U.S. Fire Administration/Technical Report Series

Special Report:

Mutual Aid: Lessons Learned 

from the California System

USFA-TR-042/January 1991

Homeland

Security

U.S. Fire Administration Fire Investigations Program

T

he U.S. Fire Administration develops reports on selected major fires throughout the country. 

The fires usually involve multiple deaths or a large loss of property. But the primary criterion 

for deciding to do a report is whether it will result in significant “lessons learned.” In some 

cases these lessons bring to light new knowledge about fire--the effect of building construction or 

contents, human behavior in fire, etc. In other cases, the lessons are not new but are serious enough 

to highlight once again, with yet another fire tragedy report. In some cases, special reports are developed to discuss events, drills, or new technologies which are of interest to the fire service.

The reports are sent to fire magazines and are distributed at National and Regional fire meetings. The 

International Association of Fire Chiefs assists the USFA in disseminating the findings throughout the 

fire service. On a continuing basis the reports are available on request from the USFA; announcements of their availability are published widely in fire journals and newsletters.

This body of work provides detailed information on the nature of the fire problem for policymakers 

who must decide on allocations of resources between fire and other pressing problems, and within 

the fire service to improve codes and code enforcement, training, public fire education, building 

technology, and other related areas.

The Fire Administration, which has no regulatory authority, sends an experienced fire investigator 

into a community after a major incident only after having conferred with the local fire authorities 

to insure that the assistance and presence of the USFA would be supportive and would in no way 

interfere with any review of the incident they are themselves conducting. The intent is not to arrive 

during the event or even immediately after, but rather after the dust settles, so that a complete and 

objective review of all the important aspects of the incident can be made. Local authorities review 

the USFA’s report while it is in draft. The USFA investigator or team is available to local authorities 

should they wish to request technical assistance for their own investigation.

For additional copies of this report write to the U.S. Fire Administration, 16825 South Seton Avenue, 

Emmitsburg, Maryland 21727. The report is available on the Administration’s Web site at http://

www.usfa.dhs.gov/

Special Report:

Multiple Aid: Lessons Learned

from the California System

Report by: Carolyn Perroni

This is Report 042 of the Major Fires Investigation Project conducted

by TriData Corporation under contract EMW-90-C-3338 to the United

States Fire Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency.

Homeland

Security

Department of Homeland Security

United States Fire Administration

National Fire Data Center

U.S. Fire Administration

Mission Statement

As an entity of the Department of Homeland 

Security, the mission of the USFA is to reduce life and economic losses due to fire 

and related emergencies, through leadership, advocacy, coordination, and support. 

We serve the Nation independently, in coordination with other Federal agencies, 

and in partnership with fire protection and 

emergency service communities. With a 

commitment to excellence, we provide public education, training, technology, and data 

initiatives.

Homeland

Security

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Interview with the following individuals contributed important information and perspective for 

this report.

Richard Adams Assistant Director for Fire Operations, U.S. Forest Service – Washington, 

D.C.

C. Richard Aronson Chief State Fire and Rescue Coordinator, California Office of Emergency 

Services

Stanley C. Lake Deputy Chief for Cooperative Fire Services, California Department of 

Forestry and Fire Protection

Lloyd M. Limprecht, Division Chief for Fire Protection Planning, California Department of 

Forestry and Fire Protection

Dave Mack Chief of Fire Prevention, California Department of Forestry and Fire 

Protection

William M. Medegovich Regional Director, Federal Emergency Management Agency – San 

Francisco

William J. Patterson Program Specialist, Natural and Technological Hazards Division, Federal 

Emergency Management Agency – San Francisco

Donald G. Perry Deputy Chief, Santa Barbara County Fire Department

Richard Peterson Chief, Santa Barbara County Fire Department

Mike Sherr Deputy Chief State Fire and Rescue Coordinator, California Office of 

Emergency Services

Keith E. Simmons Operations Chief, Santa Barbara County Fire Department

Robert L. Solari Regional Mobilization Coordinator, Aviation and Fire Management, US. 

Forest Service – San Francisco

Kenneth J. Stanley Deputy Chief for Fire Control Operations, California Department of 

Forestry and Fire Protection

Dick Starr, Deputy Chief State Fire and Rescue Coordinator, California Office of 

Emergency Services

William C. Teie Deputy Director for Fire Protection, California Department of Forestry 

and Fire Protection

Jack W. Wiest Staff Chief for Fire Planning, Research and Cooperative Fire, California 

Department of Forestry and Fire Protection

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

HOW THE MUTUAL AID SYSTEM WAS DESIGNED. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

History. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

The Master Agreement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

The Structure. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Resource Mobilization. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

FIRESCOPE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Multi-Agency Coordination System (MACS). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Incident Command System (ICS). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

The Department of Forestry and Fire Protection’S ROLE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

HOW THE MUTUAL AID SYSTEM IS USED. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

THE “PAINT” FIRE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

NON-FIRE INCIDENTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

WHY CALIFORNIA’S MUTUAL AID SYSTEM WORKS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Appendices. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

A. California Disaster and Civil Defense Master Mutual Aid Agreement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

B. Map of California Mutual Aid Regions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

C. The “Five-Party Agreement”Cooperative Agreement between California OES; CDF; 

USFS, Pacific Southwest Region; U.S. Bureau of Land Management, California Office; 

and U.S. National Park Service, Western Region. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

D. ICS and Link Between ICS and Mutual Aid System. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

E. Map of Wildland Fire Protection Responsibility Areas. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

F. “Paint” Fire Area Map. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

G. Loma Prieta Earthquake: Structural Collapse of I-880 and Status Map of 

Trapped Vehicles. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

H. Bibliography. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

1

INTRODUCTION

Mutual aid – help among neighbors – is an integral part of emergency response. Mutual aid becomes 

more important and more complicated as the magnitude of emergency incidents increases and the 

size of individual community budgets decreases. Given the current economic and social climate, it 

is simply unrealistic to assume that a single community has all the resources required to cope with 

any and all emergencies it may face.

