Josh Woda Jason Finkelstein John Williams 20220502 Data Release Troy, NY U.S. Geological Survey https://doi.org/10.5066/P96R5K5R Nicholas Corson-Dosch Michael N. Fienen Jason S. Finkelstein Andrew T. Leaf Jeremy T. White Joshua C. Woda John H. Williams 2022 publication n/a US Geological Survey https://doi.org/10.3133/sir20215112 Digital hydrogeologic datasets were developed for the Jamestown study area in upstate New York in cooperation with the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. These datasets define the hydrogeologic framework of the valley-fill aquifer and surrounding till-covered uplands within the study area. Datasets include: bedrock elevation raster, lacustrine silt and clay top and bottom elevation rasters (where present), LIDAR minimum elevation raster, lacustrine extent polygon, valley-fill extent polygon, and surficial geology polygons. Elevation layers were interpolated at 125-foot discretization to match what was done in previous work. Understanding and interpreting the geologic framework from numerous data sources, which provided the necessary foundation for the development of a groundwater flow model. 2021 publication date Complete None planned -79.492053222464 -78.376940917822 42.493073222207 42.005133439687 USGS Thesaurus Sourcewater Valley fill Bedrock mapping Aquifer mapping Glacial geology Lacustrine silt and clay Hydrogeologic framework USGS Metadata Identifier USGS:602ecb82d34eb12031157964 Getty Thesaurus of Geographic Names Jamestown New York Chautauqua County Cattaraugus County none none Jason Finkelstein Northeast Region: NEW YORK WATER SCI CTR Hydrologist mailing and physical

