46846 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 161 / Tuesday, August 21, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 216 

[Docket No. 070703226–7461–02; I.D. 

062206A] 

RIN 0648–AT80 

Taking and Importing Marine 

Mammals; Taking Marine Mammals 

Incidental to the U.S. Navy Operations 

of Surveillance Towed Array Sensor 

System Low Frequency Active Sonar 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: NMFS, upon application from 

the U.S. Navy, is issuing regulations to 

govern the unintentional taking of 

marine mammals incidental to Navy 

operation of the Surveillance Towed 

Array Sensor System Low Frequency 

Active (SURTASS LFA) Sonar. Issuance 

of regulations, and Letters of 

Authorization issued under these 

regulations, is required by the Marine 

Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) when 

the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary), 

after notice and opportunity for 

comment, finds, as here, that such takes 

will have a negligible impact on the 

affected species or stocks of marine 

mammals and will not have an 

unmitigable adverse impact on their 

availability for taking for subsistence 

uses. These regulations set forth the 

permissible methods of take and other 

means of effecting the least practicable 

adverse impact on the affected species 

or stocks of marine mammals and their 

habitat. 

DATES: Effective from August 16, 2007, 

through August 15, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: A copy of the application, 

containing a list of references used in 

this document, and other documents 

cited herein, may be obtained by writing 

to P. Michael Payne, Chief, Permits, 

Conservation and Education Division, 

Office of Protected Resources, National 

Marine Fisheries Service, 1315 EastWest Highway, Silver Spring, MD 

20910–3225, by telephoning one of the 

contacts listed under FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT, or at: http:// 

www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/ 

incidental.htm. 

A copy of the Navy’s Final 

Supplemental Environmental Impact 

Statement (Final SEIS) and the Final 

Environmental Impact Statement (Final 

EIS) can be downloaded at: http:// 

www.surtass-lfa-eis.com. Documents 

cited in this rule may also be viewed, by 

appointment, during regular business 

hours at this address. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Kenneth Hollingshead, NMFS, at 301– 

713–2289, ext 128. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the Marine 

Mammal Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 1361 

et seq.) (MMPA) directs the Secretary of 

Commerce (Secretary) to allow, upon 

request, the incidental, but not 

intentional taking of marine mammals 

by U.S. citizens who engage in a 

military readiness activity if certain 

findings are made and regulations are 

issued. 

The MMPA directs the Secretary to 

allow the requested incidental taking 

during periods of not more than 5 

consecutive years each if the Secretary 

finds that the total taking will have a 

negligible impact on the affected species 

or stock(s), will not have an unmitigable 

adverse impact on the availability of the 

species or stock(s) for certain 

subsistence uses. The Secretary must 

also issue regulations setting forth the 

permissible methods of taking and other 

means of effecting the least practicable 

adverse impact, including a 

consideration of personnel safety, the 

practicality of implementation of any 

mitigation, and the impact on the 

effectiveness of the subject military 

readiness activity, and the requirements 

pertaining to the monitoring and 

reporting of such taking. These 

regulations do not themselves authorize 

the taking of marine mammals. NMFS 

authorizes the incidental take through 

‘‘letters of authorization’’ (LOAs) (50 

CFR 216.106). Prior to issuance of an 

LOA, NMFS conducts a review of the 

activity and its impact on marine 

mammals (via the required monitoring, 

reporting and research) to ensure that 

the MMPA findings continue to be 

valid. 

NMFS has defined ‘‘negligible 

impact’’ in 50 CFR 216.103 as ‘‘an 

impact resulting from the specified 

activity that cannot be reasonably 

expected to, and is not reasonably likely 

to, adversely affect the species or stock 

through effects on annual rates of 

recruitment or survival.’’ For the 

purposes of ‘‘military readiness 

activities’’ harassment is defined as: 

(i) Any act that injures or has the 

significant potential to injure a marine 

mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild 

[Level A harassment]; or (ii) any act that 

disturbs or is likely to disturb a marine 

mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild 

by causing disruption of natural behavioral 

patterns, including, but not limited to, 

migration, surfacing, nursing, breeding, 

feeding, or sheltering, to a point where such 

behavioral patterns are abandoned or 

significantly altered [Level B harassment]. 

The term ‘‘military readiness activity’’ 

is defined in Public Law 107–314 (16 

U.S.C. 703 note) to include all training 

and operations of the Armed Forces that 

relate to combat; and the adequate and 

realistic testing of military equipment, 

vehicles, weapons and sensors for 

proper operation and suitability for 

combat use. The term expressly does not 

include the routine operation of 

installation operating support functions, 

such as military offices, military 

exchanges, commissaries, water 

treatment facilities, storage facilities, 

schools, housing, motor pools, 

laundries, morale, welfare and 

recreation activities, shops, and mess 

halls; the operation of industrial 

activities; or the construction or 

demolition of facilities used for a 

military readiness activity. 

Summary of Request 

On May 12, 2006, NMFS received an 

application from the U.S. Navy 

requesting an authorization under 

section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA for 

the taking of marine mammals by Level 

A and Level B harassment, incidental to 

deploying the SURTASS LFA sonar 

system for military readiness activities 

to include training, testing and routine 

military operations within the world’s 

oceans (except for Arctic and Antarctic 

waters, coastal regions as specified in 

this rule, and offshore biologically 

important areas (OBIAs)) for a period of 

time not to exceed 5 years. According to 

the Navy’s application, the Navy 

planned to operate the SURTASS LFA 

sonar system on a maximum of 4 ships 

in areas potentially including the 

Pacific, Atlantic, and Indian oceans and 

the Mediterranean Sea. 

SURTASS LFA sonar provides the 

Navy with a reliable and dependable 

system for long-range detection of 

quieter, harder-to-find submarines. Lowfrequency (LF) sound travels in seawater 

for greater distances than higher 

frequency sound used by most other 

active sonars. According to the Navy, 

the SURTASS LFA sonar system would 

meet the Navy’s need for improved 

detection and tracking of newgeneration submarines at a longer range. 

This would maximize the opportunity 

for U.S. armed forces to safely react to, 

and defend against, potential submarine 

threats while remaining a safe distance 

beyond a submarine’s effective weapons 

range. 

NMFS and the Navy have determined 

that the Navy’s use of SURTASS LFA 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 161 / Tuesday, August 21, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 46847 

sonar testing, training, and routine 

military operations constitute a military 

readiness activity because those 

activities constitute ‘‘training and 

operations of the Armed Forces that 

relate to combat’’ and constitute 

‘‘adequate and realistic testing of 

military equipment, vehicles, weapons 

and sensors for proper operation and 

suitability for combat use.’’

NMFS’ current regulations governing 

takings incidental to SURTASS LFA 

sonar activities and the current LOA 

extends through August 15, 2007. 

On September 28, 2006 (71 FR 56965), 

NMFS published a Notice of Receipt of 

Application on the U.S. Navy 

application and invited interested 

persons to submit comments, 

information, and suggestions concerning 

the application and the structure and 

contents of regulations. These 

comments were considered in the 

development of the proposed and final 

rules. 

Prior Litigation, Involving LFA Sonar 

On August 7, 2002, the Natural 

Resources Defense Council, the U.S. 

Humane Society and four other 

plaintiffs filed suit against the Navy and 

NMFS over SURTASS LFA sonar use 

and permitting. The U.S. District Court 

for the Northern District of California 

(Court) issued its Opinion and Order on 

the parties’ motions for summary 

judgment in the SURTASS LFA sonar 

litigation on August 26, 2003. The Court 

found deficiencies in Navy and NMFS 

compliance with the MMPA, 

Endangered Species Act (ESA), and 

National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA). The Court determined that an 

injunction was warranted but did not 

order a complete ban on the use of 

SURTASS LFA sonar. Specifically, the 

Court found that a total ban on the 

employment of SURTASS LFA sonar 

would interfere with the Navy’s ability 

to ensure military readiness and to 

protect those serving in the military 

against the threat posed by hostile 

submarines. The Court directed the 

parties to meet and confer on the scope 

of a tailored permanent injunction, 

which would allow for continued 

operation of the system with additional 

mitigation measures. The parties 

entered into a Stipulation Regarding 

Permanent Injunction that allowed the 

Navy to operate SURTASS LFA sonar 

from both R/V Cory Chouest and USNS 

IMPECCABLE (T–AGOS 23) in 

stipulated portions of the Northwest 

Pacific/Philippine Sea, Sea of Japan, 

East China Sea, and South China Sea 

with certain year-round and seasonal 

restrictions. The Court entered the 

Stipulation as an Order on October 14, 

2003. On July 7, 2005, following 

mediation by the parties, the Court 

amended the injunction at Navy’s 

request to expand the potential areas of 

operation based on real-world 

contingencies. The Navy began work on 

an SEIS, in response to the Court’s 

ruling on the motion for preliminary 

injunction. The Navy’s Final SEIS, 

which was completed in April 2007, not 

only addresses, the concerns identified 

by the Court in its ruling on the merits 

of the parties’ summary judgment 

motions, but it also provides additional 

information regarding the environment 

that could potentially be affected by the 

SURTASS LFA sonar systems, and 

additional information related to 

mitigation. 

A detailed description of the 

operations is contained in the Navy’s 

application (DON, 2006) and the Final 

SEIS (DON, 2007) which are available 

upon request (see ADDRESSES). 

Description of the Activity 

The SURTASS LFA sonar system is a 

long-range, LF sonar (between 100 and 

500 Hertz (Hz)) that has both active and 

passive components. It does not have to 

rely on detection of noise generated by 

the target. The active component of the 

system is a set of up to 18 LF acoustic 

transmitting source elements (called 

projectors) suspended from a cable 

underneath a ship. The projectors are 

devices that transform electrical energy 

to mechanical energy by setting up 

vibrations, or pressure disturbances, 

with the water to produce the pulse or 

ping. The SURTASS LFA sonar acoustic 

transmission is an omnidirectional (full 

360 degrees) beam in the horizontal. A 

narrow vertical beamwidth can be 

steered above or below the horizontal. 

The source level (SL) of an individual 

projector in the SURTASS LFA sonar 

array is approximately 215 decibels 

(dB), and because of the physics 

involved in beam forming and 

transmission loss processes, the array 

can never have a sound pressure level 

(SPL) higher than the SPL of an 

individual projector. The expected 

water depth at the center of the array is 

400 ft (122 m) and the expected 

minimum water depth at which the 

SURTASS LFA sonar vessel will operate 

is 200 m (656.2 ft). 

The typical SURTASS LFA sonar 

signal is not a constant tone, but rather 

a transmission of various signal types 

that vary in frequency and duration 

(including continuous wave (CW) and 

frequency-modulated (FM) signals). A 

complete sequence of sound 

transmissions is referred to by the Navy 

as a ‘‘ping’’ and can last as short as 6 

seconds (sec) to as long as 100 sec, 

normally with no more than 10 sec at 

any single frequency. The time between 

pings is typically from 6 to 15 minutes. 

Average duty cycle (ratio of sound ‘‘on’’

time to total time) is less than 20 

percent; however, the duty cycle, based 

on historical operating parameters, is 

normally 7.5 percent. 

The passive, or listening, component 

of the system is SURTASS, which 

detects returning echoes from 

submerged objects, such as submarines, 

through the use of hydrophones. The 

hydrophones are mounted on a 

horizontal array that is towed behind 

the ship. The SURTASS LFA sonar ship 

maintains a minimum speed of 3.0 

knots (5.6 km/hr; 3.4 mi/hr) in order to 

keep the array deployed. 

Because of uncertainties in the 

world’s political climate, a detailed 

account of future operating locations 

and conditions cannot be predicted. 

However, for analytical purposes, a 

nominal annual deployment schedule 

and operational concept have been 

developed, based on current LFA sonar 

operations since January 2003 and 

projected Fleet requirements. The Navy 

anticipates that a normal SURTASS LFA 

sonar deployment schedule for a single 

vessel would involve about 294 days/ 

year at sea. A normal at-sea mission 

would occur over a 49-day period, with 

40 days of operations and 9 days transit. 

Based on a 7.5-percent duty cycle, the 

system would actually be transmitting 

for a maximum of 72 hours per 49-day 

mission and 432 hours per year for each 

SURTASS LFA sonar system in 

operation. (In actuality however, the 

combined number of transmission hours 

for LFA sonar employed on both the 

R/V Cory Chouest and the USNS 

IMPECCABLE (TAGOS 23) did not 

exceed 174 hours annually between 

August 16, 2002, and August 15, 2006 

(Table 4 in the Navy’s Final 

Comprehensive Report (Navy, 2007)). 

Annually, each vessel will be 

expected to spend approximately 54 

days in transit and 240 days performing 

active operations. Between missions, an 

estimated 71 days will be spent in port 

for upkeep and repair. The nominal 

SURTASS LFA Sonar annual and 49- 

day deployment schedule for a single 

ship can be seen in Table 2–1 of the 

Final SEIS. 

The two existing operational LFA 

sonar systems are installed on the 

SURTASS vessels: R/V Cory Chouest 

and USNS IMPECCABLE (T–AGOS 23). 

To meet future undersea warfare 

requirements, the Navy is working to 

develop and introduce a compact active 

system deployable from existing, 

smaller SURTASS Swath-P ships. This 

smaller system is known as Compact 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with RULES3
46848 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 161 / Tuesday, August 21, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

LFA, or CLFA sonar. CLFA sonar 

consists of smaller, lighter-weight 

source elements than the current LFA 

sonar system, and will be compact 

enough to be installed on the existing 

SURTASS platforms, VICTORIOUS 

Class (T–AGOS 19) vessels. The Navy 

indicates that the operational 

characteristics of the compact system 

are comparable to the existing LFA 

sonar systems as presented in 

Subchapter 2.1 of the Final EIS and 

Final SEIS. Consequently, the potential 

impacts from CLFA sonar will be 

similar to the effects from the existing 

SURTASS LFA sonar systems. Three 

CLFA sonar systems are planned for 

installation on T–AGOS 20, 21, and 22. 

With the R/V Cory Chouest retiring in 

FY 2008, the Navy estimates that there 

will be two systems in operation in FY 

2008 and FY 2009, 3 in FY 2010 and 4 

systems in FY 2011 and FY 2012. At no 

point are there expected to be more than 

four systems in use, and thus this rule 

analyzes the impacts on marine 

mammals due to the deployment of up 

to three LFA sonar systems through FY 

2010 and four systems in FY 2011 and 

FY 2012. 

The SURTASS LFA sonar vessel will 

operate independently of, or in 

conjunction with, other naval air, 

surface or submarine assets. The vessel 

will generally travel in straight lines or 

racetrack patterns depending on the 

operational scenario. 

Description of Acoustic Propagation 

The following is a very basic and 

generic description of the propagation of 

LFA sonar signals in the ocean and is 

provided to facilitate understanding of 

this action. However, because the actual 

physics governing the propagation of 

SURTASS LFA sound signals is 

extremely complex and dependent on 

numerous in-situ environmental factors, 

the following is for illustrative purposes 

only. 

In actual SURTASS LFA sonar 

operations, the crew of the SURTASS 

LFA sonar platform will measure 

oceanic conditions (such as sea water 

temperature and salinity versus depth) 

prior to and during transmissions and at 

least every 12 hours, but more 

frequently when meteorological or 

oceanographic conditions change. These 

technicians will then use U.S. Navy 

sonar propagation models to predict 

and/or update sound propagation 

characteristics. The short time periods 

between actual environmental 

observations and the subsequent model 

runs further enhance the accuracy of 

these predictions. Fundamentally, these 

models are used to determine what path 

the LF signal will take as it travels 

through the ocean and how strong the 

sound signal will be at given ranges 

along a particular transmission path. 

Accurately determining the speed at 

which sound travels through the water 

is critical to predicting the path that 

sound will take. The speed of sound in 

seawater varies directly with depth, 

temperature, and salinity. Thus, an 

increase in depth or temperature or, to 

a lesser degree, salinity, will increase 

the speed of sound in seawater. 

However, the oceans are not 

homogeneous, and the contribution of 

each of these individual factors is 

extremely complex and interrelated. 

The physical characteristics that 

determine sound speed change with 

depth, and in the case of temperature 

and salinity, season, geographic 

location, and locally, with time of day. 

After accurately measuring these factors, 

mathematical formulas or models can be 

used to generate a plot of sound speed 

versus water depth. This type of plot is 

generally referred to as a sound speed 

profile (SSP). 

Near the surface (variable within the 

top 1000 ft (305 m)), ocean near-surface 

water mixing results in a fairly constant 

temperature and salinity. Below the 

mixed layer, sea temperature drops 

rapidly in an area referred to as the 

thermocline. In this region, temperature 

influences the SSP, and speed decreases 

with depth because of the large decrease 

in temperature (sound speed decreases 

with decreasing temperature). Finally, 

beneath the thermocline, the 

temperature becomes fairly uniform and 

increasing pressure causes the SSP to 

increase with depth. 

One way to envision sound traveling 

through the sea is to think of the sound 

as ‘‘rays.’’ As these rays travel through 

the sea, their direction of travel changes 

as a result of speed changes, bending, or 

refracting, toward areas of lower speed 

and away from areas of higher speed. 

Depending on environmental 

conditions, refraction can either be 

toward or away from the surface. 

Additionally, the rays can be reflected 

or absorbed when they encounter the 

surface or the bottom. For example, 

under certain environmental conditions, 

near-surface sound rays can repeatedly 

be refracted upward and reflected off 

the surface and thus become trapped in 

a duct. 

Some of the more prevalent acoustic 

propagation paths in the ocean include: 

acoustic ducting; convergence zone 

(CZ); bottom interaction; and shallowwater propagation. 

Acoustic Ducting 

There are two types of acoustic 

ducting: surface ducts and sound 

channels. 

Surface Ducts 

As previously discussed, the top layer 

of the ocean is normally well mixed and 

has relatively constant temperature and 

salinity. Because of the effect of depth 

(pressure), surface layers exhibit a 

slightly positive sound speed gradient 

(that is, sound speed increases with 

depth). Thus, sound transmitted within 

this layer is refracted upward toward 

the surface. If sufficient energy is 

subsequently reflected downward from 

the surface, the sound can become 

‘‘trapped’’ by a series of repeated 

upward refractions and downward 

reflections. Under these conditions, a 

surface duct, or surface channel, is said 

to exist. Sound trapped in a surface duct 

can travel for relatively long distances 

with its maximum range of propagation 

dependent on the specifics of the SSP, 

the frequency of the sound (e.g., there is 

a low-frequency cutoff dependent on the 

thickness of the duct), and the reflective 

characteristics of the surface. As a 

general rule, surface duct propagation 

will improve as the temperature 

uniformity and depth of the layer 

increase. For example, transmission is 

improved when cloudy, windy 

conditions create a well-mixed surface 

layer or in high-latitude midwinter 

conditions where the mixed layer 

extends to several hundred feet deep. 

Sound Channels 

Variation of sound speed, or velocity, 

with depth causes sound to travel in 

curved paths. A sound channel is a 

region in the water column where sound 

speed first decreases with depth to a 

minimum value, and then increases. 

Above the depth of minimum value, 

sound is refracted downward; below the 

depth of minimum value, sound is 

refracted upward. Thus, much of the 

sound starting in the channel is trapped, 

and any sound entering the channel 

from outside its boundaries is also 

trapped. This mode of propagation is 

called sound channel propagation. This 

propagation mode experiences the least 

transmission loss along the path, thus 

resulting in long-range transmission. 

At low and middle latitudes, the deep 

sound channel axis varies from 1,970 to 

3,940 ft (600 to 1,200 m) below the 

surface. It is deepest in the subtropics 

and comes to the surface in the high 

latitudes, where sound propagates in the 

surface layer. Because propagating 

sound waves do not interact with either 

the sea surface or seafloor, sound 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 161 / Tuesday, August 21, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 46849 

propagation in sound channels does not 

attenuate as rapidly as bottom- or 

surface-interacting paths. The most 

common sound channels used by 

SURTASS LFA sonar are convergence 

zones (CZs). 

Convergence Zones 

CZs are special cases of the soundchannel effect. When the surface layer is 

narrow or when sound rays are refracted 

downward, regions are created at or 

near the ocean surface where sound rays 

are focused, resulting in elevated sound 

levels. The existence of CZs depends on 

the SSP and the depth of the water. Due 

to downward refraction at shorter 

ranges, sound rays leaving the nearsurface region are refracted back to the 

surface because of the positive sound 

speed gradient produced by the greater 

pressure at deep ocean depths. These 

deep-refracted rays often become 

concentrated at or near the surface at 

some distance from the sound source 

through the combined effects of 

downward and upward refraction, thus 

causing a CZ. CZs may exist whenever 

the sound speed at the ocean bottom, or 

at a specific depth, exceeds the sound 

speed at the source depth. Depth excess, 

also called sound speed excess, is the 

difference between the bottom depth 

and the limiting, or critical depth. 

CZs vary in range from approximately 

18 to 36 nautical miles (nm) (33 to 67 

km), depending upon the SSP. The 

width of the CZ is a result of complex 

interrelationships and cannot be 

correlated with any specific factor. In 

practice, however, the width of the CZ 

is usually on the order of 5 to 10 percent 

of the range. For optimum tactical 

performance, CZ propagation of 

SURTASS LFA sonar signals is desired 

and expected in deep open ocean 

conditions. 

Bottom Interaction 

Reflections from the ocean bottom 

and refraction within the bottom can 

extend propagation ranges. For mid- to 

high-level frequency sonars (greater 

than 1,000 Hz), only minimal energy 

enters into the bottom; thus reflection is 

the predominant mechanism for energy 

return. However, at low frequencies, 

such as those used by the SURTASS 

LFA sonar source, significant sound 

energy can penetrate the ocean floor, 

and refraction within the seafloor, not 

reflection, dominates the energy return. 

Regardless of the actual transmission 

mode (reflection from the bottom or 

refraction within the bottom), this 

interaction is generally referred to as 

‘‘bottom-bounce’’ transmission. 

Major factors affecting bottom-bounce 

transmission include the sound 

frequency, water depth, angle of 

incidence, bottom composition (e.g., 

sediments), and bottom roughness. A 

flat ocean bottom produces the greatest 

accuracy in estimating range and 

bearing in the bottom-bounce mode. 

For SURTASS LFA sonar 

transmissions between 100 and 500 Hz, 

bottom interaction would generally 

occur in areas of the ocean where 

depths are between approximately 200 

m (660 ft) (average minimum water 

depth for SURTASS LFA sonar 

deployment) and 2,000 m (6,600 ft). 

Shallow Water Propagation 

In shallow water, propagation is 

usually characterized by multiple 

reflection paths off the sea floor and sea 

surface. Thus, most of the water column 

tends to become ensonified by these 

overlapping reflection paths. As LFA 

sonar signals approach the shoreline, 

they will be affected by shoaling, 

experiencing high transmission losses 

through bottom and surface interactions. 

Therefore, LFA sonar would be less 

effective in shallow, coastal waters. 

In summary, for the SURTASS LFA 

sonar signal in low- and mid-latitudes, 

the dominant propagation paths for LFA 

sonar signals are CZ and bottom 

interaction (at depths less than 2000 m 

(6,600 ft)). In high-latitudes, surface 

ducting provides the best propagation. 

In most open ocean water, CZ 

propagation will be most prominent. 

The SURTASS LFA sonar signals will 

interact with the bottom, but due to high 

bottom and surface losses, SURTASS 

LFA sonar signals will not penetrate 

coastal waters with appreciable signal 

strengths. 

Comments and Responses 

On September 28, 2006 (71 FR 56965), 

NMFS published a Notice of Receipt of 

Application on the U.S. Navy SURTASS 

LFA sonar MMPA application and 

invited interested persons to submit 

comments, information, and suggestions 

concerning the application and the 

structure and contents of regulations. 

Those comments were considered in the 

development of the proposed rule. A 

proposed rule for renewal of the 

regulations governing SURTASS LFA 

sonar MMPA authorization was 

published on July 9, 2007 (72 FR 37404) 

with a 15-day public comment period. 

During the two comment periods, 

comments were received from a large 

number of organizations and 

individuals. Those organizations 

include the Marine Mammal 

Commission (Commission), the Natural 

Resources Defense Council (NRDC), 

Earth Island Institute (EII), Acoustic 

Ecology Institute (AEI), Animal Welfare 

Society (AWI), Cetacean Society 

Institute (CSI), Seaflow, International 

Ocean Noise Coalition, Olympic Coast 

Alliance, Citizens Opposing Active 

Sonar Threats, Ocean Care, Gesselschaft 

zur Rettung der Delphine, SBOOHER, 

Ocean Conservation Research, Friends 

of the San Juans, World Society for the 

Protection of Animals. We have 

addressed all comments on the 

proposed rule. We also responded to 

comments that appear to be directed 

solely at the draft SEIS, although we did 

not address comments strictly related to 

non-marine mammal issues. See the 

Navy’s Final SEIS, which NMFS has 

adopted under NEPA. 

Activity Concerns 

Comment 1: The U.S. Navy seeks a 

blanket exemption to do harm to all 

marine animals in 80 percent of the 

world oceans with only minor 

mitigation measures taken. Expanding 

the SURTASS program into 80 percent 

of the world’s oceans would make the 

task of monitoring the impacts 

impossible. An LOA granted would not 

meet the ‘‘negligible impact’’ condition 

and would violate the ‘‘unmitigable 

adverse impact’’ constraints indicated in 

the MMPA LOA process. 

Response: The Navy is not seeking a 

‘‘blanket exemption’’ from the MMPA, 

but rather is requesting that NMFS issue 

regulations to govern the incidental take 

of marine mammals under Section 

101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA. Under these 

regulations the Navy must apply 

annually for a letter of authorization 

(LOA) that would exempt the taking of 

marine mammals incidental to the 

Navy’s use of SURTASS LFA sonar from 

the MMPA’s general moratorium on the 

taking of marine mammals for that year, 

as long as the sonar use was consistent 

with these regulations and the terms of 

the LOA. In its LOA application, the 

Navy must specify where it will operate 

SURTASS LFA sonar for that year and 

take authorization would be limited to 

that area. Under the regulations, the 

total area that would be available for 

SURTASS LFA sonar operations over 

the five-year period is about 70–75 

percent of the world’s oceans. This in 

no way equates to LFA sonar operations 

affecting even close to 70–75 percent of 

the world’s ocean area at any given 

time. Each year, based on its projected 

operational needs, the Navy will 

identify for which particular geographic 

areas, out of the total available area, it 

is requesting take authorization through 

an LOA. The first authorization is for 

only two SURTASS LFA sonar vessels 

both operating in the Western Pacific 

Ocean. Eventually, the Navy plans to 

have 4 vessels in operation, but even if 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with RULES3
46850 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 161 / Tuesday, August 21, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

all 4 vessels operated in 4 different 

oceans, the area ensonified would come 

nowhere close to 70–75 percent of the 

world’s ocean area. Therefore, 

SURTASS LFA sonar sound will not 

simultaneously affect 70–75 percent of 

the world’s oceans. In addition, NMFS 

has determined that incidental 

harassment takings by SURTASS LFA 

sonar operations during the effective 

time period (1 year) of any LOA issued 

to the Navy pursuant to these 

regulations must not exceed 12 percent 

of any marine mammal stock. 

The sound pressure level (SPL) that is 

capable of potentially causing injury to 

an animal is within approximately 1 km 

(0.54 nm) of the ship. For the purposes 

of analyses using the Acoustic 

Integration Model (AIM) and the risk 

continuum, there is a 50 percent risk of 

significant change in a biologically 

important behavior for a marine 

mammal exposed to a received level 

(RL) of 165 dB RMS. The range from the 

SURTASS LFA sonar vessel for this 

received level, which could cause 

behavioral disruption but not injury, 

could extend to 25 to 65 km (13.5 to 

35.1 nm). The received level at the 

surface along any straight path away 

from the ship would not decline 

logarithmically over distance, as would 

be expected if the sound spread by 

spherical spreading alone. The reason is 

that, for CZ propagation, the sound 

moves in an undulating path with 

turning points near the surface and near 

the bottom, where sound is refracted 

either downward (near surface) or 

upward (near bottom). Turning points 

near the surface, termed caustics, occur 

approximately every 30 nm (56 km). 

The received level at the surface would 

be high at the caustics but low in 

between them because most of the 

sound energy there would be found at 

great depth. While the regulations 

permit the Navy to seek authorization 

through an LOA to take marine 

mammals while operating SURTASS 

LFA sonar in many of the world’s 

oceans and SURTASS LFA sonar signal 

can be detected at several hundred 

miles using sophisticated listening gear, 

SURTASS LFA sonar’s potential to 

cause injury or affect behavior is limited 

to relatively close to the ship. Thus, the 

impact of SURTASS LFA sonar is not 

global in scope. Moreover, monitoring to 

ensure that marine mammals are not 

injured is not impossible, as the 

commenter suggests, given the limited 

area around the vessel that is ensonified 

at decibel levels up to 180 dB, and the 

demonstrated effectiveness of the 

Navy’s tripartite (visual, acoustic, and 

HF/M3) monitoring scheme. 

Since the SURTASS LFA sonar will 

not operate in Arctic waters, there will 

not be an unmitigable adverse impact on 

relevant subsistence uses of marine 

mammals. That determination is 

provided later in this document. NMFS 

also believes the negligible impact 

standard has been met, as described in 

this final rule. 

Comment 2: The Navy is proposing to 

expand the use of LFA sonar, both 

through expansion of use areas 

geographically throughout the world’s 

oceans and through doubling the 

number of LFA sonar array ships. The 

Navy is also admitting to the use of 

CLFA sonar in ‘‘shallow littoral ocean 

regions’’ and do not discuss the 

characteristics of CLFA sonar in the 

Final SEIS. 

Response: While the number of 

SURTASS LFA sonar vessels will 

increase from 2 to 4 vessels over the 

course of the five-year rule, the Navy is 

not increasing the number of SURTASS 

LFA sonar systems beyond what was 

analyzed in the January 2001 Final EIS. 

That document analyzed the potential 

impacts of up to four SURTASS LFA 

sonar systems. As stated in the Navy’s 

Record of Decision (ROD) (67 FR 48145, 

July 23, 2002), the Navy determined that 

only two of the four systems would be 

operational during the timeframe of the 

2002–2007 regulations governing the 

taking of marine mammals incidental to 

LFA sonar testing and training. For that 

reason, NMFS addressed taking marine 

mammals incidental to operation of 

only two systems under the initial five 

year Final Rule in 2002. Installation and 

deployment of the third and fourth LFA 

sonar systems were postponed until 

after FY 2007. Because of this delay, the 

decision in the Navy Record of Decision 

(ROD) and NMFS’ MMPA 

determinations covered the employment 

of only two SURTASS LFA sonar 

systems. Therefore, the use of SURTASS 

LFA sonar, analyzed here, does not 

exceed the originally analyzed four 

systems during the timeframe of the 

requested second five year set of MMPA 

regulations. 

In addition, the Navy’s proposal to 

deploy SURTASS LFA sonar in a 

number of oceans is not new. The 

Navy’s Final EIS proposed, and NMFS 

original Final Rule and regulations 

addressed, deployment of SURTASS 

LFA sonar throughout most of the 

world’s oceans. As stated in the Final 

SEIS, these systems will be employed as 

required for security operations in the 

oceanic areas as presented in Figure 

1–1 of the Final EIS. Potential 

operations could occur in the Pacific, 

Atlantic, and Indian Oceans, and the 

Mediterranean Sea. Large oceanic areas 

are restricted from operations, including 

the Arctic and Antarctic Ocean areas, as 

are all offshore areas within 12 nm (22 

km) of land, and OBIAs (Table 2–4 of 

the SEIS). The limitation of SURTASS 

LFA operation to the Western Pacific 

Ocean was a product of the parties’

negotiations over the Stipulated 

Permanent Injunction. 

Nevertheless, while the number of 

systems may increase under this Final 

Rule and the Navy may seek 

authorization to use SURTASS LFA 

sonar in more places than it could under 

the terms of the permanent injunction, 

the maximum permissible impact to any 

particular species or stock remains the 

same, since the Navy’s overall use of 

SURTASS LFA sonar can have no more 

than a negligible impact on marine 

mammal species and stocks. Consistent 

with its findings in the original rule, 

NMFS has determined that takings by 

SURTASS LFA sonar operations during 

the effective time period (1 year) of any 

LOA issued to the Navy pursuant to 

these regulations must not exceed 12 

percent of any marine mammal stock. 

