GEOHYDROLOGY OF THE 

ENGLISHTOWN FORMATION IN THE 

NORTHERN COASTAL PLAIN OF 

NEW JERSEY 

By W. D. Nichols 

U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 

Water-Resources Investigations 76-123 

Prepared in cooperation with the 

NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL 

PROTECTION, DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES 

February 1977 
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Thomas S. Kleppe, Secretary 

GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 

V. E. McKelvey, Director 

For additional information write to: 

DeS. Geological Survey 

Rm. 420 Federal Bldg. 

P.,O .. Box 1238 

Trenton, N.J. 08607 
CONTENTS 

Abstract .••........•..•...•..................•..•.•.•..... ,. 

Introduction ..................................................................................... o .... .. 

Purpose and scope .............................................. . 

Prev'ious investigations ................................... ,. ...... ,. .. ,. ..................... . 3 

Acknowledgments ................................................................. ~ .......... ,. ..... .. 

Stratigraphic sunnnary of the Cretaceous fonnations of the northern 

Coastal Plain of New Jersey ........................................ .. 

Raritan and Magothy Formations •••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 

Matawan Group ...................................................................................... .. 

Monmouth Group.................................................................................. 20 

Geohydrology of the Englishtown aquifer system......................................... 20 

Aquifer geometry and boundaries •••••••••••••••••••• ••••••••··~¥ 22 

Aquifer coefficients ............................................ ~ 22 

Regional configuration of the potentiometric surface and waterlevel trends ................................................ @ • ., 26 

Ground-water withdrawals .............................................. ~ 38 

Confining layer geometry ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• § ••• e. 43 

Confining layer coefficients•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••e•••••••0 48 

Conclusions...................................................................................... 59 

References cited.................................................... 59 

ILLUSTRATIONS 

Figure 1. Index map of New Jersey showing the area of investigation •• $ 

2 .. Map showing the combined thickness of the Merchantville 

Formation and Woodbury Clay in Monmouth and northern 

Ocean and Burlington Counties, N. J .. •••••••••••••••••••• 8 

3. Map showing location of wells used for stratigraphic 

control data ............................................ ~. 9 

4. Structure-contour map of the top of the Englishtown 

Formation in Monmouth and northern Ocean Counties, N. J. 13 

5. Cross-sections A-A' and B-B' showing the sand and clayey 

silt lithofacies of the Englishtown aquifer in northern 

Ocean County, N.J. ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 14 

6. Map showing the thickness of the Englishtown Formation in 

Monmouth_and northern Ocean and Burlington Counties, 

N .. J • • • • e • • • • o • • • • • • o • • • • e • o • • e • • o e e o e e • • e • e • • & • • • e e e 16 

7. Map showing the thickness of the lower sand lithofacies of 

the Englishtown Formation in northern Ocean County, N. J. 17 

8. Map showing the thickness of the clayey silt lithofacies 

of the Englishtown Formation in northern Ocean County, 

N. J • •••••••••••••••••••••••• 0 .......................... . 18 

9 .. Map showing the thickness of the upper sand lithofacies of 

the Englishtown Formation in northern Ocean County, N. J 

10 .. Map showing the decline in water level between January, 

1959, and November, 1970, in the Englishtown aquifer in 

Monmouth and northern Ocean Counties, N. J. ••••••••••ae• 21 

III 
ILLUSTRATIONS--Continued 

Page 

11. Map showing the thickness of the Englishtown aquifer in 

Monmouth County and of the upper sand lithofacies of 

the Englishtown Formation in northern Ocean and 

Burlington Counties, N.J. •••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 23 

12. Map showing the transmissivity of the Englishtown aquifer 

in Monmouth and northern Ocean Counties, N.J. •••••••• 25 

13. Map showing the altitude of the potentiometric surface in 

the Englishtown aquifer about 1900, in Monmouth, and 

northern Ocean and Burlington Counties, N.J. •••••••••• 27 

14.. Map showing the altitude of the potentiometric surface in 

the Englishtown aquifer in January, 1959, in Monmouth 

and northern Ocean Counties, N.J. ••••••••••••••••••••• 28 

15. Map showing the decline in water level between about 1900 

and January 1959 in the Englishtown aquifer in Monmouth 

and northern Ocean Counties............................. 39 

16. Map showing the altitude of the potentiometric surface 

in the Englishtown aquifer in November, 1970, in 

Monmouth and northern Ocean Counties, N. J. •••••••••••• 40 

17. Hydrographs of observation wells tapping the Englishtown 

aquifer in Monmouth and northern Ocean Counties, N. J. • 41 

A. Allaire State Park, U.S.G.S. observation 

well, Monmouth County, N. J. 

B. Colliers Mills, u.s.G.S. observation well 

TW 1, Ocean County, N. J. 

c. Lakewood Water Company observation well, 

Lakewood, Ocean County, N. J. 

18. Location of pumping wells listed in table 8 and observation 

wells described in figure 17•••••••••••••••••••••••e•••• 42 

19. Map showing location of wells developed in the Englishtown 

aquifer in Monmouth and Ocean Counties................... 44 

20. Map showing the thickness of the confining layer overlying 

the Englishtown aquifer in Monmouth, and northern Ocean 

and Burlington Counties, N.J. ••••••·••••••••••••••••••• 45 

21. Sediment classification diagrams for selected samples from 

test holes penetrating the confining layers of the 

Englishtown aquifer system •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 49 

TABLES 

Table le Stratigraphic units of the northern Atlantic Coastal Plain 

of New Jersey ....................... .,...................................................... 6 

2 .. Stratigraphic control data.......................................... 10 

3'* Estimated transmissivity and hydraulic conductivity of the 

Englishtown aquifer based on the specific capacity of 

selected wells............................................. 24 

4.. Extreme and average values of aquifer and confining layer 

hydraulic coefficients ............................. e.............................. 26 

IV 
TABLES--Continued 

Table 5 .. Water-level data used in constructing 1900 

surface map for the Englishtown aquifer ............... @ ••• 

6 .. Yield and water-level data for wells developed in the 

Englishtown aquifer in Monmouth and Ocean Counties .. ~@ .. 

7 .. Construction data for wells developed in the 

aquifer in Monmouth and Ocean Counties ........... ~ a• 

Q 

Vo Rate of ground-water withdrawal for public supply in 

Monmouth and Ocean Counties ................................. .. 

9. Consolidation test data ......................................... . 

v 
CONVERSION FACTORS 

Factors for converting English units to the International System of Units 

are given below to four significant figures. However, in the text 

the metric equivalents are shown only to the number of significant figures 

consistent with the values for the English units. 

Multiply by Metric (SI) 

ft (feet) 0 .. 3048 m (meters) 

ft/s (feet per second) 30.48 cm/s (centimeters per second) 

ft/mi (feet per mile) 0.1894 m/km (meters per kilometer) 

2 f /day (square feet per day) 0.0929 m /day (square meters per day) 

2 f /s (square feet per second) 929 em /s (square centimeters 

per second) 

/min (gallons per minute) 0.06309 1/s (liters per second) 

3 1/d (million gallons per 0 .. 04381 m /s (cubic meters per second) 

day) 

2 (square miles) 2.590 km (square kilometers) 

2 (pounds per square inch) .07031 kg/em (kilograms per 

square centimeter) 

VI 
GEOHYDROLOGY OF THE ENGLISHTOWN FORMATION IN 

THE NORTHERN COASTAL PLAIN OF NEW JERSEY 

By W. D. Nichols 

ABSTRACT 

The Englishtown Formation of the Matawan Group of Late Cretaceous 

age is exposed in the western part of the New Jersey Coastal Plain along 

a northeast-southwest trending zone extending from Raritan Bay to 

Delaware Bay. In outcrop, in the northern part of the Coastal Plain, 

the Englishtown typically consists of a series of thin, cross-stratified, 

fine- to medium-grained lignitic quartz sand beds intercalated with 

thin beds of sandy silty clay and clayey silt, ranging in total thickness 

from about 140 feet (43 meters) near Raritan Bay to about 50 feet 

(15 meters) near Trenton. In the subsurface of the northern part of the 

Coastal Plain, the formation retains most of the lithologic characteristics 

displayed in outcrop. In northern and eastern Ocean County the Englishtown 

can be subdivided into three distinct lithologic units; upper and lower 

units of quartz sand with thin interbeds of dark sandy silt, separated 

by a thick sequence of sandy and clayey lignitic silt. 

The confined part of the aquifer in the Englishtown Formation is 

utilized as a source of water over an area of about 1,100 square miles 

(2,849 square kilometers) of the New Jersey Coastal Plain and is an 

important source of supply in Monmouth and northern Ocean Counties& 

The annual average rate of withdrawal from the aquifer in th~ two-county 

area increased from 5.5 million gallons per day (0.24 cubic meters per 

second) in 1959 to 9.5 million gallons per day (0.4 cubic meters per 

second) in 1970. Water levels in parts of this area were declining 8 to 

12 feet (2e4 to 3.6 meters) per year as of 1970 and they declined as 

much as 140 feet (43 meters) between 1959 and 1970 near pumping centers. 

The aquifer transmissivity ranges from 2,400 square feet per day to 650 

square feet per day (223 square meters per day to 60 square meters per 

day); the estimated hydraulic conductivity ranges from about 11 feet 

per day to 20 feet per day (3.3 meters per day_§o 6.1 meters per day); 

and the storage coefficient ranges from 8 x 10 to 3 x lo-4. The 

underlying and overlying confining beds, which have an average thickness 

of 200 feet (61 meters) and 40 feet (12 meters), respectively, have 

vertical hydraulic conductivities on the order of 1 x lo-5 feet per day 

(3 x 10-6 meters per day) and specific storage on the order of 8 x lQ-5 

ft-1 (2.4 X 10-5 m-1). 

1 
ishtown aquifer is an integral part of the complex multiof the New Jersey Coastal Plain. The withdrawal of water 

from ishtown has had a marked effect on the water level 

the Mount Laurel aquifer, and these effects will continue so 

as the level in the Englishtown continues to decline. Any 

increase in of the Mount Laurel aquifer that reduces the 

volume of shtown will cause an increase in the rate of 

water-level shtown even with no increase in direct 

~;vithdrawals.. and interdependency between pumping 

stresses in individual within the complex Coastal Plain aquifer 

must be recognized and appreciated, and the hydrodynamics of all 

of the system must be considered if reliable predictions of aquifer 

response to these stresses are to be made. Such predictions generally 

a simulation model analysis of the system. 

INTRODUCTION 

The aquifer in the Englishtown Formation of the Matawan Group of Late 

Cretaceous age is one of the more important sources of ground-water supplies 

the northern of the New Jersey Coastal Plain. Total ground-water 

withdrawals for public supply in Monmouth and northern Ocean Counties 

increased from 5.5 Mgal/d (million gallons per day) [0.24 m3fs (cubic meters 

per ] in 1959 to 9.5 Mgal/d (0.4 m3/s) in 1970. Although these 

withdrawals may seem small in comparison with withdrawals from ground-water 

sources in other areas, they have placed a considerable stress on the 

aquifere Water levels in the aquifer have been declining at 

the rate of 8 to 12 ft (feet) [2.4 to 3.6 m (meters)] per year over large 

areas since 1959. The rate of decline has accelerated during the past several 

years in some areas, near pumping centers, in response to increased withdrawals. 

the need for quantitative solutions to the questions arising 

from the demands for continued increased development of the ground-water 

resources of the New Jersey Coastal Plain, the u.s. Geological Survey began 

program of regional geohydrologic studies of the aquifers in the Coastal 

Plain system in cooperation with the Division of Water Resources of 

Department of Environmental Protection. These studies, in 

the applicable analytical techniques needed to define 

, include simulation modeling of individual aquifers. The 

models in most, if not all, cases are to be digital computer simulation 

models and will serve three specific purposes. First, the modeling effort 

1 those data that are essential to a quantitative study of the 

ics of the aquifer and the areas where such data are most needed. 

Second, the model will provide a tool for the investigator to test and 

evaluate different concepts of the functioning of the ground-water system. 

Third, when completed and calibrated, the model will be a tool that can be 

used the water-resource planner and manager to predict the effects of 

alternative schemes of resource development. 

2 
The purpose of this first report is to define the geohydrol 

required for a quantitative analysis of the aquifer systemo The 

framework of the Englishtown Formation is briefly discussed. The 

character of the formation is described, and the geometry of the 

adjacent confining beds is defined. The hydraulic parameters that control 

the movement of water in the aquifer system are given. These 

have been computed from field and laboratory test data. The data 

and the concepts of the response of the aquifer system to stress 

the basis for the concurrent construction and development of a d 

computer simulation model of the Englishtown aquifer system. 

2 The investigation covers an area of about 1,450 mi (square mi 

[3,755 km2 (square kilometers)] of the northern Coastal Plain of 

and includes Mo~mouth and parts of Ocean and Burlington Counties (fige 1) 

The simulation model of the Englishtown aquifer covers about 750 mi2 (1 942 

km2) within the area of study and includes Monmouth County, northern Ocean 

County, and extreme northeastern Burlington County (fig. 1)., 

Most of the geologic and hydrologic data for the Englishtown 

system are presented in a series of tablese Stratigraphic control data used 

in constructing the various isopach maps and the structure contour map of 

the Englishtown Formation are given in table 2. The altitude and thickness 

data are based on interpretation of geophysical logs, most of which were 

collected by the U.S. Geological Survey. The stratigraphic control well 

locations are shown on figure 3. Water-level data used in construct the 

"pre-pumping" potentiometric surface map (fig., 13) are given in table 5, 

and the approximate locations of the wells from which the measurements were 

obtained are shown on figure 13. Well-yield characteristics and well 

construction characteristics for all Englishtown wells are in tables 

6 and 7, respectively. Water-level data collected in 1959 and 1970 are 

also given in table 6. The locations of all wells given in tables 6 and 

are shown on figure 19. The average annual rate of withdrawal for public 

supply from the Englishtown aquifer for the years 1959 thLough 1970 is 

in table 8. The results of soil consolidation tests conducted on undisturbed 

core samples of confining layers in the New Jersey Coastal Plain are 

in table 9. 

Previous Investigations 

The geology of the Coastal Plain of New Jersey and of the 

Formation has been discussed by several authors. Among the more recent 

studies are those by Owens and others (1970), Minard (1969), Minard and 

others (1969), Owens and Sohl (1969), Owens and Minard (1966 19 and 

Minard (1964). A more extensive list of references to the 

literature of the New Jersey Coastal Plain and the Englishtown and acent 

formations can be found in the articles cited above$ 

3 
FIGURE 1. 

EXPLANATION 

Outcrop of the Englishtown 

Formation 

Area of investigation 

0 10 20 30 MILES 

I d 1 1 i I I 11 

0 tO 20 30 40 50 KILOMETERS 

--INDEX MAP OF NEW JERSEY SHOWING AREA OF 

INVESTIGATION. 

4 
The regional hydrology of the Englishtown Formation is discussed 

briefly by Barksdale and others (1958) and by Parker and others 

Reports by Jablonski (1959, 1960, 1968) on Monmouth ; Rush (1962, 

1968) on Burlington County; Anderson and Appel (1969) on Ocean County; 

Dansky (1963) and Farlekas and others (1974) on Camden County; Vecchioli 

and Palmer (1962) on Mercer County; Hardt (1963) and Hardt and Hilton 

on Gloucester County; and Rosenau and others (1969) on Salem County contain 

well records, logs, chemical analyses, and brief descriptions of the 

geology, hydrology, and water quality of the Englishtown Formation in these 

counties. Seaber (1965) has given a short discussion of the geology and 

geohydrology of the Englishtown Formation and a more extensive discussion 

of the chemical quality of the water in the Englishtown throughout much of 

the formation in the New Jersey Coastal Plain. 

Acknowledgments 

This investigation was conducted by the u.s. Geological Survey in 

cooperation with the Division of Water Resources of the New Jersey 

Department of Environmental Protection. Bronius Nemickas, Richard E. 

Harry Farsett, William Cushing, and Floyd Price assisted the author in the 

collection, compilation, and analysis of basic data. Harold E. Gill 

provided invaluable guidance and assistance in the interpretation of 

ical logs during the early stages of the investigation. 

STRATIGRAPHIC SUMMARY OF THE CRETACEOUS FORMATIONS 

OF THE NORTHERN COASTAL PLAIN OF NEW JERSEY 

The New Jersey Coastal Plain is underlain by a wedge-shaped mass of 

unconsolidated and partly consolidated marine, marginal marine, and nonmarine deposits of clay, silt, sand, and gravel@ The sediments range in 

age from Cretaceous to Holocene (table 1) and lie unconformably on the 

pre-Cretaceous basement. The total thickness of the sedimentary sequence 

in outcrop ranges from 500 to 1,000 ft (152 to 305m); the sequence thickens 

downdip, toward the southeast, and attains a maximum aggregate thickness of 

about 6,500 ft (1,980 m) at the extreme southern tip of New Jersey. 

The geology of the pre-Quaternary Coastal Plain formations of New 

Jersey has been discussed by several investigators and was recently 

summarized by Owens and Minard (1970) and Owens and Sohl (1969). These 

studies, especially the more recent ones, have shown that there are 

significant differences in the character and occurrence of these formations 

between Raritan Bay in the northeast and Delaware Bay to the southwest. 

The differences reflect the varying patterns and environments of sedimentation 

that existed throughout the region, especially during Late Cretaceous time 

Depositional patterns in the northern Coastal Plain of New Jersey seem to 

have been controlled largely by two basement tectonic elements; a trough 

or small basin centering in the vicinity of Raritan Bay and a northwestsoutheast trending high in southern New Jersey. 

5 
Table 1.--Stratigraphic units of the northern Atlantic Coastal Plain of New Jersey!/ 

System Series Formation Lithology 

Alluvium Sand, silt, and black mud. 

Holocene 

Beach sand and gravel Sand, quartz, light-colored, mediumgrained, pebbly. Quaternary 

Cape May Forma.tion 

Sand, quartz, light-colored, hetero- Pleistocene Pensauken Formation~/ I geneous, clayey, pebbly, glauconitic. 

Bridgeton Formation 

Pliocene(?) Beacon Hill Gravel Gravel, quartz, light-colored, sandy. 

Pliocene(?) Sand, quartz, light-colored, mediumand Cohansey Sand to coarse-grained, pebbly; local clay 

Miocene(?) beds. 

Sand, quartz, gray to tan, very fine to 

Miocene Kirkwood Formation medium-grained, micaceous, and darkcolored diatomaceous clay. 

Tertiary 

Shark River Marl Sand, quartz and glauconite, gray, 

Eocene brown, and ·green, fine- to coarseManasquan grained, clayey, and green silty p. Formation and sandy clay. ;:l 

0 

H 

C!> Sand, quartz, gray and green, fine- to 

tJl Vincentown coarse-grained, glauconitic, and brown lll 

u Formation clayey, very fossiliferous, glauconite 0 Paleocene u and quartz calcarenite, c:: 

OS . !Xi Hornerstown Sand, glauconite, green, medium- to 

Sand coarse-grained, clayey. 

Tint<>n Sand and Sand, quartz and glauconite, brown and p. Red Bank Sand gray, fine- to coarse-grained, clayey, ;:l 

0 undivided micaceous H 

C!> 

.c: Navesink Sand, glauconite and quartz, green, .w 

;:J Formation black, and brown, medium- to coarse- 0 grained, clayey. a 

0 

;:;:: Mount Laurel Sand, quartz, brown and gray, fine- to 

Sand coarse-grained, glauconitic. 

Wenonah Sand, quartz, gray and brown, very fine 

Formation to fine-grained, glauconitic, micaceous. 

Upper p. 

Cretaceous ;:l Marshall town Sand, quartz and glauconite, gray and Cretaceous 0 

H Formation black, very fine to medium-grained, C!> very clayey. c:: 

OS 

:;: Englishtown Sand, quartz, tan and gray, fine- to ~ Formation medium-grained; local clay beds, "' ;:;:: 

Woodbury Clay Clay, gray and black, micaceous. 

Merchantville Clay, gray and black, micaceous, 

Formation glauconitic, silty; locally very fine 

grained quartz and glauconite sand. 

Magothy Formation Sand,. quartz, light-gray, fine-grained, 

and dark-gray lignitic clay. 

Raritan Formation Sand, quartz, light-colored, fine- to 

coarse-grained, pebbly, arkosic, and 

red, white, and variegated clay. 

Precambrian and early Paleozoic crystalline 

rocks - metamorphic schist and gneiss; Pre-Cretaceous locally Triassic basalt, sandstone, and 

shale. 

])Modified after Seaber, 1965, table 3. 

1/Age of Pensauken Formation now considered late Miocene. 

6 
Raritan and Magothy FQnnations 

The Raritan Formation is the oldest stratigraphic unit in the northern 

Coastal Plain of New Jersey. This formation, which lies unconformably on 

the pre-Cretaceous basement, consists chiefly of interstratified lightcolored sands and dark or variegated silty clays and clayey silts. 

Depositional environments ranging from marine and marginal marine to those 

of a subaerial and subaquaceous deltaic plain (Owens and others, 1968) are 

represented in the various beds of this formation. The Raritan has a 

maximum thickness, in outcrop, of about 500 ft (152m) in the northern New 

Jersey Coastal Plain. 

The Magothy Formation overlies the Raritan Formation throughout New 

Jersey. In the Raritan Bay area the Magothy consists of three units; a 

basal unit of massive to laminated dark micaceous silt, a middle unit of 

thin-bedded dark clays and silts and light-colored sand, and an upper 

unit of cross-bedded sand (Owens and Sohl, 1969). Farther south, near 

Trenton, the Magothy consists of a unit of light-colored cross-bedded sand, 

which has been correlated (Berry, 1906) with the uppermost unit of the 

Magothy at Raritan Bay. Along its outcrop, the Magothy ranges in thickness 

from about 175 ft (53 m) near Raritan Bay to about 500 ft (152 m) near 

Trenton. 

Matawan Group 

The Matawan Group is divided into five formations; ascending they are 

the Merchantville Formation, Woodbury Clay, Englishtown Formation, Marshalltown 

Formation, and Wenonah Formation. The Merchantville Formation disconformably 

overlies the Magothy throughout the New Jersey Coastal Plain. It consists 

primarily of an interbedded marine sequence of dark-colored thin micaceous 

clayey silt and very fine silty sand with massive thick beds of silty 

glauconite sand in the Raritan Bay area. The formation becomes thicker 

bedded toward the southwest. 

