Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Listing Three Foreign Bird Species From Latin America and the Caribbean as Endangered Throughout Their Range, 79226-79254 [E8-30464]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
79226
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 24, 2008 / Proposed Rules
Information Relay Service (FIRS) at
800–877–8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[FWS–R9–IA–2008–0117; 96100–1671–
0000–B6]
RIN 1018–AV76
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants; Listing Three Foreign Bird
Species From Latin America and the
Caribbean as Endangered Throughout
Their Range
hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS2
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service), propose to
list three species of birds from Latin
America and the Caribbean—the
Andean flamingo (Phoenicoparrus
andinus), the Chilean woodstar (Eulidia
yarrellii), and the St. Lucia forest thrush
(Cichlherminia lherminieri
sanctaeluciae)—as endangered under
the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (Act) (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
This proposal, if made final, would
extend the Act’s protection to these
species. The Service seeks data and
comments from the public on this
proposed rule.
DATES: We will accept comments
received or postmarked on or before
February 23, 2009. We must receive
requests for public hearings, in writing,
at the address shown in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section by
February 9, 2009.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
by one of the following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
• U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Public
Comments Processing, Attn: FWS–R9–
IA–2008–0117; Division of Policy and
Directives Management; U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive,
Suite 222; Arlington, VA 22203.
We will not accept comments by email or fax. We will post all comments
on https://www.regulations.gov. This
generally means that we will post any
personal information you provide us
(see the Public Comments section below
for more information).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Rosemarie Gnam, Division of Scientific
Authority, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Room
110, Arlington, VA 22203; telephone
703–358–1708; facsimile 703–358–2276.
If you use a telecommunications device
for the deaf (TDD), call the Federal
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:04 Dec 23, 2008
Jkt 217001
Public Comments
We intend that any final action
resulting from this proposal will be as
accurate and as effective as possible.
Therefore, we request comments or
suggestions on this proposed rule. We
particularly seek comments concerning:
(1) Biological, commercial trade, or
other relevant data concerning any
threats (or lack thereof) to these species
and regulations that may be addressing
those threats.
(2) Additional information concerning
the taxonomy, range, distribution, and
population size of these species,
including the locations of any
additional populations of these species.
(3) Any information on the biological
or ecological requirements of these
species.
(4) Current or planned activities in the
areas occupied by these species and
possible impacts of these activities on
these species.
You may submit your comments and
materials concerning this proposed rule
by one of the methods listed in the
ADDRESSES section. We will not
consider comments sent by e-mail or fax
or to an address not listed in the
ADDRESSES section.
If you submit a comment via https://
www.regulations.gov, your entire
comment—including any personal
identifying information—will be posted
on the Web site. If you submit a
hardcopy comment that includes
personal identifying information, you
may request at the top of your document
that we withhold this information from
public review. However, we cannot
guarantee that we will be able to do so.
We will post all hardcopy comments on
https://www.regulations.gov.
Comments and materials we receive,
as well as supporting documentation we
used in preparing this proposed rule,
will be available for public inspection
on https://www.regulations.gov, or by
appointment, during normal business
hours, at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Division of Scientific
Authority, 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Room
110, Arlington, VA 22203; telephone
703–358–1708.
Background
Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act requires
us to make a finding (known as a ‘‘90day finding’’) on whether a petition to
add a species to, remove a species from,
or reclassify a species on the Federal
Lists of Endangered and Threatened
Wildlife and Plants has presented
substantial information indicating that
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
the requested action may be warranted.
To the maximum extent practicable, the
finding must be made within 90 days
following receipt of the petition and
published promptly in the Federal
Register. If we find that the petition has
presented substantial information
indicating that the requested action may
be warranted (a positive finding),
section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act requires us
to commence a status review of the
species if one has not already been
initiated under our internal candidate
assessment process. In addition, section
4(b)(3)(B) of the Act requires us to make
a finding within 12 months following
receipt of the petition on whether the
requested action is warranted, not
warranted, or warranted but precluded
by higher priority listing actions (this
finding is referred to as the ‘‘12-month
finding’’). Section 4(b)(3)(C) of the Act
requires that a finding of warranted but
precluded for petitioned species should
be treated as having been resubmitted
on the date of the warranted but
precluded finding, and is, therefore,
subject to a new finding within 1 year
and subsequently thereafter until we
publish a proposal to list or a finding
that the petitioned action is not
warranted. The Service publishes an
annual notice of resubmitted petition
findings (annual notice) for all foreign
species for which listings were
previously found to be warranted but
precluded.
Previous Federal Actions
On November 24, 1980, we received
a petition (1980 petition) from Dr.
Warren B. King, Chairman of the
International Council for Bird
Preservation (ICBP), to add 60 foreign
bird species to the List of Threatened
and Endangered Wildlife (50 CFR
17.11(h)), including two species (the
Chilean woodstar and the St. Lucia
forest thrush) that are the subject of this
proposed rule. In response to the 1980
petition, we published a positive 90-day
finding on May 12, 1981 (46 FR 26464),
for 58 foreign species, noting that 2 of
the foreign species identified in the
petition were already listed under the
Act, and initiated a status review. On
January 20, 1984 (49 FR 2485), we
published a 12-month finding within an
annual review on pending petitions and
description of progress on all species
petition findings addressed therein. In
that notice, we found that all 58 foreign
bird species from the 1980 petition were
warranted but precluded by higher
priority listing actions. On May 10,
1985, we published the first annual
notice (50 FR 19761), in which we
continued to find that listing all 58
foreign bird species from the 1980
E:\FR\FM\24DEP2.SGM
24DEP2
hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 24, 2008 / Proposed Rules
petition was warranted but precluded.
In our next annual notice, published on
January 9, 1986 (51 FR 996), we found
that listing 54 species from the 1980
petition, including the 2 species that are
the subject of this proposed rule,
continued to be warranted but
precluded, whereas new information
caused us to find that listing 4 other
species in the 1980 petition was no
longer warranted. We published
additional annual notices on the
remaining 54 species included in the
1980 petition on July 7, 1988 (53 FR
25511); December 29, 1988 (53 FR
52746); and November 21, 1991 (56 FR
58664), in which we indicated that the
Chilean woodstar and the St. Lucia
forest thrush, along with the remaining
species in the 1980 petition, continued
to be warranted but precluded.
On May 6, 1991, we received a
petition (hereafter referred to as the
1991 petition) from ICBP, to add 53
species of foreign birds to the List of
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife,
including the Andean flamingo, also the
subject of this proposed rule. In
response to the 1991 petition, we
published a positive 90-day finding on
December 16, 1991 (56 FR 65207), for all
53 species, and announced the initiation
of a status review. On March 28, 1994
(59 FR 14496), we published a 12-month
finding on the 1991 petition, along with
a proposed rule to list 30 African birds
under the Act (15 each from the 1980
petition and 1991 petition). In that
document, we announced our finding
that listing the remaining 38 species
from the 1991 petition, including
Andean flamingo, was warranted but
precluded by higher priority listing
actions. On January 12, 1995 (60 FR
2899), we published the final rule to list
the 30 African birds and reiterated the
warranted-but-precluded status of the
remaining species from the 1991
petition. We made subsequent
warranted-but-precluded findings for all
outstanding foreign species from the
1980 and 1991 petitions, including the
three species that are the subject of this
proposed rule, as published in our
annual notice of review (ANOR) on May
21, 2004 (69 FR 29354), and April 23,
2007 (72 FR 20184).
Per the Service’s listing priority
guidelines (September 21, 1983; 48 FR
43098), our 2007 ANOR identified the
listing priority numbers (LPNs) (ranging
from 1 to 12) for all outstanding foreign
species. The LPNs for the three species
of birds in this proposed rule are as
follows: Andean flamingo (LPN 2),
Chilean woodstar (LPN 4), and St. Lucia
forest thrush (LPN 3).
On January 23, 2008, the United
States District Court for the Northern
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:04 Dec 23, 2008
Jkt 217001
District of California ordered the Service
to issue proposed listing rules for five
foreign bird species, actions which had
been previously determined to be
warranted but precluded: Andean
flamingo (Phoenicoparrus andinus),
black-breasted puffleg (Eriocnemis
nigrivestis), Chilean woodstar (Eulidia
yarrellii), medium tree finch
(Camarhynchus pauper), and St. Lucia
forest thrush (Cichlherminia lherminieri
sanctaeluciae). The court ordered the
Service to issue proposed listing rules
for these species by the end of 2008.
On July 29, 2008 (73 FR 44062), we
published in the Federal Register a
notice announcing our annual petition
findings for foreign species. In that
notice, we announced listing to be
warranted for 30 foreign bird species,
including the 5 species that are subject
to the January 23, 2008, court order and
the 3 species which are the subject of
this proposed rule. The medium tree
finch and black-breasted puffleg are the
subject of separate proposed rules,
which published in the Federal Register
on December 8, 2008 (73 FR 74434 and
73 FR 74427, respectively).
Species Information and Factors
Affecting the Species
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533),
and its implementing regulations at 50
CFR part 424, set forth the procedures
for adding species to the Federal Lists
of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants. A species may be
determined to be an endangered or
threatened species due to one or more
of the five factors described in section
4(a)(1) of the Act. The five factors are:
(A) The present or threatened
destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range; (B)
overutilization for commercial,
recreational, scientific, or educational
purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D)
the inadequacy of existing regulatory
mechanisms; and (E) other natural or
manmade factors affecting its continued
existence.
Below is a species-by-species analysis
of these five factors. The species are
considered in alphabetical order,
beginning with the Andean flamingo,
and followed by the Chilean woodstar
and the St. Lucia forest thrush.
I. Andean flamingo (Phoenicoparrus
andinus)
Species Description
Flamingos (Phoenicopteridae) are
gregarious, long-lived birds that inhabit
saline wetlands and breed in colonies
(del Hoyo 1992, pp. 509–519; Caziani et
al. 2007, pp. 277). The Andean flamingo
is the largest member of the
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
79227
Phoenicopteridae family in South
America, reaching an adult height of 3.5
˚
feet (ft) (110 centimeters (cm)) (Fjeldsa
and Krabbe 1990, p. 86). This waterbird
is native to low-, medium-, and highaltitude wetlands in the Andean regions
of Argentina, Bolivia, Chile, and Peru
(BirdLife International (BLI) 2008, p. 1;
del Hoyo 1992, p. 526), where it is
locally known as ‘‘flamenco andino,’’
‘‘parina grande,’’ ‘‘pariguana,’’
‘‘pariwana,’’ and ‘‘chururu’’ (BLI 2006,
p. 1; Castro and Varela 1992, p. 26;
Davison 2007, p. 2; del Hoyo 1992, p.
´
526; Saenz 2006, p. 185).
An adult Andean flamingo has a pale
yellow face and pale pink coloring
overall. Its upper plumage is brighter
pink, with a deeper pink to wine redcolored neck, breast, and wing-coverts
(feathers on the upper wing), and
prominent black tertial feathers (feathers
on the posterior portion of the wing).
The bill is pale yellow with a black tip,
and the legs and feet are yellow (BLI
2008, p. 1; del Hoyo 1992, p. 526).
Young Andean flamingos are grayish in
color and achieve full adult plumage in
their third year (del Hoyo 1992, p. 526).
Andean flamingo is one of three
flamingo species that is endemic to the
high Andes of South America (Johnson
et al. 1958, p. 299; Johnson 1967, p. 404;
del Hoyo et al. 1992, p. 508; Line 2004,
pp. 1–2; Caziani et al. 2007, p. 277;
Arengo in litt. 2007, p. 2). All flamingos
have pink plumage to varying degrees
(del Hoyo 1992, p. 508). The Andean
flamingo is distinguished from other
South American flamingos by its size
(being the largest in the area), leg
coloring (being the only flamingo with
yellow legs), and wing coloring (having
prominent black tertial feathers that
form a ‘‘V’’ when the flamingo is not in
flight) (BLI 2008, p. 1; del Hoyo 1992,
p. 526). Andean flamingos are longlived (see Habitat and Life History) (BLI
2008, p. 2; del Hoyo et al. 1992, p. 517).
Taxonomy
The Andean flamingo was first
taxonomically described as
Phoenicopterus andinus
(Phoenicopteridae family), by Rodulfo
Philippi in 1854 (Philippi 1860, p. 164;
Hellmayr 1932, p. 448). In 1856,
Bonaparte split the genus
Phoenicopterus, placing the Andean
flamingo in a separate genus, as
Phoenicoparrus andinus, along with the
sympatric (species inhabiting the same
or overlapping geographical areas)
James’ flamingos (P. jamesi) (Hellmayr
and Conover 1948, pp. 273–278; Jenkin
1957, p. 405). In 1990, Sibley and
Monroe (1990, p. 311) suggested the
Andean flamingo should be returned to
the genus Phoenicopterus, based on the
E:\FR\FM\24DEP2.SGM
24DEP2
79228
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 24, 2008 / Proposed Rules
close genetic relatedness among all
flamingo species (Sibley and Ahlquist
1989, as cited in Ramsen et al. 2007, p.
18). However, many contemporary
researchers maintain that the Andean
flamingo should remain within the
genus Phoenicoparrus, based on bill
morphology and the lack of a hind toe
(BLI 2008, p. 1; Caziani et al. 2007, p.
276; del Hoyo et al. 1992, pp. 508–509;
˚
Fjeldsa and Krabbe 1990, p. 86; Mascitti
and Kravetz 2002, pp. 73–83; Valqui et
al. 2000, p. 110). Therefore, we accept
the species as Phoenicoparrus andinus,
which is also consistent with the
Convention on International Trade in
Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and
Flora (CITES) species database (UNEP–
WCMC 2008b, p. 1).
hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS2
Habitat and Life History
Andean flamingos are native to the
Andes Mountains, from southern Peru
and southwestern Bolivia to northern
Chile and northwestern Argentina. They
occupy shallow wetlands, collectively
called salars, that are characterized as
shallow, often saline, lakes (known
locally as ‘‘lagos’’ or ‘‘lagunas’’) with
exposed salt-flats or mudflats (Boyle et
al. 2004, pp. 563–564; Caziani et al.
2007, pp. 277; Hurlbert and Keith 1979,
pp. 328). Andean flamingos also inhabit
‘‘bofedales,’’ which are described as
wet, marshy, perennial meadowlands
(de la Fuente 2002, p. 1; Ducks
Unlimited 2007c, p. 1). These wetlands
are found at various elevations,
including: (1) The high Andes, referred
to as ‘‘altiplanos’’ (Spanish for ‘‘high
plains’’), generally above 13,123 ft
(4,000 meters (m)); (2) the ‘‘puna’’
(Spanish for ‘‘highlands’’), between
9,843 and 13,123 ft (3,000 and 4,000 m);
and (3) the lowlands, below 9,843 ft
(3,000 m) (Caziani et al. 2001, p. 103;
Caziani et al. 2007, p. 278). Andean
flamingos generally occupy wetlands
˚
that are less than 3 ft (1 m) deep (Fjeldsa
and Krabbe 1990, p. 86; Mascitti and
˜
Castenera 2006, p. 331).
Most of the wetlands in which
Andean flamingos are found are
‘‘endoreic,’’ ‘‘endorheic,’’ or closed.
This refers to internally-draining water
networks prevalent in the Andes that
are characterized by rivers or bodies of
water that do not drain into the sea, but
either dry up or terminate in a basin
(Caziani et al. 2001, p. 103; Hurlbert and
Keith 1979, p. 328). The water levels at
these basins expand and contract
seasonally and depend in large part on
summer rains to ‘‘recharge’’ or refill
them (Bucher 1992, p. 182; Caziani and
Derlindati 2000, pp. 124–125; Caziani et
al. 2001, p. 110; Mascitti and Caziani
1997, p. 328).
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:04 Dec 23, 2008
Jkt 217001
Andean flamingos are altitudinal and
opportunistic migrants (Goldfeder and
Blanco 2007, p. 190). During the
summer (December to January), Andean
flamingos generally reside in the puna
and altiplano regions of the Andes, at
elevations between 11,483 and 14,764 ft
(3,500 and 4,500 m). In the winter, they
may move to lower elevations—down to
210 ft (64 m) above sea level—along the
Peruvian coast and inland to the central
plains of Argentina and Bolivia (Blake
1977, p. 207; BLI 2008, pp. 1 and 6;
Boyle et al. 2004, pp. 563–564, 570–571;
Bucher 1992, p. 182; Bucher et al. 2000,
p. 119; Caziani et al. 2006. p. 17; Caziani
et al. 2007, pp. 277, 279, 281; del Hoyo
˚
1992, p. 514, 519; Fjeldsa and Krabbe
1990, p. 85; Hurlbert and Keith 1979,
pp. 330; Kahl 1975, pp. 99–101; Mascitti
and Bonaventura 2002, p. 360; Mascitti
˜
and Castanera 2006, p. 328).
They disperse widely, even while
nesting, and can travel long distances,
flying from 249 mi (400 km) to 715 mi
(1,150 km) daily (Caziani et al. 2003, p.
11; Caziani et al. 2007, p. 277; Conway
2000, p. 212; del Hoyo 1992, pp. 509–
˚
519; Fjeldsa and Krabbe 1990, p. 85).
Their movements are unpredictable and
appear to be influenced by varying
environmental conditions affecting the
availability of wetlands (Bucher et al.
2000, p. 119; del Hoyo 1992, p. 514 and
˚
516; Fjeldsa and Krabbe 1990, p. 85).
When climatic conditions are favorable,
breeding takes place, and when climatic
conditions are unfavorable, breeding is
abandoned, very limited, or takes place
at alternative, less-productive breeding
grounds (e.g., Bucher et al. 2000, pp.
119–120).
All flamingos are believed to be
monogamous, with a strong pairbonding tendency that may be
maintained from one breeding season to
the next (del Hoyo 1992, p. 514).
Andean flamingos nest at high densities,
with breeding colonies consisting of up
to thousands of pairs (del Hoyo 1992, p.
526). Andean flamingos reach sexual
maturity between 3 and 5 years of age
(Bucher 1992, p. 183). Breeding season
for the Andean flamingo occurs in the
summer, generally from December
through February (BLI 2008, p. 2; del
˚
Hoyo et al. 1992, p. 516; Fjeldsa and
Krabbe 1990, p. 85; Hurlbert and Keith
1979, pp. 328), although the breeding
season may begin as early as October
and continue through April (Goldfeder
and Blanco 2007, p. 190). Both sexes
share in nest-building and nesting
(Bucher 1992, p. 182). Nests are built on
the miry clay or transient islands of
shallow lakes (del Hoyo 1992, pp. 514,
516). Each nest consists of a clay
mound, up to 16 inches (in) (40 cm)
high, with a small depression on top
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
˚
(del Hoyo et al. 1992, p. 516; Fjeldsa
and Krabbe 1990, p. 85). Flamingos lay
a single white egg, usually in December
or January, and incubation lasts about
28 days (del Hoyo et al. 1992, p. 526).
If the egg is destroyed from flooding or
predation, the pair may re-clutch (lay a
replacement egg), but only if the loss
occurs within a few days of the first egg
being laid (del Hoyo et al. 1992, p. 516).
Chicks remain in the nest 5–12 days,
during which time both the parents feed
the chick with ‘‘milk’’ secretions formed
by glands in their upper digestive tracts
˚
(Fjeldsa and Krabbe 1990, p. 85; del
Hoyo et al. 1992, p. 513). Feeding is
shared by parents, in approximately 24hour shifts (Bucher 1992, p. 182). When
flamingo chicks leave the nest, they
`
form large nursery creches (groups) of
hundreds or thousands of birds that are
tended by a few adults (del Hoyo et al.
1992, p. 516).
Flamingo breeding habits can vary
widely from year to year. Flamingos
may breed in large numbers for 2 or
more successive years, followed by
other years in which there is no known
breeding. Not all sexually mature adults
breed every year and, even in years of
breeding, not all sexually mature adults
will participate (Bucher 1992, p. 183).
Flamingos are generally considered to
˚
have poor breeding success (Fjeldsa and
Krabbe 1990, p. 85) and Andean
flamingos, in particular, have
experienced periods of very low
breeding success over the past twenty
years (Arengo in litt. 2007, p. 2) (See
Population Estimates, below). Juvenile
mortality rates during dispersal are
unknown (Caziani et al. 2007, p. 284),
and adult survival is considered to be
˚
‘‘very high’’ (Fjeldsa and Krabbe 1990,
p. 85). Andean flamingos are long-lived,
with an average lifespan of 20 to 30
years. Some wild adults live up to 50
years (BLI 2008, p. 2; del Hoyo et al.
1992, p. 517). Recent trends in breeding
success are further discussed under
Population Estimates, below.
Andean flamingos are wading filterfeeders, often forming large feeding
flocks at wetlands alongside sympatric
flamingos, Chilean flamingos
(Phoenicopterus chilensis), and James’
flamingos (del Hoyo 1992, p. 512;
˜
Mascitti and Castanera 2006, pp. 328–
329). Andean flamingos feed principally
on diatoms (microscopic one-celled or
colonial algae) (Mascitti and Kravetz
2002, p. 78), especially those in the
genus Surirella (no common name),
which is a dominant component of
surface sediments at the bottom of many
˚
altiplano lakes in the Andes (Fjeldsa
and Krabbe 1990, p. 86; Hurlbert and
Chang 1983, p. 4768).
E:\FR\FM\24DEP2.SGM
24DEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 24, 2008 / Proposed Rules
Historical Range and Distribution
The Andean flamingo type specimen
(the specimen that was first described
by Philippi in 1854) was collected from
Salar de Atacama, in Antofagasta
Province (Chile) (Hellmayr 1932, p.
312). Salar de Atacama is, therefore,
referred to as the ‘‘type locality.’’ The
species was subsequently reported in
Argentina in 1872 (Provinces of Jujuy
´
and Tucuman) (Burmeister 1872, p. 364;
Hellmayr and Conover 1948, p. 277),
Peru (Departments of Salinas and
Arequipa) in 1886 (Hellmayr 1932, p
312; Hellmayr and Conover 1948, p.
277; Weberbauer 1911, p. 27), and
Bolivia in 1902 (Department of Oruru)
(Hellmayr and Conover 1948, p. 277;
Johnson et al. 1958, p. 289).
The species’ movements and
distribution within its range were not
understood throughout much of the
20th century. Early researchers
considered the Andean flamingo to be
relatively sedentary (Jenkin 1957, p.
405; Johnson et al. 1958, pp. 297–298),
with a distribution that did not extend
below 10,000 ft (3,048 m) (Hellmayr
1932, p. 25; Johnson 1967, p. 405). Later
researchers remarked on the nomadic
nature of the species (McFarlane 1975,
p. 88) and reported lower limits to the
species’ distribution (i.e., 8,200 ft (2,500
m)) (Kahl 1975; pp. 99–100). Hurlbert
and Keith (1979, pp. 334, 336) noted a
seasonal variance in the species’
altitudinal distribution, and Bucher
(1992, p. 182) noted that migration
might take place between Chilean
breeding grounds and Argentinian
wetlands.
Current Range and Distribution
The current range of the Andean
flamingo extends from Peru, through
Chile and Bolivia, to Argentina, in
wetlands at elevations ranging from 210
to 14,764 ft (64 to 4,500 m) (BLI 2008,
pp. 1, 6; Bucher 1992, p. 192; Bucher et
al. 2000, p. 119; del Hoyo 1992, pp. 514;
˚
Fjeldsa and Krabbe 1990, p. 85). In
1989, an immature Andean flamingo—
that had been banded in Chile earlier
that year—was captured in Brazil (Sick
1993, p. 154). There were additional
sightings of the Andean flamingo in
Brazil in the 1990s (Bornschein and
Reinert 1996, p. 807–808). However, the
species is considered a non-breeding
‘‘vagrant’’ in Brazil (BLI 2008, p. 5).
Its total extent of occurrence
(including sites where breeding does not
occur) is estimated as 124,711 square
miles (mi2) (323,000 square kilometers
(km2)). The estimated area in which the
species is known to breed and reside
year-round is 72,973 square miles (mi2)
(189,000 square kilometers (km2)) (BLI
2008, p. 4).
Their seemingly erratic movements
and ability to disperse widely,
combined with the harsh climatic
conditions and the inaccessibility of
their habitat, have made it difficult for
researchers to fully understand their
seasonal movements and breeding
habits (Bucher et al. 2000, p. 119; del
˚
Hoyo 1992, pp. 514; Fjeldsa and Krabbe
1990, p. 85) (see also Habitat and Life
History, above). Researchers have long
considered Chilean wetlands to be the
primary breeding grounds for the
species (Bucher et al. 2000, p. 119;
˚
Ducks Unlimited 2007c, pp. 1–4; Fjeldsa
and Krabbe 1990, p. 86; Johnson et al.
1958, p. 296; Kahl 1975 p. 100).
Researchers have only recently
confirmed that the species is an
altitudinal and opportunistic migrant
(Goldfeder and Blanco 2007, p. 190).
Simultaneous censuses undertaken
since 1997 confirmed that Andean
flamingos migrate altitudinally. In the
summer, most of the population is
concentrated primarily in Chile, and to
a lesser extent in Argentina and Bolivia.
In winter, the species may converge in
certain Chilean and Peruvian wetlands
(Valqui et al. 2000, p. 111), with
relatively large numbers of birds
overwintering in Bolivia and Argentina
in some years (Caziani et al. 2007, pp.
279, 281). Recent banding studies
confirmed that Andean flamingos at
79229
high-altitude wetlands move to lower
altitude lakes, where weather conditions
are less severe (Rocha and Rodriguez
2006, p. 12).
Andean flamingos occupy some
wetlands year round (where they may or
may not breed), some wetlands only
during the summer breeding season, and
other wetlands only in winter (see Table
1). Recent research established that
there is an important, complementary
link between breeding and non-breeding
wetlands frequented by Andean
flamingos (Derlandati 2008, p. 10).
Research in Argentina at highland
(breeding) and lowland (non-breeding)
sites indicated that, regardless of season,
Andean flamingos spend the majority of
their time eating (Derlandati 2008, p.
10). They will travel to different
wetlands to feed, even while nesting
(Bucher 1992, p. 182; Caziani et al.
2007, p. 277; Conway 2000, p. 212; del
Hoyo 1992, pp. 509–519). Research in
Argentina at high-elevation breeding
sites and low-elevation non-breeding
sites indicated that breeding displays at
lowland sites were important precursors
to successful breeding at high altitude
sites (Derlandati 2008, p. 10).
Several Andean flamingo localities in
each range country are described below
and in Table 1, organized in
alphabetical order by country and name
of wetland. This is not an exhaustive
accounting of all known wetlands
occupied by the species, but includes
sites that are frequented by the species
or are otherwise notable, such as
recently discovered breeding sites. In
Table 1, ‘‘Type’’ indicates whether the
site is known as a breeding (B) or nonbreeding (NB) wetland. In most cases,
NB indicates that the species
overwinters at the wetland. However, in
some cases, Andean flamingos occupy a
wetland year-round, but no breeding
occurs there. Habitat information was
obtained primarily from Ducks
Unlimited (2007a–d) and BirdLife
International (2008).
TABLE 1—SELECTED ANDEAN FLAMINGO NESTING AND OVERWINTERING WETLANDS IN ARGENTINA, BOLIVIA, CHILE, AND
PERU
Elevation in feet/
meters
Area in acres/
hectares
Wetland
Department
Argentina ............
hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS2
Country
Laguna Brava ....
La Rioja .............
13,780 ft/4,200
m.
1,977 ac/800 ha
B/NB
Argentina ............
Laguna de
´
Melincue.
Santa Fe ............
276–295 ft/84–
90 m.
29,653 ac/12,000
ha.
NB
Argentina ............
Lagunas de los
Aparejos.
Catamarca .........
13,911 ft/4,240
m.
343 ac/139 ha ...
B/NB
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:04 Dec 23, 2008
Jkt 217001
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Type
E:\FR\FM\24DEP2.SGM
Description/comments
Large lake associated with an
endoreic (closed) river basin
that includes Laguna de Mulas
Muertas.
One of two lowest-elevation
endoreic wetlands frequented
by Andean flamingos.
Shallow lagoon in a larger lagoon
system that is lacking in aquatic
vegetation.
24DEP2
79230
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 24, 2008 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 1—SELECTED ANDEAN FLAMINGO NESTING AND OVERWINTERING WETLANDS IN ARGENTINA, BOLIVIA, CHILE, AND
PERU—Continued
Country
Wetland
Department
Elevation in feet/
meters
Area in acres/
hectares
Type
Argentina ............
Laguna de Mar
Chiquita.
´
Cordoba .............
210–230 ft/64–
70 m.
494,211 ac/
200,000 ha.
B/NB
Argentina ............
Laguna de Mulas
Muertas.
La Rioja .............
13,123 ft/4,000
m.
1730 ac/700 ha
NB
Argentina ............
Laguna de
Pozuelos.
Jujuy ..................
11,483 ft/3,500
m.
24,710 ac/10,000
ha.
B/NB
Argentina ............
Laguna
Guayatayoc.
Jujuy ..................
12,008 ft/3,660
m.
247,104 ac/
100,000 ha.
NB
Argentina ............
Laguna Vilama ..
Jujuy ..................
14,436 ft/4,400
m.
19,768 ac/8,000
ha.
B/NB
Bolivia .................
´
Lago Poopo .......
Oruru .................
12,090 ft/3,685
m.
330,380 ac/
133,700 ha.
NB
Bolivia .................
Lago Uru Uru ....
Oruru .................
12,126 ft/3,696
m.
69,190 ac/28,000
ha.
NB
Bolivia .................
Laguna Colorada
´
Potosı ................ 13,944 ft/4,250
m.
12,948 ac/ 5,240
ha.
B/NB
Bolivia .................
Laguna Kalina or
Busch.
´
Potosı ................ 14,862 ft/4,530
m.
3,954 ac/1,600
ha.
B/NB
Bolivia .................
Oruru .................
13–15,000 ft/4–
4,500 m.
37,066 ac/15,000
ha.
B/NB
Bolivia .................
Laguna de
Pastos
Grandes.
Salar de Chalviri
´
Potosı ................ 14,396 ft/4,388
m.
28,417 ac/11,500
ha.
NB
Bolivia .................
Salar de Coipasa
Oruru .................
12,112 ft/3,692 ..
548,077 ac/
221,800 ha.
B/NB
Chile ...................
Lago del Negro
Francisco.
´
Salar de Ascotan
Atacama ............
6,919 ac/2,800
ha.
93,406 ac/37,800
ha.
B/NB
Antofagasta .......
13,123 ft/4,000
m.
12,211 ft/ 3,722
m.
Chile ...................
Salar de
Atacama.
Antofagasta .......
7,546 ft/2,300 m
691,895 ac/
280,000 ha.
B/NB
Chile ...................
Salar de Coposa
´
Tarapaca ...........
Salar de Huasco
´
Tarapaca ...........
21,003 ac/8,500
ha.
14,826 ac/ 6,000
ha.
B/NB
Chile ...................
12,376 ft/3,730
m.
13,123 ft/4,000
m.
Chile ...................
Salar de Surire ..
´
Tarapaca ...........
Lago
Parinacochas.
Ayacucho ...........
61,776 ac/25,000
ha.
16,556 ac/6,700
ha.
B/NB
Peru ....................
13,583 ft/4,140
m.
10,738 ft/3,273
m.
Peru ....................
Laguna de
Loriscota.
Laguna Salinas
Puno ..................
15,299 ft/4,663
m.
14,091 ft/4,295
m.
8525 ac/3,450
ha.
17,544 ac/7,100
ha.
NB
Chile ...................
hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS2
Peru ....................
Arequipa ............
Argentina: Several wetlands in
Argentina provide year-round habitat
for the Andean flamingo (see Table 1).
The species breeds and overwinters
regularly at Laguna de Pozuelos and
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:04 Dec 23, 2008
Jkt 217001
Lagunas de Vilama (Caziani &
Derlandati 2000, p. 121; Caziani et al.
