U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey

Open-File Report 2017–1147

Prepared in cooperation with the City of Sevierville and Tennessee Department of 

Environment and Conservation

Groundwater/Surface-Water Interaction in Central Sevier 

County, Tennessee, October 2015–2016
Cover. Whirlpool in the West Prong Little Pigeon River at Sevierville, Tennessee, downstream of the Collier Drive Bridge. Photograph 

by Bryon W. Fortner, Public Works Director, City of Sevierville, Tennessee, used with permission.
Groundwater/Surface-Water Interaction in Central 

Sevier County, Tennessee, October 2015–2016 

By John K. Carmichael and Gregory C. Johnson

Prepared in cooperation with the City of Sevierville and Tennessee Department 

of Environment and Conservation

Open-File Report 2017–1147

U.S. Department of the Interior

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

RYAN K. ZINKE, Secretary

U.S. Geological Survey

William H. Werkheiser, Acting Director

U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2017

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://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:

Carmichael, J.K., and Johnson, G.C., 2017, Groundwater/surface-water interaction in central Sevier County, 

Tennessee, October 2015–2016: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2017–1147, 22 p., https://doi.org/10.3133/

ofr20171147.

ISSN 2331-1258 (online)
iii

Acknowledgments

The authors gratefully acknowledge Bryon Fortner, Public Works Director, City of Sevierville; 

Ronnie Bowers, Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation; and Todd Hughes, 

Environmental Management and Engineering, for their cooperation and assistance with all 

phases of the investigation.
iv

Contents

Acknowledgments........................................................................................................................................iii

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

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

Purpose and Scope ..............................................................................................................................1

Previous Investigations........................................................................................................................2

Study Area.......................................................................................................................................................2

Geology and Hydrogeology.................................................................................................................3

Methods...........................................................................................................................................................5

Stream Base Flow .........................................................................................................................................5

Potentiometric-Surface Map.....................................................................................................................16

Groundwater and Surface-Water Interaction ........................................................................................16

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

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

Figures

1. Map showing location of the study area in Sevier County, Tennessee...............................3

2. Map showing generalized geology in the study area in Sevier County, Tennessee................4

3. Hydrographs showing streamflow in the Little Pigeon River at Sevierville, TN, 

and periods of streamflow surveys for October 1, 2015, through October 31, 2016; 

December 10–20, 2015; and July 15–25, 2016...........................................................................5

4. Map showing streamflow measurement locations and streamflow values, Sevier 

County, Tennessee, December 15–16, 2015..............................................................................9

5. Map showing streamflow measurement locations and streamflow values, Sevier 

County, Tennessee, July 19–20, 2016.......................................................................................14

6. Map showing streamflow measurement locations on the West Prong Little Pigeon 

River near two whirlpools and the measured streamflow values, Sevier County, 

Tennessee, October 19–20, 2016 ..............................................................................................15

7. Potentiometric-surface map showing well control and surface-water measurement 

locations and streamflow values, Sevier County, Tennessee, July 19–26, 2016 ..............18

Tables

1. Streamflow measurements at three streams in Sevier County, Tennessee, 

December 15–16, 2015 .................................................................................................................7

2. Streamflow measurements at three streams in Sevier County, Tennessee, 

July and October 2016................................................................................................................10

3. Wells and water-level measurements in Sevier County, Tennessee, 

July 19–26, 2016...........................................................................................................................17
v

Conversion Factors

U.S. customary units to International System of Units

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

square mile (mi2

) 2.590 square kilometer (km2)

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)

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

Datum

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).

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

Abbreviations

TDEC Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation

USGS U.S. Geological Survey

Groundwater/Surface-Water Interaction in Central Sevier 

County, Tennessee, October 2015–2016

By John K. Carmichael and Gregory C. Johnson

Abstract

The U.S. Geological Survey evaluated the interaction of 

groundwater and surface water in the central part of Sevier 

County, Tennessee, from October 2015 through October 2016. 

Stream base flow was surveyed in December 2015 and in 

July and October 2016 to evaluate losing and gaining stream 

reaches along three streams in the area. During a July 2016 

synoptic survey, groundwater levels were measured in wells 

screened in the Cambrian-Ordovician aquifer to define the 

potentiometric surface in the area. The middle and lower 

reaches of the Little Pigeon River and the middle reaches of 

Middle Creek and the West Prong Little Pigeon River were 

gaining streams at base-flow conditions. The lower segments 

of the West Prong Little Pigeon River and Middle Creek were 

losing reaches under base-flow conditions, with substantial 

flow losses in the West Prong Little Pigeon River and complete subsurface diversion of flow in Middle Creek through a 

series of sinkholes that developed in the streambed and adjacent flood plain beginning in 2010. The potentiometric surface 

of the Cambrian-Ordovician aquifer showed depressed water 

levels in the area where loss of flow occurred in the lower 

reaches of West Prong Little Pigeon River and Middle Creek. 

Continuous dewatering activities at a rock quarry located in 

this area appear to have lowered groundwater levels by as 

much as 180 feet, which likely is the cause of flow losses 

observed in the two streams, and a contributing factor to the 

development of sinkholes at Middle Creek near Collier Drive. 

Introduction

Sevier County in East Tennessee lies along the transition from the metamorphic rocks of the Blue Ridge Physiographic Province (Fenneman, 1938) to the carbonates and 

shale formations of the Ridge and Valley Physiographic 

Province (Fenneman, 1938). The variable aquifer characteristics and groundwater and surface-water interactions along 

this transition zone can affect the water resources and water 

availability to support public water supplies, domestic wells, 

and ecological flows. In locations where the geologic units of 

the Ridge and Valley are limestone or dolomite, the transition 

zone can be prone to sinkhole development, especially in areas 

where the hydrology has been altered by land-use changes, 

construction, or dewatering. In 2010, a series of sinkholes 

began forming in the channel of Middle Creek beneath and 

upstream from the bridge constructed in 2007 across Middle 

Creek on Collier Drive in Sevierville, Sevier County, Tennessee. 

A dye-trace investigation was conducted in 2014 by GEOServices, 

which identified a hydraulic connection between the sinkholes 

at Middle Creek and the discharge from dewatering activities 

at a rock quarry located about 0.5 mile northwest of the sinkholes (GEOS, 2014). After streambed stabilization measures 

failed to stop sinkhole formation, the Tennessee Department 

of Environment and Conservation (TDEC) contacted the U.S. 

Geological Survey (USGS) in June 2015 for assistance in 

evaluating potential hydrologic causes for the streambed instability. To this end, the USGS proposed a study in the central 

part of Sevier County consisting of stream base-flow surveys 

to evaluate groundwater/surface-water interaction and a synoptic survey of groundwater levels measured in wells screened 

in the Cambrian-Ordovician aquifer to define the potentiometric surface in the area. The geologic and hydrologic conditions 

encountered during construction of the Collier Drive Bridge 

and the stabilization efforts for the initial and ongoing sinkhole formation were not evaluated as part of this investigation. 

The reconnaissance of surface-water and groundwater hydrology was conducted in cooperation with the City of Sevierville 

and TDEC. 

Purpose and Scope

This report presents the results of a study of the surfacewater and groundwater hydrology along the transition from 

metamorphic rocks of the Blue Ridge province to the carbonate 

rocks of the Ridge and Valley province in central Sevier County, 

Tennessee, from October 2015 through October 2016.

Included in the report are discussions of (1) the results of stream 

base-flow surveys on specific reaches of the three primary 

drainages in the study area: the Little Pigeon River, the West 

Prong Little Pigeon River, and Middle Creek; (2) development 
2 Groundwater/Surface-Water Interaction in Central Sevier County, Tennessee, October 2015–2016 

of a potentiometric-surface map for the Cambrian-Ordovician 

aquifer in the area between the West Prong Little Pigeon River 

and the Little Pigeon River; and (3) groundwater/surfacewater interaction and the effect of dewatering on groundwater 

levels and streamflow in the study area. The study meets the 

science plan goals of the USGS Lower Mississippi-Gulf Water 

Science Center and the USGS Water Mission Area to support 

State water-resources programs through collecting, interpreting, and disseminating quality-assured, nonbiased hydrologic 

data to better understand the water resources of the Nation, 

evaluate groundwater and surface-water interaction, and 

provide information on environmental hazards, including land 

subsidence and sinkhole collapse (USGS, 2007). 

Previous Investigations

The groundwater resources of East Tennessee were 

described by DeBuchananne and Richardson (1956). The 

groundwater hydrology along the transition from metamorphic 

rocks of the Blue Ridge Physiographic Province to carbonate 

rocks of the Ridge and Valley Physiographic Province and 

the presence of colluvial and alluvial gravel at the base of 

the metamorphic rocks and, in places, overlying the carbonate rocks, have been studied at several locations including 

Elkton, Virginia (King, 1950); the Shenandoah Valley (Yager 

and others, 2008); Elizabethton, Tennessee (Maclay, 1963); 

Gatlinburg, Tennessee (Zurawski, 1979); Erwin, Tennessee 

(Bradfield, 1994); Calhoun County, Alabama (Scott and others, 1987; Kidd, 2001); and as part of regional groundwater 

studies (Hollyday and Hileman, 1996; Hollyday and others, 

1997; Swain and others, 2004). 

The geology of East Tennessee, including the study area, 

was compiled and described by Rodgers (1953). Hamilton 

(1961) and King (1964) mapped parts of the study area at a 

scale of 1:24,000. Various sources of geologic information 

for East Tennessee were compiled and mapped at a scale of 

1:250,000 by Hardeman and others (1966). Southworth and 

others (2012) compiled and updated the geology of the Great 

Smoky Mountains National Park region, including most of the 

study area, and provided a detailed summary of geologic studies conducted in the region. A generalized version of the geology presented by Southworth and others (2012) was adapted 

for use in this report.

