U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey

Scientific Investigations Report 2008–5142

Prepared in cooperation with the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection

Recovery of Ground-Water Levels from 1988 to 2003 and 

Analysis of Effects of 2003 and Full-Allocation Withdrawals 

in Critical Area 2, Southern New Jersey

Recovery of Ground-Water Levels from 

1988 to 2003 and Analysis of Effects of 2003 

and Full-Allocation Withdrawals in 

Critical Area 2, Southern New Jersey

By Frederick J. Spitz and Vincent T. dePaul

Prepared in cooperation with the 

New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection

Scientific Investigations Report 2008–5142

U.S. Department of the Interior

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

DIRK KEMPTHORNE, Secretary

U.S. Geological Survey

Mark D. Myers, Director

U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2008

For product and ordering information:

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

Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS

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

natural hazards, and the environment:

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

Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS

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:

Spitz, F.J., and dePaul, V.T., 2008, Recovery of ground-water levels from 1988 to 2003 and analysis of effects of 2003 

and full-allocation withdrawals in Critical Area 2, Southern New Jersey: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2008–5142, 28 p.
iii

Contents

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

Introduction.....................................................................................................................................................1

Purpose and Scope ..............................................................................................................................4

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

Hydrogeology.........................................................................................................................................4

Previous Investigations........................................................................................................................5

Recovery of Ground-Water Levels..............................................................................................................5

Ground-water-flow system .................................................................................................................5

Changes in Withdrawals and Water Levels from 1988 to 2003 .....................................................6

Evaluation of Effects of 2003 and Full-Allocation Withdrawals ...........................................................11

Ground-water-flow model .................................................................................................................11

Model Runs..........................................................................................................................................12

2003 Withdrawals.......................................................................................................................12

Full-Allocation Withdrawals ....................................................................................................12

Comparison of Results ..............................................................................................................16

Comparison with Observed Data ............................................................................................16

Limitations of the Analysis..........................................................................................................................16

Summary and Conclusions.........................................................................................................................16

References Cited..........................................................................................................................................17

Figures

1. Map showing location of Water Supply Critical Area 2, southern New Jersey ................3

2. Generalized hydrogeologic section through the New Jersey Coastal Plain......................5

3. Maps showing observed potentiometric surfaces and distribution of withdrawals in

2003 in the (a) Upper, (b) Middle, and (c) Lower Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifers

in Critical Area 2, southern New Jersey...................................................................................7

4. (a) Section showing potentiometric surfaces along section B-B’, 1988–2003; (b)

graph showing withdrawals in the depleted zone of Critical Area 2, 1980–2003; and

(c) map showing water-level changes in Critical Area 2, 1988–2003, in the Upper

Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer, southern New Jersey ...................................................8

5. (a) Section showing potentiometric surfaces along section B-B’, 1988–2003; (b)

graph showing withdrawals in the depleted zone of Critical Area 2, 1980–2003; and

(c) map showing water-level changes in Critical Area 2, 1988–2003, in the Middle

Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer, southern New Jersey ...................................................9

6. (a) Section showing potentiometric surfaces along section B-B’, 1988–2003; (b)

graph showing withdrawals in the depleted zone of Critical Area 2, 1980–2003; and

(c) map showing water-level changes in Critical Area 2, 1988–2003, in the Lower

Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer, southern New Jersey .................................................10
iv

7–9. Maps showing—

7. Simulated potentiometric surface for 2003 withdrawals in the (a) Upper, (b) Middle, 

and (c) Lower Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifers in Critical Area 2, 

southern New Jersey.................................................................................................................13

8. Simulated potentiometric surface for full-allocation withdrawals in the (a) Upper, 

(b) Middle, and (c) Lower Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifers in Critical Area 2, 

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

9. Simulated head difference between 2003 and full-allocation withdrawals in the 

(a) Upper, (b) Middle, and (c) Lower Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifers in 

Critical Area 2, southern New Jersey .....................................................................................15

Tables

1. Withdrawals from and model locations of production wells in the depleted zone of 

Critical Area 2, southern New Jersey .....................................................................................19

2. Withdrawals from and model locations of production wells outside the depleted 

zone of Critical Area 2 in Salem and Gloucester Counties, New Jersey ..........................25
v

Conversion Factors and Datums

Multiply By To obtain

Length

foot (ft) 0.3048 meter (m)

mile (mi) 1.609 kilometer (km)

Area

square mile (mi2) 2.590 square kilometer (km2) 

Volume

gallon (gal) 3.785 liter (L) 

Flow rate

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

cubic foot per second (ft3/s) 0.646317 million gallons per day (Mgal/d)

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

million gallons per day (Mgal/d) 365.25 million gallons per year (Mgal/yr)

million gallons per day (Mgal/d) 0.0006944 gallons per minute (gal/min)

Specific capacity

gallon per minute per foot 

[(gal/min)/ft)]

 0.2070 liter per second per meter [(L/s)/m]

Hydraulic conductivity

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

Hydraulic gradient

foot per mile (ft/mi) 0.1894 meter per kilometer (m/km)

Transmissivity*

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

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.

Specific conductance is given in microsiemens per centimeter at 25 degrees Celsius (μS/cm at 

25 °C).

Concentrations of chemical constituents in water are given either in milligrams per liter (mg/L) 

or micrograms per liter (μg/L).
vi
Recovery of Ground-Water Levels from 1988 to 2003 

and Analysis of Effects of 2003 and Full-Allocation 

Withdrawals in Critical Area 2, Southern New Jersey

By Frederick J. Spitz and Vincent T. dePaul

Abstract

Water levels in the Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer 

system within Water Supply Critical Area 2 in the southern 

New Jersey Coastal Plain have recovered as a result of reductions in ground-water withdrawals initiated in the early 1990s. 

The Critical Area consists of the depleted zone and the threatened margin. The Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer system 

consists of the Upper, Middle, and Lower aquifers. Generally, 

ground-water withdrawals from these aquifers declined 5 to 

10 Mgal/d (million gallons per day), and water levels recovered 0 to 40 ft (foot) from 1988 to 2003. In order to reevaluate 

water-allocation restrictions in Critical Area 2 in response to 

changes in the ground-water-flow system and demands for 

additional water supply due to increased development, the 

New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) 

needs information about the effects of changes in those allocations. Therefore, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), in cooperation with the NJDEP, used an existing ground-water-flow 

model of the New Jersey Coastal Plain to evaluate the effects 

of withdrawal alternatives on hydraulic heads in the PotomacRaritan-Magothy aquifer system in Critical Area 2.

The U.S. Geological Survey Regional Aquifer System 

Analysis model was used to simulate steady-state groundwater flow. Two withdrawal conditions were tested by using 

the model to evaluate hydraulic heads and differences in heads 

in these aquifers: 2003 withdrawals and full-allocation withdrawals (17.4 Mgal/d greater than 2003 withdrawals). Model 

results are presented using head maps and head-difference 

maps that compare 2003 to full-allocation withdrawals. Mandated hydrologic conditions for Critical Area protection are 

that the simulated -30-ft head contour not extend beyond the 

boundary of the depleted zone and (or) be at least 5 mi (miles) 

updip from the 250-mg/L (milligram per liter) isochlor in all 

three aquifers.

Simulation results indicate that, for 2003 withdrawals, the 

simulated -30-ft head contour in all three aquifers is generally within the boundary of the depleted zone, except in the 

Lower aquifer in northern Camden and northwestern Burlington Counties, and is generally 1 to 10 mi downdip from the 

250-mg/L isochlor. (Corresponding observed data indicate that 

the -30-ft water-level contour extends beyond the southwest 

boundary of the depleted zone in the Upper and Middle aquifers, and is generally 5 to 20 mi downdip from the 250-mg/L 

isochlor in all three aquifers.) The area in which heads are 

below -30 ft ranges from 389 mi2 (square miles) in the Middle 

aquifer to 427 mi2 in the Lower aquifer. For full-allocation 

withdrawals, the simulated -30-ft head contour extends beyond 

the boundary of the depleted zone in all three aquifers in 

northern Camden and northwestern Burlington Counties and 

in the Upper aquifer in Gloucester and Salem Counties, and 

is generally 5 to 15 mi downdip from the 250-mg/L isochlor. 

The area in which heads are below -30 ft ranges from 616 mi2

in the Upper aquifer to 813 mi2 in the Lower aquifer. These 

results and observed data indicate that any increase in withdrawals from 2003 values would likely cause heads in the 

three aquifers to decline below the minimum values mandated 

by the NJDEP for the Critical Area.

Introduction

Ground-water development near large population centers 

in the New Jersey Coastal Plain has created large regional 

cones of depression in several Coastal Plain aquifers. In 1983, 

water levels in the Upper, Middle, and Lower aquifers of the 

Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer system in southern New 

Jersey were 96, 89, and 94 ft below NGVD 29, respectively 

(Eckel and Walker, 1986). The continued decline of water 

levels in these confined aquifers posed a serious threat to the 

water supply in some areas, including the depletion of ground 

water, saltwater intrusion, and a reduction in ground-water 

flow to streams (New Jersey Department of Environmental 

Protection, 1996). To address these issues, the New Jersey 

Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) designated 

two Water Supply Critical Areas, defined in part as regions 
2 Recovery of Ground-Water Levels and Analysis of Withdrawals in Critical Area 2, New Jersey

of the State where excessive water use presents undue stress 

or poses a significant threat to the integrity of a water-supply 

source (New Jersey Administrative Code, 2005).

“The criteria upon which the NJDEP designates a 

Water Supply Critical Area include one or more of 

the following: (1) a shortage of surface water due 

to diversions from surface- or ground-water sources 

that leave insufficient surface water for permitted, 

certified, or registered diversions or for environmental protection purposes within a drainage area of 

at least 10 mi2; and (2) a shortage of ground water 

due to diversions exceeding the long-term, safe, or 

dependable yield of an aquifer in an area of at least 

10 mi2. A shortage can be demonstrated by means of 

a verified mathematical ground-water model or, if 

such a model is unavailable, by one or more of the 

following hydrologic conditions: (a) a progressive 

lowering of ground water to the extent that existing 

wells of 50 ft or more in depth are threatened by 

declining water levels or rendered inoperative, and 

(b) a reduction in the average potentiometric surface 

in a confined aquifer such that the 30-ft contour 

below NGVD 29 is within 5 mi of saltwater or intersects the 250-mg/L isochlor (contour line of equal 

chloride concentration) within that aquifer.” (New 

Jersey Administrative Code, 2005)

Water levels measured by the U.S. Geological Survey 

(USGS) in 1983 indicated that three aquifers—the Upper, 

Middle and Lower Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifers—were 

depleted in southern New Jersey and met the criteria for a 

Water Supply Critical Area. Specifically, it was determined 

that adverse conditions existed and special measures were 

required to ensure the integrity and viability of the water supply. Therefore, by administrative order, in January 1993, the 

NJDEP designated Water Supply Critical Area 2 in Burlington, 

Camden, Gloucester, and Atlantic Counties, and small parts 

of Ocean, Salem, and Cumberland Counties (fig. 1). The first 

three counties are the most dependent on the Potomac-RaritanMagothy aquifer system in Critical Area 2 for water supply.

The boundary of the depleted zone (an area where 

ground-water levels have declined so substantially that the 

integrity of the water resource is of concern) of Critical Area 

2 shown in figure 1 corresponds to a composite of the 1983 

water-level contour 30 ft below NGVD 29 for each aquifer, 

as published by Eckel and Walker (1986) (Fred Sickles, New 

Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, written commun., 2008). The threatened margin (an area bordering the 

depleted zone where the decline of ground-water levels may 

accelerate saltwater intrusion) of Critical Area 2 is a 3-miwide area that surrounds the depleted zone (Hoffman and 

Lieberman, 2000).

In an effort to improve the management of ground-water 

resources in the Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer system 

within these areas, Critical Area 2 was originally designated by NJDEP in 1986. Water users had the opportunity to 

interconnect with alternative water sources—shallower nonrestricted aquifers, ground-water sources outside the Critical 

Area, surface-water sources, or the selected regional water 

purveyor. New water-supply allocations from the PotomacRaritan-Magothy aquifer system were prohibited by the 

Water Supply Management Act (New Jersey Statutes Annotated, 1981), with the exception of temporary construction 

dewatering located in the credit receiving area in Burlington 

County (discussed below), base allocation transfers that meet 

mandated criteria (New Jersey Administrative Code, 2005), 

or ground-water remediation activities. Outside the Critical 

Area, water-supply development is less regulated, and waterquantity and -quality concerns may occur. Additionally, the 

NJDEP has denied allocation requests when new or increased 

withdrawals outside Critical Area 2 might adversely affect the 

aquifers within the Critical Area (Fred Sickles, New Jersey 

Department of Environmental Protection, written commun., 

2007).

Due to a court challenge, Critical Area 2 was redesignated in 1991 and 1993. Actual reductions in withdrawals 

were implemented during and subsequent to this period. 

