Ground Water Information Center | MBMG Data Center
Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology
Montana Technological University
1300 West Park Street - Natural Resources Building Room 329
Butte Montana 59701-8997
Ph: (406) 496-4336 Fx: (406) 496-4343
| 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 3 2 %
Consultant 49 25 %
Driller 14 7 %
Education (Student) 10 5 %
Education (Teacher) 1 1 %
Government (County) 12 6 %
Government (State) 37 19 %
Government (Federal) 4 2 %
Industrial 5 3 %
NRIS 2 1 %
Public/Landowner 12 6 %
Realtor 39 20 %
Surveyor 6 3 %
Show All 194 100%  


1. In the past year how often have you used the GWIC website?
Response Chart Count %
1-4 times 41 21.69%
Monthly 50 26.46%
Weekly 43 22.75%
2-4 times a week 36 19.05%
Daily 19 10.05%
Total Responses   189 100.00%
Did Not Respond   5  

2. How often does the website meet your needs?
Response Chart Count %
None of the time 1 0.54%
Some of the time 16 8.70%
Average 17 9.24%
Often 120 65.22%
Always 30 16.30%
Total Responses   184 100.00%
Did Not Respond   10  

3. How easy is the website to use?
Response Chart Count %
Very Hard   0 0.00%
Medium Hard 12 6.49%
Medium Easy 78 42.16%
Very Easy 95 51.35%
Total Responses   185 100.00%
Did Not Respond   9  

4. How do you value our website service?
Response Chart Count %
No value   0 0.00%
Little value 1 0.53%
Moderate value 5 2.66%
Significant value 103 54.79%
Critical value 79 42.02%
Total Responses   188 100.00%
Did Not Respond   6  

5. How would the loss of GWIC service impact you?
Response Chart Count %
No impact 1 0.53%
Little impact 7 3.70%
Moderate impact 30 15.87%
Significant impact 78 41.27%
Critical impact 73 38.62%
Total Responses   189 100.00%
Did Not Respond   5  

6. How important is is that GWIC contains current data?
Response Chart Count %
No importance   0 0.00%
Little importance 1 0.53%
Moderate importance 7 3.72%
Significant importance 93 49.47%
Critical importance 87 46.28%
Total Responses   188 100.00%
Did Not Respond   6  

7. How useful are GWIC data in determing drilling depths?
Response Chart Count %
Never   0 0.00%
Rarely 7 4.52%
Generally 29 18.71%
Often 81 52.26%
Always 38 24.52%
Total Responses   155 100.00%
Did Not Respond   39  

8. How useful are GWIC data in completing property sales?
Response Chart Count %
Never 12 13.64%
Rarely 9 10.23%
Generally 19 21.59%
Often 39 44.32%
Always 9 10.23%
Total Responses   88 100.00%
Did Not Respond   106  

9. How useful are GWIC data in dealing with land subdivision issues?
Response Chart Count %
Never 10 9.17%
Rarely 3 2.75%
Generally 24 22.02%
Often 41 37.61%
Always 31 28.44%
Total Responses   109 100.00%
Did Not Respond   85  

10. How useful are GWIC data in completing your ground-water research?
Response Chart Count %
Never 1 0.58%
Rarely 1 0.58%
Generally 26 15.12%
Often 77 44.77%
Always 67 38.95%
Total Responses   172 100.00%
Did Not Respond   22  

11. If you make ground-water management decisions, how often does access to GWIC improve your decision making?
Response Chart Count %
Never 3 3.49%
Rarely 4 4.65%
Generally 17 19.77%
Often 45 52.33%
Always 17 19.77%
Total Responses   86 100.00%
Did Not Respond   108  

12. If you make ground-water development decisions, how often does access to GWIC improve your decision making?
Response Chart Count %
Never 4 4.44%
Rarely 5 5.56%
Generally 16 17.78%
Often 47 52.22%
Always 18 20.00%
Total Responses   90 100.00%
Did Not Respond   104  

