REV88252 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Climate SITE MODIFICATIONS: According to USGS Professional Paper 1019 "Climatogre phy of the Front Range Urban Corridor and Vicinity, Colorado,' mean annual precipitation for Manitou Springs is about 2 inches greater than it is for Colorado Springs. The limited data from Manitou Springs may not totally represent the true differences. However, because Manitou Springs is nearer the mountains aroj therefore more subject to the increased precipitation resulting from orographic lifting, an increase of 2 inches in annual precipitation is not unusual or unexpected. Furthermore, being on the southeast side of Pib~s Peak this site tends to receive more favorable precipitation than areas northeast of Pikes Peak. The pattern of precipitation on a monthly basis throughout the year should be similar to the Colorado Springs records. Therefore, it is concluded that the quarry itself receives about 2 to 3 inches (about 12% to 15%) more precipitation than Colorado Springs, but follows the same pattern. Heavy thund~:rstorms may be more common at the quarry, but drizzle caused by upslope flow from the east is also more ccmmon as is fog. RELATIVE HUMIDITY: Figure 3 shows the annual vaziations in relative humidity at different times of the day on a monthly basis. The combination of precipitation, temperature, and humidity are important to plant growth. Relative humidity alone is a poor measure of evapotranspiration, but weather records rarely present data on vapor pressure deficit, which is what actually influences plant growth chaz.acteristics. But, vapor pressure deficit and relative humidity are related parameters. Relative humidity is temperature dependent while vapor pressure deficit is temperature independent, but both provide some measure of the degree of moisture stress plants experience. The wide range in relative humidity throughout the day follows a fairly even pastern, and is not mazkedly different from, for example Austin, Texas or Memphis, Tennessee. However, at Colorado Springs the relative humidity is often 15% to 25% less than in the more humid climates found in Au<tin or Memphis. Maximum relative humidity at Colorado Springs would reach what is considered a "normal" relative humidity in those cities only after summer thunderstorms. Even then such high humidity would only last a few hours. Although such ]ow humidity makes living in Colorado Springs considerably more comfortably: for people than living in Austin or Memphis, it also creates more stress on plant life. This is reflected in tFe adaptations of the plants living in the area. Whereas plants with drought resistant adaptations aze rare in Austin or Memphis, plants without drought resistance in Colorado Springs rarely survive very long without lots of supplemettal water. The combination of low humidity and comparatively high temperature that is further accentuated by the Qio metabolic pattern characteristic of living systems creates considerable stress on plants. Counteracting this adversity requires moisture conservation and internal temperature reduction adaptations as well as very efficient water uptake by root structures. Menzer Quarry Amendment Exhibit K Page 4