Proposed Relocation of the San Francisco Weather Service Forecast Office; Availability

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Proposed Relocation of the San Francisco Weather Service Forecast

Office; Availability

SUMMARY: The National Weather Service (NWS) is publishing its proposed

certification for the proposed relocation of the San Francisco Weather

Service Forecast Office, Redwood City, to Monterey, California, as

required by Public Law 102-567. In accordance with this law, the public

will have 60-days in which to comment on this proposed certification.

The proposed certification is summarized in this notice but the entire

package is too voluminous to publish in its entirety in the FR and much

of the supporting documentation is, therefore, available by contacting

the addressees below.

DATES: Comments are requested by May 27, 1994.

ADDRESSES: Requests for copies of the proposed relocation package

should be sent to Senator Raygor, Wx21, 1325 East-West Highway, Silver

Spring, MD 20910 or Norman Hoffmann, MIC, 660 Price Avenue, Redwood

City, California 94063. All comments should be sent to Senator Raygor.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Senator Raygor at 301-713-0391.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The National Weather Service (NWS)

anticipates 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 Weather

Service Modernization Act (the Act). In accordance with section 706 of

Public Law 102-567, the Secretary of Commerce must certify that this

relocation will not result in any degradation of service and must

publish the proposed relocation certification in the FR. The proposed

certification documentation includes the following:

(1) A draft memorandum by the meteorologist in charge recommending

the certification, the final of which will be endorsed by the Regional

Director and the Director of the National Weather Service if

appropriate, after consideration of public comments and completion of

consultation with the Modernization Transition Committee;

(2) A description of local weather characteristics and weather-

related concerns which affect the weather services provided within the

service area;

(3) A detailed comparison of the services provided within the

service area and the services to be provided after such action;

(4) A description of any recent or expected modernization of

National Weather Service operation which will enhance services in the

service area;

(5) An identification of any area within any State which would not

receive coverage (at an elevation of 10,000 feet) by the next

generation weather radar network;

(6) 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; and

(7) A letter appointing the liaison officer.

The proposed certification will not include any report of the

Modernization Transition Committee (the Committee) which could be

submitted in accordance with sections 706(b)(6) and 707(c) of the

Public Law. At its March 16-17 meeting the Committee concluded that the

information presented by that date did not reveal any potential

degradation of service and decided not to issue a report.

As stated earlier, some of the documentation included in the

certification is too voluminous to publish, e.g. the description of

weather characteristics and the detailed comparison of services, and a

number of the attachments to the MICs evaluations. These items can be

obtained through either of the contacts listed above.

Attached to this notice is (1) the draft memorandum from Norman C.

Hoffman, Meteorologist in Charge, WSFO San Francisco to Dr. Thomas D.

Potter, Director, Western Region, summarizing the basis for his

recommendation for relocation certification; (2) the Relocation

Checklist; (3) memorandum from (a) Dean P. Gulezian, Meteorologist in

Charge, Detroit, (b) James D. Belville, Meteorologist in Charge, WSFO

Washington, DC (c) G.C. Henricksen, Jr., Meteorologist in Charge, WSFO

Philadelphia, all evaluating recent office moves for which they were

responsible and providing evidence for the present relocation.

Once all public comments have been received and considered, the NWS

will complete consultation with the Committee and determine whether to

proceed with the final certification. If a decision to certify is made,

the Secretary of Commerce must publish the final certification in the

Federal Register and transmit the certification to the appropriate

Congressional committees prior to relocating the office.

Dated: March 22, 1994.

Elbert W. Friday, Jr.,

Assistant Administrator for Weather Services.

Proposed MIC Recommendation. Included at this time for

Completeness. Also, acronyms used in this package are provided as

part of this letter for reference.

Memorandum For: W/WR--Thomas D. Potter

From: Norman C. Hoffmann, MIC, WSFO San Francisco

Subject: Recommendation for Relocation Certification

After reviewing the documentation herein, I have determined

that, in my professional judgment, relocating the Weather Service

Forecast Office (WSFO) for the northern and central California

service area from Redwood City to Monterey will not result in any

degradation in weather services to this service area. Accordingly, I

am recommending that you approve this section in accordance with

section 706 of Public Law 102-567. If you concur, please endorse

this recommendation and forward the package for transmittal to

Congress.

