U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey

Open-File Report 2014–1102

Prepared in cooperation with the National Park Service

Hydrologic Data for the Obed River Watershed, Tennessee
Cover photograph. Photo of large boulders in Clear Creek, a tributary to the Obed Wild and Scenic River. 

Photo taken by T. Wood and used with permission of the National Park Service.
Hydrologic Data for the Obed River 

Watershed, Tennessee

By Rodney R. Knight, William J. Wolfe, and George S. Law

Prepared in cooperation with the National Park Service

Open-File Report 2014–1102

U.S. Department of the Interior

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

SALLY JEWELL, Secretary

U.S. Geological Survey

Suzette M. Kimball, Acting Director

U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2014

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

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

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

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

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

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

U.S. Government.

Although this information product, for the most part, is in the public domain, it also may contain copyrighted materials 

as noted in the text. Permission to reproduce copyrighted items must be secured from the copyright owner.

Suggested citation:

Knight, R.R., Wolfe, W.J., and Law, G.S., 2014, Hydrologic data for the Obed River watershed, Tennessee: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2014–1102, 24 p., http://dx.doi.org/10.3133/ofr20141102.

ISBN 978-1-4113-3795-4

ISSN 0196-1497 (print)

ISSN 2331-1258 (online)
iii

Contents

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

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

Purpose and Scope ..............................................................................................................................3

Previous Studies ...................................................................................................................................3

Description of the Study Area .....................................................................................................................4

Geology and Hydrogeology.................................................................................................................4

Impoundments.......................................................................................................................................5

Water Withdrawals and Sewage Discharges .................................................................................5

Hydrologic Data..............................................................................................................................................9

Precipitation and Streamflow...........................................................................................................13

Synoptic Analysis................................................................................................................................16

Summary and Conclusions.........................................................................................................................19

Acknowledgments.......................................................................................................................................20

References....................................................................................................................................................20

Appendix 1. Synoptic data for the Obed River watershed, Tennessee, 2003–2005.............................23

Figures

1. Map showing location of the rain gage, streamgages, lakes, and other 

selected features in the Obed River watershed, Tennessee ................................................2

2. Map showing major structural features of the geology of the Cumberland 

Plateau overthrust belt, Tennessee...........................................................................................6

3. Map showing geology and low-flow sites in the Obed River 

watershed, Tennessee.................................................................................................................7

4. Graph showing monthly average discharge from the Crossville wastewater 

treatment plant as a percentage of monthly average discharge at the Obed 

River near Lancing streamgage, March 1999 through September 2013, and 

average wastewater effluent release by water year.............................................................9

5. Graphs showing annual and cumulative departures from average for annual 

rainfall at Crossville and annual runoff at the Emory River at Oakdale 

streamgage, 1930 through 2012................................................................................................14

6. Graph showing annual flow-duration relations for Emory River at Oakdale, 

Tennessee, 1930 through 2012..................................................................................................15

7. Graph showing average high- and low-baseflow discharge measurements 

and the percentages of the Obed River watershed controlled by impoundments, 

2003–2005 .....................................................................................................................................16
iv

Tables

1. Population estimates for Cumberland County, Tennessee, 1930–2010................................2

2. Number of impoundments built in the Obed River watershed and Clear Creek 

and Daddys Creek subwatersheds, by time period ................................................................3

3. Average daily water withdrawals by public water systems in the Cumberland 

County, Tennessee, area .............................................................................................................8

4. Rain gages and streamgages used in the Obed River watershed study, Tennessee .....10

5. Synoptic-measurement and index sites in the Obed River watershed, Tennessee, 

2003–2005 .....................................................................................................................................10

6. Comparison of precipitation and resulting streamflows for two regional droughts

in the Obed River Basin, 1952–2009 .........................................................................................15

7. High-baseflow synoptic measurements for the Obed River watershed, Tennessee, 

2003–2005 .....................................................................................................................................17

8. Low-baseflow synoptic measurements for the Obed River watershed, Tennessee, 

2003–2005 .....................................................................................................................................18

Conversion Factors

Multiply By To obtain

Length

inch (in.) 2.54 centimeter (cm)

inch (in.) 25.4 millimeter (mm)

foot (ft) 0.3048 meter (m)

mile (mi) 1.609 kilometer (km)

Area

acre 4,047 square meter (m2

)

acre 0.4047 hectare (ha)

acre 0.4047 square hectometer (hm2

) 

acre 0.004047 square kilometer (km2

)

square mile (mi2

) 259.0 hectare (ha)

square mile (mi2

) 2.590 square kilometer (km2) 

Volume

acre-foot (acre-ft) 1,233 cubic meter (m3

)

Flow rate

cubic foot per second (ft3

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

cubic foot per second per square mile 

[(ft3

/s)/mi2]

 0.01093 cubic meter per second per square 

kilometer [(m3/s)/km2]

gallon per minute (gal/min) 0.06309 liter per second (L/s)

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

/s)
v

Vertical coordinate information is referenced to the National Geodetic Vertical Datum 

of 1929 (NGVD 29).

Horizontal coordinate information is referenced to the North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83).

Elevation, as used in this report, refers to distance above the vertical datum.

Specific conductance is given in microsiemens per centimeter at 25 degrees Celsius 

(μS/cm at 25 °C).

Acronyms

NPS National Park Service

USGS U.S. Geological Survey

WSR Wild and Scenic River

WTTP wastewater treatment plant

Hydrologic Data for the Obed River Watershed, Tennessee

By Rodney R. Knight, William J. Wolfe, and George S. Law

Abstract

The Obed River watershed drains a 520-square-mile 

area of the Cumberland Plateau physiographic region in the 

Tennessee River basin. The watershed is underlain by conglomerate, sandstone, and shale of Pennsylvanian age, which 

overlie Mississippian-age limestone. The larger creeks and 

rivers of the Obed River system have eroded gorges through 

the conglomerate and sandstone into the deeper shale. The 

largest gorges are up to 400 feet deep and are protected by 

the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act as part of the Obed Wild and 

Scenic River, which is managed by the National Park Service.

The growing communities of Crossville and Crab 

Orchard, Tennessee, are located upstream of the gorge areas 

of the Obed River watershed. The cities used about 5.8 million gallons of water per day for drinking water in 2010 from 

Lake Holiday and Stone Lake in the Obed River watershed 

and Meadow Park Lake in the Caney Fork River watershed. 

The city of Crossville operates a wastewater treatment plant 

that releases an annual average of about 2.2 million gallons 

per day of treated effluent to the Obed River, representing 

as much as 10 to 40 percent of the monthly average streamflow of the Obed River near Lancing about 35 miles downstream, during summer and fall. During the past 50 years 

(1960–2010), several dozen tributary impoundments and more 

than 2,000 small farm ponds have been constructed in the 

Obed River watershed. Synoptic streamflow measurements 

indicate a tendency towards dampened high flows and slightly 

increased low flows as the percentage of basin area controlled 

by impoundments increases. 

Introduction

The Obed Wild and Scenic River (WSR), established 

in 1976 under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 (82 

Statute 906, Public Law 90-542) and managed by the National 

Park Service (NPS), occupies about 14 square miles (mi2

) of 

rugged river gorge cut into the Cumberland Plateau of East 

Tennessee (fig. 1). The Obed WSR composes only about 

3 percent of the drainage area (520 mi2) of the Obed River at 

its confluence with the Emory River. The basin upstream of 

the WSR includes the rapidly growing communities of Crossville, Crab Orchard, and Fairfield Glade, Tennessee, all of 

which withdraw water from and release treated wastewater to 

the Obed River or its tributaries (fig. 1). After moderate population growth in the 1930s and 1940s, population stabilized at 

around 19,000 in the 1950s and 1960s (table 1). Beginning in 

the 1970s, the county entered a period of sustained population 

growth. Population growth has been accompanied by construction of more than 2,000 impoundments in the Obed River 

headwaters for water supply, recreation, livestock watering, 

and irrigation (table 2; Forester and others, 1998). Water withdrawals, wastewater releases, impoundments, and other human 

activities have potential to change the flow regime of the Obed 

River, possibly affecting the ecological, recreational, scenic, 

and other values and functions that helped justify the river’s 

protection under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act.

The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act requires the NPS to preserve rivers of the WSR system in “free-flowing condition to 

protect the water quality of such rivers and to fulfill other vital 

national conservation purposes.” To meet this responsibility, 

the NPS must evaluate conditions or factors with potential to 

alter the natural flow of streams in the WSR system. The legal 

responsibility of the NPS to mitigate threats to the natural flow 

regime of the Obed WSR requires an evaluation of the hydrologic effects of human activities in the Obed River watershed. 

In 1999, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) began a cooperative effort with the NPS to assemble historical datasets and 

collect hydrologic data in the Obed River and its tributaries 

to support an assessment of the hydrologic effects of human 

activities in the basin. 
2 Hydrologic Data for the Obed River Watershed, Tennessee

5 10 Miles

0 5 10 Kilometers

0

Fairfield Glade

Cumberland Plateau

Clear Creek

Obed River

Daddys Creek

85°07'30' 84°52'30" 84°37'30"

36°07'30"

35°52'30"

Lake Tansi

Obed Wild and Scenic River

Catoosa Wildlife Management Area

Stone Lake

(water supply for

Crab Orchard)

Lake Holiday 

(water supply for Crossville)

Meadow Park Lake

(water supply for Crossville)

Crossville sewage

treatment plant

N

Figure 1. Location of the rain gage (operated by National Weather Service), streamgages, lakes, and other 

selected features in the Obed River watershed.

Base from U.S. Geological Survey topographic

quadrangles, 1:24,000

Lambert Conformal Conic projection

Standard parallels 35°15’ N and 36°25’ N,

central meridian 86° W

Heavy blue line marks Obed WSR

Obed River watershed

Knoxville

Nashville

1

3

2

Crossville

Crab Orchard Rain gage

Streamgage 

Lake or pond 

1

4

Emory River

1

1

EXPLANATION (see table 4)

5

6

Urban boundary

Valley and Ridge

Highland Rim

Figure 1. Location of the rain gage (operated by the National Weather Service), streamgages, lakes, and 

other selected features in the Obed River watershed, Tennessee.

Table 1. Population estimates for Cumberland County, Tennessee, 1930–2010.

