Biological Assessment 

for the 

Land and Resources Management Plan 

Land Between The Lakes 

National Recreation Area 

October 2004 

USDA Forest 

Service 

Southern Region 

Golden Pond, 

KY 
 

Biological Assessment 

for the Land and Resource Management Plan 

Land Between The Lakes National Recreation Area

United States Department of Agriculture 

Forest Service 

Robert Jacobs, Regional Forester 

Region 8, Southern Region 

1720 Peachtree Road, NW 

Atlanta, GA 30309 

For information: 

 William P. Lisowsky, Area Supervisor 

 Land Between The Lakes National Recreation Area 

 100 Van Morgan Drive 

 Golden Pond, KY 42211 

Or visit our Planning website: 

 www.lbl.org (click on planning) 

 email: FocusLBL@fs.fed.us 

The US Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of 

race, color, national origin, sex, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, or marital or family status. 

(Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for 

communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at 

202-720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 

Room 326-W, Whitten Building, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, D.C. 20250-9410 or call 202-720-5964 

(voice and TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. 
.~

October 27, 2004

Mr. William Lisowsky

United States Forest Service

Land Between the Lakes

National Recreation Area

100 Van Morgan Drive

Golden Pond, Kentucky 42211

FWS #05-0008; Biological Assessment for the Land Between the Lakes Land and

Resource Management Plan, Trigg County, Kentucky

Subject:

Dear Mr. Lisowsky:

This responds to your October 22, 2004, letter requesting our review of the Biological

Assessment (BA) prepared for the Land Between the Lakes (LBL) Land and Resource

Management Plan (LRMP). Within the BA, the effects of the LBL LRMP on the following five

federally listed endangered and threatened species and their habitats were evaluated. Th~se

species include:

Federal Status

threatened

endangered

endangered

endangered

threatened

Scientific Name

Haliaeetus leucocephalus

Sterna antillarum athalassos

Myotis grisescens

Myotis sodalis

Apios pnceana

Common Name

Bald eagle

Interior least tern

Gray bat

Indiana bat

Price's potato bean

Specifically, you have requested our concurrence with your detennination that the

implementation of the LBL LRMP is not likely to adversely affect the above listed threatened

and endangered species under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act.

In the BA, LBL has made a determination of "not likely to adversely affect" for each of the

species listed above. LBL based these determinations on the following species-specific factors:

Bald Ea2le

1. Proposed vegetation management activities will continue to provide suitable perching,

roosting, and nesting habitat for bald eagles.

2. Stream, wetland, and riparian area management and LRMP standards will maintain or

improve stability, function, and water quality of streams, ponds, and lakes. Stable or

improved water quality would be beneficial in maintaining an aquatic forage base for

eagles.

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE

3761 GEORGETOWN ROAD

FRANKFORT, KY 40601
3

4.

Although recreation use is expected to increase slightly, Area Plan direction and

standards, continued provision of wildlife refuges, implementation and enforcement of

habitat and nest protection guidelines, and education of visitors will all contribute to

minimizing disturbance to bald eagles on LBL.

The Forest Service (FS) will continue to consult on a project-by-project basis on those

projects that are proposed to occur within the primary and/or secondary management

zones for LBL' s bald eagle nests.

Interior Least Tern

1. Stream, wetland, and riparian area management and LRMP standards will maintain or

improve stability, function, and water quality of streams, ponds, and lakes. Stable or

improved water quality would be beneficial in maintaining an aquatic forage base for

least terns.

2. Watersheds will be managed to provide resilient and stable conditions to ensure the

quality and quantity of water necessary to protect ecological functions, and to protect

shoreline habitat.

3. Least tern habitat in the adjacent reservoirs is frequently inundated by reservoir water

level fluctuations, and is not within the jurisdiction of FS to manage.

! 4. Should this species be found to occur on LBL or along LBL shoreline, consultation

would be held with the Kentucky Field Office (KFO) pursuant to Section 7.

Gray bat

1. Summer or winter caves suitable for gray bats do not exist on LBL.

2. Water quality, stream corridors, and lake shorelines will be protected through

management of water resources and implementation of LRMP standards. These

resources will continue to provide foraging areas and an aquatic prey base for gray bats.

3. A small increase in recreation use is not expected to adversely impact this species due to

the absence of caves and the implementation of LRMP standards to protect foraging areas

and water quality.

4. Potential adverse effects to gray bats will be considered on a project-by-project basis. If

potential foraging habitat is proposed for alteration during the summer foraging months,

or other actions that could potentially constitute a take, consultation will be held with the

KFO.

Indiana bat

1.

2.

3

4.

Winter hibernacula do not exist for the Indiana bat on LBL.

Vegetation management will provide for a predominantly oak-hickory forest with large,

older age-class trees, den trees, and snags that will continue to provide trees with

exfoliating bark across the LBL landscape for potential roost and maternity sites.

Water quality, stream corridors, and lake shorelines will be protected through

management of water resources and implementation of LRMP standards. These

resources will continue to provide foraging areas and an aquatic prey base for bats.

A small increase in recreational use is not expected to adversely impact this species due

to the absence of caves and the implementation of LRMP standards to protect terrestrial

and aquatic resources.

5 Although Indiana bats have not been found on LBL, periodic monitoring for bats will
"'"

continue, and project-specific inventory will be implemented as needed. If Indiana bats

are found on LBL, consultation will be held with the KFO.

Price's Potato Bean

1. Monitoring and management of five known Price's potato bean sites in consultation with

the KFO, along with continued 10ng-tern1 monitoring of these populations, will help to

maintain or increase known populations of this species on LBL.

2. Vegetation management activities resulting from LRMP implementation are expected to

increase potential habitat for Price's potato bean during the planning period by opening

the forest canopy in selected locations, which could result in new populations.

3. Projected increases in recreational use will be monitored, and appropriate measures will

continue to be enforced to protect known populations and any newly discovered

populations from potential adverse effects of recreational use.

4. The potential to propagate the species in new locations will be explored with the KFO

and others, which would be beneficial for the species.

We have detennined that the infonnation provided in the BA and draft LRMP is sufficient for us

to evaluate the potential adverse and beneficial effects of implementation of the LRMP on the

species listed above. We have also evaluated the species-specific conservation and protection

measures that were identified in the BA and draft LRMP and believe that these factors will

programmatically avoid and/or minimize potential adverse effects to these species. Based on

these factors and LBL' s commitment to continue consulting with the KFO on a project-byproject basis relative to potential adverse effects on these listed species that may still occur in

spite of implementation of the species-specific conservation and protection measures, we concur

with LBL' s detennination of "not likely to adversely affect" for the bald eagle, interior least tern,

gray bat, Indiana bat, and Price's potato bean. In view of this, we believe that the requirements

of section 7 have been fulfilled. However, LBL' s obligations under section 7 must be

reconsidered, however, if: (1) new infonnation reveals that the proposed project may affect listed

species in a manner or to an extent not previously considered, (2) the proposed project is

subsequently modified to include activities which were not considered during this consultation,

or (3) new species are listed or critical habitat designated that might be affected by the proposed

project.

We appreciate the opportunity to review the BA and draft LRMP and to provide comments on

this project. If you have any questions on this letter or its contents, please contact me at 502-

695-0468.

~

Sincerely,f4:/L~~(

~irgil Lee A~drews, Jr. ~

FIeld SupervIsor

3
 

This page is intentionally left blank.
 

Biological Assessment 

for the 

Land Between The Lakes 

Land and Resource Management Plan 

October 2004 

Prepared by: 

Elizabeth Raikes – Wildlife Biologist, Planning 

Jim McCoy – Wildlife Biologist/Fire Management Officer 

Scott Ray – Wildlife Technician 

Steve Bloemer – Supervisory Wildlife Biologist 

Lead Contact: 

Steve Bloemer 

Land Between The Lakes 

100 Van Morgan Drive 

Golden Pond, KY 42211 

(270) 924-2069 

sbloemer@fs.fed.us
Biological Assessment for the LBL Land & Resource Management Plan 

 - 2 - 

Summary

Objectives of this Biological Assessment (BA) are to: 

• Comply with requirements of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as 

amended, so that actions by federal agencies will not jeopardize the existence of 

federally listed species, or destroy, or adversely modify their critical habitat. 

• Assess the effects that implementation of the Land Between The Lakes (LBL) 

Land and Resource Management Plan (hereafter referred to as the “Area Plan”) 

will have on threatened and endangered species known to exist on or near the 

Recreation Area. 

• Provide biological input to ensure United States Forest Service (FS) compliance 

with the National Forest Management Act (NFMA) of 1976 and Forest Service 

Manual (FSM) 2670. 

The effects of the LBL Area Plan on five federally listed endangered and threatened 

species and their habitats are evaluated. Analyses include Environmental Baseline, 

Management and Protection, Potential Effects, and Determination of Effect. 

Determination of Effect

The Determination of Effect for bald eagle, Interior least tern, gray bat, Indiana bat, and 

Price’s potato bean is “not likely to adversely affect.” Informal consultation with the 

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) is required. 

Introduction 

Management of LBL was transferred from Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) to the FS 

on October 1, 1999, under the provisions of the LBL Protection Act of 1998. The Act 

calls for the FS to develop an Area Plan that complies with the basic laws applicable to all 

national forests, and will guide management direction for the next 10 to 15 years. The 

Area Plan describes the public’s expectations for desired conditions at LBL and the 

strategies for achieving the desired conditions. The Area Plan will not resolve issues in 

detail, but it will provide a general framework by which future decisions will be made. 

Forest Service plans are meant to be flexible in that they allow, but do not mandate, 

certain activities to take place; they do not make irretrievable commitments of resources; 

and they do not contain site-specific decisions (Ohio Forestry Assn. v. Sierra Club, 523 

U.S. 726 (1998)). 

Beyond transferring management responsibility for LBL, the Protection Act defines the 

LBL mission “to protect and manage the resources of LBL for optimum yield of outdoor 

recreation and environmental education for the American people. In so doing, to utilize 

the demonstration assignment to authorize, cooperate in, test, and demonstrate innovative 
Biological Assessment for the LBL Land & Resource Management Plan 

 - 3 - 

 

programs and cost-effective management; to help stimulate the development of the 

surrounding region; and to extend the beneficial results as widely as possible.” This 

mission must be supported by the Area Plan. 

The direction in the Area Plan is general and does not preclude or replace either the 

requirement for site-specific, project-level consideration of threatened, endangered, or 

proposed species or their critical habitat, or further consultation at that level, if necessary, 

with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). Where needed to protect 

federally listed species from potential adverse effects of management activities, project 

areas will be evaluated for the need to inventory those species in accordance with 

procedures outlined in the Region 8 supplement to the FSM §2672.43 (effective February 

15, 2002). This supplement provides guidance to aid in determining when project-level 

inventory of Proposed, Endangered, Threatened, and Sensitive (PETS) species is 

necessary. The Sensitive species are the Regional Forester’s Sensitive species and are 

covered under separate documentation to the FS Regional Office (Region 8) in a 

Biological Evaluation. Project-level inventories are conducted to gather information on 

distribution and numbers of individuals within the area affected by the project. Projectlevel inventory is usually conducted on a small scale, and is used for the detection of 

federally listed species as well as sensitive species. Recovery plan direction and habitat 

protection guidelines for federally listed species are considered in conjunction with the 

project-level inventory needs. 

