**BIOLOGICAL OPINION**

**FOR THE PROPOSED**

**DISPOSITION OF LANDS ACQUIRED**

**BY THE TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY**

**FOR THE COLUMBIA DAM PROJECT,**

**MAURY COUNTY, TENNESSEE**

**Prepared by:**

**James C. Widlak**

**Ecological Services Field Office**

**446 Neal Street**

**Cookeville, Tennessee**

**March 1999**

**INTRODUCTION**

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has reviewed the biological
assessment submitted for the proposal by the **Tennessee Valley
Authority (TVA**) to dispose of lands acquired for the **Columbia Dam
project** located in **Maury County, Tennessee**. Your December 14,
1998, request for formal consultation was received on December 17, 1998.
This document represents the Service=s biological opinion on the effects
of that action on the following federally listed species in accordance
with Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended
(16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.):

**Indiana bat - *Myotis* *sodalis* (E)**

**Gray bat - *Myotis* *grisescens* (E)**

**Birdwing pearly mussel - *Lemiox* *rimosus* (E)**

**Cumberland monkeyface pearly mussel - *Quadrula* *intermedia* (E)**

**Cumberlandian combshell - *Epioblasma* *brevidens* (E)**

**Oyster mussel - *Epioblasma* *capsaeformis* (E)**

**Tan riffleshell - *Epioblasma* *walkeri* (E)**

**Pale lilliput pearly mussel - *Toxolasma* *cylindrellus* (E)**

**Leafy prairie clover - *Dalea* *foliosa* (E)**

**Eggert=s sunflower - *Helianthus* *eggertii* (T)**

0 [Consultation History]{.underline}

Construction of the Columbia Dam and Reservoir was begun in August 1973.
The original plans were for a summer pool at 630 feet above mean sea
level with a winter drawdown at 603 feet above mean sea level. The
primary purposes of the reservoir were to provide recreational
opportunities, flood protection, and water supply for the City of
Columbia and Maury County TVA 1998).

The Fish and Wildlife Service, upon completion of formal consultation
with TVA, issued a biological opinion in February 1977. That opinion
concluded that the Columbia Dam project would likely result in jeopardy
to the birdwing pearly mussel and the Cumberland monkeyface pearly
mussel. Subsequently, TVA evaluated two alternatives which would provide
desired benefits without jeopardizing the two endangered species. Both
alternatives, a river development and low pool alternative, were found
to be unacceptable. A part of this evaluation was the development of a
conservation program (i.e., the Cumberlandian Mollusk Conservation
Program) to benefit the listed species and other endemic mollusks (TVA
1998). The program would, if successfully implemented, improve the
status of the two endangered mussel species to the point at which
construction of Columbia Dam would not jeopardize their continued
existence. A budget of several millions of dollars was proposed for
implementation of nine identified activities: (1) mussel distribution
surveys, (2) identification of potential fish hosts, (3) identification
of fish hosts, (4) artificial propagation, (5) analysis of physical
habitat, (6) analysis of water quality factors, (7) analysis of plant
and plankton factors, (8) analysis of macrofauna factors, and (9)
selection of transplant sites and habitat characterization.

The Service revised its biological opinion in September 1979 and
accepted TVA=s proposed Cumberlandian Mollusk Conservation Program as a
reasonable and prudent alternative to avoid jeopardy which would allow
completion of the project as originally designed. However, the Service
stipulated that the conservation program (i.e., the nine identified
activities) must be proven successful prior to closure of the dam. In
1982, TVA transplanted 1,000 birdwing pearly mussels from the Duck River
to each of four sites out of the project impact area. After two years of
monitoring the transplanted mussels, it was concluded that this portion
of the program was not successful, in part because many of the
transplanted mussels were not relocated during subsequent monitoring
efforts. Additionally, although it was concluded in 1979 that three
other endangered mussel species (i.e., turgid-blossom, pale lilliput,
tan riffleshell) no longer existed in the Duck River, a fresh dead
specimen of one species (tan riffleshell) was found during a 1988 survey
of the river reach which would be impounded by Columbia Dam. (TVA 1998)

In 1995, TVA concluded that the Columbia Dam project could not be
completed as a dam and reservoir on the Duck River, in part because
several of the identified activities in the Cumberlandian Mollusk
Conservation Program were not successfully implemented. Consequently,
preparation of an environmental impact statement was begun to consider
the effects of alternative uses for the lands acquired by TVA for the
project (TVA 1998). That effort is ongoing and will include the results
of this formal consultation, which addresses effects to listed species
resulting from implementation of the preferred alternative (TVA 1998).

This biological opinion is based on information provided in the December
14, 1998, biological assessment; meetings in 1997 attended by
representatives from TVA, Fish and Wildlife Service, Tennessee Natural
Heritage, and Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency to discuss alternative
uses for the lands; and other sources of information. A complete
administrative record of this consultation is on file in the Service=s
Cookeville Field Office, 446 Neal Street, Cookeville, Tennessee;
telephone 931/528-6481.

**BIOLOGICAL OPINION**

0 [Project Description]{.underline}

The proposed action is the disposition of the uncompleted Columbia Dam
and the disposal of lands acquired by TVA for the reservoir. The
preferred alternative is to modify the existing concrete and earthen
components of the dam to stabilize present control on flood flows in the
Duck River. Various methods (e.g., sawing, drilling, blasting, or impact
machinery) will be used to remove the upper parts of the dam down to
approximately 26 feet above the existing foundation. Internal machinery
and usable components in the dam will be removed as this work proceeds.
The majority of the 12,000 cubic yards of concrete removed from the dam
will be used to stabilize the side slopes of the western channel and to
form the core of a 30-foot tall berm over the existing dam foundation.
The earthen portion of the dam will be used to form work surfaces around
the vertical concrete members as they are demolished, then reshaped to
form the side surfaces of the western channel. Standard construction,
demolition, and best management practices will be employed during all
phases of removal of the dam to minimize noise, erosion, dust, and other
potential environmental impacts. Upon completion of required work, the
entire disturbed area will be re-seeded and planted with trees to
facilitate stabilization of the site. Estimated time for the proposed
work is nine months to one year (TVA 1998).

Another component of the proposed action is the determination of future
use of the lands acquired by TVA for the Columbia Dam project. To
accommodate the reservoir, 12,800 acres of land were acquired. Of five
alternatives considered, the preferred alternative is a combination of
public use and protection. This alternative would place the lands into
four categories\--Duck River Protective Corridor, Fountain Creek
Protective Corridor, Fountain Creek Reservoir Land, and Possible
Development Areas. Limits on the types of activities which could be
conducted on each of the four categories will be specified in deed
restrictions attached to the land title at the time of transfer. The
four categories are as follows:

> ***Duck River Protective Corridor*** - Columbia Dam project lands
> totaling approximately 6,800 acres located within the 100-year
> floodplain along the Duck River, and project lands supporting known
> populations of terrestrial endangered or threatened species, unique
> natural areas, and cultural resources.
>
> ***Fountain Creek Protective Corridor*** - Columbia Dam project lands
> totaling approximately 900 acres within the 100-year floodplain along
> Fountain Creek (a tributary to the Duck River) and its tributaries.
>
> ***Fountain Creek Reservoir Lands*** - Columbia Dam project lands
> totaling approximately 2,900 acres within the Fountain Creek
> watershed, but outside the 100-year floodplain. This entire area, plus
> the 900 acres in the Fountain Creek Protective Corridor, will be
> reserved for possible future use as a water supply reservoir.
>
> ***Potential Development Area*** - All Columbia Dam project lands not
> assigned to one of the other three categories. These lands total
> approximately 2,200 acres. Prior easements would affect approximately
> 250 acres of these lands in parcels along Tom Hitch Parkway and Iron
> Bridge Road. These prior easements will be used as sites for
> construction of schools, civil defense facilities/fire halls,
> convenience centers, or other broad-based community services.

