{"Bibliographic":{"Title":"The surface network plan /","Authors":"","Publication date":"1971","Publisher":""},"Administrative":{"Date created":"08-20-2023","Language":"English","Rights":"CC 0","Size":"0000190847"},"Pages":["MAY 5\n1\nNWS-DATAC-TM-5\nUNITED STATES\nPARTS ENT OF\nERCE\nNOAA Technical Memorandum NWS DATAC-5\nREDICATION\ni\nU.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE\nNational Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration\nNational Weather Service\nThe Surface Network Plan\nJAMES GIRAYTYS AND THOMAS M. BLACKBURN\nETAC/ID\n159, NAVY YARD ANNEX\n20333\nINGTON, D.C.\nQC\n0\n851\n.U6\nD2\nno.5","NOAA TECHNICAL MEMORANDA\nNational Weather Service, Data Acquisition Division Series\nThe primary objective of the Data Acquisition Division (DATAC) of the Office of\nMeteorological Operations is to develop the policies and procedures for the acquisition\nof meteorological data needed by the basic, public, and specialized meteorological\nservices of the National Weather Service (NWS). The Division also insures inter-\nregional consistency, network integrity, and quality of output in the establishment\nand operation of observing networks.\nNOAA Technical Memoranda in the NWS DATAC series facilitate rapid distribution\nof material which may be preliminary in nature and which may be published formally\nelsewhere at a later date. Publications 1 to 3 are in the former series, ESSA\nTechnical Memoranda, Weather Bureau Technical Memoranda (WBTM). Beginning with 4,\npublications are now part of the series, NOAA Technical Memoranda NWS.\nPublications listed below are available from the National Technical Information\nService, U.S. Department of Commerce, Sills Bldg., 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield,\nVa. 22151. Price: $3.00 paper copy; $0.95 microfiche. Order by accession number\nshown in parentheses at end of each entry.\nESSA Technical Memoranda\nWBTM DATAC 1 Recent Developments in High Altitude Meteorological Soundings in\nthe U.S.A. Vaughn D. Rockney, June 1967. (PB 175 679)\nWBTM DATAC 2 The Compatibility of Radiosonde Data at Stratospheric Levels\nOver the Northern Hemisphere. Raymond M. McInturff and Frederick\nG. Finger, December 1968. (PB-183 350)\nWBTM\nDATAC\n3\nRequirements Statements for Selected Data Acquisition Equipment. James\nGiraytys and Paul L. Hexter, July 1969. (PB-185 231)\nNOAA Technical Memoranda\nNWS DATAC 4 A Mini-Computer System for Upper Air Observations. Burton D.\nGoldenberg, October 1971.\nATMOSPHERIC\nAND\nNOAA\nis\ncomments\nDEPARTMENT\nOF","QC\n851\nU6\nU.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE\nNational Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration\nD2\nNational Weather Service\nno.5\nNOAA Technical Memorandum NWS DATAC-5\nTHE SURFACE NETWORK PLAN\n18 SEP 1997\nJames Giraytys and Thomas M. Blackburn\nLIBRARY\nDEC 062010\nAtmospheric Administration\nU.S. Dept. of Commerce\nAND NOAA ATMOSPHERIC\nAT\nis\nCOMMUNITY\nOF\nData Acquisition Division\nOffice of Meteorological Operations\nSILVER SPRING, MD.\nNovember 1971","UDC 551.501.9:551.509.5 (73)\n551.5\nMeteorology\nMeteorological networks\n.501.9\nSynoptic forecast services\n.509.5\nUnited States of America\n(73)\nAWS TECHNICAL LIBRARY\nii\nFL 4414\n859 BUCHANAN STREET\nSCOTT AFB IL 62225-5118","PREFACE\nIn mid-1969 the Deputy Director of NOAA (ESSA) requested the National\nWeather Service (Weather Bureau) to prepare a plan for the surface\nobserving network. This plan would determine requirements for observa-\ntions, propose an observational configuration to meet these requirements\neconomically, identify areas in which existing or future networks fail\nto meet these needs, and recommend those changes in the network which\nwould lead to fulfillment of the above goals. From this plan one could\ndetermine upon short notice, the necessity for establishing a new station\nand/or the importance of continuing an existing program. The latter\nbecame important because of the need to maintain observations in the wake\nof possible retrenchments in observing programs operated by the FAA.\nThe surface network plan was to be based to the maximum degree on\nobjective criteria.\nWhile this study has been kept as objective as possible, there are many\nareas in which subjectiveness is unavoidable; these areas are documented\nin the text.\nAlthough most present observations are oriented toward aeronautic users,\ntheir types and quantities and their uses and reasons for being taken are\nso varied that it is impossible to include all observations as a part of a\nsingle network. This study considers three networks: the NMC (synoptic\nscale), severe local storm (mesoscale), and regional. 1 These networks\nof observations are required to provide input to forecasts needed by more\nthan one user group. By contrast, past studies of the surface observing\nnetwork usually have grouped stations according to their value to specific\nservice programs. The Design of the Data Acquisition Subsystem (DDAS)\nand the Report of the 1969 Joint ESSA/FAA Working Group on FAA-FSS\nPlans are two examples. Appendix A lists past requirements statements\nfor aviation and other specialized user groups.\nIt is interesting to compare the U.S. network with those in some European\ncountries. The U.S. meteorologist has a far less dense network of obser-\nvations with which to work than does his European counterpart, although\nthe overall severe local storm frequency is much greater here than in\nEurope. According to WMO tabulations of stations taking synoptic\nobservations in Europe (WMO, 1968), the average spacing between\n1/\nThe regional networks must provide data needed mainly by the\nWSFO's but not available from stations in either the NMC or severe\nstorm networks.\niii","stations (in miles) is as follows: Germany, 32; France, 36; Netherlands,\n22; Switzerland, 33; and United Kingdom, 30. These compare with an\naverage spacing of 75 miles in the U.S. Even New Jersey, the state with\nthe most dense network, has a spacing greater than that of any of the\nabove countries (40 miles). When aviation observations taken 24 hours per\nday are added, spacings are as follows: Switzerland, 17; United Kingdom,\n18; and United States, 55 (in New Jersey it is 28). It is very likely,\nhowever, that in all of the above cases the effective spacing is far less than\nthe average spacing, because of the clustering of observing sites, mainly\naround metropolitan areas.\nA glossary and list of abbreviations are included with this study because of\nthe wide usage of acronyms.\niv","Table of Contents\nPage\nPreface\niii\nTable of Contents\nV\nManagement Summary\nX\nI.\nObjectives\nl\nII.\nScope\nl\nIII.\nPresent Network\nl\nIV.\nRequirements for Observations\n3\nA. NMC Requirements (For Synoptic Scale\nForecasts Only)\n3\nB. Severe Local Storm (Mesoscale)\nRequirements\n3\nl. Types of Mesoscale Storms\n3\n2. Required Observing Frequency\n5\n3. Required Spacing of Observations\n5\n4. Means for Providing Required\nObservations\n7\nC. Regional Network Requirements\n7\nV.\nDetermining Deficiencies in Present\nNetworks\n7\nA. NMC Network\n7\nB. Severe Storm Network\n8\nC. Regional Network\n8\nVI.\nModified Severe Storm Network\n8\nA. Computation of Potential Benefit (PB)\nValues\n11\nB. Relationship of Potential Benefits\n(PB) to Required Detection Capabilities\n(RDC)\n11\nC. Relationship of RDC Values to the\nNumber of Stations Required per Two\nDegree Latitude-Longitude Square\n13\nD. Existing Deficiencies in Proposed\nSevere Storm Network\n17\nV","Page\nRecommendations for Eliminating\nVII.\n19\nDeficiencies\n25\nA. Implementation Costs\n26\nB. AMOS III-70 Plan\nC. Rationale Used to Select Sites for\nImplementing Required Observing\n27\nPrograms\nD. Possible Temporary Alternatives to\n27\nObtaining Required Observing Programs.\nE. Factors Which May Alter Implementation\n28\nProgram.\n28\nF. Further Work\n29\nAbbreviations\n30\nGlossary\n34\nReferences\nFigure 1 Present Network of Stations\nTaking Observations 24 Hours\n2\nper Day\nLocations of Deficiencies in\nFigure 2\n10\nNMC Network.\nFigure 3 Potential Benefit Values in\nEach Two-Degree Square - Forty\n12\nEight States\nFigure 4\nRelationship of Potential\nBenefit to Required Detection\n14\nCapability of Mesoscale Storms\nFigure 5 Number of Stations Required in\nEach Two-Degree Square to\nProvide the Required Detection\n15\nCapability - Forty Eight States.\nFigure 6 Network of Surface Observing\nStations After All Deficiencies\nin NMC and Severe Storms\n16\nNetworks have been Eliminated\nFigure 7 Locations of Deficiencies in\n18\nSevere Storm Network\nvi","Page\nTable l\nObserving Stations in the 48\nStates which Disseminate Data\nOver Telecommunication Networks\nas of January 1, 1971\n4\nTable 2\nDescription of Deficiency\nPriorities in Severe Storm, NMC,\n9\nand Regional Networks\nTable 3\nDistribution of Deficiencies by\nRegions\n20\nTable 4\nHighest Priority Deficiencies\n21\nTable 5\nRecommended Sites at Which to\nEliminate Deficiencies in\nSurface Observing Network\n35\nTable 6\nAlphabetical Listing of Surface\nObserving Sites Satisfying NMC\nand Severe Storm Network Require-\nments After All Deficiencies in\nthese Networks have been\nEliminated\n85\nTable 7\nComparative Costs of Various\nModes of Obtaining Observations\n25\nTable 8\nCosts of Using the AMOS III-70 to\nEliminate Deficiencies in NMC and\nSevere Storm Networks\n26\nAppendix A\nRequirements for Surface\n63\nObservations\nA.\nIntroduction\n103\nB.\nSummary of Other Station Spacing\n103\nRequirements\nC. Past Criteria for Locating Surface\n103\nObserving Sites\n106\nD. Uses Made of Observations\nE.\n106\nImportance of Various Parameters\nTable A l\nRequired Spacing Between\n104\nObserving Sites\nTable A 2\nStation Spacing Requirements in\n105\nthe Soviet Union\nvii","Page\nDescription of NWS Forecast\nTable A 3\n107\nServices\n109\nImportance of Parameters\nTable A 4\nRole of Other than Conventional\nAppendix B\nSurface Observations in Deter-\nmining Maximum Required\nDensities of Surface Observa-\n110\ntions\n110\nA. Introduction\n111\nB. Spotter Networks\n111\nC. Satellite Observations\n112\nD. Radar\n113\nE. Rawinsonde Observations\n114\nF. Other Sources of Observations\n114\nReferences\nImpact of Non-Surface Observing\nTable B l\nTechniques on Requirements for\n115\nSurface Observations\nComputation of Potential\nAppendix C\n116\nBenefit Values\n116\nA. Introduction\nB. Development of Potential Benefit (PB)\n116\nEquation\nTable C l Statistics Used to Obtain\n118\nPotential Benefit Values\nAppendix D Relationship of Network Density\nto Capabilities of Defining\n(Shape and Movement of) and\nDetecting Severe Mesoscale\n120\nSystems\nA. Introduction\n120\nB. Relationship of Network Density to\nCapability of Detecting Mesoscale\n120\nSystems\nC. Meaning of \"Definition\"\n122\nD. Number of Observations Required to\nDefine a System.\n122\nviii","Page\nE. Detection Capability Required With,\nVS. Definition Capability Required\n123\nWithout, Radar\nF. Number of Stations Required per Two-\nDegree Square\n124\nG. List of Stations Needed in Severe Storm\nNetwork to Provide Required Definition\n124\nCapabilities\nFigure D l Probability of Detecting a\nSystem of Size \"S\" in a Region\nof Size \"R\" Containing \"n\"\n121\nStations\nFigure D 2 Probability to Detect, Define,\nand Provide Forecast Lead Time\n123\nfor, Line Systems\nFigure D 3 Number of Stations Required in\nEach Two-Degree Square to\nProvide Required Definition\nCapability\n125\nAppendix E AMOS III-70 Implementation Plan\n126\nA. Background\n126\nB. Planned Installation Schedule\n126\nTable E 1 AMOS III-70 Implementation\n128\nSchedule\nix","MANAGEMENT SUMMARY\nThe primary objective of this study is to recommend a\nObjectives\nconfiguration of surface observing stations and ob-\nserving programs that will meet the maximum of user\nneeds at a minimum of cost. The secondary objective\nis to provide a basis for determining site-by-site\npriorities for upgrading existing stations and establish-\ning new ones.\nThis study deals with surface data needs of the NMC,\nScope\nNSSFC, and to a limited extent with those of the NHC\nand of the WSFO S. The study covers requirements\nonly within the 50 States. Data requirements for the\npreparation of more than one type of forecast, or of\nforecasts utilized by more than one user group are\nconsidered. Excluded from this study are data required\nprimarily for localized forecasts, specialized forecasts\nsuch as fruit frost, airport operations, etc., and for\nresearch. These needs will be included in future\nseparate studies.\nFor the purposes of this study, observational require-\nRequirements\nments are divided into three categories: NMC (for\nfor\nsynoptic scale analyses), severe local storm\nObservations\n(mesoscale), and regional. Observational requirements\nexpressed by the regions are primarily those of the\nWSFO S. Observations from the NMC and severe storm\nnetworks do not meet these requirements completely.\nThe NMC requires a 3-hourly frequency 24 hours per day\nNMC\nand 100-mile spacing for its synoptic scale surface\nRequirements\nanalyses. 2/ The 0000 and 1200 GMT analyses also\ndetermine the lower boundary layer for use in numerical\nupper air prognoses. As these analyses are the basis\nfor guidance at all forecast levels, the observations\nneeded are considered to be of maximum importance.\nIncluded as mesoscale storms are those squall lines\nMesoscale\nwhich are associated with tornadoes or severe thunder-\nRequirements:\nstorms (winds of 50 knots or more accompanied by\nTypes of\nthunder), and severe mesoscale elements associated\nStorms\nboth with tropical cyclones (i.e., mesoscale bands of\nConsidered\nheavy rain) and winter storms (bands of heavy snow or\nfreezing rain).\nWherever used, the word \"mile\" means \"nautical\n2/\n-\nmile. \"\nX","Required\nHourly observations, supplemented by specials as\nFrequency of\nnecessary, are required 24 hours per day because of the\nObservations\nrapid development and changes characteristic of meso-\nfor the\nscale storms.\nMesoscale\nRequired\nOnce a storm has formed, warning proficiency is largely\nMesoscale\ndependent upon adequate capabilities of detecting and\ndefining it. 3 / 4 These capabilities may be achieved\nSpacing\nthrough some combination of surface, satellite, and radar\nobservations. Based on which of these observations are\navailable, we have decided subjectively on the following\nmaximum requirements to detect and define within the\nfirst hour of existence, systems covering a 3,000square\nmile area: 5 /\nA severe local storm is considered to have been\n3/\ndetected when it has been experienced by one\nobserving site. \"Detection Capability,\" as used\nhere, is the probability that at least one of the\nstations within a two-degree square will detect a\nsystem covering a 3,000-square-mile area within\n1 hour.\n4/\nA storm is considered to have been defined when\nits shape and movement have been determined. WB\nTechnical Planning Study No. 8, \"Observational\nRequirements for the Detection and Prediction of\nSmall Scale Weather Events\" states that a system\nhas been defined without ambiguity when it has\npassed over three stations not in a straight line.\nOur requirements are that it must be experienced\nby four stations within 1 hour, as explained in\nAppendix D. Since four stations must be affected\nvs. one for detection, the network density must be\nquadrupled to provide the same definition as\ndetection capability. Quadrupling the station\ndensity halves the average spacing.\n/\nA squall line associated with severe weather is\n5\nassumed to have a median width, length and\nvelocity such that it will cover a 3, 000- square-\nmile area in 1 hour.\nxi","A 95% definition capability is required where radar\n1.\ncoverage is lacking. This capability requires a 16-\nmile station spacing. When available, satellite\nobservations may be used to provide the other\n5%. 6 /\nA 95% detection capability is required where\n2.\nWSR-57 or comparable radar coverage is avail-\nable (in these areas we will rely on radar to\ndefine the severe storms). Radar range is\nconsidered to be 125 miles. A 31-mile spacing\nprovides a 95% detection capability.\nAn 85% detection capability will be required where\n3.\n(and when) VIP, instant radar replay and digitized\nradar are available, provided the expected\ncapabilities of these radar adjuncts are borne\nout 7/ A 42-mile spacing would provide the 85%\ndetection capability.\nStations considered in this study must be staffed by U.S.\nMeans for\nGovernment employees and/or provide data from\nProviding\nGovernment equipment or other equipment meeting\nRequired\nGovernment specifications, in order that observations\nObservations\nmeet the requirements of the NMC and severe storm\nnetworks. The AMOS III-70 with add-on module\ncapability is acceptable. Paid Aviation and\nSupplementary Aviation Weather Reporting (SAWR)\nstations do not meet all requirements.\n6/\nThe reasoning behind these assumptions is\nexplained in Appendix D.\nThe spacing required to provide a 100-percent\ndefinition capability of mesoscale storms would be\nabout 10 miles. Over twice as many stations would\nbe required as for a 16-mile network. Appendix C\ncovers the role of non-surface observations in\ndetermining required detection and definition\ncapabilities.\n7/\nThe VIP (Video Integrator and Processor), instant\nradar replay and digitized radar are described in\nAppendix B.\nxii","Regional\nThe regional networks require stations in addition to\nRequirements\nthose of the fully implemented NMC and severe storm\nnetworks in order to supply additional data needed\nmainly by the WSFO S.\nThe observing programs\nrequired depend on how the data are to be used.\nFor example, 3-hourly synoptics meet many zone fore-\ncast requirements, while hourly manned observations\nare needed for public weather and aviation forecasts.\nHowever, 3-hourly aviation-type observations may\nsuffice at night in places where nighttime air traffic is\nlow.\nDetermining\nThe U.S. was divided into two-degree latitude-longitude\nDeficiencies\nsquares to assist in computing deficiencies in the NMC\nin Present\nand severe storm networks. The averagearea of these\nNetwork\nsquares is 10,000 square miles (somewhat larger at\nlower latitudes), and on a square grid, one station per\nsquare provides approximately the 100-mile average\nspacing required in the NMC network. Any square\nlacking a station with the required observing program\ncontains a deficiency. Due to the bunching of stations\nin many squares, some additional gaps exist. Any point\n75 or more miles from the nearest station constitutes\n8/\na deficiency\nSee Figure 2 for deficiency locations.\n8/\nA point halfway between two stations, and 75 miles\nfrom each, is in a gap of 150 miles. Any gap\nlarger than approximately 150 miles was\nconsidered subjectively to be unacceptably large.\nA station placed in a 150-mile gap would leave a\n75-mile spacing, which was considered to be the\nclosest spacing we could justify in the NMC\nnetwork.\nxiii","Severe Local\nThe 42 - mile spacing requirements for severe local\nStorm Network\nstorm detection are met in very few areas by the\npresent network of stations (Figure 1). 9/10/ In fact,\nDeficiencies\nit would be a serious maldistribution of resources\nto implement a network of this density in areas of\ninfrequent storm occurrences and low population.\nModified\nIn view of the high cost of implementing a severe storm\nSevere Storm\nnetwork, some compromises must be tolerated.\nNetwork\nThis study proposes that our best warning capabilities\nbe provided to areas subject to the greatest adverse\nimpact from severe local storms. It would be these\nareas which would require station spacing of 31 or 42\nmiles. Greater spacings would be permissible in areas\nsubject to lesser severe storm losses.\nPotential benefits in terms of lives and property saved\nby such warnings are assumed greatest where storm\nfrequency and population density are greatest. Aquasi-\nobjective system was developed whereby the required\nstation spacing in the severe storm network is\nproportional to the potential benefits derived. Figure 5\nshows the number of stations required in each two degree\nsquare, and Figure 6 the general distribution of stations\nin the completed networks. 11 The number of stations\nrequired per two degree square ranges from 12 in the\nvery populous and storm-prone areas to one, in areas\nseldom affected by mesoscale storms.\nThis assumes that VIP, instant radar replay and\n9/\ndigitized radar data are available. In the absence\nof these, the spacings requirement is 31 miles.\n10/ A few stations in Figure 1 take 8 synoptic obser-\nvations per day and do not meet severe storm\nneeds. However, nearly all of these stations are\nin areas of minimal mesoscale storm frequency.\n11 Figure 6 includes all stations meeting network\nobserving requirements. Many of these, while not\nneeded in the NMC or severe storm networks, are\nrequired for other purposes, such as for aviation\nairport operations.\nxiv","Priorities and\nThere are 74 deficiencies in the NMC network, as shown\nDistribution\nin Figure 2. All but six of these are west of the\nof\nMississippi River, especially in the Rockies, the\nDeficiencies\nnorthern plains and Alaska. There are 30 in the\nAlaska Region alone. There are 13two-degree squares\nin the severe storm network area (where two or more\nstations are needed per square) which contain less\nthan one-half the required number of stations (priority\nB). These squares are all in an area requiring a high\ndetection capability, with six of them located in a\nbelt extending from northern Nebraska to northern\nIowa. Five priority B squares contain no stations,\nand thus qualify as priority A deficiencies as well.\nThere are 25 squares which now contain 0-74 percent\nof the stations needed (priority C deficiencies). In 22\nsquares, additional stations are needed because of gaps\ndue to an uneven distribution of existing stations\n(priority C*). There are 21 squares in which 75-99\npercent of the needed stations would exist after higher\npriority deficiencies, if any, were eliminated. These\nare priority D deficiencies. As shown in Figure 7,\ndeficiencies of priority B through D are east of the\nRockies, with the greatest concentration in the tornado\nbelt.\nThere are 21 priority E deficiencies. These are\nlocated in areas which are outside radar coverage,\nyet experience considerable severe storm activity\n(mostly along the northern border of the U.S.). Also\nincluded in the priority E category are areas in which\nfewer stations will be needed should VIP, instant\nradar replay, and digitized radar coverage become\navailable and prove their potential for severe storm\ndetection and definition. These latter areas, which\nrequire the greatest detection capability, include the\nenvirons of Kansas City, Chicago, Milwaukee, and\nBoston.\nRecommendations\nTo carry out a program for the eventual elimination\nof the existing deficiencies in the surface observing\nnetworks the following recommendations are made:\nXV","Make maximum efforts to eliminate deficiencies in\n1.\nthe NMC network, beginning with those which are\nsimultaneously high priority deficiencies in both\nthe severe storm and regional networks. These\nimpair forecast accuracy significantly at almost\nall forecast levels. Table 4 lists the locations of\nthe high - priority deficiencies in order of\nimportance.\nGive priority to the development and production of\n2.\nthe AMOS III-70 with add-on modules, as it is\ncomparatively economical and meets many data\nrequirements.\nGive priority to the development of an AMOS\n3.