The Incident Command System (ICS) is a standardized approach to the management of emergency response personnel and resources during an event. It introduces a command structure and approaches for coordination between multiple agencies. As many larger emergencies require cooperation from different organizations, having a system in place to keep everyone working effectively together is key to success.

ICS is now the standard in the United States, but it wasn’t always that way.

The Need for Order

The fire season of 1970 in Southern California was disastrous. Columns of smoke reached into the sky while fire trucks and personnel passed eachother enroute to different incidents – heading in opposite directions rather than fighting the fires closest to them. Command posts and fire camps were established by multiple organizations for the same incident, leading to confusion and resource availability was critically low.

In just under two weeks, these fires caused 16 deaths, 700+ destroyed structures, and over $234 million in damages.

The Start of ICS & MACS

Looking back at the terrible season, the US Forest Service and their partner response agencies in Southern California took stock of their efforts. They identified two main issues with response efforts:

• At the site of the fires, different terminology, position structure, and procedures caused confusion between different groups.
• At a higher level, agencies lacked good ways to handle resources. They had difficulties prioritizing which events resources should be funneled to remain efficient.

The US Congress budgetted $900,000 ($7.2 million in 2024 money) and tasked the US Forest Service to create a system to improve responses to wildfires. The system would need to help multiple agencies across different jurisdictions to work together as efficiently as possible. At this point, the program was aimed at higher level response and coordination – but by 1972 adding a system at the ‘feild level’ became part of the initiative.

The group in charge of creating these systems was called FIRESCOPE (Firefighting Resources of Southern California Organized for Potential Emergencies). They took the ICS concept that had first proposed at a meeting of Fire Chiefs in Southern California in 1968 and refined it. The system pulled on a wide variety of expertise from World War II veterans with military command and control experiences. The original system was specifically adapted to wildalnd fire management and was capable of expanding to include multiple agencies. The main improvement needed was to add a strong central coordinating mechanism.

This resulted in two independant by interrelated systems being developed: ICS and MACS

ICS & MACS (What’s the difference?)

MACS (Multi-Agency Coordination System) and ICS (Incident Command System) are both key components of emergency management and response frameworks, but they serve different purposes and operate at different levels within the emergency response hierarchy.

Incident Command System (ICS)

Purpose:

• ICS is a standardized, on-scene, all-hazard incident management concept.
• It is designed to enable effective and efficient incident management by integrating facilities, equipment, personnel, procedures, and communications within a common organizational structure.
• ICS is used for managing response operations at the tactical level for incidents of any size, ranging from a small local incident to a large, complex disaster.

Key Features:

• Single Command Structure: ICS provides a clear chain of command with defined roles and responsibilities.
• Scalability: ICS can expand or contract depending on the size and complexity of the incident.
• Flexibility: It can be used for any type of incident, including natural disasters, pandemics, or large-scale events.
• Unified Command: In situations involving multiple agencies or jurisdictions, ICS allows for a unified command structure, where leaders from different agencies share command responsibilities.

Multi-Agency Coordination System (MACS)

Purpose:

• MACS is a broader framework that coordinates resources, information, and policies across multiple organizations and agencies involved in large-scale incident response.
• It operates above the field-level operations managed by ICS and is typically activated when an incident requires resources or support beyond what a single agency or jurisdiction can provide.

Key Features:

• Coordination Across Multiple Agencies: MACS involves collaboration among various agencies and organizations to prioritize resources, make joint decisions, and support incident management at a higher level.
• Policy and Strategy Level Decisions: MACS provides policy direction and strategic support to incident commanders and coordinates the overall response effort.
• Resource Management: It focuses on allocating resources, managing communication across agencies, and ensuring that response efforts are consistent with established policies and procedures.

Key Differences

• Level of Operation: ICS operates at the tactical level on the ground, managing specific incident response activities. MACS functions at a strategic level, coordinating the overall response effort across multiple agencies or jurisdictions.
• Scope: ICS is focused on the direct management of incident response. MACS is concerned with the broader coordination and support necessary for large-scale or complex incidents that require the involvement of multiple organizations.
• Role: ICS implements the direct response to an incident, while MACS supports ICS by providing resources, establishing priorities, and ensuring interagency coordination.

In summary, ICS is the system used to manage incident response on the ground, while MACS provides the strategic coordination and resource management necessary to support that response, especially in multi-agency or multi-jurisdictional incidents.

Refinement and Adoption

The ICS system was developed and spread much faster than MACS. Its popularity grew to the national level for fire response during the 1980s, being acknowledged by FEMA and included in the curriculum at the National Fire Academy. Non-fire agencies began to adopt ICS including California law enforcement and it was incorporated into FEMA’s new National Urban Search and Rescue System.

One of the first, and most influencial, national organizations to adopt ICS for non-fire incidents was the US Coast Guard. In the 1990’s, the US Coast Guard struggled with managing large scale response operations that involved many different agencies. In March 1989, following the Exxon Valdez oil spill, the Coast Guard examped how it could better integrate its efforts into those of the state and local governments. Their recent incidents had a lot in common with the issues encountered during the fire season of 1970.

Coast Guard officers saw the importance of learning about ICS and attended training through the wildfire community. In the early 1990’s members of the Coast Guard began using the ICS system, and it quickly spread in popularity until a Commandant instruction directed ICS to be used for all oil and hazardous materials response operations in 1996. In 1998, a second instruction required ICS use for all incident response.

ICS Goes National

The September 11th terrorist attacks underscored the importance of a unified national approach to incident management. In response to the lessons learned from that day, President Bush issued HSPD-5, which called for the creation of a single, nationwide incident management system. After thoroughly evaluating existing command and control structures, ICS (Incident Command System) and MACS (Multi-Agency Coordination System) were established as key components of the National Incident Management System (NIMS) in 2004. These systems, having already proven effective for managing not only wildland fires but also all-risk, all-hazard incidents, were adopted as the national standard. The official rollout of NIMS, including ICS and MACS, began in 2005, with federal emergency preparedness grants tied to various NIMS implementation benchmarks.

ICS in Canada

In Canada, ICS was first widely adopted by the Province of British Columbia in the mid-1990s. By 2002, the Canadian Interagency Forest Fire Centre (CIFFC) introduce

 

d the CIFFC ICS Canadian Version doctrine, along with comprehensive training materials for the wildland fire community nationwide, fulfilling its mandate to its provincial, territorial, and federal members. This model was soon adopted by various non-wildland fire organizations, and over time, the use of ICS expanded significantly.

In 2009, as CIFFC prepared to update the Canadian wildland fire ICS curriculum, the Alberta Emergency Management Agency (AEMA) was also assessing the need for a unified all-hazard command and control system to meet their long-term provincial emergency management needs. At the same time, CIFFC, sponsored by Parks Canada, applied for a New Initiatives Fund contribution agreement to develop a complete ICS training program for all Ground Search and Rescue operations within Canada.

These combined efforts led to the creation of ICS Canada, which now includes a number of member agencies.