Large Springs of 

East Tennessee

GEOLOGICAL SURVEY WATER-SUPPLY PAPER 1755

Prepared in cooperation with the Tennessee 

Department of Conservation and Commerce, Division of Geology and Division 

of Heater Resources

GEOr"

TUCSON,
Large Springs of 

East Tennessee

By P-C. P. SUN, J. H. CRINER, and J. L. POOLE

GEOLOGICAL SURVEY WATER-SUPPLY PAPER 1755

Prepared in cooperation with the Tennessee 

Department of Conservation and Commerce, Division of Geology and Division 

of Water Resources

UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON : 1963
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

STEWART L. UDALL, Secretary

GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 

Thomas B. Nolan, Director

The U.S. Geological Survey Library catalog card for this publication appears after page 52.

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office 

Washington, D.C., 20402
CONTENTS

Page

Abstract__ _1_________________.______________.__________________ 1

Introduction _______________________________________________________ 1

Purpose and scope of the investigation___________________________ 1

Previous investigations.._______________________________________ 2

Geography ___________________________________________________ 3

Location and description of the area.____________________________ 3

Climate._____________________________________________________ 5

Geology and hydrology of springs_________________________________ 6

Summary of geologic conditions_______-___-_______--____-_____-- 6

Hydrologic settings of springs.______-_________--__--__--__---_-_ 8

Sprin gs_ _ _______________________________________________________ 8

Ground water and its relation to springs________________________ 9

Use and yield of water from springs_____-____-___--________-_-_ 9

Magnitude and variability of springs___________________________ 13

Quality of water from springs__________-______--__--__---_____-- 14

Discharge of ground water from storage by springs________________ 17

Correlation of spring discharges________-____-_---__--___-__--___ 22

Application of base-flow analysis and spring-discharge correlations _-._____ 24

Descriptions of springs_____________________________________________ 25

References_ _____________________________________________________ 52

ILLUSTRATIONS

FIGURE 1. Map showing physiographic provinces of Tennessee and the 

area described in this report.__________________________

2. Relation between topography, geology, and the location of 

springs._ ____________________________________________

3. Locations of springs in east Tennessee__________________

4. Minimum, average, and maximum discharges of springs __

5. Variability of 82 selected springs of the second, third, and 

fourth magnitudes..__________________________________

6. Relation between variability and discharge of 82 selected 

springs ______________________________________________

7. Recession curve for Mill Spring, near Jefferson City.-------

8. Hydrograph of discharge from Mill Spring, Jefferson County, 

for 1953 and 1954_____._..__._.____.....____-.-_- .

m

Page

10

12

14

15

18

19
IV CONTENTS

Page 

FIGURE 9. Geologic map and section of the vicinity of Mill Spring,

Jefferson County--_-___-_---------_-----------.__-___. 21

10. Correlation graph for Bacon Spring, Anderson County, and

Mill Spring, Jefferson County_-_-_-.---_-----_-_-_-.____ 23

11-30. Maps of east Tennessee counties showing location of springs 

and stations recording precipitation data:

11. Anderson County.________________________________ 32

12. Blount County-..---.--.---____________________ 33

13. Bradley County.._____-___-_.___-__________ 34

14. Carter County___________-___-_-___-___--_____-_ 35

15. Grainger County._______________________________ 36

16. Greene County_-_-_-__-_-_-_---_--_------__----__ 37

17. Hamblen County__-----__--__----_----.-------_--_ 38

18. Hamilton County___-_-____-__--__-_----_-___-___- 39

19. Jefferson County..______________________________ 40

20. Knox County____-_-__-_____-__-__-_____________- 41

21. London County________________________________ 42

22. McMinn County________________________________ 43

23. Meigs County______._____________________________ 44

24. Monroe Cour>ty___-__________-___-__--_--___-___- 45

25. Polk County____________-__-_____-___-__-___-__-- 46

26. Rhea County___________________________________ 47

27. Roane County__________________________________ 48

28. Sevier County__-__________-___-__--_--_--__------ 49

29. Sullivan County-_--_-_-_----------_-------------- 50

30. Unicoi County___________-____-_-__---__--______ 51

TABLES

Page 

TABLE 1. Geologic formations in east Tennessee______________________ 7

2. Chemical analyses of water from representative springs in east

Tennessee. ____-_____.._____-__________-_-___--__--__-- 16

3. Records of springs in east Tennessee______________________ 26
LARGE SPRINGS OF EAST TENNESSEE

By P-C. P. SUN, J. H. CEINEE, and J. L. POOLE

ABSTRACT

Springs constitute an important source of water in east Tennessee, and many 

individual springs are capable of supplying the large quantities needed for municipal and industrial supplies.

Most of the springs in east Tennessee issue from solution openings and fractured 

and faulted zones in limestone and dolomite of the Knox Group, Chickamauga 

Limestone, and Conasauga Group. The ability of these rocks to yield a sustained 

flow of water to springs is dependent on a system of interconnected openings 

through which water can infiltrate from the land surface and move to points of 

natural discharge.

Ninety springs were selected for detailed study, and 84 of these are analyzed 

in terms of magnitude and variability of discharge. Of the 84 springs analyzed, 

4 flow at an average rate of 10 to 100 cfs (cubic feet per second), 62 at an average 

rate of 1 to 10 cfs, and 18 at an average rate of 1 cfs or less. Of the 90 springs, 

75 are variable in their discharge; that is, the ratio of their fluctuations to their 

average discharges exceeds 100 percent.

Mathematical analysis of the flow recession curve of Mill Spring near Jefferson 

City shows that the hydrologic system contributing to the flow of the spring has 

an effective capacity of about 70 million cubic feet of water. The rate of depletion of this volume of water, in the absence of significant precipitation, averages 

0.0056 cfs per day between the time when the hydrologic system is full and the 

time when the spring ceases to flow. From such a curve it is possible to determine 

at any time the residual volume of water remaining in the system and the expected 

rate of decrease in discharge from that time to cessation of flow.

Correlation of discharge measurements of 22 springs with those of Mill Spring 

shows that rough approximations of discharge can be projected for springs for 

which few measurements are available. Seventeen of the springs analyzed in 

this manner show good correlation with Mill Spring: that is, their coefficients of 

correlation were 0.70 or better as compared with a perfect correlation factor of 1.00

INTRODUCTION

PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF THE INVESTIGATION

Springs are important sources of water for municipal, domestic, 

and farm use in east Tennessee; however, many are not developed, 

because of their inaccessibility or the lack of information regarding 

their adequacy and dependable low flows available for small-industry 

and community supplies. A spring discharging 450 gpm (gallons per
2 LARGE SPRINGS OF EAST TENNESSEE

minute), or about 1 cfs (cubic foot per second), is capable of supplying 

a town of 6,500 population, if one assumes a per capita consumption 

of 100 gpd (gallons per day). The 90 springs described in this report 

were selected for study because their average yield was estimated to 

be 450 gpm or more.

The primary purpose of the investigation has been to study the 

hydrologic characteristics of some of the larger undeveloped springs 

in east Tennessee, their variations in discharge, and the chemical 

character of water from a few selected springs. An additional objective has 'been to interpret the continuous records of one spring for 

the purpose of predicting flow from other springs in similar geologic 

and hydrologic settings. Although completely satisfactory correlations of this type could not be made on the basis of available data and 

records, the study contributed greatly to the knowledge of the relation 

of springs to geology, precipitation, and the general ground-water 

conditions.

Field work for this investigation began in 1950 as a continuation 

of > the reconnaissance of ground-water resources of east Tennessee, 

in which more than 960 springs were observed and described. The 

present study included the selection of little-used representative 

springs whose average discharges were initially estimated to exceed 

450 gpm and therefore are considered to be adequate for moderate 

industrial or small municipal supplies. Ninety such springs were 

measured monthly for periods of 1 to 4 years, water samples were 

collected from typical springs for chemical analysis, and observations 

made as to color and temperature of the water and geologic settings 

of the springs. Records of discharge collected throughout the study 

show that the average flow from 62 of the 90 springs was greater than 

450 gpm.

