Report on Effects of a Changing Climate to the

Department of Defense

January 2019

Office of the Under Secretary of Defense

for Acquisition and Sustainment

As required by Section 335 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018
(Public Law 115-91).

The estimated cost of this report or study for the Department of

Defense is approximately $329,000 in Fiscal Years 2018 - 2019.
This includes $58,000 in expenses and $271,000 in DoD labor.
Generated on 2018Dec18 RefID: 9-D30BE5A
1
January 2019
Elements of Request for Report
This report responds to section 335 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2018 (Public Law 115-91). Specifically, this report provides an assessment of the significant
vulnerabilities from climate-related events in order to identify high risks to mission effectiveness
on installations and to operations. In developing this report, we discussed the approach with
staff from the House and Senate Armed Services Committees, both majority and minority, on
more than one occasion.

This report is organized into three primary sections:

I. Summary of Climate Effects and Resulting Vulnerabilities
II. DoD Efforts to Increase Installation Resiliency & Operational Viability
III. Conclusions

Background

The effects of a changing climate are a national security issue with potential impacts to
Department of Defense (DoD or the Department) missions, operational plans, and installations.
Our 2018 National Defense Strategy prioritizes long-term strategic competition with great power
competitors by focusing the Department’s efforts and resources to: 1) build a more lethal force,
2) strengthen alliances and attract new partners, and 3) reform the Department’s processes.

To achieve these goals, DoD must be able to adapt current and future operations to
address the impacts of a variety of threats and conditions, including those from weather and
natural events. To that end, DoD factors in the effects of the environment into its mission
planning and execution to build resilience.

For this report, the Office of the Secretary of Defense requested information and inputs
from the Military Departments, Joint Staff, Geographic Combatant Commands, and other
organizations.

Planning Handbook on Climate Change Installation Adaptation and Resilience – In January

2017, Naval Facilities Engineering Command released a handbook for use by planners in
assessing climate impacts and evaluating adaptation options to consider in the existing
Installation Development Plan (Master Plan) process. The Handbook contains an extensive set
of worksheets to be used in documenting the results of planners’ assessment and evaluation,
including economic analyses of adaptation alternatives.

Updated United Facilities Criteria (UFCs) – In October 2017, DoD UFC 1-200-02, High
Performance and Sustainable Building Requirements, was updated to ensure appropriate
incorporation of climate-related impacts, amongst other updated/new areas. The UFC provides
minimum requirements, and guidance for planning, designing, constructing, renovating, and
maintaining high performance and sustainable buildings that will enhance DoD mission
capability by reducing total ownership costs.

2
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Tools – Providing support to civilian and military
infrastructure projects, USACE continues to develop assessment and adaptation tools useful in
adapting to risks associated with potential changing weather patterns.

DoD Directive 4715.21 – In January 2016 the Department issued Department of Defense
Directive 4715.21 Climate Change Adaptation and Resilience, assigning responsibilities to many
levels and DoD components for incorporating climate considerations into planning for
infrastructure and operations in order to assess and manage risks associated with the impacts of a
changing climate.

3
I. Summary of Climate Effects and Vulnerabilities

INSTALLATIONS & INFRASTRUCTURE

Methodology for Installation Effects

The Office of the Secretary of Defense requested information from the Military
Departments for climate-related events. To ensure connection to mission impacts, DoD focused
on 79 mission assurance priority installations based on their operational role. The Office of the
Secretary of Defense requested Military Departments analyze the climate-related events at these
installations. The installations break down by organization as follows:

Air Force 35
Army 20
Navy 19
Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) 2
Defense Financing and Accounting Service (DFAS) 1
National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA) 1
Washington Headquarters Service (WHS) 1

The Military Departments noted the presence or not of current and potential
vulnerabilities to each installation over the next 20 years, selecting from the events listed below.
Note that the congressional request established the 20-year timeframe.

Climate-Related Events
 Recurrent Flooding
 Drought
 Desertification
 Wildfires
 Thawing Permafrost

Military Department input on the 79 installations is included in the Appendix, which is

sorted by Military Service. In preparing input for the Appendix, the Military Services were free
to select information sources they deemed relevant1.

1
Data sources used include: Screening Level Vulnerability Assessment Survey (SLVAS) responses included in the
January 2018 Climate-Related Risk to DoD Infrastructure Initial Vulnerability Assessment Survey (SLVAS) Report;
USGS Coastal Vulnerability Index (CVI); FEMA National Flood Hazard Layer; US Drought Monitor; USDA
Global Desertification Vulnerability Map; USDA layer - 2010 Wildland Urban (continued) Interface (WUI) of the
Conterminous US – Intermix and Interface classes; USGS Volcano Hazards Program; USGS Seismic Information

4
 Summary Table of Current & Potential Effects to 79 Installations
The following tables provide a summary of current and future (20 years) vulnerabilities to
military installations.
Recurrent Thawing
Drought Desertification Wildfires
Flooding Permafrost
Service # Installations Current Potential Current Potential Current Potential Current Potential Current Potential

Air Force 35 20 25 20 22 4 4 32 32 - -
Army 20 14 16 4 4 2 2 4 4 1 1
Navy 19 16 16 18 18 - - - 7 - -

DLA 2 2 2 - 2 - - - - - -

DFAS 1 - - - 1 - - - - - -

NGA 1 1 1 1 1 - - - - - -

WHS 1 - - - - - - - - - -

Totals 79 53 60 43 48 6 6 36 43 1 1

A review of the chart above indicates that recurrent flooding, drought, and wildfires are the
primary concerns at the 79 installations included in the analysis.