The State of California has developed over the last 40 years an exemplary Statewide Fire and Rescue 

Mutual Aid System. Designed as part of the State’s overall multi-hazard emergency response, the 

mutual aid system has been used in a wide range of fire and non-fire incidents.

The system is not unique; many States have mutual aid systems. However, because it is exercised 

continually on the plethora of wildland fire incidents in the State, the system has achieved a degree 

of sophistication not often seen in other systems.

A testament to the respect the Fire and Rescue Mutual Aid System has gained within the State, similar 

systems have been designed, or are being developed, for police, emergency medical services, public 

works, and other disciplines in the State that have a role in emergency planning and response.

This report includes California’s Fire and Rescue Mutual Aid System and its evolution, how mutual 

aid is used in major fire and non-fire incidents, and discusses some reasons for its success over the 

years. The purpose of the report is to share lessons learned to help other States advance their systems 

and give the fire service in general some useful ideas on providing mutual aid.

HOW THE MUTUAL AID SYSTEM WAS DESIGNED

History

The first California Fire Service and Rescue Emergency Mutual Aid Plan was prepared and adopted in 1950 as 

an annex of the California State Civil Defense and Disaster Relief Plan. The plan, and the mutual aid system 

which evolved from it, derive their authority from the “California Emergency Services Act of 1970” 

(which superseded an earlier “California Disaster Act”), the California Master Mutual Aid Agreement, 

Section 3211.92 of the State of California Labor Code, and Section 8690.6 of the State of California 

Government Code.

The concept of mutual aid in California is based on a common understanding that every individual 

community cannot gear up for every possible emergency, and that the best way for communities 

to make sure help is available when they need it is to be available to give help when others need it. 

The system creates a structural framework for offering and receiving assistance when a community’s 

emergency response needs outstrip its own available resources.

Original development of the mutual aid system was funded with Federal grant money. In 1951, the 

Federal Government established a program to match State and local funds for the purchase of fire and 

rescue apparatus and equipment. It was under this program that California purchased just over 100 

pieces of apparatus, including 1,000-gpm fire engines and 29 heavy rescue vehicles.
2

California Office of Emergency Services (OES) then allocated this apparatus among individual fire 

departments strategically placed throughout the State. The departments could use the apparatus 

(1) to respond to multiple-alarm fires within their own boundaries; (2) to temporarily replace any 

of their own first-line fire apparatus out of service due to mechanical problems; or (3) to loan to 

other departments in their operational area to replace equipment out of service for repairs. The only 

condition for receipt of the apparatus was the department’s agreement to use it when called upon to 

render aid through the Fire and Rescue Mutual Aid System.

Over the years reliance on the OES apparatus has changed, and there is no question that the system 

would continue to work even if the apparatus were no longer available. However, the initial purchase 

and allocation of the apparatus has been credited with providing an impetus for participation in the 

Statewide mutual aid system.

The Master Agreement

The California Disaster and Civil Defense Master Mutual Aid Agreement, developed along with the 

original State disaster plan, serves as the mechanism for implementing the California Fire Service and 

Rescue Emergency Mutual Aid Plan. (See Appendix A.) All 58 counties and nearly all local governments 

within the State are signatories to the agreement. These signatories represent more than 1,200 fire 

service organizations and include every segment of public fire protection.

The master agreement covers the loan of equipment, facilities, and personnel in a variety of emergency situations, not only those resulting from fires. It provides for mutual aid “to prevent and combat the effect of disasters which may result from such calamities as flood, fire, earthquake, pestilence, 

war, sabotage, and riot,” including assistance in the areas of “rescue, relief, evacuation, rehabilitation, 

and reconstruction.”

Recognizing that disasters are unpredictable and may strike anytime, anywhere, the crafters of the 

agreement were careful to stipulate that “no party shall be required to deplete unreasonably its own 

resources, facilities, and services in furnishing mutual aid.” This is important. Most local mutual 

aid calls take units out of their home departments for only a few hours, and making adjustments to 

compensate for their departure is fairly routine. However, resources contributed to respond through 

the Fire and Rescue Mutual Aid System could be away for extended periods on major incidents, making the back-filling operation more complicated.

The agreement also reinforces the position of local officials during incidents in their jurisdictions. 

Under the agreement, the responsible local official in the jurisdiction requiring mutual aid assistance 

remains in command of the incident response and directs the use of personnel and other resources 

provided through the Fire and Rescue Mutual Aid System.

The agreement stipulates that each signatory will:

(1) develop a plan for effectively mobilizing its resources and facilities, both public and private, 

to cope with any type of disaster and to submit it to the State Disaster Council for approval;

(2) provide mutual aid assistance through the system without reimbursement unless otherwise 

provided for in existing agreements between parties, legislation, or regulations;

(3) furnish resources and facilities in emergencies – fire, police, medical and health, communications and transportation – to each other in accordance with duly adopted mutual aid plans as 
USFA-TR-042/January 1991 3

long as furnishing such aid does not unreasonably deplete its own resources, facilities, and 

services;

(4) conduct raining and exercises in accordance with duly adopted mutual aid plans to ensure that 

it can provide effective assistance when called upon;

(5) furnish mutual aid “in all cases of local peril or emergency and in all cases in which a STATE OF 

EXTREME EMERGENCY has been proclaimed”; and,

(6) abide by mutual aid agreements the State of California enters into with other States or the 

Federal Government.

To facilitate effective and efficient response, an inventory of all fire service personnel, apparatus, and 

equipment in the State is maintained and updated annually by the California Office of Emergency 

Services (OES). The inventory is published (it is currently being computerized), and OES provides it 

to operational area (local) and Regional coordinators.

Over the years, the Fire and Rescue Mutual Aid System has been reviewed and revised by the California 

OES Fire and Rescue Service Advisory Board/FIRESCOPE Board of Directors to keep pace with changing emergency response needs in the State. Today, many private fire protection organizations participate in the system as well.

Although the system is exercised most on fire-related incidents, particularly wildland fires, it was 

designed, and has proven, to be useable for multi-hazard response.