The Woodbury Clay overlies the Merchantville Formation in the northern 

and central part of the New Jersey Coastal Plain. It pinches out in the 

area just north of Swedesboro in southwestern New Jersey and is not seen 

in outcrop south of that point. The contact between the two formations is 

gradational. The Woodbury is a massive-bedded dark-gray to grayish-black 

lignitic sandy to clayey silt and silty clay of marine origin. 

The Merchantville Formation and Woodbury Clay are both about 50 ft 

(15 m) thick along their outcrop between Trenton and Raritan Bay. South 

and southeast from the outcrop area, the combined thickness of the 

Merchantville Formation and Woodbury Clay gradually increases to about 200 

ft (61 m). The total thickness of the two units then increases sharply 

to more than 300 ft (91 m) over a roughly elliptically shaped area of 

southeastern Monmouth County. An isopach map of the combined thickness of 

the two formations is shown in figure 2. The thickness data used in constructing the map is given in table 2. The location of stratigraphic control 

wells are shown on figure 3. 

7 
EXPLANATION 

OlJJJTIJIOTIJ OUTCROP OF THE ENGLISHTOWN FORMATION 

-2ooISOPACH SHOWING THICKNESS IN FEET 

CONTOUR INTERVAL 20 FEET 

{CONVERSION FACTOR I FOOT 

SCALE 

10 

FIGURE 2. --COMBINED THICKNESS OF 

FORMATION AND WOODBURY 

THE MERCHANTVILLE 

CLAY IN MONMOUTH AND 

NORTHERN OCEAN AND BURLINGTON COUNTIES, N.J. 

40' 

oo' 

8 
EXPLANATION 

mrromiTID OUTCROP OF THE ENGLISHTOWN FORMATION 

e31 

WE:LL DEVELOPED IN ENGLISHTOWN AQUIFER 

(SEE TABLE 4, 6, AND 7). 

eiBS 

WELL DEVELOPED IN AQUIFER BELOW THE 

ENGLISHTOWN AQUIFER (SEE TABLE 4). 

A A' B e-------4 TRACE OF CROSS-SECTiON ( 

SCALE 

FIGURE 3. --LOCATION OF WELLS USED FOR STRATIGRAPHIC 

CONTROL DATA. 

40° 

i5' 

4QO 

oo' 

9 
Table 2.--Stratigraphic control data 

MAP 

NO 

LOCATION 01-JNFR 

LOCAL 

liiELL 

NU"'iBER 

ALTITUDEOF LSD 

(fT) 

DATE 

DRILLED 

<YEAR) 

WELL 

DEPTH 

(FH 

ITUDE 

OF TOP 

OF 

ENGt_ISHTOWN 

FORMATION 

THICKNESS 

OF 

ENGLISHTOWN 

FORMATION 

<FT> 

THICKNESS 

OF 

LAYER 

(FT> 

THICKNESS 

oF 

LAYER 

{FT) 

31 

43 

53 

84 

105 

402114NO 7403l5ol 

40I927No735842ol 

40l720N07403Is.1 

40l322N0740l55.,l 

40l025N0740212 .. l 

RED BANK W D 

MON BCH CLD STR 

R H MACY So CO 

MONMOUTH CON WC 

WALL HIP W D 

RBWD 2 

MBCS 2 

BAMBERGER TEST 

WHITESVILLE 3 

WEST BELMAR 

30 

10 

70 

10 

25 

1956 

1961 

195·7 

195•+ 

1959 

300 

430 

430 

566 

575 

-112 

-286 

-280 

--'~36 

-541 

1313 

136 

116 

104 

a:o+ 

42 

42 

42 

40 

35 

144 

111 

112 

118 

120 

124 

400908N0741330el 

400832N0740B2l.,l 

400823N0741520e1 

4ooB24No74oSoB .. 1 

400742N0741639.,1 

ALDRICH W CO 

US GEOL SURVEY 

JACKSON TWP MUA 

WALL TWP W 0 

JACKSON TWP MUA 

ALDRICH ''II CO 4 

ALLAIRE S P C 

JACKSO~ 2 

ALLENWOOD 2 

JACKSO~ 4 

130 

96 

156 

80 

80 

196.7 

1963 

1962 

1959 

1965 

550 

633 

577 

710 

soo 

-380 

-£•69 

-330 

-524 

-366 

56+ 

108 

118+ 

74 

138+ 

40 

40 

40 

44 

50 

133 

131 

140 

146 

148 

400614N0741157 .. 1 

400555N0740B51.,1 

400500N074llOB.l 

400443N0741352el 

400416No74270l•l 

LAKEWOOD W C 

PARKWAY W C 

LAKEWOOD W C 

LAKEWOOD W C 

US GEOL SURVEY 

LAKEWOOD 9 

PARKWAY 1 

LAKEWOOD 

LAKEWOOD 8 

COLL MILLS T\111 

55 

45 

30 

78 

137 

1968 

1958 

1966 

1965 

1964 

698 

646 

736 

758 

427 

-478 

-558 

-552 

-520 

-249 

110 

124+ 

110 

160 

96+ 

54 

50 

94 

100 

44 

153 

154 

161 

lS 

2S 

400358N0740812.1 

400312N074ll23el 

395609No741240•l 

402536N0735905.1 

402449N0740910.l 

BRADLEES CORP 

S LAKEWOOD W C 

US GEOL SURVEY 

STATE OF NJ 

LILY TULIP CUP 

BRADLEES WELL 

S LAKEwOOD 3 

TOMS RIVER TW2 

SANOY HOOK SPl 

DEEP TEST WELL 

10 

45 

}5 

10 

60 

1969 

1966 

1965 

1965 

1969 

710 

741 

1146 

397 

799 

-640 

-616 

-886 

·-55 

--

62+ 

54+ 

222 

146 

122+ 

48 

62 

46 

10 

-- 94 

81) 

3S 

.4S 

5S 

6S 

7S 

402102N074I353.,1 

40l902N07418U.4 

40l639No735936el 

401633NQ74172B•l 

401633N074l726.,2 

MARLBORO S HOSP 

GoRDONS W C 

MONMOUTH CONsOL 

FREEHOLD W D 

FREEHOLD W D 

STATE HOSP 15 

GoRUoNS 4 

MCWC l 

FREEHOLD 3 

TOP.,LAKE TEST 

135 

150 

10 

120 

110 

1966 

1968 

1956 

1964 

1967 

810 

810 

981 

567 

585 

+17 

+38 

-384 

+16 

+34 

70 

80 

122 

lOB 

100 

14 

19 

42 

36 

24 

148 

164 

140 

160 

178 

8S 

9S 

lOS 

llS 

12S 

401625N074150le2 

401609N074l206ol 

401607N0742014.1 

401558N0740908e1 

40l557No742318el 

SO GULF UTIL 

HARMONY GOLF CL 

BATTLEGROUND CC 

NAD EARLE 

BOY sCOUTS AMER 

SO GuLF 2 

HARMON GOLF l 

IRRIGATION 

NAD EARLE 2 

QUAIL HILL 2 

195 

135 

125 

135 

250 

1966 

1963 

1967 

1944 

1967 

656 

712 

569 

836 

527 

-66 

-137 

+6 

-202 

+62 

92 

98 

100 

98 

62 

36 

12 

26 

22 

16 

190 

186 

174 

210 

152 

13S 

14S 

lSS 

16S 

17S 

40l5lONo741604el 

401412N0741606el 

401322N0740202el 

401223N0742B47.l 

40ll34No7410l4el 

NESTLE CO 

FREEHOLD TWP 

MONMOUTH CON 

WILLIAM LEE 

ROKEACH SONS 

WD 

WC 

3 SUPPLY 

KOENIG LANE 1 

WHITESVILLE 4 

-- ROKEAC'"i 1 

155 

130 

25 

175 

80 

1970 

1957 

1956 

1960 

}961 

650 

670 

957 

456 

885 

-71 

-92 

-421 

+50 

-302 

ll04 

100 

100 

76 

102 

28 

32 

44 

32 

c;2 

186 

172 

242 

165 

261 

18S 

19S 

20S 

21S 

22S 

40l005N0742939.l 

400957N07413l7e1 

400921No74o743·l 

400853N0741925.,1 

400733N0742635.,l 

PUNK 8ROS 

ALDRICH \II CO 

STA.TE OF N J 

5,. SWITLICK 

PUNK DEEP WELL 

ALDRICH W CO 2 

ALLAIRE S P G2 

OIL TEST WELL 

TEST WELL 68-1 

140 

150 

30 

110 

120 

1964 

1960 

1967 

--· 1968 

952 

440 

1029 

5000 

404 

-4 

-320 

-482 

-251) 

-172 

84 

124 

90 

156 

100 

28 

34 

44 

24 

40 

116 

--

326 

172 

I-' 

0 
Table 2.--Stratigraphic control data--Continued 

THICKNESS THICKNESS 

ALTITUDE THICKNESS Of OF 

ALTI- OF TOP OF OVERLYING UNDERLYING 

LOCAL TUDE- DATE WELL OF ENGLISHTOI!JIN CONFINING CONFINING 

MAP LOCATION OWNER iN ELL OF LSD DRILLED DEPTH ENGLISHTOWN FORMA TIONI LAYER LAYER 

(FT) <YEAR) (FT) NO NUMBER FORMATION (FT) <FT> {FT) 

23S 400454N074C414.1 PT PLEASANT W D PPWD 5 18 1960 1342 -705 158+ 42 188 

24S 40t)3}9"JQ74}957.1 GLIDDEN-DURKEE SCM 3 lOS 1962 }128 -402 166 62 162 

25S 400300N0743517.l US AIR FORCE MCGUIRE 8 126 1960 835 -112 50 80 178 

26S 400256N0744lll.l wM G HELlS STOCK FARM 3 70 1962 372 +2 so 35 172 

27S 400211JN07403l0.2 OCEAN Co W C MANTOLOKING 7 10 1960 1369 -854 180 38 202 

28S 400l38N0743753.1 US ARt-iY FORT DIX 3 172 -- 869 -130 54 58 230 

29S 400129N0743656.1 US ARMY FORT DIX 2 131 1941 1051 -155 70 58 162 

30S 4001l5N07440Q9.1 WM G HELlS STOCK FARM SO 90 498 -- -96 52 56 170 

31S 400I05N0742244.l US NAVY LAKE NAS 32 100 1964 1583 -418 152 56 170 

32S 400046N074l838.l LAKEHURST WD 1 65 ll928 1035 -559 148 96 190 

33S 400021N0744737.1 ACME FOOD STORE 1 62 1956 545 +2 74 34 142 

34S 400009N074Q337e1 OCEAN CO W C NOR4ANDY 4 8 1967 1500 -92it 176 180 

35S 395938N0743742•1 US ARMY FT OIX FORT DIX 6 160 !970 1140 -232 28 40 214 

36S 395930N0741421,.1 TOMS R CHEM CO TOMS R 84 66 1968 1·~80 -7U 148 66 196 

37S 395830N0744803el BROWN CO TEST 1 40 1961 355 -4ll 60 25 180 

38S 395808NQ740416ol LAVALLETTE W D LAVALLETTE 4 5 1960 1515 -946 178 190 

39S 395721N074482l.l LUMBERTON L W S LLWS 3 10 1960 400 -90 80 28 152 

40S 395720N0744822.l LUMBERTON L W S LLWS 2 10 1960 359 -90 80 28 152 

41S 395524N074S025.1 US GEOL SURVEY MEDFORD 1 70 1963 '+10 -11.2 84 28 128 

42S 3951221'.JQ741017 .. 1 US GEOL SURVEY BUTLER PLACE 1 130 1964 2117 -684 68 18 294 

43S 394829N0740535.3 US GEOL SURVEY Is BEACH 3 8 1962 2756 -1390 152 

1-' 

1-' 
The Englishtown Formation is exposed in the western part of the New 

Jersey Coastal Plain along a northeast-southwest trending zone extending 

from Raritan Bay to Delaware Bay (fig. 1). The formation dips gently from 

30 to 50 ft/mi (feet per mile) [5.7 to 9.5 m/km (meters per kilometer)] 

toward the southeast. The top of the formation is 700 to 800 ft (213 to 

m) below sea level in northeastern Ocean County (fig. 4, table 2). 

The Englishtown conformably overlies the Woodbury Clay in the northern 

of the New Jersey Coastal Plain and the Merchantville Formation farther 

to the south (Owens and Minard, 1970). The transitional contact between 

the Woodbury and the Englishtown "is characterized by a gradual increase in 

sand-sized quartz and a decrease in silt and clay" (Owens and Sohl, 1969, 

p. 244). The Englishtown Formation along its outcrop in the northern part 

of the Coastal Plain is typically a series of light-gray to white thin· 

cross-stratified fine- to medium-grained lignitic quartz sand beds intercalated 

with thin beds of dark-gray sandy silty clay and clayey silt. A marine and 

marginal marine origin has been established for parts of the Englishtown, 

especially along its outcrop south of Trenton. The internal structure of 

the Englishtown indicates an alluvial origin for the formation exposed 

between Trenton and Raritan Bay (Owens and Sohl, 1969, p. 245); in the 

vicinity of Raritan Bay a shallow-water to beach-complex environment of 

deposition is suggested by Minard (1969) and Seaber (1965). 

The formation in the subsurface in northern, northwestern, and western 

Monmouth County seems to retain most of the lithologic characteristics 

displayed in outcrop. However, along a line extending roughly from Long 

Branch westward to the Freehold area and then southwest through extreme 

northwestern Ocean County, the Englishtown can be subdivided into two or 

three ill-defined thick dominantly sandy zones separated by one or two 

indistinct silty zones, which range in thickness from about 5 to 15 ft 

(1.5 to 4.6 m). This lithologic subdivision can be traced downdip into 

southeastern Monmouth County and northern and eastern Ocean County, where 

the formation can be subdivided into three distinct lithologic units over 

an area extending from north of Lakewood east to Point Pleasant, south to 

Toms River, and southwest into east-central Burlington County (fig. 5). The 

upper and lower units consist of light-colored fine- to very fine-grained 

lignitic quartz sand with thin interbeds of dark sandy silt. These 

units are separated by a thick sequence of dark-gray sandy and clayey 

lignitic silt beds. The uppermost sand pinches out, apparently grading 

laterally into the silty lithofacies somewhere between Mantoloking and 

Normandy Beach and between Toms River and Lavallette. Farther southeast 

at Island Beach State Park the very fine-grained silty sand to sandy 

lithofacies predominates. 

Seaber (1965) restricted the name Englishtown Formation to the quartz 

sand lithofacies, as described in outcrop, limiting the name Englishtown 

to a distinctive water-bearing rock-stratigraphic unit. However, Owens and 

Sohl (1969) and Owens, Minard, Sohl, and Mello (1970) include more than one 

12 
EXPLANATION 

mmrrn OUTCROP OF THE ENGLISHTOWN FORMATION 

STRUCTURE CONTOUR ON TOP OF ENGLISHTOWN 

FORMATION SHOWING ALTITUDE IN FEET. 

DATUM IS MEAN SEA LEVEL. 

CONTOUR INTERVAL 100 FEET 

(CONVERSION FACTOR· I FOOT" 0. 3048 METER I 

SCALE 

10 MILES 

10 

FIGURE 4. --STRUCTURE CONTOURS OF THE TOP OF THE 

ENGLISHTOWN FORMATION IN MONMOUTH AND 

NORTHERN OCEAN COUNTIES, N.J. 

13 
A A' 

MARSHALLTOWN FORMATION 

upper sand lithofacies 

ENGLISHTOWN 

clayey slit lithofacies 

""'V~l1!,;,, 

------FORMATION----

lower sand lithofacies 

.-..: ,,;,,(·":&,\.("~ 

j 

.... 

.. 

::0 

.. 

s] ~A' 

upper aand lithofacies 

ENGLISHTOWN 

clayey silt lithofacies 

0 5· 10 MILES 

0 5 10 15 KILOMETERS 

vertical txQ9Geralion X 417 

FIGURE 5 • --CROSS SECTIONS A-A' AND 8-B' SHOWING THE SAND AND CLAYEY SILT LITHOFACIES 

ON NATURAL GAMMA RADIATION LOGS OF THE ENGLISHTOWN FORMATION IN NORTHERN 

E C SS-SE S 3 

._j-

.-l 
lithofacies in the formation. This report follows the usage of Owens and 

Sohl and includes more than one lithofacies in the Englishtown. The 

lowermost sand in the subsurface of Ocean County, previously not recognized 

as part of the Englishtown, can be traced northward into the more typical 

Englishtown sequence in Monmouth County. The middle silty sequence is 

included in the formation because of its stratigraphic position between the 

two sand units; it is probably continuous with one of the silty zones 

observed in the subsurface of central Monmouth County. 

The thickness of the Englishtowu along its outcrop Ln the northern New 

Jersey Coastal Plain ranges from about 140 ft (43 m) near Raritan Bay to 

about SO ft (lS m) near Trenton. The formation averages about 100 ft (30 

·thick in the subsurface throughout most of central Monmouth County. It 

gradually thickens to about 160 ft (49 m) in northern Ocean County and 

attains a maximum thickness of more than 200 ft (61 m) in the Toms River area 

of east-central Ocean County (fig. 6, table 2)e Figures 7, 8, and 9 show 

the thickness of each of the three units into which the Englishtown can be 

subdivided in southeastern Monmouth County and northern Ocean County. Figure 

S shows these units in cross section. The upper sand unit thins southeastward 

from a maximum thickness of more than 80 ft (24 m) in northern Ocean County 

to less than 40 ft (12 m) near Toms River and about 20 ft (6 m) at Mantoloking@ 

This lithofacies is absent from the section at Island Beach. The middle silt 

sequence thickens southeastward from about 20ft (6 m), where it can be 

clearly identified in northern Ocean County and southeastern Monmouth County 

to more than 130 ft (39 m) in the Toms River-Lavallette area. The lower sand 

had an average thickness of between 30 and 40 ft (9 and 12 m) in north-central 

Ocean County. The unit thic~ens slightly toward the southeast to a maximum 

of about SO ft (lS m) at Toms River and Lavallette. It cannot readily be 

recognized in the section at Island Beach State Park. 

The Marshalltown Formation, which overlies the Englishtown throughout 

the New Jersey Coastal Plain is a massive dark-greenish-black fine- to very 

fine-grained clayey glauconite-quartz sand and silt. The abrupt contact 

between the Marshalltown and Englishtown and the presence of reworked 

Englishtown material in the basal few feet of the Marshalltown suggest a 

disconformable relationship (Owens and Sohl, 1969). The formation is remarkably 

uniform in thickness along its entire outcrop in New Jersey, ranging from 10 

to 20 ft (3 to 6 m). The same uniformity is observed everywhere in the 

subsurface of the northern Coastal Plain of New Jersey. 

The overlying Wenonah Formation is a poorly sorted dark silty very fine 

to fine sand. The contact with the underlying Marshalltown is gradational. 

The Wenonah obtains a maximum thickness in outcrop of about 70 ft (21 m) in 

the vicinity of Mount Holly, N.J. (Minard and others, 1964) •. It thins along 

the outcrop both to the northeast and southwest. Minard (1969, 196S) reports 

a thickness of 2S to 30 ft (7.6 to 9 m) near Raritan Bay and 15 to 25 ft 

(4.S to 7.6 m) in extreme southwestern New Jersey. A similar range in thickness 

is observed in the subsurface of the northern Coastal Plain of New Jersey, 

although accurate identificatibn of the formation on geophysical logs is 

difficult. 

15 
EXPLANATION 

OUTCROP OF 

mm1mom 

THE ENGLISHTOWN FORMATION 

-4oISOPAcH SHOWING THICKNESS IN FEET 

CONTOUR INTERVAL 20 FEET, 

(CONVERSION FACTOR: I FOOT • 0.3048 METER) 

SCALE 

10 MILES 

10 

400 

oo' 

FIGURE 6. --THICKNESS OF THE ENGLISHTOWN FORMATION IN 

MONMOUTH AND NORTHERN OCEAN AND BURLINGTON 

COUNTIES, N.J. 

16 
EXPLANATION 

ffiilliiDITIO OUTCROP OF THE ENGLISHTOWN FORMATION 

-4o- lsaPACH SHOWING THICKNESS IN FEET. 

DASHED WHERE INFERRED. 

CONTOUR INTERVAL 20 FEET. 

I CONVERSION FACTOR: I FOOT , 0. 30 4 8 

SCALE 

10 MILES 

10 

FIGURE 7. --THICKNESS OF THE LOWER SAND LITHOFACIES OF 

THE ENGLISHTOWN FORMATION IN NORTHERN OCEAN 

COUNTY, N.J. 

17 
EXPLANATION 

OJUIIillO]J OUTCROP OF THE ENGLISHTOWN FORMATION 

-zoISOPACH SHOWING THICKNESS IN FEET 

CONTOUR INTERVAL 20 FEET 

FACTOR' I FOOT • 0. 3048 METER) 

SCALE 

10 MILES 

10 

40° 

15' 

400 

oo' 

FIGURE 8 • --THICKNESS OF THE CLAYEY SILT LITHOFACIES OF 

THE ENGLISHTOWN FORMATION IN NORTHERN OCEAN 

COUNTY, N.J. 

18 
EXPLANATION 

OUTCROP OF 

mmiiDITID 

THE ENGLISHTOWN FORMATION 

-40-

ISOPACH SHOWING THICKNESS IN FEET 

CONTOUR INTERVAL 20 FEET 

(CONVERSION Fi\CTOR' I FOOT' 0. 3048 METER) 

SCALE 

10 MILES 

10 

FIGURE 9 . --THICKNESS OF THE UPPER SAND LITHOFACIES OF 

THE ENGLISHTOWN FORMATION IN NORTHERN OCEAN· 

COUNTY, N.J. 