This investigation was made by the U.S. Geological Survey as a 

part of the statewide program of water-resources studies in cooperation 

with the Division of Geology and Division of Water Resources, 

Tennessee Department of Conservation. Fieldwork was done in 

cooperation with the Division of Geology prior to the establishment of 

the Division of Water Resources, and this report was prepared under 

the joint cooperative program which was initiated in July 1957.

PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS

As a result of the drought of 1930, considerable interest was shown 

in springs in east Tennessee which served as sources of domestic and 

municipal water supplies. Accordingly, the U.S. Geological Survey 

initiated a study in March 1931 in which all springs known to be 

discharging 1,000 gpm or more were measured during March, July, 

and the latter part of October or first part of November. Discharge
GEOGRAPHY 3

from more than 100 springs, measured at the end of a long drought, 

provided valuable information regarding the dependable low-water 

yield and the hydrologic characteristics of some of the larger springs 

in east Tennessee. These data are given in reports by the U.S. 

Geological Survey (1933) and by De Buchananne and Richardson 

(1956). Additional measurements were published by the U.S. 

Geological Survey (issued annually).

A reconnaissance of the ground-water resources of east Tennessee 

was begun in 1947, fieldwork completed in 1953, and the results 

published in 1956 (De Buchananne and Richardson, 1956). More 

than 960 springs are described in this study, furnishing basic information on their hydrologic settings and laying the groundwork for 

further detailed studies. Selection of the 90 springs described in the 

present report was based on data gathered as a part of this reconnaissance. A geologic mapping program was conducted concurrently 

with the ground-water study in order to provide detailed coverage 

for east Tennessee and information as to the geologic source of the 

principal springs (Rodgers, 1953).

GEOGRAPHY

LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION OF THE AREA

The area described in this report is the part of Tennessee lying east 

of the Cumberland Plateau and includes the Tennessee parts of the 

Blue Ridge and the Valley and Ridge physiographic provinces (fig. 1).

The Blue Ridge province is a narrow strip along the east boundary 

of Tennessee, characterized by a series of rugged northeastwardtrending mountain ranges whose altitudes range from 1,200 to 6,600 

feet above sea level. These ranges are virtually continuous and of 

relatively uniform altitudes, except where tributaries of the Tennessee 

River have cut deep, steep-sided valleys. The region is little developed and sparsely inhabited because of the rugged topography and 

because many hundreds of square miles have been reserved for park 

and recreational facilities as a part of the Cherokee National Forest 

and the Great Smoky Mountains National Park.

The Valley and Ridge province is a belt of parallel northeastwardtrending ridges and valleys lying between the Cumberland Plateau 

and the Blue Ridge province (fig. 1). The average width of the 

province is about 40 miles in Tennessee and the altitude generally 

ranges from about 1,500 feet at the northern Tennessee border to 

about 700 feet at the southern border. It is a region of complex 

geologic structure, in which the topography is controlled by faults, 

and the alternating ridges and valleys are underlain, respectively, by 

resistant cherty limestone and dolomite and by soluble limestone and 

shale.
MISSISSIPPI ALLUVIAL PLAIN

FIGURE 1. Map showing the physiographic provinces of east Tennessee and 
GEOGRAPHY 5

Because of its strategic location at midpoint between the industrial 

North and the rapidly developing South, its excellent highway, rail, 

air, and water transportation networks, its electrical power facilities, 

and its attractions as a recreational region, east Tennessee has continued the pre-World War II economic expansion through the war 

years and to the present time (1962). East Tennessee includes about 

20 percent of the area of the State but has more than 36 percent of 

the total population (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1960). In addition, 

6 of the 9 Tennessee cities with populations of more than 25,000 and 

14 of the 24 cities with populations of more than 10,000 are within 

the boundaries of east Tennessee.

CLIMATE

The climate of east Tennessee, considered in its relation to topography, is highly variable; it has wide ranges in temperature and 

precipitation that are controlled largely by altitude. Because of the 

shielding effects of bordering mountainous regions and the remoteness 

of the area from the principal storm paths, the climate is characterized 

by relatively stable conditions, except those controlled by altitude, and 

by relative freedom from major atmospheric disturbances.

Mean annual temperature in the Valley and Ridge province ranges 

from 56.4° F, recorded at Bristol in the north, to about 60° F, recorded 

at Chattanooga in the south. The mean annual temperature at 

Knoxville airport, in the approximate geographic center of east 

Tennessee, is 59.3° F, based on records for the 22-year period ending 

in 1959. In addition to the north-south variation, the mean annual 

temperature is decreased by about 3° for each additional thousand 

feet of altitude. Thus at an altitude of 6,000 feet at the same latitude 

as Knoxville, the mean annual temperature would be about 15° lower 

than at Knoxville, or about 44° F. The mean annual temperature 

is significant to this study in that it is approximately the same as the 

temperature of ground water within 100 to 200 feet below the land 

surface and of the water issuing from the numerous springs in east 

Tennessee.

Precipitation in east Tennessee is also highly varible, ranging from 

the State's lowest mean of about 40 inches per year in the extreme 

northern part of the State in the Valley and Ridge province to the 

maximum of about 80 inches in the higher parts of the Great Smoky 

Mountains in the Blue Ridge province (Dickson, 1960, p. 2). The 

average precipitation in east Tennessee is 48.57 inches per year, most 

of which occurs during the winter and early spring. A secondary 

maximum of precipitation occurs in midsummer, however, in response 

to thundershower activity, especially in the mountains where the

690-214 O 63 2
6 LARGE SPRINGS OF EAST TENNESSEE

rainfall in July often exceeds that of any other month (Dickson, 1960, 

p. 2).

Precipitation affects the discharge of the springs relatively soon 

after it occurs, thus influencing the springs' variability and their value 

as sources of water supplies. Records of precipitation before, during, 

and after the investigation indicate that the measurements of discharge 

from the selected springs were made during a relatively dry period.

GEOLOGY AND HYDROLOGY OF SPRINGS 

SUMMARY OF GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS

East Tennessee is underlain by metamorphic rocks and by highly 

deformed sedimentary rocks ranging in age from Precambrian to 

Mississippian. Formations in the mountainous Blue Ridge province 

consist of a basement complex of granite, schist, and gneiss of Precambrian age and include the Ocoee Series, also of Precambrian age, which 

consists of slate, graywacke, shale, sandstone, and conglomerate.

An intervening belt of ranges forms a transitional zone between the 

Blue Ridge and the Valley and Ridge provinces. It is a belt in 

which the linear structural pattern of the Valley and Ridge province 

is predominant, but it is underlain by formations that are more 

characteristic of the Blue Ridge province. These include the Unicoi, 

Hampton, and Erwin Formations of the Chilhowee Group of Early 

Cambrian and Early Cambrian (?) age, which are found as outliers 

lying west of the main mountain mass of the Blue Ridge province.

The formations underlying the Valley and Ridge province are of 

sedimentary origin and are composed largely of dolomite, limestone, 

and shale ranging from Early Cambrian to Mississippian in age. 

Formations of the Conasauga and Knox Groups and the Chickamauga 

Limestone are predominant, but broad belts also are underlain by the 

Rome Formation, Shady Dolomite, and limestone and shale of Ordovician through Mississippian age (table 1).

Geologic formations referred to in this report (table 1) are described by De Buchananne and Richardson (1956, p. 10-14, 29-50) 

and Rodgers (1953, p. 21-110, pi. 1-15).

