[House Hearing, 110 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
THE NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC
ADMINISTRATION'S FISCAL YEAR 2009
BUDGET PROPOSAL AND GAO'S REPORT ON
THE AVIATION WEATHER SERVICE
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND
ENVIRONMENT
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
FEBRUARY 26, 2008
__________
Serial No. 110-78
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Science and Technology
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.science.house.gov
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
40-818 PDF WASHINGTON DC: 2008
---------------------------------------------------------------------
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402�090001
______
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
HON. BART GORDON, Tennessee, Chairman
JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois RALPH M. HALL, Texas
EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER JR.,
LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California Wisconsin
MARK UDALL, Colorado LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas
DAVID WU, Oregon DANA ROHRABACHER, California
BRIAN BAIRD, Washington ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland
BRAD MILLER, North Carolina VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan
DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma
NICK LAMPSON, Texas JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois
GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona W. TODD AKIN, Missouri
JERRY MCNERNEY, California TOM FEENEY, Florida
LAURA RICHARDSON, California RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas
PAUL KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania BOB INGLIS, South Carolina
DARLENE HOOLEY, Oregon DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington
STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas
JIM MATHESON, Utah MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida
MIKE ROSS, Arkansas PHIL GINGREY, Georgia
BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California
RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri ADRIAN SMITH, Nebraska
CHARLIE MELANCON, Louisiana PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia
BARON P. HILL, Indiana VACANCY
HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona
CHARLES A. WILSON, Ohio
------
Subcommittee on Energy and Environment
HON. NICK LAMPSON, Texas, Chairman
JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois BOB INGLIS, South Carolina
LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland
DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois
GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona W. TODD AKIN, Missouri
JERRY MCNERNEY, California RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas
MARK UDALL, Colorado MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas
BRIAN BAIRD, Washington MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida
PAUL KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania
BART GORDON, Tennessee RALPH M. HALL, Texas
JEAN FRUCI Democratic Staff Director
CHRIS KING Democratic Professional Staff Member
MICHELLE DALLAFIOR Democratic Professional Staff Member
SHIMERE WILLIAMS Democratic Professional Staff Member
ELAINE PHELEN Democratic Professional Staff Member
ADAM ROSENBERG Democratic Professional Staff Member
ELIZABETH STACK Republican Professional Staff Member
TARA ROTHSCHILD Republican Professional Staff Member
STACEY STEEP Research Assistant
C O N T E N T S
February 26, 2008
Page
Witness List..................................................... 2
Hearing Charter.................................................. 3
Opening Statements
Statement by Representative Nick Lampson, Chairman, Subcommittee
on Energy and Environment, Committee on Science and Technology,
U.S. House of Representatives.................................. 9
Written Statement............................................ 10
Statement by Representative Bob Inglis, Ranking Minority Member,
Subcommittee on Energy and Environment, Committee on Science
and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives.................. 11
Written Statement............................................ 12
Prepared Statement by Representative Jerry F. Costello, Member,
Subcommittee on Energy and Environment, Committee on Science
and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives.................. 12
Prepared Statement by Representative David Wu, Chairman,
Subcommittee on Technology and Innovation, Committee on Science
and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives.................. 13
Panel I:
Vice Admiral Conrad C. Lautenbacher, Jr., Under Secretary of
Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere; NOAA Administrator,
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S.
Department of Commerce
Oral Statement............................................... 14
Written Statement............................................ 15
Biography.................................................... 21
Discussion
GOES-R Budget Estimate......................................... 22
The VIIRS Instrument........................................... 23
Funds for the Hurricane Supplemental Buoys..................... 24
The Tsunami Warning System..................................... 25
Coral Reef Watch Program....................................... 25
Tsunami Education and Mitigation Funding....................... 25
Disaster Relief for Fisheries.................................. 28
Ocean Surface Winds Vector and QuikSCAT........................ 29
Rule Changes for Red Snapper Fisheries......................... 30
NPOESS Funding................................................. 30
Fixing Fiscal Year 2008 Budget Allocations..................... 36
Panel II:
Mr. David A. Powner, Director, Information Technology Management
Issues, U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO)
Oral Statement............................................... 37
Written Statement............................................ 38
Biography.................................................... 49
Dr. John L. Hayes, Assistant Administrator for Weather Services;
Director, National Weather Service, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce
Oral Statement............................................... 49
Written Statement............................................ 51
Biography.................................................... 54
Mr. Eugene D. Juba, Senior Vice President for Finance Services,
Air Traffic Organization, Federal Aviation Administration
Oral Statement............................................... 55
Written Statement............................................ 56
Biography.................................................... 58
Discussion
Relationship Between FAA and NWS............................... 58
Evaluating the Performance of CWSUs............................ 59
Responding to New FAA Requirements............................. 59
Ensuring Consistency of Weather Products and Services.......... 60
NWS Communication With the FAA................................. 61
FAA Weather Contracting........................................ 61
More on CWSU Support........................................... 63
Evaluating NWS Proposals....................................... 63
NWS and FAA Working Cooperatively.............................. 64
Appendix: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Vice Admiral Conrad C. Lautenbacher, Jr., Under Secretary of
Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere; NOAA Administrator,
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S.
Department of Commerce......................................... 68
THE NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION'S FISCAL YEAR 2009
BUDGET PROPOSAL AND GAO'S REPORT ON THE AVIATION WEATHER SERVICE
----------
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 2008
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Energy and Environment,
Committee on Science and Technology,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 1:15 p.m., in
Room 2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Nick
Lampson [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
hearing charter
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration's Fiscal Year 2009
Budget Proposal and GAO's Report on
the Aviation Weather Service
tueday, february 26, 2008
1:00 p.m.-3:00 p.m.
2318 rayburn house office building
Purpose
On Tuesday, February 26, 2008 at 1:00 p.m. the House Committee on
Science and Technology's Subcommittee on Energy and Environment will
hold a hearing to examine the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) Fiscal Year 2009 (FY09) budget proposal and the
Government Accountability Office (GAO) report on Aviation Weather
Services.
Witnesses
Panel I: NOAA FY09 Budget Proposal
Vice Admiral Conrad Lautenbacher, Jr., Under Secretary of Commerce for
Oceans and Atmosphere and Administrator, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration
Panel II: GAO's Report on Aviation Weather Service
Mr. John L. (Jack) Hayes, Assistant Administrator for National Weather
Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Mr. Eugene D. Juba, Senior Vice President for Finance, Air Traffic
Organization, Federal Aviation Administration
Mr. David Powner, Director, Information Technology Management Issues,
Government Accountability Office
Background
The President's FY 2009 budget request for the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is $4.2 billion, 4.8 percent above
the FY 2008 enacted funding.
NOAA's mission includes weather forecasting, climate prediction,
management of fisheries and coastal and ocean resources. In addition,
NOAA is responsible for mapping and charting our coastal areas and
providing other navigation support services through programs of the
National Ocean Service (NOS). NOAA conducts research in support of
these missions including atmospheric sciences, coastal and oceanic
science, climate and air quality research, ecosystem research, and
fisheries and marine mammal research. NOAA also operates a
constellation of satellites that monitor and transmit data for weather
forecasting, climate prediction, space weather forecasting, and Earth
and ocean science research through the National Environmental Satellite
Data and Information Service (NESDIS). NESDIS also analyzes, processes,
and distributes weather and climate data to government and non-
government organizations and archives these data for future use.
The table below shows the six primary accounts of the agency's
budget. The line offices receiving increases in the FY 2009 request are
the National Weather Service (NWS), the National Environmental
Satellite, Data, and Information Service (NESDIS), and Program Support.
The Administration's budget proposal decreases funding for the Office
of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research (OAR), the National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS), and the National Ocean Service (NOS).
National Weather Service:
The National Weather Service (NWS) provides weather, hydrologic,
and climate forecasts and warnings for the United States, adjacent
waters, and ocean areas for the protection of life and property. NWS
provides a national infrastructure to gather and process data worldwide
from the land, sea, and air.
The NWS request is a two percent net increase ($19 million) over
the FY 2008 enacted budget. The Administration is requesting $13.5
million for the Operations, Research and Facilities (ORF) accounts and
$5.7 million for the Procurement, Acquisitions and Construction (PAC)
accounts above the enacted FY 2008 budget. While the Administration is
requesting an overall increase for NWS, there are a number of
reductions for specific line items in both the ORF and PAC accounts.
The major proposed increases and decreases in these accounts are
discussed below.
The Administration has requested increases of $33.9 million in the
ORF accounts. The majority of the increase ($22.9 million) is within
the Local Warning and Forecasts and includes $3 million for operations
and maintenance of the 15 hurricane detection buoys that were acquired
and deployed in FY 2005 and FY 2006; $2.9 million to upgrade NOAA
weather radio; $6.6 to upgrade the Advanced Weather Information
Processing System; and $4.8 million to convert the data transmission
frequency for additional stations in the wind profiler network. The
Administration is also requesting an additional $4.3 million to improve
hurricane forecast modeling.
The Advanced Weather Interactive Processing System (AWIPS) is the
specialized software package deployed in each of the local forecasting
offices that enables forecasters to prepare accurate, timely forecasts
and warnings. There has been a demand for increase lead time and more
precision in weather, flood, and hurricane forecasts.
The Wind Profiler data improves accuracy and lead times for
tornado, severe thunderstorm, flash flood, and winter storm warnings.
The increase will also provide technology upgrades to the twenty-year-
old equipment and assist NOAA in completing the transition of this
network to a fully operational system.
The requested increases in the NWS ORF accounts are partially
offset by decreases in funding. There are seventeen projects proposed
for elimination ($20.4 million in FY 2008 funding). These projects are
designated by Congress for funding and are routinely eliminated by the
Administration as ``Congressional earmarks.'' A number of these
programs have been funded for many years and support on-going
forecasting services (e.g., Susquehanna River Basin Flood System). One
of the projects eliminated is the U.S. Weather Research Program's
Hemispheric Observing System Research and Predictability Experiment
(THORpex), a multi-year international field experiment to improve two
to ten-day forecasts being done in cooperation with international
partners and numerous U.S.-based research organizations ($5.8 million).
The requested increase is not sufficient to cover all current
forecast and warning activities provided by NOAA in addition to the
requested upgrades and operational and maintenance requirements for
current weather forecasting equipment. The Agency must also comply with
the requirements of mandatory pay raises for federal employees. When
additional funds are not provided to cover these costs, the funding
must come at the expense of program funding or through deferred
maintenance. This is especially important for the NWS whose forecast
and warning operations require a high level of staffing through the
network of offices throughout the country. The level of funding
requested will not enable NWS to move new monitoring and forecasting
equipment from research to fully operational mode.
National Environmental Satellite Data and Information Service (NESDIS):
The President's budget requests a net increase for the National
Environmental Satellite Data and Information Service (NESDIS) budget of
$203 million (21 percent). The Administration's budget request for the
NESDIS ORF account is $13.9 million less than the FY 2008 enacted
budget. The Administration requests an increase of $216.7 over the FY08
enacted budget for the PAC account.
The ORF account for NESDIS contains the programmatic funding for
management, processing, analyzing, and archiving the data received from
all of NOAA's weather monitoring equipment--both ground-based and
space-based. This program account includes funds for data processing
and analyses at data centers located in Kentucky, North Carolina,
Maryland, and West Virginia. The FY 2009 request reduces funding for
the four data centers by approximately 81 percent below the FY 2008
enacted funding. This account also supports a number of regional
climate centers and centers that provide data and information services.
The Administration's budget proposes to reduce these accounts by $23.8
million below the FY 2008 enacted budget.
The Administration requests some increases to the ORF accounts for
Satellite Observing Systems ($9.7 million). The requested increases
would support the routine replacement and upgrading of ground based
equipment and software and to maintain the continuity of data on sea
ice used to forecast sea ice changes to support navigation. The largest
single requested increase within this ORF account is $3 million for
ocean vector wind studies. This funding would provide information to
support the development of a replacement for the data provided by the
QuikSCAT satellite used in hurricane forecasting.
The budget for NESDIS is dominated by the PAC account that provides
funds for the acquisition of NOAA's weather satellite systems. NOAA
operates two satellite systems that collect data for weather
forecasting. The Polar-Orbiting Environmental Satellites (POES) orbit
the Earth and provide information for medium to long-range weather
forecasts. The geostationary satellites (GOES) gather data above a
fixed position on the Earth's surface and provide information for
short-range warnings and current weather conditions. Both of these
satellite systems are developing a new series and the first of the new
satellites must be launched around 2014 to maintain the continuity of
weather forecasting data. Increases and decreases in the PAC account
reflect the different phases of the design, build and launch of the
satellites.
There is a planned decrease of $49 million below the FY 2008
enacted budget for the last of the current series of polar satellites,
NOAA N-Prime, which is scheduled for launch in February 2009. There is
also a planned decrease for the National Polar-Orbiting Operational
Satellite System (NPOESS), reflecting the post-Nunn-McCurdy funding
profile for the NPOESS program. The Administration is requesting $288
million for NPOESS in FY 2009 ($43.3 million less than FY 2008
funding). The funds are to contribute to the tri-agency NPOESS program
and be used to continue the development of the NPOESS sensors for the
NPP project (NPOESS Preparatory Project) and for the first NPOESS
satellite scheduled for launch in 2013.
The budget request for the current series of Geostationary
Operational Environmental Satellites (GOES-N, -O and -P) reflects a $7
million decrease because GOES-O and GOES-P are in the final stages of
development. GOES-N was launched last May. GOES-O is scheduled for
launch later this year. The last satellite of this current series,
GOES-P is in storage.
The FY 2009 request of $477 million, a $242 million increase for
the new geostationary satellite series (GOES-R) to support the
continued development and procurement of this new series. The GOES-R
satellite series was originally scheduled for launch in 2014. However,
the reduction in funds included in the FY 2008 enacted budget has
created a likely delay in the launch date to 2015. In 2006, the
estimate for the new GOES series of satellites--GOES-R--was projected
to be $5 billion higher than the original estimate. NOAA has
restructured the program to achieve cost reductions and has obtained
independent cost estimates for the program. The Administration now
estimates the cost of the new GOES series at $7.62 billion over a
twenty-year period (through 2028). The cost savings are achieved by
reducing the number of satellites in the series (from four to two) as
well as reducing the capabilities of the satellites.
In addition to the procurements of these two satellite systems, the
Administration is requesting an increase of $74 million to restore high
priority climate sensors that were de-manifested from the NPOESS
program in 2006 as a result of the Nunn-McCurdy mandated restructuring
of the program. These funds would support initial work on two sensors,
the Clouds and the Earth's Radiant Energy System (CERES) sensor and the
Total Solar Irradiance Sensor (TSIS).
Oceanic and Atmospheric Research:
The Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research (OAR) is the primary
research arm of NOAA that provides the scientific information and tools
needed for better understanding of the oceans and atmosphere. OAR
conducts the scientific research, environmental studies, and technology
development needed to improve NOAA's operations. OAR consists of seven
internal research laboratories and manages extramural research at 30
National Sea Grant colleges and universities. Therefore, OAR contains
over half of the research programs at NOAA. The Administration proposes
to reduce funding for OAR programs by nearly $16 million below the FY08
enacted funding levels, approximately a four percent reduction.
The OAR ORF accounts would be reduced by $15.7 million under the
Administration's proposal with the majority of the reductions coming
from programs in the Ocean, Coastal, and Great Lakes Research account
($24.2 million). The proposed funding in FY 2009 for these programs is
reduced from $130 million to $106 million, an 18 percent decrease for
these programs. Sea Grant receives a cut of $2 million. The
Administration's request includes an $8 million increase for Ocean
Exploration and Research. However, the Administration proposed last
year to merge the National Undersea Research Program (NURP) with the
Ocean Exploration Program and this is again reflected in the budget.
Therefore, the $8 million increase is not an overall increase for Ocean
Exploration Programs, but reflects the transfer of funds for NURP
activities to this line of the budget. The FY 2008 enacted budget for
these two programs included $19.5 million for Ocean Exploration and
$14.7 million for NURP for a total of $34.2 million. The FY 2009
proposed funding for these two programs is $6.4 million below the FY
2008 enacted funding level. The Administration's proposal also
eliminates $6.9 million in funding from the Aquatic Invasive Species
program and the Marine Aquaculture Program ($3.6 million and $3.2
million, respectively). Another $6.6 million dollars is also proposed
for elimination from ten of the Partnership programs in this account.
Weather and Air Quality research accounts receive a net increase in
the FY 2009 request ($5.5 million dollars) in comparison to the FY 2008
enacted levels. This includes the Laboratories and Joint Institutes
that would receive an increase ($3 million) above FY 2008 enacted
levels and an increase for the U.S. Weather Research program of $5.5
million. These increases are offset by a cut of $3 million for seven
Partnership Programs funded in the FY 2008 budget by Congress.
The Climate Research programs receive a proposed net increase of
$2.7 million. The Administration proposes increases of $4.6 million
increase for competitive research programs including the National
Integrated Drought Information (NIDIS) and an increase of $8.3 million
for Climate Data and Information programs. These proposed increases are
offset by reductions in the Climate Observations and Services programs
($8.1 million) and the elimination of two Partnership programs--the
Abrupt Climate Change Research Program and a Drought Research Study
($1.1 million) and a decrease in the climate research conducted by
Laboratory and Joint Institutions ($1.9 million).
The OAR budget also contains funding for the High-Performance
Computing and Communication (HPCC) program. NOAA relies upon
sophisticated computer models to make major improvements in NOAA's
ability to forecast the weather and climate and to model ecosystems and
ocean processes. The FY 2009 budget request proposes $13 million, about
a $369,000 increase for this program.
National Ocean Service:
The National Ocean Service (NOS) protects the National Marine
Sanctuaries and is an advocate for coastal and ocean stewardship. It
also introduced electronic nautical charts which they combine with
Global Positioning Systems (GPS) to enhance the safety and efficiency
of navigation of U.S. waterways. The President's FY 2009 request for
NOS would reduce funding for NOS programs by nine percent or $48
million as compared to the FY 2008 enacted budget.
The NOS ORF account is reduced by $18.7 million. Navigation
Services has a proposed increase of $7.5 million. The Ocean Resources,
Conservation and Assessment account has a proposed net reduction as
compared to the FY 2008 enacted budget of $25.7 million. This includes
a $19.9 million reduction in the Ocean Assessment Program (OAP), $2.8
million decrease in Response and Restoration, and $2.9 million
reduction in the National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science (NCCOS).
The Ocean Assessment Program includes funding for the Integrated Ocean
Observing System (IOOS) was $26.4 million. The FY 2009 request would
reduce funding for IOOS by $5.3 million to $21 million. The FY 2008
enacted budget for the Ocean and Coastal Zone Management accounts would
receive a slight reduction (approximately $469,000). The NOS-PAC
accounts are also reduced, by $29.2 million. This includes cuts in both
the Marine Sanctuaries Construction ($8.3 million) and four
congressionally mandated construction acquisition projects (a total of
$23.3 million).
Program Support:
The Program Support account funds corporate services and agency
management. This includes the Under Secretary's office, the office of
the Chief Financial Officer, and the Program, Planning and Integration
Office. Overall, the Administration requests an increase in the Program
Support account of $73.4 million (a 16 percent increase) as compared to
the FY 2008 enacted funding level. Most of this increase is due to
continued construction of facilities under the PAC accounts ($63.8
million), in particular the Pacific Regional Center in Honolulu ($40.3
million).
The Program Support account also includes the NOAA Education
Program. The proposed funding for NOAA education programs is again
reduced significantly below its current funding level of $34 million
for FY 2008 to a proposed funding level of $17 million for FY 2009. The
Administration proposes to eliminate completely eleven education
programs including the JASON education and outreach program. The
Administration has proposed significant reductions for Competitive
Education Grants; an 80 percent reduction below the FY 2008 enacted
funding level.
GAO's Report on Aviation Weather Service
The National Weather Service (NWS) weather products are a vital
component of the Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA) air traffic
control system. NWS provides aviation weather products and services to
FAA through the Aviation Weather Center and the weather forecast
offices across the country. The Aviation Weather Center is located in
Kansas City, Missouri and is staffed by 65 personnel. There are 122
weather forecast offices, which issue terminal area forecasts for
approximately 625 locations every six hours and in real time as
conditions change.
In addition, NWS provides direct contact with FAA staff through
individual center weather service units (CWSUs). Under an interagency
agreement, NWS provides CWSU meteorologists at each of the FAA's 21 en
route centers in addition to providing products and services developed
at the other NWS facilities. FAA's en route centers control air traffic
over the national air space as planes are in transit and on the
approach to some airports. The CWSU meteorologists provide air traffic
managers with forecast and weather briefings on regional conditions
including icing, turbulence, visibility, and freezing precipitation.
Under the current terms of this interagency agreement, FAA reimburses
NWS $12 million annually for CWSU support.
NWS's meteorologists utilize various systems to collect and analyze
data compiled from both the NWS and FAA weather sensors. Key systems
used are FAA's Weather and Radar Processor, FAA's Integrated Terminal
Weather System, and a remote display of NWS's Advanced Weather
Interactive Processing System (AWIPS). Also, the NWS meteorologists
provide key services such as meteorological impact statements, center
weather advisories, periodic briefings, weather information
interpretations, and on-demand consultations.
A few years ago, FAA began to explore options to reduce costs
associated with the aviation weather services provided by NWS at its en
route centers. In 2005, FAA requested that NWS restructure its aviation
weather services to consolidate offices, provide remote services, and
reduce the annual cost of providing services by $2 million. In
response, NWS offered FAA a proposal to supply aviation weather
services through the local forecast office closest to the en route
centers. This proposal removed CWSU meteorologists from the en route
centers and achieved the cost savings requested by FAA. FAA did not
accept the proposal and instead initiated a review to more clearly
define its requirements for weather forecasting at the en route
centers.
In October 2006, FAA also explored the possibility of acquiring
aviation weather services from an organization other than NWS. FAA
developed and released a market survey to solicit initial information
from the private sector and other government organizations to determine
if they could provide remote weather services at a lower cost than NWS.
Ten organizations, including private sector firms and government-funded
laboratories, responded that they could provide the services that FAA
wanted and at a reduced cost.
One year ago, five Members of the Committee on Science and
Technology asked the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to evaluate
the efforts of FAA and NWS to restructure aviation weather technologies
and services. The Committee wished to ensure that restructure of these
services would not result in any degradation of services provided to
guide air traffic management. Problems associated with weather
conditions contribute to significant delay of air traffic. Also,
accurate forecasting of weather conditions is essential to maintaining
safety of aircraft.
The GAO completed its review in December and will report on its
findings. Shortly after GAO completed its review, FAA released two
documents: a Center Weather Service Unit Quality Assurance Surveillance
Plan and a Requirements Document. FAA provided these documents to NWS
on December 19 and asked NWS to provide their response to the documents
within 120 days. The Director of NWS, Dr. Jack Hayes, and the Senior
Vice President for Finance, Air Traffic Organization of the FAA will
provide their responses to GAO's recommendations and an update on the
current status of their joint efforts to restructure aviation weather
services.
Chairman Lampson. This hearing will come to order.
Everyone, good afternoon, and I want to welcome everyone to
today's Subcommittee hearing on the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, or NOAA, fiscal year 2009 budget
request, and GAO's report on aviation weather services.
NOAA is an important agency that provides our citizen with
warnings of severe weather, guides the management of our ocean
and coastal resources, and conducts research to improve our
understanding of the environment. NOAA is a diverse agency with
many important missions and responsibilities. However, issuing
watches and warnings for severe storms may be the role for
which NOAA is the most famous.
I know that in Texas we appreciate their services because
we experience severe storms every year in the form of tornadoes
and hurricanes. The watches, warnings, and forecasts issued by
the National Hurricane Center and the local forecasting offices
of the National Weather Service contain vital public safety
information. The partnership between the National Weather
Service, the media, and the emergency management community is
essential to protect lives and property damage associated with
these storms.
Accurate predication of hurricanes and other severe storms
and sound management of ocean and coastal resources can only be
achieved in sound investments in the personnel, equipment, and
research at NOAA.
There are some encouraging features of the fiscal year 2008
budget request for NOAA. For the first time in years, the
President has requested an increase for this agency over the
current year's funding level. This is certainly a step in the
right direction. We are pleased to see additional funds
requested to restore some climate sensors and to upgrade a
variety of models, technology and software systems. However, I
believe the Administration's budget proposal still lacks the
level of funding needed for his agency to truly fulfill all of
its diverse missions.
