Black Branch 2

Small perennial stream in agricultural area. Limestone substrate provides some habitat value. Stream appears to carry some sediment load from adjacent agricultural fields. Water is slightly turbid even during apparent dry weather conditions.

The channel appears largely natural with no visible engineered modifications such as straightening, riprap, or concrete lining. However, some incision is evident from the moderate bank heights and exposed rock ledges, suggesting the stream has downcutcut somewhat, likely in response to altered hydrology from surrounding agricultural land use. The channel form appears generally natural for this geologic setting.

The channel shows moderate incision with 3-6 foot bank heights and exposed rock ledges, suggesting the stream does not frequently access its floodplain. The surrounding agricultural land use has likely increased runoff and contributed to incision. The left bank agricultural field sits well above the current stream level. The stream appears moderately disconnected from its floodplain.

Some fine sediment deposition visible over the limestone bedrock substrate, particularly in lower energy areas. The slightly turbid water suggests ongoing sediment transport. Estimated 10-25% of visible bed affected by fine sediment deposition. The exposed bedrock and cobble keep much of the substrate clean, but agricultural sediment input is likely contributing to some deposition.

At current low flow, the stream appears dominated by shallow conditions. The front view shows a relatively uniform shallow run, while the back view shows some riffles over rock. Deep pools are not evident at this location. Two of four velocity/depth regimes appear present: slow-shallow and fast-shallow. The lack of deep habitat is limiting.

Water appears to fill approximately 60-75% of the channel width based on the down view. Some exposed substrate and rock edges are visible along the left bank. The stream is at low flow but maintaining continuous flow. The surveyor standing in the stream confirms water depth is relatively shallow.

Some riffle habitat visible upstream in the back view where water flows over exposed rock substrate. The front view shows more of a run/glide. Riffle spacing appears moderate for this small stream, with limestone ledges creating some natural grade breaks. The stream appears to have some riffle-run-pool sequence but it is not well developed.

This stream appears to be a Rosgen Type F channel - entrenched and meandering with limestone bedrock and cobble substrate. The F-type classification is consistent with the observed moderate to high bank erosion potential, entrenchment within the valley, and the sinuous planform. The limestone substrate provides some grade control preventing further downcutting, but lateral erosion and bank failure are the primary geomorphic risks. The incision appears to have stabilized somewhat with the exposure of bedrock, but the narrow buffer on the left bank and agricultural land use continue to stress the system.

The left bank shows exposed limestone rock ledge faces approximately 3-4 feet high. While the natural rock provides some inherent resistance to erosion, the bank is steep with limited root protection at the base. Some undercutting visible beneath the rock ledges. Trees are present on top of the bank but their root systems do not extend fully to baseflow elevation. The narrow buffer between stream and agricultural field limits overall stability. The rock face itself is relatively stable but soil above it shows some erosion.

The left bank has sparse vegetative protection. Trees are present along the bank top but the buffer is very narrow - perhaps only 10-25 feet between the stream and the agricultural field (visible in the left face image with fence line close to stream). The exposed rock face has minimal vegetation. Some herbaceous and shrub cover present but overall coverage of the bank face is estimated at 40-60%. Agricultural field proximity limits vegetation establishment. Dormant vines (possibly invasive) visible.

Left bank is the more vulnerable bank due to narrow riparian buffer and proximity to agricultural field. The natural limestone provides some erosion resistance but does not fully protect against undercutting. The fence line visible near the stream suggests the agricultural field extends close to the riparian zone.

The right bank (visible in the right face image) shows denser riparian vegetation with multiple trees and thick understory. Root systems appear to provide better bank protection on this side. The bank appears moderately stable with some protection from roots extending toward baseflow. Less exposed bare soil than the left bank. Some exposed soil visible at the bank toe in the down view but generally better vegetated.

