Black Branch 2

Small headwater stream in agricultural landscape. Minimal riparian buffer and evidence of sediment input from surrounding pasture suggest potential impairment. Low flow conditions and limited habitat diversity observed.

Channel appears largely natural with no direct engineered alterations visible. However, adjacent agricultural land use has likely influenced channel form over time. Some bank erosion and incision is apparent but not severe. The channel maintains connection to its floodplain. Score of 6 reflects a generally natural channel with some degradation from surrounding land use.

Channel appears to have slight incision with banks of moderate height visible in some views. Floodplain appears accessible during higher flows. No dams or major structures limiting connectivity. Agricultural land use may have increased peak flows and altered hydrology. Score of 6 reflects slight hydrologic modification primarily from land use change.

Some fine sediment deposition is evident on the channel margins and between larger substrate particles. The channel bed shows a mix of cobble and smaller particles with some fines filling interstitial spaces. Not heavy deposition but more than minimal. Score of 6 reflects moderate sediment input likely from surrounding agricultural land.

Channel is very shallow throughout with minimal depth variation. Only shallow velocity regimes are present — slow-shallow in wider sections and fast-shallow over exposed substrate. No deep pools or fast-deep areas visible. Score of 3 reflects only 2 regimes present.

Water is flowing but very shallow, not filling the entire channel width. Considerable exposed substrate visible in the down face and front views. Water fills approximately 50-75% of the channel cross-section. Score of 5 reflects low flow conditions with moderate channel coverage.

Channel appears to be predominantly runs with some areas of very shallow flow over exposed substrate that could function as riffles. No distinct pool-riffle sequences visible. The channel is fairly uniform in depth and velocity. Score of 4 reflects limited riffle development and habitat variety.

Small headwater stream in an agricultural landscape near Nashville, TN. The channel appears to be a low-gradient sinuous stream with cobble/limestone substrate. The broad flat valley and floodplain access suggest an E-type or possibly C-type channel, though the very small size makes classification uncertain. Some characteristics of an F-type (entrenched meandering) are possible on the right bank side where higher banks and active erosion are present. Confidence is low due to the very small channel size and limited view extent.

Left bank (visible in front and left views) is low to moderate height with some areas of erosion and bare soil. Grass cover provides some stability but root depth is limited. Banks show minor scour at baseflow elevation. Some tree roots provide localized stability but coverage is incomplete. Score of 5 reflects moderately stable conditions with localized erosion.

Left bank has sparse to moderate vegetation coverage estimated at 50-70%. Primarily grass and herbaceous cover with scattered trees. Minimal riparian buffer width with quick transition to open pasture. Bare soil patches visible. Score of 4 reflects marginal vegetative protection with obvious gaps in coverage.

Left bank is lower than right bank with grass-dominated cover. Minimal riparian buffer; pasture extends close to bank edge. Fence post visible indicating agricultural property boundary. Low bank height reduces erosion risk but lack of deep-rooted vegetation limits long-term stability.

Right bank (visible in right and back views) shows moderate height (3-6ft) with steep to vertical slopes in places. Active undercutting and slumping visible with exposed root systems. Some trees providing root protection but coverage is less than 33%. Bank appears moderately unstable, particularly on the outside of bends. Score of 4 reflects active erosion processes.

Right bank has moderate vegetation coverage (50-70%) with trees and dense shrubs including what appears to be invasive privet or bush honeysuckle. The evergreen shrub mass provides bank coverage in the upstream direction. However, invasive species are present and bank face has exposed soil. Score of 5 reflects moderate coverage compromised by invasive presence.

Right bank is higher and steeper than left bank with active erosion processes including undercutting and slumping. Dense invasive shrub growth (likely privet) on upper bank. Mowed grass area visible beyond the immediate bank, suggesting property maintenance extends close to the stream. Overhead utility lines cross near the right bank.

Left riparian zone is very narrow, transitioning almost immediately from the bank edge to open pasture. Natural riparian vegetation consists of only a thin strip of grass and scattered trees, estimated at less than 10 feet wide. For a channel approximately 5 feet wide, this represents roughly 1-2x channel width of herbaceous cover but less than 0.33x of woody riparian vegetation. Filtering function is severely compromised.

Right riparian zone has slightly more vegetation including trees and dense shrubs, extending an estimated 10-25 feet before transitioning to mowed grass and open land. However, much of this vegetation is invasive species. The buffer provides some filtering but is insufficient for full ecological function.

Floodplain vegetation is largely absent on the left side where pasture extends to near the bank. On the right side, some woody vegetation exists but is heavily invaded by non-native shrubs. The floodplain vegetation is not in a natural state, dominated by agricultural grass and invasive species. Score of 2 reflects marginal conditions.

