Black Branch 2

Small headwater stream in an agricultural setting. The silt-dominated substrate and narrow riparian buffer suggest sediment loading from adjacent agricultural fields. Stream appears to support basic aquatic life functions but is likely impacted by land use.

The channel appears largely natural with no visible engineering modifications, riprap, or channelization. There is no evidence of active downcutting. The channel is connected to its floodplain. Minor bank erosion is present but within natural range. Score of 7 rather than higher because there are some indications of slight adjustment (excess fine sediment, minor bank erosion) likely related to agricultural land use changes.

The channel is not deeply incised; banks are low (under 3 ft) and the stream appears to access its floodplain during moderate events. No dams or withdrawals visible. Slight incision and agricultural land use may have moderately altered the flow regime through increased runoff and reduced infiltration. Score of 7 reflects functional but slightly altered hydrology.

The bed is predominantly silt/mud substrate suggesting significant fine sediment deposition likely from adjacent agricultural land. While no large bars are forming, the uniform fine sediment coverage of the bed indicates moderate deposition effects, likely in the 30-50% range. The limited pool formation and silt-dominated bed warrant a score of 5.

The stream is predominantly shallow throughout with mostly slow to moderate flow velocities. Two regimes observed: slow-shallow in the run sections and fast-shallow at the bedrock riffle visible downstream. No deep pools or fast-deep sections were observed. The uniform shallow depth limits habitat diversity.

Water fills most of the channel width and reaches the base of both banks in most areas visible. Some exposed substrate at the bedrock riffle downstream and along channel margins. Appears to be low but adequate base flow conditions. Score of 7 reflects good channel filling with minor exposure.

One bedrock riffle is visible in the downstream view. The channel is predominantly runs with occasional riffles where bedrock outcrops occur. Given the low gradient, riffles are controlled by bedrock exposures rather than alluvial features. Score of 5 reflects moderate riffle frequency in a predominantly run-dominated reach.

This is a small, low-gradient headwater stream flowing through an agricultural valley in Middle Tennessee. The limestone bedrock exposures suggest an E or C type stream with bedrock control points. The narrow, relatively deep cross-section with low banks and floodplain access suggests an E-type channel, though confidence is low due to limited planform visibility and the dominant silt substrate. The stream may be transitioning to a more C-type form as sediment loads from agriculture impact channel morphology.

The left bank (when facing downstream) is generally low with moderate slope. Some root protection from eastern red cedars and deciduous trees, but the sparse riparian density means less than 33% of bank area is protected by roots to baseflow elevation. Minor scour erosion visible. Agricultural fields are close to the bank edge on this side, limiting buffer effectiveness. Score of 6 reflects moderately stable conditions with some vulnerability.

Vegetative coverage on the left bank is approximately 50-70%. Bare soil patches are visible, and the riparian buffer is very narrow on this side with agricultural fields encroaching close to the bank edge. Eastern red cedars provide some coverage but the overall density is sparse. Score of 5 reflects marginal vegetative protection.

Left bank has thin riparian buffer with agricultural fields visible immediately beyond. Cedar trees provide some bank stabilization through root systems. The narrow buffer width is the primary concern on this bank.

The right bank (when facing downstream) shows slightly better conditions than the left. It has more deciduous tree coverage with root systems reaching the bank toe. Bank is low with moderate slope. Some root exposure and minor undercutting present but banks appear moderately stable. The riparian zone is somewhat wider on this side. Score of 7 reflects moderately stable conditions.

Right bank has approximately 60-75% vegetative coverage with deciduous trees and some herbaceous ground cover visible. Bare patches present but less extensive than left bank. Some root exposure but trees appear healthy. The wider buffer on this side provides better protection. Score of 6 reflects fair vegetative protection.

Right bank has a wider riparian buffer than the left bank. Deciduous trees and some shrubs provide moderate bank stabilization. Minor undercutting visible in places. Root exposure is moderate.

The left riparian buffer is very narrow, estimated at approximately 10-25 feet. Agricultural fields are clearly visible just beyond a thin line of trees and shrubs. For a channel width of approximately 6-8 feet, this buffer is roughly 1.5-3x the channel width but the absolute width is very narrow. Given the TDEC 30ft minimum standard, this buffer is marginal. The filtering function is compromised by the narrow width. Score of 3.

The right riparian buffer appears wider than the left, estimated at 25-50 feet based on the tree density and the distance before open land is visible. The buffer is more continuous with deciduous trees and shrubs. This better meets TDEC minimum standards. Score of 5 reflects adequate but not optimal buffer width.

There are some trees, bushes, and herbaceous plants along the banks and narrow floodplain. However, the vegetation is sparse due to winter dormancy and the overall riparian zone is narrow, particularly on the left bank. Agricultural land use dominates the broader floodplain. Score of 3 reflects fair but limited floodplain vegetation.

Currently in winter dormancy with bare deciduous canopy providing minimal shade. During growing season, canopy would likely provide 50-75% shade given the tree density. Eastern red cedars provide some year-round coverage. Current conditions show approximately 25-40% effective shade. Score of 5 reflects moderate shade conditions that are seasonally variable.

