Large-scale disasters that cause extensive damage (such as Hurricanes Katrina and Sandy) or loss of life (such as the 9/11 terror attacks) often spur discussions concerning whether the existing federal framework for responding and recovering from disasters can adequately meet the needs brought on by such events. For example, after Hurricane Katrina, numerous studies issued by policy experts, congressional committees, the White House, federal offices of Inspector General, and the Government Accountability Office (GAO), among others, concluded that the government response to the hurricane was subject to a variety of deficiencies that occurred at all levels of government. Deficiencies in disaster response and recovery include questionable leadership decisions and capabilities, organizational failures, overwhelmed preparedness and communication systems, and inadequate statutory authorities. Another issue identified after large-scale incidents is that federal assistance has been overly bureaucratic and untimely. Others have argued that the disaster declaration process "does not provide the necessary framework to manage the challenges posed by 21 st century catastrophic threats." These conclusions have led to a number of reforms in federal emergency management laws and policies. For example, one proposed reform that has been contemplated by policymakers is an amendment to the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (hereinafter the Stafford Act) that would add a new category of disaster declaration known as a "catastrophic declaration" for events characterized by extraordinary devastation. Proponents of such a measure would argue that adding a catastrophic declaration provision could streamline response and recovery processes and/or possibly increase the amount of federal assistance provided to states and localities after large-scale disasters. Opponents, on the other hand, would argue that implementing a catastrophic declaration is not necessary and may create confusion for emergency managers and officials. States, they say, might be enticed to request a catastrophic declaration rather than a major disaster, if catastrophic declarations trigger an increased federal share of the assistance. This report examines concerns expressed by policymakers and experts that current Stafford Act declarations are inadequate to respond to, and recover from, highly destructive events, and presents the arguments for and against amending the act to add a catastrophic declaration amendment. These arguments are framed by data analyses of past and potential disasters that might be considered as "catastrophic." The report also explores alternative policy options that might obviate the need for catastrophic declarations. The Stafford Act is the principal authority governing federal assistance for emergencies and disasters in the United States. The act authorizes the President to issue declarations that trigger federal assistance programs to help states respond to and recover from natural and human-caused incidents. While the Stafford Act authorizes assistance from numerous federal agencies, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is the primary federal agency responsible for coordinating the federal response as well as response activities provided by other agencies and nongovernmental entities. Two organizing principles guide the declaration process. First is the preservation of the governor's discretion to request federal assistance. Second is the President's discretion to decide to issue or deny the request for federal assistance. The President cannot issue either an emergency or a major disaster declaration without a gubernatorial request. The only exception to this rule is the authority given to the President to declare an emergency when the President "determines that an emergency exists for which the primary responsibility for response rests with the United States because the emergency involves a subject area for which, under the Constitution or laws of the United States, the United States can exercise exclusive or preeminent responsibility and authority." The Stafford Act stipulates several procedural actions a governor must take prior to requesting federal disaster assistance. The governor cannot request a declaration unless he or she determines the event has overwhelmed the state's resources to such an extent that federal resources are needed. The Stafford Act authorizes three types of presidential declarations—the proposal for a catastrophic declaration would add a fourth type of declaration. The three currently authorized by the Stafford Act include (1) Fire Management Assistance Grants (FMAG), (2) emergency declarations, and (3) major disaster declarations. While the President has the sole authority to issue an emergency or major disaster declaration, the determination to issue a FMAG declaration can be rendered either by the President or FEMA. A FMAG declaration authorizes various forms of federal assistance, such as equipment, personnel, and grants to any state or local government for the control, management and mitigation of any fire on public or private forest land or grassland that might become a major disaster. The Stafford Act defines an emergency broadly as any occasion or instance for which, in the determination of the President, federal assistance is needed to supplement State and local efforts and capabilities to save lives and to protect property and public health and safety, or to lessen or avert the threat of a catastrophe in any part of the United States. Emergency declarations authorize activities that can help states and communities carry out essential services as well as activities that might reduce the threat of future damage. Emergency declarations, however, do not provide assistance for repairs and replacement of public infrastructure or nonprofit facilities. Emergency declarations may be declared before an incident occurs to save lives and prevent loss. For example, emergency declarations have been declared prior to a hurricane making landfall to help state and local governments take steps (evacuation assistance, placement of response resources, etc.) that might lessen the impact of the storm and prevent a major disaster from occurring. While emergencies are defined broadly, the Stafford Act defines a major disaster narrowly as: any natural catastrophe (including any hurricane, tornado, storm, high water, wind-driven water, tidal wave, tsunami, earthquake, volcanic eruption, landslide, mudslide, snowstorm, or drought), or, regardless of cause, any fire, flood, or explosion, in any part of the United States, which in the determination of the President causes damage of sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant major disaster assistance under this chapter to supplement the efforts and available resources of states, local governments, and disaster relief organizations in alleviating the damage, loss, hardship, or suffering caused thereby. The