Department of Defense

Climate-Related Risk to DoD Infrastructure

Initial Vulnerability Assessment Survey

(SLVAS) Report

January 2018

Office of the Under Secretary of Defense

for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics

As required by Senate Report 114-237, page 11 (TAB C), accompanying S. 2806 of the Military 

Construction, Veterans Affairs and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill for Fiscal Year 2017.

P00000019827

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 299-84 Filed 06/28/18 Page 1 of 32
January 2018

Table of Contents

Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................1

A Changing Climate, National Security and DoD – Why Do We Care? .......................................7

The SLVAS Development & Approach ........................................................................................11

Analysis, Trends and Conclusions.................................................................................................16

Post-Survey Analyses and Examples from Services .....................................................................17

Appendices

1 - Screening Level Vulnerability Assessment Survey (SLVAS) Questionnaire 

2 - SLVAS Welcome Page text, including climate variable definitions 

3 - Asset Category Definitions

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

Defense is approximately $105,000 in Fiscal Years 2015-2017. This 

includes $65,000 in expenses and $40,000 in DoD labor. 

Cost estimate generated on May 3, 2017 RefID: A-217FC5B

P00000019828

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 299-84 Filed 06/28/18 Page 2 of 32
January 2018 1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Background. Senate Report 114-67 accompanying the fiscal year 2016 Military Construction, Veterans 

Affairs and Related Agencies appropriations bill included language directing the DoD to include an 

assessment of coastal erosion and potential flooding risks in the siting of proposed military construction 

projects. In a July 23, 2015, report to Congress regarding the security implications of climate-related 

risks, the Department noted that is has directed a global screening level assessment to determine 

installation vulnerabilities to climate-related security risks with the goal of identifying serious 

vulnerabilities and developing necessary adaptation strategies. The Committee directed the Secretary of 

Defense to report to the congressional defense committees not later than 120 days after enactment of this 

act, describing the results or the status of the vulnerability assessment, the adaptation strategies developed 

for vulnerable installations, and the estimated costs associated with implementing these strategies.

The Department of Defense (DoD) has significant experience in planning for and managing risk and 

uncertainty. The effects of climate and extreme weather represent additional risks to incorporate into the 

Department’s various planning and risk management processes. Various studies have identified a broad 

range of effects that could impact our ability to fully execute the Defense mission of protecting and 

maintaining the security interests of the United States at home and around the world. 

Survey Process. To identify DoD installations with vulnerabilities, the Office of the Assistant 

Secretary of Defense for Energy, Installations and Environment [OASD(EI&E)], initiated a preliminary 

Screening Level Vulnerability Assessment Survey (SLVAS) of DoD sites worldwide. 

The web-based survey was developed in concert with the Military Services, Defense Logistics Agency 

and Washington Headquarters Services, as the infrastructure owning/managing components. Qualitative 

survey questions were framed to begin to identify sites with current weather-related effects and where 

more comprehensive assessment may be needed in order to identify potential effects of extreme weather. 

The survey questions focused on observed effects from past severe weather events (which may be 

indicative of more frequent and/or more severe future conditions), and the proximity of site acreage to 

any flood-prone areas. The survey asked respondents to identify any negative effects they may have 

experienced from extreme weather effects, both on the assets on the DoD site itself as well as any 

observed effects on similar assets in the surrounding community that provided supporting services (e.g., 

utilities, transportation, emergency response) for the DoD site. These included:

• Flooding due to storm surge

• Flooding due to non-storm surge events (e.g., rain, snow, sleet, ice, river overflow)

• Extreme temperatures (both hot and cold)

• Wind

• Drought

• Wildfire

The asset categories evaluated included:

- Airfield Operations (on and off-site) - Training Areas/Ranges (on-site)

- Piers/Waterfront Services (on and off-site) - Personnel Support (on-site)

- Command, Control, Communications, - HQ Buildings (on-site)

Computers, Intelligence, Surveillance and - Information Systems (on and off-site)

P00000019829

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 299-84 Filed 06/28/18 Page 3 of 32
January 2018 2

Reconnaissance or C4ISR (on-site) - Energy Infrastructure (on and off-site)

- Fuel Infrastructure (on and off-site) - Logistics/supply (on and off-site)

- Transportation Infrastructure (on and off-site) - Emergency Services (on and off-site)

- Water/Wastewater Systems (on and off-site) - HVAC Systems (on and off-site)

- Environmental Restoration sites (on-site) - Natural Resources (on-site)

- Historic/Cultural Resources (on-site) - Housing (on and off-site)

The survey included the option to indicate that no assets had ever been negatively affected, the inability to 

determine if any assets had been affected, or a narrative block to describe other assets not included in the 

above list that had been negatively affected. The SLVAS questionnaire is provided in Appendix 1.

The SLVAS was completed for all primary installations and associated sites worldwide (over 3,500 

individual sites) in the initial year that ended September 2015. Sites were identified based on the DoD 

Real Property Database and do not include U.S. Army Corps of Engineer (USACE) Civil Works sites as 

they fall under different oversight authorities. 

Analysis, Trends and Conclusions. The SLVAS responses yielded a wide range of qualitative 

information. The highest number of reported effects resulted from drought (782) followed closely by 

wind (763) and non-storm surge related flooding (706). About 10% of sites indicated being affected by 

extreme temperatures (351), while flooding due to storm surge (225) and wildfire (210) affected about 6% 

of the sites reporting. Nearly 50% of sites (1,684) reported they had no effects to any assets from the 

effects. The geographic dispersion of sites reporting negative effects from one or more effects was very 

broad and was very similar to those reporting no effects at all. This may have more to do with the nature 

of a qualitative survey completed by hundreds of different users than it did the actual sites themselves. 

The asset categories most reported as having one or more effects in the past were: airfield operations, 

followed by transportation infrastructure, energy infrastructure, training/range facilities, and 

water/wastewater systems to round out the top five. Logistics/supply operations ranked last in reported 

effects. 

The survey responses provide a preliminary qualitative picture of assets currently affected by severe 

weather events (e.g., storm surge, wildfires, high winds) as well as an indication of assets that may be 

affected by sea level rise in the future.

The maps below provide results for U.S. sites only. The nine maps contain dots for each site that has 

indicated effects from:

• Map 1 – flooding from storm surge

• Map 2 – flooding from non-storm surge events

• Map 3 – extreme temperatures

• Map 4 – drought

• Map 5 – wildfire

• Map 6 – wind

• Map 7 – two or more factors

• Map 8 – no factors

P00000019830

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 299-84 Filed 06/28/18 Page 4 of 32
January 2018 3

Map 1 - Sites that Indicated Flooding Effects from Storm Surge 

Map 2 – Sites that Indicated Flooding Effects from Non-Storm Surge Events (e.g., Rain, 

Snow, Sleet, Ice, River Overflow)

P00000019831

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 299-84 Filed 06/28/18 Page 5 of 32
January 2018 4

Map 3 - Sites that Indicated Effects from Extreme Temperatures (Hot and Cold) 

Map 4 - Sites that Indicated Effects from Drought

P00000019832

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 299-84 Filed 06/28/18 Page 6 of 32
January 2018 5

Map 5 - Sites that Indicated Effects from Wildfire

Map 6 - Sites that Indicated Effects from Wind

P00000019833

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 299-84 Filed 06/28/18 Page 7 of 32
January 2018 6

Map 7 - Sites that Indicated Effects from Multiple Vulnerability Areas (Flooding, Extreme 

Temperatures, Wind, Drought, Wildfire) 

Map 8 - Sites that Indicated No Effects from Previous Events in the Vulnerability Areas

P00000019834

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 299-84 Filed 06/28/18 Page 8 of 32
January 2018 7

A CHANGING CLIMATE, NATIONAL SECURITY AND DOD – WHY DO WE CARE?

