Ground Water Information Center | MBMG Data Center
Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology
Montana Tech of The University of Montana
1300 West Park Street - Natural Resources Building Room 329
Butte Montana 59701-8997
Ph: (406) 496-4336 Fx: (406) 496-4343
9/21/2017
| Home | Well Data | Reports | DrillerWeb | DNRC | Help! |

The following tables summarize the survey responses received by GWIC between November 12th and December 17th, 2010.

To view the responses for an individual customer group, click on the group's hyperlinked customer type. To redisplay all groups, click Show All.


Tabular View | Survey View | Graphical View


Customer Types
Customer Type Surveys % Chart
Commercial 0 0 %  
Consultant 50 100 %
Driller 0 0 %  
Education (Student) 0 0 %  
Education (Teacher) 0 0 %  
Government (County) 0 0 %  
Government (State) 0 0 %  
Government (Federal) 0 0 %  
Industrial 0 0 %  
NRIS 0 0 %  
Public/Landowner 0 0 %  
Realtor 0 0 %  
Surveyor 0 0 %  
Not Reported 0 0 %  
Show All 50 100%  

 

1. In the past year how often have you used the GWIC website?
Response Chart Count %
1-4 times 7 14.00%
Monthly 21 42.00%
Weekly 10 20.00%
2-4 times a week 11 22.00%
Daily 1 2.00%
Total Responses   50 100.00%
Did Not Respond   0  

2. How often does the website meet your needs?
Response Chart Count %
None of the time   0 0.00%
Some of the time   0 0.00%
Average 4 8.00%
Often 38 76.00%
Always 8 16.00%
Total Responses   50 100.00%
Did Not Respond   0  

3. How easy is the website to use?
Response Chart Count %
Very Hard   0 0.00%
Medium Hard 1 2.00%
Medium Easy 22 44.00%
Very Easy 27 54.00%
Total Responses   50 100.00%
Did Not Respond   0  

4. How do you value our website service?
Response Chart Count %
No value   0 0.00%
Little value   0 0.00%
Moderate value 1 2.13%
Significant value 23 48.94%
Critical value 23 48.94%
Total Responses   47 100.00%
Did Not Respond   3  

5. How would the loss of GWIC service impact you?
Response Chart Count %
No impact   0 0.00%
Little impact   0 0.00%
Moderate impact 5 10.42%
Significant impact 18 37.50%
Critical impact 25 52.08%
Total Responses   48 100.00%
Did Not Respond   2  

6. How important is it that GWIC data be up to date?
Response Chart Count %
No importance   0 0.00%
Little importance   0 0.00%
Moderate importance 5 10.20%
Significant importance 24 48.98%
Critical importance 20 40.82%
Total Responses   49 100.00%
Did Not Respond   1  

7. How useful are GWIC data in determing drilling depths?
Response Chart Count %
Never 1 2.08%
Rarely 3 6.25%
Generally 12 25.00%
Often 27 56.25%
Always 5 10.42%
Total Responses   48 100.00%
Did Not Respond   2  

8. How useful are GWIC data in completing property sales?
Response Chart Count %
Never 7 38.89%
Rarely 3 16.67%
Generally 3 16.67%
Often 5 27.78%
Always   0 0.00%
Total Responses   18 100.00%
Did Not Respond   32  

9. How useful are GWIC data in dealing with land subdivision issues?
Response Chart Count %
Never 3 9.09%
Rarely 3 9.09%
Generally 4 12.12%
Often 13 39.39%
Always 10 30.30%
Total Responses   33 100.00%
Did Not Respond   17  

10. How useful are GWIC data in completing your ground-water research?
Response Chart Count %
Never   0 0.00%
Rarely   0 0.00%
Generally 4 8.16%
Often 29 59.18%
Always 16 32.65%
Total Responses   49 100.00%
Did Not Respond   1  

11. If you make ground-water management decisions, how often does access to GWIC improve your decision making?
Response Chart Count %
Never   0 0.00%
Rarely 2 7.14%
Generally 8 28.57%
Often 15 53.57%
Always 3 10.71%
Total Responses   28 100.00%
Did Not Respond   22  

