Weather Forecasting: National Weather Service Is Planning to Improve Service and Gain Efficiency, but Impacts of Potential Changes Are Not Yet Known
Released: 2006-07-14T00:00:00

Letter

Background

The mission of NWS—an agency within the Department of Commerce’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)—is to provide weather, water, and climate forecasts and warnings for the United States, its territories, and its adjacent waters and oceans, in order to protect life and property and to enhance the national economy. NWS is the official source of aviation- and marine-related weather forecasts and warnings, as well as warnings about life-threatening weather situations.

In the 1980s and 1990s, NWS undertook a nationwide modernization program to develop new systems and technologies and to consolidate its field office structure. The goals of the modernization program were to achieve more uniform weather services across the nation, improve forecasts, provide more reliable detection and prediction of severe weather and flooding, permit more cost-effective operations, and achieve higher productivity. The weather observing systems (including radars, satellites, and ground-based sensors) and data processing systems that currently support NWS operations were developed and deployed under the modernization program. During this period, NWS consolidated over 250 large and small weather service offices into the office structure currently in use.

NWS Office Structure: An Overview

The coordinated activities of weather facilities throughout the United States allow NWS to deliver a broad spectrum of climate, weather, water, and space weather services. These facilities include weather forecast offices, river forecast centers, national centers, and aviation center weather service units. The functions of these facilities are described below. 122 weather forecast offices are responsible for providing a wide variety of weather, water, and climate services for their local county warning areas, including advisories, warnings, and forecasts (see fig. 1 for the current location of weather forecast offices). 13 river forecast centers provide river, stream, and reservoir information to a wide variety of government and commercial users as well as to local weather forecast offices for use in flood forecasts and warnings. 9 national centers constitute the National Centers for Environmental Prediction, which provide nationwide computer model output and manual forecast information to all NWS field offices and to a wide variety of government and commercial users. These centers include the Environmental Modeling Center, Storm Prediction Center, Tropical Prediction Center, Climate Prediction Center, Aviation Weather Center, and Space Environment Center, among others. 21 aviation center weather service units, which are co-located with key Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) air traffic control centers across the nation, provide meteorological support to air traffic controllers.

NWS Relies on Key Systems and Technologies to Fulfill Its Mission

To fulfill its mission, NWS relies on a national infrastructure of systems and technologies to gather and process data from the land, sea, and air. NWS collects data from many sources, including ground-based Automated Surface Observing Systems (ASOS), Next Generation Weather Radars (NEXRAD), and operational environmental satellites. These data are integrated by advanced data processing workstations—called Advanced Weather Interactive Processing Systems (AWIPS)—used by meteorologists to issue local forecasts and warnings. The data are also fed into sophisticated computer models running on high-speed supercomputers, which are then used to help develop forecasts and warnings. Figure 2 depicts the integration of the various systems and technologies and is followed by a description of each.

Next Generation Weather Radar (NEXRAD)

NEXRAD is a Doppler radar system that detects, tracks, and determines the intensity of storms and other areas of precipitation, determines wind velocities in and around detected storm events, and generates data and imagery to help forecasters distinguish hazards such as severe thunderstorms and tornadoes. It also provides information about heavy precipitation that leads to warnings about flash floods and heavy snow. The NEXRAD network provides data to other government and commercial users and to the general public via the Internet.

The NEXRAD network is made up of 158 operational radars and 8 nonoperational radars that are used for training and testing. Of these, NWS operates 120 radars, the Air Force operates 26 radars, and the FAA operates 12 radars. These radars are located throughout the continental United States and in 17 locations outside the continental United States. Figure 3 shows a NEXRAD radar tower.

Automated Surface Observing System (ASOS)

ASOS is a system of sensors, computers, display units, and communications equipment that automates the ground-based observation and dissemination of weather information nationwide. This system collects data on temperature and dew point, visibility, wind direction and speed, pressure, cloud height and amount, and types and amounts of precipitation. ASOS supports weather forecast activities and aviation operations, as well as the needs of research communities that study weather, water, and climate. Figure 4 is a picture of the system, while figure 5 depicts a configuration of ASOS sensors and describes their functions.