The right bank has denser vegetation coverage estimated at 70-85%. The riparian zone on this side appears wider with more mature trees, shrubs, and dense understory. Some potential invasive vines visible but native species appear to dominate. Eastern Red Cedar and deciduous hardwoods provide structural root protection. Minor areas of bare soil visible but overall coverage is good.

Right bank is in better condition than the left bank with a wider riparian buffer and denser vegetation. The wooded area on the right side extends further from the stream providing better bank protection and habitat.

The left riparian buffer is very narrow. The fence line visible in the left face image suggests the agricultural field begins within approximately 10-25 feet of the stream bank. For a channel approximately 6-8 feet wide, this represents roughly 0.33-0.5 times the channel width of natural vegetation. The filtering function is compromised as agricultural runoff likely has a short travel distance to the stream. The narrow tree line provides minimal buffering capacity.

The right riparian buffer appears wider, estimated at 25-50 feet or more based on the dense vegetation visible in the right face image. The area shows a mix of mature trees and thick understory extending beyond the immediate field of view. This represents approximately 1-2 times the channel width. The vegetation composition and density suggest a more functional riparian buffer on this side.

The riparian zone has a significant asymmetry. The right bank has good vegetation cover with trees, shrubs, and understory. The left bank has a very narrow buffer with trees present but minimal understory and close proximity to agricultural fields. Overall, some plants, bushes, and trees are present but the left bank buffer is compromised by agriculture. The floodplain on the left is actively farmed.

During the winter leaf-off period, canopy cover is estimated at 25-50%. Eastern Red Cedars provide some year-round shade, but the majority of trees are bare deciduous. During growing season, shade would increase significantly to perhaps 50-75%. The up face shows moderate canopy coverage with open sky visible. For a warmwater stream, this level of shading is adequate but not optimal.

The left bank riparian buffer does not appear to meet TDEC's 30-foot minimum standard. Agricultural field extends to within approximately 10-25 feet of the stream bank based on visible fence line. This represents a significant buffer deficiency that should be addressed. The right bank buffer appears adequate. Buffer restoration on the left bank would significantly improve stream protection and is a high priority recommendation.

Approximately 30-50% of the substrate appears favorable for macroinvertebrate colonization. The limestone cobble and rock substrate provide some good attachment surfaces. Some undercut bank areas and exposed root systems along the right bank offer additional habitat. However, the channel lacks diversity in habitat types - limited large woody debris, few deep pools, and limited submerged vegetation. The rock ledge on the left bank provides some crevice habitat.

The down view shows some fine sediment covering portions of the rock substrate, particularly in lower-energy areas. The limestone bedrock is exposed in many locations but fine sediment (sand and silt) covers an estimated 25-40% of the substrate surface. Agricultural runoff from the adjacent field is a likely source of this fine sediment. The stream's relatively low gradient allows sediment to settle in slower reaches.

Pool habitat is limited at this location. The channel appears predominantly shallow with the entire bed visible in most areas. The surveyor standing in the stream confirms water depth is less than about 1 foot. Some shallow pool areas may exist at bends or behind rock ledges, but deep pools are not evident. Pool habitat is a significant limiting factor for fish populations.

Four types of fish cover identified: cobble/boulder substrate providing interstitial spaces, some undercut banks (particularly on the left bank beneath rock ledges), overhanging vegetation and branches from streamside trees, and exposed root systems along the right bank. Notable absences include deep pools, large woody debris jams, and macrophyte beds. The limited pool depth significantly reduces the value of available cover.

No visible barriers to fish movement at this location. The channel appears to have continuous connectivity upstream and downstream. However, low flow conditions could seasonally limit movement of larger fish. No culverts, dams, or weirs visible within the reach. Barriers may exist elsewhere along the reach but are not visible from this position.

Large woody debris is sparse in the visible reach. A few small to medium pieces of wood are visible along the banks and in the channel, including some fallen branches in the front view. No debris jams observed. No large logs or rootwads creating pool habitat. The narrow channel and agricultural land use may limit recruitment of large woody debris. Some branches from overhanging trees are present but not yet in the water.

