The National Weather Service (NWS) is a component of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) within the Department of Commerce (DOC). NWS' core mission is to provide weather and flood warnings, public and marine forecasts and advisories primarily for the protection of life and property. NWS' operations also support the nation's economic development and aviation safety. In carrying out this mission, NWS operates a variety of systems to collect, process, analyze and disseminate weather information and products to and among its network of field offices, national centers and the American public. NWS offices are located in every state and several territories and its personnel interact daily with the U.S. population. From a resources and employee perspective NWS accounts for 16 % of the total DOC annual budget and 13 % of DOC's personnel ceiling.

During the 1980's, NWS initiated a program to both modernize and restructure its field operation. The program was designed to simultaneously provide the nation with weather and hydrological products and services and complete required modernization and restructuring activities necessary to realize the benefits and efficiencies of the technologies. The modernization program is designed to skillfully use emerging information and observational technology to improve field operations. The restructuring will consolidate 52 Weather Service Forecast Offices, 204 smaller and less capable Weather Service Offices, 13 River Forecast Centers and 3 National Centers into 119 Weather Forecast Offices (equal and more capable), 13 River Forecast Centers, 13 Data Collection Offices and 9 National Centers. The mutual goals of the Modernization and Associated Restructuring (MAR) were to: achieve more uniform weather services nationwide, provide more reliable detection and prediction of severe weather and flooding, improve the accuracy, responsiveness and quality of the services and products, improve employee productivity and generate a more cost-effective operation. Critical components of the modernization include fielding of the Next Generation Weather Radar (NEXRAD), the Next Generation Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite (GOES-NEXT), the Automated Surface Observing System (ASOS) and the Advanced Weather Interactive Processing System (AWIPS). The first three systems are in use nation-wide and the last is currently in the final stages of development. The deployment of these new systems, coupled with a better educated and trained NWS work force, has over the past several years resulted in significantly improved weather warnings and forecasts to the public. For example, tornado forecast performance measures (Government Performance and Results Act) reflect a doubling of lead times and a 26% increase in warning accuracy; 24 hour hurricane landfall forecasts show a 25% accuracy improvement.

AWIPS is the "central nervous system" of the modernized NWS. It is the information processing, and display system that forecasters and hydrologists will use to integrate, analyze, and fuse the vast amounts of data now available. Additionally, it will be the national communications infrastructure for the forecast offices and centers, serving as a link to each other and the diverse set of product users throughout the nation. AWIPS like many large information technology programs has experienced technical difficulties, cost growth and schedule delays. These problems have resulted in considerable oversight from external agencies and a congressional mandate to complete development and deployment activities within a $550M cap. Senior DOC/NOAA officials indicate any costs above this cap will be absorbed within the NOAA budget. Current schedules project completion of development activities in November 1998 and deployment in July 1999. Coincident with AWIPS development are a series of other important actions to integrate local data with improved product sets from the National Centers, and deploy several forecaster productivity enhancement programs (Interactive Forecast Preparation system, Local Data Acquisition and Dissemination System and the Weather Radio Console Replacement Program with a text to voice capability). These activities are scheduled to be completed during the latter portions of the AWIPS deployment. When these systems are available and tested, NWS will complete (mid-2001) the final stages of the restructuring, resulting in 119 equally capable Weather Forecast Offices (WFO) and 13 River Forecast Centers (RFC).

Despite the challenges associated with the development and deployment of the modernized systems and the new productivity enabling tools, the hardest part of the restructuring remains to be accomplished. Effective and efficient use of the new systems and National Center products require a "cultural" change in the way forecasters approach and accomplish (team versus specialized forecaster) their job and in how the public views this more generalist forecaster. The required changes are deep and the embedded culture will not change easily. Strong and consistent leadership at all levels of the NWS, as well as a proactive plan to "sell" new processes and products to NWS employees and external customers, will be necessary. Without these components, it is unlikely cultural changes will occur within the necessary timelines to meet programmed field staff levels.

During the past several months serious questions have arisen within the DOC and NOAA concerning the fiscal and people resources required by the NWS to continue to provide regular operations and maintain current modernization program schedules. These concerns resulted in the commissioning of this study to ascertain appropriate resources needed to operate the NWS.

Task
Determine the Fiscal Year (FY) 1998 and 1999 resources required to operate the National Weather Service as it completes its planned modernization and transitions to a restructured field office alignment. (See Appendix A - NOAA TASK STATEMENT)

Scope

Conduct a sufficient analysis to assess the fiscal resources required to operate the NWS in Fiscal Years 1998 and 1999; identify areas of fiscal uncertainty within the specified budget years as well as those that could impact completion of the programmed modernization and restructuring; and provide recommendations and options to address the uncertainties. Secondary tasks were to analyze the regional headquarters infrastructure to determine the feasibility of plans to accelerate the closure of the Southern Region Headquarters, identify issues/uncertainties with the AWIPS program, and examine and comment on programmed office closures and WFO staffing levels.

The specified budget years span the planned completion of the modernization and are a way point on the path to a restructured field operation. Within this report "modernization" and "restructuring" are defined as:

Modernization denotes deployment and use of the planned technological - NEXRAD, GOES-NEXT, ASOS and AWIPS - systems as well as completion of the Central Computer and WFO/NCEP construction programs; and implementation of the WFO facility maintenance program.

Restructuring denotes a comprehensive series of actions that enables 119 WFOs to provide the total spectrum of products and services with programmed staff levels. Necessary conditions include adequate and trained staff, availability of a pre-defined set of NCEP gridded products, and operational implementation of several productivity enhancement systems - e.g., Console Replacement System with a text to voice capability, Local Data Acquisition and Dissemination System and Interactive Forecast Preparation system.

