SERDP Project RC-2232Project Title: Climate Change Impacts and Adaptation on Southwestern DoD Facilities

Project Goal III: Developing Climate Services for Moving Research to ApplicationsTask 6, Subtask 6.3

Draft UA SERDP Cross-Project Workshop ReportWorkshop Dates: March 7-8, 2016Draft Report Issued: April 18, 2016

http://environment.arizona.edu/workshop/serdp-workshopUniversity of Arizona, TucsonInstitute of the Environment

For further information please contact:

Kathy Jacobs, DirectorCenter for Climate Adaptation Science and Solutions

Project RC-2232 Co-PIjacobsk@email.arizona.edu

University of Arizonahttp://www.ccass.arizona.edu/

1

UA SERDP Cross-Project Workshop Report Outline

Section I: Introduction, p. 1Section II: Background, p. 3Section III: Lessons Learned across SERDP Projects, p. 6Section IV: Findings Associated with DoD Context and Culture, p. 10Section V: Research Ideas, p. 16Section VI: Conclusions and Path Forward, p. 20Appendix A: Participant List, p. 22Appendix B: Agenda, p. 23

Section I: IntroductionThe purpose of this workshop was to discuss the transferable lessons that can be learned across DoD climate adaptation projects and to identify research needs in support of climate adaptation. We discussed the findings of individual adaptation projects funded by the Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program (SERDP), identified obstacles to adaptation and opportunities for climate services mechanisms, reviewed and commented on draft hypotheses developed by the University of Arizona (UA) SERDP team, and discussed scalability of SERDP science to meet DoD needs. Finally, we developed a long list of ideas for future SERDP research. We were pleased that Admiral Dave Titley, former Oceanographer of the Navy and Chief Operating Officer of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric and Administration (NOAA), joined us for this event, as well as Major Ryan Harris, Director of Operations for the 14th Weather Squadron, Ninette Sadusky, Deputy Director of the U.S. Navy Task Force Climate Change, and Cate Fox-Lent of the US Army Corps of Engineers. The insights of these important players in the DoD climate/weather/adaptation arena were invaluable. A list of participants appears as Appendix A, and the workshop agenda appears as Appendix B.

Research Questions Addressed at the Meeting: Is DoD different from other communities that are working to manage risk? If so, in what ways?

(e.g., culture, leadership, turnover issues?) What are the implications? How does what we know across the SERDP projects inform the implementation of the recent

Departmental Directive on Climate Change? How might the research investments of other federal agencies in the area of risk communication

and risk management be leveraged or augmented to advance DoD’s strategic interests? What are the specific research needs that, if met, would substantially enhance the capacity of

DoD to manage risks to its mission and facilities?

Findings: As we expected, many experiences across SERDP projects were similar, especially in the context of challenges in engaging with on-base personnel. Transferability and scalability of research outputs depend on strategies that take a wide range of “culture” and “incentive” considerations into account, some of which are entirely consistent with findings in similar projects outside of the military. The recent adoption (in January, 2016) of the DoD Directive on Climate Change Adaptation and Resilience (DoD Directive 4715.21) is likely to have positive consequences for increasing interest and investments in climate preparedness, though the choices made in implementing the Directive will control how quickly the uptake occurs and how significantly these efforts are incorporated into the fabric of decision-making across the Department. Major outcomes from the conversations in the workshop, including suggestions related to research needs, are summarized in this report.

2

Section II: BackgroundInsights provided by participants in the workshop are summarized in this report. SERDP has been funding projects related to climate adaptation for seven years; the importance of tying the use of climate information to decision-making has been steadily rising. What does climate preparedness actually mean in the context of DoD? In reality, success in modifying management, policy and infrastructure decisions to “take climate change into account” is about human dimensions, not just physical climate science. The basic physics of the climate system are understood and widely appreciated by many, but some career bureaucrats and active duty personnel are caught in the middle in the current political context. It is therefore important to identify how DoD can protect mission-readiness in the face of changing risks resulting from changing climate.

These challenges are not unique to DoD; thus, it is also important to identify what can be learned from other entities that can be translated into a DoD context. All federal agencies are required by Executive Order to develop plans to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions and to identify and manage climate-related risks, and there are many private sector interests whose work is of particular relevance. For example, the concerns of the oil and gas industry in protecting their infrastructure, often operating near or within civilian communities and/or extreme environments, can be very similar to the issues faced by military infrastructure both within the US and overseas.

SERDP is interested in bridging the gap between scientific evidence and how to use that knowledge to support decision-making in DoD. Any inputs for the next R&D solicitation cycle (FY 18) that result from this workshop are needed before the end of May of 2016. SERDP’s objective is to be strategic… to anticipate future conditions and encourage preparedness. Some of the DoD approaches to “working around” current climate-related issues have already resulted in unintended consequences, such as short-term approaches to fire management that have increased the risks of more catastrophic fires, and a failure to evaluate and prepare for the full range of future conditions could prove costly in the future. There are many questions about how to make DoD facilities, operations, and missions more resilient in the face of increasing climate challenges. In some cases there is a need for transformative change (particularly in the context of inevitable impacts, like those associated with sea-level rise). However, like the rest of society, there is a tendency to focus on incremental solutions and on weather timescales, rather than seasonal-to-decadal timescales.

To date, it has been hard for DoD as a whole to internalize and proactively respond to climate-related risks, for a range of reasons beyond the political ones. The specifics of probable impacts are not as well understood as they could be; the rotation of leadership at the installations limits institutional memory and there are urgent and ever-present operational and mission-critical priorities that make thinking about the longer term difficult. This is problematic, since the business of the DoD is risk management on multiple timescales. Even the observation that climate-related humanitarian response requirements are becoming more frequent and expensive does not always add up to a conclusion that these needs may be linked to an increase in climate risks.

Workshop participants noted that climate change could cost trillions of dollars by the year 2100. This should be a motivator for action across a range of sectors. For example, the New York and Los Angeles Port Authorities are recognizing the potential magnitude of sea-level-rise impacts, as is the City of Miami. The DoD facilities in Norfolk, Virginia are considered “ground zero” for these impacts.

3

Over the last two decades, the military has made transformational changes in the way it manages environmental issues. Historically, meeting the requirements of the Endangered Species Act and the benefits of managing to support ecosystem services were not well appreciated by DoD personnel. Now there are a wide range of reasons why investments in these programs have been broadly embraced, along with the community-building efforts that have come with solving these problems. Extending this flexibility to address climate-related issues is a logical next step, backed by the strength of the new Directive.

The convergence in understanding that comes from sharing experiences across the SERDP-funded projects provides an opportunity for collective learning, which was the intent of this workshop. Identifying these collective lessons and leveraging efforts of others are important as SERDP explores ways to strategically invest in research that supports DoD’s efforts. Given the new Directive, the questions we ask are:

“What can SERDP do to support the implementation of the Directive, given that it appears there are critical information and research elements needed?”

