AQUIFER-TEST ANALYSIS OF THE UPPER AQUIFER OF THE POTOMAC-RARITAN-MAGOTHY

AQUIFER SYSTEM, UNION BEACH BOROUGH, MONMOUTH COUNTY, NEW JERSEY

By Amleto A. Pucci, Jr., Daryll A. Pope, and Tamara Ivahnenko

U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

Water-Resources Investigations Report 88-4183

Prepared in cooperation with the

NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES

West Trenton, New Jersey 1989

DEPARTMENT 0

MANUEL LUJAN,

U.S. GEOLO

Dallas L. P

F THE I

JR. , S

GICAL S

eck, Di

NTERIOR

ecretary

URVEY

rector

For additional information write to:

District ChiefU.S. Geological SurveyMountain View Office Park810 Bear Tavern RoadSuite 206West Trenton, NJ 08628

Copies of this report can be purchased from:

U.S. Geological Survey Books and Open-File Reports Federal Center, Bldg. 810 Box 25425 Denver, CO 80225

CONTENTS

PageAbstract............................................................... 1Introduction........................................................... 1

Background........................................................ 1Purpose and scope................................................. 3Well-numbering system............................................. 3Acknowledgments................................................... 3

General hydrology...................................................... 4Geologic framework................................................ 4Hydrologic setting................................................ 4

Aquifer test........................................................... 7General description of the test-area wells and aquifer-test data.. 7Test procedure.................................................... 10Data reduction.................................................... 10Analytical results................................................ 11

Aquifer hydraulic properties ................................ 23Confining-unit properties .................................... 25

Summary................................................................ 25References cited....................................................... 26

ILLUSTRATIONS

Page

Plate 1. Monitored water-level altitudes for wells 25-112, 25-197,25-202, 25-206, and 25-207........................... in pocket

2. Monitored water-level altitudes for wells 25-208, 25-419,25-420, 25-453, and 25-514........................... in pocket

3. Monitored water-level altitudes for wells 25-565, 25-567, 25-568, and tide gage, and barometric-pressure measurements......................................... in pocket

Figure 1. Map showing location of Union Beach aquifer-test site wells,and hydrogeologic sections (A-A', B-B')................... 2

2. Hydrogeologic sections showing lithology and wellscreen intervals at the Union Beach aquifer-test site..... 6

3. Logarithmic plot of drawdown and recovery of water levelover time in observation well 25-567...................... 12

4. Logarithmic plot of drawdown and recovery of water levelover time in observation well 25-568...................... 13

5. Logarithmic plot of drawdown and recovery of water levelover time in observation well 25-565...................... 14

6. Logarithmic plot of drawdown and recovery of water levelover time in observation well 25-208...................... 15

7. Logarithmic plot of drawdown and recovery of water levelover time in observation well 25-206...................... 16

8. Logarithmic plot of drawdown and recovery of water levelover time in observation well 25-207...................... 17

9. Logarithmic plot of drawdown and recovery of water levelover time in observation well 25-202...................... 18

111

ILLUSTRATIONS--Continued

Figure 10

11

12

Semilogarithmic plot of over time in pumped

Semilogarithmic plot of over time in pumped well

Semilogarithmic plot of over time in observation

c rawdowiL of water-level altitude well 25-419.......................

crawdowrt of water-level altitude

recover;^ of water-level altitude well 25-453..................

TABLES

Table 1.

2.

3.

Geologic and hydrogeologie units Magothy aquifer system j.n the

Methods of water-level measurement center, and construction of we], aquifer test..........

Results from Union Beach aquifer test,

Page

19

, 20

, 21

of the Potomac-Raritan- tudy area................

distance from pumping Is used in Union Beach

824

IV

CONVERSION FACTORS

For readers who prefer to use metric (International System) units rather than the inch-pound units used in this report, the values may be converted using the following factors:

Multiply inch-pound unit By To obtain metric unit

inch ( in . )foot (ft)mile (mi)square mile (mi 2 )gallon (gal)foot per day (ft/d)square foot per day(ft2 /d)

gallon per minute(gal/min)

25.40.30481.6092.5900.0037850.30480.0929

0.06308

millimeter (mm)meter (m)kilometer (km)square kilometer (km2 )cubic meter (m3 )meter per day (m/d)square meter per day(m2 /d)

liter per second (L/s)

Sea Level: In this report "sea level" refers to the National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 (NGVD of 1929)--a geodetic datum derived from a general adjustment of the first-order level nets of both the United States and Canada, formerly called "Sea Level Datum of 1929."

LIST 0

Symbols

K

K' , K"

L(u,v)

Q

S

T

b'

r

s

t

u

V

«

Dimensions

LT" 1 Hydraulic c

LT" 1 Vertical hyconfining

- - - Leakance fu

L3T~ X Pumping rat

--- Storage coe

L2T~ X Transmissiv

L Thickness o

L Radial dist

L Drawdown

T Time since

---- r2 S/4Tt

2 [ b7? J

3.1416

SYMBOLS

Description

nductivity of main aquifer

iraulic conductivity of semiperviouslayers

iction of u, v

fficient

Lty

: confining layer

ance from pumping well

jumping began or stopped

VI

AQUIFER-TEST ANALYSIS OF THE UPPER AQUIFER OF THE POTOMAC-RARITAN-MAGOTHY AQUIFER SYSTEM, UNION BEACH BOROUGH, MONMOUTH COUNTY, NEW JERSEY

By Amleto A. Pucci, Jr., Daryll A. Pope, and Tamara Ivahnenko

ABSTRACT

The hydraulic properties of the upper aquifer of the Potomac-Raritan- Magothy aquifer system and of the overlying and underlying confining units were determined by an aquifer test in the vicinity of Union Beach Borough, New Jersey. The April 1986 test included the pumping of 2 test wells for 72 hours at a combined discharge rate of 1,375 gallons per minute, and the measurement of water levels in 10 wells. No single, lateral recharge boundary affected the observed water-level changes. Assuming leaky artesian conditions, the average transmissivity and storage coefficient of the upper aquifer are 7,754 square feet per day and 4.4 x 10 4 , respectively. The leakance of the combined confining units ranges from 3.0 x 10 5 to 7.6 x 10" 5 feet per day per foot. On the basis of lithologic samples from a recently drilled nearby well, the overlying and underlying confining units were assumed to have similar hydraulic properties. By using this assumption, the vertical hydraulic conductivity of the confining units ranges from 0.010 to 0.027 feet per day.

