benefit the healthy, balanced management not mismanagement, of the marine mammal, fish, and bird species which inhabit our territorial waters.

MS. PERKINS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The National Wildlife Federation, with over 4.6 million members and supporters, is the Nation's largest grassroots organization dedicated to the wise use, conservation, and restoration of the Nation's natural resources.

With affiliate organizations in each of the 50 States, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands, NWF reflects a broad cross section of State, local, and National interests.

NWF appreciates this opportunity to testify on the Marine Mammal Protection Act.

This act, passed in October 1972, reflects the concern and conviction of the Congress and the American people to insure a healthy status of marine mammal populations in our jurisdictional waters and coastal areas.

NWF and its members share this concern; in fact, our Wildlife Week theme this year is "We Care About Oceans."

Our 1981 Wildlife Week chairman, Walter Cronkite, an avid sailor and conservationist, has said about oceans, "They are a priceless resource that we must protect."

We agree with the intent of the ecosystem-management approach of the MMPA, with some qualifications, and would be glad to see a similar approach taken with other wildlife management legislation.

To encourage management of species in isolation from, or to the detriment of, others, is a bad resource planning concept.

All species within a healthy ecosystem are interrelated and interdependent, and any good management plan should consider this, even if only select species are of commercial or aesthetic value.

Several areas of controversy have emerged in the 8 years since enactment of the MMPA, some of which may require legislative resolution, but most of which can be taken care of through the regulatory process and through better administration.

Since the purpose of this hearing is to explore and to air the perceived strengths and weaknesses of the MMPA, we will address in only the most general terms the areas we are concerned with. Like other wildlife legislation, the MMPA has divided jurisdiction between the Department of Commerce and the Department of the Interior.

This division may make sense, since nine of the marine mammals species protected or preserved under the act spend a significant amount of time on land.

There have been problems, however, with joint management, such as lack of coordination in regulation, research, and administration.

The question has been raised of late, that transfer of all jurisdiction to one agency may result in improved management.

We would like to recommend that the committee explore this idea, as well as other methods to better coordinate research, management, and regulatory activities.

As just stated, we believe cooperative research between the agencies to be the best approach.

We further believe that the Marine Mammal Commission should play a strong role in this regard.

Part of the problem with decisionmaking in this field is the lack of scientifically sound information about the species involved.

We feel it is also important to coordinate marine mammal research with fishery and habitat research.

Coastal and pelagic birds also play a significant part in marine ecology and should be given much greater consideration than presently afforded. Adequate funds are necessary to conduct this vital research.

Proposed budget cuts by the new administration are a cause of great concern to NWF, particularly in the cooperative research units, and sea grant programs.

Coordination with MMPA, Fisheries Conservation and Management Act, and Endangered Species Act:

NWF believes that the FCMA and MMPA are not incompatible, and that better administration of the acts would alleviate apparent conflicts.

We do not think there is any ambiguity between the goals of MMPA and ESA. We do not believe that the Endangered Species Act should be used as a "safety net" for any species managed under the MMPA or other wildlife program.

The reduction of a species population to levels sufficient to quality for protection under ESA evidences serious mismanagement. Federal transfer of management authority to States:

Some controversy, particularly in the State of Alaska, has arisen in regard to the transfer of management authority to the State as has been adequately covered today, has arisen in regard to the transfer of management authority to the State.

Alaska has experienced difficulty with the MMPA native exemption provision.

In our opinion, the MMPA's mechanism for transfer of management authority should work well; however, some regulatory revision to ease the burden of State takeover may be needed.

We also believe that the native exemption problem must be resolved with the health and stability of the resource as the bottom line.

The federation is concerned with the waste associated with the incidental take of porpoise by the tuna industry.

We have, however, been favorably impressed by the dramatic reductions which have taken place in the last few years, and by the efforts made by the industry to comply with annual quotas.

We are aware that the tuna industry continues to have problems with the MMPA, and have reviewed a list of tentative amendments proposed by them.

At this time, while we intend to support the stability of this valuable American industry, we are not convinced that legislative remedy is called for in order to alleviate their claimed concerns. In light of these and other controversies, we recommend an unamended 1-year reauthorization at this time to allow all interested parties the time to resolve their differences.