\nsystem for use in locations where use of the\nAMOS III-70 is not suitable. These are locations\nwhere shelter, AC power,and regular maintenance\nservice are not available.\nEstablish a combined AMOS and manned observa-\n4.\ntional program at sites where AMOS parameters\nare needed around the clock, but visual elements\nare required during only part of the day.\nReview and update deficiency priorities from year\n5.\nto year as data requirements change, and as new\ndeficiencies arise.\nThe costs of implementing various types of observing\nCost\nComparison\nprograms are shown below:\nxvi","One Year\nCost First\n12/\nType of Observation\nFEC Cost\nS&E Cost\n10 Years\nPaid synoptic 4 per day\n$ 4 K\n$\n4 K\n$\n44 K\nPaid synoptic 8 per day\n4 K\n8 K\n84 K\n13/\nAMOS III-70\n30 K\n3. 5 K\n65 K\n14/\nManned 24 hours per day-\n46 K\n108 K\n1, 126 K\nAMOS plus manned 16\nhours per day 14/\n86 K\n88 K\n966 K\nAMOS plus manned 8\nhours per day 14/\n86 K\n78 K\n866 K\nRemote AMOS (RAMOS) 15/\n30 K\n6 K\n90 K\nAMOS III-70\nThe AMOS III-70 Plan (OMO Project 70-3) will\nPlan\nrecommend sites where the AMOS should be installed,\nconsidering the network deficiencies documented in this\nstudy. If the AMOS were to be installed at the sites of\ndeficiencies in the NMC and severe storm networks, the\ncosts would be as shown below.\n12/\nAssumes no inflation.\n13 /\nTentative cost at new observing site. Cost of\ninstalling AMOS III-70 at existing part-time\nstation is assumed to be the same.\n14/\nIncludes Ceilometer.\n15 /\nTentative cost for both one field and one central\nstation, each with a 13-parameter capability.\nPer unit costs would be significantly reduced by\nhaving more than one field station reporting to\neach central station.\nxvii","Cost First\nOne Year\n16/\n12/\nS&E Cost\n10 Years\nFEC Cost\nNo.\nType of Deficiency\nSites in both\n17 /\n$\n325 K\n$ 17.5 K\n$\n150 K\nPriorities A and B\n5\n4,485 K\n241. 5 K\n2, 070 K\n69\nPriority A only\n28.0 K\n520 K\n240 K\n8\nPriority B only\n87.5 K\n1,625 K\n750 K\n25\nPriority C\n1,430 K\n77.0 K\n660 K\n22\nPriority C*\n1,365 K\n73.5 K\n630 K\n21\nPriority D\n73.5 K\n1,365 K\n630 K\n21\nPriority E\n$589. 5 K $11,115 K\n$5, 130 K\n171\nAll of Above\nElimination of the 74 deficiencies in the NMC network\nCost of\nexclusively via the AMOS III-70 would cost about\nEliminating\n$2,220 K FEC and $259 K S&E through the first year of\nNMC Network\noperation. However, some deficiences should be\nDeficiencies\neliminated by employing modes of observation other\nwith AMOS\nthan the AMOS III-70.\nIII-70 -\nIt should be readily apparent from these figures that\nautomated observing techniques can show, after a very\nfew years, substantial cost savings over manned\nstations taking hourly observations.\nAssumes continued operation (at present level) of\n16\nnetwork stations operated by other Government\nagencies, e.g., the FAA and Coast Guard.\n17 The five sites in this dual category constitute\ndeficiencies in both the NMC and severe storm\nnetworks. These sites are not included in the\ntabulations on the following two lines.\nxviii","Selection of Sites\nWhere a choice of sites is available, it is recommended\nfor Eliminating\nthat the required observing programs be implemented at\nDeficiencies\nsites already taking observations (but not meeting all\nrequirements), rather than at new sites. First choice\nshould be NWS, then other Government, and finally\nnon-government-operated sites. 18/ Sites shown in\nFigure 7 and Tables 4 and 5 were selected on this basis\nin order to avoid duplication of efforts and redundancy\nof data.\nFactors Capable\nFactors such as accessibility of sites, availability of\nof Altering\nobserving personnel, development of remote observing\nProposed\nequipment, political pressures, and observational\nImplementation\nprogram changes beyond NWS control, may dictate\nProgram\ndepartures from the order of implementation\nrecommended in this study. However, the dominating\nfactor in the order of site selection for eliminating\ndeficiencies should be the priorities shown in Tables\n4 and 5.\nKeeping\nThe above factors (probably seldom working in favor of\nThis Plan\nthe network plan) will change the configuration of stations\nUp-to-Date\nand consequently, the deficiencies in the network. In\nview of this, it is important that the degree of\nimplementation of this plan be reviewed and deficiency\npriorities and recommendations reassessed from year\nto year.\n18/\nFirst choice among NWS sites would go to those\nin the upper-air and radar network.\nxix","l\nI.\nOBJECTIVES\nThe principal objective of this study is to recommend a configuration\nof surface observing stations and observing programs that will meet\nthe maximum of user needs at a minimum of expense. A second\nobjective is to provide a basis for determining site-by-site priorities\nfor establishing new stations to augment the existing network.\nAppendix E of this study contains a year-by-year plan for eliminating\nmany deficiencies in the existing network through the installation of\nautomatic observing systems, such as the AMOS III-70.\nThe above objectives are achieved in this study by:\n(1) examining the present network of observations (kinds and numbers\nof stations, and data reported),\n(2) specifying the density, frequency, and types of observations needed\nto prepare the types of forecasts covered in this study,\n(3) identifying areas in which the present network does not meet these\nneeds (identifying deficiencies), and\n(4) proposing an observational configuration which will come closest\nto meeting these requirements, considering resource limitations.\nII. SCOPE\nThis study covers the surface data needs of the NMC 1 / and NSSFC,\nand to a limited extent, the needs of the NHC and the WSFO S. The\nstudy encompasses data from the 50 states only. These data are\nrequired for the preparation either of more than one type of forecast,\nor of forecasts utilized by more than one user group. Research, and\nspecialized forecast requirements for observations, are omitted.\nTheir needs will be considered in future separate studies. The role of\nnon-surface observations in meeting surface data requirements is\ncovered in Appendix B. 2\nIII.\nPRESENT NETWORK\nFigure 1 shows the locations of observing stations taking hourly\nreports plus special observations (hourlies and specials) 24 hours per\nday or taking eight 3-hourly observations per day. All first- and\n1/ Abbreviations are explained on page 30.\n2\n/ Radar, Satellite, upper-air, and cooperative severe storm\nobservations.","DAY","3\nsecond-order stations and offices operated by, or under the super-\nvision of the National Weather Service are listed in \"National Weather\nService Offices and Stations 3 / .\" Table 1 contains a tabulation of the\nnumber of stations in each category as of January 1, 1971. Appendix\nA contains information on how the present network came about and on\nthe current NWS forecast programs. The present network serves as\nthe starting point for this study.\nIV.\nREQUIREMENTS FOR OBSERVATIONS\nData needs are divided into those of the NMC, severe local storm and\nWSFO forecasters.\nA. NMC REQUIREMENTS (FOR SYNOPTIC-SCALE FORECASTS\nONLY)\nWithin the 48 states and Alaska, NMC needs constant 3-hourly\nsurface observations spaced 100 miles apart. The frequency in\nHawaii is six-hourly. This data base will satisfy most of NMC's\nrequirements for the preparation of its synoptic scale 3-hourly\n(6-hourly for Hawaii) surface analyses. These analyses serve as\none of the most important inputs for a number of NMC S manual\nand semi-automated forecasts of sensible weather. The 0000 and\n1200 GMT analyses determine the lower boundary layer of the\nNMC multilevel numerical upper-air prognosis. The most\nimportant observational parameters are temperature, dewpoint,\nwind direction and speed, and pressure.\nSurface analyses are used as guidance by all forecast echelons\ncovered in this study. Therefore, requirements of the NMC\nnetwork are given top priority.\nAppendix A reviews past requirements statements, covers the\npresent uses of observations, and describes the relative\nimportance of the observational parameters.\nB. SEVERE LOCAL STORM (MESOSCALE) REQUIREMENTS\n1.\nTypes of Mesoscale Storms\nIncluded as severe local storms (and the best estimates of\ntheir characteristic sizes) are intense rain bands of\ntropical cyclones (15,000 square miles), bands of freezing\nrain and swaths of heavy snowassociated with severe winter\nstorms (10,000 square miles), squall lines with which\nDepartment of Commerce, NOAA, National Weather Service,\n3\nSilver Spring, Md. \"National Weather Service Offices and\nStations, 11 eleventh edition, January 1, 1971, pp. 1-32.","Observing Stations in the 48 States which Disseminate Data Over Telecommunications Networks\n1,289\n92\n238\n139\n168\n58\n273\n321\nWeather Service Forecast Office\nWeather Service Meteorological\nNational Weather Service\nWeather Service Office\nControl Tower\nOffice\nSupplementary aviation weather reporting stations (SAWRS)\nCHURN type stations (observations usually disseminated\nas of January 1, 1971.\nPaid and cooperative aviation (A), , synoptic (s), and\nWSFO\nWSMO\nNWS\nTWR\nWSO\nTable l\nNWS (includes all WSO S, WSFO S, and WSMO S\nFAA ( includes all FSS S, TWR's, and CST's\nFederal Aviation Administration\nCooperative Hurricane Reporting\nCombined Flight Service Station\nDepartment of Defense observing stations\naviation-synoptic combined (SA) stations\nonly during severe weather situations)\nFlight Service Station\ntaking surface observations)\ntaking surface observations)\nand Tower\nNetwork\nAbbreviations:\nCoast Guard\nTotal\nCHURN\nCST\nFAA\nFSS","5\ntornadoes are associated (3,000 square miles) and severe\nthunderstorms accompanied by thunder and winds of 50 knots\nor more (3,000 square miles). The entire tropical and severe\nwinter storm (vs. the severe elements within them) are\nconsidered to be larger, and the tornado smaller, than\nmesoscale.\nInitially we had planned to consider the areal frequency\ndistribution of 3/4 inch or larger hail. Hail was not included\nin our statistics because its distribution is very similar to\nthat of severe thunderstorms, and to a large extent, to that\nof tornadoes. It is quite likely that there are a number of\ncases in which a single squall line is accompanied by two or\nall three of these phenomena. Squall lines accompanied by\nboth severe thunderstorms and tornadoes in the same two-\ndegree latitude-longitude square would already be counted\ntwice (once for each type of severe storm occurrence) in\nour statistics, although the squall line requires detection\nonly once. The inclusion of heavy hail in our study might\ncause many squall lines to be counted an additional time.\nQuantitative observational parameters are considered the\nmost important, although visual elements rank either\nclosely behind,or, of equal importance.\n2. Required Observing Frequency\nSevere winter storms and tropical cyclones do not show a\ndiurnal bias, and tornadoes and thunderstorms (although\nmore frequent in the latter part of the day) may occur at any\ntime. Therefore, a 24-hour observing program is required.\nIn view of the great potential damage from, and the short\nlifetimes of, these storms, it is paramount that they be\nidentified promptly. Hourlies and Specials are thus required\n24 hours per day.\n3. Required Spacing of Observations\nSevere storm detection is essential for the issuance of\naccurate warnings of storms in progress. The required\nspacing of observations for mesoscale storm detection is\ndetermined by the size of the storms to be detected and","6\nthe\nlevel of detection capability we wish to\n4\nachieve.\nOur goal is to obtain a 95-percent detection\ncapability within the first hour of existence, of weather\nsystems of the size most frequently associated with\nconvective mesoscale storms (tornadoes and severe thunder-\nstorms). Studies by Tepper (1954) and Changnon and Huff\n(1961) showed that the median size weather system most\nfrequently associated with these storms (pressure jump and\nsquall lines) traversed a 3,000-square mile area within the\nfirst hour. To provide a 95-percent detection capability, a\nnetwork spacing of about 31 miles would be required.\nAppendix D shows the relationship of detection and definition\ncapabilities to the number of stations required per two-\n5\ndegree latitude-longitude square. A 95-percent\ninstead\nof\n100 -percent - detection capability is considered acceptable\nbecause of the assumed presence of spotter networks,\nradar, and satellite photographs. Where the VIP (Video\nIntegrator and Processor), instant radar replay, and digitized\nradar coverage are available, an 85-percent detection\ncapability is permissible (assuming the expected capabilities\nof these devices are verified). This detection capability\nmay be achieved by a 42-mile spacing. See Table B1 of\nAppendix B for these relationships. Appendix B contains\nthe rationale behind the above assumptions.\nRadar is an essential tool in defining the shape and movement\nof mesoscale storms. Outside of radar range, (considered to\nbe 125 miles), this definition must be achieved by surface\nobservations. A 16-mile spacing would be required to\nprovide a 95-percent definition capability.\n4/\nA severe local storm is considered to have been detected when it\nhas passed one station. Detection Capability, as used in our\nstudy, is the probability that at least one of a network of stations\nwithin a two-degree square will detect within one hour a weather\nsystem covering a 3,000-square mile area. The Regional Detection\nCapability (RDC) is the minimum acceptable level of detection\ncapability to be provided by the stations in a two-degree square.\n5/\nA storm is considered to have been defined when its shape and\nmovement have been determined. As described in Appendix D, a\nstorm is considered to have been defined without ambiguity when\nit has passed four stations not in a straight line within an hour's\ntime. Definition Capability is the ability of the network of\nstations to define a system within one hour.","7\n4. Means for Providing Required Observations\nStations must be staffed by U.S. Government employees\nand/or provide data from Government equipment or other\nequipment meeting Government specifications, in order that\ntheir observations meet the requirements of the NMC and\nsevere storm networks. The NWS, FAA, CG and military\nobservations (including observations from the NWS' AMOS\nIII-70) meet these requirements, whereas SAWRS and A\nobservations do not. Paid synoptic observations meet the\nrequirements of the NMC, but not the severe storm network.\nC. REGIONAL NETWORK REQUIREMENTS\nThe regional networks must supply data not available from the\nNMC and severe storm networks. These data are needed to adapt\nguidance forecasts more precisely to local areas. Terrain often\nplays an important part in these requirements. Observations\ncontaining visual elements are required hourly in most cases for\npreparing and amending state, zone, and local forecasts. In\nsome instances a three-hourly frequency is satisfactory at night.\nThree-hourly synoptics are required in each forecast zone in\nmost cases.\nSites and observation programs required from the regional\nnetwork are specified by the regions.\nV.\nDETERMINING DEFICIENCIES IN PRESENT NETWORKS\nA. NMC NETWORK\nThe 100-mile spacing and 3-hourly frequency required for the\nNMC network are lacking in many areas, mostly in the western\nU.S. and Alaska. Deficiencies in the NMC network are deleterious\nto forecast capabilities at all levels because surface analyses\nprepared from these observations are widely disseminated and\nused as input to many types of forecasts.\nTo assist in computing deficiencies in the NMC and severe storm\nnetworks, the conterminous U.S. was divided into two degree\nsquares. The average area per square in the 48 states is about\n10,000 miles - somewhat larger in the south. One station per\nsquare will provide approximately a 100- mile spacing. All\nsquares over land without a station whose observing program\nsatisfies the NMC requirements, and areas roughly 75 miles or","8\nmore away from any such station, constitute deficiencies in the\nNMC network. 6 These are the priorities A and A* deficiencies,\nrespectively, as described in Table 2. Figure 2 shows their\nlocations.\nB. SEVERE STORM NETWORK\nThe existing network in Figurel falls short of meeting the severe\nstorm network requirements stated in paragraph IV.B.3. These\nrequirements are the optimum but implementation of such a net-\nwork throughout the U.S. is not economically feasible. This net-\nwork would be most difficult to justify in areas where severe\nmesoscale storms are rare. Paragraph VI proposes a more\nrealistic network, which will provide a mesoscale storm detection\ncapability proportional to the areal distribution of potential storm\nlosses, based on climatology.\nC. REGIONAL NETWORK\nTable 5 (at the end of the text) shows the latest available regional\ndeficiencies, together with priorities. Also included are priorities\nof the regions for eliminating deficiencies in the NMC and severe\nstorm networks.\nVI. MODIFIED SEVERE STORM NETWORK\nSince the severe storm network spacing requirements of paragraph\nIV.B.3 are unfeasible over the entire U.S., a compromise must be\naccepted. The highest detection capability (that requiring the densest\nnetwork) should be provided where the potential benefits of accurate\nwarnings would be greatest. Detection capabilities elsewhere should\nbe made proportional to the potential benefit. In order to determine\nthe required areal distribution of observing sites for a given\ndetection capability, we must (1) obtain a quantitative measure of\npotential benefits (PB values), (2) relate this quantitatively to required\ndetection capabilities, (RDC values) and (3) determine the number of\nstations needed per two degree square.\n6/ A point half way between two stations and 75 miles from each, is\nin a gap of 150 miles. Any gap larger than approximately 150\nmiles is considered subjectively to be unacceptably large. A\nstation placed in a 150 mile gap would leave a 75-mile spacing,\nwhich is considered to be the closest spacing which could be\njustified in the NMC network.","9\nTable 2\nDescription of Deficiency Priorities in Severe Storm, NMC, and\nRegional Networks\nPriority\nNetwork\nDescription\nA\nNMC\nNo station in two degree square (48 states) or\nsite is 75 or more miles from nearest station\n(Alaska, Hawaii)\nA*\nNMC\nSquare contains station, but this site is 75 or\nmore miles from nearest station in any square\nB\nSevere\nSite is in square containing less than 50% of\nStorm\nrequired number of stations#\n11\nC\nSite is in square containing 50-74% of required\nnumber of stations\n11\nC*\nAdditional station needed# at this site because\nuneven distribution of stations in square results\nin the equivalent of a \"C\" (in a few cases a \"D\")\ndeficiency. Square may contain the required\nnumber of stations.\n11\nD\nSite is in square containing 75-99% of required\nnumber of stations#\nE$\n11\nStation needed# either (a) because this site is\nmore than 125 miles from an existing or planned\nWSR-57 (or equivalent) radar and experiences a\nconsiderable frequency of severe storms, or (b)\nto increase the RDC to more than 85% until VIP,\ninstant radar replay and digitized radars are\navailable and the expected capabilities of these\nare verified.\n1\nRegional\nSite is essential\n2\nRegional\nSite is important\n3\nRegional\nObservation from this site would be nice to have\n#After higher priority deficiencies (if any) in the NMC or severe storm\nnetworks in the same square have been eliminated.\n$ Priority E deficiencies are excluded from computations of the percent to\nwhich the observing program in a square has been implemented.","10\nLOCATIONS\nALASKA\n30°\n120","11\nA. COMPUTATION OF POTENTIAL BENEFIT (PB) VALUES\nPotential benefits accruing from a high capability of detecting\nsevere local storms will be greatest where the storm frequency,\npopulation density, and property values (hence, the potential\nlosses) are highest. PB values were determined by multiplying\nthe frequency of severe storm occurrence by the logarithm\n(base 2) of the population density (1960 census) in each two-degree\nlatitude-longitude square in the U.S. No computations were made\nfor Hawaii and Alaska, where severe local stormsare infrequent.\nAppendix C contains details. The logarithm of the population was\nused in order to increase the relative emphasis on areas of low\npopulation; there is little doubt that many severe storms go\nundetected in sparsely populated areas. It also reduces the\noverwhelming impact on PB-value computations of populous areas\nsuch as the square in which New York City is located. There the\npopulation density is more than 500 times as great as the average\ndensity in over half of the squares in the U.S. Figure 3 shows PB\nvalues for each two-degree square; the greatest is 310. Note that\nthe highest values are in the \"tornado belt\" and densely populated\nnortheastern corridor.\nThe areal distribution of property values was not considered in\nthe PB computations because of the absence of statistics and the\nprobable similarity between the distribution of population and\nproperty values. Also, the amount of preventable damage which\nwarnings provide to people is greater than that provided to\nproperty. It is easier for people than property to be sheltered\nfrom a severe storm on short notice.\nB. RELATIONSHIP OF POTENTIAL BENEFITS(PB) TOREQUIRED\nDETECTION CAPABILITIES (RDC)\nIt is decided that detection capabilities should exceed 32% (the\ncapability provided by the 100-mile spacing of the NMC network)\nboth in those squares having PB values of 38 or more, and in an\nadjacent strip of land,mostly in the western plains. This decision\nwas reached after coordination with the NSSFC on approximately\nwhich areas of the U.S. should be included in the severe storm\nnetwork. After examining the distribution of PB values (Figure\n3), it was determined that, in general, the severe storm network\narea coincided with the area containing PB values of 38 or more.\nHowever, the severe storm area specified by NSSFC included a\nstrip immediately to the west of the area having PB values of 38\nor more. Although values are lower in this strip because of the\ninfrequency of existing storms, it is often possible to detect\nconditions antecedent to storm formation, such as pressure jump,\nwind shift, and dry lines.-\n7/ \"Dry line\" is defined in the Glossary.","12\nPOTENTIAL BENEFIT VALUES IN EACH TWO DEGREE SQUARE-FORTY EIGHT STATES\n190/20/47\n73\n99\n57\n64\n69\n79\n62\n83\n69\n53\n90\n12\n290150\n88\n74\n140/130\n90°\n29\n39\n89\n9\n51\n110\n64\n98\n9\n32\n170\n9\n86\n77\n84\nF\n22\n10\n160\n120130\n84\n6\n25\n73\n46\n11\n55\n82\n130\n100\n43\n46\n19\n59\n170\n310\n55\n82\nF Igure 3\n71\n66\n24\n18\n200\n50\n58\n190\n160\n96\n120\n150\n90\n29\n30\n22\n120\n44\n55\n24\n28\n44\n51\n10\n43\n21\n29\n17\n17\n21\n22\n35\n21\n39\n36\n41\n65\n9\n4\n16\n15\n18\n21\n31\n22\n19\n28\n24\n14\n13\n0\n15\n14\n14\n20\n58\n13\n12\n13\n10\n12\n10\n5\n11\n0\n10\n11\n9\n10\n9\n25\n10\n7\n8\n1\n9\n9\n8\n8\n8\n8\n8\n7\n7\n22\n5\no = less than 1/2\n7\n7\n7\n7\n6\n9\n3\n6\n6\n9\n11\n6\n7\n5\n0\n7\n6\n2\n6\n6\n5\n3\n6\n6\n6\n4\n0\n5\n5\n4\n4\n5\n1,\n3\n3\n2\n5\n5\n5\n2\n4\n4\n6\n8\n3\n12\n5\n3\n2\n8\n5","13\nIt was decided subjectively that squares having PBvalues of 220\nor more should have a 95% RDC - the highest RDC required where\nradar coverage exists (paragraph IV.B.3). There are four such\nsquares.