As stated in the Final SEIS 

Subchapter 1.2.3 and 2.1, compact LFA 

sonar (CLFA sonar) sonar is an upgrade 

and modification to the SURTASS LFA 

sonar system necessary to install and 

operate on the smaller VICTORIOUS 

Class T–AGOS 19 Class ocean 

surveillance ships. The operational 

characteristics of the active system 

components installed, or to be installed, 

on the R/V Cory Chouest, USNS 

IMPECCABLE, and VICTORIOUS Class 

vessels are provided in Final SEIS 

Subchapter 2.1.1. The characteristics of 

LFA sonar and the upgrade and 

modifications for the T–AGOS 19 

installations are essentially the same. 

The frequency requirements for the 

CLFA to be installed onboard the 

VICTORIOUS Class (T–AGOS 19 Class) 

vessels are within the 100 to 500 Hz 

range for LFA sonar and the transmit 

array also consists of 18 transducers 

with a similar source level. 

Subchapter 1.1.3 of the Final SEIS 

provides a definition of the term 

‘‘littoral’’ as used by the U.S. Navy and 

explains the ways in which the use of 

the term as a tactical designation differs 

from its use as a geographic term. The 

littoral operating environment does not 

necessarily include or exclude any 

waters because of depth; it can include 

both deep and shallow water. However, 

under any of the alternatives analyzed 

in the Final SEIS, LFA sonar would not 

operate inside of 12 nm (22 km) from 

any coastline. The use of SURTASS LFA 

sonar in coastal environments was 

discussed in Response to Comments 

(RTCs) 1–1.4 and 3–2.8 in the Final EIS. 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 161 / Tuesday, August 21, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 46851 

Comment 3: With regard to noiseproducing activities, NMFS must 

describe source levels, frequency ranges, 

duty cycles, and other technical 

parameters relevant to determining the 

potential impacts of an MMPA 

authorization. 

Response: The NMFS action is the 

issuance of regulations and LOAs to the 

Navy for taking marine mammals 

incidental to SURTASS LFA sonar 

operations and determining whether 

SURTASS LFA sonar is having a 

negligible impact on affected marine 

mammal species and stocks, not 

whether LFA sonar operations and other 

noise producing activities are having a 

negligible impact on affected species 

and stocks of marine mammals (and 

species/stocks not affected by LFA 

sonar, but potentially by other noiseproducing activities). In that regard, all 

technical parameters relevant to the 

impact analysis, including those listed 

by the commenter, were provided in the 

project descriptions for SURTASS LFA 

sonar in both the Final EIS (DON, 2001) 

Subchapters 2.1.1 and 2.3.2.2 and in 

RTCs 2–1.1 and 2–1.2a; and in the Final 

SEIS Subchapter 2.1.1. 

Comment 4: There are at least five 

Navy SWATH vessels already built and 

outfitted with operational LFA sonars. 

Response: Four VICTORIOUS class 

Ocean Surveillance ships were built 

between 1991 and 1993. As stated in the 

SEIS Subchapter 2.1, there are no LFA 

sonar systems deployed on these vessels 

at this time. The projected LFA sonar/ 

CLFA sonar system availabilities are 

shown in the Final SEIS Figure 2–2, 

which includes future installations 

onboard the VICTORIOUS Class vessels. 

Comment 5: It is only a matter of time 

before many other industrialized 

nations follow suit and the oceans 

become a cacophony of LFA sonar 

systems using loud noise to try and find 

each other in an increasingly loud 

environment. The U.S. should reexamine this ‘‘need’’ and come up with 

a better way to find these quiet 

submarines. 

Response: This comment is beyond 

the scope of this rulemaking. As 

explained in the Final EIS, subchapter 

1.2.1, the Navy has considered other 

alternatives and determined that 

SURTASS LFA sonar best addresses its 

need for reliable long-range detection of 

potentially hostile quiet submarines. 

Comment 6: At peak power, the 

Navy’s LFA sonar system sends out 

pulses of sound underwater at least the 

equivalent of standing five feet away 

from the Saturn rocket on liftoff. 

Response: While an accurate source 

level of the Saturn V is not known, the 

comparison of this, or any other rocket, 

to LFA sonar is inappropriate. The 

sound generated by a Saturn V rocket, 

or any rocket in general, is broadband 

and generates a different frequency 

spectrum than that of LFA sonar, and 

travels in a significantly different 

transmission pattern. The Saturn C 1 

rocket (a predecessor to the Saturn I 

rocket, which had about 1,600,000 lbs of 

thrust) was projected to have produced 

acoustic levels as high as 205 dB (in air) 

from a distance of 305 meters. Some 

sources suggest that the sound levels 

produced by the Saturn V (during the 

launch of Apollo 15, the first stage of 

the Saturn V generated 7,823,000 lbs of 

liftoff thrust) may have been as high as 

220 dB (in air) (Benson and Faherty, 

1978). As sound is perceived differently 

underwater than it is in air, sound 

propagation and transmission losses in 

each case are subject to differing factors, 

including terrain, wind, and air 

temperature, and in the case of LFA, 

water salinity, temperature and depth. 

Furthermore, sound levels are typically 

provided with a reference level, which 

depends on whether the sound is in air 

(reference of 20 microPascals) or water 

(reference of 1 microPascal). Despite it 

being inappropriate to compare a sound 

level in air with that in water (or vice 

versa), some simplified conversion or 

correction factors are available to 

provide a very generic comparison. 

Therefore, when corrected to the 

equivalent sound levels in water (based 

on pressure and impedance differences 

of the two media), the above acoustic 

levels of 205 dB in air and 220 dB in 

air would be approximately 266.5 and 

281.5 dB in water, respectively (Please 

see Final EIS Appendix B, Subchapter 

B.3.2). These sound levels are 100 to 

10,000 times louder than the LFA sonar 

source. 

Comment 7: NMFS should require 

that the U.S. Navy avoid or eliminate 

triangulation of sonar whether they are 

doing exercises with other U.S. Navy 

ships or with those from other nations. 

Response: Triangulation is only 

necessary for passive acoustics. 

Triangulation is not necessary for active 

acoustics because it gives the operator 

range and bearing. However, the focus 

of the comment seems to be on the use 

of multiple LFA sonar ships, which is 

discussed in the Final SEIS, 

(Subchapters 4.4.4 and 4.6.1.2) and in 

the Final EIS (Subchapter 4.2.7.4). The 

Final EIS states that the vast majority of 

operations will involve only one ship. 

This is due to the limited number of 

ships of SURTASS LFA sonar systems 

planned to be built and the limited 

operational conditions that could 

warrant the use of two sources in 

proximity to each other. The remote 

possibility exists that operational 

requirements or training exercises could 

require two sources simultaneously in 

one geographic region, for example the 

Northwest Pacific Ocean where LFA 

sonar vessels have been operating. The 

effect of the presence of two sources 

transmitting in one area can be 

conservatively approximated by 

doubling the single source potential 

effects provided for that site. An 

example of these effects can be seen in 

Table 4–2.13 of the Final EIS. However, 

even if more than one source operates 

in a single geographic area, impacts to 

marine mammals remain capped by the 

negligible impact requirement. To 

ensure that SURTASS LFA sonar 

operations have no more than a 

negligible impact over five years, not 

more than 12 percent of any marine 

mammal stock may be taken, by 

harassment, in a single year, regardless 

of how many SURTASS LFA sonar 

sources are operating in the area. 

Comment 8: There are plenty of safe 

alternatives to active sonar that the 

Navy could pursue, such as passive 

sonar, non-acoustic sensors, and 

Integrated Sensory Networks. 

Response: The comment is beyond the 

scope of NMFS’ rulemaking for this 

action. Non-acoustic alternative 

underwater detection technologies are 

discussed in the Final EIS, Subchapter 

1.2.1. 

MMPA Concerns 

Comment 9: NMFS should 

consolidate all necessary and relevant 

information from the multiple existing 

sources of information describing the 

proposed actions in the proposed rule. 

Response: NMFS does not consider it 

necessary to consolidate all necessary 

and relevant information on LFA sonar 

and its impacts on marine mammals 

into the proposed and/or final rules. In 

the proposed and final rules, NMFS has 

continued and updated the information 

contained in the preamble to the 2002 

final rule. NMFS believes that this 

information provides the necessary level 

of detail needed for it to make the 

determinations required under the 

MMPA and for the public to review this 

information. This document also reflects 

the findings of the Final EIS, with the 

data and findings of the Final SEIS. 

These documents and others, which are 

available on the Navy SURTASS LFA 

sonar homepage (see ADDRESSES) 

provide the ‘‘consolidated information’’

that the commenter requested. 

Comment 10: The Commission states 

that any regulations proposing to issue 

an incidental taking authorization 

should include information on specified 

geographic locations where sonar is 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with RULES3
46852 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 161 / Tuesday, August 21, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

expected to be deployed and the species 

and number of marine mammals that 

may be taken in each of those locations. 

Response: While the NDAA removed 

references to the specified geographical 

region and small numbers requirements 

for military readiness activities, NMFS 

still needs to know where activities 

would take place and the estimated 

level of take to inform its negligible 

impact determination. In order to do so, 

NMFS considered ‘‘worst-case’’

estimates for purposes of the negligible 

impact determination as well as an 

annual 12 percent per-stock ‘‘cap’’ for 

marine mammals regardless of where 

and when LFA sonar will be operating 

(or even how many LFA sonar systems 

are in operation annually). This 

rulemaking also considered the oceans 

and areas where LFA sonar may and 

may not operate. The rule does not 

specify the specific location where LFA 

sonar will be deployed and the number 

of marine mammals that may be taken 

in those locations because these are 

determined annually through various 

inputs such as mission duration and 

season of operation [which are 

calculated in the annual applications for 

LOAs]. 

Comment 11: The Commission 

recommends the existing annual review 

process for LOAs should be expanded to 

include public review and comment. 

The NRDC believes issuance of LOAs 

without notice and comment violates 

MMPA section 101(a)(5)(A) because, it 

says, each year’s authorization will 

involve new take and negligible impact 

analyses and potentially new exercise 

areas that are not modeled in the Navy’s 

SEIS. 

Response: NMFS does not agree. 

Under section 101(a)(5)(A), notice and 

opportunity for public comment must 

be afforded before the Secretary 

authorizes the incidental take of marine 

mammals, makes a negligible impact 

determination, and issues the required 

regulations. NMFS published the 

proposed regulations on July 9, 2007 (72 

FR 37404), providing the required 

notice and opportunity for public 

comment. That proposed rule contained 

NMFS’ negligible impact determination 

for the five-year period and proposed 

mitigation, monitoring, and reporting 

requirements. It also considered the 

Navy’s estimates of take for the five-year 

rule period. Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the 

MMPA does not require the regulations 

to specify the number of marine 

mammals that may be taken, only the 

permissible methods of taking and 

means of effecting the least practicable 

adverse impact. 

As stated in the proposed rule and the 

Navy’s Final EIS, estimates were 

derived based on modeling sites, since 

it was not practical to model all areas 

where the system might be operated. 

Final EIS p. 4.2–1. These sites 

represented the upper bound of impacts 

expected from operation of SURTASS 

LFA sonar. Final EIS p. 4.2–3; see Final 

EIS tables 4.2–1, 4.2–4, 4.2–10, 4.2–11, 

and 4.2–12. If LFA sonar operations 

occur in a non-modeled area, the take 

estimates would most likely be less than 

those obtained from the most similar 

site that was modeled. Final EIS p. 4.2–

3. As stated in the SEIS, the 

assumptions of the Final EIS are still 

valid and have been incorporated by 

reference into the SEIS p. 4–39, 40. 

Moreover there are no new data that 

contradict the assumptions or 

conclusions made in subchapter 4.2 of 

the FEIS. Thus, it was not necessary to 

reanalyze potential acoustic impacts in 

the SEIS. 

The risk assessment for each planned 

mission site for each vessel is performed 

annually and is part of the Navy’s 

annual mission intention (LOA 

application) letter. In its annual LOA 

applications, the Navy must project 

where it intends to operate during the 

period of the annual LOAs and provide 

NMFS with reasonable and realistic risk 

estimates of the marine mammal stocks 

in the proposed areas of operations. 

This process utilizes the best available 

data and is detailed in the SEIS 

including a case study. SEIS pp. 4–37 to 

4–51. During the initial steps of the risk 

analysis process, if the take estimates 

exceed those required under the 

regulations (including the annual 12 

percent per-stock cap), than the mission 

areas are changed or refined and the 

analysis is reinitiated. After receipt of 

an LOA application, NMFS reviews the 

activity (and previous annual reports) to 

ensure it remains within the parameters 

of the rule and the negligible impact 

assessment. 

NMFS’ general implementing 

regulations for section 101(a)(5)(A) of 

the MMPA, which have been in effect 

since 1982 and which governed the last 

rulemaking for SURTASS LFA sonar 

incidental take, set up the framework 

under which NMFS issues LOAs that an 

applicant must obtain before any 

incidental take is authorized. 50 CFR 

216.106(a). The purpose of the 

requirement for obtaining LOAs is to 

ensure the authorized taking will be 

consistent with the original findings. 

See 47 FR 21248, 21251 (May 18, 1982). 

Therefore, issuance of an LOA is based 

on a determination that the level of 

taking will be consistent with the 

findings made for the total taking 

allowable under the specific regulations 

for the specified activity. 50 CFR 

216.106(b). The reporting requirements 

under these specific SURTASS LFA 

sonar regulations and LOAs require the 

Navy to provide both quarterly and 

annual reports to NMFS. In these 

reports, the Navy must provide 

estimated percentages of marine 

mammal species/stocks potentially 

affected for each quarter and annually. 

NMFS’ general implementing 

regulations do not require the agency to 

provide notice and comment for LOAs. 

However, if NMFS were to obtain 

information that calls into question the 

validity of its determinations in this 

rule, the agency could withdraw or 

suspend authorization to take marine 

mammals if the Secretary, through the 

Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, 

finds, after notice and opportunity for 

public comment, that the regulations are 

not being substantially complied with, 

or the taking allowed pursuant to the 

regulations is having or may have more 

than a negligible impact on marine 

mammal species or stocks. 50 CFR 

216.106(e). The requirement for notice 

and comment does not apply if an 

emergency exists that poses a significant 

risk to the wellbeing of the species or 

stocks of marine mammals concerned. 

50 CFR 216.106(f). 

Comment 12: The Commission states 

that NMFS should address the 

requirement of the NDAA that 

personnel safety, practicality of 

implementation, and impact on the 

effectiveness of the military readiness 

activity be considered in making a 

‘‘least practicable adverse impact’’

determination in the proposed 

rulemaking. 

Response: NMFS agrees with the 

Commission and added a discussion of 

the NDAA in the proposed and final 

rules. 

Comment 13: The NRDC states the 

Navy fails to present evidence of 

negligible impact. Agencies must make 

every attempt to obtain and disclose 

data necessary to their analysis. This is 

important when the program’s impacts 

depend on newly emerging data. The 

Navy fails to take account of significant 

new information that has emerged since 

January 2001 concerning marine 

mammal thresholds of injury, hearing 

loss, and significant behavioral change. 

Response: NMFS believes the MMPA 

requires a determination of negligible 

impact to be based on the best available 

data. NMFS believes the best available 

data were used in the Final SEIS, 

NMFS’ 2002 final rule, the Navy 2006 

MMPA application and this final rule, 

to estimate the potential impacts on the 

environment. Information that the 

commenter (and others) believe 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 161 / Tuesday, August 21, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 46853 

contradict this determination by NMFS 

is addressed throughout this document. 

Comment 14: A number of 

commenters were of the opinion that a 

15-day comment period for the 

proposed rule is too short to review the 

material and not in compliance with the 

Administrative Procedure Act (APA). 

Response: The 15-day comment 

period on the proposed rule provided an 

adquate opportunity for public 

comment. In addition to the comment 

period on the proposed rule, members 

of the public had a 30-day public 

comment period on the Navy’s 

application for renewal of NMFS’

regulations (71 FR 56965, September 28, 

2006) and a 92-day public comment 

period (including three public hearings) 

for the Navy’s Draft SEIS on SURTASS 

LFA sonar (which contains much of the 

underlying analysis for this proposed 

rule, affording significant opportunity 

for public participation). In addition, 

the proposed rule is substantially 

similar to the 2002–2007 rule, which 

underwent a 75-day public comment 

period, including public hearings in Los 

Angeles, CA, Honolulu, HI, and Silver 

Spring, MD. There have been no 

significant scientific advancements or 

other developments since the previous 

rule that would necessitate a longer 

period for public comment. 

Comment 15: It is well-established 

that mid-frequency (MF) sonar 

negatively impacts marine mammals, 

even resulting in fatalities, with the U.S. 

Navy having admitted direct 

responsibility for past beachings. The 

effects of LF sonar appear to be less 

understood at this time, but the 

enormous range of ocean impacted by 

sonar makes it incumbent upon us to 

fully understand its effects before 

authorizing its widescale use. The 

Precautionary Principle should be 

applied before issuing a permit. 

Response: NMFS used conservative 

assumptions for identifying and 

analyzing potential impacts to the 

environment, including marine 

mammals. SURTASS LFA sonar has 

been operating under NMFS regulations 

for the last five years without any 

reports of Level A harassment. The 

evidence to date, including recent 

scientific reports, supports the 

conclusion that operation of the U.S. 

Navy’s LFA sonar does not result in 

marine mammal strandings. For further 

information on strandings and MF 

sonar, please see comments 8, 32, 33, 

47, and 49 for further analyses on 

strandings. 

Comment 16: I request a moratorium 

on any use of this technology in the 

oceans, at the levels currently used, 

until further tests are conducted on the 

foundational species in the food chain 

of the marine environment. 

Response: Research using LFA sonar 

technology has been conducted on 

several species in the food chain, 

including whales (blue, fin, grey, and 

humpback whales) and on fish (catfish, 

a hearing specialist, and trout; reference 

species for salmon and a hearing 

generalist). This research is discussed 

later in this document (see Research 

Concerns). NMFS believes the data are 

sufficient to go forward, recognizing that 

more research would be valuable. 

Marine Mammal Impact Concerns 

Comment 17: The NRDC states that 

the Navy sets its threshold for hearing 

loss or ‘‘threshold shift’’ at 180 dB re: 

1 microPa (RMS) for a single 100-second 

‘‘ping’’ of exposure. The analysis is 

based on data from humans and other 

terrestrial mammals and relies on a 

limited set of data on marine mammals. 

The Navy has established a sliding scale 

for behavioral impacts. The Final SEIS 

fails to incorporate several recent 

studies on the effects of low-frequency 

sound on various marine mammal 

species. Also, the Navy’s standard fails 

to take proper account of chronic 

impacts, from behavioral changes as 

well as from certain non-auditory 

physiological impacts such as stress. 

The Final SEIS and MMPA application 

disregard recent evidence indicated the 

potential for masking to interfere with 

long-distance mating behavior in 

mysticetes. The Navy standard is out of 

step with how the potential for 

behavioral impacts has been assessed in 

other contexts. Last, the Navy does not 

consider the impact that behavioral 

changes in species such as fish may 

have on marine mammals foraging. 

Response: NMFS believes that the 

latest information on impacts of 

underwater sounds on marine mammals 

and fish is contained in the Navy’s Draft 

and Final SEIS, and summarized in the 

Navy’s application. NMFS addresses the 

masking issue in comment 19 and 

elsewhere in this document. 

As stated in the Final EIS, the 180-dB 

criterion for the purpose of SURTASS 

LFA sonar analysis is that all marine 

animals exposed to received levels (RLs) 

greater than 180-dB rms are evaluated as 

if they are injured. In its 2002 Final Rule 

for SURTASS LFA sonar, NMFS stated 

that temporary threshold shift (TTS) is 

not an injury. Since the boundary line 

between TTS and permanent threshold 

shift (PTS) is neither clear, definitive, 

nor predictable for marine mammals, 

NMFS has adopted (as a conservative 

estimate) 20 dB of TTS to define the 

onset of PTS (i.e., a temporary shift of 

20 dB in hearing threshold) (67 FR 

46711, July 16, 2002). As noted in 

Schlundt et al. (2000), bottlenose 

dolphins and belugas exposed to 1-sec 

signals at 400 Hz did not exhibit TTS 

after exposures to maximum RLs of 193- 

dB sound exposure level (SEL)) (which 

would be equivalent to a received level 

of 193 dB re: 1 microPascal (RMS) since 

the duration is 1-sec). The point must be 

made that while dolphins and belugas 

responses at 400 Hz are valid for those 

species, these results probably do not 

generalize to large whales (e.g., baleen 

whales). 

In the Schlundt et al. (2000) research, 

dolphins and belugas did not have TTS 

in response to 400 Hz at RLs of 193 dB 

SEL, but they did have TTS in response 

to higher frequencies (where they are 

more sensitive) at the same level. It is 

reasonable to assume that the TTS 

threshold value from odontocetes at 

their frequency of highest sensitivity is 

applicable to larger animals and lower 

frequencies that are in the range of their 

best hearing sensitivity. This 

extrapolation is based on the 

fundamental similarity of cochlear 

structure between odontocetes and 

mysticetes. As a result, if it were 

assumed that 193 dB SEL was the onset 

of TTS (a conservative assumption 

because TTS was not observed at an RL 

of 193 dB SEL), then onset of PTS 

would be 20 dB above that, at 213 dB 

RL (SEL). This number is based on a 

signal of one second in duration. Using 

a 10 Log (T/Ti) where Ti is 1 second, 

then for a maximum 100-sec LFA sonar 

signal, a 20-dB adjustment must be 

made, meaning that the onset of PTS 

would be 193 dB RL (SEL). This value 

is above the conservative LFA sonar 

criterion of 180 dB for injury. A more 

detailed discussion is provided in the 

Final EIS RTCs 4–6.13 and 4–6.38 and 

the 2002 Final Rule RTCs MMIC8, 

MMIC9, SIC40, SIC58, and SIC59. 

In addition, recent data on critical 

ratios (CRs) in pinnipeds is discussed in 

the Final SEIS Subchapter 4.3.5. A CR 

is the difference between sound level for 

a barely audible tone and the spectrum 

level of background noise at nearby 

frequencies (Richardson et al., 1995). 

These data indicate that the CRs for 

pinnipeds are lower in magnitude than 

for terrestrial animals (Southall et al. 

2003). Southall et al. (2003), in 

describing their CR results, state that ‘‘It 

is reasonable to speculate that acoustic 

signal production and reception in 

typically noisy marine environments 

have led to selection for enhanced 

ability to detect signals in noise.’’

Therefore these new CR data indicate 

that pinnipeds may be pre-adapted for 

detecting biologically important signals 

in high noise environments. 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with RULES3
46854 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 161 / Tuesday, August 21, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

Furthermore, the lower critical 

bandwidths of the pinniped auditory 

filters has the effect of decreasing the 

probability of masking of signals by 

noise at a different frequency (Southall 

et al., 2000). Nevertheless, NMFS 

believes pinnipeds remain as 

susceptible as any species to masking of 

signals by noise in the same frequency 

band. 

The Final SEIS also considered recent 

studies on LF sound and injury. In 

regard to injury, the issue of resonance 

is addressed in the Final SEIS (RTC 

2.5.2). The analysis by the Navy 

(Cudahy and Ellison, 2002), reports on 

two workshops on acoustic impacts 

(DOC, 2002: Cox, et al. 2006), and the 

National Research Council (NRC) Ocean 

Studies Board (NRC, 2003) support the 

conclusion that resonance from LFA 

sonar operations is not a ‘‘reasonably 

foreseeable’’ impact. Cox et al. (2006) 

stated that gas-bubble disease, induced 

in supersaturated tissues by a behavioral 

response to acoustic exposure, is a 

plausible pathologic mechanism for the 

morbidity and mortality seen in 

cetaceans associated with MF sonar 

exposure. They also stated that it is 

premature to judge acoustically 

mediated bubble growth as a potential 

mechanism and recommended further 

studies to investigate the possibility. 

The NRC Report (2003) discusses 

acoustically-induced stress in marine 

mammals. The NRC stated that sounds 

resulting from one-time exposure are 

less likely to have population-level 

effects than sounds that animals are 

exposed to repeatedly over extended 

periods of time. The NRC also cited 

controlled laboratory investigations of 

the response of cetaceans to noise that 

have shown cardiac responses (Miksis et 

al., 2001 IN: NRC, 2003) but have not 

shown any evidence of physiological 

effects in the blood chemistry 

parameters measured. Beluga whales 

exposed for 30 minutes to 134–153 dB 

received level (RL) playbacks of noise 

with a synthesized spectrum matching 

that of a semisubmersible oil platform 

(Thomas et al., 1990b IN: NRC, 2003) 

showed no short-term behavioral 

responses and no changes in standard 

blood chemistry parameters or in 

catecholamines. Preliminary results 

from exposure of a beluga whale and 

bottlenose dolphin to a seismic 

watergun with peak pressure of 226 dB 

source level (SL) showed no changes in 

catecholamines, neuroendocrine 

hormones, serum chemistries, lymphoid 

cell subsets, or immune function 

(Romano et al., 2001 IN: NRC, 2003). 

The NRC Report (2003) also stated 

that although techniques are being 

developed to identify indicators of 

stress in natural populations, 

determining the contribution of noise 

exposure to those stress indicators will 

be very difficult, but important, to 

pursue in the future when the 

techniques are fully refined. There are 

scientific data gaps regarding the 

potential for LFA sonar to cause stress 

in marine animals. Even though an 

animal’s exposure to LFA sonar may be 

more than one time, the intermittent 

nature of the LFA sonar signal, its low 

duty cycle, and the fact that both the 

vessel and animal are moving, means 

that there is a very small chance that 

LFA sonar exposure for individual 

animals and stocks would be repeated 

over extended periods of time, such as 

those caused by shipping noise. There is 

sufficient information available to 

permit analysis and decision making. 

Therefore, impacts from stress are not a 

reasonably foreseeable significant 

adverse impact on marine mammals 

from exposure to LFA sonar. 

In studying potential alerting stimuli 

for North Atlantic right whales, 

Nowacek et al. (2003) found that 

underwater sounds with an acoustic 

structure similar to their alert stimulus 

at RLs of 133–148 dB are likely to 

disrupt feeding behavior for the 

duration of the sound exposure, with 

return to normal behavior within 

minutes of when the sound was turned 

off. Their results are consistent with 

those of the LFS Scientific Research 

Program (SRP), which exposed baleen 

whales to RLs ranging from 120 to 155 

dB, detecting only minor, short-term 

behavioral responses (please see Final 

EIS, Subchapter 4.2.4.3 for more 

information). The LFA sonar risk 

function is based on the LFS SRP 

results. 

Concern that the LFA sonar signal 

may cause right whales to surface and 

thus be more vulnerable to ship strikes 

is not well founded because the vessels 

only move at about 5.6 km/hr (3 knots) 

(significantly lower than normal ship 

speeds) and LFA sonar mitigation 

measures will detect any large whales 

well before they enter the LFA sonar 

zone, at which time LFA sonar 

operations would be suspended. 

Comment 18: A number of incidents 

of whales becoming stranded and dying 

have occurred around the world linked 

with the use of very loud military 

sonars. To date, none of the many 

incidents involve LFA sonar, although 

(1) LFA sonar has not been used in close 

proximity to whale populations and (2) 

the Navy continues to deny that any 

military sonar impacts marine life. EII 

believes LFA sonar may have more 

lethal impact over longer distances due 

to the nature of low frequency sound 

transmission underwater. The Draft 

SEIS claims that the association 

between marine mammal stranding 

events and military sonar is an issue of 

‘‘public perception’’ and specifically 

that ‘‘[a]lthough much of the public 

have the impression that military sonar 

usage is a principle cause of marine 

mammal strandings, the facts that are 

available indicate otherwise.’’ While 

this might be true for mass stranding 

events of a non-anthropogenic origin, it 

is a grossly misleading statement. The 

Navy ignores the scientific record. 

Response: Data indicate that the area 

in which LFA sonar has been operating 

(Northwestern Pacific Ocean) has 

relatively abundant populations of 

marine mammals, as presented in the 

SEIS as shown in Tables 4.4–2 to 4.4–

10. During the LFS SRP in 1997 and 

1998, LFA sonar sources were operated 

in proximity to marine mammals with 

only minor behavioral effects. As 

detailed in SEIS RTC 4.3.1 and later in 

this document, LFA sonar is not known 

to have caused any marine mammal 

strandings or injuries. 

The ‘‘public perception’’ referred to in 

the Draft SEIS (p. 4–55) was one that 

views LFA sonar the same as any other 

sonar. The intent of the statement was 

that there is a public perception that the 

effects of LFA sonar are the same as any 

other naval, or loud, sonars. As noted in 

the discussion in the Final SEIS RTC 

4.3.1, the potential for impacts from 

LFA sonar differs from that of midfrequency active sonar. The best 

available scientific evidence to date 

does not indicate that LFA sonar has the 

potential to cause strandings based on 

analyses of existing strandings (ICES, 

2005; Cox et al., 2006). This paragraph 

was rewritten in the Final SEIS based on 

the latest available scientific data (see 

SEIS RTC 4.4.13). 

Comment 19: Given the relatively 

long duration of SURTASS LFA sonar 

‘‘pings’’ masking may be more of an 

issue than it is with impulsive noise 

sources. While the average signal length 

is 60 seconds—which is a very long 

time—for an extremely loud noise each 

can be up to 90 seconds long and can 

occur as often as every six minutes. This 

also does not take into account 

reverberation which can significantly 

increase the duty cycles and could 

result in a near continuous signal. Even 

temporary masking can be significant as 

it can compromise an animal’s ability to 

avoid predators, communicate, track 

and catch food, and avoid dangerous 

environments such as areas of high 

intensity noise. 

Response: The masking effects of the 

SURTASS LFA sonar signal are 

expected to be limited for a number of 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 161 / Tuesday, August 21, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 46855 

reasons. First, the frequency range 

(bandwidth) of the system is limited to 

about 30 Hz, and the instantaneous 

bandwidth at any given time of the 

signal is small, on the order of 10 Hz. 

Second, the average duty cycle is always 

less than 20 percent and based on past 

LFA sonar operational parameters (2003 

to 2007) is nominally 7.5 to 10 percent, 

as stated in Chapter 2 of the Final SEIS. 

Also, given the average maximum pulse 

length (60 seconds), and the fact that the 

signals vary and do not remain at a 

single frequency for more than 10 

seconds, SURTASS LFA sonar is not 

likely to cause significant masking. An 

analysis of marine mammal hearing and 

masking are in Subchapter 4.6.1.2 of the 

Final SEIS. In other words, the LFA 

sonar transmissions are coherent, 

narrow bandwidth signals of 6 to 100 

seconds in length followed by a quiet 

period of 6 to 15 minutes. Therefore, the 

effect of masking will be limited 

because animals that use this frequency 

range typically use broader bandwidth 

signals. As a result, the chances of an 

LFA sonar sound actually overlapping 

whale calls at levels that would interfere 

with their detection and recognition 

would be extremely low. 

It is also unlikely that reverberation 

will significantly increase the duty 

cycles and result in a continuous signal. 

As a general rule, reverberation ‘‘dies 

off’’ or decreases with distance from the 

source as an exponent of time after 

sound transmission. However, this is 

not instantaneous and, depending on 

propagation and ocean boundary 

conditions, reverberation can linger in 

an area for seconds or minutes after a 

sound transmission, but at greatly 

reduced SPLs until it fades into 

background noise. In special cases (i.e., 

locations with the correct bathymetry, 

propagation conditions and signal 

repetition rates), the reverberation may 

not completely die off before the next 

transmission. Generally, however, the 

reverberation levels several seconds 

after transmission are so much less than 

the original signal, (i.e., approaching 

ambient noise levels) that they do not 

‘‘add to the duty cycle.’’ LFA sonar 

signals have sufficient time to 

significantly decrease to levels much 

less than 120 dB in the vicinity of the 

source, prior to the transmission of the 

next signal. Additionally, reverberation 

away from the source’s location starts at 

an even lower level than near the source 

and generally decreases faster than in 

proximity of the source, so it is always 

less than near the source (see Final SEIS 

comment 4.3.39). 

Comment 20: The Draft SEIS sets a 

threshold SPL of 145 dB for diving and 

recreational sites, which is an attempt to 

be precautionary to humans. This is 

over 1,000 times less intense than the 

threshold set for marine mammals. It is 

irrational to assume that marine 

mammals are less sensitive to sound in 

water than humans are. It would make 

far better sense to adopt a 145 dB as the 

threshold for all animals, including 

humans. Human exposure guidelines 

‘‘were established based on 

psychological aversion testing,’’

exposure limits for cetaceans are based 

on avoiding only physiological injury 

(TTS) or the most dramatic behavioral 

responses. What basis justifies 

providing more protection to humans 

engaging in recreational diving than to 

native inhabitants of the sea? 

Response: These values represent 

different criteria: psychological aversion 

(a behavioral reaction) from direct 

measurements using human divers 

(Technical Report #3 of the Final EIS), 

and the exposure level at or above an RL 

of 180 dB, for which all marine 

mammals are evaluated as if they are 

injured (Final EIS Subchapter 1.4). 

