Numerical simulation of the groundwater-flow system in Chimacum Creek Basin and vicinity, Jefferson County, Washington

Joseph L. Jones; Kenneth H. Johnson; Lonna M. Frans

doi:10.3133/sir20135160

Home/Archive/USGS

USGS · sir20135160

Numerical simulation of the groundwater-flow system in Chimacum Creek Basin and vicinity, Jefferson County, Washington

Joseph L. Jones·Kenneth H. Johnson·Lonna M. Frans

View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

A groundwater-flow model was developed to evaluate potential future effects of growth and of water-management strategies on water resources in the Chimacum Creek Basin. The model covers an area of about 64 square miles (mi 2 ) on the Olympic Peninsula in northeastern Jefferson County, Washington. The Chimacum Creek Basin drains an area of about 53 mi 2 and consists of Chimacum Creek and its tributary East Fork Chimacum Creek, which converge near the town of Chimacum and discharge to Port Townsend Bay near the town of Irondale. The topography of the model area consists of north-south oriented, narrow, regularly spaced parallel ridges and valleys that are characteristic of fluted glaciated surfaces. Thick accumulations of peat occur along the axis of East Fork Chimacum Creek and provide rich soils for agricultural use. The study area is underlain by a north-thickening sequence of unconsolidated glacial (till and outwash) and interglacial (fluvial and lacustrine) deposits, and sedimentary and igneous bedrock units that crop out along the margins and the western interior of the model area. Six hydrogeologic units in the model area form the basis of the groundwater-flow model. They are represented by model layers UC (upper confining), UA (upper aquifer), MC (middle confining), LA (lower aquifer), LC (lower confining), and OE (bedrock). Groundwater flow in the Chimacum Creek Basin and vicinity was simulated using the groundwater-flow model, MODFLOW-2005. The finite-difference model grid comprises 245 columns, 313 rows, and 6 layers. Each model cell has a horizontal dimension of 200 × 200 feet (ft). The thickness of model layers varies throughout the model area and ranges from 5 ft in the non-bedrock units to more than 2,400 ft in the bedrock. Groundwater flow was simulated for steady-state conditions, which were simulated for calibration of the model using average recharge, discharge, and water levels for the 180-month period October 1994–September 2009. The model as calibrated has a mean residual of 4.5 ft and a standard error on the mean of 2.1 ft for heads, and 0.64±0.42 cubic feet per second for streamflows. After the model was calibrated, a Current Conditions simulation was developed to reflect current (October 2008–September 2009) hydrologic conditions, with representative pumping, return flows, and “normal” recharge (based on National Weather Service average precipitation for 1981 to 2010). The Current Conditions simulation was used to estimate current flow quantities, and as a basis to compare other simulations.Simulated steady-state inflow to the model area from precipitation and secondary recharge, or “return flow,” was 16,347 acre-feet per year (acre-ft/yr); groundwater inflow from other basins to the north of the model boundary was 1,518 acre-ft/yr (net, 3,114 acre-ft/yr in and 1,596 acre-ft/yr out) and simulated inflow from lake leakage was 613 acre-ft/yr (net, 684 acre-ft/yr in and 71 acre-ft/yr out). Simulated outflow from the model primarily was through discharge to Puget Sound (10,022 acre-ft/yr), streams (5,424 acre-ft/yr ), springs and seeps (1,521 acre-ft/yr), and through withdrawals from wells (1,506 acre-ft/yr). Four simulations were formulated using the calibrated model—one to represent current conditions (2009, the end of the period used for calibration) and three to provide representative examples of how the model can be used to evaluate the relative effects of potential changes in groundwater withdrawals and consumptive use on groundwater levels and stream base flows: Probable Future Use, based on population projections; Full Beneficial Use, based on Jefferson County Public Utility District #1 water rights; Sanitary Sewer, based on eliminating septic return flows in the Urban Growth Area. Particle tracking was used to assess flowpaths from sources and to sinks, and the effects of the presence of irrigation wells and their depths was assessed.

Explore related subjects

Scientific Investigations Report Report

Source-reported bounding extent: 46.9432° to 48.5235° latitude; -123.0696° to -121.5553° longitude. This indicates report coverage, not an exact sampling location. View area on OpenStreetMap.

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeX RIS

Joseph L. Jones, Kenneth H. Johnson, Lonna M. Frans. 2013. Numerical simulation of the groundwater-flow system in Chimacum Creek Basin and vicinity, Jefferson County, Washington. https://doi.org/10.3133/sir20135160

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

USGS2026

Baseline water-quality inventory and summary for the Paterson Great Falls National Historical Park, New Jersey