The nature of our mission. DoD looks at climate through the lens of its mission. From that 

perspective, changes in climate affect national security in several ways. Changes in climate can 

potentially shape the environment in which we operate and the missions we are required to do. 

The safety and suitability of our infrastructure. Our warfighters require bases from which to 

deploy, on which to train, or to live when they are not deployed. If extreme weather makes our critical 

facilities unusable or necessitate costly or manpower-intensive work-arounds, that is an unacceptable 

impact. Beginning in 2014, DoD began the three-phased screening-level survey approach (pilot sites, 

coastal/tidal, remaining enduring sites) that is the subject of this report. A summary of the screening-level 

survey development and application are provided in the next section of the report.

The SLVAS was developed to take an initial look at where our assets have been affected from climate. 

Because the information collected from these surveys is highly qualitative, it is best used as an initial 

indicator of where a more in-depth assessment may be warranted. The SLVAS is the first step in an ongoing process to manage the risks associated with climate to the DoD mission, installations, and ranges.

P00000019835

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 299-84 Filed 06/28/18 Page 9 of 32
January 2018 8

Examples of extreme weather events and their effects follow.

Army 

Fort Irwin, CA

In August 2013, a late summer monsoon rain storm 

struck Fort Irwin. This storm brought several inches of 

rain in a short period of time. Storm water flowed into 

the main cantonment area from the mountains around the 

post causing great damage to property. More than 160 

buildings in the cantonment area were flooded and 

sections of Fort Irwin’s extensive training area also 

sustained major storm damage. Training structures were 

toppled and supporting electronic target and 

communications systems were damaged.

Weeks of effort were required to clean storm debris from 

the cantonment area’s roads and parking lots. Soldiers, 

Civilians, and contractors all pitched in clear debris from 

roads and buildings, and. Many buildings were closed 

for repair for months.

West Point Military Reservation, NY

While less than 5 percent of the West Point Military 

Reservation is within 0-3 feet of mean sea level, that 

portion of the installation includes transportation and 

wastewater treatment infrastructure. Due to its 

physical/geographic location, flooding has occurred at 

West Point numerous times in the past 30 years. During 

Superstorm Sandy, some sections of the installation 

reported significant inundation.

Wind Damage at Multiple Installations

Multiple Army installations, from coastal (e.g., Military Ocean Terminal Concord) to inland locations 

(e.g., Oklahoma National Guard), reported impacts from high winds. The most common impacts from 

wind-related events included damage to above-ground electric/power infrastructure (especially power 

lines) and to roofs of buildings. 

Photos of flooding in the training area at Fort 

Irwin, CA in August 2013 (US Army Photo)

Flooding in the cantonment area at Fort Irwin, 

CA in August 2013 (US Army Photo)

P00000019836

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 299-84 Filed 06/28/18 Page 10 of 32
January 2018 9

Navy

U.S. Naval Academy, Annapolis, MD

Due to impacts from weather events like Hurricane Isabel and storm surge, the U.S. Naval Academy 

(USNA) in Annapolis was one of the first installations to be analyzed for vulnerabilities to climate 

change, focusing on the importance of infrastructure utilities including water, power, heating, and 

cooling. This analysis demonstrated the high dependence of building systems on utilities and 

transportation networks. 

Naval Weapons Station Earle, NJ

On October 29, 2012, Hurricane Sandy struck the east coast of the United States as the second costliest 

hurricane in U.S. history, resulting in $71B in damage. Naval Weapons Station Earle was subject to high 

winds, storm surge and intense precipitation, resulting in $24 million in damages to their 2.9 mile long 

pier complex. Nearly eight miles of water and sewer piping were destroyed at the base and particularly 

along the pier. 

 

USNA academic buildings and athletic fields in 

aftermath of Hurricane Isabel

(http://www.naany.org/Hurricane_Isabel_strikes_USNA

_2.htm)

USNA flood damage due to storm surge

(http://icons.wunderground.com/data/wximagenew/a/

awalex/0.jpg)

(U.S. Navy Photo)

P00000019837

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 299-84 Filed 06/28/18 Page 11 of 32
January 2018 10

Air Force 

Cape Lisburne Seawall Replacement 

Arctic sea ice is in constant change, growing in the fall and 

winter and receding in the spring and summer. The proximity 

of Air Force long range radar on the North Slope of Alaska to 

the Arctic shoreline makes them vulnerable to accelerated 

shoreline erosion from the duration and extent of sea ice

fluctuations, increasing water temperatures, thawing of 

permafrost soils, and the effects of wave action. 

The rock seawall at the Cape Lisburne Long Rand Radar 

Station on the northwest Alaska coast line protects the 

installation’s gravel airstrip from tidal and storm driven wave action. Over the past decade the runway’s 

seawall has been depleted and eroded by wave action and extreme weather events. The damaged rock 

reinforcement became ineffective, and the 5,450 linear foot wall had to be replaced at a cost of $46.8 

million. 

Waldo Canyon Fire, Peterson AFB and the U.S. Air Force Academy

When wildfires occur, they can be devastating to military 

installations and local communities, causing loss of life, 

property damage, destruction of habitat, and severe water 

quality impacts. In the summer 2012, the Waldo Canyon 

Fire, one of the most destructive wildfires in Colorado 

history, consumed over 18,000 acres, threatening Peterson 

AFB and the U.S. Air Force Academy and costing over $16 

million to battle. Air Force resources including Air National 

Guard personnel, ground vehicles, and C-130s loaded with 

Modular Airborne Firefighting Systems (MAFFS), a system 

of pressurized tanks and pumps that can drop 3,000 gallons of water or fire retardant within seconds, were 

mobilized and diverted from normal operations to support the U.S. Forest Service in combating fires in 

Colorado and across other states in the region. 

(U.S. Air Force photo)

(U.S. Air Force photo)

P00000019838

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 299-84 Filed 06/28/18 Page 12 of 32
January 2018 11

THE SLVAS DEVELOPMENT & APPROACH

The DoD maintains over 500 installations across the globe with thousands of associated individual sites 

that vary in size, configuration, and distance from each other. Given the sheer number of sites in its 

portfolio and the desire to understand where more comprehensive assessment may be needed, the 

OASD(EI&E) developed and initiated a preliminary screening level assessment survey of its worldwide 

sites. 

Working with the Military Services, Defense Logistics Agency, and Washington Headquarters Services, 

as the infrastructure owning/managing components, and using data and unique identifiers from DoD’s 

Real Property Assets Database (RPAD), an on-line survey instrument – housed in a database and accessed 

through a password-protected web-based interface – was developed by OASD(EI&E). 

The survey questions focused on observed effects from past severe weather events (which may be 

indicative of more frequent and/or more severe future conditions), and the proximity of site acreage to 

any flood-prone areas. The survey asked for the identification of the negative effects experienced from 

effects, both on the DoD site assets as well as any observed effects on similar assets in the surrounding 

community that provided supporting services (e.g., utilities, transportation, emergency response) for the 

DoD site. These included:

• Flooding due to storm surge

• Flooding due to non-storm surge events (e.g., rain, snow, sleet, ice, river overflow)

• Extreme temperatures (both hot and cold)

• Wind

• Drought

• Wildfire

The asset categories evaluated included:

• Airfield Operations (on and off-site) • Emergency Services (on and off-site)

• Training Areas/Ranges/Facilities (on-site) • Water/Wastewater Systems (on and off-site)

• Piers/Waterfront Services (on and off-site) • HVAC Systems (on and off-site)

• Information Systems (on and off-site) • Environmental Restoration sites (on-site)

• C4ISR (on-site) • Natural Resources (on-site)

• Energy Infrastructure (on and off-site) • Historic/Cultural Resources (on-site)

• Fuel Infrastructure (on and off-site) • Housing (on and off-site)

• Logistics/supply (on and off-site) • HQ Buildings (on-site)

• Transportation Infrastructure & Routes (on 

and off-site)

• Personnel Support (on-site)

The survey also allowed personnel to indicate if no assets had ever been affected or if they were unable to 

determine whether or not assets had been affected, and to describe other assets not included in the above 

list that had been affected. The SLVAS questionnaire is provided in Appendix 1, the SLVAS website 

Welcome page text including climate variable definitions is in Appendix 2, and asset category definitions 

are contained in Appendix 3.

