Weather Forecasting
National Weather Service Is Planning to Improve Service and Gain Efficiency, but Impacts of Potential Changes Are Not Yet Known Gao ID: GAO-06-792 July 14, 2006To provide accurate and timely weather forecasts, the National Weather Service (NWS) uses systems, technologies, and manual processes to collect, process, and disseminate weather data to its nationwide network of field offices and centers. After completing a major modernization program in the 1990s, NWS is seeking to upgrade its systems with the goal of improving its forecasting abilities, and it is considering changing how its nationwide office structure operates in order to enhance efficiency. GAO was asked to (1) evaluate NWS's efforts to achieve improvements in the delivery of its services through system and technology upgrades, (2) assess agency plans to achieve service improvements through training its employees, and (3) evaluate agency plans to revise its nationwide office configuration and the implications of these plans on local forecasting services, staffing, and budgets.
NWS is positioning itself to provide better service through over $315 million in planned upgrades to its systems and technologies. In annual plans, the agency links expected improvements in its service performance measures with the technologies and systems expected to improve them. For example, NWS expects to reduce the average error in its forecasts of hurricane paths 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 forecast operations. Also, NWS expects to increase tornado warning lead times from 13 to 15 minutes by the end of fiscal year 2008 after the agency completes an upgrade to its radar system and realizes benefits from software improvements to its forecaster workstations. NWS also provides training courses for its employees to help improve its forecasting services, but the agency's process for selecting training lacks sufficient oversight. Program officials propose and justify training needs on the basis of up to eight different criteria--including whether a course is expected to improve NWS forecasting performance measures, support customer outreach, or increase scientific awareness. Many of these course justifications appropriately demonstrate support for improved forecasting performance. For example, training on how to more effectively use forecaster workstations is expected to help improve tornado and hurricane warnings. However, in justifying training courses, program officials routinely link courses to NWS forecasting performance measures. For example, in 2006, almost all training needs were linked to expectations for improved performance--including training on cardiopulmonary resuscitation, spill prevention, and systems security. The training selection process did not validate or question how these courses could help improve weather forecasts. Overuse of this justification undermines the distinctions among different 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 to improve performance. To improve its efficiency, 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, many details about the impact of any proposed changes on NWS forecast services, staffing, and budget have yet to be determined. Further, the agency has not yet determined key activities, timelines, or measures for evaluating the prototype of the new office operational structure. 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.
RecommendationsOur recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director: Team: Phone:GAO-06-792, Weather Forecasting: National Weather Service Is Planning to Improve Service and Gain Efficiency, but Impacts of Potential Changes Are Not Yet Known
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-06-792
entitled 'Weather Forecasting: National Weather Service is Planning to
Improve Service and Gain Efficiency, but Impacts of Potential Changes
Are Not Yet Known' which was released on July 14, 2006.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
Report to the Subcommittee on Environment, Technology, and Standards,
Committee on Science, House of Representatives:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
July 2006:
Weather Forecasting:
National Weather Service Is Planning to Improve Service and Gain
Efficiency, but Impacts of Potential Changes Are Not Yet Known:
Weather Forecasting:
GAO-06-792:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-06-792, a report to the Subcommittee on Environment,
Technology, and Standards, Committee on Science, House of
Representatives
Why GAO Did This Study:
To provide accurate and timely weather forecasts, the National Weather
Service (NWS) uses systems, technologies, and manual processes to
collect, process, and disseminate weather data to its nationwide
network of field offices and centers. After completing a major
modernization program in the 1990s, NWS is seeking to upgrade its
systems with the goal of improving its forecasting abilities, and it is
considering changing how its nationwide office structure operates in
order to enhance efficiency. GAO was asked to (1) evaluate NWS‘s
efforts to achieve improvements in the delivery of its services through
system and technology upgrades, (2) assess agency plans to achieve
service improvements through training its employees, and (3) evaluate
agency plans to revise its nationwide office configuration and the
implications of these plans on local forecasting services, staffing,
and budgets.
What GAO Found:
NWS is positioning itself to provide better service through over $315
million in planned upgrades to its systems and technologies. In annual
plans, the agency links expected improvements in its service
performance measures with the technologies and systems expected to
improve them. For example, NWS expects to reduce the average error in
its forecasts of hurricane paths 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 forecast
operations. Also, NWS expects to increase tornado warning lead times
from 13 to 15 minutes by the end of fiscal year 2008 after the agency
completes an upgrade to its radar system and realizes benefits from
software improvements to its forecaster workstations.
NWS also provides training courses for its employees to help improve
its forecasting services, but the agency‘s process for selecting
training lacks sufficient oversight. Program officials propose and
justify training needs on the basis of up to eight different
criteria”including whether a course is expected to improve NWS
forecasting performance measures, support customer outreach, or
increase scientific awareness. Many of these course justifications
appropriately demonstrate support for improved forecasting performance.
For example, training on how to more effectively use forecaster
workstations is expected to help improve tornado and hurricane
warnings. However, in justifying training courses, program officials
routinely link courses to NWS forecasting performance measures. For
example, in 2006, almost all training needs were linked to expectations
for improved performance”including training on cardiopulmonary
resuscitation, spill prevention, and systems security. The training
selection process did not validate or question how these courses could
help improve weather forecasts. Overuse of this justification
undermines the distinctions among different 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 to improve performance.
To improve its efficiency, 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, many details about the impact of any proposed
changes on NWS forecast services, staffing, and budget have yet to be
determined. Further, the agency has not yet determined key activities,
timelines, or measures for evaluating the prototype of the new office
operational structure. 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.
