&EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
m
EPA-542- F-16-005
September 2016
Water Forum
Best Practices for Environmental Site Management:
Recommended Contents of a Groundwater Monitoring Report
AUDIENCE
This issue paper is intended for use by federal, state, tribal and
stakeholder project managers developing groundwater monitoring
reports under various regulatory programs. 1.1' \ recommends
that project managers work with their project hydrogeologist to
scope the content of a groundwater monitoring report and tailor
the report content to meet their site-specific needs.
PURPOSE AND SCOPE
The purpose of this issue paper is to recommend information
to include in groundwater monitoring reports that will lead
to improved report consistency and a useful, readable format.
Incorporation of the recommended information will standard-
ize groundwater monitoring report deliverables, which may in
turn inform site characterization strategies, analysis of remedial
alternatives, monitoring network optimization, remedy perfor-
mance evaluation, continual refinement of the conceptual site
model (CSM), and technical evaluation of groundwater data in
five-year reviews.
The recommended format ensures that groundwater monitoring
reports present data in a form that advances knowledge of site
conditions. The format also ensures that monitoring reports
evaluate and consider newly collected data in the context of the
site conditions and operations. This issue paper is intended to be
used in conjunction with the Guidance for Monitoring at Hazardous
Waste SitesI Framework for Monitoring Plan Development and Implemen-
tation (EPA, 2004a) and Performance Monitoring of MNA- Remedies for
VOCs in Ground Wa/cr jp-',PA, 2004b).
Sampling frequency and required decisions will dictate the level of detail needed in a groundwater monitoring
report. In general, groundwater sites require reports prepared at different frequencies and that vary in scope and
content. For example, a report prepared for a quarterly sampling event likely will be more abbreviated than an
annual report, which will be more comprehensive and contain most, if not all, of the recommended contents.
The guidelines are not intended to be used verbatim or as boiler plate. Rather, groundwater monitoring reports
are tailored to reflect each site's unique characteristics.
Index
AUDIENCE 1
PURPOSE AND SCOPE 1
INTRODUCTION 2
RECOMMENDED GROUNDWATER
MONITORING REPORT OUTLINE 2
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3
2. SITE BACKGROUND AND CURRENT
CONCEPTUAL SITE MODEL (CSM) 3
3. MONITORING NETWORK AND
SCHEDULE 4
4. DATA PRESENTATION 5
5. EVALUATION OF DATA 6
6. CONCEPTUAL SITE MODEL
EVALUATION 7
7. CONCLUSIONS 7
8. RECOMMENDATIONS 7
9. REFERENCES 8
10. APPENDICES 8
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 9
REFERENCES 10
SEMS Doc ID 500024623
-------
INTRODUCTION
Groundwater monitoring is an integral component of
site characterization, risk management, and remedia-
tion, and provides critical information for developing
and maintaining a site-specific CSM (EPA, 2011a).
Under CERCLA, groundwater monitoring reports are
typically introduced during the remedial investigation
and feasibility study (RI/FS) stage prior to remedy
selection and are generated following the Record of
Decision (ROD) for sites that include a groundwater
component as part of the selected remedy Similar
reports are required during corresponding stages of the
RCRA corrective action process.
Groundwater monitoring reports serve five basic
functions:
• Present new data generated from the groundwater
monitoring program, as described in the groundwater
monitoring plan, in an easy-to-comprehend manner.
• Evaluate new data in the context of earlier data, the
remedial action or corrective action objectives (RAOs
or CAOs), remediation timeframes, and the site-specific
CSM.
• Document maintenance to the groundwater monitoring
network, deviations from approved methods, and other
unexpected conditions.
• Ensure that sampling methods and quality control
measures are appropriate.
• Draw conclusions and make recommendations, as
appropriate.
Groundwater monitoring programs rely on detailed
groundwater monitoring plans that describe the collec-
tion of data required to inform site cleanup decisions.
These plans generally include:
• A monitoring network that is sufficient to provide robust
site characterization data and also to provide ongoing
evaluation of progress toward and attainment of RAOs.