definition for a major disaster is more precise than an emergency declaration, and the range of assistance available to state and local governments, private, nonprofit organizations, and families and individuals is much broader. Under a major disaster declaration, state and local governments and certain nonprofit organizations are eligible (if so designated) for assistance for the repair or restoration of public infrastructure such as roads and buildings. A major disaster declaration may also include additional programs beyond temporary housing such as disaster unemployment assistance and crisis counseling. A major disaster declaration may also include recovery programs such as community disaster loans. If amended, the Stafford Act might provide a declaration for what might be classified as a "mega-disaster" or "catastrophic disaster." It is unclear, however, what differentiates a disaster from a catastrophe. Moss and Shelhamer, two policy scholars who have written on the subject, state that catastrophic incidents by definition, tend to occur in large metropolitan regions due to the concentration of people and infrastructure. For example, a category 5 hurricane striking an undeveloped coast will generate less damage than a category 3 hurricane hitting a major city. Recent catastrophes include the 1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake (San Francisco), the 1994 Northridge Earthquake (Los Angeles), Hurricane Hugo (1989), Hurricane Andrew (1992), Hurricanes Katrina and Rita (2005), the Midwest Floods of 1993, and the September 11 attacks of 2001. The authors then recommend amending Section 102 of the Stafford Act with the language used to define a catastrophic incident in the Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act of 2006 (Title VI of the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2007—hereinafter the Post-Katrina Act). The Post-Katrina Act defines a catastrophic incident broadly as any natural disaster, act of terrorism, or other man-made disaster that results in extraordinary levels of casualties or damage or disruption severely affecting the population (including mass evacuations), infrastructure, environment, economy, national morale, or government functions in an area. The above definition was used in the Post-Katrina Act for the purposes of improving planning documents by defining the scope of events that should be considered by the Catastrophic Incident Annex of the National Response Framework (NRF). The definition was not used in the context of actual declared disasters nor was it intended to replace the definition of a major disaster in the Stafford Act. The main difference between a catastrophic incident as defined in the Post-Katrina Act and the definition of a major disaster in the Stafford Act is that the former focuses on the event's scope, impact, and severity. In general, a catastrophic incident would carry far-reaching consequences beyond a state's borders and have national implications including the economy, infrastructure, and even national psyche. In contrast, the major disaster definition generally focuses more on categorizing causes that potentially overwhelm states and localities. Supporters of catastrophic declarations argue that while "routine disasters" can be managed through major disaster declarations, large-scale, destructive incidents warrant their own type of declaration because they pose unique challenges inadequately addressed by major disaster declarations. Examples of such challenges may include The President can declare an emergency without a gubernatorial request, if he considers the event to be primarily a federal responsibility, but must wait for a gubernatorial request for most emergencies and all major disasters. The wait for a request could delay the federal response, or federal assistance, or both. The response and recovery efforts associated with large-scale disasters involve multiple federal agencies that require higher levels of leadership to resolve potential inter-agency conflicts, and effectively coordinate and manage response and recovery efforts. Current response and recovery procedures for major disasters are too cumbersome for large-scale disasters because the procedures are too rigid and inefficient to provide assistance at an accelerated rate. Some argue that federal assistance is needed more quickly after large-scale, destructive incidents than routine disasters—the disbursal of assistance provided through a major disaster declaration is too slow to meet recovery needs. Due to the enormous amount of destruction and the economic impacts caused by large-scale disasters, many states and localities are unable to pay their portion of the cost-share. The following section describes how a catastrophic declaration might address these challenges. A catastrophic declaration may be used to trigger certain mechanisms before, during, and after a catastrophe. Policymakers might also elect to apply a catastrophic declaration to one or more phases of the incident. The Catastrophic Incident Annex of the NRF states that federal resources and assets may be deployed prior to a catastrophic incident in anticipation of a request from state, tribal, and local governments that an imminent disaster appears to threaten human health and safety. Such activities may include the placing of resources to reduce the impact of the incident and improve response capabilities, pre-positioning of emergency and disaster employees and supplies, monitoring the status of the situation, communicating with state emergency officials on potential assistance requirements, and deploying teams and resources to maximize the speed and effectiveness of the anticipated federal response. It should be noted, however, that catastrophic incidents are often no-notice events. Thus, pre-positioning resources may not be possible. As mentioned previously, under certain conditions the Stafford Act authorizes federal support in the absence of a gubernatorial request to save lives, prevent human suffering, or mitigate severe damage. If Congress chose to create a catastrophic declaration, it might elect to amend Section 401 or 402 of the Stafford Act to provide the President with similar authority so as to trigger federal activities such the ones described above. Additionally, the amendment could be designed to signal the immediate deployment of federal response assets and surge capacity forces. Alternatively, some may argue the Stafford Act could be amended to authorize the aforementioned precautionary measures for major disasters without a catastrophic declaration. The NRF provides the guiding principles for a unified national response by assigning roles and responsibilities to all levels of government, nongovernmental organizations, the private sector, communities, and communities to all types of hazards regardless of their origin. The unified response is further guided by supporting documents known as annexes: Eme rgency Support Functions (ESF) Annexes and Incident Annexes. ESFs group federal agencies by their authorities, resources, and functions related to a particular incident. For example, federal agencies that have capabilities to support the response to an oil spill are listed in ESF #10 - Oil and Hazardous Materials. The ESFs have designated coordinating and supporting federal agencies responsible for supporting the incident response along each functional mission. Similar to an ESF, Incident Annexes identify agencies by their authorities, resources, and functions to support the response a particular incident. Incident Annexes also designate coordinating and cooperating agencies. For example, federal agencies with capabilities to respond to a biological attack are provided in the Biological Incident Annex. Response efforts initiated as planned in ESF and Incident Annexes are executed through various operational plans. One key tenet of the NRF is that the framework is "scalable, flexible, and adaptable operational capabilities" to respond to all types of hazards, including ones that are catastrophic. In terms of catastrophic incidents, the NRF contains a Catastrophic Incident Annex which provides a strategy for coordinating an accelerated national response to large-scale events. A catastrophic incident is defined in the Catastrophic Incident Annex as any natural or manmade incident, including terrorism, that results in extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting the population, infrastructure, environment, economy, national morale, and/or government functions. A catastrophic incident could result in sustained nationwide impacts over a prolonged period of time; almost immediately exceeds resources normally available to State, tribal, local, and private-sector authorities in the impacted area; and significantly interrupts governmental operations and emergency services to such an extent that national security could be threatened. These factors drive the urgency for coordinated national planning to ensure accelerated Federal and/or national assistance. According to the Catastrophic Incident Annex, in a catastrophic event, states and localities may not be able to initially establish or maintain a command structure for incident response. In such cases, the federal government might take the lead and coordinate response activities until local, tribal, and/or state authorities are capable of establishing their incident command structure. The development of the Catastrophic Incident Annex can be traced back to the National Response Plan (NRP)—the predecessor to the NRF. The NRP contained guidelines for the implementation of an "Incident of National Significance." According to the NRP, the DHS Secretary could designate an Incident of National Significance if the event met the criteria of paragraph 4 of Homeland Security Presidential Directive-5 (HSPD-5). Generally, an Incident of National Significance would be designated if a no-notice incident occurred in which the need for federal assistance was "obvious, overwhelming, and immediate, and cannot wait for absolute situational clarity." The Incident National Significance designation could be used, presumably, to implement the Catastrophic Incident Annex. The Incident of National Significance designation was eliminated due to confusion during the Hurricane Katrina response—primarily because the designation established a different leadership structure than was commonly used for "routine" disasters. Despite the elimination, the Catastrophic Incident Annex has been retained in the NRF. It is unclear, however, what criteria is used by the Secretary to put the Catastrophic Incident Annex into effect. Some might argue that the Catastrophic Incident Annex could be useful for a catastrophic incident but that the Annex needs a triggering mechanism or clearly defined criteria to make the Annex operational. They may further argue that a catastrophic declaration would be an appropriate triggering mechanism. However, unlike the Incident of National Significance designation, the response to a catastrophic incident could be developed in a manner that reduces or eliminates confusion. Proponents might therefore argue that a catastrophic declaration could be used to trigger the streamlined response activities established in the Catastrophic Incident Annex. Similarly, they may argue that that in addition to triggering the Catastrophic Incident Annex, a catastrophic declaration could be used to streamline response procedures by removing barriers that might slow response times or take steps that would provide flexibility to operational plans by promoting autonomous decisionmaking. The declaration could also be used to trigger a chain of command structure consisting of higher levels of leadership and rank to address the catastrophe. Opponents of a catastrophic measure may argue that the scalability of the NRF (and its annexes) makes it capable of responding to a catastrophic event without a unique declaration. They may further argue that, while intuitively appealing, providing additional flexibility during a catastrophic declaration might produce a chaotic federal response because operational plans among federal agencies are tightly coupled with each other. Deviation in response by one agency could have negative rippling effects that could hinder the response of other agencies. They may further argue that using a different command structure would duplicate the problems associated with the Incident of National Significance as well as create additional layers of bureaucracy that impede or hinder the response. A catastrophic declaration could be used to automatically alter aspects of recovery policies and regulations. Such a declaration could have triggers that would cause a change in the percentage of federal resources as well as adjusting the delivery system of traditional disaster relief programs. The following recovery strategies might be included in the event of a catastrophic declaration. The catastrophic declaration could automatically increase the federal cost-share to lessen the economic impact states and localities incur from catastrophic incidents. The Stafford Act provides that the federal share for the repair, restoration, and replacement of damaged facilities "shall be not less than 75%." A catastrophic declaration could be used to automatically increase the federal share to 90% or perhaps 100%. Moreover, the 72-hour window of 100% funding for immediate federal aid could be extended for a longer period. Early knowledge of such adjustments may accelerate state and local activity because foreknowledge of the adjustment provides states and localities with an assurance of fiscal relief which would then encourage them to act quickly to accomplish necessary repairs and begin comprehensive recovery planning. However, these adjustments can add significantly to the overall cost of the disaster. A catastrophic declaration could trigger a number of changes to recovery programs