2001, p. 113; Caziani et al. 2006, p. 13;
Caziani et al. 2007, p. 279; Ducks
Unlimited 2007a, pp. 1–4). The Vilama
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
B/NB
B/NB
NB
NB
Description/comments
This
large,
permanent,
hypersaline, seasonally fluctuating lake is the lowest-elevation locality.
Located near and part of the
same endoreic river basin as
Laguna Brava.
Central lake within endoreic basin
with lower water levels and extensive mudflats in winter.
Part of large salt basin where
endoreic waters form shallow,
brackish to hypersaline lakes.
Large, permanent endoreic lake,
prone to wide water fluctuations
and winter freezes.
Large, shallow saline lake in same
ancient endoreic river basin as
Lago Uru Uru.
´
Along with Lago Poopo, experiences wide fluctuations in water
level.
Hypersaline endoreic lake fed by
streams and thermal springs,
with shores that freeze at night.
Hypersaline lake associated with
the same endoreic water basin
as Laguna Colorada.
Group of small, permanent saline
lakes in an ancient caldera fed
by underground sources.
Basin of many small lakes separated by saltflats; fed by small
streams and thermal springs.
Large salt basin and shallow
hypersaline
lake,
receiving
´
water from Rıo Lauca.
Large high-altitude permanent
lake surrounded by bofedales.
High-altitude salt basin with many
saline lakes on perimeter, fed
by several freshwater springs.
Endoreic salt basin with fluctuating
water levels from summer
storms and snowmelt.
Endoreic salt with small lagoon
that fluctuates greatly in size.
Salt basin receiving summer rains
and fed by snow melt bogs and
bofedales.
Permanent saline lake.
Shallow, large brackish endoreic
lake and marshes with exposed
salt flats in dry season.
Permanent, shallow hypersaline
lake surrounded by bofedales.
Semi-permanent,
shallow
hypersaline lake with freshwater
springs and bofedales on perimeter.
wetlands system (Lagunas de Vilama) is
comprised of nine lakes: Arenal, Caiti,
Catal, Cerro Negro, Colpayoc, Isla
Grande, Palar, Pululos, and Vilama
(Caziani and Derlindati 2000, p. 122;
E:\FR\FM\24DEP2.SGM
24DEP2
hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 24, 2008 / Proposed Rules
Caziani et al. 2001, p. 103). During a 3year study, Andean flamingos occupied
8 of the 9 lakes, but were especially
concentrated on Laguna Vilama and
Laguna Catal (Caziani and Derlindati
2000, p. 125). Caziani et al. 2001 (p.
104) determined that the Vilama
wetland system provided a variety of
spatial and seasonal ecological
conditions on the landscape level, such
that a range of options existed from
which Andean flamingos could select
habitat at any given time during the
year. They further suggest that similar
landscape-level relationships between
wetlands exist, even when the wetlands
are not located within the same basin
(Caziani et al. 2001, p. 110). The
Lagunas de Vilama wetland has
harbored up to 30 percent of Andean
flamingos during the breeding season
(Caziani & Derlandati 2000, p. 121;
Caziani et al. 2006, p. 13).
In recent decades, the species has
nested or overwintered in locations not
previously recorded. In January 1998,
the first account of Andean flamingos
nesting was reported at Laguna Brava
(Bucher et al. 2000, p. 119). Long known
as an overwintering site for the species
(Caziani et al. 2007, p. 279), Laguna
Brava has continued to provide isolated
nesting sites (de la Fuente 2002, p. 6).
Also in January 1998, large numbers of
non-breeding birds were reported at
Laguna de Mulas Muertas, just 4 mi (7
km) from Laguna Brava (Bucher et al.
2000, p. 120). Researchers attribute both
the large number of breeding birds at
Laguna Brava and the large number of
non-breeding birds at Laguna de Mulas
Muertas to unusual rainfall patterns that
year (Bucher et al. 2000, p. 120). In
March 2001, chicks were observed at
Lagunas de los Aparejos (Caziani et al.
2007, pp. 279, 283), part of a lagoon
system with Laguna Azul and Laguna
Negra (BLI 2008, p. 50). Normally
known as a nesting site for the James’
flamingo (Childress 2005, p. 6), this may
now be a nesting site for the Andean
flamingo as well (BLI 2008, p. 50).
Andean flamingos overwinter at both
high- and low-elevation wetlands in
Argentina. Laguna Guayatayoc is a highelevation overwintering site for Andean
flamingos (Ducks Unlimited 2007a, pp.
1–4), where the species has sometimes
been reported in relatively large
numbers (Caziani et al. 2001, p. 116;
Caziani et al. 2007, p. 279). Laguna de
Mar Chiquita is the lowest-elevation
wetland frequented by the Andean
flamingo (Bucher et al 1992, p. 119;
Caziani et al. 2007, p. 279; Derlindati
2008, pp. 6–7). Long known as an
overwintering site, researchers report
that a small group of Andean flamingos
(about 100 individuals) may reside there
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:04 Dec 23, 2008
Jkt 217001
year round (BLI 2008, p. 1; Bucher 1992,
pp. 179, 182), and breeding has recently
been reported there (Childress et al.
´
2005, p. 6). Laguna de Melincue is
another low-elevation overwintering site
for Andean flamingos (Caziani et al.
2007, p. 279). Although breeding has
not been reported there (Childress et al.
2005, p. 6), the species engages in
nuptial displays vital to reproductive
success in the breeding colonies
(Derlindati 2008, p. 9). Researchers
estimated that 17 percent of the world
population of Andean flamingos
´
overwintered at Laguna de Melincue in
winter 2005 and 2006 (Romano et al
2006, p. 17).
Bolivia: There are at least 10 flamingo
nesting sites in Bolivia (Caziani et al.
2006, p. 13). Laguna Colorada is a highaltitude wetland where Andean
flamingos remain year-round and where
they have recently nested with greater
frequency (see Factor B) (BLI 2008, p. 1;
Caziani et al. 2006, p. 13; Caziani et al.
2007, p. 279; Davison 2007, p. 1; Ducks
Unlimited 2007b, pp. 14; Kahl 1979, p.
100). Laguna Kalina (also known as
Laguna Calina and Laguna Busch) has
recently figured prominently as a
nesting location. Chicks were first
reported there in 1997 (Valqui et al.
2000, p. 112), and nesting has been
reported there, at small but consistent
rates, in 2004, 2005 and 2006 (Childress
et al. 2005, p. 6; Childress et al. 2006,
p. 5; Childress et al. 2007a, p. 7).
Laguna de Pastos Grandes is another
lake system that includes Salar de
Pastos Grandes, Laguna Ramaditas,
˜
Laguna Hedionda, Laguna Canapa,
Laguna Cachi, Laguna Khara, Laguna
Chulluncani, and Laguna Khar Khota
(Ducks Unlimited 2007b, p. 13). This
wetland complex provides breeding and
non-breeding habitat.
Non-breeding year-round wetlands in
Bolivia include: Lago Uru Uru (Ducks
Unlimited 2007b, p. 5–8; Kahl 1975, p.
100; M<lgaard et al. 1999; Rocha et al.
2006, p. 18); Salar de Chalviri (Ducks
Unlimited 2007b, pp. 17–20; Hurlbert &
´
Keith 1979, p. 331); Lago Poopo, a
known locality since 1921 (Caziani et al.
2007, p. 279; Hellmayr & Conover 1948,
p. 277; Johnson 1967, p. 404); and Salar
de Coipasa, a wintering site of known
importance for all three South American
flamingo species since the mid-20th
century (Johnson 1967, p. 404; Ducks
Unlimited 2007c, p. 9). These lakes are
hydrologically connected through the
´
Titicaca-Desaguadero-Poopo-Salar de
Coipasa (TDPS) basin, a large endoreic
(closed) basin shared between Peru,
Bolivia, and Chile (Jellison et al. 2004,
p. 11). Several Andean flamingo
wetlands are connected to this
hydrological basin through rivers,
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
79231
´
including: Lago Poopo (Bolivia), which
is connected to Lago Titicaca (Peru)
´
through Rıo Desaguadero; Salar de
Coipasa (Bolivia), which is connected to
´
´
Lago Poopo through Rıo Laca Jahuira
River (Jellison et al. 2004, p. 11); and
´
Lago Uru Uru, which is fed by Rıo
Desaguadero (Ducks Unlimited 2007b,
p. 5). In 2000, more than 50 percent of
the known population of Andean
flamingos overwintered at Lagos Uru
´
Uru and Poopo (Caziani et al. 2007, p.
279).
Chile: There are at least a dozen
Andean flamingo breeding sites in Chile
(Childress et al. 2006, p. 7). Salar de
Atacama, where the Andean flamingo
type specimen was obtained in 1854
(Hellmayr 1932, p. 312; Philippi 1860,
p. 164), has been a consistent and
primary breeding ground (Bucher et al.
2000, p. 119; Childress et al. 2007a, p.
7; Ducks Unlimited 2007c, pp. 1–4;
Johnson et al. 1958, p. 296). Several
other sites have figured consistently and
prominently over the years, including
Salar de Surire, Salar de Huasco, and
´
˚
Salar de Ascotan (Fjeldsa and Krabbe
1990, p. 86; Johnson et al. 1958, p. 296;
Kahl 1975 p. 100). Andean flamingos
were first observed at Salar de Surire in
the early 1970s (McFarlane 1975, p. 88).
The first report of breeding (observation
of chicks) there occurred in 1997
(Valqui et al. 2000, p. 112), and breeding
has continued there at increasing
numbers (Caziani et al. 2007, p. 283).
´
Laguna Ascotan differs from most other
Andean flamingo wetlands, as it is fed
by 13 fresh-water springs as well as
several brackish lagoons (Vilina and
´
Martınez 1998, p. 28). Salar de Coposa
has long served as breeding and
overwintering habitat for the Andean
flamingo (Caziani et al. 2007, p. 279;
Johnson 1958, p. 297; Kahl 1975 p. 100).
Salar de Atacama, Salar de Coposa,
Salar de Huasco, Salar de Negro
Francisco, and Salar de Surire also
provide year-round habitat for the
Andean flamingo (Caziani et al. 2006, p.
13; Caziani et al. 2007, p. 279; Ducks
Unlimited 2007c, pp. 5–8; Johnson
1958, p. 296). In 1998 and 2000,
between 3,500 and 4,500 birds
overwintered at these sites (Caziani et
al. 2007, p. 279).
Peru: Andean flamingos frequent
several wetlands in Peru (BLI 2008, pp.
5, 72, 74–75, 78; Ducks Unlimited
2007d, pp. 21, 25, 29; Jameison and
Bingham 1912, p. 14; Ricalde 2003, p.
91). Although BirdLife International
reports breeding sites in Peru (2008, p.
2), the Flamingo Specialist Group
reported no known nesting sites or
evidence of breeding at Peruvian
wetlands in 2005, 2006, or 2007 (M.
Vlaui Munn, in litt., as cited in
E:\FR\FM\24DEP2.SGM
24DEP2
79232
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 24, 2008 / Proposed Rules
hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS2
Childress et al. 2005, p. 6; Arengo in
litt., as cited in Childress et al. 2006, p.
6; Arengo in litt., as cited in Childress
et al. 2007a, p. 7). The species
frequently overwinters at Laguna
Salinas, Laguna de Loriscota, and Lago
Parinacochas, among other locations
(Caziani et al. 2007, p. 279; Ducks
Unlimited 2007d, p. 21, 25, 29–30;
Jameison and Bingham 1912, p. 14). It
is estimated that nearly 20 percent of
the global population overwinters in
Peru (Ricalde 2003, p. 91).
Recent Trends in Distribution: In
1997, 50 percent of the breeding
population was distributed among three
sites in Chile (Salar de Surire, Laguna
Maricunga, and Laguna Negro
Francisco) and two sites in Argentina
(Pozuelos, and Vilama) (Caziani et al.
2007, p. 279). In the summer of 2005, 50
percent of the breeding population was
located in 5 separate wetlands-Negro
Francisco (Chile), Salar de Surire
(Chile), Lagunas de Vilama (Argentina),
Laguna Colorada (Bolivia) and Salar de
Atacama (Chile) (Caziani et al. 2006, p.
13).
Population Estimates
Between 1965 and 1968, Charles
Cordier’s estimate of the Andean
flamingo population varied by an order
of magnitude, from 50,000 to 500,000
(as cited in Johnson 1967, p. 404; as
cited in Kahl 1975, p. 100). In 1975,
Kahl (1975, p. 100) estimated the total
population to be 150,000 individuals.
This estimate was based on (1) previous
estimates; (2) the fact that the largest
number of individuals Kahl had seen in
one place (Lago Uru Uru, Bolivia) was
18,000 individuals; and (3) that, at most
sites, he observed the Andean flamingo
to be less numerous than the Chilean
flamingo and James’ flamingo. In 1986,
the population was estimated to be less
than 50,000 individuals and declining
(Johnson 2000, p. 203). However, the
accuracy of earlier population estimates
has never been confirmed. According to
Arengo (in litt. 2007, p. 2), member of
the Altoandino Flamingo Conservation
´
Group (Grupo de Conservacion
Flamencos Altoandinos), previous
historical population estimates were
based on extrapolations of data that are
not considered to be reliable. Experts
consider the figure of between 50,000 to
100,000 individuals may have been
accurate until the mid-1980s (BLI 2008,
p. 1). Although the figure of 150,000
˚
(e.g., Fjeldsa and Krabbe 1990, p. 86)
was still being reported in the 1990s, an
estimate of 50,000 is considered a more
accurate figure (Arengo in litt. 2007, p.
2; BLI 2008 p. 1; del Hoyo et al. 1992,
p. 526), and experts believe that the
species underwent a severe reduction
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:04 Dec 23, 2008
Jkt 217001
from the mid-1980s to the late 1990s
(BLI 2008, pp. 1, 5).
The first simultaneous census of
Andean flamingos was conducted in
1997 (Valqui et al. 2000, p. 110). Using
a comprehensive sampling design and
conducting simultaneous surveys at
over 200 wetlands in Peru, Bolivia,
Chile, and Argentina, researchers
counted 33,918 Andean flamingos in
January 1997; 27,913 in January 1998;
14,722 in June 1998; and, 24,442 in July
2000 (Caziani et al. 2007, p. 279). In the
summer of 2005, a total of 31,617
Andean flamingos were counted
(Caziani et al. 2006, p. 13). Recent
censuses estimate the global population
at around 34,000 individuals (Caziani et
al. 2006, pp. 276–287; Caziani et al.
2007, pp. 13–17).
According to Arengo (in litt. 2007, p.
2), long-term population trends have
been difficult to establish, given the
unreliability of previous population
estimates. However, given that the
global population sizes of all other
flamingo species are estimated above
100,000 individuals, experts consider
the Andean flamingo to be the rarest of
the 6 flamingo species (Arengo in litt.
2007, p. 2).
Nesting sites: In the last decade, small
groups of Andean flamingos have been
reported intermittently nesting at a
greater variety of sites, including:
Laguna Brava and Lagunas de Vilama
(Argentina) (Bucher et al. 2000, p. 119;
Caziani et al. 2006, p. 13; Derlindati
2008, pp. 6–7); Laguna Colorada and
Laguna Kalina (Bolivia) (Caziani et al.
2007, p. 279; Childress et al. 2005, p. 6;
Childress et al. 2006, p. 5; Childress et
al. 2007a, p. 7; Rodriguez Ramirez 2006,
as cited in Arengo in litt. 2007, p. 2);
and Salar de Punta Negra and Salar de
Huasco (Chile) (Bucher et al. 2000, p.
119; Caziani et al. 2007, p. 279; Valqui
et al. 2000, p. 112). In recent years,
Andean flamingos have been recorded
from 25 wetlands complexes, but there
were fewer than 100 individuals at
many of these sites (Caziani et al. 2007,
p. 281). Only 12 wetlands contained
more than 100 Andean flamingos at any
one of the four sampling periods from
1997 to 2000, and breeding has been
consistently reported at only 2 of these
sites (Arengo in litt. 2007, pp. 2–3;
Bucher et al. 2000, p. 119; Caziani et al.
2007, pp. 279–281; Valqui et al. 2000, p.
112).
Breeding success: Productivity
estimates from intensive studies of
breeding sites in Chile indicate marked
fluctuations over the past 20 years, with
periods of very low breeding success
(Arengo in litt. 2007, p. 2). In 1987, a
high of around 15,000 chicks fledged,
followed by 10 years of relatively low
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
productivity (fewer than 800 chicks
fledged per year on average), and a
recent increase to an average of 3,000
chicks fledged since 2000 (Rodriguez
Ramirez 2006, Amado et al. 2007, as
cited in Arengo in litt. 2007, pp. 1–3).
Between 1997 and 2001, successful
breeding (based on the observation of 2–
3-month-old chicks) was documented
only at three wetlands and, in those
wetlands, a total of only 12,801 chicks
were produced—Salar de Surire (Chile;
9,200 chicks), Salar de Atacama (Chile;
3,378 chicks), and Aparejos (Argentina;
223 chicks) (Caziani et al. 2007, p. 283).
The most recent simultaneous census
data indicates that a total of 2,338
chicks survived at breeding colonies
located in Argentina, Bolivia, and Chile
during the 2006–2007 breeding season
(December to February) (Childress et al.
2007a, p. 7). In Argentina, eight sites
were surveyed, six of which are known
Andean flamingo breeding sites. Of
these, breeding was attempted at one
site, but was unsuccessful. No breeding
was reported in Peru during the 2006–
2007 breeding season. Of 4 sites
surveyed in Bolivia, 3 of which are
known Andean flamingo nesting
grounds, breeding occurred at two sites
(Laguna Colorada and Kalina) producing
total of 1,800 chicks. In Chile, breeding
was attempted at four sites in Salar de
Atacama. A total of 2,900 pairs of
Andean flamingos laid eggs but only
538 chicks survived.
Conservation Status
The Andean flamingo is the rarest of
six flamingo species worldwide (family
Phoenicopteridae). The IUCN considers
the Andean flamingo to be ‘‘Vulnerable’’
because (1) it has undergone a rapid
population decline, (2) it is exposed to
ongoing exploitation and declines in
habitat quality, (3) and, although
exploitation may decrease, the longevity
and slow breeding of flamingos suggest
that the legacy of past threats may
persist through generations to come (BLI
2008, p. 1). Long-lived species with
slow rates of reproduction and ongoing
poor breeding success, such as that
being experienced by the Andean
flamingo, can quickly decline towards
extinction when reproduction does not
keep pace with mortality (BLI 2008, p.
2; Bucher 1992, p. 183; del Hoyo et al.
1992, p. 517) (see Population Estimates,
above).
E:\FR\FM\24DEP2.SGM
24DEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 24, 2008 / Proposed Rules
hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS2
Summary of Factors Affecting the
Andean Flamingo
A. The Present or Threatened
Destruction, Modification, or
Curtailment of the Species’ Habitat or
Range
Andean flamingos occupy shallow,
saline wetlands in the lowland, puna,
and altoandino regions of the Andes
(see Table 1) (BLI 2008, pp. 1, 6; Bucher
1992, p. 192; Bucher et al. 2000, p. 119;
˚
del Hoyo 1992, pp. 514; Fjeldsa and
Krabbe 1990, p. 85). Andean flamingos
are altitudinal migrants and alternate
between wetlands based largely on
environmental conditions and
especially the availability of water
(Bucher 1992, p. 182; Bucher et al. 2000,
˚
p. 119; del Hoyo 1992, pp. 514; Fjeldsa
and Krabbe 1990, p. 85; Goldfeder and
Blanco 2007, p. 190; Hurlbert and Keith
1979, pp. 334, 336; Rocha and
Rodriguez 2006, p. 12). During the
summer breeding season (December to
January), Andean flamingos occupy
high-elevation wetlands in Chile,
Argentina, and Bolivia. During the
winter, they may stay at the highelevation wetlands, or move to lower
elevations in Argentina, Bolivia, and
Peru (Blake 1977, p. 207; BLI 2008, pp.
1 and 6; Boyle et al. 2004, pp. 563–564,
570–571; Bucher 1992, p. 182; Bucher et
al. 2000, p. 119; Caziani et al. 2006. p.
17; Caziani et al. 2007, pp. 277, 279,
˚
281; del Hoyo 1992, p. 514, 519; Fjeldsa
and Krabbe 1990, p. 85; Hurlbert and
Keith 1979, pp. 330; Kahl 1975, pp. 99–
101; Mascitti and Bonaventura 2002, p.
˜
360; Mascitti and Castanera 2006, p.
328).
The wetlands occupied by Andean
flamingos are utilized on a landscape
level (Derlandati 2008, p. 10). Andean
flamingos prefer water that is less than
˚
3 ft (1m) deep (Fjeldsa and Krabbe 1990,
˜
p. 86; Mascitti and Castenera 2006, p.
331) and rely on the variety of habitat
options at wetland complexes
throughout the species’ range to select
optimal nesting and feeding sites.
Beginning in 2002, researchers
conducted a multi-year Andean
flamingo dispersal study, to determine
overwintering sites and spatial and
temporal movements (Caziani et al.
2003, p. 11; Johnson and Arengo 2004,
pp. 9, 15). Andean flamingos in
Argentina were tracked using satellite
transmitters, and results were highly
variable. One bird stayed at the
origination site (the actual location of
which was undisclosed) another bird
traveled 715 mi (1,150 km) over a 4-day
period, using more than four sites in the
process (Caziani et al. 2003, p. 11). The
habitats visited included salar lakes,
rivers and flooded areas. Flamingos
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:04 Dec 23, 2008
Jkt 217001
were more mobile during summer to
autumn (January-May), moving between
sites often, and less mobile in winter.
The birds in this study overwintered at
Laguna de Mar Chiquita (Argentina),
´
Lago Poopo (Bolivia), and Salar de
Atacama (Chile) (Caziani et al. 2003, p.
11).
Between 1997 and 2001, 98 percent of
Andean flamingo chicks were produced
in two Chilean wetlands—Surire (9,200
chicks) and Atacama (3,378 chicks)
(Caziani et al. 2007, p. 283). In the
2006–2007 breeding season, 75 percent
of the surviving chicks were produced
at Laguna Kalina and Laguna Colorada
(1,800 chicks) (Bolivia), and the other 25
percent at Salar de Atacama (538 chicks)
(Chile). Sites where breeding does not
occur serve as important staging areas
for pre-reproduction mating displays
and as feeding locations for nonbreeding flamingos and even breeding
flamingos at nearby sites (Derlandati
2008, p. 10). Andean flamingos travel to
different wetlands to feed, even while
nesting (Bucher 1992, p. 182; Caziani et
al. 2007, p. 277; Conway 2000, p. 212;
del Hoyo 1992, pp. 509–519).
The Andean region where the Andean
flamingo occurs is characterized by an
extensive series of endoreic (closed)
water systems that drain internally, that
are recharged primarily by summer
rains, that contract seasonally, and that
may occasionally dry out completely
(see Factor E) (Bucher 1992, p. 182;
Caziani and Derlindati 2000, pp. 124–
125; Caziani et al. 2001, p. 110; Mascitti
and Caziani 1997, p. 328).
Mineral extraction, water
contamination, water extraction, and
water diversion from mining,
agriculture, urban development, and
increasing tourism are ongoing activities
that negatively impact wetland habitats
that support Andean flamingos
throughout the species’ range (Arengo in
litt. 2007, p. 2; Childress et al. 2007a, p.
5; Goldfeder and Blanco 2007, p. 193).
Mineral extraction: There are ongoing
mining operations to extract salt, borax,
ulexite, sulphur, sodium carbonate,
lithium, and several other minerals at
many of the wetlands occupied by the
Andean flamingo. Mineral extraction
and prospecting are ongoing at these
wetlands, including: Salars de Atacama
´
and Surire (Chile) (Corporacion
Nacional Forestal 1996a, p. 9; Rundel
and Palma 2000, pp. 270–271)—the two
breeding sites that accounted for 98
percent of the chick production during
the period 1997–2001 (Caziani et al.
2007, p. 283)—and Lago Uru Uru
(Bolivia) (Soto 1996, p. 7; Ugarte-Nunez
and Mosaurieta-Echegaray 2000, p.
135)—the site that had the largest
number of Andean flamingos ever
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
79233
recorded in one wetland (Kahl 1975, p.
100). Prospecting and digging for
minerals and underground water—
involving road building which makes it
possible for people to reach places that
were formerly inaccessible—are ongoing
´
at Laguna Negra (Corporacion Nacional
Forestal 1996c, pp. 10–11).
Argentinean wetlands—including
Laguna Brava, Laguna Pozuelos, and
Lagunas de Vilama, where Andean
flamingos breed and live year-round—
are also under mining pressure (BLI
2008, p. 553; Caziani et al. 2001, p. 106;
de la Fuente 2002, p. 8; Ducks
Unlimited 2007a, p. 4; Goldfeder and
Blanco 2007, p. 193).
In Bolivia, there are proposals to
exploit lithium, potassium, and borium
from Salar de Coipasa (Ducks Unlimited
2007b, p. 11) and Pastos Grande (New
World Resource Corp 2008, p. 1)—both
known breeding and overwintering sites
for the Andean flamingo. Bolivia
contains an estimated 50 percent of the
world’s supply of the lithium that is
used to make batteries for portable
electronic equipment. The largest
known lithium deposit in the world is
located in the Bolivian altiplano—the
Pastos Grandes concession (New World
Resource Corp 2008, p. 2). Lithium can
be extracted directly from the saline
water in the alitplano salars; this water
is referred to by the mining industry as
‘‘brine.’’ The brine is pumped through a
series of evaporation ponds to
concentrate the lithium (New World
Resource Corp 2008, p. 4). Obtaining
lithium from brine is considered more
cost-effective in the mining industry
than the other alternative, extracting
lithium from hard rock (New World
Resource Corp 2008, p. 4). Nearly all the
world’s supply of brine-derived lithium
comes from the Chilean and
Argentinean altiplanos (New World
Resource Corp 2008, p. 4).
Intensive exploitation of natural
resources has degraded the soil and
ecology of the region, resulting in
extensive erosion, river sedimentation,
soil salinization, silting up of lakes, and
water imbalances in watersheds that
contribute to extreme fluctuations in
water flows (Jellison et al. 2004, p. 14).
In the past, Andean flamingos have
abandoned breeding sites undergoing
´
alteration from mining. Laguna Ascotan
was once considered a breeding site for
the species (Johnson et al. 1958, p. 296;
Kahl 1975 p. 100). The birds abandoned
the site in the mid-20th century, which
Johnson (1958, p. 296) attributed to the
resumption of borax extraction. Today,
Andean flamingos continue to feed at
´
the site (Vilina and Martınez 1998, p.
28) but there are no reports of nesting.
E:\FR\FM\24DEP2.SGM
24DEP2
hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS2
79234
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 24, 2008 / Proposed Rules
Water Contamination: Water
resources at many salars have been
contaminated, largely as the result of
chemical pollution produced by the
mining and metallurgical industries.
The waters of the Titicaca-Desaguadero´
Poopo-Salar de Coipasa (TDPS)
hydrological system have been polluted
by mining and metal foundry activities
(Jellison et al. 2004, p. 11; Ricalde 2003,
p. 91). This water system includes the
important Bolivian overwintering sites,
´
Lagos Poopo and Uru Uru—where more
than 50 percent of the known
population of Andean flamingos
overwintered in 2000 (Caziani et al.
2007, p. 279). The area has been mined
for silver, lead, zinc, copper limestone,
antimony, iron, gold, tin, and uranium
´
(Rocha 2002, p. 10). Lago Poopo, Lago
´
Uru Uru, and the lower Rıo Desaguadero
have concentrations of heavy metals
above the limits permitted for human
consumption (Apaza et al. 1996,
Organization of American States/United
Nations Environment Programme (OAS/
UNEP) and the Bi-national Authority of
Lago Titicaca (Autoridad Nacional del
Lago Titicaca (ALT)) 1999, Van
Ryckeghem 1997—as cited in Rocha
´
2002, p. 10). Because Lago Poopo is
located at the terminal end of the
endoreic (closed) TDPS drainage
system, pollutants are more likely to
concentrate there (Jellison et al. 2004, p.
120; Ronteltap et al. 2005, p. 3) and the
lake has been contaminated by mining
activities for a long time (Adamek et al.
1998). Mine pollution has led to lake
water lead concentrations that are 300
´
times higher in Lago Poopo than the
average concentrations detected in other
lakes in the world and fish in the lake
test positive for heavy metal residues
(Cardoza et al. 2004, as cited in Jellison
et al. 2004, p. 120). Water
´
contamination in Lago Poopo was
further exacerbated in year 2000, when
39,000 barrels of crude oil spilled in the
lake. The native community Uru
Morato, which has lived along the lake
for 5,000 years, reported that the
flamingoes did not lay eggs there that
year ‘‘for the first time in thousands of
years’’ (Jellison et al. 2004, p. 13).
Tourism and increasing human
population to support the mining
industry has destroyed habitat and
further contaminated water supplies.
Ecotourism is prevalent at many
wetlands inhabited by the Andean
flamingo, most of which are exceptional
sites for viewing biodiversity and
wildlife, including Argentina—at
Laguna de Mar Chiquita (Ducks
Unlimited 2007a, p. 22); Laguna Brava,
where tourism includes the use off-road
vehicles (BLI 2008, p. 40); and Lagunas
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:04 Dec 23, 2008
Jkt 217001
de Vilama (Caziani et al. 2001, p. 106).
Increasing amounts of pollution from
surrounding towns that support
ecotourism and the mining industry
wash into wetlands during the rainy
season and are carried into the lake by
wind. Ugarte-Nunez and MosaurietaEchegaray 2000 (p. 139) noted an
absence of flamingos in areas where
refuse enters the Laguna Salinas (Peru).
Inadequate sewage systems at growing
urban centers pollute the salars (Jellison
et al. 2004, p. 11). Pollution of the water
in the TDPS system is problematic
where towns are concentrated on the
shores of the lakes (Ronteltap et al.
2005, p. 5). As of 2004, the TDPS water
´
system, of which Lagos Poopo and Uru
Uru are a part, supported a population
of nearly 3 million people (Jellison et al.
2004, p. 14). At Lago Titicaca,
wastewater is causing eutrophication—
whereby excessive nutrients stimulate
excessive plant growth, reducing the
dissolved oxygen in the water as the
plants decompose, causing other
organisms to die—over approximately
3,954 acres (ac) (1,600 hectares (ha)) in
the Puno Bay, and in another portion of
the lake, leakage from former oil wells
continues to degrade wildlife habitat
(IRENA 1996, p. 9). Sewage from the
city of Oruro and the neighboring towns
´
of Challapata, Huari, and Poopo empties
´
into Lagos Poopo and Uru Uru, causing
organic and bacteriological pollution
(Ducks Unlimited 2007b, p. 7; Liberman
et al. 1991, OAS/UNEP and ALT 1999—
as cited in Rocha 2002, p. 10).
In addition, illegal dumping of
agrochemicals has severely impacted
wetlands and the species that depend
on them. In 2000, at Mar Chiquita
(Argentina), Bucher reported that 30
tons of Lindane, an insecticide, was
illegally dumped at the northern end of
the lake, jeopardizing the entire closed
lake system (Johnson and Arengo 2001,
p. 38). Industrial pollutants and
pesticides have caused large-scale dieoff of flamingos. Childress et al. (2007b,
p. 30) reported that tens of thousands of
lesser flamingos (Phoenicopterus minor)
were killed in July 2004 by industrial
heavy metals and pesticides at feeding
lakes in Kenya and Tanzania. A massive
bird die-off of unspecified species of
birds at Miramar in February 2004
´
(located in Cordoba, where Laguna de
Mar Chiquita is located) may have been
caused by the dumping of excess
agrochemicals into the water, which
penetrated the soil (BLI 2008, pp. 36–
37).
Given that pollutants and pesticides
have been known to cause die-offs of
other species of flamingos and other
bird species, it is likely that such
contamination could have lethal effects
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
on Andean flamingos. For instance,
although in 1997 Laguna de Pozuelos
was among 5 wetlands that harbored 50
percent of the breeding population of
Andean flamingos, the number of
Andean flamingos on Laguna de
Pozuelos has diminished greatly since
1993 (Caziani and Derlindati 2000, p.