INTRODUCTION

Background

Because of increasing population and development within the study area (fig. 1), the regional demand for water for public supply, industrial, and agricultural use has increased greatly in recent years. Because of these large withdrawals, ground-water levels throughout the study area have declined considerably, causing significant changes in the regional ground- water flow system. In some areas, water-level declines have caused large cones of depression, the reversal of natural ground-water flow directions, and localized flow of saltwater into freshwater aquifers (Leahy and others, 1987, p. 42).

Protection of the ground-water resources of the upper aquifer of the Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer system is a primary concern in the northern Coastal Plain of New Jersey. Saltwater intrusion has caused the closing of five public-supply wells screened in the upper aquifer--three wells in the Borough of Keyport and two wells in the Borough of Union Beach, New Jersey (fig. 1) (Schaefer and Walker, 1981). Additional knowledge of the hydrogeologic conditions in the area is needed to improve understanding of the nature of the intrusion problem.

An aquifer test, conducted near Keyport and Union Beach, New Jersey, from April 22 to 28, 1986, was used to estimate (1) the transmissivity, hydraulic conductivity, and storage coefficient for the upper aquifer of the Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer system; (2) the leakance of the confining units; and (3) the location of any aquifer recharge boundaries in the area.

74

°12

74

° 10'

74

°09

'

EX

PL

AN

AT

ION

A

Tra

ce

of

hyd

rog

eo

log

ic

se

cti

on

sh

ow

n

in

fig

ure

2.

Pu

mp

ed

wel

l

Wells

use

d

on

ly

in

lith

olo

gic

c

ros

s-s

ec

tio

n

Ob

serv

atio

n w

ell

and

n

um

ber

Tid

e

gag

e

Po

liti

ca

l b

ou

nd

ary

KE

YP

OR

T

Figure 1.--Location of wells in Union Beach aquifer-test area,

and

hydrogeologic sections (A-A', B-B').

The aquifer test included 2 pumped wells owned by the Union Beach Water Department and 10 observation wells (fig. 1). In addition, a single-well recovery test of the middle aquifer of the Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer system was conducted at the aquifer-test site. The aquifer-test area includes approximately 6 square miles of near-shore communities, bordered to the north by Raritan Bay (fig. 1).

Purpose and Scope

The primary purpose of this report is to present the results of the aquifer-test analysis. The report also contains information about the hydrogeologic conditions of the test site, construction details of the wells used in the test, and the general testing procedure.

Well-Numbering System

The well-numbering system used in this report has been used by the New Jersey District of the U.S. Geological Survey since 1978. The first part of the number is a county code and the second part is a sequential number of the well within the county. The code for Monmouth County, 25, is used in this report. For example, well number 25-202 represents the 202nd well inventoried in Monmouth County.

Acknowledgments

Mr. Richard Pitcher, Superintendent of Public Works for the Borough of Union Beach, and the Borough Council allowed the aquifer test to be conducted at the Union Beach Water Department site, allowed the use of their production wells for the test, and permitted the installation of an observa­ tion well on Borough property. Mr. David G. Knowles, P.E., Technical Manager for the Bayshore Regional Sewerage Authority, and the Authority Commissioners permitted the drilling of a borehole and the installation of an observation well at their Union Beach plant. Mr. James Anderson, Manager of Environmental Affairs for the Jersey Central Power and Light Co., permit­ ted the installation of an observation well at their Union Beach site. Mr. Aaron Seligson, of Bay Ridge Realty Corp., permitted the modification of a well in Keyport for use as an observation well. Mr. John Kennedy, Business Administrator for the Borough of Keyport, and the Borough Council permitted the use of several Borough wells as observation wells for the test. Mr. Michael Walsh, P.E., General Manager of the Shorelands Water Company of Hazlet, New Jersey, made available a company veil for water-level monitoring and agreed to modify pumping rates from the West Keansburg production wells to meet the test requirements. Mr. John Downes, P.E., Senior Project Engineer for International Flavor and Fragrance, allowed monitoring of three company wells at Union Beach. Barometric pressure data were provided by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Weather Service. Mr. Richard Dalton, Chief, Bureau of Geology and Topography, New Jersey Geological Survey, provided the drilling services for one borehole and three observation wells.

GENERAL HYDROLOGY

Geologic Framework

Hydrogeologic conditions in the . fairly uniform. The Potomac-Raritan water-bearing system in the area. I: consists of the upper and middle aqu units (table 1). The upper aquifer underlying confining unit. The unde upper aquifer from the middle aquife sections of the test area; these sec geophysical logs of wells reported b

In the study area, the upper con thick (fig. 2), and it is composed p Merchantville Formation; however, in Woodbury Clay may be a part of this Geology and Topography, New Jersey G The Merchantville Formation is compo thick-bedded sequences of micaceous p. 19); the Woodbury Clay is a claye

In the study area, the upper aqu aquifer system is approximately 70 f stratigraphically equivalent to the Formation. The aquifer is composed clayey silt (Farlekas, 1979, p. 22). indicate that the upper aquifer crop hydraulic connection, with Raritan Bay,

rea of the Union Beach aquifer-test are Magothy aquifer system is the principali the study area, the aquifer system fers, and the associated confining s confined by an overlying and lying confining unit separates the

Figure 2 shows two hydrogeologic ions are based on drillers' and

f Gronberg and others (in press).

ining unit is approximately 200 feetimarily of sediments of thethe eastern part of the study area, the confining unit (R. Dalton, Bureau of eological Survey, oral commun., 1987).ed of glauconite beds, and thin- tolays and clayey silts (Zapecza, 1984, silt (Zapecza, 1984, p. 19).

.fer of the Potomac-Raritan-Magothy set thick (fig. 2), and it is Did Bridge Sand Member of the Magothy of medium sands interbedded locally withSchaefer and Walker (1981, p. 16)

5 out beneath, and is in direct

Near the test site, the confining unit aquifer is 150 to 200 feet thick (fij. 2), the Woodbridge Clay Member of the Raritan sequence of micaceous silt and clay. Locally include the overlying clayey lithofacies of the South Amboy Fire Clay Member, both of 1979, p. 22).

