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 		4/23/2024
| Home | Well Data | Reports | DrillerWeb | DNRC | Help! |

The following tables summarize survey responses received by GWIC during October 2004.

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

Economic benefit is calculated using 2004 monthly average of 4,200 sessions per month. (2002 survey used the average figure of 3,100 session per month)


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) 27 100 %
Government (Federal) 0 0 %  
Industrial 0 0 %  
NRIS 0 0 %  
Public/Landowner 0 0 %  
Realtor 0 0 %  
Surveyor 0 0 %  
Other 0 0 %  
Show All 27 100%  

 

1. In the past year how often have you used the GWIC website?
Response Chart Count %
1-4 times 3 11.54%
Monthly   0 0.00%
Weekly 5 19.23%
2-4 times a week 8 30.77%
Daily 10 38.46%
Total Responses   26 100.00%
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 3 11.11%
Average   0 0.00%
Often 17 62.96%
Always 7 25.93%
Total Responses   27 100.00%
Did Not Respond   0  
3. How easy is the website to use?
Response Chart Count %
Very Hard   0 0.00%
Medium Hard   0 0.00%
Medium Easy 6 22.22%
Very Easy 21 77.78%
Total Responses   27 100.00%
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 3.70%
Significant value 10 37.04%
Critical value 16 59.26%
Total Responses   27 100.00%
Did Not Respond   0  
5. How would the loss of GWIC service impact you?
Response Chart Count %
No impact   0 0.00%
Little impact 1 3.85%
Moderate impact 2 7.69%
Significant impact 7 26.92%
Critical impact 16 61.54%
Total Responses   26 100.00%
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   0 0.00%
Significant importance 10 37.04%
Critical importance 17 62.96%
Total Responses   27 100.00%
Did Not Respond   0  
7. How useful are GWIC data in determing drilling depths?
Response Chart Count %
Never 1 4.55%
Rarely   0 0.00%
Generally 4 18.18%
Often 14 63.64%
Always 3 13.64%
Total Responses   22 100.00%
Did Not Respond   5  
8. How useful are GWIC data in completing property sales?
Response Chart Count %
Never 2 40.00%
Rarely   0 0.00%
Generally 2 40.00%
Often 1 20.00%
Always   0 0.00%
Total Responses   5 100.00%
Did Not Respond   22  
9. How useful are GWIC data in dealing with land subdivision issues?
Response Chart Count %
Never 1 7.14%
Rarely 1 7.14%
Generally 1 7.14%
Often 6 42.86%
Always 5 35.71%
Total Responses   14 100.00%
Did Not Respond   13  
10. How useful are GWIC data in completing your ground-water research?
Response Chart Count %
Never   0 0.00%
Rarely   0 0.00%
Generally 2 8.33%
Often 12 50.00%
Always 10 41.67%
Total Responses   24 100.00%
Did Not Respond   3  
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 1 7.14%
Generally   0 0.00%
Often 10 71.43%
Always 3 21.43%
Total Responses   14 100.00%
Did Not Respond   13  
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 11.11%
Often 6 66.67%
Always 2 22.22%
Total Responses   9 100.00%
Did Not Respond   18  
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 23.08%
Often 5 38.46%
Always 5 38.46%
Total Responses   13 100.00%
Did Not Respond   14  
14. Does internet access to GWIC data save you money?
Response Chart Count %
Never   0 0.00%
Rarely   0 0.00%
Generally 2 10.53%
Often 5 26.32%
Always 12 63.16%
Total Responses   19 100.00%
Did Not Respond   8  
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 9.09%
Often 2 9.09%
Always 18 81.82%
Total Responses   22 100.00%
Did Not Respond   5  
16. Each time you login, access to GWIC provides an economic benefit of...?
* ($ 178.00 / session )
Response Chart Count %
Less than $10   0 0.00%
Between $10 and $100 6 60.00%
Between $101 and $400 3 30.00%
Between $401 and $1000 1 10.00%
Greater than $1000   0 0.00%
Total Responses   10 100.00%
Did Not Respond   17  

* 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 do the Ground-Water Characterization Program and MBMG Projects data reports meet your needs?
Response Chart Count %
I do not use it   0 0.00%
Rarely meets   0 0.00%
Generally meets 4 23.53%
Often meets 11 64.71%
Always meets 2 11.76%
Total Responses   17 100.00%
Did Not Respond   10  
18. How often do the Ground-Water Characterization maps meet your needs?
Response Chart Count %
I do not use it   0 0.00%
Rarely meets 1 6.25%
Generally meets 3 18.75%
Often meets 10 62.50%
Always meets 2 12.50%
Total Responses   16 100.00%
Did Not Respond   11  

 

Comments

  • I use this when trying to research water rights. I find it quite useful. It would be a real loss if this site was not maintained. The center should be very proud of the quality of this web site

  • This site has become an invaluable resource and we depend on it daily. It has greatly decreased the amount of public service and information we have had to give to real estate agents. Along with the INRS site, we aslmost never have to to research for people.

  • Your data base is often the only reliable source of information on the ground water resources available. The lithologic logs, while limited due to the wide range of lithology terms employed by the drillers, are still very useful in assessing what aquifer is being used and how vulnerable that aquifer is to contamination. Also, your partnership with the NRIS program is a great example of how two agencies can work together to improve service to the end user (tax payers) without having a negitive impact on each programs identity and service. I think you should hammer this home with the legislature. Your cooperative effort with NRIS an exception to the examples of government un-coordination typically seen. Good job, keep up your effort.

  • I work for DNRC - Helena Regional Office and I update ownership etc on the wells, especially the North Hills CGWA. When I have pulled a specific well log, I would like to see that this is in the North Hills CGWA. This is for various reason, especially when I am updating-I put that comment in every time as I'm not sure it has been done.

  • You guys are doing a great job and the information I gather and the information I send realtors after is invaluable. Keep up the great work, a lot of people would be at a loss without this site. Chris DNRC PS you could put the "El Ninny" and other cartoons on this site if you wanted to spice it up a bit :)

  • report information must be accurate. It often is inaccurate.

  • Can't imagine doing any GW related work in Montana without GWIC....it is a huge asset to developers, consultants, and resource managers.

    •  

    Ground Water Information Center Online © 1998 - 2024
    Staff | Privacy Statement