Specific deed restrictions and preamble to be attached to the land
transfer document are as follows:

GRANTEE, by accepting this conveyance, deed restrictions and agrees on
behalf of itself, its successors and assigns, that the following
constitute real deed restrictions which attach to and run with the land
hereby conveyed and will be binding upon anyone who may hereafter come
into ownership thereof or be authorized to use such land whether by
purchase, devise, descent, or succession; that these deed restrictions
may be enforced by GRANTOR (the United States of America), TVA, or any
agency of GRANTOR whose responsibilities include the protection of
wildlife or the environment (including, without limitation, the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service); and that any failure to enforce any deed
restriction shall not be construed to be a waiver of such deed
restriction or any other deed restriction:

1.  For so long as the property conveyed hereby is owned by the State of
    Tennessee or any governmental subdivision thereof, the property and
    all facilities constructed thereon shall at all times by made
    available for use by all members of the general public without
    distinction or discrimination, and no person shall, on the grounds
    of race, color, national origin, handicap, or age, be excluded from
    participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to
    discrimination in the use of the property, which shall be
    administered in full compliance with the provisions of Title VI of
    the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act
    of 1973, the Age Discrimination Act of 1975, and all regulations
    issued by TVA thereunder at 18 C.F.R. pts. 1302, 1307, and 1309, the
    provisions of which, and all future amendments of such statutes and
    regulations, are incorporated herein by reference and made a part
    hereof; provided however, that nothing herein shall preclude
    restricting the public=s access to property as necessary to protect
    sensitive resources, including, but not limited to, species,
    habitats, and cultural resources.

2.  Except to the extent that the use of certain portions of the land
    hereby conveyed is further restricted herein, GRANTEE deed
    restrictions that the land hereby conveyed shall be used only for
    purposes now authorized by Section 4(k)(a) of the Tennessee Valley
    Authority Act of 1933, as amended (hereinafter ATVA Act@). These
    purposes include recreation or use for summer residences or for the
    operation of pleasure resorts for boating, fishing, swimming, or any
    similar purpose; provided, however, that the occupancy of a
    residence at times other than, or in addition to, the summer season
    shall not be deemed to be a breach of this deed restriction;
    provided, further, that the use of a reservoir for water supply
    purposes as well as recreation shall not be deemed to be a breach of
    this deed restriction.

3.  GRANTEE shall comply with all applicable standards and requirements
    relating to environmental protection and pollution control now in
    effect or hereafter established by or pursuant to Federal, State, or
    local statutes, ordinances, regulations, or codes.

4.  GRANTEE will conduct all land-disturbing activities on the property
    in accordance with best management practices as defined by Section
    208 of the Clean Water Act and implementing regulations, to control
    erosion and sedimentation so as to prevent adverse impact on water
    quality and related aquatic interests, including threatened and
    endangered species.

5.  GRANTEE will not construct any structure or facility for which TVA
    approval is required under Section 26a of the TVA Act until plans
    for such structure or facility have been submitted to TVA and have
    been approved in writing in accordance with established procedures.
    Nothing in this instrument shall be construed as constituting such
    approval by TVA.

6.  GRANTEE will not construct or maintain any buildings, fill, or other
    structures, except water-use facilities constructed in accordance
    with plans approved in advance by TVA, on any portion of the
    property which is located within the limits of the 100-year floodway
    as defined or established by the Federal Emergency Management
    Agency. GRANTEE will not construct or maintain any buildings, fill,
    or other structures within the 100-year floodplain unless: (a)
    GRANTEE determines there is no practicable alternative to locating
    the structures in the floodplain; (b) such structures comply with
    all applicable regulations for construction in the floodplain; (c)
    the structures are designed so as to minimize potential flood damage
    and harm to the floodplain; and (d) the elevation of the floor level
    of all such buildings is at least 1 foot above the elevation of the
    100-year floodplain. GRANTEE will not construct any buildings, fill,
    or other structures within the wetlands, as described in TVA=s Final
    Environmental Impact Statement entitled Use of Lands Acquired for
    the Columbia Dam Component of the Duck River Project (hereinafter
    ALand Use FEIS@), unless: (a) there is no practicable alternative to
    such construction; (b) the construction is designed to include all
    practicable measures to minimize harm to the wetlands which may
    result from such use; and (c) all applicable permits and approvals
    for construction in the wetlands have been obtained, including any
    necessary permits or approvals from the U.S. Army Corps of
    Engineers.

7.  Any residential development or other use, on any portion of the
    property where residential development or another use is permitted
    under this deed, shall conform to all applicable environmental
    commitments identified and contained in the Land Use FEIS.

8.  GRANTEE shall not use or permit the use of the land identified as
    the Duck River Protective Corridor, as shown on the map attached
    hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit A \[see Biological
    Assessment Figure 5\], for any purpose other than recreation
    purposes. As used in this deed restriction, Arecreation purposes@
    includes hiking, hunting, boating, fishing, swimming, sightseeing,
    camping, wildlife management (including agricultural use related to
    wildlife management, such as food crops and hay), resource
    conservation and preservation activities, and similar uses, but does
    not include residential use or intensive recreational uses such as,
    but not limited to, golf courses, off-road vehicles, and pleasure
    resorts. In addition, GRANTEE shall not use or permit the use of
    such land for any purpose that would diminish its value for
    mitigation of environmental losses associated with the development
    of a Fountain Creek Reservoir; provided, however, that this
    additional restriction shall no longer apply if, after January 1,
    2050, GRANTEE determines that a Fountain Creek Reservoir will not be
    built.

9.  Unless and until the land identified as the Fountain Creek
    Protective Corridor, as shown on the map attached hereto and
    incorporated herein as Exhibit A, is used for a Fountain Creek
    Reservoir, GRANTEE shall not use or permit the use of such land for
    any purposes other than recreation purposes. As used in this deed
    restriction, Arecreation purposes@ includes hiking, hunting,
    boating, fishing, swimming, sightseeing, camping, wildlife
    management (including agricultural use related to wildlife
    management, such as food crops and hay), resource conservation and
    preservation activities, and similar uses, but does not include
    residential use or intensive recreational uses such as, but not
    limited to, golf courses, off-road vehicles, and pleasure resorts.
    In addition, prior to the year 2050, GRANTEE shall not use or permit
    the use of such land for any purpose that would be inconsistent with
    the future use of the land as a reservoir for recreation and water
    supply.

10. Until the year 2050 or until the construction of a Fountain Creek
    Reservoir, whichever first occurs, the land identified as the
    Fountain Creek Reservoir Land, as shown on the map attached hereto
    and incorporated herein as Exhibit A, shall be reserved for
    reservoir purposes. During this period, GRANTEE shall not use or
    permit the use of such land for any purposes other than recreation
    purposes. As used in this deed restriction, Arecreation purposes@
    includes hiking, hunting, boating, fishing, swimming, sightseeing,
    camping, wildlife management (including agricultural use related to
    wildlife management, such as food crops and hay), resource
    conservation and preservation activities, and similar uses, but does
    not include residential use or intensive recreational uses such as,
    but not limited to, golf courses, off-road vehicles, and pleasure
    resorts. In addition, during this period, GRANTEE shall not use or
    permit the use of such land for any purpose that would be
    inconsistent with the future use of the land as a reservoir for
    recreation and water supply. Beginning January 1, 2050, and
    thereafter, whether or not a Fountain Creek Reservoir has been
    built, such land may be used for any purpose now authorized by
    Section 4(k)(a) of the TVA Act, subject to deed restrictions 1-6
    above; provided, however, that if a Fountain Creek Reservoir is not
    built, the use of the land identified as the Fountain Creek
    Protective Corridor shall continue to be restricted as provided in
    deed restriction 8 above in perpetuity.

