U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey

Open-File Report 2009–1104

Prepared in cooperation with the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection

Analysis of Effects of 2003 and Full-Allocation Withdrawals 

in Critical Area 1, East-Central New Jersey

Analysis of Effects of 2003 and 

Full-Allocation Withdrawals in Critical 

Area 1, East-Central New Jersey

By Frederick J. Spitz

Prepared in cooperation with the 

New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection

Open-File Report 2009-1104

U.S. Department of the Interior

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

KEN SALAZAR, Secretary

U.S. Geological Survey

Suzette M. Kimball, Acting Director

U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2009

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

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

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

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

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

Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the 

U.S. Government.

Although this report is in the public domain, permission must be secured from the individual copyright owners to 

reproduce any copyrighted materials contained within this report.

Suggested citation:

Spitz, F.J., 2009, Analysis of effects of 2003 and full-allocation withdrawals in Critical Area 1, east-central 

New Jersey: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2009-1104, 14 p.
iii

Contents

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

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

Evaluation of Effects of 2003 and Full-Allocation Withdrawals .............................................................3

2003 Withdrawals..................................................................................................................................3

Full-Allocation Withdrawals .............................................................................................................11

Comparison of Results .......................................................................................................................11

Comparison with Observed Data .....................................................................................................11

Conclusions...................................................................................................................................................14

References Cited..........................................................................................................................................14

Figures

1–4. Maps showing—

1. Observed potentiometric surface and distribution of withdrawals in 2003 in the 

(a) Wenonah-Mount Laurel aquifer, (b) Englishtown aquifer system, (c) Upper

Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer, and (d) Middle Potomac-Raritan-Magothy

aquifer in Critical Area 1, east-central New Jersey ......................................................2

2. Simulated potentiometric surface for 2003 withdrawals in the (a) WenonahMount Laurel aquifer, (b) Englishtown aquifer system, (c) Upper PotomacRaritan-Magothy aquifer, and (d) Middle Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer 

in Critical Area 1, east-central New Jersey..................................................................10

3. Simulated potentiometric surface for full-allocation withdrawals in the 

(a) Wenonah-Mount Laurel aquifer, (b) Englishtown aquifer system,

 (c) Upper Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer, and (d) Middle PotomacRaritan-Magothy aquifer in Critical Area 1, east-central New Jersey.....................12

4. Simulated head difference between 2003 and full-allocation withdrawals 

in the (a) Wenonah-Mount Laurel aquifer, (b) Englishtown aquifer system, 

(c) Upper Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer, and (d) Middle PotomacRaritan-Magothy aquifer in Critical Area 1, east-central New Jersey.....................13

Tables

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

threatened margin of Critical Area 1, east-central New Jersey ..........................................4
iv

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

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

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

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.

Concentrations of chemical constituents in water are given in milligrams per liter (mg/L).
Analysis of Effects of 2003 and Full-Allocation Withdrawals 

in Critical Area 1, East-Central New Jersey

By Frederick J. Spitz

Abstract

Critical Area 1 in east-central New Jersey was mandated 

in the early 1980s to address large drawdowns caused by 

increases in groundwater withdrawals. The aquifers involved 

include the Englishtown aquifer system, Wenonah-Mount 

Laurel aquifer, and the Upper and Middle Potomac-RaritanMagothy aquifers. Groundwater levels recovered as a result 

of mandated cutbacks in withdrawals that began in the late 

1980s. Subsequent increased demand for water has necessitated an analysis to determine the effects of full-allocation 

withdrawals, which supplements an optimization analysis 

done previously. A steady-state regional groundwater flow 

model is used to evaluate the effects of 2003 withdrawals and 

full-allocation withdrawals (7.3 million gallons per day greater 

than for 2003) on simulated water-levels. Simulation results 

indicate that the range of available withdrawals greater than 

full-allocation withdrawals is likely between 0 and 12 million 

gallons per day. The estimated range of available withdrawals 

is based on: (1) an examination of hydraulic-heads resulting from each of the two simulations, (2) an examination of 

differences in heads between these two simulations, (3) a 

comparison of simulated heads from each of the two simulations with the estimated location of salty groundwater, and (4) 

a comparison of simulated 2003 water levels to observed 2003 

water levels. The results of the simulations also indicate that 

obtaining most of the available water would require varying 

the distribution of withdrawals and (or) relaxing the mandated 

hydrologic constraints used to protect the water supply.

Introduction

In 1983, the decline of water levels in several New Jersey 

Coastal Plain aquifers due to withdrawals posed a threat of 

serious adverse effects on the water supply in some areas, 

including the depletion of the groundwater supply, saltwater 

intrusion, and reduction of groundwater flow to streams (N.J. 

Department of Environmental Protection, 1996). In response 

to these threats to water-resources, the N.J. Department of 

Environmental Protection (NJDEP) designated two Water 

Supply Critical Areas where excessive withdrawals create 

undue stress or long-term adverse effects on the water supply 

(Hoffman and Lieberman, 2000). Each Critical Area consists 

of a depleted zone corresponding to the 1983 potentiometric 

contour 30 ft below the National Geodetic Vertical Datum 

of 1929 (NGVD 29) for each of four affected aquifers and a 

3-mile-wide threatened margin surrounding the depleted zone 

(Hoffman and Lieberman, 2000). The extent of Critical Area 1 

in all figures of this report is a “composite” that includes 

the largest surface area of the depleted zones and threatened 

margins in the affected aquifers in Monmouth, Middlesex, and 

Ocean Counties. The four affected aquifers are the WenonahMount Laurel aquifer, Englishtown aquifer system, Upper 

Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer, and Middle Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer, in order of increasing depth.