SECTION IV - APPROACH and METHODOLOGY

Approach

This report has been developed using the following approach. Zero-based budget information provided by the NWS was assessed to establish a baseline cost determination of existing and projected NWS programs. This assessment considered past spending patterns as well as NWS request levels associated with the following budget elements:

• The current and projected staffing plan.
• The current and planned modernized field office operations.
• The current and planned NCEP and Regional Headquarters infrastructure and operations.
• Development and deployment of the new technology systems and associated system evolution plans.
• Recurring requirements such as operations and maintenance, research and development, technology refreshment, and training needs.
• Program changes due to statutory/regulatory mandates.

NWS fiscal requirements were derived using the methodology described below. Of particular interest with respect to each element was whether the President's FY 1998 budget and the FY 1999 OMB Submit provide adequate support, and if not, what resources will be needed.

Methodology

The methodology employed was tailored to meet the imposed time constraints and consisted of the following elements:

• A bottom-up analysis of the BASE budget account to determine labor and non-labor costs for headquarters NWS, NCEP, Regional Headquarters and field units.
• A review and assessment of:

Component (capital asset and operations) accounts of modernization budgets with particular attention on operations and maintenance projections for deployed new technology systems, AWIPS development and deployment, and system evolution/technology infusion cost estimates.

Budget documents including FY 1992 through 1996 actuals, FY 1997 expenditure projections and NWS FY 1998 and 1999 proposed budgets including DOC, Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and Congressional changes thereto.

Several University Corporation for Atmospheric Research (UCAR) reports on the operation of NCEP's Environment Modeling Center, Tropical Prediction Center, Space Environmental Center and the Central Operations Center.

Correspondence from interested citizens, trade and professional associations, commercial interests, and federal, state and county officials.

NWS planning and programmatic documentation, analysis of FY 1997 streamlining, restructuring and realignment proposals, and provided briefing material.

• Briefings, meetings, interviews and consultations with:

Key DOC and NOAA policy and budget officials.

Several Members of Congress and staff members of appropriate Senate and House Appropriations and Authorization Committees and sub-committees.

Key Headquarters, NWS management, policy and budget officials and staff members regarding:

• current and planned staffing requirements
• baseline organizational operating costs
• current programs
• future plans and requirements
• operative management, decision making and budget analysis, development and execution processes.

All NWS Regional Directors and Director, National Data Buoy Center.

Representatives of the National Emergency Management Association (NEMA) and the National Coordinating Council on Emergency Management (NCCEM) as well as with numerous state and county emergency managers (Texas, Florida, Maryland, Ohio etc.)

Members of the NWS Modernization Transition Committee and the National Research Council's NWS Modernization Committee, as well as with officials of several professional meteorological associations.

President and several shop stewards of the NWS Employee Union.

Representatives of the private weather industry.

Government officials in various agencies that use NWS products and services (e.g., Department of Agriculture, Federal Aviation Administration, Fire Service and Water Management Agencies).

Key policy, contract and acquisition officials of NOAA System Acquisition Office.

Members of the GAO's Information Resources Management staff.

• Visits to:

All mainland Regional headquarters.

Several Weather Forecast Offices and River Forecast Centers.

All NCEP (except for Storm Prediction Center) Product centers as well as the National Training Center (NTC), National Reconditioning Center (NRC) and the Central Administrative Support Center.

SECTION V - CONSTRAINTS and ASSUMPTIONS

This report has been governed by a prescribed set of constraints; and several assumptions governed cost determinations.

Constraints

The following constraints regarding the baseline for NWS modernization and service levels were followed:

• FY 1996 current level of services and products, adjusted for permanent changes made as part of the FY 1997 budget, will continue in FY 1998­1999
• NWS modernization plan will be pursued and completed as currently defined and scheduled in the National Implementation Plan
• The staffing plan will be implemented as defined in the Human Resources Plan, adjusted for National Performance Review decisions, current AWIPS deployment schedules and NWS FY 1997 streamlining actions.
• Guidance for addressing the FY 1997 budget must be followed in the FY 1998­1999 budgets - i.e., there shall be no direct impact on warning programs, no reductions to modernization systems and schedules, and no permanent staffing reductions in weather forecast offices and river forecast centers.

Assumptions

The following assumptions governed cost determinations:

• FY 1998 and 1999 pay raises of 2.8% and FY 1998 locality pay as specified by OPM were applied.
• A non­labor inflation factor of 1.7% was applied.
• AWIPS development and deployment schedule approved by Secretary of Commerce in February 1997 is maintained.
• Procedures contained in the NWS Modernization Act (PL 102­567) pertaining to station closures will not be streamlined; no fiscal savings will be realized.
• NOAA Common Services charges were assumed to equal $35.3 million in FY 1998 and $35.4 million in FY 1999; permanent transfers to equal $0.7 million in FY 1998/1999; and non-discretionary fees for services to equal $1.3 million in FY 1998/1999.

The following sections analyze and discuss the FYs 1998 and 1999 labor and non­labor costs required to operate and modernize the NWS. Proposed NWS budgets for both fiscal years are detailed in Appendix B - RECOMMENDED BUDGET for FYs1998 and 1999.