The USGS has conducted multiple base-flow surveys to 

evaluate groundwater/surface-water interaction in Middle and 

East Tennessee as part of various water-resources investigations. Evaldi and Lewis (1983) conducted base-flow analysis 

of streams in the Sweetwater Valley, Tennessee area, as part 

of a groundwater availability study. Webster and Carmichael 

(1993) conducted a base-flow investigation of the principal 

streams in southeastern Hamilton County as part of a study 

of the groundwater hydrology of the Lower Wolftever Creek 

basin. Base-flow data were collected from within the Little 

West Fork basin at Fort Campbell Military Reservation, 

Tennessee and Kentucky (Ladd, 1993), and in the BradleyBrumalow Creeks area near Arnold Air Force Base, Tennessee 

(Aycock and Haugh, 2001), as part of groundwater studies in 

these areas. Knight and Kingsbury (2007) conducted baseflow synoptic surveys of the Duck River watershed in Tennessee as part of a study to characterize the temporal and spatial 

variability of the various components that make up streamflow 

in the basin. 

Sinkhole development related to dewatering, especially 

in karst settings, has been documented in various publications 

(Foose, 1953, 1969; Newton, 1976, 1987; LaMoreaux and 

Newton, 1986; Langer, 2001; Lolcama and others, 2002; 

Reeves and others, 2004). Langer (2001) published a literature 

review of the potential environmental impacts of quarrying 

stone in karst settings, including a number of cases where 

sinkholes formed near mines with large groundwater withdrawals. Limestone aggregate quarries have been associated 

with sinkhole development in karst terrain where blasting and 

groundwater extraction serve to reactivate and enhance karst 

development, and the potential for sinkhole formation can 

occur by any combination of processes that remove sediment 

and water from pre-existing caverns and focus surface water 

into the soil (Lolcama and others, 2002). Foose (1953, 1969) 

describes the impact of a mining operation near Harrisburg, 

Pennsylvania, and the development of a cone of depression 

in groundwater levels over a large area, affecting wells and 

spring flow, and causing the formation of about 100 sinkholes. 

The author states that sinkholes developed where the original 

water table was below the bedrock/soil contact as a consequence of flushing out underlying bedrock openings during 

groundwater lowering. LaMoreaux and Newton (1986) state 

that construction activities in an area of water-level decline 

can greatly increase the chances for the development of 

induced sinkholes. The development of sinkholes along transportation corridors and resulting from human activities in the 

eastern United States is described by Newton (1987).

Study Area

The study area is located in central Sevier County, Tennessee, which includes parts of the cities of Sevierville and 

Pigeon Forge (fig. 1), and lies within parts of the Ridge and 

Valley and Blue Ridge provinces. Sevier County ranked in the 

top 10 counties in Tennessee for percent population growth 

from 2010 to 2016 and ranked 11th in Tennessee in terms of 

net population growth for the same period with a population 

increase from 89,889 in 2010 to an estimated population of 

96,673 in 2016 (Tennessee State Data Center, 2017). The population growth in Sevier County has resulted in new construction and infrastructure improvement. The study area includes 

the middle and lower reaches of the West Prong Little Pigeon 

River, the middle reaches of the Little Pigeon River, and all of 

Middle Creek, and the southernmost extent of the area lies just 

north of the Great Smoky Mountains National Park (fig. 1). A 

land-use feature present in the study area that can impact the 
Study Area 3

water resources is a limestone aggregate rock quarry located 

in Sevierville between Middle Creek and the West Prong Little 

Pigeon River (fig. 1). Continuous dewatering is required for 

quarry operations with the water discharged into the West 

Prong Little Pigeon River upstream of the confluence with the 

Little Pigeon River. 

Geology and Hydrogeology

Although highly complex, the bedrock geology within 

the study area can be divided into two general groups. In the 

northern part of the study area that lies within the Ridge and 

Valley province, the bedrock geology consists primarily of 

carbonate and shale units of Cambrian through Ordovician 

age, with some Mississippian age units, that generally strike 

northeast and dip southeast, although strike and dips vary 

where structural deformation of beds has occurred (fig. 2). In 

the southern part of the area, the bedrock geology consists primarily of structurally deformed metamorphic and crystalline 

rocks of Precambrian age within the Blue Ridge province. 

Bedrock units throughout the study area have been 

altered and deformed by tectonic forces responsible for 

structural and geomorphic formation of the Blue Ridge and 

Ridge and Valley provinces. Prominent structural features in 

the study area include the Great Smoky fault (fig. 2), which 

marks the leading edge of a thrust block where bedrock units 

of Precambrian age have been pushed northwestward up and 

over rocks of Ordovician age (Southworth and others, 2012). 

In the central part of the study area, folding of rock units 

northwest of the Great Smoky fault by the advancing block 

formed a prominent northeast-trending anticlinal-synclinal 

complex (Fair Garden anticline, fig. 2), where older units of 

the Knox Group of Cambrian-Ordovician age are exposed 

along the axis of the anticline and are surrounded by progressively younger units in down-dip directions.

Surficial geology in the study area primarily consists of 

alluvium of Quaternary age in the valleys of the West Prong 

Little Pigeon River, Middle Creek, and the Little Pigeon River 

(fig. 2). Quaternary colluvial material weathered from the 

metamorphic rocks also is present in several of the smaller 

tributaries (fig. 2). The materials composing the alluvial 

and colluvial deposits primarily are weathered from the 

metamorphic rocks, with similar deposits described for the 

Gatlinburg area by Zurawski (1979).

SWAIN 

NORTH CAROLINA

COCKE

JEFFERSON

KNOX

SEVIER

BLOUNT

RIDGE AND VALLEY 

PHYSIOGRAPHIC PROVINCE Sevierville

Pigeon

BLUE RIDGE PHYSIOGRAPHIC Forge

PROVINCE

Study area

Pigeon River

Prong Little

GREAT SMOKY MOUNTAINS 

NATIONAL PARK

Middle

Creek

Pigeon River Little

GREAT SMOKY MOUNTAINS 

NATIONAL PARK

RIDGE AND VALLEY 

PHYSIOGRAPHIC PROVINCE

BLUE RIDGE PHYSIOGRAPHIC

PROVINCE

TENNESSEE Study area

EXPLANATION

Study area

Physiographic province boundary

Great Smoky Mountains National

Park boundary

Base from National Geographic Society, 2013

SWAIN 

NORTH CAROLINA

COCKE

JEFFERSON

KNOX

SEVIER

BLOUNT

Sevierville

Pigeon

Forge

83°45' 83°30' 83°15'

36°

35°45'

Pigeon 

West Prong Little

River

0 7.5 15 MILES

0 7.5 15 KILOMETERS

Figure 1. 

Quarry, upper pond

Quarry, lower pond

1

2

1 2

Figure 1. Location of the study area in Sevier County, Tennessee.
4 Groundwater/Surface-Water Interaction in Central Sevier County, Tennessee, October 2015–2016 

Bedrock units in the study area make up aquifers that can 

be divided into two primary groups consistent with physiography—the Cambrian through Ordovician rocks that make 

up the Valley and Ridge aquifers, hereafter referred to as the 

Cambrian-Ordovician aquifer, and Precambrian and older 

rocks that make up the Blue Ridge aquifers (Lloyd and Lyke, 

1995). Because the primary porosity of bedrock units that 

make up these aquifers generally is only a few percent or less, 

the aquifers typically yield groundwater in small yet varying 

amounts depending primarily on the degree and interconnectivity of secondary porosity. Secondary porosity has been 

enhanced throughout the area because of the structural deformation of all rock units. Carbonate units within the CambrianOrdovician aquifer are karstic and presumably make up the 

most prolific aquifers in the study area because of the potential 

for these units to contain secondary openings that are dissolution-enlarged by circulating groundwater.

Aquifers in the carbonate units of the Knox Group of 

Cambrian-Ordovician age near Elizabethton, Tennessee, are 

similar to aquifers in the carbonate units near Sevierville, 

Tennessee. The carbonate aquifers near Elizabethton are the 

principal water-bearing formations in the area, and groundwater/surface-water interaction results in recharge to the aquifer 

during high stream stages and discharge of groundwater to 

the streams during low stages (Maclay, 1963). Groundwater 

production for industrial use near Elizabethton was about 

12 million gallons per day during the 1950s, and the withdrawals were believed to be at least partially replenished by 

recharge from the Watauga River (Maclay, 1963). 

The shale units of the Cambrian-Ordovician aquifer 

and the crystalline rocks of the Blue Ridge aquifers are less 

soluble, making them less prone to dissolution-enhanced secondary porosity. Groundwater in the metamorphic rocks in the 

Gatlinburg area occurs primarily in the weathered, fractured, 

upper part of the rocks and in gravel deposits along stream 

valleys (Zurawski, 1979). Therefore, wells completed in the 

metamorphic and crystalline rocks in the southern part of the 

study area typically may be expected to have lower yields 

than wells completed in the primarily carbonate units in the 

northern part of the area. 

Middle Creek West Prong Little Pigeon River

Little Pigeon River

Northern extent of mapped geology by Southworth and others (2012)

80 70

15 15

25

30

25

25

55 50

30

35

20

35

35

25

25

20

20

25

10 35

60 25 45 20

30

30

30

85

45

45

80

65

50

70

45

50

75 30

85

30

30

20

70 45

70 35

30

50

75

25

10

25

30

Fair Garden Anticline

Great Smoky Fault

83°34' 83°28'30"

35°51'30"

35°46'

0 1 2 3 4 MILES 

0 1 2 3 4 KILOMETERS

Geology modified from Southworth

and others, 2012

Base from National Geographic Society, 2013

55

EXPLANATION

Surficial

Contact

Quaternary

Bedrock

Cambrian through Mississippian

Precambrian

Thrust fault—Sawteeth on upper plate

Unclassified fault—Movement unknown

Anticline

Fold

Strike and dip of bedding

Figure 2. Figure 2. Generalized geology in the study area in Sevier County, Tennessee. 
Stream Base Flow 5

Methods

Streamflow measurements for the stream base-flow surveys on specific reaches of the Little Pigeon River, the West 

Prong Little Pigeon River, and Middle Creek were made by 

wading the streams and measuring discharge using handheld 

acoustic Doppler velocimeters (Nolan and Shields, 2000). 