In general, the broad valleys of the Valley and Ridge province are 

underlain by limestone and shale of the Conasauga Group of Cambrian age and Chickamauga Limestone of Ordovician age. The high 

ridges are formed on more resistant rocks, principally cherty dolomite 

and limestone of the Knox Group, sandstone members of the Rockwood and Rome Formations, and other formations. The linear 

pattern of the geologic structure in the Valley and Ridge province, 

consisting of northeastward-trending parallel ridges and valleys, resulted from compressive stresses which folded and faulted the sedimentary rocks and resulted in the predominant southeasterly dip of
GEOLOGY AND HYDROLOGY OF SPRINGS 

TABLE 1. Geologic formations in east Tennessee

System

Mississippian

Devonian

Silurian

Ordovician

Cambrian

Early Cambrian (?)

Precambrian

Group

Knox

Conasauga

Formation or other subdivision

Pennington Formation

Newman Limestone

Fort Payne Chert

Chattanooga Shale

Hancock Limestone

Kockwood Formation

Sequatchie Formation

Keedsville Shale

a o 

3 § Moccasin Formation

S 2 Ottosee Shale

£1^ Holston Formation

u _.,.._ q>inlr

Lenoir Limestone

Newala 

Formation

Mascot Dolomite

Kingsport Formation

Longview Dolomite

Chepultepec Dolomite

Copper Ridge Dolomite

Nolichucky Shale

Honaker 

Dolomite

Maryville Limestone

Rogersville Shale

Rutledge Limestone

Pumpkin Valley Shale

Rome Formation

Shady Dolomite

Erwin Formation

Hampton Formation

Unicoi Formation

Ocoee Series, undivided

Crystalline complex

the formations. This structure controls the topography which in 

turn, in addition to lithology and secondary openings in the rocks, 

controls the occurrence of the numerous springs in the region. None 

of the springs in east Tennessee seem to be closely related to faults, 

although in some places faults may influence the direction of ground-
8 LARGE SPRINGS OF EAST TENNESSEE

water movement and thus indirectly control, in part, the volume and 

the variability of spring discharge.

HYDROLOQIC SETTINGS OF SPRINGS

Most of the springs described in this report issue from solution 

openings in formations of the Knox Group, Chickamauga Limestone, 

or limestones of the Conasauga Group. Some issue from highly 

fractured and faulted zones, but they are less common and generally 

are smaller in the volume of their discharge. Some springs issue 

from the base of the water-bearing formation just above relatively 

impermeable shale which tends to prevent the downward movement 

of water (fig. 2). Most of the shale formations in the Valley and 

Ridge province may yield small quantities of water in seep areas, but 

they generally do not support springs of significant size. In some 

areas springs issue in valleys underlain by shales. Because of their 

topographic position and the character of the rock in which they occur, 

such springs must derive water from adjacent ridges of carbonate 

rocks, and the shale, which generally is fractured and jointed, acts 

primarily as a conduit and not as a reservoir.

SPRINGS

A spring is a natural issue of ground water at the land surface 

from a ground-water reservoir that is filled to the level of existing 

natural openings through which discharge can occur. All the springs

FIGURE 2. Diagram showing the relation between topography, lithology and structure of rocks, and the

locations of springs.
SPRINGS 9

in east Tennessee are gravity springs, caused by an "outcrop" of the 

water table, and flow under the action of gravity, as a surface stream 

flows down its channel. Those in east Tennessee are further classified 

as follows: (1) Depression springs, which flow because the land surface 

extends down to the water table; (2) contact springs, whose water 

flows to the surface from permeable material at the outcrop of an 

underlying less permeable material that impedes the downward percolation of the water; and (3) tubular springs, which flow from relatively 

large openings in the rocks.

GROUND WATER AND ITS RELATION TO SPRINGS

Most of the rainfall in east Tennessee becomes surface runoff in 

streams or is returned to the atmosphere by evaporation and transpiration by plants. A part of the rainfall, however, percolates 

downward through the mantle of soil and decayed rock into underlying water-bearing formations where it fills voids between the rock 

particles and secondary openings created by solution or jointing. 

It remains in the ground, moving slowly downgradient through these 

interconnected openings, until withdrawn through wells or discharged 

naturally into streams or springs at lower altitudes.

Water-bearing formations are characterized by their capacity to 

store and transmit water, which, in turn, is related to the number, 

size, and degree of interconnection of interstitial pores and secondary 

openings. The limestones and dolomites of east Tennessee have 

little or no primary porosity, but large volumes of water are stored 

in the numerous solution cavities and openings along faulted, jointed, 

and fractured zones. The ability of such rock formations to yield a 

sustained flow of water to wells and springs is therefore dependent 

on a system or network of interconnected openings through which 

water can infiltrate from the land surface and be transmitted to 

points of natural or artificial discharge.

Water entering the ground-water reservoir directly from precipitation is relatively free of dissolved chemical constituents and is therefore capable of maximum development of solution openings in the 

soluble limestones and dolomite of east Tennessee. For this reason, 

solution openings, or cavities, are larger and greater in number near 

the top of the saturated zone. The dissolving capacity of water is 

reduced as chemical saturation is approached. Generally, saturation 

is a function of depth and time that water remains in the ground, and 

water that has reached greater depths is less effective in producing 

large solution cavities.

USE AND YIELD OF WATER FROM SPRINGS

In 1959, 39 of the 95 municipal water-supply systems in east 

Tennessee used water derived solely from springs, and 15 others used
10 LARGE SPRINGS OF EAST TENNESSEE
SPRINGS 11

spring water as a supplemental source. The average daily use of 

water for municipal supplies was about 100 million gallons, of which 

about one-half was pumped from the Tennessee River for use by the 

cities of Chattanooga and Knoxville. Of the remaining 50 mgd 

(million gallons per day), about one-third, or 17 mgd, was supplied 

by springs. In addition, a large amount of water from springs is 

used for irrigation of crops and pasture during the drier summer 

months. Much of the water used for irrigation is pumped from 

streams that are sustained in large part by spring flow; however, the 

total quantity used and the percentage that comes directly from 

springs are not known.

More than 960 springs were observed and described by De Buchananne and Richardson (1956, p. 60-391). During their reconnaissance, 

measurements were made of discharge from many of the springs and 

estimates made of flow from the remainder. The total of these measurements was about 265 mgd. All but a few of the measurements 

were made during the relatively dry period June through September; 

thus, this volume represents a near-minimum, or at least a belowaverage, total for the 960 springs considered. The 960 springs 

described by De Buchananne and Richardson (1956, p. 60-391) are 

classified according to the magnitude of their flow as follows :

Number Number 

Discharge (gpm) of springs Discharge (gpm) of springs

<100_________ ______________ 653 4,500-45,000-------_--__---_ 5

100-450-..--____-----_____-- 155 >45,000______--________..__ 0

450-4,500___.____________.__ 147

For the present study, 90 of the larger springs in east Tennessee 

(fig. 3), most of which are not in use, were selected on the assumption 

that each discharged at an average rate of 450 gpm or more. On the 

basis of a series of measurements, it was observed that the discharge of 

84 of the 90 springs was as follows: 2 averaged less than 100 gpm; 

16 ranged from 100 to 450 gpm; 62 ranged from 450 to 4,500 gpm; 

4 ranged from 4,500 to 45,000 gpm. None averaged more than 45,000 

gpm. Six of the springs were not analyzed in detail.

