80 likes | 205 Views
Site Selection in the Oklahoma Mesonet. Mark A. Shafer Oklahoma Climatological Survey University of Oklahoma. Step 1: Guidance. Site Standards Committee Undisturbed sites Representative of the region Flat and unobstructed Accessible for maintenance Uniform vegetation
E N D
Site Selection in the Oklahoma Mesonet Mark A. Shafer Oklahoma Climatological Survey University of Oklahoma
Step 1: Guidance • Site Standards Committee • Undisturbed sites • Representative of the region • Flat and unobstructed • Accessible for maintenance • Uniform vegetation • Site Selection Committee • Specific site characteristics • WMO standards
Step 2: Design • Requirements • At least one site per county • Agricultural experiment stations • Other agency needs • Even station spacing • Location of other networks • Fill in gaps in coverage • Co-location with other network sites for inter-comparison • Local interest / needs • Trade-offs: representative sites, communications
Step 3: Picking Sites • Finding local contacts: • Statewide organizations with county offices (i.e., OSU Cooperative Extension Service, Oklahoma Conservation Commission, State Emergency Management) • Contact local officials to seek assistance, clarify guidelines • Local officials identified several possible sites, followed-up by staff site visits with local official • Learning process as we went
Step 4: Paperwork • Land-Use agreements • Limits liability and establishes 90-day notice • Legal uncertainties: who signed for the universities? • Changes to agreement – especially to the “hold harmless” clause (mostly federal sites) • FCC licensing • six at a time! • FAA clearance (on or near airports) • Environmental Assessments
Results • 108-station network actually installed • Minimal clustering • usually on the basis of other requirements (i.e., experiment stations) • Privately-owned rural rangeland or grassland usually best sites
Results • 108-station network actually installed • Minimal clustering • usually on the basis of other requirements (i.e., experiment stations) • Privately-owned rural rangeland or grassland usually best sites • Local enthusiasm underestimated • Sites readily offered, often faster than staff could visit areas • Landowners content – only six stations moved since installation (3 on same owner’s land) • 2 because of land-use change • 2 for research needs • 2 for improving site characteristics