[n/a, not available; %, percent; population estimates from Center for Business and Economic Research, 2014]

1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

population 11,440 15,592 18,877 19,135 20,733 28,676 34,736 46,802 54,251 

net change by 

decade

n/a 4,152 4,152 258 1,598 7,943 6,060 12,066 7,449 

percent change 

by decade

n/a 36% 21% 1% 8% 38% 21% 35% 16%
Introduction 3

Table 2. Number of impoundments built in the Obed River watershed and Clear Creek and Daddys Creek subwatersheds, 

by time period. 

[mi2, square miles; –, not available]

Watershed Drainage area, mi2 Time perioda

Total at end of time period

Cumulative number of 

impoundments

Surface area of impoundments, mi2

Drainage area 

controlled by major 

impoundments, mi2

Obed River 172 1943–1975 215 0.47 –

1976–1987 438 1.17 –

1988–1997 921 2.28 –

1998–2002 929 2.28 28.3

Clear Creek 173 1943–1975 133 0.15 –

1976–1987 380 0.54 –

1988–1997 672 0.73 –

1998–2002 695 0.75 8.64

Daddys Creek 175 1943–1975 40 0.19 –

1976–1987 318 1.59 –

1988–1997 830 2.43 –

1998–2002 830 2.43 32

Total for study area 520 1943–1975 388 0.82 –

1976–1987 1,136 3.3 –

1988–1997 2,423 5.44 –

1998–2002 2,454 5.46 68.9

a

Data for period 1943 to 1987 supplied by National Park Service (Forester and others, 1998); data for period 1988 to 2002 supplied by National Park 

Service (Jacob Morgan, National Park Service, written commun., 2007).

Purpose and Scope

This report presents the findings of USGS hydrologic 

studies conducted in cooperation with the National Park Service in the Obed River watershed during 1999 through 2005. 

The report includes analysis of historical and contemporary 

streamflow and precipitation records from the Obed River 

watershed and a qualitative assessment of the influence of 

increased human alteration and climate on the flow regime of 

the Obed WSR. 

The USGS conducts research to improve the understanding of the water resources of the Nation. A key science 

direction for the USGS Tennessee Water Science Center is 

the evaluation of changes to instream conditions and aquatic 

ecosystem health resulting from land-cover change, climate 

change, and management or mitigation measures. The results 

from this investigation will provide additional data and information to help meet that science goal. The investigation also 

provides information about the effects of the geology, climate, 

and human activities on the streamflow and water cycle of the 

area that will aid the USGS in advancing the understanding of 

the processes that determine water availability (Evenson and 

others, 2013).

Previous Studies

The first detailed studies of the Obed River watershed 

were conducted in the 1890s and early 1900s by the USGS 

and focused on producing general geologic folios (Keith, 

1897) and topographic maps (U.S. Geological Survey, 1913) 

of the region. Geology and mineral resources of this part of 

Tennessee were studied by Stearns (1954), Luther (1959), 

Johnson and Luther (1972), and Wilson and others (1956). 

Wilson (1965) reported on the groundwater resources and 

hydrogeology of Cumberland County, Tenn., at a time when 

most of the population of the county obtained their water supply from domestic wells. Wilson (1965) revised the geologic 

naming conventions previously established by Stearns (1954) 

and Wilson and others (1956); the geologic names used in this 

report follow Wilson (1965) and conform to current usage by 

the USGS and the Tennessee Division of Geology. Brahana 

and others (1986) developed a preliminary description and 

delineation of the aquifers of the Cumberland Plateau.

Early studies of surface-water hydrology in the study 

area included general waterway surveys (U.S. Army Corps 

of Engineers, 1930; Tennessee Valley Authority, 1954, 1970) 

and studies of floods (Tennessee Valley Authority, 1960) and 
4 Hydrologic Data for the Obed River Watershed, Tennessee

droughts (Tennessee Valley Authority, 1958). Many of these 

studies were conducted in the context of proposed impoundment of the Obed River, which was under consideration until 

about 1970 (National Park Service, 1993). More recently, the 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (1998) published a study of 

the Obed River watershed that includes a reconnaissance of 

water-supply sources of Cumberland County and assessment 

of water-supply alternatives for the county.

Following establishment of the Obed WSR in 1976, the 

focus of hydrologic studies shifted to the ecological implications of streamflow and water quality in the WSR (National 

Park Service, 1999). Initial reconnaissance and feasibility 

reports for the Obed WSR (Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, 

1976a, b; National Park Service, 1978) included general 

discussions of hydrologic conditions in the proposed WSR 

and its drainage basin (J.C. Hughes, National Park Service, 

written commun., 2007). Reports by Minear and Tschantz 

(1976), Gaydos and others (1982), and Gottfried and others 

(1984) explored linkages between strip mining of coal and the 

aquatic environment of the Cumberland Plateau. Other studies 

documented the benthic fauna of streams on or adjacent to 

the Cumberland Plateau in Tennessee (Pennington and Estes, 

1980; Gore and others, 1982; Bradfield, 1986a, b) and the proliferation of small dams and reservoirs constructed on creeks 

and rivers in Tennessee (Goodwin, 1981).

Recent studies have emphasized specific management 

questions or furthered the understanding of ecology and 

hydrology in the WSR and surrounding area. Forester and 

others (1998) produced a water-resources management plan 

for the Obed WSR describing decision-making and management processes for the conservation and management of water 

resources in the Obed WSR. The water-resources management plan is an extension of the general management plan for 

the park (National Park Service, 1995). In 2004, researchers 

from the University of Tennessee at Chattanooga developed 

a digital record of surface-water impoundments in the Obed 

River watershed (National Park Service, 2004). The impoundments range from farm ponds to small lakes having surface 

areas of several hundred acres. Arnwine and others (2006) 

reported on stream monitoring below small impoundments 

throughout Tennessee, including water-quality analyses for 

streams below several of the larger impoundments in the 

Obed River watershed. Recent academic theses from Tennessee Technological University examined current distribution 

and seasonal habitat use of the threatened spotfin chub (Russ, 

2006) and benthic macroinvertebrate communities (Goodfred, 

2006) within the Emory River watershed. Wolfe and others 

(2007) described the physical characteristics and spatial distribution of the Obed WSR alluvial bars, the role of hydrology in 

creating and maintaining them, patterns of plant distribution, 

and potential threats to alluvial-bar plant communities. 

Description of the Study Area

The dominant landscape of the Obed River watershed is 

a gently rolling plateau covered by farms, pastures, and forest. 

Many of the forests are second growth, having been clearcut in the early 1900s. The land has also been affected by 

localized strip-mining of coal prior to the 1970s (Johnson and 

Luther, 1972). The elevation of the plateau ranges generally 

between 1,200 and 2,000 feet (ft) above the National Geodetic 

Vertical Datum of 1929 (NGVD 29), with the Crab Orchard 

Mountains about 3,000 ft above NGVD 29 (Griffith and others, 1997). The Obed River watershed is about 1,000 ft higher 

in elevation than the Highland Rim physiographic region to 

the west and the Valley and Ridge physiographic region to the 

east. The Obed River is a tributary to the Emory River, and 

its 520-mi2

 basin composes 60 percent of the Emory River 

watershed at their confluence. 

The Obed River watershed lies entirely within the Cumberland Plateau physiographic region (Griffith and others, 

1997). The streams and rivers of this region are characterized by rapid runoff following storms and by low flow or no 

flow during the drier months in late summer and fall. Streams 

with drainage areas less than approximately 1 mi2

 are generally ephemeral in the study area, flowing only in direct 

response to local rainfall (Law and others, 2009). Streams 

in the study area with drainage areas between 1 and 100 mi2

have flow regimes that range from ephemeral-intermittent to 

intermittent-perennial, commonly experiencing seasonal periods with little or no flow, even when some dry-season pools 

are maintained. Streams with drainage areas greater than 

100 mi2 generally are perennial and maintain flow throughout 

the year. The larger streams and rivers of the Obed River 

watershed have formed deeply incised gorges cut through 

sandstone and conglomerate layers down to and, in places, 

through underlying shale layers (Stearns, 1954; Wilson and 

others, 1956; Wilson, 1965; Milici, 1968). 

Geology and Hydrogeology

Geologic strata in the study area generally are level or 

dip gently to the southeast (Stearns, 1954) (fig. 2). Local 

deformation due to thrust faulting and cross faulting (fig. 2) 

occurs primarily in strata that overlie the Mississippian-age 

limestone of the area (fig. 3). Additionally, several major geologic features, such as the Sequatchie Valley anticline, Crab 

Orchard Mountains anticline, and the Cumberland Plateau 

overthrust belt, interrupt the generally horizontal geologic 

structure (fig. 2; Stearns, 1954; Wilson and others, 1956; 

Milici, 1968). The overthrust belt is related to the faults in the 

underlying Mississippian and older formations (fig. 3), which 

are exposed primarily to the east and south in the Valley and 

Ridge physiographic region and Sequatchie Valley. Exposures 

of Mississippian-age limestone within the study area are found 

mainly at Crab Orchard Cove (fig. 3; Stearns, 1954; Wilson 

and others, 1956; Milici, 1968).
Description of the Study Area 5

The Obed River watershed is underlain mainly by sandstones, siltstones, conglomerates, and shales of Pennsylvanian 

age with minor coal seams (fig. 3; Stearns, 1954; Wilson and 

others, 1956; Wilson, 1965). Major geologic units in the study 

area include the Crooked Fork Group, Rockcastle Conglomerate of the Crab Orchard Group, and the Vandever Formation 

and lower Crab Orchard Group. The Crooked Fork Group 

includes four units—a lower shale unit, the Crossville Sandstone member, an upper shale unit, and an upper sandstone 

unit. Throughout most of the study area, the upper sandstone 

and shale layers have been worn away by weathering and 

erosion. The lower shale unit and Crossville Sandstone have 

average thicknesses of about 50 ft and 100 ft, respectively. 

The Crossville Sandstone is the only member of the Crooked 

Fork Group that has substantial water-bearing capacity. The 

Crossville Sandstone, however, has low hydraulic conductivity, and yields of 5 to 10 gallons per minute (gal/min) are 

typical (Wilson, 1965).

