Draft List of Bird Species to Which the Migratory Bird Treaty Act Does Not Apply, 372-377 [05-55]

Agencies

• Fish and Wildlife Service
• DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 2 (Tuesday, January 4, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 372-377]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-55]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service


Draft List of Bird Species to Which the Migratory Bird Treaty Act 
Does Not Apply

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of availability.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: We are publishing a draft list of the nonnative bird species 
that have been introduced by humans into the United States or its 
territories and to which the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) does not 
apply. This action is required by the Migratory Bird Treaty Reform Act 
(MBTRA) of 2004. The MBTRA amends the MBTA by stating that it applies 
only to migratory bird species that are native to the United States or 
its territories, and that a native migratory bird is one that is 
present as a result of natural biological or ecological processes. This 
notice identifies those species that are not protected by the MBTA, 
even though they belong to biological families referred to in treaties 
that the MBTA implements, as their presence in the United States and 
its territories is solely the result of intentional or unintentional 
human-assisted introductions.

DATES: Submit comments on or before February 3, 2005.

ADDRESSES:
    (1) Mail public comments to Chief, Division of Migratory Bird 
Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 4401 North Fairfax Drive, 
Mail Stop 4107, Arlington, VA 22203.
    (2) Hand-deliver public comments and examine materials available 
for public inspection at U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of 
Migratory Bird Management, 4501 North Fairfax Drive, Room 4000, 
Arlington, VA 22203.
    (3) Fax public comments to (703) 358-2272.
    (4) E-mail public comments to nonnativebirds@fws.gov

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John L. Trapp, (703) 358-1714.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority

    Migratory Bird Treaty Reform Act of 2004 (Division E, Title I, Sec. 
143 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005 [H. Rpt. 108-792, 
Conference Report to Accompany H.R. 4818]).

What Is the Purpose of This Notice?

    The purpose of this notice is to provide the public with an 
opportunity to review and comment on a draft list of ``all nonnative, 
human-introduced bird species to which the Migratory Bird Treaty Act 
(16 U.S.C. 703 et seq.) does not apply that belong to biological 
families of migratory birds covered under any of the migratory bird 
conventions with Great Britain (for Canada), Mexico, Russia, or 
Japan.'' The MBTRA of 2004 requires us to publish this list for public 
comment.
    This notice is strictly informational. It merely lists some of the 
bird species to which the MBTA does not apply. The presence or absence 
of a species on this list has no legal effect. This list does not 
change the protections that any of these species might receive under 
such agreements as the Convention on International Trade in Endangered 
Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (T.I.A.S. 8249), the Endangered Species 
Act (16 U.S.C. 1531-1544, 87 Stat. 275), or the Wild Bird Conservation 
Act (16 U.S.C. 4901-4916, 106 Stat. 2224). Regulations implementing the 
MBTA are found in Parts 10, 20, and 21 of 50 CFR. The list of migratory 
birds covered by the MBTA is located at 50 CFR 10.13.

What Criteria Did We Use To Identify Bird Species Not Protected by the 
MBTA?

    In accordance with the language of the MBTRA, each of the species 
enumerated below meet the following four criteria:
    (1) It belongs to a family of birds covered by the MBTA by virtue 
of that family's inclusion in any of the migratory bird conventions 
with Canada, Mexico, Russia, or Japan. The Canadian and Mexican 
treaties list the families of birds that are protected. In the Russian 
treaty, the specific species covered are listed in an Appendix in which 
the species are arranged by family. Article VIII of the Russian treaty 
grants us the authority to use our discretion to protect additional 
species that belong to the same family as a species listed in the 
Appendix. The treaty with Japan lists covered species in an Annex 
without reference to families, and contains no provision that would 
allow treaty parties to unilaterally add additional species.
    (2) There is credible documented evidence that it has occurred at 
least once in an unconfined state in the United States or its 
territories.
    (3) All of its known occurrences in the United States can be 
confidently attributed solely to intentional or unintentional human-
assisted introductions to the wild. An intentional introduction is one 
that was purposeful-for example, the person(s) or institution(s) 
involved intended for it to happen. An unintentional introduction is 
one that was unforeseen or