The following table indicates the approximate order of magnitude 

of the total discharge of the 84 springs, based on monthly measurements for each spring made during the period of record. These 

averages are fairly representative, having been determined through 

both wet and dry seasons, but are perhaps lower than normal because 

the period of record was during the moderate drought of 1951-54.
12 LARGE SPRINGS OF EAST TENNESSEE

Average of 

Minimum flows. ____ ____ _ ___ ___

Average flows __ _____ ________ __ _ ____

Maximum flows ______ _ ________________

Total 

(gpm)

36, 040

120, 165

278, 290

Plow

Average 

(gpm)

430

1,465

3,310

Total 

(mgd)

52

173

401

Springs are excellent sources of water for future development in 

east Tennessee; however, the variability of their flow may prevent full 

utilization unless adequate storage facilities are provided. If there is 

no storage to provide water during periods of peak use and minimum 

yield, which usually are concurrent, a spring may be developed only 

to the extent of its lowest dependable flow. If adequate storage 

facilities are provided, however, development could approach the 

average annual flow. Inaccessibility of many of the springs and the

DISCHARGE, IN GALLONS PER MINUTE 

1000

DISCHARGE, IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND

FIGUEE 4. Chart showing the minimum, average, and maximum discharges of 84 springs.
SPRINGS 13

relatively great distances from points where the water is needed are 

also factors limiting their utilization.

MAGNITUDE AND VARIABILITY OF SPRINGS

A classification of springs based on the magnitude or volume of 

their average flows has been made by Meinzer (1927, p. 3). This 

classification is shown in the following table :

Magnitude Average discharge Magnitude Average discharge 

First. __ _ - _--cfs__ >100 Fourth.. ____ _ _.gpm__ 100-448.8

Second...--. _ -..do__ 10-100 Fifth ___ ___-_-._..do__ 10-100

Third.... _ ._. _ do_. 1-10

NOTE. 448.8 gpm equals 1 cfs.

Figure 4 shows graphically the discharge of 84 of the 90 selected 

springs in east Tennessee for which records of minimum, average, and 

maximum flows are available. The horizontal line shows the range 

of discharge, and the vertical line indicates the average discharge for 

the spring's period of record. As shown by this chart, the 84 springs 

may be grouped according to magnitude as follows :

Number Number

of of

Magnitude spnngs Magnitude springs

First______ __ _____________ None Fourth-...- _ ------------- 16

Second-..-. ____ _ _____ 4 Fifth. ____________ _ __ 2

Third _-__-...____....---- 62

Springs also are classified according to their variability, defined by 

Meinzer (1923, p. 53) as the ratio of their fluctuations to their average 

discharges. Variability is expressed by the formula

where V= variability, expressed as a percentage; 

a=maximum discharge; 

b= minimum discharge; 

c= average discharge.

Although the absolute variability of a spring can be determined only 

from a long period of record, it is convenient to speak of the variability 

within a designated period. The value computed for each spring in 

this study is for its respective period of record. According to Meinzer 

(1923, p. 54), springs having a variability of less than 25 percent are 

classed as constant, those having a variability of 25 to 100 percent 

are sub variable, and those having a variability greater than 100 percent 

are variable. Of the 90 selected springs in east Tennessee, none are 

constant, 15 are sub variable, and 75 are variable. Figure 5 shows the

690-214 O 63 3
14 LARGE SPRINGS OF EAST TENNESSEE

100 ZOO 300 400

VARIABILITY, IN PERCENT

500

FIGUBE 5. Graph showing the variability of 82 selected springs of the second third, and fourth magnitudes.

variability of the 82 springs of second, third, and fourth magnitudes.

A scatter diagram (fig. 6) of average discharge plotted against 

variability shows that variability tends to increase as discharge 

increases. The small degree of correlation exhibited, however, does 

not warrant any attempt to relate variability to average discharge.

In general, the least variable springs in east Tennessee issue from 

shale of the Conasauga Group, and all these are of relatively small 

magnitude. The most variable springs have their sources in solution 

cavities in limestone or dolomite. These cavities are of such varying 

size and degree of interconnection that, as the water table fluctuates 

from wet to dry seasons, spring discharge fluctuates in accordance with 

the ability of the saturated cavities to transmit the water to the 

spring orifices.

QUALITY OF WATER FROM SPRINGS

Except for its hardness, which generally exceeds 100 ppm (parts 

per million), quality of water from springs in east Tennessee is good
PERCENT IN VARIABILITY, 

c

i

' t 

o

0

3s

SI

OS

1

CO

8

1

i ! 

s ° 1 

£[} CD 

$ 1 

o jj" 

[-H § 

S 1 

^3 1 

_, » 1 

^3TJ O 

S

1

I

§

o

0

o

§ 8 1 1 § 

*

0

I

0

0

 4

<

! ' 

1 

i

(

< 

i

 

s

( 0 

, i* 

s * 

A

9

0

»

* > 

 
TABLE 2. Chemical analyses of water from representative sprin

[Analyses by U.S. Geological Survey]

County

Blount ___ ...

Carter.. ...

Greene __ ___ .

Hamblen... ...

Knox. _

Monroe.. .

Name of spring

Lovingood- ...........

Big_. .................

Buffalo... .........

Seaton.. ___ ..

Panther .........

Mill................

Fowler .............

Alien Fine. ...........

Whiteside..... _______

Kilpatrick _ .........

Wolford __ . _ . ....

U.S. Fishery ___ ...

Date of 

collection

5-20-50 

3-17-48 

4-12-50 

9-28-49 

4-12-50 

12-16-48 

4- 4-50 

4-18-50 

5-2-49 

1-19-49 

1-19-50 

8-14-48 

2-2-49 

3- 2-51 

3-10-48

Chemical constituents, in parts per m

Iron

(Fe)

0.02

.01 

.05 

.02 

.05 

.01 

.02 

.13 

.06 

.10 

.03 

.09 

.02

Calcium 

(Ca)

26 

38 

34 

31 

36 

18 

40 

30 

22 

17 

13 

24 

16 

22 

18

Magnesium 

(Mg)

14 

9.8 

19 

4.5 

16 

5.1 

20 

17 

12 

8.0 

4.3 

11 

4.5 

16 

9.5

Sodium 

(Na)

2 

4

4 

2

1

51 

21

2 

1

Potassium 

(K)

9 

2 

2 

4

7 

7 

8 

5

2 

3 

6

2

Bicarbonate 

(HCQ3)

144 

154 

188 

109 

177 

86 

212 

173 

128 

81 

57 

104 

200 

196 

81
SPRINGS 17

to excellent for most uses. Table 2 shows chemical constituents and 

physical properties of water samples collected from 15 typical springs 

in east Tennessee. None of the analyses show any constituent 

present in concentrations sufficient to be detrimental in normal uses 

of the water; but hardness and, in some springs, high hydrogen-ion 

concentration (pH) may restrict use of water for certain manufacturing processes. For a detailed discussion of the chemical constituents and physical properties of water and their effects on various 

uses, the reader is referred to a report by Hem (1959, p. 34-149).

Chemical quality of spring water varies considerably more than 

water pumped from deep wells. Increased discharge caused by shallow subsurface flow during rainy periods brings increased proportions 

of water that is very low in dissolved solids because of the short time 

the water has been in contact with earth materials. Thus, water 

supplies from springs require frequent monitoring of chemical content 

to provide for adjustment of the treatment process and for the maintenance of suitable water quality.

DISCHARGE OF GROUND WATER FROM STORAGE BY SPRINGS

Except for relatively short periods of shallow subsurface runoff 

immediately after a rain, water discharged by a spring is derived from 

ground-water storage and is referred to as the base flow of that spring. 

A flow recession curve may be constructed from continuous records 

of discharge to show the rate of decline of discharge in the absence 

of precipitation and, thus, the rate at which water in storage is being 

depleted. Analysis of the curve also shows the amount of water 

remaining in storage. Such a curve (fig. 7) has been constructed for 

Mill Spring, near Jefferson City, from records continuous for a period 

of 5 years, 2 years of which are shown in figure 8.

The flow recession curve for Mill Spring (fig. 7) is divided into two 

major parts. The upper part shows spring discharge to be more 

than 6 cfs and represents the wet season, during which the decline 

in discharge is about 0.3 cfs per day. The base part shows discharge 

to be less than 4.5 cfs and represents the dry season, during which 

the rate of decline is about 0.03 cfs per day. The transitional part of 

the curve, which has greater curvature, represents the time of unstable 

discharge, during which the percentage of ground-water flow increases 

as surface runoff decreases. This part of the curve may vary greatly 

in time from one spring to another and may be absent from the curves 

for some springs.