Groundwater levels recovered as a result of mandated 

cutbacks in withdrawals begun in the late 1980s. This recovery 

is documented in detail in Spitz and others (2008). Observed 

potentiometric surfaces for these aquifers in 2003 (dePaul 

and others, 2008) and locations of withdrawals are shown in 

figure 1. The extent of Critical Area 1 is also shown in this figure. Subsequent increased demand for water in Critical Area 1 

has necessitated an analysis of the potential hydraulic effects 

of full-allocation withdrawals.

In this study, conducted by the U.S. Geological Survey 

(USGS) in cooperation with the NJDEP, the USGS Regional 

Aquifer System Analysis (RASA) model (Voronin, 2004) is 

used to simulate steady-state groundwater flow in Critical 

Area 1. Minor changes were made to the revised RASA model 

input data (Spitz and others, 2007) including conversion to 

a more recent version of the MODFLOW finite-difference 

ground-water flow model developed by the USGS (Harbaugh and others, 2000). The assumption that steady-state 

flow simulations provide an adequate representation of the 

flow system is based on cross sections showing that waterlevel altitudes in the four aquifers (Spitz and others, 2008, 

figs. 3a–6a) remained relatively stable from 1998 until 2003. 

Two withdrawal conditions are tested using the model: 2003 

withdrawals and full-allocation withdrawals. Model results 

are presented as maps of hydraulic heads and head differences for these aquifers that compare the effects of 2003 

and full-allocation withdrawals. Simulation results for each 

aquifer unit are evaluated in regard to the mandated hydrologic conditions for Critical Area protection: that the simulated 
OCEAN BURLINGTON MONMOUTH MIDDLESEX MERCER SOMERSET UNION OCEAN BURLINGTON MONMOUTH MIDDLESEX MERCER SOMERSET UNIONOCEAN BURLINGTON MONMOUTH MIDDLESEX MERCER SOMERSET UNION OCEAN BURLINGTON MONMOUTH MIDDLESEX MERCER SOMERSET UNION (c) (d) (a) (b) EXPLANATION 74°30' 74° 40°30' 74°30' 74° 40°30' 40° 74°30' 74° 40°30' 40° 40° 74°30' 74° 40°30' 40°

0 10 20 0 10 20 30 K

250-MILLIGRAM ISOCHLOR—Fro Rosman (2001) f Raritan-Magoth Spitz and dePau Potomac-RaritaAQUIFER OUTCROBSERVED POTE CONTOUR—Sh levels, in feet a is variable. From  (2008)SIMULATED AQU

WELL AND WITHDRAWAL In million gallons per day

CRITICAL AREA 1—From N of Environmental Protectio Boundary is approximate  used for regulatory compl

Threatened marDepleted zone

0.00 – 0.490.50 – 0.991.00 – 1.491.50 – 1.99

AREA OF HEADS  WITHIN CRITIC

-30

0-30

0

0

40

80

-30

-60

-90

-30

40

-60

0

0

-30

40 80

-30

120 -60

0

0

0

120

40

-30

0-30

0

0

40

80

-30

-60

-90

-30

40

-60

0

0

-30

40 80

-30

120 -60

0

0

0

120

40

-30

Figure 1. Observed potentiometric surface and distribution of withdrawals in 2003 in the (a) Wenonah-Mount Laurel aquifer, (b) Englishtown aquifer (c) Upper Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer, and (d) Middle Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer in Critical Area 1, east-central New Jersey.
Evaluation of Effects of 2003 and Full-Allocation Withdrawals 3

-30-ft potentiometric contour not extend beyond the landward 

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

from the 250-mg/L isochlor.

The assumption that steady-state flow simulations provide an adequate representation of the flow system is based 

on cross sections showing that water-level altitudes in the 

four aquifers (Spitz and others, 2008, figs. 3a–6a) remained 

relatively stable from 1998 until 2003. Also, the 2003 and 

full-allocation withdrawal conditions do not cause appreciable 

drawdowns at the model boundaries.

This analysis is similar to that done for Critical Area 2 

in southern New Jersey (Spitz and dePaul, 2008); that work 

can be consulted for additional details regarding the approach 

used and associated limitations. The optimization study of 

Critical Area 1 (Spitz and others, 2008) also can be consulted 

for background information on Critical Area 1. In that study, 

the maximum available managed withdrawals were estimated 

to be about 5 to 20 Mgal/d above 2003 withdrawals, but 

maximum available withdrawals greater than full-allocation 

levels were not evaluated. This study documents the simulated 

effects of full-allocation withdrawals and evaluates available 

withdrawals greater than full-allocation levels.

This report presents the results of an analysis of the 

effects of two selected withdrawal conditions within Critical Area 1 in east-central New Jersey. An existing regional 

groundwater-flow model is used to simulate the effects of 

2003 and full-allocation withdrawals on water levels and 

in relation to saltwater intrusion within Critical Area 1. The 

results of the two simulations are compared to each other, 

to observed water levels for 2003, and to hydrologic criteria 

mandated for the Critical Area.

Evaluation of Effects of 2003 and 

Full-Allocation Withdrawals

In a manner similar to that of the Critical Area studies 

mentioned above, the USGS RASA model (Voronin, 2004) is 

used to simulate groundwater flow. The Wenonah-Mount Laurel aquifer, Englishtown aquifer system, Upper Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer, and Middle Potomac-Raritan-Magothy 

aquifer in Critical Area 1 are hydraulically connected to aquifers and confining units beyond the extent of Critical Area 1. 

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 groundwater-flow model of the entire New Jersey Coastal Plain was 

used in this study. A brief description of this model is provided 

by Spitz and dePaul (2008). Results of simulations made using 

this model are provided in the following sections.