Within the depleted zone, ground-water withdrawals were 

reduced by an average of 22 percent in the Upper, Middle, 

and Lower Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifers (Hoffman and 

Lieberman, 2000). Within the threatened margin, withdrawals 

were limited to an amount equal to the maximum annual rate 

between 1983 and 1991.

Additional water-supply measures initiated in Critical 

Area 2 included the Tri-County pipeline and Water Allocation 

Credit Receiving Area. The pipeline, a regional surface-water 

alternative operated by New Jersey American Water Company, provides water from the Delaware River to water users 

within and south of Critical Area 2. The high-capacity (more 

than 30 Mgal/d) water-treatment plant in Delran allows the 

service area to be expanded to supply additional water users. A 

Water Allocation Credit Receiving Area in northern Burlington County was included in the Critical Area statute to permit 

future withdrawals through the use of water-allocation credits, 

as established by formulae in the statute.

After implementation of the Critical Area, withdrawal 

reductions resulted in water-level recovery in the PotomacRaritan-Magothy aquifer system and accompanying changes 

in the direction and rate of flow in the system. In response to 

the changes in the ground-water-flow system and demands for 

additional water supply, the NJDEP is reevaluating allocations 

within Critical Area 2 and the effects of possible changes in 

allocations. As part of this study, the USGS, in cooperation 

with the NJDEP, used an existing Regional Aquifer System 

Analysis (RASA) model of the New Jersey Coastal Plain 

(Voronin, 2004) to analyze the ground-water-flow system 

and provide needed information to water managers to make 

allocation decisions regarding the water supply. Model runs 

were made to evaluate the effects of (1) 2003 withdrawals and 
Introduction 3

OCEAN

SUSSEX

ATLANTIC

BURLINGTON

MORRIS

SALEM

WARREN

MONMOUTH

CUMBERLAND

HUNTERDON

BERGEN

CAPE MAY

MIDDLESEX

SOMERSET

MERCER

GLOUCESTER CAMDEN

PASSAIC

ESSEX

UNION

HUDSON

COASTAL PLAIN

PIEDMONT

HIGHLANDS

VALLEY AND RIDGE

FALL LINE

75° 73°30'

40°

30'

39°

N CONNECTICUT EW YORK

PENNSYLVANIA

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:100,000

Universal Transverse Mercator Projection, Zone 18, NAD 83

EXPLANATION

Rows

Columns

NEW JERSEY

CRITICAL AREA 2—From New Jersey Department

 of Environmental Protection (unpublished).

 Boundary is approximate and should not be used

 for regulatory compliance purposes

REGIONAL AQUIFER SYSTEM ANALYSIS

MODEL BOUNDARY Threatened margin

Depleted zone

WATER ALLOCATION CREDIT RECEIVING

 AREA—From M.J. Torres (Burlington County

 Office of Resource Conservation, written

 commun., 2007)

DELAWARE RIVER

Delran

DELAWARE

MARYLAND 0 25 50 MILES

0 25 50 KILOMETERS

A T L A N T I C

O C E A N

Figure 1. Location of Water Supply Critical Area 2, southern New Jersey.
4 Recovery of Ground-Water Levels and Analysis of Withdrawals in Critical Area 2, New Jersey

(2) withdrawals increased to full (base) allocation, defined as 

a water user’s portion of the safe or dependable yield of the 

water resource (New Jersey Administrative Code, 2005).

Purpose and Scope

This report presents the results of an analysis of the 

effects of an increase in water allocations after a reduction 

associated with the implementation of Critical Area 2 in 

southern New Jersey. The report also describes the hydrogeology of the study area and the recovery of the water levels in 

the Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer system from 1988 to 

2003. An existing regional ground-water-flow model is used to 

simulate the effects of 2003 and full-allocation withdrawals on 

water levels and examine them in relation to saltwater intrusion within Critical Area 2. The results of the two simulations 

are compared to each other, to observed water levels from 

2003, and to the water-level criteria mandated for the Critical 

Area. 

Description of Study Area

Critical Area 2 is located in the updip area of the New 

Jersey Coastal Plain in Burlington, Camden, Gloucester, 

and Atlantic Counties, in southern New Jersey and includes 

small parts of Ocean, Salem, and Cumberland Counties. The 

total area is approximately 1,657 mi2. According to data from 

the U.S. Census Bureau, Burlington, Camden, Gloucester, 

and Atlantic Counties are the 11th, 8th, 14th, and 15th most 

populus counties, respectively, of the 21 counties in the State 

(New Jersey Department of Labor and Workforce Development, 2006). These counties contain about 40 percent of the 

total population of the State. In 2000, water use in these four 

counties was 126 Mgal/d, or 31 percent of the ground water 

withdrawn in New Jersey for public supply (Hutson and others, 2004).

The boundaries of Critical Area 2—the inner depleted 

zone and the outer threatened margin—are shown in figure 1. 

The threatened margin is a 3-mi-wide area surrounding the 

depleted zone. Characteristics of the aquifer system in the 

updip part of Critical Area 2 are interaction with the Delaware 

River and its tributaries, and contamination in aquifer outcrop areas. The aquifer system in the downdip part of Critical 

Area 2 is not likely to be used for water supply because of its 

depth and because it is subject to high chloride concentrations 

due to saltwater intrusion (Navoy and Carleton, 1995).

Hydrogeology

The New Jersey Coastal Plain is a seaward-dipping 

wedge of unconsolidated sediments that range in age from 

Cretaceous to Holocene. A detailed discussion of the hydrogeology of the New Jersey Coastal Plain is found in Zapecza 

(1989) upon which much of the discussion that follows is 

based. These sediments consist mainly of clay, silt, sand, and 

gravel and are divided into different hydrogeologic units. 

Hydrogeologic units that are mostly sand and gravel are 

permeable and are considered aquifers; those that are mostly 

silt and clay are relatively impermeable and are considered 

confining units (fig. 2). The total thickness of the sediments 

increases from less than 200 ft at the outcrop areas in Camden 

County to greater than 2,500 ft in Atlantic County. The sediments crop out at land surface in northeast-southwest-trending 

bands (strike) and dip to the southeast at 10 to 60 ft/mi.

The Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer system includes 

the most productive aquifers in the New Jersey Coastal Plain. 

In order of increasing depth, they are the Upper, Middle, and 

Lower Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifers. The Merchantville-Woodbury confining unit, which overlies the PotomacRaritan-Magothy aquifer system, typically ranges in thickness 

from 100 to greater than 225 ft and corresponds to the Merchantville Formation and Woodbury Clay. The confining unit 

effectively impedes vertical ground-water flow. The underlying Upper Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer is the most 

areally extensive of the three aquifers and corresponds to the 

Magothy Formation. The Upper Potomac-Raritan-Magothy 

aquifer typically ranges in thickness from 50 ft to greater than 

125 ft and consists mainly of permeable, coarse-grained sediments and thin, localized clay beds.

The confining unit below the Upper Potomac-RaritanMagothy aquifer typically ranges in thickness from 50 to 

greater than 125 ft. The Middle Potomac-Raritan-Magothy 

aquifer underlying this confining unit typically ranges in 

thickness from less than 50 ft in the outcrop area to greater 

than 150 ft in downdip areas and corresponds to the Raritan 

Formation and Potomac Group. The percentage of sand in 

this aquifer in the updip area varies according to the fluvial 

depositional history. The confining unit is thought to be less 

permeable than the confining unit separating the Middle and 

Lower Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifers (Rosman and 

others, 1995). 

The confining unit below the Middle Potomac-RaritanMagothy aquifer typically ranges in thickness from 50 to 

greater than 100 ft. The Lower Potomac-Raritan-Magothy 

aquifer underlying this confining unit typically ranges in 

thickness from 50 to greater than 250 ft and also corresponds 

to the Raritan Formation and Potomac Group. The aquifer 

pinches out in updip areas and does not crop out. Due to a lack 

of data in downdip areas, this aquifer cannot be differentiated from the Middle Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer, and 

therefore, is mapped with a limited areal extent. In contrast, 

the simulated aquifer (discussed farther on) extends northeast 

and represents the sand beds of the lower third of the undifferentiated Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer system. The 

Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer system is underlain by 

relatively impermeable bedrock.
Recovery of Ground-Water Levels 5

Previous Investigations

Various regional studies describe the hydrogeologic 

framework of, and ground-water flow in, the New Jersey 

Coastal Plain. Zapecza (1989) describes the hydrogeologic 

framework. Martin (1998) and Voronin (2004) describe 

ground-water flow. Synoptic water-level studies (for example, 

Lacombe and Rosman, 1997) have been conducted by the 

USGS for each of the major confined aquifers every 5 years 

since 1978. Water levels were measured during the fall for 

each study year, a time of year that typically represents annual 

average conditions. The most recent published work is the 

2003 synoptic study by dePaul and others (2008). The studies 

show areas of decline (1978 to 1988) and recovery (1988 to 

2003) of water levels in the Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer 

system within Critical Area 2.

County-wide water-resource studies for Burlington, 

Camden, and Gloucester Counties were completed by Rush 

(1968), Farlekas and others (1976), and Hardt and Hilton 

(1969), respectively. Navoy and Carleton (1995) completed 

an updated ground-water study of Camden County that also 

included simulation of flow. Spitz and others (2007) conducted a related study of the recovery of ground-water levels 

and evaluation of water-supply management options in Critical 

Area 1, in east-central New Jersey. The boundaries of Critical 

Areas 1 and 2 overlap in Jackson and Manchester Townships 

in Ocean County.

Recovery of Ground-Water Levels

Reductions in withdrawals from the Potomac-RaritanMagothy aquifer system in Critical Area 2 initiated in 1993 

have decreased the stress on the ground-water-flow system 

and have resulted in recovery of water levels. The groundwater-flow system, and changes in ground-water withdrawals and water levels from 1988 to 2003, are described in this 

section.

Ground-water-flow system

A discussion of regional ground-water flow in the Camden area, which includes much of Critical Area 2, is presented 

in Navoy and Carleton (1995) and is summarized in this section. Flow in the New Jersey Coastal Plain aquifers is affected 

by variations in the hydraulic properties of the saturated sediments, and the amount and locations of ground-water recharge 

and discharge. The Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer system 

is recharged mainly by precipitation on outcrop areas. Prior to 

water-supply development, recharge to these aquifers typically occurred in higher altitude outcrop areas in Mercer and 

Middlesex Counties. Water that entered the ground-water 

system followed long, arcuate flow paths to the southwest and 

discharged to the Delaware River and low-lying surface-water 

bodies in outcrop areas in Burlington, Camden, and Gloucester 

AQUIFER—Number refers to

model layer (tables 1 and 2)

CONFINING UNIT—Number 

refers to model layer

Not to scale

EXPLANATION LOWER POTOMAC-RARITAN-MAGOTHY AQUIFER (A10)

MIDDLE POTOMAC-RARITAN-MAGOTHY AQUIFER (A9)

UPPER POTOMAC-RARITAN-MAGOTHY AQUIFER (A8)

CONFINING UNIT BETWEEN THE LOWER AND MIDDLE POTOMAC-RARITAN-MAGOTHY AQUIFERS (C9)

CONFINING UNIT BETWEEN THE MIDDLE AND UPPER POTOMAC-RARITAN-MAGOTHY AQUIFERS (C8)

MERCHANTVILLE-WOODBURY CONFINING UNIT (C7)

ENGLISHTOWN AQUIFER SYSTEM (A7)

FALL LINE

HOLLY BEACH WATERBEARING ZONE (A1)

ESTUARINE CLAY

CONFINING UNIT (C1)

CONFINING UNIT OVERLYING THE

RIO GRANDE WATER-BEARING ZONE (C2)

VINCENTOWN AQUIFER (A5)

NAVESINK-HORNERSTOWN CONFINING UNIT (C5)

BASAL KIRKWOOD CONFINING UNIT (C3) 

PINEY POINT AQUIFER (A4)

VINCENTOWN-MANASQUAN CONFINING UNIT (C4) 

WENONAH-MOUNT LAUREL AQUIFER (A6)

UPPER KIRKWOOD-COHANSEY AQUIFER (A2)

NORTHWEST SOUTHEAST

ATLANTIC

OCEAN

BEDROCK

MARSHALLTOWN WENONAH CONFINING UNIT (C6)

LOWER KIRKWOOD-COHANSEY AND

CONFINED KIRKWOOOD AQUIFER (A3)

Figure 2. Generalized hydrogeologic section through the New Jersey Coastal Plain.
6 Recovery of Ground-Water Levels and Analysis of Withdrawals in Critical Area 2, New Jersey

Counties. Recharge to deeper hydrogeologic units in upgradient areas flowed downdip and eventually flowed back up into 

shallower units.

After water-supply development, the locations and 

amount of withdrawals controlled ground-water-flow paths in 

the Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer system. Increased withdrawals lowered ground-water levels, causing large cones of 

depression. Long, arcuate flow paths from the northeast have 

been supplemented with intermediate flow paths from local 

downdip areas and short flow paths from local updip areas. 