\nWe have now assigned an RDC of 32% to PB values of 37 or less\nand an RDC of 95% to the PB values of 220 or more. We then\nplotted on a graph (Figure 4) the two points representing PB\nvalues of 37 and 220, opposite the RDC values of 32 and 95%,\nrespectively. These two points were then connected by a straight\nline. The formula for this line is:\nRDC = .34PB + 20\n(37 < PB < 220)\nThis formula was used to compute RDC S from the PB values in\neach square (Figure 3). 8/\nThe adopted PB-R DC relationship has the advantages both of being\nbased on objective criteria (mesoscale storm frequency and\npopulation density) and of requiring a station distribution that is\nreasonably acceptable to severe storm forecasters.\nC. RELATIONSHIP OF RDC VALUES TO THE NUMBER OF\nSTATIONS REQUIRED PER TWO - DEGREE LATITUDE-\nLONGITUDE SQUARE\nThe number of stations needed in each square to provide the\nrequired detection capability was obtained by using T. A. Gleeson's\ntable (1959) (Figure D1). This shows the probabilities of\ndetecting a system of a given size by various network densities.\nOur adaptation of Gleeson's work is described in paragraph B\nof Appendix D.\nFigure 5 shows the number of stations required in each two-\ndegree square to provide the RDC S shown in Figure 3, and\nFigure 6 shows the resulting general distribution of stations in the\nU.S. after all deficiencies have been eliminated. A comparison\nof Figure 6 with Figure 5 will reveal that not all stations shown in\nFigure 6 are required for either the NMC or severe storm\nnetworks (note, in particular, along the west coast). Figure 6\nincludes all stations satisfying network requirements, whether\nneeded or not.\n8/ The slope of the line (Figure 4) for PB values between 38\nand 220 is essentially the same as the slope that would be\nobtained by assigning a zero RDC to the zero PB value and\na 100% RDC to the highest PB value in the U.S. (310)\nAWS TECHNICAL LIBRARY\nFL 4414\n859 BUCHANAN STREET\nSCOTT AFB IL 62225-5118","14\nRELATIONSHIP OF POTENTIAL BENEFIT TO REQUIRED\nDETECTION CAPABILITY OF MESOSCALE STORMS\n300\n(95,220)\n(220)\n200\n100\n(32,38)\n(38)\n60%\n80%\n100%\n40%\n20%\n0%\nDETECTION CAPABILITY\nFigure 4\nThe minimum detection capability of 32% (for potential benefit\nvalues less than 38) is the capability provided by the NMC\n100-mile network.\nThe maximum detection capability of 95% is the highest capability\nrequired where radar coverage exists (paragraph IV.B.3).\nWhere radar adjuncts (digitized radar, instant radar replay and\nVideo Integrator and Processor) are available, the maximum\ndetection capability required would be 85%. This assumes that\nthe expected abilities of these adjuncts are borne out in tests.","15\nNUMBER OF STATIONS REQUIRED IN EACH TWO DEGREE SQUARE TO PROVIDE THE\n3\n2\n2\n3\n2\n2\n2\nREQUIRED DETECTION CAPABILITY-FORTY EIGHT STATES\n2\n2\n2\n2\n6\n3\n3\n4\n2\n90°\n3\n12\n3\nt\n2\n2\n3\n3\n4\n12.\n5\n{3\n2\n3\n5\n3\n0\n3\n3\n2\n1\n2\n2\n2\n3\n3\n3\n2\n2\n3\n2\n12\n2\n6\n2\n2\n2\n1\nFigure 5\n2\n3\n8\n3\n7\n5\n4\n*1\n2\n1\n1\n1\n*1\n*1\n2\n2\n2\n2\n3\n2\n1\n1\n1\n11\n1\n1\n*1\n1\n2\n2\n2\nA\n1\n1\n1\n1\n1\n1\n*\n1\n1\n1\n1\n1\n1\n1\n1\n1\n2\n1\n1\n1\n1\nprovide advance detection of antecedent conditions\n1\n1\n1\n1\n1\n* Two stations required in these squares in order to\n1\n1\n1\n1\n1\n1\n1\n1\n1\n1\n1\nof uneven di stribution (i.e., clustering)\nat least one additional station because\n1\n1\n1\nThis assumes random di stribution\nof stations. Many squares require\nas\n1\nsuch as the 'dry line'\nof existing stations.","16","17\nD. EXISTING DEFICIENCIES IN PROPOSED SEVERE STORM\nNETWORK\nDeficiencies were determined by subtracting the number of\nstations currently satisfying the observing requirements of the\nNMC and severe storm networks from the number required in\neach two-degree square (Figure 5) 9\nAll two-degree squares in which the required network spacing is\nless than 100 miles are considered to be in the severe storm\nnetwork. As such, stations in these areas must satisfy the\nsevere storm network observational requirements (paragraphs\nIV.B.2 and IV.B.4).\nDeficiencies in each network were assigned priorities for\nelimination. These are described in Table 2. Note that\npriorities A and A* are deficiencies in the NMC network; B\nthrough E, in the severe storm network; and priorities 1\nthrough 3 in the regional network.\nFigure 7 shows the approximate locations of the deficiencies in\nthe severe storm network. There are 13 two-degree squares in\nthe severe storm network area containing one-half or less of the\nrequired number of stations (priority B deficiencies). Most of\nthese 13 are located in an area requiring a high detection\ncapability, extending from northern Nebraska to northern Iowa.\nFive of these squares do not contain any 24-hour stations, and\nthus are priority A as well as B deficiencies.\nThere are 25 priority C, 22 C*, and 21 D deficiencies, all east\nof the Rockies, with the greatest concentration in the tornado\nbelt. Priority E deficiencies which are reserved for those areas\noutside of radar coverage, yet experiencing considerable severe\nstorm frequency, are located mostly along the northern border\nof the U.S. All other priority E deficiencies are in the areas\nrequiring the greatest detection capability, and include the\nenvirons of Kansas City, Chicago, Milwaukee and Boston.\n9/ Any two stations within ten miles of each other were counted\nas one station. Thisfactor, together with uneven distribution\nof stations, resulted in the identification of many additional\ndeficiencies.","8\nE\nE\n80°\n*\nC\nD\n*\nC\nC\nC\nC\n*\nLocations of Deficiencies in Severe Storm Network\nD\nD\nC\n*\nE\nC\nD\nB\nE\n90°\nD\nC\nC\nE\nE\nB\nC\nC\n*\nC\nC\n*\nC\n*\n*\n*\nG\nFigure 7\nC\n*\nB\n*\nB\nC\n*\nE\nC\nC\nC\nB\nB\nD\nD\nE\nD\nE\nC\nD\nD\n*\nC\nD\nE\nE\nC\nC\nB\nD\nE\nD\nB\nD\nD\nC\nC\nC\nC\nCo\nC\nC\nB\nC\nB\nE\nC\nB\nE\nC\nE\nNMC deficiencies are shown only for\nshows all NMC network deficiencies.\nPriority of Deficiency\ncomparison purposes. Figure 2\nTable 4 describes deficiency\n30\npriorities.\nB. C, D*\nD and E\n1200\nKEY.","19\nTable 3 is a tabulation of the number of each type of deficiency\nfound in each region.\nTable 4 lists locations of the most important deficiencies in order\nof priority. These are given priority A, A* or B in the NMC and\nsevere storm networks, and usually priority 1 in one or more\ncategories in the regional networks.\nTable 5 contains a station-by-station breakdown of deficiencies\nin all networks. Table 6 lists alphabetically by state and\nstation name, all stations satisfying NMC and severe storm\nobservational requirements, together with all deficiencies in\nthese two networks. Because of their large sizes, Tables 5\nand 6 have been placed at the end of the text.\nShould the FAA Modernization Plan be implemented, many\nadditional gaps would be created in all networks.\nVII. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ELIMINATING DEFICIENCIES\nIn order to carry out a program for the eventual elimination of\ndeficiencies in the surface observing network, the following\nrecommendations are made:\n1. Make maximum efforts to eliminate deficiencies in the NMC\nnetwork, beginning with those which are also of high priority\nin the severe storm and regional networks. These stations\nimpair forecast accuracy significantly at almost all forecast\nlevels. Table 4 lists the locations of the high priority deficiencies\nin order of importance.\n2.\nGive priority to the development and production of the AMOS III-\n70 with add-on modules. This equipment can meet not only the\nmost important needs of the NMC and severe storm networks\nbut also many of the regional data requirements. After a\nrelatively high initial cost, the AMOS will show very substantial\ncost savings over manned hourly surface observations. These\nsavings may be deduced from Table 7, which contains a cost\ncomparison of various modes of observation.\n3. Give priority to the development of an AMOS system for use in\nthose locations where deployment of the AMOS III-70 is not\nsuitable. These are locations where shelter, AC power,and\nregular maintenance service are unavailable, or where the\nenvironment is hostile. Many of the deficiencies in Hawaii and\nAlaska would be candidates for the RAMOS.","Table 3\n20\nDistribution of Deficiencies by Regions\nRegion\nDescription of Deficiency\nPriority\nEastern Southern Central Western Alaska Pacific\nTotal\nPriority\nNMC Network\n6\n6\nO\nO\n20\n3\n5\nNo station in square\nA\n54\n4\n2\n11\n30\n7\nO\n150+ mile gap btwn stns\nA*\n8\n74\n17\n30\n7\n3\n9\nTotal NMC Deficiencies\nSevere Storm Network\nO\nO\n13\n1-49% of stations imple-\n0\n3\n10\nO\nB\nmented\nO\n25\n15\nO\nO\n50-74% of stns imp'd\nl\n9\nC\nO\n22\n12\n7\nO\nO\nGap - uneven distribution\n3\nC*\n8\nO\n21\n75-99% of stns imp'd\n11\nO\nO\n2\nD\n4\nO\n21\n1\n15\n1\nO\nNo radar coverage exists\nE\nor adjuncts expected #\n58\n1\no\nO\n102\nTotal Severe Storm Deficiencies\n10\n33\nRegional Network - max deficiency\n6\n8\n7\n103\n59\nEssential in 2-3\n20\n3\n1 in 2-\n3 cats\ncategories\n4\n4\n9\nO\nO\n17\nEssential, AMOS-type obs\nO\n1 AMOS\n82\n7\nO\nEssential, manned obs\nO\n5\nO\n70\n1 man\n6\n24\nl\nO\nO\nO\n31\nEssential, Synoptics\n1 Syn\n6\n28\n9\nO\nO\n13\nImportant in 2-3 cate-\nO\n2 in 2-\n3 cats\ngories\nO\nO\n10\nImportant AMOS-type obs\nO\n1\n9\nO\n2 AMOS\n12\nO\n21\nImportant manned obs\nO\nO\n9\nO\n2 man\n4\n4\nO\nO\nO\nO\nO\nImportant Synoptics\n2 Syn\n48\n44\n26\n296\n20\n129\n29\nTotal Regional Deficiencies\n61\n62\n147\n472\n110\n59\n33\nTotal All Deficiencies\n# Radar adjuncts are digitized radar, Video Integrator and Processor (VIP)\nand instant radar replay.","21\nCapability, %\nWith Station\nHas Needs Dif.\nSize of Gap\nDetection\n33\n17\n135\n133\n133\n130\n130\n128\n128\n128\n128\n128\n125\n123\n123\n120\n120\n118\n82\n17\nIsle of the Four Mtns.\n00\n00\nin order to aid detection of mesoscale storm antecedent conditions, such as the dry line.\nCape Sarichof\nCape Decision\nStation Name\nPoplar Bluff\nStation Name\nNantucket LS\nDry Tortugas\nPearl Reef\nSand Point\nDillingham\nPoint Lay\nJunction\nChirikof\nWrangell\nNunivak\nTwo stations required in square (equiv. of 33% required detection capability)\nUmiat\nMarfa\nKobuk\nEagle\nMissouri\nPart A - Priority A and B Deficiencies:\nFlorida\nPart B - Priority A Only Deficiencies\nAlaska\nHawaii\nAlaska\nAlaska\nState\nTexas\nState\nTexas\nMass.\nHighest Priority Deficiencies\nTable 4\nDeficiency Priorities are explained in Table 2.\nCapability, %\nHas Needs Dif.\nWith Station\nSize of Gap\nDetection\n44\n33\n33\n150\n150\n150\n150\n150\n150\n148\n145\n145\n145\n143\n143\n140\n140\n140\n138\n272\n2\n44\n21\n00\n00\n00\nSt. Matthew Island\nGardner Pinnacles\nKrusenstern Rock\nLisianski Island\nNecker Island\nStation Name\nStation Name\nPort Heiden\n6830N 158W\nFort Yukon\nMaro Reef\nAmchitka\n68N 146W\nSpencer\nO 'Neill\nGuyman\nArctic\nKiska\nNihoa\nAdak\nAtka\nOklahoma\nNebraska\nAlaska\nHawaii\nAlaska\nHawaii\nAlaska\nHawaii\nAlaska\nHawaii\nState\nState\nIowa\n2\nl","22\nWith Station\nSize of Gap\n83\n83\n80\n80\n80\n78\n78\n75\n75\n70\n93\n90\n90\n88\n85\n85\n95\n95\n93\nin order to aid detection of mesoscale storm antecedent conditions, such as the dry line.\nConoco Platform\nMyrtle Beach\nCoal Springs\nStation Name\nSusanville\nBig Piney\nInyokern\nEscanaba\nElk City\nCaliente\nAshland\nKingman\nChallis\nTwo stations required in square (equiv. of 33% required detection capability)\nJordan\nScobey\nAustin\nMcCall\nOwyhee\nBishop\nAjo\nS. Carolina\nCalifornia\nCalifornia\nCalifornia\nS. Dakota\nWisconsin\nLouisiana\nMichigan\nMontana\nArizona\nWyoming\nArizona\nNevada\nNevada\nNevada\nState\nIdaho\nIdaho\nIdaho\nDeficiency Priorities are explained in Table 2.\nWith Station\nSize of Gap\n110\n108\n108\n108\n108\n105\n105\n103\n100\n98\n98\n98\n95\n95\n115\n115\n113\n113\nFrying Pan Shoals LS\nShell Oil Platform\nGulf Oil Platform\nStation Name\nNear Denio\n6230N 163W\nBoothville\nMinchumina\nSanderson\nMoorcroft\nIliamena\nLewiston\nSkwentna\nMcCarthy\nYakataga\nSafford\nGambell\nAniak\nPage\nN. Carolina\nLouisiana\nLouisiana\nLouisiana\nArizona\nWyoming\nArizona\nNevada\nAlaska\nAlaska\nAlaska\nAlaska\nAlaska\nAlaska\nIdaho\nTexas\nState\n1\n2","23\nCapability, %\nDoes not apply\nDoes not apply\nHas Needs Dif.\nCapability, %\nHas Needs Dif.\nDetection\n00 16? 33\n42\n29\n19\n11\nDetection\n25\n18\n17\n15\n72\n60\n69\n55 66\n53\n18\n91\n46\n30\n31\n50\n28\n00\n74\n31\nin order to aid detection of mesoscale storm antecedent conditions, such as the dry line.\nStation Name\nHattiesburg\nJanesville\nFort Dodge\nBemidji\nTwo stations required in square (equiv. of 33% required detection capability)\nWith Station\nSize of Gap\n(miles)\n95\n88\nMississippi\n1\nMinnesota\nWisconsin\nPart D - Deficiencies at NWS Sites:\nPart C - Priority B Only Deficiencies:\nState\nIowa\nHighest Priority Deficiencies\nwork Network\nDeficiency Priorities are explained in Table 2.\nDeficiency\nNMC Severe\nNet- Storm\nC*\nC*\nC*\nB\nB\nC\nC\nCapability, %\nHas Needs Dif.\nDetection\n42\n42\n35\n33\nA\nA\n2\n16\n72\n72\n66\n30\n30\n31\n00\nStation Name\nStation Name\nValentine\nValentine\nSt. Cloud\nLewiston\nWaycross\nNorfolk\nNorfolk\nDubuque\nMankato\nBishop\nMuncie\nElkins\nSalem\nCalifornia\nMinnesota\nNebraska\nNebraska\nNebraska\nIllinois\nGeorgia\nIndiana\nW. Va.\nState\nIdaho\nState\nMinn.\nIowa\n1\n2","Has Needs Dif.\nDoes not apply\nDoes not apply\nDoes not apply\n12\n4\n42\n17\nCapability\nDetection\n30 72\n74 91\n79 91\n48 52\nin order to aid detection of mesoscale storm antecedent conditions, such as the dry line.\nSevere Storm\nTwo stations required in square (equiv. of 33% required detection capability)\nNetwork\nC*\nC*\nE\nB\nB\nC\nC\nDeficiency\n1\nPart E - Deficiencies at FAA Sites:\nNetwork\nHighest Priority Deficiencies\nNMC\nDeficiency Priorities are explained in Table 2.\nStation Name\nHot Springs\nJanesville\nBlackstone\nGulfport\nOshkosh\nMuncie\nGrants\nMississippi\nNew Mexico\nWisconsin\nArkansas\nVirginia\nIndiana\nState\n1\n2","25\n4.\nEstablish a combined AMOS and manned observing program at\nsites where AMOS parameters are needed around the clock,\nbut visual elements are required during only part of the day.\n5.\nReview and update deficiency priorities from year to year as\ndata requirements change, and as new deficiencies arise.\nA.\nIMPLEMENTATION COSTS\nThe cost of different methods of obtaining observations may be\ndetermined from Table 7 below.\nTable 7\nComparative Costs of Various Modes of Obtaining Observations\nOne Year\nCost First\n12/\nType of Observation\nFEC Cost\nS&E Cost\n10 Years\nPaid synoptic 4 per day\n$ 4 K\n$ 4 K\n$\n44 K\nPaid synoptic 8 per day\n4 K\n8 K\n84 K\n13 /\nAMOS III-70\n30 K\n3. 5 K\n65 K\n14 /\nManned, 24 hours per day\n46 K\n108 K\n1, 126 K\nAMOS plus manned 16\n14\nhours per day\n86 K\n88 K\n966 K\nAMOS plus manned 8\nhours per day 14/\n86 K\n78 K\n866 K\n15\n/\nRemote AMOS (RAMOS)\n30 K\n6 K\n90 K\n12/\nAssumes no inflation.\n13\nTentative cost at new observing site. Cost of installing AMOS I III-70\nat existing part-time station is assumed to be the same.\n14\n/\nIncludes ceilometer.\n15 /\nTentative cost for both one field and one central station each with a\n13-parameter capability. Per unit costs would be significantly\nreduced by having more than one field station reporting to each\ncentral station.","26\nAMOS III-70 PLAN\nB.\nThe AMOS III-70 Plan (OMO Project 70-3) will recommend sites\nwhere the AMOS should be installed, considering the network\ndeficiencies documented in this study. If the AMOS were to be\ninstalled at the sites of deficiencies in the NMC and severe storm\nnetworks, the costs would be as shown in Table 8 below.\nTable 8\nCosts of Using the AMOS III-70 to Eliminate Deficiencies in NMC and Severe\nStorm Networks\nCost First\nOne Year\n16/\nS&E Cost\n10 Years\n(No.)\nFEC Cost\nType of Deficiency\n$ 17. 5 K\n$\n325 K\n$ 150 K\n5\nSites in both priorities\n17/ and B 18/\nA\n/\n17\n241. 5 K\n4, , 485 K\n2,070 K\n69\nPriority A only\n240 K\n28.0 K\n520 K\n8\nPriority B only\n87.5 K\n1,625 K\n25\n750 K\nPriority C\n77.0 K\n1, ,430 K\n22\n660 K\nPriority C*\n73.5 K\n1,365 K\n630 K\n21\nPriority D\n1,365 K\n630 K\n73.5 K\n21\nPriority E\n$598. 5 K $11, 115 K\n$5,130 K\n171\n16/ Assumes continued operation at present level of network stations\noperated by other Government agencies, e.g., the FAA and\nCoast Guard.\nIncludes priorities A and A*.\n17/\n18/ Five sites constitute deficiencies in both the NMC and severe storm\nnetworks. These are not included in the tabulations of priorities\nA only and B only deficiencies.","27\nNine of the above deficiencies are located at NWS sites, and seven at sites\noperated by the FAA.\nElimination of all the 74 priority A deficiencies from the NMC network\nexclusively via the AMOS III-70 would cost approximately $2, 220K in FEC\nfunds. Actual costs would be higher at sites where manned or combined\nAMOS and manned observing programs would be recommended,\nC.\nRATIONALE USED TO SELECT SITES FOR IMPLEMENTING\nREQUIRED OBSERVING PROGRAMS\nThere are two alternatives in the selection of observing sites: either\nup-grade an existing part-time station or add a new station. Sites to\nwhich deficiencies were assigned were selected so as to make\nimplementation possible at a minimum cost and to be of maximum\nvalue to users through high quality observations. Other factors\nbeing equal, the recommended order of site selectionfo: implementa-\ntion of 24 hour programs was generally as follows: NWS, FAA, CG,\nMilitary, S, SAWR, A, and no observation. First preference at NWS\nsites should be given to stations in the upper air and radar networks.\nAs SAWR and A station observing programs do not meet network\nspecifications (paragraph IV.B.4), AMOS III-70 or other Government\nfacilities would be required at these sites. However, it is considered\nmore economical in the combined interest of meteorology and\naviation to select SAWR and A sites for the installation of the\nrequired Government equipment, than to establish entirely new sites\nnearby. Such a collocation could reduce the redundancy which would\nresult from observing the same elements by two facilities.\nDeficiencies of observing sites in one square may be satisfied by\nsurplus stations in adjacent squares provided these stations effectively\neliminate the gaps in the deficient square. This procedure was used\nvery liberally in proposing observing sites because of the artificiality\nof the technique of dividing the country into two degree squares.\nD.\nPOSSIBLE TEMPORARY ALTERNATIVES TO OBTAINING\nREQUIRED OBSERVING PROGRAMS\nThere are various temporary cost-saving compromises in observing\nprograms that help meet network needs. For example, some of the\nregional recommendations call for daytime manned hourlies and\nspecials with nighttime manned 3-hourlies. Four 6-hourly synoptics\nmay meet some zone forecasting needs as well as eight 3-hourlies.\nOn-request observations, and observing programs covering the hours\nof maximum convective storm occurrence are useful. Reports from\nA and SAWR stations are better than anabsence of all data. At best,\nhowever, the above compromises should not be considered as more\nthan temporary measures.","28\nFACTORS WHICH MAY ALTER IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM\nE.\nWe recognize that implementation of deficiencies will not follow\npriorities in every case. Listed below are some of the factors which\ncould alter the implementation order:\n1. Relative costs of implementation (i.e., 4/day paid synoptics vs.\nAMOS III-70)\n2. Degree to which existing observing program (if any) must be\naugmented to meet network requirements\n3. FAA Modernization Plan implementation\n4. Availability of observing personnel\n5. Accessibility of site\nSpecialized forecast or observing requirements (aviation, urban,\n6.\netc.).\nNevertheless, the dominating factor in the order of site selection for\neliminating deficiencies should be the priorities shown in Tables 4 and\n5.\nFURTHER WORK\nF.\nThis part of the surface network plan has dealt only with the NMC,\nsevere storm, and to some extent, regional networks. The specialized\nneeds of individual service programs must be determined, and other\ntypes of surface observational programs should be considered.\nFor example, single parameter automatic stations might be considered\neither as possible \"gap fillers\" for the basic network, or as urban or\nfire weather stations.","29\nABBREVIATIONS\nA\nPaid Aviation Observing Station\n-\nAMOS\nAutomatic Meteorological Observing Station\n-\nAv\nAviation Observations\n-\nCG\nCoast Guard\n-\nCST\nCombined FSS and TWR\n-\nFSS\nFlight Service Station\n-\nPB\nPotential Benefit\n-\nRAMOS -\nRemote AMOS\nRDC\nRequired Detection Capability\n-\nS\nPaid Synoptic Observing Station\n-\nSyn\nObservation in Synoptic Code\n-\nSA\nSynoptic/Aviation-type Observing Station\n-\nSAWRS\nSupplementary Aviation Weather Reporting Station\n-\nTWR\nTower\n-\nVIP\nVideo Integrator and Processor\n-\nWSFO\n(National) Weather Service Forecast Office\n-\nWSO\n(National) Weather Service Office\n-","30\nGLOSSARY\nAn Automatic Meteorological Observing Station capable\nAMOS III-70\nof transmitting temperature, dewpoint, wind speed and\ndirection, altimeter setting, and accumulated precipita-\ntion. Add-on modules developed or being developed\ninclude peak wind, visibility, clouds-over-station and\nyes-no precipitation. Observations are sent auto-\nmatically over the FAA teletypewriter system.\nA Network of stations providing observations for the\nBasic Network\npreparation of more than one type of forecast or of a\nforecast used by the public or by more than one user\ngroup.\nAs used in this study, deficiencies refer to locations\nDeficiency\nfrom which a particular type of observing program is\nneeded but not available (observations are either not\nmade or not transmitted).\nA storm is considered to have been defined when its\nDefinition\nshape and movement have been determined. Storm\ndefinition may be achieved by radar, satellite, surface,\nor a combination of these observations. A storm is\nassumed to have been defined without ambiguity by\nsurface observations when it has passed over four\nstations not in a straight line within an hours time.\nDefinition, as used herein, does not apply to severe\nwinter storms or tropical cyclones. See Appendix D,\nparagraphs C and D,for rationale and further explanation\nof definition.\nA severe local storm is considered to have been\nDetection\ndetected (its presence confirmed) when it has been\nexperienced by one station. Only when a storm passes\nover a station can wind speeds, hail size, pressure\nchanges, etc., be determined accurately.\nThe percent probability that at least one of a network\nDetection\nof stations within a two- degree square will detect a\nCapability\nweather system covering a 3,000-square-mile area\nwithin 1 hour. See Appendix D, paragraph B.\nA line of demarcation separating areas of high and low\nDry Line\ndewpoints, but generally of small temperature\ndifferences. Dry lines of concern here are usually\noriented north-south and found in the western Plains","31\nStates in southerly surface flow. The dry line is also\ncalled the dewpoint front. Severe convective storms in\nthe Plains States may form along a dry line, usually\nwhich has begun moving eastward.\nFAA\nA plan whereby some new FSS S and control towers will\nModernization\nbe opened and some existing ones curtailed or closed,\nPlan\nin proportion to the amount of air traffic served.\nMany of these facilities take surface aviation observa-\ntions which would be lost when or during the hours in\nwhich the station would be closed.