The residential portion of the fire problem continues to account for the vast majority of civilian casualties. National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) estimates show that, while residential structure fires account for only 25 percent of fires nationwide, they account for a disproportionate share of losses: 83 percent of fire deaths, 77 percent of fire injuries, and 64 percent of direct dollar losses. Analyses of the residential structure fire problem were published formerly as a chapter in each edition of Fire in the United States. The most recent edition of Fire in the United States, the fourteenth edition published in August 2007, featured an abbreviated chapter on residential structures. This full report is the most current snapshot of the residential fire problem as reflected in the 2005 National Fire Incident Reporting System (NFIRS) data and the 2005 NFPA survey data. In this report, as in previous chapters in Fire in the United States, an attempt has been made to keep the data presentation and analysis as straightforward as possible. It is also the desire of the United States Fire Administration (USFA) to make the report widely accessible to many different users, so it avoids unnecessarily complex methodology.

This Juvenile Firesetter Intervention Handbook is designed to teach communities how to develop an effective juvenile firesetter intervention program. The chapters of this Handbook can be viewed as the six building blocks essential to construct a successful program. The cornerstone of the blueprint is understanding the personality profiles of juvenile firesetters and their families. The next step is identifying at-risk youth and assessing the likelihood that they will become involved in future firesetting incidents. The identification of the three levels of firesetting risk-little, definite, and extreme-leads to specific types of intervention, including evaluation, education, referral, and follow up. These are the critical components of a juvenile firesetter program To provide a complete complement of services to juvenile firesetters and their families, the juvenile firesetter program must be part of a community network. This network consists of a continuum of care designed to provide a range of intervention services, including prevention, immediate treatment, and graduated sanctions to juvenile firesetters and their families. Finally, there is a specific set of programmatic tasks that will ensure the delivery of swift and effective intervention to at-risk youth and their families. A planned an coordinated effort on the part of the fire service and human service organizations is the best way to reduce juvenile involvement in firesetting and arson and to protect and preserve lives and property in our communities.

The range of services provided by America's fire service continues to expand. In many areas, the local fire department is responsible for mitigating hazardous materials incidents, performing technical rescues, and providing emergency medical services. The threat of terrorist incidents further increases the fire department's responsibility, as firefighters must be taught to recognize the signs of a chemical or biological attack and the proper response. This expansion of the fire service's responsibilities means that less time and energy are available to focus on basic fire suppression skills and scenarios. Also, some of the newer missions present their own, inherent training dangers. In addition, the personal protective gear being worn by firefighters today is excellent; some say that it is even too protective. Firefighters now can advance deeper into structures and get closer to the seat of a fire than in years past because the turnout gear protects well against heat, but this can create problems. A longer exposure to fire will rapidly deplete a firefighter's energy and air supply; and the firefighter will have a greater distance to travel to an exit in an emergency situation. Furthermore, as firefighters progress farther into a structure, more time elapses, which means the fire is more devel-oped, hotter, and often closer to flashover. Due to the increased use of synthetic and polycarbonate construction materials, fires are burning hotter and faster than in the past, resulting in a higher potential for building collapse and flashover. Collapse becomes more likely because of the increased damage from the fire. Safe, effective, and realistic firefighter training is essential in preparing the fire service to achieve its mission of preserving life and property. The dilemma posed by conducting realistic fire training is that fires, even in a training setting, are inherently dangerous. Yet, the fire service needs realistic scenarios to fully experience the environment of a fire and how to combat it. Even without the presence of live fire, training on the physically challenging and labor-intensive tasks of hose handling, tool work, and ladder operations pose a high potential for injuries. From 1987-2001 there has been a 31 percent decrease in the incidence of structure fires throughout the United States. As a result of the decline in fires, firefighters on the whole have less fireground experience than their predecessors had a generation ago. As many of the more experienced firefighters and officers retire, they are replaced by young officers with comparably less fire experience. As today's firefighters' collective, direct experience in fighting fires continues to diminish, there is great concern in the fire service that the inability to recognize flashover and building collapse-and to react quickly enough to avoid being caught by these two potentially fatal conditions-will continue to result in injuries and fatalities to firefighters. Complicating this situation is that live fire training with Class A combustible materials (especially in acquired structures) is being replaced by temperature-controlled, fuel-fed fires in non-combustible structures. Departments are relying less on live fire training for myriad reasons, including among others, environmental, safety, and cost. This report examines recent injurious and fatal incidents involving training to determine lessons that can be used to prevent future injuries and deaths. The emphasis in this report is on fire-related training, particularly live-fire evolutions. It is, however, important to note that training-related injuries can and do occur during a variety of types of training. Also included is a discussion of training standards and common hazards as well as a brief analysis of the available data on the number and cause of training-related injuries and deaths.