We support this committee's intent to hold oversight hearings this summer, and want to see a 3- to 5-year reauthorization passed this fall that will benefit the healthy, balanced management, not

mismanagement, of the marine mammal, fish and bird species which inhabit our territorial waters.

Mr. BREAUX. Thank you.

Next we have on the list Ms. Phoebe Wray, executive director, Center for Action on Endangered Species.

Ms. WRAY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I am Phoebe Wray and I am from the town of Ayer, Mass. I have a very brief written statement I would like to give for the record and summarize what brings me to Washington.

I am delighted to be able to comment on the reauthorization of the Marine Mammal Protection Act.

I wish to call your attention to that wonderous animal the Florida manatee. We have been interested at the Center for Action for about 7 years in the West Indian manatee and have seen only in recent times some real progress on protection of this species.

I am sure you are aware that there are an estimated 1,000 manatees left in Florida and probably every adult manatee there has scars from one or more encounters with speeding power boats. In fact, the scars are so visible they are currently being used to tell individuals apart in research programs. In the last year or so we began to see some real action on slowing down motor boats in manatee waters. We have seen some sanctuaries set aside. The reason that this has happened, in our view is that under the Marine Mammal Protection Act the very good offices of the Marine Mammal Commission stepped in, after many years of bureaucratic inertia and inaction-and began to really get things done for the manatee.

That is an area where the Commission has really done its work and where the Marine Mammal Protection Act is seen to be of great value for an interesting and important marine mammal species.

No one can say at this moment that manatees are safe, if such a concept ever existed in biological terms, but it is our view that they are safer than they were even 2 years ago because of the Marine Mammal Protection Act and because of the work of the Marine Mammal Commission on the problems of the manatee in Florida. It has been a difficult problem. We have heard today about the tuna-porpoise problem and walruses. Here is this marvelous animal in Florida that has cement blocks dropped on its head, and garden rakes embedded in its back and pesticides dumped into its water, and dredge and fill and speeding powerboats run over it and what else. Powerplant effluent where it takes refuge from cold snaps may in fact contain heavy metals at times, and may be a problem for it.

And to top it all off we had a very cold winter. Manatees are very susceptible to cold. So in fact it is as deserving of our real attention in terms of marine mammal problems as any other species that we have mentioned today.

My feeling is that all manatees are still at risk at all times in all waters of Florida, but because of the act and because of the recent programs pushed forward by the Marine Mammal Commission in their real problemsolving role, we can breathe a little easier about the manatee.

I think there is a similar set of problems yet unsolved involving Federal-State cooperation, or the need thereof, with the Hawaiian monk seal and something will have to be done about that soon. That can happen under this act and probably with the services of the Marine Mammal Commission again.

We at the Center for Action therefore urge that the Marine Mammal Protection Act be reauthorized for a period of 3 years. I have listened very carefully and was instructed by my board to listen very carefully to the arguments put forward for less than 3 years.

We are still convinced that 3 years is a good period. Animals do not run their lives in terms of months or years or days and in fact with biological programs, 1 year is simply not enough time for anything where you are dealing with any marine mammal species. We further urge the 3-year authorization of the act because as a conservation group that deals primarily with the general public our correspondents show concern for marine mammals. We do not have 4.6 million members but in fact we have a mailing list that approaches 10,000, which ain't bad for a little group from Ayer, Mass.

Our mail reflects a continuing, if anything, an increasing and more sophisticated concern from the general public of this country and elsewhere around the world for the health of not just marine mammals but for the whole concept of a holistic approach to the Earth, an ecosystem approach looking to some sort of a new way of looking at the solution to marine mammal problems which reflects an ecoethic.

I believe that as a result of just what our mail says, that the Marine Mammal Protection Act in its present form reflects the general concern as we see it and the wishes of the American people.

Thank you very much.

[The statement of Phoebe Wray follows:].

STATEMENT OF PHOEBE WRAY, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, THE CENTER FOR ACTION ON ENDANGERED SPECIES, INC.

I am Phoebe Wray, Executive Director of The Center for Action on Endangered Species, Inc., an international environmental group with corporate offices in Ayer, Massachusetts. The Center for Action celebrated its eighth birthday last October; so it is just slightly younger than the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 (MMPA). I am very pleased to have the opportunity to comment in this hearing for reauthorization of that Act.