“Focusing efforts on risk management, and defined processes to protect the mission at a range of geographic scales and time frames, how can climate readiness be enhanced?”

“How can the urgency/priority of adaptation efforts be established for each facility?”

Section III of this report is organized around a simple typology of installation-level adaptation/risk management experiences developed by Moss et al. (RC-2206) to summarize the lessons learned through the experience of the SERDP project teams in our cohort (see http://www.osti.gov/scitech/biblio/1240754), namely:

Stakeholder engagement (theory vs. practice, comparisons with lessons in other communities) Climate and environmental information (observations and projections and the need for tailored

information and practices at different temporal and spatial scales) Impacts work (risk assessments and identification of impacts across temporal and spatial scales) Adaptation (identification, implementation, evaluation of options in a manner consistent with

the standard “adaptation cycle”).

Section IV of this report includes findings from the workshop associated with the DoD context and culture, and the implications for integration of adaptation under the following themes:

Similarities and differences between DoD and other communities faced with the need to manage climate-related risks. Although DoD is different in some ways (e.g., mission-readiness is its primary concern), it is striking how similar its issues are to others, for example, other Federal agencies, the oil and gas industry, ports and airports.

Incentives and opportunities for institutionalizing adaptation (mainstreaming, incorporating into officer training, etc.; overcoming obstacles to resilience, e.g., Base Realignment and Closure [BRAC] threat, staff turnover)

Scalability/transferability of learning (knowledge transfers within DoD, potential to scale up) Governance levels and opportunities for collaboration (across training ranges, facilities; big

picture/large-scale vs installation-level activities, community efforts like SERPAS, JLUSP (see p. 5 of Directive 4715.21)

Mainstreaming, culture, partnerships – alternative models for accelerating the research-to-operations processes

Section V of this report includes a series of research ideas that can be considered by SERDP. Many of them relate to implementation of the Directive and institutional/behavioral issues, including ways to

4

support decision-making in the context of uncertainty. Although uncertainties underlie most decisions on a day-to-day basis both inside and outside DoD, uncertainties associated with climate change are often a common barrier to progress. The primary issues here are:

framing climate change issues to avoid having them be viewed as a barrier to action; helping personnel embrace climate change uncertainty instead of avoiding it is an important

approach in decision-making; and providing meaningful and relevant tools such as scenario planning to help with the transition.

Section VI of the report contains our conclusions and a suggested path forward.

5

Section III. Lessons Learned across SERDP Projects Best Practices Discussion: A brief overview of SERDP projects and lessons learned

A. Climate Change Impacts and Adaptation on Southwestern DoD Facilities (RC-2232) Gregg Garfin, Don Falk, Kit O’Connor, Rafe Sagarin (UA), Anna Haworth (Acclimatise UK)

The UA SERDP team convened workshops at four bases representing each branch of the military (Naval Base Coronado [NBC]; the Barry M. Goldwater Ranges [BMGR] East (Air Force) and West (Marines); and Fort Huachuca (Army) to establish a big picture overview. They evaluated climate related risks with those in the room, in terms of likelihood and impact, and the groups voted on the priority risks related to their facilities. Utilities and facilities people were on board with working with the UA team for NBC, in part because the base commander was strongly supportive. He was already aiming to mainstream adaptation activities within existing risk-management efforts. At NBC, the Navy shared its emergency management protocol, which included a risk-management framework. This allowed for a quantitative assessment of risk to be performed by Acclimatise. These types of existing protocols and frameworks were not available for the other three locations.

Sea-level rise is currently considered an imminent and long term threat at NBC, and is already being incorporated into its long term planning. A sea-level-rise report for NBC had been prepared by Scripps Institution of Oceanography, through a SPARWAR project (R. Flick, B. Chadwick, investigators), so the UA team focused on inland fire danger as an important source of risk that had not yet been addressed. Using the fire-risk assessment as an entry point into adaptation efforts was a deliberate strategy by the UA team to gain trust for the longer term effort.

Personnel at the BGMR sites were not as aware or concerned about climate-change impacts. Their primary risks are extreme precipitation and impacts on riparian areas and habitat. They are located within an already extreme environment, so changing risk is not of much interest. Flooding, however, is considered an imminent threat because it cuts off access to roads that traverse the installations; diminished road access can considerably delay the training missions of these installations. Opportunities appeared in conversations about partnering with neighboring landowners, who manage risks that intersect at the boundary of the BMGR installation, such as habitat and migration of threatened and endangered wildlife species, and desert grass and shrub fires, which can cross the fence line.

The contrast in these experiences demonstrate the need for, and importance of, a local champion to provide access to key personnel across management sectors (e.g., operations and infrastructure, in addition to management of threatened and endangered species), and to provide the impetus to treat climate change as an important current risk. Engagement is time- and resource-intensive, and high turnover is frustrating for those who hope to build long-term, trusted relationships. Working through the particulars on fire-risk assessment at NBC and Fort Huachuca led to broader understanding and increased interest from base personnel. The UA SERDP approach evolved to focus on problem-solving in the areas of interest to the bases as a mode of engagement. Co-identifying problems or challenges of immediate interest to base leadership opened the door to thinking longer term about climate adaptation. Wildfire vulnerability was an issue that facilitated the path to broader climate risk discussions.

Demonstrating the way that complex land management problems could be addressed using publicly available tools was the primary approach at NBC, while the team developed tailored decision-support

6

tools for Fort Huachuca. Interpersonal discussions about where the current risks are coming from allowed consideration of the potential for increasing impacts in the future. Discussion evolved to how fires that already occurred on or near the bases could be expected to behave in a warmer, drier world, and how to adapt to that risk.

Modeling studies at Ft. Huachuca showed that the landscape hasn’t changed much in the last 140 years, but in an RCP 8.5 emissions scenario (where the greenhouse gas emission trajectory continues on its present course), the installation would see major changes in its landscape, including a transition to shrubs rather than trees: i.e. a more flammable landscape. It was also found that fire leads to changes in flood regimes: rain events on new landscapes lead to new risks. By the 4 th decade into the future, it was estimated that 3 to 4 times the volume of water could flow across the base in an average year, as compared with the present. Moreover, the history of recent fires in the region has demonstrated that increased flow volume can also be accompanied by debris flows and increased sediment transport down to the elevations of Ft. Huachuca’s built infrastructure, roadways, and residential areas.

NBC and Ft. Huachuca both became interested in active management of their landscapes following these discussions; a simulation helped illustrate that some of the short-term adaptation solutions might have positive consequences, and could delay wildfire and subsequent flooding impacts for a couple of decades.

At NBC, the existing chaparral landscapes are both highly flammable and important for training. Base personnel noted that the overall utility of the base would be compromised if there were no shrub cover. Using public data sources, including a fire atlas and Landsat info, the UA team evaluated how the landscape has been influenced by fire in the past. Due to fire suppression, there have been no fires where the new facilities are located, leading to fuel buildup and high fire danger there. Old growth chaparral only regenerates with fire; fire suppression encourages the introduction and establishment of invasive species – a danger for chaparral. NBC may have been inadvertently increasing its risk of catastrophic fire by managing for short-term risks. The UA team showed that managed burning will lead to lower risks.