Planning Area 

Land Between The Lakes covers approximately 170,000 acres of federal land located in 

western Kentucky and Tennessee, and is administered by the USDA Forest Service (FS). 

Land Between The Lakes is an inland peninsula bordered on the west by Kentucky Lake 

and on the east by Lake Barkley. Land Between The Lakes ranges from 6 to 8 miles wide 

and is about 40 miles long. There are approximately 110,000 acres in Kentucky (Lyon 

and Trigg counties) and 60,000 acres in Tennessee (Stewart County). 

 

LBL is part of the Western Highland Rim subsection of the Interior Low Plateau 

Physiographic Province and the Coastal Plain Physiographic Province (Fralish and Crooks 

1989 and Franklin 1994). Most of the area consists of highly dissected uplands. 

LBL is in the Western Mixed Mesophytic forest region, a transition zone between the 

Eastern Mesophytic forest region and the Western Oak-Hickory forest region (Franklin 

1994). Approximately 92 percent of LBL is forested, with mostly second and thirdgrowth hardwoods comprised mainly of oak species (Franklin 1994). The oak forest type 

includes white oak, southern red oak, post oak, blackjack oak, chestnut oak, black oak, 

and pignut hickory. Mesophytic forest species on LBL include sugar maple, American 

beech, mockernut hickory, pignut hickory, sweetgum, yellow poplar and elm. The oak 

forest cover type dominates on 82% of LBL’s landscape, with mesophytic/riparian 

comprising 7%, and pine forest (mostly planted) on the remaining 3%. 
Biological Assessment for the LBL Land & Resource Management Plan 

 - 4 - 

 

Upland areas that once had small and scattered prairie and savanna communities have, as 

a result of natural forest succession, become closed canopy forest with a depleted 

herbaceous layer (Martin and Taylor 2002 and Franklin 1994). The cool, moist 

microclimate of the closed canopy forest has allowed for the invasion and succession to 

more mesophytic species, especially sugar maple (Acer saccharum) and American beech 

(Fagus grandiflora) (Franklin 1994). This transition is occurring in riparian, mesic, and 

transitional forest cover types. There are natural stands of shortleaf pine (Pinus echinata) 

on Devil’s Backbone, Tennessee; however, they are rapidly succeeding to several species 

of oak (Franklin 1994). 

Under TVA management, LBL standing timber volumes more than doubled, while 

regulated harvests improved forest quality, vigor, and wildlife habitat. Since TVA 

assumed ownership of LBL in 1964, wildlife population densities within LBL have 

reached levels similar to, and in some cases higher than other federal and state managed 

areas in the region. This has occurred despite a past history of overgrazing, timber 

exploitation and widespread erosion that dramatically reduced land productivity. 

Informal Consultation History 

• December 8 to 9, 2003: Lee Andrews (Field Office Supervisor) and Mindi Brady 

(Fish and Wildlife Biologist/Pre-development Consultation) of the FWS Kentucky 

Ecological Services Field Office (KFO) traveled to LBL and visited bald eagle 

nests that eagles had built in areas of potential disturbance. During the trip, 

discussion was held about the Area Plan biological assessment, and information 

that would be needed to evaluate determinations of effect. Other sites visited and 

discussed included one Price’s potato bean site, Work Area 18 proposed timber 

sale area, a Biosphere Reserve Core Area, two native warm season grass 

restoration sites, Turkey Bay OHV area, and Wranglers Campground. 

• May 12 to 13, 2004: Mindi Brady attended the Scientific Review of Section 3.2, 

Biological Environment of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. 

• June 22, 2004: Lee Andrews, Dr. Michael Floyd (Endangered Species Recovery 

Biologist), and Alan Whited (Western Kentucky Private Lands Biologist) of the 

KFO visited LBL to look at two Price’s potato bean sites and discuss management 

efforts for species recovery. During that visit, the biological assessment and its 

development were discussed. 

• August 17, 2004: Conference call with the KFO about the Draft BA for the LBL 

Area Plan followed by receipt by email of first review response of the preliminary 

draft BA. 

• October 13, 2004: Receipt by email of the second review of the draft BA and 

conference call with Lee Andrews of the KFO to discuss the second review of the 

Draft BA.
Biological Assessment for the LBL Land & Resource Management Plan 

 - 5 - 

 

Proposed Management Actions 

The purpose of the proposed action is to develop an Area Plan for the next 10 to 15 years, 

as a revision to the existing Natural Resources Management Plan (NRMP) for Land 

Between The Lakes (TVA 1994a). The existing Natural Resources Management Plan 

(NRMP) was approved in 1994, and revision is needed to satisfy legal requirements and 

address new information about the Recreation Area and its uses. The Area Plan (FEIS 

Alternative Y) will guide natural resource management, environmental education, and 

recreation activities on the Recreation Area to meet the objectives of federal law, 

regulations, and policy. The proposal updates the management goals, objectives, 

standards, and monitoring requirements for the planning period beginning when the Area 

Plan is approved. 

In the Area Plan, vegetation across LBL will be managed to support ecological needs for 

forest health and wildlife habitat, including open land, wetland areas, and old growth. The 

vegetation will also be managed to support the recreation/environmental education 

(Rec/EE) programs and goals. Restoration of riparian area function and improvements of 

priority watersheds will be another focus of resource improvements. Active management 

techniques will include the increased use of prescribed fire, which has been historically 

documented to foster both wildlife habitat and forest and open land regeneration needs. 

There will be some harvest and thinning of forest stands to promote regeneration, to foster 

the evolution of old growth areas, and to improve wildlife habitat for a variety of species. 

Some vegetation management practices will result in marketable forest products, however, 

ecological, forest, wildlife, and recreation/environmental education goals will determine 

vegetation management practices, not revenue. 

Two oak-grassland demonstration areas are also part of the Area Plan, and are projected to 

eventually extend over a total of 8,600 acres. Oak-grassland demonstration areas will 

feature open canopy grasslands (less than 10 percent canopy closure) and open oak 

woodlands (10 to 60 percent canopy closure) interspersed in various mixtures. 

Understories will be dominated by native grasses and wildflowers, with sufficient oak 

regeneration to sustain oak on these sites over time. These areas will be created through 

the use of tree-thinning and fire. Historic fire return intervals of one to three years for 

grasslands, and five to twelve years in the wooded systems, will be used to regenerate and 

sustain these ecosystems on LBL. This demonstration will showcase ecological 

restoration and the benefits it will provide to native plants and animals and public 

recreation use. The vegetation will be representative of conditions prior to European 

settlement in the area, and environmental education will be integrated into the 

management of the oak-grassland demonstration areas. 

Riparian areas make up only a very small percent of LBL’s landscape but are of high 

value to the ecosystem and support species biodiversity. Most sizable floodplains on LBL 

were inundated by the lakes, leaving the smaller headwater riparian areas. Because of 

high value to water quality and aquatic life, riparian corridor standards will be 

implemented to protect the area’s’ riparian functions. Riparian corridors of native 

vegetation will be maintained along each side of perennial and intermittent stream courses 
Biological Assessment for the LBL Land & Resource Management Plan 

 - 6 - 

 

in order to maintain fluvial and riparian functions. Riparian corridors of 25 feet on each 

side of ephemeral streams, 50 to 75 feet on intermittent streams, and 100 feet on perennial 

streams will be implemented in the Area Plan. Timber harvests within these corridors 

would favor leaving exfoliating tree species for bat habitat. Watersheds will be managed 

to provide resilient and stable conditions to insure the quality and quantity of water 

necessary to protect ecological functions and support intended beneficial uses. 

Area Plan direction shifts the current mix of facility-based environmental education and 

recreation into more dispersed opportunities. More dispersed environmental education 

opportunities would include things like interpretive trails, road pull-offs with kiosks, and 

staff-led hikes. More dispersed recreation opportunities would include camping in less 

developed lake access areas and bank fishing. Existing facilities would be evaluated and 

identified for needed improvements and the potential for realignment into other types of 

recreation and environmental education opportunities. No current major facilities (such as 

Nature Station and Brandon Spring Group Camp) would be closed, and some may even be 

upgraded or expanded. No closed facilities are scheduled to be reopened, and no new 

facilities are planned. 

A significant addition to the environmental education and recreation programs will be the 

creation of two Nature Watch Demonstration Areas during the initial years of this Area 

Plan. Much of the dispersed recreation/environmental education opportunities would take 

place in these areas. These areas will be managed to provide nature viewing 

opportunities, natural history interpretation, and environmental education. Vegetation in 

these areas will be managed for aesthetics and wildlife viewing opportunities, as well as 

showcasing a variety of vegetation management activities. The Nature Station will serve 

as a hub for the Nature Watch Area in Kentucky, which includes the former 

Environmental Education Area (EEA) plus an additional 1,229 acres that adjoins the 

existing EEA between Taylor Bay and Crooked Creek Bay. The South Welcome Station 

may be a launching point for the area in Tennessee, which consists of a no hunting zone 

that was implemented with the 1994 Plan. Initially, the nature watch demonstration will 

be focused in the northern area because much of the infrastructure is already in place and 

needs only minimal improvements. Integrating self-guided loop trails, road pull-offs, 

viewing blinds and environmental education messages into these areas will engage the 

visitor with the natural environment. 

Overall visitor use of LBL is projected to increase slightly as a result of Area Plan 

implementation. Visitation to LBL averaged just over 2.0 million visits per year from 

1995 to 1999. Visitation from 2000 to present decreased to an average of 1.8 million 

visits per year. An objective in the Area Plan is to increase visitation to the former level 

of just over 2 million visits per year by 2015. 

In summary, proposed management actions that may affect federally listed species and 

that will be considered in this assessment include: 

 

• Vegetation management activities including forest management, open-lands 

management, prescribed burning, implementation of oak-grassland demonstration 
Biological Assessment for the LBL Land & Resource Management Plan 

 - 7 - 

 

areas, herbicide treatment of invasive, non-native plant species, and utility and 

road rights-of-way maintenance.

• Stream, pond, wetlands, and riparian area management to improve and maintain 

stability of stream banks and channels, ecological function, water quality, and 

wildlife habitat. 

• Recreation use that includes camping; trail use including hiking, biking, 

equestrian, and off-highway vehicles (OHV); nature viewing; hunting; fishing; 

visitation to cemeteries; and management/maintenance of roads, trails, and 

facilities to provide for these activities. 

Species Considered and Evaluated 

The species list provided below (Table 1) was supplied by the KFO for inclusion in the 

Biological Assessment for LBL’s Area Plan and EIS (letter dated July 15, 2003). 

Table 1. Federally Listed Species Known to Occur, or with the Potential to Occur, on Land 

Between The Lakes 

Species Common Name Status Comments 

Haliaeetus leucocephalus Bald eagle T Winters along LBL shoreline and nests 

along shoreline and interior forest 

Sterna antillarum 

athalassos 

Interior least tern E Potential to occur along LBL shoreline 

Myotis grisescens Gray bat E Occurs on LBL; foraging only 

Myotis sodalis Indiana bat E Potential to occur on LBL 

Apios priceana Price’s potato bean T Occurs at five known sites on LBL 

Protection of Federally Listed Species 

The Area Plan contains forest-wide standards that either directly or indirectly provide 

protection for federally listed species and their habitats on LBL. The following list does 

not include all the standards in the Area Plan, but does contain those most important to the 

federally listed species considered here. 

• All new stream crossings will be designed and constructed to allow passage of 

aquatic organisms, and to not significantly alter the natural stream flow regime. 