If NOAA is to continue to provide the array of services we
need, if it is to advance its capabilities to forecast the
weather and our understanding of the oceans and the atmosphere,
if we are to restore our fisheries and coastal ecosystems to a
productive and healthy state, we must invest additional funds
in this agency. The Committee will continue to follow closely
the procurements for the new polar and geostationary weather
satellite systems. It is essential that we have these new
systems completed and delivered in time to avoid any gaps in
coverage of weather data. With respect to the new geostationary
satellite program, GOES-R, I believe the Agency has acted upon
the recommendations of the GAO and the experience of the NPOESS
program in a manner that is moving this procurement in the
right direction. I remain concerned about the status of the
NPOESS program, a key instrument, VIIRS, is still not
completed, and the schedule for launching the preparatory
mission is, once again, delayed.
Costs for new satellite systems have grown well beyond any
recognized figure for inflation. We are going to have to
address this for the long-term. We have become more dependent
upon satellite information for our forecasting, observing, and
understanding climate and weather phenomena.
The needs are growing, but the budgets are not expanding to
provide the additional funds necessary to accommodate these
needs. For example, we still don't have plans or budgets in
place to accommodate the need for a follow-on operational
instrument to replace NASA's QuikSCAT satellite, or for the
full suite of climate instruments that were eliminated from the
NPOESS program.
During the second part of today's hearing, GAO will report
its findings on the current effort by FAA and NWS to
restructure aviation weather-forecasting services. One year
ago, five other Members of the Committee joined me in a request
to GAO to review this effort. As we all know, and have
personally experienced while traveling by plane, flight delays
and cancellations due to inclement weather are an all too
common occurrence, and there is more than convenience at stake
here. There is a question of safety.
Severe storms or rapidly changing conditions can create
serious risks for aircraft. It was a tragic, fatal crash in
1977 that led to the formation of the Center Weather Forecast
Units that we still have today. FAA and NWS should be working
together, cooperatively, to ensure the smooth, safe flow of air
traffic in our nation. We want to ensure that as these agencies
evaluate the aviation weather-forecasting program, they keep
these essential goals in mind.
Any restructuring of aviation weather-forecasting services
must be done in a manner that will ensure, at a minimum, that
there is no degradation in these services going forward. There
are no cost savings or efficiencies to be found by reducing the
safety of air travel for the public.
I look forward to hearing all of the testimony this
afternoon, and as we discussed, the Administration's budget
proposal and the aviation weather services, provided by NOAA
and FAA.
And at this time, I would like to recognize our
distinguishing Ranking Member Inglis of South Carolina, for his
opening statement.
[The prepared statement of Chairman Lampson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Chairman Nick Lampson
Good Afternoon. I want to welcome everyone to today's Subcommittee
hearing on the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
FY 2009 Budget Request and GAO's Report on Aviation Weather Services.
NOAA is an important agency that provides our citizens with
warnings of severe weather; guides the management of our ocean and
coastal resources; and conducts research to improve our understanding
of the environment.
NOAA is a diverse agency with many important missions and
responsibilities. However, issuing watches and warnings of severe
storms may be the role for which NOAA is the most famous.
I know in Texas we appreciate their services because we experience
severe storms every year in the form of tornadoes and hurricanes.
The watches, warnings, and forecasts issued by the National
Hurricane Center and the local forecasting offices of the National
Weather Service contain vital public safety information.
The partnership between the National Weather Service, the media and
the local emergency management community is essential to protect lives
and property damage associated with these storms.
Accurate prediction of hurricanes and other severe storms and sound
management of our ocean and coastal resources can only be achieved
through sound investments in the personnel, equipment, and research at
NOAA.
There are some encouraging features of the FY 2009 budget request
for NOAA. For the first time in years, the President has requested an
increase for this agency over the current year's funding level. This is
certainly a step in the right direction.
We are pleased to see additional funds requested to restore some
climate sensors and to upgrade a variety of models, technology and
software systems. However, I believe the Administration's budget
proposal still lacks the level of funding needed for this agency to
truly fulfill all of its diverse missions.
If NOAA is to continue to provide the array of services we need, if
it is to advance its capabilities to forecast the weather and our
understanding of the oceans and the atmosphere, if we are to restore
our fisheries and coastal ecosystems to a productive and healthy state,
we must invest additional funds in this agency.
The Committee will continue to follow closely the procurements for
the new polar and geostationary weather satellite systems. It is
essential that we have these new systems completed and delivered in
time to avoid any gaps in coverage of weather data.
With respect to the new geostationary satellite program--GOES-R--I
believe the Agency has acted upon the recommendations of the GAO and
the experience of the NPOESS program in a manner that is moving this
procurement in the right direction.
I remain concerned about the status of the NPOESS program. A key
instrument--VIIRS (VEERS)--is still not completed and the schedule for
launching the preparatory mission is once again delayed.
Costs for new satellite systems have grown well beyond any
recognized figure for inflation. We are going to have to address this
for the long-term. We have become more dependent upon satellite
information for forecasting, observing and understanding climate and
weather phenomena.
The needs are growing, but the budgets are not expanding to provide
the additional funds necessary to accommodate these needs.
For example, we still do not have plans or budgets in place to
accommodate the need for a follow-on operational instrument to replace
NASA's QuikSCAT satellite or for the full suite of climate instruments
that were eliminated from the NPOESS program.
During the second part of today's hearing, GAO will report its
findings on the current effort by FAA and NWS to restructure aviation
weather forecasting services.
One year ago, five other Members of the Committee joined me in a
request to GAO to review this effort.
As we all know and have personally experienced when traveling by
plane, flight delays and cancellations due to inclement weather are an
all-too-common occurrence. But there is more than convenience at stake
here. There is also a question of safety.
Severe storms or rapidly changing conditions can create serious
risks for aircraft. It was a tragic, fatal crash in 1977 that led to
the formation of the Center Weather Forecast Units we still have today.
FAA and NWS should be working together cooperatively to ensure the
smooth, safe flow of air traffic in our nation. We want to ensure that
as these agencies evaluate the aviation weather forecasting program,
they keep these essential goals in mind.
Any restructuring of aviation weather forecasting services must be
done in a manner that will ensure at a minimum there is no degradation
in these services going forward. There are no cost savings or
efficiencies to be found by reducing the safety of air travel for the
public.
I look forward to hearing all of the testimony this afternoon, as
we discuss the Administration's budget proposal and the Aviation
Weather Services provided by NOAA and FAA.
At this time, I would like to recognize our distinguished Ranking
Member, Mr. Inglis of South Carolina, for his opening statement.
Mr. Inglis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for holding
this hearing on the President's fiscal year 2009 request for
NOAA.
The accomplishments that you highlighted in your testimony
are proof that the money Congress spends on science is money
well spent, and often, its effects go far beyond the
laboratory. You won't often hear a conservative happy about
spending more money, but it is good to see that the NOAA 2009
budget proposal is just as aggressive, if not more so, than
last year, and rightfully so. We need to continue to make sure
that NOAA has the resources necessary to continue providing the
best services possible in hurricane forecasting, climate
modeling, coastal research, critical satellite technology, and
many other areas that benefit our country and the world.
I also look forward to hearing from our second panel of
witnesses from GAO, the National Weather Service and the
Federal Aviation Administration. I was an original requester on
the GAO report on aviation weather because I am concerned about
the ongoing issues between these two agencies.
Weather has a significant impact, as the Chairman was
saying, on our flying public, and there have been numerous
studies that document the cost of weather delays to the airline
industry and to the economy at large. GAO report and
Administrator Hayes' testimony offer an encouraging sign that
progress is already underway in achieving agreement between the
FAA and the National Weather Service on much needed performance
issues.
In the case of Dr. Hayes, I am especially interested to
know whether or not the National Weather Service is prepared to
meet the Federal Aviation Administration's recently imposed
requirements by the May 2008 deadline, or if more time is
necessary.
I thank the witnesses for being here today, and I look
forward to hearing their testimony, and I yield back the
balance of my time, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Inglis follows:]
Prepared Statement of Representative Bob Inglis
Good afternoon. Thank you, Chairman Lampson, for holding this
hearing about the President's Fiscal Year 2009 request for the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
The accomplishments that you highlighted in your testimony, Admiral
Lautenbacher, are proof that the money Congress spends on science is
money well spent, and often its effects goes far beyond the laboratory.
You won't often hear a conservative happy about spending more money,
but it's good see that the NOAA FY 2009 budget proposal is just as
aggressive, if not more so, than last year, and rightfully so. We need
to continue to make sure that NOAA has the resources necessary to
continue providing the best services possible in hurricane forecasting,
climate modeling, coastal research, critical satellite technology, and
many other areas that benefit our country and the world.
I also look forward to hearing from our second panel witnesses from
GAO, the National Weather Service (NWS) and the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA). I was an original requester on the GAO report on
Aviation Weather, because I am concerned about the on-going issues
between these two agencies.
Weather has a significant impact on the National Aviation System
and there have been numerous studies that document the cost of weather
delays to the airline industry and to the economy at large. The GAO
report and Assistant Administrator Hayes' testimony offer encouraging
signs that progress is already underway in achieving agreement between
the FAA and NWS on much-needed performance measures. Mr. Hayes, I'm
especially interested to know whether or not the NWS is prepared to
meet the Federal Aviation Administration's recently proposed
requirements by the May 2008 deadline, or if you feel more time is
necessary.
I thank our witnesses for being here today and I yield back the
balance of my time.
Chairman Lampson. Thank you, Mr. Inglis. I ask unanimous
consent that all additional opening statement be submitted by
the Subcommittee Members be included in the record. Without
objection, so ordered.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Costello follows:]
Prepared Statement of Representative Jerry F. Costello
Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you for overseeing this budget
hearing today and I'd also like to thank our panelists who are
testifying this afternoon. As Chairman of the Aviation Subcommittee of
the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, I look forward to
learning from our witnesses about efforts to improve the weather
technologies and services provided to guide air traffic management.
One year ago, I, along with other Members of this committee, asked
the Government Accountability Office to evaluate the efforts of the
Federal Aviation Administration and the National Weather Service (NWS)
to restructure its technologies and services. We asked GAO to pay
particular attention to the management of the Center Weather Service
Units, their staffing, and the streamlining of information unit-wide.
The NWS services, products and information are a vital component of the
FAA's air traffic control system. As we stated in the letter, I am
interested in ensuring that any restructuring of the relationship
between these two agencies will not result in the degradation of
services provided to guide air traffic management.
I know that the Members of this committee, like me, are committed
to ensuring that quality information is provided through an efficient,
collaborative relationship between the NWS and FAA. I think everyone
can agree that the management of the Center Weather Service Units and
the services they provide can be improved. I am pleased that with the
completion of the GAO study and our Committee hearing today, we can now
take a further step towards this goal.
Mr. Chairman, I commend you for your stewardship of this committee
and I look forward to hearing from our witnesses on this matter. Thank
you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Wu follows:]
Prepared Statement of Representative David Wu
I appreciate the opportunity to join the Energy and Environment
Subcommittee regarding NOAA's Fiscal Year 2009 budget request.
In 2006, Congress passed and the president signed into law, the
Tsunami Warning and Education Act--to improve our tsunami warning
capabilities. We made commitments to improve our detection systems on a
global level that will improve tsunami forecasting. These systems are
important, but they are not an end-all to protect communities. These
communities need to know how to respond to a tsunami quickly. The
Science Committee determined this legislation relied too heavily on
detection and too little on preparation. To address this problem, we
amended the bill to ensure that 27 percent of all funds appropriated
would be used for the National Tsunami Hazard Mitigation Program.
The National Tsunami Hazard Mitigation Program helps communities at
the State, tribal and local level plan and prepare for tsunamis.
Communities in my district along the Pacific Coast rely on this program
to help prepare residents quickly and allow them to safely evacuate in
the event of a tsunami. While a detection system is important, the
Cascadian subduction zone lies only nine miles off the Oregon and
Washington Coast. In the event of an earthquake, residents need to
react immediately because a detection system will not provide
information in a timely matter.
However, NOAA has ignored Congressional intent to ensure the
National Tsunami Hazard Mitigation Program is properly funded. In
Fiscal Year 2008, NOAA funded the program at $2.085 million. This
represents 8.9 percent of total funding, 18 percent below the
statutorily required 27 percent. The legislation and Committee report
both emphasize the importance and purpose for this level of funding for
NTHMP.
Looking forward, NOAA's Fiscal Year 2009 budget request keeps
funding level for this program. I have serious concerns that NOAA's
actions will place communities on the Pacific Coast at risk. I hope
NOAA will address these concerns during today's hearing.
Chairman Lampson. And it is my pleasure to introduce our
first witness this afternoon, Vice Admiral Conrad Lautenbacher,
as the Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere
and Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Association. Admiral, as always, you will have five minutes for
your spoken testimony. Your full, written testimony will be
included in the record for the hearing, and when you have
completed your testimony, we will begin with questions, and
each Member will have five minutes to ask those questions. And
you may begin.
Panel I
STATEMENT OF VICE ADMIRAL CONRAD C. LAUTENBACHER, JR., UNDER
SECRETARY OF COMMERCE FOR OCEANS AND ATMOSPHERE; NOAA
ADMINISTRATOR, NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION,
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Vice Admiral Lautenbacher. Thank you, Chairman Lampson,
Ranking Member Inglis, Congressman Wu, and distinguished staff
Members, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you
this afternoon. And let me begin by giving you my sincere
appreciation from NOAA for your support and interest in our
programs. It is only with your help that we are doing as well
as we are, so thank you very much.
The President's budget supports NOAA's priority to advance
mission-critical services. As you mentioned, the request is
higher than last year. It is $4.1 billion, which is a $200
million, or a five percent increase, above the 2008 enacted
level. The increases that are there are essentially in areas
for satellite facilities, ocean, and fisheries activities.
While it is an increased budget, I want to emphasize that it is
the minimum that we need to obtain our current level of
services and carry out mission, which is to understand and to
predict changes in the Earth environment and to conserve and
manage coastal, marine, and Great Lakes resources.
We have had many notable accomplishments during the past
fiscal year. I mention some of those in my written testimony. I
would like to just mention a couple before we move into the
budget. First of all, I would like to enter for the record how
proud we are of the NOAA scientists, the ones who had the
special honor--more than 120 of them recognized by the Nobel
Peace Prize Committee for their work on the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC. Many people in the NOAA
family were intimately involved with the work of the IPCC, even
beyond the 120 that received recognition. And this
international recognition highlights the preeminent science
conducted by our agency.
Now, in October 2007, a very important one, as you
mentioned, weather warnings. The weather service began issuing
more geographically specific warnings for tornadoes, severe
thunderstorms, floods, and marine hazards. Basically, these
storm-based warnings allowed forecasters to pinpoint the
specific area where severe weather threats are the highest. In
some cases, this reduced the area warned by 70 percent when
compared to the previously used county-by-county warning
system. We believe this will cut down on the amount of false
alarms and improve people's opportunities to understand that it
is serious and escape harm from severe weather events.
We continued to expand the overall tsunami-warning
capability in our country. We deployed 14 more deep ocean
assessment and reporting buoys, bringing the total stations to
34. In partnership with the government of Indonesia, we also
launched a second buoy to warn of approaching tsunamis in that
region, and four buoys to monitor climate. We are now covering
the Indian Ocean as well as the Pacific. These buoys are the
latest additions to the expanding global Earth observation
system of systems, an international effort to monitor and
predict changes in the Earth.
My written testimony presents details of the budget. Again,
I will move on the 2009 budget. We are requesting almost $931
million in 2009 for the Weather Service, an increase of just
over $19 million from 2008. We are requesting restoration of
critical core weather service accounts that were reduced in the
fiscal year 2008 omnibus. These restorations at just over $10
million include almost $7 million to the local warnings and
forecast-based programs. There is about $11 million in the
budget that would help enhance the NOAA all-hazard radio
program. As you know, these radios provide crucial information
and warnings to the public, 24 hours a day. As we saw recently
with the outbreak of tornadoes in the Midwest, we must remain
vigilant at all times.
To enhance our forecasting abilities and ensure
consistency, we are requesting a funding increase of $242
million, for a total of $477 million to continue support of the
Next-Generation Geostationary Satellite Program, called GOES-R.
These sentinels in the sky provide the images of severe weather
you see on TV. This increase will be used continued systems
engineering, development of instrumentations, and transition to
acquisitions and operations. We plan to issue the major
contracts for space and ground segments early in 2009. This is
a critical time for this program, and we need to work to keep
it on track.
We spend more than $300 million a year for hurricane
warning and forecast effort. In 2009, we will add over $19
million in new increases, providing $5 million for improvements
to hurricane forecast and storm-surge modeling; $8 million will
go towards research in ocean vector wind studies and coastal
inundation modeling and $6 million to help support operation of
our hurricane data buoys.
In 2009, NOAA will invest more than $319 million on
climate-related activities. This is an increase of $85 million
over the 2008 enacted. NOAA will support the critical NIDIS
system, National Integrated Drought Information System, with
increases of $2 million. We are requesting an increase of $74
million for climate sensors that were removed from the NPOESS
satellite program. The money is specifically for the TSIS and
CERES instruments which measure the Earth's radiation budget.
Finally, we have modest new investments in our priority
areas, I believe, while maintaining critical services. We will
build on the successes from last year. We stand ready to meet
the challenges that will surface in 2009.
Again, I thank you for the opportunity to be present with
you this afternoon, and I am happy to answer any questions you
may have. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Vice Admiral Lautenbacher
follows:]
Prepared Statement of Vice Admiral Conrad C. Lautenbacher, Jr.
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, before I begin my
testimony I would like to thank you for your leadership and the
generous support you have shown the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA). Your continued support for our programs is
appreciated as we work to improve our products and services for the
American people. Thank you for the opportunity to testify on the
President's Fiscal Year (FY) 2009 Budget Request for NOAA.
The FY 2009 President's Budget supports NOAA's priority to advance
mission-critical services. The FY 2009 request is $4.1 billion, which
represents a $202 million or 5.2 increase over the FY 2008 enacted
level. This request includes the level of resources necessary to carry
out NOAA's mission, which is to understand and predict changes in the
Earth's environment, and conserve and manage coastal and marine
resources to meet our nation's economic, social and environmental
needs. At NOAA we work to protect the lives and livelihoods of
Americans, and provide products and services that benefit the economy,
environment, and public safety of the Nation. Before I discuss the
details of our FY 2009 budget request, I would like to briefly
highlight some of NOAA's notable successes from the past fiscal year
(2007).
FY 2007 ACCOMPLISHMENTS
NOAA is Major Contributor to Nobel Prize-Winning Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change Reports
Scientists from NOAA's Earth System Research Laboratory were among
those sharing in the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize. The scientists were
recognized for their contributions to the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC). The IPCC was created in 1988 by the World
Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environment Program
to provide regular assessments for policy-makers of the scientific,
technical and socioeconomic aspects of climate change. IPCC has
produced its major assessments every five to six years since 1990.
NOAA scientists served as contributors to and government reviewers
of the Fourth IPCC Assessment Report. NOAA's Geophysical Fluid Dynamics
Laboratory provided model runs that enhanced the projections used in
the IPCC report.
Magnuson-Stevens Act Implementation
The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management
Reauthorization Act of 2007 was signed into law on January 12, 2007.
The reauthorized Act contains significant new provisions to end
overfishing, promote market-based approaches to fisheries management,
improve the science used in fisheries management, improve recreational
data collection, enhance international cooperation in fisheries
management, and address illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing,
as well as by-catch of protected living marine resources. Especially
notable is the requirement to establish an annual catch limit for each
fishery, which for the first time creates a mandate with a timetable to
end overfishing.
Progress on Next Generation Geostationary Satellite Program
Geostationary satellites remain the weather sentinels for NOAA. The
next-generation geostationary satellite series, GOES-R, will provide
new and improved atmospheric, climatic, solar, and space data. In 2007,
NOAA revised the management and acquisition strategy for the GOES-R
program, partnering more closely with NASA to take advantage of each
agency's technical expertise. In February 2007, the Advanced Baseline
Imager, the main instrument on GOES-R, completed a key milestone,
enabling the contractor to begin building the first instrument.
Throughout 2007, NOAA awarded the three remaining instrument contracts
for the Solar Ultraviolet Imager, Extreme Ultra Violet and X-Ray
Irradiance Sensors, and Geostationary Lightning Mapper. These
instruments will help us to understand and forecast solar disturbances
as well as track lightning strikes from space.
NOAA's National Weather Service Provides More Specific Warning
Information for Severe Weather
NOAA's National Weather Service (NWS) began issuing more
geographically specific warnings for tornadoes, severe thunderstorms,
floods, and marine hazards on October 1, 2007. The new ``storm-based
warnings'' allow forecasters to pinpoint the specific area where severe
weather threats are highest, thereby reducing the area warned by as
much as 70 percent when compared to the previously used county-by-
county warning system. Storm-based warnings are displayed graphically
and are extremely adaptable to cell phones, PDAs, and the Internet. The
Emergency Alert System (EAS) is geared toward counties and NOAA Weather
Radio (NWR) All Hazards will still sound an alarm if there is a warning
anywhere in a county. However, text and audio messages will provide
more specific information about the location of the storm in the
county, and the direction in which it is moving. Storm-based warnings
will reference landmarks such as highways, shopping centers, and parks,
and will use directional de-limiters to indicate county location.
Fleet Modernization Moves Ahead
In June 2007, NOAA celebrated the keel laying of NOAA ships BELL M.
SHIMADA and FERDINAND R. HASSLER in Moss Point, Mississippi. This
marked the first time NOAA has celebrated this important construction
milestone for two ships simultaneously. HENRY B. BIGELOW, second of the
four fisheries survey vessels of the same class being built by VT
Halter Marine, was commissioned into the fleet in July before beginning
operations in New England. In September, Phase I of conversion of NOAA
Ship OKEANOS EXPLORER (formerly USNS CAPABLE) to an ocean exploration
ship was completed. NOAA ship PISCES was christened in December and
subsequently launched in Moss Point, Mississippi.
New State-of-the-Art Satellite Operations Facility Officially Opened
In June 2007, NOAA and the General Services Administration
officially opened the new state-of-the-art NOAA Satellite Operations
Facility (NSOF). NSOF is the new home for NOAA's around-the-clock
environmental satellite operations, which provides data critical for
weather and climate prediction. NSOF supports more than $50 million of
high technology equipment, including 16 antennas monitoring the
operations of 16 on-orbit satellites.
National Water Level Observation Network Upgraded to Real-time Status
The National Ocean Service (NOS) completed a three-year effort to
upgrade the technology of its National Water Level Observation Network
(NWLON). NWLON stations provide mariners, first responders, and the
public with real-time tide and water-level information. A major benefit
of the upgrade is that network stations normally equipped to transmit
water-level and other environmental data at hourly increments via NOAA
Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellites now transmit data
every six minutes, thus enabling users to access data more quickly.
NOAA Aids in the Recovery of Fisheries and Fishing Communities Damaged
by Hurricanes
NOAA funded and conducted a number of activities aimed at helping
Gulf Coast fisheries recover from the devastating impacts of Hurricanes
Katrina, Rita, and Wilma, which struck the Gulf Coast in 2005. The
states are using these funds to restore and rehabilitate oyster,
shrimp, and other marine fishery habitats damaged or destroyed by
hurricane events, and to conduct cooperative research and monitoring
and other activities designed to recover and rebuild Gulf of Mexico
fisheries and fishing communities.
NOAA Weather Radio All Hazards Activities: Meeting the Expectations of
the Nation for Weather and All Hazard Warning
Information
NOAA's National Weather Service added 16 broadcast stations to the
NOAA Weather Radio (NWR) All Hazards network in 2007. In addition to
achieving 100 percent coverage of high-risk areas, NOAA refurbished 62
broadcast stations with technology upgrades that significantly improved
reliability and availability, while decreasing maintenance costs. This
allows the network to meet expectations of availability as the Nation's
weather and all-hazard warning system.
