Quality-Assurance Plan for Groundwater Activities, 

U.S. Geological Survey, Washington Water Science Center

U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey

Open-File Report 2013-1151
Cover: Photograph of Greg Justin, U.S. Geological Survey, measuring water level in well at Naval Undersea Warfare Center, Division Keyport, Washington. 

(Photograph taken by Karen Payne, U.S. Geological Survey, Washington Water Science Center, Tacoma, Washington, 2008).
Quality-Assurance Plan for Groundwater Activities, 

U.S. Geological Survey, Washington Water Science Center

By Mark D. Kozar and Sue C. Kahle

Open-File Report 2013-1151

U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey
ii

U.S. Department of the Interior

SALLY JEWELL, Secretary

U.S. Geological Survey

Suzette M. Kimball, Acting Director

U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2013

For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth,

its natural and living resources, natural hazards, and the environment, 

visit http://www.usgs.gov or call 1–888–ASK–USGS.

For an overview of USGS information products, including maps, imagery, and publications,

visit http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod

To order this and other USGS information products, visit http://store.usgs.gov

Suggested citation:

Kozar, M.D., and Kahle, S.C., 2013, Quality-assurance plan for groundwater activities, U.S. Geological Survey,

Washington Water Science Center: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2013-1151, 88 p., 

http://pubs.usgs.gov/ofr/2013/1151/.

Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply 

endorsement by the U.S. Government.

Although this report is in the public domain, permission must be secured from the individual 

copyright owners to reproduce any copyrighted material contained within this report.
iii

Contents

Abstract ......................................................................................................................................................................... 1

Introduction.................................................................................................................................................................... 1

Organization and Responsibilities.................................................................................................................................. 3

Center Director........................................................................................................................................................... 3

Groundwater Specialist.............................................................................................................................................. 3

Section Chiefs and Associate and Assistant Directors............................................................................................... 4

Groundwater Database Administrator........................................................................................................................ 4

Project Chiefs............................................................................................................................................................. 5

Scientists and Technicians......................................................................................................................................... 5

Training and Safety........................................................................................................................................................ 6

Project Planning and Review......................................................................................................................................... 7

Development of Project Proposals and Work Plans................................................................................................... 7

Project Proposals ................................................................................................................................................... 7

Project Work Plans................................................................................................................................................. 8

Project Review........................................................................................................................................................... 9

Formal Report Review Procedures ............................................................................................................................ 9

Data Collection .............................................................................................................................................................10

Documentation of Technical Procedures ..................................................................................................................11

Obtaining Permission to Use or Drill a Well on Private Property...............................................................................12

Instrumentation .........................................................................................................................................................12

Mandatory Entry of Water-Level Data in NWIS.........................................................................................................13

Minimum Requirements for Establishing a Site in NWIS...........................................................................................13

Clarification—Establishment and Coding of Land Surface Datum and Measuring Points.........................................14

MONKES – Mandatory use of MONKES for long-term water-level networks............................................................17

Station Descriptions and Job Hazard Analyses (JHAs).............................................................................................18

Well Integrity Tests ...................................................................................................................................................18

Surveying of Well Datums.........................................................................................................................................18

Data Processing, Review, Storage, and Archiving........................................................................................................19

Entry of Sites in GWSI ..............................................................................................................................................19

Aquifer Test Archives................................................................................................................................................20

Groundwater Model Archives....................................................................................................................................20

Borehole Geophysical Data Archives........................................................................................................................20

Surface Geophysical Data Archives..........................................................................................................................20

Archiving Project/GIS Information .............................................................................................................................21

Summary ......................................................................................................................................................................21

References Cited..........................................................................................................................................................22

Appendix 1 – Standard Forms for USGS Washington Water Science Center use .......................................................23

Appendix 2 - Pertinent Technical Memoranda..............................................................................................................26

Appendix 3 - Groundwater Tool Box; Recommended Contents ...................................................................................86
iv

Conversion Factors and Datums

Conversion Factors

Inch/Pound to SI

Multiply By To obtain

Length

inch (in.) 2.54 centimeter (cm)

inch (in.) 25.4 millimeter (mm)

foot (ft) 0.3048 meter (m)

Volume

pint (pt) 0.4732 liter (L) 

quart (qt) 0.9464 liter (L)

gallon (gal) 3.785 liter (L) 

gallon (gal) 0.003785 cubic meter (m3) 

gallon (gal) 3.785 cubic decimeter (dm3) 

SI to Inch/Pound

Multiply By To obtain

Length

centimeter (cm) 0.3937 inch (in.)

millimeter (mm) 0.03937 inch (in.)

meter (m) 3.281 foot (ft) 

Volume

liter (L) 0.2642 gallon (gal)

cubic meter (m3) 264.2 gallon (gal) 

cubic decimeter (dm3) 0.2642 gallon (gal) 

Datums

Vertical coordinate information is referenced to the North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD 88).

Horizontal coordinate information is referenced to the North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83).

Altitude, as used in this report, refers to distance above the vertical datum.
1

Quality-Assurance Plan for Groundwater Activities, 

U.S. Geological Survey, Washington Water Science Center

by Mark D. Kozar and Sue C. Kahle

Abstract

This report documents the standard procedures, policies, and field methods used by the U.S. 

Geological Survey’s (USGS) Washington Water Science Center staff for activities related to the 

collection, processing, analysis, storage, and publication of groundwater data. This groundwater qualityassurance plan changes through time to accommodate new methods and requirements developed by the 

Washington Water Science Center and the USGS Office of Groundwater. The plan is based largely on 

requirements and guidelines provided by the USGS Office of Groundwater, or the USGS Water Mission 

Area. Regular updates to this plan represent an integral part of the quality-assurance process. Because

numerous policy memoranda have been issued by the Office of Groundwater since the previous 

groundwater quality assurance plan was written, this report is a substantial revision of the previous 

report, supplants it, and contains significant additional policies not covered in the previous report.

This updated plan includes information related to the organization and responsibilities of USGS 

Washington Water Science Center staff, training, safety, project proposal development, project review 

procedures, data collection activities, data processing activities, report review procedures, and archiving

of field data and interpretative information pertaining to groundwater flow models, borehole aquifer 

tests, and aquifer tests. Important updates from the previous groundwater quality assurance plan include:

(1) procedures for documenting and archiving of groundwater flow models; (2) revisions to procedures 

and policies for the creation of sites in the Groundwater Site Inventory database; (3) adoption of new 

water-level forms to be used within the USGS Washington Water Science Center; (4) procedures for 

future creation of borehole geophysics, surface geophysics, and aquifer-test archives; and (5) use of the 

USGS Multi Optional Network Key Entry System software for entry of routine water-level data 

collected as part of long-term water-level monitoring networks. 

Introduction

The Water Mission Area (WMA; previously organized as the Water Resources Discipline, or 

WRD) of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) performs a wide variety of groundwater data-collection 

programs and investigations to assess the status of the Nation's groundwater resources. Results of these 

activities are used to aid the Nation in characterizing, developing, managing, and maintaining its 

groundwater resources. As the Nation's principal earth-science agency, the USGS collects accurate data 

and produces factual and impartial interpretive reports. Methods for data collection and analysis 

developed by the USGS have become standard techniques used by numerous federal, state, and local 
2

agencies, and by private enterprises. Additionally, data collected by scientific organizations such as the 

USGS are being used increasingly by the public to define and examine various natural-resource and 

environmental problems. As a result, scientific organizations are being challenged to demonstrate the 

credibility of their data on the basis of objective evidence rather than on the organization's history and 

reputation. 

To address these demands and expectations, the USGS implemented a program in 1997 that is 

designed to ensure that all scientific work done by, or for, the USGS, is conducted in accordance with a 

quality-assurance (QA) program. The Office of Ground Water (OGW) within the WMA has the 

responsibility of developing, coordinating, and implementing the quality-assurance program for Water 

Science Center groundwater activities. As part of that program, the OGW prepared a Groundwater

Quality-Assurance Plan (Burnett and others, 1997) that covers all groundwater activities by USGS 

Water Science Centers. Additionally, USGS reports (Schroder and Shampine, 1992) and (Shampine and 

others, 1992) outline the general guidelines for preparing Science Center QA plans, and for integrating 

QA into project work plans. Guidelines presented here are intended to supplement these three reports 

and update the previous Washington Water Science Center QA plan (Drost, 2005) to provide specific 

details related to groundwater activities within the USGS Washington Water Science Center

(WAWSC).

A QA plan can be defined as a formal document that describes the management policies, 

objectives, principles, organizational authority, responsibilities, accountability, and implementation of a 

responsible organizational unit or group for ensuring quality in its products. The implementation of a 

groundwater data QA plan will enhance groundwater data collected by the USGS personnel of the 

WAWSC by providing for the following: 

1. Consistency (across projects, science centers, mission areas, and so forth)

2. Accountability (to client, scientific community, and regulatory agencies)

3. Comparability (yields results of known quality)

4. Traceability (written record of how, who, and when work was performed, training, equipment,

and so forth)

5. Repeatability (documentation of technique that leads to the comparable results time

after time with the same accuracy)

This groundwater quality-assurance plan (GWQAP) provides formal procedures for 

documentation and review of policies, practices, and activities that are used by USGS, WAWSC, to 

assure the technical quality and reliability of WAWSC groundwater products. The plan is based on the 

following principles: 

• WAWSC groundwater programs and projects will be planned to efficiently and effectively 

provide information needed to evaluate local, state, and national water resources.

• Technical and scientific activities will be performed in accordance with applicable USGS Water 

Mission Area and OGW practices and policies.

• Groundwater activities will be performed by technically qualified personnel performing at a level 

commensurate with their training and experience. 

• All such activities and projects will receive appropriate and timely review for completeness, 

reliability, and scientific merit. 

• Remedial actions will be taken to correct any observed technical or project deficiency. 

• Safety procedures, training, and equipment will be provided to minimize hazards and protect field 

personnel.
3

Organization and Responsibilities

The responsibilities for conducting, organizing, and reviewing Water Science Center

groundwater projects, data collection, and other activities are outlined in the GWQAP (Brunett and 

others, 1997) available at http://water.usgs.gov/ogw/pubs/OFR9711/index.html. Although QA is a 

personal responsibility of all employees of the USGS, ultimate QA responsibility within each science 

center lies with the Center Director. Clear statements of specific responsibilities promote an 

understanding of the role of each employee in the overall process of assuring quality, and can help to 

prevent errors and deficiencies that may otherwise occur. Implementation and follow-up responsibilities 

lie with data-collection staff, project chiefs, section chiefs, discipline specialists, center directors, 

regional specialists, and others. Even if QA responsibilities are ancillary duties for some employees, 

these functions are documented in this report. 

The following USGS WAWSC personnel are responsible for carrying out the provisions of the 

GWQAP:

1. Center Director 

2. Center Groundwater Specialist 

3. Associate Director for Hydrologic Studies and Assistant Director for Hydrologic Data 

4. Studies Program Section Chiefs

5. Data Program Field Office Chiefs

4. Center Groundwater Database Administrators 

5. Center Groundwater Project Chiefs 

6. Other WAWSC scientists and technicians, as needed for selected groundwater activities, 

particularly synoptic well sampling, water-level measurements, or base-flow stream seepage

surveys

Center Director

The Center Director is responsible for:

1. Managing and directing the WAWSC program, including all groundwater activities

2. Ensuring that groundwater activities in the center meet the needs of cooperating agencies, 

including state and local agencies, the general public, and the Federal Government

3. Ensuring that all aspects of this GWQAP are understood and followed by center personnel

4. Providing final resolution of any conflicts or disputes related to groundwater activities within the 

center

5. Ensuring that technical reviews of all groundwater activities are conducted

6. Ensuring that all publications and other technical communications released by the center are 

accurate and in accordance with USGS policy

Groundwater Specialist

The Center Groundwater Specialist duties include, but are not limited to: 
4

1. Working with the Center Director and Section Chiefs to maintain current groundwater technical 

expertise for the center

2. Maintaining the groundwater technical-procedure documents file

3. Consulting with the center staff on groundwater technical matters and keeping center personnel

briefed on procedural and technical communications from Region and Headquarters

4. In consultation with Section Chiefs, advising on training needs for personnel engaged in 

groundwater activities

5. Participating in technical reviews of groundwater activities

6. Reviewing groundwater related project proposals

7. Reviewing groundwater related project reports

8. Overseeing calibration checks on tapes, pressure transducers, and other equipment.

9. In consultation with the Section Chiefs, providing project chiefs with technical and administrative 

support as needed

Section Chiefs and Associate and Assistant Directors

The Associate and Assistant Directors, Studies Program Section Chiefs, and Data Program Field 

Office Chiefs are responsible for: 

1. Managing and directing groundwater activities assigned to their section, and ensuring that the 

stated objectives are met in a timely manner

2. Reviewing work plans for groundwater programs and projects

3. In consultation with the Center Groundwater Specialist, providing project chiefs with technical 

and administrative support as needed

4. Creating (with personnel in the section) a training plan for each employee, where appropriate

5. Reviewing groundwater reports under their direction

6. Monitoring progress of groundwater project chiefs in implementing this plan for their respective 

projects

7. Alerting the Center Groundwater Specialist or Senior Management Team of potential problems 

related to groundwater activities under their direct supervision

8. Ensuring (in consultation with the Center Groundwater Specialist) that groundwater training is 

incorporated into each person's training plan, where appropriate.

Groundwater Database Administrator

The primary Center Groundwater Database Administrator (GWSI DBA) is responsible for:

1. In consultation with Project Chiefs and the Center Groundwater Specialist, assuring that all site 

inventories and water-level data are entered into the Groundwater Site Inventory (GWSI) Database 

in a timely and accurate manner

2. In cooperation with the Center Groundwater Specialist, assuring that all project staff are properly 

trained in the process of well inventory and in the collection of water-level data. This will include 

working with field office personnel to assure they are trained in the proper use of the Multi 
5

Optional Network Key Entry System (MONKES) software for storage and update of water-level 

data collected in the field

3. Notifying the Center Groundwater Specialist and appropriate Project Chiefs of any site inventory 

coding sheets or water-level measurements provided by project staff that are not consistent with 

USGS WAWSC or USGS policy.

4. In cooperation with the Center Groundwater Specialist, assisting in the quality assurance/quality 

control (QA/QC) of steel tapes, electrical tapes, and other routine groundwater equipment used for 

well inventory and water-level measurements in the field

Project Chiefs

The groundwater Project Chiefs are responsible for: 

1. Directing and conducting the technical work of the project, including all phases of data collection, 

data review, data storage, data analysis, and report preparation, according to appropriate 

procedures

2. Communicating project plans, progress, and problems to supervisors by providing written progress 

reports at periodic reviews

3. Preparing written work plans, documenting project activities, and ensuring that data are placed in 

the USGS National Water Information System (NWIS) data base, as appropriate, prior to project 

termination

4. In consultation with the GWSI DBA and the Center Groundwater Specialist, assuring that all site 

inventories and water-level data are entered into the Groundwater Site Inventory (GWSI) Database 

in a timely and accurate manner

5. In consultation with the GWSI DBA and the Center Groundwater Specialist, advising of upcoming 

field efforts, including well inventories, synoptic or monthly water-level runs, and baseflow 

surveys, to assure that sufficient resources and funds are allocated for site creation and water-level 

data entry tasks

6. Maintaining a project file containing memoranda, oral or written communications, technicalprocedure documents used, original data, and other documentation

7. Ensuring that project activities are carried out in a timely manner.

8. Creating, with the supervisor, a personal training plan

9. Archiving project files, at the completion of the project

10. Archiving groundwater-flow or solute-transport models, borehole- or surface-geophysics data, or 

aquifer-test data collected for the project. Groundwater flow models and aquifer tests must be 

submitted through the Center Groundwater Specialist to the Regional Groundwater Specialist for 

approval prior to archival

Scientists and Technicians

Other scientists and technicians collecting or processing groundwater data within the WAWSC

are responsible for:

1. Familiarizing themselves with the protocols and requirements of the GWQAP, and assuring that 
6

field collection of data, transmission of water-levels, GWSI site inventory coding sheets, aquifer 

test data, and other data meet specifications called for in the GWQAP

2. Communicating with Project Chiefs, the Center Groundwater Specialist, and the 

GWSI DBA, as appropriate, any problems with field collection of data or deviations from the 

protocols established within the GWQAP

3. Ensuring that field data are transmitted to the GWSI or QWDATA DBAs in a timely and accurate 

manner

Training and Safety

The qualifications of project personnel relative to the technical demands of the work will be 

determined by the Project Chief, Section Chiefs, and discipline specialists; training to remedy 

deficiencies will be recommended. Personnel will receive training to ensure technical competence. The 

appropriate Section or Field Office Chief will develop and document a specific plan to provide the 

required training. The WAWSC will perform all QA activities related to training, as documented in 

Brunett and others (1997, p. 7). The Center Groundwater Specialist will disseminate notices of 

upcoming USGS National Training Center (NTC), regional training courses, WEBEX seminars, or 

other pertinent training to Section Chiefs and WAWSC groundwater staff, and solicit input from the 

various Section Chiefs on groundwater training needs of staff in their sections. The Center Groundwater 

Specialist, in consultation with the Section and Field Office Chiefs, will also recommend specific 

training when needed.

The safety of personnel is a priority for the USGS and the WAWSC. The WAWSC 

communicates information and directives related to safety to all personnel through in-house and out-ofoffice training classes, memoranda, and internet web seminars, to assure that personnel follow 

established safety procedures and policies. 

In the WAWSC, the designated Safety Officer heads the WAWSC Safety Committee, identifies 

and provides direction on safety issues, manages the safety budget, coordinates safety training, prepares 

safety reports for the Regional Office, and deals with new and ongoing safety issues. Currently, the 

Water Mission Area provides policy and guidelines for safety-related issues in the WAWSC. The Safety 

Committee, which meets periodically, consists of nine members: the WAWSC Safety Officer, the 

WAWSC Center Director, one member from each of the three Field Offices, one member representing 

administration and management, and one specialist each in aviation, hazardous waste, and boat safety. 

Job Hazard Analyses (JHAs) list the basic tasks of projects, identify the potential hazards 

associated with the anticipated tasks, and help develop safety procedures to avoid the hazards. JHAs are 

required for all projects, and it is the responsibility of the project chief to assure that required JHAs are 

developed for groundwater-related activities, including, but not limited to, well inventories, measuring 

water levels, measuring stream base flow as part of seepage surveys, conducting aquifer tests, and 

collecting borehole geophysics data. For long-term water-level monitoring at individual wells, site 

specific JHAs are required, particularly for real-time wells or sites with site specific hazards. Blanket 

JHAs are applicable for new sites where specific hazards are not known. WAWSC personnel who have 

questions or concerns pertaining to safety, or who have suggestions for improving some aspect of 

safety, should direct those questions, concerns, and suggestions to their supervisor, or the Center Safety 

Officer.

Individuals working on hazardous waste sites are subject to strict guidelines, which require a 

minimum of 40 initial hours of OSHA hazardous waste operations and response (HAZWOPER)

certification, and annual 8-hour refresher training. Additionally, medical monitoring may be required 
7

and certification for use and annual fit test of air purifying respirators (APRs) and self-contained 

breathing apparatus (SCBA) may also be required. Due to the site specific nature of hazardous waste 

studies, WAWSC personnel working on hazardous waste sites must coordinate with the WAWSC

Safety Officer to assure that all legal, medical, and site specific requirements are strictly adhered to.

Project Planning and Reviews

Project planning includes staffing and preparation of a detailed project work plan and budget. 

The various Section Chiefs, along with the Associate Director for Hydrologic Studies, are responsible 

for the selection of project chiefs (team leaders), but the selection will be made in consultation with the 

WAWSC Center Director, Discipline Specialists, and other Section Chiefs, as appropriate. Projects will 

receive technical and budget reviews on a periodic schedule as determined by the Associate Director for

Hydrologic Studies, in consultation with the Center Discipline Specialists and individual Project Chiefs.

Development of Project Proposals and Work Plans

WAWSC policy provides specific guidelines for the development of proposals and work plans 

for new projects. Much of the policy is based on existing and proposed guidelines provided by the 

USGS. The most recent guidance from the USGS Water Mission Area (WMA policy memorandum 

2013.01) provides detailed guidance for the development of project proposals. Discussions of 

mandatory elements for project proposals and work plans are provided within this GWQAP to guide 

WAWSC personnel in preparation and transmittal of project proposals and work plans.

Project Proposals

The development of a project proposal and work plan typically begins in discussions, either with 

a cooperator or amongst WAWSC personnel, regarding a groundwater problem or information need. At 

this point, the project chief, in consultation with the appropriate WAWSC Discipline Specialists, 

Section Chiefs, and experienced groundwater personnel, develops a project proposal. Generally, the 

proposal will indicate the overall purpose, scope, objectives, strategy, duration, general personnel 

requirements, funding, and expected products of the study. The WAWSC has detailed instructions on 

the development of project proposals, as part of the Project Development Toolbox that is accessible to 

Center staff via the WAWSC intranet site. In addition, Water Mission Area Memorandum No. 13.01

establishes policies and provides specific requirements for the mandatory elements that must be 

included in any proposal sent to the Water Science Field Team (WSFT) for approval. WAWSC 

personnel are referred to this memo (appendix 2) for guidance on development and submission of 

proposals.

WAWSC policy requires significant review of potential project proposals. The purpose of the 

review is: (1) to assure that tasks outlined in the proposal are consistent with USGS and WAWSC 

policy, (2) to assure the approach is reasonable and can successfully meet study objectives, and (3) to 

assure that appropriate personnel, time, and funds are available to meet study goals and deliverables. 

Proposals must specify all data needs, work elements, technical approaches, itemized costs, personnel 

needs, and a timeline for completion of specific work elements. Any components of the study that will 

be completed by cooperators or by contractors also should be clearly documented. Cost estimates for 

each of the project tasks should be estimated from current budget spreadsheets obtained from the 

WAWSC Budget Analyst or Administrative Officer.
8

Internal review of proposals will include, at a minimum, review by the appropriate Section Chief 

and the Center Groundwater Specialist. If the project is multi-disciplinary, review by Center WaterQuality or Surface-Water Specialists may be required. Additional review by the Center Safety Officer to 

address potential safety issues related to the project and by the Administrative Officer with respect to 

financial aspects of potential joint funding agreements (JFAs) is also required. Finally, if wells or sites 

will be inventoried or if water-level data will be collected for the project, the GWSI DBA also must be 

consulted, and sufficient resources budgeted to assure that project data are entered into GWSI. Upon 

completion of the internal review process, the proposal will be submitted to the Water Science Field 

Team (WSFT) Chief, who will route the proposal to the appropriate Discipline Specialists. The WSFT

then recommends approval of the proposal to the Northwest Regional Director. Upon approval by the 

Northwest Regional Director, the proposal will be developed into a detailed work plan. This generally 

involves a literature search of applicable reports, and some limited field reconnaissance. The work plan 

summarizes data needs and technical approaches, identifies work elements, itemizes costs, defines 

personnel needs, and provides deadlines for each work element. Requirements for work by the Science 

Publishing Network and the Information Technology Section, by the cooperator, or by contractors will 

be clearly identified and scheduled. Coordination with the WAWSC Outreach Coordinator is also 

required as part of WAWSC policy to produce internet web pages for each project.

