U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey

Scientific Investigations Report 2011–5033

Prepared in cooperation with the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection

Simulated Effects of Allocated and Projected 2025 Withdrawals 

from the Potomac-Raritan-Magothy Aquifer System, 

Gloucester and Northeastern Salem Counties, New Jersey

Simulated Effects of Allocated and 

Projected 2025 Withdrawals from the 

Potomac-Raritan-Magothy Aquifer System, 

Gloucester and Northeastern Salem 

Counties, New Jersey

By Emmanuel G. Charles, John P. Nawyn, Lois M. Voronin, and Alison D. Gordon

Prepared in cooperation with the 

New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection

Scientific Investigations Report 2011–5033

U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey
U.S. Department of the Interior

KEN SALAZAR, Secretary

U.S. Geological Survey

Marcia K. McNutt, Director

U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2011

For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural and living 

resources, natural hazards, and the environment, visit http://www.usgs.gov or call 1–888–ASK–USGS.

For an overview of USGS information products, including maps, imagery, and publications, 

visit http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod

To order this and other USGS information products, visit http://store.usgs.gov

Any use of trade, product, or firm names 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:

Charles, E.G., Nawyn, J.P., Voronin, L.M., and Gordon, A.D., 2011, Simulated effects of allocated and projected 2025 

withdrawals from the Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer system, Gloucester and Northeastern Salem Counties, 

New Jersey: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2011–5033, 145 p.
iii

Contents

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

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

Purpose and Scope ..............................................................................................................................3

Previous Investigations........................................................................................................................3

Well-Numbering System......................................................................................................................4

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

Hydrogeologic Framework..................................................................................................................4

Water-Supply Issues ............................................................................................................................6

Model Design................................................................................................................................................17

Conceptual Model...............................................................................................................................17

Boundary Conditions..........................................................................................................................17

Recharge to Outcrop Areas .....................................................................................................19

Specified Flow............................................................................................................................19

No Flow........................................................................................................................................19

Head-Dependent Flow to and from the Delaware River.....................................................20

Head-Dependent Flow to Streams..........................................................................................20

Model Input..........................................................................................................................................20

Hydraulic Properties of Aquifers, Confining Units, and Streambeds................................20

Groundwater Withdrawals.......................................................................................................29

Water-Purveyor, Industrial Self-Supply, Low-Volume, 

and Agricultural-Irrigation.................................................................................29

Estimated Domestic Self-Supply....................................................................................29

Model Calibration and Simulation of 2000 (Baseline) Withdrawals....................................................31

1998 Calibration Simulation Flow Budget .......................................................................................37

Sensitivity Analysis.............................................................................................................................37

Model Limitations................................................................................................................................37

2000 Baseline Simulation and Results.............................................................................................39

Simulated Effects of Allocated Withdrawals ..........................................................................................41

Description of Allocation-Based Scenarios...................................................................................41

Withdrawals.........................................................................................................................................46

Water-Purveyor and Industrial Self-Supply ..........................................................................46

Low-Volume ................................................................................................................................46

Agricultural-Irrigation ...............................................................................................................46

Domestic Self-Supply................................................................................................................46

Scenario Results.................................................................................................................................47

Full-Allocation Scenario ...........................................................................................................47

Adjusted Full-Allocation Scenario ..........................................................................................56

Adjusted Full-Allocation plus Woolwich Request Scenario...............................................64

Adjusted Full-Allocation plus All Requests Scenario ..........................................................71

Adjusted Full-Allocation plus Adjusted Requests Scenario...............................................80
iv

2025 Groundwater-Withdrawal Scenario .......................................................................................87

Projected 2025 population........................................................................................................87

Gloucester County ............................................................................................................87

Salem County.....................................................................................................................88

Projected 2025 Agricultural Land-Use Change.....................................................................89

Gloucester County ............................................................................................................89

Salem County.....................................................................................................................89

Projected 2025 Groundwater Withdrawals ...........................................................................89

Water-Purveyor.................................................................................................................89

Industrial Self-Supply, Low-Volume, and Agricultural-Irrigation..............................90

Domestic Self-Supply.......................................................................................................90

2025 Scenario Results...............................................................................................................92

Sensitivity of Water Levels at Key Boundaries to Additional Withdrawals ..............................99

Simulated Movement of Saline Water ............................................................................................99

Glassboro Borough and Adjacent Municipalities ..............................................................107

Harrison Township...................................................................................................................107

Woodstown Borough ..............................................................................................................109

Oldmans Township...................................................................................................................112

Summary and Conclusions.......................................................................................................................114

Acknowledgments.....................................................................................................................................117

References Cited........................................................................................................................................117
v

Figures

1. Map showing location of model area and Water Supply Critical Area 2, 

southern New Jersey...................................................................................................................3

2. Generalized hydrogeologic section through New Jersey Coastal Plain aquifers 

and confining units in the Salem-Gloucester study area, southern New Jersey..............5

3. Map showing discretized outcrop areas of hydrogeologic units represented 

in the model and wells with new geophysical interpretations, Salem-Gloucester 

study area, southern New Jersey..............................................................................................8

4. Map showing altitude of the top of the Englishtown aquifer system, 

Salem-Gloucester study area, southern New Jersey ............................................................9

5. Map showing altitude of the top of the Merchantville-Woodbury confining unit, 

Salem-Gloucester study area, southern New Jersey ..........................................................10

6. Map showing altitude of the top of the Upper Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer, 

Salem-Gloucester study area, southern New Jersey ..........................................................11

7. Map showing altitude of the top of the confining unit between the Upper 

and Middle Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifers, Salem-Gloucester study area, 

southern New Jersey.................................................................................................................12

8. Map showing altitude of the top of the Middle Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer, 

Salem-Gloucester study area, southern New Jersey ..........................................................13

9. Map showing altitude of the top of the confining unit between the Middle 

and Lower Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifers, Salem-Gloucester study area, 

southern New Jersey.................................................................................................................14

10. Map showing altitude of the top of the Lower Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer, 

Salem-Gloucester study area, southern New Jersey ..........................................................15

11. Map showing altitude of the top of the bedrock, Salem-Gloucester study area, 

southern New Jersey.................................................................................................................16

12. Map showing finite-difference grid for the groundwater-flow model, 

Salem-Gloucester study area, southern New Jersey ..........................................................18

13. Schematic representation of model layers and boundary conditions used 

in the groundwater-flow model, Salem-Gloucester study area, 

southern New Jersey.................................................................................................................19

14. Map showing model cells that represent stream reaches and wetlands 

in the outcrop areas and the Delaware River, Salem-Gloucester study area, 

southern New Jersey.................................................................................................................21

15. Map showing horizontal hydraulic conductivity used in the model, Englishtown 

aquifer system, Salem-Gloucester study area, southern New Jersey..............................22

16. Map showing vertical hydraulic conductivity used in the model, 

Merchantville-Woodbury confining unit, Salem-Gloucester study area, 

southern New Jersey.................................................................................................................23

17. Map showing horizontal hydraulic conductivity used in the model, 

Upper Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer, Salem-Gloucester study area, 

southern New Jersey.................................................................................................................24

18. Map showing vertical hydraulic conductivity used in the model, confining 

unit between the Upper and Middle Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifers, 

Salem-Gloucester study area, southern New Jersey ..........................................................25

19. Map showing horizontal hydraulic conductivity used in the model, 

Middle Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer, Salem-Gloucester study area, 

southern New Jersey.................................................................................................................26
vi

20. Map showing vertical hydraulic conductivity used in the model, confining unit 

between the Middle and Lower Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifers, 

Salem-Gloucester study area, southern New Jersey ..........................................................27

21. Map showing horizontal hydraulic conductivity used in the model, 

Lower Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer, Salem-Gloucester study area, 

southern New Jersey.................................................................................................................28

22. Map showing location of withdrawal wells and wells simulated as boundary 

flows in the Upper, Middle, and Lower Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifers 

for the 1998 calibration simulation, Salem-Gloucester study area, 

southern New Jersey.................................................................................................................30

23. Map showing steady-state potentiometric surface in the confined Englishtown 

aquifer system for the 1998 calibration simulation, Salem-Gloucester study area, 

southern New Jersey.................................................................................................................33

24. Map showing steady-state potentiometric surface in the confined Upper 

Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer for the 1998 calibration simulation, 

Salem-Gloucester study area, southern New Jersey ..........................................................34

25. Map showing steady-state potentiometric surface in the confined Middle 

Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer for the 1998 calibration simulation, 

Salem-Gloucester study area, southern New Jersey ..........................................................35

26. Map showing steady-state potentiometric surface in the Lower Potomac-RaritanMagothy aquifer for the 1998 calibration simulation, Salem-Gloucester study area, 

southern New Jersey.................................................................................................................36

27. Map showing location of withdrawal wells and wells simulated as boundary 

flows in the Upper, Middle, and Lower Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifers 

for the 2000 baseline simulation and 2025 scenario, Salem-Gloucester study area, 

southern New Jersey.................................................................................................................42

28. Map showing steady-state potentiometric surface in the, A, confined Upper 

Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer, B, confined Middle Potomac-Raritan-Magothy 

aquifer, and, C, Lower Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer for the 2000 baseline 

simulation, Salem-Gloucester study area, southern New Jersey......................................43

29. Map showing location of withdrawal wells simulated in the model and wells 

simulated as boundary flows in the Upper, Middle, and Lower Potomac-RaritanMagothy aquifers for the full-allocation scenario, Salem-Gloucester study area, 

southern New Jersey.................................................................................................................48

30. Map showing simulated potentiometric surface in the, A, confined Upper 

Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer, B, confined Middle Potomac-Raritan-Magothy 

aquifer, and, C, Lower Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer for the full-allocation 

scenario, Salem-Gloucester study area, southern New Jersey ........................................49

31. Map showing change in simulated water levels in the, A, confined Upper 

Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer, B, confined Middle Potomac-Raritan-Magothy 

aquifer, and, C, Lower Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer from the 2000 baseline 

simulation to the full-allocation scenario, Salem-Gloucester study area, 

southern New Jersey.................................................................................................................52

32. Map showing location of withdrawal wells and wells simulated as boundary 

flows in the Upper, Middle, and Lower Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifers for the 

adjusted full-allocation scenario and the adjusted full-allocation plus Woolwich 

request scenario, Salem-Gloucester study area, southern New Jersey..........................57

33. Map showing simulated potentiometric surface in the, A, confined Upper 

Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer, B, confined Middle Potomac-Raritan-Magothy 

aquifer, and, C, Lower Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer for the adjusted fullallocation scenario, Salem-Gloucester study area, southern New Jersey......................58
vii

34. Map showing change in simulated water levels in the, A, confined Upper 

Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer, B, confined Middle Potomac-Raritan-Magothy 

aquifer, and, C, Lower Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer from the 2000 baseline 

simulation to the adjusted full-allocation scenario, Salem-Gloucester study area, 

southern New Jersey.................................................................................................................61

35. Map showing simulated potentiometric surface in the, A, confined Upper 

Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer, B, confined Middle Potomac-Raritan-Magothy 

aquifer, and, C, Lower Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer for the adjusted 

full-allocation plus Woolwich request scenario, Salem-Gloucester study area, 

southern New Jersey.................................................................................................................65

36. Map showing change in simulated levels in the, A, confined Upper 

Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer, B, confined Middle Potomac-Raritan-Magothy 

aquifer, and, C, Lower Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer from the adjusted 

full-allocation scenario to the adjusted full-allocation plus Woolwich 

request scenario, Salem-Gloucester study area, southern New Jersey..........................68

37. Map showing location of withdrawal wells and wells simulated as boundary 

flows in the Upper, Middle, and Lower Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifers for 

the adjusted full-allocation plus all requests scenario and the adjusted 

full-allocation plus adjusted requests scenario, Salem-Gloucester study area, 

southern New Jersey.................................................................................................................73

38. Map showing simulated potentiometric surface in the, A, confined Upper 

Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer, B, confined Middle Potomac-Raritan-Magothy 

aquifer, and, C, Lower Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer for the adjusted 

full-allocation plus all requests scenario, Salem-Gloucester study area, 

southern New Jersey.................................................................................................................74

39. Map showing change in simulated water levels in the, A, confined Upper 

Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer, B, confined Middle Potomac-Raritan-Magothy 

aquifer, and, C, Lower Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer from the adjusted 

full-allocation scenario to the adjusted full-allocation plus all requests scenario, 

Salem-Gloucester study area, southern New Jersey ..........................................................77

40. Map showing simulated potentiometric surface in the, A, confined Upper 

Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer, B, confined Middle Potomac-Raritan-Magothy 

aquifer, and, C, Lower Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer for the adjusted 

full-allocation plus adjusted requests scenario, Salem-Gloucester study area, 

southern New Jersey.................................................................................................................81

41. Map showing change in simulated water levels in the, A, confined Upper 

Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer, B, confined Middle Potomac-Raritan-Magothy 

aquifer, and, C, Lower Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer from the adjusted 

full-allocation scenario to the adjusted full-allocation plus adjusted requests 

scenario, Salem-Gloucester study area, southern New Jersey ........................................84

42. Graph showing reported and projected population, Gloucester and Salem Counties, 

southern New Jersey.................................................................................................................88

43. Map showing simulated potentiometric surface in the, A, confined Upper 

Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer, B, confined Middle Potomac-Raritan-Magothy 

aquifer, and, C, Lower Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer for the 2025 scenario, 

Salem-Gloucester study area, southern New Jersey ..........................................................93

44. Map showing change in simulated water levels in the, A, confined Upper 

Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer, B, confined Middle Potomac-Raritan-Magothy 

aquifer, and, C, Lower Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer from the 2000 baseline 

simulation to the 2025 scenario, Salem-Gloucester study area, 

southern New Jersey.................................................................................................................96
viii

45. Map showing distribution of average maximum simulated water-level 

change at key boundaries in the, A, Upper Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer 

and, B, Middle Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer, resulting from a hypothetical 

well withdrawing 1 million gallons per day, Salem-Gloucester study area, 

southern New Jersey...............................................................................................................101

46. Graphs showing measured sodium and chloride concentrations in water 

from selected wells screened in the Upper Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer in 

Glassboro Borough and adjacent municipalities, Salem-Gloucester study area, 

southern New Jersey, 1929 to 2010 .......................................................................................103

47. Graphs showing measured sodium and chloride concentrations in water 

from selected wells in Woodstown Borough and Harrison and Oldmans Townships, 

Salem-Gloucester study area, southern New Jersey, 1996–2010....................................105

48. Map showing simulated lateral flow paths from the estimated location of the 

250-milligram-per-liter isochlor to wells in the Upper Potomac-Raritan-Magothy 

aquifer in Glassboro Borough and adjacent municipalities, for the 2000 baseline 

simulation and adjusted full-allocation scenario, Salem-Gloucester study area, 

southern New Jersey...............................................................................................................108

49. Map showing simulated lateral flow paths to withdrawal well 15-1109 

screened in the Upper Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer in Harrison Township 

and flow budget, 2000 baseline simulation, Salem-Gloucester study area, 

southern New Jersey...............................................................................................................110

50. Map showing simulated lateral flow paths to withdrawal well 33-933 screened 

in the Middle Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer in Woodstown Borough 

and flow budget, 2000 baseline simulation, Salem-Gloucester study area, 

southern New Jersey...............................................................................................................111

51. Map showing simulated lateral flow paths to withdrawal well 33-900 screened 

in the Lower Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer in Oldmans Township 

and flow budget, 2000 baseline simulation, Salem-Gloucester study area, 

southern New Jersey...............................................................................................................113
ix

Tables

1. Summary of groundwater models incorporating the Salem-Gloucester study area, 

southern New Jersey...................................................................................................................4

2. Geologic and hydrogeologic units and model layers in the Salem-Gloucester study 

area, southern New Jersey ........................................................................................................6

3. Altitudes of land surface and tops of hydrogeologic units determined from new 

gamma-log interpretations, Salem-Gloucester study area, southern New Jersey ..........7

4. Allocated and simulated groundwater withdrawals by water purveyors in 

municipalities located predominantly in Water Supply Critical Area 2, SalemGloucester study area, southern New Jersey.....................................................................122

5. Allocated and simulated groundwater withdrawals by water purveyors in 

municipalities located predominantly outside Water Supply Critical Area 2 and 

low-volume users, Salem-Gloucester study area, southern New Jersey. .....................125

6. Allocated and simulated groundwater withdrawals by industrial self-supply users, 

Salem-Gloucester study area, southern New Jersey. .......................................................128

7. Allocated and simulated groundwater withdrawals by the industrial self-supply 

user and the agricultural-irrigation users for which full-allocation withdrawals 

were adjusted, Salem-Gloucester study area, southern New Jersey. ...........................131

8. Estimated consumptive use of groundwater for domestic self-supply in 2000 

by municipality, Salem-Gloucester study area, southern New Jersey .............................32

9. Difference between simulated and measured 1998 water levels, Salem-Gloucester 

study area, southern New Jersey..........................................................................................133

10. Sensitivity of groundwater-flow model output to changes in model input 

parameters, Salem-Gloucester study area, southern New Jersey ...................................38

11. Type and amount of groundwater withdrawals in the Salem-Gloucester study 

area, southern New Jersey, for the 1998 calibration simulation, the 2000 baseline 

simulation, and the six groundwater-withdrawal scenarios...............................................40

12. Summary of simulation and scenario results and differences in water levels 

and flow to streams between simulation and scenario results, Salem-Gloucester 

study area, southern New Jersey..........................................................................................136

13. Largest, smallest, and average change in simulated water levels along the 

boundary of Water Supply Critical Area 2 from the 2000 baseline simulation 

or the adjusted full-allocation scenario to one of the six groundwater-withdrawal 

scenarios, Salem-Gloucester study area, southern New Jersey ......................................55

14. Summary of simulated groundwater withdrawals for selected water-allocation 

permit numbers, Salem-Gloucester study area, southern New Jersey............................72

15. Estimated consumptive use of groundwater from domestic self-supply wells in 

municipalities with a projected population increase in 2025 that are not served 

by water purveyors, Salem-Gloucester study area, southern New Jersey .....................91

16. Maximum change in simulated water level at key boundaries resulting from a 

hypothetical well withdrawing 1 million gallons per day, Salem-Gloucester 

study area, southern New Jersey..........................................................................................100

17. Measured sodium and chloride concentrations in water from selected wells 

in the Salem-Gloucester study area, southern New Jersey, 1929–2010.........................138

18. Simulated travel time of water particles from the estimated 250-milligram-per-liter 

isochlor in the Upper Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer to eight withdrawal 

wells in Glassboro Borough and adjacent areas, Salem-Gloucester study area, 

southern New Jersey...............................................................................................................109
x

Conversion Factors and Datum

Multiply By To obtain

Length

inch (in) 2.54 centimeter (cm)

foot (ft) 0.3048 meter (m)

mile (mi) 1.609 kilometer (km)

Area

square foot (ft2) 929.0 square centimeter (cm2)

square foot (ft2) 0.09290 square meter (m2)

Volume

gallon (gal) 0.003785 cubic meter (m3) 

gallon (gal) 3.785 cubic decimeter (dm3) 

million gallons (Mgal) 3,785 cubic meter (m3)

cubic foot (ft3) 28.32 cubic decimeter (dm3) 

cubic foot (ft3) 0.02832 cubic meter (m3) 

Flow rate

foot per second (ft/s) 0.3048 meter per second (m/s)

foot per minute (ft/min) 0.3048 meter per minute (m/min)

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

foot per year (ft/yr) 0.3048 meter per year (m/yr)

cubic foot per second (ft3/s) 0.02832 cubic meter per second (m3/s)

cubic foot per second per square

mile [(ft3/s)/mi2]

0.01093 cubic meter per second per square

kilometer [(m3/s)/km2]

cubic foot per day (ft3/d) 0.02832 cubic meter per day (m3/d)

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

gallon per day (gal/d) 0.003785 cubic meter per day (m3/d)

gallon per day per square mile

 [(gal/d)/mi2]

0.001461 cubic meter per day per square

kilometer [(m3/d)/km2]

million gallons per day (Mgal/d) 0.04381 cubic meter per second (m3/s)

million gallons per day per square

mile [(Mgal/d)/mi2]

1,461 cubic meter per day per square

kilometer [(m3/d)/km2]

Hydraulic conductivity

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

Transmissivity*

foot squared per day (ft2/d) 0.09290 meter squared per day (m2/d) 

Leakance

foot per day per foot [(ft/d)/ft] 1 meter per day per meter

inch per year per foot [(in/yr)/ft] 83.33 millimeter per year per meter

[(mm/yr)/m]

Vertical coordinate information is referenced to the National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 

(NGVD 29).

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

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

*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.

Concentrations of chemical constituents in water are given in milligrams per liter (mg/L).
Simulated Effects of Allocated and Projected 2025 

Withdrawals from the Potomac-Raritan-Magothy Aquifer 

System, Gloucester and Northeastern Salem Counties, 

New Jersey

By Emmanuel G. Charles, John P. Nawyn, Lois M. Voronin, and Alison D. Gordon

Abstract

Withdrawals from the Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer 

system in New Jersey, which includes the Upper, Middle, and 

Lower Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifers, are the principal 

source of groundwater supply in northern Gloucester and 

northeastern Salem Counties in the New Jersey Coastal Plain. 

Water levels in these aquifers have declined in response to 

pumping. With increased population growth and development 

expected in Gloucester County and parts of Salem County 

over the next 2 decades (2005–2025), withdrawals from these 

aquifers also are expected to increase.

A steady-state groundwater-flow model, developed to 

simulate flow in the Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer system 

in northern Gloucester and northeastern Salem Counties, was 

calibrated to withdrawal conditions in 1998, when groundwater withdrawals from the Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer 

system in the model area were more than 10,100 Mgal/yr 

(million gallons per year). Withdrawals from water-purveyor 

wells accounted for about 63 percent of these withdrawals, 

and withdrawals from industrial self-supply wells accounted 

for about 32 percent. Withdrawals from agricultural-irrigation, 

commercial self-supply, and domestic self-supply wells 

accounted for the remaining 5 percent. Results of the 2000 

baseline groundwater-flow simulation, incorporating average 

annual 1999–2001 groundwater withdrawals, indicate that 

the average simulated water levels in the Upper, Middle, and 

Lower Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifers are 31, 27, and 

30 feet below the National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 

(NGVD 29), respectively, and the lowest simulated water levels are 77, 65, and 59 feet below NGVD 29, respectively.

In the full-allocation scenario, the maximum Statepermitted (allocated) groundwater withdrawals totaled 

16,567 Mgal/yr, an increase of 72 percent from the 2000 

baseline simulation. Results of the full-allocation simulation 

indicate that the average simulated water levels in the Upper, 

Middle, and Lower Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifers are 49, 

43, and 48 feet below NGVD 29, respectively, which are 18, 

16, and 18 feet lower, respectively, than in the 2000 baseline 

simulation. The lowest simulated water levels are 156, 95, and 

69 feet below NGVD 29, respectively, which are 79, 30, and 

10 feet lower, respectively, than in the 2000 baseline simulation. Simulated net flow from the Potomac-Raritan-Magothy 

aquifer system to streams is 8,441 Mgal/yr in the 2000 

baseline simulation but is 6,018 Mgal/yr in the full-allocation 

scenario, a decrease of 29 percent from the 2000 baseline 

simulation. Simulated net flow in the 2000 baseline simulation is 1,183 Mgal/yr from the aquifer system to the Delaware 

River but in the full-allocation scenario is 1,816 Mgal/yr from 

the river to the aquifer system.

Four other simulations were conducted that incorporated 

full-allocation conditions at water-purveyor wells in Critical 

Area 2 but increased or decreased withdrawals at selected 

water-purveyor wells outside Critical Area 2 and agriculturalirrigation and industrial-self-supply wells in the study area. 

The results of the four simulations also indicate net flow 

from the Delaware River to the Potomac-Raritan-Magothy 

aquifer system.

A growth scenario was developed to simulate future 

withdrawals in 2025 estimated from population projections 

for municipalities in the Salem-Gloucester study area. Simulated withdrawals for this scenario totaled 10,261 Mgal/yr, an 

increase of 6 percent from the 2000 baseline simulation. This 

total includes about 25 Mgal/yr withdrawn from the Englishtown aquifer system for domestic self-supply. This scenario 

incorporated full-allocation withdrawals at water-purveyor 

wells in Critical Area 2, and increased withdrawals at some 

water-purveyor wells outside Critical Area 2. Results of this 

simulation indicate that the average simulated water levels 

in the Upper, Middle, and Lower Potomac-Raritan-Magothy 

aquifers are 32, 29, and 32 feet below NGVD 29, respectively, 

which are 1, 2, and 2 feet lower, respectively, than in the 2000 

baseline simulation. Simulated net flow from the PotomacRaritan-Magothy aquifer system to streams in the 2025 scenario is 8,189 Mgal/yr, a decrease of 3 percent from the 2000 

baseline simulation. Simulated net flow from the PotomacRaritan-Magothy aquifer system to the Delaware River in this 

scenario is 1,010 Mgal/yr, a decrease of 15 percent from the 

2000 baseline simulation.
2 Simulated Effects of Withdrawals from the Potomac-Raritan-Magothy Aquifer System, New Jersey

An analysis of the sensitivity of water levels at key 

boundaries in the study area to withdrawals from a hypothetical well was completed for the Upper and Middle PotomacRaritan-Magothy aquifers. These boundaries include the 

250-mg/L (milligrams per liter) isochlor, the western boundary 

of Critical Area 2, the aquifer outcrop, and the southwestern 

boundary of the model area. This analysis indicated that water 

levels are affected less by withdrawals from the northern part 

of the study area than by withdrawals from the southern part.

Saline water has threatened the potability of groundwater supplies derived from the Potomac-Raritan-Magothy 

aquifer system in the study area. Four areas in the study area 

have experienced acute problems with saline water. Example 

pumped wells were simulated in each of the four areas, 

particle tracking was used to define groundwater flow paths, 

and a budget analysis of the withdrawal zones was conducted 

to assess the movement of saline water and the likelihood of 

continued saltwater intrusion. Water withdrawn from wells 

screened in the Upper Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer in 

the Glassboro Borough area at average rates for 1999 to 2001 

of the 2000 baseline simulation or the withdrawal rates of the 

adjusted full-allocation scenario will likely remain potable 

with respect to chloride for at least several hundred years. 

However, chloride concentrations in the wells closest to the 

250-mg/L isochlor probably will continue to rise slowly. The 

elevated chloride concentrations observed in water from wells 

screened in the Upper Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer in 

Harrison Township and the Middle Potomac-Raritan-Magothy 

aquifer in Woodstown Borough likely result from proximity of 

the wells to the 250-mg/L isochlor in each aquifer, rather than 

from substantial lateral updip movement of the saline water. 

The elevated chloride concentrations found in wells screened 

in the Lower Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer in Oldmans 

Township are likely to persist because of the proximity of 

these wells to the 250-mg/L isochlor in this aquifer and the 

orientation of the contributing flow path that directs recharge 

water through saline areas.

Introduction

The Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer system in 

New Jersey, which includes the Upper, Middle, and Lower 

Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifers, is the principal source of 

groundwater supply in Salem and Gloucester Counties. With 

the exception of the Kirkwood-Cohansey aquifer system, the 

other aquifers within the study area do not yield sufficient 

quantities of water to provide a substantial supply. The Kirkwood-Cohansey aquifer system is present only in the southern 

part of the study area and is unconfined.

Large groundwater withdrawals from the PotomacRaritan-Magothy aquifer system have resulted in regional 

water-level declines in these aquifers. In 1993, as a result of 

declining water levels in the Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer system in the Coastal Plain of southern New Jersey, the 

State of New Jersey designated Water Supply Critical Area 2 

(New Jersey Assembly, 1993) (fig. 1). Withdrawals from the 

Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer system permitted by the 

New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) 

Bureau of Water Allocation (BWA) are restricted within Critical Area 2 in an effort to mitigate the continuing decline in 

groundwater levels. Most of Gloucester County and a small 

portion of southeastern Salem County lie within Critical 

Area 2. Expected population growth over the next 2 decades 

(2005–2025) in parts of Salem and Gloucester Counties is 

likely to require increased groundwater withdrawals, which 

are likely to affect water levels in the study area. 

The Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer system in the 

study area is hydraulically connected to the Delaware River 

and its tributaries. This connection is more limited in Salem 

County than in Gloucester County (Navoy and others, 2005). 

Investigations by Barksdale and others (1958), Greenman and 

others (1961), Luzier (1980), and Vowinkel and Foster (1981) 

indicate that flow between the Potomac-Raritan-Magothy 

aquifer system and the Delaware River is substantial. Because 

parts of the tributaries and the river in contact with the aquifer 

system are tidally affected, saltwater may be a source of 

induced recharge into the aquifer system from pumping near 

the river. The degree of the hydraulic connection depends on 

the specific, local stratigraphy. Lewis and others (1991) and 

Barton and Kozinski (1991) indicate that flow between the 

Delaware River and the Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer 

system is probably smaller in Logan Township than in bordering Greenwich Township to the northeast as a result of the 

presence of lower permeability sediments between the river 

and the aquifer system and because groundwater withdrawals 

in Logan Township are smaller.

Most of the updip parts of the Potomac-Raritan-Magothy 

aquifer system contain freshwater, but saline water (chloride 

concentration greater than or equal to 250 mg/L) is present in 

the deeper parts of the aquifer system in Salem and Gloucester 

Counties. The saline water either remains in the aquifer system 

from the time of deposition or has reentered the aquifers from 

the ocean after changes in sea level, or a combination of the 

two (Barksdale and others, 1958). The saline water may move 

toward water-purveyor wells in response to declining water 

levels from increased withdrawals. The induced movement of 

saline water could threaten the potable groundwater supply in 

this aquifer system.

Effective management of the water resources of the 

Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer system in the study area 

requires quantification of the water-level declines and evaluation of the effects of withdrawals that may lead to vertical and 

horizontal movement of the deeper saline water. Therefore, 

the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), in cooperation with the 

NJDEP, conducted a study to simulate various withdrawal 

scenarios and to evaluate the effects of increased withdrawals on water levels and on the movement of groundwater 

from areas in the Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer system 

where chloride concentrations exceed 250 mg/L to areas that 

contain freshwater.
Introduction 3

75° 74°

40°

39°

0 10 20 KILOMETERS

0 10 20 MILES

PENNSYLVANIA DELAWARE

ATLANTIC OCEAN

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:24,000,

Universal Transverse Mercator Projection, Zone 18

MIDDLESEX

MONMOUTH MERCER

SOMERSET

HUNTERDON

OCEAN

BURLINGTON

ATLANTIC

CAMDEN

GLOUCESTER

SALEM

CUMBERLAND

CAPE

MAY

Delaware

Bay

Delaware River

WATER SUPPLY CRITICAL AREA 2—

 From N.J. Department of Environmental

 Protection, unpublished, 1:250,000.

 Boundaries are approximate and

 should not be used for regulatory

 compliance purposes.

LOCATION OF HYDROLOGIC SECTION—

 Section shown in figure 2

EXTENT OF MODEL GRID

EXPLANATION

A

A’

A A’

Figure 1. Location of 

model area and Water 

Supply Critical Area 2, 

southern New Jersey.

Purpose and Scope

This report evaluates the effects of groundwater withdrawals from the Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer system in 

Gloucester and northeastern Salem Counties in New Jersey on 

groundwater levels, groundwater flow to streams, and movement of saline water in the aquifer system. A groundwaterflow model that includes the Upper, Middle, and Lower 

Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifers, two intervening confining 

units, the Merchantville-Woodbury confining unit, and the 

Englishtown aquifer system was constructed and calibrated 

to 1998 withdrawal conditions and used to evaluate changes 

in simulated water levels under various groundwater-withdrawal conditions. A baseline simulation that incorporated 

average annual 1999–2001 withdrawals was evaluated. Six 

withdrawal scenarios were simulated: five scenarios involved 

simulating the maximum withdrawals from the PotomacRaritan-Magothy aquifer system permitted by the State in 

2006 and increasing or decreasing these withdrawals, and 

one scenario involved simulating withdrawals estimated from 

population-growth projections for 2025 for the study area. An 

analysis of the sensitivity of water levels at key boundaries to 

a hypothetical withdrawal was conducted to provide general 

guidance about the relative effect of the location of the withdrawal well. Particle-tracking analyses were conducted for the 

baseline simulation and for one of the groundwater-withdrawal 

scenarios to determine flow paths of groundwater to or from 

withdrawal wells located near the estimated locations of the 

250-mg/L isochlors in the Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer 

system in four parts of the study area.

The report discusses the hydrogeologic framework developed for the groundwater-flow model of the Salem-Gloucester 

study area. The effects of the withdrawals on simulated water 

levels in Critical Area 2 in each scenario also are evaluated.

Previous Investigations

The groundwater resources of Gloucester and Salem 

Counties in the lower Delaware River area were investigated 

by Barksdale and others (1958). The groundwater resources 
4 Simulated Effects of Withdrawals from the Potomac-Raritan-Magothy Aquifer System, New Jersey

of Gloucester County were investigated by Hardt and Hilton 

(1969), and the groundwater resources of Salem County were 

investigated by Rosenau and others (1969). The regional 

hydrogeologic framework in the study area was described 

by Zapecza (1989). Lewis and others (1991) and Barton and 

Kozinski (1991) provide detailed descriptions of the hydrogeologic framework of the Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer 

system in Logan and Greenwich Townships in Gloucester 

County, respectively.

Synoptic water-level data and contours in the study area 

for 1978, 1983, 1988, 1993, and 1998 are provided in Walker 

(1983), Eckel and Walker (1986), Rosman and others (1995), 

Lacombe and Rosman (1997), and Lacombe and Rosman 

(2001), respectively. Chloride concentrations in wells in the 

Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer system in the New Jersey Coastal Plain are reported in Gill and Farlekas (1976), 

Schaefer (1983), Cauller and others (1999), and Lacombe and 

Rosman (2001). Navoy and others (2005) evaluated the vulnerability of withdrawal wells to contamination from induced 

infiltration of water containing high chloride concentrations 

from the Delaware River.

Luzier (1980) developed a one-layer groundwaterflow model of the New Jersey Coastal Plain. Martin (1998) 

developed an 11-layer groundwater-flow model of the New 

Jersey Coastal Plain, which was updated and rediscretized to a 

finer grid spacing by Voronin (2004). Table 1 summarizes the 

groundwater-flow models that include the Salem-Gloucester 

study area.

Well-Numbering System

The well-numbering system used in this report is based 

on the system used by the USGS, New Jersey Water Science 

Center, since 1978. It consists of a county-code prefix and 

the sequence number of the well. County codes used in this 

report are Camden (07), Gloucester (15), and Salem (33) in 

New Jersey and Philadelphia County in Pennsylvania (P). 

For example, well number 15-620 represents the 620th well 

inventoried in Gloucester County. Well-construction information is stored in the USGS Groundwater Site Inventory 

(GWSI) database.

Description of Study Area

The Salem-Gloucester study area consists of approximately 484 mi2

 and includes the northeastern part of Salem 

County, the northern part of Gloucester County, and a small 

area of Camden County on the northeastern border (fig. 1). 

The study area is characterized by industrial and high-density 

residential development along the Delaware River, suburban 

development in the northeastern area, and agricultural development in the southwestern area.

The study area is a region of low topography characterized by highly dissected sediments. The land surface slopes 

gently to the northwest throughout most of the study area, but 

a small part of the eastern corner of the study area slopes to 

the southeast. The Delaware River marks the northwestern 

boundary of the study area. Tidal marshes characterize the area 

within 1 to 5 mi of the Delaware River.

Hydrogeologic Framework

The Salem-Gloucester study area is entirely within the 

Coastal Plain Physiographic Province of New Jersey. The 

New Jersey Coastal Plain is a seaward-dipping wedge of 

unconsolidated sediments that range in age from Cretaceous to 

Quaternary (fig. 2). The Fall Line forms a hydrologic boundary on the northwestern side of the study area. The sedimentary wedge forms a complex groundwater system of aquifers 

composed of sands and gravels and confining units composed 

of silts and clays. The major aquifer system in the study 

area, the Cretaceous-age Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer 

Table 1. Summary of groundwater models incorporating the Salem-Gloucester study area, southern New Jersey.

[RASA, Regional Aquifer System Analysis]

Model area Reference Model calibration

year

Minimum cell size

(square miles)

New Jersey Coastal Plain (one layer) Luzier (1980) 1973 0.25

North Atlantic Coastal Plain RASA Leahy and Martin (1993) 1980 49.0

New Jersey Coastal Plain RASA Martin (1998) 1978 6.25

New Jersey Coastal Plain SHARP1

 saltwater interface Pope and Gordon (1999) 1988 6.25

Revised New Jersey Coastal Plain RASA Voronin (2004) 1998 0.25

Salem-Gloucester study area This report 1998 0.0087

1

Essaid (1990)
Description of Study Area 5

AQUIFER 

CONFINING UNIT 

Not to scale

EXPLANATION

LOWER POTOMAC-RARITAN-MAGOTHY AQUIFER

MIDDLE POTOMAC-RARITAN-MAGOTHY AQUIFER

UPPER POTOMAC-RARITAN-MAGOTHY AQUIFER

CONFINING UNIT BETWEEN THE MIDDLE AND LOWER POTOMAC-RARITAN-MAGOTHY AQUIFERS

CONFINING UNIT BETWEEN THE UPPER AND MIDDLE POTOMAC-RARITAN-MAGOTHY AQUIFERS

MERCHANTVILLE-WOODBURY CONFINING UNIT

ENGLISHTOWN AQUIFER SYSTEM

FALL LINE VINCENTOWN

AQUIFER

NAVESINK-HORNERSTOWN

CONFINING UNIT

CONFINING UNIT

WENONAH-MOUNT LAUREL AQUIFER

NORTHWEST SOUTHEAST

BEDROCK

MARSHALLTOWN-WENONAH CONFINING UNIT

KIRKWOOD-COHANSEY

AQUIFER SYSTEM

Delaware River

A A’

Figure 2. Generalized hydrogeologic section through New Jersey Coastal Plain aquifers and confining units in the Salem-Gloucester 

study area, southern New Jersey.
6 Simulated Effects of Withdrawals from the Potomac-Raritan-Magothy Aquifer System, New Jersey

system, includes the Upper, Middle, and Lower PotomacRaritan-Magothy aquifers. These aquifers are separated by two 

intervening confining units. The Englishtown aquifer system, a 

minor aquifer in the study area, is separated from the underlying Upper Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer by the Merchantville-Woodbury confining unit. The Potomac-Raritan-Magothy 

aquifer system is underlain by relatively impermeable preCretaceous bedrock.

The hydrogeologic and geologic units of the New Jersey 

Coastal Plain are described in Zapecza (1989). The hydrogeologic and geologic units that are the focus of the SalemGloucester study are listed in table 2. The hydrogeologic units 

overlying the Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer system and 

the Englishtown aquifer system in the study area range from 

predominantly marine Upper Cretaceous to Miocene sediments, and mostly thin, relatively flat-lying fluvial Miocene 

to Holocene sediments. The thin, flat-lying sediments are not 

simulated as a separate layer in the groundwater-flow model 

developed during this study; where present, they are considered to be part of the adjacent model layer.

The depositional environment of the Potomac-RaritanMagothy aquifer system is fluvial-deltaic-marginal marine 

(Farlekas and others, 1976) with a complex history of deposition (filling) and erosion (cutting). The result of this depositional environment is a complex hydrogeologic framework 

in which sand and clay layers can terminate abruptly, both 

vertically and horizontally.

To develop the hydrogeologic framework data for this 

study, 351 published geophysical-log interpretations were 

compiled from Zapecza (1989), Lewis and others (1991), and 

Barton and Kozinski (1991). This information was supplemented by 13 new gamma-log interpretations (table 3 and 

fig. 3), 7 of which were new interpretations of the framework 

and 6 of which were reinterpretations of existing logs. The 364 

geophysical logs were used to define the aquifers and confining units of the hydrogeologic framework (figs. 4–11).

Water-Supply Issues

More than 11,000 Mgal/yr were withdrawn from the 

Englishtown and Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer systems 

in the Salem-Gloucester study area in 1998. Areas of substantial groundwater withdrawals are present in the established 

industrial and residential areas in the corridor along the Delaware River. Since 1980, however, residential development has 

increased in certain central and southeastern parts of the study 

area. This growth is likely to cause an increase in demand for 

groundwater from the Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer system. The increased demand could cause water levels to decline 

in the Salem-Gloucester study area, and also in Critical Area 2 

in the eastern part of the study area.

Lacombe and Rosman (2001) tabulate water-level 

measurements made in the New Jersey Coastal Plain in 1978, 

Table 2. Geologic and hydrogeologic units and model layers in the Salem-Gloucester study area, southern New Jersey.

 [Modified from Martin (1998, table 2), Zapecza (1989, table 2), and Seaber (1965, table 3); shaded area indicates layer not modeled]

System Series Geologic Unit Hydrogeologic unit Model layer (layer number)

Cretaceous

Upper 

Cretaceous

Englishtown 

Formation Englishtown aquifer system Englishtown aquifer (1)

Woodbury Clay Merchantville-Woodbury 

confining unit Merchantville-Woodbury confining unit (2) Merchantville 

Formation

Magothy 

Formation

PotomacRaritanMagothy 

aquifer system

Upper aquifer Upper Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer (3)

Raritan 

Formation

Confining unit Confining unit between the Upper and Middle 

Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifers (4)

Middle aquifer Middle Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer (5)

Potomac Group

Confining unit Confining unit between the Middle and Lower 

Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifers (6)

Lower 

Cretaceous Lower aquifer Lower Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer (7)

Pre-Cretaceous Bedrock Bedrock confining unit
Description of Study Area 

7

Table 3. Altitudes of land surface and tops of hydrogeologic units determined from new gamma-log interpretations, Salem-Gloucester study area, southern New Jersey.[Well locations shown in figure 3. NJDEP, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection; -, no data]

U.S.

Geological 

Survey well 

number

Well name

NJDEP

permit

number

Altitude (in feet above National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929)

Land 

surface

Englishtown 

aquifer

system

MerchantvilleWoodbury

confining unit

Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer system

Bedrock Upper

aquifer

Confining unit 

between the 

Upper and 

Middle aquifers

Middle aquifer

Confining unit 

between the 

Middle and 

Lower aquifers

Lower 

aquifer

15-433 WASHINGTON TWP PW 9 31-17801 135 - - -336 - - - - -15-1483 WOOLWICH MW-1 30-12606 104 63 41 -66 -125 -155 -239 -367 -52215-1504 SOUTH JERSEY 3 OBS 30-12671 92 -2 -26 -142 -220 -306 -386 -516 -75615-1528 PW5/OBS1 30-12878 45 -2 -22 -158 -242 - - - -15-1529 PW5 30-14503 51 -3 -25 -141 -201 - - - -15-1530 PW5/OBS3 30-13148 52 -11 -28 -143 -209 -272 -353 -511 -77515-1531 PW5/OBS2 30-13147 59 -2 -20 -138 -190 - - - -15-1532 PW 1 30-13286 103 50 26 -66 -122 - - - -15-1533 PW 2 30-13285 104 46 24 -69 -133 - - - -15-1534 HS 3 30-15596 70 53 13 -92 -167 - - - -33-949 MW-20B 30-14800 15 - - - 15 -55 -97 -125 -33-950 EHW-1R OLDMANS 30-09571 6 - - - -4 -30 -40 -94 -33-956 EFW-01 PENNS NECK - 17 - -6 -106 - - - - -
8 Simulated Effects of Withdrawals from the Potomac-Raritan-Magothy Aquifer System, New Jersey

Englishtown aquifer system

Merchantville-Woodbury confining unit

Upper Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer

Middle Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer

DISCRETIZED OUTCROP AREA

EXTENT OF MODEL GRID

EXPLANATION

ALLOWAY TOWNSHIP

ELK TOWNSHIP PILESGROVE TOWNSHIP

LOGAN TOWNSHIP

MANNINGTON

TOWNSHIP UPPER PITTSGROVE TOWNSHIP

WOOLWICH TOWNSHIP

OLDMANS

TOWNSHIP HARRISON TOWNSHIP

MANTUA TOWNSHIP

WASHINGTON

TOWNSHIP

DEPTFORD

TOWNSHIP

CARNEYS POINT TOWNSHIP

WEST DEPTFORD

TOWNSHIP

SOUTH HARRISON TOWNSHIP

GREENWICH TOWNSHIP

EAST GREENWICH TOWNSHIP

MONROE

TOWNSHIP

GLOUCESTER

TOWNSHIP

GLASSBORO

BOROUGH

WINSLOW

TOWNSHIP

CLAYTON

BOROUGH

PENNSVILLE

TOWNSHIP

PITMAN

BOROUGH

PAULSBORO

BOROUGH WOODBURY

CITY

UPPER DEERFIELD 

TOWNSHIP

QUINTON

TOWNSHIP

HOPEWELL

TOWNSHIP

BELLMAWR

BOROUGH

WOODSTOWN

BOROUGH

NATIONAL PARK 

BOROUGH

WESTVILLE BOROUGH

WENONAH

BOROUGH

FRANKLIN

TOWNSHIP

ELMER

BOROUGH

WOODBURY HEIGHTS 

BOROUGH

PENNS GROVE

BOROUGH

RUNNEMEDE

BOROUGH

SWEDESBORO

BOROUGH

GLOUCESTER CITY

STOW CREEK

TOWNSHIP

BROOKLAWN BOROUGH

PITTSGROVE 

TOWNSHIP

PINE HILL

BOROUGH

PITTSGROVE

TOWNSHIP

Salem County

Gloucester County

Camden

County

39°52’30”

39°45’

39°37’30”

39°30’

75°22’30”

75°15’

75°7’30”

75°

75°30’

Delaware River

Delaware River

WELL WITH NEW GEOPHYSICAL LOG

 INTERPRETATION FOR THIS STUDY—

 Number is U.S. Geological Survey well

 number. Hydrologic layer interpretation

 shown in table 3

S T U D Y - A R E A B O U N D A R Y

0 2 4 6 MILES

0 2 4 6 KILOMETERS

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:24,000,

Universal Transverse Mercator Projection, Zone 18

15-433

33-956

33-950

33-949

15-1483

15-1532

15-1533 15-1530

15-1531

15-1529

15-1504

15-1528

15-1534

15-1504

Figure 3. Discretized outcrop areas of hydrogeologic units represented in the model and wells with new geophysical interpretations, 

Salem-Gloucester study area, southern New Jersey.
Description of Study Area 9

BOUNDARY OF ACTIVE MODEL AREA—Englishtown aquifer system

STRUCTURE CONTOUR—Shows the altitude of the top

 of the Englishtown aquifer system. Contour interval

 50 feet. Datum is NGVD 29

EXPLANATION

ALLOWAY TOWNSHIP

ELK TOWNSHIP PILESGROVE TOWNSHIP

LOGAN TOWNSHIP

MANNINGTON

TOWNSHIP UPPER PITTSGROVE TOWNSHIP

WOOLWICH TOWNSHIP

OLDMANS

TOWNSHIP HARRISON TOWNSHIP

MANTUA TOWNSHIP

WASHINGTON

TOWNSHIP

DEPTFORD

TOWNSHIP

CARNEYS POINT TOWNSHIP

WEST DEPTFORD

TOWNSHIP

SOUTH HARRISON TOWNSHIP

GREENWICH TOWNSHIP

EAST GREENWICH TOWNSHIP

MONROE

TOWNSHIP

GLOUCESTER

TOWNSHIP

GLASSBORO

BOROUGH

WINSLOW

TOWNSHIP

CLAYTON

BOROUGH

PENNSVILLE

TOWNSHIP

PITMAN

BOROUGH

PAULSBORO

BOROUGH WOODBURY

CITY

UPPER DEERFIELD 

TOWNSHIP

QUINTON

TOWNSHIP

HOPEWELL

TOWNSHIP

WOODSTOWN

BOROUGH

NATIONAL PARK 

BOROUGH

WESTVILLE BOROUGH

WENONAH

BOROUGH

FRANKLIN

TOWNSHIP

ELMER

BOROUGH

WOODBURY HEIGHTS 

BOROUGH

PENNS GROVE

BOROUGH

SWEDESBORO

BOROUGH

GLOUCESTER CITY

STOW CREEK

TOWNSHIP

BROOKLAWN BOROUGH

PITTSGROVE 

TOWNSHIP

PINE HILL

BOROUGH

PITTSGROVE

TOWNSHIP

Salem County

Gloucester County

Camden

County

39°52’30”

39°45’

75°22’30”

75°15’

75°7’30”

75°

75°30’

BELLMAWR

BOROUGH

RUNNEMEDE

BOROUGH

50

Delaware River

Delaware River

S T U D Y - A R E A B O U N D A R Y

0 2 4 6 MILES

0 2 4 6 KILOMETERS

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:24,000,

Universal Transverse Mercator Projection, Zone 18

39°37’30”

39°30’

0

-50

50

-150

-200

-250

-100

-300

-350

-400

-100

Figure 4. Altitude of the top of the Englishtown aquifer system, Salem-Gloucester study area, southern New Jersey.
10 Simulated Effects of Withdrawals from the Potomac-Raritan-Magothy Aquifer System, New Jersey

ALLOWAY TOWNSHIP

ELK TOWNSHIP PILESGROVE TOWNSHIP

LOGAN TOWNSHIP

MANNINGTON

TOWNSHIP UPPER PITTSGROVE TOWNSHIP

WOOLWICH TOWNSHIP

OLDMANS

TOWNSHIP HARRISON TOWNSHIP

MANTUA TOWNSHIP

WASHINGTON

TOWNSHIP

DEPTFORD

TOWNSHIP

CARNEYS POINT TOWNSHIP

WEST DEPTFORD

TOWNSHIP

SOUTH HARRISON TOWNSHIP

GREENWICH TOWNSHIP

EAST GREENWICH TOWNSHIP

MONROE

TOWNSHIP

GLOUCESTER

TOWNSHIP

GLASSBORO

BOROUGH

WINSLOW

TOWNSHIP

CLAYTON

BOROUGH

PENNSVILLE

TOWNSHIP

PITMAN

BOROUGH

PAULSBORO

BOROUGH WOODBURY

CITY

UPPER DEERFIELD 

TOWNSHIP

QUINTON

TOWNSHIP

HOPEWELL

TOWNSHIP

WOODSTOWN

BOROUGH

NATIONAL PARK 

BOROUGH

WESTVILLE BOROUGH

WENONAH

BOROUGH

FRANKLIN

TOWNSHIP

ELMER

BOROUGH

WOODBURY HEIGHTS 

BOROUGH

PENNS GROVE

BOROUGH

SWEDESBORO

BOROUGH

GLOUCESTER CITY

STOW CREEK

TOWNSHIP

BROOKLAWN BOROUGH

PITTSGROVE 

TOWNSHIP

PINE HILL

BOROUGH

PITTSGROVE

TOWNSHIP

Salem County

Gloucester County

Camden

County

39°52’30”

39°45’

75°22’30”

75°15’

75°7’30”

75°

75°30’

BELLMAWR

BOROUGH

RUNNEMEDE

BOROUGH

BOUNDARY OF ACTIVE MODEL AREA—

 Merchantville-Woodbury confining unit

STRUCTURE CONTOUR—Shows the altitude of

 the top of the Merchantville-Woodbury confining

 unit. Contour interval 50 feet. Datum is NGVD 29

EXPLANATION

50

Delaware River

Delaware River

S T U D Y - A R E A B O U N D A R Y

0 2 4 6 MILES

0 2 4 6 KILOMETERS

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:24,000,

Universal Transverse Mercator Projection, Zone 18

39°37’30”

39°30’

0

-50

-100

-150

-200

-250

-350

-300

-400

-450

0

0

50

Figure 5. Altitude of the top of the Merchantville-Woodbury confining unit, Salem-Gloucester study area, southern New Jersey.
Description of Study Area 11

ALLOWAY TOWNSHIP

ELK TOWNSHIP PILESGROVE TOWNSHIP

LOGAN TOWNSHIP

MANNINGTON

TOWNSHIP UPPER PITTSGROVE TOWNSHIP

WOOLWICH TOWNSHIP

OLDMANS

TOWNSHIP HARRISON TOWNSHIP

MANTUA TOWNSHIP

WASHINGTON

TOWNSHIP

DEPTFORD

TOWNSHIP

CARNEYS POINT TOWNSHIP

WEST DEPTFORD

TOWNSHIP

SOUTH HARRISON TOWNSHIP

GREENWICH TOWNSHIP

EAST GREENWICH TOWNSHIP

MONROE

TOWNSHIP

GLOUCESTER

TOWNSHIP

GLASSBORO

BOROUGH

WINSLOW

TOWNSHIP

CLAYTON

BOROUGH

PENNSVILLE

TOWNSHIP

PITMAN

BOROUGH

PAULSBORO

BOROUGH WOODBURY

CITY

UPPER DEERFIELD 

TOWNSHIP

QUINTON

TOWNSHIP

HOPEWELL

TOWNSHIP

WOODSTOWN

BOROUGH

NATIONAL PARK 

BOROUGH

WESTVILLE BOROUGH

WENONAH

BOROUGH

FRANKLIN

TOWNSHIP

ELMER

BOROUGH

WOODBURY HEIGHTS 

BOROUGH

PENNS GROVE

BOROUGH

SWEDESBORO

BOROUGH

GLOUCESTER CITY

STOW CREEK

TOWNSHIP

BROOKLAWN BOROUGH

PITTSGROVE 

TOWNSHIP

PINE HILL

BOROUGH

PITTSGROVE

TOWNSHIP

Salem County

Gloucester County

Camden

County

39°52’30”

39°45’

75°22’30”

75°15’

75°7’30”

75°

75°30’

BELLMAWR

BOROUGH

RUNNEMEDE

BOROUGH

BOUNDARY OF ACTIVE MODEL AREA—Upper

 Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer

STRUCTURE CONTOUR—Shows the altitude of the

 top of the Upper Potomac-Raritan-Magothy

 aquifer. Contour interval 50 feet. Datum

 is NGVD 29

EXPLANATION

50

Delaware River

Delaware River

S T U D Y - A R E A B O U N D A R Y

0 2 4 6 MILES

0 2 4 6 KILOMETERS

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:24,000,

Universal Transverse Mercator Projection, Zone 18

39°37’30”

39°30’

0

-50

-100

-150

-200

-250

-300

-500

-350

-450

-400

-550

50

-50

-200

0

0

Figure 6. Altitude of the top of the Upper Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer, Salem-Gloucester study area, southern New Jersey.
12 Simulated Effects of Withdrawals from the Potomac-Raritan-Magothy Aquifer System, New Jersey

ALLOWAY TOWNSHIP

ELK TOWNSHIP PILESGROVE TOWNSHIP

LOGAN TOWNSHIP

MANNINGTON

TOWNSHIP UPPER PITTSGROVE TOWNSHIP

WOOLWICH TOWNSHIP

OLDMANS

TOWNSHIP HARRISON TOWNSHIP

MANTUA TOWNSHIP

WASHINGTON

TOWNSHIP

DEPTFORD

TOWNSHIP

CARNEYS POINT TOWNSHIP

WEST DEPTFORD

TOWNSHIP

SOUTH HARRISON TOWNSHIP

GREENWICH TOWNSHIP

EAST GREENWICH TOWNSHIP

MONROE

TOWNSHIP

GLOUCESTER

TOWNSHIP

GLASSBORO

BOROUGH

WINSLOW

TOWNSHIP

CLAYTON

BOROUGH

PENNSVILLE

TOWNSHIP

PITMAN

BOROUGH

PAULSBORO

BOROUGH WOODBURY

CITY

UPPER DEERFIELD 

TOWNSHIP

QUINTON

TOWNSHIP

HOPEWELL

TOWNSHIP

WOODSTOWN

BOROUGH

NATIONAL PARK 

BOROUGH

WESTVILLE BOROUGH

WENONAH

BOROUGH

FRANKLIN

TOWNSHIP

ELMER

BOROUGH

WOODBURY HEIGHTS 

BOROUGH

PENNS GROVE

BOROUGH

SWEDESBORO

BOROUGH

GLOUCESTER CITY

STOW CREEK

TOWNSHIP

BROOKLAWN BOROUGH

PITTSGROVE 

TOWNSHIP

PINE HILL

BOROUGH

PITTSGROVE

TOWNSHIP

Salem County

Gloucester County

Camden

County

39°52’30”

39°45’

75°22’30”

75°15’

75°7’30”

75°

75°30’

BELLMAWR

BOROUGH

RUNNEMEDE

BOROUGH

BOUNDARY OF ACTIVE MODEL AREA—Confining unit between

 the Upper and Middle Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifers

STRUCTURE CONTOUR—Shows the altitude of the top

 of the confining unit between the Upper and Middle

 Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifers. Contour

 interval 50 feet. Datum is NGVD 29

EXPLANATION

-50

Delaware River

Delaware River

S T U D Y - A R E A B O U N D A R Y

0 2 4 6 MILES

0 2 4 6 KILOMETERS

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:24,000,

Universal Transverse Mercator Projection, Zone 18

39°37’30”

39°30’

-150

-200

-400

-100

-450

-500

-550

-600

-250

-350

-300

-50

-50

0

-650

Figure 7. Altitude of the top of the confining unit between the Upper and Middle Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifers, SalemGloucester study area, southern New Jersey.
Description of Study Area 13

ALLOWAY TOWNSHIP

ELK TOWNSHIP PILESGROVE TOWNSHIP

LOGAN TOWNSHIP

MANNINGTON

TOWNSHIP UPPER PITTSGROVE TOWNSHIP

WOOLWICH TOWNSHIP

OLDMANS

TOWNSHIP HARRISON TOWNSHIP

MANTUA TOWNSHIP

WASHINGTON

TOWNSHIP

DEPTFORD

TOWNSHIP

CARNEYS POINT TOWNSHIP

WEST DEPTFORD

TOWNSHIP

SOUTH HARRISON TOWNSHIP

GREENWICH TOWNSHIP

EAST GREENWICH TOWNSHIP

MONROE

TOWNSHIP

GLOUCESTER

TOWNSHIP

GLASSBORO

BOROUGH

WINSLOW

TOWNSHIP

CLAYTON

BOROUGH

PENNSVILLE

TOWNSHIP

PITMAN

BOROUGH

PAULSBORO

BOROUGH WOODBURY

CITY

UPPER DEERFIELD 

TOWNSHIP

QUINTON

TOWNSHIP

HOPEWELL

TOWNSHIP

WOODSTOWN

BOROUGH

NATIONAL PARK 

BOROUGH

WESTVILLE BOROUGH

WENONAH

BOROUGH

FRANKLIN

TOWNSHIP

ELMER

BOROUGH

WOODBURY HEIGHTS 

BOROUGH

PENNS GROVE

BOROUGH

SWEDESBORO

BOROUGH

GLOUCESTER CITY

STOW CREEK

TOWNSHIP

BROOKLAWN BOROUGH

PITTSGROVE 

TOWNSHIP

PINE HILL

BOROUGH

PITTSGROVE

TOWNSHIP

Salem County

Gloucester County

Camden

County

39°52’30”

39°45’

75°22’30”

75°15’

75°7’30”

75°

75°30’

BELLMAWR

BOROUGH

RUNNEMEDE

BOROUGH

BOUNDARY OF ACTIVE MODEL AREA—Middle

 Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer

STRUCTURE CONTOUR—Shows the altitude of the top

 of the Middle Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer.

 Contour interval 50 feet. Datum is NGVD 29

EXPLANATION

-50

Delaware River

Delaware River

S T U D Y - A R E A B O U N D A R Y

0 2 4 6 MILES

0 2 4 6 KILOMETERS

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:24,000,

Universal Transverse Mercator Projection, Zone 18

39°37’30”

39°30’

-50

-500

-550

-600

-650

-450

-400

-350

-300

-250

-200

-150

-100

-700

-750

-800

0

-850

-50

-50 -300

-200

-50

0

0

Figure 8. Altitude of the top of the Middle Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer, Salem-Gloucester study area, southern New Jersey.
14 Simulated Effects of Withdrawals from the Potomac-Raritan-Magothy Aquifer System, New Jersey

Figure 9. Altitude of the top of the confining unit between the Middle and Lower Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifers, SalemGloucester study area, southern New Jersey.

ALLOWAY TOWNSHIP

ELK TOWNSHIP PILESGROVE TOWNSHIP

LOGAN TOWNSHIP

MANNINGTON

TOWNSHIP UPPER PITTSGROVE TOWNSHIP

WOOLWICH TOWNSHIP

OLDMANS

TOWNSHIP HARRISON TOWNSHIP

MANTUA TOWNSHIP

WASHINGTON

TOWNSHIP

DEPTFORD

TOWNSHIP

CARNEYS POINT TOWNSHIP

WEST DEPTFORD

TOWNSHIP

SOUTH HARRISON TOWNSHIP

GREENWICH TOWNSHIP

EAST GREENWICH TOWNSHIP

MONROE

TOWNSHIP

GLOUCESTER

TOWNSHIP

GLASSBORO

BOROUGH

WINSLOW

TOWNSHIP

CLAYTON

BOROUGH

PENNSVILLE

TOWNSHIP

PITMAN

BOROUGH

PAULSBORO

BOROUGH WOODBURY

CITY

UPPER DEERFIELD 

TOWNSHIP

QUINTON

TOWNSHIP

HOPEWELL

TOWNSHIP

WOODSTOWN

BOROUGH

NATIONAL PARK 

BOROUGH

WESTVILLE BOROUGH

WENONAH

BOROUGH

FRANKLIN

TOWNSHIP

ELMER

BOROUGH

WOODBURY HEIGHTS 

BOROUGH

PENNS GROVE

BOROUGH

SWEDESBORO

BOROUGH

GLOUCESTER CITY

STOW CREEK

TOWNSHIP

BROOKLAWN BOROUGH

PITTSGROVE 

TOWNSHIP

PINE HILL

BOROUGH

PITTSGROVE

TOWNSHIP

Salem County

Gloucester County

Camden

County

39°52’30”

39°45’

75°22’30”

75°15’

75°7’30”

75°

75°30’

BELLMAWR

BOROUGH

RUNNEMEDE

BOROUGH

BOUNDARY OF ACTIVE MODEL AREA—Confining unit between

 the Middle and Lower Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifers

STRUCTURE CONTOUR—Shows the altitude of the top

 of the confining unit between the Middle and Lower

 Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifers. Contour

 interval 50 feet. Datum is NGVD 29

EXPLANATION

-50

Delaware River

Delaware River

S T U D Y - A R E A B O U N D A R Y

0 2 4 6 MILES

0 2 4 6 KILOMETERS

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:24,000,

Universal Transverse Mercator Projection, Zone 18

39°37’30”

39°30’

-850

-750

-800

-700

-650

-550

-600

-500

-450

-400

-350

-300

-250

-150

-200

-900

-950

-100

-1000

-1050

-1100

-50

-1150

-50

-150

-150

-250

-100

-50
Description of Study Area 15

ALLOWAY TOWNSHIP

ELK TOWNSHIP PILESGROVE TOWNSHIP

LOGAN TOWNSHIP

MANNINGTON

TOWNSHIP UPPER PITTSGROVE TOWNSHIP

WOOLWICH TOWNSHIP

OLDMANS

TOWNSHIP HARRISON TOWNSHIP

MANTUA TOWNSHIP

WASHINGTON

TOWNSHIP

DEPTFORD

TOWNSHIP

CARNEYS POINT TOWNSHIP

WEST DEPTFORD

TOWNSHIP

SOUTH HARRISON TOWNSHIP

GREENWICH TOWNSHIP

EAST GREENWICH TOWNSHIP

MONROE

TOWNSHIP

GLOUCESTER

TOWNSHIP

GLASSBORO

BOROUGH

WINSLOW

TOWNSHIP

CLAYTON

BOROUGH

PENNSVILLE

TOWNSHIP

PITMAN

BOROUGH

PAULSBORO

BOROUGH WOODBURY

CITY

UPPER DEERFIELD 

TOWNSHIP

QUINTON

TOWNSHIP

HOPEWELL

TOWNSHIP

WOODSTOWN

BOROUGH

NATIONAL PARK 

BOROUGH

WESTVILLE BOROUGH

WENONAH

BOROUGH

FRANKLIN

TOWNSHIP

ELMER

BOROUGH

WOODBURY HEIGHTS 

BOROUGH

PENNS GROVE

BOROUGH

SWEDESBORO

BOROUGH

GLOUCESTER CITY

STOW CREEK

TOWNSHIP

BROOKLAWN BOROUGH

PITTSGROVE 

TOWNSHIP

PINE HILL

BOROUGH

PITTSGROVE

TOWNSHIP

Salem County

Gloucester County

Camden

County

39°52’30”

39°45’

75°22’30”

75°15’

75°7’30”

75°

75°30’

BELLMAWR

BOROUGH

RUNNEMEDE

BOROUGH

BOUNDARY OF ACTIVE MODEL AREA—Lower

 Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer

STRUCTURE CONTOUR—Shows the altitude of the top

 of the Lower Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer.

 Contour interval 50 feet. Datum is NGVD 29

EXPLANATION

-150

Delaware River

Delaware River

S T U D Y - A R E A B O U N D A R Y

0 2 4 6 MILES

0 2 4 6 KILOMETERS

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:24,000,

Universal Transverse Mercator Projection, Zone 18

39°37’30”

39°30’

-600

-550

-500

-650

-450

-400

-700

-750

-350

-900

-950

-850

-800

-300

-250

-200

-1150

-1100

-1000

-1050

-150

-1200

-1250

-1300

-1350

-100

-1400

-200

-300 -100

Figure 10. Altitude of the top of the Lower Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer, Salem-Gloucester study area, southern New Jersey.
16 Simulated Effects of Withdrawals from the Potomac-Raritan-Magothy Aquifer System, New Jersey

ALLOWAY TOWNSHIP

ELK TOWNSHIP PILESGROVE TOWNSHIP

LOGAN TOWNSHIP

MANNINGTON

TOWNSHIP UPPER PITTSGROVE TOWNSHIP

WOOLWICH TOWNSHIP

OLDMANS

TOWNSHIP HARRISON TOWNSHIP

MANTUA TOWNSHIP

WASHINGTON

TOWNSHIP

DEPTFORD

TOWNSHIP

CARNEYS POINT TOWNSHIP

WEST DEPTFORD

TOWNSHIP

SOUTH HARRISON TOWNSHIP

GREENWICH TOWNSHIP

EAST GREENWICH TOWNSHIP

MONROE

TOWNSHIP

GLOUCESTER

TOWNSHIP

GLASSBORO

BOROUGH

WINSLOW

TOWNSHIP

CLAYTON

BOROUGH

PENNSVILLE

TOWNSHIP

PITMAN

BOROUGH

PAULSBORO

BOROUGH WOODBURY

CITY

UPPER DEERFIELD 

TOWNSHIP

QUINTON

TOWNSHIP

HOPEWELL

TOWNSHIP

WOODSTOWN

BOROUGH

NATIONAL PARK 

BOROUGH

WESTVILLE BOROUGH

WENONAH

BOROUGH

FRANKLIN

TOWNSHIP

ELMER

BOROUGH

WOODBURY HEIGHTS 

BOROUGH

PENNS GROVE

BOROUGH

SWEDESBORO

BOROUGH

GLOUCESTER CITY

STOW CREEK

TOWNSHIP

BROOKLAWN BOROUGH

PITTSGROVE 

TOWNSHIP

PINE HILL

BOROUGH

PITTSGROVE

TOWNSHIP

Salem County

Gloucester County

Camden

County

39°52’30”

39°45’

75°22’30”

75°15’

75°7’30”

75°

75°30’

BELLMAWR

BOROUGH

RUNNEMEDE

BOROUGH

EXTENT OF MODEL GRID

STRUCTURE CONTOUR—Shows the altitude of

 the top of the bedrock. Contour interval 50 feet.

 Datum is NGVD 29

EXPLANATION

-250

Delaware River

Delaware River

S T U D Y - A R E A B O U N D A R Y

0 2 4 6 MILES

0 2 4 6 KILOMETERS

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:24,000,

Universal Transverse Mercator Projection, Zone 18

39°37’30”

39°30’

-950

-900

-850

-800

-750

-700

-650

-600

-550

-500

-400

-350

-300 -250

-200

-1100

-1150

-1000

-1050

-1300

-1250

-1200

-1350

-1450

-1400

-1500

-1550

-150

-1600

-1650 -1700

-1750

-1800

-1850

-100

-1900

-150

-1950

-2000

-450

-1600

-1550

-1450

-300

-1250

-400

Figure 11. Altitude of the top of the bedrock, Salem-Gloucester study area, southern New Jersey.
Model Design 17

1983, 1988, 1993, and 1998 and present water-level contours 

based on the 1998 water levels. They note that, in general, 

measured water levels in the Upper and Middle PotomacRaritan-Magothy aquifers in the study area declined during 

1978–93 but were recovering in 1998. The recovery occurred 

subsequent to the mandated withdrawal restrictions accompanying the designation of Critical Area 2 in 1993 (New Jersey 

Department of Environmental Protection, 2005). In the Lower 

Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer, water levels declined during 1983–88, were relatively constant during 1988–93, and 

were generally recovering in 1998.

Saline water (chloride concentration greater than or equal 

to 250 mg/L) in the downdip parts of the Potomac-RaritanMagothy aquifer system in the study area may move toward 

water-purveyor wells in response to declining water levels 

from pumping, posing a threat to the potable water supply. 

In addition to lateral flow, saline water potentially could flow 

vertically through the confining units between the Middle 

and Lower Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifers and between 

the Middle and Upper Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifers. 

Water-purveyor wells could also be affected by infiltration of 

saltwater from the Delaware River induced by pumping near 

the river. Navoy and Carleton (1995) note that the interface 

between freshwater and saline water in the Delaware River 

moves daily in response to tides and seasonally in response 

to variations in rainfall. The horizontal fluctuation of the 

interface location along the length of the Delaware River in 

response to tides is about 6 mi (Navoy and Carleton, 1995).

Cauller and others (1999) summarize trends in chloride 

concentrations from 1949 to 1996 in 496 wells (4,200 samples) in the Coastal Plain aquifers of Gloucester and Salem 

Counties. They conclude that chloride concentrations have 

increased in most of the sampled wells in the Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer system, with typically greater median 

concentrations in samples from the Lower Potomac-RaritanMagothy aquifer system.