What GAO Recommends:
GAO is making recommendations to the Secretary of Commerce to direct
NWS to strengthen its training selection process, and to establish key
activities, timelines, and measures for evaluating the prototype of a
new concept of operations before beginning the prototype. In written
comments, the Department of Commerce agreed with the recommendations
and identified plans for implementing them.
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-792].
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
the link above. For more information, contact David Powner at (202) 512-
9286 or pownerd@gao.gov.
[End of Section]
Contents:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
NWS Is Positioning Itself to Provide Better Service through Upgrades to
Its Systems and Technologies:
NWS's Training Is Expected to Result in Forecast Service Improvements,
but the Training Selection Process Lacks Sufficient Oversight:
Changing Concept of Operations Could Affect Nationwide Office
Configuration, but Impact on Forecast Services, Staffing, and Budget Is
Not Yet Known:
Conclusions:
Recommendations for Executive Action:
Agency Comments:
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
Appendix II: NWS Performance Goals for Fiscal Years 2005 to 2011:
Appendix III: NWS Previously Used A Stringent Process to Ensure Service
Was Not Degraded:
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Commerce:
Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
Tables:
Table 1: NWS's Performance Measures, Goals, and Actual Performance for
Fiscal Years (FY) 2005, 2006, and 2011:
Table 2: Ongoing and Planned NEXRAD Improvements (as of May 31, 2006):
Table 3: Ongoing and Planned ASOS Improvements (as of May 31, 2006):
Table 4: Ongoing and Planned AWIPS Improvements:
Table 5: System Upgrades Are Linked to Expected Performance
Improvements:
Figures:
Figure 1: NWS's 122 Weather Forecast Offices:
Figure 2: Overview of Key Systems and Technologies Supporting NWS
Forecasts:
Figure 3: NEXRAD Radar Tower:
Figure 4: An ASOS System:
Figure 5: ASOS Sensors:
Figure 6: Approximate GOES Geographic Coverage:
Figure 7: Configuration of Operational Polar Satellites:
Figure 8: An AWIPS Workstation:
Figure 9: Weather Model Output Shown on an AWIPS Workstation:
Abbreviations:
ASOS: Automated Surface Observing System:
AWIPS: Advanced Weather Interactive Processing System:
DMSP: Defense Meteorological Satellite Program:
DOD: Department of Defense:
FAA: Federal Aviation Administration:
GOES: Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellites:
NEXRAD: Next Generation Weather Radar:
NPOESS: National Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite
System:
NWS: National Weather Service:
NOAA: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration:
OMB: Office of Management and Budget:
POES: Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental Satellites:
[End of section]
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
July 14, 2006:
The Honorable Vernon J. Ehlers:
Chairman:
The Honorable David Wu:
Ranking Minority Member:
Subcommittee on Environment, Technology, and Standards:
Committee on Science:
House of Representatives:
The National Weather Service's (NWS) ability to forecast the weather
affects the life and property of every American. The agency's basic
mission is to provide storm and flood warnings and weather forecasts
for the United States, its territories, and adjacent oceans and waters-
-in order to protect life and property and to enhance the national
economy. NWS operations also support other agencies by providing
aviation and marine-related weather forecasts and warnings.
To carry out its mission, NWS uses a variety of systems, technologies,
and manual processes to collect, process, and disseminate weather data
to and among its network of field offices and regional and national
centers. In the 1980s and 1990s, NWS undertook a nationwide
modernization program to upgrade its systems and technologies and to
consolidate its field office structure. Today, with the modernization
completed, NWS continues to seek ways to upgrade its systems with a
goal of further improving its forecasting abilities. The agency is also
considering changing how its nationwide office structure works in order
to enhance its efficiency.
Because of your interest in these plans for continued improvements, you
asked us to (1) evaluate NWS's efforts to achieve improvements in the
delivery of its services through the upgrades to its systems, models,
and computational abilities; (2) assess agency plans to achieve
improvements in the delivery of its services through the training and
professional development of its employees; and (3) evaluate agency
plans to revise its nationwide office configuration and the
implications of these plans on local forecasting services, staffing,
and budgets.
To address these objectives, we reviewed NWS plans for system
enhancements, technology improvements, and professional training, and
assessed the extent to which these plans were tied to the agency's
service improvement goals. We also interviewed officials from NWS and
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to obtain
clarification on agency plans and goals. To determine the status and
potential impact of any plans to revise the national office
configuration, we assessed NWS reports on ways to enhance its
operations and interviewed key officials involved in these reports.
We conducted our work at NWS headquarters in the Washington, D.C.,
metropolitan area and at NWS offices in Denver, Tampa, and Miami. We
performed our work from October 2005 to June 2006, in accordance with
generally accepted government auditing standards. Additional details on
our objectives, scope, and methodology are provided in appendix I.
Results in Brief:
NWS is positioning itself to provide better service through over $315
million in planned upgrades to its systems and technologies through
2011. In annual plans, the agency links expected improvements in its
service performance measures with the technologies and systems expected
to improve them. For example, NWS expects to reduce the average error
in its forecasts of hurricane paths 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 forecast
operations. Also, NWS expects to increase its lead time on tornado
warnings from 13 to 15 minutes by the end of fiscal year 2008 after the
agency completes an upgrade to its radar system and realizes benefits
from software improvements to its forecaster workstations.
NWS also provides training courses for its employees to help improve
its forecast services, but the agency's process for selecting training
lacks sufficient oversight. Program officials propose and justify
training needs on the basis of up to eight different criteria--
including whether a course is expected to improve NWS forecasting
performance measures, support customer outreach, or increase scientific
awareness. Many of these course justifications appropriately
demonstrate support for improved forecasting performance. For example,
training on how to more effectively use forecaster workstations is
expected to help improve tornado, flash flood, and hurricane warnings.