122). Pollution from mining wastes and
erosion due to overgrazing, combined
with desiccation of the lake (see Factor
E), is negatively affecting the wetland at
Laguna de Pozuelos (Argentina), where
Andean flamingos breed and reside
year-round (Laredo 1990, as cited in
Adminstration de Parques Nacionales
1994, p. 2). In the 2006–2007 breeding
season, no breeding was detected at this
lake (Childress et al. 2007a, p. 7).
Water Extraction and Diversion:
Water is extracted from wetlands for use
by the mining industry, to facilitate
lakebed resource exploitation, and to
meet increasing human demand. Mining
companies hold water concessions at
´
Laguna Negra (Chile) (Corporacion
Nacional Forestal 1996c, pp. 10–11).
Water extraction is an intrinsic part of
lithium mining in Argentina, Bolivia
and Chile (New World Resource Corp
2008, p. 4) (see Mineral Extraction).
Underground water has been pumped
from Salar de Punta Negra (Chile) for
use in a large copper mining operation
(Line 2004, p. 4). In the past decade,
Andean flamingos have bred
intermittently at Salar de Punta Negra
(Caziani et al. 2006, p. 13; Caziani et al.
2007, p. 279, 283; Johnson et al. 1958,
p. 296; Kahl 1975 p. 100). The shallow
wetlands preferred by Andean
flamingos are subject to high rates of
evapotranspiration (Caziani and
Derlindati 2000, p. 122), and water
extraction hastens desiccation of these
wetlands. In these arid closed-basin
systems, groundwater extraction is
unsustainable (Messerli et al. 1997, p.
233; Research and Resources for
Sustainable Development (Recursos e
´
Investigacion para el Desarrollo
Sustentable (RIDES)) 2005, p. 14).
Wetlands have been drained to
facilitate excavation on the lakebed
surface (Ugarte-Nunez and MosaurietaEchegaray 2000, p. 135). Excavation can
drastically alter the water levels of these
shallow lakes, creating areas that are
unsuitable for foraging and nesting and
allowing human access to areas that
´
were once inaccessible (Corporacion
Nacional Forestal 1996c, p. 11).
Furthermore, there have been reports of
flamingos dying when they became
stuck in the mud brought up from the
bottom of the lake by mining operations
(Ugarte-Nunez and MosaurietaEchegaray 2000, p. 137).
E:\FR\FM\24DEP2.SGM
24DEP2
hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 24, 2008 / Proposed Rules
Urbanization and tourism have
intensified groundwater use (Jellison et
al. 2004, p. 11), as hotels and restaurants
have been established in the villages
and towns surrounding the salars and
lagunas (RIDES 2005, p. 21). An influx
of tourists at Laguna Colorada (Bolivia)
has resulted in noticeable increased
water consumption (Rocha and
Eyzaguirre 1998, p. 8). At Salar de
Atacama, the maximum volume
available for extraction from the basin is
estimated by the average annual
recharge rate of 177 cubic feet per
second (ft3/s) (5 cubic meters per second
(m3/s)), yet the rights to 219 ft3/s (6.2
m3/s) of water have been allocated
(RIDES 2005, pp. 15–16). The number of
people visiting remote Salar de Surire
(Chile), a primary Andean flamingo
breeding site, was under 1,000 as of
1995, and is increasing (Soto and
Silvestre 1996, p. 7). Recent estimates
indicate that over 50,000 people visit
Salar de Atacama (Chile) and
surrounding areas each year. Based on
the recharge estimates, continued
increases in water use levels
commensurate with increasing tourism
would not be sustainable (RIDES 2005,
p. 21).
The gradual loss of water from the
basin reduces the surface area of the
lake and the total amount of habitat
available to the Andean flamingo.
Ugarte-Nunez and MosaurietaEchegaray (2000, p. 135) found that the
number of flamingos at Laguna Salinas
(Peru) was strongly correlated to the
proportion of the lake covered with
water (1997: r2=0.73; 1998: r2=0.72),
indicating that loss of surface area
influences flamingo abundance. Lago
Parinacochas (Peru), long known as an
important overwintering site for Andean
flamingos, is being drained as part of a
water development project in Peru
(Ducks Unlimited 2007d, p. 31). The
TDPS in Bolivia and Peru, which Lagos
´
Poopo and Uru Uru belong to, provides
drinking water and cleaning water,
transportation, industry and irrigationin addition to providing habitat for flora
and fauna (Ronteltap et al. 2005, p. 5).
The extraction of water for human
consumption has exacerbated ongoing
drought conditions throughout Andean
flamingo habitat since the early 1990s
(see Factor E) (Caziani and Derlindati
2000, pp. 124–125; Caziani et al. 2001,
p. 110; Mascitti and Caziani 1997, p.
328). In Chile, where Andean flamingo
breeding colonies are found and where
mineral and hydrocarbon exploration
and exploitation have increased in the
last two decades, both the number of
successful breeding colonies and the
total production of chicks of Andean
flamingos have declined since the 1980s
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:04 Dec 23, 2008
Jkt 217001
´
(Parada 1992, Rodrıguez and Contreras
1998—as cited in Caziani et al. 2007, p.
284). Of 2,900 pairs of Andean
flamingos that attempted to breed in
Chilean wetlands in the 2006–2007
season, only 538 chicks were produced
(Childress et al. 2007a, p. 7).
Water from salars has been diverted to
support agriculture. Rio Lauca, which
feeds Salar de Coipasa (Bolivia), has
been diverted near its source in Chile
for irrigation purposes (Ducks
Unlimited 2007c, pp. 9–11). This has
resulted in a considerable reduction in
the flow of water into Salar de Coipasa
and is contributing to the desiccation of
the Salar (Ducks Unlimited 2007b, p.
11).
Rio Desaguadero is a 230 mi-long (370
km) river that once flowed from Lago
´
Titicaca to Lago Poopo but recently
changed direction and now flows into
Lago Uru Uru (Ducks Unlimited 2007b,
p. 5). This is attributed to water level
reductions caused by an ongoing
drought since the early 1990s (see
Factor E) and by diversion for irrigation
(Jellison et al. 2004, p. 14). In 2004, Rio
Mauri, a major tributary of the Rio
Desaguadero was diverted to Peru
(Armando et al. 2004, as cited in Jellison
et al. 2004, p. 14). These water shortages
exacerbate the contamination and
´
extraction problems for Lagos Poopo
and Uru Uru, mentioned above.
Research has shown that drastic water
level changes can significantly alter the
seasonal altitudinal movements of the
Andean flamingo (Mascitti and Caziani
1997, pp. 324–326). In January 1996,
Caziani & Derlindati (2000, p. 124)
reported that a colony of unidentified
flamingo nests at Lagunas Vilama,
where Andean and James’ flamingo are
known to breed, were found on dry
land—probably due to an unexpected
retraction of the lake—leaving 1,500
abandoned nests, some of which had
eggs from that season.
Increased urbanization and mining
have increased infrastructure
development. At Lagunas Brava and
Mulas Muertas (breeding and
overwintering sites, respectively), in
Argentina, an international road to
connect Argentina with Chile has been
under construction. This road passes
near the shores of Lagunas Brava and
Mulas Muertas and through the
bofedales that feed the two lakes,
decreasing the available area suitable for
Andean flamingo nesting and foraging
and disrupting hydrological recharge
system by altering the wet meadows that
feed the two lakes (de la Fuente 2002,
p. 8). At Laguna Salinas (Peru), which
provides habitat for all three Andean
flamingo species (Ducks Unlimited
2007d, p. 26), a mining road bisects the
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
79235
lake and construction excavations have
reduced flamingo habitat availability
(Ugarte-Nunez and MosaurietaEchegaray 2000, pp. 137–138). Increased
road construction to support mining and
tourism also facilitates predator access
´
to nesting grounds (Corporacion
Nacional Forestal 1996a, pp. 12) (Factor
C).
Agriculture and Grazing: Lowland
wetlands that serve as important
overwintering sites for the Andean
flamingo are subject to agricultural
pressures (Derlindati 2008, pp. 1, 7).
´
Laguna Melincue (Argentina), for
instance, lies in the heart of Argentina’s
agricultural zone (Romano et al. 2006, p.
17). The forested lands are being cleared
and pastures have been and continue to
be planted with cash crops in the areas
surrounding Mar Chiquita (Argentina)
(BLI 2008, p. 36).
Cattle grazing occurs adjacent to
Andean flamingo habitat in Argentina,
where the species breeds and
overwinters, including Laguna Brava (de
la Fuente 2002, p. 8) and Laguna
Pozuelos (Adminstration de Parques
Nacionales 1994, p. 1). At Laguna Brava,
ranching activities are considered smallscale (comprising 300 heads of cattle),
in part, because the area surrounding
the lake is uninhabited (de la Fuente
2002, p. 8). At Laguna Pozeulos, grazing
has resulted in severe soil erosion,
especially along the shore and increased
´
siltation of the lake (Adminstracion de
Parques Nacionales 1994, p. 1; Ducks
Unlimited 2007a, p. 4). In Bolivia,
livestock management (llamas and
alpacas) continues to be a problem in
the bofedales surrounding Laguna
Colorada (Ducks Unlimited 2007b, p.
14; Flores 2004, pp. 25–26).
These activities have contributed to
the alteration and degradation of vital
Andean flamingo habitat. Long-lived
species with slow rates of reproduction,
such as the Andean flamingo, can
appear to have robust populations, but
can quickly decline towards extinction
if reproduction does not keep pace with
mortality (BLI 2008, p. 2; Bucher 1992,
p. 183; del Hoyo et al. 1992, p. 517).
Andean flamingos have temporally
sporadic and spatially concentrated
breeding patterns, and their breeding
success and recruitment are low
(Caziani et al. 2007; Childress et al.
2005, p. 7; Childress et al. 2006, p. 7;
Childress et al. 2007a, p. 7). Successful
reproduction is spatially concentrated
in just a few wetlands (Childress et al.
2005, p. 7; Childress et al. 2006, p. 7;
Childress et al. 2007a, p. 7; Valqui et al.
2000, p. 112). In the case of Andean
flamingos, Conway (W. Conway, as
cited in Valqui et al. 2000, p. 112)
suggests that a stable population can be
E:\FR\FM\24DEP2.SGM
24DEP2
79236
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 24, 2008 / Proposed Rules
hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS2
maintained if the species’ breeding
success is good every 5–10 years. Recent
productivity estimates indicate that the
species has experienced very low
breeding success over prolonged periods
(Arengo in litt. 2007, p. 2; Amado et al.
2007, Rodriguez Ramirez 2006—as cited
in Arengo in litt. 2007, pp. 1–3). An
examination of the species’ nesting sites
and breeding success (see Population
Estimates, above) indicates that, despite
an increased number of nesting sites,
the species’ breeding success remains
low (Arengo in litt. 2007, p. 2; Caziani
et al. 2007; Childress et al. 2005, p. 7;
Childress et al. 2006, p. 7; Childress et
al. 2007a, p. 7). Valqui et al. 2000 (pp.
111–112) postulated that reproduction
in the Andean flamingo, a species
which prefers to nest at high densities
and once nested in huge colonies at
˚
Salar de Atacama (Fjeldsa and Krabbe
1990, p. 86; Johnson et al. 1958, p. 296;
Kahl 1975 p. 100), is being inhibited by
the more dispersed nature of the
population and occupation of smaller
lakes.
Summary of Factor A
Salar habitat throughout the Andean
flamingo’s range has been and continues
to be altered as a result of natural
resource exploitation. Andean flamingos
require a variety of available habitats
over large areas in order to find optimal
foraging and nesting sites, given
unpredictable seasonal fluctuations.
Mining has resulted in direct loss of
habitat due to excavations of lakebeds,
has increased water extraction, and has
caused water pollution. Wetlands
throughout Andean flamingo habitat
have been drastically altered by water
extraction for mining, agriculture, and
human consumption. Flamingos are
sensitive to fluctuating water levels, and
intentional diversion of water from
these endoreic (closed) wetlands
exacerbates natural seasonal
fluctuations and reduces habitat
options. Wetlands are contaminated
from mining spoils, sewage and
agriculture pollution. Wetland
complexes occupied by Andean
flamingos that are hydrologically
connected become affected by
pollutants and by diminished water
levels on a landscape level. Resource
extraction and water contamination
have had and continue to have
significant impacts on the water quality
and the availability of wetlands that are
critical to the lifecycle of the Andean
flamingo. Andean flamingo breeding
patterns are temporally sporadic,
successful reproduction is spatially
concentrated, and their breeding success
and recruitment are low. Continued and
pervasive habitat destruction
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:04 Dec 23, 2008
Jkt 217001
throughout the species’ range in recent
decades coincides with the species’
drastic population reduction, as noted
by experts (See Population Estimates,
above). The negative impacts of habitat
destruction on Andean flamingos on the
reduction of the species’ range and
population numbers are intensified by
an ongoing drought (Factor E). Lowered
water levels could lead to disease
outbreaks and can increase the
flamingo’s susceptibility to predation
(Factor C). Therefore, we find that
destruction and modification of habitat
are threats to the continued existence of
the Andean flamingo throughout its
range.
B. Overutilization for Commercial,
Recreational, Scientific, or Educational
Purposes
Hunting for local consumption:
Andean flamingos are hunted
throughout their range for use as food or
medicine and in rituals. Johnson (1967,
p. 405) described flamingo hunting
activities by the Montaro Indians at
´
Lago Poopo (Bolivia) and by the
Chipayas at Laguna Coipasa (Bolivia),
who hunted the species for food and for
its feathers, which were sold as dance
ornaments). In the late summer, the
Chipayas also rounded up groups of
young flamingos and slaughtered them
for their fat, which was boiled down
and sold as a remedy for tuberculosis
(Johnson 1967, p. 405).
Flamingo hunting continues today
throughout the species’ range (Valqui et
al. 2000, p. 112). Quantities of wild
birds, including flamingos, are still sold
in the markets in Argentina, Bolivia,
´
´
and Chile (Barbaran 2004, p. 6; Saenz
2006, p. 103). In 2006, birds sold for
between 25–50 Bolivianos (Bs) ($3–6
´
U.S. Dollars (US$)) (Saenz 2006, p. 89).
On the Argentinean (Departments of
Salta and Jujuy)/Bolivian border
´
(Potosı)—where several Andean
flamingo wetlands are found, including
Laguna Pozuelos (Argentina), Laguna
Colorada, and Salar de Chalviri (both in
Bolivia)—locals use flamingo feathers as
medicinal incense and for costumes;
they eat flamingo meat and use the fat
´
for medicine (Barbaran 2004, p. 11).
Hunting is also ongoing at Lagunas de
Vilama (Argentina), where the species
breeds and overwinters (BLI 2008, p.
553).
At Salar de Atacama (an Andean
flamingo breeding site in Chile),
flamingos are hunted for their feathers
´
(Corporacion Nacional Forestal 1996a,
pp. 8–9). Flamingos are used in local
rituals associated with rain, birth, death,
and illnesses by indigenous cultures
that have long inhabited the Salar de
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Atacama region (Castro and Varela 1992,
p. 22).
At Laguna Salinas (an overwintering
site in Peru), hunters have killed
flamingos for target practice or just ‘‘to
get a close look at one’’ (Ugarte-Nunez
and Mosaurieta-Echegaray 2000, p. 137).
Increased road construction to support
mining and tourism (Factor A) also
facilitates hunting access to nesting
´
grounds (Corporacion Nacional Forestal
1996a, p. 12). At Lago Titicaca (Peru),
localized hunting may occur (Ducks
Unlimited 2007d, p. 27). Excessive
hunting is also a problem at Lago
Parinacochas (an overwintering site in
Peru) (Ducks Unlimited 2007d, p. 23).
Hunting pressure on flamingos has been
described as ‘‘intense’’ at Negro
Francisco (Chile) and poaching is a
problem at Mar Chiquita (Argentina);
both are Andean flamingo breeding
grounds (Bucher 1992, p. 183,
´
Corporacion Nacional Forestal 1996c, p.
11; Goldfeder and Blanco 2007, p. 193).
Indiscriminant hunting of Andean
´
flamingos continues at Lago Poopo (an
Andean flamingo overwintering site in
Bolivia) (Rocha 2002, p. 10). Around
´
Lagos Poopo and Uru Uru, flamingos are
still trapped using traditional
techniques—a slip-knot rope strung
´
across the shores of the lake (Saenz
2006, pp. 88–89). Locals, such as the
´
Urus, who live near Lagos Poopo and
Uru Uru, prefer Andean flamingos
above all other waterfowl, presumably
´
for their fat content (Saenz 2006, p.
185). Flamingo blood might be used
medicinally and feathers for adornment
´
(Saenz 2006, pp. 88–89). Locals at Lagos
´
Poopo and Uru Uru hunt flamingos to
sell to miners, who make oil from the
bird to cure tuberculosis (Morrison
1975, p. 81). One trapper noted that
‘‘long ago’’ it was possible to trap up to
´
15 flamingos per day at Lago Poopo, but
´
that this was no longer the case (Saenz
2006, p. 89).
Direct removal through hunting of
Andean flamingo juveniles and adults
has immediate and direct consequences
on the already small size of the Andean
flamingo population. The Andean
flamingo experienced a severe
population reduction since the 1980s
(BLI 2008, pp. 1, 5), with the number of
birds decreasing from 50,000 to 100,000
individuals (BLI 2008, p. 1) to the
current estimate of 34,000 (Caziani et al.
2006, pp. 276–287; Caziani et al. 2007,
pp. 13–17). Hunting further reduces the
number of individuals. All flamingos
are believed to be monogamous, with a
strong pair-bonding tendency that may
be maintained from one breeding season
to the next (del Hoyo 1992, p. 514).
Hunting can destroy pair bonds and
disrupt mating from one season to the
E:\FR\FM\24DEP2.SGM
24DEP2
hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 24, 2008 / Proposed Rules
next. Because not all sexually mature
adults breed every year and, even in
years of breeding, not all sexually
mature adults will participate (Bucher
1992, p. 183), removal of those adults
that are nesting greatly reduced their
˚
already poor breeding success (Fjeldsa
and Krabbe 1990, p. 85). Andean
flamingos are long-lived, with slow rates
of reproduction and poor breeding
success (BLI 2008, p. 2; Bucher 1992, p.
183; del Hoyo et al. 1992, p. 517). Stable
populations can be maintained only if
the species’ breeding success is good
every 5–10 years (William Conway,
Wildlife Conservation Society, Bronx,
New York, as cited in Valqui et al. 2000,
p. 112). Removal of juveniles from the
population contributes to the already
low rate of chick production (as further
discussed under Egg Collection, below).
Experts believe that ongoing
exploitation, coupled with habitat
decline, and the species’ rapid
population decline and slow breeding
render this species vulnerable to
extinction in the wild (BLI 2008, p. 1).
Finally, given the species’ sensitivity to
human disturbance (see Factor E),
Andean flamingos are negatively
affected by disturbance from huntingrelated activities, even when they are
not directly targeted (CONAF, Region II,
as cited in Instituto Nacional de
Recursos Naturales (INRENA) 1996, p.
11; de la Fuente 2002, p. 8; Valqui et al.
2000, p. 112).
Hunting for international trade: In
1975, the Andean flamingo was listed in
Appendix II of CITES (UNEP–WCMC
2008b, p. 1). Appendix II includes
species that are not necessarily
threatened with extinction, but may
become so unless trade is subject to
strict regulation to avoid utilization
incompatible with the species’ survival.
International trade in specimens of
Appendix-II species is authorized
through permits or certificates under
certain circumstances, including
verification that trade will not be
detrimental to the survival of the
species in the wild and that specimens
in trade were legally acquired (UNEP–
WCMC 2008a, p. 1). For information on
how CITES functions to regulate trade,
see Factor D.
Bucher (1992, p. 183) described a
smuggling operation that involved trade
in live Andean flamingos with birds
captured at Laguna de Mar Chiquita (a
breeding site in Argentina) and
transported out of the country as
captive-bred specimens (specimens that
were not taken out of the wild) forged
CITES documents. Based on CITES
documentation, trade records indicate
that a total of 77 Andean flamingo
specimens have been traded
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:04 Dec 23, 2008
Jkt 217001
internationally since the species was
listed in 1975 (United Nations
Environment Programme-World
Conservation Monitoring Centre
(UNEP–WCMC) 2008c, pp. 1–2). Thirtysix specimens were traded as non-living
specimens—all were exchanged for
scientific purposes and involved trade
with Chile and Argentina—3 specimens
from Chile (in 1985) and 25 specimens
from Argentina (in 2004); 1 shipment of
250 grams of specimens from Chile
(possibly blood samples, in 1997); 1
body (probably a museum specimen, in
1989); and 2 feathers (which appear to
be the same specimen—imported to the
U.S. from Chile in 2000 and returned to
Chile in 2001) (UNEP–WCMC 2008c,
pp. 1–2).
Forty-one of the 77 specimens were
live shipments. Eighteen of the
specimens originated from one Andean
flamingo range country (Bolivia) and
were exported in three shipments—in
1977, 1978, and 1981. Sixteen of the
birds were traded for scientific
purposes; trade for scientific purposes
generally indicates a transaction
involving a zoo, where primary research
on captive breeding is undertaken.
There is no indication as to the origin
of the remaining 23 live specimens (i.e.,
the country from which the specimens
originated), so that we are unable to
determine unequivocally whether live
specimens were exported from
Argentina under false CITES
documentation. Of these 23, only 3
specimens were traded for commercial
purposes: In 1979, when France
exported a single live individual to
Great Britain; in 1980, when the United
States exported 4 live individuals to
Great Britain; and, in 1982, when Great
Britain exported 27 birds to Germany.
There has been no trade in live
specimens since 1982 (UNEP–WCMC
2008c, pp. 1–2).
Since 1997, the Andean flamingo has
been protected throughout Europe by
the European Commission (EC)
Regulation 338/97 (Eur-Lex 2008, p. 24).
For species listed under Annex B,
imports from a non-European Union
country must be accompanied by a
permit that is only issued if the
Scientific Authority has determined that
trade in the species will not be
detrimental to its survival in the wild.
According to Dr. Ute Grimm (German
Scientific Authority to CITES (Fauna),
Bonn, Germany, in litt. 2008, p. 1), there
have been no imports of Andean
flamingos since this legislation went
into effect (Grimm in litt. 2008, p.1).
Thus, we cannot conclude that CITES
trade documents were used to smuggle
live birds from Argentina, and the trade
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
79237
data does not suggest that this is the
case.
Egg collection: There is a long history
of collecting flamingo eggs in the
altiplano region. Eggs are harvested for
subsistence use and for sale in local
´
markets (Barbaran 2004, p. 6; BLI 2008,
´
p. 56; Rocha 2002, p. 10; Saenz 2006, p.
89). Walcott (1925, pp. 354–357)
provided a detailed account of egg
collecting at Laguna Colorada (Bolivia),
as described by a local Puna Indian.
According to this account, the locals
knew when the Andean flamingos began
nesting for the season and a group of 8
to 10 villagers would camp at the lake
long enough to gather the eggs. They
gathered nearly every egg, burying the
ones that they could not carry, so that
the birds would not incubate them, and
returning later to retrieve the buried
eggs. The eggs were baked in clay ovens
on site before being transported back to
their village. Another early 20th century
account noted that flamingo eggs were
sold as far back as 1903 in a market at
San Pedro de Atacama (Chile) (Walcott
1925, pp. 354, 360)—this is the nearest
town to Salar de Atacama, the type
locality of the Andean flamingo
(Hellmayr 1932, p. 312). Eggs were
harvested once, twice, or several times
a season (Johnson et al. 1958 pp. 291,
298; Walcott 1925, pp. 354–356).
Accounts describe the annual practice
of harvesting eggs, with entire families
journeying to the lake to set up camp
from December to February (Barfield
1961, p. 96; Johnson et al. 1958 pp. 291–
292).
Egg collecting has become an
established part of the local culture
´
(Barbaran 2004, p. 6; Rocha 2002, p. 10).
Egg collecting has been reported at
several wetlands throughout the Andes
that are critical to the Andean
flamingo’s life cycle, including: Laguna
de Pozuelos (Argentina) (Administration
de Parques Nacionales 1994, p. 2);
Lagunas de Vilama (Argentina) (BLI
2008, p. 553; Caziani et al. 2001, p. 106);
´
Lago Poopo (Bolivia); Lago Uru Uru
´
(Bolivia) (Saenz 2006, p. 89); Laguna
Colorada (Bolivia) (Hurlbert and Keith
1979, p. 332; Johnson et al. 1958, p. 292;
Rocha and Eyzaguirre 1998, p. 1); and
Salar de Atacama (Chile) (Hurlbert and
Keith 1979, pp. 332–333; Johnson et al.
1958, p. 298). Egg collection may also
occur at Lago Titicaca (Peru) (Ducks
Unlimited 2007d, p. 27).
Collecting is facilitated by the fact
that the birds nest in large colonies.
Large nesting sites are targeted for egg
collection, as collectors can quickly
gather a large number of eggs at these
´
sites (Caziani et al. 2001, p. 111; Saenz
2006, p. 89).
E:\FR\FM\24DEP2.SGM
24DEP2
hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS2
79238
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 24, 2008 / Proposed Rules
Egg collection has an immediate
negative impact on the Andean
flamingo’s already poor breeding
success (see Population EstimatesBreeding Success) (Arengo in litt. 2007,
pp. 1–3; del Hoyo et al. 1992, p. 521).
Because flamingos are long-lived with
slow rates of reproduction (Bucher
1992, p. 183), stable populations can be
maintained if the species’ breeding
success is good every 5–10 years
(William Conway, Wildlife
Conservation Society, Bronx, New York,
as cited in Valqui et al. 2000, p. 112).
However, the numbers of nesting birds
being reported are lower in the past
decade when compared to the 1980s
´
(Parada 1992, Rodrıguez and Contreras
1998—as cited in Caziani et al. 2007, p.
284). Chick production has been very
low for the past 20 years, averaging 800
per year from 1987 to 1997 (Rodriguez
Ramirez 2006, Amado et al. 2007, as
cited in Arengo in litt. 2007, pp. 1–3),
and 3,000 chicks per year from between
1997 to 2001 (Caziani et al. 2007, p.
283). As discussed in Factor E,
disturbance caused by collection
activities further compounds the
adverse effects of egg collection (see
Factor E).
Increasing demand for eggs and
increased access to habitats further
exacerbates the species’ already poor
breeding success. In 1975, Morrison
(1975, p. 81) reported that flamingo eggs
were in great demand and that traders
visited nesting areas, including Lagos
´
Poopo and Uru Uru, to buy eggs from
local Indians, transporting eggs away
‘‘by the truckload.’’ As towns grow and
mining operations expand, demand for
eggs increases to satisfy the miners (del
Hoyo et al. 1992, p. 521). Mining
operations have infiltrated once isolated
wetlands. In 1925, birds nesting at
Laguna Cachi (part of Pastos Grandes,
Bolivia) were considered secure from
egg collecting due to the remote and
inhospitable terrain (Walcott 1925, pp.
354–356). Today, Pastos Grandes, which
is an important breeding ground in
Bolivia, is the site of intense mineral
prospecting (see Factor A).
Tourism and Ecotourism: As
described in Factor A, ecotourism is
prevalent at many wetlands inhabited
by the Andean flamingo, including:
Laguna Negra (Argentina), Laguna de
Colorada (Bolivia), Salar de Atacama,
and the TDPS wetland complex, which
´
includes Lagos Poopo and Uru Uru (the
latter three wetlands in Chile).
´
According to the Corporacion Nacional
Forestal (1996c, pp. 10–11),
uncontrolled tourism, especially the use
of four wheeled all-terrain vehicles, has
become a problem at Laguna Negra.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:04 Dec 23, 2008
Jkt 217001
The Eduardo Avaroa National Reserve
(Reserve) in Bolivia encompasses
Laguna Colorada, Laguna Kalina, and
Salar de Chalviri (Ducks Unlimited
2007b, p. 43). The Reserve began
collecting tourism data in 1999
´
(Gonzalez 2006, p. 1). Since 2000,
tourism has increased annually by about
5 percent per year, from 26,066 visitors
in 2000 to 51,271 visitors in 2005
´
(Gonzalez 2006, p. 2). Over the 6-year
period, a total of 142,968 tourists visited
the Reserve, primarily in the Bolivian
winter months of July (24,629 visitors)
and August (32,230 visitors). During the
Andean flamingo breeding season
(November to February), an average of
18,000 people visited the Reserve each
month (Gonzalez 2006, p. 2). In 2005,
ticket sales indicated that 65 percent of
the tourists came to see the flamingos
´
(Gonzalez 2006, p. 2). Within the
Reserve, problems associated with
tourism include increased car traffic and
trash, especially disposable bottles and
other non-biodegradable waste
(Embassy of Bolivia 2008, pp. 7–8).
At Lago Titicaca (Peru), the large
number of visitors and the noise of
motorized vehicles has decreased the
number of birds on the lake (INRENA
1996, p. 6). At Laguna Salinas (Peru),
which provides habitat to all three
South American flamingo species,
excavation activities near the lake had a
profound effect on the flamingos.
Flamingos were driven away from areas
where there was noise caused by
excavating machinery, disrupting
feeding and breeding activities.
Flamingos fled nesting sites during
disturbance activities (such as
excavation), and some never returned,
abandoning their nests (Ugarte-Nunez
and Mosaurieta-Echegaray 2000, p. 137).
Summary of Factor B
Hunting for local consumption, egg
collection, and tourism have a negative
impact on Andean flamingo populations
throughout their range. Hunting
removes juveniles and adults from the
population, which has already
experienced a severe population decline
within the past 30 years and is
considered the rarest of all flamingo
species in the world. Removal of adults
from the population decreases the
number of sexually mature specimens
available for reproduction, may break
pair bonds, and jeopardizes their
already inconsistent breeding habits.
Although egg-collecting has been
carried out for years, and perhaps
centuries, increased demand has
intensified collection pressures. Egg
collection is facilitated by the flamingo’s
colonial nesting practices and from
increased access to once-remote
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
wetlands from mining operations
(Factor A). Disturbance from hunting,
egg collection, and tourism exacerbates
the species’ poor breeding success
(Factor E). Therefore, we find that
hunting for local consumption, egg
collection, and tourism are threats to the
continued existence of the Andean
flamingo throughout its range.
With regard to hunting for
international trade, we believe that the
small number of live specimens that
were traded and the near lack of trade
for commercial purposes, combined
with the fact that there have been no
shipments of live Andean flamingos
since 1982, indicate that the level of
international trade, controlled via valid
CITES permits, is small. Therefore, we
find that harvest of flamingos for
international trade is not a threat to the
continued existence of the Andean
flamingo.
C. Disease or Predation
Disease: Flamingos are nomadic
species with the potential to disperse
pathogenic microorganisms and
horizontally transmit disease agents due
to their flocking behavior (Uhart et al.
2006, p. 32). Uhart et al. (2006, p. 32)
found 13 antibodies for various
infectious diseases (indicating exposure)
in a study of all 3 altiplano flamingos.
Changes in water availability and
habitat quality may favor the emergence
of pathogens, which could affect the
health of flamingos (Uhart et al. 2006, p.
32). However, we are not aware of any
pathogenic diseases that are currently
affecting Andean flamingos in the wild.
A massive mortality of flamingos and
other aquatic birds (on the order of
several thousands) was recorded in
January 1975 around the mouth of the
Segundo River in Mar Chiquita
(Argentina). Bucher (1992, p. 183)
believed the observed mortality was
caused by an outbreak of avian
botulism. The affected birds showed
typical field signs of the disease (Locke
and Friend 1987, as cited in Bucher
1992, p. 183), including: Paralysis of
voluntary muscles, inability to walk or
fly, and a tendency to congregate along
vegetated peninsulas and islands, where
lines of carcasses were seen at the
water’s edge. Avian botulism outbreaks
are associated with receding water
conditions in areas of flooded vegetation
during periods of high temperatures
(Bucher 1992, p. 183). Thus, activities
that decrease water levels at the lakes,
as outlined in Factor A, could cause
disease outbreaks and result in flamingo
mortality.