[[Page 373]]

unintended-for example, the establishment of self-sustaining 
populations following repeated escapes from captive facilities. Self-
sustaining populations are able to maintain their viability from one 
generation to the next through natural reproduction without the 
introduction of additional individuals. In this context, we consider 
landscape changes caused by agriculture and other forms of human 
development to be natural ecological processes. These activities may 
make the environment more amenable for some species that did not 
historically occur in the United States or its territories and allow 
them to expand their ranges and colonize these jurisdictions. In the 
absence of direct human intervention, these new arrivals (e.g., cattle 
egrets) are considered to be native.
    (4) There is no credible evidence of its natural occurrence in the 
United States unaided by direct or indirect human assistance. The 
native range and known migratory movements (if any) of the species 
combine to make such occurrence in the United States extremely 
unlikely, both historically and in the future. Migratory bird species 
with credible evidence of natural occurrence anywhere in the United 
States or its territories, even if introduced elsewhere within these 
jurisdictions, are listed in 50 CFR 10.13.

What Is the Status of Bird Species Not Protected by the MBTA?

    Each species meeting the criteria discussed in the previous 
section--and thus qualifying as a nonnative, human-assisted species--
can be grouped into one or more of the following eight status 
categories according to the circumstances surrounding its reported 
occurrence(s) in the United States or its territories. These categories 
are merely informational and descriptive in nature and have no bearing 
on determining whether or not a species is nonnative:
    (1) Self-sustaining and free-living breeding populations currently 
exist as a consequence of intentional or unintentional introductions.
    (2) Self-sustaining and free-living populations were at one time 
thought to be established as a consequence of intentional or 
unintentional introductions, but it is now extirpated (i.e., no longer 
exists) as a breeding species. Recurring escapes of this species from 
captive facilities remain a possibility.
    (3) It has been introduced and possibly established in the wild 
(i.e., breeding documented), but some uncertainty remains as to whether 
self-sustaining populations have been permanently established.
    (4) Individuals frequently escape from captive facilities such as 
zoos, farms, parks, and private collections, where they are common, and 
may be found in an unconfined state virtually anywhere in the country, 
but not known to breed in the wild.
    (5) Individuals are housed in captive facilities, but escapes are 
rare, as judged by the low frequency with which they are reported in 
the wild. Most of these species are represented by five or fewer 
documented reports of occurrence in the wild, but future escapes are 
likely.
    (6) It was intentionally introduced with the goal of establishing 
self-sustaining populations, but the release(s) ultimately failed and 
it no longer occurs in the country. Future introductions are possible.
    (7) It is imported by private citizens for use in recreational 
falconry or bird control at airports, with individual free-flying birds 
known to escape from their handlers with some regularity.
    (8) It has occurred as a result of intentional or unintentional 
human assistance, but all such occurrences pre-date enactment of MBTA 
protection for the family to which it belongs. Although not currently 
known to occur, future introductions are possible.

What About the Mute Swan?