However, humans are performing in a 

foreign medium compared to marine 

mammals. This suggests that the risk to 

marine mammals for a psychological 

response would be less than for 

humans. Furthermore, data cited in the 

Final EIS suggest that when operating in 

the presence of a biological imperative 

such as feeding, migrating or mating, 

such sound levels are insufficient to 

make the marine mammal discontinue 

their behavior (Technical Report #1 LFS 

SRP). Behavioral responses for marine 

mammals utilizing the risk continuum 

(see Final EIS Subchapter 4.2.3) 

demonstrate the potential for significant 

biologically important behavioral 

reactions from RLs from 120 to 179 dB, 

but with fewer significant behavioral 

responses at levels around 145 dB. 

Therefore, NMFS believes the 145-dB 

criterion for divers is consistent with 

the estimates of behavioral reactions to 

marine mammals, but at this time, it is 

unnecessary to consider this SPL as 

being warranted for marine mammals 

since the LFS SRP indicated that there 

were no significant behavioral reactions 

at these low levels and no indication 

that marine mammals might be 

seriously injured or killed by LFA sonar. 

Comment 21: The Draft SEIS 

minimizes impacts by emphasizing the 

small number of SURTASS LFA sonar 

systems to be employed and the narrow 

bandwidth of the active sonar signal. It 

is the intensity and pervasiveness of the 

SURTASS LFA sonar systems that is 

important in the discussion of impacts. 

The fact that there is more than one 

system merely compounds the problem. 

To declare that the low number and 

narrow bandwidth are mitigation 

measures is ludicrous. 

Response: Even though the source 

level of SURTASS LFA sonar is similar 

in intensity to many anthropogenic 

underwater sound sources, such as air 

gun arrays and other military sonars, 

there are significant differences in their 

operational characteristics. Table 1 

illustrates these differences. Also, please 

see the Final SEIS RTC 4.3.1 for more 

information. 

In a recent analysis for the Policy on 

Sound and Marine Mammals: An 

International Workshop sponsored by 

the Marine Mammal Commission (U.S.) 

and the Joint Nature Conservation 

Committee (UK) in 2004, Dr. John 

Hildebrand provided a comparison of 

anthropogenic underwater sound 

sources by their annual energy output. 

Dr. Hildebrand reported that the most 

energetic regularly operated sound 

sources are seismic air gun arrays from 

approximately 90 vessels with typically 

12 to 48 individual guns per array, firing 

about every 10 seconds. There are 

approximately 11,000 super tankers 

worldwide, each operating 300 days per 

year, producing constant LF noise at 

source levels of 198 dB (SEL) 

(Hildebrand, 2005). Conversely, LFA 

sonar signals are transmitted for a 

maximum of 432 hours (18 days) per 

vessel per year. The signal length is 

between 6 to 100 seconds with 6 to 15 

minutes between transmissions with 

individual elements source levels of 215 

dB. Therefore, LFA sonar contributes 

less acoustic energy to the oceans than 

other sources. For more detailed 

discussions on Hildebrand’s (2004) 

analysis, please see SEIS RTCs 4.6.4 and 

4.6.5. 

Even though LFA sonar signals are 

long range, LFA sonar cannot be 

considered to be pervasive (pervasive 

means to permeate or be present 

throughout) because of the nominal 7.5 

to 10 percent duty cycle, meaning that 

during any given mission LFA sonar is 

not transmitting 90 to 92.5 percent of 

the time. Moreover, impacts to marine 

mammals species and stocks must 

remain negligible and, in that regard, 

taking by behavioral harassment may 

not exceed 12 percent of a marine 

mammal stock in any given year. 

Comment 22: Throughout the 

document, the Draft SEIS claims that 

impacts will be negligible because there 

is no contradictory data. The absence of 

evidence does not equate to evidence of 

absence. In the absence of data, 

precaution should prevail. 

Response: The absence of evidence 

regarding effects of these actions on 

marine mammals does not mean we can 

assume they have not occurred, and will 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with RULES3
46856 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 161 / Tuesday, August 21, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

not occur in the future. However, we are 

not relying solely on absence of 

evidence. The agencies used the best 

information currently available to 

analyze the impacts to marine mammals 

as shown in this document and in more 

detail in Chapter 4.0 of the Final SEIS. 

Some of the new information used by 

NMFS to make its determinations under 

the MMPA are discussed and 

summarized in this Federal Register 

notice. That evidence includes a 5-year 

track record of using SURTASS LFA in 

an area rich in marine life without 

incident. In addition, NMFS requires 

the Navy to conduct mitigation and 

monitoring, including research to 

further clarify impacts on marine 

mammals from LFA sonar. 

Comment 23: Throughout the Draft 

SEIS, the Navy states that the SURTASS 

LFA sonar ships move in two 

dimensions, whereas marine animals 

move in three dimensions. It uses this 

logic to state that the amount of time 

that an animal would be in the sonar 

transit beam is very low. A ship does 

move in two dimensions, so if ship 

strikes were the only concern, then this 

rationale would work. However, sound 

propagates in three dimensions so the 

logic is flawed. 

Response: The Navy has clarified the 

intent of this statement in the Final 

SEIS. The statement now reads: ‘‘[A] 

Slowly moving ship, coupled with low 

system duty cycle, would mean that fish 

and sea turtles would spend less time in 

the LFA sonar mitigation zone (180 dB 

sound field); therefore, with a ship 

speed of less than 5 knots, the potential 

for animals being in the sonar transmit 

beam during the estimated 7.5 to 10 

percent of the time the sonar is actually 

transmitting is very low.’’

Comment 24: In its discussion of 

acoustic impacts, the Draft SEIS is 

flawed because it centers its entire 

analysis on a questionable premise, an 

SPL threshold of 180 dB RL for marine 

animal impact. 

Response: The SPL threshold of 180 

dB RL was only for potential injury 

impacts and not for other impacts, such 

as significant behavioral modifications. 

Please see Final SEIS Comment 4.0.1 for 

more information. 

Comment 25: In its discussion of 

acoustic impacts the Draft SEIS is 

flawed because it chooses to base its 

entire evaluation of the potential 

acoustic impacts to marine mammals on 

selective data, while ignoring more 

timely, widely accepted and peer 

reviewed science, including 

applicability of actual stranding events. 

In its discussion of acoustic impacts the 

Draft SEIS is flawed because it chooses 

to dismiss evidence suggesting 

behavioral reaction to sound can 

produce Level ‘‘A’’ harassment. 

Response: The scientific evidence 

supporting findings that marine 

mammals will not be injured at received 

levels less than 180 dB by SURTASS 

LFA sonar is provided in the Final SEIS 

(RTCs 4.0.3, 4.3.1, and 4.3.7 through 

4.3.15). LFA sonar has not been 

implicated in any known marine 

mammal strandings as discussed 

elsewhere in this Federal Register 

notice and in the Final SEIS RTC 4.4.9 

through 4.4.26. NMFS and the Navy 

have determined that the potential for 

injury to marine mammals by exposure 

to LFA sonar signals at received levels 

below 180 dB is unlikely. 

Even though there is the potential for 

the LFA sonar signal to injure marine 

mammals at RLs greater than 180 dB, 

that possibility is highly unlikely given 

the reliability of the Navy’s tripartite 

monitoring scheme and, in particular, 

the demonstrated effectiveness of the 

HF/M3. NMFS does not dismiss the 

possibility that behavioral reactions to 

sound can possibly produce Level A 

harassment; however, the best available 

scientific evidence strongly suggests 

that this is a concern primarily for 

certain species of odontocetes when 

exposed under particular conditions to 

mid-frequency sonar. The results of the 

LFS-SRP strongly indicate that the 

behavioral reactions of baleen whales, 

which hear best in the low frequency 

range, when exposed to SURTASS LFA 

sonar are minimal. Although there is no 

evidence that LF sound can cause 

biologically significant behavioral 

responses in odontocetes, and several 

factors including the inability of such 

species to hear well in the low 

frequency range contraindicate such 

responses, NMFS presumes that, while 

unlikely, it has the potential to occur. 

As a result, the Navy is presently 

planning its 2007–2008 field research 

for deep diving marine mammal 

behavioral response studies in an 

attempt to scientifically address this 

issue for LFA sonar, MFA, and seismic 

sources. This is discussed later in this 

document (see Research). 

Comment 26: The ‘‘Determination of 

Risk Function,’’ suggests that there is a 

continuum of severity of behavioral 

responses to SURTASS LFA sonar 

signals, ranging from 95 percent of those 

exposed to 180 dB having significant (if 

temporary) change in biologically 

important behavior, down to the first 

evidence of ‘‘significant’’ change 

occurring at 119 dB. If SURTASS LFA 

sonar signals are arriving at the 22-km 

(12-nm) offshore line at a level of just 

under 180 dB, then it is likely that near 

shore areas will be experiencing sound 

levels significantly above 120 dB. It 

would be helpful in making more 

biologically sound decisions if NMFS or 

the Navy clarified the radius within 

which received levels could be expected 

to be 120 dB, 145 dB, and/or 160 dB. 

The AEI suggests these radii not because 

these numbers have special or well 

defined significance, but to suggest that 

such information would give regulators 

and researchers a better sense of the 

likely zones of influence within which 

behavioral responses might be expected 

to increase or decrease in severity. At 

the least, AEI would suggest a lower 

allowable threshold of received levels at 

22 km from shore, to protect these 

biologically important areas from 

behavioral disruptions in response to 

moderate noise levels. 

Response: The AEI is correct that the 

risk continuum provides a method to 

determine effects from sound exposure 

based on the fact that various animals 

will react differently to LFA sonar 

signals. The data from the LFS SRP 

support a linear dose response function, 

also known as the LFA sonar risk 

continuum, for sound exposure and the 

potential for significant behavioral 

effects. This risk continuum was an 

integral part of the analysis in the Final 

EIS and 2002 Final Rule of the potential 

for SURTASS LFA sonar operations to 

cause significant behavioral effects in 

marine mammals. The ranges to RL 

isopleths and the ocean volumes they 

would encompass vary under different 

oceanographic conditions and were 

analyzed in the Final EIS. Detailed 

results of these analyses are presented 

in Subchapter 4.2 of the Final EIS and 

in Technical Report #2 (Acoustic 

Modeling Results). Figures B–1 through 

B–31 of TR 2 provide the parabolic 

equation (PE) transmission loss (TL) 

plots for each of the 31 sites. These plots 

provide TL as a function of depth and 

range from the source. The analysis 

determined that there is the potential for 

marine mammals to be affected by 

SURTASS LFA sonar. 

However, an analysis summarized in 

Final SEIS Subchapter 4.7.6 indicates 

that, while increasing the coastal 

standoff range from 12 nm (22 km) to 25 

nm (46 km) decreases exposure to 

higher RLs for marine animals closest to 

the shore (shelf species), it does so at 

the expense of increasing exposure 

levels for shelf break species and pelagic 

species. 

As a result of the Final EIS analysis, 

mitigation protocols were developed to 

prevent injury to marine mammals. 

Mitigation protocols were not deemed 

necessary or practical for other than 

Level A harassment (injury) takes. 

Results from operations under the initial 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 161 / Tuesday, August 21, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 46857 

5-year set of regulations for LFA sonar 

are presented in the SURTASS LFA 

sonar Final Comprehensive Report (see 

ADDRESSES for availability) and indicate 

that the Level B harassment take 

numbers for individual stocks of marine 

mammals in the areas of operations are 

within the values from the Final EIS 

analyses. 

Comment 27: The association between 

anthropogenic ocean noise and its 

impacts on marine mammals is well 

documented although there is still 

scientific uncertainty over the actual 

causal mechanisms of impacts. It is 

generally accepted that impacts can 

range from altered behavior through 

temporary injury to mortality. Altered 

behavior can include a startle response 

and can affect an animal’s ability to: 

feed, find mates, stay on a migration 

path, communicate, stay at or return to 

a favored feeding area, nurse, care for 

young, catch prey and escape predators. 

Mortality can result directly from 

exposure to sound or indirectly as a 

consequence of altered behavior or 

temporary injury. 

Response: While NMFS agrees with 

the statement, it cautions that it does 

not necessarily mean that all loud 

anthropogenic sounds will cause the 

stated reactions. NMFS details the 

relationship between events and LFA 

sonar throughout this document. 

Comment 28: The Draft SEIS states 

that ‘‘the operation of SURTASS LFA 

sonar with monitoring and mitigation 

will result in no lethal takes.’’ The 

evidence obtained from actual mortality 

incidents associated with anthropogenic 

noise suggests that the mechanisms by 

which animals are impacted by noise 

are far less straightforward than the 

Draft SEIS suggests. There is now 

increasing evidence that non-auditory 

injury or permanent loss of hearing are 

not the only mechanisms by which 

mortality can result from exposure to 

noise. For example, an alteration of 

behavior (Level B) such as a startle 

response leading to breaching can result 

in death whereas a gash injury (Level A) 

can heal and have no long term impact. 

The Draft SEIS should concede that the 

knowledge base surrounding the causal 

mechanisms of marine mammal impacts 

is too scant to be so readily 

compartmentalized. 

Response: See responses to Comments 

24, 25 and 27. As related to LFA sonar, 

the Navy performed extensive research 

to determine the potential for LF 

transmissions to cause significant 

behavioral effects in whales (the LFS 

SRP). There is no indication during 

these tests that whales surfaced rapidly 

or dove prematurely in response to LFA 

sonar source transmissions. The 

mechanisms to cause such events are 

based on the theory that MF-naval sonar 

can cause rapid surfacing and diving, 

thus resulting in acoustically mediated 

bubble growth. Also please see the 

discussion in the Final SEIS (RTCs 

4.0.3, 4.3.7, and 4.3.12). 

Comment 29: The Draft SEIS uses 

180-dB RL as the threshold for impacts 

to marine animals and persistently 

reminds the reader that this is a 

conservative figure. Field data suggest 

that this figure is much too high. In the 

Bahamas multi species mass stranding 

incident of 2000 estimates of the average 

sound exposure level that caused those 

animals to strand was around 140 dB re: 

1 microPa. The Draft SEIS dismisses the 

Bahamas stranding event saying that the 

hemorrhaging in the stranded animals 

could have been caused by factors other 

than acoustic trauma. This is not 

consistent with the actual findings 

published in the Interim Report on the 

event which states ‘‘all evidence points 

to acoustic or impulse trauma’’ and 

identifies ‘‘mid-range tactical Navy 

sonars operating in the area as the most 

plausible source of the acoustic or 

impulse trauma.’’

Response: First, the Bahamas 2000 

stranding event did not involve LFA 

sonar. Based on the best information 

available at this time, NMFS believes 

LFA sonar operations will not cause 

injury to marine mammals at received 

levels below 180 dB. Second, the 

commenter’s statement regarding the 

mid-frequency sonar decibel levels to 

which the stranded animals were 

exposed is incorrect. No one knows to 

what maximum decibel level the 

animals that ultimately stranded were 

exposed. Estimates were based on prior 

near-shore sightings of beaked whales at 

the locations where those whales were 

sighted, but they do not reflect the 

actual maximum received decibel levels 

of the particular animals that stranded. 

Third, the Bahamas interim report and 

further subsequent analysis of the event 

indicate that the strandings were likely 

caused by mid-frequency sonar in 

combination with a list of other 

contributing factors. The list of 

contributing factors is generally 

supported by the workshop on 

understanding the impacts of 

anthropogenic sound on beaked whales 

convened by the U.S. Marine Mammal 

Commission in 2004 (Cox et al., 2006) 

and the analysis by D’Spain et al. 

(2006). Whether or not surface ducts, 

one of the listed contributing factors, 

occurred during other reported 

strandings is not relevant to LFA sonar 

operations. The LFA sonar signals are 

initially transmitted substantially below 

10 m (32.8 ft) water depth and are not 

likely to have signal strength above 180 

dB in the surface duct. To ensure a 

thorough environmental analysis, 

however, surface ducting conditions 

were analyzed in the Final EIS at a 

number of the 31 model sites. Therefore, 

with LFA sonar mitigation, no marine 

mammals, in waters either with or 

without a surface duct, are expected to 

be exposed to injurious levels by LFA 

sonar signals. 

Comment 30: Since the FEIS was 

completed in January 2001, there have 

been at least five mass stranding 

incidents associated with ocean noise 

and several studies and papers related 

to the range of impacts of noise on 

marine mammals. To claim that none of 

this new data contradicts the 

assumptions or conclusions in the FEIS 

is questionable. There is more 

compelling evidence that: (1) The 

mechanisms by which animals strand as 

a result of a noise event are very 

complex; (2) different mechanisms can 

be involved and different impacts can 

result depending on the species and the 

circumstances; (3) the noise intensities 

at which animals strand are likely lower 

than those previously assumed; and (4) 

tissue injury is not necessary to cause 

animals to strand and die. 

Response: The issue is not whether 

anthropogenic sound causes marine 

mammal strandings, but rather does 

LFA sonar cause marine mammal 

strandings. The evidence to date, 

supported by recent scientific reports, 

supports the conclusion that the U.S. 

Navy’s LFA sonar is not likely to cause 

marine mammal strandings. However, 

an ad hoc committee of international 

experts under the auspices of the ICES 

has reviewed the impacts of sonar on 

cetaceans and fish. They concluded, 

‘‘No stranding, injury, or major 

behavioral change has yet been 

associated with the exclusive use of low 

frequency sonar’’ (ICES, 2005). This is 

further supported by 36 scientists in 

their recently published paper which 

arose from the Marine Mammal 

Commission workshop on the impacts 

of anthropogenic noise on beaked 

whales (Cox et al., 2006). Therefore, the 

statement that there are no new data 

contradicting the assumptions or 

conclusions in the Final EIS and Final 

SEIS remain correct. Moreover, five 

years of SURTASS LFA sonar use 

without evidence of strandings, injury, 

or other major behavioral changes 

support the conclusions of the Final 

OEIS/EIS and the Final Rule 2002. 

However, NMFS continues to view this 

issue seriously and does not dismiss it 

simply because a stranding has not been 

observed. For more detailed 

information, please see the Final SEIS 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with RULES3
46858 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 161 / Tuesday, August 21, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

(RTCs 4.0.3, 4.3.1, 4.3.2, 4.3.7, 4.3.8, 

4.3.9, and 4.3.12). 

Comment 31: The Draft SEIS 

mentions only three noise related 

marine mammal stranding events under 

the heading ‘‘Strandings potentially 

related to anthropogenic sound.’’ There 

is irrefutable evidence that 

anthropogenic sound causes marine 

mammal strandings. What is not known 

with any scientific certainty is the 

actual causal mechanisms. In listing 

only three marine mammal stranding 

incidents potentially related to 

anthropogenic sound, the Draft SEIS is 

being disingenuous. Not only are there 

many more strandings, but when all 

atypical mass strandings are tabulated, 

the overwhelming majority is associated 

with naval maneuvers, and likely sonar 

usage. (The commenter also provided 

the table from the ICES (2005) Report of 

the Ad hoc Group on the Impact of 

Sonar on Cetaceans and Fish). 

Response: The Navy’s intention was 

to examine three of the more studied 

stranding events in which naval sonars 

were implicated as a potential cause. 

This subchapter has been expanded in 

the Final SEIS based on stranding event 

information cited in more recent 

reports, such as ICES AGISC Report 

(ICES, 2005), and reports on the 

potential causes presented by ICES 

(2005), Cox et al. (2006), and D’Spain et 

al. (2006). NMFS believes that this 

revision is adequate as related to the 

potential for SURTASS LFA sonar to 

cause strandings because LFA sonar was 

not considered causative in any of these 

events and, indeed, low frequency sonar 

has never been implicated in any 

stranding, with the possible exception 

of the Greece stranding in 1996, during 

which mid-frequency sonar was also 

employed. 

Comment 32: The Navy has not 

reported any marine mammal stranding 

incident that has occurred in the 

vicinity of its activities. The Draft SEIS 

claims that SURTASS LFA sonar has 

not been implicated in any stranding 

event. This is not accurate. An LFA 

sonar system was implicated in the 

mass stranding of twelve Cuvier’s 

beaked whales in 1996 in Greece though 

as the Draft SEIS states, the inner ears 

were not examined. This does not mean 

that LFA sonar use did not cause the 

animals to strand. The usage of LFA 

sonar has also been far more restricted 

than mid frequency sonar for which 

there are more associated mass 

stranding events. 

Response: The Draft SEIS was correct. 

SURTASS LFA sonar have never been 

implicated in a stranding. While there 

was a LF component of the sonar 

potentially related to the Greek 

strandings in 1996, only MF 

components were implicated in the 

strandings in the Bahamas in 2000, 

Madeira 2002, and Canaries in 2002. 

This suggests that the LF component in 

the Greek strandings was not causative 

(Cox et al., 2006; ICES, 2005). In its 

discussion of the Bahamas stranding, 

Cox et al. (2006) stated, ‘‘The event 

raised the question of whether the midfrequency component of the sonar in 

Greece in 1996 was implicated in the 

stranding, rather than the low frequency 

component proposed by Frantzis 

(1998).’’ The ICES in its ‘‘Report of the 

Ad Hoc Group on the Impacts of Sonar 

on Cetaceans and Fish’’ is in agreement 

with Cox et al. (2006) stating that the 

association of MF sonar in the Bahamas, 

Madeira, and Canary Island strandings 

suggest that it was not the LF 

component in the NATO sonar that 

triggered the Greece stranding of 1996, 

but rather the MF component (ICES, 

2005). The ICES (2005) report also 

concluded that no strandings, injury, or 

major behavioral change have yet to be 

associated with the exclusive use of LF 

sonar. 

Since October 14, 2003, SURTASS 

LFA sonar use has been restricted under 

a permanent injunction to limited areas 

in the western Pacific Ocean (see Final 

SEIS, Subchapter 1–2.1, Figures 1–1 and 

4–4.2). Since commencing operations in 

2003, the R/V Cory Chouest and USNS 

IMPECCABLE have completed 40 

missions from January 2003 to August 

2006 under the first four LOAs (DON, 

2007). The general areas are known to 

the public because they are based on the 

Court Order, published in the Draft and 

Final SEIS, and incorporated into the 

subsequent NMFS LOAs. The locations 

and times of LFA sonar active 

operations are reported to NMFS 

quarterly (classified report) as required 

in the Final Rule and annual LOAs. 

These operations, with mitigation, have 

produced no known Level A takes on 

marine mammals as reported in the 

Annual Reports (DON, 2003a; 2004a; 

2005a; 2006a) and the Final 

Comprehensive Report (DON, 2007). 

Reviews of stranding reports in the LFA 

sonar operating area showed that there 

were a total of 19 strandings reported in 

Asia (four in Taiwan, nine throughout 

the Philippines, two in Thailand, two in 

Indonesia, and two in China) (The 

Cetacean Stranding Database, accessed: 

11/28/2006). None of these strandings 

were coincident either temporally or 

spatially with LFA sonar operations. 

Moreover, the Northwestern Pacific 

Ocean areas where SURTASS LFA sonar 

is presently operating are some of the 

most heavily populated areas in the 

world and cannot be considered 

‘‘remote.’’

As to the possibility of unreported 

strandings, the NMFS and the Navy do 

not consider that this is a very likely 

scenario for LFA sonar operations. Even 

though a visual observer onboard the 

vessel will be unable to see an animal 

that strands on the shoreline due to 

operations being greater than 12 nm (22 

km) from land, this is not relevant 

because LFA sonar is unlikely to cause 

injury beyond the 180-dB mitigation 

zone (normally 1 km (0.5 nm) radius). 

Level A (injury) harassments are 

determined based on actual 

observations/detections within the LFA 

sonar mitigation zone. With passive and 

active acoustic detection, the probability 

of detection within this zone is over 95 

percent for a single marine mammal (see 

Final EIS, Subchapters 2.3.2.2 and 

4.2.7.1.). For multiple animals, the value 

is nearly 100 percent. The area of the 

northwestern Pacific Ocean, where LFA 

sonar vessels are currently operating, is 

not a remote area and there are 

stranding networks in the region. A 

review of reported strandings in the area 

does not show any correlations to LFA 

sonar operations either spatially or 

temporally (see discussion later in this 

document on strandings in Taiwan). 

Comment 33: The Draft SEIS states 

that no Level A harassment incidents 

have been reported in the area of usage; 

however, it does not relate the effort 

undertaken to search for such incidents 

or mention reports of Level ‘‘B’’

harassment incidents. 

Response: See Comment 32. 

Comment 34: The association between 

mid frequency sonar usage and 

strandings was not realized until 

decades after its introduction. 

Response: NMFS agrees, noting that 

Balcomb and Claridge (2001) reported 

that beaked whale strandings have 

increased since the use of MF sonar in 

the 1960s. However, the association 

between MF-sonar and strandings 

appears limited to a confluence of 

factors. Stranding networks weren’t 

active until much later than the 1960’s, 

but have been active since SURTASS 

LFA sonar came into use. Certainly, 

SURTASS LFA sonar has received great 

scrutiny with respect to the potential for 

strandings and none have been 

observed. 

Comment 35: The Draft SEIS appears 

to be only concerned about impacts 

producing Level A harassment which it 

claims will be negligible. The impacts 

from behavioral alteration to individual 

animals are dismissed as 

inconsequential. Behavioral impacts can 

not only produce level A harassment, 

but impacts to individuals are 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 161 / Tuesday, August 21, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 46859 

significant especially for endangered 

populations, and can have population 

level consequences no matter what the 

status of the species. 

Response: There are several types of 

Level B harassment that can result from 

anthropogenic sounds. Two types of 

behavioral effects that have potential for 

population level effects are masking and 

stress. These will be addressed here. 

(also see the Final SEIS RTCs 4.0.3 and 

4.3.12 in Comment 1, SEIS RTC 4.3.17 

in Comment 5, SEIS RTC 4.3.2 in 

Comment 6, and SEIS RTC 4.3.33 in 

Comment 7). Other potential Level B 

harassment effects are addressed 

elsewhere in this rulemaking document. 

Also, please see the Biological Opinion 

issued under section 7 of the ESA for 

this action by NMFS (see ESA later in 

this document). 

In regard to masking, the commenter 

is confusing the avoidance response of 

migrating gray whales and bowhead 

whales with masking. There was no 

evidence of masking in any of the 

research on these two species. Certainly 

in the gray whale case, the 

interpretation by the scientists who 

conducted the research was that the 

whales responded but responses were 

not interpreted as having a significant 

behavioral impact. Furthermore, a 

received level of 120 dB for LFA sonar 

would not mask the species-specific 

sounds of any low frequency mysticete, 

although under certain, rare 

circumstances it might interfere with 

species recognition. The masking effects 

of the SURTASS LFA sonar signal are 

expected to be limited for a number of 

reasons. First, the frequency range 

(bandwidth) of the system is limited to 

about 30 Hz, and the instantaneous 

bandwidth at any given time of the 

signal is small, on the order of 10 Hz. 

Second, the LFA sonar signal is active 

(or on) only about 7.5 percent of the 

time (i.e., low duty cycle based on 

historical LFA sonar operations, but 

may be on for up to 20 percent of the 

time) and limited to periods during 

actual missions. Therefore, the effect of 

masking will be limited because animals 

that use this frequency region typically 

use broader bandwidth signals. As a 

result, the chances of an LFA sonar 

sound actually overlapping whale calls 

at levels that would interfere with their 

detection and recognition would be 

extremely low. 

Regarding stress, stress can be defined 

as a threat to homeostasis (Fair and 

Becker, 2000) and is frequently 

measured with changes in blood 

chemistry (Thomas et al., 1990; Romano 

et al., 2004; Smith et al., 2004a). 

Thomas et al. (1990) exposed captive 

belugas to recorded industrial noise for 

30 minutes at a time, with a total 

exposure of 4.5 hours over 13 days with 

a source level of 153 dB. Catecholamine 

blood levels were checked both before 

and after noise exposure; however, no 

significant differences in blood 

chemistry were observed. Another 

experiment that measured blood 

chemistry, but also varied the sound 

level is described in Romano et al. 

(2004). In this experiment, a beluga 

whale was exposed to varying levels of 

an impulsive signal produced by a 

watergun. The levels of three stress 

related blood hormones 

(norepinephrine, epinephrine and 

dopamine) were measured after control, 

low level sound (171–181 dB SEL) 

exposure and high level (184–187 dB 

SEL) sound exposure. There were no 

significant differences between low 

level sound exposure and control, while 

the high level sound exposure did 

produce elevated levels for all three 

hormones. Furthermore, regression 

analysis demonstrated a linear trend for 

increased hormone level with sound 

level. 

Less relevant to marine mammals, but 

still informative, Smith et al. (2004a) 

exposed goldfish (a hearing specialist 

fish) to continuous background noise of 

160–170 dB RL. There was a ‘‘transient 

spike’’ in blood cortisol levels within 10 

minutes of the onset of noise that was 

loud enough to cause TTS. However, 

this cortisol spike did not persist and 

there was no long term physiological 

stress reaction in the animals. 

These data support a linear dose 

response function (like the LFA sonar 

risk continuum) for sound exposure and 

the onset of stress, with only high levels 

of sound leading to a stress reaction. 

The extrapolation of the response 

thresholds from the Romano et al. 

(2004) experiment to the LFA sonar 

situation is tenuous because of the 

differences in the signals, but the 

relationship between sound level and 

stress is supported by several studies. 

As mentioned elsewhere, there are some 

recent data (e.g., Evans, 2003) 

implicating synergistic effects from 

multiple stressors, including noise. 

Although there are no data to support 

synergistic effects, similar impacts 

might occur with marine mammals, 

given the multiple stressors that often 

occur in their environment. This 

indicates to NMFS that while stress in 

marine animals could possibly be 

caused by operation of the LFA sonar 

source, it is likely to be constrained to 

an area much smaller than the zone of 

audibility, probably closer in size to the 

mitigation zone around the vessel. 

Comment 36: The LFS SRP Phase II 

conducted by the Navy to determine 

LFA sonar impacts on migrating whales 

found that when the source was located 

in the whales’ migratory path 

(approximately 1 km (0.54 nm) from 

shore), gray whales avoided levels 

below 150 dB. The SRP showed 

negligible avoidance by the whales 

when the source was located over 2 km 

(1.1 nm) from shore. From the results of 

the LFS SRP Phase II, the Navy 

concluded no biologically significant 

response. Perhaps in actuality more 

sensitive individuals or mother calf 

pairings tend to hug the coast during 

migration. For some groups, the most 

sensitive animals may be crucial to a 

group’s survival as these may be the first 

individuals to become aware of 

predators or of dangerous situations. To 

lose sensitive animals or nursing 

mothers from a group could have 

population level consequences. 

Response: NMFS believes the 

characterization of the Navy’s 

conclusion is out of context. See the 

Final EIS Subchapter 4.2.4.3. NMFS 

does not believe that some whales 

‘‘hugged’’ the coast of California during 

the LFS SRP. For this phase of the SRP, 

the sound source was moored offshore 

of the central California coast, near 

Point Buchon. Shore-based observers 

tracked whales using methods that 

provided highly sensitive measures for 

avoidance responses. These observers 

would have sighted whales along the 

coast line. Also, observers on the 

playback vessel also carefully monitored 

marine mammals in order to stop 

broadcasting in case of worrisome 

behavioral reactions or if any marine 

mammals were sighted at close enough 

range that the sound level to which they 

were exposed might exceed the 

maximum planned exposure level (155 

dB). 

The issue of potential calf strandings 

during the LFS SRP in Hawaii was 

addressed in the Final EIS RTC 4 5.25 

where it was concluded that these 

events were not related to LFA sonar 

testing. Masking of communications 

could potentially affect the mother calf 

bond; however, masking effects from the 

SURTASS LFA sonar signal are 

extremely unlikely and are expected to 

be negligible considering the short duty 

cycle and other factors discussed in this 

document. The rationale for this is 

discussed in Final SEIS RTCs 4.3.23 and 

4.3.36. Thus, LFA sonar signals are not 

expected to disrupt the mother calf 

bond. 

Comment 37: An aversion response 

can occur many tens of miles from the 

source, and father away if it is in the 

direct path of the beam-formed or 

ducted signal. 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with RULES3
46860 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 161 / Tuesday, August 21, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

Response: Given that the LFA sonar 

sound source can be detected at 

moderate to low levels over large areas 

of the ocean, the Navy (and NMFS) had 

concerns at the initiation of the NEPA 

process in 1996 that there was the 

potential for large percentages of 

species/stocks to be exposed; if animals 

would be disturbed at these moderateto-low exposure levels such that they 

experience a significant change in a 

biologically important behavior, then 

such exposures could potentially have 

an impact on rates of reproduction or 

survival. Knowing that cetacean 

responses to LF sound signals needed to 

be better defined using controlled 

experiments, the Navy helped develop 

and supported the independent threeyear LFS SRP beginning in 1997. The 

study analyzed the behavioral responses 

of whale species that have the greatest 

sensitivity to low frequency sounds and 

thus were believed to be the most 

vulnerable, potentially, to LFA sound. 

