Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed Determination of Threatened Status for the Koala

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

RIN 1018-AE43

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed

Determination of Threatened Status for the Koala

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule and notice of petition finding.

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

SUMMARY: The Service proposes to determine threatened status for the

Australian koala. The eucalyptus forest and woodland ecosystem, on

which this arboreal marsupial depends, has been reduced by more than

half and is continuing to deteriorate. The species also is threatened

by habitat fragmentation and consequent potential loss of genetic

viability, disease, and various other factors. The Service seeks

relevant data and comments from the public. This proposal incorporates

a finding that a petition requesting the listing of the koala is

warranted. This proposal, if made final, would extend the Act's

protection to this species.

DATES: Comments must be received by December 21, 1998. Public hearing

requests must be received by November 6, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Comments, information, and questions should be submitted to

the Chief, Office of Scientific Authority; Room 750, 4401 North Fairfax

Drive; Arlington, Virginia 22203 (fax 703-358-2276). Comments and

materials received will be available for public inspection, by

appointment, from 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, at

this address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Susan S. Lieberman, Chief, Office

of Scientific Authority, at the above address (phone 703-358-1708).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

rfax

Drive; Arlington, Virginia 22203 (fax 703-358-2276). Comments and

materials received will be available for public inspection, by

appointment, from 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, at

this address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Susan S. Lieberman, Chief, Office

of Scientific Authority, at the above address (phone 703-358-1708).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The koala (Phascolarctos cinereus) is a bearlike arboreal mammal of

Australia. It has a compact body, large head and nose, large and furry

ears, powerful limbs, and no significant tail; weight is about 4-15

kilograms (10-35 pounds). The koala is a marsupial, being more closely

related to kangaroos and possums than to true bears and other placental

mammals; its young is carried in a pouch for about 6 months. It occurs

mainly in the forests and woodlands of central and eastern Queensland,

eastern New South Wales, Victoria, and southeastern South Australia.

In a petition dated May 3, 1994, and received by the U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service (Service) on May 5, 1994, Australians for Animals (in

Australia) and the Fund for Animals (in the United States) requested

that the koala be classified as endangered in New South Wales and

Victoria, and as threatened in Queensland. About 40 organizations in

the United States and Australia were named as supporting the petition.

The document was accompanied by extensive data indicating that the

koala has declined dramatically since European settlement of Australia

began about 200 years ago and has lost more than half of its natural

habitat because of human activity. Once numbering in the millions, it

was intensively hunted for its fur up through the 1920s. It is totally

dependent for food and shelter on certain types of trees within forests

and woodlands. The destruction or degradation of this habitat would

reduce the viability of populations, even if the animals were otherwise

protected

t more than half of its natural

habitat because of human activity. Once numbering in the millions, it

was intensively hunted for its fur up through the 1920s. It is totally

dependent for food and shelter on certain types of trees within forests

and woodlands. The destruction or degradation of this habitat would

reduce the viability of populations, even if the animals were otherwise

protected.

In the Federal Register of October 4, 1994 (59 FR 50557-50558), the

Service announced the 90-day finding that the petition had presented

substantial information indicating that the requested action may be

warranted. That notice also initiated a status review of the koala. In

the Federal Register of February 15, 1995 (60 FR 8620), the comment

period on the status review was reopened until April 1, 1995. A

telegram was sent to the U.S. embassy in Australia, asking that

appropriate authorities be notified and asked to comment. Notice of the

review also was provided directly to numerous concerned organizations

and authorities. Of the approximately 400 responses received, the great

majority were brief messages in support of listing, but there also were

several from persons or organizations providing substantive comments

based on first-hand familiarity with the situation.

Mr. Peter Bridgewater, Chief Executive Officer of the Australian

Nature Conservation Agency (this government entity, formerly the

Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service, is now referred to as

Biodiverstiy Group within Environment Australia), expressed opposition

to the addition of the koala to the U.S. List of Endangered and

Threatened Wildlife

stralasian Marsupial and

Monotreme Specialist Group of the World Conservation Union Species

Survival Commission (IUCN/SSC), stated that while various koala

populations are experiencing problems, the species in general does not

warrant U.S. classification.

