Laserfiche WebLink
C~ <br />influenced recharge to the Lewis Shale. Conductivity values for <br />1992 for both of these wells have been fairly steady. <br />Wells P5 and P8 have shown variations in values as expected <br />from shallow agi_iifers. Fisures B-33 and B-:;4 each show General <br />rising trends sinr_e 1984 through 1989. The conductivity in well <br />P5 seems to be stabilising in 1990 throi.igh 1992, while an overall <br />decline was observed ir_ well P8 for 1990 .and 1991 .and a rising <br />trend in 199'. <br />The conductivity of water in well .T1 was steady to 1985. <br />followed by a rising and der_lining trend. P.fter a Steady period in <br />1990, r_onductivity values rose in 1991 and gradually declined in <br />1992. The COY well conductivity dat.3 presented in Figure R-36 <br />shows that the higher precipitation amo~:nts in 1933 and 1984 • <br />probably caused the cond~.ictivity to decline in the alluvial aquifer <br />in 1984 and 198.5. Conductivity values hit a high of 265© umhosicm <br />in 1990 and then slightly dropped in 1991 and 1992. <br />Water collected from the Third White Sandstone well 31-03a <br />yielded the conductivities plotted on Figure B-37. (conductivities <br />in well 81-0.3a had been steadily increasing since 1987 but were <br />fairly stable since 1989. Values of conductivity collected to date <br />for well GLUX-1 are presenter) on Figure B-38 snd have been fairly <br />stable. Conductivity data for well GMP-1 have bean collected for <br />the past two years and are presented in Figure B-Q~9. The first <br />value in Late 199L~ was hieh, but the value- observed for 1991 and <br />1992 are lower .and have remained fairly stable for the lsst two <br />years. <br />• <br />3-6 <br />