INCIDENT COMMAND SYSTEM

1
INCIDENT COMMAND SYSTEM
Jim Stumpf
2
HISTORY OF DEVELOPMENT
Resulted from an obvious need exhibited from
rapidly moving wild land fires in the early
1970s.
Major modifications made in all aspects of the
original system in the early 1990s to better
accommodate all risk applications.
3
NEED FOR A COMMON SYSTEM

• Complexity of incident management.
• Growing need for multiagency / multifunctional
  involvement.
• Increased need for a common system of efficient,
  cost-effective incident management usable by all
  emergency response disciplines.

4
FACTORS AFFECTING EMERGENCY RESPONSE

• Population growth and spread to urban areas.
• Language and cultural differences.
• More multijurisdictional incidents.
• Legal changes mandating standard incident
  management systems.
• Shortage of resources mandating use of more
  mutual aid.
• Increase in the number, diversity and use of
  radio frequencies.

5
FACTORS AFFECTING EMERGENCY RESPONSE, Contd

• More complex and inter-related incident
  situations.
• Greater life and property loss risk from natural
  and human caused disasters.
• Sophisticated media coverage.
• More frequent cost-sharing decisions on
  incidents.

6
PROBLEMS IN THE 70s

• Too many people reporting to one supervisor.
• Different emergency response structures.
• Lack of reliable incident information.
• Inadequate and incompatible communications.
• Lack of structure for coordinated planning
  between agencies.
• Unclear lines of authority.
• Terminology differences.
• Unclear or unspecified incident objectives.

7
ESSENTIAL REQUIREMENTS

• Organizationally flexible.
• Must be able to use the system on a day-to-day
  basis and for major emergencies.
• Standard system to allow for a wide variety of
  uses.
• The system must be cost-effective.

8
CHARACTERISTICS

• Emergencies occur with no advance notice.
• They can develop rapidly.
• Unchecked, they grow in size or complexity.
• Personal risk for response can be high.

9
CHARACTERISTICS, Contd

• Often several agencies with some on-scene
  responsibilities.
• Easily become multi-jurisdictional.
• High public and media visibility.
• Risk of life and property loss can be high.
• Cost of response is always a major consideration.

10
EVOLUTION OF ICS

• FIRESCOPE
• NIIMS (1980S)
• USERS
• FEMA States - AK,
• PHS NY, NM, CA
• NFA EPA-Hazmat
• NFPA USCG-OPA 90
• OSHA Hazmat

11
EVOLUTION OF ICS, contd

• DHS formed after 9/11/01
• HSPD-5, 7, 8 9 established NIMS and agencys
  involvement.
• NIMS developing ICS closely parallels NIIMS
• USFA development of all-hazard Type 3 IMT
  development.