This report compiles the best practices and common problems of fire protection and criminal justice agencies in identifying, investigating, prosecuting, and preventing arson. Commonly, the crime of arson is motivated by spite and revenge. Perpetrators strike with fire at buildings where people live, work, or socialize-causing injury, property loss, and death. Civilians and firefighters alike die in arson fires every year. Thirty years ago, arson captured media attention because so-called arson-for-profit rings were burning down decaying urban neighborhoods that had ceased to be profitable, and then rebuilding them at a substantial profit. Other high-profile cases involved arsonists who were connected to gangs and drug lords, and who set fires to intimidate their rivals or as retribution for deals gone bad. Some of the most publicized cases occurred in the cities of New York, Boston, Houston, Los Angeles, Miami, Baltimore, and others. There even were situations where neighborhood vigilantes, who were frustrated with crime and run-down buildings, took it upon themselves to torch structures to rid the neighborhood of vagrants, prostitutes, and drug dealers. Insurance companies were perceived as the main victims from intentional fires. As a crime com-mitted against property, the economics of arson played center stage to the less well-defined statistics on injuries and deaths. Since arson fires do, on average, cause proportionately higher losses than fires from other causes, insurance companies committed many resources toward investigation and control. From establishing tip reward programs, training accelerant detection canines (ADC's), supporting arson reporting immunity legislation, and establishing the property insurance loss register (PILR), the insurance industry was a strong partner at that time. There is a dichotomy between arson as a property crime and arson as a crime against people, and that lies at the heart of today's challenges with cases of arson. As a crime, arson's long-standing definition as the willful and malicious burning of property does not do justice to the fact that today arson is usually a personal crime that is directed intentionally against specific victims. It is time for arson to be dealt with as a violent crime against persons, not just a crime against property. Today, spite and revenge dominate as the motives in intentional property fires, especially where there are casualties. Revenge-minded arsonists torch nightclubs, occupied residences, hotels, and other settings where their intended victims, and often other innocent people, are injured and killed. First responders get injured or die battling these blazes and trying to save others. Even though a portion of incendiary fires are motivated by other reasons (e.g., excitement, economic relief, peer pressure, a cry for help, and so forth) most set fires happen because someone wanted to inflict harm on another person using fire as the weapon of choice. Fire investigation units from The U.S. Fire Administration's (USFA's) project indicated that spite and revenge were the most common motives behind incendiary fires. Among project sites from the past 5 years, spite and revenge ranked as the highest leading motives, when investigation units were queried about prevailing motives.

This report, America at Risk, builds on the meetings of America Burning, Recommissioned, and is based on statements, discussions and recommendations that were issued on May 3rd by the Commission as the "Principal Findings and Recommendations." One hundred years ago, American cities faced a devastating challenge from the threat of urban fires. Whole cities had become the victims of these events. Entire neighborhoods lived with the very real threat that an ignited fire would take everything, including their lives. Today, the threat of fires is still with us. But we have done a lot to address the risk, minimize the incidence and severity of losses, and prevent fires from spreading. Our states and localities have an improving system of codes and standards; most of us are aware of the risks; our communities have everyday heroes who provide the first response to emergency calls; some of our homes and buildings have alarms or sprinkler systems; and our water distribution system for fire suppression stretches further than many imagined in 1900. We have accomplished a lot, but we have much more to do. Our community fire departments and firefighters are at the vanguard of the long-term effort to address our fire risks. Not only are they the first responders to fire and other natural and man-made disasters, but also they have been strong advocates of effective codes and standards; they visited our schools and neighborhoods with educational material on fire risks, and they have put their lives on the line countless times. They will continue to do so. There is ample proof that the word hero is a correct attribute of our Nation's firefighters. As this report very clearly indicates, the success of America's fire services over the past 100 years is instructive for the strength and sustainability of America's communities for the next 100 years as well. Today, we must not only continue and reinvigorate our successes, but also expand them to include the natural and man-made threats that each of our counties, cities, towns and villages face every day - floods, earthquakes, hurricanes, hazardous material spills, highway accidents, acts of terrorism, and so much more. As the Federal Emergency Management Agency's Project Impact: Building Disaster Resistant Communities has shown, community-based partnerships among local government, public safety services, businesses and residents will provide us the best set of priorities and implementation strategies, as well as the longest lasting commitments with respect to disaster prevention. That is why FEMA and national fire service organizations have formed a Project Impact partnership to support communities' efforts to become disaster resistant. Project Impact depends on our first responders, our neighborhood fire departments, and without them, our communities would all be more vulnerable to disaster losses.