The Structure

The structure of the California Fire and Rescue Mutual Aid System builds on the voluntary, community-to-community mutual aid common throughout the history of the fire service. California 

has taken this basic, traditional concept of mutual aid one step further by adopting “automatic aid.” 

Automatic aid means that, on a predetermined basis, first alarm response is provided by the nearest fire station, regardless of community boundaries. As one fire service official put it, “the public 

doesn’t care what color the engine is or where it comes from; they just want to be assured of getting 

the fastest response when they’re in trouble.”

Fire departments in most parts of California have effectively used mutual aid on a day-to-day basis 

for many years. The systems and attitudes that have structured the Regional and Statewide systems 

have also supported the regular use of mutual aid among departments.

Mutual aid was originally based on the concept of fire departments assisting each other with incidents that are beyond the capability of local resources. In California, in particular, this concept has 

often been broadened to include providing efficient protection and prompt response to emergency 

incidents, without regard to jurisdictional boundaries.

Many of the urban and suburban areas of California are made up of hundreds of incorporated local 

jurisdictions and unincorporated areas. The complex boundary lines present a very real problem for 

fire departments that are responsible for protecting irregularly shaped areas, which often include isolated “islands” and difficult access problems. In addition, small jurisdictions often have the responsibility to provide protection for high risk areas, particularly wildland interface areas.

The fire organizations protecting these areas range from small departments, with one or two fire stations, to county and city departments with over 100 stations. Some incorporated local jurisdictions 
4

contract with the county fire departments that protect unincorporated areas, while other municipalities operate their own independent fire departments. Virtually all of the departments participate in 

mutual aid and automatic response programs, based on two-party agreements and systems involving 

several adjacent jurisdictions.

In several cases local jurisdictions have combined their fire communications centers under joint 

powers agreements, to share costs and maximize efficiency with their neighbors. Under this system, 

all emergency calls originating within the multi-jurisdictional area are dispatched from the same 

center and the closest units respond, without regard to boundary lines.

The communications systems that have been established to support these systems are usually referred 

to as “Nets,” and all of the fire resources within a Net operate as if they were one large fire department. 

For example, Orange County NET 6 includes the Huntington Beach, Westminster and Fountain Valley 

Fire Departments. The Huntington Beach Communications Center dispatches all calls for these three 

jurisdictions, utilizing a computer aided dispatch system and an 800 MHz trunked radio system.

Under the Statewide plans for large scale incidents, strike teams and other resources are assembled 

from the jurisdictions within a Net in accordance with agreements among the participating jurisdictions. The local jurisdictions within a Net may also agree to share the cost of other services and 

facilities, such as training centers and maintenance services.

While joint communications centers can improve the efficiency of mutual aid systems and speed 

the response of units from neighboring jurisdictions, they are not essential to provide effective 

automatic response and mutual aid systems. Most fire departments in California have established 

standard operating procedures (SOPs) with their neighbors to support different levels of automatic 

response and mutual aid assistance on a routine level. When a situation exceeds the resources that 

are available within the immediate area, the existing system of “operational areas” and “mutual aid 

regions” is activated for immediate escalation of requests for additional assistance.

The cities of Santa Monica, Culver City, and Beverly Hills are an example of this approach. Each of the 

three cities provides its own fire communications system and responds to most one-alarm incidents 

with its own resources. If additional assistance is required, the departments call upon each other 

and upon the Los Angeles City Fire Department, which is responsible for areas bordering on all three 

cities.

If an incident exceeds the capabilities that are immediately available from those departments, the 

request for assistance is directed to the “operational area” which is managed by the Los Angeles 

County Communications Center. This center can activate resources from the entire county, from the 

region or from the entire State of California.

Community-to-community mutual aid in California has evolved to include the private sector as well. 

This includes having protocols for accessing heavy equipment, like bulldozers and other specialized 

equipment that exists in the private sector, to augment the government-held inventory. In fact, some 

large companies are like microcosms of communities; they have their own fire and police forces and 

even their own public works capability. In many cases these companies have developed or acquired 

state-of-the-art equipment that outstrips what local jurisdictions, and even the State, have.

To meet resource needs as incidents escalate beyond neighbor-to-neighbor mutual aid capability, 

the State is divided into 65 operational areas (generally along county boundaries) and six mutual 

aid regions. These geographic divisions are the backbone of the Fire and Rescue Mutual Aid System. 

(See Appendix B.)
USFA-TR-042/January 1991 5

There is a fire and rescue coordinator for each operational area elected by the fire chiefs in that area. 

A Regional fire and rescue coordinator is elected from among the operational area coordinators in 

the region. The chief of the OES Fire and Rescue Division serves as the State fire and rescue coordinator, overseeing the system.

Operational area and Regional coordinators volunteer their time. These jobs are performed in addition to the regular jobs they are paid to do in their respective jurisdictions. On a day-to-day basis, 

they may have to spend relatively little time, but when something happens – a major fire, an earthquake, flood, mudslide – they get very busy.

They serve as the focal point for coordinating and dispatching resources requested through the Fire 

and Rescue Mutual Aid System during emergencies in their areas/regions. In non-emergency times, 

they lead efforts to promote development of consistent local fire and rescue emergency plans and 

compatible communications networks to facilitate operations in emergency situations; maintain an 

up-to-date inventory of resources within their areas/regions; and coordinate periodic reviews of 

operations and procedures for lessons learned and needs for improvement.

In most cases, mutual aid in the State of California is provided voluntarily. According to the “California 

Emergency Services Act of 1970,” however, mutual aid is obligatory in a “State of War Emergency” 

and may be obligatory during a declared “State of Emergency.”

Mutual aid also is rendered without reimbursement. Each community takes responsibility for 

expenses incurred when it helps its neighbors. Given the increasing cost of training and equipping 

fire departments these days, this shows an enormous commitment on the part of the California fire 

service to the concept of mutual aid.