Surveys were released through three phases to ensure that the survey questions and asset categories were 

relevant and the survey instrument itself was easy to use. A pilot phase with 10 sites took place 

P00000019839

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 299-84 Filed 06/28/18 Page 13 of 32
January 2018 12

November and December 2013, with a second phase, focused on the roughly 500 sites within two 

kilometers of coastal or tidal areas, starting in March 2014 with a 90-day completion date. The final 

phase for the remainder of the worldwide sites was initiated in September 2014 with one year for 

completion. Refinements to the asset categories and the survey instrument were made throughout this 

process.

The development of the survey questions, topics, and contents is described in the sections below. 

Scoping and Assumptions 

Process

OASD(EI&E) commenced meetings of a small, dedicated group in mid-2013. There was early 

recognition within the group that assessments of this type would ideally be integrated into existing plans 

and processes. A review of the Defense Critical Infrastructure Program efforts under the Joint Mission 

Assurance Assessment Program helped to scope the screening baseline and also pointed to a potential 

follow on tool for future assessments. 

Three groups of questions emerged: 

1. What is the site’s current vulnerability? What has happened in the past that may have affected the 

site?

2. Does the site have the capability to assess future vulnerability? Does it have GIS capability and 

accurate elevation data?

3. If the site has the ability to assess its future vulnerability, what does the future vulnerability look 

like? 

There was acknowledgement that evaluating effects from past events would be a good starting point as 

the availability and quality of reliable elevation data and modeling capabilities would vary across 

installations. The decision was made to proceed without finalized regional sea level projections or 

extreme water level scenarios and instead to utilize an increasing 3 feet scale of mean sea level rise –

What might be negatively impacted/degraded with an increase of up to 3 feet in mean sea level? 

Additional questions requested the same information for 0-6, 0-9, and 0-12 feet. Estimating through this 

screening process how many acres are within a flood zone, what land percentage that represents, and what 

might be affected or degraded with that increase, allows the data to be collected for future use.

Survey question development

Several assumptions were retained throughout the survey development: 

• Maintain use of Real Property and Site Unique Identifier (RPSUID) throughout the process so 

data can be tagged to other databases

• Address severe weather risk management issues

• Keep the question simple – ‘yes’ or ‘no’ relative to effects; if ‘no,’ move to the next section

• Focus on current vulnerabilities

• Include both on-site and off-site effects

• Have a representative set of asset categories to include facilities, infrastructure, operations, and 

associated services

• Recognize that resultant survey responses will not lead to directly actionable information

P00000019840

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 299-84 Filed 06/28/18 Page 14 of 32
January 2018 13

• Survey will not include USACE Civil Works sites as they fall under different oversight 

authorities. 

Several refinements and additions were made during survey development and the pilot, including: 

• Need to distinguish an ‘installation’ from a ‘site’ (see next section)

• Request historical event information (e.g., flood height, wind speed, etc.)

• Request information about FEMA flood zones on site (e.g., where are FEMA maps of designated 

areas available)

• Add ‘extreme temperatures’ (suggestion related to concerns about effects on information 

systems) to list of climate effects and leave out definitions for ‘hot’ or ‘cold’ as there could be 

different thresholds depending upon location 

• Add subcategories of ‘rain,’ ‘ice/sleet,’ ‘snow,’ and ‘river overflow’ to the non-storm surge 

events category

• Add ‘natural resources’ and ‘historical/cultural resources’ (suggestion from pilot site) to asset 

category list

• Request information regarding whether survey was a duplicative effort and the level of effort to 

complete survey

• Request data sources used to complete survey

• Add Command level categorization for easier data filtering

Other topics were discussed and determined best assessed at later stages, such as questions relative to:

• Lost mission days

• Asset criticality level

• Damage cost estimates

• Humidity

• Positive effects

• Human health aspects

• Impact magnitude or severity and vulnerability ratings 

Installation versus site distinction

As noted above, DoD maintains over 500 installations worldwide, each composed of one or more sites. 

In some cases, a site can be under the control of an installation but be located hundreds of miles away; in 

others, multiple contiguous sites represent one installation. For the purposes of assigning tasks and 

searching for sites within the database, the sites were nested under the installations (called Primary 

Installations within SLVAS). Since each site has a unique identifier, an RPSUID, personnel completing 

the surveys could validate the individual site and associated answers. SLVAS only looked at enduring 

sites, not contingency bases.

DoD sites are defined as the physical (geographic) location that is, or was owned by, leased to, or 

otherwise possessed by a DoD Component on behalf of the United States. Each site (except for leased) is 

assigned to a single installation. A site may exist in one of three forms:

• Land only, where no facilities are present and where the land consists of either a single land 

parcel or two or more contiguous land parcels.

P00000019841

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 299-84 Filed 06/28/18 Page 15 of 32
January 2018 14

• Facility or facilities only, where the underlying land is neither owned nor controlled by the 

government. A stand-alone facility can be a site. If a facility is not a stand-alone facility, it must 

be assigned to a site.

• Land, and all the facilities thereon, where the land consists of either a single land parcel or two 

or more contiguous land parcels.

An installation is defined as a base, camp, post, station, yard, center, homeport facility for any ship, or 

other activity under the jurisdiction of the DoD, including any leased facility, which is located within any 

of the States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, American Samoa, the Virgin 

Islands, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, or Guam. Such term does not include any 

facility used primarily for civil works, rivers and harbors projects, or flood control projects. In the case of 

an activity in a foreign country, an installation is any property under the operational control of the 

Secretary of a Military Department (MILDEP) or the Secretary of Defense, without regard to the duration 

of operational control. For real property accountability, an installation must consist of one or more real 

property sites.

Survey Instrument

Account Set Up

For security and integrity of information, user accounts and access to the database can be completed only 

after entering a Component specific registration code on the on-line survey webpage and setting up an 

account. The SLVAS website includes several tabs in addition to the Home page: 

o Surveys - the launching page to create and manage site surveys; 

o Project Contacts - names and contact information for the SLVAS, by Component; 

o My Profile – ability to maintain profile and change password; and

o Resources – help documents, tutorials, and links to the Defense Installation Spatial Data 

Infrastructure (DISDI) Portal or Component equivalent Portals. 

SLVAS Questionnaire

The SLVAS questionnaire (Appendix 1) is divided into three sections. Six sets of questions relate 

to Current Vulnerability (Section 1); one set of questions relates to the Implications of Increased 

Mean Sea Level (Section 2). Three questions relate to Background Information. Appendix 2 includes 

the SLVAS website Welcome page text and the climate variable definitions that should be utilized for 

completion of Sections 1 and 2. 

The Background Information section is the first set of questions. It requests information regarding the 

vertical datum used for elevation measurements, the percentage of the installation within the 100 and 500 

year flood zones as determined by FEMA, and the tools / resources / methodologies used to determine 

each of these. 