Model Design

A three-dimensional, finite-difference groundwater-flow 

model was developed to evaluate the effects of groundwater 

withdrawals from the Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer system in a 365 mi2

 area, which lies within the Salem-Gloucester 

study area. This model is referred to as the “local model” in 

this report. The groundwater flow system was simulated using 

MODFLOW-2000 (Harbaugh and others, 2000) with MFI2K 

used as the preprocessor (Harbaugh, 2002). An existing 

regional groundwater-flow model of the New Jersey Coastal 

Plain (Voronin, 2004), referred to as the “regional model” in 

this report, was used in this study solely to provide boundary 

flows and the initial values of hydraulic properties for the local 

model. Boundary flows were provided by using the Telescopic Mesh Refinement (MODTMR) package (Leake and 

Claar, 1999).

The local-model grid consists of 192 rows, 228 columns, 

and 7 layers (figs. 12 and 13). No model layer is present 

throughout the full extent of the model grid because of the dip 

of the hydrogeologic units. The model cell size is a uniform 

492 ft on a side throughout the local-model area. The localmodel grid is oriented with the regional model. The cell size of 

the regional model is variable but is 2,640 ft on a side within 

the study area (Voronin, 2004). The greater resolution of the 

local model provides a more detailed depiction of water levels 

and groundwater flow than is possible with the regional model. 

Conceptual Model

The local model consists of seven layers, which represent 

the Englishtown aquifer system; the underlying MerchantvilleWoodbury confining unit; and the Upper, Middle, and Lower 

Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifers, which are separated by 

two intervening confining units (fig. 13). The hydrogeologic 

framework used in the local model is similar to that used in the 

regional groundwater-flow model of the New Jersey Coastal 

Plain (Voronin, 2004).

In the study area, groundwater generally enters the 

Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer system in outcrop areas 

and discharges to streams, the Delaware River, or pumped 

wells. Recharge is derived primarily from precipitation on the 

outcrop areas but can be supplemented by infiltration from the 

Delaware River in areas of large groundwater withdrawals.

The aquifers represented in the local model are simulated 

as confined layers throughout the model extent. This representation is a simplification in the outcrop areas, which generally 

are considered to be unconfined areas, where changes in water 

levels cause changes in saturated thickness and transmissivity. (The saturated thickness and transmissivity of a confined 

layer do not change with changes in water levels.) In the 

local model, however, changes in water levels in outcrop 

areas generally are small compared to the saturated thickness. 

Also, the outcrop areas within several miles of the Delaware 

River are locally covered with relatively flat-lying fluvial 

sediments, which contain low-permeability layers, making 

such areas semi-confined or confined. In addition, the part of 

a layer that crops out is small compared to the confined part, 

and withdrawals are smaller in the outcrop areas than in the 

confined parts of the aquifers. Therefore, simulating the aquifer layers of the local model as confined is considered a good 

approximation.

Boundary Conditions

Four types of boundary conditions are used in the local 

model: (1) recharge in model cells representing outcrop areas 

of aquifers and one confining unit; (2) specified flow in model 

cells between the model and bordering hydrogeologic units; 

(3) no flow between the model and bordering confining units 

and also at the bottom of the model; and (4) head-dependent 
18 Simulated Effects of Withdrawals from the Potomac-Raritan-Magothy Aquifer System, New Jersey

MODEL CELLS

EXTENT OF MODEL GRID

EXPLANATION

ALLOWAY TOWNSHIP

ELK TOWNSHIP PILESGROVE TOWNSHIP

LOGAN TOWNSHIP

MANNINGTON

TOWNSHIP UPPER PITTSGROVE TOWNSHIP

WOOLWICH TOWNSHIP

OLDMANS

TOWNSHIP HARRISON TOWNSHIP

MANTUA TOWNSHIP

WASHINGTON

TOWNSHIP

DEPTFORD

TOWNSHIP

CARNEYS POINT TOWNSHIP

WEST DEPTFORD

TOWNSHIP

SOUTH HARRISON TOWNSHIP

GREENWICH TOWNSHIP

EAST GREENWICH TOWNSHIP

MONROE

TOWNSHIP

GLOUCESTER

TOWNSHIP

GLASSBORO

BOROUGH

WINSLOW

TOWNSHIP

CLAYTON

BOROUGH

PENNSVILLE

TOWNSHIP

PITMAN

BOROUGH

PAULSBORO

BOROUGH WOODBURY

CITY

UPPER DEERFIELD 

TOWNSHIP

QUINTON

TOWNSHIP

HOPEWELL

TOWNSHIP

WOODSTOWN

BOROUGH

NATIONAL PARK 

BOROUGH

WESTVILLE BOROUGH

WENONAH

BOROUGH

FRANKLIN

TOWNSHIP

ELMER

BOROUGH

WOODBURY HEIGHTS 

BOROUGH

PENNS GROVE

BOROUGH

SWEDESBORO

BOROUGH

GLOUCESTER CITY

STOW CREEK

TOWNSHIP

BROOKLAWN BOROUGH

PITTSGROVE 

TOWNSHIP

PINE HILL

BOROUGH

PITTSGROVE

TOWNSHIP

Salem County

Gloucester County

Camden

County

39°52’30”

39°45’

75°22’30”

75°15’

75°7’30”

75°

75°30’

BELLMAWR

BOROUGH

RUNNEMEDE

BOROUGH

Delaware River

Delaware River

S T U D Y - A R E A B O U N D A R Y

0 2 4 6 MILES

0 2 4 6 KILOMETERS

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:24,000,

Universal Transverse Mercator Projection, Zone 18

39°37’30”

39°30’

1 20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

192

R O W

1 20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

220 228

C O L U M N

Figure 12. Finite-difference grid for the groundwater-flow model, Salem-Gloucester study area, southern New Jersey.
Model Design 19

AQUIFER—Number in parentheses is

 number of model layer

CONFINING UNIT—Number in parentheses

 is number of model layer

SPECIFIED-FLOW BOUNDARY

NO-FLOW BOUNDARY

HEAD-DEPENDENT FLOW TO AND

 FROM THE DELAWARE RIVER

HEAD-DEPENDENT FLOW TO STREAMS

RECHARGE

EXPLANATION

Upper Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer (3)

Middle Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer (5)

Confining unit between the Middle and Lower Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifers (6)

Lower Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer (7)

Englishtown aquifer system (1)

Merchantville-Woodbury confining unit (2)

Confining unit between the Upper and Middle Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifers (4)

Figure 13. Schematic representation of model layers and boundary conditions used in the groundwater-flow model, Salem-Gloucester 

study area, southern New Jersey.

flow in model cells representing the Delaware River, streams 

(in this report, all streams other than the Delaware River), and 

wetlands. The upper surface of the model incorporates three of 

the boundary conditions in order to represent the connection 

with the Delaware River, or streams and wetlands; recharge 

from precipitation on outcrop areas; and vertical flow to and 

from the overlying Coastal Plain sediments.

Recharge to Outcrop Areas

The Recharge package of MODFLOW-2000 (Harbaugh 

and others, 2000) is used to simulate recharge at cells in the 

topmost layer of the model that represent the outcrop areas of 

aquifers and a confining unit in the study area. The recharge 

rate in the model represents long-term precipitation minus 

long-term evaporation and surface-water runoff. The recharge 

rates in the local model are the same as those used in the 

regional model and are uniform across the cells representing outcrop areas in the model. The outcrop areas are present only in the northern and western parts of the study and 

model areas, and include the outcrop areas of the Englishtown 

aquifer system, the Merchantville-Woodbury confining unit, 

and the Upper and Middle Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifers 

(fig. 3). Recharge of 6 in/yr and 15 in/yr is applied to cells 

representing outcrop areas of the Englishtown aquifer system 

and the Upper and Middle Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifers, 

respectively. The Lower Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer 

does not crop out in New Jersey. A small amount of recharge 

(0.01 in/yr) is applied to the outcrop of the MerchantvilleWoodbury confining unit. To be consistent with the regional 

model, the outcrop areas of the confining units between the 

Upper and Middle Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifers and 

between the Middle and Lower Potomac-Raritan-Magothy 

aquifers are not represented in the local model.

Specified Flow

Lateral boundaries that represent the connection between 

the aquifers in the model and the hydrogeologic units outside 

the model are modeled as specified-flow boundaries (fig. 13). 

A specified-flow boundary is also used to represent vertical 

flow between the confined Englishtown aquifer system and the 

overlying hydrogeologic units, which are not modeled. 

The Telescopic Mesh Refinement (MODTMR) package 

(Leake and Claar, 1999) was used to calculate the specified 

flows at lateral boundaries into and out of the four layers in the 

local model (the Englishtown aquifer system and the Upper, 

Middle, and Lower Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifers) that 

have corresponding layers in the regional model. Evaluation 

of flows from the regional model at the boundaries of the local 

model indicates that groundwater flow along the northeastern 

boundary and southern two-thirds of the southeastern boundary of the local model in all four aquifers is predominantly 

out of the model area; along the southwestern boundary of 

the local model, however, groundwater flow is predominantly 

out of the model area only in the Middle and Lower PotomacRaritan-Magothy aquifers.

No Flow

The boundary beneath the Lower Potomac-RaritanMagothy aquifer represents the contact with the underlying 

impermeable weathered crystalline bedrock and is modeled 

as a no-flow boundary because flow between the bedrock and 
20 Simulated Effects of Withdrawals from the Potomac-Raritan-Magothy Aquifer System, New Jersey

the Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer system is assumed to 

be very small relative to other flows in the model. Boundaries that represent horizontal flow between the confining units 

in the model and the confining units outside the model are 

modeled as no-flow boundaries. Boundaries that represent 

the updip limit of the Englishtown aquifer system and the 

Merchantville-Woodbury confining unit are also modeled as 

no-flow boundaries.

Head-Dependent Flow to and from the Delaware 

River

The River package of MODFLOW-2000 (Harbaugh and 

others, 2000) is used to simulate the Delaware River. The 

River package simulates the river as a head-dependent flux 

boundary at which the direction and quantity of flow either 

into or out of the aquifer is determined by the difference in 

simulated water levels between the aquifer and the river. The 

model cells that represent the Delaware River in the River 

package of the local model (fig. 14) correspond to similar 

areas in the River package of the regional model where model 

cells represent the Delaware River.

Head-Dependent Flow to Streams

The Drain package of MODFLOW-2000 (Harbaugh and 

others, 2000) was used to simulate flow between the model 

layers and streams. The Drain package simulates groundwater 

discharge into a stream (drain) as a proportion of the difference between simulated groundwater levels in the model layer 

and the altitude of the base of the stream. If the water level in 

the hydrogeologic unit is below the base of the stream, simulated groundwater discharge to the stream is zero (McDonald 

and Harbaugh, 1984).

Seven principal streams that flow into the Delaware 

River—Big Timber Creek, Mantua Creek, Oldmans Creek, 

Raccoon Creek, Repaupo Creek, Salem River, and Woodbury 

Creek—and some minor tributaries are simulated in the model 

(fig. 14). It is assumed that broad areas of wetlands along 

the Delaware River are connected to streams and function as 

major areas of groundwater discharge; these areas are represented in the model as streams.

In the model and study areas, the downstream reaches 

of streams are in the outcrop areas (fig. 14). The cells in the 

Drain package that represent streams in the local model correspond to similar areas in the regional model. However, streams 

and wetlands in the outcrop of the Merchantville-Woodbury 

confining unit are represented differently in the local model 

than in the regional model because the regional model does 

not simulate confining units as model layers. Confining units 

in the regional model are represented by the vertical hydraulic 

conductivity between aquifer layers; therefore, model cells in 

the regional model that represent streams in the confining unit 

are included in the aquifer layer representing the Englishtown 

aquifer system.

Model Input

Initial input data for the local model were generated from 

the regional model (Voronin, 2004). The initial values are 

close approximations to the regional model values and distributions because of the differences in grid size and spacing 

between the two models. These data were modified as part of 

the calibration process. The modified data include horizontal 

and vertical hydraulic conductivity, streambed conductance of 

the streams, and riverbed conductance of the Delaware River.

The model input data for river stage and altitude of 

the bottom of the riverbed of the Delaware River were not 

changed from the regional model. River-stage values range 

from 0 to 2 ft above NGVD 29, and the altitudes of the bottom 

of the riverbed range from 3 to 5 ft below NGVD 29. The altitudes of the base of the streams in the local model also were 

not changed from the regional model and range from 0 to 40 ft 

above NGVD 29.

Hydraulic Properties of Aquifers, Confining Units, 

and Streambeds

Initial values of hydraulic properties in the local model 

were derived from corresponding values in the regional model 

for the Salem-Gloucester study area. Other values published 

in Martin (1998) and in Navoy and Carleton (1995) were also 

tested during the calibration process. The horizontal and vertical hydraulic-conductivity values determined for the seven 

model layers by model calibration are shown in figures 15–21. 

Within each aquifer layer of the local model, zones of 

different horizontal hydraulic conductivity were delineated. 

The horizontal hydraulic conductivities for the aquifer layers 

range from 6 ft/d in a zone in the Englishtown aquifer system 

to 450 ft/d in a zone in the Middle Potomac-Raritan-Magothy 

aquifer (figs. 15, 17, 19, and 21). Vertical hydraulic conductivity for each aquifer layer is estimated using the horizontal 

conductivity value in each zone and a constant value of vertical anisotropy (the ratio of horizontal to vertical hydraulic 

conductivity) for the entire layer. The vertical anisotropy is 10 

in the Upper and Middle Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifers 

and 200 in the Lower Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer. 

For the confining-unit layers in the local model, horizontal hydraulic conductivity is a fixed value for the entire 

layer: 6.0 x 10-3 ft/d for the Merchantville-Woodbury confining unit, 8.0 x 10-1 ft/d for the confining unit between the 

Upper and Middle Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifers, and 

1.7 x 10-1 ft/d for the confining unit between the Middle and 

Lower Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifers. Within each 

confining-unit layer, zones of different vertical hydraulic 

conductivity were delineated (figs. 16, 18 and 20). Vertical 

hydraulic conductivity values for the confining layers range 

from 2.7 x 10-6 ft/d in a zone in the Merchantville-Woodbury 

confining unit to 8.0 x 10-1 ft/d in a zone in the confining unit 

between the Upper and Middle Potomac-Raritan-Magothy 

aquifers. Vertical anisotropy values for confining units range 
Model Design 21

LOCATION OF DELAWARE RIVER IN THE MODEL

LOCATION OF STREAM REACH OR WETLANDS IN THE MODEL

LOCATION OF DELAWARE RIVER AND

 STREAM REACH IN THE MODEL

EXTENT OF MODEL GRID

ALLOWAY TOWNSHIP

ELK TOWNSHIP PILESGROVE TOWNSHIP

LOGAN TOWNSHIP

MANNINGTON

TOWNSHIP UPPER PITTSGROVE TOWNSHIP

WOOLWICH TOWNSHIP

OLDMANS

TOWNSHIP HARRISON TOWNSHIP

MANTUA TOWNSHIP

WASHINGTON

TOWNSHIP

DEPTFORD

TOWNSHIP

CARNEYS POINT TOWNSHIP

WEST DEPTFORD

TOWNSHIP

SOUTH HARRISON TOWNSHIP

GREENWICH TOWNSHIP

EAST GREENWICH TOWNSHIP

MONROE

TOWNSHIP

GLOUCESTER

TOWNSHIP

GLASSBORO

BOROUGH

WINSLOW

TOWNSHIP

CLAYTON

BOROUGH

PENNSVILLE

TOWNSHIP

PITMAN

BOROUGH

PAULSBORO

BOROUGH WOODBURY

CITY

UPPER DEERFIELD 

TOWNSHIP

QUINTON

TOWNSHIP

HOPEWELL

TOWNSHIP

WOODSTOWN

BOROUGH

NATIONAL PARK 

BOROUGH

WESTVILLE BOROUGH

WENONAH

BOROUGH

FRANKLIN

TOWNSHIP

ELMER

BOROUGH

WOODBURY HEIGHTS 

BOROUGH

PENNS GROVE

BOROUGH

SWEDESBORO

BOROUGH

GLOUCESTER CITY

STOW CREEK

TOWNSHIP

BROOKLAWN BOROUGH

PITTSGROVE 

TOWNSHIP

PINE HILL

BOROUGH

PITTSGROVE

TOWNSHIP

Salem County

Gloucester County

Camden

County

39°52’30”

39°45’

75°22’30”

75°15’

75°7’30”

75°

75°30’

BELLMAWR

BOROUGH

RUNNEMEDE

BOROUGH

Delaware River

Delaware River

EXPLANATION

S T U D Y - A R E A B O U N D A R Y

0 2 4 6 MILES

0 2 4 6 KILOMETERS

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:24,000,

Universal Transverse Mercator Projection, Zone 18

39°37’30”

39°30’

Salem River

Oldmans

Creek

Raccoon Creek

Mantua Cre

ek

Big

Timber

Creek

Repaupo Creek

Woodbury Creek

Figure 14. Model cells that represent stream reaches and wetlands in the outcrop areas and the Delaware River, Salem-Gloucester 

study area, southern New Jersey.
22 Simulated Effects of Withdrawals from the Potomac-Raritan-Magothy Aquifer System, New Jersey

ALLOWAY TOWNSHIP

ELK TOWNSHIP PILESGROVE TOWNSHIP

LOGAN TOWNSHIP

MANNINGTON

TOWNSHIP UPPER PITTSGROVE TOWNSHIP

WOOLWICH TOWNSHIP

OLDMANS

TOWNSHIP HARRISON TOWNSHIP

MANTUA TOWNSHIP

WASHINGTON

TOWNSHIP

DEPTFORD

TOWNSHIP

CARNEYS POINT TOWNSHIP

WEST DEPTFORD

TOWNSHIP

SOUTH HARRISON TOWNSHIP

GREENWICH TOWNSHIP

EAST GREENWICH TOWNSHIP

MONROE

TOWNSHIP

GLOUCESTER

TOWNSHIP

GLASSBORO

BOROUGH

WINSLOW

TOWNSHIP

CLAYTON

BOROUGH

PENNSVILLE

TOWNSHIP

PITMAN

BOROUGH

PAULSBORO

BOROUGH WOODBURY

CITY

UPPER DEERFIELD 

TOWNSHIP

QUINTON

TOWNSHIP

HOPEWELL

TOWNSHIP

WOODSTOWN

BOROUGH

NATIONAL PARK 

BOROUGH

WESTVILLE BOROUGH

WENONAH

BOROUGH

FRANKLIN

TOWNSHIP

ELMER

BOROUGH

WOODBURY HEIGHTS 

BOROUGH

PENNS GROVE

BOROUGH

SWEDESBORO

BOROUGH

GLOUCESTER CITY

STOW CREEK

TOWNSHIP

BROOKLAWN BOROUGH

PITTSGROVE 

TOWNSHIP

PINE HILL

BOROUGH

PITTSGROVE

TOWNSHIP

Salem County

Gloucester County

Camden

County

39°52’30”

39°45’

75°22’30”

75°15’

75°7’30”

75°

75°30’

BELLMAWR

BOROUGH

RUNNEMEDE

BOROUGH

Delaware River

Delaware River

BOUNDARY OF ACTIVE MODEL AREA—

 Englishtown aquifer system

EXPLANATION

6.0

50

70

HORIZONTAL HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY—In feet per day

S T U D Y - A R E A B O U N D A R Y

0 2 4 6 MILES

0 2 4 6 KILOMETERS

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:24,000,

Universal Transverse Mercator Projection, Zone 18

39°37’30”

39°30’

Figure 15. Horizontal hydraulic conductivity used in the model, Englishtown aquifer system, Salem-Gloucester study area, southern 

New Jersey.
Model Design 23

ALLOWAY TOWNSHIP

ELK TOWNSHIP PILESGROVE TOWNSHIP

LOGAN TOWNSHIP

MANNINGTON

TOWNSHIP UPPER PITTSGROVE TOWNSHIP

WOOLWICH TOWNSHIP

OLDMANS

TOWNSHIP HARRISON TOWNSHIP

MANTUA TOWNSHIP

WASHINGTON

TOWNSHIP

DEPTFORD

TOWNSHIP

CARNEYS POINT TOWNSHIP

WEST DEPTFORD

TOWNSHIP

SOUTH HARRISON TOWNSHIP

GREENWICH TOWNSHIP

EAST GREENWICH TOWNSHIP

MONROE

TOWNSHIP

GLOUCESTER

TOWNSHIP

GLASSBORO

BOROUGH

WINSLOW

TOWNSHIP

CLAYTON

BOROUGH

PENNSVILLE

TOWNSHIP

PITMAN

BOROUGH

PAULSBORO

BOROUGH WOODBURY

CITY

UPPER DEERFIELD 

TOWNSHIP

QUINTON

TOWNSHIP

HOPEWELL

TOWNSHIP

WOODSTOWN

BOROUGH

NATIONAL PARK 

BOROUGH

WESTVILLE BOROUGH

WENONAH

BOROUGH

FRANKLIN

TOWNSHIP

ELMER

BOROUGH

WOODBURY HEIGHTS 

BOROUGH

PENNS GROVE

BOROUGH

SWEDESBORO

BOROUGH

GLOUCESTER CITY

STOW CREEK

TOWNSHIP

BROOKLAWN BOROUGH

PITTSGROVE 

TOWNSHIP

PINE HILL

BOROUGH

PITTSGROVE

TOWNSHIP

Salem County

Gloucester County

Camden

County

39°52’30”

39°45’

75°22’30”

75°15’

75°7’30”

75°

75°30’

BELLMAWR

BOROUGH

RUNNEMEDE

BOROUGH

Delaware River

Delaware River

BOUNDARY OF ACTIVE MODEL AREA—

 Merchantville-Woodbury confining unit

EXPLANATION

VERTICAL HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY—In feet per day

S T U D Y - A R E A B O U N D A R Y

0 2 4 6 MILES

0 2 4 6 KILOMETERS

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:24,000,

Universal Transverse Mercator Projection, Zone 18

39°37’30”

39°30’

2.7 x 10-6

3.0 x 10-5

1.5 x 10-4

6.7 x 10-4

Figure 16. Vertical hydraulic conductivity used in the model, Merchantville-Woodbury confining unit, Salem-Gloucester study area, 

southern New Jersey.
24 Simulated Effects of Withdrawals from the Potomac-Raritan-Magothy Aquifer System, New Jersey

ALLOWAY TOWNSHIP

ELK TOWNSHIP PILESGROVE TOWNSHIP

LOGAN TOWNSHIP

MANNINGTON

TOWNSHIP UPPER PITTSGROVE TOWNSHIP

WOOLWICH TOWNSHIP

OLDMANS

TOWNSHIP HARRISON TOWNSHIP

MANTUA TOWNSHIP

WASHINGTON

TOWNSHIP

DEPTFORD

TOWNSHIP

CARNEYS POINT TOWNSHIP

WEST DEPTFORD

TOWNSHIP

SOUTH HARRISON TOWNSHIP

GREENWICH TOWNSHIP

EAST GREENWICH TOWNSHIP

MONROE

TOWNSHIP

GLOUCESTER

TOWNSHIP

GLASSBORO

BOROUGH

WINSLOW

TOWNSHIP

CLAYTON

BOROUGH

PENNSVILLE

TOWNSHIP

PITMAN

BOROUGH

PAULSBORO

BOROUGH WOODBURY

CITY

UPPER DEERFIELD 

TOWNSHIP

QUINTON

TOWNSHIP

HOPEWELL

TOWNSHIP

WOODSTOWN

BOROUGH

NATIONAL PARK 

BOROUGH

WESTVILLE BOROUGH

WENONAH

BOROUGH

FRANKLIN

TOWNSHIP

ELMER

BOROUGH

WOODBURY HEIGHTS 

BOROUGH

PENNS GROVE

BOROUGH

SWEDESBORO

BOROUGH

GLOUCESTER CITY

STOW CREEK

TOWNSHIP

BROOKLAWN BOROUGH

PITTSGROVE 

TOWNSHIP

PINE HILL

BOROUGH

PITTSGROVE

TOWNSHIP

Salem County

Gloucester County

Camden

County

39°52’30”

39°45’

75°22’30”

75°15’

75°7’30”

75°

75°30’

BELLMAWR

BOROUGH

RUNNEMEDE

BOROUGH

Delaware River

Delaware River

BOUNDARY OF ACTIVE MODEL AREA—

 Upper Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer

EXPLANATION

7

25

30

35

50

75

100

140

150

160

260

HORIZONTAL HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY—In feet per day

S T U D Y - A R E A B O U N D A R Y

0 2 4 6 MILES

0 2 4 6 KILOMETERS

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:24,000,

Universal Transverse Mercator Projection, Zone 18

39°37’30”

39°30’

area, southern New Jersey.

Figure 17. Horizontal hydraulic conductivity used in the model, Upper Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer, Salem-Gloucester study 
Model Design 25

ALLOWAY TOWNSHIP

ELK TOWNSHIP PILESGROVE TOWNSHIP

LOGAN TOWNSHIP

MANNINGTON

TOWNSHIP UPPER PITTSGROVE TOWNSHIP

WOOLWICH TOWNSHIP

OLDMANS

TOWNSHIP HARRISON TOWNSHIP

MANTUA TOWNSHIP

WASHINGTON

TOWNSHIP

DEPTFORD

TOWNSHIP

CARNEYS POINT TOWNSHIP

WEST DEPTFORD

TOWNSHIP

SOUTH HARRISON TOWNSHIP

GREENWICH TOWNSHIP

EAST GREENWICH TOWNSHIP

MONROE

TOWNSHIP

GLOUCESTER

TOWNSHIP

GLASSBORO

BOROUGH

WINSLOW

TOWNSHIP

CLAYTON

BOROUGH

PENNSVILLE

TOWNSHIP

PITMAN

BOROUGH

PAULSBORO

BOROUGH WOODBURY

CITY

UPPER DEERFIELD 

TOWNSHIP

QUINTON

TOWNSHIP

HOPEWELL

TOWNSHIP

WOODSTOWN

BOROUGH

NATIONAL PARK 

BOROUGH

WESTVILLE BOROUGH

WENONAH

BOROUGH

FRANKLIN

TOWNSHIP

ELMER

BOROUGH

WOODBURY HEIGHTS 

BOROUGH

PENNS GROVE

BOROUGH

SWEDESBORO

BOROUGH

GLOUCESTER CITY

STOW CREEK

TOWNSHIP

BROOKLAWN BOROUGH

PITTSGROVE 

TOWNSHIP

PINE HILL

BOROUGH

PITTSGROVE

TOWNSHIP

Salem County

Gloucester County

Camden

County

39°52’30”

39°45’

75°22’30”

75°15’

75°7’30”

75°

75°30’

BELLMAWR

BOROUGH

RUNNEMEDE

BOROUGH

Delaware River

Delaware River

BOUNDARY OF ACTIVE MODEL AREA—

 Confining unit between the Upper and

 Middle Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifers

EXPLANATION

VERTICAL HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY—In feet per day

S T U D Y - A R E A B O U N D A R Y

0 2 4 6 MILES

0 2 4 6 KILOMETERS

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:24,000,

Universal Transverse Mercator Projection, Zone 18

39°37’30”

39°30’

8.9 x 10-5

1.2 x 10-2

4.0 x 10-1

8.0 x 10-1

aquifers, Salem-Gloucester study area, southern New Jersey.

Figure 18. Vertical hydraulic conductivity used in the model, confining unit between the Upper and Middle Potomac-Raritan-Magothy 
26 Simulated Effects of Withdrawals from the Potomac-Raritan-Magothy Aquifer System, New Jersey

ALLOWAY TOWNSHIP

ELK TOWNSHIP PILESGROVE TOWNSHIP

LOGAN TOWNSHIP

MANNINGTON

TOWNSHIP UPPER PITTSGROVE TOWNSHIP

WOOLWICH TOWNSHIP

OLDMANS

TOWNSHIP HARRISON TOWNSHIP

MANTUA TOWNSHIP

WASHINGTON

TOWNSHIP

DEPTFORD

TOWNSHIP

CARNEYS POINT TOWNSHIP

WEST DEPTFORD

TOWNSHIP

SOUTH HARRISON TOWNSHIP

GREENWICH TOWNSHIP

EAST GREENWICH TOWNSHIP

MONROE

TOWNSHIP

GLOUCESTER

TOWNSHIP

GLASSBORO

BOROUGH

WINSLOW

TOWNSHIP

CLAYTON

BOROUGH

PENNSVILLE

TOWNSHIP

PITMAN

BOROUGH

PAULSBORO

BOROUGH WOODBURY

CITY

UPPER DEERFIELD 

TOWNSHIP

QUINTON

TOWNSHIP

HOPEWELL

TOWNSHIP

WOODSTOWN

BOROUGH

NATIONAL PARK 

BOROUGH

WESTVILLE BOROUGH

WENONAH

BOROUGH

FRANKLIN

TOWNSHIP

ELMER

BOROUGH

WOODBURY HEIGHTS 

BOROUGH

PENNS GROVE

BOROUGH

SWEDESBORO

BOROUGH

GLOUCESTER CITY

STOW CREEK

TOWNSHIP

BROOKLAWN BOROUGH

PITTSGROVE 

TOWNSHIP

PINE HILL

BOROUGH

PITTSGROVE

TOWNSHIP

Salem County

Gloucester County

Camden

County

39°52’30”

39°45’

75°22’30”

75°15’

75°7’30”

75°

75°30’

BELLMAWR

BOROUGH

RUNNEMEDE

BOROUGH

Delaware River

Delaware River

BOUNDARY OF ACTIVE MODEL AREA—

 Middle Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer

EXPLANATION

10

20

25

30

75

100

160

200

400

450

HORIZONTAL HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY—In feet per day

S T U D Y - A R E A B O U N D A R Y

0 2 4 6 MILES

0 2 4 6 KILOMETERS

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:24,000,

Universal Transverse Mercator Projection, Zone 18

39°37’30”

39°30’

area, southern New Jersey.

Figure 19. Horizontal hydraulic conductivity used in the model, Middle Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer, Salem-Gloucester study 
Model Design 27

ALLOWAY TOWNSHIP

ELK TOWNSHIP PILESGROVE TOWNSHIP

LOGAN TOWNSHIP

MANNINGTON

TOWNSHIP UPPER PITTSGROVE TOWNSHIP

WOOLWICH TOWNSHIP

OLDMANS

TOWNSHIP HARRISON TOWNSHIP

MANTUA TOWNSHIP

WASHINGTON

TOWNSHIP

DEPTFORD

TOWNSHIP

CARNEYS POINT TOWNSHIP

WEST DEPTFORD

TOWNSHIP

SOUTH HARRISON TOWNSHIP

GREENWICH TOWNSHIP

EAST GREENWICH TOWNSHIP

MONROE

TOWNSHIP

GLOUCESTER

TOWNSHIP

GLASSBORO

BOROUGH

WINSLOW

TOWNSHIP

CLAYTON

BOROUGH

PENNSVILLE

TOWNSHIP

PITMAN

BOROUGH

PAULSBORO

BOROUGH WOODBURY

CITY

UPPER DEERFIELD 

TOWNSHIP

QUINTON

TOWNSHIP

HOPEWELL

TOWNSHIP

WOODSTOWN

BOROUGH

NATIONAL PARK 

BOROUGH

WESTVILLE BOROUGH

WENONAH

BOROUGH

FRANKLIN

TOWNSHIP

ELMER

BOROUGH

WOODBURY HEIGHTS 

BOROUGH

PENNS GROVE

BOROUGH

SWEDESBORO

BOROUGH

GLOUCESTER CITY

STOW CREEK

TOWNSHIP

BROOKLAWN BOROUGH

PITTSGROVE 

TOWNSHIP

PINE HILL

BOROUGH

PITTSGROVE

TOWNSHIP

Salem County

Gloucester County

Camden

County

39°52’30”

39°45’

75°22’30”

75°15’

75°7’30”

75°

75°30’

BELLMAWR

BOROUGH

RUNNEMEDE

BOROUGH

Delaware River

Delaware River

BOUNDARY OF ACTIVE MODEL AREA—

 Confining unit between the Middle and Lower

 Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifers

EXPLANATION

VERTICAL HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY—In feet per day

2.1 x 10-5

3.4 x 10-4

5.7 x 10-4

6.5 x 10-4

1.7 x 10-3

2.6 x 10-3

4.3 x 10-3

5.7 x 10-3

1.7 x 10-1

S T U D Y - A R E A B O U N D A R Y

0 2 4 6 MILES

0 2 4 6 KILOMETERS

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:24,000,

Universal Transverse Mercator Projection, Zone 18

39°37’30”

39°30’

aquifers, Salem-Gloucester study area, southern New Jersey.

Figure 20. Vertical hydraulic conductivity used in the model, confining unit between the Middle and Lower Potomac-Raritan-Magothy 
28 Simulated Effects of Withdrawals from the Potomac-Raritan-Magothy Aquifer System, New Jersey

ALLOWAY TOWNSHIP

ELK TOWNSHIP PILESGROVE TOWNSHIP

LOGAN TOWNSHIP

MANNINGTON

TOWNSHIP UPPER PITTSGROVE TOWNSHIP

WOOLWICH TOWNSHIP

OLDMANS

TOWNSHIP HARRISON TOWNSHIP

MANTUA TOWNSHIP

WASHINGTON

TOWNSHIP

DEPTFORD

TOWNSHIP

CARNEYS POINT TOWNSHIP

WEST DEPTFORD

TOWNSHIP

SOUTH HARRISON TOWNSHIP

GREENWICH TOWNSHIP

EAST GREENWICH TOWNSHIP

MONROE

TOWNSHIP

GLOUCESTER

TOWNSHIP

GLASSBORO

BOROUGH

WINSLOW

TOWNSHIP

CLAYTON

BOROUGH

PENNSVILLE

TOWNSHIP

PITMAN

BOROUGH

PAULSBORO

BOROUGH WOODBURY

CITY

UPPER DEERFIELD 

TOWNSHIP

QUINTON

TOWNSHIP

HOPEWELL

TOWNSHIP

WOODSTOWN

BOROUGH

NATIONAL PARK 

BOROUGH

WESTVILLE BOROUGH

WENONAH

BOROUGH

FRANKLIN

TOWNSHIP

ELMER

BOROUGH

WOODBURY HEIGHTS 

BOROUGH

PENNS GROVE

BOROUGH

SWEDESBORO

BOROUGH

GLOUCESTER CITY

STOW CREEK

TOWNSHIP

BROOKLAWN BOROUGH

PITTSGROVE 

TOWNSHIP

PINE HILL

BOROUGH

PITTSGROVE

TOWNSHIP

Salem County

Gloucester County

Camden

County

39°52’30”

39°45’

75°22’30”

75°15’

75°7’30”

75°

75°30’

BELLMAWR

BOROUGH

RUNNEMEDE

BOROUGH

Delaware River

Delaware River

BOUNDARY OF ACTIVE MODEL AREA—

 Lower Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer

EXPLANATION

15

20

30

35

65

150

HORIZONTAL HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY—In feet per day

S T U D Y - A R E A B O U N D A R Y

0 2 4 6 MILES

0 2 4 6 KILOMETERS

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:24,000,

Universal Transverse Mercator Projection, Zone 18

39°37’30”

39°30’

area, southern New Jersey.

Figure 21. Horizontal hydraulic conductivity used in the model, Lower Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer, Salem-Gloucester study 
Model Design 29

from 1 in select zones in the confining units between the 

Upper and Middle Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifers and 

the Middle and Lower Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifers to 

9,000 in a zone in the confining unit between the Upper and 

Middle Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifers.

Riverbed conductance values for the Delaware River 

were adjusted during calibration. The values in the calibrated 

local model range from 3.5 x 10-1 ft2/d to 4.3 x 104 ft2/d in river 

cells. Streambed conductance values also were adjusted during 

calibration. The values in the calibrated model range from 

2.6 x 10-3 ft2/d to 6.7 x 103 ft2/d in stream (drain) cells.

Groundwater Withdrawals

Groundwater-withdrawal data (except domestic self-supply withdrawals) for wells screened in the Potomac-RaritanMagothy aquifer system in the study area were obtained from 

the USGS Site-Specific Water Use Data System (SWUDS) 

database. SWUDS contains withdrawal data reported to 

the NJDEP BWA. The BWA regulates all groundwater and 

surface-water diversions throughout the State. The regulation can take the form of a permit, certification, registration, 

or permit-by-rule. A water allocation or certification is the 

authority to withdraw surface or groundwater for use, pursuant 

to a permit issued under the Water Supply Allocation rules or 

the Agricultural, Aquacultural or Horticultural Water Usage 

Certification rules (New Jersey Administrative Code, 2005). 

The withdrawal data from SWUDS were divided into four 

separate categories of water users: water-purveyor, industrial 

self-supply, low-volume, and agricultural-irrigation. A water 

purveyor is any person who owns or operates a public-water 

supply (New Jersey Administrative Code, 2005). Industrial self-supply includes withdrawals made directly by the 

industry, not water supplied by a water purveyor. The waterpurveyor and industrial self-supply withdrawals are made by 

users with permitted allocations greater than 100,000 gal/d, 

whereas low-volume withdrawals are made by users with allocations less than 100,000 gal/d. Low-volume withdrawals can 

be made from water-purveyor, industrial self-supply, nonagricultural-irrigation, or commercial self-supply wells. There are 

no reported withdrawals from the Englishtown aquifer system 

in the study area for these withdrawal categories. Domestic 

self-supply withdrawals from the Potomac-Raritan-Magothy 

and Englishtown aquifer systems were estimated from census 

data (Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission, 2002; 

U.S. Censuses of Population and Housing, 2006).

 Withdrawals simulated in the local model totaled about 

10,100 Mgal/yr in 1998. Withdrawals from water-purveyor 

wells accounted for 63 percent of withdrawals from the 

Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer system; industrial self-supply wells, 32 percent; agricultural-irrigation wells, more than 

2 percent; and domestic self-supply wells, about 2 percent. 

Low-volume users accounted for less than 1 percent of the 

total withdrawals from these aquifers in 1998.

As previously mentioned in the “Conceptual Model” section, water was withdrawn from wells screened in the outcrop 

(unconfined) areas of the Englishtown aquifer system (domestic self-supply only) and the Upper and Middle PotomacRaritan-Magothy aquifers. These withdrawals are included in 

the simulation because they may affect the water levels in the 

confined part of these aquifers.

Water-Purveyor, Industrial Self-Supply, Low-Volume, and 

Agricultural-Irrigation

Withdrawals from the Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer 

system by water purveyors were divided into wells located 

in Critical Area 2 (table 4 at end of report) and wells located 

outside the Critical Area 2 boundary (table 5 at end of report). 

Withdrawals by low-volume users are shown in table 5. Withdrawals from industrial self-supply wells are shown in tables 6 

and 7 (at end of report), and withdrawals from agriculturalirrigation wells are shown in table 7. The location of wells in 

the local model from which withdrawals were made in 1998 is 

shown in figure 22.

Estimated Domestic Self-Supply

Domestic self-supply withdrawals from the Englishtown and Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer systems in the 

study area are estimated to be small, about 2 percent of the 

total withdrawals from these aquifers. These withdrawals 

are included in the model to simulate local effects of these 

withdrawals on water levels. The Groundwater Site Inventory (GWSI) database, the site-information component of 

the National Water Information System (NWIS), the USGS 

national water-data storage and retrieval system, was used to 

determine the proportion of domestic self-supply wells in each 

aquifer and municipality in the database. Several municipalities in the study area had only a small number of wells in the 

GWSI database from which to determine the domestic selfsupply withdrawals from the Englishtown or Potomac-RaritanMagothy aquifer system. Therefore, these municipalities were 

assigned the same proportion as a neighboring municipality 

that had more wells in the GWSI database.

The shallowest productive aquifers in the southern part 

of the model area are the Kirkwood-Cohansey aquifer system 

and the Wenonah-Mount Laurel aquifer (fig. 2). Most domestic self-supply withdrawals are from these aquifers because 

shallow wells are the most economical to install. (The Upper 

Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer is more than 400 ft below 

land surface in this area.)

Most of the domestic self-supply wells in the study area 

were considered to be screened in the confined part of the 

Englishtown and Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer systems, 

but some wells were considered to be screened in the unconfined part of the Upper and Middle Potomac-Raritan-Magothy 

aquifers. Whether the well was in the confined or unconfined 

part of the Upper and Middle Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifers was determined by the location of the well in the model 

and was based on the model framework.

Withdrawals from wells in the confined aquifers are 

assumed to be 100 percent consumptive—that is, none of 
30 Simulated Effects of Withdrawals from the Potomac-Raritan-Magothy Aquifer System, New Jersey

ALLOWAY TOWNSHIP

ELK TOWNSHIP PILESGROVE TOWNSHIP

LOGAN TOWNSHIP

MANNINGTON

TOWNSHIP UPPER PITTSGROVE TOWNSHIP

WOOLWICH TOWNSHIP

OLDMANS

TOWNSHIP HARRISON TOWNSHIP

MANTUA TOWNSHIP

WASHINGTON

TOWNSHIP

DEPTFORD

TOWNSHIP

CARNEYS POINT TOWNSHIP

WEST DEPTFORD

TOWNSHIP

SOUTH HARRISON TOWNSHIP

GREENWICH TOWNSHIP

EAST GREENWICH TOWNSHIP

MONROE

TOWNSHIP

GLOUCESTER

TOWNSHIP

GLASSBORO

BOROUGH

WINSLOW

TOWNSHIP

CLAYTON

BOROUGH

PENNSVILLE

TOWNSHIP

PITMAN

BOROUGH

PAULSBORO

BOROUGH WOODBURY

CITY

UPPER DEERFIELD 

TOWNSHIP

QUINTON

TOWNSHIP

HOPEWELL

TOWNSHIP

WOODSTOWN

BOROUGH

NATIONAL PARK 

BOROUGH

WESTVILLE BOROUGH

WENONAH

BOROUGH

FRANKLIN

TOWNSHIP

ELMER

BOROUGH

WOODBURY HEIGHTS 

BOROUGH

PENNS GROVE

BOROUGH

SWEDESBORO

BOROUGH

GLOUCESTER CITY

STOW CREEK

TOWNSHIP

BROOKLAWN BOROUGH

PITTSGROVE 

TOWNSHIP

PINE HILL

BOROUGH

PITTSGROVE

TOWNSHIP

Salem County

Gloucester County

Camden

County

39°52’30”

39°45’

75°22’30”

75°15’

75°7’30”

75°

75°30’

BELLMAWR

BOROUGH

RUNNEMEDE

BOROUGH

Delaware River

Delaware River

S T U D Y - A R E A B O U N D A R Y

0 2 4 6 MILES

0 2 4 6 KILOMETERS

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:24,000,

Universal Transverse Mercator Projection, Zone 18

39°37’30”

39°30’

WATER SUPPLY CRITICAL AREA 2—From N.J. Department of Environmental

 Protection, unpublished, 1:250,000. Boundaries are approximate and should

 not be used for regulatory compliance purposes

EXTENT OF MODEL GRID

LOCATION OF WITHDRAWAL WELL—Number is U.S. Geological Survey

 well number

 Upper Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer

 Middle Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer

 Lower Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer

EXPLANATION

15-167

15-283

15-16

33-137

33-330

33-346

15-282

15-285 15-283

15-1488 15-1340

15-304

15-306

15-373 15-533

15-207

15-320

33-962

33-898

33-129

33-602 33-298

33-305

33-198

33-70

33-845

33-657

15-137

15-569

15-697

33-933

33-362

33-459 33-67

15-1363

15-1362

15-167

15-158

15-1036 15-159

15-166 15-1339

15-1034 15-348

15-1176 15-72

15-692 15-1364

15-1

7-252

33-922 15-1558

15-1561 15-60

33-460 33-1009 15-62 33-767 15-422

15-63 15-1365 15-1460

15-248 15-385 15-337 15-339

15-1462 15-130

15-227 15-1112 15-183

15-132

15-1601 15-260 15-346 15-265 15-1407 15-267

33-697

15-8

15-284

15-524

15-1447

15-6 15-433 15-1159 15-191 15-192

15-1613 15-1664

7-600 15-1069 7-250 15-194 15-268 15-274

15-275 15-28 7-249

15-421

15-276

15-1346 15-16

15-1597

15-17

15-1089

15-1612

15-1614

15-312

15-430

15-321 15-322 15-410

33-322

33-857

33-983

33-964

33-899

33-900

33-784

33-901

33-085

33-354

15-1571

15-1570

15-1569

15-1568

15-374

15-347

15-79

15-1401 15-1405 15-1400 15-1404

15-76 15-1402 15-1373 15-1403

33-316

15-361

15-1109

15-225

15-1371

33-361

15-193

15-355

15-330

15-295 15-1461

PAULSBORO

BOROUGH

15-1199

15-213

15-212

15-1039

15-1409

15-1374

15-824

15-823 15-1122

15-1378

15-1121

15-1383

15-1124

15-1120

15-1408

A

A

15-286

33-671

33-125

33-123

33-122

7-8

7-601

7-531

7-596

7-520

15-327

15-326

7-12

Figure 22. Location of withdrawal wells and wells simulated as boundary flows in the Upper, Middle, and Lower Potomac-RaritanMagothy aquifers for the 1998 calibration simulation, Salem-Gloucester study area, southern New Jersey.
Model Calibration and Simulation of 2000 (Baseline) Withdrawals 31

the withdrawals are returned to the same aquifer by way of a 

septic system. Withdrawals from domestic self-supply wells 

screened in the unconfined Upper and Middle PotomacRaritan-Magothy aquifers in the study area are assumed to be 

about 15 percent consumptive. The consumptive-use coefficient was modified from the consumptive-use coefficient 

determined for domestic self-supply withdrawals in Camden 

County (Nawyn, 1997). The remaining 85 percent of the 

pumped water is assumed to return to the aquifer from which 

it was withdrawn by way of a septic system.

To estimate the annual domestic self-supply withdrawals from wells in the Englishtown and the Potomac-RaritanMagothy aquifer systems in 1998, the population in each 

municipality in the study area was obtained from 2000 census 

data (U.S. Censuses of Population and Housing, 2006). The 

population served by public-water supply for each municipality in the study area was determined from data reported quarterly to the NJDEP and on file at the USGS New Jersey Water 

Science Center in West Trenton, New Jersey. The reported 

population served in each municipality was subtracted from 

total population for each municipality and the difference 

was the estimated population served by domestic self-supply 

for that municipality (table 8). It is assumed that there was 

little change between the 2000 population served by domestic self-supply and the 1998 population served by domestic 

self-supply.

The population served by domestic self-supply was multiplied by the percentage of the municipality in the study area 

and of the domestic wells in an aquifer (table 8). This value 

was multiplied by the consumptive-use coefficient for either 

a confined (1.0) or unconfined (0.15) aquifer. The resulting 

value was multiplied by 365 (days per year), and then multiplied by 80 gal/d, which is an average per capita usage estimated by Solley and others (1998) for domestic self-supply. 

This calculation yielded a consumptive-water-use value in gallons per day for each municipality in the study area assumed 

to have domestic self-supply withdrawals. This value is given 

in million gallons per year in table 8. The consumptive-wateruse value was divided equally among the model cells in those 

municipalities that have domestic self-supply wells.

Model Calibration and Simulation of 

2000 (Baseline) Withdrawals

The local groundwater-flow model was calibrated to 

1998 withdrawal conditions using a steady-state simulation. 

The model was calibrated to 1998 conditions because synoptic water levels were measured in 1998 and the steady-state 

regional model, which provided the boundary flows for the 

local model, was calibrated to 1998 withdrawal conditions. 

A steady-state simulation for this analysis is valid because 

(1) water-level changes resulting from mandated withdrawal 

restrictions for Critical Area 2 after 1993 generally have 

stabilized and (2) a steady-state analysis is consistent with the 

NJDEP regulatory policy which grants a water-allocation permit with a term of 10 years (New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, 2005, N.J.A.C. 7:19-2:14) and the permits are routinely extended (New Jersey Statutes Annotated, 

2008, N.J.S.A. 58:1A-7b). Therefore, a steady-state analysis is 

a useful measure of the full-allocation withdrawal condition.

Calibration was done by a trial-and-error process. Initial 

estimates of the model input values for streambed and riverbed 

conductance, horizontal hydraulic conductivity, and vertical 

hydraulic conductivity were adjusted to achieve an acceptable 

match of model results to observed water-level data. Adjustments were made to the streambed conductance used in the 

Drain package of MODFLOW-2000 (Harbaugh and others, 

2000). Values of riverbed conductance in a few model cells 

near the Delaware River were adjusted to improve the match 

between simulated and measured water levels. During model 

calibration, results of the local model simulation were compared to (1) simulated water levels and groundwater discharge 

to streams in the regional model, (2) 1998 synoptic-water-level 

contours (Lacombe and Rosman, 2001), and (3) water levels 

measured in 104 wells in 1998 (Lacombe and Rosman, 2001).

Model calibration did not include a comparison of simulated groundwater discharge to streams with base flow estimated from measured streamflow. These data are not available 

because many stream reaches in the study area are influenced 

by tides, and there are no continuous stream-discharge gages 

in the study area. During model calibration, groundwater 

discharge simulated with the local model was compared to 

groundwater discharge simulated with the regional model. 

Groundwater discharge simulation with the calibrated local 

model is within 2 percent of that of the regional model.

The 1998 water levels simulated with the calibrated local 

model for the confined Englishtown and Potomac-RaritanMagothy aquifer systems are shown in figures 23 to 26. Simulated water levels are not shown for the three confining units 

because measured water levels for those units are not available 

for comparison. In general, the simulated water levels in a 

given confining unit fall between the simulated water levels in 

the aquifers above and below that confining unit. 

The MODFLOW-2000 Observation package (Hill and 

others, 2000) was used to compare and calculate the differences between simulated water levels and water levels 

measured at 104 wells (Lacombe and Rosman, 2001). The 

Observation package interpolates simulated water levels to the 

actual location of the measured water levels between model 

nodes, thereby improving the accuracy of water-level comparisons. The difference between simulated and measured water 

levels was minimized primarily by adjusting the zones of 

horizontal and vertical hydraulic conductivity in the aquifers 

and confining units during model calibration. The differences 

(residuals) between simulated and measured water levels are 

shown in figures 23 to 26.

An acceptable match between simulated water levels 

and water levels measured in 1998 at 104 wells was achieved 
32 Simulated Effects of Withdrawals from the Potomac-Raritan-Magothy Aquifer System, New Jersey Table 8. Estimated consumptive use of groundwater for domestic self-supply in 2000 by municipality, Salem-Gloucester study area, southern New Jersey. [Mgal/yr, million gallons per year; - -, not applicable] Municipality Estimated population served by domestic self- supply in 20001 Proportion of municipality in study area Proportion of municipality’s domestic self-supply wells in aquifer2 Consumptive water use for domestic self-supply in 2000, by aquifer (Mgal/yr)3 Confined Englishtown aquifer system Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer system Other Coastal Plain aquifers Englishtown aquifer system Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer system Confined Upper aquifer Unconfined Upper aquifer Confined Middle aquifer Unconfined Middle aquifer Confined Lower aquifer Upper aquifer Middle aquifer Lower aquifer Camden County Gloucester Township 19 0.377 0.242 0.091 - - - - - - - - 0.667 0.051 0.019 - - - - Winslow Township 10,706 0.019 - - - - - - - - - - - - 1.000 - - - - - - - - Gloucester County Clayton Borough 581 0.289 - - - - - - - - - - - - 1.000 - - - - - - - - Deptford Township 950 0.891 0.111 0.222 - - - - - - - - 0.667 2.744 5.487 - - - - East Greenwich Township 206 1.000 0.077 0.846 - - - - - - - - 0.077 0.463 5.089 - - - - Elk Township 3514 0.912 - - - - - - - - - - - - 1.000 - - - - - - - - Glassboro Borough 265 0.984 - - - - - - - - - - - - 1.000 - - - - - - - - Greenwich Township 64 1.000 - - 0.750 - - 0.250 - - - - - - - - 1.402 0.467 - - Harrison Township 3302 1.000 - - 0.125 - - - - - - - - 0.875 - - 12.052 - - - - Logan Township 818 1.000 - - 0.250 0.200 0.350 0.050 0.100 0.050 - - 6.688 8.539 2.389 Mantua Township 2657 1.000 0.143 0.429 - - - - - - - - 0.429 11.095 33.284 - - - - Monroe Township 7457 0.090 - - - - - - - - - - - - 1.000 - - - - - - - - National Park Borough 0 1.000 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Paulsboro Borough 55 1.000 - - 0.750 - - 0.250 - - - - - - - - 1.205 0.402 - - Pitman Borough 17 1.000 - - 0.125 - - - - - - - - 0.875 - - 0.062 - - - - South Harrison Township 2358 1.000 - - 0.333 - - - - - - - - 0.667 - - 22.928 - - - - Swedesboro Borough 52 1.000 0.056 0.944 - - - - - - - - - - 0.085 1.433 - - - - Washington Township 4564 1.000 - - 0.087 - - - - - - - - 0.913 - - 11.594 - - - - Wenonah Borough 28 1.000 0.111 0.222 - - - - - - - - 0.667 0.091 0.182 - - - - West Deptford Township 267 0.960 0.048 0.810 - - 0.095 - - - - 0.048 0.359 6.062 0.711 - - Westville Borough 58 0.298 - - 1.000 - - - - - - - - - - - - 0.505 - - - - Woodbury City 0 1.000 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Woodbury Heights Borough 35 1.000 0.111 0.222 - - - - - - - - 0.667 0.113 0.227 - - - - Woolwich Township 1459 1.000 0.043 0.739 - - - - - - - - 0.217 1.832 31.483 - - - - Salem County Alloway Township 2,753 0.421 - - - - - - - - - - - - 1.000 - - - - - - - - Carneys Point Township 1,236 0.780 - - 0.476 0.143 0.286 - - - - 0.095 - - 14.004 8.051 - - Mannington Township 1,474 0.220 0.118 - - - - 0.059 - - - - 0.824 1.117 - - 0.559 - - Oldmans Township 657 1.000 - - 0.476 0.143 0.286 - - - - 0.095 - - 9.544 5.487 - - Penns Grove Borough 64 1.000 - - - - - - 0.700 0.100 0.200 - - - - - - 1.336 0.374 Pilesgrove Township 3,160 1.000 0.057 0.029 - - 0.029 - - - - 0.886 5.260 2.676 2.676 - - Upper Pittsgrove Township 3,089 0.788 - - - - - - - - - - - - 1.000 - - - - - - - -

Woodstown Borough 35 1.000 - - - - - - - - - - - - 1.000 - - - - - - - -

Total4 23.210 165.926 28.228 2.763

1Estimated using data from U. S. Censuses of Population and Housing (2006) and data reported quarterly to the N.J. Department of Environmental Protection on municipal population served by public water supply.2Estimated from U.S. Geological Survey Ground-Water Site Inventory database.3Confined-aquifer domestic self-supply withdrawals are considered 100-percent consumptive. Unconfined-aquifer domestic self-supply withdrawals are considered 15-percent consumptive, a value modified from Nawyn (1997) for 

domestic self-supply consumptive use in Camden County. Population estimated to use 80 gallons per day per person for domestic self-supply (Solley and others,1998).

4Total domestic self-supply withdrawals may not equal simulated totals for each aquifer as a result of rounding.
Model Calibration and Simulation of 2000 (Baseline) Withdrawals 33

ALLOWAY TOWNSHIP

ELK TOWNSHIP PILESGROVE TOWNSHIP

LOGAN TOWNSHIP

MANNINGTON

TOWNSHIP UPPER PITTSGROVE TOWNSHIP

WOOLWICH TOWNSHIP

OLDMANS

TOWNSHIP HARRISON TOWNSHIP

MANTUA TOWNSHIP

WASHINGTON

TOWNSHIP

DEPTFORD

TOWNSHIP

CARNEYS POINT TOWNSHIP

WEST DEPTFORD

TOWNSHIP

SOUTH HARRISON TOWNSHIP

GREENWICH TOWNSHIP

EAST GREENWICH TOWNSHIP

MONROE

TOWNSHIP

GLOUCESTER

TOWNSHIP

GLASSBORO

BOROUGH

WINSLOW

TOWNSHIP

CLAYTON

BOROUGH

PENNSVILLE

TOWNSHIP

PITMAN

BOROUGH

PAULSBORO

BOROUGH WOODBURY

CITY

UPPER DEERFIELD 

TOWNSHIP

QUINTON

TOWNSHIP

HOPEWELL

TOWNSHIP

WOODSTOWN

BOROUGH

NATIONAL PARK 

BOROUGH

WESTVILLE BOROUGH

WENONAH

BOROUGH

FRANKLIN

TOWNSHIP

ELMER

BOROUGH

WOODBURY HEIGHTS 

BOROUGH

PENNS GROVE

BOROUGH

SWEDESBORO

BOROUGH

GLOUCESTER CITY

STOW CREEK

TOWNSHIP

BROOKLAWN BOROUGH

PITTSGROVE 

TOWNSHIP

PINE HILL

BOROUGH

PITTSGROVE

TOWNSHIP

Salem County

Gloucester County

Camden

County

39°52’30”

39°45’

75°22’30”

75°15’

75°7’30”

75°

75°30’

BELLMAWR

BOROUGH

RUNNEMEDE

BOROUGH

DISCRETIZED OUTCROP AREA OF THE ENGLISHTOWN AQUIFER SYSTEM

BOUNDARY OF ACTIVE MODEL AREA—Englishtown aquifer system

SIMULATED POTENTIOMETRIC CONTOUR—Shows the simulated

 altitude at which water would have stood in a tightly cased well.

 Contour interval 10 feet. Datum is NGVD 29

OBSERVATION WELL WITH MEASURED WATER LEVEL—

 First number is U.S. Geological Survey well

 number. Second number is water-level

 residual (simulated water level minus

 measured water level from table 9), in feet 

 (rounded to one decimal place)

EXPLANATION

50

Delaware River

Delaware River

33-168/1.9

S T U D Y - A R E A B O U N D A R Y

0 2 4 6 MILES

0 2 4 6 KILOMETERS

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:24,000,

Universal Transverse Mercator Projection, Zone 18

39°37’30”

39°30’

30

40

20

50

70

30

20

33-168/2.3

15-676/2.8

15-344/-4.3

40

20

40

30

20

15-188/6.1

40

3040

20

30

30

20

50

10

Gloucester study area, southern New Jersey.

Figure 23. Steady-state potentiometric surface in the confined Englishtown aquifer system for the 1998 calibration simulation, Salem-
34 Simulated Effects of Withdrawals from the Potomac-Raritan-Magothy Aquifer System, New Jersey

ALLOWAY TOWNSHIP

ELK TOWNSHIP PILESGROVE TOWNSHIP

LOGAN TOWNSHIP

MANNINGTON

TOWNSHIP UPPER PITTSGROVE TOWNSHIP

WOOLWICH TOWNSHIP

OLDMANS

TOWNSHIP HARRISON TOWNSHIP

MANTUA TOWNSHIP

WASHINGTON

TOWNSHIP

DEPTFORD

TOWNSHIP

CARNEYS POINT TOWNSHIP

WEST DEPTFORD

TOWNSHIP

SOUTH HARRISON TOWNSHIP

GREENWICH TOWNSHIP

EAST GREENWICH TOWNSHIP

MONROE

TOWNSHIP

GLOUCESTER

TOWNSHIP

GLASSBORO

BOROUGH

WINSLOW

TOWNSHIP

CLAYTON

BOROUGH

PENNSVILLE

TOWNSHIP

PITMAN

BOROUGH

PAULSBORO

BOROUGH WOODBURY

CITY

UPPER DEERFIELD 

TOWNSHIP

QUINTON

TOWNSHIP

HOPEWELL

TOWNSHIP

WOODSTOWN

BOROUGH

NATIONAL PARK 

BOROUGH

WESTVILLE BOROUGH

WENONAH

BOROUGH

FRANKLIN

TOWNSHIP

ELMER

BOROUGH

WOODBURY HEIGHTS 

BOROUGH

PENNS GROVE

BOROUGH

SWEDESBORO

BOROUGH

GLOUCESTER CITY

STOW CREEK

TOWNSHIP

BROOKLAWN BOROUGH

PITTSGROVE 

TOWNSHIP

PINE HILL

BOROUGH

PITTSGROVE

TOWNSHIP

Salem County

Gloucester County

Camden

County

39°52’30”

39°45’

75°22’30”

75°15’

75°7’30”

75°

75°30’

BELLMAWR

BOROUGH

RUNNEMEDE

BOROUGH

DISCRETIZED OUTCROP AREA OF THE UPPER POTOMAC-RARITAN-MAGOTHY AQUIFER

WATER SUPPLY CRITICAL AREA 2—From N.J. Department of Environmental Protection, unpublished,

 1:250,000. Boundaries are approximate and should not be used for regulatory compliance purposes

BOUNDARY OF THE ACTIVE MODEL AREA—Upper Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer

SIMULATED POTENTIOMETRIC CONTOUR—Shows the simulated altitude at which

 water would have stood in a tightly cased well. Contour interval 10 feet. Datum is NGVD 29

OBSERVATION WELL WITH MEASURED WATER LEVEL—First number is

 U.S. Geological Survey well number. Second number is residual

 (simulated water level minus measured water level from table 9),

 in feet (rounded to one decimal place)

WITHDRAWAL WELL WITH MEASURED WATER LEVEL—

 First number is U.S. Geological Survey well number.

 Second number is residual (simulated water

 level minus measured water level from

 table 9), in feet (rounded to one decimal place)

WITHDRAWAL WELL—No measured

 water level. Withdrawals are from

 the Upper Potomac-

 Raritan-Magothy aquifer.

 Well identification is

 shown in figure 22

EXPLANATION

-50

Delaware River

Delaware River

S T U D Y - A R E A B O U N D A R Y

0 2 4 6 MILES

0 2 4 6 KILOMETERS

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:24,000,

Universal Transverse Mercator Projection, Zone 18

39°37’30”

39°30’

10 0

-10

10

-20

-30

-50

-40

-60

-70

-10

-10

-70

-80

-60

-60

-50

-40

-40

-20

33-355/-3.4

15-1513/3.1

33-342/1.1

33-76/4.3

33-74/1.4

15-1105/-4.1

15-303/-1.5

15-281/3.1

15-741/-8.4 15-1000/-4.9

15-261/0.5

15-253/-0.3

15-378/-3.3

15-3/7.8

15-127/-4.8

15-1106/10.1

15-779/1.8

15-728/1.1

15-617/-2.2

15-1031/-6.1

15-240/1.7

15-1482/-1.0

15-1483/3.7

33-361/-2.1

15-339/0.5

15-346/-3.1

15-28/-2.2

15-1346/3.4 15-355/1.0

15-63/-6.3

15-433/1.8

7-249/-6.7

15-227/4.6

15-1089/-6.9

15-330/-6.4

15-194/-1.7

15-276/1.1

15-275/1.9

15-8/-8.3

15-60/0.8

33-355/-3.4

15-1513/3.1

33-342/1.1

33-76/4.3

33-74/1.4

15-1105/-4.1

15-303/-1.5

15-281/3.1

15-741/-8.4 15-1000/-4.9

15-261/0.5

15-253/-0.3

15-378/-3.3

15-3/7.8

15-127/-4.8

15-1106/10.1

15-779/1.8

15-728/1.1

15-617/-2.2

15-1031/-6.1

15-240/1.7

15-1482/-1.0

15-1483/3.7

33-361/-2.1

15-339/0.5

15-346/-3.1

15-28/-2.2

15-1346/3.4 15-355/1.0

15-63/-6.3

15-433/1.8

7-249/-6.7

15-227/4.6

15-1089/-6.9

15-330/-6.4

15-194/-1.7

15-276/1.1

15-275/1.9

15-728/1.1

15-28/-2.2

15-8/-8.3

15-60/0.8

Figure 24. Steady-state potentiometric surface in the confined Upper Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer for the 1998 calibration 

simulation, Salem-Gloucester study area, southern New Jersey.
Model Calibration and Simulation of 2000 (Baseline) Withdrawals 35

ALLOWAY TOWNSHIP

ELK TOWNSHIP PILESGROVE TOWNSHIP

LOGAN TOWNSHIP

MANNINGTON

TOWNSHIP UPPER PITTSGROVE TOWNSHIP

WOOLWICH TOWNSHIP

OLDMANS

TOWNSHIP HARRISON TOWNSHIP

MANTUA TOWNSHIP

WASHINGTON

TOWNSHIP

DEPTFORD

TOWNSHIP

CARNEYS POINT TOWNSHIP

WEST DEPTFORD

TOWNSHIP

SOUTH HARRISON TOWNSHIP

GREENWICH TOWNSHIP

EAST GREENWICH TOWNSHIP

MONROE

TOWNSHIP

GLOUCESTER

TOWNSHIP

GLASSBORO

BOROUGH

WINSLOW

TOWNSHIP

CLAYTON

BOROUGH

PENNSVILLE

TOWNSHIP

PITMAN

BOROUGH

PAULSBORO

BOROUGH WOODBURY

CITY

UPPER DEERFIELD 

TOWNSHIP

QUINTON

TOWNSHIP

HOPEWELL

TOWNSHIP

WOODSTOWN

BOROUGH

NATIONAL PARK 

BOROUGH

WESTVILLE BOROUGH

WENONAH

BOROUGH

FRANKLIN

TOWNSHIP

ELMER

BOROUGH

WOODBURY HEIGHTS 

BOROUGH

PENNS GROVE

BOROUGH

SWEDESBORO

BOROUGH

GLOUCESTER CITY

STOW CREEK

TOWNSHIP

BROOKLAWN BOROUGH

PITTSGROVE 

TOWNSHIP

PINE HILL

BOROUGH

PITTSGROVE

TOWNSHIP

Salem County

Gloucester County

Camden

County

39°52’30”

39°45’

75°22’30”

75°15’

75°7’30”

75°

75°30’

BELLMAWR

BOROUGH

RUNNEMEDE

BOROUGH

DISCRETIZED OUTCROP AREA OF THE MIDDLE POTOMAC-RARITAN-MAGOTHY AQUIFER

WATER SUPPLY CRITICAL AREA 2—From N.J. Department of Environmental Protection, unpublished,

 1:250,000. Boundaries are approximate and should not be used for regulatory compliance purposes

BOUNDARY OF THE ACTIVE MODEL AREA—Middle Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer

SIMULATED POTENTIOMETRIC CONTOUR—Shows the simulated altitude at which water

 would have stood in a tightly cased well. Contour interval 10 feet. Datum is NGVD 29

OBSERVATION WELL WITH MEASURED WATER LEVEL—First number is

 U.S. Geological Survey well number. Second number is residual

 (simulated water level minus measured water level from table 9),

 in feet (rounded to one decimal place)

WITHDRAWAL WELL WITH MEASURED WATER LEVEL—

 First number is U.S. Geological Survey well number.

 Second number is residual (simulated water

 level minus measured water level from

 table 9), in feet (rounded to one decimal place)

WITHDRAWAL WELL—No measured

 water level. Withdrawals are from

 the Middle Potomac-

 Raritan-Magothy aquifer.

 Well identification is

 shown in figure 22

EXPLANATION

-50

Delaware River

Delaware River

S T U D Y - A R E A B O U N D A R Y

15-620/3.1

15-213/0.9

0 2 4 6 MILES

0 2 4 6 KILOMETERS

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:24,000,

Universal Transverse Mercator Projection, Zone 18

39°37’30”

39°30’

0

-10

-20

-30

-40

-50

-60

0

0

0

33-65/-4.7

33-166/-5.3

33-1484/-1.4

33-135/2.1

33-71/4.4

33-158/-4.1

15-415/8.7

15-771/1.7

15-780/4.2

15-679/1.1

15-1485/9.6

15-616/-1.7

15-998/1.5

15-279/8.0

P10105/5.9

15-359/1.5

15-713/1.2

15-727/1.8

15-140/-0.1

15-620/3.1

15-236/0.7

15-585/4.0

33-305/-6.0

33-933/1.7

33-198/2.2

15-348/2.3

15-1122/-0.7

15-1036/-2.9

15-1176/-9.8 15-213/0.9

15-374/8.3

15-569/-6.3

15-444/1.4

simulation, Salem-Gloucester study area, southern New Jersey.

Figure 25. Steady-state potentiometric surface in the confined Middle Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer for the 1998 calibration 
36 Simulated Effects of Withdrawals from the Potomac-Raritan-Magothy Aquifer System, New Jersey

ALLOWAY TOWNSHIP

ELK TOWNSHIP PILESGROVE TOWNSHIP

LOGAN TOWNSHIP

MANNINGTON

TOWNSHIP UPPER PITTSGROVE TOWNSHIP

WOOLWICH TOWNSHIP

OLDMANS

TOWNSHIP HARRISON TOWNSHIP

MANTUA TOWNSHIP

WASHINGTON

TOWNSHIP

DEPTFORD

TOWNSHIP

CARNEYS POINT TOWNSHIP

WEST DEPTFORD

TOWNSHIP

SOUTH HARRISON TOWNSHIP

GREENWICH TOWNSHIP

EAST GREENWICH TOWNSHIP

MONROE

TOWNSHIP

GLOUCESTER

TOWNSHIP

GLASSBORO

BOROUGH

WINSLOW

TOWNSHIP

CLAYTON

BOROUGH

PENNSVILLE

TOWNSHIP

PITMAN

BOROUGH

PAULSBORO

BOROUGH WOODBURY

CITY

UPPER DEERFIELD 

TOWNSHIP

QUINTON

TOWNSHIP

HOPEWELL

TOWNSHIP

WOODSTOWN

BOROUGH

NATIONAL PARK 

BOROUGH

WESTVILLE BOROUGH

WENONAH

BOROUGH

FRANKLIN

TOWNSHIP

ELMER

BOROUGH

WOODBURY HEIGHTS 

BOROUGH

PENNS GROVE

BOROUGH

SWEDESBORO

BOROUGH

GLOUCESTER CITY

STOW CREEK

TOWNSHIP

BROOKLAWN BOROUGH

PITTSGROVE 

TOWNSHIP

PINE HILL

BOROUGH

PITTSGROVE

TOWNSHIP

Salem County

Gloucester County

Camden

County

39°52’30”

39°45’

75°22’30”

75°15’

75°7’30”

75°

75°30’

BELLMAWR

BOROUGH

RUNNEMEDE

BOROUGH

Delaware River

Delaware River

S T U D Y - A R E A B O U N D A R Y

0 2 4 6 MILES

0 2 4 6 KILOMETERS

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:24,000,

Universal Transverse Mercator Projection, Zone 18

39°37’30”

39°30’

WATER SUPPLY CRITICAL AREA 2—From N.J. Department of Environmental Protection, unpublished,

 1:250,000. Boundaries are approximate and should not be used for regulatory compliance purposes

BOUNDARY OF ACTIVE MODEL AREA—Lower Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer

SIMULATED POTENTIOMETRIC CONTOUR—Shows simulated altitude at which water

 would have stood in a tightly cased well. Contour interval 10 feet. Datum is NGVD 29

OBSERVATION WELL WITH MEASURED WATER LEVEL—First number is

 U.S. Geological Survey well number. Second number is residual

 (simulated water level minus measured water level from table 9),

 in feet (rounded to one decimal place)

WITHDRAWAL WELL WITH MEASURED WATER LEVEL—

 First number is U.S. Geological Survey well number.

