CEC Releases Draft Chemical Action Plans


North American Environmental Commission Releases Draft Chemical Action Plans for Public Comment

----Montreal, October 18, 1996.

Action plans aimed at reducing the dangerous effects of mercury and two pesticides in North America are being released today for public comment. The Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC), whose governing body is composed of high-level environmental officials from Canada, Mexico and the United States, sent out copies of the plans to nearly 100 scientists, representatives of non-governmental organizations and industry. An action plan for PCBs was already sent out for public review.

Comments and suggestions on the four action plans will be reviewed by the working groups that developed the action plans. At a meeting to be held in Mexico City at the end of the month, working group participants will take these comments into account while preparing the final drafts of the regional hazardous chemical action plans. The first draft action plans will be presented to the three governments by the end of the year. This is the second time the working group has released the draft action plans for public comment.

The North American environment ministers chose the group of four hazardous substances=97PCBs, mercury, chlordane and DDT=97at their annual meeting last year in Oaxaca, Mexico. Canada, Mexico and the United States created a high-level working group in response to growing global concern over the health dangers posed by such substances. The CEC Council of Ministers agreed that these four dangerous substances would be the first to be identified by the three countries for eventual reduction or regional phase-out. While steps have been taken in Canada, Mexico and the United States to control the use and release of all four substances they continue to exist at unacceptable levels in the North American environment. In keeping with international commitments, two other hazardous pollutants or heavy metals will be identified by the NAFTA partners by the end of this year.

The CEC (http://www.cec.org/), equally funded by the governments of Canada, Mexico and the United States, is located in Montreal. The Council of Ministers is composed of Canadian Environment Minister Sergio Marchi, the Mexican Secretary of Environment, Natural Resources and Fisheries Julia Carabias, and EPA Administrator Carol Browner.

For more information please contact Andrew Hamilton (the Head of CEC Science Division) at (514) 350-4300.

Marcos Silva
Information Specialist
NAFTA Commission for Environmental Cooperation
393 rue St-Jacques, West, Bureau 200
Montreal, Quebec, Canada
H2Y 1N9
Fax: (514)350-4314
Internet: msilva@ccemtl.org
Organization: NIWA


Subject: target strength/ brief incomplete ref. list

Hydroacoustically, what are the most appropriate measurement techniques of the target strength of a particular fish?

I trust this will be a start for your questions.
I send this to the list in case others are interested.

Anonymous 1995. Report of the study group on target strength methodology. ICES C.M. 1995/B:3: Pages p.

Coombs, R.F. and Cordue, P.L. 1995. Evolution of a stock assessment tool: acoustic surveys of spawning hoki (Macruronus novaezealandiae) off the west coast of the South Island, New Zealand, 1985-91. NZ J. mar. freshw. Res. 29: 175-194.

Ehrenberg, J.E. 1979. A comparative analysis of in situ methods for directly measuring the acoustic target strength of individual fish. IEEE J. Oceanogr. Eng. OE-4:

Ehrenberg, J.E. 1983. A review of in situ target strength estimation techniques, p. In Nakken, O. and Venema, S.C. [ed.], Selected papers of the ICES/FAO Symposium on Fisheries Acoustics. Bergen, Norway.

Ehrenberg, J.E. 1989. A review of target strength estimation techniques, p. 161-176. In Chan, Y.T. [ed.], Underwater acoustic data processing. Kluwer Academic Publishers,

Foote, K. 1991. Summary of methods for determining fish target strength at ultrasonic frequencies. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 48: 211-217.

Foote, K.G., Knudsen, H.P., Vestnes, G., MacLennan, D.N. and Simmonds, E.J. 1987. Calibration of acoustic instruments for fish density estimation: a practical guide. Int. Coun. Explor. Sea Coop. Res. Rep. 144: Pages p.

MacLennan, D.N. 1981. The target strength of cod at 38 kHz as a function of fish length. ICES CM. 1981/B:27:11 p. (mimeo): Pages p.

MacLennan, D.N. 1982. Target strength measurements on metal spheres. Scottish Fisheries Research Reports 25: 20 pp.

MacLennan, D.N. 1984. Fisheries acoustics: a review of general principles. Rapp. P.-v. Reun. Cons. int. Explor. Mer. 184: 7-18.

MacLennan, D.N. 1990. Acoustical measurement of fish abundance. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 87: 1-15.

MacLennan, D.N. and MacKenzie, I.G. 1988. Precision of acoustic fish stock estimates. Can J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 45: 605-616.

MacLennan, D.N., Magurran, A.E., Pitcher, T.J. and Hollingworth, C.E. 1990. Behavioural determinants of fish target strength. Rapports et Proces-Verbaux des Reunions du Conseil International pour l'Exploration de la Mer 189: 245-253.

MacLennan, D.N. and Simmonds, E.J. 1992.
Fisheries acoustics. Chapman & Hall, London. 325 p.

Midttun, L. 1984. Fish and other organisms as acoustic targets. Rapport et Proces-Verbaux de Reunions 184: 25-33.

Olsen, K. 1990. Fish behaviour and acoustic sampling. Rapports et Proces-Verbaux des Reunions du Conseil International pour l'Exploration de la Mer 189: 147-158.

Traynor, J.J. 1984. Dual beam measurement of fish target strength and results of an echo intergation survey of the eastern Bering Sea waleye pollock (Theragra chalcogramma). PhD thesis, University of Washington, City. Pages p.

Sam McClatchie
Research Scientist
National Institute for Water & Atmosphere (NIWA)
PO Box 14-901 Kilbirnie
Wellington, New Zealand
EMAIL s.mcclatchie@niwa.cri.nz

ph. 64 04 386 0300 (work)
FAX 64 4 386 0574
Courier 295 Evans Bay Parade
ph. 64 04 801 6886 (home)
56 A Palliser Rd. Wellington

BACK TO *********************************************************************