The document discusses how climate change is impacting Department of Defense (DOD) installations and operations. It summarizes the scientific consensus on climate change trends like rising global temperatures and sea levels. It then outlines key policy drivers that require DOD to address climate change adaptation, including executive orders. The document analyzes a GAO report that found DOD has identified observed and potential climate change impacts at installations, such as damage from thawing permafrost and flooding from sea level rise and storms. However, DOD guidance for implementing climate adaptation is unclear and installations lack expertise, creating challenges. The document concludes DOD needs clearer direction and processes to ensure infrastructure projects consider climate impacts and it meets goals to assess installation vulnerabilities.
1. The DOD and Climate Change
or
"♫...You don't need a weatherman
To know which way the wind blows…♫”
Russ Cason, C.P.G.
Russ.Casonstx@gmail.com
2. Topic and Format
• Policy drivers for Climate Change Adaptation (CCA)
• Potential & observed impacts reported at installations
• DOD efforts to respond and adapt to policy drivers
• Opportunities arising from change
What It Is Not......
A passionate debate on if climate change is happening
For now, let us just agree that the wind has picked up
What It Is……
A Discussion of Climate and Federal Climate Change
Policy on DOD Installations
3. Growing Scientific Consensus
Climate Change Phenomena Trending “Upward”
• Global temperature rise of 1.7 to 4.8 C◦ by 2100
• Sea level rise (SLR↑) of 0.5 to 3 may be 5 feet by 2100
• Precipitation pattern changes and storm frequency/intensity
• Changes in ocean chemistry
“We are Certain There is Uncertainty Now, and Uncertainty Will
Continue…. and so the Political and Public Opinion Weather Vane Swings”
4. Weather Advisory - First Policy Alarms
2009 – Presidential EO 13514
• Greenhouse Gas and Sustainability
2011 – EPA Policy “Climate change can affect EPA’s mission”
• Agency develops CCA Plan
• EPA Programs and Regions develop implementation plans
2012 – DOD Develops it’s CCA “Roadmap”
• Five Climate Effects on Installation Vulnerability
2013 - Presidential EO 13653
• All Federal agencies must implement CCA plans.
• Report progress made and updates to the plans
2014 June – GAO-14-446 “DOD can Improve it’s Planning”
Planning and Process Better Accounts for Potential Impacts”
5. The Front Moves in on DOD
October 2014
Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel
“While scientists are converging toward
consensus on future climate projections,
uncertainty remains. Every day, our military
deals with global uncertainty”
“Uncertainty is no excuse for delaying action”
6. What GAO-14-446 Found
DOD identified and observed Climate Change Phenomena,
Potential Impacts and Mission Vulnerabilities at Installations
Rising Temperatures
• Thawing permafrost
‒ Infrastructure damage and Coastal erosion
‒ Training interruptions - Holes in drop zones; soggy terrain
hampering troop and heavy equipment maneuvers
• More freezing rain than snow - Ice buildup breaks equipment
• Hi temps limit or force rescheduling or relocation of specific
training exercises = time & money lost
7. Precipitation Pattern Changes and
Increased Storm Frequency & Intensity
• Extended Drought – Limits types of ammo and ordnance used,
wildfire increase = training rescheduling/moving, and natural
& cultural resource attrition
• Extended Precipitation – Flooding, infrastructure damage,
denies training and operation areas, increased damage from
landslides/mudslides
• Large Storms - Disrupt military
ops – runway damage, flooded
and soggy terrain months after
• Long Term Climate Change -
mission change, adaptive
infrastructure changes, closure
or relocation of training assets
8. Rising Sea Levels and Ocean Chemistry Change
“Navy installations advise that sea level rise and
resulting storm surge are the two largest threats
to their waterfront infrastructure”
Sea Level Rise
• Flooding effects (encroachment/storm surge); saturation of
underground infrastructure (groundwater table rise)
• ERP sites and landfills – long-term remedy effectiveness
• Tidal encroachment = loss of forest, wetlands
• Access denial to portions of installations and relocation of
sea level facilities
Ocean Chemistry Change
• Degradation of coral reefs =
greater shore erosion and storm
surge at sea level facilities
9. Increased Fiscal Exposure for DOD
• $500K to fix two roads and fill holes in one drop zone
• $25M to harden a seawall for airstrip protection
• Coastal erosion due to permafrost thaw and SLR↑ in Alaska
caused landfill wash outs. DOD estimated the cost for
environmental restoration of six coastal sites at $32M
Storm Surge
Damage to