(figIn the test area, the middle aquLfer of

aquifer system is more than 40 feet thick graphically equivalent to the Farrin.gton Sand Formation. This aquifer, which lies beneath described, is composed of sand and gravel;

Hvdrolo

localand

Two prominent factors on the depression, which are caused by pump measurements made in 1983 for wells Keyport-Union Beach area showed that about 30 feet below sea level, and middle aquifer (Eckel and Walker, 1936, plates altitudes indicate that there is a potential

directly beneath the upper and it is primarily equivalent to

Formation, a thin- to thick-beddedthe confining unit may

the Sayreville Sand Member and the Raritan Formation (Farlekas,

the Potomac-Raritan-Magothy2), and it is strati-

Member of the Raritan the confining unit just

Locally, it contains clay beds

sic Setting

flow Lngwithinwater

about 90

system are the regional cones ofRaritan Bay. Water-level

these cones of depression in the Levels in the upper aquifer were feet below sea level in the

2 and 3), These water-level for ground water to flow from

Table 1.--Geologic and hydrogeologic units of the Potomac-Raritan- Magothy aquifer system in the study area

[Modified from Zapecza (1984, fig. 3)]

System

Cretaceous

Jurassic and Triassic

Lower Paleozoic and Precambrian

Geologic unit

Woodbury Clay

Merchantville Formation

M F a o g r o m t a h ty i

on

R F a o r r i m t a a t n i

o n

Cliffwood beds

Morgan beds

Amboy Stoneware Clay Member

Old Bridge Sand Member

South Amboy Fire Clay Member

Sayreville Sand Member

Woodbridge Clay Member

Farrington Sand Member

Raritan fire clay

Newark Supergroup and diabase intrusives

Igneous and metamorphic rocks

Hydrogeologic unit

Merchantville - Woodbury confining unit

Potomac- Raritan- Magothy aquifer system 1

Bedrock

Confining unit

Upper aquifer

Confining unit

Middle aquifer

Confining unit

Bedrock

The lower aquifer of the Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer system is not mappable within the study area of this report.

A

+ 50 -

CC °1oLU

O LU ffi >

* 3 -200-

LU < LU LU"- <° -300-

gGJ -400-D 00H-

|j -500-

-600 -

1 § s 2 1 1CM CM 13

1 1 ^

= 5r~" ~~~ _ _ ___ is

.M|_

i@

Middle |V;i a<

B

+ 50 -

cc o- oLU > _, -100- O LU9 >* 3 -200-LU < LU LU"- w -300-

gGJ -400-D 00H-

^ -500-

-600-

o>T-

IO

3

S Upper confining uni

S Upper

1 Confining unit between tr

E)

R Ca«H N Sani1 oana hu _, LLJ L3 C

I Cla* 1 S Qn,

o 1,000 :

i i0 50

VERTICAL E

Figure 2 . - -Hydrogeologic sectic intervals at the Uni

CD lO

if) CM

^

al

m

-i 1

luifer

aquifer

e upper

PLANAT

i and C ay g

and 1 avel H_

SCALE

000 3.0011 1fill

1,0

XAGGERATI

ns sho\i on Beat

Upper confining unit

_ . _ Upper aquifer

Confining unit between the upper and middle aquifers

B 1c

<p $2 eo| 10CM 5 CD g CD

i 7 10 » m if) ' i i iCM «J 105 10 S P-, CM 2 CM

- s; <T £i

? 1 | §

_ |^| _ 1*1 _JS= 77

and middle aquifers i

Middle aquifer *> 'i. ^

ION

^ LiJ"r> Bedrock Lignite

Extrapolated

1 Screened £ silt and Sand - interval l£l

) 4,000 FEET

00 METERS

ON IS 10:1

A'

CM

I IO C\l

^--£i -o

| --100

£ --200

1^1 --300

--400

--500

--600

- +50 -0

--100

--200

--300

--400

--500

--600

ring lithology and well screen h aquifer- test site.

the upper aquifer into the middle aquifer in the Keyport-Union Beach area. As part of the New Jersey Regional Aquifer-System Analysis, the flow through the overlying confining unit and into the upper aquifer was calculated to be 0.5 to 1.0 inch per year in the Union Beach area (Mary Martin, U.S. Geological Survey, written commun., 1987). Martin also calculated flow from the upper aquifer through the underlying confining unit and into the middle aquifer to be about 0.5 inch per year. Raritan Bay is a major constant-head flow boundary.

Leggette, Brashears, and Graham, Inc. (1962) conducted a 7-day aquifer test of the upper aquifer in Matawan Township, 3.2 miles southwest of the Union Beach test area (fig. 1), and collected drawdown data in three observation wells spaced 590, 1,000, and 2,020 feet from a well pumping 1,100 gal/min (gallons per minute). Based on data from this aquifer test, Pucci and others (in press) estimate that the average aquifer transmissivity is 5,600 ft2 /d (square feet per day), the storage coefficient is 2.6 x 10 4 , and the range of values for combined leakance of the overlying and underly­ ing confining units is about 1.5 x 10 5 1/d (feet per day per foot). The horizontal hydraulic conductivity estimated for the upper aquifer at this test site is 67 ft/d (feet per day).

In 1972, a 24-hour test of the middle aquifer was conducted in Marlboro Township, 6.5 miles southwest of the Union Beach test site (fig. 1) (A.C. Schultes and Sons, Inc., written commun., 1972), using a well pumped at 1,236 gal/min and an observation well 600 feet away. Pucci and others (in press) estimated that the transmissivity of the aquifer is 9,800 ft2 /d, the storage coefficient is 1.0 x 10 4 , and the vertical hydraulic conductivity of the overlying confining unit is 0.1 ft/d. The estimated horizontal hydraulic conductivity for this test was 100 ft/d.

AQUIFER TEST

General Description of the Test-Area Wells and Aquifer-Test Data

The locations of the wells in the Union Beach aquifer test are shown in figure 1; details of well construction are listed in table 2. The screen intervals for various wells also are shown in figure 2. Wells 25-419 and 25-420 were used as pumping wells for the test. Wells 25-565, 25-567, and 25-568 were drilled and completed as observation wells in the upper aquifer by the New Jersey Geological Survey. An additional seven existing wells (25-202, 25-206, 25-207, 25-208, 25-197, 25-514, and 25-112) completed in the upper aquifer were used as observation wells. Well 25-453 was used to monitor water levels in the middle aquifer. A tide gage was installed on Chingarora Creek in Keyport (fig. 1). A record of barometric pressure for the area is reported in Plate 4 (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, written comm., 1986).

Shoreline Water Company production wells (25-112 and 25-111) in Hazlet Township were inactive for several weeks before and during the aquifer test, because of decreased seasonal demand and maintenance. Wells 25-423 and 25- 456 at the International Flavor & Fragrance plant, 1.4 miles east of the test site, pumped 1,650,000 gallons (191 gal/min average) on a production-

Table 2.--Methods of water-level measurement, distance fromwells used in Union Beach aquifer test

[Altitude refers to distance below sea level. A double dash indicates missing Department]

pumping center, and construction of

Level except for land surface, which is above sea data; U.SiG.S., U.S. Geological Survey; WO, Water

New Jersey well number Owner

25-567 U.S.G.S.