Typically, this involves a network that characterizes and
tracks plumes in three dimensions overtime (EPA, 1992;
EPA, 1994).
• Sample collection methods that reliably produce data
that reflect conditions in the aquifer surrounding the
wells (EPA, 1992).
• Adequate quality assurance and quality control (QA/
QC) to be able to quantify field and analytical uncertainty
in the data (EPA Order CIO 2105.0).
Groundwater monitoring plans require periodic updates
to ensure that they reflect current data quality objectives
(DQOs) for the site. DQOs often change over the
life cycle of a project. Monitoring well networks are
initially established to determine the nature and extent
of groundwater contamination for the RI, including
establishing background groundwater quality. During
the FS, new wells are often installed to evaluate various
remedies or to implement a pilot or treatability study.
As the site transitions to remediation, the monitoring
program will focus on performance objectives. Wells
that were installed for characterization may not provide
data relevant for long-term performance monitoring.
It is important to review the purpose of each well and
examine the data periodically to evaluate its continued
value in the monitoring program. However, at any stage
of monitoring, it is likely that the largest (and most
difficult to quantify) source of uncertainty will be spatial
definition of the plume(s). Plume extent and stabil-
ity must be demonstrated throughout the process to
support human health and ecological risk management.
RECOMMENDED1 GROUNDWATER MONITORING
REPORT OUTLINE
The results of each groundwater sampling event may be
compiled in separate groundwater monitoring reports,
but typically, the results of all sampling events within a
given year are summarized and interpreted in an annual
report. The annual report evaluates the historical and
current year groundwater data to provide an updated
understanding of the plume(s). Interpretation of the
data, conclusions, and in some cases recommendations
are integral components of groundwater monitoring
reports. It is recommended that an annual groundwater
monitoring report also evaluate the current groundwater
monitoring plan (i.e., monitoring network, sampling
methodologies, and frequency) and if necessary,
recommend opportunities for monitoring optimization.
Annual reports may also address remedy performance.
1 DISCLAIMER: This outline is recommended and not prescribed.
Stakeholders should modify it to meet their site-specific needs
and the different types of monitoring reports required.
2 Ground Water Forum Issue Paper
Recommended Contents of a Groundwater Monitoring Report
-------
Exhibit 1 shows a recommended outline of a ground-
water monitoring report. The sections that follow
summarize the content recommended for each section
in the outline.
Exhibit 1: Recommended Outline
1.
Executive Summary
2.
Site Background and Current Conceptual Site
Model
3.
Monitoring Network and Schedule
4.
Data Presentation
5.
Evaluation of New Data
6.
Conceptual Site Model Evaluation
7.
8.
Conclusions
Recommendations
9.
References
10.
Appendices
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Executive Summary generally provides a synopsis
of the sample collection and data analysis activities that
occurred during the reporting period.
It is recommended that the executive summary include:
• Brief description: Describe the groundwater contam-
ination problem at the site in sufficient detail that the
reader may understand why groundwater monitoring is
required.
• Selected remedy: If in the remedial implementation
phase, present the RAOs, contaminants of concern,
and selected remedy from the site decision documents.
• Purpose and goals of monitoring: State the purpose of
monitoring, such as investigation-phase, remedial imple-
mentation, or long-term performance monitoring. The
goals of the monitoring may be, for example, to bound
the plume(s) in three dimensions or evaluate progress
toward restoration RAOs.
• Narrative summary of new data: Describe the new data
and compare to the CSM. State whether the data met
expectations regarding quality, contaminant distribu-
tion, extent and magnitude of contamination as well as
progress toward remedial goals.
• Actions taken on previous recommendations: Summa-
rize actions taken during the reporting period in
response to previous recommendations, or explain why
the actions were not taken. Such actions might include
increasing monitoring frequency based on changes in
concentrations, properly abandoning wells no longer
needed, installing new wells, testing for additional
contaminants of concern, etc.
• Summary of conclusions. These might include:
Monitoring well network remains adequate or, if
inadequate, why alteration is needed.
Data are valid and representative of aquifer condi-
tions.