The team has learned some difficult lessons about engagement with the military, and concluded that demonstrating the capacity to provide science support was an important strategy for garnering interest in the climate timescale and in projected future climate changes. Engagement was very positive when the team co-identified issues with base personnel; dialogues could then proceed to support other issues.

It was noted during discussion that this project approach could be used as a means for explaining science needs to policy makers across DoD.

B. Assessing Climate Change Impacts for DoD Installations in the Southwest United States during the Warm Season (RC-2205)PI: Christopher Castro (UA)

Chris Castro has been working with the 25th Operational Weather Squadron at Davis-Monthan [DM] Air Force Base in Tucson, helping to link weather and climate data using regional modeling in a separately funded SERDP project. His engagement started with the squadron commander, then led to interaction with others on the base who understood the specifics of operational meteorology. The mountains around Tucson force convection during monsoons, which can cause severe weather and flash flooding. There are specific concerns about microbursts and aircraft at DM. Castro has been working on watch

7

and warning criteria for flash flooding and extreme wind across the Southwest. For example, BMGR gets rain only a couple of times a season, but the frequency of large systems is diminishing while total precipitation has not changed appreciably, thus, fewer events generate more precipitation intensity. A key to translating this change is in characterizing the shape of the precipitation distribution over time, in order to help installation decision-makers more easily visualize threshold points, and then tying the new or projected thresholds to potential impacts. Orienting new commanders to the project over time was not a big problem, because the experimental design of this project brought operational meteorologists into the project when the research focus and agenda were being developed.

C. Understanding Data Needs for Vulnerability Assessment and Decision-making to Manage Vulnerable DoD Installations to Climate Change (RC-2206)PI: Richard Moss (Pacific Northwest National Laboratory/University of Maryland)

Richard Moss discussed his SERDP project’s findings relative to East-coast military installations. His team also interacted with military personnel to find out what the impact-relevant issues were, model results, process research, etc., to develop a wide range of information. His team’s eight conclusions were:

1) DoD’s definition of vulnerability has historically focused more on exposure, but this has not led to improvements in resilience. Focusing discussion on issues it could control and the condition of its assets increased its interest in climate risk and the adaptive capacity it might have.

2) Moss’s team suggested tiered activities: different levels of complexity, starting with simple risk screening using different data sets and surveys of installation personnel, moving to how to do installation-level assessment, then to adaptation planning.

3) Most work at the installation level seems to follow the standard adaptation cycle, e.g. identification of potential impacts, selection of alternative management options, evaluation and implementation of options, monitoring for effectiveness, etc.

4) The team identified three categories of methods/tools for adaptation: stakeholder engagement, climate and environmental information, and impacts assessment.

5) Some personnel were receptive to discussing the issue of climate change directly, and others were not. As a result, Moss’s team identified approaches relevant to both situations.

6) To better leverage efforts to increase climate preparedness, it is crucial to identify existing decision-making processes or influential policy documents or information that can incorporate climate or impacts information. Example processes, standards, or information include unified facility criteria (UFCs), Integrated Natural Resources Management Plans (INRMPs), Master Planning (MP); and Installation Complex Encroachment Management Action Plan (ICEMAP).

7) Climate information needs to be derived not just from “downscaling” but from other sources, including observations, understanding from process research, and analysis of available model archives, e.g., CMIP. Much available climate information hasn’t yet been translated into impacts-relevant climate variables.

8) A range of methods and modeling for impacts analysis does exist that is “good enough” for the purposes of identifying vulnerabilities that require adaptation measures to increase resilience. Vulnerability assessment is partly knowing how to use what is available to do what is necessary. For example, in some cases, exposure (i.e., elevation relative to flooding hazards) can be used as a proxy for vulnerability. Simple heuristic methods can identify vulnerabilities, rather than relying on complex (and often expensive-to-run) models.

D. Decision Scaling: A Decision Framework for DoD Climate Risk Assessment and Adaptation Planning (RC-2204)PI: Linda Mearns (National Center for Atmospheric Research)

8

Linda Mearns described her experience with heat and fire modeling for East coast facilities. She observed that interest in one level of the military does not guarantee interest at other levels. In at least one case the word vulnerability caused alarm due to its negative connotation – the term building resilience was better received. Prior experience with extreme events such as coastal surges was found to be important for focusing attention; it also mattered how long it had been since the previous event.

Managing uncertainty is an ongoing challenge, and there is a need to know the different perspectives on this at various installations and what vocabulary they are most comfortable with. Good collaboration requires long-term engagement, as has been observed by others. Mearns’s suggested it might be better to concentrate on a single location rather than developing relationships across multiple cases given the time required for good co-production of knowledge.

Guidance for researchers on how to approach and work with the military would be helpful as would access to local data that are presently not saved or kept only temporarily.

9

Section IV. Findings Associated with DoD Context and Culture (Summary of topics from workshop discussions)Workshop participants discussed the challenges associated with managing chronic and non-stationary risk. Most of the risks associated with climate change are going to become worse over time. Issues include how risks and opportunities can be addressed in a strategic way without overwhelming decision-makers. The discounting issue is a big problem: once you get beyond the 5-year budget, the interest in solving problems diminishes. Most DoD departments are not focused on planning more than 5 years out because there are few incentives to do so. Short-term budget and policy challenges truly define the issues that most DoD decision-makers focus on. Incentives and opportunities for institutionalizing adaptation: New Department of Defense Directive on Climate Change Adaptation and Resilience

The Directive, adopted January 14, 2016, applies to all DoD operations worldwide and every component of the Department. For a top-down organization, this is particularly important. All components have specific responsibilities named in the Directive. The primary oversight is provided by the Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics (ATL); within Energy, Installations and Environment (EIE, the unit where SERDP is located), a new assistant secretary will be starting shortly.

EIE is responsible for adaptation and resilience policy, in coordination with Research and Engineering, (which is responsible for tools and information, guidance and direction on engineering standards, scenario development and use). DoD is expected to leverage investments through SERDP in the implementation of the Directive.

The Directive does imply a marching order – the demand side of this equation will change. Is the climate-services community prepared to respond to the charge? Actionable science is needed. Although SERDP is preparing a coastal assessment report, synthesizing ongoing research and looking at sea-level rise worldwide (among other projects), unmet needs are emerging in this new context. The challenges include the following: 1) Climate compels a change in the decision paradigm that DoD may not be prepared to embrace; infrastructure planners don’t understand these new imperatives. How can SERDP help those making decisions to manage the uncertainties? 2) Climate information has generally been developed from a research perspective and not for decision-making. There is a disconnect between the science and its use – for example, determining exactly what is “authoritative” climate information in a particular context can be the subject of debate (see GAO Report 16-37 “A National System Could Help Federal, State, Local and Private Decision Makers Use Climate Information”). 3) There are questions about responsibilities of various DoD components for implementing the Directive; how does this change how DoD does business? To date adaptation actions have been a one-off issue.