In 2002, Fabry and Hilliard (2006, p.
49) began a flamingo monitoring
program in the Atacama Desert to
E:\FR\FM\24DEP2.SGM
24DEP2
hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 24, 2008 / Proposed Rules
explore the declining flamingo
populations in the region, test for
linkages between human activity and
declining flamingo populations, and
evaluate flamingo health. The team has
marked and released over 80 flamingos
and has identified several pathogens,
including Newcastle’s disease, Avian
influenza, and West Nile virus, as
possible causes for increasing flamingo
mortality. This research is ongoing.
Predation: Walcott (1925, p. 354)
noted that fresh-water gulls (Larus
serranus) at Laguna Colorada (Bolivia)
were likely predating flamingo eggs.
Other potential predators include the
Andean wolf (Dusicyon cuplaeus),
pampas fox (Dusicyon griseus), variable
hawk (Buteo poecilochrous), and
Andean caracara (Phalcobaenus
albogularis). Johnson et al. (1958, p.
299) concluded predation by landbound predators was not a significant
threat to this species, given the
difficulty of access to nesting sites.
However, nesting sites are no longer as
inaccessible as they were in the mid20th century. Human activities (such as
mining, urbanization, tourism, and
concomitant infrastructure
development) have infiltrated wetlands
previously considered inaccessible
(Factor A). This situation has been
compounded by the ongoing drought
conditions throughout a large portion of
the Andean flamingo’s range (Factor E).
In January 1996, Caziani & Derlindati
(2000, p. 124) reported that a colony of
unidentified flamingo nests at Lagunas
Vilama, where Andean and James’
flamingo are known to breed, were
found on dry land—probably due to an
unexpected retraction of the lake—
leaving 1,500 abandoned nests, some of
which had eggs from that season.
Because this species nests in the open,
laying eggs directly on the ground,
many nesting sites can be more easily
accessed by humans and non-human
predators. In the 2006–2007 breeding
season, Childress et al. (2007, p. 7)
noted that an entire colony of 600
unidentified flamingo nests at Laguna
Brava (Argentina, where Andean
flamingos are known to nest) had been
decimated by foxes (species not
´
identified). The Corporacion Nacional
Forestal (1996a, p. 12) reported that
foxes ate flamingo eggs and chicks at
Los Flamingos National Reserve (Chile)
but did not document the extent of this
predation.
Summary of Factor C
Several diseases have been identified
in the flamingo population and are
being monitored. Potential for disease
outbreaks warrants continued
monitoring and may become a more
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:04 Dec 23, 2008
Jkt 217001
significant threat factor in the future,
especially if habitat alteration combined
with the ongoing drought continue to
decrease water levels at the lakes
(Factors A and E). Disease has been
identified and has at least in one case
likely caused mortality (botulism).
Therefore, we find that disease in
flamingos is a threat to the continued
existence of the Andean flamingo.
Predation by foxes, gulls, and other
predators results in direct removal of
eggs, juveniles, and adults from the
population. Predation can have
devastating consequences for the
species, especially given the colonial
nature of the species and its tendency to
nest in only a few wetlands each year.
Predation removes potentially
reproductive adults from the breeding
pool, disrupts mating pairs, and
exacerbates the species’ already poor
breeding success (these effects are
discussed in detail under Factor B).
Therefore, we find that predation is a
threat to the continued existence of the
Andean flamingo throughout its range.
D. Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory
Mechanisms
Two regulatory issues can be
discussed on a regional level:
Protections under CITES, and Ramsar
designations.
CITES: The Andean flamingo is listed
in Appendix II of the Convention on
International Trade in Endangered
Species of Wild Fauna and Flora
(CITES). CITES is an international treaty
among 173 nations, including all four
Andean flamingo countries and the
United States, that entered into force in
1975 (UNEP–WCMC 2008a, p. 1). In the
United States, CITES is implemented
through the U.S. Endangered Species
Act (Act). The Act designates the
Secretary of the Interior as the Scientific
and Management Authorities to
implement the treaty with all functions
carried out by the Service. Under this
treaty, countries work together to ensure
that international trade in animal and
plant species is not detrimental to the
survival of wild populations, by
regulating the import, export, re-export,
and introduction from the sea of CITESlisted animal and plant species (USFWS
2008, p. 1). As discussed under Factor
B, we do not consider international
trade to be a threat impacting the
Andean flamingo and consider that this
international treaty has minimized the
potential threat to the species from
international trade.
Ramsar: The Ramsar Convention,
signed in Ramsar, Iran, in 1971, is an
intergovernmental treaty which
provides the framework for national
action and international cooperation for
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
79239
the conservation and wise use of
wetlands and their resources. There are
presently 157 Contracting Parties to the
Convention (including all of the
countries where the Andean flamingo
occurs), with 1,702 wetland sites,
totaling 153 million hectares, designated
for inclusion in the Ramsar List of
Wetlands of International Importance.
Many wetlands of importance to the
Andean flamingo’s life cycle are
designated as wetlands of international
importance under the Ramsar
Convention. In Argentina, these include:
´
Laguna de Mar Chiquita (Barbaro 2002,
pp. 1–12), Lagunas de Vilama (de la
Zerda et al. 2000, pp. 1–6), Laguna
Brava (de la Fuente 2002, pp. 1–10), and
Laguna de Pozuelos (Administration de
Parques Nacionales 1994, pp. 1–3). In
´
Bolivia, Lagos Poopo and Uru Uru
(Rocha 2002, pp. 1–13) and Laguna
Colorada (Rocha and Eyzaguirre 1998,
pp. 1–11) are Ramsar wetlands. Chilean
Ramsar wetlands include Laguna del
Negro Francisco and Laguna Santa Rosa
´
(Corporacion Nacional Forestal 1996c,
´
pp. 1–12); Salar de Huasco (Corporacion
Nacional Forestal 1996b, pp. 1–5); and
Salar de Surire (Soto 1996, pp. 1–9). In
Peru, Lago Titicaca (INRENA 1996, pp.
1–14) and Laguna Salinas (Jefatura de la
Reserva Nacional de Salinas y Aguada
Blanca 2003, pp. 1–14) are Ramsar
wetlands. Experts consider Ramsar to
provide only nominal protection of
wetlands, although they also note that
such a designation may increase
international awareness of its ecological
value (Jellison et al. 2004, p. 19).
However, as described below, activities
that negatively impact the Andean
flamingo are ongoing within Ramsar
wetlands, including the curtailment and
destruction of Andean flamingo habitat
(Factor A), and hunting and
overutilization of Andean flamingos
(Factor B). As such, this designation has
not mitigated the impact of threats on
the Andean flamingo.
Due to the wide range of Andean
flamingos in four countries along the
Andes, the remaining analysis of
existing regulatory mechanisms will be
presented on a country-by-country
basis, in alphabetical order.
Argentina: The Andean flamingo is
considered vulnerable in Argentina
(Goldfeder & Blanco 2007, p. 191). The
Law of Provincial Game No. 3,014/73
(Law No. 3,014 1973, pp. 1–5) was
established in Argentina in 1973. Article
7 of this law strictly prohibits hunting,
possession, or transportation of wild
animals, their parts, offspring, nests, or
eggs, except as permitted by regulation
(Law No. 3014, p. 7). Resolution No.
513/2007 (2007, pp. 1–7) and Resolution
No. 1,089/98 (1998, pp. 1–4) prohibit
E:\FR\FM\24DEP2.SGM
24DEP2
hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS2
79240
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 24, 2008 / Proposed Rules
hunting, trapping, interprovincial
transport, or international trade in
certain species of wildlife, including the
Andean flamingo. Despite this law,
hunting for local consumption of
Andean flamingo individuals and eggs
continues at wetlands of known
importance in Argentina, including
Laguna Pozuelos and Mar Chiquita
´
(Barbaran 2004, p. 11; Bucher 1992,
p. 183; Senz 2006, p. 103) (see Factor B).
Therefore, these laws are inadequate to
mitigate the threat of Andean flamingo
hunting for local consumption.
Protected areas have been established
by regulation at several sites occupied
by the Andean flamingo in Argentina,
including: (a) Laguna Brava and Laguna
de Mulas Muertas, (b) Laguna de Mar
Chiquita, (c) Laguna de Pozuelos, and
(d) Lagunas de Vilama. As described
below, the regulatory mechanisms
behind these designations are
inadequate to address or mitigate
ongoing activities that are negatively
impacting the Andean flamingo within
these protected areas, including the
curtailment and destruction of Andean
flamingo habitat (Factor A), and hunting
and overutilization of Andean flamingos
(Factor B).
(a) Laguna Brava and Laguna de
Mulas Muertas: Provincial Law No.
3944 declared the creation of the
´
˜
Reserva de Vicunas y Proteccion del
Ecosistema Laguna Brava, establishing
Laguna Brava as a protected reserve in
La Rioja Province (BLI 2008, p. 40).
Laguna Mulas Muertas, where the
Andean flamingo has overwintered, is
also included within this reserve (BLI
2008, p. 40; Bucher et al. 2000, p. 120).
This law also established the designated
managing authorities and provided for
the formulation of regulations for the
operation of the Reserve, under the
Provincial System of Protected Areas.
There is an outpost for park rangers in
the town of Alto Jague that is equipped
with a 4x4 vehicle and a permanent staff
of four park rangers assigned to the
protected area. Despite this designation,
the habitat within the reserve continues
to be curtailed and disrupted by human
activities. Recent road construction (de
la Fuente 2002, p. 8) (see Factor A) and
increased tourism, including the use of
off-road vehicles (BLI 2008, p. 40) (see
Factors A and B), are ongoing.
Multinational mining companies have
undertaken prospecting activities within
the Reserve, indicating the potential that
mineral extraction could occur there (de
la Fuente 2002, p. 8) (see Factor A).
(b) Laguna de Mar Chiquita: Laguna
de Mar Chiquita is an important
wintering site for Andean flamingos and
was included in the System of Protected
´
Nature Areas of the Province of Cordoba
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:04 Dec 23, 2008
Jkt 217001
in 1966 (BLI 2008, pp. 34–37). In 1994,
the area was declared a multiple-use
´
˜
reserve (Reserva de Banados del Rıo
Dulce y Laguna de Mar Chiquita) (BLI
2008, p. 36; Ducks Unlimited 2007a,
p. 22). In accordance with existing
legislation, environmental protection is
achieved through the regulated use of
natural resources, respecting its
characteristics, ecological status,
wildlife and potential resources. In
2000, a group of provincial park
wardens was formed to patrol the
reserve. In 2001, there were four new
park wardens, one expert and a
technician to implement environmental
´
legislation in the reserve (Barbaro 2002,
p. 10). Activities that cause habitat
destruction are ongoing around Mar
Chiquita, including pollution from
agriculture, water contamination from
agrochemicals (BLI 2008, pp. 36–37;
Johnson and Arengo 2001, p. 38) (see
Factor A), and disturbance from
ecotourism activities (Ducks Unlimited
2007a, p. 22) (see Factor B).
(c) Laguna de Pozuelos: Located in
Jujuy Province, Laguna de Pozuelos was
designated a Natural Monument in 1981
and a UNESCO Biosphere Reserve in
1990 (BLI 2008, p. 31; Ducks Unlimited
2007a, p. 2). It is managed by the
National Parks Administration of
Argentina and is subject to the
regulation of Law No. 22,351 (1980, pp.
1–11) concerning National Parks,
Natural Monuments, and National
Reserves (Administration de Parques
Nacionales 1994, pp. 1–2). Under Law
No. 22,351 (1980, p. 2), an area that has
been declared a Natural Monument is
conferred ‘‘absolute’’ protection, such
that the land, things, and species of
animals and plants thereon are
inviolable. Despite this protection,
mining and resultant water
contamination continue (de la Fuente
2002, p. 8; Ducks Unlimited 2007a, p. 4;
Goldfeder and Blanco 2007, p. 193) (see
Factor A). According to the National
Park Administration, a ‘‘trained’’
warden is posted at the site
(Administration de Parques Nacionales
1994, pp. 1–2). Despite this, hunting
continues to threaten the Andean
flamingo at Laguna Pozuelos, where
individuals and their eggs are hunted
for subsistence and local commerce
(Administration de Parques Nacionales
1994, p. 2; BLI 2008, p. 31) (see Factor
B).
(d) Lagunas de Vilama: The lakes that
form Lagunas de Vilama are located
within the Reserva Altoandina de la
Chinchilla, under the jurisdiction of the
province of Jujuy in accordance with
Provincial Decree No. 2,213E–92 (BLI
2008, pp. 52–53; de la Zerda et al. 2000,
p. 5; Provincial Decree No. 2,213E 1992,
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
pp. 1–5). This Reserve, along the
Argentinean/Chilean border, was
created in 1992 specifically to protect
the chinchilla (Eriomis brevicaudata),
˜
the vicuna (Vicugna vicugna), and
numerous birds (Provincial Decree No.
2,213 E 1992, p. 1). Despite this
regulation, habitat destruction caused
by prospecting for minerals and tourism
(Factor A) and egg collection (Factor B)
are factors that continue to threaten the
Andean flamingo within the Lagunas de
Vilama wetland system (BLI 2008, p.
553; Caziani et al. 2001, p. 106).
Bolivia: The 1975 Law on Wildlife,
National Parks, Hunting and Fishing
(Decree Law No. 12,301 1975, pp. 1–34)
has the fundamental objective of
protecting the country’s natural
resources. This law governs the
protection, management utilization,
transportation, and selling of wildlife
and their products; the protection of
endangered species; habitat
conservation of fauna and flora; and the
declaration of national parks, biological
reserves, refuges, and wildlife
sanctuaries, tending to the preservation,
promotion, and rational use of these
resources. However, hunting of
flamingos continues to be a threat at
´
´
Lake Poopo (Rocha 2002, p. 10; Saenz
2006, pp. 88–89) (Factor B).
Wetlands frequented by the Andean
flamingo in Bolivia that have some level
of protected status include: (a) Lago
´
Poopo and (b) Laguna Colorada, Laguna
Kalina, and Salar de Chalviri. However,
the regulations are ineffective at
reducing the threat of habitat
destruction (Factor A), hunting and egg
collection (Factor B) and human
disturbance (Factor E) within these
protected areas.
´
´
(a) Lago Poopo: In 2000, Lago Poopo,
an overwintering site for the Andean
flamingo (see Current Range), was
declared a natural heritage site and
ecological reserve under Law No. 2,097
(2000, pp. 7–8) (Declaration of National
Patrimony and Ecological Reserve of
´
Oruru, for Lake Poopo in the
Department of Oruru). Law No. 2,097
(2000, p. 7) allowed for international
cooperation on the conservation and
rehabilitation of the lake. However, as of
2002, Rocha (2002, p. 11) noted that
little had been done to ensure the lake’s
conservation. In their review of the
conservation and management
challenges of saline lakes, Jellison et al.
(2004, p. 14) concluded that because
´
Lago Poopo is not part of the national
system of protected areas there has been
little attention to its conservation and
‘‘wise use’’ (Jellison et al. 2004, p. 14).
´
Lago Poopo is on the terminal end of
´
the TDPS (Titicaca-Desaguadero-PoopoSalar de Coipasa) hydrological system
E:\FR\FM\24DEP2.SGM
24DEP2
hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 24, 2008 / Proposed Rules
along the border with Peru (Jellison et
al. 2004, p. 11, 120), with Lago Titicaca
straddling the border between the two
countries (Ronteltap et al. 2005, p. 1)
(see Current Range: Bolivia). Water
contamination from mining and
metallurgical industries has
contaminated the TDPS water system
for many years (Adamek et al. 1998,
Cardoza et al. 2004—as cited in Jellison
et al. 2004, p. 12; Jellison et al. 2004, p.
11; Ricalde 2003, pp. 10, 91). Because
´
Lago Poopo is located at the terminal
end of the endoreic (closed) TDPS
drainage system, pollutants are more
likely to concentrate there (Jellison et al.
2004, p. 120) (Factor A). In addition to
water contamination, Andean flamingos
´
at Lago Poopo are exposed to threats
from indiscriminant hunting (Rocha
´
2002, p. 10; Saenz 2006, pp. 88–89)
(Factor B).
(b) Laguna Colorada, Laguna Kalina,
and Salar de Chalviri: Lagunas Colorada
and Kalina are important breeding sites
that belong to the same hydrological
water basin (Ducks Unlimited 2007b, p.
13). Salar de Chalviri is a wetland
complex that provides habitat for the
Andean flamingo during the winter.
Laguna Colorada was one of five
wetlands, and the only wetland in
Bolivia that, in 2005, harbored 50
percent of the breeding population
(Caziani et al. 2006, p. 13). In the most
recent simultaneous census, for 2006–
2007, breeding in Bolivia occurred only
at two wetlands, Laguna Colorada and
Kalina (see Current Range). Therefore,
the effects of habitat reduction (Factor
A), hunting, and tourism (Factor B) at
these wetlands greatly diminish the
numbers of reproductive adults and
juvenile offspring, and the overall
breeding success of the species.
The Eduardo Avaroa National Reserve
(La Reserva Nacional de Fauna Andina
Eduardo Avaroa) (Reserve) was
established in 1973 (Supreme Decree
11,231 1973, pp. 1–2), expressly to
protect Laguna Colorada for its role in
supporting a large diversity of wildlife,
including rare species such as the
Andean flamingo, and to counter a
growing commerce in these species,
which were being harvested from the
area. The Decree established the
boundaries of the Reserve, declared
hunting within the park illegal,
established a guard post within the
park, and empowered the Minister of
Agriculture and Cattle to conduct the
necessary biological and ecological
studies to manage the park. The area of
the Reserve was defined as Laguna
Colorada itself (which covers
approximately 12,948 ac (5,240 ha))
(Ducks Unlimited 2007b, p. 13), plus a
6-mi (10-km) radial area surrounding
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:04 Dec 23, 2008
Jkt 217001
the lake (Supreme Decree No. 11,239
1973, p. 1). Under Supreme Decree No.
18,431 (1981, pp. 1–2) the limits of the
Reserve were extended to 1,764,515
acres (714,074 ha). With this expansion,
Laguna Kalina and Salar de Chalviri
were thus incorporated within the
Reserve (Ducks Unlimited 2007b, pp.
13–16). In 1992, the Reserve was added
to the Protected Area System (Sistema
Nacional de Areas Protegidas (SNAP))
(FUNDESNAP 2008, p. 1; Rocha and
Eyzaguirre 1998, pp. 8–9).
As of 1998, the Reserve had a
management plan, but it was not being
implemented. However, efforts were
being made to manage tourism with the
objective of wetland conservation and to
patrol the area in order to avoid
pilferage of flamingo eggs during the
breeding season (Rocha and Eyzaguirre
1998, pp. 8–9). As of 2004, the following
ongoing problems were identified
within the Reserve: Uncontrolled and
badly managed tourism; high
concentrations of activities within the
lagoons, including Laguna Colorada;
lack of environmental controls for the
mining industry; implementation of a
geothermal project; uncertain financing
to support activities to manage the
protected area; unregulated use of
archeological and natural resources; and
weak management of the protected area
(Flores 2004, p. 5). At Laguna Colorada,
water contamination from tourism
(RIDES 2005, p. 21; Rocha and
Eyzaguirre 1998, p. 8) and livestock
grazing are ongoing (Ducks Unlimited
2007b, p. 14; Flores 2004, pp. 35–36)
(Factor A). Egg collecting has been
reported at Laguna Colorada for many
years (Hurlbert and Keith 1979, p. 332;
Johnson et al. 1958, p. 292; Rocha and
Eyzaguirre 1998, p. 1) and continues to
be a problem within the Reserve (Ducks
Unlimited 2007b, p. 17) (Factor B).
Disturbance caused by collection
activities further compounds the
adverse effects of egg collection (see
Factor E).
Supreme Decree No. 28,591 (2006, pp.
2–17) regulated the management of
tourism within the protected areas that
make up the National System of
Protected Areas. It established a
framework of regulatory provisions
related to tourism so that each protected
area could develop rules specific to the
reserve, to ensure the conservation and
protection of natural and cultural
heritage. The Eduardo Avaroa National
Reserve (Reserve) has been working
toward a tourism management program
for some time, including the collection
and examination of tourism data for the
Reserve in order to better understand
how the Reserve is used and how to
adjust their management of activities
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
79241
´
(Gonzalez 2006, p. 1). However, tourism
continues to increase within the Reserve
´
(Gonzalez 2006, p. 2), with concomitant
stress on and contamination of the water
resources (RIDES 2005, p. 21; Rocha and
Eyzaguirre 1998, p. 8) (Factor A), along
with the deleterious effect of human
disturbance on the species (CONAF,
Region II, as cited in INRENA 1996, p.
11) (Factor E).
Chile: Chile outlined the methods by
which they classify various wild species
as threatened or endangered species
under Supreme Decree No. 75 (2006, pp.
´
1–6)—Reglamento para la Clasificacion
de Especies Silvestres—and has just
initiated the process of classifying
species with the publication of two
proposed lists of species (Exenta No.
1,579 2006, pp. 1–4) (Da Inicio a
´
Proceso de Clasificacion de Especies e
Indica Listado de Especies a Clasificar),
but the Andean flamingo has not been
listed nor has it been proposed for
listing as threatened or endangered (see
https://www.conama.cl/
clasificacionespecies/). Therefore, there
is no regulatory mechanism that
specifically protects the Andean
flamingo on a national level.
The Chilean National Commission on
´
the Environment (Comision Nacional
del Medio Ambiente (CONAMA)) was
established in 1990 and, in March 1994,
the General Environmental Law (Ley de
Bases Generales del Medio Ambiente)
went into effect. The General
Environmental Law restructured
CONAMA and introduced new
instruments of environmental
management that had not previously
existed: Environmental education and
research; public participation;
environmental quality standards to
preserve nature and environmental
heritage; emission standards; plans for
management, prevention, and cleanup;
responsibility for environmental
damage; and the system of
environmental impact assessment.
Under the General Environmental Law,
several new regulations have been
established over more than twenty
areas, including atmospheric, water,
noise, and light pollution (Embassy of
Chile 2007, pp. 1–2). However, water
contamination from mineral extraction,
agricultural pursuits, sewage and trash
(Factor A) and disturbance from noise
(Factor E) are ongoing at Chilean
wetlands of importance to Andean
flamingo life cycle, including: (a)
´
Laguna Ascotan and (b) Salar de
Atacama. Therefore, this regulatory
mechanism is not being effectively
implemented to reduce the threats to the
Andean flamingo.
´
(a) Laguna Ascotan was once
considered a breeding site for the
E:\FR\FM\24DEP2.SGM
24DEP2
hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS2
79242
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 24, 2008 / Proposed Rules
species (Johnson et al. 1958, p. 296;
Kahl 1975 p. 100). While the species
continues to to feed at the site (Vilina
´
and Martınez 1998, p. 28), there are no
recent reports of nesting there. This may
be attributed to mineral extraction
(including borax) (Johnson 1958, p. 296)
(Factor A) and concomitant disturbance
activities (Factor E).
(b) Salar de Atacama has been a
consistent and primary breeding ground
(Bucher et al. 2000, p. 119; Childress et
al. 2007a, p. 7; Ducks Unlimited 2007c,
pp. 1–4; Johnson et al. 1958, p. 296).
Mining activities and increased human
presence and tourism has disturbed
foraging and nesting birds there
´
(Corporacion Nacional Forestal 1996a,
p. 9). Over 50,000 people visit Salar de
Atacama (Chile) and surrounding areas
each year (RIDES 2005, p. 21). These
activities lead to water pollution,
increased water usage, and disturbance
of the flamingo life cycle. The breeding
success of the species has been steadily
decreasing at Salar de Atacama (Fabry
and Hilliard 2006, p. 1). In Chile,
breeding was attempted at four sites in
Salar de Atacama. A total of 2,900 pairs
of Andean flamingos laid eggs, but only
538 chicks survived (Childress et al.
2007a, p. 7).
Protected areas have been established
by regulation at four sites occupied by
the Andean flamingo in Chile: (a)
Laguna del Negro Francisco, (b) Salar de
Surire, and (c) Lagunas Atacama and
Pujsa. These wetlands have figured as
consistent breeding and overwintering
habitats for many years (Bucher et al.
2000, p. 119; Childress et al. 2007a, p.
7; Ducks Unlimited 2007c, pp. 1–4;
˚
Fjeldsa and Krabbe 1990, p. 86;
Hellmayr 1932, p. 312; Johnson et al.
1958, p. 296; Kahl 1975 p. 100).
However, as described below, the
regulations are ineffective at reducing
the threats of habitat destruction (Factor
A), hunting and egg collection (Factor
B), and human disturbance (Factor E)
within these protected areas.
(a) Laguna del Negro: Salar de Negro
Francisco provides year-round habitat
for the Andean flamingo (Caziani et al.
2007, p. 279; Ducks Unlimited 2007c, p.
6; Valqui et al. 2000, p. 112). Laguna del
Negro Francisco was included in the
Parque Nacional Nevado Tres Cruces
that forms part of the national system of
protected wildlife areas (SNASPE)
´
(Corporacion Nacional Forestal 1996c,
p. 11). Despite this designation, the
´
Corporacion Nacional Forestal (1996c,
pp. 10–11) reported several persistent
threats, including: (1) Concessions for
water use held by the mining companies
that work on the altiplano; (2)
prospecting and digging for minerals
and underground water, which involves
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:04 Dec 23, 2008
Jkt 217001
road building that makes it possible for
people to reach places that were
formerly inaccessible; (3) intense illegal
bird hunting (Bucher 1992, p. 183,
´
Corporacion Nacional Forestal 1996c, p.
11); and (4) uncontrolled tourism,
especially the use of four-wheeled all´
terrain vehicles (Corporacion Nacional
Forestal 1996c, pp. 10–11).
(b) Salar de Surire: Andean flamingos
breed and overwinter at this wetland
(Caziani et al. 2006, p. 13; Caziani et al.
2007, p. 279; McFarlane 1975, p. 88;
Valqui et al. 2000, p. 112). In 2001, Salar
de Surire, along with Salar de Atacama,
was the most successful Andean
flamingo breeding site in Chile (Caziani
et al. 2007, p. 279). The Parque Nacional
Lauca was created in 1970,
incorporating approximately 1,285,000
acres (520,000 ha), including the Salar
de Surire. In 1983, the limits of the
national park were redefined, and three
administrative units for protected nature
areas were created: The present Parque
Nacional Lauca, the National Nature
˜
Reserve Las Vicunas, and the Salar de
Surire Nature Reserve, including part of
the salt marsh of 27,906 acres (11,298
ha) (Soto 1996, p. 8). Lauca Biosphere
Reserve (including all three
administrative units) was designated a
UNESCO Biosphere reserve in 1983
(Rundel and Palma 2000, p. 262).
Despite this designation, the threat of
mining in the park continues (Rundel
and Palma 2000, pp. 270–271). The
number of people visiting remote Salar
de Surire (Chile), a primary Andean
flamingo breeding site, was under 1,000
as of 1995, but increasing (Soto 1996, p.
7). One travel Web site advertises the
availability of a campsite, (https://
www.chilecontact.com/en/conozca/
surire.php), noting that no public
transportation is available and
recommending the use of four-wheel
drive vehicles to access and tour the
area. The impact of tourism is discussed
under Factor B.
(c) Salars de Pujsa and Atacama: As
mentioned above, Salar de Atacama
provides year-round flamingo habitat
and nesting sites. Salar de Pujsa was
reported as a nesting site in 1997
(Valqui et al. 2000, p. 112), although no
nesting was reported there in the 2004,
2005, or 2006 breeding seasons
(Childress et al. 2005, p. 7; Childress et
al. 2006, p. 7; Childress et al. 2007a, p.
7). These Salars are among the wetlands
that were included in the Los
Flamencos National Reserve (Reserve),
designated in April 1990 by Decree No.
50 of the Ministry of Agriculture,
although only part of Salar de Atacama
is included. These wetlands form an
important area for the biological
stability of flamingo populations
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
´
(Corporacion Nacional Forestal 1996a,
pp. 12–13).
In addition to the Reserve
management plan, there is a proposed
strategy for the sustainable management
and regulation of activities in the salt
marshes and for their conservation. The
most recent reports available deem the
management at this site insufficient, due
to the limited number of staff and the
´
large area of the reserve (Corporacion
Nacional Forestal 1996a, pp. 12–13).
Locals at Salar de Atacama hunt the
Andean flamingo for its feathers and for
ritualistic use (Castro and Varela 1992,
p. 22) (Factor B). Road building has
increased access to nesting areas and
facilitated hunting and egg collection
´
(Corporacion Nacional Forestal 1996a,
pp. 11–12; Ducks Unlimited 2007c, p. 3)
(Factor A). Water extraction in this
endoreic (closed) basin, which is fed
only by summer storms and winter
´
snowmelts, is ongoing (Corporacion
Nacional Forestal 1996a, pp. 8–9). The
rights to 13,137 ft3/s (6.2 m3/s) of water
have been allocated; however, the water
recharge in the basin is only about
10,594 ft3/s (5 m3/s) (RIDES 2005, p. 16)
(Factor A).
Peru: The Andean flamingo is
considered vulnerable by the Peruvian
government under Supreme Decree No.
034–2004–AG (2004, p. 276855), which
prohibits hunting, taking, transport, or
trade of endangered species, except as
permitted by regulation. At Laguna
Salinas (an overwintering site in Peru),
hunters have killed flamingos for target
practice or just ‘‘to get a close look at
one.’’ The extent of this persecution at
Laguna Salinas is unclear, but may have
abated since installation of a watch post
in mid-1998 (Ugarte-Nunez and
Mosaurieta-Echegaray 2000, p. 137). At
Lago Titicaca (Peru), localized hunting
and the collection of birds’ eggs may be
ongoing (Ducks Unlimited 2007d, p. 27).
Excessive hunting is a problem at Lago
Parinacochas (an overwintering site in
Peru) (Ducks Unlimited 2007d, p. 23).
Therefore, this regulatory mechanism is
ineffective at protecting the Andean
flamingo or mitigating the threat of
hunting (Factor B).
Protected areas have been established
through regulation at two sites occupied
by the Andean flamingo in Peru: (a)
Laguna Salinas and (b) Lago Titicaca.
Lagunas Salinas has long provided
overwintering habitat for the Andean
flamingo (Caziani et al. 2007, p. 279;
Hellmayr & Conover 1948, p. 277; Kahl
1975, pp. 99–100). Fourteen percent of
the population overwintered there in
2003 (Ricalde 2003, p. 91). Lago Titicaca
is part of the TDPS wetland system, to
´
which Lagos Poopo and Uru Uru
(Bolivia) belong. This wetlands complex
E:\FR\FM\24DEP2.SGM
24DEP2
hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 24, 2008 / Proposed Rules
provides an important variety of
overwintering habitat for the Andean
flamingo, where more than 50 percent of
the known population of Andean
flamingos overwintered in 2000 (Caziani
et al. 2007, p. 279; Mascitti and
Bonaventura 2002, p. 62). However, as
described below, the regulations are
ineffective at reducing the threat of
habitat destruction (Factor A), hunting
and egg collection (Factor B), predation
(Factor C), and human disturbance
(Factor E) within these protected areas.
(a) Laguna Salinas: Laguna Salinas is
part of the Reserve National Salinas and
Aguada Blanca (Reserve), established by
Supreme Decree No. 070–79–AA in
1979 (1979, pp. 260–262). A master plan
for the Reserve was adopted in 2001
(Jefatura de la Reserva Nacional de
Salinas y Aguada Blanca 2003, pp. 6–7).