• Locate fords only where stable channel conditions will support the designed use. 

Maintain stream pattern and channel geometry when modifying a crossing. 

• Within the area 25 feet either side of an ephemeral stream, management activities 

will maintain the ability of the area to filter sediment from upslope disturbances, 

provide sediment control within the area, and maintain channel stability 

downstream. New projects within areas adjacent to ephemeral streams will be 

designed and mitigated for soil types classified as hydric, highly erodible or occur 

on slopes over 30%. 
Biological Assessment for the LBL Land & Resource Management Plan 

 - 8 - 

 

• Existing barriers (e.g. streams, lakes, wetlands, roads, and trails) are used 

whenever possible to reduce the need for fire line construction and to minimize 

resource impacts. Fire line construction within riparian corridors must be designed 

in coordination with a resource advisor. 

• Intentional establishment of non-native, invasive plant species, as defined by the 

Regional Forester’s invasive species list, is prohibited. 

• No herbicide is ground applied within 30 horizontal feet of lakes, wetlands, or 

perennial or intermittent springs and streams. No herbicide is applied within 100 

horizontal feet of any public or domestic water source. Selective treatments (which 

require added site-specific analysis and use of aquatic-labeled herbicides) may 

occur within these corridors only to prevent significant environmental damage 

such as noxious weed infestations. Corridors are clearly marked before treatment 

so applicators can easily see and avoid them. 

• Herbicides are applied at the lowest rate effective in meeting project objectives 

and according to guidelines for protecting human (National Research Council 

1983) and wildlife health (U.S. EPA 1986). Application rate and work time must 

not exceed levels that pose an unacceptable level of risk to human or wildlife 

health. If the rate or exposure time being evaluated causes the Margin of Safety 

(MOS) or the Hazard Quotient (HB) computed for a proposed treatment to fail to 

achieve the current Forest Service R8 standard for acceptability (acceptability 

requires a MOS > 100 or a HQ of < 1.0 depending on the standard reported in the 

Risk Assessment cited) additional risk management must be undertaken to reduce 

unacceptable risks to acceptable levels or an alternative method of treatment must 

be used. 

• With the exception of treatments designed to release designated vegetation 

selectively resistant to the herbicide proposed for use, or to prepare sites for 

planting with such vegetation, no soil-active herbicide is applied within 30 feet of 

the drip line of non-target vegetation specifically designated for retention (e.g., den 

trees, hardwood inclusions, adjacent untreated stands) within or next to the treated 

area. Side pruning is allowed, but movement of herbicide to the root systems of 

non-target plants must be avoided. Corridors are clearly marked before treatment 

so applicators can easily see and avoid them. 

• No herbicide shall be broadcast ground-applied within 60 feet of any known 

threatened, endangered, proposed, or sensitive plant. Corridors are clearly marked 

before treatment so applicators can easily see and avoid them. Exceptions will be 

made when a treatment using herbicide is necessary to protect or prevent the loss 

of habitat, and a site-specific NEPA document and BE confirms that an acceptable 

risk from such use is possible. 
Biological Assessment for the LBL Land & Resource Management Plan 

 - 9 - 

 

• Snags and den trees will not be intentionally felled during vegetation management 

unless necessary to protect employee or visitor safety, to control insect or disease 

infestations, or for timber salvage in cases of significant events of tree mortality. 

In timber salvage cases, a minimum of 6 snags per acre must be retained. Retained 

snags may be clumped within salvage areas. Den trees are defined as being a 

minimum of 10 inches DBH and having a visible cavity 

• Within General Forest, Oak-Grassland Demonstration and Core Prescription 

Areas, riparian corridors of native vegetation will be maintained along each side of 

perennial and intermittent stream courses in order to maintain fluvial and riparian 

functions. Corridors along perennial streams will be 100 feet measured from 

bankfull stage. Corridors along intermittent streams will be 50 to 75 feet measured 

from bankfull stage at a minimum. If a 50-foot corridor is used, a minimum of 20 

feet adjacent to management activities must be in a maintained native grass or 

other suitable vegetative filter strip. The remaining corridor should be in shrubs 

and trees. Without a native grass or other suitable vegetative filter strip, the 

minimum corridor along intermittent streams must be 75 feet of natural vegetation. 

Further direction on riparian corridor activities may be found in the Area Plan EIS 

Appendix B, Riparian Background Paper. 

• Wildlife refuges are closed to hunting year-round. Wildlife refuges are closed to 

other human disturbances during specified refuge periods. 

• In riparian areas, corridor interruptions affecting both sides of the drainage should 

be of minimum width needed, and no more than 60 feet in length. Interruptions 

affecting one side of a drainage should be no greater than 300 feet parallel to the 

drainage. 

• Protection zones, as specified in the current guidelines for bald eagle habitat 

management from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, will be delineated and 

maintained around all Bald Eagle nests and communal roost sites, unless exempted 

or modified by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

• Buildings, cisterns, old bridges and other structures will be surveyed for bats prior 

to modification or demolition. If significant bat roosting is found, structures are 

maintained or alternate roosts provided. Alternate roosts must be appropriate 

based on species and size of colony and must be provided prior to modification. 

• Utility corridors within riparian corridors or those that provide critical habitat will 

limit exposed soil and utilize habitat-sensitive maintenance strategies. 
Biological Assessment for the LBL Land & Resource Management Plan 

 - 10 - 

 

Environmental Baseline and Potential Effects for the Species 

Evaluated in this Biological Assessment 

Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) 

Environmental Baseline 

The bald eagle ranges over most of the North American continent, extending from as far 

north as Alaska and Canada and south to Mexico. When the bald eagle was adopted as 

the United States’ national bird in 1782, experts believed that their numbers may have 

ranged from 25,000 to 75,000 nesting pairs in the lower 48 states. Since that time, the 

species has suffered from habitat destruction and degradation, illegal shooting, and most 

notably from contamination of its food source by the pesticide DDT. In the early 1960s, 

only 417 nesting pairs were known from the lower 48 states. In 1999, more than 5,748 

nesting pairs of bald eagles were recorded for the same area, the increase resulting 

primarily from the 1972 ban of DDT in the United States and aided by additional 

protection under the Endangered Species Act (U.S. FWS 1999). 

Bald eagle breeding areas are generally located within 2.5 miles of coastal areas, bays, 

rivers, lakes, or other bodies of water that reflect general availability of primary food 

sources: fish, waterfowl, rodents, reptiles, amphibians, birds, and carrion (Andrew and 

Mosher 1982, Green 1985, Campbell et al.1990). Although nesting territory size is 

variable, it typically encompasses approximately 1.6 square miles (Abbott 1978). Most 

nest sites are located in large wooded areas adjacent to marshes, and agricultural areas, or 

in logged-over areas where large scattered seed trees remain (Andrew and Mosher 1982). 

A nesting territory can have more than one active nest. Individual pairs return to their same 

territories (areas) year after year, and territories are often inherited by subsequent 

generations. Thus, the same nest may be used year after year, or birds may alternate 

between nest sites in successive years. Bald eagles mate for life and can live 20 years or 

more in the wild. 

Favored bald eagle nest trees are typically large diameter trees with strong lateral limbs, and 

are located in stands with open canopies. Nest trees in an open canopy forest have an 

unobstructed flight path to the nest and a wide field of view of surrounding habitat. This 

preference results in bald eagles selecting large, dominant nest trees in areas with previous 

timber harvest or along edges of forests (Lackey 1991 and Andrew and Mosher 1982). 

According to the FWS Habitat Management Guidelines for the Bald Eagle in the 

Southeast Region (U.S. FWS 1987), the bald eagle nesting period usually extends from 

October 1 to May 15. However, within more northerly portions of its range, nesting can 

begin as early as October 30 and continue as late as August. In the LBL area, the nesting 

period of bald eagles begins in late fall (generally after October 30) and continues through 

the spring (U.S. FWS 2003). 
Biological Assessment for the LBL Land & Resource Management Plan 

 - 11 - 

 

Juvenile bald eagles reach sexual maturity at four to six years of age, and may disperse 

widely, though usually returning to nest within 93 miles of where they fledged (U.S. FWS 

1995). Bald eagles from the northern and southernmost parts of the species range are 

migratory. Communal roosting sites and foraging areas are common for this species in 

summer and winter (U.S. FWS 1995). Winter home ranges for eagles can be very large, 

especially for non-breeding birds. They winter throughout their breeding range but occur 

more frequently along the coast in communal roosts and foraging areas. 

Occurrence of Bald Eagles on Land Between The Lakes 

Historically, wintering migrants and local nesting pairs were found along the Tennessee and 

Cumberland Rivers and in the surrounding region. Today, wintering bald eagles can be 

found along the nearly 300 miles of undeveloped LBL shoreline of Kentucky Lake 

(impoundment of the Tennessee River) and Lake Barkley (impoundment of the Cumberland 

River). Naturally occurring seasonal shad die-offs, caused by decreasing water temperatures 

in the lakes, provide ample winter food supplies. LBL midwinter eagle survey results for the 

period 1978 through 2004 are summarized in Figure 1. Winter counts have ranged from 39 

to 152 during the period 1978 through 2004 with an average of 98 eagles per survey (USDA 

FS 2004). Counts are conducted during the first three weeks of January each year as part of 

the National Midwinter Bald Eagle Survey. Lower numbers have been observed on LBL in 

recent years due to unseasonably mild weather in early winter. Wintering migrants return to 

northern nesting areas each spring, principally the Great Lakes states and Canada. 

The protection and management of bald eagles in LBL has included winter population 

surveys, maintenance and protection of refuge areas, and nest monitoring and protection. 

Aerial surveys have been conducted annually along the 300 miles of undeveloped LBL 

shoreline to monitor wintering populations and to locate nests. 

Figure 1. Number of eagles sighted during mid-winter surveys at Land Between The Lakes (1978 to 2004). 
Biological Assessment for the LBL Land & Resource Management Plan 

 - 12 - 

 

Prior to 1984, bald eagle nesting had not occurred on LBL since the 1940s (Peterson 1967). 

In 1975, active bald eagle recovery efforts were initiated at LBL by TVA and other 

cooperating agencies (Tennessee Wildlife Resource Agency; Kentucky Department of Fish 

and Wildlife Resources; United States Fish and Wildlife Service, and others). Recovery 

efforts involved population surveys, establishment of eagle refuges, protection of shoreline 

habitat, and a reintroduction program. Forty-four bald eaglets were released at LBL from 

1980 to 1988 as part of the reintroduction program. Nesting on LBL occurred for the first 

time since the 1940s when an eagle released in 1981 returned with a mate and successfully 

nested in l984. 

The number of known active bald eagle nests at LBL varies annually, and has ranged from 

14 to 20 during the past five years (USDA FS 2004). Bald eagle nests on LBL have occurred 

along the lake shoreline and up to two and one-half miles inland on forested sites. Land 

Between The Lakes nesting records from 1984 to 2000 indicate that the majority of nests 

were built in areas with previous timber harvest. The nests were built anywhere from one to 

twenty-three years after a harvest and persisted from one to ten years before the nest or tree 

fell or was abandoned. During past timber harvests on LBL, potential eagle nest trees were 

left within harvest units, and the surrounding canopy was lightly thinned to create an open 

flight path (Ron Fox, former TVA-LBL employee, pers. comm.). 

Bald eaglet fledging success in LBL has been monitored since 1984. Results are presented in 

Table 2. 