Dr. Roger Martin of Monash University, a wildlife biologist with

extensive field experience on the koala, urged rejection of the

petition. He considered that strenuous conservation efforts have led to

a recovery of the species in Victoria, with populations far more

abundant than suggested by the petition. Large and thriving colonies

were reported to exist at several closely monitored study sites in

Victoria. Some observations also suggested much larger populations in

Queensland than had been previously indicated.

Dr. Kath Handasyde of the University of Melbourne, another

biologist with considerable field and writing experience regarding the

koala, essentially supported the comments of Dr. Martin and opposed

listing of the species.

Dr. Greg Gordon, a zoologist who has long been involved in koala

research and conservation in Queensland, commented that the koala is

still relatively numerous in some areas and probably would not qualify

at present for classification as endangered or vulnerable by the World

Conservation Union (IUCN), but is declining slowly because of habitat

deterioration and, if suitable conservation measures are not

undertaken, probably would become vulnerable in the future.

The original petitioners, Australians for Animals and the U.S. Fund

for Animals, submitted extensive new comments concentrating on long-

term environmental problems. There was emphasis on the international

woodchip market, which was said to target the eucalyptus forests that

are the primary habitat of the koala. Logging for that purpose,

together with clearance for agriculture and development, evidently is

proceeding throughout the general range of the koala and is even

intensifying in some areas.

Ms

ts concentrating on long-

term environmental problems. There was emphasis on the international

woodchip market, which was said to target the eucalyptus forests that

are the primary habitat of the koala. Logging for that purpose,

together with clearance for agriculture and development, evidently is

proceeding throughout the general range of the koala and is even

intensifying in some areas.

Ms. Deborah Tabart, Executive Director of the Australian Koala

Foundation, which has funded koala research and conservation for the

past decade, supported the petition and provided some rather low

population estimates for the species.

Mr. Michael Kennedy, Director of the Humane Society International

(Australia) and also Secretary of the IUCN/SSC Australasian Marsupial

and Monotreme Specialist Group and Compiler of the Groups's Action Plan

(Kennedy 1992), provided a summary of authoritative assessments of the

status of the koala over the years suggesting that conditions are

steadily deteriorating, especially because of habitat loss. He

considered the requested action to be fully justified on biological

grounds and that it may contribute significantly to the conservation of

the species.

Dr. Carmi G. Penny, Curator of Mammals for the Zoological Society

of San Diego, which keeps a captive koala colony and maintains the

North American regional studbook for the species, and which also has

participated in associated field work in Australia, supported the

petition, but indicated that listing may not have a strong influence in

Australia. Dr. Penny noted that the range states must protect suitable

habitat if the species is to remain viable in the wild.

Ms. Celia Karp of the Logan City Council, Queensland, supported the

petition, as based on the perspective of rapid urban growth in her

area.

Dr. Miles Roberts and Dr. Michael Hutchins, Co-Chairs of the

Marsupial and Monotreme Advisory Group of the American Zoo and Aquarium

Association, supported listing because

es must protect suitable

habitat if the species is to remain viable in the wild.

Ms. Celia Karp of the Logan City Council, Queensland, supported the

petition, as based on the perspective of rapid urban growth in her

area.

Dr. Miles Roberts and Dr. Michael Hutchins, Co-Chairs of the

Marsupial and Monotreme Advisory Group of the American Zoo and Aquarium

Association, supported listing because

of numerous problems confronting the koala. They expressed the belief

that koala populations have been decimated and fractionated to the

point where the long-term survival of the species in the wild would be

in question even if the problems were removed immediately.

Section 4(b)(3) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Act), as

amended, requires that, within 12 months of receipt of a petition to

list, delist, or reclassify a species, or to revise a critical habitat

designation, a finding be made on whether the requested action is

warranted, not warranted, or warranted but precluded from immediate

proposal by other pending listing measures of higher priority. Such

finding is to be promptly published.

