Geology topics

Jennifer L. Shourds

Publications and source records attributed to Jennifer L. Shourds.

6 recordsLinked to original sources

USGS2025

Statistical streamflow comparison of current and historical 30-year periods for selected streams in New Jersey

As the population of New Jersey increases, supplying adequate drinking water to meet demand remains a high priority. To better understand potential streamflow trends over time, the U.S. Geological Survey completed a study comparing low flows at continuous- and partial-record streamgages in New Jersey between a historical period (1950–79) and a current period (1990–2019). Fourteen statistics (one median for each of the twelve monthly minimum 1-day flows, minimum 7-day average streamflow with a 10-year recurrence interval, and median of the daily mean flows for the month of September) were calculated to evaluate how streamflow conditions may differ between the two time periods. Percent change was also calculated to better understand the magnitude of difference between the periods at individual streamgages. A Paired Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test was implemented to test for a change in distribution between the two time periods for each statistic of interest. Results indicated that the median of the minimum 1-day flows for the months of January, February, June, September, and December and the median of the daily mean flows for the month of September had a statistically significant difference in distribution between the time periods for continuous-record streamgages. None of the statistics had a statistically significant difference in distribution for the partial-record streamgages. The largest percent changes between time periods occurred in the northern part of the state, above the Fall Line. Precipitation, land cover, and water use changes were assessed to contribute to the understanding of these differences between time periods. The median of the minimum 1-day flows for the months of January and December generally increased across the state, whereas the median of the minimum 1-day flows for the months of May and September generally decreased throughout the state.

New Jersey↗

USGS2025

Estimating daily public supply water use by drinking water service area in New Jersey

This report, prepared in cooperation with the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, presents a method for estimating daily public supply water use by drinking water service area systems for New Jersey. The ability to accurately estimate daily public supply water use could help water supply planners in New Jersey better understand and manage the state’s limited water resources and balance the competing needs for freshwater resources. Data sources for this work include daily public supply water-use data from 2016 through 2020 acquired from New Jersey American Water for 15 drinking water service areas and monthly data exported from the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection’s online water transfer data model database (known as NJWaTr). The two datasets were compared by aggregating the daily data to a monthly timescale. Statistical regression analysis was applied to the daily data, along with climate data, to evaluate what factors are influential in estimating daily fluctuations and trends in daily public supply water use. Fifteen regression equations were developed, one for each of the 15 drinking water service area systems for which daily data were acquired. Regression equations for systems that had seasonal patterns performed better than equations for non-seasonal systems. For the test year (2020), the average adjusted coefficient of determination for the linear regression with autoregressive errors model among systems with seasonality was 0.78; the average adjusted coefficient of determination for the linear regression with autoregressive errors model among systems with little or no seasonality was 0.25. The effects of anomalous data in the regression analysis were examined by comparing adjusted coefficient of determination values when the atypical data points were removed versus when they were retained in the analysis. Overall, including the anomalous data did not have a large effect on the results, and thus the data were retained for this study. In addition to developing regression equations, all 589 unique drinking water service area systems in New Jersey were characterized based on socio-economic data and monthly water-use data from NJWaTr. Systems that are located near the New Jersey coast, serve populations larger than 1,970 people, or serve areas that have median property values over $256,250 tended to demonstrate seasonal water-use behaviors. Systems that have mostly urban residential land use tended to show little to no seasonal water-use behaviors. Finally, a method was developed to disaggregate monthly data to a daily timescale and was tested against systems for which daily data were not available. Two regression equation forms were developed to be applied to systems beyond the 15 systems from which the original equations were developed; one equation was developed for use when all drinking water service area systems showed little to no seasonality, and the other equation was developed for use when systems displayed seasonal behavior. To the extent possible, uncertainty and possible sources of error were identified and examined in relation to the regression model equations developed. Additional daily data from these 15 systems (over different years) and daily data from different systems could be used to further evaluate the results of the disaggregation through a comprehensive assessment of error. Further adjustments to the regression equations could be made, ultimately enhancing their accuracy.