Introduction

The NWS budget structure is complex with fiscal resources budgeted, appropriated and expended in multiple accounts; a BASE account and five modernization accounts. The BASE budget account encompass normal operating costs for operations, research, and facilities and essentially represents the pre­Modernization and Restructuring (MAR) level of resources. The modernization systems budgets are found in both Operations and Research and Capital Assets Acquisition Appropriations. NEXRAD, ASOS and AWIPS accounts encompass resources to develop and deploy new systems and computers, funding for program management, system evolution activities, and operations and maintenance costs. The Capital Assets Account also identifies resources to build/lease new NCEP and WFO facilities. In FY 1998, NOAA moved WFO Facility Maintenance to the Operations, Research and Facilities budget. The Modernization and Restructuring Demonstration Initiative (MARDI) account encompass incremental costs above BASE to implement the MAR, and when completed, the additive costs (above pre­MAR BASE) to operate the modernized NWS (e.g., O&M, salary). Within the modernization accounts, budget categories are clearly defined and activities identified and costed. Fiscal resources in the FY 1998 President's Budget (PB) and the FY 1999 OMB Submit were discernible and our analysis involved evaluating the reasonableness of the activity, its associated cost, and making appropriate adjustments.

This was not the case with the BASE account. Traditionally, NWS, like many government agencies, does not apportion BASE dollars into component parts and activities. Thus, identifying what activities and categories are included and how labor and non­labor costs were allocated within the FY 1998 and 1999 budgets was impossible. In FY 1997 NWS did initiate a study to build a zero­base budget (ZBB) to account for BASE activities. While this study is still somewhat dynamic and in the development phase, we did consider it. The ZBB intermingled activities funded in the FY 1998 PB with unfunded needs and did not distinguish between either. This made our analysis difficult, as we had no clear baseline as to what was in the FY 1998 PB. We reviewed the entire NWS operation, including prior year actual costs for recurring activities and desired changes and initiatives to determine appropriate resource levels. Results of these analyses were then compared to the NWS ZBB. Where possible we also compared projected costs to relevant industry and government bench-marks.

Labor (Staffing) Requirements

The data and analyses presented in the following sections represents the total NWS labor requirement regardless of budget account. Regarding FTE levels in the FY 1998 PB and FY 1999 OMB Submit, we were only able to ascertain the total number of FTEs NWS­wide. In constructing overall FY 1998 and 1999 budgets (Appendix B), reimbursable costs were accounted for and labor costs reflected in appropriate budget accounts.

1. - National Weather Service Headquarters and Central Operations

In FY 1997, NWS, pursuant to congressional direction, streamlined and reduced headquarters staffing levels by 153 positions. Prior to FY 1997, policy (and associated program management and oversight) and service provider functions were intermeshed within the Headquarters organization. As part of the streamlining action, NWS attempted to separate and realign policy from service providing activities. This resulted in the creation of a headquarters level Office of System Management and the establishment of the Centers for Communications, Radar and Logistics. This approach has merit and should help focus the headquarters staff on those functions which are appropriate for a government line office. While the initial NWS plan is good, our analysis indicates the headquarters organization still blurs the policy/service distinction; we believe the Technique Development Laboratory and the Hydrology Research Laboratory are service functions and should fall within the purview of Central Operations or NCEP. Accordingly, in the following organizational and labor charts (Table 1 - Headquarters & Central Operations Staffing) we treat these activities as non­headquarters functions. While the past headquarters reductions were significant, we believe with prioritizing of tasks and implementing more efficient staff coordination and decision-making processes, the staff should be able to handle the workload.

NWS, in a series of briefings in August 1997, stated requirements for 841 FTEs within Headquarters and Central Operations. We used this information as a requirements baseline. With minor adjustments, the proposed allocations of FTEs appear reasonable. We reduced the Associate Administrator's office by 6 (3 in Federal Coordinator's Office and 3 unassigned FTEs), National Reconditioning Center by 4 (reduced number of FTEs in Quality Control Division, as percentage of the work force assigned to QC functions appeared excessive) and the National Data Buoy Center by 2 (1 manager and 1 administrative support position as supervisor/employee and administrative support/employee ratios appear excessive). These changes reduce the HQ/Central Operations staffing requirements from 841 to 829.

Office	NWS Brief Aug. 1997	NWS ZBB Review	NOAA Review
Headquarters National Weather Service
Associate Administrator	100	105	94
System Development*
Director	7	7	7
System Evolution	26	25	26
Meteorology	80	81	80
Hydrology**
Director	7	5.8	7
Operations	42	43.5	42
Systems Management
Director	6	15.5	6
Staff	93	81	93
Sub­Total	361	363.8	355
Central Operations
TDL***	40	41	40
HRL***	33	33.5	33
Centers for Communications, Radar and Logistics
Director	5	4	5
Telecom Center	105	106	105
Radar	82	95	82
Field Engineering	77	61	77
National Reconditioning Center	73	82.5	69
National Training Center	30	31	30
National Data Buoy Center	35	36	33
Sub­Total	480	490	474
Total	841	853.8	829

* Excludes Technique Development Laboratory (TDL)

** Excludes Hydrology Research Laboratory (HRL)

*** Considered function as non­policy and categorized as part of Central Operations

Policy functions are an inherent government activity whereas service activities (be they operational, development or support) are not. Service activities are often best provided by other than government entities. Once NWS has clearly separated all headquarters policy from service providing functions, they should objectively and continually assess which services must be absolutely performed in­house. For services that may be provided by others (public or private) including Research/Development and technical infusion, NWS should seek the best long term return for their scarce resources. In addition, consideration should be given to out­sourcing all (or portions of) the various national logistics and data buoy service infrastructure.

2. - National Centers for Environmental Prediction

In FY 1997, NCEP also permanently reduced staffing levels by 44 positions. Our analysis used the FTE staffing needs provided in August 1997 by the NCEP Director as a baseline. Overall, with the exception of the Tropical Prediction Center (TPC), we concur with NCEP's analysis. The TPC difference is one FTE ( 41 vice 42) per information received, during our visit, from the Acting TPC Director. Table 2 - National Centers For Environmental Prediction Staffing - depicts NCEP staffing requirements and allocation by Prediction Center.