 *There was 

insufficient 

monitoring in 

2001 due to lack 

of staff during the administrative transfer of LBL to the Forest Service. 

Several factors contribute to the annual fluctuation in numbers of eaglets fledged, 

including weather, nesting pairs not returning to the same nest, new nests being built and 

not located, eaglets not visible due to viewing angle and/or limited observation time, 

predation, and possible human disturbance. Overall, eagle nesting at LBL has been 

trending in a positive direction for the past 21 years. 

As can be seen from the above information, past management and protection of bald 

eagles at LBL has been beneficial for the species, and has helped bald eagle populations to 

recover in the region. 

Table 2. Eaglets Fledged at LBL (Kentucky and 

Tennessee) through the 2004-nesting season.

YEAR TOTALS YEAR TOTALS 

1984 1 1995 4 

1985 1 1996 6 

1986 0 1997 4 

1987 2 1998 5 

1988 2 1999 14 

1989 4 2000 18 

1990 4 2001 7* 

1991 4 2002 15 

1992 2 2003 20 

1993 9 2004 14 

1994 6 Total: 140 
Biological Assessment for the LBL Land & Resource Management Plan 

 - 13 - 

 

Management and Protection 

In assessing the viability of this species for the LBL Area Plan, the bald eagle was given a 

Forest Rank of F3, meaning that the bald eagle is rare and uncommon on LBL, generally 

with 21 to 100 occurrences. 

Management and protection of bald eagles in the Area Plan include measures to protect 

water quality in Kentucky Lake and Lake Barkley; vegetation management that will 

continue to provide predominately oak-hickory forest with large trees for perching, 

roosting, and nesting; protection of nesting territories; providing areas of low disturbance 

for wintering and nesting eagles; and continued monitoring and protection of wintering 

and nesting eagles. 

An assessment of eleven LBL streams was conducted in 2001 (USDA FS 2002). The two 

major factors influencing stream conditions were 1) stream hydrology, and 2) 

impoundments. Water quality parameters were generally within acceptable limits. While 

LBL managers have little control over stream hydrology and impoundments, 

implementation of Area Plan objectives and standards will protect and enhance water 

quality in LBL’s streams, which flow into the surrounding lakes. Objectives of the water 

resource program, as described in the Area Plan, are to maintain and enhance water 

quality, provide diverse aquatic and wetland habitat, protect riparian area functions, and 

provide information about water resource values to the public. Water resources are 

managed through implementation of riparian corridors as defined in Area Plan standards 

on pages 7-9 of this document. Intermittent and perennial streams have minimum riparian 

corridors of 50-75 feet and 100 feet respectively. Because of the contribution ephemeral 

streams make to the stream network, 25-foot zones are managed along ephemeral streams 

to provide for channel stability and fluvial processes in addition to water quality. 

Implementation of Area Plan standards will protect and enhance stream functions 

including filtering runoff pollutants, interchange of surface and ground waters, stabilizing 

stream banks and channels, and providing large woody debris and shade to the channels. 

These measures will enhance and protect the quality of water which flows from LBL 

streams into the lakes. Improved water quality in LBL’s streams and surrounding lakes 

will be beneficial to bald eagles by continuing to provide an adequate aquatic forage base 

for eagles. 

Combined Forest Inventory (CFI) data, collected at ten-year intervals on LBL, 

demonstrated a 30-year trend toward larger trees, with a major shift in the past decade 

from small saw-timber to trees more than 16 inches in diameter. This has enhanced 

perching, roosting, and nesting habitat for bald eagles on LBL. Under the new Area Plan, 

LBL’s forests will continue to be managed to provide a predominantly oak-hickory forest 

with various size and age classes to meet a variety of wildlife habitat needs. Mature open 

oak forest, and mature woodland types will be provided. Only a small percentage of net 

annual growth will be harvested during the planning period, therefore, the forest will 

continue to grow older and larger, and will continue to provide beneficial perching, 

roosting, and nesting habitat for bald eagles. 
Biological Assessment for the LBL Land & Resource Management Plan 

 - 14 - 

 

Existing forested corridors will be maintained for a minimum of 100 feet inland from lake 

shorelines. Forest management will continue to allow for suitable perching, roosting, and 

nesting trees along LBL’s shoreline and in the interior, to provide suitable perching, 

roosting, and nesting habitat. Fire management will reduce hazardous fuels accumulations 

and manage for a healthy, predominantly oak- hickory forest with respect to both species 

composition and forest canopy structure. Prior to conducting forest management 

activities, any potential adverse effects on bald eagles or their habitat will be evaluated 

and consulted on a project-specific basis with the KFO. Overall, forest management will 

be beneficial to bald eagles by continuing to provide suitable perching, roosting, and 

nesting habitat. 

Nest protection measures follow those listed in U.S. FWS (1987) and are designed to avoid 

or minimize the potential for adverse effects to the species. Size and shape of primary and 

secondary nest protection zones vary according to the location and topography of the 

surrounding terrain. Primary and secondary zones are delineated on maps for management 

purposes. Primary zones in areas where human disturbance from land is likely are posted 

with signs to deter human entry. Posted boundaries are monitored and enforced by LBL staff 

and law enforcement officers. Posted areas are maintained until several weeks after eaglets 

have fledged, and are usually removed in early July. Specific habitat management and 

protection guidelines will be developed on a site-specific basis in consultation with the KFO 

when bald eagles nest in or near existing developed recreation sites, or in other sites where 

existing uses have the potential to cause disturbance which could lead to take of nesting 

eagles. Enforcement of protection measures will be a cooperative effort of USDA-FS, TVA, 

TWRA, KDFWR, USACE, and KFO. 

Designated wildlife refuges will provide areas of low disturbance for wintering and 

nesting eagles and reduce the potential effects of Area Plan implementation on bald 

eagles. All existing wildlife refuges are maintained in the Area Plan. These refuges are 

closed to hunting year-round, and are closed to human entry during specified refuge 

periods (November 1 to March 15 minimum). Refuges provide abundant and unique 

wildlife viewing and environmental education opportunities during the refuge periods, and 

are popular for migratory bird viewing, especially bald eagles, shorebirds, and waterfowl. 

Wildlife observation takes place from the perimeter of refuges, or in specially designated 

areas within refuges (e.g. an observation blind where human presence is less disturbing to 

wildlife). However, these activities are not expected to have significant adverse effects on 

bald eagles due to their limited nature. 

The FS will continue to monitor wintering and nesting bald eagles on LBL through aerial 

surveys and monitoring from the ground. Project level inventories for this species will be 

considered on a project-by-project basis in accordance with procedures outlined in the 

Region 8 supplement to the FSM §2672.43 (effective February 15, 2002). This 

supplement provides a decision framework to aid in determining when project-level 

inventory of Proposed, Endangered, Threatened, and Sensitive species is necessary. 

These measures will be implemented to avoid adverse effects to bald eagles on LBL. FS 
Biological Assessment for the LBL Land & Resource Management Plan 

 - 15 - 

 

will consult with KFO pursuant to Section 7 when project-level inventory shows that 

potential adverse effects could occur. 

 

The bald eagle is currently listed as a threatened species. However, the U. S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service has proposed that the bald eagle be removed from the Threatened and 

Endangered Species list (U.S. FWS 1999). De-listing of the bald eagle may affect current 

and future management direction. 

Potential Effects 

Habitat relationships were defined and evaluated during the species viability assessment 

of the FEIS. Habitat associations identified for the bald eagle include Snag Associates; 

Lakeshores Associates; and Lakes (Water) Associates. Snag Associates includes species 

associated with standing dead trees; Lakeshores Associates includes species associated 

with forested lakeshores; and Lakes Associates includes species associated with open 

water. 

Although it is known that snag habitat occurs in LBL, an inventory of the acres of this 

habitat is not available and is, therefore, stated as zero acres in the FEIS. The amount of 

acres in snag habitat is projected to rate as poor in 10 years and good in 50 years, as 

correlated to old growth habitat conditions. Minimal management activities within Core 

Areas (referred to as Biosphere Reserve Core Areas in the 1994 Plan) will provide for 

these habitat conditions as well as outside Core Areas in actively managed prescriptive 

areas such as General Forest. Snags associated with Lakeshores and Lakes would have 

potential use for perching, and to a lesser extent nest trees. Standards in the Area Plan 

(partial list pages 7-9 of this document) will provide for the protection of snags, lake 

shoreline habitats and water quality of lakes in LBL. 

Proposed land management activities as described previously, including forest 

management, open-lands management, and prescribed burning will continue to provide 

suitable perching, nesting, and roosting habitat for bald eagles. Currently there are no 

bald eagle nests located in areas designated to become the oak-grassland demonstration 

areas, however, these areas may become more attractive for nesting eagles as this habitat 

type is restored. 

Stream, wetland, and riparian area management and standards will maintain or improve 

stability, function, and water quality of streams, ponds, and lakes. Stable or improved 

water quality would be beneficial in maintaining an aquatic forage base for eagles. 

Recreation use that includes camping; trail use including hiking, biking, equestrian, and 

off-highway vehicles (OHV); nature viewing; hunting; fishing; visitation to cemeteries; 

and management/maintenance of roads, trails, and facilities to provide for these activities 

will continue under the Area Plan. Recreation use during the planning period is expected 

to increase slightly from 1.8 million visits per year (2000 through 2003 average) to the 

former level (1995 through 1999) of just over 2.0 million visits per year. Human 

disturbance from legal or illegal recreational use of roads, trails, back-country camp sites, 
Biological Assessment for the LBL Land & Resource Management Plan 

 - 16 - 

 

and shoreline habitat could negatively affect the use of an area for nesting and/or roosting 

by eagles. Visitation to cemeteries, visitors viewing bald eagles within their protected 

management zones during the nesting season, management/use around some facilities, and 

trail construction/reconstruction and maintenance could also lead to potential disturbance 

of bald eagles. 

Individual bald eagle pairs exhibit considerable variation in response to human activity. 

Eagles are most vulnerable to disturbance early in the nesting period. Disturbance during 

this period could lead to nest abandonment and/or chilled or overheated eggs or young 

(U.S. FWS 1987). Wildlife refuges, which provide protected areas of minimal 

disturbance, allow eagles that are sensitive to disturbance protected areas to move away 

from disturbance. Additionally, an Area Plan standard provides for protection of nest sites 

as follows, “Protection zones specified in the current guidelines for bald eagle habitat 

management from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, will be delineated and maintained 

around all Bald Eagle nests and communal roost sites, unless exempted or modified by the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.” 

Increased emphasis on Environmental Education, implemented as part of the Area Plan, 

will help to get appropriate messages to visitors to educate them about bald eagles and 

their potential sensitivity to disturbance, and instruct them on how to reduce disturbance 

to bald eagles when they are in the field. 

In past years, as more remote areas of LBL became occupied by eagles and the eagle 

population continued to increase, bald eagles began occupying less remote sites. In LBL, 

bald eagles have selected nest sites ranging from remote forested areas, where the 

likelihood of human encounter was very low, to moderately remote (e.g.. forested area 

adjacent to croplands) to high levels of disturbance (e.g. within the boundary of the 

Turkey Bay Off-Highway Vehicle (OHV) Area). In the highest disturbance area, Turkey 

Bay OHV Area, following consultation with the Tennessee Field Office (TFO), measures 

were taken to protect the nesting pair including posting the area, restricting access to a 

nearby shoreline feeding area, adjusting and remarking the OHV camping boundary, 

limiting OHV riding in the camping area, monitoring the nest and boundaries, and citing 

riders who violated the boundaries. With these measures in place and enforced, LBL data 

show the OHV nesting pair have successfully fledged one to two eaglets each year for the 

past five years. 

