MANAGEMENT STUDY
OF THE
AERIAL DELIVERY OF FIREFIGHTERS
Prepared for:
US FOREST SERVICE
WASHINGTON DC
Prepared by:
Management Analysis, Incorporated
2070 Chain Bridge Road, Suite 550
Vienna, VA 22182
February 2008
Assessment contacts
Elizabeth Walatka
US Forest Service
WO Strategic Planning, Budget & Accountability
Robert Kuhn
US Forest Service
WO FAM Planning & Budget
ewalatka@fs.fed.us
rkuhn@fs.fed.us
U.S. Forest Service
Aerial Delivery of Firefighters (ADFF) Study
Table of Contents
1
2
3
4
5
6
Introduction ................................................................................................................. 1
1.1
Background ......................................................................................................... 1
1.2
Purpose of the Study ........................................................................................... 1
1.3
Participants.......................................................................................................... 1
1.4
ADFF Study End State, Missions, and Principles .............................................. 2
1.5
Overview of the Aerial Delivery of Firefighters Program .................................. 3
The Model ................................................................................................................... 4
2.1
Data ..................................................................................................................... 4
2.1.1
Data Collection ........................................................................................... 4
2.1.2
Data Clean-up ............................................................................................. 7
Analysis....................................................................................................................... 7
3.1
Assumptions........................................................................................................ 7
3.2
Study Limitations ................................................................................................ 9
3.3
Model Runs ....................................................................................................... 10
3.4
Output Analysis ................................................................................................ 10
3.5
Costs.................................................................................................................. 11
Recommendations and Alternatives ......................................................................... 11
4.1
Alternative #1: Total Mobility Concept ............................................................ 12
4.1.1
Overview ................................................................................................... 12
4.1.2
Guiding Principles .................................................................................... 13
4.1.3
Attributes................................................................................................... 13
4.1.4
Solution ..................................................................................................... 13
4.2
Alternative #2: Regional Concept..................................................................... 19
4.2.1
Overview ................................................................................................... 19
4.2.2
Guiding Principles .................................................................................... 19
4.2.3
Attributes................................................................................................... 20
4.2.4
Solution ..................................................................................................... 20
4.3
Alternative #3: Inter-Regional Concept ............................................................ 21
4.3.1
Overview ................................................................................................... 21
4.3.2
Guiding Principles .................................................................................... 22
4.3.3
Attributes................................................................................................... 22
4.3.4
Solution ..................................................................................................... 23
Recommendation ...................................................................................................... 24
5.1
Aircraft .............................................................................................................. 24
5.1.1
Fixed-Wing Platforms ............................................................................... 24
5.1.2
Rotor-Wing Platforms ............................................................................... 25
5.2
Smokejumper Program ..................................................................................... 26
5.3
Helicopter Program ........................................................................................... 27
Conclusion ................................................................................................................ 27
Attachments
Attachment #
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Title
Study Principles
Current Base Locations
How the Model Works
Data Sources
Data Collection Forms
Platforms
Commercial Airport Analysis
Initial Attack Scenarios
Data Clean-Up
Model Outputs
Actual Versus Model Comparison
Summary of Inter-Regional Concept Recommendation
U.S. Forest Service
Aerial Delivery of Firefighters (ADFF) Study
Executive Summary
The Aerial Delivery of Firefighters (ADFF) Study and model development began as a
recommendation in the Forest Service’s (FS) Feasibility of Conducting a Competitive
Sourcing Competition on Aviation Activities in the U.S. Forest Service to update the 1999
ADFF Study. The 1999 ADFF Study did not reflect current operating strategies, current
capabilities, advances in equipment and technology, or changes in the wildland-urban
interface (WUI). The FS recognized there are opportunities to reorganize, to better
coordinate aviation resources, to ensure consistent staffing and resource sharing, and to
improve responses to incidents.
The mission of Forest Service aviation is diverse, supporting not only Fire Aviation
Management (FAM) and appropriate management response options including wildland
fire use and prescribed fires, but also work for other natural resource areas. While the
study is based on the primary role of ADFF in incident management response, the
outcomes of the study do not preclude the implementation of aviation-related options in
the FAM program or in the overall FS aviation program.
The current study analyzed the types of platforms (fixed-wing or helicopter), location and
types of bases, and the appropriate mix of each to meet the mission of the FS. In order to
determine the best mix, the ADFF Study Team developed assumptions, collected data
from the field and existing databases, utilized subject matter experts, and developed a
model focused on determining the most economical use of resources. The model used
fire data from the past nine years as the basis for determining the best solution for the FS.
The results of this study include several alternatives for FS Leadership, and a model that
can be updated with new fire data to identify and support future recommendations. The
recommendations provided to Leadership are both feasible and reduce some costs to the
FS for ADFF operations.
Specifically, the data from the model indicated the current smokejumper locations are not
optimal for the responding to the fires of the past nine years. For example, there are
existing spike base locations that can be used that are closer to the fires than the current
smokejumper bases, and can provide a more cost-effective response. The model
identifies that minimizing the number of full smokejumper bases, which have significant
infrastructure and operating costs, while maximizing spike bases and proximity to
probable fire areas, is the most cost-effective way to proceed. This is similar to the
approach currently utilized by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). The model also
identified numerous helibases that were not needed in order to provide ADFF for the last
nine years, as long as the FS updates its platforms to higher performance models.
The Study Team developed three alternatives based on the model results: the Total
Mobility Concept, the Regional Concept, and the Inter-Regional Concept. The Total
Mobility Concept allocates resources through a centralized decision point, free to move
to any location and priority in the country. The Regional Concept allows Regions to
maintain responsibility to staff and plan ADFF resources according to local need, and in
U.S. Forest Service
i
ADFF Study
view of inter-regional responsibilities. The Inter-Regional Concept allows adjacent
Regions to share base locations and ADFF resources.
The primary difference between these alternatives was in the smokejumper operations;
helitack/rappel operations were the same for all three alternatives because a total mobility
concept was not achievable for helicopters. The Team believed the strength of the
helicopters was their multi-use capability, as opposed to range and speed. Therefore, a
greater dispersal of helicopters geographically was deemed more advantageous.
The Study Team’s final recommendation was to implement the Inter-Regional Concept
for both smokejumper and helitack operations. In order to standardize the alternatives for
each recommendation, the Team opted to recommend fixed-wing aircraft as either large
or small, and rotor-wing aircraft as Type I, II, or III. The model selected small aircraft
87% and large aircraft 13% of the time. Type II helicopters were recommended the
majority of time at just over 55%, followed by Type III’s at 25%, and Type I’s at 20%.
For the smokejumper program, the Study Team recommends the use of both permanent
and satellite bases. In this alternative, three primary bases are converted to satellite
bases, and a specific number of aircraft are assigned to each. The Study Team proposes
McCall, Missoula, Redding, and Redmond as the primary bases, and Fresno, Grangeville,
Lufkin, Ogden, San Bernadino, Silver City, West Yellowstone, and Winthrop as the
satellite bases. This recommendation also results in 15 helibases in the Western part of
the U.S. and 66 in the Eastern part of the U.S., for a total of 81. In total there are over 25
helibase closures or consolidations.
The Study Team’s final recommendation of the Inter-Regional Concept results in no
savings over the current configuration for smokejumper operations. This solution is also
at least $1.43 million more annually than the ideal model results for smokejumper
operations. For helitack operations, the Inter-Regional recommendation results in
approximately $1.91 million of savings annually over the current configuration, but is at
least $997,135 more expensive annually than the ideal model results.
The Study Team disagreed with the model results in terms of savings because making
major investments in infrastructure to increase the operational capability of the smaller
bases would not be feasible for the FS in most cases.
Additional savings can be achieved if FS Leadership or the Study Team consider more
consolidations and closures, or more closely follow the ideal model results. Furthermore,
the FS can continue to evaluate the other two alternatives developed by the Team to
determine if there is a more cost-effective and efficient solution.
The model developed for this Study will continue to be a useful tool for FS Leadership
and ADFF operations. Each year, the most recent fire data can be added to the model and
the model run again to generate the ideal solution. Additionally, new aircraft and updated
costs (facilities, maintenance) can be incorporated into the model to ensure the most
accurate costs are used in the model runs. The FS will be able to continually assess to
what extent operations are efficient and cost-effective.
U.S. Forest Service
ii
ADFF Study
U.S. Forest Service
Aerial Delivery of Firefighters (ADFF)
1
Introduction
1.1 Background
The Forest Service’s (FS) Feasibility of Conducting a Competitive Sourcing
Competition on Aviation Activities in the U.S. Forest Service (Aviation Activities
Feasibility Study) included the recommendation to update the 1999 Aerial Delivery of
Firefighters (ADFF) Study in order to evaluate and recommend the best mix of
helicopter-delivered versus fixed-wing-delivered firefighters. The aerial delivery of
firefighters includes various methods of transporting personnel to an emerging fire or
initial and extended attack, including the use of helicopters and airplanes to deliver
smokejumper, helitack, and rappel crews.
The 1999 ADFF Study provided guidance for improving the ADFF program; however,
the study does not reflect the current operating strategies, current capabilities, the
advances in equipment and technology, or the changes in the wildland-urban interface
(WUI). While the current fleet of fixed-wing and helitack aircraft is able to respond to
fires, there are opportunities to reorganize, to better coordinate aviation resources, to
ensure consistent staffing and resource sharing, and to improve responses to incidents.
On 22 May 2007, Gail Kimbell, Chief of the Forest Service, announced the start of this
ADFF Study, and recommended additional studies based on the results of the Aviation
Activities Feasibility Study. The 2007 ADFF Study has a larger scope to address the
overall mission needs of the FS, rather than only individual location or regional needs.
1.2 Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this Study is to update the previous 1999 ADFF study based on the
guidance provided in the Aviation Activities Feasibility Study. The recommendation
was as follows:
“Update the Aerial Delivery of Firefighter Study (ADFF) to evaluate
and recommend the best mix of helicopter versus airplane delivered
firefighters. The Study should include an analysis of optimal locations
for staging crews based upon improved helicopter capabilities.”
The 2007 ADFF study provides an analytical assessment of the size, location, and
tradeoff of smokejumper and helitack and rappel programs in support of initial attack of
wildland fires. This study also provides recommendations to FS Leadership on the
specific mix of platforms and locations (see Attachment 12).
1.3 Participants
The 2007 ADFF Study participants included a mix of FS and Bureau of Land
Management (BLM) representation, as well as consultant support. The following were
the participants in this Study.
U.S. Forest Service
1
ADFF Study
Forest Service Participants
Larry Brosnan
Robert Kuhn
Ed Hollenshead
George Weldon
Maggie Doherty
Neal Hitchcock
Jon Rollens
Ken Snell
Don Bell
Kevin Lee
Dave Doan
Mary Wagner
Assistant Director of Fire and Aviation Management (FAM),
Washington Office (WO)
FAM-WO Planning and Budget; Competitive Sourcing Lead
Team Co-Leader; Director, Region 5 (FAM)
Team Co-Leader; Deputy Director, Region 1 (Fire, Aviation & Air)
Aviation Management Specialist, WO
Deputy Director for Fire Operations, NIFC
Assistant Director, Region 6 (Aviation)
Deputy Director, Region 6 (FAM)
Pilot, Region 6 (Deschutes National Forest, Regional Aviation Expert)
SME (smokejumper), Region 1
State Representative
Deputy Regional Forester, Region 4
Bureau of Land Management Participants
Grant Beebe
Brad Gibbs
Subject Matter Expert (Fire Protection Analysis System)
Subject Matter Expert (Helicopter Program Manager)
Consultant Support
Art Smith
Aaron Sanders
Kristin Eckels
President, Management Analysis, Incorporated (MAI)
Senior Engineer, MAI
Senior Management Analyst, MAI
The Team also acknowledges the Regional Fire staff and other subject matter experts
throughout the FS who provided data and information that was incorporated into this
study.
1.4 ADFF Study End State, Missions, and Principles
At the initial meeting, the ADFF Study Team defined the end state and mission of the
study, and developed a set of guiding principles to be applied throughout the process
and in the development of the final recommendations. The Team’s end state was as
follows:
Through performance of the 2007 ADFF study and interpretation
and application of data and modeling, the Forest Service (FS)
aviation programs will be highly effective and cost efficient in
meeting the Agency’s mission objectives.
The Study Team also defined their mission for the 2007 ADFF Study in reaching the
proposed end state. The study would address: the platform (rotor- and fixed-wing), the
location (helibases and jump bases), the mission (related to current and anticipated
needs), and the mix of ADFF assets. The results of this study and the recommendations
would be designed to complement the purposes and roles identified in the Principles
and the mission of Forest Service Aviation:
U.S. Forest Service
2
ADFF Study
The mission of Forest Service aviation is diverse, supporting not
only Fire Aviation Management (FAM) and appropriate
management response options including wildland fire use and
prescribed fires, but also work for other natural resource areas.
While the study is based on the primary role of ADFF in incident
management response, the outcomes of the study do not preclude the
implementation of aviation-related options in the FAM program or
in the overall FS aviation program.
The Team’s goal was for the model to be designed so it could be expanded to evaluate
other elements of the fire program in the future (e.g., to evaluate the mix of engines
versus aviation assets). Further, the model outputs would be interpreted and leveraged
to meet the mission objectives of the FS and end state described above.
The principles developed by the Team included objectives and offense, unity of
command and synergy, safety and effectiveness, focus, speed, and positioning and
reserves. The full description of these principles is provided in Attachment 1.
1.5 Overview of the Aerial Delivery of Firefighters Program
The aerial delivery of firefighters occurs both by rotor- and fixed-wing aircraft.
Smokejumpers are delivered via a variety of fixed-wing aircraft, which are both owned
or contracted by the FS. Rappel crews and firefighters are delivered by helicopters
contracted by the FS. A map showing all smokejumper and helibase locations is
provided in Attachment 2.
ADFF are used for initial response (on all fires), emerging fires, implementing
management actions on wildland fire use fires, implementing specific actions on long
duration fires, and providing fire leadership. ADFF is a rapid response and support tool
that provides a unique capacity in terms of speed, range, mobility, versatility, agility,
and focus. These resources are used to deliver overhead and highly skilled operational
personnel to provide quick and accurate situational assessment, determine management
needs, provide initial command structure and tactical action as required, and perform
logistical support of extended operations. Additional support to natural resource
management programs is common.
Helitack/Rappel
Helicopters have been used by the FS since 1947 to transport personnel and cargo to
fires. Specifically, helicopters are used for initial attack to deliver helitack crews
(firefighters) and equipment. Helitack personnel also rappel from helicopters to quickly
reach fires in remote locations where aircraft are unable to land. Helicopters can also be
equipped with buckets or fixed tanks to drop water or retardant during firefighting
operations, including initial attack. Additionally, helicopters can be used to evacuate
injured firefighters or transport personnel to other locations. Currently, there are
approximately 95 helicopters stationed in 85 locations for ADFF.
Smokejumper
Fixed-wing aircraft are used for various firefighting operations, as well as other FS
missions. For firefighting operations, fixed-wing aircraft are used for smokejumper
U.S. Forest Service
3
ADFF Study
delivery, air attack, cargo transport, surveillance, reconnaissance, and fire retardant and
water delivery.
The smokejumper program began in 1939 in the Pacific Northwest Region, with the
first jump occurring in 1940 in Idaho. Smokejumpers are used to provide quick initial
attack on wildland fires in remote areas. Smokejumpers are provided with cargo and
supplies to be self-sufficient for 48 hours. There are currently seven permanent and
three seasonal spike base locations for smokejumper operations. There are currently 12
fixed-wing aircraft in service for ADFF (not including air tankers).
2
The Model
The ADFF study model was developed using an Access database, and incorporates nine
years of historic and five years of extrapolated fire data, as well as other key factors and
information, as discussed in Section 2.1. The model is run by fiscal year, and identifies
the most efficient and cost effective response for each fire. A summary of how the model
works is provided in Attachment 3.
2.1 Data
Multiple data elements and sources were evaluated in the course of developing the
model, including established databases, subject matter experts, and existing FS studies
and reports. The Study Team also utilized data gathered by the interagency Fire
Program Analysis (FPA) study project. A list of data sources is provided in Attachment
4.
The data incorporated into the model was reviewed and analyzed for accuracy and
completeness to ensure the best outputs from the model. The following outlines the
data collection efforts, types of data incorporated into the model, and the type of editing
and cleansing applied to the data.
2.1.1
Data Collection
2.1.1.1 Base Information
Data collection tools were developed by the Study Team to solicit information from
all bases around the country where ADFF resources are used. This initial data
collection started as an informal request from the Team to points of contact within
each Region, and was followed by an official letter of request from the Chief.
Two data collection forms were developed and tailored to the information needed
from both the smokejumper bases and the helibases. The forms requested
information including, but not limited to, the location of the base (including
latitude, longitude), runway data, personnel, facility types and square footage,
additional capacity, and various costs (e.g., overhead, vehicle, administrative). The
data collection forms are provided in Attachment 5.
In total, the Team received responses from all smokejumper bases and helibases.
As needed, the Team followed up with locations to clarify the data received and
compared information with existing databases.
U.S. Forest Service
4
ADFF Study
2.1.1.2 Fire Information
The fire data included in the model come from the Kansas City (KC) Fire Database
(accessed through the FIRESTAT system), which captures all fires in which ADFF
were used. This data was provided as .raw files and consolidated into one database
using Personal Computer Historical Analysis (PCHA). For the model, all fires
prior to Fiscal Year 1998 were deleted, which resulted in a nine year fire database.
The fire data was then extrapolated to generate a five year forecast of fire activity.
Based on the nine years of fire data, the number of ADFF fires predicted for Fiscal
Years 2007 through 2011 are as follows:
Fiscal Year
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
Number of Fires
2,077
2,109
2,182
2,189
2,195
2.1.1.3 Platform Information
Platform data (both fixed-wing and rotor-wing aircraft) was gathered using a
variety of resources, with specific input from Study Team members and subject
matter experts. The Team focused on gathering information on the capabilities,
costs, and operating requirements for each type of aircraft. Aircraft parameters and
data included speed, fuel burn rate, range, required flight crew, and maximum
number of passengers.
The model also incorporates both fixed-wing and rotor-wing aircraft not currently
in use, but under consideration for future use by the FS. The specific aircraft
incorporated into the model are provided in Attachment 6.
2.1.1.4 Commercial Airport Information
In order to ensure the best and most accurate responses to fires, the Study Team
included commercial airports in the model data. The list of commercial airports
was reviewed to eliminate those that would not be of use to the FS. The airports
were classified into the following categories:
•
Airports with runways greater than 4,000 feet (suitable for all aircraft)
•
Airports with runways between 3,000 and 4,000 feet (suitable for most
aircraft, but not all)
•
Airports with runways less than 3,000 feet (suitable for helicopters
only)
•
Airports with and without Jet A fuel (airports without Jet A fuels
would incur additional costs for the FS)
The airports with runways greater than 3,000 feet were entered into the model as
both potential smokejumper and helibases. Any airport with a runway less than
3,000 feet was entered only as a helibase. To further narrow down the list of
U.S. Forest Service
5
ADFF Study
potential commercial airports, the model was further refined using the 2006 fire
season data. A breakdown of how the model was run with this information is
provided in Attachment 7.
