Prepared in cooperation with the 

City of Murfreesboro, Tennessee

Sinkhole Flooding in Murfreesboro, Rutherford County, 

Tennessee, 2001–02

Scientific Investigations Report 2005–5281

U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey
Cover photograph.  Sinkhole flooding at sinkhole S-01, Shiloh focus area, Murfreesboro, Tennessee, March 19, 2002.
Sinkhole Flooding in Murfreesboro, 

Rutherford County, Tennessee, 2001–02

By Michael W. Bradley and Gregg E. Hileman

Prepared in cooperation with the

City of Murfreesboro, Tennessee

Scientific Investigations Report 2005–5281

U.S. Department of the Interior

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

Gale A. Norton, Secretary

U.S. Geological Survey

P. Patrick Leahy, Acting Director

U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2006

For sale by U.S. Geological Survey, Information Services

Box 25286, Denver Federal Center

Denver, CO 80225

For more information about the USGS and its products:

Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS

World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov/

Any use of trade, product, or firm names in this publication is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply 

endorsement by the U.S. Government.

Although this report is in the public domain, permission must be secured from the individual copyright owners to 

reproduce any copyrighted materials contained within this report.

Suggested citation:

Bradley, M.W., and Hileman, G.E., 2006, Sinkhole flooding in Murfreesboro, Rutherford County, Tennessee, 2001–02: 

U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2005–5281, 38 p.
Contents

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

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

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

Study Area..............................................................................................................................................3

Hydrogeology.........................................................................................................................................3

Previous Investigations........................................................................................................................5

Acknowledgments ...............................................................................................................................5

Approach and Methods................................................................................................................................7

Terrain Analysis ....................................................................................................................................7

Hydrologic Measurements..................................................................................................................7

Aerial Photography.............................................................................................................................10

Sinkhole Flood Response............................................................................................................................10

Shiloh Focus Area...............................................................................................................................16

Hooper Bottom Focus Area...............................................................................................................20

Manson Pike Focus Area...................................................................................................................26

Models of Sinkhole Flooding......................................................................................................................30

Summary and Conclusions.........................................................................................................................31

References....................................................................................................................................................32

Appendix. Relative flooding levels observed in aerial photography of the Murfreesboro area,

February 2001, January 2002, and March 2002......................................................................34

Figures

1.  Map showing the locations of the study area and three focus areas,

Murfreesboro, Tennessee...........................................................................................................2

2.  Chart showing geologic column and hydrogeology for the Murfreesboro area,

Tennessee, and stratigraphic positions of outcrops in the three focus areas...................4

3.  Diagram showing conceptual model of the ground-water system,

ground-water flow zones, and sinkhole-flooding model types

in the Murfreesboro area, Tennessee.......................................................................................6

4–6. Maps showing:

 4.  Sinkholes, sinkhole watershed areas, and stream watershed areas as

delineated by terrain analysis of 2-foot contour interval hypsographic

data, Murfreesboro area, Tennessee.................................................................................8

    5.  Locations of stream gage, sinkhole gages, and wells used for

data collection in the Murfreesboro area, Tennessee....................................................9

    6.  Locations of image center points for low-altitude oblique aerial

photographs taken following storms in February 2001,

January 2002, and March 2002, Murfreesboro, Tennessee .........................................12

7.  Images showing digital orthophotograph and 2-foot topographic contour

lines and low-altitude, oblique aerial photograph of a flooded sinkhole

at Stones River National Battlefield in the Manson Pike focus

area, Murfreesboro, Tennessee...............................................................................................13

iii
8.  Photographs showing a time-series change in flooding at sinkhole S-01,

Shiloh focus area, Murfreesboro, Tennessee, March 19, 25, and 29, 2002.......................14

9.  Hydrograph showing stream stage and daily precipitation at station number

03428200, West Fork Stones River near Murfreesboro, Tennessee, January 2001

through June 2002 and collection periods for low-altitude, oblique

aerial photographs used to monitor sinkhole flooding.........................................................15

10–12. Maps showing:

    10. Flood durations of sinkholes observed in aerial photographs following the

March 17, 2002 storm, at Hooper Bottom, Manson Pike, and Shiloh focus

areas, Murfreesboro, Tennessee......................................................................................17

    11. Data-collection points and flooded sinkholes identified in aerial photography,

at the Shiloh focus area, Murfreesboro, Tennessee.....................................................18

    12. Relative sinkhole flooding levels after the March 17, 2002 storm, at the

Shiloh focus area, Murfreesboro, Tennessee ................................................................19

13.  Graph of water-level altitudes in sinkholes S-10C and S-01, at the Shiloh

focus area, Murfreesboro, Tennessee, March 16 through March 30, 2002......................20

14–15. Maps showing:

    14. Data-collection points and flooded sinkholes identified in aerial

      photography at the Hooper Bottom focus area, Murfreesboro, Tennessee .............21

    15. Relative sinkhole-flooding levels after the March 17, 2002 storm,

at the Hooper Bottom focus area, Murfreesboro, Tennessee.....................................23

16. Photograph showing overland flow between sinkhole H-13D and H-13C in

the Hooper Bottom focus area, Murfreesboro, Tennessee, January 25, 2002.................24

17.  Graph showing water-level altitudes in sinkholes H-04A and H-04D; and

wells Ru:O-68, Ru:O-69, Ru:O-70, and Ru:O-72 near the Hooper Bottom

focus area, Murfreesboro, Tennessee, January through April 2002 .................................25

18–19. Maps showing:

    18. Data-collection points and flooded sinkholes identified in aerial photography,

at the Manson Pike focus area, Murfreesboro, Tennessee.........................................27

    19. Relative sinkhole-flooding levels after the March 17, 2002 storm, at the

Manson Pike focus area, Murfreesboro, Tennessee....................................................28

20.  Graph showing water-level altitudes in sinkholes M-02 and M-05 and in

selected wells in the Manson Pike focus area, Murfreesboro,

Tennessee, March 16-31, 2002..................................................................................................29

Tables

1.  Hydrologic monitoring stations used to evaluate sinkhole flooding near

Murfreesboro, Tennessee...........................................................................................................7

2. Water levels measured at crest-stage gages, Murfreesboro, Tennessee,

December 2000 through May 2003...........................................................................................11

3.  Altitude of ground water measured in wells near Murfreesboro, Tennessee,

February 2001 through March 2002 .........................................................................................11

4. Summary of rainfall, observed sinkhole flooding, and stage on the

West Fork Stones River during the February 2001, January 2002,

and March 2002 storms .............................................................................................................15

iv
Conversion Factors and Datum

Multiply By To obtain

inch (in.) 25.4 millimeter (mm)

foot (ft) 0.3048 meter (m)

mile (mi) 1.609 kilometer (km)

acre 4,047 square meter (m2)

square foot (ft2) 0.0929 square meter (m2)

square mile (mi2) 2.590 square kilometer (km2)

cubic foot (ft3) 0.02832 cubic meter (m3)

cubic foot (ft3) 28.32 liter (L)

cubic foot (ft3) 28.320 cubic centimeter (cm3)

foot per day (ft/d) 0.3048 meter per day (m/d)

cubic foot per second (ft3/s) 0.02832 cubic meter per second (m3/s)

gallon per minute (gal/min) 0.06308 liter per second (L/s)

inch per hour (in/hr) 0.0254 meter per hour (m/hr)

inch per year (in/yr) 25.4 millimeter per year (mm/yr)

Temperature in degrees Fahrenheit (°F) may be converted to degrees Celsius (°C) as follows:

°C=(°F-32)/1.8

Vertical coordinate information is referenced to the North American Vertical Datum of 1988

(NAVD 88).

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

Well-numbering system: wells in Tennessee are identified according to the numbering system

that is used by the U.S. Geological Survey, Tennessee Water Science Center. The well number

consists of three parts: an abbreviation of the name of the county in which the well is located;

a letter designating the 7 1⁄2-minute topographic quadrangle on which the well is plotted;

quadrangles are lettered from left to right across the county beginning in the southwest corner

of the county; and a number generally indicating the numerical order in which the well was

inventoried. For example, Ru:J-62 indicates that the well is located in Rutherford County on the

“J” quadrangle and identified as well 62 in the numerical sequence.
vi
Abstract

The U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with the City 

of Murfreesboro, Tennessee, conducted an investigation from 

January 2001 through April 2002 to delineate sinkholes and 

sinkhole watersheds in the Murfreesboro area and to characterize the hydrologic response of sinkholes to major rainfall 

events. Terrain analysis was used to define sinkholes and 

delineate the sinkhole drainage areas. Flooding in 78 sinkholes 

in three focus areas was identified and tracked using aerial 

photography following three major storms in February 2001, 

January 2002, and March 2002. The three focus areas are 

located to the east, north, and northwest of Murfreesboro and 

are underlain primarily by the Ridley Limestone with some 

outcrops of the underlying Pierce Limestone. 

The observed sinkhole flooding is controlled by water 

inflow, water outflow, and the degree of the hydraulic connection (connectivity) to a ground-water conduit system. The 

observed sinkholes in the focus areas are grouped into three 

categories based on the sinkhole morphology and the connectivity to the ground-water system as indicated by their 

response to flooding. The three types of sinkholes described 

for these focus areas are pan sinkholes with low connectivity, 

deep sinkholes with high connectivity, and deep sinkholes with 

low connectivity to the ground-water conduit system.

Shallow, broad pan sinkholes flood as water inflow 

from a storm inundates the depression at land surface. Water 

overflow from one pan sinkhole can flow downgradient and 

become inflow to a sinkhole at a lower altitude. Land-­surface 

modifications that direct more water into a pan sinkhole 

could increase peak-flood altitudes and extend flood durations. Land-surface modifications that increase the outflow by 

overland drainage could decrease the flood durations. Road 

construction or alterations that reduce flow within or between 

pan sinkholes could result in increased flood durations. 

Flood levels and durations in the deeper sinkholes 

observed in the three focus areas are primarily affected by the 

connectivity with the ground-water conduit system. Deep sinkholes with a relatively high connectivity to the ground-water 

system fill quickly after a storm, and drain rapidly after the 

storm ends, and water levels decline as much as 3 to 5 feet per 

day in the first 2 to 3 days after a major storm. These sinkholes 

store the initial floodwater and then rapidly transmit water to 

the ground-water conduit system (high outflow). Land-surface 

changes that direct more water into the sinkhole may increase 

the flood peaks, but may not have a substantial effect on the 

flood durations. 

Deep sinkholes that have low connectivity to the groundwater conduit system may have a delayed peak water level and 

may drain slowly, only about 2 to 3 feet in 10 days. Outflow 

from these sinkholes is limited or restricted by low connectivity to the ground-water conduit system. Land-surface alterations that increase the inflow to the sinkholes can result in 

high flood levels or increased flood durations. 

Introduction

The Murfreesboro area of Rutherford County in Middle 

Tennessee (fig. 1) is typical of many thinly mantled limestone 

areas where much of the rainfall runoff flows to low areas 

in sinkholes. Water in a sinkhole may infiltrate to ground 

water; evaporate to the atmosphere; or, if flood levels are high 

enough, overflow to adjacent basins. In this type of terrain, 

some sinkholes never flood1, some flood then drain quickly, 

and some flood and remain flooded for long periods. Results 

of previous U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) investigations in 

the Murfreesboro area indicate that for some sinkholes, the 

timing of the rise and recession of floodwater levels correlates closely with the timing of changes in the stage of nearby 

streams, whereas for other sinkholes, the timing of the rise 

and recession of floodwater levels is out of sync with nearby 

streams. Some of these latter sinkholes remain flooded for 

days after the streams have returned to pre-flood levels. An 

improved understanding of the patterns and timing of sinkhole 

flooding and drainage in the Murfreesboro area will provide 

useful insight into the factors controlling the hydrologic 

response of the sinkholes to major rainfall events, and indicate 

the degree of interconnection between the sinkholes and the 

ground- and surface-water systems. 

Land-use planning and infrastructure designs in rapidly 

urbanizing areas in karst terrains are hampered by insufficient 

delineation of sinkholes, and by an incomplete knowledge of 

the hydrologic characteristic of sinkholes and the factors that 

Sinkhole Flooding in Murfreesboro, Rutherford County, 

Tennessee, 2001–02

By Michael W. Bradley and Gregg E. Hileman

1

Sinkhole flooding in this report refers to the general condition of water 

inundation (flooding) of a closed topographic depression (sinkhole) and does 

not necessarily mean damage-causing or hazardous conditions.
Manson Pike

focus area

Overall

Creek

840 266

96

96

99

86°30' 86°25' 86°20'

35°50'

35°55'

24

41

70

231

West

Fork

River

Stones

0 1 2 3 MILES

0 1 2 3 KILOMETERS

Study area 

Central Basin physiographic region Rutherford County

Shiloh focus area

Hooper Bottom 

focus area

TENNESSEE

Murfreesboro

City Hall

East

Fork Stones

River

Bear

Branch

Bushman

Creek

Base modified from U.S. Geological Survey digital data

1985, 1:1,000,000 State Plane projection, datum NAD 83,

Zone 5301

Figure 1.  Locations of the study area and three focus areas, Murfreesboro, Tennessee.

   Sinkhole Flooding in Murfreesboro, Rutherford County, Tennessee, 2001-02
control sinkhole flooding. Developers and water-resources 

managers need to know where sinkholes are located, which 

sinkholes might present flood hazards, and which sinkholes 

are well connected to the ground- and surface-water systems.

Purpose and Scope

From January 2001 through April 2002 the USGS, in 

cooperation with the City of Murfreesboro, conducted an 

investigation to delineate sinkholes and sinkhole watersheds 

in the Murfreesboro area and to characterize the hydrologic 

response of sinkholes to major rainfall events.

The purposes of this report are to describe the delineation of sinkholes and sinkhole watersheds in the Murfreesboro 

area; to present hydrologic data used to monitor sinkhole 

flooding; and to characterize the flood response of sinkholes 

to major precipitation events. Sinkholes deeper than 3 feet (ft) 

and their associated surface drainage areas (sinkhole watersheds) were delineated from 2-ft contour-interval topographic 

data of the area. For each of three focus areas within the study 

area, the hydrologic response of water levels in sinkholes with 

observable flooding in aerial photographs was evaluated for 

three major rainfall events during 2001 and 2002. Rainfall and 

stream stage were measured at a gage on the West Fork Stones 

River; continuous water-level data were collected at gages in 

six sinkholes; periodic water levels were measured in nine 

wells; and peak water levels were recorded at nine sinkhole 

crest-stage gages. 

Study Area

The Murfreesboro area, Rutherford County, is located in 

the Central Basin physiographic region of Tennessee (Miller, 

1974). The terrain of the Murfreesboro area is characterized by 

gently rolling hills and valleys. Land-surface altitudes in the 

area generally range between 500 and 600 ft above NAVD 88. 