However, at Laguna Salinas, which
provides habitat for all three Andean
flamingo species (Ducks Unlimited
2007d, p. 26), the habitat is being
destroyed or modified by mining, fires,
agriculture, and drainage for drinking
water (Ricalde 2003, p. 91; UgarteNunez and Mosaurieta-Echegaray 2000,
p. 135) (Factor A). Flamingos are absent
from polluted areas of the lake (Factor
A); Andean flamingos are sensitive to
reduced water levels (Factor A); and
disturbance activities disrupt flamingo
nesting and eating habits on the lake
(Factor E) (Ugarte-Nunez and
Mosaurieta-Echegaray 2000, pp. 135,
137, 139). In addition to reducing
flamingo habitat availability, increased
road construction to support mining and
tourism (Factor A) facilitates hunting
and predator access to nesting grounds
´
(Corporacion Nacional Forestal 1996a,
pp. 12) (Factors B and C).
(b) Lago Titicaca: The Titicaca
National Reserve (Reserva Nacional del
Titicaca) (Reserve) (89,364 acres (36,180
ha)) encompasses approximately 8
percent of the Peruvian portion of Lago
Titicaca (Supreme Decree No. 185–78–
AA 1978, p. 257). The Reserve was
created in 1978 (Chief Resolution No.
311–2001–INRENA 2001, pp. 413–415)
to guarantee the conservation of its
natural resources because of the
existence of exceptional characteristics
of wild fauna and flora, scenic beauty,
and traditional use of natural resources
in harmony with the environment. In
addition, it was created to promote the
socioeconomic development of the
neighboring populations through the
wise use of natural resources and the
promotion of tourism. The Peruvian
Navy controls navigation on all of the
lakes in Peru, including boats that visit
the reserve. It also patrols and monitors
the border, and ensures compliance
with regulations on hunting and the use
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:04 Dec 23, 2008
Jkt 217001
of wildlife resources from the lake
(INRENA 1996, pp. 9–10). The Institute
of Natural Resources (Instituto Nacional
de Recursos Naturales—INRENA), noted
that the large number of visitors and
noise disturbance from motorized
vehicles negatively impacted the
number of birds on the lake (Factor E)
(INRENA 1996, p. 6). The waters of Lago
Titicaca are polluted from boat traffic
and domestic sewage, and localized
hunting and egg collection may be
occurring there (Ducks Unlimited
2007d, p. 27; Jellison et al. 2004, p. 11;
Ricalde 2003, p. 91).
Summary of Factor D
The existing regulatory mechanisms
or enforcement of these mechanisms
throughout the species’ range are
inadequate to protect the Andean
flamingo or mitigate the factors that are
negatively impacting the species and its
habitat, including habitat destruction
(Factor A), hunting and tourism (Factor
B), predation (Factor C), and
disturbance (Factor E). Therefore, we
find that the existing regulatory
mechanisms are inadequate to mitigate
the threats to the continued existence of
the Andean flamingo throughout its
range.
E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors
Affecting the Continued Existence of the
Species
Two additional factors are having a
negative impact on the Andean flamingo
population: human disturbance and
ongoing drought.
Human disturbance: Walcott (1925,
pp. 355–356) noted that the birds are
shy and, when eggs are collected by
humans, Andean flamingos do not
return to lay a second egg. Jameison and
Bingham (1912, pp. 12, 14) noted that
extensive sheep and cattle pastures
existed around Lago Parinacochas and
that flamingos no longer nested there.
Many human-induced disturbances
exist throughout the Andean flamingos’
range. Mining, population growth,
tourism, and associated road
construction and maintenance generally
increase disturbance and noise and can
make nesting and foraging areas
unsuitable for the Andean flamingo.
These disturbances have led to
decreased numbers of birds foraging and
nesting at several sites that are
important for the Andean flamingo
reproductive cycle, including: Salar de
´
Atacama (Chile) (Corporacion Nacional
Forestal 1996a, p. 9), Laguna Colorada
(Bolivia) (Rocha and Eyzaguirre 1998, p.
8), and the TDPS wetland system
(INRENA 1996, p. 6). Flamingos that are
disturbed during nesting season have
been known to abandon their nests
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
79243
(Ugarte-Nunez and MosaurietaEchegaray 2000, p. 137). Road
construction has increased access to
wetlands, facilitating additional
disturbances from foot traffic and
motorized vehicles at lakes, such as
Laguna Salinas (Peru) (Ugarte-Nunez
and Mosaurieta-Echegaray 2000, p. 137),
Lago Loriscota (Peru) (Valqui et al.
2000, p. 112), Laguna Brava (Argentina)
(BLI 2008, p. 40; de la Fuente 2002, p.
8), and Lago Titicaca (Peru) (INRENA
1996, p. 6). Disturbance has increased
with the increase in tourism and human
encroachment into Andean flamingo
wetlands, including: Laguna de Mar
Chiquita (Argentina) (Ducks Unlimited
2007a, p. 22), Laguna Brava (Argentina)
(BLI 2008, p. 40), Lagunas de Vilama
(Argentina) (Caziani et al. 2001, p. 106),
´
Laguna Negra (Argentina) (Corporacion
Nacional Forestal 1996c, pp. 10–11),
Laguna de Colorada (Bolivia) (Embassy
of Bolivia 2008, pp. 7–8), Salar de
Atacama (Chile), and the TDPS wetland
´
complex, which includes Lagos Poopo
and Uru Uru (Chile) (INRENA 1996, p.
6).
Long-lived species with slow rates of
reproduction, such as the Andean
flamingo, can appear to have robust
populations, but can quickly decline
towards extinction if reproduction does
not keep pace with mortality (BLI 2008,
p. 2; Bucher 1992, p. 183; del Hoyo et
al. 1992, p. 517). In the case of Andean
flamingos, Conway (W. Conway, as
cited in Valqui et al. 2000, p. 112)
suggests that a stable population can be
maintained if the species’ breeding
success is good every 5–10 years.
Andean flamingos have temporally
sporadic and spatially concentrated
breeding patterns, and their breeding
success and recruitment are low
(Caziani et al. 2007; Childress et al.
2005, p. 7; Childress et al. 2006, p. 7;
Childress et al. 2007a, p. 7).
Productivity estimates from intensive
studies of breeding sites in Chile
indicate marked fluctuations over the
past 20 years, with periods of very low
breeding success (Arengo in litt. 2007,
p. 2). Reproduction is spatially
concentrated in just a few wetlands
(Childress et al. 2005, p. 7; Childress et
al. 2006, p. 7; Childress et al. 2007a, p.
7; Valqui et al. 2000, p. 112).
Ongoing Drought: The altiplano
region has been undergoing a drought
since the early 1990s. The water levels
of the salars and lagunas occupied by
the Andean flamingo normally expand
and contract seasonally, depending in
large part on summer rains to
‘‘recharge’’ or refill them (Bucher 1992,
p. 182; Caziani and Derlindati 2000, pp.
124–125; Caziani et al. 2001, p. 110;
Mascitti and Caziani 1997, p. 328).
E:\FR\FM\24DEP2.SGM
24DEP2
hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS2
79244
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 24, 2008 / Proposed Rules
Laguna de Mar Chiquita (Argentina)
fluctuates by up to 20 in. (50 cm) in the
dry season (Ducks Unlimited 2007a, p.
21). It is estimated that up to 95 percent
of the total water input in the TDPS
water system evaporates (Ronteltap et
al. 2005, p. 2). In addition to the
seasonal cycle of expansion and
contraction, there are longer-term cycles
in which lakes experience extended
periods of expansion or contraction
(Caziani and Derlindati 2000, p. 122).
For instance, Laguna Pozuelos
occasionally dries completely—on about
a 100-year cycle. The last time it dried
out completely was in 1958 (Mascitti &
Caziani 1997, p. 321). According to
researchers, wetlands have been drying
out on a regional scale since the early
1990s due to extensive drought
conditions (Caziani and Derlindati 2000,
pp. 124–125; Caziani et al. 2001, p. 110;
Mascitti and Caziani 1997, p. 328). The
shallow wetlands preferred by Andean
flamingos are subject to high rates of
evapotranspiration, and drought
conditions accelerate this process
(Caziani and Derlindati 2000, p. 122).
Andean flamingos are sensitive to
reduced water levels (Ugarte-Nunez and
Mosaurieta-Echegaray 2000, pp. 135).
The flamingo population at Laguna
Pozuelos, which has shrunk to an
estimated 66 percent of its usual size,
has strongly diminished since the
winter of 1993, which researchers
consider a result of extensive lake
desiccation (Mascitti and Caziani 1997,
p. 328). Other wetlands are in the
process of drying out or shrinking as a
result of the drought, including Salar de
Chalviri (Bolivia) (Ducks Unlimited
´
2007b, pp. 17–20); Lago Poopo (Bolivia)
(Ducks Unlimited 2007b, p. 5); Lagunas
Vilama (Argentina) (Caziani and
Derlindati 2000, p. 122); and the TDPS
wetland system (Bolivia, Chile, and
Peru) (Jellison et al. 2004, p. 11). Lago
Uru Uru (Bolivia) nearly dried out in
1983 but ‘‘recharged’’ in 1984 after
flooding (Ducks Unlimited 2007b, p. 5).
Laguna Salinas (Peru) nearly dried out
in 1982–1983, but refilled during heavy
rains in 1984. Currently, the water
fluctuates widely each year, nearly
drying out from September through
January (Ducks Unlimited 2007d, p. 25).
Andean flamingos are equally
sensitive to increasing water levels.
Recall that Andean flamingos generally
occupy wetlands that are less than 3 ft
˚
(1 m) deep (Fjeldsa and Krabbe 1990, p.
˜
86; Mascitti and Castenera 2006, p. 331).
In 1998, breeding was reported for the
first time at Laguna Brava. The same
year, more than 7,000 non-breeding
birds were reported 4 mi (7 km) away
at Laguna de Mulas Muertas, which was
not a normal feeding habitat. Bucher et
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:04 Dec 23, 2008
Jkt 217001
al. (2000, p. 120) believe this shift in
˜
habitat use was prompted by El Nino,
which caused increased water levels at
their usual nesting and feeding sites
across the border in Chile. Laguna de
Mar Chiquita (Argentina) experienced a
period of ‘‘exceptional flooding’’
beginning in 1977, such that nesting
sites were inundated and the salinity of
the water decreased (Ducks Unlimited
2007a, p. 21). Long known only as an
overwintering site, breeding was
recently reported at Mar Chiquita
(Childress et al. 2005, p. 6).
When winter brings increased aridity
and lower temperatures, higher-altitude
wetlands may dry out or freeze over.
Under these conditions, Andean
flamingos may move to lower altitudes
(Blake 1977, p. 207; Boyle et al. 2004,
pp. 570–571; Bucher 1992, p. 182;
Caziani et al. 2006. p. 17; Caziani et al.
2007, pp. 279, 281; del Hoyo 1992, p.
˚
519; Fjeldsa and Krabbe 1990, p. 85;
Hurlbert and Keith 1979, pp. 330;
Mascitti and Bonaventura 2002, p. 360;
˜
Mascitti and Castanera 2006, p. 328).
Research has recently shown that
Andean flamingos use their habitat on a
landscape level—beyond the Salar or
Laguna in which they feed or breed—
using wetland systems that provide a
variety of habitat options from which to
select optimal nesting and feeding sites
(Caziani and Derlindati 2000, p. 122;
Caziani et al. 2001, pp. 104, 110;
Derlandati 2008, p. 10). Flamingo
productivity is affected by climatic
variability and its influence on water
availability during the breeding season
(Caziani et al. 2007, p. 284). Although
the Andean flamingo can move between
wetlands in response to annual climatic
variability (Bucher et al. 2000, pp. 119–
120; Mascitti 2001, p. 20; Mascitti and
Bonaventura 2002, pp. 362–364), drastic
water level changes can significantly
alter the seasonal altitudinal movements
of the Andean flamingo (Mascitti and
Caziani 1997, pp. 324–326).
Summary of Factor E
The extent to which human
disturbance has infiltrated Andean
flamingo habitat and the ongoing
activities that contribute to this
disturbance could have long-lasting
consequences on the population size
and age structure, especially
considering the species’ unique lifehistory, breeding patterns, and recent
years of low productivity (see
Population Estimates: Breeding
Success). Therefore, we find that human
disturbance activities are threats to the
continued existence of the Andean
flamingo throughout its range.
Andean flamingo habitat throughout
the Andes is in the midst of an ongoing
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
drought. The species’ reliance upon
shallow wetlands during their entire
lifecycle makes them particularly
vulnerable to threats that influence the
amount and distribution of
precipitation, runoff, or
evapotranspiration. The drought is
causing the shallow wetlands upon
which they depend for their entire life
cycle to dry out or to fluctuate widely
from year to year, which disrupt the
species’ breeding and feeding cycles,
and can strand entire nesting colonies
when waters retract unexpectedly.
These drought conditions are being
exacerbated by water extraction and
pollution occurring throughout the
species’ habitat (Factor A). Reduced
water levels can increase access to
nesting sites, facilitating predation and
hunting (Factors B and C). Therefore, we
find the ongoing drought to be a threat
to the continued existence of the
Andean flamingo throughout its range.
Status Determination for the Andean
Flamingo
The Andean flamingo is colonial,
feeding and breeding in flocks, and is
the rarest of all six flamingo species
worldwide. Experts consider that the
more dispersed nature of the species at
smaller nesting sites has inhibited
reproduction in the species. The
Andean flamingo underwent a severe
population decline in the last few
decades, from a conservative estimate of
50,000 to 100,000 in the early 1980s to
a current estimate of 34,000. This
population decline coincides with
increased habitat alteration (Factor A),
overutilization (Factor B), disease and
predation (Factor C), as well as
increased human disturbance and an
ongoing drought (Factor E). The Andean
flamingo’s entire life cycle relies on the
availability of networks of shallow
saline wetlands (salars and lagunas) at
low, medium, and high altitudes that
are characteristic throughout its range in
Argentina, Bolivia, Chile, and Peru.
Several man-made and natural factors
are having a negative impact on the
flamingo’s persistence in the wild.
These factors include mining activities
and resultant pollution, increasing
human population and water usage,
hunting and egg collection, tourism,
predation, human disturbance, and
drought conditions. Mining occurs at
many of the wetlands that the Andean
flamingo depends upon for habitat. The
threats from mining include direct
habitat destruction, water pollution,
water extraction, and disturbance
(Factors A and E). Hunting and egg
collecting reduce the number of
individuals in the population and
exacerbate the species’ poor breeding
E:\FR\FM\24DEP2.SGM
24DEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 24, 2008 / Proposed Rules
hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS2
success, and low recruitment rate
(Factor B). In combination with these
habitat threats, the altiplano region is
undergoing a long-term drought, which
is impacting the availability and quality
of wetlands for feeding, breeding, and
overwintering (Factor E). Increased
tourism at the wetlands is taxing limited
water supplies, causing further water
contamination from trash and sewage,
and increasing habitat disturbance from
human presence (Factors A and B).
Infrastructure to support mining and
tourism destroys and increases access to
Andean flamingo habitats, facilitating
hunting, egg collecting, and human
influx, along with increased pollution,
water use, and disturbance (Factors A,
B, and E). Predation removes potentially
reproductive adults from the breeding
pool, disrupts mating pairs, and
exacerbates the species’ already poor
breeding success and is facilitated by
increased access to wetlands and the
ongoing drought (Factors A, B, and E).
Many wetlands within protected areas
continue to undergo activities that
destroy habitat or remove individuals
from the population (including hunting
and egg collecting), such that the
regulatory mechanisms are inadequate
to mitigate the threats to the species and
its habitat (Factor D). The magnitude of
the threats is exacerbated by the species’
recent and drastic reduction in
numbers, poor breeding success and
recruitment, and the species’ reliance on
only a few wetlands for the majority of
its reproductive output.
Section 3 of the Act defines an
‘‘endangered species’’ as ‘‘any species
which is in danger of extinction
throughout all or a significant portion of
its range’’ and a ‘‘threatened species’’ as
‘‘any species which is likely to become
an endangered species within the
foreseeable future throughout all or a
significant portion of its range.’’ Based
on the immediate and ongoing
significant threats to the Andean
flamingo throughout its entire range, as
described above, we determine that the
Andean flamingo is in danger of
extinction throughout all of its range.
Therefore, on the basis of the best
available scientific and commercial
information, we are proposing to list the
Andean flamingo as an endangered
species throughout all of its range.
II. Chilean woodstar (Eulidia
yarrellii)
Species Description
The Chilean woodstar, endemic to
Chile and Peru, is a small hummingbird
in the Trochilidae family (BLI 2008). No
larger than the size of a moth (Johnson
1967, p. 121), the Chilean woodstar is
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:04 Dec 23, 2008
Jkt 217001
approximately 3 inches (in) (8
centimeters (cm)) in length and has a
short black bill (BLI 2008; del Hoyo et
al. 1999, p. 674). Males have iridescent
olive-green upperparts, white
underparts, and a bright violet-red
throat (del Hoyo et al. 1999, p. 674;
˚
Fjeldsa and Krabbe 1990, p. 296).
Females also have iridescent olive-green
upperparts; however, their underparts
are buff (pale yellow-brown) and they
do not have a brightly colored throat
˚
(Fjeldsa and Krabbe 1990, p. 296). The
male Chilean woodstar has a strongly
forked tail, which is green in the center
and blackish-brown on the ends, while
the female’s tail is unforked and has
broad white tips (BLI 2008). It is also
known as Yarrell’s woodstar (del Hoyo
et al. 1999, p. 647) and Picaflor Chico
de Arica (Johnson 1967, p. 121). The
species is locally known as ‘‘Picaflor’’ or
´
‘‘Colibrı’’ (Johnson 1967, p. 121).
Taxonomy
The species was first taxonomically
described by Bourcier in 1847 and
placed in Trochilidae as Eulidia yarrellii
(BLI 2008). According to the Convention
on International Trade in Endangered
Species of Wild Fauna and Flora
(CITES) species database, the Chilean
woodstar is also known by the
synonyms Myrtis yarrellii and Trochilus
yarrellii (UNEP–WCMC 2008b). Both
CITES and BirdLife International
recognize the species as Eulidia yarrellii
(BLI 2008). Therefore, we accept the
species as Eulidia yarrellii, which
follows the Integrated Taxonomic
Information System (ITIS 2008).
Habitat and Life History
Hummingbird habitat requirements
are poorly understood (del Hoyo et al.
1999, p. 490). Many species are highly
adaptable, adjusting to human-induced
changes or expanding their ranges if
food conditions are favorable. Others
rapidly decline or are in danger of
extinction due to environmental
disturbances (del Hoyo et al. 1999, p.
490). The Chilean woodstar has
generally been described as inhabiting
riparian thickets, secondary growth,
desert river valleys, arid scrub,
agricultural lands, and gardens
(Stattersfield et al. 1998, p. 233). Estades
et al. (2007, p. 169) looked at a variety
of habitat variables in relation to
Chilean woodstar numbers and found
that tree cover in September was the
only variable that significantly affected
their abundance. In areas with higher
tree cover, more Chilean woodstars were
observed (Estades et al. 2007, p. 169).
During the rainy season, when
woodstars have more resources to
exploit at higher elevations, the
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
79245
population is more dispersed and
vegetation variables do not appear to
limit the abundance of the species
(Estades et al. 2007, p. 170).
As with all hummingbird species, the
Chilean woodstar relies on nectarproducing flowers for food but also
relies on insects as a source of protein
(del Hoyo et al. 1999, p. 482; Estades et
al. 2007, p. 169). The Chilean woodstar
drinks nectar from the flowers of a
variety of native trees such as Geoffroea
˜
decorticans (chanar) and Schinus molle
(pimento), and ornamental plants such
as Lantana camara, Pelargonium spp.,
and Bougainvillea sp. (Estades et al.
2007, p. 169). In addition, the species
has been seen feeding from the flowers
of several crops, including alfalfa, garlic,
onion, and tomato (Estades et al. 2007,
p. 169). Its small beak and body size
enable it to exploit flowers with very
small corollas (collective term for the
petals of a flower) (Estades et al. 2007,
p. 172).
Breeding activity likely takes place
between August and September (del
Hoyo et al. 1999, p. 674), although
occasionally active nests have been
found at other times of the year,
suggesting that there may be some
temporal variability (Estades et al. 2007,
p. 169). Most nests have been located in
olive trees (Olea europaea) at an average
height of 7.5 ± 1.3 ft (2.3 ± 0.4 m), but
a few nests were found in native shrubs
and ornamental trees (Estades et al.
2007, p. 169).
A 2006 study by Estades and Aguirre
(2006, p. 6) found Chilean woodstars
nesting in only one location, a site in
the Chaca area of the Vitor Valley that
is less than 2.5 ac (1 ha) in size. The
breeding site is an old olive grove that
is lightly managed and is not sprayed
with pesticides (Estades and Aguirre
2006, p. 6). The grove is surrounded by
˜
Geoffroea decorticans (chanares;
Chilean Palo Verde) and citrus trees,
which both flower in September
(Estades and Aguirre 2006, p. 6). The
location of the observed nests suggest to
Estades and Aguirre (2006, p. 6) that the
Chilean woodstar does not place its nest
at the minimum distance from the food
source, as would be expected according
to the optimal foraging theory. Instead,
it appears that Chilean woodstars build
their nest at an intermediate distance of
164 ft (50 m) from nectar sources
(flowers) (Estades and Aguirre 2006, p.
6). Estades and Aguirre (2006, p. 6)
indicate that this may be a strategy the
Chilean woodstar employs to avoid the
presence of other hummingbirds around
their nest. In addition, Estades and
Aguirre (2006, p. 6) report that it
appears the quality of this particular
olive grove is enhanced by the nearby
E:\FR\FM\24DEP2.SGM
24DEP2
79246
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 24, 2008 / Proposed Rules
presence of sheep, whose wool is used
by the Chilean woodstar to build its
nest. As a result of this study, Estades
and Aguirre (2006, p. 6) state that the
reproductive habitat of the Chilean
woodstar requires an adequate
combination of nesting sites (olive and
mango trees) and food sources (small
flowers).
hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS2
Historical Range and Distribution
Historical evidence suggests that
although the Chilean woodstar has a
limited distribution, it was locally
abundant (Estades and Aguirre 2006, p.
2). However, beginning in the 1970s, the
frequency of observations of this species
appears to have declined, recently to
levels considered alarming by some
ornithologists (Estades and Aguirre
2006, p. 2).
Current Range and Distribution
The Chilean woodstar is endemic to a
few river valleys near the Pacific coast
from Tacna, Peru, to northern
Antofagasta, Chile (Collar et al. 1992, p.
530; del Hoyo et al. 1999, p. 674;
Johnson 1967, p. 121). This area lies at
the northern edge of the Atacama
Desert, one of the driest places on Earth
(Collar et al. 1992, p. 530). Current
populations are only known to occur in
the Vitor and Azapa valleys, in the
Arica Department in extreme northern
Chile (Estades et al. 2007, p. 168). There
have been a few observations of this
species in the town of Tacna, Peru (near
the border of Chile), but these
observations have been infrequent
(Collar et al. 1992, p. 530) and there
have been no records of the species
there in the last 20 years (Jaramillo
2003, as cited in Estades et al. 2007, p.
164). At least some individuals appear
to move seasonally to higher elevations
to exploit seasonal food resources
˚
(Fjeldsa and Krabbe 1990, p. 296).
Estades et al. (2007, p. 170) hypothesize
that these higher elevation valleys may
provide some connectivity between the
lower elevation valleys, otherwise
isolated by the unvegetated expanses of
the Atacama Desert.
In 1967, Johnson (1967, p. 121)
described the Chilean woodstar as a
‘‘species of extremely limited range and
very small total population.’’ However,
Johnson (1967, p. 121) also stated that
it was the most abundant hummingbird
in the Azapa Valley, where he and
others counted ‘‘over a hundred
hovering like a swarm of bees.’’ In
September 2003, using fixed-radius
point counts and sampling an area
larger than the presumed range, Estades
et al. (2007, pp. 168–169) found the
Chilean woodstar to be restricted to the
Azapa and Vitor valleys of northern
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:04 Dec 23, 2008
Jkt 217001
Chile, and to be the rarest hummingbird
in the Azapa Valley (Estades et al. 2007,
p. 170). Despite repeated searches, it
was not found in the Lluta Valley
(Estades et al. 2007, p. 168), where it
was previously reported to breed
˚
(Fjeldsa and Krabbe 1990, p. 296). A
further study in the Azapa and Vitor
valleys in 2006 found Chilean
woodstars nesting in only one location,
a site in the Chaca area of the Vitor
Valley that is less than 2.5 ac (1 ha) in
size (Estades and Aguirre 2006, p. 6).
Population Estimates
In September 2003, the Chilean
woodstar population was estimated to
be 1,539 individuals (929–2,287; 90
percent confidence interval (CI)) with
over 70 percent of the population found
in the Azapa Valley (Estades et al. 2007,
p. 168). In April 2004, the population
was estimated to be 758 individuals
(399–1,173; 90 percent CI), again with
over 70 percent of the population found
in the Azapa Valley (Estades et al. 2007,
p. 168). Estades et al. (2007, p. 170)
warn against interpreting their results as
a population crash from 2003 to 2004,
because the 2004 surveys were
conducted in April, when food
resources and populations were more
dispersed (Estades et al. 2007, p. 170).
Further population estimates were
conducted by Estades (2007, in litt.) in
2006 and 2007. In 2007, the population
of Chilean woodstars was estimated to
be 1,256 individuals (694 in the Azapa
Valley and 562 in the Vitor Valley)
(Estades 2007, in litt.). Estades (2007, in
litt.) reports that, overall, the species
declined between 2003 and 2007, even
though the Chilean woodstar population
did increase between 2006 and 2007.
Estades (2007, in litt.) attributes the
increase in the population of the species
between 2006 and 2007 to an increase
in the number of individuals in the
Vitor Valley, while the number of
Chilean woodstars in the Azapa Valley
declined.
Conservation Status
The Chilean woodstar is listed as an
‘‘endangered and rare’’ species in Chile
under Decree No. 151—Classification of
Wild Species According to Their
Conservation Status (ECOLEX 2007).
The species is considered to be
‘‘Endangered’’ by IUCN, due to its very
small range, with all viable populations
apparently confined to remnant habitat
patches in two desert river valleys (BLI
2008). These valleys are heavily
cultivated, and the extent, area, and
quality of suitable habitat are likely
declining (BLI 2008).
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Summary of Factors Affecting the
Chilean Woodstar
A. The Present or Threatened
Destruction, Modification, or
Curtailment of the Species’ Habitat or
Range
The historical range of the Chilean
woodstar has been severely altered with
extensive planting of olive and citrus
groves in the valleys of northern Chile
and southern Peru (del Hoyo et al. 1999,
p. 674). The native food plants of the
species may have been drastically
reduced when habitat for the species
was converted to agriculture; now the
species depends largely on introduced
garden flowers as nectar sources (del
Hoyo et al. 1999, p. 674). Although the
Chilean woodstar is able to incorporate
introduced plant species into its diet,
the loss of some native species likely
continues to be a limiting factor for the
species (Estades et al. 2007, p. 172). As
an example, Estades et al. (2007, p. 172)
report that one of the most likely
reasons for the disappearance of the
Chilean woodstar from the Lluta Valley
˜
is the cutting of almost all the chanares
(Geoffroea decorticans), which is
considered one of the most important
˜
food sources for the species. Chanares
are cleared by farmers who consider it
an undesirable plant and an attractant to
mice (Estades et al. 2007, p. 172).
In a study to estimate the population
of the Chilean woodstar, Estades (2007,
in litt.) found a decrease in the
population of the Chilean woodstar in
the Azapa Valley between 2006 and
2007. Estades (2007, in litt.) associates
this decline with the substantial
increase in agricultural development,
related to the cultivation of tomatoes in
the Azapa Valley in recent years.
Chilean woodstars appear to rely
primarily on introduced olive trees for
nesting (Estades et al. 2007, p. 172). The
species has most likely been forced to
use orchards as nesting sites due to the
paucity of native trees (Estades et al.
2007, p. 172). Although olive trees are
not exposed to as many pesticides as
other fruit trees in the region, the use of
high-pressure spraying (of water) to
control mold threatens the viability of
nests and their contents (Estades et al.
2007, p. 172). Because of the small size
of the remaining population (see Factor
E), the loss of even a few nests annually
is a threat to the continued existence of
the species.
Summary of Factor A
As a result of extensive agriculture in
the river valleys where the Chilean
woodstar occurs, most of its natural
habitat is disappearing, requiring the
species to rely mainly on artificial
E:\FR\FM\24DEP2.SGM
24DEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 24, 2008 / Proposed Rules
sources for feeding and nesting.
Although the species is able to use
introduced plants, the loss of important
˜
native food plants, such as chanares, is
most likely a limiting factor for the
Chilean woodstar. Due to the scarcity of
native trees, the species seems to rely
heavily on introduced olive trees for
nesting. However, management
practices currently used in olive groves
adversely impact the species and its
nests. Therefore, we find that habitat
destruction is a threat to the continued
existence of the Chilean woodstar
throughout its range.
B. Overutilization for Commercial,
Recreational, Scientific, or Educational
Purposes
In 1987, the Chilean woodstar was
listed in CITES Appendix II, which
includes species that are not necessarily
threatened with extinction, but may
become so unless trade is subject to
strict regulation to avoid utilization
incompatible with the species’ survival.
International trade in specimens of
Appendix II species is authorized
through permits or certificates under
certain circumstances, including
verification that trade will not be
detrimental to the survival of the
species in the wild and that the material
was legally acquired (UNEP–WCMC
2008a).
Since its listing in 1987, there have
been no CITES-permitted international
transactions in the Chilean woodstar
(Caldwell 2008, in litt.). Therefore, we
believe that international trade is not a
factor influencing the species’ status in
the wild. In addition, we are unaware of
any other information currently
available that indicates that hunting or
overutilization of the Chilean woodstar
for commercial, recreation, scientific, or
education purposes has ever occurred.
As such, we do not consider this factor
to be a threat to the species.
hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS2
C. Disease or Predation
We are not aware of any scientific or
commercial information that indicate
disease or predation poses a threat to
this species. As a result, we are not
considering disease or predation to be a
contributing factor to the continued
existence of the Chilean woodstar.
D. Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory
Mechanisms
The Chilean woodstar is listed as an
‘‘endangered and rare’’ species in Chile
under Decree No. 151—Classification of
Wild Species According to Their
Conservation Status (ECOLEX 2007). In
2006, it was also designated as a
national monument under Decree No.
2—Declaring National Monuments of
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:04 Dec 23, 2008
Jkt 217001
the Wild Fauna Huemul, Long-tailed
Chinchilla, Short-tailed Chinchilla,
Andean Condor, Chilean Woodstar, and
Juan Fernandez Firecrown, which
prohibits all hunting and capture of
these species (ECOLEX 2006). However,
this regulation is not necessary to
reduce an existing threat to the Chilean
woodstar because we do not consider
hunting or collection (Factor B) to be a
threat to the species.
The Chilean woodstar is listed in
Appendix II of CITES (UNEP–WCMC
2008b). CITES is an international treaty
among 173 nations, including Chile,
Peru, and the United States, that entered
into force in 1975 (UNEP–WCMC
2008a). In the United States, CITES is
implemented through the U.S.
Endangered Species Act (Act). The Act
designates the Secretary of the Interior
as the Scientific and Management
Authorities to implement the treaty with
all functions carried out by the Service.
Under this treaty, countries work
together to ensure that international
trade in animal and plant species is not
detrimental to the survival of wild
populations by regulating the import,
export, re-export, and introduction from
the sea of CITES-listed animal and plant
species (USFWS 2008). As discussed
under Factor B, we do not consider
international trade to be a threat to the
Chilean woodstar. Therefore, this
international treaty does not reduce any
current threats to the species. Any
international trade that occurs in the
future would be effectively regulated
under CITES.
We are not aware of any regulatory
mechanisms that effectively limit or
restrict habitat destruction, or highpressure spraying of olive trees with
water to reduce mold, two of the threats
to the Chilean woodstar (see Factor A).