The shaley Vandever Formation (fig. 3) transmits little 

groundwater flow, and few, if any, water-supply wells have 

been completed in this unit (Wilson, 1965). Exposed contacts 

between the Vandever Formation and the Rockcastle Conglomerate are sites of seeps and springs throughout the Obed 

River watershed. Seeps occurring on this geologic contact 

provide baseflow to perennial streams during dry periods 

(M.W. Bradley, U.S. Geological Survey, written commun., 

2007). Some streams have cut through the Vandever Formation into the underlying Bonair sandstones in the Gizzard 

Group (Stearns, 1954; Wilson, 1965) and are likely to lose 

streamflow, especially during baseflow conditions. 

The Rockcastle Conglomerate, positioned above the 

Vandever Formation and below the Crooked Fork Group 

(fig. 3), is the primary water-bearing geologic unit in the Obed 

River watershed. Most of the domestic wells in the watershed 

are completed in this unit, which has an average thickness of 

150 ft (Stearns, 1954; Wilson, 1965). Groundwater occupies 

fracture systems within the massive cross-bedded sandstone, 

which is the principal component of the formation, and along 

bedding planes separated by thin stringers of shale (Wilson, 

1965). Wells completed in the Rockcastle Conglomerate are 

mostly artesian, with water levels rising up to 100 ft above the 

water-bearing fracture systems. Reported yields of wells in 

the Rockcastle Conglomerate are up to 35 gal/min and average 

about 8 gal/min (Wilson, 1965).

Impoundments

Numerous small water-supply, recreational, and farm 

ponds have been constructed in headwater tributaries of the 

Obed River watershed and are collectively referred to as 

impoundments in this report. Recently, concern has risen 

over the potential effects of these impoundments on the 

hydrologic environment of the Obed WSR (Pringle, 2000). 

The water-resources management plan for the Obed WSR 

(Forester and others, 1998) notes that stream impoundment 

generally reduces natural physical and biological variability 

and promotes conditions of constancy within a stream system. 

In 1975, there were 388 impoundments in the Obed River 

watershed (Forester and others, 1998). By 1997, the number 

of impoundments had increased to 2,423 (table 2). After 

1998, the rate of new impoundment construction slowed, probably reflecting a combination of economic conditions, increasing scarcity of suitable sites, greater public awareness of 

permitting requirements, and concerns about possible adverse 

environmental effects (R.D. Baker, Tennessee Department of 

Environment and Conservation, written commun., 2008). As 

of March 2002, impoundments in the Obed River watershed 

had a combined water-surface area of 5.46 mi2

 (table 2). 

Aerial photographs and digital elevation models indicate 

that about 13 percent (69 mi2

) of the Obed River watershed 

drains to impoundments, primarily in the headwaters (Jacob 

Morgan, National Park Service, written commun., 2007). 

About 80 percent of the impoundments are for farm and private recreational purposes, with individual water-surface areas 

generally less than 1 acre and a combined water-surface area 

ranging from 1 to 1.5 mi2

, depending on weather conditions. 

These small ponds receive runoff from a combined watershed 

area of about 38 mi2

. About 15 percent of impoundments in 

the Obed River watershed have surface areas of 1 to 10 acres, 

with a combined surface area ranging from 1.5 to 2.5 mi2

, 

depending on weather conditions, and combined drainage 

areas represent 10 percent of the Obed River watershed 

(roughly 52 mi2

). 

Impoundments with a surface area greater than 10 acres 

compose about 2 percent of the impoundments in the Obed 

River watershed. The largest of these impoundments is 

Lake Tansi near Crossville (fig. 1), which has a designed 

surface area of 425 acres (0.66 mi2

) and a design volume of 

12,300 acre-feet (acre-ft; Lyle Bentley, Tennessee Department 

of Environment and Conservation, written commun., 2007). 

Larger impoundments in the Obed River watershed have a 

combined surface area ranging from 2.5 to 4 mi2

, depending 

on weather conditions, and receive runoff from about 76 mi2

. 

Many tributary watersheds have multiple impoundments. 

Water Withdrawals and Sewage Discharges

The cities of Crossville and Crab Orchard collect and 

distribute drinking water for much of Cumberland County 

(Hutson and Morris, 1992; Hutson, 1999; Webbers, 2003; 

Bohac and McCall, 2008; J.L. Kerley, City of Crossville, written commun., 2010; W.L. Muirhead, Tennessee Department of 

Environment and Conservation, written commun., 2010). The 

sources of this drinking water are Meadow Park Lake, Lake 

Holiday, and Stone Lake in the headwaters of the Obed River 

and Caney Fork watersheds (fig. 1). Groundwater sources are 

not being used for public drinking water by municipal water 

systems in this area. 

In 2010, Crossville and Crab Orchard withdrew, treated, 

and distributed 4.2 million gallons per day (Mgal/d) and 
6 Hydrologic Data for the Obed River Watershed, Tennessee Harriman

Rockwood

Crab Orchard

Crossville

EASTERN

CUMBERLAND

ESCARPMENT

Crab Orchard Mountains anticline

Chestnut Oak

Sequatchie

Valley

anticline

Pilot Knob

Vandever

anticline

Erasmus

anticline

WHETSTONE MOUNTAIN FAULT ZONE

EMORY RIVER FAULT ZONE

POTTS CREEK FAULT

LANTANA FAULTS

CROSSVILLE

FAULT

HYDER 

OTTERCREEK

FAULT

YELLOW CR.

FAULT

BRADY

FAULT

HATFIELD MOUNTAIN FAULTS

LICK

RIDGE

Geology modified from Stearns, 1954; Wilson, 1965

OZONE

FAULT

LAVENDAR KNOB

FAULTS

FAULT

FOX CR. FAULT

anticline

anticline

LITTLE PEAVINE FAULT

Big Peavine

Mountain anticline

0 5 10 Kilometers0 5 10 Miles

N

Figure 2. Major structural features of the geology of the Cumberland Plateau overthrust belt.

Southeastward-dipping thrust faults Anticline axis

EXPLANATION

Cross fault (arrows indicate relative displacement)

Figure 2. Major structural features of the geology of the Cumberland Plateau overthrust belt, Tennessee.
Description of the Study Area 7

#

#

##

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

##

# #

#

#

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

30

29

28

27

25 26

24

23

22

21

20 19

18

17

16

15

14

13

12

11

10

0 2.5 5 10 Miles

0 2.5 5 10 Kilometers

Fault 

EXPLANATION

# Synoptic-measurement sites and number

(see table 5 for site information)

Study unit boundary

23

GEOLOGY

Crooked Fork Group

Rockcastle Conglomerate of 

Crab Orchard Group

Vandever Formation and lower 

Crab Orchard Group

Gizzard Group

Mississippian and older formation

Geology modified from Hardeman, 1966

Figure 3. Geology and low-flow sites for the Obed River watershed, Tennessee.

Crab Orchard Cove

N

Figure 3. Geology and low-flow sites in the Obed River watershed, Tennessee.
8 Hydrologic Data for the Obed River Watershed, Tennessee

1.6 Mgal/d of drinking water, respectively (table 3). As of 

2010, the combined capacity of these drinking-water systems 

was about 8 Mgal/d (Robinson and Brooks, 2010). Analyses 

by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (1998) indicate that 

future water-supply needs for Crossville, Crab Orchard, and 

Cumberland County will exceed 10 Mgal/d by the year 2020. 

The city of Crossville wastewater treatment plant 

(WWTP) is the only centralized wastewater system in the 

study area. The Crossville WWTP is located on the Obed 

River about 1 mile (mi) downstream of Lake Holiday and 

about 14 mi upstream of the Obed WSR boundary (fig. 1). 

In 2010, the Crossville WWTP discharged an average of 

2.08 Mgal/d of treated effluent to the Obed River (R. Baker, 

Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation, 

written commun., 2010). As of 2005, eight decentralized 

wastewater-treatment systems were applying a total of about 

0.13 Mgal/d of treated effluent to land in the headwaters of the 

Obed River watershed. Five of these systems use spray irrigation, and three use drip irrigation. 

 About 52 percent of the public drinking water produced 

by Crossville is returned to the Obed River as treated effluent, 

which can account for a considerable proportion of flow in 

the river. During extended dry periods, filter backwash from 

the drinking-water plant, effluent discharged from Crossville 

WWTP, and limited groundwater discharge are the only flows 

into the Obed River at Crossville. Lake Holiday does not 

provide a guaranteed minimum flow for dilution of effluent 

from the Crossville WWTP (J.L. Kerley, City of Crossville, 

written commun., 2010). The most direct effect of WWTP 

effluent on flow conditions in the Obed WSR appears to occur 

during low-baseflow conditions from July through October of 

a typical year. During these periods, effluent released from 

the Crossville WWTP can constitute about 10 to more than 

40 percent of the observed streamflow of the Obed River near 

Lancing, TN (03539800) (fig. 4A). The basin area at the Obed 

River near Lancing is about 40 times larger than the basin area 

at the location of the effluent discharge, indicating that effluent releases by the Crossville WWTP are greatly influencing 

downstream flow conditions. The effect of effluent releases 

on the low-flow variability of the Obed WSR has not been 

thoroughly evaluated; however, the wastewater discharge most 

likely increases the lowest flows expected along much of the 

Table 3. Average daily water withdrawals by public water systems in the Cumberland County, Tennessee, area. 

[See fig. 1 for general location of water-supply lakes in the study area; ft3/s, cubic foot per second; Mgal/d, million gallons per day; 

–, prior to water withdrawal]

Public water system Location of system intake Calendar year Average daily usage

ft3/s Mgal/d

Obed River watershed

Crab Orchard Stone Lake on Otter 

Creek

1988 a – –

1995 b 1.38 0.89

2000 c 2.18 1.41

2005 d 2.40 1.55

2010 e 2.48 1.6

Crossville Lake Holiday on Obed 

River

1988 a 3.95 2.55

1995 b 2.96 1.91

2000 c 2.85 1.84

2005 d 2.01 1.30

2010 e 1.81 1.17

Caney Fork watershed

Crossville Meadow Park Lake on 

Meadow Creekf

1988 a 0.71 0.46

1995 b 1.89 1.22

2000 c 1.69 1.09

2005 d 4.00 2.59

2010 e 4.75 3.07

a

Hutson and Morris, 1992; bHutson, 1999; cWebbers, 2003; dRobinson and Brooks, 2010; eTennessee Department of Environment 

and Conservation, Division of Water Supply, open-file records, provisional data, 2011; f

interbasin transfer from Cumberland River 

Basin to Tennessee River Basin.
Hydrologic Data 9

Obed River in any given year and decreases the low-flow variability. This brief analysis provides a conservative estimate for 

the effect of wastewater effluent on the flow of the Obed River 

and does not account for return flow from residential septic 

systems (fig. 4B). 