Users refer to the asset category definitions in Appendix 3 as they complete Sections 1 and 2. Section 1 is 

a series of six parallel sets of questions about whether a site has been affected by flooding due to storm 

surge, flooding to due to non-storm surge events (rain, ice/sleet, snow or river overflow), extreme 

temperatures (hot or cold), drought, wildfire, and wind. Each of these is defined at the beginning of the 

section. If a site has been affected, then they are asked to identify what type of asset was affected. 

P00000019842

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 299-84 Filed 06/28/18 Page 16 of 32
January 2018 15

Training areas, ranges, and test facilities comprise one of the categories. Finally, the site is asked how 

they responded to the effects in the short term and if any long term changes were made to prevent/reduce 

future effects. 

Several features were developed to aid survey completion. A user can “transfer” a survey to another user 

within the same Component for review and/or completion. The “copy” functionality lets a user complete 

and finalize one site survey and copy the results to additional sites; the user can then modify and finalize 

those site surveys. The “exempt” feature allows users to exempt a site from survey completion for one of 

two reasons: 1) the site was not deemed a high priority for screening purposes at this time (often used 

when sites were close to closure) or 2) the site was covered under a different site; in some cases, one 

completed survey could represent multiple contiguous sites. 

Phased Survey Approach

Surveys were released through three phases to ensure that the survey questions and asset categories were 

relevant and the survey instrument itself was easy to use. Refinements to the asset categories and the 

survey instrument were made throughout this process.

Phase 1: 10 Pilot Sites 

Ten pilot sites were selected by the Services to validate and provide feedback on the survey content and 

execution process in November-December 2013. Refinements were made to improve the user experience 

for Phase 2. The pilot sites are listed by Service below. 

• Air Force

o Keesler AFB

o Langley AFB

o Patrick AFB

• Army 

o Aberdeen Proving Ground

o Fort Lee 

o Newport USARC 

o Oregon ARNG 

• Navy

o CBC Gulfport 

o NAVSUBASE New London

o NS Mayport 

Phase 2: Sites within 2 km of a Coastal/Tidal Zone

On March 7, 2014, the Military Departments were requested via memorandum to complete surveys for 

those sites deemed to fall within 2 km of a coastal or tidal zone, roughly 500 sites, within 90 days. 

Phase 3: Remaining Sites World-Wide

On September 2, 2014, the Military Departments were requested via memorandum to complete surveys 

for the remainder of primary installations and associated sites worldwide with one year for completion. 

Washington Headquarters Service and the Defense Logistics Agency were tasked on 17 September. 

P00000019843

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 299-84 Filed 06/28/18 Page 17 of 32
January 2018 16

ANALYSIS, TRENDS AND CONCLUSIONS 

The survey responses are maintained in a database accessible to registered users. As described below, 

Services or Components can sort the responses through a number of different reports to support analyses

at different levels and for different purposes.

SLVAS Reports

Those with elevated survey privileges can run reports for their Component in Microsoft Word or Excel. 

The reports are a combination of content-driven and administrative reports and many are intended to be 

one mechanism for the Components to determine overarching trends (if any) from the survey responses. 

The reports range from high-level, narrative-style reports (e.g., High-Level Survey Summary) to multiplesheet Excel spreadsheets (e.g., Asset Categories vs Vulnerability Areas or Sites vs Vulnerability Areas 

Reports). All reports can be filtered to show only the desired Components and report elements. A list of 

available reports follows. 

o High-Level Survey Summary o Survey Completion Status

o Statistical Summary Chart with Filter Capability o Exempt Sites

o Current Vulnerabilities Chart o User Community

o Current Vulnerabilities Frequency o Site Acreage 0-3 Feet of Mean Sea Level

o Current Vulnerabilities List o Site acreage within FEMA Flood zones

o Asset Categories vs Vulnerability Areas Report o Final Survey Questions

o Sites vs Vulnerability Areas Report o No Impacts by Site and Vulnerability 

Report

Qualitative Results

The SLVAS responses yielded a wide range of qualitative information. The highest number of reported 

effects resulted from drought (782) followed closely by wind (763) and non-storm surge related flooding 

(706). About 10% of sites indicated being affected by extreme temperatures (351), while flooding due to 

storm surge (225) and wildfire (210) affected about 6% of the sites reporting. Nearly 50% of sites (1,684) 

reported they had no impacts to any assets from the effects. The geographic dispersion of sites reporting 

effects from one or more effects was very broad and was very similar to those reporting no effects at all. 

This may have more to do with the nature of a qualitative survey completed by hundreds of different users 

than it did the actual sites themselves. The following assets reported one or more effects: airfield 

operations, transportation infrastructure, energy infrastructure, training/range facilities, and 

water/wastewater systems to round out the top five. Logistics/supply operations ranked last in reported.

POST-SURVEY ANALYSES 

The following section provides feedback received from the Army, Navy, Marine Corps and Air Force 

regarding the results of the survey and future plans.

Army 

The SLVAS responses, while anecdotal in nature, indicated a wide variation of reported effects on 

installation-level assets from flooding, extreme temperatures, wind, drought, and wildfire. Installations 

can use their SLVAS responses as they prepare future updates of their installation-specific plans and 

planning processes.

P00000019844

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 299-84 Filed 06/28/18 Page 18 of 32
January 2018 17

To enable more consistent evaluation of potential effects, the Army is modifying a USACE Civil Works 

vulnerability assessment tool that includes historic data and projections from authoritative sources. It is 

contingent that installations will use the tool in conjunction with planning guidance being developed by 

HQ Army. This will assist installations in: (a) consistently assessing their vulnerabilities for specific 

functional areas (e.g., natural resources, water supply) and (b) integrating considerations related to those 

vulnerabilities into their installation-level plans (e.g., real property master plans, water resource 

management plans, integrated natural resources management plans). Installations will incorporate those 

considerations in their next scheduled plan updates. By using consistent authoritative datasets and 

planning guidance, Army Commands will be able to prioritize potential future installation-level actions to 

meet their respective mission requirements, and HQ Army entities will be able to identify and address 

potential Army-wide issues.

Navy

Of the 761 Navy sites surveyed in SLVAS, 73% of the sites indicated some sort of effect from past 

flooding, extreme temperatures, drought, wildfire or wind events. The most prevalent factor was wind 

events, followed by non-storm surge flooding and flooding due to storm surge. 

Of the 292 Navy sites surveyed that are located within 2km of the coastline, 45% of the sites indicated 

some sort of effect from storm surge and non-storm surge flooding in the past. Navy plans to integrate 

the information into its planning and assessment processes. 

U.S. Marine Corps 

Data gathered during the SLVAS survey supported a validation that some U.S. Marine Corps (USMC) 

sites have experienced impacts from flooding, winds, extreme temperatures, drought, and wildfires. From 

the SLVAS responses, the impact categories receiving the highest frequency of occurrences are training 

areas/ranges/facilities and HVAC systems from extreme temperatures. With a slightly reduced number of 

occurrences, flooding is impacting training areas/ranges/facilities and transportation infrastructure, and 

wind is impacting housing.

The USMC has provided access to USMC SLVAS results to several USMC communities of interest. The 

SLVAS responses by USMC installations provide information that may be helpful when conducting more

detailed vulnerability assessments. The USMC continues to integrate the SLVAS information and 

additional available climate resilience considerations into its existing assessment and planning processes 

to manage risks to mission. The quality of these recurring assessments/plans improves iteratively, as the 

science and understanding of climate also improves.

Air Force

Although the Air Force (AF) already considers 

weather, natural hazards and other environmental 

factors during individual mission and installation 

planning efforts, SLVAS provided a tool to begin to 

qualitatively understand vulnerabilities to severe 

weather in a more holistic fashion. Of the 1,531 AF 

sites (which includes many geographically-separated 

assets and not just installations), 60% reported having 

experienced some effects resulting from past flooding, 

extreme temperature, drought, wildfire or wind events. 