This field research program was 

designed to address three important 

behavioral contexts for baleen whales: 

(1) Blue and fin whales feeding in the 

southern California Bight, (2) gray 

whales migrating past the central 

California coast, and (3) humpback 

whales breeding off Hawaii. Taken 

together, the results from the three 

phases of the LFS SRP do not support 

the hypothesis that most baleen whales 

exposed to RLs near 140 dB would 

exhibit disturbance behavior and avoid 

the area. These experiments, which 

exposed baleen whales to RLs ranging 

from 120 to about 155 dB, detected only 

minor, short-term behavioral responses. 

Short-term behavioral responses do not 

necessarily constitute significant 

changes in biologically important 

behaviors. 

These results have been supported by 

recent, peer-reviewed papers. Croll et al. 

(2001a) studied the effects of 

anthropogenic LF noise (SURTASS LFA 

sonar) on the foraging ecology of blue 

and fin whales off San Nicolas Island, 

California. Overall, the whale encounter 

rates and diving behavior appeared to be 

more strongly linked to changes in prey 

abundance associated with ocean 

parameters than to LFA sonar 

transmissions. In some cases, whale 

vocal behavior was significantly 

different between experimental and 

non-experimental periods. However, 

these differences were not consistent 

and did not appear to be related to LF 

sound transmissions. At the spatial and 

temporal scales examined, Croll et al. 

(2001a) stated that they found no 

obvious responses of whales to a loud, 

anthropogenic, LF sound. 

Both Miller et al. (2000) and Fristrup 

et al. (2003) published on the results of 

tests conducted with male humpback 

singers off Hawaii in which they 

evaluated variation in song length as a 

function of exposure to LF sounds. In 

spite of methodological differences, the 

results of both studies indicated that 

humpback whales slightly increased 

their songs in response to LF broadcasts. 

Fristrup et al. (2003) found that the 

fraction of variation in song length that 

could be attributed to LF broadcast was 

low and concluded that the effects of LF 

broadcast did not impose a risk of 

dramatic changes in humpback whale 

singing behavior that would have 

demographic consequences. For more 

information please also see SEIS RTC 

4.3.30. 

Comment 38: SURTASS LFA sonar 

impacts the vocalizations and other 

behavior of humpback whales. 

Response: NMFS does not disagree 

with the potential impacts of LFA sonar 

on vocalization and other behavior. The 

justification for the conclusion that the 

potential effects on the stocks of marine 

mammals from behavioral changes 

would be minimal is discussed in the 

Final SEIS in RTC 4.3.29. The potential 

effects of masking are discussed in the 

Final SEIS RTCs 4.3.1 and 4.3.23. The 

Miller et al. (2000) article ‘‘Whale songs 

lengthen in response to sonar’’

concerning observations of male 

humpback whales during Phase III of 

the LFS SRP was addressed in the Final 

EIS RTC 4–5.19 and in the NMFS Final 

Rule RTC SIC16 and SIC17. Fistrup et 

al. (2003) used a larger data set from 

Phase III to describe song length 

variability and to explain song length 

variation in relation to LF broadcasts. In 

spite of methodological and sample size 

differences, the results of the two 

analyses were generally in agreement, 

and both studies indicated that 

humpback whales tend to lengthen their 

songs in response to LF broadcasts. 

Fristrup et al. (2003) provides a 

detailed picture of short-term response 

as compared to behavioral variation 

observed in the absence of stimuli. 

These responses were relatively brief in 

duration, with all observed effects 

occurring within 2 hours of the last LFA 

sonar source transmission. It should be 

noted that these effects were not salient 

to the acoustic observers on the scene, 

but were revealed by careful statistical 

analyses (Fistrup et al., 2003). Aside 

from the delayed responses, other 

measures failed to indicate cumulative 

effects from LF broadcasts, with songlength response being dependent solely 

on the most recently LF transmission, 

and not the immediate transmission 

history. The modeled seasonal factors 

(changes in surface social activities) did 

not show trends that could be plausibly 

explained by cumulative exposure. 

Increases in song length from early 

morning to afternoon were the same on 

days with and without LF 

transmissions, and the fraction of 

variation in song length that could be 

attributed to LF broadcast was low. 

Fistrup et al. (2003) found high levels of 

natural variability in humpback song 

length and interpreted the whales’

responses to LF broadcasts to indicate 

that exposure to LFA sonar would not 

impose a risk of dramatic changes in 

humpback whale singing behavior that 

would have demographic consequences. 

Comment 39: It is impossible to 

comment fully on the Acoustic 

Integration Model (AIM), the program 

used by the Navy to calculate the 

system’s impacts, because that model 

has not been released to the public. 

Disclosure of the model must occur for 

public comment to be meaningful under 

NEPA and the Administrative Procedure 

Act (APA) to be met. 

Response: The Acoustic Integration 

Model (AIM) contains proprietary 

programming that prevents its release to 

the public. As a result, in response to a 

different incidental take application 

(Draft EIS for Gulf of Mexico Seismic 

Surveys), AIM recently underwent an 

independent scientific review by the 

NMFS-sponsored Center for 

Independent Experts (CIE). The CIE 

review took place September 25–27, 

2006. A report from that review is 

publicly available on the NMFS Web 

site (http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/ 

permits/incidental.htm). Additional 

documentation can be found on the 

SURTASS LFA sonar Web site (see 

ADDRESSES). 

Comment 40: Models used by the 

Navy in its applications for LOAs to 

assess its actual work in the Pacific, and 

in its Final EIS to estimate impacts in 

sample coastal areas, in large part 

assume a fairly even distribution of 

marine mammals across a wide area of 

ocean, failing to take the possibility that 

certain animals, like beaked whales and 

sperm whales, may be concentrated in 

particular habitats. Specifically, the 

Navy has not conducted research on 

beaked whale habitat preferences. In the 

limited modeling we have seen, the 

Navy frequently assumes that 

populations of marine mammals are 

relatively unstructured, such that 

individual animals are improbably 

considered part of region-wide, basinwide, or even worldwide stocks. The 

Navy’s stock assessments in its LOA 

applications are based on incomplete 

and out-of-date information, leading to 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 161 / Tuesday, August 21, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 46861 

a significant underestimation of species 

abundance and therefore impacts. 

Response: When there is no specific 

data on marine mammal distribution, 

impact prediction modeling uses an 

even distribution over the ocean area, 

since offshore concentrations of animals 

are not fixed in space or time. Nearshore 

concentrations can be relatively fixed in 

time or space, due to physical forcing 

from the steep bathymetry and seasonal 

variations (e.g., Monterey Canyon or 

Hudson Canyon). However, LFA sonar 

operates in deeper, offshore waters 

where the concentrations are fluid due 

to changing water mass conditions. 

Therefore an even distribution of 

animals is the one with the least 

assumptions. Basically, the model 

assumes that individuals of the species 

can occur anywhere within their ranges 

with equal probability over a long time. 

On any given day, the distribution of 

any given species is likely to be highly 

non-uniform. Over a long period of time 

the fluctuations in density are likely to 

even out. Therefore, assuming an even 

distribution for the purposes of 

assessing potential impacts is 

reasonable and appropriate. 

NMFS believes that the latest 

information available is used by NMFS 

and the Navy when assessing impacts 

on marine mammals by LFA sonar. 

Regarding beaked whale research, 

NMFS notes that the Office of Naval 

Research (ONR) and SERDP (Strategic 

Environmental Research and 

Development Program) has funded the 

following beaked whale research: 

MacLeod, C. D., and G. Mitchell. 2006. Key 

areas for beaked whales worldwide. J. 

Cetacean Res. Manage. 7(3):309–322. 

MacLeod, C. D., W. F. Perrin, R. Pitman, J. 

Barlow, L. Balance, A. D’Amico, T. 

Gerrodette, G. Joyce, K. D. Mullin, D. L. 

Palka, and G. T. Waring. 2006. Known and 

inferred distributions of beaked whale 

species (Cetacea: Ziphiidae). J. Cetacean 

Res. Manage. 7(3):271–286. 

Redfern, J. V., M. C. Ferguson, E. A. Becker, 

K. D. Hyrenbach, C. Good, J. Barlow, K. 

Kaschner, M. F. Baumgartner, K. A. 

Forney, L. T. Ballance, P. Fauchald, P. 

Halpin, T. Hamazaki, A. J. Pershing, S. S. 

Qian, A. Read, S. B. Reilly, L. Torres, and 

F. Werner. 2006. Techniques for cetaceanhabitat modeling. MEPS 310:271–295. 

Ferguson, M. C., J. Barlow, B., S. B. Reilly, 

and T. Gerrodette. 2006. Predicting 

Cuvier’s (Ziphius cavirostris) and 

Mesoplodon beaked whale population 

density from habitat characteristics in the 

Eastern Tropical Pacific Ocean. JCRM 

7(3):287–299. 

In addition, ONR and SERDP have 

funded the development and fieldwork 

for the sound-and-orientation recording 

tag (DTAG), which has been 

successfully attached with suction cups 

to beaked whales (Tyack et al., 2006). 

These data are providing critically 

valuable information on the movement 

and diving behaviors of beaked whales, 

both of which are important to know in 

order to understand the acoustic 

exposure that the animals may receive. 

As stated in the Final SEIS 

Subchapter 2.7, the NMFS initial LOA 

under Condition 7(d) required the Navy 

to conduct research in accordance with 

50 CFR § 216.185(e). The SURTASS 

LFA sonar LTM Program has been 

budgeted by the Navy at a level of 

approximately $1M per year for five 

years, starting with the issuance of the 

first LOA. The status of this research 

was summarized in Table 2–5 of the 

Final SEIS. Finally, planning has 

commenced for a 2007–2008 deepdiving odontocetes behavioral response 

study (BRS) to determine the potential 

effects of LFA sonar, MFA, and seismic 

sources on beaked whales and other 

deep diving odontocetes at an estimated 

cost of $3M per year. The BRS study is 

discussed later in this document. 

Regarding stock assessment data, the 

modeling analysis considers the total 

amount of risk for each marine mammal 

species by summing a particular 

species’ risk estimate within that stock, 

across areas of operation for each 

mission. This methodology does not 

assume that populations are 

unstructured, but includes the best 

information available on the 

reproductive behavior of each species at 

each mission site in order to determine 

stock affiliation and the total risk to the 

sustainability of each stock. Stock 

assessment data within U.S. waters are 

required to be updated annually under 

the MMPA, with new stock assessments 

being published when new data are 

available. The best available data were 

used in all instances of the modeling 

analysis for determining stock 

abundance and distribution. 

The Navy states that it performs 

regular reviews of the latest research, 

including updating stock and density 

data. The Navy’s applications for 

SURTASS LFA sonar LOAs are 

submitted after conducting a thorough 

review of the latest data on the marine 

animals present in the potential 

operating areas. 

The Final EIS states, ‘‘The model runs 

are designed to portray high potential 

effects for each site. For example, 

seasons were selected based on the 

potential for maximum LF-sensitive 

animal abundance.’’ (Please see FOEIS/ 

EIS Subchapters 4.2.1 and 4.2.2.2, and 

RTCs 4–3.8, 4–3.9, and 4–3.11.) 

Comment 41: The Navy incorrectly 

claims that significant impacts on stocks 

and populations, as modeled for its LOA 

applications, would necessarily occur at 

percentages lower than those assumed 

in the Navy’s modeling of coastal area 

and NMFS Final Rule, even 

disregarding the underestimates of take 

resulting from the other errors 

described. The Navy’s approach to 

modeling behavioral impacts from 

multiple exposures is not conservative. 

Response: NMFS disagrees with the 

commenter’s statement regarding the 

Navy’s approach to modeling behavioral 

impacts from multiple exposures not 

being conservative. Subchapter 4.2.3.1 

of the Final EIS provides details on how 

the Navy derived the L + 5 log10(N) 

formula for a single ping equivalent 

(SPE). The SPE concept is related to 

widely accepted methods for comparing 

sounds of different durations. It is 

universally acknowledged that 

increased exposure duration increases 

the severity of potential impact. The 

SPE calculation is conservative in 

assuming that the increase in potential 

effects observed by extending the 

duration of a continuous sound 

stimulus applies to a sequence of 

SURTASS LFA sonar pings, even 

though the transmissions are separated 

by many minutes when the system is 

off. This applies to SURTASS LFA 

sonar-type signals, not continuous 

sound. In this process, an SPE received 

level is larger than the maximum RL of 

any single ping in sequence. Also, the 

SPE for a sequence consisting of a single 

loud ping and a long series of much 

softer pings is almost the same as the 

level of a single loud ping. A ping 

duration (length) of 60 seconds was 

assumed in the modeling and risk 

assessment calculations using SPE. The 

adoption of 60 seconds and 20 percent 

as the standard ping duration and duty 

cycle, respectively, for calculations in 

the Final EIS, provides a reasonable 

estimate of the potential for effects from 

real-world SURTASS LFA sonar 

operations without sacrificing the 

conservative nature of the analysis 

process. 

Comment 42: There is an unknown 

history of exposure of animals in an area 

where active sonar is regularly used. 

Response: The adequacy of scientific 

information on marine animals is 

discussed in Subchapter 1.4.2 of the 

Final EIS. It states that there is an urgent 

need for better methods for measuring 

and estimating potential risk. These data 

gaps have necessitated the use of 

various models and extrapolations in 

order to provide a rational basis for the 

assessment of potential risk from 

exposure to LF sounds. To address some 

of these gaps, the Navy performed 

underwater acoustic modeling and 

supported the LFS SRP to study the 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with RULES3
46862 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 161 / Tuesday, August 21, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

potential effect of LF sound on freeranging marine mammals. This research 

did not specifically address the issue of 

LF impact on marine mammal hearing; 

rather, it focused on the behavioral 

responses of baleen whales to controlled 

exposure from SURTASS LFA sonarlike signals. In general, understanding 

the mechanics of hearing and the 

biological functions of sounds for 

marine mammals has improved 

considerably over the past decade. 

Specific information on the effects of 

most types of human-made underwater 

noise on marine animals is incomplete, 

but has also increased in recent years. 

However, as the environmental 

evaluation of the SURTASS LFA sonar 

system progressed, the Navy recognized 

that additional research was required in 

several areas to address some basic gaps 

in scientific knowledge. This included 

development of a scientifically 

reasonable estimate of the underwater 

sound exposure levels that may cause 

injury to marine mammals, and research 

on the potential effects of LF sound on 

marine mammal behavior. While 

recognizing that not all of the questions 

on the potential for LF sound to affect 

marine life are answered, and may not 

be answered in the foreseeable future, 

NMFS believes the Navy has combined 

scientific methodology with a prudent 

approach throughout the Final EIS and 

SEIS to protect the marine environment. 

Although there are recognized areas of 

insufficient knowledge that must be 

accounted for when estimating the 

potential direct and indirect effects on 

marine life from SURTASS LFA sonar, 

the present level of understanding is 

adequate to place reasonable bounds on 

potential impacts. Therefore, though 

data on specific exposure of 

anthropogenic sounds, particularly 

sonar, on the marine environment is 

limited, the Navy and NMFS have taken 

this into account during their analyses. 

Moreover, we know much more about 

the impacts of different types of sonar 

in the marine environment today than 

we knew five years ago, when 

SURTASS LFA went through the 

environmental compliance process the 

first time, and the best scientific data 

that we have indicates that SURTASS 

LFA can be operated safely with the 

prescribed mitigation, in a manner that 

has no more than a negligible impact on 

marine mammal species and stocks. 

Comment 43: There is a low level of 

accuracy with which the exposed 

individuals can be monitored in real 

time. 

Response: Sound field limits are 

estimated using near-real-time 

environmental data and underwater 

acoustic performance models. These 

models are an integral part of the 

SURTASS LFA sonar processing system. 

The acoustic models help determine the 

sound field by predicting the SPLs, or 

RLs, at various distances from the 

SURTASS LFA sonar source location. 

Acoustic model updates are nominally 

made every 12 hours, or more frequently 

when meteorological or oceanographic 

conditions change. For further 

information, please see the Final SEIS, 

RTC 5.1.1. Though individuals cannot 

be effectively monitored beyond the 

reach of the HF/M3, the sound field is 

monitored in near-real-time. 

Comment 44: The intense sound 

generated by military active sonar can 

induce a range of adverse effects in 

whales and other species, from 

significant behavioral changes to 

stranding and death. In a 2004 

symposium at the International Whaling 

Commission (IWC), more than 100 

whale biologists concluded that the 

association between sonar and beaked 

whale deaths is very convincing and 

appears overwhelming. Mass 

mortalities, though an obvious focus of 

much reporting and concern, are likely 

only the tip of the iceberg of sonar’s 

harmful effects. Marine mammals are 

believed to depend on sound to 

navigate, find food, locate mates, avoid 

predators, and communicate with each 

other. Flooding their habitat with manmade, high-intensity noise interferes 

with these other functions. 

In addition to strandings and nonauditory injuries, the harmful effects of 

high-intensity sonar include (1) 

temporary or permanent loss of hearing; 

(2) avoidance behavior; (3) disruption of 

biologically important behaviors such as 

mating, feeding, nursing, or migration, 

or loss of efficiency in conducting those 

behaviors; (4) aggressive (or agonistic) 

behavior; (5) masking of biologically 

meaningful sounds; (6) chronic stress; 

(7) habituation; and (8) declines in the 

availability and viability of prey species, 

such as fish and shrimp. 

Response: The use of the term ‘‘sonar’’

does not reflect what Annex K of the 

IWC 2004 Scientific Committee Report 

actually stated. The Report does not 

implicate LFA sonar in the stranding of 

beaked whales. The full text of the 

quoted statement is: ‘‘The weight of 

accumulated evidence now associates 

mid-frequency, military sonar with 

atypical beaked whale mass strandings. 

This evidence is very convincing and 

appears overwhelming.’’

There are different types of 

anthropogenic sounds associated with 

possible impacts to and strandings of 

marine mammals. There are naval sonar 

and seismic airgun arrays, each with 

different characteristics and purposes. 

Many lump these types together. 

Accordingly, when there is a stranding 

that may be associated with the use of 

one type of sonar or sound source, all 

sources are implicated—a premise that 

does not stand up to scientific scrutiny 

in the marine bio-acoustics community. 

A wide range of naval sonars are used 

to detect, localize and classify 

underwater targets. For the purposes of 

the SURTASS LFA sonar Final SEIS, the 

MMPA application, and this Final Rule, 

these systems are categorized as LFA 

sonar (less than 1000 Hz) and MFA 

sonar (1 to 10 kHz). Table 1 in this 

document provides pertinent 

information on different types of LFA 

sonar and MFA sonar. General 

information is also provided on airgun 

arrays. (We also note that sonar signals 

are generally coherent while air guns are 

impulsive.) 

TABLE 1.—COMPARISON OF UNDERWATER ACOUSTIC SOURCE PROPERTIES

Source type SURTASS LFA sonar AN/SQS 53C (MF) AN/SQS 56 (MF) Air gun array (LF) 

Source Level ................... 215 dB per element ............................ 235 dB ............................ 223 dB ............................ 260 dB. 

Pulse Duration ................ Variable 6 to 100s. Never longer than 

10s at single freq.

1–2 s .............................. 1–2 s .............................. 0.02 s. 

Inter-pulse Time .............. 6 to 15 min ......................................... 24 s ................................ 24 s ................................ 9–14 s. 

Center Frequency ........... 100–500 Hz ........................................ 2.6 & 3.3 kHz ................. 6.8, 7.5, & 8.2 kHz ......... Broadband. 

Bandwidth ....................... 30 Hz .................................................. 100 Hz ............................ 100 Hz ............................ Wideband. 

Source Depth .................. Array 87 to 157 m. Center 122 m ...... 8 m ................................. 6 m ................................. 6–10 m. 

Beamwidth ...................... Omni-directional in horizontal ............. 40 degrees ..................... 30 degrees ..................... Function of freq. 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 161 / Tuesday, August 21, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 46863 

TABLE 1.—COMPARISON OF UNDERWATER ACOUSTIC SOURCE PROPERTIES—Continued 

Source type SURTASS LFA sonar AN/SQS 53C (MF) AN/SQS 56 (MF) Air gun array (LF) 

Beam Direction ............... Horizontal ............................................ 3 degrees down from 

horizontal.

Horizontal ....................... Vertical. 

MF = mid frequency; LF = low frequency. 

Source: D’Spain et al. (2006); DON (2001). 

Cox et al. (2006) provides a summary 

of common features shared by the 

strandings events in Greece (1996), 

Bahamas (2000), and Canary Islands 

(2002). In addition to use of MF sonar, 

these included deep water close to land 

(such as offshore canyons), presence of 

an acoustic waveguide (surface duct 

conditions), and periodic sequences of 

transient pulses (i.e., rapid onset and 

decay times) generated at depths less 

than 10 m (32.8 ft) by sound sources 

moving at speeds of 2.6 m/s (5.1 knots) 

or more during sonar operations 

(D’Spain et al., 2006). A number of these 

features do not relate to LFA sonar 

operations. First, the SURTASS LFA 

sonar vessel operates with a horizontal 

line array (SURTASS: a passive 

listening system) of 1,500 m (4,921 ft) 

length at depths below 150 m (492 ft) 

and a vertical line array (LFA sonar 

source) at depths greater than 100 m. 

Second, operations are limited by 

mitigation protocols to at least 22 km 

(12 nm) offshore. Therefore, for these 

reasons SURTASS LFA sonar cannot be 

operated in deep water that is close to 

land. Finally, the LFA sonar signal is 

transmitted at depths well below 10 m 

(32.8 ft), and the vessel has a slow speed 

of advance of 1.5 m/s (3 knots). 

While there was a LF component to 

the sonar potentially related to the 

Greek stranding in 1996, only midfrequency components were present in 

the strandings in the Bahamas in 2000, 

Madeira in 2002, and Canaries in 2002. 

This supports the logical conclusion 

that the LF component in the Greek 

stranding was not causative (ICES, 2005; 

Cox et al., 2006). In its discussion of the 

Bahamas stranding, Cox et al. (2006) 

stated, ‘‘The event raised the question of 

whether the mid-frequency component 

of the sonar in Greece in 1996 was 

implicated in the stranding, rather than 

the low-frequency component proposed 

by Frantzis (1998).’’ The ICES in its 

‘‘Report of the Ad-Hoc Group on the 

Impacts of Sonar on Cetaceans and 

Fish’’ raised the same issue as Cox et al., 

stating that the consistent association of 

MF sonar in the Bahamas, Madeira, and 

Canary Islands strandings suggest that it 

was the MF component, not the LF 

component, in the NATO sonar that 

triggered the Greek stranding of 1996 

(ICES, 2005). 

Most odontocetes, such as beaked 

whales, have relatively sharply 

decreasing hearing sensitivity below 2 

kHz. If a cetacean cannot hear a sound 

of a particular frequency or hears it 

poorly, then it is unlikely to have a 

significant behavioral impact (Ketten, 

2001). Therefore, it is unlikely that LF 

transmissions from LFA sonar would 

induce behavioral reactions from 

animals that have poor LF hearing, e.g. 

beaked whales, bottlenose dolphins, 

striped dolphins, harbor porpoise, 

belugas, and orcas (summarized in: 

Nedwell et al., 2004). 

New data describing potential 

mechanisms of harm to marine 

mammals from sonar are concerned 

with acoustically mediated bubble 

growth and resonance. Cox et al. (2006) 

stated that it is premature to judge 

acoustically mediated bubble growth as 

a potential mechanism and 

recommended further studies to 

investigate the possibility. The analysis 

by the Navy (Cudahy and Ellison, 2002) 

and reports from two workshops on 

acoustic impacts (DOC, 2002; Cox et al., 

2006) support the conclusion that 

resonance from LFA sonar operations is 

not a ‘‘reasonably foreseeable’’ impact. 

The ICES (2005) report concluded that 

no strandings, injury, or major 

behavioral change has yet to be 

associated with the exclusive use of LF 

sonar. Please see Final SEIS RTCs 2.5.2 

and 4.0.3 for additional discussions. 

Therefore, the numerous scientists, 

who participated in the 2004 Workshop 

convened by the U.S. Marine Mammal 

Commission (Cox et al., 2006), and the 

ICES AGISC (2005), support the logical 

conclusion that LFA sonar is not related 

to marine mammal strandings. 

The masking effect of the SURTASS–

LFA sonar signal will be limited for a 

number of reasons. First, the bandwidth 

of the system is limited (30 Hz), and the 

instantaneous bandwidth at any given 

time of the signal is small, on the order 

of 10 Hz. Therefore, within the 

frequency range in which masking is 

possible, the effect will be limited 

because animals that use this frequency 

range typically use signals with greater 

bandwidth. Thus, only a portion of the 

animal’s signal would be masked by 

LFA sonar. Furthermore, the average 

duty cycle when LFA sonar is in 

operation, is always less than 20 

percent, and based on past LFA sonar 

operational parameters (2003 to 2007) is 

nominally 7.5 to 10 percent (as stated in 

Chapter 2 of the Final SEIS) which 

means that for 80–92.5 percent of the 

time there is no risk of animal signals 

being masked by the LFA sonar signal 

when LFA sonar is operating. Therefore, 

within the area in which masking is 

possible, the effect will be limited 

because animals that use this frequency 

region typically use broader bandwidth 

signals. As a result, the chances of an 

LFA sonar sound actually overlapping 

whale calls at levels that would interfere 

with their detection and recognition 

would be extremely low. The potential 

effects of masking are discussed in the 

Final SEIS RTCs 4.3.1 and 4.3.23. 

In regards to biologically significant 

behaviors, the risk continuum explicitly 

represents the potential for significant 

change in a biologically important 

behavior within the 119 to 180 dB RL 

range. For additional information, 

please see the previous discussion on 

this issue and also the Final EIS (RTCs 

4–5.2, 4–5.6, 4–5.12, 4–5.22, 4–6.2, 4–

6.3), and Appendix D. The conclusion 

that the potential effects on the stocks 

of marine mammals from behavioral 

changes would be minimal is discussed 

in the Final SEIS (RTC 4.3.29). It is 

reiterated that during Phase I of the LFS 

SRP research, there were times when 

the test source level was at the higher, 

operational level. During such test 

periods received levels at the subject 

animals were within the range as 

specified in the research permit and 

responses were no different than those 

observed when using lower source 

levels. 

The Miller et al. (2000) article ‘‘Whale 

songs lengthen in response to sonar’’

concerning observations of male 

humpback whales during Phase III of 

the LFS SRP was addressed in the Final 

OEIS/EIS RTC 4–5.19 and in NMFS 

Final Rule RTC SIC16 and SIC17. 

Fristrup et al. (2003) used a larger data 

set from Phase III to describe song 

length variability and to explain song 

length variation in relation to LF 

broadcasts. In spite of methodological 

and sample size differences, the results 

of the two analyses were generally in 

agreement, and both studies indicated 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with RULES3
46864 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 161 / Tuesday, August 21, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

that humpback whales tend to lengthen 

their songs in response to LF broadcasts. 

The Fristrup et al. (2003) results 

provide a detailed picture of short-term 

response as compared to behavioral 

variation observed in the absence of the 

stimuli. These responses were relatively 

brief in duration, with all observed 

effects occurring within 2 hours of the 

last LFA sonar source transmission. It 

should be noted that these effects were 

not salient to the acoustic observers on 

the scene, but were revealed by careful 

statistical analyses (Fristrup et al., 

2003). Aside from the delayed 

responses, other measures failed to 

indicate cumulative effects from LF 

broadcasts, with song-length response 

being dependent solely on the most 

recent LF transmission, and not the 

immediate transmission history. The 

modeled seasonal factors (changes in 

density of whales sighted near shore) 

and diurnal factors (changes in surface 

social activities) did not show trends 

that could be plausibly explained by 

cumulative exposure. Increases in song 

length from early morning to afternoon 

were the same on days with and without 

LF transmissions, and the fraction of 

variation in song length that could be 

attributed to LF broadcast was low. 

Fristrup et al. (2003) found high levels 

of natural variability in humpback song 

length and interpreted the whales’

responses to LF broadcasts to indicate 

that exposure to LFA sonar would not 

impose a risk of dramatic changes in 

humpback whale singing behavior that 

would have demographic consequences. 

The effects of SURTASS LFA sonar on 

fish are discussed elsewhere in this 

document. Based on the analysis in the 

Final SEIS, Chapter 4.1, it is not 

believed that marine mammal prey 

species will be affected by SURTASS 

LFA sonar. 

Comment 45: The proposed rulemaking cites the ICES report on sonar 

(which was written partly by nonindependent scientists receiving 

funding from U.S. or Royal Navy, or 

working for the U.S. government), but 

does not cite the conclusions or reports 

from the IWC Scientific Committee (SC) 

(which consists of several hundred 

international, independent scientists), 

whose concerns include lack of 

monitoring and inappropriateness of 

current mitigation measures. 

Response: The SEIS cited the ICES 

report, which was written by experts in 

the marine field. The SEIS also cited the 

Journal of Cetacean Resources 

Management, which is published by the 

IWC. Since no citation was provided by 

the commenter, it is unclear which IWC 

publication the comment refers to. The 

SEIS cited Cox et al. (2006), which was 

published in the Journal of Cetacean 

Resources Management. This article 

discusses monitoring and mitigation, 

focusing on beaked whales, but the 

monitoring and mitigation discussion 

was not specifically discussed in the 

Final SEIS. The conclusions on 

monitoring and mitigation state 

‘‘Current visual survey efforts to detect 

beaked whales in areas of acoustic 

activity are probably ineffective as a 

mitigation aid. Key limiting factors 

include sea state, amount of daylight, 

experience of observers and the diving 

and surfacing behavior of beaked 

whales, which makes them either 

difficult to see or unavailable for visual 

observation at the surface for long 

periods of time. For the same reasons, 

surveys to determine distribution and 

abundance are also difficult and limited 

in their reliability. However, additional 

sensing technologies, such as passive 

acoustics, active sonar and radar, are 

currently in development that may 

increase scientists’ abilities to detect 

beaked whales.’’ As discussed in the 

Final SEIS, the Final Comprehensive 

Report and NMFS’ Proposed Rule, the 

agencies recognize that visual 

monitoring is limited, particularly due 

to the factors such as sea state and 

daylight, as discussed in Cox et al. 

(2006). The final rule also requires 

passive acoustics, estimated to be 32 

percent effective with visual monitoring 

and active acoustics, the HF/M3, which 

has a calculated effectiveness of 95 

percent. The use of this tri-partite 

monitoring raises overall mitigation 

effectiveness to 98 percent. Therefore, 

the Navy will conduct the monitoring 

and mitigation measures recommended 

in Cox et al. (2006). 

Comment 46: The Navy’s assessment 

of the risk of marine mammal injury and 

mortality from LFA sonar use is 

deficient. The problems with the Navy’s 

calculation of thresholds for injury and 

behavioral disturbance, (mentioned 

previously in their October, 2006 letter) 

carry through to its analysis of the risk 

of injury. 

Response: NMFS does not agree. The 

Navy believes that the unusual or 

innovative nature of LFA sonar is what 

sets it apart from other anthropogenic 

sources, especially tactical, midfrequency sonar and makes it much less 

likely to cause strandings of those 

marine mammals most associated with 

anthropogenic sound-related strandings 

(i.e., odontocetes, especially beaked 

whales). First, odontocetes generally 

have poor LF hearing. Second, the LFA 

sonar transmit array depth is well below 

10 m (33 ft) and thus not likely to be 

entrained in a surface duct. Third, the 

6 to 15 minute off-time in between 60- 

second transmissions and narrow 

bandwidth (30 Hz) generally preclude 

masking. 

SURTASS LFA sonar has been 

operating since 2003 in a restricted area 

in the western Pacific Ocean, with 

approximately 470 hours of transmit 

time under the first four years of the 

LOAs. These extensive operations, with 

mitigation, have produced no known 

Level A takes on marine mammals. As 

noted before, LFA sonar is not the same 

as MFA (please see the Comment 44 in 

this document and the Final SEIS RTC 

4.0.3 and 4.3.7). There is no evidence 

that SURTASS LFA sonar has caused 

injuries below or within the 180-dB 

mitigation zone as verified by mitigation 

monitoring requirements of the LFA 

sonar safety zone. Therefore, the 180-dB 

injury threshold remains valid, as does 

the effectiveness of the mitigation 

measures within the 180-dB potential 

injury zone. 