Hydrologic Data

 Data presented in this report include long-term streamflow and rainfall records, monthly average wastewater return 

flows, and synoptic discharge measurements. Historical and 

contemporary data from five streamgages in the Obed River 

watershed and one on the Emory River (table 4; fig. 1) were 

used to examine long-term changes in streamflow in the study 

area. Published rainfall records from the National Weather 

Service Crossville Experiment Station were used to study 

rainfall trends. 

Synoptic discharge measurements were made at 

27 stream sites on seven occasions (table 5; appendix 1). 

A typical range of high- to low-baseflow conditions was 

measured and compared with watershed characteristics and 

streamflow at the long-term gaging stations to assess anthropogenic effects. Watershed characteristics, including drainage 

area, geology, and watershed area controlled by impoundments upstream of the measurement sites, are listed for each 

site in table 5. 

Synoptic-measurement sites were selected to represent 

the two dominant geologic formations underlying the Obed 

River watershed: the Rockcastle Conglomerate-Crooked Fork 

Group and the Vandever Formation (table 5). The majority 

Average monthly discharge from Crossville wastewater treatment plant

as a percentage of average monthly discharge at the

Obed River near Lancing, Tennessee, streamgage

Figure 4. A, Monthly average discharge from the Crossville wastewater treatment plant 

as a percentage of monthly average discharge at the Obed River near Lancing, TN, March 

1999 through September 2013 and B, average wastewater effluent release by water year. Mar-99 Jul-99 Nov-99 Mar-00 Jul-00 Nov-00 Mar-01 Jul-01 Nov-01 Mar-02 Jul-02 Nov-02 Mar-03 Jul-03 Nov-03 Mar-04 Jul-04 Nov-04 Mar-05 Jul-05 Nov-05 Mar-06 Jul-06 Nov-06 Mar-07 Jul-07 Nov-07 Mar-08 Jul-08 Nov-08 Mar-09 Jul-09 Nov-09 Mar-10 Jul-10 Nov-10 Mar-11 Jul-11 Nov-11 Mar-12 Jul-12 Nov-12 Mar-13 Jul-13

x

EXPLANATION

Monthly discharge

0

10

20

30

40

50

A

0

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

4.00

4.50

1999 2000 2001 201320122011201020092008200720062005200420032002

B

Average wastewater 

effluent release, in

cubic feet per second

Figure 4. A, Monthly average discharge from the Crossville wastewater treatment 

plant as a percentage of monthly average discharge at the Obed River near Lancing 

streamgage, March 1999 through September 2013 and B, average wastewater effluent 

release by water year.
10 Hydrologic Data for the Obed River Watershed, Tennessee

Table 4. Rain gages and streamgages used in the Obed River watershed study, Tennessee. 

[mi2, square miles; –, not applicable]

Site no.

(fig. 1)

Station 

number

Station name 

(short name)

Latitude, in 

degrees, minutes, 

seconds

Longitude, in 

degrees, minutes, 

seconds

Drainage area, 

in mi2 Period of record

Rain gage

1 COOP:402202 Crossville Experiment 

Station

36°01'00" 85°08'00" – 1912–present

Streamgages

1 03539600 Daddys Creek near 

Hebbertsburg

35°59'51" 84°49'21" 139 1957–68, 

99–present

2 03539778 Clear Creek at Lilly 

Bridge

36°06'11" 84°43'06" 170 1997–present

3 03539800 Obed River near 

Lancing

36°04'53" 84°40'13" 518 1957–68, 73–87, 

99–present

4 03540500 Emory River at 

Oakdale

35°58'59" 84°33'29" 764 1927–present

5 03538845 Fox Creek near 

Lavendar Knob

36°02'47" 84°56'00" 7.38 2001–2003

6 03538865 Elmore Creek near 

Genesis

36°05'34" 84°55'03" 7.82 2001–2003

Table 5. Synoptic-measurement and index sites in the Obed River watershed, Tennessee, 2003–2005.—Continued

[mi2, square miles; Pcf, Crooked Fork Group; Pr, Rockcastle Conglomerate; Pv, Vandever Formation]

USGS 

station 

number

Site name 

(number on 

figure 3)

Latitude Longitude

Total 

watershed 

drainage 

area, mi2

Number 

of 

tributary 

lakes

Impoundment 

surface area, 

mi2

Watershed area 

controlled 

by tributary 

lakes, mi2

Total watershed 

area controlled Geology 

at site

tributary 

lakes

farm 

ponds mi2 percent

Obed River watershed synoptic sites

03539701 Clear Creek above 

Panther Creek 

confluence (1)

36o05'05" 85o07'55" 6.52 0 0 0.029 0 0.29 4.4 Pv

03539703 Panther Creek 

below Lake 

Caryonah 

Dam (2)

36o04'16" 85o07'52" 1.61 1 0.047 0 1.61 1.61 100 Pv

03539704 Panther Creek 

at Pugh 

Cemetery (3)

36o05'00" 85o07'52" 3.05 1 0.047 0.016 1.61 1.77 57.9 Pv

03539705 Clear Creek below 

Panther Creek 

confluence (4)

36o05'07" 85o07'47" 9.57 1 0.047 0.044 1.61 2.05 21.4 Pv

03539708 Clear Creek at 

Clear Creek 

Road (5)

36o07'11" 85o05'48" 14.4 1 0.047 0.071 1.61 2.32 16.1 Pv

03539710 Clear Creek nr 

Rinnie (6)

36o10'10" 85o01'42" 23.4 1 0.047 0.123 1.61 2.84 12.1 Pv
Hydrologic Data 11

Table 5. Synoptic-measurement and index sites in the Obed River watershed, Tennessee, 2003–2005.—Continued

[mi2, square miles; Pcf, Crooked Fork Group; Pr, Rockcastle Conglomerate; Pv, Vandever Formation]

Impoundment Water- Total Number Total watershed 

USGS Site name surface area, shed area watershed of area controlled Geology station (number on Latitude Longitude mi2 controlled drainage tributary at site number figure 3) by tributary tributary farm area, mi2 lakes mi2 percent lakes, mi2

lakes ponds

Obed River watershed synoptic sites—Continued

03539715 No Business 36o05'23" 85o03'51" 2.85 0 0 0.026 0 0.26 9 Pr

Creek at Isoline 

(7)

03539718 White Creek 36o10'43" 84o47'59" 19.1 0 0 0.05 0 0.5 2.6 Pv

above Cook 

Creek confluence (8)

03539719 White Creek at 36o10'39" 84o48'01" 38.4 0 0 0.229 0 2.29 5.9 Pv

Twin Bridges 

(9)

03539720 White Creek 36o09'32" 84o47'20" 45.3 0 0 0.253 0 2.53 5.6 Pr

at Lavendar 

Bridge (10)

03539748 Little Clear Creek 36o07'48" 84o43'21" 10.6 0 0 0.024 0 0.24 2.3 Pr

nr Howard Mill 

(11)

03538603 Obed River at US 35o57'36" 85o03'03" 12.5 1 0.344 0.119 8.49 9.68 77.5 Pr

Hwy 70 (12)

03538813 Drowning Creek 36o00'48" 85o04'10" 10 0 0 0.123 0 1.23 12.3 Pv

above Copeland 

Creek confluence (13)

03538814 Copeland Creek 36o00'31" 85o04'14" 10.7 0 0 0.1 0 1 9.4 Pv

above Drowning Creek confluence (14)

03538845 Fox Creek near 36o02'47" 84o56'00" 7.38 3 0.294 0.03 2.08 2.38 32.2 Pr

Lavendar Knob 

(03538845) 

(15)

03538865 Elmore Creek 36o05'34" 84o55'03" 7.82 0 0 0.001 0 0.01 0.1 Pv

near Genesis 

(03538865) 

(16)

03538871 Otter Creek at 36o03'16" 84o51'20" 16.9 2 0.477 0.051 5.35 5.86 34.7 Pv

Hebbertsburg 

(17)

03538890 Daddys Creek 35o46'55" 85o02'44" 4.6 0 0 0.021 0 0.21 4.5 Pr

west of Brown 

Gap (18)

03538900 Self Creek nr Big 35o47'53" 85o02'30" 3.78 1 0.105 0 1.55 1.55 41 Pr

Lick (19)

03538940 Daddys Creek at 35o48''24" 85o01'16" 10.3 1 0.105 0.027 1.55 1.82 17.7 Pcf

US Hwy 127 

near Big Lick 

(20)
12 Hydrologic Data for the Obed River Watershed, Tennessee

Table 5. Synoptic-measurement and index sites in the Obed River watershed, Tennessee, 2003–2005.—Continued

[mi2, square miles; Pcf, Crooked Fork Group; Pr, Rockcastle Conglomerate; Pv, Vandever Formation]

Impoundment Water- Total Number Total watershed 

USGS Site name surface area, shed area watershed of area controlled Geology station (number on Latitude Longitude mi2 controlled drainage tributary at site number figure 3) by tributary tributary farm area, mi2 lakes mi2 percent lakes, mi2

lakes ponds

03538950 Lick Creek at Big 35o48''23" 85o12'13" 8.53 0 0 0.083 0 0.83 9.7 Pcf

Lick (21)

03538990 Basses Creek be- 35o51'05" 85o00'43" 13.1 1 0.664 0.033 4.45 4.78 36.5 Pr

low Lake Tansi 

at US Hwy 127 

(22)

03539200 Byrd Creek at US 35o54'41" 84o59'29" 10.3 3 0.165 0.099 9.13 10.1 98.3 Pr

Hwy 127 (23)

03539250 Byrd Creek below 35o55'55" 84o57'03" 24.8 3 0.165 0.193 9.13 11.1 44.6 Pr

Ward Creek 

confluence (24)

03539502 North Creek 35o57'41" 84o56'25" 5.19 1 0.164 0.051 1.24 1.75 33.7 Pr

above Brown 

Creek confluence (25)

03539503 Brown Creek 35o57'41" 84o56'10" 6.44 1 0.33 0.035 2.5 2.85 44.2 Pr

above North 

Creek confluence (26)

03539680 Yellow Creek east 36o00'07" 84o47'03" 9.97 0 0 0.006 0 0.06 0.6 Pr

of Cline School 

(27)

Obed River watershed index sites

03539600 Daddys Creek 35o59'51" 84o49'21" 139 12 1.72 0.675 25.2 32 23 Pv

near Hebbertsburg (28)

03539778 Clear Creek at 36o06'11" 84o43'06" 170 1 0.047 0.703 1.61 8.64 5.1 Pv

Lilly Bridge 

(29)

03539800 Obed River near 36o04'53" 84o40'13" 518 20 2.92 2.54 43.5 68.9 13.3 Pv

Lancing (30)
Hydrologic Data 13

of impoundments in the Obed River watershed are located 

in areas that are underlain by the Rockcastle ConglomerateCrooked Fork Group. The unit discharge of the Obed 

River near Lancing was used as an index to divide synoptic 

measurements into high- or low-baseflow categories. Measurements made when the unit discharge at the index site 

was greater than 0.1 cubic foot per second per square mile 

[(ft3

/s)/mi2] were categorized as high baseflow, while all other 

synoptic measurements were categorized as low baseflow 

(appendix 1). 

