**3.2.1 Executive Summary**

Currently, National Weather Service (NWS) River Forecast Centers (RFCs)
produce Quantitative Precipitation Forecasts (QPF) and other hydrologic
gridded forecast elements using software with inherent limitations.
Through the recent assessments and prototyping of Gridded Forecast
Editor software (GFESuite) at the Northwest RFC (NWRFC) and Arkansas-Red
Basin RFC (ABRFC), both RFCs recognized the potential benefits of
GFESuite to support the QPF and a number of other forecast requirements
at **[all]{.underline}** RFCs. The proven success of software systems
like GFESuite at WFOs like GFESuite would be well received by the NWS
hydrology community. For example, one WFO forecaster claimed in the
NOAA's Interactive Forecast Preparation System (IFPS) forum that "This
(GFESuite) one piece of operational software is probably used 95% of the
time during a NWS operational shift". [The Integrated Work Team (IWT)
for this project recommends providing the same suite of editing tools to
RFCs (currently provided to WFOs) to improve the efficiency of grid
editing and greatly facilitate RFC-WFO coordination.]{.underline}

Deployment of GFESuite at RFCs is not without risk. One of the major
concerns involves performance degradation associated with the size of
grids at larger RFC domains, even at a 5 km spatial resolution. Given
that the long-term goal is to produce and edit grids at higher (e.g.,
2.5 km) resolutions, this issue must be addressed sooner rather than
later. Fortunately, future AWIPS II upgrades, currently only in the
early planning stages, should help mitigate these performance risks.

With these concerns in mind, and taking cost/available funding into
account, the IWT recommends an [initial implementation of the "out of
the box" GFESuite with limited modifications to support some of the RFC
operational requirements including a 5-km spatial
resolution.]{.underline} More advanced modification of the GFESuite
would be included in a future OSIP project.

**3.2.2 Project/Investment Description**

As validated in the OSIP #05-001 Statement of Need, the RFCs need
improvements to available software that:

\(1\) incorporate operational gridded forecast elements, such as maximum
and minimum temperature, dew point, wind speed, wind direction, freezing
level, snow, relative humidity, and precipitation amount,

\(2\) reduce the time it takes forecasters to produce forecast
information (out to ten days or full GFS domain) utilizing climatologies
and probabilistic guidance.

Presently, RFCs produce Quantitative Precipitation Forecasts[^1] (QPFs)
using software with inherent limitations. The NWS should provide the
same suite of editing tools to RFCs as those provided to WFOs to edit
gridded forecasts, i.e., GFESuite should be implemented into existing
RFC AWIPS architecture.

**3.2.3 Alternatives and Analysis**

**3.2.3.1 Alternatives Description**

[Issues associated with deployment of the GFESuite at RFCs]{.underline}

GFESuite has undergone evaluation at two RFCs: ABRFC and NWRFC. An
evaluation was written by the ABRFC and posted on the OSIP website (see
Applied Research Results document). During analysis of the results, some
concerns (performance and others) associated with deploying GFESuite at
RFCs were revealed. These concerns can be summarized as follows:

-   Number of Weather Elements: the number of weather elements proposed
    for RFCs is at most no greater than for WFOs. 

-   Large domain size: RFCs have larger areas of responsibility than
    WFOs.  However, the overall task of processing RFC grids using
    GFESuite seems to be on scale with similar experiences at large
    clustered-peer WFOs.  The largest RFC domain, Missouri Basin (KRF),
    includes 128,721 grid points while the largest WFO domain, Anchorage
    (AER), includes 124,353 grid points.  (WFO Anchorage, Alaska uses
    two instances of GFESuite on two hosts to process two large
    domains.  The domains are generally called \"Anchorage East\" (AER)
    and \"Aleutians\" (ALU).) The average of all RFC domains is 73,633
    grid points.  The five largest WFO domains are roughly this size or
    larger.  They are AER (124,353), GUM (97,425), ALU (97,425), AJK
    (81,217), and HFO (72,225). All point counts are based on a 5 km
    grid resolution.\
    \
    In general, we expect RFCs to process far fewer grids than WFOs. 
    Here are some of the reasons:

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   RFCs are expected to produce routine forecasts once daily.  WFOs are
    editing grids almost constantly.  During periods of extreme
    flooding, RFCs produce products nearly constantly, but it is not
    clear that this will require near-constant grid editing.

