some systems have been developed 

that use compressed air to force retardant out of the aircraft through 

nozzles rather than doors.

13

 10Fireline is an area where vegetation is cleared in an effort to stop the fire’s spread at that 

point or slow it sufficiently to allow firefighters to attack directly. Firefighters often 

incorporate geographic features such as roads, rocky areas, or ridgelines into firelines to 

increase their effectiveness. 

When fires are not controlled through initial 

attack, extended attack activities occur that generally involve the use of 

11In the United States, vendors have traditionally chosen retired military bombers, 

transport, and patrol aircraft to convert to large airtankers due to their availability and 

relatively low cost.

12Some water scoopers are also capable of dropping suppressant foam, which is applied 

directly on fires to reduce their intensity.

13An operational period is the period of time scheduled for execution of a given set of 

tactical actions. Operational periods can be of various lengths, although usually not more 

than 24 hours.
Page 8 GAO-13-684 Wildland Fire Management

additional firefighting resources; when such fires grow large and complex, 

these activities may be referred to as large fire support. Federal and state 

wildland fire responders rely on a tiered interagency dispatch process for 

requesting and coordinating the use of firefighting resources, including 

aircraft, to respond to wildland fires. For example, when a wildland fire is 

reported, a local dispatch center identifies and dispatches, if available, fire 

response resources such as firefighters, aircraft, and equipment to 

perform initial attack activities. If sufficient resources are not available, 

local dispatch centers can request additional resources from the 

appropriate geographic area coordination center.14 In the event that 

sufficient resources are not available within a geographic area, its 

geographic area coordination center can request additional resources 

from the National Interagency Coordination Center, which serves as the 

focal point for coordinating the mobilization of resources for wildland fire 

and other incidents throughout the United States.15

A number of interagency organizations develop interagency firefighting 

standards, including those pertaining to the development and use of 

firefighting aircraft, and coordinate federal firefighting efforts. To 

coordinate the overall firefighting efforts of the Forest Service and other 

federal land management agencies, the interagency National Wildfire 

Coordinating Group was established in 1974.16 This interagency group 

develops and maintains standards, guidelines, and training and 

certification requirements for interagency wildland fire operations. Within 

this group, the National Interagency Aviation Committee is an interagency 

body of federal and state aviation operations managers responsible for 

providing common policy and direction for aviation resources involved in 

wildland firefighting.17

 14Eleven regional dispatch centers, called geographic area coordination centers, are 

located nationwide, each of which serves a specific geographic portion of the United 

States.

This committee was established to serve as a body 

15The National Interagency Coordination Center is located at the National Interagency Fire 

Center in Boise, Idaho. 

16The National Wildfire Coordinating Group draws on representatives from the Forest 

Service and from Interior’s Bureau of Indian Affairs, Bureau of Land Management, Fish 

and Wildlife Service, and National Park Service, as well as the U.S. Fire Administration, 

National Association of State Foresters, and Intertribal Timber Council. 

17Prior to April 2010, the National Interagency Aviation Committee was known as the 

National Interagency Aviation Council. We refer to the organization as the National 

Interagency Aviation Committee throughout this report.
Page 9 GAO-13-684 Wildland Fire Management

of aviation experts, assisting the National Wildfire Coordinating Group 

with recognizing opportunities to enhance safety, effectiveness, and 

efficiency in aviation-related operations, procedures, programs, and 

coordination. In turn, the National Interagency Aviation Committee 

chartered the Interagency Airtanker Board to review and approve 

retardant and water delivery systems based on established performance 

criteria. The approval process—which includes an assessment of system 

design, testing of the systems’ performance, and a physical inspection of 

the aircraft with system installed—ensures that the systems meet basic 

standards for delivery of retardant or water. Interagency Airtanker Board 

approval serves as a guide to participating federal and state agencies for 

identifying acceptable aircraft and retardant or water delivery systems that 

may compete for agency contracts.

The federal firefighting aircraft fleet includes some aircraft that are 

government owned, but most are obtained through contracts with private 

industry vendors. For example, the federal government owns some 

surveillance and smokejumper aircraft and contracts for the remainder, 

along with helicopters and aircraft that deliver retardant or water, from 

private industry vendors that own, operate, and maintain them. Currently, 

the Forest Service issues contracts for large and very large airtankers, as 

well as large and medium helicopters, and Interior issues contracts for 

single-engine airtankers and water scoopers.18 The agencies use two 

types of contracts for obtaining firefighting aircraft from vendors: 

exclusive-use and call-when-needed.19

 18Both agencies contract for small helicopters as well as smokejumper and surveillance 

aircraft.

Exclusive-use contracts require a 

vendor to provide an aircraft for service on any day covered by the 

“mandatory availability period” stipulated in the contract. The agencies 

pay vendors a daily rate regardless of whether the aircraft is used and 

also pay a fee for each hour flown if the aircraft is used. Conversely, callwhen-needed contracts do not guarantee vendors any fee unless the 

aircraft is called upon to provide aerial fire support. This type of contract 

allows the government the flexibility to pay for firefighting aircraft only 

when they are used. However, the daily availability and flight hour rates 

for call-when-needed contracts are generally higher than those for 

19Forest Service uses the term “call-when-needed,” and Interior uses the term “on-call” for 

contracts in which the agencies guarantee payment to the vendor contingent upon the 

aircraft being used. For the purposes of this report, we use the term call-when-needed to 

describe all such contracts.
Page 10 GAO-13-684 Wildland Fire Management

exclusive-use contracts. In contrast to large airtankers, other types of 

firefighting aircraft are generally more available for federal contracting. 

For example, the agencies plan to have over 100 helicopters available in 

2013 for fire suppression activities through exclusive-use contracts with 

hundreds more available through call-when-needed contracts. See 

appendix II for the number and types of aircraft in the federal firefighting 

aircraft fleet in 2013 and their associated cost rates.

The Forest Service and Interior have also established agreements with 

other governments (i.e., cooperator governments), as well as the military, 

to augment the national firefighting aircraft fleet during periods of heavy 

fire activity. The United States and Canada have established a mutual aid 

agreement whereby the National Interagency Coordination Center and 

the Canadian Interagency Forest Fire Centre can request firefighting 

resources, including aircraft, from each other during periods of heavy fire 

activity.20 Similarly, some U.S. states and Canadian provinces have 

established regional intergovernmental agreements to facilitate the 

sharing of firefighting resources: the Northwest Fire Protection 

Agreement,21 the Great Lakes Forest Fire Compact,22 and the 

Northeastern Forest Fire Protection Compact.23

 20Canada / United States Reciprocal Forest Fire Fighting Arrangement (May 7, 1982). The 

arrangement is implemented in a series of annual operating plans, the most recent of 

which was issued on January 15, 2013.

Through these 

agreements, firefighting resources, including aircraft, can be dispatched 

from their contracted agency, state, or province to assist on fires on other 

lands covered by the agreement. The Forest Service can also obtain 

aerial firefighting support through the Modular Airborne Firefighting 

System (MAFFS) program under an agreement with DOD. Under this 

program, DOD provides Lockheed Martin C-130 Hercules aircraft as 

additional capacity for aerial firefighting when requested by the Forest 

Service. Each of the aircraft is equipped with a MAFFS unit—a portable, 

21Signatories to the Northwest Fire Protection Agreement include the states of Alaska, 

Idaho, Montana, Oregon, and Washington, as well as the Canadian provinces of Alberta, 

British Columbia, and the Northwest and Yukon Territories.

22Members of the Great Lakes Forest Fire Compact include the states of Michigan, 

Minnesota, and Wisconsin, as well as the Canadian provinces of Manitoba and Ontario.

23Signatories to the Northeastern Forest Fire Protection Compact include the states of 

Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Rhode Island, and 

Vermont, as well as the Canadian provinces of New Brunswick, Newfoundland and 

Labrador, Nova Scotia, and Quebec.
Page 11 GAO-13-684 Wildland Fire Management

pressurized retardant delivery system that can be inserted into military C130 aircraft to convert them into large airtankers when needed. The 

Forest Service owns the MAFFS units (eight in total) and provides the 

retardant, and DOD provides the C-130 aircraft, pilots, and maintenance 

and support personnel to fly the missions.24 A new generation of MAFFS 

units became operational in February 2009, and the fleet has since 

transitioned to use this system exclusively.

Since 1995, the Forest Service and Interior have cumulatively produced 

nine major studies and strategy documents related to their firefighting 

aviation needs, but the agencies’ efforts to identify the number and type 

of firefighting aircraft needed have been hampered by limited information 

and collaboration. In particular, these efforts did not include information 

on the performance and effectiveness of firefighting aircraft and involved 

limited collaboration between agencies and with stakeholders in the fire 

aviation community.

Forest Service and Interior efforts to identify the number and type of 

firefighting aircraft they need have largely consisted of developing major 

studies and strategy documents—nine since 1995. Based on reviews of 

academic and government studies and interviews with officials and 

representatives from across the fire aviation community, we identified the 

following key elements as important for understanding firefighting aircraft 

needs:

• Aircraft types – aircraft manufacturer, model, and size classification;

• Basing options – potential locations for aircraft bases;

• Acquisition models – options for obtaining aircraft, including 

purchasing aircraft or using vendor-owned aircraft;

• Aircraft capabilities – required capabilities of aircraft, such as 

retardant capacity and speed;

• Suppression methods – how to use aircraft to suppress fire, including 

initial attack and extended attack; and

• Aircraft performance and effectiveness – the results of using aircraft to 

support fire suppression activities.

 24These aircraft are operated by Air National Guard units in California, North Carolina, and 

Wyoming, as well as an Air Force Reserve unit in Colorado. 

Agencies’ Efforts to 

Identify Firefighting 

Aircraft Needs Have 

Been Hampered by 

Limited Information 

and Collaboration

Agency Efforts to 

Identify Firefighting 

Aircraft Needs Did Not 

Include Information on 

Performance and 

Effectiveness of 

Firefighting Aircraft
Page 12 GAO-13-684 Wildland Fire Management

While the Forest Service and Interior studies and strategy documents 

contained various key elements, none included information on 

performance and effectiveness of aircraft in helping to suppress wildland 

fires because agencies have not collected such information. Figure 2 

identifies which key elements were included in each of the major studies 

and strategy documents we analyzed. (See app. III for additional 

information on each of these efforts.)