 Two steady-state simulations are used to assess the 

effects of withdrawals on water levels in Critical Area 1 and 

incorporate: (1) 2003 withdrawals and (2) full-allocation 

withdrawals. The 2003 withdrawal simulation included 2003 

withdrawals everywhere in the model. The full-allocation 

simulation included 2003 withdrawals from wells outside 

the critical area and full-allocation withdrawals from wells 

in the depleted zone and threatened margin of Critical Area 1 

(Diane Zalaskus, N.J. Department of Environmental Protection, written commun., 2008). As the result of discussions with 

the NJDEP, the full-allocation simulation in this study differs 

from the full-allocation simulation done previously for Critical 

Area 2 (Spitz and dePaul, 2008) in that the Critical Area 2 fullallocation simulation included 2003 withdrawals from wells 

outside the critical area depleted zone and included full-allocation withdrawals only from wells in the depleted zone (and not 

from wells in the threatened margin).

Model results of both simulations are evaluated in terms 

of satisfying the mandated hydrologic conditions for Critical 

Area protection (New Jersey Administrative Code, 2005). Specifically, these conditions pertain to the location of the -30-ft 

potentiometric contour in each aquifer. For Critical Area protection, the -30-ft potentiometric contour should (1) not extend 

beyond the landward boundary of the depleted zone and (or) 

(2) be at least 5 mi updip from the 250-mg/L isochlor in the 

aquifers. Additional conditions considered relevant to Critical 

Area protection are evaluated below, including the changes in 

simulated heads and changes in the area within the depleted 

zone of heads below -30 ft resulting from the differences 

between the 2003 and full-allocation withdrawal conditions. 

Results are also discussed in relation to the landward 

movement of the 250-mg/L isochlor, a line of equal chloride 

concentration, which is used to define saltwater intrusion. 

Drawdown at the downdip 250-mg/L isochlor, as well as the 

proximity to the -30-ft potentiometric contour, in the Upper 

and Middle Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifers are an indication of the susceptibility to saltwater intrusion. The locations 

of the isochlors in the aquifers have been modified from Gill 

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

the basis of water-quality data collected by dePaul and others 

(2008). These isochlors are mapped with limited areal extent. 

No data are available to indicate that saltwater intrusion is 

a major concern in the Wenonah-Mount Laurel aquifer and 

Englishtown aquifer system in Critical Area 1.

2003 Withdrawals

The RASA model is used to simulate 2003 withdrawals 

from all wells in the New Jersey Coastal Plain. These withdrawals from wells in Critical Area 1 are shown in figure 1 

and listed in table 1. Simulated steady-state potentiometric 

surfaces from the RASA model based on 2003 withdrawals 

are shown in figure 2. The simulated -30-ft potentiometric 

contour for the Wenonah-Mount Laurel aquifer, Englishtown 

aquifer system, and Upper Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer are located within the boundary of the depleted zone. For 

these aquifers, the areas in the depleted zone of heads below 

-30 ft range from 63.5 mi2 (in the Wenonah-Mount Laurel 

aquifer) to 142 mi2 (in the Upper Potomac-Raritan-Magothy 

aquifer). There is no area of heads below -30 ft in the Middle 
Table 1. Withdrawals from, and model locations of, production wells in the depleted zone and threatened margin of Critical Area 1, east-central New [Depths are below land surface; NJDEP, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection; USGS, U.S. Geological Survey; BWA, Bureau of Water Allocation; ft, feet; Mgaday; 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 USG

BWA permit number Well permit number Full allocation2 (Mgal/d) Local well number3 Model layer4 Mode

row 

Atlantic Highlands Borough WD PW 1 593 519 582 5325 49-00049 0.020 250006 8 35 

PW 4 550 510 543 5325 29-10478 0.295 250496 8 35 Atlantic Highlands PW 5 548 506 548 5325 29-11230 0.009 250513 8 35 Atlantic Highlands PW 6 251 198 248 5325 29-25383 0.000 250714 7 36 

Avon By The Sea Borough WD Avon PW 4 1,165 1,105 1,165 5132 29-07461 0.085 250013 8 59 

Avon PW 1 504 424 504 5132 49-00017 0.039 250014 6 59 PW 2 501 419 501 5132 49-00018 0.031 250011 6 59 

Bamm Hollow Country Club Bhcc Irr 1 600 527 600 2151P 29-05164 0.041 250303 8 35 BadisheProduct Ind 2 288 248 288 2307P 28-05896 0.183 230300 9 10 

Ind 3 276 230 276 2307P 28-10192 0.183 230492 9 10 

Battleground Country Club Battleground Cc Irr 569 539 569 2327P 28-06114 0.011 250220 8 30 Belmar Borough WD PW 14 550 --- --- 5138 29-10462 0.037 250497 7 60 

2 Elec(10) 581 --- --- 5138 49-00023 0.126 250018 7 60 PW 13 605 555 605 5138 29-06956 0.317 250023 7 60 Belmar 3 Elec(12) 594 563 594 5138 29-00045 0.000 250016 7 60 

Brick Township MUA Forg Pond 9-73 1,779 1,441 1,779 5172 29-06841 0.221 290045 9 63 

Fp 10 1,832 1,607 1,827 5172 29-07791 0.209 290046 8 63 Fp 11 1,800 1,565 1,800 5172 29-08356 0.709 290595 8 64 PW 12 1,860 1,700 1,860 5172 29-12006 0.741 290779 8 63 

Brielle Borough WD Brielle PW 3 820 770 820 5279 29-05292 0.148 250028 7 64 

Brielle PW 2 750 690 750 5279 29-00069 0.081 250030 7 64 

Brock Farms Inc. Irr 1 700 --- --- MN0020 48-00197 0.071 250741 8 34 Duhernal Water Co Duhernal Bf 300 240 300 2323P 48-00208 0.927 230171 9 13 

Ind Af 296 236 296 2323P 48-00213 0.536 230127 9 13 

Englishtown Borough WD Englishtown PW 2 384 363 384 5191 28-05400 0.227 250056 8 25 

