1

Report on Effects of a Changing Climate to the

Department of Defense

January 2019

Office of the Under Secretary of Defense

for Acquisition and Sustainment

As required by Section 335 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018

(Public Law 115-91).

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

Defense is approximately $329,000 in Fiscal Years 2018 - 2019.

This includes $58,000 in expenses and $271,000 in DoD labor.

Generated on 2018Dec18 RefID: 9-D30BE5A
2

January 2019

Elements of Request for Report

This report responds to section 335 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year

2018 (Public Law 115-91). Specifically, this report provides an assessment of the significant

vulnerabilities from climate-related events in order to identify high risks to mission effectiveness

on installations and to operations. In developing this report, we discussed the approach with

staff from the House and Senate Armed Services Committees, both majority and minority, on

more than one occasion.

This report is organized into three primary sections:

I. Summary of Climate Effects and Resulting Vulnerabilities

II. DoD Efforts to Increase Installation Resiliency & Operational Viability

III. Conclusions

Background

The effects of a changing climate are a national security issue with potential impacts to

Department of Defense (DoD or the Department) missions, operational plans, and installations. 

Our 2018 National Defense Strategy prioritizes long-term strategic competition with great power

competitors by focusing the Department’s efforts and resources to: 1) build a more lethal force,

2) strengthen alliances and attract new partners, and 3) reform the Department’s processes.

To achieve these goals, DoD must be able to adapt current and future operations to

address the impacts of a variety of threats and conditions, including those from weather and

natural events. To that end, DoD factors in the effects of the environment into its mission

planning and execution to build resilience.

For this report, the Office of the Secretary of Defense requested information and inputs

from the Military Departments, Joint Staff, Geographic Combatant Commands, and other

organizations.

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

2017, Naval Facilities Engineering Command released a handbook for use by planners in

assessing climate impacts and evaluating adaptation options to consider in the existing

Installation Development Plan (Master Plan) process. The Handbook contains an extensive set

of worksheets to be used in documenting the results of planners’ assessment and evaluation,

including economic analyses of adaptation alternatives.

Updated United Facilities Criteria (UFCs) – In October 2017, DoD UFC 1-200-02, High

Performance and Sustainable Building Requirements, was updated to ensure appropriate

incorporation of climate-related impacts, amongst other updated/new areas. The UFC provides

minimum requirements, and guidance for planning, designing, constructing, renovating, and

maintaining high performance and sustainable buildings that will enhance DoD mission

capability by reducing total ownership costs.
3

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Tools – Providing support to civilian and military

infrastructure projects, USACE continues to develop assessment and adaptation tools useful in

adapting to risks associated with potential changing weather patterns.

DoD Directive 4715.21 – In January 2016 the Department issued Department of Defense

Directive 4715.21 Climate Change Adaptation and Resilience, assigning responsibilities to many

levels and DoD components for incorporating climate considerations into planning for

infrastructure and operations in order to assess and manage risks associated with the impacts of a

changing climate.
4

I. Summary of Climate Effects and Vulnerabilities

INSTALLATIONS & INFRASTRUCTURE

Methodology for Installation Effects

The Office of the Secretary of Defense requested information from the Military

Departments for climate-related events. To ensure connection to mission impacts, DoD focused

on 79 mission assurance priority installations based on their operational role. The Office of the

Secretary of Defense requested Military Departments analyze the climate-related events at these

installations. The installations break down by organization as follows:

The Military Departments noted the presence or not of current and potential

vulnerabilities to each installation over the next 20 years, selecting from the events listed below. 

Note that the congressional request established the 20-year timeframe.

Climate-Related Events

 Recurrent Flooding

 Drought

 Desertification

 Wildfires

 Thawing Permafrost

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

sorted by Military Service. In preparing input for the Appendix, the Military Services were free

to select information sources they deemed relevant1.

 

1 Data sources used include: Screening Level Vulnerability Assessment Survey (SLVAS) responses included in the

January 2018 Climate-Related Risk to DoD Infrastructure Initial Vulnerability Assessment Survey (SLVAS) Report;

USGS Coastal Vulnerability Index (CVI); FEMA National Flood Hazard Layer; US Drought Monitor; USDA

Global Desertification Vulnerability Map; USDA layer - 2010 Wildland Urban (continued) Interface (WUI) of the

Conterminous US – Intermix and Interface classes; USGS Volcano Hazards Program; USGS Seismic Information

Air Force 35

Army 20

Navy 19

Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) 2

Defense Financing and Accounting Service (DFAS) 1

National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA) 1

Washington Headquarters Service (WHS) 1
5

Summary Table of Current & Potential Effects to 79 Installations

The following tables provide a summary of current and future (20 years) vulnerabilities to

military installations.

Recurrent 

Flooding Drought Desertification Wildfires Thawing Permafrost

Service # Installations Current Potential Current Potential Current Potential Current Potential Current Potential

Air Force 35 20 25 20 22 4 4 32 32 - -

Army 20 14 16 4 4 2 2 4 4 1 1

Navy 19 16 16 18 18 - - - 7 - -

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

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

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

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

Totals

79 53 60 43 48 6 6 36 43 1 1

A review of the chart above indicates that recurrent flooding, drought, and wildfires are the

primary concerns at the 79 installations included in the analysis.