There are currently 1,002 ASOS units deployed across the United States, with NWS, FAA, and the Department of Defense (DOD) operating 313, 571, and 118 units, respectively.

Although NWS does not own or operate satellites, geostationary and polar- orbiting environmental satellite programs are key sources of data for its operations. NOAA manages the Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite (GOES) system and the Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite (POES) system. In addition, DOD operates a different polar satellite program called the Defense Meteorological Satellite Program (DMSP). These satellite systems continuously collect environmental data about the Earth’s atmosphere, surface, cloud cover, and electromagnetic environment. These data are used by meteorologists to develop weather forecasts and other services, and are critical to the early and reliable prediction of severe storms, such as tornadoes and hurricanes.

Geostationary satellites orbit above the Earth’s surface at the same speed as the Earth rotates, so that each satellite remains over the same location on Earth. NOAA operates GOES as a two-satellite system that is primarily focused on the United States (see fig. 6). To provide continuous satellite coverage, NOAA acquires several satellites at a time as part of a series and launches new satellites every few years. Three satellites, GOES-10, GOES- 11, and GOES-12, are currently in orbit. Both GOES-10 and GOES-12 are operational satellites, while GOES-11 is in an on-orbit storage mode. It is a backup for the other two satellites should they experience any degradation in service. The first in the next series of satellites, GOES-13, was launched in May 2006, and the others in the series, GOES-O and GOES-P, are planned for launch over the next few years. In addition, NOAA is planning a future generation of satellites, known as the GOES-R series, which are planned for launch beginning in 2014.

Unlike the GOES satellites, which maintain a fixed position above the earth, polar satellites constantly circle the Earth in an almost north-south orbit, providing global coverage of conditions that affect the weather and climate. Each satellite makes about 14 orbits a day. As the Earth rotates beneath it, each satellite views the entire Earth’s surface twice a day. Currently, there are four operational polar-orbiting satellites—two are POES satellites and two are DMSP satellites. These satellites are positioned so that they can observe the Earth in early morning, morning, and afternoon polar orbits. Together, they ensure that for any region of the Earth, the data are generally no more than 6 hours old. Figure 7 illustrates the current configuration of operational polar satellites.

NOAA and DOD plan to continue to launch remaining satellites in the POES and DMSP programs, with final launches scheduled for 2007 and 2011, respectively. In addition, NOAA, DOD, and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration are planning to replace the POES and DMSP systems with a state-of-the-art environment monitoring satellite system called the National Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite System (NPOESS). In recent years, we reported on a variety of issues affecting this major system acquisition.

Advanced Weather Interactive Processing System (AWIPS)

AWIPS is a computer system that integrates and displays all hydrometeorological data at NWS field offices. This system integrates data from NEXRAD, ASOS, GOES, and other sources to produce rich graphical displays to aid forecaster analysis and decision making. AWIPS is used to disseminate weather information to the national centers, weather offices, the media, and other federal, state, and local government agencies. NWS deployed hardware and software for this system to weather forecast offices, river forecast centers, and national centers throughout the United States between 1996 and 1999. As a software-intensive system, AWIPS regularly receives software upgrades called “builds.” The most recent build, called Operational Build 6, is currently being deployed. NWS officials estimated that the nationwide deployment of this build should be completed by July 2006. Figure 8 shows a standard AWIPS workstation.

Numerical models are advanced software programs that assimilate data from satellites and ground-based observing systems and provide short- and long-term weather pattern predictions. Meteorologists typically use a combination of models and their own experience to develop local forecasts and warnings. Numerical weather models are also a critical source for forecasting weather up to 7 days in advance and forecasting long-term climate changes. One of NWS’s National Centers for Environmental Prediction, the Environmental Modeling Center, is the primary developer of these models within NWS and is responsible for making new and improved models available to regional forecasters via the AWIPS system. Figure 9 depicts model output as shown on an AWIPS workstation.

NWS leases high-performance supercomputers to execute numerical calculations supporting weather prediction and climate modeling. In 2002, NWS awarded a $227 million contract to lease high-performance supercomputers to run its environmental models from 2002 through September 2011. Included in this contract are an operational supercomputer used to run numerical weather models, an identical backup supercomputer located at a different site, and a research and development supercomputer on which researchers can test out new analyses and models. The supercomputer lease contract allows NWS to exercise options to upgrade the processing capabilities of the operational supercomputer.