-   RFCs are expected to edit fewer NDFD weather elements than WFOs. 
    Current estimates are 3-4 RFC versus 15 for WFOs.

-   RFCs are expected to edit fewer time projections than WFOs.  RFCs
    will have 2 NDFD weather elements at 6-h intervals and 2 weather
    elements at 24-h intervals.  Many WFOs issue 5-10 NDFD weather
    elements at hourly resolution.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Based on the previously-mentioned tests at ABRFC and simulations the
    results of which were presented (by Tom LeFebvre of GSD) at the
    Hydrologist-In-Charge (HIC) meeting on 1/31/07 in Kansas City,
    [existing AWIPS hardware should be adequate for most RFCs running at
    a 5 km resolution]{.underline}. The ABRFC tests were done with the
    IFP server running on the REP. As a result, no hardware purchase
    specific to this project is expected with initial GFESuite
    installation at RFCs (see Section 3.2, Alternative 2 below). RFCs
    located in complex terrain may prefer to run IFPS at 2.5 km. These
    sites may choose to allocate local or regional resources to procure
    faster hardware containing more memory to adequately run IFPS.

-   Inter-site coordination: RFCs would need to coordinate with all WFOs
    in their area of responsibility, and potentially with other
    bordering RFCs. It is expected that the amount of additional traffic
    would be acceptable compared to current WFO loads, due to the lower
    frequency interval of grid transmission. However, in its current
    state, there are documented issues with the AWIPS WAN when WFOs
    transmit messages larger than 1 Mb.  If the largest RFC (KRF) were
    configured (128,721 grid points) and sent all its grids (62) at
    once, the message would be approximately 3 Mb. The problem could be
    easily addressed by sending ISC messages that contain only one
    weather element at a time.  Under this scenario, a set of 20 QPF
    grids would form a message of 1.0 Mb.  Careful prototyping and
    implementation will be the key to developing an optimal solution. 
    Note, too, that AWIPS plans to replace outdated technologies (e.g.,
    X.400 protocol, DS hardware, hub-and-spoke network structure) which
    will help mitigate these risks.

-   Service backup -- a concept of operations for RFC service backup is
    currently being developed, and some consideration should be given to
    a potential future need for off-site backup storage of grids.
    Service Backup of RFC grids do not seem to pose a problem due to the
    small number of grids produced by an RFC each day.  There will be an
    impact on the WAN, the IFPS Service Backup Central Server System,
    and storage requirements on the server.  These will all be small
    compared to the current processing load created by WFO grids.

-   Incompatibility between the RFC's HRAP grid and the standard NDFD
    grid, resulting in changes to some data values. This is a policy
    issue and does not impact which of the GFE solutions is selected.

-   Training -- any solution to this requirement necessitates
    significant effort to train RFCs in the use of the GFESuite tool,
    and provide sample configurations for each site. [Training shall
    consist of a combination of the following: (1) formal on-site
    training with developers, (2) online training with developers, (3)
    WFO subject matter experts, (4) "train the trainer"
    concept.]{.underline}

The following is a summary of the three alternatives, the first two of
which meet the NWS needs to improve river forecasts and flood/flash
flood warnings:

1.  **[Implementation of enhanced GFESuite capability to meet all RFC
    requirements]{.underline}** -- This alternative would require that a
    software development organization create new or enhanced
    functionality to the existing GFESuite tool to meet
    [all]{.underline} of the requirements specified in the Operational
    Requirements Document (ORD) for this project. Non-coding support
    would be provided to assist with initial configuration for each RFCs
    use.

2.  **[Initial Implementation of "out of the box" GFESuite to meet
    partial list of RFC requirements]{.underline}** -- This alternative
    would require that the current "out of the box" GFESuite be deployed
    at RFCs with only minor modifications to support some of the RFC
    requirements-[but not all requirements]{.underline} . This solution
    would encompass the latest version of GFESuite with the necessary
    enhancements needed to support Distributed Hydrologic Modeling
    (refer to OSIP #04-007). Non-coding support would be provided to
    assist with initial configuration for each RFC's use. This solution
    would not meet all requirements specified in the ORD for this
    project. Subsequent enhancements would incrementally add
    functionality to GFESuite over one or more AWIPS releases-this would
    require a separate OSIP project.

3.  **[Status Quo]{.underline}** -- This approach is to continue with
    existing grid viewing and editing tools available at RFCs. This
    solution does not meet the needs to improve river forecasts and
    flood/flash flood warnings.