Progress toward remedial goals.
Implications of unexpected results or events.
Groundwater migration under control.
• Summary of recommendations. These might include:
Changes to future monitoring plans and opportu-
nities for monitoring optimization.
Changes to monitoring well network; either addition
or deletion of wells.
Present opportunities for remedial action optimization.
Carry forward previous recommendations not acted
upon, and present those newly identified.
2. SITE BACKGROUND AND CURRENT CONCEPTUAL
SITE MODEL (CSM)
The CSM serves as the framework for integrating
long-term or performance monitoring data into
existing data sets and placing current data into context.
Iterative evolution of the CSM during the performance
monitoring phase can support remedy implementation
and optimization efforts, identify potential challenges
as remedy implementation progresses, and assist in
assessment of performance metrics to help ensure that
remedies are functioning as intended.
Inclusion of the following elements of the background
and CSM in this section is recommended:
Recommended Contents of a Groundwater Monitoring Report
Ground Water Forum Issue Paper 3
-------
• Remedial goals (RAOs/CAOs). points of compliance.
and exit strategy: Describe the site-specific RAOs,
referencing the relevant decision document(s). List the
groundwater cleanup levels and include the point of
compliance (where the facility will demonstrate it has
achieved cleanup levels).
• Site history, regulatory history, current regulatory
framework (permitting, corrective action, or enforce-
ment authority): Provide a brief overview of the facil-
ity history, ownership, operations, wastes handled and
known releases. Include regional location, pertinent
boundary features, and general physiography. Discuss
regulatory history, including past enforcement actions
and current enforcement mechanism (e.g., order, permit,
federal facilities agreement, etc.).
• Potential receptors, land use: Discuss current and
historical property use, describing potential receptors
(current and future). Include human populations and
environmental systems that are currently or potentially
at risk of contaminant exposure. Describe human use of
or access to the site and adjacent lands. Include current
and possible future uses of groundwater or surface
water.
• Geologic/hvdrologic setting: Describe the regional and
site-specific geologic and hydrogeologic characteristics
and heterogeneities affecting groundwater flow. Include
regional/local stratigraphy (including relevant geologic
setting and history of aquifer deposition or formation),
fades model, structural geology, groundwater flow
patterns, and seasonal variations in the groundwater flow
regime. Note the vertical gradients along with anthro-
pogenic influences that may affect the hydrogeology
of the site (i.e., water supply and/or production wells,
surface changes that alter recharge). Describe seasonal
and permanent surface water bodies and any interaction
with groundwater.
• Maps and cross-sections: Include maps and cross-sec-
tional views illustrating the geologic and hydrogeologic
setting of the site. Provide water level contour and/or
potentiometric surface maps for each hydrogeologic
unit.
• Contaminants of concern (COCs). contaminant sources.
and nature and extent of contamination: Briefly discuss
contaminant source areas, including their location,
design features (if any), history of release(s), waste
characteristics, hazardous classification, quantity of
chemicals released (if known), chemical composition
(including breakdown products), remedial actions to
remove or treat sources, and whether active sources
still remain. Describe the three-dimensional extent of
non-aqueous phase liquid and the dissolved plume(s)
of contamination, the horizontal and vertical direc-
tion of contaminant movement, and an evaluation of
factors such as heterogeneities that might influence
plume movement, including adequacy of any important
aquitards. Document the potential for matrix diffusion
as a secondary source.
• Groundwater investigation and remediation: Briefly
document the chronological history of groundwater
investigation and remedial activities, including interim
measures. Describe remediation efforts and methodology.
• Tables: Include a table of historical analytical results
for each COC in an appendix. Also include a table of
the evolution of the monitoring network, sampling
methods, and analytical methods.
• Figures: Provide a map and cross-sectional views of
contaminant plumes for each COC above the action
level. In an appendix include chart(s) of contaminant
concentration over time for each COC that has a cleanup
goal. (These charts should be linear unless contaminant
ranges exceed 2 orders of magnitude, in which case
they may best be presented on a logarithmic scale.) Post
any changes that might have impacted results, such as
sampling or analytical methodology or sampling teams.