The Center for Action has had a long interest in the Sirenia, those sometimes over-looked marine mammals which are represented in the United States by the West Indian manatee. All the sirenians-three species of manatees and the dugong-are in trouble. Only in the US is there hope for long-term survival, because only here exists the MMPA and its highly effective adjunct, the Marine Mammal Commission.

Probably every adult manatee in Florida has been scarred by one or more encounters with speeding powerboats. The scars are so visible, in fact, researchers now use scar patterns to identify individuals. The scarred-up manatees are the survivers. Many are killed by these same powerboats.

Sanctuary has recently been set aside for manatees and speedboat regulations during winter months are now promulgated and, happily, pretty well enforced. On behalf of The Center for Action, I have worked on the problems of manatee conservation for six years. It has been a frustrating experience. With that background, I feel confident in saying that without the Marine Mammal Commission's problem solving approach to marine mammal protection, and its stamina and tact, manatees would not yet enjoy the protection now available to them. It was the

Commission which facilitated solution to problems between the US Fish and Wildlife Service and the State of Florida. It was the Commission which asked the tough questions and demanded answers. It was the Commission's good offices which finally broke through bureaucratic inertia and buck-passing and got some real protection for manatees in Florida. No one can say manatees are "safe" if such a concept even exists in biological terms for endangered species. But The Center for Action feels they are "safer" than they used to be and that is because the MMPA works and the Marine Mammal Commission is especially effective.

I was present at a Commission meeting in Tampa, Florida, which addressed manatee protection. The Commission and its Scientific Committee were tough on those who were not upholding the integrity of the law and encouraging to those who

were.

The problems of manatee protection have been especially difficult. Obviously, all the boats in Florida can't be pulled out of the water, nor can all dredge-and-fill stop. Diver harrassment is hard to assess and control because a few individual manatees like people and actively solicit belly-rubs. But-solutions must be found or manatees will dwindle into a cipher and be gone. State and federal agencies did a lot of talking and hand-wringing but took very little action until the Commission stepped in to urge along boating regulations in known manatee winter congregation areas, encourage research useful to management, and insist that manatees be a priority for the agencies charged with their protection.

The unfortunate fact remains that all manatees are still at risk at all times in Florida. There is work yet to be done, but at least there is progress.

A similar but unsolved set of problems exists with regard to the Hawaiian monk seal. Federal and State people will have to come together, as they did on the manatee, or this species faces extinction. The Caribbean monk seal has already disappeared; the Mediterranean monk seal has been reduced to less than 500. Ă viable population of the Hawaiian monk seal remains and requires special effort. The Center for Action takes as its special task public information and education. We get a tremendous amount of mail. We have seen the level of awareness and concern for marine mammals steadily increase over the past eight years. We do not see that concern diminishing at all, even now in these times of economic uncertainty and hardship.

In my job at The Center for Action I travel and have the opportunity to discuss marine mammals with people from many nations. The Marine Mammal Protection Act is seen abroad as landmark legislation. Our mail suggest there is a vast constituency for protection of marine mammals. We believe there is a mandate from the American people to protect and cherish the splendid mammals of the seas. We therefore urge that the Marine Mammal Protection Act be reauthorized for three years. The Act protects species which do not measure their lives in days or years. Indeed, in terms of biological time, three years is of no importance. In political terms, in terms of this America at this moment in her history, we feel strongly that the MMPA should be continued in its present strong and flexible form. We further urge support of that cost-effective, cracker-jack organization, the Marine Mammal Commission.

The Act has proved itself workable, popular with the public, and reflective of its wishes.

Thank you.

Mr. BREAUX. Thank you, Ms. Wray.

Next we will hear from Ms. Margaret Owings, president, Friends of the Sea Otter, California.

Ms. OWINGS. Chairman Breaux and distinguished members of this subcommittee, I am Margaret Owings of Friends of the Sea Otter and I have come to speak about the smallest marine mammal under the Marine Mammal Protection Act.

I come from California where I have lived for 23 years on a cliff directly above a small population of sea otters. One might say I have come from the eye of a storm.

I am not a scientist-simply a strong-minded citizen who has watched this controvery continue for over a dozen years.

I want to place before you our strong support for the full reauthorization of the Marine Mammal Protection Act without amendment.