Based on the initial results generated by the model, only one commercial airport
was considered feasible to use for ADFF activities. Although commercial airports
are available, the FS would incur costs to operate from these airports; therefore, it
is more economical to operate from existing facilities with the appropriate
infrastructure in place.
2.1.1.5 Ground Response to Fires
The fire data was further refined to ensure only ADFF fires were included in the
model. This meant removing fires that were responded to with only engines,
tractors, dozers, and other ground response mechanisms. For example, there were a
total of 9,450 fires on FS land in 2006, which was reduced to 2,222 that had an
ADFF response. Between 1997 and 2006 there were a total of 87,444 fires, which
was reduced to 18,147 fires with an ADFF response. The removal of non-ADFF
fires from the model more accurately reflects how the FS uses ADFF to respond to
fires, and generates a more realistic allocation of resources.
The raw data and information obtained from the KC Fire Database and used in the
model included the Region, KC Fire ID, Code (e.g., A1, A2, A3, H1, H2, H3), and
the number of units. For the number of units, the following criteria were used:
•
Airtanker and Helo are listed by the number of aircraft
•
Engine and dozer/plow are listed by number of modules
•
Crew is listed by the number of crews
•
Suppression personnel, smokejumpers, helitack, and rappel are listed
by the number of persons
2.1.1.6 Initial Attack Criteria
The Study Team developed initial attack response criteria and assigned a response
category to each fire. Attachment 8 provides a list of the initial attack response
scenarios. These responses were included in the model to ensure the correct level
of response for each fire.
2.1.1.7 Delivery
Using the expertise of subject matter experts, as well as information from FPA, the
Study Team determined estimated delivery times for both smokejumpers and
helitack/rappel to use in the model. For smokejumper operations, the Team
estimated approximately 30 minutes for take off and landing of a fixed-wing
aircraft, and four minutes for delivery of a pair of smokejumpers and their cargo.
For helitack, the Team estimated approximately 25 minutes for take off and landing
and an additional 15 minutes at the fire site for landing, rappelling, or helitack.
Since there are multiple options for delivery of firefighters with helicopters, an
average time per mission was selected, rather than a time per firefighter.
U.S. Forest Service
6
ADFF Study
2.1.1.8 Personnel Costs
The costs incorporated into the model for personnel were generated using the OMB
Circular No. A-76 COMPARE software. This program calculates personnel using
standard cost factors (general and administrative overhead, liability insurance) and
reflects the current pay rates, inflation, and fringe benefit factors. Each position is
costed at a step 5. The grades of current ADFF positions reported by each base
were used to generate estimated personnel costs.
2.1.2 Data Clean-up
Once the data was received and consolidated, several actions were taken to clean-up
and clarify the information in order to ensure the best possible outcomes for the
model. Clean-up activities included deleting fields not necessary for the modeling
effort, removing duplicate entries, filling in missing information (e.g., latitude and
longitude, state, dates), and removing fires where the protection agency was not the
FS. A full listing of all the data changes and clean-up actions is provided in
Attachment 9.
3
Analysis
3.1 Assumptions
The Study Team reviewed the assumptions used in the 1999 ADFF study, and refined
and developed additional assumptions to apply to the current study. Throughout the
data analysis and discussions by the Team, additional assumptions were added and
existing assumptions refined further. The following are the final data assumptions for
the model:
-
Smokejumper base facilities operate year-round. Although personnel do not
necessarily jump year-round, they are able to respond as necessary. The
exception is West Yellowstone, which is closed December through April
annually.
-
Strategic command of all aerial delivered firefighting resources or assets and
personnel will be at the national level; operational control will be at a level
below. In some situations, operational control may shift to a national level.
-
Data gathered for this effort was the best available, but there may be some
disconnects and errors. The data used in this model was reviewed for these
instances, and was adjusted as needed. Whenever the data was adjusted it was
specifically noted in the report.
-
The model assumes no impediment to moving resources across Geographic Area
Coordination Center (GACC) boundaries, states, and regions. In other words, the
model has no restrictions for crossing boundaries (regional and state lines) to
respond to fires and inter-agency incidents on an as needed basis. The model
assumes any coordination with states is taken if necessary.
-
The model allocates resources (firefighters and platforms) based on the historic
fire data (e.g., location, size, elevation), not the actual responses taken by the FS.
U.S. Forest Service
7
ADFF Study
-
The model uses quantitative projections for future fire events. In order to
estimate these trends and project future fire events, the model uses an eight year
rolling average of fire data.
-
The net value of losses through fire damage cannot be readily calculated and has
not been historically consistent.
-
The model assumes an unrestricted view or approach to doing business that is
free of bias.
-
The FS will have continuing need for aerial delivered firefighters for the
foreseeable future.
-
Aircraft used for ADFF functions can be acquired through purchase or contract.
The purpose of this study is to determine the number of aircraft, mix of
platforms, and locations; the acquisition of these will be determined through the
OMB Circular No. A-11 Exhibit 300 process.
-
Any additions to fixed-wing aircraft operations will be co-located with already
existing runways. In other words, new runways will not be built.
-
Interagency and state partners (including Canada) are considered part of the
capability of ADFF. The FS routinely uses partners and views them as
interchangeable in the mix of assets used for wildland fire assets. However, the
recommendations for this study are based solely on the capabilities of the FS.
The current agreements in place among these agencies and Canada are viable and
static in nature; therefore, they are considered a “wash” cost and are not factored
into the model.
-
The FS has blended bases and crews (e.g., shared facilities and crews with
BLM). For the purposes of this model, all blended bases have been considered
as FS bases.
-
The model does not evaluate other agency fires or resources. Any support
provided to non-FS fires or received from non-FS resources are considered equal
and reciprocal, and therefore not included in the model.
-
The model incorporates data from the entire ADFF service area (with the
exception of Alaska, which was not included). The 1999 ADFF study focused
only on the Western states.
-
The model only incorporates platforms that have been approved for use and those
currently in use. A list of aircraft is provided in Attachment 6.
-
The model allows for aircraft to respond to up to two fires within one flight
(bundling). ADFF personnel and aircraft return to the home base from where
they departed.
-
Aircraft are not restricted to specific bases. The model allows for aircraft to be
placed at any facility acceptable for take off and landing requirements for
helicopters, and at any smokejumper base for fixed-wing aircraft.
-
The model addresses not only the initial attack but also the ongoing support and
additional support provided to emerging fires and long-duration fires, including
U.S. Forest Service
8
ADFF Study
wildland fire use. The model address this through a “utilization factor,” which
apportions the FOR/Exclusive use rate based on the historical time spent on
ADFF, versus the time spent on other missions.
-
The model does not determine the specific number of FTE needed for ADFF, but
utilizes the optimum crew size and configuration (based on the fire’s parameters)
for determining the most effective and efficient response.
-
The current responses to fire incidents/historical workload data and utilization of
resources have been satisfactory to date. The model is designed to refine and
improve upon this utilization.
3.2 Study Limitations
The Study Team identified some limitations of the study, outputs, and recommendations
generated from the model. These limitations are:
-
Large fire support is a part of the model output in so far as the cost of each
platform is discounted based upon the total use, which includes large fire
support. Recommendations must recognize the need (in numbers and kind of
aircraft) for large fire support that would not otherwise be apparent.
-
The model is an economic model and favors delivery cost and speed. This must
be considered when recommendations are being formulated.
-
The effects on local suppression effectiveness when resources are concentrated in
another area (e.g., lack of local knowledge, ability to support ground resources,
fire behavior) cannot be modeled, but should be considered.
-
The effects on local capacity to do other work (e.g., fuels treatments, planning,
NEPA, other forest work) are unknown and must be estimated.
-
The model has the advantage of knowing ahead of time the number of
firefighters needed for a particular fire. In reality, that number is not known until
an aircraft reaches a fire and is able to evaluate the conditions.
-
Process limitations include inability to include all regions, state representation,
and line officer participation in the Team composition.
-
The recommendations are based solely on capabilities of the FS and do not
evaluate interagency contributions to requirements.
-
Model address not only the initial attack, but also the on-going and additional
support provided to emerging fires and long duration fires, including wildland
fire use. The model addresses this through a “utilization factor,” which
apportions the FOR/Exclusive use rate based on historical time spent on ADFF,
versus the time spent on other missions. For helicopters, the utilization rate was
52%; for fixed-wing, the utilization rate was 73%. For future use platforms, if
the model considered contracts, a utilization rate of 95% was used based on
utilization rates of current contracted smokejumper aircraft.
-
For a percentage of the initial attack responses for which the initial attack
response determined a bucket was desirable, the Team forced a bucket response
U.S. Forest Service
9
ADFF Study
to capture the versatility of the helicopter platform and to maintain a reasonable
balance between fixed-wing and rotor-wing ADFF resources.
-
The Study Team only looked at the fires that had a historical response with
ADFF.
-
The results only reflect the cost of the ADFF initial attack portion of the
program; however, aircraft and personnel are used in other roles, and thus total
program costs may not be accurately reflected.
3.3 Model Runs
The model conducts in-depth calculations for ADFF fire response (using hourly, daily,
and annual costs) to determine the cost of responding to fires from all available bases.
The model attributes base, aircraft, and personnel costs (on a per flight basis) to all
ADFF flights. Using the data in the model, the lowest cost response that meets the
needs of each fire is selected. The variables are refined by subject matter experts, and
the model is re-run until results have stabilized to generate feasible and realistic
responses.
The model was initially run using Fiscal Year 2006 data only in order for the Team to
carefully review the outputs, identify anomalies, and make changes as necessary. By
running the single, most recent year, the Team could compare the model results to what
the actual responses were to identify significant differences.
One of the most important results of this initial run was the review of the cost data for
bases and aircraft. This run allowed the Team to identify the discrepancies in the
operation and maintenance and major maintenance costs, and to look for alternative
sources for the same data. As a result, the costs used for this category are more equal
and reliable. The Team also looked at aircraft selected by the model to determine if
these choices were realistic.
Once the initial results for 2006 were reviewed by the Team, the model was run using
all nine fiscal years. The results were provided to the Team, who once again reviewed
and evaluated the model outputs. Based on a consensus by the Team, the commercial
airports, with the exception of Angelina County, were removed from the database, and
the model was run again. A summary of the outputs from the last model run are
provided in Attachment 10. Additionally, a comparison between Fiscal Year 2006 and
the model outputs for both platforms and bases is provided in Attachment 11.
3.4 Output Analysis
The results generated by the model identified several areas for the FS to implement
more cost-effective and strategic approaches to ADFF. Specifically, the data indicated
the current smokejumper locations are not optimal for the responding to the fires of the
past nine years. By minimizing the number of full smokejumper bases, which have
significant infrastructure and operating costs, while maximizing spike bases and
proximity to probable fires, the FS would be able to operate in a more cost-effective
manner. This is similar to the approach currently utilized by BLM. The model outputs
indicate the FS could close one or more smokejumper bases without a significant
impact.
U.S. Forest Service
10
ADFF Study
The model outputs place the ratio of smokejumper missions to helitack/rappel missions
at nearly one-to-one (50/50). Based on their professional judgment, the Team felt this
was a reasonable ratio. The effectiveness of the smokejumper program and the
versatility of the helicopter program compliment each other very well.
The Team also evaluated the location of helicopter operations and how potential
locations, consolidations, and closures would impact the FS’s response to fires. For
example, the Team took into consideration interagency agreements, locations relative to
other consolidations or closures, and terrain.
3.5 Costs
A cost comparison of the nine fiscal years is provided in Attachment 11. The tables in
this attachment compare the model results using all potential platforms and bases versus
results using only the current platform types (Fiscal Year 2006) and bases (excluding
Angelina County Airport). The model demonstrates a minimum average annual savings
of $545,380 based on platform selection. This number is a minimum because the
results based on current platforms are idealized by the model, and are not the actual
responses by the FS in Fiscal Year 2006. Additional savings would result from any
base closures/changes implemented based on the model results.
The model allocates aircraft cost on a per-flight basis, with the total aircraft costs
identified as discussed in Section 2.1.1.3. One factor that impacts the costs of
aircraft is whether the platform can be used for purposes outside of ADFF. These
multi-use aircraft typically have a lower cost per flight in the model. As a result,
aircraft like the Sherpa become more costly and less feasible for the FS because they
are mostly used for smokejumper operations.
The use of multi-purpose aircraft for ADFF results in more flexibility for the FS, as
well as better utilization of aircraft throughout the year. The overall cost to the FS is
also reduced because they are multi-purpose and can be used throughout the year,
rather than remaining idle during the non-fire seasons.
4
Recommendations and Alternatives
The Study Team recognized the model provided the ideal or most economic solution;
however, real-life operations, costs, and feasibility of implementing recommendations
also needed consideration. In order to ensure the recommendations to the Chief are
the best possible alternatives for the FS, the Team looked at the significant deviations
from the current operations, as well as the affects any of these changes would have on
FAM work, delivery, effectiveness, interagency relationships and cooperative
agreements, and political and public relationships.
The results of this study include several alternatives for FS Leadership developed by
the Study Team, as well as a model that can be updated with new fire data to identify
and support future recommendations. Each alternative considers efficiencies related to
the following: reducing the number of base locations and required facilities; reducing
administrative and management costs; improving platform standardization
(operational protocol efficiencies); and reducing aviation fleet costs. The
recommendations and alternatives include:
U.S. Forest Service
11
ADFF Study
- Total Mobility Concept: Resources are located and allocated through a
centralized decision point, and free to move to any location and priority in
the country.
- Regional Concept: A focused alternative where Regions maintain
responsibility to staff and plan ADFF resources according to local need, and
in view of inter-Regional responsibilities.
- Inter-Regional Concept: Base locations and ADFF resources are shared by
adjacent Regions.
The Team developed guiding principals and attributes to assist with refining these
alternatives. The Team was also able to review the current organizations and
practices, and used the modeling results to both reflect new ways of doing business
and determine alternative approaches to deliver aerial firefighters.
The Team found the evaluation of this single aspect for fire management response
(independent of other resources and programs) challenging. Models can only do so
much and reasonable planning assumptions are hard to define. Although the Team did
not embrace each specific output of the model, the data did provide the Team with a
new and different perspective for considering alternatives. For example, the inclusion
of new types of aerial platforms in the model showed positive results in terms of cost
and efficiency, and can continue to be a consideration for the future.
The alternatives developed by the Study Team include changing the role of some
bases, establishing a new base, and the retirement of other bases. These changes
should be implemented over a period of time, and cannot be done independently.
Furthermore, alternatives that display significant change may require further
information or analysis, while those alternatives with minimal change may be
implemented immediately. Also, based on the time constraint and scope of the
project, the alternatives do not include an evaluation of the anticipated effects of the
changes on the entire spectrum of FAM work (e.g., large fire support, interagency
cooperation, and hazardous fuels accomplishments), the overall FS mission,
interagency relationships and cooperation, and political and public relationships.
The following provides additional detail on the process, alternatives, and results. A
summary of the Study Team’s recommendations is also provided in Attachment 12.
4.1
Alternative #1: Total Mobility Concept
4.1.1 Overview
The Total Mobility Concept uses a centralized decision point to place, move, and
allocate ADFF resources. These resources can be moved to any location in the
country to meet the priorities and demands of each Region.
This concept utilizes existing permanent bases where little infrastructure investment
is required, but also as close in proximity to workload as possible. Since the
workforce is concentrated at these locations, the bases are large enough to
accommodate both personnel and aircraft.
The Total Mobility Concept also utilizes satellite bases during periods of high
activity. These satellite bases are not intended to be operated year-round, but have
U.S. Forest Service
12
ADFF Study
sufficient infrastructure to support ADFF needs, and are used for a longer period of
time than spike bases.
This alternative provides the closest to a “boundary-less” operation and allocation of
ADFF resources.
4.1.2 Guiding Principles
There are several guiding principles for the Total Mobility Concept. First, there is an
advantage to having permanent bases located centrally to high fire activity areas, but
this is secondary to taking advantage of existing bases exhibiting attributes necessary
to support the concentration of workforce and aircraft.
Second, Regional and GACC boundaries and operating protocols do not impeded the
allocation of these resources. Since this is a total mobility approach, resources can
be allocated among and within Regions and GACCs.
Third, satellite base operations exhibit a light footprint and do not require additional
administrative support, infrastructure development, or other investments.
4.1.3 Attributes
The Total Mobility Concept may require the development of protocols and systems
to ensure deployment and allocation meet the intent of the alternative. The ADFF
assets provided in the “Summary Base Management Details” spreadsheet were used
as the starting point for the analysis of this alternative.
The grouping of primary and satellite bases is based on workload (missions),
geographic orientation, and logistical considerations (support to satellite bases from
the primary base), seasonality, aircraft capability, and existing infrastructure.
Seasons are based upon the timing and concentration of missions within each
grouping, derived from the fire occurrence database.
Aircraft number and mix are identified based on model outputs (missions) specific to
the use of large and small capacity aircraft (smokejumper platforms) or helicopter
types, and the associated capability common or prevalent within each grouping.
4.1.4
Solution
4.1.4.1 Smokejumper Operations
Model outputs identify Winthrop, West Yellowstone, Grangeville, Silver City,
Fresno, and San Bernardino as the high-mission bases; however, the Team
followed the principle established for this alternative that permanent bases would
be located where little additional infrastructure investment was required, and as
proximate to the workload as possible. Therefore, the Team identified Missoula,
McCall, and Redding as the most logical primary bases. The Study Team then
applied the alternative attributes and identified satellite bases for each. The
recommended primary bases and groupings of satellite bases are as follows:
Redding
Fresno
U.S. Forest Service
McCall
Grangeville
13
Missoula
West Yellowstone
ADFF Study
San Bernardino
Lufkin, TX
Silver City
Redmond
Ogden
Winthrop, WA
The Study Team then reviewed the annual average number of missions and core
season for each primary base and its satellite bases, and established a number of
aircraft for each. The results are expressed in terms of large and small capacity
aircraft, rather than identifying specific models. The recommended smokejumper
aircraft for each primary base grouping are as follows:
Season
Total Missions
(avg. annual)
Missoula
May 1 - Sept 15
270.4
McCall
June 1 - Aug 30
242.7
Redding
Feb 1 - Oct 1
406.8
Primary Base
Aircraft
1 - large
3 - small
1 - large
2 - small
2 - large
3 - small
In the short term, fleet composition may include current government-owned aircraft
year-round, with four contracted aircraft available during the core season of June 1 to
Sept 15.