 Second number is residual (simulated water

 level minus measured water level from

 table 9), in feet (rounded to one decimal place)

WITHDRAWAL WELL—No measured

 water level. Withdrawals are from

 the Lower Potomac-

 Raritan-Magothy aquifer.

 Well identification is

 shown in figure 22

EXPLANATION

-50

33-187/2.3

15-312/0.1

0

0

0

-10

-20

-30

-40

-50

-60

-30

15-1004/2.9

15-349/-2.7

33-187/-2.3

15-678/2.4

33-86/-4.2

15-139/-0.9

15-316/0.7

15-323/-0.5

15-778/3.5

15-680/2.5 15-308/4.4

15-133/-10.0

15-615/1.0

15-618/1.7

P10110/2.7

15-331/-3.8

15-742/-5.3

15-1125/0.9

15-712/0

15-738/1.3

15-1487/-0.7

33-330/5.0

15-282/-0.3

15-312/0.1

P10103/3.1

P10113/2.3

-50

-50

-40

-30

-40

-30

-40

15-770/-2.6

Salem-Gloucester study area, southern New Jersey.

Figure 26. Steady-state potentiometric surface in the Lower Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer for the 1998 calibration simulation, 
Model Calibration and Simulation of 2000 (Baseline) Withdrawals 37

through model calibration (table 9 at end of report). The root 

mean square error for residuals is 4.14 ft. Simulated water 

levels match measured water levels within +/-5 ft for 82 of 

the 104 wells (79 percent). The maximum negative residual 

(-9.96 ft) and maximum positive residual (10.14 ft) are similar 

in magnitude. The overall distribution of the residuals (60 

(58 percent) greater than zero and 44 (42 percent) less than 

zero) indicates that the simulated water levels have neither a 

strong high bias nor a strong low bias.

1998 Calibration Simulation Flow Budget

Components of inflow in the local model flow budget are 

recharge to the outcrop areas, boundary flows, and, in some 

instances, flow from the Delaware River where it is hydraulically connected to the aquifer and withdrawals from the 

aquifer near the river are large. Components of outflow in the 

flow budget are groundwater withdrawals, boundary flows, 

discharge to streams and wetlands, and depending on the magnitude of the withdrawals, discharge to the Delaware River. 

All flow-budget values are rounded to the nearest integer.

In the calibrated local model, simulated withdrawals total 

about 44 percent (10,144 Mgal/yr) and simulated groundwater discharge to streams and wetlands is about 35 percent 

(8,242 Mgal/yr) of outflow in 1998. Specified flows at bordering hydrogeologic units (including the confined Englishtown 

aquifer system at the top of the model) are about 18 percent 

of inflow (4,120 Mgal/yr) and account for about 12 percent 

of outflow (2,838 Mgal/yr). Simulated recharge is about 

77 percent of inflow (17,937 Mgal/yr). Simulated groundwater 

discharge to the Delaware River accounts for the remaining 

percentage of inflow (5 percent) and outflow (9 percent) and is 

a net flow from the Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer system 

to the river of about 4 percent (833 Mgal/yr).

Sensitivity Analysis

A sensitivity analysis provides a measure of the uncertainty in model input parameters by showing the effects on 

water levels and flows simulated by the model of changes in 

selected model input parameters. A relatively small change 

in model input parameter that has a relatively large effect on 

model results indicates the model is highly sensitive to that 

parameter. For the local model, the sensitivity of simulated 

water levels and groundwater discharge to streams and the 

Delaware River was determined for a uniform change in (1) 

recharge, (2) boundary flows, (3) conductance of streambeds, 

(4) conductance of the riverbed of the Delaware River, (5) 

aquifer horizontal hydraulic conductivity, and (6) confiningunit vertical hydraulic conductivity. Only one parameter was 

changed in each sensitivity-analysis simulation. Input parameters were varied by one or two orders of magnitude.

Evaluating model assumptions and model input data 

through use of a sensitivity analysis is limited in several ways. 

In this study, the sensitivity analysis was done for selected 

input parameters, and the parameter values were changed 

throughout the entire area of the local model. Localized 

changes to any input parameters were not evaluated.

To examine the sensitivity of simulated water levels to 

changes in a model input parameter: (1) the simulated water 

levels in 104 observation wells used in the model calibration 

were averaged, (2) the simulated water levels obtained for 

each sensitivity analysis for these wells were averaged, and 

(3) the difference between the average produced for a sensitivity run and the model calibration average was obtained. The 

highest and lowest recorded difference for a range of changes 

to a model input parameter was then subtracted (table 10). In 

this study, model sensitivity was high if this difference was 

less than -50 ft or greater than 50 ft; low if the difference was 

between -10 ft and 10 ft; and moderate if the difference was 

between these values.

To examine the sensitivity of simulated groundwater 

discharge to changes in a model input parameter, the total 

groundwater discharge to streams (drains) for each sensitivity analysis was recorded. The lowest recorded discharge 

was then subtracted from the highest recorded discharge for 

a range of changes to a model input parameter, and the result 

was recorded in table 10. Model sensitivity was high if this 

difference was less than -50 ft3/s and greater than 50 ft3/s in 

response to a range of changes to a model input parameter; 

low if the difference was between -5 ft3/s and 5 ft3/s; and moderate if the difference was between these values.

Average simulated water levels showed high sensitivity to decreases in aquifer horizontal hydraulic conductivity. 

Simulated total groundwater discharge to streams showed high 

sensitivity to changes in recharge and increases in boundary flows (table 10). Simulated water levels and groundwater 

discharge showed low to moderate sensitivity to changes in 

the other parameters tested—that is, changes in the average 

simulated water level and groundwater discharge were small 

relative to the changes made to the model input data, indicating that additional adjustments to the value of streambed conductance, conductance of the riverbed of the Delaware River, 

or confining-unit vertical hydraulic conductivity most likely 

would not significantly improve the simulation results.

Model Limitations

Limitations of the local model can be attributed to 

uncertainties in the model input data, inaccuracies in measured 

water levels, and the limitations and assumptions related to the 

model design. Assessing limitations of the model generated 

by uncertainties in model input data is limited to determining the sensitivity of simulated water levels and groundwater 

discharge to changes in model input data. The model shows 

high sensitivity to boundary flows, aquifer horizontal hydraulic conductivity, and recharge, but it is less sensitive to the 

hydraulic conductance of streambeds and the vertical hydraulic conductivity of the confining units.
38 Simulated Effects of Withdrawals from the Potomac-Raritan-Magothy Aquifer System, New Jersey Table 10. Sensitivity of groundwater-flow model output to changes in model input parameters, Salem-Gloucester study area, southern New Jersey. [--, Water-level difference and discharge difference were not calculated for the indicated range of multiplication factors; na, not applicable Model input parameter1 Range of multiplication factors2 Simulated water level Simulated discharge to streams Water-level difference calculated over the range of multiplication factors3 (feet) Sensitivity4 Discharge difference calculated over the range of multiplication factors5 (cubic feet per second) Sensitivity6 Recharge 0.2 to 2.2 27.22 Moderate 95.58 High Boundary flows 0.1 to 10 -4.43 Low -- na 10 to 20 -16.18 Moderate -- na 0.1 to 1 -- na 4.09 Low 1 to 20 -- na 96.36 High Streambed conductance 0.1 to 100 -4.70 Low 12.19 Moderate Delaware River riverbed conductance 0.1 to 100 2.35 Low -0.44 Low Aquifer horizontal hydraulic conductivity 0.1 to 1 135.54 High -- na 1 to 100 22.26 Moderate -- na 0.1 to 100 -- na -4.13 Low Confining-unit vertical hydraulic conductivity 0.1 to 100 30.31 Moderate -6.91 Moderate

1 In each sensitivity analysis, one parameter was varied at a time. Aquifer horizontal hydraulic conductivity and confining-unit vertical hydraulic conductivity of all layers were varied at the same time.2 Not all multiplication factors within these ranges were analyzed.3 The simulated water levels in 104 observation wells used in the model calibration were averaged. The simulated water levels for these wells produced during a sensitivity run were also averaged. The 

difference between the average produced for a sensitivity run and the model calibration average was recorded. The highest recorded difference was subtracted from the lowest recorded difference and the result is recorded in this table. 

4 Sensitivity was high if the difference in water level was less than -50 feet or greater than 50 feet; low if the difference was between -10 feet and 10 feet; and moderate if the difference was between these 

values.

5 The highest recorded difference was subtracted for the lowest recorded difference, and the result is recorded in this table.6 Sensitivity was high if the difference in discharge was less than -50 cubic feet per second or greater than 50 cubic feet per second; low if the difference was between -5 cubic feet per second and 5 cubic 

feet per second; and moderate if the difference was between these values.
Model Calibration and Simulation of 2000 (Baseline) Withdrawals 39

The accuracy of the withdrawal data input to the model 

is difficult to assess because of uncertainties inherent in collecting, recording, and reporting the data to the State. Results 

of the local-model simulation could be improved with more 

accurate agricultural-irrigation withdrawal data and more 

accurate estimates of domestic self-supply withdrawals for the 

various municipalities. The accuracy of domestic self-supply 

withdrawal values is difficult to assess because of uncertainties 

inherent in estimating the population served by domestic selfsupply and the per capita water use associated with domestic 

self-supply.

Results of the local-model simulation could be improved 

with more accurate water-level altitudes. Uncertainties exist 

in the 104 observed water-level measurements that were used 

to calibrate the model. Table 9 shows that the accuracy of 

these water-level altitudes ranges from +/- 0.01 ft to +/- 5 ft, 

depending on whether the altitude of the measuring point at 

the well was determined by surveying (accuracy of +/- 0.01 ft) 

or by estimation from a topographic map (accuracy of +/- 5 ft). 

This limitation led to the selection of the +/- 5-ft value as the 

water-level calibration criterion.

The resolution of the hydrogeologic framework, both 

vertically and horizontally, is a limitation of the local-model 

design. All models are an approximation of the actual flow 

system. A groundwater-flow model is generally based on a 

conceptual model that is a simplification of a natural system 

that is inherently variable and complex and for which it is not 

feasible to reconstruct every detail (Anderson and Woessner, 

1992). Because of the complicated depositional history of the 

Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer system, the complexity 

of the hydrogeologic framework cannot be fully reproduced 

with the resolution used in the model; however, an acceptable 

calibration was achieved with the discretization used.

Estimates of groundwater discharge in the outcrop area 

of the local model were not available for comparison with 

groundwater discharge simulated during model calibration; 

therefore, the simulated groundwater discharge to streams in 

the outcrop areas of the local model was compared to simulated values for streams in the regional model.

The aquifers in the local model were simulated as 

confined, although the Upper and Middle Potomac-RaritanMagothy aquifers and the Englishtown aquifer system generally are unconfined where they crop out. As previously stated, 

however, the change in water levels in the outcrop areas of 

these aquifers generally was small compared to the saturated 

thickness. This simplification does not substantially diminish the usefulness of the model for examining the effects of 

withdrawals from the confined parts of the Potomac-RaritanMagothy aquifers on water levels and groundwater discharge 

to streams.

Despite these limitations, the results of the local-model 

calibration and sensitivity analysis indicate that the model simulates groundwater flow in the confined part of the PotomacRaritan-Magothy aquifer system adequately for the objectives 

of the study—to assess the effect of changes in withdrawals 

on water levels and on the movement of groundwater from 

source areas with chloride concentrations greater than or equal 

to 250 mg/L.

2000 Baseline Simulation and Results

The 2000 baseline steady-state simulation incorporates 

the average annual 1999–2001 withdrawals from the PotomacRaritan-Magothy aquifer system by water purveyor, from 

industrial self-supply and agricultural-irrigation wells, and 

by low-volume users. Reported withdrawals (except domestic self-supply withdrawals) for 1999, 2000, and 2001 were 

obtained from the SWUDS database. Because agriculturalirrigation demand can vary widely from year to year depending on the rainfall and temperatures during growing season, 

average annual withdrawals from 1992 to 2001, depending on 

reported usage, were input for these wells (table 7). Domestic 

self-supply withdrawals were the same as those input for the 

1998 calibration simulation. The types of withdrawal data 

used in this simulation are summarized in table 11.

Withdrawals from wells in the Potomac-Raritan-Magothy 

aquifer system input to the local model are shown in tables 4 

to 7. Included in these tables are withdrawals from 25 wells 

located outside, but adjacent to, the local-model boundary. 

There are 11 industrial self-supply wells in Pennsville and 

Carneys Point Townships in Salem County. There are four 

water-purveyor wells in Gloucester County (one in Deptford 

Township, one in Clayton Borough, and two in Westville 

Borough), seven water-purveyor wells in Camden County 

(one in Gloucester Township, three in Bellmawr Borough, 

and three in Brooklawn Borough), and three water-purveyor 

wells in Pennsville Township in Salem County. To simulate 

the effect of withdrawals from the wells, all withdrawals for 

this simulation were first input to the regional model using the 

MODTMR package (Leake and Claar, 1999). This task was 

accomplished by changing the withdrawals in the model cells 

in the Salem-Gloucester study area in the regional model to 

the 2000 baseline withdrawals. Withdrawals from the wells 

located outside the local-model area were also changed to the 

2000 baseline withdrawals. Withdrawals from the other wells 

in the regional model were not changed and remained at 1998 

withdrawal values. The MODTMR output was input into 

the local model to obtain the boundary flows for the Upper, 

Middle, and Lower Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifers and 

the Englishtown aquifer system.

The 2000 baseline simulation was chosen as the baseline for comparison with the scenario results of the fullallocation and adjusted full-allocation scenarios and the 2025 

scenario. The withdrawal data were more current than the 

1998 withdrawals used in the calibration simulation, and 

the 2000 census data (Delaware Valley Regional Planning 

Commission, 2002; U.S. Census Bureau, 2006) were used to 

project withdrawals for the 2025 population-growth scenario (discussed later in this report). Withdrawal wells in the 
40 Simulated Effects of Withdrawals from the Potomac-Raritan-Magothy Aquifer System, New Jersey Table 11. Type and amount of groundwater withdrawals in the Salem-Gloucester study area, southern New Jersey, for the 1998 calibration simulation, the 2000 baseline simulation, and the six groundwater-withdrawal scenarios. [Withdrawals shown in parentheses are in million gallons per year and are rounded to the nearest integer; CA2, Critical Area 2] Type of withdrawal 1998 calibration simulation1 2000 baseline simulation1 Allocation scenario 2025 population projection scenario Full-allocation Adjusted full-allocation2 Adjusted full- allocation plus Woolwich request Adjusted full- allocation plus all requests Adjusted full- allocation plus adjusted requests Domestic self-supply Based on 2000 population and per capita water-use data3 (220) 2025 population and3 per capita water-use projection (233) Water-purveyor Reported average 1998 (7,275) Average annual reported 1999–2001 (7,307) Full-allocation4 (7,919) Full-allocation4 plus Woolwich request (8,028) Full-allocation4 plus all requests (8,762) Full-allocation4 plus adjusted requests (8,276) Full-allocation inside CA2, 2025 population estimate outside CA2 (7,788) Industrial self-supply Reported average 1998 (3,932) Average annual reported 1999–2001 (3,612) Full-allocation4 (10,510) Adjusted full allocation (6,754) Average reported 1999–2001 (3,612) Agricultural- irrigation Reported average 1998 (236) Average annual reported 1992–2001 (191) Full-allocation5 (3,301) Adjusted full- allocation (766) Adjusted full- allocation plus all requests (1,238) Adjusted full- allocation plus adjusted requests (984) Average reported 1992–2001 (191) Low-volume6 Reported average 1998 (27) Average annual reported 1999–2001 (41) Full-allocation4 (670) Average annual reported 1999–2001 (73)

7Average reported 

1999–2001

(54)

Total withdrawals8 (11,690) (11,371) (22,620) (15,732) (15,841) (17,047) (16,307) (11,878)

1Reported withdrawal data from U.S. Geological Survey Site-Specific Water Use Data System (unpublished data on file at the U.S. Geological Survey office in West Trenton, N.J.)2Adjusted full-allocation scenario includes decreased full-allocation withdrawals for wells whose full-allocation withdrawals far exceed 1998 withdrawals. At one well, withdrawals were increased.32000 population from U.S. Censuses of Population and Housing (2006). 2025 population from U.S. Census Bureau (2006) and Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission (2002). Per capita water 

use for domestic self-supply from Solley and others (1998).

4Full allocation is the maximum withdrawal permitted by the N.J. Department of Environmental Protection for a water-allocation permit in 2006.5Full allocation refers to the agricultural certification or registration.6Low-volume users withdraw less than 100,000 gallons per day; includes water-purveyor, industrial self-supply, nonagricultural-irrigation, and commercial self-supply withdrawals.7Although permit number 10792W is for a low-volume user and withdrawals for low-volume users were generally not increased from the 2000 baseline value to the 2025 scenario, withdrawals in 2025 

were increased from the 2000 baseline value because of projected growth.

8Total withdrawals are the sum of simulated withdrawals from wells in tables 4 to 7, which includes the large withdrawals adjacent to the model grid simulated as boundary conditions. This value may not 

add to totals in these tables as a result of rounding.
Simulated Effects of Allocated Withdrawals 41

Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer system used in the 2000 

baseline simulation are shown in figure 27. Simulated water 

levels in the confined part of the Potomac-Raritan-Magothy 

aquifer system are shown; however, simulated water levels 

in the confined part of the Englishtown aquifer system are 

not shown because withdrawals from this aquifer system in 

the study area are small and this aquifer is not the focus of 

the study.

Simulated water levels in the confined Upper PotomacRaritan-Magothy aquifer for the 2000 baseline simulation 

range from about 10 ft above NGVD 29 in Oldmans Township 

near the outcrop area of the aquifer to more than 70 ft below 

NGVD 29 in a small cone of depression around a waterpurveyor well (15-1365) in Washington Township in Critical 

Area 2 (fig. 28A). In Carneys Point Township, two small cones 

of depression centered on water-purveyor wells (33-767 and 

33-460, and 33-361, respectively) are observed. Small cones 

of depression are also observed in West Deptford Township 

(water-purveyor well 15-276), and in Wenonah (water-purveyor wells 15-274 and 15-275) and Glassboro (water-purveyor well 15-63) Boroughs. A small cone of depression also 

is observed in Pilesgrove Township (agricultural-irrigation 

well 33-922). The average and lowest simulated water levels 

for the 2000 baseline simulation in the Upper PotomacRaritan-Magothy aquifer are 31 and 77 ft below NGVD 29, 

respectively (table 12 at end of report).

Simulated water levels in the confined Middle PotomacRaritan-Magothy aquifer for the 2000 baseline simulation 

range from about 10 ft above NGVD 29 in Oldmans Township 

near the outcrop area of the aquifer to more than 60 ft below 

NGVD 29 in Critical Area 2 in the Washington Township 

area (fig. 28B). Cones of depression are observed in Deptford 

(water-purveyor well 15-374) and in Oldmans Townships 

(water-purveyor well 33-070). The average and lowest simulated water levels in the Middle Potomac-Raritan-Magothy 

aquifer for the 2000 baseline simulation are 27 and 65 ft below 

NGVD 29, respectively (table 12).

Simulated water levels in the Lower Potomac-RaritanMagothy aquifer for the 2000 baseline simulation range from 

about NGVD 29 in the western updip limit of the aquifer to 

more than 50 ft below NGVD 29 in the Washington Township area (fig. 28C). A small cone of depression is centered 

on a water-purveyor well (33-346) in Carneys Point Township. In West Deptford Township, a small cone of depression 

is centered on an industrial self-supply well (15-321) and a 

larger cone of depression is centered on a water-purveyor well 

(15-312). A cone of depression is also observed in National 

Park Borough (water-purveyor well 15-533). The average and 

lowest simulated water levels in the Lower Potomac-RaritanMagothy aquifer for the 2000 baseline simulation are 30 and 

59 ft below NGVD 29, respectively (table 12).

Simulated withdrawals total about 42 percent 

(9,644 Mgal/yr), and simulated groundwater discharge to 

streams and wetlands is about 37 percent (8,441 Mgal/yr) 

of outflow. Specified flows at bordering hydrogeologic units 

(including the confined Englishtown aquifer system at the 

top of the model) account for about 18 percent of inflow 

(4,077 Mgal/yr) and account for about 12 percent of outflow 

(2,747 Mgal/yr). Simulated recharge is 78 percent of inflow 

(17,937 Mgal/yr) and was not changed from the 1998 calibration simulation. Simulated groundwater discharge to the Delaware River accounts for the remaining percentage of inflow 

(4 percent) and outflow (9 percent) and is a net flow from the 

Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer system to the river of about 

5 percent (1,183 Mgal/yr). Simulated flow-budget components 

for streams and the Delaware River in the local model for the 

2000 baseline simulation are summarized in table 12. All flowbudget values are rounded to the nearest integer.

Simulated Effects of Allocated 

Withdrawals

As mentioned previously, groundwater withdrawals 

from wells screened in the Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer system in the study area were divided into five separate 

water-user categories: water-purveyor, industrial self-supply, 

low-volume, agricultural-irrigation, and domestic self-supply. 

The water-purveyor and industrial self-supply withdrawals are 

by users with allocations exceeding 100,000 gal/d permitted 

by the State, and low-volume withdrawals are by users with 

allocations less than 100,000 gal/d. Water users in New Jersey 

who divert 100,000 gal/d or more of ground and (or) surface 

water are required to obtain a water-allocation permit from 

the NJDEP, water users who withdraw less than 100,000 gal/d 

are issued well registrations, and agricultural/horticultural 

users are issued agricultural certifications (greater than 

70 gal/min and greater than or equal to 3.1 Mgal/month) or 

agricultural registrations (greater than 70 gal/min and less than 

3.1 Mgal/month). Although a single water-allocation permit, 

well registration, or agricultural certification or registration 

may cover multiple groundwater and surface-water sources, 

the withdrawals considered in this report are only those attributed to the Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer system. The 

maximum permitted withdrawals per water-allocation permit, 

well registration, or agricultural certification or registration 

(referred to as “full allocation” in this report) used in these 

scenarios reflect information listed in NJDEP BWA files as of 

March 2006.

Description of Allocation-Based Scenarios

Five scenarios were simulated using the permitted allocation withdrawals and increases or decreases to these withdrawals (table 11). The first scenario, referred to in this report as the 

full-allocation scenario, simulated full-allocation conditions, 

the maximum withdrawal amounts permitted by the NJDEP 

with those wells with a water-allocation permit, well registration, or agricultural certification or registration (tables 4–7). 

A second scenario, referred to as the adjusted full-allocation 
42 Simulated Effects of Withdrawals from the Potomac-Raritan-Magothy Aquifer System, New Jersey

ALLOWAY TOWNSHIP

ELK TOWNSHIP PILESGROVE TOWNSHIP

LOGAN TOWNSHIP

MANNINGTON

TOWNSHIP UPPER PITTSGROVE TOWNSHIP

WOOLWICH TOWNSHIP

OLDMANS

TOWNSHIP HARRISON TOWNSHIP

MANTUA TOWNSHIP

WASHINGTON

TOWNSHIP

DEPTFORD

TOWNSHIP

CARNEYS POINT TOWNSHIP

WEST DEPTFORD

TOWNSHIP

SOUTH HARRISON TOWNSHIP

GREENWICH TOWNSHIP

EAST GREENWICH TOWNSHIP

MONROE

TOWNSHIP

GLOUCESTER

TOWNSHIP

GLASSBORO

BOROUGH

WINSLOW

TOWNSHIP

CLAYTON

BOROUGH

PENNSVILLE

TOWNSHIP

PITMAN

BOROUGH

PAULSBORO

BOROUGH WOODBURY

CITY

UPPER DEERFIELD 

TOWNSHIP

QUINTON

TOWNSHIP

HOPEWELL

TOWNSHIP

WOODSTOWN

BOROUGH

NATIONAL PARK 

BOROUGH

WESTVILLE BOROUGH

WENONAH

BOROUGH

FRANKLIN

TOWNSHIP

ELMER

BOROUGH

WOODBURY HEIGHTS 

BOROUGH

PENNS GROVE

BOROUGH

SWEDESBORO

BOROUGH

GLOUCESTER CITY

STOW CREEK

TOWNSHIP

BROOKLAWN BOROUGH

PITTSGROVE 

TOWNSHIP

PINE HILL

BOROUGH

PITTSGROVE

TOWNSHIP

Salem County

Gloucester County

Camden

County

39°52’30”

39°45’

75°22’30”

75°15’

75°7’30”

75°

75°30’

BELLMAWR

BOROUGH

RUNNEMEDE

BOROUGH

Delaware River

Delaware River

S T U D Y - A R E A B O U N D A R Y

0 2 4 6 MILES

0 2 4 6 KILOMETERS

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:24,000,

Universal Transverse Mercator Projection, Zone 18

39°37’30”

39°30’

A

33-137

33-330

33-346

33-984

33-964

33-432

33-899

15-1527

15-1526

15-282

15-285

15-283

15-1488

15-304

15-306

15-373 15-533

15-207 15-320

15-24

33-962

33-898

33-129

33-602

33-298

33-305

33-198

33-70 33-845

33-1006

33-1011

33-1010

15-137

15-1571

15-1570

33-164

33-1007

33-1012

15-569

15-697

15-286

33-933

33-362

33-459

33-67

15-1363

15-1362

15-167

15-158

15-1036 15-159

15-166

15-1339

15-1176

15-1222 15-1485

15-1

7-252

15-3

33-922 15-1558

15-1561 15-361 15-60

33-920

15-62 15-1105

33-1009

33-460 15-422

15-63 15-1370

15-1365 15-1460

15-248

15-385 15-337

15-339 15-1462

15-130 15-225

15-227 15-1112 15-183

15-1532

15-1529 15-1598 15-132

15-240 15-1603 15-260

15-346 15-265

15-1407 15-267

15-1615

15-8

15-524

15-1585

15-1447

15-6

15-433 15-1159 15-191 15-192 15-1566 15-1613 15-1664

15-1069 7-600 7-250

15-194 15-274 15-268

15-275 15-28

15-421 15-276 7-249 15-1346 15-16

15-17 15-295

15-1089

33-900

33-901

15-312

15-430

15-321

15-322

33-322

33-857

33-983

33-784

33-85 15-1569

33-354

15-1568

15-1554

15-374

15-1607

33-316

33-767

33-750 15-1109

15-1565 15-238

15-1371

33-697

33-361

15-1533

15-193

15-355

15-330

15-1461

GREENWICH TOWNSHIP

PAULSBORO

BOROUGH

Delaware River 15-1383

15-1401

15-1378

15-1124

15-1034

15-348 15-1199

15-72 15-213

15-692

15-1364

15-1597

15-1405

15-1404

15-212 15-347 15-647

15-76

15-1402

15-79

15-1403 15-1039

15-1409

15-1374

15-824 15-1122

15-1121 15-1415

15-1120

15-1414

15-1541

15-1408

A

WATER SUPPLY CRITICAL AREA 2—From N.J. Department of Environmental

 Protection, unpublished, 1:250,000. Boundaries are approximate and should

 not be used for regulatory compliance purposes

EXTENT OF MODEL GRID

LOCATION OF WITHDRAWAL WELL—Number is U.S. Geological Survey

 well number

 Upper Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer

 Middle Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer

 Lower Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer

EXPLANATION

15-167

15-283

15-16

33-125

33-123

33-122

33-671

33-972

33-971

7-8

7-601

7-531

7-596

7-520

15-327

15-326

7-12

Figure 27. Location of withdrawal wells and wells simulated as boundary flows in the Upper, Middle, and Lower Potomac-RaritanMagothy aquifers for the 2000 baseline simulation and 2025 scenario, Salem-Gloucester study area, southern New Jersey.
Simulated Effects of Allocated Withdrawals 43

ALLOWAY TOWNSHIP

ELK TOWNSHIP PILESGROVE TOWNSHIP

LOGAN TOWNSHIP

MANNINGTON

TOWNSHIP UPPER PITTSGROVE TOWNSHIP

WOOLWICH TOWNSHIP

OLDMANS

TOWNSHIP HARRISON TOWNSHIP

MANTUA TOWNSHIP

WASHINGTON

TOWNSHIP

DEPTFORD

TOWNSHIP

CARNEYS POINT TOWNSHIP

WEST DEPTFORD

TOWNSHIP

SOUTH HARRISON TOWNSHIP

GREENWICH TOWNSHIP

EAST GREENWICH TOWNSHIP

MONROE

TOWNSHIP

GLOUCESTER

TOWNSHIP

GLASSBORO

BOROUGH

WINSLOW

TOWNSHIP

CLAYTON

BOROUGH

PENNSVILLE

TOWNSHIP

PITMAN

BOROUGH

PAULSBORO

BOROUGH WOODBURY

CITY

UPPER DEERFIELD 

TOWNSHIP

QUINTON

TOWNSHIP

HOPEWELL

TOWNSHIP

WOODSTOWN

BOROUGH

NATIONAL PARK 

BOROUGH

WESTVILLE BOROUGH

WENONAH

BOROUGH

FRANKLIN

TOWNSHIP

ELMER

BOROUGH

WOODBURY HEIGHTS 

BOROUGH

PENNS GROVE

BOROUGH

SWEDESBORO

BOROUGH

GLOUCESTER CITY

STOW CREEK

TOWNSHIP

BROOKLAWN BOROUGH

PITTSGROVE 

TOWNSHIP

PINE HILL

BOROUGH

PITTSGROVE

TOWNSHIP

Salem County

Gloucester County

Camden

County

39°52’30”

39°45’

75°22’30”

75°15’

75°7’30”

75°

75°30’

BELLMAWR

BOROUGH

RUNNEMEDE

BOROUGH

Delaware River

Delaware River

S T U D Y - A R E A B O U N D A R Y

0 2 4 6 MILES

0 2 4 6 KILOMETERS

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:24,000,

Universal Transverse Mercator Projection, Zone 18

39°37’30”

39°30’

-30

0

-20

-10

-40

-50

-60

10

-60

0

-20

-40

-60

-60 -70

-50

-10

DISCRETIZED OUTCROP AREA OF THE UPPER POTOMAC-RARITAN-MAGOTHY AQUIFER

WATER SUPPLY CRITICAL AREA 2—From N.J. Department of Environmental Protection, unpublished,

 1:250,000. Boundaries are approximate and should not be used for regulatory compliance purposes

BOUNDARY OF THE ACTIVE MODEL AREA—Upper Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer

SIMULATED POTENTIOMETRIC CONTOUR—Shows the simulated altitude

 at which water would have stood in a tightly cased well. Contour

 interval 10 feet. Datum is NGVD 29

WITHDRAWAL WELL—Withdrawals are from the Upper

 Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer. Well identification

 shown in figure 27

EXPLANATION

-50

A

Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer, and, C, Lower Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer for the 2000 baseline simulation, Salem-Gloucester 

study area, southern New Jersey.

Figure 28. Steady-state potentiometric surface in the, A, confined Upper Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer, B, confined Middle 
44 Simulated Effects of Withdrawals from the Potomac-Raritan-Magothy Aquifer System, New Jersey

DISCRETIZED OUTCROP AREA OF THE MIDDLE POTOMAC-RARITAN-MAGOTHY AQUIFER

WATER SUPPLY CRITICAL AREA 2—From N.J. Department of Environmental Protection, unpublished,

 1:250,000. Boundaries are approximate and should not be used for regulatory compliance purposes

BOUNDARY OF THE ACTIVE MODEL AREA—Middle Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer

SIMULATED POTENTIOMETRIC CONTOUR—Shows the simulated altitude

 at which water would have stood in a tightly cased well. Contour

 interval 10 feet. Datum is NGVD 29

WITHDRAWAL WELL—Withdrawals are from the Middle

 Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer. Well identification

 shown in figure 27

EXPLANATION

-50

ALLOWAY TOWNSHIP

ELK TOWNSHIP PILESGROVE TOWNSHIP

LOGAN TOWNSHIP

MANNINGTON

TOWNSHIP UPPER PITTSGROVE TOWNSHIP

WOOLWICH TOWNSHIP

OLDMANS

TOWNSHIP HARRISON TOWNSHIP

MANTUA TOWNSHIP

WASHINGTON

TOWNSHIP

DEPTFORD

TOWNSHIP

CARNEYS POINT TOWNSHIP

WEST DEPTFORD

TOWNSHIP

SOUTH HARRISON TOWNSHIP

GREENWICH TOWNSHIP

EAST GREENWICH TOWNSHIP

MONROE

TOWNSHIP

GLOUCESTER

TOWNSHIP

GLASSBORO

BOROUGH

WINSLOW

TOWNSHIP

CLAYTON

BOROUGH

PENNSVILLE

TOWNSHIP

PITMAN

BOROUGH

PAULSBORO

BOROUGH WOODBURY

CITY

UPPER DEERFIELD 

TOWNSHIP

QUINTON

TOWNSHIP

HOPEWELL

TOWNSHIP

WOODSTOWN

BOROUGH

NATIONAL PARK 

BOROUGH

WESTVILLE BOROUGH

WENONAH

BOROUGH

FRANKLIN

TOWNSHIP

ELMER

BOROUGH

WOODBURY HEIGHTS 

BOROUGH

PENNS GROVE

BOROUGH

SWEDESBORO

BOROUGH

GLOUCESTER CITY

STOW CREEK

TOWNSHIP

BROOKLAWN BOROUGH

PITTSGROVE 

TOWNSHIP

PINE HILL

BOROUGH

PITTSGROVE

TOWNSHIP

Salem County

Gloucester County

Camden

County

39°52’30”

39°45’

75°22’30”

75°15’

75°7’30”

75°

75°30’

BELLMAWR

BOROUGH

RUNNEMEDE

BOROUGH

Delaware River

Delaware River

S T U D Y - A R E A B O U N D A R Y

0 2 4 6 MILES

0 2 4 6 KILOMETERS

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:24,000,

Universal Transverse Mercator Projection, Zone 18

39°37’30”

39°30’

0

-30

-10

-20

-40

-50

-60

10

1

-20

-50

0

0

B

Figure 28. Steady-state potentiometric surface in the, A, confined Upper Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer, B, confined Middle 

Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer, and, C, Lower Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer for the 2000 baseline simulation, Salem-Gloucester 

study area, southern New Jersey.—Continued
Simulated Effects of Allocated Withdrawals 45

WATER SUPPLY CRITICAL AREA 2—From N.J. Department of Environmental Protection, unpublished,

 1:250,000. Boundaries are approximate and should not be used for regulatory compliance purposes

BOUNDARY OF THE ACTIVE MODEL AREA—Lower Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer

SIMULATED POTENTIOMETRIC CONTOUR—Shows the simulated altitude at which

 water would have stood in a tightly cased well. Contour interval 10 feet.

 Datum is NGVD 29

WITHDRAWAL WELL—Withdrawals are from the Lower

 Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer. Well identification

 shown in figure 27

EXPLANATION

-50

S T U D Y - A R E A B O U N D A R Y

ALLOWAY TOWNSHIP

ELK TOWNSHIP PILESGROVE TOWNSHIP

LOGAN TOWNSHIP

MANNINGTON

TOWNSHIP UPPER PITTSGROVE TOWNSHIP

WOOLWICH TOWNSHIP

OLDMANS

TOWNSHIP HARRISON TOWNSHIP

MANTUA TOWNSHIP

WASHINGTON

TOWNSHIP

DEPTFORD

TOWNSHIP

CARNEYS POINT TOWNSHIP

WEST DEPTFORD

TOWNSHIP

SOUTH HARRISON TOWNSHIP

GREENWICH TOWNSHIP

EAST GREENWICH TOWNSHIP

MONROE

TOWNSHIP

GLOUCESTER

TOWNSHIP

GLASSBORO

BOROUGH

WINSLOW

TOWNSHIP

CLAYTON

BOROUGH

PENNSVILLE

TOWNSHIP

PITMAN

BOROUGH

PAULSBORO

BOROUGH WOODBURY

CITY

UPPER DEERFIELD 

TOWNSHIP

QUINTON

TOWNSHIP

HOPEWELL

TOWNSHIP

WOODSTOWN

BOROUGH

NATIONAL PARK 

BOROUGH

WESTVILLE BOROUGH

WENONAH

BOROUGH

FRANKLIN

TOWNSHIP

ELMER

BOROUGH

WOODBURY HEIGHTS 

BOROUGH

PENNS GROVE

BOROUGH

SWEDESBORO

BOROUGH

GLOUCESTER CITY

STOW CREEK

TOWNSHIP

BROOKLAWN BOROUGH

PITTSGROVE 

TOWNSHIP

PINE HILL

BOROUGH

PITTSGROVE

TOWNSHIP

Salem County

Gloucester County

Camden

County

39°52’30”

39°45’

75°22’30”

75°15’

75°7’30”

75°

75°30’

BELLMAWR

BOROUGH

RUNNEMEDE

BOROUGH

Delaware River

Delaware River

0 2 4 6 MILES

0 2 4 6 KILOMETERS

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:24,000,

Universal Transverse Mercator Projection, Zone 18

39°37’30”

39°30’

-20

-30

-40

-10

-50

0

0

0

-30

-40

-40

C

Figure 28. Steady-state potentiometric surface in the, A, confined Upper Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer, B, confined Middle 

Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer, and, C, Lower Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer for the 2000 baseline simulation, Salem-Gloucester 

study area, southern New Jersey.—Continued
46 Simulated Effects of Withdrawals from the Potomac-Raritan-Magothy Aquifer System, New Jersey

scenario, simulated a decrease in the full-allocation amount for 

one industrial self-supply user and 12 agricultural-irrigation 

users that withdrew an amount of water far less than the 

permitted amount (table 7). Also, one agricultural-irrigation 

well simulated an increase in the full-allocation amount. In 

this scenario, withdrawals from other wells were the same as 

those under full-allocation conditions. Because a certification 

amount commonly includes withdrawals from both groundwater and surface-water sources, this allocation can exceed 

withdrawals from groundwater; therefore, the full-allocation 

amounts for the 13 agricultural-irrigation users were assigned 

by using one or more of the following criteria: reported historical use; the well’s pump capacity; and, for some agriculturalirrigation wells, four times the monthly certification amount 

(to represent the growing season). A third scenario, referred to 

as the adjusted full-allocation plus Woolwich request scenario, 

included the same wells as those in the second scenario but 

withdrawals from two water-purveyor wells in Woolwich 

Township were increased (table 5). A fourth scenario, referred 

to as the adjusted full-allocation plus all requests scenario, 

used the same withdrawals as in the second scenario except 

that withdrawals were increased at wells for four water purveyors and six agricultural-irrigation users (tables 5 and 7). A 

fifth scenario, referred to as the adjusted full-allocation plus 

adjusted requests scenario, incorporated a decrease in the 

requested withdrawals for the four water-purveyor and one of 

the agricultural-irrigation wells for which withdrawals were 

increased in the fourth scenario. Only withdrawals from existing wells in the study area were used in these scenarios.

The withdrawals from wells included in these scenarios 

are shown in tables 4 to 7. These tables also include withdrawals from 26 wells (tables 4-7) located outside, but adjacent to, 

the local-model boundary, including the 25 wells included in 

the 2000 baseline simulation and an additional agriculturalirrigation well in Mannington Township in Salem County. 

To simulate the effect of withdrawals from these wells, all 

withdrawals for this scenario were first input to in the regional 

model using the MODTMR package (Leake and Claar, 1999). 

In the regional model, only these 26 wells and the wells within 

the Salem-Gloucester study area were assigned the withdrawals used in the scenarios; withdrawals from all other wells in 

the regional model remained at 1998 values. The MODTMR 

output for each scenario was input into the local model to 

obtain the boundary flows for the Upper, Middle, and Lower 

Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifers and the Englishtown aquifer system for that scenario.

Withdrawals

Water-purveyor, industrial self-supply, low-volume, and 

agricultural-irrigation withdrawals from the Potomac-RaritanMagothy aquifer system and domestic self-supply withdrawals 

from the Potomac-Raritan-Magothy and Englishtown aquifer 

systems were input into the local model. Allocated withdrawals for water purveyors and for industrial self-supply users are 

designated by NJDEP water-allocation permits (tables 4–7). 

Allocated withdrawals for low-volume users are designated by 

NJDEP water registrations (table 5). Allocated withdrawals for 

agricultural-irrigation users are designated by NJDEP agricultural/horticultural certifications or registrations (table 7). 

Each permit, registration, or certification may cover the total 

annual withdrawal from one or more wells, or, in the case of 

agricultural-irrigation users, surface-water sources also (see 

“Simulated Effects of Allocated Withdrawals”). To estimate 

the allocation for each well under one water-allocation permit, 

a percentage of the withdrawals from 1999 to 2001 from all 

wells designated by one permit was calculated for each well 

associated with that permit. This percentage was applied to all 

wells associated with that permit, registration, or certification, 

except where noted in tables 4 to 7. In the case of low-volume 

users, where only monthly allocations are available, annual 

full-allocation amounts were estimated by multiplying the 

monthly allocation (3.1 Mgal/month) by 12.

Water-Purveyor and Industrial Self-Supply

Full-allocation withdrawals were used for water-purveyor 

and industrial self-supply wells in the full-allocation scenario 

(tables 4–7). The same withdrawals were used in the adjusted 

full-allocation scenario, except for one industrial self-supply 

user whose full-allocation withdrawal was substantially 

greater than the reported withdrawals. The withdrawals for 

this one user were decreased (table 7). 

Low-Volume

For the full-allocation scenario, a withdrawal of 

37.2 Mgal/yr was assigned to each low-volume user in table 5. 

For the adjusted full-allocation scenario, the 2000 baseline 

simulation withdrawals were used, except one water purveyor 

was assigned the full-allocation withdrawals.

Agricultural-Irrigation

The model includes 25 agricultural-irrigation users 

(table 7). In the full-allocation scenario, the agricultural certification amounts were used as the withdrawals for these wells. 

In the adjusted full-allocation scenario, 12 of the 25 agricultural-irrigation users were assigned a decreased certification 

amount because the certification amounts are much larger 

than the reported withdrawals and one well was assigned an 

increased certification amount. The remaining 12 agriculturalirrigation users were assigned the same agricultural certification or registration amount used in the full-allocation scenario.

Domestic Self-Supply

The domestic self-supply withdrawals used in the model 

were the same as those used in the 1998 calibration and 2000 

baseline simulations (table 8).
Simulated Effects of Allocated Withdrawals 47

Scenario Results

Simulated steady-state water levels for the confined part 

of the Upper and Middle Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifers and the Lower Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer are 

presented in this section. A flow budget is presented for each 

scenario. Results for the Englishtown aquifer system are not 

presented because withdrawals from this aquifer in the study 

area are small and are only from domestic self-supply wells.

The area in which water levels in the Upper, Middle, and 

Lower Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifers are lower than 30 ft 

below NGVD 29 but above 30 ft below NGVD 29 in either 

the 2000 baseline simulation or the adjusted full-allocation 

scenario are shown for the five scenarios. The location of the 

30 ft below NGVD 29 water-level contour in these aquifers in 

Camden, Gloucester, and Burlington Counties shown in Eckel 

and Walker (1986) became a groundwater-withdrawal management criterion used by the NJDEP in Critical Area 2 (New 

Jersey Administrative Code, 2005). 

Full-Allocation Scenario

Withdrawal wells in the Upper, Middle, and Lower 

Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifers used in the full-allocation 

scenario are shown in figure 29. In six municipalities, water 

purveyors pumped less in the full-allocation scenario than in 

the 2000 baseline simulation because they pumped more than 

their permitted allocations during 1999–2001 (table 4). Simulated withdrawals from wells in the full-allocation scenario are 

given in tables 4 to 7. Results of this scenario are compared to 

results of the 2000 baseline simulation.

Simulated water levels in the confined Upper and Middle 

and Lower Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifers for the fullallocation scenario are shown in figure 30, and the change in 

simulated water levels from the 2000 baseline simulation to 

the full-allocation scenario are shown in figure 31. Simulated 

water levels in the confined Upper Potomac-Raritan-Magothy 

aquifer in the full-allocation scenario range from NGVD 29 at 

the outcrop area of the aquifer near the Delaware River in Oldmans and Carneys Point Townships to more than 80 ft below 

NGVD 29 in four small cones of depression observed around 

water-purveyor wells (15-248, 15-260, 15-267, and 15-1365, 

respectively) in Washington Township in Critical Area 2, and 

more than 150 ft below NGVD 29 in a cone of depression 

centered on an agricultural-irrigation well (15-1664) in East 

Greenwich Township (fig. 30A). The agricultural-irrigation 

well exhibited the greatest water-level decline (128 ft) from 

the 2000 baseline simulation (table 12). The full-allocation 

withdrawal for this well is much larger than the withdrawal 

in the 2000 baseline simulation (table 7). The water-level 

decline at this well was large because the full allocation for the 

water-allocation permit was simulated in one well, although 

the water-allocation permit is a combined surface-water and 

groundwater permit and a portion of the allocation could be 

from surface-water sources. When compared to the 2000 baseline simulation (fig. 28A), two cones of depression centered 

on two agricultural-irrigation wells (15-337 and 15-1462, 

respectively) developed in Woolwich Township, and a cone 

of depression developed around an agricultural-irrigation well 

(15-1561) in South Harrison Township. Simulated water levels 

declined from the 2000 baseline simulation about 60 ft in 

Woolwich Township as a result of the increase in withdrawals 

from these two agricultural-irrigation wells (fig. 31A). Simulated water levels in this aquifer in Woolwich Township are 

lower than those in the underlying Middle Potomac-RaritanMagothy aquifer in the area of these wells; therefore, groundwater flows upward from the Middle to the Upper aquifer. The 

average simulated water level in the Upper Potomac-RaritanMagothy aquifer for the full-allocation scenario is 49 ft below 

NGVD 29, 18 ft lower than in the 2000 baseline simulation 

(table 12).

 Simulated water levels in the confined Middle PotomacRaritan-Magothy aquifer in the full-allocation scenario range 

from NGVD 29 at the outcrop area of the aquifer to more 

than 90 ft below NGVD 29 in a cone of depression in East 

Greenwich Township caused by the large withdrawal from 

an agricultural-irrigation well (15-1664) in the overlying 

Upper Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer (fig. 30B, table 7). 

When compared to the 2000 baseline simulation, the largest 

water-level decline simulated in the Middle Potomac-RaritanMagothy aquifer in this scenario was more than 65 ft at this 

well (fig. 31B, table 12). When compared to the 2000 baseline 

simulation (fig. 28B), cones of depression are observed at a 

water-purveyor well (33-933) in Woodstown Borough, an 

agricultural-irrigation well (33-198) in Pilesgrove Township, 

and an industrial self-supply well (33-305) in Carneys Point 

Township. The average simulated water level in the Middle 

Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer for the full-allocation 

scenario is 43 ft below NGVD of 1929, 16 ft lower than in the 

2000 baseline simulation (table 12).

Simulated water levels in the Lower Potomac-RaritanMagothy aquifer in the full-allocation scenario range from 

about NGVD 29 in the northern updip limit of the aquifer 

to more than 60 ft below NGVD 29 in the eastern part of 

the model area in Critical Area 2, and in the western part of 

the model area in Carneys Point Township (fig. 30C). When 

compared to the 2000 baseline simulation (fig. 28C), a cone of 

depression is observed around a cluster of five industrial selfsupply wells (33-899, 33-900, 33-901, 33-964, and 33-984) 

in Oldmans Township. The largest water-level decline in this 

aquifer in this scenario was about 36 ft below NGVD 29 in 

Carneys Point Township near the model boundary (fig. 31C, 

table 12). The average simulated water level in the Lower 

Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer for the full-allocation scenario is 48 ft below NGVD of 1929, 18 ft lower than the 2000 

baseline simulation (table 12).

The areas in the Upper, Middle, and Lower PotomacRaritan-Magothy aquifers in which simulated water levels 

are lower than 30 ft below NGVD 29 in the full-allocation 

scenario but above 30 ft below NGVD 29 in the 2000 baseline simulation are shown in figure 30. These areas increased 

in size from the area in the 2000 baseline simulation by 
48 Simulated Effects of Withdrawals from the Potomac-Raritan-Magothy Aquifer System, New Jersey

ALLOWAY TOWNSHIP

ELK TOWNSHIP PILESGROVE TOWNSHIP

LOGAN TOWNSHIP

MANNINGTON

TOWNSHIP UPPER PITTSGROVE TOWNSHIP

WOOLWICH TOWNSHIP

OLDMANS

TOWNSHIP HARRISON TOWNSHIP

MANTUA TOWNSHIP

WASHINGTON

TOWNSHIP

DEPTFORD

TOWNSHIP

CARNEYS POINT TOWNSHIP

WEST DEPTFORD

TOWNSHIP

SOUTH HARRISON TOWNSHIP

GREENWICH TOWNSHIP

EAST GREENWICH TOWNSHIP

MONROE

TOWNSHIP

GLOUCESTER

TOWNSHIP

GLASSBORO

BOROUGH

WINSLOW

TOWNSHIP

CLAYTON

BOROUGH

PENNSVILLE

TOWNSHIP

PITMAN

BOROUGH

PAULSBORO

BOROUGH WOODBURY

CITY

UPPER DEERFIELD 

TOWNSHIP

QUINTON

TOWNSHIP

HOPEWELL

TOWNSHIP

WOODSTOWN

BOROUGH

NATIONAL PARK 

BOROUGH

WESTVILLE BOROUGH

WENONAH

BOROUGH

FRANKLIN

TOWNSHIP

ELMER

BOROUGH

WOODBURY HEIGHTS 

BOROUGH

PENNS GROVE

BOROUGH

SWEDESBORO

BOROUGH

GLOUCESTER CITY

STOW CREEK

TOWNSHIP

BROOKLAWN BOROUGH

PITTSGROVE 

TOWNSHIP

PINE HILL

BOROUGH

PITTSGROVE

TOWNSHIP

Salem County

Gloucester County

Camden

County

39°52’30”

39°45’

75°22’30”

75°15’

75°7’30”

75°

75°30’

BELLMAWR

BOROUGH

RUNNEMEDE

BOROUGH

Delaware River

Delaware River

S T U D Y - A R E A B O U N D A R Y

0 2 4 6 MILES

0 2 4 6 KILOMETERS

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:24,000,

Universal Transverse Mercator Projection, Zone 18

39°37’30”

39°30’

33-137

33-330

33-346

15-1527

15-1526

15-282

15-285

15-283 15-1488

15-304

15-306

15-373 15-533

15-207 15-320

15-24

33-962

33-898

33-129

33-602

33-298

33-305

33-198

33-70

33-845

33-1006

33-1011

33-1010

15-137

15-1571

15-1570

33-164

33-1007

33-1012

15-569

15-697 15-286

33-933

33-362 33-459

33-67

15-1363

15-1362

15-167 15-158 15-1036

15-159

15-166

15-1339 15-399

15-1176

15-1222

15-1485

15-1

7-252

15-3

33-996 33-922 15-1558

15-1561 15-361 15-60

33-920

15-62 15-1105

33-1009

33-460

15-422

15-63 15-1370 15-1365 15-1460

15-248

15-385

15-127

15-337 15-339

15-1609 15-1462 15-130 15-225

15-227 15-183

15-1112

15-1532

15-1529 15-1598 15-132

15-1603 15-240 15-260 15-346 15-265 15-1407

15-267

15-8

15-524

15-1585

15-1447

15-6

15-191 15-433 15-1159 15-192 15-1566

15-1613 15-1664

7-600

15-1069 7-250

15-194 15-268 15-274

15-548 15-275 15-28

15-421 15-276 7-249 15-1346 15-16

15-17

15-295

15-1089

15-312

15-430 15-321

15-322

15-1691

33-322

33-857

33-983

33-964 33-984

33-432

33-899

33-900

33-901

33-784

33-85 15-1569

33-354

15-1568

15-1554

15-374

15-1607

33-316

33-767

33-750 15-1109

15-238 15-1565 15-1610

15-1371

33-697

33-361

15-1533

15-193

15-355

15-330

15-1461

A

GREENWICH TOWNSHIP

PAULSBORO

BOROUGH

Delaware River 15-1383

15-1401

15-1378

15-1124

15-1034

15-348 15-1199

15-72 15-213

15-692

15-1364

15-1597

15-1405

15-1404

15-212 15-347 15-647

15-76

15-1402

15-79

15-1403 15-1039

15-1409

15-1374

15-824 15-1122

15-1121 15-1415

15-1120

15-1414

15-1541

15-1408

A

WATER SUPPLY CRITICAL AREA 2—From N.J. Department of Environmental

 Protection, unpublished, 1:250,000. Boundaries are approximate and should

 not be used for regulatory compliance purposes

EXTENT OF MODEL GRID

LOCATION OF WITHDRAWAL WELL—Number is U.S. Geological Survey

 well number

 Upper Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer

 Middle Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer

 Lower Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer

EXPLANATION

15-167

15-283

15-16

33-125

33-123

33-122

33-671

33-972

33-971

7-8

7-601

7-531

7-596

7-520

15-327

15-326

7-12

Figure 29. Location of withdrawal wells simulated in the model and wells simulated as boundary flows in the Upper, Middle, and Lower 

Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifers for the full-allocation scenario, Salem-Gloucester study area, southern New Jersey.
Simulated Effects of Allocated Withdrawals 49

ALLOWAY TOWNSHIP

ELK TOWNSHIP PILESGROVE TOWNSHIP

LOGAN TOWNSHIP

MANNINGTON

TOWNSHIP UPPER PITTSGROVE TOWNSHIP

WOOLWICH TOWNSHIP

OLDMANS

TOWNSHIP HARRISON TOWNSHIP

MANTUA TOWNSHIP

WASHINGTON

TOWNSHIP

DEPTFORD

TOWNSHIP

CARNEYS POINT TOWNSHIP

WEST DEPTFORD

TOWNSHIP

SOUTH HARRISON TOWNSHIP

GREENWICH TOWNSHIP

EAST GREENWICH TOWNSHIP

MONROE

TOWNSHIP

GLOUCESTER

TOWNSHIP

GLASSBORO

BOROUGH

WINSLOW

TOWNSHIP

CLAYTON

BOROUGH

PENNSVILLE

TOWNSHIP

PITMAN

BOROUGH

PAULSBORO

BOROUGH WOODBURY

CITY

UPPER DEERFIELD 

TOWNSHIP

QUINTON

TOWNSHIP

HOPEWELL

TOWNSHIP

WOODSTOWN

BOROUGH

NATIONAL PARK 

BOROUGH

WESTVILLE BOROUGH

WENONAH

BOROUGH

FRANKLIN

TOWNSHIP

ELMER

BOROUGH

WOODBURY HEIGHTS 

BOROUGH

PENNS GROVE

BOROUGH

SWEDESBORO

BOROUGH

GLOUCESTER CITY

STOW CREEK

TOWNSHIP

BROOKLAWN BOROUGH

PITTSGROVE 

TOWNSHIP

PINE HILL

BOROUGH

PITTSGROVE

TOWNSHIP

Salem County

Gloucester County

Camden

County

39°52’30”

39°45’

75°22’30”

75°15’

75°7’30”

75°

75°30’

BELLMAWR

BOROUGH

RUNNEMEDE

BOROUGH

Delaware River

Delaware River

S T U D Y - A R E A B O U N D A R Y

0 2 4 6 MILES

0 2 4 6 KILOMETERS

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:24,000,

Universal Transverse Mercator Projection, Zone 18

39°37’30”

39°30’

-40

-30

-50

-20

-60

0

-70

-10

-50

-80

-20

-20

-10

-50

-50

-150

-80

-70

-70

-70

-70

-20

DISCRETIZED OUTCROP AREA OF THE UPPER POTOMAC-RARITAN-MAGOTHY AQUIFER

WATER SUPPLY CRITICAL AREA 2—From N.J. Department of Environmental Protection, unpublished,

 1:250,000. Boundaries are approximate and should not be used for regulatory compliance purposes

AREA IN WHICH SIMULATED WATER LEVELS ARE ABOVE -30 FEET IN THE 2000 BASELINE

 SIMULATION AND BELOW -30 FEET IN THE FULL-ALLOCATION SCENARIO—Area is 112.9 square

 miles. Datum is NGVD 29

BOUNDARY OF THE ACTIVE MODEL AREA—Upper Potomac-Raritan-Magothy

 aquifer

SIMULATED POTENTIOMETRIC CONTOUR—Shows the

 simulated altitude at which water would have stood in a

 tightly cased well. Contour interval 10 feet. Datum is NGVD 29

WITHDRAWAL WELL—Withdrawals are from

 the Upper Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer.

 Well identification is shown in figure 29

EXPLANATION

-50

A

Raritan-Magothy aquifer, and, C, Lower Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer for the full-allocation scenario, Salem-Gloucester study area, 

southern New Jersey.

Figure 30. Simulated potentiometric surface in the, A, confined Upper Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer, B, confined Middle Potomac-
50 Simulated Effects of Withdrawals from the Potomac-Raritan-Magothy Aquifer System, New Jersey

ALLOWAY TOWNSHIP

ELK TOWNSHIP PILESGROVE TOWNSHIP

LOGAN TOWNSHIP

MANNINGTON

TOWNSHIP UPPER PITTSGROVE TOWNSHIP

WOOLWICH TOWNSHIP

OLDMANS

TOWNSHIP HARRISON TOWNSHIP

MANTUA TOWNSHIP

WASHINGTON

TOWNSHIP

DEPTFORD

TOWNSHIP

CARNEYS POINT TOWNSHIP

WEST DEPTFORD

TOWNSHIP

SOUTH HARRISON TOWNSHIP

GREENWICH TOWNSHIP

EAST GREENWICH TOWNSHIP

MONROE

TOWNSHIP

GLOUCESTER

TOWNSHIP

GLASSBORO

BOROUGH

WINSLOW

TOWNSHIP

CLAYTON

BOROUGH

PENNSVILLE

TOWNSHIP

PITMAN

BOROUGH

PAULSBORO

BOROUGH WOODBURY

CITY

UPPER DEERFIELD 

TOWNSHIP

QUINTON

TOWNSHIP

HOPEWELL

TOWNSHIP

WOODSTOWN

BOROUGH

NATIONAL PARK 

BOROUGH

WESTVILLE BOROUGH

WENONAH

BOROUGH

FRANKLIN

TOWNSHIP

ELMER

BOROUGH

WOODBURY HEIGHTS 

BOROUGH

PENNS GROVE

BOROUGH

SWEDESBORO

BOROUGH

GLOUCESTER CITY

STOW CREEK

TOWNSHIP

BROOKLAWN BOROUGH

PITTSGROVE 

TOWNSHIP

PINE HILL

BOROUGH

PITTSGROVE

TOWNSHIP

Salem County

Gloucester County

Camden

County

39°52’30”

39°45’

75°22’30”

75°15’

75°7’30”

75°

75°30’

BELLMAWR

BOROUGH

RUNNEMEDE

BOROUGH

Delaware River

Delaware River

S T U D Y - A R E A B O U N D A R Y

0 2 4 6 MILES

0 2 4 6 KILOMETERS

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:24,000,

Universal Transverse Mercator Projection, Zone 18

39°37’30”

39°30’

-40

-30

-20

-10

-50

-60

-70

0

0

0

0

-10

-40

-50

-50

-50

-60

-90

DISCRETIZED OUTCROP AREA OF THE MIDDLE POTOMAC-RARITAN-MAGOTHY AQUIFER

WATER SUPPLY CRITICAL AREA 2—From N.J. Department of Environmental Protection, unpublished,

 1:250,000. Boundaries are approximate and should not be used for regulatory compliance purposes

AREA IN WHICH SIMULATED WATER LEVELS ARE ABOVE -30 FEET IN THE 2000 BASELINE

 SIMULATION AND BELOW -30 FEET IN THE FULL-ALLOCATION SCENARIO—Area is

 123 square miles. Datum is NGVD 29

BOUNDARY OF THE ACTIVE MODEL AREA—Middle Potomac-Raritan-Magothy

 aquifer

SIMULATED POTENTIOMETRIC CONTOUR—Shows the

 simulated altitude at which water would have stood in a

 tightly cased well. Contour interval 10 feet. Datum is NGVD 29

WITHDRAWAL WELL—Withdrawals are from

 the Middle Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer.

 Well identification is shown in figure 29

EXPLANATION

-50

B

Raritan-Magothy aquifer, and, C, Lower Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer for the full-allocation scenario, Salem-Gloucester study area, 

southern New Jersey.—Continued

Figure 30. Simulated potentiometric surface in the, A, confined Upper Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer, B, confined Middle Potomac-
Simulated Effects of Allocated Withdrawals 51

ALLOWAY TOWNSHIP

ELK TOWNSHIP PILESGROVE TOWNSHIP

LOGAN TOWNSHIP

MANNINGTON

TOWNSHIP UPPER PITTSGROVE TOWNSHIP

WOOLWICH TOWNSHIP

OLDMANS

TOWNSHIP HARRISON TOWNSHIP

MANTUA TOWNSHIP

WASHINGTON

TOWNSHIP

DEPTFORD

TOWNSHIP

CARNEYS POINT TOWNSHIP

WEST DEPTFORD

TOWNSHIP

SOUTH HARRISON TOWNSHIP

GREENWICH TOWNSHIP

EAST GREENWICH TOWNSHIP

MONROE

TOWNSHIP

GLOUCESTER

TOWNSHIP

GLASSBORO

BOROUGH

WINSLOW

TOWNSHIP

CLAYTON

BOROUGH

PENNSVILLE

TOWNSHIP

PITMAN

BOROUGH

PAULSBORO

BOROUGH WOODBURY

CITY

UPPER DEERFIELD 

TOWNSHIP

QUINTON

TOWNSHIP

HOPEWELL

TOWNSHIP

WOODSTOWN

BOROUGH

NATIONAL PARK 

BOROUGH

WESTVILLE BOROUGH

WENONAH

BOROUGH

FRANKLIN

TOWNSHIP

ELMER

BOROUGH

WOODBURY HEIGHTS 

BOROUGH

PENNS GROVE

BOROUGH

SWEDESBORO

BOROUGH

GLOUCESTER CITY

STOW CREEK

TOWNSHIP

BROOKLAWN BOROUGH

PITTSGROVE 

TOWNSHIP

PINE HILL

BOROUGH

PITTSGROVE

TOWNSHIP

Salem County

Gloucester County

Camden

County

39°52’30”

39°45’

75°22’30”

75°15’

75°7’30”

75°

75°30’

BELLMAWR

BOROUGH

RUNNEMEDE

BOROUGH

Delaware River

Delaware River

S T U D Y - A R E A B O U N D A R Y

0 2 4 6 MILES

0 2 4 6 KILOMETERS

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:24,000,

Universal Transverse Mercator Projection, Zone 18

39°37’30”

39°30’

-50

-40

-30

-20

-10

-60

0

-60

-40

-60

-50

-50

-40 -60

WATER SUPPLY CRITICAL AREA 2—From N.J. Department of Environmental Protection, unpublished,

 1:250,000. Boundaries are approximate and should not be used for regulatory compliance purposes

AREA IN WHICH SIMULATED WATER LEVELS ARE ABOVE -30 FEET IN THE 2000 BASELINE

 SIMULATION AND BELOW -30 FEET IN THE FULL-ALLOCATION SCENARIO—Area is

 118.4 square miles. Datum is NGVD 29

BOUNDARY OF THE ACTIVE MODEL AREA—Lower Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer

SIMULATED POTENTIOMETRIC CONTOUR—Shows the simulated

 altitude at which water would have stood in a tightly cased well.

 Contour interval 10 feet. Datum is NGVD 29

WITHDRAWAL WELL—Withdrawals are from the Lower

 Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer. Well identification

 is shown in figure 29

EXPLANATION

-50

C

Raritan-Magothy aquifer, and, C, Lower Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer for the full-allocation scenario, Salem-Gloucester study area, 

southern New Jersey.—Continued

Figure 30. Simulated potentiometric surface in the, A, confined Upper Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer, B, confined Middle Potomac-
52 Simulated Effects of Withdrawals from the Potomac-Raritan-Magothy Aquifer System, New Jersey

ALLOWAY TOWNSHIP

ELK TOWNSHIP PILESGROVE TOWNSHIP

LOGAN TOWNSHIP

MANNINGTON

TOWNSHIP UPPER PITTSGROVE TOWNSHIP

WOOLWICH TOWNSHIP

OLDMANS

TOWNSHIP HARRISON TOWNSHIP

MANTUA TOWNSHIP

WASHINGTON

TOWNSHIP

DEPTFORD

TOWNSHIP

CARNEYS POINT TOWNSHIP

WEST DEPTFORD

TOWNSHIP

SOUTH HARRISON TOWNSHIP

GREENWICH TOWNSHIP

EAST GREENWICH TOWNSHIP

MONROE

TOWNSHIP

GLOUCESTER

TOWNSHIP

GLASSBORO

BOROUGH

WINSLOW

TOWNSHIP

CLAYTON

BOROUGH

PENNSVILLE

TOWNSHIP

PITMAN

BOROUGH

PAULSBORO

BOROUGH WOODBURY

CITY

UPPER DEERFIELD 

TOWNSHIP

QUINTON

TOWNSHIP

HOPEWELL

TOWNSHIP

WOODSTOWN

BOROUGH

NATIONAL PARK 

BOROUGH

WESTVILLE BOROUGH

WENONAH

BOROUGH

FRANKLIN

TOWNSHIP

ELMER

BOROUGH

WOODBURY HEIGHTS 

BOROUGH

PENNS GROVE

BOROUGH

SWEDESBORO

BOROUGH

GLOUCESTER CITY

STOW CREEK

TOWNSHIP

BROOKLAWN BOROUGH

PITTSGROVE 

TOWNSHIP

PINE HILL

BOROUGH

PITTSGROVE

TOWNSHIP

Salem County

Gloucester County

Camden

County

39°52’30”

39°45’

75°22’30”

75°15’

75°7’30”

75°

75°30’

BELLMAWR

BOROUGH

RUNNEMEDE

BOROUGH

Delaware River

Delaware River

S T U D Y - A R E A B O U N D A R Y

0 2 4 6 MILES

0 2 4 6 KILOMETERS

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:24,000,

Universal Transverse Mercator Projection, Zone 18

39°37’30”

39°30’

-15

-20

-10

-5

-25

-30

-35

-40

-25

-10

-25

-20

-15

-25

-25

-35

-30

-30

-60

-45

-125

-5

-30

-10

DISCRETIZED OUTCROP AREA OF THE UPPER POTOMAC-RARITAN-MAGOTHY AQUIFER

WATER SUPPLY CRITICAL AREA 2—From N.J. Department of Environmental Protection, unpublished,

 1:250,000. Boundaries are approximate and should not be used for regulatory compliance purposes

BOUNDARY OF THE ACTIVE MODEL AREA—Upper Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer

LINE OF EQUAL DIFFERENCE IN SIMULATED WATER LEVELS FROM THE 2000

 BASELINE SIMULATION TO THE FULL-ALLOCATION SCENARIO—

 Negative value indicates water-level decline. Contour interval 5 feet

WITHDRAWAL WELL—Withdrawals are from the Upper

 Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer. Well identification

 is shown in figure 29

EXPLANATION

-50

A

Raritan-Magothy aquifer, and, C, Lower Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer from the 2000 baseline simulation to the full-allocation 

scenario, Salem-Gloucester study area, southern New Jersey.

