Laserfiche WebLink
in Figures C-11. C-13. C-15. C-17 and C-19 which do not show a <br />reasonable relationship between these two parameters for data from <br />sites 002 and. 003. Data form site 001 for these two parameters <br />yield a fair relationship. Very few data points are available for <br />sites 005 and 003. The limited data from sites 005 and 006 both <br />produce a good relationship between flow and TSS. <br />5.2 CONDUCTIVITY <br />Conductivity of water for site S1 have been fairly steady in <br />1990 (see Figure C-20). Figure C-21 presents the flow versus <br />conductivity plot for site S1. The conductivity data varies from <br />2310 to 2900 umhos/cm. The base flow has been gradually declining <br />the last few years, which has caused a natural gradual rise in <br />• conductivity. <br />The conductivity versus time plot for site 001 shows a similar <br />pattern for 1990 as observed in previous years. Conductivities <br />typically are lower during Spring due to increased runoff and rise <br />rapidly after the spring melt (see Figure C-22). The flow vs. <br />conductivity plot for NPDES site 001 shows a good relationship <br />between the flow and conductivity (see Figure C-23). No long-term <br />trend seems to be occurring in the Johnson Gulch runoff water <br />quality. <br />Figures C-24, C-26 and C-28 present conductivity <br />concentrations versus time for sites .002. 003 and 005. <br />Conductivity of water from site 002 (No Name) has averaged <br />approximately 2450 umhos/cm. while site 003 ranged from 2590 to <br />• 3100 umhos/cm. Site 005 conductivity has ranged from 678 to <br />approximately 1190 umhos/cm. Conductivity versus flow are <br />5-2 <br />