Costs
This alternative results in no savings over the current configuration. Additionally,
this alternative is at least $1.43 million more expensive annually than the model
results. Closing smokejumper bases as recommended by the model could save the FS
a significant amount annually. For example, closing Redmond, which is part of
McCall’s grouping and had low mission count, would save $713,136 annually. The
estimated costs for the four largest smokejumper locations are as follows:
Base
Redding
McCall
Redmond
Missoula
Cost
$713,304
$701,580
$713,136
$716,244
The aircraft for this alternative (12 fixed-wing aircraft, four large and eight small)
are the same as the other two options.
4.1.4.2 Helitack/Rappel Operations
For the Total Mobility Concept alternative, a total of 20 helicopter base facilities
will be retired. The totals shown below do not include the 41 type I and II national
large fire support helicopters; however, fuels helicopters are included if indications
are they contribute to initial attack. Normal fire season timeframes apply in terms
of activity and staffing.
U.S. Forest Service
14
ADFF Study
Helicopter Bases
Average Missions
Recommended
Platform Type
Eastern US Group
Abingdon, VA
30.8
1 type III
Big Swag, KY
35.9
1 type III
Ducktown, TN
42.7
1 type II
Glassy Mountain, GA
36.3
1 type III
Lufkin, TX
38.8
2 type III
Mena, AR*
1.3
1 type III
Mt. Ida, AR*
5.1
1 type III
Ocala, FL
35.0
1 type III
Seed Orchard, SC
28.6
1 type III
Weyers Cave, VA
16.9
1 type III
Cadillac, MI**
2.3
0
Hoosier, IN**
10.8
1 type III
Rhinelander, WI**
5.0
0
Ely, MN**
5.1
1 type III
Rolla, MO**
31.3
1 type III
*Consolidating Mena to Mt. Ida and dropping one helicopter would save $29,302.
**Three helicopter bases are shared between five bases.
Note: R-9 Bases will continue in the current status.
Helicopter Bases
Average Missions
Recommended
Platform Type
Western US Group
Ronan, MT
32.1
1 type III
Missoula, MT
27.9
1 type III
Grangeville, ID
14.4
2 type III
West Yellowstone, MT
7.2
1 type II
Libby, MT
3.6
1 type III
Hamilton, MT
1.7
1 type III
Helena, MT*
0.1
0
Hungry Horse, MT*
0.3
1 type III
Musselshell, ID*
0.8
0
Shenango, MT*
0.0
0
Coeur D’Alene, ID*
0.0
0
Black Hills, SD
8.8
1 type III
U.S. Forest Service
15
ADFF Study
Helicopter Bases
Average Missions
Recommended
Platform Type
Durango, CO
10.6
1 type III **
Monument, CO
4.6
1 type III
Rifle, CO
4.4
1 type III
Ft. Washakie, WY*
0.3
1 type III
Payson, AZ
41.4
2 type III
Silver City, NM
33.9
1 type III
Pittman Valley, AZ
6.7
1 type III
Reserve, NM
35.8
1 type III
Round Valley, AZ
1.6
1 type III
Sandia, NM
5.3
1 type III
TA 49, NM
2.6
0
Prescott, AZ*
0.7
1 type III
BDI, AZ*
0.3
0
Tucson, AZ*
0.0
0
Challis, ID
2.1
0
Indianola, ID
3.9
0
Krassel, ID
1.3
1 type III
McCall, ID
86.6
0
Salmon, ID
1.8
1 type II, 2 type III
Ogden, UT
1.3
0
Provo, UT
14.7
3 type III
Bridgeport, CA
4.9
1 type III
Swan Valley, ID
8.0
1 type III
Vernal, UT
1.1
0
Garden Valley, ID*
0.0
0
Lucky Peak, ID*
0.6
1 type II, 1 type III
Price Valley, ID*
0.1
2 type II
Hailey, ID*
0.1
1 type III
Teton, WY*
0.0
2 type III
Green Mountain, UT*
0.0
1 type III
Pocatello, ID*
0.0
0
Fresno, CA
18.3
0
Keenwild, CA
2.4
1 type III
Montague, CA
1.9
0
Quincy, CA
1.6
1 type II
Redding, CA
31.1
0
Heaps Peak, CA
3.8
1 type II
U.S. Forest Service
16
ADFF Study
Helicopter Bases
Average Missions
Recommended
Platform Type
Chuchupate, CA*
0.2
1 type II
Trimmer, CA*
0.3
1 type II
Chileao, CA*
0.8
1 type II
Bald MT, CA*
0.2
1 type II
Big Hill, CA*
0.1
1 type II
Scott Valley, CA*
0.6
1 type II
White Cloud, CA*
0.8
1 type II
Independence, CA*
0.2
1 type II
Kernville, CA*
0.2
1 type II
Klamath River, CA*
0.2
1 type II
Trinity, CA*
0.6
1 type II
Peppermint, CA*
0.0
1 type II
Ramona, CA*
0.0
1 type II
Santa Maria, CA*
0.0
0
Santa Ynez, CA*
0.0
1 type II
Orland, CA*
0.0
0
Arroyo Grande, CA*
0.0
1 type II
*These locations have less than one mission on average.
** The Team proposes adding one helicopter to Durango, CO, which currently has none.
The Team proposes moving Musselshell to Grangeville (savings of $85,315),
Shenango to West Yellowstone (savings of $195, 334), and dropping Coeur
D’Alene (savings of $69,828). 1
The Team also proposes moving BDI to Silver City (savings of $44,731),
maintaining Prescott in current status (cost of $237,567), dropping TA 49 (savings
of $43,339) and moving both Tucson and a helicopter to Payson (savings of
$90,884).
This alternative also includes the consolidation of Challis (savings of $26,234 over
current and model results) and Indianola (savings of $84,671 over current and
model results) to Salmon. The Team also recommends the consolidation of Garden
Valley (savings of $69,974) to Lucky Peak (costs of $130,936). The consolidation
of Ogden (currently does not have a type III helicopter) to Provo results in a
savings of $56,406 over the model results, and consolidating Mountain Green to
Provo will save $135,613.
The Team recommends moving Trinity (savings of $99,024) and Klamath River
(savings of $74,687) into Redding (costs of $56,406 over current), and Kernville
(savings of $60,620) to Fresno (costs of $56,406 over current). Bases with less
1
Costs and savings are shown as an estimated annual figure.
U.S. Forest Service
17
ADFF Study
than one average mission will transition to surge capability and will be located with
other helicopter bases.
Although the model suggests consolidation of Krassel, McCall, and Price Valley to
McCall, the Team suggests the current configuration based on infrastructure (Price
Valley costs $187,757). Both Vernal (costs of $43,303) and Teton (costs of
$68,042) should remain intact due to interagency commitments. The Team
recommends Hailey (costs of $35,604) remain due to its geographic location in
proximity to adjacent consolidated bases. Closing Pocatello will save
approximately $56,935.
Ramona (costs of $44,093) remains intact as a base due to its geographic location
and proximity to other bases. The Team also recommends moving Arroyo Grande
(savings of $101,130) to Chuchupate, closing Orland (savings of $12,680), and
closing San Bernardino (savings of $31,829).
The Team recommends consolidating Frazier (savings of $107,274) and Sled
Springs (savings of $96,734) to Prineville (costs of $116,021). The Redmond
requirements will be met from Prineville base (savings of $56,406 over model).
The John Day base remains intact. The Team also recommends moving Wenatchee
(savings of $90,758) to Winthrop (costs of $56,406 over current). Lakeview base
remains due to interagency component, and Rogue Siskiyou base (costs of $80,321)
remains as terrain is not conducive to smokejumping. The closing of Oakridge
results in savings of $4,807.
The following bases would have no ADFF:
Helicopter Bases
Average Missions
Van Nuys, CA
0.0
Hemet, CA
0.0
Mariposa, CA
0.3
Casitas, CA
0.0
Chester, CA
0.2
San Bernardino, CA
0.0
The Team recommends the following consolidations:
Helicopter Bases
Move to:
Savings
Bald Mt.
Sacramento
$48,138
Big Hill
Sacramento
$61,177
Scott Valley
Sacramento
$68,103
Peppermint
Sacramento
$60,113
White Cloud
Chester*
$51,261
Heaps Peak
$65,493
Hemet
$64,663
Santa Maria
Mariposa
$17,344
Santa Ynez
Casitas
$40,050
Van Nuys
Independence
U.S. Forest Service
18
ADFF Study
The following become “surge” capability aircraft:
Helicopter Bases
Average Missions
Recommended
Platform Type
John Day, OR
1.7
1 type II
Lakeview, OR
3.1
1 type II
Winthrop, WA
18.3
0
Redmond, OR
33.2
0
Oakridge, OR*
0.6
0
Prineville, OR*
0.0
1 type III
Siskiyou, OR*
0.4
1 type III
Wenatchee, WA*
0.9
1 type II, 1 type III
Frazier, OR*
0.0
1 type III
Sled Springs, OR*
0.0
1 type II
Costs
The above proposal results in approximately $1.91 million of savings annually over
the current configuration, but is at least $997,135 more expensive than ideal model
results.
4.2
Alternative #2: Regional Concept
4.2.1 Overview
The Regional Concept alternative maintains the current operating and management
procedures. Each FS Region will have sufficient bases and capacity to meet
anticipated needs within the Region. Additionally, both satellite and permanent
bases will be located, staffed, and optimized according to Regional needs.
Management of the ADFF resources will also be handled by each Region
individually.
Within this concept, the Region will have permanent bases located where little
additional infrastructure investment is required and in close proximity to workload.
Satellite bases are staffed during the periods of high activity, and have sufficient
infrastructure to support ADFF resources as needed.
Under the Regional Orientation alternative, national mobilization of ADFF resources
is secondary to the Regional needs and demands. Sharing of aircraft among Regions
will occur as fire seasons migrate.
4.2.2 Guiding Principles
The guiding principles for the Regional Orientation alternative include the following.
First, successful operation of ADFF on a national basis will require frequent and
intensive communication and coordination with Regional FAM. Although the
priorities remain within the Region, the FS will still share resources nationally to
meet demands during surge periods in other Regions.
U.S. Forest Service
19
ADFF Study
Second, aircraft contracts or assignments will be nationalized, and will be able to
move among Regions to meet the core fire season needs, particularly during surge
periods. This concept will be added to and reflected in Regional Operating Plans.
However, as mentioned, the priorities will remain within the Region.
Third, aircraft type, crew configurations, and base locations are identified and
planned to maximize intra-Regional efficiencies and program effectiveness.
4.2.3 Attributes
The Regional Concept may require the development of protocols and systems to
ensure deployment and allocation meet the intent of the alternative. The ADFF
assets provided in the “Summary Base Management Details” spreadsheet were used
as the starting point for the analysis of this alternative.
Base identification recognizes that inter-Regional support will continue to occur as
much as it does today, but is focused on meeting the Regional workload and in view
of investments already made today.
The grouping of primary and satellite bases is based on workload (missions),
geographic orientation, and logistical considerations (support to satellite bases from
the primary base), seasonality, and aircraft capability.
Seasons are based upon the timing and concentration of missions within each
grouping, derived from the fire occurrence database.
The aircraft number and mix are identified based on model outputs (missions)
specific to the use of large and small capacity aircraft (smokejumper platforms) or
helicopter types, and the associated capability common or prevalent within each
grouping.
4.2.4
Solution
4.2.4.1 Smokejumper Operations
Each region will have a core smokejumper base with satellite base(s) as reflected in the
table below.
Redding
San Bernadino
Fresno
Lufkin, TX
Redmond
Winthrop
McCall
Ogden
Missoula
Grangeville
West Yellowstone
Silver City
The Study Team reviewed the annual average number of missions and core season
for each primary base and its satellite bases, and established a number of aircraft
for each. The results are expressed in terms of large and small capacity aircraft,
rather than identifying specific models. The recommended smokejumper aircraft
for each primary base grouping are as follows:
Primary Base
Missoula
U.S. Forest Service
Season
Total Missions
(avg. annual)
Aircraft
May 1 - Sept 15
500.5
2 - large
3 - small
20
ADFF Study
McCall
June 1 - Aug 30
Total Missions
(avg. annual)
8.3
Redding
Mar 1 - Oct 1
297.4
Redmond
June 1 – Sept 15
113.7
Primary Base
Season
Aircraft
1 - small
1 - large
3 - small
1 - large
1 - small
In the short term, fleet composition may include current government-owned aircraft
year-round, with four-contracted aircraft being made available during the core
season of June 1 to Sept 15.
Costs
This alternative results in no savings over the current configuration. Additionally,
this alternative is at least $1.43 million more expensive annually than the model
results. Closing Ogden, or both Ogden and McCall, could result in annual savings
of $389,731 or $1,091,035 respectively over current configuration. The estimated
costs for the five largest smokejumper locations are as follows:
Base
Redding
McCall
Redmond
Missoula
Ogden
Cost
$713,304
$701,580
$713,136
$716,244
$389,731
The aircraft for this alternative (12 fixed-wing aircraft, four large and eight small)
are the same as the other two options.
4.2.4.2 Helitack/Rappel Operations
The helitack operations are the same as shown in Section 4.1.4.2.
Costs
With all consolidation steps, the approximate savings are $1.91 million annually
over the current configuration; however, it is at least $997,135 more expensive than
the ideal model results. With no consolidation steps, the proposal is $86,694 more
expensive than the current configuration, and at least $3.18 million more expensive
than ideal model results annually.
4.3
Alternative #3: Inter-Regional Concept
4.3.1 Overview
The Inter-Regional Concept alternative proposes the sharing of base locations and
ADFF resources by adjacent Regions. ADFF resources will be managed through a
centralized decision point within an inter-Regional group. Thus, coordination will be
handled on a Regional, rather than national, level. Each Regional grouping will have
a base-level capacity available through the duration of the primary fire season,
including shoulder seasons. (Shoulder seasons are defined as periods of time
immediately prior and immediately after the primary fire season.)
U.S. Forest Service
21
ADFF Study
Bases and ADFF resources will be organized at the inter-Regional level, and will be
located so as to meet the workload needs of the inter-Regional group. Surgecapacity will be provided through rotation of additional ADFF resources according
to historical seasonal peaks (see table below).
Regional Group
Regions 8,9
Regions 1,2,3,4
Regions 5,6,10
February May
X
Surge Capacity Timeframe
August June - July
September
X
X
X
X
October November
X
X
*Note: Surge timeframes may vary.
Consolidation was given to utilize Regional groupings proposed under the
Transformation effort. The Study Team chose to identify groupings focused on
similar fuels, fire occurrences, and fire season timing.
Within these surge periods, the Regional groups identified in the table will operate as
a cohesive unit to allocate resources. The priorities for allocation of resources will
be evaluated at a group level, rather than by individual Region.
4.3.2 Guiding Principles
There are several guiding principles for the Inter-Regional Orientation alternative.
First, locating permanent bases in proximity to high fire activity areas within the
inter-Regional grouping is advantageous.
Second, Regional and GACC boundaries and operating protocols do not impede the
allocation of ADFF resources within the inter-Regional groupings. Regions and
GACCs will coordinate the allocation of Resources within the groupings, regardless
of individual Region priorities.
Third, satellite operations will not require additional administrative support,
infrastructure development, or other significant investments.
Fourth, base-level capacity will provide the core capability to meet the average need
on the shoulder seasons, occurring within the inter-Regional grouping. This capacity
will be maintained through the duration of the seasons occurring in each interRegional grouping. Surge-level capacity provides peak initial attack response
capability within and among each inter-Regional grouping, and is supplemental to
base-level capacity.
4.3.3 Attributes
The Inter-Regional Concept may require the development of protocols and systems
to ensure deployment and allocation meet the intent of the alternative. The ADFF
assets provided in the “Summary Base Management Details” spreadsheet were used
as the starting point for the analysis of this alternative.
Base identification maximizes long-term efficiencies and reduces infrastructure.
Current investments are considered, but are secondary to achieving these long-term
efficiencies.
U.S. Forest Service
22
ADFF Study
Grouping of primary and satellite bases is based on workload (missions), geographic
orientation, and logistical considerations (support to satellite bases from the primary
base), seasonality, and aircraft capability.
Seasons are based upon the timing and concentration of missions within each
grouping, derived from the fire occurrence database.
Aircraft number and mix are identified based on model outputs (missions) specific to
the use of large and small capacity aircraft (smokejumper platforms) or helicopter
types, and the associated capability common or prevalent within each grouping.
4.3.4
Solution
4.3.4.1 Smokejumper Operations
The Study Team reviewed the annual average number of missions and core season
for each primary base and its satellite bases, and established a number of aircraft
for each. The results are expressed in terms of large and small capacity aircraft,
rather than identifying specific models. The recommended smokejumper aircraft
for each primary base grouping are as follows:
Total Missions
(avg. annual)
Aircraft
Primary Base
Regions 1, 2, 3, 4
508.8
2 – large
4 – small
Missoula
McCall
Regions 5,6,8,9,10
411.1
2 – large
4 – small
Redmond
Redding
Regional Group
Satellite Base
West Yellowstone
Grangeville
Ogden
Silver City
Winthrop
San Bernadino
Fresno
Lufkin
Costs
This proposal results in no savings over the current configuration, and is at least
$1.43 million more expensive annually than model results. The proposed aircraft
of 12 fixed-wing, four large and eight small, is the same as the other two options.
The costs for the four primary smokejumper bases are as follows:
Base
Cost
$713,304
$701,580
$713,136
$716,244
Redding
McCall
Redmond
Missoula
Closing Redding and McCall under this configuration would save approximately
$1.41 million annually over the current configuration, eliminate one base that is in
close proximity to another, and still leave one major smokejumper base with full
facilities for each regional group.
4.3.4.2 Helitack/Rappel Operations
The helicopter operations are the same as shown in Section 4.1.4.2.
U.S. Forest Service
23
ADFF Study
Costs
With all consolidation steps, the approximate savings are $1.91 million annually
over the current configuration; however, it is at least $997,135 more expensive
annually than the ideal model results.
5
Recommendation
5.1
Aircraft
In order to standardize alternatives for each recommendation, the Team opted to
recommend fixed-wing aircraft as either large or small, and rotor-wing aircraft as
Type I, II, or III. Attachment 6 of this report contains a listing of all fixed-wing and
rotor-wing platforms considered by this model.
5.1.1 Fixed-Wing Platforms
As discussed previously, the fixed-wing aircraft considered as viable solutions for
this model include all platforms currently used by the agency for smokejumper
operations, and all other aircraft currently approved or being considered by the
Interagency group known as the Smokejumper Aircraft Screening and Evaluation
Board (SASEB). The following table shows the total array of fixed-wing assets
recommended as model solutions, correlated with the number of times the model
chose that platform as an “optimal solution.”
