![](media/image1.png)

I.  [Assignment.]{.underline}

The assignment was to investigate the Division's minimum needs for
Remote Automated Weather Stations (RAWS).

II. [Assumptions.]{.underline}

> In order to proceed with this assignment several assumptions were
> used:

1.  The acquisition of additional RAWS units would in effect create a
    RAWS network.

2.  The information or data obtained from this network would be equally
    important to the Forest Protection and the Forest Development
    Programs.

3.  Each District would require an individual review with
    recommendations integrated into a statewide network. During the
    review process the following points were considered wildfire
    occurrence (historical and present), forest management activities
    and unique local weather patterns and/or influences.

4.  National Weather Service (NWS) forecast zones were reviewed and the
    minimum standard of the least one RAWS unit per weather zone was
    adopted. This would facilitate better forecasting services and
    provide a reference check of the accuracy and reliability of zone
    and spot forecasting.

5.  RAWS site locations would be selected on the basis of program needs,
    the tracking of major weather movements across the state, the
    ability to secure the site, and its position of existing and
    accessible RAWS units (i.e., US Forest Service (USFS), US Fish and
    Wildlife (USFW) and Division of Forest Resources (NCFS).

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
III. [Facts relating to the Matter]{.underline}.

The NCFS currently owns and operates 6 RAWS units. Three are
manufactured by Handar Inc., and are located in the Whiteville,
Rockingham and Sylva Districts. Of special note the Sylva unit is
subject to be moved. The USFS has agreed to replace this RAWS with one
of their newly purchased units. The Division's three other units are
manufactured by Forest Technology Systems (FTS) and are located in the
Lenoir, New Bern and Fairfield Districts. These stations are simple but
high tech instrumentation, which requires annual preventative checks and
refurbishment. These critical areas are often overlooked as a sustained
requirement. The Handar units are currently under a maintenance
agreement but the FTS units are not. Regardless of the manufacturer
these automated stations require quarterly spot inspections. During
these inspections cleaning, fuel bed refurbishment and minor
preventative maintenance repairs are performed.

> There are other agencies in NC that has weather requirements that are
> similarly to the NCFS. These include but are not limited the NWS,
> USFS, USFW and the NC Agricultural Research Farms (NCARF / State
> Climate Office). The present and projected capabilities of each agency
> are presented below.

##  IN-SERVICE STATIONS

### AGENCY SYSTEM NAME PRESENT PROJECTED

> NWS ASOS 7 29
>
> AWOS 7 7
>
> USFS RAWS 6 9
>
> USFW RAWS 2 4
>
> NCFS RAWS 6 ? (22)
>
> NCARF WDAS 14 14
>
> TOTAL 42 79
>
> There was an initial attempt to organize the various agencies into an
> interagency group where cooperation and compatibility would be
> promoted. However, priorities, time, money and commitment have stalled
> any progress to this goal. Because of wildfire suppression and
> prescribe burning responsibilities, the USFS, USFW and NCFS can
> effectively network their stations. This is facilitated by computer
> and software capabilities (PC's, WIMS and Fire Weather +) as well as
> weather collecting platforms (Handar and FTS). In NC these three
> natural resource agencies posses 14 stations with a growth potential
> to 35 stations.
>
> Advancements are progressing across Region 8 and the nation as each
> state develops their respective RAWS networks and the NWS upgrades to
> NEXTRAD or Doppler Radar. These two advancements will greatly enhance
> forecasting predictability and accuracy. However, as important as
> weather is to natural resource agencies in NC, we as a group still
> lack year round NWS forecasting services. Of special note, computer
> hardware and software enhancements are planned during this fiscal year
> at the NWS.

IV. [Discussion.]{.underline}

As we move to the future, resource managers require timely, accessible,
local site specific weather readings. Their need is becoming
increasingly important. Whether it is for wildfire suppression or
prescribed burns, reliable and accurate readings are essential for
making sound management decisions. The acquisition of 16 additional RAWS
stations and their subsequent strategically placement would be the core
ingredient towards the creation of a minimal statewide interagency RAWS
network. Region II would acquire 8 units, while Region I and III would
acquire 5 and 3 units respectively.

> This RAWS network is certainly feasible and its expense can certainly
> be justified. This is presuming that field personnel (District and
> Counties) and the NWS initiate proper and maximum utilization. When
> making professional decisions ease of access and timely access to RAWS
> date are essential. The way business is conducted by the NCFS field
> units; the Handar units are the user-friendliest stations available,
> while FTS units require a more extensive communication link to use the
> system. (i.e., PC's software package, telephone modem, and NCFS radio
> communications). This type of communication link has a one-time cost
> of \$3,500.
>
> At the present RAWS stations are being under utilized. This can be
> attributed to the following reasons:

1.  The initial learning curve that accompanied Handar Stations created
    a negative image for RAWS.

2.  The inability of the field units to easily access the FTS stations
    is an inherent hindrance.

3.  The decreased fire activity and the chaotic state of NFDRS have
    diminished the observed need for reliable weather.

4.  NWS forecasts have been on occasions less than true and the
    forecasts are seasonal not year round.

5.  And the non-use of the stations for prescribed burning activities.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
V.  [Conclusion.]{.underline}

The Division of Forest Resources will benefit from a RAWS network. It's
installation, use and, maintenance is all key ingredients for this
initiative's success.

VI. [Recommendations.]{.underline}

It is recommended that the Division start the process to create this
network. Upon acceptance of the proposed county locations (review
exhibits), purchasing needs to be stared immediately as funds become
available. Districts already possessing stations need to be informed on
how field personnel (District and County) can use the RAWS data. This
would integrate the uses for Forest Protection and the Forest
Management's Programs, and may serve to eliminate most reasons for under
utilization of RAWS. The cost for the proposed RAWS network is estimated
at [(**[1999 fiscal prices]{.mark}** \$13,500 per station)]{.underline}
. The cost is basically the same whether considering a Handar or FTS
station network. A cost, which is not to be overlooked, is the annual
preventative cost for 22 stations. The cost is estimate at [(**[1999
fiscal price]{.mark}** \$625 per station)]{.underline}.

![](media/image2.png)**EXHIBIT 1 NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE FORECAST
ZONES**

**EXHIBIT 2 STATE CLIMATE OFFICE WEATHER STATIONS**

![](media/image3.png)

**EXHIBIT 3 NCFS PROPOSED RAWS ACQUISITIONS & THEIR SITE**

> **LOCATIONS**

![](media/image4.png)