u.s. FISH&WII,Ol,IFE SERVICE 

United States Department of the Interior
 

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE	 TAKE PRIDE ~oF·n\\·> Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office INAMERICA 

2493 Portola Road, Suite B 0 

Ventura. Calif°Re6ElVE IN REPLY REHR 10: 

2008-TA-0407 

July 16, 2008 JUL 2 2 Z008 

Air Division,AIR-:; Gerardo C. Rios U.S. EPA, REGION 9 

Chief, Air Permits Office 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
 

75 Hawthorne Street
 

San Francisco, California 94105
 

Subject:	 Final Translocation Plan for Desert Tortoises at the Victorville 2 Hybrid 

Power Project, San Bernardino County, California (l-8-07-F-67) 

Dear Mr. Rios: 

The City of Victorville and Inland Energy requested by letter dated June 27, 2008, that 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) review the final translocation plan for 

individuals of the federally threatened desert tortoise (Gopherus agassizii). We provided 

comments to you on the initial translocation plan by letter, dated May 8, 2008, and have 

discussed subsequent revisions to the plan with Inland Energy's consultant, Tom Egan, 

on several occasions. The translocation plan is being developed as a requirement of the 

consultation between the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Service, under 

the authorities of section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, and 

of other agencies responsible for environmental review of the proposed Victorville 2 

hybrid power project. 

Additionally, Mr. Egan provided responses to comments on the final plan that the City of 

Victorville and Inland Energy have submitted to the California Energy Commission. We 

have considered those responses in our review of the final translocation plan. 

The Service has no additional comments on the translocation plan. We note, however, 

the California Energy Commission, in its comments on the current version of the 

translocation plan, stated that it was "not aware of agency staff involved in the permitting 

of Victorville 2 expressing (translocation of desert tortoises into a desert wildlife 

management area) as a preference". We note that, as Mr. Egan quotes in the responses to 

the California Energy Commission's comments on the translocation plan, our May 8, 

2008 letter regarding the first draft of the translocation plan suggested that the City of 

Victorville "strongly consider areas of critical habitat within desert wildlife management 

areas as a translocation site." We certainly prefer that the desert tortoises from the 

project site be located into an area that affords them a level of protection (such as a desert 

wildlife management area), rather than into an area that is likely to be subject to future 

development. Translocating the desert tortoises into another area of protected land 
Gerardo C. Rios 2 

adjacent to a desert wildlife management area may also be reasonable, provided that the 

land uses surrounding the translocation do not pose a high degree of risk to the animals, if 

they movc onto those areas. 

We recognize that the 19-94 recovery plan for the desert tortoise recommends that animals 

not be translocated into critical habitat; however, given the protective provisions 

contained in this translocation plan and the small number of animals that may be moved, 

we do not view the recovery plan's guidance in this case as an absolute directive. For 

these reasons, combined with the fact that the revised recovery plan will contain updated 

guidance on translocation, we recommend that desert tortoises from the Victorville 2 

project site be translocated into the most appropriate habitat for their continued survival, 

even if the selected area is within critical habitat and a desert wildlife management area. 

If you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact Ray Bransfield ofmy staff 

at (805) 644-1766, extension 317. 

Sincerely, 

"J~~ /~rl T. Benz 

-JV'sistant Field Supervisor