[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 248 (Wednesday, December 24, 2008)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 79226-79254]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing 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: http://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 http://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 http://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 http://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 http://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 as feeding locations for non-breeding 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) (Corporaci[oacute]n 
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 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 
(Corporaci[oacute]n 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 Ascot[aacute]n 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 Mart[iacute]nez 
1998, p. 28) but there are no reports of nesting.

[[Page 79234]]

    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-Poop[oacute]-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 Poop[oacute] 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 Poop[oacute], 
Lago Uru Uru, and the lower R[iacute]o 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 Poop[oacute] 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 Poop[oacute] 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 Poop[oacute] 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 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 Mosaurieta-Echegaray 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 Poop[oacute] 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 Poop[oacute] empties into Lagos Poop[oacute] 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 die-off 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 C[oacute]rdoba, 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 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) (Corporaci[oacute]n 
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 Investigaci[oacute]n 
para el Desarrollo Sustentable (RIDES)) 2005, p. 14).
    Wetlands have been drained to facilitate excavation on the lakebed 
surface (Ugarte-Nunez and Mosaurieta-Echegaray 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 
(Corporaci[oacute]n 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 Mosaurieta-Echegaray 2000, p. 137).

[[Page 79235]]

    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 (ft\3\/s) (5 cubic meters per second (m\3\/s)), 
yet the rights to 219 ft\3\/s (6.2 m\3\/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 Mosaurieta-Echegaray (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 
Poop[oacute] and Uru Uru belong to, provides drinking water and 
cleaning water, transportation, industry and irrigation-in 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 (Parada 1992, Rodr[iacute]guez 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 Poop[oacute] 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 Poop[oacute] 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 lake and construction 
excavations have reduced flamingo habitat availability (Ugarte-Nunez 
and Mosaurieta-Echegaray 2000, pp. 137-138). Increased road 
construction to support mining and tourism also facilitates predator 
access to nesting grounds (Corporaci[oacute]n 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 Melincu[eacute] 
(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 small-scale (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 
(Adminstraci[oacute]n 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

[[Page 79236]]

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 
(Fjelds[aring] 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 
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 Poop[oacute] (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 (Barbar[aacute]n 2004, p. 6; S[aacute]enz 2006, p. 103). In 2006, 
birds sold for between 25-50 Bolivianos (Bs) ($3-6 U.S. Dollars (US$)) 
(S[aacute]enz 2006, p. 89).
    On the Argentinean (Departments of Salta and Jujuy)/Bolivian border 
(Potos[iacute])--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 (Barbar[aacute]n 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 (Corporaci[oacute]n 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 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 (Corporaci[oacute]n 
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, Corporaci[oacute]n Nacional Forestal 
1996c, p. 11; Goldfeder and Blanco 2007, p. 193).
    Indiscriminant hunting of Andean flamingos continues at Lago 
Poop[oacute] (an Andean flamingo overwintering site in Bolivia) (Rocha 
2002, p. 10). Around Lagos Poop[oacute] and Uru Uru, flamingos are 
still trapped using traditional techniques--a slip-knot rope strung 
across the shores of the lake (S[aacute]enz 2006, pp. 88-89). Locals, 
such as the Urus, who live near Lagos Poop[oacute] and Uru Uru, prefer 
Andean flamingos above all other waterfowl, presumably for their fat 
content (S[aacute]enz 2006, p. 185). Flamingo blood might be used 
medicinally and feathers for adornment (S[aacute]enz 2006, pp. 88-89). 
Locals at Lagos Poop[oacute] 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 Poop[oacute], but that this was no 
longer the case (S[aacute]enz 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

[[Page 79237]]

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 (Fjelds[aring] 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 hunting-related 
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 internationally since the species was listed in 1975 (United 
Nations Environment Programme-World Conservation Monitoring Centre 
(UNEP-WCMC) 2008c, pp. 1-2). Thirty-six 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 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 (Barbar[aacute]n 2004, p. 6; BLI 2008, p. 56; 
Rocha 2002, p. 10; S[aacute]enz 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 
(Barbar[aacute]n 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 Poop[oacute] (Bolivia); Lago Uru Uru (Bolivia) 
(S[aacute]enz 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; S[aacute]enz 2006, p. 89).