    The Fish and Wildlife Service has traditionally excluded nonnative 
species from the list of migratory birds (50 CFR 10.13) protected by 
the MBTA. Among the nonnative species listed above, the mute swan was 
the only species that the Service treated as being protected by the 
MBTA prior to passage of the MBTRA. In December 2001, the United States 
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled that the 
Canadian and Mexican conventions appeared to apply to mute swans and 
invalidated the Service's list of species covered by the MBTA to the 
extent that it excluded mute swans (Hill v. Norton, 275 F.3d 98 (D.C. 
Cir. 2001)). In December 2003, the mute swan was the major focus of 
discussion by the seven panel members who presented testimony at a 
congressional oversight field hearing on exotic bird species and the 
MBTA conducted by the House Committee on Resources (2003). The major 
sponsor of the MBTRA succinctly outlined the benefits of excluding 
nonnative species, including mute swans, from protection of the MBTA 
(Gilchrest 2004). In separate committee reports, the U.S. House of 
Representatives (2004) and the U.S. Senate (2004) clearly expressed 
their views that the mute swan was nonnative and therefore anticipated 
that the MBTRA would clarify that the mute swan would not be protected 
by the MBTA. In fact, Congress's view on the nonnative status of the 
mute swan is strongly supported by the evidence and the consensus of 
scientific opinion (American Ornithologists' Union 1931, 1957, 1983, 
1998; Ciaranca et al. 1997; Johnsgard 1975; Kortright 1942; Long 1981; 
Palmer 1976; Scott and Wildlife Trust 1972; Sibley and Monroe 1990; 
Wilmore 1974).
    For example, there is no mention of mute swans in the extensive 
popular and scientific literature on North American birds until 1915, 
and that is a reference (Job 1915) to successful breeding of the 
species in captivity in the United States. Forbush (1916) provided the 
first report of unconfined mute swans in the United States, noting that 
``many reports of swans seen near Boston followed soon after the escape 
of European mute swans from the Boston park system.'' All existing 
populations of the mute swan in North America are derived from 
introduced stocks that were released or escaped at different localities 
and in different years and eventually established feral populations.
    North Atlantic: Bump's (1941) reference to the presence of mute 
swans in New York State ``prior to 1900'' almost certainly applied to 
captive or restrained (i.e., wing-clipped or pinioned) birds imported 
to ``private estates'' on Long Island and along the lower Hudson River 
(contra Long 1981). Bull (1974) provides more details on the 
establishment of ``wild'' populations, noting that birds were 
``introduced in 1910 into southeastern New York in the lower Hudson 
[River] valley * * * and in 1912 on the south shore of Long Island.'' 
These introductions involved a total of 216 birds in 1910 and 328 birds 
in 1912 (Long 1981). An unrestrained feral flock in the lower Hudson 
River had grown to 26 individuals by 1920 or 1921 (Crosby 1922, Cooke 
and Knappen 1941). From this nucleus, birds gradually colonized 
surrounding States in the North Atlantic, with breeding first reported 
in New Jersey in 1932 (Urner 1932), Rhode Island in 1948 (Willey and 
Halla 1972), Connecticut in the late 1950's to 1960's (Zeranski and 
Baptist 1990, Bevier 1994), Massachusetts prior to 1965 (Veit and 
Petersen 1993), and New Hampshire in 1968 (Foss 1994).
    Mid-Atlantic: While mute swans were reported in Maryland as early 
as 1954, the resident breeding population in the Maryland portion of 
the Chesapeake Bay has been traced directly to the escape of three 
males and two females into Eastern Bay from waterfront estates along 
the Miles River in Talbot County during a storm in March 1962 (Reese 
1969, 1975; Robbins 1996). Mute swans

[[Page 374]]