Figure 2: Key Elements Included in Major Forest Service and Interior Efforts Since 1995 to Identify Number and Type of 

Firefighting Aircraft They Need

Note: Other studies of firefighting aviation have been published but are not included here because 

they did not include efforts to identify the appropriate number or type of firefighting aircraft. See, for 

example, Blue Ribbon Panel, Federal Aerial Firefighting: Assessing Safety and Effectiveness 

(December 2002).

a

The 2005 Wildland Fire Management Aerial Application Study is the third phase of the National 

Study of Airtankers to Support Initial Attack and Large Fire Suppression.
Page 13 GAO-13-684 Wildland Fire Management

b

The Forest Service contracted a private company to conduct this study.

c

As previously noted, the National Interagency Aviation Council became known as the National 

Interagency Aviation Committee in April 2010. The Forest Service, Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, 

Bureau of Land Management, Fish and Wildlife Service, National Park Service, and National 

Association of State Foresters participate in the National Interagency Aviation Committee and 

assisted in developing this strategy.

The agencies generally used cost- and efficiency-based metrics in these 

efforts, such as the potential cost of damage from wildland fires or the 

frequency with which requests for firefighting aircraft are unmet, to identify 

their firefighting aircraft needs. For example, the three-part National Study 

of Airtankers to Support Initial Attack and Large Fire Suppression, 

conducted from 1995 to 2005, estimated the number of large airtankers 

needed by comparing the cost of using large airtankers to help suppress 

wildland fires with the projected cost of the damage that could result from 

not suppressing the fires. In addition, the Forest Service’s 2013 

Firefighting Aircraft Study focused on efficiency and identified the number 

of large airtankers needed by analyzing the annual number of requests 

for these aircraft that the Forest Service was unable to meet.25 However, 

agency efforts to identify their firefighting aircraft needs have not included 

information on the performance and effectiveness of using aircraft to 

suppress wildfires primarily because neither the Forest Service nor 

Interior has collected data on these aspects of firefighting aircraft. 

Specifically, the agencies have not established data collection 

mechanisms to track the specific tactical uses of firefighting aircraft—for 

example, where retardant or water is dropped in relation to a fire as well 

as the objective of a drop, such as protecting a structure or preventing a 

fire from moving in a specific direction—or measure their performance 

and effectiveness in those uses. Moreover, a 2012 study by the Forest 

Service’s Rocky Mountain Research Station found that the Forest Service 

did not collect information about the locations where airtankers drop 

retardant or the actual performance and effectiveness of these aircraft.26

 25Specifically, this study analyzed requests submitted by incident commanders or other 

firefighting officials seeking firefighting aircraft support on individual fires. Such requests 

are entered into an agency resource ordering system, which tracks the number of filled 

and unfilled requests. The study also analyzed the number of unfilled requests for large 

helicopters, but it did not identify the number of large helicopters needed.

26Matthew P. Thompson, David E. Calkin, Jason Herynk, Charles W. McHugh, and Karen 

C. Short, “Airtankers and Wildfire Management in the US Forest Service: Examining Data 

Availability and Exploring Usage and Cost Trends,” International Journal of Wildland Fire

(August 2012).
Page 14 GAO-13-684 Wildland Fire Management

In May 2012, we reported on the importance of performance information 

in another context and found that such information can inform key 

management decisions, such as allocating resources, or it can help 

determine progress in meeting the goals of programs or operations.27

General agreement exists among wildland firefighters that, based on their 

experience, using aircraft can be beneficial to suppressing fires, but little 

empirical data exist to measure the performance and effectiveness of 

such aircraft use. For example, a 2007 study cited anecdotal evidence 

that firefighting aircraft saved homes, and a 2012 study that surveyed fire 

management officials found that these officials believed aircraft were 

effective in reducing the amount of time required to contain wildfires, 

particularly in the most difficult fire suppression conditions.28 However, 

such views are not based on empirical data on aircraft performance and 

effectiveness, and other studies—including the Forest Service’s 2013 

Firefighting Aircraft Study—found that no accurate information on the 

effectiveness of aerial fire suppression exists and noted that the factors 

contributing to the success of wildfire suppression efforts are poorly 

understood.29

 27GAO, Nanotechnology: Improved Performance Information Needed for Environmental, 

Health, and Safety Research, 

Further, the 2009 Interagency Aviation Strategy stated it is 

difficult to assess the relative value of delivering retardant or water 

through helicopters, large airtankers, and single-engine airtankers and 

called for analytic tools focusing on this area to be developed. In addition, 

the 1998 National Study of Tactical Aerial Resource Management

identified the need for better information on the intended use of 

surveillance aircraft—such as support for initial attack or large fire 

suppression activities—to determine the specific types of aircraft that will 

meet federal needs for aerial surveillance during firefighting.

GAO-12-427 (Washington, D.C.: May 21, 2012).

28See M. Plucinski, J. Gould, G. McCarthy, and J. Hollis, “The Effectiveness and 

Efficiency of Aerial Firefighting in Australia, Part 1,” Bushfire Cooperative Research 

Centre, Technical Report A0701 (June 2007), and M. Plucinski, J. McCarthy, J. Hollis, and 

J. Gould, “The Effect of Aerial Suppression on the Containment Time of Australian 

Wildfires Estimated by Fire Management Personnel,” International Journal of Wildland Fire

21 (December 2011): 219-229.

29See, for example, Avid, LLC, “Firefighting Aircraft Study,” AG-024B-C-12-0006 

(Yorktown, VA: Feb. 27, 2013) and Mark A. Finney, Isaac C. Grenfell, and Charles W. 

McHugh, “Modeling Containment of Large Wildfires Using Generalized Linear MixedModel Analysis,” Forest Science, 55, no. 3, (June 2009): 249-255. 
Page 15 GAO-13-684 Wildland Fire Management

This limited availability of information on the performance and 

effectiveness of firefighting aircraft is an area of long-standing concern; 

since the 1960s, multiple reviews of federal fire aviation programs have 

called for the Forest Service and Interior to collect information on the 

performance of firefighting aircraft but neither agency has taken action 

until recently.30 Specifically, in May 2012, the Forest Service recognized 

the need for an approach to evaluate the effective and efficient use of 

firefighting aircraft and began a project on aerial firefighting use and 

effectiveness to develop technology, evaluation criteria, and performance 

measures to quantify and assess the effective use of large airtankers, 

helicopters, and water scoopers in delivering retardant, water, and firesuppressing chemicals.31 According to Forest Service documents, the 

agency plans to collect information including whether an aircraft was used 

for initial attack or extended attack; the aircraft’s objective, such as 

building a line of retardant, directly suppressing fire, or protecting a 

specific structure; whether the fire is in grass, shrub, or timber; general 

weather conditions; and characteristics of the actual drop of retardant, 

such as the time, aircraft speed, retardant amount, and outcome.32

The Forest Service faces several challenges in carrying out its project on 

aerial firefighting use and effectiveness. For example, during 2012, the 

agency collected information on the performance and effectiveness of 

one type of aircraft—large airtankers—from about 25 fires but needs 

information on several hundred fires to perform useful analysis on large 

airtanker performance, according to Forest Service officials managing the 

data collection effort. These officials said that it will likely take several 

years for the agency to collect the information needed to analyze and 

The 

agency collected some of this information during 2012, but it has not 

developed incremental goals for assessing progress or timelines for 

completing the project.

 30See, for example, Forest Service, Airtanker Retardant Drop Evaluation Study, 1964, and 

Department of Agriculture Office of Inspector General, Audit Report: Forest Service’s 

Replacement Plan for Firefighting Aerial Resources, 08601-53-SF (Washington, D.C.: July 

16, 2009). 

31The working title of this project is the Aerial Firefighting Use and Effectiveness Study.

32The Forest Service plans to collect this information by using existing processes, such as 

gathering reports from aerial firefighters who observe aircraft dropping retardant or water 

to suppress fires. Forest Service officials told us that the agency also uses non-traditional 

processes to collect information, such as infrared imagery, ground photos, and aircraft 

tracking sensors.
Page 16 GAO-13-684 Wildland Fire Management

understand the effectiveness of the three types of firefighting aircraft—

large airtankers, helicopters, and water scoopers—included in the project. 

Forest Service officials also told us that aerial firefighters have been 

reluctant to collect information on the results of using firefighting aircraft 

for several reasons, including safety concerns regarding adding to the 

workload of aerial firefighters while they are flying over fires, firefighters’

concerns that Forest Service will use the information to criticize their 

performance, a firefighting culture that values experience and history over 

data and scientific analysis, and the challenges in finding time to 

complete data collection while fighting wildfires. Interior officials said that 

the department is assisting the Forest Service in this data collection 

project but does not currently have plans to collect performance 

information on the firefighting aircraft it manages.

Large airtankers have been the focus of the Forest Service’s current data 

collection effort as well as the agencies’ prior studies and strategy 

documents, but few efforts have focused on other types of firefighting 

aircraft. Specifically, eight of the agencies’ nine studies and strategy 

documents attempted to identify the appropriate number of large 

airtankers for the federal fleet. However, only three of the efforts—the 

1998 National Study of Tactical Aerial Resource Management, the 2009 

Interagency Aviation Strategy, and the 2012 Air Attack Against Wildfires: 

Understanding U.S. Forest Service Requirements for Large Aircraft—

identified the number of other types of aircraft needed,33

 33The 1998 study recommended the appropriate number of surveillance aircraft, the 2009 

study recommended the appropriate number for all aircraft types, and the 2012 study 

recommended the appropriate number of large airtankers, large helicopters, and water 

scoopers. 

despite the fact 

that each type of firefighting aircraft provides unique capabilities to 

support fire suppression operations. For example, water scoopers can 

deliver large quantities of water when a fire ignites near a water source, 

smokejumper aircraft can quickly transport firefighters and supplies to 

fires in remote areas, and helicopters have the versatility to transport 

firefighters, supplies, or small quantities of water or retardant. As a result, 

performance and effectiveness information on all types of firefighting 

aircraft helps agencies identify the number and type of firefighting aircraft 

they need, including assessing any potential new firefighting aircraft 

platforms or technologies that vendors may propose; understand the 

strengths and limitations of each type of aircraft in different situations; and 

understand how firefighting aircraft could help achieve their wildfire 
Page 17 GAO-13-684 Wildland Fire Management

suppression goals. Obtaining information about aircraft performance and 

effectiveness could better inform agency estimates of firefighting aircraft 

needs to include in their strategies for obtaining aircraft, thus helping 

agencies better ensure the adequacy of the federal firefighting aircraft 

fleet.