425 Jordan Road

Troy NY 12180 US 518-285-5606 jfinkels@usgs.gov All layer elevations were interpolated using input point data. Interpolated raster layer elevations were checked against one another to ensure layering is in logical order. For example, the bedrock surface elevation is the lowest elevation in all cells across the model extent. Post processing from the raw interpolations was done to adjust any grid cells where the interpolated hydrogeology was not in logical order. One possible reason this would occur is lack of data in certain areas. Layers were checked to make sure that layer elevations make logical geologic sense (i.e. bedrock surface is not above land surface). Dataset is considered complete for the information presented, as described in the abstract. Users are advised to read the rest of the metadata record carefully for additional details. No formal positional accuracy tests were conducted Vertical elevation rasters were checked against one another, as described in the Attribute Accuracy Report section of this metadata file. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service 20131215 Shapefile Fort Worth, Texas U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service https://cugir.library.cornell.edu/catalog/cugir-007868 Shapefile 20030913 20131215 Complete SSURGO Soil Survey Geographic Database for Cattaraugus County NY U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service 20150921 Shapefile Fort Worth, Texas U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service https://cugir.library.cornell.edu/catalog/cugir-002720 Shapefile 20001128 20150921 Complete SSURGO Soil Survey Geographic Database for Chautauqua County, NY H.R. Anderson, W.G. Stelz, J.L. Belli, and R.V. Allen 1982 Report PDF Reston, VA USGS https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/ofr82113 Report PDF 19820101 19820102 Complete 82-113 This report provided important hydrogeologic information for both modeling and understanding the groundwater system in the study area Leslie J. Crain 1966 Report PDF Reston, VA USGS https://archive.org/details/usgswaterresourcesnewyork-nywrc_bull_58/nywrc_bull_58/mode/2up Report PDF 19660101 19660102 Complete Bull-58-1960 This report provided important hydrogeologic information for both modeling and understanding the groundwater system in the study area New York Office of Information Technology Services 20171115 Raster Albany, NY New York Office of Information Technology Services https://gis.ny.gov/elevation/metadata/2017NY-Southwest-NY-Classified-Point-Cloud-USGSv1.2.xml Raster 20170418 20170509 Complete LIDAR coverage LIDAR was used as a benchmark to: help define hydrogeologic layer elevations, adjust and create surficial geology, and provide understanding about the hydrogeologic framework New York Office of Information Technology Services 20180823 Raster Albany, NY New York Office of Information Technology Services https://gis.ny.gov/elevation/metadata/2017NY-Southwest-17B-NY-Classified-Point-Cloud.xml Raster 20171115 20180422 Complete LIDAR coverage LIDAR was used as a benchmark to: help define hydrogeologic layer elevations, adjust and create surficial geology, and provide understanding about the hydrogeologic framework The bedrock surface elevation raster was interpolated using point inputs. The topo-to-raster (upland bedrock) and Natural Neighbors (valley bedrock) interpolation tools were used after validation through a Python script which analyzes the statistically best interpolation method for the dataset. A visual inspection of the interpolations was conducted to look for any substantial errors. The point inputs consist of bedrock elevation values from well logs, DOT borehole data, cross sections, bedrock contours and supplemental points which were locations where bedrock elevations were manually assigned based on geologic assumptions. Cross section and bedrock contour data was obtained from USGS Bulletin report 58-1960 (Crain, 1960) and Open-File Report 82-113 (Anderson et al., 1982). Please refer to the metadata files for both the well logs and supplemental points for more information. Topo-to-raster and Natural Neighbors was done using a discretization of 38.1 meters, or 125 feet per grid cell, and snapped to a pre created grid for consistency. Valley and upland interpolations were done independent of one another. Bedrock surface interpolation for the valley was done using the "Elev_Meter" field within the point data (for shapefiles this field is labled "Elev_Meter" because of character limits associated with shapefiles). Bedrock surface interpolation for the uplands was done using the "DTB_Meters" field within the point data. The two interpolations were mosaicked together. For consistency purposes, a minimum thickness was applied to the bedrock raster, such that it must always be at least 3 meters below the land surface elevation value for the grid cell. Please refer to USGS SIR 2022–5024 (Finkelstein and others, 2022) for more information on this. 2020 The lacustrine silt and clay surface elevation raster was interpolated using using point inputs. The topo-to-raster interpolation tool was used after validation through a Python script which analyzes the statistically best interpolation method for the dataset. A visual inspection of the interpolations was conducted to look for any substantial errors. The point inputs consist of lacustrine silt and clay top elevation values from well logs, DOT borehole data, surficial geology, cross section data, and supplemental points which were locations where lacustrine silt and clay top elevations were manually assigned. Cross section and bedrock contour data was obtained from USGS Bulletin report 58-1960 (Crain, 1960) and Open-File Report 82-113 (Anderson et al., 1982). Please refer to the metadata files for both the well logs and supplemental points for more information. Topo-to-raster was done using a discretization of 38.1 meters, or 125 feet per cell. Where lacustrine silt and clay is absent, there are no elevation values shown. Lacustrine silt and clay top elevation values were adjusted where necessary. This occurred where lacustrine silt and clay top elevations were interpolated higher than the LIDAR land surface elevation value for that grid cell. Please refer to USGS SIR 2022–5024 (Finkelstein and others, 2022) for more information on this. 2020 The lacustrine silt and clay bottom elevation raster was interpolated using using point inputs. The topo-to-raster interpolation tool was used after validation through a Python script which analyzes the statistically best interpolation method for the dataset. A visual inspection of the interpolations was conducted to look for any substantial errors. The point inputs consist of lacustrine silt and clay bottom elevation values from well logs, DOT boreholes, cross section data, and supplemental points which were locations where lacustrine silt and clay bottom elevations were manually assigned. Cross section and