were first reported in Virginia beginning in 1955, mostly as captive 
birds in waterfowl collections, although some were probably released 
into the wild. A feral breeding population was not thought to be 
present until the late 1960's or early 1970's (Kain 1987). The origin 
of the small Delaware population, where birds were first noted in 1954 
and nesting in 1965 (Hess et al. 2000) is unclear: it could represent 
birds that moved south from the North Atlantic, north from the 
Chesapeake Bay, or an independent introduction.
    Great Lakes: In Michigan, a northern flock of mute swans was 
established following an introduction near East Jordan, Charlevoix 
County, in 1919; this was followed by the establishment of a southern 
flock derived mostly from introductions in Kalamazoo and Oakland 
counties (Brewer et al. 1991). Elsewhere in the Great Lakes region, 
successful nesting of feral mute swans--most likely representing birds 
dispersing from the sizeable Michigan flocks--was first documented in 
Indiana in the 1970's (Keller et al. 1986, Castrale et al. 1998), in 
Wisconsin in 1975 (Robbins 1991), in Ohio in 1987 (Peterjohn and Rice 
1991), and in Illinois since at least 1986 (Kleen 1998).
    Pacific Northwest: This is the least well-established and stable of 
the four principle mute swan population centers in the United States. 
Mute swans have escaped or been introduced to the wild in Oregon on 
multiple occasions. Breeding was first noted in the 1920's in Lincoln 
County (Gilligan et al. 1994, Marshall et al. 2003), with occasional 
breeding noted at other localities through the present. In Washington, 
a small but growing number of birds thought to represent dispersal from 
the introduced British Columbia population has been established in the 
Puget Sound lowlands (J. Buchanan, Washington Department of Fish and 
Wildlife, pers. comm.).
    In the past, advocates of Federal protection for the mute swan have 
taken the position that the mute swan is in fact native to the United 
States. In support of this view, they have presented three pieces of 
evidence: (1) Alleged fossil remains, (2) purported descriptions and 
depictions in historical literature such as Hariott's (1590) ``A briefe 
and true report of the new found land of Virginia'' of mute swans in 
the Chesapeake Bay in the 1500's, and (3) a Currier & Ives print dated 
1872 and entitled ``The haunts of the wild swan: Carroll Island, 
Chesapeake Bay'' that purportedly depicts mute swans.
    The Fossil Evidence: Avian paleontologists have identified fossil 
remains of at least three species of swans in North America: Cygnus 
buccinator (the trumpeter swan), Cygnus columbianus (the tundra swan), 
and Cygnus paloregonus (the purported ancestor of the mute swan). These 
fossil remains were found in geological deposits in Idaho and Oregon 
(Shufeldt 1913, Brodkorb 1964, Wetmore 1959) dating to the Pleistocene 
epoch, a period extending from 11,000 to 1.8 million years ago. 
Trumpeter and tundra swans survive as members of the modern North 
American avifauna while paloregonus became extinct. Whatever the 
relationship of paloregonus to modern-day swans--and Ciaranca et al. 
(1997) have suggested that in some physical features it more closely 
resembled the mute swan than either the trumpeter or the tundra--it 
differed significantly enough for authorities to describe it as a 
distinct species. Even if there was (and there isn't) clear and 
indisputable evidence that paloregonus was synonymous with olor, thus 
possibly representing an early incursion of a population of Cygnus olor 
into North America that subsequently became extinct, that evidence 
would not obviate the fact that all current populations of the mute 
swan in North America are derived from introduced stocks that were 
released or escaped and eventually established feral populations. 
Therefore, new section 703(b)(2)(B) precludes the mute swan from being 
considered a native species.
    Historical Illustrations: Seven of the 23 illustrations in 
Harriot's (1590) report on the region now known as Pamlico Sound, North 
Carolina, depict waterfowl (ducks, geese, or swans) in the background, 
either in flight or on the water. Only one of the plates depicts 
anything remotely resembling a swan, and it cannot be assigned with 
confidence to a particular species. The only text reference to swans is 
the statement that ``in winter great store of swannes and geese'' 
provided an abundant source of food, suggesting that the swans depicted 
are more likely tundra swans, a common winter inhabitant of the region. 
Similarly, little credence can be placed in the supposed depiction of 
mute swans in a Currier & Ives print. Illustrators and publishers of 
the late 1900th century frequently portrayed fanciful depictions of 
birds that bore little resemblance to reality. Commercial artwork of 
the period often pictured the species with which recent European 
immigrants had been familiar in their native land. Nonnative birds were 
often inserted in the foreground or background of American landscapes. 
We place much greater significance in the fact that neither Alexander 
Wilson (1808-1814) nor John James Audubon (1827-1839)--the two most 
renowned and respected American wildlife artists and naturalists of the 
19th century in America--depicted or described the mute swan in their 
seminal works on the birds of North America.

What Are the Bird Species Not Protected by the MBTA?