NWR is a reliable and inexpensive means of communicating weather,
hazard, and emergency information directly to the public. The network
infrastructure consists of 986 broadcast stations covering 98 percent
of the Nation's population and has the ability to deliver messages to
individuals monitoring their own receivers as well as the ability to
reach millions of listeners and viewers through the Emergency Alert
System, which is monitored by television and radio license holders. The
network is required to broadcast to all areas of the United States
identified as being at high risk of experiencing severe weather and to
sustain a high level of reliability and maintainability in those areas.
Marine Reserves Established in Channel Island National Marine Sanctuary
In 2007, NOS established the federal portion of the marine reserves
and conservation area network within the Channel Islands National
Marine Sanctuary. This is the largest network of marine reserves in
federal waters in the continental United States. This action
complements the State of California's established network of marine
reserves and conservation areas within the State waters of the
sanctuary in 2003.
Expanding U.S. Tsunami Preparedness
NOAA's National Weather Service (NWS) is responsible for the
expansion of the U.S. network of tsunami detection sensors. During
2007, 14 Deep-ocean Assessment and Reporting of Tsunamis (DARTTM) buoys
were established: four in the western Pacific Ocean, three off the
Pacific Coast of Central America, five in the northwestern Pacific
Ocean, and two in the North Atlantic Ocean, bringing the total number
of U.S. DARTTM stations to 34. The United States, with NOAA as lead
agency, is currently working with approximately 70 countries, the
European Commission, and over 50 non-governmental agencies in planning
and implementing the Global Earth Observation System of Systems
(GEOSS), which includes a global tsunami warning system. In addition,
NWS works with communities to prepare for tsunamis through the
TsunamiReadyTM Program. As of December 12, 2007, there are 47
TsunamiReadyTM sites in 10 states, Puerto Rico, and Guam. The National
Weather Service reached its goal of recognizing 10 new TsunamiReadyTM
communities in fiscal year 2007.
First Buoy to Measure Acidification Launched
The first buoy to directly monitor ocean acidification was launched
in the Gulf of Alaska. Ocean acidification is a result of carbon
dioxide absorbed by the ocean. The new buoy, part of a National Science
Foundation project awarded to PMEL and the University of Washington in
Seattle, in collaboration with Fisheries and Oceans Canada and the
Institute of Ocean Sciences in British Columbia, measures the air-sea
exchange of carbon dioxide, oxygen, and nitrogen gas, in addition to
the pH (a measure of ocean acidity) of the surface waters. The buoy is
anchored in water nearly 5,000 meters deep and transmits data via
satellite. Rising acidity in the ocean could have a detrimental effect
on ocean organisms, with resulting impacts on ocean life and the food
chain.
NOAA Ships Arrive at New Home Port in Hawaii
NOAA ships OSCAR ELTON SETTE, HI'IALAKAI, and KA'IMIMOANA relocated
to their new home port at Ford Island, Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, heralding
the permanent presence of NOAA on Ford Island. This was a major
milestone in the multi-year, multi-phase construction of the NOAA
Pacific Regional Center, a project to consolidate NOAA programs and
operations on the island of Oahu into a single facility on Ford Island.
NOAA's Open Rivers Initiative Completes First Projects
In its first year, NOAA's Open Rivers Initiative completed three
projects that restored over 30 miles of spawning and rearing habitat
for migratory fish. The obsolete Brownsville Dam, located on the
Calapooia River in Oregon, was removed in August 2007, effectively
eliminating an obstruction to migratory fish and a safety hazard to the
local human community. In California, two failing and undersized
culverts were removed, allowing endangered salmon to reach their
historic spawning and rearing grounds. In collaboration with local
communities, NOAA's Open Rivers Initiative will continue to restore
free fish passage to historic habitat by removing obsolete dams and
barriers that dot the rivers of coastal states.
Delivering Real-Time Data to Help Shellfish Growers
Shellfish growers in the Pacific Northwest can now get near real-
time water quality data from the System-wide Monitoring Program
operating at National Estuarine Research Reserves in Alaska,
Washington, and Oregon. The data are available through telemetering
capabilities, which measure, receive, and transmit data automatically
from distant sources. Water quality data can be viewed on a web site
jointly sponsored by NOS and the Northwest Association of Networked
Ocean Observing Systems (http://www.nanoos-shellfish.org/). Water
quality and weather data are transmitted every 30 minutes via satellite
from monitoring stations at all 27 National Estuarine Research
Reserves, providing information to the growing Integrated Ocean
Observing System (IOOS).
Great Lakes Lab Recognized for `Green' Research Vessels
NOAA's Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory (GLERL)
converted a fleet of research vessels from petroleum-based to 100
percent bio-based fuel and lubricants, earning a White House Closing-
the-Circle Award in the green purchasing category. GLERL operates
research vessels throughout the Great Lakes region as scientific
platforms for ecosystems research and other NOAA interests in the area.
The conversion was a result of a call for ``greening'' of government
agencies through waste reduction, recycling, and the use of
environmentally friendly and sustainable products including bio-
products.
FY 2009 BUDGET REQUEST HIGHLIGHTS
Supporting the President's Ocean Initiative
Building on last year's investment in Ocean Initiative related
activities, the FY 2009 President's Request includes new increases of
$49.1 million for NOAA over the FY 2008 President's Request to support
the President's Ocean Initiative. This ocean initiative includes more
funding to advance ocean science and research; protect and restore
marine and coastal areas; and ensure sustainable use of ocean
resources.
New investments in ocean science are aimed at monitoring and better
understanding marine ecosystems. Increased funding of $7.0 million is
included for the Integrated Ocean Observing System (IOOS) to support
Data Management and Communications, Regional Observations, and the Data
Assembly Center (DAC), which delivers real-time, quality controlled
data from NOAA and regional observing systems. An increase of $1
million is requested to manage the escalating size and quantity of
hydrographic data sets collected by NOAA and other providers. This
increase in funding will help NOAA update the nautical charts provided
to mariners navigating on U.S. waters in a more timely fashion. In
addition, NOAA is requesting $2 million in increased funding for the
PORTS program, to improve and expand the delivery of real-time and
forecasted navigation information. A recent economic benefits study of
the Houston/Galveston PORTS program, released in May 2007, showed that
the program brought the Houston/Galveston area significant economic
benefits and has helped to achieve a 50 percent reduction in
groundings.
Projects to protect and restore valuable marine and coastal areas
include funding of $4 million to implement the newly enacted Marine
Debris Research, Prevention, and Reduction Act. This funding will allow
NOAA to provide competitive grants and to develop the first federal
clearinghouse on marine debris. NOAA also requests increased funding of
$5.4 million for the Open Rivers program to restore stream miles of
fish habitat through watershed-level projects with multiple fish
passage opportunities.
Finally, the budget provides support to ensure sustainable access
to seafood through the development of offshore aquaculture and better
management of fish harvests. In direct support of new provisions of the
MSRA, and to provide better management of fish harvests, NOAA requests
increased funding of $31.8 million over the FY 2008 enacted level. Of
this amount, $5.1 million is requested to enhance the independent peer-
review process for scientific data required to appropriately set the
annual catch limits for all managed fisheries; $8.5 million will
initiate and expand existing sampling programs and management
procedures in order to end overfishing by 2011, as mandated by the
MSRA; and $3.0 million will complete the final implementation phase of
a new registry system for recreational fishermen and for-hire fishing
vehicles. An additional $1.5 million increase is requested in support
of deep sea coral research, allowing NOAA to begin identifying,
understanding, and providing the information needed in order to protect
deep coral habitats.
Sustaining Critical Operations
As always, I support NOAA's employees by requesting adequate
funding for our people, infrastructure, and facilities. NOAA's core
values are people, integrity, excellence, teamwork, ingenuity, science,
service, and stewardship. Our ability to serve the Nation and
accomplish the missions outlined below is determined by the quality of
our people and the tools they employ. Our facilities, ships, aircraft,
environmental satellites, data-processing systems, computing and
communications systems, and our approach to management provide the
foundation of support for all of our programs. Approximately $42.0
million in net increases will support our workforce inflation factors,
including $37.5 million for salaries and benefits and $4.5 million for
non-labor-related adjustments, such as fuel costs.
This year we have focused our increases on satellite continuity and
operations and maintenance support for our aircraft and NOAA vessels. A
funding increase of $242.2 million is requested to continue support of
the Geostationary Operational Satellites (GOES)-R program. GOES
satellites provide critical atmospheric, oceanic, climatic, and solar
products supporting weather forecasting and warnings, climatologic
analysis and prediction, ecosystems management, and safe and efficient
public and private transportation. This increase will be used for
continued systems engineering, development of satellite instruments,
risk reduction activities, and transition to the systems-level
acquisition and operations phase of the program.
Funding of $6.1 million is also requested in support of a Major
Repair Period for the RAINIER, NOAA's most productive hydrographic
vessel. At 39 years old, the RAINIER requires a major capital
investment in its mechanical and electrical systems in order to
maintain its current operational tempo and reduce risks to personnel,
property, and mission capability.
Finally, NOAA requests an increase of $4.0 million in support of
additional flight hours and operations and maintenance for our
aircraft. The requested funds will provide an additional 1,295 flight
hours for hurricane research, surveillance, and reconnaissance, as well
as for other research and forecasting requirements. NOAA also asks this
year for restoration to several of our base programs, most notably in
the National Weather Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service.
These requested increases in our base accounts will allow NOAA to
sustain on-going programs and projects at the levels recommended in the
FY 2008 President's Budget.
Improving Weather Warnings and Forecasts
Severe weather events cause $11 billion in damages and
approximately 7,000 weather-related fatalities yearly in the United
States. Nearly one-third of the U.S. economy is sensitive to weather
and climate. Realizing this, NOAA seeks to provide decision-makers with
key observations, analyses, predictions, and warnings for a variety of
weather and water conditions to help protect the health, life, and
property of the U.S. and its economy. Land-falling hurricanes are one
of the most physically destructive and economically disruptive extreme
events that impact the United States, often causing billions of dollars
of damage in their wake. In FY 2009, NOAA will continue to improve our
hurricane research and modeling capabilities with a requested increase
of $4.0 million for operational support and maintenance of the next-
generation Hurricane Weather Research and Forecasting model and storm
surge prediction system, as well as accelerated improvements to that
system. Increased funding of $3.0 million will support the operations
and maintenance of 15 hurricane data buoys in the Caribbean, Gulf of
Mexico, and the Atlantic Ocean, enhancing our real-time hurricane storm
monitoring and observations. NOAA also continues to improve and
maintain our weather warning infrastructure, with requested funding of
$6.6 million to upgrade the Advanced Weather Interactive Processing
System, the Nation's weather and flood warning system. Increased
funding of $4.8 million will be used to upgrade twelve NOAA Wind
Profilers and to perform a tech-refresh on this twenty-year-old radar
system. Finally, NOAA is requesting $2.9 million in increased funding
for modernization of the NOAA Weather Radio network.
Climate Monitoring and Research
Society exists in a highly variable climate system, and major
climatic events can impose serious consequences on society. Preliminary
estimates of the impact of the severe drought which affected the Great
Plains and the Eastern United States throughout 2007 are in the range
of $5 billion, with major reductions in crop yields and low stream and
lake levels. Continued drought and high winds in the Western United
States in 2007 resulted in numerous wildfires, with 3,000 homes and
over 8.9 million acres burned, and at least 12 deaths. The FY 2009
Budget Request contains investments in several programs aimed at
increasing our predictive capability, enabling NOAA to provide our
customers (farmers, utilities, land managers, weather risk industry,
fisheries resource managers and decision-makers) with assessments of
current and future impacts of climate events such as droughts, floods,
and trends in extreme climate events. NOAA continues to build a suite
of information, products, and services that will enable society to
respond to changing climate conditions. In FY 2009, NOAA will support
the critical National Integrated Drought Information System with
increases of $2 million to develop and bring into operation by FY 2010
the next-generation Climate Forecast System, leading to improved
climate forecasting products. An increase of $74 million will be used
to develop Clouds and the Earth's Radiant Energy System (CERES) and
Total Solar Irradiance Sensor (TSIS) climate sensors to preserve
decades long climate data records. The CERES sensor will measure the
Earth's radiation budget, an essential measurement for determining the
causes of climate variability and change. The TSIS sensor measures the
total energy of the sun falling on the Earth, a measurement used to
identify and isolate natural solar variations that impact climate in
contrast to other factors, such as human influences on climate.
Critical Facilities Investments
The FY 2009 President's Budget Request also includes important
increases for critical facilities, necessary to provide a safe and
effective working environment for NOAA's employees.
For FY 2009, NOAA will concentrate their modernization efforts on
three main projects. NOAA requests an increase of $40.2 million for the
continued construction of the new Pacific Region Center on Ford Island
in Honolulu, Hawaii. This increase in funding will support the
continued construction and renovation of two buildings, enabling NOAA
to reduce expenditures for rent and relocate operations from their
current location in the deteriorating Kewalo Basin and Dole Street Lab
Facilities. An increase of $12.1 million will complete the design and
initial preparations for a replacement facility for the Southwest
Fisheries Science Center. Finally, $11.7 million is requested to
support the installation of a semi-permanent replacement structure for
the at-risk Operations Complex at the NESDIS Command and Data
Acquisition Station in Fairbanks, Alaska. The current facility is at
risk to experience a major structural failure in the next five years.
The requested funding will ensure that NOAA maintains crucial mission
operations support for the polar-orbiting satellites, as well as backup
support for others.
CONCLUSION
NOAA's FY 2009 Budget Request provides essential new investments in
our priority areas while maintaining critical services, reflecting
NOAA's vision, mission, and core values. The work NOAA accomplished in
2007 impacted every U.S. citizen. We will build on our successes from
last year, and stand ready to meet the challenges that will surface in
FY 2009 and beyond. NOAA is dedicated to enhancing economic security
and national safety through research and accurate prediction of weather
and climate-related events, and to providing environmental stewardship
of our nation's coastal and marine resources. That concludes my
statement, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for the opportunity to present
NOAA's FY 2009 Budget Request. I am happy to respond to any questions
the Committee may have.
Biography for Vice Admiral Conrad C. Lautenbacher, Jr.
A native of Philadelphia, Pa., retired Navy Vice Admiral Conrad C.
Lautenbacher, Ph.D., is serving as the Under Secretary of Commerce for
Oceans and Atmosphere. He was appointed Dec. 19, 2001. Along with this
title comes the added distinction of serving as the eighth
Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
He holds an M.S. and Ph.D. from Harvard University in applied
mathematics.
Lautenbacher oversees the day-to-day functions of NOAA, as well as
laying out its strategic and operational future. The agency manages an
annual budget of $4 billion. The agency includes, and is comprised of,
the National Environmental Satellite, Data and Information Services;
National Marine Fisheries Service; National Ocean Service; National
Weather Service; Oceanic and Atmospheric Research; Marine and Aviation
Operations; and the NOAA Corps, the Nation's seventh uniformed service.
He directed an extensive review and reorganization of the NOAA
corporate structure to meet the environmental challenges of the 21st
century.
As the NOAA administrator, Lautenbacher spearheaded the first-ever
Earth Observation Summit, which hosted ministerial-level representation
from several dozen of the world's nations in Washington July 2003.
Through subsequent international summits and working groups, he worked
to encourage world scientific and policy leaders to work toward a
common goal of building a sustained Global Earth Observation System of
Systems (GEOSS) that would collect and disseminate data, information
and models to stakeholders and decision-makers for the benefit of all
nations individually and the world community collectively. The effort
culminated in an agreement for a 10-year implementation plan for GEOSS
reached by the 55 member countries of the Group on Earth Observations
at the Third Observation Summit held in Brussels February 2005.
He also has headed numerous delegations at international
governmental summits and conferences around the world, including the
U.S. delegation to 2002 Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation Ocean
Ministerial Meeting in Korea, and 2002 and 2003 meetings of the World
Meteorological Organization and Intergovernmental Oceanographic
Commission in Switzerland and France, as well as leading the Commerce
delegation to the 2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development in South
Africa.
Before joining NOAA, Lautenbacher formed his own management
consultant business, and worked principally for Technology, Strategies
& Alliances Inc. He was President and CEO of the Consortium for
Oceanographic Research and Education (CORE). This not-for-profit
organization has a membership of 76 institutions of higher learning and
a mission to increase basic knowledge and public support across the
spectrum of ocean sciences.
Lautenbacher is a graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy (Class of
1964), and has won accolades for his performance in a broad range of
operational, command and staff positions both ashore and afloat. He
retired after 40 years of service in the Navy. His military career was
marked by skilled fiscal management and significant improvements in
operations through performance-based evaluations of processes.
During his time in the Navy, he was selected as a Federal Executive
Fellow and served at the Brookings Institution. He served as a guest
lecturer on numerous occasions at the Naval War College, the Army War
College, the Air War College, The Fletcher School of Diplomacy, and the
components of the National Defense University.
His Navy experience includes tours as Commanding Officer of USS
HEWITT (DD-966), Commander Naval Station Norfolk; Commander of Cruiser-
Destroyer Group Five with additional duties as Commander U.S. Naval
Forces Central Command Riyadh during Operations Desert Shield and
Desert Storm, where he was in charge of Navy planning and participation
in the air campaign. As Commander U.S. Third Fleet, he introduced joint
training to the Pacific with the initiation of the first West Coast
Joint Task Force Training Exercises (JTFEXs).
A leader in the introduction of cutting-edge information
technology, he pioneered the use of information technology to mount
large-scale operations using sea-based command and control. As
Assistant for Strategy with the Chief of Naval Operations Executive
Panel, and Program Planning Branch Head in the Navy Program Planning
Directorate, he continued to hone his analytic skills resulting in
designation as a specialist both in Operations Analysis and Financial
Management. During his final tour of duty, he served as Deputy Chief of
Naval Operations (Resources, Warfare Requirements and Assessments) in
charge of Navy programs and budget.
Lautenbacher lives in Northern Virginia with his wife Susan who is
a life-long high school and middle school science teacher.
Discussion
Chairman Lampson. Thank you, Admiral. Let me start. We will
go into our five-minute questions, and I will yield myself the
first five minutes.
GOES-R Budget Estimate
As you are well aware, the satellite procurement programs
represent a significant portion of your agency's budget. GAO
made the recommendation that the agency obtain independent cost
estimates for these programs at the outset. You implemented
this recommendation for GOES-R, and we believe that was the
right decision. Are you now confident that the new estimate for
GOES-R is realistic, and that the technical challenges are
manageable?
Vice Admiral Lautenbacher. I believe that we have. It is
always hard to say is this estimate going to be good until the
end of the program, but we have created as good a change as we
are ever going to get. We have had several independent looks at
it. We created independent looks outside of the program office.
We have had an independent review team come in with experts in
the satellite acquisition and management community. We have
worked through differences in the original estimates, which
contractors provided during our risk-analysis part of the
program, and we have gone to the point where the estimates are
within four percent of each other. We believe that the $7.7
billion that we have at this point is a very good estimate and
well ahead of anywhere that we were in the NPOESS program, for
instance, at this point of validity of the estimate.
Chairman Lampson. You made the decision to include an
option for two additional satellites in the GOES-R series,
restoring the program closer to the original plans. Obviously,
exercising that option would raise the current estimates for
the program. Did the independent cost estimation include an
estimate for this, and what is NOAA's estimate for these two
additional satellites?
Vice Admiral Lautenbacher. The independent cost estimate
focused on the program of record, which we have submitted in
our budget, which is a two-satellite program. We have some
estimates of what the two additional options would cost, but
they are not to the degree of confidence that we have in the
first two that we have put together. But I believe that we have
estimates that are pretty good at this point of what it might
cost. Obviously, this depends on what the contractor will
provide to us when they provide their initial bids.
Chairman Lampson. Do you have at least some kind of concept
of what it would be, and is there going to be an opportunity to
see, if we indeed do choose to go with the option, is it going
to significantly lower the cost for all four in the event that
that is what happens. Can you give me some kind of indication
of what that might----
Vice Admiral Lautenbacher. Yes, sir, and we can provide
that. We believe at this point that that is probably, at this
point, the most cost-effective option for continuing service
for geostationary satellites, but again, we need to make sure
that we provide detailed cost-benefit analysis that convinces
Congress as well as the Administration that this is the way to
go.
Chairman Lampson. Do you have any kind of number
preliminary----
Vice Admiral Lautenbacher. We do have numbers. I don't
have----
Chairman Lampson. Okay.
Vice Admiral Lautenbacher.--here with me today, but we can
provide them----
Chairman Lampson. If you would, do that.
Vice Admiral Lautenbacher.--of what we do know at this
point.
Chairman Lampson. If you would do that, we would appreciate
it.
Vice Admiral Lautenbacher. Yes, sir.
[The information follows:]
Information for the Record
``The total ballpark estimate for contract options for two
additional GOES-R series satellites is expected to fall between $2.5 to
$3.0 billion dollars based on preliminary estimates.''
The VIIRS Instrument
Chairman Lampson. Can you please explain why, with the
level of attention that has been focused on the VIIRS
instrument? It is, once again, responsible for a delay in a
launch of the NPOESS Preparatory Project, NPP, mission.
Vice Admiral Lautenbacher. The VIIRS instrument has been a
technical challenge to build, and it has had, I would say, one
problem after another. But each of those problems has been
solved, so I have confidence that we are going to solve these
problems. It has just taken more than the contractor had
indicated it would take. We have put a schedule in place at
this point that I believe gives them more than sufficient time.
In fact, they say that they can beat the estimate that we are
allowing them at this time by several months. They need to
prove it to us, but essentially, towards the end of building
this instrument. We are just about there, and I think that we
can, you know, see the light at the end--we can see more than
the light; we can see the end of the tunnel, so I have
confidence that we are going to get there, but we are going to
slug it out.
Chairman Lampson. What is the estimated date of the launch
right now? Do you know that offhand, or----
Vice Admiral Lautenbacher. We are waiting for NASA to give
us an estimate on it. We have added about eight months to the
scheduled from the VIIRS instrument, and NASA will give an
estimate of what it takes to put that on the NPP, but it will
be delayed from 2009 to 2010. That we can say at this point.
Chairman Lampson. Okay, with the latest launch-schedule
slip, does the NPP still have any value in its original
mission, in providing a chance for exercising the new NPOESS
instruments before they become operations, or is it now
serving, primarily, as a gap-filler for the Earth observing
instruments on NASA satellites?
Vice Admiral Lautenbacher. It will have use as a mitigation
for risk reduction for the--it still has, remember--because the
date of the NPOESS satellite is now 2013, so if we can't launch
this in 2010 as we have suggested, it is still going to have
value for risk reduction for NPOESS, and it is needed for
continuity of the climate mission, as well as a gap-filler. It
will fill all three purposes.
Chairman Lampson. Thank you, sir, and I will now recognize
the Ranking Member, Mr. Inglis, for questions.
Mr. Inglis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Funds for the Hurricane Supplemental Buoys
Admiral Lautenbacher, the President's fiscal year 2009
budget includes a request for tripling the funds for the
hurricane supplemental buoys. How does this work? Described as
a front line for hurricane forecasting, there are 15 of them--
--
Vice Admiral Lautenbacher. Yes, sir.
Mr. Inglis. Does that bring them to 15?
Vice Admiral Lautenbacher. Yes, this brings it to 15. The
money that we have asked for here will allow us to position the
last three, and then provide the operating money. Last year, we
were unable to get operating money for them, and we believe
these need to be maintained. This needs to be a consistent
observing system.
These buoys are in strategic positions out in the Atlantic
and in the Gulf, and they provide an early-warning sentinel of
precise information on wave heights, wind speeds, critical data
that is needed to inform our models and ensure we understand
where the hurricanes are going.
Mr. Inglis. I guess the question, maybe you just answered
it, is that you need money to operate them, because if they are
going to 15, and there are three left to go out, that means the
expense is in locating them. Is that why there is a significant
increase?
Vice Admiral Lautenbacher. Most of the expense was in
building them and locating them. The operating money is
significantly less, but we, fortunately, thanks to Congress in
helping us to get supplemental money several years ago to start
this program of having warning sentinels on station, have been
successful in doing that. As you say, 12 of the 15 are out
there. This finishes the program and allows us to operate them,
but they will require a small operating increment every year to
keep them going.
Mr. Inglis. How does that compare to the tsunami kind of
buoys? Are they the same kind of concept?
