Furloughs coming to the NWS?

[SBUWX23]

Despicable idea especially during severe and soon hurricane season. 

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/wp/2013/04/15/furloughs-proposed-for-national-weather-service-noaa/

 

[andyhb]

Yeah I can see this turning into a big headache already.

[CT Rain]

Despicable idea especially during severe and soon hurricane season. 

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/wp/2013/04/15/furloughs-proposed-for-national-weather-service-noaa/

 

Ugh. Worst possible timing. 

 

With more budget cuts always that seem to be around the corner what's the future for the NWS? Seems like something's going to have to change unless the powers that be wise up and fund the NWS well.

[isohume]

Lol, gotta love Kathy's contrasting statements regarding day weenies and shift workers. Saying NOAA would work to implement the day weenie's furloughs in conjunction with holiday weekends, thus giving them extended and smooth holiday breaks. However, shift workers would have to take their days off sporadically at the whims of local management, most likely an x-shift in the middle of a string when the weather isn't too bad.

[baroclinic_instability]

Ugh. Worst possible timing. 

 

With more budget cuts always that seem to be around the corner what's the future for the NWS? Seems like something's going to have to change unless the powers that be wise up and fund the NWS well.

If funding does not increase (it hasn't increase for a number of years...and at worst...actually continues to decrease), drastic measures will eventually need to occur. The most obvious would be to scale back the number of offices slowly and let attrition do its work. There are some hints that is already the plan (attrition for a number of years with little to no hiring). We shall see, but the days of 120+ NWS offices may be numbered. 

[CT Rain]

If funding does not increase (it hasn't increase for a number of years...and at worst...actually continues to decrease), drastic measures will eventually need to occur. The most obvious would be to scale back the number of offices slowly and let attrition do its work. There are some hints that is already the plan (attrition for a number of years with little to no hiring). We shall see, but the days of 120+ NWS offices may be numbered. 

 

Focus solely on warnings/high impact events and move to automation of the day-to-day forecasts during quiet wx? Don't know how you could even do that well but something's got to give, unfortunately. 

[am19psu]

Focus solely on warnings/high impact events and move to automation of the day-to-day forecasts during quiet wx? Don't know how you could even do that well but something's got to give, unfortunately. 

I can tell you that the private sector is moving in that direction - though of course, we don't have the same mission the NWS does.

[baroclinic_instability]

Focus solely on warnings/high impact events and move to automation of the day-to-day forecasts during quiet wx? Don't know how you could even do that well but something's got to give, unfortunately. 

 

 

I can tell you that the private sector is moving in that direction - though of course, we don't have the same mission the NWS does.

Oh yeah, and it works better than some may want to admit. I came from private met road weather forecasting where they automated the entire united states to great effectiveness. It can be done well, but of course you lose local scale weather impacts/knowledge, and you miss a lot of impact events (in other words...it worked well for private road weather and day to day weather, but from a public safety perspective, it would be an embarrassment). I do foresee a day when WPC takes a larger role in the overall day to day forecasting; having 120 offices each doing a forecast is inefficient. I should add I am obviously not in favor of reducing offices, and there is a lot to be said about local knowledge and outreach, but if the budget remains contentious over the next 10 years (and I personally do not see it getting better in the near future...only worse if anything), there won't be much of a choice.

 

WRN is certainly something the NWS should embrace, and that is partially where our future will be...taking larger roles in our core partners to mitigate weather impacts.

[isohume]

From an individual pay standpoint, the furlough will be pretty much be a wash considering the lower adj gross income within the same tax rate at the end of the year.

[MGorse]

I can tell you that the private sector is moving in that direction - though of course, we don't have the same mission the NWS does.

 

Automation is only good up to a point. Lack of accuracy certainly shows at least at times.

[am19psu]

Automation is only good up to a point. Lack of accuracy certainly shows at least at times.

Absolutely. There is definitely a tradeoff between efficiency and efficacy. The question is where you draw the line. Is it going to make a big difference to my customers if we're off by 7 degrees on a T+5 forecast versus being off 4 degrees if a human does it? Probably not. But it might make a difference to get the wind direction 20 degrees closer to true on a 24 hour TAF. As I implied, we have a different mission than you guys do. In the private sector, where we're trying maximize our profit while still providing a valuable service, a certain threshold of misses are going to be acceptable, whereas NWS has a much lower threshold (as it should be). But that doesn't mean it's necessarily a bad thing to ask the questions.