19 
Monmouth Group 

Overlying the Wenonah Formation of the Matawan Group in the northern 

Coastal Plain of New Jersey is a sequence of medium- to coarse-grained quartz 

and glauconite sands named the Monmouth Group which is divided into four 

formations. The Wenonah Formation is the oldest and grades upward into the 

Mount Laurel Sand, which, like other coarse clastic units in the Coastal 

Plain, consists of more than one lithofacies along its outcrop. Near Raritan 

Bay the Mount Laurel consists of light-colored thin-bedded fine- to mediumgrained glauconite sand with thin interbeds of dark clay and silt. This 

facies interfingers along strike to the southwest with a massive-bedded darkgray medium sand, which constitutes the formation near Trenton. The thickness 

of the Mount Laurel ranges from 20 to 70ft (6 to 21m). The Navesink 

Formation, a massive dark-colored clayey glauconite sand ranging in thickness 

from 5 to 35ft (1.5 to 10.6 m), abruptly overlies the Mount Laurel throughout 

the New Jersey Coastal Plain. The Navesink grades upward into the Red Bank 

Sand, which has been subdivided into two members; a lower member of dominantly 

massive dark silty sand, which grades laterally into a glauconitic sand, and 

an upper member of light-colored fine to coarse sand. The Red Bank has a 

maximum thickness of about 130 ft (39.6 m) in the Raritan Bay area, but 

pinches out downdip and along strike to the southwest. The Red Bank is 

overlain by the Tinton Sand; the contact between the two formations is gradational. The Tinton is a fine to medium glauconite-quartz to quartz-glauconite 

sand, which, like the underlying Red Bank, occurs only in the northern part 

of the New Jersey Coastal Plain. Its maximum thickness in outcrop is about 

25ft (7.6 m). The top of the Cretaceous section in New Jersey is marked by 

a generally subtle unconformity with the basal Tertiary sediments overlapping 

progressively lower beds in the Cretaceous section from northeast to southwest 

(Minard and others, 1969). 

GEOHYDROLOGY OF THE ENGLISHTOWN AQUIFER SYSTEM 

The quartz sand lithofacies (two units shown on fig. 5) of the Englishtown 

Formation, hereafter referred to as the Englishtown aquifer, are utilized as 

a source of water throughout an area of about 1,100 mi2 (2,849 km2) of the 

New Jersey Coastal Plain (fig. 1) (Seaber, 1965, p. Bl6). It is an important 

source of water supply in the northeastern Coastal Plain in Monmouth County 

and northern Ocean County. The aquifer is less developed in Burlington, 

Camden, Gloucester, and Salem Counties to the southwest, largely because ·of 

a decrease in thickness and water-yield capabilities, and the presence of 

other more productive aquifers. Total ground-water withdrawals for public 

supply in Monmouth and northern Ocean Counties increased from about 5.5 

Mgal/d (0.24 m3/s) in 1959 to about 9.5 Mgal/d (0.4 m3/s) in 1970. Water 

levels in some parts of this area are declining 8 to 12 ft (2.4 to 3.6 m) 

per year and have declined more than 100 ft (30 m) near centers of pumping 

between 1959 and 1970 (fig. 10). 

The Englishtown aquifer, together with the underlying and overlying 

beds, constitute the Englishtown a~uifer system. This system is, 

20 
-zo--- LINE SHOWING EQUAL DECLINE OF WATER LEVEL IN FEET. 

CONTOUR INTERVAL 20 FEET. 

FACTOR: I FOOT' 0. 3048 METER) 

SCALE 

10 

oo' 

FIGURE 1 0. --DECLINE IN WATER LEVEL BETWE~N JANUARY 1959 

AND NOVEI\1BER 1970 IN THE ENGLISHTOWN AQUIFER 

IN MONMOUTH AND NORTHERN OCEAN COUNTIES, N.J. 

21 
in turn, a subsystem of the larger Coastal Plain aquifer system of New Jersey. 

The overlying confining bed, which includes the Marshalltown Formation and 

part of the Wenonah Formation, provides the interconnection between the 

Englishtown subsystem and the overlying part of the larger system. The 

Merchantville Formation and Woodbury Clay, which together constitute the 

lower confining bed, perform the same function with respect to that part of 

the larger system underlying the Englishtown. 

Aquifer Geometry and Boundaries 

The thickness of the Englishtown aquifer in Monmouth County and the 

upper sand lithofacies of the aquifer in northern Ocean and Burlington Counties 

is shown in figure 11. Throughout most of Monmouth County the aquifer includes 

the entire thickness of the Englishtown Formation. In southeastern Monmouth 

County and northern Ocean and Burlington Counties, however, only the upper 

sand lithofacies (fig. 9) is included as part of the aquifer. Because of 

the lack of data, the lower sand lithofacies (fig. 7) is not included in the 

aquifer for the purposes of this study, even though it is lithologically and 

hydrologically continuous with the aquifer over some undefined area across 

southern Monmouth County. 

The outcrop of the upper contact of the Englishtown Formation marks 

the northwestern boundary of the confined part of the aquifer. The southward 

extent of the aquifer into southern Ocean County cannot be determined because 

of a lack of data. The eastward extent and thickness trends of the aquifer, 

beyond the New Jersey coast, are also unknown. The thickest parts of the 

aquifer are in northeastern Monmouth County and south-central Monmouth and 

north-central Ocean Counties, where it is more than 120 ft (36 m) thick. 

The aquifer generally thins toward the south into central and eastern Ocean 

County. 

Aquifer Coefficients 

Two pumping tests of the Englishtown aquifer have been conducted; one 

at Lakewood in north-central Ocean County on May 14 and 15, 1959, and the 

other near Allenwood in Wall Township in extreme southeastern Monmouth 

County on November 28, 1959. The Theis (1935) nonequilibrium formula was 

used in 1959 to evaluate the data collected during both of these tests. This 

formula, however, does not take into account the leaky nature of the aquifer. 

Consequently, the transmissivity ascribed to the Englishtown by previous 

investigators (Seaber, 1965; Rush, 1968; Anderson and Appel, 1969) generally 

has been too large. The data collected during the two pumping tests were 

re-evaluated during this study using the Hantush (1960) modified leaky 

aquifer theory. The transmissivity computed from the drawdown data at 

Lakewood using the Theis equation was 1,300 ft2/day (square feet per day) 2 [121m /day (square meters per day)]. This compares with a transmissivity 2 of 1,100 ft /day (102m2/day) computed from drawdown data with the Hantush 

modified equations. The storage coefficients computed with the Theis 

equation were 2.7 x lo-4. These compare with a storage coefficient of 2.2 x 

computed with the modified leaky aquifer equations. 

22 
OUTCROP OF THE ENGLISHTOWN FORMATION 

--eoIsoPAcH SHOWING THICKNESS IN FEET. 

DASHED WHERE INFERRED. 

CONTOUR INTERVAL 20 FEET. 

(CONVERSION FACTOR ' I FOOT = 0.3048 METER l 

DATA CONTROL • POINT 

SCALE 

5 10 MILES 

FIGURE 11'! --THICKNESS OF THE ENGLISHTOWN AQUIFER IN 

MONMOUTH COUNTY AND OF THE UPPER SAND 

LITHOFACIES OF THE ENGLISHTOWN AQUIFER IN 

NORTHERN OCEAN AND BURLINGTON COUNTIES, N.J. 

23 
The drawdown and recovery data obtained during the test at Allenwood 

were 2 used in the Theis equation to compute transmissivities of 1,200 ft /day 2 2 (111m /day) and 1,300 ft /day (121m2/day). These same drawdown data were 

2 used to compute a transmissivity of 1,100 ft /day (102 m2/day) with the 

Hantush modified leaky aquifer equations. The storage coefficients computed 

with the Theis equations _c;: were 8.8 x lo-5 and 8.3 x lo-5 which are close to 

the value of 7 .. 6 x 10--' computed with the modified leaky aquifer equations. 

The aquifer thickness in the vicinity of the Lakewood test is between 

70 and 75 ft (21 and 23m). The hydraulic conductivity, using the value of 

transmissivity computed with the modified leaky aquifer equations, is about 

15 ft/day (feet per day) [4.6 m/day (meters per day)]. At Allenwood the 

hydraulic conductivity is about 12 ft/day (4.6 m/day) based on an aquifer 

thickness of approximately 90ft (27m). 

Additional values of transmissivity have been estimated using specific 

capacity data from large diameter wells. The estimated transmissivities 

range from 650 ft2/day (60m2/day) to 2,400 ft2/day (223m2/day) (table 3). 

The technique used (Hurr, 1966) to make these estimates is based on a 

manipulation of the Theis equation. The approach suffers from the same 

shortcomings as applying the Theis equation to aquifer test data since water 

released from storage in the confining layers is neglectedc The estimates 

serve as a guide, however, to the approximate range of transmissivity that 

might reasonably be expected. Hydraulic conductivity values obtained from 

the estimated transmissivities range from 11 ft/day (3.3 m/day) to 20 ft/day 

(6.1 m/day)., The mean and median of 15 values of hydraulic conductivity is 

15 ft/day (4.5 m/day). This compares very well with the mean hydraulic 

conductivity of 13.5 ft/day (4.1 m/day) computed from the results of the 

two aquifer tests using the modified leaky aquifer equations. The extreme 

and average values of aquifer hydraulic conductivity and specific 

storage for the aquifer and confining layers are given in table 4. The 

transmissivity of the Englishtown aquifer which is based on all available 

data is shown in figure 12., 

Table 3.--Estimated transmissivity and hydraulic conductivity of the 

Englishtown aquifer based on the specific capacity of selected wells 

T K 

Well No. (ft2/day)- (m2/day) (ft/day) (m/ day) 

Red Bank Boro 2 2,400 223 17 5.2 

Belmar Boro 11 1,400 130 16 4.9 

Spring Lake Boro 3 960 99 12 3.6 

Brielle Boro 2 1,100 102 14 4 .. 2 

Lakewood Water Co. 6 1,100 102 16 4.9 

Point Pleasant Water Dept .. 1 740 69 12 3.6 

do. 2 900 84 15 4 .. 6 

do. 3 750 70 12 3.,6 

Central RR of New Jersey 1,100 102 19 5 .. 8 

Ocean County Water Co .. Bay Head 6 650 60 13 3 .. 9 

Lavoie Labs 1,600 149 20 6 .. 1 

Frank Gumina 1,900 176 17 5 .. 2 

Anthony Verange 2,000 186 20 6 .. 1 

Laura Harding 1,200 111 12 3 .. 6 

U.s .. Army, Camp Evans Bldg., 82 1,000 93 11 3 .. 3 

24 
\ I EXPLANATION 

OUTCROP OF THE ENGLISHTOWN FORMATION 

--1200 .......... 

LINE OF EQUAL TRANSMISSIVITY 

IN FT2/DAY . 

........... aoo/ 

SUPPLEMENTARY CONTOUR 

2 CONTOUR INTERVAL 400 FT /DAY. 

2 2 I FT I DAY 0.0929 M /0AY 

SCALE 

5 10 MILES 

FIGURE 12. --TRANSMISSIVITY OF THE ENGLISHTOWN AQUIFER IN 

MONMOUTH AND NORTHERN OCEAN COUNTIES, N.J. 

25 
Table 4.--Extreme and average values of hydraulic coefficients of the 

aquifer and confining layer 

(K - hydraulic conductivity) 

(S - specific storage) s 

Maximum Minimum 

A .f l/ qu1. er:-

K (ft/sec) 2 .. 31 X 1()-4 

.LV 1.29 X 1 (\ -4 .LV 1.,65 X 10-4 

s 

s 

Upper 

K' 

s ' s 

Lower 

K" 

s H 

s 

(1/ft) 2 .. 98 X 10-6 8 .. 48 X 10-7 

confining layer: 

(ft/sec) 5,.7 X 10-9 6.5 X 10-11 

(1/ft) 9.,2 X 10-5 5 .. 1 X 10-5 

• 

confining layer: 

(ft/sec) 6.9 X 10-10 4.2 X 10-11 

(1/ft) 4 .. 6 X 10-4 9.6 X 10-5 

2:.1 

1 .. 7 X 10-10 

7 .. 1 X 10-5 

7.6 X 10-11 

8.8 X 10 .. 5 

Regional Configuration of the Potentiometric Surface 

and Water-level Trends 

The approximate configuration of the prepumping potentiometric surface 

in the Englishtown aquifer in Monmouth, Ocean, and Burlington Counties has 

been reconstructed using the earliest available water-level data (fig. 13, 

table 5). The data are mostly from the period 1890-1900, but some are as 

late as 1920. The altitude of the surface in the Belmar-Spring Lake area 

of southeastern Monmouth County probably reflects the effects of pre-1900 

withdrawals. The potentiometric surface was everywhere above sea level 

and was above land surface along the coastal areas south of Long Branch 

as well as in some inland areas. Several wells drilled at Lakewood in 

northeastern Ocean County in 1899 flowed between 100 and 150 gal/min 

(gallons per minute) [6.3 and 9.4 1/s (liters per second)] at land surface. 

Water-level measurements obtained in December 1958 and January 1959 

were available for Monmouth and Ocean Counties (table 6). Well construction 

data are shown on table 7. It is apparent from these data that ground-water 

withdrawals between 1900 and 1959 caused a significant lowering of the 

potentiometric surface in eastern and southeastern Monmouth County and 

northeastern Ocean County (fig. 14) .. A decline of 40ft (12m) or more 

occurred over a wide area, and a decline of more than 100 ft (30 m) occurred 

l/calculated from aquifer test data 

~/Insufficient field data 

3

- /H armon1.c . mean va 1 ues. 

26 
\ 

EXPLANATION 

OUTCROP OF 

lTIIDiilliTTIJ 

THE ENGLISHTOWN FORMATION 

-4oISOPOTENTIAL LINE SHOWING ALTITUDE IN 

FEET. DATUM IS MEAN SEA LEVEL. 

CONTOUR INTERVAL 20 FEET. 

{CONVERSION FACTOR· I FOOT • 0. 30 4 8 

SCALE 

10 MILES 

10 

4()0 

oo' 

FIGURE 13. --ALTITUDE OF THE POTENTIOMETRIC SURFACE IN THE 

ENGLISHTOWN AQUIFER ABOUT 1900 IN MONMOUTH AND 

NORTHERN OCEAN AND BURLINGTON COUNTIES, N.J. 

27 
OUTCROP OF THE ENGLISHTOWN FORMATION 

-4o- lsoPorENTIAL LINE SHOWING ALTITUDE, 

IN FEET. DATUM IS MEAN SEA LEVEL. 

CONTOUR INTERVAL 20 FEET 

(CONVERSION FACTOR' I FOOT = 0.3048 METER) 

DATA CONTROL • POINT 

SCALE 

10 MILES 

FIGURE 14. --ALTITUDE OF THE POTENTIOMETRIC SURFACE IN THE 

ENGLISHTOWN AQUIFER IN JANUARY 1959 IN MONMOUTH 

AND NORTHERN OCEAN COUNTIES, N.J. 

28 
Table 5.--Water-level data used in constructing 1900 potentiometric 

surface map for the Englishtown aquifer 

Altitude Water 

Local of LSD level Date 

Map Location Owner well (ft) (ft) water Remarks 

no .. designation (mean sea (depth level 

level below meas .. 

datum) lsd) 

1 402450N0740233.1 Charles Leonard Leonard 30 28 1897 

2 402024N0741009.1 Unknown Owner Unknown 160 146 1900 

3 402328N0740055.1 Vincent Lamarch Lamarch 4 0 1898 

4 402226N0740028.1 M C D Borden Borden 16 12 1897 

5 402201N0740152.1 Rumson Improvmt Rumson Imprvmt 10 6 1904 

6 402124N0735917.1 Dr Kimball Kimball 12 9 1897 

7 402111N0740055.1 Mr Lobb Lobb 45 38 1898 

8 401959N0740440.1 Town W Cormn Town W Cormnsrs 18 15 1900 

9 401942N0740230.1 Mcmahon & Dean Mcmahon & Dean 38 2 1899 

10 401653N0741721.1 Freehold W&U Au Freehold W&U 120 16 1890 

11 401316N0740142.1 Ocean Grove AS Ocean Grove AS 20 +28 1883 

12 400817N0740223.1 Beach H Sea Grt Beach House SG 11 +13 1895 

13 400547N0741329.1 Laurel Hotel Laurel Hotel 50 +17 1884 

14 400507N0741247.1 Lakewood W Co Lakewood W Co 30 +20 1899 

15 400434N0740241.1 Beacon-by-Sea Beacon-by-Sea 10 +36 1896 

16 400233N0740300.1 Mantoloking Mantoloking 10 +42 1896 

17 395814N0743438.1 Mr Reilly Reilly 20 F -- Flowing 

18 395749N0743100 .. 1 J J White Co J J White Co 95 5 1914 

N 

\0 
Table 6.--Yield and water-level data for wells developed in the 

Englishtown aquifer in Monmouth and Ocean Counties 

ALTI- DATE DATE DATE 

LOCAL TUDE- DRAW PUMPING SPECifiC WATER WATER WATER WATER WATER WATER 

MAP OWNER WELL Of LSD YIELD DOWN PERIOD CAPACITY LEVEL LEVEL LEVEL LEVEL LEVEL LEVEL 

NO NUMBER (fT) (GAL/MIN) (fT) <HOURS) (fT) MEASURED (fT) MEASURED <FT) MEASURED 

1 L W BAHREN8URG BAHRENBURG 1 60 -- 6 8 -- 13 1-52 

2 EDWARD LESKE LESKE 3 25 5 6 -- 0 .. 8 10 11-52 

3 ATLAN HIGH W D AHWD 2 15 -- -- -- -- 16 -23 41() l-59 14 11-70 

4 A W ZELINSKI 1 8() 60 14 4 4.,3 26 8-63 

5 LILY TULIP CUP LILY STAND BY 65 -- 32 4 -- 19 1-62 

6 LILY TULIP CUP LILY TULIP l 65 500 44 8 u .. 4 25 2-62 

7 LILY TULIP CUP LILY TULIP 2 55 -- 32 8 -- 26 2-62 

8 LAVOIE LAB LAVOIE LAB 1 180 110 30 19 5.7 85 10-48 

9 B EDUC MARLBORO BOARD Of ED l 180 60 18 -- 3.3 70 7-48 

10 8 EDUC MARLBORO ·BoARD OF ED 2 -- 150 28 -- 5.4 64 9-67 

11 DOhlALD AHLERS -- 121 10 -- -- -- 40 5-64 

12 L F GRANDINETTI -- 70 30 28 -- 1.1 35 12-55 

13 JOSEPH STAVELA -- 180 12 ll 12 le1 178 5-51 

14 GARDEN ST PKWY TELEGRAPH HILL 234 -- -- -- -- -- -- 15 RICHARD CARROLL -- 95 15 6 -- 2.5 22 12-53 

16 JOHN GARRISON -- 100 10 13 4 o.8 17 1-54 

17 u s ARMY NIKE BASE 305 30 58 -- o.5 215 12-57 

18 NEIL BPY -- 210 10 20 -- o.s 221 4-63 

19 f & f NURSERIES Ff NURSERIES 1 135 60 90 6 0.7 60 2-54 

20 G HUBENY -- 250 10 30 -- 0.3 180 1-54 

21 ANTHONY VERANGE VERANGE 1 250 30 4 4 7 .. 5 174 -54 

22 HARMYK AND SONS HARMYK l 205 350 56 9 6.2 174 l-56 

23 W J DUNCAN -- 145 20 23 -- o .. 9 75 8-54 

24 B~LL TELE CO BELL LAB 3 120 300 -- -- -- 40 10-66 

25 BELL TELE Co BELL LAB 2 120 300 -- -- -- 51 10-60 66 ll-70 

26 BfLL TELE CO BELL LAB 1 120 300 -- -- -- 54 12-66 

27 JOSEPH MORREL MORREL 76 -- -- -- -- 5 9-55 2 -59 

28 ROy DENSON DENSON 1 100 15 5 -- 3.0 5 l0-64 

29 MRS HARDING HARDING l 120 35 8 -- 4e4 50 1-49 

30 NICK PETRUZELLA -- 130 25 62 4 0.4 43 10-49 

31 RED BANK W D RBWD 2 30 525 53 -- 9.9 21 4-56 13 -59 

32 NOVAK HULSART 110 -- -- -- -- 16 1-58 34 ll-70 

33 RUMSON C CLUB RUMSON C C 1 1 -- -- -- -- -- -- 12 U-70 

34 JOHN LEMLI -- 160 10 20 -- o.s 10 5-54 

35 MARLBORO S HOSP STATE HOSP 6 140 200 92 -- 2.2 57 10-69 

36 MARLBORO S HOSP STATE HOSP 13 140 310 54 -- 6.9 62 H-53 59 11•70 

37 MARLBORO S HOSP STATE HOSP 14 125 300 -- -- -- -- -- 38 MRS A ONORATO -- 120 9 38 -- 0.2 35 7-53 

39 RED BANK W D R8WD 3 35 421 159 -- 2.6 25 6-46 39 11-70 

40 W SCHIE>...,EYER -- 80 15 -- -- -- 18 9-53 

w 

0 
Table 6.--Yield and water-level data for wells developed in the 

Englishtown aquifer in Monmouth and Ocean Counties--Continued 

ALTI- DATE DATE 

LOCAL TUDE- DRAW PUMPING SPECIFIC WATER WATER WATER WATER WATER 

MAP Ow~ER WELL oF LSD YIELD DOWN PERIOD CAPACITY LEVEL LEVEL LEVEL LEVEL LEVEL 

NO NUMBER (FT) (GAL/MIN) (fl) <HOURS) eFT) MEASURED (Fif) MEASURED (fT) MEASURED 

41 MARLBORO S HOSP STATE HOSP 4 125 100 

42 MARLBORO S HOSP STATE HOSP 5 135 100 

43 MON BCH CLD STR MBCS 2 10 480 136 8 3.5 12 4-61 

44 H&L FAQMS -- 160 55 as 6 0.,6 62 8-51 

45 R E MORGAN -- 140 20 70 6 0.,3 so 12-47 

46 HENRY HIGGINS -- 170 12 27 -- Oe4 73 7-54 

47 M ROSENBERG ROSENBERG 1 8() 100 40 8 2.,5 35 1-57 43 U-70 

48 J p FoCARILE fOCARILE 95 10 30 -- 0.3 28 1-64 

49 VILLAGE WC VILLAGE 215 120 292 110 48 2.7 44 9-64 

50 OLD ORCHARD C C OLD ORCHARD 1 40 200 180 10 1.1 20 4-52 

51 CEDAR OR EL SCH -- 122 75 100 8 o.7 45 12-63 

52 GEORGE THOMPSON -- 100 10 8 -- 1 .. 2 12 10-54 

53 R H '-1ACY & CO BAMBERGER TEST 70 123 63 24 2.0 67 9-57 

54 E R DURAND -- 180 15 30 -- o .. s 80 3-60 

55 TAYLOR PALMER 1 90 15 13" -- 1.2 22 12-55 

56 TENNENT ORCH I -- 130 12 70 -- o.2 35 10-54 

57 SO GULF UTIL SO GULF l 200 80 140 8 0.,6 uo 8-64 

58 ATLANTIC TWP SC ATLANTIC SCH 1 86 25 30 -- 0 .. 8 30 10-54 ll09 11-70 

59 K A JAOASSOHN -- 120 10 30 -- 0 .. 3 30 1-56 

60 ROY H KIRSHNER -- 95 10 27 -- 0.4 20 10-53 

61 FREEHOLD TWP WO POINT IVY 1 130 1486 159 72 9.3 16 9-67 l1 ll-70 

62 ABE COHEN -- 84 12 -- -- -- 37 8-53 

63 FRANK GUMINA GUMINA 1 190 200 30 8 6.7 75 U-53 

64 MON~OUTH COUNTY MD CO C H 2 110 275 140 12 2.0 81 9-54 

65 AM KARAGHEUSIAN l 150 240 88 -- 2.7 87 l-48 

66 80Y SCOUTS AMER QUAIL HILL l 250 65 -- -- -- 1401 8-67 

67 MR SCATUORCHIO SCATUORCHIO 1 140 30 60 8 o.s 60 8-50 

68 F J MOREAU -- 185 -- -- -- -- -- -- 72 1-59 

69 GEORGE MOuNT MOuNT 2 }35 12 25 6 o.s 10 10-53 ....... -- 70 MANALAPAN W C M.b.NALAPAN 1 122 240 1s4 6 1.6 2 4-67 4 11•70 

