1. Colleague Review GW Reports January 1999 1 Colleague Review of Ground-Water Reports n Mapping Reports n Ground-Water Modeling Reports n Geochemistry Reports n Reports for Regulators

2. Colleague Review GW Reports January 1999 2 Common to All Reviews n Read through report once before making any comments u You should have received a technically sound reasonably well organized report in the proper draft format n If report is not in your area of expertise -- DO NOT AGREE TO REVIEW THE REPORT n If report has numerous verification problems and is not in the proper draft format -- SEND IT BACK n If the report is full of spelling and grammar errors -- SEND IT BACK

3. Colleague Review GW Reports January 1999 3 Mapping Reports n You should receive a package that includes a map with the points with data for review u AUTHORS if data is ± (land surface datum or location not well known) indicate this on review map and note in text n Map should honor data points within error band and ancillary information described in the report u Gaining/Losing streams u Dip of bedrock / known faults

4. Colleague Review GW Reports January 1999 4 Water-Table Contour Maps WRD Memo 92.48 n Must be hydrologically sensible u Contours not above land surface u Annual range of water-level fluctuation should be taken into account u Area of recharge and discharge should be taken into account u Water-table should generally conform to subdued topography u Depth to water in similar topographic and geologic areas should be similar n Reviewer ask yourself did author create a hydrologically sensible map

5. Colleague Review GW Reports January 1999 5 Potentiometric Contour Maps (Confined Aquifers) n Must be hydrologically sensible u Contours could be above land surface u Take into account annual range of water- level fluctuation u Take into account geologic structure u Take into account discharge areas (well fields and springs) u Know recharge areas u If know transmissivity ranges incorporate this knowledge into interpretation and text n Reviewer ask yourself did author create a hydrologically sensible map

6. Colleague Review GW Reports January 1999 6 Ground-Water Model Reports--TOPICS n Ground-water model of an aquifer or aquifer system report requirements n Requirements for reports with new simulations with a USGS approved flow model n Reports with hypothesis testing simulations n Use of non-USGS codes

7. Colleague Review GW Reports January 1999 7 Ground-Water Simulation Reports WRD MEMO 96.04 n Report Should Include u Purpose and objective of simulations u Description of the work done u Logical arguments to convince reader that methods and analyses are valid u Results and Conclusions

8. Colleague Review GW Reports January 1999 8 Purpose and Objectives of Simulations n Model is a tool for understanding a ground-water system or making predictions u Reviewer should be able to define the intended audience and the objectives of the simulations after the INTRODUCTION sections of the report F Model Calibration and Development was to test our conceptualization of the system F Simulations were done to see if contaminants would migrate off-site F Hypothetical simulations were done with very limited data to demonstrate potential recharge areas to wells

9. Colleague Review GW Reports January 1999 9 Description of Hydrogeologic Framework -- independent of modeling n Author could cite numerous references, but must describe in the report (maps and X-sections nice) u Extent of aquifer(s) and confining unit(s) F natural boundaries F tops and bottoms of hydrogeologic units u Hydraulic properties F transmissivity or hydraulic conductivity F storage coefficient or specific yield u Recharge and Discharge F Independent estimates of recharge F natural spring discharge F ground-water withdrawals

10. Colleague Review GW Reports January 1999 10 Description of Mathematical Model Used n Author should not rewrite code documentation manual, but cite document u MODFLOW -- brief description that using finite-difference approximation and which other packages used u IF CODE MODIFICATION -- must document any modifications to computations (not output file modifications) either in appendix of the report n Author should justify choice of code u finite-element versus finite-difference u MODPATH rather than solute transport u MOCDENSE for density dependence

11. Colleague Review GW Reports January 1999 11 Description of How Hydrogeology Mathematically Approximated -- MODEL CONCEPTUALIZATION n Model Layering u aquifers -- confined, unconfined, or convertible u confining units -- implicit or explicit (quasi 3-D or 3-D) n Boundaries u Natural or far enough away F specified head F specified flux F head-dependent flux (mixed) F no flow

