CLIMATE CHANGE 

ADAPTATION

DOD Can Improve 

Infrastructure 

Planning and 

Processes to Better 

Account for Potential 

Impacts

Report to Congressional Requesters

May 2014

GAO-14-446

United States Government Accountability Office
United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-14-446, a report to 

congressional requesters

May 2014

CLIMATE CHANGE ADAPTATION

DOD Can Improve Infrastructure Planning and 

Processes to Better Account for Potential Impacts 

Why GAO Did This Study

According to DOD, its U.S. 

infrastructure is vulnerable to the 

potential impacts of climate change.

These could affect DOD’s readiness 

and fiscal exposure, and DOD has 

begun to plan for adaptation actions 

designed to improve infrastructure 

resilience. GAO was asked to assess 

DOD’s actions to adapt its U.S. 

infrastructure to the challenges of 

climate change. This report (1)

describes potential impacts identified 

by DOD that may affect its 

infrastructure; (2) evaluates DOD’s 

efforts to conduct vulnerability 

assessments; (3) assesses how DOD 

is accounting for climate change 

impacts in certain planning efforts; and 

(4) evaluates the extent to which DOD 

incorporates adaptation into its 

infrastructure-investment efforts.GAO 

reviewed DOD documents on climate 

change, infrastructure planning, and 

funding processes; interviewed 

cognizant officials; and visited or 

contacted a nongeneralizable sample 

of 15 sites in various regions and from 

each military department. 

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that DOD develop a 

plan and milestones for completing 

climate change vulnerability 

assessments of installations; provide 

further information to installation 

planners, clarifying actions that should 

be taken to account for climate change 

in planning documents; and clarify the 

processes used to compare military 

construction projects for funding, to 

include consideration of potential 

climate change impacts. DOD 

concurred with GAO’s 

recommendations and explained how 

they will be implemented. 

What GAO Found

In its Fiscal Year 2012 Climate Change Adaptation Roadmap, the Department of 

Defense (DOD) identified climate change phenomena such as rising temperatures 

and sea levels as potentially impacting its infrastructure, and officials at sites GAO 

visited or contacted noted actual impacts they had observed. For example, according 

to DOD officials, the combination of thawing permafrost, decreasing sea ice, and 

rising sea levels on the Alaskan coast has increased coastal erosion at several Air 

Force radar early warning and communication installations. Impacts on DOD’s 

infrastructure from this erosion have included damaged roads, seawalls, and 

runways. In addition, officials on a Navy installation told GAO that sea level rise and 

resulting storm surge are the two largest threats to their waterfront infrastructure. For 

instance, they are concerned about possible storm surge during work on a submarine 

that will be cut in half while sitting in a dry dock. Officials explained that if salt water 

floods the submarine’s systems, it could result in severe damage. 

DOD has begun to assess installations’ vulnerability to potential climate change 

impacts and directed its planners to incorporate consideration of climate change into 

certain installation planning efforts. Further, it is a DOD strategic goal to consider 

sustainability, including climate change adaptation, in its facility investment decisions. 

However, GAO identified some limitations with these efforts. Specifically:

• DOD has begun collecting data on historic and potential future vulnerabilities

from coastal locations (installations and associated sites) and is developing 

regional sea-level rise scenarios for 704 coastal locations to be used following 

the collection of these data. However, it has not yet developed a plan or 

milestones for completing these tasks, including when it expects to finish data 

collection on a total of 7,591 locations worldwide. Without a plan, including 

interim milestones to gauge progress, DOD may not finish its assessments in a 

timely and complete manner. 

• DOD guidance requires that both installation master planning and natural 

resources planning account for certain potential impacts of climate change, but 

the implementation of these requirements across the department varies. 

Installation planners said that they lack key definitions and updated guidance on 

construction and renovation going beyond current building codes to account for 

climate change. Without additional information, installation planners will be 

unlikely to consistently account for climate change impacts in their Master Plans 

and Integrated Natural Resources Management Plans.

• Installation officials rarely propose climate change adaptation projects because 

the services’ processes for approving and funding military construction projects 

do not include climate change adaptation in the criteria used to rank potential 

projects. As a result, installation planners may believe that climate change 

adaptation projects are unlikely to successfully compete with other military 

construction projects for funding. Without clarification of these processes, DOD 

may face challenges in meeting its strategic goals and the services may miss 

opportunities to make their facilities more resilient to the potential impacts of 

climate change.

View GAO-14-446 with a video of flooding at a 

DOD installation. For more information, 

contact Brian J. Lepore at (202) 512-4523 or 

leporeb@gao.gov. 
Page i GAO-14-446 DOD Climate Change Adaptation 

Letter 1 

Background 6

DOD Has Identified Climate Change Phenomena, Potential 

Impacts, and Potential Mission Vulnerabilities, and DOD 

Officials Have Observed Them at Selected U.S. Installations 11

DOD Has Begun Conducting Vulnerability Assessments of 

Climate Change Impacts on Its Installations, but Lack of 

Planning May Hamper Completion of Its Efforts 24

DOD Requires Selected Installation Planning Efforts for Existing 

and Future Infrastructure to Account for Climate Change 

Impacts, but Planners Lack Key Information 31

DOD Processes for Approving and Funding Infrastructure Projects 

Do Not Explicitly Account for Climate Change Adaptation 39

Conclusions 44

Recommendations for Executive Action 45

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 46

Appendix I Scope and Methodology 50

Appendix II Previous GAO Work on Federal Efforts to Address Climate 

Change Has Resulted in a Number of Recommendations for 

Improvement of These Efforts 53

Appendix III Comments from the Department of Defense 55

Appendix IV GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 58

Related GAO Products 59

Tables

Table 1: Current and Projected Impacts of Climate Change in the 

United States 7

Contents
Page ii GAO-14-446 DOD Climate Change Adaptation 

Figures

Figure 1: Overrun area of Air Force runway impacted by erosion 13

Figure 2: Training Range in the Pacific 15

Figure 3: Wildfire on a training range in Alaska 16

Figure 4: Dry lakebed runway in the Southwestern United States 

under normal and flood conditions 17

Figure 5: Submarine in dry dock 19

Figure 6: Road Leading to Training Area in Alaska 20

Figure 7: Coastal Erosion near DOD Early Warning Site 21

Figure 8: Video Still Showing Damage to Infrastructure at 

Installation located in Southwestern United States 22

Figure 9: Army Training Area in Southwestern United States 23

Figure 10: Permafrost Tunnel Research Facility 38

Figure 11: Ice Embedded in Soil 38

Abbreviations

Assessment Group Assessment Guidance Sub-Working Group

DOD Department of Defense 

Roadmap Fiscal Year 2012 Climate Change Adaptation 

Roadmap 

Scenario Group Coastal Assessment Regional Scenario Working

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety 

without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain 

copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be 

necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.
Page 1 GAO-14-446 DOD Climate Change Adaptation 

441 G St. N.W.

Washington, DC 20548

May 30, 2014

Congressional Requesters: 

The Department of Defense (DOD) manages a global real-estate portfolio 

that includes over 555,000 facilities and 28 million acres of land with a 

replacement value of close to $850 billion. Within the United States, the 

department’s extensive infrastructure of bases and training ranges,1

which is critical to maintaining military readiness, extends across all 

regions, as well as Alaska, and Hawaii. This infrastructure is vulnerable to 

the potential impacts of climate change.2 Scientific projections and 

observations indicate that these potential impacts include increasing 

temperatures, rising sea levels, melting permafrost and other gradual 

changes, as well as the potential for increases in the frequency and 

severity of extreme events. We have previously reported that while it is 

not possible to link any individual weather event to climate change, these 

events provide insight into the potential climate-related vulnerabilities the 

United States faces.3 In the Third National Climate Assessment,4

 

1

For the purposes of this report, we define infrastructure as all buildings and permanent 

installations necessary for the support, redeployment, and operations of (e.g., barracks, 

headquarters, airfields, communications facilities, stores, port installations, and 

maintenance stations). Infrastructure includes utility systems; training and testing ranges 

and areas; and transportation systems (e.g., roads, bridges). Also, to the extent that DOD 

officials considered built or natural infrastructure outside of a facility (e.g., utility lines or 

barrier islands, respectively) in their climate-change adaptation planning for the facility, we 

included this infrastructure in the scope of the report. 

the U.S. 

2

According to DOD, climate change is any given change in climate over time, whether due 

to natural variability or as a result of human activity. 

3

GAO, Extreme Weather Events: Limiting Federal Fiscal Exposure and Increasing the 

Nation’s Resilience, GAO-14-364T (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 12, 2014).

4

The Third National Climate Assessment was released in May 2014.
 

Page 2 GAO-14-446 DOD Climate Change Adaptation 

Global Change Research Program5

GAO, DOD, and others have cited the risks posed by climate change and 

the need to engage in adaptation activities. In February 2013, we added 

the federal government’s efforts to manage its fiscal exposure to the 

effects of climate change to our High Risk list,

states that all regions of the country 

will face climate change impacts that affect natural ecosystems as well as 

the nation’s infrastructure. In addition, infrastructure across the United 

States is being adversely affected already by phenomena associated with 

climate change, including sea level rise, storm surge, heavy downpours, 

and extreme heat according to the assessment. The assessment further 

notes that proactively preparing for climate change can reduce impacts, 

while also facilitating a more-rapid and efficient response to changes as 

they happen.

6

DOD has noted the challenges that the impacts of climate change may 

pose for the department, including to its facilities. In the 2010 Quadrennial 

Defense Review,

noting that the federal 

government’s role as a property owner exposes it to significant fiscal risk. 

We also noted that the government currently lacks a shared 

understanding of strategic priorities and adequate interagency 

coordination to adapt to a changing climate.

7

 

5

The U.S. Global Change Research Program coordinates and integrates the activities of 

13 federal agencies that conduct research on changes in the global environment and their 

implications for society. The Global Change Research Program began as a presidential 

initiative in 1989 and was established by law in the Global Change Research Act of 1990 

(Pub. L. No. 101-606, § 103 (1990)). The U.S. Global Change Research Program 

participating agencies are the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Energy, 

Interior, Health and Human Services, State, and Transportation; the U.S. Agency for 

International Development; the Environmental Protection Agency; the National 

Aeronautics and Space Administration; the National Science Foundation; and the 

Smithsonian Institution. 

DOD stated that many coastal installations were 

already facing elevated levels of risk from rising sea levels and that the 

6

Limiting the Federal Government’s Fiscal Exposure by Better Managing Climate Change 

Risks in GAO, High Risk Series: An Update, GAO-13-283 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 14, 

2013).

7

Section 118 of Title 10 of the United States Code requires the Secretary of Defense to 

conduct a comprehensive examination of the national defense strategy, force structure, 

force modernization plans, infrastructure, budget plan, and other elements of the defense 

program and policies of the United States, every 4 years, with a view toward determining 

and expressing the nation’s defense strategy and establishing a defense program for the 

next 20 years.
 

Page 3 GAO-14-446 DOD Climate Change Adaptation 

department needs to complete a comprehensive assessment of all its 

installations to determine mission impacts and to adapt as required. In its 

fiscal year 2012 Climate Change Adaptation Roadmap (Roadmap),8

We were asked to assess DOD’s progress in taking action to adapt its 

U.S. infrastructure to the challenges of climate change.

DOD 

noted that the department’s ability to adapt to climate change will be a 

significant factor in its ability to fulfill its missions in the future, and that 

climate-related effects already are being observed at DOD installations 

throughout the United States. Furthermore, the Roadmap states that 

including climate change and climate variability considerations in the 

department’s planning processes will enhance operational and 

infrastructure resilience. In its 2014 Quadrennial Defense Review, DOD 

reaffirmed its 2010 assessment of the risks that climate change impacts 

pose to the department’s infrastructure and its finding that DOD needs to 

adapt as required. Given its extensive infrastructure, DOD has begun to 

plan for climate change impacts on its infrastructure.

9

To describe DOD’s efforts to identify climate change phenomena and 

associated impacts and vulnerabilities on its infrastructure, we reviewed 

documents such as the 2010 and 2014 Quadrennial Defense Reviews, 

DOD’s fiscal year 2012 Strategic Sustainability Performance Plan, and 

the Roadmap. We also reviewed ongoing studies from DOD’s Strategic 

Environmental Research and Development Program on potential climate 

In this report, we 

(1) describe the climate change phenomena and associated impacts and 

mission vulnerabilities that DOD has identified; (2) evaluate the extent to 

which DOD has conducted, or plans to conduct, vulnerability 

assessments of climate change impacts on installation infrastructure; (3) 

assess how DOD is accounting for climate change impacts in 

installations’ selected planning efforts for existing and future 

infrastructure; and (4) evaluate how DOD has incorporated adaptation to 

climate change impacts into infrastructure investment efforts.

 

8

DOD’s Roadmap is an annex to its Fiscal Year 2012 Strategic Sustainability Performance 

Plan. DOD developed the Roadmap in response to Executive Order 13514 on Federal 

Leadership in Environmental, Energy, and Economic Performance that directs federal 

agencies to evaluate their climate change risks and vulnerabilities to manage the effects 

of climate change on the agency’s operations and mission in both the short and long term.

9

For the purposes of this report, the United States consists of the 50 states, the District of 

Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands, American 

Samoa, and any other territory or possession of the United States.
 

Page 4 GAO-14-446 DOD Climate Change Adaptation 

change impacts at DOD locations, and met with officials from the Office of 

the Secretary of Defense and the military department headquarters. To 

gain insight into examples of climate change phenomena that have or 

may impact installation infrastructure in the future and that may lead to 

mission vulnerabilities, we visited or contacted officials at a 

nongeneralizable sample of installations, learned about or observed 

impacts on infrastructure, and collected key documentation such as afteraction reports describing impacts and mission vulnerabilities of climate 

change phenomena. The nongeneralizable sample of installations that we 

selected consisted of 15 locations, and included a variety of geographic 

locations and each of the military departments. The selected locations 

had been—or were expected by DOD to be—impacted by climate 

change. Although the information we collected was not representative of 

all installations, we determined that the selection of these installations 

would provide valuable insights for our review.