In contrast to U.S. federal agencies, some foreign and U.S. state 

governments that operate aerial firefighting programs have employed 

various methods to collect and use performance and effectiveness 

information on their firefighting aircraft.34

 34In the United States, numerous state governments operate aerial firefighting programs 

of varying sizes that use numerous types of aircraft. Of the state officials we met with—

representing Alaska, California, Florida, Minnesota, New Hampshire, and Texas—

Minnesota state government officials reported collecting aircraft performance information. 

While several foreign governments—including Australia, multiple Canadian provinces, 

France, and Italy—operate aerial firefighting programs, we spoke to British Columbia 

province officials because the Forest Service identified British Columbia’s collection and 

use of airtanker performance information as a leading practice.

For example, in Canada, the 

British Columbia Forest Service requires aerial firefighters to complete an 

airtanker data report immediately after each airtanker flight. Officials then 

compile information gathered through these reports with information from 

their dispatch system to evaluate airtanker performance using a set of key 

performance indicators, such as the amount of time from the initial report 

of a fire to the time that an airtanker request is entered into the dispatch 

system, the distance between available airtankers and the actual fire, and 

the change in the size of the fire from the time an aircraft arrives at the 

fire to the time the fire is contained. According to British Columbia Forest 

Service officials, the performance information and indicators have been 

integral to improving British Columbia’s aerial firefighting program. For 

example, officials found that available aircraft were often over 100 miles 

from the wildfires where they dropped retardant. Based on this analysis, 

the province made significant changes to its methods for pre-positioning 

firefighting aircraft and as a result, available aircraft are generally within 

60 miles of a wildfire. In addition, the Minnesota Department of Natural 

Resources requires officials to complete debriefing reports after each use 

of firefighting aircraft. The report includes information on the specific 

aircraft that were sent to the fire and gathers the firefighters’ views on 

whether areas such as dispatch information, aircraft briefings, target 

descriptions, and communications were adequate or need improvement.

According to Minnesota Department of Natural Resources officials, 
Page 18 GAO-13-684 Wildland Fire Management

information from these reports may help determine the best methods for 

suppressing fires when a specific set of aircraft is available.

In efforts to identify the number and type of firefighting aircraft they need, 

agencies have engaged in limited collaboration with one another or with 

other stakeholders in the fire aviation community. For example, the Forest 

Service developed its 2012 Large Airtanker Modernization Strategy

without obtaining input from representatives of state fire aviation 

programs or the large airtanker industry and did not coordinate with 

Interior until after the development of an initial draft. According to several 

agency officials we spoke with, the Forest Service did not invite Interior 

officials to provide their input on the strategy until after the agency sent 

the draft version to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for 

review and approval. Similarly, regarding Interior, senior Interior officials 

told us that Interior generally does not involve other agencies or 

stakeholders in developing annual estimates of the number of each type 

of aircraft to obtain through contracts. Rather, Interior develops these 

estimates by asking relevant Interior bureaus to provide the number of 

each type of aircraft it needs, compiling these estimates, and adjusting 

them based on available funding.

The importance of collaboration with stakeholders and agencies has been 

noted in several government reports.35 For example, the interagency 

2009 Quadrennial Fire Review identified the need to engage agency 

leaders, partners, and industry in a strategic dialogue about the demands

for firefighting resources, such as aircraft, and noted the importance of 

innovative and efficient ways to meet those demands.36

 35The importance of collaboration was noted in a 2002 report by an expert panel that 

Forest Service and Interior convened to examine the safety and effectiveness of federal 

aerial firefighting. This report identified collaboration among agencies, contractors, and 

states as possibly the single largest aerial firefighting challenge facing federal agencies at 

the time. See Blue Ribbon Panel, Federal Aerial Firefighting: Assessing Safety and 

Effectiveness (December 2002).

Additionally, a 

2009 Department of Agriculture Inspector General’s report recommended 

that the Forest Service collaborate with stakeholders in the fire aviation 

36The Quadrennial Fire Review is a strategic assessment process that is conducted every 

4 years to evaluate current mission strategies and capabilities against best estimates of 

the future environment for wildfire management. This integrated review is a joint effort of 

the five federal natural resource management agencies and their state, local, and tribal 

partners that constitute the wildland fire community.

Agencies Have Not 

Consistently Collaborated 

with One Another or with 

Other Stakeholders to 

Identify Firefighting 

Aircraft Needs
Page 19 GAO-13-684 Wildland Fire Management

community to develop goals and performance measures for the agency’s 

aviation strategic plan.37 Regarding collaboration with stakeholders, in 

April 2013, we reported that when agencies carry out activities in a 

fragmented and uncoordinated way, the resulting patchwork of programs 

can waste scarce funds, confuse and frustrate program customers, and 

limit the overall effectiveness of the federal effort.38 In addition, we 

reported in October 2011 that successful organizations involve 

stakeholders in developing their mission, goals, and strategies to help 

ensure that they target the highest priorities.39

Many Forest Service and Interior officials, as well as other stakeholders, 

we spoke with expressed concerns about limited collaboration, and many 

cited shortcomings with the formal mechanism for interagency 

collaboration—the National Interagency Aviation Committee, which 

includes representatives from the Forest Service, Interior and its bureaus, 

and the National Association of State Foresters. Some stakeholders told 

us the committee has not always considered the needs of all agencies 

involved in firefighting efforts. For example, in 2008 committee members 

collaboratively developed a national firefighting aviation strategy, the 

Interagency Aviation Strategy. A year later, however, the Forest Service 

developed an appendix to the strategy that outlined the Forest Service’s 

plans for replacing its large airtanker fleet, and the committee published 

an amended strategy—including that appendix—without providing 

member agencies the opportunity to review or contribute to it, according 

to agency officials. As a result, the large airtanker appendix does not 

reflect the opinions of all committee members, and consequently does not 

reflect the needs of the fire aviation community stakeholders that will 

require the use of large airtankers. In addition, Forest Service and Interior 

officials told us that agency staff who serve on the committee are 

generally firefighting operations staff and do not represent senior agency 

In that report, we also 

stated that stakeholders can influence success or failure of agencies’

programs.

 37Department of Agriculture Office of Inspector General, Audit Report: Forest Service’s 

Replacement Plan for Firefighting Aerial Resources (Washington, D.C.: July 16, 2009).

38GAO, 2013 Annual Report: Actions Needed to Reduce Fragmentation, Overlap, and

Duplication and Achieve Other Financial Benefits, GAO-13-279SP (Washington, D.C.: 

Apr. 9, 2013). 

39GAO, Environmental Justice: EPA Needs to Take Additional Actions to Help Ensure 

Effective Implementation, GAO-12-77 (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 6, 2011).
Page 20 GAO-13-684 Wildland Fire Management

management. As a result, the collaboration that occurs through the 

committee is often limited to day-to-day operations activities rather than 

broader strategic efforts.

The committee has implemented some leading practices that we 

previously reported can help enhance and sustain collaboration.40

Specifically, the committee’s members have defined and articulated a 

common purpose and have agreed on agency roles and responsibilities. 

For example, the committee’s charter identifies its purpose as serving as 

a body of aviation experts focused on identifying opportunities to enhance 

safety, effectiveness, and efficiency in aviation related operations, 

procedures, programs, and coordination. In addition, the committee’s 

2009 Interagency Aviation Strategy defines the general aerial firefighting 

roles and responsibilities of federal and state agencies as well as aircraft 

contracting responsibilities of the Forest Service and Interior. However, 

we previously found that agencies often face a range of barriers, including 

concerns about controlling jurisdiction over missions and resources, when 

they attempt to collaborate with other agencies.41 Interior officials told us 

that the division of firefighting aircraft contracting responsibilities among 

the Forest Service and Interior—under which Forest Service issues 

contracts for large and very large airtankers and large and medium 

helicopters, while Interior issues contracts for single-engine airtankers 

and water scoopers—may not foster a culture of collaboration since each 

agency is focused on its own aircraft of responsibility. Although the 

committee has implemented some leading practices for collaboration, it 

has not taken additional steps to reinforce agency accountability for 

collaboration, such as developing mechanisms to monitor, evaluate, and 

report the results of collaborative efforts.42

 40

We have reported that by 

creating the means to monitor, evaluate, and report the results of their 

collaborative efforts, federal agencies can better identify areas for 

improvement, although the specific ways in which this practice is 

implemented may differ based on the specific collaboration challenges 

agencies face. For example, mechanisms for monitoring the results of 

collaborative efforts may range from occasional meetings among agency 

officials to more formal periodic reviews where officials from each agency 

GAO-06-15. 

41GAO, Managing for Results: Barriers to Interagency Coordination, GAO/GGD-00-106

(Washington, D.C.: Mar. 29, 2000). 

42GAO-06-15.
Page 21 GAO-13-684 Wildland Fire Management

report on progress toward achieving the goals of interagency 

collaborative efforts. As we reported in August 2012, absent effective 

collaboration, interagency efforts could result in limited information being 

communicated and opportunities for incorporating stakeholder input being 

missed.43

Senior management in both the Forest Service and Interior told us they 

have begun discussions regarding how to improve their interagency 

collaboration. However, they said that these discussions have focused on 

obtaining firefighting aircraft for the 2013 fire season and have not yet 

addressed collaboration on strategic planning issues. Further, both Forest 

Service and Interior officials told us the Interagency Aviation Strategy is 

outdated and should be updated to more accurately reflect current 

firefighting aircraft needs. Engaging in effective collaboration to 

incorporate input from all fire aviation community stakeholders could 

better position the agencies in developing strategic planning documents—

including any updates to the Interagency Aviation Strategy—that 

represent the national need for firefighting aircraft.

The Forest Service plans to modernize the large airtanker fleet by 

obtaining large airtankers from various sources over the near, medium, 

and long terms, but each component of this approach faces challenges 

that make the continued availability of such aircraft to meet national fire 

suppression needs uncertain. The components of the agency’s approach 

include: (1) in the near term, continuing to contract with private vendors 

for “legacy” large airtankers—generally aging aircraft with limited future 

service life spans—on exclusive-use contracts and very large airtankers 

on call-when-needed contracts, as well as relying on agreements with 

cooperator governments and the military; (2) in the medium term, 

contracting with vendors for airtankers that are more modern and capable 

than those generally in use currently; and (3) in the long term, acquiring 

new federally-owned aircraft with expected service life spans of up to 30 

years. Additionally, some federal and state agencies are considering 

alternative plans to obtaining aerial fire suppression support to reduce 

reliance on large airtankers.