Historically, SERDP has not focused on the institutional and behavioral dimensions of climate change adaptation, but that is changing and it is clear that a science/policy interface issue is emerging. One of the key issues to come out of the workshop is the need to integrate climate science with social science to help policy-makers be more effective. Institutional considerations affect the uptake and utility of science, and the ability to manage risk. From a practical perspective, there is a need to integrate these new priorities into existing processes. If the mission is to “consider climate change” and there are no deadlines and no standards, then very little may happen. DoD employees may be left wondering what their adaptation priorities are for each facility and how climate change affects each unit’s ability to achieve its mission. They are likely to need help with next steps in implementation.

10

There is a paradigm shift in process here – but understanding decision-making processes and how people make judgments in the face of uncertainty may be harder than understanding the climate science itself. The Directive is the most comprehensive issuance so far on climate – this drives resourcing and is a mandate rather than a recommendation like a Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR). This issuance defines climate change, using the USGCRP definition, which is also used by the research and climate services communities. The definition will be in the DoD dictionary, which should help with communication between military and non-military participants in climate-adaptation research and planning.

DoD makes many types of decisions, but asset management is very different from military planning. Where are the right entry points for adaptation planning? It is not clear if a lot of instructions on this will come from a higher level. For example, installations could be required to use specific future climate scenarios. SERDP’s research mission has a specific focus on readiness, operations and facilities, but not on implications for military action. It is not yet known where decisions about climate change impacts on military actions are going to be made. In some cases, the simpler the instructions are, the more practical and implementable they could become (e.g., “assume a 1-meter sea-level rise over the historical maximum by 2010”). However, there are also dangers in over-simplifying the science.

The Directive is vague on timeframes for implementation, which may be a problem. With enough case studies there could be examples for people to follow… and a suite of transferable solutions could be developed. Implementation will depend on communities of practice, and social learning across sectors within the military, but incentives such as evidence of increasing costs associated with climate change will enable the military to talk about it more freely and respond more quickly.

DoD Culture and Implications for AdaptationDoD is very hierarchical: “if your boss is interested you are fascinated.” The normal process for implementing directives includes issuances that describe the “how” part. The implications for the Acquisitions (ATL) part of DoD may be critical. Commander Naval Installations Command is an example of a cross-geography (horizontal) coordination effort that could be useful in implementation of adaptation and resilience objectives across multiple locations.

DoD prides itself on its professional military education. One way to integrate these new approaches is in the Professional Military Education (PME) curriculum across the institutions… this could encourage all branches to understand what climate science means to their missions (see p. 8 of the Directive) over the short and long term. One simple way to approach implementation of the Directive is to ask installations and units to identify how key decisions are influenced by climate and weather, and therefore how these could be affected by climate change, then discuss how SERDP and its partners can provide actionable resilience options and guidelines.

An issue with developing close personal “trusted” relationships between academics and DoD personnel is that it isn’t a scalable model. The culture is that colonels and captains execute policy and everyone above that level makes policy. Academics who want to help are often blocked from gaining access to key decision-makers. Generals and admirals need to be at least briefed; if it can be demonstrated that those higher up the chain of command are “interested” in the work, access may be easier. Guidance for researchers on how to approach the military (the nature of the hierarchy, who makes what decisions, etc.) would be useful.

11

SERDP researchers have found that natural resources civilians working at military installations are generally much easier to work with and/or more accessible than people in operations. Where you find someone willing/entrepreneurial it is important to take advantage of that and work within the system that exists.

In most findings about dissemination of innovation, including those focused outside of DoD, champions are an important ingredient of success. This is largely personality-driven, but even champions need a receptive person above them. Much more research is needed on how to most efficiently provide scientific support for adaptation decisions. Consultants are willing but may not be able to provide the appropriate support. Participants noted that some champions were already ahead of this Directive – for example, the training-range community has already issued an instruction. They were looking for entry points and knew that they needed information. Infrastructure managers and those working in the Arctic also tend to be leaders in this space, because of the magnitude of observed changes, and the perceived imminent threat to operations and infrastructure investments.

An important avenue is to foster the interest of the service liaisons – the GS 15s who will be in their jobs for a long time. They are the sister office to the Office of the Secretary of Defense that is tasked with implementing this policy. Moreover, the longevity of individuals in these positions ensures continuity of institutional memory. Also, the Directive says to “leverage authoritative environmental information sources” (p. 9), but does not define or identify them. It could be an entry point for SERDP researchers to help define these.

The National Climate Assessment (NCA) is the official US authoritative source on climate, though it doesn’t provide all the answers at the scale that would be preferred. The scenarios selected for the upcoming NCA report should be considered by DoD, e.g., RCP 4.5 (requiring ambitious reductions in greenhouse gases) and RCP 8.5 (a “business-as-usual” scenario), as a frame to start with. Of course DoD operates globally and the NCA does not provide any foundation for DoD activities outside of the continental US and Alaska. Here, it is equally important to determine the authoritative international climate science sources to use, and extend more widely into social impact data (for example, future hotspots for impacts on natural resources and resulting potential for civil unrest).

DoD culture often leads to good continuity over time at the civilian level; it is the active-duty people who move around between duty posts. However, uniformed officers often will consider the voice of experience (and/or that of their predecessor). One idea is to put universities and scientists on the briefing schedule for new commanders as they engage with local leaders. A positive aspect of the fact that DoD professionals move often is that if climate change champions move around, they will naturally spread innovation.

The Directive recognizes educational requirements associated with adaptation and resilience. It is important to identify who will update criteria in the Pentagon and who are the people who will implement the Directive. SERDP could help in these areas as well as in developing the educational materials used in officer training.

Another cultural consideration is the public-private sector relationships associated with the large companies who provide infrastructure development and support services. Contractors are directed to utilize the Unified Facilities Criteria … but DoD does not retroactively apply a change in a design standard to existing facilities. However, for new facilities, DoD could feasibly place the onus on private sector partners to ensure they provide resilient solutions. Public-private contracts are negotiated to ensure

12

risks are shared and allocated fairly between partners. It should be noted that large-scale climate impact risks have commonly been allocated to public sector partners, but in a changing risk landscape, there is an argument that today’s extreme weather events may be converging with the “normal weather” of tomorrow. Long-term contracts entered into today should be assessing how the frequency and magnitude of today’s extreme events may change in the future, and the increased future liabilities that the public sector partner may be signing up for.