My recommendation is based on my review of the pertinent

evidence and application of the modernization criteria for

relocation of a field office. In summary:

1. A description of local weather characteristics and weather-

related concerns which affect the weather services provided within

the northern and central California service area is included as

attachment A. As discussed below, I find that providing the services

that address these characteristics and concerns from Monterey rather

than from Redwood City will not degrade these services.

2. A detailed list of the services currently provided within the

northern and central California service area from the Redwood City

location and a list of services to be provided from the Monterey

location after relocation is included as attachment B. Comparison of

these services shows that all services currently provided will

continue to be provided after the proposed relocation. As discussed

below, I find that there will be no degradation in the quality of

these services as a result of the relocation.

3. A description of the recent or expected modernization of

National Weather Service operations which will enhance services in

the service area is included as attachment C. The new technology

listed (ASOS, WSR-88D, and AWIPS) has or will be installed and will

enhance services in the northern and central California service

area.

4. A map showing planned NEXRAD coverage at an elevation of

10,000 feet for California is included as attachment D. It

identifies a limited area within the State (in the Sierra Nevadas)

which will not receive coverage. It should be noted that this area

does not have any NWS radar coverage at this time. NWS operational

radar coverage for the State and for the specific service area will

be increased dramatically.

5. A relocation checklist setting forth all necessary steps to

accomplish the proposed relocation without a disruption of services

is included as attachment E. In finalizing this checklist, I

carefully considered the evidence from already completed office

moves and the comments on my draft checklist from the MICs

responsible for these completed moves [and from users and/or the

public during the comment period.] Thus, the relevant aspects of

``battle plan'' and other planning materials from the successful

move from Ann Arbor to White Lake, Michigan are fully incorporated,

for example, extra care in ensuring an appropriate moving

contractor. (The move from Philadelphia to Mount Holly, New Jersey

also suggests adding this particular check point.) I note that

several recommendations made by the other MIC's, such as a new phone

system and a new demark box are already planned for the Monterey

facility. [Final letter may point out any important changes

resulting from user/public comment]

This checklist includes all of the items required by the

modernization relocation criteria. In particular, to satisfy Item 1

requiring ``notification and technical coordination with users,'' I

include as attachments F & G, a list of the users in the SWFO San

Francisco Bay Area service area that will be notified of the

relocation and a draft of the notification letter I plan to send to

these users approximately 60 days prior to the relocation.

6. In reaching my conclusion that no degradation in service will

result from this relocation, I considered evidence, based upon

operational demonstration of modernized National Weather Service

operations, of two types:

First is the evidence based on existing operations in Redwood

City which will remain the same once the office is relocated in

Monterey. Staff will continue to receive the same data and

information on the same computer terminals and comparable display

monitors and will disseminate their products over the same

telecommunications network to the media and other users as they did

before. In other words, in this case, ``modernized'' operations

after the relocation will be the same as existing operations. I am

certain there is no reason to anticipate any effect on the quality

of services throughout the affected service area simply because they

will be provided from a new location.

This expectation is confirmed by the second type of evidence I

considered, that from completed office moves of WSFO Washington

(from Camp Springs, MD to Sterling, VA); WSFO Philadelphia (from

Philadelphia, PA to Mount Holly, NJ); and WSFO Ann Arbor (from Ann

Arbor, MI to White Lake, MI), included as attachment H. The primary

mechanism for determining whether any degradation of service

resulted from these moves is evidence of user dissatisfaction in

products and services after the move. I believe that, in each case,

there has been adequate opportunity for such dissatisfaction to

surface if it existed and each MIC reports a successful move with no

indication of such dissatisfaction.

I recognize that no single move constitutes a perfect model for

the present relocation but, after reviewing these moves as a body, I

find adequate evidence that no degradation of service will result.

For example, the Ann Arbor WSFO did not contain a service unit as

does San Francisco, but the other two offices do contain such units

and were moved without degrading the services provided by such

units.

Therefore, based of my review of this evidence and in my

professional judgment, I find that the relocation will not result in

a degradation in services to the northern and central California

service area.

7. A memorandum assigning the liaison officer for the San

Francisco Bay Area service area is included as attachment I.