\nForecast\nAreas usually having a homogeneous or characteristic\nZones\ntype of weather, for which a WSFO makes forecasts.\nMost zones cover 5,000 to 15,000 square mile areas.\nHourlies\nObservations in the aviation code used in the U.S.\n(including AMOS III-70 observations), made and trans-\nmitted at hourly intervals.\nManned\nObservations including cloud and visibility data made\nObservations\nmanually and in the aviation code used in the U.S.\nMile\nNautical mile. Square miles are square nautical miles.\nNMC Network\nNetwork of stations within the 50 states providing the\nobservations needed by the National Meteorological\nCenter. The minimum NMC requirements are for a\n100 mile spacing and 3-hourly frequency of surface\nobservations, except 6-hourly frequency in Hawaii.\nPotential\nThe potential damage to lives and property that could\nBenefit (PB)\nbe prevented by accurate severe local storm warnings.\nThe Potential Benefit value is a function of population\ndensity and storm size, severity and frequency. See\nAppendix C.\nRadar\nNWS WSR-57 radar or other radar having the\ncapabilities of the WSR-57, unless otherwise specified.\nThe radar range for quantitatively defining the intensity,\nshape and movement of precipitation areas is assumed\nto be 125 miles.","32\nStations from which observations are required by the\nRegional\nregions, but which are not a part of either the NMC or\nNetwork\nsevere storm networks. Reports are needed mostly by\nthe WSFO S. Only those stations are included, from\nwhich reports are needed for the preparation of more\nthan one type of forecast, or of a forecast used by more\nthan one category of user.\nRemote AMOS, capable of accepting 1 to 13 parameters,\nRAMOS\nincluding those reported by the AMOS III-70. The raw\ndata will be transmitted to a central station where it\nwill be processed, formatted, and displayed. Further\ntransmission (over teletypewriter circuits, for example)\nwill be handled manually. The ability to transmit data\nautomatically can be added, but is not in the initial plan.\nSame as Required Detection Capability, except that is\nRequired\napplies to definition instead of detection. See Appendix\nDefinition\nCapability (%)\nD.\nThe minimum acceptable level of detection capability\nRequired\nwhich the stations in a two-degree square must provide.\nDetection\nThe RDC is determined from the PB value. See\nCapability\n(RDC) (%)\nAppendix D.\nIncluded as severe storms in this study are severe\nSevere Storm\nthunderstorms (winds of 50 knots or greater\naccompanied by thunder), tornadoes, and severe meso-\nscale elements of winter storms (snow swaths, bands of\nfreezing rain) and tropical cyclones (heavy rain bands).\nCharacteristic sizes are 3,000 square miles for the\narea affected in 1 hour by the squall line with which\ntornadoes and severe thunderstorms are associated,\n10,000 square miles for severe elements of the winter\nstorm, and 15,000 square miles for severe elements\nof tropical cyclones. The breakpoint between synoptic\nscale and mesoscale is considered to be about 30,000\nsquare miles.\nThe network of stations providing the observations\nSevere Storm\nneeded by severe local storm forecasters. Hourlies\nNetwork\nand specials are required 24 hours per day. The\nnetwork covers that part of the U.S. significantly\naffected by severe storms. The required station\nspacing is proportional to the required detection\ncapability (RDC).","33\nSpecials\nObservations in the aviation code (including AMOSIII-70\nobservations) made and transmitted at times other than\nthe\nhourlies. Specials are reported when certain\nmeteorological parameters change to more or less than\nset threshold values, or begin or cease to occur.\nSynoptic\nObservation made in the WMO synoptic code or in the\nObservation\naviation code, to which cloud type, pressure tendency\nand (at 00, 06, 12 and 18 GMT) to which precipitation\naccumulation have been appended. Synoptic observa-\ntions are made and transmitted every 3 hours at the\nmost.\nTropical\nThe general term used for a cyclone that originates\nCyclone\nover the tropical oceans. Included are tropical\ndepressions, tropical storms, and hurricanes.\nUser Group\nCategories of users requiring a particular type of\nobservation or forecast. Examples of user groups are\naviation, agriculture, fire weather, construction and\ncoastal marine.\nWSFO\nWeather Service Forecast Office. One of 56 existing\nor proposed offices assigned with the responsibility of\npreparing state, zone, fire, agricultural, hydrological,\nurban, aviation and/or other forecasts, if not made by\na separate office. Forecast periods cover zero up to\n48 hours, and are based on NMC, NSSFC, and/or NHC\nguidance forecasts and on observations.\nZones\nSee forecast zones.","34\nREFERENCES\nBuz, A. I. \"Probability of Discovering Small-Scale - Phenomena in Relation-\n11\nship to Their Dimensions and the Density of the Observational Network,\"\nMeteorologiia i Gidrologia, Moscow, No. 2: February 1970, pp. 63-70\n(only the summary is in English).\nChangnon, S. A. and Huff, F. A. \"Studies of Radar-Depicted - Precipitation\nLines, \" Illinois State Water Survey Meteorology Laboratory, University\nof Illinois, AFCRL Publication 225, 1961.\n\"Design of the Data Acquisition Subsystem - Final Report,\" Weather\nBureau and IBM report in four volumes, April 1968.\nESSA/FAA Working Group on FAA-FSS Plan - Final Report, 1969.\n\"The Federal Plan for Meteorological Services and Supporting Research,\"\nU.S. Department of Commerce, ESSA, Office of Federal Coordinator for\nMeteorological Services and Supporting Research, FY 1970.\nGleason, T. A. \"Observational Probabilities and Uncertainty Relations for\nMeteorology,\" Journal of Meteorology, Volume 16, April 1959, pp.\n149-154.\nTepper, M. \"Pressure Jump Lines in Midwestern United States, \" WB\nResearch Paper No. 37, Washington, D. C., June 1954.\nWB Technical Planning Study No. 8, 1963, pp. 22-23.\nWMO Publication No. 9, TP. 4, Volume A, \"Weather Reporting-Observing\nStations, \" July 1968.","35\n( Wind and pressure needed ) 5215N 17405W\n( Wind and pressure needed) 5230N 17045W\nRemarks\n5540N 15540W\n6450N 14120W\n68N 14550W\nRecommended Sites at which to Eliminate Deficiencies\nNon-visual Visual (man-\nRegional Priorities For: *\nned) hrlys\nnight\n2\n2\n2\n1\n32\n32\n32\n3\n3\n3\n3\nl\n3\n2\nday\nHrlys = hourlies\n2\n2\nl\n32\n2 Superscript(1)\n32\n2\n1\n2\n3\n3\n2\n3\nAv = aviation\nSyn = synoptic\nl\n3\n2\nin Surface Observing Network\nOC = On call\n(AMOS)hrlys\nnight\nl\n3\n3\n3\nl\n3\n3\n3\n3\n3\n3\nday\n1\n3\n3\n3\nTable 5\nl\n3\n3\n3\n3\n3\n3\nSyn\n3\n3\n3\n3\n3\n3\n3\n3\n3\n3\n3\nObs/Day\nSyn\n3\n4\n4\nDeficiency priorities are explained in table 2\nOC\n3\n9\n16\n5\n9\n4\nOC\n8\nAv\nPriorities: A and A # Deficiencies\nFSS/SAWR\nType of\nv Station\nSAWR\nSAWR\nNone\nNone\nNone\nSAWR\nNone\nNone\nPriority l for 3-hourly observations\n2 Priority 2 for 3-hourly observations\nFSS\nFSS\nCG\nCG\nA\nCape Decision\nCape Sarichef\nChirikof Is. .\nStation Name\nIs. of Four\nAndreafski\nDillingham\nFort Yukon\nAmchitka\nGambell\nIliamna\nArctic\nAniak\nEagle\nMtns.\nAtka\nNetwork: NMC\nAlaska\nState\n*\n1","Remarks\n6940N 16245W\n6030N 17230W\n5150N 17710E\n6645N 15720W\n6130N 14255W\nRecommended Sites at which to Eliminate Deficiencies\nNon-visual Visual (man-\n*\nhrlys\nnight\nRegional Priorities For:\n2\n2\n2\n2\n2\n2\n2\n2\n3\n3\n3\n3\n3\n3\n3\nl\n1\n3\n3\n3\n3\n3\nned)\nHrlys = hourlies\nday\n2 Superscript(2)\n31\n2\n2\n2 Superscript(1)\nl\n2\n2\nAv = aviation\nSyn = synoptic\n3\n3\n2\n3\n2\n3\n2\n1\n1\n3\n3\nin Surface Observing Network\n(AMOS) hrlys\nnight\n3\n3\n3\n1\nl\n3\nl\n3\n2\n3\n3\n3\n3\n3\nday\n3\n3\nl\n3\n2\n3\n3\n3\nl\n3\n3\n3\n3\nl\nTable 5\nSyn\n3\n3\n3\n3\n3\n3\n3\n3\n3\n3\n3\n3\n3\n3\nObs/Day\n4\nSyn\nDeficiency priorities are explained in table 2\n6\n4\n5\n5\n3\n11\n9\n4\nAv\nAMOS-None\nPriorities: A and A* Deficiencies\nType of\nStation\nSAWR\nSAWR\nNone\nNone\nNone\nNone\nNone\nAMOS\nNone\n1 Priority 1 for 3-hourly observations\n2 Priority 2 for 3-hourly observations\nSA\nA\nA\nA\nA\nSt. Matthew Is.\nStation Name\nPort Heiden\n6830N 158W\nMinchumina\nSand Point\nPoint Lay\nKiska Is\nPuntilla\nSkwentna\nWrangell\nYakataga\nMcCarthy\nNunivak\nKobuk\nUmiat\nNetwork: NMC\nAlaska\nState\n*","37\nA* 3220N 11250W\nA* 3516N 11357W\nRemarks\n2438N 8255W\n25N 168W\n22N 175W\nA*\nA*\nRecommended Sites at which to Eliminate Deficiencies\nVisual (man-\nned) hrlys\nnight\nRegional Priorities For:\nl\n31\nl\n31\nl\nl\n31\nl\n3-Superscript(3)\nl\n31\n31\n3\n3\n3\nday\nHrlys = hourlies\n3\nl\nl\n1\n1\nAv = aviation\n1\nl\nl\n3\nSyn = synoptic\nin Surface Observing Network\n(AMOS)hrlys\nNon-visual\nnight\nl\nl\nl\nl\nl\n1\nl\nl\nl\nl\n2\nday\n1\nl\nl\n1\n1\n1\n1\nl\nl\nl\n2\nTable 5\nSyn\n3\n1\n1\n1\n1\nl\n1\n1\n1\n1\n2\nObs/Day\nSyn\n5\n7\n4\nDeficiency priorities are explained in table 2\n8\n5\n14\n10\n7\nAv\nPriorities: A and A* Deficiencies\nType of\nStation\nNone\nNone\nNone\nSAWR\nSAWR\nNone\nNone\nWSO\n1 Priority 1 for 3-hourly observations\n2 Priority 2 for 3-hourly observations\nSA\nCG\nA\nDry Tortugas\nStation Name\nKrusenstern\n6800N 142W\nSusanville\nPinnacles\nInyokern\nKingman\nSafford\nGardner\nBishop\nPage\nRock\nAjo\nNetwork: NMC\nCalifornia\nArizona\nFlorida\nState\nAlaska\nHawaii\n*","38\nB deficiency also\nA* 4550N 11525W\nA* 4450N 11610W\nRemarks\n2540N 17040W\n2330N 16440W\n2250N 16210W\n2740N 17550W\n4420N 11410W\n2920N 8924W\n2920N 9300W\n2610N 174W\nA*\nRecommended Sites at which to Eliminate Deficiencies\nVisual (man-\n*\n31\n1\n31\nl\n31\nl\n2\nned) hrlys\nnight\nRegional Priorities For:\n3\n1\n3\n2\nHrlys = hourlies\n2\nday\n1\nl\n1\nl\nl\n3\n2\nAv = aviation\nSyn = synoptic\nin Surface Observing Network\n(AMOS)hrlys\nNon-visual\nnight\n2\nl\n1\nl\n2\n3\nl\n2\n2\n1\n2\n1\nday\nl\n1\nl\n1\n2\n3\n1\n2\n2\n2\n1\n2\nTable 5\nSyn\n2\n2\n2\n1\n2\n1\n1\nl\n1\n2\n3\n3\nObs/Day\nSyn\n6\n7\nDeficiency priorities are explained in table 2\nWSO/SAWR 18\nAv\n19\nPriorities: A and A* Deficiencies\nType of\nStation\nSAWR\nNone\nNone\nNone\nNone\nNone\nNone\nNone\nNone\nNone\nNone\n1 Priority l for 3-hourly observations\n2 Priority 2 for 3-hourly observations\nNecker Island\nLisianski Is.\nStation Name\nBootheville\nPearl Reef\nConoco Oil\nMaro Reef\nNihoa Is.\nPlatform\nLewiston\nElk City\nSpencer\nChallis\nMcCall\nNetwork: NMC\nLouisiana\nState\nHawaii\nIdaho\nIowa\n*","39\nB deficiency also\nB deficiency also\n4710N 10700W\n4850N 10520W\nA* 3830N 11430W\nA* 2835N 9010W\nA* 2850N 9125W\n4030N 6928W\nRemarks\n4228N 9841W\nA*\nRecommended Sites at which to Eliminate Deficiencies\nVisual (man-\nRegional Priorities For: *\nned) hrlys\nnight\n1\n1\nl\n31\n2\n2\n2\n3\n3\n3\nl\n3\nday\nHrlys = hourlies\n2\n2\n2\n3\nl\nl\nl\n1\nAv = aviation\n1\nSyn = synoptic\nin Surface Observing Network\nOC = on call\nhrlys\nNon-visual\nnight\n1\n1\nl\n3\n1\nl\nl\nl\n1\n1\n(AMOS)\nday\n1\nl\nl\n3\nl\n1\n1\nl\nTable 5\n1\n1\nSyn\n3\n3\n1\nl\n1\nl\n1\n}\nObs/Day\nSyn\n4\n6\n4\nDeficiency priorities are explained in table 2\nAv\n15\nOC\nOC\nPriorities: A and A* Deficiencies\nType of\nStation\nNone\nNone\nSAWR\nSAWR\nNone\nNone\nSAWR\n1 Priority l for 3-hourly observations\n2 Priority 2 for 3-hourly observations\nNone\nCG\nS\nS\nEscanaba (Mun. )\nStation Name\nPoplar Bluff\nNantucket LS\nShell Oil\nGulf Oil\nPlatform\nPlatform\nEscanaba\nCaliente\nO' Neill\nJordan\nScobey\nAustin\nNetwork: NMC\nLouisiana\nMichigan\nMissouri\nNebraska\nMontana\nState\nNevada\nMass.\n*","40\nB deficiency also\nA*. B deficiency\nA* 3010N 10230W\nA* 4515N 10205W\nA* 4130N 11915W\n3329N 7735W\nRemarks\nalso.\nA*\nRecommended Sites at which to Eliminate Deficiencies\nVisual (man-\n*\nned) hrlys\nnight\nRegional Priorities For:\n2\n31\n31\n3\n3\n3\n3\n2\n1\n2\nHrlys = hourlies\nday\n1\n3\n3\nl\n3\n1\nl\n2\nl\nAv = aviation\nSyn = synoptic\nOC = on call\nin Surface Observing Network\n(AMOS)hrlys\nnight\nNon-visual\n1\n1\n1\nl\n3\n1\nl\nl\nl\n1\nday\n1\n1\n1\nl\n3\n1\nl\nl\nl\n1\nTable 5\nSyn\n3\n1\n3\n1\nl\n1\nl\nObs/Day\nSyn\n3\n5\n7\n4\nDeficiency priorities are explained in table 2\n14\nAv\nbc\n3\n6\n7\nPriorities: A and A* Deficiencies\nType of\nStation\nSAWR\nSAWR\nNone\nNone\nNone\nNone\n1 Priority 1 for 3-hourly observations\n2 Priority 2 for 3-hourly observations\nSA\nCG\nA\nA\nStation Name\nMyrtle Beach\nCoal Springs\nFrying Pan\nnear Denio\nSanderson\nJunction\nAshland\nGuyman\nOwyhee\nShoals\nMarfa\nNetwork: NMC\nWisconsin\nCarolina\nOklahoma\nCarolina\nState\nDakota\nNevada\nNorth\nSouth\nSouth\nTexas\n*","41\nRemarks\nA*\nRecommended Sites at which to Eliminate Deficiencies\nSyn Non-visual Visual (man-\n*\n(AMOS)hrlys ned) hrlys\nnight\nRegional Priorities For:\n32\n2\nday\nHrlys = hourlies\n3 1\n2\nAv = aviation\nSyn = synoptic\nin Surface Observing Network\nnight\n1\nl\nday\nl\nl\nTable 5\nObs/Day\nSyn\n4\n4\nDeficiency priorities are explained in table 2\nAv\nPriorities A and A* Deficiencies\nType of\nStation\n1 Priority 1 for 3-hourly observations\n2 Priority 2 for 3-hourly observations\nS\nS\nStation Name\nBig Piney\nMoorcroft\nNetwork: NMC\nWyoming\nState\n*","42\nA deficiency also\nA deficiency also\nA deficiency also\nA* defiency also\nA defiency also\nRemarks\n3640N 10135W\n4228₦ 9841₩\nRecommended Sites at which to Eliminate Deficiencies\nVisual (man-\n*\nned) hrlys\nnight\nRegional Priorities For:\n3\nl\nl\n3\n3\n3\nl\nl\n1\nl\n3\nHrlys = hourlies\nday\n3\n1\n1\n3\n3\n3\n1\n1\nl\nl\n3\nAv = aviation\nSyn = synoptic\nin Surface Observing Network\nhrlys\nNon-visual\nnight\n2\n1\n1\nl\nl\n1\n1\n1\n1\n2\nl\n1\n(AMOS)\nday\n2\nl\n2\nl\n1\nl\n1\n1\nl\n1\n1\n1\nTable 5\nSyn\n2\nl\nl\n3\n6\n8\n3\nObs/Day\nSyn\n7\n8\nDeficiency priorities are explained in table 2\n3\nFSS/SAWR 19\nOC\n19\n18\n14\n12\nOC\n16\nOC\n15\nAv\nType of\nStation\nWSO/S\nSAWR\nSAWR\nSAWR\nSAWR\nSAWR\nSAWR\nNone\nPriority 1 for 3-hourly observations\n2 Priority 2 for 3-hourly observations\nWSO\nS\nA\nPriority: B Deficiency\nPoplar Bluff\nStation Name\nHattiesburg\nNetwork: Severe Storm\nFort Dodge\nValentine\nJunction\nNorfolk\nSpencer\nBemidji\nMankato\nO'Neill\nGuyman\nMuncie\nNebraska\nOklahoma\nMissouri\nIndiana\nState\nTexas\nMinn.\nMiss.\nIowa\n*\nl","43\nRemarks\nRecommended Sites at which to Eliminate Deficiencies\nNon-visual Visual (man-\n*\n(AMOS)hrlys ned) hrlys\nnight\nRegional Priorities For:\n3\nday\nHrlys = hourlies\n3\nAv = aviation\nSyn = synoptic\nin Surface Observing Network\nnight\n3\nday\n3\nTable 5\nSyn\nObs/Day\nSyn\nFSS/SAWR 18\nDeficiency priorities are explained in table 2\nAv\nType of\nStation\n1 Priority 1 for 3-hourly observations\n2 Priority 2 for 3-hourly observations\nPriority: B Deficiency\nStation Name\nNetwork: Severe Storm\nJanesville\nWisconsin\nState\n*","lif\nRemarks\n3820N 10040W\n4145N 8510W\n3430N 9030W\nRecommended Sites at which to Eliminate Deficiencies\nVisual (man-\nnight\nned) hrlys\nRegional Priorities For:\n2\n2\n3\n2\n3\n3\n3\n3\n3\nl\n3\n3\nHrlys = hourlies\n2\n2\n3\nday\n3\n1\n2\n3\n3\nl\n3\n3\n2\n3\nAv = aviation\nSyn = synoptic\nin Surface Observing Network\n(AMOS) hrlys\nNon-visual\nnight\n1\n3\n2\n2\n2\n1\n2\n1\n3\n1\nday\n1\n2\n1\n2\nl\n2\n1\n3\nl\n3\nTable 5\nSyn\nN\n3\nl\n3\n1\n6\n5\nObs/Day\n8\nSyn\nDeficiency priorities are explained in table 2\n8\n17\n16\n7\n16\n18\n15\nAv\nWSO/SAWR\nFSS/SAWR\nType of\nStation\nSAWR\nSAWR\nNone\nNone\nNone\nSAWR\nNone\nPriority 1 for 3-hourly observations\n2 Priority 2 for 3-hourly observations\nSA\nA\nBenton Harbor\nPriority: C Deficiency\nStation Name\nNetwork: Severe Storm\nCross City\nPikeville\nGulfport\nDubuque\nNatchez\nHelena\nMarion\nAngola\nLimon\nHealy\nColorado\nKentucky\nMichigan\nArkansas\nIllinois\nFlorida\nIndiana\nKansas\nState\nMiss.\nIowa\n*\n1","45\nRemarks\n3855N 9125W\n3550N 8720W\n3210N 9805W\nRecommended Sites at which to Eliminate Deficiencies\nVisual (man-\nRegional Priorities For *\nned) hrlys\nnight\n3\nl\n1\n3\n3\nl\nl\n3\n3\nday\nHrlys = hourlies\nAv = aviation\n3\n1\n1\n3\nSyn = synoptic\n3\n1\n1\n3\n3\nin Surface Observing Network\n(AMOS) hrlys\nNon-visual\nnight\n2\n1\nl\n1\n1\n1\nl\n1\n1\n1\nday\n2\nl\nl\nl\nl\n1\n1\nl\n1\n1\nTable 5\nSyn\nl\n1\n3\n1\n1\nN\n3\n3\nObs/Day\n1\nSyn\n4\n8\n4\nDeficiency priorities are explained in table 2\n13\n4\n12\n8\n16\n9\n8\nAv\nType of\nStation\nNone\nNone\nSAWR\nSAWR\nNone\nNone\nPriority 1 for 3-hourly observations\n2 Priority 2 for 3-hourly observations\nAS\nSA\nA\nA\nS\nPriority: C Deficiency\nMt. Washington\nBartlesville\nStephenville\nStation Name\nNetwork: Severe Storm\nCenterville\nStillwater\nWarrenton\nBeatrice\nMobridge\nBurwell\nMullen\nAlva\nHampshire\nNebraska\nMissouri\nOklahoma\nDakota\nState\nSouth\nTexas\nTenn.\nNew\n*\n1","46\nRemarks\n4545N 9230W\nNon-visual Visual (man-\nRecommended Sites at which to Eliminate Deficiencies\n(AMOS)hrlys ned) hrlys\nday night day night\nRegional Priorities For:\n3\n2\n3\nHrlys = hourlies\nAv = aviation\nSyn = synoptic\n3\n2\n3\nin Surface Observing Network\nTable 5\nSyn\n2\n2\n3\nObs/Day\nSyn\nDeficiency priorities are explained in table 2\nFSS/SAWR 18\nOC\nAv\nType of\nStation\nl Priority l for 3-hourly observations\n2 Priority 2 for 3-hourly observations\nSAWR\nNone\nPriority: C Deficiency\nStation Name\nGrantsburg\nWisconsin\nOshkosh\nRapids\nNetwork: NMC\nWisconsin\nState\n*","47\nRemarks\n3130N 8720W\n3310N 9120W\n3520N 9130W\n3450N 8340W\nRecommended Sites at which to Eliminate Deficiencies\nVisual (man-\nRegional Priorities For: *\nned) hrlys\nnight\n2\n3\n3\n3\n3\n3\n3\n3\n1\n3\n2\n3\n3\n32\n2\n32\nday\nHrlys = hourlies\n3\n3\n3\n2\n3\nl\n3\n1\n3\n2\nAv = aviation\nSyn = synoptic\nin Surface Observing Network\n(AMOS)hrlys\nNon-visual\nnight\n2\n2\nl\n1\n1\n2\n3\n1\nl\n2\n2\n2\nday\n2\n2\n1\n1\nl\n2\n3\nl\n1\n2\n2\n2\nTable 5\nSyn\n3\n2\n3\n3\n3\nl\n2\n3\n1\nObs/Day\nSyn\n8\n6\n4\nDeficiency priorities are explained in table 2\n16\nWSO/SAWR OC\nAv\n16\n16\n18\n16\nType of\nStation\nNone\nNone\nNone\nNone\nNone\nSAWR\nSAWR\n1 Priority 1 for 3-hourly observations\nTWR\n2 Priority 2 for 3-hourly observations\nWSO\nA\nS\nPriority: C* Deficiency\nStation Name\nMonroeville\nHot Springs\nCoon Rapids\nWest Plains\nNetwork: Severe Storm\nHiawassee\nSt. Cloud\nWaycross\nBrainerd\nEudora\nSearcy\nLamoni\nTupelo\nArkansas\nMissouri\nAlabama\nGeorgia\nState\nMinn.\nMiss.\nIowa\n*","18\nRemarks\n4000N 9915W\n3430N 9430W\n3110N 9400W\n3230N 99W\n37N 81W\nRecommended Sites at which to Eliminate Deficiencies\nVisual (man-\nned) hrlys\nnight\nRegional Priorities For:\n2\n1\n3\n3\n3\n3\n3\n3\n3\n2\nHrlys = hourlies\n2\nday\n3\n3\n3\n3\n3\n2\n3\n1\nAv = aviation\nSyn = synoptic\nin Surface Observing Network\n(AMOS) hrlys\nNon-visual\nnight\n2\nl\n2\n1\n1\n2\n1\n1\nday\n2\nl\n2\nl\nl\n2\nl\n1\nTable 5\nSyn\n2\n3\n2\n3\n3\n3\nN\nl\n1\nObs/Day\nSyn\n5\n5\nDeficiency priorities are explained in table 2\n13\n14\n10\n16\n16\nAv\nType of\nStation\nNone\nNone\nSAWR\nSAWR\nSAWR\nNone\nNone\nNone\n1 Priority 1 for 3-hourly observations\n2 Priority 2 for 3-hourly observations\nFSS\nWSO\nPriority : C* Deficiency\nStation Name\nPlunketville\nNetwork: Severe Storm\nBlackstone\nWytheville\nBrownwood\nPineland\nYankton\nSeymour\nElkins\nParis\nAlma\nNebraska\nOklahoma\nVirginia\nVirginia\nState\nDakota\nN None\nSouth\nTexas\nWest\n*","49\nRemarks\n2725N 8140W\n3915N 8550W\n4130N 9630W\n3730N 99W\n4ON 9530W\nRecommended Sites at which to Eliminate Deficiencies\nVisual (man-\nRegional Priorities For: *\nned) hrlys\nnight\nl\n2\n3\n3\n3\n1\n1\n3\n3\n3\n3\nday\nHrlys = hourlies\n1\n2\n3\n3\n3\nl\n1\n3\n3\n3\n3\nAv = aviation\nSyn = synoptic\nin Surface Observing Network\n(AMOS) hrlys\nNon-visual\nnight\n1\n1\n3\n3\n2\n2\nday\nl\n1\n3\n3\n2\n2\n3\nTable 5\nSyn\n1\nObs/Day\nSyn\n4\nDeficiency priorities are explained in table 2\n20\n16\nOC\nOC\nAv\n16\n10\nType of\nStation\nSAWR\nNone\nSAWR\nSAWR\nNone\nSAWR\nNone\nSAWR\nNone\nSAWR\nNone\n1 Priority 1 for 3-hourly observations\n2 Priority 2 for 3-hourly observations\nCG\nSpirit of St. L.\nPriority: D Deficiency\nStation Name\nHarbor Beach\nNetwork: Severe Storm\nBloomington\nFalls City\nColumbus\nSebring\nMattoon\nFremont\nOlathe\nPratt\nGary\nLima\nIllinois\nMichigan\nNebraska\nMissouri\nFlorida\nIndiana\nState\nKansas\nOhio\n*","50\nRemarks\n3330N 9730W\n3200N 9630W\n3530N 98W\n3530N 97W\n3630N 95W\nRecommended Sites at which to Eliminate Deficiencies\nVisual (man-\nRegional Priorities For: *\nnight\n(AMOS)hrlys ned) hrlys\n3\nl\nl\n3\n3\n3\n3\n3\nHrlys = hourlies\nday\n3\n1\n1\n3\n3\n3\n3\n3\nAv = aviation\nSyn = synoptic\nin Surface Observing Network\nNon-visual\nnight\n1\n1\nl\n1\nl\nl\n1\n3\nday\n1\n1\nl\n1\n1\n1\n1\n3\nTable 5\nSyn\n1\n3\nl\n1\n3\n3\n3\n3\nObs/Day\nSyn\n4\nDeficiency priorities are explained in table 2\nAv\n14\n9\nType of\nStation\nSAWR\nSAWR\nNone\nNone\nNone\nNone\nNone\nPriority l for 3-hourly observations\n2 Priority 2 for 3-hourly observations\nCG\nCG\nPriority: D Deficiency\nStation Name\nNetwork: Severe Storm\nMarblehead\nBridgeport\nKenosha LS\nCorsicana\nMuskogee\nSeminole\nEl Reno\nVinita\nEnid\nWisconsin\nOklahoma\nState\nTexas\nOhio\n*\n1","52\nRemarks\n3930N 9540W\n3830N 9530W\n4630N 6930W\n4220N 7010W\n38N 9430W\nRecommended Sites at which to Eliminate Deficiencies\nVisual (man-\nned) hrlys\nnight\nRegional Priorities For:\n2\nl\n1\n3\n2\n3\n3\n3\n3\n3\n2\n3\n2\nday\nHrlys = hourlies\n1\nAv = aviation\nSyn = synoptic\n2\n3\n3\n3\n3\n3\n2\n2\n1\n1\nin Surface Observing Network\n(AMOS)hrlys\nNon-visual\nnight\nl\n3\n3\n3\n3\n1\n1\n1\n2\nl\nday\n1\n3\n3\n3\n3\n1\n1\n1\n2\nl\nTable 5\nSyn\n1\nl\nl\nObs/Day\nSyn\n7\nDeficiency priorities are explained in table 2\nOC\n14\n15\nOC\nOC\nAv\nType of\nStation\nSAWR\nSAWR\nSAWR\nSAWR\nNone\nNone\nNone\nNone\nNone\nSAWR\nPriority 1 for 3-hourly observations\n2 Priority 2 for 3-hourly observations\nCG\nPriority: E Deficiency\nSterling-Rock\nHarrisonville\nStation Name\nNetwork: Severe Storm\nClayton Lake\nProvincetown\nPortland LS\nDanville\nKankakee\nPlymouth\nGlendive\nHolton\nOttawa\nFalls\nIllinois\nMissouri\nIndiana\nMontana\nState\nKansas\nMaine\nMass\n*\n1","52\nRemarks\n4310N 8845W\n4620N 9755W\n4855N 9720W\nRecommended Sites at which to Eliminate Deficiencies\nVisual (man-\n(AMOS)hrlys ned) hrlys\nnight\nRegional Priorities For:\n3\n3\n2\n3\n3\n3\n3\n3\n3\n2\nHrlys = hourlies\nday\nAv = aviation\nSyn = synoptic\n3\n3\n2\n3\n3\n2\n3\n3\n3\n3\nin Surface Observing Network\nNon-visual\nnight\n2\n2\n1\n2\n3\n1\n3\n3\n3\nday\n3\n2\n2\n1\n2\nl\n3\n3\n3\nTable 5\nSyn\n3\n3\n3\n2\n2\n3\n3\nObs/Day\nSyn\n4\n8\nDeficiency priorities are explained in table 2\n12\n16\n19\n16\nOC\n16\nOC\nAv\nType of\nStation\nSAWR\nSAWR\nSAWR\nSAWR\nNone\nNone\nNone\nPriority 1 for 3-hourly observations\n2 Priority 2 for 3-hourly observations\nFSS\nTWR\nS\nA\nDevils Lake, Mun.\nPriority E Deficiency\nStation Name\nNetwork: Severe Storm\nDevils Lake\nFond Du Lac\n(Timmerman)\nSheboygan\nWatertown\nMilwaukee\nLaconia\nPembina\nGrants\nPhilip\nOakes\nNew Mexico\nWisconsin\nHampshire\nState\nDakota\nDakota\nNorth\nSouth\nNew\n*\n1","Remarks\n4140N 7430W\n4100N 7240W\nHighest Priority Deficiency : l in all 3 or any 2 of the 3 categories\nRecommended Sites at which to Eliminate Deficiencies\nVisual (man-\nRegional Priorities For *\nned) hrlys\nnight\n3\n1\nl\n3\n1\nl\nl\n2\nX\n3\n3\n3\nX\n2\n3\n3\n3\n2\n2\n3\n3\nday\nHrlys = hourlies\n2\n31\n1\n2 Superscript(1)\n1\n2\n2\n3\n3\n3\nAv = aviation\n2\nSyn = synoptic\n3\n3\n3\n1\n1\n3\nl\nin Surface Observing Network\nOC = on call\n(AMOS) hrlys\nNon-visual\nnight\nl\nl\n1\nl\nl\n1\nl\n1\n1\nl\nl\nl\n1\nday\nl\nl\n1\nl\n1\nl\n1\nl\nl\nl\nl\n1\n1\nTable 5\nSyn\nl\nl\n1\n1\nl\nl\nl\nl\n1\nl\nl\nl\n1\nObs/Day\nSyn\n6\n3\n4\n2\n2\n3\n4\nDeficiency priorities are explained in table 2\n8\n17\nOC\nOC\n5\nAv\nType of\nStation\nSAWR\nSAWR\nSAWR\nNone\nSAWR\nNone\nW.SO\nPriority 1 for 3-hourly observations\n2 Priority 2 for 3-hourly observations\nS\nS\nS\nS\nS\nS\nStation Name\nBar Harbor\nPittsfield\nEllenville\nWolfeboro\nDansville\nRiverhead\nEastport\nCaribou\nNetwork: Regional\nRumford\nJaffrey\nOneonta\nEASTERN REGION\nBerlin\nOlean\nHampshire\nNew York\nState\nMaine\nMass.