that could speed assistance and provide increased flexibility. Some of these changes could include the delivery of block grants to states to handle immediate needs and begin infrastructure repairs. An alternative would be for a catastrophic event to (1) switch on "gap funding" which provides timely front-end funding to states and localities to cover initial efforts; (2) make straight-time force account labor (for disaster work) by state and local governments eligible for reimbursement; (3) automatically increase funding caps for the Community Disaster Loan (CDL) program; and (4) provide clear authority and resources to FEMA and its federal partners for long-term recovery efforts in partnership with state and local governments. Once declared, catastrophic declarations could trigger certain congressional rules that might prevent potential deadlock over the passage of disaster relief funds for disaster-stricken communities. On the other hand, it could be argued that the Stafford Act could be amended to make these changes part of a major disaster declaration. Part of the argument for a catastrophic declaration is that it could provide immediate financial assistance on a broader scale without having to await congressional approval for additional federal assistance through a supplemental appropriation. An examination of the record, however, demonstrates that congressional action on emergency supplemental funding in the wake of large disasters has grown more rapid in recent years (see Table 1 ). It could be argued that Congress has acted expeditiously. While on average, Congress has passed supplemental appropriations for disaster assistance within 38.9 days of the disaster declaration, supplemental funding has been provided in less than a week after an incident (for example, Hurricane Katrina and 9/11 received funding in three days and seven days respectively). Furthermore, in cases where it took Congress longer than 30 days to enact some supplemental appropriations, the incidents for which the funding was enacted generally had fewer damages than the larger, more expensive disasters. The longer time elapsed for Hurricane Sandy could partly be attributed to a relatively large balance in the Disaster Relief Fund at the time of the incident rather than a reluctance to fund disaster assistance. The reaction to the devastation caused by the 2005 hurricane season resulted in historic amounts of disaster response and recovery funding. Along with the amount of resources provided by Congress, it could be argued that the Stafford Act is a very flexible instrument that provides broad authority for various forms of assistance. The reluctance or inability of some to administer these authorities in the past does not eliminate their existence or the possible help that can be derived from those broad authorities under any disaster declaration. Authorities such as Section 402 of Stafford for "General Federal Assistance" and Section 403 for "Essential Assistance" provide FEMA the discretion to use various forms of federal help or to supplement state help to achieve disaster response and recovery goals. This section analyzes incidents that might be deemed as catastrophic to help frame a debate concerning the need and desirability of amending the Stafford Act to include a catastrophic declaration. Because catastrophic incidents are generally characterized as events that cause extraordinary damage, or loss of life (or both), the following analysis is based on data from past, large-scale incidents that have occurred in the United States, as well as data derived from studies that predict damage levels and loss of life for large-scale disasters that could happen in the future (see Table 2 ). This report incorporates a method known as the value of statistical life (VSL) to assign a monetary value to each fatality caused by the given incident. VSL helps compare incidents with many fatalities and little or no damage (such as the Chicago Heat Wave of 1995 and the Galveston Hurricane in 1900) to incidents that caused significant damages, but had few, or no, fatalities (such as the Hurricane Ike in 2008). This section of the report is divided into four subsections that rank incidents according to the following: (1) previous large-scale disasters by estimated damage costs; (2) previous large-scale disasters by estimated damage and VSL costs; (3) previous large-scale disasters and potential incidents by damage costs; and (4) previous large-scale disasters and potential incidents by estimated damage and VSL costs. The percentiles used for this analysis are derived by multiplying the costliest incident in the subsection by a given percentile. It should be noted that the data used for this analysis are subject to variations and limitations (see " Caveats and Methodology "). This subsection ranks some of the costliest incidents to ever occur in the United States in the past 140 years ( Table 3 ). Assuming catastrophic incidents are the most expensive events, then the following conclusions could be drawn: If the 50 th percentile ($63 billion or more in damages) of incidents are catastrophic, then only Hurricane Katrina would qualify as a catastrophic incident. If the 40 th percentile ($50 billion or more in damages) of incidents are catastrophic, only Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Sandy would qualify as catastrophic incidents. These would remain constant until the 30 th percentile ($38 billion or more in damages), which would then include Hurricane Andrew. The remaining incidents fall below the 30 th percentile. Figure 1 presents the same data in chronological order. Again, assuming catastrophic incidents are the most expensive events, then it could be concluded that most expensive disasters in American history have occurred in recent times. Six of the costliest incidents occurred since 1992, and two of the costliest occurred within the last decade. Given the number of large-scale disasters occurring in the last 30 years, one might conclude that large-scale disasters are occurring more frequently—which might support an argument for a catastrophic declaration. A counterargument, on the other hand, is that in terms of damage costs, only Hurricane Katrina truly qualifies as a catastrophic event when compared to other, recent incidents. It might be further argued that while many of the most expensive disasters have occurred in recent years, the increased costs associated with such incidents are a function of variables that are not necessarily related to the magnitude of the incidents (such as increased federal expenditures for assistance and recovery projects, the replacement of expensive infrastructure, and the development of previously uninhabited areas). Consequently, opponents of a catastrophic declaration might conclude that damage costs are not a suitable determinant for assessing the need for the new declaration because it fails to address the response and recovery issues previously discussed