The overall staffing resources identified are sufficient to permit NCEP to restore the products (e.g., marine 96 hr sea­state forecast and sea state analysis) that were eliminated in FY 1997. While restoring these products may require reallocation of resources among or within centers, that is a management and not a resource issue. Additionally, the budgeted staffing levels are sufficient to enable NCEP to accomplish required development work and meet implementation timelines to provide the Interactive Forecast Preparation (IFP) system with needed gridded products.

NCEP Central Operations (NCO) is an area wherein all the functions need not necessarily be done in­house and selected portions could be considered for out­sourcing to the private sector. While this is not a new concept (see UCAR 1997 Review Team Report on NCEP Central Operations ), given the near certainty of continual budget pressure it deserves renewed thoughtful consideration. Given the public safety and international implications of NCO products and services, out­sourcing must be approached with deliberate and thoughtful planning.

	NWS Data Aug. 1997	NWS ZBB Review	NCEP Data Aug. 1997	NOAA Review
Director	8	9	8	8
NCEP Central Operations	82	78.5	82	82
Environmental Modeling Center	46	46	46	46
Hydrometeorological Prediction Center	40	42	40	40
Marine Prediction Center	20	21	22	22
Climate Prediction Center	51	51	51	51
Aviation Weather Center	45	48	49	49
Storm Prediction Center	30	34	32	32
Tropical Prediction Center	35	41.5	42	41
Total	357	371	372	371

3. - Regional Headquarters

Throughout the past year, the required NWS regional headquarters infrastructure has been a controversial issue. A specific task was to evaluate the feasibility of plans to accelerate the closure of the Southern Region. An analysis of this issue and the rationale for the recommendation on the regional headquarters infrastructure required to lead NWS through the MAR is contained in Section XI. For this phase of the report, suffice it to note we believe six albeit smaller (than FY 1996 staffing levels) regions are required and plans to close the Southern Region should be terminated. From a budget perspective, costs of this alignment are similar to the NWS proposed 5 (three CONUS and Alaska and Pacific) region plan. Both yield savings of over $3 million associated with the draw down of staff levels at the regional headquarters. We experienced considerable difficulty in ascertaining the "official" NWS position relative to what regional infrastructure was required and the logic and analyses to support that position. As Table 3 - Regional Headquarters Staffing Proposals - indicates, we noted at least five different plans or variations of an existing plan; with the exception of the two non­CONUS regions, the aggregate staffing differences are small. For comparative cost considerations, we used the data provided by NWS in early September.

Region	FY 1996 FTE	Report to Congress	NWS ZBB Review	GAO Report July '97	NWS Plan Aug. '97	NWS Plan Sept.'97	RD Plan May '97	NOAA Review
Eastern	57	58	59	59	58	59	45	45
Central	58	58	56	60	58	60	45	45
Southern	61	0	0	0	0	0	45	45
Western	49	58	54	58	58	58	45	45
Sub­total	225	174	169	177	174	177	180	180
Cost ($M)	$15.0M					$12.0M		$12.4 M
Alaska	39	20	20	34	20	31	36	35
Pacific	28	20	27	22	16	27	24	24
Sub­total	67	40	47	56	36	58	60	59
Total	292	214	216	233	210	235	240	239
Cost ($M)	$19.5M					$16.3M		$16.5M

While the recommended regional structure retains the historical 6 region alignment, staffing is reduced from the FY 1996 level (292 to 239). We believe this alignment and attendant staffing levels will enable the regions to meet essential mission and support requirements.

4. - Field Offices (Weather Forecast Offices, River Forecast Centers etc.)

As noted earlier, the NWS field structure is in the throes of the modernization and restructuring. The nucleus of the new NWS can be found in the nation­wide network of 52 NEXRAD Weather Service Forecast Offices and the 67 NEXRAD Weather Service Offices. All these offices have ASOS and NEXRAD technology and several have early versions of AWIPS. While the NWS 1993 Human Resources Plan (HR) posited staffing levels for these offices, nation­wide application has been inconsistent, new productivity tools (NOAA Weather Radio with text to voice) are not available and ASOS augmentation requirements have not been relaxed.

Based on the delays in policy implementation and deployment of productivity enhancing tools, we concluded (Table 4 - Field Staffing) the field required 3600 FTE in both FY 1998 and 1999, a small and manageable (56 FTE) increase over the 1993 HR Plan projections. NWS must exercise caution in filling these positions because significant reductions of field level staffing is programmed (down to 3270 FTEs field­wide in the restructured era) once the new technology is deployed and tested. Selection of the hiring method is a policy decision but consideration should be given to temporary and interim hires and use of contract employees; hiring of permanent personnel should be done judiciously. Additionally, these numbers assume the requirement for warning liaison services will be satisfied remotely at all but 9 locations, thus freeing 20 additional personnel for use in WFOs.

Region	FY 1998 NWS Plan	FY 1998 NOAA Rvw	FY 1999 NWS ZBB	FY 1999 NOAA Rvw
Total	3578*	3600	3588.4	3600

* NWS Paper "End­State Staffing" dated 9/2/97

B. - Labor Cost Model Review and Labor Costs

Labor costs make up a large part of the NWS budget, consequently we conducted an analysis to determine if the NWS labor pricing model accurately represented costs. We tested assumptions regarding basic compensation, benefit and differential pay levels, and reasonableness of grade demographics. Appendix C contains a detailed discussion of the analysis. Overall, the NWS model over estimates labor costs by about 1%, due to the labor and benefit rates mandated by DOC/NOAA for budget formulation. Table 5 - NWS Direct Funded FTEs - depicts total labor costs for the BASE/MARDI accounts and provides a comparison with FTE authorizations in the FY 1998 PB and FY 1999 OMB Submit. In developing our labor budgets, we included pay raises of 2.8% and used OPM specified locality pay. Senior NOAA policy officials advised us the FY 1998 PB and FY 1999 OMB Submit only partially fund the pay raises and locality pay.