Project Work Plans

A report-planning document may be developed as an integral part of the project work plan. The 

planning document will identify the type, scope, intended audience, and planned reports, and will 

provide a preliminary outline of each report, including a description of major illustrations and tables. 

Preparation of the work plan and report-planning documents is to be accomplished in the first 10 percent 

of the project duration. To achieve this end, the project leader confers with the appropriate Section

Chief, the WAWSC Groundwater Specialist, and any other persons, USGS or non-USGS, who may 

offer guidance or insight into the problem being investigated.

The work plan and report-planning document will meet the financial and temporal limits already 

placed on the study in the approved project proposal, and will schedule the submission of the final 

report(s) so that the report(s) will be published prior to the conclusion of project funding. The work plan 

will include a completed Report Processing Schedule. The work plan will be reviewed by the Associate 

Director for Hydrologic Studies, the appropriate Section Chief, other Discipline Specialists as 

appropriate, Reports Specialist, and the WAWSC Center Director. Review also may be sought from 

Regional or Headquarters personnel, or from the cooperating agency. The project chief will develop a 

final work plan and report plan in response to the review comments.

If, during development of the work plan (or at any other time during the life of the project), it 

becomes clear that the technology, funding, personnel, or time indicated in the original project proposal

are inadequate to meet project objectives, the Project Chief will inform the Associate Director for 

Hydrologic Studies, who may then direct the Project Chief to complete two modified versions of the 

work plan. In one of these versions, the objectives will be reduced to fit the originally-estimated

resources; in the other version, the resources will be increased to meet the original objectives. These two 

plans, after appropriate internal review, will form the basis for further negotiations between the 

cooperating agency and the WAWSC staff on modifications to the originally approved proposal. A final 

plan will be developed from the results of these negotiations. If at any time the scope of the project must 

be modified from the scope described in the approved proposal and work plan, these modifications must 
9

be agreed upon by the WAWSC and the cooperating agency, and must be documented by the Project 

Chief.

The general project personnel requirements will be determined during the proposal process. 

Personnel assignments become more specific as the work plan is developed. As the need for each 

employee position on the project is established, selection procedures will be initiated and the personnel

assembled. This process will normally overlap the process of developing the work plan. 

Project Review

All groundwater projects will receive technical review by the Groundwater Specialist and the 

Associate Director for Hydrologic Studies at approximately 4-month intervals during the life of the 

project. For projects with no set termination dates (for example, groundwater-monitoring networks), 

technical reviews will be held at least annually. Additionally, ongoing and frequent, informal reviews 

are conducted during team meetings, and during discussions among project staff, with the Associate 

Director for Hydrologic Studies, Section Chiefs, Discipline Specialists, and others, as appropriate. In 

some instances, technical advisory groups may be established to oversee and monitor project activities. 

The WAWSC Administrative Services Section maintains a file of project reviews.

WAWSC projects also receive administrative reviews (budget and timelines) approximately 

quarterly. The outcomes of these reviews are shared with the Associate Director for Hydrologic Studies 

to proactively identify potential problems in completing a study as planned. If, during the quarterly 

reviews or during the course of a project, it is determined that additional technical review, support, or 

oversight is needed, the Hydrologic Studies Program Chief and the Groundwater Specialist will 

schedule the review and assemble a review panel, often including reviewers and subject specialists 

outside the Center.

Formal Report Review Procedures

All reports written by WAWSC staff that deal with groundwater or have a significant component 

of groundwater hydrology will be reviewed by the Center Groundwater Specialist or a designated 

alternate prior to submission of the report for colleague review. This process should occur after the 

report has been reviewed by the appropriate author’s supervisor, but may occur concurrently with the 

colleague review process given mutual agreement between the author, the author’s supervisor, and the 

Center Groundwater Specialist. The Center Groundwater Specialist may request an interim review by 

the WSFT Groundwater Specialist if the report contains information of a new or innovative nature, or if 

the Center Groundwater Specialist has concerns about technical issues of the project or the subsequent 

report.

Formal report review procedures are outlined in detail in WAWSC internal memoranda available 

to Center staff via the WAWSC intranet (WAWSC 1994-06-17, WAWSC 2003-01-27, and WAWSC 

2003-03-06). Authors of reports to be published within the WAWSC should familiarize themselves with 

the policies detailed in these policy memoranda. Response to Colleagues, Center Groundwater 

Specialists, Water Science Field Team Groundwater Specialists, and Bureau Approving Official review 

memoranda are required and should accompany the reports package submitted for USGS Bureau 

approval. These policies are in place to assure that all pertinent technical, policy, and editorial review 

comments have been addressed and to assure the technical and editorial quality of WAWSC reports.
10

Triennial Discipline Reviews

USGS Offices of Groundwater and Water Quality conduct Technical Reviews of the 

groundwater and water-quality programs in the WAWSC approximately every three years. At the time 

of publication of this document (2013), the most recent review was conducted in May 2013. The review 

team includes technical experts of the USGS Water Science Field Team, Offices of Groundwater and 

Water Quality, and an independent “data reviewer”, usually a Discipline Specialist, DBA, or senior 

hydrologist/hydrologic technician from another Water Science Center (WSC) that has a strong 

background in data collection and processing activities.

The objectives of the triennial review are to (1) ensure that all Science Center offices produce 

hydrologic data and information that meet U.S. Geological Survey standards, (2) ensure that Center 

science practices conform to established quality-assurance guidelines, and (3) make technical 

recommendations and suggest sources of information to assist Center personnel in collecting and 

analyzing data for data programs and interpretive projects. The review also is designed to maintain 

technical communication among Center, Region, and Headquarters personnel in a forum that focuses on 

exchange of technical information among all participants.

Prior to the review, the Review Team is provided with a list of all current projects and proposals, 

and a list of regularly scheduled groundwater and water-quality field activities expected to take place 

during the period of the review. The list of projects is used to develop an effective review agenda and 

should include the period of investigation (beginning and ending fiscal years), project or proposal title, 

name of the project chief, end date, and total funding (simply to determine the relative size of the 

project). The list of current projects and proposals, and scheduled field activities during the review 

week, is used by the Water Science Field Team Specialists in coordination with Science Center staff and 

Review Team Leader to develop an agenda.

The review is typically conducted over a four-day period with most activities occurring in the 

Center office. Additionally, the groundwater data reviewer typically visits one or two wells in each field 

office in order to meet with a hydrologic technician and visit selected real-time wells. They will 

accompany the technician on a field visit to the well and will visit the office to review the data 

collection and records computation process. Most commonly, they review the previous water year data. 

They also will check for mandatory safety equipment, such as fire extinguishers, first aid kits, and 

traffic control equipment, if necessary. Following the review, the Review Team provides written 

comments to the Center summarizing the findings of their review. The Center then develops a written 

response outlining corrective steps that are, or will, be taken in order to address any deficiencies in 

approach or methodology identified by the Review Team.

It is expected that issues raised in the previous triennial discipline review will begin to be 

addressed as soon as practical, upon receipt of the review memo from the Office of Groundwater. To 

assure that all issues raised during the review are addressed prior to the next review, preferably at least a 

year in advance of the next review, the Center Groundwater Specialist will consult with WSC project 

and data-section staff involved with groundwater data collection or processing activities, to address any 

unresolved issues identified in the previous triennial review and make preparations for the ensuing 

review.

Data Collection

The objectives of the individual study will determine the types of data collected and the 

frequency with which data are collected. The Project Chief must clearly document and provide to the 
11

project personnel, in sufficient detail, the types and quality of data needed so that the project team can 

collectively determine the appropriate data-collection techniques to satisfy project objectives. Routine 

and non-routine data-collection activities and procedures are documented by project or support 

personnel and recorded in appropriate field notebooks or on approved forms. These notes and forms are 

to be kept with project files and archived upon project completion.

Project Chiefs are responsible for supervision of field procedures and activities and must assure, 

through personal observation or with the assistance of the Center Groundwater Specialist, that field 

personnel are adequately trained and fully qualified to collect and process data needed for the project. 

The Center Groundwater Specialist will review the data activities of all groundwater projects as part of 

periodic project reviews scheduled by the Associate Director for Hydrologic Studies. If project staff are 

determined to be inadequately trained to conduct their duties, the Project Chief, in consultation with the 

Center Groundwater Specialist and the appropriate Section or Field Office Chief will assure that project 

staff, receive appropriate training to ensure technical competence and to rectify inadequacies. 

The Center Groundwater Specialist, or designated representative, may institute random reviews 

of field practices to assure data are collected according to specifications documented in this plan. 

Frequent random checks of recently hired or seasonal personnel are essential, but even experienced field 

staff would benefit from periodic review of field procedures, as new policies and procedures are added 

or revised over time.

All Scientists and Technicians that collect and (or) process groundwater data must be familiar 

with the guidelines specified in this plan to assure that technical products and reports published by the 

WASWSC meet all applicable Department of the Interior, USGS, OGW, WMA, and WAWSC policies.

Documentation of Technical Procedures

Procedures used for the collection of groundwater data are derived from a series of technicalprocedures documents, technical memoranda, Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations (TWRIs) 

reports, and numerous other publications. The primary documentation of technical procedures for 

groundwater data-collection activities is the USGS Techniques and Method report 1-A1 “Groundwater 

Technical Procedures of the U.S. Geological Survey” (Cunningham and Schalk, comps., 2011). This

report provides detailed, illustrated instructions for the implementation of common field methods for 

collecting groundwater data. WAWSC center staff are referred to this document and encouraged to 

download and print a copy of the report for field reference. Standards for groundwater-data collection 

are based on the methods outlined in that report, or in the selected references contained therein. The 

report can be downloaded at http://pubs.usgs.gov/tm/1a1/, and is updated as needed to incorporate 

elements that change through time. Technical procedures for data-collection not mentioned in any of the 

referenced documents should be discussed and planned with the WAWSC Groundwater Specialist and 

documented in the project files.

Techniques for the collection of groundwater samples for water-quality analysis are documented 

in the national field manual for the collection of water-quality data (U.S. Geological Survey, variously 

dated), in other TWRIs, in memoranda issued by the Office of Water Quality, and in publications 

containing technical guidance provided by the WAWSC Water-Quality Specialist. The WAWSC

Groundwater Specialist will ensure that full coordination is arranged, and when applicable, that suitable 

cross training in water-quality procedures is provided.
12

Obtaining Permission to Use or Drill a Well on Private Property

USGS groundwater programs are largely dependent on data collected from, or available for,

privately owned wells. The USGS has stringent guidelines for collecting data from private wells and for 

drilling wells on private property (appendix 2; OGW memoranda 03.03). WAWSC policy requires 

permission from land owners to access private property for the purpose of collecting water levels, 

conducting aquifer tests, borehole geophysical survey, surface geophysical surveys, or other routine 

groundwater-related field tasks. Written approval is strongly recommended, but in no case shall USGS

WAWSC personnel access private property or make water-level measurements or conduct other tasks 

without at least verbal permission from the land owner. The owner’s information, which may include 

the owner’s name, address, and telephone number, should be obtained and logged on the well inventory 

form, but only the owner’s name and note of verbal or written permission to access the property is 

entered into the GWSI database. Owner’s name, address, and telephone number are considered 

personally identifiable information (PII) and are subject to specific policies as outlined in WAWSC 

Memo 2009-12-10 (available at WAWSC intranet site). At no time are WAWSC permitted to release 

PII, and WAWSC personnel are required to log access to PII as specified in the aforementioned memo. 

If WAWSC personnel need to drill wells on private property, the legal agreements in the OGW 

memoranda must be completed. The Groundwater Technical Procedures of the U.S. Geological Survey 

report (Cunningham and Schalk, 2011) is an excellent reference for many common groundwater 

procedures (available at http://pubs.usgs.gov/tm/1a1/). GWPD 15 of that report contains specific 

instructions and forms for completing a well on private property (Form 9-1483), obtaining permission to 

access private property, and to transfer a well to a third party (Form 9-3106). Transfer of a well to a 

third party is only permitted under certain specific conditions as outlined in OGW Memo 2003.03.

Instrumentation

QA procedures involving instrumentation will be conducted as described in Brunett and others 

(1997, p. 11–13) and Cunningham and Schalk (2011). Within the WAWSC, the primary instrumentation 

that requires QA/QC checks are steel tapes and electric tapes used to measure groundwater levels. The 

WAWSC will check all steel and electric tapes used by WAWSC staff no less than once every 3 years. 

The tapes will be checked against a calibrated reference tape, which will be used only for QA/QC 

procedures, and results of the field checks will be recorded in a log book. Any tape not meeting 

accuracy specifications of plus or minus (±) 0.02 ft-per-hundred foot of well depth will be repaired, 

replaced, or removed from service. Currently (2013) there is no established tape calibration procedure 

provided by the OGW. A groundwater-procedures document (GWPD) or other guidance is expected in 

the near future. In the interim, WAWSC personnel are referred to guidelines as developed by other 

USGS Water Science Centers available on the OGW intranet website.

Pressure transducers used to monitor water levels will be assessed by QA/QC procedures as 

specified by the vendor. Similar ± 0.02 ft per hundred foot of error should indicate potential problems 

with the instrument and any problems assessed as soon as practical. Methods and QA procedures for 

pressure transducers are described in Cunningham and Schalk (2011). Additionally, calibration and 

maintenance information of specific brands of pressure transducers are provided by the manufacturers 

and should be consulted. 
13

Mandatory Entry of Water-Level Data in NWIS

USGS policy requires that all discrete water-level data collected by the USGS be stored in the 

Groundwater Site Inventory (GWSI) database (appendix 2: OGW Memo 92.06 and 93.03). 

Additionally, all time series water-level data collected by the USGS is required to be entered into 

ADAPS (appendix 2: OGW memo 06.01). Long-term permanent groundwater monitoring wells are 

required to be processed in accordance with established recommendations for continuous records 

processing (CRP) as outlined in WRD Policy Memorandum 2010.02 (available at 

http://water.usgs.gov/admin/memo/policy/wrdpolicy10.02.html.) Within the WAWSC, the Field Offices 

are proceeding toward full implementation of CRP as outlined in Memo 2010.02, which will include 

processing and approval of water-level records for long-term water-level monitoring wells including 

real time and Climate Response network wells. Water-level records for continuous records sites such as 

the temporary pressure transducer installations installed for interpretative projects should adopt similar 

CRP records processing procedures. If feasible to do so, Project Chiefs are encouraged to enter waterlevel data provided by cooperating agencies in NWIS. At a minimum, the quality of such data will be

assured by WAWSC personnel prior to entry into NWIS, and appropriately coded in GWSI as to the 

source of the data. 

To assist project staff in preparation of data for entry by the GWSI DBA or their alternate, the 

WAWSC has a published report (Lane, 2006) that establishes guidelines for coding and entering 

groundwater data into GWSI (available at http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/ofr20061371). WAWSC 

project staff should consult this publication when filling out GWSI coding sheets for their projects. 

Although the report is not quite current with respect to recently added fields in GWSI, the report 

provides detailed instructions and guidelines for populating the general site, well construction, waterlevel, miscellaneous records, and geohydrologic sections of the GWSI coding form. Because the 

guidelines in the report (Lane, 2006) are not current, policies and requirements outlined in this GWQAP 

take precedence over those outlined in Lane (2006), in the rare event that there are any contradictions in 

policy or procedures between the two documents.

Minimum Requirements for Establishing a Site in NWIS

Project personnel are encouraged to fill out the GWSI coding sheet (appendix 1) in as much 

detail as possible. Office of Groundwater guidelines for minimal data are provided in appendix 2 (OGW 

memo 98.02). However, the WAWSC requires that personnel provide additional information when 

establishing sites in NWIS to provide for a more robust GWSI database. Currently, the GWSI database 

serves primarily as a repository for water-level data, but has the capacity to be used for many additional 

purposes, including documentation of well-construction information, storage of specific capacity and 

other hydraulic data, and documentation of hydrogeologic units for sites. These requirements are not 

solely for the sake of populating the database, but rather to make the data more useful for future 

WAWSC, regional, or national projects and data analyses. In recent years, population of the 

measurement-point information and hydrogeologic units in the WAWSC GWSI database as specified in 

Lane (2006) has not been routinely conducted. In many cases, well depths may be missing, and the 

interval of the well open to specific geologic strata are not routinely coded. This makes retrieval and use 

of the data for project purposes other than the retrieving water-level data difficult.

To provide for a more robust and useful GWSI database, WAWSC policy is to provide as much 

information on well depth, hydrogeologic units, general site data, and water levels as is practical.

WAWSC staff are encouraged to populate the general site data, water-level data, construction hole data, 

construction-casing data, construction-openings data, construction measuring point data, discharge data, 
14

and geohydrologic data sections of the GWSI General Site Data coding form (Form 9-1904-A) in as 

much detail as possible. For wells with water-level data, completion of the water-level data and 

measuring-point data sections of the GWSI coding form are required. Measuring points may be 

established from well logs for those wells that are used only for geohydrologic reconnaissance, but 

actual measurement of casing stickup in the field is required for sites where field water-level 

measurements are made. 

For those sites used in hydrogeologic framework characterization where the hydrogeologic units 

are known with a high degree of confidence, population of the primary aquifer codes C714 and C093,

and completion of the Geohydrologic Data section of the GWSI coding sheet, is required. This may be 

conducted by batch-entry using SWUDS templates after initial entry of the site record, upon completion 

of detailed hydrogeologic framework analyses. For all wells entered into the GWSI database, a depth for 

the well is required (C028). All wells entered into GWSI database however, are required to populate the 

National Aquifer Code (C715). Every attempt should be made to determine or at a minimum estimate 

the well depth, including referring to well depth data on logs or by sounding the depth with a nonweighted steel tape. In rare instances, it may be difficult or impractical to determine the depth of a well. 

In these instances, the Project Chief in consultation with the GWSI DBA may request a waiver from the 

Center Groundwater Specialist to enter a well into GWSI without a well depth. The waiver will only be 

granted if detailed justification of why such a well is needed for a project is provided. To help facilitate 

the entry of complete site information, a WAWSC Instructional Memo dated July 7, 2008 (available on 

the WAWSC intranet site), describes the process for creating new sites, or updating site information in 

GWSI, that includes a technical review step by a Center database administrator or alternate prior to 

entry into NWIS.

Clarification—Establishment and Coding of Land Surface Datum and Measuring Points

By definition, a datum is a standard position or level that measurements are taken from, and is

static and not subject to variation. Likewise, the measurement-point (MP) elevation is a static point in 

space, and unless the point is altered in some way, such as having the well casing cut to a shorter height 

or extended, it typically does not change. Upon initial visit to a well, project personnel will measure the 

height of the MP above land surface. The datum of the well may be established either by leveling/GPS 

at the time of the initial site visit, or in the office using LiDAR imagery, DEMs, or topographic maps. In 

the WAWSC, the MAPS software also may be used for establishing well datums and other general site 

information for new wells being entered into GWSI. However, the MAPS software only populates the 

General Site Information parts of the GWSI coding form, required Water Level, Well Construction, 

Measuring Point, Geohydrologic, and Miscellaneous sections of the form must be manually coded. 

WAWSC policy is to reference all water levels in relation to land surface, so the datum for the 

well is the altitude of the land surface at the well (C016 on the GWSI coding sheet). Project personnel 

are required to document the MP from which any water level measurement is made, except for water 

levels that are reported and must be recorded as such in field C239 of the Water-Level Data section on 

the GWSI coding form. Measuring-point information will be described in detail in field C324 on the 

GWSI coding sheet and also on the field well inventory form. Project staff also will establish the MP

height for the well (C323 on GWSI coding sheet), usually the top edge of the well casing, or the shelf of 

the recorder floor if the site is instrumented for long-term water-level monitoring. The beginning date 

for new MPs is also required and will be coded in field C321 on the GWSI coding form. If subsequent 

MPs are established for a well (for example, if the casing was extended, shortened, or a well shelter 

installed), a new MP height (C323) will be established and the MP remarks field (C324) will be used to 

describe the new MP. The ending date for the old MP and the beginning date for the new MP will be 
15

coded in fields C322 and C321, respectively, on the GWSI coding form; with the appropriate sequence 

number (C728).

If the well is surveyed to establish the datum (usually only for long-term network wells), project 

staff also will document the altitude of the MP, method with which altitude was determined, measuring 

point-altitude accuracy, and measuring point-altitude datum (C325, C326, C327, and C328 on the 

GWSI coding sheet). Note that the difference between the altitude of the MP (C325) and the MP height 

(C323) must be equivalent to the altitude for the well (C016).

Once established, the MP height will be used on subsequent visits to the well to make waterlevel measurements. Except for unusual and rare instances, even if the ground surface around the well is 

altered slightly, either by having the land surface graded or fill placed around the casing, the land 

surface datum has already been established and typically remains unchanged. Under most situations, 

land surface datums and MP heights should not be altered. This is particularly true in situations where 

the amount of disturbance of material around the well is minimal, and the accuracy of determination of 

the altitude of the well was from a map or DEM with an altitude accuracy error of several feet or more. 

One notable exception is where the land surface altitude and the MP altitude have been surveyed 

with a high degree of accuracy and the MP height has been significantly altered (for example, if the well 

casing were extended, or a well shelter and recording instrumentation was placed on the well). 

Examples of typical coding of GWSI Coding sheets follow. For long-term water-level monitoring wells, 

such as wells in the NAWQA network or WAWSC water-level network (climate response, long-term, or 

real time) wells, surveys are required and a minimum of two independent reference marks (RMs) 

established to re-establish the well in the event that the measuring point is destroyed or damaged, or to 

document possible land subsidence around the well. The process for establishing RMs is documented in 

groundwater procedure document number 3 (GWPD3) of Cunningham and Schalk (2011, p. 20–23).