25-568 U.S.G.S.

Local name

Union Beach Water Tower We I

Jersey Central Power & Light

Latitude

40'26'30" I

40*26' 52"

Longitude

74' 10 '29"

74'11'00"

Date well constructed

04-01-86

04-07-86

25-565 U.S.G.S.

25-208 Infern-o-therm. Inc.

25-206 Keyport Borough UD

25-207 Keyport Borough UD

25-202 Keyport Borough WD

25-419 Union Beach UD

Conaskonk Pt.

Infern-0-1

Keyport 4

Keyport 6

Keyport 5

UBUD 1 1962

40* 27 '04"

40* 26 '30"

40t26'25"

40 I 26 '26"

40 i 26 '24"

40 t 26 '32"

74*10'51"

74*11'29»

74° 11 '45"

74° 11 '44"

74° 11 '45"

74° 10 '49"

10-11-85

00-00-00

00-00-39

04-01-70

12-01-55

08-15-62

25-420 Union Beach UD UBUD 2 1969 40126'34" 74°10'51" 05-16-69

25-453

25-197

25-514

25-112

1 iipun

Union Beach UD UBUD 3 1977

* ,. , Keyport 7

Int. Flavor Frag., IFF-2RInc.

Shore lands WC Inc. W. Keansbury 2

indicates pumped well; centroid of pumpingwhich are 277 feet apart

2 Well 25-453 is screened in the middle aquifer of all other wells are screened in the upper aqu

Note: Wells 25-419 and 25-420 are 277 feet apart.

40'26'32" 74°10'51"

40' 25 '35" 74*12' 14"

40126'41" 74°09'11"

40 '25 '37" 74 '09 '33"

between wells 25-419 and 25-420,

the Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer i f er

08-15-77

10-27-76

05-28-83

04-27-60

system;

Table 2.--Methods of water-level measurement, distance from pumping center, aod construction of wellsused in Union Beach aquifer test- -Continued.

[Altitude refers to distance below sea level except for land surface, which is above sea level, A double dash indicates missing data; U.S.G.S., U.S. Geological Survey; UD, Water Department]

New Jersey well number

25-567

25-568

25-565

25-208

25-206

25-207

25-202

25-419

25-420

25- 453 2

25-197

25-514

Method of water level measurement

Digital recorder

Digital recorder

Analog recorder

Electric tape

Digital recorder

Digital recorder

Steel tape

Air line gage and electric tape

Air line gage and electric tape

Air line gage

Digital recorder

Electric tape

Screen diameter (inches)

4

4

4--

8

12

10

10

12

12

12

10

Distance from pumping centroid (feet)

1,735

2,130

2,665

3,035

4,320

4,340

4,500PW 1

PW

100

8,650

7,400

Altitude of land surface (feet)

10

10

10

15

14

11

20

10

10

10

35

10

Altitude of hole bottom (feet)

287

278

545

285

271

287

247

300

289

542

379

317

Altitude range of screen interval (feet)

240-260

235-255

201-211

-- -285

211-235

236-266

184-247

225-275

252-279

470-522

269-319

256-302

Altitude range of aqui f er depth (feet)

225-280

190-265

200-260-- - --

186-271

167-267

181- --

215-280

187-280

452-528

205-311

245-309

25-112 Digital recorder 10 8,170 44 327 268-308 265-326

demand schedule during the entire test period major ground-water withdrawal from the uppei Borough, 3.2 miles east of the test site

screenedThe production well (25-453), Union Beach test site, was shut down level altitudes were recorded from that time drawdown and recovery periods (144 hours) as measured from the production plant meter, before shutdown, and averaged 445 gal/min of on-demand pumping. Water-level hours after pumping stopped, showed veil slowly recovered 2 more feet in 144

in the middle aquifer at the 24 hours before the test, and water-

through the entire aquifer test The pumping rate from this well, was 700 gal/min during the hour

during the previous 24-hour period measurements, made during the first 24

25-453 recovered 32 feet, and hours (plate 2).more

Records indicate that the water aquifer recovered to 74.5 feet below level in the upper aquifer, measured below sea level. Thus, a head between the upper and middle aquifers;

difference

The pumping phase of the aquifer on April 25, 1986. Wells 25-419 and 1) were pumped continuously for 72 hours down and recovery was monitored through of the test, the combined pumping rat:e varied no more than 1 percent. The mechanical flowmeter, was 635 gal/min well 25-420.

Digital- and analog-recorder prior to the test and continued for nated recovery period of 72 hours, approximately 30 hours before the

During the test, the nearest aquifer was in Keansburg

level in sea le-\ just

oi: at the*

well 25-453 in the middle el. In well 25-419, the water

prior to the test was 15.5 feet approximately 68 feet existed beginning of the test.

Test Procedure

test befcgan on April 22, 1986 and ended 25-420, which are 277 feet apart (fig.

The pumped wells were then shut Apri.l 28. During the first 5 hours decreased 3 percent and, thereafter,

average pumping rate, measured byfrom well 25-419 and 740 gal/min from

measurements

Wells 25-112, 25-197, 25-202, 25 25-567, and 25-568 were used as 25-453 was used as an observation we in the two pumped wells were measured levels in well 25-453 were measured by digital recorders at 5-minute int 25-207, 25-567, and 25-568; by an ana were measured by an electric tape in tape in well 25-202 (table 2). A tide gage. Graphs of water-level al datum for each well, are presented

Water-level fluctuations caused by tidal water-level records for several obseirvation fluctuations was approximately 3 to 4.5 feel Raritan Bay (25-202, 25-206, and 25-207) (f

began approximately 3.5 days pproximately 7.5 days after the desig-

Air-lino and tape measurements began start of pumping and continued for 6 days

206, 2!>-207, 25-208, 25-514, 25-565, obseirvation wells in the upper aquifer; well

1 in the middle aquifer. Water levels by air line and electric tape; water

by air !.ine. Water levels were recorded rvals in wells 25-112, 25-197, 25-206, log recorder in 25-565. Water levels wells 25-208 and 25-514 and by steel

digital recorder also was installed at the 1:itudes , as measured from land surface

in plate» 1-3.

Data Reduction

effects are discernable in the wells. The amplitude of these

: for wells near the shore of g. 1) and decreased with

10

distance from the shore. Water-level altitudes measured during the drawdown and recovery periods of the aquifer test were adjusted to eliminate the effect of tidal fluctuations. Estimates of the water-level trend were made by connecting the midpoints of the sequential fluctuations of the measured hydrograph, and then visually smoothing the line (plates 1-3). Success in filtering the tidal effects from the water-level data depended partially on the frequency of the measurements.