Englishtown PW 3 621 540 621 5191 28-21488 0.019 250728 9 25 

Farmingdale Borough WD PW 4 470 410 470 5126 29-06088 0.010 250064 7 48 

Farmingdale PW 3 460 420 460 5126 29-04386 0.150 250063 7 48 

Flock And Sons Irr 682 649 677 MN0068 29-03972 0.030 250045 8 38 Freehold Borough WD PW 3 567 468 567 5059 29-04419 0.219 250099 8 32 

PW 7 884 771 884 5059 29-13480 0.296 250561 9 32 PW 6 943 835 943 5059 29-11217 0.269 250503 9 31 PW 4 583 529 583 5059 29-05680 0.125 250098 8 32 WaterWorks Rd 8 229 136 224 5059 29-25736 0.000 250730 7 32 Well 9 208 161 208 5059 29-43832 0.000 250858 7 32 
Table 1. Withdrawals from, and model locations of, production wells in the depleted zone and threatened margin of Critical Area 1, east-central New [Depths are below land surface; NJDEP, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection; USGS, U.S. Geological Survey; BWA, Bureau of Water Allocation; ft, feet; Mgaday; 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 USG

BWA 

permit 

number

Well permit 

number

Full 

allocation2

(Mgal/d)

Local well 

number3

Model 

layer4

Mode

row

Freehold Township WD 7-74 580 478 575 5009 29-07494 0.096 250103 8 31 

Freehold PW 8 671 616 671 5009 29-11033 0.129 250502 8 37 PW 9 676 617 676 5009 29-13609 0.157 250551 8 39 10 Jackson Mill Rd 697 633 691 5009 29-14513 0.394 250722 8 39 Koenig Lane T Plant 13 680 584 673 5009 29-24703 0.234 250726 8 37 PW 3 212 150 212 5009 29-05302 0.752 250105 7 31 Edwards Dr Plant 12 211 149 206 5009 29-24425 0.112 250727 7 31 PW 14 993 927 988 5009 29-33928 0.000 250774 8 38 PW 15 983 918 978 5009 29-33929 0.000 250775 8 38 Jackson Mills T Plant 11 1,002 918 997 5009 29-24426 0.000 250725 9 39 

Giamarese Farm Irr 1 30 --- --- MI0008 48-00243 0.017 231257 9 5 Gordons Corner WC PW 10 800 740 800 5185X 29-10864 0.309 250452 9 27 

Gordons 12 761 649 756 5185X 29-14303 0.309 250711 9 28 PW 4 810 741 810 5185X 29-05548 0.309 250249 9 27 PW 6 712 592 708 5185X 29-07402 0.309 250231 9 24 Gordons PW 5 670 580 670 5185X 29-06353 0.309 250230 9 24 Gordons Corner 9-A River Rd 556 446 551 5185X 29-17817 0.218 250724 8 29 Gordons PW 7 594 524 594 5185X 29-05790 0.218 250244 8 30 PW 11 576 479 576 5185X 29-12877 0.218 250564 8 29 

Hominy Hills Golf Club Glf Clb 2-1963 706 686 706 2180P 29-04068 0.024 250037 8 39 International Flavors & Frags Ind 3R 316 277 316 2179P 29-08092 0.070 250456 8 24 

Ind 1 328 298 328 2179P 29-00126 0.070 250423 8 24 Iff 2R 312 266 312 2179P 29-12732 0.070 250514 8 24 

Jackson Township MUA PW 3 559 513 559 5075 29-03797 0.069 290228 7 48 

PW 1 557 511 557 5075 29-03574 0.088 290229 7 50 

Keansburg MUA Keansburg PW 5A 350 290 350 5280 29-0129-7 0.827 250195 8 26 

PW 3 348 308 348 5280 49-00047 0.069 250196 8 26 PW 6 362 302 362 5280 29-05333 0.000 250191 8 26 

Keyport Borough WD 8 Perry St 555 500 555 5267 29-13329 0.200 250562 9 22 

Keyport PW 7 364 304 354 5267 29-08379 0.481 250197 8 22 

Kid International Ind 4-Deep 885 831 885 2064P 29-03492 0.048 250062 8 49 Knob Hill Country Club 1-74 710 465 495 2174P 28-08484 0.099 250457 8 27 
Table 1. Withdrawals from, and model locations of, production wells in the depleted zone and threatened margin of Critical Area 1, east-central New [Depths are below land surface; NJDEP, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection; USGS, U.S. Geological Survey; BWA, Bureau of Water Allocation; ft, feet; Mgaday; 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 USG

BWA permit number Well permit number Full allocation2 (Mgal/d) Local well number3 Model layer4 Mode

row 

Lakewood Township MUA Lakewood PW 3 741 673 741 5079 29-05110 0.131 290433 7 62 

Lakewood PW 1 817 752 817 5079 29-05721 0.062 290430 7 63 Lakewood PW 7 1,625 1,410 1,620 5079 29-09259 0.464 290588 9 59 

Lavallette Borough WD PW 3 1,808 1,120 1,180 5136 3300001 0.065 290452 7 77 Marlboro S Hosp Institutional 12 593 508 593 5384 29-00073 0.008 250259 8 28 

Institutional 15 810 730 810 5384 29-05023 0.061 250262 9 28 

Marlboro Township MUA 1-Prod 716 647 716 5055 29-06360 0.516 250269 9 26 

4A-Prod 720 638 720 5055 29-12777 0.343 250543 9 26 3-Prod 710 624 710 5055 29-11251 0.330 250549 9 25 2-Prod 700 632 698 5055 29-06361 0.328 250268 9 26 

Matawan Borough WD Matawan PW 3 271 231 271 5320 29-01731 0.258 250284 8 20 

PW 4 266 220 266 5320 29-05288 0.288 250283 8 20 

Middlesex Water Co Tamarack 1-75 107 87 107 2209P 28-08704 0.084 230058 9 6 Navesink, C C 1-78 615 551 612 2169P 29-09335 0.064 250459 8 38 Nestle Co Ind 1 607 557 607 2034P 49-00006 0.529 250068 8 36 

