94-19519. Final Certification for the Relocation of the San Francisco Weather Service Forecast Office  

  • [Federal Register Volume 59, Number 153 (Wednesday, August 10, 1994)]
    [Unknown Section]
    [Page 0]
    From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
    [FR Doc No: 94-19519]
    
    
    [[Page Unknown]]
    
    [Federal Register: August 10, 1994]
    
    
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
    National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
    
     
    
    Final Certification for the Relocation of the San Francisco 
    Weather Service Forecast Office
    
    SUMMARY: On March 28, 1994 (59 FR 14387), the National Weather Service 
    (NWS) published its proposed certification for the relocation of the 
    San Francisco Weather Service Forecast Office, Redwood City, to 
    Monterey, California, as required by the Weather Service Modernization 
    Act, 15 U.S.C. 313n, (the Act). In accordance with the Act, the NWS 
    provided the public a 60-day period in which to comment. After 
    considering the comments received and consulting with the Modernization 
    Transition Committee, the NWS has determined that this action will not 
    result in any degradation of service to the affected area and has so 
    certified. In accordance with the Act, the Secretary of Commerce has 
    transmitted this certification to Congress, and the NWS is now 
    publishing the final certification together with a summary of the 
    supporting documentation.
    
    EFFECTIVE DATE: August 10 1994.
    
    ADDRESSES: Requests for copies of the final relocation certification 
    package should be sent to Senator Raygor, Wx21, 1325 East-West Highway, 
    Silver Spring, MD 20910.
    
    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
    Senator Raygor at 301-713-0391.
    