This Wildfire Prevention Guide is a project of the National Wildfire Coordinating Group. This is one in a series designed to provide information and guidance for personnel who have interests and/or responsibilities in fire prevention. Each guide in the series addresses an individual component of a fire prevention program. In addition to providing insight and useful information, each guide suggests implementation strategies and examples for utilizing this information. Each Wildfire Prevention Guide has been developed by Fire Prevention Specialists and subject-matter experts in the appropriate area. The goal of this series is to improve and enhance wildfire prevention programs and to facilitate the achievement of NWCG program goals.

The 2005 Fire Service Needs Assessment Survey was conducted as a stratified random sample survey. The NFPA used its own list of local fire departments as the mailing list and sampling frame of all fire departments in the US that report on fire incidents attended. In all, 15,545 fire departments - just over half the total in NFPA Fire Service Inventory (FSI) database, including all departments protecting communities of at least 50,000 population - were mailed survey forms, and 4,709 responded, for a 30% response rate. Because of time constraints, this second survey limited its second mailing to larger departments and states with unusually low response rates, whereas the first survey in 2001 had included a second mailing to all first-mailing non-respondents. This response rate is similar to the response rate in the 2001 survey's first mailing and is sufficient for reliable results at the national and state levels, overall and by community size. The second mailing to small states with low response rates had minimal impact on national estimates. The content of the survey was developed by NFPA in the 2001 survey, in collaboration with an ad hoc technical advisory group consisting of representatives of the full spectrum of national organizations and related disciplines associated with the management of fire and related hazards and risks in the U.S. The survey form was used without modification in order to maximize comparability of results and development of valid timelines.

Families trust schools to keep their children safe during the day. Thanks to the efforts of millions of teachers, principals, and staff across America, the majority of schools remain safe havens for our nation's youth. The unfortunate reality is, however, that school districts in this country may be touched either directly or indirectly by a crisis of some kind at any time. Natural disasters such as floods, earthquakes, fires, and tornadoes can strike a community with little or no warning. An influenza pandemic, or other infectious disease, can spread from person-to-person causing serious illness across the country, or around the globe, in a very short time. School shootings, threatened or actual, are extremely rare but are horrific and chilling when they occur. The harrowing events of September 11 and subsequent anthrax scares have ushered in a new age of terrorism. Communities across the country are struggling to understand and avert acts of terror. Children and youth rely on and find great comfort in the adults who protect them. Teachers and staff must know how to help their students through a crisis and return them home safely. Knowing what to do when faced with a crisis can be the difference between calm and chaos, between courage and fear, between life and death. There are thousands of fires in schools every year, yet there is minimal damage to life and property because staff and students are prepared. This preparedness needs to be extended to all risks schools face. Schools and districts need to be ready to handle crises, large and small, to keep our children and staff out of harm's way and ready to learn and teach. Taking action now can save lives, prevent injury, and minimize property damage in the moments of a crisis. The importance of reviewing and revising school and district plans cannot be underscored enough, and Practical Information on Crisis Planning: A Guide for Schools and Communities is designed to help you navigate this process. The Guide is intended to give schools, districts, and communities the critical concepts and components of good crisis planning, stimulate thinking about the crisis preparedness process, and provide examples of promising practices. This document does not provide a cookbook approach to crisis preparedness. Each community has its own history, culture, and way of doing business. Schools and districts are at risk for different types of crises and have their own definitions of what constitutes a crisis. Crisis plans need to be customized to communities, districts, and schools to meet the unique needs of local residents and students. Crisis plans also need to address state and local school safety laws. Experts recommend against cutting and pasting plans from other schools and districts. Other plans can serve as useful models, but what is effective for a large innercity school district where the population is concentrated may be ineffective for a rural community where schools and first responders are far apart.