In practice, the base part of a flow recession curve may be used 

directly to determine future discharge rates of the spring it represents 

in the absence of appreciable precipitation. Mathematical analysis 

gives an indication of the porosity of the water-bearing formation
18 LARGE SPRINGS OF EAST TENNESSEE

ONOOHS Had xaaa oiano NI '
SPRINGS 19

ONOoas Had 1,33,3: oiano NI

L
20 LARGE SPRINGS OF EAST TENNESSEE

supplying the spring and the rate of depletion of the available water 

in storage in the formation.

The base part of the flow recession curve can be analyzed by a 

method described by Ibrahim Abd-El-Al (1953, p. 60-76) to determine 

the coefficient of exhaustion or rate of depletion of the ground-water 

reservoir. The coefficient of exhaustion is in inverse proportion to 

the magnitude of the ground-water reserves on which the spring draws 

(Ibrahim Abd-El-Al, 1953, p. 67). The following formula is used to 

determine this rate:

(Vs)- 1

q= , , N2 transposed to a= ^ (1) (L-\-at) t

where

a=coefficient of exhaustion or rate of depletion per day; 

q0=greatest discharge after cessation of surface runoff, in cubic

feet per second;

g=discharge at any time after q0, in cubic feet per second; 

f=time between q0 and q, in days.

The coefficient of exhaustion for Mill Spring thus is determined to 

be 0.0056 cfs for 1 day, based on a value of 4.5 cfs for q0 and any value 

of q (fig. 7).

By integrating the base part of the recession curve (Ibrahim AbdEl-Al, 1953, p. 69), the residual volume (V), in cubic feet, of the water 

in storage to be eventually discharged by Mill Spring can also be approximated.

4°. (2)

For example, at the beginning of the base part of the recession curve 

(<70 =4.5 cfs), Mill Spring is indicated as having an estimated residual 

volume of about 70 million cubic feet of water in storage that will be 

discharged by the spring in the absence of precipitation and before 

spring flow ceases.

The validity of this method for determining residual volume may 

be checked from continuous records of discharge for any period. 

From the recession curve it was determined that 13 million cubic feet 

of water was discharged from ground-water storage during the 40-day 

period in which the flow declined from 4.5 cfs to 3 cfs and that average 

flow during the period was about 3.8 cfs. Substitution of the new 

values of g0 and a in equation (2) gives a new residual volume (V) of 

57 million cubic feet in storage which remains to be discharged by 

Mill Spring. The new residual volume plus the volume of water dis-
SPRINGS 21

charged in the 40-day period total 70 million cubic feet, or the maximum volume of water in storage before depletion began.

By determining the volume of water in storage, one can estimate 

the porosity of the reservoir rocks contributing water to Mill Spring. 

As shown by the geologic map and section (fig. 9), Mill Spring lies in 

a shallow syncline open to the southeast. Formations underlying 

the area include, from youngest to oldest, Copper Ridge Dolomite,

LEGEND

Chepultepec 

Dolomite

mm

Copper Ridge 

Dolomite

MaynardviUe 

Limestone

Nolichucky 

Shale

Fault

Geologic Contact

Drainage Boundary

Z MILES

-1000

Z MILES

. Datum is mean sea level

FIGURE 9. Geologic map and section of the vicinity of Mill Spring, Jefferson County (after Bridge,

1956, pi. 1).
22 LARGE SPRINGS OF EAST TENNESSEE*

Maynardville Limestone, and Nolichucky Shale. The limestones and 

dolomites are presumed to be of similar porosity and to be a hydrologically connected unit. Because of the presence of the underlying 

Nolichucky Shale and the geologic structure and topography of the 

area, it is assumed that no water can move into the drainage basin 

by underflow. Thus, virtually all the water discharged by Mill Spring 

must be derived from precipitation falling within the drainage basin 

of Mill Spring Creek. The volume of rock lying within the drainage 

basin and above the outlet of Mill Spring is calculated to be about 

7,900 million cubic feet. Of this volume, about 70 million cubic feet 

(previously determined volume of ground water in storage) is occupied 

by water in pore spaces or other openings capable of yielding water. 

Thus, the effective porosity of the reservoir rocks supplying water to 

Mill Spring is approximately 0.9 percent. This estimate, though 

based on assumptions made on the degree of interconnection of openings in the rocks, indicates, at least, the order of magnitude of the 

rocks' porosity.

CORRELATION OF SPRING DISCHARGES

In order to compare the hydrologic similarity of springs, the monthly 

discharges of 22 springs were each correlated for more than 20 months 

with those of Mill Spring. An example of the technique used is given 

in figure 10, which shows the hydrologic relation between Mill Spring 

and Bacon Spring. This technique makes use of the standard procedure for correlating stream discharges (Searcy, 1960, p. 76-77). 

Discharge measurements of the springs were plotted against those of 

Mill Spring for approximately the same times of measurement. Mill 

Spring was selected because it seems to be representative of springs 

in the Valley and Ridge province and because of the long-term discharge records available. Discharges were converted to cubic feet 

per second for ease of plotting. The center line in figure 10, called 

the curve of correlation, was drawn through the plotted points to 

represent the mean. Two lines were drawn parallel to the curve so 

as to enclose two-thirds of the points. The distances from the curve 

of correlation to the parallel lines above and below represent two 

standard errors.

To determine the degree of correlation of a spring with Mill Spring, 

standard deviation (Sy) and standard error (Se) are determined by 

measuring their values as shown in figure 10 and computing the 

coefficient of correlation (r) by the following formula:
SPRINGS 23

For example, by use of the correlation graph shown in figure 10,

Ordinarily Se and Sy are measured in log units and may be read 

directly from the 20 scale of an engineers scale for 5-inch log-cycle 

paper such as that shown in figure 10. Generally, one standard error 

(Se} of 0.12 log units or less and a coefficient of correlation (r) of 0.70 

or more are considered satisfactory correlation. A coefficient of 

correlation of 1.00 is perfect. Thus, the sample computation for 

figure 10 indicates that Bacon Spring correlates well with Mill Spring.

20

C SECO FET PER

 - 

-Joovoo

ft

co

§O

$fe 

o

w 

o

o

3

Q

Se - Standard error

Sy Standard deviation

r - coefficient of correlation

= 0.978

2Se= 0.158 log units

¥fa

X

ZSy =0.755

log 

units

1 2 3 456789 10 15

DISCHARGE OF MILL SPRING, IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND

FIGCRE 10. Correlation graph for Bacon Spring, Anderson County, and Mill Spring, Jefferson County.
24 LARGE SPRINGS OF EAST TENNESSEE

Of the 22 springs which were correlated with Mill Spring, 17 correlate 

well; that is, the required number of discharge measurements fall 

within the range of one standard error from the curve of correlation, 

and the coefficients of correlation are 0.70 or greater.

No relation is apparent between stratigraphy and the degree of 

correlation or between the degree of correlation and the magnitude 

of the springs tested. Poor correlation, however, does not necessarily 

mean hydrologic dissimilarity. The short period of record during a 

relatively dry period may be an important factor affecting correlation 

of spring data. Recession curves for each spring, similar to the one 

for Mill Spring (fig. 7), would be necessary to bring out and evaluate 

similarities.

APPLICATION OF BASE-FLOW ANALYSIS AND SPRINGDISCHARGE CORRELATIONS

The values for the coefficient of exhaustion and residual volume and 

the flow recession curve are useful in the determination, at any time 

of the anticipated rate of discharge and of the volume of water left 

in the hydrologic system to support the spring flow. In the face of an 

extended drought, the rate and duration of flow from a spring can 

be closely approximated; if the flow is expected to decrease to less than 

the water required plans can be made in advance for development of 

other sources or for more conservative use of existing supplies.