As bald eagle populations continue to grow in the region, it is likely that this species will 

continue to choose nest sites in areas that have varying levels of human disturbance. 

Under the Area Plan, the FS, with assistance from volunteers, will actively monitor eagle 

populations and nests, provide refuge areas of low disturbance, provide nest protection 

according to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service guidelines, and provide environmental 

education to help visitors understand and avoid unnecessary disturbance to bald eagles. In 

instances where a take may occur, e.g. eagles build a nest in a high-use recreation site, FS 

will consult with the KFO under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. 

Determination of Effect 
Biological Assessment for the LBL Land & Resource Management Plan 

 - 17 - 

 

A determination of “not likely to adversely affect” is made for the bald eagle because: 

(1) Proposed vegetation management activities will continue to provide suitable perching, 

roosting, and nesting habitat for bald eagles. 

(2) Stream, wetland, and riparian area management and Area Plan standards will maintain 

or improve stability, function, and water quality of streams, ponds, and lakes. Stable 

or improved water quality would be beneficial in maintaining an aquatic forage base 

for eagles. 

(3) Although recreation use is expected to increase slightly, Area Plan direction and 

standards, continued provision of wildlife refuges, implementation and enforcement of 

habitat and nest protection guidelines, and education of visitors will all contribute to 

minimizing disturbance to bald eagles on LBL. 

(4) FS will continue to consult on a project-by-project basis on those projects that are 

proposed to occur with the primary and/or secondary management zones for LBL’s 

bald eagle nests. 

Interior Least Tern (Sterna antillarum) 

Environmental Baseline 

The interior least tern is an uncommon migrant and summer resident in the LBL region. 

The least tern’s summer range is in isolated areas along the Missouri, Mississippi, Ohio, 

Red, and Rio Grande river systems. Its winter range is not known, but is thought to 

include the coastal areas of Central and South America (U.S. FWS 1990). Interior least 

terns feed on small fish in shallow water, usually close to their nesting site. Fishing 

behavior involves hovering or diving over standing or flowing water (U.S. FWS 1990). 

Barren sandbars along rivers are the least tern’s most common nesting habitat. However, 

sandbars are unstable features of the riverine landscape, and many sandbars on today’s 

stabilized rivers are unsuitable for nesting because of vegetation encroachment, or are too 

low and subject to frequent inundation (U.S. FWS 1990). No known nesting has occurred 

by least terns in areas within LBL or immediately adjacent to LBL’s shoreline. Potential 

habitat for this species occurs along LBL’s shorelines as sand and gravel beaches. 

However, this habitat along LBL shorelines is greatly influenced by water level 

fluctuations of Kentucky Lake and Lake Barkley. Winter pool elevation for both lakes is 

354 feet, but the lakes are raised during April to a summer pool elevation of 359 feet, 

inundating much of the habitat. In addition to scheduled fluctuations, there are repeated 

unscheduled fluctuations due to precipitation, navigation needs, electricity generation, 

mosquito control, and other factors. The lake levels are maintained by the U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers (Lake Barkley) and the Tennessee Valley Authority (Kentucky Lake). 
Biological Assessment for the LBL Land & Resource Management Plan 

 - 18 - 

 

Management and Protection 

In assessing the viability of this species, it was given a Forest Rank of FP in the LBL Area 

Plan FEIS. FP rank means that the interior least tern could possibly occur on LBL; 

however documented occurrences are not known. 

Past management at LBL has provided protection for least tern feeding and nesting habitat 

by protecting water quality in LBL streams and lakes, and by protecting shorelines 

through implementation of forest management visual quality zones along LBL’s shoreline 

(TVA 1994a). 

Management and protection of interior least tern habitat in the Area Plan include measures 

to protect water quality in Kentucky Lake and Lake Barkley. Implementation of Area 

Plan standards, on pages 7-9 of this document, will protect and enhance water quality in 

LBL’s streams, which flow into the surrounding lakes. Objectives of the water resource 

program, as described in the Area Plan, are to maintain and enhance water quality, provide 

diverse aquatic and wetland habitat, protect riparian area functions, and provide 

information about water resource values to the public. Additionally, watersheds will be 

managed to provide resilient and stable conditions to insure the quality and quantity of 

water necessary to protect ecological functions. Stream, wetland, and riparian area 

management and standards in the Area Plan will maintain or improve stability, function, 

and water quality of streams, ponds, and lakes. Improved water quality in LBL’s streams 

and lakes will be beneficial to least terns by continuing to provide an aquatic forage base 

for this species. 

The level of inventory for this species will be considered on a project-by-project basis in 

accordance with procedures outlined in the Region 8 supplement to the FSM §2672.43 

(effective February 15, 2002). This supplement provides a decision framework to aid in 

determining when project-level inventory of Proposed, Endangered, Threatened, and 

Sensitive species is necessary. 

The above measures will be implemented to avoid adverse effects to least tern habitat on 

and immediately adjacent to LBL. Additionally, FS will survey for the presence of least 

terns when necessary, and consult with KFO pursuant to Section 7 if interior least terns 

are encountered. 

Potential Effects 

Habitat relationships were defined and evaluated during the species viability assessment in 

the Area Plan FEIS. Each species was linked to one or more habitat associations. Habitat 

associations identified for the Interior least tern include Lakeshores Associates, which are 

defined as species associated with forested lakeshores. Habitat used would primarily be 

sand beaches and bars along lakeshores. Implementation of Area Plan standards will 

protect the integrity of lakeshores as much as is within control of FS. Stream, wetland, and 

riparian area management and standards in the Area Plan will maintain or improve 

stability, function, and water quality of streams, ponds, and lakes. Improved water quality 
Biological Assessment for the LBL Land & Resource Management Plan 

 - 19 - 

 

in LBL’s streams, ponds and lakes will be beneficial to least terns by continuing to 

provide an aquatic forage base for this species. 

Proposed management actions in the Area Plan are not likely to adversely effect the 

Interior least tern because potential interior least tern habitat will be protected, and 

because this species is not known to occur on LBL. Potential habitat adjacent to LBL 

shorelines is not within FS jurisdiction to manage. Should this species be found to occur 

on LBL or along LBL’s shoreline, FS would consult with KFO pursuant to Section 7. 

Determination of Effects 

A determination of “Not likely to adversely affect.” is made for the interior least tern 

because: 

(1) Stream, wetland, and riparian area management and Area Plan standards will maintain 

or improve stability, function, and water quality of streams, ponds, and lakes. Stable 

or improved water quality would be beneficial in maintaining an aquatic forage base 

for least terns. 

(2) Watersheds will be managed to provide resilient and stable conditions to insure the 

quality and quantity of water necessary to protect ecological functions, an to protect 

shoreline habitat. 

(3) Least tern habitat in the adjacent reservoirs is frequently inundated by reservoir water 

level fluctuations, and is not within the jurisdiction of FS to manage. 

(4) Should this species be found to occur on LBL or along LBL shoreline, consultation 

would be held with the KFO pursuant to Section 7. 

Gray Bat (Myotis griscesens) 

Environmental Baseline 

Gray bat colonies are restricted entirely to caves or cave-like habitats for winter and 

summer roosts. During summer, the bats only select caves providing specific temperature 

and roost conditions. These caves usually are located within a half-mile of a river or 

reservoir (FWS 1991a). In winter, they utilize only deep, vertical caves having a 

temperature of 43 to 52 degrees Fahrenheit. There are nine caves believed to house 

roughly 95 percent of the hibernating population (U.S. FWS 1991a). 

One-way migrating distance between winter and summer caves may vary from as little as 

10 miles to well over 200 miles (U.S. FWS 1991a). Banding studies indicate gray bats 

occupy a definite summer range in relation to the roost site and nearby foraging areas over 

large streams and reservoirs (U.S. FWS 1991a). This species forages over rivers, streams, 

reservoirs, and ponds. Little is known about the actual feeding habits of gray bat, 

however, limited observations indicate that the majority of insects eaten are aquatic 

species, particularly mayflies (U.S. FWS 1991a). Summer colonies show a preference for 

caves located within 1.2 miles of feeding areas (U.S. FWS 1991a). 
Biological Assessment for the LBL Land & Resource Management Plan 

 - 20 - 

 

Populations of gray bats are found mainly in Alabama, northern Arkansas, Kentucky, 

Missouri, and Tennessee, but a few occur in northwestern Florida, western Georgia, 

southwestern Kansas, southern Indiana, southern and southwestern Illinois, northeastern 

Oklahoma, northeastern Mississippi, western Virginia, and possibly western North 

Carolina. Distribution within its range was always patchy, but fragmentation and 

isolation of populations have caused problems over the past 3 decades (U.S. FWS 1991a). 

The gray bat population was estimated to be about 2.25 million in 1970; however, in 1976 

a census of 22 important colonies in Alabama and Tennessee revealed an average decline 

of more than 50 percent. Due to protective measures taken at high priority winter and 

summer colony sites in the late 1970s and throughout the 1980s, the declines have been 

arrested at some major sites, and those populations are now stable or in some cases 

increasing (U.S. FWS 1991a). 

Human disturbance and vandalism may have been primarily responsible for the decline. 

Disturbance of a maternity colony may cause thousands of young to be dropped to the 

cave floor where they perish. Excessive disturbance may cause a colony to completely 

abandon a cave. Other factors which contributed to the decline included pesticides, 

natural calamities such as flooding and cave-ins, loss of caves due to inundation by manmade impoundments, and possibly a reduction in insect prey over streams that have been 

degraded through excessive pollution and siltation. Improper cave gating or cave 

commercialization also contributed to some population declines (U.S. FWS 1991a). 

LBL has no suitable caves for gray bats. Known caves used by gray bats near LBL 

include Shaw Hill Bat Cave located north of LBL in Livingston County, KY (15.6 air 

miles northwest of north entrance to LBL); Cool Spring Cave in Trigg County, KY (18.9 

air miles east-northeast of Golden Pond Visitor Center); Big Sulfur Springs Cave in Trigg 

County, KY (20.5 air miles east of Golden Pond Visitor Center); Tobaccoport Cave in 

Stewart County, TN (about 1.3 air miles east of the LBL shoreline; and Bellamy Cave in 

Montgomery County, TN (17 air miles from LBL) (Gardner 1992). 

Gray bats have been captured in mist nets over streams and ponds on LBL (Palmer 

Engineering 2003; Harvey and Britzke 2000; Moyer et al. 1996). Potential bat habitat 

was surveyed by Palmer Engineering in July and August 2002 using mist nets for 20 

sample sites that included stream and upland forest habitats. Ponds and road-rut ponds 

were included as survey sites. A total of 376 bats representing nine species were captured, 

including gray bats at seven sites. A bat study was conducted by Harvey and Britzke 

(2000) during two time periods, June 23 to 27 and July 30 to August 5, on four stream 

sites and six upland sites. A total of 200 bats, representing six species, were captured: 

eight of the bats were gray bats. Mist-net surveys were conducted between May 15 and 

August 15, 1994 and 1995; additionally, a preliminary mist-net survey was conducted on 

eleven sites during the summer months of 1993 (Moyer et al. 1996). A total of 29 

different sites were sampled (11 during 1993, 20 during 1994, and 14 during 1995). Two 

sites were located over old roads, four over ponds, one over a bay, and the remainder were 

located in stream corridors. A total of 557 bats representing nine species were captured, 

including 18 gray bats. 
Biological Assessment for the LBL Land & Resource Management Plan 

 - 21 - 

 

Management and Protection 

Under TVA’s 1994 management plan for LBL (TVA 1994a) gray bats were protected 

through the implementation of streamside management zones (SMZ’s). SMZ’s protected 

forested corridors over streams, and water quality in the streams and lakes by limiting 

management activities in the corridors. These measures protected stream corridors for 

foraging, and protected water quality to provide drinking water and an aquatic insect prey 

base for bats. Additionally, bat populations on LBL were monitored on a periodic basis 

under the 1994 plan. 