Examples of Vulnerabilities to DoD Installations and Infrastructure

The sections below provide examples of impacts to the selected military installations.
Each section below includes a brief general description of the vulnerability factor and possible
impacts to military installations or infrastructure followed by examples.

Recurrent Flooding

Vulnerabilities to installations include coastal and riverine flooding. Coastal flooding

may result from storm surge during severe weather events. Over time, gradual sea level changes
magnify the impacts of storm surge, and may eventually result in permanent inundation of
property. Increasing coverage of land from nuisance flooding during high tides, also called
“sunny day” flooding, is already affecting many coastal communities.

Joint Base Langley-Eustis (JBLE-Langley AFB), Virginia, has experienced 14 inches in

sea level rise since 1930 due to localized land subsidence and sea level rise. Flooding at JBLE-
Langley, with a mean sea level elevation of three feet, has become more frequent and severe.

Navy Base Coronado experiences isolated and flash flooding during tropical storm
events, particularly in El Niño years. Upland Special Areas are subject to flash floods. The main
installation reports worsening sea level rise and storm surge impacts that include access
limitations and other logistic related impairments.

5
 Navy Region Mid-Atlantic and the greater Hampton Roads area is one of the most
vulnerable to flooding military operational installation areas in the United States. Sea level rise,
land subsidence, and changing ocean currents have resulted in more frequent nuisance flooding
and increased vulnerability to coastal storms. As a result, and to better mitigate these issues, the
Region has engaged in several initiatives and partnerships to address the associated challenges.

Drought

Drought can negatively impact U.S. military installations in various ways, particularly in
the Southwest. For example, dry conditions from drought impact water supply in areas
dependent on surface water. Additionally, droughts dry out vegetation, increasing wildfire
potential/severity. Specific to military readiness, droughts can have broad implications for base
infrastructure, impair testing activities, and along with increased temperature, can increase the
number of black flag day prohibitions for testing and training. Drought can contribute to heat-
related illnesses, including heat exhaustion and heat stroke, outlined by the U.S. Army Public
Health Center. Energy consumption may increase to provide additional cooling for facilities.

Several DoD sites in the DC area (including Joint Base Anacostia Bolling, Joint Base
Andrews, U.S. Naval Observatory/Naval Support Facility, and Washington Navy Yard)
periodically experienced drought conditions –extreme in 2002 and severe from 2002 through
2018. In addition, Naval Air Station Key West experienced drought in 2015 and 2011, ranging
from extreme to severe, respectively. These examples highlight that drought conditions may
occur in places not typically perceived as drought regions.

Drought conditions have caused significant reduction in soil moisture at several Air Force
bases resulting in deep or wide cracks in the soil, at times leading to ruptured utility lines and
cracked road surfaces.

Desertification

Desertification poses a number of challenges related to training and maneuvers.

Desertification results in reductions in vegetation cover leading to increases in the amount of
runoff from precipitation events. Greater runoff contributes to:

 higher erosion rates

 increased stream sediment loads
 deposition of sediment in unwanted areas

This reduces the effectiveness of flood risk management infrastructure while increasing the
potential for siltation of water supply reservoirs. Following rain, eroded soil may be less suitable
for native vegetation, resulting in bare land or revegetation with non-native, weedy species. In
cases where this results in the expansion of shrub-lands, this could affect the suitability of the
landscape for military maneuvers and off-road use.

Army installations Camp Roberts in San Miguel, California, and White Sands Missile
Range in New Mexico were identified as vulnerable to current and future desertification, which

6
accelerates erosion and increases soil fragility, possibly limiting future training and testing
exercises. Air Force bases in western states, including Kirtland, Creech, Nellis, and Hill were
also identified as vulnerable to current and future desertification.

Wildfires

Due to routine training and testing activities that are significant ignition sources, wildfires
are a constant concern on many military installations. As a result, the DoD spends considerable
resources on claims, asset loss, and suppression activities due to wildfire. While fire is a key
ecological process with benefits for both sound land management and military capability
development, other climatic factors including increased wind and drought can lead to an
increased severity of wildfire activity. This could result in infrastructure and testing/training
impacts.

In March 2018 two related wildfires broke out in Colorado during an infantry and
helicopter training exercise for an upcoming deployment. Later determined to be due to live fire
training, gusty winds and dry conditions allowed the fire to spread, reaching about 3,300 acres in
size, destroying three homes, and causing the evacuation of 250 homes.

A wildfire in November 2017 burned 380 acres on Vandenberg Air Force Base in
southern California. While no structures were burned, the fire prompted evacuation of some
personnel. Firefighters from the U.S. Forest Service, Santa Barbara County, and other localities
assisted the Vandenberg Fire Department in managing the fire. The Canyon Wildfire at
Vandenberg in September 2016 burned over 10,000 acres and came very close to two Space
Launch Complexes. A scheduled rocket launch had to be delayed. Several facilities on the south
part of the base were operating on generators due to the loss of electrical power lines.