However, in justifying training courses, program officials routinely
link courses to NWS forecasting performance measures. For example, in
2006, almost all training needs were linked to expectations for
improved forecast performance--including training on cardiopulmonary
resuscitation, spill prevention, and systems security. The training
selection process did not validate or question how these courses could
help improve weather forecasts. The overuse of this justification
undermines the distinctions among different training courses and the
credibility of the course selection process. Until it establishes a
training selection process that uses reliable justifications, NWS risks
selecting courses that do not most effectively support its training
goals.
To improve its efficiency, 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, many details about the impact of any proposed
changes on forecast services, staffing, and budget have yet to be
determined. Further, NWS has not yet determined key activities,
timelines, or measures for evaluating the prototype of the new office
operational structure. 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.
We are making recommendations to the Secretary of Commerce to direct
NWS to strengthen its training selection process; to establish key
activities, timelines, and measures for evaluating the prototype of the
new concept of operations; and to ensure that the plans for evaluating
the new concept of operations address the impact of any changes on
budget, staffing, and services.
The Department of Commerce provided written comments on a draft of this
report in which it agreed with our recommendations and identified
planned steps for implementing them (see app. IV). The department also
provided technical corrections, which we have incorporated in this
report as appropriate.
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.
Figure 1: NWS's 122 Weather Forecast Offices:
[See PDF for image]
Sources: NWS and MapArt.
[End of figure]
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.
Figure 2: Overview of Key Systems and Technologies Supporting NWS
Forecasts:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO.
[End of figure]
Next Generation Weather Radar (NEXRAD):
NEXRAD is a Doppler radar system[Footnote 1] 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.
Figure 3: NEXRAD Radar Tower:
[See PDF for image]
Source: NOAA.
[End of figure]
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.
Figure 4: An ASOS System:
[See PDF for image]
Source: NOAA.
[End of figure]
Figure 5: ASOS Sensors:
[See PDF for image]
Source: NWS.
[End of figure]
Operational Environmental Satellites:
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.[Footnote 2] 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.[Footnote
3] In addition, NOAA is planning a future generation of satellites,
known as the GOES-R series, which are planned for launch beginning in
2014.
Figure 6: Approximate GOES Geographic Coverage:
[See PDF for image]
Sources: NWS and MapArt.
[End of figure]
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.
Figure 7: Configuration of Operational Polar Satellites:
[See PDF for image]
Sources: GAO and MapArt.
[End of figure]
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.[Footnote 4]
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.
Figure 8: An AWIPS Workstation:
[See PDF for image]
Source: NOAA.
[End of figure]
Numerical Models:
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.
Figure 9: Weather Model Output Shown on an AWIPS Workstation:
[See PDF for image]
Source: NOAA.
[End of figure]
Supercomputers:
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.[Footnote 5] 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.[Footnote 6]
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.[Footnote 7] 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.
Table 1: NWS's Performance Measures, Goals, and Actual Performance for
Fiscal Years (FY) 2005, 2006, and 2011:
Performance measure: Tornado warning lead time (minutes);
Description: The difference between the time a warning is issued and
the time of the first report of a tornado in a given county;
FY05: Goal: 13;
FY05: Actual (final): 13;
FY05: Goal met?: Yes;
FY06: Goal: 13;
FY06: Actual to date: 13[A];
FY06: On target?: Yes;
FY11: Goal: 15.
Performance measure: Tornado warning accuracy (percent);
Description: The percentage of time a tornado actually occurred in an
area covered by a tornado warning;
FY05: Goal: 73;
FY05: Actual (final): 75;
FY05: Goal met?: Yes;
FY06: Goal: 76;
FY06: Actual to date: 82[A];
FY06: On target?: Yes;
FY11: Goal: 76.
Performance measure: Tornado warning false-alarm rate (percent);
Description: The percentage of time a tornado warning was issued but no
tornado event was reported;
FY05: Goal: 73;
FY05: Actual (final): 77;
FY05: Goal met?: No;
FY06: Goal: 75;
FY06: Actual to date: 76[A];
FY06: On target?: No;
FY11: Goal: 74.
Performance measure: Flash flood warning lead time (minutes);
Description: The difference between the time a warning is issued and
the time of the first report of a flash flood in a given county;
FY05: Goal: 48;
FY05: Actual (final): 54;
FY05: Goal met?: Yes;
FY06: Goal: 48;
FY06: Actual to date: 63[A];
FY06: On target?: Yes;
FY11: Goal: 49.
Performance measure: Flash flood warning accuracy (percent);
Description: The percentage of time a flash flood actually occurred in
an area covered by a flash flood warning;
FY05: Goal: 89;
FY05: Actual (final): 88;
FY05: Goal met?: No;
FY06: Goal: 89;
FY06: Actual to date: 93[A];
FY06: On target?: Yes;
FY11: Goal: 90.
Performance measure: Marine wind speed forecast accuracy (percent);
Description: A measure of the accuracy of wind speed forecasts;
FY05: Goal: 57;
FY05: Actual (final): 57;
FY05: Goal met?: Yes;
FY06: Goal: 13: 76: 75: 48: 89: 58;
FY06: Actual to date: 56[B];
FY06: On target?: No;
FY11: Goal: 59.
Performance measure: Marine wave height forecast accuracy (percent);
Description: A measure of the accuracy of wave forecasts;
FY05: Goal: 67;
FY05: Actual (final): 67;
FY05: Goal met?: Yes;
FY06: Goal: 13: 76: 75: 48: 89: 68;
FY06: Actual to date: 71[B];
FY06: On target?: Yes;
FY11: Goal: 69.