To determine the extent to which DOD has assessed or plans to assess 

the vulnerability of its facilities to the potential impacts of climate change, 

we reviewed DOD’s 2010 and 2014 Quadrennial Defense Review and 

Roadmap to determine DOD’s goals for conducting vulnerability 

assessments. To determine the extent to which the department has 

completed such assessments, we reviewed DOD documentation that 

discusses vulnerability assessments and interviewed officials in the Office 

of the Secretary of Defense and military departments to learn about 

DOD’s assessment efforts. In addition, we observed meetings of DOD’s 

key organizations involved in these assessment efforts. We also reviewed 

project management practices of high-performing organizations, 

comparing DOD’s assessment efforts to these practices in order to 

determine the extent to which DOD has incorporated them in its 

assessment efforts.

To determine the extent to which DOD is accounting for climate change 

impacts in selected installation planning efforts for infrastructure, we 

identified the requirements for doing so by reviewing DOD’s Unified 

Facilities Criteria for Installation Master Planning10 and DOD Instruction 

4715.0311

 

10Department of Defense, Unified Facilities Criteria 2-100-01, Installation Master Planning

(May 15, 2012).

that set these requirements for Installation Master Planning 

11Department of Defense Instruction 4715.03, Natural Resources Conservation Program

(Mar. 18, 2011).
 

Page 5 GAO-14-446 DOD Climate Change Adaptation 

(Master Plans) and Integrated Natural Resources Management Plans, 

respectively. We also met with officials from the selected installations who 

were responsible for the Master Plan and Integrated Natural Resources 

Management Plans to learn about how they incorporated the 

requirements into their processes. We also compared DOD’s 

requirements with Master Plans and Integrated Natural Resources 

Management Plans from the nongeneralizable sample of 15 installations 

we visited or contacted. In addition, we reviewed The Standards for 

Internal Control in the Federal Government related to information and 

communications,12

To determine the extent to which DOD accounts for climate change 

impacts when making infrastructure project funding decisions, we 

reviewed DOD’s fiscal year 2012 Strategic Sustainability Performance 

Plan and Roadmap to determine DOD’s policies and goals for integrating 

climate change adaptation actions into facility investment decision 

processes. We also interviewed DOD officials at the military department 

headquarters level and at the selected installations we visited or 

contacted to determine the extent to which the military departments have 

implemented climate change adaptation efforts at the installation level. In 

addition, we reviewed examples of military department processes used 

for approval and funding of potential military construction projects. Finally, 

we compared the extent to which the processes incorporate climate 

change adaptation with DOD’s policies and goals on integrating 

adaptation actions into facility investment decisions.

and compared those standards to DOD’s practices 

related to Installation Master Planning and Integrated Natural Resources 

Management Plans. 

We conducted this performance audit from May 2013 to May 2014 in 

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 

sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 

findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that 

the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and 

conclusions based on our audit objectives. Further details on our scope 

and methodology can be found in appendix I.

 

12GAO, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1

(Washington, D.C.: November 1999). 
 

Page 6 GAO-14-446 DOD Climate Change Adaptation 

We have previously reported13 that changes in the Earth’s climate 

attributable to increased concentrations of greenhouse gases may have 

significant environmental and economic impacts in the United States.14

Proposed responses to climate change include reducing greenhouse gas 

emissions through regulation, promoting low-emissions technologies, and 

adapting to the possible impacts by planning and improving protective 

infrastructure. In recent years, climate change adaptation has begun to 

receive more attention because—as we and others have reported—the 

greenhouse gases already in the atmosphere are expected to continue 

altering the climate system into the future, regardless of efforts to control 

emissions.15 Climate change adaptation differs from mitigation, which is 

focused on reducing emissions. In this report, we focus on adaptation 

efforts. For a summary of our previous work on U.S. government climate 

change adaptation efforts and related recommendations for improvement 

of these efforts, see appendix II; we have also included a list of related 

GAO products at the end of this report.

 

13GAO, Climate Change Adaptation: Strategic Federal Planning Could Help Government 

Officials Make More Informed Decisions, GAO-10-113 (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 7, 2009).

14Major greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide (CO2); methane (CH4); nitrous oxide 

(N2O); and synthetic gases such as hydrofluorocarbons (HFC), perfluorocarbons (PFC), 

and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6). 

15Other organizations include the National Research Council and the U.S. Global Change 

Research Program. The National Research Council is the operating arm of the National 

Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering. The U.S. Global Change 

Research Program coordinates and integrates the activities of 13 federal agencies that 

conduct research on changes in the global environment and their implications for society. 

Background

Adaptation and Climate 

Change
 

Page 7 GAO-14-446 DOD Climate Change Adaptation 

According to the Third National Climate Assessment, scientists’ current 

understanding of how the global climate is changing is based on both 

observations and projections reached through the use of computer 

simulations, using global climate models, that account for a variety of 

independent factors.16

Generally, the models’ projections indicate that higher concentrations of 

greenhouse gasses will result in greater climate change, thus increasing 

the degree to which the nation, including its infrastructure, is exposed to 

risk. Nonetheless, uncertainty remains about projections of future 

changes and most projections indicate ranges of change rather than 

specific figures. The effects of increases in atmospheric concentrations of 

greenhouse gases and temperature are expected to have varying impacts 

in the United States (see table 1).

The models used to project changes are becoming 

more sophisticated as scientists incorporate further variables into them.

Table 1: Current and Projected Impacts of Climate Change in the United States

Category Current and projected impacts

Temperature U.S. average temperature has risen fewer than 2 degrees Fahrenheit over the past 50 years. It is 

projected to rise more in the future—how much more depends primarily on the amount of heattrapping gases emitted globally and how sensitive the climate is to those emissions. 

Precipitation Precipitation in the U.S. has increased an average of about 5 percent over the past 50 years. 

Projections of future precipitation generally indicate that northern areas will become wetter and 

southern areas, particularly in the West, will become drier. The amount of rain falling in the heaviest 

downpours has increased approximately 20 percent on average in the past century, and this trend is 

very likely to continue, with the largest increases in the wettest places.

Extreme weather events Some types of extreme weather events, such as heat waves and regional droughts, have become 

more frequent and intense during the past 40 to 50 years. 

Source: Adapted from U.S. Global Change Research Program and National Research Council data.

 

16Global climate models are global, three-dimensional computer models of the climate 

system that can be used to simulate climate change. The models are highly complex and 

they represent the effects of such factors as absorptive properties of atmospheric water 

vapor, greenhouse gas concentrations, clouds, annual and daily solar heating, ocean 

temperatures, and ice boundaries. The most-recent global climate models include global 

representations of the atmosphere, oceans, and land surface. 

Current Understanding of 

Global Climate Change Is 

Based on Both 

Observations and 

Computer Model 

Projections
 

Page 8 GAO-14-446 DOD Climate Change Adaptation 

At the government-wide level, the President has released two executive 

orders directing agencies to plan for and adapt to certain impacts of 

climate change. In 2009, the President signed Executive Order 13514,17

calling for federal agencies to take a number of actions related to climate 

change. In addition, the President’s Council on Environmental Quality 

issued implementing instructions directing federal agencies to, among 

other things, establish an agency climate change adaptation policy, 

complete a high-level analysis of agency vulnerability to climate change, 

and deliver to the council and the Office of Management and Budget a 

climate adaptation plan for implementation in fiscal year 2013.18

On November 1, 2013, the President released Executive Order 13653,

In 

response to these implementing instructions, DOD developed the highlevel Roadmap that it included as an appendix to its fiscal year 2012 

Strategic Sustainability Performance Plan. We discuss both this plan and 

the Roadmap in greater detail below.

19

As we noted previously, DOD has—in several strategic documents—cited 

the negative effects that climate change could have on its infrastructure 

and operations. In its 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review, DOD stated 

that the department’s operational readiness hinges on continued access 

to land, air, and sea training and test space and that, consequently, DOD 

which directs federal agencies to develop or continue to develop, 

implement, and update comprehensive agency climate change adaptation 

plans that address a number of efforts. The order requires agency plans 

to integrate consideration of climate change into their operations and 

overall mission objectives. Also, the order stipulates that the plans should 

include, among other things, a description of how agencies will consider 

the need to improve climate adaptation, with respect to, among other 

things, real-property investments, through actions such as updating 

agency policies for leasing, building upgrades, relocation of existing 

facilities and equipment, and construction of new facilities.

 

17Executive Order 13514, Federal Leadership in Environmental, Energy, and Economic 

Performance (Oct. 5, 2009).

18Instructions for Implementing Climate Change Adaptation Planning in Accordance with 

Executive Order 13514 “Federal Leadership in Environmental, Energy, and Economic 

Performance,” (Mar. 4, 2011).

19Executive Order 13653, Preparing the United States for the Impacts of Climate Change

(Nov. 1, 2013).

Executive Orders and 

DOD Strategic Documents 

Direct DOD to Plan for and 

Adapt to Climate Change
 

Page 9 GAO-14-446 DOD Climate Change Adaptation 

must complete an assessment of all its installations to determine potential 

climate change impacts on its missions and adapt as required. 

Subsequently, in the 2011 National Military Strategy, DOD’s 

characterization of the strategic environment included climate change as 

a potentially serious impact. Also, in its fiscal year 2012 Strategic 

Sustainability Performance Plan, DOD states that climate change can 

directly impact military installations, infrastructure, and operations by 

limiting the availability and quality of training ranges and other lands 

needed for operations, and by increasing impacts on infrastructure such 

as flood and fire hazards and vulnerability of utilities. In addition, in its 

2013 Arctic Strategy, DOD recognized that climate change will increase 

access and activity in the region, potentially altering the security 

environment in which it operates. Further, in its 2014 Arctic Roadmap, the 

Navy acknowledges the role that climate change plays in several national 

security arenas. For example, the Navy states that the Arctic is warming 

faster than the rest of the world—and as a result—significant retreat of 

sea ice will accelerate throughout this century, causing previously 

unreachable areas to be increasingly open for maritime use.20

DOD and each of the military departments have given certain 

organizations key roles in the department’s climate change adaptation 

efforts. DOD has designated the Under Secretary of Defense for 

Acquisition, Technology and Logistics as the department’s Senior 

Sustainability Officer responsible for ensuring the effective and successful 

implementation of the department’s strategic sustainability initiatives 

described in the fiscal year 2012 Strategic Sustainability Performance 

Plan, which includes climate change adaptation. Also, DOD has 

established a governance structure to facilitate meeting the department’s 

sustainability goals. Reporting to the Senior Sustainability Officer, there is 

a Senior Sustainability Council that consists of representatives from the 

military departments and other DOD organizations. A set of committees 

and working groups has been established with the goal of executing the 

goals of the fiscal year 2012 Strategic Sustainability Performance Plan. 

The committees and working groups cover a wide range of sustainability 

Finally, in 

its 2014 Quadrennial Defense Review, DOD states that the impacts of 

climate change may undermine the capacity of the department’s domestic 

installations to support training activities.

 

20GAO recently reported on maritime infrastructure related to commercial activity in the 

U.S. Arctic. GAO, Maritime Infrastructure: Key Issues Related to Commercial Activity in 

the U.S. Arctic over the Next Decade, GAO-14-299 (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 19, 2014). 

Several DOD 

Organizations Play a Role 

in the Department’s 

Climate Change 

Adaptation Efforts
 

Page 10 GAO-14-446 DOD Climate Change Adaptation 

topics, including transportation and fuels, solid waste and recycling, and 

climate change adaptation for DOD infrastructure. We discuss a number 

of these working groups in more detail later in the report.

In addition, each military department has both designated a sustainability 

officer with the responsibility for ensuring the effective and successful 

implementation of the department’s strategic sustainability initiatives—as 

outlined in the fiscal year 2012 Strategic Sustainability Performance 

Plan—and appointed representatives to serve on the committees and 

working groups described above. Also, certain organizations within the 

Office of the Secretary of Defense and each military department play a 

key role in the development of climate change adaptation policy. These 

organizations include

• the Office of the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Installations 

and Environment;

• the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Installations, 

Energy and Environment;

• the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Installations, 

Environment, and Logistics; and

• the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Energy, 

Installations, and Environment.

DOD also works with other federal agencies such as the Environmental 

Protection Agency and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

on issues related to climate change adaptation efforts. For example, the 

Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program is a 

partnership between DOD, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the 

Department of Energy to address environmental issues at DOD and at 

the Department of Energy through investing in a broad spectrum of basic 

and applied research.
 

Page 11 GAO-14-446 DOD Climate Change Adaptation 

In its Roadmap, DOD describes five categories of climate change 

phenomena and notes that climate-related effects are already being 

observed at DOD installations throughout the United States. DOD further 

indicates that these phenomena could translate into potential climate 

change impacts and vulnerabilities that could adversely affect 

infrastructure across all of DOD’s facilities. Although officials at the 

locations we visited or contacted generally agreed that individual weather 

events—such as a single storm—cannot be tied directly to changes in the

climate, these officials noted that DOD facilities and infrastructure are 

vulnerable to climate change phenomena and recognized that climate 

change may make these types of phenomena more frequent or severe.

DOD describes five climate change phenomena in its Roadmap: (1) rising 

temperatures; (2) changes in precipitation patterns; (3) increasing storm 

frequency and intensity (coastal and inland); (4) rising sea levels and 

associated storm surge; and (5) changes in ocean temperature, 

circulation, salinity, and acidity. Further, in the Roadmap, DOD associates 

each phenomenon with potential impacts or vulnerabilities to its 

infrastructure. For instance, DOD associates rising temperatures with 

potential climate change impacts such as thawing permafrost and wildfire 

risk. According to the Roadmap, this may result in mission vulnerabilities 

such as reduced military vehicle access and potential loss of cold weather 

training venues. In addition, DOD links changes in precipitation patterns 

with potential climate change impacts such as changes in the number of 

consecutive days of high or low precipitation as well as increases in the 

extent and duration of droughts, with an associated increase in the risk of 

wildfire. According to the Roadmap, this may result in mission 

vulnerabilities such as reduced live-fire training due to drought and 

increased wildfire risk, reduced water availability, and increased flood 

control or erosion prevention measures. Further, DOD associates 

increasing storm frequency and intensity (coastal and inland) with 

potential climate change impacts such as flooding, soil and vegetation 

loss, and wind damage. According to the Roadmap, this may result in 

mission vulnerabilities such as temporary or prolonged disruption of 

military operations or test and training activities, increased maintenance 

costs, and damage to coastal infrastructure. DOD associates rising sea 

levels and associated storm surge with potential climate change impacts 

such as damage to physical infrastructure and salt water intrusion. 