I note that WSFO San Francisco is not located on an airport and

is not the only field office in California, so that those special

criteria involving an air safety appraisal and an evaluation to in-

state users required under PL 102-567 are not applicable to this

proposed relocation certification.

[If, after the MIC considers comments raised during the comment

period, he continues to recommend certification, the final

memorandum will address appropriate comments either here or in an

attachment.]

I, Thomas D. Potter, Director, Western Region, endorse this

proposed relocation certification.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Thomas D. Potter

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date

I, Elbert W. Friday, Jr., Assistant Administrator for Weather

Services, endorse this proposed relocation certification.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Elbert W. Friday, Jr.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date

Relocation Checklist

I. Notification and Technical Coordination With Users

________Technical Coordination completed with users. Users have

received notification of the proposed relocation and relocation

date.

II. Identification and Preparation of Backup Sites

WSO Sacramento is the backup site.

________Personnel scheduled for deployment from WSFO San Francisco

to WSO Sacramento during backup operations.

________AFOS software loaded at WSO Sacramento for backup

operations.

________Portable NOAA Weather Radio system installed at Monterey and

tested for backup NOAA Weather Radio operation.

III. Start of Service Backup

Delay move and start of backup service if severe weather is in

progress or forecast for the day.

________Forecasters deployed to WSO Sacramento for backup

operations.

________WSFO San Francisco MIC coodinates with WSO Sacramento MIC

regarding start of backup operations.

________Start backup operations.

IV. Systems, Furniture and Communications

________Final Coordination with moving company. Ensure familiarity

with moving computer equipment. Also company will allow flexibility

in the order the truck is loaded.

________Furniture at Redwood City identified that will be moved to

the new WSFO.

________Inventory all circuits to be moved and established

relationships with all involved telephone companies.

________New telephone system and communications circuits installed

at the new WSFO.

________AFOS communications circuits installed.

________Satellite data circuits installed.

________Install furniture and equipment according to furniture and

equipment floor plan.

V. Installation and Checkout

________Connect wiring for AFOs, peripheral computers and modems.

AFOS

________Boot AFOS, bring it up and on line.

________Validate data base and verify data flowing.

________Send test message.

________Verify request reply.

________Test printer.

________Display maps on AFOS.

________Run animate on AFOS.

________Check out software

________Verify watchdog programs are running.

CFOS

________Bring CFOS and additional computers/peripherals (printer

plotter) on lone.

________Run applications program.

________Send test product to AFOS.

________Send test product over SDC.

________Send test product over Western Region Loop.

NOAA Weather Wire

________Transmit on NOAA Weather Wire.

National Warning System (NAWAS)

________Initiate call to California OES to verify operation of

NAWAS.

Satellite Display Systems

________Bring SWIS, MicroSWIS, DWIPS, HIPS Satellite systems on

line.

________Check receipt of images.

________Check looping capability after 2nd image.

Emergency Broadcast System (EBS)

________Ensure the EBS capabilities are reestablished.

Emergency Digital Information System (EDIS)

________Ensure EDIS transmission and reception.

ALERT

________Bring ALERT on line.

________Verify data is flowing.

________Verify dial-out and dial-in capabilities are working.

NOAA Weather Radio (NWR)

________Bring NWR on line.

________Verify the three NWR consoles are operational.

________Terminate use of portable NOAA Weather Radio (DALKE) system

for NWR backup.

________Verify the two phones: one for the media answered 24 hours

per day; the second for public and service requests, are working and

have the same phone numbers as they had at Redwood City.

VI. Validation of Systems Operability and Service Delivery

Once AFOS hardware and all associated PCs are deemed operational by

the ET staff, the meteorologist at the various forecast desks will

verify that their PCs are communicating with AFOS.

________Verify receipt of the needed hydrologic, radar, satellite,

surface and upper air observational data, appropriate computer model

guidance, and appropriate forecast products and guidance from other

NWS offices to maintain the watch, warning, advisory and forecast

programs for northern and central California.

VII. End of Backup Operations

________Following validation of systems operability and service

delivery, terminate backup operations at WSO Sacramento.

February 8, 1994.