Vice Admiral Lautenbacher. These are much different buoys
than the tsunami buoys. First of all, these are very big, so
they are large, more stable platforms. And in fact, during some
of the hurricanes that we have had, these buoys have survived,
so they are big. The DART buoys, as we call them, are really
transmission buoys. They are small. They look a lot like the
navigation buoys in the channel that you see. So they are small
buoys. They are anchored at the bottom of the ocean as well,
and the instrumentation that is on them is basically to taken
an acoustic signal that comes from the ocean, translate it to
an electronic signal, send it up to a satellite and back, so
they are an intermediate transmitting point. That is the
difference. The weather buoys have weather instrumentation on
them as well as transmitting equipment.
The Tsunami Warning System
Mr. Inglis. You said, now, the tsunami warning system, when
the big tsunami occurred several years ago, a lot of those were
disabled or not functioning properly, right?
Vice Admiral Lautenbacher. We had six--well, first of all,
they are up and down like any other equipment. They go down and
they need to be maintained. We had six, what I would call
experimental buoys, in the water at the time. Three of them
were operating, and three weren't at the time of that. But that
record could vary anywhere from three to six fully operational,
so we repair them as schedules allow. And now we will have 35
of these.
Mr. Inglis. That was my next question. So we have got 35.
Is that in the budget request as well?
Vice Admiral Lautenbacher. Yes, sir, and we have doubled up
on them, so in the areas of concern to our west coast,
essentially, and the Aleutians, there are several spots that
are doubled, so we are increasing the likelihood that we will
have a complete array of buoys operational all year long. The
problem being that in the Gulf of Alaska, you have to repair
them in the spring and summer, because in the winter, it is
virtually impossible to do the maintenance on them.
Coral Reef Watch Program
Mr. Inglis. In a Science Committee CODEL recently was
topped in Australia. I was tremendously impressed by the work
you all are doing with the Coral Reef Watch Program. A very
impressive foreign policy angle there that NOAA has with
cooperating with the Australian government in creating goodwill
for the U.S. as we help predict coral bleaching and things like
that. I was very impressed at the work going on there.
Vice Admiral Lautenbacher. Thank you. It is important. We
use the satellites to be able to warn for coral bleaching, and
we have a strong partnership with the managers of the Great
Barrier Reef Marine Park in Australia. Yes, it is a very
important part of our international scene.
Mr. Inglis. Yes, that became apparent when we were there.
It is very impressive.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Lampson. Thank you, Mr. Inglis, and I recognize
Dr. David Wu for five minutes.
Tsunami Education and Mitigation Funding
Mr. Wu. Thank your, Mr. Chairman. I now chair the
Technology and Innovation Subcommittee, another Subcommittee of
this Full Committee. In the prior incarnation of that
Subcommittee, I served as Ranking Member, and we have
jurisdiction, at that time, over NOAA. It is an agency which I
respect for the importance of its work, and you all handle a
large number of very important tasks.
I have, today, an unfortunate duty, to refer back to a
prior statute, which this committee, and the full Congress
passed, which requires NOAA to spend 27 percent of certain
tsunami monies on education on education and mitigation. That
was a negotiated number, and some of us wanted a higher
percentage on education and mitigation. Then-Chairman Boehlert
prevailed upon all parties to settle on a 27 percent number,
and as it has been said in business negotiations, it was a
highly negotiated number. So those of us who were part of that
negotiation place great store in spending that 27 percent in
education and mitigation, and the reason why it has very
important real-world significance is because while the ocean
buoys are important and are important for warning in other
parts of the world, we on the Oregon and Washington coast have
a 250 subduction zone. The Cascadian fault is locked, and every
200 to 1,200 years, and on average, ever 300 years, we have a
9.0 to 9.5 earthquake off our coast, and there will be no
warning. The hardware that you all have deployed around the
oceans of the globe serve a very important purpose, but those
buoys will provide no warning for a Cascadian subduction-zone
earthquake. The only warning that will occur is the earthquake
itself. Fifteen to thirty minutes later, the tsunami will roll
ashore. The education money is the part of the program which
would benefit the citizens of Oregon, Washington, and
California, and provide a real service.
Now, Mr. Under Secretary, your agency had a clear statutory
mandate to allocate 27 percent of these funds to education and
mitigation. Can you explain why that number did not come to
pass, and my understanding from the staff is that it is closer
to 8.9 percent, rather than 27 percent actually being allocated
to education and mitigation.
Vice Admiral Lautenbacher. Yes, sir. I think it is a little
higher than that, but I don't want to argue about the
percentage. Basically, we have had to sort of manage the
conflicting requirements of getting a system set up and meeting
the percentages, and it has not always worked out as well as we
have liked, so as I have looked at it today, we have not met
the percentage that is required in the law, and I would
certainly agree with that, and we need to fix that. And I have
been sworn to uphold the laws of the country, and I will do
that. I was not aware of that particular issue until this
morning.
But let me just tell you what we have done. First of all,
the program itself is a great triumph. The President provided
extra money. Congress, where we had zero, we now have $23
million to produce awareness and a system, and we do have money
going to mitigation and education. It is not the percentage,
but we have allocated----
Mr. Wu. Mr. Under Secretary, just to be clear, the $23
million that you are referring to is for the entire tsunami-
warning network, and it is 27 percent of that particular line
item that we are talking about, and it is that 27 percent of
that particular line item, the $23 million that you all didn't
hit. My understanding is that there is $2.9-some-odd million
for education, and at least the arithmetic on this side of the
table shows that to be about 8.9 percent, or thereabouts, and
you are saying that that shouldn't have happened. And
furthermore, you are saying that won't happen going forward.
Vice Admiral Lautenbacher. I am saying that I want to take
a good look at this. I don't have enough information to sit
here and promise the moon, so to speak. I will tell you our
priority has been to try to get the system going first. We
can't get the system----
Mr. Wu. Mr. Under Secretary, with all due respect, there
are times when you all have administrative discretion, but when
it is a clear, statutory requirement--I mean this was
negotiated in this committee, passed by the entire Congress,
and this is not, you know, reading between the lines on
Congressional intent. This is a very clear statutory
requirement, and when I took our conversation to mean earlier
was that I had a clear commitment that this would be fixed
going forward.
Vice Admiral Lautenbacher. Yes, sir, this will be fixed
going forward. I thought the question was on '08. I mean we are
talking about what we are trying to do right now, at this--
well, the budget has already passed. The year is half-gone,
that sort of thing.
Mr. Wu. Well, now that I have a commitment to going
forward, when we come back----
Vice Admiral Lautenbacher. Yes, sir.
Mr. Wu.--we can listen to you further about what might have
happened in times back.
Vice Admiral Lautenbacher. And we have another option to
provide money this year, too, from the frequency auction money.
We believe that is coming in at the end of the--in a few
months, and we will be able to use that for the education part.
So we have two ways to work at this, sir.
Chairman Lampson. Thank you, Mr. Wu. Ms. Hooley, the
gentlelady from Oregon, five minutes.
Ms. Hooley. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, for allowing me
to participate in this hearing today.
You might be surprised since both Representative Wu and I
are from Oregon that my question might be very similar to him,
but I have a question to ask you. Are you aware of the letter
dated January 25 that the State Geologists from Oregon and
Washington and Alaska and California sent to the Congressional
delegates from the Pacific and Northwest Coastal States. Are
you aware of that letter?
Vice Admiral Lautenbacher. I was not aware until about an
hour before this hearing, so I would love to have it referred
to me to help be able to work the problem.
Ms. Hooley. Okay, and I will make sure that you get a copy
of that letter.
Vice Admiral Lautenbacher. Thank you.
Ms. Hooley. All right, and I just want to know, again, and
I think I have already heard your commitment that you will
fully fund what the statutory requirement is, which is 27
percent for the fiscal funds. Okay, another question is when
were you planning on informing the State geologists of the plan
to provide the States with their full 27 percent share? I had
staff speak to our State geologists last Wednesday, and she
wasn't aware of any funding plan at this time. Can you--when do
you expect to tell the State geologists what you are going to
do?
Vice Admiral Lautenbacher. And I am not prepared to answer
that today----
Ms. Hooley. Okay.
Vice Admiral Lautenbacher.--since I only saw this letter an
hour before the hearing, and I would like to have an
opportunity to--I understand the--I have read the letter, and
there is a dispute on how this is being done in terms of
consultation and who makes the decisions, and we will get
together, and we will provide an answer that everybody will
like.
Ms. Hooley. And sort of on the same line, and then I am
going to get off on a different subject, because I think
Representative Wu did a good job of asking and you answering
the question. There is supposed to be a coordinating committee
comprised of Federal, State, local, and tribal government
agencies with some recommendations on this money. Are you aware
of that, and are you going to use that coordinated committee,
or do you know what is happening there, Admiral?
Vice Admiral Lautenbacher. I don't know why it is not
working properly. I can tell from the letter that it is not
working properly, and I will look into it personally, and the
goal is to make it work in accordance with the legislation.
Disaster Relief for Fisheries
Ms. Hooley. Next in line is I am going to talk about
fisheries, and by the way, thank you very much for--you were
very helpful last year for our fisheries problem, and I
appreciate that. In 2005, the commercial salmon fishing season
was reduced by 60 percent due to the portion examined at the
Klamath River. Again, several of us wrote to NOAA fisheries
asking them to expedite the disaster-relief process so that a
decision and a declaration could be made prior to the
appropriation process. At first, there was no response, and
then long after the disaster was made apparent, and then you
stepped in and helped us out. It looks like this next year is
going to be the worst year of all, so I am really concerned
about how quickly we can get this process going, and again, it
is important for us as we look at appropriations and putting a
budget together, and I mean the Budget Committee is meeting
tomorrow, I know, and I will be winding up its business in the
next couple of months.
So can you assure us that knowing ahead of time that these
are going to be some of the worse salmon runs of all, at least
on the Oregon coast, the Southern Washington coast, and
Northern California coast, that you can declare a disaster
earlier and quicker than you have in the past so that people
can be assure that they are going to get some kind of relief?
Vice Admiral Lautenbacher. We have--we are very well aware
of the situation, and we have started work right now to get
everyone together to ensure that the data can be produced an
gotten to us as quickly as possible, and our goal is to try to,
certainly, beat the record that we established two years ago,
and do a much better job this year in terms of----
Ms. Hooley. Okay, because it took two years for the checks
to get out the door.
Vice Admiral Lautenbacher. I understand. I have alerted the
Administration, and I am prepared to work as hard as I can with
the----
Ms. Hooley. Because the states have a lot of information
already that I don't think it is necessary to gather that
information again, and so I would hope that you would work
closely with the states. Anything we can do to help expedite
that process, let us know. We want to work with you to make
that happen, an in a much more timely manner.
Vice Admiral Lautenbacher. I appreciate that, and I look
forward to working with you, and we will do our best to meet
the needs.
Ms. Hooley. Yes, just remember their mortgages. Their banks
don't wait for two years for a house payment.
Again, thank you very much for allowing me to participate
today, and thank you for answering my questions, and I am
looking forward to working with you, both on the tsunami and
the fisheries issues.
Vice Admiral Lautenbacher. Thank you.
Chairman Lampson. We have, actually, two series of votes
that are coming up. We have two votes and then a ten-minute
debate, and then two more votes following that. That will
probably take an hour away from here. So let me quickly ask a
couple of questions. We will be able to dismiss you, Admiral,
but if the other in the second panel don't mind being patient
and waiting for us, we will come back and get this done.
Ocean Surface Winds Vector and QuikSCAT
I see the budget includes a requested increase for ocean
vector wind studies. How do these studies relate to the study
that NASA was supposed to complete last month for options for
replacing the data we now acquire with QuikSCAT, and given the
long lead time for developing new operational satellites and
instruments and the need to identify additional resources to
finance the acquisition, what is the plan for obtaining these
if QuikSCAT satellite fails?
Vice Admiral Lautenbacher. This is the issue of continuity
of ocean surface winds vector. And first of all, let me say
that the basic coverage for hurricane warnings is in our
budget. I want to make sure people understand that we have
covered the main satellites and the radars, the buoys and
everything that provides hurricane warnings, so it is all
there, and advances are made.
Now in terms of ocean surface winds vector, we have the
study. It was just delivered. Right now, we are working through
a cost-benefit analysis. We have been given some information
from the JPL study, which works for NASA, but they worked for
us in this case to produce that study. I have looked at it
preliminarily, and I have asked people to get out to make a
really detailed cost-benefit analysis and look at all of the
options for ocean surface wind vector.
Now, we have two things in place. First of all, QuikSCAT is
still operating. We have the ASCAT instrument, which is on
Metop, and that will be operating up to 2020, so that system,
while it is not perfect, neither is QuikSCAT. QuikSCAT is not
what our people want. They want something better than QuikSCAT.
I have negotiated with the Indians, and we are looking at
the Chinese as well. The Indians are going to launch a
satellite with a scatterometer on board, so we have ways of
getting that information. But in the meantime, we are going to
be doing a cost-benefit analysis, to see whether this
capability can be put on an airplane, whether you can put it on
another satellite. Before we come and tell you that we need $3
billion for a satellite, I want to be sure that we have every
bit of information that can assure that we have taken the needs
of the taxpayer and the cost of the system into place.
Rule Changes for Red Snapper Fisheries
Chairman Lampson. Thanks. One final question: as you know,
a number of my constituents are being impacted by the rule
changes being implemented for the red snapper fisheries. There
are apparently very different views on the current status of
this fishery and real impact of the rules changes on
maintaining its long-term viability. Is the agency planning to
undertake new studies to reconcile or resolve some of these
questions, and how is the information from fishermen in the
area incorporated into the decisions about how to best manage
the red snapper fishery?
Vice Admiral Lautenbacher. Obviously, we are going to
continue what I would called detailed surveys to ensure that we
monitor the stocks and the level stocks and the age and the
distribution of the stocks to ensure that the rules that are in
place make sense. That will be done continuously and in close
cooperation with the Gulf Fishery Management Counsel.
We have asked for more money this year to help get better
surveys from the recreational fish part of the industry,
because that is an area of the industry that is not as detailed
as the commercial side. So I believe that when that is in
place, that will help us quite a bit to explain the rules that
we have and why they are important.
And so we plan to have an all-out press in terms of--we
also have money for cooperative research in here, which allows
us to have fishermen do some of the research for us, to make
sure that they feel part of the system for which they are
subject for regulation, and that will be another critical part
of the red snapper issue in the Gulf, which is a big one.
Chairman Lampson. Thank you very much. Mr. Inglis, you get
the last word.
Mr. Inglis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
NPOESS Funding
Admiral, last year, if I have got this right, for NPOESS,
you didn't get an appropriation right, and so this year, it is
a much larger request. It is $74 million or something?
Vice Admiral Lautenbacher. That is for the climate sensors.
Mr. Inglis. Climate sensors, yes.
Vice Admiral Lautenbacher. We didn't have--because we
didn't have a plan. I hate to ask people for money before I
have something I can justify. The White House got NASA and NOAA
all together and worked together to have a plan. We have the
plan, and that is why we are asking for the $74 million for the
climate sensors. We believe we have a justifiable plan that
will allow for continuity of the instruments and do it in the
most cost effective way.
Mr. Inglis. So it is just a matter that this year we have
got the plan and we are ready to go, and that will make it--and
does the $74 million put you on track to accomplish what you
hope to accomplish?
Vice Admiral Lautenbacher. The $74 million, obviously, is a
down payment, because we will have to continue the program, but
that will get us started. We have a program, and we have an
option for every one of the sensors that was taken off of
NPOESS. These are the two that we have to do, right now, in one
way or another. Actually, we have three. We put OMPS-Limb back
on. I don't want to get too technical, but this is the
beginning of what I would call a comprehensive program to make
sure that all of the climate variables that we were unable to
accommodate at first, because we need that NPOESS satellite up
as quickly as possible. We are on track to do that. Seventy-
four million dollars, we have to get started with this.
Mr. Inglis. Got you. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Lampson. Mr. Wu, follow up?
Mr. Wu. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
And at this point, I would like to submit for the record a
written statement. And I would also like to, in addition to
making the State geologist letter from Oregon, Washington, and
the State of California available, as Ms. Hooley referred, to
NOAA, I would also like to submit that letter to the hearing
record.
Chairman Lampson. So ordered.
[The information follows:]
Fixing Fiscal Year 2008 Budget Allocations
Mr. Wu. Mr. Under Secretary, I find it a matter of relief
that you and NOAA are committed to making this appropriate
split going forward, the statutorily required 27 percent for
mitigation and education and other purposes, as specified in
the statute that we passed in 2006.
I do want to point out to you that in the Administration
fiscal year 2009 request--this is going forward now--if--even
when we back out any funds for the deployment of new buoys, the
National Tsunami Mitigation Program, the program that we
specified at 27 percent of this overall line item, it is slated
to be at less than half the statutorily mandated amount, and I
just wanted to point that out to you in the forward-going
fiscal year 2009 budget request.
Now, the Congress appropriates this money as one unified
line item, and in the last fiscal year, it was $23 million. But
I just want to very clearly point out that there is a very
clear statutory mandate that 27 percent be spent on the
National Tsunami Mitigation Program, and that we seem to have
at the least the beginnings of a problem going forward into
fiscal year 2009, and I want to point that out to you and
permit you to address any issues you can in fixing fiscal year
2008 or before, and also anything further you want to say about
fiscal year 2009.
Vice Admiral Lautenbacher. And we will, obviously, have a
better chance of fixing 2009 than I do of fixing 2008, but I am
committed to fixing both to the best of my ability.
Mr. Wu. I just want to point out again, best of one's
ability is not the criterion of success. This is a statutory
requirement, and this is a black-letter law requirement.
Vice Admiral Lautenbacher. I understand what you are
saying. Let me just say for one--it is very difficult to take
the requirements of a program and deliver something that
actually does what it is supposed to do, and over here have
something that, well, five percent has to go there. 27 percent
has to go there. Sometimes those don't quite match. But I
understand the 27 percent, and obviously if appropriations and
Congress want the 27 percent, they are getting 27 percent.
Mr. Wu. None of these decisions, yours or ours, are easy,
and that is why the taxpayers sent us here, to deal with some
of these very difficult issues, and I prefer the first two
words of your answer. Thank you very much, Mr. Under Secretary.
Thank you for being here.
Vice Admiral Lautenbacher. Thank you, Mr. Wu.
Chairman Lampson. Thank you very much, Mr. Under Secretary.
This hearing will standing in recess pending the votes. Thank
you very much.
[Recess.]
Chairman Lampson. The Subcommittee on Energy and the
Environment is back into session, and I want to welcome our
second panel of witnesses. And thank you very much for your
patience. Sorry that we had that interruption.
Mr. David Powner is Director of Information Technology
Management Issues at the Government Accountability Office. Dr.
Jack Hayes is the Assistant Demonstrator for the National
Weather Service at the National Atmospheric Administration. Mr.
Eugene Juba is Senior Vice President for Finance or the Air
Traffic Organization at the Federal Aviation Administration. We
welcome you, gentlemen, and you each have five minutes to
present your spoken testimony. Your written testimony will be
included in the record for the hearing, and when you have made
all of your testimonies, we will begin with questions, and each
Member will have five minutes to question the panel.
Mr. Powner, you may begin.
Panel II
STATEMENT OF MR. DAVID A. POWNER, DIRECTOR, INFORMATION
TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT ISSUES, U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY
OFFICE (GAO)
Mr. Powner. Thank you, Chairman Lampson and Ranking Member
Inglis. We appreciate the opportunity to testify this afternoon
on our report on aviation and weather services completed at
your request.
The National Weather Service supports the Federal Aviation
Administration by providing aviation-related forecasts and
warnings at air traffic control and route centers across the
country. These forecasts and warnings include information on
thunderstorms, air turbulence and icing. These services are
provided through an interagency agreement that FAA reimburses
NWS approximately $12 million annually. As requested, I will
summarize our findings and recommendations from our report
being released today. Specifically, I will discuss FAA's recent
efforts to explore options for enhancing these services, FAA's
efforts to convey to NWS its needs, both agencies efforts to
ensure quality and measure performance, and our recommendations
for improvements.
First, FAA has found, through multiple studies over the
past several years, that the services provided to them are
inconsistent, non-standardized, and that collaboration between
the two agencies has been poor. Given this, FAA has asked NWS
to explore options to restructure how it provides services and
to reduce the number of locations that provide them. Clearly,
FAA is interested in more consistent and improved services and
has threatened to use private-sector firms and government-
funded laboratories instead of NWS if such services could be
provided at lower costs. NWS, in response to FAA, has conducted
prototypes, demonstrating that remote operations are possible
and effective, but difficult due to cultural and technological
challenges. In April of last year, these exploratory
improvement efforts were put on hold while FAA decided to
better define the services it wants from NWS. In December, at
the conclusion of our review, FAA delivered a comprehensive set
of requirements that reiterate existing requirements like daily
briefings and weather advisories and provide new ones like on-
demand and new forecasting products. NWS is currently
responding to this set of requirements.
Turning to quality and performance measurement, our
findings here are surprising. While interagency agreements
state that both NWS and FAA have responsibility for assuring
and controlling the quality of aviation weather observations,
neither does so consistently. Specifically, neither NWS or FAA
has developed performance measures and metrics, evaluated
performance and made improvements. Although some evaluations of
services are done anecdotally and rated on a rough, zero-to-
four scale, quantitative and objective performance measures,
such as timeliness, accuracy and false-alarm rates do not
exist. I say this is surprising because NWS is one of the
better federal agencies when it comes to performance
measurement, but NWS does not measure performance for weather
products and services provided at en route centers.
We, therefore, made recommendations to both the Secretaries
of Commerce and Transportation to direct the head of the
Weather Service and FAA to develop performance measures and
metrics, conduct evaluations of performance and take the
necessary action to improve performance. The set of
requirements that FAA delivered in December have begun to
define some of these performance measures, but additional work
is needed here, and baselines will need to be established to
measure performance.
Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Inglis, before summarizing,
I would like to thank you for your oversight of this important
issue. Your inquiry into this has resulted in FAA better
defining its needs from NWS to accomplish its mission,
improvements in executive-level dialogue between FAA and NWS,
and it has highlighted a critical area in our government that
has not been effectively measured and improved, despite this
arrangement being in operation for over 25 years. Going
forward, it is essential that FAA and NWS work collaboratively
to work on future requirements, aggressively work to address
them, agree on an operational model and a reasonable transition
timeline, develop additional performance measures, establish
baselines to measure performance, and aggressively measure and
make improvements so that FAA has the information it needs to
effectively manage air traffic.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I would be
pleased to respond to questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Powner follows:]
Prepared Statement of David A. Powner
Aviation Weather: Services at Key Aviation Facilities Lack Performance
Measures, But Improvement Efforts Are Under Way
Abstract
Although interagency agreements between the National Weather
Service (NWS) and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) state that
both agencies have responsibilities for assuring and controlling the
quality of aviation weather observations, neither agency consistently
does so for weather products and services produced at the en route
centers. In its report being issued today, GAO is making
recommendations to the Secretaries of Commerce and Transportation to
ensure that NWS and FAA develop performance measures, evaluate the
services against those measures, and provide feedback to NWS. FAA has
begun to address GAO's recommendations. In late December 2007, FAA
released new requirements for the aviation weather services provided at
en route centers. These requirements included performance measures and
methods for evaluating performance and providing feedback to NWS. FAA
directed NWS to respond by May 2008 and include plans in its response
for three operational concepts--in its existing configuration located
at the 21 en route centers, through remote services provided by a
reduced number of regional facilities, and through remote services
provided by a single centralized facility. FAA stated that NWS should
assume a transition time of 90 days for the existing configuration, 180
days for regionalized services, and one year for a single facility. NWS
plans to respond to FAA by the May 2008 deadline, but FAA's estimated
time frames for transitioning to a new operational concept may be
overly ambitious. Given the importance of accurate and timely weather
information in air traffic control, it will be important for NWS to
conduct a thorough evaluation before it transitions to a new
operational concept in order to ensure that there are no impacts on the
continuity of air traffic operations and no degradation of weather
service.
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:
We appreciate the opportunity to participate in today's hearing to
discuss our work on the National Weather Service's (NWS) aviation
weather services. NWS is responsible for providing storm and flood
warnings and weather forecasts for the United States, its territories,
and adjacent oceans and waters. NWS's weather products are also a vital
component of the Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA) air traffic
control program, providing weather information to local, regional, and
national air traffic management, navigation, and surveillance systems.
