Laserfiche WebLink
5.2 OONDUCTIVITY . <br />The conductivity versus time plot for site NPDFS 001 shows a similar, but slightly <br />higher, range of conductivity in 1998 through 2003 to the range observed over the previous <br />few years (Figure C-15). The 2003 data shows a small decrease in conductivity for an <br />increase in flow for NPDFS site 001 (Figure C-16). The observed 2003 conducctivvity data <br />generally plots in the upper range of conductivity for Johnson Gulch (001) for the low flow <br />rates. This plot shows that the low flow conductivities at 001 for 2003 are slightly less than <br />some of previous observed values. <br />Figure C-17 preserrts conductivity wncentrations versus time for NPDES site 002. <br />The upper range in conductivity in 2003 was slightly less than the upper range in 2002. <br />The spring decrease in conductivity was less in 2003 than in 2002. The range in 2003 <br />conductivities was over a smaller band than in previous years. Figure C-18 shows a good <br />inverse relationship between flow and conductivity for the data at tf~is site with the high <br />flow for 2003 having a larger conductivity tlian expected. <br />The conductivity values for NPDES site 011 were measured only during flow in the <br />spring in 2003 (Figure C-14), which were in the lower half of historical values. Figure C-20 <br />shows three 2003 conductivity values from site 011, which are low wnduddvities for these <br />low flows. Figures C-21 and C-22 present ~nductivity versus time and conductivity versus <br />flow for NPDFS sites 020 and 021. Several 2003 values were measured for sibe 020 while <br />no lab conductivities were measured for site 021. <br />Conductivity of water for site S-1 had been fairly steady with time (Figure C-23). The <br />2003 conductivity is near the lower range that has been defined at this site. Figure C-24 <br />presents the conductivity versus flow for the 5-1 site. <br />5-2 <br />