[ALhurricane]

Lol, gotta love Kathy's contrasting statements regarding day weenies and shift workers. Saying NOAA would work to implement the day weenie's furloughs in conjunction with holiday weekends, thus giving them extended and smooth holiday breaks. However, shift workers would have to take their days off sporadically at the whims of local management, most likely an x-shift in the middle of a string when the weather isn't too bad.

Many offices will not have the luxury of X shifts considering they are short staffed combined with peak summer leave. Some offices are down 3-5 people already. 

[Jim Marusak]

ok, let's assume that the politicians on both sides, in their "infinite wisdom", decide that some offices would be consolidated instead of ponying up enough cash to do the job properly (not advised, but possible). which offices would be most likely to close/merge given populations/demographics? and which offices would face the most political opposition to closures (from dems or the gop)?

[ALhurricane]

ok, let's assume that the politicians on both sides, in their "infinite wisdom", decide that some offices would be consolidated instead of ponying up enough cash to do the job properly (not advised, but possible). which offices would be most likely to close/merge given populations/demographics? and which offices would face the most political opposition to closures (from dems or the gop)?

 

Actually there is bi partisan support to fully fund the NWS and even reprogram funds to get through the fiscal year. However, NOAA refuses to send a reprogramming request or tell Congress what the NWS really needs to operatre. This whole ordeal is the doing of the NOAA senior management. 

[Jim Marusak]

Actually there is bi partisan support to fully fund the NWS and even reprogram funds to get through the fiscal year. However, NOAA refuses to send a reprogramming request or tell Congress what the NWS really needs to operatre. This whole ordeal is the doing of the NOAA senior management. 

so bigger question then. how long until they can get all the senior management swept out and fresh new people in there so that NOAA can get its act together?

[MGorse]

Absolutely. There is definitely a tradeoff between efficiency and efficacy. The question is where you draw the line. Is it going to make a big difference to my customers if we're off by 7 degrees on a T+5 forecast versus being off 4 degrees if a human does it? Probably not. But it might make a difference to get the wind direction 20 degrees closer to true on a 24 hour TAF. As I implied, we have a different mission than you guys do. In the private sector, where we're trying maximize our profit while still providing a valuable service, a certain threshold of misses are going to be acceptable, whereas NWS has a much lower threshold (as it should be). But that doesn't mean it's necessarily a bad thing to ask the questions.

 

Agreed. There is a difference but yeah where is the line drawn. But the automation type of thing is not all that good when one is pumping out these forecasts which basically are showing more detail than what skill is actually there (i.e. 25-day specific forecasts).

[baroclinic_instability]

I am not even going to delve into the politics of NOAA and the NWS. Besides the fact that I don't know anything besides hearsay, it really isn't worth discussing or worrying about things we have no power over. I will say, to the OP, that forecasters, even with 4 furlough days, will still be in the office forecasting. Severe weather forecasting and ops, hurricane forecasting, and other day to day ops will not take a break. 

 

With respect to automation, Adam pretty much nailed it on the head. The simple reality is automation can add a certain level of quality as a baseline. Additional input and quality added by humans requires additional costs. Private weather is all about maximizing profits, so the greater the total automation, the better. I will say, at least in road weather, near total automation did NOT benefit the user (i.e., the actual plow drivers, maintenance managers, etc. ) who were making the decisions on staffing, logistics, road treatment strategies, etc. The simple and ugly reality is state DOT budgets effectively dictate they accept the lowest bid, and some of the lowest bids are barely enough money to even support paying for one forecaster. The state wins, and the users lose with this type of approach. We could have done much better with more human interaction, but the company was limited in what it could provide. Out west in the mountains, more hands on human based forecasting is still required (and will be for decades) since automated grids simply can not approach the skill of a well trained local knowledge forecaster (not to mention 10 km grids don't cut it in complex terrain). 

 

Obviously, as a publicly funded organization without the worry of profit maximization and the goal of public safety in mind, we have less constraints. That said, we are running into a technology vs. service wall with increasingly large budget constraints, and we are still feeling out where technology and automation can be maximized without affecting public service. The simple reality is things have changed dramatically from 25 years ago during modernization, and we should change as well. I personally am a big proponent of Weather Ready Nation and working more with core partners in public safety...and providing more targeted products to those core partners. 