Performance measure: Aviation forecast Instrument Flight Rule ceiling/
visibility accuracy (percent);
Description: The percentage of time Instrument Flight Rule
conditions[E] are predicted and occur;
FY05: Goal: 46;
FY05: Actual (final): 46;
FY05: Goal met?: Yes;
FY06: Goal: 13: 76: 75: 48: 89: 47;
FY06: Actual to date: 45[B];
FY06: On target?: No;
FY11: Goal: 59.
Performance measure: Aviation forecast Instrument Flight Rule ceiling/
visibility false-alarm rate (percent);
Description: The percentage of time Instrument Flight Rule
conditions[E] are predicted but do not occur;
FY05: Goal: 68;
FY05: Actual (final): 63;
FY05: Goal met?: Yes;
FY06: Goal: 13: 76: 75: 48: 89: 65;
FY06: Actual to date: 61[B];
FY06: On target?: Yes;
FY11: Goal: 50.
Performance measure: Winter storm warning lead time (hours);
Description: The average time from the issuance of a warning to the
time of the first report of a winter storm in a given county;
FY05: Goal: 15;
FY05: Actual (final): 17;
FY05: Goal met?: Yes;
FY06: Goal: 13: 76: 75: 48: 89: 15;
FY06: Actual to date: 16[C];
FY06: On target?: Yes;
FY11: Goal: 17.
Performance measure: Winter storm warning accuracy (percent);
Description: The percentage of verified winter storm events that were
covered by winter storm warnings;
FY05: Goal: 90;
FY05: Actual (final): 91;
FY05: Goal met?: Yes;
FY06: Goal: 13: 76: 75: 48: 89: 90;
FY06: Actual to date: 91[C];
FY06: On target?: Yes;
FY11: Goal: 92.
Performance measure: Precipitation forecast day 1 threat (score);
Description: A score based on the agency's accuracy in forecasting
precipitation;
FY05: Goal: 27;
FY05: Actual (final): 29;
FY05: Goal met?: Yes;
FY06: Goal: 13: 76: 75: 48: 89: 28;
FY06: Actual to date: 39[D];
FY06: On target?: Yes;
FY11: Goal: 30.
Performance measure: U.S. seasonal temperature forecast skill (score);
Description: A score based on the agency's accuracy in forecasting
temperature;
FY05: Goal: 18;
FY05: Actual (final): 19;
FY05: Goal met?: Yes;
FY06: Goal: 13: 76: 75: 48: 89: 18;
FY06: Actual to date: 24[D];
FY06: On target?: Yes;
FY11: Goal: 20.
Performance measure: Hurricane track forecast error at 48 hours
(nautical miles);
Description: A measure of the difference between the projected
locations of the center of storms and the actual location in nautical
miles for the Atlantic Basin;
FY05: Goal: 128;
FY05: Actual (final): 101;
FY05: Goal met?: Yes;
FY06: Goal: 13: 76: 75: 48: 89: 111;
FY06: Actual to date: N/A[F];
FY06: On target?: N/A[F];
FY11: Goal: 106.
Source: GAO analysis of NOAA and NWS reports.
[A] Metric measured between October 2005 and January 2006.
[B] Metric measured between October 2005 and February 2006.
[C] Metric measured between October 2005 and December 2005.
[D] Metric measured between October 2005 and March 2006.
[E] Instrument Flight Rule conditions exist when ceilings and
visibilities are less than 1,000 feet and/or 3 miles, respectively, and
ceilings and visibilities are greater than, or equal to, 500 feet and/
or 1 mile, respectively.
[F] Data for this metric are not available until the beginning of the
next calendar year because of the timing of the hurricane season.
[End of table]
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.[Footnote 8]
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.
NEXRAD:
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.
Table 2: Ongoing and Planned NEXRAD Improvements (as of May 31, 2006):
Improvement: Radar data acquisition subsystem replacement;
Description: A subsystem that transmits and receives radar signals,
controls the radar antenna, processes the received signal, and sends
the processed data to the radar product generator; replacement of this
subsystem will enable software upgrades including an enhancement that
will allow operators to view more detailed weather features;
Current status: In process; 107 of 158 sites have been installed;
Estimated acquisition cost: $43.8 million (NWS portion is $22.6
million);
Estimated completion date: Estimated to be completed in late 2006.
Improvement: Dual polarization technology upgrade;
Description: A technology upgrade to allow enhanced target
identification;
Current status: Acquisition process is under way; E
Estimated acquisition cost: $38 million (NWS portion is $25 million);
Estimated completion date: Expected contract award at the end of 2006;
Deployment is expected to begin in fiscal year 2009 and end in fiscal
year 2011.
Source: NEXRAD Program Office.
[End of table]
ASOS:
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.
Table 3: Ongoing and Planned ASOS Improvements (as of May 31, 2006):
Improvement: Processor upgrade;
Description: Provides a more robust processor with increased capacity,
speed, and memory;
Current status: 962 installations completed out of 1002 total planned
sites (312 installations completed out of 313 NWS sites);
Estimated or actual acquisition cost: $6.61 million (NWS portion is
$2.89 million);
Estimated or actual completion date: June 30, 2006.
Improvement: All-weather precipitation accumulation gauge;
Description: Replaces existing heated tipping bucket rain gauge with a
gauge that measures precipitation by weight, resulting in more accurate
measurements;
Current status: 323 of 331 installed (303 of 311 NWS);
Estimated or actual acquisition cost: $7.10 million;
Estimated or actual completion date: June 30, 2006.