The potential for SURTASS LFA 

sonar to cause harm to marine mammals 

and the validity of the 180-dB injury 

threshold for SURTASS LFA sonar are 

discussed in the Final SEIS RTCs 4.0.1, 

4.0.2, 4.0.3, 4.3.1, 4.3.2, 4.3.7, 4.3.8, 

4.3.9, 4.3.10, and 4.3.12. LFA sonar will 

not cause physical harm to marine 

mammals below 180 dB RL. Moreover, 

mitigation within the 180-dB mitigation 

zone is effective (See the Final EIS 

Subchapter 2.3.2.2). 

Comment 47: The Navy wrongly 

dismisses mechanisms of sonar injury to 

marine mammals that would cause 

harm independent of stranding events. 

The Navy portrays a leading theory that 

whales suffer from bubble growth in 

organs that is similar to decompression 

sickness, or ‘‘the bends’’ in human 

divers as a controversial hypothesis. 

The Navy and NMFS cannot omit the 

numerous published, peer-reviewed 

papers that support this theory, or 

disregard the recognition bubble growth 

has received from expert panels, such as 

the one convened in 2004 by the Marine 

Mammal Commission to review sonarrelated strandings. The Navy’s analysis 

of injuries to whales leaves out a 

possibility that has been widely noted 

in literature, that some of the observed 

injuries are a result of behavioral 

changes, such as rapid surfacing or 

premature diving, that sonar could 

induce. In describing the 2000 Bahamas 

stranding event, the Navy places undue 

reliance on a list of ‘‘contributory 

factors’’ that it feels make a similar 

event unlikely to reoccur. We do not 

doubt that certain factors, such as the 

use of sonar in channels, can increase 

the risk of harm; but it is abundantly 

evident from the literature that has 

emerged since the government’s 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 161 / Tuesday, August 21, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 46865 

Bahamas report appeared in 2001 that 

strandings may well occur in their 

absence. 

Response: NMFS has not dismissed 

any of the mechanisms of sonar injury 

to marine mammals that would cause 

harm independent of stranding events. 

One form of injury theorized to be 

caused by marine mammal reactions to 

sonar is gas-bubble disease. Cox et al. 

(2006) (which is the only reference cited 

by the commenter on this issue) stated 

that gas-bubble disease, induced in 

supersaturated tissues by a behavioral 

response to acoustic exposure, is a 

plausible pathologic mechanism for the 

morbidity and mortality seen in 

cetaceans associated with midfrequency sonar exposure. They also 

state that it is premature to judge 

acoustically mediated bubble growth as 

a potential mechanism and 

recommended further studies to 

investigate the possibility. Since the 

Draft SEIS was published, there has 

been additional information available 

on this theory. If acoustically mediated 

bubble growth does prove to be the 

mechanism leading to mortality and/or 

strandings of beaked whales, then the 

fact that LFA sonar has not been 

associated with any of these strandings 

would indicate that it would be less 

likely to cause this effect. 

Comment 48: In addition, the Navy 

has failed to consider most of the mass 

beaked whale strandings that have been 

identified for their association, or 

possible association, with sonar and the 

fact that some marine mammal species 

are especially vulnerable to acoustical 

injuries. The Navy overestimates the 

importance of the fact that the long 

history of strandings associated with 

military sonar has usually implicated 

mid-frequency sonar. Many in the 

scientific community, including NMFS 

biologists, have expressed concern, 

based on the best available evidence, 

that low frequency sound could 

potentially induce similar effects. The 

NRDC believes that the Navy places far 

too much confidence in its assertion 

that its use of SURTASS LFA sonar in 

the last few years has not resulted in 

marine mammal strandings. 

Response: While NMFS shares this 

concern, to date, SURTASS LFA sonar 

has not been linked with any stranding 

events, other than by name association 

with MF sonar. This was discussed 

previously in this document. As related 

to LFA sonar, the Navy performed 

extensive research to determine the 

potential for LF transmissions to cause 

significant behavioral effects in whales 

(the LFS SRP). 

Given that the LFA sonar sound 

source can be detected at moderate to 

low levels over large areas of the ocean, 

there was concern at the initiation of the 

Navy’s NEPA process in 1996 that there 

was the potential for large percentages 

of species stocks to be exposed to 

moderate-to-low received levels. If 

animals are disturbed at these moderateto-low exposure levels such that they 

experience a significant change in a 

biologically important behavior, then 

such exposures could potentially have 

an impact on rates of reproduction or 

survival. Knowing that cetacean 

responses to LF sound signals needed to 

be better defined using controlled 

experiments, the Navy helped develop 

and supported the three-year LFS SRP 

beginning in 1997. This study focused 

on baleen whales because, as low 

frequency hearing specialists they are 

believed to be the most sensitive to LFA 

sound and thus most likely to have an 

adverse behavioral reaction. This field 

research program was designed to 

address three important behavioral 

contexts for baleen whales: (1) Blue and 

fin whales feeding in the southern 

California Bight; (2) gray whales 

migrating past the central California 

coast; and (3) humpback whales 

breeding off Hawaii. Taken together, the 

results from the three phases of the LFS 

SRP do not support the hypothesis that 

most baleen whales, who are expected 

to be most sensitive to LF sounds, 

exposed to RLs near 140 dB would 

exhibit disturbance behavior and avoid 

the area. These experiments, which 

exposed baleen whales to RLs ranging 

from 120 to about 155 dB, detected only 

minor, short-term behavioral responses. 

Short-term behavioral responses do not 

necessarily constitute significant 

changes in biologically important 

behaviors. 

Although the LFS SRP did not involve 

beaked whales, there was no indication 

during these tests that whales surfaced 

rapidly or dove prematurely in response 

to LFA sonar source transmissions. 

NMFS believes therefore, it is unlikely 

that, at least for fin, gray and humpback 

whales exposed to low levels of LFA 

sonar sounds will not result in the 

behavioral reactions theorized for 

beaked whales exposed to MF sonar 

signals. However, while this does that 

mean that LF sonar will not cause 

similar, but presently unknown, 

reactions in beaked whales, NMFS 

believes, that based on the best 

information available, such information 

does not currently exist. Therefore, 

NMFS believes, based on our current 

state of knowledge, it is unlikely that 

marine mammals would be severely 

injured by LFA sonar at great distances 

from the source. 

Comment 49: The Navy attempts to 

discount the well-established link 

between sonar use and marine mammal 

injuries and mortalities by suggesting 

(based on data compiled when acoustic 

impacts were not generally considered 

as a potential cause of strandings) that 

a majority of marine mammals 

strandings are related to natural causes. 

Finally, the Navy states, incorrectly, that 

‘‘there are no new data that contradict 

any of the assumptions or conclusions 

in the Final EIS.’’ New data exists 

linking whale strandings to naval sonar; 

linking non-stranding injuries in marine 

mammals to naval sonar; describing 

mechanisms of harm to marine 

mammals from sonar; showing 

unexpectedly high propagation of noise 

in shallow waters; finding that intense 

noise sources can mask whale calls over 

great distances; and revealing the 

difficulties for noise impacts. 

Response: As indicated elsewhere in 

this response, most marine mammal 

strandings are unrelated to the use of 

sonar. While the recognition that there 

was a link between tactical sonars and 

beaked whale strandings was slow to 

develop, that in no way should be 

interpreted to mean that strandings 

involving sonar are either common or 

long-occurring. 

NMFS believes the issue for this 

rulemaking is not whether sonar causes 

mass strandings of beaked whales, but 

whether SURTASS LFA sonar has the 

potential to cause marine mammal 

strandings. The evidence to date, 

supported by scientific reports, such as 

ICES (2005), Cox et al. (2006), and 

D’Spain et al. (2006), is that SURTASS 

LFA sonar has not caused any 

strandings. In reference to the 

contributory factors for strandings, the 

Bahamas 2000 stranding event did not 

involve LFA sonar. The list of 

‘‘contributing factors’’ is generally 

supported by the workshop on 

understanding the impacts of 

anthropogenic sound on beaked whales 

convened by the U.S. Marine Mammal 

Commission in 2004 (Cox et al., 2006) 

and the analysis by D’Spain et al. 

(2006). Whether or not surface ducts 

occurred during other reported 

strandings is not relevant to LFA sonar 

operations. First, NMFS believes LFA 

sonar operations will not cause physical 

injury to marine mammals at received 

levels below 180 dB. Second, LFA sonar 

signals are initially transmitted 

substantially below 10 m (32.8 ft) depth 

and are not likely to have signal strength 

above 180 dB in the surface duct. 

Surface ducting conditions were 

analyzed in the Final EIS at a number 

of the 31 model sites. Therefore, with 

LFA sonar mitigation, no marine 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with RULES3
46866 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 161 / Tuesday, August 21, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

mammals, either with or without a 

surface duct, are expected to be exposed 

to injurious levels of LFA sonar signals. 

The evidence to date, supported by 

scientific reports, such as ICES (2005), 

Cox et al. (2006), and D’Spain et al. 

(2006), is that SURTASS LFA sonar has 

not caused any strandings. Beaked 

whales, which hear best in the midfrequency range appear to be most 

vulnerable to acoustic-induced 

stranding. These animals hear poorly in 

the low frequency range. The LFS SRP 

specifically studied the behavioral 

reactions of baleen whales, which hear 

best in the low frequency range, and 

thus were concluded to be most at risk 

(potentially) from the operation of LFA 

sonar. The three-phase LFS SRP 

involved more than 20 scientists from 6 

universities and independent research 

groups. The results of the LFS SRP 

demonstrated that behavioral responses 

predictably occurred at received levels 

around 140 dB, not at the lower decibel 

levels that had been previously 

predicted. Moreover, the results showed 

that behavioral responses lasted for only 

a matter of tens of minutes and involved 

only modest changes in behavior. These 

results plus a five-year history of safely 

operating SURTASS LFA sonar without 

evidence of strandings or injury 

supports NMFS conclusion that the 

system can be operated, with 

appropriate mitigation measures, in 

manner that has no more than a 

negligible impact on marine mammal 

species and stocks. 

In the Final SEIS Subchapter 4.4.3, 

the Navy discusses both anthropogenic 

and natural causes of marine mammal 

strandings. In the conclusion in 

Subchapter 4.4.3.4, it is stated that 

military sonar is not the principal cause 

of marine mammal strandings. There 

was no conclusion that the majority of 

marine mammal strandings were related 

to only natural causes. The Navy did not 

intend to give the impression that it 

discounts any scientifically-supported 

links between anthropogenic sources 

and marine mammal strandings. 

However, it will point out that there is 

no known connection between marine 

mammal strandings and LFA sonar, 

which is supported by scientific 

workshops, reports, and published 

papers (ICES, 2005; Cox et al., 2006; 

D’Spain et al., 2006). 

Finally, to address the comment that 

there is no new data to contradict any 

of the assumptions or conclusions in the 

Final EIS, in order to address the 

comment, it must be pointed out once 

again that there are different types of 

anthropogenic sounds potentially 

associated with possible impacts to and 

strandings of marine mammals. These 

are naval sonar and seismic airgun 

arrays, each with different 

characteristics and purposes. Many 

comments lump these types under one 

heading, loud naval sonars or military 

sonars; or loud anthropogenic noise 

sources including sonars and seismic 

survey airguns. Thus, when there is a 

stranding that may be associated with 

the use of one type of sonar or sound 

source, it gets blamed on sonar as a 

whole-a premise that is not true and one 

that does not stand up to scientific 

scrutiny from the marine bio-acoustics 

community. A wide range of naval 

sonars are used to detect, localize and 

classify underwater targets. For the 

purposes of the SURTASS LFA sonar 

Final SEIS analysis, these systems are 

categorized as LFA sonar (less than 1000 

Hz) and MFA sonar (1 to 10 kHz). Table 

1 provides pertinent information on 

different types of LFA sonar and MFA 

sonar. General information is also 

provided on airgun arrays. Sonar signals 

are generally coherent while air guns are 

impulsive. 

Cox et al. (2006) provided a summary 

of common features shared by the 

strandings events in Greece (1996), 

Bahamas (2000), and Canary Islands 

(2002). These included deep water close 

to land (such as offshore canyons), 

presence of an acoustic waveguide 

(surface duct conditions), and periodic 

sequences of transient pulses (i.e., rapid 

onset and decay times) generated at 

depths less than 10 m (32.8 ft) by sound 

sources moving at speeds of 2.6 m/s (5.1 

knots) or more during sonar operations 

(D’Spain et al., 2006). A number of these 

features do not relate to LFA sonar 

operations. First, the SURTASS LFA 

sonar vessel operates with a horizontal 

line array (SURTASS: a passive 

listening system) of 1,500 m (4,921 ft) 

length at depths below 150 m (492 ft) 

and a vertical line array (LFA sonar 

source) at depths greater than 100 m. 

Second, operations are limited by 

mitigation protocols to at least 22 km 

(12 nm) offshore. Therefore, for these 

reasons SURTASS LFA sonar cannot be 

operated in deep water that is close to 

land. Finally, the LFA sonar signal is 

transmitted at depths well below 10 m 

(32.8 ft), and the vessel has a slow speed 

of advance of 1.5 m/s (3 knots). 

While it is true that there was a LF 

component of the sonar potentially 

related to the Greek stranding in 1996, 

only mid-frequency components were 

present in the strandings in the 

Bahamas in 2000, Madeira 2002, and 

Canaries in 2002. This supports the 

logical conclusion that the LF 

component in the Greek stranding was 

not causative (ICES, 2005; Cox et al., 

2006). In its discussion of the Bahamas 

stranding, Cox et al. (2006) stated, ‘‘The 

event raised the question of whether the 

mid-frequency component of the sonar 

in Greece in 1996 was implicated in the 

stranding, rather than the low-frequency 

component proposed by Frantzis 

(1998).’’ The ICES in its ‘‘Report of the 

Ad-Hoc Group on the Impacts of Sonar 

on Cetaceans and Fish’’ raised the same 

issue as Cox et al., stating that the 

consistent association of MF sonar in 

the Bahamas, Madeira, and Canary 

Islands strandings suggest that it was 

the MF component, not the LF 

component, in the NATO sonar that 

triggered the Greek stranding of 1996 

(ICES, 2005). 

Most odontocetes, such as beaked 

whales, have relatively sharply 

decreasing hearing sensitivity below 2 

kHz. If a cetacean cannot hear a sound 

of a particular frequency or hears it 

poorly, then it is unlikely to have a 

significant behavioral impact (Ketten, 

2001). Therefore, it is unlikely that LF 

transmissions from LFA sonar would 

induce behavioral reactions from 

animals that have poor LF hearing, e.g. 

beaked whales, bottlenose dolphins, 

striped dolphins, harbor porpoise, 

belugas, and orcas (summarized in: 

Nedwell et al., 2004). 

New data describing potential 

mechanisms of harm to marine 

mammals from sonar are concerned 

with acoustically mediated bubble 

growth and resonance. Cox et al. (2006) 

stated that it is premature to judge 

acoustically mediated bubble growth as 

a potential mechanism and 

recommended further studies to 

investigate the possibility. The analysis 

by the Navy (Cudahy and Ellison, 2002) 

and reports from two workshops on 

acoustic impacts (DOC, 2002; Cox et al., 

2006) support the conclusion that 

resonance from LFA sonar operations is 

not a ‘‘reasonably foreseeable’’ impact. 

The ICES (2005) report concluded that 

no strandings, injury, or major 

behavioral change has yet to be 

associated with the exclusive use of LF 

sonar. 

Based on the above discussions, there 

are no ‘‘new’’ data: (1) Linking LFA 

sonar to whale strandings, (2) linking 

LFA sonar to non-stranding related 

injuries, or (3) describing mechanisms 

of harm to marine mammals from LFA 

sonar. 

Regarding unexpectedly high 

propagation of noise in shallow water, 

this concerns the measurement of 

propagation of broadband noise from air 

gun arrays in both deep and shallow 

water (Tolstoy et al., 2004). As noted in 

Table 1, there are substantial differences 

between the impulsive sounds of air 

guns and the coherent signals from LFA 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 161 / Tuesday, August 21, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 46867 

sonar, so that one must be careful in 

how they are compared. First, while 

Tolstoy et al. (2004) found that when 

their calibrations were conducted in 

deep water (at 3200 m (10,500 ft)) and 

slope waters (at 500 m (1641 ft)), the 

predicted and measured distances to the 

received level of 160 dB from the air 

gun arrays indicated that the predicted 

radii tended to overestimate actual 160 

dB RL ranges. (This implied that the 

180-dB radii for all arrays should be less 

than the predicted 1 km (0.54 nm), 

likely significantly less.) Second, they 

found that their actual measurements 

for shallow water (30 m (98 ft)) had been 

underestimated when compared to the 

same predicted values used for the deep 

water comparison. This was due to the 

model not taking into account 

interaction with the ocean bottom. In 

deep, homogenous water, sound 

initially spreads spherically (spherical 

spreading) and its intensity decreases in 

proportion to the square of the range. 

Once sound has propagated to a 

distance approximately equal to the 

water depth, it is physically constrained 

and propagates cylindrically 

(cylindrical spreading). When this 

occurs, its intensity decreases in direct 

proportion to the range (please see Final 

EIS, Appendix B). Most importantly, 

however, SURTASS LFA sonar will not 

operate in water less than 200 m (656.2 

ft), most likely always operating in deep 

and slope waters. Sound propagation 

from deep offshore waters onto 

shallower shelf waters will almost 

always decrease quickly due to bottom 

and surface interaction with the sound. 

This means that LFA sonar sounds will 

more quickly decrease in intensity in 

shallow water than in other waters. 

Lastly, the Tolstoy et al.(2004) findings 

are not applicable to the SURTASS LFA 

sonar analysis because the propagation 

models utilized for LFA sonar are 

empirically validated and correctly 

account for critical variables, such as 

water depth (Final EIS Subchapters 4.2, 

4.2.1 and 4.2.2; and Technical Report 

#2). 

The masking effect of the SURTASSLFA sonar signal will be limited for a 

number of reasons. First, the bandwidth 

of the system is limited (30 Hz), and the 

instantaneous bandwidth at any given 

time of the signal is small, on the order 

of 10 Hz. Therefore, within the 

frequency range in which masking is 

possible, the effect will be limited 

because animals that use this frequency 

range typically use signals with greater 

bandwidth. Thus, only a portion of the 

animal’s signal would be masked by the 

LFA sonar. Furthermore, when LFA 

sonar is in operation, the LFA sonar 

source is active only 7.5 percent of the 

time (based on historical LFA sonar 

operational parameters) and no more 

than 20 percent, which means that for 

80–92.5 percent of the time there is no 

risk of animal signals being masked by 

the LFA sonar signal when LFA sonar 

is operating. Therefore, within the area 

in which masking is possible, the effect 

will be limited in duration and because 

animals that use this frequency region 

typically use broader bandwidth signals 

that allow them to communicate even 

when SURTASS LFA sonar is 

transmitting. 

Finally, NMFS does not believe that 

the Navy has experienced difficulties in 

executing the mitigation procedures 

required by NMFS for LFA sonar, which 

are based on protecting marine animals 

from injury. Because it is impractical 

and infeasible for mitigation to cover 

vast oceanic areas, where the received 

levels do not cause physical injury to 

marine mammals or jeopardize 

threatened or endangered species, the 

laws provide methods for authorizations 

for limited non-injurious impacts to 

marine mammals and listed species. 

NMFS believes that SURTASS LFA 

sonar has met all of these requirements 

and has been operating since 2003- 

without any known physical injuries to 

marine animals. Potential non-injurious 

impacts are estimated based on location 

and times of operations and best 

available abundance and density data 

for the areas and seasons of the 

operations. These are reported to NMFS 

both quarterly and annually as required 

by regulation (50 CFR § 216 Subpart Q). 

Comment 50: We don’t know the 

impact of SURTASS LFA sonar on 

species, stocks, and ecological processes 

over time. Therefore, NMFS can’t say 

stock-level effects are ‘‘not reasonably 

likely’’ to occur. 

Response: When compared to other 

naturally occurring and anthropogenic 

sources of noise in the ocean, LFA 

sonar, barely contributes a measurable 

portion of acoustic energy in the oceans. 

Other sources of marine anthropogenic 

sound that add appreciably to the 

oceanic ambient noise level are 

commercial shipping, offshore oil and 

gas exploration, and other uses of naval 

sonars (ICES, 2005). Also, the low duty 

cycle (7.5 to 20 percent) of LFA sonar, 

the lack of known strandings where LFA 

sonar has operated, and the results of 

the LFS SRP support NMFS’’ conclusion 

that SURTASS LFA sonar is neither 

expected to significantly add to oceanic 

ambient noise, nor result in significant 

behavioral responses in marine mamals 

in waters distant from the LFA sonar 

vessels, and therefore not likely to have 

population level impacts. Based on 

extensive evaluation in the Final EIS 

and the Final SEIS, the operation of 

SURTASS LFA sonar, with monitoring 

and mitigation is not expected to result 

in lethal takes or serious injury. In 

addition, no lethal takes are being 

authorized by NMFS either under this 

rule or the LOAs issued under the rule. 

This finding is also supported by the 

fact that SURTASS LFA sonar has been 

operating since 2003 in the 

northwestern Pacific Ocean with no 

reported Level A (injury) harassment 

takes or strandings associated with its 

operations (DON, 2007a). Moreover, 

there has been no new information or 

data that contradict NMFS’’ finding that 

the potential impacts from SURTASS 

LFA sonar operation on any stock of 

marine mammal will be negligible. 

Comment 51: The proposed rule 

implies that there have been only three 

sonar-related stranding incidents, when 

it is known that there have been 

multiple incidents off the Canary 

Islands, several likely incidents in the 

Mediterranean, unusually high rates of 

strandings adjacent to naval bases in 

Japan, and published data (in a peerreviewed journal) of high stranding rates 

and animals showing signs of acoustic 

trauma of cetaceans in Taiwan, 

occurring coincident with U.S. military 

and Chinese submarine-utilizing 

exercises, amongst other things. 

Response: The Navy’s intention in the 

Draft SEIS was to examine three of the 

more studied stranding events in which 

naval sonars were implicated as a 

potential cause, not to indicate that 

there have been only three stranding 

events. The subchapter was expanded in 

the Final SEIS (Subchapter 4.4.3). 

However, NMFS believes that the issue 

is whether SURTASS LFA sonar has 

caused strandings or could cause 

strandings in the future. The evidence to 

date, supported by recent scientific 

reports, supports the conclusion that the 

U.S. Navy’s LFA sonar is not likely to 

cause marine mammal strandings. The 

information supporting this conclusion 

has been provided in Comment 44 and 

47 in this document. 

No citation was given with this 

comment but NMFS assumes that the 

reference to a recent paper on strandings 

in Japan refers to the examination by 

Brownell et al. (2004) which evaluated 

Cuvier’s beaked whale strandings from 

local records between 1950 and 2004 in 

the waters of Japan. Two facts were 

presented in this paper: (1) Cuvier’s 

beaked whales stranded in Sagami and 

Suruga Bays between 1960 and 1990; 

and (2) U.S. Naval vessels are stationed 

in Yokosuka, Japan. From these two 

facts, the authors infer, without any 

evident support, that the second caused 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with RULES3
46868 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 161 / Tuesday, August 21, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

the first. Based on our review of the 

paper, we conclude that the authors’

assumption is not supported by the 

available evidence. First, the authors’

primary source (Ishikawa, 1994) is not 

readily available to review because it is 

in Japanese and no translation was 

provided except for Table 1 in their 

report. There are inconsistencies in 

Brownell et al.’s presentation of the data 

and results, which could not be 

compared to the cited sources of the 

data. Table 1 is titled ‘‘Mass strandings 

of Cuvier’s beaked whales Ziphius 

cavirostris, on the central Pacific coast 

of Honshu’’ and states that the data are 

from Ishikawa (1994). The number of 

stranded animals listed from 1960 to 

1990 in the table is 47. The first page of 

their report states ‘‘Ishikawa (1994) 

reported 68 Cuvier’s beaked whales that 

stranded on the coast of Japan between 

1960 and 1993.’’ This begs two 

questions: (1) Where did the remaining 

21 beaked whales strand; and (2) why 

were they not listed? In their results, 

Brownell et al. (2004) state that 

Ishikawa (1994) records include eight 

cases of mass strandings (correct, based 

on Table 1) with a total of 43 

individuals (incorrect, based on Table 1, 

the number should be 35). Finally, 

general data from the National Science 

Museum, Tokyo, is provided without 

citation. Given that the data from 

Ishikawa (1994) is presented in an 

inconsistent manner, the museum data 

is vital for any effective analysis of the 

Brownell et al. (2004) report. 

It is inaccurate to state, as the 

Brownell et al. (2004) paper does, that 

Cuvier’s beaked whales are stranding 

due solely to naval sonar operations. 

The authors infer several times in the 

paper that ‘‘naval operations with 

acoustic components’’ or ‘‘the Navy may 

have tested MFA’’ has no foundation 

and is pure speculation. The ports of 

Tokyo, Chiba, Kawakai, Yokohama, and 

Yokosuka are all located on Tokyo Bay, 

which opens to Sagami Bay. Suruga Bay 

is separated from Sagami Bay by a large 

peninsula. Based on the locations, it is 

most likely that other natural and 

anthropogenic factors contributed to at 

least some of the reported strandings. 

These include dense shipping traffic/ 

shipping-related noise, constructionrelated noise, dredging, scientific 

research using active sources, pollution, 

fisheries interactions, earthquakes, 

pollution from increased human 

population, etc. 

Therefore, because of the 

irreconcilable inconsistencies, Brownell 

et al. (2004) do not provide any reliable 

and supportable linkage between 

Cuvier’s beaked whale stranding events 

and naval activities in Japanese waters 

near Yokosuka. The only data that the 

Navy could confirm were that there is 

a major U.S. naval base there and that 

the area is also home to five major 

Japanese seaports, including Tokyo, one 

of the world’s busiest seaports, with an 

average of 33,000 vessels arriving 

annually. 

At the time the Final SEIS was 

published, a non-citable paper 

describing stranding events in Taiwan 

was being circulated. Even though the 

Navy requested but was not given 

permission by the authors to cite the 

paper, the strandings are reported to 

have occurred in the winter of 2004 and 

were part of the SEIS stranding 

assessment. These strandings were 

reported in the Cetacean Stranding 

Database (http://www.legaard.org/ 

strandings/index.html), which was 

utilized as part of the overall marine 

mammal stranding evaluations in both 

the Final SEIS and the Final 

Comprehensive Report (DON, 2007a, 

2007b). The review of recent stranding 

data from the National Science Museum 

of Tokyo, Japan; the Cetacean Stranding 

Database; other Internet sources; and 

international reports, did not indicate 

any stranding events associated with the 

times and locations of LFA sonar 

operations in the northwestern Pacific 

Ocean. 

The authors of the initial report on the 

2004 Taiwan strandings have now 

published their findings in the Journal 

of Cetacean Research and Management 

(Wang and Yang, 2006). This paper also 

includes additional Taiwanese 

stranding events in the winter and 

summer of 2005. A review of these 

additionally reported strandings events 

did not indicate any association with 

the times and locations of SURTASS 

LFA sonar operations. 

The commenter also states that the 

paper provides data of unusually high 

rate of strandings in Taiwan and 

cetaceans showing signs of acoustic 

trauma, occurring coincident with U.S. 

military and Chinese submarineutilizing exercises, amongst other 

things. NMFS does not agree and 

believes that the commenter misstates 

the conclusions drawn in the Wang and 

Yang (2006) paper. While the 

information in the paper on the 

examination of the stranded animals is 

presented in a clear manner, the authors 

state that it was impossible to determine 

the reason for the stranding events. 

Although the authors opined that the 

injuries noted in at least one stranding 

(beaked whale) was from acoustic 

trauma, the evidence presented does not 

necessarily support this as the only 

possible conclusion. But in any event, 

SURTASS LFA sonar was not 

implicated in any of these events, as 

there was no spacial or temporal 

coincidence between the strandings and 

the operation of the SURTASS LFA 

sonar system. The relationship of at 

least one of the Taiwanese stranding 

events to naval maneuvers is based on 

conjecture, not facts. 

Comment 52: It is disingenuous to 

state that at-sea use of LFA sonar since 

the 1980s has had no impacts. The U.S. 

Navy has deployed the system but 

instigated no program to monitor its 

impacts while being used at sea. Stocks 

of cetaceans in areas where the system 

has now been used have not had beforeor after-use assessments. For all we 

know, the system could have had severe 

impacts, but without a robust research 

program it is impossible to say. 

Response: NMFS does not believe that 

is a correct assessment. First, NMFS 

recognizes that an ocean basin effects 

study would be difficult to undertake, 

take years to carry out, and would need 

to ensure that marine mammals were 

not being affected by other factors, such 

as shifting food sources due to 

oceanographic parameter shifts, natural 

population fluctuations, coastal 

whaling, incidental take in commercial 

fishing operations etc. in order to be 

successful. Although the Navy has not 

conducted real-time at sea distance 

sampling for potential impacts, NMFS 

does not have reason to believe that LFA 

sonar is having impacts sufficient to 

have population level effects occur. The 

potential for impacts on affected marine 

mammal species was partially 

addressed by the LFS SRP as discussed 

previously in Comment 47 and 

elsewhere in this document. Also, 

NMFS believes the results from the BRS 

study (discussed elsewhere in this 

document) will provide additional 

information on whether impacts on this 

potentially sensitive species to 

anthropogenic sounds is likely. 

For additional information on 

potential impacts on sonar sounds on 

marine mammals, the Navy’s ONR 

sponsors significant research to study 

the potential effects of naval activities 

on marine mammals. In 2004 and 2005, 

Navy funded research produced 

approximately 65 peer-reviewed articles 

in professional journals. Publication in 

open professional literature through 

peer review is a benchmark for the 

quality of the research. This ongoing 

marine mammal research includes 

hearing and hearing sensitivity, auditory 

effects, dive and behavioral response 

models, noise impacts, beaked whale 

global distribution, modeling of beaked 

whale hearing and response, tagging of 

free ranging marine animals at-sea, and 

radar-based detection of marine 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 161 / Tuesday, August 21, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 46869 

mammals from ships. Under NMFS 

2002 Final Rule, the Navy was required 

to conduct research. The Navy 

developed and has been conducting a 

Long Term Monitoring Program (LTM) 

Program. The program is designed to: (1) 

Provide a summary of the unclassified 

SURTASS LFA sonar operations each 

year; (2) Provide a summary of 

unclassified plans for the following 

year; (3) Assess the efficacy of 

mitigation measures used during the 

past year, as well as the value-added 

from the various LTM elements with 

recommendations for improvements; (4) 

Provide a synopsis of LOA reports to 

NMFS on estimates of percentages of 

marine mammal stocks affected by 

SURTASS LFA sonar operations to help 

confirm the validity of the impact 

analyses, particularly pertaining to the 

adequacy of scientific information; and 

(5) Assess any long-term ecological 

processes that may be exhibiting effects 

from SURTASS LFA sonar operations, 

and reports or scientific papers on 

discernible or estimated cumulative 

impacts from such operations. 

Since commencing operations in 

2003, the R/V Cory Chouest and the 

USNS IMPECCABLE completed 40 

missions from January 2003 through 

August 2006 under the first four LOAs. 

The general areas are known to the 

public because they are based on the 

Court Injunction, published in the Final 

SEIS and incorporated into the NMFS 

LOAs. The locations and times of LFA 

sonar active operations are reported to 

NMFS quarterly (classified report) as 

required in the first Final Rule and 

annual LOAs (50 CFR § 216.186). These 

operations, with mitigation, have 

produced no known Level A takes on 

marine mammals as reported in the 

Annual Reports (DON, 2003a; 2004a; 

2005a; 2006a) and the Final 

Comprehensive Report (DON, 2007a) to 

NMFS under 50 CFR § 216.186. To date, 

there have been no reported Level A 

harassment (injury) takes from LFA 

sonar transmissions. Level B harassment 

is calculated based on the times and 

locations of LFA sonar operations. Both 

are submitted to NMFS in quarterly 

reports, including dates/times and 

locations of the active LFA sonar 

missions. 

Finally, even the single stranding 

event where LF sonar was operating, the 

1996 Greece stranding, has been 

addressed. According to Cox et al. 

(2006) and ICES (2005), since a MF 

component was also used in the Greece 

stranding, and MF sonar components 

were implicated in the Bahamas (2000), 

Madeira (2002), and Canaries (2002) 

strandings, the LF component in the 

Greece stranding was not causative. 

Comment 53: The active component 

of the SURTASS LFA sonar operations 

should not take place off the Atlantic 

Coast of the United States due to 

impacts on the North Atlantic right 

whale. 