71 S WURTZEL -- 180 10 7 -- 1.4 40 l0-53 

72 C BOROUNOVICH -- 160 10 40 -- o.2 42 3-54 

73 BROCKWAY GLASS BROCKWAY l 130 220 56 -- 3.9 44 -- 47 11-70 

74 SEASIDE INvEST -- 160 20 62 8 o.3 58 9-63 

75 LF:ON VASSEUR -- 140 10 3 -- 3.3 9 6-52 9 12-58 

76 ARE KUHL -- 230 10 34 -- o.3 so 12-56 

77 CLAYTON WM D CLAYTON 2 180 530 154 9 3,.4 56 3-55 79 l-59 

78 0 MAYK -- 145 12 35 4 0.3 65 10-49 

79 HENRY WIKOFF -- us 14 15 -- o .. 9 10 7-53 

80 FREEHOLD TWP WD KOENIG LANE 2 130 130 160 6 o .. s 41) l0-66 42 ll.-70 

w 

1--' 
Table 6.--Yield and water-level data for wells developed in the 

Englishtown aquifer in Monmouth and Ocean Counties--Continued 

ALTI- DATE DATE DATE 

LOCAL TUDE- DRAW PUMPING SPECIFIC WATER WATER WATER WATER WATER WATER 

MAP OWNER WELL Of LSD YIELD DOWN PERIOD CAPACITY LEVEL LEVEL LEVEL LEVEL LEVEL LEVEL 

NO NUMBER (fT) (GAL/MIN) (fT) (HOURS} (fT) MEASURED (ff) MEASURED (fT> MEASURED 

81 ALLENHURST W 0 AWO 2 10 525 169 -- 3.1 45 7-50 

82 ALLENHURST W D AWO 4 10 524 123 8 4.3 90 7-50 4·4 1-59 84 H-70 

83 ASBURY PARK W 0 APWO 4 10 500 160 8 3 .. 1 -- 5-63 -·- -- 84 MONMOUTH CON WC WHITESVILLE 3 10 465 162 4 2.9 so 3-54 108 U-70 

85 MONMOUTH CON WC OCEAN GROVE 20 20 300 134 -- 2·2 61 6-49 14·1 H-70 

86 FARMINGDALE W D fARMINGDALE 1 80 300 -- -- -- -- -- 71 1-59 

87 FARMINGDALE W D FARMINGDALE 2 80 90 155 -- o.6 45 1-49 

88 fARMINGDALE W 0 FARMINGDALE 4 85 302 118 8 2.6 130 12-70 

89 FARMINGDALE W D FARMINGDALE ~ 80 300 146 8 2.1 86 8-64 

90 MRS ERRICKSON -- 130 5 93 -- o.l 37 9-54 

91 MR VANHISE -- 145 10 85 -- o.l 35 7-54 

92 BELMAR BORO WD BWD 4 ELEC 15 630 103 -- 6.1 62 7-41 151 11•70 

93 DEPT OF ARMy IMPERIAL PARK2 100 302 73 -- 4.1 87 4-43 206 11-70 

94 DUNCAN THECKER D T ASSOC 1 100 80 48 -- 1.7 7 6-69 7 U-70 

95 BELMAR BORO WD BWD 8 SUB 20 

96 BELMAR BORO WD BWD 5 SUB 20 

97 BELMAR BORO WD BWD l ELEC 20 -- -- -- -- -- -- 173 H-70 

98 BELMAR BORO WD BWD 3 SUB 20 

99 BELMAR BORO WD BWO 6 SUB 20 

100 BELMAR BORO WD BWD l SUB 20 

101 BELMAR BORO 'wo BWD 4 SUB 20 

102 BELMAR BORO WO BWD 2 ELEC 20 -- -- -- -- 20 

103 BEU>1AR BORO WD BWD 3 ELEC 20 305 162 -- 1.9 100 10-49 

104 BELMAR BORO WO BWD 7 SUB 20 -- -- -- -- -- -- 105 WALL HIP W 0 WEST BELMAR 25 400 225 10 1.8 112 9-59 

106 WA.LL TWP W 0 RT 34 WELL so 402 116 8 3.5 206 l-68 242 H-70 

107 C I St-HTH -- 130 20 57 -- 0.4 25 8-53 

108 U FREEHOLD B ED BoARD EO 1 135 15 121 6 o.1 24 2-51 

109 SPRING LAKE W 0 SLWD 4 10 608 us -- 5.3 145 8-65 172 U-70 

110 SPRING LAKE W 0 SLWD 3 20 545 128 -- 4.3 62 6-41 120 12-58 

111 ALDRICH W Co ALDRICH W CO 4 130 1100 149 8 7.4 165 8-67 185 11-70 

112 US GEOL' SURVEY ALLAIRE S P C 96 -- -- -- -- 100 12-63 20'5 U-70 

113 SPRING LK HT WO SPRING LK HGT2 60 510 118 8 4.31 125 5-53 

114 SPRING LK HT WD SPRING LK HGTJ 25 457 us 8 4.0 180 11-66 206 11-70 

115 SPRING LAKE W 0 SLWD 1 15 600 57 -- 1o.s 97 8-40 1415 12-58 196 11-70 

116 SPRING LAKE W D SLWD 2 15 535 103 11 5.2 91 7-41 

117 E W HARVEY -- us 100 10 -- 10.0 10 8-50 

118 JACKSON TWP MUA JACKSON 2 }56 412 109 8 3.8 144 ll-62 231 ll-70 

119 WALL HIP W 0 ALLENWOOD 1 100 4oo 100 10 4.,0 185 l0-59 _ ... -- 120 WALL TWP W D ALLENWOOD 2 8() 400 98 10 4.1 167 11-59 256 H-70 

1-v 

N 
Table 6.--Yield and water-level data for wells developed in the 

Englishtown aquifer in Monmouth and Ocean Counties--Continued 

ALTI- DATE DATE DATE 

LOCAL TUDE- DRAW PUMPING SPECifiC WATER WATER WATER WATER WATER WATER 

MAP OWNER WELL oF LSD YIELD DOWN PERIOD CAPACITY LEVEL LEVEL LEVEL LEVEL LEVEL LEVEL 

NO NUMBER (fy) (GAL/MIN) CFT> CHOURS) <FT) MEAsURED {fT) MEASURED (f'T) MEASURED 

121 SEA GIRT W D SGWD 5 20 400 62 8 6.5 178 ll-63 188 H-70 

122 SEA GIRT W D SGWD 4 18 310 157 24 2.0 103 7-49 

123 ATLEE ZURLO --· 90 20 -- 4 -- 30 9-52 

124 JACKSON TWP MUA JACKSON 4 81') 520 ISO 8 3.5 90 7-65 133 H-70 

125 HOWELL TWP BD KENT RD 110 120 49 8 2.4 96 2-s5 

126 SEA GIRT W D SGWD 3 20 300 54 -- 5,.6 47 

127 JACKSON TWP MUA JACKSON 3 140 421 76 8 5,.5 119 5-62 193 H-70 

128 JACKSON TWP MUA JACKSON l 110 415 111 8 3 .. 7 10 l 7-61 201 ll-70 

129 BRIELLE WATER D BWD 2 33 510 uo -- 4.6 75 2-so uo 12-58 212 U-70 

130 ST GABRIELS COL ST GABRIELS 1 70 130 166 -- o.a 34 -57 149 U-70 

131 PARKWAY W C PARKWAY 1 45 179 85 5 2·1 81 8-58 

132 BRIELLE WATER D BWD 3 90 400 95 -- 4,.2 2~5 -·- 268 ll-70 

133 LAKEWOOD W C LAKEWOOD 9 55 412 147 24 2.8 126 5-68 170 u-to 

134 LAKEWOOD W C LA"KEWOOD 6 70 503 109 8 4.6 93 ll-60 tao H-70 

135 LAKESORE LAUNDR LAKESHORE LA 1 so 70 135 -- o.s so 

136 LAKEWOOD W C LAKEWOOD W C 35 

137 LAKEWOOD W C LAKEWOOD 2 60 300 -- -- -- 20 

138 LAKEWOOD W C LAKEWOOD W C 30 -- -- -- -- +20 

139 LAKEWOOD W C LAKEWOOD 5 40 215 91 2 2.4 67 5-57 

140 LAKEWOOD W C L~KEWOOD 30 -- -- -- -- 46 -·- 124 U-70 

141 PT PLEASANT W D PPWD 3 15 300 11"7 48 2e6 56 4-,+6 224 U-70 

142 PT PLEASANT W D PPWD 6 20 517 22~5 8 2.3 146 5-65 

143 PT PLEASANT W D PPWD 2 15 265 83 21 3,.2 34 9-36 

144 PT PLEASANT W D PPWD l 20 277 5"7 4 4.9 3() 6-36 

145 PT PLEASANT W D PPWD 10 -- -- -- -- +35 

1-4-6 LAKEWOOD W C LAKEWOOD 8 78 soo 230 8 2.2 84 12-65 194 U-70 

1-4-7 CENTRAL RR NJ CENTRAL RR NJ 9 250 65 -- 3.8 20 -- -- -- 148 US GEOL SURVEY COLL MILLS TWl 137 -- -- -- -- 56 l-64 57 H-70 

149 LAKEWOOD W C LAKEWOOD 7 as 350 us 8 3.,0 176 5-64 

150 NEW EGYPT WC 1 75 70 -- -- -- +15 l-59 

151 OCEAN CO W C BAy HEAD 6 10 338 139 24 2 .. 4 104 9-50 

152 OCEAN CO W C BAY HEAD 5 10 220 75 1 2 .. 9 64 3-47 202 ll-70 

153 BRADLEES CORP BRADLEES WELL 10 300 177 12 1 .. 7 138 9-69 

154 S LAKEWOOD W C S LAKEWOOD 3 45 508 176 8 2 .. 9 143 8-66 

155 S LAKEWOOD W C S LAKEWOOD 2 40 400 -- -- -- -- -- 204 u ... 1o 

156 S LAKEWOOD W C S LAKEWOOD 1 90 500 -- -- -- -- --· 245 U-70 

157 OCEAN CO W C MANTOLOKING 4 5 -- -- -- -- 42 --· -- -- 158 OCEAN CO W C MANTOLOKING 6 5 239 224 4 l .. l 58 --· 149 U-70 

159 LAVALLETTE W D LWD 2 5 512 50 4 10.2 20 4-~11 

160 LAVALLETTE W D LWD 3 1 soo 240 3 2..1 58 7-<4,8 

161 US GEOL SURVEY TOMS RIVER TW2 15 -- -- -- -- 54 12-65 

w 

w 
MAP 

NO 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 

33 

34 

35 

36 

37 

38 

39 

40 

w 

~ 

LOCATION 

402454N074ll30el 

402525No74osoz.I 

402441N0740234,.1 

402446N074Q9Q9.,l 

402441N0740846 .. 1 

402441N0740843.,l 

402438NQ74Q842 .. 1 

402239No741434 .. 1 

402232NQ74144lol 

402238N0741410.,1 

402405N074ll45 .. 1 

402354N0740134 .. 1 

402323N074o3o7 .. 1 

402325NQ741040 .. l 

40223BN07415Q6.,1 

402238N0741539 .. 1 

402235No741125.I 

402311N0741249,.1 

402223N0741024ol 

402210N0741127.l 

402210N074ll27.2 

402222No740832 .. 1 

402208N074l059.l 

402256NQ74Q950e1 

402208N0740952.,1 

402157No74too3 .. 1 

402143N0741852 .. 1 

40213BNo741532 .. 1 

402121N0740942.1 

402120N0740919el 

402114N07403I5.1 

402122NQ741846el 

402046N0740l05.1 

402035N0741615.1 

402l03N0741357 .. 1 

402103N0741351.1 

402109N0741346 .. 1 

402020N0741804.1 

402020N07404ll .. l 

401921N0742100.l 

Table 7.--Construction data for wells developed in the 

Englishtown aquifer in Monmouth and Ocean Counties 

OWNER 

L W 8AHRENBURG ED\~ARD LESKE 

ATLAN HIGH itJ D 

A W ZELINSKI 

LILY TULIP CUP 

UL Y TULIP CUP 

LILY TULIP CUP 

LAVOIE LAB 

LOCAL 

WELL 

NUMBER 

BAHREt\}BURG 1 

LESI\E 3 

AHWO 2 

1 

LILY STAND BY 

LILY TULIP 1 

LILY TULIP 2 

LAVOIE LAB l 

B EDUC MARLBORO BOARD Of ED 1 

B EDUC MARLBORO BOARD OF ED 2 

DONAL[) AHLE..RS -- L F GRANDINETTI -- JOS~PH STAVELA -- GARDEN ST PKWY TELEGRAPH HILL 

RICHARD CARROLL -- JOHN GARRISON -- u s ARMY NIKE BASE 

NEIL BRY -- F & F NURSERIES FF NURSERIES 1 

G HUBENY -- ANTHONY VERANGE VERANGE l 

HARMYK AND SONS HARMyK l 

W J DUNCAN -- BELL TELE CO BELL LAB 3 

BELL TELE CO BELL LAB 2 

BELL TELE CO BELL LAB 1 

JOSEPH MORREL MORREL 

ROY DENSON DENSON 1 

MRS HARDING HARDING 1 

NICK PETRUZELLA --

RED BANK W 0 RBWD 2 

NOVAK HULS.ART 

RUMSON C CLUB RUMSON C C l 

JOHN LEMLI -- MARLBORO S HOSP STATE rlOSP 6 

MARLBORO S HOSP STATE HOSP 13 

MARLBORO S HOSP STATE HOSP 14 

MRS A ONORATO -- RED BANK w 0 RB\.JD 3 

w·scHIE)JIEYER --

MUNICIPALITY 

HAZLET TWP 

MIDDLETOWN TWP 

ATLANTIC HIGHLAND 

t-tOLMDEL HIP 

HOLMDEL TWP 

HOLMDEL TWP 

HOLMDEL TWP 

MARLBORO TWP 

MARLBORO TWP 

MARLBORO TWP 

HOLMDEL TWP 

MIDDLETOWN HIP 

MIDDLETOWN TWP 

HOLMDEL TwP 

MARLBORO TWP 

MARLBORO TWP 

HOLMDEL HIP 

MATAWAN TWP 

HOLMDEL HIP 

HOLMDEL TWP 

HOLMDEL HIP 

MIDDLETOWN TWP 

HOU1DEL TWP 

HOLMDEL TWP 

HOLMDEL TWP 

HOU1DEL TWP 

MADISON TWP 

MARLBORO TWP 

HOLMDEL TWP 

HOLMDEL TWP 

RED BANK BORO 

MARLBORO TWP 

RUMSON BORO 

MARLBORO TWP 

1-1ARLBORO TWP 

MARLBORO TWP 

MARLBORO TWP 

MARLBORO TWP 

RED BANK BORO 

MANALAPAN TWP 

DATE 

DRILLED 

<YEAR) 

1952 

1952 

1923 

1963 

1962 

1962 

1962 

1948 

1948 

1967 

1964 

1955 

1951 

--

1953 

1954 

1957 

1963 

1954 

1954 

1954 

1956 

1954 

1960 

l96Q 

1960 

1923 

1964 

1949 

1949 

1956 

-- 1966 

1954 

1936 

1953 

1955 

1953 

1946 

1953 

ALTITUDEOF LSD 

(fT) 

60 

25 

15 

80 

65 

65 

55 

180 

180 

--

121 

70 

180 

234 

95 

100 

365 

210 

135 

2SO 

250 

205 

145 

120 

120 

120 

76 

100 

120 

130 

30 

1io 

1 

160 

140 

140 

125 

120 

35 

ao 

\NELL 

DEPTH 

<FT) 

31 

20 

200 

71 

102 

126 

122 

152 

103 

144 

lOB 

74 

248 

1044 

44 

52 

318 

254 

200 

228 

225 

343 

176 

154 

221 

214 

u 

33 

210 

143 

300 

19 

332 

100 

184 

168 

205 

81 

268 

52 

CASING 

DEPTH 

(fT) 

27 

]l6 

-·~ 

65 

82 

101 

97 

140 

93 

1~3 

102 

()4 

2~~8 

-·~ 

35 

so 

298 

243 

190 

223 

2JL5 

3JL7 

H2 

-·· 

191 

1"73 

11 

30 

200 

138 

2i~5 

-·· 

96 

162 

120 

--78 

228 

•+7 

CASING 

DIAMETER 

CIN) 

4 

4 

--

--6 

12 

12 

8 

6 

8 

4 

6 

6 

--4 

4 

10 

6 

6 

6 

4 

8 

6 

10 

10 

10 

11 

--6 

6 

24 

54 

4 

8 

--

--4 

10 

4 

LENGTH 

Of WELL 

OPEN TO 

AQUIFER 

(fEET) 

4 

4 

--6 

21 

25 

25 

12 

10 

22 

6 

10 

9 

2 

ll 

10 

5 

10 

26 

4 

30 

41 

3 

10 

5 

4 

12 

26 

40 

5 
MAP 

NO 

41 

42 

43 

44 

45 

46 

47 

48 

49 

50 

51 

52 

53 

54 

55 

56 

57 

58 

59 

60 

61 

62 

63 

64 

65 

66 

67 

68 

69 

70 

71 

72 

73 

74 

75 

76 

77 

78 

79 

80 

w 

U1 

LOCATION 

401937N0741428.l 

40l933No741336.1 

401927N073Sa42.1 

401948N074154l.l 

401918N0741507.1 

401858N0741506.1 

40I8o3No74o8I4.1 

401710N0741925.1 

40l906No74I514el 

401742N074020l.l 

401747N074122l.l 

40]657NQ741944.,l 

401720NQ740315ol 

401712N0741428.l 

40}7}8N07422l1•l 

401644N0741929.l 

40l624N07415o2.l 

401719N0741016 .. l 

401628N0742026 .. 1 

40111 ONO 742220.1 

401654N0741736.1 

401710N0742147.,1 

4016181'!0741452.1 

40154 71--JO 741640 .l 

401545NQ74}6Q3ol 

401SS7No74231B.2 

40lt:OON0741204.l 

401505N0741110,.1 

40 15451\!0 742536.1 

401518N0742230 .. l 

401443N0742320.l 

401511N074202lel 

40l500No741514•l 

40l429N0741254.1 

4t1l323NQ742824 .. l 

401333N074264Q.l 

40133lN074I944.,l 

401426NQ74163l .. l 

40l323No743118 .. 1 

401412N074l606e2 

Table ?.--Construction data for wells developed in the 

Englishtown aquifer in Monmouth and Ocean Counties--Continued 

Oi.llt·JFR 

LOC/l.L 

tJt.LL 

NUMBER 

MARLBORO S HOSP STAT~ ~OSP 4 

MARLBORO S HOSP STATE HOSP 5 

MON BCH CLO STR MBCS 2 

H&L FARMS -- R E MORGAN -- HPJRY HIGGlf'lS -- M ROSENBERG ROSEi'IBERG 1 

J P FOCARILE FOCARILE 

VILLAGE WC VILLAGE 215 

OLD ORCHARD C C OLD ORCHARD l 

CEDAR DR EL SCH -- GEORGE THOMPSON -- R H I"'ACy & CO BAMBERGER TEST 

E R DURAND -- TAYLOR PALMER 1 

TEt'iNENT ORCH' I -- SO GULF UTIL SO GULF 1 

ATLANTIC TWP SC ATLANTIC SCH 1 

K A JADAssOHN -- ROY H KIRSHNER --

FREEHOLD TWP WD POINT IVY 1 

ABE CoHEN -- FRANK GUMINA GUMINA 1 

MONMOUTH COUNTY MO CO C H 2 

AM KARAGHEUSIAN l 

BOY SCOUTS AMER QUAIL HILL l 

1'-lR SCATUORCHIO SCATUORCHIO 1 

F J MORt:AU -- GEORGE t-10UNT MOUNT 2 MA~lALAPAN W C t-iANALApA,IJ 1 

S ~11URTZEL -- C BoRDUNOVICH -- BROCKWAy GLASS BROCKWAy 1 

SEASIDE INVEST -- LEON VASSEUR --

ABE KUHL -- CLI-IYTON 1dM D CLAYTO"J 2 

D MAYK -- HENRY WIKOFF -- FREEHOLD TWP WD KOENIG LANE 2 

MUNICIPALITY 

111ARLBORO HIP 

MARLBORO TWP 

MONMOUTH BCH 80RO 

MARLBORO HIP 

MARLBORO HIP 

MARLBORO TWP 

COLTS NECK TWP 

MANALAPAN TWP 

r-IARLBORO TWP 

IllEST LONG BRANCH 

COLTS NECK TWP 

MANALAPAN TWP 

EATONTOWN BORO 

FREEHOLD TWP 

MANALAPAN TWP 

MANALAPAN TWP 

FREEHOLD TWP 

COLTS NECK TWP ~~ANALAPAN TWP 

MANALAPAN HiP 

FREEHOLD HIP 

MANALAPAN TWP 

FREEHOLD Tlt/P 

FREEHOLD BORO 

FREEHOLD BORO 

MANALAPAN TWP 

COLTS NECK TWP 

FREEHOLD BORO ~1ILLSTONE TWP 

MANALAPAN TWP 

MILLSTONE TWP 

MANALAPAN TWP 

FREEHOLD HiP 

HOl~ELL HIP 

ROOSEVELT BORO 

~1ILLSTONE TWP 

MANALAPAN TWP 

FREEHOLD TWP 

i'HLLSTONE HIP 

FREEHOLD HIP 

DATE 

DRILLED 

<YEAR) 