Examples of Vulnerabilities to DoD Installations and Infrastructure

The sections below provide examples of impacts to the selected military installations. 

Each section below includes a brief general description of the vulnerability factor and possible

impacts to military installations or infrastructure followed by examples.

Recurrent Flooding

Vulnerabilities to installations include coastal and riverine flooding. Coastal flooding

may result from storm surge during severe weather events. Over time, gradual sea level changes

magnify the impacts of storm surge, and may eventually result in permanent inundation of

property. Increasing coverage of land from nuisance flooding during high tides, also called

“sunny day” flooding, is already affecting many coastal communities.

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

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

Navy Base Coronado experiences isolated and flash flooding during tropical storm

events, particularly in El Niño years. Upland Special Areas are subject to flash floods. The main

installation reports worsening sea level rise and storm surge impacts that include access

limitations and other logistic related impairments.
6

Navy Region Mid-Atlantic and the greater Hampton Roads area is one of the most

vulnerable to flooding military operational installation areas in the United States. Sea level rise,

land subsidence, and changing ocean currents have resulted in more frequent nuisance flooding

and increased vulnerability to coastal storms. As a result, and to better mitigate these issues, the

Region has engaged in several initiatives and partnerships to address the associated challenges.

Drought

Drought can negatively impact U.S. military installations in various ways, particularly in

the Southwest. For example, dry conditions from drought impact water supply in areas

dependent on surface water. Additionally, droughts dry out vegetation, increasing wildfire

potential/severity. Specific to military readiness, droughts can have broad implications for base

infrastructure, impair testing activities, and along with increased temperature, can increase the

number of black flag day prohibitions for testing and training. Drought can contribute to heatrelated illnesses, including heat exhaustion and heat stroke, outlined by the U.S. Army Public

Health Center. Energy consumption may increase to provide additional cooling for facilities.

Several DoD sites in the DC area (including Joint Base Anacostia Bolling, Joint Base

Andrews, U.S. Naval Observatory/Naval Support Facility, and Washington Navy Yard)

periodically experienced drought conditions –extreme in 2002 and severe from 2002 through

2018. In addition, Naval Air Station Key West experienced drought in 2015 and 2011, ranging

from extreme to severe, respectively. These examples highlight that drought conditions may

occur in places not typically perceived as drought regions.

Drought conditions have caused significant reduction in soil moisture at several Air Force

bases resulting in deep or wide cracks in the soil, at times leading to ruptured utility lines and

cracked road surfaces.

Desertification

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

Desertification results in reductions in vegetation cover leading to increases in the amount of

runoff from precipitation events. Greater runoff contributes to:

 higher erosion rates

 increased stream sediment loads

 deposition of sediment in unwanted areas

This reduces the effectiveness of flood risk management infrastructure while increasing the

potential for siltation of water supply reservoirs. Following rain, eroded soil may be less suitable

for native vegetation, resulting in bare land or revegetation with non-native, weedy species. In

cases where this results in the expansion of shrub-lands, this could affect the suitability of the

landscape for military maneuvers and off-road use.

Army installations Camp Roberts in San Miguel, California, and White Sands Missile

Range in New Mexico were identified as vulnerable to current and future desertification, which
7

accelerates erosion and increases soil fragility, possibly limiting future training and testing

exercises. Air Force bases in western states, including Kirtland, Creech, Nellis, and Hill were

also identified as vulnerable to current and future desertification.

Wildfires

Due to routine training and testing activities that are significant ignition sources, wildfires

are a constant concern on many military installations. As a result, the DoD spends considerable

resources on claims, asset loss, and suppression activities due to wildfire. While fire is a key

ecological process with benefits for both sound land management and military capability

development, other climatic factors including increased wind and drought can lead to an

increased severity of wildfire activity. This could result in infrastructure and testing/training

impacts.

In March 2018 two related wildfires broke out in Colorado during an infantry and

helicopter training exercise for an upcoming deployment. Later determined to be due to live fire

training, gusty winds and dry conditions allowed the fire to spread, reaching about 3,300 acres in

size, destroying three homes, and causing the evacuation of 250 homes.

A wildfire in November 2017 burned 380 acres on Vandenberg Air Force Base in

southern California. While no structures were burned, the fire prompted evacuation of some

personnel. Firefighters from the U.S. Forest Service, Santa Barbara County, and other localities

assisted the Vandenberg Fire Department in managing the fire. The Canyon Wildfire at

Vandenberg in September 2016 burned over 10,000 acres and came very close to two Space

Launch Complexes. A scheduled rocket launch had to be delayed. Several facilities on the south

part of the base were operating on generators due to the loss of electrical power lines.

Thawing Permafrost

Permafrost presents risks for critical built infrastructure. Soil strength, ground

subsidence, and stability are primarily affected by the phase change of ground ice to water at or

near 0°C and when the soil thermal regime changes (by human activity, infrastructure

emplacement, or systemic shifts related to weather). Such subsidence may be rapid and

catastrophic (days), very slow and systematic (decades), or somewhere in between. Whether

rapid or slow, thawing permafrost decreases the structural stability to foundations, buildings, and

transportation infrastructure and requires costly mitigation responses that disrupt planning,

operations, and budgets. In addition, thawing permafrost exposes coasts to increased erosion.