In assessing the viability of this species for the Area Plan, it was given a Forest Rank of 

F2 in the Area Plan FEIS. This means that the gray bat is a very rare occurrence on LBL; 

generally with six to twenty occurrences. 

Bat populations on LBL will continue to be monitored on a periodic basis in addition to 

project-specific inventory. The level of project inventory for gray bats will be considered 

on a project-by-project basis in accordance with procedures outlined in the Region 8 

supplement to the FSM §2672.43 (effective February 15, 2002). This supplement 

provides a decision framework to aid in determining when project-level inventory of 

Proposed, Endangered, Threatened, and Sensitive species is necessary. Project-specific 

monitoring will be implemented to avoid adverse effects to the gray bat on LBL. FS will 

consult with KFO pursuant to Section 7 when project-level inventory shows that potential 

adverse effects could occur. 

Protection measures for water resources in the Area Plan will benefit the gray bat. 

Objectives of the water resource program at LBL are to maintain and enhance water 

quality, provide diverse aquatic and wetland habitat, protect riparian area functions, and 

provide information about water resource values to the public. Water resources are 

managed through implementation of riparian corridors. Plan standards for intermittent 

and perennial streams have minimum riparian corridors of 50-75 feet and 100 feet 

respectively. Because of the contribution ephemeral streams make to the stream network, 

25-foot zones are managed along ephemeral streams to provide for channel stability and 

fluvial processes in addition to water quality. Plan standards, as listed on pages 7-9 of this 

document, will protect stream corridors and shoreline habitat. The above measures will 

protect stream corridors for foraging, and protect water quality in the streams and lakes to 

provide drinking water and an aquatic insect prey base for bats. 

Potential Effects 

LBL contains no suitable summer or winter caves for gray bats (Gardner 1992). 

However, Tobaccoport Cave in Stewart County, TN (about 1.3 air miles east of LBL) 

contains gray bats. LBL has suitable streams, shorelines, and ponds for foraging, and gray 

bats have been captured over streams and ponds on LBL (Palmer Engineering, 2003; 

Harvey and Britzke 2000; Moyer et al. 1996). 
Biological Assessment for the LBL Land & Resource Management Plan 

 - 22 - 

 

Habitat relationships were defined and evaluated during the species viability assessment 

of the Area Plan FEIS. Habitat associations identified for the gray bat include Riparian 

Forest Opening Associates, Lakeshore Associates, and Ponds and Marshes Associates, all 

of which provide foraging areas for gray bats. 

The Riparian Forest Opening Associates includes species associated with oak forest, 

mesophytic forest and riparian forest; with mature open forest, mature woodland, mature 

forest with canopy gaps, and regenerating forest structures on alluvial sites. The amount 

of this habitat association currently rates poor, and although there are increases in the 

amount during the first decade, the rating remains poor. In 50 years, increased acreage of 

this habitat improves the rating to fair. 

Lakeshore Associates includes species associated with forested lakeshores. Ponds and 

Marshes Associates include species associated with this habitat type. The amount of this 

habitat currently in LBL ranks as fair, and in 10 and 50 years is projected to remain fair. 

Implementation of Area Plan standards (pages 7-9 of this document) will protect these 

aquatic habitat types. The effects on foraging habitat are expected to be beneficial since 

the riparian corridors will be managed for the benefit of aquatic/riparian resources, and 

Area Plan standards will protect and improve these habitats and water quality. 

Recreational use is expected to increase slightly during the planning period. However, the 

projected small increase in recreational use resulting from Area Plan implementation is 

not expected to adversely affect the gray bat, primarily because the biggest threat from 

recreational use is disturbance of caves and LBL has no suitable caves for gray bats. 

Additionally, with implementation of Area Plan standards for protection of water 

resources, Area Plan recreational use is not expected to adversely affect gray bats. 

Determination of Effects 

A determination of “Not likely to adversely affect.” is made for the gray bat based on: 

(1) Summer or winter caves suitable for gray bats do not exist on LBL. 

(2) Water quality, stream corridors, and lake shorelines will be protected through 

management of water resources and implementation of Area Plan standards. These 

resources will continue to provide foraging areas and an aquatic prey base for gray 

bats. 

(3) A small increase in recreational use is not expected to adversely impact this species 

due to the absence of caves and the implementation of Area Plan standards to protect 

foraging areas and water quality. 

 (4) Potential adverse effects to gray bats will be considered on a project-by-project basis. 

If potential foraging habitat is proposed for alteration during the summer foraging 

months, or other actions which could potentially constitute a take, consultation will be 

held with KFO. 
Biological Assessment for the LBL Land & Resource Management Plan 

 - 23 - 

 

Indiana Bat (Myotis sodalis) 

Environmental Baseline 

The Indiana bat occurs in the Midwest and eastern United States from the western edge of 

the Ozark region in Oklahoma, to southern Wisconsin, east to Vermont, and as far south 

as northern Florida. In summer, it is apparently absent south of Tennessee; in winter, it is 

apparently absent from Michigan, Ohio, and northern Indiana where suitable caves and 

mines are lacking. In 1991 it was estimated that approximately 500,000 individuals of 

this species remained throughout its range (U.S. FWS 1991b). 

Limestone caves and mines are used for winter hibernation. A few individuals have been 

found under bridges and in old buildings, and maternity colonies have been found under 

loose bark and in the hollows of trees (U.S. FWS 1991b). 

Trees standing in sunny openings or high in the canopy are attractive as summer roost 

sites because the air spaces and crevices under the bark are warmer (Gardner 1992). 

Cavities within dead trees are preferred summer roost sites (Gardner 1992). Summer 

foraging by females and juveniles is limited to riparian and floodplain areas; and the 

males forage over floodplain ridges and hillside forests. Foraging areas average 11.2 

acres per animal in midsummer. Streams are apparently not used if riparian trees have 

been removed. Little is known of this bat's diet beyond the fact that it consists of insects 

(U.S. FWS 1991b). 

This species has a breeding period that usually occurs during the first 10 days of October. 

Limited mating may also occur in the spring before the hibernating colonies disperse (U.S. 

FWS 1991b). Limited observations indicate that birth and development occur in very 

small, widely scattered colonies consisting of 25 or so females and their young. Birth 

usually takes place during June with each female bearing a single offspring. 

Approximately 25 to 37 days are required for development to the flying stage and the 

beginning of independent feeding. Migration to wintering caves usually begins in August 

(U.S. FWS 1991b). 

The Indiana bat is nearly extinct over most of its former range in the northeastern states, 

and since 1950, the major winter colonies in caves of West Virginia, Indiana, and Illinois 

have disappeared. A high degree of winter aggregation makes the species particularly 

vulnerable. During this period, approximately 87 percent of the entire population 

hibernates in only seven caves. The decline of Indiana bats is attributed to 

commercialization of roosting caves, habitat destruction by vandals, disturbances caused 

by increased numbers of spelunkers and bat banding programs, use of bats as laboratory 

experimental animals, and possibly insecticide poisoning (U.S. FWS 1991b). 

LBL has suitable summer roosting and foraging habitat for Indiana bats including oakhickory forest, stream corridors, and ponds. However, there are no suitable winter 

hibernacula sites (e.g., caves, rock shelters, abandoned mines, etc.) for Indiana bats or 

other threatened, endangered, or special concern bat species within LBL (Gardner 1992). 
Biological Assessment for the LBL Land & Resource Management Plan 

 - 24 - 

 

The following caves with approximate distance to LBL have been designated as Critical 

Habitat within the Southeast Region (U.S. FWS 1991b): 

 

 Tennessee: White Oak Blowhole Cave, Blount County, TN (238 miles to LBL) 

Kentucky: Bat Cave, Carter County, KY (292 miles to Golden Pond Visitor 

 Center, in LBL) Coach Cave, Edmonson County, KY (112 miles to 

 Golden Pond Visitor Center in LBL) 

No Indiana bats have been detected on LBL as a result of extensive mist net surveys 

conducted during five summers from 1993 to 2002 (Harvey and Britzke 2000; Moyer et. 

al. 1996; Rebar and Hendricks 1994; Palmer Engineering 2003) and one survey using 

Anabat technology (Harvey and Britzke 2000). 

Management and Protection 

Under TVA’s 1994 management plan for LBL (TVA 1994a) Indiana bat habitat was 

protected through the implementation of streamside management zones (SMZ’s). SMZ’s 

protected forested corridors over streams, and water quality in the streams and lakes by 

limiting management activities in the corridors. Additionally, management allowed for 

retention of exfoliating bark species of trees in SMZ’s according to guidelines in the 

Indiana bat recovery plan. These measures protected stream corridors for foraging and 

potential maternity sites, and protected water quality to provide drinking water and an 

aquatic insect prey base for Indiana bats. Additionally, bat populations on LBL were 

monitored on a periodic basis under the 1994 plan. 

In assessing the viability of this species at LBL, it was given a Forest Rank of FP in the 

Area Plan FEIS, meaning that the Indiana bat could possibly occur on LBL; however 

documented occurrences are not known. Bat populations on LBL will continue to be 

monitored on a periodic basis under the Area Plan. Additionally, the level of inventory 

for Indiana bats will be considered on a project-by-project basis in accordance with 

procedures outlined in the Region 8 supplement to the FSM §2672.43 (effective February 

15, 2002). This supplement provides a decision framework to aid in determining when 

project-level inventory of Proposed, Endangered, Threatened, and Sensitive species is 

necessary. FS will consult with KFO pursuant to Section 7 if Indiana bats are found on 

LBL 

Protection measures for water resources in the Area Plan will benefit the Indiana bat. 

Objectives of the water resource program at LBL are to maintain and enhance water 

quality, provide diverse aquatic and wetland habitat, protect riparian area functions, and 

provide information about water resource values to the public. Water resources are 

managed through implementation of riparian corridors. Plan standards for intermittent 

and perennial streams have minimum riparian corridors of 50-75 feet and 100 feet 

respectively. Because of the contribution ephemeral streams make to the stream network, 

25-foot zones are managed along ephemeral streams to provide for channel stability and 

fluvial processes in addition to water quality. Plan standards, as listed on pages 7-9 of this 

document, will protect stream corridors and shoreline habitat. These measures will 
Biological Assessment for the LBL Land & Resource Management Plan 

 - 25 - 

 

protect stream corridors for foraging, and protect water quality in the streams and lakes to 

provide drinking water and an aquatic insect prey base for bats. 

Vegetation management under the Area Plan will continue to provide for a predominantly 

oak-hickory forest with large, older age-class trees that will continue to provide trees with 

exfoliating bark across the LBL landscape for potential Indiana bat maternity sites. 