Water-level drawdown was computed as the difference between the estimated water-level altitude (from the smoothed hydrograph) during the drawdown period and the reference water-level altitude. The reference water-level altitude is the water-level altitude that would have occurred in the absence of test pumping. The reference water level for the drawdown part of the test was estimated from pretest pumping and post-recovery water- level data. During the test period, seasonal and regional water-level changes caused a steady change in the reference water level in each observation well--approximately 0.5 foot. Water-level recovery was computed as the difference between the water-level altitude that would have occurred with continued pumping, and the estimated water-level altitude (from the smoothed hydrograph) during the recovery period. Significant effects of barometric pressure on water levels were not discernable.

Analytical Results

Type-curve and straight-line graphical methods were used to analyze the data. For each observation well, the water-level changes due to pumping, s (in feet), are plotted on a log-log scale against time of observation divided by the squared distance to the pumped well; t/r2 , (in days per square foot)(figs. 3-9). For the two pumped wells, water levels (in feet) are plotted against the logarithm of time (in minutes) (figs. 10 and 11). For well 25-453, water levels measured during the pretest shutoff in the middle aquifer also are plotted in semilogarithmic form (fig. 12).

In the observation wells, the log-log plots of drawdown or recovery over time are below the Theis curve, indicating that water from a recharge source affected the water levels during the aquifer test. The two possible sources of recharge that were considered are (1) recharge due to direct aquifer contact with surface water nearby in Raritan Bay, and (2) recharge caused by leakance (leaky artesian aquifer). Inspection of the lithologic logs (fig. 2) show that direct contact with streams in the vicinity was not a viable possibility. Stallman's type-curve analysis of transient aquifer response (Ferris and others, 1962, p. 146; Lohman, 1972, pi. 9, p. 59) was used to evaluate possible recharge boundaries. The approximate match of the data to these type curves and further analysis did not indicate that a recharge boundary was within the radius of influence for the test. Variation in water levels from test pumping are seen in well 25-197 which is located 8,650 feet away from the test wells (plate 3). The radius of influence, therefore, extended at least 8,650 feet from the test wells, and 5,000 feet into Raritan Bay.

The leaky artesian-aquifer type curve developed by Hantush and Jacob (1955), modified by Cooper (1963), and illustrated by Lohman (1972, pi. 3), was used to assess recharge caused by leakance. The match between this type

11

1 V

1- LU LU u. z WI ^

F

LU LU CC LU \-

fo

2 UJ

10

°

0- 2

X

O

.n_i

T Q

LCu,

v)4xs

(1,3

75 g

al/m

in)(

1)C 4

S~

4T

T7U

4C8.

960

ft2/

d)(1

.6x

I I

I I

.1337 f

t3/g

al)C

1,4

40 m

in/d

) 2

x(2

.35 f

t)

Theis

cu

rve

10-5

)min

/ft2

A

n*n

-4

\C

D

1,44

0 m

in/d

""

^ ^

xk//=

4T

v2/

r2

__

^^

= 4

C8.

960

ft2/d)

(0.0

5/1

, 73

3)2

(1/ft2

)=3

.0x1

(T51

/d

^^ v-0

.05

Mat

ch-p

oint

val

ues

i fllu

-)_s4

xT

_1

u =

r2s/4

Tt=

!

t/r2

=i.6

*10

-5m

in/ft

2

^^^^

A

^^A

Ma

tch

poi

nt

.,-'

+ »/

/

Dra

wd

ow

n d

ata

y4

A

Reco

very

data

~

/

r= 1

,735 f

ee

t

/ 0=

1,3

75 g

allo

ns

pe

r m

inute

/

s =

2.3

5 ft

/J

v =

r/2

/kV

b7T

=0

.05

/ /I

I I

I

101

010

-10'

10

10-

TIM

E

DIV

IDE

D

BY

D

IST

AN

CE

TO

P

UM

PIN

G W

EL

L S

QU

AR

ED

, t/

r2,

IN M

INU

TE

S P

ER

FO

OT

SQ

UA

RE

D

Figure 3*--Logarithmic plot of drawdown and recovery of water level

over time in observation well 25-567.

HI

HI Li. z WI -J

HI HI I GC

HI

HI

CD Z

<

I o

10'

10'

T=

QLC

u.v)

_

(1.3

75

gal/m

mD

(lK

.1337 ft

3/g

aO

Cl.4

4Q

m

in/d

] 4

*(3

.2 ft)

= 6

,58

0 f

tVd

S-^

T

t/r2

1

/u=

4C

6.58

0 ft

2/d

Kl.9

^1

Q-5

min

/ft2

)

CO

1

,44

0

min

/d

k/b'=

4T

v2/r

2

= 4

C6,

580

ft2/d)C

0.1

/2,1

30]2

(1/f

t]

= 5

.8xlO

"51

/d

Ma

tch

poin

t

M

atc

h-p

oin

t va

lues

i u=

r2s

/4T

t=1

t/r2

=1.9

xlO

~5m

in/f

t2

s =

3.2

ft

v=

r/2/k

'/b'T

'=0.1

___

I

=3

.5x1

0

Th

eis

c

urv

e

v

=0

.1

Dra

wd

ow

n d

ata

A

Reco

very

d

ata

r= 2

,13

0 fe

et

Q=

1,3

75

gal

lon

s p

er

min

ute

1010

-10

1010

TIM

E

DIV

IDE

D

BY

D

IST

AN

CE

TO

P

UM

PIN

G W

EL

L S

QU

AR

ED

, t/

r2,

IN

MIN

UT

ES

P

ER

F

OO

T S

QU

AR

ED

Figure 4.--Logarithmic plot of drawdown and recovery of water le

vel

over ti

me in observation well 25-568.

10:

LJJ

LJJ

LL z WI

LJJ

LJJ

_J QC

LJJ

T=

4*3

_

(1,3

75 g

al/m

in)C

lX.1

33

7 ft

3/gaO

(1.4

40

min

/d)

_

4x(2

.8 ft

)=

7,5

00

ft Y

d

S =

-t/r*

Th

eis

cu

rve

_ 4

(7,5

00 ft

2/d)(

2.6

*10"

5min

/ft2

) _

1,4

40

min

/d- k

yb'=

4T

vV

r2

= 4

(7,5

00 ft

2/d)(

0.1

/2,6

65)2

(1/f

t2)=

4

Matc

h p

oin

t4-

g

10°

Z o

~ M

atc

h-p

oin

t va

lues

, / .