12. If you make ground-water development decisions, how often does access to GWIC improve your decision making?
Response Chart Count %
Never   0 0.00%
Rarely 2 5.71%
Generally 9 25.71%
Often 18 51.43%
Always 6 17.14%
Total Responses   35 100.00%
Did Not Respond   15  

13. If you make ground-water protection decisions, how often does access to GWIC improve your decision making?
Response Chart Count %
Never   0 0.00%
Rarely 5 16.13%
Generally 6 19.35%
Often 17 54.84%
Always 3 9.68%
Total Responses   31 100.00%
Did Not Respond   19  

14. Does internet access to GWIC data save you money?
Response Chart Count %
Never   0 0.00%
Rarely   0 0.00%
Generally 4 8.00%
Often 22 44.00%
Always 24 48.00%
Total Responses   50 100.00%
Did Not Respond   0  

15. Is access to GWIC data worth the cost to the taxpayer to provide it?
Response Chart Count %
Never   0 0.00%
Rarely   0 0.00%
Generally 2 4.26%
Often 11 23.40%
Always 34 72.34%
Total Responses   47 100.00%
Did Not Respond   3  

16. Each time you login, access to GWIC provides an estimated economic benefit of...?
* ($ 175.81 / session)
Response Chart Count %
Less than $10 3 9.68%
Between $10 and $100 17 54.84%
Between $101 and $400 8 25.81%
Between $401 and $1000 2 6.45%
Greater than $1000 1 3.23%
Total Responses   31 100.00%
Did Not Respond   19  

* Economic benefit is calculated using a weighted average of responses given. Values assigned per catagory are: (<$10) = $5; ($10-$100) = $55; ($101-$400) = $250; ($401-$1000) = $700; (>$1000) = $1100.


17. How valuable are long-term water-level monitoring records (hydrographs etc.)?
Response Chart Count %
Never   0 0.00%
Rarely 4 9.52%
Generally 11 26.19%
Often 16 38.10%
Always 11 26.19%
Total Responses   42 100.00%
Did Not Respond   8  

18. How often do the Ground-Water Characterization Program and MBMG Projects data reports meet your needs?
Response Chart Count %
I do not use it 1 2.94%
Rarely meets 4 11.76%
Generally meets 11 32.35%
Often meets 15 44.12%
Always meets 3 8.82%
Total Responses   34 100.00%
Did Not Respond   16  

19. How often do Ground-Water Characterization maps meet your needs?
Response Chart Count %
I do not use it 2 7.14%
Rarely meets 8 28.57%
Generally meets 6 21.43%
Often meets 11 39.29%
Always meets 1 3.57%
Total Responses   28 100.00%
Did Not Respond   22  

 