Information on CSMs from EPA resources can be
found in Figure 4 of Guidance for Evaluating the Technical
Impracticability of Ground-Water Restoration (EPA, 1993)
and Vetformance Monitoring of MNAfor I rOCs in Ground-
water (EPA, 2004).
3. MONITORING NETWORK AND SCHEDULE
The Monitoring Network and Schedule section explains
the current monitoring plan. Specifically, it discusses
how each sampling location supports the purpose of
the groundwater monitoring system(s) (e.g., characteri-
zation, detection monitoring, extent monitoring, perfor-
mance monitoring, point of compliance monitoring,
groundwater quality trends, flow patterns, contaminant
mobility, etc.), as well as how the particular sampling
event fits into the overall monitoring schedule.
4 Ground Water Forum Issue Paper
Recommended Contents of a Groundwater Monitoring Report
-------
It is recommended that this section:
• Provide location and construction details for current
monitoring wells in a table, including horizontal and
vertical survey information, and construction details
(well depth, well diameter, depth and elevation of screen
intervals), and assigned aquifer units. Survey datum
information can be included in a footnote. [A similar
table identifying all (current and past) monitoring wells
can be included in an appendix.] Well logs for any new
wells that were installed during the reporting period can
be included in an appendix.
• Present map(s) depicting monitoring (sampling and
water level measurement) locations for each sampled
medium and each major hydrogeologic unit. Maps gener-
ally include a date, report name, and a citation for the
source document from which it was copied or adapted.
• Present the monitoring schedule in a stand-alone table
or in bullet format. Specify monitoring parameters,
analytes, and sampling frequency for each monitoring
location. Footnotes can be used, where appropriate, to
add detail (e.g., analytical methods) or to note changes
in the monitoring schedule from previously submitted
reports. Cite the applicable monitoring plan, and note
and explain any deviations.
• Include an operation and maintenance (O&M) plan
summary for the remedial system and monitoring wells.
Include scheduled maintenance and monitoring, refer-
ring to sections of corresponding work plans. Describe
any deviations from the O&M plan as well as observa-
tions and actions taken. Include system components
and wells that needed replacement, repairs, work over,
plugging and abandonment, or redevelopment. The
information could be included in a table, in narrative
form, or both.
• Describe sampling methodologies and provide a review
of the methods.
4. DATA PRESENTATION
The Data Presentation section documents all data
collected in the field (water levels and water quality field
parameters) and the analytical results from groundwater
samples collected during the period covered by the report.
It is recommended that data presented in figures be a
readable font size and that all historical data (hydrologic
and analytical) be appended and available in a manipu-
lable electronic format for data evaluation and analysis.
Consider including the following types of data in this
section:
• Water level measurements: Present water level measure-
ments in a table. The data should be posted and
contoured on potentiometric surface maps for each
hydrostratigraphic unit and for each measurement event.
For sites with active groundwater extraction systems, a
map excluding water levels from pumping and infiltra-
tion wells should be included; the effect of such wells
on the potentiometric surface is inevitably exaggerated
due to well inefficiencies. The measurement date(s)
should be included in the legend; implications of data
not collected contemporaneously should be discussed
in the text.
• Field measurements of water quality: Summarize water
quality data collected in the field, including field param-
eters recorded during well purging, in a table. Scanned
copies of field notes, including well purging details for
pumped wells, should be included in an appendix.
• Analytical contaminant data: Present concentration
data (including data qualifiers) for important COCs on
a table. Non-detect results should be presented as less
than the method reporting limit or practical quantitation
limit (
-------
well during the reporting period may be produced. For
large or complex sites, include insets to enlarge areas of
dense data or else use a larger map or a series of maps.
• Quality assurance and quality control: Summarize the
QA/QC protocols established for the site. Discuss field
and laboratory QA/QC methods, including field blanks
and performance samples, if appropriate. Summarize the
data validation reports and discuss any issues affecting
data quality, including whether samples were represen-
tative and whether analytical results are reliable. This
may include deviations from the SAP methodologies for
sampling, sample handling, and sample analysis. Include
data validation reports in an appendix.
