Part of the reason for starting this blog several years ago was the need, from time to time, to set the record straight on various matters that were being misinterpreted or misrepresented in the public debate, particularly false memes that were gaining ground through social media.

So I was glad to see top officials at the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) take a similar approach recently to clear up a controversy generated by the willingness of activists to distort the findings of that agency’s experts when it comes to seismic surveys and marine populations.

Last September I noted that BOEM chief environmental officer William Brown had issued statements as part of a public justification for a decision issued by the bureau regarding energy exploration activities along the Atlantic coast.

Specifically, the bureau refused to side with environmental activists claiming that seismic surveys should be prohibited because they pose grave risks to marine populations.

In fact, as Mr. Brown noted at the time:

To date, there has been no documented scientific evidence of noise from air guns used in geological and geophysical (G&G) seismic activities adversely affecting marine animal populations or coastal communities. This technology has been used for more than 30 years around the world. It is still used in U.S. waters off of the Gulf of Mexico with no known detrimental impact to marine animal populations or to commercial fishing.

It could hardly be clearer.

Yet, as Mr. Brown noted last month, numerous public comments that have since been made about the issue claim the opposite.

Worse, they cite BOEM as the authority on the misinformation they seek to spread.

Agency officials apparently felt the misinformation was gaining enough traction that a clarification was warranted. So Mr. Brown used his monthly newsletter to spell out exactly why those trying to link seismic surveys to marine animal injury are wrong, and why they are doubly wrong for claiming that BOEM backs them up.

It’s worth reading the whole thing yourself. To clear up any misunderstandings, Mr. Brown gives a good explanation of some of the arcane terms involved, such as “negligible impact” and “optimum sustainable population.”

He also explains what the law means by a “take,” a broad regulatory term that is frequently misunderstood and at times is intentionally misrepresented. As defined by statute, a “take” encompasses everything from an act that kills a marine mammal to one that merely has the potential to cause disturbance.

Obviously, a lot of mischief can be made out of exploiting the various meanings of terms like those … and has been.

It’s good to see that BOEM is pushing back against such exploitation and misinformation, and instead is insisting upon the application of sound science when it comes to serious matters like marine animal protection.