NWS aviation weather products include forecasts and warnings of
meteorological conditions that could affect air traffic, including
thunderstorms, air turbulence, and icing. In addition to providing
aviation weather products developed at its own facilities, NWS also
provides staff on-site at each of FAA's en route centers--the
facilities responsible for controlling high-altitude air traffic
outside the tower and terminal areas.
Over the last few years, FAA has been exploring options for
enhancing the efficiency of the aviation weather services provided at
its en route centers. In September 2005, the agency asked NWS to
restructure its services to be more efficient; in response, NWS
conducted a prototype and proposed restructuring its offices to provide
services remotely. FAA declined this proposal in favor of making its
existing requirements more precise. In late December 2007, FAA
delivered its revised requirements to NWS to improve these services.
As requested, our testimony summarizes our report being released
today on NWS's aviation weather services\1\ and provides an update on
recent efforts to develop aviation weather requirements and performance
measures. Specifically, we discuss both agencies' efforts to ensure the
consistency and quality of these services, our recommendations to
improve these services, FAA's recent efforts to establish requirements
and performance measures, and NWS's plans for responding to these
requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ GAO, Aviation Weather: FAA Is Re-evaluating Services at Key
Centers; Both FAA and the National Weather Service Need to Better
Ensure Product Quality, GAO-08-258 (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 11, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The information in this statement is based largely on our work
supporting the report being released today. In addition, to provide an
update on the agencies' recent efforts, we reviewed key documents
completed in December 2007, including a new interagency agreement,
FAA's requirements, and the accompanying quality assurance plan. We
compared NWS's tentative next steps with best practices for validating
requirements and interviewed the NWS official responsible for
responding to the new requirements. We conducted our work on the report
and testimony between May 2007 and February 2008, in accordance with
generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards
require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient,
appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and
conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence
obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions
based on our audit objectives. Additional details on our objectives,
scope, and methodology are provided in Appendix I.
Results in Brief
Although interagency agreements between NWS and FAA state that both
agencies have responsibilities for assuring and controlling the quality
of aviation weather observations, neither agency consistently does so
for weather products and services produced at the en route centers.
Specifically, neither has implemented performance measures and metrics,
regularly evaluated weather service unit performance, or provided
feedback to improve these aviation weather products and services.
Because of this lack of performance tracking and oversight, NWS cannot
demonstrate the quality or value of its services, and FAA cannot ensure
the quality of the services it funds. Until both agencies are able to
measure and ensure the quality of the aviation weather products and
services at the en route centers, FAA may not be getting the
information it needs to effectively manage air traffic.
In our report being released today, we are making recommendations
to the Secretaries of Commerce and Transportation to ensure that NWS
and FAA develop performance measures for aviation weather services
provided at en route centers, evaluate the services against those
measures, and provide feedback to the NWS staff on how to improve
services. The Secretary of Commerce agreed with our recommendations and
stated that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
would work with FAA to develop methods for performance monitoring and
evaluation. The Department of Transportation did not agree or disagree
with our recommendations, but stated that FAA's revised requirements
would establish performance measures and evaluation procedures, and
that FAA would negotiate with NWS to implement them.
FAA has already begun to address the recommendations noted in our
report; specifically, in late December 2007, FAA finalized its new
aviation weather requirements, which include proposed performance
measures and methods for evaluation. In its requirements, FAA provides
NWS with an overall vision for aviation weather services that are
performance-based, standardized, continuous, and have a national scope.
FAA reiterates its need for existing products and services (such as
twice-daily briefings), provides revisions to some existing
requirements, and defines a new graphical forecast product for terminal
radar approach control facilities. In addition, FAA identifies
performance measures--such as customer satisfaction and forecast
accuracy--and processes for evaluating performance and providing
feedback to NWS. FAA expects NWS to respond as to whether it is able to
meet the requirements by early May 2008, and has directed NWS to
include plans for three operational concepts to fulfill the
requirements--in its existing configuration located at the 21 en route
centers, through remote services provided by a reduced number of
regional facilities, and through remote services provided by a single
centralized facility. FAA plans to select one of the operational
concepts and NWS will immediately begin to transition to the new
concept. FAA required that NWS assume a transition time of 90 days if
it selects the existing configuration, 180 days if it selects the
regionalized remote services concept, and one year if it selects the
single facility concept.
NWS plans to respond to FAA by the May 2008 deadline, but FAA's
estimated time frames for providing the revised services may be overly
ambitious. NWS created a team to analyze FAA's requirements and to
develop a response package for all three operational concepts. The NWS
official responsible for aviation services reported that the agency is
on track to respond by FAA's deadline of May 2008. However, FAA's
estimated time frames for transitioning to a new operational concept
may be overly ambitious. Given the importance of accurate and timely
weather information in air traffic control, it will be important for
NWS to conduct a thorough evaluation before it transitions to a new
operational concept in order to ensure that there are no impacts on the
continuity of air traffic operations and no degradation of weather
service.
Background
FAA is responsible for ensuring safe, orderly, and efficient air
travel in the national airspace system. NWS supports FAA by providing
aviation-related forecasts and warnings at air traffic facilities
across the country. Among other support and services, NWS provides four
meteorologists at each of FAA's 21 en route centers to provide on-site
aviation weather services. This arrangement is defined and funded under
an interagency agreement.
FAA's Mission and Organizational Structure
FAA's primary mission is to ensure safe, orderly, and efficient air
travel in the national airspace system. The agency's ability to fulfill
its mission depends on the adequacy and reliability of its air traffic
control systems, as well as weather forecasts made available by NWS and
automated systems. These resources reside at, or are associated with,
several types of facilities: air traffic control towers, terminal radar
approach control facilities, air route traffic control centers (en
route centers), and the Air Traffic Control System Command Center. The
number and functions of these facilities are as follows:
517 air traffic control towers manage and control the
airspace within about five miles of an airport. They control
departures and landings, as well as ground operations on
airport taxiways and runways.
170 terminal radar approach control facilities
provide air traffic control services for airspace within
approximately 40 miles of an airport and generally up to 10,000
feet above the airport, where en route centers' control begins.
Terminal controllers establish and maintain the sequence and
separation of aircraft.
21 en route centers control planes over the United
States--in transit and during approaches to some airports. Each
center handles a different region of airspace. En route centers
operate the computer suite that processes radar surveillance
and flight planning data, reformats them for presentation
purposes, and sends them to display equipment that is used by
controllers to track aircraft. The centers control the
switching of voice communications between aircraft and the
center, as well as between the center and other air traffic
control facilities. Two en route centers also control air
traffic over the oceans.
The Air Traffic Control System Command Center manages
the flow of air traffic within the United States. This facility
regulates air traffic when weather, equipment, runway closures,
or other conditions place stress on the national airspace
system. In these instances, traffic management specialists at
the command center take action to modify traffic demands in
order to keep traffic within system capacity.
See Figure 1 for a visual summary of the facilities that control
and manage air traffic over the United States.
NWS's Mission and Organizational Structure
The mission of NWS--an agency within the Department of Commerce's
NOAA--is to provide weather, water, and climate forecasts and warnings
for the United States, its territories, and its adjacent waters and
oceans to protect life and property and to enhance the national
economy. In addition, NWS is the official source of aviation- and
marine-related weather forecasts and warnings, as well as warnings
about life-threatening weather situations.
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 in support of its mission.
These facilities include 122 weather forecast offices located across
the country that provide a wide variety of weather, water, and climate
services for their local county warning areas, including advisories,
warnings, and forecasts; nine national prediction centers\2\ that
provide nationwide computer modeling to all NWS field offices; and 21
center weather service units that are located at FAA en route centers
across the Nation and provide meteorological support to air traffic
controllers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ These centers include the National Centers for Environmental
Prediction Central Operations, Aviation Weather Center, Environmental
Modeling Center, Hydrometeorological Prediction Center, Ocean
Prediction Center, Storm Prediction Center, Tropical Prediction Center/
National Hurricane Center, Climate Prediction Center, and Space
Environment Center.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NWS Provides Aviation Weather Services to FAA
As an official source of aviation weather forecasts and warnings,
several NWS facilities provide aviation weather products and services
to the FAA and aviation sector. These facilities include the aviation
weather center, weather forecast offices located across the country,
and center weather service units located at FAA en route centers. See
Table 1.
Center Weather Service Units: An Overview of Current Requirements
FAA's existing requirements for the center weather service units
are broadly outlined in an interagency agreement that is updated every
few years. The interagency agreement specifies that NWS is to provide
meteorological advice and consultation to en route center operations
personnel and other designated FAA air traffic facilities within the en
route area of responsibility. This agreement establishes specific terms
that govern the number of NWS staff, their working hours, and cost
reimbursement details. It does not specify the contents, quality, or
frequency of weather products.
An NWS directive, signed in May 2006 and intended for NWS's weather
forecast offices and center weather service units, provides more
specific information regarding the content of weather products and
services, including center weather advisories, daily briefings, on-
demand consultations, and meteorological impact statements. These
products and services are described in Table 2. In addition, center
weather service unit meteorologists can provide input every two hours
to the Aviation Weather Center's creation of the Collaborative
Convective Forecast Product; train FAA personnel on how to interpret
weather information; and, if warranted, provide weather briefings to
nearby terminal radar approach control facilities.
FAA Sought to Improve Aviation Weather Services Provided at En Route
Centers
In recent years, FAA has sought to assess and improve the
performance of the center weather service units.\3\ For example, FAA
performed multiple studies on the current services provided by the
center weather service units that noted the lack of standardization of
products and services. In addition, FAA conducted a study to determine
if remote operations were feasible, and requested that NWS restructure
its aviation weather services to provide improved services more
efficiently. In response to this request, NWS conducted a prototype of
remote operations in which center weather service unit products and
services were prepared by the closest weather forecast office. NWS
proposed expanding this prototype to FAA, but the agency declined this
proposal. Instead, FAA stated that it would redefine its requirements
for the functions provided by center weather service units. Table 3
provides more information about the agency's assessment and improvement
efforts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ FAA is also involved in a longer-term initiative to increase
the efficiency of the national airspace system and to improve its
overall safety. This initiative, called the Next Generation Air
Transportation System, is a joint effort of the Department of
Transportation, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the
White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, and the
Departments of Homeland Security, Defense, and Commerce. FAA
anticipates that this initiative may lead to major changes in the
aviation weather program that would supersede its current efforts.
FAA Found Its Requirements Were Not Sufficiently Precise and Worked to
Develop New Ones
When FAA declined NWS's proposal for restructured aviation weather
services, it did so in part because it considered its existing
requirements governing NWS's center weather service units to be too
broad to ensure the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of the services.
FAA then worked for several months to redefine these requirements. In
April 2007, FAA's Air Traffic Organization began refining its
requirements for aviation weather services at the en route centers. To
do this, FAA collected relevant NWS and FAA orders and directives and
developed a list of over 100 products and services that the different
service units provide. FAA then sent this list to traffic managers in
each of the en route centers, asking them to specify the products and
services that they need, the ones they do not need, and any new
products or services that they would like. Traffic managers were also
able to determine if they would want some of the more customized
weather products that are currently available at selected en route
centers. Using results from this survey, FAA developed a revised list
of requirements and performance measures, which it provided to NWS in
late December 2007.
Neither NWS nor FAA Currently Ensures the Quality of Aviation Weather
Services at En Route Centers
While interagency agreements between NWS and FAA state that both
agencies have responsibilities for assuring and controlling the quality
of aviation weather observations, neither NWS nor FAA consistently does
so for weather products produced at the en route centers. Leading
organizations use quality assurance to provide staff and management
with objective insights into processes and associated work products.\4\
Generally, quality assurance includes objectively evaluating performed
processes, work products, and services against applicable process
descriptions, standards, and procedures; identifying and documenting
noncompliance issues; providing feedback to project staff and managers
on the results of quality assurance activities; and ensuring that
noncompliance issues are addressed. However, neither NWS nor FAA has
developed and implemented performance measures and metrics, regularly
evaluated weather service unit performance, or provided feedback to
improve these aviation weather products and services.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The Carnegie Mellon University's Software Engineering Institute
is recognized for its expertise in software and system processes. See
Carnegie Mellon University Software Engineering Institute, Capability
Maturity Model Integration for Development Version 1.2 (Pittsburgh,
PA: August 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because of this lack of performance tracking and oversight, NWS
cannot demonstrate the quality or value of its services, and FAA cannot
ensure the value of the services it funds. As a result, it is not clear
that FAA is getting the information it needs to effectively manage air
travel. FAA officials stated that they intend to establish performance
measures for their redefined requirements and to improve their
oversight against these measures. However, FAA has not worked with NWS
to define a comprehensive set of measures for its requirements, and it
is unclear how the agency would develop a performance baseline for
comparison to actual performance because many of the products and
services have not previously been measured.
NWS Does Not Measure or Evaluate Aviation Weather Products and Services
at En Route Centers
NWS does not measure or evaluate the aviation weather services it
provides at en route centers. Under existing interagency agreements,
NWS is responsible for controlling the quality of its aviation weather
observations. Specifically, the agency is responsible for monitoring
and evaluating the quality and effectiveness of its aviation weather
services, including the services provided at the weather forecast
offices, the Aviation Weather Center, and the en route centers.
While NWS has developed and continues to monitor performance
measures for aviation weather forecasts provided by its weather
forecast offices and the Aviation Weather Center, the agency has not
done so for the weather products and services provided at the en route
centers. Specifically, NWS has not developed performance measures for
aviation weather products and services at en route centers, evaluated
the aviation weather products and services developed at the en route
centers, or provided feedback for those services. NOAA and NWS
officials declined to explain why the agency does not have performance
measures for aviation weather products or services at en route centers,
but they noted that neither FAA nor NWS has required or funded such an
effort. Further, the aviation services branch chief told us that he had
planned to begin evaluations for weather unit services at the en route
centers but decided to wait because of the potential for large-scale
changes to the services.
Until NWS establishes performance measures and evaluates the
quality and effectiveness of its products against these measures, the
agency will remain unable to ensure that it provides consistent quality
products and to effectively demonstrate the value it provides to FAA.
FAA Does Not Consistently Evaluate or Provide Feedback on Aviation
Weather Services at En Route Centers
FAA has not consistently evaluated NWS services at its en route
centers or adequately provided feedback on the results of its few
evaluations. Under interagency agreements, FAA is responsible for
ensuring that aviation weather services meet its requirements. In
addition, it requires the traffic management officer within each
traffic management unit to evaluate the aviation weather services at
the en route centers annually and to provide feedback to the resident
meteorologist-in-charge.
FAA has not consistently ensured the quality of aviation weather
services at en route centers. Specifically, it currently does not have
any quantitative and objective performance measures--such as
timeliness, accuracy, or false alarm rate--by which to evaluate these
services. Agreements between the agencies broadly specify the types of
aviation weather products to be developed at the en route centers but
do not provide criteria by which these products can be evaluated. In
addition, FAA has not consistently performed its annual evaluations of
these products and services. According to the contracting officer's
technical representative responsible for the evaluations, the last
evaluation was performed in 2006, and its results were largely
anecdotal. Specifically, the evaluation called for the traffic
management officer to rate the weather unit on a scale of 0 to 4 in
different categories, including quality and timeliness of products and
services, knowledge of air traffic control, and participation in
training. The technical representative could not find any evaluations
in 2005, evaluations of only three service units in 2004, and
evaluations of a similarly small number of service units in 2003.
Further, FAA is not consistently providing feedback to weather
staff at the en route centers. According to the technical
representative, the evaluations from 2006 were not compiled or analyzed
because the evaluations contained no glaring problems or issues that
needed additional attention. In addition, the NWS aviation services
chief told us that FAA had sent him copies of the evaluations from 2006
but did not offer analysis of these evaluations, express concerns about
the services, or send the results to the individual center weather
service units. This official also stated that he was not aware that FAA
had performed any annual evaluations of the center weather service
units prior to 2006.
Because FAA has not established performance requirements or
consistently and thoroughly evaluated the aviation weather services at
en route centers, the agency cannot be sure that the products and
services provided by the weather unit meteorologists are adding value,
and it cannot provide feedback to NWS meteorologists in order to
improve the services. To address this shortfall, FAA officials stated
that they intend to establish performance measures for aviation weather
services at en route centers when they revise their requirements and to
improve their oversight of NWS against these measures. However, FAA has
not worked with NWS to develop measures for the products and services
it will require from NWS, and it is unclear how the agency would
develop a performance baseline for comparison to actual performance
because many of the products and services have not previously been
measured.
Implementation of GAO Recommendations Should Help Address Performance
Measurement Shortfalls
While many steps remain in defining the future of aviation weather
services at en route centers--including negotiations between FAA and
NWS on the provision of these services and FAA's subsequent decision on
whether to obtain selected services from alternative sources--there are
steps both agencies can take to ensure that the quality of future
aviation weather products and services is measured and evaluated. In
our accompanying report released today,\5\ we made two recommendations
to the Secretary of Commerce and three recommendations to the Secretary
of Transportation to improve the quality of aviation weather products
and services at en route centers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ GAO-08-258.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We recommended that the Secretary of Commerce direct the Assistant
Administrator for the National Weather Service to
assist FAA in developing performance measures and
metrics for the products and services to be provided by center
weather service units, and
perform annual evaluations of aviation weather
services provided at en route centers and provide feedback to
the center weather service units.
Further, we recommended that the Secretary of the Department of
Transportation direct the FAA Administrator to
work with NWS to define performance measures and
metrics for aviation weather services provided by
meteorologists,
evaluate the services it receives against those
measures and metrics, and
ensure that results of these evaluations are provided
to staff stationed at center weather service units so that they
can improve performance, where applicable.
In written comments on a draft of our report, the Secretary of
Commerce agreed with our recommendations to assist FAA in developing
performance measures and metrics, and to perform annual evaluations of
aviation weather services and provide feedback to the center weather
service units. The department stated that after FAA provides its
revised requirements, it would work with FAA to develop methods for
performance monitoring and evaluation. Subsequently, on December 19,
2007, FAA provided its revised requirements to NWS.
The Department of Transportation's Director of Audit Relations
provided comments on a draft of the report via e-mail. In those
comments, the department did not agree or disagree with our
recommendations. The department stated that FAA's revised requirements
are consistent with our recommendations in that they establish
performance measures and evaluation procedures, and that FAA would
begin to negotiate with NWS to implement them. In addition, in late
December 2007, after reviewing our draft report, FAA and NWS signed a
new interagency agreement that requires FAA to develop performance
standards and measures for the assessment of center weather service
units, and requires NWS to develop and track metrics to support FAA's
performance measures.
FAA Identified New Aviation Weather Requirements and Performance
Measures
FAA has already begun to address our recommendations; specifically,
in late December 2007, FAA finalized its new requirements for the
aviation weather services to be provided by center weather service
units, which include proposed performance measures and methods for
evaluation. In its requirements, FAA provides NWS with its overall
vision for aviation weather services, revises existing requirements,
and defines a requirement for a new product for terminal radar approach
control facilities. In addition, FAA identifies performance measures
and processes for evaluating performance and providing feedback to NWS.
FAA envisions services that are performance-based, standardized,
continuous, and have a national scope. Specifically, FAA requires
performance-based services that are measurable and allow for
identifying both successful performance and any performance problems.
In addition, FAA requests that the center weather service units provide
standardized services to all en route centers and increase their
service coverage from 16 hours a day to 24 hours a day. Finally, FAA
calls for transitioning the scope of the center weather service units
to monitor the entire national airspace system, rather than the
respective en route center regions. This national scope is expected to
allow more integrated decision-making at the national level while
continuing to provide specialized products at the regional and local
levels.
In its new requirements, FAA also reiterates its need for existing
products and services and provides revisions to some of these
requirements. Specifically, FAA continues to require products such as
twice-daily briefings, center weather advisories, and the Collaborative
Convective Forecast Product. In addition, center weather service units
will continue to provide forecast coordination with other NWS offices,
on-demand advice and consultation, emergency planning, training, and
dissemination of a number of weather advisories into both NWS and FAA
systems. Daily briefings, however, will now be recorded, verified, and
disseminated to other facilities that do not receive an in-person
briefing. In addition, on-demand consultation will be provided to en
route centers, terminal radar approach control facilities, towers, and
the Air Traffic System Command Center. According to the aviation
services branch chief, this consultation is currently provided only to
en route centers, selected terminal radar approach control facilities,
and a small number of towers.
Further, the revised requirements define a new product: the
terminal radar approach control forecast product. This product is based
in part on decision aids currently used in select center weather
service units, and on requirements developed by a team consisting of
aviation meteorological stakeholders from industry and FAA. This
forecast, which describes the next six hours and is updated at least
every two hours, will be presented in a graphical format and include
convection, winds, ceilings, and visibilities for the area around
terminal radar approach control facilities. FAA also expects this
product to include methods for verification and the systematic
collection of user feedback.
In addition to these requirements, FAA identifies performance
measures as well as processes for evaluating performance and providing
feedback to the forecasters. These performance measures include
customer satisfaction, forecast accuracy, and the aggregate of aircraft
incidents attributed to inaccurate aviation weather forecasts.
Baselines for all of these measures have not yet been developed.
According to the chief of the aviation services branch, NWS will
propose additional performance measures and develop baselines as it is
able. To measure against these performance measures, FAA has identified
methods by which to evaluate NWS. For example, to determine customer
satisfaction, FAA plans to develop a questionnaire for traffic
management unit staff to be filled out quarterly; to determine the
aggregate of aircraft incidents attributed to inaccurate aviation
weather forecasts, FAA is to use safety statistics currently tracked by
the Air Traffic Organization. In addition, FAA is planning to draw on
NWS's subject matter expertise to record and analyze information to
determine the accuracy of forecasts.
FAA expects NWS to respond as to whether it is able to meet the
requirements by early May 2008. In addition, FAA directed NWS to
include plans for three operational concepts (including technical and
cost information) for fulfilling the requirements--in its existing
configuration located at the 21 en route centers, through remote
services provided by a reduced number of regional facilities, and
through remote services provided by a single centralized facility.
According to the requirements, NWS's response should assume a
transition time of 90 days for the existing configuration, 180 days for
regionalized remote services, and one year for a single facility. For
each of these concepts, FAA has requested that NWS include a technical
plan, a facilities plan, a quality management plan, and a plan for
transitioning to the new approach. In addition, FAA asked that NWS
include cost plans for each of the concepts with the assumption of one
base year and four one-year options thereafter. The cost plan is also
expected to include estimated annual cost savings over this five-year
period. FAA plans to select one of these operational concepts.
NWS Plans to Respond to FAA's Requirements, But Proposed Transition
Timeframes May Be Overly Ambitious
NWS plans to respond to FAA by the May 2008 deadline, but FAA's
estimated time frames for providing the revised services may be overly
ambitious. NWS plans to submit its proposals for the three operational
concepts--the existing configuration located at the 21 en route
centers, remote services provided by a reduced number of regional
facilities, and remote services provided by a single centralized
facility. FAA directed NWS to assume a transition time of 90 days for
the existing configuration, 180 days for regionalized remote services,
and one year for a single facility. To respond, NWS management created
a team to analyze the requirements, gain clarification on the
requirements from FAA, and develop the response. The NWS aviation
services branch chief reported that the agency is on track to respond
by May 2008.
However, FAA's proposed time frames for transitioning to a new
operational concept may be overly ambitious because of the activities
that NWS should perform before any transition. In accordance with best
practices and the opinion of the National Transportation Safety Board,
NWS intends to validate that the organization can provide these new
requirements--through a prototype or similar demonstration--before
transitioning to a new approach. Leading organizations validate
requirements to determine what impact the intended operational
environment will have on the ability to satisfy the stakeholders'
needs, expectations, constraints, and interfaces. As part of this
validation, organizations explore the adequacy and completeness of
requirements by developing prototypes or simulations and by obtaining
feedback about them from relevant stakeholders. Given the importance of
accurate and timely weather information in air traffic control, it will
be important for NWS to conduct a thorough evaluation before it
transitions to a new operational concept in order to ensure that there
are no impacts on the continuity of air traffic operations and no
degradation of weather service.
In addition, NWS has agreed to negotiate with its employees' union,
the National Weather Service Employees Organization, whenever
organizational changes could affect working conditions--unless the
union has sufficient pre-decisional involvement. NWS's employees' union
has a representative on the team that is responding to FAA's
requirements, so that later negotiations may be unnecessary. However,
it is too soon to determine whether negotiations will be needed and how
long they will take.
