Greenpeace posts huge volume of documents obtained by FOIA; some emails suggest that certain response measures were not scientifically sound

One of the emails describing NOAA efforts to understand the impacts of the oil spill response on endangered sea turtles.

A Kemp's Ridley turtle is returned to the Gulf for release off Cedar Key, Florida, following rehabilitation from oil exposure resulting from the Deepwater Horizon/BP spill. PHOTO COURTESY NOAA.
By Summit Voice
SUMMIT COUNTY — As oil gushed from BP’s ruined Deepwater Horizon drilling operation last summer, federal officials hastily approved all sorts of emergency measures, including major dredging projects aimed at protecting low-lying coastal areas and beaches with sand berms.
But a chain of emails among various federal officials obtained by Greenpeace under a Freedom of Information Act request indicate concern about an “extraordinarily high” level of sea turtle mortality and suggests that approval of the dredging was rushed, taking place even before the head of NOAA’s sea turtle program had a chance to review the plans.
The approval may have been a politically motivated decision, according to Barbara Schroeder, sea turtle coordinator for NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service:
“This is insult to injury for a politically forced berm project that all experts say will fail and is ecologically unsound,” Schroeder wrote in a July 10 email to other NOAA officials.
“This issue has a strong potential for media and NGO attention … On top of the problems the oil and the oil cleanup are causing, this berm project now being conducted is not only destroying foraging habitat, it is directly disrupting and harming turtles as well – including at least one mortality in a very brief time period,” Schroeder wrote in another email describing how many sea turtles were being affected by the dredging.
The emails go on to describe continual problems with the dredging operations. At one point, the NOAA officials discuss involving local law enforcement officials in boarding operations on the dredge boats and trawlers.
Here’s Schroeder again, writing to NOAA colleagues on July 1:
“Someone higher up the food chain needs to be involved in this meeting. I don’t know how else to say this in how many different ways but we are a small handful of people trying to cover what in a normal situation would compose a lifetime of work for multiple individuals, across everything we are faced with in response, NRDA, now restoration, public affairs, near term and long term research development, multiple masters, etc. etc.. Every day there are new issues, new directives, new exploding situations – e.g., yesterday COE tells us the hopper dredges are coming out of the river to likely high density turtle habitat to build the “berm”, and that they will soon have many trawlers working to catch turtle around these dredges, there could be 0,10,20,30,40 oiled or non-oiled turtles a day — how do we get all those turtles to unoiled safe habitat, how do we get all those potentially oiled turtles to rehab, how do we organize the portslthe transport, they don’t know anything about chain of custody on the COE side, etc etc etc. It’s getting worse, not better.”
These exchanges are just a small excerpt from about 30,000 pages of documents related to the Deepwater Horizon oil disaster that have been posted publicly by Greenpeace. The organization is asking the public to help sift through the material. Here’s an excerpt from the Greenpeace blog:
“While some of the agencies have simply ignored our requests, others have gotten back with some interesting documents. The problem is we simply don’t have time to go through them all. The Guardian ran a series of stories about them last week but no one has the manpower to read the fine print. Plus, we’re getting more through the letterbox almost every day.”
The reports, emails and other documents are posted online at this file-sharing website.
Filed under: BP Gulf oil spill, endangered species, Environment, Marine biology Tagged: | BP oil spill, Deepwater Horizon, endangered species, Environment, Greenpeace, Kemp's ridley, national marine fisheries service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, sea turtles, Summit County News


Breckenridge Destinations supports independent journalism. Click for great deals on vacation lodging in Breckenridge.





Arapahoe Basin supports independent journalism. Click to visit The Legend online.
Powder's falling at Monarch!! Have you reserved your spot yet?


Innovative energy underwrites coverage of energy stories.


[...] Oil Spill: Did Politics Trump Science In The Response? [...]
Oil Spill Eater II There was a non toxic Alternative to clean up the spill that has been successfully tested by BP after 10 months of spill damages. The Coast Guard sent a letter from headquarters stating to the FOSC to take action with OSE II, and the EPA, Lisa Jackson stopped the Coast Guard from allowing BP from implementing OSE II. In fact the EPA stopped the application of OSE II 11 times denying State Senators direct request for use of OSE II from Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama. La Department of environmental requested the use of OSE II as well, EPA’s Sam Coleman denied their request without reason. Governor Jindal tried to get OSE II demonstrated on the Chandelier Islands on May 6, 2010, and the EPA stopped the Governor as well. The EPA in fact stopped the use of OSE II 11 times, without a reason given. Had the EPA allowed Governor Jindal to allow the demonstration of OSE II on May 6, 2010, it is possible a significant portion of the environmental damages, including the shorelines and the seafood industry would have been spared. The toxicty test comparison between OSE II and corexit really cannot be compared since with corexit, the label states it can cause red blood cells to burst, kidney, and liver problems if a chemical suit and respirator are not worn. OSE II in contrast can be used to wash your hands and is non toxic. The BP Deep Horizon spill has proven that corexit only sinks oil and causes the same oil to be addressed a second time when it comes ashore as under water plumes, or tar balls, while OSE II has a substantiated end point of converting oil to CO2 and water. See Coast Guard letter below
U. S. Department
of Homeland Security
United States
Coast Guard
Commanding Officer 1 Chelsea Street
U. S. Coast Guard New London, CT 06320
Research and Development Center Staff Symbol: Contracting Office
Phone: (860) 271-2807
July 10, 2010
OSEI Corporation
P.O. Box 515429
Dallas, TX 75251
Attn: Steven Pedigo, President/Owner
DEEPWATER HORIZON RESPONSE BAA HSCG32-10-R-R00019, TRACKING #2003954
We are pleased to inform you that the initial screening of your White Paper submitted under Broad Agency Announcement (BAA) HSCG32-10-R-R00019 has been completed. It has been determined that your White Paper submission has a potential for benefit to the spill response effort.
Your White Paper has been forwarded to the Deepwater Horizon Response Federal On-Scene Coordinator (FOSC) for further action under its authority. Subject to the constraints and needs of the ongoing oil spill response, you may be contacted by the FOSC or the responsible party.
We appreciate your interest in supporting the Deepwater Horizon Response effort.
Contracting Officer /s/
USCG R&D Center