Previous Reports Focused on NWS Modernization Systems Risks

During the 1990s, we issued a series of reports on NWS modernization systems and made recommendations to improve them. For example, early in the AWIPS acquisition, we reported that the respective roles and responsibilities of the contractor and government were not clear and that a structured system development environment had not been established. We made recommendations to correct these shortfalls before the system design was approved. We also reported that the ASOS system was not meeting specifications or user needs, and recommended that NWS define and prioritize system corrections and enhancements. On NEXRAD, we reported that selected units were falling short of availability requirements and recommended that NWS analyze and monitor system availability on a site-specific basis and correct any shortfalls. Because of such concerns, we identified NWS modernization as a high-risk information technology initiative in 1995, 1997, and 1999.

NWS took a number of actions to address our recommendations and to resolve system risks. For example, NWS enhanced its AWIPS system development processes, prioritized its ASOS enhancements, and improved the availability of its NEXRAD systems. In 2001, because of NWS’s progress in addressing key concerns and in deploying and using the AWIPS system—the final component of its modernization program—we removed the modernization from our high-risk list.

NWS Established Performance Goals and Tracks Progress against These Goals

In accordance with federal legislation requiring federal managers to focus more directly on program results, NWS established short- and long-term performance goals and regularly tracks its actual performance in meeting these goals. Specifically, NWS established 14 different performance measures—such as lead time for flash floods and false-alarm rates for tornado warnings. It also established 5-year goals for improving its performance in each of the 14 performance measures through 2011. For example, the agency plans to increase its lead time on tornado warnings from 13 minutes in 2005 to 15 minutes in 2011. Table 1 identifies NWS’s 14 performance measures, selected goals, and performance against those goals, when available. Appendix II provides additional information on NWS’s performance goals.

NWS periodically adjusts its performance goals as its assumptions change. After reviewing actual results from previous fiscal years and its assumptions about the future, in January 2006, NWS adjusted eight of its 5- year performance goals to make more realistic predictions for performance for the next several years. Specifically, NWS made six performance goals less stringent and two goals more stringent. The six goals that were made less stringent—and the reasons for the changes—are the following: Tornado warning lead time: NWS changed its 2011 goal from 17 to 15 minutes of warning because of delays in deploying new technologies on NEXRAD radars and a lack of access to FAA radar data.

Tornado warning false-alarm rate: NWS changed its 2011 goal from a 70 to 74 percent false-alarm rate for the same reasons listed above.

Flash flood warning accuracy: NWS changed its 2011 goal from 91 to 90 percent accuracy after delays on two different systems in 2004, 2005, and 2006.

Marine wind speed accuracy: NWS changed its 2011 goal from 67 to 59 percent accuracy after experiencing the delay of marine models and datasets, a deficiency of shallow water wave guidance, and a reduction in funds for training.

Marine wave height accuracy: NWS changed its 2011 goal from 77 to 69 percent accuracy for the same reasons identified above for marine wind speed accuracy.

Aviation instrument flight rule ceiling/visibility: NWS changed its goal from 48 to 47 percent accuracy in 2006 because of a system delay and a reduction in funds for training. Goals for 2007 through 2011 remained the same.

Additionally, the following two goals were made more stringent: Aviation instrument flight rule ceiling/visibility false-alarm rate: NWS reduced its expected false-alarm rate from 68 percent to 65 percent for 2006 because of better than anticipated results from the AWIPS aviation forecast preparation system and an aviation learning training course. Goals for the remaining years in the 5-year plan, 2007 to 2011, remained the same.

Hurricane track forecasts: NWS changed its 2011 hurricane track forecast goal from 123 to 106 nautical miles after trends in observed data from 1987 to 2004 showed that this measure was improving more quickly than expected.

NWS Is Positioning Itself to Provide Better Service through Upgrades to Its Systems and Technologies

NWS is positioning itself to provide better service through system and technology upgrades. Over the next few years, the agency plans to upgrade and improve its systems, predictive weather models, and computational abilities, and it appropriately links these upgrades to its performance goals. For example, planned improvements in NEXRAD technology are expected to help improve the lead times for tornado warnings, while AWIPS software enhancements are expected to help improve the accuracy of marine weather forecasts. The agency anticipates continued steady improvement in its forecast accuracy as it obtains better observation data, as computational resources are increased, and as scientists are better able to implement advanced modeling and data assimilation techniques.