DOD Has Identified 

Climate Change 

Phenomena, 

Potential Impacts, 

and Potential Mission 

Vulnerabilities, and 

DOD Officials Have 

Observed Them at 

Selected U.S. 

Installations

DOD’s Roadmap Identifies 

Five Categories of Climate 

Change Phenomena, 

Potential Impacts, and 

Potential Mission 

Vulnerabilities
 

Page 12 GAO-14-446 DOD Climate Change Adaptation 

According to the Roadmap, these impacts may result in mission 

vulnerabilities such as increased cost of infrastructure modification, for 

instance raising piers, impacts to future land availability, and siting of new 

construction. DOD associates changes in ocean temperature, circulation, 

salinity, and acidity with potential climate change impacts such as coral 

reef losses that may negatively impact the reef’s ability to mitigate the 

effects of storm surge. According to the Roadmap, this may result in 

mission vulnerabilities such as increased cost of infrastructure 

reinforcement to withstand increased storm intensities and impacts to 

shore training and ranges.

During our site visits, installation officials identified potential climate 

change phenomena experienced at their installations;21 provided 

examples of potential impacts on installation infrastructure; discussed 

potential mission vulnerabilities, including potential impacts to military 

readiness; and provided the following examples of these impacts.

At 8 out of 15 locations we visited or contacted,22

 

21We have reported that while climate change is typically described in terms of average 

annual changes in temperature or precipitation, it is also associated with shifts in the 

frequency and severity of extreme weather events to which physical infrastructure is 

particularly vulnerable. See GAO, Climate Change: Future Federal Adaptation Efforts 

Could Better Support Local Infrastructure Decision Makers, 

officials stated that they 

had observed rising temperatures and associated potential impacts or 

mission vulnerabilities, as described by DOD in the Roadmap. For 

example, the combination of thawing permafrost, decreasing sea ice, and 

rising sea level on the Alaskan coast have led to an increase in coastal 

erosion at several Air Force radar early warning and communication 

installations. According to installation officials, this erosion has damaged 

roads, utility infrastructure, seawalls, and runways. For example, at one 

radar early warning installation, 40 feet of shoreline has been lost as a 

result of erosion and the erosion has damaged half of the runway. As a 

result, only small planes or helicopters are able to land in this location, as 

opposed to larger planes that could land on the runway when it is fully 

GAO-13-242 (Washington, 

D.C.: Apr. 12, 2013).

22Officials at several locations told us that they observed multiple types of what DOD has 

identified as potential climate change phenomena, potential impacts, or potential 

vulnerabilities. 

Installation Officials 

Provided Examples of 

Potential Mission 

Vulnerabilities Associated 

with Impacts to 

Infrastructure

Rising Temperatures
 

Page 13 GAO-14-446 DOD Climate Change Adaptation 

functional. This means that access to the radar installation is limited. At 

another radar early warning installation, increased erosion has damaged 

a seawall, allowing increasingly large waves to damage the overrun area 

of a runway23

Figure 1: Overrun area of Air Force runway impacted by erosion

(see fig. 1). According to installation officials, daily 

operations at these types of remote radar installations are at risk due to 

potential loss of runways, and such installations located close to the 

coastline could be at risk of radar failure if erosion of the coastline 

continues. Air Force headquarters officials noted that if one or more of 

these sites is not operational, there is a risk that the DOD early warning

system will operate with diminished functionality. However, the system is 

designed to operate with the loss of one or more sites, as other sites can 

back up those lost.

Note: Increased coastal erosion has allowed waves to damage the overrun area of the runway at an 

Air Force radar early warning installation.

 

23According to Air Force officials, overrun areas at the end of runways serve as 

emergency space to slowly stop planes that overrun the runway during landing or takeoff.
 

Page 14 GAO-14-446 DOD Climate Change Adaptation 

Also, officials at an Army installation told us that rising temperatures are 

impacting certain training activities because of thawing permafrost. They 

explained that in the summer of 2003, they experienced an unusually 

warm winter that caused permafrost to thaw and forced DOD to halt 

training for approximately 3 weeks because the ground was too soft to 

traverse. Officials stated that if temperatures continue to rise as projected, 

permafrost thawing could become more severe. This could further impact 

DOD training and may impact military readiness because DOD could not 

easily find another location to replicate the training offered in this area. 

Specifically, thawing permafrost has caused holes to open up in the 

ground of a drop zone.24 These holes make certain areas of the drop 

zone unsafe for airborne training. As a result, this type of training may be 

limited. This is especially significant given that thawing permafrost occurs 

during the warmer months—when there is the heaviest demand for 

training—and this is the only drop zone in the training area. Further, 

according to officials, thawing permafrost may impact species migration 

patterns as a result of potential changes to wetlands. Officials told us 

that—depending on local topography and the makeup of local soil—the 

loss of permafrost can either make land drier or wetter.25

 

24According to DOD, a drop zone is a specific area upon which airborne troops, 

equipment, or supplies are air-dropped. 

These changes 

can degrade existing wetlands or create new ones. These officials 

explained that because of laws and regulations that govern DOD’s 

management of wetlands and the species that inhabit them, the 

movement of wetlands and associated species to new areas may limit 

DOD’s ability to train in certain sections of a training area. Further, 

officials told us that they have noticed an increase in freezing rain due to 

rising temperatures. In the past, colder temperatures typically produced 

snow as opposed to freezing rain. This rain has affected targets that now 

require additional maintenance. Specifically, ice buildup from freezing rain 

can lock targets’ moving parts, breaking the targets or stopping them from 

properly functioning. Depending on the severity of the ice buildup, this 

may result in delays to training schedules.

25According to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Cold Regions Research and 

Engineering Laboratory, permafrost is soil or rock, or both, that has remained below 32°F 

for more than 2 years. Alaska is covered by different types of permafrost: (1) continuous, 

where more than 80 percent of the ground surface is underlain by permafrost (found in 

very high latitudes); (2) discontinuous, where permafrost exists in certain areas depending 

on the vegetation, soil type, moisture, and exposure to solar radiation (Fairbanks is in the 

discontinuous permafrost zone); and (3) sporadic, where less than 30 percent of the 

ground surface is underlain by permafrost. 
 

Page 15 GAO-14-446 DOD Climate Change Adaptation 

At 9 out of 15 locations we visited or contacted, officials stated that they 

had observed changes in precipitation patterns and associated potential 

impacts. For example, officials at an installation in the Pacific told us that 

in 2008 they experienced 43 straight days of rain that resulted in mud 

slides and flooding that damaged base infrastructure, including base 

housing. By contrast, officials provided examples of impacts from reduced 

precipitation—such as drought and wildfire risk—and identified potential 

mission vulnerabilities—such as reduced live-fire training—as described 

by DOD in the Roadmap. For instance, officials also told us that for the 

last 3 to 4 years, there has been a continuous drought at another nearby 

installation, which has led to an increased number of wildfires in the area. 

As a result of a 2012 wildfire, officials were unable to access or move 

ammunition at that installation for 4 days. At a third installation in the 

same area, officials explained that these drought conditions—and the 

threat of wildfire—have limited the types of ammunition that can be used 

on certain training ranges (see fig. 2). As a result, units have had to 

spend extra time and money to travel to other installations to complete 

their required training.

Figure 2: Training Range in the Pacific

Note: Drought conditions and an increased risk of wildfire limited the types of ammunition that units 

could use on this training range.

Changes in Precipitation 

Patterns
 

Page 16 GAO-14-446 DOD Climate Change Adaptation 

Further, at an Army training area, officials told us drought contributed to 

wildfires in 2013 and that units that had planned to train in the area 

experienced several mission impacts (see fig. 3). Officials told us that 

they had to postpone training from June 2013 to September or October 

2013, and that the fires’ smoke limited units’ use of certain weapons 

systems in training. For example, there was no live-fire training allowed in 

one training area for 2 months. In addition, there was a decrease in the 

realism of training conducted. For instance, during an exercise that 

coincided with the fires, an official explained that aircraft could not deliver 

ordnance. The fires also affected landing conditions, forcing aircraft to 

save fuel, and thus reducing the amount of tactical training they were able 

to conduct.

Figure 3: Wildfire on a training range in Alaska

Note: Drought conditions contributed to a 2013 fire that limited the use of certain weapons systems 

and training activities.

At 12 out of 15 locations we visited or contacted, officials stated that they 

had observed increasing storm frequency and intensity and associated 

potential impacts such as flooding, or mission vulnerabilities such as 

Increased Storm Frequency 

and Intensity
 

Page 17 GAO-14-446 DOD Climate Change Adaptation 

temporary or prolonged disruption of military operations, as described by 

DOD in the Roadmap. For example, officials at an installation located in 

the desert Southwest explained that flash flooding due to an intense rain 

event had made one of their emergency runways unusable. According to 

these officials, it took about 8 months for the flooding to subside. During 

that time, aircraft performing training and testing missions could not use 

the emergency runway (see fig. 4). Although intense rain events such as 

the one mentioned above occur periodically in the desert Southwest, 

DOD recognizes in its Roadmap that increases in heavy downpours are 

projected to increase as a result of climate change.

Figure 4: Dry lakebed runway in the Southwestern United States under normal and flood conditions

Note: A dry lakebed in the Southwestern United States serves as an emergency runway for DOD 

training and testing missions (left); an official measures the water depth after a flash flooding event 

that inundated the same dry lake bed (right). 

At 7 out of 15 locations we visited or contacted, officials stated that they 

had observed rising sea levels and associated storm surge and 

associated potential impacts, or mission vulnerabilities, as described by 

DOD in the Roadmap. Officials on a Navy installation told us that sea 

level rise and resulting storm surge are the two largest threats to their 

waterfront infrastructure. For example, they explained that they were 

planning to lengthen a Los Angeles–class submarine to convert it to a 

training platform and that this will entail cutting the submarine in half. 

During this process, the submarine will sit in a dry dock with its interior 

Rising Sea Levels and 

Associated Storm Surge
 

Page 18 GAO-14-446 DOD Climate Change Adaptation 

open. Officials explained that they were concerned about possible storms 

and associated storm surge, noting that if salt water was allowed to flood 

the submarine’s systems, it could result in severe damage. Such damage 

would delay completion of the submarine’s lengthening by 3 to 4 months. 

Officials from another Navy shipyard we visited stated that flooding of a 

submarine in dry dock could result in catastrophic damage inside the 

submarine and additional, severe damage to equipment on the floor of 

the dry dock (see fig. 5). Thus, flooding of the submarine could result in a 

delay in the use of the submarine for training and fiscal exposure for 

DOD. Because of the perceived risk of storm surge and the possibility of 

the submarine’s systems being exposed to flood waters, shipyard officials 

are considering whether to raise the current floodwall to protect the 

submarine.26

 

26Officials told us that they are planning to raise the floodwall to withstand a “500-year 

flood.” According to the U.S. Geological Survey, this type of flood has a 0.2 percent 

chance of occurring in any given year. The current floodwall is designed to withstand a 

“100-year flood,” or a flood with a 1 percent chance of occurring in any given year. 

According to the U.S. Geological Survey, the term “100-year flood” is a statistical 

designation, meaning that there is a 1-in-100 chance that a flood this size will happen 

during any year. According to installation officials, the shipyard typically prepares for a 

100-year flood. Therefore, preparing for a 500-year flood represents preparation for moresevere flooding. 

According to a Navy official, raising the height of the wall is 

a risk-reduction strategy to address the frequency of extreme weather 

events happening at the shipyard.
 

Page 19 GAO-14-446 DOD Climate Change Adaptation 

Figure 5: Submarine in dry dock

Note: A Los Angeles–class submarine sits in a dry dock while it undergoes repairs. 

At 3 out of 15 locations we visited or contacted, officials either stated or 

noted that they had observed changes in ocean temperature, circulation, 

salinity, and acidity at their installations and that these changes may 

result in impacts, or mission vulnerabilities, as described by DOD in the 

Roadmap. For example, an official at a Navy installation explained that 

changes in ocean temperature may have caused a protected turtle 

species to nest on a section of beach where it previously had not, making 

this section unavailable for potential training activities during certain parts 

of the year. Also, the encroachment plan of a Marine Corps installation 

we visited states that increases in ocean temperature could lead to 

degradation of coral reefs in the waters offshore of the installation. As 

discussed above, in the Roadmap DOD associates changes in ocean 

temperature and acidity with potential climate change impacts such as 

coral-reef losses that may undermine the reef’s ability to mitigate the 

effects of storm surge on the installation and may lead to associated 

mission vulnerabilities.

Changes in Ocean 

Temperatures, Circulation, 

Salinity, and Acidity
 

Page 20 GAO-14-446 DOD Climate Change Adaptation 

More frequent and more severe extreme weather events and associated 

impacts may result in increased fiscal exposure for DOD. During our site 

visits, installation officials identified costs—when known—that are 

associated with potential impacts to infrastructure identified by DOD in its 

Roadmap. These costs are associated with both relatively common types 

of infrastructure and unique facilities. According to our discussions with 

officials, there is a cost to rehabilitate common types of infrastructure, 

such as runways and target equipment. For example, officials explained 

that when coastal erosion shortened a radar site’s runway, DOD 

personnel had to access the site by helicopter, instead of the planes that 

personnel could have used with a full-length runway. This resulted in 

increased costs for DOD because reaching the site by helicopter is more 

expensive, according to officials. In another example, when an increase in 

the amount of freezing rain resulted in an increased requirement for 

maintenance of target equipment, officials reported an added expense of 

target repair. Further, there are costs associated with roads and open 

fields impacted by thawing permafrost. For instance, officials estimate the 

cost to repair two gravel roads (see fig. 6) and fill holes in one drop zone 

to be more than $500,000. According to officials, if these types of impacts 

increase in frequency or severity due to climate change, DOD’s routine 

maintenance costs are likely to increase.

Figure 6: Road Leading to Training Area in Alaska

Note: Thawing permafrost results in muddy roads that reduce access to training areas (left); the same 

road after it was regraveled (right). 