Aircraft Make and
Model
King Air 200
DHC-6/Twin Otter
(Owned)
Dash 8
DC-3TP (Owned)
Mission Total
Per Aircraft
Type
729.6
Percentage
79.3%
71.0
66.3
53.1
7.7%
7.2%
5.8%
Category
Total
Percentage
Small
800.6
87.0%
Large
119.4
13.0%
As illustrated in the table above, the model indicated that small aircraft were
optimal approximately 87% of the time, and that the King Air 200 was the most
economic small aircraft, followed by the Twin Otter. Large aircraft included the
Dash 8 and DC-3TP. Although the King Air 200 is an approved smokejumper
aircraft, it is not currently used in the smokejumper fleet. This is because the
practitioners are inclined to use other comparable platforms that have more internal
room and bigger doors for exiting. In addition, the model has the advantage of
knowing ahead of time the number of firefighters (and therefore, the size of
aircraft) needed for a particular fire, when in reality that number is not known until
an aircraft reaches a fire and sizes it up. The Team has considered these
operational realities when making the final fixed-wing platform recommendations.
Although the model indicates the majority of smokejumper aircraft should be
small, the Study Team recommends a more balanced mix of large versus small
standard category airplanes to preserve mission flexibility. Opportunities to utilize
a large platform for transporting overhead or a crew can achieve benefits for the
U.S. Forest Service
24
ADFF Study
FS. The Team recommends one third of the fleet be comprised of large
smokejumper platforms.
The model recommends an aircraft comparable to the King-Air 200 (seating
capability, cost, speed, multiple-use considerations) for the mainstay of the
smokejumper fleet. However, the Study Team recommends a mix of King Air
200’s and DHC-6 Twin Otters for the small aircraft platform. This provides greater
flexibility in back country operations, and the ability to transport two additional
firefighters.
New, larger smokejumper aircraft should also be introduced into the smokejumper
program as practical. Dash 8s or other comparable large aircraft still need to be
approved through the SASEB evaluation, but would be a consideration for ADFF
operations. Continued use of the DC-3s is viable until these aircraft reach a point
where maintenance is no longer economical.
Continuing airworthiness programs will be also required for all fixed-wing
platforms used in the smokejumper program. Due to the operation and
maintenance costs, the Sherpa fleet was not chosen as optimal for any missions,
and plans for fleet replacement of these aircraft should be developed and
implemented.
5.1.2 Rotor-Wing Platforms
Helicopter platforms considered by this model include all models currently in use
for aerial delivery of firefighters, as well as several new models not currently used,
but approved for use by the Interagency helicopter community (see Attachment 6).
The following table represents the total array of standard category helicopter
platforms recommended as model solutions, correlated with the number of times
the model chose that platform as an “optimal solution.”
Aircraft Make and Model
206L-IV-TR
AW139
205A1-212rotor-T5317A
212HP
SA-330J
S-61A Short W/Metal
Blades
BV-234-LR40
A119
EC-155B1
S-70
S-61A/N Carson Short
Comp Blades
S-92A
U.S. Forest Service
Mission
Total Per
Aircraft
Type
193.6
155.0
149.7
139.9
94.0
Percentage Type
23.6%
III
18.9%
II
18.3%
II
17.1%
II
11.5%
I
38.0
4.6%
21.6
13.7
7.3
3.9
2.6%
1.7%
0.9%
0.5%
2.0
0.2%
0.9
0.1%
25
I
I
III
II
I
Total
Missions
per Type
III
207.2
II
451.9
I
160.3
Percentage
25.3%
55.2%
19.5%
I
I
ADFF Study
As illustrated in the table above, Type II helicopters are recommended the majority
of time at just over 55%, followed by Type III’s at 25%, and Type I’s at
approximately 20%. Although the solutions above provide very useful guidelines
in terms of the appropriate mix of helicopter types (I, II, or III), they cannot be
applied in a literal sense based on the realities of the availability of helicopters (at
least in the short-term). For example, though two helos with large percentages of
use in the optimal modeled solution happen to be the AW139 and the “Super 205,”
there are currently only a few available to the wildland fire community. In reality,
comparable substitutions for available helicopter models must be considered. It
should be noted that several aircraft in the above table (including the AW139, the
second most-often selected helo by the model) are not currently used in the
wildland fire community; thus a tremendous opportunity exists to achieve
efficiencies not currently realized in the helicopter program.
The model mostly selected high performing helicopters, which confirms their
economic efficiency. However, as discussed, the availability of some optimal
platforms is insufficient, and comparable platforms must therefore be substituted.
In addition, current contracting practices do not allow targeting a specific model of
aircraft. When soliciting for helicopter services, the FS should target performance
parameters indicated by the model. However, specifications should be broad
enough to obtain a sufficient number of reasonably priced offers.
Platforms currently not in the system, but suggested as efficient, should be
integrated into the mix of assets; however, there will be a period of several years
needed to adapt some helicopters to specialty delivery programs (e.g., rappel).
For purposes of alternative costing, the Study Team recommends using the ratio of
helicopter models listed in the platform section, correlated with the mix
(percentages) recommended above.
5.2 Smokejumper Program
For the smokejumper program, the Study Team recommends the Inter-Regional
Concept alternative. Although the model selected specific bases for permanent
designation, the Study Team instead chose to designate some of these as satellite bases.
In this alternative, three primary bases are converted to satellite bases. Significant
expenditures would be required to make non-primary bases operational as main bases
with the increased number of aircraft and smokejumpers. Also, some bases are very
seasonal in nature and need only to be staffed for short periods. The Team also chose to
keep some bases designated by the model for satellite operations as permanent. This
helps to ensure that an adequate number of permanent bases exist to support the satellite
operations.
The Team believes that this alternative has the highest probability of successful
implementation; however, consideration must be given to the effects of change on the
FS workforce. Consolidation and centralization do not always result in the savings that
are shown on paper, as loss of program effectiveness can occur.
Even though the model does not consider organizational structure, the Study Team
suggests reaffirming centralized National Smokejumper Management. Smokejumpers
U.S. Forest Service
26
ADFF Study
are a national resource and should be managed and organized consistently across the
regions. The Team recommends the standardization of base organizations, with
optimum supervisor-to-firefighter ratios, as well as permanent to seasonal workforce
ratios. It is important to have a sufficient number of smokejumpers to fill available
seats on a seven-day basis.
5.3 Helicopter Program
For the helicopter program, the Study Team also recommends the Inter-Regional
Concept alternative with some adjustments. With Redmond remaining as a
smokejumper base, it may no longer be required to relocate helicopters from eastern
Oregon to Prineville. This alternative would relocate 18 to 20 helicopters and crews to
new locations, all but one of which are existing helibases.
As the Team analyzed results, it became apparent that total mobility is not as achievable
for helicopters. The strength of the helicopter is its multiple use capability, as opposed
to its range and speed. Therefore, a greater dispersal of helicopters geographically is
advantageous.
Initial attack helicopters must be managed as a geographic area resource and controlled
by the geographic area coordination centers. Consideration must also be given to the
effects of change on the FS workforce, as mentioned in the Smokejumper Program
section above.
The Team recommends the standardization of base organizations, with optimum
supervisor-to-firefighter ratios, as well as permanent to seasonal workforce ratios. It is
important to have a sufficient number of helitack personnel to fill available seats on a
seven-day basis.
6 Conclusion
The Study Team’s alternatives provide three viable options for the FS to consider as
decisions are made regarding ADFF operations and the most economical and efficient
location of bases and aircraft. Although the final recommendation presented by the Team
does not follow the ideal model results, the Team carefully analyzed the data and
compared the results to what they considered “reality.” The Study Team believes the
selected recommendation incorporates the ideal model results into the reality of
operations for both helitack and smokejumpers.
Additional savings can be achieved if FS Leadership or the Study Team consider more
consolidations and closures, or more closely follow the ideal model results. In particular,
the Team’s recommendation results in no savings for the FS for smokejumper operations,
although the model results indicate the closure of one or more smokejumper bases is
feasible with no significant impact. Furthermore, the FS can continue to evaluate the
other two alternatives developed by the Team to determine if there is a more costeffective and efficient solution.
Going forward, the model developed for this study will be a lasting resource for the FS.
This model can be updated to include the latest fire data, and can be re-run as needed to
provide current results to the FS. The model can also be updated to include the most
U.S. Forest Service
27
ADFF Study
recent cost data (e.g., facilities, maintenance, aircraft), and to reflect any changes in the
aircraft used by the FS.
U.S. Forest Service
28
ADFF Study
Attachment 1
Study Principles
 Objective and Offense: Expression of the purpose of ADFF to meet FS land
management goals and the role in the Agency’s resource management capacity.
ADFF provides a unique capacity in terms of speed, range, mobility, and
versatility, and is a rapid response and support tool. ADFF resources are used to
deliver incident leadership and highly skilled personnel to provide quick and
accurate situation assessment, determine management needs, provide initial
command structure and tactical action, and perform logistical support of extended
operations as required. The model will help define locations, aircraft types, and
organizations to enhance the efficient provision of these capabilities across the
fire management landscape.
 Unity of Command and Synergy: Expression of the relationship of ADFF to the
rest of the Agency’s fire management capacity and how ADFF Assets are
integrated seamlessly into overall fire management.
The primary uses of ADFF assets are for providing rapid response, initial incident
leadership and tactical action, and logistical support to extended operations.
Platform types and mix will be designed to enhance the efficient provision of
these capabilities and complement the Agency’s other fire management
capabilities.
The recommended locations, types, and distribution of ADFF assets will take into
consideration the overall fire management strategies of the FS. Platforms will
also be recommended to maximize utilization of aircraft capacity in performance
of both primary and secondary roles of aviation support.
 Safety and Effectiveness: Expression of the limitations of ADFF in terms of risk
versus gain.
The use of aircraft in firefighting has a low frequency but high consequence risk
of harm to ADFF personnel and aircrews. ADFF is also limited in the number of
resources that can respond to emerging incidents, and the effectiveness of this
response is dependent upon the specific mission, fire behavior, location, and
resistance to control. Use of ADFF is occasionally limited by weather and fire
conditions (e.g., turbulence, fog, smoke, etc.). Locations, aircraft types,
organizations, and performance expectations will be evaluated within operational
effectiveness and constraints and to minimize risk.
 Focus: Expression of how ADFF assets are prioritized in terms of worksite
location.
Due to its attributes of speed, range, mobility, and versatility, ADFF provides
rapid leadership, response, and support to incidents. The location, mix, and use of
aviation resources is influenced by the need to protect at-risk assets and the
public’s safety, as well as the expansion of wildland-urban interface areas, highvalue resource areas, and other initial rapid response and command areas.
U.S. Forest Service
A-1
ADFF Study
 Speed: Expression of how ADFF assets are prioritized in terms of time
imperatives.
The need for rapid initial command and response to emerging incidents relative to
mission, values at risk, resource benefits, and public safety are key variables in
determining location, kind, and number of ADFF assets.
 Positioning and Reserves: Expression of how ADFF assets are positioned and
managed to achieve offense, focus, and speed.
The recommended locations, types, and distribution of ADFF resources will
support both administrative and operational needs, and will be designed to
improve organizational flexibility, agility, mobility, force multiplication, cost
efficiency (including infrastructure), logistical support capacity, and command
and control effectiveness. The recommendations will also support hierarchal
command choices and needs, and will meet fire management objectives beyond
the local level.
U.S. Forest Service
A-2
ADFF Study
Attachment 2
Current Base Locations
U.S. Forest Service
A-3
ADFF Study
Attachment 3
How the Model Works
The following is a brief synopsis of how the model works.
1. Using a drop down menu, the user selects which fiscal year (FY) he or she desires to
analyze on the ADFF Main form. Then, the user selects “Update Response Data” and
the model begins to run.
2. For each fire in the database, the model pairs up a fire with all the bases that can
respond to it, based on the distance between the base and the fire. To allow for
refueling after attacking the fire, a range equal to the maximum range of the aircraft
type (SJ or Helo) at the base is used as a cutoff.
3. If two fires are within 50 nautical miles (NM) and two hours (discovery date) of one
another, the model “bundles” them so that they can be attacked together.
4. The model then looks at all the fire and base couplings, and determines which aircraft
from the list can attack each fire from each base to which it has been coupled. This
determination is based on:
a. Aircraft type (SJ or Helo; has to match the base type)
b. Aircraft range has to be great enough to reach the fire from the base
c. The number firefighters that can be delivered by the aircraft, at the appropriate
elevation (higher of fire or base), has to meet or exceed the firefighters needed
by the fire
As an aircraft-base-fire grouping is selected, the cost of that response is determined
based on the cost data included in the model. The model now has a listing of all firebase combinations and all possible aircraft responding within those combinations.
5. Next, using similar criteria, the model evaluates if each of the fire bundles (two fires
each) can be attacked from a base-aircraft combination. If so, the two fires are
removed from the list generated in step 4, as they will be responded to in this
“bundled” manner. The firefighter number required by the “bundle” is equal to the
sum of the firefighter numbers required by each of the individual fires.
6. At this point, the model has a list of the most cost-effective options. However,
capacity constraints (number of aircraft and personnel available) have been
established at each base based on data calls to those bases. The capacity constraints
work as follows:
a. For each day (Julian Day), fires are responded to chronologically, using the
lowest-cost option. Once a fire response is initiated, the aircraft available at the
base are decreased by one, and the number of firefighters available at the base
are decreased by the number firefighters required at the fire (both are restored
the next day).
b. If a base reaches zero aircraft or zero personnel, and there are still lowest-cost
options at other bases for that day, the next lowest-cost option at a different base
will be selected, until the model reaches a base that has enough capacity
U.S. Forest Service
A-4
ADFF Study
(personnel and aircraft). These options are all selected from the responses
generated in steps 4 and 5.
c. Finally, if a certain aircraft position at a base has flown for over seven hours, it
will not be restored until the next day. This ensures aircraft are not flying for
more than 49 hours per week, which approximates to the six days, eight hours
max, one day off rule.
7. Once the model has finished responding to as many fires as capacity constraints
allow, response tables and forms are generated for use in decision-making.
8. A series of queries is then executed that modifies two input variables based on the
outputs of the previous model run, in order to increase the accuracy of the cost
calculations. These queries are run by the form “Refine Responses,” and they
average the field corresponding to the number of annual flights a base is expected to
have (starts at 250) with the actual model flights calculated for that base, and the field
corresponding to the number of annual flights an aircraft is expected to have (starts at
100) with the actual model flights calculated for that aircraft (capped at 100 for fixedwing, 50 for helos).
9. After the responses have been “refined,” the model needs to be run again with the
new assumptions in place, which makes the costs calculated in that run closer to the
actual costs that would exist as a result of that model run. This refinement is done
until the variation in total costs from one run to the next is negligible (<0.5 %).
10. The “Refine Responses” form also generates a table of all platforms with their
response counts, and all bases with their response counts, for that run. Further
queries can be run that determine the total cost of all responses and the total number
of fires attacked by that model run.
11. Once the model is “fully refined,” a series of queries generates a table that shows
platform response counts by base, including the timeframe during which the each
platform has responses in the model, for use in assigning aircraft to bases.
U.S. Forest Service
A-5
ADFF Study
Attachment 4
Data Sources
Data
Rotor-wing aircraft currently in
use
Rotor-wing aircraft not currently
in use
Fixed-wing aircraft currently in
use
Fixed-wing aircraft not currently
in use
Fire database
Source
Comments
Two separate efforts and data files.
Brad Gibbs
Jon Rollens, Don Bell
Compiled and completed by Jon Rollens
with information obtained from contractors.
Compiled and completed by Don Bell.
Jon Rollens, Don Bell
Compiled and completed by Don Bell
Initial Attack Responses
FIRESTAT system, Neal
Hitchcock
Neal Hitchcock, Grant Beebe
Fire Categories
Study Team
Commercial Airport List
Neal Hitchcock, Don Bell
Base Data
Individual bases/regions
From Forest Service .raw files provided on
CD. All fires prior to FY 1998 were deleted.
Identified and then assigned to respective fire
categories.
Based on size class, fire intensity level, and
fuel model. Categories were identified by
the Team and refined by Neal Hitchcock and
Grant Beebe.
Provided by Neal Hitchcock and refined by
Don Bell.
From data call forms and INFRA.
U.S. Forest Service
Jon Rollens
A-6
ADFF Study
Attachment 5
Data Collection Forms
ADFF Study Data Call: Helitack/Rappel Base Form
City:
State:
Base
Name:
Latitude:
Longitude:
Class of Airspace:
Elevation:
Runways:
Length(s) of Runways:
Helitack/Rappel
Complement:
Additional
Capacity:
Appointed:
Seasonal:
Helitack/Rappel Personnel:
Aircraft:
Aircraft:
Base Purpose (single vs multi-purpose, etc.):
Detailed Base Description:
Facility
Purpose
Sq Ft
Year of
Construction
Major Equipment
Note: Exclude Aircraft costs from all areas of this form. All costs are annual costs for FY 2006 unless
otherwise specified.
Land Lease (annual cost, acreage, expiration date, renewal cost if known):
Annual Cost
Acreage
Expiration Date
Renewal Cost (if known)
Annual Base Operating and Maintenance Cost (utilities, housekeeping, food service, etc. as applicable):
Supply and Equipment
Annual:
Fire Replacement:
Purchasing Costs:
Major Maintenance and Renovation Requirements and Costs (identify both requirement and cost):
Facility
Requirement
Year Required
Cost
U.S. Forest Service
A-7
ADFF Study
Administrative costs of supporting Helicopter program (estimated annual hours by pay grade):
Position Title
Grade
Est. Annual
Straight Time
Overtime
Holiday
Sunday Hrs.
Hours
Hrs.
Hrs.
Hrs.
Warehouse and logistical support costs of Helicopter program (estimated annual hours by pay grade):
Position Title
Grade
Est. Annual
Straight Time
Overtime
Holiday
Sunday Hrs.
Hours
Hrs.
Hrs.
Hrs.
Training costs:
Training for Support Personnel:
* Non-Helo-personnel-conducted training of Helo Personnel:
Income from Housing/Rent Payments:
Unemployment Costs:
Administrative Overhead/Cost Pools (per FTE, identify employing entities):
Vehicle Costs:
Programmed Miles:
OWCP:
Completed by:
Email:
Date:
Phone:
* Do not include Helitack/Rappel time
U.S. Forest Service
A-8
ADFF Study
Base Name:
ADFF Study Data Call: Smokejumper Base Form
City:
State:
Latitude:
Longitude:
Class of Airspace:
Elevation:
Runways:
Length(s) of Runways:
Smokejumper
Complement:
Appointed:
Seasonal:
Additional Capacity:
Smokejumper Personnel:
Aircraft:
Aircraft:
Base Purpose (single vs multi-purpose, etc.):
Detailed Base Description
Facility
Purpose
Sq Ft
Year of
Construction
Major Equipment
Note: Exclude Aircraft costs from all areas of this form. All costs are annual costs for FY 2006
unless otherwise specified.