When looking to the private sector for transferrable lessons, it should be noted that cost-benefit ratios are very different in the private sector than in DoD and the wider public sector. The private sector tends to focus more on financial benefits and earnings on investments more than other benefits, whereas there are a lot of considerations beyond economic ones in the public sector, including policy and regulatory directives, expectations of other civil and governmental partners, and social and environmental benefits. National security responses are prioritized regardless of cost, and mission success in a combat situation is the pinnacle of priorities. But the military sometimes does prioritize cost considerations and works like a business… the pendulum swings back and forth and sometimes presents a conflict between restricted budgets and the need to maintain mission-readiness at almost any cost.

In peacetime operations, DoD does look at return on investment, e.g., are activities beneficial to mission and do they save money in the long run? Actual cost savings in near-term is very compelling in the context of shrinking budgets.

One important issue that DoD hasn’t sufficiently addressed is the difference between incorporating climate change into long-term plans in a strategic “big picture” way vs. the actions that could be taken independently on a project-by-project basis. The need for a truly strategic approach to prioritizing climate-related risk management is not as apparent as it could be at this early stage of implementing the Directive.

Demographic, economic, and environmental changes are underway – and much existing DoD infrastructure is no longer serving its purpose – but many say they don’t have enough information to predict future conditions. Remarkably, more is known about the future climate than these other trends that may be of immediate concern; in the climate world we CAN and do talk about the future since it is based on fundamental physics rather than on people, who can be harder to predict than nonlinear fluid dynamics!

Similarities and differences between DoD and other communities attempting to manage climate-related risks. Although DoD is different in some ways, e.g., in how it thinks about cost, the striking thing is how similar its climate-related issues are to other entities. For example, other Federal agencies, the oil and gas industries, and ports and airports are all facing similar challenges and can therefore share knowledge, data, and solutions.

There is a need to identify differences and similarities between DoD cultures (plural) and those of other entities, in order to identify the areas of mutual interest and the external examples that would resonate with DoD. Administrations come and go, bureaucrats and Congress remain, so there are forces of innovation and forces of inertia at work here. It is important to consider how to manage budget incentives and changing administration priorities. Even with the Earth System Prediction Capability – which features 0-to-30 year seamless forecasting, climate is not explicitly included in the authorization.

13

Phrasing matters if you want to get something done. The same is true for other federal agencies as they go through the budget process.

Pushback from military employees on offers of assistance from academia may be a defensive mechanism; they are tired of people parachuting in to “help” and may have been used as convenient “guinea pigs” for research programs too frequently. This is similar to the experience of other stakeholders (e.g., water managers) who have experienced “stakeholder fatigue” after being approached too frequently by researchers.

Governance and opportunities for collaboration The Air Force does encroachment planning: the bases look at how changes in the surrounding community affect their ability to achieve their mission. Climate-change impacts can also be viewed as encroachments. DoD works with the surrounding community when it sees it is in its best interest. An important research area is articulating the interdependencies between a facility and the community and helping to build joint resilience.

DoD and the US Forest Service share a major concern in the management of the wildland-urban interface. They have to work with communities to reduce fire risk that affects both the forests and the built environment. Cooperation is required to avoid catastrophic fires like those that have occurred in southern California, Colorado, New Mexico, and Arizona over the last decade.

DoD does lead some regional coordination efforts, e.g., SERPAS (SE Regional Partnership for Planning and Sustainability), and works with communities where Base Realignment and Closure Process discussions are taking place. Joint land-use-planning studies done by the Office of Economic Adjustment look to bring climate information into discussions.

All of the military bases in southern Arizona are responsive to Endangered Species issues, especially when they have potential impacts on their missions. They are very risk-sensitive and can implement projects overnight. Ft. Huachuca is a great example of a responsive organization and has worked extensively with the US Fish and Wildlife Service. A concern is to maintain ability to use their testing range, so they need conservation buffers and water for use on-base and in the community. The DoD culture has made it easier to implement mitigations, especially water conservation and reuse.

The land managed by the two BMGR installations has the highest biodiversity of any desert in the world, representing 2/3 of the total number of migratory bird species in the US. It is more focused on ecological resource protection than on other lands. Buffers are advantageous to their mission, which is one reason that the ESA is now widely embraced and they are actively working with adjacent landowners. The 1997 amendments to the Sykes Act compelled DoD to develop integrated natural resources plans and Sherry Goodman, then Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Environmental Security, focused on ecosystem-based management as a unifying principle. Lawsuits made DoD realize it could benefit from partnerships with the environmental protection community, resulting in down-listing of species. Environmental sensitivity also helps sell the DoD as a career to some degree with millennials who care about the environment. Perhaps this fact can be leveraged to help with broader challenges, including ecosystem services in the context of climate change.

No organization can, or does, completely avoid risk. The level of risk that is accepted or avoided often depends on many factors including risk appetite, financial liabilities, and environmental and social capacity. The key question in this context is what is the range of future uncertainty that various

14

components of DoD would like to be prepared for? The private sector and DoD are both dependent on global supply chains; impacts on the other side of planet can cause risks that resonate across the globe (e.g., impacts of the Thai flooding on just-in-time supply chains for auto and disk drive manufacturers) and understanding this is part of preparedness. Food and water security is high on the list for national security. Impoverished nations that might experience more stress present both humanitarian and national-security concerns. The “climate change as a threat multiplier” lingo is now common; the better that military personnel understand the climate and how it may change the more they can make strategic, risk-based decisions.

15

Section V. Research ideas (Summary of ideas generated in the workshop) Anticipating the implementation of the Directive emerged as an important priority for SERDP during our conversations. Information needs, suggestions to support strategic implementation, and leverage points need to be identified. Are there lessons to be learned from past transformations, such as the change in attitude that resulted in greater integration of habitat/environmental services objectives into base management? Is there a useful theory of change that can be explored? How can the existing general language in the Directive be translated into specific enforceable expectations? What clear and enforceable standards can be used to evaluate whether installations, missions, infrastructure are resilient and adequately prepared? Lessons from the UA SERDP project could inform the implementation process, including curricula for associated training efforts. One important need is a glossary to ensure that various communities are able to communicate well, since this topic is new to many parts of the Department. The Directive contains four defined terms, which is a good place to start.

The research ideas below are taken directly from the discussions at the workshop, and are loosely organized into the following categories: Human Dimensions Research/Stakeholder Engagement, Adaptation Science Support, Education and Training, and Climate Services. Note that there are overlaps across these ideas and categories, so the intent is merely to group similar projects, not to “stovepipe” them!

Research Ideas Generated during Workshop Discussions

Human Dimensions Research/Stakeholder EngagementIt would be useful to have a research outcome from this conversation include a focus on human dimensions – we are trying to inform behavior within a complex organization, but do we know how to do that? Ideas include:

From a SERDP perspective – how do installations and units make decisions now that are related to climate (deterministic vs. decision-analytic)? Do they assume a probabilistic future (central tendency) or robust solutions across plausible futures or scenarios? This would be an important baseline to establish for future work on decision-making.