    We have tried to make the following list as comprehensive as 
possible by including all non-native, human-assisted species that 
belong to any of the families referred to in the treaties and whose 
occurrence(s) in the United States and its territories have been 
documented in the scientific literature. It is not, however, an 
exhaustive list of all the non-native species that could potentially 
appear in the United States or its territories as a result of human 
assistance. New species of non-native birds are being reported annually 
in the United States, and it is impossible to predict which species 
might appear in the near future.
    The 113 species on this draft list are arranged by family according 
to the American Ornithologists' Union (1998, as amended by Banks et al. 
2003). Within families, species are arranged alphabetically by 
scientific name. Common and scientific names follow Monroe and Sibley 
(1993). For each species, we indicate--for informational purposes 
only--its status as an introduced species in the United States or its 
territories (indicated by numbers corresponding to the eight status 
categories described above):
Family ANATIDAE
Aix galericulata, Mandarin Duck (3, 4)
Alopochen aegyptiacus, Egyptian Goose (4)
Anas hottentota, Hottentot Teal (5)
Anas luzonica, Philippine Duck (5)
Anser anser, Graylag Goose (4)
Anser anser anser, Domestic Goose (4)
Anser cygnoides, Swan Goose (4)
Anser indicus, Bar-headed Goose (4)
Branta ruficollis, Red-breasted Goose (4)
Callonetta leucophrys, Ringed Teal (4)
Chenonetta jubata, Maned Duck (6)
Coscoroba coscoroba, Coscoroba Swan (5)
Cygnus atratus, Black Swan (4)
Cygnus melanocoryphus, Black-necked Swan (5)
Cygnus olor, Mute Swan (1, 3, 4)
Dendrocygna viduata, White-faced Whistling-Duck (5)
Neochen jubata, Orinoco Goose (5)
Netta peposaca, Rosy-billed Pochard (5)
Netta rufina, Red-crested Pochard (4)
Tadorna ferruginea, Ruddy Shelduck (4)
Tadorna tadorna, Common Shelduck (4)

[[Page 375]]

