372 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 2 / Tuesday, January 4, 2005 / Notices

actions on pursuant DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR bird species to which the Migratory Bird to section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Endangered Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 703 et seq.) does Species Act (Act) of 1973, as amended Fish and Wildlife Service not apply that belong to biological (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). The permits families of migratory birds covered Draft List of Bird Species to Which the were issued only for recovery-related under any of the migratory bird Migratory Bird Treaty Act Does Not activities, for black-footed ferret conventions with Great Britain (for Apply (Mustela nigripes), American burying Canada), Mexico, Russia, or Japan.’’ The (Nicrophorus americanus), AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, MBTRA of 2004 requires us to publish Interior least tern (Sterna antillarum Interior. this list for public comment. This notice is strictly informational. It athalassos), Southwestern willow ACTION: Notice of availability. merely lists some of the bird species to flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus), which the MBTA does not apply. The Topeka shiner (Notropis topeka), SUMMARY: We are publishing a draft list of the nonnative bird species that have presence or absence of a species on this bonytail (Gila elegans), Colorado list has no legal effect. This list does not pikeminnow (Ptychocheilus lucius), been introduced by humans into the or its territories and to change the protections that any of these humpback chub (Gila cypha), razorback species might receive under such sucker (Xyrauchen texanus), and pallid which the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) does not apply. This action is agreements as the Convention on sturgeon (Scaphirhynchus albus). Each required by the Migratory Bird Treaty International Trade in Endangered permit was granted only after it was Reform Act (MBTRA) of 2004. The Species of Wild Fauna and Flora determined to be applied for in good MBTRA amends the MBTA by stating (T.I.A.S. 8249), the Endangered Species faith, contributing to species that it applies only to migratory bird Act (16 U.S.C. 1531–1544, 87 Stat. 275), conservation and recovery, and species that are native to the United or the Wild Bird Conservation Act (16 consistent with the Act and applicable States or its territories, and that a native U.S.C. 4901–4916, 106 Stat. 2224). regulations. migratory bird is one that is present as Regulations implementing the MBTA The Service anticipates we will issue a result of natural biological or are found in Parts 10, 20, and 21 of 50 a similar number of permits for ecological processes. This notice CFR. The list of migratory birds covered recovery-related activities pertaining to identifies those species that are not by the MBTA is located at 50 CFR 10.13. scientific research and enhancement of protected by the MBTA, even though What Criteria Did We Use To Identify survival of endangered species through they belong to biological families Bird Species Not Protected by the December 31, 2005. We are soliciting referred to in treaties that the MBTA MBTA? comments on issuance of permits during implements, as their presence in the In accordance with the language of 2004 and 2005. Information on recovery United States and its territories is solely the MBTRA, each of the species permits may be obtained from the the result of intentional or unintentional enumerated below meet the following Assistant Regional Director-Ecological human-assisted introductions. four criteria: Services, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, DATES: Submit comments on or before (1) It belongs to a family of birds P.O. Box 25486, Denver Federal Center, February 3, 2005. covered by the MBTA by virtue of that Denver, Colorado 80225–0486; ADDRESSES: family’s inclusion in any of the telephone (303) 236–7400, facsimile (1) Mail public comments to Chief, migratory bird conventions with (303) 236–0027. Division of Migratory Bird Management, Canada, Mexico, Russia, or Japan. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 4401 Applicant: Michael Parker, Laramie Canadian and Mexican treaties list the North Fairfax Drive, Mail Stop 4107, Rivers Conservation District, Laramie, families of birds that are protected. In Arlington, VA 22203. Wyoming, TE–078834. the Russian treaty, the specific species (2) Hand-deliver public comments covered are listed in an Appendix in The applicant requests a permit and examine materials available for which the species are arranged by amendment to extend the expiration public inspection at U.S. Fish and family. Article VIII of the Russian treaty date to August 26, 2054 in conjunction Wildlife Service, Division of Migratory grants us the authority to use our with recovery activities under a Safe Bird Management, 4501 North Fairfax discretion to protect additional species Harbor Agreement for the purpose of Drive, Room 4000, Arlington, VA 22203. that belong to the same family as a enhancing survival and recovery of the (3) Fax public comments to (703) 358– species listed in the Appendix. The Wyoming toad (Bufo baxteri). 