13. If you make ground-water protection decisions, how often does access to GWIC improve your decision making?
Response Chart Count %
Never 3 3.00%
Rarely 10 10.00%
Generally 11 11.00%
Often 51 51.00%
Always 25 25.00%
Total Responses   100 100.00%
Did Not Respond   94  

14. Does internet access to GWIC data save you money?
Response Chart Count %
Never 3 1.84%
Rarely 7 4.29%
Generally 24 14.72%
Often 40 24.54%
Always 89 54.60%
Total Responses   163 100.00%
Did Not Respond   31  

15. Is access to GWIC data worth the cost to the taxpayer to provide it?
Response Chart Count %
Never 1 0.58%
Rarely   0 0.00%
Generally 17 9.83%
Often 34 19.65%
Always 121 69.94%
Total Responses   173 100.00%
Did Not Respond   21  

16. Each time you login, access to GWIC provides an economic benefit of...?
* ($ 159.51 / session )
Response Chart Count %
Less than $10 21 18.58%
Between $10 and $100 64 56.64%
Between $101 and $400 16 14.16%
Between $401 and $1000 7 6.19%
Greater than $1000 5 4.42%
Total Responses   113 100.00%
Did Not Respond   81  

* 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 3 1.70%
Rarely meets 5 2.84%
Generally meets 27 15.34%
Often meets 89 50.57%
Always meets 52 29.55%
Total Responses   176 100.00%
Did Not Respond   18  

18. How often does the Wells - Download report meet your needs?
Response Chart Count %
I do not use it 19 13.01%
Rarely meets 3 2.05%
Generally meets 23 15.75%
Often meets 67 45.89%
Always meets 34 23.29%
Total Responses   146 100.00%
Did Not Respond   48  

19. How often does the Lithology report meet your needs?
Response Chart Count %
I do not use it 20 14.18%
Rarely meets 14 9.93%
Generally meets 39 27.66%
Often meets 49 34.75%
Always meets 19 13.48%
Total Responses   141 100.00%
Did Not Respond   53  

20. How often does the SWL Summary report meet your needs?
Response Chart Count %
I do not use it 21 17.21%
Rarely meets 5 4.10%
Generally meets 39 31.97%
Often meets 37 30.33%
Always meets 20 16.39%
Total Responses   122 100.00%
Did Not Respond   72  

21. How often does the Field Visit report meet your needs?
Response Chart Count %
I do not use it 39 39.80%
Rarely meets 6 6.12%
Generally meets 24 24.49%
Often meets 18 18.37%
Always meets 11 11.22%
Total Responses   98 100.00%
Did Not Respond   96  

22. How often does the Water Quality report meet your needs?
Response Chart Count %
I do not use it 23 20.35%
Rarely meets 11 9.73%
Generally meets 34 30.09%
Often meets 31 27.43%
Always meets 14 12.39%
Total Responses   113 100.00%
Did Not Respond   81  

23. How often does the One page Site/Well report meet your needs?
Response Chart Count %
I do not use it 10 6.90%
Rarely meets 3 2.07%
Generally meets 25 17.24%
Often meets 72 49.66%
Always meets 35 24.14%
Total Responses   145 100.00%
Did Not Respond   49  

24. How often does the One page SWL hydrograph report meet your needs?
Response Chart Count %
I do not use it 26 26.00%
Rarely meets 6 6.00%
Generally meets 20 20.00%
Often meets 33 33.00%
Always meets 15 15.00%
Total Responses   100 100.00%
Did Not Respond   94  

25. How often does the One page water-quality analysis report meet your needs?
Response Chart Count %
I do not use it 24 23.30%
Rarely meets 9 8.74%
Generally meets 28 27.18%
Often meets 28 27.18%
Always meets 14 13.59%
Total Responses   103 100.00%
Did Not Respond   91  

26. How often do the Ground-Water Characterization Program and MBMG Projects data reports meet your needs?
Response Chart Count %
Never 2 2.30%
Rarely 4 4.60%
Generally 28 32.18%
Often 47 54.02%
Always 6 6.90%
Total Responses   87 100.00%
Did Not Respond   107  