As a result of lowering water levels in some areas below sea 

level, recharge and discharge areas have been redistributed. 

Ground-water discharge to streams has decreased, groundwater recharge from streams has increased, and flow between 

aquifers has changed magnitude and direction. Recharge has 

increased as a result of downward leakage from the water table 

and lateral ground-water flow under the Delaware River from 

Pennsylvania. Saline water from the Delaware River estuary 

has also recharged the aquifer system.

The Delaware River is hydraulically connected to the 

Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer system in Critical Area 2. 

The nature and degree of the interaction depends on the riverbed materials and aquifer geometry, the difference between 

ground-water and surface-water levels, and the distance of 

withdrawals from the river. Because of the effective hydraulic connection between the Delaware River and the aquifer 

system, water levels near the river in the Middle and Lower 

Potomac-Raritan Magothy aquifers generally are only 5 to 

10 ft below NGVD 29.

Changes in Withdrawals and Water Levels from 

1988 to 2003

Ground-water withdrawals in the southern New Jersey 

Coastal Plain have increased steadily since the early 1900s. 

As a result, by the 1950s local cones of depression had begun 

to develop in the Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer system in 

Camden County (Farlekas and others, 1976). In the 1970s and 

1980s withdrawals stabilized, but water levels continued to 

decline, indicating that the aquifer system had not yet reached 

steady state. In 1983, withdrawals from wells in the PotomacRaritan-Magothy aquifer system in the depleted zone of Critical Area 2 were 93.1 Mgal/d.

From 1983 to 1988, withdrawals from the PotomacRaritan-Magothy aquifer system in Burlington, Camden, 

and Gloucester Counties decreased by about 5 percent, yet 

water levels continued to decline as much as 17 ft in Camden 

County (Rosman and others, 1995). Existing cones of depression broadened and deepened and localized cones developed 

due to new withdrawals. In 1988, the lowest observed water 

levels in the Upper, Middle, and Lower Potomac-RaritanMagothy aquifers in Critical Area 2 were 107 ft, 92 ft, and 

103 ft below NGVD 29, respectively.

In 1993, withdrawals from the depleted zone were limited 

to 65 percent of the 1983 withdrawals plus the difference 

between the maximum withdrawal during 1983–91 and the 

1983 withdrawals. The total reduction in withdrawals in the 

depleted zone can be computed as the difference between 

the 1988 withdrawals and the 1988 allocated withdrawals, 

which is estimated to be about 20 Mgal/d (Jennifer Myers, 

New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, written 

commun., 2007). This difference is not a simple computation, 

however, because compliance of individual water users with 

Critical Area 2 regulations depended on when water users 

could obtain an alternative water source. For example, the 

New Jersey American Water Company Tri-County pipeline 

was not in service until April 1996. This source provided a 

relatively constant water supply of 18.9 Mgal/d from 1997 to 

2003. Most water users were in compliance by 2007 (Jennifer 

Myers, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, 

written commun., 2007).

Observed water-level contours (dePaul and others, 2008) 

and locations of withdrawals in 2003 are shown in figure 3. 

Water levels in the Upper, Middle, and Lower PotomacRaritan-Magothy aquifers along cross section B-B ́ through 

the New Jersey Coastal Plain at different time intervals are 

shown in figures 4a, 5a, and 6a, respectively. The cross section, which is the same as that used in the synoptic water-level 

studies mentioned above, does not necessarily pass through 

the deepest parts of the cones of depression; therefore, some of 

the lowest water levels are not shown.

Average withdrawals (over the preceding 5 years) from 

the Upper Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer increased 

slightly from about 28 Mgal/d in 1988 to about 29 Mgal/d in 

1993, then decreased by about 9 Mgal/d, to about 19 Mgal/d, 

from 1993 to 2003 (fig. 4b). Based on the synoptic waterlevel data discussed previously, the lowest water levels in this 

aquifer declined about 10 ft from 1988 to 1993, then recovered 

about 50 ft from 1993 to 2003. The total 15-year (1988–2003) 

change in water levels in the Upper Potomac-Raritan-Magothy 

aquifer is shown in figure 4c. The recovery in Critical Area 2 

was 10 to 20 ft in parts of Burlington, Camden, and Gloucester 

Counties, and was 20 to 40 ft in a 91.1-mi2 area of the latter 

two counties.

Average withdrawals from the Middle Potomac-RaritanMagothy aquifer increased slightly from about 16 Mgal/d in 

1988 to about 17 Mgal/d in 1993, then decreased by nearly 

5 Mgal/d, to about 12 Mgal/d, from 1993 to 2003 (fig. 5b). 

Based on the synoptic water-level data discussed previously, 

the lowest water levels in this aquifer remained stable from 

1988 to 1993, then recovered about 30 ft from 1993 to 2003. 

The total 15-year (1988–2003) change in water levels in the 

Middle Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer is shown in figure 

5c. The recovery in Critical Area 2 was 10 to 20 ft in parts of 

Burlington, Camden, and Gloucester Counties, and was 20 to 

35 ft in a 48.3-mi2 area of Camden County.

Average withdrawals from the Lower Potomac-RaritanMagothy aquifer decreased from about 30 Mgal/d to less than 

24 Mgal/d from 1988 to 2003 (fig. 6b). Based on the synoptic water-level data discussed previously, the lowest water 

levels in this aquifer recovered about 20 ft from 1988 to 1993, 
Recovery of Ground-Water Levels 

7

Figure 3. Observed potentiometric surfaces and distribution of withdrawals in 2003 in the (a) Upper, (b) Middle, and (c) Lower Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifers in Critical Area 2, southern New Jersey.

ATLANTIC

BURLINGTON

OCEAN

CUMBERLAND

CAMDEN

GLOUCESTER

MERCER

SALEM

MONMOUTH

CAPE MAY

MIDDLESEX

74°30' 75°

40°39°30'

(a)

ATLANTIC

BURLINGTON

OCEAN

CUMBERLAND

CAMDEN

GLOUCESTER

MERCER

SALEM

MONMOUTH

CAPE MAY

MIDDLESEX

74°30' 75°

40°39°30'

(b)

ATLANTIC

BURLINGTON

OCEAN

CUMBERLAND

CAMDEN

GLOUCESTER

MERCER

SALEM

MONMOUTH

CAPE MAY

MIDDLESEX

74°30' 75°

40°39°30'

(c)

-30

-50

-10

-30

-50

-10

-10

-10 0

2040

-30

-30

-50

-70

0

20 40

-10

-10

EXPLANATION

0 10 20 MILES0 10 20 KILOMETERS

250-milligram-per-liter isochlor

AQUIFER OUTCROP AREA OBSERVED POTENTIOMETRIC

 CONTOUR—Shows altitude of water levels, in feet above NGVD 29. Interval is variable

Simulated aquifer limit

WELL AND WITHDRAWALS— In million gallons per day

CRITICAL AREA 2—From New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (unpublished). Boundary is approximate and should not be used for regulatory compliance purposes

Depleted zone

Threatened margin

0.00 - 0.490.50 - 0.991.00 - 1.491.50 - 1.99

AREA OF HEADS BELOW -30 FEET

-30

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:24,000Universal Transverse Mercator Projection, Zone 18, NAD83
8 Recovery of Ground-Water Levels and Analysis of Withdrawals in Critical Area 2, New Jersey

Figure 4. (a) Section showing potentiometric surfaces along section B-B’, 1988–2003; (b) graph showing withdrawals in the depleted zone of Critical Area 2, 1980–2003; and (c) map showing water-level changes in Critical Area 2, 1988–2003, in the Upper Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer, southern New Jersey. (Potentiometric surfaces from Rosman and others (1995), Lacombe and Rosman (1997), Lacombe and Rosman (2001), and dePaul and others (2008))

DISTANCE, IN MILES

NGVD 29 E TO VI TAL EET RE F DE, IN UTI T AL

-150-100

-5

0

0

50

100150200

ver i R er lawa eD

nilr eB

on t no mm aH

yt Ci r obr aH gg E

el antvil s Plea

ned maC

Atlantic Ocean

B B'

Lower aquifer

Middle aquifer

Upper aquifer

Merchantville-Woodbury 

confining unit VERTICAL SCALE GREATLY EXAGGERATED

POTENTIOMETRIC SURFACE

2003 simulated (steady state)

2003 observed

1998 observed

1993 observed

1988 observed

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60

ATLANTIC

BURLINGTON

OCEAN

CUMBERLAND

GLOUCESTER

MERCER

SALEM

MONMOUTH

CAPE MAY

MIDDLESEX

Berlin

Camden

Hammonton

Pleasantville

Egg Harbor City

CAMDEN

PENNSYLVANIA

74°30' 75°

40°39°30'

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:24,000 Universal Transverse Mercator Projection, Zone 18, NAD 83

B

B'

FALL LINE

EXPLANATION

CRITICAL AREA 2—From New Jersey Department of  Environmental Protection (unpublished). Boundary is  approximate and should not be used for regulatory  compliance purposes

AQUIFER OUTCROP 

Depleted zone Threatened margin

DECLINE, IN FEET

Greater than 80

60 - 8040 - 6020 - 4010 - 20

10 - 2020 - 4040 - 80Greater than 80

No substantial change

RECOVERY, IN FEET

Land surface

40302010

0

WITHDRAWALS, IN MILLION

GALLONS PER DAY

1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2003

YEAR

(a)

(b)

(c)

0 5 10 MILES

0 5 10 KILOMETERS
Recovery of Ground-Water Levels 9 Figure 5. (a) Section showing potentiometric surfaces along section B-B’, 1988–2003; (b) graph showing withdrawals in the depleted zone of Critical Area 2, 1980–2003; and (c) map showing water-level changes in Critical Area 2, 1988–2003, in the Middle Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer, southern New Jersey. (Potentiometric surfaces from Rosman and others (1995), Lacombe and Rosman (1997), Lacombe and Rosman (2001), and dePaul and others (2008))

B B'

DISTANCE, IN MILES

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60

92 VD NG OT EVI TA REL FEET NI E, DUTI ALT -150

-100

-50

0

50

100150200

er vi R er a awl eD

nli r eB

on t no mm aH

yt Ci r o arb HggE

lel antvi sael P

ne md aC

Atlantic Ocean

Lower aquifer

Middle aquifer

Upper aquifer

Merchantville-Woodbury 

confining unit VERTICAL SCALE GREATLY EXAGGERATED

POTENTIOMETRIC SURFACE

2003 simulated (steady state)

2003 observed1998 observed1993 observed1988 observed

ATLANTIC

BURLINGTON

OCEAN

CUMBERLAND

GLOUCESTER

MERCER

SALEM

MONMOUTH

CAPE MAY

MIDDLESEX

Berlin

Camden

Hammonton

Pleasantville

Egg Harbor City

CAMDEN

PENNSYLVANIA

74°30' 75°

40°39°30'

B

B'

FALL LINE

Land surface

302010

0

WITHDRAWALS, IN MILLION

GALLONS PER DAY

1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2003

YEAR

(a)

(b)

(c)

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:24,000 Universal Transverse Mercator Projection, Zone 18, NAD 83

EXPLANATION

CRITICAL AREA 2—From New Jersey Department of  Environmental Protection (unpublished). Boundary is  approximate and should not be used for regulatory  compliance purposes

AQUIFER OUTCROP 

Depleted zone Threatened margin

DECLINE, IN FEET

Greater than 80

60 - 8040 - 6020 - 4010 - 20

10 - 2020 - 4040 - 80Greater than 80

No substantial change

RECOVERY, IN FEET

0 5 10 MILES

0 5 10 KILOMETERS
10 Recovery of Ground-Water Levels and Analysis of Withdrawals in Critical Area 2, New Jersey

Figure 6. (a) Section showing potentiometric surfaces along section B-B’, 1988–2003; (b) graph showing withdrawals in the depleted zone of Critical Area 2, 1980–2003; and (c) map showing water-level changes in Critical Area 2, 1988–2003, in the Lower Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer, southern New Jersey. (Potentiometric surfaces from Rosman and others (1995), Lacombe and Rosman (1997), Lacombe and Rosman (2001), and dePaul and others (2008))

B B'

DISTANCE, IN MILES

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60

92 DVGNOT EVI AT EL R T FEE NI , E TUD I T AL -150

-100

-50

0

50

100150200

ver i R er lawa eD

nilr eB

not no mm aH

yt Ci r o arb HggE

santville ael P

d[Z cW 9

Atlantic Ocean

Upper aquifer

Middle aquifer

Lower aquifer

Merchantville-Woodbury 

confining unit VERTICAL SCALE GREATLY EXAGGERATED

POTENTIOMETRIC SURFACE

2003 simulated (steady state)

2003 observed

1998 observed1993 observed1988 observed

Downdip limit of aquifer ATLANTIC

BURLINGTON

OCEAN

CUMBERLAND

GLOUCESTER

MERCER

SALEM

MONMOUTH

CAPE MAY

MIDDLESEX

Berlin

Camden

Hammonton

Pleasantville

Egg Harbor City

CAMDEN

PENNSYLVANIA

74°30' 75°

40°39°30'

B

B'

FALL LINE

UPDIP AND DOWNDIP LIMIT OF AQUIFER

Land surface

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:24,000 Universal Transverse Mercator Projection, Zone 18, NAD 83

EXPLANATION

CRITICAL AREA 2—From New Jersey Department of  Environmental Protection (unpublished). Boundary is  approximate and should not be used for regulatory  compliance purposes

Depleted zone Threatened margin

DECLINE, IN FEET

Greater than 80

60 - 8040 - 6020 - 4010 - 20

10 - 2020 - 4040 - 80Greater than 80

No substantial change

RECOVERY, IN FEET

0 5 10 MILES

0 5 10 KILOMETERS

5040302010

0

WITHDRAWALS, IN MILLION

GALLONS PER DAY

1985 1990 1995 2000 2003 1980

YEAR

(a)

(b)

(c)
Evaluation of Effects of 2003 and Full-Allocation Withdrawals 11

recovered about 60 ft from 1993 to 1998, then remained stable 

from 1998 to 2003. The total 15-year (1988–2003) change in 

water levels in the Lower Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer is 

shown in figure 6c. The recovery in Critical Area 2 was 10 to 

20 ft in parts of Burlington, Camden, and Gloucester Counties, 

and was 20 to 30 ft in a 68.1-mi2 area of these counties.