There is one exception to gratis mutual aid. A written agreement, commonly called the “five-party 

agreement,” provides for reimbursement for mutual aid that extends more than 12 hours in major 

incidents on State- or Federal-responsibility lands. Signatories to the agreement are California OES 

(representing all local governments), California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CDF), 

the U.S. Forest Service (USFS), the U.S. Bureau of Land Management, and the National Park Service. 

(See Appendix C.)

Incidents covered by the agreement tend to be major wildland and forest fires requiring long-term 

assistance and may involve several jurisdictions. Areas included in the agreement usually are State 

and National parks and forests, but it also covers other Federally protected lands and State wildland 

areas that provide the State’s watershed and are not covered by an incorporated city.

Jurisdictions in the State supplying fire and rescue resources that are called into service in these incidents and that meet the time-in-service and availability criteria spelled out in the agreement are eligible for reimbursement at a rate (as of January 1990) of 519 dollars per person per 24-hour shift.

Resource Mobilization

Mobilization of mutual aid resources under the California system is a phased process. Requested 

assistance – personnel, equipment, or apparatus – is enlisted first from neighboring communities 

within the operational area, then from within the region and then inter-regionally. Each escalation 

in the process is designed to build on what is already there, rather than to introduce a whole new 

hierarchy.

Each department makes its own decision about if and how many resources it can afford to commit 

to mutual aid on any given incident. The decision must take into account what measures will be 
6

required to compensate for the departure of the resources they commit. In some cases, this only 

may involve a minimal adjustment in regular operations. In others, departments may have to activate 

local mutual aid agreements with neighboring communities in their own counties, call in personnel 

for extra shifts, or even hire extra personnel to fill in.

Resources can be dispatched singly, in strike teams, or in task forces. Single resources are exactly what 

the term implies, an individual crew, one helicopter, a single engine, etc.

A strike team consists of a set number of the same kind of resources with a leader. An engine strike 

team, for example, consists of five engines, each with a three- to four-person crew, and a chief officer 

who serves as the strike team leader.

A task force is any combination of resources temporarily assembled to perform a specific mission. 

A task force might be three engines and two ladder trucks and their respective crews with a chief 

officer who serves as the task force leader.

As single resources, strike teams, or task forces are mobilized, they are assigned a radio frequency to 

use. In addition, each is assigned a three-letter designator and a number that identifies where the 

resources came from and what type of resources they are. Their respective numbers become part of 

the radio call “handle” assigned to them. This enables incident command staff to keep track of and 

assign resources appropriately.

FIRESCOPE

The 1970 fire season, in which more than 500,000 acres in Southern California burned, more than 

700 homes were destroyed and 16 lives were lost, stimulated a review and overhaul of the way in 

which resources are coordinated and used in major wildland incidents. This process, known as 

FIRESCOPE (Firefighting Resources of Southern California Organized for Potential Emergencies), also 

contributed to major improvements to the California Fire and Rescue Mutual Aid System overall.

FIRESCOPE was chartered in 1972. The initial focus was on the wildland fire problem, and Congress 

directed the USFS to help Southern California fire agencies with the review.

The principal partners in FIRESCOPE were the USFS, CDF, Los Angeles County Fire Department, 

Los Angeles City Fire Department, Ventura County Fire Department, Santa Barbara County Fire 

Department, and the California OES.

Federal funding support for FIRESCOPE began in the 1972 appropriations cycle. Funding continued 

through the USFS throughout the planning and development of the project. FIRESCOPE was began 

to be implemented in 1977, and Federal funding support, much of which went for the USFA to train 

for departments in new systems developed under the project, continued through 1982.

The State and partner agencies then assumed most of the costs of operation and maintenance of the 

project. Orange County Fire Department became a partner agency in the project in 1984, and all 

participants continue to be active today.

FIRESCOPE’s initial missions were to improve fireground operations, increase the effectiveness of the 

fire protection agencies, and improve multi-agency coordination. Specific goals were:
USFA-TR-042/January 1991 7

• a standardized terminology

• a system for multi-agency communications

• a coordinated process for allocating Regional resources for use in major incidents

• improved methods for forecasting fire behavior

• training of personnel from all participating agencies

The FIRESCOPE project concepts were expanded in 1985 to Northern California in a project called 

the California Fire Information and Resource Management System. The two projects joined in 1988 

under the FIRESCOPE banner and, instead of focusing on wildland fires, took on more of an allhazard orientation.

FIRESCOPE consists of two major programs – the multi-agency coordination system (MACS) and the 

Incident Command System (ICS). Both have become integral parts of the California Fire and Rescue 

Mutual Aid System. Both are based on an inter-agency, multi-disciplinary approach to managing 

problems.

Multi-Agency Coordination System (MACS)

MACS is the managerial aspect of FIRESCOPE. In non-emergency times, the system functions via a 

multi-level “decision process,” a method for involving fire service personnel at all levels throughout the State in continuous inter-agency coordination. This process is used to develop universal emergency plans and procedures and address operational and technical issues that cut across 

agencies/jurisdictions.

Some specialized tools have been developed to support MACS day-to-day and during emergencies. 

For example, a common mapping system has been developed to reduce confusion caused when 

different responding jurisdictions are working from different map references. Fixed and mobile 

facilities for using infrared monitoring information from specially equipped aircraft are available to 

establish the incident location and perimeter, and computerized fire modeling, as well as weather 

and other databases, are accessible.

California OES serves as the Executive Coordinator for MACS. On a day-to-day basis, these functions 

are carried out at OES’ Operations Coordination Center in Riverside, California, but during emergencies MACS functions can be carried out in various facilities throughout the State depending on 

coordination needs.

During emergencies, the inter-agency relationships, plans, and procedures developed day-to-day 

become the foundation for coordinated, efficient, effective allocation of available resources through 

the Fire and Rescue Mutual Aid System. This foundation makes it possible for representatives of 

each agency involved in an incident (who are assigned the responsibility and given the authority 

to commit their departments’/agencies’ resources) to retrieve the information they need about the 

incident, determine resource needs for effective response, prioritize those needs, and allocate available resources accordingly. They can resolve issues by talking the problems out “face-to-face” – sitting around a table or on a conference call. Their familiarity with the system and with each other 

virtually eliminates jurisdictional biases from unfairly influencing the priority attached to allocation 

of certain resources.
8

Incident Command System (ICS)

The ICS is an organizational management structure that allows diverse organizations/agencies to 

respond and work together using standard terminology, uniform procedures, and compatible communications. The ICS concept is based on universal agreement to use a unified command structure. 