 43GAO, Housing Assistance: Opportunities Exist to Increase Collaboration and Consider 

Consolidation, GAO-12-554 (Washington, D.C.: Aug. 16, 2012). 

The Forest Service’s 

Approach to 

Modernizing the Large 

Airtanker Fleet Faces 

Challenges, Resulting 

in Uncertainty over 

Continued Large 

Airtanker Availability
Page 22 GAO-13-684 Wildland Fire Management

For the near-term, the Forest Service plans to primarily rely on exclusiveuse “legacy” contracts to obtain large airtankers. However, during periods 

of heavy fire activity, the agency plans to obtain supplemental airtankers 

through call-when-needed contracts for very large airtankers, agreements 

with cooperator governments, and military aircraft equipped with MAFFS. 

However, agency officials and vendor representatives told us about 

limitations and challenges—including availability, performance, and 

cost—regarding these resources.

Over the next 5 years—including the 2013 fire season—the Forest 

Service plans to rely on aircraft obtained through its “legacy” exclusiveuse contracts, which has been the agency’s traditional acquisition model 

for obtaining large airtankers. The agency in 2013 announced contract 

awards for nine aircraft: seven P-2V Neptunes—Korean War-era pistonengine maritime patrol aircraft—and two British Aerospace BAe-146s—

converted versions of modern commercial jets.44

• Lockheed P-2V Neptune. The age of the seven P-2V Neptunes—they 

average more than 50 years old—makes their availability throughout 

the entire 5-year contract period uncertain. Specifically, vendors told 

us they might need to retire some aircraft prior to the end of the 

current contract period because of the cost of maintaining the aging 

aircraft. In particular, they told us that the limited availability of 

replacement parts—and the difficulty of manufacturing new ones if no 

others exist—coupled with the requirements of increased 

maintenance and inspection standards make the P-2V Neptune 

difficult to operate in a cost-effective manner. Further, physical 

stresses on the aircraft could cause cracking of critical components 

during fire missions. For example, representatives from Neptune 

Aviation Services told us that the vendor retired one of its P-2V 

However, the availability 

of the P-2V Neptunes in the short term is uncertain, and the Interagency 

Airtanker Board has documented concerns regarding performance of the 

retardant delivery systems on these BAe-146s.

 44These contracts were awarded to two vendors: Neptune Aviation Services (six P-2V 

Neptunes and two BAe-146s) and Minden Air Corp (one P-2V Neptune).The Forest 

Service initially awarded a contract for a single BAe-146, but added another based on 

concerns regarding the overall availability of large airtankers for the 2013 fire season. The 

P-2V Neptunes are capable of delivering approximately 2,000 gallons of retardant and the 

BAe-146s approximately 2,600 gallons. 

The Forest Service’s 

Near-term Approach 

Includes Using “Legacy”

and Supplemental 

Airtankers but Concerns 

Exists Regarding Aircraft 

Availability, Performance, 

or Cost

“Legacy” Large Airtankers
Page 23 GAO-13-684 Wildland Fire Management

Neptunes after the 2012 fire season due to structural problems 

discovered during routine maintenance.45 They also said that the 

vendor probably could continue to operate approximately five P-2V 

Neptunes for the next 10 years but that the current heavy use of their 

fleet could shorten this timeframe. Ultimately, Neptune Aviation 

Services plans to retire its P-2V Neptune fleet and transition to 

operating modern aircraft exclusively.

• Neptune Aviation Services’ British Aerospace BAe-146s. Concerns 

regarding the performance of the retardant delivery system on 

Neptune Aviation Services’ BAe-146s have been documented during 

agency evaluations of the aircraft and were voiced by several agency 

officials we interviewed.46 During initial assessment of the system in 

2011, the Interagency Airtanker Board determined that the retardant 

delivery system did not meet established performance criteria and 

identified problems regarding the system’s design and performance.47

In December 2012, the Interagency Airtanker Board declined to 

extend the interim approval of Neptune Aviation Services’ BAe-146 

system, citing the problematic retardant delivery system design and 

deficient performance during the 2012 fire season. In February 2013, 

however, the National Interagency Aviation Committee determined 

that the need for aircraft to deliver retardant for the 2013 fire season 

was sufficiently important to override the board’s decision. As a result, 

However, in September 2012, the board approved, on an interim 

basis, the use of the retardant delivery system through the 2012 fire 

season so that information on its operational effectiveness could be 

collected and design deficiencies addressed. During the 2012 fire 

season, the BAe-146s collectively made approximately 300 retardant 

drops, which the board considered sufficient to collect data needed to 

assess their operational effectiveness.

 45Representatives of Minden Air Corp told us that the company no longer operates one of 

its two P-2V Neptunes following damaged sustained from a controlled-crash landing 

caused by landing gear failure during the 2012 fire season.

46The retardant delivery system of this specific BAe-146 differs from traditional systems; it 

uses a series of tubes to evacuate retardant from the aircraft rather than doors.

47Specifically, this initial assessment determined that the system did not have the range of 

variability of retardant flow rates normally found in proposed systems, the consistency of 

retardant flow trailed off as the retardant tank emptied, and the system was unable to 

predictably drop retardant while in a nose-down descent—a common flight profile for 

dropping retardant downhill.
Page 24 GAO-13-684 Wildland Fire Management

the board, at the direction of the committee, granted an extension of 

its interim approval of the retardant delivery system through 

December 15, 2013. Representatives of Neptune Aviation Services 

acknowledged that the system has limitations, but they stated that the 

company is developing a revised retardant delivery system and plans 

to retrofit all of its BAe-146 aircraft with the updated design by the 

beginning of the 2014 fire season. However, the Interagency Airtanker 

Board has noted that the deficiencies may persist due to the inherent 

design of the system, and fire management officials from the Forest 

Service, Interior, and several states that are familiar with this aircraft 

told us they have reservations about the retardant delivery system’s 

performance.

The Forest Service announced call-when-needed contracts for two very 

large airtankers—converted versions of Boeing 747 and McDonnell 

Douglas DC-10 commercial jets—to provide extended attack and large 

fire support beginning in 2013 with durations of up to 3 years. However, 

some agency officials cited concerns about the aircrafts’ role, suitability 

for operating over rugged terrain, limited compatibility with current 

airtanker base infrastructure, and high costs (see fig. 3 for an example of 

a very large airtanker).48

 48Two vendors developed very large airtankers during the early 2000s, with each 

retrofitting a different type of aircraft—10 Tanker Air Carrier converted two McDonnell 

Douglas DC-10s with retardant capacities of 11,600 gallons, and Evergreen International 

Aviation converted a Boeing 747 with a retardant capacity of 19,400 gallons. 

Very Large Airtankers
Page 25 GAO-13-684 Wildland Fire Management

Figure 3: Example of a DC-10 Very Large Airtanker Dropping Retardant

The Forest Service previously contracted for very large airtankers, but 

according to Forest Service and Interior officials, firefighters were initially 

reluctant to request the very large airtankers for several reasons. For 

example, because of the size of these aircraft, some federal officials were 

uncertain whether they could safely operate in rugged terrain.49

 49To evaluate the safety and utility of very large airtankers, in 2009 the Forest Service 

contracted with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration to conduct an 

operational test and evaluation of both types of very large airtanker. This evaluation 

concluded that the aircraft could probably operate with few restrictions over gently rolling 

terrain but that extra restrictions might be necessary in extremely steep or rugged terrain.

USFS Very Large Aerial Tanker Operational Test and Evaluation Summary Report, March 

2, 2009. Representatives from 10 Tanker Air Carrier, which operates the DC-10s, told us 

that their aircraft have successfully delivered retardant in rugged terrain since 2006.

Some 

officials also told us that firefighters did not request very large airtankers 

because they were uncertain how best to use this new tool. For example, 

the Forest Service identifies the primary mission of large airtankers as 

initial attack, whereas the solicitation for the very large airtanker callwhen-needed contract stated that they will be used to provide support for 
Page 26 GAO-13-684 Wildland Fire Management

extended attack on large fires—leading to uncertainty about the best 

tactics for employing them.50 Despite early reluctance to use very large 

airtankers, officials noted increased reliance on these aircraft; 

nevertheless, some agency officials continue to disagree about the most 

effective role—initial attack or large fire support—for these aircraft as well 

as whether or not they are suited to operating above rugged terrain. 

Additionally, very large airtankers can operate out of a limited number of 

established airtanker bases because their weight and size are too great 

for some existing base infrastructure such as runways or aircraft parking 

areas. Specifically, about half of the large airtanker bases nationwide—35 

of 67—are currently or potentially capable of supporting DC-10 

operations, according to a Forest Service official;51

The Forest Service plans to request large airtankers from two cooperator 

governments—Canada and the State of Alaska—during periods of high 

fire activity but these aircraft may not always be available. Under an 

agreement originally established in 1982, the Forest Service plans to rely 

on five Convair CV-580 large airtankers—converted commercial aircraft 

with retardant capacities of 2,100 gallons—provided by Canadian 

provinces as additional resources when additional large airtankers are 

needed. Additionally, Forest Service officials told us that, under a 

separate agreement, the agency can also request use of three CV-580s 

contracted by the State of Alaska. However, the use of these airtankers to 

supplement the federal large airtanker fleet is contingent upon the 

cooperator governments making them available. For example, such 

airtankers might already be committed to suppressing fires, which could 

prevent them from being released to assist other governments.

the 747’s compatibility 

with bases is even more limited in that it can operate from approximately 

12 locations, not all of which are airtanker bases. However, some agency 

officials told us that the speed of these aircraft can compensate for their 

limited compatibility with existing airtanker bases and associated 

increased distances that the aircraft might need to fly to respond to fires. 

Some officials also noted concerns about the high costs of using the 

aircraft. (See app. II for the current contract rates of firefighting aircraft.)

 50Both very large airtanker vendors told us that their aircraft are capable of supporting 

initial attack operations.

51The potential ability of 21 airtanker bases to support DC-10 operations may be 

contingent upon the availability of mobile retardant loading equipment.