Hurricane Ivan made landfall on Thursday, September 16, 2004, just west of Gulf Shores, Alabama. The hurricane brought sustained wind speeds, torrential rains, coastal storm surge flooding, and large and battering waves along the western Florida Panhandle and Alabama coastline. After landfall, Hurricane Ivan gradually weakened over the next week, moving northeastward over the Southeastern United States and eventually emerging off the Delmarva Peninsula as an extratropical low on September 19, 2004. On September 18, 2005, the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA's) Mitigation Division deployed a Mitigation Assessment Team (MAT) to Alabama and Florida to evaluate building performance during Hurricane Ivan and the adequacy of current building codes, other construction requirements, and building practices and materials. This report presents the MAT's observations, conclusions, and recommendations as a result of those field investigations. Several maps in Chapter 1 illustrate the path of the storm, the depth of storm surge along the path, and the wind field estimates. Hurricane Ivan approximated a design flood event on the barrier islands and exceeded design flood conditions in sound and back bay areas. This provided a good opportunity to assess the adequacy of National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) floodplain management requirements as well as current construction practices in resisting storm surge and wave damage. FEMA was particularly interested in evaluating damages to buildings in coastal A Zones where V-Zone construction methods are not required. The recommendations in this report are based solely on the observations and conclusions of the MAT, and are intended to assist the State of Alabama, the State of Florida, local communities, businesses, and individuals in the reconstruction process and to help reduce damage and impact from future natural events similar to Hurricane Ivan. The report and recommendations also will help FEMA assess the adequacy of its flood hazard mapping and floodplain management requirements and determine whether changes are needed or additional guidance required. The general recommendations are presented in Sections 8.1 and 8.2. They relate to policies and education/outreach that are needed to ensure that designers, contractors, and building officials understand the requirements for disaster-resistant construction in hurricane-prone regions. Proposed changes to codes and standards are presented in Section 8.3. Specific recommendations for improving the performance of the building structural system and envelope, and the protection of critical and essential facilities (to prevent loss of function) are provided in Chapter 8. Implementing these specific recommendations, in combination with the general recommendations of Section 8.1 and 8.2 and the code and standard recommendations of Section 8.3, will significantly improve the ability of buildings to resist damage from hurricanes. Recommendations specific to structural issues, building envelope issues, critical and essential facilities, and education and outreach have also been provided. As the people of Alabama and Florida rebuild their lives, homes, and businesses, there are a number of ways they can minimize the effects of future hurricanes.

Floods, hurricanes, and other disasters can strike with little warning and damage or destroy irreplaceable art, artifacts, books, and historic records. But there are ways to prepare for emergencies and minimize the damage they inflict. Since the events of September 11, 2001, effective emergency management has become a higher priority for the cultural community. More institutions are interested in developing disaster plans, providing staff training, and better protecting their collections. Numerous federal programs now support such important efforts. Before and After Disasters: Federal Funding for Cultural Institutions is designed to help archives, arts centers, libraries, museums, historical societies, and historic sites find the resources they need. This guide is an updated and expanded version of Resources for Recovery: Post-Disaster Aid for Cultural Institutions, first developed in 1992 by Heritage Preservation and then revised in 2000. Before and After Disasters includes summary descriptions and contact information for 15 federal grant and loan programs - almost double the number of resources in the previous edition. It covers sources of federal assistance for preparedness, mitigation, and response, as well as for recovery. Sample projects in disaster planning, training, treatment research, and restoration illustrate the funding guidelines. Before and After Disasters: Federal Funding for Cultural Institutions is an initiative of the Heritage Emergency National Task Force. It was written and produced by Heritage Preservation with funding from, and in partnership with, the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the National Endowment for the Arts as a service to the American cultural community.

The American Red Cross is the nation's largest nonprofit organisation involved in disaster relief. The organisation provides services such as sheltering and food assistance, and it has a leadership role in the federal disaster response framework. However, questions have been raised over its ability to respond effectively to large disasters. This book addresses the key factors affecting the nature and extent of the Red Cross's disaster services; how it coordinates with the federal government on disaster assistance; and what external oversight exists of its disaster services. Furthermore, the book provides a brief history of the charter of the American National Red Cross (ANRC); describes the recent congressional interest in the ANRC's governance, operations, and charter; reviews the ANRC's governance audit report and proposal to amend its charter; and describes recent congressional proposals to amend the charter.