**3.2.3.2 Alternatives Analysis**

Refer to the following 3 tables.

**Alternative 1: Implementation of enhanced GFESuite capability to meet
all RFC requirements**

+-------------+--------------------------------------------------------+
| Benefits    | -   Meets all functional requirements for the project  |
|             |                                                        |
|             | -   Immediately useful to RFC forecasting operations   |
|             |                                                        |
|             | -   Enables the sharing and merging forecast model and |
|             |     observations for the creation of the National      |
|             |     Digital Forecast Database (NDFD)                   |
|             |                                                        |
|             | -   Forecasters can perform all QPF tasks via a single |
|             |     system                                             |
|             |                                                        |
|             | -   Potential to be used for textual                   |
|             |     Hydrometeorological Discussion (HMD) or other RFC  |
|             |     text products                                      |
|             |                                                        |
|             | -   Streamlines forecast operations within the NWS     |
+-------------+--------------------------------------------------------+
| Scienc      | -   GFESuite can account for complex terrain, utilize  |
| e/technical |     climatology and probabilistic guidance, and        |
| merit       |     provide overlay capabilities                       |
|             |                                                        |
|             | -   Can address the limitations in the ingesting of    |
|             |     precipitation and real-time station observations   |
|             |                                                        |
|             | -   Can accommodate the frequent boundary              |
|             |     discrepancies or forecast inconsistencies between  |
|             |     WFOs in the RFC domain                             |
|             |                                                        |
|             | -   Can assist with verification                       |
|             |                                                        |
|             | -   Can be enhanced to provide additional forecast     |
|             |     variables and Smart Tools for the hydrologic       |
|             |     models                                             |
|             |                                                        |
|             | -   Can be supported for mosaic capabilities           |
|             |                                                        |
|             | -   Can support additional forecast variables for      |
|             |     input into the hydrologic models                   |
+-------------+--------------------------------------------------------+
| O           | -   Time required to forecast out to 7 days will be    |
| perational, |     reduced through ingest processes and advanced      |
| system, and |     tools in the GFESuite                              |
| business    |                                                        |
| impacts     | -   Forecaster will have the ability to arbitrarily    |
|             |     edit a forecast along with observed grids of any   |
|             |     element; this could be time consuming              |
|             |                                                        |
|             | -   AWIPS WAN traffic between WFOs and RFCs (for       |
|             |     collaboration) will involve risks                  |
|             |                                                        |
|             | -   Significant operational time must be devoted to    |
|             |     training as forecasters learn the application      |
|             |     (steep learning curve)                             |
+-------------+--------------------------------------------------------+
| Life cycle  | -   Significant one-time development cost.             |
| costs       |                                                        |
| (including  | -   Future requirements are likely to exist once RFC   |
| d           |     forecasters gain experience on GFESuite.           |
| evelopment, |                                                        |
| a           | -   O&M would be transferred to Raytheon after         |
| cquisition, |     deployment -- AWIPS would incur O&M costs          |
| operations  |                                                        |
| and         | -   A one-time cost for training is expected           |
| m           |     (additional training absorbed thru O&M costs)      |
| aintenance, |                                                        |
| and         | -   Recurring costs for additional system maintenance  |
| sust        |     resulting from heavier load on the system          |
| ainability; |                                                        |
| include all |                                                        |
| no          |                                                        |
| n-recurring |                                                        |
| and         |                                                        |
| recurring   |                                                        |
| costs)      |                                                        |
+-------------+--------------------------------------------------------+
| Schedule    | -   Would not likely meet the OB8 AWIPS release        |
|             |     deadline requirements. Would have to be considered |
|             |     for OB9 or OB10                                    |
+-------------+--------------------------------------------------------+
| Risks       | -   Past experience from the Alaska and Western Region |
|             |     WFOs with large domains indicates grid spacing     |
|             |     needs to be at least 2.5 km to capture terrain,    |
|             |     but system resources can only handle 5 km. RFCs    |
|             |     cover large domains. This presents a risk to       |
|             |     operational performance, since Smart Tools and     |
|             |     Procedures would take an estimated 4 times longer  |
|             |     to run at a 2.5 km resolution. Note, however, that |
|             |     OSIP project 06-051 GFE Performance Enhancements   |
|             |     may partially or fully mitigate this risk.         |
|             |     Furthermore, AWIPS hardware upgrade planning       |
|             |     should account for these new RFC requirements      |
|             |                                                        |
|             | -   Risk of slowing down WAN traffic because of        |
|             |     Inter-site Coordination (ISC) with WFOs: Increased |
|             |     AWIPS WAN traffic due to data collaboration        |
|             |     between a large number of WFOs and a typical RFC   |
|             |     has the potential to cause delays for critical     |
|             |     weather data (see Appendix A). Note, however, that |
|             |     in the long term the NWS intends to remedy the     |
|             |     AWIPS WAN loading issues                           |
|             |                                                        |
|             | -   Transfer of Adaptive & Corrective Maintenance      |
|             |     (ACM) from GSD to Raytheon means that future       |
|             |     schedules may be significantly impacted as the new |
|             |     contractor acquires the necessary knowledge        |
+-------------+--------------------------------------------------------+
| Policy      | TBD                                                    |
| compliance  |                                                        |
+-------------+--------------------------------------------------------+
| Management  | The software must be based on current GFESuite "out of |
|             | the box" operational software (a single version for    |
|             | easy software management). All RFCs will utilize the   |
|             | same standard forecasting tool for ingesting,          |
|             | analyzing, and editing data to produce consistent      |
|             | forecasts                                              |
+-------------+--------------------------------------------------------+
| A           | Constraint: Near-term AWIPS hardware upgrade planning  |
| ssumptions, | takes into account the impact of full GFESuite at all  |
| constraints | RFCs.                                                  |
|             |                                                        |
|             | Assumption: Funding can be identified for software     |
|             | development to meet all requirements                   |
+-------------+--------------------------------------------------------+
| Other       | Provide long-term hardware and software operations and |
|             | maintenance support                                    |
+-------------+--------------------------------------------------------+