New Jersey↗

USGS2020

Quality assurance/quality control procedure for New Jersey’s water-use data for the New Jersey Water Transfer Data System (NJWaTr)

This report is an instructional reference document that describes methods developed and used by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) New Jersey Water Science Center (NJWSC) to assure the quality and completeness of water-use data as provided by the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) Bureau of Water Allocation. These data are owned wholly by the State of New Jersey. The role of the USGS NJWSC is to assure the quality of these data by compiling, reviewing, and checking the datasets before uploading them into the New Jersey Water Transfer Data System (NJWaTr) database on an annual basis. The complete uploaded version of the NJWaTr database serves as the repository for New Jersey’s approved and published water-use data. The State of New Jersey maintains a public-facing version of the NJWaTr database (available online at https://www.nj.gov/dep/njgs/geodata/dgs10-3.htm ) that contains monthly water-use data at the municipality and 14-digit Hydrologic Unit Code subwatershed level. The protected version of the NJWaTr database that contains monthly site-specific water-use data is available from the NJDEP upon request.

New Jersey↗

USGS2016

Estimated use of water in the Delaware River Basin in Delaware, New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania, 2010

The Delaware River Basin (DRB) was selected as a Focus Area Study in 2011 by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) as part of the USGS National Water Census. The National Water Census is a USGS research program that focuses on national water availability and use and then develops new water accounting tools and assesses water availability at both the regional and national scales. One of the water management needs that the DRB study addressed, and that was identified by stakeholder groups from the DRB, was to improve the integration of state water use and water-supply data and to provide the compiled water use information to basin users. This water use information was also used in the hydrologic modeling and ecological components of the study. Instream and offstream water use was calculated for 2010 for the DRB based on information received from Delaware, New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania. Water withdrawal, interbasin transfers, return flow, and hydroelectric power generation release data were compiled for 11 categories by hydrologic subregion, basin, subbasin, and subwatershed. Data availability varied by state. Site-specific data were used whenever possible to calculate public supply, irrigation (golf courses, nurseries, sod farms, and crops), aquaculture, self-supplied industrial, commercial, mining, thermoelectric, and hydroelectric power withdrawals. Where site-specific data were not available, primarily for crop irrigation, livestock, and domestic use, various techniques were used to estimate water withdrawals. Total water withdrawals in the Delaware River Basin were calculated to be about 7,130 million gallons per day (Mgal/d) in 2010. Calculations of withdrawals by source indicate that freshwater withdrawals were about 4,130 Mgal/d (58 percent of the total) and the remaining 3,000 Mgal/d (42 percent) were from saline water. Total surface-water withdrawals were calculated to be 6,590 Mgal/d, or 92 percent of the total; about 54 percent (3,590 Mgal/d) of surface water withdrawn was freshwater. Total groundwater withdrawals were calculated to be 545 Mgal/d (8 percent of the total), all of which was freshwater. During 2010, calculated withdrawals by category, in decreasing order, were: thermoelectric power, 4,910 Mgal/d; public supply, 1,490 Mgal/d; self-supplied industrial, 350 Mgal/d; irrigation, 175 Mgal/d; self-supplied domestic, 117 Mgal/d; mining, 41.3 Mgal/d; aquaculture, 19.3 Mgal/d; livestock, 6.72 Mgal/d, and commercial, 5.89 Mgal/d. The amount of instream use for hydroelectric power generation purposes in 2010 was reported to be 273 Mgal/d for the Wallenpaupack Plant and 127 Mgal/d for the Mongaup River system. Total return flows in the DRB were 2,960 Mgal/d in 2010. Although municipal wastewater-treatment plants accounted for 539 (97 percent) of the return-flow sites, they accounted for about 70 percent of the total return flows in the DRB. There was limited information on return flows from thermoelectric power.

