Laserfiche WebLink
During the field activities, detailed notes were taken to record directions to the well, updated <br />contact information for the well owner when possible, a description of the measuring point, <br />measurement method utilized, and measurement results. <br />Measurement results are presented in table form in Appendix C. If a measurement was not <br />obtained for a well, the reason is explained in the table. This table is sorted first by aquifer and <br />then by the HydroBase identifier. The locations where autumn water level measurements were <br />attempted are shown in Figure 2. <br />1.1.3 Solicited Water Level Measurements <br />Of the 112 wells identified in Phase 3 as candidates for autumn water level measurements, 29 <br />wells have water levels typically solicited by the DWR. These 29 wells are owned by 12 different <br />entities. Each of the solicited entities was contacted by phone followed by an email or letter that <br />described the SPDSS project and requested an autumn water level measurement for specific <br />wells from October to December 2005. <br />Water level data were successfully collected from 18 of the 29 solicited wells and from 8 of 12 <br />entities. Reasons for not obtaining a solicited water level measurement from 11 wells include <br />the following: <br />• Entity did not respond to solicitation requests (7 wells from 4 entities) <br />• Entity did not measure static autumn 2005 water levels (4 wells from 3 entities) <br />Measurement results are presented in Appendix C. If a measurement was not obtained for a <br />well, the reason is explained in the table. This table is sorted first by aquifer and then by the <br />HydroBase identifier. The locations where autumn water level measurements were attempted <br />are shown in Figure 2. <br />1.1.4 Quality Assurance/Quality Control <br />A series of quality control steps were undertaken during the autumn water level collection <br />process as described below. <br />In the field, the measurement of the water level was repeated at each site. If the two <br />measurements differed by more than 0.5 feet or if there was uncertainty in a measurement <br />made using a steel tape due to smearing of the chalk or condensation on the tape, repeated <br />water level measurements were taken until satisfactory agreement was achieved between the <br />measurements. <br />Hard-copy data of field measurements were compiled into an electronic format and merged <br />with electronic data in a Microsoft Excel® spreadsheet. The electronically compiled hard-copy <br />data were then checked for accuracy by comparing 100 percent of the values to the original <br />hard-copy data. All electronic solicited data received were checked for data importation errors <br />by comparing 10 percent of the values to the original electronic data sources. If errors in the <br />data entry were found or if the values appeared to be suspect in any way, the value was <br />confirmed and any errors were corrected in the spreadsheet. This procedure was used to assure <br />quality for all data. <br />SPDSS Phase 3 Task 39 Technical Memarandum -Final <br />09/27/2006 <br />