This means that all agencies in a multi-jurisdictional emergency play a part in determining overall 

incident response objectives; selecting strategies for achieving those objectives; planning and conducting integrated tactical operations; and making maximum use of all assigned resources.

California OES maintains a radio system that provides for effective communication support for 

resource mobilization and emergency mutual aid operations under the ICS. The system can be 

utilized for local, area, inter-area, Regional, Inter-Regional, and Statewide communications. The system operates on four cross band radio frequencies to provide two operating channels. Twenty-two 

mountain top mobile repeaters, each serving a single channel, are used to relay signals. Using the 

repeaters in combination with the State’s microwave system makes it possible to link Regional and 

operational area dispatch centers throughout the State.

Framers of the ICS identified a full range of functional roles – e.g., Incident Command, information 

dissemination, planning, operations, logistics, finance, safety monitoring, etc. – to be carried out in 

emergencies and constructed an organizational structure which encompasses all those roles. (See 

Appendix D.) In practice, the organizational structure for command at any incident depends on the 

type and size of the incident itself, with responsibility for all functions – strategic as well as tactical 

operations – vested in the Incident Commander. In some incidents, the Incident Commander and 

one or two staff may be adequate to perform all necessary functions. Other situations, particularly 

those involving large areas and several agencies/jurisdictions, may require a much larger organizational structure, with a different person or group assigned to carry out each function.

The ICS has been used in California in a wide range of emergencies – not only those caused by fires 

but also those resulting from floods, earthquakes, riots, and other natural and man-made incidents. 

In the ICS structure, the functional responsibility for resource needs determination and allocation 

rests with the operations chief. The operations chief determines what resources are needed for effective response based on the overall objectives and the Incident Action Plan. Those requirements are 

then passed on to the logistics section chief who supervises the ordering of resources. The logistics 

section looks first to the local resource inventory to meet requirements identified by the operations 

chief.

When local resource inventories are exhausted, or in the event that unavailable specialized personnel 

or equipment is needed, a mutual aid request is sent to the next level in the Mutual Aid System, the 

operational area coordinator. As a result, the operations chief and the logistics chief serve as the link 

between the ICS and the Mutual Aid System. (See Appendix D.)

Because of its functional orientation, the ICS sometimes is at variance with the traditional fire department chain-of-command concept. During an incident, a department’s fire chief may not be the 

Incident Commander. His or her deputy or operations chief may have been trained to assume that 

position instead, and the fire chief may be more qualified to assume another position in the incident 

command organization.

An effective ICS, therefore, requires that all players be trained to function within the system as it is 

designed and that each person accepts its tenants. As a result, the system is most effective when it 

is used day-to-day as well as in major incidents – from small, single department situations to big 

multi-agency emergency operations.
USFA-TR-042/January 1991 9

The Department of Forestry and Fire Protection’S ROLE

One factor that has expedited the implementation of enhancements, particularly ICS, to California’s 

Fire and Rescue Mutual Aid System is the unique fire protection role of the State’s CDF. A major portion of the State, 32 million acres, is State-responsibility land for which CDF provides fire protection. 

(See Appendix E.)

In addition, CDF provides first-response fire protection under contract to 33 counties, which include 

some 26 incorporated cities, in the State. That is, CDF is responsible for structural firefighting, as well 

as wildland fire protection. In some cases, this means that CDF personnel staff the entire department. 

In others, CDF staffs only some stations, and in still others, only some positions in some stations.

CDF also provides fire protection to nearly 4 million acres of Federal land within the State under 

agreements with the USFS, the Bureau of Land Management, and other Federal agencies and back-up 

assistance on request for incidents on any of the more than 44 million additional acres of Federal 

land within the State.

In effect, CDF is like a State-wide fire department. Any new systems and procedures it adopts automatically have a broad implementation reach, and since wildland fires are a fairly regular occurrence 

in the State, CDF has ample opportunity to demonstrate the utility of these systems and procedures. 

As a result, its adoption of the ICS and its participation in the Fire and Rescue Mutual Aid System, 

have been major factors in leading other departments to do the same.

HOW THE MUTUAL AID SYSTEM IS USED

THE “PAINT” FIRE

Over the years, the California Fire and Rescue Mutual Aid System has been used most often on major 

wildland fire incidents. As drought conditions continue in the State, the 1991 fire season is likely to 

provide more opportunities for the system to be exercised.

A recap of the “Paint” fire in June 1990, the most destructive wildland fire in California’s history, 

illustrates not only how the State’s Mutual Aid System works, but also its importance to effective 

management of major incidents.

Santa Barbara County and much of Southern California had suffered drought conditions for several 

years. That, combined with the Santa Barbara’s penchant for very hot and dry “Santa Ana” and 

“Sundowner” winds, had aggravated fire-prone conditions in the area. As a consequence, a “Red 

Flag Alert” was in effect. A “Red Flag Alert” means that, based on weather conditions and other factors, the danger of fire is real.

The Santa Barbara County Fire Department had already begun to gear up for possible mobilization, 

and its coordination center had been activated in response to the “Red Flag Alert.” During “Red Flag 

Alert” periods, the coordination center serves as the focal point for inter-agency coordination and 

processing of mutual aid requests in Region I (the mutual aid region in which Santa Barbara County 

is located).

The “Paint” fire was first reported, via a 9-1-1 call, at 6:02 p.m., on June 27. A Santa Barbara County 

brush engine responded immediately, arriving at 6:05 p.m. The fire had begun on Painted Cave 

Road, just south of the intersection with Highway 154, in the Los Padres National Forest. It had been 

set by an arsonist in a steep drainage area. The fire had moved down the canyon quickly, fanned by 
10 U.S. Fire Administration/Technical Report Series

the wind and fueled by the heavy chaparral fuel and dry weather conditions. The responding crew 

found a fire two to five acres in size.