Additionally, retention of snags and den trees and creation of oak woodlands will provide 

additional potential roosting and summer maternity sites for Indiana bats. On upper 

slopes and ridges across the area, grasslands (less than 10 percent canopy closure) and 

open oak woodlands (10 to 60 percent canopy closure) will be interspersed in variable 

mixtures. Understories will be dominated by native grasses and forbs. Most mid and 

lower slopes will support open oak forests (60 to 80 percent canopy closure), with 

understories containing oak regeneration in sufficient numbers to provide for sustaining 

oak on these sites over time. Area Plan standards, listed on pages 7 to 9 of this document, 

will protect stream corridors, lake shorelines, streams, ponds, and water quality for 

feeding and watering. 

Potential Effects 

No Indiana bats have been detected on LBL as a result of extensive mist net surveys and 

one ANABAT survey conducted during five summers from 1993 to 2002. Additionally, 

LBL contains no suitable winter hibernacula for Indiana bats (Gardner 1992). LBL does 

contain suitable habitat for foraging and potential roosting and summer maternity sites. 

Habitat relationships were defined and evaluated during the species viability assessment 

for the Area Plan FEIS. Potential habitat associations identified for the Indiana bat 

include Forest Opening Associates, Riparian Forest Opening Associates, Den Tree 

Associates, Snag Associates, and Pond and Marshes Associates. These habitat types will 

provide for potential foraging, roosting, and summer maternity sites. 

The Forest Opening Associates includes species associated with structural types of mature 

open forest; mature forest with gaps; mature woodland; and regenerating forests in all 

cover types. The amount of this habitat association currently rates poor, but with 

increases in the amount of this habitat in 10 years, the rating improves to fair. In 50 years 

with continued increases, the rating is projected to be good. These habitat types will 

provide for potential roosting, and summer maternity sites. 

The Riparian Forest Opening associates includes species associated with oak forest, 

mesophytic forest and riparian forest; with mature open forest, mature woodland, mature 

forest with canopy gaps, and regenerating forest structures on alluvial sites. The amount 

of this habitat association currently rates poor, and although there are increases in the 

amount during the first decade, the rating remains poor. In 50 years, with increased 

acreage of this habitat, the rating is projected to be fair. These habitat types will provide 

for potential foraging, roosting, and summer maternity sites. 

The Den and Snag Associates include species associated with partially or entirely hollow 

(den) trees and standing dead (snag) trees. Exfoliating bark on snags such as white oak 
Biological Assessment for the LBL Land & Resource Management Plan 

 - 26 - 

 

and den trees are important for summer and maternity roosts. Although it is known that 

snag and den tree habitat occurs in LBL, an inventory of the acres of these habitat types is 

not available for LBL and is thus stated as zero acres in the FEIS. The amount of acres in 

snag and den tree habitat is projected to rank as poor in 10 years and good in 50 years as 

correlated to old growth habitat conditions. However, the amount of snags and den trees 

correlated to mature forest is currently rated as very good, and will remain so over time. 

Minimal management activities within Core Areas will provide for these habitat 

conditions as well as outside Core Areas in actively managed prescriptive areas such as 

General Forest. Additionally, increased use of prescribed fire will result in increased snag 

and den tree production. Implementation of Area Plan standards will protect den trees and 

snags for potential use by the Indiana bat and other species. These habitat types will 

provide for potential roosting, and summer maternity sites for the Indiana bat. 

Ponds and Marshes Associates include plant and animal species that require this habitat 

type for a portion of their life cycle requirements. This habitat type is primarily 

represented by ponds and wildlife waterholes located mostly in open lands, and small 

ephemeral wetlands dispersed across the landscape on LBL. Continued management of 

the ponds and waterholes, and some restoration of these sites, will provide potential 

foraging habitat and drinking water sources for this species. 

The projected small increase in recreational use resulting from Area Plan implementation 

is not expected to adversely affect the Indiana bat, primarily because the biggest threat 

from recreational use is disturbance of caves, and LBL has no suitable caves for Indiana 

bats. Additionally, with implementation of Area Plan standards for protection of foraging 

and water resources, and implementation of project-level inventory and analysis when 

needed, Area Plan recreational use is not expected to adversely affect Indiana bats. 

Determination of Effects 

A determination of “Not likely to adversely affect.” is made for the Indiana bat based on: 

(1) Winter hibernacula do not exist for the Indiana bat on LBL. 

(2) Vegetation management will provide for a predominantly oak-hickory forest with 

large, older age-class trees, den trees, and snags that will continue to provide trees 

with exfoliating bark across the LBL landscape for potential roost and maternity sites. 

(3) Water quality, stream corridors, and lake shorelines will be protected through 

management of water resources and implementation of Area Plan standards. These 

resources will continue to provide foraging areas and an aquatic prey base for bats. 

(4) A small increase in recreational use is not expected to adversely impact this species 

due to the absence of caves and the implementation of Area Plan standards to protect 

terrestrial and aquatic resources. 

(5) Although Indiana bats have not been found on LBL, periodic monitoring for bats will 

continue, and project-specific inventory will be implemented as needed. If Indiana 

bats are found on LBL, consultation will be held with the KFO. 
Biological Assessment for the LBL Land & Resource Management Plan 

 - 27 - 

 

Price’s Potato Bean (Apios priceana)

Environmental Baseline 

Price’s potato bean is a perennial herbaceous vine in the pea family. The fleshy knob at the 

tip of each flower is a characteristic feature of this species. Leaves are mostly divided into 

seven leaflets, and flowers are produced in July, followed by bean-like fruits (Chester and 

Ellis 2000). Price’s potato bean is an inhabitant of open, mixed-oak forests, forest edges 

and clearings in river bottoms, ravines, and is unable to tolerate deep shade (NatureServe 

2004). This species is also associated with calcareous boulders and several populations 

extend onto road or utility rights-of-ways (NatureServe 2004). Known populations of this 

species occur in four states: Alabama, Kentucky, Mississippi, and Tennessee (U.S. FWS 

1993). Several populations have not been observed in recent years and are assumed to be 

extirpated. A recovery plan was issued for the federally threatened Price's potato bean in

1993 (U.S. FWS 1993). 

Several surveys for Price’s potato bean have been conducted on LBL by Kentucky State 

Nature Preserves Commission, Dr. Edward Chester from Austin Peay State University, and 

others. At the time of implementation of TVA’s 1994 plan, two populations were known on 

LBL. In subsequent years following plan implementation, three additional populations were 

discovered. Five populations of Price's potato bean, are known to occur on LBL at the 

present time. Four populations are in Kentucky: Hematite Lake, Laura Furnace, Mammoth 

Furnace, and Pisgah Bay. One population is located in Tennessee near Lake Barkley. 

Price’s Potato Bean occurs in a variety of situations on LBL, including adjacent to lake 

shorelines, road rights-of-way, and limestone outcrops. All LBL populations occur with 

other plant species characteristic of dry to dry-mesic conditions, with the possible exception 

of the Pisgah Bay population that could be characterized as dry-mesic or mesic (White 

2001). All populations in LBL are components of a local flora that is associated with 

limestone outcrops. 

Management and Protection 

Under TVA’s 1994 management plan for LBL (TVA 1994a) Price’s potato bean was 

monitored and managed in conjunction with Kentucky State Nature Preserves 

Commission and TFO. Measures were taken to protect two known populations. At one 

site a no-mowing zone was established along a roadside to prevent routine mowing of the 

site. At the second site, a popular hiking trail was rerouted to move hikers away from the 

population, primarily to keep them from picking the showy flowers. Both of these 

measures were successful in achieving their objectives. Additionally, limited 

management was attempted by removing canopy trees at the two sites to reduce shading, 

with limited success. At one of the two canopy removal sites, several trees were removed to 

increase light levels. The following year, one plant flowered at the site in response to 

increased light levels, and the number of plants increased from 16 to 22 (White 2001). At the 

second canopy removal site, several trees were removed from the opposite (east) side of the 

road, but there was minimal recovery in the number of flowering plants at this site in the 

following year (White 2001). During the 10 year planning period, three additional 
Biological Assessment for the LBL Land & Resource Management Plan 

 - 28 - 

 

populations were discovered, bringing the total to five, and by the end of the planning 

period all five populations had remained stable or declined primarily as a result of 

increased shading due to canopy closure or competing vegetation. 

In assessing the viability of this species at LBL, it was given a Forest Rank of F1 in the 

LBL Area Plan FEIS, meaning that the Price’s potato bean is an extremely rare occurrence 

on LBL; generally with one to five occurrences. 

Excessive shade, ground disturbance, and dense shrubby/herbaceous competition 

threatened the existing populations at LBL. A total of 52 stems were found on LBL in 

2001 (White 2001) and four of the five LBL sites were recommended for shade removal (the 

fifth site appeared to be receiving sufficient light). These measures have not yet been 

implemented. Increased light levels should allow flowers to develop, and increase the 

potential for reproduction. Based on recommendations by White (2001) and results of KFO 

site visits in 2003 and 2004, management and protection of this species is needed for LBL’s 

populations. An approach to the recovery of this species was discussed with the KFO during 

their visit to LBL on June 22, 2004. The approach, including all treatments, will be closely 

coordinated with KFO, and will consider many factors in the habitat requirements for this 

species. Treatments will be determined in consultation with the KFO, applied on a sitespecific basis, and may include shade tree removal (canopy and under-story), removal of 

competing vegetation through mechanical means or selective application of approved 

herbicides, prescribed mowing, prescribed burning, protection from routine maintenance 

activities such as mowing and herbicide application, exclusion of visitors from the plants 

and/or sites, and natural and artificial propagation. Depending on the particular prescription 

applied to a given site, treatment may be implemented during the growing season or the 

dormant season. 

Recovery efforts for Price’s potato bean under the Area Plan will involve continued 

monitoring and evaluation of the species. Monitoring of known populations will occur on an 

annual basis unless otherwise determined in consultation with KFO. The level of inventory 

for Price’s potato bean for site-specific projects will be considered on a project-by-project 

basis in accordance with procedures outlined in the Region 8 supplement to the FSM 

§2672.43 (effective February 15, 2002). ). This supplement provides a decision 

framework to aid in determining when project-level inventory of Proposed, Endangered, 

Threatened, and Sensitive species is necessary. If any new populations of Price’s Potato 

Bean are found prior to or during project implementation, the KFO will be notified, and 

the appropriate standards and guidelines will be followed to ensure that this species and its 

habitats are protected. With continued monitoring and evaluation, attainment of 

additional information will lead to more knowledge about the species and its habitat 

preferences and requirements. This information may be used in the future to propagate 

the species in new locations in conjunction with KFO and others. 

Potential Effects 

Price’s Potato bean has been selected in the Area Plan as a Management Indicator Species 

(MIS) for recovery of this species. The greatest threat to the LBL populations is shade. 

There is a need for shade removal on four of the five LBL sites (White, 2001). 
Biological Assessment for the LBL Land & Resource Management Plan 

 - 29 - 

 

Implementation of management prescriptions in cooperation with KFO should be 

beneficial to known populations. 