Improvement: Dewpoint sensor;
Description: Replace existing sensor's chilled mirror technology with a
humidity sensitive capacitor;
Current status: 958 of 1002 installed (303 of 311 NWS);
Estimated or actual acquisition cost: $9.20 million (NWS portion is
$3.14 million);
Estimated or actual completion date: June 30, 2006.
Improvement: Ice-free wind sensor;
Description: Replaces the existing cup and vane anemometer with a new
ultrasonic sensor;
Current status: 231 of 1000 installed (60 of 311 NWS);
Estimated or actual acquisition cost: $7.53 million (NWS portion is
$2.90 million);
Estimated or actual completion date: November 30, 2006.
Improvement: Enhanced precipitation identifier;
Description: Replaces sensor that only reports rain and snow with one
that is to report rain, snow, drizzle, hail, and ice pellets;
Current status: Field demonstration testing to begin July 2006;
Estimated or actual acquisition cost: $10.14 million (NWS portion is
$3.55 million);
Estimated or actual completion date: March 31, 2009.
Improvement: Ceilometer (cloud height);
Description: Replaces senor that measures cloud heights up to 12,000
feet with one that is expected to measure cloud heights up to 40,000
feet;
Current status: Evaluation of commercial sensors almost complete;
solicitation for system development expected to begin by end of May
2006;
Estimated or actual acquisition cost: $33 million (NWS portion is $12
million);
Estimated or actual completion date: September 30, 2011.
Improvement: Sunshine duration sensor;
Description: Adds a new sensor to measure solar radiation;
Current status: Program on hold pending ceilometer production; will be
developed after the ceilometer; planned to restart by 2010;
Estimated or actual acquisition cost: $1.77 million (this upgrade
affects only NWS systems);
Estimated or actual completion date: September 30, 2011.
Source: ASOS program office.
[End of table]
AWIPS:
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.
Table 4: Ongoing and Planned AWIPS Improvements:
Improvement: Linux migration;
Description: An effort to replace legacy hardware and to port
approximately 4 million source lines of code of AWIPS software from the
original proprietary Hewlett-Packard Unix operating system to the open
source Linux operating system;
Current status: In progress;
Estimated cost: $17.92 million;
Timeline/estimated completion date: 2002 to 2007.
Improvement: Architecture analysis;
Description: An effort to refine AWIPS hardware and communications
architecture in support of the Linux migration and to build an advanced
Linux prototype system;
Current status: In progress;
Estimated cost: $900,000;
Timeline/estimated completion date: 2004 to 2006.
Improvement: Information technology security;
Description: An initiative to replace obsolete routers and firewalls
throughout the system;
Current status: In progress;
Estimated cost: $3.22 million;
Timeline/estimated completion date: 2004 to 2006.
Improvement: Hardware refresh;
Description: An initiative to keep the AWIPS hardware baseline fresh
and maintainable through a continuous technology refresh. NWS plans to
refresh hardware components every 4 to 5 years after the Linux
migration is completed;
Current status: In progress;
Estimated cost: $53.21 million;
Timeline/estimated completion date: 2006 to 2015.
Improvement: Software re-architecture;
Description: An initiative to reengineer the AWIPS software suite to a
standard service-oriented architecture;
Current status: In progress;
Estimated cost: $23 million;
Timeline/estimated completion date: 2006 to 2010.
Improvement: Software upgrades;
Description: Includes efforts to enhance advanced precipitation
algorithms for estimating rainfall; continue enhancement of advanced
decision assistance tools; implement a distributed hydraulic model; and
enhance forecasting and evaluation of seas and lakes to provide a
prediction capability tool for marine forecasters;
Current status: In progress;
Estimated cost: About $10 million per year;
Timeline/estimated completion date: Continuous.
Source: NWS.
[End of table]
Numerical Models:
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.[Footnote 9] Also, the Office
of Management and Budget (OMB) requires agencies to justify major
investments by showing how they support performance goals.[Footnote 10]
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.
Table 5: System Upgrades Are Linked to Expected Performance
Improvements:
System: NEXRAD;
Expected results of ongoing and planned system upgrades: Replacement of
the data acquisition subsystem is expected to allow future software and
hardware enhancements. These enhancements are expected to improve
forecasting performance;
Primary performance measures affected: Tornado warnings lead time
Tornado warnings accuracy Tornado warnings false-alarm rate Flash flood
warning lead time Flash flood warning accuracy Winter storm warnings
lead time Winter storm warnings accuracy.
System: ASOS;
Expected results of ongoing and planned system upgrades: Processor and
sensor replacements are expected to allow more reliable and
maintainable systems. Selected system improvements--including the
deployment of an all-weather precipitation gauge, an enhanced
precipitation identifier, and a new ceilometer--are expected to
directly improve forecasting performance;
Primary performance measures affected: Flash flood warning lead time
Flash flood warning accuracy Aviation forecast ceiling/visibility
accuracy Aviation forecast ceiling/visibility false-alarm rate.
System: AWIPS;
Expected results of ongoing and planned system upgrades: Infrastructure
upgrades (including a software migration and hardware refreshment) are
expected to allow major software enhancements that will result in more
accurate and timely forecasts;
Primary performance measures affected: Tornado warnings lead time
Tornado warnings accuracy Tornado warnings false-alarm rate Flash flood
warning lead time Flash flood warning accuracy Marine wind speed
forecasts accuracy Marine wave height forecasts accuracy Aviation
forecast ceiling/visibility accuracy Aviation forecast
ceiling/visibility false-alarm rate Winter storm warnings lead time.