In very few cases did data show effects to 

be so extreme as to cripple the operational 

mission of a Base. Examples are:

• Homestead Air Force Base, FL from 

Hurricane Andrew (1992) which at the 

time proved to be the most destructive 

hurricane in U.S. history.

• Langley Air Force Base, VA from 

Hurricane Isabel (2003) which was the 

costliest disaster in the history of 

Virginia.

P00000019845

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 299-84 Filed 06/28/18 Page 19 of 32
January 2018 18

The single most prevalent factor was drought which accounted for 42% of all reported effects, followed 

by non-storm surge flooding and wind at 19% each. For the majority of reported severe weather events, 

bases reported emergency preparedness actions and procedures were successful in mitigating impacts on 

mission and personnel. That being said, mitigation becomes more difficult, and cumulative impact to 

missions more crippling, with increasing frequency and/or magnitude of severe weather events.

SLVAS responses also showed 78 AF sites to be within 2 kilometers of a coast, and a third of these 

indicated effects due to storm surge flooding. This demographic includes half a dozen major installations 

as well as numerous mission-critical communications and radar sites that are within 0 to 6 feet of sea 

level.

The AF continues to update policies and 

procedures to include consideration for climate 

resiliency. One example of an updated procedure 

deals with how the AF plans and develops each 

base. Similar to local government comprehensive 

or master plans, AF installation development plans 

(IDPs) are an integral part of the comprehensive 

planning process that guide development on AF 

installations. The concepts and principles of 

sustainable planning are mandatory elements in the 

AF comprehensive planning process, and IDPs 

have evolved to include Sustainability Development Indicators (SDIs). SDIs and their associated metrics 

serve to integrate sustainability into the planning process, and can be used as measurement and predictive 

tools along with other information to inform the planning process and assess the impacts of planning 

actions. The 18 SDI categories used by the AF address a number of sustainability areas, from energy to 

water to solid waste to facilities and space optimization. Climate vulnerability has been added to the 

External Sustainability category. Example climate metrics address factors such as flooding, temperature 

rise, changing precipitation patterns, water supply stress, droughts, etc. Wherever possible, data collected 

through SLVAS is being incorporated in these climate metrics.

P00000019846

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 299-84 Filed 06/28/18 Page 20 of 32
Appendix 1 - Screening Level Vulnerability Assessment Survey (SLVAS) Questionnaire

January 2018 Appendix 1 - 1

SCREENING LEVEL VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT SURVEY

- SAMPLE –

[Type of Answer]

Background Information

This section requests information regarding what vertical datum is used for elevation 

measurements and what percentage of your installation is within the 100 and 500 year 

flood zones as determined by FEMA. 

1.a For elevation measurements what vertical datum do you use: e.g., NAVD-88, local 

benchmark, other? [TEXT]

1.b What percentage of your installation falls within the 100 year flood zone as determined by 

FEMA? [Choices: %, N/A – this site is not within the US; Unknown]

Please describe the tools/resources/methodologies used to determine the percentage, or 

describe why you were not able to determine the percentage. 

1.c What percentage of your installation falls within the 500 year flood zone as determined by 

FEMA? [Choices: %, N/A – this site is not within the US; Unknown]

Please describe the tools/resources/methodologies used to determine the percentage, or 

describe why you were not able to determine the percentage. [TEXT]

Section 1: Current Vulnerability – Flooding Due to Storm Surge

This section focuses on the impacts of flooding due to storm surge --- the submersion of 

normally dry land due to an unusual increase in water level due to a storm, over and above 

the predicted astronomical tides (ocean or tidally influenced body of water). 

1.a Has your installation been negatively impacted by flooding due to storm surge? [Yes/No]

1.b When was your installation negatively impacted by flooding due to storm surge? 

Please list years/times within ~the past 30 years. 

For the worst flooding incident, please list the highest inundation level. [TEXT]

1.c For the worst storm surge incident, what was impacted/degraded? [click checkbox(es)]

ON-SITE/DoD Controlled OFF-SITE/Community Assets

Airfield Operations: Airport: 

Training Areas/Ranges/Facilities: 

Piers/Waterfront Services: Piers/Waterfront Services: 

Information Systems: Information Systems: 

C4ISR: 

Energy Infrastructure: Energy Infrastructure: 

Fuel Infrastructure: Fuel Infrastructure: 

Logistics Supply: Logistics Supply: 

Transportation Infrastructure & Routes: Transportation Infrastructure & Routes: 

Emergency Services: Emergency Services: 

Water/Wastewater Systems: Water/Wastewater Systems: 

HVAC Systems: HVAC Systems: 

Environmental Restoration Sites: 

P00000019847

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 299-84 Filed 06/28/18 Page 21 of 32
Appendix 1 - Screening Level Vulnerability Assessment Survey (SLVAS) Questionnaire

January 2018 Appendix 1 - 2

Natural Resources: 

Historic/Cultural Resources: 

Housing: Housing: 

HQ Building(s): 

Personnel Support: 

No Impacts: No Impacts: 

Not able to determine: Not able to determine: 

Other: Other: 

If you selected Other, please provide a description below. [TEXT]

1.d How did your installation respond to this degradation in the short-term? 

Were any long-term changes made to prevent/reduce future impacts? [TEXT]

Section 1: Current Vulnerability – Flooding and Other Impacts due to Non-Storm Surge 

Events

This section focuses on flooding and other impacts caused by non-storm surge events (e.g., 

rain, ice/sleet, snow) that may result in adverse impacts, such as flooding due to a large 

amount or extended duration of heavy precipitation, on-site or upstream events that causes 

non-tidal river overflow (precipitation or melting), OR other impacts such as collapse of 

structures due to excessive weight of snow/ice. 

1.e Has your installation been negatively impacted by flooding and other impacts caused by nonstorm surge events? [Yes/No]

If yes, what caused the negative impacts? [click checkbox(es)]

Rain

Ice/Sleet

Snow

River overflow

1.f When was your installation negatively impacted by these events? 

Please list years/times within ~the past 30 years. 

For the worst damage caused by an event, please list any data relative to amount of 

precipitation (e.g., inches), height of flooding, duration of precipitation, etc. [TEXT]

1.g For the worst damage caused by an event, what was impacted/degraded? [click checkbox(es)]

ON-SITE/DoD Controlled OFF-SITE/Community Assets

Airfield Operations: Airport: 

Training Areas/Ranges/Facilities: 

Piers/Waterfront Services: Piers/Waterfront Services: 

Information Systems: Information Systems: 

C4ISR: 

Energy Infrastructure: Energy Infrastructure: 

Fuel Infrastructure: Fuel Infrastructure: 

Logistics Supply: Logistics Supply: 

Transportation Infrastructure & Routes: Transportation Infrastructure & Routes: 

Emergency Services: Emergency Services: 

Water/Wastewater Systems: Water/Wastewater Systems: 

P00000019848

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 299-84 Filed 06/28/18 Page 22 of 32
Appendix 1 - Screening Level Vulnerability Assessment Survey (SLVAS) Questionnaire

January 2018 Appendix 1 - 3

HVAC Systems: HVAC Systems: 

Environmental Restoration Sites: 

Natural Resources: 

Historic/Cultural Resources: 

Housing: Housing: 

HQ Building(s): 

Personnel Support: 

No Impacts: No Impacts: 

Not able to determine: Not able to determine: 

Other: Other: 

If you selected Other, please provide a description below. [TEXT]

1.h How did your installation respond to this degradation in the short-term? 