Permafrost underlays about 85 percent of Alaska; it is thickest north of the Brooks Range

and gradually diminishes southward. Permafrost thaw is relevant to DoD training and testing

needs. Thermokarst, which is a type of landscape that results from thawing permafrost, increases

wetland areas and creates more challenging terrain. In Fort Greeley, Alaska, Army training

ranges are built on, or are being planned in permafrost-dominated areas. Predicting where this

phenomenon occurs and how permafrost might change is vital to maintaining training operations

and assessing impending environmental management challenges.
8

OPERATIONS

A changing climate can impact DoD’s operations through:

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

 Changes to what DoD may be asked to support.

Vulnerabilities to Mission Execution and Operational/Posture Plans

The National Defense Strategy sets the strategic priorities for the Department and, in

turn, the Combatant Commands (CCMD). The CCMD missions may be affected by timing and

severity of climate events, which may affect mission in some cases.

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

around the world and things we'd have to respond to. So it can be great

devastation requiring humanitarian assistance — disaster relief — which the

U.S. military certainly conducts routinely.”

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Dunford, November 2018

Country Instability Issues: In the United States Africa Command (USAFRICOM) Area of

Responsibility (AOR), rainy season flooding and drought/desertification are very important

factors in mission execution on the continent. Flooding and earthquake-induced tsunamis in

Indonesia contribute to instability in the Indo-Pacific Command (INDOPACOM).

Logistics and Mission Support Issues: Weather conditions over the Mediterranean Sea

currently impact intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR), personnel

recovery/casualty evacuation and logistics flights from Europe to the African continent;

potentially increasing no-go flight days.

At Naval Base Guam, recurrent flooding limits capacity for a number of operations and

activities including Navy Expeditionary Forces Command Pacific, submarine squadrons,

telecommunications, and a number of other specific tasks supporting mission execution.

Additionally, recurrent flooding impacts operations and activities of contingency

response groups at Andersen Air Force Base, as well as mobility response, communications,

combat, and security forces squadrons.

Arctic Region Issues: Climate-related effects impact accessibility and activity in the Arctic.

The Northern Sea Route generally opens for four weeks each year – usually the month of

September – and has the potential for increased Arctic maritime traffic. The demand for Arcticspecific search and rescue (SAR) resources will grow as Arctic activity increases.

There is need for further military support to civil authorities to enable the peaceful

opening of the Arctic as access increases. The role of United States Europe Command

(USEUCOM) in the high north will expand with enhanced opportunities for cooperation with
9

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

region.

In the Arctic, acquisition and supply chain requirements are considerably longer and are

much costlier. DoD will continue to partner with Federal departments and agencies, state, local,

and tribal agencies, other nations, and the private sector on services as appropriate.

Humanitarian Assistance/Disaster Relief

Geographic Combatant Commands regularly conduct humanitarian assistance and

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

disasters.

DoD conducts foreign disaster relief at the request of the U.S. Agency for International

Development (USAID) and the State Department. USAID’s Office of U.S. Foreign Disaster

Assistance is the lead federal agency for coordinating the U.S. Government foreign disaster relief

response. DoD does not develop its force structure for foreign disaster relief missions, but

supports USAID with available unique military capabilities and assets, such as transportation,

logistics, engineering assessments, air traffic control, and water.

DoD focuses its humanitarian assistance program on building capacity of partner nations

for health-related activities and activities that promote sustainable public health capacitybuilding, disaster preparedness, risk reduction, and relief response. Examples include:

emergency management training; construction/renovation of emergency operations centers and

disaster relief warehouses; assistance with planning for disaster response and recovery; and

country baseline assessments for vulnerabilities to disasters, including vulnerabilities from

weather and climate impacts. Global health engagement activities such as disease mitigation and

prevention initiatives address the basic survival needs of the population, promote stability and

capacity, and thus also climate resiliency.

Defense Support of Civil Authorities

Domestically, DoD provides disaster assistance at the request of the Federal Emergency

Management Agency (FEMA) and other federal Departments and Agencies. DoD always

operates in support of civil authorities and is not the lead federal agency for domestic disaster

relief missions, unless so designated by the President. DoD will maintain command and control

over Federal military forces and Governors of responding States will maintain command and

control over State National Guard forces. FEMA’s ten regions are responsible for writing All

Hazard Plans (AHPs) that guide response efforts to disasters including floods and hurricanes.

DoD works to support these AHPs as requested.

Testing and Training

The Department conducts training in realistic field environments to achieve and sustain

proficiency in mission requirements. Similarly, the Department conducts testing in realistic field

environments in anticipation of the military’s use of weapons, equipment, munitions, systems, or

their components. As such, access to the land, air, and sea space that replicate the operational
10

environment is critical to the readiness of the Force. Climate effects to the Department’s training

and testing are manifested in an increased number of suspended/delayed/cancelled outdoor

training/testing events and increased operational health surveillance and health and safety risks to

the Department’s personnel. Specifically, installations in the Southeast and Southwest lose

significant training and testing time due to extreme heat.