Family PELECANIDAE
Pelecanus onocroatalis, Great White Pelican (5)
Family PHALACROCORACIDAE
Phalacrocorax gaimardi, Red-legged Cormorant (8)
Family CICONIIDAE
Ciconia abdimii, Abdim's Stork (5)
Ciconia ciconia, White Stork (5)
Ciconia episcopus, Woolly-necked Stork (5)
Ephippiorhynchus asiaticus, Black-necked Stork (5)
Family CATHARTIDAE
Sarcoramphus papa, King Vulture (5)
Family PHOENICOPTERIDAE
Phoenicopterus chilensis, Chilean Flamingo (4)
Phoenicopterus minor, Lesser Flamingo (5)
Family ACCIPITRIDAE
Buteo polyosoma, Red-backed Hawk (5)
Buteogallus urubitinga, Great Black-Hawk (5)
Gyps sp., Griffon-type Old World vulture (5)
Family FALCONIDAE
Falco biarmicus, Lanner Falcon (7)
Falco cherrug, Saker Falcon (7)
Falco pelegrinoides, Barbary Falcon (7)
Family RALLIDAE
Aramides cajanea, Gray-necked Wood-Rail (5)
Family GRUIIDAE
Balearica pavonina, Black Crowned-Crane (5)
Balearica regulorum, Gray Crowned-Crane (5)
Grus antigone, Sarus Crane (5)
Family CHARADRIIDAE
Vanellus chilensis, Southern Lapwing (5)
Family LARIDAE
Larus novaehollandiae, Silver Gull (5)
Family COLUMBIDAE
Caloenas nicobarica, Nicobar Pigeon (6)
Chalcophaps indica, Emerald Dove (6)
Columba livia, Rock Pigeon (1, 4)
Columba palumbus, Common Wood-Pigeon (6)
Gallicolumba luzonica, Luzon Bleeding-heart (6)
Geopelia cuneata, Diamond Dove (5)
Geopelia humeralis, Bar-shouldered Dove (6)
Geopelia striata, Zebra Dove (1)
Geophaps lophotes, Crested Pigeon (6)
Geophaps plumifera, Spinifex Pigeon (6)
Geophaps smithii, Partridge Pigeon (6)
Leucosarcia melanoleuca, Wonga Pigeon (6)
Phaps chalcoptera, Common Bronzewing (6)
Starnoenas cyanocephala, Blue-headed Quail-Dove (6)
Streptopelia bitorquata, Island Collared-Dove (1, 6)
Streptopelia chinensis, Spotted Dove (1, 3)
Streptopelia decaocto, Eurasian Collared-Dove (1, 3)
Streptopelia risoria, Ringed Turtle-Dove (1, 2, 4)
Family STRIGIDAE
Pulsatrix perspicillata, Spectacled Owl (5)
Family TROCHILIDAE
Anthracothorax nigricollis, Black-throated Mango (8)
Family CORVIDAE
Callocitta colliei, Black-throated Magpie-Jay (5)
Corvus corone, Carrion Crow (5)
Corvus splendens, House Crow (5)
Cyanocorax caeruleus, Azure Jay (5)
Cyanocorax sanblasianus, San Blas Jay (8)
Garrulus glandarius, Eurasian Jay (5)
Urocissa erythrorhyncha, Blue Magpie (6)
Family ALAUDIDAE
Alauda japonica, Japanese Skylark (6)
Lullula arborea, Wood Lark (8)
Melanocorypha calandra, Calandra Lark (5)
Melanocorypha mongolica, Mongolian Lark (8)
Family PARIDAE
Parus caeruleus, Blue Tit (5)
Parus major, Great Tit (5, 8)
Parus varius, Varied Tit (2)
Family CINCLIDAE
Cinclus cinclus, White-throated Dipper (8)
Family SYLVIIDAE
Cettia diphone, Japanese Bush-Warbler (1)
Sylvia atricapilla, Blackcap (8)
Family TURDIDAE
Copsychus malbaricus, White-rumped Shama (1)
Copsychus saularis, Oriental Magpie-Robin (6)
Erithacus rubecula, European Robin (8)
Luscinia akahige, Japanese Robin (8)
Luscinia komadori, Ryukyu Robin (8)
Luscinia megarhynchos, European Nightingale (8)
Turdus philomelos, Song Thrush (8)
Family PRUNELLIDAE
Prunella modularis, Dunnock (8)
Family THRAUPIDAE
Piranga rubriceps, Red-hooded Tanager (8)
Thraupis episcopus, Blue-gray Tanager (2)
Family EMBERIZIDAE
Emberiza citrinella, Yellowhammer (8)
Gubernatrix cristata, Yellow Cardinal (6)
Loxigilla violacea, Greater Antillean Bullfinch (5)
Melopyrrha nigra, Cuban Bullfinch (5)
Paroaria capitata, Yellow-billed Cardinal (1)
Paroaria coronata, Red-crested Cardinal (1)
Paroaria dominicana, Red-cowled Cardinal (6)
Paroaria gularis, Red-capped Cardinal (6)
Sicalis flaveola, Saffron Finch (1, 5)
Tiaris canora, Cuban Grassquit (5)
Family CARDINALIDAE
Passerina leclacherii, Orange-breasted Bunting (5)
Family ICTERIDAE
Gymnostinops montezuma, Montezuma Oropendola (5)
Icterus icterus, Troupial. (1, 5)
Icterus pectoralis, Spot-breasted Oriole (1)
Leistes militaris, Red-breasted Blackbird (6)
Family FRINGILLIDAE
Carduelis cannabina, Eurasian Linnet (5, 8)
Carduelis carduelis, European Goldfinch (2, 4)
Carduelis chloris, European Greenfinch (5, 8)
Carduelis cucullata, Red Siskin (1)
Carduelis magellanica, Hooded Siskin (8)
Loxia pysopsittacus, Parrot Crossbill (8)
Serinus canaria, Common Canary (1, 4)
Serinus leucopygius, White-rumped Seedeater (6)
Serinus mozambicus, Yellow-fronted Canary (1)

    The MBTA also does not apply to many other bird species, including 
(1) nonnative species that have not been introduced into the U.S. or 
its territories, and (2) species (native or nonnative) that belong to 
the families not referred to in any of the four treaties underlying the 
MBTA. The second category includes the Cracidae (chachalacas), 
Phasianidae (grouse, ptarmigan, and turkeys), Odontophoridae (New World 
quail), Burhinidae (thick-knees), Glareolidae

[[Page 376]]

(pratincoles), Pteroclididae (sandgrouse), Psittacidae (parrots), 
Todidae (todies), Dicruridae (drongos), Meliphagidae (honeyeaters), 
Monarchidae (monarchs), Pycnonotidae (bulbuls), Sylviinae (Old World 
warblers, except as listed in Russian treaty), Muscicapidae (Old World 
flycatchers, except as listed in Russian treaty), Timaliidae 
(wrentits), Zosteropidae (white-eyes), Sturnidae (starlings, except as 
listed in Japanese treaty), Coerebidae (bananaquits), Drepanidinae 
(Hawaiian honeycreepers), Passeridae (Old World sparrows, including 
house or English sparrow), Ploceidae (weavers), and Estrildidae 
(estrildid finches), as well as numerous other families not represented 
in the United States or its territories.