Measurements of spring discharge made for construction of a flow 

recession curve also provide a means of predicting discharge from 

other springs in similar geologic hydrologic settings. The low-flow 

characteristics of a spring with periodic or short-term records can be 

determined approximately by correlating the discharge of the spring 

with that of another similar spring for which accurate long-term 

records are available. This method or correlation, as previously 

described, is most useful in a region where numerous springs constitute 

a major source of water supply and where only a minimum of discharge 

records are available or obtainable.

DESCRIPTIONS OF SPRINGS

Table 3 contains information regarding the geologic setting and 

magnitude and variability of discharge of the 90 springs selected for 

this study. Generalized maps (figs. 11-30) of the east Tennessee 

counties show the locations of the springs and the U.S. Weather 

Bureau stations or towns for which precipitation data are presented 

for the period of spring-flow record.
DESCRIPTIONS OF SPRINGS 25

In the descriptive information, springs that have been referred to 

by other names in other publications are so indicated, and appropriate 

references are made by footnotes. Descriptions of geologic settings of 

the springs indicate, insofar as known, the source formation and the 

relation of geologic structure or formation contacts to the occurrence 

of the springs. Periods of monthly measurements, data of miscellaneous measurements, and maximum, average, and minimum discharges 

are also given. The data on average discharge are based on the period 

of monthly measurements only. The sources of maximum and 

minimum discharge measurements are indicated by footnotes. Magnitude and variability of the discharge of each spring are also based 

on discharge determined during the period of monthly measurements.

690-214
26 LARGE SPRINGS OF EAST TENNESSEE

a

&

o 

§

» 

» 

I

 H

in

^ a

IS 

31^

a

5,

V

?

s

o 

a

^ 

s

0

i)

a

<

H

 S-4^

£3

>.a

a

'^JS

T3 aca 4a*

&^

s

I

3

s

1 

ft

 

g

o

i<)

Maximum

IB 8 

ft

1

O

&a

0

>> Month]

w>

.g

1^o

0

©

o

spring Name of

5 !

3 3

1-8 H»

.

a

"^.by^B § S.9 -S h * fl oj'O ^So*-iO M © o

H ^ . S w *^ § .Sfl£.2,& §®-o.20-og ^ d ro ** M ro *^

 oS -gg JO

PQ O

* .c

o o j o o'

55,22 -s;

1 g|i 5! 

1 3 £« S!

U O 85 60 5, *

I IS !c

N8IST

O fl ^ a

i & B O
DESCRIPTIONS OF SPRINGS 27

g g 0 g

 * * * * *

g IM T-l IM

i 2 2 2

C4 i-H 1 1 t*

S 8 15 M

go <p gr

S « CS <N

H 1 !

IM 4 <^ IM t-H

jS co i i -^

CO S * 1O

S o o o o o o o ^aos oo t~ N cooo

M * * * CO * *«

NNN1-IN >o>a>aco>Q N 

>a 

N tfs NN

>a "f

2 ^ i 2 J S 2 11

hOC&OQC4<& O u? COt^ "ssooca 1^ * » cooo * i CM » i ^i * i oo co

O«O'*O'* O t^ to <O oo c5 cq o o 2 oo IQO»

 *COCOON CO i-l T-IUS

T-T i-T

>a>a>aco>Q «s >o >acp 

Si3 *~ tot^

4iCo4n4icO IM 4i li4i

IM T-T

J >o I**

25 fe

»» 1

 8 I

i 11

15 tS - 

O O O

£ ~a o> a"

 S s -9 a* a

2 £ 3 3 3 33 

iS-HO 2rS Sg Sj4 3ri2<(

2 2s

&H pLH pL, g ft,

4S 42 <D a

. 1 1 l« §

O O d«- J ° °

>>0

I -si 1-3 

a

cent Gga 

S § dS S 9 

 S'cS^ S!

rd p. er

"2 35

« |

§ 5

§fe

.A A

9.2

| ^Sa

C8 g SO I £?i

 og

J -ag p, G 

vill p, a p.

H - 12 is ^ 5

J^ of S 2 a

Group Cle of

a ^g'S'SSlo g

a ^iaaii-B 9-2 "SO § §OO o

*» X 08 09 « *.2

°jl?iw!

ison atio

ill

from SNll?fl*5ll Gr afro a ll5 I 12

O <1 M

jlala^JIgai S P S s « g M'S'S.s w , r~'i!a3ogo(sS'(sSi i: i* §'5d4lfl-g<1g31 * 

 fllOlgSMl-glit

wK<Ort <OB'o +i(SPtlftC

 a a a <i o

ion offromues 

i 2§g 

3 ^§0

^ ^1 3^

$* 

lJ|i

IS 

M t-t 

el? S e s

-C'l'S'2 

5 S

S -S

 08

3 -a ^a

WWW

E 3>>a 

4. co^

"-1 CO'-l'-l

ilSo !!-" 

ft: O a hH

O O

3> 3i3

 MW

! S!

3 33'

1-5 1-51-5

5 o o

§ >a>a i i °* o*

§ >>>> 

. Ti^

M WS
28J

3 33iI!> 8D»»iH-ig

 0

=5

S. O?i5j2s 5Hq

«JH

.^S=3

>X!

1|

os 3

£T

§1 fe

.£3 iQ

o>

3 "S

1 fi 5

s aaO

£ <j

a -2

I g

3 M

5M 

03

* 1O

b

,go

t>> s1^

bo

._§

1»

COu ao"o&

Name spring of 

LARGE SPRINGS OF EAST TENNESSEE

i s s s

CO CO CO CO

13 w S N

x5 Xs

2 S 2 2

8

i 2 2 :

J< 4. 4. 4.

CM" cf i-T CN

iglglg T-H I-H TM nS1 -

ig^ .a §

 °l§ -a s

S«M .3 I s°s s ° 

!l4

3P

11! pi «B OI-H . O Mlil »-T35tB » o w H-*g<s-o!oa

» O) ,/, « fl

<C o S A

SO

 » X!

from cevices a Dolomite gview 

co CN >a

co oT

I 2

2 4.

tN^*l 

ff

CN rH

 sg * § a

J

q * a

bfi 1 1 -w o o, 0o

.. . 03 ^3 >FH

«° a° ffi

oa 9i S

«5 80 E

Oft

fl^ct

1 1 HHI
DESCRIPTIONS OF SPRINGS 29

CO CO CO CO

f~ iO t- ti 00 ujj

"1117 1 O i-H *-H O i-l i-H

iO »O iO

O> OS o> '

>, >. >.§ 3 s 3-^ > *3

of Knoxolomite Ridge rKnox froup .... bluff in

of Dol t

per of 

G

Ridge Dolo 

. 

M crevices inom

Group. ox 

Copp cliff inobase tGroup. Knox iteofDolomite Ridge perKnox of Dolomite 

uf K

ba crevices atfrDolomite ultepec 

p.

C G

COCO COCO CO ^ ^ CO

IN i-IO i-IO 

IO IO IO LO LO

cC* 0&

T-H ^H CO <-» ^H Q

iO iO iO *O iO >O i

tlii c^co Ai ^

SS 3co 4-ct i

OO OO O 1^ OO 35« OOD US'* iHiO

1> lO O^H OO -^ I> T-l

1-

LOIO 

OS OS

<B <D

25 22

be- For

w

Kn

Limestone. mauga 

bluff Lenoirbase ofats

ne. 

Limestone. mauga 

cont adjacent to cave mLongvi and ingsport 

Group. Knox ofof Group... Knox Dolomite ultepc 

D In

Group. 

of Kon

. 

Dolomite ofcoInNewala FinFrres 

Group.