[am19psu]

Agreed. There is a difference but yeah where is the line drawn. But the automation type of thing is not all that good when one is pumping out these forecasts which basically are showing more detail than what skill is actually there (i.e. 25-day specific forecasts).

Oh yeah, definitely. I wasn't trying to draw attention to that sort of stuff. But automating a MOS forecast and intelligently interpolating for day 3 won't get you into too much trouble.

[am19psu]

I am not even going to delve into the politics of NOAA and the NWS. Besides the fact that I don't know anything besides hearsay, it really isn't worth discussing or worrying about things we have no power over. I will say, to the OP, that forecasters, even with 4 furlough days, will still be in the office forecasting. Severe weather forecasting and ops, hurricane forecasting, and other day to day ops will not take a break. 

 

With respect to automation, Adam pretty much nailed it on the head. The simple reality is automation can add a certain level of quality as a baseline. Additional input and quality added by humans requires additional costs. Private weather is all about maximizing profits, so the greater the total automation, the better. I will say, at least in road weather, near total automation did NOT benefit the user (i.e., the actual plow drivers, maintenance managers, etc. ) who were making the decisions on staffing, logistics, road treatment strategies, etc. The simple and ugly reality is state DOT budgets effectively dictate they accept the lowest bid, and some of the lowest bids are barely enough money to even support paying for one forecaster. The state wins, and the users lose with this type of approach. We could have done much better with more human interaction, but the company was limited in what it could provide. Out west in the mountains, more hands on human based forecasting is still required (and will be for decades) since automated grids simply can not approach the skill of a well trained local knowledge forecaster (not to mention 10 km grids don't cut it in complex terrain). 

 

Obviously, as a publicly funded organization without the worry of profit maximization and the goal of public safety in mind, we have less constraints. That said, we are running into a technology vs. service wall with increasingly large budget constraints, and we are still feeling out where technology and automation can be maximized without affecting public service. The simple reality is things have changed dramatically from 25 years ago during modernization, and we should change as well. I personally am a big proponent of Weather Ready Nation and working more with core partners in public safety...and providing more targeted products to those core partners.

Totally agree with everything you wrote here, Jason.

[ALhurricane]

I am not even going to delve into the politics of NOAA and the NWS. Besides the fact that I don't know anything besides hearsay, it really isn't worth discussing or worrying about things we have no power over. I will say, to the OP, that forecasters, even with 4 furlough days, will still be in the office forecasting. Severe weather forecasting and ops, hurricane forecasting, and other day to day ops will not take a break. 

 

With respect to automation, Adam pretty much nailed it on the head. The simple reality is automation can add a certain level of quality as a baseline. Additional input and quality added by humans requires additional costs. Private weather is all about maximizing profits, so the greater the total automation, the better. I will say, at least in road weather, near total automation did NOT benefit the user (i.e., the actual plow drivers, maintenance managers, etc. ) who were making the decisions on staffing, logistics, road treatment strategies, etc. The simple and ugly reality is state DOT budgets effectively dictate they accept the lowest bid, and some of the lowest bids are barely enough money to even support paying for one forecaster. The state wins, and the users lose with this type of approach. We could have done much better with more human interaction, but the company was limited in what it could provide. Out west in the mountains, more hands on human based forecasting is still required (and will be for decades) since automated grids simply can not approach the skill of a well trained local knowledge forecaster (not to mention 10 km grids don't cut it in complex terrain). 

 

Obviously, as a publicly funded organization without the worry of profit maximization and the goal of public safety in mind, we have less constraints. That said, we are running into a technology vs. service wall with increasingly large budget constraints, and we are still feeling out where technology and automation can be maximized without affecting public service. The simple reality is things have changed dramatically from 25 years ago during modernization, and we should change as well. I personally am a big proponent of Weather Ready Nation and working more with core partners in public safety...and providing more targeted products to those core partners. 

 

Considering how short staffed some offices are, I don't think it will be easy for forecasting and severe weather ops to go on 'without a break' like you said. 

 

The simple fact is that Congress is literally begging DOC/NOAA to ask for the right amount of money for the NWS. Look at the recent quotes from Congressman Frank Wolf and Senator Barbra Mikluksi as an example.

[baroclinic_instability]

Considering how short staffed some offices are, I don't think it will be easy for forecasting and severe weather ops to go on 'without a break' like you said. 