in this report. Table 4 lists the same incidents presented in Table 2 ranked according to combined VSL and damage costs. With the exception of the 1900 Galveston Hurricane and the September 11 th terrorist attacks, combining VSL and damage cost estimates does not significantly alter the rankings. Assuming that catastrophic incidents are incidents with the highest combined VSL and damage costs, then the following conclusions could be drawn: If the 50 th percentile ($67 billion or more) of incidents are catastrophic, then only Hurricane Katrina would qualify as a catastrophic incident. If the 30 th percentile is used ($40 billion or more), Hurricane Sandy in 2012, the 1900 Galveston Hurricane, the September 11 th terrorist attacks, and Hurricane Andrew in 1992 would then also qualify as catastrophic. Hurricane Ike and the 1906 San Francisco Earthquake and Fire would be deemed catastrophic if the 20 th percentile were used ($26 billion or more) for the determination. When the analysis is extended to capture all of the incidents in Table 2 , the inclusion of potential disasters changes the order of percentile rankings. However, the number of incidents meeting certain catastrophic thresholds remains low. In terms of damage costs alone, if one assumes catastrophic incidents are the most expensive events, then the following conclusions could be drawn: If the 50 th percentile ($206 billion or more) of incidents are catastrophic, then only two hypothetical incidents, the "ARkStorm" and South San Andreas Earthquake, would qualify as a catastrophic incident. If the threshold were lowered to the 30 th percentile ($124 billion or more), Hurricane Katrina would also qualify as catastrophic. With a threshold at the 20 th percentile ($83 billion or more) or higher, then the hypothetical New Madrid Earthquake would also be considered catastrophic. Table 5 and Figure 3 provide the rankings based on damage if the hypothetical incidents are included. Notably, with the exception of Hurricane Katrina, all three hypothetical incidents are projected to produce more damage than the historical incidents discussed in this report. When the VSL estimated are combined with the damage totals presented above, the following conclusions could be drawn: If the 50 th percentile ($321 billion or more) of incidents are catastrophic, then only the New Madrid Earthquake scenario and "ARKStorm" would qualify as a catastrophic incident, just as they were for the projections that only included damage estimates. Using the 30 th percentile ($193 billion or more), the South San Andreas Earthquake would be considered catastrophic. Only if the threshold were lowered to the 20 th percentile ($128 billion or more) would a previous incident be included, Hurricane Katrina. All of the remaining incidents fall under the 10 th percentile range ($64 billion or more). Upon reviewing the results of the comparative analysis of destructive incidents, it could be argued that highly destructive events occur too rarely to warrant a catastrophic declaration. In terms of damage estimates alone, only one incident exceeds the 90 th percentile benchmark, and only two would qualify if the 80 th percentile is used as a benchmark (the 1871 Chicago Fire and Hurricane Katrina). In addition, these events are separated by over 130 years. Similar conclusions might be drawn on the comparative analysis of combined VSL and damage estimate costs—specifically, that high-impact events are too infrequent to merit the addition of a new declaration category—only two incidents in the last 100 years meets the 90 th percentile threshold—and these incidents are over 100 years apart from each other. Additionally, the threshold would have to be adjusted to the 30 th percentile to include more than two incidents. Critics of the additional type of declaration might further argue that VSL is a poor determinant for a catastrophic declaration because federal assistance is predominately tied to recovery projects rather than victim or survivor compensation. With regard to recent disaster activity, proponents who support the addition of a catastrophic declaration could argue that, in terms of damage estimates, 8 of the top 17 incidents have occurred within the last 30 years. However, in terms of combined VSL and damage estimate costs, two of the top four incidents have occurred within the last 10 years. To some, this may be taken as an indication that catastrophic incidents are increasing in frequency. They may also argue that future disasters might be more destructive due to increases in population, development, and infrastructure. Thus, they might argue the scope of this analysis should be limited to more recent incidents. Proponents who support the addition of a catastrophic declaration could also argue that the analysis fails to take into account potential future incidents. While opponents of a catastrophic declaration might conclude that this analysis demonstrates that catastrophic incidents are too rare to warrant a new type of declaration, supporters might make the claim that the damage and VSL costs portrayed in this analysis would have been reduced if carried out according to the provisions provided under a catastrophic declaration. The data sources for the above analyses have been assembled from multiple governmental sources and are listed in the Appendix . As mentioned previously, the data on fatalities and damages from these sources are subject to variation and should not be viewed as definitive. Additionally, many studies report death tolls in ranges for various incidents. For the purposes of this report, the average number between the range was used as a fatality figure. The hypothetical scenarios used for the analyses do not represent the universe of possible incidents—such as a nuclear detonation, an asteroid incident, or another influenza pandemic. There were also some reporting anomalies. The United States Geological Survey (USGS) ARkStorm scenario study did not provide a fatality estimate. For the purposes of this report, the number of fatalities from the 1929 Mississippi flood was used because reporting no deaths produced outlying figures that skewed the data results. Similarly, the 1919 Influenza Pandemic was eliminated from the analyses because the number of fatalities (675,000) produced an outlying figure that skewed the data results. The comparative analysis spans over a century and the incident computations reported in the analyses do not reflect increases in development, infrastructure, and populations that would have made earlier incidents more costly were they to occur in this period of time. The computations in this report do not reflect current mitigation and response mechanisms that might have decreased the impacts of previous events had they been available. VSL computations vary among federal agencies from roughly $5 million to $10 million per individual. Since there were no documents published by FEMA in the Federal Register that included a