Figure 31. Change in simulated water levels in the, A, confined Upper Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer, B, confined Middle Potomac-
Simulated Effects of Allocated Withdrawals 53

ALLOWAY TOWNSHIP

ELK TOWNSHIP PILESGROVE TOWNSHIP

LOGAN TOWNSHIP

MANNINGTON

TOWNSHIP UPPER PITTSGROVE TOWNSHIP

WOOLWICH TOWNSHIP

OLDMANS

TOWNSHIP HARRISON TOWNSHIP

MANTUA TOWNSHIP

WASHINGTON

TOWNSHIP

DEPTFORD

TOWNSHIP

CARNEYS POINT TOWNSHIP

WEST DEPTFORD

TOWNSHIP

SOUTH HARRISON TOWNSHIP

GREENWICH TOWNSHIP

EAST GREENWICH TOWNSHIP

MONROE

TOWNSHIP

GLOUCESTER

TOWNSHIP

GLASSBORO

BOROUGH

WINSLOW

TOWNSHIP

CLAYTON

BOROUGH

PENNSVILLE

TOWNSHIP

PITMAN

BOROUGH

PAULSBORO

BOROUGH WOODBURY

CITY

UPPER DEERFIELD 

TOWNSHIP

QUINTON

TOWNSHIP

HOPEWELL

TOWNSHIP

WOODSTOWN

BOROUGH

NATIONAL PARK 

BOROUGH

WESTVILLE BOROUGH

WENONAH

BOROUGH

FRANKLIN

TOWNSHIP

ELMER

BOROUGH

WOODBURY HEIGHTS 

BOROUGH

PENNS GROVE

BOROUGH

SWEDESBORO

BOROUGH

GLOUCESTER CITY

STOW CREEK

TOWNSHIP

BROOKLAWN BOROUGH

PITTSGROVE 

TOWNSHIP

PINE HILL

BOROUGH

PITTSGROVE

TOWNSHIP

Salem County

Gloucester County

Camden

County

39°52’30”

39°45’

75°22’30”

75°15’

75°7’30”

75°

75°30’

BELLMAWR

BOROUGH

RUNNEMEDE

BOROUGH

Delaware River

Delaware River

S T U D Y - A R E A B O U N D A R Y

0 2 4 6 MILES

0 2 4 6 KILOMETERS

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:24,000,

Universal Transverse Mercator Projection, Zone 18

39°37’30”

39°30’

-5

-10

-15

-20

-25

-30

-5

-10

-25

-5

-15

-65

DISCRETIZED OUTCROP AREA OF THE MIDDLE POTOMAC-RARITAN-MAGOTHY AQUIFER

WATER SUPPLY CRITICAL AREA 2—From N.J. Department of Environmental Protection, unpublished,

 1:250,000. Boundaries are approximate and should not be used for regulatory compliance purposes

BOUNDARY OF THE ACTIVE MODEL AREA—Middle Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer

LINE OF EQUAL DIFFERENCE IN SIMULATED WATER LEVELS FROM THE 2000

 BASELINE SIMULATION TO THE FULL-ALLOCATION SCENARIO—

 Negative value indicates water-level decline. Contour interval 5 feet

WITHDRAWAL WELL—Withdrawals are from the Middle

 Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer. Well identification

 is shown in figure 29

EXPLANATION

-50

B

Raritan-Magothy aquifer, and, C, Lower Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer from the 2000 baseline simulation to the full-allocation 

scenario, Salem-Gloucester study area, southern New Jersey.—Continued

Figure 31. Change in simulated water levels in the, A, confined Upper Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer, B, confined Middle Potomac-
54 Simulated Effects of Withdrawals from the Potomac-Raritan-Magothy Aquifer System, New Jersey

ALLOWAY TOWNSHIP

ELK TOWNSHIP PILESGROVE TOWNSHIP

LOGAN TOWNSHIP

MANNINGTON

TOWNSHIP UPPER PITTSGROVE TOWNSHIP

WOOLWICH TOWNSHIP

OLDMANS

TOWNSHIP HARRISON TOWNSHIP

MANTUA TOWNSHIP

WASHINGTON

TOWNSHIP

DEPTFORD

TOWNSHIP

CARNEYS POINT TOWNSHIP

WEST DEPTFORD

TOWNSHIP

SOUTH HARRISON TOWNSHIP

GREENWICH TOWNSHIP

EAST GREENWICH TOWNSHIP

MONROE

TOWNSHIP

GLOUCESTER

TOWNSHIP

GLASSBORO

BOROUGH

WINSLOW

TOWNSHIP

CLAYTON

BOROUGH

PENNSVILLE

TOWNSHIP

PITMAN

BOROUGH

PAULSBORO

BOROUGH WOODBURY

CITY

UPPER DEERFIELD 

TOWNSHIP

QUINTON

TOWNSHIP

HOPEWELL

TOWNSHIP

WOODSTOWN

BOROUGH

NATIONAL PARK 

BOROUGH

WESTVILLE BOROUGH

WENONAH

BOROUGH

FRANKLIN

TOWNSHIP

ELMER

BOROUGH

WOODBURY HEIGHTS 

BOROUGH

PENNS GROVE

BOROUGH

SWEDESBORO

BOROUGH

GLOUCESTER CITY

STOW CREEK

TOWNSHIP

BROOKLAWN BOROUGH

PITTSGROVE 

TOWNSHIP

PINE HILL

BOROUGH

PITTSGROVE

TOWNSHIP

Salem County

Gloucester County

Camden

County

39°52’30”

39°45’

75°22’30”

75°15’

75°7’30”

75°

75°30’

BELLMAWR

BOROUGH

RUNNEMEDE

BOROUGH

Delaware River

Delaware River

S T U D Y - A R E A B O U N D A R Y

0 2 4 6 MILES

0 2 4 6 KILOMETERS

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:24,000,

Universal Transverse Mercator Projection, Zone 18

39°37’30”

39°30’

-15

-10

-5

-20

-25

-30

-5

-30

-35

WATER SUPPLY CRITICAL AREA 2—From N.J. Department of Environmental Protection, unpublished,

 1:250,000. Boundaries are approximate and should not be used for regulatory compliance purposes

BOUNDARY OF THE ACTIVE MODEL AREA—Lower Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer

LINE OF EQUAL DIFFERENCE IN SIMULATED WATER LEVELS FROM THE 2000 BASELINE

 SIMULATION TO THE FULL-ALLOCATION SCENARIO—Negative value indicates

 water-level decline. Contour interval 5 feet

WITHDRAWAL WELL—Withdrawals are from the Lower

 Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer. Well identification

 is shown in figure 29

EXPLANATION

-50

C

Raritan-Magothy aquifer, and, C, Lower Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer from the 2000 baseline simulation to the full-allocation 

scenario, Salem-Gloucester study area, southern New Jersey.—Continued

Figure 31. Change in simulated water levels in the, A, confined Upper Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer, B, confined Middle Potomac-
Simulated Effects of Allocated Withdrawals 55

112.9, 123.0, and 118.4 mi2 in the Upper, Middle, and Lower 

Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifers, respectively (table 12). 

In the Upper, Middle, and Lower Potomac-Raritan-Magothy 

aquifers, the increase in area occurred throughout most of East 

Greenwich (part of which is in Critical Area 2) and Woolwich Townships and Swedesboro Borough. In the Upper and 

Middle Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifers, the increase in 

area also occurred in southern Oldmans and Carneys Point and 

Pilesgrove Townships and Woodstown Borough. In the Lower 

Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer, the increase in area also is 

throughout most of Oldmans Township. Most of the increase 

in area is outside Critical Area 2 (fig. 30). The part of these 

areas that is within Critical Area 2 is 13.9, 21.2, and 22.7 mi2

in the Upper, Middle, and Lower Potomac-Raritan-Magothy 

aquifers, respectively, which is about 12, 17, and 19 percent, 

respectively, of the total area that increased in size from the 

2000 baseline simulation. 

The average change in simulated water levels for the 

model cells along the boundary of Critical Area 2 in the confined Upper and Middle, and Lower, Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifers for the full-allocation scenario is -18.7, -17.7, 

and -17.4 ft, respectively, from the 2000 baseline simulation 

(table 13). The largest and smallest changes in simulated water 

level for the model cells along the boundary of Critical Area 2 

for the full-allocation scenario from the 2000 baseline simulation are summarized in table 13.

Simulated withdrawals totaled about 62 percent of 

outflow (16,567 Mgal/yr) which is an increase of 72 percent (6,923 Mgal/yr) from the 2000 baseline simulation. 

Simulated groundwater discharge to streams and wetlands 

Table 13. Largest, smallest, and average change in simulated water levels along the boundary of 

Water Supply Critical Area 2 from the 2000 baseline simulation or the adjusted full-allocation scenario to 

one of the six groundwater-withdrawal scenarios, Salem-Gloucester study area, southern New Jersey.

[Negative value indicates drawdown; <, less than]

Aquifer of the 

Potomac-Raritan-Magothy 

aquifer system1

Change in simulated water level (feet)

Largest Smallest Average

From 2000 baseline simulation to full-allocation scenario

Upper -23.3 -9.5 -18.7

Middle -23.3 -2.3 -17.7

Lower -21.4 -2.7 -17.4

From 2000 baseline simulation to adjusted full-allocation scenario

Upper -6.7 -5.3 -6.0

Middle -6.7 -1.5 -5.9

Lower -6.7 -1.5 -5.8

From adjusted full-allocation scenario to adjusted full-allocation plus Woolwich request scenario

Upper -0.5 -0.1 -0.4

Middle -0.5 <-0.1 -0.3

Lower -0.5 <-0.1 -0.4

From adjusted full-allocation scenario to adjusted full-allocation plus all requests scenario

Upper -3.5 -1.0 -3.1

Middle -3.6 -0.2 -3.0

Lower -3.7 -0.2 -3.0

From adjusted full-allocation scenario to adjusted full-allocation plus adjusted requests scenario

Upper -1.7 -0.4 -1.5

Middle -1.7 -0.1 -1.4

Lower -1.8 -0.1 -1.4

From 2000 baseline simulation to 2025 scenario

Upper -1.9 -0.5 -1.5

Middle -1.9 -0.1 -1.5

Lower -1.9 -0.2 -1.6

1

The number of model cells along the boundary of Critical Area 2 for the confined Upper, Middle, and Lower 

Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifers is 151, 161, and 169, respectively.
56 Simulated Effects of Withdrawals from the Potomac-Raritan-Magothy Aquifer System, New Jersey

is about 23 percent of outflow (6,018 Mgal/yr), 29 percent 

(2,423 Mgal/yr) less than in the 2000 baseline simulation. 

Specified flows at bordering hydrogeologic units (including 

the confined Englishtown aquifer system at the top of the 

model) account for about 19 percent of inflow (5,165 Mgal/yr) 

and about 9 percent of outflow (2,334 Mgal/yr), a 27-percent (1,088 Mgal/yr) increase in inflow and a 15-percent 

(413 Mgal/yr) decrease in outflow from the 2000 baseline 

simulation. Simulated recharge is about 68 percent of inflow 

(17,937 Mgal/yr) and was not changed from the 1998 calibration and the 2000 baseline simulations. Simulated groundwater discharge to the Delaware River accounts for the remaining 

percentage of inflow (13 percent) and outflow (6 percent) and 

is a net flow from the Delaware River to the Potomac-RaritanMagothy aquifer system of about 7 percent (1,816 Mgal/yr), 

whereas simulated net flow in the 2000 baseline simulation 

was from the aquifer system to the Delaware River. Simulated 

flow-budget components for streams and the Delaware River 

in the local model for the full-allocation scenario are summarized in table 12. All flow-budget values are rounded to the 

nearest integer.

Adjusted Full-Allocation Scenario

In the adjusted full-allocation scenario, withdrawals from 

1 industrial self-supply and 14 agricultural-irrigation wells 

with substantially smaller withdrawals than permitted were 

decreased, and withdrawals from 1 agricultural-irrigation 

well were increased, compared to the full-allocation scenario (table 7). Also, withdrawals from low-volume users 

were decreased, except withdrawals from one low-volume 

user remained at the amount simulated in the full-allocation 

scenario (table 5). Withdrawals used in the adjusted fullallocation scenario are given in tables 4 to 7. Withdrawal wells 

in the Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer system used in the 

adjusted full-allocation scenario are shown in figure 32. 

Simulated water levels in the confined Upper and Middle 

and Lower Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifers in the adjusted 

full-allocation scenario are shown in figure 33, and the change 

in simulated water levels from the 2000 baseline simulation 

is shown in figure 34. Simulated water levels in the confined 

Upper Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer in the adjusted fullallocation scenario range from about 10 ft above NGVD 29 at 

the northwestern outcrop area of the aquifer to more than 80 ft 

below NGVD 29 at a small cone of depression centered on a 

water-purveyor well (15-1365) in Washington Township in 

Critical Area 2 (fig. 33A). The largest water-level decline from 

the 2000 baseline simulation was 14 ft at a water-purveyor 

well (33-920) in Oldmans Township and at an agricultural-irrigation well (33-922) in Pilesgrove Township (fig. 34A). The 

average simulated water level in the Upper Potomac-RaritanMagothy aquifer in the full-allocation scenario is 36 ft below 

NGVD 29, 5 ft lower than in the 2000 baseline simulation 

(table 12).

Simulated water levels in the confined Middle PotomacRaritan-Magothy aquifer in the adjusted full-allocation 

scenario are shown in figure 33B and the change in simulated 

water levels from the 2000 baseline simulation is shown in 

figure 34B. Simulated water levels in the confined Middle 

Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer in the adjusted full-allocation scenario range from NGVD 29 near the outcrop area 

of the aquifer to about 60 ft below NGVD 29 in Washington 

Township and Glassboro Borough in Critical Area 2 (fig. 33B). 

The largest water-level decline from the 2000 baseline simulation was 14 ft at four industrial self-supply wells located near 

each other (15-1568, 15-1569, 15-1570, and 15-1571) in Logan 

Township (fig. 34B). The average simulated water level in the 

Middle Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer in the adjusted fullallocation scenario is 32 ft below NGVD 29, 5 ft lower than in 

the 2000 baseline simulation (table 12).

Simulated water levels in the Lower Potomac-RaritanMagothy aquifer in the adjusted full-allocation scenario are 

shown in figure 33C and the change in simulated water levels 

from the 2000 baseline simulation is shown in figure 34C. 

Simulated water levels in the Lower Potomac-Raritan-Magothy 

aquifer in the adjusted full-allocation scenario range from 10 ft 

below NGVD 29 at the northwestern updip limit of the aquifer 

to about 60 ft below NGVD 29 in Gloucester Township in 

Critical Area 2 (fig. 33C). The largest water-level decline from 

the 2000 baseline scenario was 24 ft at an industrial self-supply 

well (15-283) in West Deptford Township (fig. 34C). The 

average simulated water level in the Lower Potomac-RaritanMagothy for the adjusted full-allocation scenario is 36 ft below 

NGVD 29, 6 ft lower than in the 2000 baseline simulation 

(table 12).

The areas in the Upper, Middle, and Lower PotomacRaritan-Magothy aquifers in which simulated water levels are 

lower than 30 ft below NGVD 29 in the adjusted full-allocation 

scenario but above 30 ft below NGVD 29 in the 2000 baseline 

simulation are shown in figure 33. These areas increased in size 

from the area in the 2000 baseline simulation by 54.7, 54.6, 

and 47.8 mi2 in the Upper, Middle, and Lower Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifers, respectively (table 12). In the Upper, 

Middle, and Lower Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifers, the 

increase in area occurred throughout southeastern East Greenwich Township in Critical Area 2; northern Harrison Township, 

part of which is in Critical Area 2; and northern South Harrison 

Township. In the Upper and Middle Potomac-Raritan-Magothy 

aquifers, the increase in area also is in southern West Deptford 

and Pilesgrove Townships and Woodstown Borough. In the 

Lower Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer, the increase in area 

is in central West Deptford Township, northern Pilesgrove 

Township, and Carneys Point Township. Most of the increase 

in area is outside Critical Area 2 (fig. 33). The part of these 

areas that is within in Critical Area 2 is 7.0, 8.9, and 13.3 mi2

in the Upper, Middle, and Lower Potomac-Raritan-Magothy 

aquifers, respectively, which is about 13, 16, and 28 percent, 

respectively, of the total area that increased in size from the 

area in the 2000 baseline simulation.

 The average change in simulated water levels for the 

model cells along the boundary of Critical Area 2 in the confined Upper and Middle, and Lower, Potomac-Raritan-Magothy 
Simulated Effects of Allocated Withdrawals 57

ALLOWAY TOWNSHIP

ELK TOWNSHIP PILESGROVE TOWNSHIP

LOGAN TOWNSHIP

MANNINGTON

TOWNSHIP UPPER PITTSGROVE TOWNSHIP

WOOLWICH TOWNSHIP

OLDMANS

TOWNSHIP HARRISON TOWNSHIP

MANTUA TOWNSHIP

WASHINGTON

TOWNSHIP

DEPTFORD

TOWNSHIP

CARNEYS POINT TOWNSHIP

WEST DEPTFORD

TOWNSHIP

SOUTH HARRISON TOWNSHIP

GREENWICH TOWNSHIP

EAST GREENWICH TOWNSHIP

MONROE

TOWNSHIP

GLOUCESTER

TOWNSHIP

GLASSBORO

BOROUGH

WINSLOW

TOWNSHIP

CLAYTON

BOROUGH

PENNSVILLE

TOWNSHIP

PITMAN

BOROUGH

PAULSBORO

BOROUGH WOODBURY

CITY

UPPER DEERFIELD 

TOWNSHIP

QUINTON

TOWNSHIP

HOPEWELL

TOWNSHIP

WOODSTOWN

BOROUGH

NATIONAL PARK 

BOROUGH

WESTVILLE BOROUGH

WENONAH

BOROUGH

FRANKLIN

TOWNSHIP

ELMER

BOROUGH

WOODBURY HEIGHTS 

BOROUGH

PENNS GROVE

BOROUGH

SWEDESBORO

BOROUGH

GLOUCESTER CITY

STOW CREEK

TOWNSHIP

BROOKLAWN BOROUGH

PITTSGROVE 

TOWNSHIP

PINE HILL

BOROUGH

PITTSGROVE

TOWNSHIP

Salem County

Gloucester County

Camden

County

39°52’30”

39°45’

75°22’30”

75°15’

75°7’30”

75°

75°30’

BELLMAWR

BOROUGH

RUNNEMEDE

BOROUGH

Delaware River

Delaware River

S T U D Y - A R E A B O U N D A R Y

0 2 4 6 MILES

0 2 4 6 KILOMETERS

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:24,000,

Universal Transverse Mercator Projection, Zone 18

39°37’30”

39°30’

33-137

33-330

33-346

15-1527

15-1526 15-282

15-285

15-283

15-1488

15-304

15-306 15-312

15-373

15-533

15-207

15-320

15-24

33-962

33-857

33-898

33-129

33-602

33-298 33-305

33-198

33-70

33-845 33-983

33-1006

33-1011

33-1010

15-137

15-1571

15-1570

33-164

33-1007

33-1012

15-569

15-697

15-286

33-933

33-362

33-459

33-67

15-1363

15-1362

15-167 15-158

15-1036 15-159 15-166

15-1339 15-374

15-1176

15-1222

15-1485

15-1

7-252

15-3

33-996 15-1558 33-922

15-1561 15-361 15-60

33-920

15-62 15-1105

33-1009 33-460 15-422

15-63 15-1370 15-1365

15-1460 15-1109 15-248 15-127 15-385 15-337 15-339

15-1462 15-130 15-225

15-227 15-183 15-1529 15-1598

15-132

15-240 15-1603 15-260

15-346 15-1407 15-265

15-267

15-8

15-524

15-1585

15-1447

15-6

15-433 15-1159 15-191 15-192 15-1566

15-1613 15-1664 7-600 15-193 7-250

15-194 15-268 15-274

15-28

7-249 15-421 15-276 15-1346 15-16

15-17

15-295 15-1089

15-430

15-321 15-322

33-322

33-984

33-432 33-964

33-899

33-900

33-784 33-901

33-85 15-1569

33-354

15-1568

15-1554

15-1607

33-316

33-767

33-750

15-1112

15-1532

15-1565 15-238

15-1371

33-697

33-361

15-1533

15-1069

15-275 15-355

15-330

15-1461

A

GREENWICH TOWNSHIP

PAULSBORO

BOROUGH

Delaware River 15-1383

15-1401

15-1378

15-1124

15-1034

15-348 15-1199

15-72 15-213

15-692

15-1364

15-1597

15-1405

15-1404

15-212 15-347 15-647

15-76

15-1402

15-79

15-1403 15-1039

15-1409

15-1374

15-824 15-1122

15-1121 15-1415

15-1120

15-1414

15-1541

15-1408

A

WATER SUPPLY CRITICAL AREA 2—From N.J. Department of Environmental

 Protection, unpublished, 1:250,000. Boundaries are approximate and should

 not be used for regulatory compliance purposes

EXTENT OF MODEL GRID

LOCATION OF WITHDRAWAL WELL—Number is U.S. Geological Survey

 well number

 Upper Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer

 Middle Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer

 Lower Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer

EXPLANATION

15-167

15-283

15-16

33-125

33-123

33-122

33-671

33-972

33-971

7-8

7-601

7-531

7-596

7-520

15-327

15-326

7-12

Figure 32. Location of withdrawal wells and wells simulated as boundary flows in the Upper, Middle, and Lower Potomac-RaritanMagothy aquifers for the adjusted full-allocation scenario and the adjusted full-allocation plus Woolwich request scenario, SalemGloucester study area, southern New Jersey.
58 Simulated Effects of Withdrawals from the Potomac-Raritan-Magothy Aquifer System, New Jersey

ALLOWAY TOWNSHIP

ELK TOWNSHIP PILESGROVE TOWNSHIP

LOGAN TOWNSHIP

MANNINGTON

TOWNSHIP UPPER PITTSGROVE TOWNSHIP

WOOLWICH TOWNSHIP

OLDMANS

TOWNSHIP HARRISON TOWNSHIP

MANTUA TOWNSHIP

WASHINGTON

TOWNSHIP

DEPTFORD

TOWNSHIP

CARNEYS POINT TOWNSHIP

WEST DEPTFORD

TOWNSHIP

SOUTH HARRISON TOWNSHIP

GREENWICH TOWNSHIP

EAST GREENWICH TOWNSHIP

MONROE

TOWNSHIP

GLOUCESTER

TOWNSHIP

GLASSBORO

BOROUGH

WINSLOW

TOWNSHIP

CLAYTON

BOROUGH

PENNSVILLE

TOWNSHIP

PITMAN

BOROUGH

PAULSBORO

BOROUGH WOODBURY

CITY

UPPER DEERFIELD 

TOWNSHIP

QUINTON

TOWNSHIP

HOPEWELL

TOWNSHIP

WOODSTOWN

BOROUGH

NATIONAL PARK 

BOROUGH

WESTVILLE BOROUGH

WENONAH

BOROUGH

FRANKLIN

TOWNSHIP

ELMER

BOROUGH

WOODBURY HEIGHTS 

BOROUGH

PENNS GROVE

BOROUGH

SWEDESBORO

BOROUGH

GLOUCESTER CITY

STOW CREEK

TOWNSHIP

BROOKLAWN BOROUGH

PITTSGROVE 

TOWNSHIP

PINE HILL

BOROUGH

PITTSGROVE

TOWNSHIP

Salem County

Gloucester County

Camden

County

39°52’30”

39°45’

75°22’30”

75°15’

75°7’30”

75°

75°30’

BELLMAWR

BOROUGH

RUNNEMEDE

BOROUGH

Delaware River

Delaware River

S T U D Y - A R E A B O U N D A R Y

0 2 4 6 MILES

0 2 4 6 KILOMETERS

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:24,000,

Universal Transverse Mercator Projection, Zone 18

39°37’30”

39°30’

-30

-20

-40

0

-50

-70

10

-60

-10

-10

-70

-60

-80

-70

-70

-30

-50

-60

-70

-60

-30

-10

10

DISCRETIZED OUTCROP AREA OF THE UPPER POTOMAC-RARITAN-MAGOTHY AQUIFER

WATER SUPPLY CRITICAL AREA 2—From N.J. Department of Environmental Protection,

 unpublished, 1:250,000. Boundaries are approximate and should not be used for

 regulatory compliance purposes

AREA IN WHICH SIMULATED WATER LEVELS ARE ABOVE -30 FEET IN THE 2000 BASELINE

 SIMULATION AND BELOW -30 FEET IN THE ADJUSTED FULL-ALLOCATION

 SCENARIO—Area is 54.7 square miles. Datum is NGVD 29

BOUNDARY OF THE ACTIVE MODEL AREA—Upper

 Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer

SIMULATED POTENTIOMETRIC CONTOUR—Shows

 the simulated altitude at which water would

 have stood in a tightly cased well. Contour

 interval 10 feet. Datum is NGVD 29

WITHDRAWAL WELL—Withdrawals are

 from the Upper Potomac-Raritan-

 Magothy aquifer. Well identification

 is shown in figure 32

EXPLANATION

-50

A

Raritan-Magothy aquifer, and, C, Lower Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer for the adjusted full-allocation scenario, Salem-Gloucester 

study area, southern New Jersey.

Figure 33. Simulated potentiometric surface in the, A, confined Upper Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer, B, confined Middle Potomac-
Simulated Effects of Allocated Withdrawals 59

ALLOWAY TOWNSHIP

ELK TOWNSHIP PILESGROVE TOWNSHIP

LOGAN TOWNSHIP

MANNINGTON

TOWNSHIP UPPER PITTSGROVE TOWNSHIP

WOOLWICH TOWNSHIP

OLDMANS

TOWNSHIP HARRISON TOWNSHIP

MANTUA TOWNSHIP

WASHINGTON

TOWNSHIP

DEPTFORD

TOWNSHIP

CARNEYS POINT TOWNSHIP

WEST DEPTFORD

TOWNSHIP

SOUTH HARRISON TOWNSHIP

GREENWICH TOWNSHIP

EAST GREENWICH TOWNSHIP

MONROE

TOWNSHIP

GLOUCESTER

TOWNSHIP

GLASSBORO

BOROUGH

WINSLOW

TOWNSHIP

CLAYTON

BOROUGH

PENNSVILLE

TOWNSHIP

PITMAN

BOROUGH

PAULSBORO

BOROUGH WOODBURY

CITY

UPPER DEERFIELD 

TOWNSHIP

QUINTON

TOWNSHIP

HOPEWELL

TOWNSHIP

WOODSTOWN

BOROUGH

NATIONAL PARK 

BOROUGH

WESTVILLE BOROUGH

WENONAH

BOROUGH

FRANKLIN

TOWNSHIP

ELMER

BOROUGH

WOODBURY HEIGHTS 

BOROUGH

PENNS GROVE

BOROUGH

SWEDESBORO

BOROUGH

GLOUCESTER CITY

STOW CREEK

TOWNSHIP

BROOKLAWN BOROUGH

PITTSGROVE 

TOWNSHIP

PINE HILL

BOROUGH

PITTSGROVE

TOWNSHIP

Salem County

Gloucester County

Camden

County

39°52’30”

39°45’

75°22’30”

75°15’

75°7’30”

75°

75°30’

BELLMAWR

BOROUGH

RUNNEMEDE

BOROUGH

Delaware River

Delaware River

S T U D Y - A R E A B O U N D A R Y

0 2 4 6 MILES

0 2 4 6 KILOMETERS

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:24,000,

Universal Transverse Mercator Projection, Zone 18

39°37’30”

39°30’

-10

-20

-30

-40

-50

-60

-30

-30

-50

0

0

0

0

0

DISCRETIZED OUTCROP AREA OF THE MIDDLE POTOMAC-RARITAN-MAGOTHY AQUIFER

WATER SUPPLY CRITICAL AREA 2—From N.J. Department of Environmental Protection,

 unpublished, 1:250,000. Boundaries are approximate and should not be used

 for regulatory compliance purposes

AREA IN WHICH SIMULATED WATER LEVELS ARE ABOVE -30 FEET IN THE 2000 BASELINE

 SIMULATION AND BELOW -30 FEET IN THE ADJUSTED FULL-ALLOCATION

 SCENARIO—Area is 54.6 square miles. Datum is NGVD 29

BOUNDARY OF THE ACTIVE MODEL AREA—Middle

 Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer

SIMULATED POTENTIOMETRIC CONTOUR—Shows

 the simulated altitude at which water would

 have stood in a tightly cased well. Contour

 interval 10 feet. Datum is NGVD 29

WITHDRAWAL WELL—Withdrawals are

 from the Middle Potomac-Raritan-

 Magothy aquifer. Well identification

 is shown in figure 32

EXPLANATION

-50

B

Raritan-Magothy aquifer, and, C, Lower Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer for the adjusted full-allocation scenario, Salem-Gloucester 

study area, southern New Jersey.—Continued

Figure 33. Simulated potentiometric surface in the, A, confined Upper Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer, B, confined Middle Potomac-
60 Simulated Effects of Withdrawals from the Potomac-Raritan-Magothy Aquifer System, New Jersey

ALLOWAY TOWNSHIP

ELK TOWNSHIP PILESGROVE TOWNSHIP

LOGAN TOWNSHIP

MANNINGTON

TOWNSHIP UPPER PITTSGROVE TOWNSHIP

WOOLWICH TOWNSHIP

OLDMANS

TOWNSHIP HARRISON TOWNSHIP

MANTUA TOWNSHIP

WASHINGTON

TOWNSHIP

DEPTFORD

TOWNSHIP

CARNEYS POINT TOWNSHIP

WEST DEPTFORD

TOWNSHIP

SOUTH HARRISON TOWNSHIP

GREENWICH TOWNSHIP

EAST GREENWICH TOWNSHIP

MONROE

TOWNSHIP

GLOUCESTER

TOWNSHIP

GLASSBORO

BOROUGH

WINSLOW

TOWNSHIP

CLAYTON

BOROUGH

PENNSVILLE

TOWNSHIP

PITMAN

BOROUGH

PAULSBORO

BOROUGH WOODBURY

CITY

UPPER DEERFIELD 

TOWNSHIP

QUINTON

TOWNSHIP

HOPEWELL

TOWNSHIP

WOODSTOWN

BOROUGH

NATIONAL PARK 

BOROUGH

WESTVILLE BOROUGH

WENONAH

BOROUGH

FRANKLIN

TOWNSHIP

ELMER

BOROUGH

WOODBURY HEIGHTS 

BOROUGH

PENNS GROVE

BOROUGH

SWEDESBORO

BOROUGH

GLOUCESTER CITY

STOW CREEK

TOWNSHIP

BROOKLAWN BOROUGH

PITTSGROVE 

TOWNSHIP

PINE HILL

BOROUGH

PITTSGROVE

TOWNSHIP

Salem County

Gloucester County

Camden

County

39°52’30”

39°45’

75°22’30”

75°15’

75°7’30”

75°

75°30’

BELLMAWR

BOROUGH

RUNNEMEDE

BOROUGH

Delaware River

Delaware River

S T U D Y - A R E A B O U N D A R Y

0 2 4 6 MILES

0 2 4 6 KILOMETERS

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:24,000,

Universal Transverse Mercator Projection, Zone 18

39°37’30”

39°30’

-40

-30

-20

-10

-50

-60

0

-40

-30

-50

-40

-40

WATER SUPPLY CRITICAL AREA 2—From N.J. Department of Environmental Protection,

 unpublished, 1:250,000. Boundaries are approximate and should not be used

 for regulatory compliance purposes

AREA IN WHICH SIMULATED WATER LEVELS ARE ABOVE -30 FEET IN THE 2000 BASELINE

 SIMULATION AND BELOW -30 FEET IN THE ADJUSTED FULL-ALLOCATION SCENARIO—

 Area is 47.8 square miles. Datum is NGVD 29

BOUNDARY OF THE ACTIVE MODEL AREA—Lower

 Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer

SIMULATED POTENTIOMETRIC CONTOUR—Shows the

 simulated altitude at which water would have stood

 in a tightly cased well. Contour interval 10 feet.

 Datum is NGVD 29

WITHDRAWAL WELL—Withdrawals are from

 the Lower Potomac-Raritan-Magothy

 aquifer. Well identification is

 shown in figure 32

EXPLANATION

-50

C

Raritan-Magothy aquifer, and, C, Lower Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer for the adjusted full-allocation scenario, Salem-Gloucester 

study area, southern New Jersey.—Continued

Figure 33. Simulated potentiometric surface in the, A, confined Upper Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer, B, confined Middle Potomac-
Simulated Effects of Allocated Withdrawals 61

ALLOWAY TOWNSHIP

ELK TOWNSHIP PILESGROVE TOWNSHIP

LOGAN TOWNSHIP

MANNINGTON

TOWNSHIP UPPER PITTSGROVE TOWNSHIP

WOOLWICH TOWNSHIP

OLDMANS

TOWNSHIP HARRISON TOWNSHIP

MANTUA TOWNSHIP

WASHINGTON

TOWNSHIP

DEPTFORD

TOWNSHIP

CARNEYS POINT TOWNSHIP

WEST DEPTFORD

TOWNSHIP

SOUTH HARRISON TOWNSHIP

GREENWICH TOWNSHIP

EAST GREENWICH TOWNSHIP

MONROE

TOWNSHIP

GLOUCESTER

TOWNSHIP

GLASSBORO

BOROUGH

WINSLOW

TOWNSHIP

CLAYTON

BOROUGH

PENNSVILLE

TOWNSHIP

PITMAN

BOROUGH

PAULSBORO

BOROUGH WOODBURY

CITY

UPPER DEERFIELD 

TOWNSHIP

QUINTON

TOWNSHIP

HOPEWELL

TOWNSHIP

WOODSTOWN

BOROUGH

NATIONAL PARK 

BOROUGH

WESTVILLE BOROUGH

WENONAH

BOROUGH

FRANKLIN

TOWNSHIP

ELMER

BOROUGH

WOODBURY HEIGHTS 

BOROUGH

PENNS GROVE

BOROUGH

SWEDESBORO

BOROUGH

GLOUCESTER CITY

STOW CREEK

TOWNSHIP

BROOKLAWN BOROUGH

PITTSGROVE 

TOWNSHIP

PINE HILL

BOROUGH

PITTSGROVE

TOWNSHIP

Salem County

Gloucester County

Camden

County

39°52’30”

39°45’

75°22’30”

75°15’

75°7’30”

75°

75°30’

BELLMAWR

BOROUGH

RUNNEMEDE

BOROUGH

Delaware River

Delaware River

S T U D Y - A R E A B O U N D A R Y

0 2 4 6 MILES

0 2 4 6 KILOMETERS

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:24,000,

Universal Transverse Mercator Projection, Zone 18

39°37’30”

39°30’

-10

-8

-6

-9

-14

-14

-11

-10

-9

-11

-11

-8

-4

-5

-6

-7

-3

-8

-2

-1

-9

-6

-6

-7

-4

-6

-5

-1

-6

-5

-6

-5

-9

DISCRETIZED OUTCROP AREA OF THE UPPER POTOMAC-RARITAN-MAGOTHY AQUIFER

WATER SUPPLY CRITICAL AREA 2—From N.J. Department of Environmental Protection,

 unpublished, 1:250,000. Boundaries are approximate and should not be used

 for regulatory compliance purposes

BOUNDARY OF THE ACTIVE MODEL AREA—Upper

 Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer

LINE OF EQUAL DIFFERENCE IN SIMULATED WATER LEVELS FROM THE

 2000 BASELINE SIMULATION TO THE ADJUSTED FULL-ALLOCATION

 SCENARIO—Negative value indicates water-level decline.

 Contour interval 1 foot

WITHDRAWAL WELL—Withdrawals are from

 the Upper Potomac-Raritan-Magothy

 aquifer. Well identification is

 shown in figure 32

EXPLANATION

-5

A

Raritan-Magothy aquifer, and, C, Lower Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer from the 2000 baseline simulation to the adjusted fullallocation scenario, Salem-Gloucester study area, southern New Jersey.

Figure 34. Change in simulated water levels in the, A, confined Upper Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer, B, confined Middle Potomac-
62 Simulated Effects of Withdrawals from the Potomac-Raritan-Magothy Aquifer System, New Jersey

ALLOWAY TOWNSHIP

ELK TOWNSHIP PILESGROVE TOWNSHIP

LOGAN TOWNSHIP

MANNINGTON

TOWNSHIP UPPER PITTSGROVE TOWNSHIP

WOOLWICH TOWNSHIP

OLDMANS

TOWNSHIP HARRISON TOWNSHIP

MANTUA TOWNSHIP

WASHINGTON

TOWNSHIP

DEPTFORD

TOWNSHIP

CARNEYS POINT TOWNSHIP

WEST DEPTFORD

TOWNSHIP

SOUTH HARRISON TOWNSHIP

GREENWICH TOWNSHIP

EAST GREENWICH TOWNSHIP

MONROE

TOWNSHIP

GLOUCESTER

TOWNSHIP

GLASSBORO

BOROUGH

WINSLOW

TOWNSHIP

CLAYTON

BOROUGH

PENNSVILLE

TOWNSHIP

PITMAN

BOROUGH

PAULSBORO

BOROUGH WOODBURY

CITY

UPPER DEERFIELD 

TOWNSHIP

QUINTON

TOWNSHIP

HOPEWELL

TOWNSHIP

WOODSTOWN

BOROUGH

NATIONAL PARK 

BOROUGH

WESTVILLE BOROUGH

WENONAH

BOROUGH

FRANKLIN

TOWNSHIP

ELMER

BOROUGH

WOODBURY HEIGHTS 

BOROUGH

PENNS GROVE

BOROUGH

SWEDESBORO

BOROUGH

GLOUCESTER CITY

STOW CREEK

TOWNSHIP

BROOKLAWN BOROUGH

PITTSGROVE 

TOWNSHIP

PINE HILL

BOROUGH

PITTSGROVE

TOWNSHIP

Salem County

Gloucester County

Camden

County

39°52’30”

39°45’

75°22’30”

75°15’

75°7’30”

75°

75°30’

BELLMAWR

BOROUGH

RUNNEMEDE

BOROUGH

Delaware River

Delaware River

S T U D Y - A R E A B O U N D A R Y

0 2 4 6 MILES

0 2 4 6 KILOMETERS

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:24,000,

Universal Transverse Mercator Projection, Zone 18

39°37’30”

39°30’

-14

-4

-1

-6

-7

-8

-6

-2

-3

-5

-2

-3

-6

-1

-3

-5

-9

-6

-7

-6

-8

-10

-9

-9

-3

DISCRETIZED OUTCROP AREA OF THE MIDDLE POTOMAC-RARITAN-MAGOTHY AQUIFER

WATER SUPPLY CRITICAL AREA 2—From N.J. Department of Environmental Protection,

 unpublished, 1:250,000. Boundaries are approximate and should not be used

 for regulatory compliance purposes

BOUNDARY OF THE ACTIVE MODEL AREA—Middle Potomac-Raritan-Magothy

 aquifer

LINE OF EQUAL DIFFERENCE IN SIMULATED WATER LEVELS FROM THE

 2000 BASELINE SIMULATION TO THE ADJUSTED FULL-ALLOCATION

 SCENARIO—Negative value indicates water-level decline.

 Contour interval 1 foot

WITHDRAWAL WELL—Withdrawals are from

 the Middle Potomac-Raritan-Magothy

 aquifer. Well identification is

 shown in figure 32

EXPLANATION

-5

B

Raritan-Magothy aquifer, and, C, Lower Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer from the 2000 baseline simulation to the adjusted fullallocation scenario, Salem-Gloucester study area, southern New Jersey.—Continued

Figure 34. Change in simulated water levels in the, A, confined Upper Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer, B, confined Middle Potomac-
Simulated Effects of Allocated Withdrawals 63

ALLOWAY TOWNSHIP

ELK TOWNSHIP PILESGROVE TOWNSHIP

LOGAN TOWNSHIP

MANNINGTON

TOWNSHIP UPPER PITTSGROVE TOWNSHIP

WOOLWICH TOWNSHIP

OLDMANS

TOWNSHIP HARRISON TOWNSHIP

MANTUA TOWNSHIP

WASHINGTON

TOWNSHIP

DEPTFORD

TOWNSHIP

CARNEYS POINT TOWNSHIP

WEST DEPTFORD

TOWNSHIP

SOUTH HARRISON TOWNSHIP

GREENWICH TOWNSHIP

EAST GREENWICH TOWNSHIP

MONROE

TOWNSHIP

GLOUCESTER

TOWNSHIP

GLASSBORO

BOROUGH

WINSLOW

TOWNSHIP

CLAYTON

BOROUGH

PENNSVILLE

TOWNSHIP

PITMAN

BOROUGH

PAULSBORO

BOROUGH WOODBURY

CITY

UPPER DEERFIELD 

TOWNSHIP

QUINTON

TOWNSHIP

HOPEWELL

TOWNSHIP

WOODSTOWN

BOROUGH

NATIONAL PARK 

BOROUGH

WESTVILLE BOROUGH

WENONAH

BOROUGH

FRANKLIN

TOWNSHIP

ELMER

BOROUGH

WOODBURY HEIGHTS 

BOROUGH

PENNS GROVE

BOROUGH

SWEDESBORO

BOROUGH

GLOUCESTER CITY

STOW CREEK

TOWNSHIP

BROOKLAWN BOROUGH

PITTSGROVE 

TOWNSHIP

PINE HILL

BOROUGH

PITTSGROVE

TOWNSHIP

Salem County

Gloucester County

Camden

County

39°52’30”

39°45’

75°22’30”

75°15’

75°7’30”

75°

75°30’

BELLMAWR

BOROUGH

RUNNEMEDE

BOROUGH

Delaware River

Delaware River

S T U D Y - A R E A B O U N D A R Y

0 2 4 6 MILES

0 2 4 6 KILOMETERS

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:24,000,

Universal Transverse Mercator Projection, Zone 18

39°37’30”

39°30’

-5

-2 -3 -4

-6

-7

-8

-6

-6

-7

-7

-5

-2

-4

-7

-8

-10

-24

-2

-10

WATER SUPPLY CRITICAL AREA 2—From N.J. Department of Environmental Protection,

 unpublished, 1:250,000. Boundaries are approximate and should not be used

 for regulatory compliance purposes

BOUNDARY OF THE ACTIVE MODEL AREA—Lower Potomac-Raritan-Magothy

 aquifer

LINE OF EQUAL DIFFERENCE IN SIMULATED WATER LEVELS FROM THE

 2000 BASELINE SIMULATION TO THE ADJUSTED FULL-ALLOCATION

 SCENARIO—Negative value indicates water-level decline.

 Contour interval 1 foot

WITHDRAWAL WELL—Withdrawals are from

 the Lower Potomac-Raritan-Magothy

 aquifer. Well identification is

 shown in figure 32

EXPLANATION

-5

C

Raritan-Magothy aquifer, and, C, Lower Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer from the 2000 baseline simulation to the adjusted fullallocation scenario, Salem-Gloucester study area, southern New Jersey.—Continued

Figure 34. Change in simulated water levels in the, A, confined Upper Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer, B, confined Middle Potomac-
64 Simulated Effects of Withdrawals from the Potomac-Raritan-Magothy Aquifer System, New Jersey

aquifers for the adjusted full-allocation scenario is -6.0, -5.9, 

and -5.8 ft, respectively, from the 2000 baseline simulation 

(table 13). The largest and smallest changes in simulated water 

level for the model cells along the boundary of Critical Area 2 

for the adjusted full-allocation scenario from the 2000 baseline 

simulation are summarized in table 13. 

Simulated withdrawals totaled about 54 percent of 

outflow (13,290 Mgal/yr), 38 percent (3,646 Mgal/yr) more 

than in the 2000 baseline simulation. Simulated groundwater discharge to streams and wetlands is about 29 percent of 

outflow (7,256 Mgal/yr), 7 percent (1,185 Mgal/yr) less than 

in the 2000 baseline simulation. Specified flows at bordering 

hydrogeologic units and the upper boundary of the confined 

Englishtown aquifer system account for about 18 percent 

of inflow (4,473 Mgal/yr) and about 10 percent of outflow 

(2,378 Mgal/yr), which is about a 10-percent (396 Mgal/yr) 

increase in inflow and about a 13-percent (369 Mgal/yr) 

decrease in outflow from the 2000 baseline simulation. Simulated recharge is about 72 percent of inflow (17,937 Mgal/yr) 

and was not changed from the 1998 calibration and 2000 

baseline simulations. Simulated groundwater discharge to 

the Delaware River accounts for the remaining percentage of 

inflow (10 percent) and outflow (7 percent) and is a net flow 

from the Delaware River to the Potomac-Raritan-Magothy 

aquifer system of about 3 percent (513 Mgal/yr), whereas 

simulated net flow in the 2000 baseline simulation was from 

the aquifer system to the Delaware River. Simulated flowbudget components for streams and the Delaware River in the 

local model for the adjusted full-allocation scenario are summarized in table 12. All flow-budget values are rounded to the 

nearest integer.

Adjusted Full-Allocation plus Woolwich Request 

Scenario

The adjusted full-allocation plus Woolwich request 

scenario was used to evaluate the effects of additional withdrawals in Woolwich Township on simulated water levels. 

The withdrawals for this scenario are the same as those used 

in the adjusted full-allocation scenario, except for withdrawals 

from one water-purveyor with two wells screened in the Upper 

Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer in Woolwich Township: 

withdrawals from these wells were increased by 108.5 Mgal/yr 

(table 5). Withdrawal wells in the Upper, Middle, and Lower 

Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifers used in the adjusted 

full-allocation plus Woolwich request scenario are shown in 

figure 32. 

Simulated water levels in the confined Upper and 

Middle, and Lower, Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifers in 

the adjusted full-allocation plus Woolwich request scenario 

are shown in figure 35, and the changes in simulated water 

levels from the adjusted full-allocation scenario are shown 

in figure 36. Simulated water levels in the confined Upper 

Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer (fig. 35A) were similar to 

those in the adjusted full-allocation scenario, except in the 

Woolwich Township area. A small cone of depression developed in this aquifer around two water-purveyor wells (15-1532 

and 15-1533) in Woolwich Township. When compared to the 

adjusted full-allocation scenario, simulated water levels in the 

Upper Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer around these wells 

declined about 4 ft (fig. 36A), whereas simulated water levels 

in the Middle Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer declined 

about 2 ft (fig. 36B), and simulated water levels in the Lower 

Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifers declined about 0.5 ft 

(fig. 36C). 

Average simulated water levels in the Upper, Middle, and 

Lower Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifers in this scenario 

are 37, 33, and 36 ft below NGVD 29, respectively, which are 

1, 1, and 0 ft lower, respectively, than in the adjusted fullallocation scenario (table 12). The areas in the Upper, Middle, 

and Lower Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifers in which 

simulated water levels are lower than 30 ft below NGVD 29 

in the adjusted full-allocation plus Woolwich request scenario 

but above 30 ft below NGVD 29 in the adjusted full-allocation 

scenario are shown in figure 35. These areas increased in size 

from the area in the adjusted full-allocation scenario by 2.8, 

3.3, and 2.9 mi2 in the Upper, Middle, and Lower PotomacRaritan-Magothy aquifers, respectively (table 12). The part of 

these areas that increased in size that is within Critical Area 

2 increased by 0.5, 0.6, and 0.7 mi2 in the Upper, Middle, 

and Lower Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifers, respectively, 

which is about 18, 18, and 24 percent, respectively, of the total 

area that increased in size from the area in the adjusted fullallocation scenario.

 The average change in simulated water levels for the 

model cells along the boundary of Critical Area 2 in the confined Upper and Middle, and Lower, Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifers for the adjusted full-allocation plus Woolwich 

request scenario is -0.4, -0.3, and -0.4 ft, respectively, from 

the adjusted full-allocation scenario (table 13). The largest and 

smallest changes in simulated water level for the model cells 

along the boundary of Critical Area 2 for the adjusted fullallocation plus Woolwich request scenario from the adjusted 

full-allocation scenario are summarized in table 13.

Simulated withdrawals totaled about 54 percent of 

outflow (13,399 Mgal/yr), which is less than 1 percent 

(109 Mgal/yr) more than in the adjusted full-allocation scenario. Simulated groundwater discharge to streams and wetlands is about 29 percent of outflow (7,209 Mgal/yr), which 

is less than 1 percent (47 Mgal/yr) less than in the adjusted 

full-allocation scenario. Specified flows from bordering hydrogeologic units outside the model area and the upper boundary 

of the confined Englishtown aquifer system account for about 

18 percent of inflow (4,491 Mgal/yr) and about 10 percent of 

outflow (2,362 Mgal/yr), which is similar to that simulated in 

the adjusted full-allocation scenario. Recharge is 72 percent 

of inflow (17,937 Mgal/yr) and was not changed from the 

1998 calibration and the 2000 baseline simulations. Simulated 

groundwater discharge to the Delaware River accounts for 

the remaining percentage of inflow (10 percent), and outflow 

(7 percent) and is a net flow from the Delaware River to 
Simulated Effects of Allocated Withdrawals 65

ALLOWAY TOWNSHIP

ELK TOWNSHIP PILESGROVE TOWNSHIP

LOGAN TOWNSHIP

MANNINGTON

TOWNSHIP UPPER PITTSGROVE TOWNSHIP

WOOLWICH TOWNSHIP

OLDMANS

TOWNSHIP HARRISON TOWNSHIP

MANTUA TOWNSHIP

WASHINGTON

TOWNSHIP

DEPTFORD

TOWNSHIP

CARNEYS POINT TOWNSHIP

WEST DEPTFORD

TOWNSHIP

SOUTH HARRISON TOWNSHIP

GREENWICH TOWNSHIP

EAST GREENWICH TOWNSHIP

MONROE

TOWNSHIP

GLOUCESTER

TOWNSHIP

GLASSBORO

BOROUGH

WINSLOW

TOWNSHIP

CLAYTON

BOROUGH

PENNSVILLE

TOWNSHIP

PITMAN

BOROUGH

PAULSBORO

BOROUGH WOODBURY

CITY

UPPER DEERFIELD 

TOWNSHIP

QUINTON

TOWNSHIP

HOPEWELL

TOWNSHIP

WOODSTOWN

BOROUGH

NATIONAL PARK 

BOROUGH

WESTVILLE BOROUGH

WENONAH

BOROUGH

FRANKLIN

TOWNSHIP

ELMER

BOROUGH

WOODBURY HEIGHTS 

BOROUGH

PENNS GROVE

BOROUGH

SWEDESBORO

BOROUGH

GLOUCESTER CITY

STOW CREEK

TOWNSHIP

BROOKLAWN BOROUGH

PITTSGROVE 

TOWNSHIP

PINE HILL

BOROUGH

PITTSGROVE

TOWNSHIP

Salem County

Gloucester County

Camden

County

39°52’30”

39°45’

75°22’30”

75°15’

75°7’30”

75°

75°30’

BELLMAWR

BOROUGH

RUNNEMEDE

BOROUGH

Delaware River

Delaware River

S T U D Y - A R E A B O U N D A R Y

0 2 4 6 MILES

0 2 4 6 KILOMETERS

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:24,000,

Universal Transverse Mercator Projection, Zone 18

39°37’30”

39°30’

-30

-10

-20

-40

-50

0

-60

0

-70

10

-10

-60

-70

-70

-20

-50

-80 -10

-30

-30

-60

-70

DISCRETIZED OUTCROP AREA OF THE UPPER POTOMAC-RARITAN-MAGOTHY AQUIFER

WATER SUPPLY CRITICAL AREA 2—From N.J. Department of Environmental Protection, unpublished,

 1:250,000. Boundaries are approximate and should not be used for regulatory compliance purposes

AREA IN WHICH SIMULATED WATER LEVELS ARE ABOVE -30 FEET IN THE ADJUSTED FULL-ALLOCATION

 SCENARIO AND BELOW -30 FEET IN THE ADJUSTED FULL-ALLOCATION PLUS WOOLWICH REQUEST

 SCENARIO—Area is 2.8 square miles. Datum is NGVD 29

BOUNDARY OF THE ACTIVE MODEL AREA—Upper

 Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer

SIMULATED POTENTIOMETRIC CONTOUR—Shows the

 simulated altitude at which water would have stood in

 a tightly cased well. Contour interval 10 feet.

 Datum is NGVD 29

WITHDRAWAL WELL—Withdrawals are

 from the Upper Potomac-Raritan-Magothy

 aquifer. Well identification is

 shown in figure 32

EXPLANATION

-50

A

Raritan-Magothy aquifer, and, C, Lower Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer for the adjusted full-allocation plus Woolwich request 

scenario, Salem-Gloucester study area, southern New Jersey.

Figure 35. Simulated potentiometric surface in the, A, confined Upper Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer, B, confined Middle Potomac-
66 Simulated Effects of Withdrawals from the Potomac-Raritan-Magothy Aquifer System, New Jersey

ALLOWAY TOWNSHIP

ELK TOWNSHIP PILESGROVE TOWNSHIP

LOGAN TOWNSHIP

MANNINGTON

TOWNSHIP UPPER PITTSGROVE TOWNSHIP

WOOLWICH TOWNSHIP

OLDMANS

TOWNSHIP HARRISON TOWNSHIP

MANTUA TOWNSHIP

WASHINGTON

TOWNSHIP

DEPTFORD

TOWNSHIP

CARNEYS POINT TOWNSHIP

WEST DEPTFORD

TOWNSHIP

SOUTH HARRISON TOWNSHIP

GREENWICH TOWNSHIP

EAST GREENWICH TOWNSHIP

MONROE

TOWNSHIP

GLOUCESTER

TOWNSHIP

GLASSBORO

BOROUGH

WINSLOW

TOWNSHIP

CLAYTON

BOROUGH

PENNSVILLE

TOWNSHIP

PITMAN

BOROUGH

PAULSBORO

BOROUGH WOODBURY

CITY

UPPER DEERFIELD 

TOWNSHIP

QUINTON

TOWNSHIP

HOPEWELL

TOWNSHIP

WOODSTOWN

BOROUGH

NATIONAL PARK 

BOROUGH

WESTVILLE BOROUGH

WENONAH

BOROUGH

FRANKLIN

TOWNSHIP

ELMER

BOROUGH

WOODBURY HEIGHTS 

BOROUGH

PENNS GROVE

BOROUGH

SWEDESBORO

BOROUGH

GLOUCESTER CITY

STOW CREEK

TOWNSHIP

BROOKLAWN BOROUGH

PITTSGROVE 

TOWNSHIP

PINE HILL

BOROUGH

PITTSGROVE

TOWNSHIP

Salem County

Gloucester County

Camden

County

39°52’30”

39°45’

75°22’30”

75°15’

75°7’30”

75°

75°30’

BELLMAWR

BOROUGH

RUNNEMEDE

BOROUGH

Delaware River

Delaware River

S T U D Y - A R E A B O U N D A R Y

0 2 4 6 MILES

0 2 4 6 KILOMETERS

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:24,000,

Universal Transverse Mercator Projection, Zone 18

39°37’30”

39°30’

-10

-20

-30

-40

-50

-60

-30

-50

-30

0

0

0

DISCRETIZED OUTCROP AREA OF THE MIDDLE POTOMAC-RARITAN-MAGOTHY AQUIFER

WATER SUPPLY CRITICAL AREA 2—From N.J. Department of Environmental Protection, unpublished,

 1:250,000. Boundaries are approximate and should not be used for regulatory compliance purposes

AREA IN WHICH SIMULATED WATER LEVELS ARE ABOVE -30 FEET IN THE ADJUSTED FULL-ALLOCATION

 SCENARIO AND BELOW -30 FEET IN THE ADJUSTED FULL-ALLOCATION PLUS WOOLWICH REQUEST

 SCENARIO—Area is 3.3 square miles. Datum is NGVD 29

BOUNDARY OF THE ACTIVE MODEL AREA—Middle

 Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer

SIMULATED POTENTIOMETRIC CONTOUR—Shows the

 simulated altitude at which water would have stood

 in a tightly cased well. Contour interval 10 feet.

 Datum is NGVD 29

WITHDRAWAL WELL—Withdrawals are from

 the Middle Potomac-Raritan-Magothy

 aquifer. Well identification is

 shown in figure 32

EXPLANATION

-50

B

Raritan-Magothy aquifer, and, C, Lower Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer for the adjusted full-allocation plus Woolwich request 

scenario, Salem-Gloucester study area, southern New Jersey.—Continued

Figure 35. Simulated potentiometric surface in the, A, confined Upper Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer, B, confined Middle Potomac-
Simulated Effects of Allocated Withdrawals 67

ALLOWAY TOWNSHIP

ELK TOWNSHIP PILESGROVE TOWNSHIP

LOGAN TOWNSHIP

MANNINGTON

TOWNSHIP UPPER PITTSGROVE TOWNSHIP

WOOLWICH TOWNSHIP

OLDMANS

TOWNSHIP HARRISON TOWNSHIP

MANTUA TOWNSHIP

WASHINGTON

TOWNSHIP

DEPTFORD

TOWNSHIP

CARNEYS POINT TOWNSHIP

WEST DEPTFORD

TOWNSHIP

SOUTH HARRISON TOWNSHIP

GREENWICH TOWNSHIP

EAST GREENWICH TOWNSHIP

MONROE

TOWNSHIP

GLOUCESTER

TOWNSHIP

GLASSBORO

BOROUGH

WINSLOW

TOWNSHIP

CLAYTON

BOROUGH

PENNSVILLE

TOWNSHIP

PITMAN

BOROUGH

PAULSBORO

BOROUGH WOODBURY

CITY

UPPER DEERFIELD 

TOWNSHIP

QUINTON

TOWNSHIP

HOPEWELL

TOWNSHIP

WOODSTOWN

BOROUGH

NATIONAL PARK 

BOROUGH

WESTVILLE BOROUGH

WENONAH

BOROUGH

FRANKLIN

TOWNSHIP

ELMER

BOROUGH

WOODBURY HEIGHTS 

BOROUGH

PENNS GROVE

BOROUGH

SWEDESBORO

BOROUGH

GLOUCESTER CITY

STOW CREEK

TOWNSHIP

BROOKLAWN BOROUGH

PITTSGROVE 

TOWNSHIP

PINE HILL

BOROUGH

PITTSGROVE

TOWNSHIP

Salem County

Gloucester County

Camden

County

39°52’30”

39°45’

75°22’30”

75°15’

75°7’30”

75°

75°30’

BELLMAWR

BOROUGH

RUNNEMEDE

BOROUGH

Delaware River

Delaware River

S T U D Y - A R E A B O U N D A R Y

0 2 4 6 MILES

0 2 4 6 KILOMETERS

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:24,000,

Universal Transverse Mercator Projection, Zone 18

39°37’30”

39°30’

-40

-30

-20

-10

-50

-60

0

-40

-40

-30

-40

-50

WATER SUPPLY CRITICAL AREA 2—From N.J. Department of Environmental Protection, unpublished,

 1:250,000. Boundaries are approximate and should not be used for regulatory compliance purposes

AREA IN WHICH SIMULATED WATER LEVELS ARE ABOVE -30 FEET IN THE ADJUSTED FULL-ALLOCATION

 SCENARIO AND BELOW -30 FEET IN THE ADJUSTED FULL-ALLOCATION PLUS WOOLWICH REQUEST

 SCENARIO—Area is 2.9 square miles. Datum is NGVD 29

BOUNDARY OF THE ACTIVE MODEL AREA—Lower

 Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer

SIMULATED POTENTIOMETRIC CONTOUR—Shows the

 simulated altitude at which water would have stood

 in a tightly cased well. Contour interval 10 feet.

 Datum is NGVD 29

WITHDRAWAL WELL—Withdrawals are from

 the Lower Potomac-Raritan-Magothy

 aquifer. Well identification is

 shown in figure 32

EXPLANATION

-50

C

Raritan-Magothy aquifer, and, C, Lower Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer for the adjusted full-allocation plus Woolwich request 

scenario, Salem-Gloucester study area, southern New Jersey.—Continued

Figure 35. Simulated potentiometric surface in the, A, confined Upper Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer, B, confined Middle Potomac-
68 Simulated Effects of Withdrawals from the Potomac-Raritan-Magothy Aquifer System, New Jersey

ALLOWAY TOWNSHIP

ELK TOWNSHIP PILESGROVE TOWNSHIP

LOGAN TOWNSHIP

MANNINGTON

TOWNSHIP UPPER PITTSGROVE TOWNSHIP

WOOLWICH TOWNSHIP

OLDMANS

TOWNSHIP HARRISON TOWNSHIP

MANTUA TOWNSHIP

WASHINGTON

TOWNSHIP

DEPTFORD

TOWNSHIP

CARNEYS POINT TOWNSHIP

WEST DEPTFORD

TOWNSHIP

SOUTH HARRISON TOWNSHIP

GREENWICH TOWNSHIP

EAST GREENWICH TOWNSHIP

MONROE

TOWNSHIP

GLOUCESTER

TOWNSHIP

GLASSBORO

BOROUGH

WINSLOW

TOWNSHIP

CLAYTON

BOROUGH

PENNSVILLE

TOWNSHIP

PITMAN

BOROUGH

PAULSBORO

BOROUGH WOODBURY

CITY

UPPER DEERFIELD 

TOWNSHIP

QUINTON

TOWNSHIP

HOPEWELL

TOWNSHIP

WOODSTOWN

BOROUGH

NATIONAL PARK 

BOROUGH

WESTVILLE BOROUGH

WENONAH

BOROUGH

FRANKLIN

TOWNSHIP

ELMER

BOROUGH

WOODBURY HEIGHTS 

BOROUGH

PENNS GROVE

BOROUGH

SWEDESBORO

BOROUGH

GLOUCESTER CITY

STOW CREEK

TOWNSHIP

BROOKLAWN BOROUGH

PITTSGROVE 

TOWNSHIP

PINE HILL

BOROUGH

PITTSGROVE

TOWNSHIP

Salem County

Gloucester County

Camden

County

39°52’30”

39°45’

75°22’30”

75°15’

75°7’30”

75°

75°30’

BELLMAWR

BOROUGH

RUNNEMEDE

BOROUGH

Delaware River

Delaware River

S T U D Y - A R E A B O U N D A R Y

0 2 4 6 MILES

0 2 4 6 KILOMETERS

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:24,000,

Universal Transverse Mercator Projection, Zone 18

39°37’30”

39°30’

-0.5

-1

-4

DISCRETIZED OUTCROP AREA OF THE UPPER POTOMAC-RARITAN-MAGOTHY AQUIFER

WATER SUPPLY CRITICAL AREA 2—From N.J. Department of Environmental Protection, unpublished,

 1:250,000. Boundaries are approximate and should not be used for regulatory compliance purposes

BOUNDARY OF THE ACTIVE MODEL AREA—Upper Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer

LINE OF EQUAL DIFFERENCE IN SIMULATED WATER LEVELS FROM THE ADJUSTED

 FULL-ALLOCATION SCENARIO TO THE ADJUSTED FULL-ALLOCATION

 PLUS WOOLWICH REQUEST SCENARIO—Negative value indicates

 water-level decline. Contour interval 0.5 foot

WITHDRAWAL WELL—Withdrawals are from

 the Upper Potomac-Raritan-Magothy

 aquifer. Well identification is

 shown in figure 32

EXPLANATION

-1

A

Raritan-Magothy aquifer, and, C, Lower Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer from the adjusted full-allocation scenario to the adjusted 

full-allocation plus Woolwich request scenario, Salem-Gloucester study area, southern New Jersey.

Figure 36. Change in simulated levels in the, A, confined Upper Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer, B, confined Middle Potomac-
Simulated Effects of Allocated Withdrawals 69

ALLOWAY TOWNSHIP

ELK TOWNSHIP PILESGROVE TOWNSHIP

LOGAN TOWNSHIP

MANNINGTON

TOWNSHIP UPPER PITTSGROVE TOWNSHIP

WOOLWICH TOWNSHIP

OLDMANS

TOWNSHIP HARRISON TOWNSHIP

MANTUA TOWNSHIP

WASHINGTON

TOWNSHIP

DEPTFORD

TOWNSHIP

CARNEYS POINT TOWNSHIP

WEST DEPTFORD

TOWNSHIP

SOUTH HARRISON TOWNSHIP

GREENWICH TOWNSHIP

EAST GREENWICH TOWNSHIP

MONROE

TOWNSHIP

GLOUCESTER

TOWNSHIP

GLASSBORO

BOROUGH

WINSLOW

TOWNSHIP

CLAYTON

BOROUGH

PENNSVILLE

TOWNSHIP

PITMAN

BOROUGH

PAULSBORO

BOROUGH WOODBURY

CITY

UPPER DEERFIELD 

TOWNSHIP

QUINTON

TOWNSHIP

HOPEWELL

TOWNSHIP

WOODSTOWN

BOROUGH

NATIONAL PARK 

BOROUGH

WESTVILLE BOROUGH

WENONAH

BOROUGH

FRANKLIN

TOWNSHIP

ELMER

BOROUGH

WOODBURY HEIGHTS 

BOROUGH

PENNS GROVE

BOROUGH

SWEDESBORO

BOROUGH

GLOUCESTER CITY

STOW CREEK

TOWNSHIP

BROOKLAWN BOROUGH

PITTSGROVE 

TOWNSHIP

PINE HILL

BOROUGH

PITTSGROVE

TOWNSHIP

Salem County

Gloucester County

Camden

County

39°52’30”

39°45’

75°22’30”

75°15’

75°7’30”

75°

75°30’

BELLMAWR

BOROUGH

RUNNEMEDE

BOROUGH

Delaware River

Delaware River

S T U D Y - A R E A B O U N D A R Y

0 2 4 6 MILES

0 2 4 6 KILOMETERS

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:24,000,

Universal Transverse Mercator Projection, Zone 18

39°37’30”

39°30’

-0.5

-1

-2

-1.5

DISCRETIZED OUTCROP AREA OF THE MIDDLE POTOMAC-RARITAN-MAGOTHY AQUIFER

WATER SUPPLY CRITICAL AREA 2—From N.J. Department of Environmental Protection, unpublished,

 1:250,000. Boundaries are approximate and should not be used for regulatory compliance purposes

BOUNDARY OF THE ACTIVE MODEL AREA—Middle Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer

LINE OF EQUAL DIFFERENCE IN SIMULATED WATER LEVELS FROM THE ADJUSTED

 FULL-ALLOCATION SCENARIO TO THE ADJUSTED FULL-ALLOCATION

 PLUS WOOLWICH REQUEST SCENARIO—Negative value indicates

 water-level decline. Contour interval 0.5 foot

WITHDRAWAL WELL—Withdrawals are from

 the Middle Potomac-Raritan-Magothy

 aquifer. Well identification is

 shown in figure 32

EXPLANATION

-1

B

Raritan-Magothy aquifer, and, C, Lower Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer from the adjusted full-allocation scenario to the adjusted 

full-allocation plus Woolwich request scenario, Salem-Gloucester study area, southern New Jersey.—Continued

Figure 36. Change in simulated levels in the, A, confined Upper Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer, B, confined Middle Potomac-
70 Simulated Effects of Withdrawals from the Potomac-Raritan-Magothy Aquifer System, New Jersey

ALLOWAY TOWNSHIP

ELK TOWNSHIP PILESGROVE TOWNSHIP

LOGAN TOWNSHIP

MANNINGTON

TOWNSHIP UPPER PITTSGROVE TOWNSHIP

WOOLWICH TOWNSHIP

OLDMANS

TOWNSHIP HARRISON TOWNSHIP

MANTUA TOWNSHIP

WASHINGTON

TOWNSHIP

DEPTFORD

TOWNSHIP

CARNEYS POINT TOWNSHIP

WEST DEPTFORD

TOWNSHIP

SOUTH HARRISON TOWNSHIP

GREENWICH TOWNSHIP

EAST GREENWICH TOWNSHIP

MONROE

TOWNSHIP

GLOUCESTER

TOWNSHIP

GLASSBORO

BOROUGH

WINSLOW

TOWNSHIP

CLAYTON

BOROUGH

PENNSVILLE

TOWNSHIP

PITMAN

BOROUGH

PAULSBORO

BOROUGH WOODBURY

CITY

UPPER DEERFIELD 

TOWNSHIP

QUINTON

TOWNSHIP

HOPEWELL

TOWNSHIP

WOODSTOWN

BOROUGH

NATIONAL PARK 

BOROUGH

WESTVILLE BOROUGH

WENONAH

BOROUGH

FRANKLIN

TOWNSHIP

ELMER

BOROUGH

WOODBURY HEIGHTS 

BOROUGH

PENNS GROVE

BOROUGH

SWEDESBORO

BOROUGH

GLOUCESTER CITY

STOW CREEK

TOWNSHIP

BROOKLAWN BOROUGH

PITTSGROVE 

TOWNSHIP

PINE HILL

BOROUGH

PITTSGROVE

TOWNSHIP

Salem County

Gloucester County

Camden

County

39°52’30”

39°45’

75°22’30”

75°15’

75°7’30”

75°

75°30’

BELLMAWR

BOROUGH

RUNNEMEDE

BOROUGH

Delaware River

Delaware River

S T U D Y - A R E A B O U N D A R Y

0 2 4 6 MILES

0 2 4 6 KILOMETERS

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:24,000,

Universal Transverse Mercator Projection, Zone 18

39°37’30”

39°30’

-0.5

WATER SUPPLY CRITICAL AREA 2—From N.J. Department of Environmental Protection, unpublished,

 1:250,000. Boundaries are approximate and should not be used for regulatory compliance purposes

BOUNDARY OF THE ACTIVE MODEL—Lower Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer

LINE OF EQUAL DIFFERENCE IN SIMULATED WATER LEVELS FROM THE ADJUSTED FULL-ALLOCATION

 SCENARIO TO THE ADJUSTED FULL-ALLOCATION PLUS WOOLWICH REQUEST SCENARIO—

 Negative value indicates water-level decline. Contour interval 0.5 foot

WITHDRAWAL WELL—Withdrawals are from

 the Lower Potomac-Raritan-Magothy

 aquifer. Well identification is

 shown in figure 32

EXPLANATION

-0.5

C

Raritan-Magothy aquifer, and, C, Lower Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer from the adjusted full-allocation scenario to the adjusted 

full-allocation plus Woolwich request scenario, Salem-Gloucester study area, southern New Jersey.—Continued

Figure 36. Change in simulated levels in the, A, confined Upper Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer, B, confined Middle Potomac-
Simulated Effects of Allocated Withdrawals 71

the Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer system of more than 

2 percent (541 Mgal/yr), which is similar to that simulated in 

the adjusted full-allocation scenario (513 Mgal/yr). Simulated 

flow-budget components for streams and the Delaware River 

in the local model for the adjusted full-allocation plus Woolwich request scenario are summarized in table 12. All flowbudget values are rounded to the nearest integer.

Adjusted Full-Allocation plus All Requests 

Scenario

This scenario was developed with assistance from the 

NJDEP BWA to evaluate the effects of withdrawals associated with pending water-allocation permit requests. Increased 

withdrawal rates were simulated for four municipalities—Carneys Point Township in Salem County and Greenwich, Logan, 

and Woolwich Townships in Gloucester County—and for six 

agricultural-irrigation users in East Greenwich, South Harrison, and Woolwich Townships in Gloucester County and Mannington and Pilesgrove Townships in Salem County (tables 5 

and 7). The total withdrawals from wells associated with the 

four municipalities and six agricultural-irrigation users for 

this scenario, along with two other water purveyors, and two 

industrial self-supply users and one agricultural-irrigation user 

are summarized in table 14. Withdrawals for all other wells 

in tables 4 to 7 are the same as those in the adjusted full-allocation scenario. Withdrawal wells in the Upper, Middle, and 

Lower Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifers in the adjusted fullallocation plus all requests scenario are shown in figure 37.

Simulated water levels in the confined Upper and 

Middle, and Lower, Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifers in the 

adjusted full-allocation plus all requests scenario are shown 

in figure 38, and the change in simulated water levels from 

the adjusted full-allocation scenario is shown in figure 39. 

Simulated water levels in the confined Upper PotomacRaritan-Magothy aquifer in the adjusted full-allocation plus 

all requests scenario range from about 10 ft above NGVD 29 

in Oldmans Township at the outcrop area of the aquifer to 

80 ft below NGVD 29 at a small cone of depression around 

a water-purveyor well (15-1365) in Washington Township in 

Critical Area 2 (fig. 38A). Three other cones of depression not 

observed in the adjusted full-allocation scenario are observed 

in Carneys Point Township, around two water-purveyor wells 

(33-361 and 33-697); in South Harrison Township, centered 

on an agricultural-irrigation well (15-1558); and in Pilesgrove Township, around two agricultural-irrigation wells 

(33-997 and 33-998). The largest water-level declines from 

the adjusted full-allocation scenario were 26 ft and 25 ft in 

Pilesgrove Township around two agricultural-irrigation wells 

(33-998 and 33-997, respectively) and 23 ft in Carneys Point 

Township at the updip limit of the confined aquifer near 

two water-purveyor wells (33-460 and 33-767) (fig. 39A). 