Ind 2 614 564 614 2034P 29-01797 0.106 250069 8 36 Ind 3 650 576 650 2034P 29-05963 0.142 250070 8 35 

NJ/American WC Aberdeen PW 3 425 345 425 5018X 29-05350 0.173 250288 8 25 

PW 2 354 316 354 5018X 29-03818 0.173 250293 8 24 PW 4 372 322 372 5018X 29-10810 0.062 250499 8 25 Aberdeen PW 1 414 341 414 5018X 29-03729 0.062 250292 8 25 

NJ/American WC Aldrich Wc 4/Htmua 4 550 363 550 5078X 29-05346 0.344 250165 7 50 

Aldrich PW 2 440 354 440 5078X 29-03105 0.089 250168 6 48 H-1 Yellow Brick Rd5 860 --- --- 5078X 29-07784 0.243 250493 8 46 Aldrich Wc 3/Htmua 396 336 396 5078X 29-04381 0.089 250166 6 47 

NJ/American WC PW 7 129 118 129 5052 28-01612 0.237 230100 8 14 

Jamesburg 6 120 99 120 5052 28-01426 0.326 230098 8 14 

NJ/American WC Lakewood PW 6 582 520 582 5078X 29-03324 0.264 290450 7 53 

Lakewood PW 8 758 600 758 5078X 29-04834 0.264 290438 7 56 Lakewood PW 10 1,607 1,357 1,602 5078X 29-06549 0.767 290440 9 56 Lakewood PW 9 698 569 698 5078X 29-05496 0.264 290449 7 56 Lakewood PW 7 757 697 757 5078X 29-04304 0.264 290434 7 59 

NJ/American WC Jumping Br 4 1,065 1,013 1,065 5018X 29-00137 0.372 250334 8 55 

1 Gondola Rsvr 1,154 999 1,149 5018X 29-15170 0.372 250721 8 55 
Table 1. Withdrawals from, and model locations of, production wells in the depleted zone and threatened margin of Critical Area 1, east-central New [Depths are below land surface; NJDEP, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection; USGS, U.S. Geological Survey; BWA, Bureau of Water Allocation; ft, feet; Mgaday; 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 USG

BWA 

permit 

number

Well permit 

number

Full 

allocation2

(Mgal/d)

Local well 

number3

Model 

layer4

Mode

row

Jumping Br 6 1,080 1,000 1,075 5018X 29-11335 0.372 250501 8 55 

NJ/American WC 6Bay Head 12 834 750 834 5062X 49-00002 0.128 290005 7 70 

Bay Head 6 818 778 818 5062X 29-00087 0.052 290006 7 70 Mantoloking 17 1,369 1,263 1,368 5062X 29-03142 0.052 290504 8 73 

Old Bridge MUA 11-1972 120 80 120 5340 28-07470 0.448 230145 8 15 

Browntown 3 480 435 480 5340 29-04997 0.738 230146 9 18 Browntown 4 475 425 475 5340 29-04998 0.409 230147 9 18 PW R6 355 255 350 5340 28-20449 0.095 231158 9 15 PW 12 337 230 337 5340 28-14095 0.202 230782 9 15 Browntown 1 249 199 249 5340 49-29698 1.130 230142 8 18 Browntown 2 250 190 248 5340 29-03635 0.851 230135 8 18 10-1972 120 90 120 5340 28-07471 0.348 230156 8 15 

Parkway WC Parkway 1 A 649 594 644 5184 29-16728 0.062 250710 7 59 Perth Amboy City Ranney Collector 1 66 51 66 5006 28-18659 3.607 231271 8 13 

Runyon PW-6R 85 60 80 5006 28-32915 0.322 231396 8 13 PW 7 82 67 82 5006 29-12352 1.367 230571 8 14 PW 5 80 50 80 5006 28-05579 0.501 230195 8 13 Runyon 8R 85 70 85 5006 29-12353 0.984 230735 8 14 

Point Pleasant Borough WD Pt Pleasant PW 3 798 748 798 5150 49-00075 0.159 290532 7 67 

Pt Pleasant PW 5 1,342 1,256 1,342 5150 29-03345 0.974 290531 8 67 

Red Bank Borough Red Bank PW6 705 605 700 5085 29-49204 0.022 250823 8 40 

4-75/Rb 5 769 668 759 5085 29-07941 0.999 250360 8 41 

Rumson Country Club Irr 2 333 268 333 2293P 29-04513 0.041 250365 7 43 Sayreville Borough Water Dept PW S 286 213 286 5313 29-10499 0.360 230554 9 13 

Q-1973 136 78 136 5313 29-06767 0.244 230403 8 13 PW R 111 70 111 5313 29-10500 0.244 230549 8 13 Sayreville PW T 137 102 132 5313 29-11861 0.244 230569 8 13 Morgan P 288 254 288 5313 29-05352 0.360 230401 9 14 
Table 1. Withdrawals from, and model locations of, production wells in the depleted zone and threatened margin of Critical Area 1, east-central New [Depths are below land surface; NJDEP, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection; USGS, U.S. Geological Survey; BWA, Bureau of Water Allocation; ft, feet; Mgaday; 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 USG

BWA permit number Well permit number Full allocation2 (Mgal/d) Local well number3 Model layer4 Mode

row 

Schweitzer, P J Ind 12 280 210 280 2348P 28-12880 0.804 230568 9 13 

Ind 10 73 62 72 2348P 28-10177 0.455 230493 8 12 Ind 11 63 53 63 2348P 28-10685 0.548 230522 8 12 Ind 4R 59 49 59 2348P 28-03886 0.951 230461 8 12 Ind 3R 68 58 68 2348P 28-03670 0.749 230459 8 12 Ind 9 63 53 63 2348P 28-03887 0.466 230460 8 12 Ind 1R 275 235 275 2348P 28-01955 0.062 230456 9 13 Ind 8 278 226 276 2348P 48-00193 0.742 231389 9 13 Ind 5R --- --- --- 2348P 28-39618 0.216 231344 8 13 Ind 6 73 53 73 2348P 48-00003 0.000 230457 8 12 