11. Until January 1, 2050 (and thereafter, if a Fountain Creek Reservoir
    is built), any development of the Fountain Creek Reservoir Land
    conveyed by this deed, as shown in the map attached hereto and
    incorporated herein as Exhibit A, and other lands in the watershed
    of the potential Fountain Creek Reservoir otherwise acquired by
    GRANTEE from any source, shall be consistent with all environmental
    standards and requirements relating to the use of the reservoir for
    water supply, including standards and requirements for source water
    protection.

12. The entity or entities that manage the Duck River Protective
    Corridor, the Fountain Creek Protective Corridor, and/or the
    Fountain Creek Reservoir Land for GRANTEE shall have experience in,
    and statutory responsibility for, managing lands for natural
    resources and recreation purposes and shall have law enforcement
    authority. The management entity may enter into contracts concerning
    permitted uses of these lands but must retain and diligently
    exercise oversight and law enforcement authority.

13. GRANTEE shall, before conveying to a third party any of the property
    hereby conveyed, and before commencing or allowing any action on the
    property that can result in changes in the character or use of
    historic properties on the property, if any such historic properties
    are present in the area of potential effects, obtain the
    certification of the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) that
    the SHPO has completed the determinations and consultations required
    by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation=s (Advisory
    Council) regulations implementing the National Historic Preservation
    Act. As used herein, Ahistoric properties@ means any prehistoric or
    historic district, site, building, structure, or object included in,
    or eligible for inclusion in, the National Register of Historic
    Places. The Adeterminations and consultations@ referred to herein
    mean identifying historic properties, evaluating historical
    significance, assessing the effects of the proposed action on
    historic properties, and consulting with the Advisory Council, all
    as provided in the Advisory Council=s regulations. If any proposed
    action will have an adverse effect on historic properties, GRANTEE
    shall seek ways to avoid or reduce the effects.

0 [Background Information]{.underline}

***Gray bat***

The gray bat, *Myotis* *grisescens*, was listed as endangered on April
28, 1976. It is the largest member of the genus in the eastern United
States, with forearm lengths of 40 to 46 millimeters and weights of 7 to
16 grams (USFWS 1982). It is easily distinguished from all other bats
within its range by its uni-colored dorsal fur and its wing membrane
which connects to the foot at the ankle (USFWS 1982).

Populations of gray bats occur in a limited geographic range in the
limestone karst area of the southeastern United States. The species= is
distributed primarily in Alabama, northern Arkansas, Kentucky, Missouri,
and Tennessee. Smaller populations are known to occur in northwestern
Florida, western Georgia, southeastern Kansas, southern Indiana,
southern and southwestern Illinois, northeastern Oklahoma, northeastern
Mississippi, western Virginia, and western North Carolina (USFWS 1982).
Historically, individual hibernating colonies of gray bats contained
100,000 to 1,500,000 or more bats. Current numbers of gray bats at the
nine primary hibernacula range from 25,000 to 700,000 individuals (USFWS
1982). A cave located on Columbia Dam lands is known to be used by
migrant gray bats; evidence indicates that large numbers of gray bats
may use this cave during spring and fall migration (TVA 1998).

The gray bat is a cave-dwelling species that, with few exceptions,
roosts in caves throughout the year. This species exhibits very highly
specific habitat requirements which renders most caves unsuitable.
Because it is highly selective of its roosting habitat, approximately 95
percent of the entire known species hibernates in only nine caves (USFWS
1982). Hibernacula are generally deep and vertical, acting as cold air
traps. Females select caves that act as warm air traps for maternity
roosts. Maternity caves are generally located within one kilometer of a
river or reservoir which provides foraging habitat, although gray bats
have been found foraging more than 30 miles from their maternity roosts
(USFWS 1982).

For the most part, adult gray bats forage almost exclusively over water
along river or reservoir edges, although some individuals have been seen
foraging in forest canopy along river edges. The primary prey item of
gray bats is thought to be mayflies (USFWS 1982). Newly volant young
gray bats frequently feed in the forest canopy surrounding the maternity
cave, and the adults typically fly through forest canopy between the
roost and foraging habitat (USFWS 1982).

Most gray bats migrate between summer caves and hibernacula. Breeding
takes place upon arrival at the hibernacula in early September, and the
females enter hibernation immediately or shortly thereafter. Males
remain active for several weeks, but all individuals are generally in
the hibernacula by early November (USFWS 1982). The females emerge from
hibernation in late March or early April and become pregnant soon after
emergence. Juveniles emerge next, followed by the adult males; most
individuals have left the hibernacula by mid-May. Summer colonies
inhabit a traditional home range that contains several roosting caves
scattered along a river or reservoir edge. Females select the warmest
cave as a maternity roost; juveniles and males roost in the more
peripheral caves within the home range. Young are born in late May or
early June and are volant in 20 to 35 days (USFWS 1982).

***Indiana bat***

The Indiana bat, *Myotis* *sodalis*, was listed as endangered on March
11, 1967. It is a medium-sized member of the genus, growing to a length
of 49 millimeters and having a forearm length of 35 to 41 millimeters
(USFWS 1983). The Indiana bat resembles the little brown bat, but
differs in several morphological features (USFWS 1983).

According to the known and suspected range of the Indiana bat presented
in the species= recovery plan (USFWS 1983), the Indiana bat ranges over
an area of approximately 580,550 square miles in the eastern one-half of
the United States. Large hibernating populations occur in Indiana,
Missouri, and Kentucky; smaller populations and individual records are
also known from Alabama, Arkansas, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia,
Illinois, Iowa, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, New
Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania,
Tennessee, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wisconsin. A cave
approximately nine miles from Columbia Dam lands is reported to contain
Indiana bats (TVA 1998). Although no Indiana bats were found during
recent cave surveys in the project area, the cave may support a roosting
population during the summer. Additionally, forested lands in and around
the project area may provide maternity and foraging habitat for this
species (TVA 1998).

Indiana bats hibernate in caves and mines that provide specific climatic
conditions; preferred hibernacula have stable winter temperatures below
10 degrees Celsius (optimal temperature is 4 to 8 degrees Celsius) and
relative humidities above 74 percent. Few caves or mine shafts provide
these conditions; therefore, approximately 85 percent of the species
hibernates in only seven caves or abandoned mine shafts (USFWS 1983).
Prior to hibernation, Indiana bats undergo swarming, an activity in
which the bats congregate around the hibernacula, flying into and out of
the cave, but roosting in trees outside. Swarming continues for several
weeks, during which time the bats replenish fat reserves prior to
hibernation (USFWS 1983). Depending on local weather conditions,
swarming may continue through October, or longer. Males generally remain
active longer than females during this pre-hibernation period, but all
Indiana bats are usually hibernating by late November (USFWS 1983).
Indiana bats typically hibernate in dense clusters, with bat densities
ranging in size from 300 to approximately 500 individuals per square
foot (Clawson et al. 1980).

During the summer, Indiana bats utilize two types of roosting habitat.
Females emerge from hibernation first, generally in late March or early
April, followed by the males. Although most hibernating colonies leave
the hibernacula by late April, some males may spend the summer in the
vicinity of the hibernaculum. Those leaving the hibernaculum migrate
varying distances to their summer habitats. Some males may roost in
caves during the summer, and recent data indicates that loose bark or
cavities in trees also provide suitable roosting habitat.