Based on past work with the US Army Corps of Engineers, there may be a need to do an expert elicitation, identify case studies of past examples and ways to take lessons learned in the past for new applications. There is a need for replicable, valid approaches to studying decision processes that can be tested and are rigorous.

Gaming is a useful tool to understand how people behave under different incentives – it might be useful in the context of implementing the Directive or integrating adaptation into DoD processes more generally.

Understanding the decision-making paradigm for climate adaptation within DoD now and in the context of the new Directive is important – there is a need to test alternative theories about how to get from where we are today to where we need to be.

A comparison with the environmental policy implementation transition on bases would be useful. Historically there was significant reluctance to implement the Endangered Species Act, etc., but eventually a new perspective emerged across the military, resulting in a fundamental appreciation of the value of biodiversity and ecosystem services. The difference here is that there is no compliance threat within the climate Directive as there is with ESA. Is the transition to “embracing” responsibilities in environmental stewardship a good model for the implementation of the Directive? What was learned in that process? The influence of Sherry Goodman and the Sykes Act were seminal (among other contributing factors).

16

How can military facilities build resilience within a community context? All bases are interdependent with the communities where its workers live and the support systems that connect them: water, sewer, transportation. How can or should DoD work with multiple partners to achieve adaptation/resilience outcomes? Additional work on this would be helpful.

How to frame academic/scientific engagements with military personnel – is it best to focus on critical systems like transportation and water, or alternatively, around exposure, e.g., droughts, floods, heat waves? The answer apparently depends who you are talking to, although there much to be learned here. For example, the issue of geostrategic risk assessment is relevant to planners (e.g., re connections between drought and unrest in other countries) but there are others: energy; the Arctic; infrastructure/training; geostrategic threats, and humanitarian issues.

A literature review would be useful in moving from data to information to decisions. What are the gaps in decision support for DoD? It would also be useful to have a literature review on change management in DoD.

DoD funds the Minerva Initiative, which encompasses social science, area studies, and the intelligence community. What enabled this to happen, and is this a good template for human dimensions research related to adaptation?

BRAC creates a lot of incentive not to know about vulnerability, yet studies of frequency, intensity, and duration of extreme events need to be done. How can this barrier to adaptation action be overcome?

Adaptation Science SupportA new field of “adaptation science” is emerging: the study of adaptation as a process as well as the identification and development of physical science information that facilitates and supports adaptation decisions. Ideas related to this topic include:

Can scenarios and uncertainty be handled through a simplified and/or transferable approach? How can different kinds of climate data and assumptions for DoD decision makers be structured to enhance utility and an understanding of the implications for the future – what works in the DoD context? The reaction of DoD employees to alternative methodologies could be tested, for example.

Leveraging case studies of adaptation: are there lessons that can be harvested from experiences such as addressing sea-level rise at the Hampton Roads area/Naval Station in Norfolk that can help other installations? A collection of such cases along with carefully evaluated outcomes in a DoD-relevant context would be useful. Mountain Home Air Force Base in Idaho is serving as a pilot location for the Air Force for addressing water supply issues. . Pilot studies of resilience efforts with FEMA and DOE under the Executive Order also provide useful learning.

Experiments with scale – Broadly applicable approaches need to be tested at a pilot facility at the local scale. There is also a need to know how to scale up using stratified selection, building a strategy that can be implemented on a broad scale. Developing this testing strategy would be an important contribution.

A large number of climate adaptation tools and information sources already exist that can be evaluated for DoD utility, i.e., to help identify what is “authoritative” for use in which contexts.

Climate exposure of personnel is an entry point, and a research need (casualties in current heat stress, projected trends, are likely to get attention from leadership).

The recent USGCRP Strategic Plan update draft did not articulate an impacts-relevant agenda – it focused on downscaling as a general need, for example, without talking about specific decisions. Additional lines of inquiry in the climate impacts space are needed, on monsoons, flooding, etc. We need a meta-discussion about what level of information is really needed for adaptation.

17

When do you need detail and when do you not, in a decision context? How can DoD science needs be connected to the overall US research agenda in a more useful way?

Generalized climate risks for different types of facilities and infrastructure would be useful, including guidelines, rules of thumb that might be applicable (inroads) as a starting place. Considering the Directive, some potential research needs could support this kind of guidance.

As part of the current UA-SERDP contract, Acclimatise will be looking at other examples of infrastructure and look at their adaptation efforts… transferable types of facilities, geographies…from other sectors, countries and their militaries.

Would DoD benefit from a high-level global assessment of the impacts and implications of climate change that could be used to support combatant commanders or installations or operations? The National Security staff has been in discussions about whether there should be a report on national security and climate change, and the NCA3 advisory committee already has prepared an outline for an international context report that has not been initiated. This could be an interim report within the Sustained Assessment process.

Education and TrainingThere are opportunities for assisting DoD in implementation of the Directive and previous Executive Orders as well as in understanding climate impacts and adaptation options for specific facilities and missions. Ideas discussed in this category include:

Development of curriculum for military training related to the Directive (approaches to adaptation and resilience) could be a major contribution. Reviewing training programs that already exist that are related, (e.g., energy, water) is one place to start; there is a need to identify things that might go in the PME that will enhance capacity building and preparedness.

Researcher orientation training or developing a guidebook for adaptation professionals about how to engage with military would also be useful; including how the military is structured and decisions are made, the key considerations (e.g., focus on protecting the mission), important acronyms, and cultural “dos” and “don’ts.” This could result in more efficient interactions between researchers and base employees in the future.

Climate ServicesThis part of the conversation focused on whether there is a need for DoD to build its own internal climate services or whether there are existing investments in climate services (including those of NOAA, DOI, USDA, etc.) that could be tailored for use in a regional context.

Climate services optimization – Is it worth pursuing an exploration about how to most efficiently provide climate (beyond weather) services to support the DoD mission, facilities, and operations? One center can’t do all of the work to support all military decision-making across all of these categories.

What is the community that currently supports DoD climate-related programs…and how could its functionality be improved? Could regional science coordination centers that provide a window into services across agencies help? Or should climate services be primarily internal to DoD? Are there external (contractor) personnel who could be trained?

A lot of weather-prediction work to support DoD is centralized to save money…how should existing internal weather-related capability (e.g., AF, USACE) be deployed to maximize effectiveness in the climate context? Could partnerships be an answer to supporting the installations and operations activities more locally?

Installations are starting to lose capacity at the installation level; we are seeing a downsizing of

18

capacity and fewer people capable of receiving input at the installation level. However, there are still “weather forces” out at different installations. Weather offices should be part of the climate preparedness conversation. Emergency managers and civil engineers need to be engaged as well. Weather, climate, and space weather needs: these would be a good path in to the conversation for researchers.

Developing decision-support software is important, but there is a lot of difficulty in DoD accessing information off the internet for security reasons. They may have to use a contractor, which is one more barrier to mainstreaming adaptation practices.

Researchers could conduct a workshop(s) on operational climate services and how to integrate into existing DoD structures. There are only three “regions” now within DoD – East, West and overseas.