Runway
Training Area
Before/After
Permafrost Hole
10. DOD Might be Needing Some Help
• DOD’s CCAAssessment Group has a Plan:
– Phase I: Vulnerability assessments at 704 coastal
installations and sites
– Phase II: 6,887 non-coastal installations and sites
• Screening level assessments also expected to identify the need
for revised standards and projects in:
– Infrastructure construction and maintenance
– Installation planning processes; facility Master Plans,
INRMP & ICRMPs
• GAO reported – DOD not utilizing a Project Plan or Interim
Milestones will hamper ability to complete vulnerability
assessments on time, ∴ risking delays in implementation
11. DOD Direction to Departments
• DOD Position – “Climate change effects to be considered
like other impacts & vulnerabilities like force protection”
• Must consider each of DOD CCA Roadmap’s “5 Effects”
• Additional compliance with:
– DOD’s Unified Facilities Criteria for Installation
Master Planning 2-100-01
– DOD Instruction 4715.03 Natural Resources
Conservation Program
Requires Installations to Plan Existing and Future
Infra-structure Projects to Account for Climate Change
12. Guidance for Implementation Unclear
• No updated guidance on CCA construction upgrades
beyond current building codes and design standards
• DOD directives broadly written - challenges installation
planners in translating guidance into actionable activities
• Planners lack CCA expertise + lack guidance on how to
meet DOD’s direction in changes to Master Plans, etc.
• Planners lack information and expertise to prioritize sites
and assign adequate and timely resources
“Where confusion exists there is opportunity”
“Most Installations Unsure How to
Implement UFC and DOD 4715.03”
13. Understanding of Implementation
Varies Between Installations
Some Examples:
• Literature review on climate change “OK” for Master Plan
• Do not consider climate change to be impacting their
installation – so no further planning actions proposed
• Describe only single type of climate change impact in
Master Plans or INRMP/ICRMPs
• Some installations not considering any CCA projects
because they are unsure what - if anything - they are
expected to do.
14. DOD Funding/Approval Process Incompatible
Installations Reluctant to Propose CCA Projects
“Because they will not compete well in the funding
processes despite DOD’s sustainability goal”
As a result they risk:
• Noncompliance with DOD goals
• Timely or inadequate mitigation of potential climate
change impacts to their installation’s infrastructure
• Face more-costly adaptation actions in the future
15. GAO 14-440 Conclusions
1. Actions are needed to ensure infrastructure projects are
designed to be consistent with DOD sustainability goals
2. DOD’s CCA Policy lacks Project Plan with Milestones
to effectively meet goal for assessment of 7,591 sites
3. Clarification is needed on incorporating CCA into
installation planning documents
4. DOD approval/funding processes must ensure that CCA
projects proposed by facility planners are competitive for
funding
16. Opportunities
• Installation and Site Vulnerability Assessments
• Climate Change Effects Mitigation Studies
• Planning – Assisting Master Plans and Project Plans
• Infrastructure design, construction, sustainable operation
• Sustainable remediation
– Active site enhancements
– Future project considerations for CCA resilience
17. Road Blocks or Checkpoints?
• Changes in political wind direction – to fund or not to
fund?
• Lack of relative information and informed direction by
agencies for decision making and prioritizing
• Resource constraints – human, financial, time to implement
• Public Perception – Grasshopper and the Ant or Peter and
the Wolf?
• Stakeholder engagement – agency fiefdom, info sharing,
department inertia
• Prioritization – URGENT NEED! = maladaptive strategy
EO 13514 – Ozone hole” controversy preceded
EPA CCA addresses threats/vulnerabilities ER and Superfund
DOD Roadmap Climate Effects
Rising temperatures;
Changes in precipitation patterns;
Increasing storm frequency/intensity;
Rising sea levels and associated storm surge;
changes in ocean temperature, circulation, salinity, and acidity.
50% Complete
GW Table rise into waste….. Reinitiate leaching… pump harder, wave damage – armor or relocate waste?
More $ now, More $ future
In General….. And one of the more important is bullet #2:
Vulnerability assessments for all its facilities. A delay in data collection will delay decisions.
Impact - DOD may not have the information need to make informed tradeoffs when it makes infrastructure decisions.
DOD risks delaying opportunities to enhance infrastructure resilience to the impacts of climate change.
Time is now… just like DOD, delay may be too late to take advantage of confusion and opportunity.