Delaware, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania↗

USGS2013

Arsenic in New Jersey Coastal Plain streams, sediments, and shallow groundwater: effects from different geologic sources and anthropogenic inputs on biogeochemical and physical mobilization processes

Arsenic (As) concentrations in New Jersey Coastal Plain streams generally exceed the State Surface Water Quality Standard (0.017 micrograms per liter (µg/L)), but concentrations seldom exceed 1 µg/L in filtered stream-water samples, regardless of geologic contributions or anthropogenic inputs. Nevertheless, As concentrations in unfiltered stream water indicate substantial variation because of particle inputs from soils and sediments with differing As contents, and because of discharges from groundwater of widely varying chemistry. In the Inner Coastal Plain, streams draining to lower reaches of the Delaware River traverse As-rich glauconitic sediments of marine origin in which As contents typically are about 20 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg) or greater. In some of these sedimentary units, As concentrations exceed the New Jersey drinking-water maximum contaminant level (5 µg/L) in shallow groundwater that discharges to streams. Microbes, fueled by organic carbon beneath the streambed, reduce iron (Fe) and As, releasing As and Fe into solution in the shallow groundwater from geologic materials that likely include (in addition to glauconite) other phyllosilicates, apatite, and siderite. When the groundwater discharges to the stream, the dissolved Fe and As are oxidized, the Fe precipitates as a hydroxide, and the As sorbs or co-precipitates with the Fe. Because of the oxidation/precipitation process, dissolved As concentrations measured in filtered stream waters of the Inner Coastal Plain are about 1 µg/L, but the total As concentrations (and loads) are greater, substantially amplified by As-bearing suspended sediment in stormflows. In the Outer Coastal Plain, streams draining to the Atlantic Ocean traverse quartz-rich sediments of mainly deltaic origin where the As content generally is low (<8 mg/kg). In unfiltered and filtered water samples, As concentrations typically are less than 1 µg/L in the acidic stream water and groundwater of the Outer Coastal Plain, but are greater in waters from urban areas. Despite the generally small geologic contributions to Outer Coastal Plain groundwater, where wastewater inputs were indicated, concentrations of As in unfiltered shallow groundwater discharging to small urban streams exceeded the maximum contaminant level. With a history of agriculture in the New Jersey Coastal Plain, anthropogenic inputs of As, such as residues from former pesticide applications in soils, can amplify any geogenic As in runoff. Such inputs contribute to an increased total As load to a stream at high stages of flow. As a result of yet another anthropogenic influence, microbes that reduce and mobilize As beneath the streambeds are stimulated by inputs of dissolved organic carbon (DOC). Although DOC is naturally occurring, anthropogenic contributions from wastewater inputs may deliver increased levels of DOC to subsurface soils and ultimately groundwater. Arsenic concentrations may increase with the increases in pH of groundwater and stream water in developed areas receiving wastewater inputs, as As mobilization caused by pH-controlled sorption and desorption reactions are likely to occur in waters of neutral or alkaline pH (for example, Nimick and others, 1998; Barringer and others, 2007b). Because of the difference in As content of the geologic materials in the two sub-provinces of the Coastal Plain, the amount of As that is mobile in groundwater and stream water is, potentially, substantially greater in the Inner Coastal Plain than in the Outer Coastal Plain. In turn, streams within the Inner and Outer Coastal Plain can receive substantially more As in groundwater discharge from developed areas than from environments where DOC appears to be of natural origin.

New Jersey↗

USGS2012

Simulated effects of alternative withdrawal strategies on groundwater flow in the unconfined Kirkwood-Cohansey aquifer system, the Rio Grande water-bearing zone, and the Atlantic City 800-foot sand in the Great Egg Harbor and Mullica River Basins, New Jersey

