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 survey responses received by GWIC during November 2002. 194 of 653 users (30%) who logged in during November answered the survey.

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



Customer Types
Customer Type Surveys % Chart
Commercial 0 0 %  
Consultant 0 0 %  
Driller 0 0 %  
Education (Student) 0 0 %  
Education (Teacher) 0 0 %  
Government (County) 0 0 %  
Government (State) 37 100 %
Government (Federal) 0 0 %  
Industrial 0 0 %  
NRIS 0 0 %  
Public/Landowner 0 0 %  
Realtor 0 0 %  
Surveyor 0 0 %  
Show All 37 100%  

 

1. In the past year how often have you used the GWIC website?
Response Chart Count %
1-4 times 3 8.33%
Monthly 7 19.44%
Weekly 10 27.78%
2-4 times a week 6 16.67%
Daily 10 27.78%
Total Responses   36 100.00%
Did Not Respond   1  

2. How often does the website meet your needs?
Response Chart Count %
None of the time   0 0.00%
Some of the time 2 5.71%
Average 1 2.86%
Often 24 68.57%
Always 8 22.86%
Total Responses   35 100.00%
Did Not Respond   2  

3. How easy is the website to use?
Response Chart Count %
Very Hard   0 0.00%
Medium Hard 1 2.94%
Medium Easy 9 26.47%
Very Easy 24 70.59%
Total Responses   34 100.00%
Did Not Respond   3  

4. How do you value our website service?
Response Chart Count %
No value   0 0.00%
Little value   0 0.00%
Moderate value   0 0.00%
Significant value 15 41.67%
Critical value 21 58.33%
Total Responses   36 100.00%
Did Not Respond   1  

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 2 5.56%
Significant impact 14 38.89%
Critical impact 20 55.56%
Total Responses   36 100.00%
Did Not Respond   1  

6. How important is is that GWIC contains current data?
Response Chart Count %
No importance   0 0.00%
Little importance   0 0.00%
Moderate importance 2 5.56%
Significant importance 14 38.89%
Critical importance 20 55.56%
Total Responses   36 100.00%
Did Not Respond   1  

7. How useful are GWIC data in determing drilling depths?
Response Chart Count %
Never   0 0.00%
Rarely   0 0.00%
Generally 5 16.67%
Often 18 60.00%
Always 7 23.33%
Total Responses   30 100.00%
Did Not Respond   7  

8. How useful are GWIC data in completing property sales?
Response Chart Count %
Never 1 12.50%
Rarely 1 12.50%
Generally 1 12.50%
Often 5 62.50%
Always   0 0.00%
Total Responses   8 100.00%
Did Not Respond   29  

9. How useful are GWIC data in dealing with land subdivision issues?
Response Chart Count %
Never 1 6.25%
Rarely   0 0.00%
Generally 3 18.75%
Often 7 43.75%
Always 5 31.25%
Total Responses   16 100.00%
Did Not Respond   21  

10. How useful are GWIC data in completing your ground-water research?
Response Chart Count %
Never   0 0.00%
Rarely   0 0.00%
Generally 3 9.09%
Often 14 42.42%
Always 16 48.48%
Total Responses   33 100.00%
Did Not Respond   4  

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   0 0.00%
Generally 4 19.05%
Often 11 52.38%
Always 6 28.57%
Total Responses   21 100.00%
Did Not Respond   16  

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   0 0.00%
Generally 1 7.14%
Often 10 71.43%
Always 3 21.43%
Total Responses   14 100.00%
Did Not Respond   23  

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   0 0.00%
Generally 3 13.64%
Often 12 54.55%
Always 7 31.82%
Total Responses   22 100.00%
Did Not Respond   15  

14. Does internet access to GWIC data save you money?
Response Chart Count %
Never   0 0.00%
Rarely   0 0.00%
Generally 1 4.17%
Often 6 25.00%
Always 17 70.83%
Total Responses   24 100.00%
Did Not Respond   13  

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 6.06%
Often 6 18.18%
Always 25 75.76%
Total Responses   33 100.00%
Did Not Respond   4  

16. Each time you login, access to GWIC provides an economic benefit of...?
* ($ 215.00 / session )
Response Chart Count %
Less than $10 2 11.11%
Between $10 and $100 12 66.67%
Between $101 and $400   0 0.00%
Between $401 and $1000 3 16.67%
Greater than $1000 1 5.56%
Total Responses   18 100.00%
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 often does the Wells - Printable report meet your needs?
Response Chart Count %
I do not use it 2 6.06%
Rarely meets 1 3.03%
Generally meets 1 3.03%
Often meets 15 45.45%
Always meets 14 42.42%
Total Responses   33 100.00%
Did Not Respond   4  

18. How often does the Wells - Download report meet your needs?
Response Chart Count %
I do not use it 6 20.69%
Rarely meets   0 0.00%
Generally meets   0 0.00%
Often meets 14 48.28%
Always meets 9 31.03%
Total Responses   29 100.00%
Did Not Respond   8  

19. How often does the Lithology report meet your needs?
Response Chart Count %
I do not use it 1 3.23%
Rarely meets 1 3.23%
Generally meets 7 22.58%
Often meets 14 45.16%
Always meets 8 25.81%
Total Responses   31 100.00%
Did Not Respond   6  