The Service has examined the data submitted by the petitioners and

has consulted other authorities and available information. This review

leads the Service to make the finding, hereby incorporated and

published in this proposal, that the requested action is warranted,

though the Service proposes to implement the action in a somewhat

modified manner. Rather than divide the classification of the koala by

state, as called for in the petition, the Service is proposing simply

to classify the entire species as threatened. Other than the likelihood

that Queensland still has a substantially larger area of koala habitat

than do New South Wales and Victoria, there seems little substantive

difference in the kinds of problems confronting the species. The

Service's proposed approach also would avoid omitting coverage of the

koala in South Australia, as well as of captive and introduced

populations

ies as threatened. Other than the likelihood

that Queensland still has a substantially larger area of koala habitat

than do New South Wales and Victoria, there seems little substantive

difference in the kinds of problems confronting the species. The

Service's proposed approach also would avoid omitting coverage of the

koala in South Australia, as well as of captive and introduced

populations. However, it is emphasized that this issue remains open,

that pertinent new information received during the comment period will

be carefully reviewed, and that any final rule resulting from this

proposal may classify the koala, or certain populations thereof, as

endangered, may exclude certain populations from any classification, or

may result in withdrawal of the proposal.

Summary of Factors Affecting the Species

Section 4(a)(1) of the Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et

seq.) and regulations (50 CFR part 424) promulgated to implement the

listing provisions of the Act set forth the procedures for adding

species to the Federal lists. A species may be determined to be

endangered or threatened due to one or more of the following five

factors described in section 4(a)(1). These factors and their

application to the koala (Phascolarctos cinereus) are as follows:

A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment

of its Habitat or Range

The known historical range of the koala covered an extensive band

of forest and woodland in eastern and central Queensland, eastern New

South Wales, most of Victoria, and extreme southeastern South

Australia. Within this zone, the species evidently depended mainly on

suitable tracts of certain kinds of medium-to-large eucalyptus trees

for food and shelter. There is a high degree of specialization for

feeding on particular species of eucalyptus, and populations tend to be

concentrated at certain favorable sites. The reproductive rate is

relatively low, not more than one young being produced annually per

female

one, the species evidently depended mainly on

suitable tracts of certain kinds of medium-to-large eucalyptus trees

for food and shelter. There is a high degree of specialization for

feeding on particular species of eucalyptus, and populations tend to be

concentrated at certain favorable sites. The reproductive rate is

relatively low, not more than one young being produced annually per

female. Maturity may require several years and many of the young then

are forced to disperse.

With human disruption of suitable eucalyptus forests and woodlands,

there now seems little doubt that the koala has disappeared from much

of its original range. In designating the koala as ``potentially

vulnerable,'' the IUCN/SSC Australasian Marsupial and Monotreme

Specialist Group noted that the geographic range of the species had

declined by 50 to 90 percent (Kennedy 1992).

A publication of the Australian Nature Conservation Agency

(Phillips 1990), submitted both by the petitioners and Mr. Bridgewater,

contains the following statement: ``The expansive forests where koalas

once lived * * * have largely gone and those which remain are rapidly

disappearing to make way for the needs of human society.'' The

publication cited a 1984 report by the Australian Commonwealth

Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO) indicating that

the total area of medium-to-tall trees in the four states inhabited by

the koala is estimated to originally have been just over 1,230,000

square kilometers (km2) (475,000 square miles

(mi2)), but that just over half of those forests, 670,000

km2 (259,000 mi2), had been removed or severely

modified.

The petitioners provided additional details on the extent of

habitat loss and modification. This problem, as caused mainly by

commercial logging, clearing for agriculture and urbanization, and

disease and extensive dieback (of the trees on which the koala depends)

associated with direct modification, was considered to be the greatest

threat to the species

been removed or severely

modified.