2272. treaty with Japan lists covered species (4) E-mail public comments to in an Annex without reference to Applicant: Kevin Conway, Utah [email protected] Division of Wildlife Resources, families, and contains no provision that Department of Natural Resources, Salt FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John would allow treaty parties to Lake City, Utah, TE–097129. L. Trapp, (703) 358–1714. unilaterally add additional species. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: (2) There is credible documented The applicant requests a permit to evidence that it has occurred at least take Utah prairie dogs (Cynomys Authority once in an unconfined state in the parvidens) in conjunction with recovery Migratory Bird Treaty Reform Act of United States or its territories. activities under a Safe Harbor 2004 (Division E, Title I, Sec. 143 of the (3) All of its known occurrences in the Agreement for the purpose of enhancing Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005 United States can be confidently survival and recovery of the Utah prairie [H. Rpt. 108–792, Conference Report to attributed solely to intentional or dog. Accompany H.R. 4818]). unintentional human-assisted Dated: December 15, 2004. introductions to the wild. An What Is the Purpose of This Notice? intentional introduction is one that was Elliott Sutta, The purpose of this notice is to purposeful-for example, the person(s) or Acting Regional Director, Denver, Colorado. provide the public with an opportunity institution(s) involved intended for it to [FR Doc. 05–33 Filed 1–3–05; 8:45 am] to review and comment on a draft list happen. An unintentional introduction BILLING CODE 4310–55–P of ‘‘all nonnative, human-introduced is one that was unforeseen or

VerDate jul<14>2003 18:02 Jan 03, 2005 Jkt 205001 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04JAN1.SGM 04JAN1 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 2 / Tuesday, January 4, 2005 / Notices 373

unintended-for example, the (4) Individuals frequently escape from swan would not be protected by the establishment of self-sustaining captive facilities such as zoos, farms, MBTA. In fact, Congress’s view on the populations following repeated escapes parks, and private collections, where nonnative status of the mute swan is from captive facilities. Self-sustaining they are common, and may be found in strongly supported by the evidence and populations are able to maintain their an unconfined state virtually anywhere the consensus of scientific opinion viability from one generation to the next in the country, but not known to breed (American Ornithologists’ Union 1931, through natural reproduction without in the wild. 1957, 1983, 1998; Ciaranca et al. 1997; the introduction of additional (5) Individuals are housed in captive Johnsgard 1975; Kortright 1942; Long individuals. In this context, we consider facilities, but escapes are rare, as judged 1981; Palmer 1976; Scott and Wildlife landscape changes caused by agriculture by the low frequency with which they Trust 1972; Sibley and Monroe 1990; and other forms of human development are reported in the wild. Most of these Wilmore 1974). to be natural ecological processes. These species are represented by five or fewer For example, there is no mention of activities may make the environment documented reports of occurrence in the mute swans in the extensive popular more amenable for some species that wild, but future escapes are likely. and scientific literature on North did not historically occur in the United (6) It was intentionally introduced American birds until 1915, and that is States or its territories and allow them with the goal of establishing self- a reference (Job 1915) to successful to expand their ranges and colonize sustaining populations, but the breeding of the species in captivity in these jurisdictions. In the absence of release(s) ultimately failed and it no the United States. Forbush (1916) direct human intervention, these new longer occurs in the country. Future provided the first report of unconfined arrivals (e.g., cattle egrets) are introductions are possible. mute swans in the United States, noting considered to be native. (7) It is imported by private citizens that ‘‘many reports of swans seen near (4) There is no credible evidence of its for use in recreational falconry or bird Boston followed soon after the escape of natural occurrence in the United States control at airports, with individual free- European mute swans from the Boston unaided by direct or indirect human flying birds known to escape from their park system.’’ All existing populations assistance. The native range and known handlers with some regularity. of the mute swan in are migratory movements (if any) of the (8) It has occurred as a result of derived from introduced stocks that species combine to make such intentional or unintentional human were released or escaped at different occurrence in the United States assistance, but all such occurrences pre- localities and in different years and extremely unlikely, both historically date enactment of MBTA protection for eventually established feral populations. and in the future. Migratory bird species the family to which it belongs. Although North Atlantic: Bump’s (1941) with credible evidence of natural not currently known to occur, future reference to the presence of mute swans occurrence anywhere in the United introductions are possible. in New York State ‘‘prior to 1900’’ States or its territories, even if What About the Mute Swan? almost certainly applied to captive or introduced elsewhere within these restrained (i.e., wing-clipped or jurisdictions, are listed in 50 CFR 10.13. The Fish and Wildlife Service has pinioned) birds imported to ‘‘private traditionally excluded nonnative estates’’ on Long Island and along the What Is the Status of Bird Species Not species from the list of migratory birds lower Hudson River (contra Long 1981). Protected by the MBTA? (50 CFR 10.13) protected by the MBTA. Bull (1974) provides more details on the Each species meeting the criteria Among the nonnative species listed establishment of ‘‘wild’’ populations, discussed in the previous section—and above, the mute swan was the only noting that birds were ‘‘introduced in thus qualifying as a nonnative, human- species that the Service treated as being 1910 into southeastern New York in the assisted species—can be grouped into protected by the MBTA prior to passage lower Hudson [River] valley * * * and one or more of the following eight status of the MBTRA. In December 2001, the in 1912 on the south shore of Long categories according to the United States Court of Appeals for the Island.’’ These introductions involved a circumstances surrounding its reported District of Columbia Circuit ruled that total of 216 birds in 1910 and 328 birds occurrence(s) in the United States or its the Canadian and Mexican conventions in 1912 (Long 1981). An unrestrained territories. These categories are merely appeared to apply to mute swans and feral flock in the lower Hudson River informational and descriptive in nature invalidated the Service’s list of species had grown to 26 individuals by 1920 or and have no bearing on determining covered by the MBTA to the extent that 1921 (Crosby 1922, Cooke and Knappen whether or not a species is nonnative: it excluded mute swans (Hill v. Norton, 1941). From this nucleus, birds (1) Self-sustaining and free-living 275 F.3d 98 (D.C. Cir. 2001)). In gradually colonized surrounding States breeding populations currently exist as December 2003, the mute swan was the in the North Atlantic, with breeding first a consequence of intentional or major focus of discussion by the seven reported in New Jersey in 1932 (Urner unintentional introductions. panel members who presented 1932), in 1948 (Willey and (2) Self-sustaining and free-living testimony at a congressional oversight Halla 1972), Connecticut in the late populations were at one time thought to field hearing on exotic bird species and 1950’s to 1960’s (Zeranski and Baptist be established as a consequence of the MBTA conducted by the House 1990, Bevier 1994), prior intentional or unintentional Committee on Resources (2003). The to 1965 (Veit and Petersen 1993), and introductions, but it is now extirpated major sponsor of the MBTRA succinctly New Hampshire in 1968 (Foss 1994). (i.e., no longer exists) as a breeding outlined the benefits of excluding Mid-Atlantic: While mute swans were species. Recurring escapes of this nonnative species, including mute reported in Maryland as early as 1954, species from captive facilities remain a swans, from protection of the MBTA the resident breeding population in the possibility. (Gilchrest 2004). In separate committee Maryland portion of the Chesapeake Bay (3) It has been introduced and reports, the U.S. House of has been traced directly to the escape of possibly established in the wild (i.e., Representatives (2004) and the U.S. three males and two females into breeding documented), but some Senate (2004) clearly expressed their Eastern Bay from waterfront estates uncertainty remains as to whether self- views that the mute swan was nonnative along the Miles River in Talbot County sustaining populations have been and therefore anticipated that the during a storm in March 1962 (Reese permanently established. MBTRA would clarify that the mute 1969, 1975; Robbins 1996). Mute swans

VerDate jul<14>2003 18:02 Jan 03, 2005 Jkt 205001 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04JAN1.SGM 04JAN1 374 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 2 / Tuesday, January 4, 2005 / Notices