Cooperator Government 

Airtankers
Page 27 GAO-13-684 Wildland Fire Management

As it has periodically done since the program’s inception in the early 

1970s, the Forest Service plans to rely on the military to provide surge 

aerial firefighting capacity through the deployment of up to eight MAFFSequipped C-130 aircraft (see fig. 4 for an example of a MAFFS-equipped 

C-130).52

Further, some fire officials expressed concern regarding the limited 

experience that MAFFS crews may have in the fire aviation mission 

because they are not full-time aerial firefighters. A DOD accident 

investigation report conducted in response to a 2012 fatal crash of a 

MAFFS-equipped C-130H found that the limited total firefighting 

experience of the crew—in particular, the number of drops accomplished 

prior to the accident—was a contributing factor to the accident.

However, a number of officials from the Forest Service, Interior, 

and state fire agencies stated that MAFFS performance can be 

inadequate in some circumstances. For example, while a Forest Service 

official noted that the MAFFS system has been approved by the 

Interagency Airtanker Board, some federal and state fire aviation officials 

told us that the retardant line dispersed by the MAFFS system is 

generally narrower than firefighters prefer, which can either allow a fire to 

jump across the retardant line or necessitate an additional drop to widen 

the line, if another aircraft is available. Additionally, some officials said the 

system is unable to penetrate dense forest canopies, thereby preventing 

the retardant from being effective when used in heavy timber. However, 

some federal and state officials told us that MAFFS can be used 

effectively on rangeland where grasses are the predominant fuel type.

53

 52The Forest Service is responsible, through the National Interagency Fire Center, for 

reimbursing DOD for the actual costs of MAFFS activation. DOD estimates the per-hour 

flight costs of MAFFS to be between about $4,700 and $8,000 dollars depending on the 

model of C-130 used, with variable daily availability costs depending on factors including 

the number of personnel required as well as the location of the activation. A Forest 

Service budget official told us that the combined reimbursements to DOD for MAFFS 

training and operational use from 2007 to 2012 totaled nearly $87 million.

The 

report also stated that the crew’s training did not include essential 

components—including training on local terrain conditions and congested 

airtanker base operations—necessary to conduct MAFFS operations in 

the region where the crash occurred. A Forest Service official involved in 

managing MAFFS training told us that the agency has updated the 

training to better incorporate such components.

53United States Air Force Accident Investigation Board Report C-130H3, T/N 93-1458

(Oct. 27, 2012).

Modular Airborne Firefighting 

System (MAFFS)
Page 28 GAO-13-684 Wildland Fire Management

Figure 4: Example of MAFFS-equipped C-130

Note: This figure depicts a MAFFS-equipped C-130 dropping water during training.

For nearly 2 years, the Forest Service has attempted to award “nextgeneration” contracts with durations of 5 to 10 years to modernize the 

fleet with faster and more up-to-date large airtankers. However, these 

efforts have been delayed by bid protests, and it is uncertain when some 

vendors will complete federal approval and certification processes for 

their aircraft, which are necessary prior to use as airtankers on federal 

contracts. As a result, it is uncertain when the “next-generation” large 

airtankers will be available to support fire suppression activities. 

Additionally, private vendors that are developing the “next-generation”

large airtankers told us that concerns regarding the consistency of the 

Forest Service’s approach to fleet modernization have increased the 

difficulty of making business decisions and could affect the number of 

aircraft they will be able to provide to the government.

In November 2011, the Forest Service issued a solicitation for “nextgeneration” large airtankers in an effort to modernize the airtanker fleet 

The Forest Service’s 

Medium-term Approach 

Includes Contracting for 

Newer Aircraft, but 

Implementation Has 

Been Delayed
Page 29 GAO-13-684 Wildland Fire Management

with more modern, capable, and safe large airtankers (see fig. 5).54 In 

June 2012 the Forest Service issued an initial notice of intent to award 

contracts for seven aircraft. However, protests that challenged the 

announced awards were filed and consequently those contracts were not 

awarded. The Forest Service subsequently issued an amended 

solicitation, and in May 2013, the Forest Service announced contract 

awards for seven aircraft,55

 54The “next-generation” large airtanker contract solicitation allowed for the award of up to 

seven exclusive-use contracts, each with up to five aircraft, with 5-year base durations 

followed by five 1-year option periods to be selected at the discretion of the Forest 

Service. It stipulated that candidate aircraft be turbine-powered, capable of cruising at 

speeds of at least 300 knots, and have a retardant capacity of at least 2,400 gallons, with 

a target capacity of 3,000 to 5,000 gallons. The solicitation indicated that aircraft with a 

capacity of 3,000 gallons or more would be evaluated higher than those aircraft offered 

with less capacity and would be considered first when determining awards. However, 

several vendors questioned the rationale behind the 3,000-5,000 gallon target, telling us 

that the aircraft available for the large airtanker mission with retardant capacities in the 

2,000 to 2,500 gallon range may be more capable, available, and less expensive to 

operate.

with the intent that these aircraft be available 

for use during the 2013 fire season. While the second round of “nextgeneration” large airtanker awards was also protested by a vendor, this 

protest was dropped in June 2013.

55Five vendors received contract awards for a total of seven aircraft. The seven aircraft 

were two Avro RJ85s, two McDonnell Douglas MD-87s, one BAe-146, one Lockheed 

Martin C-130Q, and one DC-10. All of these aircraft can carry between 3,000 and 5,000 

gallons of retardant, according to Forest Service officials, with the exception of the DC-10, 

a very large airtanker capable of carrying 11,600 gallons. The DC-10 “next generation”

contract flight hour rate includes the delivery of 5,000 gallons of retardant, although the 

aircraft can deliver its full capacity at a higher flight hour rate.
Page 30 GAO-13-684 Wildland Fire Management

Figure 5: Example of a “Next-Generation” Large Airtanker (BAe-146)

Note: Minden Air Corp. owns this BAe-146 and is modifying it with the addition of a traditional gravityfed retardant delivery system.

It is uncertain when all of the “next-generation” large airtankers will be 

available to support fire suppression activities because only one of these 

aircraft has completed necessary federal approval and certification 

processes. Specifically, the DC-10 very large airtanker has completed the 

Interagency Airtanker Board’s approval process, which the Forest Service 

considers a prerequisite for delivering retardant in support of fire 

suppression activities. According to Forest Service officials, the remaining 

vendors originally scheduled the testing of their aircraft and retardant 

delivery systems for spring 2013. However, Forest Service officials also 

told us that, as of August 8, 2013, none of these aircraft had completed 

testing, which is now scheduled to continue later into the year.

Additionally, they told us that only the DC-10 had received Federal 

Aviation Administration certification to be modified for operation as an 

airtanker, which is required by the Forest Service prior to aircraft 

delivering retardant.56

 56Such approval is granted through a “supplemental type certificate,” which is issued when 

a vendor has received Federal Aviation Administration approval to modify an aircraft from 

its original design. 
Page 31 GAO-13-684 Wildland Fire Management

Based on their experience with the Forest Service over the last several 

years, large airtanker vendors told us that they have a limited

understanding of the agency’s approach to fleet modernization. 

Specifically, they stated that the Forest Service has varied in the number

and ownership structure (i.e., vendor, government, or a mix of the two) of 

large airtankers it plans to have in its fleet. As early as 2005, the Forest 

Service indicated it would rely on a fleet of government-owned Lockheed 

Martin C-130J Hercules aircraft, a substantial departure from the 

agency’s longtime practice of relying on private vendors to supply 

firefighting aircraft. The 2009 Interagency Aviation Strategy called for a 

government-owned fleet of 25 new C-130Js and stated that the future 

federal use of privately-owned large airtankers was highly unlikely due to 

concerns regarding safety, cost, and aircraft availability. Yet the Forest 

Service’s 2012 Large Airtanker Modernization Strategy stated that the 

agency will rely on private vendors to provide at least a portion of the 

intended large airtanker fleet, which it noted is likely between 18 and 28 

aircraft.

Representatives of some large airtanker vendors we spoke with said that 

this inconsistency in the Forest Service’s large airtanker approach has 

increased the difficulty of making business investment decisions. For 

example, some vendors told us that if they were confident that the Forest 

Service’s long-term plans would include privately-owned large airtankers 

as a significant portion of its future large airtanker fleet, they might be 

more inclined to invest in the modification of additional aircraft. Some 

vendors also told us that a 10-year contract term—rather than the current 

practice of awarding contracts with 5-year base terms and five 1-year 

options—would create greater stability in the large airtanker market and 

could result in lower costs for the federal government by allowing vendors 

to recoup their aircraft investment costs over 10 years instead of 5.57

 57The 2009 Interagency Aviation Strategy also identified the use of 10-year contracts as a 

goal for federal firefighting aircraft acquisition programs. However, Forest Service officials 

noted that the agency does not currently have the statutory authority to issue 10-year 

aviation contracts and that the 5-year duration of the “next generation” contracts is longer 

than the agency has typically issued.
Page 32 GAO-13-684 Wildland Fire Management

The Forest Service’s 2012 Large Airtanker Modernization Strategy stated 

that the agency must continue to explore different acquisition models—

including government-owned aircraft and vendor-owned aircraft under 

contract to the agency—to ensure the agency will have access to large 

airtankers over the long term. The strategy did not identify the agency’s 

planned ratio of government-owned to vendor-owned aircraft, and Forest 

Service officials told us that such determinations have not yet been made. 

The strategy also did not specify the type of government-owned aircraft to 

be obtained, but a senior official in the Forest Service’s Fire and Aviation 

Management program told us that the agency is planning to acquire a mix 

of Lockheed Martin C-130J Hercules and Alenia C-27J Spartan aircraft 

with expected service life spans of up to 30 years. However, potential 

acquisition or operational challenges are associated with both types of 

government-owned aircraft the Forest Service is proposing.

While the Forest Service has indicated its long-term intention to rely on a 

government-owned fleet of C-130Js to meet some or all of its large 

airtanker needs,58 the agency has been unable to demonstrate the 

feasibility of this approach to OMB, which would need to approve such an 

investment. The Forest Service estimates in its 2012 Large Airtanker 

Modernization Strategy that each new aircraft would cost $79 million,59

not including costs related to operations or maintenance.60 Since 2005, 

the Forest Service has submitted two proposals for the government 

purchase of a large airtanker fleet to OMB for review and potential 

inclusion in budget requests. However, OMB officials told us that the 

agency rejected both of these proposals because they were incomplete 

and did not meet agency guidance.61

 58The Forest Service has also indicated that these would be used as multirole aircraft 

capable of transporting cargo and personnel when not in use as airtankers.

