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

# United States Department ofthe Interior

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 

### TAKE PRIDE**~oF·n\\·>** Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office 

## INAMERICA 2493 Portola Road, Suite B 

# 0
Ventura. Calif°Re6E

# lVE

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 ofVictorville 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 ofthe 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 ofthe consultation between the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Service, under the authorities of section 7(a)(2) ofthe Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, and ofother agencies responsible for environmental review ofthe 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 ofthe 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 ofthe translocation plan, stated that it was "not aware of agency staffinvolved in the permitting ofVictorville 2 expressing (translocation ofdesert 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 ofthe translocation plan suggested that the City of Victorville "strongly consider areas ofcritical 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 ofprotection (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 ofprotected land2 Gerardo C. Rios
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 ofrisk 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 ifthe 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