Precipitation and Streamflow

The average annual rainfall measured at the Crossville 

Experiment Station is about 57 inches for the 82-year period 

from 1930 through 2012 (National Climatic Data Center, 

2014). Annual and cumulative departures from the 82-year 

average rainfall illustrate a pattern of generally higher rainfall since about 1970 (fig. 5). This pattern is consistent with 

results from numerous national and regional studies, which 

have documented a relatively abrupt increase in precipitation of 10 to 20 percent across the southeastern United States 

beginning about 1970 (Groisman and Easterling, 1994; 

Lettenmaier and others, 1994; Karl and others, 1996; Karl 

and Knight, 1998; Lins and Slack, 1999; Douglas and others, 

2000; Easterling and others, 2000; Burkett and others, 2001; 

Groisman and others, 2001; McCabe and Wolock, 2002; Wolfe 

and others, 2003; Lins, 2005).

Annual flow-duration curves for the Emory River at Oakdale indicate recent historical change in hydrologic response 

at low flows, specifically an increase in the minimum values 

of the lowest flows since 1970 (fig. 6). Eighteen of 40 years 

between 1930 and 1970 had values for the 0.5th percentile 

flow of less than 3 cubic feet per second (ft3

/s). In contrast, 

the 42 years between 1970 and 2012 include only 2 years with 

values for the 0.5th percentile flow as low as 3 ft3

/s. This difference may partly reflect increases in regional rainfall after 

1970 and evidenced by a general increase in average annual 

runoff post-1970 (fig. 5). However, increased average rainfall 

does not explain elevated low flows during periods of severe 

and sustained regional drought. 

Comparison of the drought of 1952–54 with that of 

2007–09 is instructive (table 6). Each drought was preceded by a similar wet period having about 600 inches of 

precipitation during the previous decade, and the first year 

of each drought had below average annual precipitation of 

about 40 inches. Moreover, both droughts produced discernible hydrologic effects during periods of about 3 years. The 

1952–54 drought produced a minimum annual 0.5th percentile 

flow of 0.002 ft3

/s. By comparison, the 2007–09 drought produced minimum annual 0.5th percentile flow of 3 ft3

/s, which 

is more than 4 orders higher than that of the 1952–54 drought 

and equal to the 0.5th percentile flows after 1970 (fig. 6; table 6). 

Among known hydrologic changes in the Obed River watershed, increased wastewater return flows appear to be a likely 

explanatory factor in the sustainment of low flows during 

periods of severe drought. 

Wastewater return flows for the 1950s are not readily 

available; however, census data show that the population of 

Cumberland County was relatively stable at about 19,000 to 

21,000 persons between 1950 and 1970 (Center for Business 

and Economic Research, 2014). Beginning in 1970, the 

population of Cumberland County increased by 6,000 to 

12,000 persons per decade, exceeding 54,000 by 2010 

(table 1). Between 1995 and 2012, average return flows 

from the Crossville WWTP have ranged from 2.5 to 4.5 ft3

/s, 

with only 3 of 19 years falling below 3 ft3

/s (Robbie Baker, 

Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation, 

written commun., 2010; City of Crossville, written commun., 

2014; Veolia Water North America, written commun., 2014). 

It follows that wastewater return flows from Crossville are of 

sufficient magnitude to maintain low flows at or above 3 ft3

/s.
14 Hydrologic Data for the Obed River Watershed, Tennessee Departure from the long–term average, in inches Cumulative departure from the long–term average, in inches

A

B

Rainfall

Runoff

EXPLANATION

Figure 5. Comparison of annual rainfall at Crossville with annual runoff at the Emory River at Oakdale

for (A) annual departures and (B) cumulative depature from average for the period 1930 through 2012. 

–120

–100

–80

–60

–40

–20

0

20

40

19301935194019451950195519601965197019751980198519901995200020052010

–25

–20

–15

–10

–5

0

5

10

15

20

25

Rainfall

Runoff

EXPLANATION

Water year

Figure 5. A, Annual and B, cumulative departures from average for annual rainfall at Crossville and 

annual runoff at the Emory River at Oakdale streamgage, 1930 through 2012.
Hydrologic Data 15

0.5 th percentile

10 th percentile

50 th percentile

90 th percentile

Water year

Discharge, in cubic feet per second

Figure 6. Annual flow-duration relations for Emory River at Oakdale, 1930 through 2012.

0.001

0.01

0.1

1

10

100

1,000

10,000

19301935194019451950195519601965197019751980198519901995200020052010

Figure 6. Annual flow-duration relations for Emory River at Oakdale, Tennessee, 

1930 through 2012.

Table 6. Comparison of precipitation and resulting streamflows for two regional droughts in the Obed River 

Basin, 1952–2009. 

[Precipitation data for Crossville Experiment Station, National Climatic Data Center, 2014; 0.5th percentile flows based on Emory River at Oakdale, 

1930–2012; average annual wastewater release based on written communication from Robbie Baker, Tennessee Department of Environment and 

Conservation, 2010 and City of Crossville, Veolia Water North America, 2014; ft3/s, cubic feet per second; –, data unavailable]

Drought period Total precipitation (inches) Annual precipitation for drought year 

(inches)

0.5th percentile 

flow (ft3/s)

Average annual 

wastewater release 

(ft3 Previous 10 years Pervious 5 years /s)

1952 594 302 39.97 2.57 –

1953 567 296 50.43 0.01 –

1954 577 288 58.3 0.002 –

2007 603 309 40 6.932 2.8

2008 582 284 45.35 3.983 3.08

2009 557 260 75.61 3 3.8
16 Hydrologic Data for the Obed River Watershed, Tennessee

Synoptic Analysis

Comparison of average unit discharge measured during 

high- and low-baseflow conditions with the percentage of 

watershed area controlled by impoundments shows that under 

high-baseflow conditions, unit discharge decreases as the percentage of watershed controlled by impoundments increases 

(table 7; fig. 7). Under low-baseflow conditions, unit discharge 

shows a weaker tendency to increase with increased percentage of drainage area controlled by impoundments (table 8; 

fig. 7). These observations are broadly consistent with the 

analysis of Smith and others (2002), who noted an increase in 

water retention, evapotranspiration, and groundwater recharge 

as effects of small impoundments. Under storm and highbaseflow conditions, impoundments retain water that would 

otherwise flow down the channel, thereby reducing streamflow 

magnitude downstream. Under low-baseflow conditions, 

some of the retained water seeps through, under, or around 

dams, thereby elevating downstream baseflow. 

In the Obed River watershed, the relation between low 

baseflow and impoundments is most evident for basins primarily underlain by the Vandever Formation. Flow measurements 

from such basins define the upper envelope of the generally 

positive relation between low baseflow and percentage of 

drainage area controlled by impoundments (fig. 7). As previously noted, the Vandever Formation functions as a local confining unit, and outcrops of this formation commonly coincide 

with seeps and springs, except when breached by erosion. The 

low-baseflow effect of impoundments tends to further stabilize and elevate the low baseflows in the Obed WSR that are 

already augmented by effluent releases from the WWTP.

0

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

0.35

0.40

0.45

0.50

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

23 12

3

19

26

24

15

22

25

17

4

28

20

5

6

13

30

21

21

16

19

3

14

7

10

18

1

9

29

11

27

8

16

7 3 13 19 23

15

12

24 26

22 25

17

27

4 

28

20

6 30 5

21 14

29

16

11

8 189

Percent of watershed controlled by impoundments

Average unit discharge, in cubic feet per second per square mile

High-baseflow measurement and 

 site number, Rockcastle Conglomerate 

 and Crooked Fork Group

High-baseflow measurement and site 

 number, Vandever Formation

Low baseflow

High baseflow

Low-baseflow measurement and site 

 number, Rockcastle Conglomerate and

 Crooked Fork Group

Low-baseflow measurement and site 

 number, Vandever Formation

EXPLANATION

See tables 5, 6, and 7 for site descriptions and data

Figure 7. Comparison of high- and low-baseflow discharge measurements against the percent 

of watershed controlled by impoundments in the Obed River watershed, 2003–2005.