NWS's aviation services branch chief agreed that FAA's transition
time lines would be challenging. This official estimated that it could
take over two years to transition to a new operational concept. To
address this disconnect between NWS's capabilities and FAA's
expectations, NWS plans to propose more feasible time frames in its
response to FAA. FAA officials reported that the agency will be open to
NWS's proposal.
In summary, even though center weather service units have been in
operation for over two decades, neither FAA nor NWS has implemented
performance measures and metrics, regularly evaluated weather service
unit performance, or provided feedback to improve these aviation
weather products and services. Until the agencies establish a system of
performance tracking and oversight, NWS will not be able to demonstrate
the quality or value of its services, and FAA will not be able to
ensure the value of the services it funds. To address these shortfalls,
FAA has defined more precise requirements that include performance
measures and evaluation methods, and NWS is working to respond to these
requirements. In its response, NWS is expected to prepare plans for
three alternative operational concepts for fulfilling these
requirements. FAA will choose one of the concepts. However, FAA's
proposed time frames for transitioning to a new operational concept may
be overly ambitious. Given the potential for major changes to services
and structure, NWS may require additional time to properly validate the
requirements, plan for any necessary operational transitions, and
ensure that aviation weather services are not degraded by any potential
changes.
Moving forward, it is important that FAA and NWS work together to
ensure that NWS's aviation weather services address requirements and
that effective performance measures and evaluation methods are
established. This collaboration will help both agencies ensure the
quality and consistency of these services, and ensure that FAA has the
information it needs to effectively manage air traffic.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I would be happy to
answer any questions that you or Members of the Subcommittee may have
at this time.
Appendix I:
Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
The objectives of this statement were to summarize selected
sections of our report\6\ being released today, including National
Weather Service (NWS) and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) efforts
to ensure the consistency and quality of aviation weather services at
en route centers, and our recommendations to improve these services. In
addition, we were asked to provide an update on FAA's recent efforts to
develop aviation weather requirements and performance measures, and
NWS's plans for responding to these requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ GAO, Aviation Weather: FAA Is Re-evaluating Services at Key
Centers; Both FAA and the National Weather Service Need to Better
Ensure Product Quality, GAO-08-258 (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 11, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To summarize selected sections of our report, we relied on the work
supporting that report. That report contains a detailed overview of our
scope and methodology.
In addition, to provide an update on FAA's recent efforts to
establish requirements, we reviewed the new interagency agreement
signed by both agencies in late December 2007; FAA's requirements sent
to NWS on December 19, 2007; and the accompanying quality assurance
plan. We also interviewed NWS's aviation services branch chief to
clarify which of these requirements were new and which were revisions
of current requirements.
To determine NWS's plans for responding to these requirements, we
reviewed the new interagency agreement, FAA's requirements, and the
accompanying quality assurance plan. We also interviewed the aviation
services branch chief, who is serving in an oversight role for NWS's
response to FAA. We compared NWS's tentative next steps with best
practices for validating requirements from the Capability Maturity
Model Integration for Development.
We performed our work on the report and testimony from May 2007 to
February 2008. All of the work on which this testimony is based was
performed in accordance with generally accepted government auditing
standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit
to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable
basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for
our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
Biography for David A. Powner
Dave is currently responsible for a large segment of GAO's
information technology (IT) work, including systems development, IT
investment management, and cyber critical infrastructure protection
reviews. He has nearly 20 years of both public and private information
technology-related experience. In the private sector, he held several
executive-level positions in the telecommunications industry, including
overseeing IT and financial internal audits, and software development
associated with digital subscriber lines (DSL). At GAO, he has led
reviews of major IT modernization efforts at Cheyenne Mountain Air
Force Station, the National Weather Service, the Federal Aviation
Administration, and the Internal Revenue Service. These reviews covered
many information technology areas including software development
maturity, information security, and enterprise architecture. Dave has
an undergraduate degree from the University of Denver in Business
Administration and is a graduate of the Senior Executive Fellows
program at Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government.
Chairman Lampson. Thank you, Mr. Powner. Dr. Hayes, you are
recognized for five minutes.
STATEMENT OF DR. JOHN L. HAYES, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR
WEATHER SERVICES; DIRECTOR, NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE, NATIONAL
OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
COMMERCE
Dr. Hayes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member
Inglis for the opportunity to testify on the National Weather
Service provision of aviation weather information to the
Federal Aviation Administration.
The Weather Service has a critical role in providing
weather information to the FAA in support of their mission to
ensure safe and efficient operation of the national airspace
system, and we are committed to providing quality aviation
services. We provide warnings, forecasts, meteorological
advice, and consultation throughout all phases of flight,
including preflight, planning and operations. These services
come from many weather service office, including our weather
forecast offices, the Alaska Aviation Weather Office, the
Volcanic Ash Advisory Centers, the Aviation Weather Center in
Kansas City, and the center weather service units, or CWSUs for
short.
Let me focus on CWSUs. Weather service forecasters at these
units provide aviation advisories, forecasts and advice to air
traffic controllers. The CWSUs are located at each of 21 FAA
air traffic control centers. CWSUs operate 16 hours per day,
when air traffic is at its peak, and that is typically between
5:00 a.m. and 9:30 p.m., local time, seven days a week.
If weather conditions pose a threat to a center's area of
responsibility, additional hours may be required, and we
provide the necessary staff and service. In 2007, the
Government Accounting Office reviewed aviation weather services
provided to the FAA through our CWSUs. Its draft report
provides a status of NWS plans for aviation weather services at
FAA air-route traffic control centers. The GAO report states
that we do not have formal performance measure or a formal
quality-assurance program for our CWSU products and services.
It is important to note that the Weather Service does
monitor and evaluate aviation products and services. Though we
agree with the GAO that there are shortfalls at our CWSUs, our
program does include two aviation Government Performance and
Results Act, GPRA measures, one for ceiling and one for
visibility forecasts, both of which can have a primary impact
on takeoff and landing operations, and we have other product
and service quality metrics. We also have in place a subjective
assessment of CWSU operations, conducted by the local FAA
traffic-management unit. These assessments are provided to FAA
and weather service management.
Now, the GAO analysis also identified shortcomings and
variability in some of the existing weather support for the
FAA. Prior to the GAO's review, we were taking steps to improve
CWSU products and services, and we had made good progress at
our unit in Dallas-Fort Worth in the ARTCC. And we are using it
as a model for where to take all CWSUs.
We are also taking immediate action to address issues
identified in the GAO report. We will implement changes in the
coming year to improve CWSU services to the FAA. Some specific
include formal site visits and new standardized weather service
equipment and forecast applications together with collaboration
tools, which will address product and service consistency
shortfalls. We have already begun working to implement CWSU
best practices at all CWSUs, and we are focused on improving
consistency between the various aviation forecast warnings and
advisories.
The GAO has made two recommendations to NOAA. First, assist
the FAA in developing performance measures and metrics for
products and services to be provided by center weather service
units. Second, perform annual evaluations of aviation weather
services provided to en route centers and provide feedback to
Center Weather Service Units. We agree with these
recommendations.
Though we have measures and metrics to assess aviation
products and services, which think the improvements which the
GAO recommends will improve CWSU products and services, and we
are currently working with the FAA to develop additional
performance measures and metrics and to improve our annual
evaluation of aviation weather services at the Weather Service
units.
On January 10, 2008, the FAA submitted to the Weather
Service specific requirements for CWSU support. I chartered a
team to develop solution to meet the FAA requirements, and we
are conducting a comprehensive analysis. As part of this
process, we have an ongoing dialogue with the FAA at various
levels to ensure that we are correctly interpreting their
requirements and to ensure that our response is optimally
focused on meeting the aviation need. The Weather Service
response is due to the FAA by May 7, 2008, and the FAA has
promised us they will reply by August 7, 2008.
In addition to looking at the future of our roles and
services at CWSUs, NOAA, through the Weather Service, is also
actively engaged in the Next Generation Air Transportation
System, NextGen for short. We participate on the joint planning
and development office board and provide leadership for the
weather working group. We recognize that NextGen will result in
a system-wide transformation. This includes the manner by which
weather-related information is collected, managed, decimated,
and used in decision-making. We also recognize the need for
close coordination within the federal weather community to meet
the NextGen weather support needs.
NOAA is committed to a long-term partnership with the FAA
and the rest of the federal community to make this happen. The
support NWS provides helps FAA create a national airspace
system that is safe, efficient, and cost effective for the
people of this country. Thank you for the opportunity, and I am
happy to answer any questions you might have.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Hayes follows:]
Prepared Statement of John L. Hayes
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, for this
opportunity to testify on the National Weather Service's provision of
aviation weather information to the Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA). I am Jack Hayes, Assistant Administrator for Weather Services
and the Director of the National Weather Service (NWS). The Weather
Service is a line office of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA), within the Department of Commerce (DOC).
The NWS has a long history of providing weather support for
aviation. In 1914, eleven years after the first manned flight by the
Wright brothers, the U.S. Weather Bureau, the predecessor agency to
NOAA's NWS, established an aerological section to provide weather
forecasts specifically to meet the growing needs of aviation. In 1918
the Weather Bureau issued its first aviation weather forecast--for the
Aerial Mail Service route from New York to Chicago. Today, forecasters
across the Nation comprise the aviation weather forecast team,
including meteorologists at 122 local Weather Forecast Offices (WFOs),
21 Center Weather Service Units (CWSUs), the Aviation Weather Center
(AWC) in Kansas City, Missouri; and the Alaska Aviation Weather Unit
(AAWU) in Anchorage, Alaska.
In 1994, Public Law 103-272 directed the Secretary of Commerce to
provide weather support for aviation and to give complete consideration
to the recommendations of the FAA Administrator in doing so (49 USC
44720, Sec. (a) ):
``The Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration
shall make
recommendations to the Secretary of Commerce on providing
meteorological services necessary for the safe and efficient movement
of aircraft in air commerce. In providing the services, the Secretary
shall cooperate with the Administrator and give complete consideration
to those recommendations.''
The NWS has an extensive infrastructure supporting its products and
services. NWS issues more than a trillion forecasts, and 10,000
warnings annually. Every day we process 1.7 billion surface and upper
air observations from across the country and around the globe. These
data are assimilated into complex computer models providing the
backbone of weather information for all--government and private weather
forecasters both nationally and internationally. The aviation industry
is but one user of this vast array of weather information used for
flight planning and safety.
The National Airspace System (NAS) is comprised of a system of
airports, control towers, and other control centers, including Air
Route Traffic Control Centers (ARTCC), working around the clock, 365
days a year, moving the country's people and goods around the United
States. On an average day, nearly 50,000 flights transit the NAS.
Flights include general aviation, commercial air carrier, air taxi,
military, and cargo flights. Depending on the departure point, the
length of time in flight, and the destination, each flight will
encounter a variety of meteorological conditions.
Keeping aircraft away from hazardous weather in all phases of
flight is a key to air safety. The NWS has a critical role in providing
weather information for safe and efficient operations in the NAS and in
support of the FAA's mission. NWS provides warnings, forecasts,
meteorological advice, and consultation for partners and customers
throughout all phases of flight--pre-flight, planning, and operations.
In order to mitigate weather-induced disruptions to the NAS, the FAA,
in conjunction with other NAS stakeholders, relies on this information
as one of the elements in the traffic flow management planning process.
NWS and the Meteorological Office of the United Kingdom provide
international flight planning forecasts and internationally required
meteorological forecast parameters for global aeronautical operations
via the World Area Forecast System as requested by the International
Civil Aviation Organization. We operate three Meteorological Watch
Offices: in Kansas City, Missouri; in Anchorage, Alaska; and in
Honolulu, Hawaii--to help provide these warning, forecast, and advisory
services for the national and international aviation community. The
Alaska Meteorological Watch Office is part of the Alaska Aviation
Weather Office (AAWU). Also part of the AAWU is the Alaska Volcanic Ash
Advisory Center. NOAA operates two of the nine worldwide Volcanic Ash
Advisory Centers, one in Washington, D.C. and the other in Anchorage,
Alaska. Volcanic Ash Advisory Centers are the focal points for
gathering and evaluating information on volcanic eruptions that could
affect air travel. The Volcanic Ash Advisory Center in Anchorage,
Alaska is managed and staffed by the NWS. The Volcanic Ash Advisory
Center in Washington, D.C. is jointly managed and staffed by the NWS
and the National Environmental Satellite Data and Information Service,
a sister line office within NOAA.
The Aviation Weather Center (AWC) in Kansas City, Missouri,
operates 24 hours a day, seven days per week, throughout the year
providing aviation warnings and forecasts of hazardous flight
conditions at all levels within domestic and international air space
including turbulence, icing, and convection forecasts. The
Collaborative Convective Forecast Product, a graphical representation
of expected convective occurrence at two, four, and six hours, is
produced by the AWC after collaboration with Meteorological Service of
Canada, Center Weather Service Units, and meteorological offices of
airlines and service providers. Its primary users are air traffic
management which includes both FAA and the airline industry.
The number of cross-polar flights is increasing sharply. With less
protective atmosphere above the polar regions, these flights are more
susceptible to the effects of radiation. The NWS Space Weather
Prediction Center (SWPC) in Boulder, Colorado, continually monitors and
forecasts Earth's space weather environment and provides solar-
radiation information and alerts.
On the local scale, 122 Weather Forecast Offices provide terminal
area forecasts for approximately 625 locations every six hours, with
updates as conditions change. These forecasts consist of the expected
weather that is significant to a given airport or terminal area.
Center Weather Service Units (CWSU) were established in 1977 in
response to National Transportation Safety Board recommendation A-77-
68, resulting from a serious weather related accident over New Hope,
Georgia, which caused numerous fatalities. This recommendation called
for the FAA to ``Formulate rules and procedures for the timely
dissemination by air traffic controllers of all available severe
weather information to inbound and outbound flights in the terminal
areas.'' Based on this recommendation, FAA, with the assistance of NWS,
formed the CWSUs.
NWS forecasters at CWSUs provide advisories and forecasts to the
aviation community as well as advice and consultation to air traffic
controllers in maintaining an efficient national airspace. These CWSUs
are located at each of the 21 FAA ARTCCs. CWSU meteorologists provide
Meteorological Impact Statements, Center Weather Advisories, periodic
face-to-face briefings, and on-demand consultations. CWSU
meteorologists also provide briefings, as needed, to FAA Terminal Radar
Approach Control personnel and tower personnel, and they train
controllers on the interpretation of weather information.
Under an interagency agreement, the FAA provides basic equipment,
communications, space and supplies at the CWSUs, and currently
reimburses the NWS about $12M per year, for staff. Based on local
requirements, CWSUs operate 16 hours per day, typically between 5:00
a.m. and 9:30 p.m. local time, seven days a week, when air traffic is
at its peak. If weather conditions pose a threat to an ARTCC's area of
responsibility at other times, the Traffic Management Officer, in
conjunction with the CWSU Meteorologist-In-Charge, has the option to
retain CWSU forecasters on overtime.
The NWS has a long history of working in partnership with the FAA
and the aviation community to define requirements for the provision of
aviation weather services. In that vein FAA's System Operation Services
sent NWS a letter dated September 23, 2005, requesting NWS restructure
its CWSU support. FAA requested NWS reduce the number of CWSUs in the
contiguous states, reduce personnel costs by 20 percent, increase
coverage to 24 hours a day, seven days a week, and provide improved
products, services, collaboration and training, as well as create
national standards. NWS chartered a team to examine options to meet the
FAA request. NWS presented its proposal for restructuring its aviation
weather services to FAA in October 2006. A second letter from FAA in
April 2007 stated it would not adopt the NWS restructuring plan, but
instead had begun a process of refining requirements for weather
services provided by the CWSUs.
On January 10, 2008, FAA submitted to NWS specific requirements for
CWSU support, asking NWS to provide three business case solutions to
meet those requirements: support from a single, central site; regional
support from several sites; and CWSU service support from the existing
21 ARTCCs. I chartered a team to develop solutions to meet FAA's
requirements and we have made progress with our comprehensive analysis.
The NWS response is due to FAA by May 7, 2008. FAA promises to reply by
August 7, 2008.
In 2007, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) conducted a
review of aviation weather services between the FAA and NOAA. The draft
report, entitled Aviation Weather: FAA is Reevaluating Services at Key
Centers; Both FAA and the National Weather Service Need to Better
Ensure Product Quality, does a fair job in assessing the status of the
NWS's plans for providing aviation weather services at FAA's en route
centers and evaluating current abilities to ensure consistency and
quality of these services. In its draft report, the GAO made two
recommendations to NOAA: (1) ``Assist FAA in developing performance
measures and metrics for the products and services to be provided by
center weather service units; and (2) ``Perform annual evaluations of
aviation weather services provided to en route centers and provide
feedback to the center weather service units.'' NOAA agrees with
Recommendation 1 and we are currently working with the FAA to develop
performance measures and metrics for the Center Weather Service Unit
products and services. We believe subsequent collaboration between NOAA
and FAA should lead to a shared service level agreement on milestones,
performance measures and goals. With regard to Recommendation 2, NOAA
will work with the FAA to develop methods for performance monitoring
and evaluation based upon the FAA's service requirements. We expect
these methods will involve annual evaluations, at a minimum.
We believe GAO is on target with its analysis identifying
shortcomings and variability in some of the existing CWSU support for
FAA. We are taking action to improve CWSU services to the FAA and are
working toward taking the best ideas from all of our CWSUs and creating
a more consistent and responsive customer service oriented program.
Furthermore, we are also working toward consistency between various
aviation related forecasts, warnings, and advisories issued by the NWS.
We drafted a plan to evaluate the CWSUs and have begun coordination
with the FAA.
As you know, the Next Generation Air Transportation System
(NextGen) is intended to meet projected 2025 U.S. air transportation
demands for significant growth in air traffic and airport services.
NOAA/NWS is actively involved in NextGen through its participation on
the Joint Planning and Development Office (JPDO) Board and in providing
leadership for the JPDO Weather Working Group.
NOAA/NWS recognizes that NextGen will result in a system-wide
transformation including the manner by which weather-related
information is collected, managed, disseminated, and utilized in
decision-making. To that end, NOAA/NWS plans to fully integrate NOAA's
weather development activity into NextGen development; link NOAA
funding requests for acquisition and development of weather information
needed to support NextGen to FAA NextGen funding requests; design
NOAA's contributions for NextGen-era weather support to meet FAA's
requirements; and ensure NOAA's contributions are compatible with
NextGen dissemination and display systems.
Finally, NOAA/NWS recognizes the need for extraordinarily close
coordination within the federal weather community to meet NextGen
weather support needs and believes it is essential that the federal
community bring all of our assets together effectively, along with
strong private sector participation, to ensure success. NOAA is
committed to a long-term partnership with FAA, and the rest of the
federal community, to make this happen.
The support NWS provides--whether it is a terminal forecast from a
WFO, a Center Weather Advisory from a CWSU, an icing warning from the
AWC, or a radiation alert from our SWPC--all help FAA create a National
Airspace System that is safe, efficient and cost effective for the
people of this country.
Biography for John L. Hayes
John L. ``Jack'' Hayes is the NOAA Assistant Administrator for
Weather Services and National Weather Service Director. In this role,
he is responsible for the day-to-day civilian weather operations of 122
local Weather Forecast Offices, 13 River Forecast Centers, nine
National Centers for Environmental Prediction, and 21 Aviation Weather
Service Units in the United States, Puerto Rico, Hawaii, and Guam.
The National Weather Service (NWS) provides daily weather forecasts
and warnings to the American media, emergency managers, fire land
managers, commercial weather partners, and the general public for
weather and natural hazards such as hurricanes, tornadoes, severe
thunderstorms, flash floods, winter storms, extreme fire weather
conditions, tsunamis, and solar flares.
Dr. Hayes rejoined the National Weather Service after serving as
the director of the World Weather Watch Department at the World
Meteorological Organization (WMO), a specialized agency of the United
Nations located in Geneva, Switzerland. In that position, he was
responsible for the global observing, global telecommunications, and
global data processing and forecasting systems that provide the
foundation for operational weather forecasting and warning services for
188 WMO member countries worldwide. During this period, he led the
development of the WMO Strategic Plan which was approved by WMO's 15th
Congress in May 2007.
Before joining the WMO, he served in several senior executive
positions at NOAA. As the deputy assistant administrator for NOAA
Research, he was responsible for the management of research programs.
As Deputy Assistant Administrator of the National Ocean Service (NOS),
he was the chief operating officer dealing with a multitude of ocean
and coastal challenges, including NOS's response to the Hurricane
Katrina disaster in August 2005. As Director of Office of Science and
Technology for the NWS, he was responsible for the infusion of new
science and technology essential to weather service operations; he was
recognized as one of the Federal Government's Top 100 IT Executives for
his leadership of programs to improve information processing and
dissemination supporting NWS's weather forecast and warning mission.
Dr. Hayes was also an executive in the private sector and the
military. He was general manager of the $500 million Automated Weather
Interactive Processing System program at Litton-PRC from 1998 through
2000. AWIPS is the interactive computer system utilized by all weather
service forecasters. From 1970 through 1998, he held a variety of
meteorological positions with the United States Air Force, beginning as
a weather forecast officer in 1970 and culminating his career as
Commander of the Air Force Weather Agency and Air Force Global Weather
Center.
He received both his Ph.D. and Master of Science degrees in
meteorology from the Naval Post Graduate School in Monterey,
California. He is a graduate of Bowling Green State University, with a
Bachelor's degree in mathematics. He is a Fellow in the American
Meteorological Society.
Chairman Lampson. Thank you, Dr. Hayes. Mr. Juba, you are
recognized for five minutes.
STATEMENT OF MR. EUGENE D. JUBA, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT FOR
FINANCE SERVICES, AIR TRAFFIC ORGANIZATION, FEDERAL AVIATION
ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Juba. Good afternoon, Chairman Lampson and Congressman
Inglis. My name is Gene Juba, and I am the Senior Vice
President for Finance at the ATO, the Air Traffic Organization,
part of the FAA. I spent the past 20 years in the aviation
industry, first with the airlines, and now in my position here
at the FAA. I am pleased to be here today to discuss the
findings and the recommendations of the GAO regarding FAA's
provision of aviation and weather services from the National
Weather Service.
The Federal Aviation Administration is responsible for
ensuring safe, orderly, and efficient air travel in the
national airspace system. We safely guide over 50,000 aircraft,
per day, through the Nation's skies. FAA and NWS have worked
together for many years to provide weather forecast services
for pilots, controllers, and all users of the Nation's
airspace. The National Weather Services began providing
aviation meterologics at the FAA's en route centers following
the NTSB's report on the crash in 1977 of Southern Airways
Flight 242. The FAA with the assistance of the NWS created
Center Weather Service Units, or CWSUs, that are located at
each of the FAA's 21 en route centers.
In recent years, FAA has taken action to assess and improve
the performance of the Center Weather Service Units. FAA found
that the CWSUs were not providing the same level of services at
all of its locations, and that the services and forecasts were
not standardized across the 21 centers, the results of low
collaboration or communication between the CWSUs at each of the
stations. Neither the FAA nor the NWS had a formal quality-
assurance program for weather products and services. To address
these concerns, the FAA requested the NWS restructure its
aviation weather services, improve the capability and delivery
of weather information, and to transform the current collection
of isolated units to a national program for support of all FAA
field units or field sites.
The NWS submitted its restructuring proposal to the FAA in
October 2006. In addition to the Weather Service effort, the
FAA conducted a market survey to determine private-sector
capability in delivering those weather services needed by its
controllers. Organizations, including a government laboratory,
responded to that survey. The FAA reviewed both NWS's proposal
and the results of the market survey. Based on that review, the
FAA chose to refine its requirements for the CWSU service. They
completed this exercise and provided new requirements to the
Weather Service last month.
The performance-based requirements suggest a new approach
as to how weather services are generated and delivered. The
requirements addressed deficiencies the FAA has identified in
its CWSU service, such as a fragmented approach to aviation
weather forecasting. They have requested that forecasts across
regional boundaries be more consistent and that more attention
and resources be devoted to area where active weather
conditions exist and less to where weather is of less impact on
aviation. The requirements also request that NWS provide
services on a 24-hour-a-day, seven-day-a-week basis, rather
than the current 16 hours per day. We must evolve our delivery
of weather information to support the Next Generation Air
Traffic System, and these requirements set us on that path.