After reviewing these proposals, the 

Department of Agriculture’s Office of Inspector General concluded in a 

2009 audit report that the Forest Service needed to establish better 

59This represents a $19 million increase over the $60 million per-aircraft cost estimate 

stated in the Forest Service’s large airtanker appendix to the 2009 Interagency Aviation 

Strategy.

60Although the Forest Service proposed the acquisition of new C-130Js, a senior official 

told us the agency would also accept used C-130Js if they were declared surplus by DOD.

61Guidance on such submissions is contained in OMB Circular A-11, “Preparation, 

Submission, and Execution of the Budget” (August 2012), and OMB Circular A-126, 

“Improving the Management and Use of Government Aircraft” (May 22, 1992).

Forest Service’s Long-term 

Approach Includes 

Government-Owned 

Airtankers, but Concerns 

Exist Regarding Cost and 

Effectiveness

Lockheed Martin C-130J 

Hercules
Page 33 GAO-13-684 Wildland Fire Management

performance measures in coordination with interagency stakeholders and 

collect performance data on the use and effectiveness of airtankers.62

According to Forest Service officials, another proposal has been 

submitted for Department of Agriculture management review, but the 

department has not established a time frame for submitting the proposal 

to OMB. However, it is unclear whether the Forest Service has resolved 

the concerns of both OMB and the Inspector General. Additionally, Forest 

Service and Interior officials stated that the effectiveness of the C-130J 

will largely depend on the type of retardant delivery system installed. In 

particular, the officials expressed concern that equipping the aircraft with 

MAFFS-like units similar to those used in military C-130 aircraft—which 

the agency has indicated is an option—could be problematic given the 

previously discussed limitations of that type of retardant delivery system. 

In addition, obtaining such units could be problematic because there is no 

existing manufacturer of MAFFS units,63

The Forest Service has also expressed interest in obtaining up to 14

Alenia C-27J Spartan transport aircraft from DOD if they are declared 

surplus equipment.

although the Forest Service 

issued a request for information from potential manufacturers regarding 

the development of new retardant delivery system designs.

64

Despite the advantages cited by the agency, several challenges may 

exist with operating the aircraft to support fire suppression activities, 

Forest Service documents indicate that the agency 

would benefit from acquiring these aircraft for several reasons. 

Specifically, agency documents cited that the C-27J aircraft would be 

safer and more reliable than “legacy” large airtankers, in part because 

they are newer and have improved structural designs; they could be used 

in multiple roles that include dropping retardant and carrying cargo or 

smokejumpers; their flight speed exceeds the 300-knot requirement under 

the “next-generation” contract; and the agency would not have to pay to 

acquire the aircraft—which officials described as a critical benefit—

although it would incur costs to convert the aircraft to firefighting use.

 62Department of Agriculture Office of Inspector General, Audit Report: Forest Service’s 

Replacement Plan for Firefighting Aerial Resources (Washington, D.C.: July 16, 2009).

63The manufacturer of the MAFFS units used by DOD ceased operating in 2011. 

64A provision in the Fiscal Year 2013 National Defense Authorization Act grants the Forest 

Service preference over other agencies in acquiring seven of these aircraft for use in the 

firefighting mission if the aircraft are declared surplus by DOD.

Alenia C-27J Spartan
Page 34 GAO-13-684 Wildland Fire Management

including some related to the aircraft’s capacity and capabilities. For 

example, an analysis conducted by a private consultant for the Forest 

Service indicated that the maximum retardant capacity of the C-27J is 

expected to be about 1,850 gallons, which is below the minimum 2,400 

gallon retardant capacity the agency established for its “next-generation”

large airtanker fleet.65 Depending on how the aircraft are used, the actual 

capacity may be substantially lower. Specifically, the Forest Service has 

indicated that it would use the C-27Js as multirole aircraft, transporting 

cargo and smokejumpers when they are not being used as airtankers. To 

do so, the agency initially stated that it expected to rely on removable, 

pressurized retardant delivery systems similar to MAFFS units described 

earlier to allow the aircraft to carry out this multirole mission.66

Other potential challenges relate to uncertainties about the costs of 

operating and maintaining the aircraft, which the Forest Service would be 

responsible for under the 2013 National Defense Authorization Act. For 

example, the consultant hired by the Forest Service to analyze the C27Js reported that, although there is a significant advantage in having the 

aircraft transferred without acquisition cost, the costs to maintain and 

However, 

according to the Forest Service consultant, such a system would carry 

about 1,100 gallons. Some agency officials told us that they are 

concerned about the retardant capacity of the aircraft, particularly if a 

removable, pressurized delivery system is used. Specifically, they 

questioned whether the C-27J would be able to carry enough retardant to 

provide a useful resource to firefighters and noted that pressurized 

retardant delivery systems do not always provide adequate coverage on 

the ground to support fire suppression operations. More recently, Forest 

Service officials stated that the agency expects to use a removable, 

gravity-fed retardant delivery system rather than a pressurized system, 

which would likely alleviate some concerns regarding the system’s

capabilities. The agency stated that it is currently examining alternatives 

and will make a decision regarding the delivery system at the conclusion 

of that analysis.

 65C-27J Capabilities and Cost Analysis Report (undated), submitted in October 2012 to 

the Forest Service by Convergent Performance, LLC.

66The Chief of the Forest Service, in testimony before the Senate Committee on 

Appropriations, Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies on May 22, 

2013 and the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources on June 4, 2013, 

stated that the agency was considering equipping any C-27Js obtained with MAFFS-like 

retardant delivery systems.
Page 35 GAO-13-684 Wildland Fire Management

operate these aircraft are uncertain and could present challenges. A 

Forest Service official told us that the agency estimates the cost to modify 

each aircraft for the airtanker mission would range from $1 million to 

$4.25 million and delivery time frames would range from 6 months to 40 

months, but the actual figures depend on the type of system selected.67

Further, DOD officials responsible for managing the C-27J told us they 

expect the cost to maintain the aircraft to rise at the conclusion of DOD’s 

current contract with a private vendor and stated that the Forest Service 

would need to establish new maintenance and training contracts, which 

could be complex to manage. According to both DOD officials and the 

Forest Service consultant’s analysis, domestic flight training for this 

aircraft is available from a single provider, which the consultant indicated 

is “time consuming...and relatively expensive.” Forest Service officials 

stated that they have not yet been able to access detailed information on 

DOD’s experience with C-27J operations and maintenance costs and 

have not obtained information from the manufacturer to fully understand 

and analyze the costs of operating the aircraft.

Although the Forest Service has taken several steps to modernize the 

large airtanker fleet, as noted, the number of large airtankers available 

under federal contract decreased from 44 in 2002 to 8 in early 2013. As a 

result, some federal and state agencies are looking to alternative plans to 

suppress fires. For example, for the 2013 fire season, Interior increased 

the number of single-engine airtankers on exclusive-use contracts from 

14 to 28 in part due to concerns about the availability of large airtankers. 

Interior officials noted that the use of single-engine airtankers has 

increased over the last decade as fewer large airtankers have been 

available. Interior also plans to rely on the capabilities of an additional 46 

single-engine airtankers on call-when-needed contracts to provide 

additional support in 2013.68

 67A Forest Service official told us that the agency estimates that the cost to refurbish and 

equip the aircraft for the smokejumper and cargo missions could be up to $900,000 per 

aircraft.

Following the termination of contracts for 8 

large airtankers in 2011 due to safety concerns, the Forest Service has 

increased the number of large helicopters available on exclusive-use 

contract by 8, for a total of 34, from fiscal year 2011 to fiscal year 2012.

68Because these aircraft are not on exclusive-use contracts, their availability is not 

guaranteed.

Some Federal and State 

Agencies Are Considering 

Alternatives to Relying on 

Federal Large Airtankers
Page 36 GAO-13-684 Wildland Fire Management

Further, some states are taking actions to enhance their own abilities to 

obtain their own aerial firefighting support. For example, CAL FIRE 

officials told us that, as the result of concerns regarding the Forest 

Service’s ability to consistently provide a large airtanker fleet to suppress 

fires in California, CAL FIRE may consider expanding its firefighting 

aircraft fleet to include large airtankers.69 In the wake of similar concerns 

about aerial firefighting support for fires such as those that caused 

extensive damage in 2012,70 Colorado has enacted legislation that 

authorizes a firefighting aircraft fleet for its state.71 In addition, Nebraska 

has enacted a bill that authorizes the state to contract for two singleengine airtankers.72

Recognizing the importance of aircraft to help fight wildland fires, the 

Forest Service and Interior have undertaken efforts to identify the number 

and type of firefighting aircraft they need over the years but have met with 

limited success. None of the agencies’ studies and strategy documents 

contained information on aircraft performance and effectiveness in 

supporting firefighting operations, which limits the agencies’

understanding of the strengths and limitations of each type of firefighting 

aircraft and their abilities to identify the number and type of aircraft they 

need. The Forest Service has started to collect some aircraft performance 

information, but it is limited and focused on large airtankers. Interior has 

no current plans to collect performance information on the aircraft it 

manages. Agencies have also engaged in limited collaboration with each 

other and with other stakeholders in the fire aviation community—

including the private aircraft vendors on whom the Forest Service has 

traditionally relied to provide large airtankers. Incorporating input from all 

fire aviation community stakeholders in their strategic planning 

documents could better position the Forest Service and Interior in 

developing estimates of aircraft needs to include in their strategies that 

 69CAL FIRE operates and maintains 23 Grumman S-2T Tracker airtankers (former naval 

anti-submarine aircraft with retardant capacities of 1,200 gallons each), 16 North 

American-Rockwell OV-10 Bronco surveillance aircraft, and 11 Bell UH-1H Super Huey 

helicopters.

70The 2012 Waldo Canyon and High Park fires cumulatively burned a total of 105,531 

acres, cost nearly $56 million to suppress, and destroyed at least 605 homes.

71C.R.S.A. §§ 24-33.5-1203(u); 24-33.5-1228.

72N.R.S. §§ 81-825 to 81-828.

Conclusions
Page 37 GAO-13-684 Wildland Fire Management

represent the national need for firefighting aircraft. This concern is 

illustrated by the variety of federal and state agencies taking steps to 

compensate for the decline in large airtankers, which highlights the 

number of parties affected by firefighting aircraft decisions and reinforces 

the need for collaboration. Overall, better knowledge about aircraft 

effectiveness—and more complete input from all involved parties—could 

inform Forest Service and Interior decisions and help them ensure the 

adequacy of the nation’s firefighting aircraft fleet. The challenges faced by 

the Forest Service in each phase of its large airtanker approach, which 

includes the potential acquisition of aircraft the federal government would 

own and operate for decades, underscore the need for a complete and 

collective understanding of the nation’s firefighting aircraft needs.