Major spotting was reported at 6:10 p.m. This means that wind-carried embers and other burning 

material were starting new fires away from the main blaze.

The Los Prietas Hot Spots, a specially trained wildland fire team of the USFS, arrived on scene at the 

same time, and additional forces were dispatched by both Santa Barbara County and the USFS.

The Santa Barbara County Fire Department and USFS quickly assessed the fire situation and established joint command. By 6:20 p.m., an incident commander was assigned from the fire department, and the Forest Service became the focal point for obtaining mutual aid resources required.

The ICS, described in more depth later in this report, is a major element in California’s Mutual Aid 

System. Under the ICS, the operations section chief and the logistics section chief serve as the focal 

points for determining resource needs and ordering those resources through the system.

At 6:27 p.m., the Santa Barbara County Fire chief reported 50 to 60 mph winds and major spotting 

heading toward homes and other structures in the area. Limiting the lateral spread of the fire north 

and south, protecting the structures in its path and evacuating as necessary became the major objectives of the response. The logistics section asked for help through the Fire and Rescue Mutual Aid 

System in the form of engine strike teams, bulldozers, and water tenders. They came, primarily from 

fire departments in neighboring counties in the region, as well as from the CDF and USFS.

Nineteen strike teams of engines responded to Santa Barbara and can be credited with saving many 

structures. They responded rapidly, and their home departments took the steps necessary to compensate for their departure. In some cases, this only may have involved a minimal adjustment in regular 

operations. In others, the home departments may have had to call on local mutual aid agreements 

with neighboring departments in their own counties, or even hire extra personnel to fill in for the 

resources contributed to fight the “Paint” fire.

This response is particularly notable because there were other major wildland fires burning in 

California at the time of the “Paint” fire. The State Fire and Rescue Mutual Aid System was faced with 

the added challenge of mustering, distributing and, in some cases, re-distributing resources among 

several locations over an extended period of time.

For example, a major wildland incident was in progress in Orange County, about 100 miles southeast of Santa Barbara. The Orange County Fire Department was already drawing on mutual aid 

resources from other departments in Southern California. When a request for mutual aid assistance 

for the “Paint” incident was received, however, Orange County made a decision to help. It contributed some of its own strike teams, through the State Fire and Rescue Mutual Aid System, to the Santa 

Barbara response. Before they could be sent home, some of these same strike teams were re-assigned 

again through the Mutual Aid System when wildland fires broke out some days later in Northern 

California near Redding.

By 6:45 p.m., on June 28, the fire had crossed the boundary into the Los Padres National Forest. 

Firefighting operations, including air tanker drops over the fire and structure protection activities 

continued through the night and the following day.

By 8:00 a.m., on June 29, the fire was 4,200 acres in size, but the rate of spread and intensity had 

lessened. Weather was milder, and humidity was rising. An estimated 520 residential structures 
USFA-TR-042/January 1991 11

and at least two shopping centers had been lost. By late afternoon on June 30 the fire had been 

contained.

The final toll of this record-breaking incident was one person dead, more than 600 structures and 

4,900 acres burned, and 400 million dollars in damages. The Fire and Rescue Mutual Aid System 

had contributed more than 100 engines and bulldozers, as well as the necessary personnel to operate 

them, multiplying tenfold the size of the firefighting force available in this incident.

NON-FIRE INCIDENTS

The California Fire and Rescue Mutual Aid System was designed to be used in emergencies caused 

by a variety of hazards. Over the years, the system has been called on to provide resources for emergency response in floods, the Whittier and Coalinga earthquakes, and riots and non-emergency assistance during the Olympic Games in Los Angeles and the visit of the Pope during the late 1970s.

The Loma Prieta Earthquake, which struck the San Francisco and Monterey Bay area in October 

1989, provided another major example of the California system in action. (See Appendix G.)

The earthquake, measuring 7.1 on the Richter scale and centered just north of Santa Cruz, California, 

occurred October 17 and lasted only about 15 seconds. In that brief period, however, it damaged or 

destroyed more than 100,000 buildings and left 7,000 people homeless. It claimed 63 lives, caused 

more than 2,400 injuries, and resulted in many billions of dollars in damages.

Fire and Rescue Mutual Aid System coordinators at the local and Regional levels, as well as the State 

coordination facilities operated by the California OES, received hundreds of other requests for mutual 

aid assistance following the quake. As the coordinators at each level exhausted their resource inventories – personnel, equipment, and facilities – they sent requests up to the next level to be filled.

In all, 17 engine strike teams, three OES heavy rescue units (one of which was flown in from Orange 

County in Southern California), three OES mobile supply units, three local rescue units a lighting 

unit and 15 Alameda County engines and truck companies were dispatched through the Fire and 

Rescue Mutual Aid System. These resources, as well as other types of assistance, were dispatched to 

help with a variety of emergency response tasks. For example, personnel from the California State 

Fire Marshal’s Office joined teams charged with inspecting health care facilities, schools, and other 

public buildings in the affected area for fire and life safety hazards.

On October 19, the Oakland Fire Department requested a major incident management team through 

the Fire and Rescue Mutual Aid System for assistance on the Cypress incident, the collapse of a oneand-one-quarter-mile stretch of the upper deck of the Interstate 880 freeway onto the lower level. 

The incident had buried 58 vehicles, claimed 42 lives, and injured 348 others. The Oakland Fire 

Department had been working the incident for about 36 hours and personnel were exhausted.

Their request was relayed through the system and within a few hours an inter-agency management 

team, composed of California CDF and USFS personnel, was assembled to fill the key command 

and support roles in the Incident Command Structure. The team stayed with the incident through 

October 23 when the last rescue was performed and demobilization operations were begun.