Memorandum For: Louis J. Boezi Wx2

From: Dean P. Gulezian MIC/AM WSFO DTX

Subject: Evaluation of Office Move

Reference: Your Memo, Same Subject 1/21/94

Listed below are the responses to each of the questions raised

in your 1/21/94 memo.

Before answering the specific questions, I'll provide a little

background on how we approached the move.

Our office move from Ann Arbor to White Lake Michigan was a TQM

effort from the start. A move task team was developed which included

everyone in the office who volunteered or was assigned

responsibility for certain aspects of the move. The union had a

representative on the task team as well, and he worked ``hand in

hand'' with us every step of the way. We especially worked closely

with the union on such matters as floor plans, short distance

transfer benefits, paperwork necessary to process transfers, etc. A

letter was presented to the union 60 days in advance of the move

specifying the pertinent information regarding the move (attachment

1).

Most move related tasks were delegated to various staff members

who were given full authority and responsibility to execute these

tasks. My responsibility was to oversee everything, and carry out

the few tasks that I took on myself. Many ``move task force''

meetings were held during the time the move was being planned, with

the meetings becoming more frequent (daily at the end) as the move

drew closer.

A ``battle plan'' (attachment 2 shows the final summary) for

executing the move was developed at the first meeting. Subsequent

meetings evaluated the progress of this plan. Input for the battle

plan came from a number of sources. They were: the relocation

kickoff meeting conducted by CRH SOD (agenda in attachment 3), the

draft ROML issued by CRH on Facilities Relocation Management

(attachment 4), the Facilities Prep List prepared by the SFT

(attachment 5), and the Office Relocation Plan prepared by CRH SOD

with input from members of the move task force (attachment 6).

Furthermore, a Move Activities Plan was written, using CRH guidance.

Attachment 7 is the final copy of the plan. Rather than me

commenting on your draft relocation checklist, I offer our ``battle

plan'' and move activities plan as well as the additional documents

mentioned in this paragraph as alternatives to the plan you drafted.

As a result of many people being an important part of the move,

and excellent support from CRH and WSH, and a top-notch moving

company, our move went smoothly. Our staff was very supportive of

the move, despite the fact that it meant most people would have to

relocate. For all employees involved in a short-distance transfer,

the PCS's were processed quickly and without complication. Because

of the sparse population near the new office, the staff was given a

25 mile radius from the new office to move into and still claim a

short-distance transfer.

When reviewing our comments, it should be noted that our office

at Ann Arbor was rather unique. It did not have a public service

unit, or any interaction with the public. It also did not have a CWA

or NWR program. We still don't have these programs, but will have

them shortly when we pick up the service programs from WSOs Detroit

and Flint.

1. The Move From Where to Where--Distance

The move occurred between Ann Arbor, MI and White Lake MI, which

is a distance of 48 miles. AFOS and other communications were

disconnected at 8 AM and running again by 8 PM. We were fully

operational by 10 PM that day. The move was managed by following the

above-mentioned documents. It went smoothly with no problems

encountered.

2. User Notification of the Move

The attached user notification list was used to notify all users

of our move (attachment 8). It was developed based on a generic list

provided by CRH (attachment 9). The move letter is also attached

(attachment 10) as is the press release that was sent on AFOS

(attachment 11). Notification went smoothly with no problems

encountered.

3. Service Backup

The attached service back-up plan (attachment 12) and letter

explaining the Flexzone Program (attachment 13) enabled service

back-up to be perfectly executed with no problems encountered.

4. Communications, Installation, and Checkout

An inventory of all circuits at the old office was taken

(attachment 14). This included all voice and data circuits. Then a

list was made of all of the necessary circuits that would be needed

at the new office, including voice and data. A Request for Change

was written by WSH which also addressed necessary actions

(attachment 15). Regional Headquarters then ordered new circuits

that were needed and ordered ``add term circuits'' for circuits that

could be used at both locations i.e. AFOS RDC Circuits. The add term

circuits avoided the conflict of having to connect both ends when

the move took place. These circuits were ordered approximately eight

months in advance with an installation date at least a month in

advance of the move. A minor problem did develop with the local

telephone company during the evening of the move. It was quickly

taken care of by our ESA. Our Regional Communication Manager was

also a tremendous help on moving day. No matter how well the

communications portion of a move is planned, the actions of the

local telephone company are out of the NWS's hands. Other than that

minor problem, no other problems were encountered.