	FY 1998 President Budget	FY 1998 NOAA Review	FY 1999 OMB Submit	FY 1999 NOAA Review
Headquarters NWS
Policy	*	355	*	355
Central Operations	*	411	*	411
NTC and NDBC	*	63	*	63
NCEP	*	371	*	371
Regional Headquarters	*	239	*	239
Field	*	3600	*	3600
Total FTEs	4,962	5039	4,834	5039
BASE+MARDI	4,521	4,598	4,401	4,606
Modernization	219	219	211	211
BASE +MARDI Cost	*	$311.1	*	$324.9
Modernization Cost	*	$14.5	*	$14.6

* Data not available; FY 1998 PB and FY1999 OMB Submit do not present Labor & Benefits tables for NWS.

Headquarters, NWS, and Central Operations

This analysis focuses on the non­labor components of the BASE and MARDI budget accounts. Most offices and organizations also receive funding from programs in the modernization accounts. In determining, non­labor funding requirements, we reviewed FY 1992­1997 expenditures and made adjustments to reflect changes associated with MAR activities. We then evaluated and analyzed the NWS FY 1998 and 1999 Zero Based Budget projections to ascertain their reasonableness and to determine the resources necessary to both sustain baseline operations and service infrastructure and accomplish required program changes or new initiatives. The number of staff at Regional and NWS Headquarters has decreased significantly over the past two years and video teleconferencing capability has been installed at each Region and several central support locations. The proposed budget allocation for travel reflects current staffing levels and projected workload; all are reduced from previous years (see Section VIII.E).
­Table 6 - Headquarters NWS and Central Operations NonLABOR - outlines proposed funding levels. Costs for NOAA Common Services are not included. Since the NWS did not provide the BASE and MARDI FY 1998 PB or FY 1999 OMB Submit at the office or organization level, a direct comparison was not possible.

A. - Office of the Associate Administrator (AA)

This office includes the Associate Administrator, two deputies and supporting staff plus several staff elements - Management and Budget (MB), National Implementation Staff, International Affairs (IA), Office of the Federal Coordinator for Meteorology (OFCM), and Industrial Meteorology (IM). The latter three office's budgets are small and consist primarily of supplies, travel and limited support activities and NWS FY 1998/1999 projections are reasonable.

A substantial portion of the AA and MB budget allocations are fixed business costs over which NWS has limited control, i.e., $13 million cover central NWS charges like GSA rents, NOAA salary reimbursement and guard services. We noted a number of programs within this budget that more appropriately belong at the office level (e.g., Telecommunications Center or Office of Meteorology). We transferred funding to the Telecommunications Center for the GOES­Tap ($1.5M in FY 1998 and $1.0M in FY 1999 and the Flight Documentation contract ($400,000 annually); we transferred $950,000 to the Office of Meteorology for disaster survey work, marine evaluation and verification contract activities and the U.S. Weather Research Program. With the following exceptions, we agree with the NWS ZBB budget projections. Postage costs were reduced 10% ($100,000), support contracts were reduced 5% ($300,000) and all unassigned funding ($2 million) was eliminated.

Office	FY 1998 NOAA Review	FY 1999 NOAA Review
NOAA Common Services	35.3	35.4
Headquarters Organizations
Associate Administrator	21.3	22.6
Systems Development*	0.3	0.4
Meteorology	9.5	9.8
Hydrology**	1.5	1.6
Systems Management	10.8	11.6
Subtotal Headquarters	43.4	46.0
Central Operations
TDL	0.7	0.7
HRL	1.5	1.6
Centers for Communications, Radar and Logistics	13.8	13.1
National Training Center	0.6	0.6
National Data Buoy Center	9.6	9.7
Subtotal Central Operations	26.2	25.7
Total Headquarters + Central Operations	69.6	71.7

*Does not include TDL funding (shown separately under Central Operations)

**Does not include HRL funding (shown separately under Central Operations)

B. - Office of Systems Development

FY 1996 and FY 1997 expenditures were sufficient and that level of resources were maintained in FY 1998 and FY 1999. The only adjustment made was to transfer $100,000 for the Pennsylvania State University Cooperative Institute to OM for central administration.

C. - Office of Meteorology

The majority of the activities within this office are devoted to supporting NWS­wide training (see Section VIII.B) and operational meteorological programs. Traditionally, funding for several OM managed programs has been included in the Associate Administrator's budget. We transferred this funding. Also, funding for Cooperative Institutes has been dispersed throughout NWS Headquarters Offices, NCEP and the Regions. We consolidated funding ($1.5M) and allocated it to OM for management and execution. Also, we increased OM funding above FY 1997 levels to support several critical programs that have been neglected over the past several years $100,000 for Quantitative Precipitation Forecasting work and $225,000 to replace deficient observing equipment on vessels that participate in the Voluntary Observing Ship (VOS) program. Additionally, training program increases summarized in Section VIII.B are included.

D. - Office of Hydrology

FY 1996 and 1997 expenditures were sufficient and that level of resources were maintained in FY 1998 and 1999.

