An Assessment of the Fiscal Requirements to Operate the Modernized National Weather Service Acknowledgments A report like this can only result from the contributions of many people. First, I must thank the men and women of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and National Weather Service who provided the needed data and information and responded to our numerous requests for additional information and answers to questions. Next, the Department of Commerce provided me with a team of experts-John Dutton, Craig Dorman, Al Kaehn and David McMillian - each provided wise counsel, useful information and helped get the requisite analyses accomplished. Third, Bob Winokur, Acting Director, NWS and Captain Don Winter insured we received the necessary information and helped us determine locations to visit. Fourth, the MITRE cost analyst team of Robert Abramson, Julia Taylor, Thomas Troiano and Steve Welman, who brought order, insight and meaning to large reams of numbers. My deepest appreciation goes to the government team - Susan Sutherland, Gary Knebel, Paul Nipko, Greg Mandt and Diana Abney - who assisted in accomplishing this study. This report would not have been done without their hard work, intellectual acuity and persistent efforts. While I appreciate the inputs and advice from each contributor, this was not a committee effort; the final recommendations and funding decisions are solely the author's. I. - Regional Non-Labor Budgets .. SECTION XI. - SPECIFIC ISSUES .. Advanced Weather Interactive Processing System Assessment.. B. - The Regional Structure Of The Weather Service ... An Assessment of the Fiscal Requirements to Operate the Modernized National Weather Service LIST OF TABLES TABLE Table 1 - Headquarters & Central Operations Staffing.. PAGE 17 Table 2 - National Centers For Environmental Prediction Staffing. .19 20 Table 4 - Field Staffing........ 21 Table 5 - NWS Direct Funded FTEs. Table 6 - Headquarters NWS and Central Operations Non-LABOR 21 23 26 Table 18 - NWS FY 1997 Technical Development/Infusion... Table 23 - FY 1998 Budget in Traditional NOAA Structure.. Table 28 - NWS FY 1999 FTE Distribution... Table 29 - FY 1998 Recommended FTEs by FMC and Account. .73 .74 ..75 .75 ..77 .78 .79 Table 36 - Recommended Benefits as a Percent of Basic Compensation.... .79 36 37 39 53 ..68 ..69 ..70 .71 .71 .72 .72 An Assessment of the Fiscal Requirements to Operate the Modernized National Weather Service LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE Figure 1 – AWIPS Systems Engineering Concept Figure 2-CONUS Regional HQ Structure... PAGE ..48 .56 An Assessment of the Fiscal Requirements to Operate the Modernized National Weather Service Section I- EXECUTIVE SUMMARY SECTION I. — EXECUTIVE SUMMARY During the past several months serious questions have arisen within the DOC and NOAA concerning the fiscal and people resources required by the NWS to continue to provide regular operations and maintain current modernization program schedules. These concerns resulted in the commissioning of this study to ascertain appropriate resources needed to operate the NWS. A preliminary budget analysis was conducted to assess the reasonableness and underlying rational for the FY 1998 and 1999 NWS budgets. The results of this analysis are presented within appropriate sections of this report. The NWS budget structure is complex with fiscal resources budgeted, appropriated and expended in multiple accounts: a BASE account and five modernization accounts. Within the modernization accounts, budget categories are clearly defined and activities identified and costed. Fiscal resources in the FY 1998 President's Budget and the FY 1999 OMB submit were discernible and our approach involved evaluating the reasonableness of the activity, its associated cost and making appropriate adjustments. This was not the case with the BASE account. Traditionally, NWS, like many government agencies, does not apportion BASE dollars into component parts and activities. Thus, identifying what activities and categories are included and how labor and non-labor costs were allocated within the FY 1998 and 1999 budgets was impossible. Our approach was to develop for both labor and non-labor the level of resources NWS needs to provide required levels of products and services and maintain a supporting infrastructure. We accomplished this by visiting NWS units, meeting with customers, receiving briefings and holding discussions with DOC, NOAA and NWS staffs, analyzing pertinent budget data including NWS' newly developed Zero Base Budget and considering comparable industry norms. Overall, the NWS FY 1998 budget projections to support modernization activities appear reasonable. We decreased funding ($2.9 million) for acquisition management activities and communication circuits. In FY 1999, projected operations and maintenance costs for the NEXRAD program appeared high when considered within the context of our recommended increase to base. We decreased funding ($7.0 million). Remaining funding will enable NWS to maintain a healthy and sustainable NEXRAD O&M program to include Preventative Maintenance Inspections, procuring spares, initiating a modification program and continuing system evolution efforts. We also reduced funding ($1.0 million) for communication circuits and acquisition management activities. In both years, we increased funding for facilities maintenance ($500,000). Our analysis of the BASE budget indicates both the FY 1998 President's Budget and FY 1999 OMB Submit under-fund labor and non-labor inflationary costs and do not provide sufficient resources to maintain required field (i.e., Weather Forecast Offices) staffing levels. The labor shortfall is particularly acute in FY 1999, which would have reduced field office staffing by approximately 200 positions below the recommended level of 3600 FTE. Delays |