**Alternative 2: Initial Implementation of "out of the box" GFESuite to
meet partial list of RFC requirements**

+------------+---------------------------------------------------------+
| Benefits   | -   Meets most fundamental operational requirements for |
|            |     the project                                         |
|            |                                                         |
|            | -   Can leverage off AHPS funding for Distributed       |
|            |     Hydrologic Modeling (DHM)                           |
|            |                                                         |
|            | -   Maximizes chances for success                       |
|            |                                                         |
|            | -   Timeliest Implementation schedule                   |
|            |                                                         |
|            | -   Each RFC will have malleable smart tool capability  |
|            |     as well as adjustable resolutions                   |
|            |                                                         |
|            | -   Introduces RFC forecasters to GFESuite gradually,   |
|            |     allowing them more time to familiarize themselves   |
|            |     with                                                |
|            |                                                         |
|            | > its capabilities and develop customized tools and     |
|            | > future requirements.                                  |
+------------+---------------------------------------------------------+
| Science    | -   Identical to Alternative #1                         |
| /technical |                                                         |
| merit      |                                                         |
+------------+---------------------------------------------------------+
| Op         | -   Less initial impact on RFC forecasting operations   |
| erational, |                                                         |
| system,    | -   Less risk that AWIPS WAN traffic between WFOs and   |
| and        |     RFCs (for collaboration) will be an immediate issue |
| business   |                                                         |
| impacts    | -   Forecaster will have the ability to arbitrarily     |
|            |     edit a forecast along with observed grids of        |
|            |     available elements; this could be time consuming    |
|            |                                                         |
|            | -   Some operational time will have to be devoted to    |
|            |     training as forecasters become familiar with the    |
|            |     application                                         |
+------------+---------------------------------------------------------+
| Life cycle | -   The development cost would be minimized and would   |
| costs      |     be covered by existing AHPS and AWIPS funds.        |
| (including |                                                         |
| de         | ```{=html}                                              |
| velopment, | <!-- -->                                                |
| ac         | ```                                                     |
| quisition, | -   O&M would be transferred to Raytheon after          |
| operations |     deployment                                          |
| and        |                                                         |
| ma         | -   No short-term hardware purchase specific to this    |
| intenance, |     solution is expected                                |
| and        |                                                         |
| susta      | -   Costs for training have been identified and funding |
| inability; |     is available.                                       |
| include    |                                                         |
| all        | -   AWIPS O&M would incur recurring costs for           |
| non        |     additional system maintenance                       |
| -recurring |                                                         |
| and        |                                                         |
| recurring  |                                                         |
| costs)     |                                                         |
+------------+---------------------------------------------------------+
| Schedule   | Initial Implementation -- OB8.X (OB8.2 or 8.3)          |
|            |                                                         |
|            | Future Enhancements -- TBD in future OSIP project       |
+------------+---------------------------------------------------------+
| Risks      | -   Of limited immediate utility to RFC forecasting     |
|            |     operations until later enhancements are             |
|            |     implemented.                                        |
|            |                                                         |
|            | ```{=html}                                              |
|            | <!-- -->                                                |
|            | ```                                                     |
|            | -   There are also some relatively low order risks as   |
|            |     noted by Northwest RFC during their GFESuite study  |
|            |     in 2003:                                            |
|            |                                                         |
|            | ```{=html}                                              |
|            | <!-- -->                                                |
|            | ```                                                     |
|            | -   Lack of tools for RFC to deal with grid             |
|            |     inconsistencies (these could be developed over      |
|            |     time)                                               |
|            |                                                         |
|            | -   High learning curve for Python and developing       |
|            |     procedures and CRON applications (no risk           |
|            |     mitigation strategy)                                |
|            |                                                         |
|            | -   Data sets (e.g. models and guidance) continue to    |
|            |     get larger (risk mitigated over time)               |
|            |                                                         |
|            | ```{=html}                                              |
|            | <!-- -->                                                |
|            | ```                                                     |
|            | -   Recent testing at Arkansas-Red Basin RFC on a 2.5   |
|            |     km resolution indicated a problem with large data   |