Thawing Permafrost

Permafrost presents risks for critical built infrastructure. Soil strength, ground
subsidence, and stability are primarily affected by the phase change of ground ice to water at or
near 0°C and when the soil thermal regime changes (by human activity, infrastructure
emplacement, or systemic shifts related to weather). Such subsidence may be rapid and
catastrophic (days), very slow and systematic (decades), or somewhere in between. Whether
rapid or slow, thawing permafrost decreases the structural stability to foundations, buildings, and
transportation infrastructure and requires costly mitigation responses that disrupt planning,
operations, and budgets. In addition, thawing permafrost exposes coasts to increased erosion.

Permafrost underlays about 85 percent of Alaska; it is thickest north of the Brooks Range
and gradually diminishes southward. Permafrost thaw is relevant to DoD training and testing
needs. Thermokarst, which is a type of landscape that results from thawing permafrost, increases
wetland areas and creates more challenging terrain. In Fort Greeley, Alaska, Army training
ranges are built on, or are being planned in permafrost-dominated areas. Predicting where this
phenomenon occurs and how permafrost might change is vital to maintaining training operations
and assessing impending environmental management challenges.

7
OPERATIONS

A changing climate can impact DoD’s operations through:

 Changes in the manner in which DoD maintains readiness and provides support.

 Changes to what DoD may be asked to support.

Vulnerabilities to Mission Execution and Operational/Posture Plans

The National Defense Strategy sets the strategic priorities for the Department and, in
turn, the Combatant Commands (CCMD). The CCMD missions may be affected by timing and
severity of climate events, which may affect mission in some cases.

"When I look at climate change, it's in the category of sources of conflict

around the world and things we'd have to respond to. So it can be great
devastation requiring humanitarian assistance — disaster relief — which the
U.S. military certainly conducts routinely.”
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Dunford, November 2018

Country Instability Issues: In the United States Africa Command (USAFRICOM) Area of
Responsibility (AOR), rainy season flooding and drought/desertification are very important
factors in mission execution on the continent. Flooding and earthquake-induced tsunamis in
Indonesia contribute to instability in the Indo-Pacific Command (INDOPACOM).

Logistics and Mission Support Issues: Weather conditions over the Mediterranean Sea
currently impact intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR), personnel
recovery/casualty evacuation and logistics flights from Europe to the African continent;
potentially increasing no-go flight days.

At Naval Base Guam, recurrent flooding limits capacity for a number of operations and
activities including Navy Expeditionary Forces Command Pacific, submarine squadrons,
telecommunications, and a number of other specific tasks supporting mission execution.

Additionally, recurrent flooding impacts operations and activities of contingency

response groups at Andersen Air Force Base, as well as mobility response, communications,
combat, and security forces squadrons.

Arctic Region Issues: Climate-related effects impact accessibility and activity in the Arctic.
The Northern Sea Route generally opens for four weeks each year – usually the month of
September – and has the potential for increased Arctic maritime traffic. The demand for Arctic-
specific search and rescue (SAR) resources will grow as Arctic activity increases.

There is need for further military support to civil authorities to enable the peaceful
opening of the Arctic as access increases. The role of United States Europe Command
(USEUCOM) in the high north will expand with enhanced opportunities for cooperation with

8
allies and partners and growth in the number and frequency of live training exercises in the
region.

In the Arctic, acquisition and supply chain requirements are considerably longer and are
much costlier. DoD will continue to partner with Federal departments and agencies, state, local,
and tribal agencies, other nations, and the private sector on services as appropriate.

Humanitarian Assistance/Disaster Relief

Geographic Combatant Commands regularly conduct humanitarian assistance and

disaster relief initiatives to improve the resiliency of the partner nation to natural and manmade
disasters.

DoD conducts foreign disaster relief at the request of the U.S. Agency for International
Development (USAID) and the State Department. USAID’s Office of U.S. Foreign Disaster
Assistance is the lead federal agency for coordinating the U.S. Government foreign disaster relief
response. DoD does not develop its force structure for foreign disaster relief missions, but
supports USAID with available unique military capabilities and assets, such as transportation,
logistics, engineering assessments, air traffic control, and water.

DoD focuses its humanitarian assistance program on building capacity of partner nations
for health-related activities and activities that promote sustainable public health capacity-
building, disaster preparedness, risk reduction, and relief response. Examples include:
emergency management training; construction/renovation of emergency operations centers and
disaster relief warehouses; assistance with planning for disaster response and recovery; and
country baseline assessments for vulnerabilities to disasters, including vulnerabilities from
weather and climate impacts. Global health engagement activities such as disease mitigation and
prevention initiatives address the basic survival needs of the population, promote stability and
capacity, and thus also climate resiliency.

Defense Support of Civil Authorities

Domestically, DoD provides disaster assistance at the request of the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) and other federal Departments and Agencies. DoD always
operates in support of civil authorities and is not the lead federal agency for domestic disaster
relief missions, unless so designated by the President. DoD will maintain command and control
over Federal military forces and Governors of responding States will maintain command and
control over State National Guard forces. FEMA’s ten regions are responsible for writing All
Hazard Plans (AHPs) that guide response efforts to disasters including floods and hurricanes.
DoD works to support these AHPs as requested.