NWS Has Plans for Upgrading Its Systems, Models, and Computational Abilities

Over the next few years, NWS has plans to spend over $315 million to upgrade its systems, models, and computational abilities. Some planned upgrades are to maintain the weather system infrastructure (either to replace obsolete and difficult-to-maintain parts or to refresh aging hardware and workstations), while others are to take advantage of new technologies. Often, the infrastructure upgrades allow NWS to take advantage of newer technologies. For example, the replacement of an aging and proprietary NEXRAD subsystem is expected to allow the agency to implement enhancements in image resolution. Key planned upgrades for each of NWS’s major systems and technologies are listed below.

NWS has initiated two major NEXRAD improvements. It is currently replacing an outdated subsystem—the radar data acquisition subsystem— with current hardware that is compliant with open system standards. This new hardware is expected to enable important software upgrades. In addition, NWS plans to add a new technology called dual polarization to this subsystem, which will provide more accurate rainfall estimates and differentiate various forms of precipitation. Table 2 shows the details of these two projects.

NWS has seven ongoing and planned improvements for its ASOS system (see table 3). Many of these improvements are to replace aging parts and are expected to make the system more reliable and maintainable. Key subsystem replacements—including the all-weather precipitation accumulation gauge—are also expected to result in more accurate measurements.

Selected AWIPS system components have become obsolete, and NWS is replacing these components. In 2001, NWS began to migrate the existing Unix-based systems to a Linux system to reduce its dependence on any particular hardware platform. NWS expects this project, combined with upgraded information technology, to delay the need for a major information technology replacement. Table 4 shows planned improvements for the AWIPS system.

NWS plans to continue to improve its modeling capabilities by (1) better assimilating data from improved observation systems such as ASOS, NEXRAD, and environmental satellites; (2) developing and implementing an advanced global forecasting model (called the Weather Research and Forecast model) to allow forecasters to look at a larger domain area; (3) implementing a hurricane weather research forecast model; and (4) improving ensemble modeling, which involves running a single model multiple times with slight variations on a variable to get a probability that a given forecast is likely to occur. NWS expects to spend approximately $12.7 million in fiscal year 2006 to improve its weather and real-time ocean models.

Supercomputers

NWS is planning to exercise an option within its existing supercomputer lease to upgrade its computing capabilities to allow more advanced numerical weather and climate prediction modeling.

NWS Appropriately Links Its System and Technical Upgrades to Expected Service Improvements

In accordance with federal legislation and policy, NWS’s planned upgrades to its systems and technologies are expected to result in improved service. The Government Performance and Results Act calls for federal managers to develop strategic performance goals and to focus program activities on obtaining results. Also, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) requires agencies to justify major investments by showing how they support performance goals. NOAA and NWS implement the act and OMB guidance by requiring project officials to describe how planned system and technology upgrades are linked to the agency’s programmatic priorities and performance measures. Further, in its annual performance plans, NOAA reports on expected NWS service improvements and identifies the technologies and systems that are expected to help improve them.

NWS service improvements are often expected through a combination of system and technology improvements. For example, NWS expects to reduce its average error in forecasting a hurricane’s path by approximately 20 nautical miles between 2005 and 2011 through a combination of upgrades to observation systems, better hurricane forecast models, enhancements to the computer infrastructure, and research that will be transferred to NWS forecast operations. Also, NWS expects tornado warning lead times to increase from 13 to 15 minutes by the end of fiscal year 2008 after NWS completes retrofits to the NEXRAD systems, realizes the benefits of AWIPS software enhancements, and implements new training techniques. Table 5 provides a summary of how system upgrades are expected to result in service improvements.