Urban, suburban, pasture, glade, and forest areas characterize 

the land use of the area. Increased development around Murfreesboro has converted forest and pasture land into suburban 

land use. 

The Murfreesboro area has a karstic topography with 

thin soils and sinkholes developed on the underlying, relatively flat-lying limestone bedrock. Surface outcropping and 

exposure of flat-lying limestone beds are common in the area. 

The karst development in the Murfreesboro area includes sinkholes, disappearing streams, numerous springs, and caves.

The Central Basin physiographic region and the Murfreesboro area are characterized by a humid, subtropical 

climate with mild winters and warm, humid summers. Average 

daily temperatures are 35 oF for January and 78 oF for July 

(National Climatic Data Center, 1948-2000). Average annual 

rainfall is about 53.5 inches. Storms that can result in stream 

and sinkhole flooding are typically the result of large cyclonic 

storms during the winter and into the spring months (December through March) and high intensity convectional thunderstorm cells during the spring and summer months (April 

through September). 

The Murfeesboro study area located in the north central part of Rutherford County, Tennessee, covers approximately 144 square miles (mi2

) roughly centered around the 

Murfreesboro, Tennessee, City Hall. Three focus areas, each 

about 7 mi2, were designated for detailed analysis of sinkhole 

flooding within the study area (fig. 1). The three focus areas 

were selected because they contain areas where historically, 

sinkhole flooding has overtopped roadways or approached 

buildings. The names of the three focus areas and their locations relative to the Murfreesboro, Tennessee, City Hall are: 

Shiloh, located about 2.5 miles (mi) east; Hooper Bottom, 

located about 4 mi north; and Manson Pike, located about 3 mi 

northwest.

Hydrogeology

The Murfreesboro area is underlain by limestone and 

shaley limestone of Ordovician age. The formations are 

relatively flat-lying with some local, low-angle folds (Burchett and Moore, 1971). In the study area, a thin layer of soil 

or regolith has developed over the predominantly carbonate bedrock. At some locations, the regolith is very thin to 

nonexistent and accumulates primarily in vertical fractures and 

joints in the bedrock. All of the limestone units in the Murfreesboro area have some level of karst development. Ground 

water moving through the joints, bedding planes, and fractures 

can dissolve and enlarge the openings. Sinkholes are present 

throughout the study area and range in size from a fraction of 

an acre to several square miles.

The rock units cropping out in the study area include, in 

descending order, the Hermitage Formation of the Nashville 

Group and the Carters Limestone, Lebanon Limestone, Ridley 

Limestone, Pierce Limestone, and Murfreesboro Limestone 

of the Stones River Group (fig. 2). The formations exposed at 

land surface in the three focus areas are the Carters Limestone, 

Lebanon Limestone, Ridley Limestone, Pierce Limestone, and 

Murfreesboro Limestone. 

The Carters Limestone is a massive-bedded, clean limestone that is about 65 ft thick. Several thin beds of bentonite 

are present near the top of the Carters Limestone. The Lebanon Limestone is a thin-bedded shaley limestone with a total 

thickness of about 100 to 120 ft. The Ridley Limestone is a 

thick- to massive-bedded limestone with a middle shaley part 

sandwiched between relatively clean limestones in the upper 

and lower parts of the formation. The Ridley Limestone, as 

mapped in the study area by Wilson (1964a, b, and c), is about 

90 to 100 ft thick; however, in places, this mapped thickness 

may reflect only the thickness of the upper part of the formation above the top of the middle shaley unit. Farmer and Hollyday (1999) described the full thickness of the Ridley Limestone as 131 to 153 ft. The Pierce Limestone is a thin-bedded, 

shaley limestone about 20 to 25 ft thick. The Murfreesboro 

Introduction 
Geology from Fa

Hydrology modif

&/#53!2%!/54#2/03

Manson Pike focus area

Shiloh focus area

Hooper Bottom focus area

Hermitage Formation

Carters Limestone

Lebanon Limestone

Ridley Limestone

Pierce Limestone

Murfreesboro Limestone

GEOLOGIC UNIT 

STRATIGRAPHIC

COLUMN HYDROGEOLO

Large solution openings do not develimpede water movement. Well yields 25 gallons per minute. 60 to 100 feet 

Large solution openings can developthan 100 gallons per minute can be dfeet thick.

Thin bedding and shale restrict grouand restrict the development of large Well yields of more than 25 gallons puncommon. About 115 feet thick.

Massive bedding allows the developsolution openings. Large conduits in form a major component of the grousystem. Well yields in excess of 100 can be developed. About 120 to 150 

Relatively insoluble, restricts groundWater-bearing zones can developed the Pierce Limestone. About 25 feet 

Solution openings and conduits in thconduit system can develop in the thunits. Shaley zones can restrict groumovement. Approximately 420 feet t

&IGURE'EOLOGICCOLUMNANDHYDROGEOLOGYFORTHE-URFREESBOROAREA4ENNESSEEANDSTRATIGRAPHICPOSITIONSOFOUTCROPSINTHETHREEFOCUSAREAS

Figure 2.  Geologic column and hydrogeology for the Murfreesboro area, Tennessee, and stratigraphic positions of outcrops in the three focus areas.
Limestone is a thick-bedded limestone with interbedded 

shaley limestone in the upper 75 to 100 ft. 

Ground-water conduits are most likely to develop in the 

thick-bedded, cleaner limestone of the Carters Limestone, the 

Ridley Limestone, and the Murfreesboro Limestone (fig. 2). 

Interconnected conduits in these geologic units can form 

substantial cave systems such as Snail Shell Cave (Barr, 1961) 

and develop a subsurface drainage system that can move water 

rapidly from connected sinkholes to wells and springs (Rima 

and others, 1977). Shaley limestone units such as the Pierce 

Limestone, Lebanon Limestone, and within the Murfreesboro 

and Ridley Limestones typically do not develop large, open, 

solution features. The shale partings and shale layers within 

these units can restrict ground-water flow (fig. 2).

The ground-water system in the Murfreesboro area is 

typical of many karst areas with little ground water stored in 

or transported through the matrix of the limestone bedrock, 

rather, most of the ground-water resides in and flows through 

fractures, bedding planes, small solution openings, and large 

open conduits (White, 2002). Water enters the ground-water 

system as dispersed recharge from rainfall that infiltrates over 

wide areas or as concentrated recharge from sinkholes and 

losing streams that infiltrates to localized parts of the groundwater system. Ground water flows from the recharge areas 

through fractures and conduits and eventually discharges to 

springs and gaining streams. Large conduits or interconnected 

conduit systems may consolidate ground-water flow similar 

to the way surface water flows from small tributaries to larger 

streams. These interconnected open conduits (the groundwater conduit system) can transmit water rapidly and can act 

as important local and regional drains of the ground-water 

system.

The movement of water into and through the groundwater system has a substantial effect on the occurrence and 

duration of sinkhole flooding in the Murfreesboro area. For 

this report, the ground-water system refers to any part of the 

subsurface capable of containing or transmitting water. The 

conceptual model of the ground-water system (fig. 3) as used 

in this report includes three variably interconnected groundwater flow zones: (1) a shallow zone that includes soil, regolith, and near-surface bedrock, this zone may be unsaturated 

during dry conditions; (2) a bedrock zone with ground-water 

flow occurring primarily in fractures, along bedding planes, 

and through small solution openings in bedrock, this zone 

is primarily beneath the water table; and (3) a ground-water 

conduit system developed principally in the clean limestone 

units with ground-water flow occurring in large, open conduits 

in bedrock, this zone also is primarily beneath the water table. 

Shaley layers in the subsurface tend to form barriers between 

the ground-water flow zones. For this report, the degree of 

connection between the sinkholes and the different zones of 

the ground-water system is referred to as connectivity.

Previous Investigations

The Murfreesboro area, Rutherford County, has been 

the focus of several investigations of surface water, ground 

water, and geology. Studies have been conducted in the area 

to describe the general water resources, to evaluate the water 

resources for water supply, and to evaluate flooding and flood 

frequency.

The water resources and hydrology of the area are 

described in a number of reports. Information on the hydrology and water budget of the Stones River basin is presented 

in Burchett and Moore (1971). The results of a ground-water 

investigation on potential ground-water supplies in the Murfreesboro area are described in Rima and others (1977). A soil 

survey for Rutherford County contains detailed information on 

the soils and general information on the landscape and climate 

(U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1977). The geology of the 

area has been mapped as part of the Tennessee 1:250,000 scale 

geologic map (Hardeman, 1966) and at 1:24,000 scale for 

the Murfreesboro (Wilson, 1964a), Dillton (Wilson, 1964b), 

Lascassas (Wilson and Miller, 1964), and Walterhill (Wilson, 

1964c) quadrangles. Farmer and Hollyday (1999) provide 

some additional information on the geologic structure of 

the area. Brahana and Bradley (1986) describe the regional 

aquifers and confining units in the Central Basin of Tennessee, 

including the Murfreesboro area. Dye-trace studies have identified recharge areas and ground-water flow directions (Ogden, 

1997, 1998, 2000).

Flooding in the Murfreesboro area first was evaluated in 

a flood-plain study of the West Fork Stones River by the U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers (1966), which provides information 

on major floods in 1902 and 1948. Rainfall, streamflow, and 

peak-stage data at several gage sites in the Murfreesboro area 

from March 1989 to July 1992 are documented by Outlaw 

and others (1992). The flood-frequency and detention-storage 

characteristics of the Bear Branch watershed in Murfreesboro 

are described in Outlaw (1996). Periodic flooding of lowlands 

and sinkholes along the West Fork Stones River and the recurrence of flooding levels independent of surface-water flooding 

are described in Law (2002). 

Acknowledgments 

We thank the many landowners in the study area who 

permitted access to their property for the installation of 

stream and sinkhole gages or the measurements of groundwater levels. We also thank George S. Law of the USGS for 

his encouragement throughout the project and his dedication 

to the collection and preservation of hydrologic data for the 

Murfreesboro area.

Introduction 
Wet w

S

Flooded pan sinkholeduring wet conditions

EXPLANATION

&IGURE#ONCEPTUALMODELOFTHEGROUND
WATERSYSTEMGROUND
WATERFLOWZONESANDSINKHOLE
FLOODINGMODELTYPESINTHE-URFREESBO

WATER TABLE DURING WET OR FLOODED CONDITIONSWATER TABLE DURING DRY CONDITIONSFRACTURES AND THIN BEDDING PLANE OPENINGS AND SOLUTION FEATURESLARGE, INTERCONNECTED CONDUITS AND FRACTURES IN BEDROCKMINOR GROUND-WATER FLOW COMPONENTMAJOR GROUND-WATER FLOW COMPONENT

SOIL OR REGOLITLIMESTONESHALEY LIMESTO

A

ABC

B C

LITHOLOGY

DEEP SINKHOLE WITH HIGH CONNECTIVITY TO GROUND- WATER CONDUIT SYSTEMPAN SINKHOLE WITH LOW CONNECTIVITY TO GROUND- WATER CONDUIT SYSTEMDEEP SINKHOLE WITH LOW CONNECTIVITY TO GROUND- WATER CONDUIT SYSTEM

SINKHOLE FLOODING MODEL TYPE

Figure 3.  Conceptual model of the ground-water system, ground-water flow zones, and sinkhole-flooding model types in the MurfreesboTennessee.
Approach and Methods

The investigation was conducted using terrain analysis 

to delineate sinkholes and sinkhole watersheds; aerial photography to define the extent and duration of sinkhole flooding; and hydrologic measurements of stream flow and stage, 

ground-water levels, and flood levels in sinkholes. Hydrologic 

response of sinkholes to flooding in the Murfreesboro area 

was accomplished by tracking recession of floodwater in the 

sinkholes using low-altitude, oblique aerial photographs of the 

study area, water-level data from six sinkholes, and groundwater level data from nine wells. Major storms were defined as 

2 or more inches of precipitation in 24 hours at the rain gage 

(station number 03428200) near Murfreesboro. The aerial 

photographs were taken during flights at 1- to 4-day intervals 

for 8 to 13 days after the three storms. 

Terrain Analysis 

Delineation of sinkhole locations and drainage areas was 

accomplished through Geographic Information System (GIS) 

spatial analysis software working from hypsography data sets 

(2-ft contour interval land-surface topography, circa 2001) 

provided by the City of Murfreesboro. The hypsography data 

were converted to a digital altitude grid with cell dimensions 

of 10 by 10 ft. Terrain analysis of the altitude grid identified 

sinkholes and delineated their associated watersheds. Delineation of sinkholes and sinkhole watersheds was conducted 

for only the part of the study area for which high-resolution 

hypsography data were available (fig. 4).

A sinkhole, for the purposes of the terrain analysis, is 

defined as an area of closed, internal drainage with greater 

than 3 ft of relief, larger than 2,500 ft2 surface area within the 

closure, and located more than 200 ft from the nearest stream 

(blue-line hydrography from 1:24,000-scale USGS maps). A 

sinkhole watershed is defined as the area based on the altitude 

grid that would provide overland flow to the sinkhole. The 

automated terrain analysis process identifies any qualified 

depression in the topographic data set as a topographic sinkhole (fig. 4) and does not distinguish between naturally formed 

features and human-created features such as farm ponds or 

depressions adjacent to raised roadways.

Hydrologic Measurements

Hydrologic data were collected from the West Fork 

Stones River, sinkholes, and wells in the study area (table 1). 

Precipitation and stream stage were continuously measured at 

a USGS stream gage on the West Fork Stones River near Murfreesboro (station number 03428200). Water levels were measured continuously at six sinkholes (fig. 5). Highest floodwater 

Table 1.  Hydrologic monitoring stations used to evaluate sinkhole flooding near Murfreesboro, Tennessee.