The petitioners provided additional details on the extent of

habitat loss and modification. This problem, as caused mainly by

commercial logging, clearing for agriculture and urbanization, and

disease and extensive dieback (of the trees on which the koala depends)

associated with direct modification, was considered to be the greatest

threat to the species. The problem involves not only removal of the

large eucalyptus trees used for food and shelter, but also elimination

of vegetated dispersal routes, erosion, siltation of water sources,

fragmentation through development of road networks, and other factors

detrimental to maintenance of viable koala populations. Based on data

compiled in the same 1984 CSIRO report cited above, the petitioners

calculated the loss of forest during the past 200 years at 43-52

percent in Queensland, 60-80 percent in New South Wales, 59-75 percent

in Victoria, and 79-100 percent in South Australia. An additional

government report in 1992 estimated that 60 percent of the remaining

forests in Australia are composed of eucalyptus, but that only 18

percent of these areas are unmodified by logging.

Subsequent to receipt of the petition, two new pertinent reports

were issued by the Australian Department of the Environment, Sport and

Territories (Glanznig 1995; Graetz, Wilson, and Campbell 1995). These

documents indicate that the primary kinds of habitat utilized by the

koala originally covered as much as 1,400,000 km2 (540,000

mi2), but that about 890,000 km2 (340,000

mi2), or approximately 63 percent, now has been cleared or

thinned. Those figures, as well as others of original and remaining

habitat, are probably excessive, as the koala was not uniformly

distributed throughout the involved region and tended to concentrate in

certain favorable areas.

In any case, the new reports support the percentages of forest loss

cited above for each of the states involved

or approximately 63 percent, now has been cleared or

thinned. Those figures, as well as others of original and remaining

habitat, are probably excessive, as the koala was not uniformly

distributed throughout the involved region and tended to concentrate in

certain favorable areas.

In any case, the new reports support the percentages of forest loss

cited above for each of the states involved. Perhaps most

significantly, such land clearance is not a phenomenon of the past but

is continuing and even intensifying. The estimated annual average

amount of land cleared in Queensland, New South Wales, and Victoria

from 1983 to 1993 was approximately 4,600 km2 (1,800

mi2). Estimates for some recent years are approximately

twice as great. As an illustration of the intensity of this process in

Australia, Glanznig (1995) pointed out that, in 1990, the amount of

native vegetation cleared in the country was more than half that

cleared in Brazilian Amazonia.

Not all of the clearing in Queensland, New South Wales, and

Victoria is in koala habitat and some of it involves reclearing of

secondary growth; nonetheless, a 1993 estimate cited by the petitioners

indicates that if the current rate of deforestation continues,

Australia's forests would be eliminated in less than 250 years. Much of

the forest loss is associated with the production of woodchips, mainly

for exportation to paper mills in Japan.

The actual number of koalas, or of any potentially endangered

species, that may have been present at various times in the past and

that may still exist, is of

hat if the current rate of deforestation continues,

Australia's forests would be eliminated in less than 250 years. Much of

the forest loss is associated with the production of woodchips, mainly

for exportation to paper mills in Japan.

The actual number of koalas, or of any potentially endangered

species, that may have been present at various times in the past and

that may still exist, is of

much interest and helps to give some perspective, but may not be a

critical factor in the over-all issue. A low figure may reflect natural

rarity of a population in marginal habitat. A very high figure may be

meaningless if the entire habitat of the involved population faces

imminent destruction. In any event, there is much uncertainty about

both historical and current koala numbers. Based on the sources cited,

populations may have fluctuated considerably down through the 19th

century in association with such factors as disease and the intensity

of aboriginal hunting. It does seem evident, however, that in the early

20th century the number of koalas in Australia was well into the

millions. Such a figure is based on koalas killed for the commercial

fur market during that period. In some years, the number of koalas

taken may have exceeded 2,000,000 and as late as 1927, 600,000 to

1,000,000 were killed in Queensland alone. This destruction, possibly

along with an epidemic (Phillips 1990), may have reduced koala numbers

to just a few thousand. Subsequent conservation efforts, termination of

the fur trade, and reintroduction apparently led to a partial recovery

in range and numbers by the mid-20th century.

