discussed the responsibilities of Federal agencies v/ith respect to oil spill 

 response and emphasized the critical need for interagency cooperation in solving 

 oil spill problems. The question of funding came up during his presentation, 

 specifically with regard to the fact that the Fish and Wildlife Service needs 

 to know whether funds are available immediately for use in bird operations. 



SESSION II: FEDERAL, STATE AND PRIVATE AGENCY 

 VIEWS ON RESPONSE TO OIL SPILLS AFFECTING WILDLIFE 



A. Needs of the Federal On-Scene Coordinator and Regional Response Team 

 for Wildlife Expertise: Charles R. Corbett 



Commander Corbett, the chief of Marine Environmental Protection for the 

 9th U.S. Coast Guard District, Cleveland, Ohio, presented a briefing on the 

 cleanup of the St. Lawrence River in 1976, in which 300,000 gal of No. 6 

 fuel oil were spilled. The cleanup effort, directed by the Coast Guard, 

 involved a joint international response team and required 4 months of work and 

 a cost of $8.5 million. He said the Coast Guard would welcome the assistance 

 of public affairs personnel of the Fish and Wildlife Service in future spills. 

 During his speech, he mentioned a cardinal truism with which anyone who has 

 worked on a spill would agree: that every person (volunteer) involved in the 

 effort is a better expert than you are and one should expect this and act 

 accordingly. He expressed his opinion that the D0I representative on the RRT 

 should be a representative of the Fish and Wildlife Service. He also empha- 

 sized the need for field units to have adequate up-to-date information on 

 existing policy and budget allocations with regard to spills and that the units 

 know (as a matter of internal communications) exactly what the policies are, 

 where the funds are coming from, and what funds are available. 



B. California's Response to Pollution Incidents: Walter H. Putnam 



Inspector Putnam, who is patrol inspector for the California Fish and 

 Game Department at Long Beach, affirmed that the States have not taken any 

 initiative in developing wildlife oil spill response plans. According to 

 Inspector Putnam, one has to develop a sustained rapport with the U.S. Coast 

 Guard in order to keep up-to-date on oil spill response capabilities. He 

 emphasized the need for and importance of local government input into State and 

 Federal response teams. He suggested that less emphasis be placed on "the num- 

 bers game." As an example, he stated that the RRT is required by law to be 

 activated after a 10,000-barrel spill, but he pointed out that in some cases, 

 depending on the size of spill, its location, and type of product involved, the 

 RRT should be activated after a 5,000-barrel spill, or even a 100 gal spill. 

 In California, State operation centers have been set up to handle spills, and 

 a very definite distinction is made between collection efforts and cleaning 

 efforts. Immediate aerial surveys are made over a spill area and mobile collec- 

 tion stations are set up to aid in the cleanup effort. When cleaning stations 

 are established, they are set up in very restricted areas, such as military 

 reservations, where ingress and egress can be controlled and/or restricted. 



In conclusion, he emphasized the need for good public relations represen- 

 tation at the time of the spill and throughout the cleanup effort. Without 

 PR support, the news media is forced to obtain its information from the man 

 on the street. This may lead to inaccuracies and conflicts in reports on 

 the extent of the spill and damages involved. 



145 