5. EVALUATION OF DATA
The Evaluation of Data section discusses the results
and updated evaluations, including statistical or other
analyses. The focus is on identifying how the data fit
with the current CSM and whether the selected remedy
is meeting RAOs progressing toward attainment.
If the new data differ from expectations under the
current CSM or indicate potential impacts to continued
achievement of or progress toward RAOs, the issues
are generally identified in this section.
It is recommended that this section:
• Discuss any natural or anthropogenic events or factors
that occurred during the reporting period and may affect
the data set. Such events may explain changes in poten-
tiometric surface maps, contaminant concentration
contours, contaminant transport and/or plume extent.
For instance, flooding change the hydrology, and well
inundation may cause sample bias.
• Discuss any anomalous features on potentiometric
surface maps for each hydrostratigraphic unit. Anoma-
lous mounds or sinks that appear in potentiometric
surface maps can represent new additions or discharges
of water to the monitored aquifer or mistakes in data
transcription or interpretation. In general, a potentiomet-
ric surface should be a smooth surface. Abrupt changes
in surface might indicate geologic features that act as
boundaries. If new wells have been installed and the
resulting map has anomalous different contours, there
may be errors in mapping and survey data; for example,
the new wells may simply not have been surveyed to the
same datum as the older wells. Anomalous mounds may
also be the result of contouring intervals selected and
contouring algorithms used for plotting. Any comput-
er-generated potentiometric surface maps should be
double checked manually.
• Present hydrographs of groundwater elevations for
key wells in each hydrostratigraphic unit and in surface
water monitoring points. Hydrographs can assist in
determining the degree of surface water influence or
aquifer-wide changes over time. They can also help
identify and quantify the differences between different
hydrostratigraphic units.
• Discuss any anomalies or unexpected changes on
contaminant plume maps. Similar to potentiometric
surfaces, contaminant contours should generally be
smooth surfaces. For example, hot spots that appear
in data sets can imply a new release or transport of
a previously unidentified release to that location, or
contaminant sinks can indicate biotic and/or abiotic
destruction of contaminants.
• For sites with complex hydrogeology, consider present-
ing cross-sections along and perpendicular to groundwa-
ter flow directions depicting hydrogeology, monitoring
points, updated contaminant levels, and capture zones
(if applicable). Cross sections or other three-dimen-
sional presentations (e.g., block diagrams) can help with
visualization of transport processes and interaction
with geologic media and should reflect geologic and
hydrogeologic interpretation.
• Compare new data with previous data and any estab-
lished performance criteria to establish evidence of
remedial progress. For sites with sufficient data, this
comparison may also be supported by statistical or other
numeric analyses.
• Discuss and provide the rationale for the statistical
analysis approach and associated data requirements.
For many statistical methods, an evaluation of the data
distribution is necessary to determine if the method
assumptions have been met for the statistical methods
used.
• Discuss the results of any statistical comparisons,
including well-by-well trend analyses or statistical
evaluations of plume changes over time. For sites with
a long history, it is recommended that trend analyses
include only recent data (e.g., the past 8 to 10 years) to
support evaluation of remedy progress. Data may be
6 Ground Water Forum Issue Paper
Recommended Contents of a Groundwater Monitoring Report
-------
tabulated, and trends may be presented and evaluated
from time-series graphs. Graphs and any supporting
analyses may be presented in an appendix. For example,
if linear regression analyses are presented, include the
histogram. If trends are variable across a plume, a plume
map showing the current trend at each well can be useful.
These tools are typically used to support conclusions
regarding remedy progress, evidence of a new release
(in detection monitoring), and remedy completion.
• Discuss trends in the context of achieving RAOs and
the applicable remedy completion strategy.
• Assess measurement variability from analysis of QA/
QC data. Data must be validated to support any conclu-
sions drawn in the report.
• Describe observed changes in land use and hydrologic
conditions, particularly changes that can affect infiltration,
evapotranspiration, etc. Note that even tree removal can
have a surprisingly significant effect on hydrologic condi-
tions through decreased evapotranspiration.