--

}935 

1961 

1951 

1947 

1954 

1957 

1964 

1964 

1952 

1963 

1954 

1957 

1960 

1955 

1954 

1964 

1954 

1956 

1953 

1967 

1953 

1953 

1954 

1948 

1967 

l95Q 

--

1953 

1967 

1953 

1954 

}956 

1963 

1952 

1956 

1955 

1949 

1953 

1966 

ALTITUDEOF LSD 

<FT> 

125 

135 

lo 

160 

140 

110 

so 

95 

120 

40 

122 

100 

7o 

180 

90 

130 

200 

86 

120 

95 

130 

84 

190 

170 

ISO 

250 

140 

185 

135 

122 

180 

160 

130 

160 

140 

230 

180 

145 

us 

130 

wELL 

DEPTH 

<Fn 

124 

144 

430 

206 

175 

176 

342 

116 

215 

425 

233 

86 

430 

257 

60 

167 

356 

280 

us 

84 

212 

78 

324 

323 

323 

241 

250 

300 

52 

185 

178 

170 

260 

380 

96 

160 

3.33 

310 

so 

301 

CASING 

DEPTH 

CFT> 

90 

110 

390 

197 

160 

111 

322 

100 

186 

360 

213 

83 

416 

249 

53 

157 

327 

270 

110 

80 

150 

73 

304 

307 

303 

;231 

;238 

·--46 

125 

174 

166 

240 

.364 

92 

154 

:304 

;262 

CASING 

DIAMETER 

<IN) 

6 

6 

10 

6 

6 

4 

8 

4 

8 

8 

--

4 

6 

6 

4 

6 

8 

6 

4 

4 

12 

6 

6 

8 

8 

6 

6 

--

--

10 

6 

4 

8 

4 

4 

4 

10 

6 

4 

6 

LENGTH 

Of WELL 

OPEN TO 

AQUIFER 

(fEET> 

1 

30 

40 

9 

15 

5 

20 

6 

29 

20 

20 

3 

14 

8 

10 

29 

10 

5 

4 

so 

5 

20 

16 

20 

12 

--6 

60 

4 

4 

4 

6 

29 

10 

3 
MAP 

NO 

81 

82 

83 

84 

85 

86 

87 

88 

89 

90 

91 

92 

93 

94 

95 

96 

97 

98 

99 

100 

101 

102 

103 

104 

105 

106 

107 

108 

109 

110 

111 

112 

113 

114 

115 

116 

117 

118 

119 

120 

w 

0\ 

LOCATION 

401401N0740026.,1 

40l40lN0740025 .. l 

401346N0740034.,1 

401322N0740l55 .. 1 

40l223N0740l04.1 

401154N07410l8ol 

40ll54N07410l8.2 

40U53NQ741012ol 

40ll43No74!0l8.1 

401104NQ743146el 

40ll07N0743052.1 

40ll02N0740045el 

40l053NQ74034lol 

401005N0743200.1 

401042N0740l50.l 

401042N0740l43.1 

401040N0740145.1 

401039N0740144e1 

401039N0740l4l.l 

40l038N0740l47o1 

40l038N0740l46.1 

401038N0740}46e2 

401037N0740l48.1 

401036N0740146.1 

40l025N0740212e1 

401028N0740638.l 

400949N0743142.1 

400942N0743052.1 

400952N0740149.1 

400915N0740l46.1 

4009Q8NQ741330ol 

4oos3zNo74oB2l·l 

400859N0740308.2 

400845N0740312.1 

400849NQ740207.1 

400849N0740207 .. 2 

400824NQ74312la1 

400823N0741S20.,l 

400825N0740502.1 

400824N0740508.,1 

Table 7.--Construction data for wells developed in the 

Englishtown aquifer in Monmouth and Ocean Counties--Continued 

OWNER 

ALLENHURST W D 

ALLENHuRST W D 

AWD 2 

AwD 4 

LOCAL 

wELL 

NUMBER 

ASBURY PARK W D APWD 4 

MONMOUTH CON WC WHITESVILLE 3 

MONMOUTH CON WC OCEAN GROVE 20 

FARMINGDALE W D FARMINGOALE l 

FARMINGDALE W D FARMINGDALE 2 

FARMINGDALE W D FARMINGDALE 4 

FARMINGDALE W D FARMINGDALE 3 

MRS ERRICKSON -- MR VANHISE -- BELMAR BORO WD BWD 4 ELEC 

DEPT OF ARMY IMPERIAL PARK2 

DUNCAN THECKER !;> T ASSOC 1 

BELMAR BORO WD BWD 8 SUB 

BELMAR BORO WD BWD 5 SUB 

BELMAR BORO WD BWD 1 ELEC 

BELMAR BORO WD BWD 3 SUB 

BELMAR BORO WD BWD 6 SUB 

BELMAR BORO WD BWD 1 SUB 

BELMAR BORO WD BWD 4 SUB 

BELMAR BORO WD BWD 2 ELEC 

BELMAR BORO WD BWO 3 ELEC 

BELMAR BORO WD BWD 1 SUB 

WALL TWP W D WEST BELMAR 

WALL TWP W D RT 34 WELL 

C I SMITH -- U FREEHOLD B ED BOARD ED 1 

SPRING LAK~ W D SLWD 4 

sPRING LAKE W D SLWD 3 

ALDRICH W CO ALDRICH W CO 4 

US GEOL SURVEY ALLAIRE S P C 

SPRING LK HT WD SPRING LK HGT2 

SPRING LK HT WD SPRING LK HGT3 

SPRING LAKE W D SLWD 1 

SPRING LAKE W D SLWD 2 

E W HARVEY- -- JACKSON TWP MUA JACKSON 2 

WALL HJP W D ALLENWOOD 1 

WALL TWP W D ALLENWOOD 2 

MUNICIPALITY 

ALLENHURST BORO 

ALLENHuRST BORO 

ASBURY PARK 

ASBURY PARK 

NEPTUNE HIP 

FARMINGDALE BORO 

FARMINGDALE BORO 

FARMINGDALE 80RO 

FARMINGDALE BORO 

U FREEHOLD TWP 

U FREEHOLD HIP 

BELMAR BORO 

WALL HIP 

U FREEHOLD TWP 

BELMAR BORO 

BELMAR BORO 

BELMAR BORO 

BELMAR BORO 

BELMAR BORO 

BELMAR BORO 

BEU.1AR BORO 

BELMAR BORO 

BELMAR BORO 

BELMAR BORO 

WALL TWP 

WALL HIP 

U FREEHOLD HIP 

U FREEHOLD TWP 

SPRING LAKE BORO 

sPRING LAKE BORO 

HOWELL TWP 

WALL TWP 

SPRNG LK HGTS BO 

SPRNG LK H~TS BO 

SPRING LAKE BORO 

SPRING LAKE BORO 

U FREEHOLD TINP 

JACKSON TWP 

WALL HIP 

WALL TWP 

DATE 

DRILLED 

(YEAR) 

1950 

1950 

1963 

1954 

1949 

1926 

1949 

1970 

1964 

1954 

1954 

1941 

1943 

1969 

--

1900 

1900 

1900 

--

1900 

--

1938 

1949 

--

1959 

1968 

1953 

1951 

1967 

1941 

!967 

}963 

1953 

1966 

1940 

1941 

1950 

1962 

1959 

1959 

ALTITUDEOF LSD 

(FT) 

10 

lo 

10 

10 

20 

eo 

80 

85 

so 

130 

145 

15 

100 

100 

2o 

20 

20 

20 

20 

20 

20 

2o 

20 

20 

25 

80 

130 

135 

lo 

20 

130 

96 

60 

25 

15 

15 

115 

156 

100 

8o 

WELL 

DEPTH 

CFT> 

570 

570 

580 

566 

605 

480 

480 

470 

460 

134 

131 

679 

662 

H9 

640 

515 

545 

518 

600 

524 

581 

594 

648 

575 

649 

139 

157 

670 

705 

550 

633 

711 

680 

698 

101 

150 

577 

740 

710 

CASING 

DEPTH 

(FT) 

525 

525 

540 

498 

570 

450 

410 

420 

128 

126 

601 

616 

96 

640 

--

--

--

--

--

581 

563 

--

440 

549 

134 

148 

600 

640 

363 

623 

660 

630 

631 

640 

96 

S41 

689 

658 

LENGTH 

CASING OF WELL 

DIAM- OPEN TO 

ETER AQUIFER 

(IN) <FEET) 

2•1+ 

1:2 45 

li~ 40 1!3 68 u~ 35 

~~ 30 

16 60 

10 40 

4f. 6 

6 5 

2a 78 

12 -- 10 23 

8 

6 

-·· 

6 

06 

6 

181 

--· 31 

€1 

}()1 40 

10 100 

6 5 

6 9 

10 70 

a 65 

12 40 

6 10 

8 51 

10 so 

6 

8 

6 

8 36 

10 50 

10 50 
MAP 

NO 

121 

122 

123 

124 

125 

126 

127 

128 

129 

130 

131 

132 

133 

134 

135 

136 

137 

138 

139 

140 

LOCATION 

400804N0740227el 

400800N074023l.l 

400752N0743454.1 

400742No74I639.l 

400745N0741333.1 

400803N0740229.1 

400657No74I715•l 

400712N0741512.1 

400645NQ740345.1 

400636N0741515.,1 

400555No74o851 .. 1 

400623N0740429 .. l 

400614No 741157.1 

400622N0741349.l 

400540N0741230.l 

400516No741255.1 

400516No741255.2 

400515N0741251.2 

4005l5N074125l.l 

400500N074ll08.,1 

141 400459~0740359.1 

142 400454N0740413.,1 

143 400450N0740410·1 

144 400450N0740410.2 

145 400450N0740410,.3 

146 400443N0741352el 

147 400435N0740257.1 

148 400416N074270lol 

149 400354No7413lo .1 

150 4oo4o1No7432oo.2 

151 400405N0740244 .. 1 

152 400405N0740242el 

153 400358N0740812 .. 1 

154 400312NO 741123 .. 1 

155 400250No741044 .. 1 

156 400220N0741154,.l 

15 7 400211N07403U .. l 

158 40021 ONO 740310 ol 

159 395808N074042l,.l 

160 395741N0740437.l 

161 395609N0741240.1 w 

-..J 

Table 7.--Construction data for wells developed in the 

Englishtown aquifer in Monmouth and Ocean Counties--Continued 

OWNt:R 

SEA GIRT W D 

SEA GIRT W D 

ATLEE ZURLO 

LOCAL 

WELL 

NU"18ER 

SGWD 5 

SGWD 4 

-- JACKSON TwP MuA JACKSON 4 

HOWELL TWP BD KENT RD 

sEA GIRT W D SGWD 3 

JACKSON TWP MUA JACKSON 3 

JACKSON TWP MUA JACKSON 1 

BRIELLE WATER D BWD 2 

ST GABRIELS COL ST GABRIELS 1 

PARKWAY W C PARKwAY l 

BRIELLE WATER D BWD 3 

LAKEwOOD W C LAKEwOOD 9 

LAKEwOOD W C LAKEWOOD 6 

LAKESORE LAUNDR LAKESHORE LA l 

LAKEWOOD W C LAKEWOOD W C 

LAKEWOOD W C LAKEWOOD 2 

LA.KEWOOO W C LAKEI./OOD W C 

LAKEWOOD W C LAKEWOOD 5 

LAKEWOOD W C LAKEIA/000 

PT PLEASANT W D PPWD 3 

PT PLEASANT W D PPWD 6 

PT PLEAsANT W D PPWD 2 

PT PLEASANT W D PPWD 1 

PT PLEASANT W D PPWD 

LAKEWOOD W C LAKEwOOD 8 

CENTRAL RR NJ CENTRAL RR NJ 

US GEoL SURVEY CaLL tHLLS TWl 

LAKEWOOD W C LAKEWOOD 1 

NEW EGYPT WC 1 

oCEAN Co W C BAY HEAD 6 

OCEAN CO W C BAy HEAD 5 

BRADLEEs CORP BRADLEES WELL 

S LAKEWOOD W C S LAKEiliOOD 3 

S LAKEWOOD W C S LAKEwOOD 2 

S LAKEWOOD W C S LAKEWOOD 1 

OCE6.N CO l~ C MANTOLOKING 4 

OCEAN CO W C MANTOLOKING 6 

LAVALLETTE W 0 LWD 2 

LAVALLETTE w D LWD 3 

US GEOL SURVEY TOMS RIVER TW2 

MUNICipALITY 

SEA GIRT BORO 

SEA GIRT BORO 

U FREEHOLD HiP 

JACKSON TWP 

HOWELL HIP 

sEA GIRT BORO 

JACKSON TWP 

JACKSON HiP 

BRIELLE BORO 

LAKEWOOD HIP 

HOWELL Tlt/P 

BRIELLE BORO 

LAKEwOOD TwP 

LAKEWOOD HJP 

LAKEWOOD TWP 

LAKEWOOD TWP 

LAKEWOOD TWP 

LAKEWOOD HJP 

LAKEWOOD HiP 

LAKEWOOD TWP 

PT PLSNT BORO 

PT PLSNT BORO 

PT PLSNT BORO 

PT PLSNT BORO 

pT PLSNT BORO 

LAKEWOOD TWP 

BAY HEAD BORO 

JACKSON TWP 

LAKEWOOD TWP 

PLUMSTED TWP 

BAY HEAD BORO 

RAY HEAD BORO 

BRICK HIP 

LAKEWOOD TWP 

LAKEWOOD TWP 

LAKEWOOD TWP 

MANTOLOKING BORO 

MANTOLOKING BORO 

LAVALLETTE BORO 

LAVALLETTE BORO 

S TOMS RIVER BORO 

DATE 

DRILLED 

<YEAR) 

1963 

1949 

1952 

1965 

1955 

1921 

1962 

1961 

1950 

1957 

1958 

1967 

1968 

1960 

195{) 

1900 

192i 

1899 

1957 

1966 

1946 

1965 

1936 

1936 

1893 

1965 

1930 

1964 

1964 

1907 

1950 

1941 

1969 

}966 

1963 

1969 

1924 

1955 

1931 

1948 

1965 

ALTITUDEOF LSD 

<Fn 

20 

18 

90 

so 

110 

20 

140 

110 

33 

7o 

45 

90 

55 

70 

so 

35 

6o 

30 

'+0 

30 

15 

20 

15 

20 

10 

78 

9 

137 

85 

75 

10 

10 

10 

45 

'+O 

90 

5 

5 

5 

7 

15 

wELL 

DEPTH 

CFT> 

710 

715 

109 

500 

582 

760 

559 

557 

750 

530 

646 

820 

698 

582 

612 

621 

625 

600 

604 

736 

798 

790 

745 

825 

806 

758 

813 

427 

757 

239 

818 

834 

no 

741 

762 

817 

922 

906 

1136 

1180 

1146 

CASING 

DEPTH 

<FT) 

660 

685 

99 

448 

558 

730 

513 

SH 

690 

--

605 

770 

569 

521 

596 

--

575 

--

547 

725 

748 

730 

715 

745 

746 

600 

793 

417 

697 

214 

778 

775 

670 

673 

680 

748 

900 

845 

1009 

1120 

1080 

CASING 

DIAMETER 

(IN) 

10 

10 

4 

8 

6 

8 

10 

8 

12 

8 

8 

10 

8 

8 

6 

6 

8 

6 

8 

4 

10 

8 

6 

8 

8 

5 

6 

8 

6 

8 

8 

12 

8 

8 

8 

6 

8 

6 

8 

3 

LENGTH 

OF WELL 

OPEN TO 

AQUIFER 

(FEET) 

55 

10 

52 

46 

46 

60 

41 

50 

65 

61 

16 

50 

--57 

50 

68 

30 

88 

20 

25 

40 

68 

62 

65 

22 

127 

60 

66 
along the shore area of southeastern Monmouth County (fig. 15). The 

altitude of the potentiometric surface was below sea level throughout 

eastern Monmouth County and northeastern Ocean County; the potentiometric 

surface in the Belmar-Spring Lake area was more than 80 ft (24 m) below 

sea level and in the vicinity of Lakewood was more than 20 ft (6 m) below 

sea level. 

A second series of water-level measurements in the Englishtown aquifer 

in Monmouth, Ocean, and Burlington Counties was made in November 1970 

(table 6). The altitude and configuration of this potentiometric surface 

is shown in figure 16. The regional decline of the potentiometric surface 

between 1959 and 1970 (fig. 10) was greater than the decline from 1900 to 

1959. The heavy ground-water withdrawals along the coastal areas of 

southern Monmouth County and northern Ocean County and in the Lakewoo~ area 

caused decline of 100 ft (30 m) or more during this period. The effects 

of the pumping in these areas extended as far west as Freehold, where 12 

to 15 ft (3.6 to 4.6 m) of decline occurred. 

Continuous records of water-level changes in the confined part of the 

Englishtown aquifer became ayailable in 1964, when the U.S. Geological 

Survey installed two observation wells as part of the cooperative statewide 

observation well network. One well was installed at Allaire State Park in 

southeastern Monmouth County and the other at Colliers Mills Hunting and 

Fishing Grounds in northwestern Ocean County. The well at Allaire State 

Park is situated approximately midway between the two main centers of 

pumpage; one near Lakewood and the other along the coast in southern Monmouth 

County. The water level in this well declined 50 ft (15 m) between February 

1964 and February 1970 at an average annual rate of decline of 8 ft (2.4 m) 

per year (fig. 17). The net decline between February 1969 and February 1970 

was 12 ft (3.6 m). As the observation well at Colliers Mills is considerably 

west of the Lakewood area, water-level declines recorded in this well 

(fig. 17) are considerably less than those seen at Allaire State Park. The 

water-level at Colliers Mills declined only about 8 ft (2.4 m) between 

February 1964 and February 1970; the average rate of decline over this 

period was 1.3 ft (0.4 m) per year. The water level declined 1.2 ft (0.37 

m) between February 1969 and February 1970. 

The Lakewood Water Company installed an observation well southeast of 

Lakewood in late 1966. Continuous records of water levels in this well 

have been kept by the company since that time (fig. 17). The measurements 

show an almost continuous water-level decline of 81 ft (24.7 m) from 

January 1967 to September 1970. 

Ground-water Withdrawals 

Ground-water withdrawals from the Englishtown aquifer in Monmouth and 

Ocean Counties are dominantly for public supply (fig. 18). Domestic pumpage 

is not known but is probably small. Because shallower aquifers are capable 

of yielding quantities of water suitable for domestic purposes, it is not 

38 
LINE SHOWING EQUAL DECLINE OF WATER LEVEL IN FEET 

CONTOUR INTERVAL 20 FEET 

(CONVERSiON FACTOR' I FOOT" 0. 3048 METER) 

SCALE 

10 MILES 

10 

FIGURE 15. --WATER-LEVEL DECLINE BETWEEN ABOUT 1900 AND 

JANUARY 1959 IN THE ENGLISHTOWN AQUIFER IN 

MONMOUTH AND NORTHERN OCEAN COUNTIES, N.J. 

39 
--40-

ISOPOTENTIAL LINE SHOWING ALTITUDE, IN FEET. DATUM IS MEAN SEA LEVEL 

CONTOUR INTERVAL 20 FEET 

(CONVERSION FACTOR I FOOT = 

• 0.3048 METER! 

DATA CONTROL POINT 

@ 

WATER LEVEL OBSERVATION WELL 

1- - COLLIERS MILLS 2-- ALLAIRE STATE PARK 3-- LAKEWOOD WATER CO 

40° 

oo· 

FIGURE 16. --ALTITUDE OF THE POTENTIOMETRIC SURFACE IN THE 

ENGLISHTOWN AQUIFER IN NOVEMBER 1970 IN MONMOUTH 

AND NORTHERN OCEAN COUNTIES, N.J. 

40 
1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 

-20 a-.: 

w 

1--1-- -22 ~ 'f:-

<-I <(W m 3 w ~ 

u_ -24 r --1 

u_ c 

0 

~ 

z -26 .... ~ 

w z 

0 .. -90 :::> _J -28 3: ~ m 1--W 

~ > -30 ~ ;; 

I- w -100 ;a -I _j_J (j) <( -32 m 

;a 

-110 -34 

-36 

-120~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 

A. ALLAIRE STATE PARK, U.S.G.S. OBSERVATION WELL, MONMOUTH COUNTY, N.J. 

r 

1- m w 90 < w wa::u_ 26 ~ ~ 'f:-

--1 OWz 80 :>II-<(~ 

~3: 

I- .. ~-----------r-------------r-------------r------------~--------____ j24 Z--IC 

22 ~ ~ m o ~ _JU,__J 70 :s:;am 

<(Ow m 

> 20 -i 

w m _J ;:o 60 (/) 

B. COLLIERS MILLS, U.S.G.S. OBSERVATION WELL TW 1, OCEAN COUNTY, N.J.· 

40 

14 

18 

a:: 60 0 

m w 

I- 22 ~ i lJ 

<(I- z 

3W 80 w 26 3: --1 

au_ mo 

I- 30 

z 

-i 

100 m :E: I~ ;:o)> 

I- 34 (/) -I 

0.. m w 120 ;a 

0 38 

140 

c. LAKEWOOD WATER COMPANY OBSERVATION WELL, LAKEWOOD, OCEAN COUNTY,N.J. 