Installation Officials 

Provided Examples of 

Potential Climate Change 

Impacts That May Result 

in Increased Fiscal 

Exposure for DOD
 

Page 21 GAO-14-446 DOD Climate Change Adaptation 

Officials also provided examples of costs associated with climate change 

impacts at unique DOD facilities. For example, officials from a Navy 

shipyard we visited stated that the catastrophic damage that could result 

from the flooding of a submarine in dry dock could cause substantial 

repair costs. Another example is associated with an increase in coastal 

erosion due to the combination of thawing permafrost, decreasing sea 

ice, and rising sea levels in Alaska that has damaged several types of 

infrastructure located near coastal radar early warning and 

communication facilities (see fig. 7). For instance, officials stated that due 

to the operational risk posed by further degradation of one facility’s 

seawall and runway, officials are planning a project to harden the seawall 

and protect the runway, which they estimate will cost approximately $25 

million. The erosion has also damaged landfills located near these 

facilities. As a consequence, landfill content—such as trash—was falling 

into coastal waters. These officials estimate that the cost of completing 

environmental restoration of six coastal sites has been $32 million thus 

far and more funding may be required to relocate and restore other sites.

Figure 7: Coastal Erosion near DOD Early Warning Site 

Note: Thawing permafrost, decreasing sea ice, and rising sea levels on the Alaskan coast have led to 

an increase in coastal erosion near a DOD early warning radar site. 
 

Page 22 GAO-14-446 DOD Climate Change Adaptation 

Further, as stated in the Roadmap, extreme precipitation events may lead 

to potential vulnerabilities such as increased maintenance costs for roads, 

utilities, and runways and increased flood-control measures. For example, 

in August 2013, an installation located in the desert Southwest was hit 

with an extreme rain event in which—according to installation officials—

approximately 1 year’s worth of rain fell in 80 minutes. According to Army 

officials and documents, the flooding caused by the storm damaged more 

than 160 facilities—including a barracks building—8 roads, 1 bridge, and 

11,000 linear feet of fencing and resulted in an estimated $64 million in 

damage (see fig. 8).

Figure 8: Video Still Showing Damage to Infrastructure at Installation located in 

Southwestern United States

Note: to view the full video, please click on the video hyperlink. 

The storm also damaged an adjacent training area used to prepare troops 

for deployment (see fig. 9).
 

Page 23 GAO-14-446 DOD Climate Change Adaptation 

Figure 9: Army Training Area in Southwestern United States

Note: Guard towers at an Army training area in the Southwestern United States (left); The same type 

of guard tower, toppled and severely damaged by flash flooding from an extreme precipitation event 

at this training area (right). 

Officials at the same installation told us that, in 2013, they experienced 

three power outages in a span of 45 days. They explained that extreme 

rain events caused flash floods that knocked out utility poles that transmit 

electricity to the installation. According to installation officials, all three of 

the summer 2013 power outages lasted at least 24 hours and had a 

substantial impact on the installation. For example, although training 

maneuvers could continue without electricity, the power outages limited 

the effectiveness of instrumentation used to track the training and provide 

information used for after-action feedback. Officials stated that the 

installation’s vulnerability to power outages places community and life 

support systems at risk, ultimately impacting the installation’s ability to 

meet mission training requirements. Further, officials stated that 

depending on when they occur in the training schedule, these types of 

events could impact readiness. To address this vulnerability, the 

installation requested more than $11.5 million to purchase 31 backup

generators.

Source: GAO
 

Page 24 GAO-14-446 DOD Climate Change Adaptation 

DOD has identified potential vulnerabilities of its infrastructure to climate 

change impacts and has undertaken initial efforts to assess the 

vulnerabilities of individual installations and sites, but it lacks a plan to 

guide its vulnerability-assessment efforts and is not fully using interim 

milestones to track its progress toward completion of its goal. According 

to our previous work on project-management practices,27 a project plan 

should guide the execution of a project, and generally accepted projectmanagement practices emphasize the importance of identifying interim 

milestones.28 As a result of not fully utilizing a project plan or interim 

milestones, DOD’s ability to complete its vulnerability-assessment efforts 

in an efficient manner may be hampered, and decision makers may lack 

the necessary information required to assign adequate and timely 

resources to the most-vulnerable installations and sites.

DOD has identified examples of potential vulnerabilities of its 

infrastructure to climate change in selected documents, and it has started 

an effort to assess its infrastructure by collecting data on individual 

installations and sites through a survey and developing regional sea level 

rise scenarios.29

 

27For example, see our previous work evaluating the use of project-management practices 

in the modernization of information-technology systems at the Department of Housing and 

Urban Development. GAO, Information Technology: HUD Needs to Improve Key Project 

Management Practices for Its Modernization Efforts,

DOD had previously identified examples of potential 

agency-wide vulnerabilities in a number of documents, including the 2010 

and 2014 Quadrennial Defense Reviews, Roadmap, and an Army 2013 

High-level Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment. However, 

GAO-13-455 (Washington, D.C.: 

June 12, 2013). For the purposes of this report, a project plan is defined as a formal, 

approved document used to guide both project execution and project control. The primary 

uses of the project plan are to document planning assumptions and decisions, facilitate 

communication among stakeholders, and document approved scope, cost, and schedule 

baselines.

28GAO, Coast Guard: Civil Rights Directorate’s Action Plans to Improve Its Operations 

Could Be Strengthened by Implementing Several Aspects of Project Planning and 

Implementation Practices, GAO-10-571T (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 27, 2010). For the 

purposes of this report, milestones are defined as significant events in the project, usually 

completion of a major deliverable.

29According to the Third National Climate Assessment, scenarios are ways to help 

understand what future conditions might be, with each scenario an example of what might 

happen under particular assumptions.

DOD Has Begun 

Conducting 

Vulnerability 

Assessments of 

Climate Change 

Impacts on Its 

Installations, but Lack 

of Planning May 

Hamper Completion 

of Its Efforts

DOD’s Initial VulnerabilityAssessment Efforts 

Consist of Collecting 

Installation and Site Data 

and Developing Sea Level 

Rise Scenarios
 

Page 25 GAO-14-446 DOD Climate Change Adaptation 

according to the 2014 Quadrennial Defense Review and DOD officials, 

the department’s goal is to complete a comprehensive assessment of all 

installations to assess the potential impacts of climate change on DOD’s 

missions and to develop and implement plans to adapt as required. To 

meet the goal of completing a comprehensive assessment of all DOD 

installations, the Office of the Secretary of Defense and the military 

departments are, according to DOD officials, conducting screening-level 

assessments of 7,591 installations and sites,30 both inside and outside of 

the United States.31

 

30DOD’s Assessment Group has identified 523 installations for which vulnerabilityassessments should be conducted. For the purposes of these assessments, the 

Assessment Group has further identified over 7,000 noncontiguous sites operated by 

these installations. According to an official from the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the 

Assessment Group is collecting data from a total of 7,591 installations and sites. The 

Assessment Group originally intended to collect data from almost 11,700 installations and 

sites. However, as a result of discussions with the GAO, DOD reviewed its list of these 

installations and sites. Through the review, DOD officials determined that almost 4,100 

Army Corps of Engineers’ civil works sites included in the original count of 11,700 should 

not have been included. In addition, DOD revised its list of installations and sites to 

include almost 130 Washington Headquarters Service sites, as well as updated numbers 

for National Guard, Reserves, and recruiting sites. As a result of this review, the 

Assessment group now intends to collect data from a total of 7,591 sites. 

According to officials from the Office of the Secretary 

of Defense and the military services, the goal of these assessments is to 

allow the services to prioritize subsequent vulnerability-assessment and 

adaptation actions. For example, DOD officials have suggested that—

based on the vulnerabilities identified in the screening-level 

assessment—the military services could decide among three alternatives 

for individual installations and sites: (1) take no adaptation action because 

no significant vulnerabilities were identified, (2) conduct a more detailed 

assessment because moderate vulnerabilities were identified, or (3) 

undertake immediate adaptation actions because significant 

vulnerabilities were identified. Thus, DOD officials explained that the 

results from screening-level assessments conducted at one set of 

installations and sites could be used to inform adaptation decisions at 

these sites while other more detailed assessments are conducted at other 

installations and sites. In addition, officials from the Office of the 

Secretary of Defense stated that the screening level assessments may 

identify the need for revised standards both for the construction and 

maintenance of its infrastructure and for installation planning processes, 

31According to an official from the Office of the Secretary of Defense, more than 90 

percent of the installations and sites that DOD intends to survey are located in the United 

States.
 

Page 26 GAO-14-446 DOD Climate Change Adaptation 

such as master planning and natural-resources management planning. 

We discuss these planning processes later in this report.

DOD is conducting the screening-level assessments through two main 

efforts: it is collecting data on installations’ and sites’ historical and 

potential future vulnerabilities, and developing regional sea level rise 

scenarios, which the services intend to use following the collection of 

these data. In order to carry out these activities, DOD’s Climate Change 

Adaptation Working Group formed two additional working groups. To 

collect data, it has formed the Assessment Guidance Sub-Working Group 

(Assessment Group). The Assessment Group has completed a pilot 

survey, through which it developed lessons learned, and used those—in 

part—to develop and distribute a survey that asks installation and site 

personnel to provide information on historical vulnerabilities to extreme 

weather or potential climate change impacts. For example, officials from 

the Office of the Secretary of Defense stated that one lesson learned is to 

include questions about potential climate change impacts on cultural 

heritage sites located on installations. The survey consists of 38 

questions that, for example, ask for data on extreme temperatures the 

installation or site has experienced or whether flooding has impacted its 

infrastructure. In addition, according to DOD officials, the Climate Change 

Adaptation Working Group determined that it needs to develop regional 

sea level rise scenarios because current, global sea level rise scenarios 

require regional adjustments for the purposes of assessing installations’ 

and sites’ vulnerability to potential sea level rise. To develop these 

regional adjustments, DOD has partnered with other federal agencies, 

such as the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, in a 

multiagency Coastal Assessment Regional Scenario Working Group 

(Scenario Group), which intends to provide these scenarios to DOD and 

the military services when they are complete. In addition, according to 

DOD officials, the services could also use these scenarios in more 

detailed, subsequent vulnerability assessments.

According to DOD officials, the department’s intention is to conduct 

screening-level assessments in two phases: coastal and noncoastal. 

DOD has, according to officials, prioritized its initial assessment efforts on 

704 coastal installations and sites. According to officials from the Office of 

the Secretary of Defense, the decision to prioritize coastal installations 

and sites was based on several considerations, including—among other 

factors—the high number of DOD installations and sites within 2 
 

Page 27 GAO-14-446 DOD Climate Change Adaptation 

kilometers of a coastally or tidally influenced area,32

In our previous work on climate change adaptation,

recent updates to the 

Federal Emergency Management Agency’s flood hazard maps, and the 

benefit that coastal assessments provide to all the military departments, 

given that they operate in coastal environments. DOD officials explained 

that after the services have used the Assessment Group’s survey to 

collect data from the 704 coastal installations and sites, they intend to 

collect data from the remaining 6,887 non-coastal installations and sites 

for a total of 7,591 installations and sites.

33 we have reported 

that adaptation is meant to reduce vulnerabilities to emerging or future 

impacts that may become more serious over time. In this regard, 

adaptation is a form of risk management. DOD has also emphasized the 

importance of risk management in its guidance for a variety of efforts, 

including the protection of critical infrastructure.34 According to DOD 

officials and documents, one factor in the evaluation of the vulnerability of 

critical infrastructure is the impact of the types of extreme weather events 

that may become more frequent or severe due to climate change. In our 

discussions with DOD officials, they suggested a number of potential 

considerations on which to base the prioritization of future vulnerability 

assessments. Among these suggestions are to focus on installations and 

sites in the Defense Critical Infrastructure Protection Program; 

installations and sites located in a geographic region in which 

infrastructure has experienced—or may experience—relatively rapid 

climate change, such as the Arctic and Alaska; or installations and sites in 

regions of strategic priority, such as the Pacific.

 

32According to an official from the Office of the Secretary of Defense and a U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers regulation, coastally or tidally influenced areas are locations with 

oceanic astronomical tidal influence and connected waterways with base water levels 

controlled by sea level.

33GAO-13-242. 

34See Department of Defense Instruction 3020.45, Defense Critical Infrastructure Program 

(DCIP) Management (Apr. 21, 2008).
 

Page 28 GAO-14-446 DOD Climate Change Adaptation 

Although DOD has started initial screening-level assessments of its 

coastal installations and sites, it lacks a project plan to guide its 

screening-level assessment efforts and is not fully using interim 

milestones to track its progress toward completion of its goal. Specifically, 

we found that the Assessment Group has developed some interim 

milestones for the collection of data from the coastal installations and 

sites, and the Scenario Group has developed some interim milestones for 

completion of the regional sea level rise scenarios. However, in our 

discussions with officials from the Office of the Secretary of Defense and 

military services, neither the office nor the services were able to provide 

us with a project plan or a full set of milestones to guide the completion of 

DOD’s screening-level assessment efforts in regard to both the collection 

and use of installation and site data and the use of regional sea level rise 

scenarios. For example:

• Officials from the Assessment Group were not able to provide us a 

plan or a full set of milestones for how they would complete the 

screening-level vulnerability assessment of noncoastal installations 

and sites. According to these officials and documentation we 

reviewed, the Assessment Group has established some milestones. 

For example, the Assessment Group has milestones for when it 

intends to send its survey to the 704 coastal installations and sites, 

and to collect these survey data. However, the Assessment Group 

does not have a plan to accomplish the substantial amount of work 

involved in collecting these data and sending surveys to a total of 

7,591 installations and sites, nor does it have a full set of milestones 

for finishing the collection of data from the noncoastal installations and 

sites. 

• The services were also not able to provide us with plans or milestones 

for how they will use the substantial amount of data collected by the 

Assessment Group to assess their installations’ and sites’ vulnerability 

to potential climate change impacts. Based on our review of the 

survey sent to coastal installations and sites and the total number of 

installations and sites DOD intends to assess, the services may 

eventually collect more than 580,000 pieces of data. Service officials 

generally agree that they could use these data to correlate the 

historical frequency of a certain impact—such as flooding—to a 

certain level of vulnerability. However, they have not established a 

methodology to conduct their suggested analysis and do not have 

milestones to guide any such efforts through completion.