These flow values were compared to the USGS continuous 

streamgage on the Little Pigeon River at Sevierville, TN (station number 03470000) located just downstream of the confluence of the West Prong Little Pigeon River and the Little 

Pigeon River. The streamgage was used to determine when 

base-flow conditions were occurring so that the streamflow 

mostly comprised groundwater discharge to the streams. 

A reconnaissance was conducted to locate wells in 

the Cambrian-Ordovician aquifer where water-level data 

could be collected. Water-level measurements were made in 

34 wells during July 19–26, 2016, coincident with the second streamflow survey. Groundwater levels and well depths 

were measured at domestic wells and observation wells using 

either electric tape or steel tape and chalk methods (Cunningham and Schalk, 2011). Information on the groundwater and 

surface-water sites, water-level measurements, and streamflow 

data included in this report are available through the USGS 

National Water Information System (NWIS) database (U.S. 

Geological Survey, 2017c).

A preliminary potentiometric-surface map of the waterlevel altitude data was prepared in ArcGIS (Esri, 2015) using 

the groundwater levels measured in July 2016 by applying a 

regularized spline interpolation method with a weight of 0.1 

and a 12-point neighborhood to the input data, followed by 

contouring of the interpolated surface. Only the groundwaterlevel data from the well measurements were used in the 

interpolation process. No supplemental surface-water altitude 

data were used to develop the surface. The surface was then 

contoured and the contours were adjusted to more closely 

honor the well control and topography, particularly in the 

stream valleys. Parts of some contours then were dashed to 

show the inferred groundwater altitudes in areas away from 

well control.

Stream Base Flow 

Two stream base-flow surveys were conducted during this 

study. A preliminary survey was conducted in December 2015, 

and an expanded survey was conducted in July 2016. Both 

surveys were completed during base-flow conditions, where 

the recession of flow was relatively steady to ensure minimal 

change of streamflow over the measurement periods (fig. 3). 

Continuous streamflow data collected at the USGS streamgage 

on the Little Pigeon River at Sevierville, TN (station number 

03470000; fig. 4) (U.S. Geological Survey, 2017b) were used 

during the evaluation of streamflow conditions in the area 

prior to and during the surveys to determine base-flow conditions, and general changes in streamflow during the surveys. 

Figure 3. Hydrographs showing streamflow in the Little Pigeon 

River at Sevierville, TN (USGS streamgage 03470000), and 

periods of streamflow surveys for (A) October 1, 2015, through 

October 31, 2016; (B) December 10–20, 2015; and (C) July 15–25, 

2016. [Streamflow data from U.S. Geological Survey (2017b)] 

30

300

3,000

30,000

Date

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1,000

Streamflow, in cubic feet per second Streamflow, in cubic feet per second Streamflow, in cubic feet per second

10/1/201511/1/201510/1/201512/1/2015

1/1/20162/1/20163/1/20164/1/20165/1/20166/1/20167/1/20168/1/20169/1/2016

10/1/2016

Date

12/11/201512/12/201512/13/2015

12/14/201512/15/201512/16/201512/17/201512/18/201512/19/201512/20/2015

Date

7/15/20167/16/20167/17/20167/18/20167/19/20167/20/20167/21/20167/22/20167/23/20167/24/20167/25/2016

Stream base-flow survey

EXPLANATION

12/10/2015

A

B

C
6 Groundwater/Surface-Water Interaction in Central Sevier County, Tennessee, October 2015–2016 

During December 15–16, 2015, streamflow measurements were made at 15 locations along the West Prong Little 

Pigeon River, Middle Creek, and Little Pigeon River (table 1; 

fig. 4). An instantaneous streamflow value recorded at the 

Little Pigeon River at Sevierville, TN streamgage (03470000) 

at 0000 (midnight) on December 16, 2015, was included 

in the measurement dataset as an additional control point. 

Flow in the measured streams generally was characteristic 

of base-flow conditions on the basis of streamflow data from 

the Little Pigeon River streamgage (fig. 3A, B). Data from the 

streamgage show that an increase in streamflow of about 45 cubic 

feet per second (ft3

/s) occurred in the first half of the day on 

December 15, 2015, and a decrease in streamflow of about 

20 ft3

/s occurred near midday on December 16, 2015 (fig. 3B). 

Because there is no record of significant rainfall in the study 

area for several days prior to or during this survey and because 

no changes in inputs or withdrawals of this magnitude on any 

of the streams upstream of the gage are known (the highest 

flow measured in Middle Creek was well below the changes 

recorded at the gage), the causes of the observed changes 

in streamflow and whether or not corresponding changes in 

flow in the West Prong Little Pigeon River occurred cannot 

be determined. 

During July 19–20, 2016, streamflow measurements were 

made at 30 locations along the West Prong Little Pigeon River, 

Middle Creek, and Little Pigeon River (table 2; fig. 5). An 

instantaneous streamflow value recorded at the Little Pigeon 

River at Sevierville, TN streamgage (03470000) at 0000 on 

July 20, 2016, was included in the measurement dataset as an 

additional control point. Flow in the measured streams generally was characteristic of base-flow conditions on the basis 

of streamflow data from the Little Pigeon River streamgage 

(fig. 3C). Data from the streamgage show that a decrease in 

streamflow of about 20 ft3

/s occurred in the second half of 

the day on July 19, 2016, and an increase in streamflow of 

about 40 ft3

/s occurred near midday on July 20, 2016 (fig. 3C). 

Because there is no record of significant rainfall in the study 

area for several days prior to or during this survey and because 

no changes in inputs or withdrawals of this magnitude on 

any of the streams at locations upstream of the gage are 

known (the highest flow measured in Middle Creek was well 

below the changes recorded at the gage), the causes of the 

observed changes in streamflow or whether or not corresponding changes in flow in the West Prong Little Pigeon River 

occurred cannot be determined. 

The recorded streamflow at the USGS streamgage on 

the Little Pigeon River (03470000) was lower during the July 

survey (295 ft3

/s at 0000 on July 20, 2016) than the December 

survey (331 ft3

/s at 0000 on December 16, 2015; U.S. Geological Survey, 2017b); however, higher flow conditions were 

observed at the streamflow-measurement locations along the 

Little Pigeon River during July than December (figs. 4 and 5; 

tables 1 and 2). Higher flow in the Little Pigeon River in July 

likely resulted from local rainfall in the basin prior to the survey. The higher flow in the Little Pigeon River was offset by 

lower flow in the West Prong Little Pigeon River during July, 

which resulted in overall lower flow at the streamgage on the 

Little Pigeon River (fig. 5).

Streamflow data collected during the surveys were 

evaluated to identify losing and gaining stream reaches and 

to compare unit-streamflow values, in cubic feet per second 

per square mile, for measurement sites underlain by units 

that make up the Cambrian-Ordovician aquifer and the Blue 

Ridge aquifers. Flow generally increased in a downstream 

direction in the upper and middle reaches of the three streams 

during both surveys, with the highest unit-streamflow values 

generally occurring at measurement locations underlain by 

rock units that make up the Blue Ridge aquifers (tables 1 

and 2). Flow in the Little Pigeon River was higher during the 

July 2016 measurements, whereas flow in the West Prong 

Little Pigeon River and Middle Creek was higher during the 

December 2015 measurements (figs. 3–5; tables 1 and 2).

Losing stream reaches were identified along the West 

Prong Little Pigeon River and Middle Creek in the northwestern part of the study area during both measurement surveys 

(figs. 4 and 5). During the December 2015 survey, flow along 

a downstream reach of the West Prong Little Pigeon River 

decreased by more than 20 ft3

/s, then increased at the next 

measurement location downstream of this reach (fig. 4 and 

table 1, sites 5, 4, and 2). During the same survey, flow in an 

intermediate reach of Middle Creek decreased by more than 

3 ft3

/s (fig. 4 and table 1, sites 27 and 23). In July 2016, losses 

of approximately the same magnitude were observed along the 

losing reaches in both streams, with Middle Creek going dry 

(fig. 5 and table 2). Additional sites measured downstream of 

the losing reach of Middle Creek in July 2016 showed only 

minimal gain in flow prior to the confluence of the stream with 

the Little Pigeon River (fig. 5 and table 2).
Table 1. Streamflow measurements at three streams in Sevier County, Tennessee, December 15–16, 2015.—Continued[no., number; STAID, U.S. Geological Survey station number; C-O, Cambrian-Ordovician; BR, Blue Ridge; M/D/Y, month, day, year; Q1, first set of streamflow measuremenper second; (ft3/s)/mi2, cubic feet per second per square mile; DA, drainage area (from U.S. Geological Survey, 2017a); mi2, square miles; Est., estimated; Dr., Drive; HWY, hig

see; Cr, Creek; nr, near; Blvd, boulevard]

Site no. 