Land Lease (annual cost, acreage, expiration date, renewal cost if known):
Annual Cost
Acreage
Expiration Date
Renewal Cost (if known)
Annual Base Operating and Maintenance Cost (utilities, housekeeping, food service, etc. as
applicable):
Supply and Equipment
Annual:
Fire Replacement:
Purchasing Costs:
Major Maintenance and Renovation Requirements and Costs:
Facility
Requirement
Year
Cost
Required
U.S. Forest Service
A-9
ADFF Study
Administrative costs of supporting SJ program (by pay grade):
Position Title
Grade
Est. Annual
Straight Time
Overtime
Hours
Hrs.
Hrs.
Holiday
Hrs.
Sunday
Hrs.
Warehouse and logistical support costs of SJ program (by pay grade):
Position Title
Grade
Est. Annual
Straight Time
Overtime
Hours
Hrs.
Hrs.
Holiday
Hrs.
Sunday
Hrs.
Training costs:
Training for Support Personnel:
* Non-SJ-conducted training of SJ Personnel:
Income from Housing/Rent Payments:
Unemployment Costs:
Administrative Overhead/Cost Pools (per FTE, identify employing entities):
Vehicle Costs:
Programmed Miles:
OWCP:
Completed by:
Date:
Email:
Phone:
* Do not include Smokejumper time
U.S. Forest Service
A-10
ADFF Study
Attachment 6
Platforms
The following are the current fixed-wing and rotor-wing aircraft in use by the Forest
Service:
Aircraft
Type
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
SJ
SJ
SJ
SJ
SJ
Manufacturer
Make/Model
Aerospatiale
Aerospatiale
Bell
Bell
Bell
Bell
Bell
Boeing
Sikorsky
Sikorsky
AS-350B-2 W Sand Filter
AS-350B-3 W/Sand Filter
205A1-212rotor-T5317A
206L-IV-TR
212HP
214ST
407
BV-234-LR40
S-58T-PT6-6-STC
S-61A Short W/Metal Blades
S-61A/N Carson Short Comp
Blades
Sikorsky
Construcciones Aeronauticus S.A
(CASA)
DeHavilland*
Dornier
Douglas**
Shorts Brothers
C-212-CC N109BH
DHC-6/Twin Otter
D228-202
DC-3TP
C23/Sherpa
*Both owned and contracted.
**Currently owned; contracted option is considered.
The following are the fixed-wing and rotor-wing aircraft approved by the Forest Service,
but not currently in use:
Aircraft
Type
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
U.S. Forest Service
Manufacturer
Make/Model
Aerospatiale
Agusta
Agusta
Bell
Bell
Bell
Eurocopter
Eurocopter
Eurocopter
Eurocopter
McDonnell Douglas
McDonnell Douglas
McDonnell Douglas
Sikorsky
Sikorsky
Sikorsky
SA-330J
A119
AW139
222UT
412
412HP
EC-130B4
EC-135 T2+
EC-145
EC-155B1
MD600N
MD900 with the PW 206 A
MD902 with the PW 207 E
S-70
S-76C+
S-92A
A-11
ADFF Study
Aircraft
Type
SJ
SJ
SJ
SJ
SJ
SJ
SJ
Manufacturer
Make/Model
Beech Craft*
Beech Craft*
Casa
Cessna
DeHavilland
Douglas**
Pilatus
200
B90
235
208
Dash 8
DC-3TP (Contracted)
PC12
*Considered both owned and contracted.
**Currently owned; contracted option is considered.
U.S. Forest Service
A-12
ADFF Study
Attachment 7
Commercial Airport Analysis
The model was run using commercial airports with the 2006 fire season data. The
following shows how the model was refined to generate the most feasible and economic
response.
1. All airports with runways greater than 4,000 feet and Jet A fuel were classified as
both smokejumper and helibases. All airports with runways less than 4,000 feet
and Jet A fuel were used as helibases. These two scenarios were run against one
another in the model.
2. Airports with fewer than 6 responses (i.e., closest to fewer than 6 fires in 2006)
were deleted from the list.
3. All airports with runways between 3,000 and 4,000 feet and with Jet A fuel were
entered as smokejumper bases and run against the previous entries in the model.
4. Any of these airports with fewer than 6 responses were deleted from the list.
5. All airports with runways greater than 4,000 feet and no Jet A fuel were entered
as both smokejumper and helibases. All airports with runways less than 4,000
feet and no Jet a fuel were entered as helibases. The model was run again with
these entries.
6. Any of these airports with fewer than 6 responses were deleted from the list.
7. All remaining airports with runways between 3,000 and 4,000 feet and no Jet A
fuel were entered as appropriate, and the model was run again.
8. Any of these airports with fewer than 6 responses were deleted from the list.
9. All United States FS bases from the model were entered into this earlier, closestbase-determining version, and the model run again.
10. Any of the remaining airports with fewer than 6 responses were deleted from the
list.
11. The output from this analysis was used to determine which commercial airports
were included in the final model based on construction costs and number of
responses.
U.S. Forest Service
A-13
ADFF Study
Attachment 8
Initial Attack Scenarios
1. 2 firefighters – no support
2. 2 firefighters + 2 more – no support
3. 2 firefighters + 2 more, bucket support (300 gallon bucket or 1 additional
firefighter)
4. 2 firefighters + 4 more – no support
5. 2 firefighters + 4 more, bucket support (300 gallon bucket or 1 additional
firefighter)
6. 2 firefighters + 4 more, retardant
7. 2 firefighters + 4 more, retardant, bucket support (600 gallon bucket or 2
additional firefighters)
8. 2 firefighters + 6 more – no support
9. 2 firefighters + 6 more, retardant
10. 2 firefighters + 6 more, retardant, bucket support (600 gallon bucket or 2
additional firefighters)
11. 2 firefighters + 8 more – no support
12. 2 firefighters + 8 more, retardant
13. 2 firefighters + 8 more, retardant, bucket support (900 gallon bucket or 3
additional firefighters)
14. 2 firefighters + 10 more – no support
15. 2 firefighters + 10 more, retardant
16. 2 firefighters + 10 more, retardant, bucket support (1200 gallon bucket or 4
additional firefighters)
Additional iterations add multiple helicopter support drops and perhaps multiple retardant
drops in scenarios 13-17.
U.S. Forest Service
A-14
ADFF Study
Attachment 9
Data Clean-Up
The following outlines the steps taken to convert the raw data provided by the Forest
Service into usable data for the model.
1. All fires occurring prior to CY 1997 were deleted. The total number of fires in the
ten year database is 92,348.
2. Fields that were blank or not necessary for the modeling effort were deleted.
(Note: Any fields deleted that were used for filling in blank data were deleted
after they were used):
PCHA_Fire_ID
Local_Fire_Number
BLM_Unit_ID
SO_Number, County_Code
District_Num
Region_Num
Protection_Agency
Ownership_At_Origin
Dispatch_Date
Second_Action_Date
Declared_Wildfire_Date
Contained_Date
Township
Quarter_Township
Range
Quarter_Range
Section
SubSection
Meridian_Code
Lat_Long_Source_ID
Slope_Describe
BLM_Slope_Code
Elevation_Code
Topo_Landform_Code
Report_Cause
Gen_Cause_Num
Spec_Cause_Num
People_Cause_Num
Local_Veg_Cover_Type
Fuel_At_Org
Map_On_File
Data_Source
FMAZKC
FMAZGIS
FMAZManual
FMAZUsed
FMAZ
RLGIS
RLManual
RLUsed
RL
NFDRSGIS
NFDRSFMManual
NFDRSFMUsed
NFDRSFM
Herb_AnnualKC
Herb_AnnualGIS
Herb_AnnualManual
Herb_Annual
Station_IDKC
Station_IDManual
Station_IDUsed
Station_ID
Station_Date
FILCalc
FILManual
FILUsed
FIL
ROS
ROSWx
ROSFIL
ROSROS
Remarks
DiscJulian
Agency_Acres_Burned
ProtectionForOther_Acres
Other_Acres_Burned
Topography
Agency
Unit
NIFMIDStatusID
Fire_Intensity_Source
Admin_Unit
Disc_Year
Fire_Number
NIFMIDAcres
FMUID
SensitivityPeriod
DH
Report_Unit
FMUIDManual
U.S. Forest Service
A-15
ADFF Study
FMUIDGIS
ProtectionType
ExcludeDup
FPAUse
WFMI_ID
WFMI_Org
WFMI_Unit
WFMI_UnitID
DATUM
FireCode
3. All duplicate fires two acres or larger were deleted. Duplication was determined
by finding fires where every column was identical, excluding KC Fire ID. If
entries had identical KC fire ID, these were also deleted as duplicates, as long as
the other data was the same between the two entries.
4. Missing Latitude and Longitude information was filled in by interpolating that
information from fires with the same Forest Number, State, Range, Quarter
Range, Section, and Subsection.
5. Latitude and Longitude were changed to decimal format by adding
Latitude/Longitude degrees, Minutes/60, and Seconds/3600, so that distance
could be easily determined.
6. Some fire classifications were determined to require one of two potential initial
response scenarios. In these cases, the different fuel models (FM) - within the
categories of Grass, Shrub, Timber, and Slash - were analyzed to determine which
FMs/combinations of FMs would add up to half of the total fires within each
category. One initial response was then assigned to the FMs that accounted for
one half of the fires in the category, and the other initial response was assigned to
the other half of the FMs.
7. There were 260 fires with blank or incorrect FMs. These fires were given an FM
of A because it is by far the most prevalent.
8. There were 730 fires with a Fire Intensity Level (FIL) of 0; these were assigned
an FIL of 1.
9. There were three fires with no state assigned. The state was determined based on
Forest Number, Latitude, and Longitude.
10. All fires where the protection agency was not Forest Service (USFS, FS, or blank)
were deleted. This Study includes the assumption that the Forest Service lends
resources to DOI fires as much as DOI lends resources to FS; therefore only FS
fires will be included.
11. Ignition Date years were changed to match the year of other date fields for 10
fires indicated as burning across multiple years
12. Blanks in Fire Out Date were filled in as follows:
a. If Control Date field was not blank, Fire Out Date = Control Date.
b. If Control Date field was blank, but the fire was not escaped and suppression
costs were less than $30,000, Fire Out Date = First Action Date.
c. If First Action Date field was blank, but the fire was not escaped and
suppression costs were less than $10,000, Fire Out Date = Discovery Date.
U.S. Forest Service
A-16
ADFF Study
d. If Suppression Costs were >$30,000 and the fire was not escaped, used the
typical time interval between Control Date and Fire Out Date for fires with
similar Sizeclass and Total Acres Burned.
e. If the fire was escaped, used twice the typical interval for fires with similar
Sizeclass and Total Acres Burned, or if there were other similar escaped fires,
used similar interval to those.
13. Blanks in the Ignition Date field were filled in with Discovery Date field.
14. Blanks in the Prescribed Fire field were filled in with N (assumed that all
prescribed fires would be properly documented).
15. Blanks in the Escaped Fire Field were filled in as follows:
a. If Prescribed Fire field = Y, Escaped Fire field = N.
b. If Suppression Cost < $100,000 or Control Date was within 2 days of
Discovery Date, Escaped Fire field = N (based on similar fires in database).
c. If Suppression Cost < $1M and Control Date was within 2 days of Discovery
Date, Escaped Fire field = N.
d. Otherwise, Escaped Fire field = Y.
16. Blanks in the Control Date field were filled in as follows:
a. If not escaped and Suppression Cost was not over $30,000, Control Date =
First Action Date.
b. If no First Action Date, not escaped, and Suppression Cost was not over
$10,000, Control Date = Discovery Date.
c. If Suppression Cost > $30,000 but not escaped, used typical time interval
between First Action Date and Control Date for fires with similar Sizeclass,
Total Acres burned, and that were not escaped.
d. If fire was escaped, Control Date was equal to date and time exactly in
between First Action Date and Fire Out Date, if those fields were not blank.
Otherwise, used similar fires as above, but escaped fires instead of fires that
were not escaped.
17. Blanks in the First Action Date field were filled in as follows:
a. If Suppression Cost > $0, First Action Date = Discovery Date.
b. Otherwise left blank (assumed no first action taken).
18. A list of response codes for all fires from 1997-2006 was received, and from that,
a list of all fires that received an ADFF response in those years was generated.
The model runs only on those fires which had an ADFF response, and the
proportion of response (# of firefighters in the model) is proportional to the
historical ADFF response proportions.
19. Several fields from the base responses that should be attributed to the firefighters
themselves and not the bases were identified. They are: Annual Fire Replacement
Costs, Administrative Costs, Logistical Costs, Training Costs, Unemployment
U.S. Forest Service
A-17
ADFF Study
Costs, Cost Pools, and OWCP. These costs were used to create an annual cost per
firefighter for both SJ and Helo personnel, which was applied based on base type.
20. Data provided by subject matter experts and bases (where information submitted
was judged to be accurate) was used to generate administrative and logistical
costs per firefighter, for both SJ and Helo personnel. This data was used instead
of the actual submitted data, which was too varied to be accurate.
21. The Study Team determined the annual operation and maintenance (O&M) and
major maintenance costs submitted by the bases were not accurate for use in the
model. Therefore, this information was pulled data from the INFRA database for
each base (all SJ bases were found), and a percentages of CRV used to determine
more accurate O&M costs. Deferred maintenance costs for base facilities were
used as the major maintenance costs. For helibases which did not have data in
INFRA, an average value across all helibases based on reported square footage
was used.
22. Since the model assigned a higher volume of flights to Grangeville, the barrack
facilities increased by 50% (40 personnel -> 60 personnel), and O&M and major
maintenance costs also increased accordingly.
23. The firefighter delivery capacities for helicopters were increased in proportion to
the number of gallons in the bucket using the following formula: 300 gallons = 1
firefighter.