Although the Wenonah-Mount Laurel aquifer and Englishtown aquifer system overlying the Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer system are not specifically regulated in Critical 

Area 2, some withdrawals were relocated to these aquifers 

after withdrawals from the Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer 

system were reduced. This change caused water levels in the 

Wenonah-Mount Laurel aquifer to decline noticeably. As a 

result, a moratorium on new or increased withdrawals from 

this aquifer was issued in the mid-1990s (Jennifer Myers, New 

Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, written commun., 2007). The effect on the Englishtown aquifer system is 

less clear as a result of the lack of downdip water-level data.

Evaluation of Effects of 2003 and FullAllocation Withdrawals

The Upper, Middle, and Lower Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifers in Critical Area 2 are hydraulically connected 

to aquifers and confining units beyond the extent of Critical 

Area 2. Therefore, to examine the effect of withdrawals on 

these aquifers in this area, the larger hydrologic system and 

associated stresses must be considered. Accordingly, a regional 

ground-water-flow model of the entire New Jersey Coastal 

Plain was used in this study. A description of this model is 

provided below. Results of simulations made using this model 

are provided in the following sections.

Ground-water-flow model

The USGS Regional Aquifer System Analysis (RASA) 

model has been widely used and has been shown to be an 

effective tool for simulating ground-water flow in the New 

Jersey Coastal Plain and provides reasonable estimates of the 

source of water to wells—for example, Gordon (2007). The 

input data for the RASA model were formatted for use with 

MODFLOW (Harbaugh and McDonald, 1996), a modular 

finite-difference ground-water-flow model. The original 

RASA model was developed by Martin (1998); the revised 

model (Voronin, 2004) includes (1) a rediscretization of 

original RASA model parameters using a finer grid size, (2) 

updated boundary fluxes, (3) a spatially variable recharge rate 

based on recharge rates determined as part of recent studies 

of the surficial aquifers of the Coastal Plain, and (4) updated 

ground-water withdrawals for 1981–98. 

The following describes the revised model. The extent 

of the model is shown in figure 1. The model grid consists of 

135 rows and 245 columns with a cell size of 0.25 mi2 over 

most of Critical Area 2, 0.31 mi2 elsewhere in the Coastal 

Plain, and up to 3.16 mi2 in offshore areas (Voronin, 2004, 

plate 1). The ratio of the revised number of cells to the original 

number of cells is 25 to 1 in onshore areas. Rediscretization 

allows modeled withdrawals to be located more accurately, 

as withdrawals are simulated at the nodal center of each grid 

cell. Stress periods were changed from the original model to 

incorporate updated withdrawal data. The Coastal Plain was 

discretized vertically into 10 aquifers and 9 intervening confining units. All aquifers were modeled as confined layers with 

a constant saturated thickness. Some aquifers, including the 

Lower Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer, are not continuous 

throughout the Coastal Plain.

The boundary conditions in the revised RASA model 

are the same as those used in the original RASA model. The 

northwestern limit of the Coastal Plain is the Fall Line (fig. 1), 

which is modeled as a no-flow boundary. (The Fall Line is the 

topographic boundary between physiographic provinces—the 

western margin of the Coastal Plain and the eastern margin 

of the Piedmont.) Flows at the northeastern and southwestern 

boundaries are computed from flows from larger areal models 

(Leahy and Martin, 1993; Pope and Gordon, 1999). Flows at 

the southwestern boundary of the Potomac-Raritan-Magothy 

aquifer system were updated on the basis of water-level 

declines to account for the large increases in withdrawals in 

Delaware from 1988 to 1998. The southeastern boundary in 

most aquifers is a no-flow boundary, representing the downdip 

limit of freshwater. This boundary in each aquifer, as delineated by chloride concentrations of 10,000 mg/L, can be found 

in Martin (1998).

Most of the Coastal Plain aquifers have outcrop areas that 

receive recharge from precipitation and are in direct contact 

with streams. The upper boundary in onshore grid cells that 

contain stream reaches is a head-dependent flow boundary 

(simulated using the River and Drain Packages of MODFLOW). The upper boundary in remaining onshore modeled 

areas is specified recharge. A spatially variable recharge rate 

equal to long-term precipitation minus long-term evapotranspiration and surface-water runoff was applied to these cells. 

The upper boundary in offshore modeled areas is a constant 

equivalent freshwater head. The lower boundary is crystalline 

bedrock and is modeled as a no-flow boundary.

Subsequent minor changes were made to the revised 

RASA model (M.K. Watt, U.S. Geological Survey, written 

commun., 2007): the vertical conductance of the VincentownManasquan confining unit was modified to improve the 

representation of the hydrogeology, (2) the model was updated 

to include 1999–2003 withdrawal data, and a (3) more recent 

version of MODFLOW was used (Harbaugh and others, 

2000). No additional calibration or sensitivity analysis was 

done. This model is on file at the USGS office in West Trenton, N.J.

To simplify the modeling process, the steady-state version of the RASA model was used. Steady-state conditions 

occur when there is no further change in simulated heads with 

time as a result of applied stresses, such as withdrawals. Simu-
12 Recovery of Ground-Water Levels and Analysis of Withdrawals in Critical Area 2, New Jersey

lated heads in the cones of depression in the Potomac-RaritanMagothy aquifer system for 2003 from the steady-state RASA 

model were about 5 ft higher than heads from the transient 

RASA model (M.K. Watt, U.S. Geological Survey, written 

commun., 2007), and steady-state heads were about 10 to 

20 ft higher than observed 2003 water levels. The difference 

between the steady-state and transient models is the result of 

aquifer-storage effects; the difference between the steady-state 

model and observed data is the result of the coarse model 

grid size. Given that an additional 40 years was necessary to 

reach steady-state conditions in the Potomac-Raritan-Magothy 

aquifer system when simulating estimated 2010 withdrawals 

(Gordon, 2007), heads simulated with the steady-state version 

of the RASA model may be higher than actual heads for periods shorter than 40 years.

Model Runs

In a related study of Critical Area 1 (Spitz and others, 

2007), withdrawals were optimized in the RASA model to 

evaluate the effects of increased apportionment of allocations. Because withdrawals in Critical Area 2 are not near full 

allocation, an initial simulation was done to assess the effect 

of full-allocation withdrawals on water levels and saltwater 

intrusion to determine the appropriateness of conducting an 

optimization analysis. A simulation also was made to assess 

the effect of 2003 withdrawals for comparison.

 Model results were evaluated in terms of satisfying the 

mandated hydrologic conditions for Critical Area protection 

with respect to the location of the simulated -30-ft head contour in each aquifer—that is, that the contour (1) not extend 

beyond the boundary of the depleted zone and (or) (2) be at 

least 5 mi updip from the 250-mg/L isochlor for each aquifer. 

Additional supporting conditions were evaluated, including 

the difference in heads between the two simulations. (The 

isochlor locations used in this study were modified from Gill 

and Farlekas (1976) and Lacombe and Rosman (2001) on 

the basis of water-quality data collected through 2006. The 

isochlor in the Lower Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer is 

mapped with limited areal extent.) 

2003 Withdrawals

Withdrawals in 2003 from wells in the depleted zone of 

Critical Area 2 are listed by well in table 1 (at end of report). 

Steady-state simulated head contours from the RASA model 

based on these withdrawals are shown in figure 7. The simulated -30-ft head contour in all three Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifers generally is located within the boundary of the 

depleted zone, except in northern Camden and northwestern 

Burlington Counties in the Lower Potomac-Raritan-Magothy 

aquifer. The area of heads below -30 ft ranges from 389 mi2

in the Middle Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer to 427 mi2 in 

the Lower Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer. The -30-ft head 

contour in all three aquifers generally is located 1 to 10 mi 

downdip from the 250-mg/L isochlor, depending on the flow 

gradient.

Full-Allocation Withdrawals

The RASA model was used to simulate full-allocation 

withdrawals from all wells in the depleted zone of Critical Area 2 (as identified by NJDEP) and proximal wells in 

Salem and Gloucester Counties (as identified by USGS). The 

procedure used to determine full-allocation withdrawals in 

the depleted zone is presented first. NJDEP provided allocation permit numbers and current full allocations. Well permit 

numbers associated with each allocation permit number were 

determined by USGS. Recent withdrawals for each well 

associated with an allocation were used to prorate the full-allocation withdrawals. Average withdrawals from the transient 

RASA model for 2001–03 (M.K. Watt, U.S. Geological Survey, written commun., 2007) were used in the proration.

Withdrawals within the Burlington County Water Allocation Credit Receiving Area (fig. 1) included those by water 

users who had already received credit transfers. Unassigned 

credits were not included in the model. Full-allocation withdrawals in Salem and Gloucester Counties were equivalent 

to adjusted full-allocation withdrawals determined as part 

of a concurrent USGS study (E.G. Charles, U.S. Geological 

Survey, written commun., 2007). Full-allocation withdrawals 

for 154 wells in the depleted zone and 124 wells in Salem and 

Gloucester Counties were greater than 2003 withdrawals, and 

total full-allocation withdrawals exceed 2003 withdrawals by 

17.4 Mgal/d.

Individual wells and associated withdrawals in Salem 

and Gloucester Counties are listed in table 2 (at end of report). 

Differences between 2003 withdrawals and full-allocation 

withdrawals for individual wells can be determined from 

tables 1 and 2. Steady-state simulated heads from the RASA 

model based on full-allocation withdrawals are shown in 

figure 8. The simulated -30-ft head contour extends beyond 

the boundary of the depleted zone in all three Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifers in northern Camden and northwestern 

Burlington Counties; the contour also extends beyond the 

boundary in the Upper Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer 

in Gloucester and Salem Counties. If unassigned Burlington 

County Water Allocation Credits had been included in the 

model, the -30 ft contour might have reached the boundary of 

the depleted zone in the Middle Potomac-Raritan-Magothy 

aquifer in the Credit Receiving Area. The area of heads below 

-30 ft ranges from 616 mi2 in the Upper Potomac-RaritanMagothy aquifer to 813 mi2

 in the Lower Potomac-RaritanMagothy aquifer. The -30-ft head contour in all three Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifers generally is located 5 to 15 mi 

downdip from the 250-mg/L isochlor.
Evaluation of Effects of 2003 and Full-Allocation Withdrawals 13 Figure 7. Simulated potentiometric surface for 2003 withdrawals in the (a) Upper, (b) Middle, and (c) Lower Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifers in Critical Area 2, southern New Jersey.

ATLANTIC

BURLINGTON

OCEAN

CUMBERLAND

CAMDEN

GLOUCESTER

MERCER

SALEM

MONMOUTH

CAPE MAY

MIDDLESEX

74°30' 75°

40°39°30'

(a)

ATLANTIC

BURLINGTON

OCEAN

CUMBERLAND

CAMDEN

GLOUCESTER

MERCER

SALEM

MONMOUTH

CAPE MAY

MIDDLESEX

74°30' 75°

40°39°30'

(b)

ATLANTIC

BURLINGTON

OCEAN

CUMBERLAND

CAMDEN

GLOUCESTER

MERCER

SALEM

MONMOUTH

CAPE MAY

MIDDLESEX

74°30' 75°

40°39°30'

(c)

EXPLANATION

250-milligram-per-liter isochlor

AQUIFER OUTCROP AREA SIMULATED POTENTIOMETRIC

 CONTOUR—Shows altitude of heads, in feet above NGVD 29. Interval is variable

Simulated aquifer limit

0 10 20 MILES0 10 20 KILOMETERS

CRITICAL AREA 2—From New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (unpublished). Boundary is approximate and should not be used for regulatory compliance purposes

AREA OF HEADS BELOW -30 FEET

Depleted zone

Threatened margin

-30

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:24,000Universal Transverse Mercator Projection, Zone 18, NAD83

0

-10

20

-30

40

-50

-10

0 -50

0

-10

20

40

20

-30

0

-10

-30

-50

-10
14 Recovery of Ground-Water Levels and Analysis of Withdrawals in Critical Area 2, New Jersey

Figure 8. Simulated potentiometric surface for full-allocation withdrawals in the (a) Upper, (b) Middle, and (c) Lower Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifers in Critical Area 2, southern New Jersey.

