light a small signal fire, and before it was brought under control, the fire consumed over 280 000 acres. Surprisingly, 30 000 acres burned inside the city limits of San Diego. While there were numerous other fires burning in California in 2003, the Cedar Fire was the most destructive of the year, and according to some, the most destructive modern‐day wildfire until the 2017 Thomas Fire (Tierney, 2018). At the peak of firefighting efforts during the Cedar Fire, there were a total of 4275 firefighters, and this does not include law enforcement, EMS, animal rescue personnel, and a whole host of other support agencies (“California Fire Siege 2003,” n.d.). The Thomas Fire burned approximately 281 893 acres making it the largest wildfire in California history. As this book was in the authors final edit, the Thomas Fire was outdone by the Mendocino Complex Fire's Ranch Fire in August 2018. This complex fire burned a combined total of 459 123 acres (Incident Information System, 2018).
It is easy for even a novice to see that events such as the Yellowstone, the Cedar Fire, the Thomas Fire, and the Mendocino Complex Fire that an incident can quickly expand into a multiagency and a multijurisdictional response. Beyond the operational firefighting efforts, coordination is usually needed to divide and conquer the multifaceted response. Simultaneously, the Incident Commander and his/her staff must manage firefighting operations, evacuations, water supplies, finance, liaison, and a whole host of other issues that may be needed. These types of major incidents also have the capability of becoming a major news story. This type of media attention an incident may garner is based on the size and complexity of the incident. As will be mentioned in later chapters, the managing of the media is an important aspect, perhaps even a critical aspect, in almost every major incident, and even in some small incidents.
As first responders, we need to remember that the cost of response, recovery, and mitigation is a major consideration. Identifying the funding for a response may become problematic. Funding for response, recovery, and mitigation can come from various governmental and private stakeholders. Most municipal budgets usually cannot afford to fund these larger incidents. These federal and other stakeholder funding entities can (at times) substantially increase frustrations among those managing an operation. Increased frustration from not having what is needed to mitigate an incident can become further complicated when certain stakeholders require specific milestones be completed in a specific way.
Another issue can be when a funding agency requires response personnel to jump through certain hoops in order to receive support funding. One frustration that has come from past incidents has come from the federal government. It would seem that some agencies have been told that the incident was not substantial enough to receive federal assistance while they stand in front of what is left of your community. Utilizing an IMS method helps to ensure that everything is done according to the book so that you have a decreased chance of being denied the funding that you and your community desperately need.
1.8 The “Big Three” of IMS
Lack of nationwide collaboration to meet the needs of incident command and incident management needs initially led to three initial manifestations of IMS. Each manifestation played a pivotal role in creating the method widely used today. These three methods were a part of disorganized groups that became known as part of the “Big Three” command methods. Each of these three methods contributed in some way to the evolution of the ICS component of NIMS, and to NIMS itself. Later Incident Command System models were extensions of these three methods. The Big Three include
FIRESCOPE (also known as the Wildfire Incident Command System): FIRESCOPE evolved into a method that was used mostly by the wildland firefighting system in the United States. During 1970s and early 1980s, it was the most prevalent ICS Method in place. The FIRESCOPE program is still (somewhat) in use today in California, but it has seen a substantial decline in use since ICS and NIMS became the nationwide standard.
The National Fire Academy (NFA) Incident Command System (ICS): The Federal government recognized ICS as the model for the management of emergency incident scene in 1980. This version of ICS was slightly geared toward the “east coast” because it did not initially embrace wildland firefighting applications, and for the most part, it addressed emergencies faced by urban responders. In 1980s through early 2000s, these NFA‐ICS classes were a mainstay of NFA delivery classes to local jurisdictions.
The Fire Ground Commander System (FGCS): The FGCS was established in the Phoenix Fire Department and gained ground as a method partially because of their well‐known Chief, Alan Brunacini. This method used the same basic, or underlying, principles as the FIRESCOPE model but was made to be more practical for structural fire‐based incidents.
These three methods would later meld in together into the NIMS method that is in place today, with ICS being a primary component of NIMS. The melding of the three methods was due, at least in part, to the 9/11 attacks on American soil. Some would argue that the differences in the big three are only semantic in nature, but each played a respective role in the creation of what we now call ICS and NIMS.
1.9 The Melding of the IMS Concepts of Today
The Big Three concepts of incident management were directed toward specific uses, but initially none of these concepts were perfected for all types of incidents. Some believe that the underpinnings of each of those “Big Three” evolved and melded together over the past 40 years. It is important to note that these concepts did not evolve in a linear format, where it was one dimensional. These three initial types of incident management seemed to evolve in a more three‐dimensional fashion, and in a concurrent way. This three‐dimensional growth began to incorporate more than just fire departments. As it developed, it began to show the utilitarian use of the system for myriad of agencies who might be utilized on an emergency incident.
The Incident Command System (ICS) was originally created for the fire service. Over the years, it became widely used, and accepted, by fire agencies throughout the United States. As other public safety disciplines began to understand the utility and the benefits of the system, its use became more prevalent in these disciplines. While some minor changes were made to make ICS more useful by other disciplines, the main concepts remained the same. The system soon began to be incorporated by law enforcement, hospitals, Emergency Management Agencies (EMA), public works, faith‐based organizations, and other stakeholder agencies. As the effectiveness of the system became more realized, ICS gradually found its way into nonpublic safety function such as concerts, festivals, marathons, and other event management activities.
In 1980, the original FIRECSOPE method and other existing IMS methods transitioned into a national program called the National Interagency Incident Management System (NIIMS). NIIMS temporarily became the backbone of a wider‐based method for all federal agencies having a role in wildland fire management. This was initially administered by the US Department of the Interior through its National Wildfire Coordinating Group (NWCG) which is based in Boise, Idaho. NIIMS was endorsed and used by multiple agencies in the United States until shortly after September 11 attack.
The most unthinkable incident occurred on 11 September 2001, changing the world as we knew it, forever. This catastrophic incident changed the way that we manage emergency incidents. This was partially due to the problems that developed in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, and many of these changes were made based on the shortcomings that were identified while trying to recover from this immense incident.
While the way of managing any incident was to utilize the ICS method, after the September 11 attacks, it became apparent that another way of more effectively integrating resources was needed. Even after the attacks, it was realized that ICS should remain the way to manage an incident at the local level because it worked, and worked well. Even so, the shortcomings of integrating resources from around this great nation of ours was quickly realized after the attacks. It was also realized that a national method, or national set of protocols, was needed to integrate outside resources in a more organized manner.
These set of concepts, known collectively as the National Incident Management System (NIMS) has become even more necessary since the September 11 attacks. This necessity was not only relegated to the United States but also around the world, especially considering the most