Were any long-term changes made to prevent/reduce future impacts? [TEXT]

Section 1: Current Vulnerability – Extreme Temperatures (hot or cold)

This section focuses on the impacts of any temperature (hot or cold) that falls outside of the 

“normal” temperature range for a particular area and can represent sustained periods of 

abnormally and uncomfortably hot or cold weather that fall outside of the “normal.” Note 

that the “normal” temperature range, for the purposes of this survey, is up to the discretion 

of the user, but must be clearly explained in the notes. 

1.i Has your installation been negatively impacted by extreme hot or cold temperatures? 

[Yes/No]

If yes, choose one or both: [click checkbox(es)]

Hot

Cold

1.j When was your installation negatively impacted by extreme hot or cold temperatures? 

Please list years/times within ~the past 30 years. 

For the worst impact caused by extreme temperature, please list any data relative to daily 

temperature, maximum or minimum temperature, duration of extreme temperature, etc. 

[TEXT]

1.k For the worst impact caused by extreme hot temperature, what was impacted/degraded? 

[click checkbox(es)]

ON-SITE/DoD Controlled OFF-SITE/Community Assets

Airfield Operations: Airport: 

Training Areas/Ranges/Facilities: 

Piers/Waterfront Services: Piers/Waterfront Services: 

Information Systems: Information Systems: 

C4ISR: 

Energy Infrastructure: Energy Infrastructure: 

Fuel Infrastructure: Fuel Infrastructure: 

Logistics Supply: Logistics Supply: 

Transportation Infrastructure & Routes: Transportation Infrastructure & Routes: 

Emergency Services: Emergency Services: 

P00000019849

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 299-84 Filed 06/28/18 Page 23 of 32
Appendix 1 - Screening Level Vulnerability Assessment Survey (SLVAS) Questionnaire

January 2018 Appendix 1 - 4

Water/Wastewater Systems: Water/Wastewater Systems: 

HVAC Systems: HVAC Systems: 

Environmental Restoration Sites: 

Natural Resources: 

Historic/Cultural Resources: 

Housing: Housing: 

HQ Building(s): 

Personnel Support: 

No Impacts: No Impacts: 

Not able to determine: Not able to determine: 

Other: Other: 

If you selected Other, please provide a description below. [TEXT]

1.l For the worst impact caused by extreme cold temperature, what was impacted/degraded? 

[click checkbox(es)]

ON-SITE/DoD Controlled OFF-SITE/Community Assets

Airfield Operations: Airport: 

Training Areas/Ranges/Facilities: 

Piers/Waterfront Services: Piers/Waterfront Services: 

Information Systems: Information Systems: 

C4ISR: 

Energy Infrastructure: Energy Infrastructure: 

Fuel Infrastructure: Fuel Infrastructure: 

Logistics Supply: Logistics Supply: 

Transportation Infrastructure & Routes: Transportation Infrastructure & Routes: 

Emergency Services: Emergency Services: 

Water/Wastewater Systems: Water/Wastewater Systems: 

HVAC Systems: HVAC Systems: 

Environmental Restoration Sites: 

Natural Resources: 

Historic/Cultural Resources: 

Housing: Housing: 

HQ Building(s): 

Personnel Support: 

No Impacts: No Impacts: 

Not able to determine: Not able to determine: 

Other: Other: 

If you selected Other, please provide a description below. [TEXT]

1.mHow did your installation respond to this degradation in the short-term? 

Were any long-term changes made to prevent/reduce future impacts? (Write a brief 

description below; please distinguish between hot and cold extreme temperatures, if 

necessary) [TEXT]

P00000019850

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 299-84 Filed 06/28/18 Page 24 of 32
Appendix 1 - Screening Level Vulnerability Assessment Survey (SLVAS) Questionnaire

January 2018 Appendix 1 - 5

Section 1: Current Vulnerability – Drought

This section focuses on the impacts of a period of abnormally dry weather sufficiently 

prolonged to cause serious problems such as crop damage or water supply shortages. 

1.n Has your installation been negatively impacted by drought? [Yes/No]

1.o When was your installation negatively impacted by drought? 

Please list years/duration within ~the past 30 years. [TEXT]

1.p For the worst drought occurrence, what was impacted/degraded? [click checkbox(es)]

ON-SITE/DoD Controlled OFF-SITE/Community Assets

Airfield Operations: Airport: 

Training Areas/Ranges/Facilities: 

Piers/Waterfront Services: Piers/Waterfront Services: 

Information Systems: Information Systems: 

C4ISR: 

Energy Infrastructure: Energy Infrastructure: 

Fuel Infrastructure: Fuel Infrastructure: 

Logistics Supply: Logistics Supply: 

Transportation Infrastructure & Routes: Transportation Infrastructure & Routes: 

Emergency Services: Emergency Services: 

Water/Wastewater Systems: Water/Wastewater Systems: 

HVAC Systems: HVAC Systems: 

Environmental Restoration Sites: 

Natural Resources: 

Historic/Cultural Resources: 

Housing: Housing: 

HQ Building(s): 

Personnel Support: 

No Impacts: No Impacts: 

Not able to determine: Not able to determine: 

Other: Other: 

If you selected Other, please provide a description below. [TEXT]

1.q How did your installation respond to this degradation in the short-term? 

Were any long-term changes made to prevent/reduce future impacts? [TEXT]

Section 1: Current Vulnerability – Wildfire

This section focuses on the impacts of wildfire - an uncontrolled fire in an area of 

combustible vegetation that occurs in the wilderness or countryside (although damage is 

felt by people primarily at the wildland-urban interface, where human 

structures/developments meet with undeveloped wildland). 

1.r Has your installation been negatively impacted by wildfire? [Yes/No]

1.s When was your installation negatively impacted by wildfire? 

Please list years/duration within ~the past 30 years. [TEXT]

P00000019851

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 299-84 Filed 06/28/18 Page 25 of 32
Appendix 1 - Screening Level Vulnerability Assessment Survey (SLVAS) Questionnaire

January 2018 Appendix 1 - 6

1.t For the worst wildfire occurrence, what was impacted/degraded? [click checkbox(es)]

ON-SITE/DoD Controlled OFF-SITE/Community Assets

Airfield Operations: Airport: 

Training Areas/Ranges/Facilities: 

Piers/Waterfront Services: Piers/Waterfront Services: 

Information Systems: Information Systems: 

C4ISR: 

Energy Infrastructure: Energy Infrastructure: 

Fuel Infrastructure: Fuel Infrastructure: 

Logistics Supply: Logistics Supply: 

Transportation Infrastructure & Routes: Transportation Infrastructure & Routes: 

Emergency Services: Emergency Services: 

Water/Wastewater Systems: Water/Wastewater Systems: 

HVAC Systems: HVAC Systems: 

Environmental Restoration Sites: 

Natural Resources: 

Historic/Cultural Resources: 

Housing: Housing: 

HQ Building(s): 

Personnel Support: 

No Impacts: No Impacts: 

Not able to determine: Not able to determine: 

Other: Other: 

If you selected Other, please provide a description below. [TEXT]

1.u How did your installation respond to this degradation in the short-term? 

Were any long-term changes made to prevent/reduce future impacts? [TEXT]

Section 1: Current Vulnerability – Wind

This section focuses on the impacts of wind. A wind event, for the purposes of this survey, 

can be defined as an extended period of sustained high winds, such as during a hurricane, 

or a single gust event, such as during a thunderstorm. 

1.v Has your installation been negatively impacted by wind? [Yes/No]

1.w When was your installation negatively impacted by wind? 

Please list years/duration within ~the past 30 years. 