To help the agencies enhance their abilities to identify their firefighting 

aircraft needs and better ensure they obtain aircraft that meet those 

needs, we recommend that the Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior 

direct the Chief of the Forest Service and the Deputy Assistant Secretary 

for Public Safety, Resource Protection, and Emergency Services, 

respectively, to take the following three actions:

• Expand efforts to collect information on aircraft performance and 

effectiveness to include all types of firefighting aircraft in the federal 

fleet;

• Enhance collaboration between the agencies and with stakeholders in 

the fire aviation community to help ensure that agency efforts to 

identify the number and type of firefighting aircraft they need reflect 

the input of all stakeholders in the fire aviation community; and

• Subsequent to the completion of the first two recommendations, 

update the agencies’ strategy documents for providing a national 

firefighting aircraft fleet to include analysis based on information on 

aircraft performance and effectiveness and to reflect input from 

stakeholders throughout the fire aviation community.

We provided the Departments of Agriculture, Defense, and the Interior 

with a draft of this report for their review and comment.

The Forest Service (responding on behalf of the Department of 

Agriculture) and Interior generally agreed with our findings and 

recommendations, and their written comments are reproduced in 

appendixes IV and V respectively. The Forest Service and Interior also 

provided technical comments which we incorporated as appropriate. The 

Department of Defense did not provide comments.

Recommendations for 

Executive Action

Agency Comments 

and Our Evaluation
Page 38 GAO-13-684 Wildland Fire Management

While the Forest Service generally agreed with our findings and 

recommendations and stated that it is committed to improving its 

collaboration efforts, it also reiterated its interest in obtaining C-27Js to 

augment its aerial firefighting capabilities, citing the benefit of low initial 

investment for aircraft that could potentially function in multiple roles. As 

stated in our report, we acknowledge the Forest Service’s incentive to 

obtain the C-27Js free of acquisition cost and their potential use in 

multiple roles. We also note, however, that the agency may face 

challenges regarding the retardant capacity and operating costs 

associated with the airtankers.

We are sending copies of this report to the Secretaries of Agriculture, 

Defense, and the Interior; the Chief of the Forest Service; the Directors of 

the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Bureau of Land Management, Fish and 

Wildlife Service, and National Park Service; appropriate congressional 

committees; and other interested parties. In addition, 

the report is available at no charge on the GAO website at

http://www.gao.gov.

If you or your staff members have any questions about this report, please 

contact me at (202) 512-3841 or fennella@gao.gov. Contact points for 

our Office of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on 

the last page of this report. Key contributors to this report are listed in 

appendix VI.

Anne-Marie Fennell

Director, Natural Resources and Environment
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 39 GAO-13-684 Wildland Fire Management

This report examines (1) Forest Service and Department of the Interior 

efforts undertaken to identify the number and type of firefighting aircraft 

they need and (2) the Forest Service’s approach to modernizing the large 

airtanker fleet and the challenges it faces in doing so.

To examine Forest Service and Interior efforts to identify their firefighting 

aircraft needs, we reviewed major agency studies and strategy 

documents and interviewed agency officials responsible for managing fire 

aviation programs. We focused on those efforts conducted since 1995, 

when the Forest Service and Interior jointly conducted the first major 

study of their large airtanker needs. We reviewed the purpose, 

methodology, and results of each of these studies and strategy 

documents. We also reviewed seven academic and government studies 

on aerial firefighting and conducted interviews with agency officials, as 

well as officials representing stakeholders in the fire aviation community, 

including military, state, and international firefighting organizations, and 

companies that own and operate firefighting aircraft, to identify key 

elements that are important for understanding firefighting aircraft needs.1

We also interviewed agency officials about the extent of collaboration 

involved in agency efforts to identify the number and type of firefighting 

aircraft they need. In light of the information collected, we reviewed our 

prior work on interagency collaboration and key practices that can help 

enhance and sustain collaborative efforts, and compared the practices of 

the formal body for coordination among aerial firefighting agencies—the 

National Interagency Aviation Committee—with key collaboration 

practices to determine the extent to which the committee’s practices were 

(Information on the stakeholders included in our review is discussed in 

more detail later in this appendix.) Through these document reviews and 

interviews, and in consultation with internal GAO stakeholders including 

methodological specialists and staff knowledgeable about aviation 

contracting, we identified the following key elements: aircraft types, 

basing options, acquisition models, aircraft capabilities, suppression 

methods, and aircraft performance and effectiveness. We then reviewed 

the agency efforts to determine the extent to which each effort included 

analysis of these key elements.

 1

We considered the methodologies of the academic and government studies that we 

reviewed and determined that the results of the studies were sufficiently reliable for the 

purpose of identifying key elements that are important for understanding firefighting 

aircraft needs.

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 40 GAO-13-684 Wildland Fire Management

consistent with key practices we previously identified. The key practices 

we evaluated were: defining and articulating a common outcome; 

establishing mutually reinforcing or joint strategies to achieve the 

outcome; identifying and addressing needs by leveraging resources; 

agreeing upon agency roles and responsibilities; establishing compatible 

policies, procedures, and other means to operate across agency 

boundaries; developing mechanisms to monitor, evaluate, and report the 

results of collaborative efforts; and reinforcing agency accountability for 

collaborative efforts through agency plans and reports.2

To examine the Forest Service’s approach to modernizing the large 

airtanker fleet and the challenges it faces in doing so, we reviewed 

agency documents related to large airtanker acquisition, management, 

and operations and interviewed agency officials to identify the agency’s 

approach to obtaining these aircraft. We reviewed agency planning and 

acquisition documents, such as the National Interagency Aviation 

Committee’s 2009 Interagency Aviation Strategy, the Forest Service’s 

2012 Large Airtanker Modernization Strategy, and Forest Service 

airtanker contract solicitations, which lay out the Forest Service’s 

approach to obtaining large airtankers in the short, medium, and long 

terms.

GAO has also 

identified reinforcing individual accountability for collaborative efforts 

through agency performance management systems as a best practice for 

coordination, but we did not consider this practice in our assessment 

because performance management systems fell outside the scope of this 

review.

To collect information in support of both objectives, we interviewed 

members of the fire aviation stakeholder community, including officials 

involved in the management and operations of aerial firefighting from the 

Forest Service, Interior and its four land management bureaus, the 

Department of Defense, six state agencies that we selected based on 

input from federal agencies and the National Association of State 

Foresters, and the British Columbia Forest Service; representatives from 

eight of the nine vendors we identified that own, operate, and maintain 

large airtankers and that have responded to the most recent Forest 

Service contract solicitations;3

 2

and two national trade organizations—one 

GAO-06-15. We identified these practices through reviewing relevant literature and 

interviewing experts in the area of collaboration.

3

Representatives of the ninth vendor did not respond to our attempts to contact them.
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 41 GAO-13-684 Wildland Fire Management

that represents firefighting aircraft vendors and one that represents 

pilots—which we identified based on conversations with agency officials 

and vendor representatives. We also conducted site visits to the National 

Interagency Fire Center in Boise, Idaho; the facilities of the only two 

private vendors with current Forest Service “legacy” large airtanker 

contracts, located in Minden, Nevada, and Missoula, Montana; the 

manufacturing facility of a company that produces single-engine 

airtankers in Olney, Texas; and the headquarters of California’s fire 

aviation program —part of the California Department of Forestry and Fire 

Protection (CAL FIRE) in Sacramento—which manages more airtankers 

than the Forest Service. The results of our interviews and site visits are 

not generalizable.

We conducted this performance audit from August 2012 to August 2013 

in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 

sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 

findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that 

the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and 

conclusions based on our audit objectives.
Appendix II: 2013 Forest Service and Interior 

Firefighting Aircraft Availability and Rates

Page 42 GAO-13-684 Wildland Fire Management

The Forest Service and Interior contract for, and to a lesser extent own, a 

variety of aircraft used to help suppress wildland fires. Table 2 provides 

information, as reported by Forest Service and Interior contracting 

officials, on the federal firefighting aircraft fleet for the 2013 fire season, 

including aircraft type, number available, and cost rates.

Table 2: Type, Number, and Cost Rates for Federally-Contracted Firefighting Aircraft

Exclusive-use contracts Call-when-needed contracts

Aircraft type

Number 

of aircraft

Daily 

availability rate Flight hour rate

Number 

of aircraft

Daily 

availability rate Flight hour rate

Very large airtankera,b,c 1 $26,750 $4,553-$12,500 2 $51,522-$75,000 $7,668-$12,000

Large airtankera,c 15 $10,700-$34,000 $4,400-$9,996 0 - -

Single-engine airtankerd,e 28 $1,700-$4,076 $1,500-$3,988 46 $2,225-$4,150 $2,305-$4,242

Water scoopere 2 $9,859 $6,363-$7,918 1 $11,549 $7,158-$8,637

Large helicopterc 34 $9,256-$25,942 $1,958-$7,828 85 $13,320-$46,900 $2,967-$23,300

Medium helicopterc 33 $4,050-$11,600 $1,748-$1,998 101 $3,600-$19,815 $1,732-$2,445

Small helicopter 78 $950-$5,775 $330-$2,350 f $1,000-$12,975 $325-$2,691

Forest Service 53 $950-$3,136 $860-$1,193 195 $2,044-$5,320 $836-$1,768

Interior 25 $1,750-$5,775 $330-$2,350 345 $1,000-$12,975 $325-$2,691

Surveillance aircraftg 50 $569-$5,861 $225-$4,934 90 $485-$3,850 $309-$2,419

Forest Service 28 $1,806-$2,254 $598 0 - -

Interior 22 $569-$5,861 $225-$4,934 90 $485-$3,850 $309-$2,419

Smokejumper aircraft 14 $3,315-$5,597 $950-$2,020 1 $4,600 $1,300

Forest Serviceh 12 $3,330-$5,597 $950-$2,020 0 - -

Interior 2 $3,315-$3,400 $973-$1,026 1 $4,600 $1,300

Sources: Forest Service and Interior contracting officials.

a

Flight hour rates do not include the cost of aircraft fuel.

b

The DC-10 available on exclusive-use was awarded a contract under the “next generation” large 

airtanker solicitation and has a flight hour rate of $4,553 for delivering 5,000 gallons and $12,500 for 

delivering 11,600 gallons of retardant.

c

The Forest Service contracts for these aircraft.

d

Includes one exclusive-use and three call-when needed amphibious, water-scooping single-engine 

airtankers.

e

Interior contracts for these aircraft.

f

We did not determine the total number of aircraft available because some vendors may have a single 

aircraft available on call-when-needed contracts with both the Forest Service and Interior.