In addition to replenishing fat reserves prior to hibernation, mating
occurs during the swarming season after which the females enter directly
into hibernation. Females become pregnant soon after emergence from the
hibernacula and form small maternity colonies under loose bark or in
cavities of snags or mature live trees in riparian or upland forest.
Each female gives birth to a single young in late June or early July and
the young become volant in approximately one month. By late August, the
maternity colonies begin to disperse.

Indiana bat maternity sites generally consist of one to several primary
maternity roost trees (i.e., trees used repeatedly by relatively high
numbers of bats in the maternity colony during the maternity season) and
varying numbers of alternate roost trees (i.e., those trees used by
smaller numbers of bats through the course of the maternity season).
Primary roost trees that have been studied to date have ranged in size
from 12.2 to 29.9 inches in diameter at breast height (dbh)(Romme et al.
1995). Studies have shown that adults in maternity colonies may use as
few as two, to as many as 33, alternate roosts (Humphrey et al. 1977;
Gardner et al. 1991; Callahan 1993; Romme et al. 1995). Alternate roost
trees also tend to be large, mature trees, but the range in size is
somewhat wider than that for primary roosts (7.1 to 32.7 inches dbh
\[Romme et al. 1995\]). In Missouri, maximum distances between roost
trees used by bats from the same maternity colony have ranged from 1.0
to 1.9 miles (Callahan 1993). Snags (i.e., dead standing trees) exposed
to direct solar radiation were found to be used most frequently by
Indiana bats as summer roosts, followed by snags not fully exposed to
solar radiation and live trees not fully exposed (Callahan 1993).

Until recently, most documented Indiana bat maternity colonies were
located in riparian or floodplain forest habitats (Humphrey et al.
1977). Recent studies and survey results, however, indicate that upland
forest provides important maternity habitat for Indiana bats (Gardner et
al. 1990; Romme et al. 1995). In addition, females are known to exhibit
relatively strong loyalty to summer roosting and foraging habitat
(Bowles 1981; Gardner et al. 1991, 1991a). It was also found that
Indiana bats occupy distinct home ranges during the summer (Gardner et
al. 1990). Average home range sizes vary from approximately 70 acres
(juvenile males) to over 525 acres (post-lactating adult females).
Roosts occupied by individuals ranged from 0.33 mile to over 1.6 miles
from preferred foraging habitat, but are generally within 1.2 miles of
water (e.g., stream, lake, pond, natural or manmade water-filled
depression).

A habitat suitability index model was recently developed for the Indiana
bat (Romme et al. 1995) which identifies nine variables that comprise
the components of summer habitat for the species. The model was
developed for use in southern Indiana, but may also be applicable in
other areas within the species= range. Five variables considered
important for roosting habitat within analysis areas include the amount
of overstory canopy, diameter of overstory trees, density of potential
live roost trees, density of snags, and the amount of understory cover.
Variables considered to be important foraging habitat components include
the amount of overstory canopy and the percentage of trees in the 2.0 to
4.7 inch dbh class. Distance to water and percentage of the analysis
area with forest cover are also considered to be important habitat
variables. The habitat model classifies species of trees that may
provide roosts for Indiana bats. Class I trees include:

> Silver maple Shagbark hickory Shellbark hickory
>
> Bitternut hickory Green ash White ash
>
> Eastern cottonwood Red oak Post oak
>
> White oak Slippery elm American elm

These species are likely to develop the loose, exfoliating bark as they
age and die that are preferred by Indiana bats as roosting sites. Romme
et al. (1995) also identified Class II trees, including sugar maple,
shingle oak, and sassafras as tree species believed to be of somewhat
lesser value for roosting Indiana bats. Other species in this group
include:

> Red maple Yellow buckeye Sourwood
>
> Chestnut oak Pignut hickory American beech
>
> Black gum Sycamore Black locust
>
> Scarlet oak Black oak

These are considered as Class II species because they have similar bark
characteristics, bark retention after tree death or injury, and hollow
bole development as Romme=s Class I species (John MacGregor, U.S. Forest
Service, personal communication). Class III trees are all other species
not included in the other two classes that are less likely to provide
optimal roosting habitat, but may develop suitable cracks, crevices, or
loose bark after death.

In southern Indiana where the habitat suitability index model was
developed, optimal Indiana bat roosting habitat consists of areas that
are located within 0.6 mile of open water and that contain at least 30
percent forest cover which meets the following requirements: (a)
roosting habitat consisting of overstory canopy cover of 60 to 80
percent, overstory trees with an average dbh of 15.7 inches at a density
of at least 16 or more per acre, snags with a dbh of at least 8.7 inches
at a density of at least 6 snags per acre, and understory cover (i.e.,
from 3 feet above the forest floor to the bottom of the overstory
canopy) of 35 percent or less; and (b) foraging habitat consisting of
overstory canopy cover of 50 to 70 percent, with 35 percent or less of
the understory trees in the 2 to 5 inch dbh size class (Romme et al.
1995). Although these optimal values were developed for southern
Indiana, they may be applicable to the Columbia Dam project area.

***Birdwing pearly mussel***

The birdwing pearly mussel, *Lemiox* *rimosus*, is a Cumberlandian
species (endemic to the southern Appalachian Mountains and Cumberland
Plateau regions). It was listed as endangered on June 24, 1976. It is a
small mussel, seldom exceeding 50 millimeters in length, 40 millimeters
in height, and 25 millimeters in width (USFWS 1984). The valves are
slightly inflated and sub-triangular to sub-ovate in shape. The surface
of the valves is marked by strong, irregular growth lines; and the
posterior two-thirds of the valves are strongly corrugated. Valve color
is generally olive green to dark green or black, with faint rays present
on younger individuals. Nacre color is always white; the posterior
portion of the nacre is iridescent white (USFWS 1984).

Historically, the birdwing pearly mussel had a relatively wide
distribution in the Tennessee River drainage. Populations were known
from the Tennessee River (TN), Paint Rock River (AL), Flint River (AL),
Elk River (TN), Duck River (TN), Holston River (TN), North Fork Holston
River (TN;VA), Nolichucky River (TN), Clinch River (TN;VA), North Fork
Clinch River (VA), and Powell River (TN;VA). Although the birdwing
pearly mussel was reported from the Cumberland River in the 1800\'s,
subsequent surveys of the Cumberland River and its tributaries do not
include records of this species. Currently, the birdwing pearly mussel
is known only from the Duck River, Elk River, Clinch River, and Powell
River (USFWS 1984). It is considered to be rare in the latter three
rivers, but it is relatively abundant in the Duck River (USFWS 1984; TVA
1998). During surveys conducted in 1979 and 1988, the birdwing pearly
mussel was collected from Duck River Mile 147 to 179, and was one of the
more abundant species encountered (TVA 1998).

The birdwing pearly mussel is similar to most mussel species in its
habitat requirements. It is primarily found in riffle or shoal areas
with fast-flowing water in mixed, silt-free substrate consisting of
stable sand, gravel, cobble, and rubble (USFWS 1984). It is a long-term
breeder, and the greenside darter and banded darter are likely the fish
hosts (Parmalee and Bogan 1998).

***Cumberland monkeyface pearly mussel***

The Cumberland monkeyface pearly mussel, *Quadrula* *intermedia*,
another Cumberlandian species, was also listed as endangered on June 24,
1976 (USFWS 1984a). It is a medium-sized mussel, reaching 75 to 80
millimeters in length (Parmalee and Bogan 1998). The valves are
sub-quadrate to sub-triangulate in shape and the beaks are moderately
high and located in the anterior third of the shell. The
posterior-dorsal surface is rounded, but is interrupted by a sinus
formed by the radial depression. The posterior ridge is slightly
elevated above the outline of the shell, but in females it is marked by
a deep, wide, radial depression ending in a rounded sinus (USFWS 1984a;
Parmalee and Bogan 1998). The outer surface of the valves is
greenish-yellow with numerous green spots, chevrons, or zig-zags, with
broken green rays and is well covered with large, elevated tubercles or
pustules on the posterior two-thirds of the shell. The nacre is
generally white, straw-colored, or salmon in color (USFWS 1984a).