Response: NMFS disagrees. The area 

from the coastline to the 200 m (656-ft) 

isobath of the North American East 

Coast is protected as an OBIA yearround which protects the North Atlantic 

right whale migration route and its 

critical habitat from SPLs greater than 

180 dB. As right whales predominantly 

inhabit coastal waters, and as this OBIA 

extends the 12-nm (22-km) coastal 

standoff to 40 nm (74 km) off Drum 

Inlet, NC and 80 nm (148 km) off Long 

Island, NY, effects on North Atlantic 

right whales are expected to be limited 

to, at most, some Level B (behavioral) 

harassment and have a negligible impact 

on the species. 

Marine Mammal Cumulative Impact 

Concerns 

Comment 54: How can NMFS ignore 

the trend that the evidence 

substantiating a wide range of 

anthropogenic acoustical impacts is 

increasing, and also ignore that the 

Navy’s assertions regarding the LFA 

sonar’s safety of operation continue to 

be unsubstantiated? The trends are clear 

to any reasonable observer, but by 

ignoring contrary evidence NMFS give 

the appearance of arbitrary compliance 

with the Navy’s assertions. 

Response: While NMFS agrees that 

anthropogenic sources of underwater 

sound in the ocean is increasing (as 

addressed elsewhere in this document) 

with a likely increasing impact on 

marine mammals, NMFS does not agree 

that we are ignoring contrary evidence 

on the impacts of LFA sonar on marine 

mammals. All information to date 

implicates MF sonar, not LF sonar. 

NMFS notes that the Navy has 

conducted an investigation of stranding 

records and this investigation has not 

indicated a relationship between LFA 

sonar operations and marine mammal 

strandings, as addressed in more detail 

elsewhere in this document (see, for 

example Comments 18, 31, 33, 45, 48, 

and 52). Therefore, if LFA sonar is 

having an unknown, but serious impact 

on marine mammals, that impact has 

not manifested itself through strandings, 

observable surface behavioral patterns, 

or deceased marine mammals within an 

operation area. 

Comment 55: In its discussion of 

acoustic impacts, the Draft SEIS is 

flawed because it dismisses cumulative 

and synergistic effects by minimizing 

the magnitude of the potential impacts 

and explaining away the unavoidable 

impacts with promises of ineffectual 

mitigation measures. 

Response: Cumulative and synergistic 

effects by SURTASS LFA sonar 

operations are discussed in the Final 

SEIS (see also RTCs 4.1.9, 4.3.23, 4.3.30, 

4.4.27, 4.6.2, 4.6.6, 4.6.16, 4.6.25, 4.6.27, 

and 4.6.29). In order to effectively 

evaluate potential cumulative effects of 

SURTASS LFA sonar, it is necessary to 

draw comparisons between LFA sonar 

and other sources of anthropogenic 

effects. As such, SURTASS LFA sonar 

was compared to anthropogenic noise 

levels and injury/lethal takes from other 

anthropogenic causes. 

As discussed previously, Dr. John 

Hildebrand provided a comparison of 

anthropogenic underwater sound 

sources by their annual energy output 

(Hildebrand, 2005). This analysis 

included SURTASS LFA sonar, in 

which he estimated that on an annual 

basis four SURTASS LFA sonar systems 

would have a total energy output two 

orders of magnitude less than seismic 

air gun arrays and one order of 

magnitude less than MF sonar and super 

tankers. This is discussed also in more 

detail in the Final SEIS (RTC 4.6.19). 

this information. Therefore, given that 

all sonars (MF and LF included) account 

for only 10 percent of the marine 

anthropogenic noise budget, and 

SURTASS LFA sonar’s energy output 

using 4 systems is estimated at an order 

of magnitude less than MF sonar, the 

contribution of LFA sonar to the total 

noise budget is trivial, and the potential 

for adverse cumulative or synergistic 

effects as a result of LFA sonar use are 

unlikely. 

As stated in the Final SEIS 

(Subchapter 4.6.3), SURTASS LFA 

sonar is not likely to cause lethal takes 

of marine mammals. This is supported 

by the ICES (2005) report that stated, 

‘‘No strandings, injury, or major 

behavioural change has yet been 

associated with the exclusive use of low 

frequency sonar.’’

Comment 56: How many vessels is the 

Navy planning for, and what will be the 

worldwide cumulative impact of all 

LFA sonar operations? 

Response: The Navy analyzed 

potential impact of deploying up to four 

vessels in the Final EIS and the Final 

SEIS. This final rule does not authorize 

more than four vessels for SURTASS 

LFA sonar operations. Therefore, the 

number of systems has not increased 

over the number initially proposed in 

the Final EIS and impacts to marine 

mammals remain capped by the 

requirements that the activity have a 

negligible impact over the 5-year period 

that the regulations are in effect. 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with RULES3
46870 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 161 / Tuesday, August 21, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

The Final SEIS (Subchapter 4.6) 

discussed cumulative impacts, 

including other military sonars, 

whaling, by-catch and entanglement, 

ship strikes, oil and gas exploration, 

geophysical research, and shipping in 

terms of noise. It states that, even if 

considered in combination with other 

underwater sounds (from the 

aforementioned activities), the 

SURTASS LFA sonar systems do not 

add appreciably to the underwater 

sounds to which fish, sea turtles, and 

marine mammals stocks are exposed. 

See also the Final SEIS RTCs 4.6.5, 

4.6.6, 4.6.7, 4.6.8, 4.6.13, 4.6.14, 4.6.19, 

4.6.20, 4.6.21, 4.6.22, and 4.6.23 for 

additional information on cumulative 

impacts. 

Comment 57: It is necessary to 

consider the impacts of the Navy’s 

training with LFA sonar alongside those 

of existing naval activities as well as 

those of industrial and commercial 

activities such as fishing, shipping, and 

geophysical research. The Navy seems 

to believe that it can satisfy the 

requirement to assess cumulative 

impacts by cataloguing the ways in 

which impacts from LFA sonar are 

small compared with the totality of 

threats faced by marine mammals. 

Response: Cumulative impacts are 

addressed under NEPA, not section 

101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA. Cumulative 

impacts on marine mammals from 

activities other than SURTASS LFA 

sonar have been addressed in the Navy’s 

Final EIS and Final SEIS. The 

requirement under the MMPA is for 

NMFS to determine (among other 

things) that the total taking by the 

activity (not by the activity and all other 

activities) is having a negligible impact 

on affected species and stocks of marine 

mammals. This has been done in this 

rulemaking document. In that regard, 

the Navy’s LFS SRP concluded that 

behavioral impacts to marine mammals 

at greatest risk are likely to be relatively 

minor, and thus are unlikely, even in 

the presence of other stressors taken 

cumulatively, to alter the health of the 

species. 

In regards to stating that the impacts 

of LFA sonar are small compared to 

other activities, as indicated by the LFS 

SRP, NMFS believes that while 

significant changes in biologically 

important behavior can occur to marine 

animals at significant distances from the 

LFA sonar source, these impacts will 

affect relatively few mammals at these 

distances. The Navy has assessed this 

potential impact by employing the risk 

continuum approach as discussed in the 

Final EIS. For those areas which are 

outside of the area covered by the risk 

continuum, the received LFA sonar 

signal is approximately that of the 

ambient environment. Thus, the signals 

do not add appreciably to the ambient 

noise levels, and therefore do not 

accumulate, or collect, to greater effects. 

The conclusion reached in the Final EIS 

(Subchapter 4.4.4) that even when 

considered in combination with other 

underwater sounds, SURTASS LFA 

sonar does not add appreciably to the 

underwater sounds that fish, sea turtle 

and marine mammals are exposed to, 

remains valid. 

Comment 58: Marine mammals may 

surface too rapidly to escape the sounds 

and suffer from the bends. 

Response: Tissue damage and 

acoustically mediated bubble growth 

were examined in the Final SEIS, 

Subchapter 4.3.1 and RTCs 4.0.3, 4.3.12, 

4.3.33, 4.3.4, 4.3.42, 4.3.43, 4.3.44, 

4.3.45, 4.3.46, 4.3.47, 4.3.48, 4.3.49, 

4.3.50, 4.3.51, 4.3.52, and 4.3.53. 

Comment 59: What about animals that 

die but never surface? 

Response: NMFS and the Navy 

recognize that absence of evidence is 

not the same as no effect or impact 

(Final EIS, Comment 4–5.11). However, 

based on the extensive analyses of the 

Final EIS and Final SEIS, including the 

results of the LFS SRP, the results of 

five years of operations and with 

monitoring and mitigation measures, 

SURTASS LFA sonar operations have 

not been known and are not expected to 

cause any Level A harassment (injury) 

or death. 

Effects on Other Marine Species 

Comment 60: SEAFLOW states that 

we have no idea what the consequences 

of SURTASS LFA sonar operations will 

be to the many other animals in the 

ocean that make up the marine habitat, 

but are not identified in the MMPA, 

ESA, and NEPA. 

Response: Under NEPA, analyses 

must be conducted that include the 

entire marine environment that has the 

potential to be affected, not just marine 

mammals and listed species. Please see 

Chapters 3 and 4 of Final EIS and Final 

SEIS for a full discussion and analysis 

of these potential impacts of SURTASS 

LFA sonar on the marine environment. 

Comment 61: 90 percent of the ocean 

pelagic predators have been depleted 

(Myers and Worm, 2003). 

Response: Myers and Worm (2003) 

discuss the decline in large predatory 

fish biomass. However, the decline is 

due to industrialized fisheries, not due 

to SURTASS LFA sonar. Recent studies 

have shown that SURTASS LFA sonar 

will likely have a negligible effect on 

fish, as stated in Subchapter 4.1 of the 

Final SEIS. 

Comment 62: In addition to the target 

species, a wide variety of marine species 

can be found within the exposure area, 

including other marine mammals, sea 

turtles, invertebrates, teleost and 

elasmobranch fish, and sea birds. The 

proposed activity is not designed to 

expose just one target species. WSPA 

notes that the sounds to be administered 

will have unknown (and unmonitored) 

effects on other animals (e.g., prey 

species) that may occur in the exposure 

area thereby subjecting the identified 

‘‘affected species’’ to additional indirect 

effects. 

Response: When using SURTASS LFA 

sonar, the Navy’s target is to identify 

potentially hostile submarines, it does 

not ‘‘target species’’ during its 

operations. The Navy applied for an 

authorization for the incidental taking of 

those marine mammal species specified 

in the application and analyzed impacts 

to all potentially affected species 

(including marine mammals, sea turtles, 

invertebrates, fish, sharks, and sea birds) 

in Chapters 3 and 4 of the Final EIS and 

SEIS. 

Comment 63: WSPA is concerned that 

the impacts of the proposed activities 

could have a more damaging effect on 

younger animals in the exposed groups. 

Response: See the Navy’s response in 

the Final EIS, Comment 4–4.2.4. It states 

the primary factors increasing risk to a 

marine species would be a more pelagic 

and deeper distribution of animals in 

the water column. No clear examples 

were identified during the analyses in 

which juveniles rather than adults met 

these criteria. For marine mammals, this 

analysis is further supported by the LFS 

SRP. Further, coastal marine mammal 

species would likely receive lower SPLs 

thereby further protecting calves and 

juveniles from offshore LFA sonar 

operations (but not from other coastal 

anthropogenic sounds). 

Impacts on Marine Mammal Habitat 

Comment 64: The U.S. Navy has not 

provided any evidence that the 

SURTASS LFA sonar system is harmless 

to the marine environment. The Draft 

SEIS offers no new information to 

suggest that SURTASS LFA sonar will 

not harm marine life. 

Response: NMFS believes that the 

Final SEIS and the Final EIS contains a 

full analysis of SURTASS LFA sonar 

and the effects on the marine 

environment. The potential for 

SURTASS LFA sonar operations to 

cause harm to marine invertebrates is 

discussed also in SEIS RTC 3.2.5 while 

impacts to marine fish are discussed in 

SEIS RTC 4.1.4, and impacts to marine 

mammals are provided in RTCs 

referenced in SEIS RTC 4.3.6. 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 161 / Tuesday, August 21, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 46871 

Since the Final EIS was published in 

early 2001, there has been additional 

research published in a peer reviewed 

journal that supports the 180-dB 

criterion for injury as being a 

conservative level for assessing 

potential injury to marine mammals. 

Laurer et al. (2002) exposed rats to 5 

minutes of continuous high intensity, 

low frequency (underwater) sound (HI 

LFS) either at 180 dB SPL re 1 microPa 

at 150 Hz or 194 dB SPL re 1 microPa 

at 250 Hz, and found no overt 

histological damage in brains of any 

group. Also, blood gases, heart rate, and 

main arterial blood pressure were not 

significantly influenced by HI LFS 

suggesting that there was no pulmonary 

dysfunction due to exposure. This 

published paper was based on work 

performed in support of Technical 

Report #3 of the SURTASS LFA sonar 

Final EIS. 

From 2003 to 2006, the University of 

Maryland conducted a series of studies 

to test the effects of high intensity LFA 

sonar on fishes. These studies, which 

tested the effects of an actual LFA sonar 

transducer, examined the changes in 

hearing capabilities, changes in the 

mechanical structures of the ear, and the 

effects on other organ systems, 

including the swim bladder and brain. 

Detailed information on the experiment 

is provided in the Draft SEIS (pp. 4 10 

to 4 22). Popper et al. (2007) shows that 

there is no permanent hearing loss in 

either species studied (the rainbow trout 

(Onchorynchus mykiss), a close relative 

of endangered and listed salmonid 

species, and the channel catfish 

(Ictalurus punctatus), an example of a 

hearing specialist). Both species showed 

some temporary hearing loss. This was 

not of great magnitude, and hearing 

returned to normal within a day or so 

after exposure. Results suggest no effect 

on other organ systems; for example, the 

swim bladder in fish exposed to the LF 

sonar signal was completely intact. 

Moreover, all animals survived the 

experiments and none died, even 

several days after exposure. The sound 

levels (up to 193 dB rms re: 1 

microPascal2 at 196 Hz RL) used in 

these experiments approached those 

that fish would encounter very close to 

an active LFA sonar source array 

(within 200 m (656 ft)). However, the 

exposure during experiments was very 

likely more substantial (e.g., 

experimental exposure to either 324 or 

628 seconds) than any a fish would 

encounter in that the fish were exposed 

to multiple replicates of very intense 

sounds, whereas any fishes in the wild 

would encounter sounds from a moving 

source, and the successive emissions 

from the source would decrease in 

intensity as the ship moved away from 

exposed fish. 

To date, no evidence has been 

provided that supports the hypothesis 

that ‘‘SURTASS LFA sonar can do great 

harm to fish stocks.’’ The SEIS 

discussed several studies which 

examined fish catch rates before and 

after presentations of sounds from 

seismic air guns (SEIS Subchapter 

4.1.1.4). These studies noted a 

temporary decline in catch rate for 

trawls and longlines. The Navy points 

out that the exposure to seismic air guns 

was over a much longer time frame than 

those projected for LFA sonar. 

Moreover, there are significant acoustic 

differences between the impulsive 

sounds of air guns and the coherent 

sounds of LFA sonar. Thus, at this time 

it is scientifically premature to 

extrapolate from these studies to LFA 

sonar. Since exposure times to LFA 

sonar is significantly shorter than to 

seismic air guns, it is reasonable to 

suggest that any behavioral effects from 

LFA sonar signals will be minor and 

transitory. 

Other Marine Life Concerns 

Comment 65: The commenter is 

concerned with the effects of sound 

energy on marine life. They request we 

promulgate restrictions which will 

protect marine mammals from hazards. 

These restrictions need only be ones of 

common sense, such as: (1) Avoiding 

known sensitive feeding, breeding or 

rearing grounds and migration routes 

within federally designated critical 

habitat areas when conducting naval 

exercises; (2) Using passive technology 

to determine the presence of marine 

mammals and avoid using active sonar 

while in their presence, as defined by 

the distance necessary to avoid harm; 

(3) Cease active sonar operations if 

marine mammals are observed, 

particularly if observations are 

compatible with fear, stress displays, or 

abandonment of young; (4) Not using 

active sonar in confined, shallow, 

coastal waters where marine mammals 

are likely to congregate; and (5) Not 

exceeding the level sonar energy which 

has been scientifically documented to 

be below the threshold of injury to the 

exquisitely sensitive organs of hearing. 

Response: NMFS (and the Navy) agree 

with these mitigation measures, which 

are all already in place. Please see 

Monitoring and Mitigation sections in 

this rule for details. 

Mitigation Concerns 

Comment 66: The Navy promises only 

to turn off LFA sonar if they spot or 

detect whales in a very small area 

around the ships. Since the impacts of 

underwater sound, both to do physical 

harm to whales and also to disrupt and 

harass whales’ and dolphins’ own 

communication, feeding, and 

orientation, cover enormous distances, 

these mitigation measures are too paltry 

to protect the health of whales and 

dolphins. 

Response: Implementing a shutdown 

zone of approximately 2 km (1.1 nm) 

around the LFA sonar unit will ensure 

that no marine mammals are exposed to 

an SPL greater than about 174 dB. This 

is significantly lower than the 180-dB 

used for other acoustic projects for 

protecting marine mammals from injury. 

As shown in this document and 

elsewhere, SURTASS LFA sonar is not 

expected to cause physical injury to 

marine mammals below 180 dB RL. The 

180 dB injury criterion is based on 

scientific documents and research, 

which are provided in the Final EIS 

(Subchapter 1.4.2.1, and Chapter 10 and 

RTCs 4 4.9, 4 5.1, 4 6.1, 4 6.13, and 5 

2.1). In NMFS’ 2002 Final Rule for the 

operation of SURTASS LFA sonar (67 

FR 46721 89), we discussed the 180-dB 

criterion (see RTC SIC44 through 

SIC49). 

Since the Final EIS was published in 

early 2001, there has been additional 

research published in a peer reviewed 

journal further supports the 180-dB 

criterion for injury as being a 

conservative level for assessing 

potential injury to marine mammals. As 

described elsewhere in this document, 

Laurer et al. (2002) research supported 

the findings in Technical Report #3 of 

the SURTASS LFA sonar Final EIS. 

Also, the potential for SURTASS LFA 

sonar to cause harm to marine mammals 

and the validity of the 180 dB injury 

threshold for SURTASS LFA sonar are 

discussed in the Final SEIS (RTCs 4.0.1, 

4.0.2, 4.0.3, 4.3.1, 4.3.2, 4.3.7, 4.3.8, 

4.3.9, 4.3.10, and 4.3.12). 

Regarding strandings, the best 

available scientific evidence supports a 

conclusion that beaked whales are the 

primary species of concern, and that 

mid-frequency active sonar, not LFA 

sonar, when combined with other 

factors, is the sonar most likely 

implicated. Also, most odontocetes have 

relatively sharply decreasing hearing 

sensitivity below 2 kHz. If a cetacean 

cannot hear a sound or hears it poorly, 

it is unlikely to have a significant 

behavioral impact (Ketten, 2001). 

Therefore, it is unlikely that LF 

transmissions from LFA sonar would 

induce behavioral reactions from 

animals that have poor LF hearing, such 

as beaked whales. While it is highly 

unlikely, the sounds could damage 

tissues even if the animal does not hear 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with RULES3
46872 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 161 / Tuesday, August 21, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

the sound, but this would have to be 

occur within the 180 dB sound field 

(within 1,000 m (3,280 ft)) of the 

transmit array. The likelihood of a 

marine mammal entering the 180 dB 

sound field is considered highly 

unlikely due to the detection 

effectiveness of the Navy’s HF/M3 

sonar. Therefore, NMFS believes that 

the tripartite monitoring program has a 

high probability of detecting the 

presence of marine mammals prior to 

potential injury. This will be discussed 

later in this document. Finally, NMFS 

discusses the potential for masking 

marine mammal communications and 

hearing elsewhere in this document. 

Comment 67: The Federal Court that 

struck down the Navy’s earlier EIS 

wrote: ‘‘ endangered species, including 

whales, listed salmon and sea turtles, 

will be in LFA sonar’s path. There is 

little margin for error without 

threatening their survival.’’ The court 

therefore urged the Navy to consider 

protective measures such as wide 

coastal exclusion zones, more effective 

surveys for whales before sonar 

exercises, shut down procedures for 

fish, and the use of training areas that 

present less risk to marine life. The 

Navy’s proposed authorization rejects 

each of these ideas. 

Response to the first point: The choice 

of 46 km (25 nm) was selected because 

it was just over twice the current coastal 

exclusion restriction, and seaward of the 

hypothetical shelf break for all three 

shelf cases examined in its analysis. The 

Philippine Sea dual criteria alternative 

referred to by the commenter (111 km 

(60 nm) from the coast or 56 km (30 nm) 

seaward of the 200 m (656 ft) isobath, 

whichever is greater) was negotiated in 

a mediated settlement. The Final EIS 

analysis was based on a coastal 

geographic restriction of 22 km (12 nm); 

whereupon it was incorporated into the 

Navy’s ROD, NMFS’s 2002 Final Rule 

and subsequent LOAs. In the Navy’s 

good faith attempt to respond to a Court 

identified deficiency relating to the 

number of alternatives considered, 

additional alternatives were analyzed in 

the Draft SEIS, including more than 

doubling the coastal standoff range. The 

results, which are too complex to 

discuss in detail here, are summarized 

in Final SEIS Subchapter 4.7.6. This 

analysis indicates that increasing the 

coastal standoff range decreases 

exposure to higher RLs for the 

concentrations of marine mammals 

closest to the shore (shelf species) but 

does so at the expense of increasing 

exposure levels for shelf break species 

and pelagic marine mammal species. 

Increasing the range to 56 km (30 nm) 

or even 111 km (60 nm) (criteria from 

the Permanent Injunction) would not 

make a significant difference in the 

outcome. However, coastal shelf areas, 

in many cases, are already excluded. 

The Final SEIS Table 2–4 delineates 

OBIAs that are also a coastal shelf 

exclusion zones. For example, the North 

American east coast exclusion zone 

includes all shelf waters landward of 

the 200-m (656-ft) isobath between 28 

deg N to 50 deg N latitude, west of 40 

deg W longitude. This is a year-round 

restriction and encompasses the 

Northern Right Whale Critical Habitat, 

the Stellwagen Bank National Marine 

Sanctuary (NMS), the Monitor NMS, 

and the Gray’s Reef NMS. 

Response to the 2nd Point. The 

Stipulation Regarding Permanent 

Injunction issued on October 14, 2003, 

by the U.S. District Court for the 

Northern District of California, as agreed 

to by the parties stated the Navy was not 

required to conduct ‘‘pre operation 

surveys’’ as described in the Court’s 

Opinion and Order. In response to the 

Opinion and Order, the Navy provided 

an evaluation of the use of small boats 

and aircraft for pre operational surveys 

in the Draft SEIS Subchapter 5.4. That 

evaluation demonstrated that small boat 

and pre operational aerial surveys for 

SURTASS LFA sonar operations are not 

practicable, not effective, may increase 

the harassment of marine mammals, and 

are not safe for the observers. In 

addition to small boats, small aircraft 

surveys were also suggested. This issue 

was addressed in SEIS Subchapter 5.4 

which provided a detailed discussion of 

why aerial and small craft surveys were 

not considered a viable mitigation 

option. The possible harassment of 

marine mammals from these surveys 

was only one factor in this 

consideration. Please see SEIS RTCs 

5.4.1, 5.4.2, and 5.4.3 for additional 

information. 

Comment 68: The Navy proposes to 

retreat from the mitigation measures it 

currently uses to protect marine life in 

its operation of LFA sonar today, 

including wide exclusion zones of 30 to 

60 nm (55.6–111 km), 1-km (0.43-nm) 

buffer zone, 330 Hz limit on frequency. 

It shrinks the safety zone around 

transmitting ships, removing three 

quarters of the buffer currently required 

by NMFS. It eliminates the restrictions 

imposed by NMFS to operate the system 

only at frequencies below 330 Hz. The 

MMPA’s mitigation standard has not 

been met, nor has the agency prescribed 

mitigation sufficient to make an 

affirmative finding of negligible impact 

[and] the Navy’s new permit application 

* * * fails to adopt or severely 

shortchange each of these mitigation 

measures. 

Response: Wider exclusion zones are 

discussed in Comment 67. The one-km 

(0.54 nm) buffer zone was an interim 

operational restriction added by NMFS 

in the 2002 Final Rule. An analysis by 

the Navy demonstrated that the removal 

of this restriction will not appreciably 

change the percentage of animals 

potentially affected. However, NMFS 

has again included the one-km (0.54 

nm) buffer zone in its rule for SURTASS 

LFA sonar to further protect against 

marine mammals entering the 180 dB 

isopleth. 

The 330-Hz frequency restriction was 

an interim operational restriction added 

by NMFS in the 2002 Final Rule to 

preclude the potential for injury to 

marine mammals by resonance effects. 

That restriction was based on a 

statement made by Dr. Darlene Ketten, 

an expert on the functional morphology 

of marine mammal hearing, in her 

testimony before the Subcommittee on 

Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and 

Oceans of the House Committee on 

Resources on October 11, 2001 (Ketten, 

2001). The Navy’s Final SEIS states that 

the NMFS acoustic resonance workshop 

ruled out resonance, but stated that the 

report provided part of the evidence 

required by NMFS that resonance and/ 

or tissue damage from LFA sonar 

transmissions were unlikely to occur in 

marine mammals at levels below 190 dB 

(Final SEIS Subchapter 2.5.1). DOC 

(2002) states that it seemed unlikely that 

acoustic resonance in air spaces played 

a primary role in tissue trauma in the 

Bahamas and other events. 

Nevertheless, they suggested continued 

research. While the Marine Mammal 

Commission workshop did not discuss 

in detail the results of the NMFS 

acoustic resonance workshop, it 

endorsed three recommended areas of 

study: (1) Beaked whale lung resonance 

throughout the dive profile; (2) potential 

for other organs and structures to be 

affected by resonance; and (3) 

possibility that animals experience 

tissue shear (Cox et al., 2006). At this 

time, there is no information available 

that supports an increase in the 

probability of LFA sonar to cause injury 

to marine mammals through resonance 

in the frequency range of 330 to 500 Hz. 

The frequency requirements for the 

CLFA sonar to be installed onboard the 

VICTORIOUS Class vessels are above 

330 Hz, but still within the 100 to 500 

Hz range as stated in both the Final EIS 

and Final SEIS. After conducting a full 

review of resonance in its Final SEIS, 

the Navy concluded, and NMFS agrees, 

that effects from resonance are unlikely 

and that there is no need to retain the 

330-Hz restriction. 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 161 / Tuesday, August 21, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 46873 

A full analysis of the mitigation 

measures was conducted in the Final 

SEIS, Chapter 5. Further, mitigation 

measures have been discussed in this 

document. NMFS believes that use of 

SURTASS LFA sonar consistent with 

these regulations meets the MMPA 

mandate that takings be reduced to the 

lowest level practicable. 

Comment 69: The Navy’s take 

application proposes to abandon or 

severely curtail existing protections. 

Every one of its alternatives would 

allow the Navy to train with LFA sonar 

throughout 75 percent of the world 

oceans. It withdraws from a courtordered extended coastal exclusion 

zone, reverting to the originally 

proposed (and rejected) zone of 12 nm 

(22 km). 

Response: Please see previous 

responses on the comment regarding 

LFA sonar operation in 75 percent of the 

world’s oceans. As for the coastal 

exclusion zone, in the Navy’s good faith 

attempt to respond to a court-identified 

deficiency, additional alternatives were 

analyzed in the Draft SEIS, including 

more than doubling the coastal standoff 

range. The results summarized in Final 

SEIS Table 4.7.7 indicate that increasing 

the coastal standoff range does decrease 

exposure to higher RLs for the 

concentrations of marine animals 

closest to the shore (shelf species) but 

does so at the expense of increasing 

exposure levels for shelf break species 

and pelagic species. Increasing the range 

to 56 km (30 nm) or even 111 km (60 

nm) would not make a significant 

difference in the outcome. 

In addition, if the Navy does operate 

at 12 nm from the coast, there are 

potential benefits over operating farther 

from shore. Analysis of the geometry, 

bathymetry, sound propagation, and 

animal densities in a variety of sample 

areas revealed that the overall risk to 

marine mammals is lower when 

SURTASS LFA sonar is operated at 12 

nm from shore than when it is operated 

at 25 nm. First, a smaller volume of 

ocean is ensonified. For example, the 

estimated volume exposed to a received 

level of 155 dB decreases by 21%. This 

is due, in part, to shallower water 

depths closer to shore. In addition, in 

the majority of scenarios studied, when 

all biological factors were taken into 

account, including marine mammal 

densities, the risk incurred by moving 

closer to shore decreased or remained 

the same. Given the Navy’s stated need 

to have the flexibility to use the system 

closer to shore if training, testing, or 

military operational demands required 

it, and in light of evidence 

demonstrating that operation at 12 nm 

from shore created less impact on 

marine mammals than a larger coastal 

exclusion zone, NMFS determined that 

a smaller coastal exclusion zone was 

warranted and consistent with its 

obligation under the MMPA to prescribe 

‘‘other means of effecting the least 

practicable adverse impact,’’ while 

taking into account ‘‘personnel safety, 

practicality of implementation, and 

impact on the effectiveness of the 

military readiness activity.’’ Naturally, if 

the Navy’s operational needs did not 

require it to take advantage of the 

additional flexibility offered by the 

narrower coastal exclusion zone, then 

the potential benefits would not be 

realized, and the impacts would remain 

the same as before under the broader 

coastal exclusion zone. 

Comment 70: The Draft SEIS does not 

state at what distance from the source 

the 180 dB RL isopleths will occur, but 

in the mitigation section repeatedly 

refers to the ‘‘mitigation zone.’’

Clarification of the distance from the 

source at which a RL of the 180 dB is 

expected should be included. 

Response: The distance to the 180-dB 

isopleth is given in the Final EIS on 

pages 2–14, 2–18, and 5–1, which were 

incorporated by reference into the Final 

SEIS. Under normal operating 

conditions, this zone will vary from 0.75 

to 1.00 km (0.4 to 0.54 nm) from the 

source array, ranging over a depth of 

approximately 87 to 157 m (285 to 515 

ft). This information was added to the 

appropriate section in Final SEIS 

Chapter 2. In addition, NMFS has 

continued the requirement for the Navy 

to establish a ‘‘buffer’’ zone extending 

an additional 1 km (0.54 nm) beyond 

the 180-dB isopleth. Any marine 

mammals detected within the 180-dB 

zone or the 1-km (0.54-nm) buffer zone 

will result in a shut-down of the 

SURTASS LFA sonar array and a powerdown of the HF/M3 sonar so that the 

marine mammal(s) detected are not 

subject to LFA sonar sounds in excess 

of 180 dB. 

Comment 71: In regards to 

monitoring, the Draft SEIS does not state 

how much training these personnel will 

receive, how their level of expertise will 

be measured, the amount of refresher 

training that will be done, or if these 

ship personnel will have to perform 

other duties when they are conducting 

observations. The Draft SEIS also does 

not state how many trained marine 

mammal observers will be used at any 

one time or where they will be 

positioned on the ship, except at the 

topside. SURTASS LFA sonar should 

cease during hours of darkness when 

the chances of spotting a marine 

mammal or turtle approximate zero. 

Response: As stated in NMFS’ 2002 

Final Rule (RTC MOC 8), personnel 

trained in detecting and identifying 

marine animals will make observations 

from the SURTASS LFA sonar vessel. At 

least one observer, qualified by NMFS, 

has trained, tested and evaluated other 

visual observers. Visual observation 

effectiveness estimates will be provided 

to NMFS in accordance with LOA 

reporting requirements. 

Because of the limitations of both 

passive acoustic and visual monitoring, 

the Navy developed the HF/M3 sonar to 

provide effective 24-hour, all-weather 

active acoustic monitoring of an area of 

approximately 2-km (1.1 nm) radius 

from the array. The HF/M3’s detection 

effectiveness is calculated at 95 percent 

standing alone and is not dependent on 

the time of day. For further information 

see sections on mitigation and 

monitoring in this rule and the Final 

SEIS, Chapter 5, and the Navy’s Final 

Comprehensive Report, Chapter 2. 

Comment 72: The use of passive 

acoustic monitoring to listen for 

vocalizing marine mammals as a 

complementary detection method to 

visual observation is a good idea. 

However, to use the SURTASS array for 

this purpose would limit detections to 

those animals vocalizing within the 

bandwidth of the system. Most marine 

mammals would therefore not be 

detected. 

Response: This topic was addressed 

in Final EIS, Subchapter 4.2.7.1. In 

calculating the effectiveness for the 

various monitoring systems for purposes 

of the Final EIS analyses, the passive 

monitoring component of the three-part 

monitoring system was estimated at 

0.25, or 25 percent. Because of the 

limitations of both passive acoustic and 

visual monitoring, the Navy developed 

the HF/M3 sonar to provide 24-hour, all 

weather active acoustic monitoring. 