Horrified, saddened, and angered: That was the American people's reaction to the 9/11 attacks, Hurricane Katrina, the Virginia Tech shootings, and the 2008 financial crisis. In Consuming Catastrophe, Timothy Recuber presents a unique and provocative look at how these four very different disasters took a similar path through public consciousness. He explores the myriad ways we engage with and negotiate our feelings about disasters and tragedies-from omnipresent media broadcasts to relief fund efforts and promises to "Never Forget." Recuber explains how a specific and "real" kind of emotional connection to the victims becomes a crucial element in the creation, use, and consumption of mass mediation of disasters. He links this to the concept of "empathetic hedonism," or the desire to understand or feel the suffering of others. The ineffability of disasters makes them a spectacular and emotional force in contemporary American culture. Consuming Catastrophe provides a lively analysis of the themes and meanings of tragedy and the emotions it engenders in the representation, mediation and consumption of disasters.

On September 22, 1992, at the request of the Mayor of Kauai County, the Federal Coordinating Officer for the Iniki disaster tasked the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA's) Federal Insurance Administration (FIA) to assemble a team of experts to assess the performance of buildings. The team was tasked with surveying the performance of primarily residential structures under wind and water forces generated during Hurricane Iniki. The goal of this effort is to provide guidance and offer recommendations for reducing damage from future hurricanes. This goal is best met through learning from both failures and successes of building performance. During the field assessment, the team investigated primarily structural systems (i.e., systems in a building that resist lateral and vertical forces. For all buildings, the performance of exterior architectural systems, such as roofing, windows, and doors was analyzed. The analysis also included the effects of windborne and waterborne debris and the quality of construction and materials. The majority of building types observed were one- and two-story, wood-frame, single-family and multi-family residential structures. However, pre-engineered steel commercial and industrial buildings, as well as resort hotels and condominiums constructed of reinforced concrete and masonry, were also examined. This report includes detailed engineering discussions of building failure modes and successful building performance. It also provides detailed recommendations for enhancing building performance under hurricane and flood conditions.

The goal of the "Provisions" is to present criteria for the design and construction of new structures subject to earthquake ground motions in order to minimize the hazard to life for all structures, to increase the expected performance of structures having a substantial public hazard due to occupancy or use as compared to ordinary structures, and to improve the capability of essential facilities to function after an earthquake. The "Provisions" provides the minimum criteria considered prudent for the protection of life safety in structures subject to earthquakes. The "Provisions" document has been reviewed extensively and balloted by the architectural, engineering, and construction communities and, therefore, it is a proper source for the development of building codes in areas of seismic exposure. Some design standards go further than the "Provisions" and attempt to minimize damage as well as protect building occupants. The "Provisions" document generally considers property damage as it relates to occupant safety for ordinary structures. For high occupancy and essential facilities, damage limitation criteria are more strict in order to better provide for the safety of occupants and the continued functioning of the facility. Some structural and nonstructural damage can be expected as a result of the "design ground motions" because the "Provisions" allow inelastic energy dissipation in the structural system. For ground motions in excess of the design levels, the intent of the Provisions is for the structure to have a low likelihood of collapse. It must be emphasized that absolute safety and no damage even in an earthquake event with a reasonable probability of occurrence cannot be achieved for most structures. However, a high degree of life safety, albeit with some structural and nonstructural damage, can be achieved economically in structures by allowing inelastic energy dissipation in the structure. The objective of the "Provisions" therefore is to set forth the minimum requirements to provide reasonable and prudent life safety. For most structures designed and constructed according to the "Provisions," it is expected that structural damage from even a major earthquake would likely be repairable, but the damage may not be economically repairable. Where damage control is desired, the design must provide not only sufficient strength to resist the specified seismic loads but also the proper stiffness to limit the lateral deflection. Damage to nonstructural elements may be minimized by proper limitation of deformations; by careful attention to detail; and by providing proper clearances for exterior cladding, glazing, partitions, and wall panels. The nonstructural elements can be separated or floated free and allowed to move independently of the structure. If these elements are tied rigidly to the structure, they should be protected from deformations that can cause cracking; otherwise, one must expect such damage. It should be recognized, however, that major earthquake ground motions can cause deformations much larger than the specified drift limits in the "Provisions." Where prescribed wind loading governs the stress or drift design, the resisting system still must conform to the special requirements for seismic-force-resisting systems. This is required in order to resist, in a ductile manner, potential seismic loadings in excess of the prescribed loads. A proper, continuous load path is an obvious design requirement for equilibrium, but experience has shown that it often is overlooked and that significant damage and collapse can result. The basis for this design requirement is twofold: 1. To ensure that the design has fully identified the seismic-force-resisting system and its appropriate design level and 2. To ensure that the design basis is fully identified for the purpose of future modifications or changes in the structure.