DOD Has Started Initial 

Assessments but Lacks a 

Project Plan and 

Milestones for Completion 

and Risks Not Finishing 

the Assessments in a 

Timely or Complete 

Fashion
 

Page 29 GAO-14-446 DOD Climate Change Adaptation 

• The military services were not able to provide us with plans for how 

they would use the regional sea level rise scenarios being developed 

by the Scenario Group. Service officials generally agree that they 

intend to carry out some sort of comparison between data gathered by 

the Assessment Group and these scenarios. However, they have not 

developed a process to do so, and do not have milestones for when 

these comparisons will be complete.

According to our previous work that discusses project-management 

practices of high-performing organizations,35 the Project Management 

Institute36 has found that a project plan is essential for the success of an 

agency’s key efforts and helps the agency attain its objectives.37 Further, 

we have found in our prior work that developing and using specific interim 

milestones to guide and gauge progress toward achieving an agency’s 

desired results is a leading practice for effective strategic planning and 

management and can help organizations more efficiently and more 

effectively accomplish their planned efforts.38

According to officials from the Office of the Secretary of Defense, DOD 

has several documents that reference the goals of this screening effort, 

including the Roadmap.39

 

35

However these documents do not fully contain 

key elements of a project plan, such as project deliverables, major 

milestones and target dates, or required personnel. DOD officials we 

spoke with overseeing these efforts acknowledged that DOD does not 

have a project plan or full set of milestones, but believed that a written 

plan was not required to complete the screening-level assessments. 

However, according to the Project Management Institute, developing and 

GAO-13-455. 

36According to its website, the Project Management Institute is a not-for-profit association 

that, among other things, seeks to improve organizations’ success in project management.

37GAO-13-455. 

38We have previously reported that without interim milestones, decision makers may lack 

the information they need to assess progress and estimate realistic completion dates. 

See, for example, GAO, Managing For Result: Agencies Should More Fully Develop 

Priority Goals under the GPRA Modernization Act, GAO-13-174 (Washington, D.C.: Aug. 

19, 2013). 

39According to officials from the Office of the Secretary of Defense, other documents that 

contain this goal include both the fiscal year 2010 and fiscal year 2014 Quadrennial 

Defense Reviews; the Assessment Group’s charge document; and an internal tasking 

memo sent by the Office of the Secretary of Defense to the military services. 
 

Page 30 GAO-14-446 DOD Climate Change Adaptation 

executing a project plan are among the processes required to ensure that 

projects are properly coordinated. Further, a project plan is used to 

document project planning decisions regarding alternatives chosen by the 

organization. According to our discussions with DOD officials, there is 

currently no agreement among the organizations involved in the 

screening-level vulnerability-assessment process on how the remaining 

noncoastal assessments should be conducted. Specifically, several of 

these organizations are considering different alternative courses of action. 

For example, officials from the Office of the Secretary of Defense 

suggested that vulnerability assessments should be conducted 

concurrently at all remaining noncoastal installations and sites; officials 

from the Army suggested that installations and sites with military training 

ranges could be prioritized before other noncoastal installations and sites; 

and officials from the Air Force suggested that noncoastal installations 

and sites that contain defense critical assets should be prioritized.

Considering the substantial amount of data the services intend to collect 

and the time spent collecting them, the lack of a plan and milestones 

could prevent DOD from completing its assessments in a timely and

complete manner. The Assessment Group is already several months 

behind its initial goal of finishing its collection of data from coastal 

installations and sites. The Assessment Group initially intended to finish 

its collection of these survey data by March 2014. However, following a 

delay in the distribution of the survey, the Assessment Group now intends 

to finish collection by June 2014. In our previous work on federal agency 

collaboration, we have found that in the absence of formal collaboration 

mechanisms—such as a project plan—informal relationships used to 

accomplish work can end when key personnel become unavailable.40

 

40GAO, Environmental Health: Action Needed to Sustain Agencies’ Collaboration on 

Pharmaceuticals in Drinking Water, 

According to DOD officials, the delay in distributing this survey was partly 

a result of similar coordination challenges related to the absence of formal 

collaboration mechanisms. Without timely and complete information, DOD 

may not be able to meet its larger goal of using assessment data to 

identify the need for revised construction and maintenance standards, 

and to inform installation master planning and natural-resources planning. 

Without updated planning, there could be a delay in potential adaptation 

actions that may be required to ensure operational readiness, as DOD 

recognized in its 2014 Quadrennial Defense Review.

GAO-11-346 (Washington, D.C.: Aug. 8, 2011).
 

Page 31 GAO-14-446 DOD Climate Change Adaptation 

Some installation planning officials have taken actions to integrate 

changing climatic conditions in their installation planning documents as 

required, but key information that would help ensure that efficient and 

consistent actions are taken across DOD installations has not been 

provided by the department. At 13 out of 15 selected locations we visited 

or contacted, officials stated that the relevant Unified Facilities Criteria41

or DOD instruction 4715.0342 did not contain key information—such as a 

definition of “climate change”—and they were unsure how to efficiently 

meet DOD’s direction to address climate change in Master Plans or 

Integrated Natural Resources Management Plans. According to the 

Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government,43

Concurrent with the screening-level vulnerability assessments discussed 

above, DOD has issued guidance requiring that climate change be 

considered in specific planning documents. According to DOD documents 

and officials from the Office of the Secretary of Defense, DOD’s goal is to 

integrate consideration of climate change into existing infrastructure 

planning processes and documents. For example, the Roadmap states 

that it is DOD’s goal to integrate climate change considerations into 

existing processes. In addition, officials from the Office of the Secretary of 

Defense and the military departments stated that their goal is to address 

potential climate change impacts and vulnerabilities through existing 

infrastructure planning processes so that the effects of climate change 

are considered in the same way that other impacts and vulnerabilities—

such as for force protection—are currently considered. Executive Order 

13653 from November 2013 requires several agency heads, including the 

Secretary of Defense, to complete an inventory and assessment of 

proposed and completed changes to its land- and water-related policies, 

information 

should be communicated in a form and within a time frame that enables 

personnel to carry out their responsibilities efficiently. Without additional 

information—such as definitions and information about projected impacts 

of climate change—installation planners are unlikely to consistently 

implement the requirements laid out in DOD guidance and consistently 

account for climate change impacts in their installation plans.

 

41Department of Defense, Unified Facilities Criteria 2-100-01, Installation Master Planning

(May 15, 2012).

42Department of Defense Instruction 4715.03, Natural Resources Conservation Program

(Mar. 18, 2011).

43GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1

DOD Requires 

Selected Installation 

Planning Efforts for 

Existing and Future 

Infrastructure to 

Account for Climate 

Change Impacts, but 

Planners Lack Key 

Information

DOD Has Issued 

Guidance Requiring That 

Climate Change Be 

Considered in Specific 

Planning Documents
 

Page 32 GAO-14-446 DOD Climate Change Adaptation 

programs, and regulations necessary to make the nation’s watersheds, 

natural resources, and ecosystems more resilient in the face of a 

changing climate. According to officials from the Office of the Secretary of 

Defense, this process is currently underway within DOD, and the 

department has identified almost 60 planning and guidance documents 

for more-detailed review and potential revision.

DOD has also integrated climate change considerations into several 

guidance documents that provide direction to base-level planning efforts. 

These include DOD’s Unified Facilities Criteria for Installation Master 

Planning44 and DOD Instruction 4715.03.45

In addition, DOD issued DOD Instruction 4715.03 with the purpose to—

among other things—develop new policy and update policy for the 

integrated management of natural resources (including biological and 

earth resources) on property and lands managed or controlled by DOD. 

The instruction states that all DOD components shall, in a regionally 

consistent manner, and to the extent practicable and using the best 

science available, utilize existing tools to assess the potential impacts of 

climate change on natural resources on DOD installations, and, when not 

in conflict with mission objectives, take steps to implement adaptive 

management to ensure the long-term sustainability of those resources.

The purpose of the relevant 

chapter of the Unified Facilities Criteria for Installation Master Planning is 

to, among other things, prescribe the DOD minimum requirements for 

master-planning processes and products. According to the document, 

DOD planners use the tool of a Master Plan and its components to 

provide ongoing master planning of installations in support of the mission, 

and design and programming professionals should refer to the Master 

Plan as they prepare site-specific design proposals for the installation. 

The Unified Facilities Criteria further states that where changing external 

conditions impact planning decisions, master planners will seek to 

understand, monitor, and adapt to these changes. Such conditions 

include, but are not limited to, changes in climatic conditions such as 

temperature, rainfall patterns, storm frequency and intensity, and water 

levels.

 

44Department of Defense, Unified Facilities Criteria 2-100-01, Installation Master Planning

(May 15, 2012).

45Department of Defense Instruction 4715.03, Natural Resources Conservation Program

(Mar. 18, 2011).
 

Page 33 GAO-14-446 DOD Climate Change Adaptation 

The military departments have also started to integrate consideration of 

climate change into existing infrastructure planning processes. For 

example, according to Air Force headquarters officials, the Air Force

recently completed a database that provides planners with information on 

certain types of environmental conditions so that planners can better 

integrate preparation for such events into their planning. The Air Force 

has also begun incorporating climate change considerations into its 

Installation Complex Encroachment Management Action Plans.46

At the 15 selected locations we visited or contacted, we found the actions 

planners at individual locations took to meet the requirements for Master 

Plans and Integrated Natural Resources Management Plans varied from 

location to location. For example, officials at one installation told us they 

directed the contractor responsible for the Master Plan to include a 

literature review related to climate change as part of the final Master Plan. 

Officials at another installation told us that because they do not consider 

climate change to be impacting their installation, they were not required to 

take further planning actions. Officials at a third installation told us they 

provided their master planning contractor with a study related to a single 

type of climate change impact, but did not have information on other 

types of impacts to provide to the contractor and did not know how the

contractor would use the information provided by these officials. The 

actions planners took to meet the requirements for Integrated Natural 

Resources Management Plans also varied. For example, officials at one 

installation told us they met the requirement of DOD Instruction 4715.03 

by including—in their recently updated Integrated Natural Resources 

The 

plans involve formal assessments of 13 specific areas—one of which 

includes climate change—and contain prioritized action plans for current 

and potential issues. The Army has completed two pilot projects that it is 

using to help develop a planning framework for incorporating climate 

change considerations into existing plans and planning processes. 

According to an Army official, this Army Climate Change Adaptation 

Planning Framework will look at four types of installation plans, including 

Master Plans and Integrated Natural Resources Management Plans, to 

see where and how climate change considerations could be incorporated. 

It is unclear when the framework will be complete.

 

46According to the Air Force, encroachment is defined as any deliberate action by any 

governmental or nongovernmental entity or individual that does, or is likely to, inhibit, 

curtail, or impede current or future military activities within the installation complex or 

mission footprint, or both; or deliberate military activity that is, or is likely to be, 

incompatible with the use of a community’s resources.

Installation Planners’

Actions to Integrate 

Climate Change into 

Existing Planning 

Processes Have Varied 

across DOD Installations
 

Page 34 GAO-14-446 DOD Climate Change Adaptation 

Management Plan—a section discussing climate change. Officials at 

another installation stated that they were currently working on updating 

their plan, but did not anticipate including any special projects to address 

climate change because they are unsure what—if anything—they are 

expected to do. The officials told us that, instead, they will try to put 

already-planned projects in the context of climate change to meet the 

requirements.

Officials from 13 out of 15 selected locations we visited or contacted 

generally indicated that they were not sure how to efficiently implement 

the requirements of the Unified Facilities Criteria and DOD Instruction 

4715.03 because key information is missing. For example: (1) some key 

terms are not defined, such as “climatic conditions;” (2) installation 

officials stated that updated guidance on constructing or renovating 

infrastructure beyond current building codes and design standards to 

adapt to climate change has not been provided; and (3) although DOD 

has identified sources of information for the potential impacts of climate 

change on installations (i.e., projections), certain sources contain multiple 

sets of information, and installation officials are not sure which information 

to use in their planning.

Military-service headquarters officials told us that the existing language 

on climate change is broadly written and acknowledged that it may pose 

challenges for installation planners to efficiently translate the guidance 

into actionable activities. For example, planners and engineers at one 

installation stated that they are not experts on climate change and do not 

feel they have the necessary expertise to define key terms such as 

“climatic conditions.” Installation officials generally told us the documents 

do not define key terms, such as “climatic conditions” or “climate change,” 

and that without the definitions they cannot be sure they are fully meeting 

the requirements.

Some officials also told us that current building codes and design 

standards in the Unified Facilities Criteria do not account for potential 

climate change impacts. The officials said that in order to make some 

changes, they would need revisions to the Unified Facilities Criteria 

standards that account for potential climate change impacts. They 

explained that the military departments build infrastructure, as required, to 

meet these standards. According to DOD officials, these standards 

require that infrastructure designs take into account historical weather 

phenomena and associated impacts, but the standards do not account for 

potential changes in these phenomena or the impacts that could result 

DOD Guidance Does Not 

Clearly Identify Key Terms 

or Provide Direction 

Needed to Facilitate More 

Efficient Implementation of 

Guidance
 

Page 35 GAO-14-446 DOD Climate Change Adaptation 

from the changes. In one example, officials told us that if the standards 

require that a building’s roof be built to withstand 100-mph winds, simply 

telling an engineer that storms will “increase in intensity” is not sufficient 

for the engineer to design a new roof. The engineer would need a new 

specific wind-speed standard (120 miles per hour, for example) for which 

a roof should be designed.

Generally, installation officials also stated that in order to effectively 

consider changes in climatic conditions in their Master Plan, they would 

need to know—at least approximately—how the climate would change 

over a particular period at their installation. Some officials told us they 

would also need information on which species of plants and animals 

would be more sensitive to climate change impacts, so they could adjust 

their Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan accordingly. Some 

installation officials stated they do not feel they have the necessary 

expertise to determine whether climate change phenomena or impacts 

may be effecting their installations, or could be in the future.

Generally, officials expressed concerns about how to find or use climate 

change impact information. For instance, the Unified Facilities Criteria 

lists the National Climate Assessment and the U.S. Global Change 

Research Program as potential sources of information about how climate 

change may impact an individual installation.47

 

47The Unified Facilities Criteria refers to the U.S. Global Change Research Office. 

According to Office of the Secretary of Defense officials, installation planners should 

reference the U.S. Global Change Research Program. The officials did not have an 

explanation for the discrepancy. 