Example A: On July 2, 1982, an inventory of a well indicated a casing stickup (MP height) of 

1.35-ft above land surface. The MP, the top edge of the steel casing, was marked with three hacksaw 

marks. The altitude of the land surface was determined from a topographic map with a contour interval 

of 40 ft to be approximately 1,705-ft above the North American Vertical Datum of 1988. The following 

fields should be coded on the GWSI coding sheet (form 9-1904-A):

C16 (altitude)=1,705 ft

C18 (altitude accuracy)=20 ft (half the contour interval of the topographic quadrangle)

C17 (altitude method)=N (for DEM)

C22 (altitude datum)=NAVD 88 (North American Vertical Datum of 1988)

C323 (M.P. height)=1.35 ft

C324 (M.P. remarks)=MP is top edge of steel casing marked with three hacksaw marks, 1.35-ft 

above land surface

C728 (record sequence No.)=001 (this is the initial MP established for this site)

C321 (beginning date)=07-02-1982

C322 (ending date)=Leave blank if site is active and MP still in use

Example B: On June 1, 1985, an inventory of a well with no readily accessible point for 

measuring water levels other than a vent hole drilled in the side of the casing, which is 1.50 ft above the 

base of the concrete well pad, indicated that the well pad is poured to a height of 0.40 ft above land 

surface. In this case, the MP height will be 1.90 ft, as WAWSC policy is to reference all water levels to 

land surface. Additionally, the altitude of land surface at the well, and the altitude of the MP of the well 

were determined to within 0.01 ft accuracy by RTK GPS to be 1,406.24 and 1,408.14 ft above the 
16

North American Vertical Datum of 1988, respectively. The following fields should be coded on the 

GWSI coding sheet:

C16 (altitude of Site)=1,406.24 ft

C18 (altitude accuracy for Land Surface)=0.01 ft 

C17 (altitude method for Land Surface)=D (for DGPS)

C22 (altitude datum for Land Surface)=NAVD 88 (North American Vertical Datum of 1988)

C323 (M.P. height)=1.90 ft

C325 (altitude of measuring point)=1,408.14 (altitude of land surface + M.P. height)

C324 (M.P. remarks)=M.P. is vent hole in side of well casing marked with red paint, 1.50 above 

base of concrete well pad and 1.90-ft above land surface

C728 (record sequence No.)=001 (this is the initial M.P. established for this site)

C321 (Beginning date for MP)=06-01-1985

C322 (Ending date for MP)=leave blank if site is active and M.P. still in use

C326 (altitude method for MP)=D (for DGPS)

C327 (altitude accuracy for MP)=0.01 ft

C328 (altitude datum for MP)=NAVD 88 (North American Vertical Datum of 1988)

Example C: From Example B above, the pump was removed on May 15, 2011, the casing was 

extended, and a logger, a DCP, and a shelter were installed on the well. The well was re-surveyed before

and after installation of the logger, DCP, and shelter. The elevation of the new MP from optical levels 

was determined to be exactly 1.270 ft higher than the old MP (vent hole in side of casing). The vent hole 

in the casing was welded shut to prevent inadvertent use of the old MP. The following fields should be 

coded on the GWSI coding sheet:

C728 (record sequence No.)=001 (to enter end date for initial M.P.)

C322 (ending date for old M.P.)=05-15-2011

C728 (record sequence No.)=002 (this is the second MP established for the well)

C16 (altitude)=Not needed; the altitude (datum) for the well was previously established to a high 

degree of accuracy by RTK GPS survey and does not require updating

C323 (M.P. height)=3.17 ft (original M.P. height of 1.90 ft + additional 1.27 ft due to extension 

of casing and installation of recorder shelter)

C325 (altitude of measuring point)=1,409.41 (altitude of land surface+new M.P. height)

C324 (M.P. remarks)=MP is top edge of recorder shelter floor, 2.77-ft above base of concrete 

well pad and 3.17-ft above land surface.

C321 (beginning date for new M.P.)=05-15-2011

C322 (ending date for new M.P.)=leave blank for site is active and new MP in use

C326 (altitude method for M.P.)=L (for level or other surveying instrument)

C327 (altitude accuracy for M.P.)=0.01 ft

C328 (altitude datum for M.P.)=NAVD 88 (North American Vertical Datum of 1988)

For record, sequence number 001 from example C, the end date for the initial MP was changed 

to 05-15-2011, as the vent hole was welded shut and no longer available for use as of that date. 

Although it would be possible to have two or more MPs (not welding the vent hole shut), it is not 

advisable unless necessary, because it provides the opportunity for confusion and unintentional use of 

multiple MPs.
17

MONKES – Mandatory use of MONKES for long-term water-level networks

The OGW encourages use of the Multi Optional Network Key Entry System (MONKES)

program for collection of water-level data (appendix 2; OGW memo 06.02). The MONKES software 

offers several enhanced features which help assure the quality of water-level data collected in the field. 

First, the software stores the field water-level measurements and does logic checks of the math for 

water-level computations. The software also automatically time stamps the measurements with date and 

time of measurement. Past measurements are stored on the personal data assistant (PDA) used to collect 

the water-level data, so field personnel can assess whether the water-level measurements made are 

consistent with past measurements. Finally and most importantly, the software prepares the data for 

entry into the GWSI database, thereby saving time on data entry and eliminating the potential for 

transcription errors possible with manual entry of water level data.

For these reasons, WAWSC policy is that the MONKES software shall be used for collection of 

all water-level data collected from long-term water-level monitoring networks; which includes the 

OGW sponsored federal index wells, climate response network (CRN) wells, and the real-time waterlevel network. In addition, monthly, annual, or semi-annual water-level networks established in support 

of WAWSC groundwater projects are also required to use the MONKES software for collection and 

download of routine water-level data. MONKES is not required for use where only one or two waterlevel measurements are made, such as occurs during well inventories.

Two files are generated by the MONKES software, a GWSI input file for updating the water 

levels in the GWSI database and an XML file. The XML file should be parsed by site using the site visit 

generator software available on the MONKES intranet website. The XML file is considered original 

record and shall be stored in a permanent computer archive. The GWSI input file generated shall also be 

filed and kept as part of current water-year work record, but is not considered permanent record and 

therefore does not necessarily have to be permanently archived. 

Current WAWSC policy is to also record all water-level measurements on an accepted waterlevel note sheet. Two water-level note sheets have been approved for use in the WAWSC (appendix 2) 

for recording and documenting water-level measurements. This requirement is for all network and longterm project wells. The only exception is for initial water-level measurements made during synoptic 

well inventories, in which case it is acceptable to record the initial water-level measurements made as 

part of well inventory on the WAWSC well inventory form. 

The policy to record water-level measurements on approved note sheets and in MONKES may 

be waived in the future, but at present and until advised by the Center Groundwater Specialist, for longterm or project network wells, water-levels shall be recorded both in MONKES and on an approved 

WAWSC water-level note sheet (appendix 1). 

Groundwater data within the WAWSC are collected and processed by two primary groups, as 

part of interpretative projects, and as part of basic data activities Field Offices of the WAWSC. Data 

processing, storage, and archival processes are well established as part of basic data programs in the 

Field Offices, and questions related to the collection, processing, storage, and archival of groundwater 

data in the Field Offices should be referred to the appropriate Field Office Chief in consultation with the 

Center Groundwater Specialist, GWSI DBA, and the Assistant Director for Hydrologic Data.

For interpretative projects, however, policies and procedures related to the collection, storage, 

processing, and archiving of groundwater data are not well established. Currently (2013), the WAWSC 

Data Structure Committee is in the process of developing policies and procedures for processing, 

storage, and archival of both paper and electronic data. The committee’s oversight is primarily for 

interpretative projects, but also considers policies and procedures used by the Field Offices as part of 
18

basic data programs to assure that common policies and procedures apply to both groups. The 

committee has not yet completed its work, and therefore has not fully developed policies and procedures 

for processing, storage, and archival of paper and electronic data within the WAWSC. In the interim, 

personnel should consult with the Center Groundwater Specialist and the GWSI DBA on the most 

recent storage, archiving, and data processing policies and procedures as they relate to interpretative 

groundwater projects.

Station Descriptions and Job Hazard Analyses (JHAs)

For long-term established water-level monitoring sites, such as the WAWSC’s Real-Time and 

Climate Response Network wells, or for long-term monthly, quarterly, or periodic interpretative project 

network wells, station descriptions and JHAs are required to be developed and stored in office folders or 

in electronic format in a directory in the field office or recommended Data committee data structure. A

copy of the station description and JHA will also be kept on site at the well (if the well has an enclosure 

or shelter). If the well does not have a shelter or enclosure, then a copy of the station description and 

JHA will be kept in the field folder, or alternatively in a directory structure on the servicing personnel’s 

PDA. Such information will provide individuals servicing the site with pertinent information on 

measuring points, reference marks for re-establishing the well MP if it is damaged, safety and hazard 

considerations, and past water-level measurements for assessing trends and determining approximate 

target level when making water-level measurements. Much of this information is also available to field 

personnel as part of data entered into the MONKES software.

Well Integrity Tests

For long-term, established water-level monitoring sites, such as the WAWSC’s Real-Time and 

Climate Response Network wells, periodic well-integrity tests are required to assure the wells are in 

hydraulic communication with the aquifer, and that the well has not been damaged or collapsed. An 

OGW memoranda (appendix 2: OGW memo 12.01) describes the types of acceptable well-integrity 

tests. Well-integrity tests shall be conducted on a 3- to 5-year basis, or when it is suspected that there are 

problems with the well. If access to the well is suitable for a total depth (sounding) measurement, the 

depth of the well shall be checked annually to assure that the well has not collapsed. The Center 

Groundwater Specialist should be notified if the overall depth of the well cannot be verified as part of 

the annual total-depth measurement. If the recorded depth of the well has changed significantly, or the 

depth indicates that the effective open-screen length has decreased significantly, then well integrity 

could be compromised, and additional testing and/or well maintenance may be necessary.

Surveying of Well Datums

The USGS OGW requires that all wells used for routine, long-term water-level measurements be 

surveyed or leveled to provide for re-establishment of the well datum in the event of damage to the well, 

land subsidence, or change in the well datum or measuring point. For long-term, established water-level 

monitoring sites, such as the WAWSC’s Real-Time and Climate Response Network wells, periodic 

(about once every 3–5 years) levels of wells shall be conducted. The levels are necessary to document 

the datum for the well and subsequent water levels. This is important in the event that the well is 

damaged or vandalized. Other considerations such as land subsidence or movement in ground surface 

resulting from earthquakes can also alter the land surface and affect the datum of the well. Because all 

water levels are referenced to a land-surface datum, it is imperative that the datum can be re-established 
19

should the well be damaged or ground-surface near the well is affected. In addition to establishing the 

elevation of the measuring point, two independent reference marks are required from which the 

measuring point may be re-established should the well be damaged or altered. A complete station level 

circuit should be completed as specified in USGS Techniques and Methods report 3-A19 (available at 

http://pubs.usgs.gov/tm/tm3A19/), which outlines procedures for conducting levels at gaging stations 

and wells (Kenney, T.A., 2010). The Station Levels software which is pre-loaded field software on 

Hydrologic Instrumentation Facility (HIF) supplied PDAs is particularly useful for helping to collect, 

process, and store station levels in proper format. Specific policies and procedures for periodic station 

levels at long-term monitoring wells are outlined in OGW groundwater procedures document (GWPD3) 

as outlined in Cunningham and Schalk (2011).

Additionally, where bench marks are not found near a well, survey-grade GPS instruments are 

particularly useful for helping to establish datums for wells, and tying the datum into the National 

Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD 88) and the North American horizontal Datum of 1983 (NAD 83). 

NAVD 88 and NAD 83 are the preferred datums that should be used for establishing new wells. GPS 

units used for well inventories should be set to these datums prior to conducting synoptic well 

inventories. 

Data Processing, Review, Storage, and Archiving

All groundwater data and associated reports and databases will be processed, reviewed, stored, 

and archived in accordance with applicable Department of the Interior (DOI), USGS, WRD, WMA, 

OGW or WAWSC instructional memoranda on said topics. This includes the formal report review 

processes and archival of aquifer tests, numerical flow models, borehole logs, GIS, and surface 

geophysical data.

Entry of Sites in GWSI

According to WAWSC policy, routine creation and entry of sites into the Groundwater Site 

Inventory (GWSI) database is the responsibility of the GWSI database administrator (DBA). Three 

additional individuals also have write access to the (GWSI) database, and serve as backups in the event 

that the DBA is unavailable to enter sites for an extended period of time (WAWSC intranet site; 

memorandum 2008-07-07). The only notable exception for having sites entered by one of the backup 

DBAs is for sites that need to be entered expeditiously during the DBA’s absence to avoid associated 

analytical results being rejected by the National Water Quality Laboratory due to the lack of an 

appropriate site file being established in the database. However, proper planning and coordination 

should eliminate the need for the alternate DBAs to enter sites into the site file except under the most 

adverse of situations. If a minimal site file should be required for entry into GWSI by an alternate DBA, 

then a full documentation of the site should follow as soon as practical, and coordinated with the 

primary GWSI DBA. This policy is in effect to prevent minimal or poorly documented site file entry 

into GWSI, and to provide for rigorous QA/QC of water-level data and sites being entered in GWSI.

Additionally, Project Chiefs are required to consult with the Center GWSI DBA and 

Groundwater Specialist prior to initiation of large-scale synoptic well, spring, or stream inventories. The 

purpose of the consultation is to assure that sufficient time is allocated and scheduled for entry of sites 

and water-level data into the GWSI database. Project Chiefs must also assure that sufficient funding is 

available to account for the time required to properly code GWSI coding sheets, and to enter sites and/or 

water-level data into the GWSI database. Several individuals in the WAWSC have experience coding 
20

GWSI forms, but it is important that Project Chiefs coordinate with the Center Groundwater Specialist 

or GWSI DBA if they require assistance with the coding of GWSI forms, so that arrangements can be 

made with the section chiefs to allocate personnel to GWSI coding and site/water level entry tasks.

Aquifer Test Archives 

Office of Groundwater policy (appendix 2; OGW memoranda 94.02 and 09.01) requires that all 

aquifer tests conducted by the USGS be archived for future retrieval. Projects within the WAWSC for 

which aquifer tests are conducted are required to receive regional approval of the tests by the WSFT

Groundwater Specialist, and to archive that data in a long-term digital aquifer test archive. 

Specifications for Office of Groundwater requirements for the aquifer test archives are presented in 

appendix 2. Project staff shall coordinate with the Center Groundwater Specialist on the archiving of 

aquifer test data.

Groundwater Model Archives

Office of Groundwater policy (appendix 2; OGW memoranda 11.01) requires that all 

groundwater models be approved by the WSFT Groundwater Specialists. Specifications for OGW

requirements for documentation and development of numerical groundwater flow and solute transport 

models are presented in appendix 2. Project staff involved with development of numerical groundwater 

flow models should review and be aware of the requirements of USGS policy for archiving groundwater 

flow models. Project Chiefs must be able to satisfy the requirement that the models can run 

independently of any graphical user (GUI), third party, or in-house software used to develop the models, 

using standard USGS codes. If modeling codes other than USGS software are used, archiving of the 

software and models should be coordinated with the WSFT Groundwater Specialists. Such software 

must be archived for future use if the GUI is based originally on the use of USGS software. Upon 

completion of this process, project personnel shall coordinate with the Center Groundwater Specialist on

the archiving of numerical groundwater flow and solute transport models in the WAWSC Groundwater 

Model Archive.

Borehole Geophysical Data Archives

Office of Groundwater policy (appendix 2; OGW memoranda 00.03 and 10.01) requires that all 

borehole geophysical data collected by the USGS be archived for future retrieval. Future projects within 

the WAWSC collecting borehole geophysics data are required to archive that data in a long-term digital

borehole geophysics archive. Specifications for OGW requirements for the borehole geophysics 

archives are presented in appendix 2 (OGW Memos 00.03 and 10.01). Project staff shall coordinate with 

the Center Groundwater Specialist on archival of borehole geophysical data.

Surface Geophysical Data Archives

Office of Groundwater policy (appendix 2; OGW memoranda 09.02) requires that all surface 

geophysical data collected by the USGS be archived for future retrieval. Fiber optic distributed 

temperature sensor (DTS) data collected routinely by the WAWSC are considered surface geophysical 

data and must be archived according to specifications detailed in for OGW Memo 09.02 (appendix 2). 

Should WAWSC staff begin to collect additional types of surface geophysics data in support of 

groundwater projects, then that data also must be archived in accordance with specification in OGW 
21

Memo 09.02. Project staff shall coordinate with the Center Groundwater Specialist on archival of 

surface geophysical data.

Archiving Project/GIS Information

WAWSC has specific policies for archiving of project data and GIS databases (WAWSC 

intranet site; memoranda WAWSC 2008-08-13 a, b, and c). These archives are important in the event 

that the validity or interpretations of data in approved USGS reports are questioned. The archive is 

required to serve as a repository of important project information should it be necessary to review an 

issue or reproduce information published in USGS reports. It is also important as future studies in the 

same geographic area often make use of previously collected data. Refer to WAWSC policy for 

archiving of project data and GIS information (including creation of GIS metadata). Project staff should 

coordinate with the WAWSC GIS Specialist on archiving and documentation of GIS data.

Summary

This quality-assurance plan documents the standards, policies, and procedures used by the U.S. 

Geological Survey’s (USGS) Washington Water Science Center (WAWSC), for activities related to the 

collection, processing, storage, analysis, and publication of groundwater data. This plan serves as a 

guide to all WAWSC personnel involved in groundwater activities, and changes as the needs and 

requirements of the WAWSC, the USGS, and the Water Resources Mission Area evolve. The plan is 

based largely on requirements and guidelines from the USGS Office of Groundwater, or from the USGS 

Water Resources Mission Area. Regular updates to this plan represent an integral part of the qualityassurance process. This report supplants, and is an amendment and a substantial update to the previous 

groundwater QA plan (Drost, 2005). This updated plan includes information related to organization and 

responsibilities of WAWSC personnel, training, safety, development of project proposals, project 

review procedures, data collection activities, data processing activities, report review procedures, and 

archival of field data and interpretative information pertaining to groundwater-flow models, borehole 

aquifer tests, and aquifer tests. 

As with all quality assurance documents, this groundwater assurance plan is a living document, 

and subject to periodic updates. Technology changes rapidly, and new procedures to deal with demands 

of evolving technology are commonly required. Additionally, the USGS Office of Groundwater 

periodically releases policy requirements that need to be incorporated in the groundwater qualityassurance plan. 

Important updates from the previous groundwater assurance plan include: (1) procedures for 

documenting and archiving groundwater-flow models; (2) revisions to procedures and policies for 

creation of sites in the Groundwater Site Inventory database (GWSI); (3) dissemination of new waterlevel forms to be used within the WAWSC; (4) procedures for future creation of borehole geophysics, 

surface geophysics, and aquifer test archives, and; (5) use of the USGS Multi Optional Network Key 

Entry System (MONKES) software for collection and entry of routine water-level data collected as part 

of long-term water-level monitoring networks.

The report also includes the more relevant USGS, USGS Office of Groundwater, and Water 

Resources Discipline or Water Mission Area policy and instructional memoranda from which the 

requirements within this plan are based. Groundwater procedure documents (GWPDs) are an important 

resource for reference to established USGS policies and procedures. 
22

References Cited

Brunett, J.O., Barber, N.L., Burns, A.W., Fogelman, R.P., Gillies, D.C., Lidwin, R.A., and Mack, T.J., 

1997, A quality-assurance plan for district ground-water activities of the U.S. Geological Survey: U.S. 

Geological Survey Open-File Report 97-11. (Also available at 

http://water.usgs.gov/ogw/pubs/OFR9711/index.html.)

Cunningham, W.L., and Schalk, C.W., comps., 2011, Groundwater technical procedures of the U.S. 

Geological Survey: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques and Methods 1–A1, 151 p. (Also available at 

http://pubs.usgs.gov/tm/1a1/.)

Drost, B.W., 2005, Quality-assurance plan for ground-water activities, U.S. Geological Survey, 

Washington Water Science Center: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2005-1126, 27 p.

(Also available at http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2005/1126/.)

Kenney, T.A., 2010, Levels at gaging stations: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques and Methods 3-A19, 

60 p. (Also available at http://pubs.usgs.gov/tm/tm3A19/.)

Lane, R.C., 2006, Guidelines for coding and entering ground-water data into the ground-water site 

inventory database version 4.6, U.S. Geological Survey Washington Water Science Center: U.S. 

Geological Survey Open-File Report 2006-1371, 104 p. (Also available at 

http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/ofr20061371.)

Schroder, L.J., and Shampine, W.J., 1992, Guidelines for preparing a quality-assurance plan for district 

offices of the U.S. Geological Survey: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 92-136, 14 p. (Also 

available at http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/ofr92136.)

Shampine, W.L., Pope, L.M., and Koterba, M.T., 1992, Integrating quality assurance in project work 

plans of the U.S. Geological Survey: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 92-162, 12 p. Also 

available at http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/ofr92162.)

U.S. Geological Survey, variously dated, National field manual for the collection of water-quality data: 

U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 9, chaps. A1–A9, (Also 

available at http://pubs.water.usgs.gov/twri9A.)
23

Appendix 1. Standard Forms for USGS Washington Water Science Center use

Groundwater Coding Forms

The standard groundwater (GW) coding forms used by Washington Water Science Center 

(WAWSC) personnel are routinely updated by the National Water Information System (NWIS) based 

on new requirements of the Groundwater Site Inventory GWSI Database. Current forms are available on 

the USGS NWIS intranet website. 

WAWSC personnel should download the most recent version of the appropriate coding form, 

GW coding form—General site data for wells, SW—Site data coding form for surface-water sites, and 

GW coding form—General Spring Data for springs. These forms are also routinely downloaded by the 

Center Groundwater Specialist and may be obtained from the Center Groundwater Specialist by request.

Water-Level Field Forms

The standard water-level field forms provided for use by NWIS in the past are not applicable for 

use by current standards. This is primarily due to the addition of new mandatory requirements for waterlevel data required for entry into GWSI. As a result, common practice is for USGS Water Science 

Centers to develop their own water-level field forms. At the time of publication of this Groundwater 

Quality Assurance Plan (2013), multiple types of field forms were in use by Center Staff, none of which 

met current USGS specifications. This lack of standardization in field forms adds additional time to the 

records review process, and may result in missing or incomplete field data. WAWSC policy is that all 

water level measurements must specify the date of the measurement, initials of field personnel making

the measurement, the type of tape used (steel tape or electric tape), and the complete water-level 

measurement. For water-levels measured using a steel tape, the initial mark held, the wet line mark, the 

depth to water, the land surface datum (LSD) measuring point (MP) correction, and the final water level 

must all be recorded. It is not acceptable to record only the depth to water. All calculations must be 

shown on the form.

To assure that all appropriate data are recorded, the WAWSC has approved two field forms for 

use by WAWSC staff. The first form is a modification of Form 9-1904-E (Form 9-1904-E-2012), which 

is commonly referred to as the “Christmas Tree Form”, due to its red and green text format, and is 

widely used in the WAWSC. This form was modified to add the time field now required by NWIS. 