 

The simple fact is that Congress is literally begging DOC/NOAA to ask for the right amount of money for the NWS. Look at the recent quotes from Congressman Frank Wolf and Senator Barbra Mikluksi as an example.

 

I am well aware of what is going on, and no, I never said it was going to be easy, did I? Our office is short staffed (we were short staffed 4 journeys...although we do have an allotment for 15...but we cover an area 15x larger than any other WFO as well), and Fairbanks is down 4 journeys as well. I was saying that we are still required to show up for work regardless of the furloughs (in response to the OP). In that regard, yes ops will continue.

[famartin]

I can, personally, absorb 4 days of unpaid leave fairly easily.  Other people, maybe not.  Other offices, maybe not.  (We're lucky to only have 1 vacancy at present, which will (theoretically) be filled in June). 

 

I am more worried about the quality of certain programs which seem to be prime targets for being axed.  I'm a climate guy, particularly the data side of things, and what I see ahead is sad sad news.  Cuts to the COOP program, cuts to snowfall observers, maybe even cuts to ASOS itself if push comes to shove.  I'm very unhappy.  How we deal with things now will not just hurt us now, but could hurt us for a long time down the road.  Climate requires continuity, but it is highly threatened right now.

[FL510]

I can, personally, absorb 4 days of unpaid leave fairly easily.  Other people, maybe not.  Other offices, maybe not.  (We're lucky to only have 1 vacancy at present, which will (theoretically) be filled in June). 

 

I am more worried about the quality of certain programs which seem to be prime targets for being axed.  I'm a climate guy, particularly the data side of things, and what I see ahead is sad sad news.  Cuts to the COOP program, cuts to snowfall observers, maybe even cuts to ASOS itself if push comes to shove.  I'm very unhappy.  How we deal with things now will not just hurt us now, but could hurt us for a long time down the road.  Climate requires continuity, but it is highly threatened right now.

Hopefully nothing negative will happen to the COOP program.  With the emphasis on ASOS at airports I find COOP sites to be more reliable when I need accurate, daily climate data.  How much money could be saved by COOP program reductions?  The instrumentation can't be that expensive and the observers do it for free!  I would assume any cost-benefit-analysis done would indicate it pays for itself over and over again with the value of the data that is collected.  Besides, it provides many volunteers with a enjoyable activity.  I can't think of any reason to put restrictions on the program.  Temperature can be automated, but nothing beats a 4" or 8" rain gauge for precipitation and a knowledgeable observer.

 

CoCoRAHS is great but the observations don't have the same reliability and accuracy as many COOP sites.

[Rainshadow]

The crux of the matter is that the NWS is not adequately funded. This after a couple of years where the NWS CFO transferred money (without Congress's permission) from other programs to cover labor costs. It cost him and Jack Hayes their positions. The NWS has been in sequestration mode since this fiscal year started, not March 1st. If we were truly funded, a 5 to 8% cut could be absorbed. Most offices lapse labor rates are more than 10% (this includes regional and national headquarters) and have been for a while, so how can we be fully funded?  Yes Congressman Wolf sponsored legislation to give DOC/NOAA to transfer money. As of today NOAA has not requested that reprogramming money.  I see a pattern....

 

Jason posted about WRN. Well the problem is, the person who is suppose to be doing the WRN program in our office is too busy filling in on shifts because we are two and soon to be three people short to do anything with WRN.  Co-op, outreach, all programs are suffering already.

 

http://m.govexec.com/pay-benefits/2013/04/four-furlough-days-noaa-lawmaker-offers-budget-help/62539/

 

http://www.aip.org/fyi/2012/134.html?source=email

[isohume]

I am well aware of what is going on, and no, I never said it was going to be easy, did I? Our office is short staffed (we were short staffed 4 journeys...although we do have an allotment for 15...but we cover an area 15x larger than any other WFO as well), and Fairbanks is down 4 journeys as well. I was saying that we are still required to show up for work regardless of the furloughs (in response to the OP). In that regard, yes ops will continue.

 

I agree. I don't see an adverse affect on ops over the next 4-5 months. Luckily, about every office is management heavy...managers who are qualified operational meteorologists. The critical desks like aviation and marine will be covered along with the hydro and radar shifts. Now take this scenario out another year with the hiring freeze in effect and I see significant issues arising.     