ATLANTIC

BURLINGTON

OCEAN

CUMBERLAND

CAMDEN

GLOUCESTER

MERCER

SALEM

MONMOUTH

CAPE MAY

MIDDLESEX

74°30' 75°

40°39°30'

(a)

ATLANTIC

BURLINGTON

OCEAN

CUMBERLAND

CAMDEN

GLOUCESTER

MERCER

SALEM

MONMOUTH

CAPE MAY

MIDDLESEX

74°30' 75°

40°39°30'

(b)

ATLANTIC

BURLINGTON

OCEAN

CUMBERLAND

CAMDEN

GLOUCESTER

MERCER

SALEM

MONMOUTH

CAPE MAY

MIDDLESEX

74°30' 75°

40°39°30'

(c)

EXPLANATION

250-milligram-per-liter isochlor

AQUIFER OUTCROP AREA SIMULATED POTENTIOMETRIC

 CONTOUR—Shows altitude of heads, in feet above NGVD 29. Interval is variable

Simulated aquifer limit

0 10 20 MILES0 10 20 KILOMETERS

CRITICAL AREA 2—From New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (unpublished). Boundary is approximate and should not be used for regulatory compliance purposes

AREA OF HEADS BELOW -30 FEET

Depleted zone

Threatened margin

-30

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:24,000Universal Transverse Mercator Projection, Zone 18, NAD83

0

-30

-10

-50

-30

0

-10

-30

20

40

-50

20

0

-10

20

-30

40

-50

-10

0
Evaluation of Effects of 2003 and Full-Allocation Withdrawals 15 Figure 9. Simulated head difference between 2003 and full-allocation withdrawals in the (a) Upper, (b) Middle, and (c) Lower Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifers in Critical Area 2, southern New Jersey.

ATLANTIC

BURLINGTON

OCEAN

CUMBERLAND

CAMDEN

GLOUCESTER

MERCER

SALEM

MONMOUTH

CAPE MAY

MIDDLESEX

74°30' 75°

40°39°30'

(a)

ATLANTIC

BURLINGTON

OCEAN

CUMBERLAND

CAMDEN

GLOUCESTER

MERCER

SALEM

MONMOUTH

CAPE MAY

MIDDLESEX

74°30' 75°

40°39°30'

(b)

ATLANTIC

BURLINGTON

OCEAN

CUMBERLAND

CAMDEN

GLOUCESTER

MERCER

SALEM

MONMOUTH

CAPE MAY

MIDDLESEX

74°30' 75°

40°39°30'

(c)

EXPLANATION

0 10 20 MILES0 10 20 KILOMETERS

250-milligram-per-liter isochlor

Simulated aquifer limit

CRITICAL AREA 2—From New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (unpublished). Boundary is approximate and should not be used for regulatory compliance purposes

Depleted zone

Threatened margin

SIMULATED HEAD DIFFERENCE— 2003 minus full allocation withdrawals, in feet

-5 – -0.010 – 4.995 – 9.9910 – 14.9915 – 19.99

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:24,000Universal Transverse Mercator Projection, Zone 18, NAD83
16 Recovery of Ground-Water Levels and Analysis of Withdrawals in Critical Area 2, New Jersey

Comparison of Results

The difference in simulated heads between 2003 and 

full-allocation withdrawals is shown in figure 9. Generally, 

head differences were 0 to 10 ft lower in all the PotomacRaritan-Magothy aquifers along the depleted-zone boundary 

and 250-mg/L isochlor for each aquifer. Head differences 

were up to 15 ft lower in the Upper Potomac-Raritan-Magothy 

aquifer over a large area centered on Gloucester County and 

in the Middle and Lower Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifers 

in isolated areas of Gloucester and Burlington Counties. The 

area of heads below -30 ft in the three aquifers was 227 to 

386 mi2 greater for full allocation than for 2003 withdrawals. 

In outcrop areas, the difference in simulated heads was generally less than 5 ft but as much as 15 ft in parts of Gloucester 

County. Results of these model runs indicate that withdrawals 

at full-allocation levels would cause the -30-ft head contour 

to extend beyond the boundary of the depleted zone and the 

250-mg/L isochlor for each aquifer in several areas; therefore, 

evaluation of the effects of withdrawals greater than full allocation was unnecessary.

Comparison with Observed Data

Because observed 2003 water levels (fig. 3) are generally 

lower than simulated 2003 heads (fig. 7), actual conditions 

may be more acute than simulated conditions. The observed 

2003 water-level data indicate that the -30-ft water-level contour in all three Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifers reaches 

or extends beyond the boundary of the depleted zone and 

is located 5 to 20 mi downdip from the 250-mg/L isochlor 

(dePaul and others, 2008). An implication of both the simulated results and observed data discussed in this section is 

that optimization analysis for Critical Area 2, as was done for 

Critical Area 1, is not necessary.

Limitations of the Analysis

The results of this study should be evaluated in terms of 

the limitations and assumptions associated with the model and 

input data. Data error may include inaccuracies in interpreted 

potentiometric surfaces, locations of observed 250-mg/L 

isochlors, and withdrawal data. For example, withdrawal data 

used in this study are derived from values reported to the 

NJDEP by water users. These data represent the best information available, although the associated accuracy is not always 

known.

Limitations and assumptions of the MODFLOW model 

are discussed in Harbaugh and others (2000). Limitations 

and assumptions of the RASA model are discussed in Martin 

(1998) and Voronin (2004). Some differences between simulated heads and observed water levels could not be resolved 

during RASA model calibration. Nevertheless, the RASA 

model has proven to be a good predictor in previous hydrologic studies, particularly at a regional scale. The assumption 

of steady-state conditions indicates that there is no further 

change in simulated heads with time as a result of withdrawal 

stresses. As described earlier, results of previous simulations 

of projected 2010 withdrawals indicate that steady-state conditions are not reached for more than 40 years; therefore, heads 

from simulation of steady-state conditions may be higher 

than heads from simulation of shorter duration. The analysis documented herein is considered reasonable given these 

limitations.

Summary and Conclusions

Water levels in the Upper, Middle, and Lower aquifers of 

the Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer system in Water Supply 

Critical Area 2 in the southern New Jersey Coastal Plain have 

recovered since the early 1990s as a result of NJDEP-mandated reductions in ground-water withdrawals in the Critical 

Area. Critical Area 2 is located in Burlington, Camden, Gloucester, and Atlantic Counties and small parts of Ocean, Salem, 

and Cumberland Counties. Maximum withdrawals in 1993 

were mandated to be 22 percent less than those in 1988 in the 

depleted zone of the Critical Area, and were limited to the 

maximum annual rate during 1983–91 in the threatened margin in order to mitigate adverse effects on the sustainability of 

the ground-water supply. Recent increased water demand as a 

result of development in Critical Area 2 prompted the NJDEP 

to evaluate the possibility of revising current water-use allocations.

Average withdrawals in the depleted zone of Critical 

Area 2 from 1993 (when reductions were implemented) to 

2003 were about 23 Mgal/d from the Upper aquifer, 14 Mgal/d 

from the Middle aquifer, and 25 Mgal/d from the Lower 

aquifer. During that period, water levels recovered as much as 

40 ft in these aquifers, with much of that recovery occurring 

in Camden County. In Critical Area 2 and surrounding areas, 

the area of recovery was most extensive in the Middle aquifer, 

but the magnitude of recovery was greatest in the Upper and 

Lower aquifers. The recovery in the Upper aquifer was 10 to 

20 ft in parts of Burlington, Camden, and Gloucester Counties 

and 20 to 40 ft in a 91.1-mi2 area of the latter two counties. 

The recovery in the Middle aquifer was 10 to 20 ft in parts of 

the three counties and 20 to 35 ft in a 48.3-mi2 area of Camden 

County. The recovery in the Lower aquifer was 10 to 20 ft in 

parts of the three counties and 20 to 30 ft in a 68.1-mi2 area of 

the counties.

An existing regional ground-water flow model of 

the New Jersey Coastal Plain, the U.S. Geological Survey 

Regional Aquifer System Analysis (RASA) model, was used 

to simulate steady-state ground-water flow in the PotomacRaritan-Magothy aquifer system to determine the effects of 

ground-water withdrawals on heads in Critical Area 2. Two 

withdrawal options were simulated—2003 withdrawals and 

full-allocation withdrawals (17.4 Mgal/d greater than 2003 
References Cited 17

withdrawals). The effects of these two withdrawal options in 

each of the three aquifers were evaluated by examining simulated heads and the difference in simulated heads (1) within 

the Critical Area, (2) at the boundary of the depleted zone, and 

(3) at the 250-mg/L isochlor for each aquifer. Observed 2003 

water levels also were considered in the evaluation.

Simulation results indicate that, for 2003 withdrawals, the simulated -30-ft head contour in all three aquifers is 

generally within the boundary of the depleted zone, except 

in the Lower aquifer in northern Camden and northwestern 

Burlington Counties, and is generally 1 to 10 mi downdip 

from the 250-mg/L isochlor. (Corresponding observed data 

indicate that the -30-ft water-level contour extends beyond 

the southwest boundary of the depleted zone in the Upper and 

Middle aquifers and is generally 5 to 20 mi downdip from the 

250-mg/L isochlor in all three aquifers.) The area in which 

heads are below -30 ft ranges from 389 mi2 in the Middle 

aquifer to 427 mi2 in the Lower aquifer. For full-allocation 

withdrawals, the simulated -30-ft head contour extends beyond 

the boundary of the depleted zone in all three aquifers in 

northern Camden and northwestern Burlington Counties and 

in the Upper aquifer in Gloucester and Salem Counties, and 

is generally 5 to 15 mi downdip from the 250-mg/L isochlor. 

The area in which heads are below -30 ft ranges from 616 mi2

in the Upper aquifer to 813 mi2 in the Lower aquifer. These 

simulation results and the analysis of observed water-level 

recoveries indicate that any increase in withdrawals from 2003 

values in Critical Area 2 would likely cause heads in the three 

aquifers to decline below the minimum values mandated by 

the NJDEP.

References Cited

dePaul, V.T., Rosman, R., and Lacombe, P.J., 2008, Waterlevel conditions in selected confined aquifers of the New 

Jersey and Delaware Coastal Plain, 2003: U.S. Geological 

Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2008–5145.

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., 7 pl.

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 83-4029, 146 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.

Gordon, A.D., 2007, Simulated effects of projected 2010 withdrawals on ground-water flow and water levels in the New 

Jersey Coastal Plain—A task of the New Jersey Water Supply Plan, 2006 Revision: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific 

Investigations Report 2007–5134, 116 p.

Harbaugh, A.W., and McDonald, M.G., 1996, User’s documentation for MODFLOW-96, an update to the U.S. Geological Survey modular finite-difference ground-water-flow 

model: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 96-485, 

56 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.

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 No. 30, 130 p.

Hoffman, J.L., and Lieberman, S.E., 2000, New Jersey water 

withdrawals 1990-1996: New Jersey Geological Survey 

Open-File Report 00-1, 37 p., 6 app.

Hutson, S.S., Barber, N.L., Kenny, J.F., Linsey, K.S., Lumia, 

D.S., and Maupin, M.A., 2004, Estimated use of water in 

the United States in 2000: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 

1268, 46 p.

Lacombe, P.J., and Rosman, R., 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, R., 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, 81 p., 22 pl.

Martin, Mary, 1998, Ground-water flow in the New Jersey 

Coastal Plain: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 

1404-H, 146 p.
18 Recovery of Ground-Water Levels and Analysis of Withdrawals in Critical Area 2, New Jersey

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, 184 p.

New Jersey Administrative Code, 2005, New Jersey water 

supply allocation rules: Title 7, chapter 19, subchapter 8: 

Trenton, N.J.

New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, 1996, 

New Jersey statewide water supply plan: New Jersey 

Department of Environmental Protection, Trenton, N.J., 

173 p., 5 app.

New Jersey Department of Labor and Workforce Development, 2006, Selected population trends for New Jersey 

counties and municipalities, 1980-2000: Redistricting 

data (Public Law 94-171), Table 6—Population for the 

15 largest counties, cities, and townships in New Jersey, 

1990 and 2000: Unpublished data accessed August 15, 

2007, at http://wnjpin.state.nj.us/OneStopCareerCenter/

LaborMarketInformation/lmi25/pl94/.