Testing and Training

The Department conducts training in realistic field environments to achieve and sustain
proficiency in mission requirements. Similarly, the Department conducts testing in realistic field
environments in anticipation of the military’s use of weapons, equipment, munitions, systems, or
their components. As such, access to the land, air, and sea space that replicate the operational
9
environment is critical to the readiness of the Force. Climate effects to the Department’s training
and testing are manifested in an increased number of suspended/delayed/cancelled outdoor
training/testing events and increased operational health surveillance and health and safety risks to
the Department’s personnel. Specifically, installations in the Southeast and Southwest lose
significant training and testing time due to extreme heat.

Climate effects lead to increased maintenance/repair requirements for training/testing

lands and associated infrastructure and equipment (e.g., roads, targets, buildings). In addition to
the loss of use of training and test ranges, these impacts result in increased land management
requirements due to stressed threatened/endangered species and related ecosystems on and
adjacent to DoD installations. Recent specific examples include:

 Wildfires in the western United States affecting Vandenberg AFB and operations at the
Western Range and Point Mugu Sea Range.
 Hurricanes resulting in damage to infrastructure and delays in training, testing programs,
and space launches at Tyndall Air Force Base, at the Atlantic Undersea Test and
Evaluation Centers, and the Eastern Range.
 Permafrost thawing at Cold Region Test Center, Fort Greely, Alaska, impacting cold
weather testing activities.
 Rising seawater wash-over and contamination of freshwater on atoll installations.

Mitigation efforts for unplanned climate events necessitate contingency planning for
training and test events and the minimization of planned range/facility use during historical
adverse climate condition seasons of the year. Other climate and non-climate related facility
maintenance and contingency of operations efforts are included in installation mitigation plans.

II. DoD Efforts to Increase Installation Resiliency & Operational Viability

INCREASE INSTALLATION RESILIENCY

The Department considers climate resilience in the installation planning and basing
processes to include impacts on built and natural infrastructure. To ensure that DoD facilities
better withstand flooding and severe weather events, DoD makes appropriate changes to
installation master planning, design and construction standards.

To continue missions in the event of loss or damage to critical energy and water
infrastructure, the Department uses the Mission Assurance process (DoD 3020.40, Mission
Assurance Strategy) to plan and conduct mitigation and remediation actions to improve the
resilience of critical assets and capabilities to reduce risk to critical missions. In May 2016, DoD
updated Directive 4170.11 on Installation Energy Management and developed Installation
Energy Plan guidance that included a focused goal of increased energy resilience and critical
energy infrastructure requirements. In February 2017, the Army added water to this effort and
released guidance to establish requirements for Army energy and water security to enhance
resilience on Army installations.

10
 The Department has published several issuances to ensure that the Military Services and
Joint Staff integrate climate scenarios and long-term projections into planning, including DoDD
4715.21 (Climate Change Adaptation and Resilience) to establish roles and responsibilities and
DoDI 4715.03 (Natural Resources Conservation Program) requiring consideration of climate
impacts during development of Installation Natural Resources Management Plans (INRMPs).

Unified Facilities Criteria, or UFCs, provide planning, design, construction, sustainment,

restoration, and modernization criteria, and apply to the Military Services, the Defense Agencies,
and the DoD Field Activities. In June 2018, the UFC on High Performance and Sustainable
Building Requirements was updated to include and strengthen climate considerations. The UFC
20-100-1, Master Planning, also includes language requiring Master Planners to consider
changes in climatic conditions that may impact new and existing facilities and infrastructure.
The UFC on Landscape Architecture is being updated to support installation water resilience.
Additionally, UFC 3-400-02 directs installation planners to request engineering weather data
(EWD) from Air Force’s 14th Weather Squadron (WS) that focuses on climatic variables of
temperature, humidity, precipitation, and winds. Recently the 14th WS moved from a 10 to 5
year update cycle to ensure climate impacts are captured.

DoD is also updating various built and natural infrastructure design standards to better
adapt to climate impacts. The Coastal Assessment Regional Scenario Working Group released a
report in April 2016 that provided a database with regionalized sea level scenarios for three
future time horizons (2035, 2065, and 2100) for 1,774 DoD sites worldwide. The database also
contains extreme water levels statistics (storm surge without waves and wave run up) for four
types of annual chance events (1, 2, 5 and 20 percent) based on historical tide gauge data. This
information can be used to establish base flood elevation and potential future flood inundation
areas of concern for installations in coastal and tidal areas.

The Military Services and the Defense Logistics Agency approach installation resiliency
through the integration of weather and climate considerations into existing plans and processes,
using partnerships with other federal agencies, state governments, local governments, non-
governmental organizations, and local communities to increase preparedness and resilience.
Examples:

 Patrick Air Force Base imposes strict Florida Building Code hurricane requirements and
finished floor elevations for all new construction based on flood plain and storm surge
data. Base staff coordinates with state, county, and academic institutions to ensure these
requirements are implemented.

 As mentioned earlier in this report, flooding at JBLE-Langley Air Force Base has become
more frequent and severe. JBLE-Langley is using a flood visualization tool to understand
flooding impacts across the base. By modeling different storm flooding elevations, they
were able to determine where to install door dams, which require less time and less labor
than sandbags. The base reduced the number of required sandbags by 70 percent. JBLE-
Langley also requires that all new development is constructed at a minimum elevation of
10.5 feet above sea level with some projects planned for higher elevation due to high
communication intensity and need for greater hardening. Additionally, the City of
Hampton recently adopted a Resiliency and Adaptation Addendum to their original 2010
11
 Joint Land Use Study. This addendum will help solidify a path forward for the City of
Hampton and JBLE-Langley to identify and implement resilience strategies that support
continued feasibility of base operations.