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

lands and associated infrastructure and equipment (e.g., roads, targets, buildings). In addition to

the loss of use of training and test ranges, these impacts result in increased land management

requirements due to stressed threatened/endangered species and related ecosystems on and

adjacent to DoD installations. Recent specific examples include:

 Wildfires in the western United States affecting Vandenberg AFB and operations at the

Western Range and Point Mugu Sea Range.

 Hurricanes resulting in damage to infrastructure and delays in training, testing programs,

and space launches at Tyndall Air Force Base, at the Atlantic Undersea Test and

Evaluation Centers, and the Eastern Range.

 Permafrost thawing at Cold Region Test Center, Fort Greely, Alaska, impacting cold

weather testing activities.

 Rising seawater wash-over and contamination of freshwater on atoll installations.

Mitigation efforts for unplanned climate events necessitate contingency planning for

training and test events and the minimization of planned range/facility use during historical

adverse climate condition seasons of the year. Other climate and non-climate related facility

maintenance and contingency of operations efforts are included in installation mitigation plans.

II. DoD Efforts to Increase Installation Resiliency & Operational Viability

INCREASE INSTALLATION RESILIENCY

The Department considers climate resilience in the installation planning and basing

processes to include impacts on built and natural infrastructure. To ensure that DoD facilities

better withstand flooding and severe weather events, DoD makes appropriate changes to

installation master planning, design and construction standards.

To continue missions in the event of loss or damage to critical energy and water

infrastructure, the Department uses the Mission Assurance process (DoD 3020.40, Mission

Assurance Strategy) to plan and conduct mitigation and remediation actions to improve the

resilience of critical assets and capabilities to reduce risk to critical missions. In May 2016, DoD

updated Directive 4170.11 on Installation Energy Management and developed Installation

Energy Plan guidance that included a focused goal of increased energy resilience and critical

energy infrastructure requirements. In February 2017, the Army added water to this effort and

released guidance to establish requirements for Army energy and water security to enhance

resilience on Army installations.
11

The Department has published several issuances to ensure that the Military Services and

Joint Staff integrate climate scenarios and long-term projections into planning, including DoDD

4715.21 (Climate Change Adaptation and Resilience) to establish roles and responsibilities and

DoDI 4715.03 (Natural Resources Conservation Program) requiring consideration of climate

impacts during development of Installation Natural Resources Management Plans (INRMPs).

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

restoration, and modernization criteria, and apply to the Military Services, the Defense Agencies,

and the DoD Field Activities. In June 2018, the UFC on High Performance and Sustainable

Building Requirements was updated to include and strengthen climate considerations. The UFC

20-100-1, Master Planning, also includes language requiring Master Planners to consider

changes in climatic conditions that may impact new and existing facilities and infrastructure. 

The UFC on Landscape Architecture is being updated to support installation water resilience.

Additionally, UFC 3-400-02 directs installation planners to request engineering weather data

(EWD) from Air Force’s 14th Weather Squadron (WS) that focuses on climatic variables of

temperature, humidity, precipitation, and winds. Recently the 14th WS moved from a 10 to 5

year update cycle to ensure climate impacts are captured.

DoD is also updating various built and natural infrastructure design standards to better

adapt to climate impacts. The Coastal Assessment Regional Scenario Working Group released a

report in April 2016 that provided a database with regionalized sea level scenarios for three

future time horizons (2035, 2065, and 2100) for 1,774 DoD sites worldwide. The database also

contains extreme water levels statistics (storm surge without waves and wave run up) for four

types of annual chance events (1, 2, 5 and 20 percent) based on historical tide gauge data. This

information can be used to establish base flood elevation and potential future flood inundation

areas of concern for installations in coastal and tidal areas.

The Military Services and the Defense Logistics Agency approach installation resiliency

through the integration of weather and climate considerations into existing plans and processes,

using partnerships with other federal agencies, state governments, local governments, nongovernmental organizations, and local communities to increase preparedness and resilience. 

Examples:

 Patrick Air Force Base imposes strict Florida Building Code hurricane requirements and

finished floor elevations for all new construction based on flood plain and storm surge

data. Base staff coordinates with state, county, and academic institutions to ensure these

requirements are implemented.

 As mentioned earlier in this report, flooding at JBLE-Langley Air Force Base has become

more frequent and severe. JBLE-Langley is using a flood visualization tool to understand

flooding impacts across the base. By modeling different storm flooding elevations, they

were able to determine where to install door dams, which require less time and less labor

than sandbags. The base reduced the number of required sandbags by 70 percent. JBLELangley also requires that all new development is constructed at a minimum elevation of

10.5 feet above sea level with some projects planned for higher elevation due to high

communication intensity and need for greater hardening. Additionally, the City of

Hampton recently adopted a Resiliency and Adaptation Addendum to their original 2010
12

Joint Land Use Study. This addendum will help solidify a path forward for the City of

Hampton and JBLE-Langley to identify and implement resilience strategies that support

continued feasibility of base operations.