were first reported in Virginia beginning swans in North America: Cygnus (1808–1814) nor John James Audubon in 1955, mostly as captive birds in buccinator (the trumpeter swan), (1827–1839)—the two most renowned waterfowl collections, although some Cygnus columbianus (the tundra swan), and respected American wildlife artists were probably released into the wild. A and Cygnus paloregonus (the purported and naturalists of the 19th century in feral breeding population was not ancestor of the mute swan). These fossil America—depicted or described the thought to be present until the late remains were found in geological mute swan in their seminal works on 1960’s or early 1970’s (Kain 1987). The deposits in Idaho and Oregon (Shufeldt the birds of North America. origin of the small Delaware population, 1913, Brodkorb 1964, Wetmore 1959) What Are the Bird Species Not where birds were first noted in 1954 and dating to the Pleistocene epoch, a period Protected by the MBTA? nesting in 1965 (Hess et al. 2000) is extending from 11,000 to 1.8 million unclear: it could represent birds that years ago. Trumpeter and tundra swans We have tried to make the following moved south from the North Atlantic, survive as members of the modern list as comprehensive as possible by north from the Chesapeake Bay, or an North American avifauna while including all non-native, human- independent introduction. paloregonus became extinct. Whatever assisted species that belong to any of the Great Lakes: In Michigan, a northern the relationship of paloregonus to families referred to in the treaties and flock of mute swans was established modern-day swans—and Ciaranca et al. whose occurrence(s) in the United following an introduction near East (1997) have suggested that in some States and its territories have been Jordan, Charlevoix County, in 1919; this physical features it more closely documented in the scientific literature. was followed by the establishment of a resembled the mute swan than either It is not, however, an exhaustive list of southern flock derived mostly from the trumpeter or the tundra—it differed all the non-native species that could introductions in Kalamazoo and significantly enough for authorities to potentially appear in the United States Oakland counties (Brewer et al. 1991). describe it as a distinct species. Even if or its territories as a result of human Elsewhere in the Great Lakes region, there was (and there isn’t) clear and assistance. New species of non-native successful nesting of feral mute swans— indisputable evidence that paloregonus birds are being reported annually in the most likely representing birds was synonymous with olor, thus United States, and it is impossible to dispersing from the sizeable Michigan possibly representing an early incursion predict which species might appear in flocks—was first documented in Indiana of a population of Cygnus olor into the near future. in the 1970’s (Keller et al. 1986, Castrale North America that subsequently The 113 species on this draft list are et al. 1998), in Wisconsin in 1975 became extinct, that evidence would not arranged by family according to the (Robbins 1991), in in 1987 obviate the fact that all current American Ornithologists’ Union (1998, (Peterjohn and Rice 1991), and in populations of the mute swan in North as amended by Banks et al. 2003). Illinois since at least 1986 (Kleen 1998). America are derived from introduced Within families, species are arranged Pacific Northwest: This is the least stocks that were released or escaped and alphabetically by scientific name. well-established and stable of the four eventually established feral populations. Common and scientific names follow principle mute swan population centers Therefore, new section 703(b)(2)(B) Monroe and Sibley (1993). For each in the United States. Mute swans have precludes the mute swan from being species, we indicate—for informational escaped or been introduced to the wild considered a native species. purposes only—its status as an in Oregon on multiple occasions. introduced species in the United States Breeding was first noted in the 1920’s in Historical Illustrations: Seven of the or its territories (indicated by numbers Lincoln County (Gilligan et al. 1994, 23 illustrations in Harriot’s (1590) report corresponding to the eight status Marshall et al. 2003), with occasional on the region now known as Pamlico categories described above): breeding noted at other localities Sound, North Carolina, depict through the present. In Washington, a waterfowl (ducks, geese, or swans) in Family ANATIDAE the background, either in flight or on the small but growing number of birds Aix galericulata, Mandarin Duck (3, 4) thought to represent dispersal from the water. Only one of the plates depicts Alopochen aegyptiacus, Egyptian Goose introduced British Columbia population anything remotely resembling a swan, (4) has been established in the Puget Sound and it cannot be assigned with Anas hottentota, Hottentot Teal (5) lowlands (J. Buchanan, Washington confidence to a particular species. The Anas luzonica, Philippine Duck (5) Department of Fish and Wildlife, pers. only text reference to swans is the comm.). statement that ‘‘in winter great store of Anser anser, Graylag Goose (4) In the past, advocates of Federal swannes and geese’’ provided an Anser anser anser, Domestic Goose (4) protection for the mute swan have taken abundant source of food, suggesting that Anser cygnoides, Swan Goose (4) the position that the mute