[lsd, land surface altitude in feet above NAVD 88; td, total well depth in feet below land surface; mi2, square mile]

Map 

number Station number Station name Data type Site no. (Law, 2002) Comments

03428200 03428200 West Fork Stones River Continuous stage, 

discharge, and 

precipitation

-- Drainage area 177 mi2

M-05 355147086260701 Harding Place lowland (Alexander) Continuous stage 11

M-02 355232086263401 Nickens Lane lowland (Dryden) Continuous stage 12

H-04D 355420086241001 Siegel Rd Sink (Ru:O-071) Continuous stage --

S-10C 355133086203800 Arnett Sinkhole Continuous stage --

H-04A 355443086244100 Thompson Lane (Hooper Bottom) Continuous stage --

BB-1 03428516 Buckeye Bottom, unnamed spring Continuous stage --

Ru:J-60 355151086254301 Ru:J-060 No. 1 Ground-water level -- lsd 568.5, td 106

Ru:J-61 355152086254401 Ru:J-061 No. 2 Ground-water level -- lsd 567.5

Ru:J-62 355146086253601 Ru:J-062 Manson Pike Ground-water level 5 lsd 571, td 40 

Ru:O-62 355257086262601 Ru:O-062 Stoneman quarry Ground-water level 17 lsd 561, td 150

Ru:O-68 355552086254401 Ru:O-068 Ground-water level -- lsd 549, td 120

Ru:O-69 355353086240901 Ru:O-069 Ground-water level -- lsd 579, td 70

Ru:O-70 355359086241501 Ru:O-070 Ground-water level -- lsd 564, td 50.8 

Ru:O-72 355449086240401 Ru:O-072 Ground-water level -- lsd 571

Ru:O-74 355311086262101 Ru:O-074 Old Nashville Highway Ground-water level 22 lsd 551, td 61

 3 (fig. 18) 355218086254101 National Battlefield lowland Crest stage 3

 4 (fig. 18) 355154086253901 Thompson Lane at Manson Pike Crest stage 4

 7 (fig. 18) 355112086255601 Golf range near Thompson Lane Crest stage 7

 8 (fig. 18) 355113086254801 Thompson Lane at Mall Circle Road Crest stage 8

 9 (fig. 18) 355133086254901 Thompson Lane karst window Crest stage 9

13 (fig. 18) 355243086255401 National Cemetery lowland Crest stage 13

14 (fig. 18) 355307086261801 Old Nashville Highway at Asbury Lane Crest stage 14

15 (fig. 18) 355310086261701 Old Nashville Highway cave Crest stage 15

16 (fig. 18) 03428131 U.S. Hwy 41/70 at Mt. Olive Crest stage 16

Approach and Methods 
EXPLANATION

SINKHOLE—Area of closed depression in

 the landsurface based on terrain analysis of

 2-foot contour interval hypsographic data

SINKHOLE WATERSHED—Area that drains to sinkholes

STREAM WATERSHED—Area that drains to streams

86°30' 86°25' 86°20'

35°50'

35°55'

0 1 2 3 MILES

0 1 2 3 KILOMETERS

Base modified from U.S. Geological Survey digital data

1985, 1:1,000,000 State Plane projection, datum NAD 83,

Zone 5301

Area excluded

from terrain analysis

Figure 4.  Sinkholes, sinkhole watershed areas, and stream watershed areas as delineated by terrain analysis of 2-foot contour

interval hypsographic data, Murfreesboro area, Tennessee.

 Sinkhole Flooding in Murfreesboro, Rutherford County, Tennessee, 2001-02
H-04A

M-05

S-10C

West

Fork

Sinking

Creek

Fork

Stones

Stones

River

River

East

Bear

Branch

Murfreesboro

City Hall

BB-1

Base modified from U.S. Geological Survey digital data

1985, 1:1,000,000 State Plane projection, datum NAD 83,

Zone 5301

24

840

231

266

96

96

41

0 1 2 MILES

0 1 2 KILOMETERS

STREAM GAGE (precipitation; continuous stream

 flow and stage)

SINKHOLE GAGE (continuous water level)

WELL (periodic water level)

MONITORING STATION—Data type in parentheses;

 number refers to text

EXPLANATION

Ru:J-62

Ru:J-62

Ru:O-62

Ru:O-70

H-04D

Ru:O-72

Ru:O-69

Ru:O-68

Ru:O-74

03428200

M-05

M-02

Ru:J-60

and J-61

03428200

Shiloh focus area

Hooper Bottom focus area

Manson Pike focus area

35°56'

86°26' 86°24' 86°22'

35°54'

35°52'

Figure 5.  Locations of stream gage, sinkhole gages, and wells used for data collection in the Murfreesboro area, Tennessee.

Approach and Methods 
levels were recorded on crest-stage gages at nine sinkholes 

(table 2). Ground-water levels were measured periodically at 

nine wells by using graduated electric tapes (table 3).

Aerial Photography

Low-altitude, oblique aerial photography was used to 

identify the occurrence and duration of sinkhole flooding following three selected storms in the study area on February 14, 

2001, January 23, 2002, and March 17, 2002. Aerial photographs were taken as soon as practical after the end of each 

selected storm. Additional photographs were taken at varying 

intervals of 2 to 14 days following the storm. Low-altitude, 

oblique photographs were taken throughout the Murfreesboro 

area and the three focus areas (fig. 6). 

For each focus area, the aerial photographs were evaluated to identify specific sinkholes that were flooded and to 

track the level of flooding during the course of the subsequent 

photography. The locations of flooding visible on the aerial 

photographs were correlated with locations on 6-inch pixel 

digital orthophotography and 2-ft contour interval topographic 

maps provided by the City of Murfreesboro (example shown 

in fig. 7). The series of photographs for each flooded sinkhole was evaluated to identify and designate the maximum 

observed flooded level as fully flooded (4/4 full). Aerial photographs taken for several days after each storm were evaluated to track the flooding of individual sinkholes (example 

shown in fig. 8) and to qualitatively designate the flood level 

as 3/4, 2/4, or 1/4 full compared to the maximum observed 

level (Appendix). If no water was visible, the sinkhole was 

identified as dry. The altitude of the maximum flooded level 

(Appendix) was determined by translating, with the aid of 

orthophotography, the locations of shoreline points identified 

in aerial photographs to the 2-ft contour interval topographic 

maps. Several narrow, steep-sided sinkholes, shown on topographic maps of the focus area, are located in forested areas, 

which prevented the observation and tracking of sinkholeflood response using aerial photography.

The time-series photographs for each flooded sinkhole 

were used to determine the flooding duration or the number 

of days from the end of the storm that the sinkhole retained 

water. The duration of flooding was conservatively chosen as 

the time interval between the end of the storm and the last day 

floodwater was observed in aerial photographs. Results of the 

flooding-duration determinations for the sinkholes in the three 

focus areas for the three storms are listed in the Appendix.

Sinkhole Flood Response

Sinkhole flooding in the Murfreesboro area occurs when 

the rate of water flowing into a sinkhole (inflow) exceeds 

the rate of water flowing out (outflow). Inflow to a sinkhole 

can include direct precipitation, overland surface run on, or 

ground-water seepage. Outflow from a sinkhole can include 

evapotranspiration, surface overflow, and ground-water 

drainage. The rate at which water in a sinkhole drains to (or 

seeps from) parts of the ground-water system is controlled 

by the hydraulic connection between the sinkhole and the 

ground-water system and by the “head” or potential difference between the water held in storage in the sinkhole and 

the ground-water system. Where material of relatively low 

permeability (clay-rich soil or shaley rock) forms the hydraulic 

connection between water in a sinkhole and the ground-water 

system, flow through the connection is limited. In general, 

poor hydraulic connectivity between a sinkhole and groundwater conduit system drains results in low outflow rates from 

the sinkhole and can result in long flood durations and high 

flood levels in the sinkhole. High permeability material or 

open conduits that form the connection between water in 

a sinkhole and the ground-water conduit system generally 

results in high outflow rates from the sinkhole and typically 

results in short sinkhole-flooding durations.

Sinkhole response in the three focus areas was monitored by stage recorders in sinkholes and by aerial photography used to track flooded sinkholes following the three 

storms. The three storms occurred on February 14-16, 2001, 

January 22-24, 2002, and March 16-18, 2002. The rainfall 

volume (inches) and intensity (inches per hour) for all three 

storms were below the 2-year, 24-hour recurrence values of 

3.39 inches and 0.14 inches per hour (in/hr) for the Nashville airport weather station (Camp Dresser & McKee, 2000, 

fig. 2-1, p. 2-61).

Unlike the West Fork Stones River, which showed shortlived response to intense precipitation, most of the sinkholes 

tracked for this study showed prolonged retention of storm 

water. Summaries of precipitation, stream stage, and duration 

of sinkhole flooding for the three storms tracked for this study 

are listed in table 4. 

For these three storms, the duration of actual stream 

flooding on the West Fork Stones River (stage greater than 

16 ft at station number 03428200) was short-lived, all less than 

1 day (table 4, fig. 9). The duration of stream stage greater 

than a level indicative of nonbase-flow conditions (greater 

than 5 ft) was less than 4 days. Conversely, more than half of 

the sinkholes retained floodwater for more than 8 days following the storms.

Rainfall during February 14-16, 2001, was 4.35 inches 

over 72 hours with 2.4 inches falling on February 16, 2001. 

Streamflow in the West Fork Stones River increased from 

an average flow of about 440 cubic feet per second (ft3/s) on 

February 13 to about 8,200 ft3/s on February 16, 2001. The 

flow of about 8,200 ft3/s has an approximate 1-year recurrence interval, the annual flood (Law, 2002). The stage of the 

West Fork Stones River increased from 3.4 ft to about 16 ft 

during the storm (fig. 9). Analysis of aerial photography, collected during a 13-day period after the storm, determined the 

duration of sinkhole flooding in 32 sinkholes, primarily in 

the Manson Pike (12 sites) and the Hooper Bottom (17 sites) 

focus areas. The 4.35-inch storm only produced flow in the 

West Fork Stones River about equal to the annual flood, yet 

10 Sinkhole Flooding in Murfreesboro, Rutherford County, Tennessee, 2001-02
Table 2. Water levels measured at crest-stage gages, Murfreesboro, Tennessee, December 2000 through May 2003.

[water-level altitudes in feet above NAVD 88; <, less than; Bold number indicates peak of record; numbers in parentheses are the gage identifier used in this report]

Date of 

water level

National 

Battlefield 

lowland (3)

Thompson 

Lane at Manson Pike (4)

Golf range 

near Thompson Lane (7)

Thompson 

Lane at Mall 

Circle Road (8)

Thompson 

Lane karst 

window (9)

National 

cemetery 

lowland (13)

Old Nashville 

Highway at 

Asbury Lane (14)

Old Nashvil

Highway ca

(15)

12/16/2000 <561 563.47 568.08 567.66 565.29 550.93 544.82 530.87 

02/16/2001 561.87 565.52 571.70 567.47 567.34 552.89 544.88 534.07 03/20/2001 <561 565.59 571.81 567.57 567.28 552.50 544.51 529.87 04/13/2001 <561 <562.44 559.27 567.32 563.15 <549 <543.78 <528.93 

09/13/2001 <561 <562.44 566.55 569.46 565.51 <549 <543.78 532.69 11/29/2001 <561 <562.44 565.54 568.75 562.98 <549 544.09 <528.93 

01/24/2002 561.40 565.62 573.12 569.06 567.89 553.77 544.95 534.65 03/17/2002 561.10 564.85 570.99 569.16 566.41 552.00 544.91 531.30 03/31/2002 <561 <562.44 565.00 569.11 566.44 <549 544.84 <528.93 

09/26/2002 <561 <562.44 564.00 567.97 564.67 <549 543.78 528.93 

05/07/2003 562.57 566.24 572.80 573.20 567.97 554.90 546.33 545.60 

Crest-stage data from these sites for December 12, 1998 through September 12, 2000 are published in Law (2002).

Table 3.  Altitude of ground water measured in wells near Murfreesboro, Tennessee, February 2001 through March 2002.[ground water altitudes in feet above NAVD 88; --, no data]

Date

Well Number

Ru:O-74 Ru:O-69 Ru:J-60 Ru:J-61 Ru:O-68 Ru:J-62 Ru:O-72 Ru:O-62 

02-19-2001 -- 557.68 -- -- -- -- -- -- 

02-27-2001 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 12-21-2001 -- -- -- -- -- -- 563.67 -- 01-15-2002 -- 549.51 -- -- -- -- 557.85 -- 01-24-2002 -- 559.20 -- -- -- -- 568.70 -- 01-25-2002 -- 558.64 -- -- -- -- -- -- 01-31-2002 -- 555.85 565.35 565.24 -- -- 567.77 -- 03-19-2002 523.23 556.12 565.00 564.75 526.33 564.43 567.29 532.93 03-21-2002 522.80 556.87 565.11 565.10 523.24 -- 567.75 532.70 03-22-2002 522.06 551.58 564.93 564.90 520.96 564.56 567.35 532.17 03-25-2002 520.32 549.72 564.10 564.06 514.37 563.81 566.18 530.95 03-27-2002 519.80 549.00 563.58 563.46 513.90 563.44 565.95 530.56 03-29-2002 518.89 548.25 562.45 562.09 512.37 562.72 565.47 529.77 
86°26'15'' 86°18'45''

35°48'45''

35°56'15''

Manson Pike

focus area

Shiloh focus area

Hooper Bottom 

focus area

0 1 2 3 MILES

0 1 2 3 KILOMETERS

Base modified from U.S. Geological Survey digital data

1985, 1:1,000,000 State Plane projection, datum NAD 83,

Zone 5301

Figure 6.  Locations of image center points for low-altitude oblique aerial photographs taken following storms in February 2001,

January 2002, and March 2002, Murfreesboro, Tennessee.

12 Sinkhole Flooding in Murfreesboro, Rutherford County, Tennessee, 2001-02
N

City of Murfreesboro digital data

Orthophoto: 2001, 6-inch pixel

Topography: 2001, 1:4,800

A. Digital orthophotograph and

2-foot topographic contour lines.

B. Low-altitude, oblique aerial photograph of a partially

flooded sinkhole. Photograph has been rotated to align

approximately with A above.

Figure 7.  (A) Digital orthophotograph and 2-foot topographic contour lines and (B) low-altitude, oblique aerial photograph of a flooded sinkhole

at Stones River National Battlefield in the Manson Pike focus area, Murfreesboro, Tennessee.

Sinkhole Flood Response 13
March 19, 2002, sinkhole flooding at highest level.

Flooding level was classified as 4/4 full. 

March 25, 2002, sinkhole flooding had declined

to a lower level. Flooding level was classified

as 2/4 full. The black line shows the approximate

4/4 full level observed on March 19, 2002. 

March 29, 2002, sinkhole flooding had declined

to the lowest level observed in the March 2002

aerial photography. Flooding level was classified

as 1/4 full. 

Figure 8.  Photographs showing a time-series change in flooding at sinkhole S-01, Shiloh focus area, Murfreesboro, Tennessee,

March 19, 25, and 29, 2002.

14  Sinkhole Flooding in Murfreesboro, Rutherford County, Tennessee, 2001-02
Table 4.  Summary of rainfall, observed sinkhole flooding, and stage on the West Fork Stones River

during the February 2001, January 2002, and March 2002 storms.

Description

Dates

February 14-16, 2001 January 22-24, 2002 March 16-18, 2002

72-hr Rainfall, inches 4.35 4.53 2.71

Number of sinkholes tracked with aerial 

photography

50 77 60

Number of sinkholes with discernable flood 

duration observed in aerial photography

32 51 60

Duration of aerial photography, days 13 8 12

Number of sinkholes with floodwater at end of 

aerial photography

28 39 21

Number of days of sinkhole flooding

Minimum 3 2 <2

Average 12 6.9 8.7

Median >13 >8 10

Maximum >13 >8 >12

Number of days West Fork Stones River stage:

Above base flow, 5 feet 3.7 3.3 2.8

Above flood stage, 16 feet 0.4 0.7 0.5

-5

0

5

10

15

20

1/1 3/1 5/1 7/1 9/1 11/1 1/1/2002

2001 2002

3/1 5/1 6/1

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

Collection period for low-angle oblique

aerial photographs used to track flooding

Daily precipitation, in inches

Stream stage, in feet above NAVD 88

&IGURE3TREAMSTAGEANDDAILYPRECIPITATIONATSTATIONNUMBER7EST&ORK3TONES2IVERNEAR-URFREESBORO

4ENNESSEE*ANUARYTHROUGH*UNEANDCOLLECTIONPERIODSFORLOW
ALTITUDEOBLIQUEAERIALPHOTOGRAPHSUSEDTO

MONITORSINKHOLEFLOODING

Precipitation

Stream stage

Flood stage

Figure 9.  Stream stage and daily precipitation at station number 03428200, West Fork Stones River near Murfreesboro, Tennessee,

January 2001 through June 2002 and collection periods for low-altitude, oblique aerial photographs used to monitor sinkhole flooding.

Sinkhole Flood Response 15
resulted in widespread and extended-duration sinkhole flooding. Eleven of 12 sinkholes tracked in the Manson Pike focus 

area, 14 of 17 in the Hooper Bottom focus area, and all 3 in 

the Shiloh focus area retained floodwater for at least 13 days 

following the storm. 

Rainfall during the January 22-24, 2002, storm was 

4.53 inches over 72 hours with 2.36 inches of rain falling on 

January 23, 2002. Streamflow in the West Fork Stones River 

increased from an average flow of about 390 ft3/s on January 22 to about 18,100 ft3

/s on January 23, 2002. The flow 

of about 18,100 ft3/s has an approximate 3-year recurrence 

interval (Law, 2002). The stage of the West Fork Stones River 

increased from 3.4 ft to about 21 ft during the storm (fig. 9). 

Analysis of aerial photography, collected during an 8-day 

period after the storm, determined the duration of sinkhole 

flooding in 51 sinkholes across the three focus areas; 13 

sinkholes in the Manson Pike, 10 in the Shiloh, and 28 in the 

Hooper Bottom focus areas. The rainfall during the January 

storm exceeded 4.5 inches, and sinkhole flooding again was 

widespread and extended through the duration of the aerial 

photography. Only 12 sinkholes with discernible flood durations were noted as dry on or before the eighth day following 

the storm. Thirty-nine of the 51 sinkholes with discernible 

flood durations retained floodwater for at least 8 days, and 

most of these were noted as 3/4 to 4/4 full on day 8 (Appendix).

During the March 16-18, 2002, storm, rainfall was 

2.71 inches over 72 hours with 1.97 inch falling on March 17, 

2002. Streamflow in the West Fork Stones River increased 

from an average flow of about 180 ft3/s on March 15 to about 

14,200 ft3/s on March 17, 2002. The flow of about 14,200 ft3/s 

has an approximate 2-year recurrence interval (Law, 2002). 

The stage of the West Fork Stones River increased from 2.9 ft 

to about 19 ft during the storm (fig. 9). Analysis of aerial 

photography, collected during a 12-day period following the 

storm, determined the duration of sinkhole flooding in 60 sinkholes across the three focus areas; 20 sinkholes in the Manson 

Pike, 12 in the Shiloh, and 28 in the Hooper Bottom focus 

areas. The lower rainfall during the March event compared 

to the other storms evaluated during the study still resulted in 

widespread sinkhole flooding, but the duration of flooding was 

shorter and more variable across the three focus areas. Only 21 

of the 60 observed sinkholes with discernible flood durations 

continued to hold floodwater for at least 12 days following the 

storm. On the 12th day after the storm, 4 of 20 sinkholes held 

floodwater in the Manson Pike focus area; 5 of 12 held floodwater in the Shiloh focus area, and 12 of 28 held floodwater in 

the Hooper Bottom focus area (fig. 10, Appendix).

The sinkhole flooding response to the February 2001 

and January 2002 storms was characterized by long-duration 

sinkhole flooding. Because so many of the observed sinkholes retained floodwater for the entire post-storm observation period following the February 2001 and January 2002 

storms, the effect of differences in outflow or differences in 

the hydraulic connection to the ground-water system could 

not be discerned. The March 2002 storm had only 2.71 inches 

of rainfall and resulted in a wider range of discernible sinkhole-flooding responses as compared to the other storms. The 

variation in sinkhole-flooding response associated with the 

March 2002 storm provided information on the hydrogeologic 

and man-made controls on sinkhole flooding and the relative 

hydraulic connection with the regional ground-water system. 

Shiloh Focus Area

The Shiloh focus area (fig. 11) is located about 2.5 mi 

east of the Murfreesboro, Tennessee, City Hall. The area is 

underlain at land surface primarily by the Ridley Limestone 

with some occurrence of the Lebanon and Carters Limestones 

in the northeast (Wilson, 1964b). Much of the focus area has 

very thin soils overlying upper parts of the Ridley Limestone. 

Important hydrologic features include Double Springs (located 

in sinkhole S-18), its outlet stream, Double Springs Branch, 

which enters a cave system at sinkhole S-15 and reappears 

at the head of Bushman Creek (Ogden, 1998), and Bushman 

Creek. A continuous water-level recorder was installed and 

operated in sinkhole S-10C from January through April 2002. 

Numerous sinkholes exist in the Shiloh focus area. Terrain analysis indicated that 80 percent of this 6.9-mi2

 focus 

area drains to sinkholes. Twenty-four sinkholes in the study 

area had floodwater observable in the aerial photographs taken 

following the storms (fig. 9). Surface-water drainage from 

several parking lots is diverted into and through sinkhole S-12 

to the flat, pan sinkhole S-02B.

The flood responses of observable sinkholes in the Shiloh 

focus area to the March 2002 storm are depicted in figure 12. 

Observations from the aerial photographs indicate that following the storm, flooding lasted more than a week at most 

of the sinkholes. Four days after the storm, all of the observable sinkholes retained floodwater except for sinkhole S-10B, 

which had completely drained. Half (11 of 22) of the sinkholes 

tracked retained water for at least 8 days after the March 2002 

storm. Twelve days after the end of the storm, five sinkholes 

(S-01, S-02B, S-03, S-06, and S-10C) still retained observable 

floodwater. The sinkholes in the Shiloh focus area showed 

similar flood-response patterns following the February 2001 

and January 2002 storms. The observed sinkholes were at their 

highest observed water levels by about 2 days after the storms 

and tended to drain in a “downhill” sequence. The sinkholes 

located at the highest altitudes tended to drain first with the 

sinkholes at lower altitudes draining later. 

Continuous data from the water-level gage in sinkhole 

S-10C compared to altitudes of floodwater in sinkhole S-01, 

interpolated from oblique, aerial photography and 2-ft interval 

topographic contours, for the March 2002 storm (fig. 13) show 

substantial differences in flood response. Sinkhole S-01 is a 

broad, shallow depression (pan sinkhole) typical of other pan 

sinkholes in the focus area. The water level in sinkhole S-01 

declined by only about 3 ft during the 12 days after the storm 

and was at an altitude about 10 ft higher than the water level 

in the nearby sinkhole S-10C on the 12th day after the storm. 

16  Sinkhole Flooding in Murfreesboro, Rutherford County, Tennessee, 2001-02
EXPLANATION

LESS THAN 5

5 - 8

10

GREATER THAN 12

0 1 MILE

0 1 KILOMETER

Hooper Bottom focus area

Manson Pike focus area Shiloh focus area

SINKHOLE-FLOOD DURATION—

 Number of days with flood water

 observed in aerial photographs

Base maps modified from U.S. Geological Survey digital data,

1985, 1:100,000, State Plane projection, datum NAD 83,

Zone 5301

Figure 10.  Flood durations of sinkholes observed in aerial photographs following the March 17, 2002 storm, at Hooper Bottom, Manson

Pike, and Shiloh focus areas, Murfreesboro, Tennessee.

Sinkhole Flood Response 17
S-01

S-02B

S-12 S-02A

S-03

S-16B

S-06

S-13

S-04

S-19

S-05

S-11

S-09

S-22

S-20 S-21

S-10B

S-18

S-16A (p)

S-15

S-08

S-17

S-14 (p)

S-07

S-10C

S-10A

86°21' 86°20'

35°50'

35°51'

35°52'

0 0.5 1 MILE

0 0.5 1 KILOMETER

&IGURE$ATA
COLLECTIONPOINTSANDFLOODEDSINKHOLESIDENTIFIEDINAERIALPHOTOGRAPHYATTHE3HILOHFOCUSAREA

-URFREESBORO4ENNESSEE

Base modified from U.S. Geological Survey digital data

1985, 1:1,000,000 State Plane projection, datum NAD 83,

Zone 5301

Bushman

Cr.

Double

Springs

Br. Flow

Flow

96

70

Test well

MF-5A

N. Rutherford Blvd.

Halls Hill Pike

S-09 SINKHOLE AND NUMBER—Water

 inundation observed in aerial photography.

 Farm ponds indicated by (p)

SINKHOLE GAGE (continuous water level)

MONITORING STATION—Data type in parentheses;

 number refers to text

EXPLANATION

Figure 11.  Data-collection points and flooded sinkholes identified in aerial photography, at the Shiloh focus area, Murfreesboro,

Tennessee.

18  Sinkhole Flooding in Murfreesboro, Rutherford County, Tennessee, 2001-02
EXPLANATION

NO DATA

DRY—No water observed

1/4

2/4

3/4

4/4

0 1 MILE

0 1 KILOMETER

SINKHOLE-FLOODING LEVEL —

 Relative flooding level compared to

 the maximum level (4/4) observed.

Day 4, March 22, 2002 Day 8, March 25, 2002

Day 12, March 29, 2002

Base maps modified from U.S. Geological Survey digital data,

1985, 1:100,000, State Plane projection, datum NAD 83,

Zone 5301

Figure 12.  Relative sinkhole flooding levels after the March 17, 2002 storm, at the Shiloh focus area, Murfreesboro, Tennessee.

Sinkhole Flood Response 19
Water-level altitudes in S-10C declined rapidly, falling by 

more than 7 ft during the first 2 days after the storm (fig. 13). 

The difference in hydraulic response of the two sinkholes 

reflects differences in the hydraulic connection between each 

sinkhole and the ground-water conduit system. Sinkhole 

S-10C shows a rapid hydraulic response that indicates a high 

connectivity with the ground-water conduit system. The waterlevel response in S-01 is much more delayed and represents 

a zone with a much lower connectivity to the ground-water 

conduit system. 

The sinkhole flooding in the Shiloh focus area appears to 

be associated with both a shallow system and the ground-water 

conduit system. The upper shallow system is represented by 

flooding in shallow, broad sinkholes (pan sinkholes) including 

S-01, S-02A, S-02B, S-05, S-19, S-20, S-21, and S-22. The 

pan sinkholes appear to be separated from the ground-water 

conduit system by material (soil or bedrock) with relatively 

low hydraulic conductivity. The ground-water conduit system 

is represented by deep, steep-sided sinkholes including S-10C, 

S-11, S-15, and S-17. Sinkholes associated with this system 

show rapid water-level rises and declines. The ground-water 

conduit system is apparently highly developed in this focus 

area. Test well (MF-5A) drilled in the Shiloh focus area during 

the 1975 ground-water study of the Murfreesboro area (Rima 

and others, 1977) intersected water-bearing openings at 53 to 

55 and 73 to 74 ft below land surface in upper parts of the Ridley Limestone. During an aquifer test in 1975, while the well 

was being pumped at 100 to 250 gallons per minute (gal/min), 

rapid infiltration of rainfall caused water levels in the well 

to rise and the test to be discontinued. In this focus area, the 

sinkholes with the longest flood durations appear to have low 

connectivity with the ground-water conduit system, occur at 

low altitudes, and may be near ground-water discharge points 

(such as sinkholes S-03 and S-06), or be affected by surfacewater drainage (such as sinkhole S-02B).

Hooper Bottom Focus Area

The Hooper Bottom focus area (fig. 14) is located about 

4 mi north of the Murfreesboro, Tennessee, City Hall. Much of 

the focus area is mapped as being underlain by lower parts of 

the Ridley Limestone (Wilson, 1964c); thus, numerous shaley 

layers in the Ridley, Pierce, and Murfreesboro Limestones are 

present in the shallow subsurface (land surface to 150 ft below 

land surface). Along the confluence of the West Fork Stones 

River and Sinking Creek, the contact between the Ridley 

Limestone and the Pierce Limestone is mapped at an altitude 

of about 550 ft above NAVD 88. Typical land-surface altitudes 

3/16/02 3/21/02 3/26/02 3/31/02

Date

Water-level altitude, in feet above NAVD 88

588

590

592

594

596

598

600

602

604

Sinkhole S-01 overflow level

Water-level altitudes in S-01 interpolated

Sinkhole S-10C from aerial photography

&IGURE7ATER
LEVELALTITUDESINSINKHOLES3
#AND3
ATTHE3HILOHFOCUSAREA-URFREESBORO4ENNESSEE-ARCHTHROUGH

-ARCH

Figure 13.  Water-level altitudes in sinkholes S-10C and S-01, at the Shiloh focus area, Murfreesboro, Tennessee, March 16 through

March 30, 2002.

20 Sinkhole Flooding in Murfreesboro, Rutherford County, Tennessee, 2001-02
H-04B

H-04C

H-05B

H-04D

H-05

H-04

H-02

H-04A

H-08A

H-02A

H-09

H-10

H

H-13D

H-14

H-05C

H-05D

H-19

H-11A

H-08B

H-14

H-15

H-05A

H-21

H-18A

H-18B

H-17

H

H-18C

H-13A (p)

H-13B (p)

H-20 (p)

H-11

H-13C

Flow

Flow

West Fork Stones River

Sinking

Creek

N. Thompson

Lane

Hooper Bottom sinkhole complex

Ru:O-69

Ru:O-70

Ru:O-72

03428200

35°54'35°55'

86°26' 86°25' 86°24' 

0 0.25 0.5 MILE

0 0.25 0.5 KILOMETER

H-04D

840

03428200

&IGURE$ATA
COLLECTIONPOINTSANDFLOODEDSINKHOLESIDENTIFIEDINAERIALPHOTOGRAPHYATTHE(OOPER"OTTOMFOCUSAREA-URFREESBORO4

Base modified from U.S. Geological Survey digital data1985, 1:1,000,000 State Plane projection, datum NAD 83,Zone 5301

H-04B SINKHOLE AND NUMBER—Water inundation observed in aerial photography.

 Farm ponds indicated by (p)SINKHOLE GAGE (continuous water level)SINKHOLE GAGE (continuous water level)WELL (periodic water levels)

MONITORING STATION—Data type in parentheses; number refers to text

EXPLANATION

Ru:O-70

Figure 14.  Data-collection points and flooded sinkholes identified in aerial photography at the Hooper Bottom focus area, Murfreesboro, Tenness
near the center of the focus area are about 575 ft above 

NAVD 88. Soils thick enough to support row crops or pasture 

cover much of the focus area with some areas of very thin soil 

present in parts of the area. 

The major hydrologic features in the focus area are the 

West Fork Stones River, Sinking Creek, and Hooper Bottom, which consists of a complex of sinkholes (H-04, H-04A, 

H-04B, H-04C, and H-04D) that are connected by culverts and 

ditches in an overflow pattern from southeast to northwest. 

Dye-tracing results from injections into two sinkhole throats 

in H-04D (Ogden, 1998) confirm a ground-water flow-path 

connection between this sinkhole and a cave stream at the 

Buckeye Bottom sinkhole gage (BB-1, in fig. 5) located 4.1 mi 

northwest of H-04D. The hydrology of the Hooper Bottom 

focus area was monitored with a stream gage on the West Fork 

Stones River, two water-level recorders at sinkholes H-04A 

and H-04D, and with periodic water-level measurements at 

three wells (Ru:O-69, Ru:O-70, and Ru:O-72; in fig. 14).

Terrain analysis indicated that 65 percent of this 7.8-

mi2 focus area drains to sinkholes. Sinkhole H-04D receives 

runoff from an approximate 1.2-mi2 area east of the sinkhole. 

Thirty-four sinkholes in the focus area (fig. 14) had floodwater 

observed in the aerial photographs following the three storms. 

The hydrologic response of sinkholes H-02, H-02A, and H-10 

could not be evaluated during the March 2002 storm because 

the sites had been affected by nearby construction. The sinkholes observed in the aerial photography in this focus area are 

primarily broad pan sinkholes with deep sinkholes restricted to 

the Hooper Bottom complex.

The flood response of sinkholes in the Hooper Bottom 

focus area to the March 2002 storm is shown in figure 15. 

The flooding levels peaked in most of the sinkholes by about 

2 days after the storm. The flooding levels in three of the 

sinkholes, H-04A, H-04B, and H-04D, continued to rise and 

reached peak levels 3 to 4 days after the storm. Nearly half 

(15 of 31) of the sinkholes that were monitored following the 

March 2002 storm in the Hooper Bottom focus area retained 

floodwater for at least 8 days, and 13 of 31 of the sinkholes 

retained water for at least 10 days. The flood response at sinkholes H-13D and H-13C, and at H-18A, B, and C appeared 

to have some overland flow from one sinkhole to the next 

lower sinkhole. Following the storms when sinkhole H-13D 

was observed in the aerial photographs to be fully flooded, 

overland flow from this sinkhole through a low, grassy swale 

to sinkhole H-13C (fig. 16) also was observed. Overland flow 

from H-18A to H-18B and on to H-18C also was observed in 

some of the aerial photographs. 

Hydrologic data depicted in figure 17 show water-level 

response to the January and March 2002 storms in selected 

sinkholes and wells near the Hooper Bottom focus area. The 

water level in sinkhole H-04D increased rapidly following a 

major storm, peaked shortly after the end of the storm, and 

maintained a relatively high water level for weeks after the 

storm. The rise in water levels in the downstream sinkhole, 

H-04A, lagged several days behind the end of the storms, 

the timing of peak water levels in upstream sinkholes of the 

Hooper Bottom complex, and the timing of peak water levels 

in other observed sinkholes in the focus area. The delay 

between the end of the storm and peak water levels in H-04A 

indicates that this sinkhole continued to receive inflow for 

days following a major rainfall.

Periodic water-level measurements in the wells Ru:O-72, 

O-70, and O-69 show the ground-water response to the storms 

(fig. 17). Ground-water levels in all three wells rose about 10 

to 12 ft as a result of the January 2002 storm. Water levels 

in well Ru:O 72, located about 0.5 mi northeast of Hooper 

Bottom (fig. 14), declined slightly from the peak, but still 

remained about 10 ft above the pre-storm water levels after 

6 days. Ground-water levels in both Ru:O-69 and Ru:O-70 

declined from their peak water levels by about 5 ft in 6 days 

after the January 2002 storm and by about 7 ft in 8 days after 

the March 2002 storm. 

Differences in the water-level altitudes between the 

wells and the Hooper Bottom sinkhole complex demonstrate 

the hydraulic gradients that affect sinkhole flooding. The 

ground-water levels in all three wells were measured at higher 

altitudes than the flood levels recorded in both of the monitored sinkholes following the January storm and during the 

beginning of the post-storm measurement period following the 

March 2002 storm. After about 5 days following the March 

storm, the ground-water altitudes in wells Ru:O-69 and Ru:O70 were below water levels in sinkhole H-04D but still above 

water levels in sinkhole H-04A. Differences in ground-water 

altitudes and sinkhole water-level altitudes define a gradient that potentially causes water flow from those parts of the 

system with higher head to the parts of the system with lower 

head. Deep sinkholes may be connected to multiple zones 

in the ground-water system and may simultaneously receive 

inflow from parts of the ground-water system with high head 

while discharging outflow to parts of the system with low 

head. Sinkhole H-04D is an example of a sinkhole that connects to multiple ground-water zones. On several occasions, 

discharge from wet-weather springs on the broad, southern 

flank of sinkhole H-04D was observed to flow into a throat of 

the sinkhole with no observable flooding in the throat. 

The sinkhole flooding in the Hooper Bottom focus area 

appears to be associated with ground-water zones having 

limited connectivity with ground-water conduit system drains. 

A shallow zone in the ground-water system is reflected by the 

flooding response in most of the sinkholes observed in the 

study area. Most of the sinkholes in the Hooper Bottom focus 

area are shallow (less than 5 ft deep), broad, pan sinkholes that 

retained floodwater for at least 8 days following the March 

2002 storm. Deep sinkholes, such as those in the Hooper 

Bottom sinkhole complex, may be hydraulically connected to 

multiple zones in the ground-water system and may simultaneously receive inflow from high-head parts of the ground-water 

system while discharging outflow to low-head parts of the 

system. The long delay for the sinkhole flooding to drain in 

the Hooper Bottom complex is probably a result of the continued inflow from shallow parts of the ground-water system 

and surface ditches and an apparent low connectivity through 

22 Sinkhole Flooding in Murfreesboro, Rutherford County, Tennessee, 2001-02
EXPLANATION

NO DATADRY—No water observed1/42/43/44/4

0 1 MILE

0 1 KILOMETER

SINKHOLE-FLOODING LEVEL — Relative flooding level compared to the maximum level (4/4) observed.

Base maps modified from U.S. Geological Survey digital d1985, 1:100,000, State Plane projection, datum NAD 83,Zone 5301

Day 4, March 22, 2002Day 12, March 29, 2002

Day 8, March 25, 2002

Figure 15.  Relative sinkhole-flooding levels after the March 17, 2002 storm, at the Hooper Bottom focus area, Murfreesboro, Tennessee.
H-09

H-13D

H-13C

H-19

H-13A

H-08B

H-18A

H-18B

H-18C

H-13B

H-13D

EXPLANATION

NUMBER OF THE SINKHOLE OBSERVED IN AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY

DIRECTION OF OVERLAND FLOW BETWEEN SINKHOLES

FRACTURE TRACE AS INDICATED BY LINEAR FLOW PATTERNS

Figure 16.  Overland flow between sinkhole H-13D and H-13C in the Hooper Bottom focus area, Murfreesboro, Tennessee, January 25, 2002.

24  Sinkhole Flooding in Murfreesboro, Rutherford County, Tennessee, 2001-02
510

515520525530535540545550555560565570

1/14/02 1/21/02 1/28/02 2/4/02 2/11/02 2/18/02 2/25/02 3/4/02

Date

3/11/02 3/18/02 3/25/02 4/1/02 4/8/02 4/15/0

Water-level altitude, in feet above NAVD 88

&IGURE7ATER
LEVELALTITUDESINSINKHOLES(
!AND(
$ANDWELLS2U/
2U/
2U/
AND2U/
NEARTHE(OOPER"OTTOM-URFREESBORO4ENNESSEE*ANUARYTHROUGH!PRIL

EXPLANATIO

Sinkhole H-04D, Seigel

Sinkhole H-04A, 

DATA POINT AND 

 NUMBER

Ru:O-68Ru:O-69Ru:O-70Ru:O-72

Ru:O-69

Ru:O-70

Ru:O-72

Ru:O-68

Figure 17.  Water-level altitudes in sinkholes H-04A and H-04D; and wells Ru:O-68, Ru:O-69, Ru:O-70, and Ru:O-72 near the Hooper Bottom focus areTennessee, January through April 2002.
the lower Ridley Limestone and the Pierce Limestone to the 

regional ground-water conduit system. The Hooper Bottom 

sinkhole complex provides a connection, although somewhat 

restricted, with a ground-water conduit system. 

Manson Pike Focus Area

The Manson Pike focus area (fig. 18) is located about 

3 mi northwest of the Murfreesboro, Tennessee, City Hall. The 

focus area is primarily underlain by the Ridley Limestone with 

the Pierce and Murfreesboro Limestones mapped as cropping 

out along the West Fork Stones River (Wilson, 1964a, c). In 

the focus area, the top of the Pierce Limestone is mapped at 

altitudes of about 550 ft to about 570 ft. The top of the Pierce 

Limestone is mapped at similar altitudes along Overall Creek, 

located just west of the focus area. Much of the focus area is 

covered by soils thick enough to support row crops or pasture 

although some areas with very thin soil occur in glades near 

the Stones River National Battlefield where the Ridley Limestone crops out.

The major hydrologic feature in the focus area is the West 

Fork Stones River (fig. 18). Flooding on the river can overflow 

into some of the sinkholes. Nearly 34 percent of the focus area 

is within the 100-year flood zone as designated by the Federal 

Emergency Management Agency (2002).

The hydrology in the Manson Pike focus area was 

monitored at 16 locations (fig. 18). Water-level recorders were 

installed in two sinkholes, M-02 and M-05. Periodic groundwater levels were measured in five wells, Ru:O-62, O-74, 

J-60, J-61, and J-62. Crest-stage gages, which record the peak 

floodwater levels, were installed at nine sinkhole locations 

in the focus area (fig. 18). The stream gage on the West Fork 

Stones River is located just north of the Manson Pike focus 

area (fig. 5).

Terrain analysis indicated that 70 percent of this 7.0-

mi2 focus area drains to sinkholes. Within the focus area, 20 

sinkholes had floodwater observable in aerial photographs. 

Six of the 20 sinkholes were monitored with either water-level 

recorders or crest-stage gages (fig. 18). Most of the sinkhole 

flooding observed in the focus area occurs in broad, shallow, 

natural depressions; although, both M-10 and M-12 coincide 

with soil ‘borrow pit’ excavations. Two sinkholes, M-02 and 

M-05, have a broad, shallow surface expression with deep, 

steep-walled sinkhole throats. The water-level gages in these 

two sinkholes were installed in the sinkhole throats to monitor 

the full range of water-level fluctuation.

Flood response of sinkholes in the Manson Pike focus 

area to the March 2002 storm is shown in figure 19. Observations from the aerial photography indicate that floodwaters 

in the observed sinkholes were at their highest levels within 

about 2 days after the storm. Four days after the storm, only 

three sinkholes were observed with dry conditions whereas 14 

others retained floodwater. Data from the aerial photographs 

indicate that flooding lasted longer than a week at most of 

the sinkholes. By the 12th day after the storm, most of the 

sinkholes had drained; only sinkholes M-07, M-08, M-10, and 

M-12 held observable water. Flooding duration in sinkholes 

M-10 and M-12 probably are affected by construction activities and the use of these sites as borrow pits. Sinkholes M-07 

and M-08 are shallow, pan sinkholes with floodwater altitudes 

(about 565 to 566 ft) that were only slightly above the groundwater altitudes in nearby wells Ru:J-60, J-61, and J-62 (562 

to 563 ft). The delayed outflow from these two sinkholes 

that was observed following the monitored storms could be 

the result of the small gradient between water levels in the 

sinkholes and ground-water levels and/or a low connectivity 

between the sinkholes and the ground-water conduit system 

drains. Roadways separate the two sinkholes, but after about 

8 days, the sinkholes were classified as 1/4 full, the water 

levels were lower than the roadway culverts, and the culverts 

did not appear to control the drainage.

In general, sinkholes in the northern and western parts of 

the focus area drained quicker and sinkholes in the southern 

and eastern parts retained water longer. In duration analyses 

of lowland flooding in the Manson Pike area, Law (2002) 

observed similar patterns and noted that “Land east and south 

of the battlefield tour loop is slower draining than land west of 

the battlefield tour loop.”

Water-level responses at sinkholes and in wells in the 

Manson Pike focus area through the March 2002 storm are 

shown in figure 20. Ground-water levels measured in the five 

wells and water levels in the two monitored sinkholes show a 

decrease in water-level altitudes from the south to the north, 

toward the West Fork Stones River. Water levels in each of the 

two monitored sinkholes and in the nearby wells responded 

differently to the March storm. Water-level altitudes in the 

southern sinkhole, M-05, peaked about 4 days after the storm 

and remained at high levels for several days, indicating that 

inflow to this sinkhole was sustained for days after the storm. 

Two days after the March 2002 storm, no overland flow to this 

sinkhole was observed in aerial photographs; the sustained 

inflow was probably from the ground-water system. Groundwater altitudes measured in wells located west of sinkhole 

M-05 and near the intersection of Manson Pike and Thompson 

Lane (wells Ru:J-60, J-61, and J-62) were always above the 

water-level altitudes in sinkhole M-05. The higher water-level 

altitudes in the three wells indicate a hydraulic gradient with 

a potential to cause the continued inflow of water from parts 

of the ground-water system to the sinkhole. The water-level 

altitudes in the three wells showed only slight differences 

between the deepest well (Ru:J-60) and the two shallower 

wells (Ru:J-61 and J-62). Contrasting with the character of 

flood response in southern parts of the focus area, water levels 

in the northern sinkhole, M-02, rose rapidly after the end of 

the March 2002 storm, peaked quickly, and then declined by 

greater than 7 ft within 3 days after the storm. Ground-water 

altitudes in wells Ru:O-62 and O-74 located north of sinkhole 

M-02 were always at levels below the water-level altitudes 

of sinkhole M-02. None of the post-storm ground-water level 

measurements from wells near sinkhole M-02 indicate a 

gradient with a potential to cause ground-water inflow to the 

26  Sinkhole Flooding in Murfreesboro, Rutherford County, Tennessee, 2001-02
M-05

M-10

M-02

M-08

M-11

M-06

M-09

M-20

M-12

M-07

M-03

M-15 (p)

M-04

M-17B

M-06A

M-17A

M-18

M-01

M-01A

M-19 M-13 (p)

M-16

M-14 (p)

35°53'

86°27' 86°26' 86°25'

35°52'

0 0.5 1 MILE

0 0.5 1 KILOMETER

Base modified from U.S. Geological Survey digital data

1985, 1:1,000,000 State Plane projection, datum NAD 83,

Zone 5301

M-10

24

SINKHOLE AND NUMBER—Water

 inundation observed in aerial photography.

 Farm ponds indicated by (p)

SINKHOLE GAGE (continuous water level)

WELL (periodic water level)

CREST-STAGE GAGE (peak water level)

MONITORING STATION—Data type in parentheses;

 number refers to text

&IGURE$ATA
COLLECTIONPOINTSANDFLOODEDSINKHOLESIDENTIFIEDINAERIALPHOTOGRAPYATTHE-ANSON0IKEFOCUSAREA

-URFREESBORO4ENNESSEE

EXPLANATION

Asbury Lane

Manson

Thompson Thompson

Lane

Pike

Stones River

National Battlefield

tour loop

41

Flow

Flow

Flow

West

Fork

Stones River

West Fork

Stones River

Stoneman quarry

Old

Nashville

Highway

16

15

14

13

4

9

8

8

7

3

Ru:O-74

Ru:O-62

Ru:J-62

Ru:J-62

Ru:J-61

Ru:J-60

Figure 18.  Data-collection points and flooded sinkholes identified in aerial photography, at the Manson Pike focus area,

Murfreesboro, Tennessee.

Sinkhole Flood Response 27
&IGURE2ELATIVESINKHOLE
FLOODINGLEVELSAFTERTHE-ARCHSTORMATTHE-ANSON0IKEFOCUSAREA-URFREESBORO4ENNESSEE

Base modified from U.S. Geological Survey digital data

1985, 1:100,000 State Plane projection, datum NAD 83,

Zone 5301

EXPLANATION

NO DATA

DRY—No water observed

1/4

2/4

3/4

4/4

0 1 MILE

0 1 KILOMETER

SINKHOLE-FLOODING LEVEL —

 Relative flooding level compared to

 the maximum level (4/4) observed.

Day 4, March 22, 2002 Day 8, March 25, 2002

Day 12, March 29, 2002

Figure 19.  Relative sinkhole-flooding levels after the March 17, 2002 storm, at the Manson Pike focus area, Murfreesboro, Tennessee.

28  Sinkhole Flooding in Murfreesboro, Rutherford County, Tennessee, 2001-02
sinkhole. Rather, the water-level data indicate a potential only 

for outflow from sinkhole M-02 to the ground-water system.

The highest water-level altitudes measured at the 

water-level gage in sinkhole M-05 (fig. 20) do not always 

correspond to the relative flooding levels observed in the aerial 

photographs. In addition to the broad, gently sloping outer 

areas at altitudes between 564 and 565 ft, sinkhole M-05 has 

two deep, steep-walled throats, located near its center. The 

sinkhole water-level gage was installed in one of the deeper 

sinkhole throats with the water-level sensor at an altitude of 

about 546 ft (fig. 20). On March 22, 2002, the area observed 

as flooded had decreased in size and was classified as 1/4 

flooded. The water-surface altitude measured at the waterlevel gage on this date was about 564 ft and was beginning 

to decline. By March 25, 2002, flooding in sinkhole M-05 

was not observed in the aerial photography and the relative 

flood level was classified as dry (0). The water-level altitudes 

measured on March 25, 2002 at the water-level gage averaged about 563 ft. The floodwater in the sinkhole had receded 

into the sinkhole throats and was not visible in the aerial 

photography. 

The differences in hydrologic response among the 

sinkholes in the Manson Pike focus area show the effect of 

apparent differences in connectivity with ground-water conduit 

system drains and, for deep sinkholes, differences in inflow 

from parts of the ground-water system. Most of the sinkholes 

in the focus area are pan sinkholes with prolonged flood durations, indicating poor connectivity to drains. Pan sinks near the 

intersection of Manson Pike and Thompson Lane are located 

in an area where post-storm ground-water levels in wells also 

show slow declines; even the 106-ft-deep well (Ru:J-60) may 

have poor connectivity to ground-water conduit system drains. 

In this focus area, a deep sinkhole, M-05, receives inflow from 

parts of the ground-water system for several days following 

a storm. The sustained, high, post-storm water levels in this 

sinkhole suggest low connectivity to the ground-water conduit 

system drain, and similar to deep sinkholes in Hooper Bottom, 

sinkhole M-05 appears to be connected to multiple zones of 

the ground-water system. Another deep sinkhole in the Manson Pike focus area, M-02, is located a short distance from 

the West Fork Stones River, the ultimate drain for the groundwater system. Water levels in M-02 rise and decline quickly, 

occur at higher altitudes than in nearby wells, and indicate a 

high connectivity to a ground-water conduit system.

515

520

525

530

535

540

545

550

555

560

565

570

03/16/02 03/18/02 03/20/02 03/22/02 03/24/02 03/26/02 03/28/02 03/30/02

Water-level altitude, in feet above NAVD 88

Ru:O-74

Ru:O-62

Date

EXPLANATION

DATA POINT AND WELL

 NUMBER

Ru:J-60

Ru:J-61

Ru:J-62

Ru:O-62

Ru:O-74

Sinkhole M-02

Sinkhole M-05

Figure 20.  Water-level altitudes in sinkholes M-02 and M-05 and in selected wells in the Manson Pike focus area, Murfreesboro,

Tennessee, March 16-31, 2002.

Sinkhole Flood Response 29
Models of Sinkhole Flooding

Flooding duration and levels in all of the flooded sinkholes observed in the three focus areas are controlled by connectivity to a ground-water conduit system. The ground-water 

conduit system has high hydraulic transmissivity and tends to 

develop in the clean-limestone parts of the Ridley and Murfreesboro Limestones. The shaley layers in the Ridley, Pierce, 

and Murfreesboro Limestones tend to restrict the connectivity 

between sinkholes and the ground-water conduit system and 

to restrict the connectivity between zones within the groundwater system. In areas where the Pierce Limestone occurs 

close to the bottom of a sinkhole, the sinkhole may have a low 

connectivity to the ground-water conduit system, and thus, 

may have prolonged flood duration.

The occurrence, intensity, and duration of sinkhole flooding in the study area is controlled by the inflow of water, available storage in the sinkhole, and the outflow of water from the 

sinkhole. Other than surface overflow, the outflow of water 

from a sinkhole is largely a function of the degree of connectivity to the ground-water conduit system. Primarily, sinkholes in the study area flood when the rate of water flowing 

in exceeds the rate of water flowing out to the ground-water 

conduit system. 

The sinkholes that were observed to flood in the three 

focus areas are represented in one of three models based on 

the sinkhole morphology and the connectivity to a groundwater conduit system as indicated by the water-level response 

to flooding. The models of sinkhole flooding are depicted in 

figure 3 and are described below.

1. Deep sinkholes with a high connectivity (fig. 3, 

model A)—The sinkholes are more than 10 ft deep 

and may have steep-sided throats. These sinkholes fill 

rapidly after a storm and can drain rapidly after a storm 

ends (3 to 5 feet per day [ft/d] in the first 2 to 3 days). 

These sinkholes have high connectivity to the groundwater conduit system. Sinkholes S-10C in the Shiloh 

focus area and M-02 in the Manson Pike focus area are 

examples of this model of sinkhole flooding. 

2. Pan sinkholes with low connectivity (fig. 3, model B)—The sinkholes are broad, shallow depressions 

formed on the soil and shallow bedrock. Pan sinkholes 

fill quickly as a result of overland flow and have typical flood durations lasting more than 8 days after the 

end of a storm. Flooding in the pan sinkholes occurs as 

part of the shallow zone in the ground-water system; 

this shallow zone has low connectivity to the groundwater conduit system. Pan sinkholes that receive 

surface overflow from, or provide surface overflow 

to, adjacent sinkholes are a subcategory of this model. 

Sinkholes H-13C and H-13D (fig. 16) are examples of 

this subcategory where outflow from the upper sinkhole flows across the land surface to the lower altitude 

sinkhole.

3. Deep sinkholes with low connectivity (fig. 3, model C)—The sinkholes are more than 10 ft deep and may 

have steep-sided throats. The sinkholes fill with water 

after a storm and may show a lag between the end of a 

storm and the timing of peak water levels. Water levels 

in these sinkholes recede slowly (about 3 ft in 10 days), 

and the sinkholes remain flooded for several days. 

These sinkholes continue to receive inflow for several 

days after the end of a storm and often have post-storm 

water-level altitudes slightly below local ground-water 

altitudes. The sinkholes appear to have low connectivity to the ground-water conduit system. Sinkhole 

M-05 in the Manson Pike focus area and H-04D in the 

Hooper Bottom focus area are examples of this model 

of sinkhole flooding.

Alterations in land use and changes to surface-water flow 

patterns can affect the inflow of water to sinkholes and can 

change the sinkhole-flooding response to storms. Each of the 

three categories of sinkholes can be affected in different ways 

as the result of land-surface changes.

Pan sinkholes with low connectivity—Land-surface modifications that direct more water into a pan sinkhole increase 

inflow and could result in higher flood-level altitudes and 

longer flood durations. Conversely, land-surface modifications 

that increase the outflow by overland drainage (for example, 

lowering the altitude of the overflow control) could decrease 

the flood-level altitude and could possibly shorten the duration of flooding. Road construction or alterations that reduce 

overland flow within or between pan sinkholes could result 

in longer flood durations if the alterations isolate sinkholes or 

parts of sinkholes from outflow drains. 

Deep sinkholes with high connectivity—These sinkholes 

store the initial flooding and rapidly transmit water to the 

ground-water conduit system (high outflow). Land-surface 

modifications that direct more water into this type of sinkhole may increase the flood peak, depending on the available 

storage, but may not have a substantial effect on the flood 

duration. Surface-water inflow that transports large amounts 

of sediment or debris into these sinkholes could reduce the 

connectivity to the ground-water conduit system and increase 

the duration of sinkhole flooding.

Deep sinkholes with low connectivity—Outflow from 

these sinkholes is limited or restricted by low connectivity 

to the ground-water conduit system. Land-surface modifications that increase the inflow to these sinkholes could result in 

higher flood-peak altitudes and longer flood durations.

The classification of the sinkholes in the Murfreesboro 

area and an understanding of their flood characteristics can be 

used as a guide for land-use planning such that, with appropriate drainage changes at land surface and development guidelines for sinkhole watersheds, future damage or hazards from 

sinkhole flooding can be minimized. Classifying a topographic 

depression into one of the models of sinkhole flooding currently relies on observations of sinkhole morphology and 

sinkhole water-level response to rainfall.

30 Sinkhole Flooding in Murfreesboro, Rutherford County, Tennessee, 2001-02
Summary and Conclusions

Land-use planning and infrastructure design in rapidly 

urbanizing karst areas are hampered by insufficient delineation 

of sinkholes and by incomplete knowledge of the hydrologic 

character of the sinkholes. Developers and water-resources 

managers need to know where sinkholes are located, which 

sinkholes might present flood hazards, and which sinkholes 

act as conduits to the ground-water system.

The Murfreesboro area, Rutherford County, Tennessee, 

is typical of many areas of thinly mantled karst terrain where 

much of the rainfall runoff flows to low areas in sinkholes. 

In this type of terrain, some sinkholes never flood, some 

flood then drain quickly, and some flood then remain flooded 

for long periods. The USGS, in cooperation with the City 

of Murfreesboro, conducted an investigation from January 

2001 through April 2002 to delineate sinkholes and sinkhole 

watersheds in the Murfreesboro area and to characterize the 

hydrologic response of sinkholes to major rainfall events. 

Three focus areas, Shiloh, Hooper Bottom, and Manson Pike, in the Murfreesboro study area were selected to 

evaluate sinkhole flooding. For each of the three areas, the 

hydrologic response at sinkholes with observable flooding 

were tracked and evaluated with aerial photography after three 

major storms. Hydrologic data collected for the investigation 

included rainfall and stage measurements of the West Fork 

Stones River, continuous water-level data from six sinkholes, 

periodic ground-water levels in nine wells, and peak water 

levels at nine sinkhole crest-stage gages.

Terrain analysis, the automated processing of 2-ft contour 

interval hypsography data, was used to delineate sinkholes 

and sinkhole watersheds in the Murfreesboro area. The terrain 

analysis indicated that sinkhole watersheds make up most 

of the topography in each focus area with about 80, 65, and 

70 percent of the Shiloh, Hooper Bottom, and Manson Pike 

focus areas, respectively, draining to sinkholes.

Low altitude, oblique aerial photography was used to 

track sinkhole flooding following storms on February 14, 

2001, January 23, 2002, and March 17, 2002. For each focus 

area, the aerial photographs were evaluated to identify specific 

sinkholes that were flooded and to track the flood levels 

through the course of the subsequent photography taken for 

several days after the storm. 

The Shiloh focus area contains 24 sinkholes with floodwater observable in the aerial photographs taken following 

the storms. The sinkhole flooding in the Shiloh focus area 

appears to be associated with both a shallow system and a 

ground-water conduit system. Sinkholes with high connectivity to the ground-water conduit system show a relatively rapid 

water-level rise and decline. Sinkholes that remain flooded the 

longest in the Shiloh focus area have low connectivity with 

the ground-water conduit system, occur at low altitudes and 

may be near ground-water discharge points, or are affected by 

surface-water drainage. 

The Hooper Bottom focus area contains 34 sinkholes 

with floodwater observable in the aerial photographs. The 

sinkhole flooding in the Hooper Bottom focus area appears to 

be associated with ground-water zones having limited connectivity with the ground-water conduit system. A shallow 

zone in the ground-water system is reflected by the flooding 

response in most of the sinkholes observed in the study area. 

Most of the sinkholes in the Hooper Bottom focus area are 

shallow (less than 5 ft deep), broad pan sinkholes that retained 

floodwater for at least 8 days following the March 2002 storm. 

Deep sinkholes in the Hooper Bottom sinkhole complex may 

be connected to multiple zones in the ground-water system 

and may simultaneously receive inflow from parts of the 

ground-water system with high head while discharging outflow to parts of the system with low head. The long delay for 

sinkhole flooding to drain in the Hooper Bottom complex is 

probably a result of the continued inflow from shallow parts of 

the ground-water system and surface ditches and an apparent 

low connectivity through the lower Ridley Limestone and the 

Pierce Limestone to the regional ground-water conduit system. 

The Hooper Bottom sinkhole complex provides a connection, 

although somewhat restricted, with a ground-water conduit 

system. 

The Manson Pike focus area contains 20 sinkholes with 

floodwater observable in aerial photographs. The differences 

in hydrologic response among the sinkholes in the Manson 

Pike focus area show the effect of apparent differences in connectivity with the ground-water conduit system and, for deep 

sinkholes, differences in inflow from parts of the ground-water 

system. Most of the sinkholes in the focus area are pan sinkholes with prolonged flood durations indicating poor connectivity to drains. Pan sinkholes near the intersection of Manson 

Pike and Thompson Lane are located in an area where poststorm ground-water levels in wells also show slow declines. 

In this focus area, a deep sinkhole, M-05, receives inflow 

from parts of ground-water system for several days following 

a storm. The sustained high, post-storm water levels in this 

sinkhole suggest low connectivity to the ground-water conduit 

system and, similar to deep sinkholes in Hooper Bottom, sinkhole M-05 appears to be connected to multiple zones of the 

ground-water system. Water levels in another deep sinkhole in 

the Manson Pike focus area, M-02, rise and decline quickly, 

occur at higher altitudes than in nearby wells, and indicate a 

high connectivity between the sinkhole and the ground-water 

conduit system.

Flooding duration and levels in all of the flooded sinkholes observed in the three focus areas are controlled by 

connectivity to the ground-water conduit system. The groundwater conduit system has high hydraulic transmissivity and 

tends to develop in the clean-limestone parts of the Ridley and 

Murfreesboro Limestones. The shaley layers in the Ridley, 

Pierce, and Murfreesboro Limestones tend to restrict the 

connectivity between sinkholes and the ground-water conduit 

system and to restrict the connectivity between zones within 

the ground-water system. In areas where the Pierce Limestone 

occurs close to the bottom of a sinkhole, the sinkhole may 

Summary and Conclusions  31
have a low connectivity to the ground-water conduit system, 

and thus, may have prolonged flood duration.

The sinkholes that were observed to flood in the three 

focus areas can be classified by one of three models based 

on the morphology of the sinkhole and the connectivity to a 

ground-water conduit system as indicated by the water-level 

response to flooding. The three models are:

1. Pan sinkholes with low connectivity 

2. Deep sinkholes with high connectivity 

3. Deep sinkholes with low connectivity

Alterations in land use and changes to surface-water 

flow patterns can affect the inflow of water to sinkholes and, 

depending on the type of sinkhole, can change the sinkholeflooding response to storms.

Pan sinkholes with low connectivity—Land-surface modifications that direct more water into a pan sinkhole can result 

in higher flood-level altitudes and longer flood durations. 

Land-surface modifications that increase the outflow by overland drainage could decrease the flood-level altitudes. Road 

construction or alterations that reduce flow within or between 

pan sinkholes could result in increased flooding duration.

Deep sinkholes with high connectivity—These sinkholes 

store the initial flooding and then rapidly transmit water to the 

ground-water conduit system (high outflow). Land-surface 

modifications that direct more water into the sinkhole may 

increase the flood-peak altitudes, but may not have a substantial effect on flood durations.

Deep sinkholes with low connectivity—Outflow from 

these sinkholes is limited or restricted by a low connectivity 

to the ground-water conduit system. Land-surface changes 

that increase the inflow to the sinkholes could result in higher 

peak-flood levels or longer flood durations.

The classification of the sinkholes in the Murfreesboro 

area along with an understanding of their flood characteristics 

can guide land-use planning such that, with appropriate drainage changes at land surface and development guidelines for 

sinkhole watersheds, future damage or hazards can be minimized. Classifying a topographic depression into one of the 

models of sinkhole flooding requires observations of sinkhole 

morphology and sinkhole water-level response to rainfall. 

References

Barr, T.C., Jr., 1961, Caves of Tennessee: Tennessee Division 

of Geology Bulletin 64, 597 p. (Reprinted 1972.)

Brahana, J.V., and Bradley, M.W., 1986, Preliminary delineation and description of the regional aquifers of Tennessee—

the Central Basin aquifer system: U.S. Geological Survey 

Water-Resources Investigations Report 82-4002, 35 p.

Burchett, C.R., and Moore, G.K., 1971, Water resources in 

the upper Stones River basin, central Tennessee: Tennessee 

Division of Water Resources, Water Resources Series No. 8, 

62 p.

Camp Dresser & McKee, 2000, Stormwater management 

manual, v. 2, Procedures: Prepared for Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, Department of 

Public Works, Engineering Division, variously paginated, 

accessed June 6, 2005, at http://www.nashville.gov/stormwater/SwMgt_ManualVol02.htm

Farmer, J.J., and Hollyday, E.F., 1999, Regional subsurface 

correlation of the Pierce Limestone and adjacent limestones 

of Middle Tennessee: Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation Report of Investigations 47, 21 p.

Federal Emergency Management Agency, 2002, Flood insurance study, Rutherford County, Tennessee: Washington, 

D.C., Federal Emergency Management Agency, 135 p.

Hardeman, W.D., 1966, Geologic map of Tennessee, WestCentral sheet: Tennessee Division of Geology, 1:250,000, 

1 plate.

Law, G.S., 2002, Duration and frequency analysis of lowland 

flooding in western Murfreesboro, Rutherford County, 

Tennessee, 1998-2000: U.S. Geological Survey WaterResources Investigations Report 02-4266, 30 p.

Miller, R.A., 1974, The geologic history of Tennessee: Tennessee Department of Conservation, Division of Geology 

Bulletin 74, 63 p.

Moore, G.K., Burchett, C.R., and Bingham, R.H., 1969, 

Limestone hydrology in the upper Stones River basin, 

central Tennessee: Tennessee Division of Water Resources 

Research Series 1, 58 p.

National Climatic Data Center, 1948-2000, Climatological 

data monthly and annual summaries for Tennessee: Asheville, North Carolina, National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration, v. 53, no. 10 through v. 105, no. 13.

Ogden, A.E., 1997, Ground water tracing results at the Murfreesboro old city dump, Rutherford County, Tennessee: 

Report prepared for The City of Murfreesboro and RMT, 

Inc., 107 p.

Ogden, A.E., 1998, Ground water spring basin delineation 

in Rutherford County, Tennessee for interpreting Sinkhole 

Flooding, Year Two: Results of the Investigation: Report 

prepared for the Rutherford County Planning Commission, 

83 p.

Ogden, A.E., 2000, Investigation of Surface Water/Ground 

Water relationships in the Siegel Elementary School Area: 

Report prepared for the Rutherford County Board of Education, 50 p.

Outlaw, G.S., 1996, Flood-frequency and detention-storage 

characteristics of Bear Branch watershed, Murfreesboro, 

Tennessee: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 96-4005, 24 p.

32 Sinkhole Flooding in Murfreesboro, Rutherford County, Tennessee, 2001-02
Outlaw, G.S., Butner, D.E., Kemp, R.L., Oaks, A.T., and 

Adams, G.S., 1992, Rainfall, streamflow, and peak stage 

data collected at the Murfreesboro, Tennessee, gaging 

network, March 1989 through July 1992: U.S. Geological 

Survey Open-File Report 92-482, 68 p.

Rima, D.R., Moran, M.S., and Woods, E.J., 1977, Groundwater supplies in the Murfreesboro area, Tennessee: U.S. 

Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 

77-86, 76 p.

Tennessee Department of State, 1999, 1997-1998 Tennessee 

Blue Book: Nashville, Tenn., Tennessee Secretary of State, 

638 p.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1966, Main report—Flood 

plain information study, West Fork Stones River, Lytle and 

Sinking Creeks, Murfreesboro, Tennessee: Nashville, Tennessee, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 45 p.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, 

1977, Soil survey of Rutherford County, Tennessee: Washington, D.C., U.S. Department of Agriculture, 95 p.

White, W.B., 2002, Karst hydrology: recent developments and 

open questions: Engineering Geology, v. 65, no. 2, p. 85-

105.

Wilson, C.W., Jr., 1964a, Geologic map and mineral resources 

summary of the Murfreesboro quadrangle, Tennessee: Tennessee Division of Geology GM 315-SW, 1:24,000.

Wilson, C.W., Jr., 1964b, Geologic map and mineral resources 

summary of the Dillton quadrangle, Tennessee: Tennessee 

Division of Geology GM 315-SE, scale 1:24,000.

Wilson, C.W., Jr., 1964c, Geologic map and mineral resources 

summary of the Walterhill quadrangle, Tennessee: Tennessee Division of Geology GM 315-NW, scale 1:24,000.

Wilson, C.W., Jr., and Miller, R.A., 1964, Geologic map and 

mineral resources summary of the Lascassas Quadrangle, 

Tennessee: Tennessee Division of Geology GM 315-NE, 

scale 1:24,000.

Wiser, C.W., 1997, Flood problem analysis, Ray Miller Tract, 

2024 Manson Pike, Murfreesboro, Tennessee, Rutherford 

County: Report prepared for National Parks Service Southeast Region, 26 p.

References  33
Appendix.  Relative flooding levels observed in aerial photography of the Murfreesboro area, February 2001,

January 2002, and March 2002.

[Altitude in feet above NAVD 88; ft2, square foot; -na-, photography not available or sinkhole not observed; Relative flooding level: 0, 

dry; 1/4, sinkhole appeared one-quarter full; 2/4, sinkhole appeared about one-half full; 3/4, three-quarters full; 4/4, sinkhole appeared 

full; nd, flooding duration not determined; >, greater than; <, less than]

Site 

number

Altitude at 4/4

full (feet) Area (ft2

) Area 

(acre)

Relative flooding level Flooding duration 

(days) February 2001

17 19 23 27

Storm started Feb. 14, 2001; first photos on day 3

Manson Pike focus area

M-01 552 339,900 7.80 4/4 4/4 3/4 2/4 >13

M-01A 553 49,580 1.13 4/4 3/4 0 0 5

M-02 546 666,670 15.30 3/4 -na- -na- 1/4 >13

M-03 553 215,005 4.93 4/4 -na- -na- 1/4 >13

M-04 581 121,824 2.80 4/4 4/4 -na- -na- nd

M-05 565 1,175,296 26.98 4/4 4/4 3/4 2/4 >13

M-06 565 386,349 8.87 -na- 4/4 3/4 3/4 >13

M-07 566 219,237 5.03 -na- 4/4 3/4 3/4 >13

M-08 565 480,764 11.04 -na- 4/4 3/4 3/4 >13

M-09 570 351,400 8.07 -na- 4/4 3/4 3/4 >13

M-10 571 877,332 20.14 4/4 4/4 -na- 4/4 >13

M-11 561 457,785 10.51 -na- 4/4 3/4 3/4 >13

M-12 572 225,445 5.18 -na- 4/4 3/4 3/4 >13

M-16 572 22,323 0.51 4/4 4/4 -na- -na- nd

Shiloh focus area

S-02A 616 238,335 5.47 4/4 4/4 -na- -na- nd

S-02B 616 326,262 7.49 4/4 4/4 -na- -na- nd

S-04 594 116,961 2.69 4/4 -na- -na- -na- nd

S-07 587 2,274 0.05 4/4 -na- -na- -na- nd

S-12 619 184,007 4.22 4/4 -na- -na- -na- nd

S-13 618 125,202 2.87 -na- -na- -na- 1 nd

S-15 596 21,783 0.50 -na- -na- -na- -na- nd

S-17 607 10,367 0.24 -na- 1/4 -na- 4/4 >13

S-18 617 27,067 0.62 -na- -na- -na- 4/4 >13

S-20 633 47,991 1.10 3/4 4/4 -na- 1/4 >13

S-21 634 37,365 0.86 4/4 4/4 -na- 0 nd

S-22 634 51,881 1.19 4/4 1/4 -na- 0 nd

Hooper Bottom focus area

H-01 602 138,339 3.18 4/4 0 -na- -na- 3

H-01A 601 518,626 11.91 4/4 3/4 0 -na- 5

H-01B 601 225,677 5.18 -na- 1/4 0 -na- 5

H-02 586 245,483 5.64 -na- 3/4 -na- -na- nd

H-02A 586 212,630 4.88 -na- 0 -na- -na- nd

H-04 550 283,338 6.50 -na- -na- 4/4 4/4 >13

H-04A 550 276,404 6.35 -na- -na- 4/4 4/4 >13

H-04B 552 1,115,036 25.60 -na- 3/4 4/4 4/4 >13

H-04C 552 821,556 18.86 -na- -na- 4/4 4/4 >13

H-04D 554 416,934 9.57 -na- -na- 4/4 4/4 >13

H-05 572 285,464 6.55 -na- 4/4 -na- 1/4 >13

H-05A 570 82,167 1.89 -na- 4/4 -na- 1/4 >13

H-05B 572 535,955 12.30 -na- 3/4 -na- 1/4 >13

H-05C 575 114,746 2.63 -na- 4/4 -na- 1/4 >13

H-05D 574 110,241 2.53 -na- 4/4 -na- 2/4 >13

H-08A 566 265,933 6.10 -na- -na- 3/4 -na- nd

H-08B 568 86,992 2.00 -na- -na- 0 -na- nd

H-09 557 159,515 3.66 -na- -na- 2/4 -na- nd

H-10 564 142,865 3.28 -na- -na- 4/4 2/4 >13

H-11 560 8,823 0.20 -na- -na- -na- 4/4 >13

H-11A 565 88,289 2.03 -na- -na- -na- 0 nd

H-12 574 46,689 1.07 -na- -na- -na- 4/4 >13

H-14 564 172,784 3.97 -na- -na- 0 -na- nd

H-15 570 62,833 1.44 -na- -na- -na- 2/4 >13

34  Sinkhole Flooding in Murfreesboro, Rutherford County, Tennessee, 2001-02
Appendix.  Relative flooding levels observed in aerial photography of the Murfreesboro area, February 2001, January 2002,

and March 2002.—Continued

[Altitude in feet above NAVD 88; ft2, square foot; -na-, photography not available or sinkhole not observed; Relative flooding level: 0, dry; 1/4, sinkhole appeared one-quarter full; 2/4, sinkhole appeared about one-half full; 3/4, three-quarters full; 4/4, sinkhole appeared full; nd, flooding duration 

not determined; >, greater than; <, less than]

Site number Altitude at 

4/4 full (feet) Area (ft2

) Area 

(acre)

Relative flooding level Flooding duration 

(days) January 2002

24 25 28 31

Storm started Jan. 23, 2002; first photos on day 1

Manson Pike focus area

M-01 552 339,900 7.80 4/4 4/4 4/4 4/4 >8

M-01A 553 49,580 1.14 4/4 4/4 0 0 2

M-02 546 666,670 15.30 -na- 4/4 2/4 0 5

M-03 553 215,005 4.94 -na- 4/4 3/4 1/4 >8

M-04 581 121,824 2.80 -na- 4/4 3/4 -na- nd

M-05 565 1,175,296 26.98 -na- 4/4 4/4 3/4 >8

M-06 565 386,349 8.87 4/4 4/4 4/4 3/4 >8

M-06A 565 63,700 1.46 4/4 4/4 3/4 0 5

M-07 566 219,237 5.03 4/4 4/4 4/4 3/4 >8

M-08 565 480,764 11.04 4/4 4/4 4/4 3/4 >8

M-09 570 351,400 8.07 4/4 4/4 4/4 3/4 >8

M-10 571 877,332 20.14 4/4 4/4 4/4 -na- nd

M-11 561 457,785 10.51 4/4 4/4 4/4 3/4 >8

M-12 572 225,445 5.18 4/4 4/4 4/4 4/4 >8

M-15 594 137,625 3.16 -na- 4/4 4/4 -na- nd

M-16 572 22,323 0.51 -na- 4/4 2/4 -na- nd

M-17A 562 62,033 1.42 -na- 4/4 2/4 -na- nd

M-17B 562 118,825 2.73 -na- 4/4 2/4 -na- nd

M-18 553 42,660 0.98 -na- -na- 3/4 3/4 >8

M-20 575 245,091 5.63 -na- 4/4 -na- -na- nd

Shiloh focus area

S-01 602 364,233 8.36 -na- 4/4 2/4 1/4 >8

S-02A 616 238,335 5.47 -na- 4/4 3/4 1/4 >8

S-02B 616 326,262 7.49 -na- 4/4 3/4 2/4 >8

S-03 596 144,677 3.32 -na- -na- 3/4 3/4 >8

S-04 594 116,961 2.69 -na- 4/4 2/4 -na- nd

S-05 596 65,473 1.50 -na- -na- 4/4 4/4 >8

S-06 598 133,401 3.06 -na- 4/4 4/4 4/4 >8

S-07 587 2,274 0.05 -na- 4/4 4/4 3/4 >8

S-08 590 11,706 0.27 -na- -na- -na- -na- nd

S-09 594 55,811 1.28 -na- -na- -na- -na- nd

S-10A 596 2,247 0.05 -na- -na- 1/4 -na- nd

S-10B 598 39,251 0.90 -na- 4/4 0 -na- 2

S-10C 590 2,940 0.07 -na- 4/4 -na- -na- nd

S-11 600 56,177 1.29 -na- 4/4 -na- 0 nd

S-12 619 184,007 4.22 -na- 4/4 1/4 1/4 >8

S-15 596 21,783 0.50 -na- -na- 4/4 -na- nd

S-16B 606 184,353 4.23 -na- 4/4 0 0 2

S-17 607 10,367 0.24 -na- -na- 4/4 -na- nd

S-18 617 27,067 0.62 -na- -na- 4/4 -na- nd

S-19 636 107,994 2.48 -na- 4/4 -na- -na- nd

S-20 633 47,991 1.10 -na- 4/4 -na- -na- nd

S-21 634 37,365 0.86 -na- 4/4 -na- -na- nd

S-22 634 51,881 1.19 -na- 4/4 -na- -na- nd

Hooper Bottom focus area

H-01 602 138,339 3.18 -na- 4/4 -na- 0 nd 

H-01A 601 518,626 11.91 -na- 4/4 3/4 0 5

H-01B 601 225,677 5.18 -na- 4/4 2/4 0 5

H-02 586 245,483 5.64 -na- 0 -na- -na- nd

H-02A 586 212,630 4.88 -na- 2/4 -na- -na- nd

H-04 550 283,338 6.50 -na- 4/4 4/4 4/4 >8

H-04A 550 276,404 6.35 2/4 4/4 4/4 4/4 >8

H-04B 552 1,115,036 25.60 -na- 3/4 4/4 4/4 >8

H-04C 552 821,556 18.86 3/4 3/4 4/4 3/4 >8

H-04D 554 416,934 9.57 2/4 3/4 3/4 2/4 >8

Appendix  35
Site number Altitude at 

4/4 full (feet) Area (ft2

) Area 

(acre)

Relative flooding level Flooding duration 

(days) January 2002

24 25 28 31

Storm started Jan. 23, 2002; first photos on day 1

Hooper Bottom focus area—Continued

H-05 572 285,464 6.55 4/4 4/4 2/4 0 5

H-05A 570 82,167 1.89 4/4 4/4 2/4 1/4 >8

H-05B 572 535,955 12.30 4/4 3/4 3/4 1/4 >8

H-05C 575 114,746 2.63 4/4 3/4 3/4 -na- nd

H-05D 574 110,241 2.53 4/4 4/4 3/4 2/4 >8

H-08A 566 265,933 6.10 -na- 4/4 4/4 4/4 >8

H-08B 568 86,992 2.00 -na- 4/4 1/4 1/4 >8

H-09 557 159,515 3.66 -na- 4/4 3/4 3/4 >8

H-10 564 142,865 3.28 -na- 3/4 2/4 1/4 >8

H-11 560 8,823 0.20 -na- 4/4 4/4 4/4 >8

H-11A 565 88,289 2.03 -na- 4/4 2/4 0 5

H-12 574 46,689 1.07 -na- -na- 4/4 4/4 >8

H-13C 546 4,258 0.10 -na- 4/4 4/4 4/4 >8

H-13D 552 162,738 3.74 -na- 4/4 2/4 1/4 >8

H-14 564 172,784 3.97 -na- 4/4 2/4 0 5

H-15 570 62,833 1.44 -na- 3/4 -na- -na- nd

H-16A 592 49,852 1.14 -na- 4/4 3/4 1/4 >8

H-16B 592 45,669 1.05 -na- 4/4 3/4 2/4 >8

H-17 548 27,593 0.63 -na- 4/4 -na- 4/4 >8

H-18A 566 52,967 1.22 -na- 4/4 1/4 0 5

H-18B 566 42,831 0.98 -na- 4/4 1/4 0 5

H-18C 565 26,173 0.60 -na- 4/4 2/4 1/4 >8

H-19 552 113,948 2.62 -na- 4/4 -na- 1/4 >8

H-21 548 46,778 1.07 -na- 3/4 -na- -na- nd

Appendix.  Relative flooding levels observed in aerial photography of the Murfreesboro area, February 2001,

January 2002, and March 2002.—Continued

[Altitude in feet above NAVD 88; ft2, square foot; -na-, photography not available or sinkhole not observed; Relative flooding level: 

0, dry; 1/4, sinkhole appeared one-quarter full; 2/4, sinkhole appeared about one-half full; 3/4, three-quarters full; 4/4, sinkhole 

appeared full; nd, flooding duration not determined; >, greater than; <, less than]

36  Sinkhole Flooding in Murfreesboro, Rutherford County, Tennessee, 2001-02
Site 

number

Altitude 

at 4/4 full 

(feet)

Area (ft2) Area 

(acre)

Relative flooding level Flooding 

duration 

(days)

March 2002

19 21 22 25 27 29

Storm started March 17, 2002, first photo taken on day 2

Manson Pike focus area

M-01 552 339,900 7.80 4/4 3/4 2/4 2/4 1/4 0 10

M-01A 553 49,580 1.14 1/4 0 0 0 0 0 2

M-02 546 666,670 15.30 1/4 -na- 0 0 0 0 nd

M-03 553 215,005 4.94 4/4 4/4 3/4 1/4 0 0 8

M-04 581 121,824 2.80 4/4 4/4 3/4 1/4 -na- 0 nd

M-05 565 1,175,296 26.98 2/4 2/4 1/4 0 0 0 5

M-06 565 386,349 8.87 3/4 2/4 1/4 1/4 0 0 8

M-06A 565 63,700 1.46 -na- 0 0 0 0 0 nd

M-07 566 219,237 5.03 2/4 2/4 2/4 1/4 1/4 1/4 >12

M-08 565 480,764 11.04 3/4 2/4 2/4 1/4 1/4 1/4 >12

M-09 570 351,400 8.07 2/4 2/4 1/4 1/4 1/4 0 10

M-10 571 877,332 20.14 2/4 2/4 2/4 1/4 1/4 1/4 >12

M-11 561 457,785 10.51 4/4 3/4 -na- 1/4 1/4 0 10

M-12 572 225,445 5.18 -na- 4/4 -na- 3/4 3/4 3/4 >12

M-15 594 137,625 3.16 -na- -na- 4/4 -na- 3/4 -na- nd

M-16 572 22,323 0.51 -na- 1/4 1/4 0 0 0 5

M-17A 562 62,033 1.42 -na- 0 -na- 0 0 0 nd

M-17B 562 118,825 2.73 -na- 1/4 -na- 0 -na- 0 nd

M-18 553 42,660 0.98 3/4 -na- -na- -na- 1/4 -na- nd

M-20 575 245,091 5.63 4/4 1/4 1/4 0 0 -na- 5

Shiloh focus area

S-01 602 364,233 8.36 4/4 4/4 4/4 2/4 1/4 1/4 >12

S-02A 616 238,335 5.47 4/4 3/4 2/4 0 0 0 5

S-02B 616 326,262 7.49 4/4 3/4 3/4 1/4 1/4 1/4 >12

S-03 596 144,677 3.32 3/4 -na- 2/4 2/4 1/4 1/4 >12

S-04 594 116,961 2.69 3/4 -na- 1/4 0 -na- 0 5

S-05 596 65,473 1.50 -na- -na- 3/4 2/4 -na- -na- nd

S-06 598 133,401 3.06 -na- 4/4 4/4 4/4 3/4 2/4 >12

S-07 587 2,274 0.05 -na- -na- 1/4 0 -na- 0 5

S-08 590 11,706 0.27 2/4 -na- -na- 0 -na- 0 nd

S-09 594 55,811 1.28 2/4 -na- -na- 0 -na- 0 nd

S-10B 598 39,251 0.90 4/4 0 0 0 0 0 2

S-10C 590 2,940 0.07 4/4 4/4 3/4 3/4 2/4 2/4 >12

S-11 600 56,177 1.29 2/4 2/4 1/4 0 0 0 5

S-12 619 184,007 4.22 2/4 1/4 1/4 1/4 0 0 8

S-13 618 125,202 2.87 -na- 3/4 -na- 2/4 -na- -na- nd

S-16B 606 184,353 4.23 -na- 1/4 0 0 0 -na- 4

S-17 607 10,367 0.24 -na- 4/4 -na- 2/4 -na- -na- nd

S-18 617 27,067 0.62 -na- -na- -na- 4/4 -na- -na- nd

S-19 636 107,994 2.48 -na- 4/4 -na- -na- -na- -na- nd

S-20 633 47,991 1.10 -na- 2/4 -na- 1/4 -na- -na- nd

S-21 634 37,365 0.86 -na- 2/4 -na- 0 -na- -na- nd

S-22 634 51,881 1.19 -na- 1/4 -na- 0 -na- -na- nd

Hooper Bottom focus area

H-01 602 138,339 3.18 3/4 2/4 0 0 0 0 4

H-01A 601 518,626 11.91 2/4 0 0 0 0 0 2

H-01B 601 225,677 5.18 1/4 1/4 1/4 1/4 1/4 1/4 >12

H-04 550 283,338 6.50 3/4 3/4 3/4 3/4 3/4 3/4 >12

H-04A 550 276,404 6.35 1/4 2/4 3/4 3/4 3/4 3/4 >12

H-04B 552 1,115,036 25.60 1/4 2/4 2/4 2/4 2/4 1/4 >12

H-04C 552 821,556 18.86 3/4 3/4 3/4 2/4 2/4 2/4 >12

H-04D 554 416,934 9.57 3/4 3/4 3/4 2/4 2/4 1/4 >12

H-05 572 285,464 6.55 0 0 0 0 0 0 <2

H-05A 570 82,167 1.89 0 0 0 0 0 0 <2

Appendix.  Relative flooding levels observed in aerial photography of the Murfreesboro area, February 2001, January 2002, and

March 2002.—Continued

[Altitude in feet above NAVD 88; ft2, square foot; -na-, photography not available or sinkhole not observed; Relative flooding level: 0, dry; 1/4, sinkhole 

appeared one-quarter full; 2/4, sinkhole appeared about one-half full; 3/4, three-quarters full; 4/4, sinkhole appeared full; nd, flooding duration not determined; 

>, greater than; <, less than]

Appendix  37
Site 

number

Altitude 

at 4/4 full 

(feet)

Area (ft2) Area 

(acre)

Relative flooding level Flooding 

duration 

(days)

March 2002

19 21 22 25 27 29

Storm started March 17, 2002, first photo taken on day 2

Hooper Bottom focus area—Continued

H-05B 572 535,955 12.30 1/4 1/4 0 0 0 0 4

H-05C 575 114,746 2.63 1/4 1/4 0 0 0 0 4

H-05D 574 110,241 2.53 0 0 0 0 0 0 <2

H-08A 566 265,933 6.10 0 0 -na- 0 -na- 0 <2

H-08B 568 86,992 2.00 0 0 -na- 0 -na- 0 <2

H-09 557 159,515 3.66 2/4 2/4 -na- 1/4 1/4 0 10

H-11 560 8,823 0.20 -na- 4/4 4/4 4/4 4/4 4/4 >12

H-11A 565 88,289 2.03 -na- 2/4 0 0 0 0 4

H-12 574 46,689 1.07 -na- -na- 3/4 -na- -na- -na- nd

H-13C 546 4,258 0.10 4/4 4/4 -na- 4/4 4/4 4/4 >12

H-13D 552 162,738 3.74 2/4 2/4 -na- 1/4 0 0 8

H-14 564 172,784 3.97 -na- -na- 0 0 0 0 nd

H-15 570 62,833 1.44 -na- -na- 2/4 0 -na- -na- 5

H-16A 592 49,852 1.14 0 0 0 0 0 0 <2

H-16B 592 45,669 1.05 4/4 4/4 4/4 4/4 4/4 4/4 >12

H-17 548 27,593 0.63 4/4 -na- -na- 4/4 4/4 4/4 >12

H-18A 566 52,967 1.22 1/4 0 -na- 1/4 -na- 0 8

H-18B 566 42,831 0.98 0 0 -na- 0 -na- 0 <2

H-18C 565 26,173 0.60 1/4 1/4 -na- 1/4 1/4 1/4 >12

H-19 552 113,948 2.62 0 -na- -na- -na- 0 0 nd

H-21 548 46,778 1.07 4/4 -na- 4/4 4/4 -na- 4/4 >12

Appendix.  Relative flooding levels observed in aerial photography of the Murfreesboro area, February 2001, January 2002, and

March 2002.—Continued

[Altitude in feet above NAVD 88; ft2, square foot; -na-, photography not available or sinkhole not observed; Relative flooding level: 0, dry; 1/4, sinkhole 

appeared one-quarter full; 2/4, sinkhole appeared about one-half full; 3/4, three-quarters full; 4/4, sinkhole appeared full; nd, flooding duration not determined; 

>, greater than; <, less than]

38  Sinkhole Flooding in Murfreesboro, Rutherford County, Tennessee, 2001-02