[[Page 79238]]

    Egg collection has an immediate negative impact on the Andean 
flamingo's already poor breeding success (see Population Estimates-
Breeding 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, Rodr[iacute]guez 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 Poop[oacute] 
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 
Poop[oacute] and Uru Uru (the latter three wetlands in Chile). 
According to the Corporaci[oacute]n Nacional Forestal (1996c, pp. 10-
11), uncontrolled tourism, especially the use of four wheeled all-
terrain vehicles, has become a problem at Laguna Negra.
    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 (Gonz[aacute]lez 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 (Gonz[aacute]lez 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 (Gonz[aacute]lez 
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 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

[[Page 79239]]

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 land-bound 
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 mid-20th 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 Corporaci[oacute]n 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 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 CITES-
listed 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 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 (B[aacute]rbaro 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 Poop[oacute] 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 (Corporaci[oacute]n Nacional 
Forestal 1996c, pp. 1-12); Salar de Huasco (Corporaci[oacute]n 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

[[Page 79240]]

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 (Barbar[aacute]n 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 Vicu[ntilde]as y 
Protecci[oacute]n 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 C[oacute]rdoba in 1966 (BLI 
2008, pp. 34-37). In 1994, the area was declared a multiple-use reserve 
(Reserva de Ba[ntilde]ados del R[iacute]o 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 
(B[aacute]rbaro 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, pp. 1-5). This Reserve, along the 
Argentinean/Chilean border, was created in 1992 specifically to protect 
the chinchilla (Eriomis brevicaudata), the vicu[ntilde]a (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 Poop[oacute] (Rocha 2002, p. 10; S[aacute]enz 2006, pp. 
88-89) (Factor B).
    Wetlands frequented by the Andean flamingo in Bolivia that have 
some level of protected status include: (a) Lago Poop[oacute] 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 Poop[oacute]: In 2000, Lago Poop[oacute], 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 Poop[oacute] 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 
Poop[oacute] 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 Poop[oacute] is on the terminal end of the TDPS (Titicaca-
Desaguadero-Poop[oacute]-Salar de Coipasa) hydrological system

[[Page 79241]]

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 Poop[oacute] 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 Poop[oacute] are exposed to threats from 
indiscriminant hunting (Rocha 2002, p. 10; S[aacute]enz 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 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 (Gonz[aacute]lez 2006, p. 1). 
However, tourism continues to increase within the Reserve 
(Gonz[aacute]lez 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 Clasificaci[oacute]n 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 Clasificaci[oacute]n 
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 http://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 (Comisi[oacute]n 
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 
Ascot[aacute]n and (b) Salar de Atacama. Therefore, this regulatory 
mechanism is not being effectively implemented to reduce the threats to 
the Andean flamingo.
    (a) Laguna Ascot[aacute]n was once considered a breeding site for 
the

[[Page 79242]]

species (Johnson et al. 1958, p. 296; Kahl 1975 p. 100). While the 
species continues to to feed at the site (Vilina and Mart[iacute]nez 
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 (Corporaci[oacute]n 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; Fjelds[aring] 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) 
(Corporaci[oacute]n Nacional Forestal 1996c, p. 11). Despite this 
designation, the Corporaci[oacute]n 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 road building that makes it possible for people to reach 
places that were formerly inaccessible; (3) intense illegal bird 
hunting (Bucher 1992, p. 183, Corporaci[oacute]n Nacional Forestal 
1996c, p. 11); and (4) uncontrolled tourism, especially the use of 
four-wheeled all-terrain vehicles (Corporaci[oacute]n 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 
Vicu[ntilde]as, 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, 
(http://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 (Corporaci[oacute]n 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 
(Corporaci[oacute]n 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 (Corporaci[oacute]n 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 (Corporaci[oacute]n Nacional Forestal 1996a, pp. 
8-9). The rights to 13,137 ft\3\/s (6.2 m\3\/s) of water have been 
allocated; however, the water recharge in the basin is only about 
10,594 ft\3\/s (5 m\3\/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 
Poop[oacute] and Uru Uru (Bolivia) belong. This wetlands complex