As discussed under Factor E,
pesticides are also a threat to the
Chilean woodstar, and there are some
regulations that limit or ban certain
pesticides. For example, current
regulations in Chile prohibit the
importation, production, and
application of DDT, Aldrin, Dieldrin,
Chlordane and Heptachlor (Altieri and
Rojas 1999, p. 64). Despite such
regulations, large-scale use of pesticides
such as Parathion, Paraquat, Lindane,
and pentachlorophenol—all severely
restricted or even banned in Europe,
Japan, and the United States—continues
in Chile (Rozas 1995, as cited in Altieri
and Rojas 1999, p. 64). Furthermore,
international standards and quarantine
requirements, imposed by countries
importing Chilean fruits to limit
quarantined insects, have acted to
increase pesticide use in Chile (see
Factor E) (Altieri and Rojas 1999, p. 63).
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
79247
Summary of Factor D
We are not aware of any regulatory
mechanisms that effectively limit or
restrict habitat destruction, or highpressure spraying of olive trees with
water to reduce mold, two of the threats
to the Chilean woodstar. Although there
are some regulations in Chile that limit
or ban certain pesticides, other kinds of
pesticides are still widely used in Chile,
especially by fruit growers. Therefore,
we find that the existing regulatory
mechanisms are inadequate to mitigate
the current threats to the Chilean
woodstar throughout its range.
E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors
Affecting the Continued Existence of the
Species
Pesticides: The use of Malathion,
Dimethoate, and other chemicals to
control the Mediterranean fruit fly
(Ceratitis capitata) in the 1960s and
early 1970s correlates with declines in
Chilean woodstar abundance (Estades et
al. 2007, pp. 171–172). Although
Malathion is only slightly to moderately
toxic to wild birds (Pascual 1994 and
George et al. 1995, as cited in Estades
et al. 2007, p. 171), the systemic
insecticide Dimethoate is very toxic and
is known to contaminate the nectar of
flowers (Baker et al. 1980, as cited in
Estades et al. 2007, p. 171). The Chilean
government program to eradicate the
Mediterranean fruit fly in the AricaAzapa area has been reduced since the
1970s (Olalquiaga and Lobos 1993, as
cited in Estades et al. 2007, p. 171),
which likely has reduced this threat to
Chilean woodstar (Estades et al. 2007, p.
171). Although the governmental
pesticide applications for the
eradication of the Mediterranean fruit
fly may be declining, private farmers
still rely on a heavy use of highly toxic
chemicals to keep their crops pest-free
(Salazar and Araya 2001, as cited in
Estades et al. 2007, p. 171), and their
use shows no signs of decline (Estades
et al. 2007, p. 172).
As a result of international standards
and quarantine requirements imposed
by countries importing Chilean fruits,
there is an overwhelming incentive for
farmers to continue to extensively use
chemical pest control (Altieri and Rojas
1999, p. 63). If the inspection of a
shipment of Chilean fruits detects just
one specimen of a quarantined insect
pest, the result is the automatic rejection
of the entire shipment of fruit (Altieri
and Rojas 1999, p. 63). Therefore,
Chilean fruit growers intensively spray
their crops to completely eliminate all
pests in order to avoid the risk of
shipment rejection and its associated
E:\FR\FM\24DEP2.SGM
24DEP2
hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS2
79248
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 24, 2008 / Proposed Rules
economic losses (Altieri and Rojas 1999,
p. 63).
Estades et al. (2007, p. 170) found that
significant amounts of pesticides are
still being used, particularly in the
Azapa Valley, and there is at least one
recent case where the application of
insecticides at a plant nursery resulted
in the death of a female Chilean
woodstar. Furthermore, in a study to
estimate the population of the Chilean
woodstar, Estades (2007, in litt.) found
a decrease in the population of the
species in the Azapa Valley between
2006 and 2007. Estades (2007, in litt.)
associates this decline with the
substantial increase in agricultural
development, related to the cultivation
of tomatoes, in the Azapa Valley in
recent years. The cultivation of tomatoes
in this area of Chile requires a high
demand of pesticides, and thus
represents a growing threat to the
Chilean woodstar (Estades 2007, in litt.).
Competition from the Peruvian
sheartail: Estades et al. (2007, p. 172)
hypothesized that the Peruvian sheartail
(Thaumastura cora), which has
experienced rapid population increases
within the range of the Chilean
woodstar, is a strong competitor for food
or space because: (1) These species have
morphological similarities which, in
hummingbirds, indicates they may
require similar food resources; (2) there
appears to be spatial segregation
between the species; and (3)
antagonistic interactions have been
documented (Estades et al. 2007, p.
169). Because the sheartail is more
aggressive than the Chilean woodstar, it
is believed to displace the woodstar
within its range (Estades et al. 2007, pp.
169, 172). In Azapa, Peruvian sheartails
have occupied the lower parts of the
valley where there is a large supply of
flowers in residential areas year-round
(Estades et al. 2007, p. 172). Chilean
woodstars, on the other hand, are
primarily located in the middle part of
the valley where the dominant land use
is agriculture (Estades et al. 2007, p.
172). As a result, the Chilean woodstar
has a much higher risk of exposure to
pesticides (Estades et al. 2007, p. 172).
Because certain pesticides used within
the range of the Chilean woodstar are
known to cause mortality, increased
exposure to these pesticides increases
the species’ risk of population decline
and extinction.
In a study to estimate the population
of the Chilean woodstar, Estades (2007,
in litt.) found an increase in the
population of the species in the Vitor
Valley (Chaca-Codpa area) between
2006 and 2007. Estades (2007, in litt.)
suggests that one of the reasons for the
population increase in the Vitor Valley
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:04 Dec 23, 2008
Jkt 217001
during this time period was due to the
fact that no Peruvian sheartails were
observed in Chaca. This observation
supports the theory that Peruvian
sheartails are a competitor of the
Chilean woodstar (Estades et al. 2007,
pp. 163, 172). In addition, the
abundance of Chilean woodstar nests
observed in the species’ only breeding
site (in the Chaca area of the Vitor
Valley) appears to be related to the
absence of Peruvian sheartails in this
location (Estades and Aguirre 2006, p.
6). Furthermore, the high abundance of
Peruvian sheartails at Azapa could
explain the absence of nesting by the
Chilean woodstar at otherwise
appropriate sites, such as the Azapa
Valley (Estades and Aguirre 2006, p. 6).
Reproduction: Another study in the
Azapa and Vitor valleys in 2006 found
Chilean woodstars nesting in only one
location, a site in the Chaca area of the
Vitor Valley that is less than 2.5 ac (1
ha) in size (Estades and Aguirre 2006, p.
6). Of the 19 nests that were monitored,
12 failed; the cause of these nest failures
is unknown (Estades and Aguirre 2006,
p. 8). The daily nest failure rate was
3.21 percent, which is higher than has
been observed in other hummingbird
species (Estades and Aguirre 2006, p. 8).
The probability of nest success was 23.8
percent, which is also higher than has
been observed for other hummingbird
species (Estades and Aguirre 2006, p. 8).
Estades and Aguirre (2006, p. 8) note
that the method used to calculate both
of these values for other hummingbirds
(by Baltosser 1986, as cited in Estades
and Aguirre 2006, p. 8) is not exactly
the same as the method used in this
study. Although the values of
reproductive success are within normal
range, the high percentage of nest
failures is troubling for a species that
has such a small population size
(Estades and Aguirre 2006, p. 8).
The loss of hatchlings, probably due
to a lack of space in the nest itself, also
indicates that recruitment of the Chilean
woodstar is low (Estades and Aguirre
2006, pp. 8, 10). If you take into account
˜
that the flowering period for chanares
and citrus is relatively short (a
maximum of two months), the
possibility of Chilean woodstars
producing a second clutch in the spring
is almost zero (Estades and Aguirre
2006, p. 10). Without a second nesting
period, the Chilean woodstar is not able
to compensate for a loss of its first, and
most likely only, clutch (Estades and
Aguirre 2006, p. 10). All data suggest
that the recruitment capability of the
Chilean woodstar is low and that,
currently, the majority of reproduction
is taking place only in the Vitor Valley
(Estades and Aguirre 2006, p. 10).
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Small Population Size and Restricted
Range: The Chilean woodstar has
experienced a population decline since
the 1960s and now consists of less than
2,000 individuals distributed within
two valleys (Estades et al. 2007, p. 170).
Species tend to have a higher risk of
extinction if they occupy a small
geographic range, occur at low density,
occupy a high trophic level and exhibit
low reproductive rates (Purvis et al.
2000, p. 1949). Small populations are
more affected by demographic
stochasticity, local catastrophes, and
inbreeding (Pimm et al. 1988, pp. 757,
773–775). The small, declining
population makes the species
vulnerable to loss of genetic variation
due to inbreeding depression and
genetic drift. This, in turn, compromises
a species’ ability to adapt genetically to
changing environments (Frankham
1996, p. 1507) and reduces fitness, and
increases extinction risk (Reed and
Frankham 2003, pp. 233–234).
Summary of Factor E
Other natural or manmade factors
affecting the continued existence of the
Chilean woodstar include extensive use
of pesticides by farmers and
competition from the Peruvian sheartail.
These threats have been associated with
the decline in the population of the
species and the lack of nest sites in the
Azapa Valley. Because the Chilean
woodstar is currently breeding in only
one site (in the Chaca area of the Vitor
Valley) and has a low recruitment rate,
restricted range, and a small population
size, any threats to the species are
further magnified. Therefore, we find
that other natural or manmade factors
are a threat to the continued existence
of the Chilean woodstar throughout its
range.
Status Determination for the Chilean
Woodstar
We have carefully assessed the best
available scientific and commercial
information regarding the past, present,
and potential future threats faced by the
Chilean woodstar. The species is
currently at risk throughout all of its
range due to a number of immediate and
ongoing threats. The Chilean woodstar
is restricted to two river valleys, where
there has been extensive modification of
its primary habitat. It is threatened by
agricultural practices, in particular the
use of pesticides and high-pressure
spraying of olive trees to remove mold,
as well as competition from the more
aggressive Peruvian sheartail. The
magnitude of these threats is
exacerbated by the species’ restricted
range, only one breeding site, low
recruitment rate, and extremely small
E:\FR\FM\24DEP2.SGM
24DEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 24, 2008 / Proposed Rules
population size. An insect outbreak
causing increased use of toxic pesticides
in agricultural fields, a series of
catastrophic events, or other detrimental
interactions between environmental and
demographic factors could result in the
rapid extinction of the Chilean
woodstar.
Section 3 of the Act defines an
‘‘endangered species’’ as ‘‘any species
which is in danger of extinction
throughout all or a significant portion of
its range’’ and a ‘‘threatened species’’ as
‘‘any species which is likely to become
an endangered species within the
foreseeable future throughout all or a
significant portion of its range.’’ Based
on the immediate and ongoing
significant threats to the Chilean
woodstar throughout its entire range, as
described above, we determine that the
Chilean woodstar is in danger of
extinction throughout all of its range.
Therefore, on the basis of the best
available scientific and commercial
information, we are proposing to list the
Chilean woodstar as an endangered
species throughout all of its range.
III. St. Lucia Forest Thrush
(Cichlhermina lherminieri
sanctaeluciae)
Species Description
The St. Lucia forest thrush
(Cichlhermina lherminieri
sanctaeluciae) (hereafter referred to as
‘‘thrush’’) is a subspecies of the forest
thrush (C. lherminieri) in the family
Turdidae. It is a medium-sized bird,
approximately 10 inches (in) (25 to 27
centimeters (cm)) in length (BLI 2000).
This subspecies has all dark upperparts,
is brownish below with white spots on
the breast, flanks and upper belly, and
white lower belly. It has yellow legs and
bill, and bare skin around the eye (BLI
2000).
Taxonomy
This subspecies was first
taxonomically described by P. L. Sclater
in 1880 (del Hoyo et al. 2005, p. 681).
hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS2
Habitat and Life History
The St. Lucia forest thrush occupies
mid- and high-altitude primary and
secondary moist forest habitat (Keith
1997, p. 105). The thrush feeds on
insects and berries from ground level to
the forest canopy (del Hoyo et al. 2005,
p. 681; Raffaelle 1998, p. 381). It
previously gathered in large numbers in
autumn to feed on berries (del Hoyo et
al. 2005, p. 681). The thrush breeds in
April and May and builds a cup-shaped
nest placed not far above the ground in
a bush or tree (del Hoyo et al. 2005, p.
681; Raffaelle 1998, p. 381). Clutch size
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:04 Dec 23, 2008
Jkt 217001
ranges from two to three eggs, and the
eggs are blue-green in color (del Hoyo et
al. 2005, p. 681).
Historical Range and Distribution
Although we are unaware of any
specific information on the historical
range and distribution of the St. Lucia
forest thrush, we assume that this
subspecies has always been found only
on the island of St. Lucia.
Current Range and Distribution
The entire species of forest thrush is
known from Montserrat, Guadeloupe,
Dominica, and St. Lucia. The St. Lucia
forest thrush is endemic to the island of
St. Lucia in the West Indies (del Hoyo
et al. 2005, p. 681). St. Lucia is an island
in the Caribbean, between the Caribbean
Sea and the North Atlantic Ocean, and
is 238 square miles (m2) (616 square
kilometers (km2)) in area (CIA World
Factbook 2008).
Population Estimates
This subspecies was considered
numerous in the late 1800s (Semper
1872, as cited in Keith 1997, p. 105). We
could find no historical accounts of
population size of this subspecies. The
current population status of the thrush
is unknown, but recent sightings of this
subspecies are rare, with only six
confirmed sightings on the island over
the last few years (Dornelly 2007, in
litt.). These sightings consist of one bird
in the St. Lucia Nature Reserve, one
near the town of De Chassin in the north
part of the island, and four individuals
along the De Cartiers Trail in the
Quilesse Forest Reserve on the south
part of the island (Dornelly 2007, in
litt.). A survey was conducted in 2007
to try to estimate the populations of
various rare birds on the island of St.
Lucia including the thrush (Dornelly
2007, in litt.). However, no thrushes
were observed during the study period
(Dornelly 2007, in litt.).
Conservation Status
The entire species of forest thrush
(Cichlhermina lherminieri) is classified
as ‘‘Vulnerable’’ by IUCN, due to
human-induced deforestation and
introduced predators (BLI 2008b).
Summary of Factors Affecting the St.
Lucia Forest Thrush
A. The Present or Threatened
Destruction, Modification, or
Curtailment of the Species’ Habitat or
Range
The habitat of the St. Lucia forest
thrush consists of mid- and highaltitude primary and secondary moist
forests (Keith 1997, p. 105). Consistent
with previous accounts, the most recent
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
79249
sightings of the thrush were within this
mid- to high-elevation moist forest
habitat, where in June and August of
2007, respectively, St. Lucia Forestry
Department staff sighted four birds in
one location along the Des Cartiers Trail
in the south of the island, and one bird
in De Chassin in the north of the island
(Dornelly 2007, in litt.).
As of 2004, natural forest occupied
approximately 29,870 ac (12,088 ha) on
the island of St. Lucia, 56 percent of
which (16,727 ac (6,769 ha)) was within
forest reserves and 43 percent (12,845 ac
(5,198 ha)) was on private lands (Joint
Annual Report (JAR) 2004, p. 42). The
St. Lucia Department of Forestry
considers habitat quality within the
Forest Reserves to be high, but considers
the habitat quality on private lands to be
‘‘less,’’ since the Department has little
control over management of these
private lands (Dornelly 2007, in litt.). In
2004, 633 ac (256 ha) of plantation
forest existed within the forest reserves
consisting of three main timber tree
species, and an additional 615 ac (249
ha) of plantation forest existed on
private lands (JAR 2004, p. 42), but
there is no information to suggest that
the thrush utilizes plantation forest
habitat.
Historically, St. Lucia’s policy that
allowed open access to ‘‘Common
Property resources,’’ combined with the
country’s high demand for agricultural
land, led to large-scale deforestation
(GOSL 1993, as cited in John 2000, p. 3),
which reduced the thrush’s habitat,
resulting in a rapid population decline
of this subspecies (IUCN 2008). The
widespread deforestation that continues
to this day suggests that population
numbers continue to decline as a result
of this impact. A potential impact of
habitat destruction is exemplified by the
Grand Cayman thrush (Turdus ravidus),
a species closely related to the St. Lucia
forest thrush, which went extinct as its
habitat on the island was progressively
cleared (Johnston 1969, as cited in BLI
2008a).
In the 1980’s, deforestation on St.
Lucia was estimated at 1.9 percent per
year due to banana cultivation.
Although the banana industry has
faltered since that time, (GOSL 1993, as
cited in John 2000, p. 3), according to
the World Bank (2005, p. 1), farmers in
St. Lucia have continued to clear forests
for cultivation, moving to higher and
steeper land. The government has
encouraged this deforestation by
constructing roads into these remote
areas, which further reduces forest
lands. Degradation of the hillside
environment puts the more productive
lowlands at risk, and hurricanes and
tropical storms accelerate the
E:\FR\FM\24DEP2.SGM
24DEP2
79250
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 24, 2008 / Proposed Rules
hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS2
degradation process (World Bank 2005,
p. 1).
As of 2004, 28.5 percent of the land
on St. Lucia was used for ‘‘intensive
farming,’’ and 26.3 percent was for
‘‘mixed’’ use purposes (JAR 2004, p. 41).
According to St. Lucia’s 2007 Economic
and Social Review (p. 3), although the
banana industry was negatively
impacted by the passage of Hurricane
Dean in August, the overall outturn in
agriculture more than compensated for
the banana decline, with a 7.6 percent
increase in ‘‘non-traditional crops.’’
This is a strong indication that
increasing agriculture continues to put
pressure on St. Lucia’s forest resources.
Aside from agriculture, in the 21st
century, construction activities and
development of the access road network
has been a leading cause of
deforestation on St. Lucia (John 2000,
pp. 3, 4).
Even within St. Lucia’s Forest
Reserves, the land is not protected to
such an extent that it is preserved in its
natural condition. According to St.
Lucia’s ‘‘Forest, Soil, and Water
Conservation Ordinance 1946/1983,’’
with permission of the Forestry
Department, one may ‘‘injure, cut, fell,
convert, remove, or harvest any tree or
parts thereof.’’ Although it is illegal to
occupy Forest Reserves for the purposes
of cultivation, squatting, or pasturing
livestock (St. Lucia Forestry Department
n.d.), enforcement of these activities is
questionable, given that as of the year
2000, squatters occupied 247 ac (100 ha)
of area within forest reserves (John
2000, p. 3). As of the year 2000, 4.5
miles (7.2 km) of roads existed within
the forest reserves, providing access to
forest resources within the reserves.
Typical uses of forest resources include
fuelwood collection for heating and
cooking purposes, as well as traditional
use of non-wood forest products.
Certain species of forest trees are used
for production of brooms, canoes, and
incense, while the bark of other tree
species are used to produce fermented
drinks, and liannes are used in the craft
industry (John 2000, pp. 6, 7). Removal
of these forest products either reduces
the quality or the availability of nesting,
feeding, and breeding habitat of the
thrush, thereby potentially reducing
population numbers and the
reproductive success of breeding birds.
Summary of Factor A
Both historical and current
information suggests that this species is
restricted to natural forests on the
island, which, based on recent data,
have been reduced to approximately
29,870 ac (12,088 ha) on the island. A
large percentage of the remaining
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:04 Dec 23, 2008
Jkt 217001
natural forest that occurs on private
lands in St. Lucia (43 percent) is subject
to ongoing loss from timber harvest,
conversion of forest lands to agriculture,
construction activities, and road
development. These ongoing activities
result in destruction of the limited
habitat available for the thrush, which
has historically been attributed to a
rapid decline in this subspecies’
population numbers. Although to a
lesser extent than on private lands, the
forests within St. Lucia’s forest reserves
(56 percent of the remaining forest) are
also subject to destruction and
modification from activities such as
timber removal, fuelwood gathering,
and removal of non-wood forest
products for traditional use, activities
which destroy and degrade the thrush’s
habitat. Therefore, we find that the
ongoing destruction and modification of
the thrush’s habitat is a threat to the
continued existence of the St. Lucia
forest thrush throughout its range.
B. Overutilization for Commercial,
Recreational, Scientific, or Educational
Purposes
We are not aware of any scientific or
commercial information that indicates
overutilization of the St. Lucia forest
thrush for commercial, recreational,
scientific, or educational purposes
currently poses a threat to this
subspecies. As a result, we are not
considering overutilization to be a
contributing factor to the continued
existence of the St. Lucia forest thrush.
C. Disease or Predation
Disease: We are not aware of any
scientific or commercial information
that indicates that disease poses a threat
to this subspecies. As a result, we are
not considering disease to be a
contributing factor to the continued
existence of the St. Lucia forest thrush.
Predation: The St. Lucia forest thrush
is suspected to be impacted by
predation from an introduced mongoose
(Raffaelle et al. 1998, p. 381). The Asian
mongoose (Herpestes javanicus) was
introduced to the island of St. Lucia in
the early 1900s (Hoagland et al. 1989, p.
624) and is considered an invasive
species. Mongoose have been
introduced to many island chains for
the purpose of controlling small
rodents, however their diet is not
restricted to rodents; mongoose are
known to eat birds as well. Morley and
Winder (2007, p. 1) found that in the
Fiji islands, some bird species were
primarily associated with those islands
that were free of mongoose. Any effects
of mongoose introduction detected,
however, were ‘historical,’ as mongoose
had been on these islands for at least 20
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
years prior to their study. Bird
assemblages on islands where mongoose
had been introduced were (1)
dominated by introduced bird species
that are relatively unaffected by
predation, or (2) native arboreal species
that avoid predation, as mongoose rarely
venture up into the forest canopy. Some
researchers have suggested that groundnesting bird populations have
established a predator-prey equilibrium
with mongooses in the Caribbean
(Westermann 1953, as cited in Hays and
Conant 2006, p. 7). Although the thrush
is not known as a ground-nesting bird,
it is reported to nest in shrubs and trees
near the forest floor. On St. Lucia, the
mongoose and other introduced
predators, such as birds and cats, have
contributed to the decline of another
native bird species, the White-breasted
thrasher (Ramphocinclus brachurus),
adding to the pressures of habitat
destruction (Collar et al. 1992, p. 824).
The degree to which mongoose are
responsible for the decline of bird
species is often hard to assess, because
of exacerbating factors such as the
introduction of other species, such as
rats and cats, which often have impacts
to bird populations as well. Therefore,
we do not have enough information to
assess whether predation by an
introduced mongoose is a significant
threat to the St. Lucia forest thrush. In
addition, we are not aware of any
information on the potential impacts of
predation from other predators (native
or nonnative) on this subspecies.
Summary of Factor C
We are not aware of any scientific or
commercial information that indicate
that disease or predation currently poses
a threat to this subspecies. Although the
St. Lucia forest thrush is thought to be
impacted by predation from an
introduced mongoose, we do not have
any data to show that mongoose
predation is a current threat to the
thrush. As a result, we are not
considering disease or predation to be a
contributing factor to the continued
existence of the St. Lucia forest thrush.
D. Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory
Mechanisms
The St. Lucia forest thrush is a
‘‘protected wildlife’’ species under
Schedule 1 of the Wildlife Protection
Act (WPA) of 1980, which has
prohibited hunting of this subspecies
since 1980 (ECOLEX n.d.(b)). In
addition, the WPA prohibits taking,
damaging or destroying of eggs or
young, or the damage of a nest of
‘‘protected wildlife’’ species (ECOLEX
n.d.(b)). Where habitat for this species
occurs within Forest Reserves or
E:\FR\FM\24DEP2.SGM
24DEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 24, 2008 / Proposed Rules
hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS2
Protected Forests, it is protected from
harvest without approval by the
Forestry Department under the Forest,
Soil and Water Conservation Ordinance
Act of 1946, amended in 1983 (ECOLEX
n.d.(a)). However, we do not consider
overutilization (Factor B) to be a current
threat to the St. Lucia forest thrush, so
these laws do not address any of the
threats to this subspecies.
The Forest, Soil and Water
Conservation Ordinance Act of 1946,
amended in 1983, authorizes the St.
Lucia Minister of Agriculture to
establish Forest Reserves on government
land and Protected Forests on private
lands (John 2000, p. 7). Habitat in Forest
Reserves and Protected Forests is
conserved primarily for the purpose of
protecting watershed processes and
preventing soil erosion. No legal
commercial timber harvest occurs on
these lands. However, fuelwood
collecting, removal of non-wood forest
products for traditional use, and timber
removal (with permission of the
Forestry Department) still occur in some
Forest Reserves. Where suitable habitat
for the thrush exists in Forest Reserves,
it is assumed to be of high quality
(Dornelly 2007, in litt.). However, small
illegal homesteads occur on
approximately 247 ac (100 ha) of the
Forest Reserves, and residents of these
homesteads utilize the timber and other
forest resources, such as fuelwood, in
the surrounding areas (John 2000, p. 3).
Timber harvest on private lands other
than Protected Forests is not regulated
in St. Lucia. As discussed above under
Factor A, deforestation on private lands
as a result of timber harvest, conversion
of forest lands to agriculture,
construction activities, and road
development is ongoing. It is not known
how much of the private natural forest
habitat on the island is occupied by the
St. Lucia forest thrush. However, based
on the localities of the few recent
confirmed sightings of this subspecies,
and the proportion (43 percent) of
natural forest that occurs on private
lands, the St. Lucia forest thrush likely
inhabits at least some of the private
lands on the island.
Summary of Factor D
St. Lucia has developed numerous
laws and regulations to manage wildlife
and forest resources on the island.
However, these laws do not adequately
protect the habitat of the St. Lucia forest
thrush from destruction or modification.
Suitable thrush habitat within Forest
Reserves is provided some level of
protection from existing laws designed
to protect watershed processes and
prevent soil erosion. However, these
laws do not adequately protect the
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:04 Dec 23, 2008
Jkt 217001
habitat of this subspecies because they
allow non-commercial uses of forest
resources (including nest trees) to
continue. Natural forest habitat on
private lands is unregulated, and
although the rate of habitat destruction
and modification has likely decreased
since the 1980s, conversion of forest
land to agriculture and timber harvest
still continues. As a result of the lack of
regulatory protection of the natural
forest habitats on private lands and the
limited protection of Forest Reserves,
we find that the existing regulatory
mechanisms are inadequate to mitigate
the current threats to the St. Lucia forest
thrush throughout its range.
E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors
Affecting the Continued Existence of the
Species
Bare-Eyed Robin: Competition with
the bare-eyed robin (Turdus nudigenis),
which colonized the island in the 1950s,
has been identified as a factor impacting
this subspecies (Raffaelle et al. 1998,
p. 381). However, we do not have
enough information to assess whether
competition with the bare-eyed robin is
a significant threat to the St. Lucia forest
thrush.
Shiny Cowbird: Brood parasitism by
the shiny cowbird (Molothrus
bonarientsis) which colonized the
island in 1931, is also suspected as a
factor impacting this subspecies
(Raffaelle et al. 1998, p. 381). The shiny
cowbird is a known ‘‘brood parasite’’
(i.e., they lay their eggs in the nests of
other birds and do not provide any
parental care for their own offspring).
When the eggs of the brood parasite
hatch, these chicks often push out the
eggs or chicks of the host birds and are
raised by the host species. Parental care
that the host birds provide to the young
parasites is care denied to their own
young. This often has a detrimental
effect on the reproductive success of the
hosts, reducing population growth. The
shiny cowbird is an extreme host
generalist; its eggs have been found in
the nests of over 200 species of birds
(Friedmann and Kiff 1985 and Mason
1986, as cited in Cruz et al. 1989,
p. 524). Shiny cowbirds are known to
parasitize other bird species nests on St.
Lucia (Cruz et al. 1989, p. 527). Many
of the documented host species have not
evolved effective defense or counterdefense mechanisms during the 70+
years the cowbird has occupied the
island (Post et al. 1990, p. 461).
Although brood parasitism by the shiny
cowbird has the potential to impact the
thrush, we could find no documented
cases of brood parasitism on the St.
Lucia forest thrush.
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
79251
Small Population Size: The presumed
small size of the St. Lucia forest thrush
population, based on only six confirmed
sightings of the subspecies in the last
few years (Dornelly 2007, in litt.), makes
this subspecies vulnerable to any of
several risks, including inbreeding
depression, loss of genetic variation,
and accumulation of new mutations.
Inbreeding can have individual or
population-level consequences either by
increasing the phenotypic expression
(the outward appearance or observable
structure, function or behavior of a
living organism) of recessive,
deleterious alleles or by reducing the
overall fitness of individuals in the
population (Charlesworth and
Charlesworth 1987, p. 231; Shaffer 1981,
p. 131). Small, isolated populations of
wildlife species are also susceptible to
demographic problems (Shaffer 1981, p.
131), which may include reduced
reproductive success of individuals and
chance disequilibrium of sex ratios.
Once a population is reduced below a
certain number of individuals, it tends
to rapidly decline towards extinction
(Franklin 1980, pp. 147–148; Gilpin and
´
Soule 1986, p. 25; Holsinger 2000,
´
pp. 64–65; Soule 1987, p. 181).
A general approximation of minimum
viable population size is the 50/500 rule
´
(Shaffer 1981, p. 133; Soule 1980,
pp. 160–162). This rule states that an
effective population (Ne) of 50
individuals is the minimum size
required to avoid imminent risks from
inbreeding. Ne represents the number of
animals in a population that actually
contribute to reproduction, and is often
much smaller than the census, or total
number of individuals in the population
(N). Furthermore, the rule states that the
long-term fitness of a population
requires an Ne of at least 500
individuals, so that it will not lose its
genetic diversity over time and will
maintain an enhanced capacity to adapt
to changing conditions. Therefore, an
analysis of the fitness of this population
would be a good indicator of the
subspecies’ overall survivability.
Although the current population
status of the St. Lucia forest thrush is
unknown, we presume the population
of the thrush is small, since recent
sightings of this subspecies are rare,
with only six confirmed sightings on the
island over the last few years (Dornelly
2007, in litt.). Even though a survey was
conducted in 2007 to try to estimate the
populations of various rare birds on the
island of St. Lucia including the thrush,
no thrushes were observed during the
study period (Dornelly 2007, in litt.). As
a result, we presume the size of the St.
Lucia forest thrush population falls
below the minimum effective
E:\FR\FM\24DEP2.SGM
24DEP2
hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS2
79252
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 24, 2008 / Proposed Rules
population size required to avoid risks
from inbreeding (Ne = 50 individuals).
We also presume the population size of
this subspecies falls below the upper
threshold (Ne = 500 individuals)
required for long-term fitness of a
population that will not lose its genetic
diversity over time and will maintain an
enhanced capacity to adapt to changing
conditions. As such, we currently
consider the St. Lucia forest thrush to be
at risk due to lack of near- and long-term
viability.
Stochastic Events: The St. Lucia forest
thrush’s small population size makes
this subspecies particularly vulnerable
to the threat of adverse random,
naturally occurring events (e.g., volcanic
activity, tropical storms and hurricanes)
that could destroy individuals and their
habitat. St. Lucia is a geologically active
area, resulting in a significant risk of
catastrophic natural events. It is subject
to volcanic activity and hurricanes (CIA
World Factbook 2008).
St. Lucia is a volcanic island
(University of the West Indies Seismic
Research Centre n.d.(a)). Historically,
there have been no magmatic eruptions
on St. Lucia (i.e., eruptions involving
the explosive ejection of magma)
(University of the West Indies Seismic
Research Centre n.d.(b)). However, there
have been several minor phreatic
(steam) explosions in the Sulphur
Springs area of St. Lucia (University of
the West Indies Seismic Research Centre
n.d.(b)), ‘‘which spread a thin layer of
cinders (ash) far and wide’’ (Lefort de
Latour 1787, as cited in University of
the West Indies Seismic Research Centre
n.d.(b)). The occurrence of occasional
swarms (a sequence of many
earthquakes striking in a relatively short
period of time and may last for days,
weeks, or even months) of shallow
earthquakes together with the vigorous
hot spring activity in southern St. Lucia
indicate that this area is still potentially
active and the island can therefore
expect volcanic eruptions in the future
(University of the West Indies Seismic
Research Centre n.d.(b)). On Montserrat,
where another subspecies of the forest
thrush (Cichlherminia lherminieri
lawrencii) is found, volcanic activity
caused a reduction in the range of the
subspecies by two-thirds (in 1995–1997)
(G. Hilton in litt., as cited in BLI 2008b),
and in 2001, heavy ash falls resulted in
loss of habitat (Continga 2002, as cited
in BLI 2008b). Because of the similarity
in ecology, taxonomy, and habitat
requirements between the subspecies on
Monserrat and the St. Lucia forest
thrush, volcanic activity on St. Lucia
could have similar effects on the St.