Other substantial water-level declines were 15 ft in Carneys 

Point Township around two water-purveyor wells (33-361 

and 33-697), and 14 ft in Woolwich Township around a 

water-purveyor well (15-1532). The average simulated water 

level in the Upper Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer in the 

adjusted full-allocation plus all requests scenario is 40 below 

NGVD 29, 4 ft lower than in the adjusted full-allocation scenario (table 12). 

Simulated water levels in the confined Middle PotomacRaritan-Magothy aquifer in the adjusted full-allocation plus 

all requests scenario range from NGVD 29 in Oldmans and 

Carney Point Townships in the northwestern outcrop area of 

the aquifer to about 60 ft below NGVD 29 in eastern part of 

the model area in Critical Area 2 (fig. 38B). A cone of depression not observed in the adjusted full-allocation scenario 

developed around two water-purveyor wells (33-354 and 

33-933) in Woodstown Borough. Although withdrawals were 

not increased at these wells, withdrawals were increased 

at three agricultural-irrigation wells (33-922, 33-997, and 

33-998) farther updip in Pilesgrove Township; this change 

probably altered flow patterns downdip near the wells in 

Woodstown Borough. Another cone of depression is observed 

around a water-purveyor well (15-1036) in Deptford Township. The largest simulated water-level declines from the 

adjusted full-allocation scenario were 9 ft in Woolwich Township, as a result of withdrawals from the overlying Upper 

Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer, and in Pilesgrove and 

Mannington Townships near the model boundary, as a result 

of increased withdrawals from agricultural-irrigation wells 

(33-997, 33-998, and 33-1008) screened in the overlying 

Upper Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer in these townships 

(fig. 39B). The agricultural-irrigation well located in Mannington Township (33-1008) is located outside the model; 

therefore, increased withdrawals from this well are accounted 

for in the boundary conditions. The average simulated water 

level in the Middle Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer in the 

adjusted full-allocation plus all requests scenario is 35 below 

NGVD 29, 3 ft lower than in the adjusted full-allocation scenario (table 12).

Simulated water levels in the Lower Potomac-RaritanMagothy aquifer in the adjusted full-allocation plus all 

requests scenario range from about 10 below NGVD 29 at 

the northwestern updip limit of the aquifer to about 60 ft 

below NGVD 29 in Washington and Gloucester Townships in 

Critical Area 2 (fig. 38C). When compared with the simulated 

water levels in the adjusted full-allocation scenario (fig. 33C), 

a cone of depression around two industrial self-supply wells 

(33-900 and 33-964) is observed in Oldmans Township. The 

largest simulated water-level decline from the adjusted fullallocation scenario was 16 ft around a water-purveyor well 

(33-346) in Carneys Point Township (fig. 39C). The average 

simulated water in the Lower Potomac-Raritan-Magothy 

aquifer level in the adjusted full-allocation plus all requests 

scenario is 39 below NGVD 29, 3 ft lower than in the adjusted 

full-allocation scenario (table 12).

The areas in the Upper, Middle, and Lower PotomacRaritan-Magothy aquifers in which simulated water levels 

are lower than 30 ft below NGVD 29 in the adjusted fullallocation plus all requests scenario but above 30 ft below 
72 Simulated Effects of Withdrawals from the Potomac-Raritan-Magothy Aquifer System, New Jersey Table 14. Summary of simulated groundwater withdrawals for selected water-allocation permit numbers, Salem-Gloucester study area, southern New Jersey. [NJDEP, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection; Twp, Township; Boro, Borough; withdrawals are from the Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer system, in million gallons per year] NJDEP water- allocation permit number Municipality Number of pumped wells in model Aquifer of the Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer system Total simulated withdrawals 1998 calibration simulation 2000 baseline simulation1 Full- allocation scenario Adjusted full- allocation scenario Adjusted full- allocation plus Woolwich request scenario Adjusted full- allocation plus all requests scenario Adjusted full- allocation plus adjusted requests scenario 2025 scenario Water-purveyor 5003 Logan Twp 4 Middle 307.070 278.119 392.001 392.001 392.001 500.000 449.999 320.810 5167 Woodstown Boro 3 Middle 125.110 76.405 119.401 119.401 119.401 119.401 119.401 102.946 5183 Harrison Twp 4 Upper 236.790 2243.620 123.000 123.000 123.000 123.000 123.000 123.000 5253 Greenwich Twp 3 Middle 351.350 328.221 348.000 348.000 348.000 430.000 348.000 328.221 5328 Carneys Point Twp 7 Upper and Lower 478.680 491.141 629.999 629.999 629.999 1,000.000 820.000 494.113 5383 Woolwich Twp 2 Upper 0.000 318.020 116.500 116.500 225.000 399.000 225.000 419.038 Industrial self-supply

42122P Carneys Point Twp 16 Upper, Middle, and Lower 674.750 764.728 5,078.761 1,500.000 1,500.000 1,500.000 1,500.000 764.7282166P Oldmans Twp 4 Middle and Lower 289.320 294.173 525.600 525.600 525.600 525.600 525.600 294.173

Agricultural-irrigation

GL0107 Woolwich Twp 2 Upper 16.500 510.888 6368.000 12.000 12.000 24.000 24.000 10.888GL0127 East Greenwich Twp 2 Upper 0.850 71.240 61,500.000 64.000 64.000 100.000 100.000 1.240GL0146 South Harrison Twp 1 Upper 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 18.000 18.000 0.000SA0121 Mannington Twp 1 Upper 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 54.000 0.000 0.000SA0124 Pilesgrove Twp 1 Upper 843.200 947.820 97.800 97.800 97.800 150.000 83.333 47.820SA0139 Pilesgrove Twp 2 Upper 80.000 90.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 300.000 166.666 0.000SA0166 Carneys Point Twp 1 Upper 0.000 0.000 14.700 14.700 14.700 14.700 14.700 0.000Total 2,523.620 2,554.385 9,313.762 3,943.001 4,051.501 5,257.701 4,517.699 2,906.977

1The 2000 baseline simulation withdrawals are the average annual withdrawals from 1999 to 2001, unless otherwise noted.2The 2000 baseline simulation withdrawals are estimated to equal 2001 withdrawals only.3The 2000 baseline simulation withdrawals are estimated to equal 2000 withdrawals only.4One well is in Mannington Township and four wells are in Pennsville Township.5Withdrawals are the average annual withdrawals from 2001 to 2003.6Allocation is an estimated maximum withdrawal from groundwater, based on historical use and pump capacity.7Withdrawals are the average annual withdrawals from 1994 to 2000.8Withdrawals are estimated to equal 1997 withdrawals only.9Withdrawals are the average annual withdrawals for 1997, 2001, and 2002.
Simulated Effects of Allocated Withdrawals 73

ALLOWAY TOWNSHIP

ELK TOWNSHIP PILESGROVE TOWNSHIP

LOGAN TOWNSHIP

MANNINGTON

TOWNSHIP UPPER PITTSGROVE TOWNSHIP

WOOLWICH TOWNSHIP

OLDMANS

TOWNSHIP HARRISON TOWNSHIP

MANTUA TOWNSHIP

WASHINGTON

TOWNSHIP

DEPTFORD

TOWNSHIP

CARNEYS POINT TOWNSHIP

WEST DEPTFORD

TOWNSHIP

SOUTH HARRISON TOWNSHIP

GREENWICH TOWNSHIP

EAST GREENWICH TOWNSHIP

MONROE

TOWNSHIP

GLOUCESTER

TOWNSHIP

GLASSBORO

BOROUGH

WINSLOW

TOWNSHIP

CLAYTON

BOROUGH

PENNSVILLE

TOWNSHIP

PITMAN

BOROUGH

PAULSBORO

BOROUGH WOODBURY

CITY

UPPER DEERFIELD 

TOWNSHIP

QUINTON

TOWNSHIP

HOPEWELL

TOWNSHIP

WOODSTOWN

BOROUGH

NATIONAL PARK 

BOROUGH

WESTVILLE BOROUGH

WENONAH

BOROUGH

FRANKLIN

TOWNSHIP

ELMER

BOROUGH

WOODBURY HEIGHTS 

BOROUGH

PENNS GROVE

BOROUGH

SWEDESBORO

BOROUGH

GLOUCESTER CITY

STOW CREEK

TOWNSHIP

BROOKLAWN BOROUGH

PITTSGROVE 

TOWNSHIP

PINE HILL

BOROUGH

PITTSGROVE

TOWNSHIP

Salem County

Gloucester County

Camden

County

39°52’30”

39°45’

75°22’30”

75°15’

75°7’30”

75°

75°30’

BELLMAWR

BOROUGH

RUNNEMEDE

BOROUGH

Delaware River

Delaware River

S T U D Y - A R E A B O U N D A R Y

0 2 4 6 MILES

0 2 4 6 KILOMETERS

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:24,000,

Universal Transverse Mercator Projection, Zone 18

39°37’30”

39°30’

15-282 15-1488

15-304

15-306

15-373 15-533

15-207

15-24

33-198

33-1010

15-1339

15-1176

15-1222

15-1485

15-1

15-3

33-922 15-1558

15-1561

15-1365

15-248

15-337

15-339

15-1462 15-1112

15-240

15-1615

15-524 15-1159

15-1566 15-1613

15-274

15-1611 15-275

15-276

15-16

15-295

15-312

15-430

15-1607

15-1565 15-238

15-1604

33-1008

33-998

33-997

15-330

15-1461

WATER SUPPLY CRITICAL AREA 2—From N.J. Department of Environmental

 Protection, unpublished, 1:250,000. Boundaries are approximate and should

 not be used for regulatory compliance purposes

EXTENT OF MODEL GRID

LOCATION OF WITHDRAWAL WELL—Number is U.S. Geological Survey

 well number

 Upper Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer

 Middle Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer

 Lower Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer

EXPLANATION

15-167

15-283

15-16

33-164

33-933

33-362 33-459

33-354

15-361 15-60

15-422 15-62

15-63

15-385

15-127 15-225

15-227 15-183

15-1407

7-252

15-260

15-265

15-267

15-433

7-600 7-250

15-268

7-249

33-330

33-305

33-70

33-298

33-67

33-996

33-920

33-1009

33-697

33-361

33-137

33-962

33-898

33-129

33-602

33-322

33-857

33-983

33-316

33-346

33-1006

33-1011

33-1007

33-1012

33-460

33-767

33-750

33-964 33-984

33-432

33-899

33-900

33-901

33-784

33-85

15-1527

15-1526 15-697

15-1363

15-1362

15-167 15-158

15-159

15-166

15-1554

15-137

15-1571

15-1570

15-569 15-1603

15-1569

15-1568

15-1105

15-1370 15-1460

15-130

15-1529 15-1598 15-132

15-346

15-1109

15-1371

15-1532

15-1533

15-1036

15-17

15-1089

15-374

15-320 15-321

15-322

15-8

15-1585

15-1447

15-6

15-191 15-192

15-1664 15-1069

15-194

15-193

15-28

15-421 15-1346 15-355

15-285

15-283

15-286

A

GREENWICH TOWNSHIP

PAULSBORO

BOROUGH

Delaware River 15-1383

15-1401

15-1378

15-1124

15-1034

15-348 15-1199

15-72 15-213

15-692

15-1364

15-1597

15-1405

15-1404

15-212 15-347 15-647

15-76

15-1402

15-79

15-1403 15-1039

15-1409

15-1374

15-824 15-1122

15-1121 15-1415

15-1120

15-1414

15-1541

15-1408

A

33-125

33-123

33-122

33-671

33-972

33-971

7-8

7-601

7-531

7-596

7-520

15-327

15-326

7-12

Figure 37. Location of withdrawal wells and wells simulated as boundary flows in the Upper, Middle, and Lower Potomac-RaritanMagothy aquifers for the adjusted full-allocation plus all requests scenario and the adjusted full-allocation plus adjusted requests 

scenario, Salem-Gloucester study area, southern New Jersey.
74 Simulated Effects of Withdrawals from the Potomac-Raritan-Magothy Aquifer System, New Jersey

ALLOWAY TOWNSHIP

ELK TOWNSHIP PILESGROVE TOWNSHIP

LOGAN TOWNSHIP

MANNINGTON

TOWNSHIP UPPER PITTSGROVE TOWNSHIP

WOOLWICH TOWNSHIP

OLDMANS

TOWNSHIP HARRISON TOWNSHIP

MANTUA TOWNSHIP

WASHINGTON

TOWNSHIP

DEPTFORD

TOWNSHIP

CARNEYS POINT TOWNSHIP

WEST DEPTFORD

TOWNSHIP

SOUTH HARRISON TOWNSHIP

GREENWICH TOWNSHIP

EAST GREENWICH TOWNSHIP

MONROE

TOWNSHIP

GLOUCESTER

TOWNSHIP

GLASSBORO

BOROUGH

WINSLOW

TOWNSHIP

CLAYTON

BOROUGH

PENNSVILLE

TOWNSHIP

PITMAN

BOROUGH

PAULSBORO

BOROUGH WOODBURY

CITY

UPPER DEERFIELD 

TOWNSHIP

QUINTON

TOWNSHIP

HOPEWELL

TOWNSHIP

WOODSTOWN

BOROUGH

NATIONAL PARK 

BOROUGH

WESTVILLE BOROUGH

WENONAH

BOROUGH

FRANKLIN

TOWNSHIP

ELMER

BOROUGH

WOODBURY HEIGHTS 

BOROUGH

PENNS GROVE

BOROUGH

SWEDESBORO

BOROUGH

GLOUCESTER CITY

STOW CREEK

TOWNSHIP

BROOKLAWN BOROUGH

PITTSGROVE 

TOWNSHIP

PINE HILL

BOROUGH

PITTSGROVE

TOWNSHIP

Salem County

Gloucester County

Camden

County

39°52’30”

39°45’

75°22’30”

75°15’

75°7’30”

75°

75°30’

BELLMAWR

BOROUGH

RUNNEMEDE

BOROUGH

Delaware River

Delaware River

S T U D Y - A R E A B O U N D A R Y

0 2 4 6 MILES

0 2 4 6 KILOMETERS

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:24,000,

Universal Transverse Mercator Projection, Zone 18

39°37’30”

39°30’

-40

-10

-20

-30

-50

-60

0

-70

-70

10

-10

-40

-40

-40

-40

-70

-70

-20

-40

-50

-60

-70

-80

-20

-20

-30

-10

DISCRETIZED OUTCROP AREA OF THE UPPER POTOMAC-RARITAN-MAGOTHY AQUIFER

WATER SUPPLY CRITICAL AREA 2—From N.J. Department of Environmental Protection,

 unpublished, 1:250,000. Boundaries are approximate and should not be used

 for regulatory compliance purposes

AREA IN WHICH SIMULATED WATER LEVELS ARE ABOVE -30 FEET IN THE ADJUSTED FULL-ALLOCATION

 SCENARIO AND BELOW -30 FEET IN THE ADJUSTED FULL-ALLOCATION PLUS ALL REQUESTS

 SCENARIO—Area is 33.4 square miles. Datum is NGVD 29

BOUNDARY OF THE ACTIVE MODEL AREA—Upper

 Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer

SIMULATED POTENTIOMETRIC CONTOUR—Shows the

 simulated altitude at which water would have stood in

 a tightly cased well. Contour interval 10 feet.

 Datum is NGVD 29

WITHDRAWAL WELL—Withdrawals are from

 the Upper Potomac-Raritan-Magothy

 aquifer. Well identification is

 shown in figure 37

EXPLANATION

-50

A

Raritan-Magothy aquifer, and, C, Lower Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer for the adjusted full-allocation plus all requests scenario, 

Salem-Gloucester study area, southern New Jersey.

Figure 38. Simulated potentiometric surface in the, A, confined Upper Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer, B, confined Middle Potomac-
Simulated Effects of Allocated Withdrawals 75

ALLOWAY TOWNSHIP

ELK TOWNSHIP PILESGROVE TOWNSHIP

LOGAN TOWNSHIP

MANNINGTON

TOWNSHIP UPPER PITTSGROVE TOWNSHIP

WOOLWICH TOWNSHIP

OLDMANS

TOWNSHIP HARRISON TOWNSHIP

MANTUA TOWNSHIP

WASHINGTON

TOWNSHIP

DEPTFORD

TOWNSHIP

CARNEYS POINT TOWNSHIP

WEST DEPTFORD

TOWNSHIP

SOUTH HARRISON TOWNSHIP

GREENWICH TOWNSHIP

EAST GREENWICH TOWNSHIP

MONROE

TOWNSHIP

GLOUCESTER

TOWNSHIP

GLASSBORO

BOROUGH

WINSLOW

TOWNSHIP

CLAYTON

BOROUGH

PENNSVILLE

TOWNSHIP

PITMAN

BOROUGH

PAULSBORO

BOROUGH WOODBURY

CITY

UPPER DEERFIELD 

TOWNSHIP

QUINTON

TOWNSHIP

HOPEWELL

TOWNSHIP

WOODSTOWN

BOROUGH

NATIONAL PARK 

BOROUGH

WESTVILLE BOROUGH

WENONAH

BOROUGH

FRANKLIN

TOWNSHIP

ELMER

BOROUGH

WOODBURY HEIGHTS 

BOROUGH

PENNS GROVE

BOROUGH

SWEDESBORO

BOROUGH

GLOUCESTER CITY

STOW CREEK

TOWNSHIP

BROOKLAWN BOROUGH

PITTSGROVE 

TOWNSHIP

PINE HILL

BOROUGH

PITTSGROVE

TOWNSHIP

Salem County

Gloucester County

Camden

County

39°52’30”

39°45’

75°22’30”

75°15’

75°7’30”

75°

75°30’

BELLMAWR

BOROUGH

RUNNEMEDE

BOROUGH

Delaware River

Delaware River

S T U D Y - A R E A B O U N D A R Y

0 2 4 6 MILES

0 2 4 6 KILOMETERS

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:24,000,

Universal Transverse Mercator Projection, Zone 18

39°37’30”

39°30’

0

-40

-30

-10

-20

-50

-60

-50

-60

-30

-30

0

0

DISCRETIZED OUTCROP AREA OF THE MIDDLE POTOMAC-RARITAN-MAGOTHY AQUIFER

WATER SUPPLY CRITICAL AREA 2—From N.J. Department of Environmental Protection, unpublished,

 1:250,000. Boundaries are approximate and should not be used for regulatory compliance purposes

AREA IN WHICH SIMULATED WATER LEVELS ARE ABOVE -30 FEET IN THE ADJUSTED FULL-ALLOCATION

 SCENARIO AND BELOW -30 FEET IN THE ADJUSTED FULL-ALLOCATION PLUS ALL REQUESTS

 SCENARIO—Area is 37.7 square miles. Datum is NGVD 29

BOUNDARY OF THE ACTIVE MODEL AREA—Middle

 Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer

SIMULATED POTENTIOMETRIC CONTOUR—Shows the

 simulated altitude at which water would have stood in

 a tightly cased well. Contour interval 10 feet.

 Datum is NGVD 29

WITHDRAWAL WELL—Withdrawals are from

 the Middle Potomac-Raritan-Magothy

 aquifer. Well identification is

 shown in figure 37

EXPLANATION

-50

B

Raritan-Magothy aquifer, and, C, Lower Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer for the adjusted full-allocation plus all requests scenario, 

Salem-Gloucester study area, southern New Jersey.—Continued

Figure 38. Simulated potentiometric surface in the, A, confined Upper Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer, B, confined Middle Potomac-
76 Simulated Effects of Withdrawals from the Potomac-Raritan-Magothy Aquifer System, New Jersey

ALLOWAY TOWNSHIP

ELK TOWNSHIP PILESGROVE TOWNSHIP

LOGAN TOWNSHIP

MANNINGTON

TOWNSHIP UPPER PITTSGROVE TOWNSHIP

WOOLWICH TOWNSHIP

OLDMANS

TOWNSHIP HARRISON TOWNSHIP

MANTUA TOWNSHIP

WASHINGTON

TOWNSHIP

DEPTFORD

TOWNSHIP

CARNEYS POINT TOWNSHIP

WEST DEPTFORD

TOWNSHIP

SOUTH HARRISON TOWNSHIP

GREENWICH TOWNSHIP

EAST GREENWICH TOWNSHIP

MONROE

TOWNSHIP

GLOUCESTER

TOWNSHIP

GLASSBORO

BOROUGH

WINSLOW

TOWNSHIP

CLAYTON

BOROUGH

PENNSVILLE

TOWNSHIP

PITMAN

BOROUGH

PAULSBORO

BOROUGH WOODBURY

CITY

UPPER DEERFIELD 

TOWNSHIP

QUINTON

TOWNSHIP

HOPEWELL

TOWNSHIP

WOODSTOWN

BOROUGH

NATIONAL PARK 

BOROUGH

WESTVILLE BOROUGH

WENONAH

BOROUGH

FRANKLIN

TOWNSHIP

ELMER

BOROUGH

WOODBURY HEIGHTS 

BOROUGH

PENNS GROVE

BOROUGH

SWEDESBORO

BOROUGH

GLOUCESTER CITY

STOW CREEK

TOWNSHIP

BROOKLAWN BOROUGH

PITTSGROVE 

TOWNSHIP

PINE HILL

BOROUGH

PITTSGROVE

TOWNSHIP

Salem County

Gloucester County

Camden

County

39°52’30”

39°45’

75°22’30”

75°15’

75°7’30”

75°

75°30’

BELLMAWR

BOROUGH

RUNNEMEDE

BOROUGH

Delaware River

Delaware River

S T U D Y - A R E A B O U N D A R Y

0 2 4 6 MILES

0 2 4 6 KILOMETERS

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:24,000,

Universal Transverse Mercator Projection, Zone 18

39°37’30”

39°30’

-40

-30

-20

-10

-50

-60

-30

-50

-40

-30

-40

-50

-50

WATER SUPPLY CRITICAL AREA 2—From N.J. Department of Environmental Protection, unpublished,

 1:250,000. Boundaries are approximate and should not be used for regulatory compliance purposes

AREA IN WHICH SIMULATED WATER LEVELS ARE ABOVE -30 FEET IN THE ADJUSTED FULL-ALLOCATION

 SCENARIO AND BELOW -30 FEET IN THE ADJUSTED FULL-ALLOCATION PLUS ALL REQUESTS

 SCENARIO— Area is 27.0 square miles. Datum is NGVD 29

BOUNDARY OF THE ACTIVE MODEL AREA—Lower

 Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer

SIMULATED POTENTIOMETRIC CONTOUR—Shows the simulated

 altitude at which water would have stood in a tightly cased

 well. Contour interval 10 feet. Datum is NGVD 29

WITHDRAWAL WELL—Withdrawals from

 the Lower Potomac-Raritan-Magothy

 aquifer. Well identification is

 shown in figure 37

EXPLANATION

-50

C

Raritan-Magothy aquifer, and, C, Lower Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer for the adjusted full-allocation plus all requests scenario, 

Salem-Gloucester study area, southern New Jersey.—Continued

Figure 38. Simulated potentiometric surface in the, A, confined Upper Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer, B, confined Middle Potomac-
Simulated Effects of Allocated Withdrawals 77

ALLOWAY TOWNSHIP

ELK TOWNSHIP PILESGROVE TOWNSHIP

LOGAN TOWNSHIP

MANNINGTON

TOWNSHIP UPPER PITTSGROVE TOWNSHIP

WOOLWICH TOWNSHIP

OLDMANS

TOWNSHIP HARRISON TOWNSHIP

MANTUA TOWNSHIP

WASHINGTON

TOWNSHIP

DEPTFORD

TOWNSHIP

CARNEYS POINT TOWNSHIP

WEST DEPTFORD

TOWNSHIP

SOUTH HARRISON TOWNSHIP

GREENWICH TOWNSHIP

EAST GREENWICH TOWNSHIP

MONROE

TOWNSHIP

GLOUCESTER

TOWNSHIP

GLASSBORO

BOROUGH

WINSLOW

TOWNSHIP

CLAYTON

BOROUGH

PENNSVILLE

TOWNSHIP

PITMAN

BOROUGH

PAULSBORO

BOROUGH WOODBURY

CITY

UPPER DEERFIELD 

TOWNSHIP

QUINTON

TOWNSHIP

HOPEWELL

TOWNSHIP

WOODSTOWN

BOROUGH

NATIONAL PARK 

BOROUGH

WESTVILLE BOROUGH

WENONAH

BOROUGH

FRANKLIN

TOWNSHIP

ELMER

BOROUGH

WOODBURY HEIGHTS 

BOROUGH

PENNS GROVE

BOROUGH

SWEDESBORO

BOROUGH

GLOUCESTER CITY

STOW CREEK

TOWNSHIP

BROOKLAWN BOROUGH

PITTSGROVE 

TOWNSHIP

PINE HILL

BOROUGH

PITTSGROVE

TOWNSHIP

Salem County

Gloucester County

Camden

County

39°52’30”

39°45’

75°22’30”

75°15’

75°7’30”

75°

75°30’

BELLMAWR

BOROUGH

RUNNEMEDE

BOROUGH

Delaware River

Delaware River

S T U D Y - A R E A B O U N D A R Y

0 2 4 6 MILES

0 2 4 6 KILOMETERS

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:24,000,

Universal Transverse Mercator Projection, Zone 18

39°37’30”

39°30’

-3

-2

-4

-1

-5

-6

-7

-8 -9

-10

-12 -11

-7

-12

-14

-7

-14

-26

-25

-15

-23

DISCRETIZED OUTCROP AREA OF THE UPPER POTOMAC-RARITAN-MAGOTHY AQUIFER

WATER SUPPLY CRITICAL AREA 2—From N.J. Department of Environmental Protection, unpublished,

 1:250,000. Boundaries are approximate and should not be used for regulatory compliance purposes

BOUNDARY OF THE ACTIVE MODEL AREA—Upper Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer

LINE OF EQUAL DIFFERENCE IN SIMULATED WATER LEVELS FROM THE ADJUSTED FULL-ALLOCATION

 SCENARIO TO THE ADJUSTED FULL-ALLOCATION PLUS ALL REQUESTS

 SCENARIO—Negative value indicates water-level decline.

 Contour interval 1 foot

WITHDRAWAL WELL—Withdrawals are from the

 Upper Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer. Well

 identification is shown in figure 37

EXPLANATION

-5

A

Raritan-Magothy aquifer, and, C, Lower Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer from the adjusted full-allocation scenario to the adjusted 

full-allocation plus all requests scenario, Salem-Gloucester study area, southern New Jersey.

Figure 39. Change in simulated water levels in the, A, confined Upper Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer, B, confined Middle Potomac-
78 Simulated Effects of Withdrawals from the Potomac-Raritan-Magothy Aquifer System, New Jersey

ALLOWAY TOWNSHIP

ELK TOWNSHIP PILESGROVE TOWNSHIP

LOGAN TOWNSHIP

MANNINGTON

TOWNSHIP UPPER PITTSGROVE TOWNSHIP

WOOLWICH TOWNSHIP

OLDMANS

TOWNSHIP HARRISON TOWNSHIP

MANTUA TOWNSHIP

WASHINGTON

TOWNSHIP

DEPTFORD

TOWNSHIP

CARNEYS POINT TOWNSHIP

WEST DEPTFORD

TOWNSHIP

SOUTH HARRISON TOWNSHIP

GREENWICH TOWNSHIP

EAST GREENWICH TOWNSHIP

MONROE

TOWNSHIP

GLOUCESTER

TOWNSHIP

GLASSBORO

BOROUGH

WINSLOW

TOWNSHIP

CLAYTON

BOROUGH

PENNSVILLE

TOWNSHIP

PITMAN

BOROUGH

PAULSBORO

BOROUGH WOODBURY

CITY

UPPER DEERFIELD 

TOWNSHIP

QUINTON

TOWNSHIP

HOPEWELL

TOWNSHIP

WOODSTOWN

BOROUGH

NATIONAL PARK 

BOROUGH

WESTVILLE BOROUGH

WENONAH

BOROUGH

FRANKLIN

TOWNSHIP

ELMER

BOROUGH

WOODBURY HEIGHTS 

BOROUGH

PENNS GROVE

BOROUGH

SWEDESBORO

BOROUGH

GLOUCESTER CITY

STOW CREEK

TOWNSHIP

BROOKLAWN BOROUGH

PITTSGROVE 

TOWNSHIP

PINE HILL

BOROUGH

PITTSGROVE

TOWNSHIP

Salem County

Gloucester County

Camden

County

39°52’30”

39°45’

75°22’30”

75°15’

75°7’30”

75°

75°30’

BELLMAWR

BOROUGH

RUNNEMEDE

BOROUGH

Delaware River

Delaware River

S T U D Y - A R E A B O U N D A R Y

0 2 4 6 MILES

0 2 4 6 KILOMETERS

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:24,000,

Universal Transverse Mercator Projection, Zone 18

39°37’30”

39°30’

-2

-3

-4

-5

-6

-7

-8

-9

-7

-4

-3

-2

-6

-1

-9

DISCRETIZED OUTCROP AREA OF THE MIDDLE POTOMAC-RARITAN-MAGOTHY AQUIFER

WATER SUPPLY CRITICAL AREA 2—From N.J. Department of Environmental Protection, unpublished,

 1:250,000. Boundaries are approximate and should not be used for regulatory compliance purposes

BOUNDARY OF THE ACTIVE MODEL AREA—Middle Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer

LINE OF EQUAL DIFFERENCE IN SIMULATED WATER LEVELS FROM THE ADJUSTED FULL-ALLOCATION

 SCENARIO TO THE ADJUSTED FULL-ALLOCATION PLUS ALL REQUESTS

 SCENARIO—Negative value indicates water-level decline.

 Contour interval 1 foot

WITHDRAWAL WELL—Withdrawals are from

 the Middle Potomac-Raritan-Magothy

 aquifer. Well identification is

 shown in figure 37

EXPLANATION

-5

B

Raritan-Magothy aquifer, and, C, Lower Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer from the adjusted full-allocation scenario to the adjusted 

full-allocation plus all requests scenario, Salem-Gloucester study area, southern New Jersey.—Continued

Figure 39. Change in simulated water levels in the, A, confined Upper Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer, B, confined Middle Potomac-
Simulated Effects of Allocated Withdrawals 79

ALLOWAY TOWNSHIP

ELK TOWNSHIP PILESGROVE TOWNSHIP

LOGAN TOWNSHIP

MANNINGTON

TOWNSHIP UPPER PITTSGROVE TOWNSHIP

WOOLWICH TOWNSHIP

OLDMANS

TOWNSHIP HARRISON TOWNSHIP

MANTUA TOWNSHIP

WASHINGTON

TOWNSHIP

DEPTFORD

TOWNSHIP

CARNEYS POINT TOWNSHIP

WEST DEPTFORD

TOWNSHIP

SOUTH HARRISON TOWNSHIP

GREENWICH TOWNSHIP

EAST GREENWICH TOWNSHIP

MONROE

TOWNSHIP

GLOUCESTER

TOWNSHIP

GLASSBORO

BOROUGH

WINSLOW

TOWNSHIP

CLAYTON

BOROUGH

PENNSVILLE

TOWNSHIP

PITMAN

BOROUGH

PAULSBORO

BOROUGH WOODBURY

CITY

UPPER DEERFIELD 

TOWNSHIP

QUINTON

TOWNSHIP

HOPEWELL

TOWNSHIP

WOODSTOWN

BOROUGH

NATIONAL PARK 

BOROUGH

WESTVILLE BOROUGH

WENONAH

BOROUGH

FRANKLIN

TOWNSHIP

ELMER

BOROUGH

WOODBURY HEIGHTS 

BOROUGH

PENNS GROVE

BOROUGH

SWEDESBORO

BOROUGH

GLOUCESTER CITY

STOW CREEK

TOWNSHIP

BROOKLAWN BOROUGH

PITTSGROVE 

TOWNSHIP

PINE HILL

BOROUGH

PITTSGROVE

TOWNSHIP

Salem County

Gloucester County

Camden

County

39°52’30”

39°45’

75°22’30”

75°15’

75°7’30”

75°

75°30’

BELLMAWR

BOROUGH

RUNNEMEDE

BOROUGH

Delaware River

Delaware River

S T U D Y - A R E A B O U N D A R Y

0 2 4 6 MILES

0 2 4 6 KILOMETERS

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:24,000,

Universal Transverse Mercator Projection, Zone 18

39°37’30”

39°30’

-2

-3

-4

-1

-6

-5

-7

-8 -9

-1

-16

WATER SUPPLY CRITICAL AREA 2—From N.J. Department of Environmental Protection, unpublished,

 1:250,000. Boundaries are approximate and should not be used for regulatory compliance purposes

BOUNDARY OF THE ACTIVE MODEL AREA—Lower Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer

LINE OF EQUAL DIFFERENCE IN SIMULATED WATER LEVELS FROM THE ADJUSTED 

 FULL-ALLOCATION SCENARIO TO THE ADJUSTED FULL-ALLOCATION PLUS ALL

 REQUESTS SCENARIO—Negative value indicates water-level decline.

 Contour interval 1 foot

WITHDRAWAL WELL—Withdrawals are from

 the Lower Potomac-Raritan-Magothy

 aquifer. Well identification is

 shown in figure 37

EXPLANATION

-5

C

Raritan-Magothy aquifer, and, C, Lower Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer from the adjusted full-allocation scenario to the adjusted 

full-allocation plus all requests scenario, Salem-Gloucester study area, southern New Jersey.—Continued

Figure 39. Change in simulated water levels in the, A, confined Upper Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer, B, confined Middle Potomac-
80 Simulated Effects of Withdrawals from the Potomac-Raritan-Magothy Aquifer System, New Jersey

NGVD 29 in the adjusted full-allocation scenario are shown 

in figure 38. These areas increased in size from the area in the 

adjusted full-allocation scenario by 33.4, 37.7, and 27.0 mi2 

in the Upper, Middle, and Lower Potomac-Raritan-Magothy 

aquifers, respectively (table 12). The increase in area occurred 

in the Upper and Middle Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifers 

through eastern and southwestern East Greenwich Township, 

part of which is located in Critical Area 2; southern Woolwich and northwestern Pilesgrove Townships; and southern 

Swedesboro Borough. In the Middle Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer, the increase in area is also through northern Deptford and southern Oldmans and Carneys Point Townships. In 

the Lower Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer, the increase in 

area is through eastern and southwestern East Greenwich and 

northwestern Harrison Townships, part of which is located in 

Critical Area 2, southern Woolwich and southern and western 

Oldmans Townships, and Penns Grove Borough. Most of the 

increase in area is outside Critical Area 2 (fig. 38). The part 

of these areas that is in Critical Area 2 is 2.4, 4.0, and 4.9 mi2 

in the Upper, Middle, and Lower Potomac-Raritan-Magothy 

aquifers, respectively, which is about 7, 11, and 18 percent, 

respectively, of the total area that increased in size from the 

area in the adjusted full-allocation scenario. 

The average change in simulated water levels for the 

model cells along the boundary of Critical Area 2 in the 

confined Upper and Middle, and Lower, Potomac-RaritanMagothy aquifers for the adjusted full-allocation plus all 

requests scenario is -3.1, -3.0, and -3.0 ft, respectively, from 

the adjusted full-allocation scenario (table 13). The largest 

and smallest changes in simulated water level for the model 

cells along the boundary of Critical Area 2 for the adjusted 

full-allocation plus all requests scenario from the adjusted fullallocation scenario are summarized in table 13.

 Simulated withdrawals totaled about 58 percent of outflow (14,551 Mgal/yr), 10 percent (1,261 Mgal/yr) more than 

in the adjusted full-allocation scenario. Simulated groundwater discharge to streams and wetlands is about 27 percent of 

outflow (6,706 Mgal/yr), 8 percent (550 Mgal/yr) less than in 

the adjusted full-allocation scenario. Specified flows at bordering hydrogeologic units (including the confined Englishtown 

aquifer system at the top of the model) account for about 

19 percent of inflow (4,696 Mgal/yr) and about 8 percent of 

outflow (2,156 Mgal/yr), which is about a 5-percent increase 

(223 Mgal/yr) in inflow and about a 9-percent decrease 

(222 Mgal/yr) in outflow from the adjusted full-allocation scenario. Recharge is 71 percent of inflow (17,937 Mgal/yr) and 

was not changed from the 1998 calibration and 2000 baseline 

simulations. Simulated groundwater discharge to the Delaware River accounts for the remaining percentage of inflow 

(10 percent) and outflow (7 percent) and is a net flow from 

the Delaware River to the Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer 

system of about 3 percent (780 Mgal/yr), which is 52 percent 

(267 Mgal/yr) more than in the adjusted full-allocation scenario. Simulated flow-budget components for streams and the 

Delaware River in the local model for the adjusted full-allocation plus all requests scenario are summarized in table 12. All 

flow-budget values are rounded to the nearest integer.

Adjusted Full-Allocation plus Adjusted Requests 

Scenario

In the adjusted full-allocation plus adjusted requests 

scenario, withdrawals from some of the wells in which 

withdrawals were increased in the adjusted full-allocation 

plus all requests scenario were decreased to an amount equal 

to or between withdrawals in the full-allocation scenario and 

withdrawals in the full-allocation plus all requests scenario 

(tables 5 and 7). For the remainder of those wells, withdrawals 

remained at the amount simulated in the full-allocation plus all 

requests scenario. Withdrawals for all other wells in tables 4 

to 7 are the same as those in the adjusted full-allocation 

scenario. Withdrawal wells in the Upper, Middle, and Lower 

Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifers used in the adjusted 

full-allocation plus adjusted requests scenario are shown in 

figure 37.

Simulated water levels in the confined Upper and Middle, 

and Lower, Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifers in the adjusted 

full-allocation plus adjusted requests scenario are shown in 

figure 40, and the change in simulated water levels from the 

adjusted full-allocation scenario is shown in figure 41. Simulated water levels in the confined Upper Potomac-RaritanMagothy aquifer in the adjusted full-allocation plus adjusted 

requests scenario range from about 10 ft above NGVD 29 

in Oldmans Township near the outcrop area of the aquifer to 

80 ft below NGVD 29 at a cone of depression around a waterpurveyor well (15-1365) in Washington Township in Critical 

Area 2 (fig. 40A). When compared to the adjusted full-allocation scenario (fig. 33A), several small cones of depression 

are observed: in Woolwich Township around two water-purveyor wells (15-1532 and 15-1533), in Swedesboro Borough 

centered on a water-purveyor well (15-1112), in Glassboro 

Borough centered on a water-purveyor well (15-60), and in 

Paulsboro Borough centered on an industrial self-supply well 

(15-1408). The largest water-level declines from the adjusted 

full-allocation scenario were 13 and 14 ft centered on agricultural-irrigation wells (33-997 and 33-998, respectively) in 

Pilesgrove Township (fig. 41A). The average simulated water 

level in the Upper Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer in the 

adjusted full-allocation plus adjusted requests scenario is 38 ft 

below NGVD 29, 2 ft lower than in the adjusted full-allocation 

scenario (table 12). 

Simulated water levels in the confined Middle PotomacRaritan-Magothy aquifer in the adjusted full-allocation plus 

adjusted requests scenario range from NGVD 29 near the 

outcrop area of the aquifer to about 60 ft below NGVD 29 at 

a cone of depression around a water-purveyor well (15-1036) 

in Deptford Township, and also through Glassboro Borough 
Simulated Effects of Allocated Withdrawals 81

ALLOWAY TOWNSHIP

ELK TOWNSHIP PILESGROVE TOWNSHIP

LOGAN TOWNSHIP

MANNINGTON

TOWNSHIP UPPER PITTSGROVE TOWNSHIP

WOOLWICH TOWNSHIP

OLDMANS

TOWNSHIP HARRISON TOWNSHIP

MANTUA TOWNSHIP

WASHINGTON

TOWNSHIP

DEPTFORD

TOWNSHIP

CARNEYS POINT TOWNSHIP

WEST DEPTFORD

TOWNSHIP

SOUTH HARRISON TOWNSHIP

GREENWICH TOWNSHIP

EAST GREENWICH TOWNSHIP

MONROE

TOWNSHIP

GLOUCESTER

TOWNSHIP

GLASSBORO

BOROUGH

WINSLOW

TOWNSHIP

CLAYTON

BOROUGH

PENNSVILLE

TOWNSHIP

PITMAN

BOROUGH

PAULSBORO

BOROUGH WOODBURY

CITY

UPPER DEERFIELD 

TOWNSHIP

QUINTON

TOWNSHIP

HOPEWELL

TOWNSHIP

WOODSTOWN

BOROUGH

NATIONAL PARK 

BOROUGH

WESTVILLE BOROUGH

WENONAH

BOROUGH

FRANKLIN

TOWNSHIP

ELMER

BOROUGH

WOODBURY HEIGHTS 

BOROUGH

PENNS GROVE

BOROUGH

SWEDESBORO

BOROUGH

GLOUCESTER CITY

STOW CREEK

TOWNSHIP

BROOKLAWN BOROUGH

PITTSGROVE 

TOWNSHIP

PINE HILL

BOROUGH

PITTSGROVE

TOWNSHIP

Salem County

Gloucester County

Camden

County

39°52’30”

39°45’

75°22’30”

75°15’

75°7’30”

75°

75°30’

BELLMAWR

BOROUGH

RUNNEMEDE

BOROUGH

Delaware River

Delaware River

S T U D Y - A R E A B O U N D A R Y

0 2 4 6 MILES

0 2 4 6 KILOMETERS

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:24,000,

Universal Transverse Mercator Projection, Zone 18

39°37’30”

39°30’

-10

-30

-20

-40

-50

0

-60

-70

-70

10

-10

-70

-60

-70

-20

-20

-30

-50

-70

-60

-80

-10

-20

DISCRETIZED OUTCROP AREA OF THE UPPER POTOMAC-RARITAN-MAGOTHY AQUIFER

WATER SUPPLY CRITICAL AREA 2—From N.J. Department of Environmental Protection, unpublished,

 1:250,000. Boundaries are approximate and should not be used for regulatory compliance purposes

AREA IN WHICH SIMULATED WATER LEVELS ARE ABOVE -30 FEET IN THE ADJUSTED FULL-ALLOCATION

 SCENARIO AND BELOW -30 FEET IN THE ADJUSTED FULL-ALLOCATION PLUS ADJUSTED REQUESTS

 SCENARIO—Area is 17.7 square miles. Datum is NGVD 29

BOUNDARY OF THE ACTIVE MODEL AREA—Upper

 Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer

SIMULATED POTENTIOMETRIC CONTOUR—Shows the

 simulated altitude at which water would have

 stood in a tightly cased well. Contour interval

 10 feet. Datum is NGVD 29

WITHDRAWAL WELL—Withdrawals are from

 the Upper Potomac-Raritan-Magothy

 aquifer. Well identification is

 shown in figure 37

EXPLANATION

-50

A

Raritan-Magothy aquifer, and, C, Lower Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer for the adjusted full-allocation plus adjusted requests 

scenario, Salem-Gloucester study area, southern New Jersey.

Figure 40. Simulated potentiometric surface in the, A, confined Upper Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer, B, confined Middle Potomac-
82 Simulated Effects of Withdrawals from the Potomac-Raritan-Magothy Aquifer System, New Jersey

ALLOWAY TOWNSHIP

ELK TOWNSHIP PILESGROVE TOWNSHIP

LOGAN TOWNSHIP

MANNINGTON

TOWNSHIP UPPER PITTSGROVE TOWNSHIP

WOOLWICH TOWNSHIP

OLDMANS

TOWNSHIP HARRISON TOWNSHIP

MANTUA TOWNSHIP

WASHINGTON

TOWNSHIP

DEPTFORD

TOWNSHIP

CARNEYS POINT TOWNSHIP

WEST DEPTFORD

TOWNSHIP

SOUTH HARRISON TOWNSHIP

GREENWICH TOWNSHIP

EAST GREENWICH TOWNSHIP

MONROE

TOWNSHIP

GLOUCESTER

TOWNSHIP

GLASSBORO

BOROUGH

WINSLOW

TOWNSHIP

CLAYTON

BOROUGH

PENNSVILLE

TOWNSHIP

PITMAN

BOROUGH

PAULSBORO

BOROUGH WOODBURY

CITY

UPPER DEERFIELD 

TOWNSHIP

QUINTON

TOWNSHIP

HOPEWELL

TOWNSHIP

WOODSTOWN

BOROUGH

NATIONAL PARK 

BOROUGH

WESTVILLE BOROUGH

WENONAH

BOROUGH

FRANKLIN

TOWNSHIP

ELMER

BOROUGH

WOODBURY HEIGHTS 

BOROUGH

PENNS GROVE

BOROUGH

SWEDESBORO

BOROUGH

GLOUCESTER CITY

STOW CREEK

TOWNSHIP

BROOKLAWN BOROUGH

PITTSGROVE 

TOWNSHIP

PINE HILL

BOROUGH

PITTSGROVE

TOWNSHIP

Salem County

Gloucester County

Camden

County

39°52’30”

39°45’

75°22’30”

75°15’

75°7’30”

75°

75°30’

BELLMAWR

BOROUGH

RUNNEMEDE

BOROUGH

Delaware River

Delaware River

S T U D Y - A R E A B O U N D A R Y

0 2 4 6 MILES

0 2 4 6 KILOMETERS

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:24,000,

Universal Transverse Mercator Projection, Zone 18

39°37’30”

39°30’

0

-10

-30

-20

-40

-50

-60

-30

-60

-50

-30

0

0

0

DISCRETIZED OUTCROP AREA OF THE MIDDLE POTOMAC-RARITAN-MAGOTHY AQUIFER

WATER SUPPLY CRITICAL AREA 2—From N.J. Department of Environmental Protection, unpublished,

 1:250,000. Boundaries are approximate and should not be used for regulatory compliance purposes

AREA IN WHICH SIMULATED WATER LEVELS ARE ABOVE -30 FEET IN THE ADJUSTED FULL-ALLOCATION

 SCENARIO AND BELOW -30 FEET IN THE ADJUSTED FULL-ALLOCATION PLUS ADJUSTED REQUESTS

 SCENARIO—Area is 24.3 square miles. Datum is NGVD 29

BOUNDARY OF THE ACTIVE MODEL AREA—Middle

 Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer

SIMULATED POTENTIOMETRIC CONTOUR—Shows the

 simulated altitude at which water would have stood

 in a tightly cased well. Contour interval 10 feet.

 Datum is NGVD 29

WITHDRAWAL WELL—Withdrawals are from

 the Middle Potomac-Raritan-Magothy

 aquifer. Well identification is

 shown in figure 37

EXPLANATION

-50

B

Raritan-Magothy aquifer, and, C, Lower Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer for the adjusted full-allocation plus adjusted requests 

scenario, Salem-Gloucester study area, southern New Jersey.—Continued

Figure 40. Simulated potentiometric surface in the, A, confined Upper Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer, B, confined Middle Potomac-
Simulated Effects of Allocated Withdrawals 83

ALLOWAY TOWNSHIP

ELK TOWNSHIP PILESGROVE TOWNSHIP

LOGAN TOWNSHIP

MANNINGTON

TOWNSHIP UPPER PITTSGROVE TOWNSHIP

WOOLWICH TOWNSHIP

OLDMANS

TOWNSHIP HARRISON TOWNSHIP

MANTUA TOWNSHIP

WASHINGTON

TOWNSHIP

DEPTFORD

TOWNSHIP

CARNEYS POINT TOWNSHIP

WEST DEPTFORD

TOWNSHIP

SOUTH HARRISON TOWNSHIP

GREENWICH TOWNSHIP

EAST GREENWICH TOWNSHIP

MONROE

TOWNSHIP

GLOUCESTER

TOWNSHIP

GLASSBORO

BOROUGH

WINSLOW

TOWNSHIP

CLAYTON

BOROUGH

PENNSVILLE

TOWNSHIP

PITMAN

BOROUGH

PAULSBORO

BOROUGH WOODBURY

CITY

UPPER DEERFIELD 

TOWNSHIP

QUINTON

TOWNSHIP

HOPEWELL

TOWNSHIP

WOODSTOWN

BOROUGH

NATIONAL PARK 

BOROUGH

WESTVILLE BOROUGH

WENONAH

BOROUGH

FRANKLIN

TOWNSHIP

ELMER

BOROUGH

WOODBURY HEIGHTS 

BOROUGH

PENNS GROVE

BOROUGH

SWEDESBORO

BOROUGH

GLOUCESTER CITY

STOW CREEK

TOWNSHIP

BROOKLAWN BOROUGH

PITTSGROVE 

TOWNSHIP

PINE HILL

BOROUGH

PITTSGROVE

TOWNSHIP

Salem County

Gloucester County

Camden

County

39°52’30”

39°45’

75°22’30”

75°15’

75°7’30”

75°

75°30’

BELLMAWR

BOROUGH

RUNNEMEDE

BOROUGH

Delaware River

Delaware River

S T U D Y - A R E A B O U N D A R Y

0 2 4 6 MILES

0 2 4 6 KILOMETERS

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:24,000,

Universal Transverse Mercator Projection, Zone 18

39°37’30”

39°30’

-30

-40

-20

-10

-50

-60

0

-30

-40

-50

-40

-50

WATER SUPPLY CRITICAL AREA 2—From N.J. Department of Environmental Protection, unpublished,

 1:250,000. Boundaries are approximate and should not be used for regulatory compliance purposes

AREA IN WHICH SIMULATED WATER LEVELS ARE ABOVE -30 FEET IN THE ADJUSTED FULL-ALLOCATION

 SCENARIO AND BELOW -30 FEET IN THE ADJUSTED FULL-ALLOCATION PLUS ADJUSTED REQUESTS

 SCENARIO—Area is 11.8 square miles. Datum is NGVD 29

BOUNDARY OF THE ACTIVE MODEL AREA—Lower

 Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer

SIMULATED POTENTIOMETRIC CONTOUR—Shows the

 simulated altitude at which water would have stood

 in a tightly cased well. Contour interval 10 feet.

 Datum is NGVD 29

WITHDRAWAL WELL—Withdrawals are from

 the Lower Potomac-Raritan-Magothy

 aquifer. Well identification is

 shown in figure 37

EXPLANATION

-50

C

Raritan-Magothy aquifer, and, C, Lower Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer for the adjusted full-allocation plus adjusted requests 

scenario, Salem-Gloucester study area, southern New Jersey.—Continued

Figure 40. Simulated potentiometric surface in the, A, confined Upper Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer, B, confined Middle Potomac-
84 Simulated Effects of Withdrawals from the Potomac-Raritan-Magothy Aquifer System, New Jersey

ALLOWAY TOWNSHIP

ELK TOWNSHIP PILESGROVE TOWNSHIP

LOGAN TOWNSHIP

MANNINGTON

TOWNSHIP UPPER PITTSGROVE TOWNSHIP

WOOLWICH TOWNSHIP

OLDMANS

TOWNSHIP HARRISON TOWNSHIP

MANTUA TOWNSHIP

WASHINGTON

TOWNSHIP

DEPTFORD

TOWNSHIP

CARNEYS POINT TOWNSHIP

WEST DEPTFORD

TOWNSHIP

SOUTH HARRISON TOWNSHIP

GREENWICH TOWNSHIP

EAST GREENWICH TOWNSHIP

MONROE

TOWNSHIP

GLOUCESTER

TOWNSHIP

GLASSBORO

BOROUGH

WINSLOW

TOWNSHIP

CLAYTON

BOROUGH

PENNSVILLE

TOWNSHIP

PITMAN

BOROUGH

PAULSBORO

BOROUGH WOODBURY

CITY

UPPER DEERFIELD 

TOWNSHIP

QUINTON

TOWNSHIP

HOPEWELL

TOWNSHIP

WOODSTOWN

BOROUGH

NATIONAL PARK 

BOROUGH

WESTVILLE BOROUGH

WENONAH

BOROUGH

FRANKLIN

TOWNSHIP

ELMER

BOROUGH

WOODBURY HEIGHTS 

BOROUGH

PENNS GROVE

BOROUGH

SWEDESBORO

BOROUGH

GLOUCESTER CITY

STOW CREEK

TOWNSHIP

BROOKLAWN BOROUGH

PITTSGROVE 

TOWNSHIP

PINE HILL

BOROUGH

PITTSGROVE

TOWNSHIP

Salem County

Gloucester County

Camden

County

39°52’30”

39°45’

75°22’30”

75°15’

75°7’30”

75°

75°30’

BELLMAWR

BOROUGH

RUNNEMEDE

BOROUGH

Delaware River

Delaware River

S T U D Y - A R E A B O U N D A R Y

0 2 4 6 MILES

0 2 4 6 KILOMETERS

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:24,000,

Universal Transverse Mercator Projection, Zone 18

39°37’30”

39°30’

-1

-2

-3

-4

-5

-6

-7

-1

-6

-2

-2

-7

-5

-3

-14

-13

-9

DISCRETIZED OUTCROP AREA OF THE UPPER POTOMAC-RARITAN-MAGOTHY AQUIFER

WATER SUPPLY CRITICAL AREA 2—From N.J. Department of Environmental Protection, unpublished,

 1:250,000. Boundaries are approximate and should not be used for regulatory compliance purposes

BOUNDARY OF THE ACTIVE MODEL AREA—Upper Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer

LINE OF EQUAL DIFFERENCE IN SIMULATED WATER LEVELS FROM THE ADJUSTED

 FULL-ALLOCATION SCENARIO TO THE ADJUSTED FULL-ALLOCATION

 PLUS ADJUSTED REQUESTS SCENARIO—Negative value indicates

 water-level decline. Contour interval 1 foot

WITHDRAWAL WELL—Withdrawals are from

 the Upper Potomac-Raritan-Magothy

 aquifer. Well identification is

 shown in figure 37

EXPLANATION

-5

A

Raritan-Magothy aquifer, and, C, Lower Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer from the adjusted full-allocation scenario to the adjusted 

full-allocation plus adjusted requests scenario, Salem-Gloucester study area, southern New Jersey.

Figure 41. Change in simulated water levels in the, A, confined Upper Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer, B, confined Middle Potomac-
Simulated Effects of Allocated Withdrawals 85

ALLOWAY TOWNSHIP

ELK TOWNSHIP PILESGROVE TOWNSHIP

LOGAN TOWNSHIP

MANNINGTON

TOWNSHIP UPPER PITTSGROVE TOWNSHIP

WOOLWICH TOWNSHIP

OLDMANS

TOWNSHIP HARRISON TOWNSHIP

MANTUA TOWNSHIP

WASHINGTON

TOWNSHIP

DEPTFORD

TOWNSHIP

CARNEYS POINT TOWNSHIP

WEST DEPTFORD

TOWNSHIP

SOUTH HARRISON TOWNSHIP

GREENWICH TOWNSHIP

EAST GREENWICH TOWNSHIP

MONROE

TOWNSHIP

GLOUCESTER

TOWNSHIP

GLASSBORO

BOROUGH

WINSLOW

TOWNSHIP

CLAYTON

BOROUGH

PENNSVILLE

TOWNSHIP

PITMAN

BOROUGH

PAULSBORO

BOROUGH WOODBURY

CITY

UPPER DEERFIELD 

TOWNSHIP

QUINTON

TOWNSHIP

HOPEWELL

TOWNSHIP

WOODSTOWN

BOROUGH

NATIONAL PARK 

BOROUGH

WESTVILLE BOROUGH

WENONAH

BOROUGH

FRANKLIN

TOWNSHIP

ELMER

BOROUGH

WOODBURY HEIGHTS 

BOROUGH

PENNS GROVE

BOROUGH

SWEDESBORO

BOROUGH

GLOUCESTER CITY

STOW CREEK

TOWNSHIP

BROOKLAWN BOROUGH

PITTSGROVE 

TOWNSHIP

PINE HILL

BOROUGH

PITTSGROVE

TOWNSHIP

Salem County

Gloucester County

Camden

County

39°52’30”

39°45’

75°22’30”

75°15’

75°7’30”

75°

75°30’

BELLMAWR

BOROUGH

RUNNEMEDE

BOROUGH

Delaware River

Delaware River

S T U D Y - A R E A B O U N D A R Y

0 2 4 6 MILES

0 2 4 6 KILOMETERS

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:24,000,

Universal Transverse Mercator Projection, Zone 18

39°37’30”

39°30’

-1

-2

-3

-4

-5

-3

-2

-1

DISCRETIZED OUTCROP AREA OF THE MIDDLE POTOMAC-RARITAN-MAGOTHY AQUIFER

WATER SUPPLY CRITICAL AREA 2—From N.J. Department of Environmental Protection, unpublished,

 1:250,000. Boundaries are approximate and should not be used for regulatory compliance purposes

BOUNDARY OF THE ACTIVE MODEL AREA—Middle Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer

LINE OF EQUAL DIFFERENCE IN SIMULATED WATER LEVELS FROM THE ADJUSTED

 FULL-ALLOCATION SCENARIO TO THE ADJUSTED FULL-ALLOCATION

 PLUS ADJUSTED REQUESTS SCENARIO—Negative value indicates

 water-level decline. Contour interval 1 foot

WITHDRAWAL WELL—Withdrawals are from

 the Middle Potomac-Raritan-Magothy

 aquifer. Well identification is

 shown in figure 37

EXPLANATION

-5

B

Raritan-Magothy aquifer, and, C, Lower Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer from the adjusted full-allocation scenario to the adjusted 

full-allocation plus adjusted requests scenario, Salem-Gloucester study area, southern New Jersey.—Continued

Figure 41. Change in simulated water levels in the, A, confined Upper Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer, B, confined Middle Potomac-
86 Simulated Effects of Withdrawals from the Potomac-Raritan-Magothy Aquifer System, New Jersey

ALLOWAY TOWNSHIP

ELK TOWNSHIP PILESGROVE TOWNSHIP

LOGAN TOWNSHIP

MANNINGTON

TOWNSHIP UPPER PITTSGROVE TOWNSHIP

WOOLWICH TOWNSHIP

OLDMANS

TOWNSHIP HARRISON TOWNSHIP

MANTUA TOWNSHIP

WASHINGTON

TOWNSHIP

DEPTFORD

TOWNSHIP

CARNEYS POINT TOWNSHIP

WEST DEPTFORD

TOWNSHIP

SOUTH HARRISON TOWNSHIP

GREENWICH TOWNSHIP

EAST GREENWICH TOWNSHIP

MONROE

TOWNSHIP

GLOUCESTER

TOWNSHIP

GLASSBORO

BOROUGH

WINSLOW

TOWNSHIP

CLAYTON

BOROUGH

PENNSVILLE

TOWNSHIP

PITMAN

BOROUGH

PAULSBORO

BOROUGH WOODBURY

CITY

UPPER DEERFIELD 

TOWNSHIP

QUINTON

TOWNSHIP

HOPEWELL

TOWNSHIP

WOODSTOWN

BOROUGH

NATIONAL PARK 

BOROUGH

WESTVILLE BOROUGH

WENONAH

BOROUGH

FRANKLIN

TOWNSHIP

ELMER

BOROUGH

WOODBURY HEIGHTS 

BOROUGH

PENNS GROVE

BOROUGH

SWEDESBORO

BOROUGH

GLOUCESTER CITY

STOW CREEK

TOWNSHIP

BROOKLAWN BOROUGH

PITTSGROVE 

TOWNSHIP

PINE HILL

BOROUGH

PITTSGROVE

TOWNSHIP

Salem County

Gloucester County

Camden

County

39°52’30”

39°45’

75°22’30”

75°15’

75°7’30”

75°

75°30’

BELLMAWR

BOROUGH

RUNNEMEDE

BOROUGH

Delaware River

Delaware River

S T U D Y - A R E A B O U N D A R Y

0 2 4 6 MILES

0 2 4 6 KILOMETERS

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:24,000,

Universal Transverse Mercator Projection, Zone 18

39°37’30”

39°30’

-1

-2

-3

-4

-8

WATER SUPPLY CRITICAL AREA 2—From N.J. Department of Environmental Protection, unpublished,

 1:250,000. Boundaries are approximate and should not be used for regulatory compliance purposes

BOUNDARY OF THE ACTIVE MODEL AREA—Lower Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer

LINE OF EQUAL DIFFERENCE IN SIMULATED WATER LEVELS FROM THE ADJUSTED

 FULL-ALLOCATION SCENARIO TO THE ADJUSTED FULL-ALLOCATION PLUS

 ADJUSTED REQUESTS SCENARIO—Negative value indicates

 water-level decline. Contour interval 1 foot

WITHDRAWAL WELL—Withdrawals are from

 the Lower Potomac-Raritan-Magothy

 aquifer. Well identification is

 shown in figure 37

EXPLANATION

-5

C

Raritan-Magothy aquifer, and, C, Lower Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer from the adjusted full-allocation scenario to the adjusted 

full-allocation plus adjusted requests scenario, Salem-Gloucester study area, southern New Jersey.—Continued

Figure 41. Change in simulated water levels in the, A, confined Upper Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer, B, confined Middle Potomac-
Simulated Effects of Allocated Withdrawals 87

and Washington Township in Critical Area 2 (fig. 40B). 

The largest simulated water-level decline from the adjusted 

full-allocation scenario was 5 ft centered on two agriculturalirrigation wells (33-997 and 33-998) in Pilesgrove Township, 

which are screened in the overlying aquifer (fig. 41B). The 

average simulated water level in the Middle Potomac-RaritanMagothy aquifer in the adjusted full-allocation plus adjusted 

requests scenario is 34 ft below NGVD 29, 2 ft lower than in 

the adjusted full-allocation scenario (table 12).

Simulated water levels in the Lower Potomac-RaritanMagothy aquifer in the adjusted full-allocation plus adjusted 

requests scenario range from about 10 below NGVD 29 near 

the updip limit of the aquifer to about 60 ft below NGVD 29 

in Gloucester Township in Critical Area 2 (fig. 40C). The 

largest simulated water-level decline from the adjusted fullallocation scenario was 8 ft centered on a water-purveyor well 

(33-346) in Carneys Point Township (fig. 41C). 

The areas in the Upper, Middle, and Lower PotomacRaritan-Magothy aquifers in which simulated water levels are 

lower than 30 ft below NGVD 29 in the adjusted full-allocation plus adjusted requests scenario but above 30 ft below 

NGVD 29 in the adjusted full-allocation scenario are shown 

in figure 40. These areas increased in size from the area in the 

adjusted full-allocation scenario by 17.7, 24.3, and 11.8 mi2 

in the Upper, Middle, and Lower Potomac-Raritan-Magothy 

aquifers, respectively (table 12). The largest increase in area 

in the Upper and Middle Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifers 

are in northern Pilesgrove and southern Woolwich Townships. In the Middle Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer, the 

increase in area also is through southern Carneys Point and 

Oldmans Townships. Most of the increase in area is outside 

Critical Area 2 (fig. 40). The part of these areas that is in 

Critical Area 2 is 1.3, 2.0, and 2.4 mi2 in the Upper, Middle, 

and Lower Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifers, respectively, 

which is about 7, 8, and 20 percent, respectively, of the 

total area that increased in size from the area in the adjusted 

full-allocation scenario. 

The average change in simulated water levels for the 

model cells along the boundary of Critical Area 2 in the 

confined Upper and Middle, and Lower, Potomac-RaritanMagothy aquifers for the adjusted full-allocation plus adjusted 

requests scenario is -1.5, -1.4, and -1.4 ft, respectively, from 

the adjusted full-allocation scenario (table 13). The largest and 

smallest changes in simulated water level for the model cells 

along the boundary of Critical Area 2 for the adjusted fullallocation plus adjusted requests scenario from the adjusted 

full-allocation scenario are summarized in table 13.

Simulated withdrawals totaled about 56 percent of 

outflow (13,865 Mgal/yr), 4 percent (575 Mgal/yr) more than 

in the adjusted full-allocation scenario. Simulated groundwater discharge to streams and wetlands is about 28 percent of 

outflow (6,983 Mgal/yr), 4 percent (273 Mgal/yr) less than in 

the adjusted full-allocation scenario. Specified flows at bordering hydrogeologic units (including the confined Englishtown 

aquifer system at the top of the model) account for about 

18 percent of inflow (4,565 Mgal/yr) and about 9 percent of 

outflow (2,273 Mgal/yr), which are about a 2-percent increase 

and a 4-percent decrease, respectively, from the adjusted fullallocation scenario. Simulated recharge is 72 percent of inflow 

(17,937 Mgal/yr) and was not changed from the 1998 calibration and 2000 baseline simulations. Simulated groundwater 

discharge to the Delaware River accounts for the remaining 

percentage of inflow (10 percent) and outflow (7 percent) and 

is a net flow from the Delaware River to the Potomac-RaritanMagothy aquifer system of about 3 percent (619 Mgal/yr), 

21 percent (106 Mgal/yr) more than in the adjusted full-allocation scenario. Simulated flow-budget components for streams 

and the Delaware River in the local model for the adjusted 

full-allocation scenario plus adjusted requests scenario are 

summarized in table 12. All flow-budget values are rounded to 

the nearest integer.

2025 Groundwater-Withdrawal Scenario

A groundwater-withdrawal scenario was developed to 

evaluate the effects of future 2025 groundwater withdrawals in the Salem-Gloucester study area on water levels in the 

study area. A population estimate for 2025 was made for each 

municipality in the study area by determining the change in 

population from 1990 to 2000. The percent change in population from 2000 to 2025 was used to estimate domestic 

self-supply withdrawals and withdrawals from water-purveyor 

wells outside Critical Area 2. The change in agricultural land 

use in Salem and Gloucester Counties from 2002 to 2025 was 

determined to estimate agricultural-irrigation withdrawals in 

the study area in 2025.

Projected 2025 population

During 1960–2000, population growth in Salem County 

differed from that in Gloucester County. Gloucester County 

experienced a continuous population increase, whereas 

Salem County experienced modest population increases from 

1960–90, then a slight population decline from 1990 to 2000 

(Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission, 2002; U.S. 

Census Bureau, 2006; U.S. Censuses of Population and Housing, 2006).

Gloucester County

The population of Gloucester County has increased 

steadily since 1960 and had almost doubled by 2000 (fig. 42) 

(Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission, 2002; 

U.S. Censuses of Population and Housing, 2006). Municipal 

population estimates for Gloucester County in 2025 used in 

this study were developed by the Delaware Valley Regional 

Planning Commission (DVRPC) (Delaware Valley Regional 

Planning Commission, 2002). The population of Gloucester 

County in 2000 is estimated by the DVRPC to have been 

254,673. It is estimated that the population in Gloucester 

County will increase by almost 27 percent from 2000 to 2025. 

The DVRPC projected population increases in Woolwich 
88 Simulated Effects of Withdrawals from the Potomac-Raritan-Magothy Aquifer System, New Jersey

1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2025

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

0

Gloucester County - reported

Salem County - reported

Gloucester County - projected

Salem County - projected

POPULATION, IN THOUSANDS

YEAR

Figure 42. Reported (1960–2000) and projected (2010–25) population, Gloucester and Salem Counties, southern New Jersey. Data from 

Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission, 2002 (Gloucester County, reported and projected); U.S. Census Bureau, 2006 (Salem 

County, reported and projected); U.S. Censuses of Population and Housing, 2006 (Gloucester and Salem Counties, reported).

(359 percent), Harrison (85 percent), Elk (79 percent), South 

Harrison (53 percent), Monroe (42 percent), Mantua (33 percent), East Greenwich (27 percent), West Deptford (20 percent), Logan (19 percent), Washington (18 percent), and 

Deptford (10 percent) Townships and Clayton (37 percent), 

Glassboro (28 percent), Swedesboro (8 percent), Wenonah 

(5 percent), and Westville (3 percent) Boroughs (Delaware 

Valley Regional Planning Commission, 2002). The DVRPC 

projected population declines of 7 percent in Paulsboro 

Borough, 6 percent in Woodbury City, and 5 percent or less 

in Greenwich Township and Woodbury Heights, Pitman, and 

National Park Boroughs for the same time period (Delaware 

Valley Regional Planning Commission, 2002).

Salem County

Salem County is the least populated county in New 

Jersey. Its population is concentrated in the older industrial 

and residential communities along the Delaware River. Tidal 

marshes adjacent to the Delaware River and Bay are largely 

uninhabited. The inland areas are populated with widely 

dispersed crop and dairy farms. Salem County’s population 

increased 11 percent over the 40-year period 1960–2000 (U.S. 

Censuses of Population and Housing, 2006). The population 

of Salem County in 2000 was 64,285 (U.S. Census Bureau, 

2006). From 1990 to 2000, the population of Salem County, 

the only county in New Jersey reporting a population loss, 

decreased about 2 percent (U.S. Census Bureau, 2006). 

Municipal population estimates for Salem County in 2025 

were not developed by the DVRPC. U.S. Census municipallevel data for 1990–2000 were used to estimate the population 

in 2025 for each municipality in the study area (U.S. Censuses of Population and Housing, 2006; U.S. Census Bureau, 

2006). It was assumed for this study that the rate of change in 

population from 1990 to 2000 (as a percent) would continue to 

2025 for each municipality. For each municipality, the percent 

change from 1990 to 2000 was halved to obtain a 5-year rate 

of change. A linear projection was used to calculate the change 

in population over every 5-year interval from 2001 to 2025 for 

each municipality in the study area. This percent change was 

used to calculate the 2025 population projection for municipalities in the study area in which the population increased 

from 1990 and 2000. The population of some municipalities in 

Salem County decreased during this period. For those municipalities, the percent change determined from 1990 to 2000 was 

adjusted by dividing the percent loss in population by 10, then 

doubling this value. This adjustment was made to account for 

some replacement of aged populations and the addition of new 
Simulated Effects of Allocated Withdrawals 89

residents in the municipality. A linear projection was then used 

to calculate the change in population over every 5-year interval from 2001 to 2025 for each of the municipalities in Salem 

County in the study area in which the population decreased 

from 1990 to 2000. The estimation error for the 2025 population projection is considered to be relatively small because 

it is assumed that Salem County will continue to have the 

smallest population in the State and many of the municipalities 

in this county are only partially in the study area. Population 

increases in the study area from 2000 to 2025 are projected 

for Oldmans (18 percent), Upper Pittsgrove (29 percent), and 

Pilesgrove (64 percent) Townships. Over the same period, the 

populations of Elmer Borough, Carneys Point and Mannington 

Townships and Penns Grove Borough are estimated to decline 

by 9, 7, 6, and 5 percent, respectively, whereas the populations 

of Alloway Township and Woodstown Borough are estimated 

to remain fairly constant.