27. How often do the Ground-Water Characterization maps meet your needs?
Response Chart Count %
Never 3 3.41%
Rarely 9 10.23%
Generally 27 30.68%
Often 41 46.59%
Always 8 9.09%
Total Responses   88 100.00%
Did Not Respond   106  

28. Would you use a search by drainage basin option?
Response Chart Count %
No 32 25.00%
Yes 96 75.00%
Total Responses   128 100.00%
Did Not Respond   66  

29. Would you use a search by geologic source option?
Response Chart Count %
No 37 28.46%
Yes 93 71.54%
Total Responses   130 100.00%
Did Not Respond   64  

30. Would you use an interactive web-based mapping application?
Response Chart Count %
No 9 6.04%
Yes 140 93.96%
Total Responses   149 100.00%
Did Not Respond   45  



  • The site is great and I use it almos daily. The only problem is that the older wells don-t show a lithology. Having the lithology on all the wells out there would be fantastic. I work on the North Dakota/Montana border and i wish that North Dakota had the resources that you do. Keep up the great work.
  • would like to see more updated information. lots and blocks are very important to many of our searches.
  • Please try to ensure well log data are entered correctly and completely.
  • Gwic is a great source of informtion. Keep up the good work!!
  • I just started using the site so I-m not really that familiar with it yet.
  • As a water well drilling contractor/consultant the GWIC is a vital tool of resorces which helps in planning for water development- protecting ground water and general information about Montana-s ground water.
  • I have found that the -printable- and the -download- do not always bring up the same information. Download is more thorough- thus printable is unreliable. Otherwise- this site has saved you and me a ton of time. Without it- I would have to call someone with the GWIC to ask for the data.
  • I am a first time user. Sorry.
  • If the GWIC data base was not available I would have to go over to the DNRC office and dig through their files to find well logs. Normally I am only looking for a single log and the trip takes about an hour and may or may not produce a log. Finding the same information in GWIC takes about five minutes and may also include update information which is not on the DNRC log. I consider GWIC as an extremely valuable resource. Thank you very much.
  • 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!
  • Not at this time - but possibly with further use AND familiarity.
  • Wonderful service...keep it up!
  • The GWIC Data Base has really assisted me in determining cost and availability of water to my customers. It has also really help in determining how to construct a well and in so doing I can provide representative cost and advise to my customers.
  • Why are some well logs missing? Why are some lithology missing?
  • The lithology and groundwater data information are good when they are avalible. The problem comes in when there is little data in an area to work with. I am sure this is a universal problem- but as always- more data would make for better decisions at my end.
  • your website is very useful to me and the recent adaptations/modifications to the site have made it more user friendly. Keep up the good work
  • would like road addresses on well logs
  • 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.
  • Overall- this is a great site. It saves me bundles of time and money. Having this information available over the web is infinitely better than the old days of digging through files. Keep up the good work!
  • I get confused when I am attempting to find water right documentation. If I have a WR# I should be able to retrieve the WR document. Am I missing something?
  • I work for a national company and I know of no other state that that has a web site comparable to GWIC-s ease of use and quality and quantity of information. The GWIC data base it critical to groundwater protection and management issues.
  • It would be useful if the GWIC database could map multiple well locations instead of one at a time- or exporting the lats and longs. Otherwise- Thank-you!
  • search by address and city
  • I would find it helpful if there was more water quality information available. Such infomation availabilty is spotty. At least in my searches- I have not found much on water quality on wells in a particular section. I do find the monitoring wells information very comprehensive and helpful for my needs. I am a county planner and this website is the most useful tool I have outside of my office. I use it for every subdivision I review- which is 2-4 a month.
  • Many inaccuracies in the location data make using the info frustrating- requiring phone book research to sort accurate location/well info from misplaced wells. For example- GWIC57808 is accurately placed; data was confirmed by interview. Compare with GWIC132255; both sites purport to be 08N20WBC but have wildly differing lithology and performance. I suspect mis-keyed location data for the latter GWIC. This is only one example.
