Final Certification for the Relocation of the San Francisco Weather Service Forecast Office

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