 Eglin and MacDill Air Force Bases in Florida partnered with local groups to address
persistent coastal erosion around their installations. Oyster shells collected from local
restaurants became the foundation for oyster reefs to create a living shoreline, bolstering
natural protection of critical historic sites, stabilizing shoreline, protecting the riparian
and intertidal environment, thereby creating habitat for aquatic/terrestrial species.

 Navy Region Southwest leadership have adopted decisive measures to evaluate climate
impacts on shore infrastructure, and are pursuing a strategy to mitigate vulnerabilities
through local agency collaboration, adaptive planning and implementation of innovative
design techniques. This initiative will improve upon the Navy’s scientific data, facilitate
assessment of various sea level rise (SLR) scenario impacts, and help identify sustainable
infrastructure strategies to offset stressors from flooding, beach erosion, and loss of
wetlands and habitat.

 Navy Region Southwest facility planning efforts now incorporate adaptive planning
measures from a variety of government agency sources, including NAVFAC’s Climate
Change Installation Adaptation and Resilience Planning Handbook. Regional planners
are working with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the Scripps
Institute of Oceanography to study potential vulnerabilities at the Naval Amphibious
Base. Sea level rise data for 2100 was used during the environmental planning and
design phases of the Coastal Campus project. The design configuration of five buildings
was modified to resist a moderate sea level rise event over their forecasted life cycle.

 The greater Hampton Roads area is very vulnerable to flooding caused by rising sea
levels and land subsidence. Navy Region Mid-Atlantic is working with several
academic, local community, non-profit organizations, and state and federal agencies to
increase understanding of current and future risks to inform discussions on possible
adaptation strategies for communities and military bases. In addition, the cities of
Norfolk and Virginia Beach are currently engaged in a Joint Land Use Study to identify
specific conditions, including recurrent flooding, coastal storms, and erosion, outside of
the military footprint that have the potential to impact Navy operations in the Hampton
Roads area.

 Fort Hood, Texas, endured severe flash flooding in June 2016. A training exercise that
involved a low river crossing resulted in the death of several soldiers. In response, the
installation replaced the two most dangerous low water crossings with bridges, installed
stream and depth gauges at critical locations on the west side to better monitor and
predict flash flooding, and focused on clear signage and training.

 To address wildfire risk, Navy Region Southwest successfully worked with the California
Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CALFIRE) to promote joint training
opportunities in an effort to protect key infrastructure and communities within San Diego
County. Navy squadrons conduct semiannual joint training with CALFIRE to ensure
interoperability and an immediate response capability in support of local authorities for
12
 emergency events. At the installation level, natural resource managers work to evaluate
the threat of wildfires to key resources and promote sustainable management practices,
such as the development and implementation of fire management plans for major
facilities and aligned special areas.

 DLA is upgrading its data center layout and mechanical equipment to ensure provision of
the cooling needed for processors and servers to operate efficiently in warmer
temperatures. All data centers will eventually migrate to a cloud server following the
Data Center Optimization Initiative.

 Other DLA approaches to increase installation resilience involve relocation of assets

from flood-prone areas to safer areas. For example, at two flood-prone sites, DLA
installed backup power generators and other mechanical equipment like chillers on a
higher elevation or mounted on concrete pads in accordance with building codes. Other
mechanical rooms were located in building rooftops, which helps prevent flood water
damage to equipment. In addition, other measures control rainwater flow, such as the use
of retention swales to divert storm water, green roofs to absorb rainfall, and cisterns to
store rainfall during downpours.

RESEARCH

Current Efforts

DoD’s Strategic Environmental Research and Develop Program (SERDP) and

Environmental Security Technology Certification Program (ESTCP) invest in research focused
on improving DoD understanding of environmental risks to installations and mission. SERDP
and ESTCP investments support the development of the science, technologies, and methods
needed to manage and enhance the resilience of DoD installation infrastructure with the goal of
maximizing mission readiness. The following are a few examples of SERDP research efforts
related to infrastructure and mission resiliency:

 In response to drought risk, SERDP initiated a study to understand and assess

environmental vulnerabilities on installations in the desert southwest. This research seeks
to detect and assess drought response of sensitive riparian forests to drought stress over
recent decades and will be carried out within three DoD bases in the Southwest, with
widely applicable results.

 In response to wildfire risk, SERDP developed a Fire Science Strategy in 2014 focused
on the following: improved characterization, monitoring, modeling, and mapping of fuels
to support enhanced smoke management and fire planning at DoD installations; enhanced
smoke management using advanced monitoring and modeling approaches; and research
to quantify, model, and monitor post-fire effects.

 SERDP and ESTCP investments seek to understand changes to the arctic terrestrial
environment relevant to DoD infrastructure. Permafrost degradation can impact soil,
vegetation, buildings, roads, and airfields. SERDP and ESTCP investments are leading
to tools for making arctic infrastructure more "aware" of permafrost changes before

13
 costly failures occur. An example is Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory’s fiber-
optic geophysical sensing package capable of providing real-time information on
subsurface conditions relevant to infrastructure performance and failure in Arctic
environments.
At the Military Service level, the Air Force’s 14th Weather Squadron provides
authoritative data sets and tailored decision aids to the Combatant Commanders, or CCMDs.
This same information is available to installation managers/planners. Additionally, the Air Force
is pursuing more accurate North Slope Alaska shoreline erosion prediction models that take into
account warming water near the shore, increasing air temperatures, longer periods when sea ice
is gone, increasing spatial extent of open water, increasing wind speeds, storm surges, wave
height, and thawing permafrost.