Appendix II: 2013 Forest Service and Interior 

Firefighting Aircraft Availability and Rates
Appendix II: 2013 Forest Service and Interior 

Firefighting Aircraft Availability and Rates

Page 43 GAO-13-684 Wildland Fire Management

g

This category includes exclusive-use and call-when-needed lead planes as well as two Forest 

Service-owned infrared mapping aircraft; the availability costs of the infrared fire mapping aircraft are 

calculated on a monthly basis and range from $23,064 to $29,174.

h

This category includes the seven smokejumper aircraft owned by the Forest Service; the availability 

costs of these aircraft are calculated on a monthly basis and range from $11,972 to $23,476.
Appendix III: Summary of Agency Efforts Since 

1995 to Identify Number and Type of 

Firefighting Aircraft They Need

Page 44 GAO-13-684 Wildland Fire Management

Since 1995, the Forest Service and Interior have conducted or contracted 

for nine major studies and strategy documents that identify firefighting 

aircraft needs. Table 3 provides information on major efforts conducted 

by, or on behalf of, the Forest Service and Interior to identify the number 

and type of firefighting aircraft they need.

Table 3: Purpose, Methodology, and Recommendations of Major Efforts to Identify Federal Firefighting Aircraft Needs, 

by Date

Author(s) Purpose Methodology used

Number and 

type of aircraft 

recommended

1995, National Study of Airtankers to Support Initial Attack and Large Fire Suppression: Final Report Phase 1

Forest 

Service and 

Interior

Provide analytical support and develop models 

to identify the most effective and efficient 

utilization of airtankers and to optimize the 

currently available airtanker fleet and find the 

best base locations

Compared the cost of the 1995 large airtanker 

program—41 airtankers—with a series of 

alternatives, including no airtanker program, a 

smaller airtanker program, and moving 

airtankers to different base locations to 

determine the most efficient basing of large 

airtankers 

41 large 

airtankersa,b

1996, National Study of (Large) Airtankers to Support Initial Attack and Large Fire Suppression: Final Report Phase 2

Forest 

Service and 

Interior

Provide information on reasonable airtanker 

base locations and airtanker fleet possibilities 

to guide modernization of the airtanker 

program

Analyzed potential airtanker types and base 

locations using set of evaluation criteria—

compatibility with airtanker bases, initial attack 

efficiency, large fire support, accuracy and 

performance, availability, viable vendors, and 

reality/professional judgment check—to 

determine the number and size of airtankers to 

station at each base

41 large 

airtankersa,b

1998, National Study of Tactical Aerial Resource Management to Support Initial Attack and Large Fire Suppression: 

Final Committee Report

Forest 

Service and 

Interior

Determine the appropriate organization, 

locations, and aerial platforms to safely and 

cost effectively manage and direct aerial fire 

suppression resources

Compared available surveillance aircraft against 

a set of evaluation criteria, such as required 

technology, minimum speed, and minimum 

personnel capacity to determine the appropriate 

type of surveillance aircraft, and identified the 

number of surveillance aircraft needed based 

on the number of large airtankers 

recommended by the 1995 and 1996 studies

41 

surveillance 

aircraftc

2005, Wildland Fire Management Aerial Application Study

Fire Program 

Solutions, 

LLC

For initial attack, recommend most cost 

efficient large aircraft type and number by 

base and recommend performance attributes 

for airtankers and large helicopters to support 

cost efficient national program; for large fire 

support, determine airtanker and helicopter 

requirements 

Analyzed the most efficient locations to place 

airtankers, by geographic area, and identified 

the scenario with the lowest total fire 

suppression, airtanker program, and potential 

fire damage costs; identified the most efficient 

combination of exclusive-use and call-whenneeded large helicopters based on demand and

cost

34-41 large 

airtankersb

Appendix III: Summary of Agency Efforts 

Since 1995 to Identify Number and Type of 

Firefighting Aircraft They Need
Appendix III: Summary of Agency Efforts Since 

1995 to Identify Number and Type of 

Firefighting Aircraft They Need

Page 45 GAO-13-684 Wildland Fire Management

Author(s) Purpose Methodology used

Number and 

type of aircraft 

recommended

2008, Management Efficiency Assessment on Aviation Activities in the USDA Forest Service

Management 

Analysis, 

Incorporated

Identify areas within the Forest Service 

aviation activities that can be improved through 

efficiencies in staffing, organization, 

communications, technology, and procedures

Compared the “as-is” conditions with desired 

“to-be” conditions for six Forest Service areas—

aerial delivery of firefighters; aerial detection 

and command and control; aerial fire 

suppression—airtanker and large helicopter; 

aerial resources support; aviation contract 

management and quality assurance; and 

aviation program management—and conducted 

a cost/benefit analysis to identify 

recommendations for improving efficiency within 

each area

19 large 

airtankersb

2009, National Interagency Aviation Council Interagency Aviation Strategy

Forest 

Service, 

Bureau of 

Indian Affairs, 

Bureau of 

Land 

Management, 

Interior, Fish 

and Wildlife 

Service, 

National Park 

Service, and 

National 

Association of 

State 

Foresters 

Develop an aviation strategy for federal 

wildland fire agencies, including strategies for 

the organization, procurement, and 

management of aviation resources used in 

federal wildland firefighting

Identified the number of each type of aircraft 

needed in the national firefighting aircraft fleet 

by using numbers from preceding aviation 

program studies, simple demand analysis, and 

current program aircraft totals

32 large 

airtankers

3 water scoopers

35 single-engine 

airtankers

45 

surveillance 

aircraft

19 smokejumper 

aircraft

34 large 

helicopters

47 medium 

helicopters

100 small 

helicopters

2012, Forest Service Large Airtanker Modernization Strategy

Forest 

Service

Document the strategy for ensuring that the 

nation is equipped with a viable fleet of large 

airtankers

Analyzed options for large airtankers, based on 

the large airtanker requirements identified in the 

1996 National Study of (Large) Airtankers to 

Support Initial Attack and Large Fire 

Suppression, Phase 2 and the 2009 National 

Interagency Aviation Council Interagency 

Aviation Strategy 

18-28 large 

airtankersb

2012, Air Attack Against Wildfires: Understanding U.S. Forest Service Requirements for Large Aircraft

Rand 

Corporation

Determined the composition of a fleet of large 

airtankers, water scooping aircraft, and large 

helicopters that would minimize the total costs 

of wildfires, including the cost of large fires and 

the cost of aircraft

Analyzed various compositions of a fleet of 

large airtankers, water scooping aircraft, and 

large helicopters to determine which 

composition would minimize the total costs of 

wildfires, including federal, state, and local 

suppression costs; post-fire rehabilitation costs; 

insured losses; fatalities; future suppression 

costs; and the cost of the prospective aircraft

1-9 large 

airtankersd

14-55 water 

scoopers

0-7 large 

helicopters
Appendix III: Summary of Agency Efforts Since 

1995 to Identify Number and Type of 

Firefighting Aircraft They Need

Page 46 GAO-13-684 Wildland Fire Management

Author(s) Purpose Methodology used

Number and 

type of aircraft 

recommended

2013, Firefighting Aircraft Study

Avid LLC Develop a performance measure that directly 

demonstrated cost-impact of large airtankers 

and heavy helicopters in firefighting

Used a supply and demand model to determine 

the annual number of airtanker orders that the 

Forest Service has been unable to fill with its 

contracted large airtankers

35 large 

airtankers are 

needed to fill 90 

percent of 

requests for 

large airtankerse

Source: GAO analysis.

a

This total of 41 includes 30 airtankers contracted by the Forest Service, 6 airtankers contracted by 

Interior, and 5 airtankers contracted by states.

b

This study recommended the appropriate number of large airtankers and did not recommend an 

appropriate number of other types of firefighting aircraft.

c

This study recommended the appropriate number of aerial surveillance aircraft and did not 

recommend an appropriate number of other types of firefighting aircraft.

d

This study focused on the Forest Service’s large airtankers, water scoopers, and large helicopters, 

and did not recommend an appropriate number for other types of firefighting aircraft.

e

This study focused on the Forest Service’s large airtankers and large helicopters and did not 

recommend an appropriate number of large helicopters.
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department 

of Agriculture

Page 47 GAO-13-684 Wildland Fire Management

Appendix IV: Comments from the 

Department of Agriculture
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department 

of Agriculture

Page 48 GAO-13-684 Wildland Fire Management
Appendix V: Comments from the 

Department of the Interior

Page 49 GAO-13-684 Wildland Fire Management

Appendix V: Comments from the 

Department of the Interior
Appendix VI: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

Page 50 GAO-13-684 Wildland Fire Management

Anne-Marie Fennell, (202) 512-3841 or fennella@gao.gov

In addition to the individual named above, Steve Gaty, Assistant Director; 

Kristin Hughes; Richard P. Johnson; and Matthew Tabbert made 

significant contributions to this report. Cheryl Arvidson, Steven Putansu, 

and Kiki Theodoropoulos provided technical assistance.

Appendix VI: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

GAO Contact

Staff 

Acknowledgments

(361438)
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and 

policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance 

to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. 

GAO’s commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability.

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 

cost is through GAO’s website (http://www.gao.gov). Each weekday 

afternoon, GAO posts on its website newly released reports, testimony, 

and correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted 

products, go to http://www.gao.gov and select “E-mail Updates.”

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of 

production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the 

publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and 

white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s website, 

http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 

TDD (202) 512-2537.

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, 

MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information.

Connect with GAO on Facebook, Flickr, Twitter, and YouTube.

Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E-mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts.

Visit GAO on the web at www.gao.gov.

Contact:

Website: http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov, (202) 512-

4400, U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 

7125, Washington, DC 20548

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, DC 20548

GAO’s Mission

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Phone

Connect with GAO

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Congressional 

Relations

Public Affairs

Please Print on Recycled Paper.