20. How often does the SWL Summary report meet your needs?
Response Chart Count %
I do not use it 3 11.54%
Rarely meets   0 0.00%
Generally meets 7 26.92%
Often meets 9 34.62%
Always meets 7 26.92%
Total Responses   26 100.00%
Did Not Respond   11  

21. How often does the Field Visit report meet your needs?
Response Chart Count %
I do not use it 8 34.78%
Rarely meets   0 0.00%
Generally meets 4 17.39%
Often meets 5 21.74%
Always meets 6 26.09%
Total Responses   23 100.00%
Did Not Respond   14  

22. How often does the Water Quality report meet your needs?
Response Chart Count %
I do not use it 3 12.50%
Rarely meets 2 8.33%
Generally meets 4 16.67%
Often meets 9 37.50%
Always meets 6 25.00%
Total Responses   24 100.00%
Did Not Respond   13  

23. How often does the One page Site/Well report meet your needs?
Response Chart Count %
I do not use it 2 7.69%
Rarely meets   0 0.00%
Generally meets   0 0.00%
Often meets 13 50.00%
Always meets 11 42.31%
Total Responses   26 100.00%
Did Not Respond   11  

24. How often does the One page SWL hydrograph report meet your needs?
Response Chart Count %
I do not use it 4 18.18%
Rarely meets 1 4.55%
Generally meets 3 13.64%
Often meets 8 36.36%
Always meets 6 27.27%
Total Responses   22 100.00%
Did Not Respond   15  

25. How often does the One page water-quality analysis report meet your needs?
Response Chart Count %
I do not use it 3 13.04%
Rarely meets 1 4.35%
Generally meets 4 17.39%
Often meets 8 34.78%
Always meets 7 30.43%
Total Responses   23 100.00%
Did Not Respond   14  

26. How often do the Ground-Water Characterization Program and MBMG Projects data reports meet your needs?
Response Chart Count %
Never   0 0.00%
Rarely   0 0.00%
Generally 7 29.17%
Often 15 62.50%
Always 2 8.33%
Total Responses   24 100.00%
Did Not Respond   13  

27. How often do the Ground-Water Characterization maps meet your needs?
Response Chart Count %
Never   0 0.00%
Rarely 1 5.00%
Generally 4 20.00%
Often 12 60.00%
Always 3 15.00%
Total Responses   20 100.00%
Did Not Respond   17  

28. Would you use a search by drainage basin option?
Response Chart Count %
No 4 16.00%
Yes 21 84.00%
Total Responses   25 100.00%
Did Not Respond   12  

29. Would you use a search by geologic source option?
Response Chart Count %
No 4 15.38%
Yes 22 84.62%
Total Responses   26 100.00%
Did Not Respond   11  

30. Would you use an interactive web-based mapping application?
Response Chart Count %
No 2 6.67%
Yes 28 93.33%
Total Responses   30 100.00%
Did Not Respond   7  

 

Comments

  • Please try to ensure well log data are entered correctly and completely.
  • Gwic is a great source of informtion. Keep up the good work!!
  • GWIC is a valuable tool in my work. I would hate to see it go so keep up the good work Tom and Luke. Chris used to be MBMG now DNRC
  • Some sort of groundwater aquifer extents for a least major aquifers would be very useful!
  • Maybe if the well logs could also be mapped within the general limits of the productive regional aquifer. Also- if the well was shown on a map of piezometric surface.
  • search by address and city
  • this is a valuable resource. I don-t know what it costs the taxpayers- but it certainly is a money saver for us state employees who would otherwise have to leave the building to get the same information. This site- in conjunction with NRIS- can only get better.
  • Keep up the GOOD work!!
  • would use inteactive web-based mapper but it should be tied directly to NRIS. we don-t need yet another mapping application. USGS- EPA- and others try and fail. Stick with a system the works and is being used heavily.
  • I use the site now and again to check for groundwater info around proposed gravel mine sites. Our permit application materials have it written in that operators should look up groundwater information on your site for their applications and submit that info with their applications. This is valuable info for permitting purposes.
  • GWIC ID #-s tied to PWS well.
  • would like to see up to date wells entered sooner.
  • aquifer tests and slug-testing information geologic cross-section and fence-diagram plots??
  • Your data are at the mercy of the well drillers reporting them. Unfortunately neither you nor DNRC has the funding or people to check against the cadastral site/county tax records for accuracy before posting them. As long as you review the data with that it mind- it does serve a very useful purpose.
  • You-ve done an excellent job upgrading and improving your service. Your cooperative effort with NRIS has been a real time saver for the Mt. Source Water Program. As usual- good job. Jim Stimson
  • I am constantly impressed with the changes and improvements that are made to the website- how often it is updated- and how receptive Luke Buckley is to imput- as well as listening to my needs as a user. In addition- the staff- which is composed of students- always seems very courteous- and well trained. Because of the vision of Tom Patton- and the team that he and Luke form- Montana is head and shoulders above many other states with respect to offering this vital information about a very vital natural resource.
  • Very valuable site. However there are big problems in the inaccurate location of wells on the maps. More time and effort (and money) should go into getting accurate locations for all wells. This should be a higher priority than expanding into additional data sets.

  •  

    Ground Water Information Center Online © 1998 - 2017
    Contact Us | Privacy Statement