(fig. 4) STAID Stream Aquifer

Q1

date

(M/D/Y)

Q1

time

Q1

(ft3/s)

Q1, unit 

streamflow 

[(ft3/s)/

mi2]

Est. river 

mile Latitude Longitude DA (mi2) 

2 03469800 West Prong 

Little Pigeon River

C-O 12/15/15 13:56 143 0.96 1.72 35.85305 –83.5623667 149.2 We

4 03469775 West Prong 

Little Pigeon River

C-O 12/15/15 13:41 109 0.73 2.35 35.84597 –83.5691100 148.4 We

5 03469750 West Prong 

Little Pigeon River

C-O 12/15/15 10:41 133 0.91 3.26 35.83532 –83.5679900 145.9 We

6 03469700 West Prong 

Little Pigeon River

C-O 12/15/15 11:04 132 0.91 3.78 35.82821 –83.5674500 144.8 We

10 03469550 West Prong 

Little Pigeon River

BR/C-O 12/15/15 15:54 81.0 1.05 8.61 35.8082 –83.5791000 76.8 We

12 03469430 West Prong 

Little Pigeon 

River

BR 12/15/15 16:17 75.5 1.08 13.20 35.7628 –83.5245000 70.0 We

15 03469128 Little Pigeon 

River

C-O 12/16/15 14:28 98.2 0.90 10.00 35.85858 –83.4990000 108.7 Lit

17 03469124 Little Pigeon 

River

C-O 12/16/15 12:40 91.6 0.90 13.09 35.82903 –83.4720090 101.3 Lit

19 03469123 Little Pigeon 

River

BR 12/16/15 9:04 90.9 1.18 18.65 35.79604 –83.4210410 77.3 Lit
Table 1. Streamflow measurements at three streams in Sevier County, Tennessee, December 15–16, 2015.—Continued [no., number; STAID, U.S. Geological Survey station number; C-O, Cambrian-Ordovician; BR, Blue Ridge; M/D/Y, month, day, year; Q1, first set of streamflow measuremenper second; (ft3/s)/mi2, cubic feet per second per square mile; DA, drainage area (from U.S. Geological Survey, 2017a); mi2, square miles; Est., estimated; Dr., Drive; HWY, hi

see; Cr, Creek; nr, near; Blvd, boulevard] Site no. (fig. 4) STAID Stream Aquifer Q1 date (M/D/Y) Q1 time Q1 (ft3/s) Q1, unit stream- flow [(ft3/s)/ mi2] Est. river mile Latitude Longitude DA (mi2) 

20 03469198 Middle Creek C-O 12/16/15 19:38 4.42 0.29 0.16 35.86919 –83.5593000 15.2 M

23 03469194 Middle Creek C-O 12/16/15 14:27 1.72 0.15 3.01 35.84238 –83.5433283 11.5 M

25 03469192 Middle Creek C-O 12/16/15 11:19 1.98 0.18 3.55 35.83747 –83.5488117 11.1 M26 03469190 Middle Creek C-O 12/16/15 10:26 5.52 0.50 3.60 35.83678 –83.5485433 11.0 M27 03469189 Middle Creek C-O 12/16/15 8:30 5.84 0.56 4.23 35.83035 –83.5435100 10.34 M

28 03469187 Middle Creek C-O 12/16/15 9:25 3.80 0.42 5.31 35.82213 –83.5397350 8.99 M
Stream Base Flow 9

Figure 4. 

83°34' 83°28'30"

35°51'30"

35°46'

Middle Creek

Little Pigeon River

West Prong Little Pigeon River

28

3.80

1 2 RV

BR

BR

RV

2

143

4

109

5

133

6

132

10

81.0

12

75.5

15

98.2

17

91.6

19

90.9

20

4.42

23

1.72

25

1.98

26

5.52

27

5.84

03470000

331

0 1 2 3 4 MILES

0 2 3 4 KILOMETERS 1

Base from National Geographic Society, 2013

EXPLANATION

12

75.5

03470000

331

Streamflow measurement site, number, and 

 streamflow value, in cubic feet per second 

 (see table 1)

Streamflow gage at Little Pigeon River, station 

 number, and streamflow value, in cubic feet 

 per second

Quarry, upper pond

Quarry, lower pond

1

2

Collier Drive

Gaining reach: Increase in measured streamflow 

 between sites is greater than 5 percent

Losing reach: Decrease in measured streamflow 

 between sites is greater than 5 percent

Increase or decrease in measured streamflow 

 between sites is less than 5 percent

Trace of Great Smoky fault separating the 

 Blue Ridge (BR) and Ridge and Valley 

 (RV) Physiographic Provinces

Figure 4. Streamflow measurement locations and streamflow values, Sevier County, Tennessee, December 15–16, 2015. 

[See table 1 for site information.]
Table 2. Streamflow measurements at three streams in Sevier County, Tennessee, July and October 2016.—Continued [no., number; STAID, U.S. Geological Survey station number; C-O, Cambrian-Ordovician; BR, Blue Ridge; M/D/Y, month, day, year; Q2, second set of flow measure

cubic feet per second; (ft3/s)/mi2, cubic feet per second per square mile; DA, drainage area (U.S. Geological Survey, 2017a); mi2, square miles; Est., estimated; Dr, Dri

Route; TN, Tennessee; nr, near; Blvd, boulevard; –, no data] Site no. (fig. 5) STAID Stream Aquifer Q2 date (M/D/Y) Q2 time Q2 (ft3/s) Q2, unit stream- flow [(ft3/s)/ mi2] Est. river mile Latitude Longitude DA (mi2) D

1 03469900 West Prong Little Pigeon River C-O 7/20/16 9:36 66.5 0.44 0.20 35.871060 –83.574300 150.7 West Prong 

at 411 B

2 03469800 West Prong Little Pigeon River C-O 7/20/16 11:48 71.6 0.48 1.72 35.853050 –83.562367 149.2 West Prong 

above IsTN 3 03469778 West Prong Little Pigeon River C-O 7/20/16 16:00 43.7 0.29 1.95 35.849050 –83.564700 148.6 West Prong 

near entQuarry a

4 03469775 West Prong Little Pigeon River C-O 7/20/16 14:21 38.6 0.26 2.35 35.845970 –83.569110 148.4 West Prong 

Below PSeviervi

5 03469750 West Prong Little Pigeon River C-O 7/20/16 14:13 58.9 0.40 3.26 35.835320 –83.567990 145.9 West Prong 

Collier DPigeon F

6 03469700 West Prong Little Pigeon River C-O 7/20/16 9:22 60.0 0.41 3.78 35.828213 –83.567450 144.8 West Prong 

Caton RTN 7 034696800 West Prong Little Pigeon River C-O 7/20/16 11:03 59.4 0.41 4.70 35.825776 –83.578529 143.5 West Prong 

off of ApSeviervi

8 03469660 West Prong Little Pigeon River C-O 7/20/16 12:28 57.8 0.40 5.28 35.820340 –83.579640 143.1 West Prong 

River at Forge, T

9 03469640 West Prong 

Little Pigeon River

BR 7/20/16 12:15 60.8 0.43 7.20 35.812850 –83.5933861 141.4 West Prong 

off BattlIsland, P

10 03469550 West Prong 

Little Pigeon River

BR/

C-O

7/20/16 7:18 45.6 0.59 8.61 35.808200 –83.579100 76.8 West Prong 

below HPigeon F
Table 2. Streamflow measurements at three streams in Sevier County, Tennessee, July and October 2016.—Continued[no., number; STAID, U.S. Geological Survey station number; C-O, Cambrian-Ordovician; BR, Blue Ridge; M/D/Y, month, day, year; Q2, second set of flow measure

cubic feet per second; (ft3/s)/mi2, cubic feet per second per square mile; DA, drainage area (U.S. Geological Survey, 2017a); mi2, square miles; Est., estimated; Dr, Dri

Route; TN, Tennessee; nr, near; Blvd, boulevard; –, no data]

Site no. 

(fig. 5) STAID Stream Aquifer

Q2 

date

(M/D/Y)

Q2

time

Q2

(ft3/s)

 Q2, unit 

streamflow

 [(ft3/s)/

mi2]

Est. 

river 

mile

Latitude Longitude DA (mi2) D

11 03469469 West Prong 

Little Pigeon River

BR 7/20/16 10:46 57.0 0.75 10.0 35.796388 –83.561389 75.9 West Prong 

River at Bridge, 

12 03469430 West Prong 

Little Pigeon River

BR 7/20/16 9:40 58.3 0.83 13.2 35.762800 –83.524500 70.0 West Prong 

above P

13 03469177 Little Pigeon 

River

C-O 7/19/16 10:10 211 1.14 6.57 35.867638 –83.545975 184.4 Little Pige

HenderstersectioSeviervi

14 03469173 Little Pigeon 

River

C-O 7/19/16 14:00 222 1.23 7.95 35.871944 –83.526389 181.0 Little Pige

derson RHollow TN

15 03469128 Little Pigeon 

River

C-O 7/19/16 15:48 183 1.68 10.0 35.858580 –83.499000 108.7 Little Pige

NewporSeviervi

16 03469125 Little Pigeon 

River

C-O 7/19/16 9:00 187 1.81 11.6 35.840110 –83.488710 103.1 Little Pige

road bridRoad, S

17 03469124 Little Pigeon 

River

C-O 7/19/16 13:30 193 1.90 13.1 35.829026 –83.472009 101.3 Little Pige

Clark Br

18 034691234 Little Pigeon 

River

BR 7/19/16 16:30 183 2.25 15.9 35.8157638 –83.4379861 81.2 Little Pige

Cove RoMaples vierville

19 03469123 Little Pigeon 

River

BR 7/19/16 10:00 175 2.26 18.7 35.796040 –83.421041 77.3 Little Pige

Grant RCaton, T
Table 2. Streamflow measurements at three streams in Sevier County, Tennessee, July and October 2016.—Continued [no., number; STAID, U.S. Geological Survey station number; C-O, Cambrian-Ordovician; BR, Blue Ridge; M/D/Y, month, day, year; Q2, second set of flow measu

cubic feet per second; (ft3/s)/mi2, cubic feet per second per square mile; DA, drainage area (U.S. Geological Survey, 2017a); mi2, square miles; Est., estimated; Dr, D