Lucia forest thrush population.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:04 Dec 23, 2008
Jkt 217001
Tropical storms and hurricanes occur
in the Caribbean, and can have severe
impacts on terrestrial ecosystems on
small islands. A primary impact of
forest habitats is the damage caused to
trees by high winds. Trees are often
blown over or sustain damage to trunks
and limbs. These types of impacts can
result in a major habitat loss to the St.
Lucia forest thrush. In addition, there is
often damage to soil productivity due to
landslides and excess soil erosion (John
2000, p. 19). St. Lucia has experienced
an increase in the number of hurricanes
and severe tropical storms over the last
30 years. After hurricane Allen in 1980,
at least 55 percent of all dominant tree
species on the island had broken
branches and many had lost large
portions of their crowns (Whitman
1980, as cited in John 2000, p. 18). The
indirect effects occur in the aftermath of
the storm when species experience loss
of food supplies and foraging substrates,
loss of nests, loss of nest sites (trees) and
roost sites (John 2000, p. 20). Moreover,
these indirect effects are likely to
increase their vulnerability to predation.
With hurricanes and tropical storms,
species are also exposed to the strong
winds which can displace individuals
off of the island into the surrounding
open ocean environment (John 2000,
p. 20). Some of these displaced birds are
likely blown far out to sea, and may not
be able to make it back to land in their
weakened state. In general, the most
vulnerable terrestrial wildlife
populations have a diet of nectar, fruit,
or seeds; nest, roost or forage on large
old trees; require a closed canopy forest;
have special microclimate requirements;
or live in habitat where the vegetation
has a slow recovery rate (John 2000,
p. 20). Small populations with these
traits are at a greater risk to hurricane
induced extinction, particularly if they
exist in small isolated habitat fragments
(John 2000, p. 20).
Summary of Factor E
We presume the population of the St.
Lucia forest thrush is small since there
have only been six confirmed sightings
of the subspecies in the last few years.
The thrush’s small population size
makes this subspecies particularly
vulnerable to the threat of adverse
random, naturally occurring events (e.g.,
volcanic activity, tropical storms, and
hurricanes) that could destroy
individuals and their habitat. The
occurrence of occasional swarms of
shallow earthquakes, along with
vigorous hot spring activity, indicates
that St. Lucia could still be volcanically
active, and future volcanic eruptions are
expected. Tropical storms and
hurricanes are naturally occurring
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
events in the Caribbean; however, the
frequency of these events has increased
over the last 30 years. These highintensity events damage forest habitats,
which are currently very restricted
(approximately 29,870 ac (12,088 ha))
on the island due to timber harvest and
agricultural conversions. It can take
many years for forested areas to fully
recover from the damage caused by
tropical storms and hurricanes.
Therefore, we find that the subspecies’
presumed small population size and
restricted range due to deforestation,
and the increase in naturally occurring
events that damage the thrush’s habitat,
are a threat to the continued existence
of the St. Lucia forest thrush throughout
its range.
Status Determination for the St. Lucia
Forest Thrush
We have carefully assessed the best
available scientific and commercial
information regarding the past, present
and potential future threats faced by the
St. Lucia forest thrush. The subspecies
is currently at risk throughout all of its
range due to ongoing threats of habitat
destruction and modification (Factor A),
lack of near- and long-term viability
associated with the thrush’s presumed
small population size (Factor E), and
random, naturally occurring events such
as volcanic activity, tropical storms, and
hurricanes (Factor E).
The St. Lucia forest thrush is
presumed to be rare based on the
limited availability of suitable habitat
and the fact that there have been only
a few confirmed sightings of this
subspecies over the last several years.
The primary factor impacting the
continued existence of the thrush is
habitat loss and degradation, as a result
of deforestation from timber harvest and
agricultural conversions. Although 56
percent of the natural forests remaining
on St. Lucia (as of 2004) is partially
protected through establishment of a
network of Forest Reserves, these forests
are still subject to destruction and
modification from activities such as
timber removal, fuelwood collecting,
and removal of non-wood forest
products for traditional use.
Approximately 43 percent of the natural
forest habitats on which this subspecies
depends occur on private lands.
Deforestation on private lands is an
ongoing threat to the St. Lucia forest
thrush, due to the lack of regulatory
protection of natural forests on private
lands and the continued loss of these
forests through timber harvest,
conversions to agriculture, construction
activities, and road development.
The island of St. Lucia is a
geologically active area, resulting in a
E:\FR\FM\24DEP2.SGM
24DEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 24, 2008 / Proposed Rules
significant risk of catastrophic natural
events. The thrush’s presumed small
population size makes this subspecies
particularly vulnerable to the threat of
adverse random, naturally occurring
events such as volcanic activity, tropical
storms, and hurricanes that could
destroy individuals and their habitat.
Section 3 of the Act defines an
‘‘endangered species’’ as ‘‘any species
which is in danger of extinction
throughout all or a significant portion of
its range’’ and a ‘‘threatened species’’ as
‘‘any species which is likely to become
an endangered species within the
foreseeable future throughout all or a
significant portion of its range.’’ Based
on the immediate and ongoing
significant threats to the St. Lucia forest
thrush throughout its entire range, as
described above, we determine that the
St. Lucia forest thrush is in danger of
extinction throughout all of its range.
Therefore, on the basis of the best
available scientific and commercial
information, we are proposing to list St.
Lucia forest thrush as an endangered
species throughout all of its range.
hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS2
Available Conservation Measures
Conservation measures provided to
species listed as endangered or
threatened under the Act include
recognition, requirements for Federal
protection, and prohibitions against
certain practices. Recognition through
listing results in public awareness, and
encourages and results in conservation
actions by Federal governments, private
agencies and groups, and individuals.
Section 7(a) of the Act, as amended,
and as implemented by regulations at 50
CFR part 402, requires Federal agencies
to evaluate their actions within the
United States or on the high seas with
respect to any species that is proposed
or listed as endangered or threatened,
and with respect to its critical habitat,
if any is being designated. However,
given that the Andean flamingo, Chilean
woodstar, and St. Lucia forest thrush are
not native to the United States, no
critical habitat is being proposed for
designation in this rule.
Section 8(a) of the Act authorizes
limited financial assistance for the
development and management of
programs that the Secretary of the
Interior determines to be necessary or
useful for the conservation of
endangered and threatened species in
foreign countries. Sections 8(b) and 8(c)
of the Act authorize the Secretary to
encourage conservation programs for
foreign endangered species and to
provide assistance for such programs in
the form of personnel and the training
of personnel.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:04 Dec 23, 2008
Jkt 217001
The Act and its implementing
regulations set forth a series of general
prohibitions and exceptions that apply
to all endangered and threatened
wildlife. As such, these prohibitions
would be applicable to the Andean
flamingo, Chilean woodstar, and St.
Lucia forest thrush. These prohibitions,
under 50 CFR 17.21, make it illegal for
any person subject to the jurisdiction of
the United States to ‘‘take’’ (take
includes harass, harm, pursue, hunt,
shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, collect,
or to attempt any of these) within the
United States or upon the high seas,
import or export, deliver, receive, carry,
transport, or ship in interstate or foreign
commerce in the course of a commercial
activity or to sell or offer for sale in
interstate or foreign commerce, any
endangered wildlife species. It also is
illegal to possess, sell, deliver, carry,
transport, or ship any such wildlife that
has been taken in violation of the Act.
Certain exceptions apply to agents of the
Service and State conservation agencies.
We may issue permits to carry out
otherwise prohibited activities
involving endangered and threatened
wildlife species under certain
circumstances. Regulations governing
permits are codified at 50 CFR 17.22 for
endangered species, and at 17.32 for
threatened species. With regard to
endangered wildlife, a permit must be
issued for the following purposes: For
scientific purposes, to enhance the
propagation or survival of the species,
and for incidental take in connection
with otherwise lawful activities.
Peer Review
In accordance with our joint policy
with National Marine Fisheries Service,
‘‘Notice of Interagency Cooperative
Policy for Peer Review in Endangered
Species Act Activities,’’ published in
the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59
FR 34270), we will seek the expert
opinions of at least three appropriate
independent specialists regarding this
proposed rule. The purpose of peer
review is to ensure that our final
determination is based on scientifically
sound data, assumptions, and analyses.
We will send copies of this proposed
rule to the peer reviewers immediately
following publication in the Federal
Register. We will invite these peer
reviewers to comment during the public
comment period on our specific
assumptions and conclusions regarding
the proposal to list the Andean
flamingo, the Chilean woodstar, and the
St. Lucia forest thrush as endangered.
We will consider all comments and
information we receive during the
comment period on this proposed rule
during our preparation of a final
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
79253
determination. Accordingly, our final
decision may differ from this proposal.
Public Hearings
The Act provides for one or more
public hearings on this proposal, if we
receive any requests for hearings. We
must receive your request for a public
hearing within 45 days after the date of
this Federal Register publication (see
DATES). Such requests must be made in
writing and be addressed to the Chief of
the Division of Scientific Authority at
the address shown in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section. We will
schedule public hearings on this
proposal, if any are requested, and
announce the dates, times, and places of
those hearings, as well as how to obtain
reasonable accommodations, in the
Federal Register at least 15 days before
the first hearing.
Required Determinations
National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA)
We have determined that
environmental assessments and
environmental impact statements, as
defined under the authority of the
National Environmental Policy Act of
1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), need not
be prepared in connection with
regulations adopted under section 4(a)
of the Act. We published a notice
outlining our reasons for this
determination in the Federal Register
on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244).
Clarity of the Rule
We are required by Executive Orders
12866 and 12988, and by the
Presidential Memorandum of June 1,
1998, to write all rules in plain
language. This means that each rule we
publish must:
(a) Be logically organized;
(b) Use the active voice to address
readers directly;
(c) Use clear language rather than
jargon;
(d) Be divided into short sections and
sentences; and
(e) Use lists and tables wherever
possible.
If you feel that we have not met these
requirements, send us comments by one
of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES
section. To better help us revise the
rule, your comments should be as
specific as possible. For example, you
should tell us the numbers of the
sections or paragraphs that are unclearly
written, which sections or sentences are
too long, the sections where you feel
lists or tables would be useful, etc.
E:\FR\FM\24DEP2.SGM
24DEP2
79254
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 24, 2008 / Proposed Rules
References Cited
A complete list of all references cited
in this proposed rule is available on the
Internet at https://www.regulations.gov
or upon request from the Division of
Scientific Authority, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT).
Author
The primary author(s) of this
proposed rule is staff of the Division of
Scientific Authority, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT).
2. Amend § 17.11(h) by adding a new
entry for ‘‘Flamingo, Andean,’’ ‘‘Thrush,
St. Lucia forest,’’ and ‘‘Woodstar,
Chilean’’ in alphabetical order under
‘‘BIRDS’’ to the List of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife to read as follows:
Proposed Regulation Promulgation
Accordingly, we propose to amend
part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title
50 of the Code of Federal Regulations,
as set forth below:
§ 17.11 Endangered and threatened
wildlife.
PART 17—[AMENDED]
*
1. The authority citation for part 17
continues to read as follows:
Species
Vertebrate
population where
endangered or
threatened
Scientific name
*
*
(h) * * *
*
*
When listed
*
Critical
habitat
*
BIRDS
*
*
Flamingo, Andean ...
*
Phoenicoparrus
andinus.
*
Argentina, Bolivia,
Chile, and Peru.
*
Entire ......................
*
E
*
....................
*
Thrush, St. Lucia forest.
*
Cichlherminia
lherminieri
sanctaeluciae.
*
West Indies—St.
Lucia.
*
Entire ......................
*
E
*
....................
NA
*
Woodstar, Chilean ...
*
Eulidia yarrellii ........
*
Chile and Peru .......
*
Entire ......................
*
E
*
....................
NA
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Dated: December 16, 2008.
Kenneth Stansell,
Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service.
[FR Doc. E8–30464 Filed 12–23–08; 8:45 am]
*
BILLING CODE 4310–55–P
hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS2
Special
rules
NA
*
*
Status
*
Historic range
Common name
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361–1407; 16 U.S.C.
1531–1544; 16 U.S.C. 4201–4245; Pub. L. 99–
625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise noted.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and threatened species,
Exports, Imports, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements,
Transportation.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:04 Dec 23, 2008
Jkt 217001
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\24DEP2.SGM
24DEP2
*
*
NA
*
NA
*
NA
*
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 248 (Wednesday, December 24, 2008)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 79226-79254]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-30464]
[[Page 79225]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part II
Department of the Interior
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fish and Wildlife Service
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Listing Three Foreign
Bird Species From Latin America and the Caribbean as Endangered
Throughout Their Range; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 24, 2008 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 79226]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[FWS-R9-IA-2008-0117; 96100-1671-0000-B6]
RIN 1018-AV76
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Listing Three
Foreign Bird Species From Latin America and the Caribbean as Endangered
Throughout Their Range
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), propose to
list three species of birds from Latin America and the Caribbean--the
Andean flamingo (Phoenicoparrus andinus), the Chilean woodstar (Eulidia
yarrellii), and the St. Lucia forest thrush (Cichlherminia lherminieri
sanctaeluciae)--as endangered under the Endangered Species Act of 1973,
as amended (Act) (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). This proposal, if made
final, would extend the Act's protection to these species. The Service
seeks data and comments from the public on this proposed rule.
DATES: We will accept comments received or postmarked on or before
February 23, 2009. We must receive requests for public hearings, in
writing, at the address shown in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section by February 9, 2009.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by one of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Public Comments Processing,
Attn: FWS-R9-IA-2008-0117; Division of Policy and Directives
Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive,
Suite 222; Arlington, VA 22203.
We will not accept comments by e-mail or fax. We will post all
comments on https://www.regulations.gov. This generally means that we
will post any personal information you provide us (see the Public
Comments section below for more information).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rosemarie Gnam, Division of Scientific
Authority, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Room
110, Arlington, VA 22203; telephone 703-358-1708; facsimile 703-358-
2276. If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), call
the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Public Comments
We intend that any final action resulting from this proposal will
be as accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore, we request
comments or suggestions on this proposed rule. We particularly seek
comments concerning:
(1) Biological, commercial trade, or other relevant data concerning
any threats (or lack thereof) to these species and regulations that may
be addressing those threats.
(2) Additional information concerning the taxonomy, range,
distribution, and population size of these species, including the
locations of any additional populations of these species.
(3) Any information on the biological or ecological requirements of
these species.
(4) Current or planned activities in the areas occupied by these
species and possible impacts of these activities on these species.
You may submit your comments and materials concerning this proposed
rule by one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section. We will not
consider comments sent by e-mail or fax or to an address not listed in
the ADDRESSES section.
If you submit a comment via https://www.regulations.gov, your entire
comment--including any personal identifying information--will be posted
on the Web site. If you submit a hardcopy comment that includes
personal identifying information, you may request at the top of your
document that we withhold this information from public review. However,
we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. We will post all
hardcopy comments on https://www.regulations.gov.
Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting
documentation we used in preparing this proposed rule, will be
available for public inspection on https://www.regulations.gov, or by
appointment, during normal business hours, at the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Division of Scientific Authority, 4401 N. Fairfax
Drive, Room 110, Arlington, VA 22203; telephone 703-358-1708.
Background
Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act requires us to make a finding (known
as a ``90-day finding'') on whether a petition to add a species to,
remove a species from, or reclassify a species on the Federal Lists of
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants has presented substantial
information indicating that the requested action may be warranted. To
the maximum extent practicable, the finding must be made within 90 days
following receipt of the petition and published promptly in the Federal
Register. If we find that the petition has presented substantial
information indicating that the requested action may be warranted (a
positive finding), section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act requires us to
commence a status review of the species if one has not already been
initiated under our internal candidate assessment process. In addition,
section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act requires us to make a finding within 12
months following receipt of the petition on whether the requested
action is warranted, not warranted, or warranted but precluded by
higher priority listing actions (this finding is referred to as the
``12-month finding''). Section 4(b)(3)(C) of the Act requires that a
finding of warranted but precluded for petitioned species should be
treated as having been resubmitted on the date of the warranted but
precluded finding, and is, therefore, subject to a new finding within 1
year and subsequently thereafter until we publish a proposal to list or
a finding that the petitioned action is not warranted. The Service
publishes an annual notice of resubmitted petition findings (annual
notice) for all foreign species for which listings were previously
found to be warranted but precluded.
Previous Federal Actions
On November 24, 1980, we received a petition (1980 petition) from
Dr. Warren B. King, Chairman of the International Council for Bird
Preservation (ICBP), to add 60 foreign bird species to the List of
Threatened and Endangered Wildlife (50 CFR 17.11(h)), including two
species (the Chilean woodstar and the St. Lucia forest thrush) that are
the subject of this proposed rule. In response to the 1980 petition, we
published a positive 90-day finding on May 12, 1981 (46 FR 26464), for
58 foreign species, noting that 2 of the foreign species identified in
the petition were already listed under the Act, and initiated a status
review. On January 20, 1984 (49 FR 2485), we published a 12-month
finding within an annual review on pending petitions and description of
progress on all species petition findings addressed therein. In that
notice, we found that all 58 foreign bird species from the 1980
petition were warranted but precluded by higher priority listing
actions. On May 10, 1985, we published the first annual notice (50 FR
19761), in which we continued to find that listing all 58 foreign bird
species from the 1980
[[Page 79227]]
petition was warranted but precluded. In our next annual notice,
published on January 9, 1986 (51 FR 996), we found that listing 54
species from the 1980 petition, including the 2 species that are the
subject of this proposed rule, continued to be warranted but precluded,
whereas new information caused us to find that listing 4 other species
in the 1980 petition was no longer warranted. We published additional
annual notices on the remaining 54 species included in the 1980
petition on July 7, 1988 (53 FR 25511); December 29, 1988 (53 FR
52746); and November 21, 1991 (56 FR 58664), in which we indicated that
the Chilean woodstar and the St. Lucia forest thrush, along with the
remaining species in the 1980 petition, continued to be warranted but
precluded.
On May 6, 1991, we received a petition (hereafter referred to as
the 1991 petition) from ICBP, to add 53 species of foreign birds to the
List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife, including the Andean
flamingo, also the subject of this proposed rule. In response to the
1991 petition, we published a positive 90-day finding on December 16,
1991 (56 FR 65207), for all 53 species, and announced the initiation of
a status review. On March 28, 1994 (59 FR 14496), we published a 12-
month finding on the 1991 petition, along with a proposed rule to list
30 African birds under the Act (15 each from the 1980 petition and 1991
petition). In that document, we announced our finding that listing the
remaining 38 species from the 1991 petition, including Andean flamingo,
was warranted but precluded by higher priority listing actions. On
January 12, 1995 (60 FR 2899), we published the final rule to list the
30 African birds and reiterated the warranted-but-precluded status of
the remaining species from the 1991 petition. We made subsequent
warranted-but-precluded findings for all outstanding foreign species
from the 1980 and 1991 petitions, including the three species that are
the subject of this proposed rule, as published in our annual notice of
review (ANOR) on May 21, 2004 (69 FR 29354), and April 23, 2007 (72 FR
20184).
Per the Service's listing priority guidelines (September 21, 1983;
48 FR 43098), our 2007 ANOR identified the listing priority numbers
(LPNs) (ranging from 1 to 12) for all outstanding foreign species. The
LPNs for the three species of birds in this proposed rule are as
follows: Andean flamingo (LPN 2), Chilean woodstar (LPN 4), and St.
Lucia forest thrush (LPN 3).
On January 23, 2008, the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California ordered the Service to issue proposed
listing rules for five foreign bird species, actions which had been
previously determined to be warranted but precluded: Andean flamingo
(Phoenicoparrus andinus), black-breasted puffleg (Eriocnemis
nigrivestis), Chilean woodstar (Eulidia yarrellii), medium tree finch
(Camarhynchus pauper), and St. Lucia forest thrush (Cichlherminia
lherminieri sanctaeluciae). The court ordered the Service to issue
proposed listing rules for these species by the end of 2008.
On July 29, 2008 (73 FR 44062), we published in the Federal
Register a notice announcing our annual petition findings for foreign
species. In that notice, we announced listing to be warranted for 30
foreign bird species, including the 5 species that are subject to the
January 23, 2008, court order and the 3 species which are the subject
of this proposed rule. The medium tree finch and black-breasted puffleg
are the subject of separate proposed rules, which published in the
Federal Register on December 8, 2008 (73 FR 74434 and 73 FR 74427,
respectively).
Species Information and Factors Affecting the Species
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533), and its implementing
regulations at 50 CFR part 424, set forth the procedures for adding
species to the Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and
Plants. A species may be determined to be an endangered or threatened
species due to one or more of the five factors described in section
4(a)(1) of the Act. The five factors are: (A) The present or threatened
destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (B)
overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of
existing regulatory mechanisms; and (E) other natural or manmade
factors affecting its continued existence.
Below is a species-by-species analysis of these five factors. The
species are considered in alphabetical order, beginning with the Andean
flamingo, and followed by the Chilean woodstar and the St. Lucia forest
thrush.
I. Andean flamingo (Phoenicoparrus andinus)
Species Description
Flamingos (Phoenicopteridae) are gregarious, long-lived birds that
inhabit saline wetlands and breed in colonies (del Hoyo 1992, pp. 509-
519; Caziani et al. 2007, pp. 277). The Andean flamingo is the largest
member of the Phoenicopteridae family in South America, reaching an
adult height of 3.5 feet (ft) (110 centimeters (cm)) (Fjelds[aring] and
Krabbe 1990, p. 86). This waterbird is native to low-, medium-, and
high-altitude wetlands in the Andean regions of Argentina, Bolivia,
Chile, and Peru (BirdLife International (BLI) 2008, p. 1; del Hoyo
1992, p. 526), where it is locally known as ``flamenco andino,''
``parina grande,'' ``pariguana,'' ``pariwana,'' and ``chururu'' (BLI
2006, p. 1; Castro and Varela 1992, p. 26; Davison 2007, p. 2; del Hoyo
1992, p. 526; S[aacute]enz 2006, p. 185).
An adult Andean flamingo has a pale yellow face and pale pink
coloring overall. Its upper plumage is brighter pink, with a deeper
pink to wine red-colored neck, breast, and wing-coverts (feathers on
the upper wing), and prominent black tertial feathers (feathers on the
posterior portion of the wing). The bill is pale yellow with a black
tip, and the legs and feet are yellow (BLI 2008, p. 1; del Hoyo 1992,
p. 526). Young Andean flamingos are grayish in color and achieve full
adult plumage in their third year (del Hoyo 1992, p. 526).
Andean flamingo is one of three flamingo species that is endemic to
the high Andes of South America (Johnson et al. 1958, p. 299; Johnson
1967, p. 404; del Hoyo et al. 1992, p. 508; Line 2004, pp. 1-2; Caziani
et al. 2007, p. 277; Arengo in litt. 2007, p. 2). All flamingos have
pink plumage to varying degrees (del Hoyo 1992, p. 508). The Andean
flamingo is distinguished from other South American flamingos by its
size (being the largest in the area), leg coloring (being the only
flamingo with yellow legs), and wing coloring (having prominent black
tertial feathers that form a ``V'' when the flamingo is not in flight)
(BLI 2008, p. 1; del Hoyo 1992, p. 526). Andean flamingos are long-
lived (see Habitat and Life History) (BLI 2008, p. 2; del Hoyo et al.
1992, p. 517).
Taxonomy
The Andean flamingo was first taxonomically described as
Phoenicopterus andinus (Phoenicopteridae family), by Rodulfo Philippi
in 1854 (Philippi 1860, p. 164; Hellmayr 1932, p. 448). In 1856,
Bonaparte split the genus Phoenicopterus, placing the Andean flamingo
in a separate genus, as Phoenicoparrus andinus, along with the
sympatric (species inhabiting the same or overlapping geographical
areas) James' flamingos (P. jamesi) (Hellmayr and Conover 1948, pp.
273-278; Jenkin 1957, p. 405). In 1990, Sibley and Monroe (1990, p.
311) suggested the Andean flamingo should be returned to the genus
Phoenicopterus, based on the
[[Page 79228]]
close genetic relatedness among all flamingo species (Sibley and
Ahlquist 1989, as cited in Ramsen et al. 2007, p. 18). However, many
contemporary researchers maintain that the Andean flamingo should
remain within the genus Phoenicoparrus, based on bill morphology and
the lack of a hind toe (BLI 2008, p. 1; Caziani et al. 2007, p. 276;
del Hoyo et al. 1992, pp. 508-509; Fjelds[aring] and Krabbe 1990, p.
86; Mascitti and Kravetz 2002, pp. 73-83; Valqui et al. 2000, p. 110).
Therefore, we accept the species as Phoenicoparrus andinus, which is
also consistent with the Convention on International Trade in
Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) species database
(UNEP-WCMC 2008b, p. 1).
Habitat and Life History
Andean flamingos are native to the Andes Mountains, from southern
Peru and southwestern Bolivia to northern Chile and northwestern
Argentina. They occupy shallow wetlands, collectively called salars,
that are characterized as shallow, often saline, lakes (known locally
as ``lagos'' or ``lagunas'') with exposed salt-flats or mudflats (Boyle
et al. 2004, pp. 563-564; Caziani et al. 2007, pp. 277; Hurlbert and
Keith 1979, pp. 328). Andean flamingos also inhabit ``bofedales,''
which are described as wet, marshy, perennial meadowlands (de la Fuente
2002, p. 1; Ducks Unlimited 2007c, p. 1). These wetlands are found at
various elevations, including: (1) The high Andes, referred to as
``altiplanos'' (Spanish for ``high plains''), generally above 13,123 ft
(4,000 meters (m)); (2) the ``puna'' (Spanish for ``highlands''),
between 9,843 and 13,123 ft (3,000 and 4,000 m); and (3) the lowlands,
below 9,843 ft (3,000 m) (Caziani et al. 2001, p. 103; Caziani et al.
2007, p. 278). Andean flamingos generally occupy wetlands that are less
than 3 ft (1 m) deep (Fjelds[aring] and Krabbe 1990, p. 86; Mascitti
and Caste[ntilde]era 2006, p. 331).
Most of the wetlands in which Andean flamingos are found are
``endoreic,'' ``endorheic,'' or closed. This refers to internally-
draining water networks prevalent in the Andes that are characterized
by rivers or bodies of water that do not drain into the sea, but either
dry up or terminate in a basin (Caziani et al. 2001, p. 103; Hurlbert
and Keith 1979, p. 328). The water levels at these basins expand and
contract seasonally and depend in large part on summer rains to
``recharge'' or refill them (Bucher 1992, p. 182; Caziani and
Derlindati 2000, pp. 124-125; Caziani et al. 2001, p. 110; Mascitti and
Caziani 1997, p. 328).
Andean flamingos are altitudinal and opportunistic migrants
(Goldfeder and Blanco 2007, p. 190). During the summer (December to
January), Andean flamingos generally reside in the puna and altiplano
regions of the Andes, at elevations between 11,483 and 14,764 ft (3,500
and 4,500 m). In the winter, they may move to lower elevations--down to
210 ft (64 m) above sea level--along the Peruvian coast and inland to
the central plains of Argentina and Bolivia (Blake 1977, p. 207; BLI
2008, pp. 1 and 6; Boyle et al. 2004, pp. 563-564, 570-571; Bucher
1992, p. 182; Bucher et al. 2000, p. 119; Caziani et al. 2006. p. 17;
Caziani et al. 2007, pp. 277, 279, 281; del Hoyo 1992, p. 514, 519;
Fjelds[aring] and Krabbe 1990, p. 85; Hurlbert and Keith 1979, pp. 330;
Kahl 1975, pp. 99-101; Mascitti and Bonaventura 2002, p. 360; Mascitti
and Casta[ntilde]era 2006, p. 328).
They disperse widely, even while nesting, and can travel long
distances, flying from 249 mi (400 km) to 715 mi (1,150 km) daily
(Caziani et al. 2003, p. 11; Caziani et al. 2007, p. 277; Conway 2000,
p. 212; del Hoyo 1992, pp. 509-519; Fjelds[aring] and Krabbe 1990, p.
85). Their movements are unpredictable and appear to be influenced by
varying environmental conditions affecting the availability of wetlands
(Bucher et al. 2000, p. 119; del Hoyo 1992, p. 514 and 516;
Fjelds[aring] and Krabbe 1990, p. 85). When climatic conditions are
favorable, breeding takes place, and when climatic conditions are
unfavorable, breeding is abandoned, very limited, or takes place at
alternative, less-productive breeding grounds (e.g., Bucher et al.
2000, pp. 119-120).
All flamingos are believed to be monogamous, with a strong pair-
bonding tendency that may be maintained from one breeding season to the
next (del Hoyo 1992, p. 514). Andean flamingos nest at high densities,
with breeding colonies consisting of up to thousands of pairs (del Hoyo
1992, p. 526). Andean flamingos reach sexual maturity between 3 and 5
years of age (Bucher 1992, p. 183). Breeding season for the Andean
flamingo occurs in the summer, generally from December through February
(BLI 2008, p. 2; del Hoyo et al. 1992, p. 516; Fjelds[aring] and Krabbe
1990, p. 85; Hurlbert and Keith 1979, pp. 328), although the breeding
season may begin as early as October and continue through April
(Goldfeder and Blanco 2007, p. 190). Both sexes share in nest-building
and nesting (Bucher 1992, p. 182). Nests are built on the miry clay or
transient islands of shallow lakes (del Hoyo 1992, pp. 514, 516). Each
nest consists of a clay mound, up to 16 inches (in) (40 cm) high, with
a small depression on top (del Hoyo et al. 1992, p. 516; Fjelds[aring]
and Krabbe 1990, p. 85). Flamingos lay a single white egg, usually in
December or January, and incubation lasts about 28 days (del Hoyo et
al. 1992, p. 526). If the egg is destroyed from flooding or predation,
the pair may re-clutch (lay a replacement egg), but only if the loss
occurs within a few days of the first egg being laid (del Hoyo et al.
1992, p. 516).
Chicks remain in the nest 5-12 days, during which time both the
parents feed the chick with ``milk'' secretions formed by glands in
their upper digestive tracts (Fjelds[aring] and Krabbe 1990, p. 85; del
Hoyo et al. 1992, p. 513). Feeding is shared by parents, in
approximately 24-hour shifts (Bucher 1992, p. 182). When flamingo
chicks leave the nest, they form large nursery cr[egrave]ches (groups)
of hundreds or thousands of birds that are tended by a few adults (del
Hoyo et al. 1992, p. 516).
Flamingo breeding habits can vary widely from year to year.
Flamingos may breed in large numbers for 2 or more successive years,
followed by other years in which there is no known breeding. Not all
sexually mature adults breed every year and, even in years of breeding,
not all sexually mature adults will participate (Bucher 1992, p. 183).
Flamingos are generally considered to have poor breeding success
(Fjelds[aring] and Krabbe 1990, p. 85) and Andean flamingos, in
particular, have experienced periods of very low breeding success over
the past twenty years (Arengo in litt. 2007, p. 2) (See Population
Estimates, below). Juvenile mortality rates during dispersal are
unknown (Caziani et al. 2007, p. 284), and adult survival is considered
to be ``very high'' (Fjelds[aring] and Krabbe 1990, p. 85). Andean
flamingos are long-lived, with an average lifespan of 20 to 30 years.
Some wild adults live up to 50 years (BLI 2008, p. 2; del Hoyo et al.