NWS’s Training Is Expected to Result in Forecast Service Improvements, but the Training Selection Process Lacks Sufficient Oversight

NWS provides employee training courses that are expected to help improve forecast service performance, but the agency’s process for selecting this training lacks sufficient oversight. Each year, NWS identifies its training needs and develops this training in order to enhance its services. NWS develops an annual training and education plan identifying planned training, how this training supports key criteria, and associated costs for the upcoming year. To develop the annual plan, program area teams, with representatives from NWS headquarters and field offices, prioritize and submit training recommendations. Each submission identifies how the training will support up to eight different criteria— including the course’s effect on NWS forecasting performance measures, NOAA strategic goals, ensuring operational continuity, and providing customer outreach. These submissions are screened by a training and education team, and depending on available resources, selected for development (if not pre-existing) and implementation. The planned training courses are then delivered through a variety of means, including courses at the NWS training center, online training, and training at local forecast offices.

In its 2006 training process, 25 program area teams identified 134 training needs, such as training on how to more effectively use AWIPS, training on an advanced weather simulator, and training on maintaining ASOS systems. Given an expected funding level of $6.1 million, the training and education team then selected 68 of these training needs for implementation. NWS later identified another 5 training needs and allocated an additional $1.25 million to its training budget. In total, NWS funded 73 of 139 training courses.

The majority of planned training courses demonstrate a clear link to expected forecasting service improvements. For example, NWS developed a weather event simulator to help forecasters improve their tornado warning lead times. In addition, AWIPS-related training courses are expected to help improve each of the agency’s 14 forecasting performance measures by teaching forecasters advanced techniques in using the integrated data processing workstations.

However, NWS’s process for selecting which training courses to implement lacks sufficient oversight. In justifying training courses, program officials routinely link proposed courses to NWS forecast performance measures. Specifically, in 2006, 131 of the 134 original training needs were linked to expectations for improved forecasting performance—including training on cardiopulmonary resuscitation, spill prevention, leadership, systems security, and equal employment opportunity/diversity. The training selection process did not validate or question that these courses would improve tornado warning lead times or hurricane warning accuracy. Although these courses are important and likely justifiable on other bases, the overuse of this justification undermines the distinctions among training courses and the credibility of the course selection process. Additionally, because the training selection process does not clearly distinguish among courses, it is difficult to determine whether sufficient funds are dedicated to the courses that are expected improve performance.

NWS training officials acknowledged that some of the course justifications seem questionable and that more needs to be done to strengthen the training selection process to ensure oversight of the justification and prioritization process. They noted that the training division plans to improve the training selection process over the next few years by adding a more systematic worker-focused assessment of training needs, better prioritizing strategic and organizational needs, and initiating post- implementation reviews. However, until NWS establishes a training selection process that uses reliable justification and results in understandable decisions, NWS risks selecting courses that do not most effectively support its training goals.

Changing Concept of Operations Could Affect Nationwide Office Configuration, but Impact on Forecast Services, Staffing, and Budget Is Not Yet Known

NWS plans to develop a prototype of a new concept of operations—an effort that could affect its national office configuration, including the location and functions of its offices nationwide. However, NWS has yet to determine many details about the impact of any proposed changes on NWS forecast services, staffing, and budget. Further, NWS has not yet identified key activities, timelines, or measures for evaluating the concept of operations prototype. As a result, it is not evident that NWS will collect the information it needs on the impact and benefits of any office restructuring in order to make sound and cost-effective decisions.

NWS Is Evaluating Changes to Its Current Operations

According to agency officials, over the last several years, NWS’s corporate board noted that the constrained budget, high labor costs, difficulty in training and developing its employees, and a lack of flexibility in how the agency was operating were making it more difficult for the agency to continue to perform its mission. In August 2005, the board chartered a working group to evaluate the roles, responsibilities, and functions of weather offices nationwide and to make a proposal for a new concept of operations. The group was given a set of guiding principles, including that the proposed concept should (1) be cost effective, (2) ensure that there would be no degradation of service, (3) ensure that weather services nationwide were equitable, and (4) not reduce the number of forecast offices nationwide. In addition, the working group was instructed not to address grade structure, staffing levels, office sizes, or overall organizational chart structure.

