Laserfiche WebLink
amount o4 scatter is again seen in the data for this well. <br /> Pumped sample data is steady in this plot except for the <br /> September 1987 value which is low and probably in error. <br /> Wells P1 and P3 are aluvial and Lewis Shale completion <br /> wells, respectively. These wells are responsive to changes in <br /> the amount of water flowing through the aquifers due to the <br /> amount of recharge to the aquifers. The Lewis Shale is thought <br /> to contribute some water to the alluvium in this area and, <br /> therefore, may influence TDS and conductivity values in water <br /> from well P1. Figure B-69 shows some fluctuation in conductivity <br /> values for well P1, but has remained fairly steady since 1984. <br /> The conductivity plot for well P1 presents significant variation <br /> in recent data. Similar variations were also observed in the TDS <br /> data. Data prior to 1984 shows a higher average conductivity <br />• value even though recharge should have been significantly greater <br /> in 1983. Precipitation has also influenced recharge to the Lewis <br /> Shale. Figure B-70 presents a general rising trend in <br /> conductivity values for water from the Lewis Shale. Higher <br /> conductivities since ]984 are probably reflective of the lower <br /> amounts of recharge since 1984. <br /> The Second White Sandstone and Third White Sandstone <br /> aquifers in Pyeatt Gulch are monitored by wells PS and P8. Wells <br /> PS and P8 have shown some variance in values as expected from <br /> shallow aquifers. Figures 8-71 and B-72 each show general rising <br /> trends since 1984. <br /> Well J1 shows steady data to 1985 with data from that time <br /> on rising to peak in late 1986 and then decline to present <br /> levels. The pumped sample data collected in September of the <br />3-15 <br />