Site Selection in the Oklahoma Mesonet
-
Upload
anastasia-mosley -
Category
Documents
-
view
30 -
download
1
description
Transcript of Site Selection in the Oklahoma Mesonet
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
http://www.mesonet.ou.edu
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