U.S. Forest Service
A-18
ADFF Study
Attachment 10
Model Outputs
Bases
Missions
Base
Type
SJ
SJ
SJ
SJ
SJ
SJ
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
SJ
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Base Name
Grangeville Air
Center
West Yellowstone
Fresno Air Attack
San Bernardino
North Cascade
Smokejumper Base
Silver City
McCall
Ducktown
Payson Helibase
Lufkin
Glassy Mtn
Big Swag
Reserve
Ocala
ANGELINA
COUNTY
Silver City
Redmond
Ronan
Rolla
Region 5
Smokejumpers
Abingdon
Seed Orchard
Missoula
North Cascade
Smokejumper Base
Fresno Air Attack
Weyers Cave
Provo Helibase
Grangeville Air
Center
U.S. Forest Service
FY06
FY05
FY04
FY03
FY02
FY01
FY00
FY99
FY98
Average
289
217
9
270
290
116
302
303
301
233.0
205
191
207
113
111
105
188
146
84
165
182
159
131
110
73
233
161
102
229
147
125
133
164
111
18
143
46
157.2
150.6
112.4
131
11
186
111
78
167
94
78
155
112.3
117
81
40
78
11
6
48
43
1
114
69
36
45
12
5
35
29
11
96
91
57
42
42
63
41
23
71
115
76
2
47
8
21
7
41
14
110
79
88
35
84
99
47
45
76
99
62
0
7
1
0
11
29
8
140
110
40
46
70
37
35
73
24
95
90
121
43
118
96
95
1
107
99
121
0
30
3
0
4
38
3
109.4
86.6
42.7
41.4
38.8
36.3
35.9
35.8
35.0
7
8
68
17
67
1
58
82
0
34.2
34
45
58
15
15
11
12
36
20
17
30
64
50
23
27
31
15
43
11
29
33
63
17
7
65
7
52
38
52
35
31
55
21
55
51
7
33.9
33.2
32.1
31.3
38
5
42
44
14
56
25
45
11
31.1
19
0
19
31
16
33
33
55
20
1
0
43
78
69
10
0
3
10
32
17
34
83
97
56
0
0
26
30.8
28.6
27.9
15
6
36
16
17
15
18
20
22
18.3
41
14
26
0
20
11
18
13
16
23
2
14
4
42
4
17
1
43
9
13
14
33
47
3
20
0
1
18.3
16.9
14.7
19
5
7
41
0
0
17
19
22
14.4
A-19
ADFF Study
Missions
Base
Type
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
SJ
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
SJ
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
SJ
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
SJ
Helo
Helo
Base Name
FY06
FY05
FY04
FY03
FY02
FY01
FY00
FY99
FY98
Average
Hoosier Helibase
Durango
Black Hills
Swan Valley
West Yellowstone
Pittman Valley
Sandia Helibase
Ely Air Attack Base
Mt Ida
Rhinelander
Helibase
Bridgeport Helibase
Ogden Spike
Monument
Rifle
Indianola
Heaps Peak
Libby Helibase
McCall
Lakeview
TA-49 Helibase
Keenwild
Cadillac Helibase
Challis
Montague
Moyer
Hamilton Helibase
John Day
Quincy
Round Valley
Redmond
Mena
Ogden Spike
Krassel
Vernal Helibase
Wenatchee
Missoula
Smokejumper Base
Chilao
Musselshell Work
2
1
13
11
0
19
8
0
3
1
5
3
0
1
4
32
0
8
20
25
7
0
0
5
0
1
12
1
26
10
2
35
4
0
0
5
23
5
12
15
1
5
0
0
17
0
3
9
7
8
21
7
1
0
16
30
22
24
17
1
1
16
0
34
0
0
13
3
1
0
15
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
13
1
10.8
10.6
8.8
8.0
7.2
6.7
5.3
5.1
5.1
14
14
5
2
6
0
1
0
3
5.0
0
8
22
0
0
32
3
0
0
23
5
0
7
3
2
1
1
1
2
0
0
1
0
0
0
11
0
12
0
1
0
2
0
0
0
5
1
0
0
4
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
2
6
0
0
7
2
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
7
2
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
14
3
0
4
2
5
5
7
0
7
3
0
0
3
3
0
4
2
1
0
1
0
1
0
11
7
1
37
3
0
0
0
1
0
5
3
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
10
0
0
0
0
2
1
12
0
0
6
0
4
0
0
2
1
0
9
0
3
0
0
4
22
1
2
1
9
0
8
2
0
0
0
1
3
0
2
6
1
3
8
0
0
6
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
0
0
0
6
0
0
6
1
3
1
0
0
2
0
3
12
0
7
0
0
0
2
1
0
6
0
12
17
0
0
0
0
8
7
4
5
1
1
0
0
0
0
3
7
0
4.9
4.7
4.6
4.4
3.9
3.8
3.6
3.6
3.1
2.6
2.4
2.3
2.1
1.9
1.8
1.7
1.7
1.6
1.6
1.4
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.1
0.9
0
0
0
0
0
0
8
0
0
0.9
7
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
2
0.8
0.8
U.S. Forest Service
A-20
ADFF Study
Missions
Base
Type
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
SJ
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Base Name
Center
White Cloud
Prescott
Lucky Peak
Helibase and Fire
Station
Oakridge Helibase
Scott Valley
Trinity
Siskiyou Rappel
Base
BDI
Hungry Horse
Mariposa
Trimmer
Ft Washakie
Bald Mountain
Chester
Chuchupate
Independence
Kernville
Klamath River
Region 5
Smokejumpers
Big Hill
Helena Tanker
Base
Hailey
Price Valley
Arroyo Grande
Casitas
Coeur d'Alene
Frazier
Garden Valley
Hemet
Shenango Helibase
Mt Green
Orland
Peppermint
Pocatello Helibase
U.S. Forest Service
FY06
FY05
FY04
FY03
FY02
FY01
FY00
FY99
FY98
Average
0
3
0
1
0
1
3
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
0.8
0.7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
0.6
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
3
3
1
0
0
0
2
2
1
0
0
0
0.6
0.6
0.6
0
0
0
0
2
2
0
0
0
0.4
3
0
2
0
0
0
0
2
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
2
1
2
2
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0.2
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0.1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0.1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
A-21
ADFF Study
Missions
Base
Type
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Base Name
Prineville Helibase
Ramona
San Bernardino
Santa Maria
Santa Ynez
Sled Springs
Teton Interagency
Helo
Helibase
Helo Tucson Helibase
Helo Van Nuys
Fires with Response
Total Fires
Attack %
Total Cost
U.S. Forest Service
FY06
FY05
FY04
FY03
FY02
FY01
FY00
FY99
FY98
Average
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0
0
0
2210
2222
99.5%
$18,994,474
0
0
1379
1401
98.4%
$14,782,792
0
0
1851
1981
93.4%
$19,717,613
0
0
1930
1947
99.1%
$18,083,522
0
0
2057
2246
91.6%
$20,989,379
0
0
1555
1559
99.7%
$15,514,448
0
0
2311
2433
95.0%
$23,436,028
0
0
2595
2866
90.5%
$26,421,784
0
0
1487
1492
99.7%
$13,171,018
0.0
0.0
1930.55
2016.33
95.7%
$19,012,340
A-22
ADFF Study
Platforms
Missions
Make/Model
FY06
FY05
FY04
FY03
FY02
FY01
FY00
FY99
FY98
Average
200
206L-IV-TR
AW139
964
254
141
543
122
105
644
214
196
806
195
150
681
214
173
758
139
110
803
206
199
733
252
200
634
146
121
729.6
193.6
155.0
205A1-212rotorT5317A
212HP
SA-330J
148
112
140
119
193
104
214
246
71
149.7
134
136
105
78
182
152
86
85
231
117
67
43
145
96
256
139
53
0
139.9
94.0
74
38
0
100
76
61
131
107
52
71.0
55
62
98
0
39
101
69
64
73
36
47
33
93
79
61
70
62
33
66.3
53.1
0
0
0
0
89
0
85
119
49
38.0
33
0
0
0
30
0
0
2
9
0
0
6
32
0
0
0
17
0
0
5
8
0
0
7
38
0
0
7
13
75
66
8
14
48
0
0
21.6
13.7
7.3
3.9
0
0
0
0
0
6
0
0
12
2.0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
AS-350B-2 W
Sand Filter
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0
AS-350B-3
W/Sand Filter
C-212-CC N109BH
C23/Sherpa
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0
0.0
DHC-6/Twin Otter
Own
Dash 8
DC-3TP Own
S-61A Short
W/Metal Blades
BV-234-LR40
A119
EC-155B1
S-70
S-61A/N Carson
Short Comp
Blades
S-92A
214ST
222UT
235
407
412
412HP
U.S. Forest Service
A-23
ADFF Study
Missions
FY06
FY05
FY04
FY03
FY02
FY01
FY00
FY99
FY98
Average
D228-202
DC-3TP
DHC-6/Twin Otter
EC-130B4
EC-135 T2+
EC-145
MD600N
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
MD900 with the
PW 206 A
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0
MD902 with the
PW 207 E
PC12
S-58T-PT6-6-STC
S-76C+
200 Own
208
B90
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0
Make/Model
B90 Own
Fires with
Response
Total Fires
Attack %
2210
1379
1851
1930
2057
1555
2311
2595
1487
1930.55
2222
99.5%
1401
98.4%
1981
93.4%
1947
99.1%
2246
91.6%
1559
99.7%
2433
95.0%
2866
90.5%
1492
99.7%
2016.33
95.7%
Total Cost
$18,994,474
$14,782,792
$19,717,613
$18,083,522
$20,989,379
$15,514,448
$23,436,028
$26,421,784
$13,171,018
$19,012,340
Helo Missions
42.3%
44.9%
53.5%
39.1%
54.6%
35.0%
47.2%
58.6%
39.7%
47.1%
SJ Missions
57.7%
55.1%
46.5%
60.9%
45.4%
65.0%
52.8%
41.4%
60.3%
52.9%
U.S. Forest Service
A-24
ADFF Study
Base and Platform (Summary Base Management Details)
Base Name
Abingdon
Abingdon
Abingdon
Abingdon
Type
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
City
Abingdon
Abingdon
Abingdon
Abingdon
Abingdon
Helo
Abingdon
VA
Abingdon
Abingdon
ANGELINA COUNTY
ANGELINA COUNTY
ANGELINA COUNTY
ANGELINA COUNTY
Bald Mountain
Helo
Helo
SJ
SJ
SJ
SJ
Helo
Abingdon
Abingdon
LUFKIN
LUFKIN
LUFKIN
LUFKIN
Long Barn
VA
VA
TX
TX
TX
TX
CA
Bald Mountain
Helo
Long Barn
CA
BDI
Big Hill
Big Swag
Big Swag
Big Swag
Big Swag
Big Swag
Big Swag
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Douglas
Pollack Pines
Somerset
Somerset
Somerset
Somerset
Somerset
Somerset
AZ
CA
KY
KY
KY
KY
KY
KY
Big Swag
Helo
Somerset
KY
Big Swag
Big Swag
Black Hills
Black Hills
Black Hills
Black Hills
Black Hills
Black Hills
Bridgeport Helibase
Bridgeport Helibase
Bridgeport Helibase
Bridgeport Helibase
Bridgeport Helibase
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Somerset
Somerset
Custer
Custer
Custer
Custer
Custer
Custer
Bridgeport
Bridgeport
Bridgeport
Bridgeport
Bridgeport
KY
KY
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
Bridgeport Helibase
Helo
Bridgeport
CA
Bridgeport Helibase
Cadillac Helibase
Cadillac Helibase
Cadillac Helibase
Cadillac Helibase
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Bridgeport
Cadillac
Cadillac
Cadillac
Cadillac
CA
MI
MI
MI
MI
Cadillac Helibase
Helo
Cadillac
MI
Cadillac Helibase
Helo
Cadillac
MI
U.S. Forest Service
State
VA
VA
VA
VA
A-25
Make/Model
205A1-212rotor-T5317A
206L-IV-TR
212HP
AW139
S-61A Short W/Metal
Blades
S-70
SA-330J
200
Dash 8
DC-3TP Own
DHC-6/Twin Otter Own
AW139
S-61A Short W/Metal
Blades
SA-330J
BV-234-LR40
205A1-212rotor-T5317A
206L-IV-TR
212HP
A119
AW139
EC-155B1
S-61A Short W/Metal
Blades
S-92A
SA-330J
205A1-212rotor-T5317A
206L-IV-TR
212HP
A119
AW139
S-70
205A1-212rotor-T5317A
206L-IV-TR
212HP
AW139
BV-234-LR40
S-61A Short W/Metal
Blades
SA-330J
205A1-212rotor-T5317A
206L-IV-TR
212HP
AW139
S-61A Short W/Metal
Blades
SA-330J
Average Missions
9
3.8
5.8
0.4
4.6
0.7
6.6
1.6
9.4
17.7
5.6
0.1
0.1
0.3
0.1
7
6.2
10.2
0.1
0.9
0.1
2.7
0.1
8.6
1.1
5.3
1
0.1
0.7
0.6
1.2
0.8
0.9
1.2
0.3
0.1
0.3
0.2
1
0.8
0.1
0.1
0.1
ADFF Study
Base Name
Challis
Challis
Challis
Challis
Type
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Challis
Challis
Challis
Challis
State
ID
ID
ID
ID
Challis
Helo
Challis
ID
Challis
Chester
Helo
Helo
Challis
Chester
ID
CA
Chester
Helo
Chester
CA
Chilao
Chilao
Chuchupate
Chuchupate
Ducktown
Ducktown
Ducktown
Ducktown
Ducktown
Ducktown
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Lacanata
Lacanata
Gorman
Gorman
Copperhill
Copperhill
Copperhill
Copperhill
Copperhill
Copperhill
CA
CA
CA
CA
TN
TN
TN
TN
TN
TN
Ducktown
Helo
Copperhill
TN
Ducktown
Ducktown
Durango
Durango
Durango
Durango
Durango
Durango
Ely Air Attack Base
Ely Air Attack Base
Ely Air Attack Base
Ely Air Attack Base
Fresno Air Attack
Fresno Air Attack
Fresno Air Attack
Fresno Air Attack
Fresno Air Attack
Fresno Air Attack
Fresno Air Attack
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Copperhill
Copperhill
Durango
Durango
Durango
Durango
Durango
Durango
Ely
Ely
Ely
Ely
Fresno
Fresno
Fresno
Fresno
Fresno
Fresno
Fresno
TN
TN
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
MN
MN
MN
MN
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
Fresno Air Attack
Helo
Fresno
CA
Fresno Air Attack
Fresno Air Attack
Fresno Air Attack
Fresno Air Attack
Fresno Air Attack
Helo
Helo
SJ
SJ
SJ
Fresno
Fresno
Fresno
Fresno
Fresno
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
U.S. Forest Service
City
A-26
Make/Model
205A1-212rotor-T5317A
206L-IV-TR
A119
AW139
S-61A Short W/Metal
Blades
SA-330J
206L-IV-TR
S-61A Short W/Metal
Blades
BV-234-LR40
SA-330J
AW139
BV-234-LR40
205A1-212rotor-T5317A
206L-IV-TR
212HP
A119
AW139
EC-155B1
S-61A Short W/Metal
Blades
S-70
SA-330J
205A1-212rotor-T5317A
206L-IV-TR
212HP
AW139
BV-234-LR40
SA-330J
205A1-212rotor-T5317A
206L-IV-TR
212HP
AW139
205A1-212rotor-T5317A
206L-IV-TR
212HP
A119
AW139
BV-234-LR40
EC-155B1
S-61A Short W/Metal
Blades
S-70
SA-330J
200
Dash 8
DC-3TP Own
Average Missions
0.2
0.9
0.1
0.2
0.4
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.3
0.4
0.1
0.1
7
6.4
9.4
0.2
4.7
0.4
3
0.3
11.1
3.1
3.1
0.4
2.9
0.7
0.3
0.6
3.4
1
0.1
3.7
3.3
1.2
0.6
7.4
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.6
0.7
135.9
4.8
1.6
ADFF Study
Base Name
Fresno Air Attack
Ft Washakie
Ft Washakie
Glassy Mtn
Glassy Mtn
Glassy Mtn
Glassy Mtn
Glassy Mtn
Glassy Mtn
Glassy Mtn
Type
SJ
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
City
Fresno
Ft Washakie
Ft Washakie
Clayton
Clayton
Clayton
Clayton
Clayton
Clayton
Clayton
Glassy Mtn
Helo
Clayton
GA
Glassy Mtn
Glassy Mtn
Grangeville Air Center
Grangeville Air Center
Grangeville Air Center
Grangeville Air Center
Grangeville Air Center
Grangeville Air Center
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Clayton
Clayton
Grangeville
Grangeville
Grangeville
Grangeville
Grangeville
Grangeville
GA
GA
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
Grangeville Air Center
Helo
Grangeville
ID
Grangeville Air Center
Helo
Grangeville
ID
Grangeville Air Center
Grangeville Air Center
Grangeville Air Center
Grangeville Air Center
Grangeville Air Center
Hailey
Hamilton Helibase
Hamilton Helibase
Hamilton Helibase
Helo
SJ
SJ
SJ
SJ
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Grangeville
Grangeville
Grangeville
Grangeville
Grangeville
Hailey
Hamilton
Hamilton
Hamilton
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
MT
MT
MT
Hamilton Helibase
Helo
Hamilton
MT
Hamilton Helibase
Heaps Peak
Heaps Peak
Heaps Peak
Heaps Peak
Heaps Peak
Heaps Peak
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Hamilton
Lake Arrowhead
Lake Arrowhead
Lake Arrowhead
Lake Arrowhead
Lake Arrowhead
Lake Arrowhead
MT
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
Helena Tanker Base
Helo
Helena
MT
Hoosier Helibase
Hoosier Helibase
Hoosier Helibase
Hoosier Helibase
Hoosier Helibase
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Tell City
Tell City
Tell City
Tell City
Tell City
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
U.S. Forest Service
State
CA
WY
WY
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
A-27
Make/Model
DHC-6/Twin Otter Own
AW139
S-70
205A1-212rotor-T5317A
206L-IV-TR
212HP
A119
AW139
BV-234-LR40
EC-155B1
S-61A Short W/Metal
Blades
S-92A
SA-330J
205A1-212rotor-T5317A
206L-IV-TR
212HP
A119
AW139
BV-234-LR40
S-61A Short W/Metal
Blades
S-61A/N Carson Short
Comp Blades
SA-330J
200
Dash 8
DC-3TP Own
DHC-6/Twin Otter Own
AW139
205A1-212rotor-T5317A
206L-IV-TR
AW139
S-61A Short W/Metal
Blades
SA-330J
205A1-212rotor-T5317A
206L-IV-TR
212HP
AW139
BV-234-LR40
SA-330J
S-61A Short W/Metal
Blades
205A1-212rotor-T5317A
206L-IV-TR
212HP
AW139
BV-234-LR40
Average Missions
8.3
0.2
0.1
4.6
3.9
11.4
0.2
4
0.1
0.6
2.6
0.6
8.4
1.3
6.9
1
0.2
1.3
2
0.6
0.1
1
167.1
18
14
33.9
0.1
0.1
0.7
0.6
0.2
0.1
1.1
0.3
0.7
0.2
0.2
1.2
0.1
2.7
0.1
0.3
4.2
1
ADFF Study
Base Name
Type
Hoosier Helibase
Helo
Tell City
IN
Hoosier Helibase
Hoosier Helibase
Hoosier Helibase
Hungry Horse
Hungry Horse
Independence
Indianola
Indianola
Indianola
Indianola
Indianola
Indianola
Indianola
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Tell City
Tell City
Tell City
Hungry Horse
Hungry Horse
Independence
North Fork
North Fork
North Fork
North Fork
North Fork
North Fork
North Fork
IN
IN
IN
MT
MT
CA
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
Indianola
Helo
North Fork
ID
Indianola
John Day
John Day
John Day
John Day
John Day
John Day
Keenwild
Keenwild
Keenwild
Keenwild
Kernville
Kernville
Klamath River
Klamath River
Krassel
Krassel
Krassel
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
North Fork
John Day
John Day
John Day
John Day
John Day
John Day
Keenwild
Keenwild
Keenwild
Keenwild
Kernville
Kernville
Happy Camp
Happy Camp
Yellow Pine
Yellow Pine
Yellow Pine
ID
OR
OR
OR
OR
OR
OR
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
ID
ID
ID
Krassel
Helo
Yellow Pine
ID
Krassel
Lakeview
Lakeview
Lakeview
Lakeview
Lakeview
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Yellow Pine
Lakeview
Lakeview
Lakeview
Lakeview
Lakeview
ID
OR
OR
OR
OR
OR
Lakeview
Helo
Lakeview
OR
Lakeview
Helo
Lakeview
OR
Lakeview
Libby Helibase
Helo
Helo
Lakeview
Libby
OR
MT
U.S. Forest Service
City
State
A-28
Make/Model
S-61A Short W/Metal
Blades
S-70
S-92A
SA-330J
206L-IV-TR
BV-234-LR40
AW139