According to available information, landsliding in the United States causes an average of 25 to 50 deaths and $1 to $2 billion in economic losses annually. Although all 50 states are subject to landslide activity, the Rocky Mountain, Appalachian, and Pacific Coast regions generally suffer the greatest landslide losses. The costs of landsliding can be direct or indirect and range from the expense of cleanup and repair or replacement of structures to lost tax revenues and reduced productivity and property values. Landslide losses are growing in the United States despite the availability of successful techniques for landslide management and control. The failure to lessen the problem is primarily due to the ever-increasing pressure of development in areas of geologically hazardous terrain and the failure of responsible government entities and private developers to recognize landslide hazards and to apply appropriate measures for their mitigation, even though there is overwhelming evidence that landslide hazard mitigation programs serve both public and private interests by saving many times the cost of implementation. The high cost of landslide damage will continue to increase if community development and capital investments continue without taking advantage of the opportunities that currently exist to mitigate the effects of landslides. The widespread occurrence of landsliding, together with the potential for catastrophic statewide and regional impacts, emphasizes the need for cooperation among federal, state, and local governments and the private sector. Although annual landslide losses in the U.S. are extremely high, significant reductions in future losses can be achieved through a combination of landslide hazard mitigation and emergency management. Landslide hazard mitigation consists of those activities that reduce the likelihood of occurrence of damaging landslides and minimize the effects of the landslides that do occur. The goal of emergency management is to minimize loss of life and property damage through the timely and efficient commitment of available resources. Despite their common goals, emergency management and hazard mitigation activities have historically been carried out independently. The integration of these two efforts is most often demonstrated in the recovery phase following a disaster, when decisions about reconstruction and future land uses in the community are made. The development and implementation of landslide loss-reduction strategies requires the cooperation of many public and private institutions, all levels of government, and private citizens. Coordinated and comprehensive systems for landslide hazard mitigation do not currently exist in most states and communities faced with the problem. In most states, local governments often take the lead by identifying goals and objectives, controlling land use, providing hazard information and technical assistance to property owners and developers, and implementing mitigation projects as resources allow. State and federal agencies play supporting roles-primarily financial, technical, and administrative. In some cases, however, legislation originating at the state or federal level is the sole impetus for stimulating effective local mitigation activity. In many states there remains a need to develop long-term organizational systems at state and local levels to deal with landslide hazard mitigation in a coordinated and systematic manner. The development of a landslide hazard mitigation plan can be the initial step in the establishment of state and local programs that promote long-term landslide loss reduction. The purpose of this guidebook is to provide a practical, politically feasible guide for state and local officials involved in landslide hazard mitigation. The guidebook presents concepts and a framework for the preparation of state and local landslide hazard mitigation plans.