 Eglin and MacDill Air Force Bases in Florida partnered with local groups to address

persistent coastal erosion around their installations. Oyster shells collected from local

restaurants became the foundation for oyster reefs to create a living shoreline, bolstering

natural protection of critical historic sites, stabilizing shoreline, protecting the riparian

and intertidal environment, thereby creating habitat for aquatic/terrestrial species.

 Navy Region Southwest leadership have adopted decisive measures to evaluate climate

impacts on shore infrastructure, and are pursuing a strategy to mitigate vulnerabilities

through local agency collaboration, adaptive planning and implementation of innovative

design techniques. This initiative will improve upon the Navy’s scientific data, facilitate

assessment of various sea level rise (SLR) scenario impacts, and help identify sustainable

infrastructure strategies to offset stressors from flooding, beach erosion, and loss of

wetlands and habitat.

 Navy Region Southwest facility planning efforts now incorporate adaptive planning

measures from a variety of government agency sources, including NAVFAC’s Climate

Change Installation Adaptation and Resilience Planning Handbook. Regional planners

are working with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the Scripps

Institute of Oceanography to study potential vulnerabilities at the Naval Amphibious

Base. Sea level rise data for 2100 was used during the environmental planning and

design phases of the Coastal Campus project. The design configuration of five buildings

was modified to resist a moderate sea level rise event over their forecasted life cycle.

 The greater Hampton Roads area is very vulnerable to flooding caused by rising sea

levels and land subsidence. Navy Region Mid-Atlantic is working with several

academic, local community, non-profit organizations, and state and federal agencies to

increase understanding of current and future risks to inform discussions on possible

adaptation strategies for communities and military bases. In addition, the cities of

Norfolk and Virginia Beach are currently engaged in a Joint Land Use Study to identify

specific conditions, including recurrent flooding, coastal storms, and erosion, outside of

the military footprint that have the potential to impact Navy operations in the Hampton

Roads area.

 Fort Hood, Texas, endured severe flash flooding in June 2016. A training exercise that

involved a low river crossing resulted in the death of several soldiers. In response, the

installation replaced the two most dangerous low water crossings with bridges, installed

stream and depth gauges at critical locations on the west side to better monitor and

predict flash flooding, and focused on clear signage and training.

 To address wildfire risk, Navy Region Southwest successfully worked with the California

Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CALFIRE) to promote joint training

opportunities in an effort to protect key infrastructure and communities within San Diego

County. Navy squadrons conduct semiannual joint training with CALFIRE to ensure

interoperability and an immediate response capability in support of local authorities for
13

emergency events. At the installation level, natural resource managers work to evaluate

the threat of wildfires to key resources and promote sustainable management practices,

such as the development and implementation of fire management plans for major

facilities and aligned special areas.

 DLA is upgrading its data center layout and mechanical equipment to ensure provision of

the cooling needed for processors and servers to operate efficiently in warmer

temperatures. All data centers will eventually migrate to a cloud server following the

Data Center Optimization Initiative.

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

from flood-prone areas to safer areas. For example, at two flood-prone sites, DLA

installed backup power generators and other mechanical equipment like chillers on a

higher elevation or mounted on concrete pads in accordance with building codes. Other

mechanical rooms were located in building rooftops, which helps prevent flood water

damage to equipment. In addition, other measures control rainwater flow, such as the use

of retention swales to divert storm water, green roofs to absorb rainfall, and cisterns to

store rainfall during downpours.

RESEARCH

Current Efforts

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

Environmental Security Technology Certification Program (ESTCP) invest in research focused

on improving DoD understanding of environmental risks to installations and mission. SERDP

and ESTCP investments support the development of the science, technologies, and methods

needed to manage and enhance the resilience of DoD installation infrastructure with the goal of

maximizing mission readiness. The following are a few examples of SERDP research efforts

related to infrastructure and mission resiliency:

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

environmental vulnerabilities on installations in the desert southwest. This research seeks

to detect and assess drought response of sensitive riparian forests to drought stress over

recent decades and will be carried out within three DoD bases in the Southwest, with

widely applicable results.

 In response to wildfire risk, SERDP developed a Fire Science Strategy in 2014 focused

on the following: improved characterization, monitoring, modeling, and mapping of fuels

to support enhanced smoke management and fire planning at DoD installations; enhanced

smoke management using advanced monitoring and modeling approaches; and research

to quantify, model, and monitor post-fire effects.

 SERDP and ESTCP investments seek to understand changes to the arctic terrestrial

environment relevant to DoD infrastructure. Permafrost degradation can impact soil,

vegetation, buildings, roads, and airfields. SERDP and ESTCP investments are leading

to tools for making arctic infrastructure more "aware" of permafrost changes before
14

costly failures occur. An example is Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory’s fiberoptic geophysical sensing package capable of providing real-time information on

subsurface conditions relevant to infrastructure performance and failure in Arctic

environments.

At the Military Service level, the Air Force’s 14th Weather Squadron provides

authoritative data sets and tailored decision aids to the Combatant Commanders, or CCMDs.

This same information is available to installation managers/planners. Additionally, the Air Force

is pursuing more accurate North Slope Alaska shoreline erosion prediction models that take into

account warming water near the shore, increasing air temperatures, longer periods when sea ice

is gone, increasing spatial extent of open water, increasing wind speeds, storm surges, wave

height, and thawing permafrost.