\nNew\n*\n1","Remarks\n3540N 10125W\nHighest Priority Deficiency: Priority l in all 3 or any 2 of the 3 categories\nRecommended Sites at which to Eliminate Deficiencies\nVisual (man-\nRegional Priorities For *\nned) hrlys\nnight\n2 superscript(1)\n3\nl\n1\n3\n2\n3\nl\nX\n3\n3\nHrlys = hourlies\nday\n2 Superscript(1)\nAv = aviation\nSyn = synoptic\n3\n1\n3\nl\n1\nl\n3\n3\nin Surface Observing Network\n(AMOS)hrlys\nNon-visual\nnight\n1\n1\nl\n1\nl\nl\n1\n1\n1\nday\nl\n1\n1\nl\n1\nl\n1\nl\nl\nTable 5\nSyn\n1\nl\nl\nl\n1\n1\n1\n1\n2\n7\nObs/Day\n2\n4\nSyn\nDeficiency priorities are explained in table 2\n24\n17\nOC\n16\n9\nAv\n12\nFSS/AMOS\nType of\nStation\nSAWR\nNone\nSAWR\nSAWR\nSAWR\nPriority l for 3-hourly observations\n2 Priority 2 for 3-hourly observations\nWSO\nS\nS\nS\nNewport (State)\nWallops Island\nSt. Johnsbury\nStation Name\nSaranac Lake\nBennington\nGalveston\nHarlingen\n(Scholes)\nNetwork: Regional\nRutland\nNewport\nBorger\nSOUTHERN REGION\nEASTERN REGION\ns\nVirginia\nNew York\nVermont\nState\nTexas\n*\n1","4500N 10420W\n4420N 10530W\nRemarks\n3345N 11340W\n3545N 11010W\n3350N 11030W\nHighest Priority Deficiency: Priority 1 in all 3 or any 2 of the 3 categories\nRecommended Sites at which to Eliminate Deficiencies\nVisual (man-\n*\nhrlys\nnight\nRegional Priorities For:\n31\n31\n31\n32\n32\n2\nl\n1\n31\n31\n1\n3-\n1\n2\n3\n3\n3\nHrlys = hourlies\nned)\nday\n31\n2 Superscript(1)\n2 Superscript(1)\n31\n2 Superscript(1)\n2 Superscript(1)\nAv = aviation\nSyn = synoptic\n1\n2\n1\nl\n1\n1\nl\nin Surface Observing Network\n(AMOS)hrlys\nnight\nNon-visual\nl\nl\nl\n1\n2\nl\nl\n1\n1\nl\n1\n1\nl\nday\n1\nl\nl\n1\nl\nl\nl\n1\nl\nl\n1\nl\nl\nTable 5\nSyn\n1\n1\n1\n1\nl\n3\n2\n1\nl\nl\nl\n1\nl\nObs/Day\n6\n4\nSyn\n8\n4\n2\n2\nDeficiency priorities are explained in table 2\nAv\n22\n17\n12\n12\n7\n7\nWSO/SAWR\nType of\nStation\nPriority 1 for 3-hourly observations\n2 Priority 2 for 3-hourly observations\nSAWR\nSAWR\nNone\nNone\nNone\nNone\nNone\nWSO\nA\nS\nA\nA\nKeams Canyon\nStation Name\nShow Low\nPickstown\nAlamosa\nDurango\nGillete\nJackson\nNetwork: Regional\nSalida\nPayson\nSeneca\nColony\nSalem\nHope\nWESTERN REGION\nCENTRAL REGION\nColorado\nS. Dakota\nWyoming\nArizona\nIllinois\nState\n*\n1","4030N 12335W\n3310N 11635W\n3258N 11908W\nRemarks\n3440N 11610W\nHighest Priority Deficiency: Priority 1 in all 3 or any 2 of the 3 categories\nVisual (man-\nRecommended Sites at which to Eliminate Deficiencies\nl\n1\nl\n1\n1\n1\n1\n1\n31\n1\n31\nl\nl\nl\n3-\nned) hrlys\nnight\n1\n1\nRegional Priorities For:\n3\n3\n3\n3\n3\n3\n3\n3\n3\n3\n3\n3\nHrlys = hourlies\nday\nAv = aviation\nSyn = synoptic\nl\n1\nl\n1\nl\n1\n1\n1\nl\nl\nl\n1\n1\nl\n1\nin Surface Observing Network\n(AMOS)hrlys\nNon-visual\nnight\nl\n.1\n1\nl\nl\nl\n1\nl\nl\n1\n1\n1\nl\n1\n1\nday\n1\n1\nl\n1\nl\nl\n1\n1\n1\n1\n1\n1\n1\nl\n1\nTable 5\nSyn\nl\nl\nl\n1\n1\n1\nl\nl\n1\n1\nl\nl\nl\n1\nl\nObs/Day\nSyn\n3\n5\n7\n4\nDeficiency priorities are explained in table 2\n24\n15\n17\n15\n6\n24\n6\n17\n24\nAv\nWSO/AMOS\nWSO/AMOS\nWSO/AMOS\nType of\nStation\nPriority 1 for 3-hourly observations\n2 Priority 2 for 3-hourly observations\nSAWR\nSAWR\nNone\nSAWR\nSAWR\nNone\nNone\nNone\nNone\nTWR\nA\nS\nFurnas Creek\nStation Name\nBlue Canyon\nWESTERN REGION-Con't\nFort Bragg\nLee Vining\nMt. Shasta\nLancaster\nSandberg\nDinsmore\nMonterey\nConcord\nRedding\nNetwork: Regional\nJulian\nMerced\nBaker\nChico\nCalifornia\nState\n*\n1","3506N 11827W\n4840N 11620W\n4415N 11215W\nRemarks\n4750N 11220W\nHighest Priority Deficiency: Priority l in all 3 or any 2 of the 3 categories\nRecommended Sites at which to Eliminate Deficiencies\nVisual man-\n*\nRegional Priorities For:\nned) hrlys\nnight\nl\n3-Superscript(3)\n31\n31\n31\nl\n31\n31\n31\n31\n31\nl\nl\n31\nl\nl\n3\n3\n3\n3\nHrlys = hourlies\nday\nl\nl\n1\n1\nl\n1\n1\n1\nl\nl\n1\n1\nl\n1\nAv = aviation\nSyn = synoptic\nin Surface Observing Network\n(AMOS)hrlys\nNon-visual\nnight\nl\nl\nl\nl\nl\nl\nl\n1\nl\n1\nl\nl\nl\n1\nday\nl\nl\nl\n1\nl\nl\nl\n1\nl\n1\nl\n1\n1\nl\nTable 5\nSyn\n1\nl\nl\nl\n1\nl\n1\nl\nl\n1\nl\n1\nl\n1\nObs/Day\nSyn\n5\n1\n6\n5\n6\n4\n5\nDeficiency priorities are explained in table 2\n17\n17\n13\nAv\n11\n9\n17\n6\n18\n4\n13\nType of\nStation\nSAWR\nNone\nSAWR\nNone\nNone\nSAWR\nNone\nPriority 1 for 3-hourly observations\n2 Priority 2 for 3-hourly observations\nWSO\nTWR\nFSS\nSA\nS\nS\nA\nBonners Ferry\nStation Name\nWESTERN REGION-Con't\nTahoe Valley\nSanta Maria\nTehatchapi\nMalad City\nTwin Falls\nNetwork: Regional\nDrummond\nVisalia\nGooding\nDu Bois\nChoteau\nBroadus\nHailey\nSalmon\nCalifornia\nState\nMontana\nIdaho\n*\n1","Remarks\n3830N 11830W\n4312N 12150W\n4422N 11857₩\nHighest Priority Deficiency Priority l in all 3 or any 2 of the 3 categories\nRecommended Sites at which to Eliminate Deficiencies\n(man-\nnight\n(AMOS)hrlys ned) hrlys\nl\nl\n1\n31\n31\nRegional Priorities For:\n31\nl\n31\n31\n31\n31\n31\n1\nl\n31\n31\n1\n3\n3\n3\n3\n3\nVisual\nHrlys = hourlies\nday\nl\nl\nl\n1\n1\n1\nl\n1\n1\n1\nl\nl\nl\nl\nAv = aviation\nSyn = synoptic\nin Surface Observing Network\nNon-visual\nnight\n1\nl\n1\n1\n1\nl\n1\nl\n1\nl\nl\nl\n1\nl\nday\nl\n1\n1\n1\nl\n1\nl\nl\n1\n1\n1\n1\n1\n1\nTable 5\nSyn\nl\nl\nl\nl\nl\nl\nl\nl\n1\n1\nl\nl\nl\nl\nObs/Day\nSyn\n8\n8\n8\n8\n4\nDeficiency priorities are explained in table 2\n8\n8\n6\n6\n8\n13\n9\n11\n4\n15\nAv\nType of\nStation\nSAWR.\nSAWR\nNone\nNone\nNone\nSAWR\nPriority l for 3-hourly observations\n2 Priority 2 for 3-hourly observations\nSA\nS\nA\nA\nS\nA\nA\nS\nW. 11 (Yellowstone)\nThompson Falls\nW. Yellowstone\nStation Name\nBeaver Marsh\nWESTERN REGION-Con't\nHarlowtown\nHanksville\nBull Frog\nHawthorne\nRoosevelt\nRoseburg\nBlanding\nJohn Day\nLakeview\nNetwork: Regional\nOntario\nMontana\nState\nNevada\nOregon\nUtah\n*\nl","No specials taken\nRemarks\n3705N 11140W\n4600N 12255W\nHighest Priority Deficiency: Priority 1 in all 3 or any 2 of the 3 categories\nRecommended Sites at which to Eliminate Deficiencies\nVisual (man-\nhrlys\nnight\nRegional Priorities For:\nl\n31\n31\n1\n1\n31\n31\n31\n31\n1\n31\n,1\nl\nl\n31\n3-\n3nd\n3\n3\nned)\nHrlys = hourlies\nday\n1\n1\nl\n1\n1\n1\n1\n1\nl\nl\n1\n1\nAv = aviation\nSyn = synoptic\nin Surface Observing Network\n(AMOS)hrlys\nNon-visual\nnight\n1\n1\n1\n1\nl\nl\n1\nl\nl\n1\n1\n1\nday\nl\n1\n1\n1\n1\n1\n1\n1\n1\n1\n1\n1\nTable 5\nSyn\n1.\nl\nl\n1\nl\nl\n1\nl\nl\nl\n1\nl\nObs/Day\n8\nSyn\n4\n6\n6\n8\nDeficiency priorities are explained in table 2\n10\n4\n8\n20\n18\n16\n9\n17\n24\nAv\nType of\nStation\nSAWR\nSAWR\nSAWR\nNone\nSAWR\nNone\nNone\nl Priority 1 for 3-hourly observations\n2 Priority 2 for 3-hourly observations\nWSO\nFSS\nS\nS\nA\nStampede Pass\nStation Name\nSt. George\nDerrington\nEvanston\nNetwork: Regional\nColville\nPullman\nTakoma\nToledo\nWESTERN REGION\nVernal\nKelso\nPasco\nOmak\nWashington\nWyoming\nState\nUtah\n*","60\nRemarks\n2825N 17820W\nHighest Priority Deficiency: Priority l in all 3 or any 2 of the 3 categories\nRecommended Sites at which to Eliminate Deficiencies\nNon-visual Visual (man-\n*\n(AMOS)hrlys ned) hrlys\nnight\n1\n2\n2\n2\nRegional Priorities For\nl\nl\n3-Superscript(3)\nl\n1\n2\n3\n3\n3\n3\n3\n3\n3\n3\n2\nHrlys = hourlies\n31\n31\nl\n3-Superscript(3)\nl\nl\n31\n2\n2\n32\nday\n3\n2\n3\n3\n2\nAv = aviation\nSyn = synoptic\nin Surface Observing Network\nnight\nl\n1\n1\n1\nl\nl\nl\nl\n1\n1\nl\nl\nl\nday\n1\n1\n1\n1\nl\n1\n1\n1\n1\nl\nl\nl\nl\nTable 5\nSyn\n3\n3\n3\n3\n3\n3\n1\n1\nl\nl\nl\nl\n1\n4\nObs/Day\n7\n8\n3\nSyn\nDeficiency priorities are explained in table 2\n5\n17\n16\n10\n9\n10\nAv\nType of\nStation\nWSO/FSS\nNone\nNone\nNone\nNone\nNone\nNone\nPriority 1 for 3-hourly observations\n2 Priority 2 for 3-hourly observations\nCG\nCG\nCG\nCG\nCG\nS\nSouth Point, Hawai\nCape Hinchbrook\nHalawa, Molokai\nCape St. Elias\nFive Finger LS\nNiihau, Kauai\nStation Name\nCape Spencer\nKahuku, Oahu\nHaena, Kauai\nEldred Rock\nNetwork: Regional\nFarewell\nKure Is\nALASKA REGION\nKokee\nALASKA REGION\nPACIFIC REGION\nAlaska\nState\nHawaii\n*\nl","61\nRemarks\n4035N 10350W\n3820N 10840W\n4040N 10620W\n3500N 9300W\n3200N 9300W\n3330N 9630W\n3430N 90W\nRecommended Sites at which to Eliminate Deficiencies\nStation Av Syn Syn Non-visual Visual (man-\nnight\n(AMOS): hrlys ned) hrlys\nRegional Priorities For:\n2\n3\n3\n3\n3\n3\n2\n3\nHrlys = hourlies\nday\n3\n3\n3\n3\n2\n3\n2\nAv = aviation\nSyn = synoptic\nOC = on call\nin Surface Observing Network\nnight\nl\nl\n1\nl\nl\n1\n2\nl\nHighest Priority Deficiencies: Priority 1 AMOS only\nday\n1\nl\n1\nl\nl\n1\nl\nl\nTable .5\n3\n3\n3\n3\n3\n2\n3\nObs/Day\nDeficiency priorities are explained in table 2\nOC\nType of\nNone\nNone\nNone\nNone\nNone\nNone\nNone\nSAWR\n1 Priority 1 for 3-hourly observations\n2 Priority 2 for 3-hourly observations\nStation Name\nArkansas Russellville\nNatchitoches\nEASTERN REGION - None\nBatesville\nColorado New Raymer\nShenandoah\nNetwork: Regional\nSherman\nWalden\nSOUTHERN REGION\nNucla\nCENTRAL REGION\nLouisiana\nState\nTexas\nMiss.\nIowa\n*","Remarks\n4335N 10940W\n4230N 10750W\n4340N 10640W\n3945N 8445W\nRecommended Sites at which to Eliminate Deficiencies\nNon-visual Visual (man-\n*\n(AMOS)hrlys ned) hrlys\nnight\n2\n2\nRegional Priorities For\n3\n3\n3\n3\n3\n3\n3\n3\nHrlys = hourlies\n2\n2\n2\nday\n2\n2\n2\nAv = aviation\nSyn = synoptic\n3\n3\n3\n3\n3\n3\n3\n3\nin Surface Observing Network\nnight\nl\n1\n1\n1\nl\n1\nl\n1\nHighest Priority Deficiencies: Priority 1 AMOS only\nday\n1\n1\n1\n1\n1\n1\n1\n1\nTable 5\nSyn\n3\n3\n3\n3\n3\n3\nObs/Day\nSyn\nDeficiency priorities are explained in table 2\n24\n24\n15\nAv\nMilitary\nType of\nStation\nAMOS\nNone\nl Priority 1 for 3-hourly observations\n2 Priority 2 for 3-hourly observations\nSAWR\nNone\nNone\nNone\nNone\nNortheast Cape\nMiddleton Is .\nStation Name\nWESTERN REGION - None\nNikolski\nRichmond\nNetwork: Regional\nKearney\nJeffrey\nDubois\nKaycee\nCENTRAL REGION\nALASKA REGION\nNebraska\nIndiana\nWyoming\nState\nAlaska\n*","63\nRemarks\nRecommended Sites at which to Eliminate Deficiencies\nStation Av Syn Syn Non-visual Visual (man-\n(AMOS)hrlys ned) hrlys\nday night day night\nRegional Priorities For:\n3\nHrlys = hourlies\nAv = aviation\nSyn = synoptic\n3\nin Surface Observing Network\nl\nHighest Priority Deficiencies: Priority 1 AMOS only\nl\nTable 5\n3\nObs/Day\nDeficiency priorities are explained in table 2\nType of\nNone\n1 Priority l for 3-hourly observations\n2 Priority 2 for 3-hourly observations\nStation Name\nUshacat Is .\nPACIFIC REGION - None\nNetwork: Regional\nALASKA REGION\nState\nAlaska\n*","04\nRemarks\n3512N 11434W\n3323N 11047W\n3320N 10540W\n3000N 9904W\nStation Av Syn Syn Non-visual Visual (man-\nRecommended Sites at which to Eliminate Deficiencies\n*\nnight\n(AMOS)hrlys ned) hrlys\nl\nRegional Priorities For:\n2\n2\n2\nl\n3\n3\n3\n3\n2\n2\n3\nHrlys = hourlies\nl\nl\n2 Superscript(1)\n21\nday\nl\nl\nl\nl\n2\nAv = aviation\nSyn = synoptic\nOC = on call\nin Surface Observing Network\nnight\n3\n3\n3\n3\n2\nHighest Priority Deficiency: Priority l manned only\nday\n3\n3\n2\n2\n2\nTable 5\nObs/Day\nDeficiency priorities are explained in table 2\nOC\n1\n17\nType of\nNone\nNone\nNone\nNone\nl Priority 1 for 3-hourly observations\n2 Priority 2 for 3-hourly observations\nFSS\nA\nA\nBullhead City\nStation Name\nEASTERN REGION - None\nCENTRAL REGION - None\nDyersburg\nMoriarity\nKerrville\nNetwork: Regional\nRuidoso\nNew Mexico Corona\nGlobe\nSOUTHERN REGION\nWESTERN REGION\nTennessee\nArizona\nState\nTexas\n*","Remarks\n3430N 10922W\n3218N 10951W\n3415N 11655W\n3815N 11914W\n3420N 11728W\n4018N 12114W\n3609N 12021W\n3340N 11720W\n3612N 12108W\n3740N 12146W\n3627N 11803W\n4030N 12410W\nRecommended Sites at which to Eliminate Deficiencies\nNon-visual Visual (man-\n(AMOS)hrly ned) hrlys\nnight\nRegional Priorities For:\nl\n31\n31\n1\nl\n1\nl\n31\nl\n1\n31\n3-\n3-\nl\n3-Superscript(3)\n31\nl\n3-\n3\n3\n3\n3\nHrlys = hourlies\nday\nAv = aviation\nSyn = synoptic\nl\nl\n1\nl\nl\nl\nl\n1\n1\n1\nl\n1\n1\nin Surface Observing Network\nnight\nHighest Priority Deficiency : Priority 1 manned only\nday\nTable 5\nSyn\nObs/Day\nSyn\nDeficiency priorities are explained in table 2\n18\nAv\nType of\nStation\nNone\nNone\nNone\nNone\nNone\nNone\nNone\nNone\nNone\nNone\nNone\nNone\nl Priority l for 3-hourly observations\n2 Priority 2 for 3-hourly observations\nA\nBig Bear Lake\nStation Name\nWESTERN REGION - Con't\nBridgeport\nCajon Pass\nSt. Johns\nKing City\nLivermore\nLone Pine\nNetwork: Regional\nCarlsbad\nCoalinga\nElsinore\nChester\nFortuna\nWilcox\nCalifornia\nArizona\nState\n*","66\nRemarks\n3509N 11928W\n3705N 12050W\n3740N 11840W\n3729N 11958₩\n3844N 12048W\n3604N 11091W\n3956N 12056W\n3408N 11602W\n3800N 12025W\nNon-visual Visual (man-\nRecommended Sites at which to Eliminate Deficiencies\n*\n(AMOS)hrlys ned) hrlys\nnight\n31\n31\n31\n31\n31\n31\nl\nl\n31\nl\n31\n3\n31\nRegional Priorities For\n3\n3\nHrlys = hourlies\nday\nAv = aviation\nSyn = synoptic\nl\nl\n1\n1\n1\nl\n1\n1\nl\nl\nl\nl\nin Surface Observing Network\nnight\nHighest Priority Deficiency: Priority l manned only\nday\nTable 5\nSyn\nObs/Day\nSyn\nDeficiency priorities are explained in table 2\n12\n21\n16\nAv\nType of\nStation\nNone\nNone\nNone\nNone\nNone\nNone\nNone\nNone\nNone\n1 Priority l for 3-hourly observations\n2 Priority 2 for 3-hourly observations\nA\nA\nA\nMammoth Lakes\nMontgomery\nStation Name\nPlacerville\nPorterville\nGillespie\nTwentynine\nWESTERN REGION - Con't\nSan Diego:\nCalifornia Los Banos\nMariposa\nBrown\nSonora\nQuincy\nNetwork: Regional\nPalms\nTaft\nState\n*","Remarks\n4040N 12250W\n4609N 11559W\n4355N 11337W\n4219N 11118W\n4817N 11624W\n4414N 11454W\n4536N 10616W\n4553N 10636W\n4854N 11504W\n4824N 11532W\n4518N 10722W\n4741N 11414W\n4511N 10915W\nRecommended Sites at which to Eliminate Deficiencies\nVisual man-\n(AMOS) hrlys ned) hrlys\nnight\nRegional Priorities For:\n31\n31\n31\nl\n31\n1\n31\n31\n31\nl\nl\nl\n1\n1\nl\n3+\n3-\n3-subscript(a)\n3\"\n3\n3\n3\n3\nHrlys = hourlies\nday\nAv = aviation\nSyn = synoptic\n1\n1\n1\n1\nl\n1\n1\nl\n1\n1\nl\nl\nl\nin Surface Observing Network\nNon-visual\nnight\nHighest Priority Deficiency: Priority 1 manned only\nday\nTable 5\nSyn\nObs/Day\nSyn\nDeficiency priorities are explained in table 2\nAv\nType of\nStation\nNone\nNone\nNone\nNone\nNone\nNone\nNone\nNone\nNone\nNone\nNone\nNone\nNone\nl Priority l for 3-hourly observations\n2 Priority 2 for 3-hourly observations\nStation Name\nWESTERN REGION - Con't\nCalifornia Weaverville\nLodge Grass\nMontpelier\nSandpoint\nRed Lodge\nColstrip\nNetwork: Regional\nKooskia\nAshland\nStanley\nEureka\nPolson\nMackay\nLibby\nMontana\nState\nIdaho\n*","Remarks\n4158N 11440W\n3857N 11946W\n4107N 11458W\n4627N 10832W\n4713N 11331W\n4819N 11321W\n4712N 11453W\n4619N 11131W\n3655N 11645W\n3849N 11517W\n3930N 11558W\nRecommended Sites at which to Eliminate Deficiencies\nNon-visual Visual (man-\n*\n(AMOS) hrlys ned) hrlys\nnight\nRegional Priorities For:\nl\nl\nl\n31\n31\n31\nl\nl\n31\n31\nl\nl\n31\nl\n31\n3-subscript(3)\n3\n3\n3\n3\nHrlys = hourlies\nday\nAv = aviation\nSyn = synoptic\nl\n1\nl\n1\nl\n1\n1\n1\nl\n1\n1\n1\nin Surface Observing Network\nnight\nHighest Priority Deficiency: Priority l manned only\nday\nTable 5\nSyn\nObs/Day\nSyn\nDeficiency priorities are explained in table 2\nMilitary 24\nAv\nType of\nStation\nNone\nNone\nNone\nNone\nNone\nNone\nNone\nNone\nNone\nNone\nNone\n1 Priority l for 3-hourly observations\n2 Priority 2 for 3-hourly observations\nStation Name\nWESTERN REGION - Con't\nSeely Lake\nSuperior\nTownsend\nNetwork: Regional\nRoundup\nCurrant\nJackpot\nSummit\nEureka\nBeatty\nFallon\nMindon\nWells\nMontana\nState\nNevada\n*","Remarks\n4210N 12339W\n4514N 12011W\n4526N 11716W\n4348N 11756W\n4345N 12227W\n4252N 11739W\n4527N 12352W\n3703N 11232W\n4146N 11150W\n4013N 11140W\nRecommended Sites at which to Eliminate Deficiencies\nVisual (man-\n(AMOS) hrlys ned) hrlys\nnight\nRegional Priorities For:\n31\n1\n31\nl\n3-subscript(1)\nl\n1\n1\nl\nl\n3-\n3 Superscript(1)\nl\nl\n3-\nl\n3\n3\n3\n3\n3\n3\n3\n3\nHrlys = hourlies\nday\n1\nl\n1\nl\nl\n1\n1\n1\n1\n1\n1\nl\nl\nAv = aviation\nSyn = synoptic\nin Surface Observing Network\nNon-visual\nnight\nHighest Priority Deficiency: Priority l manned only\nday\nTable 5\nSyn\nObs/Day\nSyn\n2\n3\nDeficiency priorities are explained in table 2\nWSO/AMOS 24\nWSO/AMOS 24\nWSO/AMOS 24\nAv\nType of\nStation\nNone\nNone\nNone\nNone\nNone\nNone\nNone\nNone\nNone\nNone\nl Priority 1 for 3-hourly observations\n2 Priority 2 for 3-hourly observations\nCave Junction\nSexton Summit\nStation Name\nWESTERN REGION - Con't\nEnterprise\nTillamook\nTroutdale\nOakridge\nNetwork: Regional\nMeacham\nCondon\nJuntra\nKanab\nLogan\nProvo\nRome\nState\nOregon\nUtah\n*","Remarks\n4700N 12031W\n4707N 11822W\n4742N 12122W\n3846N 11205W\n4750N 12048W\nNon-visual Visual (man-\nRecommended Sites at which to Eliminate Deficiencies\nnight\n2\n2\n1\n2\n2\n(AMOS)hrly ned) hrlys\n31\n31\nl\n31\n21\nl\nRegional Priorities For:\n3\n3\n3\n3\n3\n2\n3\nHrlys = hourlies\nday\n2 1\n2 Superscript(1)\n1\n1\nAv = aviation\nSyn = synoptic\n2\n2\n1\n1\n1\n1\nl\nl\nin Surface Observing Network\nnight\n3\n3\n3\n3\n3\nHighest Priority Deficiency: Priority l manned only\n3\n3\nday\n3\n3\n3\nTable 5\nSyn\n3\n3\n3\n3\n3\nObs/Day\nSyn\nDeficiency priorities are explained in table 2\n16\n10\n12\nAv\nType of\nStation\nNone\nNone\nNone\nNone\nNone\nNone\nNone\nl Priority l for 3-hourly observations\n2 Priority 2 for 3-hourly observations\nA\nA\nA\nLake Wenatchee\nLake Chandler\nStation Name\nWESTERN REGION - Con't\nLake Clark\nPetersburg\nWashington Ellenburg\nRichfield\nRitzville\nSkyomish\nNetwork: Regional\nPaxson\nSeward\nALASKA REGION\nState\nAlaska\nUtah\n*","71\nRemarks\nRecommended Sites at which to Eliminate Deficiencies\nStation Av Syn Syn Non-visual Visual (man-\n(AMOS)hrlys ned) hrlys\nnight day night\nRegional Priorities For:\n2\n2\n3\n3\n2 Superscript(1)\nHrlys = hourlies\n1\n2\nAv = aviation\nSyn = synoptic\nin Surface Observing Network\n3\n3\nHighest Priority Deficiency: Priority 1 manned only\nday\n3\n3\nTable 5\n3\n3\nObs/Day\n* Deficiency priorities are explained in table 2\n4\nType of\nNone\n1 Priority 1 for 3-hourly observations\n2 Priority 2 for 3-hourly observations\nA\nStation Name\nTyone Lake\nALASKA REGION - Con't\nPACIFIC REGION - None\nNetwork: Regional\nValdez\nState\nAlaska","Remarks\n3520N 8350W\n3610N 8140W\n4450N 6940W\n4240N 7240W\n4210N 7120W\n4150N 7310W\n4140N 7220W\n3840N 7510W\nNon-visual Visual (man-\nRecommended Sites at which to Eliminate Deficiencies\n*\nnight\n(AMOS)hrlys red) hrlys\nRegional Priorities For:\nHrlys = hourlies\nday\nAv = aviation\nSyn = synoptic\nin Surface Observing Network\nnight\nHighest Priority Deficiency: Priority 1 SYNOP only\nday\nTable 5\nSyn\nl\nl\nl\n1\n1\nl\nl\nl\nl\nl\n1\n1\n6\nObs/Day\nSyn\nDeficiency priorities are explained in table 2\n15\nMilitary 24\n09\n19\nAv\nType of\nStation\nSAWR\nSAWR\nNone\nNone\nNone\nNone\nNone\nNone\nNone\nNone\nPriority 1 for 3-hourly observations\n2 Priority 2 for 3-hourly observations\nFSS\nRehoboth Beach\nElizabeth City\nStation Name\nWillimantic\nHagerstown\nTorrington\nGreenfield\nPlattsburg\nSkowhegan\nLawrence\nNetwork: Regional\nAndrews\nDover\nBoone\nEASTERN REGION\nDelaware\nMaryland\nNew York\nCarolina\nState\nMaine\nNorth\nConn.\nMass.\n*\n1","73\nRemarks\n3550N 8130W\n3920N 8210W\n4130N 7940W\n4140N 7710W\n4130N 7130W\n3450N 8300W\n4320N 7230W\n3900N 7820W\nRecommended Sites at which to Eliminate Deficiencies\nSyn Syn Non-visual Visual (man-\n(AMOS)hrlys ned) hrlys\nday night day night\nRegional Priorities For:\nHrlys = hourlies\nAv = aviation\nSyn = synoptic\nin Surface Observing Network\nHighest Priority Deficiency Priority 1 SYNOP only\nTable 5\nl\nl\n1\nl\nl\nl\n1\n1\n1\nl\nl\nObs/Day\nDeficiency priorities are explained in table 2\n04\nAv\n14\n14\n15\nType of\nStation\nSAWR\nNone\nNone\nNone\nNone\nSAWR\nNone\nSAWR\nNone\nSAWR\nNone\nl Priority l for 3-hourly observations\n2 Priority 2 for 3-hourly observations\nStation Name\nSpringfield\nHot Springs\nWellsboro\nWakefield\nGreenwood\nStrasburg\nNetwork: Regional\nOil City\nStaunton\nLenoir\nAthens\nSalem\nEASTERN REGION\nCarolina\nCarolina\nVirginia\nState\nVermont\nIsland\nNorth\nRhode\nPenn.\nSouth\nOhio\n*","Remarks\nNon-visual Visual (man-\nRecommended Sites at which to Eliminate Deficiencies\nday night day night\n(AMOS) hrlys ned) hrlys\nRegional Priorities For:\n2\n2\n3\n3\n3\nHrlys = hourlies\n2\n2\nAv = aviation\nSyn = synoptic\n3\n3\n3\nin Surface Observing Network\n2\n2\n2\nHighest Priority Deficiency : Priority l SYNOP only\n2\n2\n2\nTable 5\nSyn\n1\nl\n1\nl\nObs/Day\nSyn\nl\nDeficiency priorities are explained in table 2\nll\n17\nAv\n1\nType of\nStation\nSAWR\nl Priority l for 3-hourly observations\n2 Priority 2 for 3-hourly observations\nWSO\nA\nS\nKapoho Beach\nStation Name\nKealakekua\nClarksburg\nCENTRAL REGION - None\nWESTERN REGION - None\nALASKA REGION - None\nFlorida Lakeland\nNetwork: Regional\nSOUTHERN REGION\nPACIFIC REGION\nEASTERN REGION\nVirginia\nState\nHawaii\nWest\n*","75\nRemarks\nRecommended Sites at which to Eliminate Deficiencies\nNon-visual Visual (man-\n(AMOS) hrlys ned) hrlys\nnight\nRegional Priorities For:\n2\n2\n3\n3\n3\n3\nHrlys = hourlies\nday\n2\n2\n2\n2\nAv = aviation\n3\n3\n3\nSyn = synoptic\n3\nin Surface Observing Network\nnight\n2\n2\n2\n2\nHighest Priority Deficiency: Priority 1 SYNOP only\nday\n2\n2\n2\n2\nTable 5\nSyn\nl\n1\n1\n1\n1\n4\n4\n3\nObs/Day\nSyn\nDeficiency priorities are explained in table 2\n10\n11\n9\nAv\nType of\nStation\n1 Priority l for 3-hourly observations\n2 Priority 2 for 3-hourly observations\nA\nA\nS\nA\nWaimea Kohala\nStation Name\nPACIFIC REGION - Con't\nLanai City\nNetwork: Regional\nMolokai\nWaialee\nState\nHawaii\n*","76\n4010N 10850W\nRemarks\n3102N 10451W\n3623N 10535W\n3108N 10214W\nHighest Priority Deficiency: Priority 2 in all 3 or any 2 out of 3 categories\nStation Av Syn Syn Non-visual Visual (man-\nRecommended Sites at which to Eliminate Deficiencies\nRegional Priorities For: *\n(AMOS)hrlys ned) hrlys\nday night day night\n2\n2\n2\n3\n3\n3\n3\n3\n3\n2\n3\n3\n3\nHrlys = hourlies\n2\n2\n3\n2\n2\n2\n2\n2\nAv = aviation\nSyn = synoptic\n2\n2\n2\n3\nOC = on call\nin Surface Observing Network\n2\n2\n2\n3\n3\n2\n2\n2\n3\n3\n2\n2\n2\n2\n2\n2\n2\n2\n2\n2\nTable 5\n3\n3\n2\n3\n2\nObs/Day\nDeficiency priorities are explained in table 2\n8\n18\nOC\n12\n12\nType of\nSAWR\nSAWR\nSAWR\nNone\nNone\nNone\nNone\nNone\nl Priority l for 3-hourly observations\n2 Priority 2 for 3-hourly observations\nA\nA\nPagosa Springs\nStation Name\nSilver City\nEASTERN REGION - None\nGreenville\nVan Horn\nMcCamey\nRangely\nNetwork: Regional\nFrazer\nUvalde\nRifle\nSOUTHERN REGION\nTaos\nCENTRAL REGION\nNew Mexico\nColorado\nState\nTexas\nMiss.