Neither the petitioners nor the Australian Nature Conservation

Agency (Phillips 1990) attempted to provide a total estimate of current

koala numbers in Australia. Other parties have suggested over-all

numbers ranging from about 40,000 to 400,000, with the Australian Koala

Foundation supporting the lower figure. In their comments on the

petition, Drs

range and numbers by the mid-20th century.

Neither the petitioners nor the Australian Nature Conservation

Agency (Phillips 1990) attempted to provide a total estimate of current

koala numbers in Australia. Other parties have suggested over-all

numbers ranging from about 40,000 to 400,000, with the Australian Koala

Foundation supporting the lower figure. In their comments on the

petition, Drs. Martin and Handasyde indicated that there probably are

tens of thousands of koalas at each of several study sites in Victoria

alone. Dr. Martin and Ms. Tabart of the Australian Koala Foundation

were able to review some of the information submitted by each other and

neither accepts the other's conclusions. In his comments, Dr. Gordon

developed what he considers to be a very conservative estimate of about

300,000, though he also noted that a slow decline is in progress.

B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or

Educational Purposes.

As indicated above, koalas were devastated by the commercial fur

trade in the early 20th century. This problem is no longer of immediate

concern. Although some koalas reportedly are illegally hunted,

overutilization is not considered as a factor threatening the survival

of the species.

C. Disease or Predation.

There has been much recent concern about the effects of the

bacterium Chlamydia on the koala. This disease-causing organism may

manifest itself in several ways, but especially through infections of

the eyes and urinary tract. It apparently has long been associated with

the koala and may have been responsible for devastating epidemics in

the late 19th and early 20th centuries (Phillips 1990). Information

from both the petitioners and the Australian Nature Conservation Agency

(Phillips 1990) indicates that the adverse effects of the disease are

intensified through the stress caused by habitat loss and

fragmentation

It apparently has long been associated with

the koala and may have been responsible for devastating epidemics in

the late 19th and early 20th centuries (Phillips 1990). Information

from both the petitioners and the Australian Nature Conservation Agency

(Phillips 1990) indicates that the adverse effects of the disease are

intensified through the stress caused by habitat loss and

fragmentation. Chlamydia is widespread in mainland koala populations

and evidently has been responsible for recent declines at some

localities, but is not claimed to be an immediate threat to the over-

all survival of the species. The koala is also subject to various other

diseases and to predation and harassment by domestic dogs and other

introduced animals.

D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms.

Although State laws generally protect the koala from direct taking

and commercial utilization, much of the petitioners' argument is based

on a lack of regulatory mechanisms that adequately protect the habitat

of the species. Much of the koala's remaining habitat is on government

land, but such ownership does not preclude logging and other

modification. There is particular concern that deforestation for the

woodchip market is proceeding without proper assessment of

environmental impacts. Even if such impacts were taken into account,

the petitioners argue the welfare of the koala would not be given

adequate attention because the species, as noted in the comment from

Mr. Bridgewater, is not listed pursuant to Australia's Federal

Endangered Species Protection Act. The koala, however, is classified as

a ``vulnerable and rare species'' on ``Schedule 12--Endangered Fauna,''

issued pursuant to the National Parks and Wildlife Act of New South

Wales.

E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting its Continued Existence.

the species, as noted in the comment from

Mr. Bridgewater, is not listed pursuant to Australia's Federal

Endangered Species Protection Act. The koala, however, is classified as

a ``vulnerable and rare species'' on ``Schedule 12--Endangered Fauna,''

issued pursuant to the National Parks and Wildlife Act of New South

Wales.

E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting its Continued Existence.

The petition and other sources indicate a number of additional

problems confronting the koala. Perhaps most importantly from a long-

term perspective is a loss of genetic viability resulting both from

fragmentation of habitat, which leads to inbreeding of the isolated

animals remaining therein, and descent of many of the existing

populations from colonies that were maintained in a semi-natural

environment on offshore islands. Lack of genetic variability could

increase susceptibility to disease and other problems. This point also

was discussed above relative to the comment by Drs. Roberts and

Hutchins.