I thank the GAO for their careful analysis and positive
recommendations. The FAA agrees with their recommendations, and
in building the requirements for the CWSU service, it has added
a component for performance evaluation. We are asking for a set
of negotiated performance metrics that match aviation weather
services being provided. Oversight will be done jointly between
the FAA and the national weather service.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, the FAA and the Weather
Service are doing their utmost to improve the CWSU service. FAA
has continuously held meeting with the Weather Service,
throughout the requirement-development phase, and continues to
hold biweekly meetings during the proposal-development process,
to ensure that the NSW is provided sufficient information and
the opportunity to develop an improved service. The FAA looks
forward to the NSW's future concept of operations for the
central weather service units and hopes to continue our
cooperative relations well into the future to reduce the impact
weather has on aviation.
We also welcome Congress's advice and counsel as we work
with the National Weather Service to improve the efficiency and
effectiveness of the center weather service unit services.
This concludes my remarks, and I would be happy to answer
any questions the Committee might have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Juba follows:]
Prepared Statement of Eugene D. Juba
Good Afternoon, Chairman Lampson, Congressman Inglis, and Members
of the Subcommittee, my name is Gene Juba, and I am the Senior Vice
President for Finance in the FAA's Air Traffic Organization. I am
honored to be here today to discuss the findings and recommendations of
the GAO regarding FAA's provision of aviation weather services from
NOAA's National Weather Service. FAA believes that working together
with NWS, we will be able to fulfill the new requirements for aviation
weather services which FAA recently sent to the NWS, and move towards a
better alignment of current services with the future requirements
envisioned in the NextGen Concept of Operations.
The Federal Aviation Administration is responsible for ensuring
safe, orderly, and efficient air travel in the National Airspace
System. The legislative foundation of the Federal Government's
regulation of civil aviation was the Air Commerce Act of 1926. This
landmark legislation was passed in the belief that the aviation
industry could not reach its full potential without federal action to
establish and maintain safety standards. The Act charged the Secretary
of Commerce with fostering air commerce, issuing and enforcing air
traffic rules, licensing pilots, certifying aircraft, establishing
runways and operating and maintaining aids to navigation.
The Department of Commerce continued oversight and regulation of
civil aviation until 1938, when the Civil Aeronautics Act transferred
federal civil aviation responsibilities to a new independent agency,
the Civil Aeronautics Authority. In 1958, passage of the Federal
Aviation Act transferred the CAA's functions to the newly created
Federal Aviation Agency, and the FAA was born. The FAA became the
Federal Aviation Administration upon the creation of the Department of
Transportation in 1967, and the FAA's becoming one of the modal
organizations within the new Department.
All through these years, the FAA and the Weather Bureau cooperated
to provide weather forecast services for pilots to improve the safety
of the Nation's aviation system. A formal arrangement by which the
National Weather Service would provide aviation weather services
directly through co-location of NWS meteorologists at FAA facilities
was established following the NTSB's report on the 1977 crash of
Southern Airways flight 242. The NTSB's recommendation called for the
FAA to, ``formulate rules and procedures for the timely dissemination
by air traffic controllers of all available severe weather information
to inbound and outbound flights in the terminal areas.'' Based on this
recommendation, the FAA, with the assistance of the NWS, created the
Center Weather Service Units (CWSU), which are located at each of the
FAA's 21 Air Route Traffic Control Centers (ARTCC) across the United
States.
This relationship between the FAA and the NWS was codified in 1994,
when Public Law 103-272 directed that, ``The Administrator of the
Federal Aviation Administration shall make recommendations to the
Secretary of Commerce on providing meteorological services necessary
for the safe and efficient movement of aircraft in air commerce. In
providing the services, the Secretary shall cooperate with the
Administrator and give complete consideration to those
recommendations.'' (49 U.S.C. 44720(a) )
Presently, the FAA alone spends over $200 million a year on
aviation weather services, through over 40 observing systems, processes
and communications services. This is independent of the NWS spending
for aviation weather forecasting and research. FAA spends approximately
$12 million a year to support the 84 NWS employees located at 21 CWSUs
to provide services to FAA traffic management personnel located at the
air traffic control facilities throughout the National Airspace System
(NAS). The NWS also provides aviation weather services through entities
such as the Alaska Aviation Weather Office, the Volcanic Ash Advisory
Centers, the Aviation Weather Center in Kansas City, Missouri, and
Weather Forecast Offices. NWS provides warning, forecasts,
meteorological advice and consultation for FAA and other customers
throughout all phases of flight; pre-flight, planning, and operations.
In recent years, the FAA has undertaken a number of initiatives to
assess and improve the performance of the Center Weather Service Units.
FAA found that the CWSUs were not providing the same level of services
at all of its locations, and the services and forecasts were not
standardized across the 21 locations. There was also little
collaboration or communication between the different CWSUs. In
addition, neither the FAA nor the NWS had a formal quality assurance
program for CWSU products and services.
To address these concerns, FAA requested that the NWS restructure
its aviation weather services to provide improved services in a more
efficient, performance-based process. While the NWS was developing its
proposal for restructuring its aviation weather services, FAA conducted
a market survey to determine if the private sector could provide the
weather services FAA needed. Ten organizations, including government
laboratories and private sector firms, responded to the market survey
that they could provide the services FAA requested. The NWS submitted
its restructuring proposal to FAA in October 2006. In April 2007, FAA
declined the NWS proposal for restructuring its aviation weather
services provided to FAA, primarily because, in the intervening time,
we had initiated an internal review of our requirements, and had not
yet completed this review. The results of that review are the new
requirements which were provided to the NWS in January 2008.
However, we are serious about effective interagency cooperation and
continue to work with the NWS on improving CWSU services. We decided
that we would refine our requirements for the services provided by the
CWSUs because our existing requirements were too broad to ensure the
efficiency and cost effectiveness of the services. Also, as GAO found,
FAA did not have a system in place to provide quality assurance of the
services provided by the NWS, and thus could not objectively evaluate
the accuracy, efficiency and cost effectiveness of the Center Weather
Service Units.
The FAA agrees with the recommendations of the GAO, and in building
the new requirements for the CWSU service, added a component of
performance evaluation. The performance mechanism calls for setting up
a team of individuals from both FAA and NWS, which will convene
regularly and monitor and provide recommendations on CWSU services
based upon a negotiated set of performance metrics. The goal of this
team is to install a mechanism that will improve CWSU service on a
continuing basis and enhance the FAA-NWS aviation weather relationship
at the same time. Most importantly, we must ensure that aviation
weather services meet the needs of the aviation community.
In January 2008, FAA provided NWS with revised and clarified
requirements. The new performance based requirements request a new
approach to how the products are generated and delivered. The
requirements address deficiencies the FAA has identified with CWSU
service, such as a fragmented approach to aviation weather forecasting,
with 21 aviation weather forecasts developed independently of one
another, and sometimes producing inconsistent products across the NAS.
FAA has requested that forecasts across regional boundaries be
consistent and that more attention be devoted to areas with ``active''
weather conditions, and less to areas where weather patterns are having
less impact on aviation operations. The new requirements also request
CWSU services on a 24 hour a day, seven days a week basis, rather than
the current 16 hours a day, seven days a week services. Planes are
increasingly operating on a 24/7 basis, and aviation weather services
need to evolve to meet that demand.
FAA views the new requirements as moving current aviation weather
services towards the FAA's future requirements envisioned in the
NextGen Concept of Operations. The NWS is the team lead for developing
the aviation weather services observing systems, forecasting services,
and communications delivery systems for the interagency NextGen system
effort, and FAA believes that the new requirements for CWSU services
will help NWS better align itself with the NextGen requirements.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, the FAA and the NWS are doing their
utmost to improve the CWSU service. FAA has continuously held meetings
with the NWS throughout the requirements development process, and
continues to hold bi-weekly meetings with NWS during the proposal
development process to ensure that the NWS is provided sufficient
information and opportunity to develop an improved CWSU service. We
believe the NWS is committed to providing their best response to these
requirements. The FAA looks forward to the NWS's future concept of
operations for the Center Weather Service Units, and hopes to continue
our cooperative relationship well into the future to reduce the impact
weather has on aviation.
We thank the GAO for their careful analysis and positive
recommendations to institute performance measurements and metrics to
improve the quality and cost effectiveness of aviation weather
services. We also welcome Congress' assistance and counsel as we work
with the National Weather Service to improve the efficiency and
effectiveness of Center Weather Service Unit services.
This concludes my remarks, and I would be happy to answer any
questions the Committee may have.
Biography for Eugene D. Juba
Eugene D. Juba is a finance professional with 15 years experience
in the private sector. Prior to joining the ATO, he was working as an
independent consultant and as the CFO for a technology startup in the
Washington, DC area. Prior to this assignment, he worked at two major
commercial airlines.
In 1999, he joined U.S. Airways as Vice President of Financial
Planning and Analysis. There he led a group of finance, operations
research and industrial engineering professionals and was responsible
for the development of operating budget and providing analytic support
of other departments on key strategic initiatives. His group also led
process re-engineering efforts in all parts of the operation.
Prior to going to U.S. Airways, Juba spent 11 years at United
Airlines in a number of roles including Director of Financial Analysis,
Assistant Treasurer and Corporate Development. The breadth of
activities he was involved in included labor negotiations, financing of
aircraft and facilities, stakeholder presentations, structuring of the
United ESOP and the development of the original business plan for
Shuttle by United.
Juba attended the U.S. Naval Academy graduating in 1981 with a
Bachelor's of Science degree in Electrical Engineering. Upon
graduation, he served as a naval officer aboard the nuclear submarine
USS Benjamin Franklin. Upon leaving the Navy, he attended the Wharton
School at the University of Pennsylvania earning a Master in Business
Administration degree in Finance in 1988.
Juba resides with his wife, Dianne, and two sons, Warren and
Collin, in McLean, Va.
Discussion
Chairman Lampson. Thank you, Mr. Juba. I will now entertain
questions from the panel of Members, and I will recognize
myself for the first five minutes.
Relationship Between FAA and NWS
I will start, Mr. Powner, with you and ask you how you
would characterize the relationship between the FAA and the
National Weather Service in the context of this program? It
just seems to me that the problem here is attributable to poor
communication between the two agencies. Would improvement in
this area help to move this program in the right direction?
Mr. Powner. Clearly, I would characterize it with one word:
improving. I think, historically, the collaboration and
coordination between the two agencies, at the working level,
there may have been a lot going on, but clearly, at the
executive level, it is improving, and that is a good thing to
move forward, that we clearly understand the requirements going
forward. We have agreement on that, and we also have agreement
on how we are going to measure it to constantly improve these
services.
Chairman Lampson. There are a lot of issues. Are the steps
that are being taken to address the issues between the FAA and
NSW, are they reasonable steps?
Mr. Powner. Yes, I believe the delivery of the requirements
was a very positive step at the conclusion of our review. You
know, going forward, now there is some hard work ahead of us to
get agreement on that, to establish additional measures, to
establish clear baselines, and then to actually implement this.
So yes, right now, we are moving in the right direction, but
there is clearly a lot of work ahead.
Evaluating the Performance of CWSUs
Chairman Lampson. FAA's testimony refers to several studies
that they did to evaluate CWSUs, and your report indicates that
FAA had never specified requirements for the services to be
delivered to them, and neither FAA or NWS have any system to
evaluate the performance of the CWSUs. Would you elaborate on
that apparent discrepancy?
Mr. Powner. Well, clearly, FAA has studied the situation,
and it has been widely acknowledged here on this panel that the
services have been, you know, inconsistent and not
standardized. We have heard that, clearly, there were some en
route centers that they were more pleased with than others with
the services, and the requirements, to date, have not been
specified to the level that have recently been delivered. And I
think with that specificity comes, you know, improvement in an
understanding in what needs to be delivered, and ultimately,
hopefully, an improvement in the services that NWS provides.
Responding to New FAA Requirements
Chairman Lampson. Thank you. Dr. Hayes, what are your plans
for responding to FAA's new requirements?
Dr. Hayes. Well, as I mentioned in testimony, I formed a
team, and there are three scenarios that they would like us to
propose to, involving how we would meet their requirements, and
they have been very detailed in their requirements, and so I
have a team, and there are three subsets of that team, each one
focused on optimizing products and services in support of
aviation for that particular scenario. And then there is cross-
talk between the teams.
As Mr. Juba has mentioned, there has been an ongoing
dialogue between my team and the FAA. In fact, within the next
week, they are going to go over it, because I have just seen a
rough draft of the proposal. We are going to run the proposal
by them within the next one--I would say a week to ten days, in
time to get feedback that if we are in the wrong operating
quadrant, if we are missing the mark, then, we have time to
recover, and we intend to meet the date that they have given
us, which is May 7.
So I think there is a good dialogue going on at the worker
level. I have also, at my level, have been talking with Mr.
Juba, with Mr. Cox, who is the Vice President for Flight
Operations. I have, on my March calendar, Mr. Sam Martino, who
is VP for Systems Operation. So I am going to engage at all
levels, from my level on down to the people on the team, and
Congressman, I am hoping with that we will meet the need.
Ensuring Consistency of Weather Products and Services
Chairman Lampson. How can you better ensure consistency
among aviation weather products and services provided by the
Center Weather Service Units, weather forecast offices and the
Aviation Weather Center?
Dr. Hayes. We have three initiatives going on at the
present time. One of them is, clearly, what the GAO said,
metrics. The FAA has a metric referred to as the weather impact
traffic index. If you look at the output of that metric, it
tells us when we are over-forecasting for an air route or
under-forecasting. That, we are going to use as the basis, so
we have an ongoing effort to develop a standardized metric
within the Weather Service of our products and services. It
relates directly to what the FAA is using to measure what its
air route traffic controllers do.
That is one. There will be other metrics that we will
incorporate that are product related from our center units. We
also are going to implement by the end of the year a field
visit program. And it is not going to be a subjective one. We
are going to have somebody from the FAA on the team; and we
will have somebody from my headquarters. We will assure that
there is a report written with findings and recommendations,
and that will come to senior leadership of the Weather Service.
And then, the last thing that I will tell you is I am aware
of the feedback we get on the operation at Dallas-Fort Worth.
The FAA tells me this is a top-tier operation, and they have
told me that there are others that aren't so good. And so what
I have done is I have been out to Dallas-Fort Worth, seen the
operation. My deputy has been out there, and I have sent one of
my regional directors out there to see it, and we are going to
focus on another ARTTC and how I can migrate some of those best
practices right into that, and then we are going to broaden
them across the Weather Service. So I think, in my mind, that
will take a big bite out of the consistency program, and there
are other measures that we have in mind as well.
Chairman Lampson. Figure out what they are doing right, and
bottle it.
Dr. Hayes. Yes, sir.
Chairman Lampson. I am going to stop for just a minute and
recognize Mr. Inglis for his questions, and I will come back
with a few others.
NWS Communication With the FAA
Mr. Inglis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Hayes, are there other customers of the National
Weather Service that want information delivered in a different
way? Is that correct? Or is FAA a major customer of the
National Weather Service.
Dr. Hayes. Sir, I would say FAA is a major customer of the
Weather Service. We have emergency managers that want
information, and our mission is to protect life an property,
and so we take it very seriously, and we listen to them, and so
my aim is to do the same to another very important customer of
the Weather Service, and that is the FAA.
Mr. Inglis. Is that the organization--it sounds like this
may be relatively recent. We have been talking about exactly
how to deliver it the way that FAA wants it. Is that a new
thing, or has that been an ongoing conversation?
Dr. Hayes. I think it has been ongoing. I think to a
certain extent, senior leadership in the Weather Service bears
some responsibility for not hearing what the FAA is saying, and
I think there is no way to candy-coat that. I think it is
important to recognize that, and then just to focus on doing a
better job listening and dialoguing, and that is what I hope to
do on an executive level.
Mr. Inglis. I wonder if--was shipping, for example,
something about the way the National Weather Service delivers
it, more designed for shipping interests or----
Dr. Hayes. Sir, I think if there are differences, what we
did when we created the Center Weather Service Units. In an
effort to ensure customer responsiveness to the FAA and the
ARTTCs, we integrated the IT that does the delivery into their
architecture. We have a separate weather service architecture
that we use for the public, and while take great effort to
ensure consistency, there are differences because you have two
different architectures that are going to occur.
It is our intent to work with the FAA to make sure that
where there are differences, there are good reasons, and where
there are differences, they do not have any significance to the
quality of the products and services we provide.
FAA Weather Contracting
Mr. Inglis. Mr. Juba, could you go somewhere else to get
weather information? Contract with somebody else besides the
National Weather Service?
Mr. Juba. Just look at our weather portfolio today. We
actually get weather information from a number of different
people and services out there. Obviously, the National Weather
Service is an important part of that, but today, we have
weather-sensing equipment. We have what we call the automated
ASOS, which are equipment at airports that give us information
on ceiling and on temperature. Some are maintained by us, and
some are maintained by the Weather Service. So there are a
number of different areas where we can get weather information.
When we did the market survey last year, too, there was--we
did get ten people, including one government laboratory that
was actually interested in--or that had the capability or
thought they had the capability to provide that service. On the
CWSUs, specifically, we are working with National Weather
Service, today, to hope get deliver of information in a manner
that meets both of our needs.
Mr. Inglis. If it doesn't, do you have statutory authority
to go deal with somebody else? The second part of that
question, do you pay National Weather Service, or does money
move from FAA to National Weather Service?
Mr. Juba. To answer the latter question, we pay the
National Weather Service about $12 million for the center
weather service units. On the first part, we are optimistic in
getting to an agreement with the Weather Service on how to
evolve the CWSUs. What makes me optimistic is I look at another
important thing we are doing within the agency, which is
looking to the next generation concept of operations. There is
a working group there, the weather working group, of which the
Weather Service, ourselves, DOD and some other agencies
actually sit on, so we are actually getting a common view of
where we want to take weather information, collection,
generation, dissemination. So we have that goal we are looking
to get to. That is part of the reason why we put together our
new requirements because we need to head towards that goal. It
makes me optimistic, because the Weather Service has the same
goal. I am optimistic that we will get there.
Mr. Inglis. Now, do you share the optimism that the
deadline will be met?
Mr. Juba. The May deadline? Well, if Dr. Hayes says he will
meet the date, then I assume he will meet the date. I mean
there is a lot that the Weather Service has done and has
stepped up since the report came out and the time of this
hearing, and I have been impressed with the actions to date, so
yes, I am optimistic, cautiously optimistic, but I am hopeful
that he meets the date.
Mr. Inglis. Thanks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Lampson. Thank you, Mr. Inglis. I recognize myself
for five minutes.
And Dr. Hayes, if the FAA considered out-sourcing the
Weather Services NWS provides, do you thin these services can
be achieved either at a comparable level or better than the
National Weather Service products and services? Can you make
it--and could it be made to be more cost efficient?
Dr. Hayes. Congressman, I am going to give you a biased
answer. The government has given us the mission and
responsibility to provide aviation services to the FAA. And if
weather forecasts and warnings have the potential to impact
public safety, we think we need to be involved, and I intend to
show with our actions that we can do better than what they can
do elsewhere.
I will say--and I guess I will just leave it at that, sir.
Chairman Lampson. Let me take it back for just a second.
Cost efficiency: the first question that comes to mind, if they
are going to provide, essentially, the same service as what
your service is providing, can it be done for the same cost?
Would it be more cost efficient to have a private entity to do
it as opposed to a public entity?
Dr. Hayes. That is a difficult question to answer in the
fact that I don't know of a private-sector company out there
that can do everything we do. And we do everything from the
observing--that is the balloons we launch every 12 hours--to
the model runs, processing of the data on high-performance
computing systems. And so if they were to take on that entire
mission, there is no way that I believe that they could.
I believe that we have shown with our support to emergency
managers that we are the most effective supplier of that
information, and I think that we can do the same thing for the
FAA far more efficiently than can be done in the private
sector.
Chairman Lampson. Thank you. Mr. Juba, do you want to
comment on that?
Mr. Juba. It would be premature for me to comment, you
know, before we see the proposal put together, but they are
looking at--they are taking a hard look at how they provide the
service.
And you get back to the expertise. It is not a question on
expertise. The Weather Service has that. I think what we are
looking at is the, you know, are we doing the best we can to
deliver weather information. This is--the CWSUs have been in
place for a number of years, and technology has evolved over
that time. We saw that through our market survey, and I think
with use of that technology and increasing capability, I think
the Weather Service can get to it.
More on CWSU Support
Chairman Lampson. Is it your plan to seek weather service
support for the Center Weather Service Units from outside
sources? Will you all go forward with your request?
Mr. Juba. Right now, we are talking solely with the Weather
Service on that. We provided the requirements that we put
together that we provided them last month, and they only went
to the Weather Service.
Chairman Lampson. What are your time frames for--let me go
back. CWSUs arrangement has been in place for some two decades,
over two decades. Why haven't you implemented performance
measures for these weather services before now?
Dr. Hayes. I think, Congressman, I should answer that
because here are units, and I would say that we did have
metrics evaluating our primary products and services. They were
being produced outside of the CWSUs, and the primary focus of
the CWSUs was originally decision assistance, and it was taking
products produced elsewhere and conveying those to controllers
in the FAA. We have evolved the mission. There is production
going on at CWSUs, and I say that we need to develop those
measures now, and we will.
Evaluating NWS Proposals
Chairman Lampson. Mr. Juba, how do you plan to evaluate the
proposals that NWS will submit?
Mr. Juba. One of the things we noted earlier, the
deficiencies we saw with the service being delivered today, so
we are looking at how the Weather Service changed what they do
with the CWSUs in those specific areas, those areas being, you
know, fragmented approach, the inconsistency across regional
lines, you know, one en route center versus another, you know,
having two different forecasts conflicting. We need that
standard product, that nationwide look at how weather
information is delivered and a consistent product, so we will
be looking in those areas. We have expertise, you know, within
the FAA that deals with air traffic measuring units that are
actually the customers of that service that will be involved in
the evaluation of the proposal. Plus, we are advantaged also,
having done the market survey a year ago, we know what is out
there in the market and what the capabilities are. We also, a
year ago, did a prototype of remote delivery of weather
information from a remote location to a customer organization
or customer site, so we know that is available and that it does
work.
Chairman Lampson. Mr. Juba, the requirements were produced
after the survey, were they not? And if so, how can that be
used to really make a good decision with the services?
Mr. Juba. That is correct. The survey was put out last
year, and our new requirements came out last month. What was
referred to on the surveys, we, through the survey, it gave us
an idea of what can be done, you know, what capabilities are
out there, currently, in the commercial world, for delivery of
weather information. I mean that is a benchmark, if you will,
on the possible, but I mean there is no--you know, it is not a
price comparison or anything.
NWS and FAA Working Cooperatively
Chairman Lampson. To both Dr. Hayes and Mr. Juba, the
picture GAO paints of the past working relationship between
your two organizations is not an attractive one. Your
relationship appears to have been characterized by a lack of
coordination and cooperation. I believe you and your agencies
are now moving in the right direction. The safety of the public
and the effective management of our air traffic system are,
obviously, paramount concerns, so please fix the problem. FAA
needs to define their need and communicate them effectively to
the National Weather Service. The National Weather Service
needs to do a better job of ensuring consistency in service
delivery and should be responsive to FAA's need for cost-
effective, high quality forecasting information. Both agencies
should work together in a cooperative fashion to design and
implement a high quality aviation weather service--or weather
forecast system that we need. So would you care to comment?
Both of you?
Dr. Hayes. Sir, you have my strongest commitment to do what
you just said, because that is what our intent is to do.
Chairman Lampson. Thank you. Mr. Juba.
Mr. Juba. Yes, we are committed, also. We have worked with
the Weather Service, again, to develop our requirements and
actually meet with them biweekly, today, as they put together
their proposal. We are committed to working with them.
Chairman Lampson. Excellent. I think that we have developed
such a feeling among the public, I think, that our bureaucracy
is getting such to the point where we are not capable of
providing services, and that there is such a lack of
communication. I was in a meeting this morning that had to do
with the area from which I come in Texas, and the agency with
whom--several Members from our area were meeting and said that
it was the first time they had seen a unified support for a
project, and it is strange that we have to have comments made
like that, that it is out of the ordinary for us to actually
work together.