The historical distribution of the Cumberland monkeyface pearly mussel
included the Tennessee River (TN), Elk River (TN), Duck River (TN),
Holston River (TN;VA), North Fork Holston River (TN;VA), South Fork
Holston River (TN;VA), Nolichucky River (TN), French Broad River (TN),
Tellico River (TN), Clinch River (TN;VA), and Powell River (TN;VA).
Records of the Cumberland monkeyface pearly mussel collected from the
Cumberland River drainage are now thought to be the rough rockshell
(*Quadrula* *tuberosa*), a species presently thought to be extinct
(USFWS 1984a). There are currently only three extant populations of the
Cumberland monkeyface pearly mussel: Duck River, Elk River, and Powell
River (USFWS 1984a; TVA 1998). Since 1979, only 15 live individuals have
been collected in the Duck River between river miles 162 and 179 (TVA
1998).

The Cumberland monkeyface pearly mussel is typically found in riffle or
shoal habitat with swift flow over stable, silt-free substrate
consisting of sand, gravel, cobble, and rubble. It has never been found
in ponded river reaches or in smaller streams (USFWS 1984a). This is a
short-term breeder; fertilization occurs in May and glochidia are
released in June and July. The streamline chub and blotched chub are
thought to serve as glochidial hosts (Parmalee and Bogan 1998).

***Tan riffleshell***

The tan riffleshell, *Epioblasma* *walkeri*, was listed as endangered on
August 23, 1977 (USFWS 1984b). It is a small mussel, seldom exceeding 60
millimeters in length (Parmalee and Bogan 1998). The valves are
elliptical or obovate in shape; the anterior end is rounded and the
posterior end protrudes slightly in males and is rounded in females. The
outer surface of the valves is dull greenish-brown or yellowish-green
with numerous faint green rays distributed over the entire surface of
the valves. Nacre color is bluish-white. Strong sexual dimorphism is
evident in this species. The posterior ridge of the male shell appears
faintly doubled, ending in a slight bi-angulation posteriorly; the
female shell has a pronounced marsupial swelling posteriorly, defined by
anterior and posterior sulci and often serrated along the ventral margin
(USFWS 1984b; Parmalee and Bogan 1998).

Historically, the tan riffleshell was fairly widely distributed in the
Tennessee and Cumberland River drainages. Records exist from the South
Fork Holston River (TN;VA), Middle Fork Holston River (VA), Holston
River (TN), Clinch River (TN;VA), Cumberland River (TN), Big South Fork
(TN), Beaver Creek (KY), East Fork Stones River (TN), Stones River (TN),
Red River(TN;KY), Harpeth River (TN), Buffalo River (TN), Duck River
(TN), Flint River (AL), Hurricane Creek (AL), and Limestone Creek (AL)
(USFWS 1984b). For a number of years, the tan riffleshell was thought to
exist only in the Middle Fork Holston River. However, recent surveys
indicate that extant populations also exist in the upper Clinch River,
Hiwassee River (TN), Duck River, and Big South Fork, although at
extremely low numbers (USFWS 1984b; TVA 1998). A fresh dead individual
was collected at Duck River Mile 151 in 1988, but no individuals have
been found during more recent surveys (TVA 1998).

The tan riffleshell inhabits relatively shallow riffle or shoal areas
with stable, silt-free substrate consisting of mixed sand, gravel,
cobble, and rubble; it is frequently found among dense patches of water
willow or aquatic weeds (USFWS 1984b). This species is thought to be a
long-term breeder, and recent studies have identified the sculpin,
greenside darter, fantail darter, and redline darter as host fishes
(Parmalee and Bogan 1998).

***Pale lilliput pearly mussel***

The pale lilliput pearly mussel, *Toxolasma* *cylindrellus*, was listed
as endangered on June 24, 1976 (USFWS 1984c). It is a small mussel,
growing to approximately 44 millimeters in length, 25 millimeters in
height, and 16 millimeters in width. The valves are elongate, somewhat
cylindrical, and are slightly inflated with a full beak. The posterior
ridge is low and the surface of the valves is smooth. The outer surface
is yellowish-green with no rays. Nacre color varies from white, light
yellow, to coppery tints of blue and purple, becoming iridescent
posteriorly as the shell becomes thinner (USFWS 1984c; Parmalee and
Bogan 1998). This species exhibits slight sexual dimorphism; valves of
females are faintly inflated near the posterior base of the shell (USFWS
1984c).

Historical records for the pale lilliput pearly mussel include Swamp
Creek (GA), Paint Rock River (AL), Hurricane Creek (AL), Larkin Fork
(AL;TN), Flint River (AL), Elk River (TN), Duck River (TN), Buffalo
River (TN), Sequatchie River (TN), and Little Sequatchie River
(TN)(USFWS 1984c). This species has been found recently only in the
Paint Rock River and its upper tributaries and in Big Rock Creek, a
tributary of the Duck River (TN)(USFWS 1984c; TVA 1998). Individuals
have not been collected from the project area or anywhere in the Duck
River for over 25 years (TVA 1998).

The pale lilliput pearly mussel is a typical riffle species, inhabiting
shallow riffle and shoal habitat with fast-flowing water and stable,
silt-free substrate of mixed sand, gravel, cobble, and rubble (USFWS
1984c). It is a long-term breeder, and the fish hosts are unknown
although laboratory studies conducted on other *Toxolasma* species
indicate that green sunfish and longear sunfish are suitable hosts
(USFWS 1984c).

***Oyster mussel***

The oyster mussel, *Epioblasma* *capsaeformis*, was listed as endangered
on January 10, 1997 (USFWS 1998). It is a medium-sized mussel, reaching
maximum lengths of 70 millimeters. The valves are elliptical or obovate
in shape, with moderately full, elevated beaks. The anterior end is
regularly rounded; the posterior end of males is slightly protruding and
is broadly rounded in females. The shells of females also exhibit a
pronounced marsupial swelling posteriorly, which extends below the shell
margin. This swelling is thin and slightly inflated, sometimes serrated
along the ventral margin (Parmalee and Bogan 1998). The outer surface of
the valves is somewhat shiny and yellowish-green, with fine green rays
over the entire shell. Nacre color is bluish-white to creamy white
(Parmalee and Bogan 1998).

Historically, the oyster mussel was widely distributed in the Cumberland
and Tennessee River drainages (USFWS 1998). The species was found in the
Cumberland River (KY;TN), Rockcastle River (KY), Buck Creek (KY), Big
South Fork (KY;TN), Beaver Creek (KY), Obey River (TN), Caney Fork River
(TN), Harpeth River (TN), Clinch River (VA;TN), Little River (VA),
Copper Creek (VA), Powell River (VA;TN), Wallen Creek (VA), Poplar Creek
(TN), North Fork Holston River (VA), Big Moccasin Creek (VA), Middle
Fork Holston River (VA), South Fork Holston River (VA), Holston River
(TN), French Broad River (TN;NC), Nolichucky River (TN), Little Pigeon
River (TN), West Prong Little Pigeon River (TN), Tennessee River
(AL;TN), Little River (TN), Little Tennessee River (TN), Hiwassee River
(TN), South Chickamauga Creek (TN), Sequatchie River (TN), Paint Rock
River (AL), Lookout Creek (GA), Estill Fork (AL), Larkin Fork (AL),
Hurricane Creek (AL), Flint River (AL), Limestone Creek (AL), Elk River
(TN), Richland Creek (TN), Shoal Creek (AL), Bear Creek (AL), Duck River
(TN), and Buffalo River (TN). Extant populations exist in the Big South
Fork (KY;TN), Buck Creek (KY), Clinch River (VA;TN), Powell River (VA),
North Fork Holston River (VA), Duck River (TN), and possibly the
Nolichucky River (TN)(USFWS 1998; TVA 1998). Individuals were collected
in the middle reach of the Duck River in the 1970\'s and have been
routinely found downriver from Lillard Mill Dam within the past four
years (TVA 1998).