E. - Office of Systems Management

The funding provided is sufficient to complete deployment of the NOAA Weather Radio (NWR) Console Replacement System, provide lightning data to newly deployed AWIPS systems, resume cooperative observer training and oversight, and sustain operations and consumable replenishment for the upper air observing program. It includes funding for preliminary activities necessary to modify and/or replace the existing upper air system in response to the government mandate to vacate a portion of the currently allocated radio frequency spectrum. An increase ($460,000) is provided for NWR maintenance in acknowledgment of the growth of these systems under Vice President Gore's initiative for a national emergency warning system. A pricing adjustment of ($265,000 in FY 1998 and $1.6 million in FY 1999) was included to accommodate increased costs associated with the sole source extension of the existing NOAA Weather Wire Service contract. Additionally, in FY 1999 price increases ($876,000) for GPS radiosondes were accommodated.

F. - Technique Development Laboratory.

FY 1996 and FY 1997 expenditures were sufficient and that level of resources were maintained.

G. - Hydrology Research Laboratory.

FY 1996 and 1997 expenditures were sufficient and that level of resources were maintained.

H. - Centers for Communications, Radar and Logistics.

Proposed funding levels continue pre­modernization era telecommunications services with appropriate reductions to account for deployment of the new technology systems. Overall NWS budget projections were supported as they provide for a viable repair and reconditioning capability adequate to sustain prudent supply pipeline and warehouse stock levels. Some adjustments were made to communications programs. First, additional NWS­wide communications program budgets were consolidated and moved into the Telecommunications Center's budget; to wit: (a) GOES Tap funding (including local dissemination systems) was consolidated and then reduced by $779,000 in FY 1998 and an additional $500,000 in FY 1999 to accelerate replacement of this legacy system and conversion to modernized data streams and (b) Flight Documentation Program funding of $400,000 (FY 1998 and FY 1999) was transferred. Second, funding for the DIFAX system was permanently eliminated with a FY 1998 savings of $115,000, again to encourage conversion to the modernized data streams. A recurring FY 1998 increase of $1.3 million was included to restore a modest equipment replacement program to sustain the high technology NWS infrastructure. Additionally, a recurring increase of $1 million was included to meet the minimum requirements for Safety and Environmental programs mandated by statute and regulation. This level of funding is the minimum required to protect NWS managers from criminal liability under these laws. The team encourages NOAA/NWS to pursue a more pro­active OSHA/EPA compliance effort as resources and priorities permit.

I. - National Weather Service Training Center

FY 1996 and 1997 BASE expenditures were sufficient and that level of resources were maintained in FY 1998 and 1999. Additionally, MARDI funds are available to support the move to a new building.

J. - National Data Buoy Center

The current network of approximately 128 moored buoys and C­MAN stations has evolved over the past decade in an unplanned and ad­hoc basis. Funding for the network has been unstable, particularly in FY 1997, as many agencies withdrew support. Projections indicate a continued downward trend in network size. The NDBC has supported this network with a combination of NWS (reimbursable and BASE) and discretionary funding. The team recognized without additional funding the NDBC will be unable to adequately maintain the entire network. Given study constraints, our analysis provided sufficient funding to maintain the network at the FY 1996 level (71 base and 11 additional buoys). We also included a recurring $500,000 increase to remedy equipment maintenance and spares shortfalls.

National Centers for Environmental Prediction

Funding (­Table 7 - NCEP NonLabor) covers operations of all NCEP Prediction Centers. We increased the budget $800,000 over FY 1997 levels. This funding will allow NCEP to sustain FY 1996 product/service levels, procure needed equipment and supplies, properly maintain equipment and accomplish necessary development activities. Additionally, we adjusted the budget to account for savings ($570,000 in FY 1998 and $645,000 in FY 1999) associated with the use of N­AWIPS at the various Prediction Centers and removal of legacy systems.

Office	FY 1998 NOAA Review		FY 1999 NOAA Review
NCEP	8,400		8,500

 

Regional Headquarters and Field Offices

Our analysis indicates that budget formulation for the regions, traditionally, has been "past behavior based". In the time available for this report, we were unable to gain a sufficient understanding of the relationship between regional non­labor expenditures and the adequacy of support provided to WFOs by the regions and how that in turn related to the quality of WFO forecast products and services. This limited our ability to realistically evaluate and determine budget levels.

We provided $49.0 million of funding (BASE and MARDI) for operations, maintenance and infrastructure sustainment within the NWS Regions. This is nearly a 26% reduction ($17.6 million) from actual FY 1996 expenditures, and an increase of approximately $4.3 million above FY 1997 projected expenditures. We believe that while the region's could absorb a 26% reduction from historical spending levels for a single year, it should not be continued indefinitely without a clearer understanding of the probable immediate and cumulative impacts. Our allocation applies pressure to normalize spending across the CONUS regions and accounts for the 20% decrease in overall staffing at the regional headquarters. Additionally, in FY 1999 we included funds (Section VII - New Initiatives) to increase the capacity of the regional frame relay communications networks to accommodate interactive visual capabilities necessary for effective distance learning programs.

NWS does not appear to have a detailed understanding of regional non­labor business practices and is not able to relate non­labor expenditures to the types and quality of services provided by WFO/RFCs. Likewise, we were unable to gain a comprehensive understanding of regional non­labor resource requirements. In budgeting, NWS assumes past expenditures are valid. For lack of a better alternative we also followed that assumption. This assumption of past behavior being correct has several risks, including punishing the more efficient portions of NWS and not maximizing the return-on-investment (ROI) for non­labor expenditures. While non­labor costs across the CONUS regions are consistent, with Eastern and Southern slightly more expensive in total, the regions are not the same size. The Central Region has more WFOs (72% more than Eastern Region) and employs more FTEs. However, from FY 1992­1996, the Central Region spent 3% less on non­labor than the Eastern Region and in FY 1997 is projected to spend 31% less. The Central Region also spends consistently less than the Southern Region.