swan is in the swans depicted are more likely Anser indicus, Bar-headed Goose (4) fact native to the United States. In tundra swans, a common winter Branta ruficollis, Red-breasted Goose (4) support of this view, they have inhabitant of the region. Similarly, little Callonetta leucophrys, Ringed Teal (4) presented three pieces of evidence: (1) credence can be placed in the supposed Chenonetta jubata, Maned Duck (6) Alleged fossil remains, (2) purported depiction of mute swans in a Currier & Coscoroba coscoroba, Coscoroba Swan descriptions and depictions in historical Ives print. Illustrators and publishers of (5) literature such as Hariott’s (1590) ‘‘A the late 1900th century frequently Cygnus atratus, Black Swan (4) briefe and true report of the new found portrayed fanciful depictions of birds Cygnus melanocoryphus, Black-necked land of Virginia’’ of mute swans in the that bore little resemblance to reality. Swan (5) Chesapeake Bay in the 1500’s, and (3) a Commercial artwork of the period often Cygnus olor, Mute Swan (1, 3, 4) Currier & Ives print dated 1872 and pictured the species with which recent Dendrocygna viduata, White-faced entitled ‘‘The haunts of the wild swan: European immigrants had been familiar Whistling-Duck (5) Carroll Island, Chesapeake Bay’’ that in their native land. Nonnative birds Neochen jubata, Orinoco Goose (5) purportedly depicts mute swans. were often inserted in the foreground or Netta peposaca, Rosy-billed Pochard (5) The Fossil Evidence: Avian background of American landscapes. Netta rufina, Red-crested Pochard (4) paleontologists have identified fossil We place much greater significance in Tadorna ferruginea, Ruddy Shelduck (4) remains of at least three species of the fact that neither Alexander Wilson Tadorna tadorna, Common Shelduck (4)

VerDate jul<14>2003 18:02 Jan 03, 2005 Jkt 205001 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04JAN1.SGM 04JAN1 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 2 / Tuesday, January 4, 2005 / Notices 375

Family PELECANIDAE Geophaps smithii, Partridge Pigeon (6) Family PRUNELLIDAE Pelecanus onocroatalis, Great White Leucosarcia melanoleuca, Wonga Prunella modularis, Dunnock (8) Pelican (5) Pigeon (6) Phaps chalcoptera, Common Family THRAUPIDAE Family PHALACROCORACIDAE Bronzewing (6) Piranga rubriceps, Red-hooded Tanager Phalacrocorax gaimardi, Red-legged Starnoenas cyanocephala, Blue-headed (8) Cormorant (8) Quail-Dove (6) Thraupis episcopus, Blue-gray Tanager Streptopelia bitorquata, Island Collared- (2) Family CICONIIDAE Dove (1, 6) Ciconia abdimii, Abdim’s Stork (5) Streptopelia chinensis, Spotted Dove (1, Family EMBERIZIDAE Ciconia ciconia, White Stork (5) 3) Emberiza citrinella, Yellowhammer (8) Ciconia episcopus, Woolly-necked Stork Streptopelia decaocto, Eurasian Gubernatrix cristata, Yellow Cardinal (5) Collared-Dove (1, 3) (6) Ephippiorhynchus asiaticus, Black- Streptopelia risoria, Ringed Turtle-Dove Loxigilla violacea, Greater Antillean necked Stork (5) (1, 2, 4) Bullfinch (5) Melopyrrha nigra, Cuban Bullfinch (5) Family CATHARTIDAE Family STRIGIDAE Paroaria capitata, Yellow-billed Sarcoramphus papa, King Vulture (5) Pulsatrix perspicillata, Spectacled Owl Cardinal (1) Family PHOENICOPTERIDAE (5) Paroaria coronata, Red-crested Cardinal (1) Phoenicopterus chilensis, Chilean Family TROCHILIDAE Paroaria dominicana, Red-cowled Flamingo (4) Anthracothorax nigricollis, Black- Cardinal (6) Phoenicopterus minor, Lesser Flamingo throated Mango (8) Paroaria gularis, Red-capped Cardinal (5) (6) Family CORVIDAE Family ACCIPITRIDAE Sicalis flaveola, Saffron Finch (1, 5) Callocitta colliei, Black-throated Tiaris canora, Cuban Grassquit (5) Buteo polyosoma, Red-backed Hawk (5) Magpie-Jay (5) Buteogallus urubitinga, Great Black- Corvus corone, Carrion Crow (5) Family CARDINALIDAE Hawk (5) Corvus splendens, House Crow (5) Passerina leclacherii, Orange-breasted Gyps sp., Griffon-type Old World Cyanocorax caeruleus, Azure Jay (5) Bunting (5) vulture (5) Cyanocorax sanblasianus, San Blas Jay Family ICTERIDAE Family FALCONIDAE (8) Garrulus glandarius, Eurasian Jay (5) Gymnostinops montezuma, Montezuma Falco biarmicus, Lanner Falcon (7) Urocissa erythrorhyncha, Blue Magpie Oropendola (5) Falco cherrug, Saker Falcon (7) (6) Icterus icterus, Troupial. (1, 5) Falco pelegrinoides, Barbary Falcon (7) Icterus pectoralis, Spot-breasted Oriole Family ALAUDIDAE Family RALLIDAE (1) Alauda japonica, Japanese Skylark (6) Leistes militaris, Red-breasted Blackbird Aramides cajanea, Gray-necked Wood- Lullula arborea, Wood Lark (8) (6) Rail (5) Melanocorypha calandra, Calandra Lark Family FRINGILLIDAE Family GRUIIDAE (5) Carduelis cannabina, Eurasian Linnet Balearica pavonina, Black Crowned- Melanocorypha mongolica, Mongolian Lark (8) (5, 8) Crane (5) Carduelis carduelis, European Balearica regulorum, Gray Crowned- Family PARIDAE Goldfinch (2, 4) Crane (5) Carduelis chloris, European Greenfinch Grus antigone, Sarus Crane (5) Parus caeruleus, Blue Tit (5) Parus major, Great Tit (5, 8) (5, 8) Family CHARADRIIDAE Parus varius, Varied Tit (2) Carduelis cucullata, Red Siskin (1) Carduelis