FIGURE 17. --HYDROGRAPHS OF OBSERVATION WELLS TAPPING THE 

ENGLISHTOWN AQUIFER IN MONMOUTH AND NORTHERN 

OCEAN COUNTIES, N.J. 

41 
\ I \ EX PLAN AT I 0 N 

ITiilliiD[JIIJ OUTCROP OF THE ENGLISHTOWN FORMATION 

e2 

LOCATION OF PUMPING WELL OR WELL FIELD 

DEVELOPED IN THE ENGLISHTOWN AQUIFER FOR 

WHICH PUMPING DATA ARE GIVEN IN TABLE 8. 

@ow3 

LOCATION OF OBSERVATION WELL IN THE 

ENGLISHTOWN AQUIFER FOR WHICH A HYDROGRAPH IS SHOWN IN FIGURE 17. 

OWl- ALLAIRE STATE PARK 

OW2- COLLIERS MILLS 

OW3-LAKEWOOD WATER CO 

SCALE 

10 MILES 

40° 

15' 

400 

oo' 

FIGURE 1 8 • --LOCATION OF PUMPING WELLS LISTED IN TABLE 8 

AND OBSERVATION WELLS DESCRIBED IN FIGURE 17. 

42 
necessary for these users to tap the Englishtown. Total withdrawals from 

the Englishtown in the area of investigation for industrial, irrigation 

commercial and institutional uses are also minor and in most cases have 

not been considered (figure 19). 

Water for public supply was pumped from the Englishtown aquifer in 

the two-county area at an average rate of about 5.5 Mgal/d (0.24 m3/s) in 

1959 (table 8). By 1970 the rate of withdrawal had increased by approximately 

80 percent, to about 9.5 Mgal/d (0.4 m3/s). Nearly 80 ~ercent of the 

withdrawals was from an area of roughly 100 mi2 (259 km ), extending from 

Asbury Park southwest to the vicinity of Lakewood and south to the Point 

Pleasant area. This is about one-seventh of the total area covered by 

this study. 

The greatest increase in the rate of withdrawal from the Englishtown 

between 1959 and 1970 occurred in Ocean County. The average annual rate 

of pumping in 1959 was about 1.75 Mgal/d (0.07 m3/s). The 1970 rate of 

withdrawal was 4.67 Mgal/d (0.20 m3/s), an increase of almost 268 percent 

of the 1959 rate. Nearly all of the increase in withdrawals from the 

Englishtown aquifer in Ocean County has been from the area around Lakewood 

in Jackson and Lakewood Townships (table 8). In Monmouth County, the 

average annual rate of withdrawal for public supply increased only about 

34 percent from 3.46 Mgal/d (0.15 m3/s) in 1959 to 4.67 (0.20 m3/s) in 1970 

(table 8). Nearly 60 percent [about 0.7 Mgal/d (0.03 m3/s)] of the rate 

increase occurred in Wall Township in the southeastern part of the county. 

The remainder of the increased rate of pumping reflects increases throughout 

the rest of the county. 

Confining Layer Geometry 

The Englishtown Formation is bounded above and below by sequences of 

sandy to clayey silts and silty clays. The underlying sequence of sediments, 

which form the lower confining bed of the Englishtown aquifer, includes the 

Merchantville Formation and the Woodbury Clay. The combined thickness of 

the two formations ranges from less than 100 ft (30 m) in northern Monmouth 

County to more than 300 ft (91 m) in southeastern Monmouth County (fig. 2) 

It has an average thickness of about 180 ft (55 m) throughout most of 

northern Ocean County. 

The sequence of fine-grained sediments above the Englishtown in the 

study area includes the Marshalltown Formation and the finer grained lower 

part of the Wenonah Formati0n. These sediments act as the upper confining 

bed of the aquifer. The thickness of the Marshalltown is relatively uniform 

throughout the area of investigation, ranging from 10 to 20 ft (3 to 6 m). 

As much as 80 ft (24 m) of the Wenonah is included in the thickness of 

the upper confining bed. The total thickness of this confining layer ranges 

from about 12 ft (6 m) in northern Monmouth County to 100 ft (30 m) in 

central Ocean County (fig. 20). 

43 
EXPLANATION 

OUTCROP OF THE ENGLISHTOWN FORMATiON 

eiO 

WELL 

NUMBER REFERS TO WELLS LISTED IN 

TABLES 6 ANO 7. 

SCALE 

10 MILES 

10 

40° 

15' 

40' 

oo' 

FIGURE 1 9 • --LOCATION OF WELLS DEVELOPED IN THE ENGLISHTOWN 

AQUIFER IN MONMOUTH AND OCEAN COUNTIES. 

44 
OUTCROP OF THE ENGLISHTOWN FORMATION 

--20--

ISOPACH SHOWING THICKNESS IN FEET. 

DASH- DOT WHERE INFERRED. 

CONTOUR INTERVAL 20 FEET. 

(CONVERSION FACTOR ' I FOOT = 0.3048 METER) 

.............. ..._3o-""'" SUPPLEMENTARY CONTOUR 

SCALE 10 MILES 

400 

oo' 

FIGURE 20. --THICKNESS OF THE CONFINING LAYER OVERLYING THE 

ENGLISHTOWN AQUIFER IN MONMOUTH AND NORTHERN 

OCEAN AND BURLINGTON COUNTIES, N.J. 

45 
Table 8.--Rate of ground-water withdrawal for public supply from the 

Englishtown aq~ifer in Monmouth and Ocean Counties 

Owner 

Water department well number Average annual rate of withdrawal (Mgal/d) 

Map or (see fig. 18 Year 

No. camE any for locationsl 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 

1 Aldrich Water Co. 4fo4 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- .04 .ll .17 

2 Allenhurst Water Co. {fo4 .13 .14 .14 .14 .15 .14 .14 .15 .15 .17 .15 .15 

3 Asbury Park Water Dept. 4fo4 .10 .10 .10 .10 .10 .10 .10 .10 .10 .10 .10 .10* 

4 Atlantic Highlands 4F2 .23 .25 .27 .29 .30 .20 .13 .15 .13 .17 .19 .19 

Water Dept. 

5 Belmar Water Dept. 10 wells • 93 • 70 .68 • 72 .83 .83 .79 .80 .84 • 93 .92 .91 

6 Brielle Water Dept. 4F2-3 .17 .18 .15 .16 .16 .16 .16 .21 .20 .32 .34 .32 

7 Farmingdale Water Dept. All wells .04 .04 .05 .b5 .06 .07 .09 .14 .15 .09 .10 .09 

8 Freehold Water & Util. Point Ivy 4H -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- .02 .04* 

9 Freehold Twp. Water Dept. Koenig Lane 4F2 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- .60 

10 Monmouth Consolidated Ocean Grove Sta. #20 .. 33 .07 .60 .71 .04 .05 .02 .08 -- -- -- .01 

Water Co • 

ll Parkway Water Co. .02 .03 .04 .07 .07 .10 .08 .08 .08 .09 .09 .10 

12 Red Bank Water Dept. 4/=2-3 .64 .68 .69 .6 7 .67 .67 .65 .6 7 .64 .77 .72 .62* 

13 Sea Girt Water Dept. #4-5 .19 .19 .19 .20 .23 .21 .21 .21 .18 .19 .19 .05 

14 Spring Lake Heights 4F2-3 .20 .23 .24 .23 .30 .33 .28 .29 .32 .42 .44 .53* 

Water Dept. 

15 Spring Lake Water Dept. 4/=1-4 .48 .52 .45 .47 .49 .52 .45 .49 .46 .53 .55 ~63 

16 Wall Twp. Water Dept. Allenwood 4fl -- -- -- .11 .13 .16 .17 .19 .19 .18 .15 .18 

17 Wall Twp. Water Dept. Allenwood 4/=2 -- -- -- .10 .12 .14 .16 .18 .20 .20 .19 .20 

18 Wall Twp. Water Dept. West Belmar -- -- -- .09 .10 .11 .12 .14 .13 .13 .13 .15 

19 Wall Twp. Water Dept. Route 34 well -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- .08 .16 .18 

20 Wall Twp. Water Dept. Imperial Park 4F2 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- .06 

.j::-

0\ 
Table 8.--Rate of ground-water withdrawal for public supply from the 

Englishtown aquifer in Monmouth and Ocean Counties--Continued 

Owner 

Water department well ntunber Average annual rate of withdrawal (Mgal/d) 

Map or (see fig. 18 Year 

No. com:eany for locations2 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 

21 Jackson Twp. MUA ifl -- -- -- .09 .19 .17 .17 .13 .13 .11 .13 .19 

22 Jackson Twp. MUA 112 -- -- -- -- .07 .21 .17 .17 .15 .18 .19 .28 

23 Jackson Twp. ~A ifo3 -- -- -- -- .01 .02 .01 .11 .12 .14 .17 .17 

24 Jackson Twp. MUA #4 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- .16 .16 .18 .14 .11 

25 Lakewood Water Co. ifo5 • 75 .77 • 78 • 75 .65 .so .22 .20 .17 .10 .08 .10* 

26 Lakewood Water Co. ifo6 -- -- -- .12 .27 .42 .56 .53 .47 .47 .32 .33* 

27 Lakewood Water Co. #7 -- -- -- -- -- .24 .44 .53 .45 .63 .60 .63* 

28 Lakewood Water Co. #8 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- .06 .29 .30 .32 .29* 

29 Lakewood Water Co. 4fo9 -- -- -- -- -- -·· -- -- -- .01 .25 .40* 

30 Lavallette Water Dept. if2-3 .32 .31 .30 .29 .30 .32 .33 • 25 .19 .37 .40 .35* 

31 New Egypt Water Co. .10 .ll .ll .10 .12 .n .12 .14 .ll .ll .ll .12* 

32 Ocean County Water Co. Bay Head ifo5-6 .38 .39 .41 .44 .45 .47 .47 .47 .51 .63 .60 .65 

33 Ocean County Water Co. Mantoloking ifo6 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- .01 .oo .03 .04 

34 Point Pleasant Water Dept. ffo3 .20 .09 .12 .25 .26 .45 .40 .21 .03 .05 

35 Point Pleasant Water Dept. 4fo6 -- -- -- -- -- -- .33 .72 .32 .54 .47 .39 

36 South Lakewood Water Co. #1-3 (#1 drilled 69) -- -- -- -- -- -- .05 .06 .18 .38 .56 • 73 

*Estimated 

.p-

'-J
Confining Layer Coefficients 

The quantitative analysis of ground-water flow in complex aquifer 

systems requires reliable values of hydraulic conductivity and specific 

storage for the confining layers which separate the individual aquifers. 

These values can be computed from the results of standard soil consolidation 

tests perfonned in the laboratory on undisturbed samples (Lambe, 1951; 

Domenico and Mifflin, 1965). Subsurface core samples were obtained at 

three sites for laboratory analysis. In all 58 samples were collected 

and tested; 16 of the samples are from confining beds of the Englishtown 

aquifer system. 

Samples were collected with an 18-inch (0.45-m) split barrel sampler 

with three 6-inch (0.15-m) brass liner inserts. The liner segment containing 

the sample to be tes.ted was capped at each end, sealed with wax, and stored 

in a controlled temperature and humidity environment. Consolidation tests 

were performed by the Hydrologic Laboratory of the u.s. Geological Survey 

and by the Division of Materials of the New Jersey Department of Transportation •... 

The results of these tests are shown in table 9. 

The upper confining bed of the Englishtown aquifer system was penetrated 

by the Bradlees Corporation well located in Brick Township in northeastern 

Ocean County. The samples obtained at depths of 605 ft (184 m) and 625 

ft (190 m) are from the Wenonah Formation; those from 635 ft (193 m) and 

645 ft (196 m) are from the Marshalltown Formation. The sediments recovered 

are of the sand-silt-clay and clayey silt types according to the Shepard 

(1954) classification system (fig. 21B). 

Hydraulic conductivity values computed from consolidation test data 

range from 2.79 x lo-10 ft/s (feet per second) [8.5 x lo-9 cm/s (centimeters 

per second)] to 6.57 x 10-11 ft/s (2.0 x lo-9 cm/s). These values were 

calculated from data at the load increment nearest the approximate computed 

overburden pressure of 480 psi (pounds per square inch) [33.7 kg/cm2 

(kilograms per square centimeter)]. Computed values of specific storage 

range from 1.37 x lo-4 ft ... l (4.49 x lo-6 cm-1) to 5 .. 14 x lo-5 ft""l 

(6.07 x lo-6 cm-1) for the same samples (table 9) .. The hydraulic diffusivity 

of the four samples ranges from 1.27 x lo-6 ft2/s (square feet per second) 

[1.18 x lo-3 cm2/s (square centimeters per second)] to 2.29 x 10-6 ft2/s 

2 (2.13 x ln-3 cm /s). 

Samples of both confining layers were obtained from a well drilled by 

the u.s. Anny at Fort Dix, New Jersey. One sample was taken of the 

Marshalltown Formation at a depth of 390 ft (119 m) and five samples 

were collected from the Merchantville-Woodbury Formations between depths 

of 456 ft (139m) and 625 ft (190m). The Marshalltown sample is a silty 

sand according to the Shepard classification. A variety of sediment types 

were recovered from the Merchantville-Woodbury sequence. They ranged from 

clayey sand to silty clay according to Shepard's classification system (fig. 

21A). 

48 
0 

0 0 0 0 

0) .!? 

SILT SIZE, IN PERCENT 

A. FORT DIX TEST WELL 'A'. 

0 

'0 

0 

0 0 .!? 0 ,.,o ~ lr>o 0 1\0 QJO 0 0>0 IV (0 .!? 

SILT SIZE,IN PERCENT 

B. BRADLEES CORP. WELL. 

FIGURE 21. --SEDIMENT CLASSIFICATION DIAGRAMS FOR SELECTED 

SAMPLES FROM TEST HOLES PENETRATING THE CONFINING LAYERS OF THE ENGLISHTOWN AQUIFER SYSTEM. 

NUMBERS INDICATE DEPTH OF SAMPLE. TRIANGULAR 

PARTICLE-SIZE DIAGRAMS ARE SUBDIVIDED ACCORDING 

TO THE SYSTEM PROPOSED BY SHEPARD (1954). 

49 
VI

Sample 

depth 

(ft) 

116.0 

116.5 

117.0 

139.0 

162.0 

207.0 

Consolidation 

load 

(psi) (g/cm2) 

lll.1 7,81 X 103 

222.2 1.56 X 104 

97.2 6,84 X 103 

125.0 8,79 X 103 

222.2 1.56 X 104 

1ll.1 7,81 X 103 

222.2 1.56 X 104 

444.4 3.12 X 104 

55.6 3,91 X 103 

55.6 3.91 X 103 

lll.l 7.81 X 103 

lll.1 7,81 X 103 

166.7 1.17 X 104 

222.2 1.56 X 104 

125.0 8.79 X 103 

166.7 1.17 X 104 

222.2 1.56 X 104 

111.1 7,81 X 103 

166.7 1.17 X 104 

222.2 1.56 X 104 

Table 9.--Consolidation Test Data 

u.s. Army, Fort Dix Well 6 

New Hanover Twp., Burlington Co., N.J. 

Consolidation coefficient-Cv Hydraulic 

conductivity-K 

(in2/s) (ft2

/s) (cm2 /s) (ft/s) (cm/s) 

-5 3.99 X 10-7 -4 1,80 X 10-10 -9 

5.74x10 3,70 X 10 5,49 X 10 

3,26 X 10-5 2,26 X 10- 7 2,10 X 10 -4 6.42 X 10-ll 1. 96 X 10-9 

3,26 X 10-3 -5 -2 7,97 X 10-g -7 2,26 X 10 2,10 X 10 2,43 X 10 

9.54 X 10 -4 6,62 X 10 -6 6.15 X 10 -3 1.83 X 10-lO 5.59 X 10 -9 

-3 -5 -2 -9 -7 

4.32 X 10 3,00 X 10 2.79 X 10 8,75 X 10 2,67 X 10 

1.15 X 10-4 7,99 X 10-7 7.42 X 10-4 2. 92 X 10-10 8.89 X 10 -9 

1. 79 X 10-5 1.24 X 10-7 1,15 X 10 -4 3.09 X 10-11 9,42 X 10-10 

2.75 X 10-5 1.91 X 10- 7 1,77 X 10 -4 2.07 X 10-11 6.30 X 10-10 

2.79 X 10-4 1. 94 X 10-6 1.80 X 10 -3 3.70 X 10-10 1.13 X 10 -8 

2.12 X 10-4 1.47 X 10-6 1.37 X 10 -3 2.89 X 10-10 8.81 X 10 -9 

8.52 X 10-5 5,92 X 10-7 5.50 X 10 -4 1. 70 X 10-10 5,18 X 10 -9 

5.48 X 10 -4 3.18 X 10-6 2.95 X 10 -3 9.17 X 10-10 2,79 X 10 -8 

2,60 X 10-5 1.81 X 10-7 1.68 X 10 -4 4,37 X 10-11 1.33 X 10 -9 

-5 3.12 X 10-7 -4 6,10 X 10-11 -9 4,50 X 10 2.90 X 10 1.86 X 10 

3.07 X 10 -3 2.13 X 10 -5 1.98 X 10 -2 ·3,00 X 10 -9 9,14 X 10 -8 

7.75 X 10-4 5.38 X 10-6 5.00 X 10 -3 5,41 X 10-10 1.65 X 10 -8 

-4 1.35 X 10-6 -3 1.10 X 10-10 -9 1.94 X 10 1.25 X 10 3.35 X 10 

3. 77 X 10-3 2.62 X 10-5 2.43 X 10-2 3,12 X 10-9 9,50 X 10 -8 

. -3 1.84 X 10 1.28 X 10-S 1.19x10 -2 9,33 X 10-10 2,84 X 10 -8 

3, 76 X 10-4 2,61 X 10 -6 2,43 X 10 -3 1,22 X 10-10 3,73 X 10 -9 

Specific Specific Void Por()sity Geol. storage-Ss gravity ratio (pe1rcent) Fm.* 

(1/ft) (1/ em) 

4,52 X 10-4 1.48 X 10-5 2.84 0.580 36.7 

2.84 X 10-4 9.31 X 10-6 2.84 0.473 32.1 

3.52 X 10 -4 1.15 X 10-5 2.88 0.650 39.4 

2,77 X 10 -5 9,08 X 10-7 2.88 0.620 38.3 

2,92 X 10 -4 9.57 X 10-6 2.88 0.522 34.3 

3.65 X 10 -4 1.20 X 10 -5 2. 76 0.523 34.3 

2.49 X 10 -4 8.16 X 10-6 2. 76 0.432 30.2 

1.08 X 10 -4 3.55 X 10 -6 2.76 0.357 26.3 

1. 91 X 10-4 6.27 X 10-6 2.67 1.130 53.1 

1. 96 X 10 -4 6,44 X 10-6 2.67 1.130 53.1 

2,87 X 10-4 9,43 X 10-6 2.67 1.054 51.3 

2,88 X 10 -4 9.46 X 10-6 2.67 1.054 5'1.3 

2,42 X 10 -4 7,93 X 10-6 2.67 0.992 49.8 

1. 95 X 10 -4 6.40 X 10-6 2.67 0.943 48.5 

1.41 X 10 -4 4.62 X 10 -6 2.44 0.469 31.9 

1.00 X 10 -4 3.30 X 10-6 2.44 0.455 31.3 

8,16 X 10 -5 2,68 X 10-6 2.44 0.440 30.6 

1.19 X 10-4 3.91 X 10-6 2.92 0.508 33.7 

7,30 X 10 -5 2.40 X 10-6 2.92 0.494 33.1 

4.69 X 10 -5 1.54 X 10-6 2.92 0,485 32.7 

0 
U1 

t-" 

Sample 

depth 

(ft) 

390.0 

456.0 

523.0 

546.0 

569.0 

625.0 

Consolidation 

load 

(psi) (g/cm2) 

222.2 1.56 X 104 

444.4 3.12 X 104 

222.2 1.56 X 104 

361.1 2,54 X 104 

444.4 3,12 X 104 

111.1 7,81 X 103 

222.2 1.56 X 104 

402.8 2.83 X 104 

111.1 7.81 X 103 

222,2 1.56 X 104 

444.4 3,12 X 104 

888.9 6,25 X 104 

111.1 7,81 X 103 

222.2 1.56 X 104 

444.4 3.12 X 104 

888.9 6,25 X 104 

111.1 7,81 X 103 

222.2 1.56 X 104 

444.4 3.12 X 104 

888.9 6,25 X 104 

Table 9.--Consolidation Test Data--Continued 

U.S. Army, Fort Dix Well 6--Continued 

New Hanover Twp., Burlington Co., N.J. 