\n*","77\npriority l in all\nSouthern Region\nRemarks\nlists this as\n3725N 10230W\nHighest Priority Deficiency: Priority 2 in all 3 or any 2 out of 3 categories\ncategories\nRecommended Sites at which to Eliminate Deficiencies\nNon-visual Visual man-\n*\n(AMOS)hrlys ned) hrlys\nnight\nRegional Priorities For:\n2\n2\n3\n3\n2\n2\n2\n3\nHrlys = hourlies\nday\n2\n2\n3\n2\n2\n2\n3\nAv = aviation\nSyn = synoptic\nin Surface Observing Network\nnight\n2\n2\n2\n2\n2\n2\nday\n2\n2\n2\n2\n2\n2\nTable 5\nSyn\n3\n3\n2\nObs/Day\nSyn\n2\n8\n2\nDeficiency priorities are explained in table 2\nAv\nOC\nFSS/SAWR 19\n16\nType of\nStation\nNone\nSAWR\nl Priority l for 3-hourly observations\n2 Priority 2 for 3-hourly observations\nSA\nS\nS\nChicago ( Dunne\nStation Name\nCENTRAL RIGION ( (Con't)\nSpringfield\nWESTERN REGION - None\nOwensboro\nALASKA REGION - None\nNetwork: Regional\nLiberal\nDouglas\nCrib)\nHaina\nPACIFIC REGION\nColorado\nIllinois\nKentucky\nState\nWyoming\nKansas\nHawaii\n*","Remarks\nHighest Priority Deficiency Priority 2 in all 3 or any 2 out of 3 categories\nRecommended Sites at which to Eliminate Deficiencies\nVisual man\nnight\n(AMOS)hrlys ned) hrlys\n2\n2\n2\n2\n2\nRegional Priorities For\n2\n3\n3\n3\n3\n3\n3\n3\n3\n3\n3\n3\n3\nHrlys = hourlies\n2\n2\n2\n2\n2\n2\nday\n3\n3\n3\n3\n3\n3\n3\n3\n3\n3\n3\n3\nAv = aviation\nSyn = synoptic\nin Surface Observing Network\nnight\nNon-visual\n3\n2\n2\n2\n3\n2\n3\n2\n2\n2\n3\n2\nday\n3\n3\n2\n2\n2\n2\n2\n2\n2\n2\n3\n2\nTable 5\nSyn\n2\n2\n2\n2\n2\n2\n2\n2\n2\n2\n2\n2\n3\n4\n3\n4\nl\nObs/Day\nSyn\nDeficiency priorities are explained in table 2\n4\n3\n10\n4\nAv\nType of\nStation\nNone\nNone\nNone\nNone\nNone\nNone\nl Priority l for 3-hourly observations\n2 Priority 2 for 3-hourly observations\nCG\nAS\nA\nA\nS\nA\nKeawakapu Beach\nMakahuena Point\nKeoneolo (La\nStation Name\nIlio Point\nMauna Kea\nPohakuloa\nKaanapali\nHanapepe\nPerouse)\nNetwork: Regional\nMilolii\nKeanae\nPuako\nHana\nPACIFIC REGION\nState\nHawaii\n*","79\nRemarks\n4010N 10210W\n4240N 10410W\n4440N 10830W\n3950N 9345W\nRecommended Sites at which to Eliminate Deficiencies\nStation Av Syn Syn Non-visual Visual (man-\n*\n(AMOS)hrlys ned) hrlys\nnight\nRegional Priorities For:\n3\n3\n3\n3\n3\n3\n3\nHrlys = hourlies\nday\n3\n3\n3\n3\n3\n3\n3\nAv = aviation\nSyn = synoptic\nin Surface Observing Network\nnight\n2\n2\n2\n2\n2\n2\n2\n2\nday\n2\n2\n2\n2\n2\n2\n2\n2\nTable 5\nHighest Priority Deficiency: Priority 2 AMOS\n3\n3\n3\n3\nObs/Day\nDeficiency priorities are explained in table 2\n19\n12\n15\n15\nType of\nSAWR\nNone\nSAWR\nSAWR\nSAWR\nNone\nNone\nNone\nI Priority 1 for 3-hourly observations\n2 Priority 2 for 3-hourly observations\nStation Name\nChillicothe\nEASTERN REGION - None\nCarbondale\nGalesburg\nNetwork: Regional\nClinton\nTemple\nLovell\nSOUTHERN REGION\nWray\nLusk\nCENTRAL REGION\nColorado\nIllinois\nMissouri\nWyoming\nState\nTexas\nIowa\n*","80\nRemarks\n4150N 10610W\n4210N 10500W\nStation Av Syn Syn Non-visual Visual (man-\nRecommended Sites at which to Eliminate Deficiencies\n*\n(AMOS)hrlys ned) hrlys\nnight\nRegional Priorities For:\n3\n3\nHrlys = hourlies\nday\nAv = aviation\nSyn = synoptic\n3\n3\nin Surface Observing Network\nnight\n2\n2\nday\n2\n2\nTable 5\nHighest Priority Deficiency: Priority 2 AMOS\n3\n3\nObs/Day\nDeficiency priorities are explained in table 2\nType of\nNone\nNone\n1 Priority 1 for 3-hourly observations\n2 Priority 2 for 3-hourly observations\nStation Name\nMedecine Bow\nCENTRAL REGION - Con't\nWESTERN REGION - None\nPACIFIC REGION - None\nWheatland\nALASKA REGION - None\nNetwork: Regional\nWyoming\nState\n*","81\nRemarks\n3340N 10850W\n3612N 10110W\n3608N 9058W\n2908N 8302W\n3451N 8400W\n2935N 9230W\n3550N 9725W\n3321N 9849W\n3147N 9530W\nRecommended Sites at which to Eliminate Deficiencies\nNon-visual Visual (man-\nhrlys ned) hrlys\nnight\n2\n2\nRegional Priorities For\n3\n3\n3\n3\n3\n3\n3\n3\n3\nHrlys = hourlies\nday\n2\n2\n2\n2\n2\n2\n2\nAv = aviation\n3\n3\nSyn = synoptic\n2\n3\n2\n3\n3\n3\n3\nin Surface Observing Network\nnight\n3\n3\n3\n3\n3\n3\n3\n3\n3\n(AMOS)\nday\n3\n3\n3\n3\n3\n3\n3\n3\n3\nHighest Priority Deficiency: Priority 2 manned\nTable 5\nSyn\nObs/Day\nSyn\nDeficiency priorities are explained in table 2\nAv\nType of\nStation\nNone\nNone\nNone\nNone\nNone\nNone\nNone\nNone\nNone\n1 Priority l for 3-hourly observations\n2 Priority 2 for 3-hourly observations\nStation Name\nWalnut Ridge\nBlairsville\nEASTERN REGION - None\nWhite Lake\nCENTRAL REGION - None\nCedar Key\nPalestine\nSpearman\nNetwork: Regional\nReserve\nGuthrie\nOlney\nSOUTHERN REGION\nLouisiana\nArkansas\nOklahoma\nFlorida\nGeorgia\nState\nMexico\nTexas\nNew\n*","Remarks\nNon-visual Visual (man-\nRecommended Sites at which to Eliminate Deficiencies\n*\n2\n2\nnight\n(AMOS)hrlys ned) hrlys\nRegional Priorities For:\n3\n3\n3\n3\n3\n3\n3\n3\n3\n3\n3\nHrlys = hourlies\n2\n2\n2\n3 2\n2\n2\nAv = aviation,\nday\n2\n2\n2\nSyn = synoptic\n3\n2\n2\n3\n3\n3\n3\n3\n3\n3\nin Surface Observing Network\nnight\n3\n3\n3\n3\n3\n3\n3\n3\n3\n3\n3\n3\n3\n3\n3\n3\n3\n3\n3\n3\n3\n3\nday\nTable 5\nHighest Priority Deficiency: Priority 2 manned\nSyn\n3\n3\n3\n3\n3\n3\n3\n3\n3\n3\n3\nObs/Day\nSyn\nDeficiency priorities are explained in table 2\n3\n5\n9\n9\nAv\n10\n7\n4\nType of\nStation\nSAWR\nNone\nNone\nNone\nNone\nPriority l for 3-hourly observations\n2 Priority 2 for 3-hourly observations\nA\nA\nA\nA\nA\nA\nStevens Village\nSisters Island\nAnactuvic Pass\nSnowshoe Lake\nDutch Harbor\nStation Name\nManley Hot\nSleetmute\nWESTERN REGION - None\nCentral\nSprings\nSkagway\nNetwork: Regional\nAngoon\nCraig\nALASKA REGION\nState\nAlaska\n*\nl","83\nRemarks\nRecommended Sites at which to Eliminate Deficiencies\nSyn Non-visual Visual (man-\n(AMOS)hrlys ned) hrlys\nday night day night\n32\nRegional Priorities For:\nHrlys = hourlies\n2\nAv = aviation,\n3\nSyn = synoptic\nin Surface Observing Network\n3\n3\nTable 5\nHighest Priority Deficiency: Priority 2 manned\n3\nObs/Day\nSyn\nDeficiency priorities are explained in table 2\nAv\nType of\nStation\nl Priority l for 3-hourly observations\n2 Priority 2 for 3-hourly observations\nNone\nStation Name\nALASKA REGION - Con't\nPACIFIC REGION - None\nWhittier\nNetwork: Regional\nState\nAlaska\n*","84\nRemarks\n4500N 7040W\n3930N 7920W\n3850N 7550W\n4200N 7040W\nStation Av Syn Syn Non-visual Visual (man-\nRecommended Sites at which to Eliminate Deficiencies\n*\nday night day night\n(AMOS)hrlys ned) hrlys\nRegional Priorities For:\nHrlys = hourlies\nAv = aviation,\nSyn = synoptic\nin Surface Observing Network\nTable 5\nHighest Priority Deficiency : Priority 2 SYNOP\n2\n2\n2\n2\nObs/Day\nDeficiency priorities are explained in table 2\nType of\nl Priority l for 3-hourly observations\n2 Priority 2 for 3-hourly observations\nNone\nNone\nNone\nNone\nStation Name\nSOUTHERN REGION - None\nCENTRAL REGION - None\nWESTERN REGION - None\nALASKA REGION - None\nPlymouth\nRangely\nMcHenry\nDenton\nNetwork: Regional\nEASTERN REGION\nMaryland\nState\nMaine\nMass.\n*","Deficiency\nPriority*\n(if any)\nAlphabetical Listing of Surface Observing Sites Satisfying NMC and Severe Storm Network Requirements\nA\nA\nA\nA\nA\nA\nA\nA\nA\nA\nA\nA\nIsland of Four Mtns.\nCape Newenham AFS\nCape Romanoff AFS\nStation Name\nCape Decision\nCape Sarichef\nElmendorf AFB\nChirikof Is .\nEielson AFB\nKing Salmon\nDillingham\nFort Yukon\nAfter All Deficiencies in These Networks Have Been Eliminated\n* Deficiencies are as of January 1, 1971. Priorities are explained in table 2.\nBig Delta\nFairbanks\nCold Bay\nKotzebue\nMcCarthy\nCordova\nGambell\nGulkana\nIliamna\nMcGrath\nGalena\nJuneau\nEagle\nHomer\nKobuk\nKenai\nKiska\nAlaska\nState\nTable 6\nDeficiency\nPriority*\n(if any)\nC*\nA\nA\nA\nA\nA\nMontgomery (Dannelly)\nMontgomery (Maxwell\nAnchorage (Merrill\nOzark (Cairns AAF)\nSelma (Craig AFB)\nAnchorage (Intnl)\nStation Name\nBarter Island\nMuscle Shoals\nMonroeville\nBirmingham\nHuntsville\nTuscaloosa\nAndreafski\nAnniston\nAmchitka\nField)\nAnnette\nBettles\nDothan\nMobile\nArctic\nBarrow\nBethel\nAFB)\nAniak\nAttu\nAtka\nAlabama\nState\nAlaska","Deficiency\n*\n(if any)\nPriority\nC*\nC*\nA *\nA*\nAlphabetical Listing of Surface Observing Sites Satisfying NMC and Severe Storm Network Requirements\nC\nA\nA\nTucson (Davis Monthan\nJacksonville (Little\nPhoenix (Sky Harbor\nPhoenix (Luke AFB)\nBlytheville (AFB)\nStation Name\nTucson (Intnl)\nFayetteville\nLittle Rock\nHot Springs\nRock AFB)\nPine Bluff\n* Deficiencies are as of January 1, 1971. Priorities are explained in table 2.\nJonesboro\nFt. Smith\nAfter All Deficiencies in These Networks Have Been Eliminated\nFlagstaff\nHarrison\nEldorado\nPrescott\nKingman\nSafford\nWinslow\nDouglas\nEudora\nHelena\nMun)\nAFB)\nYuma\nPage\nAJO\nArkansas\nArizona\nState\nTable 6\nDeficiency\nPriority*\n(if any)\nA\nA\nA\nA\nA\nA\nA\nA\nA\nA\nA\nA\nA\nNortheast Cape AFS\nSparrevohn AFS\nStation Name\nPort Clarence\n5830N 15800W\n5800N 14200W\nMiddleton Is .\nTin City AFS\nSt. Paul Is.\nPort Heiden\nSt. Matthew\nPrudhoe Bay\nUnalakleet\nSand Point\nMinchumina\nPoint Lay\nSitkinak\nSkwentna\nWrangell\nYakataga\nPuntilla\nNorthway\nYakutat\nNunivak\nShemya\nSummit\nSitka\nUmiat\nNome\nState\nAlaska","Deficiency\nPriority*\n(if any)\nAlphabetical Listing of Surface Observing Sites Satisfying NMC and Severe Storm Network Requirements\nSacramento (Metropoli--\nSacramento (Executive)\nSacramento (McClellan\nRiverside (March AFB)\nMonterey (Fritzsche\nOakland (Metrop Oak\nMuroc (Edwards AFB)\nPt. Piedras Blancas\nSacramento (Mather\nStation Name\n(Moffett NAS)\nPt. Mugu (NAS)\nMountain View\nCalifornia Miramar (NAS)\nPt. Arguello\nPaso Robles\nMt. Shasta\n* Deficiencies are as of January 1, 1971. Priorities are explained in table 2.\nAfter All Deficiencies in These Networks Have Been Eliminated\nPt. Arena\nRed Bluff\nMontague\nIntnl)\nPalmdale\nNeedles\nOntario\nSalinas\nAAF)\ntan)\nAFB)\nAFB)\nState\nTable 6\nDeficiency\nPriority*\n(if any)\nA *\nC*\nA*\nFairfield (Travis AFB)\nMarysville (Beale AFB)\nFresno (Air Terminal)\nImperial Beach (NAAS)\nCrows Landing (NAS)\nLos Angeles (Intnl)\nMerced (Castle AFB)\nFarallon Island SE\nLompoc (Vandenberg\nStation Name\nCrescent City\nAlameda (NAS)\nEl Toro (NAS)\nLemoore (NAS)\nBlue Canyon\nBakersfield\nLong Beach\nMarysville\nTexarkana\nImperial\nInyokern\nBurbank\nDaggett\nArcata\nBishop\nBlythe\nAFB)\nSearcy\nCalifornia\nArkansas\nState","88\nDeficiency\nPriority*\n(if any)\nC\nA\nC\nAlphabetical Listing of Surface Observing Sites Satisfying NMC and Severe Storm Network Requirements\nDenver (Buckley ANG\nCocoa (Patrick AFB)\nDenver (Stapleton\nHartford (Bradley\nStation Name\nFt. Lauderdale\nGrand Junction\nDaytona Beach\nDry Tortugas\nGainesville\nDover (AFB)\nDeficiencies are as of January 1, 1971. Priorities are explained in table 2.\nCross City\nConnecticut Bridgeport\nWilmington\nAfter All Deficiencies in These Networks Have Been Eliminated\nCrestview\nFt. Myers\nLeadville\nLa Junta\nTrinidad\nField)\nIntnl)\nBase)\nPueblo\nLimon\nRifle\nEagle\nDelaware\nColorado\nFlorida\nState\nTable 6\nDeficiency\nPriority*\n(if any)\nA\nSan Francisco (Intnl)\nSan Rafael (Hamilton\nVictorville (George\nSan Diego (Intnl\nSan Francisco LS\nColorado Springs\nSan Diego (NAS)\nSan Nicolas Is.\nVandenberg AFB\nCalifornia San Bernardino\n(Norton AFB)\nLindbergh F)\nStation Name\nSanta Barbara\nSan Clemente\nSan Carlos\nSusanville\nSandberg\nSan Jose\nStockton\nVan Nuys\nThermal\nAlamosa\nAFB)\nAFB)\nUkiah\nAkron\nCraig\nColorado\nState\n*","Deficiency\nPriority*\n(if any)\nC*\nC*\nAlphabetical Listing of Surface Observing Sites Satisfying NMC and Severe Storm Network Requirements\nMarietta (Dobbins AFB)\nGlynco (Brunswick NAS)\nSavannah (Hunter AFB)\nColumbus (Lawson AAF)\nAtlanta (Fulton Co)\nBarbers Point (NAS)\nAlbany (Municipal)\nSavannah (Mun Apt\nFR Frigate Shoals\nAtlanta (Airport)\nStation Name\nWest Palm Beach\nBarking Sands\nTravis FLD)\nAlbany (NAS)\nVero Beach\n* Deficiencies are as of January 1, 1971. Priorities are explained in table 2.\nAfter All Deficiencies in These Networks Have Been Eliminated\nBrunswick\nHiawassee\nHonolulu\nValdosta\nWaycross\nColumbus\nAugusta\nAthens\nMacon\nHilo\nRome\nFlorida\nGeorgia\nHawaii\nState\nTable 6\nDeficiency\nPriority*\n(if any)\nD\nValparaiso (Eglin AFB)\nMilton (Whiting NAAS)\nJacksonville (Imeson)\nSt. Petersburg ( PIF.)\nPanama City (Tyndall\nJacksonville (Intnl)\nTampa (McDill QAFB)\nJacksonville (Craig\nMiami (New Tamiami)\nJacksonville (Cecil\nPensacola (Sherman\nMacon (Robins AFB)\nJacksonville (NAS)\nKey West (Intnl)\nHomestead (AFB)\nKey West (NAS)\nStation Name\nClearwater)\nMiami (Intnl)\nTallahassee\nFLD NAAS )\nFLD NAS)\nPensacola\nMelbourne\nField)\nSebring\nOrlando\nAFB)\nTampa\nFlorida\nState","go\nDeficiency\nPriority*\n(if any)\nAlphabetical Listing of Surface Observing Sites Satisfying NMC and Severe Storm Network Requirements\nE\nC\nD\nD\nE\nE\nC\nD\nD\nChicago (O'Hare Intnl)\nSterling-Rock Falls\nBelleville (Scott\nChicago (Dupage )\nChicago (Midway )\nStation Name\nGlenview (NAS)\nIndianapolis\nSpringfield\nBloomington\nEvansville\n* Deficiencies are as of January 1, 1971. Priorities are explained in table 2.\nFt. Wayne\nAfter All Deficiencies in These Networks Have Been Eliminated\nChampaign\nRockford\nVandalia\nColumbus\nKankakee\nBradford\nDanville\nMattoon\nAngola\nMarion\nPeoria\nMoline\nQuincy\nAFB)\nGary\nIllinois\nIndiana\nState\nTable 6\nDeficiency\nPriority*\n(if any)\nA*\nA*\nA*\nA\nA\nA\nA\nA\nA\nA\nUpolu Point USCG LOR\nMountain Home (AFB)\nKrosenstern Rock\nMakahuena Point\nStation Name\nWaimea Kohala\nLisipnski Is.\nIdaho Falls\nPearl Reef\nNecker Is\nPocatello\nMaro Reef\nKaanapali\nNihoa Is.\nLewiston\nElk City\nWaialee\nChallis\nKahului\nMcCall\nMullan\nBurley\nMullan\nBoise\nPuako\nKokee\nLihue\nHawaii\nState\nIdaho","91\nDeficiency\nPriority*\n(if any)\nE\nD\nE\nD\nAlphabetical Listing of Surface Observing Sites Satisfying NMC and Severe Storm Network Requirements\nC\nC\nLouisville (Standiford)\nTopeka (Forbes AFB)\nWichita (Municipal)\nLouisville (Bowman)\nWichita (McConnell\nFort Knox (Godman\n(Campbell AFB)\nStation Name\nBowling Green\nHopkinsville\nHutchinson\nLexington\nPikeville\nDeficiencies are as of January 1, 1971. Priorities are explained in table 2.\nHill City\nAfter All Deficiencies in These Networks Have Been Eliminated\nGoodland\nPaducah\nRussell\nHolton\nOlathe\nOttawa\nSalina\nTopeka\nAAF)\nLondon\nAFB)\nHealy\nPratt\nKentucky\nKansas\nState\nTable 6\nDeficiency\nPriority*\n(if any)\nC*\nC*\nC\nB\nA\nB\nE\nFort Riley (Marshall\nPeru (Grissom AFB)\nFort Leavenworth\n(Sherman AAF)\nStation Name\nCedar Rapids\nGarden City\nTerre Haute\nW Lafayette\nCoon Rapids\nBurlington\nDodge City\nFort Dodge\nSouth Bend\nDes Moines\nMason City\nSioux City\nFLD AAF )\nConcordia\nWaterloo\nPlymouth\nOttumwa\nSpencer\nChanute\nEmporia\nDubuque\nLamoni\nMuncie\nIndiana\nKansas\nState\nIowa","92\nDeficiency\nPriority*\n(if any)\nD\nA\nC\nA\nE\nAlphabetical Listing of Surface Observing Sites Satisfying NMC and Severe Storm Network Requirements\nDetroit (Metropolitan)\nBedford (Hanscom Arpt)\nChicopee Falls (West-\nDetroit (Willow Run)\nBoston (Logan Intnl)\nSouth Weymouth ( (NAS)\nPatuxent River (NAS)\nFalmouth (Otis AFB)\nStation Name\nDetroit (City)\nBenton Harbor\nHarbor Beach\nGrand Rapids\nBattle Creek\nProvincetown\nNantucket LS\nAndrews AFB\nover AFB)\n* Deficiencies are as of January 1, 1971. Priorities are explained in table 2.\nAfter All Deficiencies in These Networks Have Been Eliminated\nWestfield\nWorcester\nNantucket\nHoughton\nBaltimore\nSalisbury\nEscanaba\nAlpena\nFlint\nMassachu-\nMichigan\nMaryland\nState\nsetts\nTable 6\nDeficiency\nPriority*\n(if any)\nA\nE\nE\nA\nNew Orleans (Lakefront)\nLimestone (Loring AFB)\nShreveport (Municipal)\nShreveport (Barksdale\nPortland (Intnl Jet-\nNew Orleans (Intnl/\nAlexandria (England\nThree Offshore Oil\nNew Orleans (NAS)\nBrunswick (NAS)\nMoisant FLD)\nStation Name\nClayton Lake\nLake Charles\nPortland LS\nBaton Rouge\nPlatforms\nAlexandria\nBoothville\nMillinocket\nLafayette\nOld Town\nHoulton\nport )\nAugusta\nMonroe\nAFB)\nAFB)\nLouisiana\nState\nMaine","93\nDeficiency\nPriority*\n(if any)\nC*\nC*\nAlphabetical Listing of Surface Observing Sites Satisfying NMC and Severe Storm Network Requirements\nC\nB\nC\nE\nA\nGrandview (Richards-\nMeridian (Key Field)\nFort Leonard Wood\nKansas City (Intnl)\nKansas City (Mun)\nStation Name\nColumbus (AFB)\nCape Girardeau\n(Forney AAF)\nMeridian (NAS)\nHarrisonville\nPoplar Bluff\nHattiesburg\nGreenwood\n* Deficiencies are as of January 1, 1971. Priorities are explained in table 2.\nAfter All Deficiencies in These Networks Have Been Eliminated\nKirksville\nGebaur)\nSt. Cloud\nColumbia\nMcComb\nGulfport\nJackson\nNatchez\nTupelo\nJoplin\nMississippi\nMinnesota\nMissouri\nState\nTable 6\nDeficiency\nPriority*\n(if any)\nC*\nB\nB\nOscoda (Wurtsmith AFB)\nMarquette (MQT County)\nMt. Clemons (Selfridge\nMinneapolis. (MSP-St.\nSault Ste Marie (Mun)\nInternational Falls\n(Kincheloe AFB)\nStation Name\nSault Ste Marie\nRedwood Falls\nHoughton Lake\nTraverse City\nPaul Intnl)\nAlexandria\nRochester\nMuskegon\nBrainerd\nPellston\nMankato\nJackson\nLansing\nBemidji\nSaginaw\nHibbing\nAFB)\nDuluth\nMinnesota\nMichigan\nState","9th\nDeficiency\nPriority*\n(if any)\nA *\nC*\nAlphabetical Listing of Surface Observing Sites Satisfying NMC and Severe Storm Network Requirements\nA\nB\nC\nB\nC\nC\nD\nD\nA\nOmaha (Eppley Airfield)\nOmaha (Offutt AFB)\nWest Yellowstone\nStation Name\nGrand Island\nNorth Platte\nDeficiencies are as of January 1, 1971. Priorities are explained in table 2.\nScottsbluff\nLivingston\nMiles City\nFalls City\nAfter All Deficiencies in These Networks Have Been Eliminated\nValentine\nImperial\nMissoula\nFremont\nBeatrice\nChadron\nBurwell\nNorfolk\nLincoln\nMullen\nAustin\nSidney\nScobey\nOneill\nAlma\nNebraska\nMontana\nNevada\nState\nTable 6\nDeficiency\nPriority*\n(if any)\nC*\nA\nE\nC\nD\nGreat Falls (MacMstrom\nWarrensburg (Whiteman\nSt. Louis (Lambert)\nGreat Falls (Intnl)\nSpirit of St. Louis\nStation Name\nWest Plains\nLewistown\nSpringfield\nWarrenton\nSt. Joseph\nKalispell\nBozeman\nGlendive\nGlasgow\nCutbank\nBillings\nAFB)\nJordan\nHelena\nAFB)\nHavre\nDillon\nVichy\nButte\nMissouri\nMontana\nState\n*","95\nDeficiency\nPriority*\nif any)\nAlphabetical Listing of Surface Observing Sites Satisfying NMC and Severe Storm Network Requirements\nE\nBuffalo (Grtr Buffalo Int)\nAlamogordo (Holloman\nRoswell (Municipal &\nClovis (Cannon AFB)\nIndustrial Air Ctr)\nStation Name\nTruth or Cons\nAlbuquerque\nFarmington\nBinghamton\nTucumcari\nLas Vegas\n* Deficiencies are as of January 1, 1971. Priorities are explained in table 2.\nAfter All Deficiencies in These Networks Have Been Eliminated\nCarlsbad\nSanta Fe\nMillville\nTrenton\nDeming\nNewark\nElmira\nAFB)\nGrants\nAlbany\nHobbs\nRaton\nZuni\nNew Mexico\nNew Jersey\nNew York\nState\nTable 6\nDeficiency\nPriority*\n(if any)\nA*\nA*\nA*\nC\nE\nPortsmouth (Pease AFB)\nFort Dix (McGuire AFB)\nLas Vegas (Nellis AFB)\nManchester (Grenier\nLakehurst (NAS)\nStation Name\nMt.Washington\nFallon (NAAS)\nAtlantic City\nDenio (Near)\nWinnemucca\nYucca Flat\nLas Vegas\nLovelock\nTonopah\nConcord\nLebanon\nCaliente\nLaconia\nField)\nOw yhee\nReno\nElko\nEly\nNew Jersey\nHampshire\nNevada\nState\nNew","Deficiency\nPriority*\n(if any)\nE\nE\nAlphabetical Listing of Surface Observing Sites Satisfying NMC and Severe Storm Network Requirements\nE\nCincinnati (Gr Cincinnati)\nRaleigh (Raleigh Durham)\nRocky Mount (Municipal)\nDevils Lake (Synoptic &\nAkron (Akron Canton)\nMinot (Johnson Field)\nAkron (Municipal)\nMunicipal Stns)\nStation Name\nWinston Salem\nGrand Forks\nMinot (Intnl)\nJamestown\n* Deficiencies are as of January 1, 1971. Priorities are explained in table 2. .\nWilmington\nDickinson\nAfter All Deficiencies in These Networks Have Been Eliminated\nBismarck\nWilliston\nNew Bern\nPembina\nHickory\nOakes\nFargo\nCarolina\nDakota\nState\nNorth\nNorth\nOhio\nTable 6\nDeficiency\nPriority*\n(if any)\nA\nNew York (Kennedy Intnl)\nRochester (Roc-Monroe\nGreensboro (GSO High\nFt. Bragg (Pope AFB)\nNew York (Laguardia)\nCherry Point (MCAS)\nGoldsboro (Seymour\nRome (Griffis AFB)\nFrying Pan Shoals\nPlattsburg (AFB)\nJohnson AFB)\nStation Name\nCape Hatteras\nPoughkeepsie\nFayetteville\nGlens Falls\nWatertown\nAsheville\nCharlotte\nSyracuse\nPoint)\nMassena\nCo)\nUtica\nIslip\nCarolina\nNew York\nState\nNorth","Deficiency\nPriority*\n(if any)\nC*\nAlphabetical Listing of Surface Observing Sites Satisfying NMC and Severe Storm Network Requirements\nC\nD\nD\nD\nOklahoma City (Tinker\nOklahoma City (Wiley\nOklahoma City (Will\nColumbia River LS\nStation Name\nRogers World)\nPlunketville\nTulsa (Intnl)\nNorth Bend\nPonca City\n* Deficiencies are as of January 1, 1971. Priorities are explained in table 2.\nAfter All Deficiencies in These Networks Have Been Eliminated\nMcAlester\nMuskogee\nStillwater\nLakeview\nMeacham\nSeminole\nMedford\nNewport\nAstoria\nAFB)\nPost)\nEugene\nHobart\nVinita\nBaker\nBurns\nOklahoma\nOregon\nState\nTable 6\nDeficiency\nPriority*\n(if any)\nA*\nD\nD\nC\nC\nD\nD\nDayton (J M Cox Day Mun)\nCleveland (Hopkins Intnl)\nDayton (Patterson AFB)\nCincinnati (Mun Lunken\nColumbus (Lockbourne\nToledo (Tol Express)\nFort Sill (Post AAF)\nStation Name\nColumbus (Port\nMarblehead LS\nColumbus)\nAltus (AFB)\nBartlesville\nYoungstown\nZanesville\nMansfield\nArdmore\nField)\nEl Reno\nGuyman\nFindlay\nAFB)\nLima\nGage\nAlva\nEnid\nOklahoma\nState\nOhio","Deficiency\nPriority*\n( if any)\nA*\nAlphabetical Listing of Surface Observing Sites Satisfying NMC and Severe Storm Network Requirements\nC\nE\nA\nCharleston (Municipal)\nRapid City (Ellsworth\nRapid City (Regional)\nSumpter (Shaw AFB)\nQuonset Point (NAS)\nMyrtle Beach North\nGreenville-Sprtnbg\nStation Name\nBeaufort (MCAS)\nCoal Springs\nSioux Falls\nDeficiencies are as of January 1, 1971. Priorities are explained in table 2.\nProvidence\nAfter All Deficiencies in These Networks Have Been Eliminated\nAberdeen\nMobridge\nAnderson\nColumbia\nFlorence\nAFB)\nPierre\nHuron\nPhilip\nCarolina\nDakota\nIsland\nState\nSouth\nRhode\nSouth\nTable 6\nDeficiency\nPriority*\n(if any)\nPittsburgh (Allegheny Co)\nPittsburgh (Greater Pit)\nWilkesbarre Scranton\nWillow Grove (NAS)\nPhiladelphia (Intnl)\nHarrisburg (State)\nStation Name\nSexton Summit\nWilliamsport\nBlock Island\nPhilipsburg\nThe Dalles\nAllentown\nPendleton\nTroutdale\nBradford\nRedmond\nPortland\nReading\nAltoona\nDubois\nSalem\nErie\nsylvania\nIsland\nOregon\nRhode\nState\nPenn-","Deficiency\nPriority*\nif any)\nAlphabetical Listing of Surface Observing Sites Satisfying NMC and Severe Storm Network Requirements\nD\nA\nA\nFt. Worth (Carswell AFB\nHouston (Intercontinental)\nFt. Worth (Gtr SW Intnl)\nHouston (Ellington AFB)\nKilleen (Ft. Hood AAF)\nCorpus Christi (NAAS)\nHouston (Wm P Hobby)\nFt. Worth (Meacham)\nLaredo (Laredo AFB)\nDallas (Love Field)\nGalveston (Scholes)\nKilleen (Gray AAF)\nKingsville (NAAS)\nStation Name\nGuadalupe Pass\nCollege Station\nCorpus Christi\nDeficiencies are as of January 1, 1971. Priorities are explained in table 2.\nAfter All Deficiencies in These Networks Have Been Eliminated\nCorsicana\nLongview\nJunction\nLubbock\nEl Paso\nDalhart\nDel Rio\nCotulla\nLufkin\nMarfa\nTexas\nState\nTable 6\nDeficiency\nPriority*\n(if any)\nC*\nC*\nC\nD\nBeeville (NAAS Chase Fld)\nAustin (Bergstrom AFB)\nNashville (Metropolitan)\nBig Spring (Webb AFB)\nAbilene (Dyess AFB)\nStation Name\nMemphis (Intnl)\nMemphis (NAS)\nBrownsville\nChattanooga\nBrownwood\nCenterville\nBridgeport\nWatertown\nCrossville\nChildress\nKnoxville\nAmarillo\nYankton\nJackson\nAbilene\nBristol\nAustin\nAlice\nTennessee\nDakota\nState\nTexas\nSouth\n*","Deficiency\nPriority*\n(if any)\nC*\nC*\nAlphabetical Listing of Surface Observing Sites Satisfying NMC and Severe Storm Network Requirements\nFt. Belvoir (Davison AAF)\nWashington (National)\nSalt Lake City (Intnl)\nWashington (Dulles)\nNorfolk (Regional)\nQuantico (MCAS)\nStation Name\nOgden (Hill AFB)\nCharlottesville\nNewport News\nLangley Field\nNorfolk (NAS)\nOceana (NAS)\nWytheville\nMontpelier\nBlackstone\n* Deficiencies are as of January 1, 1971. Priorities are explained in table 2.