Form 9-1904-E-2012 is not approved for field use, only for archiving of water-level measurements in 

the office. The second is a standard 5 x 8 inch field form (Form WAWSC-2012), which has been

developed to include all the necessary data currently required by NWIS. Form WAWSC-2012 is the 

only form accepted for field use in the WAWSC. 
24
25
26

Appendix 2. Pertinent Technical Memoranda

Index of Technical Memoranda

OGW 00.02 PROGRAMS AND PLANS--Update of the National Policy to Archive Ground Water 

Flow and Transport Models.......................................................................................................................69

OGW 00.03 PROGRAMS AND PLANS-Establishment of a National Policy to Archive BoreholeGeophysical Logs ......................................................................................................................................65

OGW 03.03 Agreement Forms for Gaging Station and Observation Well Installations and Transfers....63

OGW 05.02 PUBLICATIONS--Policy on documenting the results of new simulations using 

previously published ground-water models...............................................................................................61

OGW 06.01 Storage of Water-Level Data for Ground Water...................................................................58

OGW 06.02 Policy and Archive Guidance for Ground-Water Data Collection using Handheld 

Computers..................................................................................................................................................55

OGW 09.01 Update on Guidance for the Preparation, Approval, and Archiving of 

Aquifer-Test Results..................................................................................................................................52

OGW 09.02 Establishment of a National Policy to Archive Surface-Geophysical Data ..........................49

OGW 10.01 Update of the National Policy to Archive Borehole-Geophysical Logs...............................46

OGW 11.01 PROGRAMS AND PLANS—Groundwater Flow and Transport Model Archival .............44

OGW 11.02 Recommended groundwater field procedures for the U.S. Geological Survey ....................42

OGW 12.01 Policy for evaluation of well integrity for water-level measurements - initial application 

to CBR network wells and test phase for all wells....................................................................................36

OGW 92.06 General Policy for the Use of the Ground Water Site Inventory System .............................85

OGW 93.03 Interim Policy Memorandum about Storing Data in the National Water Information 

System........................................................................................................................................................81

OGW 94.02 Guidance for the preparation, approval, and archiving of aquifer-test results......................77

OGW 98.02 Data Elements for Ground-Water Sites.................................................................................72

WMA 13.01 Programs and Plans-Guidelines for Preparation, Submission, and Approval of Water 

Science Center Project Proposals ..............................................................................................................27

WRD 2010.02 WRD Policy Numbered Memorandum No. 2010.02 Continuous Records Processing 

of all Water Time Series Data....................................................................................................................35
27

WMA 13.01 Programs and Plans-Guidelines for Preparation, Submission, and Approval of Water Science 

Center Project Proposals

October 12, 2012

WATER MISSION AREA MEMORANDUM NO. 13.01

Subject: Programs and Plans-Guidelines for Preparation, Submission, and Approval of Water

Science Center Project Proposals

This memorandum establishes a consistent set of guidelines for the preparation, submission, and

approval of project proposals to the Water Mission Area. Project proposals serve to focus,

coordinate, communicate, and document USGS science activities. Because the proposal

specifies the scope and objectives, approach, timeline and expected products it provides a basis

for evaluating project progress and success and aids in ensuring cooperator satisfaction. Formal

reviews of proposed projects help to ensure adherence to all applicable technical and

organizational policy issues (including alignment with Bureau priorities) for reimbursable,

Cooperative Water Program (CWP), and Other Federal Agency (OFA) water-resources projects.

Prior to initiating the formal proposal process, Science Centers are encouraged to informally

discuss proposed water-resources project concepts with appropriate Water Science Field Team

(WSFT) personnel, the Regional Science Advisor and/or Safety Officer.

PREPARATION OF PROJECT PROPOSALS BY WATER SCIENCE CENTERS

Project proposals are mandatory for interpretive projects and may be required for data projects.

Generally, a project can be defined as: a set of related activities or planned efforts designed to

achieve a definite goal (or set of goals) with specified staff, budget and time requirements

appropriate to the nature of the work, and that culminates with measurable products, services, or

results. The types of activities that typically require the development, review, and approval of a

project proposal include:

 All interpretive activities,

 Data activities that have a defined set of objectives and scope and data-quality objectives

that rely on non-standard methods, and

 Data-collection projects that grow substantially in scope or are planned from the start to

address a set of objectives that will involve interpretive work.

Specific requirements for proposal preparation are outlined in Attachment 1. Approved draft

proposals are posted on the internal USGS WSFT web site at

(http://water.usgs.gov/usgs/wsft/proposals.html). These approved draft proposals and can be used

as examples.

SUBMISSION OF PROJECT PROPOSALS TO THE WATER SCIENCE FIELD TEAM

Project proposals must be submitted to the WSFT for review of technical and policy

considerations to ensure that projects are technically sound and meet national quality standards;

projects have an approved outlet for data, scientific information and interpretation; and the work

does not violate USGS policy. If unexpected technical findings or fiscal circumstances result in

significant modification of planned project activities and funding levels, a revised proposal must

be submitted for review and approval by the WSFT and the Regional Director’s (RD) Office.
28

Similarly, a new proposal will be required when data collection projects, for which no proposal

was originally required, transition into interpretive studies.

The WSFT will be issuing unified guidance on proposal submissions and will institute a single

proposal tracking system and repository during Fiscal Year 2013. Until then, proposals should be

submitted according to past practice of the WSFT serving your Region.

APPROVAL OF PROJECT PROPOSALS BY THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR

After project proposals are reviewed by the WSFT for technical and policy considerations, a

recommendation for approval will be sent to the appropriate Regional Director’s Office. Final

approval of the project proposal is the responsibility of the RD Office. Project work should not

begin without RD Office approval, a signed Joint Funding Agreement, and entry of the project

into BASIS+. (Note: A waiver to begin work without a signed agreement with appropriate

justification may be submitted to the RD Office for approval. Time-sensitive activities, such as

those associated with floods or emergencies, may also proceed with verbal approval from the RD

Office.)

If you have questions regarding the preparation, submission, or approval of project proposals,

please contact the appropriate WSFT Chief for your Science Center.

William H. Werkheiser //s// William H. Werkheiser

Associate Director for Water

DISTRIBUTION: A, B, RD Offices, WSCs

Attachments:

1. Guidelines For Preparation Of Project Proposals

2. Strengthening the Relevance and Benefits Section of Proposals

Attachment 1

GUIDELINES FOR PREPARATION OF PROJECT PROPOSALS

It is vitally important that USGS science be relevant to the strategic directions, and priorities of

the Bureau, Water Mission Area (WMA), and Regions. Additionally, it is critical that we

communicate to our stakeholders the specific needs or problems to be addressed and the science

objectives and approaches of the proposed studies. A well formulated, scientifically sound

project proposal is essential to the success of a project and forms the basis for effective

communication of our planned and ongoing science activities. Other important functions of a

good project proposal include:

 Documents the appropriateness to the USGS mission and priorities.

 Facilitates successful planning and execution of the project by describing the objectives

and scope of work envisioned as well as the proposed methodologies and products

(deliverables). The proposal thus serves as a list of the agreed upon commitments that can

be used to gauge the successful completion of the project.

 Specifies the amount and sources of funding needed to execute the project.

Guidelines for developing pre-proposals and full proposals are described below in terms of their

content, submission, review and approval. The following points summarize the intent and

expectations for pre-proposals and full proposals.
29

Pre-proposals (Optional):

 Can be informal brief ‘draft’ idea/concept statements that outline prospective projects.

Pre-proposals are optional, but early consultation with the Water Science Field Team

(WSFT) may result in faster turn-around times when the full proposal is submitted.

Content and format are flexible. Typically, the pre-proposal will include a brief

background or problem statement, a list of primary objectives, discussion of the approach

envisioned to achieve the stated objectives, and preliminary report/product plans.

 Submit directly to the appropriate WSFT personnel and similarly to the Regional Science

Advisor and Safety Officer, as appropriate.

The WSFT will provide informal timely comments on the technical or policy aspects of the preproposal

(turnaround time for WSFT review of pre-proposals generally will be less than one

week).

Full proposal (approval required):

Concise but thorough narratives should address each of the required elements B1–B12 listed

below. There is no length criterion for full proposals. Proposals may adopt a format required by

the cooperator or program coordinator, as long as the required elements of the proposal are

presented. In these cases, please indicate the need for a different format on the cover sheet.

 Proposals must be submitted electronically to the appropriate WSFT Chief (preferably

compiled in a single file). Either PDF- or WORD-formatted versions are acceptable; any

supporting figures and tables cited in the text should be embedded in the digital

document. The submission must include a Project Proposal Cover Sheet (see item A

below, and a Job Hazard Analysis with appropriate signatures.

 The WSFT review will focus on elements B1–B8, but the review will consider the

contents of elements B9–B11. Element 1C, pertaining to Safety and the Proposal Job

Hazard Analysis, will be formally reviewed by the Regional Safety Officer.

 The WSFT will attempt to complete reviews of the final draft of the proposal within two

weeks. The WSFT will attempt to resolve any problems with the proposals directly with

the Water Science Center (WSC).

 The WSFT review package and recommendation will be sent via email to the appropriate

designee in the RD Office for review and approval, with a copy to the originating WSC

Director.

 The WSFT will archive approved proposals and review packages in an accessible

proposal repository (currently at: http://water.usgs.gov/usgs/wsft/proposals.html ).
30

Elements of a Full Proposal:

A. A completed and signed Project Proposal Cover Sheet (available at

http://water.usgs.gov/usgs/wsft/proposals/coversheet-template.pdf)

B. Project Proposal:

1. TITLE—should relate, as concisely as possible, to the objective(s) and scope of the

proposed study and include the location of the study, if applicable. Ideally, the title

should reflect the preliminary title(s) of any proposed information product from the

study. Omit company or trademarked product names in the title.

2. BACKGROUND/INTRODUCTION—This section can be used to provide additional

information about the study area, such as demographics and political considerations,

previous investigations and results, and any information that will help the reader

understand the problem and objective sections of the proposal.

3. PROBLEM—State concisely the problems and related background information

motivating USGS involvement. Note that the cooperator’s problem can be described as

well, but not to the exclusion of the broader water resources issue/problem. Previous

studies and existing information should be briefly summarized and referenced. Provide

sufficient supporting background information to facilitate understanding key technical

and social factors relevant to the proposed study. For place studies, a map showing the

location and extent of the study area should be included in this section.

4. OBJECTIVES and SCOPE—State concisely the attainable objectives of the project.

Objectives are statements of desired results, not statements of project approach such as

collecting data or constructing a model. Relate each objective directly to the problem

issue(s). The objectives must be compatible with the problem and approach statements,

responsive to cooperator/customer needs, and consistent with the USGS mission. Use

caution in setting the objectives and scope to avoid misrepresenting the expected goals of

the project.

5. RELEVANCE and BENEFITS—Describe the relevance and benefits to the

cooperator/customer and the USGS and demonstrate how results will contribute to

improved planning and (or) management capabilities and to advancing applied science.

Specify the national interest(s) served by the project. A strong Relevance and Benefits

section serves to address the Federal interest and mitigate potential conflicts regarding

competition with the private sector. Proposed projects should state the relevance of the

study to USGS Strategic Science Directions at a minimum; statements of relevance to

WMA Strategic Directions, Cooperative Water Program (CWP) priorities (if CWP funds

are requested), WSC Science Plans, and (or) other relevant USGS priorities are

encouraged. Include any relevant state and local priorities. See Attachment 2 for

guidelines to strengthen this section.

6. APPROACH—Describe the tasks, methods, and technologies that constitute the

scientific approach proposed to achieve the stated objective(s). A summary describing the

science strategy for achieving the objective(s) within the prescribed timeframe and

resources should be stated in the first paragraph. The rationale for using the proposed

analytical or investigative tools should be explained.

Following the summary description, address the project study plan: a clear logical

presentation of the data types, tasks, methods, and sequence of activities for the project. If

proven techniques and methods are proposed, then a brief description will suffice. Any
31

unique, innovative, or original method should be described, referenced, and (or) justified.

A description of how the data or model output will be analyzed and interpreted to achieve

the objective(s) should be included. It is important to describe how results will be

evaluated to determine whether the stated objective(s) were achieved.

The approach for complex or research-oriented projects should be organized into

subsections that represent phases of the study that show the planned evolution of the

study. Sequential numbering of components or a decision flow diagram can be used to

show a logical plan for adapting the course of study to the various potential outcomes as

the project progresses.

7. QUALITY ASSURANCE/QUALITY CONTROL— Describe the QA procedures that

will be used to guide data-collection and review activities for the project. For standard

data collection, simply cite the Science Center QA Plan or other pertinent documents,

such as the National Field Manual, Techniques and Methods reports, or WMA Technical

Memoranda.

For all water-quality projects, specify the numbers of each type of QC sample (blanks,

replicates, and spikes) that will be collected for each constituent group. If an outside

laboratory will be used, indicate that a laboratory evaluation will be made in accordance

with Office of Water Quality Technical Memorandum 2007.01. Ensure that the project

budget includes adequate time and resources to accomplish the specified QC components.

Some projects involving other Federal agencies require preparation, review, and approval

of a Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) prior to any environmental data collection.

Indicate whether a QAPP will be required, and if so, describe the added time and

expense.

8. PRODUCTS—Describe the planned information product(s) as well as data types to be

produced by the project. Identify any planned publications by series, for example journal

article, USGS Scientific Investigations Report, etc. For data projects, also identify the

types of data to be produced. A description of USGS report series is available at

http://www.usgs.gov/usgs-manual/1100/1100-3appendixa.pdf.

9. REFERENCES—A list of references cited in the proposal is a beneficial component of

the proposed study. Follow accepted USGS style suggestions for formatting citations in

the text and the references in this section. Provide links to references with persistent

URLs.

10. TIMELINE—List major study tasks and major elements of tasks identified in the body

of the proposal and indicate starting dates, periods of activity, and ending dates. The

timeline is critical to assessing the technical and programmatic feasibility of the project

as it provides the basis to evaluate the sequencing of activities and planned duration of

the project. A timeline is most often presented in a table or spreadsheet format.

11. PERSONNEL—List personnel needs by required skill (QW specialist, technical

specialist, hydrogeologist, hydrologic modeler, etc). Identify location of staff (other

WSCs, other Mission Areas, other agencies) as well as collaborative work to be

accomplished by cooperator staff. Planned contract work should also be described.

12. BUDGET SUMMARY—Compile a table of estimated costs for the duration of the

project but not to exceed 5 years. The cost estimate in the proposal budget and on the

Project Proposal Cover Sheet must agree. Costs can be itemized by task (for example,

sampling, laboratory analyses, QA/QC documentation, data analysis, simulation,

information product preparation and publication) and (or) by accounting category (for
32

example, salary, equipment purchases, travel, contracts).

C. Job Hazard Analysis (JHA) for New Projects The JHA should concisely state any safety

concerns/elements of the project and the requirements needed to address these safety

concerns/elements, such as safety training and equipment needed to allow an employee to

perform the work in a safe manner and to ensure that unnecessary liabilities are not incurred

by the U.S. Government. All work on hazardous waste sites or work in confined spaces,

etc., which would require specialized training and perhaps medical examinations, must be

considered when planning the project. A JHA template is located at

(http://water.usgs.gov/usgs/wsft/proposals/JHA-template.pdf). The JHA must be signed by

the Collateral Duty Safety Officer and the Science Center Director. The Regional Safety

Officer is responsible for reviewing the proposal JHA. Safety and the requirements to

maintain a safe work environment are discussed in a number of Department, Bureau, and

Discipline memoranda. A listing of safety memos by category can be found on the web at

http://1stop.usgs.gov/safety/memos/memo-category.shtml

Attachment 2

STRENGTHENING THE RELEVANCE AND BENEFITS SECTION OF PROPOSALS

It is important that the USGS conduct business that clearly is within our mission, and to the

extent possible, does not overtly compete with private entities. Water Mission Area Policy

Memorandum No. 2012.01 http://water.usgs.gov/coop/about/avoiding_competition.pdf

discusses the importance of demonstrating that proposed work is USGS-mission relevant and

that it is beneficial to Federal science interests as well as the needs of stakeholders and the

public. In this regard, the Water Science Field Team (WSFT) suggests that one way to

demonstrate the relevance of our work to the public and the priorities and directions for USGS

activities is to include a comprehensive, strong, and supportive Relevance and Benefits section in

USGS proposals. By way of example, the following provides some generic statements/areas that

should be addressed in the Relevance and Benefits section of proposals.

1. Include benefits that relate to the USGS as a leader in collecting, maintaining, and providing

long-term, earth-science data and conducting long-term, broad-scale, multidisciplinary

studies that also relate to our investment in core competencies, including fundamental

science research. Of necessity, this benefit also relates to our commitment to the Federal

Government and the citizens of the United States. For example:

“Completion of the proposed work will provide the USGS with additional water-quality

information on multi-reservoirs in mixed land-use settings. These data will add to the

USGS national database and will assist in understanding and describing the Nation’s water

resources.”

“The USGS would benefit by keeping current on hydrologic data, analyses, and

interpretations of the resources in the X, and from the increased capability of MODFLOW,

which would allow it to be applied in a variety of new situations for which integrated

modeling tools currently do not exist.”

“The USGS would benefit from a better understanding of the mechanics of local scour and

the hydraulics of open-channel flow at piers and abutments. The existing national database

of about 400 scour measurements would be expanded to include data representing some of

the varying physiography in X.”

“The study will contribute to the USGS mission by increasing understanding of surface water/
33

groundwater interactions and their effect on water availability and quality in a

common hydrogeologic setting.”

2. Include specific benefits that the data collection, results, and interpretations will provide to

the customer. For example:

“The results of this study will provide the cooperator with documentation of baseline water quality

conditions in the reservoir. This information will help the cooperator to evaluate

current and future reservoir management activities with regard to its use as a drinking-water

source.”

3. Include benefits that might affect other managing parties or agencies involved in hydrologic

issues. Stress the high quality of the data and information that will be provided and how it

will be used by resource managers. For example:

“The findings of the study will provide managers with reliable and impartial information for

their use in reducing property losses associated with damage to homes and cropland in the

study area.”

4. Include benefits that relate to the importance of our partnerships and exchange of scientific

information. For example:

“The cooperator will benefit by having the USGS serve as an unbiased third party with

extensive technical expertise on many topics related to X. If the identified approaches

herein prove successful, agencies such as USGS, FEMA, USCOE, and others, along with

consulting firms, will benefit greatly by having statistically quantifiable, consistent,

reproducible, and defensible estimates of peak-flow frequency for regulated streams in X.”

5. Include benefits that might relate to the general public or private individuals and companies.

For example:

“The public will gain an improved understanding of the source of their water supply.”

“The data will be useful to private individuals and companies examining the potential to

develop the X aquifers.”

The WSFT reviews the Relevance and Benefits section of Science Center proposals with an eye

toward attempting to satisfy any inquiries that might arise from our involvement in the study and

to ensure that the benefits are appropriately described. References that may prove helpful in

writing the Relevance and Benefits section include the USGS Science Strategy

(http://internal.usgs.gov/director/science_strategy/) and the USGS Water Resources 5-Year

Program Plans (http://water.usgs.gov/usgs/prgmplans/).

William H. Werkheiser

Associate Director for Water

12201 Sunrise Valley Drive, MS 150

Reston, VA 20192

703-648-4557
34

WRD 2010.02 WRD Policy Numbered Memorandum No. 2010.02 Continuous Records Processing of all 

Water Time Series Data

March 30, 2010

WATER RESOURCES DIVISION TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 2010.02

Distribution: GS-W All

cc: GS-D Regional Executives

From: Matthew C. Larsen

 Associate Director for Water

Subject: WRD Policy Numbered Memorandum No. 2010.02

 Continuous Records Processing of all Water Time Series Data

Because of increasing availability and use of U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) stream

gaging, water-quality monitoring, and other time-series hydrologic data in real-time decision 

making processes, users have requested that data be approved or published much sooner 

after collection than has been USGS policy in the past. As a result, all Water Science 

Centers (WSCs) shall implement Continuous Records Processing (CRP) of all water timeseries data by June 30, 2010 with the full understanding that it may take some time for 

full implementation. Continuous records processing is the collection, analysis, review, and 

approval of time-series hydrologic data on a continuous (sub-water year) basis. At any given 

time, the time-series data will be as close to approval as computational methods and 

hydrologic interpretation will allow. This general definition of CRP is implemented through 

the following operational timelines:

1. All real-time water data must be reviewed by a hydrographer and checked for gross 

instrument errors within 1 day of collection (WRD Policy Memorandum 99.34).

2. All time-series data collected at Category 1 sites (defined below and in attachment 1) 

are to be finalized within the National Water Information System (NWIS) within 150 

days of collection.

3. All time-series data collected at Category 2 sites (defined below and in attachment 1) 

are to be finalized within NWIS within 240 days of collection.

4. Ultimately, regardless of category, all data need to be approved, finalized, and 

published (per Water Science Center policy) as part of the Annual Water Data Report 

by April 1 of the year following the water year of collection.
35

There are two basic guiding principles implicit in this definition. The first is that CRP must 

be data driven. This means that streamflow, groundwater levels, water-quality parameters, or 

other time-series information are not approved until the analyst and reviewers are satisfied 

that the data are ready for approval and distribution without caveat. The approval criteria 

will depend on the individual site and its climatic and hydraulic characteristics, the stability 

of those characteristics, and the field protocols being used at that site. With this principle as 

a guide, data need to be reviewed and approved as soon as possible after all the necessary 

information becomes available. Resources must be allocated and prioritized to facilitate this 

timely review and approval.

The WSCs are to categorize their sites according to the criteria set up in the Continuous 

Records Processing Implementation Plan- May 2008 (attachment 1) which was prepared by 

the Continuous Records Processing Implementation Committee. Because most real-time 

sites are currently surface-water sites, these categorizations will initially be tracked by the 

Office of Surface Water with the intention that an official database (NWIS or Station 

Information Management System (SIMS)) will eventually be used to track the categorization 

of sites. Category 1 sites are defined as sites for which the data needed to compute records 

for a period between site visits are in hand at the end of a site visit. These time-series records 

should be finalized within 150 days of collection. Category 2 sites are defined as sites for 

which more data are needed for specific seasonal record computation (such as long term ice 

effect), stream gages that have unstable controls and longer periods are needed to determine 

trends, or where data from continuous water-quality analyzers depend upon laboratory 

results for verification. Category 2 time series records should be finalized within 240 days of 

collection. Category 3 sites are special cases where a continuous record processing does not 

currently apply. These types of sites should be rare and each case may be unique.

The second guiding principle is that CRP cannot degrade the accuracy of the hydrologic 

information published by the USGS. High standards of accuracy and precision must be 

maintained in all data collection and analysis procedures. The USGS must provide the best 

data to the public as soon as possible.

A number of recommended practices are included in the Continuous Records 

Processing Implementation Plan (attachment 1). WSCs are urged to read the plan and 

consider adopting those practices that will help meet the goal of full implementation of 

continuous processing of time series data within the Water Resources Discipline.

Attachment 1 – Continuous Records Processing Implementation Plan – May 2008 (available 

at http://water.usgs.gov/admin/memo/policy/wrdpolicy10.02_attachment1.pdf)
36

OGW 12.01 Policy for evaluation of well integrity for water-level measurements - initial application to CBR 

network wells and test phase for all wells

November 4, 2011

OFFICE OF GROUNDWATER TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 2012.01

SUBJECT: Policy for evaluation of well integrity for water-level measurements—initial application to 

CBR network wells and test phase for all wells 

Introduction

Water-level measurements play an important role in tracking the status of a groundwater resource. In 

order to ensure that a water-level measurement adequately represents the hydraulic head in the 

groundwater system penetrated by the open interval of the well, it is necessary to assure that the well is 

in good hydraulic connection with the groundwater system and that this connection has not changed 

over time. Well integrity should be evaluated routinely for USGS groundwater-level observation wells 

that are part of a recurring measurement program. Well integrity also should be evaluated for wells 

measured regularly, but less frequently, such as wells in a synoptic or mass measurement program. 

The process of evaluating well integrity differs depending on well construction, well access, frequency 

of measurement, and other factors. Depending on these factors, well integrity may be evaluated by 

analyzing water-level measurements, by physical tests, or by a combination of these techniques. The 

process of evaluating well integrity for water-level measurements described in this memo relies heavily 

on the use of basic hydrologic principles and proper documentation. 