bedrock contour data was obtained from USGS Bulletin report 58-1960 (Crain, 1960) and Open-File Report 82-113 (Anderson et al., 1982). Please refer to the metadata files for both the well logs and supplemental points for more information. Topo-to-raster was done using a discretization of 38.1 meters, or 125 feet per grid cell. Where lacustrine silt and clay is absent, there are no elevation values shown. Lacustrine silt and clay bottom elevation values were adjusted where necessary. This occurred where lacustrine silt and clay bottom elevations were interpolated higher than the elevation values for the top of the lacustrine layer for that grid cell. For modeling purposes, a minimum thickness was applied to the bottom of the lacustrine silt and clay, such that it must always be at least 1 meters below the top of lacustrine. Please refer to USGS SIR 2022–5024 (Finkelstein and others, 2022) for more information on this. 2020 The land surface elevations for the Jamestown model area was obtained from two LIDAR datasets: Southwest 17 - Spring, New York Lidar and Southwest 17-B - Fall, New York Lidar. Both Lidar coverages have a resolution of 0.7 meters. The two LIDAR datasets were mosaicked together and upscaled to the 125-ft grid, where the minimum LIDAR elevation value within each grid cell is set as the elevation for that grid cell. Both datasets were upscaled to 125-ft for consistency purposes with previous work (Finkelstein and others, 2022). The minimum LIDAR value was also used for each grid cell for consistency purposes (Finkelstein and others, 2022) and is particularly useful for model applications that rely on incising streams being above land surface. 2020 Surficial geology polygons were compiled from published 1:24,000 scale maps where available that were modified and supplemented with SSURGO, LIDAR, and lithologic log data points. Hillshading was also used to help identify visual geologic features at the surface. 2020 The original aquifer extent was obtained from USGS Bulletin report 58-1960 (Crain, 1960) and Open-File Report 82-113 (Anderson et al., 1982). Where previously published data was not available, and in rare cases when evidence was overwhelming, the aquifer boundary was determined or adjusted using SSURGO, and LIDAR/hillshading. Please refer to the georeferenced and digitized data within this data release. 2020 The lacustrine extent was first drawn using existing extents described in USGS Bulletin report 58-1960 (Crain, 1960). The extent was enhanced and extended using available well logs and cross sections. Cross section data was obtained from Open-File Report 82-113 (Anderson et al., 1982). No lacustrine silt and clay is present where kame is located at the surface. It is important to note that this extent only captures the first major lacustrine unit. Due to the extremely deep nature of the Jamestown valley (in some cases over 800 feet deep), the data wasn't available to characterize the deepest portions of the valley fill. 2020 Occasionally, raster surfaces were generated using multiple interpolations. The interpolation types and locations are described in the associated SIR report (Finkelstein and others, 2022). This was typically done when different regions within the study area required or contained different data inputs (i.e. for the bedrock surface the uplands and valley were interpolated separately because of the vast difference in both data and hydrogeologic assumptions). All interpolations were ultimately mosaicked together to represent the layer as a continuous surface and applied to the model grid. 2020 Albers Conical Equal Area 29.5 45.5 -96.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 coordinate pair 0.1 0.1 METERS North American Datum of 1983 NAD_1983 6378137.0 298.257222101 North American Vertical Datum of 1988 1.0E-6 meter Explicit elevation coordinate included with horizontal coordinates Bedrock_Elevation_Raster.tif Raster showing interpolated bedrock surface at 125-foot discretization for the Jamestown study area. Producer defined Value Bedrock surface elevation, in meters. Producer defined 89.2625 664.826 Meters Top_Lacustrine_Elevation_Raster.tif Raster showing interpolated surface of the first major lacustrine silt and clay unit at 125-foot discretization for the Jamestown study area. Where surficial geology dictated that lacustrine was at the surface, the MIN LIDAR was used to calculate the elevation. Producer defined Value Lacustrine silt and clay layer top elevation, in meters. Producer defined 360.355 418.399 Meters Bottom_Lacustrine_Elevation_Raster.tif Raster showing interpolated surface of the bottom of the first major lacustrine silt and clay unit at 125-foot discretization for the Jamestown study area. Producer defined Value Lacustrine silt and clay layer bottom elevation, in meters. Producer defined 279.588 400.23703 Meters Lidar_Minimum_Elevation_Raster.tif Raster showing minimum LIDAR elevations at 125-foot discretization for the Jamestown study area. Producer defined Value Minimum LIDAR elevation, in meters. Producer defined 376.06 667.827 Meters Surficial_Geology_Polygons Surficial geology for the Jamestown study area. Producer defined Geology Surficial geologic deposits Producer defined This field contains different surficial geologic types that are found within the Jamestown study area. Total_Aquifer_Extent Valley fill aquifer boundary, represented as a polygon. This boundary was based on report data (when available), soil SSURGO data, and LIDAR. Producer defined Comments Additional details Producer defined Additional details that pertain to the shapefile. Confined_Aquifer_Extent Confined aquifer and associated lacustrine silt and clay confining unit extent Producer defined Comments Additional details Producer defined Additional details StudyArea_Extent Study area extent Producer defined Comments Additional details Producer defined Additional details ScienceBase U.S. Geological Survey mailing and physical

Denver Federal Center, Building 810, Mail Stop 302

Denver CO 80225 USA 1-888-275-8747 sciencebase@usgs.gov Unless otherwise stated, all data, metadata and related materials are considered to satisfy the quality standards relative to the purpose for which the data were collected. Although these data and associated metadata have been reviewed for accuracy and completeness and approved for release by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), no warranty expressed or implied is made regarding the display or utility of the data for other purposes, nor on all computer systems, nor shall the act of distribution constitute any such warranty. Not for navigational use. Any use of trade, firm, or product names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. 20260424 Jason Finkelstein Northeast Region: NEW YORK WATER SCI CTR Hydrologist mailing and physical

425 Jordan Road

Troy NY 12180 US 518-285-5606 jfinkels@usgs.gov Content Standard for Digital Geospatial Metadata FGDC-STD-001-1998