Left bank riparian buffer is critically thin with agricultural fields encroaching within the 30ft TDEC minimum. Right bank buffer is marginally adequate at approximately 25-50ft. Buffer restoration on the left bank should be a priority. Agricultural best management practices including buffer establishment would significantly improve stream corridor function.

Favorable substrate for epifaunal colonization is limited, estimated at 20-40%. Some undercut banks with root systems provide habitat, and the bedrock riffle area downstream offers some stable substrate. However, the predominant silt/mud substrate is not favorable for colonization. Limited woody debris in the channel. Score of 4 reflects below-average epifaunal habitat.

The channel bed is predominantly mud/silt dominated with very high embeddedness. Where bedrock is exposed, it provides some hard substrate, but the intervening sections are heavily embedded with fine sediment. Some root mats present along banks. Score of 3 reflects the mud-dominated conditions with only limited root mat development.

Pools are largely absent or very shallow in this reach. The stream is dominated by shallow runs and the one visible riffle. Water depth is mostly under 1 foot and the bottom is generally discernible. Minor depressions may hold slightly deeper water but no significant pools are visible. Score of 3 reflects shallow, poorly developed pool habitat.

Fish cover is limited to 3 types: overhanging vegetation (winter bare but present), undercut banks with root systems, and root mats along the bank edges. No deep pools, large woody debris in-channel, boulders, or macrophyte beds observed. The shallow, silt-dominated channel provides limited refugia. Score of 3.

No barriers to fish movement are visible in this reach. No culverts, dams, weirs, or drop structures observed. The natural bedrock riffle is not a barrier. Score of 10.

LWD is sparse in this reach. A few small to medium pieces of woody debris visible in and along the channel but no debris jams or large pieces. No pool-forming or channel-spanning LWD observed. The lack of large trees immediately adjacent to the stream on the thin-buffered left bank limits future LWD recruitment. Score of 3.

Three types of invertebrate habitat identified: undercut banks with root systems, some coarse substrate at the bedrock riffle area, and leaf packs accumulating along margins. The dominant silt/mud substrate provides limited habitat for most macroinvertebrate groups. Woody debris is sparse. Score of 4 reflects limited but not absent invertebrate habitat.

Score of 6 based on habitat assessment suggesting a facultative community is most probable given substrate conditions. No organisms directly observable in imagery. Actual sampling would be needed to verify.

No actual macroinvertebrates directly observed in imagery — assessment based on habitat characteristics. The mix of substrate types (bedrock riffle, silt runs, root mats) suggests a Group II facultative community would be most likely. The silt-dominated bed would favor tolerant taxa but the bedrock riffle could support some sensitive species.

Suitable Habitat: No

This small headwater stream in an agricultural setting provides basic habitat but lacks the complexity (deep pools, diverse substrates, large woody debris) to support species of conservation concern. The limestone bedrock outcrops suggest potential for cave-adapted or karst-associated species in the broader area.

No wildlife directly observed. Winter conditions and the presence of the surveyor may have deterred wildlife. The surveyor's presence in the stream (visible in DOWN face) would disturb any fish or aquatic organisms in the immediate area.

Water has a brown/tea color but is relatively clear — the bed is visible through the water in the down-facing image even in areas of 6-12 inch depth. No oil sheen, foam, or algal growth observed. The brown coloration may be from natural tannins or suspended fine sediment from the silt bed. Under dry weather conditions, this represents reasonable water quality for a small agricultural stream. Score of 6.

No excessive algal growth or macrophyte density observed. The water is not green-colored. Some minor algae may be present on substrates but no mats or blooms visible. Winter conditions limit algal growth, so summer conditions may differ. Adjacent agricultural land could contribute nutrient loading, but current visual indicators are minimal. Score of 7.

No manure, waste, or evidence of direct livestock access to the stream observed. The adjacent agricultural land appears to be crop fields rather than pasture. A fence line may be present on the left bank which would prevent livestock access if present. No waste pipes or discharge points visible. Score of 8 — some uncertainty about livestock use in the broader area.

This is a warmwater stream with limited thermal concerns under current conditions. The bare winter canopy provides minimal shade currently but the tree canopy would offer moderate shade during the growing season. The thin riparian buffer on the left bank limits shade potential. Agricultural fields do not contribute impervious surface heating. During summer, the shallow water and limited canopy could lead to elevated temperatures. Riparian buffer expansion would improve thermal conditions.

No active permit violations or compliance concerns observed at this location. The narrow riparian buffer on the left bank may warrant attention under agricultural BMP programs.

Terrestrial Invasives Assessment

Aquatic Invasives Assessment

Winter dormancy makes invasive species identification very difficult. Confidence is low because many common invasives (bush honeysuckle, multiflora rose, Japanese honeysuckle) are difficult to identify without foliage. A growing-season reassessment is recommended for accurate invasive species inventory. The green herbaceous growth visible on the ground may include winter-active invasives like lesser celandine or garlic mustard but cannot be confirmed from this imagery.