Purpose of this Memorandum

This memorandum outlines the requirement that all wells funded under the federal Collection of Basic 

Records (CBR) Program must undergo a routine evaluation of well integrity. In addition, the Office of 

Groundwater is considering policy options for evaluating well integrity for all USGS groundwater-level 

observation wells. USGS observation wells include wells measured by USGS personnel and those wells 

measured by observers. Other organizations that furnish data to the USGS should have similar methods 

and procedures as the USGS so as to ensure the data that are being published are from wells that are 

connected to the aquifer in which they are completed. Centers that publish data (including data served 

on the Internet) from wells measured by other organizations should encourage the agencies furnishing 

record to adopt the USGS well-integrity procedures or develop their own procedures. Implementation of 

the policy for CBR wells will allow Water Science Centers, the Water Science Field Team Groundwater 

Specialists, and the Office of Groundwater to evaluate the requirement for wider implementation for 

wells not in the CBR program. 

Policy for wells in the CBR network

This policy is presented in terms of office- and field-based procedures. The office-based procedures 

must be followed for all CBR wells and are recommended for all wells. Implementation of the fieldbased procedures is more flexible, based on the judgment of the Center Groundwater Specialist.
37

Office-Based Evaluation of Well Integrity

Annual Hydrograph Check

• Check water-level fluctuations in the well over time and look for indications of a change in well 

performance, such as a change in the response of the well or a noticeable change in the range of 

responses. This should be done annually for wells with continuous or frequent measurements. 

These observations should be documented in the paper site folder, station analysis, or other 

digital documentation for the well, such as the Site Information Management System (SIMS). 

Field-Based Evaluation of Well Integrity

Each Site Visit

• Check the physical condition of the well and well installation and document these observations 

in the site folder. Changes in and around the well may have an effect on well integrity in the 

short- or long-term.

Annual Total Depth Measurement

• If access to the well is suitable for a total depth (sounding) measurement, check the depth of the 

well. If the recorded depth of the well has changed significantly, or the depth indicates that the 

effective open-screen length has decreased significantly, then well integrity could be 

compromised and additional testing may be necessary. A method for measuring well depth by 

use of a graduated steel tape is outlined in USGS Groundwater Procedures Document 11 

(Cunningham and Schalk, 2011). The total depth measurement should be documented in the 

paper site folder, station analysis, or other digital documentation for the well. If access to the 

well is unsuitable for a total depth measurement, this also should be documented. 

Periodic Hydraulic Testing

• If access to the well is suitable for a hydraulic test, some type of repeatable hydraulic test must 

be conducted upon site establishment, and as necessary throughout the life of the well. As 

described above, the field evaluation, annual measurement of total depth, and annual evaluation 

of the hydrograph will provide a good initial check on well integrity. But a quantitative measure 

of well performance/integrity is valuable and necessary periodically, whenever the above 

evaluation methods indicate a possible degradation in well performance. The policy for 

observation well hydraulic testing is summarized in the steps listed below.

1. Upon establishment of a new well in a measurement program, conduct a baseline 

hydraulic test (additional detail provided in attachment “Types of Hydraulic Tests for Well 

Integrity”). Document the results in the site folder or digital documentation for the well.

Future tests will be compared to these baseline test results. If a baseline test was not done 

when the site was established, it should be done as soon as possible.

2. Conduct the annual hydrograph check, the site visit check for well physical condition, 

and the annual measurement of total depth as described above.
38

3. If the evaluation in step number 2 suggests a degradation of well integrity, repeat the 

hydraulic test. If the water-level response from the repeat hydraulic test differs significantly 

from previous tests, the well should be examined more thoroughly (perhaps by using 

geophysical techniques) and a decision made whether to rehabilitate the well (such as by 

redeveloping) or to properly abandon the well.

4. The evaluations described in step number 2 above may not always detect degraded well 

integrity. Thus a hydraulic test should be repeated as time and resources permit, and retesting is recommended every 3–5 years for all wells in critical networks or used in critical 

management decisions. The term “critical” is subjective but should include monitoring wells 

that a cooperator or the public uses to evaluate the effects of nearby groundwater depletions, 

climate change, or groundwater/surface-water interaction.

5. Each step of the well integrity evaluation must be documented in the paper site folder, 

station analysis, or other digital documentation for the well

Evaluation for wells not in the CBR network

The above policy will immediately apply to CBR network wells and its application will be evaluated for 

wells not in the CBR network based on input from Water Science Center and WSFT Groundwater 

Specialists. The Centers are encouraged to apply the policy to all wells, regardless of whether they are 

in the CBR network, in order to appropriately evaluate the policy. There are some special cases where 

implementation of the policy is not feasible or burdensome and the Office of Groundwater would like to 

identify these 

cases in order to determine appropriate approaches for evaluating well integrity. One such case is for 

wells measured infrequently (less than once per year or part of synoptic measurements). 

Prospective Evaluation Approach for Wells Measured Less Frequently Than Once per Year 

Some network wells are measured infrequently, but are in a regular measurement program. This is 

common for wells that are part of a synoptic or mass measurement program. Potentiometric surface 

maps commonly are produced from these measurements. Even though these wells are measured 

infrequently, it is important that their integrity be evaluated. 

Each measurement should be evaluated by comparing it to past measurements. If a measurement is 

outside the range of expected measurements, as suggested from past measurements, it should be reevaluated. If potentiometric surface maps are made from the water-level measurements, any 

measurement that seems to deviate from the conceptual model of the groundwater-flow system should 

be re-evaluated. Best hydrologic judgment should be used to determine the accuracy of the 

measurement and the extent to which the measured value is representative of the aquifer hydraulic head. 

If measurements are judged to be anomalous, field-related well integrity checks may be needed to 

determine the integrity of the well; methods such as total well depth measurement (and comparison to 

previous depth measurements), well-integrity hydraulic tests, borehole geophysical logs, and borehole 

camera surveys can be used for this purpose.

Water Science Center Performance Evaluation

The Water Science Field Team Groundwater Specialists and the Office of Groundwater representatives 

will review the well-integrity documentation during the triennial Water Science Center Technical 
39

Reviews. In addition, the Water Science Field Team Groundwater Specialists and the Office of 

Groundwater encourages Water Science Center personnel to develop effective screening tools to 

evaluate well integrity for wells with continuous measurements and to share these with the groundwater 

community.

References cited

Cunningham, W.L., and Schalk, C.W., comps., 2011, GWPD 11-Measuring well depth by use of a 

graduated steel tape (Version: 2010.1): in Groundwater technical procedures of the U.S. Geological 

Survey (Cunningham, W. L., and Schalk, C.W., comps.): U.S. Geological Survey Techniques and 

Methods 1–A1, 151 p. (available only online at http://pubs.usgs.gov/tm/1a1/).

Cunningham, W.L., and Schalk, C.W., comps., 2011, GWPD 17-Conducting an instantaneous change in 

head (Slug) test with a mechanical slug and a submersible pressure transducer (Version: 2010.1): in

Groundwater technical procedures of the U.S. Geological Survey (Cunningham, W. L., and Schalk, 

C.W., comps.): U.S. Geological Survey Techniques and Methods 1–A1, 151 p. (available only online at 

http://pubs.usgs.gov/tm/1a1/).

William M. Alley /s/

Chief, Office of Groundwater

Distribution (bcc): GS-W WSC Directors, GS-W CD, GS-W A, GS-W GW All, OGW

ATTACHMENT: Types of Hydraulic Tests for Well Integrity

ATTACHMENT

Types of Hydraulic Tests for Well Integrity

A change in hydraulic test results over time is an indicator of a change in well integrity. The approach 

used for a hydraulic test is to induce a change in water level in the well and measure the water level as it 

returns to equilibrium. This test can be done in many ways, and some flexibility is necessary based on 

well construction, well accessibility, and instrument configuration, for example. 

A single-well “slug test” using a mechanical slug or air (pneumatic test) is recommended for wells in a 

regular measurement program such as the Collection of Basic Records (CBR) Program. If a single-well 

test using a mechanical slug or air is not possible, another repeatable approach to induce water-level 

change in the well must be used. This can be done using a pump, bailer, or by pouring clean water into 

the well. Method repeatability over time is a key aspect to the choice of method. All future tests should 

be run identically to the baseline test in order to simplify the comparison of results. The text below 

provides basic guidance on several types of tests. Details for each type are available in the literature (for 

example, Butler, 1998).

Mechanical slug

USGS field procedures for conducting a mechanical slug test are provided in Groundwater Technical 

Procedure 17 (Cunningham and Schalk, 2011).
40

Pneumatic slug

A pneumatic slug test differs from a mechanical slug test in that the initiation of the change in water 

level is accomplished with air pressure. This test requires the ability to seal the top of the well and 

pressurize the well, which lowers the water level; then, the sudden release of the pressure results in the 

rise of water level. Such tests are always conducted using a pressure transducer, data logger, and field 

computer. If pressurization is instantaneous, both a falling-head and rising-head test can be conducted.

Most of the time, however, well pressurization is not instantaneous and only the rising-head part of the 

test can be evaluated. 

Poured slug

A poured slug test initiates the water-level change by pouring a known volume of water into the well.

Use of deionized water is preferable. However, if an observation well is being tested, and no waterquality samples are collected, use of tap water may be acceptable. Because this test creates a sudden rise 

in the water level, only a falling head test can be conducted. An electric tape, steel tape, or pressure 

transducer and data logger can be used to record the water level as the water level returns to the pre-test 

(static) conditions.

Bailing the well

A bailer test initiates the water-level change by suddenly removing a known volume of water from the 

well using a bailer. The bailer is lowered into the well and allowed to fill with water; rapid removal of 

the filled bailer creates a sudden drop in water level. The subsequent water-level rise, and return to the 

static water level, is measured over time. Thus, only a rising head test can be conducted. An electric 

tape, steel tape, or pressure transducer and data logger can be used to record the water level as the water 

level returns to the pre-test (static) water level.

Pumping the well

Well tests that involve the pumping of a well (for example, a specific capacity test) are usually not 

required because of the additional time and equipment required. The USGS measures many irrigation, 

production, and public water supply wells. Some of these wells have dedicated pumps and some do not. 

Wells that are pumped regularly, probably are in good connection with the aquifer and do not have to be 

tested unless there is some indication of decreasing connection. The Water Science Centers, however, 

may want to take advantage of wells that have a pump installed but are not regularly pumped. These 

might be back up wells in a public water supply well field, or back up irrigation wells that are used only 

when surface water is not available. Slug tests may not be effective for wells like this, so using the 

dedicated pump to determine specific capacity might be the Water Science Center's most feasible option 

to check well integrity. A baseline specific capacity test (run by the USGS or reported from the original 

well installation) would be helpful in cases of suspected anomalous water-level measurements.

Key points for all methods

The purpose of the hydraulic test for well integrity is to determine if the response of the well has 

changed over time. The goal is not to calculate aquifer properties, although it might be a useful 

additional step. Regardless of the method used to induce water-level change, the following points are 

relevant for a well-integrity test:
41

• Document the volume of the slug and calculate the maximum water-level change in the site 

folder or digital documentation for the well. You should attempt to match this water-level 

change during any future tests. If the hydraulic test approach is the same among tests, a change 

in well integrity can be evaluated directly based on the change in water-level recovery time. 

• The initial rising or falling head test may be terminated when (a) the water level is equal to the 

initial water level, or (b) readings change less than 0.01 ft per 10 minutes, or (c) thirty minutes 

have elapsed. 

• If a mechanical slug-test is performed, a second test can be conducted upon removal of the slug 

if the water level has returned to the initial water level within 30 minutes. 

• Document the time it took the water levels to return to the initial water level for all tests. If the 

water levels in the well did not return to initial levels within 30 minutes, document the percent 

recovery that occurred in 30 minutes. 

• With some additional parameters, an analysis of hydraulic conductivity is possible using all of 

these methods. However, analysis for hydraulic conductivity is not required by this policy. 

In summary, the main objective of a well-integrity test is to evaluate the hydraulic connection between 

the well and the aquifer. The Water Science Center staff has flexibility to determine the best method to 

accomplish this objective. An important aspect is reproducibility, so that, future tests can be compared 

to tests already conducted and documented.

References

Butler, J.J., Jr., 1998, The design, performance, and analysis of slug tests: Lewis Publishers, Boca 

Raton, FL, 252 p.

Cunningham, W.L., and Schalk, C.W., comps., 2011, GWPD 17-Conducting an instantaneous change in 

head (Slug) test with a mechanical slug and a submersible pressure transducer (Version: 2010.1): in

Groundwater technical procedures of the U.S. Geological Survey (Cunningham, W. L., and Schalk, 

C.W., comps.): U.S. Geological Survey Techniques and Methods 1–A1, 151 p. (Available online at 

http://pubs.usgs.gov/tm/1a1/)
42

OGW 11.02 Recommended groundwater field procedures for the U.S. Geological Survey

April 28, 2011

OFFICE OF GROUNDWATER TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 2011.02 

SUBJECT: Recommended groundwater field procedures for the U.S. Geological Survey

The Office of Groundwater is pleased to announce the release of the Techniques and Methods Report 

Book 1, Chapter A1, “Groundwater technical procedures of the U.S. Geological Survey," compiled by 

William L. Cunningham and Charles W. Schalk. This is an on-line only report available at: 

http://pubs.usgs.gov/tm/1a1/.

These groundwater technical procedures (GWPDs), which were compiled in 1995 as an internal tool for 

USGS technicians and hydrologists, have been collected from common techniques cited in USGS 

reports, USGS internal memoranda, and USGS training programs for many years. Because of the 

external demand for documentation of these procedures, and the desire to cite them outside of the 

USGS, they have been reviewed, edited, and compiled in this new report. 

These GWPDs are the groundwater field procedures recommended by the Office of Groundwater. They 

are written in concise language with step-by-step instructions of sufficient detail so that someone with 

limited experience with the procedure but with a basic understanding of the measurements and general 

field work can successfully reproduce the procedure unsupervised. The GWPDs do not provide every 

detail of an individual field task, as the user is expected to have at least nominal field experience. USGS 

Science Centers may modify them for their circumstances, hydrologic conditions, project objectives, 

and Center needs. Modifications to these procedures must be documented in the Science Center or 

project-specific groundwater quality-assurance plan.

The Office of Groundwater recommends downloading the entire document. The Introduction section 

contains important descriptive information. The electronic report is conveniently hyperlinked to the 

individual GWPDs from the table of contents or through the Adobe bookmark option on the left hand 

side of the page. The individual GWPDs also can be downloaded, or referenced by use of the persistent 

URL. GWPDs will be updated periodically as errors are detected or new standard techniques evolve. 

Each procedure is consecutively numbered and contains a version number/date. Any citation of an 

individual procedure should include the version number of the procedure as an integral part of the 

reference. New procedures will be made available as they are developed, and general electronic 

announcements will accompany releases of new GWPDs.

OGW recognizes that there may be a need to access superseded versions of the GWPDs for historical 

reference. An archive of superseded GWPDs will be maintained on the Office of Groundwater web site 

at http://water.usgs.gov/ogw/GWPD/. This online archive will provide all users with access to the most 

current version of the GWPDs, any superseded GWPDs from TM1-A1. Internal USGS users will have 

access to the superseded original internal GWPDs from 1995 and 2008.
43

Comments or suggestions about the subject report should be addressed to Bill Cunningham in the Office 

of Groundwater, 703-648-5005 or wcunning@usgs.gov.

William M. Alley

Chief, Office of Groundwater
44

OGW 11.01 PROGRAMS AND PLANS—Groundwater Flow and Transport Model Archival

February 7, 2011

OFFICE OF GROUNDWATER TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 2011.01

SUBJECT: PROGRAMS AND PLANS—Groundwater Flow and Transport Model Archival 

Groundwater models are often an integral part of U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) investigations and the 

conclusions published in USGS reports often are based on results of these models. As a result, several 

Office of Groundwater (OGW) policy memorandums have given guidance and requirements for 

documentation and archival of groundwater flow and transport models. We list four of these 

memorandums at the end of this memo. The primary purpose of this memorandum is to update the 

policy for model archival. 

All groundwater flow and transport models that are a significant part of groundwater investigations must 

be archived as specified in Office of Groundwater (OGW) Technical Memorandum 00.02 

(http://water.usgs.gov/admin/memo/GW/gw00.02.html). The Water Science Field Team (WSFT) 

Groundwater Specialists act on behalf of the Office of Groundwater to assure that all required 

information is present in the archive and to verify compliance with the policy. This policy continues as 

before with two additions effective for models with completion dates of March 2011 or later. 

One addition to the policy is that the general boundaries of the model (the latitude and longitude of the 

corners of a rectangle outlining the model grid area) should be included in a text file (filename: 

modelgeoref.txt) that contains the georeferencing information and is filed at the upper level directory of 

that particular model archive. This will document the area under study and allow for future map displays 

of the availability of models developed by the USGS. 

The second addition to the policy is that all reports that contain groundwater flow and transport models 

must have their model archive reviewed and approved by the WSFT Groundwater Specialist before the 

report is submitted to the Bureau Approving Official for approval. This requirement has been in place in 

the former Northeast and Southeast Regions for some years and is now extended nationwide, as 

discussed further below.

There has been increased interest in obtaining models from the model archives by public and private 

entities. Many of our cooperators run our archived models. With greater use, it is increasingly important 

that the archives exist and can duplicate information in our published reports. Technical reviews of the 

Water Science Centers (WSC) have found model archives sometimes are insufficient to duplicate the 

model results, there is a significant delay in creating the archives, or archives are never completed. 

Prior to submission of a groundwater modeling report to the Bureau Approving Official, the WSC 

Director or their designee (typically the WSC Groundwater Specialist) should review the archive to 

ensure compliance with OGW Technical Memorandum 00.02. The archived model needs to be run and 

the output compared with the text, figures, and tables in the report to ensure that the data are 

comparable. The WSC should then notify the WSFT Groundwater Specialist that the report and archive 

are available for review. The archive, report, and associated technical reviews should be transmitted to 
45

the WSFT Groundwater Specialist who will verify proper archival and ensure compliance with other 

OGW technical memorandums. The WSFT Groundwater Specialist will notify the originating Center by 

memorandum whether the archive complies with OGW requirements. After any issues are addressed, 

the report and associated materials, including documentation of the WSFT Groundwater Specialist 

review and approval of the archive, can be transmitted to the Bureau Approving Official for final 

approval. 

Memorandums on groundwater flow and transport models: 

• OGW Technical memorandum 96.04--PUBLICATIONS--Policy on documenting the use of 

groundwater simulation in project reports ( 

http://water.usgs.gov/admin/memo/GW/gw96.04.html) 

• OGW Technical memorandum 97.01--Clarification of policy for using non-USGS computer 

programs in groundwater projects (http://water.usgs.gov/admin/memo/GW/gw97.01.html) 

• OGW Technical Memorandum 00.02--PROGRAMS AND PLANS--Update of the National 

Policy to Archive Ground Water Flow and Transport Models 

(http://water.usgs.gov/admin/memo/GW/gw00.02.html) 

• OGW Technical memorandum 2005.02--PUBLICATIONS--Policy on documenting the results 

of new simulations using previously published groundwater models 

(http://water.usgs.gov/admin/memo/GW/gw05.02.html) 

William M. Alley

Chief, Office of Groundwater
46

OGW 10.01 Update of the National Policy to Archive Borehole-Geophysical Logs

October 13, 2009

Office of Groundwater Technical Memorandum 2010.01

Subject: PROGRAMS AND PLANS — Update of the National Policy to Archive BoreholeGeophysical Logs

In 2000, a national policy to archive borehole-geophysical logs was established by OGW Technical 

Memorandum 00.03. Since that time, the Log ASCII Standard (http://cwls.org/las_info.php) has 

become the accepted format for storage and transmittal of log data in the geophysical and groundwater 

science community. All widely used software for geophysical log collection and analysis now 

automatically generates and reads LAS-formatted data. Although the present archive policy allows for 

archive of log data in other ASCII formats, the current situation strongly indicates that LAS should 

become the standard format for log archival within the USGS. This memorandum updates OGW 

Technical Memorandum 00.03 and establishes a new requirement that geophysical logs be archived on 

the USGS Water Science Center’s computer database in LAS format. This memorandum clarifies 

archiving of image-log data, log-type codes, corrections/shifts/post processing, log annotations, and 

NWIS Logs records. This memorandum introduces a web-based system to be used for the proper 

archiving of log data files and headers.

LAS Formatted Logs:

Borehole-geophysical logs are to be archived in LAS 2.0 unwrapped format as one the following groups 

of log types:

1. Individual log of a single parameter collected with a single probe (such as a caliper log); 

2. Combination log of multiple depth-adjusted parameters collected with a single probe (such as a 

multi-function electric log); or 

3. Composite logs of multiple depth-adjusted parameters collected with multiple probes that have 

been depth corrected. 

As policy, an NWIS site must be established for each logged borehole. Geophysical logs should be 

archived by the Water Science Centers on a locally-based computer system under a main directory 

called LOGARCHIVE. Subdirectories for each NWIS 15-digit Site ID number, as previously required, 

are no longer needed. Each geophysical log file name will include the NWIS 15-digit Site ID number, 

date of log collection (year month day), two-letter log-type code, and a sequence number. In addition, 

the file name will include the “.LAS” extension to indicate it is archived in LAS format. The first log of 

the same type collected on a particular day would have a sequence number of 01, the second, 02, etc. An 

example path name for an archived log would be: 

LOGARCHIVE>424531077564201.20000601.MI01.LAS

Image-Log Data:

Image-log data from acoustic- and optical-televiewers are not conducive for conversion to the LAS 

format, so they should be archived in their original binary format and if desired in commonly used 
47

image formats such as jpeg, tiff, or PDF. An executable file of any software needed for analysis of 

original binary formatted geophysical log files should be included in the LOGARCHIVE with 

explanation of security measures for proprietary programs. Files archived in an original binary format 

should be archived with the same naming convention as a LAS file except that it will include the file 

extension assigned by the software manufacturer (.log or .rd for example). The file naming convention 

for extracted images (jpeg, tiff) and PDFs will use a zero date, must be sequentially numbered (IMG01 

... IMG02, PDF01 ... PDF02) and include the proper extension depending on the type of file archived. 

Examples of archived files would be:

LOGARCHIVE>424531077564201.20000601.AT01.log (acoustic televiewer archived as an original 

binary file)

LOGARCHIVE>424531077564201.00000000.PDF01.pdf (the first PDF file archived for this site)

LOGARCHIVE>424531077564201.00000000.IMG01.jpg (the first image file archived for this site)

Log-Type Codes:

The master list of geophysical log-type codes is available from the OGW internal web page 

(http://water.usgs.gov/usgs/ogw/bgas/borehole_archiving/). All efforts should be made to properly 

categorize the log into one of these existing log types. Requests for additional log types should be 

directed to the OGW Borehole Geophysics Advisor (jhwillia@usgs.gov).

Corrections/Shifts/Post Processing

Borehole-geophysical logs archived in the Water Science Center’s database should be the final 

corrected version of the logs. All corrections, depth shifts, and post processing must be complete to 

assure the log is referenced to the designated measuring point and that the data are complete and 

accurate. If necessary, any notes on post processing can be included in the remarks field of the log 

header.