System: Supercomputers;
Expected results of ongoing and planned system upgrades: Increased
computational capabilities are expected to allow advanced modeling and
data assimilation--and to result in improved forecast accuracy;
Primary performance measures affected: Winter storm warnings lead time
Winter storm warnings accuracy Precipitation forecast day 1 threat
score U.S. seasonal temperature forecast skill Hurricane track
forecasts at 48 hours.
System: Models;
Expected results of ongoing and planned system upgrades: Modeling
improvements, enabled by increased supercomputer capacity, are expected
to result in more accurate and timely forecasts;
Primary performance measures affected: Flash flood warning lead time
Flash flood warning accuracy Marine wind speed forecasts accuracy
Marine wave height forecasts accuracy Aviation forecast
ceiling/visibility accuracy Aviation forecast ceiling/visibility false-
alarm rate Winter storm warnings lead time Winter storm warnings
accuracy Precipitation forecast day 1 threat score U.S. seasonal
temperature forecast skill Hurricane track forecasts at 48 hours.
Source: GAO analysis of NWS data.
[End of table]
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,[Footnote
11] 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[Footnote 12] 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 [Hyperlink, http://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.
Signed by:
David A. Powner:
Director, Information Technology Management Issues:
[End of section]
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.
[End of section]
Appendix II: NWS Performance Goals for Fiscal Years 2005 to 2011:
Performance measure: Tornado warning lead time (minutes);
Description: The difference between the time a warning is issued and
the time of the first report of a tornado in a given county;
FY05: Goal: 13;
FY05: Final actual: 13;
FY06: Goal: 13;
FY06: Actual to date: 13[A];
FY07: Goal: 14;
FY08: Goal: 15;
FY09: Goal: 15;
FY10: Goal: 15;
FY11: Goal: 15.
Performance measure: Tornado warning accuracy (percent); Description:
The percentage of time a tornado actually occurred in an area covered
by a tornado warning;
FY05: Goal: 73;
FY05: Final actual: 75;
FY06: Goal: 76;
FY06: Actual to date: 82[A];
FY07: Goal: 76;
FY08: Goal: 76;
FY09: Goal: 76;
FY10: Goal: 76;
FY11: Goal: 76.
Performance measure: Tornado warning false-alarm rate (percent);
Description: The percentage of time a tornado warning was issued but no
tornado event was reported;
FY05: Goal: 73;
FY05: Final actual: 77;
FY06: Goal: 75;
FY06: Actual to date: 76[A];
FY07: Goal: 74;
FY08: Goal: 74;
FY19: Goal: 74;
FY10: Goal: 74;
FY11: Goal: 74.
Performance measure: Flash flood warning lead time (minutes);
Description: The difference between the time a warning is issued and
the time of the first report of a flash flood in a given county;
FY05: Goal: 48;
FY05: Final actual: 54;
FY06: Goal: 48;
FY06: Actual to date: 63[A];
FY07: Goal: 49;
FY08: Goal: 49;
FY098: Goal: 49;
FY10: Goal: 49;
FY11: Goal: 49.
Performance measure: Flash flood warning accuracy (percent);
Description: The percentage of time a flash flood actually occurred in
an area covered by a flash flood warning;
FY05: Goal: 89;
FY05: Final actual: 88;
FY06: Goal: 89;
FY06: Actual to date: 93[A];
FY07: Goal: 90;
FY08: Goal: 90;
FY09: Goal: 90;
FY10: Goal: 90;
FY11: Goal: 90.
Performance measure: Marine wind speed forecast accuracy (percent);
Description: A measure of the accuracy of wind speed forecasts;
FY05: Goal: 57;
FY05: Final actual: 57;
FY06: Goal: 58;
FY06: Actual to date: 56[B];
FY07: Goal: 58;
FY08: Goal: 58;
FY09: Goal: 59;
FY10: Goal: 59;
FY11: Goal: 59.
Performance measure: Marine wave height forecasts accuracy (percent);
Description: A measure of the accuracy of wave forecasts;
FY05: Goal: 67;
FY05: Final actual: 67;
FY06: Goal: 68;
FY06: Actual to date: 71[B];
FY07: Goal: 68;
FY08: Goal: 68;
FY09: Goal: 69;
FY10: Goal: 69;
FY11: Goal: 69.
Performance measure: Aviation forecast Instrument Flight Rule ceiling/
visibility accuracy (percent); Description: The percentage of time
Instrument Flight Rule conditions[E] are predicted and occur;
FY05: Goal: 46;
FY05: Final actual: 46;
FY06: Goal: 47;
FY06: Actual to date: 45[B];
FY07: Goal: 48;
FY08: Goal: 51;
FY09: Goal: 52;
FY10: Goal: 53;
FY11: Goal: 59.
Performance measure: Aviation forecast Instrument Flight Rule ceiling/
visibility false-alarm rate (percent); Description: The percentage of
time Instrument Flight Rule conditions[E] are predicted but do not
occur;
FY05: Goal: 68;
FY05: Final actual: 63;
FY06: Goal: 65;
FY06: Actual to date: 61[B];
FY07: Goal: 64;
FY08: Goal: 58;
FY09: Goal: 57;
FY10: Goal: 56;
FY11: Goal: 50.
Performance measure: Winter storm warning lead time (hours);
Description: The average time from the issuance of a warning to the
time of the first report of a winter storm in a given county;
FY05: Goal: 15;
FY05: Final actual: 17;
FY06: Goal: 15;
FY06: Actual to date: 16[C];
FY07: Goal: 15;
FY08: Goal: 15;
FY09: Goal: 16;
FY10: Goal: 17;
FY11: Goal: 17.