The group gathered input from various agency stakeholders and other partners within NOAA and considered multiple alternatives. They dismissed all but one of the alternative concepts because they were not consistent with the guiding principles. In its December 2005 proposal, the working group proposed a “clustered peer” office plan designed to redistribute some functions among various offices, particularly when there is a high-intensity weather event. An agency official explained that each weather forecast office currently has a fixed geographic area for which it provides forecasts. If a severe weather event occurs, forecast offices ask their staff to work overtime so that there are enough personnel available to do both the normal forecasting work and the watches and warnings required by the severe event. If a local office becomes unable to provide forecast and warning functions, an adjacent office will temporarily assume those duties by calling in extra personnel to handle the workload of both offices.

Alternatively, under a clustered peer office structure, several offices with the same type of weather and warning responsibilities, climate, and customers would be grouped in a cluster. Offices within a cluster would share the workload associated with routine services, such as 7-day forecasts. During a high-impact weather event—such as a severe storm, flood, or wildfire—the offices would redistribute the workload to allow the impacted office to focus solely on the event, while the other offices in the cluster would pick up the impacted office’s routine services. In this way, peer offices could help supplement staffing needs and the workload across multiple offices could be more efficiently balanced.

After receiving this proposal, the NWS corporate board chartered another team to develop a prototype of the clustered peer idea to evaluate the benefits of this approach. The team plans to recommend the scope of the prototype and select several weather offices for the prototype demonstration by the end of September 2006. It also plans to conduct the prototype demonstration in fiscal years 2007 and 2008. Initial prototype results are due in fiscal year 2009.

Impacts of New Concept of Operations Have Yet to Be Determined

Many details about the impact of the changes on NWS forecast services, staffing, and budget have yet to be determined. Sound decision making on moving forward with a new concept of operations will require data on the relative costs, benefits, and impacts of such a change, but at this time the implications of NWS’s revised concept of operations on staffing, budget, and forecasting services are unknown.

The charter for the team developing the prototype for the new concept of operations calls for it to identify metrics for evaluating the prototype and to define mechanisms for obtaining customer feedback. However, the team has not yet established a plan or timeline for developing these metrics or mechanisms. Further, it is not yet evident that these metrics will include the relative costs, benefits, or impacts of this change or which customers will be offered the opportunity to provide feedback. This is not consistent with the last time NWS undertook a major change to its concept of operations—during its modernization in the mid-1990s. During that effort, the agency developed a detailed process for identifying impacts and ensuring that there would be no degradation of service (see app. III for a summary of this prior process).

Until it establishes plans, timelines, and metrics for evaluating its prototype of a revised concept of operations, NWS is not able to ensure that it is on track to gather the information it needs to fully evaluate the merits of the revised concept of operations and to make sound and informed decisions on a new office configuration.

Conclusions

NWS is appropriately positioning itself to improve its forecasting services by upgrading its systems and technologies and by developing training to enhance the performance of its professional staff. Over the next few years, NWS expects to improve all of its 14 performance measures—ranging from seasonal temperature forecasts, to severe weather warnings, to specialized aviation and marine weather warnings. However, it is not clear that NWS is consistently choosing the best training courses to improve its performance because the training selection process does not rigorously review the training justifications.

Recognizing that high labor costs, difficulty in training and developing its employees, and a constrained budget environment make it difficult to fulfill its mission, NWS is evaluating changes to its office structure and operations in order to achieve greater productivity and efficiency. It plans to develop a prototype of a new concept of operations that entails sharing responsibilities among a cluster of offices. Because it is early in the prototype process, the implications of these plans on staffing, budget, and forecasting services are unknown at this time. However, NWS does not yet have detailed plans, timelines, or measures for assessing the prototype. As a result, NWS risks not gathering the information it needs to make an informed decision in moving forward with a new office operational structure.

Recommendations for Executive Action

To improve NWS’s ability to achieve planned service improvements, we recommend that the Secretary of Commerce direct the Assistant Administrator for Weather Services to take the following three actions: require training officials to validate the accuracy of training justifications; establish key activities, timelines, and measures for evaluating the “clustered peer” office structure prototype before beginning the prototype; and ensure that plans for evaluating the prototype address the impact of any changes on budget, staffing, and services.