Author

    John L. Trapp, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of 
Migratory Bird Management, Mail Stop 4501 North Fairfax Drive, 
Arlington, VA 22203.

References Cited

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

[[Page 377]]

    Scott, P., and the Wildfowl Trust 1972. The swans. Houghton Mifflin 
Company, Boston. 242 pp.
    Shufeldt, R. W. 1913. Review of the fossil fauna of the desert 
region of Oregon, with a description of additional material collected 
there. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 32:123-178.
    Sibley, C. G., and B. L. Monroe Jr. 1990. Distribution and taxonomy 
of birds of the world. Yale University Press. 1111 pp.
    U.S. House of Representatives (Committee on Resources). 2003 
(December 16). Oversight field hearing on exotic bird species and the 
Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, 
Wildlife, and Oceans. Available online at https://
resourcescommittee.house.gov/archives/108/fewo/12_16_03.htm.
    U.S. House of Representatives (Committee on Resources). 2004 (June 
3). Exclusion of nonnative species from Migratory Bird Treaty Act; 
Conservation of Neotropical Migratory Birds. House Report 108-520 [To 
accompany H.R. 4114]. 14 pp. Available online at https://thomas.loc.gov/
cp108/cp108query.html.
    U.S. Senate (Committee on Environment and Public Works). 2004 
(August 25). Migratory Bird Treaty Reform Act of 2004. Senate Report 
108-313 [To accompany S. 2547]. 10 pp. Available online at https://
thomas.loc.gov/cp108/cp108query.html.
    Urner, C. A. 1932. Mute swan in New Jersey. Auk 49:213.
    Veit, R. R., and W. R. Petersen. 1993. Birds of Massachusetts. 
Massachusetts Audubon Society. 514 pp.
    Wetmore, A. 1959. Birds of the Pleistocene in North America. 
Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections 138, 26 pp.
    Willey, C. H., and B. F. Halla. 1972. Mute swans of Rhode Island. 
Rhode Island Department of Natural Resources Division of Fish and 
Wildlife, Wildlife Pamphlet 8.
    Wilmore, S. B. 1974. Swans of the world. Taplinger Publishing 
Company, New York. 229 pp.
    Zeranski, J. D., and T. R. Baptist. 1990. Connecticut birds. 
University Press of New England, Hanover.

Other Sources

    A list of other sources used to compile this list is available upon 
request from any of the ADDRESSES listed above.

Public Comments Invited

    We invite interested parties to submit written comments or 
suggestions regarding the draft list of bird species to which the MBTA 
does not apply by any one of the means identified in the ADDRESSES 
section. Duplicate submissions are discouraged. The complete file for 
this notice will be available for public inspection during normal 
business hours, by appointment, at the location identified in the 
ADDRESSES section.
    E-mail comments should be submitted as an ASCII file with Nonnative 
Birds in the subject line. Avoid the use of special characters and any 
form of encryption.
    While all comments will be considered, we encourage commentators to 
focus on the following questions:
    (1) Do the four criteria used to identify bird species to which the 
MBTA does not apply accurately reflect the language and intention of 
the MBTRA? If not, what changes would you recommend?
    (2) Have we included any species that doesn't meet each of the four 
criteria? Please be specific, and provide as much detail as possible.
    (3) Have we omitted any species that meets each of the four 
criteria?
    (4) Have we accurately depicted the introduced status of each 
species?
    Following review and consideration of the comments, we will publish 
a final list in the Federal Register.

    Dated: December 23, 2004.
Steve Williams,
Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 05-55 Filed 1-3-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P