It has been disheartening to me for a long period of time,
but I see the opportunity for things to change, and with those
kinds of commitments, we really can be responsive to the needs
of our people, not responsive to the needs of the politics of
some. And it would be nice when we can say that about everybody
and we quit playing some of the games that we seem to have been
playing over time.
Mr. Inglis, that is all I have to say. If you have----
Mr. Inglis. I have no further questions, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Lampson. Well, then, I certainly want to thank the
panel, and I thank all of you for coming and appearing before
our subcommittee.
Under the Rules of the Committee, the record will be held
open for two weeks for Members to submit additional statements
and any additional questions that they might have for the
witnesses. If we have those, we will mail them to you. And with
that, this hearing is adjourned. Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 4:25 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
Appendix:
----------
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by Vice Admiral Conrad C. Lautenbacher, Jr., Under Secretary
of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere; NOAA Administrator,
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S.
Department of Commerce
Questions submitted by Representative Bob Inglis
Q1a. When the Administration was developing its FY09 budget request,
was it assumed that the $25 million included in the FY08 CJS
Appropriations bills in both the House and Senate for climate sensors
would pass?
A1a. Since such funds were included in both the House and Senate marks,
the Administration thought it was possible at one point, but by the
time the Administration concluded development of its 2009 request the
2008 appropriation bill had been finalized without the funding.
Q1b. How was that FY 08 funding to be used?
A1b. If the approximately $25 million had been provided, it would have
been used to support work on restoring CERES and TSIS instruments. It
should be noted that NOAA and NASA have identified funding within their
FY 2008 resources that will be used to initiate the CERES and TSIS
efforts.
Q1c. How has the elimination of this $25 million from the FY08 Omnibus
Appropriations bill affected development of key climate sensors for the
NPOESS satellite program?
A1c. As reported previously, the Administration has developed a cost-
effective, prioritized package of steps to preserve data continuity for
certain key climate measurements that were removed from the NPOESS
program during the 2006 restructuring of that effort. Such steps relate
to the required sensor analysis and development work to sustain two
important climate measurement capabilities: total solar irradiance
(measured by the Total Solar Irradiance Sensor, or TSIS) and earth
radiation budget data (from the Clouds and Earth Radiant Energy System
sensor, or CERES). This initiative is supported by $74 million in funds
contained in the President's FY 2009 Budget request, and it represents
the Administration's principal plan for addressing these important
measurements in the near-term. As such, the Administration believes
that full funding of NOAA's FY 2009 President's Budget request is
required to ensure uninterrupted access for these important data.
Within this context, the elimination of the $25 million in FY 2008
climate sensor funds had the potential to postpone necessary analysis
and design efforts and potentially lead to scheduling challenges in
terms of adding the sensors to other spacecraft. However, as noted
earlier, NOAA and NASA have identified funding within their FY 2008
resources that will be used to initiate the CERES and TSIS efforts in
the required time frames.
Q1d. How effective will the $74 million request for climate sensors in
FY09 be in the development of these instruments and maintenance of the
launch timeline?
A1d. The President's FY 2009 Budget request for $74 million will allow
NOAA and NASA to continue the necessary work to place the Total Solar
Irradiance Sensor (TSIS) and Clouds and Earth Radiant Energy System
(CERES) instrument onto available satellites in the timeframe required
to prevent data continuity gaps. With this funding, NOAA and NASA will
be in a position to address these deadlines and potential data gaps.
Q1e. If this Congress once again fails to make climate sensors a
priority in the FY 09 appropriations bill, how can the U.S. best
utilize data from international sensors to meet climate change data
requirements?
A1e. If the FY 2009 budget request is not funded, the United States
will be required to utilize data from international sensors through
collaborative partnerships as the data becomes available. However,
establishing these partnerships will take time and access to these data
is not guaranteed. Moreover, the data are likely to be incomplete and
not fully compatible with U.S. models and algorithms, which could
result in harmful gaps in the data record.
Furthermore, not funding the request for climate sensors and
climate data records in the President's FY 2009 Budget request would
require NOAA to cancel any TSIS instrument development in FY 2009 and
impair our ability to fly a replacement CERES instrument on the first
NPOESS satellite (NPOESS-CI). The cancellation of TSIS development
would create a data gap in total solar irradiance measurements (a
Global Essential Climate Variable), thus disrupting a data record that
is approximately thirty years old.
Q2. The President's budget request includes money to study risk
reduction measures for ocean vector winds. If this money is not
appropriated, how does NOAA intend to analyze QuikSCAT follow-on
options? Is NOAA considering observation methods other than satellites
to meet this data requirement?
A2. The President's FY 2009 Budget request includes a $3 million
initiative to continue studies for ocean surface vector winds,
including options for addressing this requirement from satellite and
non-satellite sources. If the FY 2009 funds are not appropriated, NOAH
will be unable to undertake the necessary studies to further refine and
analyze mission concepts, including studies to define and reduce the
risk of likely options. In the interim, NOAA will continue to use
QuikSCAT measurements until the satellite fails. NOAA is also
collaborating with our partners in Europe to determine how to best use
data from European satellites. We are also talking with India and China
about obtaining data from their proposed satellites that will carry
similar technologies.
Non-satellite options include but are not limited to the use of
buoys, aircraft, and fixed platforms in coastal areas that measure wind
vectors near the ocean surface. NOAA will continue to work on improving
the number and quality of observations from aircraft and research the
use of unmanned aerial systems. With the requested funding, NOAA will
study space-based and nonspace-based alternatives to meet the
requirement.
Q3. I understand that in FY08, the GOES-R program suffered a $44
million cut from the original budget request that caused a three- to
four-month delay in the launch schedule. If NOAA is not appropriated
the President's full budget request for FY09, what will be the impact
on the 2015 launch date? How will such a slip affect existing satellite
capabilities?
A3. If the FY 2009 Congressional appropriation does not fully fund the
President's Budget request, NOAA would carefully assess how to
distribute the funding reduction. Potential options include further
delays to the launch schedule and a reassessment of the sensor suite. A
delay to GOES-R would increase the risk to overall geostationary
satellite data continuity for the United States in the event of a
failure of one of the nearly completed GOES satellites. GOES-O or GOES-
P. Without the imagery from GOES satellites, the Nation's view of
severe weather, including hurricanes, would be severely hampered
reducing warning lead times for the Nation.
The President's FY 2009 Budget request for the GOES-R program is
$477 million, a $242.2 million increase over FY 2008 enacted amounts.
This request will fund spacecraft and ground system contracts, continue
development of the major GOES-R instruments that already are under
contract. NOAA and NASA system engineering and integration, and program
management. GOES-R is at a critical point in its development process,
and full funding of these activities is essential to meet a launch date
of no later than April 2015 while actively managing technical, cost,
and schedule risk.
Q4. How would a 2009 continuing resolution affect the anticipated
GOES-R satellite acquisition?
A4. The impact of a continuing resolution would depend on the
particulars as to the funding level provided and its duration. Assuming
a full-year continuing resolution at the FY 2008 funding level, NOAA
would consider whether to postpone awarding contracts for the
spacecraft and ground segments. The contract for the spacecraft is
currently expected to be awarded in the first quarter of FY 2009, with
the ground segment expected to be awarded in the second quarter of FY
2009. If the program is delayed, significant costs increases would be
introduced, as well as increased risk to NOAA's ability to maintain
continuity in geostationary satellite coverage.
Q5. In February, the Committee was informed that there was a
potentially serious battery problem on the GOES-11 satellite, one of
the two primary weather satellites over the U.S. This satellite is
supposed to be operational until 2011. Although we have an on-orbit
spare, how would the loss of GOES-11 affect the importance of the GOES-
R launch timeline? How does this affect the anticipated mission life of
the on-orbit spare? Will a new reserve satellite be needed for the out-
years?
A5. Engineers at NOAH and NASA have been monitoring the GOES-11 battery
issue very carefully and have developed operational procedures to
ensure that critical instruments receive the necessary power during the
eclipse cycle that is scheduled to end in mid-April.
At this time, NOAA does not believe that the battery issue will
adversely affect the planned operational life of GOES-11, nor do we
believe that a new reserve satellite in the GOES-N series is required.
NOAA believes that the funding in the President's FY 2009 Budget
request is adequate to support GOES-R satellite development and launch
in sufficient time to ensure uninterrupted satellite data continuity
following the GOES-N series.
Q6. What steps has NOAA taken to make sure that the GOES-R program
does not repeat the mistakes of the NPOESS satellite program,
particularly with regards to delays and cost overruns?
A6. NOAA has thoroughly reviewed and applied lessons learned from the
National Polar-orbiting Operational Satellite System (NPOESS) and other
space acquisition programs to ensure that the GOES-R Program does not
repeat the same mistakes. NOAA has put a number of management and
systems engineering processes in place to implement these lessons
learned. Specific initiatives taken to keep the GOES-R development
effort on schedule and within budget include:
Risk Reduction: The procurement strategy has been
structured to address the highest risk areas of the GOES-R
program early and to ensure that the technology required for
GOES-R is sufficiently mature. NOAA recognized early that the
GOES-R instruments are a technical risk area for the program.
To address this, NOAA partnered with NASA to leverage its
strength: NOAA has placed NASA in charge of acquiring the space
segment (spacecraft, instruments, and launch) while NOAA is in
charge of the fielding the ground system. In addition, the
GOES-R program initiated instrument development efforts prior
to committing to full scale system procurement to lower the
risk of instrument development issues affecting the larger
program's cost and schedule. In addition, the GOES-R program
had prototype test models developed for the two most complex
instruments (Advanced Baseline Imager and Geostationary
Lightning Mapper) to ensure that the technology and
manufacturing processes were proven prior to building flight
instruments.
Management Oversight: NOAA studied a number of
management strategies and commissioned independent reviews to
develop the management approaches that best suit the program
and NOAA's ability to manage the risk to overall program
success. This approach is documented in a GOES-R Management
Control Plan (MCP) and patterned off-proven NASA space
acquisition processes. In implementing the MCP, NOAA has
established a robust program office that uses the expertise and
experience of both NOAA and NASA, their support contractors,
and the best of each agency's processes to ensure active and
in-depth oversight of the development contractors. Key elements
of this program office include:
1) Fully integrated NOAA and NASA program personnel
located at Goddard Space Flight Center,
2) Significant systems engineering and other technical
and programmatic oversight resources to oversee
contractor activities,
3) On-site representatives at the prime and
subcontractor facilities to increase awareness of
program status,
4) NOAA System Program Director that aggressively
manages NOAA and NASA Project Managers to ensure key
risks and technical challenges are identified and dealt
with early, before they create a risk to overall cost,
schedule and performance of the program.
External Reporting: The MCP also describes routine
reporting by the program to NOAA and NASA management regarding
program status. The program has already begun conducting
regularly-scheduled contractor technical and program management
reviews and presenting program status updates to DOC, NOAA, and
NASA leadership at a series of management reviews. NOAA has
established a Program Management Council (PMC) to provide
oversight to the major acquisition programs, and the GOES-R
program is periodically reviewed by the PMC. The GOES-R program
is implementing the program control directive contained in the
FY 2008 Omnibus Appropriations Act and will provide annual
program reports and quarterly program status reports to
Congress.
Realistic Cost Estimating and Budget: GOES-R has
developed a realistic Program Office Estimate (POE) and
reconciled this estimate with a separate NOAA Independent Cost
Estimate (ICE) effort. An important feature and lesson learned
from NPOESS was to use an 80 percent confidence level rather
than a 50 percent confidence level estimate as used in the
Department of Defense. This means the budget requests will more
likely cover expected costs without requiring additional budget
allocations to deal with unforeseen issues.
Incentive Structure: GOES-R intends to pursue a mixed
incentive and award fee incentive structure to provide the
Government the flexibility to adjust the incentive priorities
as the program progresses in response to specific issues that
may arise. Applying an important lesson from NPOESS, there is
no base fee associated with the GOES-R program. The GOES-R fee
structure includes incentives that aim to minimize cost growth
while providing incentive to the contractors to meet major
program milestones.
Independent Reviews: NOAA has used and will continue
to use an independent team of experienced space program experts
that will regularly review the GOES-R program to ensure program
readiness at key decision points and program execution status
on an annual basis.
Q7. The Administration's FY09 budget request includes doubling of
funds for the NOAA Profiler Network, the severe weather detection
network in ``Tornado Alley.'' What activities will this increase
support? How effective has the Profiler Network been in the forecasting
of tornadoes?
A7. The FY 2009 program increase for the NOAA Profiler Network (NPN) is
a planned Procurement, Acquisition and Construction (PAC) investment to
(1) convert the existing frequency of the NPN to avoid frequency
interference with the European Space Agency GPS Satellites (Galileo),
which will cause the loss of data from the NPN and (2) provide a
technology refresh to the 20-year-old observing system.
The NPN has been effective in forecasting tornadoes and has, 30
operational wind profilers located in the central U.S. along ``tornado
alley.'' Studies have shown the following improvements in tornado
detection as a result of wind profiler data:
Accuracy Performance Measures for NOAA Weather Forecast Offices (WFOs),
1999 through 2003 (Wolf, 2004).
*Selected Weather Forecast Offices in areas where tornadoes occur
often.
Q8. No funding was appropriated in FY08 for water vapor research and
the Administration's budget request includes only $0.9 million for
FY09.
Q8a. Was any money requested for water vapor research in FY08?
A8a. NOAA is committed to enhancing climate research. In the FY 2008
budget request, the Administration requested $0.9 million to support
water vapor process research.
Q8b. Considering water vapor accounts for most of the greenhouse
effect in our atmosphere, is the requested amount of funding for FY09
really sufficient to properly investigate the effect this greenhouse
gas may have on the continued warming of our climate?
A8b. The funding requested in FY 2009 is sufficient to initiate and
enhance measurements of water vapor in the lower atmosphere
(specifically the upper troposphere and the lower stratosphere between
approximately 3 to 15 miles above the surface) to be able to better
understand the processes that lead to the current distributions and lay
the foundation for future predictions of water vapor distributions.
Accurate measurement of water vapor abundances and its distribution in
this region are an essential first step in better understanding the
role of water vapor in the climate system. NOAA has a diverse mission
ranging from managing fisheries to predicting severe weather and
providing climate services. The Administration's request provides a
balanced set of priorities to sustain core mission services and address
our highest priority program needs. Even within a restrained fiscal
environment, the FY 2009 President's Budget Request includes over $319
million in NOAA for climate-related activities. This is an increase of
$53.3 million over the FY08 enacted level.
Q8c. By contrast, how much money goes toward the research of carbon
dioxide effects?
A8c. In FY 2007, NOAA spent approximately $20 million on carbon dioxide
research as part of its climate related activities, and it expects to
spend approximately the same amount in FY 2008. This amount includes
several activities and projects that are most directly related to
carbon dioxide research, such as ocean carbon monitoring, the Global
Carbon Cycle program, and climate research done at the Global
Monitoring Division of the Earth System Research Laboratory. It is
important to note that the study of carbon dioxide effects is a
fundamental part of NOAA's climate observations, research and modeling,
and there are additional carbon dioxide related activities that are
part of a larger project or program where the dollars specifically
aligned with only carbon cycle research cannot be as easily quantified.
Q8d. What are the relative concentrations of water vapor and carbon
dioxide in our atmosphere?
A8d. By quantity, there is much more water vapor than carbon dioxide in
the atmosphere. Water vapor varies from trace amounts in extremely cold
and dry air to about four percent in extremely warm and humid air. The
average amount of water vapor in the lowest part of the atmosphere
averaged for all locations is between two and three percent. In the
upper troposphere and the lower stratosphere, the amount of water vapor
is much less. Carbon dioxide levels are near 0.04 percent everywhere in
the atmosphere. That means there is more than 60 times as much water
vapor in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide in average conditions. Both
water vapor and Carbon dioxide are greenhouse gases. They both trap
outgoing long wave (infrared) radiation between the Earth and the
atmosphere. This has an effect of keeping temperatures warmer than they
otherwise would be. It should be noted, however, that increased
concentrations of water vapor and carbon dioxide alone do not create
proportionate increases in warming, as the relative effectiveness of
each greenhouse gas is dependent on more than just general
concentration in the atmosphere.
Questions submitted by Chairman David Wu and Representative Darlene
Hooley
Q1. States, Tribes and local communities are supposed to receive 27
percent of funds from the Tsunami Warning and Education Act (Public Law
109-464) for the National Tsunami Hazard Mitigation Program. Please
provide a state-by-state breakdown of all funds that went to these
entities for Fiscal Years 2006, 2007, 2008, and Fiscal Year 2009 based
on the President's budget request.
A1. The Tsunami Warning and Education Act (TWEA; Public Law 109-464)
for the National Tsunami Hazard Mitigation Program states that 27
percent of funds appropriated under this program are to go to the
National Tsunami Hazard Mitigation program (NTHMP), not necessarily to
the states, tribes, and local communities. TWEA defines the components
of the NTHMP to include:
1) Inundation mapping and models for hazard assessment
2) Community outreach and education programs to ensure
community readiness
3) Tsunami preparedness and mitigation programs
4) Promotion of adoption of tsunami warning and mitigation
measures
5) Periodic external review of the program.
The NTHMP Coordination Committee was formed on April 2, 2008 to
conduct the program as specified in Section 5 of P.L. 109-424. The
committee is chaired by NOAA's National Weather Service. To fulfill its
specific responsibilities identified by law, the Coordination Committee
will:
(1) Recommend how funds appropriated for carrying out the
program under [Section 5] will be allocated;
(2) Include representatives from Federal, State, local and
tribal governments;
(3) Provide recommendations to the National Weather Service on
how to improve the TsunamiReady program, particularly on ways
to make communities more tsunami resilient through the use of
inundation maps and other mitigation practices; and
(4) Ensure that all components of the program are integrated
with ongoing hazard warning and risk management activities,
emergency response plans, and mitigation programs in affected
areas, including integrating information to assist in tsunami
evacuation route planning.
Below is the requested state-by-state breakdown of all NTHMP
funding provided to the states for FY 2006 and FY 2007. In FY 2006,
NOAA was directed in the conference report for the FY 2006
Appropriation to fund approximately $500K each for Tsunami sirens for
the states of Washington and Oregon. This $1.0 million addition is not
reflected in the chart below. Funding distribution for FY 2008 is
planned as indicated below. The FY 2009 President's Budget NTHMP Spend
Plan by Agency is still being determined by the NTHMP Partners. In
addition to the proposed FY 2008 allocation to the States, as much as
$1.0 million of WARN Act grant funding could be used to support outdoor
(Tsunami) alerting technologies for the four Western States
(California, Washington. Oregon, and Alaska). These grants ($250K each)
are not reflected in the chart below.
Q2. NOAA has included programs such as the International Tsunami
Information Center, the NESDIS/National Geodetic Data Center and the
NOAA PMEL Inundation Mapping and Modeling Program as funding that
counts towards the 27 percent funding that is required to go towards
the National Tsunami Hazard Mitigation Program. What justification did
NOAA use to include these programs? Please provide a justification for
each program. What dollar amount from each of these programs goes to
states, tribes and local communities that would count as ``community
based'' programs as expressed in Public Law 109-464 Sec. 5(a)?
A2. As indicated in the previous response above NOAA disagrees that
States. Tribes, and local communities are supposed to receive 27
percent of funds from the Tsunami Warning and Education Act (Public Law
109-464) for the National Tsunami Hazard Mitigation Program (NTHMP).
Public Law 109-464 defines the components of the NTHMP to include
inundation mapping and models for hazard assessment, community outreach
and education programs to ensure community readiness, tsunami
preparedness and mitigation programs, promoting the adoption of tsunami
warning and mitigation measures, and providing periodic external review
of the program.
NOAA believes this is a national program that includes
participation with the States. In FY08 NOAA is meeting this 27 percent
through the following components. Attached is a spreadsheet that
reflects NOAA's FY 2008 allocation for its Tsunami Program as well as
the projected FY 2009 Tsunami spend plan based on the FY 2009
President's Budget Request. This updated spend plan was provided to the
Oregon Congressional delegation staff on March 5, 2008.
Tsunami Hazard Mitigation Program Components: (27 percent Mandate)
State Funding under the NTHMP ($2.376 million):
Historical program activity with an emphasis on Tsunami Hazard
Mitigation (community preparedness and education/outreach)
grants to States. Projected FY 2009 spend plan allocation
reflects $3,OOOK funding supplement from planned Spectrum
Auction proceeds to accelerate community-based tsunami
mitigation programs.
NOAA TsunamiReadyProgram ($750.2K): Funds accelerated
NOAA effort to expand recognition of at-risk coastal
communities as ``Tsunami Ready.'' Of the $750.2K allocated for
NOAA TsunamiReady in FY 2008, the majority (65 percent) will be
awarded to the States/local communities to aid them in becoming
TsunamiReady. FY 2009 spend plan of $1,500K funding supplement
from projected Spectrum Auction proceeds to accelerate NOAA's
Tsunami Ready programs (goal: triple number of NOAA
TsunamiReady communities added per year (from 10/year to 30/
year).
Tsunami Warnings & Earthquake Observations for Alaska
(TWEAK): Funds ($321.5K) State of Alaska Tsunami Ready Program
Support through a grant to the University of Alaska at
Fairbanks.
Expand International Tsunami Information Center
(ITIC) (Labor: two FTEs): Funds two additional FTE's for an
expanded ITIC Tsunami outreach and education efforts. The
purpose of the ITIC is to provide Tsunami Hazard information to
the international community including all member states in the
U.S. supported Pacific basin Tsunami Warning system.
PTWC-ATWC Salaries: Hazard Mitigation Warning
Coordination (two FTEs): Funds ($300.OK) for both NOAA's
Tsunami Warning Centers (located in Honolulu, HI and Palmer,
AK) which now have approximately 15 FTEs each. Approximately
one FTE ($150K) is spent on supporting NOAA's Tsunami Hazard
Mitigation/Community outreach education efforts, with the focus
on the State of Hawaii and the four Western U.S. States
(Alaska, Washington, Oregon and California).
National Environmental Data and Information Service
(NESDIS)/National Geophysical Data Center (NGDC)--Data Archive:
Funds ($275.5K) NOAA's Tsunami Historical data Archive. Key
component of NOAA's inundation mapping, modeling, and forecast
effort (funds baseline Tsunami and bathymetry data).
NOAA/Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory (PMEL)--
Inundation Mapping & Modeling Program ($2 million): Accelerates
NOAA's National inundation mapping and modeling effort. Direct
support the Tsunami Hazard Mitigation Program since Tsunami
Hazard assessment is paramount to a successful Hazard
Mitigation effort. Initial effort is focused on developing high
resolution inundation mapping and forecast models for 75 high
risk locations. FY 2009 spend plan reflects an additional
$3,OOOK funding supplement from projected Spectrum Auction
proceeds to accelerate NOAA's inundation mapping and modeling
effort to complete 75 (nationwide) forecast models by 2010
versus 2013.
NWS Base Funds: Coastal Weather Forecast Office
Warning Coordination Meteorologists (WCMs) (TsunamiReady): NWS
Base funds (Local Warnings and Forecast budget line) of
approximately $521K associated with WCMs at 34 NWS coastal
Weather Forecast Offices (WFOs) in support of NOAA's Tsunami
program. These WCMs are NOAA's (on the ground) direct focal
point with local at risk communities. There primary effort is
to educate these communities as to Tsunami Hazard Mitigation
Programs (primary focus NOAA's Tsunami Warning Program). The
Pacific Region has two coastal WCMs who spend approximately 20
percent of their time on this effort. Alaska Region has three
WCMs at 15 percent: Western Region has seven coastal WCMs at 20
percent: Southern Region has 13 coastal WCMs at seven percent:
Eastern Region has nine coastal WCMs at five percent.
International Tsunami Information Center (ITIC) Base
Funds: Funds provided to the ITIC prior to the December 2004
Indian Ocean event. FY 2008 Base funds total ($564.1K). Funded
Linder the NWS Local Warnings and Forecasts PPA. The purpose of
the ITIC is to provide Tsunami Hazard information to the
international community including all member states in the U.S.
supported Pacific basin Tsunami Warning system.
WARN ACT Grants for Outdoor Alerting Technologies: Up
to $1.0 million of WARN Act grant funding could be used to
support outdoor (Tsunami) alerting technologies for the four
Western States (California. Washington, Oregon, and Alaska).
This funding is only available in FY 2008.