Log Annotations

The condition of the borehole (mud- or water-filled for example) and size of the hole at the time of 

logging should be noted in the remarks or hydrologic conditions section of the log header. This 

information is critical for log analysis and interpretation. In addition, any conditions that influence 

depth-specific log data should be noted along with the depth of the occurrence. For example, if a caliper 

tool sticks and the diameter readings are influenced, then a notation for that depth should be made. If 

numerous depth-specific annotations are required, then a posting text file can be archived along with the 

borehole logs to provide additional information. New software has been developed for log annotations.

NWIS Logs Records

A log record must be entered into NWIS for each borehole-geophysical log archived in the Water 

Science Center’s database. These records are not automatically added but are necessary to assure 

conformity with NWIS architecture. New software has been developed for generating the logs records.

Web-Based Archiving System:

A new USGS web-based system has been developed for archiving LAS files as well as addressing many 

of the issues described in this memorandum. Users can access the system from the following URL:

http://logarchiver.usgs.gov. The web-based system should be used to archive newly collected 

geophysical logs and to transfer existing logs archived in each Centers’ computer database to the 
48

approved format. Through the application of the web-based system and associated software, the OGW 

will assist each Center in the transfer of their geophysical logs that have been previously archived 

following the guidelines presented in OGW Technical Memorandum 00.03.

Header templates for the widely used WellCAD log-analysis software are available from the OGW 

internal web page (http://water.usgs.gov/usgs/ogw/bgas/borehole_archiving/). The templates are 

interfaced with the new USGS web-based system to generate LAS-compatible headers for individual, 

combination, and composite log archives in English or metric units.

The Regional Groundwater Specialists are to act on behalf of the Office of Groundwater to assure that 

the borehole-geophysical logs collected by the Water Science Centers are properly archived.

Adherence to the updated policy of archiving borehole-geophysical logs will ensure that data collected 

by the USGS Water Science Centers will remain available in a readily usable format for support of 

published reports, future scientific investigations, and data requests from the public.

William M. Alley

Chief, Office of Groundwater
49

OGW 09.02 Establishment of a National Policy to Archive Surface-Geophysical Data

February 5, 2009

OFFICE OF GROUND WATER TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 2009.02

SUBJECT: Establishment of a National Policy to Archive Surface-Geophysical Data 

The U. S. Geological Survey (USGS) collects surface-geophysical data as part of many water-resource 

investigations. At present, there is no standardized format for storing digital surface-geophysical data 

and there is no readily available means to store the data in the National Water Information System 

(NWIS). The purpose of this memorandum is to provide policy and guidance for archiving surfacegeophysical data to preserve them for future review and use.

This surface-geophysical data archive policy is in accordance with USGS policy that states that all field 

notes, measurements, and observations shall be archived indefinitely (Hubbard, 1992). The fundamental 

purpose of the archive is to store original data, record the unique details of the data collection, and 

document the hydrologic conditions under which the data were collected. Through this archive policy, 

surface-geophysical data and metadata will be readily accessible for future research, analyses, 

reinterpretation, and reproducibility testing. Each USGS Water Science Center (WSC) collecting 

surface-geophysical data must have a written policy for data management and permanent file archiving 

procedures. This policy should be documented in the Center’s Data-Management Plan and Archiving 

Plan, both of which are a necessary part of the Center’s overall Ground-Water Quality Assurance Plan 

(see Brunett and others, 1997 for details). The Archive Plan must be consistent with WRD's scientific 

records management policy and applicable records disposition schedules 

(http://water.usgs.gov/usgs/srm/). 

As more surface-geophysical data collection methods become digital, the ability to archive data is 

facilitated. Any electronic files created with a surface-geophysical survey must be permanently archived 

along with all paper field notes. Field notes should document the date and time of field collection, along 

with the names of all electronic files. Paper copies of maps, sketches, and raw data should be 

electronically scanned and saved. When possible, proprietary binary files should be exported to ASCII 

format. All data that cannot be converted to ASCII format should be archived in the original binary 

format along with versions of the software used for viewing, processing, and (or) displaying the data. In 

addition, data that are displayed in profiles or plots should be stored in graphic file or printabledocument format (pdf). Although most data are digital, some analog data are still collected. This archive 

policy requires that analog data be “digitized” by typing results into a digital file and archived for future 

use. Examples of analog data include manually recorded instrument readings, such as (but not limited 

to) data from electromagnetic induction or gravity meters. If it is infeasible to digitize the results, the 

analog charts or recorded information should be archived as paper files or pdf files.

Information critical to each data set should be preserved along with the raw data. Mandatory elements 

for archiving surface-geophysical data are listed in table 1 and are compatible with NWIS header 

information. Elements critical to specific surface-geophysical methods are listed in table 2. Because new 

surface-geophysical methods and equipment are continually being developed, the list of equipment in 

table 2 is not exhaustive and should be considered a guideline for each Center’s Ground Water Quality 
50

Assurance Plan, which includes a surface-geophysical archive plan. The surface-geophysical archive 

plan should detail the following critical elements:

• Handling, back-up, and storage procedures for electronic data at time of data collection. It is 

recommended that, at a minimum, all digital data be temporarily backed up on a removable, nonvolatile data storage medium (e.g. CD-ROM, flash drive, etc.) or permanently stored on a server 

at the end of each day. 

• A list of all surface-geophysical methods used by the Center and codes for naming conventions 

• A specific database structure including: server, main directory (called SG-Archive), subdirectories, and file naming structure. Each directory should include a “readme” file that 

describes the contents of the directory, references to any publications that include the data and 

(or) analyses of the data, and information on software used to acquire or interpret the data. The 

“readme” file should be in plain ASCII text format. Examples of database structures are given at 

http://water.usgs.gov/usgs/ogw/bgas/surface_archiving/Data_Structures.pdf. 

• File naming conventions that indicate at a minimum the type of data using the appropriate code 

(table 2) and a sequence number. In addition, file names can include date, time, profile 

directions, and (or) location tags. 

• Timeframe for when data are archived after data collection. 

• Policy for archiving software used to collect, process, and analyze data. 

• Policy for back-up procedures for archived data. The electronic archive must be on a computer 

that is routinely backed up as done for other mission critical information. 

Table 1: Summarizes the mandatory elements that should be archived with surface-geophysical data in 

an ASCII text file (http://water.usgs.gov/usgs/ogw/bgas/surface_archiving/Table1.pdf).

Table 2: Summarizes the specific information that should be archived for representative surfacegeophysical equipment (http://water.usgs.gov/usgs/ogw/bgas/surface_archiving/Table2.pdf).

The Regional Ground-Water Specialists are to act on behalf of the Office of Ground Water (OGW) to 

review the surface-geophysical data archives of the Water Science Centers during technical reviews. 

Adherence to systematic backup and archive procedures for surface-geophysical data is a responsibility 

of Water Science Center staff and management. Proper archiving of the data will ensure data will be 

available for support of published reports, future scientific investigations, and data requests from the 

public. 

If you have any questions or comments about the policies and guidance in this memo, please contact 

John W. Lane, Chief, OGW Branch of Geophysics, at jwlane@usgs.gov. Additional information, 

including an editable spreadsheet of mandatory elements, is at 

http://water.usgs.gov/usgs/ogw/bgas/surface_archiving/.
51

References cited

Brunett, J.O., Barber, N.L, Burns, A.W., Fogelman, R.P., Gilles, D.C., Lidwin, R.A, and Mack, T.J., 

1997, A quality-assurance plan for District ground-water activities of the U. S. Geological Survey: U. S. 

Geological Survey Open-File Report 97-11, 44 p.

Hubbard, E.F., 1992, Policy recommendations for management and retention of hydrologic data of the 

U. S. Geological Survey: U. S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 92-56, 32 p.

William M. Alley /s/

Chief, Office of Ground Water 
52

OGW 09.01 Update on Guidance for the Preparation, Approval, and Archiving of Aquifer-Test Results

January 7, 2009

OFFICE OF GROUND WATER TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 2009.01

Subject: Update on Guidance for the Preparation, Approval, and Archiving of Aquifer-Test Results

Analyses of aquifer tests to define the hydraulic characteristics of a specific aquifer or aquifer system 

are an integral part of our interpretive ground-water investigations. The results of these analyses are 

critical components of flow-system or solute-transport analyses and important to conclusions published 

in U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) reports. Consequently, reported aquifer characteristics such as 

hydraulic conductivity, transmissivity, storativity, and other hydraulic characteristics derived from 

aquifer-test analyses must be clearly documented and technically defensible. The purpose of this 

memorandum is to reiterate guidelines and procedures necessary to obtain approval for the results of 

aquifer tests and to provide guidelines for archival of the test results. This memorandum is an update of 

Office of Ground Water Technical Memorandum 94.02. 

BACKGROUND

According to WRD Publications Guide (U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 87-0205, Article 

11.01.2) "....calculated hydraulic characteristics such as transmissivity, hydraulic conductivity, and 

storage coefficient, are interpretive and must be approved by the Director, unless cited from a Directorapproved report." Approval of aquifer tests is currently delegated to the Regional Ground-Water 

Specialists. Approval is required for all calculations of aquifer hydraulic characteristics to be released to 

the general public, to cooperators, or published in or otherwise used to support the results of 

investigations reported in USGS-approved reports.

Estimates of aquifer hydraulic characteristics commonly are obtained from "textbook" or published 

values for various lithologies. These are not considered calculations of aquifer characteristics and do not 

require approval under the terms of this memorandum. In addition, estimates of transmissivity 

determined on the basis of specific-capacity measurements do not require approval. Results from wellperformance tests (typically slug tests) that are used to check the connection of observation wells with 

the aquifer also do not require approval, unless they are used to report on aquifer characteristics. 

DOCUMENTATION, APPROVAL, AND ARCHIVAL OF AQUIFER-TEST RESULTS

While the USGS encourages the publication of aquifer-test results in reports, it is not feasible to publish 

the data and graphical results for every test conducted. In all cases, either as part of a formal report or as 

a separate packet (for archival), aquifer-test results should be submitted to the Regional Ground-Water 

Specialist for review and subsequent approval. The Regional Ground-Water Specialist reviews the 

report or aquifer-test packet to assess (1) that the report or packet contains the necessary data and related 

information to properly analyze the subject test(s), and (2) that the analyses and results are technically 

defensible.
53

Elements that typically should be submitted for review are listed below. These elements assume an 

aquifer test that is comprised of a pumping well and one or more observation wells and should be 

modified as appropriate for other types of tests such as a single-well slug test. The eight elements are as 

follows:

1. A brief description of the test which includes the purpose, date, test procedures, and methods of 

analysis of the results. Any unique or unusual features or problems related to the test or to the 

collection and analysis of test data should be described. A brief description of the assumptions 

used in analyzing the test results also should be included, as needed to clarify the test.

2. A sketch of the test site showing the distances from the pumped well to all observation wells and 

the location of any boundaries, streams, springs, ditches, pumping or flowing wells, or other 

features that possibly could influence test results. Where the test includes multiple wells, the 

sketch of the test site should be drawn to scale.

3. Description of test and observation well construction, including screened and open interval(s), 

casing and screen diameters, and location of filter pack and grouted intervals.

4. A description of the site hydrogeologic characteristics, including sections that show the major 

water-bearing and confining units. The intervals of the pumping and observation wells that are 

screened or open should be depicted on the logs or sections.

5. Complete time-discharge records of the pumped well.

6. Complete water-level records and hydrographs showing pre-test trends and water levels during 

the pumping and recovery phases.

7. Description of methods and computations showing adjustments to drawdown for pre-test trends, 

adjustments of recovery for projected drawdown, or adjustments to account for extraneous 

effects not related to pumping or recovery, such as barometric and tidal effects or other 

interferences.

8. All plots of observed or adjusted drawdown or recovery data used to determine hydraulic 

characteristics, showing match points (when used) and computations.

It is recognized that in some cases it is not possible to provide a complete description of these eight 

elements. Investigators are encouraged to discuss their plans with the Regional Ground-Water Specialist 

to determine the requirements for a particular test packet or report before submitting it for review and 

approval.

A transmittal memorandum, indicating that the test results have been reviewed by the Science Center 

Ground-Water Specialist or their designee, shall be included with the aquifer-test packet or report. This 

review should include some checking of the field data and a verification that the test results are 

appropriate, given the site hydrogeology, well construction, and test conditions and that the test results 

have been reviewed independently before being submitted for regional review and approval.

Following approval by the Regional Ground-Water Specialist, the packet or report will be returned to 

the originating Science Center or office where the hydraulic characteristics and related site and well data 

should be entered into the National Water Information System (NWIS) and the packet and associated 

information appropriately archived in a Science Center "aquifer-test archive." These archived aquifertest files should include the approved aquifer-test packet and the packet-review transmittal memoranda. 

The aquifer-test archive will be reviewed as a routine part of Science Center ground-water technical 

reviews.
54

If computer software is used in the aquifer-test analysis, the policy outlined in Office of Ground Water 

(OGW) Technical Memorandum 91.04 and clarified in OGW Technical Memorandum 97.01 must be 

followed. This policy requires that the theoretical basis of the software be documented and that it be 

demonstrated that a test-data set can be correctly analyzed using the software. Submittal of a computersoftware analysis does not eliminate the need for the information described in element 8, above.

The aquifer-test archive can be a paper or electronic archive (or usually a combination of both). Most 

current aquifer tests will have electronic data collected as a part of conducting the aquifer test (for 

example, output from a pressure transducer or data logger). These electronic data must be archived. The 

Science Center has the option of archiving these data in the ADAPS (Automated Data Processing 

System) subsystem of NWIS or in a local on-line electronic archive subject to the Science Center’s 

regular computer backups. If both a paper and an electronic archive exist, there should be a cross 

reference indicating the existence of each. That is, the electronic archive should include a “read-me” file 

explaining where the paper archive is physically located, and the paper archive should include a notation 

describing the location of the electronic archive. 

In the electronic aquifer-test archive, a sub-directory should be created for each aquifer test (or project) 

and named according to the associated project report (for example, SIR2007-2083 Cedar Rapids) or site 

location (if the results are not included in a project report). All output from the data-collection 

equipment should be included in this archive system (for example, data logger output files, output files 

from data-analysis programs such as AQTESOLV, and summary data files created in other software 

packages such as Excel). If possible, all files should be saved as text files (ASCII), in addition to any 

proprietary formats, to ensure that they remain available even if proprietary software changes. 

This memorandum discusses documentation, approval, and archival procedures in the context of singleor multiple-well aquifer tests. Aquifer characteristics also may be calculated by other methods, such as, 

determination of aquifer diffusivity from attenuation of a tidal pulse or flood wave through an aquifer, 

or using hydrograph-recession characteristics. The same procedures should be followed for these types 

of analyses, and information in the report or packet must adequately enable reviewers to visualize the 

physical system, evaluate all data, verify all calculations, and assess that the methods and results are 

defensible.

In summary, reported aquifer characteristics that are calculated from aquifer tests must be clearly 

documented and technically defensible. As such, it is required that: (1) the author prepares a formal 

report or aquifer-test packet that includes the eight elements outlined in this memo; (2) the report/packet 

is submitted to the Science Center Ground-Water Specialist (or their designee) for technical review of 

aquifer test analyses; (3) the Science Center Ground-Water Specialist (or their designee) prepares a 

formal memo of review; (4) the author addresses the Science Center Specialist’s comments and 

transmits the report/packet to the Regional Ground-Water Specialist for aquifer-test review and 

approval; and (5) once approved, aquifer test results must be archived and entered into NWIS.

William M. Alley /signed/

Chief, Office of Ground Water

This memorandum supersedes Office of Ground Water Technical 

Memorandum No. 94.02
55

OGW 06.02 Policy and Archive Guidance for Ground-Water Data Collection using Handheld Computers

March 09, 2006 

OFFICE OF GROUND WATER TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM No. 2006.02

SUBJECT: Policy and Archive Guidance for Ground-Water Data Collection using Handheld Computers

The purpose of this memorandum is to provide policy and guidance for ground-water data collection 

and archive using MONKES software. The memo contains the following information:

1. Background on the MONKES suite of handheld computer programs

2. Recommendations for use of the MONKES1 program

3. Installation, documentation, and support of the MONKES1 program

4. Guidelines for protecting and archiving electronic data from the MONKES1 program

Background on MONKES

The Multi Optional Network Key Entry System (MONKES) is a series of programs on handheld 

computers for ground-water data entry and processing. MONKES modules were originally created by 

Steve Predmore (CA), Burl Goree (LA), and Ron Seanor (LA). It is designed to operate on a handheld 

computer that has a Windows CE Operating System.

The MONKES1 program is used to input and process ground-water level measurements in the field. A 

new version of MONKES1 (version 3.1) has been expanded to include the collection of site-visit 

information at wells instrumented with digital recorders. MONKES1 currently is used in more than 18 

Water Science Centers. The MONKES2 program is used to enter site data for new ground-water sites 

and update existing site information. The MONKES3 program is used to enter ground-water water-level 

and water-quality field data. MONKES2 and MONKES3 currently are available as beta versions. 

Recommendations for use of MONKES1

It is the vision of the Office of Ground Water to utilize mobile technology to improve workflow 

processes in the collection, processing, and quality assurance of our ground-water data. As such, the 

Office of Ground Water recommends the use of MONKES1 for routine ground-water level data 

collection throughout the U.S. Geological Survey Water Science Centers. The MONKES1 program 

offers the following advantages to paper notes: 

(1) one time data entry, avoiding transcription and math errors, 

(2) immediate data validation against current NWIS reference lists, 

(3) easily accessible NWIS site information to verify location of wells, 

(4) a listing of latest water-level measurements for data verification, 

(5) an immediate check for completeness of record, avoiding inadvertent omission of required fields, 

(6) timely data entry into NWIS by use of GWSI batch entry, and 

(7) the archive of all site visit data in an XML file which can be easily transferred to a permanent online 

archive.
56

Installation, Documentation, and Support of MONKES1

Jerry Feese, Kansas Water Science Center, provides on-going support for MONKES1. For help, email 

should be sent to the Lotus group GS-W Help MONKES. There is also a MONKES Interest Group, a 

forum for users of the programs. Email can be sent to this group at GS-W MONKES. Limited support 

also is provided for MONKES2 and MONKES3, as development of these programs continues.

MONKES1, v3.1 requires a Personal Data Assistant (PDA) handheld computer that has a Windows CE 

Operating System of Pocket PC 2000, 2002, 2003, or 2003 second edition. MONKES1 has been 

successfully tested on several models of Pocket PCs. The MONKES programs are not compatible with 

PDAs using operating systems other than Windows CE, which include Palm, Symbian, Linux, Delphi, 

and BlackBerry. MONKES 3.1 currently is not compatible with Windows Mobile 5.0 (Pocket PC 

2005). However, version 3.1 is currently being ported to .NET, which is compatible with Pocket PC 

2005 and is backward compatible with previous versions of Pocket PC. Contact GS-W Help MONKES 

for an updated list of Pocket PCs that work with MONKES. 

MONKES1, v 3.1 is now available. All of the information needed for downloading, installing, and 

operating the MONKES1 program is available at URL http://wwwrustla.er.usgs.gov/MONKES1(this 

link no longer active, replaced with https://collaboration.usgs.gov/wg/FCIS/MONKES/default.aspx). 

Documentation for the program includes chapters covering the following information: introductory 

material, a checklist for getting started, downloading the programs, setting up field trips, file 

management, tip sheets, version history, and system documentation for programmers.

Guidelines for Protecting and Archiving Electronic Data from MONKES programs

As stated above, the use of handheld computers for field data collection improves the overall efficiency 

of our data collection activities. However, electronic field notes are a significant change in our typical 

practices, and thus we must remind ourselves of our obligation as federal employees to collect, store, 

and archive this information for posterity. Procedures must be in place to assure that irreplaceable 

original data collected in the field are not lost. Instructions for safeguarding files in the field are 

included in the MONKES1 User Manual, Chapter B 'Setting Paths', for output and backup files. The use 

of Non-Volatile Memory, such as Compact Flash or Secure Digital data cards, is mandatory for storing 

data files in the field. Optionally, water-level reports from the MONKES1 program can be printed and 

stored in site folders.

As with any work flow processes in a Water Science Center, all data handling, backup, and storage 

procedures should be documented in the Center’s Ground-Water Quality Assurance or Data 

Management Plan, and the Archive Plan. Archiving is defined as the systematic process of storing data 

to protect it from change or loss. Open File Report 97-11, "A Quality-Assurance Plan for District 

Ground-Water Activities of the U.S. Geological Survey" outlines the steps to quality assure the 

archiving process, which includes the establishment and maintenance of a District Archive Plan. 

Additionally, the process of electronic archiving includes the capability to easily recover the data for 

future uses. To that end, all XML files produced by MONKES1 are considered to be original data and 

must be stored online in a directory structure on a Water Science Center server using a standard naming 

convention. The archive server should be on a regular backup schedule. The following directory 

structure is provided as an example for the XML archive, where 'party' is the MONKES Party field, and 
57

the 'date time' is in the format, YYYYMMDDHHMMSS, for example, 

20050302174833.gfeese.OD.xml. 

GWARCHIVE

__________________________________________________

MONKES1 MONKES2 MONKES3

datetime.party.OD.xml datetime.party.OD.xml datetime.party.OD.xml

In addition to the .xml output, MONKES produces a GWSI batch transaction file using the naming 

convention, datetime.party.gwsi. These files can be recreated at any time from the .xml files, so they 

need not be archived. A useful tool, a program called MobileSync written by Burl Goree, can be used to 

make the process of moving files easier. Because many wells often are included within an individual 

XML file, this file structure will be difficult to search for specific wells. In the future, a script will be 

written to search on a structure such as this.

In conclusion, the Office of Ground Water recommends the use of MONKES1 for routine ground-water 

level data collection. Use of the MONKES1 software will improve workflow processes in the collection, 

processing, and quality assurance of our ground-water data. Systematic backup and archival of the data 

collected using this software will ensure the reproducibility of these data. 

William M. Alley/signed/

Chief, Office of Ground Water
58

OGW 06.01 Storage of Water-Level Data for Ground Water

February 2, 2006 

Office of Water Quality Technical Memorandum No. 2006.01

Office of Ground Water Technical Memorandum No. 2006.01

SUBJECT: Storage of Water-Level Data for Ground Water

This memorandum specifies and clarifies U.S Geological Survey (USGS) requirements for the storage 

of water-level data collected at wells. The requirements apply to all USGS-related National, regional, 

and local programs and projects that measure water levels in wells. Projects for which water-level data 

are collected include studies for which data on water quality, aquifer chemistry, and microbiology might 

be a primary focus.

STORAGE REQUIREMENTS FOR WATER-LEVEL DATA

All ground-water-level data must be stored in NWIS (Brunett and others,

1997, p. 13), as specified below.

1. All time-series (continuous) ground-water levels that can be

stored in the NWIS Automated Data Processing System (ADAPS) must be stored

in that database. 

o ADAPS currently does not accept data collected more frequently than

once per second, up to a total of 2881 values per day. Some data sets may

exceed this threshold and thus are excluded from this requirement. An

example is aquifer-test data. Water levels collected for aquifer tests may

be stored outside of NWIS, but must be stored in digital form in the

aquifer test archive described in Office of Ground Water Technical

Memorandum 94.02. 

o The tape-down measurement made to calibrate a continuous recorder

storing time-series water-level data is to be entered into the NWIS

Ground-Water Site Inventory (GWSI). 

o Beginning with NWIS version 4.5, the discrete water-level data

residing in GWSI can be brought into the HYDRA program as a reference data

set for quality assuring the continuous water-level data. The policy on

editing unit-value data using HYDRA is described in Office of Ground Water

Technical Memorandum No. 2005.03.