magellanica, Hooded Siskin Vanellus chilensis, Southern Lapwing Family CINCLIDAE (8) (5) Cinclus cinclus, White-throated Dipper Loxia pysopsittacus, Parrot Crossbill (8) Family LARIDAE (8) Serinus canaria, Common Canary (1, 4) Serinus leucopygius, White-rumped Larus novaehollandiae, Silver Gull (5) Family SYLVIIDAE Seedeater (6) Family Cettia diphone, Japanese Bush-Warbler Serinus mozambicus, Yellow-fronted Caloenas nicobarica, Nicobar Pigeon (6) (1) Canary (1) Chalcophaps indica, Emerald Dove (6) Sylvia atricapilla, Blackcap (8) The MBTA also does not apply to many other bird species, including (1) Columba livia, Rock Pigeon (1, 4) Family TURDIDAE Columba palumbus, Common Wood- nonnative species that have not been Pigeon (6) Copsychus malbaricus, White-rumped introduced into the U.S. or its Gallicolumba luzonica, Luzon Bleeding- Shama (1) territories, and (2) species (native or heart (6) Copsychus saularis, Oriental Magpie- nonnative) that belong to the families Geopelia cuneata, Diamond Dove (5) Robin (6) not referred to in any of the four treaties Geopelia humeralis, Bar-shouldered Erithacus rubecula, European Robin (8) underlying the MBTA. The second Dove (6) Luscinia akahige, Japanese Robin (8) category includes the Cracidae Geopelia striata, Zebra Dove (1) Luscinia komadori, Ryukyu Robin (8) (chachalacas), Phasianidae (grouse, Geophaps lophotes, Crested Pigeon (6) Luscinia megarhynchos, European ptarmigan, and turkeys), Geophaps plumifera, Spinifex Pigeon Nightingale (8) Odontophoridae (New World quail), (6) Turdus philomelos, Song Thrush (8) Burhinidae (thick-knees), Glareolidae

VerDate jul<14>2003 18:02 Jan 03, 2005 Jkt 205001 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04JAN1.SGM 04JAN1 376 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 2 / Tuesday, January 4, 2005 / Notices

(pratincoles), Pteroclididae Bull, J. 1974. Birds of New York state. Hess, G. K., R. L. West, M. V. Barnhill, (sandgrouse), Psittacidae (parrots), American Museum of Natural History and L. M. Fleming. 2000. Birds of Todidae (todies), Dicruridae (drongos), and Doubleday Natural History Press, Delaware. University of Pittsburgh Meliphagidae (honeyeaters), Garden City. 655 pp. Press. 635 pp. Monarchidae (monarchs), Pycnonotidae Bump, G. 1941. The introduction and Job, Herbert K. 1915. Propagation of (bulbuls), Sylviinae (Old World transplantation of game birds and wild birds: a manual of practical warblers, except as listed in Russian mammals into the state of New York. methods of propagation of quails, treaty), Muscicapidae (Old World Transactions of the North American grouse, wild turkey, doves, and flycatchers, except as listed in Russian Wildlife Conference 5:409–420. waterfowl in America, and of attracting treaty), Timaliidae (wrentits), Castrale, J. S., E. M. Hopkins, and C. and increasing wild birds in general, Zosteropidae (white-eyes), Sturnidae E. Keller (eds.). Atlas of breeding birds including song-birds. Doubleday, Page, (starlings, except as listed in Japanese of Indiana. Indiana Department of & Company, Garden City, New York. treaty), Coerebidae (bananaquits), Natural Resources Division of Fish and Johnsgard, P. A. 1975. Waterfowl of Drepanidinae (Hawaiian Wildlife. 388 pp. North America. Indiana University honeycreepers), Passeridae (Old World Ciaranca, M. A., C. C. Allin, and G. S. Press, Bloomington. 575 pp. sparrows, including house or English Jones. 1997. Mute Swan (Cygnus olor). Kaine, T. (ed.). 1987. Virginia’s sparrow), Ploceidae (weavers), and Birds of North America 273 (A. Poole birdlife: an annotated checklist. 2nd Estrildidae (estrildid finches), as well as and F. Gill, eds.), 28 pp. edition. Virginia Society of Ornithology. Keller, C. E., S. A. Keller, and T. C. numerous other families not represented Cooke, M. T., and P. Knappen. 1941. Keller. 1986. Indiana birds and their in the United States or its territories. Some birds naturalized in North haunts. 2nd edition. Indiana University Author America. Transactions of the North Press, Bloomington. 206 pp. American Wildlife Conference 5:176– Kleen, V. 1998. Illinois breeding bird John L. Trapp, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 183. Service, Division of Migratory Bird atlas maps. Illinois Department of Crosby, M. S. 1922. Mute swans on Natural Resources. http:// Management, Mail Stop 4501 North the Hudson. Auk 39:100. Fairfax Drive, Arlington, VA 22203. www.inhs.uiuc.edu/chf/pub/ifwis/ del Hoyo, J., A. Elliot, and J. Sargatal maps/. References Cited (eds.). 1992. Handbook of the birds of Kortright, F. H. 1942. The ducks the world. Volume 1. Ostrich to ducks. American Ornithologists’ Union. geese, and swans of North America. Lynx Editions. 696 pp. 1931. Check-list of North American American Wildlife Institute, Forbush, Edward Howe. 1916. A birds. 4th edition. Washington, DC 476 pp. history of the game birds, wild-fowl, American Ornithologists’ Union. Long, J. L. 1981. Introduced birds of and shore birds of Massachusetts and 1957. Check-list of North American the world: the worldwide history, adjacent states. Including those used for birds. 