  • 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!!
  • Critique of obviously deficient data in well logs (e.g.- GWIC Id 140667- where 590 ft is listed as SWL when total depth of the well is 510 ft). Also- highlighting of incomplete test data- such as lack of recovery monitoring would help users understand that performance data is questionable.
  • It is often difficult to tie the well logs to an exact property because of incomplete location information such as Lot #- Tract #- or COS etc. Often the original owner is longer associated with the property. Need better location information. Thank you
  • I think this is a great site- I haven-t had the opportunituy to search all of it yet so did not comment on places I didn-t use
  • This web site has saved tax-payer dollars in that as a county employee doing sanitary surveys for public water supplies- I can make one Internet stop to GWIC and find what I need 90% of the time. Saves vehicle mileage- phone use- and time.
  • I work for the Montana DEQ - Source Water Protection Program. We utilize the web based NRIS Thematic Mapper that links to the MBMG data. This mapper is tremendously useful to determine relationships between wells- surface water- logs- geology- etc. Although- a geology layer to the thematic mapper would be nice- I guess it doesn-t have to be overly complex. Sincerely- Jeffrey Frank Herrick- Hydrogeologist- DEQ SWPP
  • Thanks for the great work.
  • I feel that well log information- that is well depth- SWL- PWL- test duration- lithology- etc. should be mandatory by all drillers- and the report cannot be accepted without sensible data on the well log report. Far too many reports do not have lithology- PWL or data that makes no sense- such as PWL deeper than the depth of the well.
  • get well drillers to turn in acturate and timely loggs..............boy am I dreaming
  • It-s great that this site is compatible with the NRIS web site.
  • 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 was just made aware of the site and I used it for the first time today. It was very useful although I rarely need it. I will use it again.
  • Information on aquifers that have been determined to be confined. This would be very helpful for non-degradation purposes for permit septic systems
  • I can-t even tell you in words how important your site is to my work. I spend nearly all day- every day- reviewing requests for development under the Sanitation Act in Gallatin County- and your site enables me to make better decisions every day. Thank you so much!!
  • 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.
  • Just started working with your site. Do not have opinions and answers for your survey at this time. Thanks. Sherry
  • Generally the information is very useful however is some cases the lithology seems to be mixed with other wells close by the best example would be with the wells on the Big Mountain. I-m unsure if the lithology matches the well and if the Lat-Long are accurate. In doing a study of the community wells I found a few discrepancies when I GPS-d the well heads.
  • It would be useful if the address of a well location was in the database.
  • 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.
  • As a real estate broker- any time I need additonal informtion on well logs- I know where to go! Thank you!
  • Add Engineer to your list of occupations. This site is a time saver!!!!! Thanks for having it on line!!!!
  • It-s difficult to find a well log on the site if you don-t know previous owners. Alot of the time you think you have the well log according to drill date but there-s no legal to confirm it.
  • Comment: I have discovered many wells missing from the database. A more complete database would be helpful.
  • I would like to see more mapping of the top of the bearpaw shale in easter Montana. I have two maps that have this information along with the formation at the surface and depth of wells- but they only cover Ekalaka and Harden areas. This information is very inportant to me as a water well driller and helps me decide the best location to tell the land owner to drill a well- or where not to. These two maps have saved us valuable time and saved the land owners thousands. I wish the state would see the need for this type of mapping and do more of it. Maybe digitize it and put it on the site!! Then I could downlode the area that we are going to be drilling and show the land owner what we are looking at. Thanks for the great site it realy helps. Every time I log on it is bigger- better- and easier to use.
  • 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.
  • Since discovering this site it has been very beneficial for properties I have listed and properties that I have sold. Please continue to have it available. Thank You for providing the site. Janette Rosman- Rosman Realty- PO Box 489- Ronan- Mt. 59864
  • Please list my name as RAY or Raymond but not Kay Bergroos


    Ground Water Information Center Online © 1998 - 2022
    Staff | Privacy Statement