|            |     storage needs. During the test, ABRFC's GFESuite    |
|            |     data directories were all installed on a local disk |
|            |     instead of the NetApp (NAS) storage. It filled up   |
|            |     the local disk space quickly. The mitigation        |
|            |     strategy would include an engineering analysis      |
|            |     conducted during development. It may be necessary   |
|            |     to remove a few of the model sets (e.g., DGEX) from |
|            |     the smart initialization, revert to 5 km            |
|            |     resolution, and use HAS storage instead of local    |
|            |     storage.                                            |
|            |                                                         |
|            | -   Transfer of Adaptive & Corrective Maintenance (ACM) |
|            |     from GSD to Raytheon means that future schedules    |
|            |     may be significantly impacted as the new contractor |
|            |     acquires the necessary knowledge. There is no risk  |
|            |     mitigation strategy.                                |
+------------+---------------------------------------------------------+
| Policy     | TBD                                                     |
| compliance |                                                         |
+------------+---------------------------------------------------------+
| Management | The software must be based on current GFESuite "out of  |
|            | the box" operational software. All RFCs will utilize    |
|            | the same standard forecasting tool for ingesting,       |
|            | analyzing, and editing data to produce consistent       |
|            | forecasts                                               |
+------------+---------------------------------------------------------+
| As         | Constraint: No upgrade or expansion of AWIPS hardware   |
| sumptions, | to support GFESuite at RFCs is planned. Testing so far  |
| c          | indicates that existing hardware can support grid       |
| onstraints | resolutions of 4 or 5 km at most RFCs.                  |
+------------+---------------------------------------------------------+
| Other      | Provide long-term hardware and software operations and  |
|            | maintenance support                                     |
+------------+---------------------------------------------------------+

**Alternative 3: Status Quo**

+-------------+--------------------------------------------------------+
| Benefits    | -   Lowest cost                                        |
+-------------+--------------------------------------------------------+
| Scienc      | -   Software already exists (but with inherent         |
| e/technical |     limitations and outdated procedures)               |
| merit       |                                                        |
+-------------+--------------------------------------------------------+
| O           | -   No new training would be required                  |
| perational, |                                                        |
| system, and | -   No new software development and no new hardware    |
| business    |     would be required                                  |
| impacts     |                                                        |
|             | -   Forecasters will continue to operate without the   |
|             |     benefits of inter-office coordination              |
+-------------+--------------------------------------------------------+
| Life cycle  | Same as current levels                                 |
| costs       |                                                        |
| (including  |                                                        |
| d           |                                                        |
| evelopment, |                                                        |
| a           |                                                        |
| cquisition, |                                                        |
| operations  |                                                        |
| and         |                                                        |
| m           |                                                        |
| aintenance, |                                                        |
| and         |                                                        |
| sust        |                                                        |
| ainability; |                                                        |
| include all |                                                        |
| no          |                                                        |
| n-recurring |                                                        |
| and         |                                                        |
| recurring   |                                                        |
| costs)      |                                                        |
+-------------+--------------------------------------------------------+
| Schedule    | Not Applicable.                                        |
+-------------+--------------------------------------------------------+
| Risks       | -   With none of the requirements for this project     |
|             |     met, site staff will be unable to support forecast |
|             |     operations when critical situations occur in the   |
|             |     future                                             |
|             |                                                        |
|             | -   RFCs will eventually seek alternative solutions to |
|             |     perform the grid editing job, resulting in the     |
|             |     proliferation of non-standard tools                |
|             |                                                        |
|             | -   Absence of inter-site coordination will continue   |
|             |     or worsen, putting operations at risk              |
+-------------+--------------------------------------------------------+
| Policy      | TBD                                                    |
| compliance  |                                                        |
+-------------+--------------------------------------------------------+
| Management  | Continue as now                                        |
+-------------+--------------------------------------------------------+
| A           | Current tools are stable and maintainable              |
| ssumptions, |                                                        |
| constraints |                                                        |
+-------------+--------------------------------------------------------+
| Other       | Will need to guarantee long-term software support,     |
|             | even with no enhancements                              |
+-------------+--------------------------------------------------------+