Performance measure: Winter storm warning accuracy (percent);
Description: The percentage of verified winter storm events that were
covered by winter storm warnings;
FY05: Goal: 90;
FY05: Final actual: 91;
FY06: Goal: 90;
FY06: Actual to date: 91[C];
FY07: Goal: 90;
FY08: Goal: 90;
FY09: Goal: 91;
FY10: Goal: 92;
FY11: Goal: 92.
Performance measure: Precipitation forecast day 1 threat (score);
Description: A score based on the agency's accuracy in forecasting
precipitation;
FY05: Goal: 27;
FY05: Final actual: 29;
FY06: Goal: 28;
FY06: Actual to date: 39[D];
FY07: Goal: 29;
FY08: Goal: 29;
FY09: Goal: 29;
FY10: Goal: 30;
FY11: Goal: 30.
Performance measure: U.S. seasonal temperature forecast skill (score);
Description: A score based on the agency's accuracy in forecasting
temperature;
FY05: Goal: 18;
FY05: Final actual: 19;
FY06: Goal: 18;
FY06: Actual to date: 24[D];
FY07: Goal: 19;
FY08: Goal: 19;
FY09: Goal: 19;
FY10: Goal: 20;
FY11: Goal: 20.
Performance measure: Hurricane track forecasts at 48 hours (nautical
miles); Description: 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;
FY05: Goal: 128;
FY05: Final actual: 101;
FY06: Goal: 111;
FY06: Actual to date: N/A[F];
FY07: Goal: 110;
FY08: Goal: 109;
FY09: Goal: 108;
FY10: Goal: 107;
FY11: Goal: 106.
Source: GAO analysis of NOAA and NWS reports.
[A] Metric measured between October 2005 and January 2006.
[B] Metric measured between October 2005 and February 2006.
[C] Metric measured between October 2005 and December 2005.
[D] Metric measured between October 2005 and March 2006.
[E] Instrument Flight Rules take effect when ceilings and visibilities
are less than 1,000 feet and/or 3 miles, respectively, and ceilings and
visibilities are greater than, or equal to, 500 feet and/or 1 mile,
respectively.
[F] Data for this metric are not available until the beginning of the
next calendar year because of the timing of the hurricane season.
[End of Table]
[End of section]
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,[Footnote 13] 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.
[End of section]
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Commerce:
The Deputy Secretary Of Commerce:
Washington, D.C. 20230:
June 29, 2006:
Mr. David A. Powner:
Director, Information Technology Management Issues:
U.S. Government Accountability:
Office 441 G Street, NW:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Dear Mr. Powner:
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Government
Accountability Office's draft report entitled Weather Forecasting:
National Weather Service is Planning to Improve Service and Gain
Efficiency, but Impacts of Potential Changes Are Not Yet Known (GAO-06-
792). I enclose the Department of Commerce's comments to the draft
report.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
David A. Sampson:
Enclosure:
Department of Commerce's Comments on the Draft GAO Report Entitled
"Weather Forecasting: National Weather Service Is Planning to Improve
Service and Gain Efficiency, but Impacts of Potential Changes Are Not
Yet Known" (GAO-06-792/July 2006):
General Comments:
The Department of Commerce appreciates the opportunity to review this
report. We commend the Government Accountability Office (GAO) staff for
conducting a thorough examination. The report captures the major
elements regarding the National Weather Service's (NWS) delivery of
services and plans for future improvements. NWS is striving to meet
America's rapidly growing weather, water, and climate needs.
NOAA Response to GAO Recommendations:
The draft GAO report states, "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:
Recommendation 1: ".require training officials to validate the accuracy
of training justifications;"
NOAA Response: NWS agrees with this recommendation and is now working
to revise the present training process to ensure limited training
resources continue to be targeted to those competencies most directly
supporting NWS performance requirements.
Recommendations 2 and 3: ".establish key activities, timelines, and
measures for evaluating the "clustered peer" office structure
prototype, and ensure that plans for evaluating the prototype address
the impact of any changes on budget, staffing, and services."
NOAA Response: NWS agrees with recommendations 2 and 3. Prototyping the
"clustered peer" office structure, as described on page 32 of the GAO
report, is one activity under an NWS initiative to explore a new
concept of agency operations. During the past year, NWS has undertaken
this work along with initiatives in aviation and information technology
to ensure its services meet America's rapidly growing weather, water,
and climate needs in the most efficient manner. NWS has formed a
Concept of Operations Team, an Aviation Team, and an Information
Technology Team to focus on the three initiatives. Also, NWS has
established ground rules for the new initiatives that include no
degradation of service, no reduction in the number of offices, and
equitable services across the Nation.
NWS has formed a Coordination Team, which created a high-level plan to
oversee the prototyping efforts of the three teams. Within this effort,
the Concept of Operations Team is working on the plan for the
prototype. This plan will include key activities and timelines for
conducting and evaluating the prototype.
Planning for a new concept of operations and other new initiatives is
still in its early stages, with plans for establishing criteria and
metrics for evaluating the prototype, and defining mechanisms for
obtaining customer feedback still under development. We intend to
leverage the lessons learned from the 1990s NWS modernization
initiative in finalizing our plans for developing and prototyping the
new concept of operations, including applying similar rigorous
processes for assessing impacts and ensuring no degradation of service,
as described on pages 33 and 40 of the draft GAO report. Given our
commitment to consistent levels of customer service across the Nation,
we will ensure a rigorous and thorough assessment process is followed
in evaluating the revised concept of operations prototype to ensure
NOAA has adequate information to make an informed implementation
decision.