Other reported problems include fires (notably the destruction in

1994 of 8,000 square kilometers (3,000 square miles) of New South

Wales, much of which was koala habitat), droughts, harassment by dogs,

and killing along the roads now penetrating habitat. The petition

indicated that the largest population remaining in Queensland was

immediately jeopardized by a major highway project that would bisect

its habitat (efforts by the petitioners and other conservation

organizations reportedly have since resulted in reconsideration of this

project).

The decision to propose threatened status for the koala is based on

an assessment of the best available scientific information, and of

past, present, and probable future threats to the species. The Service

has examined the petition and supporting data, other available

literature and information, and the comments received following the 90-

day finding

lted in reconsideration of this

project).

The decision to propose threatened status for the koala is based on

an assessment of the best available scientific information, and of

past, present, and probable future threats to the species. The Service

has examined the petition and supporting data, other available

literature and information, and the comments received following the 90-

day finding. In now arriving at the required 1-year finding and

consequent proposed rule, a key factor in consideration is the apparent

continued, and possibly accelerating, destruction of key koala habitat

and the likelihood of further reduction and fragmentation of koala

populations, with no remedy imminent.

The koala is part of a unique ecosystem that by all accounts has

been drastically reduced by human activity over the past 200 years and

that is continuing to be adversely affected to such extent that the

species that it supports could potentially be confronted with

extinction. In addition to the substantial information presented by the

petitioners, the Service is impressed by the authoritative consensus

regarding the past and continuing extent of this habitat deterioration.

Telling points include--the IUCN/SSC assessment (Kennedy 1992) that a

50-90 percent decline in range already has occurred; Dr. Gordon's

suggestion that continuation of present trends would jeopardize the

species; the statement by the Australian Nature Conservation Agency

(Phillips 1990) that the forests once supporting the koala are largely

gone and those remaining are rapidly disappearing; and the recent

reports by the Australian Department of the Environment, Sport and

Territories (Glanznig 1995; Graetz, Wilson, and Campbell 1995) showing

continuation of present trends would jeopardize the

species; the statement by the Australian Nature Conservation Agency

(Phillips 1990) that the forests once supporting the koala are largely

gone and those remaining are rapidly disappearing; and the recent

reports by the Australian Department of the Environment, Sport and

Territories (Glanznig 1995; Graetz, Wilson, and Campbell 1995) showing

that nearly two-thirds of koala habitat has been lost and that the

destructive process is continuing unabated. Of those comments that

responded negatively to the petition, none included significant

discussion refuting the case for a long-term threat to the ecosystem of

the koala.

Irrespective of other factors that may indicate that certain

populations are endangered, the above reasoning seems applicable to the

Act's definition of a threatened species as one ``likely to become an

endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a

significant portion of its range.'' Nonetheless, the Service will seek

to obtain and evaluate new information during the comment period. It is

possible that such review would lead to withdrawal of all or part of

this proposal or to a final rule classifying the koala, or certain

populations thereof, as endangered. Critical habitat is not being

proposed, as its designation is not applicable to foreign species.

Available Conservation Measures

Conservation measures provided to species listed as endangered or

threatened under the Act include recognition, recovery actions,

requirements for Federal protection, and prohibitions against certain

practices. Recognition through listing encourages conservation measures

by Federal, international, and private agencies, groups, and

individuals

oreign species.

Available Conservation Measures

Conservation measures provided to species listed as endangered or

threatened under the Act include recognition, recovery actions,

requirements for Federal protection, and prohibitions against certain

practices. Recognition through listing encourages conservation measures

by Federal, international, and private agencies, 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 that are to be conducted 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 proposed or

designated critical habitat (if any). Section 7(a)(2) requires Federal

agencies to ensure that activities they authorize, fund, or carry out

are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed

species or to destroy or adversely modify its critical habitat. If a

proposed Federal action may affect a listed species, the responsible

Federal agency must enter into formal consultation with the Service. No

such actions are currently known with respect to the species covered by

this proposal, except as may apply to importation permit procedures.