Numerous fire departments from unaffected areas called in off-duty personnel who reported to fire 

stations and staging areas to be available for dispatch. In addition, CDF committed 21 strike teams 

of engines, three strike teams of bulldozers, nine prison inmate fire crews, six prison inmate kitchen 

crews, and more than 100 other CDF personnel to respond to incidents in areas for which CDF has 

fire protection responsibility.
12 U.S. Fire Administration/Technical Report Series

Two engines from CDF’s Hollister, California, station provided assistance to the city of Hollister, 

followed by two CDF engine strike teams, one each from CDF’s San Benito/Monterey and San Luis 

Obispo Ranger Units. CDF resources responded to approximately 57 earthquake related fire and 

non-fire incidents in the city of Hollister and 22 incidents in other parts of the San Benito/Monterey 

areas.

WHY CALIFORNIA’S MUTUAL AID SYSTEM WORKS

A number of factors have contributed to the success of the California Fire and Rescue Mutual Aid 

System over the years. They may provide helpful lessons for other States or regions interested in 

improving their own mutual aid systems.

• Basic attitudinal changes have been required to make the California system function successfully. Many in the fire service have modified their “we take care of our own” notions in the 

face of the economic and social realities of the day. The willingness to give and accept help 

from one’s neighbor is essential to survival and the underpinning of the mutual aid system 

in the State.

• Attitudes about the chain-of-command concept have had to change as well. Chain of command has always been very important in para-military organizations like fire and police 

agencies. However, much of the fire service in California seems to have accepted that effective, efficient emergency response depends in large part on being able to apply the most 

qualified, most experienced, best trained person to each individual problem. This requires 

disregarding in some cases, the chain of command. In some emergency response organizations in California there may be several individuals trained as Incident Commanders. During 

an incident a department’s fire chief may not be the Incident Commander. His or her deputy 

or operations chief may have been trained to assume that position instead, and the fire chief 

may be more qualified to assume another position in the Incident Command organization.

• Successful coordination and cooperation requires trust. And trust is built through working 

together over time. The multi-agency coordination system and the decision process developed as part of FIRESCOPE provide ample opportunity for a variety of jurisdictions and agencies to work together consistently to solve problems. Consequently, during an incident their 

representatives can approach resource allocation issues more objectively. Their familiarity 

with the system and with each other virtually eliminates jurisdictional biases from unfairly 

influencing the priority attached to allocation of certain resources, even when a number of 

incidents are being considered.

• Effective, efficient emergency and disaster response require the participation of a variety of 

disciplines – fire, police, emergency medical services, public works, etc. The California fire 

service’s participation and acceptance of the Fire and Rescue Mutual Aid System has served 

as an example, bringing other disciplines together and focusing their attention on emergency response planning. This can only serve to benefit overall emergency preparedness and 

response capabilities in the State.

• California’s mutual aid system structure has been around a long time, long enough for 

most firefighters and officers to have seen it work and developed a level of comfort with it. 

Everybody participates and even many non-fire agencies in the State are familiar enough with 

how the system works to be able to interface with it when necessary.
USFA-TR-042/January 1991 13

• The California system gets used repeatedly throughout the year to combat fires, particularly 

wildland fires. This consistent exercising of the system keeps it honed and ready for use in 

other emergencies.

• There is a commitment in the State to training to ensure that all potential players know how 

to function within the system. The concepts and procedures which support the California 

Fire and Rescue Mutual Aid System are an integral part of firefighter training in the State, not 

only in individual departments but also in community colleges and throughout the State fire 

training system coordinated by the State Fire Marshal’s Office.

• The ICS, a concept basic to today’s Fire and Rescue Mutual Aid System in California, has 

become a way of life for much of the fire service in the State and many non-fire agencies as well. Large, multi-jurisdictional incidents generally do not require “switching” to 

another mode of operation. This helps maintain smooth operations and makes each escalation easier.

• The FIRESCOPE Project is a testament to the State’s commitment to improvement in its mutual 

aid capabilities. Since the cessation of Federal funding in 1982, the fire service in California 

has continued to work voluntarily to implement the project Statewide. Committees and task 

forces responsible for specific aspects of the project meet regularly, at their own expense, to 

review progress, update assignments, and consider new issues.

• Although it is exercised most often on fire incidents, the system has shown itself to be 

adaptable to floods and mudslides, the Olympics, a visit from the Pope, the Loma Prieta 

Earthquake, and other non-fire emergencies.

• The CDF, the USFS, and the U.S. Bureau of Land Management share fire protection responsibilities for well over 69 million acres of public and private land in California. In addition, CDF provides first-alarm protection, structural as well as wildland, under contract to a 

number of individual California communities. The pervasive presence of CDF and the Forest 

Service, both of which use the ICS, has been a major factor in its acceptance throughout the 

State. In addition, because CDF is the community fire department in many areas, they have 

been able to train local firefighters, right along with their own people, to use the system. 

Since ICS is now an integral element of the California Fire and Rescue Mutual Aid System, 

this has benefited the system overall.

15

Appendices

A. California Disaster and Civil Defense Master Mutual Aid Agreement

B. Map of California Mutual Aid Regions

C. The “Five-Party Agreement”

Cooperative Agreement between California OES; CDF; USFS, Pacific 

Southwest Region; U.S. Bureau of Land Management, California 

Office; and U.S. National Park Service, Western Region

D. ICS and Link Between ICS and Mutual Aid System

E. Map of Wildland Fire Protection Responsibility Areas

F. “Paint” Fire Area Map

G. Loma Prieta Earthquake: Structural Collapse of I-880 and Status Map 

of Trapped Vehicles

H. Bibliography

17

Appendix A

California Disaster and Civil Defense Master 

Mutual Aid Agreement
18 U.S. Fire Administration/Technical Report Series
USFA-TR-042/January 1991 19
20 U.S. Fire Administration/Technical Report Series
USFA-TR-042/January 1991 21

23

Appendix B

Map of California Mutual Aid Regions
24 U.S. Fire Administration/Technical Report Series
25

Appendix C

The “Five-Party Agreement”

Cooperative Agreement between California OES; CDF; USFS, Pacific 

Southwest Region; US. Bureau of Land Management, California Office; 

and U.S. National Park Service, Western Region
26 U.S. Fire Administration/Technical Report Series
USFA-TR-042/January 1991 27
28 U.S. Fire Administration/Technical Report Series
USFA-TR-042/January 1991 29
30 U.S. Fire Administration/Technical Report Series
USFA-TR-042/January 1991 31
32 U.S. Fire Administration/Technical Report Series
33

Appendix D

ICS

Under the ICS, the organizational structure for management of a major 

incident is based on the functional roles that must be carried out.