Comments

  • I AM THE OWNER OF A REAL ESTATE RESEARCH AND MAPPING BUSINESS, LOCATED IN HAMILTON MONTANA AND FIND THE GWIC DATA BASE A VERY USEFULL TOOL IN HELPING THE PUBLIC FILE FOR EXISTING WELLS AND DOCUMENTING WELL LOG HISTORIES. KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK.
  • THIS SERVICE SAVES ME AND MY STAFF CONSIDERABLE TIME, AND THEREFORE, SAVES OUR CLIENTS THE COSTS THAT WOULD BE ASSOCIATED WITH HAVING TO GO TO THE WATER RIGHTS BUREAU TO RESEARCH WELL LOGS. I'M SURE IT ALSO SAVES THE REGULATORY STAFFS OF VARIOUS AGENCIES MUCH TIME AND, THEREFORE, TAX MONEY.
  • WE'VE ENTERED THE 21ST CENTURY, FOR CRYING OUT LOUD. ALL PUBLIC DATA SHOULD BE THIS EASY TO OBTAIN.
  • I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE SEARCH OPTION BE ABLE TO BE FURTHER REFINED DOWN TO QUARTER SECTION... BUT THAT'S THE ONLY REQUEST I CAN THINK OF NOW. GREAT WEBSITE!
  • PROVIDING A LINK TO SPATIAL MAPPING SITES SUCH AS NRIS MIGHT HELP NEWER USERS. ALSO, IT WOULD BE NICE TO BE ABLE TO QUERY WELLS BY GIS {SEL_ECT} ION. OTHERWISE, THE SITE HAS BEEN A MAINSTAY IN MY PROFESSIONAL CAREER. LUKE AND HIS STAFF ARE VERY RESPONSIVE TO COMMENTS AND HELPFUL WITH GETTING TO THE BOTTOM OF DISCREPANCIES.
  • GREAT RESOURCE, VERY HELPFUL. ONE COMMENT: IT WOULD BE BETTER IF GWIC LOGS PRINTED OUT ON ONE PAGE, INSTEAD OF A TINY PORTION ON A SECOND PAGE WHEN THAT SEEMS UNNECESSARY.
  • PLEASE DON'T GET RID OF GWIC, PLEASE DON'T CHARGE (BY INDIVIDUAL USE) FOR IT (COMPANY APPROVAL FOR INTERNET CHARGES IS VERY DIFFICULT). IF FEES ARE TO BE REQUIRED PLEASE MAKE IT AN ANNUAL MEMBERSHIP OR SOMETHING SIMILAR. THE PRIMARY DRAWBACK TO THE PROGRAM IS SITE LOCATION ACCURACY. I SUSPECT THIS COMES DIRECTLY FROM THE ENTITY FILLING THE LOG, BUT IT IS TOO COMMON TO FIND A WELL LOG THAT IS OBVIOIUSLY IRRONEOUS IN A SEARCH. ENCOURAGING ACCURATE LOCATION DETERMINATION BY THOSE FILLING LOGS MAY HELP. THANK YOU!
  • ACCURACY OF DATA PRESENTED. SPECIFICALLY RELATED TO WELL LOCATION DATA ENTRY ERRORS, OR VERIFICATION OF ACTUAL LOCATION. A SIGNIFICANT NUMBER OF WELLS VIEWED ON THE GWIC SITE HAVE HAD ERRONEOUS TOWNSHIP RANGE LOCATIONS THAT CAN CAUSE SIGNIFICANT LOSS OF TIME WHEN CONDUCTING FIELD WORK.
  • GWIC IS A CRITICAL TOOL USED IN BY BUSINESS!! THANK YOU GWIC!
  • THE GWIC WEBSITE SHOULD HAVE A DATA BASE THAT COULD BE UPDATED BY QUALIFIED INDIVIDUALS (DRILLERS, LAND DEVELOPMENT CONSULTANTS,ETC.) THAT CAN ASSOCIATE A WELL LOG WITH A RESPECTIVE GEOCODE. I DON'T THINK UPDATING THE DATA BASE IS WORTH SPENDING TAX PAYER DOLLARS ON.
  • THE SEARCH METHOD FOR OBTAINING DATA IS A BIT CUMBERSOME AT TIMES AND AN INTERACTIVE MAP FEATURE WOULD SPEED UP LOCATION OF DATA RELEVENT TO A PROJECT. I'M CONCERNED ABOUT THE QUESTIONS REGARDING THE MONETARY VALUE OF THE DATA PROVIDED THROUGH GWIC. THE DATA DISTRIBUTED IS PROVIDED BY TAXPAYERS AND THE COST TO OBTAIN THE DATA HAS ALREADY BEEN DEFRAYED BY THE TAXPAYERS DUE TO STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS TO FILE THE DATA FOLLOWING WELL CONSTRUCTION. CHARGING FOR ACCESS TO THE DATA WILL SIMPLY REDUCE THE EFFORTS TAKEN TO PROTECT WATER RESOURCES AND INCREASE THE FREQUENCY OF NON-COMPLIANCE. THE ONE INHERENT DRAWBACK TO THE DATA ARE THE SOURCE. THESE WELL LOGS ARE GENERATED BY DRILLERS OR CONSULTANTS AND THERE IS VERY LITTLE TO VERIFY ACCURACY. IT IS KNOWN THAT SOME DRILLERS POTENTIALLY FALSIFY INFORMATION IN AN ATTEMPT TO CURB COMPETITORS OR INCREASE THE PRODUCTIVITY OF THE WELL TO PASSIVATE THE CLIENTS. FREQUENTLY, THE WELL CAPACITY BASED UPON AIR LIFT IS ERRONEOUS AND EXCEEDS THE TRUE CAPACITY BY A FACTOR OF 2 OR MORE.
  • GREAT WORK. THANKS.

  •