The U.S. Army Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory maintains a

Permafrost Tunnel Research Facility in Fox, Alaska, for several types of research, including

studies to better understand permafrost terrains for engineering, military planning, and science.

In addition, the Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory, together with the

Construction Engineering Research Laboratory and Geotechnical and Structures Laboratory,

developed solutions for damage caused by thawing permafrost at Thule Air Base in Greenland.

A new technology incorporating buried extruded foam insulation boards was used for about 18

percent of the runway during a repaving project in the summers of 2015 and 2016; the existing

white paint on the remainder of the runway was deemed sufficiently protective. New mitigation

techniques were proposed to stabilize critical buildings that had re-settled after previous

modifications and remodeling projects.

The Office of Naval Research (ONR) Arctic and Global Prediction Program is motivated

by the need to understand and predict the environment at a variety of time and space scales in

geographical areas of interest to DoD such as the Arctic. ONR is actively working to extend the

capability to skillfully predict environmental conditions and disruptive weather events to several

weeks and months in advance. The ability to provide useful forecasts of the operational

environment, such as the location of the sea ice edge, the characteristics and evolution of sea ice,

and the wind and wave conditions at the surface will be critical to enable safe and efficient naval

operations in the Arctic.

Future Efforts

DoD realizes the need to better understand rates of coastal erosion, natural and built flood

protection infrastructure, and inland and littoral flood planning and mitigation. To address this,

we are focusing on the following in current SERDP Statements of Need that communicate the

types of research we are interested in pursuing:

 Continued work to apply, evaluate, and improve scenarios and other tools for projecting

interactions of sea level rise, storm surge, precipitation/land-based flooding at U.S.

Military Installations.

 Research and products that fuse climate science, design, and decision sciences methods in

the context of current DoD/Service planning, operations, and management.
15

 Research on materials fragility and implications for infrastructure/building design.

ENSURE MISSION RESILIENCY

DoD is continuing to work with partner nations to understand and plan for future

potential mission impacts. This is a global issue and a number of Ministries of Defense across

the world are beginning to plan now for future impacts, as well. The Department has funded

cost-effective climate related MIL-to-MIL engagements between the Combatant Commands and

partner nations through the Defense Environmental International Cooperation (DEIC) program. 

DEIC projects have included:

 United States Africa Command (USAFRICOM) water security engagements in the Chad

Basin and Tanzania,

 United States Europe Command (USEUCOM) water workshop in the Czech Republic,

and

 United States Northern Command (USNORTHCOM) Arctic mission analysis with the

Scandinavian countries.

Within the Geographic Combatant Commands, there is a standard review process that

includes assessing manpower, operations, logistics, cyber, and resourcing operations through a

resilience lens. This review also includes ensuring that risk assessment and mitigation, diversity,

connectivity, reserves, and adequate redundancy are part of our major operations.

At United States Central Command, current and historic climate conditions are factored

into theater campaign plans, including water scarcity which is a recurring issue in the region. 

Warning indicators are part of the deliberate planning process. United States Northern

Command routinely includes severe weather-driven scenarios in training and exercise events and

has developed planning tools to guide operational response efforts to these scenarios. United

States Indo-Pacific Command (USINDOPACOM) focuses their training on readiness to respond

to and be resilient to natural disasters, as well as sustainable resource management toward

critical resources scarcity. This command has also established Pacific Augmentation Teams

around its Area of Responsibility to identify quickly immediate needs that can be met with

military assets.

United States Southern Command funded a National Preparedness Baseline Assessments

to include a gap analysis as well as a five-year plan to build capability and capacity within the

countries in the region. The collection of sub-regional data will provide a more nuanced

depiction of each country’s risks and vulnerabilities to disasters that may be influenced by

climate as well as their readiness to respond to them. This command will also seek appropriate

resources to fund assessments to determine the effects of its most serious and likely climaterelated risks.

At USAFRICOM, climate impacts and drivers of instability and factional conflict are

fully integrated into planning efforts. Planners must consider the impacts of drought and

desertification as high potential instability areas and how these two hazards impact bases and
16

missions. USAFRICOM’s capacity-building efforts are nested within its security cooperation

programs and will adapt to a variety of trends and projections.

The Arctic Security Forces Roundtable is USEUCOM’s engagement effort for nations

that have security forces within the Arctic region. It is a forum in which senior military leaders

from Arctic nations and other stakeholders confer and agree upon actions that can support

stability and peaceful commercial activity in the region. Lessons learned from our Arctic allies

and partners are used to enhance operational safety. In response to melting ice and newly

accessible areas of the Arctic, USEUCOM sponsors the ARCTIC ZEPHYR series of table-top

exercises focused on search and rescue operations in the Arctic.

III. Conclusions

This report represents a high-level assessment of the vulnerability of DoD installations to

five climate/weather impacts: recurrent flooding, drought, desertification, wildfires, and thawing

permafrost. From a resources perspective, DoD is incorporating climate resilience as a crosscutting consideration for our planning and decision-making processes, and not as a separate

program or specific set of actions.

