Laserfiche WebLink
<br />3. Climatic conditions <br /> <br /> LGCU TEMPERATURE AND PRECIPITATION <br />Location Month TemDerature (dailv ave} PreciDitation <br /> Norm ave 1991 Norm ave 1991 <br />Cedaredge April 47.6 43.6 .88 .78 <br /> May 56.6 56.5 1.08 .08 <br /> June 66.0 66.8 .73 .49 <br /> July 71.9 71.3 .93 1.54 <br /> Aug 69.6 70.3 1. 25 .46 <br /> Sept 61. 9 61.1 1.20 1.12 <br />Delta April 50.8 48.7 .62 .03 <br /> May 59.7 64.5 .76 .02 <br /> June 68.2 72.6 .46 .11 <br /> July 74.0 74.8 ,67 .74 <br /> Aug 71.5 75.0 1. 03 .15 <br /> Sept 63.3 66.1 .92 .25 <br />Montrose Apr il 48.1 45.7 1. 03 .36 <br /> May 57.0 56.2 .74 .45 <br /> June 66.4 65.5 .64 .27 <br /> July 72.1 70.2 .82 .57 <br /> Aug 69.7 70.3 1. 36 1.14 <br /> Sept 61. 8 61. 4 .99 .73 <br /> <br />The 1990/1991 snow pack was normal, and this occurred following several <br />years of below average. Precipitation during the growing season was <br />considerably below average, across the LGCU, ranging from 63 percent of <br />normal at the south end to 73 percent of normal at the northern end. At <br />Delta (near the center of the LGCU), growing season precipitation was a <br />mere 29 percent of normal. <br /> <br />Using average monthly temperature during the growing season, weather <br />stations across the LGCU showed a variation of from -1.17 degrees (below <br />average daily temperature at Cedaredge) to +2.3 degrees (above average <br />daily temperature at Montrose) . <br /> <br />Variation between sites makes difficult a single statement addressing <br />conditions; however, growers in the below average temperature areas <br />commented on lower crop yields (specifically corn) due to this. <br /> <br />4. Objectives <br /> <br />The M&E plan for the Lower Gunnison, Colorado Unit identifies the <br />objectives as follows: 1) to assess effectiveness of USDA project action <br />for reducing the salt load carried by the Uncompahgre and Gunnison Rivers <br />into the Colorado River, 2) to assess impacts of project action on wetlands <br />and other wildlife values and assess the effectiveness of vol{rlt~~~ion <br />by landowners to replace incidental fish and wildlife values foregone, 3) <br />and to assess local economic aspects of project implementation. <br /> <br />5 <br />