[End of section]
Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
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.
FOOTNOTES
[1] Doppler radar is used to determine the speed and direction of rain
or snow particles, cloud droplets, or dust moving toward or away from
the radar. The radar accomplishes this by sending out a pulse using a
stable frequency and then measuring the changing frequencies as the
distance between the radar and the object changes.
[2] GOES has historically been a joint program between NOAA and the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), with NOAA funding
and managing the program and NASA providing engineering and launch
capabilities.
[3] Satellites in a series are identified by letters of the alphabet
when they are on the ground and by numbers once they are in orbit.
[4] GAO, Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental Satellites: Cost
Increases Trigger Review and Place Program's Direction on Hold, GAO-06-
573T (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 30, 2006); Polar-orbiting Operational
Environmental Satellites: Technical Problems, Cost Increases, and
Schedule Delays Trigger Need for Difficult Tradeoff Decisions, GAO-06-
249T Washington, D.C.: Nov. 16, 2005); Polar-orbiting Environmental
Satellites: Information on Program Cost and Schedule Changes, GAO-04-
1054 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 30, 2004); Polar-orbiting Environmental
Satellites: Project Risks Could Affect Weather Data Needed by Civilian
and Military Users, GAO-03-987T (Washington, D.C.: July 15, 2003); and
Polar-orbiting Environmental Satellites: Status, Plans, and Future Data
Management Challenges, GAO-02-684T (Washington, D.C.: July 24, 2002).
[5] See, for example, GAO, Weather Forecasting: Improvements Needed in
Laboratory Software Development Process, GAO/AIMD-95-24 (Washington,
D.C.: Dec. 14, 1994); Weather Forecasting: Unmet Needs and Unknown
Costs Warrant Reassessment of Observing System Plans, GAO/AIMD-95-81
(Washington, D.C.: Apr. 21, 1995); Weather Forecasting: Radar
Availability Requirement Not Being Met, GAO/AIMD-95-132 (Washington,
D.C.: May 31, 1995); Weather Forecasting: Radars Far Superior to
Predecessors, but Location and Availability Questions Remain, GAO/ T-
AIMD-96-2 (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 17, 1995); Weather Forecasting: New
Processing System Faces Uncertainties and Risks, GAO/T-AIMD-96-47
(Washington, D.C.: Feb. 29, 1996); Weather Forecasting: Recommendations
to Address New Weather Processing System Development Risks, GAO/ AIMD-
96-74 (May 13, 1996); and Weather Satellites: Planning for the
Geostationary Satellite Program Needs More Attention, GAO/AIMD-97-37
(Washington, D.C.: Mar. 13, 1997).
[6] GAO, High-Risk Series: An Overview, GAO/HR-95-1 (Washington, D.C.:
February 1995); High-Risk Series: Information Management and
Technology, GAO/HR-97-9 (Washington, D.C.: February 1997); High-Risk
Series: An Update, GAO/HR-99-1 (Washington, D.C.: January 1999); High-
Risk Series: An Update, GAO-01-263 (Washington, D.C.: January 2001).
[7] The Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (Pub. L. 103-62)
was intended to improve federal program effectiveness, accountability,
and service delivery by requiring federal agencies to develop strategic
plans with long-term, outcome-oriented goals and objectives; annual
performance goals linked to the long-term goals; and annual reports on
actual results.
[8] This cost estimate includes the expected cost of key system
upgrades, as well as estimated annual costs for improvements to AWIPS
software and numerical models through the year 2011. It does not
include the expected costs of supercomputer upgrades because NWS does
not estimate what portion of its $26 million annual supercomputer
budget is attributable to upgrades.
[9] Pub. L. 103-62, 107 Stat. 285 (1993).
[10] OMB requires agencies to annually submit documentation, called an
exhibit 300, justifying major information technology initiatives or
improvements.
[11] Because there is no precise definition of the term "office
configuration," we have defined it as NWS's current number of offices,
the location of the offices, hours worked at each of the offices, and
the services and functions provided at each of the offices.
[12] NWS's Corporate Board is chaired by the Director of the National
Weather Service, and made up of senior officials responsible for
different aspects of the agency's mission, including the Chief
Information Officer and the Directors of the Office of Climate, Water,
and Weather Services; the National Centers for Environmental
Prediction; and the NWS Regions. It meets at least twice annually to
discuss the NWS budget and other strategic issues. It also holds
special meetings, as needed, to focus on NWS issues such as postevent
assessments of major weather services, such as an assessment of weather
services during Hurricane Charley in 2004.
[13] Pub. L. 102-567 § 706(b), 106 Stat. 4303, 4306 (1992).
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of
Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional
responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability
of the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use
of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides
analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make
informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's commitment to
good government is reflected in its core values of accountability,
integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through the Internet. GAO's Web site ( www.gao.gov ) contains
abstracts and full-text files of current reports and testimony and an
expanding archive of older products. The Web site features a search
engine to help you locate documents using key words and phrases. You
can print these documents in their entirety, including charts and other
graphics.
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as "Today's Reports," on its
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document
files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to
www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to e-mail alerts" under the "Order
GAO Products" heading.
Order by Mail or Phone:
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.
Orders should be sent to:
U.S. Government Accountability Office
441 G Street NW, Room LM
Washington, D.C. 20548:
To order by Phone:
Voice: (202) 512-6000:
TDD: (202) 512-2537:
Fax: (202) 512-6061:
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Public Affairs:
Jeff Nelligan, managing director,
NelliganJ@gao.gov
(202) 512-4800
U.S. Government Accountability Office,
441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548:
