U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey

Scientific Investigations Report 2007–5105

Prepared in cooperation with the Tennessee Duck River Development Agency

Water Resources of the Duck River Watershed, Tennessee
Front cover photograph. Duck River above Hardison Mill at river mile 173.5, December 2004. 

(Photograph taken by Michael D. Woodside, U.S. Geological Survey.)

Back cover photographs. Left photograph: Berlin Spring; upper right photograph: River Rats Spring; 

lower right photograph: Venable Spring.
Water Resources of the Duck River Watershed, Tennessee

By R.R. Knight and J.A. Kingsbury

Prepared in cooperation with the Tennessee Duck River Development Agency

Scientific Investigations Report 2007–5105

U.S. Department of the Interior

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

DIRK KEMPTHORNE, Secretary

U.S. Geological Survey

Mark D. Myers, Director

U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2007

For product and ordering information:

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

Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS

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

natural hazards, and the environment:

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

Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS

Any use of trade, product, or firm names 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:

Knight, R.R., and Kingsbury, J.A., 2007, Water resources of the Duck River watershed, Tennessee: U.S. Geological 

Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2007–5105, 46 p.
iii

Contents

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

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

Purpose and Scope ..............................................................................................................................2

Acknowledgments................................................................................................................................2

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

Hydrogeology.........................................................................................................................................4

Water Use ..............................................................................................................................................6

Approach.........................................................................................................................................................8

Surface-Water Network ......................................................................................................................8

Surface-Water Data Analysis...........................................................................................................15

Ground-Water Network .....................................................................................................................15

Water-Resources of the Duck River Watershed ....................................................................................16

Surface Water.....................................................................................................................................16

Ground Water......................................................................................................................................23

Streamflow Gains and Losses along the Mainstem .....................................................................29

Streamflow Accounting—October 2003................................................................................29

Streamflow Accounting—August 2004..................................................................................31

Summary........................................................................................................................................................35

Selected References...................................................................................................................................36

Appendix 1. Historical Synoptic Streamflow Measurements...........................................................39
iv

Figures

1–5. Maps showing—

 1. Location and Level IV Ecoregions of the Duck River watershed, Tennessee 1. Location and Level IV Ecoregions of the Duck River watershed, Tennessee.............3

 2. Geology of the Duck River watershed ...............................................................................5

 3. Wastewater treatment plants discharging to the 

Duck River watershed, Tennessee.....................................................................................7

 4. Continuous streamflow gages and base-flow synoptic measurement 

locations in the Duck River watershed, Tennessee.......................................................12

 5. Spring and ground-water monitoring locations in the 

Duck River watershed, Tennessee...................................................................................14

6. Hydrographs showing the flow of the Duck River near Shelbyville and 

at Columbia during the 2004 water year and the lowest annual flow (1981) 

and highest annual flow (1989) water years since Normandy Dam was closed.............17

7. Graphs showing flow-duration analysis of streamflow data, normalized by 

drainage area, from tributary watersheds and sites along the mainstem 

of the Duck River.........................................................................................................................18

8. Map showing estimated zero-flow area of the Duck River Watershed, Tennessee.......20

9–15. Graphs showing—

 9. Example of Normandy flow release propagation at the Duck River 9. Example of Normandy flow release propagation at the Duck River 

at Shelbyville, Duck River at Columbia, and Duck River at 

Highway 100 near Centerville............................................................................................23

 10. Continuous ground-water levels and stage in the Duck River 

at Columbia and the Duck River above Milltown, Tennessee......................................24

 11. Monthly water-level measurements in two wells located in basins 

in the Duck River study area that have a history of going dry 

compared to continuous water-level data......................................................................26

 12. Measured discharge at selected springs in the 

Duck River study area, 2004 and 2005..............................................................................28

 13. Continuous water-temperature data for selected springs and 

daily rainfall in the study unit.............................................................................................30

 14. Escherichia coli densities measured in springs in the study unit...............................31

 15. The amount of water discharged from Normandy Dam, tributary flow, 

ground-water discharge, and wastewater treatment effluent as a 

percentage of the available streamflow at four Duck River sites 

during base-flow periods in October 2003 and August.................................................33
Tables

1. Annual average precipitation and temperature for National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration stations within the Duck River watershed ............................2

2. Total surface- and ground-water withdrawals for public supply 

by water-service area..................................................................................................................6

3. Median annual wastewater treatment effluent and water intake values 

and maximum daily average wastewater treatment effluent values for 

Shelbyville, Lewisburg, Columbia, and Spring Hill, Tennessee, 

for the 2004 water year................................................................................................................8

4. Site information for selected monitoring locations in the Duck River watershed.............9

5. Site information for selected ground-water wells and springs 

in the Duck River watershed.....................................................................................................11

6. Low-flow statistics for selected sites in the study unit showing losses 

in streamflow yield between the Duck River near Shelbyville and 

the Duck River at Columbia and gains in discharge near 

Highway 100 near Centerville ...................................................................................................19

7. Tributary base-flow synoptic investigation results for tributaries of the 

Duck River watershed, November 2003 and May 2004 ........................................................21

8. Monthly spring measurements made in the Duck River 

study area from 2003 to 2005.....................................................................................................27

9. Average flow component contributions at four locations along the Duck River.............32

10. Median streamflows, wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) effluent flow rates, 

and the cumulative percentage of WWTP effluent present in the Duck River 

at selected cities during extended base-flow periods of the 2004 water year................32

11. Base-flow synoptic measurements made at sites located along the mainstem 

of the Duck River, November 3–5, 2003...................................................................................34
vi

Conversion Factors and Datums

Multiply By To obtain

Length

inch (in.) 2.54 centimeter (cm)

foot (ft) 0.3048 meter (m)

mile (mi) 1.609 kilometer (km)

Area

square mile (mi2) 259.0 hectare (ha)

square mile (mi2) 2.590 square kilometer (km2) 

Volume

million gallons (Mgal) 3,785 cubic meter (m3)

cubic foot (ft3) 28.32 cubic decimeter (dm3) 

cubic foot (ft3) 0.02832 cubic meter (m3) 

Flow rate

foot per second (ft/s) 0.3048 meter per second (m/s)

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

cubic foot per second per square 

mile [(ft3/s)/mi2]

 0.01093 cubic meter per second per square 

kilometer [(m3/s)/km2]

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

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

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

°F=(1.8×°C)+32

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 National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 

(NGVD 29).

Horizontal coordinate information is referenced to the North American Datum of 1927 (NAD 27).

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

The U.S. Geological Survey began a study in 2003 in 

cooperation with the Tennessee Duck River Development 

Agency to assess the hydrology of the Duck River watershed 

from Normandy Dam downstream to Columbia, Tennessee. 

Ground-water-level data, spring-flow, bacteria samples, and 

streamflow were collected during this study to characterize the 

hydrology of the study area. The emphasis of this study was to 

characterize the temporal and spatial variability of the various 

components that make up streamflow in the Duck River in this 

study area.

Water-level data from wells in the study area indicate a 

good hydraulic connection between the aquifer and the river, 

with little long-term storage of water following recharge 

events. Variations in spring flow and ground-water temperature 

at springs indicate that a large component of water issuing 

from springs has a short residence time in the aquifer for most 

of the springs monitored in the study area. Escherichia coli

densities in samples collected from springs are similar to concentrations in samples from tributaries and the Duck River.

Base-flow synoptic discharge measurements, flowduration analysis of tributary streams, and streamflow 

accounting analysis indicate the portion of the watershed 

between Pottsville and Columbia yields more water than the 

portion between Shelbyville and Pottsville. Base-flow synoptic measurements show that Fountain Creek yields more water 

than other tributary basins in the study area, whereas base-flow 

synoptic measurements on the mainstem indicate that streamflow in the Duck River between Pottsville and Columbia could 

vary by 10 percent as the result of gaining and losing reaches. 

These results are applicable for average flow conditions that 

occurred during the study. Flow-duration analysis indicates 

that tributaries in this part of the watershed have a large 

component of ground-water contributing base flow. Streamflow accounting analysis for two periods of extended recession was used to determine the contributions of flow releases 

from Normandy Dam, tributaries, wastewater discharges, and 

ground-water discharge. The analysis indicated this same 

section of the mainstem of the Duck River between Pottsville 

and Columbia had as much as four times more ground-water 

discharge as sections upstream from Pottsville.

Introduction

The Duck River is home to one of the most diverse freshwater mussel and fish assemblages in the Nation (Ahlstedt 

and others, 2004) and is the principal source of drinking 

water for communities in the Duck River watershed. In order 

to ensure that flow and the quality of the water in the Duck 

River is adequate to meet the various needs, an understanding of the hydrology and how the contribution to flow from 

ground water, tributaries, and flow from Normandy Reservoir 

change throughout the year is important to resource managers 

in the basin. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) began an 

investigation of the water resources of the Duck River watershed between Normandy and Columbia in cooperation with 

the Tennessee Duck River Development Agency in 2003. The 

Tennessee Duck River Development Agency is charged with 

developing, protecting, and sustaining a clean and dependable 

water resource for the citizens of the Duck River region.

The Duck River watershed is a combination of rural 

landscapes, including pasture, woodlands, and row-crop 

agriculture, and urban landscapes with moderately sized cities, 

such as Shelbyville, Lewisburg, and Columbia. The rural landscapes, such as pasture and row-crop agriculture, are rapidly 

changing to rural and urban subdivisions as a result of growth 

of industry and the service sector that supplies industry. 

Conversion from a rural to a suburban watershed has potential 

water-resource consequences and emphasizes the importance 

of understanding the factors that may affect the quality and 

quantity of streamflow and the ecological resources in the 

Duck River watershed.

Water Resources of the Duck River Watershed, Tennessee

By R.R. Knight and J.A. Kingsbury
Purpose and Scope

The purpose of this report is to characterize the surfacewater and ground-water hydrology of the Duck River watershed extending from the Duck River at Columbia, Tennessee, 

upstream to the headwaters of the watershed (fig. 1). The 

study area encompasses about 1,200 mi2, including 208 mi2

upstream from Normandy Dam. Data collection and the principal focus for this study is the area from the Duck River at 

Columbia upstream to Normandy Dam, though data for other 

sites in the Duck River watershed are included as well. The 

goals of this project were: (1) to characterize surface-water 

and ground-water hydrology of the study area; (2) to characterize how the hydrology varies seasonally and spatially; and 

(3) to identify areas where streamflow gains and losses are 

important to the hydrology of the study area. The analysis of 

surface- and ground-water data in this report includes surfacewater and ground-water monitoring data collected by the 

USGS from 1932 to 2005.

Acknowledgments

This project would not have been possible without the 

support of many people. The authors thank Larry Murdock 

and Margarete Lane of the Tennessee Duck River Development Agency for their support and assistance during this project. Additionally, the authors thank Randal Braker of the Duck 

River Utility Commission for providing analysis of bacteria 

samples collected during the project. Finally, the authors thank 

the Tennessee Duck River Agency Board of Directors who 

provided the opportunity to conduct this study as well as constructive feedback and support throughout the investigation.

Study Area Description

The Duck River watershed study area lies predominantly 

within the Nashville Basin section of the Interior Low Plateaus 

Physiographic Province (Fenneman, 1938). The western part 

of the basin lies in the Highland Rim Physiographic Section. 

Locally, the Nashville Basin also is referred to as the Central 

Basin. The physiographic provinces in the study area correspond to the Inner Nashville Basin, Outer Nashville Basin, and 

Western Highland Rim Level IV Ecoregions (Griffith and others, 1997; fig. 1). Both the Inner and Outer Nashville Basins 

are characterized by rolling and hilly terrain, but local relief is 

greater and altitudes are higher in the Outer Nashville Basin 

than in the Inner Nashville Basin. Streams in these ecoregions have low gradients and commonly flow over fractured 

limestone bedrock. The Western Highland Rim Ecoregion is 

characterized by dissected hills and greater relief than either 

the Inner or Outer Nashville Basin Ecoregions. Streams in 

this area have higher gradients, with more sand and gravel in 

streams than in the Inner and Outer Nashville Basins (Griffith 

and others, 1997).

The Duck River has been impounded since the mid1800s. Currently (2007), three low-head dams are located on 

the Duck River between Shelbyville and Columbia, and Normandy Dam is located between Manchester and Shelbyville. 

The low-head dams located at Shelbyville, Lillard’s Mill at 

Milltown, and at Columbia, were constructed in the early 

1900s and are currently used for water-supply purposes. The 

only free-flowing sections of the Duck River are above the 

Normandy Dam impoundment and below Columbia.

The climate for the Duck River watershed is temperate, warm, and humid. Precipitation patterns from late spring 

through early fall are typically associated with convective 

storms resulting from high humidity and high temperatures. 

These events can produce high intensity, short duration (less 

than 1 hour) rainfall events that produce large amounts of runoff and little recharge. Remnants from hurricanes (most often 

in the form of tropical depressions) in the Gulf of Mexico are 

not unusual in this area in late summer and early fall. Winter 

weather patterns follow the more predictable frontal-type 

systems that can produce large amounts of precipitation spread 

over 2 to 3 days. Recharge to the ground-water system generally occurs during the winter because precipitation during the 

winter is less intense, resulting in more recharge than runoff. 

Because precipitation during the winter is not as intense as 

a convective storm, more of the water recharges the groundwater system.

Average annual precipitation for Middle Tennessee is 

55.34 in., with the wettest month being March, with 5.86 in., 

and the driest months being August and October with 3.43 and 

3.47 in., respectively (U.S. Department of Commerce, 2005a). 

Within the Duck River watershed, annual average precipitation 

varies from 54.55 in. at the Centerville Water Plant to 60.04 in. 

at Tullahoma (table 1; U.S. Department of Commerce, 2005b), 

which is almost a 10-percent variation across the watershed.

Table 1. Annual average precipitation and temperature for 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration stations 

within the Duck River watershed.

[From U.S. Department of Commerce, 2005b]

Station name

Annual average 

precipitation 

(inches)

Annual average 

temperature 

(­degrees Fahrenheit)

Centerville Water Plant 54.55 58.7

Columbia 56.13 57.0

Dickson 55.44 57.6

Lewisburg Experiment 

Station

56.15 56.9

Linden 57.19 58.2

Mount Pleasant 58.05 58.7

Neapolis Experiment 

Station

57.03 58.5

Shelbyville Water Plant 57.16 58.6

Tullahoma 60.04 57.8

 Water Resources of the Duck River Watershed, Tennessee
Figure 1. Location and Level IV Ecoregions of the Duck River watershed, Tennessee (modified from Griffith and others, 1997).

Normandy Lake

87°44'25"

87°29'20"

87°14'15"

86°59'10"

86°44'05"

35°26'35"

35°41'40"N

35°56'45"

MAURY

HICKMAN

BEDFORD COFFEE

MARSHALL

LEWIS

DICKSON

WILLIAMSON

GILES

MOORE

LAWRENCE

LINCOLN

RUTHERFORD

FRANKLIN

PERRY

HUMPHREYS

Columbia

Shelbyville

Lewisburg

Manchester

Centerville

Tullahoma

Spring Hill

Mount Pleasant

Lynchburg

Dickson

Chapel Hill

Hohenwald

Wartrace

Bell Buckle

Normandy

Cornersville

Eagleville

0 100 10

Sugar Creek

i P ney

vi R er Mill Creek

Bear Creek

oY unger Creek Lick Creek

Duck River

Le pi er

’s Creek

Big Swan

Cree

k

r C

el

t

yL

ee k Fountain

Cree

Si

k

lver Creek

R

gi B

co k

D

ke

er C

uck Rive

r

SugarCree

k

F al

C

t

eer k

North Fork

Creek Wartra

c

e

Creek Garr si

F

no

or

C

d

reek

Duck River

F al t C er

ke

Bear Creek

Milltown

86°29'

86°13'55"

85°58'50"

Car et

sr

r C

ee k

Ru ht er of rd Creek

Base from U.S. Geological Surveydigital data, 1:250,000, Albers projection,Standard parallels 29°30'N and 45°30'N,central meridian 96°00'W

20 MILES

20 KILOMETERS

EXPLANATION

Physiographic province

Western Highland RimOuter Nashville BasinInner Nashville BasinEastern Highland RimPrincipal study area

LOCATION OF STUDY AREA

Study Area Description 
Annual average temperature for southern Middle Tennessee for 1971–2000 was 57.8 °F. Typically the coldest 

and warmest months are January and July respectively (U.S. 

Department of Commerce, 2005c). Average annual temperatures at National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

stations within the Duck River watershed varied from 58.7 °F 

at Centerville and Mount Pleasant to 56.9 °F at Lewisburg 

(table 1; U.S. Department of Commerce, 2005b).

Hydrogeology

 Ordovician and Mississippian carbonate rocks underlie most of the study area (fig. 2). Formations of Ordovician 

age include, in descending order, undifferentiated Ordovician units, the Bigby-Cannon, Carters, Lebanon, and Ridley 

Limestones (fig. 2). These units are present at the surface in 

both the Inner and Outer Nashville Basin ecoregions, whereas 

carbonate rocks of Mississippian age overlie the Chattanooga 

Shale and Ordovician carbonates in the Eastern and Western 

Highland Rim ecoregions (figs. 1 and 2). Compositional differences between the Ordovician and Mississippian carbonate 

units affect the terrain and hydrology in the study area. The 

Ordovician carbonates are predominantly limestone with some 

thin shaly beds, phosphate-rich zones, and bentonite layers. 

They are generally flat-lying to gently dipping, but joints, 

which are parallel fractures oriented perpendicular to the 

bedding planes, are common throughout the Nashville Basin. 

Much of the Ordovician limestone is relatively pure calcite 

with a small amount of insoluble material, such that during 

the weathering process, little 

residual material remains. 

As a result, soils overlying 

bedrock in the Inner Nashville 

Basin are relatively thin, typically 20 ft thick or less, and 

bedrock outcrops are common. Soils are derived from 

the phosphatic, sandy, and 

clay-rich limestones and from 

shaly layers that are present 

in the limestone. Soils in the 

Outer Nashville Basin are 

derived from limestone that is 

richer in phosphate than those 

of the Inner Nashville Basin 

(Tennessee Valley Authority, 

1965). The formations of Mississippian age contain a larger 

amount of insoluble material, 

predominantly chert and clay. 

These formations form thick 

soils, and bedrock is overlain 

by soil and regolith, which is 

the residual chert and clay derived from the in situ weathering 

of the bedrock. The formations of Mississippian age also are 

flat-lying to gently dipping and are underlain by the Chattanooga Shale, which separates them from the formations of 

Ordovician age.

Shallow ground water in the study area flows through 

the karst aquifers that are contained in the Mississippian and 

Ordovician formations. The aquifers are referred to as the Mississippian and Ordovician carbonate aquifers. The principal 

aquifer in the study area is the Ordovician carbonate aquifer 

because the Mississippian carbonate aquifer is limited to higher 

altitudes at the headwaters of many tributaries in the Eastern 

and Western Highland Rim Ecoregions. Ground water flows in 

solution openings in bedrock that form as a result of physical 

and chemical weathering. Rainfall is mildly acidic, and the 

acidity of rainfall increases as it infiltrates and moves through 

the soil zone and interacts with carbon dioxide in the soil. As 

this acidic water moves through the subsurface, dissolution 

of carbonate bedrock occurs predominantly along bedding 

planes and vertical joints resulting in the development of karst 

features, such as sinkholes, caves, disappearing streams, and 

springs. Ground water primarily flows in solution openings that 

have formed along bedding planes and joints. The number and 

size of solution openings decrease with depth, and the zone of 

active ground-water flow generally is less than 300 ft below 

land surface (Brahana and Bradley, 1986). Ground-water-flow 

paths are typically short, and much of the water moves rapidly 

The overlying thin soils and the well-developed conduit system in the Ordovician carbonate aquifer 

result in an aquifer with relatively little storage of ground water.

 Water Resources of the Duck River Watershed, Tennessee
Figure 2. Geology of the Duck River watershed (modified from Hardeman and others, 1966).

MAURY BEDFORD COFFEE

MARSHALL

LEWIS

DICKSON

WILLIAMSON

GILES

MOORE

LAWRENCE

LINCOLN

RUTHERFORD

FRANKLIN

PERRY

HUMPHREYS HICKMAN

Normandy Lake

Sugar Creek

i P ney

vi R er Mill Creek

Bear Creek

oY unger Creek Lick Creek

Duck River

Le pi er

’s Creek

Big Swan

Cree

k

r C

el

t

yL

ee k Fountain

Cree

Si

k

lver Creek

R

gi B

co k

D

ke

er C

uck Rive

r

SugarCree

k

F al

C

t

eer k

North Fork

Creek Wartra

c

e

Creek Garr si

F

no

or

C

d

reek

Duck River

F al t C er

ke

Bear Creek

Car et

sr

r C

ee k

Manchester

Spring Hill

Mount Pleasant

Centerville

Cornersville

87°44'25"

87°29'20"

87°14'15"

86°59'10"

86°44'05"

86°29'

86°13'55"

85°58'50"

35°26'35"

35°41'40"

35°56'45"

Columbia

Shelbyville

Lewisburg Tullahoma

Lynchburg

Dickson

Chapel Hill

Hohenwald

Wartrace

Bell Buckle

Normandy

Eagleville

Ru ht er of rd Creek

LOCATION OF STUDY AREA

EXPLANATION

Mississippian-age Carbonates

Bigby – Cannon Limestone

Carters Limestone

Lebanon Limestone

Ridley Limestone

Alluvium

Devonian - Silurian, undifferentiated

Upper Ordovician, undifferentiated Principal study area

0 10 20 MILES0 10 20 KILOMETERS

Base from U.S. Geological Surveydigital data, 1:250,000, Albers projection,Standard parallels 29°30'N and 45°30'N,central meridian 96°00'W

Study Area Description 
through the aquifer and discharges to streams and springs. 

Recharge to the aquifer occurs from the infiltration of rainfall 

through the soil as well as focused recharge from runoff entering sinkholes and joints in bedrock. Locally, recharge may 

occur from streamflow loss where openings in bedrock in the 

stream channels are connected to the aquifer.

The Ordovician carbonate aquifer is a source of water 

for domestic wells and one public water supply in the study 

area. Most wells produce between 5 and 20 gal/min, but yields 

of more than 50 gal/min can occur in some areas (Brahana 

and Bradley, 1986). Solution openings sufficient to deliver 

water volumes sufficient for public supply exist as far as 

275 ft below land surface. Most ground water obtained from 

wells deeper than 275 ft below land surface contains elevated 

concentrations of dissolved constituents and often has a sulfur 

odor (Alexander and others, 1984). Wells that produce more 

than 50 gal/min are rare; wells exceeding this pump rate likely 

are within the flood plain of a nearby stream or the Duck River 

and could be under the influence of surface water, and can also 

occur when a well intercepts numerous or large solution openings (Alexander and others, 1984).

The Knox aquifer, located below the Ordovician carbonate 

aquifer, provides a relatively deep and reliable source of ground 

water and is used for domestic water supply in areas where 

shallow water is not available. This formation is composed of 

dolomite, dolomitic limestone, and limestone and is present at 

depths of about 650 to 1,100 ft below land surface in the study 

area. Water pumped from this formation often has high mineral 

content. Yields from the Knox aquifer are generally less than 

15 gal/min, but more than 85 percent of the wells that are completed into the aquifer yield water (Brahana and Bradley, 1985).

Water Use

The mainstem of the Duck River is the principal source 

of water supply in the Duck River watershed. Total water 

withdrawal estimates for public supply, self-supplied industry 

(including processing industrial inorganic chemicals), and irrigation for 2003 within the primary study area were 26.2 Mgal/d

(table 2) with 92 percent of that total being withdrawn from 

the mainstem of the Duck River. Approximately 2 Mgal/d 

are withdrawn from ground-water wells in the Ordovician 

and Mississippian carbonate aquifers for use as public supply 

(table 2). Irrigation (primarily for golf courses) and industrial 

withdrawals from surface water and ground water were less 

than 1 Mgal/d combined for 2003. Estimated withdrawals from 

private wells or springs for residential use or from farm ponds, 

other surface-water sources, wells, or springs for livestock 

watering are not included in the total withdrawal estimates.

Total water use for public supply in the study area 

increased 49 percent or 8.6 Mgal/d from 1982 to 2003. 

Surface-water withdrawals accounted for 91 percent of this 

increase in water use. In 2003, Maury and southern Williamson Counties accounted for 44 percent (11.54 Mgal/d) of the 

total water withdrawn for public use in the study area. Of 

this, 10.53 Mgal/d were withdrawn from surface water and 

1.01 Mgal/d from ground water. The remaining withdrawals occurred in Bedford (26 percent, or 6.68 Mgal/d), Coffee 

(19 percent, or 5.06 Mgal/d), and Marshall (11 percent, or 

2.95 Mgal/d) Counties (table 2). Detailed information about 

water use and water supply in the Duck River watershed can 

be found in Hutson (1996 and 2003) and Hydrologics (2002).

Seven cities discharge wastewater in the study area: 

Wartrace, Bell Buckle, Chapel Hill, Shelbyville, Lewisburg, 

Columbia, and Spring Hill (fig. 3). Wastewater treatment plants 

in Shelbyville, Lewisburg, Columbia, and Spring Hill have a 

median annual discharge of greater than 1 Mgal/d (table 3). A 

comparison of the median annual water intake for public consumption to the median annual wastewater treatment discharge 

results in a net loss of water. These net losses vary from 0.42 

to almost 5 Mgal/d (table 3). The loss between the amount 

of water withdrawn for public consumption and the amount 

released as treated effluent can be accounted for by several 

potential sinks. The highest percentage of water loss most 

likely can be attributed to water returned to the environment 

via septic tanks as opposed to municipal sewer systems. The 

amount of publicly-supplied water consumed by households 

that return the water to the environment via septic systems 

could be significant though data are not available to verify this 

possibility. Additional avenues of water loss could be nursery 

operations (irrigation) and any industrial operations that are 

permitted to release processed water directly to the river.

Table 2. Total surface- and ground-water withdrawals for 

public supply by water-service area. 

[Figures may not sum to totals because of independent rounding; N/A, not 

available; e, estimated based on available data; all data from Susan Hutson, 

U.S. Geological Survey, written commun., 2005]

Water-service 

area

Withdrawals, 

in million gallons per day Change from 

1982 to 2003, 

1982 2003 in percent

Bedford County

Total 3.81 6.68 75

Surface water 3.50 5.86 67

Ground water .31 .82 165

Coffee County

Total 2.97 5.06 70

Surface water 2.97 5.04 70

Ground water N/A .02 N/A

Marshall County

Total 2.32 2.95 27

Surface water 2.32 2.80 21

Ground water .11e .15 36

Maury/southern Williamson Counties

Total 8.48 11.54 36

Surface water 7.63 10.53 35

Ground water .85 1.01 19

Study area

Totals 17.6 26.2 49

Surface water 16.4 24.2 45

Ground water 1.16 2.00 72

 Water Resources of the Duck River Watershed, Tennessee
Figure 3. Wastewater treatment plants discharging to the Duck River watershed, Tennessee.

MAURY

HICKMAN

BEDFORD COFFEE

MARSHALL

LEWIS

DICKSON

WILLIAMSON

GILES

MOORE

LAWRENCE

LINCOLN

RUTHERFORD

FRANKLIN

PERRY

HUMPHREYS

Normandy Lake

Sugar Creek

i P ney

vi R er Mill Creek

Bear Creek

oY unger Creek Lick Creek

Duck River

Le pi er

’s Creek

Big Swan

Cree

k

r C

el

t

yL

ee k Fountain

Cree

Si

k

lver Creek

R

gi B

co k

D

ke

er C

uck Rive

r

SugarCree

k

F al

C

t

eer k

North Fork

Creek Wartra

c

e

Creek Garr si

F

no

or

C

d

reek

Duck River

F al t C er

ke

Bear Creek

Car et

sr

r C

ee k

87°44'25"

87°29'20"

87°14'15"

86°59'10"

86°44'05"

35°26'35"

35°41'40"

35°56'45"

Columbia

Shelbyville

Lewisburg

Manchester

Centerville

Tullahoma

Spring Hill

Mount Pleasant

Lynchburg

Dickson

Chapel Hill

Hohenwald

Wartrace

Bell Buckle

Normandy

Cornersville

Eagleville

86°29'

86°13'55"

85°58'50"

Ru ht er of rd Creek

Base from U.S. Geological Surveydigital data, 1:250,000, Albers projection,Standard parallels 29°30'N and 45°30'N,central meridian 96°00'W

EXPLANATION

Wastewater-treatment plantPrincipal study area

0 10 20 MILES0 10 20 KILOMETERS

LOCATION OF STUDY AREA

Study Area Description 
Daily treated wastewater discharge can vary considerably when compared to the median daily treated wastewater 

discharge as a result of infiltration and inflow (often referred 

to as “I and I”). The degree to which infiltration and inflow 

affect the quantity of treated wastewater discharge amounts 

solely depends on the condition of the sewer system network. 

Cracked and leaky pipes, joints, and manholes can allow for 

considerable amounts of storm runoff and ground water to 

enter the system. The daily discharge from wastewater plants 

can change significantly throughout the year as the water 

table rises and falls or as the amount of runoff increases from 

storms (Qasim, 1994). Maximum daily average discharges 

from Shelbyville, Lewisburg, Columbia, and Spring Hill range 

from 2.29 to 10.6 Mgal/d, which is up to 216 percent greater 

than the median daily discharge to the receiving water body 

(table 3).

Approach

Although the number of sites at which data have been 

collected in the Duck River watershed is relatively large, most 

of these sites were associated with studies conducted during a 

relatively short timeframe or at the tributary-watershed scale, 

such as base-flow synoptic discharge measurements in a tributary watershed. The intent of this study was to collect waterlevel, spring discharge, and streamflow data across much 

of the study area during an 18-month period to characterize 

the hydrology and characterize how these components that 

contribute to streamflow in the Duck River vary throughout 

the year. In addition to data collected for this study, existing 

data from historical or active streamgages in the study area 

were used for flow-duration analysis and to calculate low-flow 

statistics. Results from techniques used in this report are based 

on continuously recorded or discrete water-resources observations collected at sites throughout the study area; 19 continuous streamflow sites, 24 miscellaneous measurement sites, 17 

wells, and 13 springs were used in the analysis for this report 

(figs. 4 and 5; tables 4 and 5).

Surface-Water Network

Six continuous streamgages were installed as a part 

of this study to provide streamflow data in portions of the 

study unit where continuous streamflow data were sparse. 

These gages included two mainstem sites (above Milltown 

and at River Mile 166.1 near Pottsville) and four tributary sites (North Fork Creek near Poplins Crossroads, Flat 

Creek at Highway 231 near Shelbyville, Big Rock Creek at 

Double Bridges Road near Verona, and Fountain Creek near 

Fountain Heights) (table 4). In addition to these six gages, 

nine streamgages were in place prior to this study: Garrison 

Fork above L&N Railroad at Wartrace, Wartrace Creek below 

County Road near Wartrace, Duck River at Shelbyville, Duck 

River near Shelbyville, Duck River at Columbia, Carters 

Creek at Butler Road at Carters Creek, Duck River at Highway 100 near Centerville, Piney River at Cedar Hill, and Piney 

River at Vernon. Continuous streamflow data from these sites 

were used to compute low-flow statistics and flow-­duration 

values, and to make comparisons in flow accounting analysis.

In addition to using continuous streamflow information, 

miscellaneous streamflow measurements were made for two 

base-flow synoptic investigations to characterize the temporal 

and spatial variability of water resources in the study area. 

Base-flow synoptic investigations also aid in understanding 

the interaction between surface- and ground-water resources. 

Base-flow synoptic measurements were made at sites on tributaries and along the mainstem of the Duck River in November 

2003 and again at tributary sites in May 2004. Twenty-eight 

tributary sites, including 5 springs and 14 mainstem sites were 

included in the base-flow synoptic investigations. Almost all 

tributary streams to the Duck River from Normandy Dam 

to Columbia were included in this investigation to provide a 

broad perspective of which watersheds may be contributing 

more water to the Duck River. Base-flow synoptic investigations used in this study were completed when hydrologic 

conditions were consistent across the study area, ideally after a 

minimum of 3 days without precipitation or runoff.

Table 3. Median annual wastewater treatment effluent and water intake values and maximum daily average wastewater 

treatment effluent values for Shelbyville, Lewisburg, Columbia, and Spring Hill, Tennessee, for the 2004 water year. 

[Mgal/d, million gallons per day; negative value indicates a net loss of water between the intake value and the wastewater effluent discharge value] 

City

Median annual 

wastewater discharge

 (Mgal/d)a

Median annual water 

treatment intake 

(Mgal/d)b

Net Loss 

(Mgal/d)

Maximum daily 

average discharge 

(Mgal/d)

Shelbyville 2.58 4.34 –1.76 4.94

Lewisburg 1.76 2.77 –1.01 3.04

Columbia 4.84 9.81 –4.97 10.6

Spring Hill 1.06 1.48 –0.42 2.29

a From written and oral communications from local wastewater treatment plant operators and Tim Wilder, Tennessee Department of 

Environment and Conservation (Columbia), 2005.

b

 From Susan Hutson, U.S. Geological Survey, written commun., 2005.

   Water Resources of the Duck River Watershed, Tennessee
Table 4. Site information for selected monitoring locations in the Duck River watershed.­—Continued

[Site names with numbers in parentheses indicate site numbers on figure 4; o, degrees; ', minutes; ", seconds; Latitude and longitude are referenced to the North American Datum of 1927; Gage datum is referenced to the National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929; —, not determined]

Site name Station number Latitude Longitude Drainage area (square miles) Gage datum (feet) Period of record (water years) 

Continuous streamflow data sites (site number on figure 4A)

Duck River below Manchester 03596000 35o 28' 15" 86o 07' 18" 107 878.23 1934–88, 1993–98 

Duck River at Normandy 03596500 35o 27' 26" 86o 15' 25" 208 782.65 1921–32, 1973–75

Garrison Fork above L&N Railroad at Wartrace (1) 03597210 35o 30' 42" 86o 19' 26" 85.5 769.30 1990–2004

Wartrace Creek at Bell Buckle 03597500 35o 31' 38" 86o 20' 25" 16.3 822.44 1954–75

Wartrace Creek below County Road near Wartrace (2) 03597590 35o 35' 16" 86o 20' 22" 35.7 781.66 1990–present

Duck River at Shelbyville (3) 03597860 35o 28' 58" 84o 27' 45" 425 680.00 1992–present Flat Creek at Highway 231 near Shelbyville (4) 03597898 35° 27' 35" 86° 28' 10" 49 712.54 2003–2005

Duck River near Shelbyville (5) 03598000 35o 28' 49" 86o 29' 57" 481 683.51 1934–present

North Fork Creek near Poplins Crossroads (6) 03598250 35o 35' 04" 86o 35' 46" 71.9 670.00 1994–present

Big Rock Creek at Lewisburg 03599000 35o 26' 56" 86o 47' 09" 24.90 705.01 1955–60, 1966–69, 1996–99 

Big Rock Creek at Double Bridges Road near Verona (7) 03599100 35o 31' 49" 86o 46' 07" 48.7 — 2003–present Duck River above Milltown (8) 03599240 35o 34' 34" 86o 46' 42" 916 609.24 2003–present 

Duck River at River Mile 166.1 near Pottsville (9) 03599407 35o 37' 51" 86o 51' 43" 1,060 582.88 2003–present 

Fountain Creek near Fountain Heights (10) 03599450 35° 31' 05" 86° 56' 31" 77 600.00 1966–68, 2003–present

Duck River at Columbia (11) 03599500 35o 37' 04" 87o 01' 56" 1,208 535.33 1921–present 

Carters Creek at Butler Road at Carters Creek (12) 03600088 35o 43' 02" 86o 59' 44" 20.1 605.94 1986–present Duck River at Highway 100 near Centerville (13)a 03601990 35o 47' 03" 87o 27' 36" 2,048 447.76 1920–55, 2001–present 

Piney River at Cedar Hill (14) 03602219 35° 59' 43" 87° 26' 22" 46.6 552.20 1988–present 

Piney River at Vernon (15) 03602500 35o 52' 16" 87o 29' 59" 193 461.72 1926–93, 2000–present 

Base-flow synoptic measurement sites (site number on figure 4B)

Fall Creek near Elbethel (16) 03598180 35° 33' 03" 86° 32' 33" 40 — —

Sinking Creek near Halls Mill (17) 03598190 35° 32' 08" 86° 35' 24" 31.5 — —

Wilson Creek near Chapel Hill (18) 03598260 35° 36' 01" 86° 39' 35" 15.5 — —

Approach   
Table 4. Site information for selected monitoring locations in the Duck River watershed.­—Continued

[Site names with numbers in parentheses indicate site numbers on figure 4; o, degrees; ', minutes; ", seconds; Latitude and longitude are referenced to the North American Datum of 1927; Gage datum is referenced to the National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929; —, not determined]

Site name Station number Latitude Longitude Drainage area (square miles) Gage datum (feet) Period of record (water years) 

Base-flow synoptic measurement sites (site number on figure 4B)—Continued

Spring Creek at Wilhoite Mills (19) 03598298 35° 36' 11" 86° 41' 47" 23.7 — —

Rich Creek near Wilhoite Mills (20) 03598320 35° 34' 43" 86° 42' 49" 19.2 — —

Big Rock Creek Tributary at Verona Pike near Verona (21) 03599099 35° 30' 15" 86° 46' 05" 0.71 — —

Big Rock Creek below Wright Branch at Verona (22) 03599117 35° 32' 16" 86° 46' 07" 53.05 — —

East Rock Creek at Farmington (23) 03599210 35° 31' 07" 86° 43' 12" — — —

East Big Rock Creek at Ames (24) 03599225 35° 33' 11" 86° 45' 17" — — —

Caney Creek at Caney Spring (25) 03599300 35° 36' 29" 86° 46' 05" 28.9 — —

Duck River at RM 177 above Venable Spring (26) 03599310 35° 36' 17" 86° 46' 53" — — —

Duck River near Pottsville (Hardison Mill) (27) 03599350 35° 36' 31" 86° 49' 20" 956 — —

Flat Creek near Pottsville (28) 03599403 35° 38' 33" 86° 51' 14" 41.6 — —

Pumpkin Creek at Joe Brown Road near Pottsville (29) 035994045 35° 38' 41" 86° 52' 21" — — —

Duck River at RM 162.8 near Pottsville (Tuga’s Bend) (30) 03599410 35° 36' 03" 86° 52' 32" 1,019 — —

Duck River at RM 158.3 nr Pottsville (31) 03599417 35° 35' 50" 86° 52' 05" — — —

Duck River at RM 156 near Pottsville (Sowell Mill) (32) 03599419 35° 34' 13" 86° 52' 17" — — —

Cedar Creek near Berlin (33) 03599420 35° 33' 15" 86° 51' 23" 9.24 — —

Duck River upstream of Interstate 65 (34) 03599424 35° 33' 57" 86° 54' 03" — — —

Duck River at Howard Bridge (35) 03599425 35° 34' 21" 86° 55' 20" 1,056 — —

Negro Creek near Glendale (36) 03599427 35° 34' 52" 86° 55' 48" 4.31 — —

Fountain Creek at Silver Creek near Fountain Heights (37) 0359945262 35° 33' 38" 86° 57' 40" 90.4 — —

Silver Creek above confluence with Fountain Creek at Blue 

Spring Road (38) 035994545 35° 33' 38"

86° 57' 38"

15.0 — —

Duck River below Fountain Creek (39) 03599456 35° 34' 07" 86° 57' 57" — — —

a The Duck River at Highway 100 near Centerville (03601990) and the Duck River at Centerville (03602000) are used as the same gage in this report to compare pre- and post-dam closure conditions. 

The site is referred to as the Duck River at Highway 100 near Centerville because this is currently (2007) the active gage location.

10 Water Resources of the Duck River Watershed, Tennessee
Table 5. Site information for selected ground-water wells and springs in the Duck River watershed. 

[Latitude and longitude are referenced to the North American Datum of 1927; Gage datum is referenced to the National Geodetic 

Vertical Datum of 1929; °, degrees; ', minutes; ′′, seconds; —, not applicable]

Site name Station number Latitude Longitude Well depth (feet)

Ground-water wells (Site number on figure 5)

My:O-2 353816086493201 35° 38' 16" 86° 49' 32" 59

Ms:K-13 353505086471301 35° 35' 05" 86° 47' 13" 300

Ms:N-12 353734086423302 35° 37' 34" 86° 42' 33" 206

Ms:N-13 353733086423401 35° 37' 33" 86° 42' 34" 500

Bd:K-4 353718086352201 35° 37' 18" 86° 35' 22" 65

Ms:L-6 353234086421501 35° 32' 34" 86° 42' 15" 105

My:H-16 353449086523700 35° 34' 49" 86° 52' 37" 50

My:H-10 353533086574700 35° 35' 33" 86° 57' 57" 94

My:G-6 353644087001300 35° 36' 44" 87° 00' 13" 145

My:N-028 354416086572801 35° 44' 16" 86° 57' 28" 200

My:N-034 354432086580901 35° 44' 32" 86° 58' 09" 60

My:H-14 353331086545200 35° 33' 31" 86° 54' 52" 206

Ms:K-5 353603086485500 35° 36' 03" 86° 48' 55" 150

Bd:L-41 353211086271201 35° 32' 11" 86° 27' 12" 83

Bd:E-11 352501086322001 35° 25' 01" 86° 32' 20" 75

Ms:F-8 352618086472001 35° 26' 18" 86° 47' 20" 145

My:O-3 354154086502501 35° 41' 54" 86° 50' 25" 100

Springs (Site number on figure 5)

Berlin Spring (1) 353144086493001 35° 31' 43" 86° 49' 29" —

Big Spring near Farmington (2) 03599202 35° 30' 07" 86° 42' 39" —

Blue Spring (3) 353434086592501 35° 34' 34" 86° 59' 24" —

Carrick Spring (4) 0359815605 35° 33' 16" 86° 24' 48" —

Carters Creek Spring (5) 354140087003801 35° 41' 39" 87° 00' 37" —

East Collins Spring (6) 353018086462501 35° 30' 18" 86° 46' 24" —

Eoff Cave Spring (7) 353208086152501 35° 32' 08" 86° 15' 24" —

Morgan Spring (8) 353547087013301 35° 35' 46" 87° 01' 33" —

River Rats Spring (9) 353730086491301 35° 37' 29" 86° 49' 13" —

Sims Spring (10) 353043086372201 35° 30' 43" 86° 37' 22" —

Unnamed Spring at Ag. Experiment 

Station near Lewisburg (11)

352432086491001 35° 24' 32" 86° 49' 10" —

Venable Spring (12) 353627086465601 35° 36' 26" 86° 46' 55" —

West Collins Spring (13) 353017086462501 35° 30' 17" 86° 46' 24" —

Approach 11
MAURY

0

0

Creek

Leiper’s Creek

Lytle C

Mount Pleasant

LICK CR

BIG BIGBY CR

LEIPER'S 

TURKEY CR

DRY CR

Figure 4. (A) Continuous streamflow gages and (

B) base-flow synoptic measurement locations in the Duck River watershed, Tennessee.

MAURY

HICKMAN

BEDFORD

COFFEE

LEWIS

DICKSON

WILLIAMSON

GILES

MOORE

LAWRENCE

LINCOLN

RUTHERFORD

FRANKLIN

PERRY

HUMPHREYS

LOCATION OF STUDY AREA

Base from U.S. Geological Surveydigital data, 1:250,000, Albers projection,Standard parallels 29°30'N and 45°30'N,central meridian 96°00'W

NormandyLake

Sugar Creek

i P ney

vi R er

Mill Creek

Bear Creek

oY unger Creek

Duck

River

Le pi er’s Creek

Big

Swan Creek

r Celt yL ee k

Fountain

Cree

Si

k

lver Creek

Rgi B co k

D

keer C uck

River SugarCreek

F al C t eer k

North Fork

Creek

Wartrace Creek Garr si Fno or C

d reek

Duck

River

F al t C er ke

Bear Creek

Car et sr r C ee k

MARSHALL

87°44'25"

87°29'20"

87°14'15"

86°59'10"

86°44'05"

35°26'35"

35°41'40"

35°56'45"

Columbia

Shelbyville

Lewisburg

Manchester

Centerville

Tullahoma

Spring Hill

Mount Pleasant

Lynchburg

Dickson

Chapel Hill

Hohenwald

Wartrace

Bell Buckle

Normandy

Eagleville

EXPLANATION

Streamgage

86°29'

86°13'55"

85°58'50"

References site number listed in table 4

0 10 20 MILES0 10 20 KILOMETERS

A. Continuous streamflow gages

7

7

1

2

3

4

5

6

8

10

15

14

13

12

11 9

Ru ht er of rd

Creek

12  Water Resources of the Duck River Watershed, Tennessee
BEDFORD

WILLIAMSON

GILES

MAURY

LINCOLN

RUTHERFORD

LOCATION OF STUDY AREA

Base from U.S. Geological Survey

digital data, 1:250,000, Albers projection,

Standard parallels 29°30'N and 45°30'N,

central meridian 96°00'W

10 MILES

10 KILOMETERS

Lytle Creek

Silver Creek

Big

Rock

Creek

Duck River

Flat

Creek

Wart

Duck

Flat Creek

Bear Creek

MARSHALL

86°44'05"

Columbia

Shelbyville

Lewisburg

Spring Hill

Chapel Hill

Eagleville

EXPLANATION

Synoptic measurement site

86°29'

References site number listed in table 4

0 5

0 5

Fall Creek

Fall Creek

Caney Creek

Pumpkin Creek

Wilson

Creek

North Fork Creek

Sin

king

Creek

Fountain Creek

Duck River

24

B. Base-flow synoptic measurement locations

16

Rutherford Creek

19 18

20

21

22

23

East Rock Rock

N

S CR

KEY CR

24

Sprin

g

Creek

TUGA’S BEND

SOWELL BEND

MILLTOWN

86°59'10"

17

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

38

37

36 34

35

39

Rich Cree

Ce

k

dar Creek

Figure 4. (A) Continuous streamflow gages and (B) base-flow synoptic measurement locations in the Duck River watershed, 

Tennessee.—Continued

Approach 13
Figure 5. Spring and ground-water monitoring locations in the Duck River watershed, Tennessee.

BY CR

PER'S CR

35°41'40"

TURKEY CR

SpringGround-water well

References site number listed in table 5 7

35°26'35"

BEDFORD

COFFEE

WILLIAMSON

GILES

MAURY

RUTHERFORD

LINCOLN Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:250,000, Albers projection,

Standard parallels 29°30'N and 45°30'N,central meridian 96°00'W

10 MILES

10 KILOMETERS

NormandyLake

keer Celt yL

Rgi B

co Ck

reek

Duck

River

Flat

Creek

Duck

River

MARSHALL

86°59'10"

86°44'05"

Shelbyville

Lewisburg

Manchester

Tullahoma

Spring Hill

Lynchburg

Chapel Hill

Eagleville

EXPLANATION

86°29'

5 0

5 0

Fall Creek

Caney C er ke

Wil os Cn keer North Fork Creek

gni kni S Creek

Fountain

Creek

Duck River

7

My:O-2

Ms:K-13

My:O-3

Ms:K-5

1

12

9 Columbia

LOCATION OF STUDY AREA

Rutherford Creek

10

Ms:N-12Ms:N-13

Ms:F-8

Bd:E-11

Bd:L-41

My:H-14

My:N-034

My:N-028

My:G-6

My:H-10

My:H-16

Ms:L-6

Bd:K-4

8

6

5

4

3

2

13

11

14  Water Resources of the Duck River Watershed, Tennessee
In general, tributaries in the study area can be divided 

into two categories: near-constant flow (may have zero flow 

during extreme years) and storm conveyance (flow only as a 

result of immediate runoff from precipitation events). Streams 

that would be considered in the near-constant-flow category 

are currently being monitored: Wartrace Creek, Flat Creek 

near Shelbyville, North Fork Creek, Big Rock Creek, and 

Fountain Creek. Very few, if any, tributaries to the Duck River 

in this category are not currently being monitored. Tributaries in the category of storm-conveyance include streams 

and creeks that usually discharge to the Duck River for a 

few weeks after a precipitation event and then reduce rather 

quickly to zero or near-zero flow during the summer months. 

Streams matching these characteristics include Spring Creek, 

Wilson Creek, Sinking Creek, Flat Creek (Maury County), and 

Caney Creek, generally located in the Inner Nashville Basin 

Ecoregion (fig. 1).

Surface-Water Data Analysis

 Flow-duration analysis was completed for six tributary 

and three mainstem sites for the 2004 and 2005 water years 

(October 1 through September 30). Flow-duration analysis 

uses continuous streamflow data to estimate the percentage 

of time that streamflow equals or exceeds given flow values. 

These values, when plotted as runoff versus duration, can be 

used to generally characterize the extent to which streamflow is affected by ground-water discharge during periods of 

limited runoff (typically late-summer and early fall). Data in 

these plots are normalized by the watershed area to enable 

comparisons among different streams. Generally, lines with 

lower slope indicate that streamflow is supported by a more 

sustained contribution from ground water.

Low-flow statistics are used to assess the capacity of a 

stream or watershed to yield water for a specific length of time 

and for a particular recurrence interval. Low-flow statistics 

also are used to determine the waste assimilation capacity of 

a stream. Low-flow statistics were calculated for 11 sites in 

the Duck River watershed. Low-flow values are similar to 

flow-duration values in that both can be used to characterize 

streamflow during base-flow conditions. Low-flow values 

are determined statistically by assigning recurrence intervals 

to daily mean discharges that occur on consecutive days. For 

example, a 7Q10 low-flow value is the daily mean discharge 

that occurs for 7 consecutive days and recurs once every 

10 years. In this analysis, the 7Q10 and the 30Q5 low-flow 

values are used because these are the values typically used 

by resource managers. The 7Q10 value is relatively short in 

duration in comparison to the 30Q5 value, which has a longer 

duration and recurs more frequently than the 7Q10. A minimum of 4 years of continuous streamflow data are required to 

calculate low-flow statistics, though more stable and accurate 

results are obtained when 10 or more years of data are available (Flynn and others, 1995).

The relative contribution of four components to total 

streamflow at four mainstem streamgage locations from 

Shelbyville to Columbia was estimated using continuous 

streamflow data, base-flow synoptic measurements, Normandy 

Dam release data, water-use and wastewater treatment discharge estimates, and spring discharge measurements. Estimates of the contribution from Normandy releases, tributaries, 

utilities, and ground-water discharge were completed during 

two periods of extended recession (October 2003 and August 

2004). Streamflow that could not be attributed to one of the 

known or measured components of flow is considered groundwater discharge. This consideration was made because tributaries that continue to flow into the Duck River throughout 

the year were accounted for by continuous streamflow gages. 

Streamflow was negligible or absent in ungaged tributaries 

during the two extended recession periods.

Ground-Water Network

The ground-water-level network for this investigation 

consists of 17 wells at which monthly tape-down water-level 

measurements were made (fig. 5). All of these were existing 

wells, and about half of them were installed as test wells either 

for ground-water development or for geologic and hydrologic 

information. The remaining wells are domestic wells that are 

no longer used or are used only intermittently for seasonal 

lawn irrigation. The maximum depth of wells in the network is 

500 ft, but most of the wells are less than 200 ft deep (table 5). 

All of the network wells are completed in bedrock with open 

borehole construction. Typically, the first 20 ft of the borehole 

is cased with 6-in.-diameter steel or galvanized steel casing, 

and the rest of the borehole is open to bedrock. Water-level 

data from these wells represent unconfined to semi-confined 

water levels.

Continuous (hourly) water-level data were collected at 6 

of these 17 wells from January 2004 to July 2005 to characterize the response of the ground-water system to rainfall and to 

characterize the relation among ground-water levels, spring 

flows, and stage in the Duck River. Three of the continuous water-level wells (My:G-6, My:H-14, and Ms:K-13) are 

located along the Duck River, from Milltown downstream 

to Columbia. This stretch of the river contains areas where 

streamflow losses to the ground-water system have been 

documented in the past and were also measured during this 

study. The intent of monitoring these three wells was to 

determine the extent of the hydraulic connection between the 

aquifer and the river and to determine if significant amounts of 

water move between the aquifer and the Duck River at these 

locations. Continuous data also were collected from three 

wells (My:N-034, Ms:F-8, and Ms:N-13) located away from 

the Duck River to compare ground-water-level changes in the 

tributary basins to those in wells close to the river. The specific 

locations for water-level monitoring were dictated by the availability of existing wells. Continuous data were collected with 

pressure transducers that recorded absolute pressure (­pressure 

Approach 15
of water above the transducer and atmospheric pressure). 

These pressure readings were adjusted by subtracting the 

barometric pressure from the absolute pressure. The atmospheric pressure data were collected by a transducer near well 

Ms:K-13 in the central part of the study area. In addition to 

water-level data, continuous temperature data were collected at 

these six wells, and continuous specific-conductance data were 

collected for selected periods at three of the wells.

The ground-water data-collection network in the study 

area also included 13 springs at which monthly discharge measurements and field water-quality measurements were made 

throughout the study, while quarterly and monthly Escherichia 

coli samples were collected during the first and second years, 

respectively (fig. 5 and table 5). Discharge measurements and 

bacteria samples were made only after a minimum of 2 days 

without rainfall to exclude runoff contribution to spring flow. 

Continuous water-temperature data (15-minute intervals) were 

collected from several of the springs to help characterize the 

spring hydrology.

Water-Resources of the 

Duck River Watershed

Karst features, such as sinkholes, caves, disappearing 

streams, and springs, are important factors that affect the 

hydrology of the study area. Knowledge of the interactions 

between surface-water and ground-water resources is needed 

to better understand how water resources can be managed to 

balance water quality, water availability, and aquatic resource 

needs. The hydrology of the study area was evaluated by 

examining discharge from springs, streamflow yields, and 

changes in ground-water levels. Ground-water-level data and 

monthly discharge measurements from springs were combined 

with duration analyses, low-flow statistics, and base-flow 

synoptic investigations to better understand streamflow gains 

and losses. Streamflow accounting was used to quantify the 

contribution of the major sources of water at each streamgage 

along the mainstem.

Surface Water

Surface-water conditions during the 2004 and 2005 water 

years in the study area represented near-average conditions 

when compared to annual flows for the years following the 

closing of Normandy Dam. Analysis of surface-water records 

at the Duck River near Shelbyville and Duck River at Columbia show that the flow for the 2004 water year ranked 11th 

and 15th, respectively, in the 28 water-year period from 1977 

through 2005. The 2005 water year at these sites ranked 17th 

and 14th for the same 28-year period. Peak discharges for the 

2004 and 2005 water years at the Duck River near Shelbyville 

and Duck River at Columbia occurred because of winter 

storms even though 2004 and 2005 were active hurricane 

seasons. Therefore, the analysis and results presented in this 

report are representative of average flow conditions from 

1977–2005. Hydrographs for the Duck River near Shelbyville 

and at Columbia for 2004 are compared to a dry year (1981) 

and a wet year (1989) in figure 6.

Flow in the Duck River is regulated by the operation of 

Normandy Dam, which is used for flood control and water 

supply. Normandy Dam was closed for filling in 1976. Minimum flows from Normandy Dam were established to maintain 

streamflow for water supply and the assimilative capacity of 

the Duck River. Numerous small dams were built on the Duck 

River and used for a variety of purposes ranging from power 

generation to milling and lumber operations. According to Killebrew and Safford (1874), at least 13 small dams were used 

for milling, lumber, and power generation around 1870. Only 

three small dams remain between Shelbyville and Columbia.

The surface-water hydrology of the study area is described 

using flow-duration analysis, tributary base-flow synoptic measurements, and low-flow statistics. These analysis techniques 

are used to characterize the base-flow contributions to streams 

from ground water and to compare yields among the streams in 

different geologic settings. These techniques use both continuous streamflow data and discrete measurement observations.

Results from flow-duration analysis of six tributary 

streams in the study area indicate that the ground-water 

component of streamflow declines rapidly during extended 

dry periods at North Fork, Wartrace, Flat, and Carters Creeks 

(fig. 7A). By comparison, Big Rock and Fountain Creeks 

appear to have more ground water available to sustain streamflow during base-flow conditions. This is indicated by the 

flow-duration curve becoming increasingly horizontal for 

these sites during low-flow periods (fig. 7A). It should be 

noted that wastewater discharge from the City of Lewisburg 

composes as much as 14 percent of the streamflow in Big 

Rock Creek during base-flow periods and results in higher 

water yields during low-flow periods. Sections of Big Rock 

Creek near Lewisburg have been observed to go dry. Wastewater discharge below Lewisburg is analogous to a ground-water 

source that provides base flow.

Flow-duration curves for three sites on the mainstem 

of the Duck River have slopes similar to the Fountain Creek 

slope but have higher water yields during low runoff periods 

(fig. 7B). The larger base flows at mainstem sites are the result 

of releases from Normandy Dam, which is analogous to a sustaining ground-water source to the streams. The flow-duration 

curves for the mainstem sites diverge from each other during 

low-flow periods. Mainstem flow-duration curves diverge 

from each other during extended base-flow periods because 

there is little appreciable tributary inflow between each 

mainstem site; drainage area continues to increase without a 

corresponding increase in tributary inflow.

Low-flow statistics also show a similar spatial pattern 

to flow-duration analyses. Tributary streams with large 

7Q10 yields include Garrison Fork [0.03 (ft3/s)/mi2], 

Fountain Creek [0.025 (ft3/s)/mi2], and the Piney River 

[0.27 (ft3/s)/mi2] (table 6). The 30Q5 values for Garrison Fork 

16  Water Resources of the Duck River Watershed, Tennessee
[0.07 (ft3

/s)/mi2], Fountain Creek [0.063 (ft3/s)/mi2], and Piney 

River [0.32 (ft3/s)/mi2] also were higher than for other tributaries. Other tributaries—Wartrace, Big Rock, and North Fork 

Creeks—have 7Q10 and 30Q5 yields of <0.001 (ft3/s)/mi2. 

Many streams in the eastern two-thirds of the study area, 

which are underlain predominantly by the Carters, Lebanon, 

and Ridley Limestones, have been observed at zero streamflow 

(Tennessee Valley Authority, 1965; fig. 8). A well-developed 

karst system, thin regolith, and lack of ground-water storage 

result in lower water yields during base-flow conditions. In 

addition to less storage in these tributary basins, conduits in 

the karst aquifer may result in lower streamflow yield because 

of streamflow loss to the aquifer, thereby short circuiting 

the surface drainage. In cases such as these, water may be 

discharging either downstream from the streamgage location, 

to a nearby spring, or through the subsurface directly to the 

Duck River.

Low-flow statistics on the mainstem of the Duck River decreased 

going downstream from Shelbyville 

through Columbia to Centerville during 

pre-­Normandy Dam flow conditions. 

This pattern changed after Normandy 

Dam was closed. For example, during 

the pre-dam period, the Duck River 

near Shelbyville had a 7Q10 yield of 

0.12 (ft3/s)/mi2 compared to the Duck 

River at Columbia and the Duck River 

at Highway 100 near Centerville with 

0.06 (ft3/s)/mi2 (table 6). The 30Q5 values for Columbia and Highway 100 near 

Centerville also follow a similar decrease 

in yield when compared to Shelbyville. 

The decreases in the 7Q10 and 30Q5 

yields downstream are an artifact of 

limited tributary inflow during baseflow conditions and, likely to a lesser 

extent, loss of streamflow to the karst 

aquifer. Some ground-water discharge, 

however, does occur between Columbia 

and Centerville, likely resulting from the 

underlying Mississippian-age carbonates 

in the vicinity of the transition between 

the Outer Nashville Basin and Western 

Highland Rim Ecoregions (figs. 1 and 2). 

During the post-dam period, the 7Q10 

yield for the Duck River near Shelbyville 

is 0.22 (ft3/s)/mi2. The yield then 

decreases to 0.10 (ft3/s)/mi2 at Columbia 

and increases to 0.16 (ft3/s)/mi2 between 

Columbia and Centerville (table 6). A 

similar pattern is seen with the 30Q5 

yield values. The decrease in the 7Q10 

yield between Shelbyville and Columbia 

during pre- and post-dam periods is 50 

and 55 percent, respectively. The subsequent increase in the 7Q10 yield from Columbia to Centerville 

(only in the post-dam period) is 60 percent. An increase in 

low-flow yields during the post-dam period may be related 

to increases in precipitation since the early 1970s as reported 

by regional and national studies (McCabe and Wolock, 2002; 

Wolfe and others, 2004), though the percentage increase in 

streamflow yield resulting from increased precipitation would 

be expected to be relatively consistent from site to site. The 

increase in 7Q10 likely reflects both minimum flow requirements from Normandy Dam as well as a general increase in 

precipitation since about 1970.

Longitudinal dispersion of releases from Normandy Dam 

causes inconsistent increases in low-flow statistics at mainstem sites. For example, during a controlled release (wave) 

from the dam for flood control, the shape of the hydrograph 

changes as this wave propagates downstream. As the wave 

passes Shelbyville, the increase in gage height and discharge 

0

4,000

8,000

12,000

16,000

20,000

O N D J F M A M J J A S 

MONTH

0

8,000

16,000

24,000

32,000

40,000

Shelbyville

Columbia

1981 - Dry

1989 - Wet

2004

1981 - Dry

1989 - Wet

2004

DISCHARGE, IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND

A.

B.

Figure 6. The flow of the Duck River near (A) Shelbyville and at 

(B) Columbia during the 2004 water year and the lowest annual flow (1981) 

and highest annual flow (1989) water years since Normandy Dam was 

closed. Locations shown in figure 4.

Water-Resources of the Duck River Watershed 17
0.01

0.1

1

10

R

U

N

OFF, IN

CUBIC FEET PER SECOND PER SQUARE MILE

0.01

0.1

1

10

0 20 40 60 80 100

DURATION, IN PERCENT

A

B

Carters Creek

Big Rock Creek

Flat Creek

Fountain Creek

North Fork Creek

Wartrace Creek

Duck River at Columbia

Duck River above Milltown

Duck River near Shelbyville

HIgh flow Low flow

High flow Low flow

Ground-water connection

Ground-water connection

Lack of ground-water connection

Lack of ground-water connection

Figure 7. Flow-duration analysis of streamflow data, normalized by drainage area, from 

(A) tributary watersheds and (B) sites along the mainstem of the Duck River.

18 Water Resources of the Duck River Watershed, Tennessee
may be significant, while the duration of the wave may be 

short (consider a high-amplitude, short wavelength sign; 

fig. 9). As the wave moves downstream, the amplitude of the 

wave (increase in gage height and discharge) will dampen, 

while the wavelength (duration of the wave) increases. This 

phenomenon is known as longitudinal dispersion. Shorter 

duration releases from the dam can cause a greater increase 

in the low-flow yields for sites farther downstream due to 

continuously increasing wavelengths moving downstream, 

while longer duration releases from the dam can have a greater 

impact on sites closer to the dam. The general effects of the 

operation of Normandy Dam on base flow can be seen with 

the 7Q10 and 30Q5 yields at each of the three mainstem sites 

(increased yields at each site; table 6). The effect of the longitudinal dispersion of the wave as it propagates downstream is 

best illustrated by comparing the percent increases in the 7Q10 

or 30Q5 from site to site, especially between the Columbia 

and Centerville sites.

Base-flow synoptic measurements were completed 

on tributaries in the study area during November 2003 and 

May 2004. These base-flow synoptic measurements indicated 

that the highest yielding watersheds were Fountain Creek, 

Silver Creek, Negro Creek (approximately 1 mi upstream 

from the confluence of Fountain Creek with the Duck River), 

Big Rock Creek, Flat Creek at Highway 231, and Garrison 

Fork Creek (figs. 4A and 4B; table 7). Sites are defined as 

being high yielding if the yield for the site was greater than 

the average yield of sites that were measured. The Big Rock 

Creek at Double Bridges Road (03599100) and Big Rock 

Creek below Wright Branch (03599117) streamgages each had 

yields higher than average during both time periods (figs. 4A

and 4B; table 7); however, this value includes effluent from 

the wastewater treatment plant. Results were similar for the 

two measurement periods and differed only in the magnitude 

of the average yield measured at the sites. In November 2003, 

the average yield of all sites measured was 0.07 (ft3/s)/mi2, 

and in May 2004, the average yield was 0.16 (ft3/s)/mi2. These 

average yields do not include Big Rock Creek Tributary at 

Verona Pike (03599099) [approximately 100 ft upstream 

from the Big Rock Creek streamgage (03599100)] because it 

includes the flow from East and West Collins Springs, which 

Table 6. Low-flow statistics for selected sites in the study unit showing losses in streamflow yield between the Duck River near 

Shelbyville and the Duck River at Columbia and gains in discharge near Highway 100 near Centerville. 

[These values also show a non-linear response in flow as Normandy Dam began operation; Rows shaded are for periods when mainstem flows were not regulated 

by the operation of Normandy Dam; (ft3/s)/mi2, cubic feet per second per square mile; percentage increase was calculated between pre- and post-dam closure 

periods for the same site; — , not calculated]

Site name Period 7Q10 

[(ft3/s)/mi2]

Percent increase 

between periods

30Q5

 [(ft3/s)/mi2]

Percent increase 

between periods

Tributary

Garrison Fork at L&N Railroad at Wartrace 1991 – 2002 a 0.03 — 0.07 —

Wartrace Creek at Bell Buckle 1954 – 1974 a <.001 — <.001 —

Wartrace Creek at County Road 1990 – 2001 b <.001 — <.001 —

North Fork Creek near Poplins Crossroads 1994 – 2004 a <.001 — <.001 —

Big Rock Creek at Lewisburg 1955 – 1968,

1997 – 2000 b

<.001 — <.001 —

Fountain Creek near Fountain Heights c 1966 – 1968 a .025 — .063 —

Carters Creek at Butler Road at Carters Creek 1988 – 2002 a .009 — .02 —

Piney River at Vernon 1926 – 2001 a .27 — .32 —

Mainstem

Duck River near Shelbyville 1934 – 1975 a .12 83 .15 106

1977 – 2002 b .22 .31

Duck River at Columbia 1904 – 1975 a .06 67 .09 44

1977 – 2002 b .10 .13

Duck River at Hwy 100 near Centerville d 1920 – 1955 a .06 167 .10 80

1977 – 2002 b .16 .18

a From Outlaw and Weaver (1996).

b

 George Law, U.S. Geological Survey, written commun., 2005.

c

 Low-flow partial record station—low-flow values are based on 12 individual streamflow measurements compared to streamflow measurements made at 

Big Bigby Creek near Sandy Hook (03600500).

d

 See table 4 (footnote) for information about Duck River at Highway 100 near Centerville.

Water-Resources of the Duck River Watershed 19
MAURY

HICKMAN

BEDFORD

COFFEE MARSHALL

LEWIS

DICKSON

WILLIAMSON

GILES

MOORE

LAWRENCE

LINCOLN

RUTHERFORD

FRANKLIN

PERRY

HUMPHREYS

Mount Pleasant

Normandy

EXPLANATION

Estimated zero-flow area

The Big Rock Creek watershed is within the area where streams have been observed to go dry and has acombination of reaches that have flowing water, while other reaches have zero flow. It has been reported byCrawford and Ulmer (1994) that Big Rock Creek does not flow from near the Snake Creek confluence withBig Rock Creek to the confluence of Big Rock Creek Tributary at Verona Pike near Verona (03599099).This lack of flow also was observed during this investigation, while flow was observed upstream from theSnake Creek confluence. Crawford and Ulmer (1994) report that dye traces indicate streamflow from BigRock Creek above the confluence with Snake Creek flows into a sinkhole along the right bank of the creekand then re-emerges at East and West Collins Springs. The total flow of Big Rock Creek enters this karstfeature during base-flow conditions. The Duck River is the water-supply source for the city of Lewisburgand an increasing amount of Marshall County. As much as 14 percent of the flow in Big Rock Creek duringlow-flow conditions is indirectly from the Duck River via water treatment and subsequent wastewater treatment.

Base from U.S. Geological Surveydigital data, 1:250,000, Albers projection,Standard parallels 29°30'N and 45°30'N,central meridian 96°00'W

0 10 20 MILES0 10 20 KILOMETERS

LOCATION OF STUDY AREA

NormandyLake

Sugar Creek

i P ney

vi R er

Mill Creek

Bear Creek

oY unger Creek

Duck

River

Le pi er’s Creek

Big

Swan Creek

r Celt yL ee k

Fountain

Cree

Si

k

lver Creek

Rgi B co k

D

keer C uck

River SugarCreek

F al C t eer k

North Fork

Creek

Wartrace Creek Garr si Fno or C

d reek

Duck

River

F al t C er ke

Bear Creek

Car et sr r C ee k

87°44'25"

87°29'20"

87°14'15"

86°59'10"

86°44'05"

35°26'35"

35°41'40"

35°56'45"

Columbia

Shelbyville

Lewisburg Manchester

Centerville

Tullahoma

Spring Hill

Lynchburg

Dickson

Chapel Hill

Hohenwald

Wartrace

Bell Buckle

Cornersville

Eagleville

86°29'

86°13'55"

85°58'50"

Ru ht er of rd Creek

SnakeCreek

Figure 8. Estimated zero-flow area of the Duck River Watershed, Tennessee (modifed from Tennessee Valley Authority, 1965).

20 Water Resources of the Duck River Watershed, Tennessee
Table 7. Tributary base-flow synoptic investigation results for tributaries of the Duck River watershed, November 2003 and May 2004. 

[mi2, square miles; ft3/s, cubic feet per second; (ft3/s)/mi2, cubic feet per second per square mile; —, not available; shaded rows represent sites that had higher 

yields than other tributaries in the investigation; (gage), discharge value derived from stage-discharge rating at streamgage]

Station number Site name

Drainage 

area

(mi2)

November 2003 May 2004

Discharge

(ft3/s)

Yield

[(ft3/s)/mi2]

Discharge

(ft3/s)

Yield

[(ft3/s)/mi2]

03597210 Garrison Fork Creek above L&N Railroad 

(gage)

85.5 10 0.12 32 0.37

03597590 Wartrace Creek below County Road 

near Wartrace (gage)

35.7 1.8 .05 5.1 .14

03597898 Flat Creek at Highway 231 below Shelbyville 

(gage)

49 4.94 .10 malfunction —

03598180 Fall Creek near Elbethel 40 .68 .02 2.8 .07

03598190 Sinking Creek near Halls Mill 31.5 .01 0 .38 .01

03598250 North Fork Creek at Poplin’s Crossroads (gage)71.9 1.3 .02 4.5 .06

03598260 Wilson Creek near Chapel Hill 15.5 .26 .02 1.34 .09

03598298 Spring Creek at Wilhoite Mills 23.7 0 0 .49 .02

03598320 Rich Creek near Wilhoite Mills 19.2 0 0 2.00 .10

03599099 Big Rock Creek Tributary at Verona Pike near 

Verona (Collins Springs)

.71 6.38 8.99 15.0 21.0

03599100 Big Rock Creek at Double Bridges 

Road (gage)

48.7 7.00 .14 16.0 .33

03599117 Big Rock Creek below Wright Branch 

at Verona

53.05 7.89 .15 19.9 .38

03599202 Big Spring near Farmington — .155 — 7.75 —

03599210 East Rock Creek at Farmington — 0 — 3.40 —

03599225 East Big Rock Creek at Ames — 0 — 0 —

03599300 Caney Creek at Caney Spring 28.9 0 0 0 0

353627086465601 Venable Spring — .35 — 3.38 —

353730086491301 Big Spring at River Rats Canoe Rental — 1.4 — 7.08 —

353144086493001 Berlin Spring — .2 — .29 —

03599403 Flat Creek near Pottsville 41.6 .99 .02 2.29 .06

035994045 Pumpkin Creek at Joe Brown Road 

near Pottsville

— .36 — — —

035994175 Pumpkin Creek (Whitehead Spring) 

near Leftwich

— .3 — .67 —

03599420 Cedar Creek near Berlin 9.24 .27 .03 1.42 .15

03599427 Negro Creek near Glendale 4.31 .54 .13 .94 .22

03599450 Fountain Creek near Fountain Heights (gage) 77.0 10 .13 17 .22

035994545 Silver Creek above confluence with Fountain 

Creek at Blue Spring Road

15.0 1.38 .09 1.92 .13

0359945262 Fountain Creek at Silver Creek near 

Fountain Heights

90.4 15.5 .17 27.3 .30

353434086592501 Blue Spring at Goose Creek — .34 — — —

Water-Resources of the Duck River Watershed  21
-600

-400

-200

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

ANNUAL DEPARTURE

7 YEAR DISTANCE-WEIGHTED AVERAGE

DEPARTURE FROM ANNUAL MEAN, IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND

WATER YEAR

Buffalo River near Flatwoods

-300

-200

-100

0

100

200

300

1935 1945 1955 1965 1975 1985 1995

Piney River at Vernon

STREAMFLOWS IN THE DUCK RIVER WATERSHED SHOW 

SIMILAR PATTERNS TO NATIONAL STUDIES

WATER YEAR

1935 1945 1955 1965 1975 1985 1995

Buffalo River near

 Flatwoods

Piney River at Vernon

Columbia

Shelbyville

Lewisburg

Manchester

Centerville

Spring Hill

Dickson

Chapel Hill

Hohenwald

Lobelville

Linden

Streamflow in the Duck River watershed has been increasing throughout most of the 20th century. Increased streamflow is 

evidence of increased precipitation over time. Examples of increase in mean annual streamflow in the Duck River watershed 

are found at the Buffalo River near Flatwoods and the Piney River at Vernon. These sites represent unregulated watersheds, 

and each site has continuous streamflow data records extending from the 1920s to present. These results mirror national 

findings by McCabe and Wolock (2002) related to step increases in mean annual and annual minimum streamflow around 

1970 and regional findings by Wolfe and others (2004) regarding increased annual precipitation.

Departures from annual mean discharge for (left) Buffalo River near 

Flatwoods and (right) Piney River at Vernon

22  Water Resources of the Duck River Watershed, Tennessee
may include flow from an adjacent watershed, resulting in an 

anomalously high yield for the relatively small drainage area.

Yields at Garrison Fork and Fountain Creek were nearly 

double that of the average (table 7) during periods of measurement. Garrison Fork is the only site in the eastern part of 

the study area that has high low-flow values (by comparison) 

(table 6) and is considered as a high-yielding watershed based 

on base-flow synoptic investigations. A high yield at Garrison 

Fork is likely the result of its draining a portion of the Eastern Highland Rim Ecoregion (fig. 1) and being underlain by 

the Fort Payne Formation (fig. 2), which contains a productive 

aquifer. Fountain Creek lies in the Outer Nashville Basin Ecoregion (fig. 1) and is underlain primarily by the Bigby – Cannon 

Limestone with headwater areas underlain by the Fort Payne 

Formation, one of the Mississippian-age carbonates (fig. 2).

High streamflow yields during base-flow periods as 

evidenced by flow-duration analysis, low-flow statistics, and 

greater than average base-flow synoptic yields are related to 

the underlying geology in these watersheds although differences in rainfall distribution may explain some differences 

between sites. Sites with the highest streamflow yields typically were located in the Outer Nashville Basin or Eastern 

Highland Rim Ecoregions. Additionally, a thicker regolith and 

less developed karst system provides more ground-water storage, such as in the Fountain Creek watershed, and results in 

higher water yields during base-flow conditions.

Five sites measured in November 2003 and two sites 

measured in May 2004 had no flow and are within the area 

identified as having streams that often go dry (fig. 8). These 

sites were located primarily within the Inner Nashville Basin 

Ecoregion (fig. 1). Streams in this area also had 7Q10 or 30Q5 

low-flow values near 0 (ft3/s)/mi2.

Ground Water

Water-level and spring-flow data were collected to characterize the response of the Ordovician aquifer to recharge 

events as well as to understand the relation between water 

levels in the aquifer and in the Duck River. These data were 

collected to show whether or not streamflow losses in the 

Duck River resulted in recharge to the aquifer system.

Water-level fluctuations at the six continuously monitored 

wells were similar throughout the year; however, the magnitude and rate of changes in water levels vary (fig. 10). Water 

levels were high in most of the wells during winter and early 

spring when precipitation is high and evapotranspiration is 

low, and water levels were low in the late summer and early 

fall. All of the continuous water-level hydrographs indicate 

rapid rises and declines in water levels following rainfall and 

suggest that little ground water remained in long-term storage 

in the areas where these data were collected.

11/1/2003 11/8/2003 11/15/2003

Runoff, in cubic feet per second per square mile

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

Duck River at Shelbyville

Duck River at Columbia

Duck River at Highway

100 near Centerville

Flow release fromNormandyDam

Figure 9. Example of Normandy flow release propagation at the Duck River at Shelbyville 

(03598000), Duck River at Columbia (03599500), and Duck River at Highway 100 near 

Centerville (03602000).

Water-Resources of the Duck River Watershed  23
Blank where data

are missing

Blank where data

are missing

Blank where data

are missing

Blank where data

are missing

J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A

2004 2005

J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A

2004 2005

WATER-LEVEL ALTITUDE, IN FEET ABOVE NGVD 29WATER-LEVEL ALTITUDE, IN FEET ABOVE NGVD 29

580

570

560

640

630

620

610

680

679

678

677

760

750

740

730

550

540

618

616

614

612

690

680

670

660

650

Well My:G-6

Duck River at Columbia

Well My:H-14 Well My:N-34

Well Ms:N-13 Well Ms:F-8

530

590

Well My:K-13

Duck River above Milltown

600

Figure 10. Continuous ground-water levels and stage in the Duck River at Columbia (03599500) and the Duck River above 

Milltown (03599240), Tennessee.

24  Water Resources of the Duck River Watershed, Tennessee
The hydrographs for wells My:G-6 and Ms:K-13 are 

similar to the hydrographs for nearby gaging stations on the 

Duck River at Columbia (03599500) and above Milltown 

(03599240) (fig. 10). The similarity suggests that the bedrock 

zones open to these wells are connected hydraulically to the 

Duck River. Water levels in these wells typically decline at 

about the same rate as they rise and also at about the same rate 

as the stage of the Duck River. These characteristics suggest 

that little water is stored long term in the aquifer following 

these recharge events and that the stage of the Duck River 

plays an important role in water-level changes in the aquifer. 

The streamgage on the Duck River at Columbia is below a 

dam on the river, and the difference in the elevation of the 

river adjacent to the well and water level in My:G-6 is much 

smaller than the comparison of water levels in the well to the 

Columbia streamgage used in figure 10. Continuous watertemperature and specific-conductance data 

collected in these wells do not indicate that 

water is moving from the Duck River into the 

aquifer in the area near these wells; however, 

the pressure effects from changes in stage 

on the river are transmitted rapidly through 

the aquifer.

Two of the ground-water hydrographs 

illustrate the influence of a water-bearing 

conduit or opening in the bedrock intersected 

by the wells. In wells Ms:N-13 and Ms:F-8, 

water levels increase rapidly in response to 

rainfall. The rate of water-level decline in 

these wells is about the same as the rate of 

water-level increase, indicating that water is 

readily transmitted through the aquifer in the 

areas near these wells. After the peak, water 

levels decline to a point that corresponds to 

the conduit or opening in bedrock, and water 

levels remain at this level between storms 

for much of the period of record (fig. 10). 

During the times when water levels are flat, 

water levels in the aquifer could continue 

to decline, and the water level in the well 

would not reflect this change if the borehole 

is isolated from the aquifer. Wells Ms:N-13 

and Ms:F-8 were pumped during periods 

of low water levels (summer or early fall) 

until the water level was lowered below the 

water-bearing conduit. Shortly after pumping was discontinued, water levels returned 

to the original elevation indicating that these 

wells were still hydraulically connected to 

the aquifer.

The amount of water-level fluctuation in 

wells My:H-14 and My:N-34 is considerably 

less than water-level fluctuations in the other 

wells with continuous data (fig. 10). Several 

factors could account for this difference. 

The part of the aquifer in which My:H-14 is 

completed may have more ground-water storage than parts of 

the aquifer represented by the other hydrographs. The largest increases in water level in well My:H-14 were followed 

by rapid declines and then a slow decline within a couple of 

days after the peak water level, suggesting that water is being 

released from storage in the aquifer. The rapid rise and fall in 

water levels are likely related to conduit flow in the aquifer, 

and the slower decline in water levels is the result of diffuse 

flow in the aquifer.

In ground-water systems where recharge is dominated by 

slow infiltration of rainfall, large increases in water levels typically do not occur during the summer months. Large increases 

in water level in these wells during the summer months, 

particularly during June and July 2004, illustrate how quickly 

water moves into the subsurface in the study unit. The rate of 

decline in water levels following the rise during the summer 

J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A

2004 2005

WATER-LEVEL ALTITUDE, IN FEET ABOVE NGVD 29

580

570

560

550

540

Well My:G-6

Duck River at Columbia

530

590

640

630

620

610

Well My:K-13

Duck River above Milltown

600

Figure 10. Continuous ground-water levels and stage in the Duck River 

at Columbia (03599500) and the Duck River above Milltown (03599240), 

Tennessee.­—Continued

Water-Resources of the Duck River Watershed  25
months is about the same as the rate of decline of stage in the 

Duck River (for example, Ms:N-13), suggesting that the stage 

in the Duck River plays an important role in the rate at which 

ground-water levels decline throughout the year. The quick 

response of the ground-water levels indicates that much of the 

water that moves into the aquifer during these events does not 

remain in storage.

Periodic water-level measurements were made in Bd:K-4 

and My:O-3, and continuous water levels were recorded in 

Ms:N-13 to characterize ground-water conditions in tributary 

basins that typically go dry during extended periods of base 

flow. Water levels in the two periodically measured wells do 

not appear to be as strongly controlled by a conduit as those 

in Ms:N-13 (fig. 11). The hydrographs for these wells indicate 

2004

J F M A M J J A S O N D

2005

J F M A M J J

16 672

17 671

18 670

19 669

20.5 689.5

21 689

21.5 688.5

22 688

22.5 687.5

23 687

WATER LEVEL, IN FEET BELOW LAND SURFACE

My:O-3

Bd:K-4

WATER LEVEL, IN FEET ABOVE NGVD 29

Blank where data

are missing

Ms:N-13

690

660

670

680

650

25

55

35

45

15

Figure 11. Monthly water-level measurements in two wells located in basins in the Duck River study area that 

have a history of going dry compared to continuous water-level data.

26  Water Resources of the Duck River Watershed, Tennessee
similar water-level responses to rainfall, and the magnitude 

of water-level fluctuations for these wells is about the same 

as water levels for wells in other parts of the study area in 

which streams do not go dry. In the central part of the study 

area where wells Ms:N-13, Bd:K-4, and My:O-3 are located, 

ground-water gradients are low, in part because of the influence of conduits in the aquifer. Relatively small declines in 

ground-water levels can lower the water table below stream 

levels, resulting in dry stream reaches in these areas. Streams 

in the northern part of the study area continue to flow for a 

period of time following rainfall and during the main period of 

recharge in winter and early spring.

Springs often represent the most dynamic part of karst 

aquifers and provide insight to the shallow and deep groundwater hydrology. Ground water with varying residence times 

and flow-path lengths mix and discharge at springs. Generally, 

low variability in flow and water quality in springs reflects a 

longer average flow path or longer average residence time of 

ground water in the aquifer. Not all springs flow throughout 

the year. Springs consisting of water with short flow paths 

may go dry during periods with little or no rainfall. Numerous 

springs mapped on 7.5-minute topographic maps of the study 

area are intermittent (wet-weather springs) and go dry during 

the late summer and early fall when the ground-water levels 

are low. Relatively few large perennial springs were found in 

the central part of the study area (table 8; fig. 5). Most of the 

perennial springs were small and located in headwaters of 

tributary basins.

The amount of flow measured at most of the springs 

monitored varies about two orders of magnitude from maximum flows in the winter to minimum flows in the late summer 

(fig. 12). Only three of the monitored springs, Big, West 

Collins, and East Collins, have measured median discharges 

greater than 10 ft3/s (table 8). Flow at Big Spring and West 

Collins Spring varies considerably, ranging from about 40 ft3/s 

to little or no flow for short periods of time. In contrast, East 

Collins Spring had sustained flow throughout the period of 

record (fig. 12). Four springs—Berlin, Blue, River Rats, and 

Venable Springs (fig. 12)—have median discharges of about 1 

to 4 ft3/s, with a range in discharge of 0.04 to 25 ft3/s (table 8). 

About half of the springs monitored have median discharges of 

less than 1 ft3/s.

The temperature of spring water consisting predominantly of ground water with long residence times and long 

flow paths is generally about 15 degrees Celsius (°C) and 

varies less than 1 °C throughout the year. Short-term increases 

in the summer or decreases in the winter in water temperature 

reflect the movement of surface runoff into the subsurface 

through sinkholes or conduits. The water moves rapidly 

through the subsurface, such that the temperature does not 

have time to come into equilibrium with ground-water temperatures. Large, sustained changes in water temperature at a 

spring during the year suggest that a large component of the 

water discharged at the spring has a short residence time in 

the aquifer, such as when a disappearing stream emerges at a 

spring within a few miles of a swallet. East and West Collins 

Table 8. Monthly spring measurements made in the Duck River study area from 2003 to 2005. 

[°, degrees; ', minutes; ", seconds; <, less than]

Station number Spring name Latitude Longitude

Measured flow at springs, 

in cubic feet per second

Minimum Median Maximum

353144086493001 Berlin Spring 35° 31' 43" 86° 49' 29" 0.04 1.6 7.8

03599202 Big Spring near Farmington 35° 30' 07" 86° 42' 39" .16 12 38

353434086592501 Blue Spring 35° 34' 34" 86° 59' 24" .18 2.7 9.8

0359815605 Carrick Spring 35° 33' 16" 86° 24' 48" .01 .19 1.5

354140087003801 Carters Creek Spring 35° 41' 39" 87 ° 00' 37" .01 .02 .06

353018086462501 East Collins Spring 35° 30' 18" 86° 46' 24" 4.5 18 27

353208086152501 Eoff Cave Spring 35° 32' 08" 86° 15' 24" .03 .31 1.3

353547087013301 Morgan Spring 35° 35' 46" 87° 01' 33" .03 .15 1.1

353730086491301 River Rats Spring 35° 37' 29" 86° 49' 13" .93 4.2 25

353043086372201 Sims Spring 35° 30' 43" 86° 37' 22" .01 .34 1.5

352432086491001 Unnamed Spring at Ag. Experiment 

Station near Lewisburg

35° 24' 32" 86° 49' 10" < .01 .02 .21

353627086465601 Venable Spring 35° 36' 26" 86° 46' 55" .22 4.2 21

353017086462501 West Collins Spring 35° 30' 17" 86° 46' 24" < .01 11 43

Water-Resources of the Duck River Watershed  27
Venable Spring River Rats Spring

Morgan Spring Blue Spring

Carrick Spring Big Spring

East Collins Spring

Berlin Spring

DISHCHARGE, IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND

10

Missing data Missing data

1

0.1

0.01

10

1

0.1

0.01

10

1

0.1

0.01

10

1

0.1

0.01

10

1

0.1

0.01

10

1

0.1

0.01

10

1

0.1

0.01

10

1

0.1

0.01

J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J

2004 2005

J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J

2004 2005

Figure 12. Measured discharge at selected springs in the Duck River study area, 2004 and 2005.

28 Water Resources of the Duck River Watershed, Tennessee
Springs are examples of this type of hydrology. Using dye 

traces, Crawford and Ulmer (1994) determined that water 

from Big Rock Creek and Snake Branch [approximately 1 mi 

upstream from Big Rock Creek streamgage (03599100)] flows 

into a swallet, and then re-emerges at East and West Collins 

Springs (fig. 8­—inset).

Continuous water-temperature data suggest that flow from 

the majority of springs in the study area is affected by rapid 

movement of runoff into the subsurface during storms and to 

various degrees throughout the year (fig. 13). Based on the 

relatively small amount of fluctuation in temperature (about 

1 °C for periods not affected by rainfall) at Venable and Morgan Springs, water issuing from these springs has the longest 

average residence time, but the gradual change throughout the 

year suggests a relatively short flow path. Water temperatures 

at Carrick and Berlin Springs fluctuate in response to rainfall 

and overall temperature change throughout the year more than 

the water temperatures at Venable and Morgan Springs, suggesting that a greater amount of the spring discharge consists 

of ground water with short flow paths and short residence times 

and that is connected to land surface. About half of the springs 

(River Rats, Blue, Big, and East Collins Springs) have large 

changes in water temperature that are similar to stream-water 

temperatures, suggesting that much of the discharge at springs 

is the result of surface-water movement into the subsurface and 

subsequent re-emergence at a spring. These types of springs 

tended to have larger discharges than the other springs, but the 

changes in flow throughout the year and in response to rainfall 

are similar for all springs (fig. 13). The variability in flow and 

temperature data suggests that most springs with median flows 

greater than 1 ft3/s consist of water that is a mixture of ground

water and surface water that has moved into the subsurface and 

has a short residence time in the ground-water system before 

discharging at the spring.

Springs were sampled during base-flow conditions for 

Escherichia coli (E. coli) to characterize the quality and variability of ground water discharging at springs. Determining 

the possible sources of E. coli and the land areas contributing to these springs was beyond the scope of this investigation. E. coli was detected in at least one sample from all of 

the springs (fig. 14). All of the springs except Carters Creek 

Spring had samples with E. coli densities greater than 100 

most probable number per 100 milliliters, and occasionally 

densities were greater than the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) recreational criterion for E. coli of 

298 colonies per 100 milliliters (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1986). The range in E. coli at most springs was 

similar to the range measured at both North Fork Creek and 

the Duck River (Woodside and others, 2004). The springs with 

the lowest densities typically are small springs with small 

contributing areas that likely consist of a large percentage of 

forest. E. coli were not correlated to factors such as spring 

discharge or antecedent rainfall. The presence and variability 

of E. coli in springs during base-flow conditions suggest that 

numerous springs in the study area are vulnerable to activities 

occurring on the land surface.

Streamflow Gains and Losses 

along the Mainstem

Identifying locations of streamflow gains and losses 

along the mainstem of the Duck River was accomplished 

using synoptic streamflow measurements and streamflow 

accounting methods during stable hydrologic flow regimes. 

The criteria used to define periods as a stable hydrologic 

flow regime were: constant releases from Normandy Dam 

and extended periods with no precipitation. Two periods with 

stable hydrologic flow regimes were selected (October 2003 

and August 2004) and analyzed separately. The values discussed in the following sections reflect a cumulative value of 

the flow component above each of the four streamgages in the 

river unless otherwise stated. Flow data for Normandy Dam, 

provided by the Tennessee Valley Authority, were used as the 

upstream input or initial flow for this analysis. The components of flow that were accounted for include: releases from 

Normandy Dam, tributaries, springs, withdrawals for water 

supply, and wastewater discharge. The remaining flow component, ground-water discharge, was estimated by subtracting 

the known components from the monitored streamflow at each 

point on the river. The contribution of flow from tributaries to 

the total flow of the Duck River at the four mainstem points 

is accounted for in this analysis because all tributaries with 

appreciable flow into the Duck River during these extended 

recession periods were monitored.

Water utilities typically withdraw more water from the 

river than is returned to the river as treated wastewater. This is 

the case throughout both extended recession periods at each of 

the four streamgages along the Duck River. Discharge data for 

wastewater treatment plants were provided by treatment plant 

operators. In the cases where monthly or annual discharge estimates were provided, the values were divided by the number 

of days in the month or year to get daily mean discharge.

Streamflow in the Duck River that cannot be directly 

attributed to tributaries, springs, wastewater discharge, or flow 

from Normandy Dam is considered to be ground-water discharge for two reasons. First, the number of streams with flow 

that discharges to the Duck River during the late summer and 

fall is limited, and the most significant streams have continuous discharge records and are accounted for in this analysis. 

Second, the majority of surface drainages and springs in the 

study area are not flowing or are providing a small amount of 

water during these extended recession periods.

Streamflow Accounting—October 2003

Streamflow accounting for the October 2003 period 

represents a time of year when base flows typically are 

lowest. The Normandy Dam flow component varied from 

79.5 percent of the total flow near Shelbyville to 54.2 percent 

of the total flow at Columbia during October 2003 (table 9; 

fig. 15). The percentage of flow represented by flow from the 

dam decreased to about 77 percent at the Duck River above 

Water-Resources of the Duck River Watershed  29
RAINFALL, IN INCHES

4

3

2

1

0

4

3

2

1

0

4

3

2

1

0

4

3

2

1

0

Missing data

Missing data

Missing data

River Rats Spring

Blue Spring

Big Spring

East Collins Spring

Venable Spring

Morgan Spring

Carrick Spring

Berlin Spring

TEMPERATURE, IN DEGREES CELSIUS

25

20

15

10

5

25

20

15

10

5

25

20

15

10

5

25

20

15

10

5

J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J

2004 2005

J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J

2004 2005

Figure 13. Continuous water-temperature data for selected springs and daily rainfall in the study unit.

30 Water Resources of the Duck River Watershed, Tennessee
Milltown (03599240) and 70 percent at the Duck River near 

Pottsville (03599407). A decrease of approximately 17 percent 

was measured between the gage near Pottsville and the gage at 

Columbia (03599500). Calculations are based on the average 

discharge for the respective component at each streamgage for 

the extended recession period (table 9).

Contributions of flow from tributaries remain relatively 

constant along the reach of the Duck River extending from Normandy Dam to Columbia within this extended recession period. 

The tributary contribution to the overall flow of the Duck River 

during the October 2003 period of extended recession varied 

from 12.8 to 16.7 percent of total flow (table 9; fig. 15). The 

amount of wastewater discharge in the flow in the Duck River 

during October 2003 ranged from 0.02 percent near Shelbyville 

to about 2.3 percent above Milltown and at Pottsville (table 10). 

Any increase in tributary streamflow downstream from 

streamgages on tributaries is not directly accounted for in this 

analysis. The average decrease in total flow by utilities (wastewater discharge minus water withdrawals) in the study area varied from –0.01 (ft3

/s)/mi2 near Shelbyville to –0.02 (ft3/s)/mi2 at 

Columbia (negative values reflect that more water was pumped 

from the river than was returned) (table 9; fig. 15). These values 

reflect net values for all utility operations above each point in 

the watershed and correspond to 2.52 Mgal/d at Shelbyville and 

14.0 Mgal/d at Columbia.

Ground-water discharge, as a percentage of total 

streamflow, differs upstream and downstream from Pottsville. The average ground-water discharge above Milltown is 

0.02 (ft3/s)/mi2 (about 9 percent of total flow) or 11.8 Mgal/d, 

whereas the ground-water discharge upstream from Columbia is 0.07 (ft3

/s)/mi2 (about 30 percent of total flow) or 

50.1 Mgal/d. Another approach to streamflow accounting is 

to consider the contributions by the different components on 

a sub-basin or sub-reach basis—differential contributions 

instead of cumulative contributions. Ground-water discharge 

during the same period at each sub-reach on the Duck River 

is: 3.9 ft3/s between Shelbyville and Milltown, 1 ft3/s between 

Milltown and Pottsville, and 58.4 ft3/s between Pottsville and 

Columbia. The only sources of surface water in the Pottsville – Columbia sub-reach are Fountain Creek and Blue 

Spring. Fountain Creek is accounted for in this analysis as a 

tributary (13.1 ft3/s contribution to this sub-reach), and Blue 

Spring contributed 0.34 ft3/s based on discharge measurements 

made near this time of year. It is not known whether the source 

for ground-water discharge is from either relatively shallow 

or deep storage. A potential source area for some of this water 

is in the northern parts of the basin in this reach where few 

surface-water drainages are present and sinkholes are prevalent. Water that moves into the aquifer in the northern parts of 

the basin may discharge directly to the Duck River, rather than 

to tributaries.

The findings from base-flow synoptic measurements 

obtained at 10 locations on the Duck River between Milltown 

and Columbia in November 2003 substantiate the streamflow accounting analysis. Findings from the November 

2003 base-flow synoptic investigation show a losing section 

of the Duck River and a reduction in yield similar to that 

found in September 1949 and 1972 base-flow investigations 

(table 1–4). In the November 4, 2003 base-flow investigation, streamflow losses in the Duck River were approximately 

30 ft3/s, or 0.06 (ft3/s)/mi2, between Hardison Mill (03599350) 

and Tuga’s Bend (03599410) (table 11). This reach of the 

Duck River is included in the streamflow accounting analysis between Milltown and Pottsville. The Duck River gains 

approximately 40 ft3/s, including 10 ft3/s from Fountain Creek, 

on the same day in the reach extending from below Tuga’s 

Bend (03599417) to the streamgage at Columbia (03599500). 

This reach of the Duck River is included in the streamflow 

accounting analysis from Pottsville to Columbia. An 80-ft3/s 

loss in streamflow between Milltown and Howard Bridge 

was measured on November 5, 2003; however, changing flow 

conditions as a result of flow releases from Normandy Dam 

and rainfall in the area prevent unequivocal evidence of this 

loss (table 11).

Streamflow Accounting—August 2004

Streamflow releases from Normandy Dam decreased 

from 47.5 percent of the total streamflow at the Duck River 

near Shelbyville to 24.4 percent at the Duck River at Columbia 

(fig. 15, table 9). These values show the same decreasing pattern seen in October 2003, but are generally about 10 percent 

less than the October 2003 values. The relative contribution 

of the Normandy flow component decreased because of larger 

ESCHERICHIA COLI, IN COLONIES PER 100 MILLILITERS

U.S. Envionmental Protection Agency (1986) recreational criterion

298 colonies per 100 milliliters

SPRINGS

1,000

100

10

1

Berlin Spring

Big Spring

Blue Spring

Carrick Spring

Carters Creek Spring

East Collins Spring

Eoff Spring

Morgan Spring

River Rats Spring

Sims Spring

Unnamed Spring

West Collins Spring

Figure 14. Escherichia coli densities measured in 

springs in the study unit.

Water-Resources of the Duck River Watershed  31
Table 9. Average flow component contributions at four locations along the Duck River. 

[(ft3/s)/mi2, cubic feet per second per square mile; number in parentheses is the percentage of each flow component of the total 

flow at that location; negative values for utility flow component reflect that more water was withdrawn from the watershed above 

that point than was returned through wastewater effluent]

Flow component

Duck River streamgages

near Shelbyville above Milltown near Pottsville at Columbia

Average flow, [(ft3/s)/mi2] (percent of total)

October 2003

Tributary 0.05 (12.8) 0.03 (13.6) 0.03 (15) 0.04 (16.7)

Normandy .31 (79.5) .17 (77.3) .14 (70) .13 (54.2)

Ground-water discharge .03 (7.7) .02 (9.1) .03 (15) .07 (29.2)

Utilities –.01 .00 –.01 –.02

Total .38 .22 .19 .22

August 2004

Tributary .18 (30.5) .15 (34.9) .13 (30.2) .13 (28.9)

Normandy .28 (47.5) .15 (34.9) .13 (30.2) .11 (24.4)

Ground-water discharge .13 (22) .14 (32.6) .17 (39.5) .21 (46.7)

Utilities –.01 –.01 –.01 –.02

Total .58 .43 .42 .43

Table 10. Median streamflows, wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) effluent flow rates, and the cumulative percentage of WWTP 

effluent present in the Duck River at selected cities during extended base-flow periods of the 2004 water year. 

[Mgal/d, million gallons per day; —, not available; WWTP, wastewater treatment plant]

Location Median streamflow 

(Mgal/d) Effluent (Mgal/d)a Cumulative effluent as percentage of Duck River

October 2003

Normandy Dam release 97.4 — —

Wartrace and Chapel Hill WWTP 0.02 —

Duck River near Shelbyville 121 — 0.02

Shelbyville WWTP 1.79 —

Chapel Hill WWTP .03 —

Lewisburg WWTP (discharge to Big Rock Creek) — 1.16 —

Duck River above Milltown 128 — 2.34

Duck River at Pottsville (Spring Hill intakes) 130 — 2.31

Duck River at Columbia 167 — 1.80

Columbia WWTP 3.68 —

Spring Hill WWTP .60 —

Duck River at Highway 100 near Centerville 361 — 2.01

August 2004

Normandy Dam release 84.5 — —

Wartrace and Chapel Hill WWTP — .02 —

Duck River near Shelbyville 163 — .01

Shelbyville WWTP — 2.12 —

Chapel Hill WWTP — .04 —

Lewisburg WWTP (discharge to Big Rock Creek) — 1.70 —

Duck River above Milltown (below Lewisburg intakes) 206 — 1.88

Duck River at Pottsville (Spring Hill intakes) 231 — 1.67

Duck River at Columbia 318 — 1.22

Columbia WWTP — 4.32 —

Spring Hill WWTP — 1.14 —

Duck River at Highway 100 near Centerville 668 — 1.40 a From written and oral communications from local wastewater treatment plant operators and Tim Wilder, Tennessee Department of Environment and 

Conservation (Columbia), 2005.

32  Water Resources of the Duck River Watershed, Tennessee
August 2004 average

October 2003 average

EXPLANATION

25

50

75

100

C

O

MPO

NEN

T AMOUNT, IN PERCENT

Shelbyville Milltown Pottsville Columbia

Normandy Dam

Tributary

Ground-water discharge

Utilities

0

0

25

50

75

100

Normandy Lake

Duck

River

Duck

Rive

Columbia r

Shelbyville

Pottsville

Milltown

Figure 15. The amount of water discharged from Normandy Dam, tributary flow, ground-water discharge, and 

wastewater treatment effluent as a percentage of the available streamflow at four Duck River sites during base-flow 

periods in October 2003 and August 2004.

Water-Resources of the Duck River Watershed  33
flows from tributaries and ground-water discharge during this 

recession period as compared to October 2003.

The contribution of flow from tributaries as a percentage 

of the total flow of the river during August 2004 is approximately 15 to 20 percent higher than during October 2003. 

Discharge from wastewater treatment plants as a percentage of 

the total flow for August 2004 varied from 0.01 percent near 

Shelbyville to 1.88 percent above Milltown and was generally 

the same as that seen in October 2003 (table 10). The average 

decrease in total streamflow by utilities (wastewater discharge minus water withdrawal) in the study area varied from 

–0.01 (ft3/s)/mi2 near Shelbyville to –0.02 (ft3/s)/mi2 at Columbia (negative values reflect that more water was pumped from 

the river than was returned) (table 9; fig. 15). These values 

reflect all utility operations above each point in the watershed 

and correspond to 2.96 Mgal/d at Shelbyville and 16.5 Mgal/d 

at Columbia.

Ground-water discharge increased throughout the reach 

between Normandy Dam and Columbia during August 2004. 

Ground-water discharge varied from 0.13 (ft3/s)/mi2 (22 percent of total streamflow) near Shelbyville and composed as 

much as 0.21 (ft3/s)/mi2 (about 47 percent of total streamflow) 

at Columbia (table 9). Ground-water discharge as a percentage 

of total streamflow consistently increased 3 to 10 percent at 

each site downstream, whereas in October 2003, ground-water 

discharge slowly increased until Pottsville and nearly doubled 

between Pottsville and Columbia. Ground-water discharge 

in sub-reaches was 21.7 ft3/s between Shelbyville and Milltown, 8.9 ft3

/s between Milltown and Pottsville, and 38.2 ft3/s 

between Pottsville and Columbia. Ground-water discharge 

increased 75 percent from the upstream to the downstream 

sub-reach, which is less than the observed increase during 

October 2003.

The increase in average yield observed between the Pottsville and Columbia gages may be affected by the karst hydrology of the basin and the change in surficial geology. The area 

where an increase in flow in the Duck River occurs generally 

corresponds to where the principal surficial geologic formation 

underlying the stream channel is the Lebanon Limestone rather 

than the Ridley Limestone. The Lebanon Limestone contains 

shaly layers that likely restrict the movement of ground water 

as well as limit the development of conduits in the aquifer compared to the areas where the Ridley Limestone is exposed at the 

surface. A decrease in the number and size of conduits in the 

subsurface at this transition may cause ground water that has 

been flowing through conduits in the Ridley Limestone to be 

discharged to the Duck River. A majority of the Fountain Creek 

watershed is underlain by the Lebanon Limestone. The presence of this formation as well as overlying formations, which 

are absent in the upstream tributary basins, likely accounts for 

the higher base flows and yields in this basin.

Table 11. Base-flow synoptic measurements made at sites located along the mainstem of the Duck River, November 3–5, 2003. 

[mi2, square miles; ft3/s, cubic foot per second; (ft3/s)/mi2, cubic foot per second per square mile; (gage), discharge value taken from gage rating (not an 

instantaneous measurement); RM, river mile; —, not available; shaded rows represent losing reach of the Duck River] 

Station number Station name Drainage area 

(mi2)

Discharge 

(ft3/s)

Yield 

[(ft3/s)/mi2]

November 3, 2003

03599240 Duck River above Milltown (Lillard’s Mill) (gage) 916 391 0.43

03599419 Duck River at RM 156 near Pottsville (Sowell Mill) — 335 —

03599456 Duck River below Fountain Creek — 323 —

03599500 Duck River at Columbia (gage) 1,208 429 —

November 4, 2003

03599240 Duck River above Milltown (Lillard’s Mill) (gage) 916 400 .44

03599310 Duck River at RM 177 above Venable Spring — 412 —

03599350 Duck River near Pottsville (Hardison Mill) 956 413 .43

03599410 Duck River at RM 162.8 near Pottsville (Tuga’s Bend) 1,019 380 .37

03599417 Duck River at RM 158.3 nr Pottsville — 384 —

03599500 Duck River at Columbia (gage) 1,208 424 .36

November 5, 2003

03599240 Duck River above Milltown (Lillard’s Mill) (gage) 916 482 .44

03599424 Duck River upstream of Interstate 65 — 415 —

03599425 Duck River at Howard Bridge 1,056 406 .38

03599500 Duck River at Columbia (gage) 1,208 436 .36

34  Water Resources of the Duck River Watershed, Tennessee
Summary

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

Tennessee Duck River Development Agency, began a waterresources study in 2003 to assess the hydrology of the Duck 

River watershed with an emphasis on characterizing how 

the various components that make up flow in the river vary 

throughout the year. The study area includes the watershed 

draining to the Duck River from Normandy downstream to 

Columbia, including Carters Creek. Streamflow, spring-flow, 

and ground-water-level data were collected during this study 

to characterize the hydrology of the Duck River. A better 

understanding of the hydrology will provide water-resource 

managers with information needed to make decisions as the 

demands on the water resources of the area increase.

Water-level data from wells in the study area indicate a 

good hydraulic connection between the aquifer and the river, 

with little long-term storage of water following recharge 

events. Water levels in wells near the river change in concert 

with the stage of the river; water levels rise when the river stage 

rises and decline when the stage falls. However, water temperature data collected at a few wells near the river do not indicate 

that water is moving from the river into the aquifer in the areas 

where the wells were located. Ground-water levels typically 

declined at a rate similar to which they rose, suggesting that 

little water is stored in the aquifer following recharge events.

 Data collected from springs also indicate that the amount 

of ground water released from the aquifer decreases substantially during the dry periods of the year. Variation in spring 

flow and water temperature indicate that for many springs in 

the study area the water issuing from the spring consists of a 

large component of water that has a short residence time in 

the aquifer. Flow from the largest springs consists largely of 

water that was recently at land surface and likely entered the 

aquifer as streamflow loss to swallets or to conduits along 

stream channels.

Historical and recent streamflow data indicate that 

during extended base-flow conditions the Duck River does 

not gain an appreciable amount of flow and may lose flow 

between Shelbyville and Columbia, which is a distance of 

about 85 river miles with a drainage area of about 700 mi2. 

Flow conditions for the Duck River for the period of this study 

(2003 through 2005) are considered average when compared 

to streamflow conditions observed since Normandy Dam was 

closed (1977 through 2005).

The combination of base-flow synoptic discharge measurements and flow-duration analysis of tributary streams 

indicates that Fountain Creek and Big Rock Creek are the 

highest yielding tributary basins in the study area. At base 

flow, however, about 14 percent of the flow from Big Rock 

Creek is attributable to wastewater discharge from Lewisburg, 

Tennessee. Other tributary streams contribute little to no flow, 

particularly those streams on the north side of the river. Discharge measurements on the mainstem indicate a loss of flow 

below Pottsville; however, the flow at Columbia suggests that 

this water returns to the river in a relatively short distance at 

the conditions during which these data were collected. Other 

tributary streams in the study area, such as Garrison Fork 

Creek or Flat Creek at Highway 231, had higher yields based 

on base-flow synoptic measurements alone.

Two periods of base flow were evaluated during this 

study to estimate the contribution to the total flow in the Duck 

River from releases at Normandy Dam, tributaries, wastewater discharges, and ground-water discharge. Results from this 

analysis suggest that the streamflow during base-flow periods in the lower portion of the mainstem of the Duck River 

(between Pottsville and Columbia) consists of as much as 

40 percent ground-water discharge. The increase in streamflow 

at Columbia was entirely accounted for by ground-water discharge from submerged springs to the river between Pottsville 

and Columbia. Some of this water likely enters the subsurface 

in the northern parts of the basin where the surface-water 

drainages are lacking and sinkholes are prevalent. Fountain 

Creek is the only tributary that contributes substantial flow in 

this part of the study area.

Summary  35
Selected References

(References in bold type are referenced in this report)

Ahlstedt, S.A., Powell, J.R., Butler, R.S., Fagg, M.T., 

Hubbs, D.W., Novak, S.F., Palmer, S.R., and Johnson, 

P.D., 2004, Historical and current examination of freshwater mussels (Bivalvia: Margaritiferidae, Unionidae) 

in the Duck River basin Tennessee: Report to Tennessee 

Wildlife Resource Agency, 213 p.

Alexander, F.M., Keck, L.A., Conn, L.G., and Wentz, S.J., 

1984, Drought-related impacts on municipal and major 

self-supplied industrial water withdrawals in Tennessee—Part B: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources 

Investigations Report 84-4074, 398 p.

Bennett, M.W., 1997, Reconnaissance of ground-water 

quality at selected sites in Bedford County, Tennessee, 

August 1996: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 

97-412, 1 sheet.

Brahana, J.V., and Bradley, M.W., 1985, Delineation and 

description of the regional aquifers in Tennessee—the 

Knox aquifer in Central and West Tennessee: U.S. 

Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations 

Report 83-4012, 32 p.

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., 1977, Water resources of the upper Duck 

River basin, central Tennessee: Tennessee Division of Water 

Resources, Water Resources Series no. 12, 103 p.

Byl, T.D., and Mattraw, H.C., 1994, Characterizing water quality in the North Fork-Fall Creek Hydrologic Unit area, Tennessee: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 95-372, 

2 p.

Crawford, N.C., and Ulmer, C.S., 1994, Hydrogeologic 

investigations of contaminant movement in karst aquifers in the vicinity of a train derailment near Lewisburg, 

Tennessee: Environmental Geology, v. 23, p. 41–52.

Farmer, J.J., 2004, Hydrogeology, water quality, and ecology 

of Anderton Branch near the Quail Hollow Landfill, Bedford County, Tennessee, 1995–99: U.S. Geological Survey 

Scientific Investigations Report 2004-5074, 33 p.

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

States: New York and London, McGraw-Hill Book Company, 714 p.

Flynn, K.M., Hummel, P.R., Lumb, A.M., and Kittle, J.L., 

Jr., 1995, User’s manual for ANNIE, version 2, a computer program for interactive hydrologic data management: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 95-4085, 211 p.