«PQ uo

«MS

S B

CO CO CO CO

CO CO CO >O

i CO tL i

3 £ 4- co

m o

§ § S

®

flS

d a -H 5 =?53

II I"3 «0

ft ft fe fl,?

a a s&s

*! M<» ftO 1" M

fSsSafMaSg So a

-! rt m
TABLE 3. Records of springs in east Tennessee 

Name of spring Geologic setting

Disc

Monthly Other

G

McMinn County

Arnwine (Cagle«). ....

Dodd. .............

Hicks-Brown 

(Hicks «).

Tmrirlo

Whiteside. ... .....

Issues from crevices in Longview Dolomite of Knox Group, adjacent to contact with Chepultepec Dolomite.

Group, near contact with Conasauga 

Group.

Group. 

Issues in a deep pool in Conasauga 

Group at base of hill formed by Chepultepec Dolomite of Knox Group.

Mascot Dolomite of Knox Group.

Conasauga Group.

Group at base of a ridge formed by 

Copper Eidge Dolomite of Knox 

Group.

June 1950 to June 1951. 

July 1951 to June 1952.

June 1950 to June 1951.

June 1950 to June 1952. 

June 1950 to June 1952.

August 1951 to January

1952. 

June 1950 to June 1952.

1952. 

July 1951 to June 1952-

September 1952, 

June 1954.

June 1954. 

September 1952, 

June 1954.

June 1954, 

September 1954.

tember 1954.

June 1954.

3

1

2

4

1

O 

1

Meigs County

Big

mauga Limestone.

June 1950 to June 1952. October 1952,

June 1954. 

October 1952. ..

4

2

Monroe County

Kilpatrick,

(Crystal «) . Conasauga Group, at base of ridge 

formed by Copper Ridge Dolomite of 

Knox Group.

4
DESCRIPTIONS OF SPRINGS 31

000

.,,

kO kO IO

III

O5 1-H * 

CO t- T)<

8sg

III

SIS

coo

V". IO W IO *O O5

*,%*,$*%

I Is III 

III

Group.. of Knox __. -. -

fault Group, of Knox near 

Shale. Athens with

1 11 

*o c "S'S 1 * 5 s

dl

O O'C P

1 If^

S S 02

1

W

«

g§

<* co^

IO kO

ga

10.-I

koeo

i!

January 1950. __.January 1950 ......

«? kOkO 3 oto*

g '-'"-I 

.3 33

to June 1951 

1952. 

June 1950toJune to1950

Limestone i....... __ _

3d Formation.... 

i ! i> -g_ o o c

>7 DJ""

d d P-H P-H

rt

d ....

W T-H CJ

g MM

hH O O

t>>

i

CJ

gM 

i

S

o o O5 t--

CO CO CO

kOCO. CO

OS CD ^ 

COM S

oo * GO-*< Tl< 

coo tCN l-H CN 

LOkO kp

T}(IM o

coco 2

COCf ^

September 1952.... October 1952 -..-- June 1954--. .. 

II S

to Jiune 1950 

June 1950to

1952. 

July to Ju1951

Group. Knox of............ bluff dolo-of large in cave

Group, nox 

formed byluffin crevices 

Limestone. mga 

sE^fiE 

SS'Si^

«I B I°

o f

fc? "S o

§ § ^s

SS o

1

i

81

CO-*

MO «kO

s:

s«

§s

!£"'

0^|

co1

<N ]

1952. line 1951. me 

June 1950 toJune 1950toJi

ft

(H

O

0

"o

Ic

a

i

' '

s-s

^ 

1

Sullivan <

sas

^}l <N CO

,-H <N 1 

kO 10 kO

CO O *O

s g 1

CO T-H OS

i-H O CO

215

T}< (M CO

CO -*

September 1952,

June 1954

<D 05 " 

§ § §

to June 19501950 toJJune Juuly 1951 to

Group, Limestone ofKnox o

fault. o

formed dolomite of)luff by 

up. 

Group of Knox ......... 

si^ss 11^1 g.a§§-s 'S'S^M*

S << 5

1

* P< "S

a g |

B S i^

1

CJ 'S

1

P

g S

CO CO CO

53 S g

1 1 1

 ^ N O

$ § § t CO O5

o o

^i CO 

^H CO

.-< <N <N CO kO kO

t- eq *

t. -H (M

,- ' .H Pf

^ 10 S?>S kf kO ^ O5

1-1 "H § <o ^ t*» > d

03 03 d d

P-J P-S

O O

with )olomite, contact near

Group, e 

of Conasauga Dolomite r

with contact Rome near

a. 

Shady adjacent Dolomite twith Honaker Dolomite ac

Group. uga 

M IS .§ d-d* s ^|§ft§'is§ caSosSg^o

£2M£fe>3°

"0 fl°*§4S*

P-H P-H O

i ,'

fa <d

i? M "i

3 P B

CO

1

^

1

lii

P 05

1«

CO ^j iS CO

&*?s

s-^s

CQCQs CQ

rO'3s o3*O

"" H"

dftftdd

Illll

s a a 3 S

'o'o'o'o'o 

OOOOO

OQ OQ OQ OQ oa

t>Pt>t>p
32 LARGE SPRINGS OF EAST TENNESSEE)

BURESS SPRING.^ 

SMITH SPRING^

FIOTJEE 11. Map showing location of springs and stations recording precipitation data in Anderson County, 

Term. (See table 3 under Anderson County.)
DESCRIPTIONS OF SPRINGS 33

FIGURE 12. Map showing location of springs and stations recording precipitation data in Blount County, 

Tenn. (See table 3 under Blount County.)
34 LARGE SPRINGS OF EAST TENNESSEE,

BRADLEY COUNTY

FIGURE 13. Map showing location of springs and stations recording precipitation data in Bradley County, 

Tenn. (See table 3 under Bradley County.)
DESCRIPTIONS OF SPRINGS 35

82° 00'

BIG SI

\/V

1950

RING

t

If

1951

4 

-4 

V

1952

3000

2000

1000

BLUE is

1

1952

PRING

\

V

1953

-r^

t

1954

4 MILES

1000

0

ELLIOTT

X

1952

SPRING

fc

V

1953

t

1954

PRECIPITATION AT ELIZABETHTON

5P1950 1951 1952 1953 1954

CARTER COUNTY

FIGTJEE 14. Map showing location of springs and stations recording precipitation data in Carter County, 

Tenn. (Bee table 3 under Carter County.)
36 LARGE SPRINGS OF EAST TENNESSEE

FIGURE 15. Map showing location of springs and stations recording precipitation data in Grainger County, 

Tenn. (See table 3 under Grainger County.)
DESCRIPTIONS OF SPRINGS 37

FIGUEE 16. Map showing location of springs and stations recording precipitation data in Qreene County, 

Term. (See table 3 under Qreene County.)

GEOCKP.C'-OLOGY LAWR-YiORIES

UN;v£:.3iTY OF AR!/.da

TUCSON, ARIZONA
38 LARGE SPRINGS OF EAST TENNESSEE

FIGURE 17. Map showing location of springs and stations recording precipitation data in Hamblen County, 

Term. (See table 3 under Hamblen County.)
DESCRIPTIONS OF SPRINGS 39

8000

ANDERSON'S 

SPRING

\-35°20' -

35° 10'-

HAMILTON COUNTY

FIGURE 18. Map showing location of springs and stations recording precipitation data in Hamilton 

County, Tenn. (See table 3 under Hamilton County.)
40 LARGE SPRINGS OF EAST TENNESSEE

83-40' 0. 83°30' 

BLUE SPRING ' ~

36-10'

BUCK HOLLOW

SPRING _

! 'As-i,.

4 MILES

30,000

25,000

20,000

15,000

10,000

5000

0

MOSSY

LLJ

-1

ILLJ I

in 

o

<c.