Vegetation management activities including forest management, prescribed burning, 

implementation of oak-grassland demonstration areas, herbicide treatment of invasive, 

non-native plant species, and utility and road rights-of-way maintenance could affect this 

species. Habitat relationships were defined and evaluated during the species viability 

assessment of the FEIS. Habitat associations identified for the Price’s potato bean include 

Forest Opening Associates which includes species associated with structural types of 

mature open forest; mature forest with gaps; mature woodland; and regenerating forests in 

all cover types. Forest opening associates’ habitat potential increases for the Price’s 

potato bean in the selected alternative in the future, with a moderate increase in the next 

10 years, and a relatively large increase in potential habitat in the next 50 years (FEIS 

Table 3.2.8K). The amount of this habitat association currently rates poor. In ten years, 

the rating improves to fair, and in 50 years the rating is projected to be good. These 

openings will provide beneficial habitats for potential Prices’s potato bean recolonization. 

The projected small increase in recreational use resulting from Area Plan implementation 

is not expected to adversely affect Price’s potato bean, primarily because protection 

measures already in place (restricted mowing zone and rerouted recreational trail) will 

remain in effect. If additional populations are discovered or become established in the 

future, appropriate protective measures would be coordinated with KFO. 

If the above species is found prior to or during project implementation, the appropriate 

Area Plan standards will be followed to ensure that this species and its habitat are 

protected. Conservation measures for natural regeneration of the existing populations and 

propagation of additional populations will consider guidance from the Price’s potato bean 

Recovery Plan (U.S. FWS 1993), state natural heritage programs, species experts, and will 

be closely coordinated under consultation with KFO. 

Determination of Effect 

A determination of “Not likely to adversely affect” is made for Price’s potato bean 

because: 

(1) Monitoring and management of five known Price’s potato bean sites in consultation 

with KFO, along with continued long-term monitoring of these populations, will help 

to maintain or increase known populations of this species on LBL. 

(2) Vegetation management activities resulting from Area Plan implementation are 

expected to increase potential habitat for Price’s Potato Bean during the planning 

period by opening the forest canopy in selected locations, which could result in new 

populations. 

(3) Projected increases in recreational use will be monitored, and appropriate measures 

will continue to be enforced to protect known populations and any newly discovered 

populations from potential adverse effects of recreational use. 

(4) The potential to propagate the species in new locations will be explored with KFO and 

others, which would be beneficial for the species. 
Biological Assessment for the LBL Land & Resource Mgt Plan

Conclusion

Objectives of this Biological Assessment (BA) were to

.

Comply with requirements of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as

amended, so that actions by federal agencies will not jeopardize the existence of

federally listed species, or destroy, or adversely modify their critical habitat.

.

Assess the effects that implementation of Area Plan will have on threatened and

endangered species lmown to exist on or near the Recreation Area.

Provide biological input to ensure United States Forest Service (FS) compliance

with the National Forest Management Act (NFMA)of 1976 and Forest Service

Manual (FSM) 2670.

The Determination of Effect for bald eagle, interior least tern, gray bat, Indiana bat, and

Price's potato bean is "not likely to adversely affect." This document was prepared in

partial fulfillment of requirements of informal consultation with the United States Fish

and Wildlife Service. The Forest Service will apply the Area Plan's applicable standards

to protect and conserve these species and their habitats, and will continue consulting with

KFO on a project-by-project basis as required.

Signatures of Preparers

>; .r;'?-/~ (/ ;". ill/(t:2J: lc4.6

I' Eli;zabeth Raikes

LWildlife Biologist

Date:

D Date: ~- () Coo 'T -tJ ~

J //

Management Officer

Date: /0,/2:2./ u 'I- ~~~&7

Wildlife Technician

k"",--flk ~ Date:: loj'1..zL:Aoo1

Steve Bloemer

Supervisory Wildlife Biologist
Biological Assessment for the LBL Land & Resource Management Plan 

 - 31 - 

 

References and Data Sources 

Abbott, J. 1978. Chesapeake Bay bald eagles. Delaware Conservation 22(2):3-9. 

Andrew, J. M. and J. A. Mosher. 1982. Bald Eagle nest site selection and nesting habitat 

in Maryland. J. Wildl. Management. 46:382-390. 

Campbell, J. 2001. Unpublished report. Report on botanical survey for Motorcycle 

Event, LBL 200. United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Land 

Between The Lakes, Golden Pond, KY. 6 pp. 

Campbell, J. 2002. Unpublished report. Report on botanical survey for watershed roads 

analysis in the Work Area 18 timber sale area. United States Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Land Between The Lakes, Golden Pond, KY. 

Campbell, J. 2003. Unpublished report. Report on botanical survey of wildlife openings 

and their margins. United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Land 

Between The Lakes, Golden Pond, KY. 24 pp. 

Campbell, R. W., N. K. Dawe, I. McTaggert-Cowan, J. M. Cooper, G. W. Kaiser, and M. 

C. E. McNall. 1990. The Birds of British Columbia. Volume 1. Nonpasserines: 

Introduction and loons through waterfowl. University of British Columbia Press, 

Vancouver, BC, Canada. 514 pp. 

Chester, E.W. and W.H. Ellis. 2000. Wildflowers of the Land Between The Lakes 

Region, Kentucky and Tennessee, 2nd Ed. Misc. Pub. No. 15, Center for Field 

Biology, Austin Peay State University, Clarksville, Tennessee. 

Fox, R. 2004. Personal communication. Former wildlife technician with the Tennessee 

Valley Authority, Land Between The Lakes, Golden Pond, KY. 

Personal communication noted in project record files information 

Fralish, J.S., and F.B. Crooks 1989. Forest composition, environment and dynamics at Land 

Between The Lakes in northwest middle Tennessee. J. Tenn. Acad. Sci. 64:107-111. 

Franklin, S.B. 1994. Late Pleistocene and Holocene Vegetation History of Land Between 

The Lakes, Kentucky and Tennessee. Transactions Kentucky Academy of Science 

55:6-19. 

Gardner, J.E. 1992. Evaluations of habitats for threatened, endangered, and special 

concern bat species, Land Between The Lakes, Tennessee Valley Authority. Final 

Report. 

Green, N. 1985. The Bald Eagle. Pp. 508-531 in R.L. DiSilvestro, ed., Audubon Wildlife 

Report 1985. National Audubon Society, New York. 
Biological Assessment for the LBL Land & Resource Management Plan 

 - 32 - 

 

Harvey, M.J. and E.R. Britzke. 2000. Survey for bats at Land Between The Lakes. Final 

Report. 

Kentucky State Nature Preserves Commission. 2002a. Endangered, Threatened, and 

Special Concern Plants, Animals, and Monitored Communities Recorded from 

Kentucky with Habitat Description. http://www.kynaturepreserves.org.

Kentucky State Nature Preserves Commission. 2002b. County Report of Endangered, 

Threatened, and Special Concern Plants, Animals and Natural Communities of 

Kentucky http://www.kynaturepreserves.org.

Lackey, R. H. 1991. Habitat Characteristics of Bald Eagle Nest Sites on TVA’s Land 

Between The Lakes in Kentucky and Tennessee. Unpublished wildlife intern 

report. Tennessee Valley Authority, Land Between The Lakes, Golden Pond, KY. 

64 pp. 

Martin, W.H. and T. Taylor. 2002. Land Between The Lakes, Kentucky and Tennessee: 

Four Decades of Tennessee Valley Authority Stewardship. The Center for Field 

Biology, Austin Peay State University, Clarksville, Tennessee, USA. 267-283 pp. 

Moyer, B.D., C. Rebar, and T. Derting. 1996. Survey of bat species on TVA’s Land 

Between the Lakes with emphasis on endangered, threatened, and special concern 

species. Final Report. 

National Research Council. 1983. Risk assessment in the federal government: managing 

the process. Washington, DC: Nat. Acad. Press. 191 p. 

NatureServe. 2004. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web 

application]. Version 4.0. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available 

http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. (Accessed: September 24, 2004 ). 

Palmer Engineering. 2003. Biological assessment/evaluation of federal threatened and 

endangered species for US 68/ KY 80 Trigg and Marshall Counties, KY. KYTC 

item number 1-0180.00. Draft. 

Peterson, C.T. 1967. Bald eagles in Land Between The Lakes. TVA Pub. F67LBL8. 

Tennessee Valley Authority, Land Between The Lakes, Golden Pond, KY. 5 pp. 

Rebar, C. E. and W. D. Hendricks. 1994. Mist netting surveys for endangered, 

threatened, or special concern species on TVA Land Between The Lakes. 

Progress report submitted to Tennessee Valley Authority. 

Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation. 2002. Natural Heritage 

Program Rare and Endangered Vascular Plant List of Tennessee. 

http://www.state.tn.us/environment/nh/vascular.htm
Biological Assessment for the LBL Land & Resource Management Plan 

 - 33 - 

 

Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation. 2003. Natural Heritage 

Program Rare Species of Stewart County. 

http://www.state.tn.us/environment/nh/species/list.php?county=stewart

Tennessee Valley Authority. 1994a. Natural Resources Management Plan for Land 

Between The Lakes. Volume II. Land Between The Lakes, 100 Van Morgan 

Drive, Golden Pond, KY 42211. 

Tennessee Valley Authority. 1994b. Best management practices for silvicultural 

activities on TVA lands. Land Management Tennessee Valley Authority, Norris, 

TN. 

Tennessee Valley Authority. 1994c. Final Environmental Impact Statement on the 

Natural Resources Management Plan at Land Between The Lakes. Volume I. 

Land Between The Lakes, 100 Van Morgan Drive, Golden Pond, KY 42211. 

USDA. Forest Service. 2002. Assessment of Stream Habitat, Fish, Macroinvertegrates, 

Sediment, and Water Chemistry for Eleven Streams in Land Between The Lakes 

National Recreation Area, Kentucky and Tennessee. USDA Forest Service, 

Center for Aquatic Technology Transfer, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State 

University, Blacksburg, VA. 71 pp. 

USDA. Forest Service. 2004. Unpublished report. Report on History of Bald Eagle 

Nesting on Land Between The Lakes. United States Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Land Between The Lakes, Golden Pond, KY. 24 pp. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1986. Standard evaluation procedure: ecological 

risk assessment. Publ. EPA-540-9-85-001. Washington, DC: U.S. Environ. Prot. 

Agency, Off. Pestic. Prog., Haz. Eval. Div. 96 p. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1987. Habitat management guidelines for the bald eagle 

in the Southeast, third revision. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Atlanta, GA. 9 

pp. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1990. Recovery Plan for the Interior Population of the 

Least Tern (Sterna antillarum). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Twin Cities, MN. 

90 pp. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1991a. Gray Bat Species Account. 

http://endangered.fws.gov/i/A4L.html 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1991b. Indiana Bat Species Account. 

http://endangered.fws.gov/i/a/saa08.html 
Biological Assessment for the LBL Land & Resource Management Plan 

 - 34 - 

 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1993. Recovery Plan for Price’s Potato Bean (Apios 

priceana). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Atlanta, GA. 45 pp. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1995. Endangered Species Success Story. Biologue Series. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1999. Proposed rule to remove the Bald Eagle in the lower 

48 states from the endangered and threatened wildlife. Federal Register 64:36453-

36464. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2003. Response to Biological Evaluation for the Use of 

Herbicides to Manage Wildlife Plantings and Ecological Restoration Sites at Land 

Between The Lakes NRA Kentucky and Tennessee USDA Forest Service. June 4, 

2003. 30 p. 

White, Deborah. 2001. Apios priceana (Price’s Potato Bean) at Land Between the Lakes 

2001 Updates to Population Status and Management Recommendations. Kentucky 

State Nature Preserves Commission. 16 pp.