Projected 2025 Agricultural Land-Use Change 

The change in agricultural land use in Gloucester and 

Salem Counties from 1990 to 2000 was analyzed to estimate 

agricultural-irrigation withdrawals in the study area in 2025. 

Gloucester County

Changes in agricultural land use from 1990 to 1995 

and from 1995 to 2000 in Gloucester County were analyzed 

using DVRPC land-use data to determine a rate of change in 

agricultural land use in the study area in Gloucester County 

(Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission, 1998a and 

1998b; Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission, 

2004). Agricultural land use was about 35 percent of the land 

use in northern Gloucester County in 1990, about 34 percent 

in 1995, and about 29 percent in 2000. During 1990–95, 

1995–2000, and 1990–2000 agricultural land use decreased 

about 1, 5, and 6 percent, respectively. Using the percentage changes in agricultural land use from 1990 to 2000 and 

from 1995 to 2000, agricultural land use in the study area in 

Gloucester County is projected to decrease about 21 to 30 percent by 2025. 

Salem County

For Salem County, Geographical Information System 

(GIS) data for land use in 1986, 1995, and 2002 were used 

to determine the change in agricultural land use, which 

includes cropland and pasture land (New Jersey Department 

of Environmental Protection, 2001 and 2007). From 1986 to 

1995, agricultural land use in Salem County decreased about 

13 percent (New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, 2001). From about 1995 to 2002, agricultural land use 

in Salem County decreased less than 2 percent (New Jersey 

Department of Environmental Protection, 2007). Using the 

more recent (1995–2002) change in agricultural land use, 

agricultural land use in Salem County is projected to decrease 

about 8 percent from 2002 to 2025. 

Projected 2025 Groundwater Withdrawals

Water-purveyor, industrial self-supply, low-volume, and 

agricultural-irrigation withdrawals from the Potomac-RaritanMagothy aquifer system and domestic self-supply withdrawals from the Potomac-Raritan-Magothy and the Englishtown 

aquifer systems were determined for the 2025 scenario as 

described below and were input into the model. Agricultural 

withdrawals in 2025 were determined from the analysis of the 

change in agricultural land use in Salem and Gloucester Counties. Domestic self-supply withdrawals and water-purveyor 

withdrawals in 2025 in the study area but outside Critical 

Area 2 were estimated using the percent change in population 

projected for each municipality in the Salem-Gloucester study 

area in 2025. Withdrawals used in this scenario are shown in 

tables 4 to 7.

Water-Purveyor

In two municipalities in the study area, Monroe Township in Gloucester County and Winslow Township in Camden 

County, water purveyors withdraw groundwater from wells 

outside the study area and from the Kirkwood-Cohansey 

aquifer system, and no water-purveyor, industrial self-supply, 

or agricultural-irrigation withdrawals are made from the 

Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer system in the model. 

Sixteen municipalities in the study area that withdraw 

water from the Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer system are 

located predominantly within Critical Area 2: Clayton, Glassboro, National Park, Paulsboro, Pitman, Wenonah, Westville, 

and Woodbury Heights Boroughs; Deptford, East Greenwich, 

Gloucester, Mantua, Harrison, West Deptford, and Washington 

Townships; and Woodbury City. All these municipalities are in 

Gloucester County except for Gloucester Township, which is 

in Camden County. In the 2025 scenario, it was assumed that 

the withdrawals from water-purveyor wells in these municipalities would be at full-allocation conditions (table 4). Any 

additional water supply needed for population increase within 

Critical Area 2 is assumed to be from sources other than 

groundwater pumped from wells within Critical Area 2, such 

as from surface water. However, withdrawals from wells in 

Westville Borough were not increased from the 2000 baseline 

simulation withdrawals.

Eight municipalities in the Salem-Gloucester study area 

(Carneys Point and Oldmans Townships and Penns Grove 

and Woodstown Boroughs in Salem County, and Greenwich, 

Logan, and Woolwich Townships and Swedesboro Borough in 

Gloucester County) are located predominantly outside Critical 

Area 2. These eight municipalities are served by water purveyors that withdraw groundwater from wells within the study 

area. The population of three of the municipalities, Carneys 
90 Simulated Effects of Withdrawals from the Potomac-Raritan-Magothy Aquifer System, New Jersey

Point and Greenwich Townships and Penns Grove Borough, 

is projected to decline by 2025, and the population of Woodstown Borough is projected to remain fairly constant from 

2000 to 2025. Therefore, for these municipalities, withdrawals 

from the 2000 baseline simulation were used (table 5). (The 

water-purveyor wells for Penns Grove Borough are located in 

Logan Township).

In the 2025 scenario, the withdrawals from water-purveyor wells were increased for Logan, Woolwich, and Oldmans Townships and Swedesboro Borough, which are located 

outside Critical Area 2. It was assumed that the additional 

population in these four municipalities would obtain its water 

supply from water-purveyor wells; therefore, domestic selfsupply withdrawals in these four municipalities would not 

increase. The withdrawals for these four municipalities were 

increased by first determining the proportion of the pumpage 

at each well in table 5 for these municipalities in 2000. The 

increase in population from 2000 to 2025 was determined by 

multiplying the 2000 population for these municipalities by 

359 percent for Woolwich Township, 19 percent for Logan 

Township, 18 percent for Oldmans Township, and 8 percent 

for Swedesboro Borough, then subtracting the population in 

2000 from the population in 2025 to determine the change 

in population from 2000 to 2025. The change in population 

from 2000 to 2025 for each of the four municipalities was 

multiplied by 101 gal/d for per capita consumptive use. These 

four values were multiplied by the proportion of pumpage 

from each well in these municipalities to obtain the change 

in withdrawals for each well. The value obtained for each 

well then was multiplied by 365 days per year and divided by 

1 million gallons to convert to Mgal/yr. Finally the change in 

withdrawal determined for each well was added to the 2000 

withdrawal for that well, yielding the estimated 2025 withdrawal for that well. These withdrawals are summarized in 

table 5 for these four municipalities. The withdrawals from the 

two wells with NJDEP BWA number 5375 in Logan Township were not increased in this scenario; however, withdrawals from one well in Woodstown Borough (33-933) were 

increased (table 5).

The per capita consumptive-use rate of 101 gal/d was 

generated from groundwater-withdrawal data on the estimated 

population served by water-purveyor withdrawals in Washington Township from 1980 to 2001. It is defined as the average 

annual withdrawals from 1980 to 2001 divided by the average 

population served during 1980–2001. This value accounts 

for future water demand resulting from lifestyle changes and 

activities such as lawn care, showers, and others changes in 

water use by the population over the decades.

Industrial Self-Supply, Low-Volume, and AgriculturalIrrigation

For the 2025 scenario, it was assumed that industrial 

self-supply and low-volume water use would not change 

substantially; therefore, the withdrawals in the 2000 baseline 

simulation were used (tables 5, 6, and 7). Because agricultural 

land in Gloucester County for the study area was estimated to 

decrease about 21 to 30 percent by 2025, agricultural withdrawals also are estimated to decline by 2025. Because the 

decrease in agricultural land in Salem County by 2025 was 

estimated to be about 8 percent, agricultural-irrigation withdrawals for 2025 were assumed not to substantially change 

from the 2000 baseline simulation withdrawals. Furthermore, 

the 2000 baseline simulation agricultural-irrigation withdrawals are only about 2 percent of the total withdrawals from the 

Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer system in the study area. 

Therefore, the 2000 baseline simulation agricultural-irrigation 

withdrawals were used (table 7).

Domestic Self-Supply

There are six municipalities in the study area for which 

increased domestic self-supply withdrawals must be considered. Based on the previously determined Salem County population estimates for this scenario, the population of Alloway 

Township in 2025 is projected to be similar to the population 

in 2000, whereas the population of Mannington Township 

is projected to decline by 2025. The populations of the four 

remaining municipalities, Elk and South Harrison Townships 

in Gloucester County and Pilesgrove and Upper Pittsgrove 

Townships in Salem County, are projected to increase from 

2000 to 2025. However, there are no domestic withdrawals in 

the model in Elk and Upper Pittsgrove Townships or in southeastern Pilesgrove and South Harrison Townships because 

in these areas water is withdrawn from either the KirkwoodCohansey aquifer system or the Wenonah-Mount Laurel 

aquifer, which are not included in the model. It is expected 

that the additional domestic-supply population in northwestern Pilesgrove and South Harrison Townships will withdraw 

water from the Englishtown aquifer system and the Upper and 

Middle Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifers. For these two 

areas, it was assumed that most of the additional population 

would be served by domestic self-supply. The populations of 

Pilesgrove and South Harrison Townships are projected to 

increase by about 64 and 53 percent, respectively, by 2025. 

The population served by domestic self-supply in these two 

municipalities in 2000 (table 8) was approximately 81 percent 

for Pilesgrove Township and 98 percent for South Harrison 

Township. The estimated population in 2025 for these two 

municipalities was increased by approximately this proportion 

(74 percent for Pilesgrove Township and 86 percent for South 

Harrison Township) to obtain the 2025 population served by 

domestic self-supply (table 15). Because domestic self-supply 

withdrawals are only about 2 percent of the total withdrawals from the Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer system in 

the study area, the estimated populations in 2025 for these 

two municipalities are assumed not to result in a substantial 

error in the calculation of domestic self-supply withdrawals. 
Simulated Effects of Allocated Withdrawals 91

Table 15. Estimated consumptive use of groundwater from domestic self-supply wells in municipalities with a projected population increase in 2025 that are not served by water purveyors, Salem-Gloucester study area, southern New Jersey.[- -, not applicable]

Municipality

Estimated proportion of municipality’s1

domestic self-supply wells in aquifer in 

2000

Estimated 

population 

in 2000

Estimated 

population 

served by 

domestic 

self-supply 

in 2000

Estimated 

population 

in 2025

Simulated2

population 

served by 

domestic 

self-supply 

in 2025

Estimated consumptive use of domestic self-supply withdrawals3

(million gallons per year)

2000 2025

Englishtown

aquifer

 system

Upper 

PotomacRaritanMagothy 

aquifer

Middle 

PotomacRaritanMagothy 

aquifer Total

Englishtown

aquifer

system

Upper 

PotomacRaritanMagothy 

aquifer

Middle 

PotomacRaritanMagothy 

aquifer Total

Pilesgrove 

Township 0.057 0.029 0.029 43,923 53,160 66,426 4,741 10.611 7.891 4.015 4.015 15.921

South 

Harrison Township

- - 0.333 - - 72,417 52,358 73,710 3,175 22.928 - - 30.880 - - 30.880

1Estimated from U.S. Geological Survey Ground-Water Site Inventory database. There are no domestic self-supply withdrawals from the Lower Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer in these municipalities.2The simulated proportion of the population served by domestic self-supply for these two municipalities was about 74 percent for Pilesgrove Township and about 86 percent for South Harrison Township 

in 2025.

3Confined-aquifer domestic self-supply withdrawals are considered 100-percent consumptive. Estimated per capita water use is 80 gallons per day (Solley and others,1998).4U.S. Census Bureau (2006).5Estimated from U.S. Censuses of Population and Housing (2006) and N.J. Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Water Allocation data.6Estimated from a linear projection of percent change in municipal population between 1990 and 2000 using data from U.S. Census (2006) and U.S. Censuses of Population and Housing (2006).7Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission (2002).
92 Simulated Effects of Withdrawals from the Potomac-Raritan-Magothy Aquifer System, New Jersey

The populations served by domestic self-supply for the other 

municipalities included in table 8 were not changed.

The same procedure used to calculated the estimated 

consumptive use of groundwater withdrawn for domestic selfsupply in 2000 (described in the section “Model Input”) was 

used to calculate the consumptive-use values for northwestern 

Pilesgrove and South Harrison Townships in 2005, except that 

the estimated 2025 population for these two municipalities 

was used. The new consumptive-use value calculated for the 

Upper and Middle aquifers and the Englishtown aquifer system was added uniformly across the model cells of the given 

aquifer in northwestern Pilesgrove and South Harrison Townships to obtain the increase in domestic self-supply withdrawals by 2025 (table 15).

2025 Scenario Results

Withdrawal wells in the Upper, Middle, and Lower 

Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifers used in the 2025 population-growth scenario are shown in figure 27. Simulated 

water levels in the confined Upper and Middle and Lower 

Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifers for the 2025 scenario 

are shown in figure 43, and the changes in simulated water 

levels from the 2000 baseline simulation to this scenario are 

shown in figure 44. Withdrawals from wells used in the 2025 

scenario are given in tables 4 to 7. Simulated water levels in 

the confined Upper Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer for the 

2025 scenario range from about 10 ft above NGVD 29 in Oldmans and Carneys Point Townships at the outcrop area of the 

aquifer to about 80 ft below NGVD 29 at a cone of depression 

centered on a water-purveyor wells (15-1365) in Critical Area 

2 in Washington Township (fig. 43A). The largest decline in 

simulated water levels from the 2000 baseline simulation was 

16 ft in Woolwich Township, centered on a water-purveyor 

well (15-1532) (fig. 44A). A simulated decline of 7 ft in Clayton Borough was centered on a water-purveyor well (15-3); 

however, a water-level recovery of about 1 ft was observed 

around a water-purveyor well (15-130) in Harrison Township. 

In this scenario, well 15-130 is pumping at the 2006 permitted 

allocation rate, which is about 80 Mgal/yr less than in the 2000 

baseline simulation (table 4). The average simulated water 

level for the 2025 scenario in the Upper Potomac-RaritanMagothy aquifer is 32 ft below NGVD 29, 1 ft lower than in 

the 2000 baseline simulation (table 12).

Simulated water levels in the confined Middle PotomacRaritan-Magothy aquifer in the 2025 scenario range from 

about NGVD 29 at the outcrop area of the aquifer to about 

60 ft below NGVD 29 in Critical Area 2 in Washington, Monroe, and Gloucester Townships (fig. 43B). The largest decline 

in simulated water levels from the 2000 baseline scenario was 

8 ft in Woolwich Township, a result of withdrawals from the 

overlying Upper Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer (fig. 44B). 

The average simulated water level in the Middle PotomacRaritan-Magothy aquifer in the 2025 scenario is 29 ft below 

NGVD 29, 2 ft lower than in the 2000 baseline simulation 

(table 12).

Simulated water levels in the Lower Potomac-RaritanMagothy aquifer for the 2025 scenario range from about 

NGVD 29 near the updip limit of the aquifer to 60 ft below 

NGVD 29 in Critical Area 2 in Gloucester Township 

(fig. 43C). A cone of depression is observed around a waterpurveyor well (33-330) in Carneys Point Township that was 

not present in the 2000 baseline simulation (fig. 28C). The 

largest decline in simulated water levels from the 2000 baseline simulation was 3 ft in northwestern Woolwich and southwestern Logan Townships, as a result of withdrawals from the 

overlying aquifers, and 3 ft in West Deptford Township, as 

a result of withdrawals from a water-purveyor well (15-312) 

(fig. 44C). Simulated water levels recovered 2 ft around 

two water-purveyor wells (15-207 and 15-533) in National 

Park Borough because withdrawals from these wells were 

at the 2006 full-allocation permitted amount, which is about 

20 Mgal/yr less than in the 2000 baseline simulation (table 4). 

The average simulated water level in the Lower Potomac-Raritan-Magothy in the 2025 scenario is 32 ft below NGVD 29, 

2 ft lower than in the 2000 baseline simulation (table 12).

The areas in the Upper, Middle, and Lower PotomacRaritan-Magothy aquifers in which simulated water levels 

are more than 30 ft below NGVD 29 in the 2025 scenario but 

above 30 ft below NGVD 29 in the 2000 baseline simulation 

are shown in figure 44. These areas increased in size by 17.9, 

19.6, and 14.4 mi2 in the Upper, Middle, and Lower PotomacRaritan-Magothy aquifers, respectively, from the area in the 

2000 baseline simulation (table 12). Most of the increase in 

area is outside Critical Area 2 (fig. 43). The part of these areas 

that is within Critical Area 2 is 1.3, 1.1, and 3.2 mi2 in the 

Upper, Middle, and Lower Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifers 

respectively, which is about 7, 6, and 22 percent, respectively, 

of the total area that increased in size from the area in the 2000 

baseline simulation.

The average change in simulated water levels for the 

model cells along the boundary of Critical Area 2 in the confined Upper and Middle, and Lower, Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifers for the 2025 scenario is -1.5, -1.5, and -1.6 ft, 

respectively, from the 2000 baseline simulation (table 13). The 

largest and smallest changes in simulated water level for the 

model cells along the boundary of Critical Area 2 for the 2025 

scenario from the 2000 baseline simulation are summarized in 

table 13.

Simulated withdrawals totaled about 44 percent of 

outflow (10,261 Mgal/yr), which is 6 percent (617 Mgal/yr) 

more than in the 2000 baseline simulation. Simulated groundwater discharge to streams and wetlands is about 35 percent 

of outflow (8,189 Mgal/yr), which is 3 percent (252 Mgal/yr) 

less than in the 2000 baseline simulation. Specified flows at 

bordering hydrogeologic units (including the confined Englishtown aquifer system at the top of the model) account for 

about 18 percent of inflow (4,158 Mgal/yr) and about 12 percent of outflow (2,635 Mgal/yr), which are about a 2-percent increase in inflow and a 4-percent decrease in outflow, 

respectively, from the 2000 baseline simulation. Simulated 

recharge is 77 percent of inflow (17,937 Mgal/yr) and was not 
Simulated Effects of Allocated Withdrawals 93

ALLOWAY TOWNSHIP

ELK TOWNSHIP PILESGROVE TOWNSHIP

LOGAN TOWNSHIP

MANNINGTON

TOWNSHIP UPPER PITTSGROVE TOWNSHIP

WOOLWICH TOWNSHIP

OLDMANS

TOWNSHIP HARRISON TOWNSHIP

MANTUA TOWNSHIP

WASHINGTON

TOWNSHIP

DEPTFORD

TOWNSHIP

CARNEYS POINT TOWNSHIP

WEST DEPTFORD

TOWNSHIP

SOUTH HARRISON TOWNSHIP

GREENWICH TOWNSHIP

EAST GREENWICH TOWNSHIP

MONROE

TOWNSHIP

GLOUCESTER

TOWNSHIP

GLASSBORO

BOROUGH

WINSLOW

TOWNSHIP

CLAYTON

BOROUGH

PENNSVILLE

TOWNSHIP

PITMAN

BOROUGH

PAULSBORO

BOROUGH WOODBURY

CITY

UPPER DEERFIELD 

TOWNSHIP

QUINTON

TOWNSHIP

HOPEWELL

TOWNSHIP

WOODSTOWN

BOROUGH

NATIONAL PARK 

BOROUGH

WESTVILLE BOROUGH

WENONAH

BOROUGH

FRANKLIN

TOWNSHIP

ELMER

BOROUGH

WOODBURY HEIGHTS 

BOROUGH

PENNS GROVE

BOROUGH

SWEDESBORO

BOROUGH

GLOUCESTER CITY

STOW CREEK

TOWNSHIP

BROOKLAWN BOROUGH

PITTSGROVE 

TOWNSHIP

PINE HILL

BOROUGH

PITTSGROVE

TOWNSHIP

Salem County

Gloucester County

Camden

County

39°52’30”

39°45’

75°22’30”

75°15’

75°7’30”

75°

75°30’

BELLMAWR

BOROUGH

RUNNEMEDE

BOROUGH

Delaware River

Delaware River

S T U D Y - A R E A B O U N D A R Y

0 2 4 6 MILES

0 2 4 6 KILOMETERS

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:24,000,

Universal Transverse Mercator Projection, Zone 18

39°37’30”

39°30’

-30

0

-20

-10

-40

-50

-60

10

-70

-80

-60

-50

-60

-40

-30

0 -10

-10

DISCRETIZED OUTCROP AREA OF THE UPPER POTOMAC-RARITAN-MAGOTHY AQUIFER

WATER SUPPLY CRITICAL AREA 2—From N.J. Department of Environmental Protection, unpublished,

 1:250,000. Boundaries are approximate and should not be used for regulatory compliance purposes

AREA IN WHICH SIMULATED WATER LEVELS ARE ABOVE -30 FEET IN THE 2000 BASELINE

 SIMULATION AND BELOW -30 FEET IN THE 2025 SCENARIO—Area is 17.9 square miles.

 Datum is NGVD 29

BOUNDARY OF THE ACTIVE MODEL AREA—Upper

 Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer

SIMULATED POTENTIOMETRIC CONTOUR—Shows the

 simulated altitude at which water would have stood

 in a tightly cased well. Contour interval 10 feet.

 Datum is NGVD 29

WITHDRAWAL WELL—Withdrawals are from

 the Upper Potomac-Raritan-Magothy

 aquifer. Well identification is

 shown in figure 27

EXPLANATION

-50

A

Raritan-Magothy aquifer, and, C, Lower Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer for the 2025 scenario, Salem-Gloucester study area, southern 

New Jersey.

Figure 43. Simulated potentiometric surface in the, A, confined Upper Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer, B, confined Middle Potomac-
94 Simulated Effects of Withdrawals from the Potomac-Raritan-Magothy Aquifer System, New Jersey

ALLOWAY TOWNSHIP

ELK TOWNSHIP PILESGROVE TOWNSHIP

LOGAN TOWNSHIP

MANNINGTON

TOWNSHIP UPPER PITTSGROVE TOWNSHIP

WOOLWICH TOWNSHIP

OLDMANS

TOWNSHIP HARRISON TOWNSHIP

MANTUA TOWNSHIP

WASHINGTON

TOWNSHIP

DEPTFORD

TOWNSHIP

CARNEYS POINT TOWNSHIP

WEST DEPTFORD

TOWNSHIP

SOUTH HARRISON TOWNSHIP

GREENWICH TOWNSHIP

EAST GREENWICH TOWNSHIP

MONROE

TOWNSHIP

GLOUCESTER

TOWNSHIP

GLASSBORO

BOROUGH

WINSLOW

TOWNSHIP

CLAYTON

BOROUGH

PENNSVILLE

TOWNSHIP

PITMAN

BOROUGH

PAULSBORO

BOROUGH WOODBURY

CITY

UPPER DEERFIELD 

TOWNSHIP

QUINTON

TOWNSHIP

HOPEWELL

TOWNSHIP

WOODSTOWN

BOROUGH

NATIONAL PARK 

BOROUGH

WESTVILLE BOROUGH

WENONAH

BOROUGH

FRANKLIN

TOWNSHIP

ELMER

BOROUGH

WOODBURY HEIGHTS 

BOROUGH

PENNS GROVE

BOROUGH

SWEDESBORO

BOROUGH

GLOUCESTER CITY

STOW CREEK

TOWNSHIP

BROOKLAWN BOROUGH

PITTSGROVE 

TOWNSHIP

PINE HILL

BOROUGH

PITTSGROVE

TOWNSHIP

Salem County

Gloucester County

Camden

County

39°52’30”

39°45’

75°22’30”

75°15’

75°7’30”

75°

75°30’

BELLMAWR

BOROUGH

RUNNEMEDE

BOROUGH

Delaware River

Delaware River

S T U D Y - A R E A B O U N D A R Y

0 2 4 6 MILES

0 2 4 6 KILOMETERS

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:24,000,

Universal Transverse Mercator Projection, Zone 18

39°37’30”

39°30’

0

-10

-20

-30

-40

-50

-60

0

0

-30 -50

DISCRETIZED OUTCROP AREA OF THE MIDDLE POTOMAC-RARITAN-MAGOTHY AQUIFER

WATER SUPPLY CRITICAL AREA 2—From N.J. Department of Environmental Protection, unpublished,

 1:250,000. Boundaries are approximate and should not be used for regulatory compliance purposes

AREA IN WHICH SIMULATED WATER LEVELS ARE ABOVE -30 FEET IN THE 2000 BASELINE

 SIMULATION AND BELOW -30 FEET IN THE 2025 SCENARIO—Area is 19.6 square miles.

 Datum is NGVD 29

BOUNDARY OF THE ACTIVE MODEL AREA—Middle

 Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer

SIMULATED POTENTIOMETRIC CONTOUR—Shows the

 simulated altitude at which water would have stood

 in a tightly cased well. Contour interval 10 feet.

 Datum is NGVD 29

WITHDRAWAL WELL—Withdrawals are from

 the Middle Potomac-Raritan-Magothy

 aquifer. Well identification is

 shown in figure 27

EXPLANATION

-50

B

Raritan-Magothy aquifer, and, C, Lower Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer for the 2025 scenario, Salem-Gloucester study area, southern 

New Jersey.—Continued

Figure 43. Simulated potentiometric surface in the, A, confined Upper Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer, B, confined Middle Potomac-
Simulated Effects of Allocated Withdrawals 95

ALLOWAY TOWNSHIP

ELK TOWNSHIP PILESGROVE TOWNSHIP

LOGAN TOWNSHIP

MANNINGTON

TOWNSHIP UPPER PITTSGROVE TOWNSHIP

WOOLWICH TOWNSHIP

OLDMANS

TOWNSHIP HARRISON TOWNSHIP

MANTUA TOWNSHIP

WASHINGTON

TOWNSHIP

DEPTFORD

TOWNSHIP

CARNEYS POINT TOWNSHIP

WEST DEPTFORD

TOWNSHIP

SOUTH HARRISON TOWNSHIP

GREENWICH TOWNSHIP

EAST GREENWICH TOWNSHIP

MONROE

TOWNSHIP

GLOUCESTER

TOWNSHIP

GLASSBORO

BOROUGH

WINSLOW

TOWNSHIP

CLAYTON

BOROUGH

PENNSVILLE

TOWNSHIP

PITMAN

BOROUGH

PAULSBORO

BOROUGH WOODBURY

CITY

UPPER DEERFIELD 

TOWNSHIP

QUINTON

TOWNSHIP

HOPEWELL

TOWNSHIP

WOODSTOWN

BOROUGH

NATIONAL PARK 

BOROUGH

WESTVILLE BOROUGH

WENONAH

BOROUGH

FRANKLIN

TOWNSHIP

ELMER

BOROUGH

WOODBURY HEIGHTS 

BOROUGH

PENNS GROVE

BOROUGH

SWEDESBORO

BOROUGH

GLOUCESTER CITY

STOW CREEK

TOWNSHIP

BROOKLAWN BOROUGH

PITTSGROVE 

TOWNSHIP

PINE HILL

BOROUGH

PITTSGROVE

TOWNSHIP

Salem County

Gloucester County

Camden

County

39°52’30”

39°45’

75°22’30”

75°15’

75°7’30”

75°

75°30’

BELLMAWR

BOROUGH

RUNNEMEDE

BOROUGH

Delaware River

Delaware River

S T U D Y - A R E A B O U N D A R Y

0 2 4 6 MILES

0 2 4 6 KILOMETERS

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:24,000,

Universal Transverse Mercator Projection, Zone 18

39°37’30”

39°30’

-30

-20

-40

-10

-50

0

-60

0

0

-30

-40

-50

WATER SUPPLY CRITICAL AREA 2—From N.J. Department of Environmental Protection, unpublished,

 1:250,000. Boundaries are approximate and should not be used for regulatory compliance purposes

AREA IN WHICH SIMULATED WATER LEVELS ARE ABOVE -30 FEET IN THE 2000 BASELINE

 SIMULATION AND BELOW -30 FEET IN THE 2025 SCENARIO—Area is 14.4 square miles.

 Datum is NGVD 29

BOUNDARY OF THE ACTIVE MODEL AREA—Lower

 Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer

SIMULATED POTENTIOMETRIC CONTOUR—Shows the

 simulated altitude at which water would have stood

 in a tightly cased well. Contour interval 10 feet.

 Datum is NGVD 29

WITHDRAWAL WELL—Withdrawals are from

 the Lower Potomac-Raritan-Magothy

 aquifer. Well identification is

 shown in figure 27

EXPLANATION

-50

C

Raritan-Magothy aquifer, and, C, Lower Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer for the 2025 scenario, Salem-Gloucester study area, southern 

New Jersey.—Continued

Figure 43. Simulated potentiometric surface in the, A, confined Upper Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer, B, confined Middle Potomac-
96 Simulated Effects of Withdrawals from the Potomac-Raritan-Magothy Aquifer System, New Jersey

ALLOWAY TOWNSHIP

ELK TOWNSHIP PILESGROVE TOWNSHIP

LOGAN TOWNSHIP

MANNINGTON

TOWNSHIP UPPER PITTSGROVE TOWNSHIP

WOOLWICH TOWNSHIP

OLDMANS

TOWNSHIP HARRISON TOWNSHIP

MANTUA TOWNSHIP

WASHINGTON

TOWNSHIP

DEPTFORD

TOWNSHIP

CARNEYS POINT TOWNSHIP

WEST DEPTFORD

TOWNSHIP

SOUTH HARRISON TOWNSHIP

GREENWICH TOWNSHIP

EAST GREENWICH TOWNSHIP

MONROE

TOWNSHIP

GLOUCESTER

TOWNSHIP

GLASSBORO

BOROUGH

WINSLOW

TOWNSHIP

CLAYTON

BOROUGH

PENNSVILLE

TOWNSHIP

PITMAN

BOROUGH

PAULSBORO

BOROUGH WOODBURY

CITY

UPPER DEERFIELD 

TOWNSHIP

QUINTON

TOWNSHIP

HOPEWELL

TOWNSHIP

WOODSTOWN

BOROUGH

NATIONAL PARK 

BOROUGH

WESTVILLE BOROUGH

WENONAH

BOROUGH

FRANKLIN

TOWNSHIP

ELMER

BOROUGH

WOODBURY HEIGHTS 

BOROUGH

PENNS GROVE

BOROUGH

SWEDESBORO

BOROUGH

GLOUCESTER CITY

STOW CREEK

TOWNSHIP

BROOKLAWN BOROUGH

PITTSGROVE 

TOWNSHIP

PINE HILL

BOROUGH

PITTSGROVE

TOWNSHIP

Salem County

Gloucester County

Camden

County

39°52’30”

39°45’

75°22’30”

75°15’

75°7’30”

75°

75°30’

BELLMAWR

BOROUGH

RUNNEMEDE

BOROUGH

Delaware River

Delaware River

S T U D Y - A R E A B O U N D A R Y

0 2 4 6 MILES

0 2 4 6 KILOMETERS

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:24,000,

Universal Transverse Mercator Projection, Zone 18

39°37’30”

39°30’

-1

-2

-3

-4

-5

0

-1

-4

-1

-2

-3

-1

-4

-1

-2

-2

-1

-2

-7

1

-16

DISCRETIZED OUTCROP AREA OF THE UPPER POTOMAC-RARITAN-MAGOTHY AQUIFER

WATER SUPPLY CRITICAL AREA 2—From N.J. Department of Environmental Protection, unpublished,

 1:250,000. Boundaries are approximate and should not be used for regulatory compliance purposes

BOUNDARY OF THE ACTIVE MODEL AREA—Upper Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer

LINE OF EQUAL DIFFERENCE IN SIMULATED WATER LEVELS FROM THE 2000

 BASELINE SIMULATION TO THE 2025 SCENARIO—Negative value indicates

 water-level decline. Contour interval 1 foot

WITHDRAWAL WELL—Withdrawals are from the Upper

 Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer. Well identification

 is shown in figure 27

EXPLANATION

-5

A

Raritan-Magothy aquifer, and, C, Lower Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer from the 2000 baseline simulation to the 2025 scenario, 

Salem-Gloucester study area, southern New Jersey.

Figure 44. Change in simulated water levels in the, A, confined Upper Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer, B, confined Middle Potomac-
Simulated Effects of Allocated Withdrawals 97

ALLOWAY TOWNSHIP

ELK TOWNSHIP PILESGROVE TOWNSHIP

LOGAN TOWNSHIP

MANNINGTON

TOWNSHIP UPPER PITTSGROVE TOWNSHIP

WOOLWICH TOWNSHIP

OLDMANS

TOWNSHIP HARRISON TOWNSHIP

MANTUA TOWNSHIP

WASHINGTON

TOWNSHIP

DEPTFORD

TOWNSHIP

CARNEYS POINT TOWNSHIP

WEST DEPTFORD

TOWNSHIP

SOUTH HARRISON TOWNSHIP

GREENWICH TOWNSHIP

EAST GREENWICH TOWNSHIP

MONROE

TOWNSHIP

GLOUCESTER

TOWNSHIP

GLASSBORO

BOROUGH

WINSLOW

TOWNSHIP

CLAYTON

BOROUGH

PENNSVILLE

TOWNSHIP

PITMAN

BOROUGH

PAULSBORO

BOROUGH WOODBURY

CITY

UPPER DEERFIELD 

TOWNSHIP

QUINTON

TOWNSHIP

HOPEWELL

TOWNSHIP

WOODSTOWN

BOROUGH

NATIONAL PARK 

BOROUGH

WESTVILLE BOROUGH

WENONAH

BOROUGH

FRANKLIN

TOWNSHIP

ELMER

BOROUGH

WOODBURY HEIGHTS 

BOROUGH

PENNS GROVE

BOROUGH

SWEDESBORO

BOROUGH

GLOUCESTER CITY

STOW CREEK

TOWNSHIP

BROOKLAWN BOROUGH

PITTSGROVE 

TOWNSHIP

PINE HILL

BOROUGH

PITTSGROVE

TOWNSHIP

Salem County

Gloucester County

Camden

County

39°52’30”

39°45’

75°22’30”

75°15’

75°7’30”

75°

75°30’

BELLMAWR

BOROUGH

RUNNEMEDE

BOROUGH

S T U D Y - A R E A B O U N D A R Y

Delaware River

Delaware River

0 2 4 6 MILES

0 2 4 6 KILOMETERS

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:24,000,

Universal Transverse Mercator Projection, Zone 18

39°37’30”

39°30’

-8

-3

-1

-2

-3

-4

-5

-2

-1

-1

EXPLANATION

DISCRETIZED OUTCROP AREA OF THE MIDDLE POTOMAC-RARITAN-MAGOTHY AQUIFER

WATER SUPPLY CRITICAL AREA 2—From N.J. Department of Environmental Protection, unpublished,

 1:250,000. Boundaries are approximate and should not be used for regulatory compliance purposes

BOUNDARY OF THE ACTIVE MODEL AREA—Middle Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer

LINE OF EQUAL DIFFERENCE IN SIMULATED WATER LEVELS FROM THE 2000

 BASELINE SIMULATION TO THE 2025 SCENARIO—Negative value indicates

 water-level decline. Contour interval 1 foot

WITHDRAWAL WELL—Withdrawals are from the Middle

 Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer. Well identification

 is shown in figure 27

-5

B

Raritan-Magothy aquifer, and, C, Lower Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer from the 2000 baseline simulation to the 2025 scenario, 

Salem-Gloucester study area, southern New Jersey.—Continued

Figure 44. Change in simulated water levels in the, A, confined Upper Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer, B, confined Middle Potomac-
98 Simulated Effects of Withdrawals from the Potomac-Raritan-Magothy Aquifer System, New Jersey

ALLOWAY TOWNSHIP

ELK TOWNSHIP PILESGROVE TOWNSHIP

LOGAN TOWNSHIP

MANNINGTON

TOWNSHIP UPPER PITTSGROVE TOWNSHIP

WOOLWICH TOWNSHIP

OLDMANS

TOWNSHIP HARRISON TOWNSHIP

MANTUA TOWNSHIP

WASHINGTON

TOWNSHIP

DEPTFORD

TOWNSHIP

CARNEYS POINT TOWNSHIP

WEST DEPTFORD

TOWNSHIP

SOUTH HARRISON TOWNSHIP

GREENWICH TOWNSHIP

EAST GREENWICH TOWNSHIP

MONROE

TOWNSHIP

GLOUCESTER

TOWNSHIP

GLASSBORO

BOROUGH

WINSLOW

TOWNSHIP

CLAYTON

BOROUGH

PENNSVILLE

TOWNSHIP

PITMAN

BOROUGH

PAULSBORO

BOROUGH WOODBURY

CITY

UPPER DEERFIELD 

TOWNSHIP

QUINTON

TOWNSHIP

HOPEWELL

TOWNSHIP

WOODSTOWN

BOROUGH

NATIONAL PARK 

BOROUGH

WESTVILLE BOROUGH

WENONAH

BOROUGH

FRANKLIN

TOWNSHIP

ELMER

BOROUGH

WOODBURY HEIGHTS 

BOROUGH

PENNS GROVE

BOROUGH

SWEDESBORO

BOROUGH

GLOUCESTER CITY

STOW CREEK

TOWNSHIP

BROOKLAWN BOROUGH

PITTSGROVE 

TOWNSHIP

PINE HILL

BOROUGH

PITTSGROVE

TOWNSHIP

Salem County

Gloucester County

Camden

County

39°52’30”

39°45’

75°22’30”

75°15’

75°7’30”

75°

75°30’

BELLMAWR

BOROUGH

RUNNEMEDE

BOROUGH

S T U D Y - A R E A B O U N D A R Y

0 2 4 6 MILES

0 2 4 6 KILOMETERS

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:24,000,

Universal Transverse Mercator Projection, Zone 18

39°37’30”

39°30’

-1

-3

-2

-3

2

EXPLANATION

WATER SUPPLY CRITICAL AREA 2—From N.J. Department of Environmental Protection, unpublished,

 1:250,000. Boundaries are approximate and should not be used for regulatory compliance purposes

BOUNDARY OF THE ACTIVE MODEL AREA—Lower Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer

LINE OF EQUAL DIFFERENCE IN SIMULATED WATER LEVELS FROM THE 2000

 BASELINE SIMULATION TO THE 2025 SCENARIO—Negative value indicates

 water-level decline. Contour interval 1 foot

WITHDRAWAL WELL—Withdrawals are from the Lower

 Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer. Well identification

 is shown in figure 27

-2

C

Raritan-Magothy aquifer, and, C, Lower Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer from the 2000 baseline simulation to the 2025 scenario, 

Salem-Gloucester study area, southern New Jersey.—Continued

Figure 44. Change in simulated water levels in the, A, confined Upper Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer, B, confined Middle Potomac-
Simulated Effects of Allocated Withdrawals 99

changed from the 1998 calibration and 2000 baseline simulations. Simulated groundwater discharge to the Delaware River 

accounts for the remaining percentage of inflow (5 percent) 

and outflow (9 percent) to the Potomac-Raritan-Magothy 

aquifer system and is a net flow from the aquifer system to 

the Delaware River of about 4 percent (1,010 Mgal/yr), about 

15 percent (173 Mgal/yr) less than in the 2000 baseline simulation. Simulated flow-budget components for streams and the 

Delaware River in the local model for the 2025 scenario are 

summarized in table 12. All flow-budget values are rounded to 

the nearest integer.

Sensitivity of Water Levels at Key Boundaries to 

Additional Withdrawals

The effect of possible future additional withdrawals on 

water levels at key boundaries in the study area is an important consideration for water management. Spatial variations in 

hydrologic parameters such as transmissivity and recharge can 

cause the groundwater-level response to withdrawals to vary 

with the location of the well. Data from the scenarios outlined 

in the earlier sections of this report illustrate the effects for 

some specific instances. The sensitivity to water-level change 

at the key boundaries from withdrawals can be evaluated in a 

more general manner. There are four important (key) boundaries in the Upper and Middle Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifers within the study area. They are (1) the 250-mg/L isochlor, 

which delineates the boundary between potable and nonpotable water (a different location in each aquifer); (2) the western 

edge of Critical Area 2, where water-management decisions 

have required reductions in withdrawals; (3) the outcrop of 

each of the two aquifers; and (4) the southwestern boundary of 

the study area (and model), where the aquifers continue into 

Salem County and Delaware. The area within these boundaries represents the part of the aquifers in the study area that 

contains potable water that is not within Critical Area 2.

This analysis was undertaken by means of a series of 

simulations in which a hypothetical well screened in the Upper 

Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer was placed in 12 different 

locations in a roughly gridded pattern within the area of the 

key boundaries (figs. 45A). The background condition for this 

analysis was the baseline simulation (average annual 1999–

2001 withdrawals). The hypothetical well was simulated with 

a withdrawal of 1 Mgal/d (million gallons per day) added to 

the baseline simulation. The water-level results of each simulation were compared to those of the baseline simulation and 

inspected to determine the maximum water-level change along 

each of the key boundaries. This approach was repeated for 

a hypothetical well screened in the Middle Potomac-RaritanMagothy aquifer (fig. 45B). The analysis was not undertaken 

for the Lower Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer, however, 

because the extensive area in this aquifer in which chloride 

concentrations exceed 250 mg/L substantially limits the size 

of the area in that aquifer where future withdrawals could 

plausibly be located. 

The results of the analysis for each of the four boundaries in the two aquifers are shown in table 16. The maximum change in simulated water level at the four boundaries 

resulting from the effect of the withdrawal from the hypothetical well ranged from 0.3 to 7.7 ft. The average of the 

maximum water-level changes for the 24 hypothetical well 

locations ranged from 0.6 to 4.5 ft (see figure 45A for the 

Upper Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer and figure 45B for 

the Middle Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer). The distinct 

spatial trend in water-level changes indicates that withdrawals 

from the northern part of the study area generally affect water 

levels at the key boundaries less than withdrawals from the 

southern part. 

Simulated Movement of Saline Water 

Saline water has threatened the potability of groundwater 

supplies derived from the Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer 

system in the Salem-Gloucester study area (Cauller and others, 1999). The primary chemical constituents in saline water 

are sodium and chloride. The U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency secondary maximum contaminant level (SMCL) for 

chloride is 250 mg/L (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

1992). The New Jersey secondary drinking-water standards 

for chloride and sodium are 250 mg/L and 50 mg/L, respectively (New Jersey Administrative Code, 2004). Within the 

study area, the concentrations of chloride and sodium in water 

from the Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer system generally 

increase in the downdip (southeast) direction and eventually 

exceed the respective drinking-water standards. A regional 

portrayal of the 250-mg/L chloride-concentration isochlor, 

derived from historical and recent analyses of water from each 

aquifer, can be found in dePaul and others (2009, pls. 7, 8, 

and 9). 

Four areas in the study area have experienced acute 

problems with saline water: (1) Glassboro Borough and 

adjacent municipalities, where wells are screened in the Upper 

Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer; (2) Harrison Township in Gloucester County, where wells are screened in the 

Upper Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer; (3) Woodstown 

Borough in Salem County, where wells are screened in the 

Middle Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer; and (4) Oldmans 

Township, where wells are screened in the Lower PotomacRaritan-Magothy aquifer. Sodium and chloride concentrations 

in groundwater in wells in these areas are near or above the 

secondary drinking-water standard. Historical concentrations 

of these constituents in water from selected wells in these 

areas are listed in table 17 (at end of report) and shown in 

figures 46 and 47. The sodium- and chloride-concentration 

data were retrieved from the NJDEP BWA Safe Drinking 

Water Systems database and the NWIS database and are on 

file at the USGS New Jersey Water Science Center in West 

Trenton, NJ. Data from the NJDEP BWA Safe Drinking Water 

Systems database are derived from many sources with varying 

quality-control procedures.
100 Simulated Effects of Withdrawals from the Potomac-Raritan-Magothy Aquifer System, New Jersey

Table 16. Maximum change in simulated water level at key boundaries resulting from a hypothetical well withdrawing 1 million gallons 

per day, Salem-Gloucester study area, southern New Jersey.

[Well locations are shown in fig. 45; mg/L, milligrams per liter]

Simulation 

(designated by 

well number)

Location of 

pumped well

Maximum change in simulated water level between baseline simulation (1999–2001 average 

withdrawals) and simulation in which a hypothetical well is pumped (feet)

Row Column Critical Area 2 

boundary

Outcrop 

boundary

250-mg/L isochlor 

boundary

Southwest 

boundary Average

Upper Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer

1 40 12 0.5 7.1 0.7 7.7 4.0

2 40 46 0.5 3.7 0.6 1.7 1.6

3 46 96 0.8 1.7 0.8 0.7 1.0

4 46 130 0.9 1.2 0.6 0.5 0.8

5 91 12 1.8 1.0 2.7 6.8 3.1

6 91 46 1.7 0.7 2.2 2.5 1.8

7 83 96 1.5 0.9 1.4 1.2 1.2

8 83 120 2.3 0.8 1.4 1.0 1.4

9 141 12 3.1 0.7 7.3 7.0 4.5

10 141 46 3.2 0.7 4.2 3.8 3.0

11 141 72 3.5 0.7 5.1 3.0 3.1

12 119 96 2.5 0.7 3.7 1.5 2.1

Middle Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer

1 31 12 0.4 2.9 0.6 7.0 2.7

2 31 46 0.5 2.2 0.6 0.9 1.1

3 41 101 0.7 1.1 0.8 0.6 0.8

4 41 135 0.7 0.9 0.4 0.3 0.6

5 69 12 1.4 0.5 2.6 6.9 2.9

6 69 46 1.3 0.5 1.8 2.1 1.4

7 64 90 1.0 0.6 1.2 0.9 0.9

8 57 125 1.1 0.4 1.0 0.7 0.8

9 104 12 2.1 0.4 5.5 6.2 3.5

10 104 46 2.0 0.4 3.6 2.7 2.2

11 89 80 1.7 0.5 4.2 1.6 2.0

12 71 116 1.4 0.5 1.6 0.8 1.1

In order to assess the movement of saline water and the 

likelihood for continued saltwater intrusion, withdrawals from 

example wells in each area were simulated, and advective 

particle tracking was used to define groundwater flow paths; a 

budget analysis of the withdrawal zones was conducted. The 

MODPATH particle-tracking program (Pollock, 1994) was 

used for this assessment. MODPATH is an advective particle 

tracking scheme that accounts for the average linear flow 

velocity of a hypothetical particle of water. Groundwater flow 

paths beginning or ending at any location in the groundwaterflow model can be simulated with MODPATH (Pollock, 

1994), which uses output from MODFLOW-2000 (Harbaugh 

and others, 2000) to simulate the advective path of a particle 

of water through model layers. Advective travel times along 

the flow paths are computed by using the magnitude of the 

flows from the model flow budget, the porosity of the aquifer, and the model cell dimensions. A porosity value of 0.25 

was used for all aquifers, and a porosity value of 0.35 was 

used for all confining units in the particle-tracking analysis. 

The porosities are within the range of values for sand and silt 

cited in Freeze and Cherry (1979). Flow paths that originate 

in or pass through parts of the aquifer system that are known 

to contain chloride concentrations greater than the drinkingwater standard (dePaul and others, 2009, pls. 7, 8, and 9) are 
Simulated Effects of Allocated Withdrawals 101

ALLOWAY TOWNSHIP

ELK TOWNSHIP PILESGROVE TOWNSHIP

LOGAN TOWNSHIP

MANNINGTON

TOWNSHIP UPPER PITTSGROVE TOWNSHIP

WOOLWICH TOWNSHIP

OLDMANS

TOWNSHIP HARRISON TOWNSHIP

MANTUA TOWNSHIP

WASHINGTON

TOWNSHIP

DEPTFORD

TOWNSHIP

CARNEYS POINT TOWNSHIP

WEST DEPTFORD

TOWNSHIP

SOUTH HARRISON TOWNSHIP

GREENWICH TOWNSHIP

EAST GREENWICH TOWNSHIP

MONROE

TOWNSHIP

GLOUCESTER

TOWNSHIP

GLASSBORO

BOROUGH

WINSLOW

TOWNSHIP

CLAYTON

BOROUGH

PENNSVILLE

TOWNSHIP

PITMAN

BOROUGH

PAULSBORO

BOROUGH WOODBURY

CITY

UPPER DEERFIELD 

TOWNSHIP

QUINTON

TOWNSHIP

HOPEWELL

TOWNSHIP

WOODSTOWN

BOROUGH

NATIONAL PARK 

BOROUGH

WESTVILLE BOROUGH

WENONAH

BOROUGH

FRANKLIN

TOWNSHIP

ELMER

BOROUGH

WOODBURY HEIGHTS 

BOROUGH

PENNS GROVE

BOROUGH

SWEDESBORO

BOROUGH

GLOUCESTER CITY

STOW CREEK

TOWNSHIP

BROOKLAWN BOROUGH

PITTSGROVE 

TOWNSHIP

PINE HILL

BOROUGH

PITTSGROVE

TOWNSHIP

Salem County

Gloucester County

Camden

County

39°52’30”

39°45’

75°22’30”

75°15’

75°7’30”

75°

75°30’

BELLMAWR

BOROUGH

RUNNEMEDE

BOROUGH

Delaware River

Delaware River

S T U D Y A R E A B O U N D A R Y

0 2 4 6 MILES

0 2 4 6 KILOMETERS

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:24,000,

Universal Transverse Mercator Projection, Zone 18

39°37’30”

39°30’

DISCRETIZED OUTCROP AREA OF THE UPPER POTOMAC-RARITAN-MAGOTHY AQUIFER

WATER SUPPLY CRITICAL AREA 2—From N.J. Department of Environmental Protection, unpublished,

 1:250,000. Boundaries are approximate and should not be used for regulatory compliance purposes

BOUNDARY OF THE ACTIVE MODEL AREA—Upper Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer

EXTENT OF MODEL GRID

250-MILLIGRAM-PER-LITER ISOCHLOR (dePaul and others, 2009)

KEY BOUNDARY AT—

 Outcrop

 Critical Area 2

 Southwestern extent of model

 250-milligram-per-liter isochlor

CONTOUR SHOWING AVERAGE MAXIMUM

 SIMULATED WATER-LEVEL CHANGE AT KEY

 BOUNDARIES— Contour interval 0.5 foot

HYPOTHETICAL WELL LOCATION—

 Top number is well number. Bottom

 number is average maximum

 simulated water-level

 change at key boundaries

EXPLANATION

1.0

7

1.2

1

4.0

2

1.6

3

1.0

4

0.8

5

3.1

6

1.8

7

1.2

8

1.4

9

4.5

10

3.0

11

3.1

12

2.1

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.5

3.0

4.0

4.5

4.50

A

Magothy aquifer and, B, Middle Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer, resulting from a hypothetical well withdrawing 1 million gallons per 

day, Salem-Gloucester study area, southern New Jersey.

Figure 45. Distribution of average maximum simulated water-level change at key boundaries in the, A, Upper Potomac-Raritan-
102 Simulated Effects of Withdrawals from the Potomac-Raritan-Magothy Aquifer System, New Jersey

EXPLANATION

DISCRETIZED OUTCROP AREA OF THE MIDDLE POTOMAC-RARITAN-MAGOTHY AQUIFER

WATER SUPPLY CRITICAL AREA 2—From N.J. Department of Environmental Protection, unpublished,

 1:250,000. Boundaries are approximate and should not be used for regulatory compliance purposes

BOUNDARY OF THE ACTIVE MODEL AREA—Middle Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer

EXTENT OF MODEL GRID

250-MILLIGRAM-PER-LITER ISOCHLOR (dePaul and others, 2009)

KEY BOUNDARY AT—

 Outcrop

 Critical Area 2

 Southwestern extent of model

 250-milligram-per-liter isochlor

CONTOUR SHOWING AVERAGE MAXIMUM

 SIMULATED WATER-LEVEL CHANGE AT KEY

 BOUNDARIES—Contour interval 0.5 foot

HYPOTHETICAL WELL LOCATION—

 Top number is well number. Bottom

 number is average maximum

 simulated water-level

 change at key boundaries

1.0

3

0.8

ALLOWAY TOWNSHIP

ELK TOWNSHIP PILESGROVE TOWNSHIP

LOGAN TOWNSHIP

MANNINGTON

TOWNSHIP UPPER PITTSGROVE TOWNSHIP

WOOLWICH TOWNSHIP

OLDMANS

TOWNSHIP HARRISON TOWNSHIP

MANTUA TOWNSHIP

WASHINGTON

TOWNSHIP

DEPTFORD

TOWNSHIP

CARNEYS POINT TOWNSHIP

WEST DEPTFORD

TOWNSHIP

SOUTH HARRISON TOWNSHIP

GREENWICH TOWNSHIP

EAST GREENWICH TOWNSHIP

MONROE

TOWNSHIP

GLOUCESTER

TOWNSHIP

GLASSBORO

BOROUGH

WINSLOW

TOWNSHIP

CLAYTON

BOROUGH

PENNSVILLE

TOWNSHIP

PITMAN

BOROUGH

PAULSBORO

BOROUGH WOODBURY

CITY

UPPER DEERFIELD 

TOWNSHIP

QUINTON

TOWNSHIP

HOPEWELL

TOWNSHIP

WOODSTOWN

BOROUGH

NATIONAL PARK 

BOROUGH

WESTVILLE BOROUGH

WENONAH

BOROUGH

FRANKLIN

TOWNSHIP

ELMER

BOROUGH

WOODBURY HEIGHTS 

BOROUGH

PENNS GROVE

BOROUGH

SWEDESBORO

BOROUGH

GLOUCESTER CITY

STOW CREEK

TOWNSHIP

BROOKLAWN BOROUGH

PITTSGROVE 

TOWNSHIP

PINE HILL

BOROUGH

PITTSGROVE

TOWNSHIP

Salem County

Gloucester County

Camden

County

39°52’30”

39°45’

75°22’30”

75°15’

75°7’30”

75°

75°30’

BELLMAWR

BOROUGH

RUNNEMEDE

BOROUGH

Delaware River

Delaware River

S T U D Y A R E A B O U N D A R Y

0 2 4 6 MILES

0 2 4 6 KILOMETERS

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:24,000,

Universal Transverse Mercator Projection, Zone 18

39°37’30”

39°30’

1

2.7

2

1.1

3

0.8

4

0.6

5

2.9

6

1.4

7

0.9

8

0.8

9

3.5

10

2.2

11

2.0

12

1.1

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

0.5

B

Magothy aquifer and, B, Middle Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer, resulting from a hypothetical well withdrawing 1 million gallons per 

day, Salem-Gloucester study area, southern New Jersey.—Continued

Figure 45. Distribution of average maximum simulated water-level change at key boundaries in the, A, Upper Potomac-Raritan-
Simulated Effects of Allocated Withdrawals 103

0 

50 

100 

150 

200 

250 

3/8/71 3/5/81 3/3/91 2/28/01 

0 

50 

100 

150 

200 

250 

9/15/65 9/13/75 9/10/85 

9/8/95 9/5/05 

0 

50 

100 

150 

200 

250 

300 

350 

400 

4/12/49 4/10/59 

4/7/69 4/5/79 4/2/89 

3/31/99 3/28/09 

0 

50 

100 

150 

200 

250 

9/15/65 9/13/75 9/10/85 

9/8/95 9/5/05 

0 

10 

20 

30 

40 

50 

60 

70 

9/15/65 9/13/75 9/10/85 

9/8/95 9/5/05 

A.

B.

C.

D.

E.

15-3

15-60

15-62

15-63

15-127

CONCENTRATION, IN

MILLIGRAMS PER LITER

CONCENTRATION, IN

MILLIGRAMS PER LITER

CONCENTRATION, IN

MILLIGRAMS PER LITER

CONCENTRATION, IN

MILLIGRAMS PER LITER

CONCENTRATION, IN

MILLIGRAMS PER LITER

Sodium 

Chloride 

Sodium 

Chloride 

Sodium 

Chloride 

Sodium 

Chloride 

Sodium 

Chloride 

Figure 46. Measured 

sodium and chloride 

concentrations in water from 

selected wells screened 

in the Upper PotomacRaritan-Magothy aquifer 

in Glassboro Borough and 

adjacent municipalities, 

Salem-Gloucester study 

area, southern New Jersey, 

1929 to 2010.
104 Simulated Effects of Withdrawals from the Potomac-Raritan-Magothy Aquifer System, New Jersey

0 

20 

40 

60 

80 

100 

120 

140 

5/18/27 5/15/37 5/13/47 5/10/57 

5/8/67 5/5/77 5/3/87 

4/30/97 4/28/07 

0 

50 

100 

150 

200 

250 

8/28/76 8/26/86 8/23/96 8/21/06 

0 

50 

100 

150 

200 

250 

3/8/71 3/5/81 3/3/91 

2/28/01 

0 

20 

40 

60 

80 

100 

120 

140 

160 

9/17/80 9/17/82 

9/17/84 

9/17/86 

9/17/88 

9/17/90 9/17/92 

9/17/94 

9/17/96 

9/17/98 

9/17/00 9/17/02 

9/17/04 

9/17/06 

9/17/08 

F.

G.

H.

I.

15-225

15-248

15-361

15-385

CONCENTRATION, IN

MILLIGRAMS PER LITER

CONCENTRATION, IN

MILLIGRAMS PER LITER

CONCENTRATION, IN

MILLIGRAMS PER LITER

CONCENTRATION, IN

MILLIGRAMS PER LITER

Sodium 

Chloride 

Sodium 

Chloride 

Sodium 

Chloride 

Sodium 

Chloride 

Figure 46. Measured 

sodium and chloride 

concentrations in water from 

selected wells screened 

in the Upper PotomacRaritan-Magothy aquifer 

in Glassboro Borough and 

adjacent municipalities, 

Salem-Gloucester study 

area, southern New Jersey, 

1929 to 2010.—Continued
Simulated Effects of Allocated Withdrawals 105

0 

50 

100 

150 

200 

250 

300 

350 

12/8/89 12/6/99 12/3/09 

0 

50 

100 

150 

200 

250 

300 

350 

10/28/95 10/25/05 

0 

50 

100 

150 

200 

250 

300 

350 

400 

450 

1/31/93 1/29/03 

A.

B.

C.

15-1109

33-933

33-432

CONCENTRATION, IN

MILLIGRAMS PER LITER

CONCENTRATION, IN

MILLIGRAMS PER LITER

CONCENTRATION, IN

MILLIGRAMS PER LITER

Sodium 

Chloride 

Sodium 

Chloride 

Chloride 

Figure 47. Measured sodium and chloride concentrations in water from selected wells in Woodstown Borough and 

Harrison and Oldmans Townships, Salem-Gloucester study area, southern New Jersey, 1996–2010.
106 Simulated Effects of Withdrawals from the Potomac-Raritan-Magothy Aquifer System, New Jersey

0 

50 

100 

150 

200 

250 

300 

350 

400 

450 

500 

1/31/93 1/29/03 

0 

100 

200 

300 

400 

500 

600 

700 

1/31/93 1/29/03 

0 

100 

200 

300 

400 

500 

600 

700 

10/28/1995 10/25/2005 

D.

E.

F.

33-899

33-900

33-901

CONCENTRATION, IN

MILLIGRAMS PER LITER

CONCENTRATION, IN

MILLIGRAMS PER LITER

CONCENTRATION, IN

MILLIGRAMS PER LITER

Chloride 

Chloride 

Chloride 

Figure 47. Measured sodium and chloride concentrations in water from selected wells in Woodstown Borough and Harrison 

and Oldmans Townships areas, Salem-Gloucester study area, southern New Jersey, 1996–2010.—Continued
Simulated Effects of Allocated Withdrawals 107

considered a possible source of chloride to wells farther along 

these flow paths. Water particles were allowed to pass through 

weak sinks, thereby allowing them, in some instances, to be 

captured by a larger pumped well. Weak sinks are cells that 

contain withdrawals that do not capture all the water entering 

a cell; water flows out from at least one of the faces of the cell.

Glassboro Borough and Adjacent Municipalities

The simulated water levels in the Upper PotomacRaritan-Magothy aquifer in Glassboro Borough and adjacent municipalities for the 2000 baseline simulation and the 

adjusted full-allocation scenario (figs. 28A and 33A) indicate 

that regional groundwater flow is from the west and northwest. 

Eight water-purveyor wells and two agricultural-irrigation 

wells were simulated in this area (fig. 48). Withdrawals from 

these wells simulated in the model are given in tables 4 and 7. 

The wells are located between 1 and 5 mi from the estimated 

location of the 250-mg/L isochlor. Chloride and sodium 

concentrations for nine of the wells in figure 48 are given in 

table 17. Chloride and sodium concentrations in water from 

agricultural-irrigation well 15-422 were not measured. Chloride concentrations in water from six of the water-purveyor 

wells (15-3, 15-60, 15-63, 15-225, 15-361, and 15-385) have 

increased slowly but are still less than the secondary drinkingwater standard. Sodium concentrations in these wells typically exceed the secondary drinking-water standard (table 17). 

Water-purveyor wells 15-3, 15-60, and 15-361 are the closest 

to the 250-mg/L isochlor with no other pumped wells intervening. Chloride concentrations in water from these three 

wells were less than or equal to 155 mg/L for the periods of 

measurement (table 17). Water-purveyor wells 15-62, 15-63, 

15-225, 15-248, 15-385 are located such that several of the 

other pumped wells are between them and the 250-mg/L isochlor. Chloride concentrations in water from these five wells 

were less than or equal to 106 mg/L for the period of measurement (table 17).

A forward particle-tracking analysis was conducted 

in Glassboro Borough, the adjoining boroughs of Clayton 

and Pitman, and the townships of Washington and Harrison 

(fig. 48) to assess the movement of groundwater from the 

250-mg/L isochlor to 10 wells screened in the Upper PotomacRaritan-Magothy aquifer in both the 2000 baseline simulation and the adjusted full-allocation scenario. The withdrawal 

conditions of the 2000 baseline simulation represent the 

smallest total withdrawals of all withdrawal simulations or 

scenarios in this study. The withdrawals simulated in the 

adjusted full-allocation scenario equaled the withdrawals 

simulated in the full-allocation scenario for 9 of the 10 wells. 

However, withdrawals from four of the water-purveyor wells 

in Glassboro Borough were less in the adjusted full-allocation 

scenario and the full-allocation scenario than in the 2000 

baseline simulation because reported withdrawals from these 

wells exceeded the permitted allocation. For the forward 

tracking method, hypothetical particles were placed in model 

cells along the estimated location of the 250-mg/L isochlor 

nearest the 10 wells. The particles were tracked forward from 

the 250-mg/L isochlor along flow paths determined from the 

flow-model results.

Figure 48 shows the advective flow paths from the 

250-mg/L isochlor for both the 2000 baseline simulation and 

the adjusted full-allocation scenario. The simulated flow paths 

in the 2000 baseline simulation do not differ substantially 

from those in the adjusted full-allocation scenario. The flow 

paths indicate that particles that moved from the 250-mg/L 

isochlor toward the eight water-purveyor wells were captured 

by those wells. Additionally, the analysis indicates advective flow toward two agricultural-irrigation wells, 15-127 and 

15-422, which were pumped at smaller rates than the waterpurveyor wells (table 7). Agricultural-irrigation well 15-127 

was pumped only in the adjusted full-allocation scenario. 

Only flow paths between the 250-mg/L isochlor and the wells 

are shown in this forward-tracking analysis. A considerable 

quantity of the water that flows to the wells does not originate 

from the 250-mg/L isochlor and is assumed to contain chloride 

at concentrations less than 250 mg/L. 

Under 2000 baseline simulation withdrawal conditions, 

advective travel times from the 250-mg/L isochlor to 8 of the 

10 pumped wells range from a minimum of 75 to 698 years, 

to a maximum of 116 to 862 years (table 18). Under adjusted 

full-allocation-scenario withdrawal conditions, advective 

travel times range from a minimum of 50 to 718 years to a 

maximum of 99 to 1,008 years (table 18). Particle travel times 

are similar for the 2000 baseline simulation and adjusted fullallocation scenario in most areas.

The relatively long flow paths with travel times on the 

order of hundreds of years through an area of the aquifer 

known to contain water in which chloride concentrations 

exceed the drinking-water standard indicate that the observed 

trend of slowly rising chloride concentrations in water from 

wells in the Glassboro Borough area is likely to continue. 

Adjusted full-allocation withdrawals do not change these conditions substantially. Variations in the observed chloride values 

likely result in part from variations in the rate of withdrawals from wells in the area. Given that the average travel time 

from the 250-mg/L isochlor is several hundred years and that 

a portion of the flow to the wells is from freshwater sources, 

water from wells in the Glassboro Borough area likely will 

remain potable with respect to chloride for at least several 

hundred years.

Harrison Township

Wells screened in the Upper Potomac-Raritan-Magothy 

aquifer in Harrison Township—purveyor well 15-1109, for 

example—have produced water with chloride concentrations 

at the 250-mg/L secondary drinking-water standard. Measured chloride concentrations in water from this well ranged 

from about 94 to 258 mg/L during the period 1996–2008 

(table 17). During the period 2003–08, sodium concentrations 

ranged from 102 mg/L to 325 mg/L, which exceed the sodium 

drinking-water standard (fig. 47). Advective particle tracking 
108 Simulated Effects of Withdrawals from the Potomac-Raritan-Magothy Aquifer System, New Jersey

ELK TOWNSHIP

MANTUA TOWNSHIP

HARRISON TOWNSHIP

WASHINGTON TOWNSHIP

DEPTFORD TOWNSHIP

GLASSBORO BOROUGH

CLAYTON BOROUGH

EAST GREENWICH TOWNSHIP

UPPER PITTSGROVE TOWNSHIP

SOUTH HARRISON

TOWNSHIP

PITMAN BORO

FRANKLIN TOWNSHIP

WEST DEPTFORD TOWNSHIP

MONROE

TOWNSHIP

GLOUCESTER

TOWNSHIP

WENONAH

BOROUGH

WOODBURY HEIGHTS

BOROUGH

WOODBURY HEIGHTS

BOROUGH

Gloucester County

Salem County

Camden

County

15-127

15-248

15-63

15-60

15-3

15-225

15-385

15-422

15-62

15-361

75°12' 75°8'

39°48'

39°44'

39°40'

0 1 2 MILES

0 1 2 KILOMETERS

15-62

250-MILLIGRAM-PER-LITER ISOCHLOR

 (dePaul and others, 2009)

FLOW PATH, 2000 BASELINE 

SIMULATION

FLOW PATH, ADJUSTED FULL-ALLOCATION 

SCENARIO

WITHDRAWAL WELL—Number is

 U.S. Geological Survey well number

EXPLANATION

Area of

detail

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:24,000,

Universal Transverse Mercator Projection, Zone 18

Figure 48. Simulated lateral flow paths from the estimated location of the 250-milligram-per-liter isochlor to wells in the 

Upper Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer in Glassboro Borough and adjacent municipalities, for the 2000 baseline simulation 

and adjusted full-allocation scenario, Salem-Gloucester study area, southern New Jersey.
Simulated Effects of Allocated Withdrawals 109

Table 18. Simulated travel time of water particles from the estimated 250-milligram-per-liter isochlor in the Upper Potomac-RaritanMagothy aquifer to eight withdrawal wells in Glassboro Borough and adjacent areas, Salem-Gloucester study area, southern New 

Jersey.

[Well locations are shown in fig. 48; --, no data; all travel times in years]

U.S. Geological 

Survey well number

Minimum travel time Maximum travel time Average travel time

Adjusted 

full-allocation 

scenario

2000 baseline 

simulation

Adjusted 

full-allocation 

scenario

2000 baseline 

simulation

Adjusted 

full-allocation 

scenario

2000 baseline 

simulation

15-3 111 145 605 367 145 168

15-60 108 100 196 212 143 140

15-62 152 150 692 655 328 339

15-63 105 102 252 817 147 148

15-225 75 75 106 116 85 87

15-248 718 698 1,008 862 784 740

15-361 185 182 309 358 209 214

15-422 50 -- 99 -- 82 --

was conducted for this well to determine the contributing area 

to the well and to predict the possibility of movement of saline 

water (fig. 49) toward the well. This well is about 0.75 mi 

updip from the estimated location of the 250-mg/L isochlor. 

Withdrawals from this well in the 2000 baseline simulation are 

shown in table 4. Hypothetical particles were tracked backward from the well to their recharge locations. The simulated 

flow paths to this well indicate that flow to the well originates 

as recharge from the outcrop area of the Upper Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer and from the Englishtown aquifer system 

(fig. 49). Advective travel times from the Upper PotomacRaritan-Magothy outcrop area and the Englishtown aquifer 

system to well 15-1109 range from 300 to 6,000 years.

A flow-budget analysis of the groundwater simulation 

results in the Harrison Township area was undertaken. The 

analysis, using ZONEBUDGET (Harbaugh, 1990), delineated 

the freshwater and saltwater zones of the Upper PotomacRaritan-Magothy aquifer, relative to the 250-mg/L isochlor, 

and in the vicinity of well 15-1109 and nearby well 15-130 but 

not beyond the 250-mg/L isochlor (fig. 49). Additional budget 

zones were included for the overlying and underlying aquifers. 

The intent of this budget analysis was to determine the proportions of flow to those wells from freshwater and saltwater 

sources. The budget analysis indicates that the zone containing 

the wells receives flow predominantly from the freshwater part 

of the aquifer (220.5 Mgal/yr); flow from the overlying and 

underlying aquifers—9.2 and 11.1 Mgal/yr, respectively—is 

minor (fig. 49). Additionally, the budget analysis indicates that 

some flow, 24.7 Mgal/yr (fig. 49), leaves the well zone, enters 

the saltwater zone, and continues toward the pumped wells in 

Glassboro Borough and adjacent areas (fig. 48). The analysis 

indicates that the elevated chloride concentrations observed in 

Harrison Township wells likely result from the proximity of 

the 250-mg/L isochlor, rather than from substantial movement 

of saline water from the direction of the isochlor.

The fluctuations of the chloride and sodium concentrations observed in well 15-1109 (table 17) may have resulted 

from variations in the withdrawal rate at this well, at nearby 

wells, and (or) at updip wells (fig. 27). Large variations in 

rates of withdrawal from these wells and in surrounding wells 

could alter flow paths to the wells. Large increases in withdrawals from wells located updip from well 15-1109 could 

divert freshwater originating in the outcrop area of the aquifer, 

potentially causing water containing higher concentrations 

of chloride in the downdip part of the aquifer to flow toward 

the well.

Woodstown Borough

Wells in Woodstown Borough screened in the Middle 

Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer—for example, well 

33-933—have produced water with chloride concentrations near the 250-mg/L secondary drinking-water standard. 