New Jersey Statutes Annotated, 1981, New Jersey water supply management act: Title 58, chapter 1A, sections 1-17: 

Trenton, N.J.

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, 

156 p.

Rosman, R., 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.

Rush, F.E., 1968, Geology and ground-water resources of 

Burlington County, New Jersey: New Jersey Department of 

Conservation and Economic Development Special Report 

no. 26, 65 p.

Spitz, F.J., Watt, M.K., and dePaul, V.T., 2008, Recovery of 

ground-water levels and evaluation of water-supply management options in Critical Area 1, east-central New Jersey: 

U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 

2007–5193, 40 p.

Voronin, L.M., 2004, Documentation of revision 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.

Zapecza, O.S., 1989, Hydrogeologic framework of the New 

Jersey Coastal Plain: U.S. Geological Survey Professional 

Paper 1404-B, 49 p., 24 pl.
Table 1 19

Table 1. Withdrawals from and model locations of production wells in the depleted zone of Critical Area 2, southern New Jersey.—Continued[NJDEP, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection; USGS, U.S. Geological Survey; BWA, Bureau of Water Allocation; ft, foot; Mgal/d, million gallons per day; WD, Water Department; WC, Water Company; MUA, Municipal Utilities Authority; NJ, New Jersey; Co, Company; Inc, Incorporated; ---, not available]

Well owner Local well name

Well 

depth

(ft)

Depth to 

top 

of open 

interval1

(ft)

Depth to 

bottom 

of open 

interval

(ft)

NJDEP USGS

BWA 

permit 

number

Well 

permit 

number

Full 

allocation2

(Mgal/d)

Local 

well 

number3

Model 

layer4

Model 

row

Model 

column

2003 

withdrawal 

(Mgal/d)

Aqua New Jersey Blackwod div 7 479 437 479 5007 3108176 0.517 070250 8 27 94 0.421

Blackwod div 6 480 407 477 do. 3105581 0.649 070252 8 28 97 0.624Blackwod div 3 447 426 447 do. 3102703 0.299 070249 8 26 95 0.369H 4 453 405 453 5007 3108539 0.321 070600 8 27 93 0.372

Bellmawr Borough WD WD 4 557 380 557 5223 3104969 0.363 070008 10 17 98 0.312

Bellmawr Ps 557 458 557 do. 3112315 0.270 070523 10 17 99 0.238PW 6 381 330 381 do. 3119218 0.172 070601 10 16 98 0.173Bellmawr PW 3 359 334 359 do. 3102687 0.161 070012 10 15 98 0.134

Berlin Borough WD Berlin PW 9 713 650 713 5044 3102079 0.982 070018 8 35 104 0.682

Berlin PW 11 745 675 745 do. 3106208 0.511 070015 8 36 103 0.539

Brooklawn Borough WD 5(OW 3) 320 300 320 5030 3114471 0.114 070531 10 13 97 0.118

PW 4 293 263 293 do. 3119765 0.039 070596 10 13 97 0.027PW 3 327 307 327 do. 3104325 0.135 070520 10 13 97 0.076

Clayton Borough WD Clayton P-3 800 746 800 5244 3102889 0.119 150001 8 39 79 0.050

4-1973 740 670 740 do. 3106676 0.333 150003 8 36 80 0.128

Clementon Borough WD Clementon PW 10 629 600 629 5168 3112301 0.292 070521 8 31 100 0.155Collingswood WD PW 4 304 274 304 5209 5100030 0.230 070177 10 12 105 0.193

7(B) 313 224 313 do. 3104797 0.325 070171 10 13 103 0.257PW 2R 278 248 278 do. 3104053 0.009 070176 10 12 105 0.003PW 3 287 257 287 do. 3104054 0.018 070178 10 12 105 0.025PW 5 278 248 278 do. 5100031 1.538 070179 10 12 106 1.454Collingswood PW 1R 306 266 306 do. 3100079 0.008 070175 10 12 105 0.001

Deptford Township MUA Deptford PW 7 324.42 259.42 319.42 5336 3122504 0.474 151036 9 21 89 0.320

Deptford PW 4 345 282 345 do. 3105513 0.090 150024 9 16 96 0.151Booster Sta 8 261 198 258 do. 3137705 0.237 151089 8 19 95 0.053Deptford PW 6 489 430 486 do. 3113385 0.727 150374 9 20 91 0.753PW 1 273 252 273 do. 3102416 0.122 150016 8 18 89 0.073
20 Recovery of Ground-Water Levels and Analysis of Withdrawals in Critical Area 2, New Jersey Table 1. Withdrawals from and model locations of production wells in the depleted zone of Critical Area 2, southern New Jersey.—Continued [NJDEP, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection; USGS, U.S. Geological Survey; BWA, Bureau of Water Allocation; ft, foot; Mgal/d, million gallons per day; WD, Water Department; WC, Water Company; MUA, Municipal Utilities Authority; NJ, New Jersey; Co, Company; Inc, Incorporated; ---, not available] Well owner Local well name Well depth (ft) Depth to top of open interval1 (ft) Depth to bottom of open interval (ft) NJDEP USGS BWA permit number Well permit number Full allocation2 (Mgal/d) Local well number3 Model layer4 Model row Model column 2003 withdrawal (Mgal/d) Evesham Township MUA PW 6 550 458 550 5004 3107453 0.501 050757 8 30 118 0.465 Mlwc 5/Emua 9 463 416 463 do. 3109595 0.531 050795 8 29 116 0.507 Evesham PW 7 441 405 441 do. 3114627 0.426 050707 8 26 115 0.458 PW 8 435 375 435 do. 3120373 0.181 050824 8 28 115 0.269 Kgwc 2/Emua 11 591 545.08 591 do. 3106841 0.146 050820 8 33 113 0.103 Evesham 4 500 464 500 do. 3105458 0.355 050165 8 29 114 0.427 Kgwc 1/Emua 10 593 546.5 593 do. 3106840 0.136 050755 8 33 113 0.091 Evesham 5 555 478 548 do. 3107883 0.349 050167 8 32 118 0.161 Glassboro WD PW 2 602 562 602 5135 5100042 0.193 150062 8 31 83 0.178 Glassboro PW 4 599 549 599 do. 3104176 0.630 150063 8 30 83 0.491 Glassboro PW 3 612 562 612 do. 3102358 0.330 150060 8 31 80 0.223 Gloucester City WD PW 41 265 225 265 5010 3127737 0.677 070902 8 12 100 0.503 PW 40 262 221 261 do. 3104306 0.074 070220 10 12 100 0.015 PW 43 260 219.5 260 do. 3118822 0.472 070516 10 12 100 0.390 PW 42 306 --- --- do. 3105242 0.195 070210 10 12 100 0.168 Haddon Township WD Rhoades Ave 3A 475 418 470 5235 3128896 0.240 070723 10 16 105 0.177 1-R 480 --- --- do. 3105243 0.327 070291 10 16 105 0.072 Haddon PW 5 450 355 445 do. 3159128 0.445 071085 10 15 105 0.710 Haddonfield Borough WD PW 1A 249 206 246 5152 3102570 0.168 070997 8 19 106 0.098 Hwd 8/Hwd 7 550 500 550 do. 3109694 0.579 070525 10 19 106 0.493 Rulon 572 523 572 do. 3102130 0.258 070302 10 19 106 0.231 Inversand Co Ind 2 355 --- --- 2391P 3102558 0.091 151407 9 25 86 0.123 Johnson, Peter & William Irr 2 445 --- --- BU0087 5100157 0.103 051485 8 28 123 0.038

Laurel Creek Country Club Irr 1R 305 285 305 2385P 3152021 0.000 051548 9 18 125 0.001

PW 3 283 257 277 do. 3147958 0.004 051522 9 19 127 0.003PW 2 280 260 280 do. 3148385 0.001 051523 9 19 127 0.000

Mantua Township MUA Mantua PW 4 265 230 265 5314 3105309 0.150 150194 8 18 85 0.157

PW 5 337 315 337 do. 3102987 0.173 150192 8 19 83 0.148PW 3 317 295 317 do. 3101140 0.075 150193 8 19 85 0.085PW 2 368 336 368 do. 3104791 0.160 150191 8 22 86 0.145
Table 1 21

Table 1. Withdrawals from and model locations of production wells in the depleted zone of Critical Area 2, southern New Jersey.—Continued[NJDEP, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection; USGS, U.S. Geological Survey; BWA, Bureau of Water Allocation; ft, foot; Mgal/d, million gallons per day; WD, Water Department; WC, Water Company; MUA, Municipal Utilities Authority; NJ, New Jersey; Co, Company; Inc, Incorporated; ---, not available]

Well owner Local well name

Well 

depth

(ft)

Depth to 

top 

of open 

interval1

(ft)

Depth to 

bottom 

of open 

interval

(ft)

NJDEP USGS

BWA 

permit 

number

Well 

permit 

number

Full 

allocation2

(Mgal/d)

Local 

well 

number3

Model 

layer4

Model 

row

Model 

column

2003 

withdrawal 

(Mgal/d)

Maple Shade WD Maple Shade 8 270 210 270 5190 3106020 0.250 050232 9 15 115 0.157

Maple Shade 10 500 440 500 do. 3108923 0.141 050228 10 17 114 0.141Maple Shade 9 200 160 200 do. 3108922 0.063 050229 8 17 114 0.165PW 11 450 389 450 do. 3112925 1.373 050746 10 15 115 1.180

Medford Leas 1-1972 471 447 471 5323 3106056 0.001 050253 8 32 124 0.000

2-1977 471 451 471 do. 3110560 0.072 050254 8 32 124 0.064

Medford Township WD Medford PW 6 672 593 672 5039 3116976 0.237 050759 8 36 119 0.253

Medford 3/1 544 523 541 do. 3105282 0.076 050249 8 34 118 0.1221(3)/MWC 8 536 506 536 do. 3102752 0.352 050252 8 32 123 0.3044(1968) 536 506 536 do. 3105301 0.291 050251 8 33 121 0.235

Merchantville-Pennsauken 

Water Co

Woodbine 2 226 196 226 5173 3114563 0.534 070560 10 11 109 0.959National Hwy 2 206 182 206 do. 3119207 0.461 070602 10 9 115 0.831Park Ave 1 270 240 270 do. 3100010 0.101 070349 10 12 114 0.174Park Ave 3 275 240 275 do. 3103534 0.478 070348 10 12 114 0.3971R/Browning 1A 152 132 152 do. 3105641 0.274 070319 9 11 108 0.396Browning 2A/Browning 1 140 110 140 do. 3104836 0.041 070329 9 11 108 0.229Park Ave 2 257 232 257 do. 5100064 0.141 070350 10 11 114 0.3974R-A/Park Ave 6 270 240 270 do. 3114564 0.141 070530 10 12 113 0.397Woodbine 1 285 245 285 do. 3104642 0.308 070320 10 11 109 0.395Marion 1 278 243 278 do. 3102915 0.218 070335 10 11 111 0.493Marion 2 258 223 258 do. 3104641 0.406 070332 10 12 111 0.836Browning Wtp 3A 185.3 107.7 180.3 do. 3143933 0.099 070904 9 11 108 0.153Park Ave 5 288 248 288 do. 3100011 0.141 070345 10 12 114 0.397

Moorestown Township WD PW 5 288 248 288 5121 3104663 0.569 050264 9 17 116 0.210

PW 3 299 269 299 do. 5100041 0.507 050266 9 17 116 0.196

Mount Laurel MUA PW 6 590 499 590 5193 3119212 1.964 050819 10 20 117 0.343National Park Borough WD PW 6 272 240 272 5153 3117938 0.295 150533 10 11 92 0.264