Consolidation coefficient-Cv Hydraulic Specific 

storage-Ss conductivity-K 

(in2/s) (ft2

/s) (cm2 /s) (ft/s) (cm/s) (1/ft) (1/cm) 

3,92 X 10 -3 2.72xl0 -5 2.53 X 10-2 3.00 X 10 -9 9,14 X 10-8 1.10 X 10 -4 3.62 X 10 -6 

2,88 X 10 -3 2,00 X 10 -5 1.86 X 10 -2 1.55 X 10 -9 4, 72 X 10-8 7,75 X 10 -5 2.54,x 10 -6 

8,44 X 10 -4 5.86 X 10 -6 5.45 X 10 -3 6.87 X 10-10 2.09 X 10 -8 1.17 X 10 -4 3.84 X 10 -6 

9,53 X 10 -4 6.62 X 10 -6 6,15 X 10-3 6.92 X 10-10 2.11 X 10 -8 1.05 X 10 -4 3,43 X 10-6 

8,90 X 10 -4 6,18 X 10 -6 5,74 X 10-3 4,33 X 10-10 1.32 X 10 -8 . -5 

7,01 X 10 2,30 X 10 -6 

1.15 X 10 -4 7,99 X 10 -7 7,42 X 10-4 1.44 X 10-10 4,39 X 10-9 1.81 X 10 -4 5.92 X 10 -6 

5.25 X 10 -5 3,65 X 10 -7 3.39 X 10 -4 8.83 X 10-11 2.69 X 10-9 2,42 X 10 -4 7,95 X 10 -6 

4.30 X 10-5 2.99 X 10 -7 2. 77 X 10-4 1.39 X 10-10 4.24 X 10-9 4.66 X 10-4 1.53 X 10-5 

7,39 X 10 -5 5,13 X 10 -7 4. 77 X 10 -4 7.62 X 10-11 2.32 X 10-9 1.48 X 10-4 4.87 X 10 -6 

9,04 X 10-5 6.28 X 10 -7 5.83 X 10-4 6.07 X 10-11 1,85 X 10-9 9,68 X 10 -5 3,17 X 10 -6 

6.59 X 10 -5 4,58 X 10 -7 4.25 X 10-4 4.25 X 10-11 1.30 X 10-9 9.29 X 10 -5 3.05 X 10 -6 

2,46 X 10-5 1. 71 X 10 -7 1.59 X 10-4 3.20 X 10-11 9. 75 X 10-10 1.87 X 10 -4 6,15 X 10-6 

2,48 X 10 -4 1. 72 X 10-6 1,60 X 10 -3 2.70 X 10-10 8,23 X 10-9 1.57 X 10 -4 5,14 X 10 -6 

1. 70 X 10 -4 1.18 X 10 -6 1.10 X 10 -3 1.42 X 10 -10 4,32 X 10 -9 1.20 X 10 -4 3,94 X 10 -6 

1.40 X 10 -4 9,72 X 10 -7 9,03 X 10 -4 9,33 X 10-ll 2.84 X 10 -9 9.60 X 10 -5 3,15 X 10 -6 

1.50 X 10 -4 1.04 X 10 -6 9.68 X 10 -4 8,67 X 10-11 2,64 'x 10 -9 8,32 X 10 -5 2,73 X 10 -6 

8,79 X 10-4 6,10 X 10 -6 5,67 X 10-3 1.22 X 10 -9 3, 71 X 10-8 1,99 X 10-4 6.54 X 10-6 

8,97 X 10 -4 6.23 X 10 -6 5.79 X 10-3 6,39 X 10-10 1. 95 X 10-8 1,03 X 10 -4 3,37 X 10 -6 

7.61 X 10 -4 5.28 X 10 -6 4,91 X 10-3 3.46 X 10-10 1,05 X 10-8 6.54 X 10-5 2.15 X 10 -6 

7,08 X 10 -4 4.92 X 10-6 4,57 X 10 -3 1, 92 X 10-10 5.84 X 10-9 3,90 X 10 -5 1.28 X 10-6 

Specific Void Porosity Geol. 

gravity ratio (percent) Fro.* 

2. 77 0.551 35.5 Kmt 

2. 77 0.488 32.8 

2.67 0.636 38.9 Kw 

2.67 0.583 36.8 

2.67 0.562 36.0 

2.68 0.686 40.7 Kwb 

2.68 0.588 37.0 Kmv 

2.68 0.558 35.8 

2.58 0.739 42.5 Kwb 

2.58 0.697 41.1 Kmv 

2.58 0.620 38.3 

2.58 0.360 26.5 

2. 77 0.640 39.0 Kmb 

2. 77 0.591 37.1 Kmv 

2. 77 0.517 34.1 

2. 77 0.398 28.5 

2.69 0.522 34.3 Kmv 

2.69 0.483 32.6 ' 

2.69 0.435 30,3 

2,69 0.380 27.5 
lll 

N 

Sample 

depth 

(ft) 

660.0 

772.0 

795.0 

844.0 

866.0 

889.0 

Consolidation 

load 

(psi) (g/cm2) 

55.6 ·3 3.91 X 10 

111.1 7.81 X 103 

222.2 1,56 X 104 

444.4 3.12 X 104 

888.9 6.25 X 104 

111.1 7,81 X 103 

222.2 1.56 X 104 

444.4 3.12 X 104 

888.9 6,25 X 104 

111.1 7.81 X 103 

222.2 1.56 X 104 

444.4 3.12 X 104 

888.9 6.25 X 104 

111.1 7.81 X 103 

222.2 1.56 X 104 

444.4 3.12 X 104 

444.4 3.12 X 104 

111.1 7,81 X 103 

222.2 1,56 X 104 

444.4 3.12 X 104 

611.1 4,30 X 104 

Table 9.--Consolidation Test Data--Continued 

u.s. Army, Fort Dix Well 6--Continued 

New Hanover Twp., Burlington Co., N.J. 

Consolidation coefficient-Cv Hydraulic 

conductivity-K 

(in2/s) (ft2

/s) (cm2

/s) (ft/s) (cm/s) 

2,51 X 10-4 1. 74 X 10 -6 1,62 X 10 -3 3.38 X 10-10 1.03 X 10 -8 

4.42 X 10-4 3.07 X 10 -6 2.85 X 10 -3 6,78 X 10-10 2.07 X 10 -8 

3.55 X 10 -4 2.47 X 10 -6 2.29 X 10 -3 2.79 X 10-10 8,51 X 10 -9 

5.42 X 10 -4 3.76xl0 -6 3,50 X 10 -3 2,83 X 10-10 8.64 X 10 -9 

8,60 X 10-4 5.97 X 10-6 5.55 X 10 -3 3,09 X 10-10 9.42 X 10-9 

4.96 X 10 -4 3.44 X 10 -6 3,20 X 10 -3 6.97 X 10-10 2.13 X 10 -8 

5.33 X 10 -4 3,70 X 10 -6 3,44 X 10 -3 4,09 X 10-10 1.25 X 10 -8 

5.64 X 10-4 3.92 X 10 -6 3.64 X 10 -3 2.58 X 10-10 7.87 X 10 -9 

4.99 X 10-4 3,47 X 10-6 3,22 X 10 -3 1.42 X 10-10 4.32 X 10 -9 

5.25 X 10-4 3.65 X 10 -6 3.39 X 10 -3 8.05 X 10-10 2.45 X 10 -8 

5.76 X 10 -4 4.00 X 10 -6 3. 72 X 10 -3 5.17 X 10-10 1.57 X 10 -8 

7.30 X 10-4 5.07 X 10 -6 4. 71 X 10 -3 4.63 X 10-10 1.41 X 10 -8 

1.00 X 10 -3 6.94 X 10 -6 6.45 X 10 -3 3.28 X 10-10 1.00 X 10 -8 

1.27 X 10 -3 8,82 X 10 -6 8.19 X 10 -3 1.44 X 10-9 4.39 X 10-8 

2.18 X 10-3 1.51 X 10 -5 1.41 X 10 -2 6.41 X 10-lQ 1.95 X 10 -8 

2.13 X 10-3 1.48 X 10-S 1,37 X 10 -2 4,41 X 10-10 1.34 X 10-8 

1.51 X 10-3 LOS x 10 -5 9.74 X 10 -3 5.67 X 10-10 1. 73 X 10 -8 

1. 73 X 10-3 1.20 X 10-S 1.12 X 10 -2 4,14 X 10 -9 1,26 X 10 -7 

6, 72 X 10-3 4.67 X 10-S 4,34 X 10-2 3.92 X 10 -9 1.20 X 10 -7 

7.61 X 10-3 5.28 X 10-S 4. 91 X 10-z 2.61 X 10 -9 7,95 X 10-8 

2.74 X 10-4 1.90 X 10 -6 1.77 X 10-3 4,89 X 10-ll 1.49 X 10 -9 

Specific 

storage-Sa 

(1/ft) (1/cm) 

1.94 X 10-4 6.37 X 10 -6 

2.21 X 10-4 7.25 X 10 .,-6 

1.13 X 10 -4 3.72 X 10 -6 

7.53 X 10 -5 2,47 X 10 -6 

5.18 X 10-5 lo70 X 10-6 

2.02 X 10 -4 6.64 X 10 -6 

1,11 X 10-4 3,63 X 10 -6 

6,60 X 10 -5 2,16 X 10 -6 

4.09 X 10-S 1.34 X 10 -6 

2.21 X 10 -4 7.24 X 10 -6 

1.29 X 10 -4 4.24 X 10 -6 

9.14 X 10-5 3.00 X 10 -6 

4. 73 X 10 -5 1.55 X 10 -6 

1.63 X 10-4 5.36 X 10 -6 

4.23 X 10 -5 1.39 X 10 -6 

2,98 X 10 -5 9. 78 X 10 -7 

5.41 X 10-5 1.78 X 10 -6 

3,45 X 10-4 1.13 X 10 -5 

8.41 X 10-5 2.76 X 10 -6 

4.94 X 10-5 1.62 X 10 -6 

2.57 X 10-S 8.43 X 10 -7 

Spec if i.e Void Porosity Geol. 

gravity ratio (pE!rcent) Fm.* 

2.67 0.356 26.3 

2.67 0.312 23.8 

2.67 0.274 21.5 

2.67 0,159 13.7 

2.67 0.159 13.7 

2. 74 0.453 31.2 

2. 74 0.413 29.2 

2. 74 0.367 215.8 

2.74 0.312 2:3.8 

2.58 0.413 29.2 

2.58 0.366 26.8 

2.58 0.305 23.4 

2.58 0.245 19.7 

2. 72 0.389 28.0 

2. 72 0.374 2J.2 

2.72 0.352 26.0 

2. 74 0.311 23.7 

2.61 0.284 22.1 

2.61 0.257 20.4 

2 .• 61 0.226 18.4 

2.61 0.214 H.6 
Vl 

(.,.) 

Sample 

depth 

(ft) 

---

889.0 

935.0 

956.0 

979.0 

1000.0 

225.0 

255.0 

Consolidation 

load 

(psi) (g/cm2) 

694.4 4.88 X 104 

833.3 5.86 X 104 

111.1 7,81 X 103 

222.2 1.56 X 104 

444.4 3,12 X 104 

888.9 6,25 X 104 

222.2 1.56 X 104 

444.4 3.12 X 104 

888.9 6,25 X 104 

222.2 1,56 X 104 

444.4 3,12 X 104 

888.9 6.25 X 104 

666.7 4,69 X 104 

888.9 6,25 X 104 

222.2 1.56 X 104 

81.0 5.69 X 10 3 

222.2 1.56 X 104 

92.2 6,48 X 103 

Table 9.--Consolidation Test Data--Continued 

u.s. Army, Fort Dix Well 6--Continued 

New Hanover Twp., Burlington Co., N.J. 

Consolidation coefficient-Cv Hydraulic 

conductivity-K 

(in2/s) (ft2

/s) (cm2

/ s) (ft/s) (cm/s) 

-3 -5 -3 2,62 X 10-10 -9 1,45 X 10 1.01 X 10 9.35 X 10 7,98 X 10 

1.46 X 10 -3 1.01 X 10 -5 9,42 X 10-3 1,05 X 10-lO 3,20 X 10-9 

-4 -6 1.54 X 10-3 2,78 X 10-10 -9 2,38 X 10 1.65 X 10 8,48 X 10 

3,92 X 10 -4 2, 72 X 10 -6 2,53 X 10 -3 7 • 73 X 10-10 2,36 X 10 -8 

5.84 X 10 -4 4.06 X 10 -6 3.77 X 10-3 3,34 X 10-10 1.02 X 10-8 

6.44 X 10 -4 4.47 X 10 -6 4,15 X 10-3 1.88 X 10-lO 5.74 X 10-9 

4.17 X 10-4 2.90 X 10 -6 2,69 X 10-3 3.54 X 10-10 1.08 X 10-8 

3.23 X 10 -4 2,24 X 10 -6 2,08 X 10-3 1. 90 X 10-lO 5,79 X 10 -9 

-4 -6 2.54 X 10-3 8, 75 X 10-11 -9 3,94 X 10 2,74 X 10 2.67 X 10 

4,63 X 10-4 3,22 X 10 -6 2,99 X 10-3 2,18 X 10-10 6,65 X 10-9 

8.04 X 10 -4 5.58 X 10 -6 5,19 X 10-3 2,28 X 10-10 6,96 X 10-9 

5.90 X 10 -4 4.10 X 10 -6 3.81 X 10-3 1.02 X 10-10 . -9 3.10 X 10 

3,51 X 10 -4 2.44 X 10 -6 2,26 X 10 -3 7,22 X 10-11 2,20 X 10 -9 

2.51 X 10 -4 1,74 X 10 -6 1.62 X 10-3 3,48 X 10-11 1.06 X 10 -9 

Brad1ess Corp. Well 

Brick Township, Ocean County, N.J. 

3,42 X 10 -3 2,37 X 10 -5 2,21 X 10-2 2,63 X 10-10 8,03 X 10-9 

4.17 X 10 -5 2.90 X 10 -7 2,69 X 10-4 2,66 X 10-lO 8,10 X 10-9 

1.60 X 10 -3 1.11 X 10 -5 1.03 X 10-2 1,68 X 10-7 5.13 X 10-6 

3.43 X 10 -3 2,38 X 10 -5 2,21 X 10-2 1. 70 X 10-8 5,18 X 10-7 

Specific Specific Void Porosity storage-Ss Geol. 

gravity ratio (percent) Fm.* 

(1/ft) 1(1/cm) 

2,60 X 10 -5 8,53 X 10-7 2.61 0.208 17.2 

1.04 X 10 -5 3,40 X 10-7 2.6ll 0.204 16~ 9' 

1.68 X 10 -4 5.53 X 10 -6 2.66 0.299 23.0 

2,84 X 10 -4 9,32 X 10 -6 2.66 0.211 17.4 

8,24 X 10 -5 2.70 X 10-6 2.66 0.162 13.9 

4.21 X 10-5 1.38 X 10-6 2.66 0.114 10.2 

1.22 X 10 -4 ' 4,01 X 10-6 2. 73 0.281 21.9 

8.47 X 10-5 I 

-6 2.78 X 10 2.73 0.228 18.6 

3,20 X 10 -5 1.05 X 10-6 2.73 0.172 14.7 

6,79 X 10 -5 2.23 X 10-6 2.72 0.323 24.4 

4,09 X 10-5 1,31+ X 10-6 2.72 0.296 22.8 

2,48 X 10-5 8,11+ X 10-7 2.72 0.264 20.9 

2.96 X 10 -5 9. 71 X 10-7 2.69 0.188 15.8 

2,00 X 10 -5 6,56 X 10 -7 2.69 0.176 15.0 

-5 3,64 X 10-7 1.11 X 10 2.67 -- -- -4 3,01 X 10-5 9,18 X 10 -- 0.930 48.2 

-2 4,97 X 10-4 1,51 X 10 2.60 -- -- -4 2,34 X 10-5 7.14 X 10 -- o. 725 42.0 
V1 

./::--

Sample 

depth 

(ft) 

270.0 

300.0 

322.0 

352.0 

370.0 

400.0 

432.0 

489.0 

550.0 

605.0 

625.0 

Consolidation 

load 

(psi) (g/cm2) 

222.2 1.56 X 104 

98.2 6.90 X 103 

222.2 1.56 X 104 

222.2 1.56 X 104 

222.2 1.56 X 104 

222.2 1.56 X 104 

222.2 1.56 X 104 

222.2 1.56 X 104 

115.0 8,09 X 103 

230.0 1.62 X 104 

460.0 3.23 X 104 

126.0 8,86 X 103 

252.0 1. 77 X 104 

504.0 3,54 X 104 

138.0 9.70 X 103 

276.0 1.94 X 104 

551.0 3,87 X 104 

141.0 9.91 X 103 

282.0 1.98 X 104 

564.0 3.97 X 104 

Table 9.--Couselidated Test Data--Continued 

Bradlees Corp Well--Continued 

Brick Township, Ocean County, N.J. 

Consolidation coefficient-Cv Hydraulic 

conductivity-K 

(in2/s) (ft2

/s) (cm2

/s) (ft/s) (cm/s) 

6.51 X 10 -3 4.52 X 10-5 4,20 X 10 -2 1.29 X 10-10 3,94 X 10-9 

9.25 X 10 -5 6.42 X 10 -7 5,97 X 10 -4 6.89 X 10-10 2.10 X 10 -8 

6.95 X 10 -3 4.83 X 10 -5 4.48 X 10 -2 5.83 X 10 -9 1. 78 X 10 -7 

-3 -5 -2 7.52 X 10-10 -8 

1.70 X 10 1.18 X 10 1.10 X 10 2,29 X 10 

1.86 X 10 -3 1.29 X 10 -5 1,20 X 10 -2 2.32 X 10-10 7.06 X 10 -9 

4.27 X 10 -3 2.97 X 10 -5 2.75 X 10 -2 6.11 X 10-11 1.86 X 10-9 

8,.6o x 10 -4 5,97 X 10 -6 5,55 X 10 -3 7.96 X 10 -9 2.43 X 10-7 

-4 -6 -3 1,71 X 10 1.19 X 10 1.10 X 10 -- --

5.49 X 10 -5 3,81 X 10 -7 3,54 X 10 -4 2.13 X 10-10 6,50 X 10 -9 

-5 -7 -4 4. 92 X 10-11 -9 2.37 X 10 1,65 X 10 1.53 X 10 1.50 X 10 

1.45 X 10-5 1.01 X 10 -7 9.35 X 10 -5 1.54 X 10-ll 4, 70 X 10-10 

3,84 X 10-3 2,67 X 10 -5 2.48 X 10 -2 5.25 X 10 -9 1.60 X 10-7 

-3 -5 -2 -9 -8 

2,82 X 10 1. 96 X 10 1,82 X 10 1. 90 X 10 5.79 X 10 

1.36 X 10 -3 9,44 X 10 -6 8, 77 X 10 ;.3 8.83 X 10-10 2.69 X 10 -8 

8.39 X 10 -4 5.83 X 10 -6 5.41 X 10 -3 1. 97 X 10 -9 5.99 X 10-8 

5,36 X 10 -4 3.72x10 -6 3,46 X 10 -3 6.88 X 10-10 2.10 X 10-8 

3.30 X 10 -4 2.29 X 10 -6 2,13 X 10 -3 2.10 X 10-lQ 6,40 X 10-9 

5.40 X 10 -4 3,75 X 10 -6 3.48 X 10 -3 6,88 X 10-10 2.10 X 10-8 

6.00 X 10 -4 4.17 X 10-6 3,87 X 10 -3 4.27 X 10-10 1.30 X 10-8 

1.84 X 10 -4 1.28 X 10-6 1.19 X 10 -3 6.57 X 10-11 2,00 X 10-9 

Specific 

storage-Sa 

(1/ft) (1/cm) 

2.86 X 10-6 9.37 X 10 -8 

1.07 X 10 -3 3,52 X 10 -5 

1.21 X 10 -4 3.97 X 10 -6 

6,37 X 10 -5 2,09 X 10 -6 

l.79x10 -5 5.88 X 10 -7 

2.06 X 10-6 6,76 X 10 -8 

1,33 X 10-3 4.37 X 10-5 

-- --

5.60 X 10-4 1.84 X 10 -5 

2.99 X 10-4 9,80 X 10 -6 

1.53 X 10 -4 5.02 X 10-6 

1. 97 X 10-4 6.46 X 10-6 

9.70 X 10 -5 3,18 X 10 -6 

9.35 X 10 -5 3,07 X 10 -6 

3,38 X 10-4 1.11 X 10 -5 

1.85 X 10-4 6.07 X 10 -6 

9,16 X 10 -5 3.01 X 10 -6 

1,84 X 10 -4 6.02 X 10 -6 

1.02 X 10 -4 3."36 X 10-6 

5.14 X 10-S 1,69 X 10-6 

Specific Void P1,rosity Geol. 

gravity ratio (percent) Fm.* 

2.70 -- -- -- 0.890 47.1 

2.54 -- --

2.56 -- --

2. 77 -- --

2.61 -- --

2.64 -- --

2.68 -- --

-- 1.270 55.9 

-- 1.180 54.1 

-- 1.070 51.7 

-- 1.380 58.0 

-- 1.330 57.1 

-- 1.290 56.3 

-- 0.920 47.9 Kw 

-- 0.860 46.2 

-- 0.780 43.8 

-- 1.130 53.1 Kw 

-- 1.100 52.4 

-- 1.020 so.s 
iJI 

iJI 

Sample 

depth 

(ft) 

635.0 

645.0 

465.0 

485.0 

525.0 

545.0 

645.0 

685:o 

Consolidation 

load 

(psi) (g/cm2) 

133.0 9.35 X 103 

265.0 1.86 X 104 

531.0 3,73 X 104 

151.0 1.06 X 104 

302.0 2,12 X 104 

222.2 1.56 X 104 

444.4 3,12 X 104 

222.2 1.56 X 104 

444.4 3.12 X 104 

222.2 1.56 X 104 

444.4 3.12 X 104 

222.2 1.56 X 104 

444.4 3,12 X 104 

222.2 1.56 X 104 

444.4 3.12 X 104 

222.2 1.56 X 104 

444.4 3.12 X 104 

Table 9.--Consolidation Test Data--Continued 

Bradlees Corp. Well--Continued 

Brick Township, Ocean County, N.J. 

Consolidation coefficient-Cv Hydraulic Specific 

storage-Sa, conductivity-K 

(in2/s) (ft2

/s) (cm2

/s) (ft/s) (cm/s) (1/ft) (1/cm) 

-4 -6 -3 6.57 X 10-10 -8 -4 -5 

3.01 X 10 2,09 X 10 1,94 X 10 2.00 X 10 3,14 X 10 1.03 X 10 

-4 -6 -3 2.76 X 10-10 -9 1.61 X 10-4 5.3() X 10-6 

2,46 X 10 1.71xl0 1.59 X 10 8.41 X 10 

-4 -6 -3 1.28 X 10-10 -9 -5 2,72,x 10-6 

2.23 X 10 1.55 X 10 1.44 X 10 3.91 X 10 8,29 X 10 

-4 -6 -3 1,28 X 10-9 -8 -4 8,98 X 10-6 

6. 75 -- 1.0 4,69 X 10 4.35 X 10 3.91 X 10 2,74 X 10 

-4 -6 -3 2,79 X 10-10 -9 -4 -6 

2.94 X 10 2.04 X 10 1. 90 X 10 8,51 X 10 1.37 X 10 4.49 X 10 

Toms River Water Company Test Well Step 5 

Dover Township, Ocean Co,, N.J. 