. .,1_

s4xT

H

LC

u,v

)

-=

1

u =

r2s

/4T

t=1

t/r2

=2

.6jr1

0~

5m

in/ft2

s=

2.8

ft

v =

r/2

/k'/b

'T' =

0.1

I

Tl>

Dra

wd

ow

n d

ata

A

Re

co

ve

ry

data

r= 2

,66

5 fe

et

Q=

1,3

75

gal

lon

s p

er

min

ute

io~

5 io

-4

i<r3

10

-2

io-1

TIM

E

DIV

IDE

D

BY

D

IST

AN

CE

TO

P

UM

PIN

G W

EL

L S

QU

AR

ED

, t/

r2,

IN

MIN

UT

ES

P

ER

F

OO

T S

QU

AR

ED

Figu

re 5.

--Lo

gari

thmi

c plot of drawdown and

recovery of water level

over

ti

me in observation we

ll 25-565.

1 V

J

QJ

QJ

U.

2 co

1Q1

J QJ

QJ

-J DC

QJ

< 2 g

10°

Z I

O

L ,

T

QL

(u.v

)4X

S

i 1

1 1

(1,3

75

gal/m

in)(

1)C

l337 f

tVgalK

1,4

40 m

in/d

) , _

_ ,

.*,_

,

O 4

T

/''

4(7

,80

0

k'

V./ 4

T v

2/r

2o ̂

"

= 4

(7.8

00

4*

(2.7

ft)

t "~

Th

els

cu

rve

ft2/d

)(1.6

^10-*

min

/ft2

) .

,..«

-4

\ _

- - =

s 3

.4 x

1 0

it

(1)

1.44

0 m

in/d

_J ̂^^^

^^^*

*»~

~*~

~'^

^f̂r*

*' __

fta/d)(

0.1

5/3

.035)2

(1/f

t2)=

7.6

xlO

-51

/d

^^^^"^

v-0 15

^^'^

Z "

>^n

^M

atch

poi

nt

4^^ A

4-

jr*

A

* /

AM

atch

-poi

nt v

alue

s /

«

Dra

wdow

n d

ata

I

(UV)

==J>

1*L

/

A

Io

u=

r s/4

Tt

t/r*

= 1

.6*1

0'

S=

r2.7

ft

V^H

» F

/^m

lr^^\' ̂

T

^

' ' £

-W **/U

'

~

/

A

Re

co

ve

ry data

~1

/

r= 3

,03

5 fe

et

*sm

in/it

2 /

A

/

Q

1,3

75

g

allo

ns

pe

r m

inute

1 015 /

/

/I

1 1

1

10

10-4

10

"3

10

-2

10

-'

DIV

IDE

D B

Y D

IST

AN

CE

TO

PU

MP

ING

WE

LL

SQ

UA

RE

D,

t/r

2, I

N M

INU

TE

S P

ER

F

OO

T S

QU

AR

ED

Figure 6,

--Lo

gari

thmi

c plot of dr

awdo

wn a

nd r

ecover

y of water le

vel

over ti

me in

obs

erva

tion

wel

l 25-208.

CHANGE IN WATER LEVEL.s, IN

3?(D OP* »

^ft M«H« rt

O M O* Ow rt o>

30 HI

P» rt aO 0) 9 << O

O fl> ON O'1

5OM)

P)ft

LI

CHANGE IN WATER LEVEL.s, IN FEET

(D

00

q r1 < o(D CWH {to

Hrt h" p- rt

H» H« O" a 8-S1w rt (D

O

rt CL M« H

§ §< 8-s <

en PL i ro nO (D-^J O o

^ I2mo <OmO

00

o m

noc

n̂oz o

m

03Oc >DOm

z cHm0)no m

O OH

03 OC > DOm

CO -vlOi

(Q

-fc. a

N) O

111 111 co _i

111

>

111 _i DC

111

111 o X o

10'

10

1-k

'

10'

\ I

_ Q

L(u.

v)

(1,3

75 g

al/m

in)C

lK.1

33

7 f

t3/g

al)(1

,44

0 m

in/d

)

4*(

3.2

ft)

- = 6

,60

0 f

t2/d

S=

4T

t/r

Th

eis

c

urv

e

1/u

4(6

,60

0 f

t2/d

)(2.9

xlO

~5m

in/f

t2)

(1)

1,14

40

min

/d =

5.3

x10

>b'=

4T

v2/r

2

4(6

,60

0 f

t2/d

)(0

.2/4

,50

0)

Ma

tch

p

oin

t

/ /

u =

r2s

/4T

t = 1

t/r2

=2

.9x1

0-5

min

/ft2

s=

3.2

ft

v=

r/2

/k'/b

'T'=

0.2

I____________

Dra

wd

ow

n d

ata

A

Re

co

ve

ry

data

_

__

__

_

r= 4

,50

0

feet

Q=

1,3

75

ga

llo

ns

p

er

min

ute

10'

10-

1010

10

TIM

E

DIV

IDE

D

BY

D

IST

AN

CE

TO

P

UM

PIN

G W

EL

L S

QU

AR

ED

, t/

r2,

IN

MIN

UT

ES

P

ER

F

OO

T S

QU

AR

ED

Figure 9.--Logarithmic plot of drawdown and recovery of water le

vel

over ti

me in

observation well 25

-202

.

61

WATER-LEVEL ALTITUDE, IN FEET

en en

01oen

O 00< (Do> 3 H H-

I-1rt o

3 P> (D H

3 d

(D O

ro

rt H- rt

m

z cHm

p b

0 ^° . COCO _*( > r-f

0>o»Oi(Qtt_

1c~"

COCO vl

5(Qtt_

"^.

^.0

33

a

0£. o"c_»" *(Da.^(D COc_r+

w -o .S s 5 2L x io 3 5"3 m <co z; Q T3 ""

5 S1

Q) (5'

C 73 D (Da.