The oyster mussel is typically found in riffle and shoal areas having
moderate to swift flows over coarse sand to boulder substrates (USFWS
1998). It is sometimes found in beds of water willow or in pockets of
gravel between bedrock ledges. This species is a long-term breeder;
known fish hosts include the banded sculpin, wounded darter, redline
darter, and dusky darter (USFWS 1998).

***Cumberlandian combshell***

The Cumberlandian combshell, *Epioblasma* *brevidens*, was listed as
endangered on January 10, 1997 (USFWS 1998). It is a medium-sized
mussel, reaching total lengths of over 80 millimeters, but averaging 50
millimeters in length (Parmalee and Bogan 1998). The valves are
quadrangular or rhomboid in shape. In males, the anterior end is evenly
rounded and the posterior end broadly rounded. The posterior ridge is
broadly curved and may appear to be doubled. The posterior ridge of the
valves in females is a sharply elevated marsupial swelling which is
serrated along the ventral margin and having the remains of serrations
on the growth lines on the swelling (Parmalee and Bogan 1998). The outer
shell surface is smooth and satiny, and is yellowish or tawny brown in
color with narrow, broken green rays which may appear as dots
posteriorly. Nacre color is white (Parmalee and Bogan 1998).

The distribution of the Cumberlandian combshell is similar to that of
the oyster mussel. Historic records are available from the Rockcastle
River (KY), Cumberland River (KY;TN), Buck Creek (KY), Big South Fork
(KY;TN), Beaver Creek (KY), Obey River (TN), Caney Fork River (TN),
Stones River (TN), Red River (TN), Clinch River (TN;VA), Powell River
(TN;VA), Station Creek, (VA), Wallen Creek (VA), North Fork Holston
River (VA;TN), Holston River (TN), Nolichucky River (TN), West Prong
Little Pigeon River (TN), Tennessee River (AL;TN), Little Tennessee
River (TN), Paint Rock River (AL), Elk River (TN;AL), Bear Creek
(AL;MS), Little Bear Creek (AL), Cedar Creek (AL;MS), and Duck River
(TN)(USFWS 1998). Presently, this species is known to occur in the
Clinch River (TN;VA), Powell River (VA), Duck River (TN), Buck Creek
(KY), and Big South Fork (TN;KY)(TVA 1998; Parmalee and Bogan 1998;
USFWS 1998). Although only two live individuals were recently found in
the project area, the Cumberlandian combshell was routinely found in the
middle reach of the Duck River throughout the mid-1970\'s (TVA 1998).

As do most other mussel species, the Cumberlandian combshell inhabits
riffle and shoal areas with moderate to swift flow over mixed substrate
of coarse sand, gravel, cobble, and boulders (USFWS 1998). Individuals
seem to prefer shallower depths (less than three feet), but occasionally
are found in deeper water (USFWS 1998). It is also a long-term breeder,
and the wounded darter, redline darter, Tennessee snubnose darter,
greenside darter, logperch, and banded sculpin have been identified as
glochidial hosts (USFWS 1998; Parmalee and Bogan 1998).

***Eggert=s sunflower***

Eggert=s sunflower, *Helianthus* *eggertii*, was listed as threatened on
May 22, 1997 (USFWS 1998a). It is a perennial plant that grows to a
height of 1 to 2 meters. The leaves are sessile, lanceolate in shape,
and are rough on the upper surface. Growth of the plant can be in the
form of extensive clonal clumps sprouting from a rhizome. Eggert=s
sunflower can be distinguished from other sunflowers by the white waxy
coating on the stem and undersides of the leaves, sessile leaves that
taper at the base, flower head size of 2 to 2.5 centimeters across, and
a distinctive bluish cast on the leaves and stems (USFWS 1998a).

The distribution of Eggert=s sunflower is within the Highland Rim
section and Shawnee Hills section of the Interior Low Plateau region.
The plants are commonly associated with barrens type habitats in
Alabama, Kentucky, and Tennessee. Populations are currently known to
exist in Blount County, Alabama; Coffee, Davidson, Dickson, Franklin,
Lawrence, Lewis, Marion, Maury, and Williamson Counties, Tennessee; and
Barren, Edmonson, Grayson, Hardin, Hart, and Larue Counties, Kentucky
(USFWS 1998a). Despite extensive surveys, Eggert=s sunflower was not
found on Columbia Dam lands, however, a population is known to occur
approximately 12 miles southwest of the City of Columbia in Maury County
(TVA 1998).

Habitat for Eggert=s sunflower has been described as a mosaic of grassy
openings and mixed oak woodlands, comprised of stands of small to
medium-sized trees with a semi-open canopy and a ground cover continuous
with grassy openings (USFWS 1998a). Associated species in the barrens
ecosystem are: post oak, southern red oak, red cedar, mockernut hickory,
winged elm, and black gum; understory species include big blue stem,
little blue stem, switch grass, and Indian grass. The open condition of
this habitat was maintained by periodic fire (USFWS 1998a). Although
true barrens habitats have become increasingly rare, Eggert=s sunflower
has been found in other open habitat types such as mechanically
maintained road rights-of-way, powerline rights-of-way, and old fields
(USFWS 1998a). In areas where soil surveys are available, Eggert=s
sunflower is typically found in silt loam or chert loam soils (USFWS
1998a).

Eggert=s sunflower blooms in August and September, and seeds generally
mature within one month. This plant is known to produce viable seeds,
but vegetative reproduction may be more important in establishment of
populations (USFWS 1998a). The role of seedling production in Eggert=s
sunflower is not well understood, however, studies indicate that seed
germination in perennial sunflowers is generally low (USFWS 1998a).
Extensive rhizomes are produced by the plant that results in production
of dense clusters of plants. Colonies in full sunlight almost always
produce flowers, but plants growing in areas with dense overstory
generally do not flower (USFWS 1998a).

***Leafy prairie clover***

Leafy prairie clover, *Dalea* *foliosa*, was listed as endangered on May
1, 1991. It is a perennial plant that grows to a height of approximately
2 feet. It has pinnately compound leaves composed of 20 to 30 leaflets
that are 3.5 to 4.5 centimeters in length. Small purple flowers are
borne in dense spikes at the ends of the stems (USFWS 1992).

Historically, the range of leafy prairie clover was believed to be
northern Alabama, Tennessee, and Illinois. Four populations once existed
in Alabama, two of which are currently believed to be extirpated. The
species was known to exist in 11 counties in Illinois; three populations
are currently extant in the northeastern part of the State. Nine small
populations are known from central Tennessee (USFWS 1992). Four
populations are known to occur on Columbia Dam lands, two of which are
among the largest and healthiest known throughout the species= range.
The largest of the four populations on Columbia Dam lands was discovered
subsequent to listing of the species (TVA 1998).

The habitat of leafy prairie clover is closely associated with the cedar
glades of central Tennessee and northern Alabama, although the plant is
thought to prefer the deeper soils of the prairie-like areas around the
boundaries and within the rocky, shallow-soil habitat of the cedar
glades. In Illinois, the remaining populations of leafy prairie clover
are all found in prairie remnants along the Des Plaines River (USFWS
1992).