VSL, the calculations in this report are based on a VSL of 6.3 million developed by Customs and Border Protection and used by other components within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) during 2014. As mentioned previously, damage costs are not the sole determinant for disaster declarations. The purpose of these analyses is to develop a model to determine which incidents could be deemed as catastrophic based on damages and VSL costs. Other considerations, such as potential economic or social impacts of the incidents are not reflected in the analyses. Statistically reliable forecasts of the occurrence of future events based on this data could not be completed due to insufficient data points. The data presented in this report are not definitive and should be interpreted with care before drawing any conclusions. Depending on its design, certain benefits may be derived from using a catastrophic declaration for large-scale disasters, including accelerated and more robust federal assistance to states prior to an incident, the use of specialized response plans and guidelines for the federal response, the elimination or reduction of procedures and protocols that might impede response and recovery activities and efforts, the elimination or reduction of procedures and protocols that might delay the disbursal of federal assistance, and increasing the amount of federal assistance through various mechanisms to help states recovery more quickly and avoid economic hardship. The potential drawbacks of a catastrophic declaration may include unclear authority and responsibility designations could confuse those responsible for executing the response and recovery, increased federal costs for disaster assistance due to increased declaration activity, increased federal costs for disaster assistance due to the increased federal cost-share provisions included with the declaration, and increased federal involvement and responsibility for incident response. In addition to the points previously made in this report, upon review of potential policies regarding the use of a catastrophic declaration for large-scale incidents, policymakers may contemplate the following considerations related to catastrophic incidents: Some may argue that the Stafford Act's broad definition of an emergency lacks sufficient specific criteria and provides the President with too much discretion to determine which incidents are emergencies. This, in turn, may have increased the federal role (and by extension—the amount of federal expenditures for disaster assistance) in emergency assistance through declaration "creep." Critics assert that once an incident qualifies as an emergency, the odds are improved that a similar incident in the future will be declared as an emergency. The Post-Katrina Act also uses a broad definition to define a catastrophe. It could be argued that the addition of a broad definition of a catastrophe could lead to a similar type of declaration "creep" for large-scale incidents. The use of an arithmetical formula or sliding scale based on income or population to declare a major disaster or an emergency is precluded by Section 320 of the Stafford Act. Amending the Stafford Act to include a catastrophic declaration would presumably be subject to the same limitation—unless the amendment requires some form of measurable criteria that would be applied to make determinations. One method that could be used to keep assistance costs down is legislative language that allows a catastrophic declaration to be downgraded to a major disaster if it was determined that damages did not merit a catastrophic declaration. Downgrading a catastrophic declaration, however, may appear indecisive and create confusion. Another consideration involves aspects of politics more than policy. It may be difficult for the President to deny a request for a catastrophic declaration because the President might be seen as failing to properly respond to a calamitous event—even if it were declared a disaster. Some may argue a catastrophic incident would not receive unique resources that are not already authorized and provided for a major disaster declaration. If this is the case, one might question the need for catastrophic declarations. On August 2, 2011, the President signed into law the Budget Control Act of 2011 (BCA, P.L. 112-25 ), which included a number of budget-controlling mechanisms. As part of the legislation, caps were placed on discretionary spending beginning in FY2012. If these caps are exceeded, an automatic rescission—known as sequestration—takes place across most discretionary budget accounts to reduce the effective level of spending to the level of the cap. Additionally, special accommodations were made in the BCA to address the unpredictable nature of disaster assistance while attempting to impose discipline on the amount spent by the federal government on disasters. The BCA created an allowable adjustment specifically to cover disaster relief (defined as the costs of major disasters under the Stafford Act), separate from emergency appropriations. One notable aspect of the BCA is that it appears to have encouraged larger appropriations for the DRF. In the case of hurricane Sandy, the increased appropriation size to the DRF helped fund the immediate needs caused by an incident without an immediate supplemental appropriation. The larger balance may have also provided Congress with more time to contemplate and target assistance needs. Some may therefore question whether a catastrophic declaration is needed to expedite funding packages. A full federal cost-share, if included in a catastrophic declaration, might tempt states to request a catastrophic declaration to increase the amount of federal assistance provided for the incident. If that became the case, a catastrophic declaration would incentivize requests for the declaration and drive up the costs of federal funding for disaster relief. The reports issued on the federal response to Hurricane Sandy have generally been favorable. For example, according to the DHS Inspector General, FEMA's response to the damages caused by hurricane Sandy in New York was "effective and efficient." After reading such reports, some may conclude that the federal response to large-scale incidents such as multistate hurricanes has improved since Hurricane Katrina. They may therefore question the need for catastrophic declarations and a more efficient and streamlined response processes. Natural disasters on a truly catastrophic scale, such as the San Francisco earthquake, the fire of 1906, and Hurricane Katrina, are infrequent, and might be called "100-year events." If used for such events, the catastrophic declaration might not be put to use for an extended period of time. If a catastrophic declaration is used infrequently, it might become antiquated over time and fail to meet the needs of the incident. Furthermore, infrequent use of the declaration could create confusion because lawmakers