our only choice is how, not if, we get it done. We can try to develop the 

 expertise and muster the manpower to do it all ourselves, or we can utilize 

 the expertise and talents of other professional and volunteer groups to best 

 advantage. There is no doubt that we must proceed to develop a relatively 

 small central core capability within the Service that can respond when necessary 

 to establish and carry out bird collection, treatment, and rehabilitation 

 activities. 



A variety of other actions will be necessary during an actual spill 

 response, but I will not dwell on these here. I am sure many will be 

 brought up and discussed during the workshop. 



POSTSPILL EVALUATION AND REPORTING 



Our chores do not end after response activities have been terminated 

 and the cleanup is finished. In order to capitalize on our experience from 

 each spill, it is worthwhile to critique our actions and the actions of others 

 during the response to identify weaknesses and strengths in our planning. 

 I am suggesting that after each spill incident involving a significant input 

 from the Fish and Wildlife Service, postspill critiques be held both at 

 the local and Washington office level. The local critique should involve 

 Service and state personnel and representatives from volunteer groups who 

 participated in the response. The Washington critique should involve key 

 Service individuals, such as regional and field-level coordinators, and in 

 some cases, certain State or private individuals particularly involved in 

 the spill . 



In any case, a detailed followup report should be prepared by the Service's 

 field coordinator. The report should provide sufficient information, as 

 well as a chronological record of events, to respond fully to the Director, 

 Congress, or the public as to the Service's participation in the response. 

 This analysis should include the potential and actual impacts of the spill 

 on fish and wildlife, working relationships with other agencies, strengths 

 and weaknesses in our response, and recommendations for improvement. 



Documentation of the effects of the spill is a vital postspill responsi- 

 bility. This information is essential to the Service in evaluating the direct 

 impact of an oil spill on the resources for which we are responsible, and 

 in determining effectiveness of response efforts. This information may also 

 be needed to instigate a legal suit against the responsible party, to answer 

 Congressional or public inquiries, or to meet a variety of other purposes. 

 Generally, the EPA will organize and coordinate postspill environmental 

 damage assessments, with input from other agencies. Service coordinators 

 must be tuned into these assessments and provide input whenever possible. 

 Long-term impact studies are often conducted after particularly damaging 

 spills, such as the recent disaster involving the Argo Merchant off Nantucket 

 and the disaster involving Nepoo 140 in the St. Lawrence Seaway last summer. 

 We need to play a more prominent role in these studies, both in their design 

 and possibly through financial support. 



In addition to the documentation of the biological impacts of the spill, 

 a close tab should also be kept on our dollar expenditures during a response, 

 including both manpower and funds from the Federal revolving fund, as well 

 as from our own program funds. This information is needed if legal action 

 is taken and is also useful in developing budget estimates in our overall 



planning efforts. 



7 