Leafy prairie clover flowers in late July through August. Seeds ripen by
early October and the above-ground portion of the plant dies soon after.
The dead stems remain standing, facilitating dispersal of mature seeds
from late fall through early spring (USFWS 1992).

0 [Environmental Baseline]{.underline}

The Duck River originates in Coffee County in central Tennessee. It
flows generally northwest for approximately 280 miles to its confluence
with the Tennessee River at river mile 110.7. Primary land uses in the
drainage are agricultural (cropland and pasture) and forest (deciduous
and evergreen), with scattered developed lands. Major urban areas in the
Duck River drainage are: Columbia, Shelbyville, Lewisburg, Waverly,
Lynchburg, Centerville,, and Mount Pleasant.

A variety of activities have been conducted in the Duck River drainage
that have had adverse or beneficial impacts on the river and associated
aquatic communities. Closure of Normandy Dam in 1976 impounded
approximately 13 miles of the upper Duck River. In addition, cold water
releases affect several miles of the river below the dam. Gravel
dredging, highway construction, construction of utility lines across the
river, industrial development, and commercial development along the
river have also had short-term and long-term adverse effects on the Duck
River and the aquatic species inhabiting the river. These impacts are
likely to continue as development in the urban areas in the drainage
increases to accommodate future increases in population.

There have been a number of activities which likely have had beneficial
impacts on the aquatic habitats in the Duck River drainage. Bank
stabilization and protection projects, wetland mitigation and
restoration, and other habitat improvement projects will likely result
in improvement in water quality and habitats in the river, but they may
not offset the adverse effects of future development activities.

Construction of the Columbia Dam project was begun in 1973 to provide
recreation, flood protection, and water supply for the residents of
Maury County (TVA 1998). For a number of reasons, construction stopped
in 1983. Currently, the Columbia Dam project is approximately 45 percent
complete. The concrete portion is 90 percent complete and the
earth-filled section is 60 percent complete. Approximately 46 percent of
the lands required for the reservoir have been acquired and 45 miles of
the 90 miles of roads that would have been affected have been relocated.
All of the normal river flow in the Duck River at the construction site,
and flood flows up to a 40-year recurrence level presently pass through
a 2,000-foot diversion channel that was meant to be a temporary
structure. Larger volume flows overtop the construction dike and pass
through the spillway openings in the concrete portion of the dam (TVA
1998). In 1998, 550 feet of the east bank of the diversion channel were
reshaped and stabilized to reduce erosion. The east bank abutment of the
former construction bridge was removed, and 150 feet of the construction
dike was repaired and armored (TVA 1998). These recent activities were
conducted to reduce public safety and environmental concerns at the dam
site.

0 [Direct/Indirect Effects]{.underline}

The proposed action, transfer of lands under the jurisdiction of the
Tennessee Valley Authority to non-Federal agencies, will not in and of
itself have any direct effects on the federally listed species involved
in this consultation. Any effects to the species or their habitats will
occur as a result of actions that take place after the lands are
transferred. Actions will be authorized, funded, or carried out by the
non-Federal agencies and will not be subject to the consultation
requirements of Section 7 of the ESA. Therefore, the effects of
subsequent non-Federal actions will comprise cumulative effects as
defined by the ESA.

0 [Cumulative Effects]{.underline}

Cumulative effects include the effects of future State, local, or
private actions that are reasonably certain to occur in the action area
considered in this biological opinion. Future Federal actions that are
unrelated to the proposed action are not considered in this section
because they require separate consultation pursuant to Section 7 of the
ESA.

If the preferred alternative is selected, the lands currently under the
jurisdiction of the Tennessee Valley Authority will be transferred to
the State of Tennessee for recreational use with a number of
restrictions attached to the deed. The majority of the lands will be
managed as a protected river corridor. Some will be set aside for
possible use as part of a future water supply reservoir (Fountain Creek
watershed), but will be managed as protected stream corridor lands in
the interim. Development will be allowed on some of the lands.
Activities carried out by the future managers of these lands,
particularly the future reservoir and development lands, could affect
one or more of the listed species included in this biological opinion.
The Service currently has no knowledge of specific actions that are
reasonably certain to occur upon transfer of the Columbia Dam lands,
therefore, it is not possible at this time to determine what cumulative
effects to listed species might result. However, deed restrictions that
will be instituted at the time of transfer of the lands will restrict
the uses to which the lands may be put and will minimize adverse effects
to listed species and their habitats.

0 [Conclusion]{.underline}

After reviewing the current status of the gray bat, Indiana bat,
Cumberland monkeyface pearly mussel, birdwing pearly mussel,
Cumberlandian combshell, tan riffleshell, pale lilliput pearly mussel,
oyster mussel, leafy prairie clover, and Eggert=s sunflower, the
environmental baseline for the action area, the effects of the proposed
transfer of lands, and the cumulative effects, it is the Service=s
biological opinion that the preferred alternative for the transfer of
Columbia Dam lands from the jurisdiction of the Tennessee Valley
Authority, as proposed, is not likely to jeopardize the continued
existence of the gray bat, Indiana bat, birdwing pearly mussel,
Cumberland monkeyface pearly mussel, Cumberlandian combshell, tan
riffleshell, pale lilliput pearly mussel, oyster mussel, leafy prairie
clover, or Eggert=s sunflower; and is not likely to destroy or adversely
modify designated critical habitat. No critical habitat has been
designated for the gray bat, birdwing pearly mussel, Cumberland
monkeyface pearly mussel, oyster mussel, Cumberlandian combshell, tan
riffleshell, pale lilliput pearly mussel, Eggert=s sunflower, or leafy
prairie clover, therefore, none will be affected. Critical habitat for
the Indiana bat has been designated at the Blackball Mine in LaSalle
County, Illinois; Big Wyandotte Cave in Crawford County, and Ray=s Cave
in Greene County, Indiana; Bat Cave in Carter County, and Coach Cave in
Edmonson County, Kentucky; Hellhole Cave in Pendleton County, West
Virginia; White Oak Blowhole Cave in Blount County, Tennessee; Cave 021
in Crawford County, Cave 009 and Cave 017 in Franklin County, Pilot Knob
Mine in Iron County, Bat Cave in Shannon County, and Cave 029 in
Washington County, Missouri. However, this action does not affect any of
those areas and no destruction or adverse modification of those critical
habitats are anticipated.

**INCIDENTAL TAKE**

Sections 4(d) and 9 of the ESA, as amended, prohibit taking (harass,
harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or
attempt to engage in any such conduct) of listed species of fish or
wildlife without a special exemption. Harm is further defined to include
significant habitat modification or degradation that results in death or
injury to listed species by significantly impairing behavioral patterns
such as breeding, feeding, or sheltering. Harass is defined as actions
that create the likelihood of injury to listed species to such an extent
as to significantly disrupt normal behavior patterns which include, but
are not limited to, breeding, feeding, or sheltering. Incidental take is
any take of listed animal species that results from , but is not the
purpose of, carrying out an otherwise lawful activity conducted by the
Federal agency or the applicant. Under the terms of Section 7(b)(4) and
Section 7(o)(2), taking that is incidental to and not intended as part
of the agency action is not considered a prohibited taking, provided
that such taking is in compliance with the terms and conditions of this
incidental take statement.