\nBurlington\nHanksville\nRichmond\nAfter All Deficiencies in These Networks Have Been Eliminated\nWendover\nRoanoke\nDanville\nPrice\nDelta\nVermont\nVirginia\nState\nUtah\nTable 6\nDeficiency\nPriority*\n(if any)\nC*\nC*\nA*\nC*\nC\nSan Antonio (Kelly AFB)\nSherman (Perrin AFB)\nSan Antonio (Randolph\nSan Antonio (Intnl)\nStation Name\nMineral Wells\nBryce Canyon\nWichita Falls\nPort Arthur\nStephenville\nSan Angelo\nCedar City\nSanderson\nBlanding\nPineland\nPalacios\nSeymour\nMcAllen\nVictoria\nMidland\nAFB)\nParis\nTyler\nWaco\nWink\nState\nTexas\nUtah","101\nDeficiency\nPriority*\nif any)\nC*\nAlphabetical Listing of Surface Observing Sites Satisfying NMC and Severe Storm Network Requirements\nA\nE\nC\nB\nD\nC\nE\nE\nE\nMilwaukee (Timmerman)\nMilwaukee (Mitchell\nSheboygan (County)\nStation Name\nParkersburg\nFond Du Lac\nMartinsburg\nMorgantown\nGrantsburg\nCharleston\nEau Claire\nHuntington\nGreen Bay\nLone Rock\nWatertown\nJanesville\nAfter All Deficiencies in These Networks Have Been Eliminated\nWheeling\nLacrosse\nDeficiencies are as of January 1, 1971. Priorities are explained in table 2.\nKenosha\nMadison\nOshkosh\nAshland\nField)\nWausau\nElkins\nWisconsin\nVirginia\nWest\nState\nTable 6\nDeficiency\nPriority*\n(if any)\nSpokane (Fairchild AFB)\nTacoma (McChord AFB)\nSeattle (Boeing Field)\nTacoma (Fort Lewis)\nWhidbey Island (Oak\nWalla Walla (City-\nUmatilla Reef LS\nSeattle Tacoma\nSpokane (Felts)\nStation Name\nHarbor NAS)\nSpokane (Intnl)\nPort Angeles\nBellingham\nWenatchee\nQuillayute\nCounty)\nHoquiam\nBluefield\nOlympia\nEphrata\nBeckley\nYakima\nOmak\nVirginia\nington\nWash-\nState\nWest\n*","Deficiency\nPriority*\n(if any)\nRequirements\nAlphabetical Listing of Surface Observing Sites Satisfying NMC and Severe Storm Network\nStation Name\nDeficiencies are as of January 1, 1971. Priorities are explained in table 2.\nAfter All Deficiencies in These Networks Have Been Eliminated\nState\nTable 6\nDeficiency\nPriority*\n(if any)\nA*\nA\nC\nWisconsin Rapids\nStation Name\nRocksprings\nMoorcroft\nBig Piney\nCheyenne\nEvanston\nSheridan\nLaramie\nWorland\nRawlins\nDouglas\nCasper\nLander\nWisconsin\nWyoming\nState\n*","103\nAPPENDIX A\nRequirements for Surface Observations\nA.\nIntroduction\nThis Appendix covers (a) station spacing requirements statements\nwhich predated this surface network plan, (b) observing requirements\nwhich influenced or determined the locations of stations in the\npresent network, (c) present uses made of observations, and (d)\nthe importance of each parameter in the preparation of forecasts\nto be utilized by (i) more than one user group, and (ii) a single\nuser group, such as aviation.\nB.\nSummary of Other Station Spacing Requirements\nWidely varying requirements have been stated for station spacing.\nTable A 1 gives some of these requirements together with their\nsources. We find that many requirements center around a spacing\nof some 30 to 60 n. miles. The application of such a broad criterion\nto the entire U.S. (or even those parts most affected by severe\nstorms) would result in a need for a large number of new stations.\nTable A 2 tabulates the results of a review by Gandin (1967) of\nRussian research into optimum surface observing networks. Note\nthat very small station spacings are required to describe accurately\nthe fields of several parameters. Gandin states that these results\nshould be considered only as a first approximation of the required\nspacings in flat terrain. Over mountainous terrain, spacings\nshould be roughly one-half as great as shown in Table A 2.\nC.\nPast Criteria for Locating Surface Observing Sites\nForecasts for service programs were made for many years before\ngeneral guidance material was available from analysis centers.\nConsequently, stations were located where they could best serve the\nspecific service program, and observations were tailored to this\nprogram. One example is that 86 percent of the WSO S are located\nat airports and take complete hourly aviation observations. Of\nnecessity, the later development of a more efficient forecast\nstructure, preparing guidance material and, from this, specific\nforecasts, had to be based on observations from this established\nnetwork.","104\nTable A 1\nRequired Spacing Between Observing Sites\nUser\nSpacing\n1/\n1.\nAviation-\nAt strategic locations such as mountain passes; at\nairports for scheduled take-offs and landings;\nevery 100-150 miles along air routes.\n2\n/\n2.\nCoastal\nVariable. The Cooperative Hurricane Reporting\nNetwork is based on a 30-50 mile spacing.\nCoast Guard, yacht clubs, etc. prefer 5-10 mile\nspacing to provide data for local usage.\n2\n3.\nAgriculture\n12 to 40 miles depending upon type of farm\nactivities.\n2\n4.\nFire Weather\nNot specified. Highest where potential loss is\ngreatest. Average spacing in one 1° square is\nten miles (California).\n/\n2\n5.\nUrban\n4-7 stations for certain cities with populations\nexceeding 250,000. This would mean a 7-10\nmile spacing for a city like Washington, D.C.\n3\n6.\nZone Forecasts\nOne or more observing sites per zone. Most\nzones cover areas of 5,000 to 15,000 square\nmiles.\n7.\nNSSFC -\n60 miles in order to provide 100% detection;\n4\n/\nForecasting\n30 miles in order to provide 100% definition\nof a system 60 miles along, lasting 2 hours,\nmoving 30 knots and covering 3,600 square\nmiles during its lifetime. This includes small\nsquall lines, meso highs and lows, etc.\n8.\nNSSFC Warning 5/\n40 miles to provide 75% chance of detection,\n30 miles to provide 95% chance of detection.\n9.\nNSSFC -\nMinimum spacing, 40 miles, to detect winds,\nAntecedent - 6 /\npressure patterns often leading to severe storm\nConditions\ndevelopment.\n/\n6\n10.\nNSSFC\nMinimum spacing about 100 miles where upper\nair stations are 100-120 miles apart and if\ndigitized radar data are available and models\nhave been developed relating digitized radar\nreturns to severe weather.\n1\n/\nDesign of the Data Acquisition Subsystem (DDAS), Task Group IV\n4a, \"Design of Surface Aviation Observation Network,\" 1966.\n2\n/\nDDAS Final Report, April 1968.\n/\n3\nOperations of the National Weather Service, 1970, page 14.\n4\n/\nWB Technical Planning Study No. 8, 1963, page 27.\n5\n/\nVerbal - NSSFC Staff, March 1970.\n/\n6\nVerbal - NSSFC Staff, May 1970.","105\nTable A 2\n7\nStation Spacing Requirements in the Soviet Union\n-\nParameter\nAveraged over:\nMaximum Spacing (mi)\nSunshine duration\nOne month\n90-125\nSoil temperature\nOne month\n11\nSea level pressure\nTime of observation\n11\nTemperature\nOne day - marginal for\n30-36\ntime of observation\nHumidity\n11\n11\nWind\n11\n11\nCloud\n11\n11\nPrecipitation\nOne month\n20 at most\nSnow Cover\n11\n11\nThunderstorms\nTime of observation\n11\nFog\n11\n11\nPrecipitation\nShorter spacings for shorter time periods,\nespecially in summer. Development of good\nradar for precipitation detection will permit\nlarger spacing.\n7/\nGandin, L. S. , 11 \"On the Planning of Meteorological Station Networks\"\nWMO Rapporteur of the Commission for Climatology for Climatolog-\nical Networks, 1967, pages 24-29. -","106\nUses Made of Observations\nD.\nSurface reports are required operationally for the following general\npurposes:\n1. for surface and 1000-millibar analyses,\nfor determining the surface boundary conditions for numerical\n2.\nupper air prognoses,\n3. for the preparation of forecasts of sensible weather,\n4. for severe weather forecasts and warnings and,\nfor service programs such as aircraft operations, marine, public\n5.\nweather, and agriculture.\nThe above requirements 1 through 4 represent specific uses made\nof surface observations in the preparation of forecasts used by more\nthan one user group. Based on these are the specialized forecasts,\ni.e., forecasts for service programs, which generally originate\nfrom the WSFO S and WSO S.\nAn outline of the National Weather Service forecast program\nproviding these services is contained in Table A 3. A complete\ndescription of the forecast and warning programs is contained in\nPart C of the NWS Operations Manual. The objective of these\nservices is \"To contribute to the safety, health, welfare, comfort\nand convenience of the public, and to meet the needs of all segments\nof the national economy for general weather information. 8/\nE.\nImportance of Various Parameters\nThe parameters reported in observations made at NWS stations are\nof two broad classes:\n- \"objective\" - i.e., those measured by an instrument such as a\nthermometer.\n- \"subjective\" - i.e., those estimated by a human observer with\nor without the aid of an instrument.\nThe \"objective\" elements are most valuable in the preparation of\nguidance material because, (1) they relate more directly to the\nphysical state of the atmosphere, and (2) most guidance material\nconsists of numerical predictions which are computedfromquantita-\ntive values of the objectively measured elements.\n8/\nOperations of the National Weather Service, 1970, page 11.","terminal and en route.\nand warnings to areas\nForecasts for general\nRiver levels, floods.\nhydrologic, offshore\nForecasts of motion\nof tropical cyclones\nGrowing conditions,\nmax and min temp,\nlocal storms, such\nas tornadoes, hail,\nTypes of forecasts\nGuidance material\nAviation terminal,\nagencies, such as\nsurface pressure,\nSevere convective\n& coastal marine.\nZone Rive levels,\nCity and vicinity.\npublic. Aviation\nBurning potential\nState, often fire,\narea, TWEB 10 /\nfor use by other\nfrost (seasonal)\nor PATWAS1I7\nto be affected.\nprecipitation\nagricultural,\nprobability .\nhigh winds.\n(seasonal)\nfloods.\nmade\nmade for individual sites.\nSome types of forecasts\nSize of drainage basins\nSynoptic and planetary\nfeatures on local area\nEffects of mesoscale\nMesoscale to lesser\nscales, primarily.\nMeso and synoptic\nMeso and synoptic\nSize of Features\nMainly synoptic.\nforecast\ndegree\nscales\nscales\nGeneralized, up to\nSpecific forecasts\n6 hours to 5 days.\n0-2 for aviation\nUp to 72 hours,\nTime period of\nDescription of NWS Forecast Services\n24 hours, but\nFew hours to\nFew hours to\nFew hours to\nseveral days\nseveral days\nmainly 0-12\n0-48 hours\n0-6 mainly\n0-12 most\nimportant\nforecasts\nday(s)\n30 days.\nTable A 3\nPortion of U.S. affected\nsquare miles Aviation\nPart or all of 1 or more\nsquare miles Aviation\nSmall to medium state.\nSmall to medium state.\nmajor river systems.\nSize of forecast area\nby tropical cyclones.\nforecasts made for\nforecasts made for\nAverage 56, 000\nAverage 16, 000\nspecific sites.\nspecific sites.\nPilot Automatic Telephone Weather Answering Service\nEntire U.S.\nEntire U.S.\nOften performed by or collocated with WSFO or WSO\n10/ Transcribed Weather Broadcast\nNumber of\noffices in\n48 states\n1\n30\n245\n11\n38\n14\n1\n1\nNational Hurricane\nRiver Forecast-\nStorms Forecast\nForecast Offices\nWeather Service\nWeather Service\nCenters (RFC's)\nAgricultural and\nNational Severe\nCenter (NSSFC)\nOffices (WSO's)\nMeteorological\nCenter (NMC)\nCenter (NHC)\nFire Weather\nFruit-frost 9\nSource of\n(WSFO's)\nService 9\nforecast\nNational\n/\n11\n9","108\nTable A 4 shows the degree of need for each parameter, both for\nthe preparation of forecasts used by more than one user group, and\nfor those used by a single group.\nTable 4-1 of the final report of the Design of the Data Acquisition\nSubsystem, April 1968, contains a list of the parameters required\nby each user group.","109\nTable A 4\nImportance of Parameters\nImportance\nType of Forecast\nEssential\nHighly Useful\nUseful\n12\n/\nWave heights and\nVisibility\nNMC, Severe Storm\nTemperature\nand WSFO Forecasts\nperiods\nUsed by More Than\nPrecipitation\n(amount, type\nObstruction\nOne User Group\nto vision 12 /\nand intensity)\nStream flow\n12/\nClouds\nClouds (height)\nSnow depth\n(distribution\nand type) 13\nSolar radiation\nPressure and\nTendency\nWater Vapor\nWind (speed,\ndirection, and\ngusts)\nClouds (amount\nSpecialized Fore-\nSoil temperature\nEvapotranspira\nand height)\ntion\ncasts (used by one\nLeaf temperature\nuser group, i.e . ,\naviation)\nVisibility\nDew\nSoil moisture\nGaseous\n(Representative list\nObstructions to\nFrost depth\ncomposition\nonly, these needs\nvision\n(ozone, carbon\nare often in addition\ndioxide,\nto the needs for\nCloud tops\nEvaporation\nsulphur, etc.)\nparameters\nessential for the\nSea Surface\nSolar radiation\nParticulates\nabove category of\nTemperature\nusers)\nSea state\nWave heights\nand periods\nIce thickness,\nStorm Tide\nextent\nStream Flow\nSnow depth\n12\nVisibility and cloud height data are considered essential to aviation\nforecasts, which are classified as specialized forecasts.\n13/\nAvailable to a considerable extent from satellite observations.","110\nAPPENDIX B\nRole of Other Than Conventional Surface Observations in Determining\nMaximum Required Densities of Surface Observations\nA.\nIntroduction\nThe incomplete picture of the atmosphere given by surface observa-\ntions alone may be supplemented through the utilization of other than\nthe conventional surface observations. Some of these observations\nand their roles in supplying data not obtained through surface\nobservations are described in this Appendix. The requirements to\nbe met are the detection and definition of any weather phenomena\nthat will have a significant impact on life and property. 1/2/\nThe\ngreater the potential impact, the more important the timeliness and\naccuracy of detection and definition become. Short-fuse warnings\n(about 3 hours or less) are more often based on the extrapolation of\nobserved systems than on forecasting the development of new ones.\nThe most violent mesoscale phenomena (tornadoes) are often very\nshort-lived, necessitating quick detection and definition. If complete\nreliance were placed on conventional surface observations, an\nexceedingly dense network would be required - perhaps a spacing of\none mile or less. This cannot be considered seriously.\n1/ Detection: A severe local storm is considered to be detected when it\npasses one station. Detection Capability, as used in this\nstudy, is the probability that at least one of a network of\nstations within a two-degree square will detect within one\nhour, a weather system covering a 3,000-square mile area.\nThe Required Detection Capability (RDC) is the minimum\nacceptable level of detection capability which must be\nprovided within a given area.\n2/ Definition: A storm is considered to have been defined when its shape\nand movement have been determined. As described in\nAppendix D, a storm is considered to be defined without\nambiguity when it passes four stations not in a straight line\nwithin an hour's time. Definition Capability is the probability\nthat the network of stations will define a system within 1 hour.","111\nThe smallest system to be detected and defined by conventional\nsurface observations is assumed to be the area affected in 1 hour by\na squall line whose size is that most frequently associated with\nsevere local storms (about 3,000 square miles). As explained\nin\nAppendix D, observing sites would have to be spaced about 10 miles\napart in order to provide a 100- percent capability of detecting and\ndefining systems of even this large a size. It should be evident from\nan economic standpoint that we cannot afford to rely solely on\nsurface observations to detect and define severe storms.\nThere are no hard and fast criteria by which we can say that any\nof the observing techniques described herein can take the place of\nconventional surface observations. At best, these data make it\neasier to live with a less-than-optimum density of conventional\nobserving sites. In any given case, the amount by which the maximum\nrequired surface network density may be lowered through the avail-\nability of non-conventional observations is a highly subjective\ndecision. In the absence of objective criteria, however, each\ndecision represents the best estimate available.\nB.\nSpotter Networks\nSpotter Networks are described in WSOM Chapter B-21, paragraph 4.\nThey consist of private citizens organized to spot and report the\nsighting of mesoscale severe storms, especially tornadoes.\nGenerally, these observers are alerted in advance by a tornado\nwatch or warning. Most spotter networks are located around the\nupwind outskirts of population centers in areas most frequently\naffected by tornadoes. If systems as small as tornadoes are to be\ndetected with any regularity, reports from the volunteer spotter\nnetworks and other non-Government affiliated private citizens are\nessential. The existence of these networks makes it considerably\neasier to live with the station spacing required in this study.\nC.\nSatellite Observations\nWithin the next few years, observations from geostationary satellites\nare expected to be available to the WSFO S at 20-minute intervals\nwithin a few minutes of the time the pictures are taken. The\nresolution of pictures taken in daytime will be about 3/4 mile over\nthe U.S., whereas infrared resolution will be approximately 2 1/2\nmiles at any hour. Observed features are expected to be fixed\nwithin 10 miles of their actual locations. These observations will be\na tremendous asset to determining the locations of clouds and the\ntemperatures of cloudtops. The heights of cloud tops may be inferred\nto some extent by the character of the cloud, and (depending on the\nlapse rate) much more precisely by the temperature. Satellite data\nmay be used to monitor the development and movement of squall lines\nand individual thunder storms.","112\nThe potential value of satellite photographs is demonstrated in a study\nby Merritt and Smith (1969) which showed that 85 percent of the\nsatellite-observed severe local storm occurrences in the central and\neastern U.S. were associated with cells larger than one degree in\ndiameter, while 89 percent of the light (non-severe) storms and 50\npercent of moderate intensity storms were associated with cells\nsmaller than one degree. An independent sample in a later year\nshowed 89 percent of the severe storms to be associated with cells\nlarger than one degree in diameter. This study did not include cases\nin which the storms were covered by an extensive cirriform shield.\nSatellite data are of quite limited value as a supplement to surface\nobservations, other than for obtaining cloud information.\nBased on the above-mentioned capabilities and limitations of satellite\nobservations, we have decreased our maximum requirements for\ndefining mesoscale systems through surface observations from 100\nto 95 percent. 31\nD.\nRadar\nMesoscale data obtained from radar can be more useful in many\nsituations than surface observations, particularly for providing\nquantitative information on the height of cloud 1tops, size, shape, speed\nand direction of movement, and changes in intensity of precipitation\nareas. These cannot be given by,nor inferred accurately from, surface\ndata. In many cases, tornadoes have been initially detected on radar.\nWhatever the means by which tornadoes have been detected, radar\nhas proven to be an excellent tool for tracking them.\nBy using surface observations together with radar, it is possible to\nestimate intensities of parameters observed neither by radar nor\nsurface reports. For example, the relative intensities (or intensity\ngradients) of echoes near a surface wind speed report may be\ncompared with radar-observed intensities elsewhere on a squall\nline to estimate wind speeds elsewhere.\n3/\nThis 5% reduction in required definition is far more significant than\nmay first be apparent. For example, a 99 -percent capability of\ndefining a weather system covering a 3,000 square mile area would\nrequire a ten - mile spacing. A 95-percent definition capability,\nhowever, would require only a 16 mile spacing and only 42 percent\nas many observing sites.","113\nDuring the 1971 tornado season, Fort Worth, Oklahoma City, Kansas\nCity, and Monett, Mo. were equipped with digitized radars. These and\nmany other radar sites had the VIP (Video Integrator and Processor).\nThese instruments now make it possible for the radar operator to\ndetermine echo intensities and intensity gradients considerably more\nquickly and precisely than otherwise would be possible. Should their\nprojected capabilities be borne out, it may be assumed that these\ndevices (VIP, etc.) would be added at other sites in the radar network.\nAnother new development in this field is the instant radar replay.\nThis device will show in rapid succession a series of time lapse\nviews of the PPI scope. This will facilitate the determination of\ncell movements and changes in their configuration.\nRadar does have limitations. It cannot be used alone to determine\nwind speeds, temperature or pressure changes, or cloud conditions,\nalthough rough estimates of some of these elements may be made.\nRadar does not help detect conditions incipient to storm formation.\nTherefore, it cannot be used as a substitute for all surface\nobservations.\nIn consideration of radar capabilities and limitations, we have\nsubjectively stated that the maximum density of surface observations\nmay be limited to that needed to provide a 95-percent severe\nlocal storm detection capability within 125 miles of existing and\nplanned WSR-57 or comparable radars, and an 85-percent detection\ncapability within 125 miles of radars with VIP, digitizing,and\n4/\ninstant replay capabilities.\nE.\nRawinsonde Observations\nThe role of rawinsonde observations is greatest in detecting the\ndynamics of the atmosphere which lead to the development of severe\nlocal storms. Rawinsonde data are thus very important in preparing\nlonger range predictions and in the issuance of severe storm\nwatches, and tropical cyclone and severe winter storm warnings.\nMainly because of the much better capabilities of surface observations\nin identifying existing storms, dry lines, etc., we do not consider the\npresence of rawinsonde data as a sanction to decrease our require-\nments for surface observations.\nDetection capabilities of 95 and 85 percent may be achieved by 31-and\n4\n42 -mile spacings, respectively. These spacings reduce drastically\nthe maximum number of stations required in the surface network.\nFor example, the number of stations required in a 10,000-square-\nmile area would be 12 and 7 for 95- and 85- percent detection\ncapabilities, vs. 49 and 28 for comparable definition capabilities,\nrespectively.","114\nOther Sources of Observations\nF.\nNew remote sensing devices will have to be considered in the future\nas their availability increases and capabilities become known.\nAmong these devices are duo-doppler radar and accoustical tech-\nniques. The network plan should be revised in the future as these\ntechniques change our requirements for surface observations. A\nnumber of remote sensing techniques are evaluated by C. G. Little\nand V. E. Derr (1970).\nThe impact of non-surface observations on requirements for\nconventional surface reports is summarized in Table B 1.\nREFERENCES\nDerr, V. E. and Little, C. G., \"A Comparison of Remote Sensing of the\nClear Atmosphere by Optical, Radio and Acoustic Radar Techniques,\"\nApplied Optics, Volume 9, No. 9, September 1970, pages 1976-1992.\nMerritt, E. S. and Smith, W. P., \"Satellite-Observed Characteristics of\nSevere Local Storms,\" 6th Conference on Severe Local Storms, Chicago,\nApril 8-10, 1969, pages 208-217.","Square 6 /\nPer 2°\n118\n49\n12\n7\nPer Unit Area\nMaximum\nStations\nImpact of Non-Surface Observing Techniques on Requirements for Surface Observations\nRelative\nTwo-degree latitude-longitude square at 45° latitude (approximate area 10,000 sq. mi.)\nUnity\n.42\n.10\n.06\n5/\nActual\n9+ mi.\n16 mi.\n31 mi.\n42 mi.\nMinimum\nSpacing:\nStation\nRelative\nUnity\n1.7\n3.3\n4.4\nCapability\nMaximum\nDefinition\n(equiv. of\n(equiv. of\nRequired\nTable B 1\n62%)\n44%)\n100%\n95%\n(equiv. of 100%)\n(equiv. of 100%)\nMaximum RDC\n95%\n85%\nradar with adjuncts\nSquare grid.