What are the sample questions from DoD decision managers? Fire risk, heat stress, how is monsoon precipitation changing, surface flooding and an accelerated hydrologic cycle are some concerns. Applications of fire models or hydrologic models that could distribute flood pulses would be useful. Very fine spatial and temporal scales are being managed, and therefore at the forefront of scientific capabilities. Many perceived climate needs cannot be supported by existing climate science, yet there are many “known” facts about climate that are not being used.

Researchers need to know thresholds where climate modeling is relevant – e.g., weather or climate conditions that can result in shutting down an event or a mission and the frequency of shutdown, which could affect the mission in the longer term, perhaps even having BRAC implications.

The Joint Meteorological and Oceanographic (METOC) Handbook (http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/doctrine/jwfc/metoc_hbk.pdf ) This resource has temperature, wind, and other thresholds for missions, close air support, etc., and is not classified. It is useful for this group and should be revisited in light of climate change.

19

VI. Conclusions and Path Forward

In conclusion, a broad theme that emerged is the need to identify and pursue human-dimensions research topics to support a culture of resilience/preparedness in the context of climate change under the new DoD Directive on Climate Change Adaptation and Resilience. There is a need for more understanding of change management within DoD, including best practices, guidelines, and manuals for different components/echelons, an identification of who-needs-what kinds of science and policy support, and ways to encourage compliance across the DoD enterprise through education and inspections, and possibly future laws and regulations. Possible paths forward include studying analogues from the past transformations and case studies, including what worked, why, and lessons learned; another is an evaluation of selected current similar efforts within DoD, industry, and other militaries in the world; a third is a focus on organizational and social learning – the need for case studies, building knowledge that can then be infused into the manual/guidebook for the learning that takes place within multiple military training programs. Regardless of the sector or region, the time required for true co-production of knowledge is a big challenge. It is really not possible for academics to fully understand the decision context within DoD or for the most important risks and opportunities to be identified without joint learning. But these efforts require a commitment to working together towards these outcomes over periods of time. All of the SERDP teams are still struggling with how to gain the access and commitment required for truly trusted relationships to develop. Although the UA SERDP project paved a very successful path forward using the fire risk/land management tools they developed, the engagement was rather narrowly focused on those issues rather than a broad and potentially transformational conversation. As with all successful climate conversations, there is a need to invest the time to build relationships…but this is especially challenging in bases where there is ongoing turnover in the leadership. The civilian staff clearly can play a role in overcoming at least some portion of this problem, as can the training and expectations that are articulated to those commanders through the chain of command. The existence of the new DoD Directive on Climate Change and Resilience has the potential to be transformative in this regard. Harvesting best practices―including through the work of Task Force Climate Change―is one obvious path forward to risk-based decision processes and mainstreaming these efforts within the day-to-day activities across DoD.

Many of the disincentives for engagement with academia and climate scientists in general are very similar to those identified with other public, private and NGO decision-maker/partners. For example, the desire for deterministic science that supports a single, linear decision process is widely acknowledged, while the real world, especially within the military, is complex, and there are many possible futures that can result from a single decision. However, there are additional challenges within DoD. For example, there are different incentives at different stages of the hierarchy – to proactively fix a problem versus sweep it under the rug. A good example is that risk management requires a vulnerability assessment, and even discussing vulnerabilities is not a favorite topic for base commanders who may be concerned about implications for the BRAC process.

Climate-science credibility and authority is very important, given how high the stakes are for military preparedness. DoD needs help in identifying which tools and approaches are most appropriate in which cases. However, the impacts-research community itself doesn’t know the appropriate use of climate information in many cases – there is a real need for specialized science translators who really understand the pros and cons of various approaches to adaptation in specific space and time contexts.

20

Ideally, elevating the science needs for DoD into the USGCRP and OSTP R&D memo would be evidence that the government was taking these issues seriously and working together to ensure that the science required for better decisions would have a high priority in the budget context.

The strategic objective of all of this effort is to make it easier for DoD to protect its mission, operations, and facilities in the context of climate change. Researchers shouldn’t have to spend time explaining why this is so important, why there is a need to build the culture within both military and civilian components of DoD, why it is in their own interest to be resilient, and that negative impacts will happen to them and their missions if they aren’t prepared. SERDP is poised to help build awareness, identify best practices, and develop case studies of successes that may have applicability to other stakeholders. But of even greater significance in the immediate future is providing science and policy support for the new Directive, which provides an opportunity for focused research inputs that can have transformative impacts within DoD and more broadly.

21

Appendix A: UA SERDP March 7-8, 2016 Cross-Project Workshop Participants

Name Affiliation EmailMary Black UA, Ctr. for Climate Adaptation Services & Solutions mblack@email.arizona.eduJean Calhoun U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service jean_calhoun@fws.govChris Castro UA Department of Atmospheric Sciences (RC-2205) clcastro@email.arizona.eduPaul Faeth Institute for Public Research, CNA faethp@cna.orgDonald Falk UA SERDP Project Co-PI dafalk@email.arizona.eduCate Fox-Lent U.S. Army Corps of Engineers/ERDC-EL catherine.fox-lent@usace.army.milGregg Garfin UA SERDP Project PI (RC-2232) gmgarfin@email.arizona.eduJohn Hall DoD-SERDP Program Manager john.a.hall@usace.army.milRyan Harris U.S. Air Force/DoD Climate Services ryan.harris.3@us.af.milArin Haverland UA SERDP Project, Research Associate arin@email.arizona.eduKathy Jacobs UA SERDP Project Co-PI, Workshop Facilitator jacobsk@email.arizona.eduBob Khosa UA SERDP Project Partner, Acclimatise UK b.khosa@acclimatise.uk.comRachel McCrary NCAR (RC-2204) rmccrary@ucar.eduLinda Mearns NCAR (RC-2204) lindam@ucar.eduRichard Moss Joint Global Change Research Institute (RC-2206) rhm@pnnl.govKit O’Connor U. S. Forest Service christopheroconnor@fs.fed.usJonathan Overpeck UA SERDP Project Co-PI/Co-Director IE jto@email.arizona.eduNinette Sadusky U.S. Navy/Task Force on Climate Change ninette.sadusky@navy.milEmily Seyller The Cadmus Group, Inc. emily.seyller@cadmusgroup.comDave Titley Pennsylvania State University dwt12@psu.eduAdriana Zuniga-Teran UA SERDP Project, Research Associate aazuniga@email.arizona.edu

22

Appendix B: UA SERDP March 7-8, 2016 Cross-Project Workshop Agenda

UA SERDP Cross-Project WorkshopMarch 7-8, 2016

University of Arizona, TucsonInstitute of the Environment

Energy and Natural Resources II BuildingExecutive Conference Room (6th floor), Room N604

Purpose: The purpose of this workshop is to discuss the transferable lessons that can be learned across DoD climate adaptation projects. We will push beyond the immediate findings of individual SERDP projects to build new research hypotheses, identify obstacles to adaptation and opportunities for climate services mechanisms, and provide insights on scalability of SERDP science to meet DoD needs. We are pleased that Admiral David Titley, former Oceanographer of the Navy and Chief Operating Officer of NOAA, will be joining us for this event.