Section 7(b)(4) and Section 7(o)(2) of the ESA do not apply to the
incidental take of listed plant species. However, protection of listed
plants is provided to the extent that the ESA requires a Federal permit
for removal or reduction to possession of endangered plants from areas
under Federal jurisdiction, or for any act that would remove, cut, dig
up, damage, or destroy any such species on any other area in knowing
violation of any regulation of any State or in the course of any
violation of a State criminal trespass law. Once transferred, the listed
plants on the Columbia Dam lands would no longer exist on Federal lands
and they would only be protected by State law (i.e., plant protection
statute or criminal trespass law) and the permanent deed restrictions
(restrictions) attached to the deed (TVA 1998, Appendix A).

0 [Amount or Extent of Incidental Take]{.underline}

The Service does not anticipate the proposed action will incidentally
take any gray bats, Indiana bats, tan riffleshell, pale lilliput pearly
mussel, oyster mussel, Cumberlandian combshell, birdwing pearly mussel,
Cumberland monkeyface pearly mussel, Eggert=s sunflower, or leafy
prairie clover. Lands now under the jurisdiction of TVA that will be
transferred known to support populations of listed species have been
placed into the Duck River Protective Corridor category. Provided that
the deed restrictions are appropriately implemented, particularly the
enforcement deed restriction, these listed species should be protected
from potential incidental take.

Upon locating a dead, injured, or sick specimen of an endangered or
threatened species, initial notification must be made to the nearest
Fish and Wildlife Service Law Enforcement Office (Mr. David Cartwright,
Special Agent, 220 Great Circle Road, Nashville, Tennessee; telephone
615/736-5532). Care should be taken in handling sick or injured
specimens to ensure effective treatment and care and in handling dead
specimens to preserve biological materials in the best possible state
for later analysis of cause of death. In conjunction with the care of
sick or injured endangered species or preservation of biological
materials from a dead animal, the finder has the responsibility to
ensure that evidence intrinsic to the specimen is not unnecessarily
disturbed.

If, during the course of the action, incidental take of individuals of
any of the listed species involved in this formal consultation occurs,
such incidental take represents new information requiring review of the
proposed action. The Federal agency must immediately provide an
explanation of the causes of the taking and review with the Service the
need for possible reinitiation of consultation.

**CONSERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS**

Section 7(a)(1) of the ESA directs Federal agencies to utilize their
authorities to further the purposes of the ESA by carrying out
conservation programs for the benefit of endangered and threatened
species. Conservation recommendations are discretionary agency
activities to minimize or avoid adverse effects of a proposed action on
listed species or critical habitat, to help implement recovery plans, or
to develop information.

We believe that this provision of the ESA places an obligation on all
Federal agencies to implement positive programs to benefit listed
species, and a number of recent court cases appear to support that
belief. Agencies have some discretion in [choosing]{.underline}
conservation programs, but Section 7(a)(1) places a mandate on agencies
to implement some type of programs.

1.  The Tennessee Valley Authority should continue to maintain its
    existing database regarding the 10 species addressed in this
    biological opinion. Changes in status and distribution should be
    monitored and recorded.

2.  The Tennessee Valley Authority should continue to collect data
    regarding the populations of endangered and threatened species
    throughout the area under its jurisdiction. Periodic surveys should
    be conducted to maintain up-to-date information regarding the status
    of those populations.

3.  The Tennessee Valley Authority should continue existing programs
    initiated for the protection of endangered and threatened species
    and their habitats throughout the area under its jurisdiction.

4.  The Tennessee Valley Authority should begin outreach programs or
    continue existing outreach programs to educate the public about the
    importance of, and protection and recovery of, endangered and
    threatened species in the Tennessee River drainage. These programs
    should be presented or distributed to schools, civic groups, and
    local governments in the drainage.

In order for the Service to be kept informed of actions minimizing or
avoiding adverse effects or benefitting listed species or their
habitats, the Service requests notification of the implementation of any
conservation recommendations.

**REINITIATION - CLOSING STATEMENT**

This concludes formal consultation on the action outlined in the
consultation request. As provided in 50 CFR Sec. 402.16, reinitiation of
formal consultation is required where discretionary Federal agency
involvement or control over the action has been retained (or is
authorized by law) and if: (1) incidental take occurs; (2) new
information reveals effects of the agency action that may affect listed
species or critical habitat in a manner or to an extent not considered
in this opinion; (3) the agency action is subsequently modified to
include activities that cause an effect to the listed species or
critical habitat not considered in this opinion; (4) a new species is
listed or critical habitat designated that may be affected by the
action; or (5) an alternative other than the preferred alternative is
selected regarding disposal of the Columbia Dam lands. In instances
where the amount or extent of incidental take occurs or is exceeded, any
operations causing such take must cease pending reinitiation.

**REFERENCES**

Bowles, J. B. 1981. Ecological Studies on the Indiana Bat in Iowa.
Central Coll, Pella, IA.

Callahan, E. V., III. 1993. Indiana Bat Summer Habitat Requirements. M.
S. Thesis. Univ. of MO. Columbia.

Clawson, R. L., R. K. LaVal, M. L. LaVal, and W. Caire. 1980. Clustering
behavior of hibernating *Myotis* *sodalis* in Missouri. J. of Mamm., 61:
245-253.

Gardner, J. E., J. D. Garner, and J. E. Hoffmann. 1990. Combined
Progress Report: 1989 and 1990 Investigations of *Myotis* *sodalis*
(Indiana Bat) Distribution, Habitat Use, and Status in Illinois.
Progress Report for U. S. DOI, Fish and Wild Service, Twin Cities, MN

Gardner, J. E., J. D. Garner, and J. E. Hofmann. 1991. Summer Roosting
Selection and Roosting Behavior of *Myotis* *sodalis* (Indiana Bat) in
Illinois. Final Rep. IL Nat Hist Sur, IL Dept of Cons. Champaign.

Gardner, J. E., J. D. Garner, and J. E. Hofmann. 1991a. Summary of
*Myotis* *sodalis* Summer Habitat Studies in Illinois; with
Recommendations for Impact Assessment. Special Rep. IL Nat Hist Sur, IL
Dept of Cons. Champaign.

Humphrey, S. R., A. R. Richter, and J. B. Cope. 1977. Summer habitat and
ecology of the endangered Indiana bat, *Myotis* *sodalis*. J. of Mamm.,
58: 334-346.

Parmalee, P. W. and A. E. Bogan. 1998. The Freshwater Mussels of
Tennessee. The Univ. of TN Press. Knoxville.

Romme, R. C., K. Tyrell, and V. Brack, Jr. 1995. Literature Summary and
Habitat Suitability Index Model: Components of Summer Habitat for the
Indiana Bat, *Myotis* *sodalis*. Report submitted to the IN Dept. of Nat
Resour, Div of Wild, Bloomington, IN.

Tennessee Valley Authority. 1998. Biological Assessment for the Columbia
Land Use EIS. Report submitted to Fish and Wildlife Service. December
1998.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1982. Gray Bat Recovery Plan. Twin
Cities, MN.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1983. Recovery Plan for the Indiana Bat.
Twin Cities, MN.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1984. Birdwing Pearly Mussel Recovery
Plan. Atlanta, GA.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1984a. Cumberland Monkeyface Pearly
Mussel Recovery Plan. Atlanta, GA.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1984b. Tan Riffleshell Mussel Recovery
Plan. Atlanta, GA.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1984c. Pale Lilliput Pearly Mussel
Recovery Plan. Atlanta, GA.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1992. Endangered and Threatened Species
of the Southeast United States (The Red Book). Prepared by Ecol. Serv.,
Div. of End. Sp., SE Region. GOP, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1998. Technical Draft Recovery Plan for
Cumberland Elktoe, Oyster Mussel, Cumberlandian Combshell, Purple Bean,
and Rough Rabbitsfoot. Atlanta, GA.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1998a. Technical Draft Recovery Plan for
Eggert=s Sunflower (*Helianthus* *eggertii*). Atlanta, GA.