Section 8(a) of the Act authorizes the provision of 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 and threatened

species and to provide assistance for such programs in the form of

personnel and the training of personnel.

Section 9 of the Act, and implementing regulations found at 50 CFR

17.21 and 17.31, set forth a series of general prohibitions and

exceptions that apply to all threatened wildlife

f the Act authorize the Secretary to

encourage conservation programs for foreign endangered and threatened

species and to provide assistance for such programs in the form of

personnel and the training of personnel.

Section 9 of the Act, and implementing regulations found at 50 CFR

17.21 and 17.31, set forth a series of general prohibitions and

exceptions that apply to all threatened wildlife. These prohibitions,

in part, make it illegal for any person subject to the jurisdiction of

the United States to take, import or export, ship in interstate

commerce in the course of commercial activity, or sell or offer for

sale in interstate or foreign commerce any threatened wildlife. It also

is illegal to possess, sell, deliver, 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.

Permits may be issued to carry out otherwise prohibited activities

involving endangered and threatened wildlife under certain

circumstances. Regulations governing permits are codified at 50 CFR

17.22, 17.23, and 17.32. Such permits are available for scientific

purposes, to enhance propagation or survival, or for incidental take in

connection with otherwise lawful activities. All such permits must also

be consistent with the purposes and policy of the Act as required by

Section 10(d). For threatened species, there are also permits for

zoological exhibition, educational purposes, or special purposes

consistent with the purposes of the Act.

It is the policy of the Service, published in the Federal Register

on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34272), to identify to the maximum extent

practicable at the time a species is listed those activities that would

or would not constitute a violation of section 9 of the Act. The intent

of this policy is to increase public awareness of the effects of this

listing on proposed or ongoing activities involving the species

cy of the Service, published in the Federal Register

on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34272), to identify to the maximum extent

practicable at the time a species is listed those activities that would

or would not constitute a violation of section 9 of the Act. The intent

of this policy is to increase public awareness of the effects of this

listing on proposed or ongoing activities involving the species. Should

the koala be listed as a threatened species, importations into and

exportations from the United States, and interstate and foreign

commerce, of koala (including parts and products) without a threatened

species permit would be prohibited. Koala removed from the wild or born

in captivity prior to the date the species is listed under the Act

would be considered ``pre-Act'' and would not require permits unless

they enter commerce. When a specimen is sold or offered for sale, it

loses its pre-Act status. Currently 10 zoological institutions in the

United States hold koalas. Questions regarding permit requirements for

U.S. activities should be directed to the Office of Management

Authority, 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Room 700, Arlington, Virginia 22203

(1-800-358-2104).

Processing of this proposed rule conforms with the Service's

Listing Priority Guidance for Fiscal Years 1998 and 1999, published on

May 8, 1998 (63 FR 25502). The guidance clarifies the order in which

the Service will process rulemakings giving highest priority (Tier 1)

to processing emergency rules to add species to the Lists of Endangered

and Threatened Wildlife and Plants (Lists); second priority (Tier 2) to

processing final determinations on proposals to add species to the

Lists; processing new proposals to add species to the Lists; processing

administrative findings on petitions (to add species to the Lists,

delist species, or reclassify listed species), and processing a limited

number of proposed or final rules to delist or reclassify species; and

third priority (Tier 3) to processing proposed or final rules

designating criti

proposals to add species to the

Lists; processing new proposals to add species to the Lists; processing

administrative findings on petitions (to add species to the Lists,

delist species, or reclassify listed species), and processing a limited

number of proposed or final rules to delist or reclassify species; and

third priority (Tier 3) to processing proposed or final rules

designating critical habitat. Processing of this proposed rule is a

Tier 2 action.