NPWd 2/NPWd 5 282 241 282 do. 3102555 0.010 150207 10 10 92 0.007
22 Recovery of Ground-Water Levels and Analysis of Withdrawals in Critical Area 2, New Jersey Table 1. Withdrawals from and model locations of production wells in the depleted zone of Critical Area 2, southern New Jersey.—Continued [NJDEP, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection; USGS, U.S. Geological Survey; BWA, Bureau of Water Allocation; ft, foot; Mgal/d, million gallons per day; WD, Water Department; WC, Water Company; MUA, Municipal Utilities Authority; NJ, New Jersey; Co, Company; Inc, Incorporated; ---, not available] Well owner Local well name Well depth (ft) Depth to top of open interval1 (ft) Depth to bottom of open interval (ft) NJDEP USGS BWA permit number Well permit number Full allocation2 (Mgal/d) Local well number3 Model layer4 Model row Model column 2003 withdrawal (Mgal/d) NJ/American WC Highland & Walnut OW-64 545 452 535 5197 3140817 0.717 070733 9 21 102 0.601 Haddon 30 275 224 275 do. 3104798 0.112 070279 8 18 103 0.028 Haddon 15 594 452 594 do. 3102434 0.704 070278 10 18 103 0.840 Haddon 20 275 236 267 do. 3103375 0.410 070275 8 19 103 0.308 Magnolia 33 348 271 348 do. 3105100 0.411 070316 8 21 102 0.268 Runnemede 19 339 297 339 do. 3103307 0.239 070404 8 20 99 0.268 Somerdale 14 441 --- --- do. 3102360 0.052 070410 8 24 103 0.041 Otterbrook 39 349 269 349 do. 3105226 0.779 070274 8 21 99 0.735 Otterbrook 34 377 --- --- do. 3105041 0.493 070272 8 22 99 0.281 Otterbrook 29 712 612 712 do. 3104756 0.332 070273 10 21 99 0.294 Trenton & Second OW-63 509 333 499 do. 3140970 1.408 070734 9 19 103 1.337 Laurel 15 473 395 442 5200 3104723 0.154 070311 8 27 102 0.556 PW 43 1,011 923 1,011 do. 3105951 0.895 070183 10 28 104 0.711 Laurel 13 456 394 456 do. 3101363 0.467 070310 8 27 102 0.437 Gibbsboro 41 1,099 1,022 1,097 do. 3105949 0.571 070189 10 28 105 0.915 Gibbsboro 42 998 934 986 do. 3105950 0.664 070188 10 28 104 1.040 Old Orchard 37 488 454 488 5203 3105219 0.586 070134 9 24 113 0.365 Old Orchard 38 493 443 493 do. 3105218 1.086 070135 9 24 113 1.396 Old Orchard 36 349 299 349 do. 3105217 0.396 070133 8 24 113 0.429 Browning 65 759 695 754 do. 3138319 0.090 070739 10 22 108 0.163 Browning 45 626 483 626 do. 3107020 0.564 070124 9 22 108 0.581 Browning 44 741 684 741 do. 3107021 1.258 070122 10 22 108 1.444 Browning 46 735 664 735 do. 3107019 0.825 070123 10 22 108 0.801

Murray Ave Asr-1 353 236 350 do. 3140911 0.188 070994 9 15 109 0.389Mansfield PW-2 527 439 522 5025X 2835141 0.622 051410 9 20 149 0.483Mansfield PW-4 536 447 533 do. 2835937 0.444 051411 9 20 149 0.525Mansfield PW-3 536 449 531 do. 2835936 0.564 051409 9 20 149 0.492Wtr Sys 530 437 525 do. 2835140 0.543 051408 9 20 149 0.583

Pine Hill MUA Pine Hill 2-1972 698 668 698 5335 3106646 0.165 070398 8 32 100 0.136

Pine Hill PW 4 670 590 665 do. 3137826 0.401 070824 8 33 99 0.412
Table 1 23

Table 1. Withdrawals from and model locations of production wells in the depleted zone of Critical Area 2, southern New Jersey.—Continued[NJDEP, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection; USGS, U.S. Geological Survey; BWA, Bureau of Water Allocation; ft, foot; Mgal/d, million gallons per day; WD, Water Department; WC, Water Company; MUA, Municipal Utilities Authority; NJ, New Jersey; Co, Company; Inc, Incorporated; ---, not available]

Well owner Local well name

Well 

depth

(ft)

Depth to 

top 

of open 

interval1

(ft)

Depth to 

bottom 

of open 

interval

(ft)

NJDEP USGS

BWA 

permit 

number

Well 

permit 

number

Full 

allocation2

(Mgal/d)

Local 

well 

number3

Model 

layer4

Model 

row

Model 

column

2003 

withdrawal 

(Mgal/d)

Pitman Borough WD Pitman PW P3 487 447 487 5137 3104061 0.088 150227 8 27 84 0.010

PW P4 520 --- --- do. 5100018 0.572 150385 8 28 83 0.216

Pitman Country Club Irr 408 378 408 2280P 3105060 0.010 150183 8 25 82 0.004Ramblewood Country Club Pond Well 425 --- --- 2108P 3107140 0.013 050749 9 23 117 0.009Sunoco Inc Ind 1 288 248 288 2205P 3100007 0.368 150320 10 12 94 0.358

Eagle Point 5 277 237 277 do. 3100028 1.126 150321 10 12 95 0.614Ind 3 288 258 288 do. 3100008 0.167 150322 10 12 94 0.243Eagle Point 6A 331 256 328 2205P 3117788 0.567 150430 10 12 93 0.168

Sybron Chemical Inc Ind 4 829 773 824 2181P 3202387 0.519 050382 9 33 139 0.171

Ind 5 828 747 823 do. 3203778 0.560 050385 9 32 139 0.344

Tavistock Country Club Irr 247 219 247 2299P 3105248 0.013 070411 8 21 105 0.007US Air Force McGuire D 1,075 1,012 1,075 2236P 2800797 0.267 050335 9 36 153 0.348

McGuire A 1,055 992 1055 do. 2800796 0.565 050337 9 34 153 0.670McGuire C 1089 1036 1,089 do. 2800795 0.448 050336 9 37 155 0.019

US Army Fort Dix 5 1,104 1,064 1,104 5303 4800269 1.145 050332 9 35 150 0.411Washington Township MUA PW 4 417 369 417 5194 3106133 0.172 150268 8 25 93 0.202

Washington Township TW20 711 616 703 do. 3162302 0.022 151543 8 34 89 0.017Washington Township PW 5 618 559 618 do. 5100029 0.370 150248 8 32 87 0.281Washington Township PW 15 712 628 712 do. 3145998 0.907 151365 8 36 90 0.7358(Bels Lk Wc2) 620 544 620 do. 3105206 0.276 150260 8 31 92 0.315PW 3 640 575 640 do. 3106050 0.453 150267 8 29 91 0.468Washington Township PW 9 552 512 552 do. 3117801 0.502 150433 8 26 91 0.467PW 2 577 543 573 do. 3104849 0.180 150265 8 30 92 0.173

Wenonah WD PW 1 320 273 310 5192 5100065 0.096 150274 8 20 88 0.088

Wenonah PW 2 310 268 310 do. 3100170 0.101 150275 8 20 88 0.079

West Deptford Township WD 8-1981 Pkvlle Rd 312 252 309 5304 3117811 0.363 151339 9 17 87 0.115

5 Kings Hiway 450 388 450 do. 3107056 0.281 150282 10 15 87 0.7486 Red Bank Ave 372 322 372 do. 5100063 0.496 150312 10 13 92 0.018West Deptford PW 4 289 242 289 do. 3104567 0.531 150276 8 17 87 0.486PW 7 366 323 363 do. 3117452 0.185 150373 10 14 93 0.201
24 Recovery of Ground-Water Levels and Analysis of Withdrawals in Critical Area 2, New Jersey Table 1. Withdrawals from and model locations of production wells in the depleted zone of Critical Area 2, southern New Jersey.—Continued [NJDEP, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection; USGS, U.S. Geological Survey; BWA, Bureau of Water Allocation; ft, foot; Mgal/d, million gallons per day; WD, Water Department; WC, Water Company; MUA, Municipal Utilities Authority; NJ, New Jersey; Co, Company; Inc, Incorporated; ---, not available] Well owner Local well name Well depth (ft) Depth to top of open interval1 (ft) Depth to bottom of open interval (ft) NJDEP USGS BWA permit number Well permit number Full allocation2 (Mgal/d) Local well number3 Model layer4 Model row Model column 2003 withdrawal (Mgal/d) Westville WD PW 6 317 265 317 5319 3117923 0.000 150434 10 14 97 0.000 PW 5 277 243 277 do. 3105689 0.596 150326 10 14 96 0.412 PW 4 319 286 313 do. 3103418 0.089 150327 10 14 97 0.111 Westwood Golf Club Deep 1 188 174 184 2257P 3143251 0.002 151176 9 15 89 0.002 Irr 140 120 140 do. 3106200 0.036 150295 8 15 89 0.028 Woodbury City WD Sewell 1A 311 263 308 5347X 3105174 0.700 150006 8 23 87 0.371 Sewell 2A 307 244 307 do. 5100101 0.579 150008 8 23 87 0.275 Woodbury Heights Borough 1 Helen Ave 235 190 235 5159 3106356 0.229 150330 8 18 90 0.209 Wrightstown MUA Wrightstown PW 3 732 692 726 5169 2808443 0.103 050726 9 33 152 0.067

1 Model layer is assigned on the basis of aquifer code if open interval is not available.2 Annual current (2003) allocation (Jan Gheen, NJDEP, written commun., 2004). Prorated on the basis of 2001–03 reported use; therefore, value is based on multiple years.3 Number of wells associated with BWA permit is based on Regional Aquifer System Analysis model data (Voronin, 2004).4 Certain model cells may contain more than one well. Layer 8 is the Upper Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer, layer 9 is the Middle or undifferentiated Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer, and layer 10 is 

the Lower Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer (fig. 2).
Table 2 25

Table 2. Withdrawals from and model locations of production wells outside the depleted zone of Critical Area 2 in Salem and Gloucester Counties, New Jersey.—Continued[NJDEP, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection; USGS, U.S. Geological Survey; BWA, Bureau of Water Allocation; ft, foot; Mgal/d, million gallons per day; WD, Water Department; WC, Water Company; WSC, Water Supply Company; NJ, New Jersey; Co, Company; Inc, Incorporated; ---, not available]

Well owner Local well name

Well 

depth 

(ft)

Depth to 

top 

of open 

interval1

(ft)

Depth to 

bottom 

of open 

interval 

(ft)

NJDEP USGS

BWA 

permit 

number

Well 

permit 

number

Full 

allocation2

(Mgal/d)

Local 

well 

number3

Model 

layer4

Model 

row

Model 

column

2003 

withdrawal5

(Mgal/d)

Allied Energy No-1 1977 101 71 91 10762W 3001616 0.102 150399 9 5 76 0.000

Auburn 2 204 184 204 do. 3011400 0.102 330920 8 13 63 0.012

Aqua New Jersey PW 1 225 190 220 5383 3013286 0.010 151532 8 12 68 0.096

PW 2 229 184 224 do. 3013285 0.010 151533 8 12 68 0.104

B F Goodrich Co Ind 3 195 180 195 2166P 5000079 0.002 330432 10 4 64 0.001

6 (PW-2) 129 109 129 do. 3001141 1.071 330085 9 3 63 0.631

BP Oil Co R-6-A 72 6 72 2401P 3007032 0.255 151120 9 8 86 0.083

R-9-A 90 45 90 do. 3007015 0.159 151122 9 8 85 0.101R-8-A 85 39 85 do. 3007014 0.132 151121 9 8 85 0.086R-7-A 40 9.5 40 do. 3007012 0.203 151124 9 8 86 0.085

BP Oil Co-Paulsboro Terminal R-4A 82 11 82 2401P 3006920 0.182 151378 9 8 85 0.079

R-10A 39 9 39 do. 3007028 0.070 151383 8 8 86 0.035

Catalano, Sam Irr 1 230 210 230 SA0124 3010178 0.268 330922 8 16 61 0.019Clendining, Jean Irr 110 87 107 GL0092 3007814 0.086 151566 8 10 73 0.004Colella, Anthony Irr 1 191 171 191 SA0151 3005648 0.049 331009 8 13 63 0.000Conectiv Atl Mickleton Gen Stn Well IND 2 313 293 313 11230W 3016779 0.102 151691 10 13 80 ---Del Monte Corp Swedesboro Ind 9 231 190 231 10469W 3000973 0.102 150240 8 13 71 0.000Dubois Brothers Irr 74 362 337 362 SA0014 3001383 0.055 330198 9 15 60 0.008E I Dupont Irr P1 591 445 591 2122P 3001081 0.037 330067 9 15 55 0.000

Course Land P2 637 385 525 do. 3001082 0.038 330298 9 15 55 0.000Course Land P3 457 381 457 do. 3001083 0.092 330305 9 13 55 0.000Interceptor 46 136 96 136 2251P 3003594 0.746 150692 9 6 80 0.415Repauno 6 109 84 109 do. 3001145 0.104 150079 9 6 80 0.076Repauno 3 101 91 101 do. 3000037 0.628 150072 9 6 79 0.274

East Greenwich Township WD East Greenwich PW 3 246 205 245 5142 3001426 0.306 150355 8 14 84 0.191

East Greenwich PW 2 216 191 216 do. 3000432 0.181 150028 8 14 82 0.184

EM Diagnostic Systems Inc Irr-1985 90 60 90 10472W 3003764 0.102 151346 8 10 79 0.000Ferro Corp PW4 108 60 105 2099P 3013712 0.541 151554 9 3 70 0.000G & G Stecher Irr1 230 200 220 GL0216 3009279 0.031 151565 8 12 68 0.000Gibbstown Soccer Association Irr 1 123 103 123 11028W 3012748 0.102 151597 8 9 80 0.000Gloucester Co Solid Waste 2 Fire Protect 379 359 379 10506W 3004336 0.004 151370 8 18 70 0.000