Agency Comments

We received written comments on a draft of this report from the Department of Commerce (see app. IV). In the department’s response, the Deputy Secretary of Commerce agreed with our recommendations and identified plans for implementing them. Specifically, the department noted that it plans to revise its training process to ensure limited training resources continue to target improvements in NWS performance. The department also noted that the concept of operations working team is developing a plan for the prototype and stated that this plan will include the items we recommended.

The department also provided technical corrections, which we have incorporated as appropriate.

We are sending copies of this report to the Secretary of Commerce, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, and other interested congressional committees. Copies will be made available to others on request. In addition, this report will be available at no charge on our Web site at www.gao.gov.

If you have any questions about this report, please contact me at (202) 512- 9286 or by e-mail at pownerd@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made major contributions to this report are listed in appendix V.

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Our objectives were (1) to evaluate the National Weather Service’s (NWS) efforts to achieve improvements in the delivery of its services through upgrades to its systems, models, and computational abilities; (2) to assess the agency’s plans to achieve improvements in the delivery of its services through the training and professional development of its employees; and (3) to evaluate the agency’s plans for revising its nationwide office configuration and the implications of these plans on local forecasting services, staffing, and budgets.

To evaluate NWS’s efforts to achieve service improvements through system and technology upgrades, we reviewed the agency’s system development plans and discussed system-specific plans with NWS program officials. We assessed system-specific documentation justifying system upgrades to evaluate whether these upgrades were linked to anticipated improvements in performance goals. We also evaluated NWS performance goals and identified the extent to which anticipated service improvements were tied to system and technology upgrades. We interviewed National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and NWS officials to obtain clarification on agency plans and goals.

To assess NWS’s plans for achieving service improvements through the training and professional development of its employees, we reviewed NWS policies and plans for training and professional development. We reviewed the agency’s service performance goals and assessed the link between those goals and planned and expected training and professional development activities. We also interviewed NWS officials responsible for training and professional development activities.

To evaluate the status and potential impact of any plans to revise the national office configuration, we assessed studies of options for changing the NWS concept of operations. We also reviewed the charter for the prototype and interviewed key NWS officials to determine the possible effect of these plans on local forecasting services, staffing, and budgets and to identify plans for determining the implications of changing to a new concept of operations.

We performed our work at NWS headquarters in the Washington, D.C., metropolitan area, and at geographically diverse NOAA and NWS weather forecast offices in Denver and in Tampa, and at the NWS National Hurricane Center in Miami. We performed our work from October 2005 to June 2006 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.

Appendix II: NWS Performance Goals for Fiscal Years 2005 to 2011

A measure of the difference between the projected locations of the center of storms and the actual locations in nautical miles for the Atlantic Basin miles, respectively, and ceilings and visibilities are greater than, or eual to, 500 feet and/or 1 mile, respectively.

Appendix III: NWS Previously Used A Stringent Process to Ensure Service Was Not Degraded

In the 1980s, NWS began a nationwide modernization program to upgrade weather observing systems such as satellites and radars, to design and develop advanced computer workstations for forecasters, and to reorganize its field office structure. The goals of the modernization were to achieve more uniform weather services across the nation, improve forecasting, provide more reliable detection and prediction of severe weather and flooding, achieve higher productivity, and permit more cost- effective operations through staff and office reductions.

NWS’s plans for revising its office structure were governed by the Weather Service Modernization Act, which required that, prior to closing a field office, the Secretary of Commerce certify that there was no degradation of service. NWS developed a plan for complying with the law. To identify community concerns regarding modernization changes and to study the potential for degradation of service, the Department of Commerce published a notice in the Federal Register requesting comments on service areas where it was believed that services could be degraded by planned modernization changes. The department also contracted for an independent assessment by the National Research Council on whether weather services would be degraded by the proposed changes. As part of this assessment, the contractor developed criteria to identify whether service would be degraded in certain areas of concern. The department then applied these criteria to areas of concern to determine whether services would be degraded or not. Before closing any office, the Secretary of Commerce certified that services would not be degraded.

Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Commerce

Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

David A. Powner, (202) 512-9286 or pownerd@gao.gov.

Staff Acknowledgments

In addition to the contact named above, William Carrigg, Barbara Collier, Neil Doherty, Kathleen S. Lovett, Colleen Phillips, Karen Talley, and Jessica Waselkow made key contributions to this report.