Comment 73: The protocol described 

in the Draft SEIS for reacting to a 

detected animal is based on a subjective 

and mission-impacting judgment call by 

the array technician who has to decide 

if the detected animal might be 

impacted by the SURTASS LFA sonar. 

In all likelihood, such decisions are 

unlikely to be made in favor of the 

animal when the consequence is the 

shut down of operations and chance of 

incurring the disfavor of peers and 

superiors. 

Response: NMFS has no reason to 

question that the Navy would not fully 

comply with the mitigation and 

monitoring requirements for the 

SURTASS LFA sonar operations 

operations which mandate nonoperation or shutdown of the sonar 

source if a marine mammal is detected 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with RULES3
46874 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 161 / Tuesday, August 21, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

within 2 km of the source. For further 

information on mitigation and 

monitoring, please see the Final SEIS, 

Chapter 5, and the Final Comprehensive 

Report, Chapter 2. 

Comment 74: The Draft SEIS does not 

state what the full power levels of the 

HF/M3 will be but merely states that 

RLs will not exceed 180 dB and does 

not give distances from the HF/M3 

source. A mitigation measure that adds 

more noise to the environment is 

illogical. 

Response: The general operating 

characteristics of the HF/M3 sonar have 

been provided in the Final EIS (p. 2–17). 

The source level is 220 dB re 1 

microPascal at 1 m. HF/M3 sonar testing 

and effectiveness are discussed in the 

Final EIS (pp. 2–19 through 2–22) and 

the Final SEIS RTC 5.2.20. As a 

mitigation measure, the HF/M3 sonar is 

ramped up from 180 dB SL to full power 

over 5 minutes in 10 dB increments 

(Final SEIS, Subchapter 5.2.3). 

There is recent scientific evidence 

that sonars, similar to the HF/M3, which 

are in common use in the fishing and 

maritime industries, do not harm 

marine life. In a recently published 

paper, Benoit-Bird et al. (2006) 

examined the hypothesis that marine 

mammals acoustically stun their prey by 

exposing three species of fish commonly 

preyed upon by odontocetes to pulsed 

signals at 18 kHz, 55 kHz, and 120 kHz 

with exposure levels from 193 dB (peakto-peak), 208 dB (peak-to-peak), and 213 

dB (peak-to-peak), respectively. They 

observed: (1) No measurable changes in 

the behavior for any of the species 

during the exposures; (2) no noticeable 

change in swimming activity; (3) no 

apparent loss of buoyancy; (4) no 

movement away from the transducer; 

and 95) no mortality. Despite the use of 

signals at the maximum source levels 

recorded for odontocetes clicks, the 

researchers could not induce stunning 

or even disorientation in the fish tested. 

In addition, a requirement to ramp-up 

the HF/M3 ensures that marine 

mammals are detected by the HF/M3 

sonar at the lowest sound level possible. 

If a marine mammal is detected during 

ramp-up within the 180-dB sound field 

or 1-km (0.54-nm) buffer zone, further 

increases in power are not initiated 

until the animal is no longer detected. 

At that time, ramp-up would continue 

unless that animal, or another, was 

detected. The HF/M3 sonar 

effectiveness has been discussed in a 

report by Ellison and Stein (2001), 

which is available to the public on the 

SURTASS LFA sonar Web site at http:// 

www.surtass-LFA sonar-eis.com/ 

Download/index.htm. In addition, a 

paper on this subject was presented at 

the 2001 Acoustical Society of America 

meeting (Stein et al., 2001). 

For additional information please see 

Final EIS Subchapter 4.2.7.3 and RTCs 

5–2.4, 5–2.11, 5–2.12, 5–2.13, 5–2.19, 5–

2.21, and 5–2.22; and NMFS 2002 Final 

Rule RTCs MOC10, MOC12, MOC14, 

and MOC17. 

Comment 75: The commenter is 

concerned by the mention of the use of 

a high frequency sonar system to detect 

whales. Has this undergone an 

appropriate environmental assessment? 

Has a take authorization been issued for 

animals that this might impact? Have 

the cumulative impacts of low and high 

frequency systems being used in 

conjunction been considered? 

Response: As stated in the SURTASS 

LFA sonar Final EIS (RTC 5–2.21), the 

HF/M3 sonar is basically a fish-finder 

type sonar with similar frequency 

ranges and power output as many 

commercial fish finder sonars. These 

sonar types are commercially available 

and used worldwide, and are 

unregulated. The potential impacts of 

the HF/M3 sonar are discussed in 

Subchapter 4.2.7.3 in the Final EIS. If a 

marine mammal is detected during 

ramp-up within the 180-dB sound field 

or the 1-km (0.54-nm) buffer zone, 

further increases in power are not 

initiated until the animal is no longer 

detected. At that time, ramp-up would 

continue unless that animal, or another, 

was detected. It was concluded that the 

impacts of the HF/M3 sonar when 

utilized using the above supplemental 

safety measures would have negligible 

impacts. Therefore, the environmental 

documentation requirements for the HF/ 

M3 sonar have been met by the Final 

EIS. This analysis from the Final EIS 

remains valid. Additionally, as required 

by the first Final Rule, the HF/M3 has 

undergone further analyses of 

effectiveness in the Navy’s Final 

Comprehensive Report (2007a) and, to 

remain in compliance with this Final 

Rule, the Navy is required to analyze the 

HF/M3 over the next five years. 

The cumulative impacts of LFA sonar 

and other military and commercial 

sonars used in conjunction have been 

addressed in the SEIS Subchapter 4.7.1. 

Because of the differences in the signal 

characteristics between LFA sonar and 

the HF/M3 sonar, synergistic effects are 

unlikely to occur. The HF/M3 is 

discussed further in Comment 74. 

Comment 76: NMFS must establish 

that LFA sonar operational mitigations 

are adequate prior to granting this 

Authorization. No one has proven that 

the LFA sonar visual and acoustic 

detection mitigations actually work 

under realistic scenarios. There has 

been enough time to produce something 

of value; why has NMFS not required 

the Navy to validate detection 

mitigations, and instead accepted 

assertions and models? There have been 

no directed scientific research efforts to 

validate that the LFA sonar mitigations 

reliably detect marine mammals and 

turtles within the buffer zone under 

realistic scenarios and conditions, and 

no research to confirm that the LFA 

sonar operations are modified by delays 

or shutdowns whenever individuals of 

species of concern are actually within or 

about the enter the zone? The 

Commission expressed similar concerns 

in its July 24, 2007 letter. This lack of 

proof renders baseless the Navy’s 

assertions of adequate shutdowns 

during yearly operations, because no 

one knows how many cetaceans and 

turtles were actually inside the buffer 

zone during previous LFA sonar 

operations, no one studied what 

happened over a reasonable time to 

those that were within a kilometer, and 

no one studied actual behavioral 

impacts over wider ranges and times. 

Response: NMFS and the Navy have 

stated the limitations of the visual and 

passive acoustic detection systems 

previously. However, as stated in 

Subchapter 2.3.2.2 of the Final EIS, the 

HF/M3 sonar has undergone both 

qualitative and quantitative assessments 

of the system’s ability to detect marine 

animals of various sizes and was 

verified in seven sea trials between 1998 

and 2000. In addition, LFA sonar has 

been operating since 2003 in a restricted 

area in the northwestern Pacific Ocean 

with a total of 470 hours of transmit 

time under the first four LOAs (DON, 

2007). These operations, with 

mitigation, have produced no known 

Level A takes on marine mammals. 

NMFS regulations require the Navy to 

delay or suspend operation of SURTASS 

LFA sonar whenever a marine mammal 

is detected within 2 km (1.1 nm) of the 

sonar source by any means. NMFS has 

no reason to believe that the Navy has 

not complied with these requirements 

and, in fact, the Navy’s reports indicate 

that use of the sonar has been delayed 

or suspended on many occasions in 

compliance with the regulations. 

Further information on mitigation 

effectiveness is provided in the Annual 

Reports required under the LOAs (DON 

2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, and 2007). 

Additional analyses have been provided 

in the Navy’s Final Comprehensive 

Report (DON, 2007). Finally, NMFS is 

unaware of a practical way to validate 

the number of animals underwater and 

outside the LFA sonar mitigation 

(shutdown) zone to verify the number of 

Level B takes by harassment. We are 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 161 / Tuesday, August 21, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 46875 

also unsure whether the commenter is 

recommending research on the number 

of Level A (injury) harassment takes 

which (unless surrogate species are 

used) have the potential to result in 

injury to marine mammals during the 

course of research on the effectiveness 

of the tri-partite mitigation monitoring 

program. This ethical concern is a 

reason why the LFS SRP was limited to 

SPLs below 160 dB. 

An evaluation of the effectiveness of 

the monitoring and mitigation measures 

has been provided to NMFS in the Final 

Comprehensive Report (DON, 2007) 

submitted under 50 CFR 216.186(c). 

This report is available to the public 

(see ADDRESSES). Estimated marine 

mammal densities are determined for 

each potential LFA sonar operations 

area proposed in the annual requests for 

LOAs under the current regulations. The 

180-dB safety and 1-km (0.54-nm) buffer 

zones were monitored at all times 

during LFA sonar active transmissions 

as required by NMFS 2002 Final Rule 

(50 CFR 216.185 and 50 CFR 216.186) 

and the conditions of the LOAs as 

issued. In addition, available stranding 

data from the operating areas are 

continuously reviewed, and no 

strandings have coincided spatially or 

temporally with LFA sonar operations. 

Comment 77: Why doesn’t NMFS 

challenge detection methods as being 

compromised during a significant 

portion of the LFA sonar’s operating 

envelope? Visual detections of marine 

turtles near one kilometer are unlikely 

during flat calm conditions, experts 

testify that only a very small percentage 

of nearby beaked whales will ever be 

seen and all visual detections become 

moot with medium sea states, night, and 

some weather operations. 

Response: NMFS and the Navy agree 

that visual monitoring has a low 

detection probability. The Navy stated 

in several documents, including its 

Final Comprehensive Report (Navy, 

2007) that the detection probability from 

visual monitoring is approximately 9 

percent. For this reason, the Navy uses 

an active acoustic monitoring system, 

the HF/M3. 

The HF/M3 sonar was specifically 

developed to improve detection of 

marine mammals and potentially sea 

turtles, through active acoustic 

detection, ensuring that they are not 

within the LFA sonar mitigation zone 

during SURTASS LFA sonar 

transmissions. It provides 24-hour 

detection for marine animals, even 

during poor visibility conditions. 

Analysis and testing of the HF/M3 sonar 

operating capabilities indicates that this 

system substantially increases the 

chances of detecting marine mammals 

(and possibly sea turtles) within the 

LFA sonar mitigation zone (i.e., inside 

the 180-dB safety and 1-km buffer zone 

sound fields). The probability of 

detection of various marine mammals is 

presented in the Final EIS, Figure 2–5. 

The potential for SURTASS LFA sonar 

to cause harm to marine mammals and 

the validity of the 180-dB injury 

threshold for SURTASS LFA sonar are 

discussed in Final SEIS (RTCs 4.0.1, 

4.0.2, 4.0.3, 4.3.1, 4.3.2, 4.3.7, 4.3.8, 

4.3.9, 4.3.10, and 4.3.12). 

Comment 78: Acoustic detection 

requires that the marine animals in the 

path of the buffer zone make sounds, 

but current research does not validate 

that they do so sufficiently for anyone 

to expect to detect even a small 

percentage of animals included in, or in 

the path of the buffer zone. Can NMFS 

deny that the total acoustical output 

from the LFA sonar vessel and 

associated vessels may cause 

acoustically active animals to be more 

silent, rendering the acoustic 

monitoring moot? 

Response: In calculating the 

effectiveness for the various monitoring 

systems for purposes of the Final EIS 

analyses, the passive monitoring 

component of the tri-partite monitoring 

system was estimated at 0.25, or 25 

percent. Because of the limitations of 

both passive acoustic and visual 

monitoring, the Navy developed the HF/ 

M3 sonar to provide 24-hour, all 

weather active acoustic monitoring. The 

HF/M3 was tested and the results were 

discussed and analyzed in the Final EIS 

and in Technical Report 3 (Ellison and 

Stein, 2001). This topic is also 

addressed in Final EIS Subchapter 

4.2.7.1. 

In regards to animals changing their 

vocal behavior, the following response 

is a summary of the information 

provided in the Final EIS. 

Given that the LFA sonar sound source can 

be detected at moderate to low levels over 

large areas of the ocean, there was concern 

at the initiation of the NEPA process in 1996 

that there was the potential for large 

percentages of species stocks to be exposed 

to moderate-to-low received levels. If animals 

are disturbed at these moderate-to-low 

exposure levels such that they experience a 

significant change in a biologically important 

behavior, then such exposures could 

potentially have an impact on rates of 

reproduction or survival. Knowing that 

cetacean responses to LF sound signals 

needed to be better defined using controlled 

experiments, the Navy helped develop and 

supported the three-year LFS SRP beginning 

in 1997. This field research program was 

designed to address three important 

behavioral contexts for baleen whales: (1) 

blue and fin whales feeding in the southern 

California Bight, (2) gray whales migrating 

past the central California coast, and (3) 

humpback whales breeding off Hawaii. 

Taken together, the results from the three 

phases of the LFS SRP do not support the 

hypothesis that most baleen whales exposed 

to RLs near 140 dB would exhibit 

disturbance behavior and avoid the area. 

These experiments, which exposed baleen 

whales to RLs ranging from 120 to about 155 

dB, detected only minor, short-term 

behavioral responses. Short-term behavioral 

responses do not necessarily constitute 

significant changes in biologically important 

behaviors. 

These results have been supported by 

recent, peer reviewed papers. Croll et al. 

(2001a) studied the effects of 

anthropogenic LF noise (SURTASS LFA 

sonar) on the foraging ecology of blue 

and fin whales off San Nicolas Island, 

California. Overall, the whale encounter 

rates and diving behavior appeared to be 

more strongly linked to changes in prey 

abundance associated with ocean 

parameters than to LFA sonar 

transmissions. In some cases, whale 

vocal behavior was significantly 

different between experimental and 

non-experimental periods. However, 

these differences were not consistent 

and did not appear to be related to LF 

sound transmissions. At the spatial and 

temporal scales examined, Croll et al. 

(2001) stated that they found no obvious 

responses of whales to a loud, 

anthropogenic, LF sound. 

Both Miller et al. (2000) and Fristrup 

et al. (2003) published on the results of 

tests conducted with male humpback 

singers off Hawaii in which they 

evaluated variation in song length as a 

function of exposure to LF sounds. In 

spite of methodological differences, the 

results of both studies indicated that 

humpback whales slightly increased 

their songs in response to LF broadcasts. 

Fristrup et al. (2003) found that the 

fraction of variation in song length that 

could be attributed to LF broadcast was 

low and concluded that the effects of LF 

broadcast did not impose a risk of 

dramatic changes in humpback whale 

singing behavior that would have 

demographic consequences. Therefore, 

it is not believed that the use of active 

acoustics will dramatically change the 

vocalizations of acoustically active 

animals. 

Comment 79: Does NMFS believe that 

the geographical mitigations are the 

only areas the LFA sonar may cause 

significant effects? If previous LFA 

sonar operations actually were 

conducted in areas with near-zero 

marine animals of concern, future 

operations certainly will be in the areas 

with significant populations. Again, 

without adequate detection, how can 

NMFS know that takes will not be 

excessive? 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with RULES3
46876 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 161 / Tuesday, August 21, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

Response: As noted in the Final SEIS 

(Subchapter 2.5.2.1), for the purposes of 

obtaining an LOA, SURTASS LFA sonar 

operations are planned in advance for 

areas with reduced risk by avoiding 

areas of high marine life concentrations 

to the greatest extent feasible 

considering national security tasking. 

This process is detailed in the Final 

SEIS (Subchapter 4.4). Also, please see 

RTCs CSI–1, 2, 3, and 4 in this 

document. However, it is erroneous to 

say that the area in which SURTASS 

LFA has been operated for the last five 

years had ‘‘near-zero’’ marine animals. 

There are virtually no parts of the ocean 

that can be accurately described as 

‘‘oceanic deserts’’ devoid of marine life. 

While some areas are better studied than 

others, it would be a mistake to assume 

that simply because data is lacking on 

marine mammal abundance the area is 

devoid of marine mammals. Thus, in 

selecting areas where the Navy will and 

will not operate LFA sonar, we must 

rely on what is known about marine 

mammal concentrations and attempt to 

avoid them, continue to fill knowledge 

gaps through additional research, and 

recognize that, by necessity, we are 

regulating in a dynamic area of science. 

Comment 80: Without adequate 

detection, how can NMFS know that 

takes will not be excessive? 

Response: As discussed previously in 

this document, NMFS believes that the 

tri-partite mitigation measures, 

particularly the HF/M3 sonar will be 

capable of detecting over 95 percent of 

all marine mammals within the 180 dB 

range. In addition, since detection is 

excellent out to the edge of the buffer 

zone, marine mammal detection will be 

more than adequate and will prevent 

Level A injury and mortality. Also 

please see the Navy’s Final 

Comprehensive Report (DON, 2007). 

Comment 81: Because there has been 

no participation by scientific experts on 

any LFA sonar mission cruises over 

several years there is no reliable 

documentation of observed and 

probably numbers of cetaceans and 

turtles that may have been within the 

LFA sonar’s buffer zone, general 

surrounding area, or track line. 

Response: According to the Navy, 

utilization of third-party marine 

biological visual observers is not 

feasible. First, there is no available 

berthing for additional personnel on the 

LFA sonar vessels. To accommodate 

visual observers(s), it would require the 

reduction of the number of operational 

personnel on the vessel, which would 

reduce mission effectiveness. Moreover, 

because of the nature of the missions, 

third-party observers would require 

security clearances. Although it is 

possible for these personnel to obtain 

the proper security clearances, the time 

and cost of applying for security 

clearances for these individuals is high. 

Please see NMFS’ 2002 Final Rule (RTC 

MOC32) for further discussion. 

However, while third-party observers 

during military operations are not 

practicable, NMFS has recommended 

certain research projects be undertaken 

by the Navy, during which non-Navy 

scientists would be participants. 

Comment 82: The Navy fails to 

consider additional mitigation measures 

that would mitigate LFA sonar’s impact 

on marine species, including, the Navy’s 

failure to extend the coastal zone and 

instead disputes that greater exclusion 

zones would be beneficial to marine 

species. The Navy has failed to present 

sufficient modeling and analysis. 

Response: In order to answer the 

question of whether a standoff range 

farther from the coast would, in fact, 

generate fewer marine mammal takes, a 

generic analysis was performed (Final 

SEIS Subchapter 4.7.6). This analysis 

was not portrayed in the Final SEIS as 

a modeling effort, but as a ‘‘generic 

analytical methodology for coastal 

standoff range comparison’’ as clearly 

stated in the Final SEIS. As further 

stated, ‘‘The methodology used to assess 

the change in potential impacts to 

marine animals was designed to utilize 

several sets of simplified assumptions in 

order to determine a relative trend in 

these potential impacts for a variety of 

oceanic and biological conditions. This 

approach allows one to assess the trends 

without the extensive process of 

modeling all the conditions that exist.’’

This was a method of relative analysis 

of 3 shelf cases vs. 3 biology types 

(yielding 9 different combinations of the 

factors) for each of two potential coastal 

standoff cases to estimate relative 

impacts. 

Comment 83: The Navy fails to 

consider all reasonable alternatives for 

expanding its coastal exclusion zones. 

Response: See Comment 67 and the 

Final SEIS (Subchapter 4.7.6 and RTCs 

4.7.12, 4.7.13, 4.7.14, nd 4.7.15.) for 

response. 

Comment 84: The Navy has done very 

little to respond to the Court’s holding 

with respect to additional offshore 

exclusion areas. Five of the seven OBIAs 

in the Navy’s preferred alternative were 

already included in the 2002 Final Rule, 

among those places where received 

levels were capped at 180 dB, and thus 

are not additional mitigations at all. 

Response: NMFS has continued in 

these regulations a means to propose 

OBIAs, from any source, including the 

public. NMFS will accept petitions for 

OBIAs in accordance with 50 CFR 

216.191. Additionally, based on the 

conclusions of the Final SEIS and 

previous NMFS Biological Opinions on 

LFA sonar (2002–2006), SURTASS LFA 

sonar is not likely to affect fish or sea 

turtles. The analyses in the Final EIS 

and Final SEIS support the conclusion 

that LFA sonar operations are not likely 

to cause injury to marine mammals, and 

minimal potential to cause significant 

changes in biologically important 

behaviors. 

Under NMFS’ first five year rule (50 

CFR 216.191) concerning the 

designation of additional OBIAs, no 

nominations have been received. 

Comment 85: One of the central flaws 

of the 2001 Final EIS was its failure to 

consider concentrating training with 

LFA sonar into specific, low impact 

areas, rather than spreading it around 

the globe. 

Response: See Comment 67. 

Comment 86: The Navy rejects NMFS’

360-degree, one km buffer zone 

extending out from the 180 dB 

isopleths. 

Response: See Comment 68. 

Comment 87: The Navy rejects the 

330 Hz restriction imposed by NMFS. 

Response: See Comment 68. 

Comment 88: The Navy fails to 

implement the following mitigation 

measures: LFA sonar ramp-up, thirdparty marine biological visual observers, 

acoustic monitoring using existing 

acoustic nodes and other external 

platforms, a modification of sonar signal 

characteristics, avoidance of enclosed 

areas and coastal areas with complex, 

steep sea bed topography, lower power 

levels, wider safety zones, operational 

procedures in coastal zones that allow 

escape routes, and meaningful 

geographic restriction, avoidance of hotspots. 

Response: Ramp-up of the LFA sonar 

source is not required because the 

HF/M3 sonar will be ‘‘ramped-up’’ prior 

to LF transmissions to verify that the 

LFA sonar mitigation zone is clear of 

marine animals prior to turning on the 

LFA sonar. Please see Final EIS RTCs 5–

2.26 and 5–2.27 and NMFS 2002 Final 

Rule RTCs MOC19, MOC20, and 

MOC21 for additional information. 

As mentioned previously, utilization 

of third-party marine biological visual 

observers is also not feasible due to 

berthing concerns and security 

clearances. Please see Comment 81 in 

this document and the NMFS 2002 

Final Rule (RTC MOC32) for further 

discussion. The Final EIS (Subchapter 

5.2.1) states that visual monitoring is 

required during daylight hours. The 

effectiveness of visual monitoring 

declines during high sea states and 

periods of reduced visibility. Because of 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 161 / Tuesday, August 21, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 46877 

the limitations of both passive acoustic 

and visual monitoring, the Navy 

developed the HF/M3 sonar to provide 

24-hour, all-weather active acoustic 

monitoring of an area of approximately 

2-km (1.1-nm) radius from the array. 

Moreover, to the extent that the 

comment is suggesting this, NMFS has 

no reason to believe that the Navy is not 

complying with its obligations under 

the regulations, and thus there is no 

need for observers to confirm 

compliance. The reporting requirement 

is designed to enable NMFS to verify 

that its regulations are being followed 

and to assist NMFS in improving its 

mitigation requirements. 

Monitoring mitigation is designed to 

preclude marine mammals from being 

within the 180-dB mitigation zone of the 

LFA sonar array to protect them from 

potential injury. This zone is 

approximately 1-km (0.54 nm) in radius, 

thus making the use of other existing 

acoustic nodes (assuming the 

commenter is referring to fixed arrays 

such as SOSUS) and other external 

platforms not only impractical, but 

virtually impossible. The SOSUS arrays 

are no longer manned nor maintained, 

so their operations are degraded and not 

real-time. Other external platforms 

would only be vessels of opportunity. 

Because the SURTASS LFA sonar vessel 

would have limited or no 

communications with these vessels and 

the time delay in relaying information, 

the use of these platforms is impractical. 

NMFS and the Navy do not consider 

modification of sonar signal 

characteristics (including reduction in 

source level) to be a practical mitigation 

option. First, the analyses and actual 

operations have demonstrated that the 

present mitigation methods are 

effective. The LFS SRP utilized the 

actual LFA sonar signal, sometimes at 

full power, with only minor behavioral 

effects. The Fish Controlled Exposure 

Experiment also utilized actual LFA 

sonar signals and source levels with no 

injury and minimal behavioral 

responses at received levels up to 193 

dB. During the first four LOAs, the LFA 

sonar vessels completed 40 missions 

with over 470 hours of actual 

transmission (sound-in-the-water) with 

no known Level A harassment takes and 

Level B harassment takes estimated well 

within the requirement of the LOAs. 

Second, wavetrain characteristics and 

array source levels are optimally 

designed to detect threat submarines at 

long distances. Return signals are below 

ambient levels and any changes would 

potentially cause degradation in 

detection effectiveness. Therefore, there 

is no need for the Navy to consider 

modification of LFA sonar’s signal 

characteristics, and NMFS is satisfied 

that doing so would not be practicable 

and would result in an ‘‘impact on the 

effectiveness of the military readiness 

activity.’’

NMFS and the Navy concur that LFA 

sonar operations should avoid enclosed 

areas and coastal areas with complex, 

steep seabed topography. First, because 

of the lengths of both the passive 

(SURTASS) and active (LFA sonar) line 

arrays, enclosed areas are avoided. 

Second, during the annual LOA 

application process (Final SEIS 

Subchapter 4.4 and Figure 4.4–1), 

marine mammal habitats, seasonal 

activities, and behavioral activities are 

considered in the process of 

determining potential mission areas. 

Thus these areas will be analyzed as 

part of the annual LOA application 

process. Therefore, NMFS believes that 

the Navy avoids planning and 

conducting LFA sonar operations in 

areas of known high marine animal 

densities or ‘‘hot spots.’’

As noted in the Final SEIS Subchapter 

2.5.2.1, SURTASS LFA sonar operations 

are planned for areas with reduced risk 

by avoiding areas of high marine life 

concentrations. This process is detailed 

in SEIS Subchapter 4.4. Additionally, 

nominations for inclusion as OBIA can 

be made under 50 CFR 216.191, thus 

providing protection for specific 

geographic ‘‘hot spots.’’

Because SURTASS LFA sonar will 

have a coastal standoff distance (at least 

12 nm (22 km)), any LFA sonar signal 

heard by marine animals in the coastal 

zone will come from the same general 

direction, thus allowing an animal to 

move laterally away from the signal’s 

source. Also, NMFS has addressed the 

wider coastal exclusion zone in 

Comment 67. 

Comment 89: The Navy refuses to 

adopt small-craft pre-operational 

surveys for marine mammals in 

missions close to shore. The Court held 

that such surveys are necessary to 

protect marine life. The Navy does not 

consider: The option of using boats 

launched from shore; the fact that any 

minor disturbance to marine mammals 

from small planes and small boats 

would be far outstripped by the risk of 

serious injury and death that might 

result if marine mammals remain 

undetected in the zone of highest 

impact; using more than a single small 

boat if a single small boat is insufficient 

to task; the fact that the effectiveness of 

any visual monitoring program, 

including the one used by the Navy, is 

diminished by high sea states, low 

visibility and diving habits of whales, 

making additional mitigation more 

important; and the comparative cost of 

operating LFA sonar in a manner that 

exposes coastal marine mammals to a 

higher risk of stranding and other 

injuries. 

Response: As previously mentioned, 

the Stipulation Regarding the 

Permanent Injunction issued on 14 

October 2003 by the U.S. District Court, 

Northern District of California, as 

amended by Order dated July 7, 2005, 

and as agreed to by the parties, stated 

that the Navy is not required to conduct 

‘‘pre-operation surveys’’ as described in 

the Opinion and Order. In response to 

the Opinion and Order, the Navy 

provided an evaluation of the use of 

small boats and aircraft for preoperational surveys in the DSEIS 

Subchapter 5.4. That evaluation 

demonstrated that small boat and preoperational aerial surveys for SURTASS 

LFA sonar operations are not feasible 

because they are not practicable, not 

effective, may increase the harassment 

of marine mammals, and are not safe to 

the observers. As a result, under this 

directive and in compliance with the 

amendments to the MMPA as made by 

the NDAA FY04, pre-operational 

surveys are not considered as a viable 

mitigation measure. 

Vessels launched from land were 

addressed in the Final SEIS. They 

would have to sail from ports within 

reasonable distance from the operations 

site. Because of the classified nature of 

LFA sonar operations, National Security 

considerations would preclude the 

ability to arrange these vessels in 

advance. However, the primary concern 

with the utilization of small boats is not 

their effectiveness, but their unsafe 

nature and the impracticality of their 

operations from the LFA sonar vessels. 

Therefore, if the use of a single survey 

boat is considered impractical and 

unsafe, then this would concomitantly 

apply to the utilization of additional 

boats. 

The Final SEIS did not state that the 

visual observers onboard the LFA sonar 

vessels would be able to see marine 

mammals better than visual observers 

during aerial surveys, nor were 

helicopters mentioned. Subchapter 

4.2.7.1 of the Final EIS states that visual 

monitoring is limited to daylight hours 

and its effectiveness declines during 

high sea states. Because of the 

limitations of both passive acoustic and 

visual monitoring, the Navy developed 

the HF/M3 sonar to provide 24-hour, 

all-weather active acoustic monitoring 

of an area of approximately 2-km (1.1 

nm) radius from the array. In calculating 

the effectiveness for the various 

monitoring systems for purposes of the 

Final EIS, the visual monitoring 

component of the three-part monitoring 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with RULES3
46878 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 161 / Tuesday, August 21, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

system was estimated at 0.09, or 9 

percent and the passive monitoring 

component was 0.25 or 25 percent 

effective. Utilization of the HF/M3 sonar 

with an effectiveness value of 0.95 or 95 

percent raises the overall mitigation 

effectiveness to 0.98 or 98 percent 

(DON, 2007) 

When operated under the mitigation 

protocols required under this 

rulemaking, NMFS believes that marine 

mammals will not be exposed to LFA 

sonar sound levels that will cause 

injuries or strandings regardless of 

whether they are in coastal or open 

ocean waters. As mentioned previously, 

LFA sonar has never caused, nor is 

expected to cause, marine mammal 

strandings. 

Comment 90: The AEI suggests a 

lower allowable threshold for received 

levels at 22 km from shore, to protect 

these biologically important areas for 

received levels at 22 km in response to 

moderate noise levels. Given the 

relatively long duration of SURTASS 

LFA sonar ‘‘pings,’’ masking may be 

more of an issue that it is with 

impulsive noise sources. 

Response: The subject of masking has 

been addressed in response to several 

comments in this rule. The Final SEIS 

states that mitigation measures for 

SURTASS LFA sonar operations would 

be conducted such that the sound field 

is below 180 dB received level (RL) 

within 12 nm (22 km) of any coastline, 

including islands. RLs below 180 dB for 

LFA sonar will not result in serious 

injury or death. The Final EIS provided 

detailed analyses of the potential effects 

of exposure to LFA sonar received levels 

less than 180 dB for 31 separate sites. 

These included numerous sites that 

were at the closest proximity to land 

based on SURTASS LFA sonar 

operational limits where biological 

densities were high. These analyses 

determined that potential effects from 

exposures to LFA sonar RLs greater than 

or equal to 180 dB were negligible and 

less than 180 dB were minimal. 

However, during the annual LOA 

application process for operations close 

to coastal areas (and OBIAs), the 

potential for marine mammal stocks to 

be affected at RLs less than 180 dB are 

determined, as outlined in the risk 

assessment approach described in the 

Final SEIS Subchapter 4.4. As shown in 

Tables 4.4–2 to 4.4–10 in the Final SEIS, 

minimal percentages of marine mammal 

stocks will be affected, which includes 

the potential to disturb a marine 

mammal by causing disruption of 

natural behavioral patterns to a point 

where the patterns are abandoned or 

significantly altered. 

Comment 91: Why is the continental 

shelf off the east coast of North America 

the only shelf area given a broad 

exclusion? If there are biologically 

important reasons to keep the SURTASS 

LFA sonar signal out of this area, then 

it follows that other parts of the world’s 

coastal margins at depths of less than 

200 m (656 ft) should also be protected. 

Response: The intention of the 12 nm 

(22 km) coastal restriction is to provide 

protection to areas of greater 

concentrations of marine mammals and 

their migration routes. The 12 nm (22- 

km) exclusion zone is not tied to the 

width of the continental shelf because of 

the large variability of the shelf’s 

distance from coastlines around the 

world. For example, on the U.S. eastern 

seaboard this distance is 60 to 70 nm 

(111 to 130 km) from the coast while in 

Hawaii it can be 5 nm (9.3 km) or less. 