Current canopy cover is very low due to dormant season conditions with bare deciduous trees. Even at full leaf-out, the sparse tree coverage along this reach would provide less than 25% shade. The open agricultural landscape allows significant solar exposure. Score of 3 for warmwater stream with less than 25% shade.

Both banks fall well short of TDEC MS4 permit section 4.2.5.4 minimum buffer requirements. Agricultural use (pasture) extends nearly to the stream bank on the left side. The right side has some woody vegetation but is dominated by invasive species. High potential for buffer restoration through native tree and shrub planting and invasive removal. Fencing to exclude livestock may also be needed.

Limited epifaunal substrate available. Some cobble provides attachment surfaces and some undercut banks exist on the right bank. However, the channel is very shallow and lacks diversity of habitat types. No significant woody debris, root wads, or aquatic vegetation observed. Estimated 20-30% of substrate favorable for colonization. Score of 3.

Substrate visible in the down face shows cobble and gravel partially surrounded by fine sediment. Estimated 25-50% embeddedness based on visible fine particles filling interstitial spaces between larger substrate particles. Agricultural sediment input is the likely source. Score of 5.

No distinct pools are visible in any of the six views. The channel appears to be uniformly shallow with the entire bottom visible. At most, minor depressions may hold slightly deeper water but nothing approaching meaningful pool habitat. Score of 2 reflects near-absence of pool habitat.

Fish cover is limited to undercut banks on the right side, some overhanging vegetation/branches, and very shallow riffle-like areas. No deep pools, no significant woody debris, no macrophyte beds, and no boulder cover. Score of 3 for 2-3 cover types.

No barriers to fish movement visible within this scene. However, being near the end of the reach (position 47 of 53), upstream conditions are not fully known from this view. Low flow conditions may seasonally limit fish passage in this very shallow stream. Score of 8.

Very little large woody debris visible in the channel. Some small branches and twigs along margins but no significant pieces functioning as habitat. No debris jams. The sparse tree cover and agricultural setting limit LWD recruitment. Score of 2 reflects rare to absent LWD.

Only 2 types of invertebrate habitat identified: cobble substrate and some undercut banks. No significant leaf packs, woody debris, or submerged logs observed. The shallow uniform flow limits habitat diversity. Substrate appears somewhat embedded with fines, reducing interstitial spaces. Score of 3 reflects limited habitat types.

Habitat suggests potential for Group II (facultative) organisms given cobble substrate and flowing water. No direct observations possible from panoramic imagery. Score of 6 assigned as habitat-based estimate.

No macroinvertebrates directly observed in imagery. Assessment based on habitat quality only. Cobble substrate in flowing water could support Group II organisms. Score of 6 is a conservative estimate based on available habitat rather than actual observations.

Suitable Habitat: No

Degraded headwater stream in agricultural landscape with minimal habitat diversity. Unlikely to support species of concern given limited buffer, shallow water, and lack of complex habitat features.

No wildlife directly observed. Some brush piles on right bank could provide cover for small mammals or birds. The open agricultural landscape limits wildlife corridor function. Dormant season conditions may reduce wildlife visibility.

Water has slight brown turbidity but is not severely clouded. The stream is so shallow that the bed is easily visible throughout. The brownish color suggests some suspended sediment, likely from upstream agricultural sources. No sheen, foam, or algal mats observed. Score of 5 reflects slightly turbid water under apparent dry weather conditions.

No significant algal growth or macrophyte development visible. The substrate does not appear to have heavy biofilm. Some minor green tinge on rocks may indicate early spring algal growth but nothing excessive. Score of 7 reflects limited nutrient enrichment indicators, though this may be partly due to dormant season conditions.

Adjacent pasture land suggests livestock use of the area, and the minimal fencing visible indicates potential livestock access to the riparian zone. However, no direct evidence of manure in the stream or on the banks is visible in these images. Score of 7 reflects potential but not confirmed livestock impact.

Warmwater headwater stream with very limited shade. Even during full leaf-out, the sparse tree cover along the riparian corridor would provide minimal canopy coverage. The shallow water depth makes the stream particularly vulnerable to thermal warming during summer months. Riparian buffer restoration with native trees would significantly improve thermal regulation.

No active construction or recent disturbance requiring permit compliance review. The primary concern is the lack of riparian buffer, which is a long-standing condition related to agricultural land use rather than a recent disturbance.

Terrestrial Invasives Assessment

Aquatic Invasives Assessment

Evergreen shrubs visible in the back (upstream) view appear to be privet (Ligustrum sp.) based on their retained green foliage in early spring while surrounding native vegetation is dormant. Some scattered bush honeysuckle may also be present. Japanese honeysuckle vines likely present but difficult to confirm in dormant season. The invasive shrub mass is concentrated on the right bank in the upstream direction and forms a dense thicket. Confidence is medium as dormant season limits precise species identification.