Route; TN, Tennessee; nr, near; Blvd, boulevard; –, no data] Site no. (fig. 5) STAID Stream Aquifer Q2 date (M/D/Y) Q2 time Q2 (ft3/s) Q2, unit stream- flow [(ft3/s)/ mi2] Est. river mile Latitude Longitude DA (mi2) 

20 03469198 Middle Creek C-O 7/19/16 13:56 0.25 0.02 0.16 35.869190 –83.559300 15.2 Middle C

Bridge 

21 034691946 Middle Creek C-O 7/19/16 16:42 0.22 0.02 1.56 35.857380 –83.545240 14.3 Middle C

Blvd. 22 034691942 Middle Creek C-O 7/19/16 13:26 0.28 0.02 2.05 35.853090 –83.539640 14.0 Middle C

Bridge 23 03469194 Middle Creek C-O 7/19/16 12:50 0.01 0.00 3.01 35.842383 –83.5433283 11.5 Middle C

MiddlPigeon 

24 03469193 Middle Creek C-O 7/19/16 8:45 0 0.00 3.18 35.840846 –83.5461080 11.2 Middle C

Ridge 

25 03469192 Middle Creek C-O 7/19/16 7:45 0 0.00 3.55 35.837467 –83.5488116 11.1 Middle C

Bridge 

26 03469190 Middle Creek C-O 7/19/16 11:41 2.27 0.21 3.60 35.836783 –83.5485433 11.0 Middle C

Bridge 

27 03469189 Middle Creek C-O 7/19/16 10:16 2.41 0.23 4.23 35.830350 –83.543510 10.4 Middle C

Pigeon 

28 03469187 Middle Creek C-O 7/19/16 9:18 1.82 0.20 5.31 35.822130 –83.539735 8.99 Middle C

United Pigeon 

29 03469185 Middle Creek BR 7/19/16 9:57 1.08 0.19 6.65 35.804470 –83.538560 5.45 Middle C

Rd nr 

30 03469182 Middle Creek BR 7/19/16 11:33 0.56 0.17 8.68 35.782770 –83.527800 3.24 Middle C

Bridge

G 03469758 West Prong 

Little Pigeon River

C-O 10/19/16 – 20.4 0.14 – 35.83934 –83.5684 145.9 25 feet u

observSevier

F 03469759 West Prong 

Little Pigeon River

C-O 10/19/16 – 12.6 0.09 – 35.83959 –83.5685 145.91 downstre

whirlpBranc
Table 2. Streamflow measurements at three streams in Sevier County, Tennessee, July and October 2016.—Continued[no., number; STAID, U.S. Geological Survey station number; C-O, Cambrian-Ordovician; BR, Blue Ridge; M/D/Y, month, day, year; Q2, second set of flow measu

cubic feet per second; (ft3/s)/mi2, cubic feet per second per square mile; DA, drainage area (U.S. Geological Survey, 2017a); mi2, square miles; Est., estimated; Dr, D

Route; TN, Tennessee; nr, near; Blvd, boulevard; –, no data]

Site no. 

(fig. 5) STAID Stream Aquifer

Q2 

date

(M/D/Y)

Q2

time

Q2

(ft3/s)

 Q2, unit 

streamflow

 [(ft3/s)/

mi2]

Est. 

river 

mile

Latitude Longitude DA (mi2) 

H 03469757 West Prong 

Little Pigeon River

C-O 10/20/16 – 20.1 0.14 – 35.83928 –83.5684 145.9 50 feet u

observSevier

E 03469760 West Prong 

Little Pigeon River

C-O 10/20/16 – 12.8 0.09 – 35.83967 –83.5686 148.04 downstre

whirlpBranc

J 03469756 West Prong 

Little Pigeon River

C-O 10/20/16 – 21.8 0.15 – 35.83919 – 83.5684 145.89 100 feet 

observSevier
14 Groundwater/Surface-Water Interaction in Central Sevier County, Tennessee, October 2015–2016 

A rock quarry is located between the West Prong Little 

Pigeon River and Middle Creek adjacent to the losing reaches 

of these streams (figs. 4 and 5). Ponds that have formed in 

excavation pits are continuously dewatered by pumping for 

quarrying operations, and the pumped water is released back 

to the West Prong Little Pigeon River near the northwestern 

property boundary, just upstream of measurement Site 2 (figs. 4 

and 5). Water-surface altitudes in the southeastern-most 

(lower) pond are maintained at about 750 feet (ft; altitude on 

September 8, 2016, was 754 ft; John Thomas, Vulcan Materials Company, written commun., January 25, 2017). Based 

on stream water-surface altitudes estimated from the Pigeon 

Forge, TN 1:24,000 topographic map (Tennessee Valley 

Authority, 1956) of approximately 900–910 ft and 940–950 ft 

above the National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 (NGVD 29) 

in the losing reaches of the West Prong Little Pigeon River and 

Middle Creek, respectively, about 150–200 ft of downward 

vertical head difference occurs between the streams and the 

lower quarry pond. Such large gradients likely are the cause 

of the streamflow losses observed during the measurement 

surveys along the West Prong Little Pigeon River and Middle 

Creek. The company operating the quarry reportedly has indicated that the water pumped from the excavation pits consists 

of lost flow from the West Prong Little Pigeon River (Ronnie 

Bowers, Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation, oral commun., 2015). 

In October 2016, a small whirlpool was identified and 

reported to the City of Sevierville in the West Prong Little 

Pigeon River downstream of the Collier Drive Bridge and 

about mid-way between streamflow measurement locations 4 

and 5 (fig. 6). A series of discharge measurements made at 

one location immediately upstream and another immediately 

EXPLANATION

Base from National Geographic Society, 2013

83°34' 83°28'30"

35°51'30"

35°46'

Middle Creek

Little Pigeon River

West Prong Little Pigeon River

1 2 RV

BR

BR

RV

03470000

295

1 66.5

2

71.6 3 43.7

4 38.6

5

58.9

6

60.0

7 59.4

8

57.8

9 60.8

10

45.6 11

57.0

12

58.3

13

211 14

222

15

183

16

187 17

193

18

183

19

175

20

0.25

21

0.22

22

0.28 23

0.01

24

0

25

0

26

2.27 27

2.41

28

1.82

29

1.08

30

0.56

0 1 2 3 4 MILES

0 2 3 4 KILOMETERS 1

Figure 5. 

Quarry, upper pond

Quarry, lower pond

Streamflow measurement site, number, and 

 streamflow value, in cubic feet per second 

 (see table 2)

Streamflow gage at Little Pigeon River, station 

 number, and streamflow value, in cubic feet 

 per second 1

2

03470000

295

12

58.3 Collier Drive

Gaining reach: Increase in measured streamflow 

 between sites is greater than 5 percent

Losing reach: Decrease in measured streamflow 

 between sites is greater than 5 percent

Increase or decrease in measured streamflow 

 between sites is less than 5 percent

Trace of Great Smoky fault separating the 

 Blue Ridge (BR) and Ridge and Valley 

 (RV) Physiographic Provinces

Figure 5. Streamflow measurement locations and streamflow values, Sevier County, Tennessee, July 19–20, 2016. 

[See table 2 for site information.]
Stream Base Flow 15

downstream of the feature on October 19 and 20, 2016, 

indicated that flow was about 20.4 ft3

/s upstream and 

12.6 ft3

/s downstream on October 19 (fig. 6, locations G and 

F), and about 20.1 ft3

/s upstream and 12.8 ft3/s downstream 

on October 20, 2016 (fig. 6, locations H and E). A second 

upstream discharge measurement was made a few hundred 

feet upstream of the whirlpool feature on October 20, just 

upstream of the location of a second smaller apparent whirlpool where loss of flow in the river also was indicated (fig. 6, 

location J). Discharge at this location was 21.8 ft3

/s, indicating 

an additional loss of flow of about 1.7 ft3

/s between this location and the measurement location just upstream of the main 

whirlpool feature. 

As part of the survey on October 20, a reconnaissance 

was conducted along an approximate 1,200-ft-long reach of 

the West Prong Little Pigeon River downstream of the main 

whirlpool. Other locations in the streambed and bank were 

identified along this reach that also appeared to be potential 

flow-loss sites. Farther downstream, an estimated 300-ft-long 

reach located upstream of a low-head dam and just upstream 

of measurement location 4 (fig. 6) was found to be dry, 

indicating that the river lost about 13 ft3

/s between the main 

whirlpool and the point where the stream went dry and a total 

of about 22 ft3

/s along the entire surveyed reach. It should be 

noted that moderate to severe drought conditions experienced in the study area for several weeks prior to identification of the whirlpool resulted in abnormally low stage and 

discharge in the West Prong Little Pigeon River and so the 

whirlpool(s) probably would not have been visible under 

higher flow conditions.

West Prong Little Pigeon River

Low head dam

Figure 6.

1

2

12.8 12.6

20.1

21.8

E F

G H

J

4

5

EXPLANATION

20.4

83°34'30" 83°34' 83°33'30"

35°50'40"

35°50'20"

Base from National Geographic Society, 2013

21.8

J

5

Locations of streamflow measurements made 

 on October 19 and 20, 2016, identifier, and 

 streamflow value, in cubic feet per second

Whirlpool

Quarry, upper pond

Collier Drive

1

Quarry, lower pond—Water-surface altitude is 

 about 750 feet

2

Streamflow measurement site and number

 (see tables 1 and 2)

Note: See figure 5 for explanation of stream-reach colors. 