Three types of invertebrate habitat are present: cobble/rock substrate providing attachment surfaces and interstitial spaces, some undercut banks offering protected areas, and coarse gravel substrates. Notable absences include well-developed leaf packs, submerged logs with colonization, and fine woody debris accumulations. The limestone substrate provides good colonization surfaces but habitat diversity is limited. Some overhanging branches may eventually enter the stream to provide additional habitat.

Score of 6 assigned based on habitat quality assessment suggesting potential for Group II (facultative) communities. The limestone substrate and flowing water provide suitable habitat for organisms like caddisflies, damselflies, and crayfish. However, agricultural sediment inputs and limited habitat diversity likely reduce populations of more sensitive Group I taxa. Direct sampling would be needed to confirm.

No macroinvertebrates directly observed from the panoramic imagery. Score based on habitat assessment rather than direct observation. The limestone cobble substrate, flowing water, and relatively clear conditions suggest the stream could support a facultative macroinvertebrate community. The moderate sediment load and agricultural inputs may limit sensitive taxa. Winter conditions and the visual survey method limit macroinvertebrate detection.

Suitable Habitat: No

The stream provides basic habitat features (flowing water over rock substrate, some riparian cover) but the small size, limited pool depth, narrow buffer, and agricultural influence reduce the likelihood of supporting rare, threatened, or endangered species. The limestone substrate could potentially support certain mussel species but the stream appears too small and impacted for significant mussel populations.

No wildlife directly observed during this winter survey. The presence of a wading surveyor in the stream likely disturbed any wildlife in the immediate area. The wooded corridor along the right bank and scattered trees along the left bank provide some wildlife movement corridor function. Winter conditions limit activity of many species.

Water has a slightly turbid brown tint but the stream bed is visible in most areas through the shallow water. In the down view, substrate is clearly visible at the shallow depth. The brown color may be natural (tea-colored from organic matter) or may indicate some suspended sediment from agricultural runoff. No oil sheen, foam, or algal mats observed. Visibility appears to be approximately 1-2 feet in deeper areas.

No significant algal growth or excessive macrophyte development visible. The water is not greenish and no algal mats are present on the substrate. Some minor algal film may be present on rock surfaces but this is normal for a natural stream. The proximity to agricultural fields raises potential for nutrient inputs, but visual indicators during this winter assessment do not suggest significant enrichment. Summer conditions may differ.

No visible manure, waste, or direct livestock access to the stream. The fence line visible along the left bank suggests some separation between livestock/agricultural operations and the stream. No waste pipes or direct discharge sources visible. The agricultural field appears to be crop land or managed pasture rather than active livestock grazing area immediately adjacent to the stream. However, the fence could historically or currently contain livestock.

Stream is classified as warmwater based on the geographic location (Central Tennessee), low gradient, and agricultural setting. During winter leaf-off, shade is limited to approximately 25% from Eastern Red Cedars and remaining tree structure. During growing season, canopy would provide significantly more shade, estimated 50-70%. The narrow left bank buffer means the stream receives more direct sunlight than it would with a full riparian corridor. Widening the left bank buffer with tree planting would improve shade conditions and reduce thermal stress during summer months.

No active permit violations observed. The narrow riparian buffer on the left bank is a chronic condition rather than a recent disturbance but represents a buffer deficiency that should be addressed under MS4 buffer requirements.

Terrestrial Invasives Assessment

Aquatic Invasives Assessment

Winter conditions make positive identification difficult. The dense vine growth visible in the right bank image (right face) and along fence lines appears consistent with Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), which retains some green leaves through winter in Tennessee. This is extremely common in Central Tennessee riparian areas. Some shrub structures in the understory are consistent with bush honeysuckle (Lonicera maackii) but cannot be confirmed in winter dormancy. A growing season survey is recommended for more definitive identification. Confidence is low due to dormant season conditions.