Groundwater is essential for water supply and plays a critical role in maintaining the environmental health of freshwater and estuarine ecosystems in the Atlantic Coastal basins of New Jersey. The unconfined Kirkwood-Cohansey aquifer system and the confined Atlantic City 800-foot sand are major sources of groundwater in the area, and each faces different water-supply concerns. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), in cooperation with the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP), conducted a study to simulate the effects of withdrawals in the Kirkwood-Cohansey aquifer system, the Atlantic City 800-foot sand, and the Rio Grande water-bearing zone and to evaluate potential scenarios. The study area encompasses Atlantic County and parts of Burlington, Camden, Gloucester, Ocean, Cape May, and Cumberland Counties. The major hydrogeologic units affecting water supply in the study area are the surficial Kirkwood-Cohansey aquifer system, a thick diatomaceous clay confining unit in the upper part of Kirkwood Formation; the Rio Grande water-bearing zone; and the Atlantic City 800-foot sand of the Kirkwood Formation. Hydrogeologic data from 18 aquifer tests and specific capacity data from 230 wells were analyzed to provide horizontal hydraulic conductivity of the aquifers. Groundwater withdrawals are greatest from the Kirkwood-Cohansey aquifer system, and 65 percent of the water is used for public supply. Groundwater withdrawals from the Atlantic City 800-foot sand are about half those from the Kirkwood-Cohansey aquifer system. Ninety-five percent of the withdrawals from the Atlantic City 800-foot sand is used for public supply. Data from six streamgaging stations and 51 low-flow partial record sites were used to estimate base flow in the area. Base flow ranges from 60 to 92 percent of streamflow. A groundwater flow model of the Kirkwood-Cohansey aquifer system, the Rio Grande water-bearing zone, and the Atlantic City 800-foot sand was developed and calibrated using water-level data from 148 wells and base-flow data from 22 gaging or low-flow partial record stations. The Kirkwood-Cohansey aquifer system within the Great Egg Harbor River and the Mullica River Basins was simulated on a monthly basis from 1998 through 2006. An existing regional model of the New Jersey Coastal Plain was revised to provide boundary conditions for the Great Egg Harbor and Mullica River Basin model (referred to as the Great Egg-Mullica model). In the Great Egg-Mullica model, monthly groundwater recharge rates used in the model ranged from 10-15 inches per year in 2001 to 20-25 inches per year in 2005. The mean-absolute error for 10 of the 14 long-term hydrographs used in model calibration was less than 5 ft. Groundwater flow budgets for the Great Egg-Mullica model calibration periods, May 2005 and September 2006, and for the entire model calibration period 1998 to 2006, showed that nearly 70 percent of the water entering the Atlantic City 800-foot sand came from the horizontal connection with the Kirkwood-Cohansey aquifer system in updip areas. The groundwater flow model was used to simulate scenarios under three possible conditions: average 1998 to 2006 withdrawals (Average scenario), full-allocation withdrawals (Full Allocation scenario), and projected 2050-demand withdrawals (2050 Demand scenario). Withdrawals in the Full Allocation scenario are nearly twice the withdrawals from the Average scenario, primarily because of the potential for large agricultural withdrawals if all allocations are used. Withdrawals for the 2050 Demand scenario are about 50 percent greater than those for the Average scenario, primarily due to expected increases in withdrawals for public supply. Monthly base-flow depletion criteria were determined using the Low-Flow Margin method, currently under consideration by NJDEP, to estimate available water on an annual basis at the Hydrologic Unit Code 11 (HUC11) level and to determine whether a water-supply deficit exists. Simulations of various groundwater-withdrawal scenarios were made using the calibrated model, and results were compared with baseline conditions (no withdrawals) to determine where and when base-flow deficits may be occurring and may be expected to occur in the future. Scenarios were simulated to assess base-flow depletion that could occur from different groundwater-withdrawal situations. In the Average scenario, deficits occurred in 7 of the 14 subbasins. In the Full Allocation scenario, deficits occurred in 11 of the subbasins. In the 2050 Demand scenario, deficits occurred in 9 of the 14 subbasins. The largest deficits occurred in the Absecon Creek subbasin because the base-flow depletion criteria for this subbasin is small due to the surface-water diversions that are already occurring there and because existing groundwater withdrawals in the subbasin have resulted in base-flow depletion under current (1998-2006) conditions. Three adjusted scenarios, variations of the Average, Full Allocation, and 2050 Demand scenarios, were simulated; for the adjusted scenarios, the withdrawals were modified in stages with the intent to successively eliminate or minimize the base-flow deficits. Modifications included shifting withdrawals to a deeper part of the Kirkwood-Cohansey aquifer system, implementing seasonal conjunctive use of shallow and deep aquifers, and specifying reductions in withdrawals within a HUC11 subbasin in deficit. The adjusted scenarios are intended to show the relative effectiveness of each of the three approaches in reducing the deficits. Most of the deficits under the Average, Full Allocation, and 2050 Demand scenarios were eliminated by reductions in withdrawals or allocations. Shifting withdrawals to a deeper part of the Kirkwood-Cohansey aquifer system or seasonal conjunctive use did not eliminate deficits for any subbasin. Reductions in withdrawals accounted for more than 95 percent of the total reduction of deficits in all but one subbasin.

New Jersey↗