    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The National Weather Service (NWS) is 
    relocating its forecast office for Northern California from Redwood 
    City to Monterey. This is the first modernization action which requires 
    a certification of no degradation of service under the Act.
        Based on the recommendation of the relevant Meteorologist-in-
    Charge, on June 24, 1994, the Assistant Administrator of the NWS 
    certified that this relocation will not result in any degradation of 
    service to the affected area as required by section 706 of the Act. On 
    July 21, 1994, the Secretary of Commerce transmitted this certification 
    to Congress. The NWS is now completing the certification requirements 
    by publishing the final relocation Certification in the Federal 
    Register.
        Published with this Notice are (1) the Certification by the 
    Assistant Administrator of the Weather Service; (2) a memorandum from 
    Norman C. Hoffmann, Meteorologist-in-Charge, WSFO San Francisco, 
    endorsed by Dr. Thomas D. Potter, Director, Western Region, which 
    recommends certification and summarizes the basis for the 
    recommendation. This memorandum also sets forth the supporting 
    documentation required by the Act, NWS regulations and certification 
    criteria at 15 CFR part 946. However, this supporting documentation 
    generally is too voluminous to publish with this Notice and can be 
    obtained through the contact listed in ADDRESSES. This material 
    includes:
        (1) A description of local weather characteristics and weather-
    related concerns which affect the weather services provided within the 
    service area;
        (2) A detailed comparison of the services provided within the 
    service area and the services to be provided after such action;
        (3) A description of any recent or expected modernization of 
    National Weather Service operation which will enhance services in the 
    service area;
        (4) An identification of any area within California which would not 
    receive coverage (at an elevation of 10,000 feet) by the next 
    generation weather radar network;
        (5) The evidence, based upon operational demonstration of 
    modernized NWS operations, which was considered in reaching the 
    conclusion that no degradation in service will result from such action 
    including the relocation checklist and evidence from similar moves;
        (6) A copy of the letter appointing the liaison officer; and
        (7) The recommendation of the Modernization Transition Committee 
    (the Committee), made at its June 22, 1994, meeting, that supports the 
    certification. (The Committee did not issue any report evaluating the 
    proposed certification as is its prerogative under section 706(b)(6) of 
    the Act.)
        The memorandum recommending certification considered and responded 
    to all public comments received on the proposed certification during 
    the 60-day comment period. These comments and responses are set forth 
    here for reference:
        Comment: Both of the negative comments received centered on the 
    belief that, if the Weather Forecast Office (WFO) is not located in the 
    San Francisco Bay area, services to that area could be degraded. 
    Related to this point, these commentors focussed on the distance of the 
    move and argued that services would be degraded because the forecasters 
    would not be able to ``see'' the conditions in the San Francisco Bay 
    area.
        Response: First of all, these comments ignore the fact that this 
    WSFO is responsible for weather services to all of northern California, 
    not just the San Francisco Bay area. The NWS is convinced that the 
    relocation to Monterey will enhance weather forecasting for the entire 
    northern California service area. The logical conclusion of this 
    comment is that each WFO must be located in close proximity to the 
    population center of its particular service area. Such a result 
    obviously is not reasonable.
        Furthermore, there will be no degradation of weather services to 
    the San Francisco Bay Area itself. The services are dependant on a 
    variety of information which includes surface observations, weather 
    radars, upper air soundings, weather satellite data, spotter networks, 
    aircraft reports, and numerical guidance from the National 
    Meteorological Center. The collection of this data and information is 
    dependant on communications, not the exact location of that office, and 
    will be equally available to the Monterey office as it was in Redwood 
    City.
        One commentor's concern, that the loss of personal contact between 
    NWS personnel and the media and agencies might degrade the overall 
    quality of services, also is unfounded. The commentor is correct that 
    ``the NWS depends heavily on the media to get its warnings out.'' 
    However, the primary means by which NWS warnings are disseminated is by 
    telecommunications systems such as NOAA Weather Wire, not by personal 
    contacts. The commentor claims that television reporters in the San 
    Francisco area ``regularly visit and report from the office in Redwood 
    City during weather emergencies, and that appearances on camera by NWS 
    forecasters add immediacy to developing weather stories and allow the 
    public to receive information directly from the source.'' There are 
    network television affiliates in the Monterey area that could provide 
    on camera interviews with the forecasting staff from the office in 
    Monterey. With modern day telecommunications, these interviews can 
    easily be broadcast over television stations located in the San 
    Francisco Bay area.
        Contact with cooperating and user agencies such as FEMA and 
    emergency managers in the San Francisco Bay area will continue even if 
    the WSFO is relocated to Monterey. There is no reason to assume these 
    contacts, that are currently done face-to-face, will be less effective 
    in the future if they are done mostly via telephone, as is done now for 
    users in the WSFO's service area that are outside the immediate San 
    Francisco Bay area. Moreover, contact with cooperators and users will 
    be enhanced by the addition of a dedicated Warning Coordination 
    Meteorologist to the staff at Monterey.
        Comment: The two commentors opposed to the relocation also argued 
    that, if the WFO is not located in the San Francisco Bay area, services 
    would be degraded because of the climatological differences.
        Response: This comment is related to that above but requires some 
    additional elaboration. There are numerous climatological zones located 
    in central and northern California. A primary goal of the NWS 
    modernization is to enable each future WFO to provide consistent 
    weather services to its entire area of responsibility which includes 
    the numerous climatological regimes. To accomplish this the NWS will 
    employ advanced computers which will greatly improve the numerical 
    guidance available to forecasters. Advanced weather satellites will 
    make higher resolution imagery available allowing forecasters to see in 
    detail what is occurring over their area of responsibility. The number 
    and frequency of surface observations will be increased through the 
    deployment of ASOS. A national network of WSR-88D Doppler radars is 
    already halfway completed. This will provide forecasters in Monterey 
    the ability to view the atmosphere in more detail than ever before 
    possible. Not just over the San Francisco Bay area, but over all of 
    northern and central California. Any attempt to compare services as 
    they exist today with those that will be available in the future is a 
    disservice to all the users of weather services in northern and central 
    California.
        Comment: The two commentors opposed to the relocation believe that 
    a number of experienced forecasters will elect to retire instead of 
    relocate and the result will be degradation of services.
        Response: Clearly, the ability of the NWS to relocate an office (or 
    to take a number of other modernization actions) cannot be contingent 
    upon the number of employees that happen to retire during the process. 
    Planning for these actions begins years in advance whereas the actual 
    number of employees who will retire is not known for certain until the 
    day the move takes place. Therefore, the NWS has to be prepared to deal 
    with whatever vacancies occur in the same way it deals with vacancies 
    at any office which occur all the time, when employees retire or 
    transfer to other jobs. In this situation, even in the worst case 
    scenario, a loss of 7 employees, the potential for any short term 
    effects is negligible in view of the fact that the office will retain 4 
    out of 5 lead forecasters; that it has already recruited 3 experienced 
    forecasters and has identified 2 additional experienced forecasters 
    that could be detailed to Monterey during the transition; and that the 
    office will be able to field experienced personnel on each shift.
        Comment: Three commentors stated that with the new technologies the 
    proposed relocation of the NWS forecast office would not degrade 
    services that, in fact, they expect an enhancement of weather services. 
    Two of the commentors stated that collocating with the Naval Post 
    Graduate School would be beneficial to the NWS and create new 
    opportunities for collaborative research activities.
        Response: The NWS agrees. Improved warning and forecast 
    capabilities are expected to result from this collocation. Improved 
    access to Fleet Numerical Oceanography Center data sources including 
    satellite imagery from the Defense Meteorological Satellite System as 
    well as global, regional, and wave numerical forecast models will 
    enable improved weather services.
        Comment: One commentor believed that the relocation would be more 
    costly.
        Response: The issue of cost associated with the office move is not 
    relevant to certification. However, an Economic Analysis (EA) was 
    completed on May 20, 1992, by the Special Engineering Program Office 
    which concluded that the relocation to Monterey was the most 
    economical. In July, 1993, the Department of Commerce Office of 
    Inspector General validated that EA and determined the Monterey 
    location to be the most economical to the Government.
    
        Dated: August 5, 1994.
    Louis J. Boezi,
    Deputy Assistant Administrator for Modernization.
    [FR Doc. 94-19519 Filed 8-9-94; 8:45 am]
    BILLING CODE 3510-12-M
    
    
    

Document Information

Published:
08/10/1994
Department:
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Entry Type:
Uncategorized Document
Document Number:
94-19519
Dates:
August 10 1994.
Pages:
0-0 (1 pages)
Docket Numbers:
Federal Register: August 10, 1994