 Griffith, G.E., Omernik, J.M., and Azevedo, S.H., 1997, 

Ecoregions of Tennessee: Carvallis, Oreg., U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory, EPA/600/R-97/022, 

51 p.

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

Geologic map of Tennessee: State of Tennessee, Division 

of Geology, 4 maps.

Hollyday, E.F., and Byl, T.D., 1995, Water-quality, discharge, 

and biologic data for streams and springs in the Highland 

Rim escarpment of southeastern Bedford County, Tennessee: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 95-732, 36 p.

Hoos, A.B., Robinson, J.A., Aycock, R.A., Knight, R.R., and 

Woodside, M.D., 2000, Sources, instream transport, and 

trends of nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment in the lower 

Tennessee River Basin, 1980–96: U.S. Geological Survey 

Water-Resources Investigations Report 99-4139, 96 p.

Hutson, S.S., 1993, Water availability, use, and estimated 

future water demand in the upper Duck River Basin, Middle 

Tennessee: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 92-4179, 39 p.

Hutson, S.S., 1996, Estimates of future water demand for 

selected water-service areas in the upper Duck River 

basin, central Tennessee, with a section on Methodology used to develop population forecasts for Bedford, 

Marshall, and Maury Counties, Tennessee, from 1993 

through 2050, by G.E. Schwarz: U.S. Geological Survey 

Water-Resources Investigations Report 96-4140, 58 p.

Hutson, S.S., 2003, Estimated use of water in the Tennessee 

River watershed in 2000 and projections of water use to 

2030: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 03-4302, 89 p.

Hydrologics, 2002, An assessment of the water supply 

reliability of Normandy Reservoir: prepared for the Tennessee Duck River Development Agency, revised November 13, 2002, 11 p.

Killebrew, J.B., and Safford, J.M., 1874, Introduction to 

the resources of Tennessee: Tennessee Bureau of Agriculture, first and second reports, 1193 p.

36  Water Resources of the Duck River Watershed, Tennessee
Kingsbury, J.A., Hoos, A.B., and Woodside, M.D., 1999, 

Environmental setting and water-quality issues in the lower 

Tennessee River Basin: U.S. Geological Survey WaterResources Investigations Report 99-4080, 44 p.

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

from the National Streamflow Information Program: 

U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet 2005-3017, 4 p.

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

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

Outlaw, G.S., and Weaver, J.D., 1996, Flow duration and 

low flows of Tennessee streams through 1992: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 

95-4293, 245 p.

Qasim, S.R., 1994, Wastewater treatment plants­—planning, design, and operation: The University of Texas at 

Arlington, Technomic Publishing Company, p. 17–18.

Roman-Mas, Angel, Bennett, M.W., and Hamilton, K.G., 

1991, Reconnaissance of ground-water quality at selected 

sites in Bedford and Coffee Counties, Tennessee, June 

and July 1991: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File 

Report 91-510, 1 sheet.

Tennessee Valley Authority, 1939a, Flood History of 

Duck River and its Tributaries, Volume 1: Tennessee 

Valley Authority, Water Control Planning Department, 

Hydraulic Data Division, Report No. 0-1938, variously 

paginated.

Tennessee Valley Authority, 1939b, Flood History of Duck 

River and its Tributaries, Volume 2: Tennessee Valley Authority, Water Control Planning Department, 

Hydraulic Data Division, Report No. 0-1938, variously 

paginated.

Tennessee Valley Authority, 1965, Upper Duck River Valley—Summary of Resources: Knoxville, Tennessee, Tennessee Valley Authority, variously paginated.

U.S. Department of Commerce, 2005a, Climatography of 

the United States, No. 85, Divisional normals and standard deviations of temperature, precipitation, and heating and cooling degree days 1971–2000 (and previous 

normals periods) Section 2—Precipitation: Asheville, 

N.C., National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information 

Service National Climatic Data Center, 71 p.

U.S. Department of Commerce, 2005b, Climatography 

of the United States, No. 81, Monthly Station Normals 

of Temperature, Precipitation, and Heating and Cooling Degree Days 1971–2000, Tennessee: Asheville, N.C., 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information 

Service, National Climatic Data Center, 24 p.

U.S. Department of Commerce, 2005c, Climatography of 

the United States, No. 85, Divisional normals and standard deviations of temperature, precipitation, and heating and cooling degree days 1971–2000 (and previous 

normals periods) Section 1—Temperature: Asheville, 

N.C., National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information 

Service, National Climatic Data Center, 69 p.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1986, Ambient 

water quality criteria for bacteria, 1986: Cincinnati, 

Ohio, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA 

440/5–84–002, 18 p.

U.S. Geological Survey, 2005, NWISWeb site information 

for Tennessee, last accessed on July 27, 2005, at http://

waterdata.usgs.gov/tn/nwis/si

Williams, S.D., and Farmer, J.J., 2003, Volatile organic compound data from three karst springs in Middle Tennessee, 

February 2000 to May 2001: U.S. Geological Survey OpenFile Report 03-355, 69 p.

Wolfe, W.J., Evans, J.P., McCarthy, Sarah, Gain, W.S., 

and Bryan, B.A., 2004, Tree-regeneration and mortality 

patterns and hydrologic change in a forested karst wetland—Sinking Pond, Arnold Air Force Base, Tennessee: 

U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations 

Report 03-4217, 53 p.

Wolfe, W.J., Haugh, C.J., Webbers, Ank, and Diehl, T.H., 

1997, Preliminary conceptual models of the occurrence, 

fate, and transport of chlorinated solvents in karst regions of 

Tennessee: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 97-4097, 80 p.

Woodside, M.D., Hoos, A.B., Kingsbury, J.A., Powell, 

J.R., Knight, R.R., Garrett, J.W., Mitchell, R.M., III, 

and Robinson, J.A., 2004, Water quality in the Lower 

Tennessee River Basin, Tennessee, Alabama, Kentucky, 

Mississippi, and Georgia, 1999–2001: Reston, Va., U.S. 

Geological Survey Circular 1233, 38 p.

Selected References  37

Appendix 1. Historical Synoptic 

Streamflow Measurements

Surface-water data collection in the Duck River watershed has been ongoing for many years, with continuous 

data collection dating back to the early 1920s and reference 

materials that mention recorded flood events dating back to the 

early 1800s (Tennessee Valley Authority, 1939a and 1939b). 

Historically, there have been 363 U.S. Geological Survey 

surface-water sites in the Duck River watershed (fig. 1–1). Of 

the 363 historical surface-water sites, 58 were located in the 

mainstem of the Duck River, and the remaining 305 sites were 

on tributaries (U.S. Geological Survey, 2005; Donna Flohr, 

U.S. Geological Survey, written commun., 2005).

The most notable of these active sites is the Duck River at 

Columbia, which has continuously recorded streamflow data 

since the 1920s. In addition to addressing concerns related primarily to statistical estimation, long-term streamflow records 

can be used in watershed models to answer scenario-type 

questions. Scenarios potentially addressed by the use of longterm streamflow records include: (1) estimating the changes to 

discharge and water level resulting from land-use changes and 

(2) estimating changes to water quality resulting from landuse alteration (comparison of pre- and post- conditions). More 

information on the use of long-term streamflow information 

can be found in Lins (2005).

Miscellaneous measurements have been used to support 

base-flow synoptic investigations in the Fountain Creek and 

Rutherford Creek, including Carters Creek, tributary watersheds. Base-flow synoptic investigations were completed in 

the Rutherford Creek watershed in June 1986 and again in 

April 1987. In 1997, a base-flow synoptic investigation was 

completed for the Tennessee Duck River Development Agency 

in the Fountain Creek watershed to address potential watersupply questions. Additional discussion of each investigation 

along with the discharge measurement data can be found in 

tables 1–1—1–3.

Base-flow synoptic investigations were made in September 1949, November 1953, October 1970, and September 1972 

on several reaches of the mainstem of the Duck River by the 

USGS prior to the closing of Normandy Dam (table 1–4). The 

reaches of river measured were different during each period, 

though there was some overlap.

Numerous discharge measurements have been made in 

the Rutherford Creek watershed as a result of two low-flow 

investigations. The first base-flow synoptic low-flow investigation study was on the upper part of Rutherford Creek 

watershed and included Carters Creek watershed. Discharge 

was measured at 38 sites on June 26, 1986 (table 1–1). The 

most downstream site on Rutherford Creek (03599993) had 

a yield of 0.189 (ft3/s)/mi2, while the most downstream site 

on Carters Creek (03600090) had a yield of 0.417 (ft3/s)/mi2. 

Compared to the average yield of 0.1 (ft3/s)/mi2, three sites in 

the Rutherford Creek drainage basin and four sites in the Carters Creek drainage basin appeared to have sub-basin yields 

greater than yields of the surrounding areas. Sub-basin yields 

are calculated by taking the difference between the discharge 

at the site of interest and the sum of the measured discharges 

from tributaries to that stream, including the last measurement 

upstream on that stream, and then dividing by the increase in 

drainage areas between the sites. Upon closer investigation, 

the three sites in the Rutherford Creek drainage basin were 

considered to be too close to the measurement error to be considered significant because these sites were extremely difficult 

to measure and subsequently would have had a larger measurement error. One of the sites in the Carters Creek watershed 

(03600085) had a yield more than 14 times the basin average 

of 0.1 (ft3/s)/mi2 (table 1–1). Another site (03600086) also was 

recommended for further investigation, although the potential 

at this site for ground-water supply was considered to be less 

than 0.5 Mgal/d (E.F. Hollyday, retired, U.S. Geological Survey, retired, written commun., 1986).

The second base-flow synoptic investigation was done on 

April 21, 1987, to help the Town of Spring Hill locate areas 

with the potential for ground-water development (table 1–2). 

This investigation was completed entirely within the Rutherford Creek basin and included 45 sites. Three areas warranted 

further investigation into ground-water development potential. 

These areas are upstream of Rutherford Creek above Aenon 

Creek near Spring Hill (03599953), upstream of Grassy 

Branch at Port Royal Road near Spring Hill (035999588), and 

upstream of Unnamed Tributary to McCutcheon Creek Tributary at Spring Hill (035999689). The sub-basin yields at these 

sites were 2.7, 2.2, and 1.9 (ft3/s)/mi2, respectively. Several 

sub-basin measurements were considered to be within measurement error because the percentage difference between the 

discharge at the site and the nearest upstream measurement on 

the same stream was about 10 percent. Measuring discharge 

at sites that are rarely visited by field personnel often results 

in errors that are 10 percent or greater (E.F. Hollyday, retired, 

U.S. Geological Survey, written commun., 1987).

A base-flow synoptic investigation of Fountain Creek 

was completed in 1997 at the request of the Tennessee 

Duck River Development Agency in regard to water-supply 

concerns for the area (table 1–3). Fountain Creek gains and 

loses water throughout the length of the stream. The yields 

at each of the measuring locations on the stream range from 

0.189 (ft3/s)/mi2 to over 0.9 (ft3/s)/mi2. The highest yield 

occurs near the headwaters of South Fork near Culleoka. 

The section of the stream starting with Fountain Creek near 

Fountain Heights (03599450) and extending downstream to 

Fountain Creek near Hurricane Creek near Fountain Heights 

(035994521) has the greatest amount of inflow to the stream 

when measured in terms of yield. Between these two sites, an 

increase in discharge of 16.8 ft3/s was measured over a reach 

of the creek where the increase in drainage area is 4.74 mi2, 

equating to a yield of 3.54 (ft3/s)/mi2. This increase in discharge was from an unaccounted source which means that 

between these two sites on Fountain Creek, the discharge 

increased, but the sources of the increase were not visible 

(such as a tributary or spring). Further investigation of this 

Appendix 1. Historical Synoptic Streamflow Measurements  39
87°44'25"

87°29'20"

87°14'15"

86°59'10"

86°44'05"

35°26'35"

35°41'40"

35°56'45"

MAURY

HICKMAN

BEDFORD

COFFEE

MARSHALL

LEWIS

DICKSON

WILLIAMSON

GILES

MOORE

LAWRENCE

LINCOLN

RUTHERFORD

FRANKLIN

PERRY

HUMPHREYS

NormandyLake

Sugar Creek

i P ney

vi R er Mill Creek

Bear Creek

oY unger Creek Lick Creek

Duck River

Le pi er

’s Creek

Big Swan

Cree

k

r C

el

t

yL

ee k Fountain

Cree

Si

k

lver Creek

R

gi B

co k

D

ke

er C

uck Rive

r

SugarCree

k

F al

C

t

eer k

North Fork

Creek Wartra

c

e

Creek Garr si

F

no

or

C

d

reek

Duck River

F al t C er

ke

Bear Creek

Car et

sr

r C

ee k

Columbia

Shelbyville

Lewisburg

Manchester

Centerville

Tullahoma

Spring Hill

Mount Pleasant

Lynchburg

Dickson

Chapel Hill

Hohenwald

Wartrace

Bell Buckle

Normandy

Cornersville

Eagleville

86°29'

86°13'55"

85°58'50"

0 10 20 MILES0 10

Ru ht er of rd Creek

EXPLANATION

Historical surface-water siteHistorical mainstem base-flow synoptic sitePrincipal study area

Base from U.S. Geological Surveydigital data, 1:250,000, Albers projection,Standard parallels 29°30'N and 45°30'N,central meridian 96°00'W

20 KILOMETERS

LOCATION OF STUDY AREA

Figure 1–1. Historical surface-water monitoring locations in the Duck River watershed, Tennessee.

40 Water Resources of the Duck River Watershed, Tennessee
Table 1–1. Base-flow synoptic measurements made in the Duck River watershed on June 26, 1986. 

[Measurements were made to assist the Saturn Corporation in identifying an area or areas of either Rutherford Creek or Carters Creek that had the potential to 

supply sufficient ground water for industrial operations at the Saturn facility; ft3/s, cubic feet per second; mi2, square miles; (ft3/s)/mi2, cubic feet per second per 

square mile; shaded rows had a sub-basin yield greater than the basin average and outside of measurement error; negative values for sub-basin yield represent 

losing sub-reaches of the stream or creek in terms of runoff; Source: E.F. Hollyday, retired, U.S. Geological Survey, written commun., 1986]

Station number Station name Discharge (ft3/s) Drainage area

(mi2)

Sub-basin 

yield

[(ft3/s)/mi2]

Rutherford Creek

03599950 Rutherford Creek near Kedron 2.10 18.3 0.115

03599953 Rutherford Creek above Aenon Creek near Spring Hill 2.07 22.4 –.007

03599960 Aenon Creek near Spring Hill 2.08 14.2 .146

03599963 Aenon Creek near Kedron 2.56 15.1 .533

03599965 Rutherford Creek near Spring Hill 4.22 39.3 .107

035999655 Rutherford Creek above Kedron Road near Kedron 4.55 39.4 –.400

03599966 McCutcheon Creek at Highway 31 at Spring Hill .44 3.10 .142

03599967 McCutcheon Creek at Spring Hill .63 4.32 .162

03599968 McCutcheon Creek Tributary below Highway 31 at Spring Hill .1 3.08 .032

03599969 McCutcheon Creek Tributary (downstream) at Spring Hill .2 4.77 .059

03599970 McCutcheon Creek near Spring Hill 1.07 10.2 .211

03599971 McCutcheon Creek near Kedron 1.20 11.1 .163

03599973 Rutherford Creek Tributary near Kedron .1 .5 .200

03599974 Rutherford Creek below Kedron 6.22 52.8 .204

03599975 Rutherford Creek below Spring Hill 6.94 54.3 .514

03599976 Johnson Branch near Spring Hill .09 .84 .107

03599977 Johnson Branch at Denning Road near Spring Hill .17 1.59 .105

03599978 Johnson Branch near Carters Creek .24 2.25 .103

03599979 Rutherford Creek Tributary near Carters Creek .18 .68 .243

03599980 Rutherford Creek near Neapolis 7.1 58.2 –.295

03599985 Rutherford Creek Tributary at Neapolis .1 .38 .476

03599988 Rutherford Creek Tributary below Hunter Lake near Neapolis .03 1.07 –.089

03599993 Rutherford Creek below Hunter Lake near Neapolis 7.47 60.7 .189

Carters Creek

036000842 Carters Creek near Spring Hill 1.04 12.8 .081

036000844 Walden Branch near Carters Creek .02 3.1 .006

036000848 Carters Creek Tributary above Carters Creek .08 .15 .727

03600085 Carters Creek at Petty Lane near Carters Creek 1.62 16.6 1.41

036000852 Carters Creek Tributary at Kleburne Road near Spring Hill .01 .77 .013

036000853 Unnamed Tributary to Carters Creek Tributary below Kleburne 

Road near Spring Hill

.005 .09 .062

036000854 Unnamed Tributary to Carters Creek Tributary near Spring Hill .05 .93 .058

036000856 Carters Creek Tributary below Kleburne Road at Carters Creek .13 2.22 .144

036000858 Unnamed Tributary to Carters Creek Tributary at Carters Creek .004 .43 .010

03600086 Carters Creek Tributary near Carters Creek .33 2.94 .576

03600088 Carters Creek at Butler Road at Carters Creek 1.81 20.1 –.250

03600089 Terrell Branch at Carters Creek .36 5.13 .079

036000897 Carters Creek Tributary at Carters Creek .03 .29 .097

03600090 Carters Creek near Neapolis 2.3 25.8 .417

Appendix 1. Historical Synoptic Streamflow Measurements  41
Table 1–2. Base-flow synoptic measurements made in the Duck River watershed on April 21, 1987. 