During our discussions 

with installation officials, some told us they are not sure how to use the 

available information sources cited in the Unified Facilities Criteria in their 

installation-level planning efforts. One official we met with told us he 

planned to use one of these sources for his installation’s Master Plan. 

However, when he learned that the website of the source did not have the 

information he assumed it would, he stated he was not sure what 

information he would use. Further, although DOD has identified sources 

of information for the potential impacts of climate change on installations, 

certain sources contain multiple sets of information, and installation 

officials were not sure which sets to use in their planning. For example, 

the Third National Climate Assessment contains regional projections for 

certain climate change phenomena based on two different scenarios. The 

scenarios differ in their assumptions about various factors that drive the 
 

Page 36 GAO-14-446 DOD Climate Change Adaptation 

rate and severity of projected climate change.48

Some installation officials told us that because they did not have 

installation-level climate data from their military department or another 

DOD source—that may allow them to understand the potential impact of 

climate change on their infrastructure—they instead relied on a variety of 

sources. In some cases, officials relied on climate change information 

from non-DOD government sources, universities, contractors, and 

nongovernmental organizations. For example, an official at one 

installation explained that in the course of updating the Master Plan for 

her coastal installation, she provided her installation’s master-planning 

contractor with a study on how sea level rise could impact a second 

coastal installation that is located hundreds of miles away from her 

installation. The official stated that the study—conducted by a local civic 

organization in the city of the second installation—was the only 

information she had on sea level rise. For that reason, she provided the 

information on the second installation to her installation’s master-planning 

contractor for the contractor’s use in addressing the Unified Facilities 

Criteria guidance to consider “changes in climatic conditions” for the first 

installation. However, the study she provided to the contractor may not 

have been relevant for the first installation because of the distance 

between the two installations and potentially other differences in the local 

environment around the installations. According to officials from the Office 

of the Secretary of Defense, local conditions specific to individual 

installations can have a substantial effect on how sea level rise could 

impact an installation. For example, in certain parts of the country, coastal 

land is subsiding, while in others, coastal land is rising. As a result, 

information on sea level rise for locations hundreds of miles away from 

each other may not be accurate for planning at both installations.

Officials at some 

installations stated that they did not know which set of projections to use 

in their planning efforts and would need further direction or guidance 

before taking action.

DOD is making efforts to compile and provide additional information to 

installation planners. These efforts may be positive steps, but it is too 

early to assess whether they will address the challenges identified by the 

installation officials with whom we met. As discussed previously, DOD is 

 

48In the Third National Climate Assessment, projections are based on simulations of the 

21st-century climate that assume changing greenhouse gas concentrations following two 

scenarios: A2 (high emissions) and B1 (low emissions).
 

Page 37 GAO-14-446 DOD Climate Change Adaptation 

part of a working group in which several federal agencies are 

collaborating to develop regional scenarios of sea level rise, but scenarios 

from this working group are not yet available. According to working-group 

officials, the working group may have preliminary scenarios by May 2014. 

In addition, in November 2013, DOD issued DOD Manual 4715.03,49

 

49Department of Defense Manual 4715.03, Integrated Natural Resources Management 

Plan (INRMP) Implementation Manual (Nov. 25, 2013).

which provides guidance for incorporating climate change considerations 

into Integrated Natural Resources Management Plans as required by the 

related DOD Instruction. The new DOD manual is a positive step toward 

providing more direction and information that installation planners told us 

they need, but, at the time of our review, it was too early to assess 

whether the manual provides all needed information. For example, the 

manual does provide a definition of some key terms, but—similar to the 

Unified Facilities Criteria—the manual does not provide specific 

instructions to planners on which set of information related to future 

climate change impacts and associated vulnerabilities for installations 

they should use. According to Army officials, the Army is currently 

working on a pilot project at three installations to help planners assess 

impacts of climate change on natural resources. Army headquarters 

officials stated that the project will be completed by the end of fiscal year 

2015 and will provide planners with additional guidance to help them 

integrate climate change into Integrated Natural Resources Management 

Plans. DOD also has research efforts underway to help provide additional 

information about climate change impacts to installation planners. For 

example, DOD is working through its Strategic Environmental Research 

and Development Program to conduct climate change–related studies at 

installations across the military departments and believes the results from 

the studies will help installation planners incorporate climate change 

consideration into their plans. In addition, researchers at the Cold 

Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory of the U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers’ Engineer Research and Development Center are studying the 

impact that climate change has on Alaskan installations, including on 

master planning and natural resource planning. As part of their work, 

research is being conducted at the Permafrost Tunnel Research Facility 

that officials stated will provide DOD and installation planners with 

information on how thawing permafrost can impact installations and how 

to adapt to any potential impacts (see figs. 10 and 11).
 

Page 38 GAO-14-446 DOD Climate Change Adaptation 

Figure 10: Permafrost Tunnel Research Facility

Note: Officials stated that research being conducted at the Permafrost Tunnel Research Facility will 

provide DOD and installation planners with information on how thawing permafrost can impact 

installations and how to adapt to potential impacts. The tunnel is approximately 15 meters below the 

surface and is 110 meters long.

Figure 11: Ice Embedded in Soil 

Note: Permafrost contains areas of ice that, if melted, may cause the ground above to sink. 

Researchers are working to help installation planners understand the impacts of thawing permafrost.
 

Page 39 GAO-14-446 DOD Climate Change Adaptation 

According to the Standards for Internal Control in the Federal 

Government, information should be communicated in a form and within a 

time frame that enables personnel to carry out their responsibilities 

efficiently. Without additional information, such as the definition of 

“climate change” recently provided in DOD Manual 4715.03, information 

about projected impacts of climate change and associated vulnerabilities 

for installations, and updated building codes and design standards that 

account for potential climate change impacts, installation planners may 

not efficiently implement the requirements in the Unified Facilities Criteria 

and DOD Instruction 4715.03 and will be unlikely to consistently account 

for climate change impacts in their Master Plans and Integrated Natural 

Resources Management Plans. Further, as discussed above, installation 

planners may not use the most-accurate information, which could lead to 

inefficient adaptation planning.

According to DOD officials and our review of DOD documentation 

describing its processes for approving and funding infrastructure projects, 

these processes do not fully incorporate adaptation into the department’s 

infrastructure-investment efforts. Installation officials explained that they 

generally have not proposed projects to address potential climate change 

impacts or vulnerabilities because they believe that adaptation projects 

will not compete well in the military services’ processes for approving and 

funding potential projects. This is despite a DOD strategic goal that—in its 

investment decisions—the department should consider sustainability, to 

include climate change adaptation. As a result, the military services run 

several risks, such as not meeting DOD’s strategic goal, not effectively 

mitigating their installation infrastructure’s potential climate change 

vulnerabilities, and facing more-costly adaptation actions in the future.

According to installation and military-service headquarters officials, 

climate change adaptation projects for infrastructure are not widespread 

at the installation level. At 14 of 15 of the locations we visited or 

contacted, officials explained that they had not proposed or implemented 

a climate change adaptation project—including at 15 locations where 

officials had observed climate change impacts.

During our site visits, we did learn of a small number of infrastructure 

projects that have been started that incorporate climate change 

adaptation actions. In our discussions with DOD officials, we learned that 

a climate change adaptation project may be a stand-alone project or a 

component of a preexisting project. One example of a potential standalone project—discussed above—is raising the height of a floodwall at a 

Navy shipyard we visited. According to shipyard officials, during a recent 

DOD Processes for 

Approving and 

Funding Infrastructure 

Projects Do Not 

Explicitly Account for 

Climate Change 

Adaptation

Installation Officials 

Generally Had Not 

Proposed Many Climate 

Change Adaptation 

Projects for Approval
 

Page 40 GAO-14-446 DOD Climate Change Adaptation 

storm, water from the storm surge flowed over the existing floodwall. 

Flooding such as this may pose a substantial threat to vessels and 

equipment in a dry dock, and a Navy official stated that the Navy is 

considering this floodwall project as a risk-reduction strategy to address 

the frequency of extreme weather events happening at the shipyard.50

In other cases, an adaptation action may exist as a component of a 

preexisting project. For instance, Air Force headquarters officials 

explained that at a coastal installation, the Air Force raised a building that 

includes a “sacrificial” first floor. As part of the existing plan to construct 

this building, the Air Force included this type of floor as a way to better 

protect critical assets—such as computer servers—from potential 

flooding. Specifically, critical assets could be located on the building’s 

higher floors, while the sacrificial floor provides a less critical function, 

such as serving as a parking structure. If threatened by potential flooding, 

the parked vehicles could be moved, and if the sacrificial floor is flooded, 

the water would not compromise the mission capability of the building.

As discussed previously, installation planners were unsure how to 

efficiently meet DOD’s direction to address climate change in certain 

types of plans, including Master Plans. Thus, they may not feel that they 

have the appropriate information to propose such actions. However, we 

have previously reported that although decision makers have imperfect 

information about climate change, this should not necessarily stop them 

from considering adaptation actions, given that adaptation actions taken 

now may be less expensive than actions taken later.51

 

50As discussed above, although installation officials generally agreed that individual 

weather events—such as a single storm—cannot be tied directly to changes in the 

climate, these officials noted that DOD facilities and infrastructure are vulnerable to 

climate change phenomena and recognized that climate change may make these types of 

phenomena more frequent or severe. Also, as discussed above, we have previously 

reported that while it is not possible to link any individual weather event to climate change, 

these events provide insight into the potential climate-related vulnerabilities the United 

States faces (GAO-14-364T). 

51GAO-13-242. 
 

Page 41 GAO-14-446 DOD Climate Change Adaptation 

Installation officials explained that they generally have not proposed 

projects to address potential climate change impacts or vulnerabilities 

because they believe that adaptation projects will not compete well in the 

military services’ processes for approving and funding potential projects. 

This is despite a DOD strategic goal that—in its facility-investment 

decisions—the department should consider sustainability, to include 

climate change adaptation. For example, according to its fiscal year 2012 

Strategic Sustainability Performance Plan, investment decisions should 

consider all the costs and benefits of incorporating sustainability. Further, 

in the Roadmap—an appendix to this plan—DOD elucidates a goal that 

adaptation to climate change should not be a separate decision-making 

process, but rather an aspect of the overall management of existing 

processes, including infrastructure planning and maintenance.

Even if a potential adaptation project is included in an installation’s master 

plan, the projects must still be approved by the military-service 

headquarters, before being approved by the Office of the Secretary of 

Defense, the Office of Management and Budget, and, ultimately, by 

Congress.52

For 14 of 15 of the locations we visited or contacted, installation officials 

explained that they generally have not proposed projects to address 

potential climate change impacts or vulnerabilities because they believe 

that neither standalone adaptation projects nor projects with a climate 

change adaptation component will score well in the military services’ 

processes for approving and funding potential projects. For example, at 

an Air Force installation we visited, officials stated that because the Air 

Force processes for approving and funding potential projects do not 

explicitly account for adaptation to the impacts of climate change or 

extreme weather, it is unlikely that a climate change adaptation project 

According to both our review of DOD documentation 

explaining typical processes and DOD officials with whom we discussed 

the processes, these processes—often called “scoring” processes—

generally consist of the following elements: they assign numerical 

values—or “points”—to certain project characteristics; potential projects’ 

relative scores are used to rank the projects; and senior decision makers 

at the military services’ headquarters review the rank-order list, selecting 

projects based on service priorities.

 

52For this report, we did not review the portions of the approval process that occur after 

approval by the military services.

Project Approval and 

Funding Processes May 

Limit Adaptation Projects’ 

Ability to Compete for 

Funding
 

Page 42 GAO-14-446 DOD Climate Change Adaptation 

will score highly enough to be approved. Similarly, during our visit to a 

Navy installation, officials shared their belief that a potential project or 

project component, justified as an adaptation to potential climate change 

impacts or mission vulnerabilities, was extremely unlikely to be approved 

or funded in the Navy’s process. At an Army installation we visited, 

officials echoed this sentiment, stating that if the installation proposed a 

climate change adaptation project, they believe the proposal would 

almost certainly be denied in the Army’s processes for approving and 

funding potential infrastructure projects.

Our review of the services’ fiscal year 2013 processes for reviewing 

proposed military construction projects indicates that they do not explicitly 

account for projects intended to adapt to the potential impacts of extreme 

weather events or climate change. Furthermore, the factors considered in 

the processes—which in some cases determine how points are assigned 

for individual project characteristics—do not explicitly address 

consideration of adaptation to such impacts. Examples include the 

process used to compare potential military construction projects across 

the Air Force. This process is based on six characteristics including 

“Facility Condition,” “Mission Dependency,” and “Local Mission Impact.” 

None of these characteristics—or the instructions associated with them—

explicitly address adaptation. Similarly, a Navy process prioritizes 

potential military construction projects based on nine characteristics 

that—like the Air Force—do not explicitly include adaptation. In addition, 

the prioritization factors used in the Marine Corps process for approving 

and funding potential military construction projects include avoiding the 

future degradation of facilities or capabilities—but do not explicitly 

reference adaptation. Our review of the Army’s process for approval and 

funding of military construction projects and the associated guidance 

indicates that, similarly, they do not explicitly include adaptation. Further, 

according to a recent draft Army report on incorporating adaptation into 

installation planning, projects that would improve resiliency to climate 

change impacts currently have no weighting in the determination of 

budget priorities.

Certain officials from the military service headquarters noted that in their 

services’ processes for approving and funding potential military 

construction projects, projects with an adaptation component are not 

excluded from gaining points. For example, in discussions about the 

instructions associated with the Air Force characteristic “Local Mission 

Impact,” Air Force officials explained how points could be assigned to a 

proposed project—according to the project’s potential to help assure 

mission capability—and that an adaptation action has the potential do so. 
 

Page 43 GAO-14-446 DOD Climate Change Adaptation 

Also, a Navy official explained that proposed projects could have 

components that serve to make a piece of infrastructure more resilient to 

potential climate change impacts, even if an action is not explicitly 

characterized as “adaptation.” For example, according to Navy officials at 

an installation we visited, DOD plans to raise a new pier several feet 

above the standard height for piers, at least in part due to concerns over 

rising sea levels. Officials explained that they have not necessarily 

characterized this as a climate change adaptation action because the 

action is in response to observed sea level rise, as opposed to projected 

future changes in sea level.