205A1-212rotor-T5317A
206L-IV-TR
212HP
A119
AW139
BV-234-LR40
EC-155B1
S-61A Short W/Metal
Blades
SA-330J
205A1-212rotor-T5317A
206L-IV-TR
212HP
AW139
BV-234-LR40
SA-330J
205A1-212rotor-T5317A
206L-IV-TR
212HP
AW139
AW139
SA-330J
206L-IV-TR
212HP
AW139
BV-234-LR40
EC-155B1
S-61A Short W/Metal
Blades
SA-330J
205A1-212rotor-T5317A
206L-IV-TR
212HP
AW139
BV-234-LR40
S-61A Short W/Metal
Blades
S-61A/N Carson Short
Comp Blades
SA-330J
205A1-212rotor-T5317A
Average Missions
1.2
0.6
0.1
0.6
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.6
0.3
0.1
0.1
1.7
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.8
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.8
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.9
1.1
0.3
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.7
0.1
0.2
1.3
0.4
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.6
0.4
ADFF Study
Base Name
Libby Helibase
Libby Helibase
Libby Helibase
Libby Helibase
Type
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Libby
Libby
Libby
Libby
State
MT
MT
MT
MT
Libby Helibase
Helo
Libby
MT
Libby Helibase
Lucky Peak Helibase
and Fire Station
Lucky Peak Helibase
and Fire Station
Lucky Peak Helibase
and Fire Station
Lufkin
Lufkin
Lufkin
Lufkin
Lufkin
Lufkin
Lufkin
Helo
Libby
MT
Make/Model
206L-IV-TR
212HP
AW139
BV-234-LR40
S-61A Short W/Metal
Blades
SA-330J
Helo
Boise
ID
205A1-212rotor-T5317A
0.1
Helo
Boise
ID
212HP
0.3
Helo
Boise
ID
AW139
0.1
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Lufkin
Lufkin
Lufkin
Lufkin
Lufkin
Lufkin
Lufkin
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
14.8
3.6
5.3
0.2
9.3
0.2
1.4
Lufkin
Helo
Lufkin
TX
Lufkin
Mariposa
Mariposa
Mariposa
McCall
McCall
McCall
McCall
McCall
McCall
McCall
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Lufkin
Mariposa
Mariposa
Mariposa
McCall
McCall
McCall
McCall
McCall
McCall
McCall
TX
CA
CA
CA
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
McCall
Helo
McCall
ID
McCall
Helo
McCall
ID
McCall
McCall
McCall
McCall
McCall
Mena
Mena
Missoula
Missoula
Missoula
Missoula
Missoula
Helo
Helo
SJ
SJ
SJ
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
McCall
McCall
McCall
McCall
McCall
Mena
Mena
Missoula
Missoula
Missoula
Missoula
Missoula
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
AR
AR
MT
MT
MT
MT
MT
205A1-212rotor-T5317A
206L-IV-TR
212HP
A119
AW139
BV-234-LR40
EC-155B1
S-61A Short W/Metal
Blades
SA-330J
205A1-212rotor-T5317A
212HP
AW139
205A1-212rotor-T5317A
206L-IV-TR
212HP
A119
AW139
BV-234-LR40
EC-155B1
S-61A Short W/Metal
Blades
S-61A/N Carson Short
Comp Blades
S-70
SA-330J
200
Dash 8
DC-3TP Own
206L-IV-TR
EC-155B1
205A1-212rotor-T5317A
206L-IV-TR
212HP
A119
AW139
U.S. Forest Service
City
A-29
Average Missions
0.6
0.1
1.1
0.4
0.6
0.3
1.8
2.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
15.3
26.7
13.8
2.3
13.8
4
0.3
3.4
0.3
0.1
6.4
1.6
1
1
1.2
0.1
2.9
7.7
2.3
1
8.8
ADFF Study
Base Name
Missoula
Missoula
Type
Helo
Helo
City
Missoula
Missoula
Missoula
Helo
Missoula
MT
Missoula
Helo
Missoula
MT
Missoula
Missoula
Missoula Smokejumper
Base
Missoula Smokejumper
Base
Missoula Smokejumper
Base
Montague
Montague
Montague
Montague
Monument
Monument
Monument
Monument
Monument
Monument
Moyer
Moyer
Moyer
Helo
Helo
Missoula
Missoula
MT
MT
Make/Model
BV-234-LR40
EC-155B1
S-61A Short W/Metal
Blades
S-61A/N Carson Short
Comp Blades
S-70
SA-330J
SJ
Missoula
MT
Dash 8
0.6
SJ
Missoula
MT
DC-3TP Own
0.2
SJ
Missoula
MT
DHC-6/Twin Otter Own
0.1
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Yreka
Yreka
Yreka
Yreka
Monument
Monument
Monument
Monument
Monument
Monument
Salmon
Salmon
Salmon
CA
CA
CA
CA
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
ID
ID
ID
1.4
0.2
0.1
0.1
1
0.9
0.6
1
0.1
1
0.1
0.2
1
Moyer
Helo
Salmon
ID
Moyer
Mt Ida
Mt Ida
Mt Ida
Musselshell Work
Center
Musselshell Work
Center
Musselshell Work
Center
Musselshell Work
Center
Musselshell Work
Center
North Cascade
Smokejumper Base
North Cascade
Smokejumper Base
North Cascade
Smokejumper Base
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Salmon
Mt Ida
Mt Ida
Mt Ida
ID
AR
AR
AR
206L-IV-TR
212HP
A119
AW139
205A1-212rotor-T5317A
206L-IV-TR
212HP
AW139
BV-234-LR40
SA-330J
206L-IV-TR
AW139
BV-234-LR40
S-61A Short W/Metal
Blades
SA-330J
206L-IV-TR
AW139
S-70
Helo
Pierce
ID
205A1-212rotor-T5317A
0.1
Helo
Pierce
ID
212HP
0.1
Helo
Pierce
ID
AW139
0.1
Helo
Pierce
ID
BV-234-LR40
0.2
Helo
Pierce
ID
S-61A Short W/Metal
Blades
0.2
Helo
Winthrop
WA
205A1-212rotor-T5317A
1.2
Helo
Winthrop
WA
206L-IV-TR
4.8
Helo
Winthrop
WA
212HP
6.2
U.S. Forest Service
State
MT
MT
A-30
Average Missions
1.2
0.1
1.2
0.2
0.1
2.3
0.1
0.3
4.8
0.1
0.2
ADFF Study
Base Name
North Cascade
Smokejumper Base
North Cascade
Smokejumper Base
North Cascade
Smokejumper Base
North Cascade
Smokejumper Base
North Cascade
Smokejumper Base
North Cascade
Smokejumper Base
North Cascade
Smokejumper Base
North Cascade
Smokejumper Base
North Cascade
Smokejumper Base
Oakridge Helibase
Oakridge Helibase
Type
City
State
Make/Model
Average Missions
Helo
Winthrop
WA
A119
1.2
Helo
Winthrop
WA
AW139
1.9
Helo
Winthrop
WA
BV-234-LR40
1.1
Helo
Winthrop
WA
S-61A Short W/Metal
Blades
0.3
Helo
Winthrop
WA
SA-330J
1.6
SJ
Winthrop
WA
200
90.1
SJ
Winthrop
WA
Dash 8
9.2
SJ
Winthrop
WA
DC-3TP Own
5.2
SJ
Winthrop
WA
DHC-6/Twin Otter Own
7.8
Helo
Helo
Oakridge
Oakridge
OR
OR
0.3
0.1
Oakridge Helibase
Helo
Oakridge
OR
Ocala
Ocala
Ocala
Ocala
Ocala
Ocala
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Tallahassee
Tallahassee
Tallahassee
Tallahassee
Tallahassee
Tallahassee
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
Ocala
Helo
Tallahassee
FL
Ocala
Ogden Spike
Ogden Spike
Ogden Spike
Ogden Spike
Ogden Spike
Ogden Spike
Ogden Spike
Payson Helibase
Payson Helibase
Payson Helibase
Payson Helibase
Payson Helibase
Payson Helibase
Payson Helibase
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
SJ
SJ
SJ
SJ
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Tallahassee
Ogden
Ogden
Ogden
Ogden
Ogden
Ogden
Ogden
Payson
Payson
Payson
Payson
Payson
Payson
Payson
FL
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
AZ
AZ
AZ
AZ
AZ
AZ
AZ
Payson Helibase
Helo
Payson
AZ
Payson Helibase
Helo
Payson
AZ
206L-IV-TR
212HP
S-61A Short W/Metal
Blades
205A1-212rotor-T5317A
206L-IV-TR
212HP
A119
AW139
EC-155B1
S-61A Short W/Metal
Blades
SA-330J
205A1-212rotor-T5317A
AW139
BV-234-LR40
200
Dash 8
DC-3TP Own
DHC-6/Twin Otter Own
205A1-212rotor-T5317A
206L-IV-TR
212HP
A119
AW139
BV-234-LR40
EC-155B1
S-61A Short W/Metal
Blades
S-61A/N Carson Short
Comp Blades
U.S. Forest Service
A-31
0.1
3.7
6.1
12.4
0.4
2
0.4
3.4
6.4
0.3
0.8
0.2
1.3
2.7
0.6
0.1
7.3
11.1
9.4
0.9
8.6
0.6
0.1
0.3
0.1
ADFF Study
Base Name
Payson Helibase
Pittman Valley
Pittman Valley
Pittman Valley
Pittman Valley
Type
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
City
Payson
Williams
Williams
Williams
Williams
Pittman Valley
Helo
Williams
AZ
Pittman Valley
Prescott
Prescott
Prescott
Price Valley
Provo Helibase
Provo Helibase
Provo Helibase
Provo Helibase
Provo Helibase
Provo Helibase
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Williams
Prescott
Prescott
Prescott
New Meadows
Provo
Provo
Provo
Provo
Provo
Provo
AZ
AZ
AZ
AZ
ID
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
Provo Helibase
Helo
Provo
UT
Provo Helibase
Quincy
Quincy
Helo
Helo
Helo
Provo
Quincy
Quincy
UT
CA
CA
Quincy
Helo
Quincy
CA
Quincy
Redmond
Redmond
Redmond
Redmond
Redmond
Redmond
Redmond
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Quincy
Redmond
Redmond
Redmond
Redmond
Redmond
Redmond
Redmond
CA
OR
OR
OR
OR
OR
OR
OR
Redmond
Helo
Redmond
OR
Redmond
Helo
Redmond
OR
Redmond
Redmond
Redmond
Redmond
Region 5
Smokejumpers
Region 5
Smokejumpers
Region 5
Smokejumpers
Region 5
Smokejumpers
Helo
SJ
SJ
SJ
Redmond
Redmond
Redmond
Redmond
Helo
U.S. Forest Service
State
AZ
AZ
AZ
AZ
AZ
Average Missions
3
1.2
2.1
1.1
2
OR
OR
OR
OR
Make/Model
SA-330J
205A1-212rotor-T5317A
206L-IV-TR
212HP
AW139
S-61A Short W/Metal
Blades
SA-330J
205A1-212rotor-T5317A
AW139
SA-330J
BV-234-LR40
205A1-212rotor-T5317A
206L-IV-TR
212HP
A119
AW139
BV-234-LR40
S-61A Short W/Metal
Blades
SA-330J
205A1-212rotor-T5317A
AW139
S-61A Short W/Metal
Blades
SA-330J
205A1-212rotor-T5317A
206L-IV-TR
212HP
A119
AW139
BV-234-LR40
EC-155B1
S-61A Short W/Metal
Blades
S-61A/N Carson Short
Comp Blades
SA-330J
200
Dash 8
DC-3TP Own
Redding
CA
205A1-212rotor-T5317A
4.7
Helo
Redding
CA
206L-IV-TR
8.4
Helo
Redding
CA
212HP
5.1
Helo
Redding
CA
A119
1.3
A-32
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.3
0.1
3.1
4.3
0.7
0.1
5.2
0.2
0.1
0.9
0.2
0.9
0.3
0.1
7
8.4
6.1
2.1
5.4
0.8
0.3
1
0.2
1.8
0.3
0.2
0.9
ADFF Study
Base Name
Region 5
Smokejumpers
Region 5
Smokejumpers
Region 5
Smokejumpers
Region 5
Smokejumpers
Region 5
Smokejumpers
Region 5
Smokejumpers
Region 5
Smokejumpers
Region 5
Smokejumpers
Region 5
Smokejumpers
Reserve
Reserve
Reserve
Reserve
Type
City
State
Make/Model
Average Missions
Helo
Redding
CA
AW139
6.4
Helo
Redding
CA
BV-234-LR40
1.2
Helo
Redding
CA
EC-155B1
0.4
Helo
Redding
CA
Helo
Redding
CA
Helo
Redding
CA
S-70
Helo
Redding
CA
SA-330J
SJ
Redding
CA
Dash 8
0.1
SJ
Redding
CA
DC-3TP Own
0.1
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Reserve
Reserve
Reserve
Reserve
NM
NM
NM
NM
8.9
12.8
1.8
10.2
Reserve
Helo
Reserve
NM
Reserve
Helo
Reserve
NM
Reserve
Rhinelander Helibase
Rhinelander Helibase
Rhinelander Helibase
Rhinelander Helibase
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Reserve
Rhinelander
Rhinelander
Rhinelander
Rhinelander
NM
WI
WI
WI
WI
Rhinelander Helibase
Helo
Rhinelander
WI
Rhinelander Helibase
Rifle
Rifle
Rifle
Rifle
Rifle
Rolla
Rolla
Rolla
Rolla
Rolla
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Rhinelander
Rifle
Rifle
Rifle
Rifle
Rifle
Rolla
Rolla
Rolla
Rolla
Rolla
WI
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
MO
MO
MO
MO
MO
Rolla
Helo
Rolla
MO
Rolla
Rolla
Ronan
Helo
Helo
Helo
Rolla
Rolla
Ronan
MO
MO
MT
205A1-212rotor-T5317A
206L-IV-TR
212HP
AW139
S-61A Short W/Metal
Blades
S-61A/N Carson Short
Comp Blades
SA-330J
205A1-212rotor-T5317A
206L-IV-TR
212HP
AW139
S-61A Short W/Metal
Blades
SA-330J
205A1-212rotor-T5317A
206L-IV-TR
212HP
AW139
SA-330J
205A1-212rotor-T5317A
206L-IV-TR
212HP
AW139
EC-155B1
S-61A Short W/Metal
Blades
S-70
SA-330J
205A1-212rotor-T5317A
U.S. Forest Service
A-33
S-61A Short W/Metal
Blades
S-61A/N Carson Short
Comp Blades
1
0.3
0.1
2
0.2
0.1
1.8
1.2
1.4
0.3
1.8
0.1
0.1
1.6
0.8
0.1
1.7
0.3
7.4
6.3
3.4
7.6
0.9
2.1
0.1
3.4
3.9
ADFF Study
Base Name
Ronan
Ronan
Ronan
Ronan
Ronan
Ronan
Type
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Ronan
Ronan
Ronan
Ronan
Ronan
Ronan
State
MT
MT
MT
MT
MT
MT
Ronan
Helo
Ronan
MT
Ronan
Round Valley
Round Valley
Round Valley
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Ronan
Springerville
Springerville
Springerville
MT
AZ
AZ
AZ
Round Valley
Helo
Springerville
AZ
Round Valley
San Bernardino
San Bernardino
San Bernardino
San Bernardino
Sandia Helibase
Sandia Helibase
Sandia Helibase
Sandia Helibase
Sandia Helibase
Sandia Helibase
Scott Valley
Scott Valley
Seed Orchard
Seed Orchard
Seed Orchard
Seed Orchard
Seed Orchard
Seed Orchard
Helo
SJ
SJ
SJ
SJ
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Springerville
San Bernadino
San Bernadino
San Bernadino
San Bernadino
Tijeras
Tijeras
Tijeras
Tijeras
Tijeras
Tijeras
Enta
Enta
Moncks Corner
Moncks Corner
Moncks Corner
Moncks Corner
Moncks Corner
Moncks Corner
AZ
CA
CA
CA
CA
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
CA
CA
SC
SC
SC
SC
SC
SC
Seed Orchard
Helo
Moncks Corner
SC
Seed Orchard
Silver City
Silver City
Silver City
Silver City
Silver City
Silver City
Silver City
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Moncks Corner
Hurley
Hurley
Hurley
Hurley
Hurley
Hurley
Hurley
SC
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
Silver City
Helo
Hurley
NM
Silver City
Helo
Hurley
NM
Silver City
Silver City
Helo
SJ
Hurley
Hurley
NM
NM
U.S. Forest Service
City
A-34
Make/Model
206L-IV-TR
212HP
A119
AW139
BV-234-LR40
EC-155B1
S-61A Short W/Metal
Blades
SA-330J
205A1-212rotor-T5317A
206L-IV-TR
AW139
S-61A Short W/Metal
Blades
SA-330J
200
Dash 8
DC-3TP Own
DHC-6/Twin Otter Own
205A1-212rotor-T5317A
206L-IV-TR
212HP
AW139
BV-234-LR40
SA-330J
206L-IV-TR
SA-330J
205A1-212rotor-T5317A
206L-IV-TR
212HP
A119
AW139
EC-155B1
S-61A Short W/Metal
Blades
SA-330J
205A1-212rotor-T5317A
206L-IV-TR
212HP
A119
AW139
BV-234-LR40
EC-155B1
S-61A Short W/Metal
Blades
S-61A/N Carson Short
Comp Blades
SA-330J
200
Average Missions
10
4.6
1.2
7.9
0.6
0.4
1.2
2.3
0.2
0.2
0.8
0.1
0.2
99.3
5.4
3
4.7
1.6
1
0.3
1.9
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.2
3
6.1
8.3
0.4
3.4
0.6
0.7
6
9.4
3
2.6
0.2
10.8
2.3
0.1
0.9
0.4
4.1
109
ADFF Study
Base Name
Silver City
Siskiyou Rappel Base
Type
SJ
Helo
Hurley
Grants Pass
State
NM
OR
Siskiyou Rappel Base
Helo
Grants Pass
OR
Siskiyou Rappel Base
Swan Valley
Swan Valley
Swan Valley
Swan Valley
Swan Valley
TA-49 Helibase
TA-49 Helibase
TA-49 Helibase
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Grants Pass
Swan Valley
Swan Valley
Swan Valley
Swan Valley
Swan Valley
Los Alamos
Los Alamos
Los Alamos
OR
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
NM
NM
NM
Trimmer
Helo
Prather
CA
Trimmer
Trinity
Trinity
Helo
Helo
Helo
Prather
Weaverville
Weaverville
CA
CA
CA
Trinity
Helo
Weaverville
CA
Trinity
Vernal Helibase
Vernal Helibase
Vernal Helibase
Vernal Helibase
Vernal Helibase
Vernal Helibase
Wenatchee
Wenatchee
Wenatchee
Wenatchee
Wenatchee
West Yellowstone
West Yellowstone
West Yellowstone
West Yellowstone
West Yellowstone
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Weaverville
Vernal
Vernal
Vernal
Vernal
Vernal
Vernal
East Wenatchee
East Wenatchee
East Wenatchee
East Wenatchee
East Wenatchee
West Yellowstone
West Yellowstone
West Yellowstone
West Yellowstone
West Yellowstone
CA
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
MT
MT
MT
MT
MT
West Yellowstone
Helo
West Yellowstone
MT
West Yellowstone
West Yellowstone
West Yellowstone
West Yellowstone
West Yellowstone
Weyers Cave
Weyers Cave
Weyers Cave
Weyers Cave
Helo
SJ
SJ
SJ
SJ
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
West Yellowstone
West Yellowstone
West Yellowstone
West Yellowstone
West Yellowstone
Weyers Cave
Weyers Cave
Weyers Cave
Weyers Cave
MT
MT
MT
MT
MT
VA
VA
VA
VA
U.S. Forest Service
City
A-35
Make/Model
Dash 8
AW139
S-61A Short W/Metal
Blades
SA-330J
205A1-212rotor-T5317A
206L-IV-TR
212HP
AW139
EC-155B1
205A1-212rotor-T5317A
206L-IV-TR
AW139
S-61A Short W/Metal
Blades
S-70
AW139
BV-234-LR40
S-61A Short W/Metal
Blades
SA-330J
205A1-212rotor-T5317A
206L-IV-TR
212HP
A119
AW139
BV-234-LR40
206L-IV-TR
212HP
AW139
BV-234-LR40
SA-330J
205A1-212rotor-T5317A
206L-IV-TR
212HP
AW139
BV-234-LR40
S-61A Short W/Metal
Blades
SA-330J
200
Dash 8
DC-3TP Own
DHC-6/Twin Otter Own
205A1-212rotor-T5317A
206L-IV-TR
212HP
A119
Average Missions
0.4
0.1
0.1
0.2
1.2
2.8
1.4
2.3
0.2
1
0.9
0.7
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.3
0.1
0.1
0.3
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.3
1.3
1.4
0.2
3
0.3
0.2
0.7
123.3
14.4
8.9
10.6
0.9
4.3
5.9
0.2
ADFF Study
Base Name
Weyers Cave
Weyers Cave
Type
Helo
Helo
City
Weyers Cave
Weyers Cave
State
VA
VA
Weyers Cave
Helo
Weyers Cave
VA
Weyers Cave
Weyers Cave
Weyers Cave
White Cloud
White Cloud
White Cloud
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Weyers Cave
Weyers Cave
Weyers Cave
Grass Valley
Grass Valley
Grass Valley
VA
VA
VA
CA
CA
CA
White Cloud
Helo
Grass Valley
CA
White Cloud
Helo
Grass Valley
CA
U.S. Forest Service
A-36
Make/Model
AW139
EC-155B1
S-61A Short W/Metal
Blades
S-70
S-92A
SA-330J
205A1-212rotor-T5317A
206L-IV-TR
212HP
S-61A Short W/Metal
Blades
SA-330J
Average Missions
1.3
0.1
0.9
0.2
0.1
2.9
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
ADFF Study
Attachment 11
Actual Versus Model Comparison
Platforms
The following table shows a comparison between using current platforms and current
plus potential platforms.