(D

O CO< (D(D 3

rt o M«OQ3 &(D H

T3 h" C O

0> Mp. o

(D O M H)

in

OH)

Ift (D

I

H £m

z cHmCO

o o b

ALTITUDE, IN FEET

-113

-110

Wate

r-le

vel

da

ta

Ap

pro

xim

ate

s

tra

igh

t lin

e fi

t

HI

HI

LL HI

O

Q =

70

0

ga

llo

ns

p

er

min

ute

fo

r p

um

pe

d

we

ll 2

5-4

53

-10

5

HI

> HI

_J I OC

HI

-100

A S

A lo

g(t

)

Ca

lcu

late

d re

su

lts

= 4

.0 f

t

2.3

(700 g

al/m

in)(

.133

7 ft

3/gaQ

(1.4

40 m

in/d

)

~

4*(

4.0

ft)

_ ,c

o,t

2,

.=

D,1

OU

TI

/Q

-95

-90

0.1

1.0

10

.0100.0

TIME

,t, IN MINUTES

Figure

12

.--S

emil

ogar

ithm

ic pl

ot of

recovery of wat

er-l

evel

al

titu

de

over ti

me in ob

serv

atio

n we

ll 25

-453

.

curve and the drawdown data appears torecharge source is diffuse leakagerecharge due to a direct contact between the

be appropriate. Therefore, the through tine confining units and not

aquifer and Raritan Bay.

The type curve that best fits the each observation well is indicated by Drawdown data were used to fit the typ correspond to the recovery data. Each values from the type curves, including by the squared distance to the center function, L(u,v), where u and v are th Further definition of these symbols These matchpoint values were used to coefficient, and leakance using method 1972, p. 30).

shape cf the estimated data curve for the dashed lines in figures 3-9. e curves; the type curves generally figure shows the selected matchpoint water-level change, s; time divided of pumping, t/r2 ; the leakance e arguments of the leakance function,

appears in the front of this report, solve for transmissivity, storage s defined in the literature (Lohman,

419

greater

Because the two pumped wells (25- another, the two pumped wells were ass pumping center to simplify the analyses using the theory of superposition and superposition states that water-level aquifer, where more than one well is drawdowns for each pumped well (Reillj formula, which assumes no leakage, was 1980, Solution 1). Because the Theis predicted water-level changes are changes in a leaky aquifer for the the observed drawdown should be boundeid two pumped-well arrangements. In the observation well 25-567, caused by the location, was calculated. In the drawdowns for observation well 25-567 calculated. Discrepancies in the arrangements were different by only Therefore, the treatment of the two judged acceptable and used in the analysis.

same

second

calcvilating

As stated in the principle of sup wells was the combined result of pumpi was needed to determine the drawdown i 277 feet away. This was done by occurred from one pumped well at the were calculated using a leaky-aquifer 4), and assuming a transmissivity of subtracted from the measured drawdown corrected drawdown in the pumped well; method of Cooper and Jacob (1946) (fi rates used in the analysis of the pumped that well alone.)

and 25-420) are close to one umed to be one well located at one

This assumption was evaluated the Theiis formula. The theory of changes; at any point in a confined

pumped, will be equal to the sum of the and others, 1984). The Theis used to calculate drawdowns (Reed, formula assumes no leakage, the

th4n the expected water-level pumpj.ng conditions. Intuitively, between the drawdowns caused by the

first arrangement, the drawdowns in combined pumping at the centroid

arrangement, the predictedcaused

predictedabout

by the individual pumps weredrawdown for the two

0.!. percent at any time,pvimped w ills as a single pumped well was

rpositi.on, the drawdowns in the pumped ng each well. Therefore, a correction nterference from the other pumped well

the drawdown that would have clistance of 277 feet. These drawdowns model program (Reed, 1980; Solution ,500 ft: 2 /d. These values werein thewas analyzed by the semilogarithmic

s. 10 and 11). (Note that the pumping wells is the discharge rate for

other pumped well. The

22

Aquifer Hydraulic Properties

Table 3 summarizes the results of the analysis of the Union Beach aquifer test. Hydraulic conductivities were determined by dividing the calculated transmissivities by the approximate aquifer thickness, which, in the test area is 76 feet.

Water-level changes in the seven observation wells that were closest to the two pumping wells were analyzed. The computed values of transmissivity from these wells ranged from 6,580 to 8,960 ft2/d, with a median value of 7,800 ft2 /d and an average value of 7,754 ft2/d.

Transmissivities calculated from the drawdown data in the two pumped wells were 6,780 and 7,245 ft2 /d. These values are within the same range as those computed from the data for the seven observation wells. Scatter in the estimated transmissivities is due to the variable thicknesses and varying conductive properties of the aquifer, as well as to probable small errors in measurements. An analysis of the distribution of transmissivities did not determine that the variation could be explained by anisotropy of the aquifer (Hantush, 1966).

Transmissivities calculated for wells 25-206 and 25-207, in the western part of the test area, were 8,420 ft2/d. Transmissivities calculated from wells 25-202 and 25-208, also in the western part of the area, were 6,600 and 7,800 ft2 /d, respectively. The low transmissivity value calculated for well 25-202 may reflect a lack of success in separating out the water-level trend from the other components of the hydrograph. The measurements in well 25-202 were fewer and irregularly timed. The highest aquifer transmissiv­ ity, 8,960 ft2 /d, was determined from data for well 25-567--the only observation well located to the east and the observation well closest to the pumped wells. The hydraulic conductivities of 86 ft/d to 117 f t/d are consistent with typical values for the aquifer material (Lohman, 1972, p. 53). Storage coefficients range from 3.4 x 10 4 to 5.4 x 10 4 and average 4.4 x 10" 4 .

The transmissivity range is slightly greater than the value of 5,600 ft2 /d determined for the upper aquifer at the Matawan Township aquifer-test site (fig. 1). The hydraulic conductivities are higher than the 67-ft/d hydraulic conductivity calculated for the Matawan Township test. The range of storage coefficient values is slightly greater than, but comparable to the value of 2.6 x 10 4 determined at the Matawan Township test site (Pucci and others, 1987).

The semilogarithmic method of Hantush and Jacob (1955) was used to analyze the recovery data for well 25-453, screened in the middle aquifer. The 700 gal/min pumping rate for the hour prior to shutdown was used. The estimated transmissivity of the middle aquifer is 6,150 ft2 /d. This transmissivity is less than the 9,800-ft2/d value reported for the middle aquifer at Marlboro Township (Pucci and others, 1987). Because the thickness of the aquifer at the Union Beach test site is not known, the horizontal hydraulic conductivity could not be calculated. Test pumping the upper aquifer did not interfere with the recovery of water levels in the middle aquifer, which indicates that the confining unit separating the middle and upper aquifer is relatively impermeable.