Measured chloride concentrations in water from this well 

ranged from 189 to 261 mg/L during the period 1998–2010 

(table 17). During the period 2003–10, sodium concentrations 

ranged from 157 mg/L to 322 mg/L, which exceed the sodium 

drinking-water standard. Advective particle tracking was conducted for water-purveyor well 33-933, screened in the Middle 

Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer, to determine flow paths to 

this well. This well is about 0.75 mi updip from the estimated 

location of the 250-mg/L isochlor (fig. 50). The withdrawal 

rate from this well in the 2000 baseline simulation is given in 

table 5. Hypothetical particles were tracked backward from the 

well to the starting location of the particles in the model. Flow 

paths to this well (fig. 50) indicate that simulated flow to well 
110 Simulated Effects of Withdrawals from the Potomac-Raritan-Magothy Aquifer System, New Jersey

Figure 49. Simulated lateral flow paths to withdrawal well 15-1109 screened in the Upper Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer in 

Harrison Township and flow budget, 2000 baseline simulation, Salem-Gloucester study area, southern New Jersey.

BOUNDARY OF THE ACTIVE MODEL AREA—Upper

 Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer

ALLOWAY TOWNSHIP

ELK TOWNSHIP PILESGROVE TOWNSHIP

LOGAN TOWNSHIP

MANNINGTON

TOWNSHIP UPPER PITTSGROVE TOWNSHIP

WOOLWICH TOWNSHIP

OLDMANS

TOWNSHIP HARRISON TOWNSHIP

MANTUA TOWNSHIP

WASHINGTON

TOWNSHIP

DEPTFORD

TOWNSHIP

CARNEYS POINT TOWNSHIP

WEST DEPTFORD

TOWNSHIP

SOUTH HARRISON TOWNSHIP

GREENWICH TOWNSHIP

EAST GREENWICH TOWNSHIP

MONROE

TOWNSHIP

GLOUCESTER

TOWNSHIP

GLASSBORO

BOROUGH

WINSLOW

TOWNSHIP

CLAYTON

BOROUGH

PENNSVILLE

TOWNSHIP

PITMAN

BOROUGH

PAULSBORO

BOROUGH WOODBURY

CITY

UPPER DEERFIELD 

TOWNSHIP

QUINTON

TOWNSHIP

HOPEWELL

TOWNSHIP

BELLMAWR

BOROUGH

WOODSTOWN

BOROUGH

NATIONAL PARK 

BOROUGH

WESTVILLE BOROUGH

WENONAH

BOROUGH

FRANKLIN

TOWNSHIP

ELMER

BOROUGH

WOODBURY HEIGHTS 

BOROUGH

PENNS GROVE

BOROUGH

RUNNEMEDE

BOROUGH

SWEDESBORO

BOROUGH

GLOUCESTER CITY

STOW CREEK

TOWNSHIP

BROOKLAWN BOROUGH

PITTSGROVE 

TOWNSHIP

PINE HILL

BOROUGH

PITTSGROVE

TOWNSHIP

Salem County

Gloucester County

Camden

County

39°52’30”

39°45’

75°22’30”

75°15’

75°7’30”

75°

75°30’

Delaware River

Delaware River

LOCATION OF WITHDRAWAL WELL 15-1109 IN THE UPPER

 POTOMAC-RARITAN-MAGOTHY AQUIFER

LOCATION OF OTHER WITHDRAWAL WELL IN WITHDRAWAL-WELL ZONE

S T U D Y - A R E A B O U N D A R Y

Englishtown aquifer system

Merchantville-Woodbury confining unit

Upper Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer

DISCRETIZED OUTCROP AREA

EXPLANATION

Freshwater

Saltwater

Withdrawal well

BUDGET ZONE

Specified flux to Englishtown aquifer system

Recharge to outcrop areas

Flow path of water particle

SIMULATED SOUCE OF GROUNDWATER FLOW PATH

flow from zone; --, not applicable]

0 2 4 6 MILES

0 2 4 6 KILOMETERS

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:24,000,

Universal Transverse Mercator Projection, Zone 18

39°37’30”

39°30’

250-MILLIGRAM-PER-LITER ISOCHLOR (dePaul and others, 2009)

Flow budget for withdrawal wells screened in the Upper Potomac-RaritanMagothy aquifer

[Withdrawal-well zone includes wells 15-130 and 15-1109; negative number indicates net

Net flow (million gallons per year)

to withdrawalwell zone to freshwater 

zone

to saltwater 

zone

Flow from saltwater zone -24.7 96.3 --

Flow from freshwater zone 220.5 -- -96.3

Flow from withdrawal-well zone -- -220.5 24.7

Flow from overlying aquifer 9.2 1,139.8 177.8

Flow from underlying aquifer 11.1 -1,315.5 -50.4

Withdrawals -216.0 -4,356.3 -6.2

15-1109

Source of flow
Simulated Effects of Allocated Withdrawals 111

ALLOWAY TOWNSHIP

ELK TOWNSHIP PILESGROVE TOWNSHIP

LOGAN TOWNSHIP

MANNINGTON

TOWNSHIP UPPER PITTSGROVE TOWNSHIP

WOOLWICH TOWNSHIP

OLDMANS

TOWNSHIP HARRISON TOWNSHIP

MANTUA TOWNSHIP

WASHINGTON

TOWNSHIP

DEPTFORD

TOWNSHIP

CARNEYS POINT TOWNSHIP

WEST DEPTFORD

TOWNSHIP

SOUTH HARRISON TOWNSHIP

GREENWICH TOWNSHIP

EAST GREENWICH TOWNSHIP

MONROE

TOWNSHIP

GLOUCESTER

TOWNSHIP

GLASSBORO

BOROUGH

WINSLOW

TOWNSHIP

CLAYTON

BOROUGH

PENNSVILLE

TOWNSHIP

PITMAN

BOROUGH

PAULSBORO

BOROUGH WOODBURY

CITY

UPPER DEERFIELD TOWNSHIP

QUINTON

TOWNSHIP

HOPEWELL

TOWNSHIP

BELLMAWR

BOROUGH

WOODSTOWN

BOROUGH

NATIONAL PARK 

BOROUGH

WESTVILLE BOROUGH

WENONAH

BOROUGH

FRANKLIN

TOWNSHIP

ELMER

BOROUGH

WOODBURY HEIGHTS 

BOROUGH

PENNS GROVE

BOROUGH

RUNNEMEDE

BOROUGH

SWEDESBORO

BOROUGH

GLOUCESTER CITY

STOW CREEK

TOWNSHIP

BROOKLAWN BOROUGH

PITTSGROVE 

TOWNSHIP

PINE HILL

BOROUGH

PITTSGROVE

TOWNSHIP

Salem County

Gloucester County

Camden

County

39°52’30”

39°45’

75°22’30”

75°15’

75°7’30”

75°

75°30’

Delaware River

Delaware River

S T U D Y - A R E A B O U N D A R Y

Englishtown aquifer system

Merchantville-Woodbury confining unit

Upper Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer

Middle Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer

DISCRETIZED OUTCROP AREA

EXPLANATION

Specified flux to Englishtown aquifer system

Recharge to outcrop areas

Flow path of water particle

SIMULATED SOUCE OF GROUNDWATER FLOW PATH

Freshwater

Saltwater

Withdrawal well

BUDGET ZONE

0 2 4 6 MILES

0 2 4 6 KILOMETERS

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:24,000,

Universal Transverse Mercator Projection, Zone 18

39°37’30”

39°30’

BOUNDARY OF THE ACTIVE MODEL AREA—Middle

 Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer

LOCATION OF WITHDRAWAL WELL 33-933 IN THE MIDDLE

 POTOMAC-RARITAN-MAGOTHY AQUIFER

250-MILLIGRAM-PER-LITER ISOCHLOR (dePaul and others, 2009)

Flow budget for withdrawal well screened in the Middle Potomac-RaritanMagothy aquifer

--, not applicable]

Net flow (million gallons per year)

to withdrawalwell zone to freshwater 

zone

to saltwater 

zone

Flow from saltwater zone -6.9 1.2 --

Flow from freshwater zone 34.9 -- -1.2

Flow from withdrawal-well zone -- -34.9 6.9

Flow from overlying aquifer 5.4 1,181.7 167.9

Flow from underlying aquifer -1.7 -2,416.0 -85.0

Withdrawals -31.7 -3,283.4 -1.3

[Withdrawal-well zone for well 33-933; negative numbers indicate net flow from zone;

33-933

Source of flow

Figure 50. Simulated lateral flow paths to withdrawal well 33-933 screened in the Middle Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer in 

Woodstown Borough and flow budget, 2000 baseline simulation, Salem-Gloucester study area, southern New Jersey.
112 Simulated Effects of Withdrawals from the Potomac-Raritan-Magothy Aquifer System, New Jersey

33-933 originates in the outcrop areas of the Upper PotomacRaritan-Magothy aquifer and the Englishtown aquifer system; 

some flow is from the confined Englishtown aquifer system. 

The outcrop areas in the model receive recharge, and the flow 

from the confined Englishtown aquifer system is freshwater. 

Advective travel times from the outcrop area of the Upper 

Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer and the Englishtown aquifer system to well 33-933 range from a minimum of 1,400 to a 

maximum of 6,000 years. 

The analysis, using ZONEBUDGET (Harbaugh, 1990), 

delineated the freshwater and saltwater zones of the Middle 

Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer relative to the 250-mg/L 

isochlor, and in the vicinity of well 33-933, but not beyond the 

250-mg/L isochlor. Additional budget zones were included for 

the overlying and underlying aquifers (fig. 50). The intent of 

this budget analysis was to determine the proportions of flow 

to the well from freshwater and saltwater sources. The budget 

analysis indicates that the zone containing the well receives 

flow predominantly from the freshwater part of the aquifer, 

about 34.9 Mgal/yr (fig. 50); flow from the overlying aquifers 

(5.4 Mgal/yr) to the underlying aquifer (1.7 Mgal/yr) and into 

the saltwater zone (6.9 Mgal/yr) is relatively minor (fig. 50). 

This analysis indicates that the elevated chloride concentrations observed in the Middle Potomac-Raritan-Magothy 

aquifer wells in Woodstown Borough, like those in the Upper 

Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer in the Harrison Township 

area, likely result from the proximity of the 250-mg/L isochlor, 

rather than from substantial movement of saline water from 

the direction of the isochlor.

The fluctuations of the chloride and sodium concentrations observed in well 33-933 (table 17) may have resulted 

from variations in the withdrawal rate at this well, at nearby 

wells, and (or) at updip wells (fig. 27). Large variations in the 

rates of withdrawal from these wells and surrounding wells 

could alter flow paths to the wells. Large increases in withdrawals from wells located updip from well 33-933 could 

divert freshwater originating in the outcrop area of the aquifer, 

potentially causing water containing higher concentrations 

of chloride in the downdip part of the aquifer to flow toward 

the well.

Oldmans Township

Wells in Oldmans Township screened in the Lower 

Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer—for example, wells 

33-432, 33-964, 33-984, 33-899, 33-900, and 33-901—have 

produced water with chloride concentrations at and above 

the 250-mg/L secondary drinking-water standard. Measured 

chloride concentrations in water from these wells ranged from 

100 to 610 mg/L during the period 1996–2010 (table 17). 

Sodium concentrations were not measured during that time 

period. Advective particle tracking was conducted for industrial self-supply well 33-900 to determine the contributing area 

to the well and to predict the possibility of movement of saline 

water (fig. 51) toward the well. This well is located more than 

1 mi from the Delaware River (fig. 27). The withdrawal from 

this well in the 2000 baseline simulation is given in table 6. 

Hypothetical particles were tracked backward from the well to 

the starting location of the particles in the model. 

Flow paths to this well (fig. 51) indicate that simulated 

flow to the well originates in the outcrop area of the Middle 

Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer where the aquifer receives 

recharge in the model. The likely source of chloride to well 

33-900 and the other wells is lateral flow from the Lower 

Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer. Water in the Lower 

Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer may mix with freshwater 

from the overlying Middle Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer, 

diluting the chloride concentrations in these wells. The chloride concentrations in the water from these wells indicate that 

concentrations can fluctuate as much as 179 mg/L over the 

period of about 1 month in one well (table 17). 

The analysis, using ZONEBUDGET (Harbaugh, 1990), 

delineated the freshwater and saltwater zones of the Lower 

Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer and in the vicinity of well 

33-900. Additional budget zones were included for the overlying aquifer (fig. 51). The intent of this budget analysis was 

to determine the proportions of flow to the well from outcrop 

areas and saline sources. The budget analysis indicates that 

the zone containing the well receives flow predominantly 

from water that has passed through the saltwater zone, about 

124.4 Mgal/yr (fig. 51). The particle tracking for well 33-900 

indicates that the origin of the flow path is the outcrop of the 

Middle Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer. At the start of 

pumping, water from the saltwater zone would be drawn to 

the well. When a steady flow field is achieved, the recharge 

water would be drawn through overlying hydrogeologic units 

to the well. The flow path through the saline water allows the 

recharge water to mix with the ambient saline water. A minor 

amount of water (17.8 Mgal/yr) flows to the well zone directly 

from the overlying aquifers. Additionally, a minor amount of 

water (10.8 Mgal/yr) flows from the well zone to the freshwater zone of the Lower Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer 

(fig. 51), possibly discharging to tidal creeks and the Delaware River. The elevated chloride concentrations found in the 

Lower Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer in Oldmans Township are likely to persist because of the proximity of saltwater 

and the flow path that directs recharge water through the saline 

parts of the aquifer, providing an opportunity for mixing.
Simulated Effects of Allocated Withdrawals 113

ALLOWAY TOWNSHIP

ELK TOWNSHIP PILESGROVE TOWNSHIP

LOGAN TOWNSHIP

MANNINGTON

TOWNSHIP UPPER PITTSGROVE TOWNSHIP

WOOLWICH TOWNSHIP

OLDMANS

TOWNSHIP HARRISON TOWNSHIP

MANTUA TOWNSHIP

WASHINGTON

TOWNSHIP

DEPTFORD

TOWNSHIP

CARNEYS POINT TOWNSHIP

WEST DEPTFORD

TOWNSHIP

SOUTH HARRISON TOWNSHIP

GREENWICH TOWNSHIP

EAST GREENWICH TOWNSHIP

MONROE

TOWNSHIP

GLOUCESTER

TOWNSHIP

GLASSBORO

BOROUGH

WINSLOW

TOWNSHIP

CLAYTON

BOROUGH

PENNSVILLE

TOWNSHIP

PITMAN

BOROUGH

PAULSBORO

BOROUGH WOODBURY

CITY

UPPER DEERFIELD 

TOWNSHIP

QUINTON

TOWNSHIP

HOPEWELL

TOWNSHIP

BELLMAWR

BOROUGH

WOODSTOWN

BOROUGH

NATIONAL PARK 

BOROUGH

WESTVILLE BOROUGH

WENONAH

BOROUGH

FRANKLIN

TOWNSHIP

ELMER

BOROUGH

WOODBURY HEIGHTS 

BOROUGH

PENNS GROVE

BOROUGH

RUNNEMEDE

BOROUGH

SWEDESBORO

BOROUGH

GLOUCESTER CITY

STOW CREEK

TOWNSHIP

BROOKLAWN BOROUGH

PITTSGROVE 

TOWNSHIP

PINE HILL

BOROUGH

PITTSGROVE

TOWNSHIP

Salem County

Gloucester County

Camden

County

39°52’30”

39°45’

75°22’30”

75°15’

75°7’30”

75°

75°30’

Delaware River

Delaware River

S T U D Y - A R E A B O U N D A R Y

Englishtown aquifer system

Merchantville-Woodbury confining unit

Upper Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer

Middle Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer

DISCRETIZED OUTCROP AREA

EXPLANATION

Recharge to outcrop areas

Flow path of water particle

SIMULATED SOUCE OF GROUNDWATER FLOW PATH

BOUNDARY OF THE ACTIVE MODEL AREA—Lower

 Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer

LOCATION OF WITHDRAWAL WELL 33-900 IN THE LOWER

 POTOMAC-RARITAN-MAGOTHY AQUIFER

LOCATION OF OTHER WITHDRAWAL WELL IN WITHDRAWAL-WELL ZONE

Freshwater

Saltwater

Withdrawal well

BUDGET ZONE

250-MILLIGRAM-PER-LITER ISOCHLOR (dePaul and others, 2009)

0 2 4 6 MILES

0 2 4 6 KILOMETERS

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:24,000,

Universal Transverse Mercator Projection, Zone 18

39°37’30”

39°30’

Flow budget for withdrawal wells screened in the Lower Potomac-RaritanMagothy aquifer

[Withdrawal-well zone includes wells 33-432, 33-964, 33-984, 33-899, 33-900, and 33-901; 

Net flow (million gallons per year)

to well to freshwater to saltwater 

zone zone zone

Flow from saltwater zone 124.4 421.8 --

Flow from freshwater zone -10.8 -- -421.8

Flow from withdrawal-well zone -- 10.8 -124.4

Flow from overlying aquifer 17.8 1,517.7 967.1

Withdrawals -132.5 -1,545.0 -54.7

negative number indicates net flow from zone; --, not applicable]

33-900

Source of flow

Figure 51. Simulated lateral flow paths to withdrawal well 33-900 screened in the Lower Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer in Oldmans 

Township and flow budget, 2000 baseline simulation, Salem-Gloucester study area, southern New Jersey.
114 Simulated Effects of Withdrawals from the Potomac-Raritan-Magothy Aquifer System, New Jersey

Summary and Conclusions

Groundwater withdrawals from the Potomac-RaritanMagothy aquifer system, which includes the Upper, Middle, 

and Lower Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifers, are the 

principal source of groundwater supply in northern Gloucester and northeastern Salem Counties in southern New Jersey. 

These withdrawals have resulted in water-level declines and 

can cause the lateral and vertical movement of groundwater 

from source areas with chloride concentrations greater than or 

equal to 250 mg/L in parts of the study area. The population 

in parts of Salem and in Gloucester Counties is expected to 

increase over the next 2 decades (2005–2025), which likely 

will result in increased groundwater withdrawals. The eastern 

part of Gloucester County is located in Critical Area 2, where 

permitted withdrawals from the Potomac-Raritan-Magothy 

aquifer system were restricted in 1993 in an effort to prevent 

the continued decline in water levels. This groundwater flow 

simulation study was undertaken by the U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with the N.J. Department of Environmental Protection, to examine the effects of increased withdrawals 

on water levels in the Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer system in northern Gloucester and northeastern Salem Counties 

and on the movement of groundwater from source areas with 

chloride concentrations greater than or equal to 250 mg/L to 

withdrawal wells in these aquifers in the study area.

A steady-state groundwater-flow model was developed and calibrated to 1998 withdrawal conditions. In 1998, 

groundwater withdrawals in the model area were more than 

10,100 Mgal/yr from the Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer 

system and more than 22 Mgal/yr from the overlying Englishtown aquifer system for domestic self-supply. Withdrawals from water-purveyor wells accounted for 63 percent of 

withdrawals in the study area; industrial self-supply wells, 

agricultural-irrigation wells, and domestic self-supply wells 

(including wells screened in the Englishtown aquifer system) 

accounted for 32 percent, more than 2 percent, and about 

2 percent of withdrawals, respectively. Low-volume users 

(water-purveyor, industrial self-supply, nonagricultural-irrigation, or commercial self-supply users with permitted withdrawal allocations of less than 100,000 gal/d) accounted for 

less than 1 percent of the total withdrawals from these aquifers 

in 1998.

A 2000 baseline simulation was conducted using average 

annual 1991–2001 groundwater withdrawals from wells in the 

Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer system in the model area. 

Withdrawals in the 2000 baseline simulation were the smallest in this study. The results of this simulation were used as a 

baseline with which to compare the results of simulating several withdrawal scenarios representing full-allocation conditions or variations of full-allocation conditions. Withdrawals in 

the baseline simulation totaled 9,644 Mgal/yr, about 5 percent 

less than those in the 1998 calibration simulation. Average 

simulated water levels in the Upper, Middle, and Lower 

Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifers in the 2000 baseline 

simulation are 31, 27, and 30 ft below the National Geodetic 

Vertical Datum of 1929 (NGVD 29), respectively, and the 

lowest simulated water levels are 77, 65, and 59 ft below 

NGVD 29, respectively. Simulated water levels were lowest 

in the Upper, Middle, and Lower Potomac-Raritan-Magothy 

aquifers in Critical Area 2 in Washington Township. Simulated 

groundwater discharge from the Potomac-Raritan-Magothy 

aquifer system to streams in the 2000 baseline simulation is 

8,441 Mgal/yr. Simulated net groundwater discharge from the 

Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer system to the Delaware 

River is 1,183 Mgal/yr.

 Of all the scenarios considered in this study, withdrawals 

were largest in the full-allocation scenario, although withdrawals by six water purveyors in Critical Area 2 were greater than 

their permitted allocation limits in the 2000 baseline simulation. In the full-allocation scenario, groundwater withdrawals from the Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer system were 

the maximum permitted (allocated) by the State in the study 

area in 2006. Simulated withdrawals were 16,567 Mgal/yr, 

an increase of 72 percent from the 2000 baseline simulation. 

In the full-allocation scenario, average simulated water levels 

in the Upper, Middle, and Lower Potomac-Raritan-Magothy 

aquifers are 49, 43, and 48 ft below NGVD 29, respectively, 

and are 18, 16, and 18 ft lower, respectively, than in the 2000 

baseline simulation. The lowest water levels simulated for 

the full-allocation scenario in the Upper, Middle, and Lower 

Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifers are 156, 95, and 69 ft 

below NGVD 29, respectively, and are 79, 30, and 10 ft lower, 

respectively, than in the 2000 baseline simulation. The lowest 

simulated water levels in the Upper and Middle Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifers were centered on an agricultural-irrigation well in East Greenwich Township. The water-level decline 

at this agricultural-irrigation well was substantial because the 

full allocation for its water-allocation permit, which could also 

include surface-water diversions, was assigned to this one well 

in the simulation. The lowest simulated water levels in the 

Lower Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer were observed in 

Carneys Point Township and near the eastern boundary of the 

model area in Critical Area 2. The increase in the size of the 

area in which simulated water levels in the Upper, Middle, and 

Lower Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifers are lower than 30 

ft below NGVD 29 compared to the area in the 2000 baseline simulation is 112.9, 123.0, and 118.3 mi2

, respectively. 

In the Upper, Middle, and Lower Potomac-Raritan-Magothy 

aquifers, these areas are through most of East Greenwich and 

Woolwich Townships and Swedesboro Borough. Simulated 

net flow from the Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer system 

to streams is 6,018 Mgal/yr in the full-allocation scenario, 

a decrease of 29 percent from the 2000 baseline simulation. 

Simulated net flow is 1,816 Mgal/yr from the Delaware River 

to the aquifer system, whereas in the 2000 baseline simulation 

net flow was from the aquifer system to the Delaware River.

In the adjusted full-allocation scenario, some of the 

permitted withdrawals in the full-allocation scenario were 

adjusted because withdrawals by some industrial self-supply, 

low-volume, and agricultural-irrigation users were substantially different from those allocated. Withdrawals in the 
Summary and Conclusions 115

adjusted full-allocation scenario were 13,290 Mgal/yr, an 

increase of 38 percent from the 2000 baseline simulation. 

Average simulated water levels in the Upper, Middle, and 

Lower Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifers in this scenario 

are 36, 32, and 36 ft below NGVD 29, respectively, and are 

5, 5, and 6 ft lower, respectively, than in the 2000 baseline 

simulation. The lowest water levels simulated in the adjusted 

full-allocation scenario in the Upper, Middle, and Lower 

Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifers are 83, 68, and 63 ft below 

NGVD 29, respectively, and are 6, 3, and 4 ft lower, respectively, than in the 2000 baseline simulation. The increase in 

the size of the area in which simulated water levels are lower 

than 30 ft below NGVD 29 in the Upper, Middle, and Lower 

Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifers compared to the size of 

the area in the 2000 baseline simulation is 54.7, 54.6, and 

47.8 mi2, respectively. Simulated flow from the PotomacRaritan-Magothy aquifer system to streams is 7,256 Mgal/yr, 

14 percent less than in the 2000 baseline simulation. Simulated net flow from the Delaware River to the aquifer system is 

513 Mgal/yr, whereas in the 2000 baseline simulation net flow 

was from the aquifer system to the Delaware River.

The adjusted full-allocation plus Woolwich request scenario duplicated adjusted full-allocation conditions but incorporated additional withdrawals for two water-purveyor wells 

in Woolwich Township. Withdrawals were 13,399 Mgal/yr 

in this scenario, an increase of less than 1 percent from the 

adjusted full-allocation scenario; consequently, results are 

similar to those for the adjusted full-allocation simulation. 

Average simulated water levels in the Upper, Middle, and 

Lower Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifers in this scenario are 

37, 33, and 36 ft below NGVD 29, respectively, and are 1, 1, 

and 0 ft lower, respectively, than in the adjusted full-allocation 

scenario. The lowest water levels simulated in the adjusted 

full-allocation plus Woolwich request scenario in the Upper, 

Middle, and Lower Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifers are 83, 

68, and 63 ft below NGVD 29, respectively, the same as in the 

adjusted full-allocation scenario. The increase in the size of 

the area in which simulated water levels are lower than 30 ft 

below NGVD 29 in the Upper, Middle, and Lower PotomacRaritan-Magothy aquifers compared to the size of the area in 

the adjusted full-allocation scenario is 2.8, 3.3, and 2.9 mi2, 

respectively. Simulated flow from the Potomac-RaritanMagothy aquifer system to streams is 7,209 Mgal/yr, less than 

1 percent less than in the adjusted full-allocation scenario. 

Simulated net flow from the Delaware River to the aquifer 

system is 541 Mgal/yr, 5 percent more than in the adjusted 

full-allocation scenario.

In the adjusted full-allocation plus all requests scenario, 

adjusted full-allocation conditions were modified by incorporating potential new withdrawals by four water purveyors and 

six agricultural-irrigation users in the study area. Simulated 

withdrawals in this scenario were 14,551 Mgal/yr, an increase 

of 9 percent from the adjusted full-allocation scenario. Average simulated water levels in the Upper, Middle, and Lower 

Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifers in this scenario are 40, 

35, and 39 ft below NGVD 29, respectively, and are 4, 3, and 

3 ft lower, respectively, than in the adjusted full-allocation 

scenario. The lowest water levels simulated in the adjusted 

full-allocation plus all requests scenario in the Upper, Middle, 

and Lower Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifers are 85, 69, 

and 64 ft below NGVD 29, respectively, and are 2, 1, and 

1 ft lower, respectively, in this scenario than in the adjusted 

full-allocation scenario. The increase in the size of the area 

in which simulated water levels are lower than 30 ft below 

NGVD 29 in the Upper, Middle, and Lower Potomac-RaritanMagothy aquifers compared to the size of the area in the 

adjusted full-allocation scenario is 33.4, 37.7, and 27.0 mi2, 

respectively. Simulated flow from the Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer system to streams is 6,706 Mgal/yr, 8 percent less 

than in the adjusted full-allocation scenario. In the full-allocation plus all requests scenario, simulated net flow from the 

Delaware River to the aquifer system is 780 Mgal/yr, 52 percent more than in the adjusted full-allocation scenario.

In the adjusted full-allocation plus adjusted requests 

scenario, adjusted full-allocation conditions were modified 

by incorporating additional withdrawals that are smaller than 

those used in the adjusted full-allocation plus all requests 

scenario. Withdrawals in this scenario were 13,865 Mgal/yr, 

an increase of 4 percent from the adjusted full-allocation 

scenario. Average simulated water levels in the Upper, Middle, 

and Lower Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifers in this scenario 

are 38, 34, and 37 ft below NGVD 29, respectively, and are 

2, 2, and 1 ft lower, respectively, than in the adjusted fullallocation scenario. The lowest water levels simulated in the 

adjusted full-allocation plus adjusted requests scenario in the 

Upper, Middle, and Lower Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifers 

are 84, 69, and 64 ft below NGVD 29, respectively, and are 1, 

1, and 1 ft lower, respectively, than in the adjusted full-allocation scenario. The increase in the size of the area in which simulated water levels are lower than 30 ft below NGVD 29 in the 

Upper, Middle, and Lower Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifers 

compared to the size of the area in the adjusted full-allocation 

scenario is 17.7, 24.3, and 11.8 mi2, respectively. Simulated 

flow from the Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer system to 

streams is 6,983 Mgal/yr, 4 percent less than in the adjusted 

full-allocation scenario. In the full-allocation plus adjusted 

requests scenario, simulated net flow from the Delaware River 

to the aquifer system is 619 Mgal/yr, 21 percent more than in 

the adjusted full-allocation scenario.

The 2025 groundwater-withdrawal scenario is based on 

estimates of population growth in the study area by 2025. 

Simulated withdrawals in this scenario were 10,261 Mgal/yr, 

an increase of 6 percent from the 2000 baseline simulation. 

In this scenario, full-allocation withdrawals were simulated 

at water-purveyor wells inside Critical Area 2, and withdrawals at some water-purveyor wells outside Critical Area 2 were 

increased from the 2000 baseline simulation amount. Water 

levels recovered around one water-purveyor well in Harrison 

Township in the Upper Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer, 

and around two water-purveyor wells in the Lower PotomacRaritan-Magothy aquifer in National Park Borough because 

withdrawals in these municipalities were greater in the 2000 
116 Simulated Effects of Withdrawals from the Potomac-Raritan-Magothy Aquifer System, New Jersey

baseline simulation than in the 2025 scenario, in which full 

allocations (the total permitted allocations) were used. Average simulated water levels in the Upper, Middle, and Lower 

Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifers in this scenario are 32, 29, 

and 32 ft below NGVD 29, respectively, and are 1, 2, and 2 ft 

lower, respectively, than in the 2000 baseline simulation. The 

lowest water levels simulated in the Upper, Middle, and Lower 

Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifers in this scenario are 81, 

66, and 60 ft below NGVD 29, respectively, and are 4, 1, and 

1 ft lower, respectively, than in the 2000 baseline simulation. 

The increase in the size of the area in which simulated water 

levels are lower than 30 ft below NGVD 29 in the Upper, 

Middle, and Lower Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifers compared to the size of the area in the 2000 baseline simulation 

is 17.9, 19.6, and 14.4 mi2, respectively. Simulated flow from 

the Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer system to streams is 

8,189 Mgal/yr, 3 percent less than in the 2000 baseline simulation. In the 2025 scenario, simulated net flow from the aquifer 

system to the Delaware River is 1,010 Mgal/yr, 15 percent less 

than in the 2000 baseline simulation.

In the 1998 calibration simulation and the simulation of 

the 2025 scenario, net flow was from the Potomac-RaritanMagothy aquifer system to the Delaware River. Net flow in 

the 2000 baseline simulation also was from the aquifer system 

to the Delaware River, although simulated withdrawals by six 

water purveyors were greater than their water-allocation permits allowed. In all scenarios involving full-allocation conditions and variations of full-allocation conditions, net flow was 

from the Delaware River to the Potomac-Raritan-Magothy 

aquifer system. 

An analysis of the sensitivity of water levels at the key 

boundaries to a hypothetical withdrawal well in the study 

area was undertaken. These boundaries include the 250-mg/L 

isochlor, the western edge of Critical Area 2, the aquifer 

outcrop, and the southwestern boundary of the model area. 

The sensitivities of the water levels in the Upper and Middle 

Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifers at these boundaries indicate that water levels at the key boundaries are affected less by 

withdrawals from the northern part of the study area than by 

withdrawals from the southern part.

Saline water has threatened the potability of groundwater 

supplies derived from the Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer 

system in the Salem-Gloucester study area. Four areas have 

experienced acute problems with saline water in the study 

area. They include (1) Glassboro Borough and adjacent municipalities, where wells are screened in the Upper PotomacRaritan-Magothy aquifer; (2) Harrison Township in Gloucester 

County, where wells are screened in the Upper PotomacRaritan-Magothy aquifer; (3) Woodstown Borough in Salem 

County, where wells are screened in the Middle Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer; and (4) Oldmans Township, where wells 

are screened in the Lower Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer. 

Flow to example wells in each of the four areas was simulated 

using advective particle tracking to define groundwater flow 

paths, and a budget analysis of the zone around the withdrawal well was conducted to assess the movement of saline 

water and the likelihood of continued saltwater intrusion.

The assessment of the movement of saline water in the 

Glassboro Borough area, under both the 2000 baseline simulation and the adjusted full-allocation-scenario withdrawal 

rates, indicates that the average travel time from the 250-

mg/L isochlor to the wells is several hundred years and that 

a portion of the flow to the wells is from freshwater sources. 

The simulated flow paths in the 2000 baseline simulation 

do not differ substantially from those in the adjusted fullallocation scenario. The water produced from the wells in the 

Glassboro Borough area at either average annual 1999–2001 

or adjusted full-allocation scenario withdrawal rates will 

likely remain potable with respect to chloride for at least 

several hundred years, although chloride concentrations in the 

wells closest to the saltwater probably will continue to rise 

slowly. 

The assessment of the movement of saline water in Harrison Township indicates that the elevated chloride concentrations observed in the wells screened in the Upper PotomacRaritan-Magothy aquifer likely result from their proximity 

to the 250-mg/L isochlor rather than from substantial lateral 

updip movement of the saline water. Advective travel times 

from the Upper Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer outcrop 

area and the Englishtown aquifer system to well 15-1109 

range from a minimum of 300 years to a maximum of 

6,000 years. These travel times indicate that the time required 

for freshwater from the outcrop area to recharge these wells 

would be substantial.

The particle tracking and budget analysis similarly indicate that the elevated chloride concentrations observed in the 

water from wells screened in the Middle Potomac-RaritanMagothy aquifer in Woodstown Borough likely result from 

their close proximity to the 250-mg/L isochlor rather than 

from substantial movement of saline water from the direction 

of the isochlor. The elevated chloride concentrations found 

in wells screened in the Lower Potomac-Raritan-Magothy 

aquifer in Oldmans Township are likely to persist because of 

the proximity of the saltwater and the flow path that directs 

recharge water through the areas of the aquifer that contain 

saline water, providing opportunity for mixing.

The model described in this report was used to analyze 

the effects of both large and small changes in withdrawal 

rates on water levels in the Upper, Middle, and Lower 

Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifers. Making management 

decisions about increasing groundwater withdrawals from 

these aquifers with an understanding of the results and limitations of the model and a careful examination of the most 

recent water-level and chloride-concentrations data available 

for the study area can help to maximize groundwater withdrawals while minimizing effects such as lowered groundwater levels, decreased flow to the Delaware River and its 

tributaries, and lateral updip movement of saline water.
References Cited 117

Acknowledgments

The authors acknowledge the cooperation of the many 

individuals and organizations that allowed access to their 

observation or withdrawal wells for water-level measurements. 

We are especially grateful to those who readily answered our 

phone requests for additional information on well location 

and water use; farm owners, water-supply company personnel, industrial company personnel; and Chelsea DuBrul of 

the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection 

who assisted with reviewing well-permit and water-use 

data. Thanks are also due to Jon Johnson, formerly of the 

USGS, who initiated development of the Salem-Gloucester 

groundwater-flow model.

References Cited

Anderson, M.P., and Woessner, W.W., 1992, Applied groundwater modeling: Simulation of flow and advective transport: 

San Diego, Academic Press, Inc., 381 p.

Barksdale, H.C., Greenman, D.W., Lang, S.M., Hilton, G.S., 

and Outlaw, D.W., 1958, Ground-water resources in the 

tri-state region adjacent to the lower Delaware River: New 

Jersey Department of Conservation and Economic Development Special Report 13, 190 p.

Barton, Cynthia, and Kozinski, Jane, 1991, Hydrogeology 

of the region of Greenwich Township, Gloucester County, 

New Jersey: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources 

Investigations Report 90–4198, 77 p., 11 pl.

Cauller, S.J., Carleton, G.B., and Storck, M.L., 1999, Hydrogeology of, water withdrawal from, and water levels and 

chloride concentrations in the major Coastal Plain aquifers of Gloucester and Salem Counties, New Jersey: U.S. 

Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 

98–4136, 123 p., 6 pl.

Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission, 1998a, 

Delaware Valley data—1995 land use by minor civil division, 9-county DVRPC region: Data Bulletin, No. 59, 31 p.

Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission, 1998b, 

Delaware Valley data—1990 revised land use by minor civil 

division, 9-county DVRPC region: Data Bulletin, No. 58, 

37 p.

Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission, 2002, 

Delaware Valley data—Population and employment forecasts, 2000–2025, 9-county DVRPC region: Data Bulletin, 

No. 73, 31 p.

Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission, 2004, Delaware Valley data—2000 land use by minor civil division, 

9-county DVRPC region: Regional Data Bulletin, No. 78, 

unpaginated.

dePaul, V.T., Rosman, Robert, and Lacombe, P.J., 2009, 

Water-level conditions in selected confined aquifers of the 

New Jersey and Delaware Coastal Plain, 2003: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2008–5145, 

124 p., 9 pl.

Eckel, J.A., and Walker, R.L., 1986, Water levels in major 

artesian aquifers of the New Jersey Coastal Plain, 1983: 

U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations 

Report 86–4028, 62 p.

Essaid, H.I., 1990, The computer model SHARP, a quasithree-dimensional finite-difference model to simulate freshwater and saltwater flow in layered coastal aquifer systems: 

U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations 

Report 90–4130, 181 p.

Farlekas, G.M., Nemickas, Bronius, and Gill, H.E., 1976, 

Geology and ground-water resources of Camden County, 

New Jersey: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources 

Investigations Report 76–76 (changed to Water-Resources 

Investigations Report 83–4029), 146 p.

Freeze, R.A., and Cherry, J.A., 1979, Groundwater: New Jersey, Prentice-Hall, Inc., 604 p.

Gill, H.E., and Farlekas, G.M., 1976, Geohydrologic maps of 

the Potomac- Raritan-Magothy aquifer system in the New 

Jersey Coastal Plain: U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic 

Investigations Atlas 557, 2 sheets, scale 1:500,000.

Greenman, D.W., Rima, D.R., Lockwood, W.N., and Meisler, 

Harold, 1961, Ground-water resources of the Coastal Plain 

area of southeastern Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania Geological 

Survey Bulletin, 4th series, W13, 375 p.

Harbaugh, A.W., 1990, A computer program for calculating 

subregional water budgets using results from the U.S. Geological Survey modular three-dimensional finite-difference 

ground-water flow model: U.S. Geological Survey OpenFile Report 90–392, 24 p.

Harbaugh, A.W., 2002, A data input program (MFI2K) for 

the U.S. Geological Survey modular ground-water model 

(MODFLOW-2000): U.S. Geological Survey Open-File 

Report 02–41, 55 p.

Harbaugh, A.W., Banta, E.R., Hill, M.C., and McDonald, 

M.G., 2000, MODFLOW-2000, the U.S. Geological Survey 

modular ground-water model—User guide to modularization concepts and the ground-water flow process: U.S. 

Geological Survey Open-File Report 00–92, 121 p.
118 Simulated Effects of Withdrawals from the Potomac-Raritan-Magothy Aquifer System, New Jersey

Hardt, W.F., and Hilton, G.S., 1969, Water resources and geology of Gloucester County, New Jersey: New Jersey Department of Conservation and Economic Development Special 

Report 30, 130 p.

Hill, M.C., Banta, E.R., Harbaugh, A.W., and McDonald, 

M.G., 2000, MODFLOW-2000, the U.S. Geological Survey 

modular ground-water model—User guide to the observation, sensitivity, and parameter-estimation processes and 

three post-processing programs: U.S. Geological Survey 

Open-File Report 00–184, 210 p.

Lacombe, P.J., and Rosman, Robert, 1997, Water levels in, 

extent of freshwater in, and water withdrawal from eight 

major confined aquifers, New Jersey Coastal Plain, 1993: 

U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations 

Report 96–4206, 8 sheets.

Lacombe, P.J., and Rosman, Robert, 2001, Water levels in, 

extent of freshwater in, and water withdrawals from ten 

confined aquifers, New Jersey and Delaware Coastal Plain, 

1998: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 00–4143, 10 sheets.

Leahy P.P., and Martin, Mary, 1993, Geohydrology and simulation of ground-water flow in the Northern Atlantic Coastal 

Plain aquifer system: U.S. Geological Survey Professional 

Paper 1404-K, 81p., 22 pl. 

Leake, S.A., and Claar, D.V., 1999, Procedures and computer 

programs for telescopic mesh refinement using MODFLOW: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 99–238, 

53 p.

Lewis, J.C., Hochreiter, J.J., Jr., Barton, G.J., Kozinski, Jane, 

and Spitz, F.J., 1991, Hydrogeology of, and ground-water 

quality in, the Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer system in 

the Logan Township region, Gloucester and Salem Counties, New Jersey: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources 

Investigations Report 90–4142, 92 p., 11 pl.

Luzier, J.E., 1980, Digital-simulation and projection of head 

changes in the Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer system, 

Coastal Plain, New Jersey: U.S. Geological Survey WaterResources Investigations 80–11, 72 p.

Martin, Mary, 1998, Ground-water flow in the New Jersey 

Coastal Plain: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 

1404-H, 146 p.

McDonald, M.G., and Harbaugh, A.W., 1984, A modular 

three-dimensional finite-difference ground-water flow 

model: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 83–875, 

528 p.

Navoy, A.S., and Carleton, G.B., 1995, Ground-water flow and 

future conditions in the Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer 

system, Camden area, New Jersey: New Jersey Geological 

Survey Report GSR 38, 183 p.

Navoy, A.S., Voronin, L.M., and Modica, Edward, 2005, 

Vulnerability of production wells in the Potomac-RaritanMagothy aquifer system to saltwater intrusion from the 

Delaware River in Camden, Gloucester, and Salem Counties, New Jersey: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2004–5096, 35 p. 

Nawyn, J.P., 1997, Water use in Camden County, New Jersey, 

1991: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File report 97–12, 39 p.

New Jersey Administrative Code, 2004, Safe Drinking Water 

Act Regulations: Title 7, chapter 10: Trenton, New Jersey, 

83 p.

New Jersey Administrative Code, 2005, New Jersey water 

supply allocation rules: Title 7, chapter 19: Trenton, New 

Jersey, 95 p.

New Jersey Assembly, 1993, An act concerning water-supply 

management, and amending and supplementing P.L. 1981 

c. 262: Chapter 202, Laws of New Jersey: Trenton, New 

Jersey.

New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, 2001, 

NJDEP 1995/97 Land use/Land cover update for New Jersey: New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, 

Office of Information Resources Management, Bureau of 

Geographic Information Systems, accessed on January 16, 

2008, at http://www.state.nj.us/dep/gis/digidownload/metadata/statewide/sde.lu95_new.htm.

New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, 2007, 

NJDEP land use/land cover level I data analysis, 1995/97-

2002: New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, 

Office of Information Resources Management, Bureau of 

Geographic Information Systems, accessed on January 16, 

2008, at http://www.state.nj.us/dep/gis/lulc2002stattablescounty.htm.

New Jersey Statutes Annotated, 2008, Water Supply Management Act, Section 58:1A-1 et. seq.: New Jersey Department 

of Environmental Protection, Division of Water Supply, 

Laws and Regulations, accessed on March 30, 2010, at 

http://www.state.nj.us/dep/watersupply/njsa_58_1a_1.pdf, 

23 p.

Pollock, D.W., 1994, User’s guide for MODPATH/MODPATH-PLOT, Version 3, A particle tracking post-processing 

package for MODFLOW, the U.S. Geological Survey 

finite-difference ground-water flow model: U.S. Geological 

Survey Open-File Report 94–464, 248 p.

Pope, D.A., and Gordon, A.D., 1999, Simulation of groundwater flow and movement of the freshwater-saltwater 

interface in the New Jersey Coastal Plain: U.S. Geological 

Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 98–4216, 

159 p.
References Cited 119

Rosenau, J.C., Lang, S.M., Hilton, G.S., and Rooney, J.G., 

1969, Geology and ground-water resources of Salem 

County, New Jersey: New Jersey Department of Conserva-

tion and Economic Development Special Report 33, 142 p.

Rosman, Robert, Lacombe, P.J., and Storck, D.A., 1995, Water 

levels in major artesian aquifers of the New Jersey Coastal 

Plain, 1988: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources 

Investigations Report 95–4060, 74 p., 8 pl.

Schaefer, F.L., 1983, Distribution of chloride concentrations 

in the principal aquifers of the New Jersey Coastal Plain, 

1977–81: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investi-

gations Report 83–4061, 56 p.

Seaber, P.R., 1965, Variations in chemical character of water 

in the Englishtown Formation, New Jersey: U.S. Geological 

Survey Professional Paper 498-B, 35 p.

Solley, W.B., Pierce, R.R., and Perlman, H.A., 1998, Esti-

mated use of water in the United States in 1995: U.S. Geo-

logical Survey Circular 1200, 71 p.

U.S. Census Bureau, 2006, Estimates of residential popula-

tion by municipality: Salem County, 2000–2006, accessed 

October 27, 2006, at http://www.wnjpin.state.nj.us/OneStop-

CareerCenter/LaborMarketInformation/lmi02/mcd/salest06.

htm.

U.S. Censuses of Population and Housing, 2006, Table 6. New 

Jersey resident population by municipality: 1930–1990, 

accessed October 27, 2006, at http://www.wnjpin.net/

OneStopCareerCenter/LaborMarketInformation/lmi01/

poptrd6.htm.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1992, Secondary 

drinking water regulations: Guidance for nuisance chemi-

cals: U.S. Environmental Protection agency Report EPA 

810/K-92-001, accessed October 27, 2006, at http://www.

epa.gov/safewater/consumer/2ndstandards.html.

Voronin, L.M., 2004, Documentation of revisions to the 

Regional Aquifer System Analysis model of the New Jersey 

Coastal Plain: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources 

Investigations Report 03–4268, 49 p.

Vowinkel, E.F., and Foster, W.K., 1981, Hydrogeologic condi-

tions in the Coastal Plain of New Jersey: U.S. Geological 

Survey Open-File Report 81–405, 39 p.

Walker, R.L., 1983, Evaluation of water levels in major aqui-

fers of the New Jersey Coastal Plain, 1978: U.S. Geological 

Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 82–4077, 

56 p., 5 pl.

Zapecza, O.S., 1989, Hydrogeologic framework of the New 

Jersey Coastal Plain: U.S. Geological Survey Professional 

Paper 1404-B, 49 p., 24 pl.
120 Simulated Effects of Withdrawals from the Potomac-Raritan-Magothy Aquifer System, New Jersey

(This page intentionally left blank.)
Tables 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 12, and 17
122 Simulated Effects of Withdrawals from the Potomac-Raritan-Magothy Aquifer System, New Jersey Table 4. Allocated and simulated groundwater withdrawals by water purveyors in municipalities located predominantly in Water Supply Critical Area 2, Salem-Gloucester study area, southern New Jersey.—Continued [NJDEP, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection; Twp, Township; Boro, Borough; allocations and withdrawals are from the Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer system, in million gallons per year] NJDEP water- allocation permit number U.S. Geological Survey well number NJDEP well permit number Well name Municipality Aquifer of the Potomac- Raritan-Magothy aquifer system Total allocation Simulated withdrawals 1998 calibration simulation 2000 baseline simulation1 Full- allocation scenario 5007 7-249 31-02703 BLACKWOD DIV 3 Gloucester Twp Upper 652.430 184.560 142.157 134.838 7-250 31-08176 BLACKWOD DIV 7 Gloucester Twp Upper 108.590 190.013 180.230

27-252 31-05581 BLACKWOD DIV 6 Gloucester Twp Upper 248.910 251.733 238.7737-600 31-08539 H 4 Gloucester Twp Upper 96.980 103.940 98.589

5030

27-520 31-04325 PW 3 Brooklawn Boro Lower

105.017

34.027 34.227 34.227

27-531 31-14471 5(OW 3) Brooklawn Boro Lower 26.622 21.905 21.90527-596 31-19765 PW 4 Brooklawn Boro Lower 29.320 22.734 22.734

5130

15-212 30-00069 PW 4 Paulsboro Boro Middle

359.680

4.740 3.877 5.094

15-213 30-00602 PAULSBORO PW 5 Paulsboro Boro Middle 12.460 12.817 16.83915-1199 30-11403 REPLACEMENT 7 Paulsboro Boro Middle 265.870 257.073 337.747

5135

15-60 31-02358 GLASSBORO PW 3 Glassboro Boro Upper

421.181

156.860 89.500 81.805

15-62 51-00042 PW 2 Glassboro Boro Upper 150.050 84.653 77.37515-63 31-04176 GLASSBORO PW 4 Glassboro Boro Upper 135.120 220.703 201.72815-361 31-07709 PW 5 Glassboro Boro Upper 94.290 65.943 60.274

5137

15-225 51-00017 DISCONTINUED P1 Pitman Boro Upper

241.032

155.420 159.977 172.959

15-227 31-04061 PITMAN PW P3 Pitman Boro Upper 65.410 9.440 10.20615-385 51-00018 PW P4 Pitman Boro Upper 93.250 53.523 57.867

5142

15-28 30-00432 EAST GREENWICH PW 2 East Greenwich Twp Upper

178.038

80.870 80.817 66.273

15-355 30-01426 EAST GREENWICH PW 3 East Greenwich Twp Upper 108.310 136.293 111.765

5153

15-207 31-02555 NPWD 2/NPWD 5 National Park Boro Lower

80.456

4.630 3.647 2.914

15-533 31-17938 PW 6 National Park Boro Lower 105.080 97.030 77.542

5159 15-330 31-06356 1 HELEN AVE Woodbury Heights Boro Upper 83.606 79.200 80.830 83.606
Table 4 123

Table 4. Allocated and simulated groundwater withdrawals by water purveyors in municipalities located predominantly in Water Supply Critical Area 2, Salem-Gloucester study area, southern New Jersey.—Continued[NJDEP, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection; Twp, Township; Boro, Borough; allocations and withdrawals are from the Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer system, in million gallons per year]

NJDEP 

waterallocation 

permit number

U.S. 

Geological 

Survey well 

number

NJDEP 

well permit 

number Well name Municipality 

Aquifer of 

the PotomacRaritan-Magothy 

aquifer system

Total

allocation

Simulated withdrawals 

1998

calibration

simulation

2000

baseline

simulation1

Fullallocation

scenario

5183

15-130 30-17838 PW 3 Harrison Twp Upper

3123.000

160.600 162.070 81.827

15-1088 50-00050 PW 2 Harrison Twp Upper 0.000 0.000 0.00015-1109 30-08859 PW 6 Harrison Twp Upper 76.190 53.030 26.77415-1529 30-14503 PW5 Harrison Twp Upper 0.000 28.520 14.39915-1580 30-16075 PW7 Harrison Twp Upper 0.000 0.000 0.000

5192

15-274 51-00065 PW 1 Wenonah Boro Upper

72.070

34.810 33.183 33.479

15-275 31-00170 WENONAH PW 2 Wenonah Boro Upper 44.800 38.250 38.591

5194

15-248 51-00029 WASHINGTON TWP PW 5 Washington Twp Upper

1,052.58

133.620 165.333 177.158

15-260 31-05206 8(BELS LK WC2) Washington Twp Upper 66.210 90.717 97.20515-265 31-04849 PW 2 Washington Twp Upper 55.580 60.353 64.67015-267 31-06050 PW 3 Washington Twp Upper 158.200 129.163 138.40115-268 31-06133 PW 4 Washington Twp Upper 76.960 65.180 69.84215-433 31-17801 WASHINGTON TWP PW 9 Washington Twp Upper 211.220 173.137 185.52015-1365 31-45998 WASHINGTON TWP PW 15 Washington Twp Upper 340.420 298.437 319.78215-1543 31-62302 WASHINGTON TWP TW20 Washington Twp Upper 0.000 0.000 0.000

45223

27-8 31-04969 PW 4 Bellmawr Boro Lower

353.102

92.507 106.927 106.927

27-12 31-02687 BELLMAWR PW 3 Bellmawr Boro Lower 39.673 46.898 46.89827-601 31-19218 PW 6 Bellmawr Boro Lower 44.829 48.197 48.197

5244

215-1 31-02889 CLAYTON P-3 Clayton Boro Upper

165.166

89.007 30.330 60.100

15-3 31-06676 4-1973 Clayton Boro Upper 0.000 53.023 105.066

5304

15-276 31-04567 WEST DEPTFORD PW 4 West Deptford Twp Upper

678.076

124.940 145.173 166.999

15-282 31-07056 5 KINGS HIWAY West Deptford Twp Lower 132.500 8.023 9.22915-312 51-00063 6 RED BANK AVE West Deptford Twp Lower 226.320 293.427 337.54115-373 31-17452 PW 7 West Deptford Twp Lower 155.470 27.420 31.54215-1339 31-17811 8-1981 PKVLLE RD West Deptford Twp Middle 2.180 115.413 132.765
124 Simulated Effects of Withdrawals from the Potomac-Raritan-Magothy Aquifer System, New Jersey Table 4. Allocated and simulated groundwater withdrawals by water purveyors in municipalities located predominantly in Water Supply Critical Area 2, Salem-Gloucester study area, southern New Jersey.—Continued [NJDEP, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection; Twp, Township; Boro, Borough; allocations and withdrawals are from the Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer system, in million gallons per year] NJDEP water- allocation permit number U.S. Geological Survey well number NJDEP well permit number Well name Municipality Aquifer of the Potomac- Raritan-Magothy aquifer system Total allocation Simulated withdrawals 1998 calibration simulation 2000 baseline simulation1 Full- allocation scenario 5314 15-191 31-04791 PW 2 Mantua Twp Upper 203.288 38.320 64.120 68.655 15-192 31-02987 PW 5 Mantua Twp Upper 54.620 71.377 76.425 15-193 31-01140 PW 3 Mantua Twp Upper 11.210 15.370 16.457 15-194 31-05309 MANTUA PW 4 Mantua Twp Upper 81.020 38.993 41.751 5319

215-326 31-05689 PW 5 Westville Boro Lower

250.000

189.480 186.842 186.842

215-327 31-03418 PW 4 Westville Boro Lower 13.091 7.285 7.285

5336

15-16 31-02416 PW 1 Deptford Twp Upper

602.644

77.010 39.447 38.574

15-17 31-02118 DISCONTINUED 3 Deptford Twp Upper 71.660 95.243 93.134215-24 31-05513 DEPTFORD PW 4 Deptford Twp Middle 0.000 15.320 14.98115-374 31-13385 DEPTFORD PW 6 Deptford Twp Middle 89.800 159.120 155.59715-1036 31-22504 DEPTFORD PW 7 Deptford Twp Middle 155.970 133.840 130.87615-1089 31-37705 BOOSTER STA 8 Deptford Twp Upper 168.430 173.320 169.48215-1577 31-61731 WELL 9R Deptford Twp Upper 0.000 0.000 0.000

5347X

515-6 31-05174 SEWELL 1A Deptford Twp Upper

289.693

206.910 174.413 190.997

515-8 51-00101 SEWELL 2A Deptford Twp Upper 11.810 90.127 98.696615-1222 31-64855 RED BANK 7 Woodbury City Middle

212.877

0.000 61.137 61.850

6,715-1340 31-04059 1960 RR & BRBR AVE Woodbury City Lower 54.180 0.000 0.000615-1485 31-48720 REDBANK 8 Woodbury City Middle 0.000 97.173 98.306615-1488 31-48755 5A-R Woodbury City Lower 78.610 52.113 52.721

1The 2000 baseline simulation withdrawals are the average annual withdrawals from 1999 to 2001.2Well is outside the model area. Simulated withdrawals are input into the model as boundary flows.3Allocation was 325 million gallons per year through December 2006 and 123 million gallons per year thereafter. The 2000 baseline simulation withdrawals are estimated to equal 2001 withdrawals.4Total withdrawals in the study area are much less than the total allocation for the permit number because some wells under this permit number are outside the study area.5The water-allocation permit number for wells 15-6 and 15-8 was previously 5349.6The water-allocation permit number for wells 15-1222, 15-1340, 15-1485, and 15-1488 was previously 5347.7Well not in use after 1998.
Table 5 125

Table 5. Allocated and simulated groundwater withdrawals by water purveyors in municipalities located predominantly outside Water Supply Critical Area 2 and low-volume users, Salem-Gloucester study area, southern New Jersey.—Continued[NJDEP, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection; Twp, Township; Boro, Borough; allocations and withdrawals are from the Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer system, in million gallons per year]

NJDEP 

waterallocation 

permit 

number

U.S.

Geological

Survey

well

number

NJDEP 

well permit 

number Well name Municipality

Aquifer 

of the 

PotomacRaritanMagothy 

aquifer 

system

Total

allocation

Simulated withdrawals

1998

calibration

simulation

2000

baseline

simulation1

Fullallocation

scenario

Adjusted

fullallocation

scenario

Adjusted

fullallocation

plus Woolwich 

request 

scenario

Adjusted

fullallocation 

plus all 

requests 

scenario

Adjusted

fullallocation

plus adjusted 

requests 

scenario

2025

scenario

Water purveyors

5003

15-137 30-01371 PURE 2(3-1973) Logan Twp Middle

392.000

34.450 49.523 69.801 69.801 69.801 89.000 80.129 57.125

15-569 30-02405 PW 3 Logan Twp Middle 115.930 92.973 131.043 131.043 131.043 167.000 150.431 107.24415-1362 30-09444 LWWC BIRCH CK RD 4 Logan Twp Middle 151.230 124.573 175.582 175.582 175.582 224.000 201.560 143.69515-1363 30-05212 LWWC PURELAND WTP 1A Logan Twp Middle 5.460 11.050 15.575 15.575 15.575 20.000 17.879 12.74615-1555 30-13073 TEST WELL 6 Logan Twp Middle 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

25047

333-671 30-05148 PENNSVILLE PW 3 Pennsville Twp Upper

580.000

48.953 45.639 45.639 45.639 45.639 45.639 45.639 45.639

333-971 30-12164 TEST WELL 8 Pennsville Twp Middle 0.000 139.464 139.464 139.464 139.464 139.464 139.464 139.464333-972 30-12165 TW 7 Pennsville Twp Middle 0.000 13.223 13.223 13.223 13.223 13.223 13.223 13.223

5105

15-236 30-01177 SWEDESBORO PW 3 Swedesboro Boro Middle

140.000

0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

15-238 50-00036 PW 2 Swedesboro Boro Upper 0.000 0.593 0.894 0.894 0.894 0.894 0.894 0.63215-1112 30-08730 PW 4 Swedesboro Boro Upper 92.830 92.323 139.106 139.106 139.106 139.106 139.106 98.367

5167

33-354 50-00038 PW 2 Woodstown Boro Middle

119.400

64.470 26.023 30.183 30.183 30.183 30.183 30.183 26.023

33-362 30-01441 PW 3 Woodstown Boro Middle 25.570 18.680 21.666 21.666 21.666 21.666 21.666 18.68033-933 30-13120 WOODSTOWN PW 5 Woodstown Boro Middle 35.070 31.702 67.552 67.552 67.552 67.552 67.552 58.243

5253

15-347 30-01545 5 (2-A) Greenwich Twp Middle

348.000

172.340 159.607 169.225 169.225 169.225 209.100 169.225 159.607

15-348 30-01776 PW 6 Greenwich Twp Middle 87.040 72.287 76.643 76.643 76.643 94.703 76.643 72.28715-1364 30-09345 MEMORIAL AVE 4R Greenwich Twp Middle 91.970 96.327 102.132 102.132 102.132 126.197 102.132 96.327

5328

33-330 50-00098 LAYTON 11 Carneys Point Twp Lower

630.000

34.160 52.370 66.772 66.772 66.772 105.988 86.910 52.370

33-346 30-00563 PW 1 Carneys Point Twp Lower 180.180 175.027 223.161 223.161 223.161 354.224 290.464 175.02733-361 30-01815 PW 4 Carneys Point Twp Upper 48.950 10.973 13.991 13.991 13.991 22.208 18.211 10.97333-460 30-03310 1A/RF2A Carneys Point Twp Upper 59.700 70.180 89.480 89.480 89.480 142.032 116.466 70.18033-697 30-01113 LAYTON 2 Carneys Point Twp Upper 74.300 105.271 138.011 138.011 138.011 219.065 179.634 108.24333-750 30-03535 RF 3A Carneys Point Twp Upper 0.000 0.023 0.029 0.029 0.029 0.047 0.038 0.02333-767 30-08511 RF2B Carneys Point Twp Upper 81.390 77.297 98.555 98.555 98.555 156.436 128.277 77.297

45375

15-166 30-00410 BRIDGEPORT 2 Logan Twp Middle

52.000

7.520 22.400 29.523 29.523 29.523 29.523 29.523 22.400

15-697 30-03332 BRIDGEPORT BACKUP-2 Logan Twp Middle 30.420 17.053 22.477 22.477 22.477 22.477 22.477 17.053

5381

33-70 30-00229 SERVICE 1N-2 Oldmans Twp Middle

32.000

24.570 13.654 31.799 31.799 31.799 31.799 31.799 15.283

33-845 30-09813 FENWICK SRVC AREA Carneys Point Twp Middle 0.110 0.097 0.201 0.201 0.201 0.201 0.201 0.097

5383

15-1532 30-12611 PW 1 Woolwich Twp Upper

116.500

0.000 58.750 56.569 56.569 109.254 193.743 109.254 203.473

15-1533 30-13044 PW 2 Woolwich Twp Upper 0.000 59.270 59.931 59.931 115.746 205.257 115.746 215.565
126 Simulated Effects of Withdrawals from the Potomac-Raritan-Magothy Aquifer System, New Jersey Table 5. Allocated and simulated groundwater withdrawals by water purveyors in municipalities located predominantly outside Water Supply Critical Area 2 and low-volume users, Salem-Gloucester study area, southern New Jersey.—Continued [NJDEP, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection; Twp, Township; Boro, Borough; allocations and withdrawals are from the Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer system, in million gallons per year] NJDEP water- allocation permit number U.S. Geological Survey well number NJDEP well permit number Well name Municipality Aquifer of the Potomac- Raritan- Magothy aquifer system Total allocation Simulated withdrawals 1998 calibration simulation 2000 baseline simulation1 Full- allocation scenario Adjusted full- allocation scenario Adjusted full- allocation plus Woolwich request scenario Adjusted full- allocation plus all requests scenario Adjusted full- allocation plus adjusted requests scenario 2025 scenario Low-volume users 11036W 33-984 30-12821 IW Oldmans Twp Lower 37.200 0.000 1.577 37.200 1.577 1.577 1.577 1.577 1.577

610219W

15-1600 30-01158 2-MIDDLE S Harrison Twp Upper

37.200

0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

15-1601 30-08182 5-NEW FIELD Harrison Twp Upper 0.005 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.00015-1612 30-00788 1 SR HIGH Harrison Twp Upper 0.698 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

10231W 15-1461 31-03393 IRR 1 Woodbury City Upper 37.200 79.404 810.070 37.200 10.070 10.070 10.070 10.070 10.07010298W 15-1069 31-10357 MHP Mantua Twp Upper 37.200 92.435 82.840 37.200 2.840 2.840 2.840 2.840 2.84010441W

15-1371 30-03041 ATH FIELD IRR Woolwich Twp Upper

37.200

1.970 102.293 37.200 2.293 2.293 2.293 2.293 2.293

15-1534 30-15596 HS 3 Woolwich Twp Upper 0.000 100.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.00015-1690 30-13609 WELL 2 Woolwich Twp Upper 0.000 100.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

10469W 15-240 30-00973 SWEDESBORO IND 9 Swedesboro Boro Upper 37.200 0.000 80.030 37.200 0.030 0.030 0.030 0.030 0.03010472W 15-1346 30-03764 IRR-1985 Greenwich Twp Upper 37.200 1.960 81.420 37.200 1.420 1.420 1.420 1.420 1.42010506W

15-1105 30-04335 COM 1 South Harrison Twp Upper

37.200

0.000 83.840 35.891 3.840 3.840 3.840 3.840 3.840

15-1370 30-04336 2 FIRE PROTECT South Harrison Twp Upper 0.000 80.140 1.309 0.140 0.140 0.140 0.140 0.140

10673W

33-164 50-00104 IND 2 Pilesgrove Twp Middle

37.200

0.000 110.910 18.600 0.910 0.910 0.910 0.910 0.910

33-459 30-03336 IND 1A Pilesgrove Twp Middle 0.910 110.910 18.600 0.910 0.910 0.910 0.910 0.910

10687W 33-983 30-08190 IRR Carneys Point Twp Middle 37.200 9.086 6.982 37.200 6.982 6.982 6.982 6.982 6.98210762W 15-399 30-01616 NO-1 1977 Logan Twp Middle 37.200 0.000 0.000 37.200 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.00010792W

33-74 30-01151 PW 1 Oldmans Twp Upper

37.200

0.000 80.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

33-920 30-11400 AUBURN 2 Oldmans Twp Upper 0.000 85.690 37.200 37.200 37.200 37.200 37.200 1217.782

11018W

33-1006 30-12665 IRR 1 Carneys Point Twp Middle

37.200

0.000 0.278 18.600 0.278 0.278 0.278 0.278 0.278

33-1007 30-12668 IRR 2 Carneys Point Twp Middle 0.000 0.278 18.600 0.278 0.278 0.278 0.278 0.278

1311019W

33-1011 30-12667 IRR 2 Penns Grove Boro Middle

37.200

0.000 0.030 31.886 0.030 0.030 0.030 0.030 0.030

33-1012 30-12666 IRR 1 Penns Grove Boro Middle 0.000 140.005 5.314 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005

11028W 15-1597 30-12748 IRR 1 Greenwich Twp Middle 37.200 0.980 150.390 37.200 0.390 0.390 0.390 0.390 0.39011088W 15-1598 30-13781 IRR 1 Harrison Twp Upper 37.200 0.000 82.900 37.200 2.900 2.900 2.900 2.900 2.90011100W

15-1607 31-59257 IRR 1 West Deptford Middle

37.200

0.000 80.860 37.200 0.860 0.860 0.860 0.860 0.860

15-1608 31-59256 IRR 2 West Deptford Middle 0.000 80.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Table 5 127

Table 5. Allocated and simulated groundwater withdrawals by water purveyors in municipalities located predominantly outside Water Supply Critical Area 2 and low-volume users, Salem-Gloucester study area, southern New Jersey.—Continued[NJDEP, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection; Twp, Township; Boro, Borough; allocations and withdrawals are from the Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer system, in million gallons per year]

NJDEP 

waterallocation 

permit 

number

U.S.

Geological

Survey

well

number

NJDEP 

well permit 

number Well name Municipality

Aquifer 

of the 

PotomacRaritanMagothy 

aquifer 

system

Total

allocation

Simulated withdrawals

1998

calibration

simulation

2000

baseline

simulation1

Fullallocation

scenario

Adjusted

fullallocation

scenario

Adjusted

fullallocation

plus Woolwich 

request 

scenario

Adjusted

fullallocation 

plus all 

requests 

scenario

Adjusted

fullallocation

plus adjusted 

requests 

scenario

2025

scenario

11230W 15-1691 30-16779 WELL IND 2 East Greenwich Twp Lower 37.200 0.000 0.000 37.200 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.00011233W

15-1609 30-12350 PW Woolwich Twp Upper

37.200

0.000 0.000 18.600 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

15-1610 30-13711 IRR 1 Woolwich Twp Upper 0.000 0.000 18.600 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

1The 2000 baseline simulation withdrawals are the average annual withdrawals from 1999 to 2001, unless otherwise noted.2Total withdrawals in the study area are much less than total allocation for this permit number because some wells under this permit number are outside the study area.3Well is outside model area. Simulated withdrawals are input into the model as boundary flows.4Withdrawals are located in Logan Township but are for Penns Grove Borough.5The 2000 baseline simulation withdrawals are estimated to equal 2000 withdrawals only.6Withdrawals are estimated to equal zero in the 2000 baseline simulation and all six scenarios; withdrawals in 2000 and after are for fire suppression only.7Estimated 1998 calibration simulation withdrawals are the average annual withdrawals from 1992 to 1996.8Estimated 2000 baseline simulation withdrawals are estimated to equal 2001 withdrawals.9Estimated 1998 calibration simulation withdrawals are the average annual withdrawals from 1992 to 1995. 10Estimated 2000 baseline simulation withdrawals are the average annual withdrawals from 1992 to 1998.11Estimated 2000 baseline simulation withdrawals are the average annual withdrawals from two wells from 1999 to 2001.12Although permit number 10792W is for a low-volume user, withdrawals were increased in 2025 from 2000 baseline simulation withdrawals.13At the time of the study, the water-allocation permit number for wells 33-1011 and 33-1012 was 11019W; subsequently, these wells were combined with water-allocation permit number 11018W.14Estimated 2000 baseline simulation withdrawals are the average annual withdrawals from 2000 and 2001.15Estimated 2000 baseline simulation withdrawals are the average annual withdrawals from 1999 and 2000.
128 Simulated Effects of Withdrawals from the Potomac-Raritan-Magothy Aquifer System, New Jersey Table 6. Allocated and simulated groundwater withdrawals by industrial self-supply users, Salem-Gloucester study area, southern New Jersey.—Continued [NJDEP, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection; Twp, Township; Boro, Borough; allocations and withdrawals are from the Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer system, in million gallons per year] NJDEP water- allocation permit number U.S. Geological Survey well number NJDEP well permit number Well name Municipality Aquifer of the Potomac- Raritan- Magothy aquifer system Total allocation Simulated withdrawals 1998 calibration simulation 2000 baseline simulation1 Full-allocation and adjusted full- allocation scenario2 2099P 15-158 30-00873 BRIDGEPORT W2 Logan Twp Middle 494.000 164.321 87.062 117.779 15-159 30-00872 BRIDGEPORT E1 Logan Twp Middle 102.890 83.780 113.339 15-167 30-01170 IND 1 Logan Twp Middle 119.515 48.272 65.303 15-1554 30-14055 PW4 Logan Twp Middle 0.000 146.050 197.579 2104P

333-122 30-01234 DEEPWATER 3R Pennsville Twp Middle

360.000

7.415 1.239 1.239

333-123 50-00001 DEEPWATER 2 Pennsville Twp Middle 0.540 0.969 0.969333-125 30-00151 DEEPWATER 5 Pennsville Twp Middle 1.099 0.150 0.150

2166P

33-85 30-01141 6 (PW-2) Oldmans Twp Middle

525.600

233.860 219.020 391.323

33-432 50-00079 IND 3 Oldmans Twp Lower 0.000 0.393 0.70333-784 30-06023 BFG SHALLOW 10 Oldmans Twp Middle 35.090 55.433 99.04333-964 30-10864 IND 9A Oldmans Twp Lower 20.370 19.327 34.531

2204P

15-118 30-00198 IND 47 Greenwich Twp Lower

1,202.197

0.000 0.000 0.000

15-406 30-01966 POLLUTE 1 Greenwich Twp Middle 0.000 0.000 0.00015-814 30-02336 RW-12 Greenwich Twp Middle4 0.000 0.000 0.00015-817 30-02341 RW-16 Greenwich Twp Middle4 0.000 0.000 0.00015-818 30-02339 RW-15 Greenwich Twp Middle4 0.000 0.000 0.00015-819 30-02334 RW-14 Greenwich Twp Middle4 0.000 0.000 0.00015-821 30-01908 RW-3 Greenwich Twp Middle4 0.000 0.000 0.00015-822 30-01910 RW-4 Greenwich Twp Middle4 0.000 0.000 0.00015-823 30-01909 RW-5 Greenwich Twp Middle4 33.200 0.000 0.00015-824 30-01905 RW-6 Greenwich Twp Middle4 52.060 44.457 121.17615-826 30-01906 RW-8 Greenwich Twp Middle4 0.000 0.000 0.00015-828 30-02337 RW-18 Greenwich Twp Middle4 0.000 0.000 0.00015-1039 30-05060 48 DWTA Greenwich Twp Middle 91.440 83.747 228.26815-1374 30-05642 RW-19 Greenwich Twp Middle 228.290 91.930 250.57415-1375 30-05645 PW-49 Greenwich Twp Lower 0.000 0.000 0.00015-1376 30-05643 RW-20 Greenwich Twp Middle 0.000 0.000 0.00015-1377 30-05644 RW-21 Greenwich Twp Middle 0.000 0.000 0.00015-1408 30-11178 RW-22 Paulsboro Boro Upper 99.350 69.940 190.63515-1409 30-11162 PW-50 Paulsboro Boro Middle 105.310 73.243 199.63915-1414 30-10019 RW-61/1 Paulsboro Boro Middle4 0.000 10.483 28.57415-1415 30-09959 RW-1 Paulsboro Boro Middle4 0.000 18.637 50.79815-1541 30-12907 RW-5A Greenwich Twp Upper 0.000 48.623 132.533
Table 6 129

Table 6. Allocated and simulated groundwater withdrawals by industrial self-supply users, Salem-Gloucester study area, southern New Jersey.—Continued[NJDEP, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection; Twp, Township; Boro, Borough; allocations and withdrawals are from the Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer system, in million gallons per year]

NJDEP 

waterallocation 

permit 

number

U.S. 

