brian lepore: the evolving threats: gao's report on dod's infrastructure adaptation for...

GAO Report on DOD’s Infrastructure Adaptation for Climate Change

Presentation to the National

Preparedness Month Symposium

September 30, 2014

Page 1

DOD’s Global Real-Estate Portfolio

• Magnitude of the portfolio• Over 555,000 facilities• About 28 million acres of land• Over 5,000 sites worldwide• Plant replacement value of close to $850 billion

• Examples of DOD’s real-estate• Permanent installations• Ports and airfield• Utility systems• Test and training ranges

Page 2

Limiting Fiscal Exposure by Better Managing Climate Change Risks

• Risks to the government• GAO added the government’s fiscal exposure to climate

change to the High Risk list in February 2013.• Lack of shared understanding of strategic priorities.• Federal government’s large real property portfolio exposes

the government to increased fiscal risk.

• Risks to DOD• Adaptability factor in mission capability.• Limited access to training ranges.• Flood, fire hazards, and utility grid vulnerability.

Page 3

GAO’s Report on DOD’s Infrastructure Adaptation for Climate Change

• Request by Committee Chair and other Senators.

• 3 recommendations.

• DOD concurred.

Page 4

Objectives of Our Review

Objectives• In our report we

• Describe climate change phenomena and impacts and mission vulnerabilities DOD has identified and provide examples from selected installations.

• Evaluate extent of DOD’s efforts to conduct climate change vulnerability assessments.

• Assess the extent to which DOD accounts for impacts in selected installations’ planning efforts.

• Evaluate DOD’s efforts to incorporate climate change adaptation into infrastructure investments.

Page 5

Climate Phenomena and Impacts

• DOD identified 5 types of climate change phenomena in its FY 2012 Roadmap1. Rising temperatures.2. Changes in precipitation

patterns.3. Increasing storm

frequency/intensity.4. Rising sea levels and

storm surge.5. Changes in ocean,

temperature, salinity, etc.

Page 6

Climate Phenomena and Impacts: Installation Officials’ Observations at 15 Bases

Page 7

Climate Phenomena and Impacts: Mission Vulnerabilities Examples

Page 8

Fiscal Exposure Examples at Installations

Coastal erosion has led to• damaged landfills;

restoration cost $32 million.• degraded seawalls;

restoration cost $25 million.

Extreme rain event• about 1 year’s worth of rain

fell in 80 minutes; restoration cost $64 million.

Page 9

Extent of Climate Vulnerability Assessments

Page 10

• DOD’s initial vulnerability assessment.• Screening level assessments of 7,591 installations.• Data on installations’ historical/potential future

vulnerabilities/develop regional sea level rise scenarios.

• Screening level assessments underway.• DOD lacked a plan to guide its vulnerability-assessment efforts

and was not fully using interim milestones to track its progress.• Surveying coastal sites could yield over 580,000 pieces of

data.• Non-coastal assessments still to be determined.

Accounting for Climate Change Impacts in Infrastructure Planning

• Climate change impacts to be considered.• Intended to integrate climate change planning in existing

processes.• Certain planning guidance includes climate change.

• Installation planners action varied from place to place.

• DOD guidance lacks key elements.• Updated building standards not defined for climate change.• Installation officials unclear about authoritative information

sources for use in planning.

Page 11

Accounting for Climate Change Impacts in Infrastructure Planning

• DOD’s compiling/providing climate change information.

• Climate change in Integrated Natural Resource Management Planning guidance.

• Army pilot assesses climate change impacts on natural resources.

• Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory studying climate change impacts on Alaskan bases.

Page 12

Incorporating Climate Change in DOD Infrastructure Investments

• Limited numbers of climate change adaptation projects proposed.• Most installations we visited had not proposed projects.• One shipyard was considering raising height of sea wall.• Air Force had raised a building; added a “sacrificial floor.”

• Installation officials believed that climate change adaptation projects may not “compete” well.• Project scoring thought to limit adaptation projects.• Some installations reluctant to propose something thought to be

noncompetitive.• Some projects can incorporate climate change adaptation.

Page 13

GAO Recommendations

Page 14