Com 1 377 357 377 do. 3004335 0.098 151105 8 19 69 0.008

Grasso, J S Ind 1 267 247 267 2423P 3001161 0.085 150339 8 14 68 0.028
26 Recovery of Ground-Water Levels and Analysis of Withdrawals in Critical Area 2, New Jersey Table 2. Withdrawals from and model locations of production wells outside the depleted zone of Critical Area 2 in Salem and Gloucester Counties, New Jersey.—Continued [NJDEP, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection; USGS, U.S. Geological Survey; BWA, Bureau of Water Allocation; ft, foot; Mgal/d, million gallons per day; WD, Water Department; WC, Water Company; WSC, Water Supply Company; NJ, New Jersey; Co, Company; Inc, Incorporated; ---, not available] Well owner Local well name Well depth (ft) Depth to top of open interval1 (ft) Depth to bottom of open interval (ft) NJDEP USGS BWA permit number Well permit number Full allocation2 (Mgal/d) Local well number3 Model layer4 Model row Model column 2003 withdrawal5 (Mgal/d) Greenwich Township WD PW 6 138 105 135 5253 3001776 0.210 150348 9 9 81 0.206 Memorial Ave 4R 171 98 166 do. 3009345 0.280 151364 9 8 83 0.219 5 (2-A) 122 82 117 do. 3001545 0.463 150347 9 7 79 0.395 Gunn, Kevin Irr 170 150 170 SA0166 3014084 0.040 330996 8 13 57 --- Harrison Township Irr 1 397 372 397 11088W 3013781 0.102 151598 8 20 77 0.002 Hercules Chemical 4 1970 120 90.5 120.5 2227P 3001224 0.137 150076 9 7 80 0.047 MW 19B 68 48 68 do. 3003372 0.022 150647 9 7 81 0.000 PW-9 44 13.65 43.65 do. 3004317 0.068 151402 9 7 80 0.027 MW-6 49 34 49 do. 3003264 0.005 151401 9 7 81 0.000 PW-7B 95 55 95 do. 3003650 0.035 151404 9 7 81 0.011 PW-8B 69.5 29.5 69.5 do. 3003651 0.031 151403 9 7 81 0.007 PW 11 120 90 120 do. 3004319 0.281 151034 9 8 79 0.113 PW-8 19.87 9.87 19.87 do. 3003649 0.012 151405 8 8 81 0.005 Huntsman Polypropylene Corp Shell 1 360 328 358 2215P 3000898 0.112 150285 10 12 85 0.000 Shell 3 384 358 383 do. 3000900 0.393 150283 10 12 85 0.000 Shell Ind 2 290 273 288 do. 3000899 0.388 150286 9 12 85 0.000 Kingsway Reg High School District Ath Field Irr 195 180 195 10441W 3003041 0.102 151371 8 13 73 0.002 Logan Generating Co LP PW 1A 97 75 95 4059PS 3008635 0.003 151527 10 3 70 0.000 PW 1B 97 75 95 do. 3008633 0.000 151526 10 3 70 0.000 Maccarone, Samuel Irr-1 165 --- --- GL0033 5000097 0.105 151159 8 9 72 0.013 Irr 2 160 --- --- do. 3010793 0.060 151613 9 9 72 0.016 Marino Bros Irr1 350 330 350 GL0214 3012585 0.164 151558 8 22 67 0.047 Maugeri, Sal Irr S1 152 128 148 GL0107 3000431 0.033 150337 8 12 66 0.021 Monsanto Chem Bridgeport E1 81 56 81 2099P 3000872 0.310 150159 9 3 68 0.139 Bridgeport W2 82 57 82 do. 3000873 0.322 150158 9 2 68 0.507 Ind 1 96 64 94 do. 3001170 0.179 150167 9 3 68 0.133

Muscumeci, Frank 2-Dom 155 125 155 GL0097 3001078 0.220 150524 8 12 73 0.000Musumeci, Anthony Irr 130 115 130 SA0011 3014087 0.088 331010 9 9 63 ---Nicolosi Brothers Farm Irr 1 170 130 170 GL0021 3012217 0.110 151462 8 12 66 0.014NJ/American WC Lwwc Birch Ck Rd 4 96 56 91 5003 3009444 0.481 151362 9 6 68 0.008

PW 3 201 161 201 do. 3002405 0.359 150569 9 9 69 0.296Pure 2(3-1973) 208 158 208 do. 3001371 0.191 150137 9 9 69 0.039Lwwc Pureland Wtp 1A 156 121 155 do. 3005212 0.043 151363 9 8 69 0.000

Nolte, Carl Irr 180 60 180 CU199R 3001042 0.049 150421 8 13 82 0.000Noveon Inc Iw 201 161 198 11036W 3012821 0.102 330984 10 4 64 0.000
Table 2 27

Table 2. Withdrawals from and model locations of production wells outside the depleted zone of Critical Area 2 in Salem and Gloucester Counties, New Jersey.—Continued[NJDEP, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection; USGS, U.S. Geological Survey; BWA, Bureau of Water Allocation; ft, foot; Mgal/d, million gallons per day; WD, Water Department; WC, Water Company; WSC, Water Supply Company; NJ, New Jersey; Co, Company; Inc, Incorporated; ---, not available]

Well owner Local well name

Well 

depth 

(ft)

Depth to 

top 

of open 

interval1

(ft)

Depth to 

bottom 

of open 

interval 

(ft)

NJDEP USGS

BWA 

permit 

number

Well 

permit 

number

Full 

allocation2

(Mgal/d)

Local 

well 

number3

Model 

layer4

Model 

row

Model 

column

2003 

withdrawal5

(Mgal/d)

Paulsboro WD PW 4 220 192 220 5130 3000069 0.014 150212 9 10 83 0.004

Paulsboro PW 5 175 135 175 do. 3000602 0.046 150213 9 10 84 0.004Replacement 7 272 201 269 do. 3011403 0.925 151199 9 11 83 0.685

Pedricktown Cogeneration Ltd PW-1 247.5 207 247.5 2421P 3007176 0.202 330901 10 3 63 0.176

PW-3 205 170 195 do. 3008172 0.239 330899 10 4 63 0.091PW-2 245 215 235 do. 3007824 0.025 330900 10 3 63 0.009

Penns Grove WSC Rf2B 68 50 65 5328 3008511 0.270 330767 8 6 56 0.218

Layton 11 394 --- --- do. 5000098 0.183 330330 10 8 55 0.223PW 4 64 44 54 do. 3001815 0.038 330361 8 8 55 0.000Rf 3A 56 36 56 do. 3003535 0.000 330750 8 6 56 0.0001A/Rf2A 61 41 61 do. 3003310 0.245 330460 8 6 56 0.204PW 1 357 317 357 do. 3000563 0.611 330346 10 6 56 0.433Layton 2 76 47 62 do. 3001113 0.378 330697 8 8 55 0.260Bridgeport Backup-2 84 69 84 5375 3003332 0.062 150697 9 5 72 0.052Bridgeport 2 88 65.4 85.4 do. 3000410 0.081 150166 9 5 72 0.034

Penns Grove-Carneys Point Bd Ed Irr 2 50 30 50 11018W 3012668 0.051 331007 9 6 56 0.001

Irr 1 50 30 50 do. 3012665 0.051 331006 9 6 56 0.000Irr 1 65 45 65 11019W 3012666 0.015 331012 9 4 56 0.000Irr 2 65 45 65 do. 3012667 0.087 331011 9 4 56 0.000

Pennwalt Corp 418 290 237 289 2234P 3001173 0.009 150304 10 11 87 0.001

417 278 234 276 do. 3001174 0.816 150306 10 11 87 0.809

Polyone Corporation Ind 9A 134.58 94 134.58 2166P 3010864 0.095 330964 10 3 63 0.024

Bfg Shallow 10 105 76 102 2166P 3006023 0.271 330784 9 3 63 0.119

Richman Ice Crm Ind 1A 457 414 457 10673W 3003336 0.051 330459 9 18 58 0.000

Ind 2 446 --- --- do. 5000104 0.051 330164 9 19 58 0.006

Rollins Environmental Services 35D 76 61 76 2530P 3009785 0.147 151571 9 9 70 ---

15D 85 65 85 do. 3009789 0.147 151568 9 9 70 ---24D 77 65 77 do. 3009787 0.147 151570 9 9 70 ---21D 82.4 61.5 81.5 do. 3009788 0.147 151569 9 9 70 ---

S & J Leone Farms Inc Well 1 300 --- --- GL0127 5000101 0.175 151664 9 17 82 0.004Sakima Country Club Irr 140 108 138 10687W 3008190 0.102 330983 9 6 54 0.000Sorbella, Thomas & Frank Irr1 270 260 270 GL0101 3008495 0.120 151561 8 18 65 0.000Sorbello, Alfio Irr 280 270 280 GL0046 3000829 0.049 151460 8 19 72 0.045
28 Recovery of Ground-Water Levels and Analysis of Withdrawals in Critical Area 2, New Jersey Table 2. Withdrawals from and model locations of production wells outside the depleted zone of Critical Area 2 in Salem and Gloucester Counties, New Jersey.—Continued [NJDEP, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection; USGS, U.S. Geological Survey; BWA, Bureau of Water Allocation; ft, foot; Mgal/d, million gallons per day; WD, Water Department; WC, Water Company; WSC, Water Supply Company; NJ, New Jersey; Co, Company; Inc, Incorporated; ---, not available] Well owner Local well name Well depth (ft) Depth to top of open interval1 (ft) Depth to bottom of open interval (ft) NJDEP USGS BWA permit number Well permit number Full allocation2 (Mgal/d) Local well number3 Model layer4 Model row Model column 2003 withdrawal5 (Mgal/d) South Jersey Water Supply PW5 253 198 248 5183 3014503 0.039 151529 8 17 74 0.425 PW 3 265 234 265 do. 3000210 0.224 150130 8 21 76 0.101 PW 6 353 308 348 do. 3008859 0.073 151109 8 22 76 0.041 State of NJ-Turnpike Auth Fenwick Srvc Area 388 327 383 5381 3009813 0.001 330845 9 11 58 0.000 Service 1N-2 330 --- --- do. 3000229 0.087 330070 9 13 59 0.036 Stecher, Emily F Irr 3 110 90 110 GL0216 3012655 0.013 151603 8 10 68 0.001 Swedesboro WD PW 2 244 217 240 5105 5000036 0.002 150238 8 14 70 0.005 PW 4 285 207 280 do. 3008730 0.381 151112 8 14 70 0.219 Tomarchio, Alfred S Irr 343 267 343 GL0007 3001565 0.049 150346 8 18 72 0.000 Valero Refining Corp-NJ RW-5A 65 --- --- 2204P 3012907 0.363 151541 8 8 84 0.158 PW-50 152 94 152 2204P 3011162 0.547 151409 9 9 83 0.176 RW-61/1 23 3 23 do. 3010019 0.078 151414 8 8 86 0.000 48 Dwta 153 100 153 do. 3005060 0.625 151039 9 9 83 0.281 RW-22 64 14 59 do. 3011178 0.522 151408 8 9 83 0.211 RW-6 53.5 13.5 48.5 do. 3001905 0.332 150824 9 8 84 0.177 RW-19 60.67 15 55.67 do. 3005642 0.686 151374 9 8 83 0.000 RW-1 23 3 23 do. 3009959 0.139 151415 8 8 86 0.210 Vasalli, Joseph Irr 1 385 355 385 GL0028 3001258 0.115 150132 8 19 77 0.035 Woodstown Borough Woodstown PW 5 675 535 670 5167 3013120 0.185 330933 9 23 60 0.215 PW 2 705 670 705 do. 5000038 0.083 330354 9 22 60 0.018 PW 3 712 692 712 do. 3001441 0.059 330362 9 22 61 0.015 Woolwich Township Irr 1 246 226 246 11233W 3013711 0.051 151610 8 13 70 --- PW 255 240 250 do. 3012350 0.051 151609 8 14 69 --- 1 Model layer is assigned on the basis of aquifer code if open interval is not available.

2 Annual current (2003) allocation. Prorated on the basis of 1999-2001 reported use; therefore, value is based on multiple years. Full-allocation values were adjusted for some wells because these withdrawals are much greater than reported withdrawals (E.G. Charles, U.S. Geological Survey, written commun., 2007).3 More than one well may be associated with one BWA permit.4 Certain model cells may contain more than one well. Layer 8 is the Upper Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer, layer 9 is the Middle or undifferentiated Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer, and layer 10 is 

the Lower Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer (fig. 2).

5 Not simulated by model if withdrawal data are not available.
For additional information, write to:

Director

U.S. Geological Survey

New Jersey Water Science Center

810 Bear Tavern Rd., Suite 206 

West Trenton, NJ 08628

or visit our Web site at:

http://nj.usgs.gov/
Spitz and dePaul—Recovery of Ground-Water Levels and Analysis of Withdrawals in Critical Area 2, New Jersey—Scientific Investigations Report 2008–5142