2. All discrete measurements of ground-water levels collected as part of

water-quality as well as ground-water data-collection activities must

be stored in GWSI. 

o Discrete ground-water-level data collected as part of water-quality

projects and programs must be entered onto paper or electronic field forms

and into GWSI (USGS National Field Manual for the Collection of

Water-Quality Data (NFM), Chapters 1.3, 4.2, and 6.0.3). The water-quality

field form “Ground-Water Quality Notes” has been modified to provide the
59

information and codes needed for entry of required data into GWSI. The

field form can be accessed at http://water.usgs.gov/owq/FieldManual/; under

“Announcements.” Click on “Water-quality field forms for USGS use.” 

o Water-quality personnel also enter their ground-water-level data into

QWDATA in order to expedite analysis of their water-quality data within the

context of the hydrologic system. 

o Those collecting and managing water-level data are responsible for

ensuring that the data entered onto field forms and into the GWSI and

QWDATA subsystems of NWIS are correct and consistent. 

FUTURE PLANS

The Offices of Ground Water and Water Quality are unified in their goal to avoid duplication of data 

entry and inconsistency within NWIS subsystems. For example, with version 4.1 of NWIS, waterquality field measurements (pH, dissolved oxygen, etc.) that previously were stored in GWSI were 

moved electronically into QWDATA. Although a timetable has not been set, the Offices are determined 

to continue working toward a single-entry system for water-level data.

REFERENCES

Brunett, J.O., Barber, N.L., Burns, A.W, Fogelman, R.P., Gillies, D.C.,

Lidwin, R.A., and Mack, T.J., 1997, A quality-assurance plan for

district ground-water activities of the U.S. Geological Survey: U.S.

Geological Survey Open-File Report 97-11, accessed December 14, 2005, at

http://water.usgs.gov/ogw/pubs/OFR9711/.

Office of Ground Water Technical Memorandum No. 1994.02, Guidance for the

preparation, approval, and archiving of aquifer-test results, 1994,

accessed December 14, 2005, at http://water.usgs.gov/admin/memo/GW/gw94.02.html.

Office of Ground Water Technical Memorandum No. 2005.03, Use of the Program

HYDRA to Estimate or Modify Unit Values in ADAPS, 2005, accessed

December 14, 2005, at http://water.usgs.gov/admin/memo/GW/gw05.03.html.

Wilde, F.D., 2005, Ground Water, Section 1.3 of Chapter 1 (version 1.2,

dated 8/2005) in National Field Manual for the Collection of

Water-Quality Data, accessed December 14, 2005, at

http://water.usgs.gov/owq/FieldManual/chapter1/Ch1_contents.html.

Wilde, F.D., Schertz, T.L., and Radtke, D.B., 1999, Quality-Control

Samples, Section 4.3 of Chapter 4 (dated 9/1999) in National Field

Manual for the Collection of Water-Quality Data, accessed December 14,

2005, at http://water.usgs.gov/owq/FieldManual/chapter4/html/Ch4_contents.html.
60

Wilde, F.D., and Radtke, D.B., 2005, Ground Water, Section 6.0.3 of Chapter

6 (version 1.2, dated 8/2005) in National Field Manual for the

Collection of Water-Quality Data, accessed December 14, 2005, at

http://water.usgs.gov/owq/FieldManual/Chapter6/6.0_contents.html

Timothy L. Miller /s/ William L. Cunningham /s/ 

for

William M. Alley

Chief, Office of Water 

Quality

Chief, Office of Ground 

Water
61

OGW 05.02 PUBLICATIONS--Policy on documenting the results of new simulations using previously 

published ground-water models

March 22, 2005 

OFFICE OF GROUND WATER TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM NO. 2005.02 

Subject: PUBLICATIONS--Policy on documenting the results of new simulations using previously 

published ground-water models 

The Office of Ground Water has received numerous inquiries about the appropriate level of 

documentation required for additional numerical simulations made using a previously published groundwater model (a flow or transport model). The existing policy on documenting the development of a 

ground-water model in project reports is stated in Office of Ground Water Technical Memorandum No. 

96.04 (http://water.usgs.gov/admin/memo/GW/gw96.04.html). However, if a ground-water flow or 

transport model has already been developed and documented in a published report to aid in solving a 

previous problem, that model may be useful in addressing new questions raised by our cooperators in 

managing their resources. The documentation required for additional numerical simulations made using 

a previously published ground-water model follows the intent of the original policy but can be 

condensed. In this memorandum, “original model” refers to a model that was previously developed and 

documented in a published report, and “scenario model” refers to new model simulations using a 

previously developed, documented, and published ground-water model. As used here, scenario model 

results are based on new stresses, such as the simulation of additional wells, pumping rates, or chemical 

sources that differ from the original model. A scenario model does not involve major changes to the 

structure of the original model (such as changing the grid, boundary conditions, transmitting properties, 

or transport properties used in the model), which would require substantial documentation and 

recalibration of the original model. 

Scenario model simulations must be documented in a published report to ensure that the simulations are 

appropriate for the model, the stresses applied in the simulations are fully described, and the results are 

available to the public on an equal basis. Models always involve simplifications and are developed to 

answer specific questions. The appropriateness of the model to address new questions must be evaluated 

and described in the report. In addition, as stated in Water Resources Division Memorandum No. 94.19, 

“Longstanding USGS policy requires that information be released to all interested parties (the public) on 

an equal basis, and that no interpretive information be released to the public without prior approval of 

the Director.” This requirement to publish new findings is reiterated in the U.S. Geological Survey 

Manual (http://www.usgs.gov/usgs-manual/500/500-14.html) and in Office of Water Information 

Technical Memorandum No. 2002.11 on “Reemphasizing the importance of public release of 

investigation results” 

http://water.usgs.gov/admin/memo/GW/gw05.02.html

In documenting scenario model results, only the aspects of the original model that are changing or are 

particularly relevant to the discussion of the adequacy of the model to simulate the new stresses need be 

described in the report. A complete re-documentation of the original model construction is not 
62

necessary. The original model can simply be referenced in the scenario model report. All the details of 

the construction and calibration of the original model need not be reproduced in the new report 

documenting the scenario model results. The main components of a scenario model report are: 

1. A description of the new problem to be evaluated. 

2. A justification of the appropriateness of using the original model (with specific attention to the 

appropriateness of the boundary conditions) to adequately simulate the new problem. 

3. A description of the new stresses being simulated and any other changes made to the original 

model. This description should be complete enough that a reader could independently reproduce 

the stresses and other changes for the simulation. 

4. For transient models, a description of the initial conditions and how they were determined. 

5. A description of the simulation results. 

6. A discussion of model limitations and the usefulness of the simulation results in answering the 

problem posed. 

In addition, the scenario model must be archived in accordance with Office of Ground Water Technical 

Memorandum No. 00.02 on the archiving of models 

(http://water.usgs.gov/admin/memo/GW/gw00.02.html). 

In many cases, reports documenting scenario models can be relatively short and concise, and can be 

released online-only, if desired. These reports, whether online-only or printed, must address the critical 

elements listed above, and they must go through the complete USGS report review and approval 

process. 

William M. Alley /s/ 

Chief, Office of Ground Water 
63

OGW 03.03 Agreement Forms for Gaging Station and Observation Well Installations and Transfers

Agreement Forms for Gaging Station and Observation Well Installations and Transfers

September 17, 2003 

Office of Surface Water Technical Memorandum No. 2003.08 

Office of Ground Water Technical Memorandum No. 2003.03

Subject: Agreement Forms for Gaging Station and Observation Well Installations and Transfers 

The purpose of this memorandum is to announce the availability of updated agreement forms that 

should be used for installation of and transfer of ownership of WRD gaging stations or observation 

wells. These forms, identified below, retain their previously assigned U.S. Geological Survey Form 

Numbers and must be accessed through the USGS forms page, 

https://gsvaresa01.er.usgs.gov/Welcome.nsf?Open. 

The updated forms correct weaknesses identified in the lawsuit "Laurence v. USA et al", which 

involved a personal injury at a (former) USGS gaging station that had been transferred to the Placer 

County Water Agency (California). They also reflect the Solicitor's recommendation to use 

simpler, more direct language. The underlying established WRD policies on property use and transfer 

agreements remain unchanged until such time as they are superseded by new Bureau policy. 

1. U.S. Geological Survey Form Number: 9-1482 

 Title: Agreement for Installation and Maintenance of Gaging Station 

· Reference: wrdpolicy94.008.html, dated Feb. 18, 1994 

· Approval authority: District Chief 

· Note: For the purpose of this agreement, "gaging station" includes 

 all stilling wells and structures, including cableways and equipment, used in 

 the operation and maintenance of the monitoring site. 

2. U.S. Geological Survey Form Number: 9-1483 

 Title: Well Drilling/Sampling Agreement 

· Reference: wrdpolicy94.008.html, dated Feb. 18, 1994 

· Approval authority: District Chief 

· Note: During the first 5 years of the agreement only the government 

 may terminate, after 5 years both parties may terminate. 

3. U.S. Geological Survey Form Number: 9-3106 

 Title: Well Transfer Agreement 

· Reference: wrdpolicy87.017.html, dated Jan. 15, 1987 

· Approval authority: Regional Hydrologist 

· Notes:
64

a. Well transfers to private parties are not authorized during the 

 first 5 years of the agreement. 

b. USGS employees are not authorized to give away government property. 

 All equipment not part of the well structure (for example, recorders 

 and sensing devices) should be retained by USGS and not transferred 

 with the well. 

4. U.S. Geological Survey Form Numbers: 

 9-3107 Title: Gage Transfer Agreement 

 9-3107-a Title: Gage Transfer Agreement to a Federal Agency 

· Reference: wrdpolicy92.012.html, dated Dec. 06, 1991 

· Approval authority: Regional Hydrologist 

· Notes: 

a. The Gaging Station transfer requires the USGS to share pertinent safety policies and procedures with 

the transferee, and requires the transferee to perform his own independent engineering analysis 

regarding the identification of design or structural deficiencies, and the suitability of the gaging station 

for the use intended. A memorandum to the record is recommended stating: (1) why the gaging station 

was transferred; (2) that no equipment was transferred with the gaging station; (3) that [a list of] safety 

policies and guidelines pertaining to the gaging station were provided to the Transferee; and (4) the date 

that permission for the transfer was obtained from the Region. A copy of the signed transfer agreement 

and the Transferee's landowner permission agreement shall be filed with this memorandum. 

b. The form 9-3107 should be used to transfer a gaging station to state, local, or tribal government 

agency or Federal Energy Regulatory Commission licensee. Form 9-3107a should be used to transfer a 

gage to another Federal agency. 

c. USGS employees are not authorized to give away government property. All equipment owned by the 

USGS that is not part of the gaging station structure (for example, recorders and sensing devices) should 

be retained by USGS and not transferred with the gaging station. 

d. The Transferee, if not the landowner, must obtain written permission from the landowner to operate 

and maintain the gaging station. 

/signed by Robert R. Mason/ /signed by William L. Cunningham/

Stephen F. Blanchard William M. Alley 

Chief, Office of Surface Water Chief, Office of Ground Water 
65

OGW 00.03 PROGRAMS AND PLANS-Establishment of a National Policy to Archive BoreholeGeophysical Logs

PROGRAMS AND PLANS-Establishment of a National Policy to Archive Borehole-Geophysical Logs

September 27, 2000

OFFICE OF GROUND WATER TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 00.03

Subject: PROGRAMS AND PLANS-Establishment of a National Policy to Archive

 Borehole-Geophysical Logs

 Borehole-geophysical logging is an important part of many geologic and hydrologic investigations.

Increasingly, geophysical logs are collected as digital data rather than paper analog charts. At present, 

the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) has no standardized format for storing digital geophysical logs.

Establishment of a standard format for storing digital logs is important for the future development and 

application of USGS geophysical databases. This memorandum presents such standards and establishes 

the policy that all digital geophysical logs collected after October 30, 2000 be archived in a District 

database following these standards. The standard format has been designed to include the necessary

information, to correspond to but not duplicate what is stored in the National Water Information System 

(NWIS), and to be flexible so as to not greatly increase manual data entry.

 The borehole-geophysical log archive must be in ASCII format and consist

of the following:

1. Header that includes the NWIS site ID, station name, and other ID; logging operation and procedures; 

log-measuring point; magnetic declination; borehole and hydrologic conditions at the time of logging;

and probe and calibration/standardization information (probe type and serial number and 

calibration/standardization date, standard, and response).

2. Data-identification heading that immediately precedes the data records and describes the data by 

column and includes a depth column heading followed by log parameter column heading(s); the column 

headings consist of two lines, parameter names on the top and corresponding units below.

3. Data records that include depth values and corresponding data values for one or more log parameters.

 ASCII headings and data records generated following the Log ASCII Standard

(http://www.cwls.org/las-info.html) and other common digital logging formats are acceptable for 

archiving purposes. An example log archive entry is shown in Attachment A.

 An NWIS site must be established for the logged borehole. Borehole construction greatly affects 

geophysical log response. Many boreholes are logged prior to their final completion so timing and 

details of construction in relation to log-data collection is critical for log analysis. The casing and 

opening type, depth, and diameter data for the hole at the time of logging must be part of the 

construction data sequence entries in NWIS. Information on logging operation and procedures,
66

log-measuring point, magnetic declination for magnetically oriented logs, borehole and hydrologic 

conditions, and probe calibration/standardization also is critical for log analysis but presently is not 

stored in NWIS. This information, therefore, must be stored as part of the log header.

 As shown in the example (Attachment A), any pre-existing log headers should be included after the 

standard header and before the headings and data records. In most cases, digital logs can be easily 

entered into the data archive by simply adding the standard header in front of the log-data file. A log 

header entry program has been developed to aid in the generation of the standard header.

 Some digital log data such as acoustic- and optical-televiewer and borehole-radar data are not 

conducive for conversion to a standard format, so they will need to be archived in their existing form.

Software needed to display and analyze such log data should be identified in the log

header.

 Each District will set up an archive on a locally based computer system. The archive will consist of a 

main directory called LOGARCHIVE. Each geophysical log file name will include the NWIS 15-digit 

Site ID number, date of log collection (year month day), two-letter log-type code, and sequence number 

extension. The first log of the same type collected on a particular day would have a sequence number of 

01, the second, 02, etc. The path name for the example entry shown in Attachment A would be:

LOGARCHIVE>424531077564201.20000601.MI01

 An executable file of any software needed for analysis of non-standard log files should be included in 

the LOGARCHIVE with explanation of security measures for proprietary programs.

 The log header entry program may be downloaded from the Office of Ground Water (OGW) internal 

web page (http://water.usgs.gov/usgs/ogw). The master lists of geophysical log-type codes and headinglog parameters and units also will be maintained on the OGW web page. Requests for additional log

types and parameters should be directed to the OGW Borehole Geophysics Advisor 

(jhwillia@usgs.gov). The Regional Ground-Water Specialists are to act on behalf of the Office of 

Ground Water to assure that the borehole-geophysical logs collected by the Districts are properly 

archived.

 Adherence to the policy of archiving borehole-geophysical logs will ensure that data collected by 

District offices will remain available for support of published reports, future scientific investigations, 

and data requests from the public.

William M. Alley

Chief, Office of Ground Water

Attachment

Distribution: A (without attachment)

DC, Regional Ground-Water Specialists, NR, SR, CR, WR

Chief, Branch of Geophysical Applications and Support, CT

John Williams, NY
67

Attachment A Example log archive

 U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

 GEOPHYSICAL LOG

 (output from log header entry program)

Site ID (C1): 424531077564201

Station name (C12): 515

Other ID (C190): MW-8

Date of log: 06-01-00

Start time of log: 15:35

Office/logging unit: USGS Any District

Logging operator: Jane Smith

Observer: John Doe

Description of log-measuring point: Land Surface

Height of log-measuring point above/below land-surface datum: 0.0 FT

Altitude of log-measuring point (NGVD): 516.0 FT

Log orientation: Magnetic North

Magnetic declination: 10

Logging direction: UP

Logging speed: 20 FT/MIN

Depth error after logging: 0.8 FT

Logging probe manufacturer: Century

Logging probe model: EM Induction, Gamma #9510

Logging probe serial number: 746

Description of calibration/standardization: Century Calibration Ring

Date of calibration/standardization: 06-01-2000

Standard: 0 ms/M

Response: 72775 CPS

Standard: 690 ms/M

Response: 110400 CPS

Borehole fluid type: WATER

Depth of borehole fluid below log-measuring point: 364 FT

Borehole fluid resistivity/conductivity: 8 OHM-M

Borehole fluid temperature: 53.5 F

Hydrologic conditions: Mine-room roof collapse resulted in flooding of the

mine and major drawdown

in the overlying aquifers.

Software for non-ASCII logs: NA

Remarks: Borehole is 200 ft southwest of the edge of the sinkhole formed by

the mine-roof collapse.
68

 Attachment A (cont.)

 (pre-existing log header--from logging software)

COMPANY : US GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

WELL : MW-8

LOCATION/FIELD : SALTVILLE

COUNTY : SALT

STATE : ANY

SECTION : TOWNSHIP : RANGE :

DATE : 06/01/00 ELEV. PERM. DATUM :

DEPTH DRILLER : 702 LOG MEASURED FROM: LSD GL

LOG BOTTOM : 701.9 DRL MEASURED FROM:

LOG TOP : 516.7 LOGGING UNIT : ANY TYPE : 9510C

CASING DRILLER : 520 FIELD OFFICE : ANY THRESH:

CASING TYPE : STEEL RECORDED BY : JANE SMITH

CASING THICKNESS : BOREHOLE FLUID : WATER

BIT SIZE : 6

DEPTH GAM(NAT) COND RES(FL) 

Data identification heading

 FT CPS MMHO/M OHM-M 

 516.7 21 5552.334 0.180 

 516.8 40 5543.827 0.180 

................. 

ASCII data

................. 

 701.8 210 27.428 36.459 

 701.9 245 28.732 34.804 
69

OGW 00.02 PROGRAMS AND PLANS--Update of the National Policy to Archive Ground Water Flow and 

Transport Models

PROGRAMS AND PLANS--Update of the National Policy to Archive Ground Water Flow and 

Transport Models

OFFICE OF GROUND WATER TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM NO. 00.02

Subject: PROGRAMS AND PLANS--Update of the National Policy to Archive Ground Water Flow 

and Transport Models

INTRODUCTION

Office of Ground Water Technical Memorandum 93.01 established a policy for archiving ground-water 

flow and transport models. Although the fundamental policy remains the same, there is a need to update 

the policy to account for changes in storage technology and the wider use of supporting software to 

generate input data for the models. Rather than describing only the changes, this memorandum contains 

the complete revised policy.

POLICY

Ground-water flow and transport models are an integral part of our interpretive ground-water 

investigations, and the results of these models form the basis for many of the conclusions published in 

U.S. Geological Survey reports. The numerical data and related information that comprise these models 

need to remain available to: (1) support and validate the results in published reports, (2) assure that 

working versions of all models are available for future scientific use, and (3) assure that the data are 

available to the public when requested. The appropriate model data and related information are to be 

stored in a permanent, well-documented manner to ensure their continued availability.

All ground-water flow and transport models that are a significant part of ground-water investigations 

with completion dates of October 1993 or later are to be included in a model archive. The Regional 

Ground Water Specialists are to act on behalf of the Office of Ground Water to assure that all required 

information is present in the archive. Status of the archives also will be examined as a routine part of 

District ground-water discipline reviews. Implementation requirements for the archive are presented in 

an Attachment to this memorandum.

The archive is for internal Water Resources Division (WRD) access and use. The release of information 

from the archive is subject to compliance with any existing WRD policies that may apply to the public 

release of such information. For example, the archive can be used to provide the public with input data 

for model simulations that are described in a published report. Other data in the archive that were not 

directly used as model input may require additional documentation prior to release. For example,

geographic information system (GIS) data that were used to create model input files may be stored in 

the archive, but such data could contain interpretive information that was not documented in the model 

report.
70

The ground-water model archive does not relieve individual investigators of the need to fully describe 

and document model analyses in their reports.

William M. Alley

Chief, Office of Ground Water

Attachment

WRD Distribution: A, B, S, FO, PO

Regional Ground Water Specialists, NR, CR, SR, WR

This memorandum supersedes Office of Ground Water Technical Memorandum No.

93.01

ATTACHMENT

IMPLEMENTATION OF DISTRICT GROUND WATER MODEL ARCHIVES

Each District will set up an on-line archive on a locally based computer. The archive must be located on 

disks that are routinely backed up as done for other mission critical information. Optical disk storage 

cannot be used as a substitute for on-line storage.

The archive will consist of a main directory. The suggested name for this is GWMARCHIVE; however, 

another name can be used if desired. A report subdirectory, located directly below the main directory, 

will be established for each published report containing a ground-water flow or transport model 

analysis. Each report subdirectory should be given a name that clearly reflects the U.S. Geological 

Survey report number.

A subdirectory named CONTENTS, located immediately below each report directory, will include one 

or more files that contain: (1) the full reference for the subject report; (2) descriptions of the 

subdirectory structure and of the files contained in each subdirectory, (3) descriptions of data file 

formats, when appropriate; (4) the sequence of model runs; and (5) instructions for running simulations.

The archive must include the model source codes, input files, macros and operating files such as UNIX 

shell codes and personal computer batch (BAT) files, and model output files for each simulation 

described in the report. These simulations will include (when applicable) the final calibrated steady-state 

and transient results and any predictive results described in the publication. Model results of minor 

importance, such as interim calibration runs, should not be archived. The model output files are

included to allow future verification that the model reproduces the published results when the input files 

are rerun. Input files must be stored as read by the model. Typically the input files will use an ASCII

format. In cases where model input files are proprietary or machine-dependent, ASCII versions of the 

files should also be stored in the archive if it is possible to generate them. The ASCII version will make 

it more likely that the files can be used on virtually any computer without the need for specialized or 

proprietary software.
71

The storage of additional ancillary data is optional, but is strongly encouraged. Examples of ancillary 

data that might be stored are GIS data files, data stored by pre-processor codes, or other data directly 

related to the model simulations. Where possible, these data should be stored in a widely supported 

format as opposed to a proprietary format. For example ARC/INFO offers the ability to export GIS data 

stored in their proprietary coverage format into formats that can be read by other applications. If

ancillary data are stored elsewhere in permanent USGS storage systems, then there is no need to 

duplicate the storage in the model archive. Documentation of ancillary data must include a description, 

the source, format, the version of software on which it was produced, etc.

When the input data of one model depends directly on output from another model, both models are to be 

included in the archive. If the models are documented in separate reports, a cross-reference between the 

reports must be included in the CONTENTS directory of the archive entry for each report.

