Laserfiche WebLink
5.2 CONDUCTIVITY <br />The conductivity versus time plot for site NPDES 001 shows a similar, but slightly <br />higher, range of conductivity in 1998 through 2000 to the range observed over the <br />previous few years (Figure C-15). The majority of the data in the flow versus conductivity <br />plot for NPDES site 001 shows the expected relationship of decrease in conductivity for <br />increase in flow (Figure C-16). The observed 2000 conductivity data generally plots at a <br />slightly higher conductivity than that observed in previous years in Johnson Gulch (001) for <br />the low flow rates. This plot shows that some of the low flow conductivities at 001 have <br />exceeded previous observed values. Additionally, the conductivity for the large peak flow <br />was high compared to previous values at high flow rates. <br /> <br />Figure C-17 presents conductivity concentrations versus time for NPDES site 002. <br />As seen in previous years, there is a decrease in conductiv'~ty in spring due to increased • <br />runoff, and then conductivity rises when the flow decreases. This decrease was not as <br />much as previous years due to the lower flow rates. The range in 2000 conductivities is <br />very similar to the range observed in previous years. Figure C-18 shows a good inverse <br />relationship between flow and conductivity for the data at this site. <br />The conductivity values for NPDES site 011 range from 1740 to 3020 µmhos/Qn <br />(Figure C-19) in 2000, which shows that the conductivities from mid-1998 through 2000 <br />have generally been higher than previous years. These larger values may be caused by <br />the flow of the backfill aquifer water into the Pyeatt Gulch alluvium. Figure C-20 shows <br />that the few 2000 higher conductivities from site Oli are during low flow conditions except <br />for one value. Figures C-21 and C-22 present conductivity versus time and conductivity <br />• <br />5-2 <br />