We attempted to understand these variations by aggregating the data to remove differences in budgeting practices, stages of modernization, and color of money distinctions between the BASE, MARDI, and the program accounts. We were unable to understand the cost variations within and across the regions. Further analysis of NWS financial data and more detailed assessments of the individual regions should resolve some of these issues. However, the essential fact is NWS apparently cannot provide a compelling explanation and justification for regional non­labor expenditures. We are not implying that regional non­labor funding allocations are wrong; rather they rest on little justification. NWS needs to better understand the relationship between a WFO's non­labor costs, its unique characteristics (e.g., number of FTEs, location, workload, etc.) and the type and quality of provided services and products. Such information would enable NWS to assess the appropriateness of WFO and regional non­labor expenditures, rather than simply accepting past behavior as valid.

The fiscal resources involved with these budgets are large. If all regions operated at the same per location non­labor rate as the Central Region, substantial non­labor regional budget savings could be realized. As the restructuring progresses, analysis of the Regional similarities and differences should become easier. It is essential that NOAA invest the effort to do so.

	FY 1998 NOAA Review		FY 1999 NOAA Review
Regional HQ + Field Offices	49,000		52,400

 

Modernization Program

Costs in the following accounts include both labor and non­labor.

A.- AWIPS

Costs cover completion of both development activities and the nation­wide deployment in July 1999, operations and maintenance of fielded systems, the Network Control Facility, the AWIPS Communications Network, training and operational test and evaluation activities. Funds also cover System Acquisition Office (SAO) acquisition activities, program management functions and support initial NWS system evolution studies.

NWS budget estimates appear reasonable except for those associated with the terrestrial portion of the AWIPS Communication Network and planned levels of acquisition management support. The delay in AWIPS deployment schedules will generate savings in communications costs. Reductions in acquisition management staff (reduction of 11 FTEs in FY 1998 and an additional 10 in FY 1999 over programmed levels) reflect a more reasonable projection of required support activities. Table 9 - AWIPS Program Costs - depicts the proposed AWIPS budget. However, DOC/NOAA may wish to retain the full funding available under the $550 million cap to reduce program risks associated with uncertainties and challenges identified in Section X.E.

	FY 1998 Pres.Budget	FY 1998 NOAA Rvw	FY 1999 OMB Submit	FY 1999 NOAA Rvw
Program Management
AAO	3,619	2,779	3,312	2,522
NWS	823	823	893	893
SAO Allocated	1,300	1,300	975	975
Development	24,701	24,701	9,208	9,208
Production	81,755	81,755	54,034	54,034
Systems Evolution			250	250
O&M	4,712	4,504	13,189	12,974
Total	116,910	115,862	81,861	80,856

B. - NEXRAD

Costs cover operations and maintenance of the deployed 123 radar network, operation of the NEXRAD Operational Support Facility, National Logistics Support Center and the National Reconditioning Center, SAO acquisition management and program support activities/contracts and NWS product improvement activities.

Recommended funding (Table 10 - NEXRAD Program Costs) enables NWS to fund a healthy O&M program to insure the radars meet stated operational availability requirements, procure spares, supplies and materials, maintain an adequate Preventative Maintenance Inspection (PMI) program, initiate a modest modification program and continue improvement efforts to move to an "open system" architecture. Reductions in acquisition management staff (reduction of 3 FTEs in FY 1998 and an additional 1 in FY 1999 over programmed levels) and support contracts reflect a more reasonable projection of required (O&M, communications, travel and contract support costs etc.) activities. We did not fund acquisition of a transportable radar to be used in the event of a catastrophic radar failure. This initiative has merit, but should be justified on its own rather than using O&M funds.

	FY 1998 Pres. Budget	FY 1998 NOAA Rvw	FY 1999 OMB Submit	FY 1999 NOAA Rvw
ORF
Operations Support	1,671	1671	1,785	630
Comm.	4,395	4,275	4,565	4,275
Utilities	7,830	7,830	8,220	8,220
Logistics	9,774	8,852	11,650	8,108
Field Maintenance	2,377	2,377	2,450	2,450
Maintenance  Consumable	1,947	1,947	2,035	2,035
Offsets	(2,790)	(2,790)	(1,057)	(1,057)
Training	387	387	400	400
OSF	10,500	10,125	10,750	8,785
Training (OSF)	2,500	2,500	2,500	2,500
Mods	1,000	1,000	2,000	2,000
ORF Sub­Total	39,591	38,174	45,298	38,346
CAA
Program Management	2,240	2,000	1,021	930
Support Contracts	525	430	895	800
Planned Product Improvement	5,588	5,588	7,440	7,440
Acquisition/  Deployment	2,400	2,400	0	0
Logistics Support	624	624	0	0
Sub­total	11,377	11,042	9,656	9,170
Total	50,968	49,216	54,954	47,516

 

C. - ASOS

Costs cover operations and maintenance of deployed systems, software maintenance, SAO acquisition management and program support activities and NWS product improvement programs.

	FY 1998 Pres.Budget	FY 1998 NOAA Rvw	FY 1999 Submit	FY 1999 NOAA Rvw
ORF
O&M	5,341	5,341	8,116	8,116
CAA
Program Mgt. & SAO Allocated Costs	457	317	0	140
Product Improvement	4,037	4,037	3,855	3,855
Total	9,835	9,695	11,971	12,111

 

Given the current status of the program and projected size of DOD and FAA buys in FY 1998, we believe acquisition management costs were excessive and reduced them by $150K. The SAO will be working to close out the contract in FY 1999; consequently, a small staff will be required to finish this effort (Table 11 - ASOS Program Costs).