Geological 

Survey 

well 

number

NJDEP 

well 

permit

number Well name Municipality 

Aquifer of 

the PotomacRaritanMagothy 

aquifer system

Total

allocation 

Simulated withdrawals 

1998

calibration

simulation

2000

baseline

simulation1

Full-allocation and 

adjusted fullallocation scenario2

2205P

15-320 31-00007 IND 1 West Deptford Twp Lower

813.890

234.790 99.907 147.550

15-321 31-00028 EAGLE POINT 5 West Deptford Twp Lower 130.180 299.523 442.36115-322 31-00008 IND 3 West Deptford Twp Lower 144.690 22.350 33.00815-410 31-10647 EAGLE POINT 4A West Deptford Twp Lower 1.390 0.000 0.00015-430 31-17788 EAGLE POINT 6A West Deptford Twp Lower 95.430 129.307 190.971

2215P

15-283 30-00900 SHELL 3 West Deptford Twp Lower

326.163

40.930 31.227 143.565

15-284 30-00901 SHELL 4 West Deptford Twp Upper 0.002 0.000 0.00015-285 30-00898 SHELL 1 West Deptford Twp Lower 170.130 8.887 40.85715-286 30-00899 SHELL IND 2 West Deptford Twp Middle 5.320 30.830 141.741

2227P

15-76 30-01224 4 1970 Greenwich Twp Middle

216.000

24.640 23.080 49.868

15-632 30-03315 PW 6 Greenwich Twp Middle 0.000 0.000 0.00015-647 30-03372 MW 19B Greenwich Twp Middle 0.000 3.687 7.96615-1034 30-04319 PW 11 Greenwich Twp Middle 46.710 47.587 102.81815-1373 30-04426 PW-10 Greenwich Twp Middle 6.270 0.000 0.00015-1400 30-03273 PW-5B Greenwich Twp Middle 10.850 0.000 0.00015-1401 30-03264 MW-6 Greenwich Twp Middle 0.560 0.927 2.00315-1402 30-04317 PW-9 Greenwich Twp Middle 9.890 11.560 24.97715-1403 30-03651 PW-8B Greenwich Twp Middle 2.770 5.213 11.26415-1404 30-03650 PW-7B Greenwich Twp Middle 4.350 5.900 12.74815-1405 30-03649 PW-8 Greenwich Twp Middle 2.410 2.017 4.357

2234P

15-304 30-01173 418 West Deptford Twp Lower 301.130 0.640 3.187 3.24815-306 30-01174 417 West Deptford Twp Lower 299.770 292.260 297.882

2251P

15-72 30-00037 REPAUNO 3 Greenwich Twp Middle

540.000

167.040 145.130 229.477

15-79 30-01145 REPAUNO 6 Greenwich Twp Middle 13.250 24.010 37.96415-692 30-03594 INTERCEPTOR 46 Greenwich Twp Middle 154.640 172.377 272.55915-1696 31-16503 PW 3R Greenwich Twp Middle 0.000 0.000 0.000

2257P

15-295 31-06200 IRR West Deptford Twp Upper 13.900 13.070 11.430 13.50215-1176 31-43251 DEEP 1 West Deptford Twp Middle 0.800 0.337 0.398

2280P 15-183 31-05060 IRR Mantua Twp Upper 3.585 1.830 11.510 3.5852391P 15-1407 31-02558 IND 2 Mantua Twp Upper 33.399 29.870 26.360 33.399
130 Simulated Effects of Withdrawals from the Potomac-Raritan-Magothy Aquifer System, New Jersey Table 6. Allocated and simulated groundwater withdrawals by industrial self-supply users, Salem-Gloucester study area, southern New Jersey.—Continued [NJDEP, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection; Twp, Township; Boro, Borough; allocations and withdrawals are from the Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer system, in million gallons per year] NJDEP water- allocation permit number U.S. Geological Survey well number NJDEP well permit number Well name Municipality Aquifer of the Potomac- Raritan- Magothy aquifer system Total allocation Simulated withdrawals 1998 calibration simulation 2000 baseline simulation1 Full-allocation and adjusted full- allocation scenario2 2401P 15-1120 30-07032 R-6-A Paulsboro Boro Middle 365.000 51.160 32.403 93.096 15-1121 30-07014 R-8-A Paulsboro Boro Middle 1.320 16.723 48.047 15-1122 30-07015 R-9-A Paulsboro Boro Middle 11.540 20.187 57.997 15-1123 30-07013 R-5-A Paulsboro Boro Middle 0.000 0.000 0.000 15-1124 30-07012 R-7-A Paulsboro Boro Middle 28.500 25.793 74.105 15-1378 30-06920 R-4A Paulsboro Boro Middle 20.530 23.093 66.348 15-1382 30-05183 RECOVERY 2 Paulsboro Boro Middle 0.000 0.000 0.000 15-1383 30-07028 R-10A Paulsboro Boro Middle 9.270 8.843 25.407

515-1697 30-17621 RW011 Paulsboro Boro Middle 0.000 0.000 0.00015-1698 30-17927 SUMP 3 Paulsboro Boro Middle 0.000 0.000 0.000

2421P

33-899 30-08172 PW-3 Oldmans Twp Lower

170.400

67.600 56.900 87.286

33-900 30-07824 PW-2 Oldmans Twp Lower 15.290 6.037 9.26033-901 30-07176 PW-1 Oldmans Twp Lower 37.670 48.143 73.853

2423P 15-339 30-01161 IND 1 Woolwich Twp Upper 31.000 67.100 6.733 31.000

2495E 15-548 30-02504 CLDW Logan Twp Upper 177.000 0.000 0.000 70.000

2530P

15-1568 30-09789 15D Logan Twp Middle

214.320

825.000 922.705 53.580

15-1569 30-09788 21D Logan Twp Middle 825.000 922.705 53.58015-1570 30-09787 24D Logan Twp Middle 825.000 922.705 53.58015-1571 30-09785 35D Logan Twp Middle 825.000 922.705 53.580

4059PS

15-1526 30-08633 PW 1B Logan Twp Lower 1.080 0.000 100.003 0.00615-1527 30-08635 PW 1A Logan Twp Lower 0.000 100.525 1.074

1Withdrawals are the average annual withdrawals from 1999 to 2001, unless otherwise noted.2Full-allocation withdrawals were also used in the adjusted full-allocation scenario for the water-allocation permit numbers in this table, except for water-allocation permit number 2495E.3Well is outside model area. Simulated withdrawals are input into the model as boundary flows.4Withdrawals are from wells screened in the Quarternary system or in the undifferentiated Holocene, Pleistocene, Pliocene, and Miocene aquifers but are simulated as withdrawals from the Middle 

Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer in this study.

5Well is screened in the Upper Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer, but withdrawals are simulated as withdrawals from the Middle Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer in this study.6Withdrawals are the average annual withdrawals from 1997 and 1999.7Withdrawals were 0 million gallons per year in the adjusted full-allocation scenario and 177 million gallons per year in the full-allocation scenario.8Withdrawals are the average annual withdrawals from 1996 to 1999. 9Withdrawals are the average withdrawals from October 2004 through September 2005. 10Withdrawals are the average annual withdrawals from 2000 to 2001.
Table 7 131

Table 7. Allocated and simulated groundwater withdrawals by the industrial self-supply user and the agricultural-irrigation users for which full-allocation withdrawals were adjusted, Salem-Gloucester study area, southern New Jersey.—Continued[NJDEP, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection; Twp, Township; allocations and withdrawals are from the Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer system, in million gallons per year]

NJDEP

water

allocation

permit

number1

U.S.

Geological 

Survey 

well 

number

NJDEP

well permit

number Well name Municipality

Aquifer 

of the 

PotomacRaritanMagothy 

aquifer 

system

Allocated withdrawals Simulated withdrawals

Permitted

(full)

allocation 

Adjusted

permitted

(full)

allocation2

1998

calibration

simulation

2000

baseline

simulation3

Fullallocation

scenario

Adjusted

full-allocation

and adjusted

full-allocation

plus Woolwich

request scenarios

Adjusted

full-allocation

plus

all requests

scenario

Adjusted

full-allocation

plus adjusted 

requests

scenario4

2025

scenario

Industrial self-supply user

2122P

15-238 30-17308 PW 2 Carneys Point Twp Lower

5,078.760 1,500.000

0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

33-67 30-01081 IRR P1 Mannington Twp Middle 2.520 6.823 45.316 13.384 13.384 13.384 6.823533-129 30-01018 CHAMBERS INJ 1 Carneys Point Twp Middle 75.800 111.260 738.907 218.234 218.234 218.234 111.260533-137 50-00003 DRINKWATER 8 Pennsville Twp Lower 0.010 2.549 16.929 5.000 5.000 5.000 2.54933-298 30-01082 COURSE LAND P2 Carneys Point Twp Middle 2.330 7.053 46.843 13.835 13.835 13.835 7.05333-305 30-01083 COURSE LAND P3 Carneys Point Twp Middle 2.660 17.187 114.141 33.711 33.711 33.711 17.187533-316 30-02322 102 Carneys Point Twp Upper 24.440 69.910 464.291 137.127 137.127 137.127 69.910533-322 50-00004 CARNEY PT 2 Carneys Point Twp Middle 27.250 74.140 492.383 145.424 145.424 145.424 74.14033-326 30-00423 CARNEY PT 4 Carneys Point Twp Upper 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.00033-335 30-01133 CARNEY PT 7 Carneys Point Twp Lower 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000533-602 30-03368 CHAMBERS 108 Pennsville Twp Middle 167.700 87.110 578.520 170.865 170.865 170.865 87.110533-857 30-03367 REPL 103A Pennsville Twp Middle 177.800 220.520 1,464.531 432.546 432.546 432.546 220.520533-898 30-04667 CHAMBERS 5-R Pennsville Twp Middle 191.720 165.303 1,097.820 324.239 324.239 324.239 165.303533-962 30-04091 MW257 Carneys Point Twp Middle 2.520 2.873 19.080 5.635 5.635 5.635 2.87333-979 30-13038 Q13R01D Carneys Point Twp Middle 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.00033-980 30-13039 Q13R01C Carneys Point Twp Middle 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

Agricultural-irrigation user

GL0007 15-346 30-01565 IRR Harrison Twp Upper 18.000 18.000 0.690 0.544 18.000 18.000 18.000 18.000 0.544GL0021 15-1462 30-12217 IRR 1 Woolwich Twp Upper 6442.720 40.000 11.965 712.331 442.720 40.000 40.000 40.000 12.331GL0028 15-132 30-01258 IRR 1 Harrison Twp Upper 48.000 42.000 13.000 9.400 48.000 42.000 42.000 42.000 9.400GL0033 15-1159 50-00097 IRR-1 Logan Twp Upper 6102.400 60.000 28.675 20.610 65.253 38.234 38.234 38.234 20.610 15-1613 30-10793 IRR 2 Logan Twp Upper 16.325 11.733 37.147 21.766 21.766 21.766 11.733GL0046 15-1460 30-00829 IRR South Harrison Twp Upper 812.400 18.000 0.300 5.178 12.400 18.000 18.000 18.000 5.178GL0092 15-1566 30-07814 IRR Woolwich Twp Upper 36.000 31.500 0.000 1.488 36.000 31.500 31.500 31.500 1.488GL0097 15-524 30-01078 2-DOM Woolwich Twp Upper 80.280 80.280 4.100 92.850 80.280 80.280 80.280 80.280 2.850GL0101 15-1561 30-08495 IRR1 South Harrison Twp Upper 6110.000 44.000 17.700 104.636 111.000 44.000 44.000 44.000 4.636GL0107 15-337 30-00431 IRR S1 Woolwich Twp Upper 6368.000 12.000 16.500 115.730 368.000 12.000 12.000 12.000 5.730 15-1615 30-14768 IRR Woolwich Twp Upper 0.000 115.158 0.000 0.000 12.000 12.000 5.158GL0127 15-1611 30-16050 IRR East Greenwich Twp Upper 61,500.000 64.000 0.000 120.000 0.000 0.000 36.000 36.000 0.000 15-1664 50-00101 WELL 1 East Greenwich Twp Upper 0.850 121.240 1,500.000 64.000 64.000 64.000 1.240

13GL0141 15-1614 50-00275 IRR 1 Washington Twp Upper 0.000 0.000 3.160 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

GL0146 15-1604 30-16630 IRR South Harrison Twp Upper 80.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 18.000 18.000 0.000

GL0151 15-422 31-17085 1980-1-PEACH Harrison Twp Upper 51.058 51.058 44.500 12.899 51.058 51.058 51.058 51.058 12.899GL0190 15-1447 31-36273 IRR 3 Deptford Twp Upper 818.000 18.000 14.150 1412.040 17.381 17.381 17.381 17.381 12.040 15-1585 31-46811 IRR 3 Washington Twp Upper 0.000 140.429 0.619 0.619 0.619 0.619 0.429GL199R 15-421 30-01042 IRR East Greenwich Twp Upper 818.000 18.000 4.100 4.547 18.000 18.000 18.000 18.000 4.547GL0214 15-1558 30-12585 IRR1 South Harrison Twp Upper 60.000 60.000 8.350 1511.150 60.000 60.000 60.000 60.000 11.150GL0216 15-1565 30-09279 IRR1 Woolwich Twp Upper 648.000 16.000 0.000 162.963 33.504 11.168 11.168 11.168 2.963 15-1603 30-12655 IRR 3 Logan Twp Upper 0.000 161.280 14.496 4.832 4.832 4.832 1.280GL208R 15-127 31-03280 IRR-5 Harrison Twp Upper 12.400 10.800 0.000 0.000 12.400 10.800 10.800 10.800 0.000SA0011 33-657 30-02862 IRRIG Oldmans Twp Middle 154.000 32.000 0.000 170.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 33-1010 30-14087 IRR Oldmans Twp Upper 0.000 179.568 154.000 32.000 32.000 32.000 9.568

SA0014 33-198 30-01383 IRR 74 Pilesgrove Twp Middle 48.000 20.000 8.250 187.078 48.000 20.000 20.000 20.000 7.078
132 Simulated Effects of Withdrawals from the Potomac-Raritan-Magothy Aquifer System, New Jersey Table 7. Allocated and simulated groundwater withdrawals by the industrial self-supply user and the agricultural-irrigation users for which full-allocation withdrawals were adjusted, Salem-Gloucester study area, southern New Jersey.—Continued [NJDEP, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection; Twp, Township; allocations and withdrawals are from the Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer system, in million gallons per year] NJDEP water allocation permit number1 U.S. Geological Survey well number NJDEP well permit number Well name Municipality Aquifer of the Potomac- Raritan- Magothy aquifer system Allocated withdrawals Simulated withdrawals Permitted (full) allocation Adjusted permitted (full) allocation2 1998 calibration simulation 2000 baseline simulation3 Full- allocation scenario Adjusted full-allocation and adjusted full-allocation plus Woolwich request scenarios Adjusted full-allocation plus all requests scenario Adjusted full-allocation plus adjusted requests scenario4 2025 scenario Agricultural-irrigation user—Continued SA0121 533-1008 30-16845 IRR Mannington Twp Upper 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 54.000 0.000 0.000 SA0124 33-922 30-10178 IRR 1 Pilesgrove Twp Upper 1997.800 1997.800 2043.200 2147.820 97.800 97.800 150.000 83.333 47.820 SA0139 33-997 30-13862 IRR1 Pilesgrove Twp Upper 97.800 97.800 200.000 210.000 0.000 0.000 150.000 83.333 0.000 33-998 30-13864 IRR2 Pilesgrove Twp Upper 200.000 210.000 0.000 0.000 150.000 83.333 0.000 SA0151 33-1009 30-05648 IRR 1 Oldmans Twp Upper 860.000 18.000 0.060 220.110 60.000 18.000 18.000 18.000 0.110 SA0166 33-996 30-14084 IRR Carneys Point Twp Upper 14.700 14.700 0.000 0.000 14.700 14.700 14.700 14.700 0.000

1Allocation permit includes the allocation permits and agricultural certifications.2Adjusted full-allocation withdrawal was decreased because it greatly exceeds the 1998 withdrawal.3Withdrawals for NJDEP allocation permit number 2122P are the average of annual withdrawals from 1999 to 2001; agricultural-irrigation withdrawals are average of annual withdrawals from 1992 to 2001, unless otherwise noted.4Agricultural-irrigation withdrawals in the adjusted full-allocation and adjusted requests scenario are equal to withdrawals in the adjusted full-allocation plus all requests scenario, except for wells 33-922, 33-997, and 33-998 where 

withdrawals are 50 percent of those used in the adjusted full-allocation plus all requests scenario.

5Well is outside the model area. Simulated withdrawals from this well are input into the model as boundary flows.6Allocation is an estimated maximum withdrawal from groundwater, based on historical use, and pump capacity.7Withdrawals are the average annual withdrawals from 1997 to 1999, and 2001.8Allocated withdrawals are equal to four times the monthly agricultural-irrigation allocation.9Withdrawals are the average annual withdrawals from 1995 to 2000.10Withdrawals are the average annual withdrawals from 1995 to 2001.11Withdrawals are the average annual withdrawals from 2001 to 2003.12Withdrawals are the average annual withdrawals from 1994 to 2000.13Withdrawals equal zero for all scenarios because no withdrawals were reported after 1999 and the agricultural certification was cancelled.14Withdrawals are estimated to be equal to 2001 withdrawals.15Withdrawals are the average annual withdrawals from 1998 to 2001.16Withdrawals are the average annual withdrawals from 2000 to 2002.17Beginning in 2000 all withdrawals under water-allocation permit SA0011 were made from well 33-1010 and there were no withdrawals from well 33-657 in 1998. 18Withdrawals are the average annual withdrawals from 1992 to 1998 and 2000 to 2001.19Total allocation is combined with water allocation permit number SA0139.20Withdrawals are estimated to be equal to 1997 withdrawals. 21Withdrawals are the average annual withdrawals for 1997, 2001, and 2002.22Withdrawals are the average annual withdrawals from 1992 to 1998.
Table 9 133

Table 9. Difference between simulated and measured 1998 water levels, Salem-Gloucester study area, southern New 

Jersey.—Continued

[Well locations shown in figures 23–26; NGVD 29, National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929]

U.S. Geological 

Survey well 

number

Measured altitude 

of water level 

(feet above NGVD 29)1

Simulated altitude 

of water level 

(feet above NGVD 29)

Difference between 

simulated and measured 

water level 

(feet)

Accuracy of 

water-level altitude 

(+/- feet)

Englishtown aquifer system

15-188 30.69 36.82 6.13 2.5

15-344 67.05 62.71 -4.34 5.0

15-676 29.65 32.42 2.77 0.1

33-168 16.61 18.92 2.31 2.5

Upper Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer 

7-249 -62.65 -69.33 -6.68 5

15-3 -61.75 -53.97 7.78 5

15-8 -52.02 -60.27 -8.25 5

15-28 -23.50 -25.71 -2.21 5

15-60 -62.70 -61.92 0.78 5

15-63 -56.57 -62.87 -6.30 5

15-127 -44.80 -49.62 -4.82 5

15-194 -40.55 -42.22 -1.67 5

15-227 -62.30 -57.73 4.57 5

15-240 -19.40 -17.74 1.66 3

15-253 -66.54 -66.84 -0.30 5

15-261 -68.00 -67.52 0.48 5

15-275 -65.90 -64.04 1.86 5

15-276 -39.78 -38.65 1.13 5

15-281 -30.07 -26.89 3.18 5

15-303 -7.25 -8.74 -1.49 5

15-330 -37.78 -44.16 -6.38 5

15-339 -19.75 -19.25 0.50 5

15-346 -27.05 -30.12 -3.07 5

15-355 -28.90 -27.93 0.97 5

15-378 -18.68 -21.93 -3.25 5

15-433 -67.19 -65.39 1.80 5

15-617 -7.84 -10.02 -2.18 0.1

15-728 -7.65 -6.56 1.09 0.01

15-741 -37.57 -45.94 -8.37 5

15-779 -1.12 0.72 1.84 5

15-1000 -56.41 -61.26 -4.85 5

15-1031 -9.17 -15.23 -6.06 5

15-1089 -45.43 -52.31 -6.88 5

15-1105 -22.38 -26.51 -4.13 5

15-1106 -14.10 -3.96 10.14 5

15-1346 -10.72 -7.36 3.36 5

15-1482 -14.82 -15.86 -1.04 5

15-1483 -19.57 -15.88 3.69 5

15-1513 -33.24 -30.16 3.08 5

33-74 -12.96 -11.53 1.43 5

33-76 1.00 5.30 4.30 2.5

33-342 3.05 4.17 1.12 0.01

33-355 -24.22 -27.66 -3.44 5

33-361 0.61 -1.53 -2.14 2.5
134 Simulated Effects of Withdrawals from the Potomac-Raritan-Magothy Aquifer System, New Jersey

Table 9. Difference between simulated and measured 1998 water levels, Salem-Gloucester study area, southern New 

Jersey.—Continued

[Well locations shown in figures 23–26; NGVD 29, National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929]

U.S. Geological 

Survey well 

number

Measured altitude 

of water level 

(feet above NGVD 29)1

Simulated altitude 

of water level 

(feet above NGVD 29)

Difference between 

simulated and measured 

water level 

(feet)

Accuracy of 

water-level altitude 

(+/- feet)

Middle Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer

15-135 -2.84 -0.75 2.09 0.1

15-140 -1.93 -2.06 -0.13 0.1

15-213 -10.13 -9.22 0.91 5

15-236 -19.72 -18.98 0.74 5

15-279 -25.27 -17.31 7.96 0.01

15-348 -10.12 -7.80 2.32 5

15-359 -0.90 0.64 1.54 5

15-374 -50.16 -41.90 8.26 5

15-415 -34.45 -25.74 8.71 5

15-444 -8.43 -7.07 1.36 5

15-569 -7.72 -14.06 -6.34 2

15-585 -0.99 2.96 3.95 0.1

15-616 -8.36 -10.04 -1.68 0.1

15-620 1.04 4.17 3.13 1

15-679 -4.72 -3.66 1.06 0.1

15-713 -7.70 -6.55 1.15 0.01

15-727 -8.37 -6.55 1.82 0.01

15-771 -3.22 -1.48 1.74 5

15-780 -3.70 0.48 4.18 5

15-998 -55.55 -54.03 1.52 5

15-1036 -51.38 -54.30 -2.92 5

15-1122 -3.10 -3.77 -0.67 5

15-1176 -11.20 -21.00 -9.80 5

15-1484 -14.44 -15.86 -1.42 5

15-1485 -33.20 -23.60 9.60 5

33-65 -17.72 -22.44 -4.72 1

33-71 -24.44 -20.05 4.39 2.5

33-158 -25.18 -29.24 -4.06 5

33-166 -17.59 -22.88 -5.29 1

33-198 -25.13 -22.90 2.23 5

33-305 -16.39 -22.37 -5.98 2.5

33-933 -33.40 -31.70 1.70 5

P10105 -3.81 2.09 5.90 0.1
Table 9 135

Table 9. Difference between simulated and measured 1998 water levels, Salem-Gloucester study area, southern New 

Jersey.—Continued

[Well locations shown in figures 23–26; NGVD 29, National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929]

U.S. Geological 

Survey well 

number

Measured altitude 

of water level 

(feet above NGVD 29)1

Simulated altitude 

of water level 

(feet above NGVD 29)

Difference between 

simulated and measured 

water level 

(feet)

Accuracy of 

water-level altitude 

(+/- feet)

Lower Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer 

15-133 -4.19 -14.15 -9.96 5

15-139 -11.24 -12.14 -0.90 1

15-282 -50.98 -51.26 -0.28 5

15-308 -25.70 -21.35 4.35 5

15-312 -52.05 -51.94 0.11 5

15-316 -42.45 -41.71 0.74 0.1

15-323 -27.73 -28.18 -0.45 0.1

15-331 -42.09 -45.89 -3.80 5

15-349 -5.83 -8.48 -2.65 3

15-615 -15.41 -14.38 1.03 0.1

15-618 -7.74 -6.00 1.74 1

15-678 -7.94 -5.57 2.37 0.1

15-680 -5.16 -2.69 2.47 0.01

15-712 -11.11 -11.15 -0.04 0.1

15-738 -9.14 -7.88 1.26 0.1

15-742 -31.73 -37.04 -5.31 5

15-770 -17.23 -19.83 -2.60 5

15-778 -17.08 -13.61 3.47 5

15-1004 -55.47 -52.60 2.87 5

15-1125 -4.10 -3.25 0.85 1

15-1487 -14.82 -15.54 -0.72 5

33-86 -13.96 -18.18 -4.22 1

33-187 -27.92 -30.20 -2.28 0.01

33-330 -33.98 -28.94 5.04 2.5

P10103 -16.01 -12.96 3.05 0.1

P10110 -8.87 -6.18 2.69 0.1

P10113 -2.76 -0.44 2.32 0.1

Maximum residual 10.14

Minimum residual -9.96

Average residual 0.12

Root mean square error 4.14

1

Water-level measurements made October to December 1998 (Lacombe and Rosman, 2001).
136 Simulated Effects of Withdrawals from the Potomac-Raritan-Magothy Aquifer System, New Jersey Table 12. Summary of simulation and scenario results and differences in water levels and flow to streams between simulation and scenario results, Salem-Gloucester study area, southern New Jersey.—Continued. [--, not applicable; <, less than; Mgal/yr, million gallons per year] Aquifer of the Potomac-Raritan- Magothy aquifer system Withdrawals (Mgal/yr) Average simulated water level (feet below NGVD 29)1 Lowest simulated water level (feet below NGVD 29) Simulated net flow to Delaware River (Mgal/yr) Simulated flow to streams (Mgal/yr) Change in average simulated water level (feet) Largest change in simulated water level (feet) Change in simulated flow to Delaware River (Mgal/yr) Change in simulated flow to streams (Mgal/yr) Increase in area of1 water levels lower than 30 feet below NGVD 29 (square miles) 1998 calibration simulation Upper 4,621 -33 -84 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Middle 3,268 -29 -69 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Lower 2,233 -33 -63 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Total for all aquifers2 10,144 -- -- 833 8,242 -- -- -- -- -- 2000 baseline simulation Upper 4,576 -31 -77 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Middle 3,315 -27 -65 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Lower 1,731 -30 -59 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Total for all aquifers2 9,644 -- -- 1,183 8,441 -- -- -- -- -- Full-allocation scenario From 2000 baseline simulation to full-allocation scenario Upper 8,278 -49 -156 -- -- -18 -128 -- -- 112.9 Middle 5,882 -43 -95 -- -- -16 -67 -- -- 123.0 Lower 2,385 -48 -69 -- -- -18 -36 -- -- 118.4 Total for all aquifers2 16,567 -- -- -1,816 6,018 -- -- -2,999 -2,423 -- Adjusted full-allocation scenario From 2000 baseline simulation to adjusted full-allocation scenario Upper 5,582 -36 -83 -- -- -5 -14 -- -- 54.7 Middle 5,374 -32 -68 -- -- -5 -14 -- -- 54.6 Lower 2,312 -36 -63 -- -- -6 -24 -- -- 47.8 Total for all aquifers2 13,290 -- -- -513 7,256 -- -- -1,696 -1,185 -- Adjusted full-allocation plus Woolwich request scenario From adjusted full-allocation scenario to adjusted full-allocation plus Woolwich request scenario Upper 5,691 -37 -83 -- -- -1 -4 -- -- 2.8 Middle 5,374 -33 -68 -- -- -1 -2 -- -- 3.3

Lower 2,312 -36 -63 -- -- 0 <-1 -- -- 2.9Total for all aquifers2 13,399 -- -- -541 7,209 -- -- -28 -47 --
Table 12 137

Table 12. Summary of simulation and scenario results and differences in water levels and flow to streams between simulation and scenario results, Salem-Gloucester study area, southern New Jersey.—Continued.[--, not applicable; <, less than; Mgal/yr, million gallons per year] 

Aquifer of the 

Potomac-RaritanMagothy aquifer 

system

Withdrawals 

(Mgal/yr)

Average 

simulated 

water level 

(feet below 

NGVD 29)1

Lowest 

simulated 

water level 

(feet below 

NGVD 29)

Simulated 

net flow to 

Delaware River 

(Mgal/yr)

Simulated 

flow to 

streams 

(Mgal/yr)

Change in 

average 

simulated 

water level 

(feet)

Largest 

change in simulated 

water level 

(feet)

Change in 

simulated flow 

to Delaware 

River 

(Mgal/yr)

Change in 

simulated 

flow 

to streams 

(Mgal/yr)

Increase in area of1

water levels lower 

than 30 feet below 

NGVD 29 

(square miles)

Adjusted full-allocation plus all requests scenario From adjusted full-allocation scenario to adjusted full-allocation plus all requests scenario

Upper 6,482 -40 -85 -- -- -4 -26 -- -- 33.4

Middle 5,564 -35 -69 -- -- -3 -9 -- -- 37.7Lower 2,482 -39 -64 -- -- -3 -16 -- -- 27.0Total of all aquifers2 14,551 -- -- -780 6,706 -- -- -267 -550 --

Adjusted full-allocation plus adjusted requests scenario From adjusted full-allocation scenario to adjusted full-allocation 

plus adjusted requests scenario

Upper 6,011 -38 -84 -- -- -2 -14 -- -- 17.7Middle 5,432 -34 -69 -- -- -2 -5 -- -- 24.3Lower 2,399 -37 -64 -- -- -1 -8 -- -- 11.8Total for all aquifers2 13,865 -- -- -619 6,983 -- -- -106 -273 --

2025 scenario From 2000 baseline simulation to 2025 scenario

Upper 4,990 -32 -81 -- -- -1 -16 -- -- 17.9Middle 3,485 -29 -66 -- -- -2 -8 -- -- 19.6Lower 1,761 -32 -60 -- -- -2 -3 -- -- 14.4Total for all aquifers2 10,261 -- -- 1,010 8,189 -- -3 -173 -252 --

1 Datum is National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD) of 1929.2 Total for all aquifers is the sum of all withdrawals from the Englishtown and Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer systems simulated within the boundary of the model grid. This sum does not include the 

wells outside the model area whose withdrawals were included in the model. Withdrawals from wells outside the model area are simulated in the specified-head boundary for the layer in which the well is located. Simulated withdrawals from the Englishtown aquifer system totaled about 22.5 Mgal/yr for all simulations and scenarios, except the 2025 scenario. Simulated withdrawals from the Englishtown aquifer system in the 2025 scenario totaled about 25.15 Mgal/yr. Individual aquifer values may not add to totals as a result of rounding.
138 Simulated Effects of Withdrawals from the Potomac-Raritan-Magothy Aquifer System, New Jersey

Table 17. Measured sodium and chloride concentrations in water from selected wells in the Salem-Gloucester study area, southern 

New Jersey, 1929–2010.

[Well locations are shown in figs. 48–51; concentrations in milligrams per liter; --, not measured]

Well Date

Concentration

Sodium Chloride

Upper Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer

15-3 8/28/1974 -- 91

5/13/1975 -- 92

11/5/1976 -- 98

8/24/1978 -- 93

8/17/1979 -- 98

9/17/1980 -- 98

9/10/1981 -- 110

9/17/1982 230 100

8/30/1983 -- 110

7/2/1984 -- 84.7

9/25/1984 190 110

10/9/1984 -- 139.8

12/19/1984 -- 135.7

3/5/1985 -- 123.6

6/1/1985 -- 123.6

6/10/1985 -- 155

8/21/1985 -- 115.8

3/13/1986 -- 138.6

6/9/1986 -- 111

6/24/1986 -- 144.5

9/4/1986 -- 120

9/26/1986 -- 138

2/28/1987 -- 140

3/13/1987 -- 112

6/18/1987 -- 112

8/18/1987 -- 110

9/24/1987 -- 118

3/3/1988 -- 70

6/6/1988 -- 71

9/8/1988 -- 70

4/19/1999 -- 68.79

4/19/1999 -- 68.8

6/11/1999 -- 68.79

11/15/1999 190 110.6

9/17/2003 237 117

15-60 7/17/1967 150 56

2/28/1970 -- 57

9/24/1973 -- 60

10/7/1974 -- 62

9/14/1977 -- 68

9/1/1978 -- 65

8/17/1979 -- 66

8/19/1980 -- 90

8/17/1982 160 66

9/1/1982 -- 66

8/30/1983 -- 66

4/1/1984 -- 60

Well Date

Concentration

Sodium Chloride

15-60 4/17/1984 -- 60

(continued) 4/18/1984 -- 60

9/25/1984 150 69

2/11/1985 -- 46

9/19/1985 -- 36

12/1/1985 205 36

2/13/1986 154 36

3/6/1986 122 38

5/22/1986 215 42

6/20/1986 200 47.5

10/23/1986 130 29

2/12/1987 155 70

3/5/1987 174 71

4/7/1987 163 69

5/12/1987 154 68

6/9/1987 166 69

10/20/1987 168 80

3/8/1988 180 71

4/5/1988 150 68

5/17/1988 170 74

6/15/1988 140 59

7/5/1988 140 71

8/3/1988 150 68

9/6/1988 150 70

10/4/1988 120 38

11/1/1988 130 62

7/18/1989 170 74

10/3/1989 150 71

11/6/1989 160 34

12/5/1989 120 40

6/15/1991 162 76

7/2/1991 180 70

8/6/1991 149 71

9/3/1991 150 71

10/1/1991 212 76

11/12/1991 166.2 71.5

12/3/1991 -- 70.4

1/7/1992 87 67.5

3/3/1992 140 68

4/7/1992 165 65.1

5/5/1992 156 66.5

6/2/1992 154 69.2

8/26/1992 170 75

3/1/1994 160 72

4/5/1994 170 75

5/3/1994 170 82

1/3/1995 -- 72

2/7/1995 -- 76

Well Date

Concentration

Sodium Chloride

15-60 10/6/1995 -- 77

(continued) 11/15/1995 -- 75.3

2/22/1996 -- 44.2

3/18/1996 -- 77.7

7/30/1996 -- 83.2

8/5/1996 -- 78.9

8/6/1996 -- 81.1

10/15/1996 -- 75.7

1/7/1997 -- 72.4

5/6/1997 -- 80.4

7/2/1997 -- 76.4

10/15/1997 -- 77.9

1/7/1998 -- 75.5

5/5/1998 -- 74.6

7/7/1998 -- 80.5

10/6/1998 -- 80.2

1/13/1999 -- 76.4

4/7/1999 -- 79.7

7/8/1999 -- 80

10/7/1999 -- 80.2

1/5/2000 -- 78.5

4/5/2000 -- 82

7/12/2000 -- 79.2

10/4/2000 -- 79.8

8/15/2001 -- 78.7

1/9/2002 -- 78.2

4/10/2002 -- 81.3

7/17/2002 -- 82.2

10/30/2002 -- 79.8

3/15/2003 -- 80.2

4/8/2003 -- 79.9

6/15/2003 -- 79.9

7/15/2003 -- 81.1

9/15/2003 -- 81.1

10/21/2003 -- 80.1

12/15/2003 -- 80.1

1/20/2004 -- 79.2

3/15/2004 -- 79.2

4/7/2004 -- 80.5

6/15/2004 -- 80.5

7/13/2004 -- 80

9/15/2004 -- 80

10/12/2004 -- 80

12/15/2004 -- 80

3/15/2005 -- 78.5

6/15/2005 -- 85.7

9/15/2005 -- 80.2

12/15/2005 -- 81.5
Table 17 139

Table 17. Measured sodium and chloride concentrations in water from selected wells in the Salem-Gloucester study area, southern 

New Jersey, 1929–2010.—Continued

[Well locations are shown in figs. 48–51; concentrations in milligrams per liter; --, not measured]

Well Date

Concentration

Sodium Chloride

15-60 3/15/2006 -- 80.8

(continued) 6/15/2006 -- 83.7

9/15/2006 -- 83.5

3/15/2007 -- 27.4

6/15/2007 -- 46.6

9/15/2007 -- 85.1

12/15/2007 -- 84

3/15/2008 -- 84.1

6/15/2008 -- 43.1

9/15/2008 -- 86.3

12/15/2008 48.3 55

3/15/2009 -- 46.8

15-62 5/7/1951 -- 19

4/11/1958 -- 20

8/26/1958 -- 20

11/19/1958 115 13

12/9/1958 117 20

4/8/1959 -- 20

4/6/1960 -- 26

8/23/1960 -- 19

4/5/1961 -- 20

8/29/1961 -- 20

4/18/1962 -- 20

9/24/1962 -- 19

4/3/1963 -- 28

8/27/1963 -- 20

9/18/1964 -- 19

4/22/1965 -- 19

7/17/1967 115 18

2/28/1970 -- 20

9/24/1973 -- 20

8/19/1980 -- 78

9/1/1982 -- 66

7/6/1984 -- 27

1/10/1985 -- 26

12/1/1985 149 18

1/2/1986 178 16

2/6/1986 111 16

3/6/1986 203 18

4/11/1986 90 14

4/9/1987 23 16

5/5/1987 123 21

6/11/1987 130 18

3/8/1988 130 25

4/5/1988 120 33

5/17/1988 120 25

6/15/1988 120 19

7/5/1988 110 22

Well Date

Concentration

Sodium Chloride

15-62 1/3/1989 120 32

(continued) 2/7/1989 -- 99

3/7/1989 94 21

4/4/1989 120 24

5/2/1989 18 23

7/3/1989 110 30

12/4/1990 100 26

4/2/1991 110 23

5/7/1991 104 21

1/7/1992 68.5 22.7

3/3/1992 112 21.7

4/7/1992 368 22.3

7/6/1993 -- 82

2/1/1994 130 22

3/1/1994 130 23

4/5/1994 120 24

5/3/1994 130 24

6/7/1994 190 25

7/12/1994 120 26

3/14/1995 -- 27

4/4/1995 -- 24

3/18/1996 -- 26.6

7/30/1996 -- 28.6

8/5/1996 -- 24.6

8/6/1996 -- 25.5

10/15/1996 -- 23.5

1/7/1997 -- 22.3

5/6/1997 -- 25.3

7/2/1997 -- 25.3

10/15/1997 -- 24.2

1/7/1998 -- 21.8

4/14/1998 -- 24.1

7/7/1998 -- 26.3

10/6/1998 -- 23.2

1/13/1999 -- 23.6

4/7/1999 -- 24.5

7/8/1999 -- 24

10/7/1999 -- 23.2

2/9/2000 -- 25.6

4/5/2000 -- 25.9

7/12/2000 -- 24.6

10/4/2000 -- 24

1/17/2001 -- 24.4

6/27/2001 -- 24.8

8/15/2001 -- 23.3

1/9/2002 -- 24.8

4/10/2002 -- 26.7

7/10/2002 -- 24.9

Well Date

Concentration

Sodium Chloride

15-62 10/30/2002 -- 24.4

(continued) 1/14/2003 -- 25

3/15/2003 -- 25

4/9/2003 -- 24.8

6/15/2003 -- 24.8

7/15/2003 -- 24.8

9/15/2003 -- 24.8

10/21/2003 -- 24.3

12/15/2003 -- 24.3

7/13/2004 -- 25.1

9/15/2004 -- 25.1

10/12/2004 -- 24.7

12/15/2004 -- 24.7

3/15/2005 -- 24.2

6/15/2005 -- 26.7

9/15/2005 -- 24.2

12/15/2005 -- 25.3

3/15/2006 -- 25.4

6/15/2006 -- 25.9

9/15/2006 -- 25.3

12/15/2006 -- 24.8

3/15/2007 -- 26.4

6/15/2007 -- 27.4

9/15/2007 -- 27

12/15/2007 -- 27.1

3/15/2008 -- 25.8

6/15/2008 -- 44.2

9/15/2008 -- 28.3

12/15/2008 106 28.8

3/15/2009 129 34.2

6/15/2009 122 29.2

9/15/2009 126 28

12/15/2009 128 28.5

3/15/2010 127 28.8

15-63 7/17/1967 112 20

9/21/1972 -- 28

10/7/1974 -- 28

8/19/1980 -- 60

9/17/1980 -- 29

8/17/1982 130 40

9/1/1982 -- 40

7/6/1984 -- 33

8/8/1984 -- 51

9/5/1984 -- 58.5

7/24/1985 120 36

8/12/1985 -- 20

6/20/1986 145 30

7/8/1986 192 21
140 Simulated Effects of Withdrawals from the Potomac-Raritan-Magothy Aquifer System, New Jersey

Well Date

Concentration

Sodium Chloride

15-63 10/16/1986 222.5 24

(continued) 12/11/1986 51.2 24.5

1/13/1987 118 34

3/5/1987 129 34

5/19/1987 123 40

6/9/1987 149 48

7/1/1987 133 41

10/20/1987 113.3 42

11/12/1987 123.9 14.5

12/10/1987 108.5 22

6/15/1988 120 39

7/5/1988 110 49

8/3/1988 120 48

9/6/1988 100 37

10/4/1988 120 38

11/1/1988 110 72

12/6/1988 130 38

1/3/1989 110 24

3/7/1989 99 38

4/4/1989 120 42

6/6/1989 29 43

7/3/1989 120 42

8/8/1989 130 60

9/6/1989 120 48

10/3/1989 120 49

11/6/1989 110 20

12/5/1989 160 80

7/10/1990 120 45

8/7/1990 140 52

8/24/1990 130 37

9/4/1990 110 37

11/5/1990 -- 64

4/2/1991 122 38

5/7/1991 114 36

7/2/1991 109 38

8/6/1991 118 39

9/3/1991 113 38

10/1/1991 -- 35

12/3/1991 126 --

5/5/1992 117 39.5

6/2/1992 100 45

7/6/1993 -- 40

10/5/1993 -- 41

11/1/1993 -- 39

12/7/1993 -- 46

1/4/1994 140 46

7/12/1994 120 45

8/2/1994 160 53

Well Date

Concentration

Sodium Chloride

15-63 1/3/1995 -- 42

(continued) 2/7/1995 -- 44

3/14/1995 -- 47

4/4/1995 -- 48

6/6/1995 -- 45

1/16/1996 -- 43

3/18/1996 -- 68.6

7/30/1996 -- 75.1

8/5/1996 -- 66.1

8/6/1996 -- 70.8

10/15/1996 -- 46

1/7/1997 -- 42.9

5/6/1997 -- 48.7

7/2/1997 -- 46.4

10/15/1997 -- 62.7

1/7/1998 -- 49.3

4/14/1998 -- 65.8

7/7/1998 -- 74.7

10/6/1998 -- 46

1/13/1999 -- 51.2

4/7/1999 -- 75.3

7/8/1999 -- 48.5

10/7/1999 -- 46

1/5/2000 -- 49.4

4/5/2000 -- 65.8

7/12/2000 -- 48.8

10/4/2000 -- 48.8

1/17/2001 -- 48.4

6/27/2001 -- 49.4

8/15/2001 -- 63.8

1/9/2002 -- 47.8

4/10/2002 -- 50.6

7/10/2002 -- 55

3/15/2003 -- 54

6/15/2003 -- 53

9/15/2003 -- 52.9

12/15/2003 -- 51.6

3/15/2004 -- 52.2

6/15/2004 -- 53.9

9/15/2004 -- 50.3

12/15/2004 -- 51.2

3/15/2005 -- 25.2

6/15/2005 -- 57.1

9/15/2005 -- 51.8

12/15/2005 -- 53.8

3/15/2006 -- 53.2

6/15/2006 -- 56.3

9/15/2006 -- 55

Well Date

Concentration

Sodium Chloride

15-63 12/15/2006 -- 54.5

(continued) 3/15/2007 -- 54.5

6/15/2007 -- 57.4

9/15/2007 -- 56

12/15/2007 -- 55.7

3/15/2008 -- 56.6

6/15/2008 -- 47.2

9/15/2008 -- 58

12/15/2008 138 51.1

3/15/2009 45.9 30.4

15-127 2/28/1970 -- 62

15-225 9/2/1929 -- 26

5/7/1951 118 34

4/11/1958 -- 23

8/26/1958 -- 24

12/9/1958 104 24

4/8/1959 -- 24

12/9/1959 -- 24

4/6/1960 -- 24

8/23/1960 -- 26

4/5/1961 -- 30

8/29/1961 -- 30

4/18/1962 -- 27

9/24/1962 -- 22

4/3/1963 -- 26

8/27/1963 -- 23

4/29/1964 -- 21

9/18/1964 -- 19

4/22/1965 -- 19

7/17/1967 107 20

9/21/1972 -- 55

5/24/1973 -- 35

9/24/1973 -- 32

4/29/1974 -- 37

8/28/1974 -- 35

5/13/1975 -- 33

9/14/1977 -- 44

8/24/1978 -- 37

8/14/1979 -- 38

6/6/1995 -- 53

9/20/1995 -- 54

9/26/1995 -- 54

3/15/1996 -- 37.1

6/26/1996 -- 54.1

7/26/1996 -- 31.7

11/26/1996 -- 51.8

3/11/1997 -- 37

6/4/1997 -- 54.7

Table 17. Measured sodium and chloride concentrations in water from selected wells in the Salem-Gloucester study area, southern 

New Jersey, 1929–2010.—Continued

[Well locations are shown in figs. 48–51; concentrations in milligrams per liter; --, not measured]
Table 17 141

Well Date

Concentration

Sodium Chloride

15-225 7/15/1997 -- 48.9

(continued) 12/2/1997 -- 31.2

3/5/1998 -- 38.6

6/4/1998 -- 37.2

7/10/1998 -- 55.7

12/4/1998 -- 38.3

3/2/1999 -- 38.7

6/2/1999 -- 39.1

3/8/2000 -- 42.7

6/7/2000 -- 45.8

7/11/2000 -- 42.5

7/24/2000 72.5 42.5

3/1/2001 -- 39.1

7/3/2001 -- 41.3

6/11/2002 -- 39

7/2/2002 -- 106

3/15/2003 133 42.6

15-248 9/17/1980 -- 9

8/18/1982 93 8.8

11/29/1994 107.5 12

2/21/1995 104 12.6

6/5/1995 98 13.2

8/7/1995 127.5 15.4

10/24/1995 196 11.2

3/20/1996 102 12.8

6/6/1996 108 11.9

8/20/1996 132 10.2

11/27/1996 149.7 11.8

6/17/1997 107.5 12.1

9/2/1997 127.8 12.66

11/25/1997 93.5 10.57

3/13/1998 81.5 13.2

6/3/1998 88.8 4.97

3/17/1999 43.9 10.17

9/8/1999 82.5 10.74

11/17/1999 67.6 10.2

5/24/2000 64.5 9.94

8/18/2000 -- 11.64

12/11/2000 62.2 11.35

2/28/2001 82.5 10.6

3/15/2004 92.7 12

6/15/2004 54.6 10

9/15/2004 90.9 12

12/15/2004 52.8 10.9

3/15/2005 80.2 13.3

6/15/2005 87.9 11.6

9/15/2005 89.2 11.5

12/15/2005 95.6 11

Well Date

Concentration

Sodium Chloride

15-248 3/15/2006 114 12.8

(continued) 6/15/2006 58.9 11.8

9/15/2006 80.2 10

12/15/2006 69 11

3/15/2007 84 12.2

6/15/2007 61.6 11.3

9/15/2007 68.4 11.8

12/15/2007 74.7 11.8

3/15/2008 93.8 14.74

6/15/2008 89.3 11.8

9/15/2008 86.1 10.9

12/15/2008 -- 49

3/15/2009 86.5 12.15

6/15/2009 -- 8.8

9/15/2009 82.6 13.4

12/15/2009 90.3 11.5

3/15/2010 48.7 12.3

15-361 4/29/1974 -- 44

9/1/1978 -- 55

8/17/1979 -- 55

9/17/1980 -- 58

9/10/1981 -- 59

8/17/1982 150 59

8/30/1983 -- 60

9/25/1984 140 62

9/4/1986 -- 64

8/18/1987 -- 61

8/12/1988 -- 64

8/23/1989 -- 67

8/7/1991 160 72

11/1/1993 -- 66

8/2/1994 230 73

9/13/1994 -- 65

3/25/1996 -- 67.3

7/30/1996 -- 74.4

8/5/1996 -- 74.5

8/6/1996 -- 75.2

7/2/1997 -- 72.8

10/15/1997 -- 71.1

5/5/1998 -- 72

7/7/1998 -- 77.1

7/8/1999 -- 75.5

7/12/2000 -- 79.1

10/4/2000 -- 75

6/27/2001 -- 78.3

8/15/2001 -- 76.2

7/10/2002 -- 80.4

3/15/2003 -- 79.9

Well Date

Concentration

Sodium Chloride

15-361 4/8/2003 -- 79.9

(continued) 6/15/2003 -- 79.9

7/15/2003 -- 79.2

9/15/2003 -- 79.2

10/21/2003 -- 77.7

12/15/2003 -- 77.7

1/20/2004 -- 77.8

3/15/2004 -- 77.8

4/7/2004 -- 78.8

6/15/2004 -- 78.8

7/13/2004 -- 76.7

9/15/2004 -- 76.7

10/12/2004 -- 77.5

12/15/2004 -- 77.5

3/15/2005 -- 76.3

6/15/2005 -- 83.2

9/15/2005 -- 79.1

12/15/2005 -- 79

3/15/2006 -- 78.3

9/15/2006 -- 80.1

12/15/2006 -- 80.1

3/15/2008 -- 78.5

6/15/2008 -- 42.5

9/15/2008 -- 68.4

12/15/2008 115 33.9

3/15/2009 181 --

6/15/2009 164 78.9

9/15/2009 170 76.4

12/15/2009 164 78.1

3/15/2010 165 78.7

15-385 9/17/1980 -- 43

9/10/1981 -- 44

7/23/1982 140 45

8/30/1983 -- 44

9/25/1984 120 45

7/24/1985 120 44

9/4/1986 -- 48

8/18/1987 -- 44

8/12/1988 -- 46

8/23/1989 -- 45

8/24/1990 130 45

8/7/1991 130 53

8/26/1992 130 54

6/6/1995 -- 53

9/20/1995 -- 53

9/26/1995 -- 53

3/15/1996 -- 46.8

6/26/1996 -- 53.2

Table 17. Measured sodium and chloride concentrations in water from selected wells in the Salem-Gloucester study area, southern 

New Jersey, 1929–2010.—Continued

[Well locations are shown in figs. 48–51; concentrations in milligrams per liter; --, not measured]
142 Simulated Effects of Withdrawals from the Potomac-Raritan-Magothy Aquifer System, New Jersey

Well Date

Concentration

Sodium Chloride

15-385 7/26/1996 -- 27.4

(continued) 11/26/1996 -- 50.6

3/11/1997 -- 41

6/4/1997 -- 48.2

7/15/1997 -- 48.5

12/2/1997 -- 49.8

3/5/1998 -- 51.3

6/4/1998 -- 50.1

7/10/1998 -- 54.9

12/4/1998 -- 52.6

3/2/1999 -- 51.2

6/2/1999 -- 52.4

3/8/2000 -- 53.5

6/7/2000 -- 57

7/11/2000 -- 53.8

7/24/2000 124 53.8

6/24/2003 132 56.2

12/16/2003 134 54.5

3/2/2004 132 53.7

6/15/2004 104 50.3

9/25/2004 127 53.7

12/28/2004 136 52.2

3/15/2005 130 53.9

6/30/2005 131 55

9/20/2005 135 55.2

12/13/2005 125 56.2

3/14/2006 149 52

6/29/2006 114 64.6

9/6/2006 117 --

12/26/2006 128 51.7

3/27/2007 118 57

6/15/2007 118 55.9

9/25/2007 99 56.6

12/18/2007 94.8 54

3/24/2008 113 54.7

6/27/2008 127 54

9/10/2008 108 53.6

12/9/2008 103 55.5

3/10/2009 121 53.7

6/23/2009 131 53.8

10/6/2009 129 51.1

12/15/2009 129 54.4

3/9/2010 114 56.3

15-1109 5/16/1996 -- 216

8/7/1996 -- 225

11/14/1996 -- 225

5/5/1997 -- 229

9/2/1997 -- 226

Well Date

Concentration

Sodium Chloride

15-1109 11/13/1997 -- 220

(continued) 2/18/1998 -- 251

5/6/1998 -- 216

8/27/1998 -- 221

11/20/1998 -- 244

2/18/1999 -- 192

6/1/1999 -- 224

8/9/1999 -- 218

11/23/1999 -- 225

2/25/2000 -- 243

8/9/2000 -- 218

11/30/2000 -- 222

8/30/2001 -- 242

11/30/2001 -- 248

2/27/2002 -- 248

8/28/2002 -- 237

12/10/2002 -- 224

2/27/2003 325 245

3/15/2003 325 245

5/28/2003 307 252

6/15/2003 307 252

8/26/2003 297 240

9/15/2003 297 240

11/20/2003 316 257

12/15/2003 316 257

3/15/2004 255 245

6/15/2004 224 253

9/15/2004 263 258

6/15/2005 247 250

9/15/2005 270 247

6/15/2006 102 93.9

9/15/2006 140 134

6/15/2007 183 221

8/24/2007 193 254

8/11/2008 252 251.4

Middle Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer

33-933 7/15/1998 -- 189

1/12/1999 -- 218

4/14/1999 -- 223

7/13/1999 -- 261

10/12/1999 -- 213

1/11/2000 -- 236

4/12/2000 -- 243

7/12/2000 -- 238

10/10/2000 -- 223

1/9/2001 -- 232

4/10/2001 -- 236

7/10/2001 -- 216

Well Date

Concentration

Sodium Chloride

33-933 1/8/2002 -- 221

(continued) 4/12/2002 -- 234

4/14/2002 -- 234

7/9/2002 -- 239

10/8/2002 -- 232

3/15/2003 227 227

4/8/2003 273 229

6/15/2003 273 229

9/15/2003 260 230

10/14/2003 322 219

12/15/2003 322 219

1/13/2004 177 221

3/15/2004 177 221

4/13/2004 219 217

6/15/2004 219 217

7/13/2004 231 203

9/15/2004 231 203

10/12/2004 230 216

12/15/2004 230 216

1/11/2005 230 206

3/15/2005 230 206

6/15/2005 216 224

7/12/2005 224 214

9/15/2005 224 214

12/15/2005 217 209

3/14/2006 271 215

3/15/2006 271 215

6/15/2006 214 --

9/15/2006 196 197

12/15/2006 204 211

3/15/2007 217 197

6/15/2007 179 217

9/15/2007 176 227

12/15/2007 157 209

3/15/2008 228 224

6/15/2008 189 205

9/15/2008 241 206

10/14/2008 201 205

12/15/2008 201 205

3/15/2009 189 229

6/15/2009 216 222

9/15/2009 215 196

12/15/2009 191 193

3/15/2010 192 203

Lower Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer

33-432 1/22/1996 -- 375

2/26/1996 -- 350

3/29/1996 -- 360

Table 17. Measured sodium and chloride concentrations in water from selected wells in the Salem-Gloucester study area, southern 

New Jersey, 1929–2010.—Continued

[Well locations are shown in figs. 48–51; concentrations in milligrams per liter; --, not measured]
Table 17 143

Well Date

Concentration

Sodium Chloride

33-432 7/29/1996 -- 385

(continued) 8/16/1996 -- 375

9/30/1996 -- 370

10/30/1996 -- 380

11/26/1996 -- 340

12/31/1996 -- 410

1/13/1997 -- 380

2/28/1997 -- 385

3/13/1997 -- 285

4/10/1997 -- 385

5/8/1997 -- 385

6/2/1997 -- 380

7/13/1997 -- 275

8/6/1997 -- 345

9/3/1997 -- 400

5/30/1998 -- 360

6/30/1998 -- 375

7/6/1998 -- 400

8/23/1998 -- 390

9/6/1998 -- 350

9/7/1998 -- 390

10/5/1998 -- 400

11/2/1998 -- 395

12/7/1998 -- 270

1/4/1999 -- 370

2/1/1999 -- 280

3/1/1999 -- 280

4/5/1999 -- 370

5/3/1999 -- 370

6/2/1999 -- 360

7/25/1999 -- 400

9/6/1999 -- 275

10/4/1999 -- 350

11/1/1999 -- 425

1/3/2000 -- 355

2/7/2000 -- 350

3/6/2000 -- 350

7/12/2000 -- 273

10/4/2000 -- 427

1/3/2001 -- 270

4/4/2001 -- 280

7/5/2001 -- 289

4/3/2002 -- 322

7/10/2002 -- 313

10/9/2002 -- 291

6/15/2003 -- 303

9/15/2003 -- 323

3/15/2004 -- 375

Well Date

Concentration

Sodium Chloride

33-432 6/15/2004 -- 335

(continued) 9/15/2004 -- 218

3/15/2005 -- 207

6/15/2005 -- 246

9/15/2005 -- 201

3/15/2006 -- 305

9/15/2006 -- 200

12/15/2006 -- 356

3/15/2007 -- 300

3/15/2008 -- 202

6/15/2008 -- 239

7/8/2008 -- 343

9/15/2008 -- 343

12/15/2008 -- 352

3/15/2009 -- 293

9/15/2009 -- 294

10/14/2009 -- 294

12/15/2009 -- 294

33-899 1/6/1997 -- 187

2/4/1997 -- 212

3/3/1997 -- 207

4/3/1997 -- 202

5/8/1997 -- 195

6/3/1997 -- 226

7/3/1997 -- 210

8/5/1997 -- 226

9/8/1997 -- 221

10/2/1997 -- 230

11/13/1997 -- 242

12/3/1997 -- 226

1/11/1998 -- 223

3/8/1998 -- 193

4/1/1998 -- 228

5/10/1998 -- 195

6/1/1998 -- 186

7/4/1998 -- 216

8/11/1998 -- 232

9/12/1998 -- 211

10/5/1998 -- 247

11/6/1998 -- 211

12/4/1998 -- 216

1/4/1999 -- 205

2/4/1999 -- 210

3/3/1999 -- 200

4/4/1999 -- 205

5/4/1999 -- 230

6/6/1999 -- 220

7/12/1999 -- 211

Well Date

Concentration

Sodium Chloride

33-899 8/5/1999 -- 210

(continued) 10/13/1999 -- 180

11/9/1999 -- 195

12/11/1999 -- 180

2/5/2000 -- 227

2/16/2000 -- 240

3/3/2000 -- 236

4/21/2000 -- 231

5/5/2000 -- 231

6/2/2000 -- 222

7/12/2000 -- 215

8/4/2000 -- 296

9/13/2000 -- 390

4/8/2001 -- 260

5/15/2001 -- 220

6/11/2001 -- 240

7/14/2001 -- 210

8/20/2001 -- 250

9/18/2001 -- 230

10/12/2001 -- 240

11/7/2001 -- 270

12/4/2001 -- 370

1/30/2002 -- 388

1/31/2002 -- 388

2/13/2002 -- 360

2/18/2002 -- 360

4/18/2002 -- 200

5/7/2002 -- 135

6/15/2002 -- 170

7/12/2002 -- 220

7/13/2002 -- 220

8/23/2002 -- 390

9/9/2002 -- 330

10/4/2002 -- 230

11/3/2002 -- 210

12/7/2002 -- 180

1/30/2003 -- 200

2/12/2003 -- 240

3/13/2003 -- 380

3/15/2003 -- 380

4/13/2003 -- 220

5/31/2003 -- 350

6/6/2003 -- 230

6/15/2003 -- 230

9/15/2003 -- 380

10/29/2003 -- 100

11/3/2003 -- 117

12/7/2003 -- 390

Table 17. Measured sodium and chloride concentrations in water from selected wells in the Salem-Gloucester study area, southern 

New Jersey, 1929–2010.—Continued

[Well locations are shown in figs. 48–51; concentrations in milligrams per liter; --, not measured]
144 Simulated Effects of Withdrawals from the Potomac-Raritan-Magothy Aquifer System, New Jersey

Well Date

Concentration

Sodium Chloride

33-899 3/15/2004 -- 230

(continued) 6/15/2004 -- 220

9/15/2004 -- 250

12/15/2004 -- 430

12/27/2004 -- 430

3/15/2005 -- 380

3/17/2005 -- 380

4/17/2005 -- 390

9/13/2005 -- 280

9/15/2005 -- 280

12/15/2005 -- 210

1/13/2006 -- 320

2/8/2006 -- 220

3/7/2006 -- 240

3/15/2006 -- 240

6/15/2006 -- 340

9/15/2006 -- 188

11/18/2006 -- 230

12/15/2006 -- 200

3/15/2007 -- 250

6/15/2007 -- 250

9/15/2007 -- 200

12/15/2007 -- 170

3/15/2008 -- 190

6/15/2008 -- 220

9/15/2008 -- 192.5

12/15/2008 -- 160

3/15/2009 -- 400

6/15/2009 -- 190

9/15/2009 -- 223

12/15/2009 -- 255

3/15/2010 -- 250

33-900 1/6/1997 -- 601

2/4/1997 -- 422

3/3/1997 -- 427

4/1/1997 -- 429

5/6/1997 -- 423

6/3/1997 -- 433

7/3/1997 -- 428

8/6/1997 -- 435

9/8/1997 -- 433

10/7/1997 -- 429

11/18/1997 -- 423

12/4/1997 -- 397

1/6/1998 -- 432

2/3/1998 -- 406

3/6/1998 -- 388

4/5/1998 -- 431

Well Date

Concentration

Sodium Chloride

33-900 5/9/1998 -- 397

(continued) 6/1/1998 -- 352

7/5/1998 -- 403

8/12/1998 -- 358

9/12/1998 -- 378

1/4/1999 -- 400

2/1/1999 -- 390

3/2/1999 -- 410

4/3/1999 -- 385

5/3/1999 -- 425

6/5/1999 -- 385

7/10/1999 -- 393

8/6/1999 -- 410

10/15/1999 -- 410

11/10/1999 -- 390

12/8/1999 -- 320

2/4/2000 -- 441

2/16/2000 -- 409

3/3/2000 -- 436

4/20/2000 -- 423

5/5/2000 -- 476

6/3/2000 -- 452

7/12/2000 -- 420

8/4/2000 -- 516

9/13/2000 -- 390

4/7/2001 -- 440

5/16/2001 -- 460

6/10/2001 -- 440

7/14/2001 -- 380

8/21/2001 -- 450

9/19/2001 -- 470

10/13/2001 -- 465

11/18/2001 -- 400

12/5/2001 -- 210

1/30/2002 -- 213

2/13/2002 -- 240

3/19/2002 -- 400

4/17/2002 -- 385

5/6/2002 -- 295

6/14/2002 -- 390

7/13/2002 -- 380

8/26/2002 -- 380

9/8/2002 -- 300

10/6/2002 -- 260

11/2/2002 -- 190

1/30/2003 -- 180

2/12/2003 -- 330

3/13/2003 -- 240

Well Date

Concentration

Sodium Chloride

33-900 3/15/2003 -- 240

(continued) 4/13/2003 -- 325

5/31/2003 -- 325

6/6/2003 -- 300

6/15/2003 -- 300

9/15/2003 -- 370

10/29/2003 -- 200

11/2/2003 -- 133

12/6/2003 -- 370

3/15/2004 -- 500

6/15/2004 -- 390

9/15/2004 -- 430

11/8/2004 -- 440

12/15/2004 -- 450

12/27/2004 -- 450

3/15/2005 -- 350

3/17/2005 -- 350

4/17/2005 -- 340

9/13/2005 -- 410

9/15/2005 -- 410

12/15/2005 -- 400

1/13/2006 -- 380

2/8/2006 -- 360

3/7/2006 -- 440

3/15/2006 -- 440

6/15/2006 -- 520

9/15/2006 -- 383

12/15/2006 -- 350

3/15/2007 -- 600

6/15/2007 -- 600

9/15/2007 -- 300

12/15/2007 -- 350

3/15/2008 -- 330

6/15/2008 -- 360

9/15/2008 -- 385

12/15/2008 -- 340

3/15/2009 -- 380

6/15/2009 -- 410

9/15/2009 -- 350

12/15/2009 -- 460

3/15/2010 -- 450

33-901 1/6/1997 -- 394

2/3/1997 -- 400

3/3/1997 -- 400

4/1/1997 -- 402

5/6/1997 -- 392

6/3/1997 -- 395

7/3/1997 -- 399

Table 17. Measured sodium and chloride concentrations in water from selected wells in the Salem-Gloucester study area, southern 

New Jersey, 1929–2010.—Continued

[Well locations are shown in figs. 48–51; concentrations in milligrams per liter; --, not measured]
Table 17 145

Well Date

Concentration

Sodium Chloride

33-901 8/6/1997 -- 395

(continued) 9/5/1997 -- 393

10/7/1997 -- 395

11/12/1997 -- 403

12/2/1997 -- 432

1/10/1998 -- 417

2/9/1998 -- 415

3/8/1998 -- 394

4/5/1998 -- 402

5/9/1998 -- 391

6/1/1998 -- 352

7/5/1998 -- 362

8/11/1998 -- 347

9/13/1998 -- 352

10/5/1998 -- 271

11/5/1998 -- 357

12/5/1998 -- 352

1/6/1999 -- 385

2/1/1999 -- 370

3/2/1999 -- 375

4/2/1999 -- 370

5/5/1999 -- 375

6/5/1999 -- 320

7/10/1999 -- 413

8/6/1999 -- 370

10/14/1999 -- 350

11/9/1999 -- 365

12/7/1999 -- 310

2/4/2000 -- 396

2/16/2000 -- 409

3/3/2000 -- 396

4/20/2000 -- 378

5/5/2000 -- 436

6/3/2000 -- 397

7/12/2000 -- 375

8/4/2000 -- 456

9/13/2000 -- 385

4/7/2001 -- 390

5/15/2001 -- 400

6/9/2001 -- 380

7/14/2001 -- 365

8/21/2001 -- 400

9/19/2001 -- 420

10/13/2001 -- 420

11/7/2001 -- 475

12/5/2001 -- 400

1/30/2002 -- 375

2/13/2002 -- 280

Well Date

Concentration

Sodium Chloride

33-901 3/19/2002 -- 360

(continued) 4/17/2002 -- 310

5/6/2002 -- 235

6/14/2002 -- 340

7/13/2002 -- 350

8/24/2002 -- 280

9/8/2002 -- 290

10/4/2002 -- 330

11/2/2002 -- 310

12/6/2002 -- 340

1/30/2003 -- 340

2/12/2003 -- 260

3/13/2003 -- 370

3/15/2003 -- 370

4/13/2003 -- 475

5/31/2003 -- 300

6/6/2003 -- 320

6/15/2003 -- 320

9/15/2003 -- 250

10/29/2003 -- 167

11/1/2003 -- 183

12/6/2003 -- 300

12/15/2003 -- 390

3/15/2004 -- 380

6/15/2004 -- 400

9/15/2004 -- 370

12/15/2004 -- 610

3/15/2005 -- 320

9/15/2005 -- 300

12/15/2005 -- 390

3/15/2006 -- 360

6/15/2006 -- 360

9/15/2006 -- 322

12/15/2006 -- 500

3/15/2007 -- 400

6/15/2007 -- 500

9/15/2007 -- 270

12/15/2007 -- 300

3/15/2008 -- 300

6/15/2008 -- 320

9/15/2008 -- 310

12/15/2008 -- 290

3/15/2009 -- 320

6/15/2009 -- 450

9/15/2009 -- 360

12/15/2009 -- 360

3/15/2010 -- 300

Table 17. Measured sodium and chloride concentrations in water from selected wells in the Salem-Gloucester study area, southern 

New Jersey, 1929–2010.—Continued

[Well locations are shown in figs. 48–51; concentrations in milligrams per liter; --, not measured]

For additional information, write to:

Director

U.S. Geological Survey

New Jersey Water Science Center

810 Bear Tavern Road, Suite 206

West Trenton, NJ 08628

or visit our Web site at:

http://nj.usgs.gov/

Document prepared by the West Trenton Publishing Service Center
Charles amd others—Simulated Effects of Withdrawals from the Potomac-Raritan-Magothy Aquifer System, New Jersey—Scientific Investigations Report 2011–5033