[baroclinic_instability]

The crux of the matter is that a high ranking NOAA official testified in front of Congress last year that the NWS is adequately funded. This after a couple of years where the NWS CFO transferred money (without Congress's permission) from other programs to cover labor costs. It cost him and Jack Hayes their positions. The NWS has been in sequestration mode since this fiscal year started, not March 1st. If we were truly funded, a 5 to 8% cut could be absorbed. Most offices lapse labor rates are more than 10% (this includes regional and national headquarters) and have been for a while, so how can we be fully funded?  Yes Congressman Wolf sponsored legislation to give DOC/NOAA to transfer money. As of today NOAA has not requested that reprogramming money.  I see a pattern....

 

Jason posted about WRN. Well the problem is, the person who is suppose to be doing the WRN program in our office is too busy filling in on shifts because we are two and soon to be three people short to do anything with WRN.  Co-op, outreach, all programs are suffering already.

 

http://m.govexec.com/pay-benefits/2013/04/four-furlough-days-noaa-lawmaker-offers-budget-help/62539/

I am not going to comment on some of the internal issues regarding NOAA since I have little to no additional info besides hearsay information...and I prefer not to get into political games this early in my career:)

 

That said, I don't disagree with the issues regarding lack of staffing that many offices are dealing with right now. A  lot of offices are hurting, I won't deny that. I was simply referencing the OP...and that the 4 furlough days does not mean offices won't be staffed. Speaking broader about future budgeting, possible reprogramming, the hiring freeze, etc. was not my intent.

[famartin]

Hopefully nothing negative will happen to the COOP program.  With the emphasis on ASOS at airports I find COOP sites to be more reliable when I need accurate, daily climate data.  How much money could be saved by COOP program reductions?  The instrumentation can't be that expensive and the observers do it for free!  I would assume any cost-benefit-analysis done would indicate it pays for itself over and over again with the value of the data that is collected.  Besides, it provides many volunteers with a enjoyable activity.  I can't think of any reason to put restrictions on the program.  Temperature can be automated, but nothing beats a 4" or 8" rain gauge for precipitation and a knowledgeable observer.

 

CoCoRAHS is great but the observations don't have the same reliability and accuracy as many COOP sites.

There is already a strong push from the top to cut back COOP by nearly 50% (4,000 stations nationwide).  Unfortunately, those at the top don't see the same value in the program that you do.  Between all the mesonets out there (which aren't generally utilized for climate data by NCDC etc) and CoCoRaHS (which like you said, generally doesn't have the same reliability and accuracy, though there are certainly good observers out there (myself one of them, I'd like to think)), the need for COOP appears to be decreasing to those in charge. 

 

Costs of COOP don't just include equipment, its also the travel for the required annual trips (semi-annual for those with Fischer-Porter gauges), plus the cost of traveling for any equipment breakdowns.  There has also been high pressure from HQ and from outside the agency (wattsupwith that among others) to replace the current wired electronic thermometers with a wireless model, but development has been slow and costly.  Add to that the fact that, when you get right down to it, NWSHQ would ideally like to eliminate the employees (Hydro-met techs) who mostly deal with COOP stuff.  Once they're gone, all that leaves are mets, and lets face it, a lot of them would like to have nothing to do with COOP.

 

These all combine to put the COOP program at grave risk.

[bluewave]

The COMET Program is also at risk now.

 

http://www.prweb.com/releases/2013/4/prweb10630441.htm

 

[famartin]

I didn't mention this in my posts above (but meant to), but the rumors are running that the snow-paid program is also at risk.  This program provides the snowfall data at Local Climatological Data airports which lost human observers during the Modernization and Associated Restructuring (MAR) back in the 90s.  Combined with the possible loss of the FAA Contract Weather Observer program (which is shutting down by July 31st according to the Air Traffic Controllers union), we are looking at a majority of airports which still retain snowfall measurements losing them for next winter.

[BeauDodson]

ok, let's assume that the politicians on both sides, in their "infinite wisdom", decide that some offices would be consolidated instead of ponying up enough cash to do the job properly (not advised, but possible). which offices would be most likely to close/merge given populations/demographics? and which offices would face the most political opposition to closures (from dems or the gop)?

Actually it is almost certain to happen.  Several higher ups in the NWS have stated as much.  Super offices are coming.  Just a matter of when.