1992, p. 517). Recent trends in breeding success are further discussed
under Population Estimates, below.
Andean flamingos are wading filter-feeders, often forming large
feeding flocks at wetlands alongside sympatric flamingos, Chilean
flamingos (Phoenicopterus chilensis), and James' flamingos (del Hoyo
1992, p. 512; Mascitti and Casta[ntilde]era 2006, pp. 328-329). Andean
flamingos feed principally on diatoms (microscopic one-celled or
colonial algae) (Mascitti and Kravetz 2002, p. 78), especially those in
the genus Surirella (no common name), which is a dominant component of
surface sediments at the bottom of many altiplano lakes in the Andes
(Fjelds[aring] and Krabbe 1990, p. 86; Hurlbert and Chang 1983, p.
4768).
[[Page 79229]]
Historical Range and Distribution
The Andean flamingo type specimen (the specimen that was first
described by Philippi in 1854) was collected from Salar de Atacama, in
Antofagasta Province (Chile) (Hellmayr 1932, p. 312). Salar de Atacama
is, therefore, referred to as the ``type locality.'' The species was
subsequently reported in Argentina in 1872 (Provinces of Jujuy and
Tucum[aacute]n) (Burmeister 1872, p. 364; Hellmayr and Conover 1948, p.
277), Peru (Departments of Salinas and Arequipa) in 1886 (Hellmayr
1932, p 312; Hellmayr and Conover 1948, p. 277; Weberbauer 1911, p.
27), and Bolivia in 1902 (Department of Oruru) (Hellmayr and Conover
1948, p. 277; Johnson et al. 1958, p. 289).
The species' movements and distribution within its range were not
understood throughout much of the 20th century. Early researchers
considered the Andean flamingo to be relatively sedentary (Jenkin 1957,
p. 405; Johnson et al. 1958, pp. 297-298), with a distribution that did
not extend below 10,000 ft (3,048 m) (Hellmayr 1932, p. 25; Johnson
1967, p. 405). Later researchers remarked on the nomadic nature of the
species (McFarlane 1975, p. 88) and reported lower limits to the
species' distribution (i.e., 8,200 ft (2,500 m)) (Kahl 1975; pp. 99-
100). Hurlbert and Keith (1979, pp. 334, 336) noted a seasonal variance
in the species' altitudinal distribution, and Bucher (1992, p. 182)
noted that migration might take place between Chilean breeding grounds
and Argentinian wetlands.
Current Range and Distribution
The current range of the Andean flamingo extends from Peru, through
Chile and Bolivia, to Argentina, in wetlands at elevations ranging from
210 to 14,764 ft (64 to 4,500 m) (BLI 2008, pp. 1, 6; Bucher 1992, p.
192; Bucher et al. 2000, p. 119; del Hoyo 1992, pp. 514; Fjelds[aring]
and Krabbe 1990, p. 85). In 1989, an immature Andean flamingo--that had
been banded in Chile earlier that year--was captured in Brazil (Sick
1993, p. 154). There were additional sightings of the Andean flamingo
in Brazil in the 1990s (Bornschein and Reinert 1996, p. 807-808).
However, the species is considered a non-breeding ``vagrant'' in Brazil
(BLI 2008, p. 5).
Its total extent of occurrence (including sites where breeding does
not occur) is estimated as 124,711 square miles (mi2)
(323,000 square kilometers (km2)). The estimated area in
which the species is known to breed and reside year-round is 72,973
square miles (mi2) (189,000 square kilometers
(km2)) (BLI 2008, p. 4).
Their seemingly erratic movements and ability to disperse widely,
combined with the harsh climatic conditions and the inaccessibility of
their habitat, have made it difficult for researchers to fully
understand their seasonal movements and breeding habits (Bucher et al.
2000, p. 119; del Hoyo 1992, pp. 514; Fjelds[aring] and Krabbe 1990, p.
85) (see also Habitat and Life History, above). Researchers have long
considered Chilean wetlands to be the primary breeding grounds for the
species (Bucher et al. 2000, p. 119; Ducks Unlimited 2007c, pp. 1-4;
Fjelds[aring] and Krabbe 1990, p. 86; Johnson et al. 1958, p. 296; Kahl
1975 p. 100). Researchers have only recently confirmed that the species
is an altitudinal and opportunistic migrant (Goldfeder and Blanco 2007,
p. 190). Simultaneous censuses undertaken since 1997 confirmed that
Andean flamingos migrate altitudinally. In the summer, most of the
population is concentrated primarily in Chile, and to a lesser extent
in Argentina and Bolivia. In winter, the species may converge in
certain Chilean and Peruvian wetlands (Valqui et al. 2000, p. 111),
with relatively large numbers of birds overwintering in Bolivia and
Argentina in some years (Caziani et al. 2007, pp. 279, 281). Recent
banding studies confirmed that Andean flamingos at high-altitude
wetlands move to lower altitude lakes, where weather conditions are
less severe (Rocha and Rodriguez 2006, p. 12).
Andean flamingos occupy some wetlands year round (where they may or
may not breed), some wetlands only during the summer breeding season,
and other wetlands only in winter (see Table 1). Recent research
established that there is an important, complementary link between
breeding and non-breeding wetlands frequented by Andean flamingos
(Derlandati 2008, p. 10). Research in Argentina at highland (breeding)
and lowland (non-breeding) sites indicated that, regardless of season,
Andean flamingos spend the majority of their time eating (Derlandati
2008, p. 10). They will travel to different wetlands to feed, even
while nesting (Bucher 1992, p. 182; Caziani et al. 2007, p. 277; Conway
2000, p. 212; del Hoyo 1992, pp. 509-519). Research in Argentina at
high-elevation breeding sites and low-elevation non-breeding sites
indicated that breeding displays at lowland sites were important
precursors to successful breeding at high altitude sites (Derlandati
2008, p. 10).
Several Andean flamingo localities in each range country are
described below and in Table 1, organized in alphabetical order by
country and name of wetland. This is not an exhaustive accounting of
all known wetlands occupied by the species, but includes sites that are
frequented by the species or are otherwise notable, such as recently
discovered breeding sites. In Table 1, ``Type'' indicates whether the
site is known as a breeding (B) or non-breeding (NB) wetland. In most
cases, NB indicates that the species overwinters at the wetland.
However, in some cases, Andean flamingos occupy a wetland year-round,
but no breeding occurs there. Habitat information was obtained
primarily from Ducks Unlimited (2007a-d) and BirdLife International
(2008).
Table 1--Selected Andean Flamingo Nesting and Overwintering Wetlands in Argentina, Bolivia, Chile, and Peru
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Elevation in feet/ Area in acres/
Country Wetland Department meters hectares Type Description/comments
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Argentina....................... Laguna Brava...... La Rioja.......... 13,780 ft/4,200 m. 1,977 ac/800 ha... B/NB Large lake associated
with an endoreic
(closed) river basin
that includes Laguna
de Mulas Muertas.
Argentina....................... Laguna de Santa Fe.......... 276-295 ft/84-90 m 29,653 ac/12,000 NB One of two lowest-
Melincu[eacute]. ha. elevation endoreic
wetlands frequented by
Andean flamingos.
Argentina....................... Lagunas de los Catamarca......... 13,911 ft/4,240 m. 343 ac/139 ha..... B/NB Shallow lagoon in a
Aparejos. larger lagoon system
that is lacking in
aquatic vegetation.
[[Page 79230]]
Argentina....................... Laguna de Mar C[oacute]rdoba.... 210-230 ft/64-70 m 494,211 ac/200,000 B/NB This large, permanent,
Chiquita. ha. hypersaline,
seasonally fluctuating
lake is the lowest-
elevation locality.
Argentina....................... Laguna de Mulas La Rioja.......... 13,123 ft/4,000 m. 1730 ac/700 ha.... NB Located near and part
Muertas. of the same endoreic
river basin as Laguna
Brava.
Argentina....................... Laguna de Pozuelos Jujuy............. 11,483 ft/3,500 m. 24,710 ac/10,000 B/NB Central lake within
ha. endoreic basin with
lower water levels and
extensive mudflats in
winter.
Argentina....................... Laguna Guayatayoc. Jujuy............. 12,008 ft/3,660 m. 247,104 ac/100,000 NB Part of large salt
ha. basin where endoreic
waters form shallow,
brackish to
hypersaline lakes.
Argentina....................... Laguna Vilama..... Jujuy............. 14,436 ft/4,400 m. 19,768 ac/8,000 ha B/NB Large, permanent
endoreic lake, prone
to wide water
fluctuations and
winter freezes.
Bolivia......................... Lago Poop[oacute]. Oruru............. 12,090 ft/3,685 m. 330,380 ac/133,700 NB Large, shallow saline
ha. lake in same ancient
endoreic river basin
as Lago Uru Uru.
Bolivia......................... Lago Uru Uru...... Oruru............. 12,126 ft/3,696 m. 69,190 ac/28,000 NB Along with Lago
ha. Poop[oacute],
experiences wide
fluctuations in water
level.
Bolivia......................... Laguna Colorada... Potos[iacute]..... 13,944 ft/4,250 m. 12,948 ac/ 5,240 B/NB Hypersaline endoreic
ha. lake fed by streams
and thermal springs,
with shores that
freeze at night.
Bolivia......................... Laguna Kalina or Potos[iacute]..... 14,862 ft/4,530 m. 3,954 ac/1,600 ha. B/NB Hypersaline lake
Busch. associated with the
same endoreic water
basin as Laguna
Colorada.
Bolivia......................... Laguna de Pastos Oruru............. 13-15,000 ft/4- 37,066 ac/15,000 B/NB Group of small,
Grandes. 4,500 m. ha. permanent saline lakes
in an ancient caldera
fed by underground
sources.
Bolivia......................... Salar de Chalviri. Potos[iacute]..... 14,396 ft/4,388 m. 28,417 ac/11,500 NB Basin of many small
ha. lakes separated by
saltflats; fed by
small streams and
thermal springs.
Bolivia......................... Salar de Coipasa.. Oruru............. 12,112 ft/3,692... 548,077 ac/221,800 B/NB Large salt basin and
ha. shallow hypersaline
lake, receiving water
from R[iacute]o Lauca.
Chile........................... Lago del Negro Atacama........... 13,123 ft/4,000 m. 6,919 ac/2,800 ha. B/NB Large high-altitude
Francisco. permanent lake
surrounded by
bofedales.
Chile........................... Salar de Antofagasta....... 12,211 ft/ 3,722 m 93,406 ac/37,800 B/NB High-altitude salt
Ascot[aacute]n. ha. basin with many saline
lakes on perimeter,
fed by several
freshwater springs.
Chile........................... Salar de Atacama.. Antofagasta....... 7,546 ft/2,300 m.. 691,895 ac/280,000 B/NB Endoreic salt basin
ha. with fluctuating water
levels from summer
storms and snowmelt.
Chile........................... Salar de Coposa... Tarapac[aacute]... 12,376 ft/3,730 m. 21,003 ac/8,500 ha B/NB Endoreic salt with
small lagoon that
fluctuates greatly in
size.
Chile........................... Salar de Huasco... Tarapac[aacute]... 13,123 ft/4,000 m. 14,826 ac/ 6,000 B/NB Salt basin receiving
ha. summer rains and fed
by snow melt bogs and
bofedales.
Chile........................... Salar de Surire... Tarapac[aacute]... 13,583 ft/4,140 m. 61,776 ac/25,000 B/NB Permanent saline lake.
ha.
Peru............................ Lago Parinacochas. Ayacucho.......... 10,738 ft/3,273 m. 16,556 ac/6,700 ha NB Shallow, large brackish
endoreic lake and
marshes with exposed
salt flats in dry
season.
Peru............................ Laguna de Puno.............. 15,299 ft/4,663 m. 8525 ac/3,450 ha.. NB Permanent, shallow
Loriscota. hypersaline lake
surrounded by
bofedales.
Peru............................ Laguna Salinas.... Arequipa.......... 14,091 ft/4,295 m. 17,544 ac/7,100 ha NB Semi-permanent, shallow
hypersaline lake with
freshwater springs and
bofedales on
perimeter.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Argentina: Several wetlands in Argentina provide year-round habitat
for the Andean flamingo (see Table 1). The species breeds and
overwinters regularly at Laguna de Pozuelos and Lagunas de Vilama
(Caziani & Derlandati 2000, p. 121; Caziani et al. 2001, p. 113;
Caziani et al. 2006, p. 13; Caziani et al. 2007, p. 279; Ducks
Unlimited 2007a, pp. 1-4). The Vilama wetlands system (Lagunas de
Vilama) is comprised of nine lakes: Arenal, Caiti, Catal, Cerro Negro,
Colpayoc, Isla Grande, Palar, Pululos, and Vilama (Caziani and
Derlindati 2000, p. 122;
[[Page 79231]]
Caziani et al. 2001, p. 103). During a 3-year study, Andean flamingos
occupied 8 of the 9 lakes, but were especially concentrated on Laguna
Vilama and Laguna Catal (Caziani and Derlindati 2000, p. 125). Caziani
et al. 2001 (p. 104) determined that the Vilama wetland system provided
a variety of spatial and seasonal ecological conditions on the
landscape level, such that a range of options existed from which Andean
flamingos could select habitat at any given time during the year. They
further suggest that similar landscape-level relationships between
wetlands exist, even when the wetlands are not located within the same
basin (Caziani et al. 2001, p. 110). The Lagunas de Vilama wetland has
harbored up to 30 percent of Andean flamingos during the breeding
season (Caziani & Derlandati 2000, p. 121; Caziani et al. 2006, p. 13).
In recent decades, the species has nested or overwintered in
locations not previously recorded. In January 1998, the first account
of Andean flamingos nesting was reported at Laguna Brava (Bucher et al.
2000, p. 119). Long known as an overwintering site for the species
(Caziani et al. 2007, p. 279), Laguna Brava has continued to provide
isolated nesting sites (de la Fuente 2002, p. 6). Also in January 1998,
large numbers of non-breeding birds were reported at Laguna de Mulas
Muertas, just 4 mi (7 km) from Laguna Brava (Bucher et al. 2000, p.
120). Researchers attribute both the large number of breeding birds at
Laguna Brava and the large number of non-breeding birds at Laguna de
Mulas Muertas to unusual rainfall patterns that year (Bucher et al.
2000, p. 120). In March 2001, chicks were observed at Lagunas de los
Aparejos (Caziani et al. 2007, pp. 279, 283), part of a lagoon system
with Laguna Azul and Laguna Negra (BLI 2008, p. 50). Normally known as
a nesting site for the James' flamingo (Childress 2005, p. 6), this may
now be a nesting site for the Andean flamingo as well (BLI 2008, p.
50).
Andean flamingos overwinter at both high- and low-elevation
wetlands in Argentina. Laguna Guayatayoc is a high-elevation
overwintering site for Andean flamingos (Ducks Unlimited 2007a, pp. 1-
4), where the species has sometimes been reported in relatively large
numbers (Caziani et al. 2001, p. 116; Caziani et al. 2007, p. 279).
Laguna de Mar Chiquita is the lowest-elevation wetland frequented by
the Andean flamingo (Bucher et al 1992, p. 119; Caziani et al. 2007, p.
279; Derlindati 2008, pp. 6-7). Long known as an overwintering site,
researchers report that a small group of Andean flamingos (about 100
individuals) may reside there year round (BLI 2008, p. 1; Bucher 1992,
pp. 179, 182), and breeding has recently been reported there (Childress
et al. 2005, p. 6). Laguna de Melincu[eacute] is another low-elevation
overwintering site for Andean flamingos (Caziani et al. 2007, p. 279).
Although breeding has not been reported there (Childress et al. 2005,
p. 6), the species engages in nuptial displays vital to reproductive
success in the breeding colonies (Derlindati 2008, p. 9). Researchers
estimated that 17 percent of the world population of Andean flamingos
overwintered at Laguna de Melincu[eacute] in winter 2005 and 2006
(Romano et al 2006, p. 17).
Bolivia: There are at least 10 flamingo nesting sites in Bolivia
(Caziani et al. 2006, p. 13). Laguna Colorada is a high-altitude
wetland where Andean flamingos remain year-round and where they have
recently nested with greater frequency (see Factor B) (BLI 2008, p. 1;
Caziani et al. 2006, p. 13; Caziani et al. 2007, p. 279; Davison 2007,
p. 1; Ducks Unlimited 2007b, pp. 14; Kahl 1979, p. 100). Laguna Kalina
(also known as Laguna Calina and Laguna Busch) has recently figured
prominently as a nesting location. Chicks were first reported there in
1997 (Valqui et al. 2000, p. 112), and nesting has been reported there,
at small but consistent rates, in 2004, 2005 and 2006 (Childress et al.
2005, p. 6; Childress et al. 2006, p. 5; Childress et al. 2007a, p. 7).
Laguna de Pastos Grandes is another lake system that includes Salar
de Pastos Grandes, Laguna Ramaditas, Laguna Hedionda, Laguna
Ca[ntilde]apa, Laguna Cachi, Laguna Khara, Laguna Chulluncani, and
Laguna Khar Khota (Ducks Unlimited 2007b, p. 13). This wetland complex
provides breeding and non-breeding habitat.
Non-breeding year-round wetlands in Bolivia include: Lago Uru Uru
(Ducks Unlimited 2007b, p. 5-8; Kahl 1975, p. 100; M[oslash]lgaard et
al. 1999; Rocha et al. 2006, p. 18); Salar de Chalviri (Ducks Unlimited
2007b, pp. 17-20; Hurlbert & Keith 1979, p. 331); Lago Poop[oacute], a
known locality since 1921 (Caziani et al. 2007, p. 279; Hellmayr &
Conover 1948, p. 277; Johnson 1967, p. 404); and Salar de Coipasa, a
wintering site of known importance for all three South American
flamingo species since the mid-20th century (Johnson 1967, p. 404;
Ducks Unlimited 2007c, p. 9). These lakes are hydrologically connected
through the Titicaca-Desaguadero-Poop[oacute]-Salar de Coipasa (TDPS)
basin, a large endoreic (closed) basin shared between Peru, Bolivia,
and Chile (Jellison et al. 2004, p. 11). Several Andean flamingo
wetlands are connected to this hydrological basin through rivers,
including: Lago Poop[oacute] (Bolivia), which is connected to Lago
Titicaca (Peru) through R[iacute]o Desaguadero; Salar de Coipasa
(Bolivia), which is connected to Lago Poop[oacute] through R[iacute]o
Laca Jahuira River (Jellison et al. 2004, p. 11); and Lago Uru Uru,
which is fed by R[iacute]o Desaguadero (Ducks Unlimited 2007b, p. 5).
In 2000, more than 50 percent of the known population of Andean
flamingos overwintered at Lagos Uru Uru and Poop[oacute] (Caziani et
al. 2007, p. 279).
Chile: There are at least a dozen Andean flamingo breeding sites in
Chile (Childress et al. 2006, p. 7). Salar de Atacama, where the Andean
flamingo type specimen was obtained in 1854 (Hellmayr 1932, p. 312;
Philippi 1860, p. 164), has been a consistent and primary breeding
ground (Bucher et al. 2000, p. 119; Childress et al. 2007a, p. 7; Ducks
Unlimited 2007c, pp. 1-4; Johnson et al. 1958, p. 296). Several other
sites have figured consistently and prominently over the years,
including Salar de Surire, Salar de Huasco, and Salar de Ascot[aacute]n
(Fjelds[aring] and Krabbe 1990, p. 86; Johnson et al. 1958, p. 296;
Kahl 1975 p. 100). Andean flamingos were first observed at Salar de
Surire in the early 1970s (McFarlane 1975, p. 88). The first report of
breeding (observation of chicks) there occurred in 1997 (Valqui et al.
2000, p. 112), and breeding has continued there at increasing numbers
(Caziani et al. 2007, p. 283). Laguna Ascot[aacute]n differs from most
other Andean flamingo wetlands, as it is fed by 13 fresh-water springs
as well as several brackish lagoons (Vilina and Mart[iacute]nez 1998,
p. 28). Salar de Coposa has long served as breeding and overwintering
habitat for the Andean flamingo (Caziani et al. 2007, p. 279; Johnson
1958, p. 297; Kahl 1975 p. 100).
Salar de Atacama, Salar de Coposa, Salar de Huasco, Salar de Negro
Francisco, and Salar de Surire also provide year-round habitat for the
Andean flamingo (Caziani et al. 2006, p. 13; Caziani et al. 2007, p.
279; Ducks Unlimited 2007c, pp. 5-8; Johnson 1958, p. 296). In 1998 and
2000, between 3,500 and 4,500 birds overwintered at these sites
(Caziani et al. 2007, p. 279).
Peru: Andean flamingos frequent several wetlands in Peru (BLI 2008,
pp. 5, 72, 74-75, 78; Ducks Unlimited 2007d, pp. 21, 25, 29; Jameison
and Bingham 1912, p. 14; Ricalde 2003, p. 91). Although BirdLife
International reports breeding sites in Peru (2008, p. 2), the Flamingo
Specialist Group reported no known nesting sites or evidence of
breeding at Peruvian wetlands in 2005, 2006, or 2007 (M. Vlaui Munn, in
litt., as cited in
[[Page 79232]]
Childress et al. 2005, p. 6; Arengo in litt., as cited in Childress et
al. 2006, p. 6; Arengo in litt., as cited in Childress et al. 2007a, p.
7). The species frequently overwinters at Laguna Salinas, Laguna de
Loriscota, and Lago Parinacochas, among other locations (Caziani et al.
2007, p. 279; Ducks Unlimited 2007d, p. 21, 25, 29-30; Jameison and
Bingham 1912, p. 14). It is estimated that nearly 20 percent of the
global population overwinters in Peru (Ricalde 2003, p. 91).
Recent Trends in Distribution: In 1997, 50 percent of the breeding
population was distributed among three sites in Chile (Salar de Surire,
Laguna Maricunga, and Laguna Negro Francisco) and two sites in
Argentina (Pozuelos, and Vilama) (Caziani et al. 2007, p. 279). In the
summer of 2005, 50 percent of the breeding population was located in 5
separate wetlands-Negro Francisco (Chile), Salar de Surire (Chile),
Lagunas de Vilama (Argentina), Laguna Colorada (Bolivia) and Salar de
Atacama (Chile) (Caziani et al. 2006, p. 13).
Population Estimates
Between 1965 and 1968, Charles Cordier's estimate of the Andean
flamingo population varied by an order of magnitude, from 50,000 to
500,000 (as cited in Johnson 1967, p. 404; as cited in Kahl 1975, p.
100). In 1975, Kahl (1975, p. 100) estimated the total population to be
150,000 individuals. This estimate was based on (1) previous estimates;
(2) the fact that the largest number of individuals Kahl had seen in
one place (Lago Uru Uru, Bolivia) was 18,000 individuals; and (3) that,
at most sites, he observed the Andean flamingo to be less numerous than
the Chilean flamingo and James' flamingo. In 1986, the population was
estimated to be less than 50,000 individuals and declining (Johnson
2000, p. 203). However, the accuracy of earlier population estimates
has never been confirmed. According to Arengo (in litt. 2007, p. 2),
member of the Altoandino Flamingo Conservation Group (Grupo de
Conservaci[oacute]n Flamencos Altoandinos), previous historical
population estimates were based on extrapolations of data that are not
considered to be reliable. Experts consider the figure of between
50,000 to 100,000 individuals may have been accurate until the mid-
1980s (BLI 2008, p. 1). Although the figure of 150,000 (e.g.,
Fjelds[aring] and Krabbe 1990, p. 86) was still being reported in the
1990s, an estimate of 50,000 is considered a more accurate figure
(Arengo in litt. 2007, p. 2; BLI 2008 p. 1; del Hoyo et al. 1992, p.
526), and experts believe that the species underwent a severe reduction
from the mid-1980s to the late 1990s (BLI 2008, pp. 1, 5).
The first simultaneous census of Andean flamingos was conducted in
1997 (Valqui et al. 2000, p. 110). Using a comprehensive sampling
design and conducting simultaneous surveys at over 200 wetlands in
Peru, Bolivia, Chile, and Argentina, researchers counted 33,918 Andean
flamingos in January 1997; 27,913 in January 1998; 14,722 in June 1998;
and, 24,442 in July 2000 (Caziani et al. 2007, p. 279). In the summer
of 2005, a total of 31,617 Andean flamingos were counted (Caziani et
al. 2006, p. 13). Recent censuses estimate the global population at
around 34,000 individuals (Caziani et al. 2006, pp. 276-287; Caziani et
al. 2007, pp. 13-17).
According to Arengo (in litt. 2007, p. 2), long-term population
trends have been difficult to establish, given the unreliability of
previous population estimates. However, given that the global
population sizes of all other flamingo species are estimated above
100,000 individuals, experts consider the Andean flamingo to be the
rarest of the 6 flamingo species (Arengo in litt. 2007, p. 2).
Nesting sites: In the last decade, small groups of Andean flamingos
have been reported intermittently nesting at a greater variety of
sites, including: Laguna Brava and Lagunas de Vilama (Argentina)
(Bucher et al. 2000, p. 119; Caziani et al. 2006, p. 13; Derlindati
2008, pp. 6-7); Laguna Colorada and Laguna Kalina (Bolivia) (Caziani et
al. 2007, p. 279; Childress et al. 2005, p. 6; Childress et al. 2006,
p. 5; Childress et al. 2007a, p. 7; Rodriguez Ramirez 2006, as cited in
Arengo in litt. 2007, p. 2); and Salar de Punta Negra and Salar de
Huasco (Chile) (Bucher et al. 2000, p. 119; Caziani et al. 2007, p.
279; Valqui et al. 2000, p. 112). In recent years, Andean flamingos
have been recorded from 25 wetlands complexes, but there were fewer
than 100 individuals at many of these sites (Caziani et al. 2007, p.
281). Only 12 wetlands contained more than 100 Andean flamingos at any
one of the four sampling periods from 1997 to 2000, and breeding has
been consistently reported at only 2 of these sites (Arengo in litt.
2007, pp. 2-3; Bucher et al. 2000, p. 119; Caziani et al. 2007, pp.
279-281; Valqui et al. 2000, p. 112).
Breeding success: Productivity estimates from intensive studies of
breeding sites in Chile indicate marked fluctuations over the past 20
years, with periods of very low breeding success (Arengo in litt. 2007,
p. 2). In 1987, a high of around 15,000 chicks fledged, followed by 10
years of relatively low productivity (fewer than 800 chicks fledged per
year on average), and a recent increase to an average of 3,000 chicks
fledged since 2000 (Rodriguez Ramirez 2006, Amado et al. 2007, as cited
in Arengo in litt. 2007, pp. 1-3). Between 1997 and 2001, successful
breeding (based on the observation of 2-3-month-old chicks) was
documented only at three wetlands and, in those wetlands, a total of
only 12,801 chicks were produced--Salar de Surire (Chile; 9,200
chicks), Salar de Atacama (Chile; 3,378 chicks), and Aparejos
(Argentina; 223 chicks) (Caziani et al. 2007, p. 283).
The most recent simultaneous census data indicates that a total of
2,338 chicks survived at breeding colonies located in Argentina,
Bolivia, and Chile during the 2006-2007 breeding season (December to
February) (Childress et al. 2007a, p. 7). In Argentina, eight sites
were surveyed, six of which are known Andean flamingo breeding sites.
Of these, breeding was attempted at one site, but was unsuccessful. No
breeding was reported in Peru during the 2006-2007 breeding season. Of
4 sites surveyed in Bolivia, 3 of which are known Andean flamingo
nesting grounds, breeding occurred at two sites (Laguna Colorada and
Kalina) producing total of 1,800 chicks. In Chile, breeding was
attempted at four sites in Salar de Atacama. A total of 2,900 pairs of
Andean flamingos laid eggs but only 538 chicks survived.
Conservation Status
The Andean flamingo is the rarest of six flamingo species worldwide
(family Phoenicopteridae). The IUCN considers the Andean flamingo to be
``Vulnerable'' because (1) it has undergone a rapid population decline,
(2) it is exposed to ongoing exploitation and declines in habitat
quality, (3) and, although exploitation may decrease, the longevity and
slow breeding of flamingos suggest that the legacy of past threats may
persist through generations to come (BLI 2008, p. 1). Long-lived
species with slow rates of reproduction and ongoing poor breeding
success, such as that being experienced by the Andean flamingo, can
quickly decline towards extinction when reproduction does not keep pace
with mortality (BLI 2008, p. 2; Bucher 1992, p. 183; del Hoyo et al.
1992, p. 517) (see Population Estimates, above).
[[Page 79233]]
Summary of Factors Affecting the Andean Flamingo
A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment
of the Species' Habitat or Range
Andean flamingos occupy shallow, saline wetlands in the lowland,
puna, and altoandino regions of the Andes (see Table 1) (BLI 2008, pp.
1, 6; Bucher 1992, p. 192; Bucher et al. 2000, p. 119; del Hoyo 1992,
pp. 514; Fjelds[aring] and Krabbe 1990, p. 85). Andean flamingos are
altitudinal migrants and alternate between wetlands based largely on
environmental conditions and especially the availability of water
(Bucher 1992, p. 182; Bucher et al. 2000, p. 119; del Hoyo 1992, pp.
514; Fjelds[aring] and Krabbe 1990, p. 85; Goldfeder and Blanco 2007,
p. 190; Hurlbert and Keith 1979, pp. 334, 336; Rocha and Rodriguez
2006, p. 12). During the summer breeding season (December to January),
Andean flamingos occupy high-elevation wetlands in Chile, Argentina,
and Bolivia. During the winter, they may stay at the high-elevation
wetlands, or move to lower elevations in Argentina, Bolivia, and Peru
(Blake 1977, p. 207; BLI 2008, pp. 1 and 6; Boyle et al. 2004, pp. 563-
564, 570-571; Bucher 1992, p. 182; Bucher et al. 2000, p. 119; Caziani
et al. 2006. p. 17; Caziani et al. 2007, pp. 277, 279, 281; del Hoyo
1992, p. 514, 519; Fjelds[aring] and Krabbe 1990, p. 85; Hurlbert and
Keith 1979, pp. 330; Kahl 1975, pp. 99-101; Mascitti and Bonaventura
2002, p. 360; Mascitti and Casta[ntilde]era 2006, p. 328).
The wetlands occupied by Andean flamingos are utilized on a
landscape level (Derlandati 2008, p. 10). Andean flamingos prefer water
that is less than 3 ft (1m) deep (Fjelds[aring] and Krabbe 1990, p. 86;
Mascitti and Caste[ntilde]era 2006, p. 331) and rely on the variety of
habitat options at wetland complexes throughout the species' range to
select optimal nesting and feeding sites. Beginning in 2002,
researchers conducted a multi-year Andean flamingo dispersal study, to
determine overwintering sites and spatial and temporal movements
(Caziani et al. 2003, p. 11; Johnson and Arengo 2004, pp. 9, 15).
Andean flamingos in Argentina were tracked using satellite
transmitters, and results were highly variable. One bird stayed at the
origination site (the actual location of which was undisclosed) another
bird traveled 715 mi (1,150 km) over a 4-day period, using more than
four sites in the process (Caziani et al. 2003, p. 11). The habitats
visited included salar lakes, rivers and flooded areas. Flamingos were
more mobile during summer to autumn (January-May), moving between sites
often, and less mobile in winter. The birds in this study overwintered
at Laguna de Mar Chiquita (Argentina), Lago Poop[oacute] (Bolivia), and
Salar de Atacama (Chile) (Caziani et al. 2003, p. 11).
Between 1997 and 2001, 98 percent of Andean flamingo chicks were
produced in two Chilean wetlands--Surire (9,200 chicks) and Atacama
(3,378 chicks) (Caziani et al. 2007, p. 283). In the 2006-2007 breeding
season, 75 percent of the surviving chicks were produced at Laguna
Kalina and Laguna Colorada (1,800 chicks) (Bolivia), and the other 25
percent at Salar de Atacama (538 chicks) (Chile). Sites where breeding
does not occur serve as important staging areas for pre-reproduction
mating displays and a