Make/Model
407
DHC-6/Twin Otter Own
AS-350B-2 W Sand Filter
214ST
S-61A/N Carson Short Comp
Blades
DC-3TP Own
205A1-212rotor-T5317A
D228-202
200
206L-IV-TR
AW139
SA-330J
212HP
Dash 8
BV-234-LR40
Fires with Response
Total Fires
Attack %
Total Cost
Helo Missions
SJ Missions
U.S. Forest Service
FY 06 Missions
Current & Potential
Current Platforms
Platforms
504
0
401
74
376
0
303
0
177
140
83
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2172
2222
97.7%
$21,467,080
63.3%
36.7%
A-37
0
62
148
0
964
254
141
136
134
55
33
2210
2222
99.5%
$18,994,474
42.3%
57.7%
ADFF Study
Bases
The following table shows a comparison of the bases when using only current platforms
and when potential platforms are included.
Base Type
Helo
SJ
SJ
Helo
SJ
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
SJ
Helo
Helo
Helo
SJ
Helo
Helo
Helo
SJ
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
SJ
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
U.S. Forest Service
Base Name
Payson Helibase
Fresno Air Attack
San Bernardino
Grangeville Air Center
Grangeville Air Center
John Day
Ronan
Provo Helibase
TA-49 Helibase
Oakridge Helibase
West Yellowstone
Monument
Challis
Pittman Valley
North Cascade Smokejumper
Base
Libby Helibase
Montague
Big Swag
Silver City
Reserve
Ducktown
Heaps Peak
Black Hills
Swan Valley
Bald Mountain
Siskiyou Rappel Base
Abingdon
Durango
Weyers Cave
Rolla
Lufkin
Chilao
Rhinelander Helibase
Missoula
Ogden Spike
Round Valley
Wenatchee
BDI
Glassy Mtn
Chuchupate
Mariposa
Ely Air Attack Base
Prescott
Scott Valley
A-38
FY 06 Missions
Current & Potential
Current Platforms
Platforms
143
78
127
191
116
207
110
19
109
289
88
1
86
58
85
26
84
23
75
0
74
205
73
22
71
7
63
19
58
131
58
53
48
47
44
40
37
32
30
27
23
19
15
14
13
11
11
9
8
8
8
7
6
5
5
5
5
4
4
3
3
48
117
43
40
32
13
11
0
0
19
1
14
15
11
7
14
19
8
2
0
3
6
2
2
0
3
0
ADFF Study
Base Type
Base Name
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Helo
Mena
Musselshell Work Center
White Cloud
Redmond
Ft Washakie
Indianola
Klamath River
Region 5 Smokejumpers
Hoosier Helibase
Hamilton Helibase
Ocala
Price Valley
Quincy
Chester
Frazier
Garden Valley
Helena Tanker Base
Prineville Helibase
McCall
Fresno Air Attack
Silver City
North Cascade Smokejumper
Base
Helo
Sandia Helibase
Helo
Keenwild
Helo
Mt Ida
Helo
Moyer
Helo
Trinity
Helo
Kernville
Helo
Ogden Spike
SJ
ANGELINA COUNTY
Fires with Response
Total Fires
Attack %
Total Cost
U.S. Forest Service
A-39
FY 06 Missions
Current & Potential
Current Platforms
Platforms
3
0
3
0
3
0
2
45
2
0
2
0
2
0
1
38
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
0
81
0
41
0
34
0
15
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2172
2222
97.7%
$21,467,080
8
5
3
2
2
1
1
7
2210
2222
99.5%
$18,994,474
ADFF Study
Summary
Current Platforms
FY06
FY05
FY04
FY03
FY02
FY01
FY00
FY99
FY98
Average
Fires with Response
2172
1322
1716
1895
1925
1530
2184
2406
1474
1847.1
Total Fires
2222
1401
1981
1947
2246
1559
2433
2866
1492
2016.3
97.7%
94.4%
86.6%
97.3%
85.7%
98.1%
89.8%
83.9%
98.8%
91.6%
Total Cost
$21,034,661
$13,822,285
$17,139,636
$18,264,705
$20,740,275
$14,731,215
$22,402,207
$23,787,947
$15,934,638
$ 18,650,841
Extrapolated Total Cost
Attack %
$21,467,080
$14,427,672
$18,588,239
$18,653,882
$22,178,068
$15,001,477
$23,785,948
$25,841,937
$16,075,174
$ 19,557,720
Helo Missions
63.3%
61.7%
69.3%
66.7%
67.2%
69.1%
61.1%
71.1%
74.0%
66.9%
SJ Missions
36.7%
38.3%
30.7%
33.3%
32.8%
30.9%
38.9%
28.9%
26.0%
33.1%
Current and Potential Platforms
Fires with Response
Total Fires
Attack %
Total Cost
FY06
FY05
FY04
FY03
FY02
FY01
FY00
FY99
FY98
Average
2210
2222
99.5%
1379
1401
98.4%
1851
1981
93.4%
1930
1947
99.1%
2057
2246
91.6%
1555
1559
99.7%
2311
2433
95.0%
2595
2866
90.5%
1487
1492
99.7%
1930.55
2016.33
95.7%
$18,994,474
14,782,792
$19,717,613
$18,083,522
$20,989,379
$15,514,448
$23,436,028
$26,421,784
$13,171,018
$19,012,340
Helo Missions
42.3%
44.9%
53.5%
39.1%
54.6%
35.0%
47.2%
58.6%
39.7%
47.1%
SJ Missions
57.7%
55.1%
46.5%
60.9%
45.4%
65.0%
52.8%
41.4%
60.3%
52.9%
Cost Comparison
Ideal Current Platform Costs – Ideal Model Platform Costs
Estimated Minimum
Model Savings
U.S. Forest Service
FY06
FY05
FY04
FY03
FY02
FY01
FY00
FY99
FY98
Average
2,472,606
$(355,120)
$(1,129,374)
$570,360
$1,188,689
$(512,971)
$349,920
$(579,847)
$2,904,156
$545,380
A-40
ADFF Study
Attachment 12
Summary of Inter-Regional Concept Recommendation
The FS proposes the Inter-Regional Concept alternative for ADFF (both smokejumper
and helitack/rappel operations). This recommendation proposes the sharing of base
locations and ADFF resources by adjacent Regions. ADFF resources will be managed
through a centralized decision point within an inter-Regional group. Thus, coordination
will be handled on a Regional, rather than national, level. Each Regional grouping will
have a base-level capacity available through the duration of the primary fire season,
including shoulder seasons.
Bases and ADFF resources will be organized at the inter-Regional level, and will be
located so as to meet the workload needs of the inter-Regional group. Surge-capacity
will be provided through rotation of additional ADFF resources according to historical
season peaks (see table below).
Regional Group
February May
X
Regions 8,9
Regions 1,2,3,4
Regions 5,6,10
*Note: Surge timeframes may vary.
Surge Capacity Timeframe
August June - July
September
X
X
X
X
October November
X
X
Within these surge periods, the Regional groups identified in the table will operate as a
cohesive unit to allocate resources. The priorities for allocation of resources will be
evaluated at a group level, rather than by individual Region.
Aircraft
In order to standardize alternatives for each recommendation, the Team opted to
recommend fixed-wing aircraft as either large or small, and rotor-wing aircraft as Type I,
II, or III.
The following table shows the total array of fixed-wing assets recommended as model
solutions, correlated with the number of times the model chose that platform as an
“optimal solution.”
Aircraft Make
and Model
King Air 200
DHC-6/Twin
Otter Own
Dash 8
DC-3TP Own
Mission Total
Per Aircraft
Type
729.6
71.0
66.3
53.1
Percentage
79.3%
7.7%
7.2%
5.8%
Category
Total
Percentage
Small
800.6
87.0%
Large
119.4
13.0%
Although the model indicates the majority of smokejumper aircraft should be small, the
Study Team recommends a more balanced mix of large versus small standard category
airplanes to preserve mission flexibility. The Team recommends one third of the fleet be
large smokejumper platforms, and a mix of King Air 200’s and DHC-6 Twin Otters for
the small aircraft platform.
U.S. Forest Service
A-41
ADFF Study
The following table represents the total array of standard category helicopter platforms
recommended as model solutions, correlated with the number of times the model chose
that platform as an “optimal solution.”
Mission Total Per
Aircraft Type
Percentage
Type
Total Missions
per Type
206L-IV-TR
193.6
23.6%
III
III
AW139
155.0
18.9%
II
207.2
205A1-212rotor-T5317A
149.7
18.3%
II
II
212HP
139.9
17.1%
II
451.9
SA-330J
94.0
11.5%
I
I
S-61A Short W/Metal Blades
38.0
4.6%
I
160.3
BV-234-LR40
21.6
2.6%
I
A119
13.7
1.7%
III
EC-155B1
7.3
0.9%
II
S-70
3.9
0.5%
I
S-61A/N Carson Short Comp
Blades
2.0
0.2%
S-92A
0.9
0.1%
Aircraft Make and Model
Percentage
25.3%
55.2%
19.5%
I
I
As illustrated in the table above, Type II helicopters are recommended the majority of
time at just over 55%, followed by Type III’s at 25%, and Type I’s at approximately
20%. Although the solutions above provide very useful guidelines in terms of the
appropriate mix of helicopter types (I, II, or III), they cannot be applied in a literal sense
based on the realities of the availability of helicopters (at least in the short-term). In
reality, comparable substitutions for available helicopter models must be considered.
For purposes of alternative costing, the Study Team recommends using the ratio of
helicopter models listed in the platform section, correlated with the mix (percentages)
recommended above.
Smokejumper Program
For the smokejumper program, the Study Team recommends the use of both permanent
and satellite bases. In this alternative, three primary bases are converted to satellite
bases, and a specific number of aircraft are assigned to the base. The proposed locations
are as follows:
Total Missions
(avg. annual)
Aircraft
Primary Base
Regions 1, 2, 3, 4
508.8
2 – large
4 – small
Missoula
McCall
Regions 5,6,8,9,10
411.1
2 – large
4 – small
Redmond
Redding
Regional Group
U.S. Forest Service
A-42
Satellite Base
West Yellowstone
Grangeville
Ogden
Silver City
Winthrop
San Bernadino
Fresno
Lufkin
ADFF Study
Helicopter Program
For the helicopter program, the Study Team recommends the Inter-Regional Concept
with some adjustments. As the Team analyzed results, it became apparent that total
mobility is not as achievable for helicopters. The strength of the helicopter is its multiple
use capability, as opposed to its range and speed. Therefore, a greater dispersal of
helicopters geographically is advantageous. This alternative would relocate 18-20
helicopters and crews to new locations, all but one of which are existing helibases. Initial
attack helicopters must be managed as a geographic area resource and controlled by the
geographic area coordination centers.
The following table shows the proposed helicopter bases and location and type of
platforms for the Eastern US Group.
Helicopter Bases
Average
Missions
Recommended
Platform Type
Abingdon, VA
30.8
1 type III
Big Swag, KY
35.9
1 type III
Cadillac, MI*
2.3
0
Ducktown, TN
42.7
1 type II
Ely, MN*
5.1
1 type III
Glassy Mountain, GA
36.3
1 type III
Hoosier, IN*
10.8
1 type III
Lufkin, TX
38.8
2 type III
Mena, AR
1.3
1 type III
Mt. Ida, AR
5.1
1 type III
Ocala, FL
35.0
1 type III
Rhinelander, WI*
5.0
0
Rolla, MO*
31.3
1 type III
Seed Orchard, SC
28.6
1 type III
Weyers Cave, VA
16.9
1 type III
*Three helicopter bases are shared between five bases.
Consolidating Mena to Mt. Ida and dropping one helicopter would save the FS
approximately $29,302 annually.
The following table shows the proposed helicopter bases and location and type of
platforms for the Western US Group.
Helicopter Bases
U.S. Forest Service
Average
Missions
Recommended
Platform Type
Arroyo Grande, CA*
0.0
1 type II
Bald MT, CA*
0.2
1 type II
BDI, AZ*
0.3
0
A-43
ADFF Study
Helicopter Bases
U.S. Forest Service
Average
Missions
Recommended
Platform Type
Big Hill, CA*
0.1
1 type II
Black Hills, SD
8.8
1 type III
Bridgeport, CA
4.9
1 type III
Challis, ID
2.1
0
Chileao, CA*
0.8
1 type II
Chuchupate, CA*
0.2
1 type II
Coeur D’Alene, ID*
0.0
0
Durango, CO
10.6
1 type III **
Fresno, CA
18.3
0
Ft. Washakie, WY*
0.3
1 type III
Garden Valley, ID*
0.0
0
Grangeville, ID
14.4
2 type III
Green Mountain, UT*
0.0
1 type III
Hailey, ID*
0.1
1 type III
Hamilton, MT
1.7
1 type III
Heaps Peak, CA
3.8
1 type II
Helena, MT*
0.1
0
Hungry Horse, MT*
0.3
1 type III
Independence, CA*
0.2
1 type II
Indianola, ID
3.9
0
Keenwild, CA
2.4
1 type III
Kernville, CA*
0.2
1 type II
Klamath River, CA*
0.2
1 type II
Krassel, ID
1.3
1 type III
Libby, MT
3.6
1 type III
Lucky Peak, ID*
0.6
1 type II, 1 type III
McCall, ID
86.6
0
Missoula, MT
27.9
1 type III
Montague, CA
1.9
0
Monument, CO
4.6
1 type III
Musselshell, ID*
0.8
0
Ogden, UT
1.3
0
Orland, CA*
0.0
0
Payson, AZ
41.4
2 type III
Peppermint, CA*
0.0
1 type II
Pittman Valley, AZ
6.7
1 type III
A-44
ADFF Study
Helicopter Bases
Average
Missions
Recommended
Platform Type
Pocatello, ID*
0.0
0
Prescott, AZ*
0.7
1 type III
Price Valley, ID*
0.1
2 type II
Provo, UT
14.7
3 type III
Quincy, CA
1.6
1 type II
Ramona, CA*
0.0
1 type II
Redding, CA
31.1
0
Reserve, NM
35.8
1 type III
Rifle, CO
4.4
1 type III
Ronan, MT
32.1
1 type III
Round Valley, AZ
1.6
1 type III
Salmon, ID
1.8
1 type II, 2 type III
Sandia, NM
5.3
1 type III
Santa Maria, CA*
0.0
0
Santa Ynez, CA*
0.0
1 type II
Scott Valley, CA*
0.6
1 type II
Shenango, MT*
0.0
0
Silver City, NM
33.9
1 type III
Swan Valley, ID
8.0
1 type III
TA 49, NM
2.6
0
Teton, WY*
0.0
2 type III
Trimmer, CA*
0.3
1 type II
Trinity, CA*
0.6
1 type II
Tucson, AZ*
0.0
0
Vernal, UT
1.1
0
West Yellowstone, MT
7.2
1 type II
White Cloud, CA*
0.8
1 type II
*These locations have less than one mission on average.
** The Team proposes adding one helicopter to Durango, CO, which currently has
none.
The Team recommends Ramona remain intact as a base due to its geographic
location and proximity to other bases (costs of $44,093), and Hailey (costs of
$35,604) remain due to its geographic location in proximity to adjacent consolidated
bases. Prescott should be maintained in its current status (costs of $237,567). Both
Vernal (costs of $43,303) and Teton (costs of $68,042) should remain intact due to
interagency commitments. The John Day base remains intact, Lakeview base
remains due to interagency components, and Rogue Siskiyou base (costs of $80,321)
U.S. Forest Service
A-45
ADFF Study
remains as terrain is not conducive to smokejumping. The Redmond requirements
will be met from Prineville base (savings of $56,406 over model).
The Team recommends closing the following helibases:
Helicopter Bases
Savings
Coeur D’Alene
$69,828
Oakridge
$4,807
Orland
$12,680
Pocatello
$56,935
San Bernardino
$31,829
TA 49
$43,339
The Team recommends the following consolidations of helibases:
Helicopter Bases
Move to:
Savings
Santa Ynez
Casitas*
$40,050
White Cloud
Chester*
$51,261
Chuchupate
$101,130
Fresno**
$60,620
Grangeville
$85,315
Heaps Peak *
$65,493
Independence
Hemet*
$64,663
Garden Valley
Lucky Peak
$69,974
Santa Maria
Mariposa*
$17,344
Tucson
Payson
$90,884*
Frazier
Prineville
$107,274
Sled Springs
Prineville
$96,734
Mountain Green
Provo
$135,613
Ogden
Provo
$56,406
Klamath River
Redding**
$74,687
Trinity
Redding**
$99,024
Bald Mt.
Sacramento
$48,138
Big Hill
Sacramento
$61,177
Peppermint
Sacramento
$60,113
Scott Valley
Sacramento
$68,103
Challis
Salmon
$26,234
Indianola
Salmon
$84,671
Silver City
$44,731
Shenango
West Yellowstone
$195, 334
Wenatchee
Winthrop**
$90,758
Arroyo Grande
Kernville
Musselshell
Van Nuys
BDI
U.S. Forest Service
A-46
ADFF Study
*Team also recommends moving a helicopter to Payson
**Consolidation to Redding of Trinity and Klamath River will incur an additional cost of
$56,406. Consolidation of Kernville to Fresno will incur an additional cost of $56,406.
Consolidation of Wenatchee to Winthrop will incur an additional cost of $56,406. Consolidation
of Garden Valley to Lucky Peak will incur an additional cost of $130,936.
The following become “surge” capability aircraft:
Helicopter Bases
Average Missions
Recommended
Platform Type
Frazier, OR*
0.0
1 type III
John Day, OR
1.7
1 type II
Lakeview, OR
3.1
1 type II
Oakridge, OR*
0.6
0
Prineville, OR*
0.0
1 type III
Redmond, OR
33.2
0
Siskiyou, OR*
0.4
1 type III
Sled Springs, OR*
0.0
1 type II
Wenatchee, WA*
0.9
1 type II, 1 type III
Winthrop, WA
18.3
0
Bases with less than one average mission will transition to surge capability and will be
located with other helicopter bases.
The following bases would have no ADFF:
Helicopter Bases
Average Missions
Casitas, CA
0.0
Chester, CA
0.2
Hemet, CA
0.0
Mariposa, CA
0.3
San Bernardino, CA
0.0
Van Nuys, CA
0.0
Costs and Savings
The Inter-Regional recommendation results in no savings over the current configuration
for smokejumper operations, and is at least $1.43 million more expensive than model
results annually.
The costs for the four primary smokejumper bases are as follows:
Base
Cost
$701,580
$716,244
$713,304
$713,136
McCall
Missoula
Redding
Redmond
The Inter-Regional recommendation results in approximately $1.91 million of savings
(annually) over the current configuration for helitack/rappel operations, and is at least
$997,135 more expensive than ideal model results (annually).
U.S. Forest Service
A-47
ADFF Study