For the worst wind incident, please list the top wind speed that was reached. [TEXT]

1.x For the worst wind incident, what was impacted/degraded? [click checkbox(es)]

ON-SITE/DoD Controlled OFF-SITE/Community Assets

Airfield Operations: Airport: 

Training Areas/Ranges/Facilities: 

Piers/Waterfront Services: Piers/Waterfront Services: 

Information Systems: Information Systems: 

C4ISR: 

Energy Infrastructure: Energy Infrastructure: 

P00000019852

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 299-84 Filed 06/28/18 Page 26 of 32
Appendix 1 - Screening Level Vulnerability Assessment Survey (SLVAS) Questionnaire

January 2018 Appendix 1 - 7

Fuel Infrastructure: Fuel Infrastructure: 

Logistics Supply: Logistics Supply: 

Transportation Infrastructure & Routes: Transportation Infrastructure & Routes: 

Emergency Services: Emergency Services: 

Water/Wastewater Systems: Water/Wastewater Systems: 

HVAC Systems: HVAC Systems: 

Environmental Restoration Sites: 

Natural Resources: 

Historic/Cultural Resources: 

Housing: Housing: 

HQ Building(s): 

Personnel Support: 

No Impacts: No Impacts: 

Not able to determine: Not able to determine: 

Other: Other: 

If you selected Other, please provide a description below. [TEXT]

1.y How did your installation respond to this degradation in the short-term? 

Were any long-term changes made to prevent/reduce future impacts? [TEXT]

Section 2: Implications of Increased Mean Sea Level

This section focuses on the impacts to your installation from increased mean sea level – how 

many acres of your installation are within particular feet of mean sea level and what might 

be negatively impacted/degraded with a particular increase in mean sea level? 

2.a Is any part of your installation within 0-12 feet of mean sea level? [Yes/No]

2.b How many acres of your installation are within 0 to 3 feet of mean sea level? [#]

What percentage of your installation land does that represent? [#] %

Please describe the tools/resources/methodologies used to determine the acreage, or describe 

why you were not able to determine the acreage. [TEXT]

2.c What might be negatively impacted/degraded with an increase of up to 3 feet in mean sea 

level? [click checkbox(es)]

ON-SITE/DoD Controlled OFF-SITE/Community Assets

Airfield Operations: Airport: 

Training Areas/Ranges/Facilities: 

Piers/Waterfront Services: Piers/Waterfront Services: 

Information Systems: Information Systems: 

C4ISR: 

Energy Infrastructure: Energy Infrastructure: 

Fuel Infrastructure: Fuel Infrastructure: 

Logistics Supply: Logistics Supply: 

Transportation Infrastructure & Routes: Transportation Infrastructure & Routes: 

Emergency Services: Emergency Services:

P00000019853

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 299-84 Filed 06/28/18 Page 27 of 32
Appendix 1 - Screening Level Vulnerability Assessment Survey (SLVAS) Questionnaire

January 2018 Appendix 1 - 8

Water/Wastewater Systems: Water/Wastewater Systems: 

HVAC Systems: HVAC Systems: 

Environmental Restoration Sites: 

Natural Resources: 

Historic/Cultural Resources: 

Housing: Housing: 

HQ Building(s): 

Personnel Support: 

No Impacts: No Impacts: 

Not able to determine: Not able to determine: 

Other: Other: 

If you selected Other, please provide a description below. [TEXT]

Please describe the resources/tools/methodologies used to determine impacts under this 

scenario or why you were not able to determine impacts. If your response is the same as 

above, copy and paste the response into this text box. [TEXT]

2.d How many acres of your installation are within 0 to 6 feet of mean sea level? [#]

What percentage of your installation land does that represent? [#] %

Please describe the tools/resources/methodologies used to determine the acreage, or describe 

why you were not able to determine the acreage. If your response is the same as above, copy 

and paste the response into this text box. [TEXT]

2.e What might be negatively impacted/degraded with an increase of 0 to 6 feet in mean sea 

level? [click checkbox(es)]

ON-SITE/DoD Controlled OFF-SITE/Community Assets

Airfield Operations: Airport: 

Training Areas/Ranges/Facilities: 

Piers/Waterfront Services: Piers/Waterfront Services: 

Information Systems: Information Systems: 

C4ISR: 

Energy Infrastructure: Energy Infrastructure: 

Fuel Infrastructure: Fuel Infrastructure: 

Logistics Supply: Logistics Supply: 

Transportation Infrastructure & Routes: Transportation Infrastructure & Routes: 

Emergency Services: Emergency Services: 

Water/Wastewater Systems: Water/Wastewater Systems: 

HVAC Systems: HVAC Systems: 

Environmental Restoration Sites: 

Natural Resources: 

Historic/Cultural Resources: 

Housing: Housing: 

HQ Building(s): 

Personnel Support: 

No Impacts: No Impacts: 

P00000019854

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 299-84 Filed 06/28/18 Page 28 of 32
Appendix 1 - Screening Level Vulnerability Assessment Survey (SLVAS) Questionnaire

January 2018 Appendix 1 - 9

Not able to determine: Not able to determine: 

Other: Other: 

If you selected Other, please provide a description below. [TEXT]

Please describe the resources/tools/methodologies used to determine impacts under this 

scenario or why you were not able to determine impacts. If your response is the same as 

above, copy and paste the response into this text box. [TEXT]

2.f How many acres of your installation are within 0 to 9 feet of mean sea level? [#]

What percentage of your installation land does that represent? [#] %

Please describe the tools/resources/methodologies used to determine the acreage, or describe 

why you were not able to determine the acreage. If your response is the same as above, copy 

and paste the response into this text box. [TEXT]

2.g What might be negatively impacted/degraded with an increase of 0 to 9 feet in mean sea 

level? [click checkbox(es)]

ON-SITE/DoD Controlled OFF-SITE/Community Assets

Airfield Operations: Airport: 

Training Areas/Ranges/Facilities: 

Piers/Waterfront Services: Piers/Waterfront Services: 

Information Systems: Information Systems: 

C4ISR: 

Energy Infrastructure: Energy Infrastructure: 

Fuel Infrastructure: Fuel Infrastructure: 

Logistics Supply: Logistics Supply: 

Transportation Infrastructure & Routes: Transportation Infrastructure & Routes: 

Emergency Services: Emergency Services: 

Water/Wastewater Systems: Water/Wastewater Systems: 

HVAC Systems: HVAC Systems: 

Environmental Restoration Sites: 

Natural Resources: 

Historic/Cultural Resources: 

Housing: Housing: 

HQ Building(s): 

Personnel Support: 

No Impacts: No Impacts: 

Not able to determine: Not able to determine: 

Other: Other: 

If you selected Other, please provide a description below. [TEXT]

Please describe the resources/tools/methodologies used to determine impacts under this 

scenario or why you were not able to determine impacts. If your response is the same as 

above, copy and paste the response into this text box. [TEXT]

2.h How many acres of your installation are within 0 to 12 feet of mean sea level? [#]

P00000019855

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 299-84 Filed 06/28/18 Page 29 of 32
Appendix 1 - Screening Level Vulnerability Assessment Survey (SLVAS) Questionnaire

January 2018 Appendix 1 - 10

What percentage of your installation land does that represent? [#] %

Please describe the tools/resources/methodologies used to determine the acreage, or describe 

why you were not able to determine the acreage. If your response is the same as above, copy 

and paste the response into this text box. [TEXT]

2.i What might be negatively impacted/degraded with an increase of 0 to 12 feet in mean sea 

level? [click checkbox(es)]

ON-SITE/DoD Controlled OFF-SITE/Community Assets

Airfield Operations: Airport: 

Training Areas/Ranges/Facilities: 

Piers/Waterfront Services: Piers/Waterfront Services: 

Information Systems: Information Systems: 

C4ISR: 

Energy Infrastructure: Energy Infrastructure: 

Fuel Infrastructure: Fuel Infrastructure: 