\nSurface, satellite\nObservations\nType of Data\nsatellite and\nsatellite and\nSurface and\nAvailable\nsatellite\nSurface,\nSurface\nradar\nalone\n5/\n6/","116\nAPPENDIX C\nComputation of Potential Benefit Values\nA.\nIntroduction\nParagraph VI of the text proposes a mesoscale network for areas\nsubject to a significant frequency of severe local storms. The\nsites in this network are so distributed as to make possible the best\nwarning capabilities in areas subject to the greatest potential\ndamage to lives and property. It is in these areas that the greatest\nPotential Benefit (PB) would be derived from a good warning\ncapability.\nThis Appendix describes the procedure used to compute quantitative\nPB values for each 2° latitude-longitude square.\nDevelopment of Potential Benefit (PB) Equation\nB.\nThe Potential Benefit is considered to be proportional to the product\nof the severe storm frequency times the logarithm (base 2) of the\npopulation density, as explained in paragraph VI.A of the text.\nThe following equation was used to derive Potential Benefit (PB)\nvalues for each 2° square in the United States:\n4\n4\n(s./S.)D.\nP/10 persons per\n(log\nV\nPB.\nk\n(1)\nPB\nI\n2\ni=1\nA\ni=1\nsquare mile)\ni\nwhere\nPB =\npotential damage to lives and property (proportional to the\npotential benefit to be derived from a network of stations)\ni\n1 for tornadoes\n=\n2 for severe thunderstorms\ni\n=\n3 for severe winter storms\ni\n=\ni\n4 for tropical cyclones\n=\ntotal number of occurrences of given type of storm in given\nS.\n=\ni\nsquare for period of record\ntotal number of occurrences of given type of storm in all\nS.\n=\ni\nsquares for period of record","117\nDi\ntotal damage in all squares for period of record for given\n=\ntype of storm\nA, i =\nmedian area covered by this type of storm (a measure of\ndetectability)\nP\npopulation density, persons per square mile\n=\nk\nconstant of proportionality equal to 0.0258 square miles\n=\nper dollar\nTable C 1 shows the values obtained for Si, D, and A\nThe primary purpose of computing PB values is to determine the\nnumber of stations required per square. The larger the area A of\nthe severe storm, the fewer stations required per unit area to\ndetect it. For this reason, A appears in the denominator.\nThe value of k was derived so as to make PB values dimensionless,\nand to make the value of k (S1/S1) P1 equal to 0.10 for one tornado\nA\n1\noccurrence.\nThis was set equal to 0.10 instead of 1.00 merely to make PB values\nsmaller.\nThe values of log (P/10) were raised to the next higher integer in\norder to simplify calculations and avoid fractional exponents. For\nexample, values of 1, 2, 3, and 4 were used for population densities\nof 1-20, 21-40, 41-80, and 81-160 persons per square mile,\nrespectively.\nThe last line of Table C 1 is the product of the four constants\nk, S, Di , and A PB values were determined over the U.S. by\nmultiplying this product by the values of Si and the population\nfactor in each square. Equation (2) is a sample computation of the\nPB value for a square which had experienced 50 tornadoes (sq=50), =\n10 severe thunderstorms (s2 = 10), 2 tropical cyclones (s3 = 2),\nand 20 severe winter storms (s4 = 20), and in which the population\nfactor is 2 (21-40 persons per quare mile):","118\nTable C 1\nStatistics Used to Obtain Potential Benefit (PB) Values\nSevere\nTropical\nSevere Winter\nType of Storm\nTornadoes\n1/\n(i=1)\nThunderstorms\nCyclones\nStorms\n(i=2)\n(i=3)\n(i=4)\n5/\n3/\n3/\n4\n10,309-\n8,595-\n1,208\nTotal number of storms (S.) in all\n11,608\n2° squares for all years 2/ i\n8/\n6\n/\n7\n266-\nAverage annual damage (D.) all\n750-\n135\n138\nstorms all squares (millions of\n1967 dollars)\nAverage area (A.) swept out by storm\n3,000 (squall\n3,000 (squall\n15,000\n10,000\ni\nin one hour (square miles)\nline)\nline)\n(severest\n(severest\narea)\narea)\nConstant (k) equal to . 0258 square miles\nper dollar for all storms\n11/8/10,\n(1/S)\nD.\n0.22\nValue of k\n(PB values may\n0.10\n0.11\n0.38\nA\nbe obtained by multiplying the values in\n9/\nthis line by S and the population factor)\n1\nAccompanied by thunder and winds of 50 knots or more.\n2/\nMany storms, especially tropical cyclones and winter type storms, will affect more than one\n2 degree square. Thus the actualtotal number of storm occurrences will be less than shown.\n3/\nPautz, et al, WBTM FCST 12, 1969, Figures D1-1 and D1-11. - Period of record 1955-1967.\n4\nHope and Neuman, WBTM-SR-44, \"North Atlantic Tropical Cyclones\" 1969. Period of record\n1886-1967.\n5/\nOMO Emergency Warnings Section - verified warnings of blizzards, heavy snow and ice storms,\nwinters of 1962-1963 through 1968-1969.\n6/\nH. .C.S. Thom, ESSA, EDS, unpublished manuscript on damage from tornadoes and windstorms\nfor the 1958-1967 period.\n7/\nESSA, Climatological Data, national summaries for years 1958-1967.\n8\nHighway Research Board figures on insurance claims and highway snow clearance costs. Values\nare cut in half to account for claims and snow clearance costs which are not caused by severe\nwinter storms.\n9/\nPopulation densities per two degree square were taken from computations used in \"Potential\nCasualties from Tornadoes, 11 by Alexander Sadowski, ESSA, Weather Bureau, Washington, D.C.\n1965 (presented at 244th National Meeting of the American Meteorological Society Cloud Physics\nand Severe Local Storms).","119\n(2) PB = ((50 X 0.10) + (10 X 0.11) + (2 X 0.38) + (20 X 0.22)) (2)\n= (( 5.0\n) + (\n1.1\n) +(\n.76 ) + (\n4.4\n))\n(2)\n= 22.52 = 23\nSource material on the areal frequency distribution of severe local\nstorm occurrences is referenced in footnotes 3, 4, and 5 of Table\nC 1. Footnotes 6, 7, and 8 refer to sources of damage statistics,\nand footnote 9 to the distribution of population. Damage figures are\ndifficult to determine accurately, but represent the best available\nestimates. We have the least confidence in severe winter storm\ndamage figures, but consider the values used in our computations\nto be at least within one order of magnitude.","120\nAPPENDIX D\nRelationship of Network Density to Capabilities of Defining (Shape and\nMovement of) and Detecting Severe Mesoscale Systems\nA.\nIntroduction\nParagraph IV.B.3 of the text relates definition and detection\ncapabilities to average spacing, and Appendix B explains the need\nto detect or define systems based on the availability of other-than-\nconventional surface observations. The average spacing figures\nreferred to above were derived from the number of stations required\nper unit area, i.e., per two-degree latitude-longitude square.\nDescribed in paragraph B of this Appendix is the rationale behind\nthe relationship of detection capabilities to the number of stations\nper square. Paragraphs C through F define \"definition,\" state the\nnumber of observations required to define a system, and identify\nareas in the present network lacking the required definition\ncapabilities.\nRelationship of Network Density to Capability of Detecting Mesoscale\nB.\nSystems\nSince mesoscale systems generally have fairly definite sizes and\nshapes, there are mathematical ways by which we can estimate the\namount of data needed to detect the existence of such systems.\nGleeson- made such a study, in which he related the probability\nof detecting various- - sized systems to the number of observing\nsites randomly distributed in a given area. Figure D 1 shows\nGleeson's graph relating detection capabilities to the number of\nstations per unit area. The n (abcissa) is the number of stations\ncontained in the region R, and S is the size of the system to be\ndetected. This graph may be applied to our network problem by\nassigning values to S and R. R is the two-degree square in\nwhich we wish to detect a system, and S is the size of the severe\nmesoscale system. S and R will have values of 3,000 and\n10,000 square miles, respectively, near latitude 45° North, giving\na value of 0.30 for S/R (ordinate). At 30° latitude, R is 12,400\nsquare miles, and S/R is 0.24. The percentage probability\nof\ndetecting a system with n stations is shown on the diagonal lines.\nHowever, Gleeson assumes that the stations are randomly distributed\n1/ Gleeson, T. A. \"Observational Probabilities and Uncertainty\nRelations for Meteorology.\" Journal of Meteorology, Vol. 16,\nApril 1959, pages 149-154.","121\nFigure D 1 (from Gleeson)\nProbability of Detecting a System of Size S in a Region of Size R\ncontaining n Stations.\nn\n30 40 50\n2\n3\n4\n5\n7\n10\n20\n1\n1.00\n0.70\n0.50\n0.40\n0.30\n99\n95\n0.20\n90\n80\nS\n70\nR\n60\n0.10\n50\n40\n0.07\n30\n20\n0.05\n0.04\n10\n0.03\n5\n0.02\nI\n0.01\nwithin the region R. As stations in real life are not randomly\ndistributed, but tend to be clustered around cities, more stations\nwill usually be required than indicated in Figure D 1. To achieve\nthis increase, we used 0.25 instead of 0.30 for the S/R value at\n45° North latitude. By use of this graph we find, for example, that\nat 45° latitude, 94 82- ,and 59-percent detection probabilities may be\nexpected in squares containing 10, 6, and 3 stations, respectively.\nThe value of S/R will be smaller at lower and larger at higher\nlatitudes because of the variation in size of the two- degree squares\nR.","122\nMeaning of \"Definition\"\nC.\nA storm is considered to be defined when its orientation and velocity\nhave been determined. This does not apply to hurricanes and severe\nwinter storms, which require many more observations to be\nadequately defined. However, it is considered to apply to the meso-\nscale severe elements within these storms. Included would be heavy\nrain bands of tropical cyclones and bands of freezing rain and snow\naccompanying severe winter storms.\nNumber of Observations Required to Define a System\nD.\nA system may be defined without ambiguity after passing at least four\nstations not in a straight line. According to TPS8, only three stations\nare required. 2 Our requirement for four stations is consistent with\nother statistics in TPS8. 3/ Specifically, it is stated in the TPS8 study\nthat a 100-percent definition capability requires one-half the station\nspacing needed for a 100-percent detection capability. Halving the\nspacing quadruples the number of stations required per unit area.\nThus, since one observation of a system is required to detect it,\nfour would be needed to define it. This 2-to-1 spacing relationship\ndoes not hold precisely for probabilities less than 100 percent.\nFor example, it may be deduced from Figure 8 of TPS8 (shown in\nFigure D2) that for a 50- -percent probability the spacing relationship\nof detection to definition is about 2.3 to 1 (1.6d to 0.7d) instead of\n2 to 1. 4/\nA weather system passing four stations may not be well defined if the\nsystem is undergoing rapid change and the time elapsed between the\nstorm's passage over the first and fourth stations is large relative to\nthe lifetime of the feature. We thus state subjectively that all four\nstations must have experienced the storm passage within one hour.\nThis appears reasonable, as the median size of a system most\nfrequently associated with mesoscale severe weather affects a 3,000-\nsquare mile area within an hour, and has a median lifetime of four\nhours. 5/6/7\n2/ WB Technical Planning Study No. 8, 1963 (TPS8), page 3.\n3\nIbid., pages 27-29.\n4/ Ibid., Figure 8, page 17 (Figure D 2 of this Appendix).\nTepper, M. \"Pressure Jump Lines in Midwestern United States,\"\n5\nWB Research Paper No. 37, Washington, D.C., June 1956.\nChangnon, S. A. and Huff, F. A. \"Studies of Radar-Depicted\n6/\nPrecipitation Lines, Illinois State Water Survey Meteorology\nLaboratory, University of Illinois, AFCRL Publication 225, 1961.\nIbid., Page 18.","123\nFigure D 2\n100%\n80%\n60%\n0.7d\nKat 50%\n1.6d\nprob.\n40%\n20%\n0%\n2.5 d\n3.0d\n1.5 d\n1.0d\n2.0 d\n0.5d\nO\nLENGTH OF LINE\nProbability to detect, define ,and provide forecast lead time for, line systems equi-\nL in the range L=0 to 3.0d where d is spacing between stations in an the\nof lateral length triangular grid. It is assumed that L=ch where C and h are respectively\nspeed of movement and the duration of the line.\n(From WB Technical Planning Study No. 8, 1963)\nDetection Capability Required With,Vs. Definition Capability Required\nE.\nWithout, Radar\nthe requirements shown in Table B 1 of Appendix radar B is would that\nOne of requiring a 95-percent detection capability with radar coverage.\nareas a 95-percent definition capability without the same\nrequire here (subjectively) that an area should require capability\nWe state capability without radar as it would detection just 95%).\ndefinition for all required detection capability values (not observing\nwith it the U.S. lacking radar coverage may require more definition\nAreas sites than in now exist, in order to provide the required\ncapability.","124\nNumber of Stations Required Per Two-Degree Square\nF.\nThe same Required Detection Capability (RDC) values obtained for\neach square (by the method described in paragraph B) for determining\nthe number of stations required per square for detection, were used\nfor determining the number required for definition. These are shown\nin Figure D 3.\nDue to the rarity of severe storms in many areas, only fractional\nparts of stations would be required in some squares. These values\nare raised to one, however, because of the requirement for at least\none station per square in order to satisfy the NMC network\nrequirements.\nThe arcs of circles in Figure D 3 mark the 125-mile range from the\nnearest (a) existing WSR-57, (b) existing secondary (local use) and\n(c) proposed radars comparable to the WSR-57. FAA radars\n(western third of the U.S.) have been excluded because they are not\nprimarily weather radars and as such, observations may not be\navailable when needed. Nevertheless, they are considered to be of\ngreat value.\nIt is only in the areas outside of the arcs (and lacking radar coverage)\nwhere it is necessary to determine deficiencies. Figures inside the\narcs are shown for comparison purposes only.\nNote in Figure D 3 that the number of stations required outside of\nthe 125- mile radar range is only one per square in most cases.\nOnly a relatively few stations need be added to the existing network\nto provide the needed level of definition.\nG.\nList of Stations Needed in Severe Storm Network Provide Required\nDefinition Capabilities\nThe following eight stations are required to provide hourlies and\nspecials 24 hours per day in order to provide the definition capability\nrequired of their two degree squares. These are some of the\nPriority E deficiencies shown in Tables 5 and 6 of the text:\nClayton Lake, Maine\nOakes, North Dakota\nHarbor Beach, Michigan\nPembina, North Dakota\nGlendive, Montana\nGrants, New Mexico\nDevils Lake, North Dakota\nPhilip, South Dakota\nA few squares in which additional sites are needed are partly in\nthe U.S. and partly in Canada. We have not specified sites required\noutside of the U.S.","75\n3\n4\n3\n13\n8\n5\n5\n10\n6\n7\n1\n8\n28\n5\nSquare to Provide Required Definition Capability\n8\n10\nNumber of Stations Required in each Two Degree\n7\n21\n19\n6\n10\n16\n14\n17\n9\nN\n13\n90°\n8\n46\n10\n5\n6\n11\n1\n14\n20\n1\nLg\n38\n8\n7\n9\nn\n18\n2\n1\n13\n10\n0\n9\n2\n8\n5\n2\n6\n12\n8\n12\n12\n11\n11\nB\n2\n5\n22\n48\n6\n6\n8\n7\n5\n6\n2\n2\n32\n11\nFigure D3\n27\n19\n6\n16\n12\n3\n3\n7\n2\n5-\n12\n2\n2\n2\n3\n3\n5\n5\n6\n1\n5\n2\n2\n2\n2\n4\n4\n4\n1\n4\n7\n1\n1\n2\n2\n2\n3\n2\n2\n3\n2\n1\n2\n1\n2\n1\n1\n2\n6\n1\n1\n1\n1\n-1\n1\n1\n1\n1\n1\n1\n1\n1\n1\n1\n3\n1-\n1\n1\n1\n1\n1\n1\n1\n1\n2\n1\n1\n1\n1\n5\n1\n7\n1\n1\n1\n1\n1\nfrom nearest existing or proposed weather radar\n1\n1\nCircles and arcs denote 125 mile distances\n1\n1\n1\n1\n1\n1\n1\n1\nTotal: 1,349 24-hour stations\n1\n1\n1\n1\n1\n1\n1\nI\nI\nI","126\nAPPENDIX E\nAMOS III-70 Implementation Plan\nA.\nBackground\nIn the late 1940 sand early 1950 S the National Weather Service began,\non a modest scale, to use Automatic Meteorological Observing Station\n(AMOS) equipment at locations, or during periods, where it otherwise\nwould be impractical to make observations using human observers.\nThe Model AMOS III system was developed and a number of units\nwere purchased and placed in use. At the present, 18 such systems\nremain in routine use. These systems are now outdated; i.e., they are\nbased upon out-of-date technology, and they are becoming increasingly\ndifficult to maintain; i.e., they are worn out. The Model AMOS III-70\nsystem has been developed as a solid state replacement for the AMOS\nIII system.\nIncreasing labor costs and the scarcity of suitable candidates for\nobserving positions make the use of automatic means for making\nobservations attractive wherever such is feasible. \"The Final\nReport of the ESSA/FAA Working Group on FAA-FSS Plans,\"\nAugust 1969, recommended the use of the AMOS III-70 system at a\nnumber of specified locations, and paragraphs VII.A and VII.B of\nthe text reveal the large economies that could be realized through\nuse of this equipment for satisfying deficiencies in the surface\nnetworks.\nB.\nPlanned Installation Schedule\nA schedule has been developed for installing and beginning the use of\nthe AMOS III-70 equipment. Priorities are based upon a combination\nof the urgency of need, the capability of the various NWS Regions for\neffecting installations in an efficient manner, and a reasonable rate of\nexpenditure of Government resources. In general the proposed budget\nrequests associated with this plan reflect only the cost of the basic\nAMOS III-70 and the initial sensors; the costs for such add-on modules\nas may become available through current and future developments are\nnot included. Likewise, the AMOS III-70 plan does not include the\ndeployment of Remote Automatic Meteorological Observing Stations\n(RAMOS), nor of automatic equipment for use at substations, as the\ndevelopment and testing of these systems has not progressed\nsufficiently to permit detailed planning at this time.\nPlans for purchasing and installing the AMOS III-70 systems through\nFiscal Year (FY) 1977 are shown in Table E1. In general, it is\nexpected that orders for the equipment will be placed in the indicated\nFiscal Year with delivery, installations, and commissioning to follow","127\nin about one to two years. Table E 1 also shows the regional and\nnational (NMC or severe storm) network priorities for observations\nfrom sites scheduled for AMOS III-70 installations.\nThe first group of 14 units is being purchased using funding authorized\nfor this purpose in FY 1970 and 1971. Two units are being allocated\nto sparse data areas in Alaska, three to provide around the clock\nobservations at part-time Weather Service offices, one to an FAA-FSS\nfacility and the rest to begin a program of replacing the AMOS III's.\nDue to cutbacks in appropriations, no AMOS III-70 S are budgeted\nfor FY 1972.\nAMOS III-70 equipment proposed for Fiscal Years 1973 through\n1977 is scheduled for locations having observational deficiencies.\nThe order of installation are being allocated approximately following\nthe order of priority shown in the Plan. 1\nBecause of uncertainties in the FAA's time table for implementing\nits plans for modernizing the FSSfacilities, AMOS III-70 installations\nrecommended in \"The Final Report of the ESSA/FAA Working Group\non FAA-FSS Plans\" are being allocated to the period subsequent to\nFY 1977. Should the FAA decide to go ahead with implementation of\nthe planned FSS changes at an earlier date, either en masse or on a\nlocation-by-location basis, priorities for AMOS III-70 installations\nreflected in the list below will be readjusted accordingly.\n1/ The AMOS III-70 has not been proposed for installation at a\nnumber of sites of high priority network deficiencies, especially\nin Alaska and Hawaii, where the environment may be too hostile\nfor this equipment.","120\nTable El\nAMOS III-70 Implementation Schedule\nPriority\nState\nLocation\nLocation\nPriority\nState\nfor AMOS\nfor AMOS\nNat.\nReg\nNat.\nReg.\nFY 1973\ncon't\n<\nFY 1970\nand 1971:\nNebr.\nO Neill\nAB\n1\nLocations (6)\nNew AMOS\nl\nTex.\nJunction\nAB\nMo.\nPoplar Bluff\nAB\n1\nAlaska\nFort Yukon\nA\n3\nNebr.\nNorfolk\nB\nl\nNikolski\nNil\nl\nC*\nMinn.\nSt. Cloud\n2\nLa.\nBoothville\nA\n3\nl\nIowa\nDubuque\nC\nNebr.\nValentine\nB\n1\nFort Dodge\nB\n1\nC*\nTex.\nPalacios\n1\nTex.\nMarfa\nA\n1\nWash.\nStampede Pass\nNil\n1\nAlaska\nCape Decision\nA\n1\nAMOS III (8)\nReplace\nCape Spencer\nA\nl\nCape St. Elias\nA\nl\nNA\nNA\nAlaska\nMinchumina\nNA\nNA\nSkwentna\nFY 1974\n(25)\nNA\nNA\nCalif.\nSandberg\nNA\nNA\nGa.\nRome\nAriz.\nPage\nA\nl\nMass.\nWorcester\nNA\nNA\nTex.\nSanderson\nA\n1\nN.Mex.\nRaton\nNA\nNA\nAriz.\nSafford\nA\nl\nR.I.\nBlock Island\nNA\nNA\nNev.\nnear Denio\nA\nl\nTex.\nGuadalupe Pass\nNA\nNA\nCalif.\nBishop\nA\nl\nWyo.\nMoorcroft\nA\nl\nFY 1972\n(None)\nIdaho\nLewiston\nA\nl\nMcCall\nA\nl\nFY 1973\nElk City\nA\nl\nNev.\nCaliente\nA\n1\nAMOS III (10)\nReplace\nAlaska\nCape Hinchbrook\nNil\n1\nIdaho\nChallis\nA\n1\nAlaska\nMiddleton Island NA\nNA\nWisc.\nAshland\nA\nl\nCalif.\nBlue Canyon\nNA\nNA\nAriz.\nKingman\nA\nl\nMount Shasta\nNA\nNA\nWyo.\nBig Piney\nA\n1\nIll.\nBradford\nNA\nNA\nNevada\nAustin\nA\n1\nOreg.\nMeacham\nNA\nNA\nAriz.\nAjo\nA\n1\nSexton Summit\nNA\nNA\nCalif.\nInyokern\nA\nl\nTroutdale\nNA\nNA\nS. C.\nMyrtle Beach\nA\n1\nTex.\nGalveston\nNA\nNA\nMont.\nJordan\nA\nl\nUtah\nPrice\nNA\nNA\nScobey\nA\n1\nWendover\nNA\nNA\nInd.\nMuncie\nB\n2\nMinn.\nMankato\nB\nl\nNew AMOS\nLocations (13)\nMiss.\nHattiesburg\nB\nl\nMinn.\nBemidji\n(Listed in approximate\nB\nl\norder of priority)\nFY 1975\n(25)\nIowa\nSpencer\nAB\n2\nOkla.\nGuyman\nAB\n1\nW.Va.\nElkins\nC*\n1\nNat. = national (NMC and severe storm), Reg. = regional,\nNA = not applicable - AMOS III provides 24-hour program","129\nTable El\nAMOS III-70 Implementation Schedule\nState\nLocation\nPriority\nState\nLocation\nPriority\nfor AMOS\nfor AMOS\nNat.\nReg.\nNat.\nReg\nFY 1975\ncon't\nFY 1976\ncon't\nGa.\nWaycross\nC*\n2\nOkla.\nVinita\nD\nl\nArk.\nHot Springs\nC*\n2\nTex.\nBridgeport\nD\n1\nColo.\nLimon\nC\n1\nCorsicana\nD\n1\nS. Dak.\nCoal Springs\nA\n3\nFla.\nSebring\nD\n1\nMich.\nEscanaba\nA\n3\nOkla.\nEnid\nD\n1\nNebr.\nMullan\nC\n1\nMuskogee\nD\n1\nBeatrice\nC\n1\nNebr.\nFalls City\nD\n2\nMinn.\nBrainerd\nC*\n1\nFremont\nD\n2\nTex.\nParis\nC*\nl\nIll.\nDanville\nE\n1\nMiss.\nTupelo\nC*\n1\nMaine\nClayton Lake\nE\n1\nOkla.\nBartlesville\nC\n1\nStillwater\nC\n1\nFY 1977\n(25)\nKy.\nPikeville\nC\n1\nNebr.\nBurwell\nC\nl\nOreg.\nBurns\nNil\n1\nOkla.\nAlva\nC\n1\nFla.\nCross City\nC\n3\nArk.\nSearcy\nC*\n1\nInd.\nAngola\nC\n3\nGa.\nHiawassee\nC*\n1\nIowa\nCoon Rapids\nC*\n3\nOkla.\nPlunketville\nC*\n1\nMo.\nWest Plains\nC*\n3\nTex.\nSeymour\nC*\n1\nMass.\nProvincetown\nE\n1\nIowa\nLamoni\nC*\n1\nNev.\nMcDermitt\nNil\n1\nMiss.\nNatchez\nC\n1\nArk.\nRussellville\nNil\n1\nTenn.\nCenterville\nC\n1\nAriz.\nGrand Canyon\nNil\n1\nTex.\nStephenville\nC\n1\nShow Low\nNil\nl\nWisc.\nJanesville\nB\n3\nIdaho\nGooding\nNil\n1\nMullen\nNil\n1\nFY 1976\n(25)\nLa.\nNatchitoches\nNil\n1\nMiss.\nGulfport\nC\nNil\nIll.\nMarion\nC\n1\nNev.\nHawthorne\nNil\n1\nN.H.\nMt. Washington\nC\n1\nOreg.\nOntario\nNil\n1\nNebr.\nAlma\nC*\n2\nUtah\nVernal\nNil\n1\nMinn.\nSt. Cloud\nC*\n2\nVa.\nBlackstone\nC*\nNil\nMo.\nWarrenton\nC\n2\nWytheville\nC*\nNil\nTex.\nPineland\nC*\n2\nWisc.\nGrantsburg\nC\nNil\nArk.\nEudora\nC*\n2\nWisconsin Rapids\nC\nNil\nColo.\nAlamosa\nNil\n1\nWyo.\nJackson\nNil\n1\nKans.\nHealy\nC\n2\nMont.\nGlendive\nE\n1\nS.Dak.\nYankton\nC*\n2\nN.Dak.\nDevils Lake\nE\nl\nWisc.\nOshkosh\nC\n2\nS.Dak.\nPhillip\nE\nl\nAla.\nMonroeville\nC*\n2\nIll.\nMattoon\nD\n1\nOkal.\nEl Reno\nD\n1\nSeminole\nD\n1\nNat. = national (NMC and severe storm), Reg. =\nregional,"]}