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 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. 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 ground- based firefighters by performing two main functions: (1) dropping retardant around wildland fires to slow fire growth to provide ground- based firefighters additional time to build or reinforce fireline and (2) reducing the intensity of fires by dropping water directly on them. 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. Conversely, single-engine airtankers and water scoopers are built to drop retardant and water, respectively, to fight wildland fires. 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. 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. When fires are not controlled through initial attack, extended attack activities occur that generally involve the use of 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. 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. 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. 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. This committee was established to serve as a body 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. The agencies use two types of contracts for obtaining firefighting aircraft from vendors: exclusive-use and call-when-needed. 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, call- when-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 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. 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, the Great Lakes Forest Fire Compact, and the Northeastern Forest Fire Protection Compact. 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, pressurized retardant delivery system that can be inserted into military C- 130 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. 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. 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.) 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.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. See 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. 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. 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 fire- suppressing chemicals. 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. 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. 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 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, 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 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. 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, 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. 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 Additionally, a innovative and efficient ways to meet those demands.2009 Department of Agriculture Inspector General’s report recommended that the Forest Service collaborate with stakeholders in the fire aviation community to develop goals and performance measures for the agency’s aviation strategic plan. 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. 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. In that report, we also stated that stakeholders can influence success or failure of agencies’ programs. 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 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. 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. 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. 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 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. 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. For the near-term, the Forest Service plans to primarily rely on exclusive- use “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” exclusive- use 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 piston- engine maritime patrol aircraft—and two British Aerospace BAe-146s— converted versions of modern commercial jets. 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. 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 Neptunes after the 2012 fire season due to structural problems discovered during routine maintenance. 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. 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.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. 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, 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). 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. 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 call- when-needed contract stated that they will be used to provide support for extended attack on large fires—leading to uncertainty about the best tactics for employing them. 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;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.) the 747’s compatibility 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. Modular Airborne Firefighting System (MAFFS) 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 MAFFS- equipped C-130 aircraft (see fig. 4 for an example of a MAFFS-equipped C-130). 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. 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. 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. United States Air Force Accident Investigation Board Report C-130H3, T/N 93-1458 (Oct. 27, 2012). For nearly 2 years, the Forest Service has attempted to award “next- generation” 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. 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 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. 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. 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. (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. 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 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. 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 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.

Summary: 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. 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. 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.