5th edition. Baltimore, Maryland. distribution, and influence of birds food which have disappeared since the 691 pp. introduced to new environments. American Ornithologists’ Union. settlement of the country, and those Universe Books, New York. 528 pp. 1983. Check-list of North American which are now hunted for food or sport, Marshall, D. B., M. G. Hunter, and A. L. Contreras. 2003. Birds of Oregon: a birds: the species of birds of North with observations on their former general reference. Oregon State America from the Arctic through abundance and recent decrease in University, Corvallis. 768 pp. Panama, including the West Indies and numbers; also the means for conserving those still in existence. 2nd edition. Monroe, B. L., Jr., and C. G. Sibley. Hawaiian Islands. 6th edition. 877 pp. 1993. A world checklist of birds. Yale American Ornithologists’ Union. Massachusetts State Board of University Press, New Haven. 1998. Check-list of North American Agriculture, Boston. 636 pp. Foss, C. R. (ed.). 1994. Atlas of Palmer, R. S. (ed.). 1976. Birds of birds: the species of birds of North North America. Volume 3. Waterfowl America from the Arctic through breeding birds in New Hampshire. Audubon Society of New Hampshire, (Part 2). Yale University Press, New Panama, including the West Indies and Haven. Hawaiian Islands. 7th edition. Dover. 414 pp. Gilchrest, W. T. 2004 (April 2). Peterjohn, B. G., and D. L. Rice. 1991. Washington, DC 829 pp. The Ohio breeding bird atlas. Ohio Banks, R. C., C. Cicero, J. L. Dunn, A. Introduction of the Migratory Bird Treaty Reform Act of 2004: March 31, Department of Natural Resources W. Kratter, P. C. Rasmussen, J. V. Division of Natural Areas and Preserves. 2004. Speech of Hon. Wayne T. Remsen Jr., J. D. Rising, and D. F. Stotz. 416 pp. Gilchrest (Maryland) in the House of 2003. Forty-fourth supplement to the Peters, J. L. 1931. Check-list of birds American Ornithologists’ Union Check- Representatives on April 1, 2004. of the world. Volume I. Harvard list of North American birds. Auk Congressional Record—Extensions of University Press, Cambridge. 345 pp. 120:923–931. Remarks 108:E510. Available online at Reese, J. G. 1969. Mute swan breeding Bevier, L. R. (ed.). 1994. The atlas of http://thomas.loc.gov/home/ in Talbot County, Maryland. Maryland breeding birds of Connecticut. r108query.html. Birdlife 25:14–16. Connecticut Geological and Natural Gilligan, J., D. Rogers, M. Smith, and Reese, J. G. 1975. Productivity and History Survey Bulletin 113, 459 pp. A. Contreras. 1994. Birds of Oregon: management of feral mute swans in Brewer, R., G. A. McPeak, and R. J. status and distribution. Cinclus Chesapeake Bay. Journal of Wildlife Adams Jr. (eds.). 1991. The atlas of Publication, McMinnville, Oregon. 330 Management 39:280–286. breeding birds of Michigan. Michigan pp. Robbins, C. S. (Ed.). 1996. Atlas of the State University Press, East Lansing. 594 Harriot, T. 1590. A brief and true breeding birds of Maryland and the pp. report of the new found land of Virginia. District of Columbia. University of Brodkorb, P. 1964. Catalogue of fossil An unabridged 1972 republication of Pittsburgh Press. 479 pp. birds. Part 2 (Anseriformes through Theodor deBry’s English-language Robbins, S. D., Jr. 1991. Wisconsin Galliformes). Bulletin of the Florida edition, with new Introduction by Paul birdlife: population & distribution, past State Museum Biological Sciences Hulton. Dover Publications, New York. & present. University of Wisconsin 8:195–335. 91 pp. Press, Madison. 702 pp.

VerDate jul<14>2003 18:02 Jan 03, 2005 Jkt 205001 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04JAN1.SGM 04JAN1 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 2 / Tuesday, January 4, 2005 / Notices 377

Scott, P., and the Wildfowl Trust one of the means identified in the 1. Any party claiming a property 1972. The swans. Houghton Mifflin ADDRESSES section. Duplicate interest which is adversely affected by Company, Boston. 242 pp. submissions are discouraged. The the decision shall have until February 3, Shufeldt, R. W. 1913. Review of the complete file for this notice will be 2005, to file an appeal. fossil fauna of the desert region of available for public inspection during 2. Parties receiving service of the Oregon, with a description of additional normal business hours, by appointment, decision by certified mail shall have 30 material collected there. Bulletin of the at the location identified in the days from the date of receipt to file an American Museum of Natural History ADDRESSES section. appeal. 32:123–178. E-mail comments should be submitted Parties who do not file an appeal in Sibley, C. G., and B. L. Monroe Jr. as an ASCII file with Nonnative Birds in accordance with the requirements of 43 1990. Distribution and of the subject line. Avoid the use of special CFR part 4, subpart E, shall be deemed birds of the world. Yale University characters and any form of encryption. to have waived their rights. Press. 1111 pp. While all comments will be ADDRESSES: A copy of the decision may U.S. House of Representatives considered, we encourage commentators be obtained from: Bureau of Land (Committee on Resources). 