Sea Girt Borough WD Sea Girt PW 5 710 660 710 5237 29-04102 0.011 250374 7 64 Shorelands WC W Keansburg 4 690 635 690 5066 29-05942 0.217 250153 9 26 

W Keansburg 6 712 --- --- 5066 29-13277 0.245 250545 9 26 W Keansburg 3 430 400 430 5066 29-04207 0.474 250154 8 26 W Keansburg 2 352 312 352 5066 29-03096 0.454 250112 8 25 W Keansburg 1 366 326 366 5066 29-02400 0.418 250111 8 25 W Keans 5 700 650 700 5066 29-0929-5 0.283 250467 9 26 

South River Borough WD Radial Collector 33 16 33 5171 48-00343 0.082 231262 8 11 

PW 6 213 155 208 5171 28-11524 0.187 230551 9 10 PW 2 198 173 198 5171 28-00332 0.006 230434 9 11 South River PW 5 187 132 182 5171 28-09722 0.460 230438 9 10 

Spotswood WD PW 3 91 64 78 5177 28--07928 0.140 230442 8 12 

PW 5 97 83 97 5177 28-10465 0.277 230494 8 13 PW 4F 287 198 282 5177 28-09559 0.136 230499 9 13 

Spring Lake Borough WD PW 1 711 631 711 5089 49-00014 0.009 250383 7 63 

PW 2 707 640 700 5089 49-00015 0.077 250384 7 63 PW 4 670 600 670 5089 29-04721 0.180 250386 7 61 

Spring Lake Heights Borough WD PW 1 600 570 600 5266 29-00180 0.040 250387 6 61 

Spring Lake Hgts PW 4 564 485 561 5266 29-07506 0.040 250391 6 62 Spring Lake Hgts PW 2 711 660 711 5266 29-00398 0.111 250389 7 61 PW 3 680 630 680 5266 29-05075 0.104 250388 7 62 

United Water NJ Lambs Rd 1 641 585 641 5080 21-07184 0.064 250214 8 30 

PW 2 642 505 636 5080 28-14142 0.064 250705 8 28 
Table 1. Withdrawals from, and model locations of, production wells in the depleted zone and threatened margin of Critical Area 1, east-central New [Depths are below land surface; NJDEP, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection; USGS, U.S. Geological Survey; BWA, Bureau of Water Allocation; ft, feet; Mgaday; 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 USG

BWA 

permit 

number

Well permit 

number

Full 

allocation2

(Mgal/d)

Local well 

number3

Model 

layer4

Mode

row

United Water NJ Toms River PW 30 1,875 1,700 1,875 5000X 33-10224 1.724 290626 9 70 Wall Township WD Imperial 3 455 425 455 5149 29-09107 0.034 250465 7 57 

Rt 34 649 549 649 5149 29-05289 0.135 250441 7 55 Imperial 2 662 627 657 5149 49-00032 0.060 250442 7 57 West Belmar 575 440 575 5149 29-02868 0.039 250440 6 60 Allenwood 1 7757 8689 740 5149 29-02869 0.115 250428 7 60 Rosehill 2A 456 421 451 5149 29-17963 0.192 250698 6 56 Allenwood 2 710 658 710 5149 29-02870 0.149 250427 7 60 Imperial 1 465 435 465 5149 29-02871 0.078 250443 6 57 

1Model layer is assigned on the basis of aquifer if open-interval data are not available.2Annual current base allocation (Diane Zalaskus, NJDEP, written commun., 2008). Prorated on the basis of 2001–03 reported use; therefore, value is based on multiple years3Number of wells associated with BWA permit is based on USGS and NJDEP water-use data.4Certain model cells may contain more than one well. Layer 6 is the Wenonah-Mount Laurel aquifer, layer 7 is the Englishtown aquifer system, layer 8 is the Upper Potomac

and layer 9 is the Middle or Undifferentiated Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer.

5Well I-975/Yellow Brk Well in Spitz and others (2008).6Well Bay Head 5 in Spitz and others (2008).7Well depth corrected from 740 ft shown in Spitz and others (2008).8Depth to top of open interval corrected from 623 ft shown in Spitz and others (2008).
OCEAN BURLINGTON MONMOUTH MIDDLESEX MERCER SOMERSET UNION OCEAN BURLINGTON MONMOUTH MIDDLESEX MERCER SOMERSET UNIONOCEAN BURLINGTON MONMOUTH MIDDLESEX MERCER SOMERSET UNION OCEAN BURLINGTON MONMOUTH MIDDLESEX MERCER SOMERSET UNION (c) (d) (a) (b) 74°30' 74° 40°30' 74°30' 74° 40°30' 40° 74°30' 74° 40°30' 40° 40° 74°30' 74° 40°30' 40°

0 10 20 0 10 20 30 

EXPLANATION

250-MILLIGRAM ISOCHLOR—F Rosman (2001)  Raritan-Magot Spitz and dePa Potomac-RaritAQUIFER OUTCSIMULATED PO CONTOUR—S in feet above N is 30 feetSIMULATED AQ

CRITICAL AREA 1—From  of Environmental Protect Boundary is approximate  used for regulatory comp

Threatened maDepleted zone

AREA OF HEAD WITHIN CRITI

-30

0

30

60

-30

90

60

0

0

30

30

60

-30

90

-60

0

60

0

30

-30

-30

0 30

60 -30 90

120

60

90

120

30

0

30

60

-30

90

60

0

0

30

30

60

-30

90

-60 30

0

60

0

30 60

-30

-30

0 30

60 -30 90

120

60

90

120

30

120

Figure 2. Simulated potentiometric surface for 2003 withdrawals in the (a) Wenonah-Mount Laurel aquifer, (b) Englishtown aquifer system, (c) Upper Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer, and (d) Middle Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer in Critical Area 1, east-central New Jersey.
Evaluation of Effects of 2003 and Full-Allocation Withdrawals 11

Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer. The -30-ft potentiometric contour generally is located about 15 mi updip from the 

250-mg/L isochlor in the Upper Potomac-Raritan-Magothy 

aquifer.