Research Questions: Is DoD different from other communities that are working to manage risk? If so, in what ways?

(e.g., culture, leadership, turnover issues?) What are the implications? How does what we know across the SERDP projects inform the implementation of the recent

Departmental Directive on Climate Change? How might the research investments of other federal agencies in the area of risk communication

and risk management be leveraged or augmented to advance DoD’s strategic interests? What are the specific research needs that, if met, would substantially enhance the capacity

of DOD to manage risks to its mission and facilities?

Work to Date: This work builds from an idea expressed in the UA-SERDP original proposal, i.e., to bring together the shared experience of SERDP climate change investigators working at a number of installations.

Synopsis of Proposed Work: Some findings across SERDP projects are entirely consistent with each other, whereas others represent unique conditions within DoD facilities or reflect the interests and capacity of the researchers and the individual DoD facility managers. Transferability and scalability of research outputs depends on identifying the consistent themes across the projects, developing criteria for evaluating the differences, and building broader fundamental understanding of challenges and opportunities. UA – SERDP is convening SERDP investigators and other selected researchers and practitioners to review and assess findings from existing engagements in multiple locations, develop criteria, and evaluate the findings in the context of what we know about DoD’s decision processes. In addition, we will contrast these findings with a subset of findings from our Goal II project, Best Practices for Climate Risk and Uncertainty Assessment.

23

Brief Methods: We will use interactive learning approaches, such as facilitated and directed brainstorming, in order to build new knowledge across projects and geographies. The workshop will generate joint learning opportunities, looking to identify future challenges and inform research needs. We will assess transferability and scalability of ideas, obstacles to adaptation within DoD, and opportunities for climate services mechanisms, by focusing on the research questions articulated above. We will take advantage of the impressive intellectual capacity and experience within the SERDP teams and invited participants to understand how future research of this kind can be more fruitful, why conclusions might be different in different projects as well as how they are similar, and develop insights across the projects. In particular, we will focus on research needs for the SERDP program related to climate adaptation.

Proposed Outputs: A workshop summary report for SERDP, with concise lessons learned across multiple SERDP

teams that focuses on research needs (to be prepared by UA-SERDP by June 2016). A peer-reviewed paper focused on DoD climate services and adaptation challenges and potential

solutions (Fall 2016) – authors include all invited workshop participants who actively engage in development.

Note: Background materials and suggested readings for all participants may be found on the UA SERDP Cross-Project Website: http://environment.arizona.edu/workshop/serdp-workshop

24

March 7-8, 2016 UA SERDP Cross-Project Workshop Agenda

Day 1: Monday March 7, 2016 Location: Environment and Natural Resources Building 2 Room N604http://environment.arizona.edu/workshop/serdp-workshop

Time Session Leads Session Title Session Content8:15-8:30am Gather at ENR2 Executive

Conference Room, Room N6048:30-9:00am Continental Breakfast

Paradise BakeryBreakfast will be provided in the IE Executive Conference Room

9:00-10:00am Gregg Garfin & Kathy Jacobs Welcome & Introductions UA SERDP Project Background Purpose of Meeting

10:00-10:30am Kathy Jacobs & John Hall Implications of the New Directive on Climate Change

Discussion on the DoD Directive 4715.21: Climate Change Adaptation & Resilience, Effective January 2016

10:30-11:00am Morning Break11:00-12:30pmSession 1

Gregg Garfin, Don Falk and Kit O’Connor (10 minute briefings from Chris, Ryan, Linda, and Richard related to their experiences with DoD engagement, planning and climate services)

Best practices for climate risk and uncertainty assessment:

Major findings of the UA SERDP Project

Findings from other projects and practitioners

12:30-1:30pm Chris Wilt, UA Lunch Break & ENR2 LEED TourTucson Tamale Company

Lunch will be provided in the IE Executive Conference Room

1:30-3:00pmSession 2

Gregg Garfin & Kathy Jacobs Alternative approaches and incentives for engagement with installations

How do we make adaptation count?

How do we scale for imminent threat and long term planning

Top –down and bottom-up approaches

Risk management Role of New Directive

25

UA SERDP Project Hypotheses3:00-3:30pm Afternoon Break3:30-5:00pmSession 3

Kathy Jacobs & Gregg Garfin(input from Bob, Ryan, Cate, Emily, Jean and others)

Similarities and differences between DoD and other communities that are working to manage risk

Culture, Leadership, Rotation of Personnel, Risk Perception

Other differences/similarities5:00-6:30pm UA SERDP Team Dinner Break

Pasco Kitchen and LoungeDinner will be held at a local Tucson eatery near campus

7:00-8:30pmOptional Activity

UA College of Science and Institute of the Environment present the Earth Transformed Series: http://uascience.org/

Earth Transformed Series talk by Jonathan Overpeck: “The Changing Earth: It’s Not Just a New Normal”http://uascience.org/team/jonathan-overpeck/

Workshop participants are invited to attend a special talk and follow up Q&A session by Jonathan Overpeck on the UA Campus.

Guests may choose to view the talk at Centennial Hall or at ENR2 as part of the Q&A.

8:30 Adjourn

Day 2: Tuesday March 8, 2016 Location: Environment and Natural Resources Building 2 Room N604http://environment.arizona.edu/workshop/serdp-workshop

Time Session Leads Session Title Session Content8:30-9:00am UA SERDP Team Continental Breakfast

Paradise BakeryBreakfast will be provided in the IE Executive Conference Room

9:00-10:30amSession 4

Gregg Garfin & Kathy Jacobs(input from Ryan, Bob and others)

Climate services and providing adaptation science and support for DoD risk management and planning

Service and information systems External/Internal Modifying existing programs to

be more useful

10:30-11:00am Morning Break11:00-12:30pmSession 5

Kathy Jacobs & Richard Moss Physical and social science research needs, andLeadership & Institutions: Potential top-down and bottom-up questions

How is adaptation science translated and adopted through various levels of the command structure?

How do we deal with uncertainty?

What types of questions would

26

help us understand how adaptation science may improve efficiency in adaptation decision making at multiple scales?

12:30-1:30pm UA SERDP Team Working LunchArizona Student Union Catering

Box lunch provided in the IE Executive Conference Room

1:30-4:30pmSession 6

UA SERDP TeamRichard MossUA SERDP Cross-Project Workshop Attendees

Workshop debriefing and discussion of report for SERDP and ideas for peer reviewed paper(s) and other deliverables

Participants are encouraged to join this session if they are available. The core UA SERDP Team will use this time to review and discuss outcomes and opportunities that emerge from the workshop, and develop the workshop report.

5:00pm Workshop Ends

27