Some impacts are closely related or intensify the effects of each other (e.g., drought,

desertification, wildfire), whereas others are somewhat related (e.g., coastal flooding driven by

changing sea level can impact river conveyance, compounding riverine flood levels for tidallyinfluenced rivers). Taken together, however, these impacts help describe the overall

vulnerabilities to DoD installations from changing future conditions.

About two-thirds of the 79 installations addressed in this report are vulnerable to current

or future recurrent flooding and more than one-half are vulnerable to current or future drought. 

About one-half are vulnerable to wildfires. It is important to note that areas subject to wildfire

may then experience serious mudslides or erosion when rains follow fires. Impacts are dispersed

around the country. Not surprisingly, impacts vary by region for coastal flooding, with greater

impacts to the East coast and Hawaii than the West coast. Desertification vulnerabilities are

limited to the sites on the list with arid soils; these are in California, New Mexico, and Nevada. 

Drought vulnerabilities are more widely dispersed across the country. Wildfire and recurrent

flooding impacts are the most widely dispersed.

For the most part, if an installation was currently vulnerable to a specific factor, it will

generally be deemed vulnerable to that same factor in the future. In a few instances, locations

considered not currently vulnerable were deemed to be vulnerable in the future. Seven

installations not currently vulnerable to impacts from recurrent flooding were estimated to be

vulnerable in the future. Five sites not currently vulnerable to drought were deemed vulnerable

in the future. Seven sites not currently vulnerable to wildfires were considered vulnerable in the

future. A number of installations are subject to more than one vulnerability, most notably

recurrent flooding, drought, and wildfires.

It is relevant to point out that “future” in this analysis means only 20 years in the future. 

Projected changes will likely be more pronounced at the mid-century mark; vulnerability
17

analyses to mid- and late-century would likely reveal an uptick in vulnerabilities (if adaptation

strategies are not implemented.)

The Department considers resilience in the installation planning and basing processes to

include impacts on built and natural infrastructure. This includes consideration of environmental

vulnerabilities in installation master planning, management of natural resources, design and

construction standards, utility systems/service, and emergency management operations.

Climate and environmental resilience efforts span all levels and lines of effort, and are

not framed as a separate program. Additionally, resources for assessing and responding to

climate impacts are provided within existing DoD missions, funds, and capabilities and

subsumed under existing risk management processes. The Military Departments provide most of

the resources for on-the-ground activities in the Geographic Combatant Commands.

Part IV. Appendix
APPENDIX - Report on Effects of a Changing Climate to the Department of Defense January 2019