Link Between ICS and Mutual Aid System

Under the ICS, the operations section chief is charged with determining 

needs for equipment, apparatus, and personnel adequate for the response 

effort. Ordering of these resources through the Fire and Rescue Mutual 

Aid System is the responsibility of the logistics section chief.
34 U.S. Fire Administration/Technical Report Series
USFA-TR-042/January 1991 35

37

Appendix E

Map of Wildland Fire Protection Responsibility Areas

The State’s Department of Forestry and Fire Protection protects more than 

30 million acres of State-responsibility land in California and assists 

the Federal government on request to protect more than 44 million acres 

of Federal land within the State.
38 U.S. Fire Administration/Technical Report Series
39

Appendix F

“Paint” Fire Area Map

Map showing the “footprint” of the “Paint” fire in Los Padres National 

Forest/Santa Barbara County. (Reprinted with permission of the 

Santa Barbara News-Press.)
40 U.S. Fire Administration/Technical Report Series
41

Appendix G

Loma Prieta Earthquake: Structural Collapse of I-880 

and Status of Map of Trapped Vehicles

1. Twisted steel, broken concrete on one and one-half miles of I-880 presented a challenge for 

the major incident management team lead by the CDF that responded to a mutual aid request 

from the Oakland Fire Department following the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake. (Photo courtesy of Janice Raymond, California Department of Transportation.)

2 An incident map, showing the position of vehicles trapped along the collapsed section of 

I-880 and the status of their occupants following the earthquake became an important tool 

for the incident management team. (Photo courtesy of Janice Raymond, CDF.)
42 U.S. Fire Administration/Technical Report Series
USFA-TR-042/January 1991 43

45

Appendix H

Bibliography

1. “CDF: Fire Protection...through cooperation,” California Department of Forestry and Fire 

Protection, 1990

2. “Cooperative Agreement between State of California Office of Emergency Services; State of 

California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, Pacific Southwest Region; USDA Forest 

Service; USDI Bureau of Land Management, California Office; and USDI National Park Service, 

Western Region,” 1990

3. Cullom, Keith D., “On The Job – California,” Firehouse, September 1990

4. “FIRESCOPE Decision Process and Operational Plan Manual: MACS 410-4,” California Office of 

Emergency Services, 1990

5. “Hundreds Flee Wildfire, Arson launches 2-mile path of destruction,” Santa Barbara News-Press, 

June 28, 1990

6. Perry, Don G., “Wildland Siege in Santa Barbara Co.,” American Fire Journal, August 1990

7. Perry, Donald G., “Worst-Ever W/U Interface Fire in California Takes 648 Structures,” Wildfire 

News and Notes, Vol. 4, No. 4, July-August 1990

8. Perez, Steven B., “California’s Number 1 Fire Problem: Urban/Wildland Interface,” The California 

Fire Service, October 1990

9. “The 1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake: The CDF Response,” California Department of Forestry and 

Fire Protection, 199

10. “Election Process: Region and Operational Area Fire and Rescue Coordinators,” State of California 

Office of Emergency Services Fire and Rescue Division, 1989

11. Garza, John, “Lessons Learned from the Quake – Interviews with some of the Chiefs,” American 

Fire Journal, December 1989

12. Garza, John V., “Surrounding Communities Hit Hard by the Quake,” American Fire Journal, December 

1989

13. “Incident Command System Field Operations Guide: ICS 420-1” 1989

14. “Orange County Fire Services Operational Area Mutual Aid Plan,” Orange County Fire Department, 

1989

15. “Resource Designation System, Statewide Fire and Rescue Mutual Aid System: MACS 410-2,” 

California Office of Emergency Services, 198
46 U.S. Fire Administration/Technical Report Series

16. Sherman, Edward R., “A B/C’s Story,” American Fire Journal, December 1989

17. Sparks, Carl A., “Automatic Aid: An Approach to Improved Fire Resources,” Research paper for 

Strategic Analysis of Fire Department Operations course, National Fire Academy, 1989

18. U.S. Fire Administration, Office of Policy and Coordination, “The Loma Prieta Quake: Emergency 

Response and Stabilization,” American Fire Journal, December 1989

19. “California Fire Service and Rescue Emergency Mutual Aid Plan,” California Office of Emergency 

Services, 1988

20. “Fire and Rescue Mutual Aid System,” California Office of Emergency Services, 1988

21. “FIRESCOPE Past, Current and Future Directions: A Progress Report,” California Office of 

Emergency Services, 1988

22. “History and Organization,” State of California Office of Emergency Services Fire and Rescue 

Division, 1982, Revised 1988

23. “Proposed 5-Year FIRESCOPE Expansion and Implementation Plan,” California Office of 

Emergency Services, 1988

24. “Strike Team Leader, Statewide Fire and Rescue Mutual Aid System,” California Office of 

Emergency Services, 1988

25. “Final Report: Needs Assessment and Study of the FIRESCOPE Program,” Ryland Research, Inc., 

1987

26. “Exemplary Practices in Emergency Management: The California FIRESCOPE Program,” 

Emergency Management Institute, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Monograph Series 

No. 1, 1986

27. “MACS Procedures Guide: MACS 410-1,” California Office of Emergency Services, 1986

28. “California Fire and Rescue Emergency Plan Mutual Aid Interface with FIRESCOPE,” California 

Office of Emergency Services, 1984

29. “Red Flag Alert Notification Procedures Guide: MACS 410-3,” California Office of Emergency 

Services, 1984

30. Snell, Larry and Associates, “An Overview and Assessment of the California Master Mutual Aid 

Program,” A report to the California Seismic Safety Commission, 1979