Public Comments Solicited

The Service intends that any final rule adopted will be accurate

and as effective as possible in the conservation of endangered or

threatened species. Therefore, comments and suggestions concerning any

aspect of this proposed rule are hereby solicited from the public,

concerned governmental agencies, the scientific community, industry,

private interests, and other parties. Comments particularly are sought

concerning the following:

(1) Biological, commercial, or other relevant data concerning any

threat (or lack thereof) to the subject species;

(2) Information concerning the distribution of this species;

(3) Current or planned activities in the involved areas, and their

possible effect on the subject species; and

(4) Details on the laws, regulations, and management programs

covering each of the affected populations of this species.

Final promulgation of the regulation on the koala will take into

consideration the comments and any additional information received by

the Service, and such communications may lead to adoption of final

regulations that differ substantially from this proposal. It is

particularly emphasized that further evaluation could lead to

withdrawal of all or part of this proposal, or to classification of the

koala, or any population thereof, as endangered. Interested parties are

urged to consider

any additional information received by

the Service, and such communications may lead to adoption of final

regulations that differ substantially from this proposal. It is

particularly emphasized that further evaluation could lead to

withdrawal of all or part of this proposal, or to classification of the

koala, or any population thereof, as endangered. Interested parties are

urged to consider

such alternatives when examining the proposal and preparing their

comments.

The Endangered Species Act provides for a public hearing on this

proposal, if requested. Requests must be filed within 45 days of the

date of the proposal, must be in writing, and should be directed to the

party named in the above ``ADDRESSES'' section.

National Environmental Policy Act

The Service has determined that an Environmental Assessment, as

defined under the authority of the National Environmental Policy Act of

1969, need not be prepared in connection with regulations adopted

pursuant to section 4(a) of the Endangered Species Act, as amended. A

notice outlining the Service's reasons for this determination was

published in the Federal Register of October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244).

Required Determinations

This rule does not require collection of information that requires

approval by the Office of Management and Budget under 44 U.S.C. 3501 et

seq.

References Cited

Glanznig, Andreas. 1995. Native Vegetation Clearance, Habitat Loss

and Biodiversity Decline. An Overview of Recent Native Vegetation

Clearance in Australia and Its Implications for Biodiversity.

Australian Department of the Environment, Sport and Territories,

Biodiversity Series, Paper No. 6, 46 pp.

Graetz, R.D., M.A. Wilson, and S.K. Campbell. 1995. Landcover

Disturbance Over the Australian Continent. A Contemporary

Assessment. Australian Department of the Environment, Sport and

Territories, Biodiversity Series, Paper No. 7, 86 pp.

Kennedy, Michael. 1992. Australian Marsupials and Monotremes. An

Action Plan for their Conservation

and Territories,

Biodiversity Series, Paper No. 6, 46 pp.

Graetz, R.D., M.A. Wilson, and S.K. Campbell. 1995. Landcover

Disturbance Over the Australian Continent. A Contemporary

Assessment. Australian Department of the Environment, Sport and

Territories, Biodiversity Series, Paper No. 7, 86 pp.

Kennedy, Michael. 1992. Australian Marsupials and Monotremes. An

Action Plan for their Conservation. World Conservation Union,

Species Survival Commission, Australasian Marsupial and Monotreme

Specialist Group, Gland, Switzerland, 103 pp.

Phillips, Bill. 1990. Koalas. The Little Australians We'd All Hate

to Lose. Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service (now

Australian Nature Conservation Agency), Australian Government

Publishing Service, Canberra, 104 pp.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.

Proposed Regulation Promulgation

Accordingly, the Service proposes to amend part 17, subchapter B of

chapter I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth

below:

PART 17--[AMENDED]

l. 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 section 17.11(h) by adding the following, in alphabetical

order under MAMMALS, to the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife:

Sec. 17.11 Endangered and threatened wildlife.

* * * * *

. 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 section 17.11(h) by adding the following, in alphabetical

order under MAMMALS, to the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife:

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

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

Mammals

* * * * * * *

Koala............................ Phascolarctos Australia.......... Entire............. T ........... NA NA

cinereus .

* * * * * * *

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

Dated: September 9, 1998.

Jamie Rappaport Clark,

Director.

[FR Doc. 98-25267 Filed 9-21-98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310-55-P