C3

\

V

1953

SPRIN(

K/

\{v^

1954

t

\

V

1955

6000

5000

4000

3000

2000

1000

01

MILL SPRING

1951 1952 1953 1954 1955

5000

4000

3000

2000

1000

BAKER

/

1951

SPRIN(

\

I

^

1952

-t

1

1953

10

PRECIPITATION AT JEFFERSON CITY

1951 1952 1953 1954 1955

JEFFERSON COUNTY

FIGURE 19. Map showing location of springs and stations recording precipitation data in Jefferson County, 

Tenn. (See table 3 under Jefferson County.)
DESCRIPTIONS OF SPRINGS 41

FIOTJBE 20. Map showing location of springs and stations recording precipitation data in Knox County, 

Term. (See table 3 under Knox County.)
42 LARGE SPRINGS OF EAST TENNESSEE

,-ALLEN FINE SPRING/J . \

TOM CARSON SPRING

-^-^ 

11 I

35° 40' -

10

£3 

55

PRECIPITATION AT LOUDON

1950 1951 1952

LOUDON COUNTY

FIGUBE 21. Map showing location of springs and stations recording precipitation data in Loudon County, 

Term. (See table 3 under Loudon County.)
DESCRIPTIONS OF SPRINGS 43

84°30'

ARNWINE SPRING

4 MILES

^' 

^

*) .WHITESIDE SPRING 

THOMPSON SPRING*

MALONE SPRING

ATH ENS

CHESTNUT SPRING^

CROCKETT SPRINGy.

rd 35°20'-

_--^ 

\ ,

DODD DDSPRINGRING,, / SPRINC ,f - -4-/1

MC MINN COUNTY

FIGURE 22. Map showing location of springs and stations recording precipitation data in McMinn 

County, Teim. (See table 3 under McMinn County.)
44 LARGE SPRINGS OF EAST TENNESSEE

85° 00' 84° 40'

Bl

/v

/

0 4IMILE5

/ --^

f

\

1

/"-'' i

p. i

N \ '

/

.BIG SPRING 

V / 

3 SPRING WEATHER STATION 

V, / 

X /

i 5-J

\ /

r^

V

/

._?

7

15

\\._ 

)

)

'^

/'

f' 5000

J 5 

s qnnn

oe

LLJ 

Q_

co onnn

S 1000

0

}

r

r

'

^

1950

f

i

)

/ 2000

1000

0

n

V

1951 1952 1953

CO 10

LLJ

n:

CJ

- 5

MEIGS COUNTY

PRECIPITATION

1950

AT BIG SPRING

1951 1952

FIGURE 23. Map showing location of springs and stations recording precipitation data in Meigs County 

Tenn. (See table 3 under Meigs County.)
DESCRIPTIONS OF SPRINGS 45

84 "20' 84°00'

35° 20'

MONROE COUNTY

FIGURE 24. Map showing location of springs and stations recording precipitation data in Monroe County, 

Tenn. (See table 3 under Monroe County.)
46 LARGE SPRINGS OF EAST TENNESSEE

84°40'

Mn 

2=

PRESTWOOD SPRING

4 MILES

CO 10

UJ

o: 

o

5 5

0

PRECIPITATION

lij 1

J ^~

1950

AT PARKSVILLf

J V k

1951

*w

1952

POLK COUNTY

FIQUEE 25. Map showing location of springs and stations recording precipitation data in Polk County, 

Tenn. (See table 3 under Polk County.)
DESCRIPTIONS OF SPRINGS 47

-35°40

85° 00

35°

f MORGAN SPRINGS 

0 WEATHER STATION

RHEA COUNTY

FIGUEE 26. Map showing location of springs and stations recording precipitation data in Rhea County, 

Term. (See table 3 under Rhea County.)

GEOCHROriClOGY LABORATORIES

UN;VE!;S;TY OF A-i-:GiiA

TUCSON, ARIZONA
48 LARGE SPRINGS OF EAST TENNESSEE

FIGURE 27. Map snowing location of springs and stations recording precipitation data in Roane County, 

Tenn. (See table 3 under Roane County.)
DESCRIPTIONS OF SPRINGS 49

FIGURE 28. Map showing location of springs and stations recording precipitation data in Sevier County, 

Tenn. (See table 3 under Sevier County.)
BU'MGARDNER

1000, SPRING i £52000

FIGUBE 29. Map showing location of springs and stations recording precipitation data in Sullivan County, 

Tenn. (See table 3 under Sullivan County.)
DESCRIPTIONS OF SPRINGS 51

82 l! 30' 82° 20'

3000

 36-10'-

d.1000

<U.S. FK

\/N

1951

HERY S

^A,

1952

PRING

yV^_

1953 1954

-36-00'-

4WILES

PRECIPITATION AT ERWIN

A

1951

^

1952 1953 1954.

UNICOI COUNTY

FIGTJBE 30. Map showing location of springs and stations recording precipitation data in Unicoi County, 

Tenn. (See table 3 under Unicoi County.)
52 LARGE SPRINGS OF EAST TENNESSEE

REFERENCES

Abd-El-Al, Ibrahim, 1953 Statics and dynamics of water in the Syro-Lebanese 

limestone massifs, in Proceedings of the Ankara symposium on arid zone 

hydrology (UNESCO), 1953: p. 60-76.

Bridge, Josiah, 1956, Stratigraphy of the Mascot-Jefferson City zinc district: 

U.S. Geol. Survey Prof. Paper 277, 76 p.

De Buchananne, G. D., and Richardson, R. M., 1956, Ground-water resources of 

East Tennessee: Tenn. Div. of Geol. Bull. 58, pt. 1, 393 p.

Dickson, R. R., 1960, Climate of Tennessee, in Climates of the States: Washington, U.S. Weather Bureau, 16 p.

Hem, J. D., 1959, Study and interpretation of chemical characteristics of natural 

water: U.S. Geol. Survey Water-Supply Paper 1473, 269 p.

Meinzer, O. E., 1923, Outline of ground-water hydrology with definitions: U.S. 

Geol. Survey Water-Supply Paper 494, 71 p.

 1927, Large springs in the United States: U.S. Geol. Survey Water-Supply

Paper 557, 94 p. 

Rodgers, John, 1953, Geologic map of East Tennessee: Tenn. Div. of Geol. Bull.

58, pt. 2, 168 p. 

Searcy, J. K., 1960, Graphical correlation of gaging-station records: U.S. Geol.

Survey Water-Supply Paper 1541-C, p. 67-100. 

U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1960, 1960 census of population: Washington, U.S.

Dept. of Commerce [November, I960]. 

U.S. Geological Survey, 1933, Surface water supply of the United States, 1931,

pt. 3, Ohio River basin: U.S. Geol. Survey Water-Supply Paper 713, 346 p.

 issued periodically, Surface water supply of the United States: U.S. Geol. 

Survey Water-Supply Papers 663, 683, 1173, 1206, 1236.
The U.S. Geological Survey Library has cataloged this publication as follows:

Sun, Pao-chang P.

Large springs of East Tennessee, by P-C. P. Sun, J. H. 

Criner, and J. L. Poole. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 

1963.

iv, 52 p. maps, diagrs., tables. 24 cm. (U.S. Geological Survey. 

Water-Supply Paper 1755)

Prepared in cooperation with the Tennessee Dept. of Conservation 

and Commerce, Division of Geology and Division of Water Resources.

Bibliography: p. 52.

(Continued on next card)

Sun, Pao-chang P. Large springs of east Tennessee. 

1963. (Card 2)

1. Springs Tennessee. 2. Water-supply Tennessee. 3. Water, 

Underground Tennessee. I. Criner, James Hobart, 1919- joint 

author. II. Poole, Joe Lester, 1921- joint author. III. Tennessee. Division of Geology. IV. Tennessee. Division of Water Resources. V. Title. (Series)

U. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1963 O - 690-214