5. The Move of Furniture and Equipment

The move of furniture was handled by one of our forecasters. He

was in charge of everything from marking what furniture was to be

shipped to the new office, to what furniture was to be made excess

property. He also worked with our secretary on preparing the excess

property list (attachment 16), worked with CASC and met with the

movers to arrange details of the move, and drew color coded maps for

both locations as to where each piece of furniture was to be taken

from and placed. On move day he oversaw the move of furniture out of

Ann Arbor, while our Service Hydrologist oversaw the move of

furniture into the new White Lake office. The move of furniture went

smoothly with no problems encountered.

CRH SOD and CASC procurement handled contracting the moving

company for both furniture and equipment. They did not look for the

lowest bidder, but the company that showed they could move the

equipment properly, without tipping or laying the equipment over.

The mover also had to agree to allow the NWS to instruct them what

to move and when. This allowed the NWS to get the equipment loaded

first and moved safely to the new office immediately. Not only were

no problems encountered in moving equipment, but the ability to

dictate what equipment was to be moved first enabled us to restore

full operations as quickly as we did.

6. System Installation and Checkout

The following were the major systems relocated at DTX: AFOS,

SWIS, and Remote RADAR displays. An NWS telephone system was also

installed at the new office. Approximately 8 months in advance of

the move, an inventory was conducted of all of the cables needed by

the major systems being moved. The larger cables, such as the AFOS

GDM Bus cables were ordered by CRH. The smaller cables were made by

the Electronics staff at the WSFO using supplies purchased locally.

These were cables such as the ABT cables.

As soon as the building was accepted, the SFT installed the

necessary peculiar electrical outlets for the systems that would be

installed. At the same time the electronics staff installed all of

the phone system cabling and all of the system cables. The phone

system cables were terminated where necessary and the system cables

were checked to ensure the correct connectors were in the correct

locations. The phone system was connected and all of the phone

locations were programmed and checked out for proper operation. CRH

supplied the phone system and the phone sets. All of the

interconnecting cabling and termination supplies were purchased

locally by the electronics staff.

The layout of the equipment in the new office was planned well

in advance of the move and diagrammed, to scale, by CRH SOD. This

diagram allowed local staff to determine where all furniture and

equipment would be located. It also allowed the electronics staff to

determine where all of the system cables and telephone cables needed

to be terminated. As a result, no problems were encountered with

systems installation and checkout.

7. Validation of System Operability and Service Delivery

Diagnostics were run on AFOS followed by a MODIFY. Then all

equipment was turned on and the electronics staff and forecasters

made sure all incoming data was received. We were fully operational

and receiving all incoming data by 10 PM the evening of the move and

there were no problems encountered validating the system operability

or products delivered by the WSFO.

User Reaction

User reaction has been extremely positive. After moving to White

Lake, we immediately held 2 open houses. One was for our users (see

attachment 17), and one for our new neighbors (see attachment 18).

Both open houses went a long way toward building a positive

relationship with our users. A typical response from our users is

one that a county emergency manager made to a letter from our WPM

(attachment 19). One neighbor did raise some concerns which were

addressed in a memo which is attached to this response (attachment

20). The response satisfied his concerns.

Attachments

February 22, 1994.

Memorandum For: Louis J. Boezi, Deputy Assistant Administrator for

Modernization

From: James D. Belville, MIC/AM WSFO, Washington, DC

Subject: Evaluation of the Relocation of WSFO, Washington, DC from

Camp Springs, MD to Sterling, VA

The Weather Service Forecast Office (WSFO) in Washington, DC

provides weather forecasts and warnings over a four state area

(Virginia, Maryland, Delaware, and the eastern panhandle of West

Virginia) as well as, one federal district and a large section of

the North Atlantic Ocean. The WSFO in Washington, DC provides a full

suite of services including aviation, public, and marine forecasts;

fire weather, air pollution, and agricultural support services;

hydrologic data collection and forecasts; and severe weather

warnings. Due to the multi-state service area and multitude of

services, few if any WSFO's in the United States could compare in

complexity for the relocation of this particular office.