However, according to military-service headquarters officials, a project 

that can be explicitly justified by using one of the process’s established 

characteristics will likely gain more points than a project that cannot be 

explicitly justified by using one of those characteristics. These officials 

acknowledged that their services’ processes do not explicitly address 

adaptation. As discussed above, installation officials with whom we met 

also generally believed that neither stand-alone adaptation projects nor 

projects with a climate change adaptation component will score well in the 

processes because the processes do not explicitly account for adaptation 

to the impacts of climate change or extreme weather.

If installation officials believe that potential adaptation projects will not be 

approved, the number of adaptation projects they propose is likely to be 

fewer than it might otherwise be, and this may result in a relatively smaller 

number of such projects that the services have an opportunity to approve 

through their processes. This poses a number of potential risks. First, the 

services risk not meeting DOD's strategic goal to consider sustainability, 

including climate change adaptation, in their facility investment decisions.

Second, the services run the risk of not effectively mitigating their 

installation infrastructure’s potential climate change vulnerabilities. In our 

past work examining federal efforts to aid local decision makers—such as 

installation level planners—in incorporating potential climate change 

impacts in infrastructure planning, we found that competing priorities 

make it difficult to pursue adaption efforts when there may be more 

immediate needs for attention and resources.53

 

53

Given the potential 

vulnerabilities we have discussed in this report—such as installations’ 

capability to execute their missions, potential readiness issues, and 

DOD’s fiscal exposure to potential climate impacts—installation planners’ 

GAO-13-242. 
 

Page 44 GAO-14-446 DOD Climate Change Adaptation 

choice not to prioritize adaptation projects could have a negative effect on 

DOD infrastructure and the missions it supports. Third, the military 

services run the risk of more-costly adaptation actions in the future. 

According to both the Third National Climate Assessment and our 

previous work on climate change adaptation, preparing for the impacts of 

climate change now may reduce the need for more-costly steps in the 

future.54

DOD’s infrastructure provides facilities and training ranges that are vital to 

the department’s ability to fulfill its mission and constitutes a significant 

fiscal commitment that requires ongoing investment to maintain. 

According to the Roadmap, changes in the Earth’s climate could include 

rising temperatures and sea levels, changes in precipitation patterns, and 

increased severity and frequency of extreme weather events. Given these 

potential changes, DOD’s stated approach is to minimize the 

vulnerabilities of its infrastructure to the impacts of these phenomena in 

order to maintain mission readiness. This may also reduce DOD’s fiscal 

exposure to the effects of climate change. The department’s initial efforts 

have been reasonable responses to these challenges, given some 

continued uncertainty in climate science and competing departmental 

priorities. Still, as DOD considers next steps, it would benefit by taking 

actions to ensure that ongoing and future infrastructure projects are 

designed to be consistent with DOD’s sustainability goals. For instance, 

DOD’s Climate Change Adaptation Working Group, in deciding to focus 

its initial screening-level assessment efforts on coastal installations and 

sites, recognized that such infrastructure forms a substantial commitment 

of the department. And, the Climate Change Adaptation Working Group 

has taken some positive steps, including its intention to leverage lessons 

learned from the DOD’s initial coastal efforts into how to finish 

subsequent vulnerability assessments, and its use of a risk-based 

approach as it prioritizes these vulnerability-assessment efforts. However, 

without a project plan in place that includes milestones, the department 

may not be able to effectively implement actions to meet its goal of 

carrying out vulnerability assessments for all its facilities. This could slow 

DOD typically requests—and Congress funds—hundreds of 

military construction projects each year, some of which have expected life 

spans of more than 20 years. By not fully considering the potential 

adaptation needs of this new infrastructure in its current facility 

investment decisions, DOD may be at risk of having to make more-costly 

adaptation upgrades in the future.

 

54GAO-13-242. 

Conclusions
 

Page 45 GAO-14-446 DOD Climate Change Adaptation 

the implementation of adaptation actions based on vulnerabilities 

identified in these assessments. For example, a delay in collecting these

data may, in turn, delay decision makers’ use of these data when 

considering revised building standards and planning processes. Similarly, 

without additional information from the military departments that clarifies 

how to incorporate climate change adaptation actions into installation 

planning documents, installation planners may not efficiently meet DOD 

requirements, which could impact DOD, because the department may not 

have the information it needs to make informed tradeoffs when it makes 

infrastructure decisions. Finally, without military-service processes that 

ensure that climate change adaptation projects are proposed by facility 

planners and will be competitive for funding—when appropriate—with 

other projects, DOD risks missing an opportunity to enhance the 

resilience of its infrastructure to the impacts of climate change at the 

appropriate time.

In order to provide DOD decision makers with comprehensive information 

on the vulnerabilities of its facilities to the potential impacts of climate 

change on its missions, we recommend that the Secretary of Defense 

direct the Senior Sustainability Officer and Climate Change Adaptation 

Working Group to—through the Assessment Group—develop a project 

plan and milestones for completing DOD’s screening-level vulnerability 

assessment and direct the services to—in coordination with the 

Assessment Group—develop plans and milestones that describe how 

they intend to use the data collected through the assessment in support 

of climate change adaptation planning.

In order to facilitate the efforts of installation planners to efficiently 

implement the requirements of the Unified Facilities Criteria and DOD 

Instruction 4715.03, we recommend that the Secretary of Defense—in 

conjunction with the Secretaries of the military departments—provide 

further direction and information that clarifies the planning actions that 

should be taken to account for climate change in installation Master Plans 

and Integrated Natural Resource Management Plans. At a minimum, 

further direction could include definitions of key terms, such as the 

definition of “climate change” recently included in DOD Manual 4715.03; 

further information about changes in applicable building codes and design 

standards that account for potential climate change impacts; and further 

information about potential projected impacts of climate change for 

individual installations. 

In order to improve the military services’ ability to make facility investment 

decisions in accordance with DOD’s strategic direction to include climate 

Recommendations for 

Executive Action
 

Page 46 GAO-14-446 DOD Climate Change Adaptation 

change adaptation considerations and additionally, to demonstrate an 

emphasis on proposing projects with an adaption component to 

installation planners, we recommend that the Secretary of Defense direct 

the Secretaries of the military departments to clarify instructions 

associated with the processes used to compare potential military 

construction projects for approval and funding so that, at a minimum, 

climate change adaptation is considered as a project component that may 

be needed to address potential climate change impacts on infrastructure.

We provided a draft of this report to the Department of Defense (DOD) for 

review and comment. DOD provided written comments, concurring with 

all three of our recommendations and noting actions it intends to take to 

address them. DOD’s comments are reprinted in their entirety in appendix 

III. In addition, the Office of the Secretary of Defense and the military 

departments provided technical comments. We also provided a draft of 

this report for review and comment to the Executive Director of the United 

States Global Change Research Program. The United States Global 

Change Research Program did not provide official written comments but 

instead provided technical comments. We incorporated the technical 

comments from the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the military 

departments and the United States Global Change Research Program, as 

appropriate. 

DOD concurred with our recommendation to develop a project plan and 

milestones for both completing DOD’s screening-level vulnerability 

assessment and using data collected through the assessment in support 

of climate change adaptation planning. DOD stated that its Assessment 

Guidance Sub-Working Group will document its current plans to complete 

the assessment, including a phased approach to surveying all the sites 

and taking steps to address analysis of data collected through these 

surveys. We believe that documenting the Assessment Group’s current 

plans for completing the assessment, detailing how data collected 

through the assessment will be used in support of climate change 

adaptation planning, and including milestones in this documentation will 

better ensure that DOD decision makers have comprehensive information 

on facilities’ vulnerabilities to the potential impacts of climate change on 

DOD’s missions. 

DOD also concurred with our recommendation to provide further direction 

and information that clarifies the planning actions that should be taken to 

account for climate change in installation Master Plans and Integrated 

Natural Resource Management Plans, including providing further 

Agency Comments 

and Our Evaluation
 

Page 47 GAO-14-446 DOD Climate Change Adaptation 

information about potential projected impacts of climate change for 

individual installations. DOD stated that it has begun drafting a DOD 

directive on climate change adaptation that, when complete, will provide 

guidance and direction and define terminology, among other things. We 

believe that a DOD directive on climate change adaptation would be a 

positive step toward providing installation planners with further direction 

and information. DOD also stated that it is participating in the efforts of 

the United States Global Change Research Program to provide the U.S. 

government with climate change adaptation data on the data.gov climate 

website.55

Finally, DOD concurred with our recommendation to clarify instructions 

associated with the processes used to compare potential military 

construction projects for approval and funding so that, at a minimum, 

climate change adaptation is considered as a project component that may 

be needed to address potential climate change impacts on infrastructure. 

DOD stated that climate change may be one of many factors that can 

affect facilities and impact mission and readiness, and that the 

department will review processes and criteria, such as the Unified 

Facilities Criteria, to strengthen consideration of climate change 

adaptation. We believe that such a review could lead to clarification of 

instructions associated with these processes.

We believe that the website may serve as a useful source of 

data about certain potential projected impacts of climate change. 

However, as of May 2014, the website was in a pilot phase, in which the 

data and resources available were limited to coastal flooding, sea level 

rise, and their impacts. As we discuss in the report, DOD describes five 

categories of climate change phenomena in its fiscal year 2012 Climate 

Change Adaptation Roadmap and during our site visits, installation 

officials identified potential climate change impacts or vulnerabilities 

associated with each of these phenomena. If DOD plans to use this 

website as a source of climate change data for installation planners, and 

the site provides information on all types of climate change phenomena, 

this will meet the intent of our recommendation.

As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents of 

this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from the 

report date. At that time, we will send copies to the appropriate 

congressional committees; the Secretary of Defense; the Secretaries of 

 

55For more information, see http://www.data.gov/climate/. 
 

Page 48 GAO-14-446 DOD Climate Change Adaptation 

the Army, Navy, and Air Force; the Commandant of the Marine Corps; 

and the Executive Director of the U.S. Global Change Research Program. 

In addition, the report will be available at no charge on the GAO website 

at http://www.gao.gov. 

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact 

me at (202) 512-4523 or leporeb@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices 

of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last 

page of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions to this report 

are listed in appendix IV.

Brian J. Lepore

Director, Defense Capabilities and Management
 

Page 49 GAO-14-446 DOD Climate Change Adaptation 

List of Requesters

The Honorable Barbara Boxer

Chairwoman

Committee on Environment and Public Works

United States Senate

The Honorable Sheldon Whitehouse 

Chairman

Subcommittee on Oversight

Committee on Environment and Public Works

United States Senate

The Honorable Mark Begich

United States Senate

The Honorable Al Franken

United States Senate

The Honorable Jeff Merkley

United States Senate
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

Page 50 GAO-14-446 DOD Climate Change Adaptation 

To describe the Department of Defense’s (DOD’s) efforts to identify 

climate change phenomena and associated impacts and vulnerabilities on 

its infrastructure, we collected information from the Office of the Secretary 

of Defense and the military departments and reviewed DOD documents 

such as the 2010 and 2014 Quadrennial Defense Reviews; DOD’s fiscal 

year 2012 Strategic Sustainability Performance Plan; and the fiscal year 

2012 Climate Change Adaptation Roadmap (Roadmap). We also 

reviewed ongoing studies on potential climate change impacts at DOD 

locations from DOD’s Strategic Environmental Research and 

Development Program and met with officials from the Office of the 

Secretary of Defense and the military department headquarters.

To gain insight into examples of climate change phenomena that may 

have or may impact installation infrastructure in the future and that may 

lead to mission vulnerabilities, we visited or contacted officials at a 

nongeneralizable sample of 15 DOD locations,

1 learned about or 

observed impacts to infrastructure, and collected key documentation such 

as after action reports describing impacts and mission vulnerabilities of 

climate change phenomena. These locations were within the 50 U.S. 

states, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, 

Guam, the Virgin Islands, American Samoa, and any other territory or 

possession of the United States. We then selected locations that 

represented a variety of geographic regions—regions used by both DOD 

and the United States Global Change Research Program’s National 

Climate Assessment when discussing climate change2

 

1

We visited 13 of the 15 locations. During our site visits, we discussed the other 2 

locations. 

—as well as 

locations from each of the military departments. The locations we 

selected were locations that DOD has identified as already being 

impacted by climate change, or those that DOD is expecting to be 

impacted by climate change. To ensure this, we selected locations where 

either (1) research on climate change had been conducted, or was 

planned to be conducted, by either the Office of the Secretary of 

Defense’s Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program 

or the military departments; or (2) DOD officials had identified as being 

impacted, or likely to be impacted, by climate change. We selected, and 

2

We selected locations in the following regions: Southwest, Southeast and Caribbean, 

Hawaii and Pacific Islands, and Alaska and the Arctic. We did not select locations in: 

Northeast, Midwest, Great Plains, or Northwest.

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

Page 51 GAO-14-446 DOD Climate Change Adaptation 

visited or contacted the following installations: Combat Direction Systems 

Activity, Naval Air Station Oceana, Dam Neck Annex, Virginia; Edwards 

Air Force Base, California; Fort Irwin, California; Fort Irwin National 

Training Center, California; Fort Wainwright, Alaska; Joint Base Pearl 

Harbor–Hickam, Hawaii; Joint Pacific Alaska Range Complex, Alaska; 

Marine Corps Base Hawaii, Hawaii; Naval Air Station Norfolk, Virginia; 

Naval Air Station Oceana, Virginia; Naval Base Guam, Guam; Norfolk 

Naval Shipyard, Virginia; Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard and Intermediate 

Maintenance Facility, Hawaii; Yukon Training Area, Alaska; and 611th 

Civil Engineer Squadron remote radar sites, Alaska. Results from our 

nongeneralizable sample cannot be used to make inferences about all 

DOD locations. However, the information from these locations provides 

valuable insights.

To determine the extent to which DOD has assessed or plans to assess 

the vulnerability of its facilities to the potential impacts of climate change, 

we reviewed DOD’s 2010 and 2014 Quadrennial Defense Reviews and 

Roadmap to determine DOD’ goals for conducting vulnerability 

assessments. To determine the extent to which the department has 

completed such assessments, we reviewed DOD documentation that 

discusses vulnerability assessments and interviewed officials in the Office 

of the Secretary of Defense and military departments to learn about 

DOD’s assessment efforts. In addition, we observed meetings of DOD’s 

key organizations involved in these assessment efforts, including the 

Adaptation Group, the Assessment Group, and the Scenario Group. 