and officials may have to become reacquainted with the declaration before applying its provisions. Thus, it could be argued that these incidents would be better handled through special legislation on an as-needed basis. Perhaps the strongest rationale for the development of a catastrophic declaration grew out of the Hurricane Katrina response and recovery experience which began in 2005 and now, nearly ten years later, is still the focus of debate and the template for legislative attempts aimed at improving response and recovery. While considering the possible changes and improvements that could potentially be a part of a catastrophic declaration, reviewing the changes that have been made since the Katrina disaster could be useful. The Post-Katrina Act made some significant changes to the Stafford Act. Since the changes were not retroactive and could not be applied to the Katrina disaster, the actual program adjustments have not been fully tested. These changes include The authority to provide case management for disaster victims. This change provides assistance for a major disaster where large numbers of people may be displaced and need help in understanding the assistance that is available, and to connect people, particularly those with special needs, with other forms of help from both public and private sources. Removal of the $5,000 cap on home repairs to make a home habitable . Under the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000, home repairs were limited to $5,000 with the remainder of work to be accomplished with a Small Business Administration disaster loan, assuming an applicant qualified for the loan. Since the Post-Katrina Act, repairs can be done for up to the maximum amount available under the Individuals and Households Program (IHP). Pilot Program for Public Assistance (PA). The PA pilot program accelerated debris removal at the local level by permitting payment of straight time wages to government employees involved in debris removal work and encouraged local communities to have a debris removal plan in place by decreasing the state and local share by 5% of costs (from 25% to 20%). This authority expired in 2008. FEMA intends to develop regulations to implement provisions of the PA pilot. This would include a public comment period and related parts of the rule-making process. While FEMA considers this "a priority of the Agency" it has not yet determined a timeframe for publication of the proposed rule. Pilot Program for Individual Assistance (IA). This pilot program permitted FEMA to make repairs on privately owned rental units to increase the available housing stock after a disaster event. Reports by FEMA indicate that this was a successful program that decreased temporary housing costs in comparison to other housing alternatives. The authority for the program expired on December 31, 2008. As with the PA Pilot, FEMA released a report two years ago on the IHP pilot program. The report concluded that "Analysis and recommendations on additional authorities will be provided at a later date." FEMA now has determined that "through our existing authority, that we may repair multi-family rental housing units for use by disaster survivors. We expect to implement this authority in future disasters, as appropriate." Similarly, following Hurricane Sandy in 2012, Congress enacted the Hurricane Sandy Recovery and Improvement Act (SRIA). This legislation made several changes to the Stafford Act that could arguably influence the federal government's ability to respond to catastrophic events in the years to come. Some of those changes include: Alternative Procedures for Public Assistance . As with the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 ( P.L. 106-290 ), SRIA provided FEMA the authority to administer the PA program based on cost estimates, thus hopefully accelerating the repairs of public infrastructure. These procedures could also speed up debris removal and the repairs of private non-profit facilities that perform a public function. The authority to provide child care services to the families of disaster victims . This category is now considered an eligible expense under the "Other Needs Assistance (ONA)" grants which are a part of Section 408, the Individuals and Households Program (IHP). The ONA grants are cost-shared with the state. The IHP program is generally the disaster housing provided but also includes limited ONA grants for clothing, furniture, and other uninsured needs following a disaster. Advance Funding in the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP). 56 The HMGP program is the principal post-disaster source for mitigation funds to reduce future hazards. The program is cost-share on a 75% federal/25% state and local basis. Because the amount of funds allotted to the program is determined by a percentage of total disaster spending, the program has usually lagged behind other elements of the recovery process. In order to step up the process, SRIA authorized FEMA to advance up to 25% of the estimated HMGP award. Joint Environmental and Historical Reviews . In an action related to expedited processes for both Public Assistance and Mitigation programs previously discussed, SRIA directs the creation of a joint process for environmental and historical reviews. Such a joint process is intended to expedite the administration of disaster recovery projects. Taken together, these changes to the Stafford Act have created a more flexible framework that can more easily be scaled up to meet the needs of extraordinary events. However, as the discussion of adding a catastrophic declaration attests, there is considerable debate concerning whether additional changes are necessary to increase FEMA's ability to assist state and local governments and individuals and families affected by disasters. 1871 Chicago Fire Wayne Blanchard, Ph.D., Worst Disasters - Lives Lost (U.S.) , Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA Emergency Management Higher Education Project, July 5, 2006. 1900 Galveston Hurricane National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, The Great Galveston Hurricane of 1900 , August 30, 2007, http://celebrating200years.noaa.gov/magazine/galv_hurricane/ . 1906 San Francisco Earthquake Wayne Blanchard, Ph.D., Worst Disasters - Lives Lost (U.S.) , Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA Emergency Management Higher Education Project, July 5, 2006. 1919 Influenza Pandemic Wayne Blanchard, Ph.D., Worst Disasters - Lives Lost (U.S.) , Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA Emergency Management Higher Education Project, July 5, 2006. 1929 Great Mississippi Flood Hydrologic Information Center, Flood Losses: Compilation of Flood Loss Statistics , National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration/National Weather Service, Silver Spring, MD, February 1, 2011. 