The Paterson Great Falls National Historical Park (PAGR), established in 2011 in the City of Paterson, New Jersey, contains many cultural, historical, and natural resources. Because of the PAGR’s young age and limited resources, a long record of natural resource data is not available for use to guide future park management and planning decisions. A detailed natural resource inventory was identified as an immediate need in the “Foundation Document—Paterson Great Falls National Historical Park,” given the history of extensive industrial activity throughout the PAGR and the Passaic River Basin. The U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with the National Park Service and the Urban Waters Federal Partnership for the Lower Passaic River, inventoried water-quality monitoring efforts and compiled historical water-quality data from secondary data sources to define baseline conditions in the PAGR and the surrounding study area. This report documents the methods used to harmonize water-quality data aggregated from multiple sources for the PAGR study area. Procedures implemented during data harmonization include compiling data from multiple sources, assessing the dataset for completeness, addressing metadata concerns, and creating a consistent and quality-assured dataset for future analysis. The harmonized dataset contains 14 aggregated surface-water sites, 1,103 individual sampling days, and 32,000 water-quality records throughout the period of record defined for this study (1952–2021). Summary statistics and comparison to water-quality criteria are provided for focus parameters that can support PAGR management, including field properties, suspended material, total dissolved solids, specific conductance, chloride, sulfate, Escherichia coli, nutrients, contaminants of concern related to fish consumption advisories, and litter and floatable debris. A spatial data gap was identified for the recreational area near the base of the Great Falls and immediately downstream from a known combined sewer overflow discharge location. Analytic data gaps were identified for continuous streamflow and water-quality parameters, floatable debris characterization, and harmful algal blooms identification. Continuous collection of contaminants of concern was identified as a temporal data gap, as these parameters were not consistently collected within the study area. The water-quality data synthesis and summary presented in this report can assist PAGR staff in understanding the complex baseline water resources within the study area and can serve as a baseline to design future water-quality monitoring efforts and evaluate changes in water quality over time. The harmonized dataset, as well as future New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection and New Jersey Harbor Discharge Group monitoring data and assessments, can also be used to examine the status and trends in surface-water quality, support compliance with the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and further investigate changes to park water resources that can affect ecological and human health.

New Jersey↗

USGS2026

Slip tendency and dilation tendency of Quaternary faults in the Great Basin region, Arizona, California, Idaho, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, and Wyoming

This report presents the results of slip tendency and dilation tendency analysis of Quaternary faults in the Great Basin region, in the states of Arizona, California, Idaho, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, and Wyoming. This effort was undertaken as part of two studies: the U.S. Department of Energy Geothermal Technologies Office-funded Innovative Geothermal Exploration through Novel Investigations of Undiscovered Systems (INGENIOUS) project, which is a multidisciplinary, multi-institution effort to develop new methodologies and best practices to accelerate the discovery of new, commercially viable hydrothermal resources; and the U.S. Geological Survey Geothermal Resources Investigations Project. The goal of this work is to identify faults and fault segments that are appropriately oriented to be stress-loaded for slip or to dilate under the ambient stress conditions. Both conditions may make such faults more likely to host permeability and fluid flow relative to other faults in the region. Slip tendency and dilation tendency were calculated for all fault segments in the study area from the U.S. Geological Survey Quaternary Fault and Fold Database. Results demonstrate that faults with high slip tendency and dilation tendency are common in the Great Basin region. The areas containing many high slip tendency and dilation tendency fault segments are associated with high strain rates. These areas also host a relatively high proportion of the known hydrothermal systems. This indicates that faults with high slip tendency and dilation tendency in areas with high strain-rate are potentially most prospective for hosting hydrothermal systems. The database published in coordination with this report contains the slip tendency and dilation tendency results data, including the fault geometry and stress data used to calculate these quantities, for both the Great Basin study area and the smaller INGENIOUS study area.

Arizona, California, Idaho, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, ↗

USGS2026

A spatial analysis of the groundwater emergence flood hazard in Long Island, New York, and coastal areas surrounding Long Island Sound in New York, Connecticut, and Rhode Island

Long Island, New York, and nearby coastal areas surrounding Long Island Sound are densely populated and, like other coastal areas, are susceptible to flooding from several potential sources, including stormwater from precipitation events, tidal flooding and storm surge, and groundwater emergence flooding. Groundwater emergence fooding refers to the intersection of a rising water table with land surface or critical infrastructure. Many studies of flood drivers either neglect or only briefly discuss how shallow groundwater conditions may contribute to or exacerbate flood conditions. As a part of a comprehensive study of compound flood hazards in the coastal areas of Long Island and Long Island Sound, a spatial analysis was completed by the U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with the Environmental Protection Agency’s Long Island Sound Partnership, formerly called the Long Island Sound Study, using available regional datasets to characterize the potential hazard for groundwater emergence flooding. The approximately 3,100 square mile study area was subdivided into 11,407 grid cells that were 900 meters by 900 meters (approximately 3,000 feet by 3,000 feet), for the purpose of integrating the spatial datasets to calculate and map the groundwater emergence flood hazard. The depth to the water table, hydrologic soil groups, and National Land Cover Database were harmonized to the common grid. A groundwater emergence flood hazard score was calculated for each grid cell for current average conditions following a set of rules accounting for the depth to the water table and the percentage of area within each cell with slow infiltrating soils. A scenario with a higher sea-level position was also calculated for the Long Island part of the study area. The calculated groundwater emergence flood hazard score was reviewed in conjunction with the National Land Cover Database to identify developed areas and associated infrastructure that may be at risk of potential groundwater emergence flooding. Study results indicate that the groundwater emergence flood hazard is highest in coastal areas and near surface water where the water table is close to ground surface. Inland areas away from surface waterbodies are not likely to be exposed to groundwater emergence flooding. For Long Island, in the scenario with higher sea-level position, a greater groundwater emergence flood hazard is calculated for some locations closer to the coast and where land is submerged. Away from the coast and surface-water drainage, the groundwater emergence flood hazard is similar between the current average sea-level condition and the higher sea-level position scenario.

Connecticut, New York, Rhode Island↗