### 3.2.3.3 Solution Selection

The OSIP IWT assessed all the alternatives and recommends:

**Alternative 2 "Initial Implementation of "out of the box" GFESuite to
meet a partial list of RFC requirements" would represent the most
executable solution. Alternative 2 has a full funding source already
identified for deployment. Possible future enhancements (to meet
additional operational requirements) would follow in a separate OSIP
project, supported by a different source of funding.**

Alternative 1 (Complete Implementation of enhanced GFESuite**)** is
considered too impractical, given the large costs and development time
that would be incurred. Implementation schedule would slip past AWIPS
OB8.3. Although no precise estimate can be given at this point, the
costs would be far greater than for Alternative 2. The additional
related factor here includes unknown plans to transition the GFESuite
software Adaptive and Corrective Maintenance (ACM) responsibility to the
new AWIPS contractor Raytheon, presenting a large risk to this
alternative as a solution. Although Alternative 1 meets all functional
requirements, [the recommended solution for this project is
**Alternative 2**.]{.underline}

Alternative number 3 (Status Quo) is unacceptable for future RFC
forecasting operations. The existing forecasting paradigm at RFCs uses
outdated forecast (grid editing) tools that are inconsistent with NWS
CONOPS and the digital forecast realities at WFOs.

## 3.2.4 Enterprise Architecture (EA)

The proposed solution is to deploy the GFESuite software, which is
already in use at NWS WFOs, to RFCs. No significant new investment is
planned, and no significant impact on the NWS EA is anticipated. Using
the same grid editor at both WFOs and RFCs will take advantage of
previous NWS investment in software development, support systems, and
training facilities and will avoid the architecturally undesirable and
unnecessarily expensive approach of supporting two different grid
editors in the NWS. It is expected that the GFE will be used for
manipulation of DHM (OSIP 04-007) initializations and outputs, and DHM
funding has been allocated for the necessary configuration changes and
training.

## 3.2.5 Security and Privacy

\[Describe the security and privacy processes and planning efforts for
this proposal in this section. All investments should demonstrate
up-to-date security plans and be fully certified and accredited before
becoming operational. Include the current and projected security costs,
security performance gaps, and how such funding will close the
performance gaps. The NWS must demonstrate that they have fully
considered privacy in the context of this investment. The NWS must
comply with Section 208 of the E-government Act and, in appropriate
circumstances, conduct a privacy impact assessment that evaluates the
privacy risks, alternatives, and protective measures implemented at each
stage of the information life cycle.\]

## 3.2.6 Program/Project (Investment) Management

Not Applicable.

## 3.2.7 Government Paperwork Elimination Act (GPEA)

GPEA does not apply to this project.

