Laserfiche WebLink
5.2 CONDUCTIVITY 5 <br />Conductivity of water for site S1 has been fairly steady with time (Figure <br />C-16). The conductivity versus time plot for site NPDES 001 shows lower valuE:s of <br />conductivity during spring due to increased runoff and a rise in values rapidly after the <br />spring melt for 1996 (Figure C-17). The flow versus conductivity plot for NPDES situ 001 <br />does not show the expected relationship of decrease in conductivity for increase in flow <br />(Figure C-18). The observed range in 1996 conductivity data is similar to that observed in <br />previous years in Johnson Gulch (001) runoff water quality. <br />Figure C-19 presents conductivity concentrations versus time for NPDES site 002. <br />As seen in previous years, there is a decrease in conductivity in spring due to increased <br />runoff, and then conductivity rises sharply when the flow decreases. Figure C-20 shows <br />a good inverse relationship between flow and conductivity for the 1996 data for this site. <br />The conductivity values for NPDES site 011 for 1996 range from 276 to 1763 <br />~mhosJcm (Figure C-21). Flow versus conductivity for site 011 is presented in Figure C-22. <br />Figures C-23 through C-26 present conductivity versus time and conductivity versus flow <br />for NPDES sites 013 and 015. The limited 1996 data for sites 013 and 015 does not <br />illustrate the inverse relationship between flow and conductivity. <br />The limited conductivity data for NPDES sites 005, 008, 009 and 010 for 1996 are <br />all less than the Flume Gulch (S1) 1996 maximum value of 2190 µmhos/cm. TDS, <br />conductivity and major constituents increased as the ground water contribution became a <br />larger portion of the flow. The values were all within natural ranges. No long-term trends <br />are indicated by the major constituents. <br /> <br />5-2 <br /> <br />