The appropriate model files must reside in the District archive when the report is submitted to the 

Region for approval. If additional model simulations are required as a contingency for approval, these 

simulations should replace, or be added to the archive as appropriate.
72

OGW 98.02 Data Elements for Ground-Water Sites

OFFICE OF GROUND WATER TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM NO. 98.02

SUBJECT: Data Elements for Ground-Water Sites

This memorandum describes Mandatory and Recommended data elements 

for ground-water sites in the Ground-Water Site Inventory (GWSI) 

for the purpose of standardizing the informational content of 

GWSI. Entry of mandatory and recommended data elements into GWSI 

as described in this memorandum applies as of the date of this 

memorandum. However, data elements designated as 'Planned' are 

scheduled for future releases of the National Water Information 

System (NWIS) and would be entered once these data elements can 

be populated in GWSI.

Background

Three categories of data are populated with ground-water site 

information in GWSI. The first category consists of mandatory 

data elements. Mandatory data elements are those that must be 

populated to establish a site in NWIS and to enable entry of 

other data into the system. The second category consists of 

recommended data elements. The minimum recommended data elements 

are those data elements in GWSI that provide additional basic 

information about a ground-water site. Input of these elements 

is strongly recommended. The third category consists of other 

data elements, which are all of the remaining data fields 

available in GWSI. These data enhance the basic information 

about the site and are populated in GWSI to the extent available.

Mandatory and Recommended Categories

Mandatory data elements: Sixteen data elements for a ground-water 

site must be populated to establish a site in NWIS and to enable 

entry of other data into the system (table 1).

Table 1. Mandatory ground-water data elements

[GWSI, Ground-Water Site Inventory; HUC, Hydrologic Unit Code; 

GMT, Greenwich Mean Time; GIS, Geographic Information System; The 

component number in GWSI associated with each data element is 

included for reference (Mathey, 1989)]
73

__________________________________________________________________

Mandatory data element (Component) Comment

number in GWSI) __________________________________________________________________

Source agency code (C4)

Site identification (C1)

Station name (C12)

Latitude (C9)

Longitude (C10)

Latitude and longitude accuracy (C11)

Horizontal datum (C36) Scheduled for NWIS release 3_1.

Method of determining horizontal Scheduled for NWIS release 3_1.

datum (C35)

State (C7)

County (C8)

HUC (C20) Not mandatory until link to GIS

becomes available.

Station type (C802)

GMT offset (C813)

Data reliability (C3)

Site type (C2)

Use of site (C23)

__________________________________________________________________

Recommended data elements: Fifteen data elements for a ground-water site are strongly recommended 

for entry into GWSI (table 2). Some recommended data elements, if populated, also must include a 

subset of mandatory data elements associated with that recommended data element. The recommended 

data elements are those that provide additional basic information about a ground-water site: for 
74

example, owner of the well, information about the installation and construction of the well, information 

about subsurface geohydrologic units at the site, and water levels.

Table 2. Recommended ground-water data elements and related 

mandatory and recommended subsets.

[GWSI, ground-water site inventory; The component number in GWSI

associated with each data element is included for reference 

(Mathey, 1989)]

__________________________________________________________________

Recommended Mandatory subset Recommended subset

data element (Component number in (Component number

(Component GWSI) in GWSI)

number in GWSI) 

__________________________________________________________________

SITE FILE

Project code (C5) 

Altitude of site Date altitude determined 

 (C16) (Planned)*2

Altitude method (C17)

Altitude accuracy (C18)

Source of altitude 

(Planned)*2 

Altitude datum (C22)*1

Date of inventory 

 (C711)

Use of water (C24)

Hole depth (C27)

Depth of well (C28) Date measured or Measurement accuracy

reported for any new (Planned) *2

record (Planned) *2 Source of depth data (C29)

CONSTRUCTION

Construction data Completion date

(year/month) (C60)

Method of construction (C65)

Source of data (C64)
75

Hole data Depth to the top of hole Depth to bottom of hole

interval (C73) interval (C74)

Hole diameter (C75)

Source of data 

(Planned) *2

Casing data Top of casing (C77) Diameter (C79)

Casing material (C80)

Source of data 

(Planned) *2

Openings data Depth to top of interval Depth to bottom of

(C83) interval (C84)

Type of opening (C85) Source of data

(Planned) *2

MISCELLANEOUS

Owner data Owner name (C161) Date of ownership (C159)

Logs data Type of log (C199) Flag that log exists in

 (includes a separate data base,

 geologic and with links to that

 geophysical record (Planned) *2

 logs)

DISCHARGE

Discharge data Discharge (C150) Measurement accuracy

Measurement method (Planned) *2

(C152) Source of data (C151)

Date discharge measured 

(C148)

Type of discharge (C703)

GEOHYDROLOGY

Geohydrologic unit Unit identifier or name Contributing unit 

Data (C93) (C304) 

Source of data 

(Planned) *2
76

WATER LEVELS

Water-level data Water level (C237) Site status (C238)

Measurement method Agency (Planned) *2

(C239) Month and day measured

Water-level accuracy (C235)

(C276) Time of measurement

Year of measurement (C709)

(C235)

Source of water-level 

measurement (C244) *1

Altitude of site (C16)

Date altitude determined 

(Planned) *2

Altitude method (C17)

Altitude accuracy (C18)

Source of altitude 

(Planned) *2

Altitude datum (C22) *1 __________________________________________________________________

*1 Scheduled for NWIS release 3_1.

*2 Scheduled for a future NWIS release.

Reference Cited

Mathey, S.B. (editor), 1989, National Water Information System 

 Users Manual, Volume 2, Chapter 4, Ground-Water Site 

 Inventory System: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 89-

 587, 227 p.

 /s/ K.J. Hollett for

 William M. Alley

 Chief, Office of Ground Water
77

OGW 94.02 Guidance for the preparation, approval, and archiving of aquifer-test results

June 2, 1994

OFFICE OF GROUND WATER TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 94.02

Subject: Guidance for the preparation, approval, and archiving of aquifer-test results

Analyses of aquifer tests to define the hydraulic characteristics of a specific aquifer or aquifer system 

are an integral part of our interpretive ground-water investigations. The results of these analyses are 

critical components of flow-system or solute-transport analyses and important to conclusions published 

in U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) reports. Consequently, reported aquifer characteristics such as 

hydraulic conductivity, transmissivity, storativity and other hydraulic characteristics derived from 

aquifer-test analyses must be clearly documented and technically defensible. The purpose of this 

memorandum is to describe guidelines and procedures necessary to obtain approval for the results of 

aquifer tests analyzed by employees of the Water Resources Division (WRD) and to provide guidelines 

for archival of the test results.

BACKGROUND

According to WRD Publications Guide (Article 11.01.2) "....calculated hydraulic characteristics such as 

transmissivity, hydraulic conductivity, and storage coefficient, are interpretive and

must be approved by the Director, unless cited from a Director-approved report." In a memorandum 

dated March 11, 1992, the Assistant Chief Hydrologist, Scientific Information Management,

delegated authority to approve aquifer-test results to the Regional Hydrologists. Approval is required for 

all calculations of aquifer-hydraulic characteristics to be released to the general public, to cooperators, 

or published in or otherwise used to support the results of investigations reported in USGS-approved 

reports.

Estimates of aquifer-hydraulic characteristics commonly are obtained from "textbook" or published 

values for various lithologies. These are not considered calculations of aquifer characteristics and do not 

require approval under the terms of this memorandum. In addition, estimates of transmissivity

determined on the basis of specific-capacity measurements do not require approval.

DOCUMENTATION, APPROVAL, AND ARCHIVAL OF AQUIFER-TEST RESULTS

While the USGS encourages the publication of aquifer-test results, it is not feasible to publish the data 

and graphical results for every test conducted. In all cases, either as part of a formal report or as a 

separate packet, aquifer-test results should be submitted to the Regional Ground-Water Specialist for

review and subsequent approval by the Regional Hydrologist. The Regional Ground-Water Specialist 

reviews the report manuscript or aquifer-test packet to assess (1) that the report or packet

contains the necessary data and related information to properly analyze the subject test(s), and (2) that 

the analyses and results are technically defensible.
78

Elements that typically should be submitted for review are listed below. These elements assume an 

aquifer test comprising a pumping well and one or more observation wells and should be modified as 

appropriate for other types of tests such as a single-well slug test. The eight elements are as follows.

1. A brief description of the test (this can be neatly hand written) which includes the purpose, date, test

procedures, and methods of analysis of the results. Any unique or unusual features or problems related 

to the test or to the collection and analysis of test data should be described. A brief description of the 

assumptions used in analyzing the test results also should be included, as needed to clarify the test.

2. A sketch of the test site showing the distances from the pumped well to all observation wells and the

location of any boundaries, streams, springs, ditches, pumping or flowing wells, or other features that

possibly could influence test results. Where the test includes multiple wells, the sketch of the test site

should be drawn to scale.

3. Description of test and observation well construction, including screened and open interval(s), casing 

and screen diameters, and location of filter pack and grouted intervals.

4. A description of the site hydrogeologic characteristics, including sections that show the major waterbearing and confining zones or units. The intervals of the pumping and observation wells that are 

screened or open should be depicted on the logs or sections.

5. Time-discharge records of the pumped well (all measurements, not just average discharge).

6. Water-level records and hydrographs showing pre-test trends and water levels during the pumping 

and recovery phases.

7. Description of methods and computations showing adjustments to drawdown for pre-test trends,

adjustments of recovery for projected drawdown, or adjustments to account for extraneous effects not

related to pumping or recovery, such as barometric and tidal effects or other interferences.

8. All plots of observed or adjusted drawdown or recovery data used to determine hydraulic 

characteristics, showing match points, when used, and computations.

It is recognized that in some cases it is not possible to provide a complete description of these eight 

elements. Investigators are encouraged to discuss their plans with the Regional Ground-Water Specialist 

to determine the requirements for a particular test packet or report before they forward it

for review and approval.

A transmittal memorandum, indicating that the test results have been reviewed by the District or Area 

ground-water specialist or his or her designee, should be included with the test packet or

report. This review should include at least some checking of the field data and a verification that the test 

results are appropriate, given the site hydrogeology, well construction, and
79

test conditions and that the test results have been reviewed independently before being submitted for 

regional review and approval.

Following approval by the Regional Hydrologist, the packet or report will be returned to the originating 

District or Office where the hydraulic characteristics and related site and well

data should be entered into the Ground-Water Site Inventory System or National Water Information 

System (NWIS) and the packet and associated information appropriately archived in a District "aquifertest file." These archived aquifer-test files should include the draft-report routing sheet or packet-review

transmittal memorandum. Districts also are encouraged to archive test analyses and results completed 

prior to this memorandum. The aquifer-test files will be reviewed as a routine part of District groundwater discipline reviews.

If computer software is used in the aquifer-test analysis, the policy outlined in Office of Ground Water 

Technical Memorandum 91.04, dated August 14, 1991, must be followed. This policy requires that the 

theoretical basis of the software be documented and that it be demonstrated that a test-data set can be 

correctly analyzed using the software. Submittal of a computer-software analysis does not eliminate the 

need for the information described in item element 8, above.

This memorandum discusses information needs in the context of single- or multiple-well aquifer tests. 

Aquifer characteristics also may be calculated by other methods, such as, determination of aquifer 

diffusivity from attenuation of a tidal pulse or flood wave through an aquifer, or using hydrographrecession characteristics. The same review procedures should be followed for these types of analyses, 

and information in the report manuscript or packet must be adequate to enable reviewers to

visualize the physical system, evaluate all data, verify all calculations, and assess that the methods and 

results are defensible.

Sincerely,

William M. Alley

Chief, Office of

Ground Water
80

OGW 93.03 Interim Policy Memorandum about Storing Data in the National Water Information System

January 25, 1993

OFFICE OF GROUND WATER TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM NO. 93.03

Subject: Interim Policy Memorandum about Storing Data in the National Water Information System

The purpose of this memorandum is to restate and clarify existing policy regarding the use of the

National Water Information System (NWIS) to store ground-water data collected by the U.S. Geological

Survey, Water Resources Division (WRD).

Problems and Concerns

Discipline reviews are finding that not all ground-water data collected by WRD are being stored in 

NWIS. It appears that some elements of policy detailed in WRD Memorandum Nos. 76.44, 77.136,

83.89, and 86.28 have been misunderstood and have not been vigorously enforced at the Regional and 

Headquarters levels.

Clarification and Restatement of Policy

WRD Memorandum 92.59 has recently been released and states that the recommendations made by the 

Data Policy Committee (Open-File Report 92-56) have been accepted as official policy. That policy

includes the following:

 "The current policy in WRD is that all water data collected as part of the routine data collection of 

the WRD (both basic and project data) must be stored in the computer files of the National Water 

Information System. One purpose of this policy is to enable all WRD work to be verifiable and 

repeatable to the greatest extent possible at any time in the future."

The Office of Ground Water (OGW) interprets routine data collection of the WRDS to include all 

ground-water data collected by WRD basic data programs and District projects. Any request for

exemption from this policy must be approved by OGW. The only exceptions to this requirement are 

proprietary data, and data that cannot be stored in NWIS because they do not functionally fit. When the 

new version II of NWIS software is completed, it is expected that many of the ground-water data that 

WRD collects will functionally fit in NWIS, including many types of geophysical, hydrogeological, and 

hydraulic test data.

Implementation of Policy

The OGW and the Regional Ground-Water Specialists will review compliance with this policy during 

District technical and selected project reviews and by actual interrogation of NWIS. Several recent 

District reviews by OGW have included an additional person on the review team for the purpose of 

examining data-related issues. The OGW has added a staff person to specifically address the issues of 

data and data bases. The OGW also has created the Ground-Water Data Committee to develop 
81

recommendations about issues of policy and management of ground-water data. Future memorandums 

will address other aspects of ground-water data policy.

William M. Alley

Acting Chief, Office

of Ground Water
82

OGW 93.01 PROGRAMS AND PLANS--Establishment of a National Policy to Archive Ground-Water Flow 

and Transport Models 

October 28, 1992

OFFICE OF GROUND WATER TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM NO. 93.01

Subject: PROGRAMS AND PLANS--Establishment of a National Policy to Archive Ground-Water 

Flow and Transport Models

POLICY

Ground-water flow and transport models are an integral part of our interpretive ground-water 

investigations, and the results of these models form the basis for many of the conclusions published in 

U.S. Geological Survey reports. The numerical data and related information that comprise these models 

need to remain available to: (1) support and validate the results in published reports, (2) assure that 

working versions of all models are available for future scientific use, and (3) assure that the data are 

available to the public when requested. The appropriate model data and related information are to be 

stored in a permanent, well- documented manner to ensure their continued availability.

Effective as of the date of this memorandum, a national ground- water model archive is established. All 

ground-water flow and transport models that are a significant part of ground-water investigations with 

completion dates of October 1993 or later are to be included in the archive. Where feasible,

districts also should archive models from completed investigations and from current projects to be 

completed prior to October 1993. The Regional Ground Water Specialists are to act on behalf of the 

Office of Ground Water to assure that all required information is present in the archive. Status of the

archives also will be examined as a routine part of district ground-water discipline reviews. Design and 

implementation requirements for the archive are presented in Attachments 1 and 2 to this memorandum.

The archive is for internal Water Resources Division (WRD) access and use and is to serve as the source 

of ground-water model data supplied to the public upon request. The public release of specific 

information contained in the archive is subject to compliance with any existing WRD policies that may 

apply to the public release of such information.

The ground-water model archive does not relieve individual investigators of the need to fully describe 

and document model analyses in their reports.

Joseph S. Rosenshein

Acting Chief, Office

of Ground Water

2 Attachments

WRD Distribution: A, B, S, FO, PO
83

ATTACHMENT 1

DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION OF DISTRICT GROUND WATER MODEL ARCHIVES

STRUCTURE AND CONTENTS:

The archive will consist of a main directory called GWMARCIV. A report subdirectory, located directly 

below GWMARCIV, will be established for each published report containing a ground-water flow or 

transport model analysis. Each report subdirectory should be given a name that clearly reflects the U.S.

Geological Survey report number. The archive must include the model source codes, input files, macros 

and operating files such as JCL, CPL, and UNIX shell codes, and model output files for each simulation 

described in the report. These simulations will include (when applicable) the final calibrated steadystate and transient results and any predictive results described in the publication. Model results of minor 

importance, such as interim calibration runs, should not be archived. Model output will be archived for 

future verification that the input data files properly reproduce the published results when the input files 

are rerun. The storage of additional ancillary data is optional, but is strongly encouraged. Examples of 

ancillary data that might be stored are pertinent pre- and post-processor codes, related data, or other files 

directly related to the model simulations.

A subdirectory named CONTENTS, located immediately below each report directory, will include one 

or more files that contain:

(1) the full reference for the subject report; (2) descriptions of the subdirectory structure and of the files 

contained in each subdirectory, (3) descriptions of data file formats, when appropriate; (4) the sequence 

of model runs; and (5) instructions for running simulations. Attachment 2 shows one example of what 

an archive directory structure might look like for a typical project.

When the input data of one model depends directly on output from another model, both models are to be 

included in the archive. If the models are documented in separate reports, a cross-reference between the 

reports must be included in the CONTENTS directory of the archive entry for each report.

Model input files must be stored in ASCII format to assure that they can be processed in the future on 

virtually any computer without the need for specialized or proprietary software. In cases where model 

input files are derived from either proprietary or machine-dependent software, ASCII versions of the 

model input files must be included in the archive.

IMPLEMENTATION:

Each district will set up an archive on a locally based computer. The district staff is responsible for 

designing a subdirectory structure that permits efficient and logical storage of the required information 

for each specific model. Files will be accumulated and stored in the on-line archive until the final 

interpretive report is approved, after which time the files are to be moved to permanent storage.
84

For all studies with completion dates of October 1993 or later, the appropriate model files must reside 

on-line in the district archive when the report is submitted to the Region for approval. Verification of 

compliance with this policy is the responsibility of the Regional Ground Water Specialists. Reports

returned to the district for revision that require new or additional model simulations will require an 

archive update.

Upon final approval of the interpretive report, the archive is to be copied to permanent storage on an 

optical disk using WORM (write once, read many) technology. A copy of the WORM disk will remain 

in the originating district to service requests for data, and a duplicate copy will be furnished to the 

Region for off-site backup. A WORM disk may contain model data for one or more published reports 

provided the disk is indexed appropriately. The archive may be transferred to tape as a short-term 

storage option if the district does not have immediate access to WORM disk production equipment. The 

period of interim storage on tape should not exceed 1 year. The archive process is considered complete 

only when a WORM disk has been produced. On-line storage of the archived data may be discontinued 

at the discretion of the district following transfer of the archive to WORM disk or to interim tape 

storage.
85

OGW 92.06 General Policy for the Use of the Ground Water Site Inventory System

March 19, 1992

OFFICE OF GROUND WATER TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 92.06

Subject: General Policy for the Use of the Ground Water Site Inventory System

The purpose of this technical memorandum is to establish an overall policy for the use of the Ground 

Water Site Inventory (GWSI) of the National Water Information System I (NWIS-I) for operational 

activities of the Water Resources Division. This policy will have application as well to the GWSI in 

NWIS-II when it becomes operational.

The need for quality-assured data from all of the Division's water-resources activities is critical for 

addressing the Nation's water problems. Recently, the States were given the responsibility from the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency to develop their individual ground-water protection and management 

strategies. The technical development of these strategies will depend heavily on data and information 

from the Geological Survey. This effort will be ongoing during the period that the Division will be 

making the transition from the NWIS-I to the NWIS-II data bases.

A recent report, "Review of the U.S. Geological Survey's Ground-Water Site Inventory Data Base," by 

Robert Faye and Keith McFadden indicated that the GWSI data base is irregularly populated among 

the districts, large differences exist between the GWIS in NWIS and National Water Data Storage and 

Retrieval System (WATSTORE) data bases, and few districts have a well-defined policy on the 

population and use of the ground-water data bases.

To begin to address the irregular population of GWSI, from this date forward ground-water data from 

all active projects shall use GWSI for data storage and retrieval. Site data for all wells in water-level 

observation networks must be entered in GWSI. In addition, continuous records for all observation 

wells must be entered in the daily values files of NWIS. Site information for individual wells and 

springs for which data are to be shown in published reports must be entered into GWSI.

Additional Office of Ground Water technical memorandums will be issued that address specific 

procedures for the collection of ground-water data in the field, checking and verification of 

field data, entry of ground-water data into the GWSI, checking and verification of data entry, entry of 

past paper file data, and other aspects of ground-water data collection and storage as needed.

/s/ Joseph S. Rosenshein

Acting Chief, Office of

Ground Water
86

Appendix 3. Groundwater Tool Box; Recommended Contents

The WAWSC maintains several sets of groundwater field equipment. An example of the equipment 

contained in a set is listed below (list from Drost, 2005):

Measuring Equipment:

• Steel measuring tapes; 100, 300, and 500 ft (if needed)

• Electric sounding tape; Waterline 300 ft, Waterline 1,000 ft (if needed)

• Pocket measuring tape (engineering scale)

• Air tank (and tie-downs)

• Pressure gage and regulator

• Bicycle pump

• Rags

• Carpenter’s chalk

• Measuring tape weights and spares (sausage-style; brass, copper, or stainless steel)

• Sounding weight and attaching wire

• Field instruction manual

• Paintstick (for marking measuring point)

Disinfecting equipment:

• Bleach container, 5 gal

• Household bleach

• Tech and Chem-wipes

• Latex gloves

Safety Equipment:

• Visual identity clothing (hat, vest, jacket, and/or shirt)

• Safety glasses

• Hantavirus kit:

• Half-mask respirators (small and large) and replacement filters

• Latex gloves

• Protective goggles

• Alcohol wipes

• Spray bottle for bleach solution

Office Supplies:

• Calculator

• Clipboard

• Pencils, pens, etc.

• Well-location map overlay and scale

Miscellaneous Equipment:

• GPS unit
87

• Plastic garbage bags

• Paper towels

• Raincoat (x-large)

• Bucket, 5-gal, plastic

• Hand cleaner

Tools:

• WD-40

• Set of screwdrivers

• Gloves

• Well plugs (assorted sizes)

• Bolts and nuts (assorted sizes)

• Set of Allen wrenches (standard)

• Set of Allen wrenches (metric)

• Socket wrenches (standard) 

• Socket wrenches (metric)

• Machete

• Pipe wrenches (8-, 10-, 14-, 18-, and 24-in.)

• Crescent wrenches (6-, 8-, 10-, and 12-in.)

• Crow bar

• Batteries (spares for GPS [4 AA], flashlight [2 C], and e-tape [1 9V])

• File

• Shovel

• Pry bar

• Hack saw

• Whiskbroom

• Duct tape

• Electrical tape

• Flashlight

• Wire brush

• Hammer

• Pliers

• Chisel

• Miscellaneous additional tools
88

This page left intentionally blank
Publishing support provided by the U.S. Geological Survey

Publishing Network, Tacoma Publishing Service Center

For more information concerning the research in this report, contact the

Director, Washington Water Science Center

U.S. Geological Survey

934 Broadway, Suite 300

Tacoma, Washington 98402

http://wa.water.usgs.gov
Kozar and Kahle— Quality-Assurance Plan for Groundwater Activities, U.S. Geological Survey, Washington Water Science Center—Open-File Report 2013-1151