Lifelines (e.g., communication, electric power, liquid fuels, natural gas, transportation, water and sewer systems, etc.) are presently being sited in "utility or transportation corridors" to reduce their right-of-way environmental, aesthetic, and cost impacts on the community and on land use. The individual lifelines are usually constructed or modified at different time periods, resulting in their being built to different standards and in different siting criteria being applied to different segments of an individual lifeline or to different lifelines that provide similar functions. Presently, the siting review usually does not consider the impact of the proximity or collocation of one lifeline upon the risk to or vulnerability of other lifelines from natural or manmade hazards or disasters, either because the other lifelines have not yet been installed or because such a consideration has not been identified as a factor in the siting evaluation. In August 1988, a train derailment in northern California also damaged a petroleum pipeline which was buried along the railroad right-of-way. The result was a spill of the pipeline fluids in addition to the derailment (but no significant loss of property and no injuries to or casualties). When another derailment in San Bernardino occurred in May l989, which resulted in severe property damage and the loss of life, the Office of the Fire Marshall also responded to see if the derailment had impacted a petroleum products pipeline that was buried along the railroad right-of-way. It was decided that the pipeline was not damaged, and the fire and safety personnel turned over the site to the railroad to allow them to clean up the site. About a week later the pipeline ruptured and the resulting fire caused considerable property damage and loss of life. The subsequent investigations concluded that the pipeline may have been damaged during the derailment, but that the most probable cause of its damage was the derailment clean up operations. In a similar sense, communication lines along a highway bridge would be vulnerable to failure if the bridge were to displace or fail during a disaster event. In fact, frequently highway bridges and overpasses are used to route other lifelines, such as communications and pipelines, over causeways and water bodies. Such lifelines can be damaged by failure of the superstructure, bridge foundation movement, or ground deformation along the approaches to the bridge. Settlement and lateral displacement adjacent to abutments have been especially troublesome because such movements tend to impose deformations on the lifelines where they are locally constrained at the attachment or penetration of the abutment. There are many such examples of lifeline interdependency that occurred during the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake. In response to these types of situations, FEMA is focusing attention on the use of such corridors, and they initiated this study to examine the impacts of siting multiple lifeline systems in confined and at-risk areas. The overall FEMA project goals are to develop, for multiple lifeline systems in confined and at-risk areas, a managerial tool that can be used to increase the understanding of the lifeline systems' vulnerabilities and to help identify potential mitigation approaches that could be used to reduce those vulnerabilities. The goals also are to identify methods to enhance the transfer of the resulting information to lifeline system providers, designers, builders, managers, operators, users, and regulators. To provide a specific example of how the managerial tool can be used, it was decided that the methods should be applied to the lifelines in the Cajon Pass, California, for an assumed earthquake event at the Pass. The purpose of this report is to provide an inventory of the major lifeline systems in the Cajon Pass and the earthquake and geologic analysis tools available to identify and define the level of seismic risk to those lifelines.

During the past few decades, the number of large public warehouse stores (often referred to as big-box stores) across the nation has grown significantly, changing both consumer buying habits and the public's risk of injury during earthquakes. During an earthquake, occupant safety in a big-box store depends on both the structural performance of the building and on the performance of the storage racks and their contents. Earthquake ground motions can cause storage racks to collapse or overturn if they are not properly designed, installed, maintained, and loaded. In addition, goods stored on the racks may spill or topple off. Both occurrences pose a life-safety risk to the exposed shopping public. The immediate stimulus for the project that resulted in this report was a 2003 request from the State of Washington to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for guidance concerning the life-safety risk posed by the storage racks in publicly accessible areas of retail stores, especially the risk of rack collapse of loss of stored goods during an earthquake. FEMA asked the Building Seismic Safety Council (BSSC) to develop the requested guidance. To do so, the BSSC established a Rack Project Task Group composed of practicing engineers, storage rack designers, researchers, representatives of the Rack Manufacturers Institute (RMI) and the Retail Industry Leaders Association, and members of applicable technical subcommittees responsible for updating the NEHRP Recommended Provisions. In developing this guidance document, the Task Group focused primarily on steel single selective pallet storage racks. It reviewed available information on storage rack performance during earthquakes and the background on the development of standards and code requirements for storage racks; assessed seismic requirements for storage racks and current practices with respect to rack design, maintenance and operations, quality assurance, and post-earthquake inspections; and examined available research and testing data. Based on its study, the Task Group developed short-term recommendations to improve current practice and formulated long-term recommendations to serve as the basis for improved standards documents such as the NEHRP Recommended Provisions, ASCE 7, and the RMI-developed storage rack specification. Over the near term, the Task Group recommends that the 2003 NEHRP Recommended Provisions requirements for steel single selective pallet storage rack design be followed and that connections be checked in accordance with a procedure to be developed by RMI. The Task Group also recommends that additional guidance presented in this report be voluntarily adopted by store owners and operators. Further, given the fact that maintenance and use of storage racks is a key element to their acceptable performance during earthquakes, store owners and operators should adopt an appropriate quality assurance plan; as a minimum, the best self-imposed practices of store owners and operators should be maintained. The Task Group's primary long-term recommendation is that the RMI specification be brought into conformance with the 2003 NEHRP Recommended Provisions, which is the basis for seismic requirements found in current seismic design standards and model building codes. The Task Group also recommends that optional performance-based and limit state procedures and component cyclic testing procedures be incorporated into the RMI-developed specification. Compliance with these procedures will demonstrate that the storage racks have the capacity to resist maximum considered earthquake ground motions without collapse. It also is recommended that regulatory bodies periodically review the quality assurance programs of stores and implement any regulations needed to satisfy life-safety concerns that relate to the securing of rack contents and rack maintenance and use.