Figure 7. Average high- and low-baseflow discharge measurements and 

the percentages of the Obed River watershed controlled by impoundments, 

2003–2005.
Hydrologic Data 17

Table 7. High-baseflow synoptic measurements for the Obed River watershed, Tennessee, 2003–2005.—Continued 

[mi2, square mile; (ft3/s)/mi2, cubic feet per second per square mile; See appendix 1 for discharge measurement data]

Site number 

(on fig. 3) Site name Drainage area, mi2

Number of 

discharge 

measurements

Average unit 

discharge 

(ft3

/s)/mi2

Drainage area 

controlled, 

percent

Selected impoundments in 

the watershed

Rockcastle Conglomerate and Crooked Fork Group sites

7 No Business Creek at US 

Hwy 127

2.85 3 0.271 9 farm ponds

10 White Creek at Lavendar 

Bridge at State Route 62

45.3 2 0.482 5.6 farm ponds

11 Little Clear Creek at State 

Route 62

10.6 3 0.255 2.3 farm ponds

12 Obed River at US Hwy 70 12.5 4 0.228 77.5 Lake Holiday

15 Fox Creek near Lavendar 

Knob

7.38 4 0.193 32.2 Fox Creek Lake, Frances Lake, 

Good Neighbor Lake

18 Daddys Creek west of 

Brown Gap

4.6 4 0.263 4.5 farm ponds

19 Self Creek at Big Lick Road 

near Big Lick

3.78 4 0.204 41 Lake Breckenridge #1 and #2

20 Daddys Creek at US Hwy 

127 near Big Lick

10.3 4 0.257 17.7 Lake Breckenridge #1 and #2

21 Lick Creek at US Hwy 127 8.53 4 0.16 9.7 farm ponds

22 Basses Creek below Lake 

Tansi at US Hwy 127

13.1 4 0.261 36.5 Lake Tansi

23 Byrd Creek at US Hwy 127 10.3 4 0.22 98.3 Lake Mohawk, Lake Geronimo, 

Byrd Lake

24 Byrd Creek below Ward 

Creek confluence

24.8 4 0.251 44.6 Byrd Lake

25 North Creek above Brown 

Creek confluence

5.19 3 0.239 33.7 Lake Turner

26 Brown Creek above North 

Creek confluence

6.44 4 0.288 44.2 Lake St. George

27 Yellow Creek east of Cline 

School

9.97 3 0.264 0.6 farm ponds

Vandever Formation sites

1 Clear Creek above Panther 

Creek confluence

6.52 3 0.28 4.4 farm ponds

3 Panther Creek at Pugh 

Cemetery

3.05 2 0.066 57.9 Lake Caryonah

4 Clear Creek below Panther 

Creek confluence

9.57 2 0.345 21.4 farm ponds

5 Clear Creek at Clear Creek 

Road

14.4 3 0.236 16.1 farm ponds

6 Clear Creek at US Hwy 127 23.4 3 0.256 12.1 farm ponds

8 White Creek above Cook 

Creek confluence

19.1 3 0.227 2.6 farm ponds

9 White Creek below Cook 

Creek confluence

38.6 4 0.349 5.9 farm ponds

13 Drowning Creek above Copeland Creek confluence10 3 0.223 12.3 farm ponds
18 Hydrologic Data for the Obed River Watershed, Tennessee

Table 7. High-baseflow synoptic measurements for the Obed River watershed, Tennessee, 2003–2005.—Continued 

[mi2, square mile; (ft3/s)/mi2, cubic feet per second per square mile; See appendix 1 for discharge measurement data]

Site number 

(on fig. 3) Site name Drainage area, mi2

Number of 

discharge 

measurements

Average unit 

discharge 

(ft3

/s)/mi2

Drainage area 

controlled, 

percent

Selected impoundments in 

the watershed

Vandever Formation sites—Continued

14 Copeland Creek above 10.7 4 0.291 9.4 farm ponds

Drowning Creek 

confluence

16 Elmore Creek near Genesis 7.82 4 0.206 0.1 farm ponds

17 Otter Creek at Catoosa 16.9 4 0.234 34.7 Stone Lake, Lake Dartmoor

Road

28 Daddys Creek near 139 4 0.299 23 Lake Tansi, Lake Turner, Lake 

Hebbertsburg Glastowbury, others

29 Clear Creek at Lilly Bridge 170 3 0.353 5.1 farm ponds

30 Obed River near Lancing 518 4 0.387 13.3 Lake Holiday, Lake Dartmoor, 

Lake Tansi, others

Table 8. Low-baseflow synoptic measurements for the Obed River watershed, Tennessee, 2003–2005.—Continued 

[mi2, square mile; (ft3/s)/mi2, cubic feet per second per square mile; See appendix 1 for discharge measurement data]

Site number 

(on fig. 3) Site name Drainage area, mi2

Number of 

discharge 

measurements

Average unit 

discharge 

(ft3

/s)/mi2

Drainage area 

controlled, 

percent

Selected impoundments in 

the watershed

Rockcastle Conglomerate and Crooked Fork Group sites

7 No Business Creek at US 

Hwy 127

2.85 3 0.009 9 farm ponds

11 Little Clear Creek at State 

Route 62

10.6 3 0.013 2.3 farm ponds

12 Obed River at US Hwy 70 12.5 3 0.067 77.5 Lake Holiday

15 Fox Creek near Lavendar 

Knob

7.38 3 0.017 32.2 Fox Creek Lake, Frances Lake, 

Good Neighbor Lake

18 Daddys Creek west of 

Brown Gap

4.6 3 0.015 4.5 farm ponds

19 Self Creek at Big Lick Road 

near Big Lick

3.78 3 0.007 41 Lake Breckenridge #1 and #2

20 Daddys Creek at US Hwy 

127 near Big Lick

10.3 3 0.015 17.7 Lake Breckenridge #1 and #2

21 Lick Creek at US Hwy 127 8.53 3 0.013 9.7 farm ponds

22 Basses Creek below Lake 

Tansi at US Hwy 127

13.1 3 0.052 36.5 Lake Tansi

23 Byrd Creek at US Hwy 127 10.3 3 0.022 98.3 Lake Mohawk, Lake Geronimo, 

Byrd Lake

24 Byrd Creek below Ward 

Creek confluence

24.8 2 0.031 44.6 Byrd Lake

25 North Creek above Brown 

Creek confluence

5.19 3 0.043 33.7 Lake Turner
Summary and Conclusions 19

Table 8. Low-baseflow synoptic measurements for the Obed River watershed, Tennessee, 2003–2005.—Continued 

[mi2, square mile; (ft3/s)/mi2, cubic feet per second per square mile; See appendix 1 for discharge measurement data]

Site number 

(on fig. 3) Site name Drainage area, mi2

Number of 

discharge 

measurements

Average unit 

discharge 

(ft3

/s)/mi2

Drainage area 

controlled, 

percent

Selected impoundments in 

the watershed

Rockcastle Conglomerate and Crooked Fork Group sites—Continued

26

27

Brown Creek above North 

Creek confluence

Yellow Creek east of Cline 

School

6.44

9.97

3

2

0.029

0.046

44.2

0.6

Lake St. George

farm ponds

Vandever Formation sites

3

4

5

6

8

9

13

14

16

17

28

29

30

Panther Creek at Pugh 

Cemetery

Clear Creek below Panther 

Creek confluence

Clear Creek at Clear Creek 

Road

Clear Creek at US Hwy 127

White Creek above Cook 

Creek confluence

White Creek below Cook 

Creek confluence

Drowning Creek above Copeland Creek confluence

Copeland Creek above 

Drowning Creek confluence

Elmore Creek near Genesis

Otter Creek at Catoosa 

Road

Daddys Creek near Hebbertsburg

Clear Creek at Lilly Bridge

Obed River near Lancing

3.05

9.57

14.4

23.4

19.1

38.6

10

10.7

7.82

16.9

139

170

518

1

1

3

3

1

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

0

0.056

0.047

0.049

0.018

0.013

0.007

0.013

0.013

0.077

0.059

0.035

0.047

57.9

21.4

16.1

12.1

2.6

5.9

12.3

9.4

0.1

34.7

23

5.1

13.3

Lake Caryonah

farm ponds

farm ponds

farm ponds

farm ponds

farm ponds

farm ponds

farm ponds

farm ponds

Stone Lake, Lake Dartmoor

Lake Tansi, Lake Turner, Lake 

Glastowbury, others

farm ponds

Lake Holiday, Lake Dartmoor, 

Lake Tansi, others

Summary and Conclusions

The data and observations presented in this report support 

the following conclusions:

1. Increased rainfall since 1970 has generally contributed to an increase in baseflows in the Obed WSR 

but does not fully explain increases in the lowest 

flow percentiles, which persist even during periods 

of historical drought;

2. The combination of headwater impoundments and 

wastewater treatment inflows appear to have generally stabilized and increased low baseflow in late 

summer and early fall; and 

3. Climatic and human influences on streamflow conditions are either dampened or amplified by geologic 

controls on streamflow response, notably the tendency of the sandstones of the Rockcastle Conglomerate to accept infiltration and the tendency of the 

shales of the Vandever Formation to prevent infiltration and direct groundwater discharge to streams.
20 Hydrologic Data for the Obed River Watershed, Tennessee

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Jeffrey C. Hughes and Steven Bakaletz 

of the National Park Service and W. Scott Gain and Michael 

W. Bradley of the U.S. Geological Survey for their support, 

assistance, and input to the study and this report. The National 

Park Service and the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency 

provided the support necessary to establish, reactivate, and 

maintain continuous-record gaging stations on the Obed River, 

Clear Creek, and Daddys Creek.

References

Arnwine, D.H., Sparks, K.J., and James, R.R., 2006, Probabilistic monitoring of streams below small impoundments 

in Tennessee: Tennessee Department of Environment 

and Conservation, 276 p.

Bohac, C.E., and McCall, M.J., 2008, Water use in the Tennessee Valley for 2005 and projected use in 2030: Tennessee Valley Authority, 100 p., variously paged.

Bradfield, A.D., 1986a, Benthic invertebrate population characteristics as affected by water quality in coal-bearing 

regions of Tennessee: U.S. Geological Survey WaterResources Investigations Report 85–4227, 19 p.

Bradfield, A.D., 1986b, Evaluation of coal-mining impacts 

using numerical classification of benthic invertebrate 

data from streams draining a heavily mined basin in 

eastern Tennessee: U.S. Geological Survey WaterResources Investigations Report 85–4289, 59 p.

Brahana, J.V., Macy, J.A., Mulderink, D.M., and Zemo, D.A., 

1986, Preliminary delineation and description of the 

regional aquifers of Tennessee—Cumberland Plateau aquifer system: U.S. Geological Survey WaterResources Investigations/Open-File Report 82–338, 

24 p.

Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, 1976a, Obed River, Tennessee, Wild and Scenic River study: U.S. Department of 

Interior, 119 p.

Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, 1976b, Final environmental impact statement, proposed Obed National Wild 

and Scenic River, Tennessee: U.S. Department of the 

Interior, 384 p.