23

Table 3. Results from Union Bctach aquifer test 1

Well Transmissivity number (feet squared

per day) 5

25-567 8,960

25-568 6,580

25-565 7,500

25-208 7,800

25-206 8,420

25-207 8,420

25-202 6,600

25-419 3 6,780

25-420 3 7,245

2S-453 2 - 4 6,150

Hydraul conduct (feet p day)

117

86

98

102

110

110

86

89

95

-

1 Analysis by the straight-line (1955)

2 Well screened in the middle aq 3 Indicates analysis of drawdown 4 Indicates analysis of recovery 5 Transmissivity values rounded

.c ivity *r

Storage Leakance coefficient (feet per (dimensionless) day per

foot)

4.0 x 10- 4

3.5 x 10- 4

5.4 x 10- 4

3.4 x 10- 4

4.7 x 10-4

4.2 x 10- 4

5.3 x 10-4

-

-

-

nethod

lifer data data

of Hantush

only for the only for the

3.0 x 10- 5

5.8 x 10 ~5

4.2 x 10 - 5

7.6 x 10 ~ 5

7.2 x 10 - 5

6.5 x 10- 5

5.2 x 10- 5

-

-

-

and Jacob

pumped well pumped well

24

Confining-Unit Properties

The leakances of the confining units were determined from the type-curve analyses. The combined leakances range from 3.0 x 10 s to 7.6 x 10 s 1/d, average 5.6 x 10" s 1/d (table 3), and have no spatial pattern. The range of these values is greater than the leakances determined at the Matawan test site (approximately 1.5 x 10" s 1/d) (Pucci and others, in press). The leakances represent composite values, inasmuch as leakage may occur through both the overlying and underlying confining units. An assumption in this analysis was that no water is released from storage in the confining unit, although as noted by Cooper (1963), leakage from the confining unit is derived largely from storage in the confining units. Where leakage does occur, this method of analysis is better than the Theis-curve analysis alone. Because the overlying and underlying confining units have similar lithology, based on evidence from the borehole drilled near the test site (well 25-565, fig. 2), the overlying and underlying confining units are assumed to be hydraulically similar. Therefore, the vertical hydraulic conductivity of the confining unit was estimated using the combined thickness of these confining units (approximately 350 feet). In this case, the vertical hydraulic conductivities of the confining units range from 0.010 to 0.027 ft/d.

SUMMARY

An aquifer test was conducted during April 1986, at the Union Beach Water Department well field in Union Beach Borough, New Jersey, to determine the hydraulic properties of the upper aquifer of the Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer system and its confining units. The test included the pumping of 2 test-wells for 72 hours at a combined discharge rate of 1,375 gal/min, and measurement of water levels in 10 observation wells screened in the upper aquifer. Drawdown data from 7 of the 10 observation wells were used for the aquifer test analysis. Based on type-curve analysis, the aquifer is not affected by recharge from a lateral recharge boundary. The distribution of transmissivity values shows that the aquifer is heterogeneous. The average transmissivity, calculated from observation well data, is 7,754 ft2 /d; the average storage coefficient is 4.4 x 10" 4 . The interpretation of the aquifer test and the lithology from borehole logs for the area show that the aquifer consists of permeable material overlain and underlain by extensive overlying and underlying confining units that have a low leakance.

Water levels during the aquifer test were affected by leakage through the confining units. The average leakance was calculated to be 5.6 x 10 s 1/d. The vertical hydraulic conductivity of the combined confining- unit material was calculated to range from 0.010 to 0.027 ft/d.

25

REFERENi

Cooper, H. H., Jr., 1963, Type curves infinite leaky artesian aquifer,and special problems in aquifer tests: Supply Paper 1545-C, p. C48-C55.

Cooper, H. H., Jr. and Jacob, C. E., L946, Afor evaluating formational constants and summarizing well-field history: American Geophysical Union Trans., vol. 27, no. 4, p. 526-534.

Eckel, J. A., and Walker, R. L., 1986aquifers of the New Jersey Coastal Plain, 1983: U.S. Geological SurveyWater-Resources Investigations R

Farlekas, G. M., 1979, Geohydrology and digital-simulation model of theFarrington aquifer in the northe Geological Survey Water-Resource

Ferris, J. G., Knowles, D. B., Brown, Theory of aquifer tests: U.S. G 1536-E, 174 p.

Gronberg, J. M., Birkelo, B. A., and Pucci, borehole geophysical logs and drillers'

Hantush, M. S., and Jacob, C. E., 1955, Non-infinite leaky aquifer: American Geopbjysical Union Transactions., vol. 36, p. 95-100.

Hantush, M. S., 1966, Analysis of data from pumping tests in anisotropic aquifers: Journal of Geophysical Research, vol. 71, p. 421-426.

Leahy, P. P., Paulachok, G. N., Navoy Plan of study for the New Jerseyinvestigations: New Jersey Geological 53 p.

Leggette, Brashears & Graham, Consulting Ground-Water Geologists, 1962, Ground-water supply conditions in the Matawan, New Jersey area: prepared for Levitt & Sons, Inc., 21 p.

ES CITED

for nonsteady radial flow in anin Bentall, Ray, compiler, Shortcuts

Water

U.S. Geological Survey Water-

generalized graphical method

levels in the major artesian

port 8fo-4028, 62 p.

rrn Coastal Plain of New Jersey: U.S. s Investigation 79-106, 55 p.

R. H. , and Stallman, R. W., 1962,ological Survey Water-Supply Paper

New Jersey: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 87-243, 134 p.

. A., Jr., in press, Selected logs, Northern Coastal Plain of

steady radial flow in an

A. S.Bond Issue ground-water-supply

and Pucci, A. A., Jr., 1987,

Survey Open-File Report 87-1,

Lohman, S. W., 1972, Ground-water hydraulics Professional Paper 708, 70 p.

Pucci, A. A., Jr., Gronberg, J. M., and Pope

U.S. Geological Survey

, D. A., in press, Hydraulicproperties of the middle and upper aquifers of the Potomac-Raritan- Magothy aquifer system in the northern iCoastal Plain of New Jersey: New Jersey Geological Survey Geologic Rjeport.

26

REFERENCES CITED--Continued

Reed, J. E., 1980, Type curves for selected problems of flow to wells inconfined aquifers: Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations of the U.S. Geological Survey, Book 3, Chapter B3, Applications of Hydraulics, 106 p.

Reilly, T. E., Franke, 0. L., and Bennett, G. D., 1984, The principle of superposition and its application in ground-water hydraulics: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 84-459, 36 p.

Schaefer, F. L., and Walker, R. L., 1981, Saltwater intrusion into the Old Bridge aquifer in the Keyport-Union Beach area of Monmouth County, New Jersey: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 2184, 21 p.

Zapecza, 0. S., 1984, Hydrogeologic framework of the New Jersey Coastal Plain: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 84-730, 61 p.

27