Logistics Supply: Logistics Supply: 

Transportation Infrastructure & Routes: Transportation Infrastructure & Routes: 

Emergency Services: Emergency Services: 

Water/Wastewater Systems: Water/Wastewater Systems: 

HVAC Systems: HVAC Systems: 

Environmental Restoration Sites: 

Natural Resources: 

Historic/Cultural Resources: 

Housing: Housing: 

HQ Building(s): 

Personnel Support: 

No Impacts: No Impacts: 

Not able to determine: Not able to determine: 

Other: Other: 

If you selected Other, please provide a description below. [TEXT]

Please describe the resources/tools/methodologies used to determine impacts under this 

scenario or why you were not able to determine impacts. If your response is the same as 

above, copy and paste the response into this text box. [TEXT]

Final Survey Questions

1 Does this survey duplicate any efforts? If so, which one(s)? [TEXT]

2 What did it take to gather the information and complete the survey? How many...? 

Manhours: [#] People: [#] Offices: [#]

3 Optionally, please provide any additional comments or feedback. [TEXT]

P00000019856

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 299-84 Filed 06/28/18 Page 30 of 32
Appendix 2 - SLVAS Welcome Page text, including climate variable definitions

January 2018

Welcome to the Screening Level Vulnerability Assessment Survey home page!

The Department of Defense is conducting a screening level vulnerability assessment of all sites owned and 

operated by the Department. The answers to a series of questions on current and potential vulnerabilities will 

enable the Services to identify current areas of vulnerability and where additional assessment/actions may be 

necessary. Six sets of questions relate to Current Vulnerability (Section 1); one set of questions relates to 

the Implications of Increased Mean Sea Level (Section 2). Three questions relate to Background 

Information.

Background Information

This section requests information regarding what vertical datum is used for elevation measurements and 

what percentage of your installation is within the 100 and 500 year flood zones as determined by FEMA.

Section 1 – Current Vulnerability: Flooding due to Storm Surge

This section focuses on the impacts of flooding due to storm surge --- the submersion of normally dry land 

due to an unusual increase in water level due to a storm, over and above the predicted astronomical tides 

(ocean or tidally influenced body of water).

Section 1 – Current Vulnerability: Flooding and Other Impacts due to Non-Storm Surge Events

This section focuses on flooding and other impacts caused by non-storm surge events (e.g., rain, ice/sleet, 

snow) that may result in adverse impacts, such as flooding due to a large amount or extended duration of 

heavy precipitation, on-site or upstream events that causes non-tidal river overflow (precipitation or 

melting), OR other impacts such as collapse of structures due to excessive weight of snow/ice.

Section 1 – Current Vulnerability: Extreme Temperatures (hot or cold)

This section focuses on the impacts of any temperature (hot or cold) that falls outside of the “normal” 

temperature range for a particular area and can represent sustained periods of abnormally and uncomfortably 

hot or cold weather that fall outside of the “normal.” Note that the “normal” temperature range, for the 

purposes of this survey, is up to the discretion of the user, but must be clearly explained in the notes.

Section 1 – Current Vulnerability: Drought

This section focuses on the impacts of a period of abnormally dry weather sufficiently prolonged to cause 

serious problems such as crop damage or water supply shortages.

Section 1 – Current Vulnerability: Wildfire

This section focuses on the impacts of wildfire - an uncontrolled fire in an area of combustible vegetation 

that occurs in the wilderness or countryside (although damage is felt by people primarily at the wildlandurban interface, where human structures/developments meet with undeveloped wildland).

Section 1 – Current Vulnerability: Wind

This section focuses on the impacts of wind. A wind event, for the purposes of this survey, can be defined as 

an extended period of sustained high winds, such as during a hurricane, or a single gust event, such as during 

a thunderstorm.

Section 2 – Implications of Increased Mean Sea level

This section focuses on the impacts to your installation from increased mean sea level – how many acres 

of your installation are within particular feet of mean sea level and what might be negatively 

impacted/degraded with a particular increase in mean sea level?

P00000019857

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 299-84 Filed 06/28/18 Page 31 of 32
Appendix 3 - Asset Category Definitions

January 2018

Assets Category List Introductory Language. 

The list below contains categories of facilities, infrastructure, operations, and associated services that may be impacted 

by the various situations listed throughout this survey. When considering the “On-Site / DoD Controlled” impacts, 

please consider the infrastructure and services provided by those areas/buildings/etc. that are within your installation’s 

control. When considering the “Off-Site / Community Assets” impacts, please consider the infrastructure and services 

provided by those areas/buildings/etc. that fall outside of your installation’s control, but are within the surrounding 

community and can serve as a link between outside resources and support and your installation.

Asset Category Definition

Airfield Operations An area prepared for the accommodation (including any buildings, installations, and 

equipment), landing, and takeoff of aircraft.

Training 

Areas/Ranges/Facilities

Areas and facilities where training activities take place, whether land, sea or air

Piers/Waterfront Services Pier and/or port complex and associated services that assist and/or provide support to 

loading, unloading, staging, etc. 

Information Systems Infrastructure, organization, personnel, and components for the collection, processing, 

storage, transmission, display, dissemination, and disposition of information.

C4ISR C4ISR (command, control, communications, computers, intelligence, surveillance, and 

reconnaissance) infrastructure (including radar, towers, etc.)

Energy Infrastructure All aspects of generation, transmission, and distribution systems that are essential to 

power use at installation (e.g., power lines, substations, generators)

Fuel Infrastructure All aspects of generation, transmission, and distribution systems that are essential to fuel 

use at installation, e.g., storage tanks, distribution pipelines, fill stands

Logistics Supply Storage, inspection, distribution, transport, maintenance (including repair and 

serviceability), and disposal of materiel as well as the provision of support and services 

(excluding fuel). 

Transportation 

Infrastructure & Routes

Ground transportation routes and assets; e.g., roads, bridges, and terminals (non-airfield or 

waterfront). 

Emergency Services Assets and capabilities used to provide the support, resources, program implementation, 

and services that are most likely to be needed to save lives, protect property and the 

environment, restore essential services and critical infrastructure, and help victims and 

communities return to normal, when feasible, following domestic incidents. To include: 

emergency operations centers, hospitals, clinics.

Water/Wastewater 

Systems

All aspects of pumping, storage, distribution, collection, and treatment systems that are 

essential to water use and wastewater management at installation

HVAC Systems All aspects of HVAC (heating, ventilation, and air conditioning) systems

Environmental 

Restoration Sites

Sites where actions are required or controls are in place to reduce the risk to human health 

and the environment from past waste disposal operations and hazardous substance 

releases.

Natural Resources “All elements of nature and their environments of soil, sediments, air, and water. Those 

consist of two general types, as follows: a) earth resources - nonliving resources such as 

minerals and soil components; and b) biological resources - Living resources such as 

plants and animals.” [DoDI 4715.03, Natural Resources Conservation Program]

Historic/Cultural 

Resources

Includes historic properties, cultural items, tribal sacred sites, and archaeological 

resources/artifacts/collections [see DoDI

4715.16]

Housing Temporary and/or permanent residential structures, barracks, etc.

HQ Building(s) Structures where senior installation staff conduct their activities.

Personnel Support Child care center, school, commissaries, exchanges, etc. 

No Impacts

Not able to determine

Other

Sources. Taken or derived from: a) Joint Publication 1-02, Department of Defense Dictionary of Military and 

Associated Terms (8 November 2010; (as Amended Through 31 January 2011); b) DoDI 4715.03, Natural Resources 

Conservation Program; c) DoDI 4715.16, Cultural Resources Management; d) Best professional judgment.

P00000019858

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 299-84 Filed 06/28/18 Page 32 of 32