Burkett, Virginia, Ritschard, Ronald, McNulty, Steven, 

O’Brien, J.J., Abt, Robert, Jones, James, Hatch, Upton, 

Murray, Brian, Jagtap, Shrikant, and Cruise, Jim, 

2001, Potential consequences of climate variability 

and change for the southeastern United States, chap. 5 

of National Assessment Synthesis Team, U.S. Global 

Change Research Program, Climate change impacts on 

the United States—The potential consequences of climate variability and change—Foundation: Cambridge, 

UK, Cambridge University Press, p. 137–164.

Center for Business and Economic Research, 2014, Population 

of the United States, Tennessee and Tennessee counties by decennial census years—1790 to 1990: Knoxville, Tennessee, Center for Business and Economic 

Research, College of Business Administration, University of Tennessee, accessed April 9, 2014, at http://cber.

bus.utk.edu/census/1790pop.xls.

Douglas, E.M., Vogel, R.M., and Kroll, C.N., 2000, Trends 

in floods and low flows in the United States—Impact 

of spatial correlation: Journal of Hydrology, v. 240, 

p. 90–105.

Easterling, D.R., Evans, J.L., Groisman, P.Y., Karl, T.R., Kunkel, K.E., and Ambenje, P., 2000, Observed variability 

and trends in extreme climate events—A brief review: 

Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, v. 81, 

no. 3, p. 417–426.

Evenson, E.J., Orndorff, R.C., Blome, C.D., Böhlke, J.K., 

Hershberger, P.K., Langenheim, V.E., McCabe, G.J., 

Morlock, S.E., Reeves, H.W., Verdin, J.P., Weyers, 

H.S., and Wood, T.M., 2013, U.S. Geological Survey 

water science strategy—Observing, understanding, predicting, and delivering water science to the Nation: U.S. 

Geological Survey Circular 1383–G, 49 p.

Forester, D.E., Mayr, M., Yeager, B.L., and Gardner, K., 1998, 

Obed Wild and Scenic River water resources management plan: Tennessee Valley Authority, 199 p.

Gaydos, M.W., and others, 1982, Hydrology of Area 19, 

Eastern Coal Province, Tennessee: U.S. Geological 

Survey Water-Resources Investigations/Open-File 

Report 81–901, 75 p.

Goodfred, D.W., 2006, Characterization of benthic macroinvertebrate communities within the Emory River 

Watershed, Tennessee: Cookeville, Tennessee, Tennessee Technological University, M.S. thesis, 225 p.

Goodwin, W.A., 1981, Compilation of small dams in Tennessee: Cookeville, Tennessee, Tennessee Technological 

University, M.S. thesis [variously paged].

Gore, J.A., Hughes, J.D., Jr., and Swartley, W.A., 1982, A 

survey of benthic macroinvertebrates of streams of coal 

surface mining areas of the Cumberland Plateau in Tennessee—Final report: Cookeville, Tennessee, Tennessee 

Cooperative Fishery Research Unit, Tennessee Technological University, 2 v. [variously paged].

Gottfried, P.K., Bales, J.D., and Precious, T.W., 1984, The 

influence of coal surface mining on the aquatic environment of the Cumberland Plateau: Washington, D.C., 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA-600/7-84-

043, 189 p.

Griffith, G.E., Omernik, J.M., and Azevedo, S., 1997, Ecoregions of Tennessee: Corvallis, Oregon, NHREEL, Western Ecological Division, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, EPA/600/R-97/022, 51 p.

Groisman, P.Y., and Easterling, D.R., 1994, Variability and 

trends of total precipitation and snowfall over the 

United States and Canada: Journal of Climatology, v. 7, 

no. 1, p. 184–205.
References 21

Groisman, P.Y., Knight, R.W., and Karl, T.R., 2001, Heavy 

precipitation and high streamflow in the contiguous 

United States—Trends in the 20th century: Bulletin of 

the American Meteorological Society, v. 82, no. 2, 

p. 219–246.

Hardeman, W.D., 1966, Geologic map of Tennessee, EastCentral Sheet: Tennessee Division of Geology, 

1:250,000.

Hutson, S.S., 1999, Public water-supply systems and associated water use in Tennessee, 1995: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 99–4052, 

91 p.

Hutson, S.S., and Morris, A.J., 1992, Public water-supply 

systems and water use in Tennessee, 1988: U.S. 

Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations 

Report 91–4195, 74 p.

Johnson, R.C., and Luther, E.T., 1972, Strippable coal in the 

northern Cumberland Plateau area of Tennessee: Tennessee Division of Geology Report of Investigations 

No. 34, 41 p., 1 pl.

Karl, T.R., and Knight, R.W., 1998, Secular trends of precipitation amount, frequency, and intensity in the USA: 

Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, v. 79, 

no. 2, p. 231–241.

Karl, T.R., Knight, R.W., Easterling, D.R., and Quayle, R.G., 

1996, Indices of climate change for the United States: 

Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, v. 77, 

no. 2, p. 279–292.

Keith, A., 1897, Wartburg folio, Tennessee: Geologic atlas of 

the United States, folio 4 p., 4 pls.

Law, G.S., Tasker, G.D., and Ladd, D.E., 2009, Streamflowcharacteristic estimation methods for unregulated 

streams of Tennessee: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific 

Investigations Report 2009–5159, 212 p., 1 pl.

Lettenmaier, D.P., Wood, E.F., and Wallis, J.R., 1994, 

Hydro-climatological trends in the continental United 

States, 1948–88: Journal of Climatology, v. 7, no. 4, 

p. 586–607.

Lins, H.F., 2005, Streamflow trends in the United States: U.S. 

Geological Survey Fact Sheet 2005–3017, 3 p.

Lins, H.F., and Slack, J.R., 1999, Streamflow trends in the 

United States: Geophysical Research Letters, v. 26, 

no. 2, p. 227–230.

Luther, E.T., 1959, The coal reserves of Tennessee: Tennessee 

Division of Geology Bulletin 63, 294 p.

McCabe, G.J., and Wolock, D.M., 2002, A step increase in 

streamflow in the conterminous United States: Geophysical Research Letters, v. 29, no. 24, p. 2185–2189.

Milici, R.C., 1968, The physiography of Sequatchie Valley and 

adjacent portions of the Cumberland Plateau, Tennessee: Tennessee Division of Geology Report of Investigations No. 22 reprinted from Southeastern Geology, 

v. 8, no. 4, p. 179–193.

Minear, R.A., and Tschantz, B.A., 1976, The effect of coal surface mining on the water quality of mountain drainage 

basin streams: Journal of the Water Pollution Control 

Federation, v. 48, no. 11, p. 2549–2569.

 National Climatic Data Center, 2014, Data tools—Find a 

station: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, accessed May 9, 2014, at http://www.ncdc.noaa.

gov/cdo-web/datatools/findstation.

National Park Service, 1978, Addendum to the final environmental impact statement, Obed Wild and Scenic River, 

Tennessee: National Park Service, Denver Service 

Center, 59 p.

National Park Service, 1993, Resource Management Plan, 

Southeast Region—Obed Wild and Scenic River: 

National Park Service Denver Service Center, 1 v. 

[variously paged].

National Park Service, 1995, Obed Wild and Scenic River—

General Management Plan, Development Concept Plan, 

Environmental Impact Statement: National Park Service 

Denver Service Center, 161 p.

National Park Service, 1999, Baseline water quality data 

inventory and analysis—Obed Wild and Scenic River: 

National Park Service Technical Report NPS/NRWRD/

NRTR-98/200, 727 p., accessed November 4, 2010, at 

http://www.nature.nps.gov/water/horizon.cfm.

National Park Service, 2004, Obed Wild and Scenic River 

inventory and conversion of surface-water impoundments: prepared by University of Tennessee, Chattanooga, 6 p., 2 CDs.

Pennington, W., and Estes, R.D., 1980, Benthic populations of 

thirty three stream locations draining coal reserves of 

Tennessee—Final report: Cookeville, Tennessee, Tennessee Cooperative Fishery Research Unit, Tennessee 

Technological University [variously paged].

Pringle, C.M., 2000, Threats to U.S. public lands from cumulative hydrologic alterations outside of their boundaries: 

Ecological Applications, v. 10, no. 4, p. 971–989.

Robinson, J.A., and Brooks, J.M., 2010, Public water-supply 

systems and associated water use in Tennessee, 2005: 

U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2010–1226, 

100 p.

Russ, W.T., II, 2006, Current distribution and seasonal habitat 

use of the threatened spotfin chub in the Emory River 

Watershed: Cookeville, Tennessee, Tennessee Technological University, M.S. thesis, 163 p.

Smith, S.V., Renwick, W.H., Bartley, J.D., and Buddemeier, 

R.W., 2002, Distribution and significance of small, artificial water bodies across the United States landscape: 

Science of the Total Environment: v. 299, no. 1–3, 

p. 21–36, accessed May 7, 2014, at http://dx.doi.

org/10.1016/S0048-9697(02)00222-X.

Stearns, R.G., 1954, The Cumberland Plateau overthrust and 

geology of the Crab Orchard Mountains area, Tennessee: Tennessee Division of Geology Bulletin 60, 47 p.

Tennessee Valley Authority, 1954, Engineering data for TVA 

water control projects: Technical Monograph No. 55, 

v. 1, 32 chap.

Tennessee Valley Authority, 1958, The occurrence of drought 

in the Tennessee Valley: Report No. T 58-2 AE, 58 p.
22 Hydrologic Data for the Obed River Watershed, Tennessee

Tennessee Valley Authority, 1960, Supplemental flood histories for Emory & Obed Rivers and Clear & Daddy 

Creeks, Nemo Project: Report No. 0-6082, 100 p., 9 pl.

Tennessee Valley Authority, 1970, Drainage areas for streams 

in Tennessee River Basin: Report No. 0-5829-R-2, 

116 p.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1930, House Document 328, 

71st Congress, 2nd Session, 734 p., 199 pl.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1998, Cumberland County 

regional water supply: Preliminary Engineering Report 

[variously paged].

U.S. Geological Survey, 1913, Topographic quadrangle Crossville edition of Nov. 1912, scale: 1/62,500, 20-foot 

contour interval, 1 sheet.

Webbers, A., 2003, Public water-supply systems and associated water use in Tennessee, 2000: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 03–4264, 

90 p.

Wilson, C.W., Jr., Jewell, J.W., and Luther, E.T., 1956, Pennsylvanian geology of the Cumberland Plateau: Tennessee Division of Geology Folio, 21 p.