The U.S. Army Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory maintains a
Permafrost Tunnel Research Facility in Fox, Alaska, for several types of research, including
studies to better understand permafrost terrains for engineering, military planning, and science.
In addition, the Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory, together with the
Construction Engineering Research Laboratory and Geotechnical and Structures Laboratory,
developed solutions for damage caused by thawing permafrost at Thule Air Base in Greenland.
A new technology incorporating buried extruded foam insulation boards was used for about 18
percent of the runway during a repaving project in the summers of 2015 and 2016; the existing
white paint on the remainder of the runway was deemed sufficiently protective. New mitigation
techniques were proposed to stabilize critical buildings that had re-settled after previous
modifications and remodeling projects.

The Office of Naval Research (ONR) Arctic and Global Prediction Program is motivated
by the need to understand and predict the environment at a variety of time and space scales in
geographical areas of interest to DoD such as the Arctic. ONR is actively working to extend the
capability to skillfully predict environmental conditions and disruptive weather events to several
weeks and months in advance. The ability to provide useful forecasts of the operational
environment, such as the location of the sea ice edge, the characteristics and evolution of sea ice,
and the wind and wave conditions at the surface will be critical to enable safe and efficient naval
operations in the Arctic.

Future Efforts

DoD realizes the need to better understand rates of coastal erosion, natural and built flood
protection infrastructure, and inland and littoral flood planning and mitigation. To address this,
we are focusing on the following in current SERDP Statements of Need that communicate the
types of research we are interested in pursuing:

 Continued work to apply, evaluate, and improve scenarios and other tools for projecting
interactions of sea level rise, storm surge, precipitation/land-based flooding at U.S.
Military Installations.

 Research and products that fuse climate science, design, and decision sciences methods in
the context of current DoD/Service planning, operations, and management.
14
  Research on materials fragility and implications for infrastructure/building design.

ENSURE MISSION RESILIENCY

DoD is continuing to work with partner nations to understand and plan for future
potential mission impacts. This is a global issue and a number of Ministries of Defense across
the world are beginning to plan now for future impacts, as well. The Department has funded
cost-effective climate related MIL-to-MIL engagements between the Combatant Commands and
partner nations through the Defense Environmental International Cooperation (DEIC) program.
DEIC projects have included:

 United States Africa Command (USAFRICOM) water security engagements in the Chad
Basin and Tanzania,
 United States Europe Command (USEUCOM) water workshop in the Czech Republic,
and
 United States Northern Command (USNORTHCOM) Arctic mission analysis with the
Scandinavian countries.

Within the Geographic Combatant Commands, there is a standard review process that
includes assessing manpower, operations, logistics, cyber, and resourcing operations through a
resilience lens. This review also includes ensuring that risk assessment and mitigation, diversity,
connectivity, reserves, and adequate redundancy are part of our major operations.

At United States Central Command, current and historic climate conditions are factored
into theater campaign plans, including water scarcity which is a recurring issue in the region.
Warning indicators are part of the deliberate planning process. United States Northern
Command routinely includes severe weather-driven scenarios in training and exercise events and
has developed planning tools to guide operational response efforts to these scenarios. United
States Indo-Pacific Command (USINDOPACOM) focuses their training on readiness to respond
to and be resilient to natural disasters, as well as sustainable resource management toward
critical resources scarcity. This command has also established Pacific Augmentation Teams
around its Area of Responsibility to identify quickly immediate needs that can be met with
military assets.

United States Southern Command funded a National Preparedness Baseline Assessments

to include a gap analysis as well as a five-year plan to build capability and capacity within the
countries in the region. The collection of sub-regional data will provide a more nuanced
depiction of each country’s risks and vulnerabilities to disasters that may be influenced by
climate as well as their readiness to respond to them. This command will also seek appropriate
resources to fund assessments to determine the effects of its most serious and likely climate-
related risks.

At USAFRICOM, climate impacts and drivers of instability and factional conflict are
fully integrated into planning efforts. Planners must consider the impacts of drought and
desertification as high potential instability areas and how these two hazards impact bases and

15
missions. USAFRICOM’s capacity-building efforts are nested within its security cooperation
programs and will adapt to a variety of trends and projections.

The Arctic Security Forces Roundtable is USEUCOM’s engagement effort for nations
that have security forces within the Arctic region. It is a forum in which senior military leaders
from Arctic nations and other stakeholders confer and agree upon actions that can support
stability and peaceful commercial activity in the region. Lessons learned from our Arctic allies
and partners are used to enhance operational safety. In response to melting ice and newly
accessible areas of the Arctic, USEUCOM sponsors the ARCTIC ZEPHYR series of table-top
exercises focused on search and rescue operations in the Arctic.

III. Conclusions
This report represents a high-level assessment of the vulnerability of DoD installations to
five climate/weather impacts: recurrent flooding, drought, desertification, wildfires, and thawing
permafrost. From a resources perspective, DoD is incorporating climate resilience as a cross-
cutting consideration for our planning and decision-making processes, and not as a separate
program or specific set of actions.