Finally, we reviewed project-management practices of high-performing 

organizations, comparing DOD’s assessment efforts to these practices in 

order to determine the extent to which DOD has incorporated them into its 

assessment efforts.

To determine the extent to which DOD is accounting for climate change 

impacts in installations’ selected planning efforts for existing and future 

infrastructure, we identified the guidance for doing so as it relates to 

Installation Master Planning and Integrated Natural Resources 

Management Plans. We then compared these directions with actual 

Master Plans and Integrated Natural Resources Management Plans for 

locations we visited or contacted, and we met with officials from those 

locations who were responsible for the Master Plan and Integrated 

Natural Resources Management Plans to learn about how they 

incorporated the guidance from DOD into their planning processes. We 
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

Page 52 GAO-14-446 DOD Climate Change Adaptation 

also reviewed the Standards for Internal Control in the Federal 

Government related to information and communications,3

To determine the extent to which DOD accounts for climate change 

impacts when making infrastructure project funding decisions, we 

reviewed DOD’s fiscal year 2012 Strategic Sustainability Performance 

Plan and Roadmap to determine DOD’s strategic goals for integrating 

climate change adaptation actions into facility investment decision 

processes. We also interviewed DOD officials at the military-department 

headquarters level and at the selected installations we visited or 

contacted to determine the extent to which the military departments have 

implemented climate change adaptation efforts at the installation level. In

addition, we reviewed examples of military department processes used 

for approval and funding of potential infrastructure projects. Finally, we 

compared the extent to which the processes incorporate climate change 

adaptation with DOD’s strategic goals on integrating adaptation actions 

into facility investment decisions.

and compared 

those standards to DOD’s practices related to Installation Master 

Planning and Integrated Natural Resources Management Plans.

 

3

GAO, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1

(Washington, D.C.: November 1999). 
Appendix II: Previous GAO Work on Federal 

Efforts to Address Climate Change Has 

Resulted in a Number of Recommendations for 

Improvement of These Efforts

Page 53 GAO-14-446 DOD Climate Change Adaptation 

In February 2013, we added the federal government’s efforts to manage 

its fiscal exposure to the effects of climate change to our High Risk list, 

noting that the federal government’s role as a property owner exposes it 

to significant fiscal risk. This is the first GAO report focused on DOD 

climate change adaptation efforts for infrastructure. However, GAO has a 

body of work on climate change that—among other topics—addresses 

the impacts of climate on infrastructure and assesses adaptation efforts 

across the federal sector.

In a 2009 report,1 we noted that climate change has implications for the 

fiscal health of the federal government because it puts new stresses on 

the infrastructure that federal agencies manage. To address this 

challenge, we recommended a national strategic plan that defines federal 

priorities related to adaptation and addresses how resources will be made 

available to implement them. The Deputy Associate Director for Climate 

Change Adaptation at the Council on Environmental Quality generally 

agreed with the recommendations of the report, noting that leadership 

and coordination is necessary within the federal government to ensure an 

effective and appropriate adaptation response and that such coordination 

would help to catalyze regional, state, and local activities.2

In a 2013 report,3

 

1

GAO, Climate Change Adaptation: Strategic Federal Planning Could Help Government 

Officials Make More Informed Decisions, 

we stated that extreme weather events and climate 

change pose risks to physical infrastructure and discussed observed 

climate change impacts in the United States. Specifically, we noted that—

according to assessments by the National Research Council and the 

United States Global Change Research Program—changes in the climate 

have been observed in the United States and its coastal waters and are 

projected to grow in severity in the future, thereby increasing the 

vulnerability of infrastructure. We found that decision makers had not 

systematically incorporated climate change impacts into infrastructure 

planning because, among other reasons, available climate change 

information did not easily fit into their infrastructure planning process. 

GAO-10-113 (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 7, 2009).

2

The Council on Environmental Quality was established within the Executive Office of the 

President by Congress as part of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. Pub. L. 

No. 91-190 (1970) (codified as amended at 42 U.S.C. § 4321, et seq.). 

3

GAO, Climate Change: Future Federal Adaptation Efforts Could Better Support Local 

Infrastructure Decision Makers, GAO-13-242 (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 12, 2013). 

Appendix II: Previous GAO Work on Federal 

Efforts to Address Climate Change Has 

Resulted in a Number of Recommendations 

for Improvement of These Efforts
Appendix II: Previous GAO Work on Federal 

Efforts to Address Climate Change Has 

Resulted in a Number of Recommendations for 

Improvement of These Efforts

Page 54 GAO-14-446 DOD Climate Change Adaptation 

Therefore, we noted that the federal government could provide technical 

assistance to help decision makers translate available climate-related 

data into information useful for decision making and recommended that 

the Executive Director of the United States Global Change Research 

Program or other federal entity designated by the Executive Office of the 

President (1) work with relevant agencies to identify for decision makers 

the “best available” climate-related information for infrastructure planning 

and update this information over time, and (2) clarify sources of local 

assistance for incorporating climate-related information and analysis into 

infrastructure planning, and communicate how such assistance will be 

provided over time. Further, we recommended that the Secretary of 

Transportation and the Administrator of the Environmental Protection 

Agency work with relevant professional associations to incorporate 

climate change information into design standards. Relevant entities 

provided technical comments but did respond to these recommendations. 

A list of related GAO products is provided at the end of this report.
Appendix III: Comments from the Department 

of Defense

Page 55 GAO-14-446 DOD Climate Change Adaptation 

Appendix III: Comments from the 

Department of Defense
Appendix III: Comments from the Department 

of Defense

Page 56 GAO-14-446 DOD Climate Change Adaptation 
Appendix III: Comments from the Department 

of Defense

Page 57 GAO-14-446 DOD Climate Change Adaptation 
Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

Page 58 GAO-14-446 DOD Climate Change Adaptation 

Brian J. Lepore, (202) 512-4523 or leporeb@gao.gov

In addition to the contact named above, Laura Durland (Assistant 

Director), Frederick K. Childers, Roshni Dave, Michele Fejfar, Mary 

Koenen, Sarah Kaczmarek, Brandon Kruse, Michael Hix, Amanda 

Manning, Celia Rosario Mendive, Amie Lesser, Anne Stevens, Chris 

Stone, Joseph Thompson, Christopher Turner, Erik Wilkins-McKee, and 

Michael Willems made key contributions to this report.

Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

GAO Contact

Staff 

Acknowledgments
Related GAO Products

Page 59 GAO-14-446 DOD Climate Change Adaptation 

Extreme Weather Events: Limiting Federal Fiscal Exposure and 

Increasing the Nation’s Resilience. GAO-14-364T. Washington, D.C.: 

February 12, 2014.

Climate Change: Energy Infrastructure Risks and Adaptation Efforts. 

GAO-14-74. Washington, D.C.: January 31, 2014.

Climate Change: Federal Efforts Under Way to Assess Water 

Infrastructure Vulnerabilities and Address Adaptation Challenges. 

GAO-14-23. Washington, D.C.: November 14, 2013.

Climate Change: State Should Further Improve Its Reporting on Financial 

Support to Developing Countries to Meet Future Requirements and 

Guidelines. GAO-13-829. Washington, D.C.: September 19, 2013.

Climate Change: Various Adaptation Efforts Are Under Way at Key 

Natural Resource Management Agencies. GAO-13-253. Washington, 

D.C.: May 31, 2013.

Climate Change: Future Federal Adaptation Efforts Could Better Support 

Local Infrastructure Decision Makers. GAO-13-242. Washington, D.C.: 

April 12, 2013.

High-Risk Series: An Update. GAO-13-283. Washington, D.C.: February 

14, 2013.

International Climate Change Assessments: Federal Agencies Should 

Improve Reporting and Oversight of U.S. Funding. GAO-12-43. 

Washington, D.C.: November 17, 2011.

Climate Change Adaptation: Federal Efforts to Provide Information Could 

Help Government Decision Making. GAO-12-238T. Washington, D.C.: 

November 16, 2011.

Polar Satellites: Agencies Need to Address Potential Gaps in Weather 

and Climate Data Coverage. GAO-11-945T. Washington, D.C.: 

September 23, 2011.

Climate Monitoring: NOAA Can Improve Management of the U.S. 

Historical Climatology Network. GAO-11-800. Washington, D.C.: 

August 31, 2011.

Related GAO Products
Related GAO Products

Page 60 GAO-14-446 DOD Climate Change Adaptation 

Climate Change Adaptation: Aligning Funding with Strategic Priorities.

GAO-11-876T. Washington, D.C.: July 28, 2011.

Climate Engineering: Technical Status, Future Directions, and Potential 

Responses. GAO-11-71. Washington, D.C.: July 28, 2011.

Climate Change: Improvements Needed to Clarify National Priorities and 

Better Align Them with Federal Funding Decisions. GAO-11-317. 

Washington, D.C.: May 20, 2011.

Climate Change Issues: Options for Addressing Challenges to Carbon 

Offset Quality. GAO-11-345. Washington, D.C.: February 15, 2011.

Climate Change: A Coordinated Strategy Could Focus Federal 

Geoengineering Research and Inform Governance Efforts. GAO-10-903. 

Washington, D.C.: September 23, 2010.

Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellites: Improvements 

Needed in Continuity Planning and Involvement of Key Users. 

GAO-10-799. Washington, D.C.: September 1, 2010.

Carbon Trading: Current Situation and Oversight Considerations for 

Policymakers. GAO-10-851R. Washington, D.C.: August 19, 2010.

Climate Change: The Quality, Comparability, and Review of Emissions 

Inventories Vary Between Developed and Developing Nations. 

GAO-10-818. Washington, D.C.: July 30, 2010.

Environmental Satellites: Planning Required to Mitigate Near-term Risks 

and Ensure Long-term Continuity. GAO-10-858T. Washington, D.C.: June 

29, 2010.

Coal Power Plants: Opportunities Exist for DOE to Provide Better 

Information on the Maturity of Key Technologies to Reduce Carbon 

Dioxide Emissions. GAO-10-675. Washington, D.C.: June 16, 2010.

Polar-Orbiting Environmental Satellites: Agencies Must Act Quickly to 

Address Risks That Jeopardize the Continuity of Weather and Climate 

Data. GAO-10-558. Washington, D.C.: May 27, 2010.

Environmental Satellites: Strategy Needed to Sustain Critical Climate and 

Space Weather Measurements. GAO-10-456. Washington, D.C.: April 27, 

2010.
Related GAO Products

Page 61 GAO-14-446 DOD Climate Change Adaptation 

Climate Change: Preliminary Observations on Geoengineering Science, 

Federal Efforts, and Governance Issues. GAO-10-546T. Washington, 

D.C.: March 18, 2010.

Climate Change: Observations on Options for Selling Emissions 

Allowances in Cap-and-Trade Program. GAO-10-377. Washington, D.C.: 

February 24, 2010.

Climate Change Adaptation: Strategic Federal Planning Could Help 

Officials Make More Informed Decisions. GAO-10-175T. Washington, 

D.C.: October 22, 2009. 

Climate Change Adaptation: Strategic Federal Planning Could Help 

Government Officials Make More Informed Decisions. GAO-10-113. 

Washington, D.C.: October 7, 2009.

Climate Change Adaptation: Information on Selected Federal Efforts to 

Adapt to a Changing Climate. GAO-10-114SP. Washington, D.C.: 

October 7, 2009.

Climate Change Policy: Preliminary Observations on Options for 

Distributing Emissions Allowances and Revenue under a Cap-and-Trade 

Program. GAO-09-950T. Washington, D.C.: August 4, 2009.

Climate Change Trade Measures: Estimating Industry Effects.

GAO-09-875T. Washington, D.C.: July 8, 2009.

Climate Change Trade Measures: Considerations for U.S. Policy Makers. 

GAO-09-724R. Washington, D.C.: July 8, 2009.

Climate Change: Observations on Federal Efforts to Adapt to a Changing 

Climate. GAO-09-534T. Washington, D.C.: March 25, 2009.

Climate Change: Observations on the Potential Role of Carbon Offsets in 

Climate Change Legislation. GAO-09-456T. Washington, D.C.: March 5, 

2009.

Climate Change Science: High-Quality Greenhouse Gas Emissions Data 

Are a Cornerstone of Programs to Address Climate Change.

GAO-09-423T. Washington, D.C.: February 24, 2009.
Related GAO Products

Page 62 GAO-14-446 DOD Climate Change Adaptation 

International Climate Change Programs: Lessons Learned from the 

European Union’s Emissions Trading Scheme and the Kyoto Protocol’s 

Clean Development Mechanism. GAO-09-151. Washington, D.C.: 

November 18, 2008.

Climate Change: Expert Opinion on the Economics of Policy Options to 

Address Climate Change. GAO-08-605. Washington, D.C.: May 9, 2008.

Climate Change Research: Agencies Have Data-Sharing Policies but 

Could Do More to Enhance the Availability of Data from Federally Funded 

Research. GAO-07-1172. Washington, D.C.: September 28, 2007.

Climate Change: Greater Clarity and Consistency Are Needed in 

Reporting Federal Climate Change Funding. GAO-06-1122T. 

Washington, D.C.: September 21, 2006.

Climate Change: Federal Reports on Climate Change Funding Should Be 

Clearer and More Complete. GAO-05-461. Washington, D.C.: August 25, 

2005.

(351829)
Page 63 GAO-14-446 DOD Climate Change Adaptation 

The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and 

policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance 

to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. 

GAO’s commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability.

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 

cost is through GAO’s website (http://www.gao.gov). Each weekday 

afternoon, GAO posts on its website newly released reports, testimony, 

and correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted 

products, go to http://www.gao.gov and select “E-mail Updates.”

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of 

production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the 

publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and 

white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s website, 

http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 

TDD (202) 512-2537. 

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, 

MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information.

Connect with GAO on Facebook, Flickr, Twitter, and YouTube. 

Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E-mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts. 

Visit GAO on the web at www.gao.gov. 

Contact:

Website: http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov, (202) 512-

4400, U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 

7125, Washington, DC 20548

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, DC 20548

GAO’s Mission

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Phone

Connect with GAO

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Congressional 

Relations

Public Affairs

Please Print on Recycled Paper.