Full-Allocation Withdrawals

The RASA model also is used to simulate full-allocation 

withdrawals from wells associated with NJDEP Bureau of 

Water Allocation (BWA) permits within the depleted zone in 

Critical Area 1. Current full-allocation withdrawals for BWA 

permits in Critical Area 1 were provided by NJDEP (Diane 

Zalaskus, N.J. Department of Environmental Protection, written commun., 2008). The procedure used to assign full-allocation withdrawals to wells is as follows. Wells associated with 

each BWA permit were determined by using USGS water-use 

databases and NJDEP Permit Requirements documents. Withdrawals during 2001–03 for each well associated with a BWA 

permit were used to prorate the full-allocation withdrawals by 

well.

A total of 171 wells are associated with 57 BWA permits 

(table 1) in Critical Area 1. Full-allocation withdrawals are 

approximately 47.7 Mgal/d, 7.3 Mgal/d (11.25 cubic feet per 

second) greater than 2003 withdrawals of 40.4 Mgal/d for 

these wells. Approximately 95 percent of this difference is due 

to withdrawals from the Upper and Middle Potomac-RaritanMagothy aquifers--80 percent from the Upper PotomacRaritan-Magothy aquifer and 15 percent from the Middle 

Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer. The difference between 

2003 and full-allocation withdrawals for individual wells can 

be determined from table 1. Full-allocation withdrawals are 

greater than or equal to 2003 withdrawals for 116 wells of the 

171 wells in Critical Area 1. 

Simulated steady-state potentiometric surfaces from the 

RASA model run based on full-allocation withdrawals are 

shown in figure 3. Similar to the 2003 withdrawal simulation 

results (fig. 2), the simulated -30-ft potentiometric contour 

remains within the boundary of the depleted zone in the 

Wenonah-Mount Laurel aquifer, Englishtown aquifer system, 

and Upper Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer. The contour is 

within 1 mi of the boundary of the depleted zone in the latter 

aquifer in Ocean County. For these three aquifers, the areas 

within the depleted zone with simulated heads below -30 ft 

range from 99.2 mi2 (in the Wenonah-Mount Laurel aquifer) 

to 179.2 mi2 (in the Upper Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer). 

Unlike the 2003 withdrawal simulation, a small area (less than 

2 mi2) of heads below -30 ft develops in the Middle PotomacRaritan-Magothy aquifer. The simulated -30-ft potentiometric contour generally is located about 10 mi updip from the 

250-mg/L isochlor in the Upper Potomac-Raritan-Magothy 

aquifer, but is only about 2.5 mi from the isochlor in the 

Middle Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer.

Comparison of Results

The differences between simulated heads from the 2003 

and the full-allocation withdrawal simulations in Critical 

Area 1 are shown in figure 4. Compared to the 2003 simulated 

results, the full-allocation simulation results exhibit large areas 

5- to 15-ft lower heads in the Wenonah-Mount Laurel aquifer 

and Englishtown aquifer system and very small areas of about 

10-ft lower heads in the Upper Potomac-Raritan-Magothy 

and Middle Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifers. A small area 

where full-allocation simulated heads are less than 5 ft higher 

than the 2003 simulated heads occurs in three of the aquifers 

in central Monmouth County in areas where full-allocation 

withdrawals are less than 2003 withdrawals. However, this 

result may reflect limited accuracy of the withdrawal data. The 

area within the depleted zone of heads below -30 ft is greater 

for the full-allocation simulation than for the 2003 withdrawal 

simulation in all of the aquifers. The smallest increase of less 

than 2 mi2 occurred in the Middle Potomac-Raritan-Magothy 

aquifer and the largest increase of 37.2 mi2 in the Upper 

Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer. Also, in the full-allocation 

simulation, the -30-ft potentiometric contour in the Upper 

Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer is about 1 mi from the 

southern landward boundary of the depleted zone, and in the 

Middle Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer is within 2.5 mi of 

the 250-mg/L isochlor in that aquifer. 

Comparison with Observed Data

The simulated 2003 hydraulic heads are as much as 40 ft 

higher than the observed 2003 water levels. This is a limiting 

factor when analyzing water levels under full allocation withdrawal conditions, but adjustments which address this limitation can be made to account for the differences. For example, 

if simulated full-allocation heads are adjusted by subtracting 

the difference between the simulated and observed 2003 

heads, the area with heads below -30 ft in the Wenonah-Mount 

Laurel aquifer would cover a larger part of the depleted zone; 

the area with heads below -30 ft in the Englishtown aquifer 

system would be closer to the boundary of the depleted zone; 

the area with heads below -30 ft in the Upper Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer would extend beyond the boundary of 

the depleted zone; and a larger area with heads below -30 ft in 

the Middle Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer would develop 

in the depleted zone. Also, the observed -30-ft potentiometric 

contours in the Upper and Middle Potomac-Raritan-Magothy 

aquifers in Burlington County in Critical Area 2 (Spitz and 

dePaul, 2008, fig. 3) are within 10 mi of the boundary of 

Critical Area 1 (fig. 1). The decline in simulated water levels 

caused by full-allocation withdrawals in Critical Area 1 could 

be 0 to 5 ft greater if the simulated effects of full-allocation 

withdrawals in Critical Area 2 (Spitz and dePaul, 2008, fig. 9) 

are included.
Figure 3. Simulated potentiometric surface for full-allocation withdrawals in the (a) Wenonah-Mount Laurel aquifer, (b) Englishtown aquifer system, (c) Upper Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer, and (d) Middle Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer in Critical Area 1, east-central New Jersey.