0 0.15 0.3 MILES

0 0.15 0.3 KILOMETERS

Figure 6. Streamflow measurement locations on the West Prong Little Pigeon River near two whirlpools and the 

measured streamflow values, Sevier County, Tennessee, October 19–20, 2016.
16 Groundwater/Surface-Water Interaction in Central Sevier County, Tennessee, October 2015–2016 

Potentiometric-Surface Map

A reconnaissance was conducted during the spring and 

early summer of 2016 to locate wells where water-level depth 

measurements could be made. A total of 41 wells were identified, of which 34 were measurable during the synoptic survey 

of groundwater levels conducted during July 19–26, 2016, 

coincident with the second streamflow survey. The water-level 

data were used to prepare a map of the potentiometric surface 

of the Cambrian-Ordovician aquifer for use in comparison 

with the locations of losing and gaining reaches of the three 

surveyed streams.

Water levels ranged from a high of about 1,072 ft above 

NGVD 29 in the southwestern part of the study area to a 

low of about 897 ft in the northwestern part of the study area 

(fig. 7; table 3). In the eastern, south-central, and southwestern 

parts of the area, the potentiometric surface generally mimics land surface with higher groundwater altitudes beneath 

the ridges and lower groundwater altitudes in the valleys of 

the Little Pigeon River, Middle Creek, and West Prong Little 

Pigeon River, indicating groundwater gradients towards these 

streams. General increases in streamflow in downstream 

directions that were observed during the December and July 

streamflow surveys also indicate that groundwater contributes 

flow to the stream reaches in these areas (fig. 7). 

In the northwestern part of the study area, the potentiometric surface is depressed beneath parts of the West Prong 

Little Pigeon River and Middle Creek surface-water basins. 

The deepest part of the depression, where water-level altitudes are less than 900 ft above NGVD 29, is centered in the 

area just east of the West Prong Little Pigeon River, west of 

Middle Creek, and north of Collier Drive (fig. 7). The western 

and northern flanks of the depression are not strictly defined 

because no wells were measured west of the West Prong Little 

Pigeon River. However, the inferred locations and orientations of the 900- and 925-ft contours shown on the potentiometric map that lie to the southeast of the West Prong Little 

Pigeon River in the area of depressed water levels and an 

estimated base-flow water-surface altitude of about 900 ft above 

NGVD 29 in the stream along this reach support the finding of 

an approximate 30-percent reduction (loss) in flow along the 

reach from the July 2016 streamflow data. In the southeastern 

part of the depression area, the potentiometric map indicates 

that water levels rise gradually to the east-southeast toward 

the reach of Middle Creek where sinkholes have developed in 

the streambed and alluvial plain at and upstream of the bridge 

crossing the creek along Collier Drive (fig. 7). 

Water levels at well numbers 35 and 40 define the 900-ft 

altitude contour that denotes the deepest part of the potentiometric depression (fig. 7). The altitudes of the bottom depths 

of both of these wells are higher than the approximate 750-ft 

water-surface altitude in the lower pond at the quarry. The 

land-surface altitude of well 35 is 991 ft, and its depth is 230 ft 

(bottom at an altitude of 761 ft). The land-surface altitude of 

well 40 is 947 ft, and its depth is 125 ft (bottom at an altitude 

of 822 ft). Based on the southeastern trend of the long axis of 

the interpreted depression, it appears that these wells may lie 

normal to a major trend in bedrock permeability in the area. 

This inferred bedrock permeability anisotropy in the depression area is supported by water-level altitudes in the two wells 

that are considerably higher than the altitude of the water surface in the lower quarry pond, although the water-level altitude 

in well 35 may in part be maintained by the West Prong Little 

Pigeon River. The permeability anisotropy also is inferred by 

the presence of a several-foot-wide, linear joint-like feature 

observed in the top of bedrock exposed in a large sinkhole that 

developed in the channel of Middle Creek in August 2011. The 

linear feature reportedly had a general northwest-southeast 

orientation and was large enough to convey all flow lost from 

Middle Creek in an apparent northwesterly direction (Ronnie 

Bowers, Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation, oral commun., 2011).

Groundwater and Surface-Water 

Interaction

The groundwater and surface water of the Sevierville 

study area are controlled by the underlying geology and are 

affected locally by dewatering for the quarry operation. In 

a natural, undisturbed setting, the potentiometric surface of an 

aquifer is a subdued replica of land surface with groundwater 

flow from upland areas to springs and streams, and the 

aquifer contributes groundwater discharge to maintain the 

surface-water base flow (Winter and others, 1999). Streamflow measurements made during the December 2015 high 

base-flow period generally indicate this same pattern with 

generally increasing streamflow in a downstream direction 

along West Prong Little Pigeon River, Middle Creek, and 

Little Pigeon River. However, variations in streamflow relative 

to the underlying geology and the transition from the Blue 

Ridge to Ridge and Valley provinces were noted during the 

streamflow surveys. 

During the December 2015 and July 2016 surveys, the 

Little Pigeon River and West Prong Little Pigeon River had 

increases in flow from the Blue Ridge to the Ridge and Valley 

provinces, with a large increase in flow (81 to 132 ft3

/s) in 

the West Prong Little Pigeon River across and downstream 

from a section of the Great Smoky fault zone (fig. 2) in 

December 2015 (fig. 4 and table 1, sites 10 and 6). During the 

December survey, flow in the Little Pigeon River increased 

from 91.6 to 98.2 ft3

/s between two sites located on the Ridge 

and Valley carbonate rocks (fig. 4 and table 1, sites 17 and 15). 

During the July survey, flow increased along the Little Pigeon 

River in the Blue Ridge setting and then decreased from 193 

to 183 ft3

/s in the Ridge and Valley carbonate rocks (fig. 5 and 

table 2, sites 17 and 15). Flow along the West Prong Little 

Pigeon River was variable during the July survey with small 

changes measured within the fault zone, and an increase in 

flow from 45.6 to about 60 ft3

/s measured downstream of the 

fault zone (fig. 5, sites 10 and 5–9).
Groundwater and Surface-Water Interaction 17

Table 3. Wells and water-level measurements in Sevier County, Tennessee, July 19–26, 2016.

[no., number; M/D/Y, month, day, year; D; domestic well; #, well is not used; O, observation well; DTWBLS, depth to water below land surface; >, greater than; 

–, no data; Dry, no water in well; ~, approximately; water-level data for measured wells are available through the USGS National Water Information System Web 

interface (U.S. Geological Survey, 2017c)]

Well no. 

(fig. 7) Station no. Latitude Longitude Date(M/D/Y)

Well 

type

DTWBLS

(feet)

Land surface altitude 

(feet)

Water-level 

altitude 

(feet)

Measured

well depth

(feet)

Reported

well depth

(feet)

2 355029083325901 35.84135 –83.5496 7/19/16 D# 22.9 972 949 >190 –

4 355027083323301 35.84084 –83.5426 7/20/16 D# 17.3 952 935 60.5 108

5 355031083321901 35.842 –83.5385 7/20/16 D 111.8 1,082 971 – 465

7 354939083331401 35.82753 –83.5538 7/19/16 D 149.3 1,130 981 – –

8 355029083324501 35.8413 –83.5458 7/19/16 D 16.4 955 939 – –

10 355113083325601 35.85359 –83.5488 7/20/16 D 132.6 1,099 966 198 –

11 355125083325401 35.85698 –83.5482 7/20/16 D# 49.2 971 922 76.2 –

12 355124083333001 35.85679 –83.5582 7/20/16 D# 14.1 935 921 19.1 –

13 355048083325101 35.84663 –83.5475 7/19/16 D# 55.3 1,028 973 152 –

14 355033083324901 35.84261 –83.5469 7/20/16 D# 70.7 1,018 947 170 –

15 354941083321701 35.82799 –83.5381 7/19/16 D# 27.3 985 958 222 –

16 354936083321301 35.82676 –83.5369 7/20/16 D 41.4 1,008 967 – –

18 354949083322201 35.83039 –83.5395 7/19/16 D# 10.7 960 949 120 –

19 354957083320501 35.83236 –83.5343 7/19/16 D# 8.3 972 964 52 –

20 354936083394101 35.82655 –83.5304 7/20/16 D 154.1 1,125 971 >300 –

22 355039083313201 35.84428 –83.5256 7/19/16 D 54.9 1,011 956 – 268

23 355011083331201 35.83649 –83.5532 7/19/16 D# 108.4 1,013 904 – ~100

24 354910083313301 35.81934 –83.5257 7/19/16 D# 26.0 1,039 1,013 76.9 –

25 354920083311101 35.82225 –83.5198 7/19/16 D # 69.0 1,126 1,057 103.5 150

26 355015083321801 35.83759 –83.5382 7/19/16 D 153.7 1,104 950 >300 –

27 354838083325401 35.81047 –83.5482 7/20/16 D# 151.7 1,223 1,072 – –

29 355015083311301 35.83757 –83.5204 7/19/16 D 47.6 1,034 986 190 –

30 355014083325501 35.83708 –83.5485 7/20/16 O Dry 974 Dry 25.1 –

31 355113083322201 35.85348 –83.5394 7/20/16 O 9.7 924 914 17.4 –

32 354934083285701 35.82604 –83.4823 7/19/16 D 116.4 1,099 982 180 –

33 354950083323701 35.83041 –83.5435 7/20/16 O 5.8 955 949 8.8 –

34 354957083335101 35.8326 –83.5642 7/20/16 D 22.5 947 925 104 –

35 355038083340101 35.84394 –83.5669 7/20/16 O 89.4 986 897 – 230

36 355022083314301 35.83939 –83.5286 7/19/16 D 98.9 1,057 958 – 364

37 355035083303601 35.84298 –83.5101 7/21/16 D 105.0 1,110 1,005 – 124

38 355006083304401 35.83506 –83.5122 7/21/16 D 104.3 1,134 1,029 – 465

39 354948083202201 35.83002 –83.506 7/21/16 D# 136.1 1,189 1,053 216 –

40 355048083333301 35.84658 –83.5592 7/26/16 D# 46.6 944 897 78.3 125

41 354938083322001 35.82716 –83.539 7/21/16 D# 26.7 983 956 190 –
Figure 7. Potentiometric-surface map showing well control and surface-water measurement locations and streamflow values, Sevier CouJuly 19–26, 2016. [Water-level data from U.S. Geological Survey (2017c).]