-3 -5 -2 -9 -7 -4 -6 

4.17 X 10 2.90 X 10 2.69 X 10 5.81 X 10 1.77xl0 2.01 X 10 6,58 X 10 

-3 -5 -2 -9 -7 -4 -6 

3,12 X 10 2,17 X 10 2,01 X 10 5,81 X 10 1. 77 X 10 2,68 X 10 8,8() X 10 

4.59 X 10-4 -6 2.96 X 10-3 -8 3.25 X 10-7 -3 -4 3.19 X 10 1,07 X 10 3,35 X 10 1.1() X 10 

4,81 X 10-4 -6 -3 1,07 X 10-8 -7 -3 1.05 X 10-4 

3.34 X 10 3.10 X 10 3.25 X 10 3,19 X 10 

-5 -7 -4 5.28 X 10 3,67 X 10 3.41 X 10 -- -- -- --

1.15 X 10 -4 7.99 X 10-7 7.42 X 10-4 -- -- -- --

1.19 X 10 -4 8.26 xi 10-7 7,68 X 10 -4 9.08 X 10 -8 2, 77 X 10 -6 l.lOxlO -1 3.61 X 10 -3 

-4 -7 6.84 X 10-4 9.08 .X 10-8 -6 -1 4,05 X 10-3 

1.06 X 10 7.36 X 10 2.77x10 1.23 X 10 

2.94 X 10-4 2,04 X 10-6 1,90 X 10 -3 4,88 X 10-19 1.4~ X 10 -7 2.39 X 10 -3 7.8~) X 10-5 

4.25 X 10-4 2.95 X 10 -6 2,74 X 10-3 4.88 X 10-9 1.49 X 10 -7 /1.65 X 10-3 5.43 X 10-5 

1.06 X 10 -3 7,36 X 10 -6 6.84 X 10 -3 5,58 X 10-9 1. 70 X 10 -7 7,58 X 10 -4 2.49 X 10-5 

2.52 X 10 -3 1. 75 X 10 -5 1.63 X 10 -2 5,58 X 10 -9 1. 70 X 10 -7 3.19 X 10 -4 1.05 X 10-5 

Spedfic Void Porosity Geol. 

gravity ratio (percent) Fm.* 

-·· 0.920 47.9 Kmt 

-·· 0.860 46.2 

-·· 0.790 44.1 

-·- 0.870 46.5 Kmt 

-·· 0.860 46.2 

-- -- --

-- -- --

2.68 -- --

2.68 -- --

2. 73 -- --

2.73 -- --

2. 73 -- --

2.73 -- --

2. 77 -- --

2. 77 -- --

2.63 -- --

2.63 -- --
V1 

"' 

Sample 

depth 

(ft) 

765.0 

775.0 

785.0 

795.0 

805.0 

566.0 

692.0 

Consolidation 

load 

(psi) (g/cm2) 

222.2 1.56 X 104 

444.4 3.12 X 104 

222.2 1.56 X 104 

444.4 3.12 X 104 

222.2 1.56 X 104 

444.4 3.12 X 104 

222.2 1.56 X 104 

444.4 3.12 X 104 

222.2 1.56 X 104 

444.4 3.12 X 104 

100.0 7.03 X 103 

275.0 1.93 X 104 

435.0 3.06 X 104 

685.0 4.82 X 104 

100.0 7.03 X 103 

275.0 1.93 X 104 

435.0 3.06 X 104 

530.0 3.73 X 104 

Table 9.--Consolidation Test Data--Continued 

Toms River Water Company Test Well Step 5--Continued 

Dover Township, Ocean Co., N.J. 

Consolidation coefficient-Cv Hydraulic Specific 

storage-Sa conductivity-K 

(in2/s) (ft2/s) (cm2

/s) (ft/s) (cm/s) (1/ft) (1/cm) 

1.72xl0 -3 1.19 X 10 -5 1.11 X 10 -2 7.35 X 10-8 2.24 X 10-6 6.15 X 10-3 2.02 X 10-4 

1.61 X 10 -3 1.12 X 10-5 1.04 X 10-2 7.35 X 10-8 2.24 X 10-6 6.57 X 10-3 2.16 X 10 -4 

5.79 X 10-4 4.02 X 10-6 3. 74 X 10-3 -- -- -- -- 1.02 X 10-4 7.08 X 10-7 6.58 X 10-4 -- -- -- -- -4 2.49 X 10-6 -3 3.59 X 10 2.32 X 10 -- -- -- --

4.91 X 10-4 3.41 X 10-6 3.17 X 10-3 -- -- -- -- -4 -6 -3 2.11 X 10 1.47 X 10 1.36 X 10 -- -- -- -- -4 -6 1.26 X 10-3 1.95 X 10 1.35 X 10 -- -- -- --

1.41 X 10-3 9. 79 X 10-6 9.10 X 10-3 1. 73 X 10-9 5.28 X 10-8 1. 77 X 10-4 5.81 X 10-6 

7.92 X 10 -4 5.50 X 10-6 5.ll X 10 -3 1.73 X 10-9 5.28 X 10-8 3.15 X 10 -4 1.03 X 10 -5 

New Jersey Water Co. Well 10 

Lakewood Township, Ocean County, N.J. 

-- -- -- 1.29 X 10-8 3.93 X 10-7 -- -- 1.33 X 10 -2 9.21 X 10 -5 8.56 X 10 -2 6.45 X 10 -9 1.96 X 10 -7 7.0 X 10-5 2.29 X 10 -6 

1.51 X 10 -2 1.05 X 10 -4 9.75 X 10 -2 5.69 X 10-9 1. 73 X 10-7 5.4 X 10-5 1. 77 X 10 -6 

1.48 X 10-2 1.03 X 10-4 9.57 X 10 -2 4.55 X 10-9 1.39 X 10-7 4.4 X 10-S 1.44 X 10 -6 

1.02 X 10-4 7.08 X 10-7 6.58 X 10-4 1.63 X 10-10 4.96 X 10-9 2.3 X 10-4 7.55 X 10-6 

6.72x10 -5 4.67 X 10-7 4.34 X 10 -4 6.07 X 10-11 1.85 X 10-9 1.3 X 10-4 4.27 X 10 -6 

5.41 X 10 -5 3.76 X 10 -7 3.49 X 10-4 3.42 X 10-ll 1.04 X 10-9 9.1 X 10-S 2.99 X 10 -6 

3.74 X 10 -5 2.60 X 10 -7 2.41 X 10 -4 2.24 X 10-11 6.83 X 10-lQ 8.6 X 10-5 2.82 X 10 -6 

Specific Void Porosity Geol. 

gravity ratio (percent) Fm.* 

2.75 -- --

2.75 -- --

2.66 -- --

2.66 -- --

2. 73 -- --

2.73 -- --

2.82 -- --

2.82 -- --

2.66 -- --

2.66 -- --

-- -- -- Kmt 

-- -- --

-- -- --

-- -- --

-- -- -- Ket 

-- -- --

-- -- --

-- -- --
1..11 

-....! 

Table 9.--Consolidation Test Data--Continued 

New Jersey Water Co. Well 10--Continued 

Lakewood Township, Ocean County, N.J. 

Sample Consolidation Consolidation coefficient-Cv Hydraulic Specific 

storage-Ss depth load conductivity-K 

(ft) (psi) (g/cm2) (in2/s) (ft2/s) (cm2 /s) (ft/s) (em/ s) (1/ft) (1/ em) 

795.0 100.0 7.03 X 103 7.89 X 10-4 5.48 X 10-6 5.09 X 10-3 4.93 X 10-10 1.50 X 10-9 9.0 X 10-5 2.95 X 10-6 

610.0 4.29 X 104 8.37 X 10-5 5.81 X 10-7 5.40 X 10-4 4.18 X 10-11 1.27 X 10 -9 7.2 X 10-5 2.36 X 10 -6 

1150.0 8.09 X 104 4.00 X 10 -5 2.78 X 10 -7 2.58 X 10-4 1.67 X 10-11 5.09 X 10-10 6.0 X 10 -5 1.97 X 10 -6 

845.0 ll5.o 8.09 X 104 3.61 X 10 -3 2.51 X 10-5 2.33 X 10-2 1.63 X 10-9 4.97 X 10-8 6.5 X 10 -5 2.13 X 10 -6 

645.0 4.53 X 104 1.23 X 10 -4 8.58 X 10 -7 7.97 X 10-4 5.32 X 10-ll 1.62 X 10-9 6.2 X 10-5 2.03 X 10-6 

1190.0 8.37 X 104 2.10 X 10-5 1.46 X 10-7 1.35 X 10-4 8.35 X 10-l2 2.54 X 10-10 5.7 X 10-5 1.87 X 10-6 

896.0 145.0 1.02 X 104 6.47 X 10 -4 4.49 X 10 -6 4.17 X 10-3 4.94 X 10-lQ 1.51 X 10 -9 1.1 X 10 -4 3.61 X 10 -6 

690.0 4.85 X 104 1.32 X 10 -4 9.18 X 10 -7 8.53 X 10-4 5.69 X 10-ll 1.73 X 10-9 6.2 X 10-5 2.03 X 10 -6 

1225.0 8.61 X 104 5.05 X 10 -5 3.51 X 10 -7 3.26 X 10 -4 1.44 X 10-ll 4.39 X 10-lO 4.1 X 10 -5 1.35 X 10-6 . 

928.0 180.0 1.27 X 104 -- -- -- 5.69 X 10-10 1. 73 X 10-8 -- ··-

715.0 5.03 X 104 -- -- -- 1.63 X 10-10 4.97 X 10-9 -- -·-

1245.0 8.75 X 104 -- -- -- 1.18 X 10-10 3.59 X 10-9 -- -·-

*Ket - Englishtown Formation, clayey silt lithofacies 

Kmt - Marshalltown Formation 

Kmv - Merchantville Formation 

Kw - Wenonah Formation 

Kwb - Woodbury Clay 

Specific Void Porosity Geol. 

gravity ratio (percent) Fm.* 

-- -- -- Kwb 

-- -- -- -- -- --

-- -- -- Kwb 

-- -- --

-- -- --

-- -- -- Kmv 

-- -- --

-- -- --

-- -- -- Kmv 

-- -- --

-- -- --
2 The approximate computed overburden pressure is 300 psi (21.1 kg/cm ) 

for the Marshalltown sample and ranges from 360 psi (25.3 kg/cm2) to 480 

psi (33.8 kg/cm2) for the Merchantville-Woodbury samples. The hydraulic 

conductivity calculated for the MarshalltowTL for the load increment closest 

to overburden pressure is 3.0 x lo-9 ft/s (9.1 x lo-8 cm/s); the specific 1 storage is 1.1 x lo-4 ft-1 (3.62 x lo-6 cm- ); and the hydraulic diffusivity 

is 2.72 x 10-S ft2/s (2.53 x 10-2 cm2/s). Hydraulic conductivity values of 

the Merchantville-Woodbury samples computed for load increments nearest· the 

approximate overburden pressures range from 4.25 x lo-ll ft/s (1.29 x lo-9 

cm/s) to 6.92 x lo-10 ft/s (2.11 x lo-8 cm/s). Specific storage values 

range from 6.54 X 10-5 ft-1 (2.14 X 10-6 cm-1) to 4.66 X l0-4 ft-1 (1.53 X 

lo-5 cm-1) .. The hydraulic diffusivity of these samples varies from 2.97 x 

lo-7 ft2/s (2 .. 76 x l0-4 cm2/s) to 6 .. 59 x lo-6 ft2/s (6.12 x lo-3 cm2/s) 

(table 9). 

Samples of the Marshalltown Format;i.on, the clayey silt lithofacies of 

the Englishtown Formation, and the Woodbury and Merchantville Formations 

were obtained from a well drilled by the New Jersey Water Company near 

Lakewood, N.J. The Marshalltown Formation sample, collected at a depth of 

566ft (172m), is in the sand-silt-clay category of the Shepard classification. A sample of the clayey silt lithofacies of the Englishtown Formation 

was taken at a depth of 692 ft (211m) and is a silty clay in Shepard's 

classification system. Four samples of the Merchantville and Woodbury 

Formations were obtained between depths of 795 ft (242m) and 928 ft (283m). 

The sediments recovered fall in the clayey silt and sand-silt-clay categories 

of the Shepard classification system. 

2 The approximate computed overburden pressure is 440 psi (30.9 kg/cm ) 2 for the Marshalltown sample, 540 psi (38 kg/cm ) for the clayey silt 2 lithofacies sample of the Englishtown, and ranges from 620 psi (43.6 kg/em ) 

to 710 psi (SO kg/cm2) for the Merchantville-Woodbury samples. The hydraulic 

conductivity calculated for the Marshalltown for the consolidation load 

closest to overburden pressure is 5.69 x l0-9 ft/s (1.73 x lo-7 cm/s) and 

1 the specific storage is 5.45 x lo-S ft- (1.77 x 10-6 cm-1). The hydraulic 

conductivity calculated for the clayey silt lithofacies of the Englishtown 

Formation is 2.24 x lo-ll ft/s (6.83 x lo-10 cm/s), and the specific storage 1 is 8.6 x lo-S ft- (2.82 x lo-6 cm-1). Hydraulic conductivity values of the 

Merchantville and Woodbury Formation samples calculated for load increments 

nearest the approximate overburden pressures range from 4.18 x lo-ll ft/s 

(1.27 x l0-9 cm/s) to 1.63 x lo-10 ft/s (4.97 x l0-9 cm/s). Specific 

storage values range from 6.2 x lo-S ft-1 (2.03 x lo-6 cm-1) to 7.2 x lo-S ft-1 

(2.36 x 10-6 cm-1). The hydraulic diffusivity of these samples varies from 

2 2 5.81 x lo-7 ft /s (5.40 x lo-4 cm /s) to 9.18 x lo-7 ft2/s (8.53 x lo-4 cm2/s). 

The average and extreme values of the hydraulic conductivity of the confining 

layers of the Engtishtown aquifer system are given in table 4. 

58 
CONCLUSIONS 

The geohydrologic data contained in this report are the basic requirements 

needed in the development of a computer simulation model of the most developed 

part of the Eng!ishtown aquifer in the northern Coastal Plain of New Jersey. 

The Englishtown aquifer, which has an average thickness of about 100 feet 

(30 m) throughout Monmouth and northern Ocean Counties, is sandwiched between 

overlying and underlying confining beds that have an average thickness of 40 

ft (12 m) and 200 ft (61 m) respectively. 

The transmissivity of the aquifer is relatively low, ranging from 2,400 

ft2/d (223m2/d) to 650 ft2/d (60m2/d); the hydraulic conductivity averages 

about 15 ft/d (3.3 m/d); and the storage coefficient ranges from 8 x lo-5 to 

3 x lo-4. The c~nfining beds_~gve vertical hydraulic conductivities on the 

order of 1 x 10-J ft/d (3 x 10 m/d) and specific storage of 8 x lo-5/ft 

(2.4 x l0-5/m). 

The average rate of withdrawal from the Englishtown aquifer, within the 

area of study increased from 5.5 Mgal/d (.24 m3/s) in 1959 to about 9.5 Mgal/d 

(0.4 m3/s) in 1970. The effect of this withdrawal rate was a decline in 

head as of 1970 at a rate of 8 to 12 ft (2.4 to 3.6 m) per _year over large 

areas. As a consequence of this change in head, large quantities of water 

have apparently leaked from and through the confining layers into the 

Englishtown aquifer. The quantity of leakage and the effects of future 

stresses on the aquifer can best be estimated by simulation modeling. 

REFERENCES CITED 

Anderson, H. R., and Appel, C. A., 1969, Geology and ground-water resources 

of Ocean County, New Jersey: New Jersey Dept. Conserv. and Econ. Devel. 

Spec. Rept. 29, 93 p., 29 figs. 

Barksdale, H. c., Greenman, D. W., Lang, S.M., Hilton, G. s., and Outlaw, 

D. E., 1958, Ground-water resources of the tri-state region adjacent to 

the lower Delaware River: New Jersey Dept. Conserv. and Econ. Devel. 

Spec. Rept. 13, 190 p., 1 pl., 24 figs. 

Berry, E. W., 1906, The. flora of the Cliffwood clays: New Jersey Geol. 

Survey Ann. Rept., 1905, p. 135-172. 

Domenico, P. A., and Mifflin, M. D., 1965, Water from, low-permeability sediments 

and land subsidence: Water Resources Research, vol. 1,- no. 4, p. 563-576. 

Dansky, Ellis, 1963, Records of wells and ground-water quality in Camden 

Cou!,lty, New Jersey: New Jersey Dept. Conserv .. and Econ .. Devel. Water 

Resources Circ. 10, 70 p .. 

59 
Farlekas, G. M., Nemickas, Bronius, and Gill, H. E., 1976, Geology and 

ground-water resources of Camden County, New Jersey: u.s. Geol. 

Survey Water Resources Inv. 76--76, 146 p. 

Hantush, M. s., 1960, Modification of the theory of leaky aquifers: Jour. 

Geophys .. Research, v. 65, no. 11, p. 3713-3725. 

1964, Hydraulics of wells, in Chow, V. T., Advances in hydroscience, 

v. New York, Academic Press, p. 281-442. 

Hardt, W. F., 1963, Public water supplies in Gloucester County, New Jersey: 

New Jersey Dept. Conserv. and Econ. Devel. Water Resources Circ. 9 .. 

Hardt, W. F., and Hilton, G. s., 1969, Water Resources and geology of 

Gloucester County, New Jersey: New Jersey Dept. Conserv. and Econ. 

Devel. Spec. Rept. 30, 130 p., 17 figs. 

Hurr, R. T., 1966, A new approach for estimating transmissibility from 

specific capacity: Water Resources Research, v. 2, no. 4, p. 657-664. 

Jablonski, L. A., 1959, Records of wells and ground-water quality in Monmouth 

County, New Jersey: New Jersey Dept. Conserv. and Econ. Devel. 

Water Resources Circ. 2. 

1960, Factual data for public-supply wells and selected irrigation 

s in Monmouth County, New Jersey: New Jersey Dept. Conserv. and 

Econ. Devel. Water Resources Circ. 4. 

1968, Ground-water resources of Monmouth County, New Jersey: 

New Jersey Dept. Conserv. and Econ. Devel. Spec. Rept. 23, 117 p., 

27 figs. 

Lambe, W. T., 1951, Soil testing for engineers: New York, John Wiley and 

Sons, Inc., 165 p. 

Minard, J. P., 1964, Geology of the Roosevelt Quadrangle, New Jersey: u.s. 

Geol. Survey Geol. Quad. Map GQ-340. 

---------- 1965, Geologic map of the Woodstown Quadrangle, Gloucester and 

Counties, New Jersey: u.s. Geol. Survey Geol. Quad. Map GQ-340. 

1969, Geology of the Sandy Hook Quadrangle in Monmouth County, 

New Jersey: u.s. Geol. Survey Bull. 1276, 43 p.,2 pls., 14 figs. 

Minard, J. P., Owens, J. P., and Nichols, T. c., 1964, Pre-Quaternary 

geology of the Mount Holly Quadrangle, New Jersey: u.s. Geol. Survey 

Geol. Quad. Map GQ-272. 

60 
Minard, J. P., Owens, J. P., Sohl, N. F., Gill, H. E., and Mello, J. F., 

1969, Cretaceous-Tertiary boundary _in New Jersey, Delaware, and 

eastern Maryland: u.s. Geol .. Survey Bull. 1274-H, 33 p., 10 figs. 

Owens, J. P. and Minard, J.P .. , 1966, Pre-Quaternary geology of the Allentown 

Quadrangle, New Jersey: U.S. Geol. Survey Geol. Quad .. Map GQ-566. 

1970, Rock stratigraphic studies, in Owens, J. P., and others, 

Stratigraphy of the outcropping post-Magothy Upper Cretaceous fonnations 

in southern New Jersey and northern Delmarva Peninsula: u.s. Geol. 

Survey Prof. Paper 674, p. 5-10 •. 

Owens, J.P., Minard, J.P., and Sohl, N. F., 1~6~, Cretaceous deltas in 

the northern New Jersey Coa·stal Plain, in Finks, R. L., ed., Guidebook 

to field excursions at the 40th Annual Meeting of the New York State 

Geologists Association: New York, Queens College of the City Univ., 

p. 33-48 .. 

Owens, J. P., Minard, J.P., Sohl, N. F., and Mello, J. F., 1970, Stratigraphy 

of the outcropping post~Magothy Upper Cretaceous formations in southern 

New Jersey and northern Delmarva Peninsula, Delaware and Maryland: 

u.s. Geol. Survey Prof. Paper 674, 60 p., 25 figs. 

Owens, J.P., and Sohl, N. F., 1969, Shelf and deltaic paleoenvironments in 

the Cretaceous-Tertiary formation of the New Jersey Coastal Plain, in 

Subitzky, Seymour, ed., Geology of selected areas in New Jersey and 

eastern Pennsylvania and guidebook of excursions: Geol. Soc. America 

and Associated Societies Ann. Mtg., Atlantic City, New Jersey, 1969, 

p. 235-278. 

Parker, G. G., Rely, A. G., Keighton, W. D., Olmstead, F. H., and others, 

1964, Water resources of the Delaware River Basin: u.s. Geol. Survey 

Prof. Paper 381, 200 p., 12 pls., 75 figs. 

Rosenau, J. c., Lang, s. M., Hilton, G. s., and Rooney, J. G., 1969, Geology 

and ground-water resources of Salem County, New Jersey: New Jersey Dept. 

Conserv. and Econ. Devel. Spec. Rept. 33, 142 p., 21 figs. 

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

New Jersey: New Jersey Dept. Conserv. and Econ. Devel. Spec. Rept. 26, 

65 p., 25 figs. 

1962, Records of wells and ground-water quality in Burlington 

County, New Jersey: New Jersey Dept. Conserv. and Econ. Devel. Water 

Resources Circ. 7. 

Seaber, P.R., 1965, Variations in chemical character of water in the 

Englishtown Formation, New Jersey: U.S. Geol. Survey Prof. Paper 498-B, 

35 p., 9 figs. 

61 
Shepard, F. P., 1954, Nomenclature based on sand-silt-clay ratios: Jour. 

Sed. Petrology, v. 24, no. 3, p. 151-158. 

Theis, C. V., 1935, The relation between the lowering of piezometric surface 

and the rate and duration of discharge of a well using ground-water 

storage: Trans. Am. Geophys. Union 16th Ann. Mtg., pt. 2. 

Vecchioli, John and Palmer, M. M., 1962, Ground-water resources of Mercer 

County, New Jersey: New Jersey Dept. Conserv. and Econ. Devel. Spec. 

Rept. 19, 17 p., 13 figs. 

62