6. CONCEPTUAL SITE MODEL EVALUATION
A thorough evaluation of the CSM, incorporating all
new data and information, is a key component of the
groundwater monitoring report. All aspects of the
CSM are reviewed and revised where necessary in light
of the new monitoring data. A narrative description
of how the new data compare to historical data sets,
including a discussion of how the new data support or
challenge the previous CSM, is recommended. Describe
all modifications to the CSM. This description includes
updates to all the two- and three-dimensional graphic
components of the CSM (e.g., cross sections, ground-
water flow maps, contaminant trend plots, etc.) if they
are impacted by the new data set.
The CSM evaluation addresses the following questions:
• Are the new data consistent with the established CSM?
Do the new data support or alter the CSM? Include
supporting discussion and cite figures and/or plots to
substantiate revisions to the CSM.
• Do the new data have implications for the current
remedial approach and the effectiveness of the remedy?
• Do the new data sets offer additional information on the
suspected source(s) of groundwater contamination? Are
previous assumptions about the location, dimensions,
chemical characteristics, and magnitude of the source(s)
supported by the data? Have the current suspected
sources been adequately characterized? Are there newly
identified sources?
• Are the analytical results consistent with the historical
contaminant and geochemical trends? Do the data
trends continue to support the CSM and the remedial
approach selected? If data trends do not support the
previous CSM, what do the new trends suggest?
• Are there any observed changes in site hydrology/hydro-
geology (e.g., water elevations, groundwater velocities)?
Are groundwater elevations, flow directions, velocities,
etc. within historical ranges and consistent with the
established CSM?
• Are there any changes in land use? If so, do these
changes affect the final remedy?
• Are the current data consistent with previous projected
cleanup timeframes?
• Have any new areas of uncertainty been identified with
the new data set? All areas of suspected uncertainty
should be discussed.
A detailed discussion on updating the CSM may be
found in the fact sheet Environmental Cleanup Best Manage-
ment Practices: Effective Use of the Project Life Cycle Conceptual
Site Model {EPA, 2011).
7. CONCLUSIONS
Describe in this section the significance of the monitor-
ing data and any conclusions generated from the evalua-
tion of the data. Include a discussion of whether or not
the monitoring well network is sufficient to meet the
stated monitoring objectives as well as any issues identi-
fied with monitoring locations or frequency, analytes
and/or sampling methods. Discuss conclusions related
to specific wells, such as attainment, construction issues,
performance monitoring, if applicable, etc. Also discuss
plume migration, whether site remediation is meeting
objectives, and progress toward meeting RAOs.
8. RECOMMENDATIONS
In this section, recommend any changes needed to the
groundwater monitoring plan. Present the rationales for
Recommended Contents of a Groundwater Monitoring Report
Ground Water Forum Issue Paper 7
-------
these changes and support them with relevant data. For
example, changes might be needed to:
• Future monitoring locations or depths. Describe
specific changes to locations of monitoring wells. This
can include locations where monitoring is no longer
required based on shrinking volume of contamination
and locations where new wells are required, such as for
monitoring performance when conditions change.
• Monitoring frequency. Historical data sets might indicate
that the current monitoring frequency may be changed
to reflect expectations along established trends, e.g.,
stable plumes may be monitored with less frequency. A
change to more frequent sampling might be caused by
unexpected contaminant increases or to monitor the
performance of a pilot study or remedy change.
• Sampling methods. For example, changing from a
low-flow to a passive sampling method.
• Chemical analyses. Emerging compounds or new infor-
mation on site chemical use might warrant additions
to the list of contaminants of concern, which in turn
may require a change in analyses. For sites with cleanup
goals based on practical quantitation limits available at
the time the remedy was selected, improved analytical
capabilities may result in lower detection limits and lower
cleanup goals. Periodic analyses of the Appendix IX list
of analytes may reveal additional contaminants at RCRA
sites.
Also in the Recommendations section, discuss the
following topics, as applicable to the site:
• Whether the evaluation of new data recommends
remedy/monitoring optimization. In addition, if the
data show additional/new sources, the report may
recommend further characterization of these areas.
• Whether changes in land use may have potential effects
on the CSM. These changes may indicate the need for
additional well installation or data collection.
• Monitoring well upgrades, redevelopment, replacement
of damaged or degraded wells, or abandonment of
wells either damaged or no longer needed for ground-
water chemistry data. Before decommissioning wells
determined unnecessary or unsuitable for groundwater
chemistry data, consider if they may still be valuable for
water level measurements. However, wells that provide
a conduit for contaminant migration or are otherwise
improperly constructed may need to be replaced.
9. REFERENCES
The References section of a groundwater monitoring
report should list all the references consulted in preparing
the report. Be sure to use a consistent format for citations
in the text as well as for the listed references. Include
document numbers, authors, dates, and any information
that can help readers identify the document.
10. APPENDICES
Much of the data, analyses, and background informa-
tion mentioned in a groundwater monitoring report
may be included as appendices, especially if presenting
the information as tables or figures would make the
body of the report very large. All the analytical results
for the reporting period accompany the report. Histor-
ical sampling results and other types of data are often
provided on a CD. Data submitted to EPA will comply
with the Region's Electronic Data Deliverable (EDD)
requirements (EPA, 2011b). If a Region does not have
an EDD format, the EPA project manager will specify
the electronic format for data submissions.
It is recommended that the following data be included
in an appendix:
• Well construction data: Present the data in an appendix
only if the site has a large number of wells; otherwise,
present the data in a report table. List all the wells at the
site, whether currently included in the sampling program
or not. Data presented typically include: well ID; well
status (whether actively in the monitoring program);
well location survey information (with survey system
information and datum information); well depth; well
diameter; well material; depth to screen top; depth to
screen bottom; and elevation information (including
survey datum), such as ground elevation, measuring
point elevation, screen top elevation, and screen bottom
elevation. Additional information may include the date
each well was drilled, the drilling company, the drilling
method, and if wells are installed in more than one
aquifer or water-bearing zone, the aquifer each well
intercepts.
8 Ground Water Forum Issue Paper
Recommended Contents of a Groundwater Monitoring Report
-------
• Sa mpling ra tionale for ea ch well included in the monitor-
ing network: Present the rationale in an appendix only if
the site has a large number of wells; otherwise, include
it in a report table.
• Groundwater elevation records: Include a table with
water levels measured during the reporting period, but
present the full historical record in an appendix. Include
the measuring point elevation, the depth-to-water
measurements, and the water level elevations. If hydro-
graphs are included, the charts may also be included in
an appendix.
• Logs for wells and borings and as-built diagrams for
wells: Assemble and provide this information for all
wells drilled at the site. If such a collection is maintained
and included in five-year review reports, this appendix
may need to include only wells drilled since the last five
year review, with the older logs included by reference. At
a bare minimum, include logs for any borings installed
during the reporting period.
• Current year analytical data.: Include a table presenting
data for all analytes, with the detection limit, regulatory
goals, and footnotes explaining any missing data. A
table containing current year data for contaminants of
concern is included in the report tables, along with a
table of any field parameter data collected.
• Historical analytical data.: The table is typically updated
annually and included as an appendix. It may include
all analytes, which can become unmanageable if there
is a long analyte list and a large number of wells;
hence, the table may include only the contaminants
of concern. At a minimum, the analytes used in any
data analyses presented in the report are included on a
CD in a manipulable electronic format (e.g., Excel files
or another format consistent with the electronic data
storage system for that Region).
• Laboratory data, reports and accompanying data, valida-
tion summaries: Laboratory analytical reports from the
reporting period, accompanying laboratory data valida-
tion reports and data validation summaries conducted by
the report authors should be included as an appendix.
Laboratory analytical reports are often included on a
CD in an electronic format.
• Field sampling notes: Include an appendix with
chain-of-custody forms, field sampling data sheets, any
monitoring deviation forms, and scanned pages from
the field log book.
• Statistical trend analyses: This appendix might include
several sub-appendices, such as charts of historical data
for the primary contaminants of concern. These charts
may be presented on either linear or log-linear graphs, as
appropriate, for wells with sufficient detections to allow
trend analysis. Another sub-appendix might include
statistical trend analysis graphs for each well. If linear
regression analysis has been done, this appendix includes
any histograms associated with tests for normality.
• Operational records for operating treatment svstem(s):
If not included in a separate referenced O&M report,
discuss the treatment system operations. Discuss and
include relevant information and operating data. Include
a narrative description of any treatment system opera-
tion or changes in operation that had an apparent effect
on water levels or contaminant trends.
• Operation and Maintenance of Monitoring Well
Network: Monitoring wells degrade over time and
become less reliable. An evaluation of the condition of
wells in a monitoring network can be a component of
routine monitoring. Often wells require redevelopment,
removal of biofouling, or replacement of pumps. In
time wells will become unusable and require abandon-
ment and replacement. An integral component of
routine monitoring is the O&M of the well network.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This issue paper was prepared by the EPA Techni-
cal Support Project's Ground Water Forum, which
consists of geologists and hydrogeologists from the
EPA Regional offices as well as some states and other
federal agencies. The authors include Herb Levine, EPA
Region 9 levine.herb@epa.gov: Lisa Gotto, EPA Region
7, gotto.lisa.@epa.gov: Marcia Knadle, EPA Region
10, retired; Andrew Schmidt, EPA Region 8, schmidt.
a.ndrew@.epa..gov: Margo Smith, EPA Region 8, smith.
ma.rgo@.epa..gov: and Bruce Stuart, Missouri Depart-
ment of Natural Resources, bruce.stua.rt@dnr.mo.gov.
Recommended Contents of a Groundwater Monitoring Report
Ground Water Forum Issue Paper 9
-------
REFERENCES
EPA, 2014. Groundwater Remedy Completion Strategy
(OSWER 9200.2-144), May.
EPA, 2011a. Environmental Cleanup Best Manage-
ment Practices: Effective Use of the Project Life Cycle
Conceptual Site Model (EPA 542-F-l 1-011), July.
EPA, 2011 b. Electronic Data. Deliverables: The Importance
of Receiving Your Site and Project Data. Electronically
Ground Water Forum Fact Sheet (EPA 542-F-l 1-010),
April.
EPA, 2008. A Systematic Approach for Evalua-
tion of Capture Zones at Pump and Treat Systems
(EPA/600/R-08/003), January.
EPA, 2004a. Guidance for Monitoring at Hazardous
Waste Sites: Framework for Monitoring Plan Develop-
ment and Implementation (OSWER Directive No.
9355.4-28), April.
EPA, 2004b. Performance Monitoring of MNA Remedies
for VOCs in Ground Water (EPA/600/R-04/027), April.
Yeskis, D. and B. Zavala, 2002. Ground-Water Sampling
Guidelines for Superfund and RCRA Project Managers:
Ground Water Forum Issue Paper (EPA 542-S-02-001), May.
EPA, 2001. EPA Requirements for Quality Assurance
Project Plans (EPA/240/B-01/003), March.
EPA, 1994. Methods for Monitoring Pump-and-
Treat Performance (EPA/600/R-94/123), June.
Part 1 - Introduction and Monitoring Hydraulic Containment.
Part 2 - Monitoring Aquifer Restoration, Evaluating
Restoration Success/Closure, Chem-Dyne Site Case
Study, and References.
EPA, 1993. Guidance for Evaluating the Techni-
cal Impracticability of Ground-Water Restoration
(EPA/540-R-93/080), September.
EPA, 1992. RCRA Groundwater Monitoring Draft
Technical Guidance (EPA/530/R-93/001), November.
For a detailed discussion of monitoring well network
optimization visit the website for the Monitoring and
Remediation Optimization System Decision Support Tool
and Application http://www.gsi-net.com/en/software/
free-software /ma.ros-30.html (MAROS 3.0).
10 Ground Water Forum Issue Paper
Recommended Contents of a Groundwater Monitoring Report
------- |