1

2

West Prong

Little Pigeon

River

Middle Creek

Little Pigeon River

925

900

1,050

925 975

1,075

1,025

1,025

975

1,000

975

1,000

900

975

1,000

1,050

1,000

1,050

925

950

950

1,050

950

1,025

2949

4

935

5

971

7981

8

939

10966

11

922 12

921

13973

14947

15958

16967

18949 19

964

20

971

22956

23904

24

1,013

251,057

26950

27

1,072

29986

31

914

32982

33949

34925

35897

36958

37

1,005

38

1,029

391,053

40897

41

956

271.6 

3

43.7

4

38.6

5

58.9

6

60.0

13211

15183

16187

210.22

220.28

230.01

24

0

25

0

26

2.27

272.41

28

1.82

29

1.08

83°34' 

35°51'

35°49'30"

0 1 

0 1 2 

Base from National Geographic Society, 2013

EXPLANATION

Collier Drive

Potentiometric contour—Shows altitude at which water level would have stood in tightly cased wells. Dashed where approximately located. Hachure indicates depression. Contour interval is 25 feet. Datum is National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 (NGVD 29)

1,075

24

1,013

281.82

Well location, number, and water- level altitude, in feet (see table 3)

Surface-water site, number, and  streamflow value, in cubic  feet per second (see table 2)

Whirlpool

Quarry, upper pondQuarry, lower pond—Water-surface  altitude is about 750 feet

1

2

Note: See figure 5 for explanation of stream-reach colors. 
Summary and Conclusions 19

 During high and low base-flow conditions, streamflow 

along reaches of West Prong Little Pigeon River and Middle 

Creek decreased by 20 to 24 ft3

/s and 2 to 4 ft3/s, respectively. 

The observed losing reaches on Middle Creek and West Prong 

Little Pigeon River and the depressed potentiometric surface 

in part of the study area both indicate the hydrologic effects of 

the quarry dewatering operation.

The depression in the potentiometric surface is centered 

on the rock quarry and appears to result from ongoing dewatering operations at the facility. The potentiometric depression 

likely also is the cause for streamflow losses in the area as 

evidenced by (1) the measured decrease in streamflow from 

58.9 to 38.6 ft3

/s between sites 5 and 4 and 58.9 to 43.7 ft3/s 

between sites 5 and 3 on the West Prong Little Pigeon River 

near the quarry in July 2016 (fig. 5 and table 2), and (2) the 

decrease in flow related to the whirlpool(s) and other downstream flow-loss locations from about 20 ft3

/s to zero observed 

in October 2016 (fig. 6). In addition to the apparent inducing 

of streamflow losses in the West Prong Little Pigeon River, 

the potentiometric data and streamflow data for Middle 

Creek indicate that the effects of dewatering extend at least 

three-quarters of a mile to the southeast of the lower quarry 

pond, including the area where sinkholes have developed in 

the vicinity of the Collier Drive Bridge over Middle Creek. 

During the July 2016 streamflow survey, all flow in Middle 

Creek was captured and diverted to the subsurface by the 

sinkholes, with dry or deficit flow conditions downstream 

from the sinkholes to the mouth of the stream at its confluence with the Little Pigeon River (figs. 5 and 7 and table 2). A 

shallow (25-ft-deep) piezometer installed to the top of bedrock 

in the right bank of Middle Creek just upstream of the Collier 

Drive Bridge was dry during the well-measurement survey 

and is reported to contain water only when the stage of Middle 

Creek exceeds about 943 ft above NGVD 29 (Environmental 

Management and Engineering, Inc., written commun., May 1, 

2013). The lower groundwater levels likely are a contributing 

factor to the formation of sinkholes near the Collier Drive 

Bridge at Middle Creek. The continued loss of flow in Middle 

Creek to the existing sinkholes has contributed to the ongoing 

development and expansion of sinkholes near the bridge.

Summary and Conclusions

The data collected as part of this investigation document 

the groundwater conditions and streamflow changes in the area 

of a series of sinkholes that continue to form in the streambed 

and flood plain of Middle Creek at the Collier Drive Bridge. 

The bridge was completed in 2007, and sinkholes were first 

observed in 2010. Streamflow data were evaluated to identify 

losing and gaining stream reaches and to compare unitstreamflow values for measurement sites underlain by bedrock 

units that make up the Cambrian-Ordovician aquifer and the 

Blue Ridge aquifers. In general, unit discharge is greater in the 

Blue Ridge aquifers. The Little Pigeon River and West Prong 

Little Pigeon River increased in flow from the Blue Ridge to 

the Ridge and Valley Physiographic Provinces, with a large 

increase in flow in the West Prong Little Pigeon River across 

and downstream of a section of the Great Smoky fault zone. 

Both streamflow surveys showed flow between two streamflow measurement sites along a downstream reach of the West 

Prong Little Pigeon River adjacent to the quarry decreased by 

more than 20 ft3

/s, and flow in an intermediate reach of Middle 

Creek decreased by more than 3 ft3

/s. In July 2016, Middle 

Creek went dry at the Collier Drive Bridge as flow was lost 

to a series of sinkholes upstream of the bridge. In October 

2016, during very low-flow conditions, a whirlpool and other 

potential flow-loss locations were identified in the West Prong 

Little Pigeon River downstream of Collier Drive. Streamflow 

measurements and a reconnaissance of the stream channel 

conducted downstream of Collier Drive at the time the whirlpool was identified indicate a flow loss of about 22 ft3

/s along 

the entire surveyed reach. 

A rock quarry located between the West Prong Little 

Pigeon River and Middle Creek is adjacent to the losing lower 

reaches of these streams and is continuously dewatered for 

quarrying operations. Water-surface altitudes between the 

lower pond in the quarry and nearby segments of the West 

Prong Little Pigeon River and Middle Creek indicate that 

about 150 to 200 ft of downward vertical head difference 

occurs between the streams and the pond. Such large gradients 

likely are the cause of the streamflow losses observed along 

the West Prong Little Pigeon River and Middle Creek during 

the measurement surveys. The lowered groundwater levels 

resulting from the dewatering likely are a contributing factor 

in the development of the sinkholes near the Collier Drive 

Bridge at Middle Creek. 

 A map of the potentiometric surface of the CambrianOrdovician aquifer was developed from water levels measured 

in 34 wells. In the eastern, south-central, and southwestern 

parts of the area, the potentiometric surface indicates that 

groundwater gradients towards these streams are responsible for the observed gains in flow along the streams. In the 

northwestern part of the area, the potentiometric surface is 

depressed beneath parts of the West Prong Little Pigeon River 

and Middle Creek surface-water basins, and likely is the 

cause of flow losses observed along the lower reaches of these 

streams during both streamflow surveys. The deepest part of 

the depression, where water-level altitudes are less than 900 ft, 

is centered on the rock quarry in the area just east of the West 

Prong Little Pigeon River, west of Middle Creek, and north 

of Collier Drive. The groundwater-level data further indicate 

that the water levels remain depressed but rise gradually to the 

southeast through the area where sinkholes have developed in 

the streambed and alluvial plain of Middle Creek. Water levels 

in two wells located along the northeastern and southwestern 

flanks of the depression and a major northwest-trending linear 

joint-like feature exposed in bedrock in a sinkhole that opened 

in the streambed of Middle Creek in 2011 appear to indicate 

permeability anisotropy in bedrock in the area where water 

levels are depressed.
20 Groundwater/Surface-Water Interaction in Central Sevier County, Tennessee, October 2015–2016 

The investigation in Sevier County provided additional 

data to evaluate the change in streamflow and the groundwater/surface-water interaction that occur along the boundary 

between the metamorphic rocks of the Blue Ridge province 

and the carbonate formations of the Ridge and Valley province. The investigation determined that groundwater levels in 

a part of the study area have been lowered as a result of dewatering for operation of the rock quarry. Streamflow in Middle 

Creek and the West Prong Pigeon River decreased in areas of 

depressed groundwater levels. The lower groundwater levels 

likely are a contributing factor to the formation of sinkholes 

near the Collier Drive Bridge at Middle Creek. The continued 

loss of flow in Middle Creek to the existing sinkholes has contributed to the ongoing development and expansion of these 

features near the bridge. 

References

Aycock, R.A., and Haugh, C.J., 2001, Ground-water 

hydrology and water-quality data for wells, springs, and 

surface-water sites in the Bradley-Brumalow Creeks 

area near Arnold Air Force Base, Tennessee, September 

to December 1999: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File 

Report 01–40, 49 p.

Bradfield, A.D., 1994, Erwin Utilities develops cost-effective 

ground water supplies: Tennessee Chapter, American Public 

Works Association Tennessee Public Works, v. 11, no. 7, 

p. 24–26.

Cunningham, W.L., and Schalk, C.W., comps., 2011, Groundwater technical procedures of the U.S. Geological Survey: 

U.S. Geological Survey Techniques and Methods 1–A1, 

151 p. (available only online at https://pubs.usgs.gov/

tm/1a1/).

DeBuchananne, G.D., and Richardson, R.M., 1956, Groundwater resources of East Tennessee: Tennessee Division of 

Geology Bulletin 58, Part I, 393 p., 15 pls.

Esri, 2015, ArcGIS 10.3.1 for Desktop: Redlands, Calif., Environmental Systems Research Institute. 

Evaldi, R.D., and Lewis, J.G., 1983, Base flow and ground 

water in the upper Sweetwater Valley. Tennessee: U.S. 

Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 

83–4068, 30 p.

Fenneman, N.M., 1938, Physiography of eastern United 

States: New York, McGraw-Hill, 714 p.

Foose, R.M., 1953, Ground-water behavior in the Hershey 

Valley, Pennsylvania: Geological Society of America 

Bulletin, v. 64, p. 623–646.

Foose, R.M., 1969, Mine dewatering and recharge in carbonate rocks near Hershey, Pennsylvania, in Kiersch, G.A., 

Cleaves, A.B., Adams, W.M., Pincus, H.J., and Ferguson, 

H.F., eds., Legal aspects of geology in engineering practice: 

Geological Society of America, Engineering Geology Case 

Histories no. 7, p. 46–60.

GEOS, 2014, Middle Creek hydrological analysis, Sevierville, 

Tennessee: GEOServices, LLC, July 3, 2004, letter to City 

of Sevierville.

Hamilton, Warren, 1961, Geology of the Richardson Cove 

and Jones Cove quadrangles, Tennessee: U.S. Geological 

Survey Professional Paper 349–A, 55 p.

Hardeman, W.D., Miller, R.A., and Swingle, G.D., 1966, 

Geologic map of Tennessee, east sheet: Tennessee Division 

of Geology, scale 1:250,000.

Hollyday, E.F., and Hileman, G.E., 1996, Hydrogeologic terranes and potential yield of water to wells in the Valley and 

Ridge Physiographic Province in the eastern and southeastern United States: U.S. Geological Survey Professional 

Paper 1422–C, 30 p., 5 pls. [Also available at https://pubs.

er.usgs.gov/publication/pp1422C.]

Hollyday, E.F., Hileman, G.E., and Duke, J.E., 1997, The 

Elkton aquifer or western toe aquifer of the Blue Ridge 

Mountains—A regional perspective, in Younos, Tamim, 

Burbey, T.J., Kastning, E.H., and Poff, J.A., eds., Proceedings, Karst-Water Environment Symposium, October 30–31, 

1997, Roanoke, Va.: Blacksburg, Va., Virginia Polytechnic 

Institute and State University, p. 92–103. 

Kidd, R.E., 2001, Hydrogeologic characterization of the Coldwater Spring recharge area, Calhoun County, Alabama: U.S. 

Geological Survey Open-File Report 2001–300, 8 p. [Also 

available at https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/ofr01300.]

King, P.B., 1950, Geology of the Elkton area Virginia: U.S. 

Geological Survey Professional Paper 230, 82 p. [Also 

available at https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/pp230.]

King, P.B., 1964, Geology of the central Great Smoky Mountains, Tennessee: U.S. Geological Survey Professional 

Paper 349–C, 148 p.

Knight, R.R., and Kingsbury, J.A., 2007, Water-resources of 

the Duck River watershed, Tennessee: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2007–5105, 46 p.

Ladd, D.E., 1996, Base-flow data for the Little West Fork 

basin, Fort Campbell, Tennessee and Kentucky, 1993 and 

1994: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 96–343, 

28 p.
References 21

LaMoreaux, P.E., and Newton, J.G., 1986, Catastrophic 

subsidence: An environmental hazard, Shelby County, 

Alabama: Environmental Geology Water Science, v. 8, 

no. 1/2, p. 25–40.

Langer, W.H., 2001, Potential environmental impacts of 

quarrying stone in karst—A literature review: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report OF–01–0484, 34 p. [Also 

available at https://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0484/

ofr-01-0484so.pdf.]

Lloyd, O.B., and Lyke, W.L., 1995, Ground water atlas of 

the United States: Segment 10, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, 

Ohio, Tennessee: U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic 

Atlas 730–K, 30 p.

Lolcama, J.L., Cohen, H.A., Tonkin, M.J., 2002, Deep karst 

conduits, flooding, and sinkholes: lessons for the aggregates 

industry, Engineering Geology, v. 65, no. 203, p. 151–157. 

[Also available at https://doi.org/10.1016/S0013-

7952(01)00122-3.]

Maclay, R.W., 1963, Geology and ground-water resources 

of the Elizabethton-Johnson City area, Tennessee: U.S. 

Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 1460–J, p. 389–436. 

[Also available at https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/

wsp1460J.]

National Geographic Society, 2013, USA Topo Maps, i-cubed 

eTOPO 1:250,000 map for the contiguous United States, 

accessed July 2017 at http://goto.arcgisonline.com/maps/

USA_Topo_Maps. 

Newton, J.G., 1976, Induced sinkholes—A continuing 

problem along Alabama highways, in Proceedings of the 

Second International Symposium on Land Subsidence, 

Anaheim, California: International Association of Hydrologic Sciences, Land Subsidence Symposium, IAHS-AISH 

Publication No. 121, p. 453–463.

Newton, J.G., 1987, Development of sinkholes resulting from 

man’s activities in the Eastern United States: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 968, 54 p. [Also available at https://

pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/cir968.] 

Nolan, K.M., and Shields, R.R., 2000, Measurement of stream 

discharge by wading: U.S. Geological Survey WaterResources Investigations Report 2000–4036.

Nolfi, D.C., 2011, National Park Service cave and karst 

resources management case study: Great Smoky Mountains National Park: Department of Geography and Geology, Western Kentucky University, 269 p., accessed 

September 20, 2017, at http://digitalcommons.wku.edu/cgi/

viewcontent.cgi?article=2056&context=theses. 

Reeves, H.W., Wright, K.V., and Nicholas, J.R., 2004, Hydrogeology and simulation of regional ground-water-level 

declines in Monroe County, Michigan: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 03–4312, 124 p. 

[Also available at https://pubs.usgs.gov/wri/wri03-4312/.] 

Rodgers, John, 1953, Geologic map of East Tennessee 

with explanatory text: Tennessee Division of Geology, 

Bulletin 58, Part II, 168 p., 14 pls.

Scott, J.C., Harris, W.F., and Cobb, R.H., 1987, Geohydrology 

and susceptibility of Coldwater Spring and Jackson Fault 

areas to contamination, Calhoun County, Alabama: U.S. 

Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 

87–4031, 29 p. [Also available at https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/

publication/wri874031.]

Southworth, Scott, Schultz, Art, Aleinikoff, J.N., and Merschat, A.J., 2012, Geologic map of the Great Smoky Mountains National Park region, Tennessee and North Carolina: 

U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Map 2997, 

1 sheet, scale 1:100,000, and 54-p. pamphlet. [Also available at https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/sim2997.]

Swain, L.A., Mesko, T.O., and Hollyday, E.F., 2004, Summary of the hydrogeology of the Valley and Ridge, Blue 

Ridge, and Piedmont Physiographic Provinces in the 

Eastern United States: U.S. Geological Survey Professional 

Paper 1422–A, 23 p.

Tennessee State Data Center, 2017, Demographics, Tennessee Population Quick Links: University of Tennessee, Boyd 

Center for Business and Economics, accessed September 20, 

2017, at http://tndata.utk.edu/sdcdemographics.htm. 

Tennessee Valley Authority, 1956, Pigeon Forge Quadrangle, 

Tennessee-Sevier County, 7.5 Minute Series (Topographic): 

1:24,000 scale, photorevised 1970.

U.S. Geological Survey, 2007, Facing tomorrow’s challenges—U.S. Geological Survey science in the decade 

2007–2017: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1309, 67 p., 

accessed September 21, 2017, at http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/

usgspubs/cir/cir1309.

U.S. Geological Survey, 2017a, The StreamStats Program, 

accessed July 20, 2017, at https://water.usgs.gov/osw/

streamstats/tennessee.html. 

U.S. Geological Survey, 2017b, USGS 03470000 Little Pigeon 

River at Sevierville, TN, in National Water Information System—Web interface, accessed July 18, 2017, at https://doi.

org/10.5066/F7P55KJN. [Site information directly accessible at https://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis/inventory/?site_

no=03470000&agency_cd=USGS&.]
22 Groundwater/Surface-Water Interaction in Central Sevier County, Tennessee, October 2015–2016 

U.S. Geological Survey, 2017c, National Water Information 

System—Web interface, accessed July 2017 at https://doi.

org/10.5066/F7P55KJN.

Webster, D.A., and Carmichael, J.K., 1993, Ground-water 

hydrology of the lower Wolftever Creek basin, with emphasis on the Carson Spring area, Hamilton County, Tennessee: 

U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations 

Report 91–4190, 47 p. 

Winter, T.C., Harvey, J.W., Franke, O.L, and Alley, W.M., 

1999, Ground water and surface water; A single resource: 

U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1139, 79 p., accessed September 21, 2017, at https://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/1998/1139/

report.pdf.

Yager, R.M., Southworth, Scott, and Voss, C.I., 2008, Simulation of ground-water flow in the Shenandoah Valley, Virginia and West Virginia, using variable-direction anisotropy 

in hydraulic conductivity to represent bedrock structure: 

U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 

2008–5002, 54 p. [Also available at https://pubs.er.usgs.

gov/publication/sir20085002.]

Zurawski, Ann, 1979, Hydrogeology of the Gatlinburg area, 

Tennessee: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 

79–1167, 76 p. [Also available at https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/

publication/ofr791167.]

Publishing support provided by

 Lafayette Publishing Service Center

For more information concerning this publication, contact

 Director, USGS Lower Mississippi-Gulf Water Science 

Center—Tennessee (LMGWSC)

 640 Grassmere Park, Suite 100

Nashville, TN 37211

 (615) 837-4700

Or visit the LMGWSC website at

 https://tn.water.usgs.gov/

Carmichael and Johnson—Groundwater/Surface-Water Interaction in Central Sevier County, Tennessee, October 2015–2016—Open-File Report 2017–1147

ISSN 2331-1258 (online)

https://doi.org/10.3133/ofr20171147