**Appendix A** -- Projected grid size, risk of running GFESuite and
associated WFOs corresponding to each of the 13 RFCs

+----------+---+-------+------+-------------------------------------+
| **River  | * | **    | **Ri | WFO whose domain associated with    |
| Forecast | * | Total | sk** | the RFC. WFOs running at 2.5 km     |
| C        | I | grid  |      | resolution are in **BOLD red**      |
| enters** | D | p     |      |                                     |
|          | * | oints |      |                                     |
|          | * | at 5  |      |                                     |
|          |   | km    |      |                                     |
|          |   | re    |      |                                     |
|          |   | solut |      |                                     |
|          |   | ion** |      |                                     |
+----------+---+-------+------+-------------------------------------+
| Arka     | T | 44225 | Low  | **ABQ,** AMA**, BOU**, DDC, GLD,    |
| nsas-Red | U |       |      | **GJT**, ICT, LUB, TOP, SGF, ABQ,   |
| Basin    | A |       |      | AMA, OUN, **TSA**, **LZK**, FWD,    |
|          |   |       |      | **SHV**                             |
+----------+---+-------+------+-------------------------------------+
| Ca       | R | 68625 | Low  | **EKA**, MFR, **REV**, LKN,         |
| l-Nevada | S |       |      | **STO**, **MTR**, **HNX**, VEF,     |
|          | A |       |      | **LOX**, **SGX**, **PSR**           |
+----------+---+-------+------+-------------------------------------+
| Colorado | S | 77361 | Low  | LKN, **SLC**, **RIW**, **CYS**,     |
| Basin    | T |       |      | VEF, FGZ, **ABQ**, **GJT**,         |
|          | R |       |      | **PUB**, **PSR**, **TWC**, EPZ      |
+----------+---+-------+------+-------------------------------------+
| Ohio     | T | 43425 | Low  | PBZ, CTP, BUF, CLE, **RLX**,        |
|          | I |       |      | **RNK**, MRX, **JKL**, LMK, PAH,    |
|          | R |       |      | IND, IWX, ILX                       |
+----------+---+-------+------+-------------------------------------+
| Lower    | O | 1     | Me   | LCH, LIX, **MOB**, JAN, **SHV**,    |
| Mis      | R | 08209 | dium | FWD, **LZK**, **TSA**, SGF, OUN,    |
| sissippi | N |       |      | MEG, **HUN**, MRX, GSP, PAH         |
+----------+---+-------+------+-------------------------------------+
| Middle   | R | 25665 | Low  | PHI, BGM, CTP, LWX , AKQ, **RNK**   |
| Atlantic | H |       |      |                                     |
|          | A |       |      |                                     |
+----------+---+-------+------+-------------------------------------+
| Missouri | K | 1     | High | TFX, GGW, BIS, BYZ, **RIW**, UNR,   |
| Basin    | R | 28721 |      | ABR, FSD, **CYS**, LBF, OAX, DMX,   |
|          | F |       |      | **BOU**, GLD, GID, TOP, EAX, SGF,   |
|          |   |       |      | LSX, PAH                            |
+----------+---+-------+------+-------------------------------------+
| North    | T | 40337 | Low  | CAR, GYX, BTV, BOX, OKX, ALY, BGM,  |
| East     | A |       |      | CLE                                 |
|          | R |       |      |                                     |
+----------+---+-------+------+-------------------------------------+
| North    | M | 1     | Me   | BIS, FGF, DLH, MQT, ABR, MPX, GRB,  |
| Central  | S | 08177 | dium | APX, DTX, GRR, IWX, MKX, LOT, ILX,  |
|          | R |       |      | LSX                                 |
+----------+---+-------+------+-------------------------------------+
| North    | P | 96621 | Me   | SEW, **OTX**, **MSO**, **PQR**,     |
| West     | T |       | dium | **PDT**, MFR, BOI, **PIH**,         |
|          | R |       |      | **RIW**, **REV**, LKN, **SLC**      |
+----------+---+-------+------+-------------------------------------+
| South    | A | 87900 | Me   | AKQ, MHX, ILM, **RNK**, **RLX**,    |
| East     | L | --    | dium | RAH, CAE, CHS, GSP, FFC, JAX, MLB,  |
|          | R | est   |      | TBW, **MFL**, EYW, TAE, **MOB**,    |
|          |   | imate |      | BMX, JAN, MEQ                       |
+----------+---+-------+------+-------------------------------------+
| West     | F | 97905 | Me   | **PUB**, **ABQ**, EPZ, LUB, OUN,    |
| Gulf     | W |       | dium | FWD, **SHV**, LCH, **MAF**, SJT,    |
|          | R |       |      | **EWX**, **CRP**, **BRO**, **HGX**  |
+----------+---+-------+------+-------------------------------------+
| Alaska   | A | 30457 | High | AER,AFG,AJK,ALU                     |
| -Pacific | C | at    |      |                                     |
|          | R | **20* |      | \*Could go with 2 domains at 5 km   |
|          |   | *km\* |      | (see Section **3.2.3.1)**           |
+----------+---+-------+------+-------------------------------------+

[^1]: