Cover: Photograph looking southeast towards the community of Chimacum, 

Washington. (Photograph taken by William F. Simonds, U.S. Geological Survey, 2004)
Ground-Water System in the Chimacum 

Creek Basin and Surface Water/Ground 

Water Interaction in Chimacum and Tarboo 

Creeks and the Big and Little Quilcene 

Rivers, Eastern Jefferson County, 

Washington

By F. William Simonds, Claire I. Longpré, and Greg B. Justin

Prepared in cooperation with the

Jefferson County Department of Natural Resources

Scientific Investigations Report 2004-5058

U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey
U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2004

For sale by U.S. Geological Survey, Information Services

Box 25286, Denver Federal Center

Denver, CO 80225-0286

U.S. Department of the Interior

Gale A. Norton, Secretary

U.S. Geological Survey

Charles G. Groat, Director

For more information about the USGS and its products:

Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS

World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov/

Any use of trade, product, or firm names in this publication 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 materials contained within this report.

Suggested citation:

Simonds, F.W., Longpré, C.I., and Justin, G.B., 2004, Ground-water system in the Chimacum Creek Basin and surface 

water/ground water interaction in Chimacum and Tarboo Creeks and the Big and Little Quilcene Rivers, Eastern 

Jefferson County, Washington: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2004–5058, 49 p.
iii

Contents

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

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Purpose and Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Previous Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Acknowledgments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Description of Study Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Topography, Climate, and Vegetation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Population and Water Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Precipitation and Streamflow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Study Methods. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Well Inventory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Hydrogeology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Surface-Water and Ground-Water Interactions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Seepage Runs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Mini-Piezometers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Vertical Temperature Profiles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Ground-Water System in the Chimacum Creek Basin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Hydrogeologic Units . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Quaternary Alluvium. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Vashon Recessional Outwash . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Vashon Lodgement Till . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Vashon Advance Outwash . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Older Glacial Deposits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Bedrock. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Hydraulic Properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Ground-Water System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Ground-Water Levels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Ground-Water-Flow Directions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Seasonal Variations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Surface Water/Ground Water Interactions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Chimacum Creek . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Tarboo Creek. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Big Quilcene River . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Little Quilcene River . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

Comparison Between Drainage Basins. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

Additional Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

References Cited . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
iv

Plate

[In pocket]

Plate 1. Map showing surficial geology and locations of inventoried wells and hydrogeologic 

sections showing hydrogeologic units in the Chimacum Creek Basin, eastern 

Jefferson County, Washington.

Figures

Figure 1. Map showing drainages of Chimacum and Tarboo Creeks and the Big 

and Little Quilcene Rivers in Water Resource Inventory Area 17, 

eastern Jefferson County, Washington . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Figure 2. Bar graphs showing annual (1949-2002), monthly (April 2002-July 2003), 

and daily (April 1, 2002-July 30, 2003) precipitation at National Weather 

Service station Chimacum 4S, Center, Washington . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Figure 3. Diagrams showing typical instream mini-piezometer and vertical 

temperature profile and configuration of a seepage run along a 

reach of a stream . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7

Figure 4. Diagram showing well-numbering system used in Washington . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Figure 5. Diagram showing how a manometer board is used to measure 

hydraulic head differences throughout a streambed. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Figure 6. Maps showing generalized geology of the Olympic Mountains and 

the extent of the Vashon Puget lobe of the Fraser Cordilleran glaciation . . . . . . . . 14

Figure 7. Map showing extent and thickness of the Vashon Advance Outwash in 

the Chimacum Creek Basin, eastern Jefferson County, Washington . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Figure 8. Map showing extent and thickness of the Older Glacial Deposits in 

the Chimacum Creek Basin, eastern Jefferson County, Washington . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Figure 9. Map showing altitude of the bedrock surface in Chimacum 

Creek Basin, eastern Jefferson County, Washington . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Figure 10. Map showing water-level contours and approximate directions of 

ground-water flow in aquifers in the Qva and Qgo units in the 

Chimacum Creek Basin, eastern Jefferson County, Washington . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Figure 11. Hydrographs showing seasonal variation in water levels measured in 

nine monitoring wells screened in water-bearing units in the 

Chimacum Creek Basin, eastern Jefferson County, Washington, 

March 2002-July 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Figure 12. Map showing locations of mini-piezometers and seepage-run 

measurement sites in the study reaches of the Chimacum Creek 

drainage basin, eastern Jefferson County, Washington . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Figure 13. Graphs showing vertical hydraulic gradient in ground water beneath 

the streambed measured at mini-piezometers in Chimacum Creek and 

East Fork Chimacum Creek, eastern Jefferson County, Washington, 

March 2002-July 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Figure 14. Graphs showing vertical temperature profiles at sites WC6 and C4 in 

Chimacum Creek, eastern Jefferson County, Washington, 

May 2002-July 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Figure 15. Map showing locations of mini-piezometers and seepage-run 

measurement sites in the study reaches of the Tarboo Creek drainage 

basin, eastern Jefferson County, Washington . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

Figure 16. Graph showing vertical hydraulic gradient in ground water beneath 

the streambed measured at mini-piezometers in Tarboo Creek, 

eastern Jefferson County, Washington, May 2002-July 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
v

Figure 17. Map showing locations of mini-piezometers and seepage-run 

measurement sites in the study reaches of the lower Big Quilcene 

River, eastern Jefferson County, Washington. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

Figure 18. Graph showing vertical hydraulic gradient in ground water beneath 

the streambed measured at mini-piezometers in the lower Big Quilcene 

River, eastern Jefferson County, Washington, May 2002-July 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

Figure 19. Graph showing vertical temperature profiles at site BQ1 in the lower 

Big Quilcene River, eastern Jefferson County, Washington, 

June 2002-July 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

Figure 20. Graph showing vertical hydraulic gradient in ground water beneath 

the streambed measured at mini-piezometers in the lower 

Little Quilcene River, eastern Jefferson County, Washington, 

June 2002-July 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

Figure 21. Graph showing vertical temperature profiles at site LQ2 in the

lower Little Quilcene River, eastern Jefferson County, Washington, 

June 2002-July 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
vi

Tables

Table 1. Estimated water use, eastern Jefferson County, Washington, 1992 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Table 2. Summary of lithologic and hydrologic characteristics of geologic 

units in the Chimacum Creek Basin, eastern Jefferson County, Washington . . . . . 16

Table 3. Estimated horizontal hydraulic conductivities for the hydrogeologic 

units in the Chimacum Creek Basin, eastern Jefferson County, Washington . . . . . 23

Table 4. Surface-water budget based on discharge measured in the 

Chimacum Creek drainage basin, eastern Jefferson County, 

Washington, June 26 and October 22, 2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Table 5. Surface-water budget based on discharge measured in the 

Tarboo Creek drainage basin, eastern Jefferson County, Washington, 

July 2 and October 25, 2002. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Table 6. Surface-water budget based on discharge measured in the

lower Big Quilcene River, eastern Jefferson County, Washington, 

June 17 and October 23, 2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

Table 7. Surface-water budget based on discharge measured in the 

lower Little Quilcene River, eastern Jefferson County, Washington, 

June 18 and October 24, 2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

Table 8. Physical and hydrologic data for inventoried wells in the 

Chimacum Creek Basin, eastern Jefferson County, Washington, May 2002 . . . . . . 47
vii

Conversion Factors and Datum

Temperature in degrees Celsius (°C) may be converted to degrees Fahrenheit (°F) as follows:

°F=1.8 °C+32

Temperature in degrees Fahrenheit (°F) may be converted to degrees Celsius (°C) as follows:

°C=(°F-32)/1.8

Transmissivity: The standard unit for transmissivity is cubic foot per day per square foot times 

foot of aquifer thickness [(ft3/d)/ft2]ft. In this report, the mathematically reduced form, foot 

squared per day (ft2/d), is used for convenience.

Datums

Vertical coordinate information is referenced to the North American Vertical Datum of 1988 

(NAVD 88).

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

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

Multiply By To obtain

acre-foot (acre-ft) 1,233 cubic meter

acre-foot per day (acre-ft/d) 0.01427 cubic meter per second

acre-foot per year (acre-ft/y) 1,233 cubic meter per year

cubic foot per day (ft3/d) 0.02832 cubic meter per day

cubic foot per second (ft3/s) 0.02832 cubic meter per second

cubic foot per second (ft3/s) 724 acre-foot per year

foot (ft) 0.3048 meter

foot per day (ft/d) 0.3048 meter per day

foot per hour (ft/h) 0.3048 meter per day

gallon (gal) 3.785 liter

gallon per day (gal/d) 0.003785 cubic meter per day

gallon per minute (gal/min) 0.06309 liter per second

gallon per minute per foot [(gal/min)/ft] 0.2070 liter per second per meter

mile (mi) 1.609 kilometer

square mile (mi2) 259.0 hectare

 2.590 square kilometer 
Ground-Water System in the Chimacum Creek Basin and 

Surface Water/Ground Water Interaction in Chimacum 

and Tarboo Creeks and the Big and Little Quilcene Rivers, 

Eastern Jefferson County, Washington

By F. William Simonds, Claire I. Longpré, and Greg B. Justin

Abstract

A detailed study of the ground-water system in the 

unconsolidated glacial deposits in the Chimacum Creek Basin 

and the interactions between surface water and ground water in 

four main drainage basins was conducted in eastern Jefferson 

County, Washington. The study will assist local watershed 

planners in assessing the status of the water resources and the 

potential effects of ground-water development on surfacewater systems. A new surficial geologic map of the Chimacum 

Creek Basin and a series of hydrogeologic sections were 

developed by incorporating LIDAR imagery, existing map 

sources, and drillers’ logs from 110 inventoried wells. The 

hydrogeologic framework outlined in the study will help 

characterize the occurrence of ground water in the 

unconsolidated glacial deposits and how it interacts with the 

surface-water system. 

Water levels measured throughout the study show that the 

altitude of the water table parallels the surface topography and 

ranges from 0 to 400 feet above the North American Vertical 

Datum of 1988 across the basin, and seasonal variations in 

precipitation due to natural cycles generally are on the order of 

2 to 3 feet. Synoptic stream-discharge measurements and 

instream mini-piezometers and piezometers with nested 

temperature sensors provided additional data to refine the 

positions of gaining and losing reaches and delineate seasonal 

variations. Chimacum Creek generally gains water from the 

shallow ground-water system, except near the community of 

Chimacum where localized losses occur. In the lower portions 

of Chimacum Creek, gaining conditions dominate in the 

summer when creek stages are low and ground-water levels are 

high, and losing conditions dominate in the winter when creek 

stages are high relative to ground-water levels.

In the Quilcene Bay area, three drainage basins were 

studied specifically to assess surface water/ground water 

interactions. The upper reaches of Tarboo Creek generally gain 

water from the shallow ground-water system throughout most 

of the year and the lower reaches have little or no gains. The 

Big Quilcene River generally gains water from the shallow 

ground-water system after it emerges from a bedrock canyon 

and loses water from the town of Quilcene to the mouth of the 

river in Quilcene Bay. The Little Quilcene River generally 

loses water to the shallow ground-water system, although two 

localized areas were found to have gaining conditions. The Big 

Quilcene and Little Quilcene Rivers incur significant losses on 

the alluvial plain at the head of Quilcene Bay.

Each of the creeks examined had a unique pattern of 

gaining and losing reaches, owing to the hydraulic conductivity 

of the streambed material and the relative altitude of the 

surrounding water table. Although the magnitudes of gains and 

losses varied seasonally, the spatial distribution did not vary 

greatly, suggesting that patterns of gains and losses in surfacewater systems depend greatly on the geology underlying the 

streambed.
2 Ground-Water System and Surface Water/Ground Water Interaction, Eastern Jefferson County, Washington

Introduction

Increased use of surface-water and ground-water 

resources in drainage basins of Washington State has created 

concern that insufficient instream flows remain for fish and 

other uses. In response, the Washington State legislature 

passed the Watershed Management Act of 1998 (House Bill 

2514), which provides funding for watershed planning and 

delegates planning to a local level. The planning process 

allows interested parties in a watershed area (designated as a 

Water Resources Inventory Area, or WRIA) to assess the 

status of water resources and prepare a plan for managing the 

water available for allocation and use within the WRIA that 

accommodates a variety of locally competing water uses.

WRIA 17, located primarily in eastern Jefferson County, 

covers about 400 mi2 and is home to most of the county’s 

population (fig. 1). The population in eastern Jefferson County 

is projected to increase in the coming years, with a 

corresponding increase in land development and the need for 

domestic and municipal water supplies. To plan for this 

growth, Jefferson County and the WRIA 17 Watershed 

Planning Unit are coordinating efforts to better understand 

local water resources. One step toward this end was a 

comprehensive assessment of existing hydrologic information 

for WRIA 17 that also identified the need for additional data, 

information, and studies (Parametrix, Inc., 2000). Foremost 

among those needs were more detailed information on the 

area’s ground-water resources and a better understanding of 

interactions between surface-water and ground-water systems. 

This information is important because of the potential effects 

of further ground-water development on surface-water 

resources in the WRIA 17 area.

In 2002, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) in 

cooperation with the Jefferson County Department of Natural 

Resources began a 3-year study of (1) the ground-water system 

in the Chimacum Creek Basin in the northeastern part of the 

WRIA 17 area, and (2) the interaction between surface water 

and ground water in Chimacum Creek and in Tarboo Creek 

and the lower parts of Big and Little Quilcene Rivers in the 

Quilcene Bay area. The first part of the study included defining 

the hydrogeologic framework and describing a conceptual 

model of ground-water flow in the basin. The second part of 

the study included identifying gaining and losing reaches, the 

quantity of surface water gained or lost in a reach, and any 

seasonal variations. This study addresses the need for a more 

detailed hydrogeologic framework and expands on the 

previous assessment of ground-water resources of eastern 

Jefferson County (Grimstad and Carson, 1981) and provides 

new information about surface water/ground water 

interactions in the area.

Purpose and Scope

This report presents the results of the study to (1) assess 

the ground-water system in the Chimacum Creek Basin and (2) 

describe the interaction of surface water and ground water in 

the four main drainage basins in the WRIA 17 area. The 

assessment of the ground-water system includes defining the 

hydrogeology and determining the thickness of hydrogeologic 

units, the horizontal and vertical movement of ground water, 

and areas of recharge and discharge. The interaction of surface 

water and ground water includes determining boundaries of 

gaining and losing reaches in streams, the quantity of surface 

water gained or lost, seasonal variations, and a comparison of 

the four drainage basins. Information provided in this report 

will support the development of a comprehensive watershed 

plan for WRIA 17 and help assess the effects of future groundwater development. The report includes an assessment of 

additional studies needed. 

Previous Studies

Several important sources of information preceded this 

study. This study builds largely upon the work of Grimstad and 

Carson (1981), who described the geology and ground-water 

resources of eastern Jefferson County. Geologic investigations 

by Tabor and Cady (1978) and subsequent mapping 

investigations have been compiled and put into digital format 

by the Washington State Department of Natural Resources. 

The area’s water and biological resources were further 

characterized in the Dungeness-Quilcene Water Resources 

Management Plan, which includes parts of Clallam County 

(Jamestown S’Kallam Tribe, 1994). A detailed technical 

assessment of available data was compiled by Parametrix, Inc. 

(2000). Other sources of data include the Tri-Area GroundWater Study prepared by CH2M Hill (1996) and the Soil 

Survey of Jefferson County Area, Washington, by Fred 

McCleary (U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1975). 

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to thank all members of the WRIA-17 

Planning Unit, particularly Susan Gulick, who leads the group. 

Special thanks to William Graham of the Jefferson County 

Public Utilities District #1, who performed much of the 

monthly well monitoring in both rain and shine. Thanks to 

Glen Gately of the Jefferson County Conservation District, 

who provided useful data, field help, and insight. Thanks to the 

many others who helped in various aspects of the study, 

including the Port Gamble S’Klallam Tribe, the staff at the 

National Fish Hatchery in Quilcene, and the many long-time 

residents of the area, who took interest in the project, allowed 

repeated access to their wells, and whose knowledge of 

historical events was invaluable.
Introduction 3

15)-0%20%.).35,!

-!22/734/.%

7()$"%9

)3,!.$

)3,!.$

).$)!.)3,!.$

"/,4/.0%.).35,!

4/!.$/30%.).35,!

+)43!0

0%.).35,!

#,!,,!-#/5.49

*%&&%23/.#/5.49

-T

7ALKER

1UILCENE

#ENTER 0ORT

,UDLOW

0ORT

4OWNSEND

)RONDALE

0ORT

(ADLOCK

#HIMACUM

0OULSBO

7!3().'4/.

3TUDYAREALOCATION

/LYMPIC

-TNS

&)'52%,/#!4)/.

 g





g

"ASEFROM53'EOLOGICAL3URVEY$IGITAL$ATA

5NIVERSAL4RANSVERSE-ERCATORPROJECTION:ONE$ATUM.!$

(ILLSHADE
MODIFIEDFROM
FOOT$IGITAL%LEVATION-ODELDATA

0UGET3OUND,)$!2#ONSORTIUM0ROJECTIONPARAMETERS3TATE0LANE.ORTH

HORIZONTALDATUM.!$ANDVERTICALDATUM.!6$

%80,!.!4)/.

72)!BOUNDARY

'AGINGSTATION

.ATIONAL&ISH

(ATCHERY

Figure 1. Drainages of Chimacum and Tarboo Creeks and the Big and Little Quilcene Rivers in Water Resource Inventory Area 17, eastern Jefferson 

County, Washington.
4 Ground-Water System and Surface Water/Ground Water Interaction, Eastern Jefferson County, Washington

Description of Study Area

The study area is located on the northeastern corner of the 

Olympic Peninsula in eastern Jefferson County, Washington 

and includes four major drainage basins: Chimacum 

Creek/East Fork Chimacum Creek, Tarboo Creek, and the Big 

and Little Quilcene Rivers (fig. 1). Chimacum Creek flows 

south from its source, turns east toward the community of 

Center, then flows north toward the community of Chimacum 

eventually draining into Port Townsend Bay near the 

community of Irondale. A major tributary, locally known as 

the East Fork of Chimacum Creek, flows north and joins the 

main stem near the community of Chimacum. Tarboo Creek 

flows south from State Route 104 toward Dabob Bay on the 

west side of the Toandos Peninsula (fig. 1). The Big and Little 

Quilcene Rivers originate on the eastern flank of the Olympic 

Mountains and drain into Quilcene Bay near the community of 

Quilcene (fig. 1). All of these drainage basins lie within the 

western Puget Sound Lowland and are therefore influenced by 

glacial landforms formed during the Pleistocene ice age epoch. 

The distribution of bedrock and the overlying unconsolidated 

glacial deposits is an important factor affecting the location, 

quantity, and quality of ground-water resources, as well as 

surface water/ground water interactions in the area. 

Topography, Climate, and Vegetation 

The land-surface topography of the western Puget Sound 

Lowland consists of narrow, regularly spaced parallel ridges 

and grooves, oriented in a north-south direction that are 

characteristic of a fluted glaciated surface (Ritter, 1978). This 

surface has been incised locally by fluvial and post-glacial 

erosion, producing steep valley sides and hummocky valley 

bottoms. Thick accumulations of peat occur along the axis of 

larger valleys and provide rich soils for agricultural use. 

Bedrock outcrops generally are low and exhibit glacialscouring features.

The climate in the study area varies, but generally is 

marine, with cool, dry summers and mild, wet winters. 

Precipitation across the study area ranges from 70 to 80 in/yr 

in the eastern foothills of the Olympic Mountains to 15 to 20 

in/yr in Port Townsend. Precipitation in the study area is 

influenced by the rainshadow effect on the leeward side of the 

Olympic Mountains: near the outside edge of the rainshadow, 

Quilcene receives an average of 55.8 in/yr, whereas farther 

inside the rainshadow, Chimacum receives an average of 29.7 

in/yr. Most of the precipitation occurs as rain, between the 

months of November and May. Snow that falls in the higher 

altitudes of the Olympic Mountains provides snowmelt runoff 

for the drainages of the Big and Little Quilcene Rivers during 

the spring and early summer.

Vegetation across the study area ranges from dense 

coniferous forest in the moderately steep uplands to 

agricultural pasture lands in the lower parts of each drainage 

basin. Harvesting and processing of forest products provide a 

major economic resource for the region. The valleys of 

Chimacum Creek and East Fork of Chimacum Creek, portions 

of the Tarboo Valley, and other glacial depressions are 

characterized by thick sequences of poorly drained soils rich in 

organic material. Many of these areas are used extensively for 

hay and pasture and have managed drainage and irrigation 

systems. Other farm products include a variety of berries, 

small grains, vegetables, and specialty crops.

Land use in the Chimacum Creek Basin is divided 

between zoned forest lands in the upland areas and zoned 

residential land along Port Townsend Bay and around the TriArea, which includes the communities of Chimacum, Port 

Hadlock, and Irondale (fig. 1). The fertile lands in the center of 

the Chimacum Valley are zoned primarily for commercial 

agriculture, but are flanked by areas zoned for residential use. 

Land use in the Quilcene Bay area is zoned predominantly as 

forest land, with residential development dominating the 

lowland area around Quilcene Bay. Upland areas adjacent the 

Olympic National Park are zoned forest lands and the park 

itself is designated wilderness.

Population and Water Use

The population of Jefferson County in the 2000 census 

was 25,953 residents. The population increased to 26,835 in 

2003 (WRIA 17 Watershed Plan, Cascadia Consulting Group, 

2003, unpub. data) and could conceivably increase to nearly 

40,000 residents by the year 2016 (Jefferson County, 1998). 

Most of the increase is expected in three main centers: the 

Quimper Peninsula area (Port Townsend urban growth area), 

the Port Ludlow area, and the Tri-Area (Chimacum, Port 

Hadlock, and Irondale). The effect of the increasing population 

has resulted in a gradual shift from agricultural and forestry to 

more residential land use in the area. Water usage also is 

expected to increase as the population increases. Demand for 

water, especially in the residential and commercial sectors, is 

of primary concern for water managers. Water needs for 

industrial and agricultural water users, such as the Port 

Townsend Paper Company, the National Fish Hatchery in 

Quilcene, Chimacum Valley Irrigation, and the U.S. Navy at 

Indian Island, have not increased, and water consumption in 

recent years has been reduced through conservation efforts 

(table 1).
Description of Study Area 5

Water-resource managers are looking increasingly to 

ground water as a source to accommodate residential and 

commercial growth. Currently, most residential, commercial, 

and industrial water users in eastern Jefferson County are 

served by class A and class B water systems. (Class A systems 

are defined as 15 or more service connections serving 25 or 

more residents; class B systems have fewer than 15 service 

connections and serve fewer than 25 residents). These water 

systems rely on ground water from well fields, as well as 

surface water diverted from the Big Quilcene and Little 

Quilcene Rivers. Most private residences are served by 

(“exempt” wells, which are single-family domestic wells that 

use less than 5,000 gal/d). Because of restrictions on future 

surface-water rights, any expansion of existing water systems 

may rely heavily on use of ground-water resources if it can be 

shown that the use will not adversely affect surface-water 

flows.

Precipitation and Streamflow

All surface-water and ground-water resources in eastern 

Jefferson County are ultimately derived from precipitation. 

Water that is not lost to evapotranspiration or surface-water 

runoff or held as soil moisture eventually recharges aquifers 

that make up the ground-water system. The amount of 

precipitation varies spatially across the area, and seasonal and 

annual variations can be quite large. Stream discharge is 

closely tied to precipitation for all the lowland drainage basins, 

but snowmelt can have a large effect on flows in the Big and 

Little Quilcene Rivers, which have headwaters at high altitudes 

in the Olympic Mountains. Catastrophic floods can occur 

anytime during the winter, but typically result from rain-onsnow events. In dry months, streamflow is maintained entirely 

by ground-water discharge, or base flow. 

Streamflow in the drainage basins of concern in this study 

is currently monitored by gaging stations operated by the 

USGS, Washington State Department of Ecology (WDOE), 

and the Jefferson County Public Utilities District (PUD) #1 

(fig. 1). Chimacum Creek currently has two gaging stations, 

one operated by PUD at river mile 2.67 and a new WDOE 

station (ID17B050) installed near the mouth of the creek. New 

WDOE stations were installed on Tarboo Creek at river mile 

0.6 (ID17G060) and on the Big Quilcene River at river mile 

0.65 near Linger Longer Road in Quilcene (ID17A060). Both 

stations are equipped with Geostationary Orbiting Earth 

Satellite (GOES) data-collection platforms and transmit 

streamflow data in real time. Long-term streamflow data for the 

Big Quilcene River are available from the USGS gaging station 

(12052210) at river mile 9.4, which has collected continuous 

streamflow data since January 1994. A staff gage and discharge 

rating are maintained by the USGS for the Big Quilcene River 

at the National Fish Hatchery at Penny Creek to monitor 

instream flows and hatchery diversions (fig. 1). A new WDOE 

station that transmits streamflow data in real time also was 

installed on the Little Quilcene River at Center Road in 

Quilcene (ID17D060). Miscellaneous discharge is measured 

periodically by the USGS on the Little Quilcene River below 

the diversion for the City of Port Townsend. Stream stage 

(water level) and discharge data for Chimacum Creek were 

collected by the Jefferson County PUD #1 and for the Big and 

Little Quilcene Rivers by the WDOE. Streamflow data are 

available through the USGS Water Resources web site 

(http://nwis.waterdata.usgs.gov/wa/nwis/inventory/ 

?site_no=12052210) or the WDOE web site 

(http://www.ecy.wa.gov/apps/watersheds/flows/state.asp). 

Precipitation data for the WRIA 17 area are collected by 

the National Weather Service at station Chimacum 4 S, located 

in the community of Center, and at station Quilcene 2 SW, 

located at the National Fish Hatchery near Quilcene (fig. 1). 

Precipitation data for the period of this study from station 

Chimacum 4 S, located at Center, are shown in figure 2.

Table 1. Estimated water use, eastern Jefferson County, Washington, 

1992

[Data from Jamestown S’Kallam Tribe, 1994]

Type of use

Water use (million gallons per year)

Surface 

water

Ground 

water Total use

Residential/commercial 605 508 1,113

Industrial 4,850 0 4,850

Agricultural 158 72 230

Hatchery/Fisheries 4,024 257 4,281

U.S. Navy 27 0 27

Total 9,664 837 10,501
6 Ground-Water System and Surface Water/Ground Water Interaction, Eastern Jefferson County, Washington

Study Methods

This study was conducted in two parts: (1) an assessment 

of the ground-water system that included characterizing the 

hydrogeology and developing a conceptual ground-water-flow 

model for the Chimacum Creek Basin, and (2) assessment of 

surface water/ground water interactions along Chimacum 

Creek, Tarboo Creek, the Big Quilcene River, and the Little 

Quilcene River. 

Water levels were measured during a well inventory in 

spring 2002 to characterize the hydrogeology of the Chimacum 

Creek Basin. In autumn of 2002, synoptic water-level 

measurements were made in order to remeasure water levels 

during the dry season. A subset of nine wells was selected for 

monthly water-level monitoring, and one of these wells was 

instrumented with a continuous data logger. Water-level data, 

drillers’ logs, geologic maps, and previous studies then were 

compiled and analyzed to define a conceptual model of 

ground-water flow in the Chimacum Creek Basin. 

Two sets of seepage runs were conducted and instream 

mini-piezometers were installed on each creek to assess 

surface water/ground water interactions. Temperature data 

loggers were installed at two sites on Chimacum Creek and at 

one site each on the Big and Little Quilcene Rivers in order to 

generate continuous vertical temperature profiles. Seepage 

runs, instream mini-piezometers, and vertical temperature 

profiles provide three independent methods to assess surface 

water/ground water interactions (fig. 3). 





































!02), -!9 *5.% *5,9 !5' 3%04 /#4 ./6 $%# *!. &%" -!2 !02), -!9 *5.% *5,9

 

!02), -!9 *5.% *5,9 !5' 3%04 /#4 ./6 $%# *!. &%" -!2 !02), -!9 *5.% *5,9

 

-/.4(,9 !..5!, $!),9

02%#)0)4!4)/.).).#(%3

























!6%2!'%!..5!,02%#)0)4!4)/.&/20%2)/$/&2%#/2$)3).#(%3

!NNUAL!VERAGE

Figure 2. Annual (1949-2002), monthly (April 2002-July 2003), and daily (April 1, 2002-July 30, 2003) precipitation at National Weather Service 

station Chimacum 4S, Center, Washington. 
Study Methods 7

(YDROLOGISTUSINGAMANOMETERBOARDTOMEASUREHEADDIFFERENCES

BETWEENSURFACEWATERANDGROUNDWATER

(YDROLOGISTSMEASURINGSTREAMDISCHARGE

3HALLOWAQUIFER

7ATERTABLE

3URFACEWATERHEAD

'ROUNDWATERHEAD

'ROUNDWATERSENSORS 3URFACEWATERSENSOR

5NSATURATEDZONE

&LOW

).
342%!--).)
0)%:/-%4%23 6%24)#!,4%-0%2!452%02/&),%3

6%24)#!,

4%-0%2!452%02/&),%

3%%0!'%$)3#(!2'%

-%!352%-%.4

$OWNSTREAMSITE

3%%0!'%$)3#(!2'%

-%!352%-%.4

5PSTREAMSITE

).
342%!-

-).)
0)%:/-%4%23

).
342%!-

-).)
0)%:/-%4%23

Figure 3. Typical instream mini-piezometer and vertical temperature profile and configuration of a seepage run along a reach of a stream.
8 Ground-Water System and Surface Water/Ground Water Interaction, Eastern Jefferson County, Washington

Well Inventory

Throughout May 2002, 110 wells were inventoried in the 

Chimacum Creek Basin. The results of the inventory are 

shown in table 8 (at back of report). Criteria for site selection 

included availability of a drillers’ report and lithologic 

information (obtained from WDOE, local drillers, and well 

owners), location and depth of well, permission from the 

owner to visit the site, and ease of access to the well. Data from 

wells identified by Grimstad and Carson (1981) were taken 

into consideration, even though the physical locations of these 

wells could not be precisely determined. These wells are 

approximately located on the basis of previously mapped 

positions (pl. 1). 

The inventory was designed to have an even spatial 

distribution of inventoried wells within the unconsolidated 

deposits throughout the study area. However, this was not 

possible in all areas because much of the basin is not developed 

and, to a much lesser extent, because permission to measure 

some wells could not be obtained. Information gathered at all 

wells included site location, land-surface altitude, primary use 

of water, well-construction details, and a drillers’ log. Depth to 

water (water level) was measured in 49 wells using a calibrated 

electric tape or graduated steel tape, both with accuracy to 0.01 

ft, and entered into the USGS Ground Water Site Inventory 

(GWSI) data base. In some cases, water levels were not 

measured because of difficult access or other complications. 

Latitude and longitude locations were obtained for fieldlocated wells using a Global Positioning Satellite (GPS) 

receiver with a horizontal accuracy of 0.5 second. Geographic 

Information Systems (GIS) software was used to interpolate 

altitudes of the land surface at each site from imagery obtained 

using LIght Distance And Ranging (LIDAR), a multiple-return 

scanning laser altimeter in a fixed-wing aircraft flown in a 

pattern over the area. All information collected during the 

inventory is stored as part of the USGS National Water 

Information System (NWIS) database.

The well-numbering system used in this report is based on 

the township, range, section, 40-acre tract within the section, 

and sequence of wells within that tract. For example, well 

29N/01W-35J01 refers to township (T. 29 N) and the range (R. 

01 W) north and west of the Willamette Base Line and 

Meridian (fig. 4). The first number following the hyphen 

indicates the section (35) within the township, and the letter (J) 

following the section number gives the 40-acre subdivision of 

the section. The number (01) following the letter is the 

sequence number of the well within the 40-acre subdivision. 

This number indicates that the well was the first one 

inventoried by USGS personnel in that 40-acre subdivision. 

In October 2002, synoptic water-level measurements 

were made in 48 of the inventoried wells over a relatively short 

period of time to calculate water-level altitudes in the basin. 

Nine wells were selected for monthly monitoring to provide an 

indication of seasonal variations in different parts of the 

Chimacum Creek Basin. One of the monthly monitoring wells 

(29N/01W-15B01) was equipped with a continuous waterlevel data logger to provide a continuous water-level record.

Water-level altitudes from the initial well inventory and 

from the synoptic measurements were plotted on a map and 

used to construct water-level-altitude contours. In order to 

further refine their positions, contours were adjusted to match 

the altitudes of ephemeral streams, springs, and flowing wells. 

Contours were drawn so that water-level altitudes were above 

stream altitudes in gaining reaches and below stream altitudes 

in losing reaches of Chimacum Creek. The water-level altitude 

contours were used to infer directions of ground-water flow in 

the basin.

Hydrogeology

Well logs from field-inventoried wells were compared 

with data from previous studies, and hydrogeologic units were 

delineated primarily on the basis of grain size and stratigraphic 

position. Altitudes of the tops of each unit were entered into a 

graphical software package (RockworksTM) so that 

hydrogeologic units could be correlated and hydrogeologic 

sections constructed. 

Available surficial-geologic maps and the latest LIDAR 

imagery were consulted to refine the geology of the Chimacum 

Creek Basin. LIDAR data were acquired in early 2000 and 

early 2001 under a contract for the Puget Sound LIDAR 

Consortium. The data were processed to remove return signals 

from forest canopy and buildings by automatic geometric 

filtering or virtual deforestation. The final image represented 

bare-ground altitudes with a horizontal resolution of about 6 ft 

and a vertical resolution of about 1 ft. The high-resolution 

LIDAR data were used to refine the previously mapped 

surficial geology (pl. 1). Geologic contacts were modified to 

match the level of detail visible in the LIDAR imagery. Maps 

of extent and thickness of hydrogeologic units were generated 

using a combination of available geologic mapping, 

hydrogeologic sections, and drillers’ logs.
Study Methods 9

7ILLAMETTE-ERIDIAN

7ILLAMETTE"ASE,INE

7!3().'4/. 3TUDYAREA

27 27 27 2% 2%

4



.

4



.

4



.

4



.

4



.

4



.

4



.

4



.

3%#4)/.

$ # " !

% & '(

- , + *

.012

.7
*

27

4



.

     

 

 

 

 

     

7),,!-%44%-%2)$)!.

Figure 4. Well-numbering system used in Washington.
10 Ground-Water System and Surface Water/Ground Water Interaction, Eastern Jefferson County, Washington

Surface-Water and Ground-Water Interactions

Three techniques were used to gain understanding of the 

exchange of surface water and ground water in Chimacum 

Creek, Tarboo Creek, and the Big and Little Quilcene Rivers. 

(1) Seepage runs were conducted in the spring and autumn of 

2002 to determine the quantity of water being gained or lost 

from the surface-water system. (2) Instream mini-piezometers 

were installed to delineate boundaries between gaining and 

losing reaches and periodically measured to estimate seasonal 

variations. (3) Piezometers with nested temperature sensors 

were installed and programmed to record continuous 

temperature data. The three techniques were used in concert 

(see fig. 3) to improve accuracy and aid in the interpretation of 

the data. 

Seepage Runs

Two seepage runs were conducted on each of the four 

stream systems, one in late June or early July 2002 and one in 

late October 2002. Seepage runs consist of multiple discharge 

measurements made at nearly the same time at different points 

along the river during a period of stable base-flow (all groundwater discharge) conditions. To calculate stream discharge, the 

velocity of water is multiplied by the cross-sectional area of the 

stream (stream depth times stream width) using the integratedcross-section method described by Rantz and others (1982). 

Most velocity measurements were made using either a Price 

AA current meter or a Swoffer Model 2100 horizontal-axis 

current meter. Side-by-side comparisons of the two meters 

yielded differences of less than 3 percent. Small tributary 

streams with flows less than 0.5 ft3/s were measured using 

either a pygmy meter, a Parshall Flume, or by simply timing 

the fill of a 5-gallon bucket.

To determine the volume of water gained or lost by the 

stream, the discharge measurements are used in a mass balance 

calculation as follows.

Net seepage gain or loss = Qd - T- Qu + D, (1)

where

Seepage runs are conducted only under base-flow 

conditions; rapidly changing flow conditions and storm events 

are avoided. In order to better understand how ground-water 

discharge varies between spring high flow and late-summer 

low flow, seepage runs typically are conducted at different 

times of year. During a seepage run, all tributary inflows and 

irrigation outflows are measured, so that discrepancies in the 

water budget between measuring points reflect only gains or 

losses through the streambed. The resulting gain or loss 

computed between measuring points is an estimate of the net 

rate of water exchanged between surface water and ground 

water, averaged over the entire reach. Therefore, no 

information is provided about gains or losses that occur at a 

smaller scale within the reach. Mini-piezometers are used to 

obtain information about hydraulic conditions at specific 

points within a reach of stream.

Mini-Piezometers

Instream mini-piezometers are miniature monitoring 

wells driven directly into the streambed for direct comparison 

of surface-water and ground-water levels. Each minipiezometer consists of a 7-foot length of 0.5-inch-diameter 

pipe, crimped and perforated with small holes at one end. Each 

mini-piezometer is hand-driven with a slide hammer to a depth 

of about 4 ft below the streambed at distances of 0.5 to 1 mi 

along the reach of the stream. A total of 11 mini-piezometers 

were installed in Chimacum Creek: 4 in the main stem between 

the mouth of the creek and the confluence with the East Fork, 

2 in the East Fork, and 5 in the main stem extending upstream 

to river mile 8.8. Five mini-piezometers were installed in 

Tarboo Creek between the mouth and river mile 4.0. Six minipiezometers were installed in the Little Quilcene River 

between the mouth and river mile 2.5. Five mini-piezometers 

were installed in the Big Quilcene River between the mouth 

and river mile 2.7.

Each instream mini-piezometer is installed directly in the 

stream at a calm location away from point bars or riffles that 

could locally induce surface-water flow through the streambed 

material (hyporheic flow). A direct comparison of surfacewater head (the term “head” as used in this report is defined as 

the height of the free surface of a body of water above a given 

subsurface point) and ground-water head can be made at each 

site using a manometer board (fig. 5). In some places, 

hydraulic conductivity of the streambed material is too low to 

produce enough water for the manometer board to work 

effectively (the time for ground-water levels to achieve 

equilibrium after pumping water through the manometer board 

is too excessive to be practical). An alternative to the 

manometer board is to measure the difference in head directly 

with a steel tape. Steel-tape measurements are made by 

measuring the distance from a measuring point (typically the 

top of the pipe) to the ground-water level inside the minipiezometer and comparing that distance with the stream water 

level outside the mini-piezometer. Steel-tape measurements 

usually are identical to those made with the manometer board.

Qu = discharge at the upstream end of a reach (ft3/s);

Qd = discharge at the downstream end of a reach 

(ft3/s);

T = sum of all tributary inflows within a reach 

(ft3/s); and

D = sum of all irrigation or diversion outflows 

within a reach (ft3/s).
Study Methods 11

3TREAM

SURFACE

)NSTREAM0IEZOMETER

INCHBYFEET	

-ANOMETER

"OARD

0ERISTALTIC

0UMP 7ATERLEVEL

INPIEZOMETER

3TREAMBED

SURFACE

6ALVE

6ALVES

#URRENT

DAMPER

-IDPOINTOF

PIEZOMETER

PERFORATIONS

DL

DH DH

$)!'2!-./44/3#!,%	

4UBING

4UBING

-ANOMETERBOARDINUSE

Figure 5. How a manometer board is used to measure hydraulic head differences throughout a streambed. 

dh is the difference in head (water level) between surface water and ground water. dl is depth below the streambed to the midpoint of piezometer 

perforations. Vertical hydraulic gradient is determined by dividing dh by dl.
12 Ground-Water System and Surface Water/Ground Water Interaction, Eastern Jefferson County, Washington

By convention, when ground-water levels inside the minipiezometer are higher than stream-water levels, the ground 

water is determined to have a positive, or upward, hydraulic 

gradient. Conversely, when ground-water levels inside the 

mini-piezometer are lower than stream-water levels, the 

ground water is determined to have a negative, or downward, 

hydraulic gradient. Upward hydraulic gradients indicate 

gaining or effluent conditions in which ground-water flow is 

toward the stream and contributes to streamflow. Downward 

hydraulic gradients indicate losing or influent conditions in 

which surface-water flow drains from the stream into the 

ground. In this way, areas of gaining and losing streambed 

conditions can be mapped and compared with seepage-run 

data.

To normalize for variations in depth of mini-piezometer 

emplacement, the vertical hydraulic gradient is computed 

using the equation:

, (2)

where

Negative values of iv indicate losing conditions and positive 

values indicate gaining conditions. 

Instream mini-piezometer measurements represent 

hydraulic conditions at the point of the mini-piezometer at that 

particular point in time. All mini-piezometers were measured 

periodically over a 1-year period from July 2002 to July 2003 

to determine how hydraulic conditions vary seasonally. The 

seasonal variations in hydraulic gradients can be compared 

with water temperatures to better understand how gaining or 

losing conditions change with time.

Vertical Temperature Profiles

Surface-water temperatures in eastern Jefferson County 

typically range from 0 to 25 oC over the course of a year 

because of variations in seasonal air temperature. 

Superimposed on the annual cycle is a diurnal cycle of 2 to 

4 oC in stream temperatures caused by warming during the day 

and cooling at night. Ground water is insulated from daily 

heating and cooling, and thus remains at a nearly constant 

temperature (seasonal temperature variations cause groundwater temperatures to vary by a few degrees over the course of 

several seasons). When surface water enters the streambed, it 

carries with it a thermal energy signature with a diurnal pattern 

that can affect temperatures locally in the adjacent aquifer. 

When ground water enters the streambed and discharges into 

surface water, the thermal signature from the surface water can 

change abruptly. Thus, the thermal signatures throughout a 

vertical section of the streambed can be used to indicate the 

directions of flow through the streambed and assess gaining 

and losing conditions. Because temperature is a relatively easy 

parameter to measure, multiple temperature sensors can be 

programmed to record continuous data providing detailed 

information on how surface water/ground water exchanges 

vary with time.

In this study, four specially constructed piezometers were 

installed in the streambed. Each was instrumented with 

temperature sensors recording water temperature at different 

depths below the streambed and in the stream itself. Each 

piezometer consists of a 5-foot length of 1.5-inch-diameter 

pipe attached to a 2-foot-long screen and drive-point assembly 

(fig. 3). The piezometers were hand-driven into the streambed 

to a depth of 4 or 5 ft and temperature data loggers were 

installed at the top and bottom of the screened section. Another 

data logger was placed on the streambed and anchored to the 

outside of the piezometer to record stream temperatures. All 

temperature loggers were programmed to record every 2 hours 

for a total of 12 temperature readings per day. Temperature 

data were collected at two sites on Chimacum Creek, one site 

on the Big Quilcene River, and one site on the Little Quilcene 

River from May 2002 to July 2003. The surface-water 

temperature loggers matched occasional field measurements 

within a degree and recorded good-quality data. Ground-water 

temperatures could not be verified with field measurements 

without disturbing the temperature profile. Big Quilcene 

surface-water data were lost from November 27, 2002, to April 

23, 2003, when the data logger was washed away by a flood in 

March 2003. During extreme low-flow conditions in the late 

summer of 2002, surface-water data for the Big Quilcene River 

did not accurately reflect river temperatures because the data 

logger was isolated in a shallow pool disconnected from the 

main channel. Some of the data could be substituted with 

temperature data from a nearby site operated by the City of 

Port Townsend. The uppermost data logger in the piezometer 

on Chimacum Creek near the high school also was out of the 

water for periods during extreme low-flow conditions. 

iv = vertical hydraulic gradient (unitless);

dh = measured difference between head in minipiezometer and stream stage, in units of 

length; and

dl = vertical distance between streambed and midpoint of mini-piezometer perforations, in units 

of length. 

iv

dh

dl = -----
Ground-Water System in the Chimacum Creek Basin 13

Ground-Water System in the 

Chimacum Creek Basin

Eastern Jefferson County is situated between two major 

physiographic features, the Olympic Mountains to the west and 

the Puget Sound Lowland to the east. These two features 

dominate both the geologic history and the present hydrologic 

regime. The occurrence of ground-water resources is 

intimately tied to the geology and the climatic setting created 

by these features. 

The Olympic Mountains are a prominent landform on the 

west coast of Washington State formed by tectonic forces 

related to subduction of oceanic crust beneath the western coast 

of North America. The Olympic Mountains represent a unique 

geologic situation where a portion of oceanic crust was not 

subducted, but rather was crumpled and ultimately accreted 

against the North American continent. The central core of the 

Olympic Mountains consists of metamorphosed Eocene-age 

marine sedimentary rocks that were uplifted and faulted against 

a peripheral assemblage of oceanic crust and sedimentary rocks 

that form an arc shape around the north and east flanks of the 

Olympic Mountains (Tabor and Cady, 1978). The peripheral 

rocks (fig. 6A) consist of Eocene-age, dark volcanic basalts and 

breccias, intrusive andesites, and marine sandstones and 

conglomerates that wrap around the central core of 

metamorphic sedimentary rocks. These deformed peripheral 

rocks form the bedrock beneath eastern Jefferson County.

The Olympic Mountains and Puget Sound Lowland have 

since been shaped by mountain glaciers and massive 

continental ice sheets. From 2 million years ago to about 

10,000 years ago, eastern Jefferson County was blanketed by at 

least four Cordilleran ice sheets that advanced southward from 

British Columbia. Evidence of the youngest advance, known as 

the Vashon Stade of the Fraser glaciation, which covered the 

area with nearly 4,000 ft of ice between 17,000 and 12,000 

years ago, is well preserved in western Washington 

(Easterbrook, 1979). The Fraser Glaciation consisted of two 

lobes of ice, the Juan de Fuca lobe, extending west into the 

Strait of Juan de Fuca, and the Puget lobe, extending down the 

Puget Sound Lowland and stopping just south of Olympia, 

Washington (fig. 6B). Each sequence of glaciations left behind 

a wide variety of deposits, including unconsolidated sediments 

deposited in front of the advancing ice front, unsorted and 

highly compacted tills deposited beneath the ice sheet, and 

sediments deposited behind the receding ice front, including 

ice-dam lake deposits (table 2). Interglacial periods also are 

marked by paleosols, glaciomarine drift, and peat bog or marsh 

deposits. Thus, the stratigraphy of unconsolidated sediments in 

eastern Jefferson County is complex, owing to the 

juxtaposition of environments of deposition and erosion of 

units by the advancing ice and recessional fluvial systems.

The modern-day drainage pattern is affected by the 

geomorphology of the post-glacial surface. Most of the major 

drainages follow pathways established either by mountain 

glaciers (Big Quilcene and Little Quilcene Rivers) or by 

Vashon recessional outwash channels (Chimacum and Tarboo 

Creeks). The spatial variation in precipitation plays an 

important role in determining the amount of water available for 

surface-water flow and for recharging the ground-water 

system. The rainshadow zone behind the Olympic Mountains 

generally results in drier climatic conditions in the Chimacum 

area and wetter conditions and higher streamflows in the 

Quilcene area.

Hydrogeologic Units

Quaternary Alluvium 

The youngest deposits in the study area are Holocene-age 

alluvial deposits (Qa, pl. 1) that include silt, sand, and peat 

deposits in flat valley bottoms and small lake basins, dune and 

beach sands along the Puget Sound shoreline, and small 

landslide deposits. The most notable Holocene deposits are the 

alluvial sediments through which Chimacum Creek, Tarboo 

Creek, and the lowermost reaches of the Big and Little 

Quilcene Rivers flow. In the Chimacum Creek area, this 

material consists of very poorly drained, organic rich soil 

known as the Semiahmoo Muck (U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, 1975). These deposits form fertile agricultural 

lands adjoining Chimacum Creek and the East Fork of 

Chimacum Creek, although they typically need to be drained of 

saturated water before they can be used for agricultural 

purposes. Many of the tributaries to Chimacum Creek and parts 

of Chimacum Creek itself have been modified by dredging to 

improve drainage for the adjacent bottomland.

Although they may be saturated for much of the year, the 

alluvial deposits are not a good source of water. The soils are 

either too fine-grained to yield water or too rich in organic 

matter to be useful for household use. The peat deposits in the 

Chimacum and Tarboo Valleys are essentially impermeable (or 

transmit water at a very slow rate), therefore they act as a 

barrier to surface-water and ground-water exchange. In the 

Quilcene area, the alluvial deposits are more permeable, thus 

surface-water and ground-water exchanges are more 

pronounced.

Ground-water recharge through these organic-rich 

alluvial materials is very limited. Although hydraulic gradients 

were detected in mini-piezometers emplaced in the Semiahmoo 

Muck, the mini-piezometers did not yield much water and took 

days or weeks to equilibrate. Therefore, ground-water recharge 

and discharge through all of the fine-grained Holocene alluvial 

materials is considered negligible. 
14 Ground-Water System and Surface Water/Ground Water Interaction, Eastern Jefferson County, Washington

-/5.4

/,9-053

#%.42!,

#/2%

#!,!7!(   &!5,4

(522)#!.%

2)$

'

%

&!5,4

'2%9 7/,&

&!5

,4

0%2)0(%2!, 2/#+3

   0%2)0(%2!,  2

/#

+3

!'ENERALIZEDGEOLOGYOFTHE/LYMPIC-OUNTAINSFROM4ABORAND#ADY	

Figure 6. Generalized geology of the Olympic Mountains (from Tabor and Cady, 1978) and the extent of the Vashon Puget lobe of the Fraser Cordilleran 

glaciation (from Easterbrook, 1979).
Ground-Water System in the Chimacum Creek Basin 15

"%XTENTOF6ASHON0UGETLOBEOFTHE&RASER#ORDILLERANGLACIATIONFROM%ASTERBROOK	



  



 -),%3

     +),/-%4%23

Figure 6.—Continued.
16 Ground-Water System and Surface Water/Ground Water Interaction, Eastern Jefferson County, Washington

Vashon Recessional Outwash

Sediments that were deposited as the Pleistocene-age 

Vashon ice sheet retreated include a variety of materials 

collectively known as the Vashon Recessional Outwash (Qvr, 

pl. 1). The Qvr consists of sorted and stratified sands and 

gravels with relatively good porosity and permeability. These 

materials were deposited by high-energy streams that eroded 

and re-deposited till and other materials; they were not 

compacted by subsequent ice sheets. Some of the fine-grained 

sediments were deposited in a lake that formed as the retreating 

ice margin blocked drainage to the north. The resulting large 

lake, known as Lake Leland, filled much of Puget Sound, 

including both forks of Chimacum Creek, until the ice dam 

was breached and the water drained.

The Qvr deposits are found partly filling the bottoms of 

the main drainages, including Chimacum Creek, Tarboo 

Creek, and the Big and Little Quilcene Rivers. Isolated 

remnants also occur in depressions or low areas on the till 

surface. The Qvr generally is less than 50 ft thick but may 

exceed 100 ft north of the community of Chimacum. The 

coarse-grained layers generally are water-bearing and may 

form an unconfined water-table aquifer when not overlain by 

fine-grained impermeable layers. Because the main surfacewater drainages in eastern Jefferson County occupy valleys 

underlain by Qvr, there is a strong tendency for surface water 

to interact with ground water from this unit.

Because Qvr contains highly permeable materials, the 

unit can be recharged from multiple sources, including the 

direct infiltration of precipitation onto the surface of the unit, 

through lateral flow from underlying units, and from seepage 

of surface water along losing reaches of creeks that cross the 

unit. Discharge from Qvr occurs along gaining reaches of 

creeks that cross the unit and through the bottom of the unit 

into the underlying materials. 

Table 2. Summary of lithologic and hydrologic characteristics of geologic units in the Chimacum Creek Basin, eastern Jefferson County, Washington

[Range of thickness: Values are based on observed thicknesses of units derived from lithologic logs of inventoried wells. Number of inventoried wells open to 

unit: Wells open to only one hydrogeologic unit were included. –, thickness of bedrock was not estimated]

Geologic unit Unit label

Range of 

thickness 

[estimated 

average 

thickness] 

(feet)

Lithologic and hydrologic characteristics

Number of 

inventoried 

wells open 

to unit

Quaternary Alluvium Qa 0–50

[15]

Unit occurs in the axis of the main stream valleys and generally is poorly 

drained. Subdivided into fine- grained alluvial deposits and organic 

rich soil, peat, and muck deposits. 

0

Vashon Recessional 

Outwash

Qvr 0–100 

[<50]

Unit occurs in most stream valleys and is subdivided into coarse-grained 

sand and gravel zones and fine- grained silt and clay zones. Waterbearing zones generally are unconfined and may be in hydraulic 

continuity with surface-water systems.

5

Vashon Lodgement 

Till

Qvt 0–100

[40]

Unit forms grooved surface over much of the area and consists of finegrained, highly compacted clay, sand, and gravel. One local area of 

coarse-grained sand and gravel was subdivided. Unit generally occurs 

above the water table.

0

Vashon Advance 

Outwash

Qva 100–200

[100]

Widespread unit consisting of well-sorted layers of sand and gravel 

interfingered with zones of silt, clay, and peat. Subdivided into coarsegrained zones, fine-grained zones, and local peat interbeds. A major 

water-bearing unit with one highly productive zone known as the 

Sparling Aquifer.

57

Older Glacial 

deposits 

(undivided)

Qgo 200–1,000+ 

[300]

Widespread unit consisting of well-sorted layers of sand and gravel 

interfingered with till and fine-grained interglacial deposits. Unit 

occurs throughout the study area but is only exposed on the east side 

of Chimacum Valley. Coarse-grained zones generally are water 

bearing. 

39

Eocene Bedrock OEm

Eva

Em

Evcf

– Widespread unit underlying all glacial deposits. Subdivided by formation 

and includes sandstone, siltstone, shale, conglomerate, basaltic flows 

and breccias, and andesite flows and breccias. Locally yields usable 

quantities of water where rocks are fractured. Yields generally are 

small.

9
Ground-Water System in the Chimacum Creek Basin 17

Vashon Lodgement Till

Vashon Lodgement Till (Qvt, pl. 1) is a poorly sorted 

mixture of sand, gravel, and boulders representing eroded 

materials smeared at the base of the Pleistocene-age Vashon ice 

sheet. This material was compressed as nearly 4,000 ft of ice 

moved over it (fig. 6B). In some places, the material is highly 

compacted and very resistant and commonly is referred to by 

drillers as “hard pan.” In other places, the till has been 

reworked and is not compacted. Drillers’ logs sometimes do 

not distinguish till from other materials. The Qvt is widely 

exposed in the study area and forms the distinctive fluted 

surface consisting of narrow, regularly spaced parallel ridges 

and grooves oriented in a north-south direction. In the Quilcene 

area, Qvt is found on the sides of valleys in the upper reaches 

of the Big Quilcene River (Grimstad and Carson, 1981). The 

till is not present in areas where ice was in direct contact with 

bedrock or in the main river valleys, where recessional outwash 

streams eroded the till away. 

The Qvt is not a significant producer of water because the 

unit generally lies above the water table. In addition, its 

primary porosity and permeability have been reduced by the 

effects of compaction. The low hydraulic conductivity of the 

till acts to retard the infiltration of precipitation, causing lakes 

or wetlands to form in depressions on the Qvt surface. The 

thickness of Qvt ranges from 40 ft or less to as much as 100 ft 

across the study area. Ranges in thickness are due in part to 

erosion but also to inconsistent descriptions of the material in 

drillers’ logs.

The Qvt is recharged through the direct infiltration of 

precipitation onto the surface of the unit. Till generally is 

considered a relatively impermeable unit. However, the 

percentage of precipitation that (1) runs off to form surfacewater flow, (2) is lost through evapotranspiration, or (3) is able 

to recharge underlying aquifers is not known. The lack of a 

dense drainage network, abundant lakes, or wetlands suggests 

that a large portion of precipitation does infiltrate, despite the 

low hydraulic conductivity of the till. Lateral ground-water 

flow probably is very slow, so that the primary ground-water 

discharge from the till is through the bottom of the unit into the 

underlying materials.

Vashon Advance Outwash

The Vashon Advance Outwash (Qva, pl. 1) is a stratified 

sequence of silts, clays, and peat deposits that interfinger with 

well-sorted sands, gravels, and cobbles. The sequence was 

deposited by melt-water streams preceding the advancing 

Pleistocene-age Vashon ice sheet. This material is found in 

outcrops beneath till on the west side of the Chimacum Valley 

and in isolated outcrops near the coastlines of Oak Bay and Port 

Ludlow Bay. The Qva is notably absent beneath the till on the 

east side of the Chimacum Valley (pl. 1), as well as on the east 

side of Tarboo Creek and on the Bolton Peninsula (Grimstad 

and Carson, 1981). The absence of these deposits beneath till in 

these areas suggests that the unit either never was deposited or 

was subsequently scraped off by the advancing Vashon ice 

sheet.

The Qva is the most prolific water-bearing unit in the area 

because of its lateral continuity and favorable primary porosity 

and permeability. The thickness of the unit ranges from 0 to a 

little more than 200 ft (fig. 7). On the east side of Chimacum 

Valley, limited exposures indicate that Qva may be present but 

it is not clear if the unit is laterally continuous. West of 

Chimacum Creek, copious amounts of ground water are 

produced from coarse-grained layers within Qva for both 

domestic and public-supply uses. Some layers within the unit 

are estimated to be capable of producing more than 1,000 

gal/min (CH2M Hill, 1996). The Jefferson County PUD #1 

currently withdraws water at a rate of about 555 gal/min from 

a highly transmissive layer known as the Sparling Aquifer to 

supply the communities of Chimacum, Irondale, and Port 

Hadlock. Additional water rights are being sought in order to 

expand the system and provide Marrowstone Island with a 

public water supply.

Recharge to Qva is primarily through the overlying till or 

by direct infiltration of precipitation on exposed areas. Because 

some layers of Qva are highly transmissive, lateral groundwater velocities may be high. Ground-water discharge is 

evident in springs and seeps at the base of valley slopes where 

the unit is exposed. Water also may discharge where Qva is in 

lateral contact with overlapping recessional outwash materials 

(Qvr). Ground water also is discharged through pumping for 

domestic use.

Older Glacial Deposits

Little is known about the distribution of materials 

deposited during the Pleistocene-age glaciations preceding the 

Vashon Stade of the Fraser glaciation. These materials are 

largely buried. The best exposures are in shoreline bluffs along 

the Toandos and Bolton Peninsulas south of the study area 

(Grimstad and Carson, 1981; Easterbrook, 1986). Older 

Glacial Deposits (Qgo, pl. 1) also can be found on the steep 

valley flanks of the East Fork of Chimacum Creek and on the 

east side of the Tarboo Valley. The Qgo consists of a variety of 

materials including two densely compacted tills that are 

correlated with the Possession Drift and the Double Bluff Drift 

(Easterbrook, 1986). Elsewhere within this unit are finegrained silts and clays deposited during inter-glacial periods. 

The depositional sequence is further complicated by erosion 

and reworking of sediments by successive glaciations. The 

result is discontinuous lenses of permeable sands and gravels 

separated by fine-grained materials with lower permeability.
18 Ground-Water System and Surface Water/Ground Water Interaction, Eastern Jefferson County, Washington







































g g



"ASEFROM53'EOLOGICAL3URVEY$IGITAL$ATA

5NIVERSAL4RANSVERSE-ERCATORPROJECTION:ONE$ATUM.!$

(ILLSHADE
MODIFIEDFROM
FOOT$IGITAL%LEVATION-ODELDATA

0UGET3OUND,)$!2#ONSORTIUM0ROJECTIONPARAMETERS3TATE0LANE.ORTH

HORIZONTALDATUM.!$ANDVERTICALDATUM.!6$

).$)!.

)3,!.$

-!22/734/.%

-),,%2

)3,!.$

0%.).35,!

15)-0%2

0%.).35,!

4ARBOO  

 #REEK

#HIMACUM  #REEK

/AK"AY

,ELAND

#REEK

3NO

W

#REEK

$ISCOVERY

"AY

+ILISUT

(ARBOR

"AY 4OWNSEND

0ORT

0ORT

,UDLOW"AY

-ATS

-ATS

"AY

%AST

&ORK

#H

MI ACUM  #REEK

#ENTER

0ORT(ADLOCK

#HIMACUM

)RONDALE

0ORT,UDLOW

&)'52%,/#!4)/.



 



  -),%3

    +),/-%4%23

%80,!.!4)/.

6!3(/.!$6!.#%/547!3(1VA	/54#2/0

,).%/&%15!,4()#+.%33/&6!3(/.!$6!.#%

/547!3()NTERVALFEET

%84%.4/&5.)41VA





Figure 7. Extent and thickness of the Vashon Advance Outwash in the Chimacum Creek Basin, eastern Jefferson County, Washington.
Ground-Water System in the Chimacum Creek Basin 19

The distribution and thickness of the Qgo is largely 

conjectural. Although there are relatively few outcrop 

exposures, these deposits are presumed to underlie much of the 

study area. The thickness of the Qgo ranges from 0 to more 

than 700 ft because of the variation in depth to bedrock and the 

varied surface topography expressed throughout the 

Chimacum Creek Basin (fig. 8). The unit may be more than 

1,000 ft thick to the north as the depth to bedrock increases 

beneath the Quimper Peninsula. A number of domestic wells 

use ground water from sandy lenses within the Qgo; however, 

whether these lenses have sufficient water to support larger 

scale development is unknown.

Recharge to permeable layers within the Qgo most likely 

moves vertically from the overlying units. Where till overlies 

Qgo, recharge is probably a slow process, but where Qva 

overlies Qgo recharge could be much faster. Some recharge 

may infiltrate directly where the unit is exposed on valley 

slopes. Ground-water discharge is evident along the eastern 

coastline adjacent to Oak Bay, Mats Mats Bay, and Port 

Ludlow Bay, where the ground-water flow path follows the 

contact with bedrock to the surface. Occasional springs, seeps, 

and artesian wells are reported in these areas.

Bedrock

Eastern Jefferson County is underlain by a thick 

assemblage of Eocene-age oceanic rocks that form a broad arc 

around the north and east flanks of the Olympic Mountains. 

Not only are these rocks faulted and highly deformed, but they 

also are poorly exposed and therefore poorly understood. For 

the purposes of this study, bedrock units are lumped into four 

general categories. From oldest to youngest, these include 

oceanic crustal rocks of volcanic origin generally known as the 

Eocene Crescent Formation (Evcf); rocks of marine 

sedimentary origin generally known as the Eocene Lyre 

Formation or the Eocene Twin River Formation (Em); 

intrusive andesites associated with the Lyre Formation (Eva); 

and undivided marine sedimentary rocks of Eocene to 

Oligocene age (OEm) (Tabor and Cady, 1978; pl. 1). The Evcf 

consists of basalts, basaltic breccias, and volcaniclastic rocks 

that are exposed south of Port Ludlow, west of Mats Mats Bay, 

along the southeastern side of Discovery Bay, and in the upper 

reaches of the Big and Little Quilcene Rivers. The Em consist 

primarily of sandstones and siltstones, but also of minor 

amounts of shale, conglomerates, and interbedded andesite 

flows and breccias that outcrop along the coastline of Oak Bay, 

on Indian Island, and in a broad swath from the south end of 

Discovery Bay to the north end of Quilcene Bay (Tabor and 

Cady, 1978, Grimstad and Carson, 1981). Intrusive andesites 

mapped as part of the Lyre Formation are exposed in the 

vicinity of Anderson and Gibbs Lakes (Tabor and Cady, 1978). 

Other sedimentary rocks that are interpreted to be of Eocene to 

Oligocene age are exposed in outcrops distributed along the 

coastline of Oak Bay and south of Discovery Bay. Most of the 

contacts between bedrock units are structural and were not 

mapped as part of this study. Bedrock contacts shown on plate 

1 are generalized and are not intended to represent structural 

interpretation.

The altitude of the bedrock surface throughout the 

Chimacum Creek Basin ranges from 800 ft above NAVD 1988 

to about 900 ft below NAVD 1988 (fig. 9) (Jones, 1996). An 

apparent trough in the bedrock surface extends in a north-south 

direction beneath the communities of Center, Chimacum, and 

Irondale. North of Irondale, the depth to bedrock increases 

beneath the Quimper Peninsula. 

In places where bedrock is at or near the surface, the 

potential for developing ground-water resources is small. The 

Eocene volcanic rocks generally lack sufficient primary 

porosity and permeability to support more than small-scale 

domestic water supplies. The Eocene sedimentary rocks also 

are poorly producing, owing to the degree of cementation, 

which decreases effective pore space. In some areas, however, 

interconnected fractures, joints, and permeable layers may 

yield significant quantities of water, but the locations of highyielding areas within bedrock areas are extremely difficult to 

predict.

Because of the impermeable nature of the bedrock units, 

most precipitation falling on bedrock areas runs off to local 

streams. For this reason, bedrock areas generally have a higher 

density of small drainages. Ground-water recharge in bedrock 

areas is likely a small proportion of the total precipitation. A 

small amount of discharge is possible in bedrock areas in the 

form of springs or seeps, primarily near the coast.

Hydraulic Properties

Hydraulic conductivity is a measure of a material’s ability 

to transmit a given fluid, and in unconsolidated sediment is 

dependent of the size, shape, distribution, and packing of 

individual particles. Because these characteristics vary greatly 

within each hydrogeologic unit, hydraulic-conductivity values 

also vary greatly.

The horizontal component of hydraulic conductivity for 

the main hydrogeologic units was estimated using drawdown 

data collected by drillers where water levels were measured 

after wells were pumped for periods ranging from 1 to 168 

hours. Only data from those wells that had a drillers’ log 

containing discharge or pumping rate, time of pumping, 

drawdown, static water level, well-construction data, and 

lithologic logs were used. Data from air tests were not included.
20 Ground-Water System and Surface Water/Ground Water Interaction, Eastern Jefferson County, Washington





























































#ENTER

0ORT

(ADLOCK

#HIMACUM

)RONDALE

0ORT,UDLOW

"ASEFROM53'EOLOGICAL3URVEY$IGITAL$ATA

5NIVERSAL4RANSVERSE-ERCATORPROJECTION:ONE$ATUM.!$

(ILLSHADE
MODIFIEDFROM
FOOT$IGITAL%LEVATION-ODELDATA 0UGET3OUND,)$!2#ONSORTIUM0ROJECTIONPARAMETERS3TATE0LANE.ORTH

HORIZONTALDATUM.!$ANDVERTICALDATUM.!6$

g g



).$)!.

)3,!.$

-!22/734/.%

)3,!.$

-),,%2

0%.).35,!

15)-0%2

0%.).35,!

4ARBOO 

 #REEK

#HIMACUM  #REEK

/AK"AY

,ELAND

#REEK

3NO

W

#REEK

$ISCOVERY

"AY

+ILISUT

(ARBOR

"AY 4OWNSEND

0ORT

0ORT

,UDLOW"AY

-ATS

-ATS

"AY

%AST &ORK

#HIMACUM #REEK

&)'52%,/#!4)/.



 



  -),%3

    +),/-%4%23

%80,!.!4)/.

/,$%2',!#)!,$%0/3)41GO	/54#2/0

,).%/&%15!,4()#+.%33/&/,$%2',!#)!,

$%0/3)43)NTERVALFEET

%84%.4/&5.)41GO





Figure 8. Extent and thickness of the Older Glacial Deposits in the Chimacum Creek Basin, eastern Jefferson County, Washington.
Ground-Water System in the Chimacum Creek Basin 21




















 















































































































g g



"ASEFROM53'EOLOGICAL3URVEY$IGITAL$ATA

5NIVERSAL4RANSVERSE-ERCATORPROJECTION:ONE$ATUM.!$

(ILLSHADE
MODIFIEDFROM
FOOT$IGITAL%LEVATION-ODELDATA

0UGET3OUND,)$!2#ONSORTIUM0ROJECTIONPARAMETERS3TATE0LANE.ORTH

HORIZONTALDATUM.!$ANDVERTICALDATUM.!6$

).$)!.

)3,!.$

-!22/734/.%

)3,!.$

-),,%2

0%.).35,!

15)-0%2

0%.).35,!

4ARBOO  

 #REEK

#HIMACUM  #REEK

/AK"AY

,ELAND

#REEK

3NO

W

#REEK

$ISCOVERY

"AY

+ILISUT

(ARBOR

"AY 4OWNSEND

0ORT

0ORT

,UDLOW"AY

-ATS

-ATS

"AY

%AST &ORK

#HIMACUM

#REEK

#ENTER

0ORT

(ADLOCK

#HIMACUM

)RONDALE

0ORT,UDLOW

%80,!.!4)/. &)'52%,/#!4)/.

"%$2/#+/54#2/0

"%$2/#+#/.4/523HOWSALTITUDEOFBEDROCK

SURFACE#ONTOURINTERVALFEET$ATUMIS.!6$

3HADEDCONTOURSBELOWDATUM





 



  -),%3

    +),/-%4%23

Figure 9. Altitude of the bedrock surface in Chimacum Creek Basin, eastern Jefferson County, Washington. 

Altitudes are based on topographic exposures, well data, interpreted thickness of unconsolidated deposits, and published data from Jones (1996).
22 Ground-Water System and Surface Water/Ground Water Interaction, Eastern Jefferson County, Washington

Two different sets of equations were used to estimate 

horizontal hydraulic conductivity, depending on well 

construction. For wells with a screened or perforated interval, 

the modified Theis equation (Ferris and others, 1962) was first 

used to estimate transmissivity of the pumped interval. 

Transmissivity is the product of horizontal hydraulic 

conductivity and thickness of the portion of the hydrogeologic 

unit supplying water to the well. The modified equation is

 , (3)

where

The following assumptions are made when using 

equation 3: (1) Aquifers are homogeneous, isotropic, and 

infinite in extent; (2) wells are fully penetrating; (3) flow to the 

well is horizontal; and (4) water is released from storage 

instantaneously. Additionally, for unconfined aquifers, it is 

assumed that drawdown is small relative to the saturated 

thickness of the aquifer. A computer program was used to 

solve equation 3 for transmissivity (T) using Newton’s 

iterative method (Carnahan and others, 1969). The difference 

in computed transmissivity between using 0.1 and 0.0001 for 

the storage coefficient is a factor of only about 2. Next, 

horizontal hydraulic conductivity is calculated using 

equation 4:

 , (4)

where

The use of the length of a well’s open interval for b may 

overestimate values of Kh because the equations assume that 

all the water flows horizontally within a layer of this thickness. 

Although some of the flow will be outside this region, the 

amount can be expected to be small because in most 

sedimentary deposits, vertical flow is inhibited by horizontal 

layering of fine-grained materials like clay or silt. Another 

source of error in equation 4 is the level of accuracy for 

drawdown, pumping rate, and length of time the well was 

pumped reported by the driller. Although there are 

uncertainties and some of the assumptions may not be 

precisely met, the calculated hydraulic conductivities are 

within the expected range of values and appear to be 

reasonable estimates.

A few wells did not have screened intervals but were 

installed with an open end at the bottom of the casing. For these 

wells, Bear (1979) provides an equation for hemispherical 

flow to an open-ended well just penetrating a hydrogeologic 

unit. When modified for spherical flow to an open-ended well 

within a unit, the equation becomes:

 , (5)

where

Equation 5 is based on the assumption that horizontal and 

vertical hydraulic conductivities are equal, which is not likely 

for the deposits within the study area. Violation of this 

assumption results in an underestimate of Kh by an unknown 

amount. Horizontal hydraulic conductivities computed for 

wells without screens using equation 5 were much lower than 

expected, and therefore were not used to calculate median Kh

values for a particular hydrogeologic unit.

s = drawdown in the well, in feet;

Q = discharge, or pumping rate, of the well, in 

ft3/d;

T = transmissivity of the hydrogeologic unit, in 

ft2/d;

t = length of time the well was pumped, in days;

r = radius of the well, in feet; and

S = storage coefficient, a dimensionless number, 

assumed to be 0.0001 for confined units and 

0.1 for unconfined units.

Kh = horizontal hydraulic conductivity of the 

geologic material in the vicinity of the well 

opening, in feet per day;

T = transmissivity of the hydrogeologic unit, in 

ft2/d; and

b = thickness, in feet, approximated using the 

length of the open interval as reported in the 

drillers’ report.

s Q

4πT ---------In2.25Tt

r2S = ---------------

Kh

T

b = --

Kh = horizontal hydraulic conductivity of the 

geologic material in the vicinity of the well 

opening, in feet per day;

Q = discharge, or pumping rate, of the well, in 

ft3/d;

s = drawdown in the well, in feet; and

r = radius of the well, in feet.

Kh

Q

4πsr = -----------
Ground-Water System 23

Median values for horizontal hydraulic conductivity were 

calculated using available data for each hydrogeologic unit 

(table 3). The estimates of horizontal hydraulic conductivity 

are considered reasonable for the Qgo and Qva because most of 

the wells are screened in either of these two aquifers. The 

available data are sparse for wells screened in bedrock and Qvr. 

None of the inventoried wells had screens in Qvt or Qa. The 

median horizontal hydraulic conductivities (Kh) for Qvr (10 

ft/d), Qva (130 ft/d), Qgo (22 ft/d), and bedrock (0.53 ft/d) are 

similar in magnitude to values reported by Freeze and Cherry 

(1979) for similar materials. Two of the PUD public-supply 

wells, the Sparling well (29N/01W-3K02) and the Kively well 

(29N/01W-2R02), derive water from a very coarse-grained 

part of the Qva locally known as the Sparling Aquifer. Pump 

tests conducted in 1996 on the Sparling Aquifer indicated an 

effective transmissivity of about 111,600 ft2/d (CH2M Hill, 

1996). Such a high transmissivity may be due to the fact that 

production wells are constructed with large-screened intervals 

or have screens in multiple water-bearing units. For these 

reasons, wells that were developed specifically to maximize 

water production were not used to calculate median Kh values 

for the Qva.

Ground-Water System

The main hydrogeologic units that produce ground water 

for domestic residential or agricultural use in eastern Jefferson 

County are Qva, Qgo, and to a much lesser extent Qvr. These 

hydrogeologic units make up the bulk of unconsolidated 

materials overlying bedrock (pl. 1). The Vashon Lodgement 

Till (Qvt) is not an important water-bearing unit, but it does 

control the rate of infiltration and therefore acts as a semiconfining layer. These main hydrogeologic units is composed 

of similar materials; water-bearing layers composed of silty 

sand to sandy gravel are interbedded with lenses of lowerconductivity clays, peat, and silt, as well as older lodgement 

tills. Layers dominated by fine-grained materials are 

distinguished from coarse-grained materials where possible on 

hydrogeologic sections (pl. 1). Correlation of these layers is 

based on drillers’ logs and geologic interpolation between 

wells. The fine-grained and coarse-grained layers depicted on 

hydrogeologic sections (pl. 1) are oversimplified because of the 

lack of detailed well information and the lack of deep wells in 

particular. However, no extensive, laterally continuous layers 

of significantly low-conductivity material (confining layers) 

were identified in this study. Confining layers may be present 

at depth, but none of the wells inventoried in this study 

penetrated to such depths. 

Little is known about the lower parts of Qgo, thus the unit 

is conservatively estimated to consist of fine-grained material. 

The lack of substantial confining layers in Qva and the upper 

parts of Qgo suggests that vertical ground-water movement 

between hydrogeologic units is relatively uninhibited. It may 

be more accurate to consider the entire sequence of 

unconsolidated material as a single hydrogeologic unit in 

which ground-water movement is inferred to occur 

preferentially in coarse-grained layers of high hydraulic 

conductivity.

Ground-Water Levels

The direction of ground-water movement can be inferred as 

from areas of higher ground-water altitudes to areas of lower 

ground-water altitudes. Depth-to-water measurements made 

during the well inventory in spring 2002 were subtracted from 

LIDAR land-surface altitudes to obtain a water-level altitude 

(relative to the North American Vertical Datum of 1988 [NAVD 

88]). These altitudes were used to produce a water-level 

contour map of the Chimacum Creek Basin (fig. 10). 

Table 3. Estimated horizontal hydraulic conductivities for the 

hydrogeologic units in the Chimacum Creek Basin, eastern Jefferson County, 

Washington

[Hydraulic conductivities were based on data from selected wells in the 

Chimacum Creek Basin that derive water from a single hydrogeologic unit. –, 

not determined]

Hydrogeologic unit

Hydraulic conductivity (feet per day)

Number 

of wells Minimum Median Maximum

Quaternary Alluvium (Qa) 0 – – –

Vashon Recessional 

Outwash (Qvr)

2 10 10 11

Vashon Lodgement 

Till (Qvt)

0 – – –

Vashon Advance 

Outwash (Qva)

132 3.2 130 13,000

Older Glacial deposits 

(Qgo)

31 .22 22 830

Bedrock undivided

(OEm, Em, Evcf)

8 .07 .53 4.9

1PUD public-supply wells that have been developed and optimized 

to achieve maximum water production (CH2M Hill, 1996) were not 

included.
24 Ground-Water System and Surface Water/Ground Water Interaction, Eastern Jefferson County, Washington

#ENTER

#HIMACUM

)RONDALE

0ORT,UDLOW

0ORT

(ADLOCK

























































"ASEFROM53'EOLOGICAL3URVEY$IGITAL$ATA

5NIVERSAL4RANSVERSE-ERCATORPROJECTION:ONE$ATUM.!$

(ILLSHADE
MODIFIEDFROM
FOOT$IGITAL%LEVATION-ODELDATA

0UGET3OUND,)$!2#ONSORTIUM0ROJECTIONPARAMETERS3TATE0LANE.ORTH

HORIZONTALDATUM.!$ANDVERTICALDATUM.!6$

).$)!.

)3,!.$

-!22/734/.%

)3,!.$

-),,%2

0%.).35,!

15)-0%2

0%.).35,!

4ARBOO  #REEK    #HIMACUM  #REEK

/AK"AY

,ELAND

#REEK

3NO

W

#REEK

$ISCOVERY

"AY

+ILISUT

(ARBOR

"AY 4OWNSEND

0ORT

0ORT

,UDLOW"AY

g g



-ATS

-ATS

"AY

%AST

&ORK

#HIMACUM

#REEK

&)'52%,/#!4)/.



 



  -),%3

    +),/-%4%23

%80,!.!4)/.

7!4%2
,%6%,#/.4/52

3HOWSALTITUDEOFGROUNDWATER

INFEETABOVE.!6$

#ONTOURINTERVALVARIABLE

!002/8)-!4%$)2%#4)/./&

'2/5.$
7!4%2&,/7



Figure 10. Water-level contours and approximate directions of ground-water flow in aquifers in the Qva and Qgo units in the Chimacum Creek

Basin, eastern Jefferson County, Washington.
Ground-Water System 25

Water-level contours were drawn only where aquifers were 

interpreted to be in lateral continuity. Measurements from both 

Qva and Qgo were used for the map, because there were no 

significant differences in water-level altitudes when the two 

units were mapped separately. The similarity of water-level 

altitudes indicates that vertical head gradients between Qva and 

Qgo are small or non-existent and that there is no laterally 

continuous confining unit acting as a barrier to ground-water 

flow. However, additional examination of adjacent wells 

screened at different depths would be needed to confirm the 

existence (or lack of) vertical gradients.

The water-level contours (fig. 10) were based on waterlevel altitudes measured during the May 2002 well inventory. 

Water-level altitudes measured during the October 2002 

synoptic water-level measurement were within a few feet of the 

May 2002 measurements and did not affect the positions of the 

water-level contours. The contours shown on figure 10 were 

adjusted to match the available data including land-surface 

topographic information, the altitude of ephemeral streams, 

springs, and flowing wells, and the distribution of gaining and 

losing reaches of Chimacum Creek (water-level altitudes are 

slighter higher than creek altitudes in gaining reaches and 

slightly lower than creek altitudes in losing reaches). The 

water-level altitudes generally ranged from 300 to 400 ft above 

NAVD 88 in the southern part of the basin to 0 near the mouth 

of Chimacum Creek.

Ground-Water-Flow Directions

The ground water in the Chimacum Creek Basin generally 

flows from areas of recharge toward areas of discharge in a 

direction perpendicular to the water-level contours. Thus, 

lateral ground-water flow generally parallels the land surface 

as it moves from topographically high areas toward the axis of 

major valleys (fig. 10). Shallow ground water appears to move 

parallel to surface-water flow while deeper ground water 

probably flows in a general direction from south to north. This 

conceptual model of ground-water flow indicates a major area 

of ground-water discharge beneath the south end of Port 

Townsend Bay near the mouth of Chimacum Creek. Ground 

water on the margins of the Chimacum Creek Basin flows 

eastward toward the western coast of Puget Sound or westward 

toward the coastline of Discovery Bay to emerge as springs and 

seeps near the coastline or offshore. 

Movement of water within Qvr begins as direct 

precipitation infiltrates from the surface, as water leaks from 

Chimacum Creek, and other possible hydrologic connections 

with Qva or Qgo. One prominent recharge area is along a losing 

reach of Chimacum Creek located near the community of 

Chimacum. Water moves preferentially within coarse-grained 

layers parallel to Chimacum Creek and the East Fork of 

Chimacum Creek. Some ground water flows back into 

Chimacum Creek near the mouth, where the streambed is 

incised into Qvr but the majority appears to flow towards Port 

Townsend Bay (fig. 10). The movement of water into and out 

of Chimacum Creek is particularly important and was the focus 

of the second part of this study.

Movement of water within Qva begins as direct 

precipitation and infiltration of water through the overlying 

Qvt on the west side of the study area. Although Qvt generally 

is assumed to be poorly transmissive, the absence of ponded 

water on the till surface suggests that water is able to percolate 

through the till and recharge the underlying units. Some ground 

water emerges from the west side of Chimacum Creek where 

water-bearing layers within Qva are exposed at the surface. 

However, the majority of ground-water flows within coarsegrained layers and follows a deeper flow path that trends more 

generally towards Port Townsend Bay near the mouth of 

Chimacum Creek. 

Movement of water within Qgo begins as direct 

precipitation and infiltration of water through the overlying 

Qvt on the east side of the study area. Little is known about the 

occurrence and movement of ground water in Qgo on the west 

side of the study area because few wells penetrate deeper than 

Qva. It is likely that some recharge occurs through infiltration 

from overlying Qva. On the east side of the study area, ground 

water moves within coarse-grained layers from 

topographically high areas towards springs, seeps, and flowing 

wells in the upper reaches of Chimacum Creek where the unit 

is exposed (pl. 1).

Seasonal Variations

Water-level altitudes measured during the well inventory 

in spring 2002 generally were a few feet higher than those 

measured during the synoptic measurements in autumn 2002. 

This seasonal variation in water-level altitudes was well 

documented by the monitoring-well network where monthly 

depth-to-water measurements were made from March 2002 to 

July 2003 (fig. 11). The network consisted of nine private wells 

selected because of their distribution throughout the Chimacum 

Creek Basin. When non-static conditions caused by pumping 

from the well or nearby wells are discounted, seasonal 

variations generally were less than 2.5 ft. (Well 29N/01W23F01 had repeated non-static conditions, sometimes as much 

as 8 ft of drawdown after the pump had operated.) Hydrographs 

for two wells on the east side of Chimacum Creek Basin 

(29N/01W-13M01 and 29N/01W-24K03, both screened in 

Qgo) were similar, with water levels that responded relatively 

quickly to precipitation events in December 2002 and March 

2003 (fig. 11). Hydrographs for two wells located on the ridge 

separating Chimacum Creek and the East Fork of Chimacum 

Creek (29N/01W-23F01 and 29N/01W-35J01, also screened in 

Qgo) also were similar, in that water levels did not respond to 

precipitation events but remained relatively steady, with a 

slight decline over the period of observation. Hydrographs 

for the four wells on the west side of the Chimacum Creek 

Basin differed, depending on their location in the valley. 
26 Ground-Water System and Surface Water/Ground Water Interaction, Eastern Jefferson County, Washington

"

2

2

&

-

+

-

*

2



 



-),%3

 +),/-%4%23

*!.

-!2

-!9 































*5,9

3%04

./6

*!.

-!2

-!9

*5,9

.7
2

*!.

-!2

-!9 

























*5,9

3%04

./6

*!.

-!2

-!9

*5,9

.7
&











*!.

-!2

-!9   *5,9 3%04 ./6 *!. -!2 -!9

*5,9

.7
2 *!. -!2 -!9   *5,9 3%04 ./6 *!. -!2

-!9

*5,9









.7
2

.7
- *!. -!2 -!9   *5,9 3%04 ./6 *!. -!2

-!9

*5,9



















*!.

-!2

-!9   *5,9 3%04 ./6 *!. -!2 -!9

*5,9

.7
-

*!.

-!2

-!9   *5,9 3%04 ./6 *!. -!2

-!9

*5,9









.7
* *!. -!2 -!9   *5,9 3%04 ./6 *!. -!2

-!9

*5,9









.7
+











*!.

-!2

-!9   *5,9 3%04 ./6 *!. -!2 -!9

*5,9

.7
"

7!4%2
,%6%,!,4)45$%

).&%%4!"/6%.!6$

7!4%2
,%6%,!,4)45$%

).&%%4!"/6%.!6$

7!4%2
,%6%,!,4)45$%

).&%%4!"/6%.!6$

7!4%2
,%6%,!,4)45$%

).&%%4!"/6%.!6$

7!4%2
,%6%,!,4)45$%

).&%%4!"/6%.!6$

7!4%2
,%6%,!,4)45$%

).&%%4!"/6%.!6$

7!4%2
,%6%,!,4)45$%

).&%%4!"/6%.!6$

7!4%2
,%6%,!,4)45$%).&%%4!"/6%.!6$

7!4%2
,%6%,!,4)45$%).&%%4!"/6%.!6$

#HIMACUM

#REEK

0ORT 4OWNSEND

/AK"AY

%AST   &ORK

#HIMACUM

#REEK

1VA 1GO

1VA 1GO

1VA

1VR

1GO

1GO

UNKNOWN	

27 27 27 2% 2%

4



.

4



.

4



.

4



.

4



.

4



.

4



.

4



.

g g



g





g

4



.

4



.

27 2%

7!4%2
,%6%,-%!352%-%.4

%80,!.!4)/.

34!4)#

./.34!4)#

#/.4).5/53

Figure 11. Seasonal variation in water levels measured in nine monitoring wells screened in water-bearing units (upper left corner of each 

graph) in the Chimacum Creek Basin, eastern Jefferson County, Washington, March 2002-July 2003.
Surface Water/Ground Water Interactions 27

The pattern for the most upgradient well (28N/01W-04R01, 

screened in Qvr) was similar to that of the wells on the east side 

of the basin, except for an unexpected peak in October 2002 

that is not entirely understood. Hydrographs for wells 

29N/01W-26M01 (unknown screened interval) and 29N/01W15R01 (screened in Qva) also were similar to wells screened in 

Qgo on the east side of the basin where winter peak water-level 

altitudes in December 2002 and March 2003 closely 

correspond to precipitation events. The hydrograph for well 

29N/01W-15R01 displays a prominent recurring water-level 

decline caused by upgradient irrigation withdrawals in the late 

summer. 

In addition to monthly monitoring, one unused well 

29N/01W-15B01 (screened in Qva) also was instrumented 

with a water-level data recorder set to record water levels every 

2 hours from September 29, 2002, to July 26, 2003 (fig. 11). 

The continuous data were confirmed by monthly 

measurements, but show that water-level changes also occur on 

a much shorter time scale. The short-term flucuations in waterlevel altitudes may be related to precipitation events or to the 

effect of nearby pumping wells. The most downgradient well 

(29N/01W-03R01) is near Chimacum Creek about 1.5 mi from 

the mouth. This well is believed to be screened in the highly 

transmissive layer within Qva known as the Sparling Aquifer. 

The hydrograph for this well was unique, in that it did not show 

a direct response to precipitation events but rather a distinct 

time lag in which the winter peak water-level altitude occurred 

in April, about 1 month later than the highest water-level 

altitudes seen in other wells. In addition, the lowest water-level 

altitude occurred in November, about 3 months later than the 

lowest water-level altitudes seen in other wells. This time lag 

may indicate the travel time for seasonal precipitation pulses to 

reach the lower part of the flow system.

Surface Water/Ground Water 

Interactions

In order to understand how exchanges occur between 

surface water and ground water, four drainage basins were 

studied in detail: Chimacum Creek, Tarboo Creek, the Big 

Quilcene River, and the Little Quilcene River. Because no 

single technique can quantify definitively how exchanges 

occur, this study used a combination of methods to define the 

spatial distribution, the seasonal variations, and the quantity of 

water being exchanged in each drainage basin. Seepage runs 

provided information about the quantity of water being 

exchanged, and the combination of seepage runs and instream 

mini-piezometers provided data to define the spatial 

distribution of gaining and losing reaches. These data provide 

the basis for dividing each stream into reaches with similar 

hydrologic characteristics. Multiple seepage runs and periodic 

mini-piezometer surveys, combined with continuous vertical 

temperature profiles, provided temporal information to assess 

seasonal variations within each reach. The use of multiple 

techniques provides a more complete picture of the exchanges 

between surface water and ground water that occur within a 

given drainage than using a single technique.

Chimacum Creek

Chimacum Creek originates from Delaney Lake and flows 

south past Peterson Lake, turns east, and cuts through a small 

canyon before entering West Valley just west of the 

community of Center (fig. 12). Here, the creek has incised all 

the way through Qvt and Qva and exposes Eocene marine 

sedimentary sandstone (Em) at the bottom of the canyon (pl. 1). 

During the dry summer months, the outlet from Delaney Lake 

is dry and 100 percent of the surface-water flow in Chimacum 

Creek is derived from base flow, augmented by springs and 

seeps in the canyon (reach 7; fig. 12). Both seepage data 

(table 4) and mini-piezometer data (fig. 13) confirm that the 

creek gains water from the ground-water system as it flows 

through the upper portion of West Valley, particularly in reach 

6 where the creek gains more than 50 percent of its flow and in 

reach 4 where the creek gains about 30 percent of its flow. 

Downstream of reach 4, the creek flows across peat deposits 

(Qa) where only a small amount of exchange occurs (slightly 

losing during wet periods and slightly gaining during dry 

periods). A similar pattern can be seen in the East Fork of 

Chimacum Creek, where the upper reaches 9 and 10 gain water 

from the ground-water system (table 4) while the lower reach 8 

loses water (fig. 13). Although the seepage data for the main 

stem of Chimacum Creek show a net gain in reach 2, minipiezometer data EC7, WC6, and EC5 (fig. 13), and vertical 

temperature profiles (fig. 14A) indicate losing conditions near 

the community of Chimacum. Downstream of the confluence, 

Chimacum Creek incises into Qvr and conditions change to 

gaining. Seepage data indicate gaining conditions in reaches 

1 and 2, however, mini-piezometer data and vertical 

temperature profile at site C4 (fig. 14B) indicate that groundwater exchanges are affected by seasonal variations and may 

change to losing conditions during winter months.
28 Ground-Water System and Surface Water/Ground Water Interaction, Eastern Jefferson County, Washington



 



-),%3

 +),/-%4%23

#3

#3

#3

#3A

#3S

#3

#3

#3

#3

#3

#3

#3

#3

2%!#(

2%!#(

2%!#(

2%!#(

2%!#(

2%!#(

2%!#(

2%!#(

AUTUMN

2%!#(

AUTUMN

2%!#(

SPRING

2%!#(

2%!#(

SPRING

7#

7#

7#

7#

7#

%#

%#

#

#

#

#

#3

#3

#HIMACUM

#REEK

$ISCOVERY"AY

0ORT4OWNSEND"AY

/AK"AY

).$)!.)3,!.$

$ELANEY

,AKE 'IBBS

,AKE

"EAUSITE

,AKE

#ITY

,AKE

3UNSET

,AKE -OON

,AKE

0ETERSON

,AKE

!NDERSON

,AKE

%AST

&ORK  #HIMACU

M  #REEK

7EST6ALLEY

0UTAANSUU

#REEK

.AYLOR #REEK

#ENTER

#HIMACUM

"ASEFROM53'EOLOGICAL3URVEY$IGITAL$ATA

5NIVERSAL4RANSVERSE-ERCATORPROJECTION:ONE$ATUM.!$

(ILLSHADE
MODIFIEDFROM
FOOT$IGITAL%LEVATION-ODELDATA

0UGET3OUND,)$!2#ONSORTIUM0ROJECTIONPARAMETERS3TATE0LANE.ORTH

HORIZONTALDATUM.!$ANDVERTICALDATUM.!6$

%80,!.!4)/.

0)%:/-%4%23)4%3

#7#OR%#

2%!#($%3)'.!4)/.

3%%0!'%3)4%3

-AIN

4RIBUTARY

#3

#3






g

g g



&)'52%,/#!4)/.

Figure 12. Locations of mini-piezometers and seepage-run measurement sites in the study reaches of the Chimacum Creek drainage basin, 

eastern Jefferson County, Washington.
Surface Water/Ground Water Interactions 29

Table 4. Surface-water budget based on discharge measured in the Chimacum Creek drainage basin, eastern Jefferson County, Washington, June 26 and 

October 22, 2002

[Map ID: Location of measuring sites are shown in figure 12. Site location: Site names in bold are measurement sites located on the main stem of the river. All 

other sites are located on tributary streams. Cumulative tributary inflow and net gain or loss are computed between consecutive river measurement locations. 

Percentage of flow is relative to discharge at downstream end of reach. Abbreviations: ft, foot; mi, mile; ft3/s, cubic foot per second; acre-ft, acre–foot. –, no 

data]

Map 

ID Site location Discharge (ft3/s)

Cumulative 

tributary 

inflow (ft3

/s)

Net gain or 

loss (ft3/s)

Percentage 

of flow Seepage Reach

June 26, 2002

Point at which surface water flow begins in the channel 0.84 100 – 7

CS1 Chimacum Creek at Lat 47o56'20", long 122o48'34", in NW1⁄4NE1⁄4 

sec.9, T. 28 N., R. 1 W., Jefferson County, Hydrologic Unit 17110019, 

20 ft upstream from sediment basin, and 0.8 mi west of Center.

0.84 0.17 1.37 57.6 –

CS2 Unnamed Tributary at Lat 47o56'54", long 122o47'56", in SE1⁄4NE1⁄4 sec.4, 6

T. 28 N., R. 1 W., Jefferson County, Hydrologic Unit 17110019, at 

West Valley Road, 0.6 mi northwest of Center, and 5 ft upstream from 

mouth.

.17 – – – –

CS3 Chimacum Creek at Lat 47o56'54", long 122o47'54", in SW1⁄4NW1⁄4 

sec.3, T. 28 N., R. 1 W., Jefferson County, Hydrologic Unit 17110019, 

50 ft downstream from West Valley Road, and 0.6 mi northwest of 

Center.

2.38 0 .38 8.7 –

5

CS4 Chimacum Creek at Lat 47o57'49", long 122o46'47", in SE1⁄4NE1⁄4 

sec.34, T. 29 N., R. 1 W., Jefferson County, Hydrologic Unit 

17110019, at Center Road bridge, and 1.7 mi north of Center.

2.76 0 1.61 36.8 –

4

CS5 Chimacum Creek at Lat 47o58'26", long 122o46'35", in NW1⁄4SW1⁄4 

sec.26, T. 29 N., R. 1 W., Jefferson County, Hydrologic Unit 

17110019, 100 ft downstream from road bridge, and 2.4 mi north of 

Center.

4.37 .46 -.93 11.8 –

3

CS6 Naylor Creek at Lat 47o58'54", long 122o47'11", in NW1⁄4NE1⁄4 sec.27, T. 

29 N., R. 1 W., Jefferson County, Hydrologic Unit 17110019, 10 ft 

upstream from weir, 50 ft downstream from West Valley Road, and 2.8 

mi north of Center.

.32 – – – –

CS7 Putaansuu Creek at Lat 48o00'16", long 122o46'59", in NW1⁄4SE1⁄4 sec.15, 

T. 29 N., R. 1 W., Jefferson County, Hydrologic Unit 17110019, 10 ft 

downstream from West Valley Road, and 0.9 mi southwest of 

Chimacum.

.14 – – – –

CS8 Chimacum Creek at Lat 48o00'43", long 122o46'24", in NW1⁄4NW1⁄4 

sec.14, T. 29 N., R. 1 W., Jefferson County, Hydrologic Unit 

17110019, at Rhody Drive bridge, and 0.3 mi west of Chimacum.

3.90 1.38 1.02 26.2 –

2

CS9 East Fork Chimacum Creek at Lat 47o57'18", long 122o44'24", in 

NE1⁄4NE1⁄4 sec.1, T. 28 N., R. 1 W., Jefferson County, Hydrologic Unit 

17110019, 30 ft upstream from Egg and I Road, and 2.0 mi north of 

Beaver Valley.

.62 0 .85 57.8

10

CS10 East Fork Chimacum Creek at Lat 47o58'37", long 122o44'40", in 

NW1⁄4SE1⁄4 sec.25, T. 29 N., R. 1 W., Jefferson County, Hydrologic 

Unit 17110019, upstream from culvert, and 3.2 mi south of Chimacum.

1.47 0 .13 8.1

9

CS11s East Fork Chimacum Creek at Lat 47o59'29", long 122o45'10", in 

NW1⁄4SW1⁄4 sec.24, T. 29 N., R. 1 W., Jefferson County, Hydrologic 

Unit 17110019, Lamberton site, and 1.7 mi southeast of Chimacum.

1.60 0 -.22 -15.9

CS12 East Fork Chimacum Creek at Lat 48o01'11", long 122o46'12", in 8

NE1⁄4SW1⁄4 sec.11, T. 29 N., R. 1 W., Jefferson County, Hydrologic 

Unit 17110019, 20 ft downstream from Chimacum Road, and 0.6 mi 

north of Chimacum.

1.38 – – –

CS13 Chimacum Creek at Lat 48o01'39", long 122o46'26", in NW1⁄4NW1⁄4 

sec.11, T. 29 N., R. 1 W., Jefferson County, Hydrologic Unit 

17110019, at PUD gage, 50 ft upstream from footbridge, 300 ft east of 

end of Hilda Road, 1.2 mi north of Chimacum, and at mile 2.3.

6.30 0 .80 11.3 –

1

CS14 Chimacum Creek at Lat 48o02'57", long 122o47'16", in NE1⁄4SW1⁄4 

sec.34, T. 30 N., R. 1 W., Jefferson County, Hydrologic Unit 

17110019, and 0.7 mi upstream from mouth.

7.10 – – – –

NET gain or loss 5.01 ft3/s, or 

3,627 acre-ft per year

October 22, 2002
30 Ground-Water System and Surface Water/Ground Water Interaction, Eastern Jefferson County, Washington

Point at which surface water flow begins in the channel 0.79 100 – 7

CS1 Chimacum Creek at Lat 47o56'20", long 122o48'34", in NW1⁄4NE1⁄4 

sec.9, T. 28 N., R. 1 W., Jefferson County, Hydrologic Unit 17110019, 

20 ft upstream from sediment basin, and 0.8 mi west of Center.

0.79 0.13 1.93 67.7 –

CS2 Unnamed Tributary at Lat 47o56'54", long 122o47'56", in SE1⁄4NE1⁄4 sec.4, 6

T. 28 N., R. 1 W., Jefferson County, Hydrologic Unit 17110019, at 

West Valley Road, 0.6 mi northwest of Center, and 5 ft upstream from 

mouth.

.13 – – – –

CS3 Chimacum Creek at Lat 47o56'54", long 122o47'54", in SW1⁄4NW1⁄4 

sec.3, T. 28 N., R. 1 W., Jefferson County, Hydrologic Unit 17110019, 

50 ft downstream from West Valley Road, and 0.6 mi northwest of 

Center.

2.85 0 .24 5.6 –

5

CS4 Chimacum Creek at Lat 47o57'49", long 122o46'47", in SE1⁄4NE1⁄4 

sec.34, T. 29 N., R. 1 W., Jefferson County, Hydrologic Unit 

17110019, at Center Road bridge, and 1.7 mi north of Center.

3.09 0 1.23 28.5 –

4

CS5 Chimacum Creek at Lat 47o58'26", long 122o46'35", in NW1⁄4SW1⁄4 

sec.26, T. 29 N., R. 1 W., Jefferson County, Hydrologic Unit 

17110019, 100 ft downstream from road bridge, and 2.4 mi north of 

Center.

4.32 .50 -.13 10.7 –

3

CS6 Naylor Creek at Lat 47o58'54", long 122o47'11", in NW1⁄4NE1⁄4 sec.27, T. 

29 N., R. 1 W., Jefferson County, Hydrologic Unit 17110019, 10 ft 

upstream from weir, 50 ft downstream from West Valley Road, and 2.8 

mi north of Center.

.36 – – – –

CS7 Putaansuu Creek at Lat 48o00'16", long 122o46'59", in NW1⁄4SE1⁄4 sec.15, 

T. 29 N., R. 1 W., Jefferson County, Hydrologic Unit 17110019, 10 ft 

downstream from West Valley Road, and 0.9 mi southwest of 

Chimacum.

.14 – – – –

CS8 Chimacum Creek at Lat 48o00'43", long 122o46'24", in NW1⁄4NW1⁄4 

sec.14, T. 29 N., R. 1 W., Jefferson County, Hydrologic Unit 17110019, 

at Rhody Drive bridge, and 0.3 mi west of Chimacum.

4.69 1.45 1.08 23.0 –

2

CS9 East Fork Chimacum Creek at Lat 47o57'18", long 122o44'24", in 

NE1⁄4NE1⁄4 sec.1, T. 28 N., R. 1 W., Jefferson County, Hydrologic Unit 

17110019, 30 ft upstream from Egg and I Road, and 2.0 mi north of 

Beaver Valley.

.74 0 .97 56.7

10

CS10 East Fork Chimacum Creek at Lat 47o58'37", long 122o44'40", in 

NW1⁄4SE1⁄4 sec.25, T. 29 N., R. 1 W., Jefferson County, Hydrologic 

Unit 17110019, upstream from culvert, and 3.2 mi south of Chimacum.

1.71 0 .01 .6

9

CS11f East Fork Chimacum Creek at Lat 48o00'33", long 122o45'42", in 

SW1⁄4NE1⁄4 sec.14, T. 29 N., R. 1 W., Jefferson County, Hydrologic 

Unit 17110019, Beaver Valley Road, and 0.3 mi southeast of 

Chimacum.

1.72 0 -.27 -18.6

8

CS12 East Fork Chimacum Creek at Lat 48o01'11", long 122o46'12", in 

NE1⁄4SW1⁄4 sec.11, T. 29 N., R. 1 W., Jefferson County, Hydrologic 

Unit 17110019, 20 ft downstream from Chimacum Road, and 0.6 mi 

north of Chimacum.

1.45 – – –

CS13 Chimacum Creek at Lat 48o01'39", long 122o46'26", in NW1⁄4NW1⁄4 

sec.11, T. 29 N., R. 1 W., Jefferson County, Hydrologic Unit 

17110019, at PUD gage, 50 ft upstream from footbridge, 300 ft east of 

end of Hilda Road, 1.2 mi north of Chimacum, and at mile 2.3.

7.22 0 1.67 18.8 –

1

CS14 Chimacum Creek at Lat 48o02'57", long 122o47'16", in NE1⁄4SW1⁄4 

sec.34, T. 30 N., R. 1 W., Jefferson County, Hydrologic Unit 

17110019, and 0.7 mi upstream from mouth.

8.89 – – – –

NET gain or loss 6.73 ft3/s, or 

4,873 acre-ft per year

Table 4. Surface-water budget based on discharge measured in the Chimacum Creek drainage basin, eastern Jefferson County, Washington, June 26 and 

October 22, 2002 (Continued)

[Map ID: Location of measuring sites are shown in figure 12. Site location: Site names in bold are measurement sites located on the main stem of the river. All 

other sites are located on tributary streams. Cumulative tributary inflow and net gain or loss are computed between consecutive river measurement locations. 

Percentage of flow is relative to discharge at downstream end of reach. Abbreviations: ft, foot; mi, mile; ft3/s, cubic foot per second; acre-ft, acre–foot. –, no 

data]

Map 

ID Site location Discharge 

(ft3

/s)

Cumulative 

tributary 

inflow (ft3/s)

Net gain or 

loss (ft3

/s)

Percentage 

of flow Seepage Reach
Surface Water/Ground Water Interactions 31





























      

 

  

%#

%#

# #

6ERTICALEXAGGERATIONX

                   

#

#

# # 7# 7# 7#

7#





























7#

2)6%2-),%&2/--/54(	

#HIMACUM#REEK

%AST&ORKOF#HIMACUM#REEK

6%24)#!,(9$2!5,)#'2!$)%.4).'2/5.$7!4%2"%.%!4(342%!-"%$).&%%40%2&//4

-ARCH

*UNE

-ARCH

$ECEMBER

/CTOBER

!PRIL

*ULY

'AINING

,OSING

'AINING

,OSING

  

# #








#

#








'AINING

,OSING

6ERTICALEXAGGERATIONX

'AINING

,OSING

Figure 13. Vertical hydraulic gradient in ground water beneath the streambed measured at mini-piezometers in Chimacum Creek and East Fork 

Chimacum Creek, eastern Jefferson County, Washington, March 2002-July 2003.

Locations of mini-piezometers and seepage-run measurement sites are shown in figure 12. 
32 Ground-Water System and Surface Water/Ground Water Interaction, Eastern Jefferson County, Washington













7!4%24%-0%2!452%).$%'2%%3#%,3)53

                                                           -!9 *5.% *5,9 !5' 3%04 /#4 ./6 $%# *!. &%" -!2 !02 -!9 *5.% *5,9

 

#HIMACUM#REEK

7!4%24%-0%2!452%

3ENSOR!FTBELOWSTREAMBED	

3ENSOR"FTBELOWSTREAMBED	

!#HIMACUM#REEKATSITE7#

5NSHADEDAREASSHOWTHEPERIODSWHENGROUND
WATERTEMPERATURESGENERALLYARECOLDERTHANSURFACE
WATERTEMPERATURES

ANDSHADEDAREASSHOWTHEPERIODWHENGROUND
WATERTEMPERATURESGENERALLYAREWARMER,OSINGCONDITIONSAREINDICATED

ATTHISSITEBECAUSEGROUND
WATERTEMPERATURESAREAFFECTEDBYSURFACE
WATERTEMPERATURESASWATERMOVESDOWNWARD

Figure 14. Vertical temperature profiles at sites WC6 and C4 in Chimacum Creek, eastern Jefferson County, Washington, May 2002-July 2003.

                                                           -!9 *5.% *5,9 !5' 3%04 /#4 ./6 $%# *!. &%" -!2 !02 -!9 *5.% *5,9

 











7!4%24%-0%2!452%).$%'2%%3#%,3)53

"#HIMACUM#REEKATSITE#

5NSHADEDAREASSHOWTHEPERIODSWHENGROUND
WATERTEMPERATURESGENERALLYAREUNAFFECTEDBYSURFACE
WATERTEMPERATURES

ANDGAININGCONDITIONSAREINDICATED3HADEDAREASSHOWTHEPERIODWHENGROUND
WATERTEMPERATURESAREAFFECTEDBY

SURFACE
WATERTEMPERATURESANDLOSINGCONDITIONSAREINDICATED

#HIMACUM#REEK

7!4%24%-0%2!452%

3ENSOR!FTBELOWSTREAMBED	

3ENSOR"FTBELOWSTREAMBED	
Surface Water/Ground Water Interactions 33

Seasonal variations between seepage runs conducted in 

June and October 2002 were relatively small. Both seepage 

runs showed identical spatial patterns and similar magnitudes 

of gains and losses for each stream reach (table 4). Although 

seepage data represent net exchanges on a reach scale and minipiezometer data represent magnitude and direction of exchange 

at a point, the spatial pattern and magnitude of gains and losses 

were consistent between both data sets. The measured vertical 

hydraulic gradients (fig. 13) did show some seasonal variation 

that probably oversimplifies the complex and constantly 

changing balance between ground-water head and surfacewater head. This is evident in the vertical temperature profile at 

site C4 (fig. 14B). The thermograph for this site indicates that 

the stream gained water throughout the summer months but 

switched to losing during the wet winter months between 

October 2002 and March 2003. The transition from gaining to 

losing conditions at site C4 also is indicated by a decrease in 

measured vertical hydraulic gradient, which was very close to 

zero in December 2002. The onset of winter precipitation and 

generally higher river stage relative to ground-water altitude 

may explain the apparent reversal. In contrast, the thermograph 

at site WC6 indicates that losing conditions predominate 

throughout the year (fig. 14A). At no time during the study did 

the ground-water altitudes exceed river stage at the site (fig. 

13), although the apparent magnitude of loss did decrease after 

substantial precipitation in December 2002. Whether losing 

conditions always exist at site WC6 is uncertain. Historical 

precipitation data (fig. 2) and a comparison of 2002 minipiezometer data with 2003 data indicate that overall conditions 

may have been somewhat drier during the period of this study. 

Seepage data indicate that Chimacum Creek receives a net 

gain of about 5 ft3/s of ground water over its entire length in the 

spring and about 7 ft3/s in the autumn (table 4). Although local 

gains and losses appear to vary in magnitude throughout the 

year, an average net discharge from ground water into 

Chimacum Creek of 6 ft3/s would represent approximately 

4,300 acre-ft/yr (see table 4). 

Tarboo Creek

Tarboo Creek originates from two small valleys incised 

into Qva just east and north of Tarboo Lake (pl. 1). There is no 

direct connection with Tarboo Lake. For much of the year, flow 

in the creek is derived from ground water within reach 5, except 

during the winter, when surface runoff can be significant (fig. 

15). As the creek flows southward toward Dabob Bay, it gains 

nearly 60 percent of its flow within reach 4, where the 

streambed crosses Qvr (table 5; fig. 15; pl. 1). Downstream of 

reach 4, the creek flows through pasture land and forest. Both 

seepage-run and mini-piezometer data indicate that the creek 

continues to gain water as it flows through reaches 1, 2, and 3 

towards Dabob Bay, although magnitudes of measured gains 

were small and vertical hydraulic gradients were near neutral 

(table 5; fig. 16).

There was not much difference between seepage runs 

conducted in July and October 2002 (table 5). Spatial patterns 

and magnitudes of gains and losses were similar during both 

seepage runs except in reach 3, for which the July seepage run 

showed a small loss (table 5). The seasonal variations in 

successive mini-piezometer surveys were also very small. 

Vertical hydraulic gradients generally oscillated around a 

neutral gradient of zero (fig. 16). Vertical hydraulic gradients 

measured in March 2003 were discarded because the minipiezometers were suspected of being out of equilibrium after 

high-water damage.

Seepage data indicate that Tarboo Creek receives a net 

gain of about 1.81 ft3/s of ground water over its entire length in 

the spring and 1.75 ft3/s in the autumn (table 5). Although local 

gains may vary in magnitude throughout the year, an average 

net discharge from ground water into Tarboo Creek of 1.75 

ft3/s would represent approximately 1,300 acre-ft/yr.
34 Ground-Water System and Surface Water/Ground Water Interaction, Eastern Jefferson County, Washington

%80,!.!4)/.

0)%:/-%4%23)4%3

2%!#($%3)'.!4)/.

3%%0!'%3)4%3

-AINSTEM4ARBOO#REEK

4RIBUTARY

43

4

43




&)'52%,/#!4)/.

4ARBOO

#RE

E

K

4ARBOO

"AY

2%!#(

2%!#(

2%!#(

2%!#(

2%!#( 

g

g

g



g

g g g g g

"ASEFROM53'EOLOGICAL3URVEY7ESTERN-APPING#ENTER

$IGITAL/RTHOPHOTO1UARTER1UAD#ENTERAND1UILCENE

5NIVERSAL4RANSVERSE-ERCATORPROJECTION:ONE$ATUM.!$

4

43

4

4

4

4

43

43

43

43

43

43

43

43

43





 

   -),%3

+),/-%4%23

Figure 15. Locations of mini-piezometers and seepage-run measurement sites in the study reaches of the Tarboo Creek drainage basin, eastern 

Jefferson County, Washington.
Surface Water/Ground Water Interactions 35

Table 5. Surface-water budget based on discharge measured in the Tarboo Creek drainage basin, eastern Jefferson County, Washington, 

July 2 and October 25, 2002

[Map ID: Location of measuring sites are shown in figure 15. Site location: Site names in bold are measurement sites located on the main stem of the river. All 

other sites are located on tributary streams. Cumulative tributary inflow and net gain or loss are computed between consecutive river measurement locations. 

Percentage of flow is relative to discharge at downstream end of reach. Abbreviations: ft, foot; mi, mile; ft3/s, cubic foot per second; acre-ft, acre-foot. 

–, no data]

Map 

ID Site location Discharge (ft3

/s)

Cumulative 

tributary 

inflow (ft3/s)

Net gain or 

loss (ft3/s)

Percentage 

of flow

Seepage 

Reach

July 2, 2002

Point at which surface water flow begins in the channel 0.70 100 5

TS1 Tarboo Creek at Lat 47o54'51", long 122o49'28", in SE1⁄4SE1⁄4 sec.17, T. 28 N., R. 1 

W., Jefferson County, Hydrologic Unit 17110018, 20 ft upstream from culvert 

under Dabob Road, and 2.4 mi southwest of Center.

0.70 0.18 1.23 58.3

4

TS2 Unnamed Tributary at Lat 47o53'55", long 122o49'36", in SE1⁄4SE1⁄4 sec.20, T. 28 N., 

R. 1 W., Jefferson County, Hydrologic Unit 17110018, upstream from Old 

Tarboo Road, 3.3 mi southwest of Center, and 0.1 mi upstream from mouth.

.18 – – –

TS3 Tarboo Creek at Lat 47o53'48", long 122o49'22", in SE1⁄4SE1⁄4 sec.20, T. 28 N., R. 1 

W., Jefferson County, Hydrologic Unit 17110018, 40 ft upstream from Old 

Tarboo Road, and 3.3 mi southwest of Center.

2.11 .03 -.14 -7.0

3

TS4 Unnamed Tributary at Lat 47o53'44", long 122o49'16", in NW1⁄4NW1⁄4 sec.28, T. 28 

N., R. 1 W., Jefferson County, Hydrologic Unit 17110018, at ditch next to Dabob 

Road, 0.2 mi south of Old Tarboo Road, and 3.4 mi southwest of Center.

.03 – – –

TS5 Tarboo Creek at Lat 47o53'20", long 122o49'11", in NW1⁄4SW1⁄4 sec.28, T. 28 N., R. 

1 W., Jefferson County, Hydrologic Unit 17110018, 0.6 mi south of intersection 

of Old Tarboo Road and Dabob Road, and 3.8 mi southwest of Center.

2.00 0 .40 16.7

2

TS6 Tarboo Creek at Lat 47o52'12", long 122o49'01", in SW1⁄4SW1⁄4 sec.33, T. 28 N., R. 

1 W., Jefferson County, Hydrologic Unit 17110018, 100 ft downstream from 

Dabob P.O. Road, and 1.6 mi north of Dabob.

2.40 .68 .32 9.4

1

TS7 Unnamed Tributary at Lat 47o52'11", long 122o49'03", in SW1⁄4SW1⁄4 sec.33, T. 28 

N., R. 1 W., Jefferson County, Hydrologic Unit 17110018, near intersection of 

Carl Johnson Road and Dabob P.O. Road, and 1.6 mi north of Dabob.

.02 – – –

TS8 Unnamed Tributary at Lat 47o52'04", long 122o48'55", in NW1⁄4NW1⁄4 sec.4, T. 27 

N., R. 1 W., Jefferson County, Hydrologic Unit 17110018, 100 ft downstream 

from intersection of Dabob P.O. Road and Coyle Road, and 1.5 mi north of 

Dabob.

.44 – – –

TS9 Unnamed Tributary at Lat 47o51'42", long 122o48'53", in SE1⁄4NW1⁄4 sec.4, T. 27 N., 

R. 1 W., Jefferson County, Hydrologic Unit 17110018, at weir 30 ft downstream 

from Carl Johnson Road, and 2.4 mi northwest of Dabob.

.22 – – –

TS10 Tarboo Creek at Lat 47o51'48", long 122o48'53", in SE1⁄4NW1⁄4 sec.4, T. 27 N., R. 1 

W., Jefferson County, Hydrologic Unit 17110018, and 0.1 mi upstream from 

mouth.

3.40 – – –

NET gain or loss 1.81 ft3/s, or 

1,310 acre-ft per year
36 Ground-Water System and Surface Water/Ground Water Interaction, Eastern Jefferson County, Washington

October 25, 2002

Point at which surface water flow begins in the channel 0.63 100 5

TS1 Tarboo Creek at Lat 47o54'51", long 122o49'28", in SE1⁄4SE1⁄4 sec.17, T. 28 N., R. 1 

W., Jefferson County, Hydrologic Unit 17110018, 20 ft upstream from culvert 

under Dabob Road, and 2.4 mi southwest of Center.

0.63 0.15 1.12 58.9

4

TS2 Unnamed Tributary at Lat 47o53'55", long 122o49'36", in SE1⁄4SE1⁄4 sec.20, T. 28 N., 

R. 1 W., Jefferson County, Hydrologic Unit 17110018, upstream from Old 

Tarboo Road, 3.3 mi southwest of Center, and 0.1 mi upstream from mouth.

.15 – – –

TS3 Tarboo Creek at Lat 47o53'48", long 122o49'22", in SE1⁄4SE1⁄4 sec.20, T. 28 N., R. 1 

W., Jefferson County, Hydrologic Unit 17110018, 40 ft upstream from Old 

Tarboo Road, and 3.3 mi southwest of Center.

1.90 .02 .18 8.6

3

TS4 Unnamed Tributary at Lat 47o53'44", long 122o49'16", in NW1⁄4NW1⁄4 sec.28, T. 28 

N., R. 1 W., Jefferson County, Hydrologic Unit 17110018, at ditch next to Dabob 

Road, 0.2 mi south of Old Tarboo Road, and 3.4 mi southwest of Center.

.02 – – –

TS5 Tarboo Creek at Lat 47o53'20", long 122o49'11", in NW1⁄4SW1⁄4 sec.28, T. 28 N., R. 

1 W., Jefferson County, Hydrologic Unit 17110018, 0.6 mi south of intersection 

of Old Tarboo Road and Dabob Road, and 3.8 mi southwest of Center.

2.10 0 .10 4.5

2

TS6 Tarboo Creek at Lat 47o52'12", long 122o49'01", in SW1⁄4SW1⁄4 sec.33, T. 28 N., R. 

1 W., Jefferson County, Hydrologic Unit 17110018, 100 ft downstream from 

Dabob P.O. Road, and 1.6 mi north of Dabob.

2.20 .65 .35 10.9

1

TS7 Unnamed Tributary at Lat 47o52'11", long 122o49'03", in SW1⁄4SW1⁄4 sec.33, T. 28 

N., R. 1 W., Jefferson County, Hydrologic Unit 17110018, near intersection of 

Carl Johnson Road and Dabob P.O. Road, and 1.6 mi north of Dabob.

.02 – – –

TS8 Unnamed Tributary at Lat 47o52'04", long 122o48'55", in NW1⁄4NW1⁄4 sec.4, T. 27 

N., R. 1 W., Jefferson County, Hydrologic Unit 17110018, 100 ft downstream 

from intersection of Dabob P.O. Road and Coyle Road, and 1.5 mi north of 

Dabob.

.46 – – –

TS9 Unnamed Tributary at Lat 47o51'42", long 122o48'53", in SE1⁄4NW1⁄4 sec.4, T. 27 N., 

R. 1 W., Jefferson County, Hydrologic Unit 17110018, at weir 30 ft downstream 

from Carl Johnson Road, and 2.4 mi northwest of Dabob.

.17 – – –

TS10 Tarboo Creek at Lat 47o51'48", long 122o48'53", in SE1⁄4NW1⁄4 sec.4, T. 27 N., R. 1 

W., Jefferson County, Hydrologic Unit 17110018, and 0.1 mi upstream from 

mouth.

3.20 – – –

NET gain or loss 1.75 ft3/s, or 

1,267 acre-ft per year

Table 5. Surface-water budget based on discharge measured in the Tarboo Creek drainage basin, eastern Jefferson County, Washington, 

July 2 and October 25, 2002 (Continued)

[Map ID: Location of measuring sites are shown in figure 15. Site location: Site names in bold are measurement sites located on the main stem of the river. All 

other sites are located on tributary streams. Cumulative tributary inflow and net gain or loss are computed between consecutive river measurement locations. 

Percentage of flow is relative to discharge at downstream end of reach. Abbreviations: ft, foot; mi, mile; ft3/s, cubic foot per second; acre-ft, acre-foot. 

–, no data]

Map 

ID Site location Discharge 

(ft3/s)

Cumulative 

tributary 

inflow (ft3

/s)

Net gain or 

loss (ft3/s)

Percentage 

of flow

Seepage 

Reach
Surface Water/Ground Water Interactions 37

Big Quilcene River

The Big Quilcene River originates high in the Olympic 

Mountains and flows generally eastward toward the 

community of Quilcene, near the head of Quilcene Bay (fig. 1). 

The river cascades through a deep and narrow bedrock canyon 

before turning abruptly northward around the northwest flank 

of Mount Walker. Where the river leaves its bedrock channel 

at about river mile 4, the streambed is composed of large 

boulders and cobbles that grade into gravels and sands as it 

approaches the mouth at Quilcene Bay. Data from this study 

indicate that the Big Quilcene River appears to gain water in 

the vicinity of Penny Creek (reach 3; fig. 17). Accounting for 

the inflow of Penny Creek and the flow being diverted through 

the National Fish Hatchery, the seepage runs indicate gaining 

conditions in reach 3 (table 6). Data from reaches 2 and 3 were 

combined during the June 2002 seepage run because the 

discharge measurement at BQS3s was rated poor due to the 

rough channel cross section. Vertical gradients in minipiezometers BQ5 and BQ4, located above and below Penny 

Creek, consistently indicated gaining conditions (fig. 18). The 

vertical hydraulic gradients in the next mini-piezometer 

downstream (BQ3) were near zero, suggesting little or no 

exchange (fig. 18). Most of the surface-water and groundwater exchanges occur downstream from BQ3 in reach 1 and 

the lower portion of reach 2 (fig. 17). Both seepage data and 

mini-piezometer data indicated consistent losing conditions 

where the Big Quilcene River flows across Quaternary alluvial 

deposits (Qal of Grimstad and Carson, 1981) overlying Qvr 

near the mouth of the river. Losing conditions may be the result 

of sediment deposition in the lower Big Quilcene River that 

has elevated the streambed above the adjacent water table, 

similar to conditions on the lower Dungeness River in Clallam 

County (Simonds and Sinclair, 2002). 

The seasonal variation between seepage runs conducted 

in June and October 2002 was very large (table 6). The 

difference is due in part to large differences in streamflow 

between seepage runs (184 ft3/s in June and 25.4 ft3/s in 

October). The higher streamflow also increases the chance of 

error when measuring discharge. Losses in reach 1 were nearly 

identical in June and October 2002. The vertical-temperature 

profile at site BQ1 confirms that the river is losing water 

throughout the year, even though some of the surface-water 

data were lost (fig. 19). At BQ1, the temperature of the ground 

water closely follows the seasonal temperature pattern of the 

river, with a temporal lag of several weeks. Diurnal 

temperature cycles in the river were not seen, in even the 

shallowest temperature sensor, indicating that ground water 

has a thermal signature affected not by daily cycles but by 

seasonal cycles.

Seepage data indicate that net gains exceed net losses 

during high-flow periods (winter and spring) and net losses 

exceed net gains during low-flow periods (summer and 

autumn). Net gains or losses, therefore, vary with time of year. 

Data from this study indicate that the river has a net gain of 

11.40 ft3/s or about 8,300 acre-ft/yr during the spring and a net 

loss of 8.70 ft3/s or about 6,300 acre-ft/yr during autumn. 

Additional monitoring would be required to calculate the net 

gain or loss on an annual basis.


















        

4

4

4 4

4

4ARBOO#REEK

2)6%2-),%&2/--/54(	

6%24)#!,(9$2!5,)#'2!$)%.4).'2/5.$7!4%2

"%.%!4(342%!-"%$).&%%40%2&//4

-AY

.OVEMBER

$ECEMBER

*ULY

*ULY

'AINING

,OSING

Figure 16. Vertical hydraulic gradient in ground water beneath the streambed measured at mini-piezometers in Tarboo Creek, eastern Jefferson 

County, Washington, May 2002-July 2003.

Locations of mini-piezometers and seepage-run measurement sites are shown in figure 15. 
38 Ground-Water System and Surface Water/Ground Water Interaction, Eastern Jefferson County, Washington

1UILCENE

  ,ITTLE

1UILCENE 2IVER

"IG

1UILCENE  2IVER

,ELAN

D

#REEK

1UILCENE"AY



g

g

g



g

g g g g

"ASEFROM53'EOLOGICAL3URVEY7ESTERN-APPING#ENTER

$IGITAL/RTHOPHOTO1UARTER1UAD-OUNT7ALKERAND1UILCENE 5NIVERSAL4RANSVERSE-ERCATORPROJECTION:ONE$ATUM.!$

2%!#(

2%!#(

2%!#(

2%!#(

2%!#(

2%!#(

2%!#(

2%!#(

2%!#(

,1 ,1

,1

,1

,1 ,13

,13

,1

,13

,13

"1

"13

"1 "1

"1

"1

,13

,13

,13

"13

"13F

"13S "13

"13





 

   -),%3

+),/-%4%23

Figure 17. Locations of mini-piezometers and seepage-run measurement sites in the study reaches of the lower Big Quilcene River, eastern

Jefferson County, Washington.
Surface Water/Ground Water Interactions 39

Table 6. Surface-water budget based on discharge measured in the lower Big Quilcene River, eastern Jefferson County, Washington, June 17 and October 

23, 2002

[Map ID: Location of measuring sites are shown in figure 17. Site location: Site names in bold are measurement sites located on the main stem of the river. All 

other sites are located on tributary streams. Cumulative tributary inflow and net gain or loss are computed between consecutive river measurement locations. 

Percentage of flow is relative to discharge at downstream end of reach. Abbreviations: ft, foot; mi, mile; ft3/s, cubic foot per second; acre-ft, acre- foot. – no 

data]

Map ID Site location Discharge 

(ft3/s)

Cumulative 

tributary 

inflow (ft3/s)

Net gain or 

loss (ft3

/s)

Percentage 

of flow

Seepage 

Reach

June 17, 2002

Point at which surface water leaves bedrock channel – – assumed 0 100 4

BQS1 Big Quilcene River at Lat 47o48'02", long 122o55'20", in NW1⁄4SW1⁄4 sec.27, T. 27 

N., R. 2 W., Jefferson County, Hydrologic Unit 17110018, at Hiddendale 

Community Park, 0.9 mi southwest of Hwy 101 bridge, and 2.8 mi southwest of 

Quilcene.

166.50 5.70 14.80 7.9

3

BQS2 Penny Creek at Lat 47o48'39", long 122o54'48", in SW1⁄4SE1⁄4 sec.22, T. 27 N., R. 2 

W., Jefferson County, Hydrologic Unit 17110018, upstream from hatchery, 

upstream from diversion, and 2.1 mi southwest of Quilcene.

5.70 – – –

BQS3s Big Quilcene River at Lat 47o48'39", long 122o54'31", in SE1⁄4SE1⁄4 sec.22, T. 27 

N., R. 2 W., Jefferson County, Hydrologic Unit 17110018, below hwy 101, 1.8 

mi southwest of Quilcene, and at mile 2.5.

1218.40 0 – –

2

BQS4 Big Quilcene River at Lat 47o49'06", long 122o52'27", in SW1⁄4NE1⁄4 sec.24, T. 27 

N., R. 2 W., Jefferson County, Hydrologic Unit 17110018, at Rodgers Road, and 

0.4 mi south of Quilcene.

187.00 0 -3.40 -1.9

1

BQS5 Big Quilcene River at Lat 47o49'09", long 122o51'53", in SE1⁄4NE1⁄4 sec.24, T. 27 

N., R. 2 W., Jefferson County, Hydrologic Unit 17110018, 0.3 mi downstream 

from Linger Longer Road, and near mouth.

183.60 – – –

NET gain or loss 11.40 ft3/s or 

8,253 acre-ft per year

October 23, 2002

Point at which surface water leaves bedrock channel – – assumed 0 100 4

BQS1 Big Quilcene River at Lat 47o48'02", long 122o55'20", in NW1⁄4SW1⁄4 sec.27, T. 27 

N., R. 2 W., Jefferson County, Hydrologic Unit 17110018, at Hiddendale 

Community Park, 0.9 mi southwest of Hwy 101 bridge, and 2.8 mi southwest of 

Quilcene.

32.00 2.10 0.50 1.7

3

BQS2 Penny Creek at Lat 47o48'39", long 122o54'48", in SW1⁄4SE1⁄4 sec.22, T. 27 N., R. 2 

W., Jefferson County, Hydrologic Unit 17110018, upstream from hatchery, 

upstream from diversion, and 2.1 mi southwest of Quilcene.

2.10 – – –

BQS3f Big Quilcene River at Lat 47o48'40", long 122o54'30", in SE1⁄4SE1⁄4 sec.22, T. 27 

N., R. 2 W., Jefferson County, Hydrologic Unit 17110018, below hwy 101, 1.8 

mi southwest of Quilcene, and at mile 2.4.

34.60 0 -6.00 -21.0

2

BQS4 Big Quilcene River at Lat 47o49'06", long 122o52'27", in SW1⁄4NE1⁄4 sec.24, T. 27 

N., R. 2 W., Jefferson County, Hydrologic Unit 17110018, at Rodgers Road, and 

0.4 mi south of Quilcene.

28.60 0 -3.20 -12.6

1

BQS5 Big Quilcene River at Lat 47o49'09", long 122o51'53", in SE1⁄4NE1⁄4 sec.24, T. 27 

N., R. 2 W., Jefferson County, Hydrologic Unit 17110018, 0.3 mi downstream 

from Linger Longer Road, and near mouth.

25.40 – – –

NET gain or loss -8.70 ft3/s, 

-6,299 acre-ft per year

1Measurement rated poor; not used in the seepage calculation; reaches 2 and 3 were combined for this seepage run. 
40 Ground-Water System and Surface Water/Ground Water Interaction, Eastern Jefferson County, Washington

























        

"IG1UILCENE2IVER

"1

"1 "1 "1 "1

2)6%2-),%&2/--/54(	

'AINING

,OSING

6%24)#!,(9$2!5,)#'2!$)%.4).'2/5.$7!4%2

"%.%!4(342%!-"%$).&%%40%2&//4

-AY

!PRIL

/CTOBER

$ECEMBER

*ULY

Figure 18. Vertical hydraulic gradient in ground water beneath the streambed measured at mini-piezometers in the lower Big 

Quilcene River, eastern Jefferson County, Washington, May 2002-July 2003.

Locations of mini-piezometers and seepage-run measurement sites are shown in figure 17.

                                                             *5.% *5,9 !5' 3%04 /#4 ./6 $%# *!. &%" -!2 !02 -!9 *5.% *5,9

 











4%-0%2!452%).$%'2%%3#%,3)53

"IG1UILCENE2IVERATSITE"1

"IG1UILCENE2IVER

3ENSOR!FTBELOWSTREAMBED	

3ENSOR"FTBELOWSTREAMBED	

4%-0%2!452%

Figure 19. Vertical temperature profiles at site BQ1 in the lower Big Quilcene River, eastern Jefferson County, Washington, June 2002-July

2003. 

Surface-water-temperature data from June 7-November 8, 2002 were provided by the City of Port Townsend at river mile 0.4. Data from 

November 8-27, 2002, and April 23-July 30, 2003 were collected by the U.S. Geological Survey at river mile 0.15. Temperature differences 

between the two sites are assumed to be less than 1oC.
Surface Water/Ground Water Interactions 41

Little Quilcene River

The Little Quilcene River originates high in the Olympic 

Mountains and flows east through a deep bedrock canyon 

before turning southeast toward the community of Quilcene at 

the head of Quilcene Bay (fig. 1). The river leaves its bedrock 

channel at about river mile 3, where the streambed is composed 

of boulders and cobbles grading into gravels and sands as it 

approaches the mouth at Quilcene Bay. As soon as the Little 

Quilcene River encounters the alluvial streambed (reach 4), it 

begins to lose water to the ground-water system (fig. 17). 

Seepage data indicate that the river maintains a net loss of 

water within reaches 3 and 4 or until about river mile 1.1 

(table 7). Mini-piezometer data were consistent with seepage 

data except in the vicinity of Leland Creek, where a positive 

vertical gradient at site LQ5 indicated a gaining condition (fig. 

20). Reach 2 has both a net seepage gain and a positive vertical 

hydraulic gradient at mini-piezometer site LQ3. Gaining 

conditions on the Little Quilcene River appear to be localized 

and could be related to the confluence with Leland Creek 

(LQ5) or to other ground-water inflow (LQ3). Losing 

conditions were observed within reach 1, where the Little 

Quilcene River flows across Quaternary alluvial deposits (Qal 

of Grimstad and Carson, 1981) overlying Qvr. As in the Big 

Quilcene River, sediment deposition may have elevated the 

streambed above the adjacent water table to produce losing 

conditions (Simonds and Sinclair, 2002). 

Seasonal variations between seepage runs conducted in 

June and October 2002 were small. Spatial patterns of gains 

and losses for each stream reach were identical for both 

seepage runs, with magnitudes proportional to streamflow 

(table 7). Mini-piezometer data also indicated a consistent 

spatial pattern that varied only in the magnitude of gains and 

losses (fig. 20). The vertical temperature profile at site LQ2 

also indicated losing conditions throughout the year (fig. 21). A 

pumping well close to site LQ2 that supplies a group of homes 

just north of Quilcene likely does not withdraw enough water 

to explain the large negative vertical hydraulic gradients 

observed at mini-piezometer site LQ2. The pattern of groundwater temperatures recorded by the shallow sensor matched the 

patterns of weekly river fluctuations. The pattern of 

temperatures recorded by the deeper sensor matched the 

seasonal temperature pattern of the river, with a lag of about 2 

weeks (fig. 21).

Seepage data indicate that net losses exceed net gains 

along the lower 3 mi of the Little Quilcene River. Data from 

this study suggest that the river has a net loss of 5 ft3/s, or about 

3,600 acre-ft/yr in the spring and 0.35 ft3/s, or about 250 acreft/yr in the autumn. Because the quantity of surface-water loss 

is proportional to streamflow, additional monitoring would be 

required to determine the annual net loss.

,1

,1

,1

,1

,1

,1

       






















2)6%2-),%&2/--/54(	

,ITTLE1UILCENE2IVER

'AINING

,OSING

6%24)#!,(9$2!5,)#'2!$)%.4).'2/5.$7!4%2

"%.%!4(342%!-"%$).&%%40%2&//4

*UNE

!PRIL

.OVEMBER

$ECEMBER

*ULY

Figure 20. Vertical hydraulic gradient in ground water beneath the streambed measured at mini-piezometers in the lower Little 

Quilcene River, eastern Jefferson County, Washington, June 2002-July 2003.

Locations of mini-piezometers and seepage-run measurement sites are shown in figure 17.
42 Ground-Water System and Surface Water/Ground Water Interaction, Eastern Jefferson County, Washington

Table 7. Surface-water budget based on discharge measured in the lower Little Quilcene River, eastern Jefferson County, Washington, June 18 and 

October 24, 2002

[Map ID: Location of measuring sites are shown in figure 17. Site location: Site names in bold are measurement sites located on the main stem of the river. All 

other sites are located on tributary streams. Cumulative tributary inflow and net gain or loss are computed between consecutive river measurement locations. 

Percentage of flow is relative to discharge at downstream end of reach. Abbreviations: ft, foot; mi, mile; ft3/s, cubic foot per second; acre-ft, acre-foot. 

–, no data]

Map 

ID Site location Discharge (ft3

/s)

Cumulative 

tributary 

inflow (ft3/s)

Net gain or 

loss (ft3

/s)

Percentage 

of flow

Seepage 

Reach

June 18, 2002

Point at which surface water leaves bedrock channel – – assumed 0 100 5

LQS1 Little Quilcene River at Lat 47o50'48", long 122o53'31", in SW1⁄4NE1⁄4 sec.11, T. 27 

N., R. 2 W., Jefferson County, Hydrologic Unit 17110018, 400 ft upstream from 

small diversion, and 1.8 mi northwest of Quilcene.

38.70 -1.76 -3.04 -9.0

4

LQS2 Unnamed Diversion at Lat 47o50'46", long 122o53'31", in SE1⁄4NE1⁄4 sec.11, T. 27 

N., R. 2 W., Jefferson County, Hydrologic Unit 17110018, 20 ft downstream 

from diversion of Little Quilcene River, and 1.8 mi northwest of Quilcene.

-1.76 – – –

LQS3 Little Quilcene River at Lat 47o50'15", long 122o53'09", in NE1⁄4NE1⁄4 sec.14, T. 27 

N., R. 2 W., Jefferson County, Hydrologic Unit 17110018, at Hwy 101 bridge, 

and 1.0 mi northwest of Quilcene.

33.90 3.00 -.70 -1.9

3

LQS4 Leland Creek at Lat 47o50'18", long 122o53'08", in NE1⁄4NE1⁄4 sec.14, T. 27 N., R. 2 

W., Jefferson County, Hydrologic Unit 17110018, 1.0 mi northwest of Quilcene, 

and 100 ft upstream from mouth.

3.00 – – –

LQS5 Little Quilcene River at Lat 47o49'51", long 122o52'52", in NW1⁄4SW1⁄4 sec.13, T. 

27 N., R. 2 W., Jefferson County, Hydrologic Unit 17110018, and 0.6 mi 

northwest of Quilcene.

36.20 0 4.80 11.7

2

LQS6 Little Quilcene River at Lat 47o49'48", long 122o52'24", in NW1⁄4SE1⁄4 sec.13, T. 27 

N., R. 2 W., Jefferson County, Hydrologic Unit 17110018, at Center Road, and 

0.4 mi north of Quilcene.

41.00 0 -6.10 -17.5

LQS7 Little Quilcene River at Lat 47o49'39", long 122o51'45", in SW1⁄4SW1⁄4 sec.18, T. 27 1

N., R. 1 W., Jefferson County, Hydrologic Unit 17110018, south of intersection 

of McInnes Road and East Quilcene Road, 0.6 mi northeast of Quilcene, and near 

mouth.

34.90 – – –

NET gain or loss -5.04 ft3/s, or 

3,648 acre-ft per year

October 24, 2002

Point at which surface water leaves bedrock channel – – assumed 0 100 5

LQS1 Little Quilcene River at Lat 47o50'48", long 122o53'31", in SW1⁄4NE1⁄4 sec.11, T. 27 

N., R. 2 W., Jefferson County, Hydrologic Unit 17110018, 400 ft upstream from 

small diversion, and 1.8 mi northwest of Quilcene.

8.10 -1.18 -0.05 -0.7

4

LQS2 Unnamed Diversion at Lat 47o50'46", long 122o53'31", in SE1⁄4NE1⁄4 sec.11, T. 27 

N., R. 2 W., Jefferson County, Hydrologic Unit 17110018, 20 ft downstream 

from diversion of Little Quilcene River, and 1.8 mi northwest of Quilcene.

-1.18 – – –

LQS3 Little Quilcene River at Lat 47o50'15", long 122o53'09", in NE1⁄4NE1⁄4 sec.14, T. 27 

N., R. 2 W., Jefferson County, Hydrologic Unit 17110018, at Hwy 101 bridge, 

and 1.0 mi northwest of Quilcene.

6.87 1.63 -.54 -6.8

3

LQS4 Leland Creek at Lat 47o50'18", long 122o53'08", in NE1⁄4NE1⁄4 sec.14, T. 27 N., R. 2 

W., Jefferson County, Hydrologic Unit 17110018, 1.0 mi northwest of Quilcene, 

and 100 ft upstream from mouth.

1.63 – – –

LQS5 Little Quilcene River at Lat 47o49'51", long 122o52'52", in NW1⁄4SW1⁄4 sec.13, T. 

27 N., R. 2 W., Jefferson County, Hydrologic Unit 17110018, and 0.6 mi 

northwest of Quilcene.

7.96 0 1.24 13.5

2

LQS6 Little Quilcene River at Lat 47o49'48", long 122o52'24", in NW1⁄4SE1⁄4 sec.13, T. 27 

N., R. 2 W., Jefferson County, Hydrologic Unit 17110018, at Center Road, and 

0.4 mi north of Quilcene.

9.20 0 -1.00 -12.2

LQS7 Little Quilcene River at Lat 47o49'39", long 122o51'45", in SW1⁄4SW1⁄4 sec.18, T. 1

27 N., R. 1 W., Jefferson County, Hydrologic Unit 17110018, south of 

intersection of McInnes Road and East Quilcene Road, 0.6 mi northeast of 

Quilcene, and near mouth.

8.20 – – –

NET gain or loss -0.35 ft3/s, or 

-253 acre-ft per year
Surface Water/Ground Water Interactions 43

Comparison Between Drainage Basins

Each of the drainage basins evaluated in this study had a 

distinctive and unique pattern of surface-water and groundwater exchanges. The patterns of gains and losses generally 

were consistent throughout the period of study, although the 

magnitudes varied in response to seasonal precipitation 

patterns. Gaining or losing conditions reversed where vertical 

hydraulic gradients generally were small or where changes in 

stream stage or discharge generally were large. Surface-water 

and ground-water exchanges in bedrock channels were not 

evaluated in this study. However, all streams with upper 

reaches underlain by unconsolidated materials gained water in 

those reaches except the Little Quilcene River. Streams 

generally gain water where the streambed comes into contact 

with water-bearing layers and springs or seeps contribute to 

surface-water flow. There was substantial loss to ground water 

in the lower reaches of the Big and Little Quilcene Rivers on 

the alluvial plain at the head of Quilcene Bay, where the river 

is channelized by levees and the streambed is aggrading. 

Chimacum Creek loses a substantial quantity of water in the 

vicinity of Chimacum, most likely because the streambed there 

is highly permeable Vashon Recessional Outwash deposits and 

ground-water altitudes are well below the local streambed. The 

lower-most reaches of Chimacum Creek gained water where 

the streambed has incised below the level of the adjacent water 

table. In this area, however, high stream flows were sufficient 

to reverse the hydraulic gradients and cause losing conditions 

during the winter months.

The primary control governing the pattern of gaining and 

losing reaches is the hydraulic conductivity of the streambed, 

which is a function of the local geology. Precipitation events 

control the magnitudes of gains and losses by changing the 

elevation of stream stage relative to the adjacent water table. 

Where magnitudes of gains and losses are small, reversals can 

occur more readily. These factors combine to make each 

drainage basin unique.

                                                          *5.% *5,9 !5' 3%04 /#4 ./6 $%# *!. &%" -!2 !02 -!9 *5.% *5,9

 











4%-0%2!452%).$%'2%%3#%,3)53

,ITTLE1UILCENE2IVERATSITE,1

,ITTLE1UILCENE2IVER

3ENSOR!FTBELOWSTREAMBED	

3ENSOR"FTBELOWSTREAMBED	

4%-0%2!452%

Figure 21. Vertical temperature profiles at site LQ2 in the lower Little Quilcene River, eastern Jefferson County, Washington, June 

2002-July 2003. 

Unshaded areas show the periods when ground-water temperatures generally are colder than surface-water temperatures, and 

shaded areas show the period when ground-water temperatures generally are warmer. Losing conditions are indicated at this site 

because ground-water temperatures are affected by surface-water temperatures as water moves downward.
44 Ground-Water System and Surface Water/Ground Water Interaction, Eastern Jefferson County, Washington

Additional Studies

One outcome of this study was the recognition of several 

areas wherein additional data would facilitate a more thorough 

understanding of the water resources of the Chimacum Creek 

Basin and associated surface water/ground water interactions.

Continued long-term water-level monitoring in the 

Chimacum Creek Basin can provide more detail about annual 

variations within the ground-water system. Monthly waterlevel data collected over many years of record would improve 

the ability to detect seasonal fluctuations and long-term trends 

in ground-water levels. The many recent advances in waterlevel-monitoring technology make it easy to install an array of 

water-level data loggers programmed to record water levels at 

set intervals for long periods.

The depth to bedrock and the thickness and stratigraphy 

of the Older Glacial Deposits is largely unknown. Test drilling 

of deep boreholes and extraction of drill core would greatly 

enhance knowledge of the glacial stratigraphy and the 

geometry of water-bearing layers. Geophysical surveys 

generally also would help determine the geometry of the 

bedrock surface.

An increased understanding of ground-water recharge 

would help quantify how much precipitation is able to infiltrate 

the till to the underlying aquifers. Because till covers most of 

the surface area in the Chimacum Creek Basin and surrounding 

region, the degree to which till acts as a barrier to infiltration 

affects recharge estimates and therefore predictions of waterresource availability.

A more detailed examination of the potential for vertical 

ground-water flow between Qgo and Qva would be useful. If 

additional wells screened in Qgo were located, the information 

from those wells could be compared with that of adjacent wells 

screened in Qva to determine vertical hydraulic gradients and 

possible areas of upwelling ground water.

Although the two seepage studies of the Big and Little 

Quilcene Rivers that were part of this study provided some 

information, additional seepage studies would be needed to 

fully characterize net gains and losses for these two rivers. 

Continued monitoring would be needed to calculate net gains 

or losses on an annual basis.

Further analysis of the vertical-temperature-profile data 

would help quantify streambed hydraulic-conductivity values 

and facilitate calculation of rates of loss through the streambed.

Finally, the data provided in this report could be used to 

develop a three-dimensional ground-water-flow model for the 

Chimacum Creek Basin. Such a model can be used to simulate 

the effects of development or other scenarios on the groundwater system.

Summary

The Washington State Watershed Management Act of 

1998 provides a mechanism for local governments to assess 

the status of their water resources and initiate planning 

processes for managing those water resources. The planning 

unit for Water Resource Inventory Area 17 in eastern Jefferson 

County recognized the need to investigate the ground-water 

system in the unconsolidated glacial deposits of the Chimacum 

Creek Basin and to better understand the interactions between 

surface water and the ground-water system in the WRIA 17 

area. They initiated a 3-year cooperative study with the U.S. 

Geological Survey in 2002 with the following objectives. 

1. Define the hydrogeologic framework, including the 

geometry of aquifers and confining units in the 

unconsolidated glacial deposits of the Chimacum Creek 

Basin; 

2. Define the movement of ground water within the 

ground-water system of the Chimacum Creek Basin; 

and, 

3. Better understand how ground water and surface water 

interact in the Chimacum Creek drainage basin, the 

Tarboo Creek drainage basin, and lower portions of the 

Big and Little Quilcene Rivers.

For the study of the ground-water system, a well 

inventory was conducted in the Chimacum Creek Basin and 

geologic data from well logs and water level information were 

compiled. LIDAR imagery was used to construct a new 

geologic map, and driller’s logs were used to construct eight 

hydrogeologic sections across the basin. Water levels were 

measured throughout the basin and selected wells were 

monitored on a monthly basis.

The stratigraphy of the Chimacum Creek Basin includes 

six geologic units: Quaternary Alluvium, Vashon Recessional 

Outwash deposits, Vashon Lodgement Till, Vashon Advance 

Outwash deposits, Older Glacial Deposits, and Bedrock. 

Lowland areas and small depressions contain Quaternary 

Alluvium, which locally consist of thick accumulations of 

peat. Vashon Recessional Outwash deposits occupy glacial 

outwash channels that are incised into the Vashon Lodgement 

Till, which forms a hardened and conspicuously grooved 

surface over much of the area. Sands and gravels within the 

underlying Vashon Advance Outwash deposits are significant 

sources of ground water in the basin. The Older Glacial 

Deposits are an undifferentiated mixture of deposits related to 

multiple glaciations. The bedrock, including sedimentary, 

igneous, and intrusive igneous rocks, is exposed in scattered 

localities around the margins of the basin and underlies the 

basin at depths ranging from 0 to more than 1,000 feet below 

land surface.
Summary 45

The six geologic units correspond to hydrogeologic units, 

which, for the purposes of this study, were subdivided into 

coarse-grained layers (aquifers) and fine-grained layers. 

Quaternary Alluvium in flat valley bottoms is rich in organic 

matter and, although generally saturated, does not transmit 

water very well. Vashon Recessional Outwash deposits 

typically are less than 100 feet thick and occur primarily in the 

Chimacum Creek and East Fork Chimacum Creek Valleys. 

Some of the coarse-grained aquifer materials within the 

Vashon Recessional Outwash are in hydraulic continuity with 

Chimacum Creek. The Vashon Lodgement Till is a lowpermeability unit at the land surface over much of the area. 

Because the base of the till is above the water table, it does not 

act as a true confining layer; rather, it retards the infiltration of 

precipitation and slows ground-water recharge. The Vashon 

Advance Outwash is a widely used aquifer on the west side of 

the Chimacum Creek Basin, where deposits are as much as 200 

feet thick. Several layers, such as the Sparling Aquifer, are very 

productive and currently supply a growing public water-supply 

system. The unit is more discontinuous on the east side of the 

Chimacum Creek Basin and is not present beneath till between 

Chimacum Creek and the East Fork of Chimacum Creek. The 

Older Glacial Deposits are widespread in the Chimacum Creek 

Basin and may exceed 1,000 feet in thickness as the depth to 

bedrock increases to the north. Discontinuous lenses of sand 

and gravel within the unit contribute usable quantities of water 

for domestic wells, but the unit is largely buried and therefore 

its stratigraphy is poorly understood. Bedrock is present 

beneath all of the unconsolidated deposits and is exposed in 

isolated outcrops. All of the bedrock units have relatively low 

permeability; however, a small number of wells drilled in 

bedrock have yields sufficient for limited domestic use. The 

median values of horizontal hydraulic conductivity for Vashon 

Recessional Outwash, Vashon Advance Outwash, Older 

Glacial Deposits, and Bedrock, are 10, 130, 22, and 0.53 feet 

per day, respectively.

Lateral ground-water flow in both the Older Glacial 

Deposits and Vashon Advance Outwash aquifers generally 

follows the surface-water drainage pattern. Ground water flows 

from high areas towards low areas, and thus, flow paths 

converge on Chimacum Creek, where they turn northward and 

flow toward Port Townsend Bay. Flow paths on the east side of 

the Chimacum Creek Basin flow east toward the coast, where 

discharge areas can be found at or near the bedrock contact. 

Ground-water discharge also occurs at the south end of West 

Valley, providing base flow to Chimacum Creek.

A combination of methods was used to better understand 

surface water/ground water interactions in Chimacum and 

Tarboo Creeks and the Big and Little Quilcene Rivers. Seepage 

runs were conducted on each stream in June-July 2002 and 

again in October 2002, instream mini-piezometers were 

installed and measured periodically, and temperature sensors 

were installed to record continuous streambed temperatures for 

a period of 1 year (July 2002 to July 2003). 

The upper reaches of Chimacum Creek gain water from 

the ground-water system (probably from coarse-grained zones 

within Qva and Qgo). Little ground water is exchanged as the 

creek flows over peat deposits. Near the community of 

Chimacum, the creek loses water through the streambed as it 

flows over Qvr. Farther downstream, where the creek is incised 

into Qvr and the local water table is higher than the average 

stream stage, the stream gains water. However, winter stream 

stages can be higher than the local water table, causing the 

creek to lose water to the ground-water system. The average net 

exchange between ground water and Chimacum Creek 

observed during the course of this study was a gain of about 6 

cubic feet per second (ft3/s).

Tarboo Creek gains water from the ground-water system 

in its upper reaches, where the streambed is in contact with 

water-bearing horizons within Qva and Qvr. The middle 

reaches of Tarboo Creek appear to be a transition zone, where 

gaining or losing conditions may depend upon precipitation 

events that affect altitudes of stream stage relative to the 

adjacent water table. Although the seepage data indicate that 

the lower reaches of the creek may gain small amounts of 

water, the mini-piezometer data suggest little or no groundwater exchange. The net exchange between ground water and 

Tarboo Creek observed during this study was a gain of about 

1.75 ft3/s.

The Big Quilcene River gains water from the groundwater system where the streambed is in contact with very 

coarse boulder and gravel alluvium. Ground water enters the 

river in the vicinity of Penny Creek and just downstream from 

highway 101. Below the gaining reach, where the river flattens 

out and the flood plain widens, the river passes through a 

transition zone of little or no ground-water exchange. The 

lower reaches of the river are characterized by losing 

conditions throughout the year. The net exchange between 

ground water and the Big Quilcene River observed in this study 

depended on river flow and ranged from a gain of about 11.4 

ft3/s in the spring to a loss of about 8.7 ft3/s in the autumn.

The Little Quilcene River loses water once the river leaves 

its bedrock channel and the streambed changes to alluvial 

deposits. As the river flows south towards the community of 

Quilcene, it continues to lose water, except for gains in 

localized areas near the mouth of Leland Creek and just 

upstream from Center Road. Losing conditions persist 

throughout the year as the river flows across the alluvial plain 

at the head of Quilcene Bay, similar to the lower reaches of the 

Big Quilcene River. The net exchange between ground water 

and the Little Quilcene River found in this study also depended 

on river flow and ranged from a loss of about 0.35 ft3/s in the 

spring to a loss of about 5 ft3/s in the autumn.
46 Ground-Water System and Surface Water/Ground Water Interaction, Eastern Jefferson County, Washington

Each of the drainage basins had a unique pattern of 

surface-water and ground-water exchanges. The patterns of 

gains and losses generally remained consistent while the 

magnitudes varied in response to seasonal precipitation 

patterns. In several cases, the hydraulic gradients were near 

zero and the change in stream stage was sufficient to cause a 

change from gaining to losing. 

Small streams like Chimacum and Tarboo Creeks 

generally gain water where the streambed comes into contact 

with water-bearing layers and springs or seeps contribute to 

surface-water flow. Chimacum Creek loses significant 

quantities of water when the streambed encounters highly 

permeable deposits with a lower water-table altitude. 

Substantial loss to ground water also occurs in the lower 

reaches of the Big and Little Quilcene Rivers where the 

streambed is aggrading on the alluvial plain at the head of 

Quilcene Bay.

The geology and hydraulic conductivity of the streambed 

combined with the elevation of stream stage relative to the 

adjacent water table is what determines the pattern of gaining 

and losing reaches. The combination of these factors is what 

makes each drainage basin unique.

Additional deep boreholes and geophysical surveys 

would contribute to a better understanding of the hydrogeology 

of the area. More water-level monitoring, a recharge study, and 

examination of vertical gradients between hydrogeologic units 

would enhance knowledge of the ground-water system. More 

seepage runs and analysis of vertical temperature data would 

help define surface water/ground water interactions. All of the 

data could be used to develop a three-dimensional groundwater-flow model for the Chimacum Creek Basin.

References Cited

Bear, Jacob, 1979, Hydraulics of ground water: New York, 

McGraw-Hill, 569 p.

Carnahan, B., Luther, H.A., and Wilkes, J.O., 1969, Applied 

numerical methods: New York, John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 

604 p.

CH2M Hill, 1996, Tri-Area ground-water study, summary 

report: Port Townsend, Washington, CH2M Hill, prepared 

for the City of Port Townsend, September 3, 1996, 43 p. plus 

appendixes.

Easterbrook, D.J., 1979, The last glaciation of northwest 

Washington: in Armentrout, J.M., Cole, M.R., Ter Best, 

Harry Jr., eds., 1979, Cenozoic paleogeography of the 

western U.S., Pacific Coast Paleogeography Symposium 

No. 3: Society of Economic Paleontologists and 

Mineralogists Symposium Volume, p. 177-189.

Easterbrook, D.J., 1986, Stratigraphy and chronology of 

Quaternary deposits of the Puget lowland and Olympic 

Mountains of Washington and the Cascade Mountains of 

Washington and Oregon: Quaternary Science Reviews, v. 5, 

p. 145-159.

Ferris, J.G., Knowles, D.B., Brown, R.H., and Stallman, R.W., 

1962, Theory of aquifer tests: U.S. Geological Survey 

Water-Supply Paper 1536-E, 174 p.

Freeze, R.A., and Cherry, J.A., 1979, Ground water: 

Englewood Cliffs, N.J., Prentice-Hall, 604 p.

Grimstad, Peder, and Carson, R.J., 1981, Geology and groundwater resources of eastern Jefferson County, Washington: 

Washington State Department of Ecology Water Supply 

Bulletin no. 54, 125 p. 

Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe, 1994, The Dungeness-Quilcene 

Water Resources Management Plan: A plan submitted to the 

Department of Ecology under the Chelan Agreement, June 

30, 1994, various pagination.

Jefferson County, 1998, Jefferson County Comprehensive 

Plan, December 1998.

Jones, M. A., 1996, Thickness of unconsolidated deposits in 

the Puget Sound lowland, Washington and British 

Columbia: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources 

Investigation Report 94-4133, 1 plate, scale 1:500,000.

Parametrix, Inc., 2000, Stage 1 Technical assessment as of 

February 2000, Water Resource Inventory Area 17: 

Kirkland, Washington, Parametrix, Inc., project no. 553-

1820-007, 414 p.

Rantz, S.E., and others, 1982, Volume 1, Measurement of 

stage and discharge: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply 

Paper 2175, 284 p.

Ritter, Dale F., 1978, Process geomorphology: Dubuque, 

Iowa, William C. Brown Company Publishers, p. 414.

Simonds, F.W., and Sinclair, K.A., 2002, Surface 

water/ground water interactions along the lower Dungeness 

River and vertical hydraulic conductivity of streambed 

sediments, Clallam County, Washington, September 1999-

July 2001: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources 

Investigations Report 02-4161, 62 p.

Tabor, R.W., and Cady, W.M., 1978, Geologic map of the 

Olympic Peninsula, Washington: U.S. Geological Survey 

Miscellaneous Investigation Series Map I-994, scale 

1:125,000.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1975, Soil Survey of 

Jefferson County Area, Washington: Soil Conservation 

Service, 100 p., 70 pl.
Table 8 47

Table 8. Physical and hydrologic data for inventoried wells in the Chimacum Creek Basin, eastern Jefferson County, Washington, May 2002

[Local well No.: See figure 4 for explanation of well-numbering system. Location of wells are shown on plate 1. Washington Dept. of Ecology tag: Washington 

Department of Ecology unique identification No. Hydrogeologic unit: See Plate 1 for explanation of units. LIDAR altitude: Land-surface altitude determined 

from LIDAR return signal. Primary use of water: H, domestic; I, irrigation; P, public supply; T, institutional; U, unused; and Z, other. Drillers’ log available: 

Y, yes; N, no. Abbreviations: ft, foot; ft/d, foot per day. – no data]

Local well 

No.

Washington 

Dept. of 

Ecology tag

Latitude 

(degrees, 

minutes, 

seconds)

Longitude 

(degrees, 

minutes, 

seconds)

Hydrogeologic 

unit

LIDAR 

altitude 

(ft)

Depth of 

hole 

(ft)

Depth of 

well 

(ft)

Primary 

use of 

water

Horizontal 

hydraulic 

conductivity 

(ft/d)

Drillers’ 

log 

available

28N/01E - 04E01 ACJ 769 475653.6 1224112.0 Qgo 61 43 43 H 4.8 Y

05L01 – 475644.5 1224221.2 Qgo 462 108 108 H 5.3 Y

06L01 ACP 278 475643.0 1224338.0 Qgo 504 97 96 H 5.9 Y

07N01 ACP 340 475537.1 1224403.6 Qgo 162 52 52 U 46 Y

08F01 – 475559.7 1224216.4 Qgo 420 216 214 H – Y

15K01 – 475502.2 1223922.9 Qva 159 471 471 U – Y

15K02 ABA 712 475501.9 1223918.0 Qva 100 92 92 H 31 Y

15K03 – 475458.5 1223917.8 Qva 97 101 101 H 3.2 Y

18N01 – 475450.5 1224354.7 Qgo 156 44 44 H 1.01 Y

28N/01W- 01C01 – 475711.9 1224459.3 Qgo 352 115 115 T 63 Y

02A03 – 475714.0 1224523.6 Qgo 312 64 64 H 420 Y

03H01 ACM 713 475652.8 1224640.8 Qgo 318 270 270 H .22 Y

03J01 – 475640.4 1224645.2 Qgo 355 238 238 H 14 Y

03N02 ACJ 798 475636.8 1224751.1 Qva 176 67 67 U 15 Y

04R01 ABA 530 475628.9 1224807.3 Qvr 214 36 36 H 10 Y

05A01 ACP 257 475708.5 1224915.0 Qva 557 329 328 H 43 Y

06H01 AAC 157 475656.1 1225045.4 Qva 511 162 161 H – Y

06J01 – 475645.8 1225038.1 Qva 561 207 207 H 7,400 Y

09H01 – 475607.8 1224759.2 Qva 234 90 89 H – Y

10B01 – 475622.2 1224701.0 Qgo 316 51 51 H 1.01 Y

10E01 ABE 815 475607.8 1224741.6 Qgo 256 172 172 H 150 Y

11C01 AFC 962 475615.2 1224608.0 Qgo 475 191 191 H 132 Y

12Q01 – 475537.8 1224427.2 Qgo 245 58 58 H – Y

29N/01E- 07M05 ACC 085 480105.6 1224400.2 Qva 60 58 58 H – Y

19G02 – 475933.0 1224321.2 Qgo 162 105 105 H 9.9 Y

19P01 ACC 063 475907.9 1224339.4 Qgo 367 244 244 H 26 Y

28N04 – 475816.5 1224123.1 Qgo 9 51 49 H 16 Y

29D01 – – – – 110 30 30 P – N

29D02 – – – Em 109 200 164 P .15 Y

29D03 – – – Qgo 124 28 28 P 81 Y

29D04 – 475850.6 1224240.1 Em 107 90 90 U .85 Y

29D05 – 475851.9 1224236.6 Em 74 105 105 H .10 Y

29D06 WA 458 00 475851.7 1224242.6 Evcf 124 160 160 U .07 Y

29D07 – – – Em 118 59 59 P 4.9 Y

29R01 AFB 933 475815.3 1224132.1 Qgo 36 56 56 H 21 Y

32P01 ABB 996 475721.3 1224151.5 Qgo 103 78 77 H 150 Y

32R01 – 475718.2 1224130.7 Qgo 43 79 79 H 47 Y

32R02 ABA 156 475728.1 1224146.3 Qvr 55 52 52 H 11 Y

33C01 – 475805.1 1224051.4 Evcf 84 96 96 H .34 Y

33E03 – 475752.5 1224116.3 Qgo 59 75 75 H 21 Y

33M05 – 475741.0 1224110.9 Qgo 40 73 73 H 37 N

29N/01W- 02R02 – – – Qva 129 110 107 P 150 Y

02R03 – 480142.8 1224531.5 Qva 128 110 110 U 160 Y

02R04 – – – Qva 128 133 133 P 1220,000 Y

03G02 – 480211.2 1224712.7 Qva 128 67 67 Z 2,000 Y

03H01 – 480209.1 1224654.4 Qvr 107 45 38 U – Y

03K01 ABR 387 480207.6 1224658.8 Qvr 128 64 64 U – Y

03K02 – 480207.5 1224659.7 Qva 126 184 184 U – Y

29N/01W- 03K03 – 480206.8 1224657.8 Qva 126 226 106 U – Y
Table 8 48

03K04 – 480206.8 1224715.0 Qva 128 130 73 U – Y

03K05 ACF 484 – – Qva 126 113 113 P 590 Y

203R01 ACC 100 480145.4 1224642.3 Qva 133 95 95 I – Y

05A01 ABN 404 480226.1 1224923.2 Qva 152 169 165 H 33 Y

09J01 – – – Qva 291 170 49 P 17 Y

09L01 – 480110.1 1224848.6 OEm 368 66 66 H <.01 Y

10A01 ABB 044 480128.7 1224646.8 Qva 134 64 64 I 670 Y

10Q02 AFL 952 480057.5 1224707.9 Qva 161 125 125 U – Y

10Q03 AGC 501 480100.3 1224707.7 Qva 144 100 98 U – Y

11C01 623 480136.2 1224603.3 Qva 110 48 46 H 38 Y

11L01 AGC 523 480114.6 1224557.4 Qva 116 78 78 I – Y

11Q01 AFC 957 480100.9 1224551.4 Qva 151 199 199 H 5.1 Y

12H01 ABA 533 480117.8 1224408.8 OEm 85 210 210 H .87 N

12H02 AEN 317 480117.2 1224401.0 Qva 54 50 50 U 46.8 Y

13M01 ACR 059 480016.1 1224518.6 Qgo 141 81 80 H 830 Y

15B01 – 480046.9 1224657.9 Qva 127 86 86 U 160 Y

15Q01 AEA 439 480000.4 1224702.3 Qva 221 173 173 H 27 Y

15R01 – 480007.1 1224654.1 Qva 136 95 95 I – N

21E01 ACP 262 475941.7 1224901.2 Qvt/Evcf 632 40 38 H – Y

21E02 ACM 710 475938.2 1224901.0 Evcf 626 90 90 H .72 N

21J01 AFC 959 475925.0 1224752.2 Qgo 465 258 258 U 14 Y

22F03 ACR 121 475934.9 1224725.9 Qgo 470 354 354 H 47 Y

22J01 AFL 958 475928.1 1224654.7 Qgo 224 175 175 U – Y

23F01 – 475945.4 1224601.6 Qgo 176 87 87 H – Y

23H01 ACJ 762 475931.8 1224521.0 Qgo 172 83 83 U 22 Y

23L01 – 475927.5 1224607.2 Qgo 159 157 157 H .97 Y

24C01 160 475950.1 1224447.6 Qgo 382 321 306 H 1.9 Y

24K03 – 475925.9 1224441.4 Qgo 155 40 37 U 18.4 Y

26M01 – 475827.1 1224635.7 – 131 – – H – N

26M02 – 475838.1 1224632.6 – 122 31 23 H – N

26M03 – 475830.0 1224621.2 Qvr 124 41 38 I – N

27C01 AEK 928 475856.1 1224718.0 Qva 260 70 70 H 8.2 Y

27E01 ABP 934 475851.4 1224744.2 Qgo 471 398 398 H 1.09 Y

27F01 – 475844.2 1224725.0 Qgo 275 195 195 H 25 Y

28R01 ACP 298 – – Qva 435 238 237 P 200 Y

30R01 – 475814.2 1225033.8 Em 575 117 117 H – Y

31B01 – 475806.3 1225101.6 Qva 605 134 134 H 1.05 Y

31B02 – 475801.6 1225101.4 Qva 655 235 235 H 13,000 Y

32R01 – 475725.7 1224924.8 Qgo 509 350 348 H 3.6 Y

33R01 – 475727.9 1224802.6 Qva 278 58 50 H 70 Y

33R02 ABB 828 475720.1 1224804.2 Qva 256 48 46 H 9.4 Y

34C01 ACR 131 475801.0 1224725.9 Qva 279 179 179 U 180 Y

34F01 ABE 809 475757.6 1224730.3 Qva 300 88 88 H 3.5 Y

35J01 ACJ 763 475733.5 1224536.7 Qgo 362 109 109 H 430 Y

35L01 ACP 362 475733.8 1224610.7 Qgo 289 60 60 H 75 Y

35R02 ACR 101 475721.0 1224529.8 Qgo 323 73 73 H 410 Y

36A01 – 475806.8 1224417.1 Qgo 194 122 122 H 18 Y

30N/01W- 28F01 – 480400.7 1224844.0 Qva 264 141 141 T – Y

28F02 ABW 228 480358.3 1224835.2 Qva 246 95 95 H – Y

28M02 ABN 406 480350.3 1224910.3 Qva 221 242 240 U 110 Y

Table 8. Physical and hydrologic data for inventoried wells in the Chimacum Creek Basin, eastern Jefferson County, Washington, May 2002—Continued

[Local well No.: See figure 4 for explanation of well-numbering system. Location of wells are shown on plate 1. Washington Dept. of Ecology tag: Washington 

Department of Ecology unique identification No. Hydrogeologic unit: See Plate 1 for explanation of units. LIDAR altitude: Land-surface altitude determined 

from LIDAR return signal. Primary use of water: H, domestic; I, irrigation; P, public supply; T, institutional; U, unused; and Z, other. Drillers’ log available: 

Y, yes; N, no. Abbreviations: ft, foot; ft/d, foot per day. – no data]

Local well 

No.

Washington 

Dept. of 

Ecology tag

Latitude 

(degrees, 

minutes, 

seconds)

Longitude 

(degrees, 

minutes, 

seconds)

Hydrogeologic 

unit

LIDAR 

altitude 

(ft)

Depth of 

hole 

(ft)

Depth of 

well 

(ft)

Primary 

use of 

water

Horizontal 

hydraulic 

conductivity 

(ft/d)

Drillers’ 

log 

available
Table 8 49

29A01 ABE 807 480411.3 1224914.9 Qva 240 149 149 H 7.2 Y

29G01 ABW 207 480402.5 1224937.5 Qva 255 77 77 H – Y

32G01 ACR 108 480305.2 1224952.2 Qva 118 143 143 H 160 Y

32K01 – 480258.4 1224946.0 – 44 – 47 U – N

33H02 ACM 501 – – Qva 108 75 74 P – Y

33H03 ACM 502 – – Qva 108 120 120 P – Y

33M01 – 480251.1 1224854.7 Qva 135 180 153 U 150 Y

33N02 AAB 781 – – Qva 140 173 173 P 160 Y

34A01 ABC 314 – – Qva 172 217 217 P 140 Y

34E01 ACY 840 480307.5 1224727.9 Qva 133 75 75 H 350 Y

34H01 – 480306.3 1224641.7 Qva 148 200 200 H 350 Y

1Value not used to estimate aquifer parameters.

Table 8. Physical and hydrologic data for inventoried wells in the Chimacum Creek Basin, eastern Jefferson County, Washington, May 2002—Continued

[Local well No.: See figure 4 for explanation of well-numbering system. Location of wells are shown on plate 1. Washington Dept. of Ecology tag: Washington 

Department of Ecology unique identification No. Hydrogeologic unit: See Plate 1 for explanation of units. LIDAR altitude: Land-surface altitude determined 

from LIDAR return signal. Primary use of water: H, domestic; I, irrigation; P, public supply; T, institutional; U, unused; and Z, other. Drillers’ log available: 

Y, yes; N, no. Abbreviations: ft, foot; ft/d, foot per day. – no data]

Local well 

No.

Washington 

Dept. of 

Ecology tag

Latitude 

(degrees, 

minutes, 

seconds)

Longitude 

(degrees, 

minutes, 

seconds)

Hydrogeologic 

unit

LIDAR 

altitude 

(ft)

Depth of 

hole 

(ft)

Depth of 

well 

(ft)

Primary 

use of 

water

Horizontal 

hydraulic 

conductivity 

(ft/d)

Drillers’ 

log 

available
Manuscript approved for publication, April 2, 2004

Prepared by the Publishing Group, U.S. Geological Survey, 

Washington Water Science Center, Tacoma, Washington

USGS Publishing staff

Judith A. Wayenberg

Bill Gibbs 

Bob Crist

Linda Rogers

Ginger Renslow

For more information concerning the research in this report, contact the 

Washington Water Science Center Director, 

U.S. Geological Survey,1201 Pacific Avenue – Suite 600 

Tacoma, Washington 98402

http://wa.water.usgs.gov
0RINTEDONRECYCLEDPAPER

3IMONDSANDOTHERS 3)2n 'ROUND
7ATER3YSTEM IN THE#HIMACUM#REEK"ASIN AND3URFACE7ATER'ROUND7ATER)NTERACTION IN #HIMACUM AND4ARBOO#REEKS AND THE"IG AND,ITTLE1UILCENE2IVERS%ASTERN*EFFERSON#OUNTY7ASHINGTON