The WSFO Washington, DC (WBC) relocated on March 19, 1990 from

Camp Springs, MD to Sterling, VA. The relocation of this facility

was necessary because of the location of the WSR-88D weather radar

on property owned by the NWS just west of Dulles International

Airport. The distance of this move was approximately fifty (50)

miles.

The move of WSFO WBC was completely planned and coordinated by

myself, William Comeaux (DMIC), and numerous staff members of the

WSFO. Our first priority was to ensure that the office move was

totally transparent to our entire user community. This meant that

all services continued uninterrupted during the transition of

services from one location to another. In every aspect of the

planning process, the transition of services was the number one

consideration.

User notification of the office relocation along with new NWS

phone numbers presented the WSFO with a significant challenge. While

gearing up for this task, we found there was no central listing of

the various users. Each office focal point was tasked with

developing a comprehensive list of users, along with the current

address, for notification. These were then combined and compiled in

an administrative computer. A letter was composed for each specific

user group of individual along with computer produced mailing

labels. We found that computer paper with the NOAA letterhead was

available. We were able to generate in excess of 2400 notification

letters and mail them over a three day period. Following the office

relocation, we received zero complaints from all user groups

concerning our notification procedures. The notification occurred 45

days prior to the relocation.

Designing and implementing a communication system for the new

facility in Sterling was the most difficult, as well as frustrating,

experience of the entire move. For the most part, this was due to

the fact that the local phone company was Contel, but C&P Telephone

and AT&T also provided many of our data circuits. An enormous amount

of coordination was required in order to successfully install all

needed communications circuits. All data circuits were tested using

a PC one week prior to the move. Several problems were found and

immediately corrected. These efforts paid off as the WSFO AFOS

system, NWR, RADIDS monitors, and SWIS were all functioning in an

operational configuration at the new site within 18 hours of being

turned off at the old location.

One significant outcome of the WSFO relocation was the vastly

increased (nearly double) area covered by the metro area telephone

service the NWS obtained through Contel. The WSFO public service

function was greatly enhanced by the expanded telephone service

area.

There were three communication deficiencies which resulted from

the relocation of the WSFO.

1. FTS service was not available at the Sterling site for

approximately 1\1/2\ years following the relocation.

2. Relocating the office telephone system from the old site to

the new location was a mistake. It proved to be quite expensive and

required several days to complete installation. Installing a new

phone system prior to the relocation would have been better.

3. The FEMA NAWAS circuits were installed about one month

following the office move. This delay was caused by FEMA not

budgeting for the relocation of these circuits.

Service backup for the WSFO relocation was provided by several

means. The public forecast and warning programs were provided from

WSO Baltimore, MD by WSFO WBC forecasters. The backup service began

at 12 AM EST Sunday, March 19 and ended at 8 AM EST Monday, March

20, 1990. All products were issued on time and were of excellent

quality. Neither the public, local officials, nor media could tell

that a relocation had occurred. The aviation forecast products and

marine forecast products were issued by WSFO Charleston, WV and WSFO

Raleigh, NC respectively. They did an excellent job of providing

quality products for our users.

The relocation of the equipment was planned in great detail.

Equipment was loaded onto the vans in the order in which it needed

when unloaded. In other words, the most important was loaded last in

order to be first off. The first off was the NOAA Weather Radio

(NWR). This system was down for a total of 6 hours. Next, the AFOS

was off loaded. As each piece was moved into the new facility, it

was off loaded. As each piece was moved into the new facility, it

was hooked up immediately by the electronics technicians. The entire

system installation and checkout was completed by 8 PM EST, March

19. The system was allowed to run all night to ensure everything was

operating satisfactorily. Two forecasters and a meteorological

technician monitored data flow and product delivery to validate

service delivery capabilities. No troubles were encountered during

the night and all backup services were terminated at 8 AM Monday

morning.

The relocation of WSFO WBC to a new facility was more than just

a move. It also provided the WSFO with an opportunity to improve

several key areas of WSFO operations. These were:

1. Greatly improved operations layout with respect to access to

the various technologies and the facilitation of interaction between

forecasters.

2. Vastly improved NOAA Weather Radio operations both in the

basic programming and quality of the broadcast.

3. Improved warning procedures were obtained by locating the key

dissemination systems to local officials and the media in the

operations area (NAWAS and EBS).

4. The SKYWARN spotter program was significantly enhanced with

respect to the location of the amateur radio station in the

operations area and improved antenna system. It was difficult for

SKYWARN to function at the old location.

To-date, I have not received nor have I heard of a complaint

connected with the relocation of WSFO WBC to Sterling, VA. The

relocation went extremely well and was transparent to all users.

I have thoroughly reviewed the WSFO San Francisco relocation

checklist with respect to requirements of relocation of WSFO WBC. I

find this checklist quite comprehensive and serves its intended

purpose well. I could find no deficiencies in their planning for

this office relocation.

G. C. Henricksen, Jr., NWSFO PHI/MT. HOLLY, NOAA, 732 Woodlane Road,

Mount Holly, N.J. 08060

February 3, 1994.

Memorandum For: Louis J. Boezi, WX2

From: MIC/AM WSFO PHI

Subject: Evaluation of Office Move

Reference: WX21 memorandum 1/21/94

In reference to the above memorandum, the responses are as

follows:

(1) The move was from downtown Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

(Federal Building, 600 Arch Street), to Westampton township, New

Jersey, just west of the town of Mount Holly. The distance is 21

road miles.

(2) User notification was handled by our office and Eastern

Region Headquarters. Over three thousand notifications were mailed

to radio, television, cable, newspapers, cooperative observers and

spotters.

(3) Full service backup was accomplished by NWSFO PIT and NYC

for sixty hours (60) from 7am edt August 23, 1993 to 7pm edt August

25, 1993.

(4) Telephone lines were moved across state boundaries. This

created numerous difficulties with the RDC/SDC AFOS circuits, the

asynchronous circuits, NWR, and general telephone lines. The NWR

circuit problems took the longest to resolve. The DMARC was moved

from the old location to the new location. A new DMARC should have

been constructed at the new facility. The old DMARC caused numerous

circuit restructuring problems. All cabling and connections were

installed and checked at the new facility prior to the move.

(5) & (6) The furniture and equipment move was handled poorly.

The ``A'' side of AFOS was dropped. SWIS was dropped and severely

damaged. The equipment was loaded first and off-loaded last which

was opposite to our instructions. The damage and delay in off-

loading equipment contributed to lengthening operational down time

of the new facility--requiring a longer full service backup. The

RDA, RPG, and PUP installation went smoothly. The new facility

environmental control was seriously faulty and took several weeks to

fully rectify.

(7) The WSR-88D was accepted approximately two weeks later than

target date (early October 1993). The building was conditionally

(with faults noted with suggested corrections) accepted just prior

to the move.

User reaction was strongly negative toward the poor

communication systems or lack of proper operating communication

systems prior to resolution. Current reaction of the users is highly

positive. In short, the major problem was communications. The damage

to the computer equipment and SWIS further delayed the restoration

of full service capability. In the long run, the systems were

repaired, re-routed, restructured, and stabilized to the full

satisfaction of all users.

Attachments: memorandum 9/21/93; memorandum WX21, 1/21/94

cc: W/ER Susan F. Zevin, DMIC, John Jones, AES, Ralph Paxson

September 21, 1993.

For the Record:

From: MIC/AM WSFO PHI/MT. HOLLY--Chet Henricksen

Subject: The NWSFO PHL move to Mt. Holly

On August 23, 1993, the forecast office moved from center city

Philadelphia to Mt. Holly, New Jersey. The move was approximately 21

miles. This is a summary of the move and the things that we've

learned. Each move is different, with separate problems. We can all

learn from each individual move scenario.

(1) The equipment and furniture move--Significant damage

occurred to our SWIS and AFOS system due to improper handling during

the move. We estimate approximately 10 thousand dollars in damages

due to dropped and damaged equipment. A more experienced computer

equipment mover should have been used.

Recommendations: The area manager should have an active role in

the selection of the equipment mover with EASC oversight. The mover

should have a history of successful computer moves. The computer

equipment should be loaded last and off loaded first. The delivery

of non-computer equipment to the new sight should be delayed to

allow for setup of moved computer systems. The placement and

handling of office and computer equipment requires at least two

dedicated NWS oversight personnel.