D. - Central Computer

Budgeted cost estimates (Table 12 - Central Computer Upgrade) to complete the CRAY Y­MP8 replacement and NWS Telecommunications Gateway Upgrade, and acquire the Class VII and VIII super computers and associated interactive workstations, are reasonable.

Category	FY 1998PB	FY 1998 NOAA Rvw	FY 1999 Submit	FY 1999 NOAA Rvw
System Acquisition	8.0	8.0	4.6	4.6
Capital Assets Acct.	5.9	5.9	10.9	10.9
Total	13.9	13.9	15.5	15.5

 

E. - Construction

1. - NCEP Construction

NWS cost estimates for consolidation of the Aviation Weather Center and the National Training Center into a new facility in Kansas City, MO. appear reasonable (Table 13 - NCEP Construction). This study did not address NOAA's program to consolidate several units at a new facility in Norman, Oklahoma (see Section IX - New NWS Initiatives). Currently, the Storm Prediction Center (SPC) is housed in temporary facilities. DOC/NOAA should develop a plan to move this nationally important center into adequate workspace. The proposed Norman consolidation may be one way to accomplish this; however, the completion date (mid­2003) leaves the SPC in inadequate facilities for too long a period.

	FY 1998 Pres.Budget	FY 1998 NOAA Rvw	FY 1999 OMB Submit	FY1998 NOAA Rvw
NCEP Construction	700	700	850	850

 

2. - WFO Construction

This account provides funds to acquire and lease facilities, conduct required architecture and engineering studies to support construction activities, and build new facilities as well as retrofit existing facilities. Cost estimates (Table 14 - WFO Construction) appear reasonable.

	FY 1998 Pres.Budget	FY 1998 NOAA Rvw	FY 1999 Submit	FY 1999 NOAA Rvw
Property Acquisition	3795	3795	3576	3576
A&E Service	761	761	0	0
Construction	6192	6192	0	0
Retrofits	575	575	2570	2570
Management. support	0	0	180	180
Alaska and Pacific Modernization	2500	2500	3200	3200
Total	13,823	13,823	9,526	9,526

 

3. - WFO Maintenance

This account provides funds associated with routine and preventative maintenance for over 200 NWS buildings. It encompasses contractual janitorial, landscaping, HVAC and UPS maintenance services plus, cyclical facility maintenance and equipment replacement.

Recommended funding in FY 1998 provides sufficient resources to maintain annual operations and services contracts, restore equipment maintenance efforts plus conduct a reasonable preventative and corrective maintenance program. This funding is comparable to industry norms. FY 1999 funding maintains these activities and provides a small amount for cyclical replacement programs.

	FY 1998 Pres.Budget	FY 1998 NOAA Rvw	FY 1999 OMB Submit	FY 1999 NOAA Rvw
Facility Maintenance	2,950	3,468	4,950	5,400

 

F. - New Initiatives

While the major focus of NWS modernization activities center on AWIPS, several existing programs require replacement/modification. Additional funding is needed for continued receipt of critical observational data to support forecast and warning responsibilities and the existing Distance Learning system must be improved. These FY 1999 initiatives are highlighted in Table 16 - New Initiatives. These funds are additive to those identified in earlier sections.

Program	FY 1998 Pres.Budget	FY 1998 NOAA Rvw	FY 1999 OMB Submit	FY1999 NOAA Rvw
Radiosonde Replacement	910 *	910 *	3700 *	4000
Cooperative Observer Network			0	750
Distance Learning System Upgrade			0	1000

* Included in BASE

The added funds above the FY 1999 OMB Submit for the radiosonde replacement program will enable NWS to procure an additional 24 radiosonde computer workstations (total of 74), thus accelerating the modernization of the existing national upper air observing network. The Cooperative Observer Network is a volunteer effort of observers who provide NWS with an order of magnitude increase in the number of surface observations available for the CONUS. Cooperative observations have also traditionally provided valuable supplemental data to forecast offices. Their value to the climate community has increased as ASOS equipment replaced human observers at many locations, because important elements of the climate record cannot be measured by automated methods. Over time, the quality of the equipment used by these observers has degraded, the number of participants in the network has decreased and the geographic representation of the network has eroded. This initiative will begin to address these deficiencies. The Distance Learning Upgrade adds NWS­wide two­way motion capability to the existing regional wide area network.

G. - Summary

As Table 17 depicts we believe both the FY 1998 President's Budget and FY 1999 OMB Submit contain inadequate base funding. The majority of the shortfall is caused by insufficient funds to account for labor and non-labor inflationary costs and to support required field (i.e., Weather Forecast Offices) staffing levels. The labor shortfall is particularly acute in FY 1999. Another factor is both budgets assume savings associated with the relaxation of station closure requirements mandated in Public Law 102-356 (NWS Modernization Act). Repeal of this Act is unlikely.

	FY 1998 Pres.Budget	FY 1998 NOAA Rvw	FY 1999 OMB Submit	FY 1999 NOAA Rvw
BASE/MARDI	450,831	473,400	470,023	492,900
Selected Initiatives	*	*	*	5,750
Systems Acquisition	191,623	188,683	164,286	155,983
Construction and Maintenance	17,473	17,991	15,326	15,776
Total	659,927	680,074	649,635	670,409

* Included in BASE

While increases are required in the BASE account, we believe some offsetting reductions are possible particularly in FY 1999 in the modernization accounts. Our revisions preserve NWS priorities; however, we did shift funds to rectify systematic deficiencies in core mission areas (e.g., Cooperative Observing Program, Voluntary Observing Ship program). Funding levels provide necessary resources to sustain NWS' infrastructure.