Some impacts are closely related or intensify the effects of each other (e.g., drought,
desertification, wildfire), whereas others are somewhat related (e.g., coastal flooding driven by
changing sea level can impact river conveyance, compounding riverine flood levels for tidally-
influenced rivers). Taken together, however, these impacts help describe the overall
vulnerabilities to DoD installations from changing future conditions.

About two-thirds of the 79 installations addressed in this report are vulnerable to current
or future recurrent flooding and more than one-half are vulnerable to current or future drought.
About one-half are vulnerable to wildfires. It is important to note that areas subject to wildfire
may then experience serious mudslides or erosion when rains follow fires. Impacts are dispersed
around the country. Not surprisingly, impacts vary by region for coastal flooding, with greater
impacts to the East coast and Hawaii than the West coast. Desertification vulnerabilities are
limited to the sites on the list with arid soils; these are in California, New Mexico, and Nevada.
Drought vulnerabilities are more widely dispersed across the country. Wildfire and recurrent
flooding impacts are the most widely dispersed.

For the most part, if an installation was currently vulnerable to a specific factor, it will
generally be deemed vulnerable to that same factor in the future. In a few instances, locations
considered not currently vulnerable were deemed to be vulnerable in the future. Seven
installations not currently vulnerable to impacts from recurrent flooding were estimated to be
vulnerable in the future. Five sites not currently vulnerable to drought were deemed vulnerable
in the future. Seven sites not currently vulnerable to wildfires were considered vulnerable in the
future. A number of installations are subject to more than one vulnerability, most notably
recurrent flooding, drought, and wildfires.

It is relevant to point out that “future” in this analysis means only 20 years in the future.
Projected changes will likely be more pronounced at the mid-century mark; vulnerability

16
analyses to mid- and late-century would likely reveal an uptick in vulnerabilities (if adaptation
strategies are not implemented.)

The Department considers resilience in the installation planning and basing processes to
include impacts on built and natural infrastructure. This includes consideration of environmental
vulnerabilities in installation master planning, management of natural resources, design and
construction standards, utility systems/service, and emergency management operations.

Climate and environmental resilience efforts span all levels and lines of effort, and are
not framed as a separate program. Additionally, resources for assessing and responding to
climate impacts are provided within existing DoD missions, funds, and capabilities and
subsumed under existing risk management processes. The Military Departments provide most of
the resources for on-the-ground activities in the Geographic Combatant Commands.

Part IV. Appendix

17
 APPENDIX - Report on Effects of a Changing Climate to the Department of Defense January 2019

Recurrent Thawing
ARMY Drought Desertification Wildfires
Flooding Permafrost
# Installation State Current Potential Current Potential Current Potential Current Potential Current Potential
1 Fort Greely AK No No No No No No No No Yes Yes
2 Reagan Operations Center-Huntsville AL Yes Yes No No No No No No No No
3 Pine Bluff Arsenal AR Yes Yes No No No No No No No No
4 Camp Roberts CA No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No
5 Military Ocean Terminal Concord (MOTCO) CA Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No No No
6 U.S. Southern Command Headquarters-Miami FL Yes Yes No No No No Yes Yes No No
7 Fort Gordon GA No No No No No No Yes Yes No No
8 Fort Shafter HI Yes Yes No No No No No No No No
9 Fort Detrick MD Yes Yes No No No No No No No No
10 Fort Meade MD Yes Yes No No No No No No No No
11 Lake City Army Ammunition Plant (AAP) MO Yes Yes No No No No No No No No
12 Fort Bragg NC No No No No No No Yes Yes No No
13 Military Ocean Terminal Sunny Point (MOTSU) NC Yes Yes No No No No No No No No
14 White Sands Missile Range NM No No Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No
15 Watervliet Arsenal NY Yes Yes No No No No No No No No
16 McAlester Army Ammunition Plant (AAP) OK Yes Yes No No No No No No No No
17 Holston Army Ammunition Plant (AAP) TN No Yes No No No No No No No No
18 Fort Hood TX Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes No No
19 Fort Belvoir VA Yes Yes No No No No No No No No
20 Radford Army Ammunition Plant (AAP) VA Yes Yes No No No No No No No No