[Measurements were made to help the Town of Spring Hill identify areas of potential ground-water development; ft3/s, cubic feet per second; mi2, square miles; 

(ft3/s)/mi2, cubic feet per second per square mile; negative values for sub-basin yield represent losing sub-reaches of the stream or creek in terms of runoff; 

shaded rows represent high-yielding sub-reaches within measurement error; Source: E.F. Hollyday, retired, U.S. Geological Survey, written commun., 1987]

Station number Station name Discharge 

(ft3/s)

Drainage area

(mi2)

Sub-basin yield

[(ft3/s)/mi2]

03599800 Rutherford Creek near Rally Hill 17 17.1 1.01

03599950 Rutherford Creek near Kedron 18 18.3 .42

03599951 Crooked Creek at Kedron 1.5 1.54 .51

03599952 Rutherford Creek Tributary at Kedron .72 .72 .92

03599953 Rutherford Creek Above Aenon Creek near Spring Hill 22 22.4 2.7

03599954 Aenon Creek near Bethesda 3.1 3.11 .80

035999545 West Fork Aenon Creek near Thompson’s Station .36 .36 .49

035999548 West Fork Aenon Creek near Spring Hill .53 1.18 .39

03599955 West Fork Aenon Creek Tributary near Thompson’s Station .03 .47 .06

035999555 West Fork Aenon Creek Tributary near Spring Hill .04 .83 .03

03599956 West Fork Aenon Creek near Bethesda 1.7 2.75 1.57

035999563 Aenon Creek Tributary near Rally Hill .48 .85 .56

03599957 Aenon Creek at Port Royal Road near Spring Hill 6.6 8.82 .97

035999573 Grassy Branch near Thompson’s Station .09 .71 .13

035999576 Grassy Branch Tributary near Thompson’s Station .21 .31 .68

03599958 Grassy Branch near Spring Hill .69 1.63 .64

035999583 Grassy Branch Tributary Below Thompson’s Station .09 .57 .16

035999586 Grassy Branch at Beechcroft Street near Spring Hill 1.2 2.65 1.02

035999588 Grassy Branch at Port Royal Road near Spring Hill 1.9 2.94 2.2

03599959 Grassy Branch near Kedron 2.1 3.32 .71

035999593 Grassy Branch Tributary near Spring Hill .3 .54 .56

035999596 Grassy Branch Tributary near Kedron .73 .80 1.7

03599960 Aenon Creek near Spring Hill 12 14.2 1.6

03599963 Aenon Creek near Kedron 12 15.1 .11

03599965 Rutherford Creek near Spring Hill 32 39.3 –7.5

035999656 McCutcheon Creek at Wilkes Lane Nr Thompson’s Station .07 .26 .27

0359996565 McCutcheon Creek Tributary at Wilkes Lane Nr Thompson’s Station .05 .27 .19

035999657 McCutcheon Creek near Thompson’s Station .48 .97 .82

0359996575 McCutcheon Creek Tributary near Thompson’s Station .02 .48 .04

035999658 McCutcheon Creek Tributary at Wilkes Lane Nr Spring Hill .02 .28 .07

0359996585 McCutcheon Creek Tributary (U/S) at Spring Hill .05 .58 .10

035999659 McCutcheon Creek at County Road at Spring Hill 1.1 2.52 1.02

03599966 McCutcheon Creek at Highway 31 at Spring Hill 1.4 3.10 .4

035999665 McCutcheon Creek Tributary at New Town .24 .52 .46

03599967 McCutcheon Creek at Spring Hill 2.4 4.32 1.06

035999675 McCutcheon Creek Tributary at McCormack Crossing 2 2.42 .81

03599968 McCutcheon Creek Tributary below Highway 31 at Spring Hill 2.5 3.08 .48

035999682 McCutcheon Creek Tributary Below Spring Hill 2.5 .47 .62

035999683 McCutcheon Creek Tributary at Beechcroft Street at Spring Hill .29 3.46 .61

035999685 Unnamed Tributary to McCutcheon Creek at Highway 31 at Spring Hill .28 1.00 –.02

035999689 Unnamed Tributary To McCutcheon Creek Tributary at Spring Hill .93 1.35 1.9

035999697 McCutcheon Creek Tributary at Kedron Road at Spring Hill .04 .47 .09

03599970 McCutcheon Creek near Spring Hill 8.6 10.2 4.6

03599971 McCutcheon Creek near Kedron 7.5 11.1 –1.2

035999712 Rutherford Creek at Kedron Road near Kedron 45 50.5 43

42  Water Resources of the Duck River Watershed, Tennessee
reach shows that the greatest amount of water added to the 

creek originates where Highway 50 crosses Fountain Creek. 

Between Fountain Creek at Highway 50 near Fountain Heights 

(035994514) and Fountain Creek below Highway 50 near Fountain Heights (035994516) there was an increase in discharge 

of 14.4 ft3/s with an increase in drainage area of only 0.14 mi2. 

The sub-basin yield for this section is 103 (ft3/s)/mi2. This large 

amount of unmeasured discharge indicates that a large spring 

is potentially discharging into the creek in this area. Unlike 

some of the sub-basin measurements in Rutherford Creek, the 

percentage difference between this site and the next upstream 

site is large enough to be considered outside of measurement 

error and represents a quantifiable increase. This reach of the 

creek could be measured again to verify the existence of this

gain, though the value is more than 20 percent greater than the

upstream site. Of course, the gains and losses measured may be 

specific to the hydrologic conditions and events that existed in 

the days and weeks prior to the measurements.

Four base-flow synoptic investigations were conducted 

on the Duck River in September 1949, November 1953, October 1970, and September 1972 by the USGS prior to the construction and closing of Normandy Dam (table 1–4). The section of the river measured in each investigation differs, though 

there is overlap between investigations. Of the four investigations completed prior to dam construction and closure, all 

were completed either in years that discharge at Columbia was 

either average or wetter (sometimes considerably wetter in the 

case of 1949) than average. Out of the 57 years of continuous 

Table 1–3. Results from the 1997 Fountain Creek base-flow synoptic investigation. 

[mi2, square miles; ft3/s, cubic feet per second; (ft3/s)/mi2, cubic feet per square mile; —, not available; shaded rows represent the reach of the creek with the 

greatest yield; negative values represent losing sub-reaches of the creek in terms of runoff; gains and losses are measured by subtracting the measured discharge 

at one location along the stream and subtracting all previous tributary and spring measurements and the previous measurement along the stream]

Station number Site name Drainage area

(mi2)

Discharge

 (ft3/s)

Yield 

[(ft3/s)/mi2]

Gain/loss

 (ft3/s)

035994253 Unnamed Spring near Whitworth Bend — 0.015 — —

035994256 Unnamed tributary near Whitworth Bend 0.24 .052 0.217 —

035994289 Fountain Creek above South Fork near Culleoka 15.99 14.9 .932 —

035994297 South Fork near Culleoka 10.17 10.6 1.042 —

03599430 Fountain Creek near Culleoka 27 25.7 .952 0.13

03599439 Globe Creek near Mooresville 25.97 17.5 .674 —

03599442 Sheepneck Creek near Mooresville 2.61 1.88 .720 —

03599445 Bear Creek near Mooresville 7.87 5.96 .757 —

03599446 Smith Spring near Mooresville — .303 — —

035994468 Fountain Creek at Long Tom Branch near Scribner 64.51 43.1 .668 –8.24

035994475 Long Tom Branch at mouth near Scribner 2.96 2.12 .716 —

03599449 Bush Creek near Scribner 4.38 1.48 .338 —

03599450 Fountain Creek near Fountain Heights 77 56.4 .732 9.70

035994512 Fountain Creek above Highway 50 near Fountain Heights 78.74 57.4 .729 1.00

035994514 Fountain Creek at Highway 50 near Fountain Heights 81.01 51.6 .637 –5.80

035994516 Fountain Creek below Highway 50 near Fountain Heights 81.15 66 .813 14.40

035994518 Fountain Creek above Fountain Heights at Pleasant Mount Church 81.65 61.8 .757 –4.20

03599452 Fountain Creek at Fountain Heights 81.71 70.4 .862 8.60

035994521 Fountain Creek near Hurricane Creek near Fountain Heights 81.74 63.5 .777 –6.90

035994522 Hurricane Creek near Fountain Heights 7.82 2.83 .362 —

035994524 Fountain Creek at Silver Creek near Fountain Heights 90.42 66.1 .731 –.23

0359945260 Silver Creek at Bryant Station 7.59 2.32 .306 —

0359945263 Silver Creek near Mt. Tema 11.08 3.45 .311 —

0359945265 Unnamed Spring near Mt. Tema — .068 — —

0359945267 Silver Creek near State Highway 50 11.85 2.79 .235 —

03599453 Silver Creek at Fountain Heights 14.07 3.16 .225 —

035994545 Silver Creek at mouth near Fountain Heights 15.04 2.84 .189 —

03599455 Fountain Creek at mouth near Fountain Heights 105.66 72.6 .687 –8.13

035994557 Unnamed tributary near Harris Cemetery .28 0 0 —

0359945572 Unnamed tributary at County Highway near Harris Cemetery .69 0 0 —

Appendix 1. Historical Synoptic Streamflow Measurements  43
discharge data available at Columbia, the 1949 water year was 

the 51st driest year (6th wettest); the 1953 water year was the 

26th driest; the 1970 water year was the 40th driest; and the 

1972 water year was the 29th driest year (U.S. Geological 

Survey, 2005).

The area of concern for the September 1949 investigation extended from the Duck River at Warner’s Bridge 

(03598140) to the Duck River near Howard Bridge near Hill 

(03599425), and included approximately 60 river miles. The 

September 1949 measurements indicate three results that 

are inter-related and important in the defining of the hydrology of the Duck River. First, the yield at Warner’s Bridge 

[0.17 (ft3/s)/mi2] is reduced by almost 40 percent at Howard 

Bridge [0.10 (ft3/s)/mi2]. The decrease in yield is consistent 

throughout the investigation of September 1949. This continuous decrease in yield coincides with the reach of the study area 

that lacks any significant surface drainage, particularly on the 

northern side of the Duck River between Lillard’s Mill and 

Sowell Ford. Second, discharge decreases by about 20 ft3/s, 

or 20 percent, between Carpenter’s Bridge and Leftwich. This 

loss is not an artifact of measurement error given that the 

percentage of loss in this case is more than measurement error 

(5 percent for measurements rated “good”). This loss occurs 

in the same area noted by the Tennessee Valley Authority as 

being a losing reach (Tennessee Valley Authority, 1965). Half 

of this loss of discharge is gained back by the time the river 

reaches Howard Bridge. The third and possibly most important 

finding from these measurements of September 1949 is the 

overall lack of increase in discharge over the 60-mile reach 

of the river. The river gained about 15 ft3/s between Warner’s 

Bridge and Howard’s Bridge, even though the drainage area 

doubles between Warner’s Bridge and Howard’s Bridge. In 

a gaining river, streamflow of a river usually increases in a 

manner similar to the increase in drainage area. The tributaries were barely flowing, if at all, in this instance, which is a 

common occurrence for many tributaries in the area during 

September. Similar findings in regard to reduction of discharge 

and decrease of yield are seen in the September 1972 investigation when comparing the same reach of the river.

The November 1953 investigation provides finer detail 

of the area studied in the September 1949 and 1972 investigations, especially in the reach between Carpenter’s Bridge 

and Sowell Ford. The discharge of the river at these locations 

in November 1953 is extremely low. The 1953 investigation 

reports the loss in discharge in the same reach of the river 

as found in the September 1949 and 1972 investigations and 

as reported by the Tennessee Valley Authority (1965); however, in the 1953 study, the loss is only 5 to 6 ft3

/s. The 1953 

study did not extend beyond Sowell Ford and subsequently 

cannot provide information on whether any discharge was 

gained downstream as with the 1949 and 1972 investigations. 

This small loss is approximately 8 percent of the measured 

discharge and should be considered to be within measurement error; thus, no measured difference was found between 

the upstream and downstream sites. This reach of the river 

only extends about 15 miles, and the drainage area increases 

slightly more than 7 percent.

44  Water Resources of the Duck River Watershed, Tennessee
Table 1–4. Miscellaneous measurements on the Duck River from September 1949 to September 1972.—Continued

[ft3/s, cubic feet per second; mi2, square miles; (ft3/s)/mi2, cubic feet per square mile; —, unknown; shaded rows represent reaches of the Duck River where 

losses of flow were also seen in 2003]

Station 

number Station name River mile Date Discharge (ft3/s)

Drainage 

area

(mi2)

Yield 

[(ft3/s)/mi2]

September 1949

03598140 Duck River at Warner’s Bridge 210.3 9/25/1949 87.2 526 0.17

03598140 Duck River at Warner’s Bridge 210.3 9/25/1949 84.2 526 .16

03598185 Duck River at Hall’s Mill 202.2 9/25/1949 80.6 588 .14

03598185 Duck River at Hall’s Mill 203.2 9/25/1949 80 588 .14

03598195 Duck River at Hopkins Bridge — 9/25/1949 86.9 635 .14

03598195 Duck River at Hopkins Bridge — 9/25/1949 91.1 635 .14

03598300 Duck River at Wilhoite Mills 186.3 9/25/1949 96.6 761 .13

03598300 Duck River at Wilhoite Mills 186.3 9/25/1949 102 761 .13

03599250 Duck River at Milltown 179.1 9/25/1949 113 916 .12

03599250 Duck River at Milltown 180.1 9/25/1949 101 916 .11

03599350 Duck River at US431 near Pottsville 172.1 9/25/1949 105 956 .11

03599350 Duck River at US431 near Pottsville 173.1 9/25/1949 113 956 .12

03599408 Duck River at Carpenters Bridge near Pottsville 164.6 9/25/1949 112 1,016 .11

03599415 Duck River at Sowell Ford near Pottsville 159.4 9/25/1949 103 1,025 .10

03599418 Duck River at Leftwich above Dry Creek 156.5 9/25/1949 90.3 1,028 .09

03599418 Duck River at Leftwich above Dry Creek 156.5 9/25/1949 107 1,028 .10

03599425 Duck River near Howard Bridge near Hill 149.7 9/25/1949 97 1,056 .09

03599425 Duck River near Howard Bridge near Hill 149.7 9/25/1949 101 1,056 .10

November 1953

03599350 Duck River at US431 near Pottsville 174.1 11/4/1953 81.5 956 .09

03599350 Duck River at US431 near Pottsville 175.1 11/4/1953 78.8 956 .08

03599352 Duck River near Pottsville 171.5 11/4/1953 78.1 — —

03599355 Duck River near Pottsville 170.6 11/4/1953 79.7 959 .08

03599360 Duck River nr Pottsville 169.1 11/4/1953 81.4 961 .08

03599362 Duck River at Cundiff Ford Island nr Pottsville 168.8 11/4/1953 77.6 961 .08

03599365 Duck River near Pottsville 167.6 11/4/1953 78.3 962 .08

03599370 Duck River near Pottsville 167.2 11/4/1953 78.3 — —

03599406 Duck River nr Pottsville 166.5 11/4/1953 75.7 1,015 .07

03599407 Duck River near Pottsville 166.1 11/4/1953 82.5 1,015 .08

03599408 Duck River at Carpenters Bridge near Pottsville 164.6 11/4/1953 73.7 1,016 .07

03599408 Duck River at Carpenters Bridge near Pottsville 164.6 11/4/1953 80 1,016 .08

03599408 Duck River at Carpenters Bridge near Pottsville 164.6 11/4/1953 78.6 1,016 .08

03599408 Duck River at Carpenters Bridge near Pottsville 164.6 11/4/1953 80.4 1,016 .08

03599409 Duck River nr Pottsville 163.4 11/4/1953 71.4 1,018 .07

03599410 Duck River near Pottsville 162.8 11/4/1953 79.6 1,019 .08

03599411 Duck River near Pottsville 162.3 11/4/1953 73.3 1,019 .07

03599413 Duck River near Pottsville 161.1 11/4/1953 74.8 — — 

03599414 Duck River nr Pottsville 160.1 11/4/1953 72.4 1,024 .07

03599415 Duck River at Sowell Ford near Pottsville 159.4 11/4/1953 72.8 1,025 .07

03599415 Duck River at Sowell Ford near Pottsville 159.4 11/4/1953 75.3 1,025 .07

03599415 Duck River at Sowell Ford near Pottsville 159.4 11/4/1953 74.7 1,025 .07

Appendix 1. Historical Synoptic Streamflow Measurements  45
Table 1–4. Miscellaneous measurements on the Duck River from September 1949 to September 1972.—Continued

[ft3/s, cubic feet per second; mi2, square miles; (ft3/s)/mi2, cubic feet per square mile; —, unknown; shaded rows represent reaches of the Duck River where 

losses of flow were also seen in 2003]

Station 

number Station name River mile Date Discharge (ft3/s)

Drainage 

area

(mi2)

Yield 

[(ft3/s)/mi2]

October 1970

03594800 Duck River at Gnat Hill 284.4 10/8/1970 0.37 6.23 0.06

03594850 Duck River below Perry Creek near Fredonia 281.1 10/8/1970 0.59 16.1 .04

03594910 Duck River near Fredonia 277.5 10/8/1970 4.48 24.8 .18

03596400 Duck River at Riley Creek 251.2 10/8/1970 56.7 179 .32

03596430 Duck River near Normandy 250.1 10/8/1970 58.7 — — 

03596470 Duck River above Normandy 248.3 10/8/1970 55.1 196 .28

03596540 Duck River at Dement Bridge at Roseville 243.1 10/8/1970 62.2 221 .28

03596600 Duck River above Three Forks Bridge near Haley — 10/8/1970 70.1 232 .30

03597820 Duck River at Highway 41A Bridge east of Shelbyville — 10/8/1970 83.6 396 .21

03597840 Duck River at State Highway 130 at Shelbyville — 10/8/1970 77.6 421 .18

03597860 Duck River at Highway 231 at Shelbyville — 10/8/1970 74.1 425 .17

September 1972

03596050 Duck River above Crumpton Creek 258.5 9/8/1972 39.2 120 .33

03596400 Duck River at Riley Creek 251.2 9/8/1972 76.6 179 .43

03596470 Duck River above Normandy 248.3 9/8/1972 73.6 196 .38

03596510 Duck River below Normandy 246.1 9/8/1972 81.7 209 .39

03596520 Duck River at Cortner’s Mill near Normandy 245 9/8/1972 82.9 209 .40

03596540 Duck River at Dement Bridge at Roseville 243.1 9/8/1972 86.9 221 .39

03598193 Duck River near Farmington 194.5 9/8/1972 118 632 .19

03598195 Duck River at Hopkins Bridge near Henry Horton State Park 192.1 9/8/1972 124 635 .20

03598300 Duck River at Wilhoite Mills 187.3 9/8/1972 144 761 .19

03599250 Duck River at Milltown 179.1 9/8/1972 128.6 916 .14

03599350 Duck River at US431 near Pottsville 176.1 9/8/1972 145 956 .15

03599362 Duck River at Cundiff Ford Island nr Pottsville 169.8 9/8/1972 152.6 961 .16

03599408 Duck River at Carpenters Bridge near Pottsville 164.6 9/8/1972 148 1,016 .15

03599415 Duck River at Sowell Ford near Pottsville 159.4 9/8/1972 131 1,025 .13

03599418 Duck River at Leftwich above Dry Creek 156.5 9/8/1972 143 1,028 .14

03599423 Duck River near Philadelphia 152.6 9/8/1972 135 1,051 .13

03599425 Duck River near Howard Bridge near Hill 149.7 9/8/1972 137 1,056 .13

03599426 Duck River at Hill 148.6 9/8/1972 144 1,058 .14

03599460 Duck River near Columbia 141.1 9/8/1972 150 1,176 .13

03599470 Duck River at Iron Bridge Road 136.5 9/8/1972 230 1,182 .19

46  Water Resources of the Duck River Watershed, Tennessee
Knight and Kingsbury—Water Resources of the Duck River Watershed, Tennessee—Scientific Investigations Report 2007–5105