ARMY

# Installation State Current Potential Current Potential Current Potential Current Potential Current Potential

1 Fort Greely AK No No No No No No No No Yes Yes

2 Reagan Operations Center-Huntsville AL Yes Yes No No No No No No No No

3 Pine Bluff Arsenal AR Yes Yes No No No No No No No No

4 Camp Roberts CA No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No

5 Military Ocean Terminal Concord (MOTCO) CA Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No No No

6 U.S. Southern Command Headquarters-Miami FL Yes Yes No No No No Yes Yes No No

7 Fort Gordon GA No No No No No No Yes Yes No No

8 Fort Shafter HI Yes Yes No No No No No No No No

9 Fort Detrick MD Yes Yes No No No No No No No No

10 Fort Meade MD Yes Yes No No No No No No No No

11 Lake City Army Ammunition Plant (AAP) MO Yes Yes No No No No No No No No

12 Fort Bragg NC No No No No No No Yes Yes No No

13 Military Ocean Terminal Sunny Point (MOTSU) NC Yes Yes No No No No No No No No

14 White Sands Missile Range NM No No Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No

15 Watervliet Arsenal NY Yes Yes No No No No No No No No

16 McAlester Army Ammunition Plant (AAP) OK Yes Yes No No No No No No No No

17 Holston Army Ammunition Plant (AAP) TN No Yes No No No No No No No No

18 Fort Hood TX Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes No No

19 Fort Belvoir VA Yes Yes No No No No No No No No

20 Radford Army Ammunition Plant (AAP) VA Yes Yes No No No No No No No No

Recurrent 

Flooding

Drought Desertification Wildfires

Thawing 

Permafrost

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

AIR FORCE

# Installation State Current Potential Current Potential Current Potential Current Potential Current Potential

21 Clear Air Force Station (AFS) AK No No No No No No Yes Yes No No

22 Joint Base (JB) Elmendorf Richardson AK Yes Yes No No No No Yes Yes No No

23 Maxwell Air Force Base (AFB) Gunter Annex AL No Yes No No No No No No NA NA

24 Beale Air Force Base (AFB) CA Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes NA NA

25 Vandenberg Air Force Base (AFB) CA Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes NA NA

26 Buckley Air Force Base (AFB) CO No Yes No No No No Yes Yes NA NA

27 Cheyenne Mountain Air Force Station (AFS) CO Yes Yes No Yes No No Yes Yes NA NA

28 Greeley Air National Guard Station (ANGS) CO Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes NA NA

29 Peterson Air Force Base (AFB) CO No No No Yes No No Yes Yes NA NA

30 Schriever Air Force Base (AFB) CO No No Yes Yes No No Yes Yes NA NA

31 Cape Canaveral Air Force Station (AFS) FL Yes Yes No No No No Yes Yes NA NA

32 Eglin Air Force Base (AFB) FL Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes NA NA

33 MacDill Air Force Base (AFB) FL Yes Yes No No No No Yes Yes NA NA

34 Patrick Air Force Base (AFB) FL Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes NA NA

35 Warner Robins Air Force Base (AFB) GA Yes Yes No No No No Yes Yes NA NA

36 Scott Air Force Base (AFB) IL Yes Yes No No No No Yes Yes NA NA

37 Barksdale Air Force Base (AFB) LA No Yes No No No No Yes Yes NA NA

38 McConnell Air Force Base (AFB) KS No No Yes Yes No No Yes Yes NA NA

39 Cape Cod Air Force Station (AFS) MA No No Yes Yes No No Yes Yes NA NA

40 Joint Base (JB) Andrews MD Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes NA NA

41 Selfridge Air National Guard Base (ANGB) MI No Yes No No No No Yes Yes NA NA

42 Whiteman Air Force Base (AFB) MO No No Yes Yes No No Yes Yes NA NA

43 Malmstrom Air Force Base (AFB) MT Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes NA NA

44 Cavalier Air Force Station (AFS) ND No No No No No No No No NA NA

45 Minot Air Force Base (AFB) ND Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No NA NA

46 Offutt Air Force Base (AFB) NE No No Yes Yes No No No No NA NA

47 Kirtland Air Force Base (AFB) NM No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes NA NA

48 Creech Air Force Base (AFB) NV No No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes NA NA

49 Nellis Air Force Base (AFB) NV No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes1 Yes1 NA NA

1Air Force Note: Answers only for installation sites within the main base. When associated ranges are included, answer is Yes.

Recurrent 

Flooding

Drought Desertification Wildfires

Thawing 

Permafrost

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

AIR FORCE

# Installation State Current Potential Current Potential Current Potential Current Potential Current Potential

50 Wright Patterson Air Force Base (AFB) OH No Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes NA NA

51 Tinker Air Force Base (AFB) OK Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes NA NA

52 Shaw Air Force Base (AFB) SC Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes NA NA

53 Joint Base (JB) San Antonio (aka JB Lackland / 

Sam Houston / Randolph) TX Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes NA NA

54 Hill Air Force Base (AFB) UT Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes1 Yes1 NA NA

55 Joint Base (JB) Langley-Eustis VA Yes Yes No No No No Yes Yes NA NA

56 F.E. Warren AFB WY Yes Yes No No No No Yes Yes NA NA

1Air Force Note: Answers only for installation sites within the main base. When associated ranges are included, answer is Yes.

Recurrent 

Flooding

Drought Desertification Wildfires

Thawing 

Permafrost

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

DEPARTMENT OF NAVY

# Installation State Current Potential Current Potential Current Potential Current Potential Current Potential

57 Naval Base (NB) Coronado CA Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No No No

58 Naval Base (NB) San Diego CA Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No No No

59 Joint Base (JB) Anacostia Bolling DC Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No No No

60 U.S. Naval Observatory / Naval Support Facility 

(NSF) Naval Observatory DC No No Yes Yes No No No No No No

61 Washington Navy Yard DC Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No No No

62 Naval Air Station (NAS) Key West FL Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No Yes No No

63 Naval Submarine Base (NSB) Kings Bay GA Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No Yes No No

64 Joint Base (JB) Pearl Harbor Hickam HI Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No Yes No No

65 Wahiawa Annex HI Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No Yes No No

66 Naval Support Facility (NSF) Indian Head MD Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No No No

67 Naval Air Station (NAS) Oceana VA Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No No No

68

Naval Support Activity (NSA) Hampton Roads - 

Northwest / (former) Naval Security Group 

Activity (NSGA) Chesapeake

VA Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No No No

69 Naval Station (NS) Norfolk VA Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No No No

70 Naval Support Activity (NSA) Hampton Roads VA Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No No No

71 Naval Magazine Indian Island WA Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No Yes No No

72 Naval Base (NB) Kitsap Bangor (Naval 

Submarine Base (NSB) Bangor) WA No No Yes Yes No No No Yes No No

73 U.S. Territory - Naval Base Guam Guam Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No Yes No No

74 U.S. Territory - Andersen AFB Guam Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No No No

Recurrent 

Flooding

Drought Desertification Wildfires

Thawing 

Permafrost

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

OTHER

# Installation State Service Current Potential Current Potential Current Potential Current Potential Current Potential

75 Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) 

Indianapolis IN DFAS No No No Yes No No No No No No

76 Defense Finance & Accounting Service (DFAS) 

Columbus OH DLA Yes Yes No Yes No No No No No No

77 Defense Distribution Depot (DDD) Susquehanna PA DLA Yes Yes No Yes No No No No No No

78 National Ground Intelligence Center (NGIC) 

Charlottesville VA NGA Yes2 Yes Yes Yes No No No No No No

79 Pentagon VA WHS No No No No No No No No No No

2Although the site did not experience flooding, flooding in the local area caused temporary loss of commercial water supply to the site. 

Recurrent 

Flooding

Drought Desertification Wildfires

Thawing 

Permafrost

5