OCEAN

BURLINGTON

MONMOUTH

MIDDLESEX

MERCER

SOMERSET

UNION

OCEAN

BURLINGTON

MONMOUTH

MIDDLESEX

MERCER

SOMERSET

UNION

OCEAN

BURLINGTON

MONMOUTH

MIDDLESEX

MERCER

SOMERSET

UNION

OCEAN

BURLINGTON

MONMOUTH

MIDDLESEX

MERCER

SOMERSET

UNION

(c) (d)

(a) (b)

74°30' 74°

40°30'

74°30' 74°

40°30'

40°

74°30' 74°

40°30'

40°40°

74°30' 74°

40°30'

40°

EXPLANATION

0 10 20 0 10 20 30 

250-MILLIGRAM ISOCHLOR—Fr Rosman (2001)  Raritan-Magot Spitz and dePa Potomac-RaritAQUIFER OUTCRSIMULATED POT CONTOUR—Sh in feet above N is 30 feetSIMULATED AQ

CRITICAL AREA 1—From N of Environmental Protecti Boundary is approximate  used for regulatory comp

Threatened maDepleted zone

AREA OF HEADS  WITHIN CRITIC

-30

0

3060

-30

60

030

60

-30

90

-60

120

0

0

30

60

-30

-30

0

30 60 -30 90 120 6090 120

30

0

3060

-30

60

030

60

-30

90

-60

120

30

0

0

30

60

-30

-30

0

30 60 -30 90 120 6090 120

30

-30

90
Figure 4. Simulated head difference between 2003 and full-allocation withdrawals in the (a) Wenonah-Mount Laurel aquifer, (b) Englishtown aquifer (c) Upper Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer, and (d) Middle Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer in Critical Area 1, east-central New Jersey.

OCEAN

BURLINGTON

MONMOUTH

MIDDLESEX

MERCER

SOMERSET

UNION

OCEAN

BURLINGTON

MONMOUTH

MIDDLESEX

MERCER

SOMERSET

UNION

OCEAN

BURLINGTON

MONMOUTH

MIDDLESEX

MERCER

SOMERSET

UNION

OCEAN

BURLINGTON

MONMOUTH

MIDDLESEX

MERCER

SOMERSET

UNION

(c) (d)

(a) (b)

74°30' 74°

40°30'

74°30' 74°

40°30'

40°

74°30' 74°

40°30'

40°40°

74°30' 74°

40°30'

40°

SIMULATED HEAD DIFFE full-allocation withdraw

Less than 00 – 2.492.5 – 7.497.5 – 14.9915 – 24.99Greater than 2

EXPLANATION

0 10 20 10 20 30 

250-MILLIGRA ISOCHLOR— Rosman (2001 Raritan-Mago Spitz and deP Potomac-RarSIMULATED A

CRITICAL AREA 1—From  of Environmental Protec Boundary is approximat used for regulatory com

Threatened mDepleted zone
14 Analysis of Effects of 2003 and Full-Allocation Withdrawals in Critical Area 1, East-Central New Jersey

Conclusions

The previous optimization study of Critical Area 1 (Spitz 

and others, 2008) indicates that, on the basis of the management models designed for that study, the amount of available 

withdrawals in Critical Area 1 generally ranges from 5 to 

20 Mgal/d. The previous study also found that withdrawing the most available water would necessitate varying the 

distribution of withdrawals and (or) relaxing the hydrologic 

constraints used to protect the water supply. These previous 

optimization results in combination with the simulation results 

from this study indicate that the range of available withdrawals greater than full-allocation withdrawals is less than the 

range of available withdrawals greater than 2003 withdrawals-

-more likely 0 to 12 Mgal/d. This range of available withdrawals greater than full-allocation withdrawals is computed by 

subtracting 7.3 Mgal/d (the difference between full-allocation 

and 2003 withdrawals ) from the withdrawal range (5 to 

20 Mgal/d) determined through optimization. The location 

of the -30-ft potentiometric contour from the full-allocation 

simulation supports the conclusion that withdrawing the most 

available water would require varying the distribution of withdrawals and (or) relaxing the mandated hydrologic constraints 

used to protect the water supply. The effect of withdrawals in 

Critical Area 2 on water levels in Critical Area 1 is also important in evaluating available Critical Area 1 withdrawals.

References Cited

dePaul, V.T., Rosman, Robert, and Lacombe, P.J., 2008, 

Water-level conditions in selected confined aquifers of the 

New Jersey and Delaware Coastal Plain, 2003: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2008-5145, 

123 p., 9 pls.

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.

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.

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.

Lacombe, P.J., and Rosman, Robert, 2001, Water levels in, 

extent of freshwater in, and water withdrawals from ten 

confined aquifers, New Jersey and Delaware Coastal Plain, 

1998: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 00-4143, 10 sheets.

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.

Spitz, F.J., and dePaul, V.T., 2008, Recovery of groundwater 

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.

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

of groundwater levels from 1988 to 2003 and analysis of 

potential 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 revisions to the 

Regional Aquifer-System Analysis model of the New Jersey 

Coastal Plain: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources 

Investigations Report 03-4268, 49 p.
For additional information, write to:

Director

U.S. Geological Survey

New Jersey Water Science Center

810 Bear Tavern Road, Suite 206

West Trenton, NJ 08628

or visit our Web site at:

http://nj.usgs.gov/

Document prepared by the West Trenton Publishing Service Center
Spitz—Analysis of Effects of 2003 and Full-Allocation Withdrawals in Critical Area 1, East-Central New Jersey—Open-File Report 2009–1104