2003 to focus on the following questions: Management, Alaska State Office, 222 (December 16). Oversight field hearing (1) Do the four criteria used to West Seventh Avenue, #13, Anchorage, on exotic bird species and the Migratory identify bird species to which the Alaska 99513–7599. Bird Treaty Act. Subcommittee on MBTA does not apply accurately reflect FOR FURTHER INFORMAION CONTACT: Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife, and the language and intention of the Renee Fencl by phone at (907) 271– Oceans. Available online at http:// MBTRA? If not, what changes would 5067, or by e-mail at resourcescommittee.house.gov/archives/ you recommend? [email protected]. 108/fewo/12_16_03.htm. (2) Have we included any species that U.S. House of Representatives doesn’t meet each of the four criteria? Renee Fencl, (Committee on Resources). 2004 (June Please be specific, and provide as much Land Law Examiner, Branch of Preparation 3). Exclusion of nonnative species from detail as possible. & Resolution. Migratory Bird Treaty Act; Conservation (3) Have we omitted any species that [FR Doc. 05–11 Filed 1–3–05; 8:45 am] of Neotropical Migratory Birds. House meets each of the four criteria? BILLING CODE 4310–$$–P Report 108–520 [To accompany H.R. (4) Have we accurately depicted the 4114]. 14 pp. Available online at introduced status of each species? DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR http://thomas.loc.gov/cp108/ Following review and consideration cp108query.html. of the comments, we will publish a final Bureau of Land Management U.S. Senate (Committee on list in the Federal Register. Environment and Public Works). 2004 [WY–920–1320–EL, WYW151134] (August 25). Migratory Bird Treaty Dated: December 23, 2004. Reform Act of 2004. Senate Report 108– Steve Williams, Notice of Competitive Coal Lease Sale 313 [To accompany S. 2547]. 10 pp. Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Reoffer, Wyoming [FR Doc. 05–55 Filed 1–3–05; 8:45 am] Available online at http:// AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, thomas.loc.gov/cp108/cp108query.html. BILLING CODE 4310–55–P Interior. Urner, C. A. 1932. Mute swan in New ACTION: Notice of competitive coal lease Jersey. Auk 49:213. Veit, R. R., and W. R. Petersen. 1993. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR sale reoffer. Birds of Massachusetts. Massachusetts SUMMARY: Bureau of Land Management Notice is hereby given that Audubon Society. 514 pp. certain coal resources in the West Wetmore, A. 1959. Birds of the [AK–964–1410–HY–P; AA–6710–A, AA– Roundup Tract described below in Pleistocene in North America. 6710–B, AA–6710–A2, AA–6710–B2, ALA– Campbell County, WY, will be reoffered Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections 2] for competitive lease by sealed bid in 138, 26 pp. accordance with the provisions of the Willey, C. H., and B. F. Halla. 1972. Alaska Native Claims Selection Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, as Mute swans of Rhode Island. Rhode AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, amended (30 U.S.C. 181 et seq.). Island Department of Natural Resources Interior. DATES: The lease sale reoffer will be Division of Fish and Wildlife, Wildlife held at 10 a.m., on Wednesday, Pamphlet 8. ACTION: Notice of decision approving lands for conveyance. February 16, 2005. Sealed bids must be Wilmore, S. B. 1974. Swans of the submitted on or before 4 p.m., on world. Taplinger Publishing Company, SUMMARY: As required by 43 CFR Tuesday, February 15, 2005. New York. 229 pp. 2650.7(d), notice is hereby given that an Zeranski, J. D., and T. R. Baptist. ADDRESSES: The lease sale reoffer will appealable decision approving lands for 1990. Connecticut birds. University be held in the First Floor Conference conveyance pursuant to the Alaska Press of New England, Hanover. Room (Room 107), of the Bureau of Native Claims Settlement Act, will be Land Management (BLM) Wyoming Other Sources issued to Unga Corporation, for lands in State Office, 5353 Yellowstone Road, A list of other sources used to compile Tps. 57 and 58 S., R. 74 W., SM; Tps. P.O. Box 1828, Cheyenne, WY 82003. this list is available upon request from 56 and 57 S., R. 75 W., SM; Tps. 57 and Sealed bids must be submitted to the any of the ADDRESSES listed above. 58 S., R. 76 W., SM; located in the Cashier, BLM Wyoming State Office, at vicinity of Unga, Alaska, containing the address given above. Public Comments Invited 14,565.96 acres. Notice of the decision FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: We invite interested parties to submit will also be published four times in the Mavis Love, Land Law Examiner, or written comments or suggestions Dutch Harbor Fisherman. Robert Janssen, Coal Coordinator, at regarding the draft list of bird species to DATES: The time limits for filing an 307–775–6258, and 307–775–6206, which the MBTA does not apply by any appeal are: respectively.

VerDate jul<14>2003 18:02 Jan 03, 2005 Jkt 205001 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04JAN1.SGM 04JAN1