Wilson, J.M., 1965, Ground water resources and geology of 

Cumberland County, Tennessee: Tennessee Division of 

Water Resources, 56 p.

Wolfe, W.J., Evans, J.P., McCarthy, S., Gain, W.S., and Bryan, 

B.A., 2003, Tree-regeneration and mortality patterns 

and hydrologic change in a forested karst wetland—

Sinking Pond, Arnold Air Force Base, Tennessee: U.S. 

Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations 

Report, 53 p.

Wolfe, W.J., Fitch, K.C., and Ladd, D.E., 2007, Alluvial 

bars of the Obed Wild and Scenic River, Tennessee: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations 

Map 2007–2972, 1 sheet.

For additional information regarding this publication, contact:

Director

USGS Tennessee Water Science Center

640 Grassmere Park, Suite 100

Nashville, TN 37211

Or visit the USGS Tennessee Water Science Center Web site at:

http://tn.water.usgs.gov 

Edited and prepared by:

USGS Science Publishing Network

Raleigh Publishing Service Center
Appendix 1 23

Appendix 1. Synoptic data for the Obed River watershed, Tennessee, 2003–2005. 

[See table 5 for site descriptions and locations; Q, discharge, in cubic feet per second; (D), month and day of observation; K, specific conductance, in microsiemens 

per centimeter at 25 degrees Celsius; T, water temperature, in degrees Celsius; –, not observed]

Site no. 

(from 

figure 3)

Date and observation

High baseflow

7/14 –16/2003 5/10–12/2004 8/9–10/2004 6/6–7/2005

Q (D) K T Q (D) K T Q (D) K T Q (D) K T

Obed River watershed synoptic sites

1 0.87 (7/15) 66 21.9 – – – 1.1 (8/9) 46 18.8 – – –

2 0.26 (7/15) 73 17 – – – – – – – – –

3 0.38 (7/15) 64 25.3 – – – 0.02 – – – – –

4 – – 5.4 (5/12) 43 15.6 1.2 (8/9) 47 19.1 – – –

5 1.93 (7/14) 64 12.7 6.4 (5/11) 51 17.4 1.9 (8/10) 61 16.9 – – –

6 4.4 (7/14) 80 21.1 9.4 (5/11) 59 16.5 4.2 (8/9) 75 18.8 – – –

7 1.2 (7/15) 114 16.7 0.83 (5/11) 74 18.1 0.29 (8/9) 107 18.6 – – –

8 22.1 (7/15) 32 18.3 7.7 (5/10) 30 16.3 2.9 (8/9) 34 16.7 2.4 (6/6) 32 18.4

9 23.4 (7/15) 49 20.4 17.8 (5/10) 30 17.5 7.5 (8/9) 38 17.3 5.2 (6/6) 35 19

10 24.4 (7/15) 35 20.4 19.3 (5/10) 32 17.8 – – – – – –

11 22.4 (7/15) 25 18.1 4.8 (5/10) 27 16.6 2 (8/9) 31 17.7 1.3 (6/6) 32 20

12 2.3 (7/14) 162 21.4 5.5 (5/11) 141 18.3 1.4 (8/10) 191 20.5 2.2 (6/7) 220 19.4

13 2.4 (7/14) 68 13.6 3.5 (5/11) 69 18.2 0.78 (8/10) 91 18.9 – – –

14 3.3 (7/14) 66 13 – – – 0.76 (8/10) 73 18.3 3.7 (6/7) 63 19.6

15 1.1 (7/16) 32 20 3.2 (5/10) 24 14.9 0.21 (8/9) 31 16.3 1.2 (6/6) 25 19.3

16 0.73 (7/16) 26 19.6 3.9 (5/10) 24 14.3 0.8 (8/9) 30 16.5 1 (6/6) 23 17.7

17 3.7 (7/16) 83 23 8.4 (5/12) 56 17.3 0.74 (8/10) – – 3 (6/7) 62 19

18 2.2 (7/14) 43 20.1 1.5 (5/11) 41 17.2 0.57 (8/10) 54 18.2 0.57 (6/6) – –

19 1.2 (7/14) 30 21.5 1.4 (5/11) 28 16.7 0.22 (8/10) 33 18 0.26 (6/6) – –

20 4.1 (7/14) 38 21 4 (5/11) 36 17.9 1.4 (8/10) 48 19.5 1.1 (6/6) – –

21 1.5 (7/14) 66 21.3 2.4 (5/11) 50 17.7 1 (8/10) 66 18.9 0.57 (6/6) – –

22 4 (7/14) 80 23.7 6.5 (5/11) 63 19.5 1.8 (8/10) 74 20.9 1.4 (6/6) – –

23 4.5 (7/14) 75 23.2 3.3 (5/11) 76 19.5 0.77 (8/10) 88 22.4 0.48 (6/6) – –

24 7.5 (7/15) 109 22.5 12.2 (5/11) 106 18.2 2.6 (8/10) 143 21.6 2.6 (6/7) – –

25 1.2 (7/15) 100 22 5.1 (5/11) 97 18.1 0.72 (8/10) 106 19.5 1.8 (6/7) – –

26 2.3 (7/15) 109 21.1 4.1 (5/11) 87 17.4 0.3 (8/10) 132 18.3 0.73 (6/7) – –

27 10.4 (7/15) 54 19.8 5.3 (5/11) 251 15.3 1.1 (8/9) 148 18.8 1.5 (6/7) 184 18.7

Obed River watershed index sites

28 59 (7/14) – – 72 (5/10) – – 26 (8/9) – – 27 (6/6) – –

47 (7/15) – – 70 (5/11) – – 21 (8/10) – – 25 (6/7) – –

38 (7/16) – – 62 (5/12) – – – – – – – –

29 252 (7/14) – – 84 (5/10) – – 36 (8/9) – – 36 (6/6) – –

139 (7/15) – – 104 (5/11) – – 30 (8/10) – – 62 (6/7) – –

98 (7/16) – – 106 (5/12) – – – – – – – –

30 420 (7/14) – – 306 (5/10) – – 90 (8/9) – – 137 (6/6) – –

250 (7/15) – – 311 (5/11) – – 71 (8/10) – – 119 (6/7) – –

179 (7/16) – – 315 (5/12) – – – – – – – –
24 Hydrologic Data for the Obed River Watershed, Tennessee

Appendix 1. Synoptic data for the Obed River watershed, Tennessee, 2003–2005.—Continued 

[See table 5 for site descriptions and locations; Q, discharge, in cubic feet per second; (D), month and day of observation; 

K, specific conductance, in microsiemens per centimeter at 25 degrees Celsius; T, water temperature, in degrees Celsius; 

–, not observed]

Site no. 

(from 

figure 3)

Date and observation

Low baseflow

6/22–23/2005 9/12–13/2005 11/1/2005, 11/2/2005, 11/4/2005

Q (D) K T Q (D) K T Q (D) K T

Obed River watershed synoptic sites

1 – – – – – – – – –

2 – – – – – – – – –

3 0 (6/23) – – – – – – – –

4 0.54 (6/23) 50 21.8 – – – – – –

5 1 (6/23) – – 0.1 (9/13) 99 20.3 0.93 (11/2) 94 10.9

6 2.5 (6/23) 75 20.2 0.5 (9/13) 97 18.9 0.46 (11/2) 107 11.3

7 0.02 (6/23) 144 18.1 0.03 (9/13) – – 0.03 (11/2) 173 10.2

8 0.35 (6/22) 34 18.4 – – – – – –

9 1.2 (6/22) 41 19.2 0.14 (9/12) 42 19.5 0.12 (11/1) 84 7.2

10 – – – – – – – – –

11 0.3 (6/22) 38 19.6 0.09 (9/12) 52 19.8 0.02 (11/1) 69 8.2

12 1.2 (6/23) – – 0.84 (9/13) 186 18.5 0.48 (11/2) 369 11.8

13 0.14 (6/23) 118 19 0.04 (9/13) 209 19.1 0.04 (11/2) 177 10.8

14 0.39 (6/23) 70 21.2 – – – 0.02 (11/2) 144 12.8

15 0.26 (6/22) 30 19.1 0.07 (9/12) 46 19.7 0.04 (11/1) 52 9.1

16 0.29 (6/22) 26 17.4 0.001 (9/12) – – 0.001 (11/1) – –

17 1.9 (6/22) 65 19.3 1.1 (9/12) 79 18.8 0.89 (11/1) 88 9.4

18 0.13 (6/22) – – 0.02 (9/13) – – 0.06 (11/4) 62 9.1

19 0.01 (6/22) – – 0.01 (9/13) – – 0.06 (11/4) 40 10.2

20 0.39 (6/22) – – 0.04 (9/13) – – 0.04 (11/4) 59 10.9

21 0.11 (6/22) – – 0.04 (9/13) – – 0.18 (11/4) 74 9.7

22 0.74 (6/22) – – 0.59 (9/13) – – 0.73 (11/4) 92 10.4

23 0.32 (6/22) – – 0.22 (9/13) – – 0.15 (11/4) 111 10.5

24 1.1 (6/22) – – 0.46 (9/13) – – – – –

25 0.27 (6/23) – – 0.26 (9/13) 83 19.1 0.14 (11/1) 124 9.7

26 0.22 (6/23) – – 0.2 (9/13) 139 18.2 0.14 (11/2) 140 7.8

27 0.78 (6/23) – – 1.1 (9/13) – – 0.14 (11/2) 227 8.6

Obed River watershed index sites

28 11 (6/22) – – 11 (9/12) – – 5.7 (11/1) – –

9.9 (6/23) – – 9.4 (9/13) – – 5.4 (11/2) – –

– – – – – – 4.8 (11/4) – –

29 14 (6/22) – – 4 (9/12) – – 1.6 (11/1) – –

13 (6/23) – – 3.4 (9/13) – – 1.7 (11/2) – –

– – – – – – 1.4 (11/4) – –

30 45 (6/22) – – 22 (9/12) – – 12 (11/1) – –

40 (6/23) – – 21 (9/13) – – 11 (11/2) – –

– – – – – – 11 (11/4) – –

Knight, Wolfe, and Law—Hydrologic Data for the Obed River Watershed, Tennessee—Open-File Report 2014–1102

ISSN 0196-1497 (print)

ISSN 2331-1258 (online)

http://dx.doi.org/10.3133/ofr20141102

Printed on recycled paper