[[Page 79243]]

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; Ugarte-Nunez 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 
(Corporaci[oacute]n 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 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) 
(Corporaci[oacute]n 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 (Ugarte-Nunez and 
Mosaurieta-Echegaray 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) (Corporaci[oacute]n 
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 Poop[oacute] 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).

[[Page 79244]]

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 
Poop[oacute] (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 (Fjelds[aring] and Krabbe 1990, p. 86; Mascitti 
and Caste[ntilde]era 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 al. (2000, 
p. 120) believe this shift in habitat use was prompted by El 
Ni[ntilde]o, 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; Fjelds[aring] and Krabbe 1990, p. 85; Hurlbert and Keith 1979, pp. 
330; Mascitti and Bonaventura 2002, p. 360; Mascitti and 
Casta[ntilde]era 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 life-
history, 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 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

[[Page 79245]]

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 
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; Fjelds[aring] 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 (Fjelds[aring] 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 ``Colibr[iacute]'' (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 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 
nectar-producing 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 (cha[ntilde]ar) 
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 (cha[ntilde]ares; 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

[[Page 79246]]

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).

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 (Fjelds[aring] 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 
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 (Fjelds[aring] 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).

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 cha[ntilde]ares (Geoffroea decorticans), 
which is considered one of the most important food sources for the 
species. Cha[ntilde]ares 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

[[Page 79247]]

sources for feeding and nesting. Although the species is able to use 
introduced plants, the loss of important native food plants, such as 
cha[ntilde]ares, 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.

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 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 high-pressure 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).

Summary of Factor D

    We are not aware of any regulatory mechanisms that effectively 
limit or restrict habitat destruction, or high-pressure 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 Arica-Azapa 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

[[Page 79248]]

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 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 cha[ntilde]ares 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).
    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

[[Page 79249]]

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).

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 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 
(m\2\) (616 square kilometers (km\2\)) 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 
high-altitude primary and secondary moist forests (Keith 1997, p. 105). 
Consistent with previous accounts, the most recent 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

[[Page 79250]]

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 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 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 ground-nesting 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

[[Page 79251]]

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 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 counter-
defense 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.
    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 Soul[eacute] 1986, p. 25; Holsinger 2000, pp. 64-65; 
Soul[eacute] 1987, p. 181).
    A general approximation of minimum viable population size is the 
50/500 rule (Shaffer 1981, p. 133; Soul[eacute] 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

[[Page 79252]]

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.
    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 events in the 
Caribbean; however, the frequency of these events has increased over 
the last 30 years. These high-intensity 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

[[Page 79253]]

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.

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.
    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 
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.

[[Page 79254]]

References Cited

    A complete list of all references cited in this proposed rule is 
available on the Internet at http://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).

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

    Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.

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:

PART 17--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:

    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.

    2. Amend Sec.  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:


Sec.  17.11  Endangered and threatened wildlife.

* * * * *
    (h) * * *

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        Species                                                    Vertebrate
--------------------------------------------------------                        population where                                  Critical     Special
                                                            Historic range       endangered or         Status      When listed    habitat       rules
           Common name                Scientific name                              threatened
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
              Birds
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
Flamingo, Andean.................  Phoenicoparrus        Argentina, Bolivia,  Entire.............  E               ...........           NA           NA
                                    andinus.              Chile, and Peru.
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
Thrush, St. Lucia forest.........  Cichlherminia         West Indies--St.     Entire.............  E               ...........           NA           NA
                                    lherminieri           Lucia.
                                    sanctaeluciae.
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
Woodstar, Chilean................  Eulidia yarrellii...  Chile and Peru.....  Entire.............  E               ...........           NA           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