12. Colleague Review GW Reports January 1999 12 Model Conceptualization continued n Discretization u spacing and distribution of finite- elements or finite-difference cells F Is discretization adequate for proper simulation of system for this problem n Internal Boundaries u Rivers, Lakes, Springs, etc. F Did author justify choices n Discretization in Time u Steady versus transient F Did author justify choices

13. Colleague Review GW Reports January 1999 13 Description of Simulated Properties and Stresses n Must show all hydraulic properties used in the final model runs u Best to show maps rather than tables F Author must describe how final model properties relate to properties described in hydrogeologic framework section n Must show stresses used in simulation u Water-Budget graphs, etc. u Show any temporal variation

14. Colleague Review GW Reports January 1999 14 Transient Simulation n Must describe Initial Conditions u Generally must have calibrated steady-state beginning of transient period F Requires iterations -- as modify properties during transient calibration, must have rerun initial condition Transient Models should always start with a simulated steady-state initial condition--Reviewers should check that this is mentioned in report

15. Colleague Review GW Reports January 1999 15 Description of Calibration n Must describe calibration criteria and procedures u Source and quality of observed data u Appropriateness of using these data -- steady-state calibration for simulation of approximately steady-state event u Show location of observed data n NOTE -- Best to have both observed head data and flux data to calibrate model

16. Colleague Review GW Reports January 1999 16 Model Limitations Section n Summarization of how model conceptualization may limit use of model u boundaries may effect predictive simulations u Calibration period may not cover all hydrologic conditions n Good place to summarize sensitivity analysis section u Sensitivity of calibrated model will indicate how uncertainty of parameters and stresses effect simulated heads and fluxes F Discussion of non-uniqueness (if no known fluxes) Could show that many T’s would give similar head result

17. Colleague Review GW Reports January 1999 17 New Simulations With Published Model n Brief Discussion of model conceptualization (utilize info from older report) n Complete explanation of assumptions, methods, limitations, and uncertainty associated with new simulations u Description of how simulation scenarios fit within calibration range of older model u Demonstrate that new simulations don’t violate initial and boundary conditions of older model n Author should have provided reviewer with copy of older model report

18. Colleague Review GW Reports January 1999 18 Hypothesis Testing Simulations n Model reports with limited data u Still should follow previous guidelines u Beefed up limitations and uncertainty sections F limited observed data precluded calibration u May want to bracket anticipated rock properties and stresses to test max/min transport or heads F Author should use sensitivity analysis to determine which properties or stresses have greatest effect on outcome and then use estimated ranges for bracketing outcomes. Reviewer should decide if description is adequate.

19. Colleague Review GW Reports January 1999 19 Use of Non-USGS Codes n WRD Memo 97.01 u Can Use Other Codes, but must have some Quality Assurance Testing by Originator of Code and in Code Documentation Manual F Code Documentation Contents Mathematical derivation described Tests done to show derivations are correctly coded--Check computation results with known results Must have input and output files -- To be safe run tests again yourself on your computer platform Ideally would like to see the source code in the publication

20. Colleague Review GW Reports January 1999 20 Geochemistry Reports n Purpose and Objective of Geochemical Modeling or Facies Mapping n Description of work done n Hydrogeologic framework for geochemistry u rock mineralogy u flow paths n Logical arguments to convince reader that methods and analyses are valid u proper reaction kenetics u sampling techniques provided representative sample n Does report make geochemical sense

21. Colleague Review GW Reports January 1999 21 Reports for Regulators n USGS does not make or enforce regulations u Provide scientific information for site characterization u Provide geochemical and microbiological information to support decisions u Develop databases and methods for regulators to apply u OFA’s and DODEC can request us to do work for assisting in remediation of sites n Can do Administrative reports or if need to include in Administrative Record - publish as OFR or WRIR u Review as you would any USGS report u Administrative Report does not have to follow all formal illustration standards or report formats - but should follow all technical guidelines for any ground-water report