1964 Alaska Earthquake/Tsunami United States Geological Survey, 40 th Anniversary of "Good Friday" Earthquake Offers New Opportunities for Public and Building Safety Partnerships , Reston, VA, March 26, 2004, http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=106 . 1969 Hurricane Camille National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration /National Weather Service, Hurricane Camille 1969 , Flowood, MS, August 20, 2010, http://www.srh.noaa.gov/jan/?n=1969_08_17_hurricane_camille . Edward N. Rappaport, Jose Fernandez-Partagas, and Jack Beven, The Deadliest Atlantic Tropical Cyclones, 1492 - Present , APPENDIX 1: Atlantic tropical cyclones causing at least 25 deaths, April 22, 1997, http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pastdeadlya1.html . 1974 Xenia (Easter) Tornado Outbreak National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Weather Service Commemorates Nation's Worst Tornado Outbreak, March 31, 1999, http://www.publicaffairs.noaa.gov/storms/release.html . 1978 Love Canal Eckardt C. Beck, The Love Canal Tragedy , Environmental Protection Agency, January 1979, http://www.epa.gov/aboutepa/history/topics/lovecanal/01.html . 2008 Hurricane Ike Robbie Berg, Tropical Cyclone Report: Hurricane Ike , National Hurricane Center, AL092008, May 3, 2010, p. 9, http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pdf/TCR-AL092008_Ike_3May10.pdf . 1980 Mount St. Helens Robert I. Tilling, Lyn Topinka, and Donald A. Swanson, Economic Impact of the May 18, 1980 Eruption , United States Geological Survey, Eruptions of Mount St. Helens: Past, Present, and Future: USGS Special Interest Publication, 1990. 1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake Robert A. Page, Peter H. Stauffer, and James W. Hendley II, Progress Toward A Safer Future Since the 1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake , United States Geological Survey, U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet 151-99 Online Version 1.0, 1999, http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/1999/fs151-99/ . 1992 Hurricane Andrew National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Famous Hurricanes of the 20 th and 21 st Century In the United States 1900 - 2004 , September 16, 2010. 1995 Chicago Heat Wave Jim Angel, The 1995 Heat Wave in Chicago, Illinois , Illinois State Climatologist Office, Champaign, IL, http://www.isws.illinois.edu/atmos/statecli/General/1995Chicago.htm . 1989 Hurricane Hugo National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Famous Hurricanes of the 20 th and 21 st Century In the United States 1900 - 2004, September 16, 2010. 1994 Northridge Earthquake United States Geological Survey, Alaska and Washington Yield Largest U.S. Earthquakes ... Most Significant Earthquakes of '96 Rattle China, Indonesia , February 13, 1997, http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article_pf.asp?ID=975 . 2001 September 11 th Terrorist Attacks National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon The United States, 9/11 Commission Report , Notes On Chapter 9, Washington, DC, p. 552. 2005 Hurricane Katrina Richard D. Knabb, Jamie R. Rhome, and Daniel P. Brown, Tropical Cyclone Report , National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration/National Hurricane Center, Hurricane Katrina 23-30 August 2005, August 9, 2006, p. 11, http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pdf/TCR-AL122005_Katrina.pdf . 2008 Hurricane Ike National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration/National Hurricane Center, Hurricane History : Ike 2008, http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/HAW2/english/history.shtml#ike . 2008 Hurricane Sandy Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, Deaths Associated with Hurricane Sandy—October-November 2012, May 24, 2013, http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6220a1.htm . ARkStorm Scenario United States Geological Survey, Overview Of The ARkStorm Scenario , Open File Report 2010-1312, http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2010/1312/of2010-1312_text.pdf . New Madrid Earthquake U.S. Congress, House Committee on Science and Technology, Subcommittee on Technology and Innovation, The Reauthorization of the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program: R&D for Disaster Resilient Communities, Hearing, 111 th Congress, June 11, 2009. South San Andreas Fault Earthquake U.S. Congress, House Committee on Science and Technology, Subcommittee on Technology and Innovation, The Reauthorization of the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program: R&D for Disaster Resilient Communities , Hearing, 111 th Congress, June 11, 2009.

Summary: The Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (the Stafford Act) is the principal authority governing federal emergency and disaster response in the United States. The act authorizes the President to issue three categories of declaration: (1) major disaster, (2) emergency, or (3) fire management assistance grants in response to incidents that overwhelm the resources of state and local governments. Once a major disaster declaration is issued, a wide range of federal disaster assistance becomes available to eligible individuals and households, public entities, and certain nonprofit organizations. Disaster assistance authorized by the Stafford Act is appropriated by Congress and provided through the Disaster Relief Fund. Emergency declarations supplement and promote coordination of local and state efforts such as evacuations and protection of public assets. They may also be declared prior to the impact of an incident to protect property, public health and safety and lessen or avert the threat of a major disaster or catastrophe. Major disaster declarations are issued after an incident and constitute broader authority to help states and localities, as well as families and individuals, recover from the damage caused by the event. Fire management assistance grants provide assistance to state and localities to manage fires that threaten to cause major disasters. In the aftermath of especially large or damaging incidents discussion can develop considering whether the Stafford Act should be amended to include a fourth category, generally called a "catastrophic declaration." If approved, catastrophic declarations could be invoked for high-profile, large-scale incidents that threaten the lives of many people, create tremendous damage, and pose significant challenges to timely recovery efforts. This report examines concerns expressed by policymakers and experts that current Stafford Act declarations are inadequate to respond to, and recover from, highly destructive events, and presents the arguments for and against amending the act to add a catastrophic declaration amendment. This report also includes data analyses of past and potential disasters to determine what incidents might be deemed as catastrophic, and explores alternative policy options that might obviate the need for catastrophic declarations. This report will be updated as events warrant.