Laserfiche WebLink
• some water to the alluvium in this area and, therefore, may <br />influence conductivity values in water from well P1. Figure B-31 <br />shows significant variations in conductivity values for well P1, <br />as would be expected for an alluvial system. Precipitation has <br />also influenced recharge to the Lewis Shale. There was a slight <br />decreasing trend for 1990 due to the increase in recharge for the <br />period. Figure B-32 presents a general rising trend in <br />conductivity values for water from the Lewis Shale. Higher <br />conductivities since 1984 are probably reflective of the lower <br />amounts of recharge since 1984. The latest conductivity value <br />should not be given much weight until additional results are <br />available to confirm the decline. <br />• The Second White Sandstone and Third White Sandstone aquifers <br />in Pyeatt Gulch are monitored by wells P5 and PS respectively. <br />Wells P5 and P8 have shown variations in values as expected from <br />shallow aquifers, Figures B-33 and B-34 each show general rising <br />trends since 1984 through 1989. The conductivity in well P5 seems <br />to be stabilizing in 1990 while a decline was observe in well P8. <br />The conductivity of water in well J1 was steady to 1985, <br />followed by a rising and declining trend. The steady values <br />observed in 1990 are similar to the pre-1985 results (see Figure B- <br />35). The COY well conductivity data presented in Figure B-36 shows <br />that the higher precipitation amounts in 1983 and 1984 probably <br />caused.the conductivity to decline in the alluvial aquifer in .1984 <br />and 1985. The increasing trend in conductivity is thought to be <br />• due to the lower precipitation i.n recent years. <br />3-7 <br />