1
 APPENDIX - Report on Effects of a Changing Climate to the Department of Defense January 2019

Recurrent Thawing
AIR FORCE Drought Desertification Wildfires
Flooding Permafrost
# Installation State Current Potential Current Potential Current Potential Current Potential Current Potential
21 Clear Air Force Station (AFS) AK No No No No No No Yes Yes No No
22 Joint Base (JB) Elmendorf Richardson AK Yes Yes No No No No Yes Yes No No
23 Maxwell Air Force Base (AFB) Gunter Annex AL No Yes No No No No No No NA NA
24 Beale Air Force Base (AFB) CA Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes NA NA
25 Vandenberg Air Force Base (AFB) CA Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes NA NA
26 Buckley Air Force Base (AFB) CO No Yes No No No No Yes Yes NA NA
27 Cheyenne Mountain Air Force Station (AFS) CO Yes Yes No Yes No No Yes Yes NA NA
28 Greeley Air National Guard Station (ANGS) CO Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes NA NA
29 Peterson Air Force Base (AFB) CO No No No Yes No No Yes Yes NA NA
30 Schriever Air Force Base (AFB) CO No No Yes Yes No No Yes Yes NA NA
31 Cape Canaveral Air Force Station (AFS) FL Yes Yes No No No No Yes Yes NA NA
32 Eglin Air Force Base (AFB) FL Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes NA NA
33 MacDill Air Force Base (AFB) FL Yes Yes No No No No Yes Yes NA NA
34 Patrick Air Force Base (AFB) FL Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes NA NA
35 Warner Robins Air Force Base (AFB) GA Yes Yes No No No No Yes Yes NA NA
36 Scott Air Force Base (AFB) IL Yes Yes No No No No Yes Yes NA NA
37 Barksdale Air Force Base (AFB) LA No Yes No No No No Yes Yes NA NA
38 McConnell Air Force Base (AFB) KS No No Yes Yes No No Yes Yes NA NA
39 Cape Cod Air Force Station (AFS) MA No No Yes Yes No No Yes Yes NA NA
40 Joint Base (JB) Andrews MD Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes NA NA
41 Selfridge Air National Guard Base (ANGB) MI No Yes No No No No Yes Yes NA NA
42 Whiteman Air Force Base (AFB) MO No No Yes Yes No No Yes Yes NA NA
43 Malmstrom Air Force Base (AFB) MT Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes NA NA
44 Cavalier Air Force Station (AFS) ND No No No No No No No No NA NA
45 Minot Air Force Base (AFB) ND Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No NA NA
46 Offutt Air Force Base (AFB) NE No No Yes Yes No No No No NA NA
47 Kirtland Air Force Base (AFB) NM No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes NA NA
48 Creech Air Force Base (AFB) NV No No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes NA NA
49 Nellis Air Force Base (AFB) NV No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes1 Yes1 NA NA
1
Air Force Note: Answers only for installation sites within the main base. When associated ranges are included, answer is Yes.

2
 APPENDIX - Report on Effects of a Changing Climate to the Department of Defense January 2019

Recurrent Thawing
AIR FORCE Drought Desertification Wildfires
Flooding Permafrost
# Installation State Current Potential Current Potential Current Potential Current Potential Current Potential
50 Wright Patterson Air Force Base (AFB) OH No Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes NA NA
51 Tinker Air Force Base (AFB) OK Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes NA NA
52 Shaw Air Force Base (AFB) SC Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes NA NA
Joint Base (JB) San Antonio (aka JB Lackland /
53 TX Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes NA NA
Sam Houston / Randolph)
54 Hill Air Force Base (AFB) UT Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes1 Yes1 NA NA
55 Joint Base (JB) Langley-Eustis VA Yes Yes No No No No Yes Yes NA NA
56 F.E. Warren AFB WY Yes Yes No No No No Yes Yes NA NA
1
Air Force Note: Answers only for installation sites within the main base. When associated ranges are included, answer is Yes.

3
 APPENDIX - Report on Effects of a Changing Climate to the Department of Defense January 2019

Recurrent Thawing
DEPARTMENT OF NAVY Drought Desertification Wildfires
Flooding Permafrost
# Installation State Current Potential Current Potential Current Potential Current Potential Current Potential
57 Naval Base (NB) Coronado CA Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No No No
58 Naval Base (NB) San Diego CA Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No No No
59 Joint Base (JB) Anacostia Bolling DC Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No No No
U.S. Naval Observatory / Naval Support Facility
60 DC No No Yes Yes No No No No No No
(NSF) Naval Observatory
61 Washington Navy Yard DC Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No No No
62 Naval Air Station (NAS) Key West FL Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No Yes No No
63 Naval Submarine Base (NSB) Kings Bay GA Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No Yes No No
64 Joint Base (JB) Pearl Harbor Hickam HI Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No Yes No No
65 Wahiawa Annex HI Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No Yes No No
66 Naval Support Facility (NSF) Indian Head MD Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No No No
67 Naval Air Station (NAS) Oceana VA Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No No No
Naval Support Activity (NSA) Hampton Roads -
68 Northwest / (former) Naval Security Group VA Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No No No
Activity (NSGA) Chesapeake
69 Naval Station (NS) Norfolk VA Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No No No
70 Naval Support Activity (NSA) Hampton Roads VA Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No No No
71 Naval Magazine Indian Island WA Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No Yes No No
Naval Base (NB) Kitsap Bangor (Naval
72 WA No No Yes Yes No No No Yes No No
Submarine Base (NSB) Bangor)
73 U.S. Territory - Naval Base Guam Guam Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No Yes No No
74 U.S. Territory - Andersen AFB Guam Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No No No

4
 APPENDIX - Report on Effects of a Changing Climate to the Department of Defense January 2019

Recurrent Thawing
OTHER Drought Desertification Wildfires
Flooding Permafrost
# Installation State Service Current Potential Current Potential Current Potential Current Potential Current Potential
Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS)
75 IN DFAS No No No Yes No No No No No No
Indianapolis
Defense Finance & Accounting Service (DFAS)
76 OH DLA Yes Yes No Yes No No No No No No
Columbus
77 Defense Distribution Depot (DDD) Susquehanna PA DLA Yes Yes No Yes No No No No No No
National Ground Intelligence Center (NGIC)
78 VA NGA Yes2 Yes Yes Yes No No No No No No
Charlottesville
79 Pentagon VA WHS No No No No No No No No No No
2
Although the site did not experience flooding, flooding in the local area caused temporary loss of commercial water supply to the site.