(2) Communications--All AFOS lines and telephone lines were laid

prior to the move. The AFOS DEMARC from the center city WSFO was

hand carried to the new office, and put in place in a couple of

hours. The new lines already in place in the office had to be

connected to the AFOS DEMARC. There was a circuit routing change

required by SMCC in addition to normal re-connection. This effected

all asynchronous circuits. An attempt was made to reroute all

asynchronous circuits in the DEMARC. This was only partially

successful. The end result was a significant delay in asynchronous

service. The RDC and SDC could not be checked prior to the move

other than to confirm that the new lines were active. Problems arose

in data distribution checks after AFOS was reconnected. This further

delayed return from full service backup. NWWS and NU IFLOWS saw

significant delays.

Recommendations: Standardized new DEMARC boxes should be

available prior to a move, with all cables and wiring accomplished

prior to the move. All required changes in the DEMARC should be done

well in advance, and available to the office for installation to the

new location prior to the physical move. Assistance from person(s)

at another management area, which has accomplished a similar move

should be required. Expertise and experience of NWS personnel should

be fully utilized. We need a design review of the satellite antenna

plot to stabilize the system.

(3) Telephone Systems--The switch over from the old telephone

line numbers to the new was not smooth. The old telephone numbers

were still active for over one week following the move. The public

ring through answering machine failed, probably due to an internal

power supply failure. This occurred on power up at the new location.

Additionally, the ring through telephone number did not properly

switch over to the New Jersey number as planned. It was more than

two weeks after the move, when we discovered that Bell Atlantic had

not passed the work request on to Bell of Pennsylvania to accomplish

a ``roll over'' number for Pennsylvania callers. The three 800

telephone numbers failed to ``roll over'' to the New Jersey numbers

as designed. In an attempt to keep the 800 numbers and ring through

number changes transparent to the user, unforeseen delays occurred

in incoming calls to the new office. Numerous public complaints were

filed due to telephones not being answered (due to the numerous

switch over problems). The learning curve on the NorthStar telephone

system was slow. This lead to an added irritant during and shortly

following the move.

Recommendations: If the new lines are connected and operational,

the old FTS 2000 lines should be disconnected by GSA within twenty-

four hours of the move. A voice intercept should be used for

approximately thirty days on the old telephone numbers announcing

the new telephone number. With at least four telephone companies

involved in an interstate move, you can be assured of delays and

errors in timing, and implementation of telephone numbers. A

comparable spare answering machine should be available for on site

use in the event of the primary system failure.

(4) Environmental Systems--The condenser units on two of the

three air conditioners flooded the ceiling and hallway of the new

office on four separate occasions. The problem turned out to be a

defect under recall by the manufacturer that had to be accomplished

by the local service installers. The humidifier unit flooded the

ceiling tiles twice. This appears to be an engineering problem with

the circulation system in the humidifier. we have a temporary fix in

place, but no permanent solution is available. The thermostatic

control for the three air handlers is a computer. A password and

system training is necessary to operate and control the temperature

environment in all but the equipment room. The password was not made

available until two weeks after the move. Training is still not

accomplished. The computer control unit failed due to a near by

lightning strike. This caused the entire environmental system to

fail. A telephone line was installed three weeks after the move.

This established contractor remote access to the computer control.

The environmental controller was placed on UPS three weeks after the

move.

Recommendations: Communications of recalls and equipment

modification lists must be improved. Facility problems experienced

at this location, are likely to be repeated at other NWS facilities.

All environmental computer control units should be placed on UPS in

all NWS facilities. Passwords and training for the control units

should be supplied within 48 hours of building occupancy. Remote

access to the control unit via telephone lines should be completed

prior to the move. A permanent fixed needs to be found for the

humidifier problem.

Many things did go well with the move. I have listed the problem

areas. This was done in an attempt to help other offices in their

move. I am open for questions and clarifications of these and other

issues at anytime.

cc: Susan F. Zevin, W/ER, Ted Wilk, W/ER4, AMs, NWSFOs ER, Ralph

Paxson, AES

[FR Doc. 94-7144 Filed 3-25-94; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-12-M