In order to provide protection to 

biologically important areas outside of 

12 nm, several OBIAs have been 

designated, including one new one with 

this Final Rule. Because of animal 

concentrations and migration routes on 

the eastern seaboard over the 

continental shelf, this area has been 

designated as an OBIA in the Final Rule 

with limits extending to the 200 m (660 

ft) isobath for the East Coast of the 

United States (from 28 N to 50 N west 

of 40 W) to protect more species. The 

12-nm (22-km) restriction includes 

almost all marine related critical 

habitats and NMSs. However, some 

parts of NMSs, that are recognized to be 

important for marine mammals, are 

outside 12 nm (22 km). As a result, 

NMSs have been designated as OBIAs as 

shown in SEIS Table 2 3 and this Final 

Rule, and the 12-nm coastal exclusion 

zone has been increased to include the 

LFA sonar ‘‘buffer zone’’ of 1 km (0.54 

nm). This additional mitigation ensures 

that LFA sonar SPLs are below 174 dB 

within OBIAs. 

Comment 92: With the lone exception 

of The Gully, no new OBIA outside U.S. 

waters is even considered by NMFS. For 

example, the Navy’s analysis does not 

consider any of the areas specifically 

mentioned in the Court’s Opinion as 

potential OBIAs, such as the southern 

end of the Oyashio/Kuroshio region off 

Kamchatka and the area where the 

Emperor Seamount Chain intersects the 

Aleutian Rise. 

Response: Areas mentioned by the 

Court’s Opinion and Order of August 

26, 2003, are Oyashio/Kuroshio area off 

Kamchatka, and the Emperor Seamount 

Chain (45 to 55 deg N latitude and 170 

to 160 deg W longitude (the Court’s 

Opinion erroneously listed this 

longitude as 60 degrees. The northern 

part of the Oyashio/Kuroshio area off 

Kamchatka is within the Bering Sea, 

which is a non-operational area as 

presented in the Final EIS, Figure 1–1. 

The southern portion of this area and 

the Emperor Seamount Chain are large 

ocean expanses. As stated in NMFS’

2002 Final Rule (RTC MIC11), marine 

mammals in unspecified migration 

corridors and open ocean 

concentrations should be adequately 

protected by the tripartite monitoring 

and mitigation protocols. Please see 

comment 93 for further information on 

OBIAs. 

Comment 93: The commenter states 

that he has worked on Marine Protected 

Areas (MPAs) worldwide, focusing on 

marine mammals, and his book ‘‘Marine 

Protected Areas for Whales, Dolphins & 

Porpoises’’ (2005) details more than 350 

existing MPAs for cetaceans and a 

further 175 areas proposed for 

protection. There are also 20 countries 

and territories that have declared their 

200 nm EEZs as marine mammal 

protection zones. If 70 percent of the 

world ocean is now to be opened to LF 

sonar ensonification, it is possible that 

marine mammals in this proposed and 

existing MPAs will be impacted. 

Response: First, NMFS notes that 

while 70–75 percent of the world ocean 

will be open to LF sonar operations, that 

does not equate to LFA sonar operations 

affecting even close to 70–75 percent of 

the world’s ocean area at any given 

time. In addition, because most MPAs 

are mostly located in coastal waters, 

where LFA sonar will not operate, 

MPAs are unlikely to receive high SPLs 

from SURTASS LFA sonar. 

NMFS and the Navy did consider 

adopting MPAs as OBIAs, as shown in 

the Final SEIS. MPAs are discussed 

under E.O. 13158 in Chapter 6 and are 

further discussed in Comment 4.7.19 in 

Chapter 10. The commenter’s book, 

Hoyt (2005), was also cited in the Final 

SEIS. Hoyt (2005) states that most MPAs 

fall within the nation’s EEZ limits and 

most of them are coastal and would 

therefore fall within the SURTASS LFA 

sonar coastal exclusion zone. OBIAs are 

not designated based on speculation on 

the location and density of animals. As 

with the first Final Rule, NMFS has in 

place a process for the public to propose 

OBIAs. An area must be of particular 

importance for marine mammals as an 

area for primary feeding, breeding, or 

migration, and not simply an area 

occupied by marine mammals. The 

proposed area should also not be within 

a previously designated OBIA or other 

180-dB exclusion area. Further 

information on proposing OBIAs can be 

found in the Designation of Biologically 

Important Marine Mammal Areas 

section of this Final Rule. 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 161 / Tuesday, August 21, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 46879 

Comment 94: NMFS does not 

consider any MPAs established by 

countries other than the U.S., such as 

any of Canada’s 9 existing MPAs with 

cetaceans (with the exception of The 

Gully), Australia’s 38 existing MPAs 

with cetaceans, or Brazil’s 16 existing 

MPAs with cetaceans—or any of the 

non-U.S. protected areas discussed in 

the recent, relevant assessment (i.e., 

Hoyt, 2005). 

Response: We have reviewed 

previously the areas cited by the 

commenter and note that they are 

within the coastal exclusion zone of 

these nations, as mentioned by Hoyt 

(2005). NMFS believes that the level of 

information about marine mammal 

abundance is lacking for many parts of 

the world. However, based on its review 

of the available science, NMFS believes 

that it has designated all OBIAs that are 

currently appropriate for designation. 

Comment 95: The Navy does not 

consider any of the biologically 

significant, globally representative areas 

compiled in the 1990s by the World 

Conservation Union (IUCN), in 

conjunction with the World Bank and 

the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park 

Authority: A recent published 

assessment of beaked whale hotspots, 

which identifies more than 20 areas of 

significant global concern based on 

currently available evidence. 

Response: NMFS does not believe that 

areas that are vaguely described as areas 

of marine mammal habitation, such as 

beaked whale ‘‘hotspots,’’ meet the 

requirement for designation as OBIAs. 

Also, NMFS does not currently have 

sufficient information on these areas to 

know if they meet the criteria for an 

OBIA. In order for NMFS to make a 

preliminary determination that an area 

is biologically important for marine 

mammals, it needs detailed information 

on the biology of marine mammals 

within the area, including estimated 

population size, distribution, density, 

status, and the principal biological 

activity during the proposed period of 

designation sufficient for; and detailed 

information on the area with regard to 

its importance for feeding, breeding, or 

migration for those species of marine 

mammals that have the potential to be 

affected by low frequency sounds. Areas 

within 12 nm (22 km) of any coastline, 

including offshore islands (which 

includes most MPAs), or within nonoperating areas for SURTASS LFA sonar 

(Arctic Ocean) are not eligible for 

consideration. In its comment, the 

commenter lists other literary sources 

that give information for designation as 

OBIAs. However, these, documents do 

not provide information sufficient for 

NMFS to begin the designation process 

outlined in the regulations. 

Comment 96: U.S. MPAs are noted in 

this proposed rulemaking, but MPAs in 

other countries are not. For example, 

what about the important marine 

mammal sanctuary in waters of the 

Dominican Republic? Or the 

international Indian Ocean whale 

sanctuary designated by the IWC? What 

about MPAs in the south China sea, on 

the Russian coast, or in the Philippine 

Sea, some of which are specifically for 

threatened cetaceans? 

Response: NMFS does not consider it 

necessary to expand the list of OBIAs 

prior to its making the required 

determinations under section 

101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA. NMFS 

established a process for nominating 

new OBIAs in its 2002 rulemaking. 

During the past 5 years, NMFS has not 

received any nominations from the 

public for new OBIAs. It should be 

recognized that while NMFS may 

nominate areas as OBIAs, it does not 

believe that it should be the sole 

proponent for nominating areas and that 

was the reason for allowing it to be a 

public process following standard 

rulemaking practice. NMFS 

recommends however, that areas 

already subject to significant 

anthropogenic noise such as seismic 

and shipping areas within 12 nm (22 

km) of any coastline, or otherwise 

already excluded (Arctic, Antarctic 

oceans), areas that cannot be 

geographically described, and areas 

designated for non-biological reasons 

(e.g., the IWC’s Indian Ocean Sanctuary) 

not be nominated. Areas being 

nominated must include sufficient 

information to indicate why that area 

warrants more protection than would be 

provided through the Navy’s visual, 

passive acoustic and HF/M3 monitoring 

program and 180-dB shut-down 

procedures. 

Comment 97: NMFS has not 

considered establishing larger buffer 

zones around even the few exclusion 

zones it has identified, allowing 

ensonification in these areas up to 180 

dB even though significant impacts on 

marine mammal behavior are expected 

well below this level and would rise, 

according to the Navy’s risk function, as 

pressure levels increase. Allowing the 

Navy to place the LFA sonar system 

directly outside the Monterey Bay 

National Marine Sanctuary (for 

example) does not, by any argument, 

reduce impacts to marine mammals in 

the Sanctuary to the maximum extent 

practicable. 

Response: As a result of the comment, 

NMFS has reviewed the information it 

currently has and has determined that 

by requiring the Navy to maintain 

approximately 2-km (1.1-nm) stand-off 

distance from the outer boundary of any 

OBIA, SPLs within the NMS will be 

reduced to approximately 174 dB. This 

means that the LFA sonar vessel must 

observe both the measured 180-dB zone 

and the additional 1-km (0.54 nm) 

buffer zone from the outer edge of all 

OBIAs. This measure is both practicable 

for the Navy to implement, will not 

cause significant impact to the Navy for 

conducting LFA sonar operations and 

results in reducing sounds within NMSs 

to the lowest level practicable. 

Comment 98: The Navy will operate 

LFA sonar without any limitations or 

mitigation during periods of ‘‘armed 

conflict or direct combat support 

operations, (or) during periods of 

heightened threat conditions.’’

Response: Depending upon the 

situation, the Navy may decide to 

implement mitigation measures to 

protect marine mammals. However, that 

issue is beyond the current rulemaking 

action. Depending upon the area and 

duration of activity, NMFS may 

determine appropriate review necessary 

prior to issuing new LOAs after 

cessation of the armed combat situation. 

Comment 99: NMFS has reviewed the 

Annual Reports without requiring any 

more mitigation measures. 

Response: Based on its review of the 

Annual Reports, NMFS did not believe 

that additional mitigation was either 

practicable or warranted. However, as 

part of its review of the Navy’s 

SURTASS LFA sonar application, and 

the comments submitted by the public 

as part of its rulemaking process, NMFS 

has added The Gully as an OBIA and 

has added a new mitigation measure to 

limit sounds entering offshore OBIAs. 

An analysis of mitigation and 

monitoring measures has been provided 

previously in this document. 

Monitoring Concerns 

Comment 100: The Navy’s monitoring 

over the past five years has been 

inadequate to gauge the impact the 

system is having on marine mammals 

and other species in the western Pacific. 

Response: The 180-dB and 1-km 

mitigation zone was monitored at all 

times during LFA sonar active 

transmissions, as required by NMFS 

2002 Final Rule (50 CFR 216.185 and 50 

CFR 216.186) and LOAs. In addition, as 

mentioned previously in this document, 

available stranding data from the 

operating areas are continuously 

reviewed, and no strandings are known 

to have coincided spatially or 

temporally with LFA sonar operations. 

Further, an evaluation of the 

effectiveness of the monitoring and 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with RULES3
46880 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 161 / Tuesday, August 21, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

mitigation measures has been provided 

to NMFS in the final Comprehensive 

Report (DON, 2007a) submitted under 

50 CFR 216.186(c). Monitoring areas 

beyond the buffer zone are not practical 

from the LFA sonar vessel. As a result, 

NMFS has required the Navy to conduct 

research in order to monitor potential 

impacts at some distance from the 

vessel. For more information on 

research, please see the Research section 

of this document. 

Comment 101: NMFS should consider 

prescribing the following monitoring 

methods: suspension of acoustic 

exercises outside daylight hours and 

during periods of low visibility; aerial 

surveillance for marine mammals; 

passive acoustic monitoring using the 

Navy’s existing acoustic nodes in 

certain ranges and operating areas and 

various other external platforms, and 

third-party monitoring by marine 

biologists. 

Response: Operations do not need to 

be suspended during times of reduced 

visibility, including darkness, because 

the Navy’s HF/M3 sonar is equally 

effective during these periods at 

detecting any marine mammals within 

the area where injury may occur. 

Aerial surveillance has been 

discussed previously in this document 

(see Final SEIS RTCs EIIs-4, 10, 11). Preoperational aerial surveys are not 

practicable mitigation. 

Passive monitoring and second vessel 

monitoring has been addressed in 

comment 88 and elsewhere. Because the 

nodes are inoperable and the SURTASS 

LFA sonar vessel would have limited or 

no communications with these vessels 

and the time delay in relaying 

information, the use of these measures 

are considered impracticable. 

As mentioned previously, utilization 

of third-party marine biological visual 

observers is not necessary because 

visual monitoring is not the primary 

means of detecting marine mammals 

and NMFS has no reason to believe that 

the Navy is not complying with the 

regulatory requirements, and it is not 

feasible due to berthing concerns and 

security clearances. Please see 

Comments 81 and 88 in this document 

and the NMFS 2002 Final Rule (RTC 

MOC32) for further discussion. 

Comment 102: NMFS must question 

why no verification results are available. 

Why has there been no embedded but 

independent research concurrent with 

those Pacific LFA sonar operations? 

Response: The SURTASS LFA sonar 

vessels are military vessels conducting 

training exercises; they are not research 

vessels capable of carrying independent 

research scientists. Also, because these 

are military vessels, researchers would 

be required to have a security clearance 

prior to conducting any research 

onboard them. As a result, NMFS and 

the Navy determined that an LTM 

program provided the best opportunity 

to verify (or refute) the current findings 

that impacts will be negligible. The 

LTM discussion in the Final EIS (and 

incorporated by reference in the Final 

SEIS) has been continued under the new 

regulations. Under NMFS regulations, 

the Navy is required to conduct an LTM 

(as discussed in detail elsewhere (see 

Research Concerns)) . The status of this 

research was summarized in Table 2–5 

of the Draft and Final SEIS. Planning 

has commenced for a 2007–2008 deepdiving odontocetes BRS to determine 

the potential effects of LFA sonar, MFA, 

and seismic sources on beaked whales 

and other deep diving odontocetes. 

Further LTM research will 

bedetermined by the decision-maker in 

the Navy’s ROD and in consultation 

with NMFS. 

Reporting Concerns 

Comment 103: Acoustical detections 

from the continuously operating HF/M3 

sonar systems only logged 16 ‘‘events’’

in 10 of 16 missions. Visual monitoring 

logged cetaceans within the buffer zone 

only on three occasions during all LFA 

sonar operations. No marine turtles 

were ever seen. LFA sonar 

transmissions were delayed or 

suspended on 33 occasions, many 

because of system failures or unverified 

detections, and only one resulted from 

a sighting of dolphins. Does NMFS 

accept that the very few sightings in the 

Annual Reports mean that very few 

animals were actually present? 

Response: The Navy’s Final 

Comprehensive Report indicates that, 

under the first four LOAs totaling 40 

missions, there were 3 visual sightings 

of marine mammals, no passive acoustic 

detections, and 71 active acoustic 

detections. Based on the quarterly, 

annual, and Final Comprehensive 

reports, and based on the fact that the 

Navy avoids areas of high marine life 

concentrations, NMFS believes the 

Navy’s reports that there have been few 

marine mammal sightings as an 

indicator that either few marine 

mammals are present (low density) or 

marine mammals are avoiding the 

immediate area of LFA sonar operations 

prior to commencing LFA sonar 

operations. 

Research Concerns 

Comment 104: In 2003, the Navy was 

provided a limited area within which to 

deploy SURTASS LFA sonar. While it 

has been required to report on 

mitigation measures taken to prevent or 

minimize marine mammal takes in the 

immediate operating area, it has not 

been required to perform systematic 

population studies on marine mammals 

or examinations of stranding incidents 

and health trends in operating range. 

Given both the extent of the current 

range, as well as the far reach of the 

SURTASS LFA sonar signals, the health 

of animals ‘‘taken’’ in this area alone 

would be difficult to assess. Given the 

short period that the U.S. Navy has been 

operating in a limited deployment area 

it is difficult to determine any trends in 

the natural history, biology and 

behavior of marine mammals subjected 

to the SURTASS LFA sonar noise. 

Response: NMFS’ LOAs under 

Condition 7(d) require the Navy to 

conduct research in accordance with 50 

CFR 216.185(e). The Navy’s completed 

and ongoing research is detailed in the 

Final Comprehensive Report (DON, 

2007a) and in the Final SEIS Subchapter 

2.7. See the Final SEIS RTC 5.3.2 for 

additional information. Baseline data on 

the distribution and behavior of marine 

animals are discussed in the Final SEIS 

RTCs 1.4.1 and 2.7.2. Prioritization of 

the available research monies by the 

Navy does not at this time allow for the 

systematic population studies on marine 

mammals. Based on recommendations 

from the scientific community, planning 

is underway for a 2007–2008 deepdiving odontocetes BRS to determine 

the potential effects of LFA sonar, MFA, 

and seismic sources on beaked whales 

and other deep diving odontocetes. 

Reviews of stranding reports in the 

area showed that there were a total of 19 

strandings reported in Asia (four in 

Taiwan, nine throughout the 

Philippines, two in Thailand, two in 

Indonesia, and two in China) (The 

Cetacean Stranding Database, accessed: 

11/28/2006). None of these strandings 

were coincident either temporally or 

spatially with LFA sonar operations. See 

the Final SEIS (RTC 4.4.12) for 

additional information of strandings. 

Comment 105: What has resulted from 

research projects related to LFA sonar? 

Response: Under the NMFS 2002 and 

2007 rulemaking and related LOAs for 

LFA sonar, the Navy is required to 

conduct research. These topics and their 

status are provided in the Final 

Comprehensive Report (DON, 2007). 

The Navy is working to meet these 

research requirements. The SURTASS 

LFA sonar LTM Program has been 

budgeted by the Navy at a level of 

approximately $1M per year for five 

years, starting with the issuance of the 

first LOA in 2002. Planningis underway 

for a 2007–2008 deep-diving 

odontocetes BRS to determine the 

potential effects of LFA sonar, MFA, 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 161 / Tuesday, August 21, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 46881 

and seismic sources on beaked whales 

and other deep diving odontocetes at an 

estimated cost of $3M per year. 

Although not directly related to the 

LFA sonar MMPA regulatory process, 

the Navy funded independent research 

to determine the potential for SURTASS 

LFA sonar signals to affect fish. Popper 

et al. (2007) investigated the effects of 

exposure to LFA sonar on rainbow trout 

(a hearing generalist related to several 

endangered salmonids) and channel 

catfish (a hearing specialist) using an 

element of the standard SURTASS LFA 

sonar source array (Popper et al., 2005; 

Halvorsen et al., 2006; Popper et al., 

2007). 

Comment 106: Why is no current 

effort to quantify and monitor long-term, 

cumulative, stock-level impacts from 

LFA sonar mentioned in the LFA sonar 

2005 Annual Report? 

Response: NMFS recommended this 

as a research topic. However, detecting 

and scientifically validating a change in 

a marine mammal population (e.g., 

trend, demographics) is extremely 

difficult. It is also unrealistic to expect 

a single factor to explain population 

changes. For LFA sonar, research results 

indicate that some whales will respond 

to LFA sonar over relatively short 

temporal periods and over small spatial 

areas, though this research was only 

capable of testing for responses over 

short time periods and spatial scales. To 

date, there is no evidence that LFA 

sonar will have an effect on individual 

survival or reproductive success, or 

population trends or demographics. 

However, because research on the 

appropriate temporal and spatial scales 

has not been conducted, questions 

concerning the level of impact at such 

scales remain. 

Comment 107: A prioritized study of 

beaked whale habitats is only at the 

draft planning stage, although 

considerable work has been done 

previously to identify likely habitats in 

certain regions such as the 

Mediterranean. While this work also 

may help to identify the critical link 

between sonars and beaked whale 

deaths, the primary goal may simply be 

to identify areas where naval sonars 

should not operate for test and training. 

Response: Research on beaked whales 

is underway. A list of recently 

published papers that was the result of 

funding by ONR and SERDP was 

provided in Comment 39. Again, it is 

worth noting that beaked whales appear 

to be a species sensitive, under certain 

conditions, to MF sonar, not LFA sonar. 

Comment 108: Behavioral reactions of 

whales to sound levels above 155 dB 

have not been tested, in part because the 

Navy has assumed the required 

authorization would be extremely hard 

to get, but primarily because expert 

researchers have been concerned that 

such received sound levels might have 

harmed the research subjects. NMFS 

should review the size of the potential 

LFA sonar impact zone based upon the 

155 dB isopleth. 

Response: Estimates of Level B 

harassment take are calculated using the 

risk continum from 120 dB to 179 dB, 

and NMFS considers all marine 

mammals to be injured at an SPL of 180 

dB or greater, considers, even though at 

180 dB, marine mammals are unlikely to 

even incur TTS (Level B harassment). 

Therefore, NMFS believes reviewing the 

size of the LFA sonar impact zone based 

upon the 155 dB isopleth is 

unnecessary. Originally, there was 

concern that if marine mammals 

experience a significant change in a 

biologically important behavior at 

moderate-to-low sound exposure levels, 

then such exposures could potentially 

have an impact on rates of reproduction 

or survival. Knowing that cetacean 

responses to LF sound signals needed to 

be better defined using controlled 

experiments, the Navy helped develop 

and supported the three-year LFS SRP 

beginning in 1997. This study was 

designed to assess the potential impacts 

of SURTASS LFA sonar on the behavior 

of low-frequency hearing specialists, 

those species believed to be at 

(potentially) greatest risk. This field 

research program was designed to 

address three important behavioral 

contexts for baleen whales: (1) Blue and 

fin whales feeding in the southern 

California Bight, (2) gray whales 

migrating past the central California 

coast, and (3) humpback whales 

breeding off Hawaii. Taken together, the 

results from the three phases of the LFS 

SRP do not support the hypothesis that 

most baleen whales exposed to RLs near 

140 dB would exhibit disturbance 

behavior and avoid the area. These 

experiments, which exposed baleen 

whales to RLs ranging from 120 to about 

155 dB, detected only minor, short-term 

behavioral responses. Short-term 

behavioral responses do not necessarily 

constitute significant changes in 

biologically important behaviors. 

These results have been supported by 

recent, peer reviewed papers. Croll et al. 

(2001a), Miller et al. (2000) and Fristrup 

et al. (2003) that were discussed 

previously in this document. 

Comment 109: There has been 

classified research to determine if large 

whales are silenced by anthropogenic 

noise, presumably sonars, but it has 

occurred in the Atlantic and its 

applicability to LFA sonar operations is 

unknown to the public. Has NMFS 

reviewed this data? 

Response: As reported in the Final 

Comprehensive Report, passive acoustic 

monitoring for the possible silencing of 

calls of large whales using bottommounted hydrophones is ongoing. Four 

research efforts in the North Atlantic 

(NORLANT, 2004, 2005, 2006–01, 

2006–02) have addressed this topic. The 

research reports for these tasks are 

classified; unclassified summary reports 

have been produced. Navy funding has 

supported and continues to support 

these research efforts. NMFS has not 

reviewed any data from this classified 

research. 

Comment 110: CSI recommends 

research with an immediate focus on 

cetacean fear, aversion, or avoidance 

responses to sonars. 

Response: Under the application for 

the BRS for Deep Diving Odontocetes, 

the Navy (and its partners) proposes to 

examine behavioral responses to 

anthropogenic sounds. The proposed 

BRS study has not yet received a 

scientific research permit (SRP) under 

section 104 of the MMPA. If an SRP is 

issued under section 104 of the MMPA, 

the proposed BRS would first 

investigate the acoustic exposures of MF 

sonar, not LF sonar, and natural sounds. 

If the BRS is successful and if NMFS is 

able to issue a second SRP, the BRS 

proposes to then determine the acoustic 

exposures of LF sonar. The rationale for 

this is that beaked whales are not 

known to have good hearing in the LF 

range, and as such LFA sonar has not 

been implicated in any stranding events. 

Additional information on this study 

can be found at 72 FR 19181 (April 17, 

2007). 

Comment 111: The Navy’s BRS 

research (72 FR 19181, April 17, 2007) 

should be completed before the U.S. 

Navy is given a 5-year permit to operate 

the LFA sonar system. Given the 

controversy on the potential impacts of 

the low frequency transmissions in 

sound ducts on marine mammals 

beyond the buffer zone, it seems 

inconsistent with the precautionary 

approach to give the Navy a permit until 

this research has been completed. This 

research should be completed by an 

independent third party and not by the 

Navy/NMFS. 

Response: NMFS believes that it has 

sufficient scientific information to make 

the determinations required by section 

101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA. In addition, 

the Navy has advised that a gap in 

SURTASS LFA sonar operations would 

be detrimental to national security and 

reduce protection of U.S. and Allied 

naval forces from submarine threats. 

Uninterrupted operational deployment 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with RULES3
46882 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 161 / Tuesday, August 21, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

of SURTASS LFA sonar is the Pacific 

Fleet Commander’s top antisubmarine 

warfare priority. As NMFS believes the 

Navy has adopted a precautionary 

approach using conservative 

assumptions for identifying and 

analyzing potential impacts to the 

environment, including marine 

mammals, it has determined that it is 

not necessary to withhold the MMPA 

authorization to the Navy. Lastly, the 

Navy and NMFS are working with many 

independent researchers (third party 

scientists) to complete the BRS. 

Therefore, the Final Rule does not need 

to be delayed for the completion of the 

proposed BRS. 

NEPA Concerns 

Comment 112: With the Supplemental 

EIS, the Navy hopes not only to correct 

the deficiencies identified by the Court 

in the 2001 Final EIS, but also to fulfill 

its NEPA requirement for an analysis of 

the environmental impacts of its second 

five years of LFA sonar operation from 

2007 through 2012. The Navy’s 

application for a new incidental take 

authorization, however, is a separate 

final agency action from its original 

application, and, absent the sort of 

tiering that has not been conducted 

here, requires its own EIS. 

Response: The Navy prepared an 

original Final EIS for SURTASS LFA 

sonar in January, 2001. In accordance 

with CEQ regulations (40 CFR 1502.9), 

agencies are required to prepare a 

Supplemental EIS (SEIS) when the 

agency makes substantial changes to the 

proposed action that are relevant to 

environmental concerns, there are 

significant new circumstances or 

information relevant to environmental 

concerns and bearing on the proposed 

action and its impacts, or if the agency 

determines that the purposes of the act 

will be furthered. The Navy prepared 

this SEIS to both address the District 

Court findings and to review new 

information relevant to impacts on the 

marine environment from SURTASS 

LFA sonar operations. As NMFS is a 

cooperating agency, as defined under 

NEPA regulations, in the preparation of 

the Draft SEIS and the Final SEIS, the 

issuance of this rulemaking, based upon 

an application for an incidental take 

authorization under the MMPA is not 

considered an action separate from the 

SURTASS LFA sonar operation. 

In accordance with 40 CFR 1506.3(a), 

NOAA has adopted the Navy’s Final 

SEIS as its own NEPA statement on the 

issuance of regulations and LOAs for the 

taking of marine mammals incidental to 

SURTASS LFA sonar operations. 

Comment 113: What rationale does 

the Navy now assert for failing to 

prepare an EIS for use of SURTASS LFA 

sonar during threat and warfare 

conditions? 

Response: As stated in NMFS’ 2002 

final rule Federal Register notice, (RTC 

AC2), war, combat, and heightened 

threat conditions are determined by the 

Congress or the National Command 

Authorities (NCA), not the U.S. Navy. 

Chapter 1 (Purpose and Need) and RTC 

1–1.7 of the Final EIS identify the NCA 

as the President and the Secretary of 

Defense (or their duly designated 

alternates or successors), as assisted by 

the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. 

Since these determinations are not made 

by the Navy, both the application and 

the Navy’s Draft and Final EISs and 

SEISs are specifically limited to 

employment of the SURTASS LFA 

sonar during training, testing, and 

routine military operations and will not 

cover use of the SURTASS LFA sonar 

system in self-defense, in times of war, 

combat, or heightened threat conditions. 

Affected Marine Mammal Species 

In its Final SEIS and Final EIS and 

application, the Navy excluded from 

incidental take consideration marine 

mammal species that do not inhabit the 

areas in which SURTASS LFA sonar 

would operate. Where data were not 

available or were insufficient for one 

species, comparable data for a related 

species were used. Because all species 

of baleen whales produce LF sounds, 

and anatomical evidence strongly 

suggests their inner ears are well 

adapted for LF hearing, all 

balaenopterid species are considered 

sensitive to LF sound and, therefore, at 

risk of harassment or injury from 

exposure to LF sounds. The twelve 

species of baleen whales that may be 

affected by SURTASS LFA sonar are 

blue, fin, minke, Bryde’s, sei, 

humpback, North Atlantic right, North 

Pacific right, southern right, pygmy 

right, bowhead, and gray whales. 

The odontocetes (toothed whales) that 

may be affected because they inhabit the 

deeper, offshore waters where 

SURTASS LFA sonar might operate 

include both the pelagic (oceanic) 

whales and dolphins and those coastal 

species that also occur in deep water 

including harbor porpoise, spectacled 

porpoise, beluga, Stenella spp., Risso’s 

dolphin, rough-toothed dolphin, 

Fraser’s dolphin, northern right-whale 

dolphin, southern right-whale dolphin, 

short-beaked common dolphin, longbeaked common dolphin, very longbeaked common dolphin, 

Lagenorhynchus spp., Cephalorhynchus 

spp., bottlenose dolphin, Dall’s 

porpoise, melon-headed whale, beaked 

whales (Berardius spp., Hyperoodon 

spp., Mesoplodon spp., Cuvier’s beaked 

whale, Shepard’s beaked whale, 

Longman’s beaked whale), killer whale, 

false killer whale, pygmy killer whale, 

sperm whale, dwarf and pygmy sperm 

whales, and short-finned and longfinned pilot whales. 

Potentially affected pinnipeds include 

hooded seal, harbor seal, spotted seal, 

ribbon seal, gray seal, elephant seal, 

Hawaiian monk seal, Mediterranean 

monk seal, northern fur seal, southern 

fur seal (Arctocephalus spp.), harp seal, 

Galapagos sea lion, Japanese sea lion, 

Steller sea lion, California sea lion, 

Australian sea lion, New Zealand sea 

lion, and South American sea lion. 

A description of affected marine 

mammal species, their biology, and the 

criteria used to determine those species 

that have the potential for being taken 

by incidental harassment are provided 

and explained in detail in the Navy 

application and Final SEIS and, 

although not repeated here, are 

considered part of the NMFS’

administrative record for this action. 

Additional information is available at 

the following URL: http:// 

www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars/. Please 

refer to these documents for specific 

information on marine mammal species. 

Effects on Marine Mammals 

To understand the effects of LF noise 

on marine mammals, one must 

understand the fundamentals of 

underwater sound and how the 

SURTASS LFA sonar operates in the 

marine environment. This description 

was provided earlier in this document 

and also by the Navy in Appendix B to 

the Final EIS. 

The effects of underwater noise on 

marine mammals are highly variable, 

and have been categorized by 

Richardson et al. (1995) as follows: (1) 

The noise may be too weak to be heard 

at the location of the animal (i.e. lower 

than the prevailing ambient noise level, 

the hearing threshold of the animal at 

relevant frequencies, or both); (2) the 

noise may be audible but not strong 

enough to elicit any overt behavioral 

response; (3) the noise may elicit 

behavioral reactions of variable 

conspicuousness and variable relevance 

to the well-being of the animal; these 

can range from subtle effects on 

respiration or other behaviors 

(detectable only by statistical analysis) 

to active avoidance reactions; (4) upon 

repeated exposure, animals may exhibit 

diminishing responsiveness (called 

habituation), or disturbance effects may 

persist (most likely with sounds that are 

highly variable in characteristics, 

unpredictable in occurrence, and 

associated with situations that the 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 161 / Tuesday, August 21, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 46883 

animal perceives as a threat); (5) any 

human-made noise that is strong enough 

to be heard has the potential to reduce 

(mask) the ability of marine mammals to 

hear natural sounds at similar 

frequencies, including calls from 

conspecifics, echolocation sounds of 

odontocetes, and environmental sounds 

such as surf noise; and (6) very strong 

sounds have the potential to cause 

temporary or permanent reduction in 

hearing sensitivity, also known as 

threshold shift. In terrestrial mammals, 

and presumably marine mammals, 

received sound levels must far exceed 

the animal’s hearing threshold for there 

to be any temporary threshold shift 

(TTS) in its hearing ability. For transient 

sounds, the sound level necessary to 

cause TTS is inversely related to the 

duration of the sound. As described 

later in this document, received sound 

levels must be even higher for there to 

be risk of permanent hearing 

impairment, or permanent threshold 

shift (PTS). Finally, intense acoustic or 

explosive events (not relevant for this 

activity) may cause trauma to tissues 

associated with organs vital for hearing, 

sound production, respiration and other 

functions. This trauma may include 

minor to severe hemorrhage. Severe 

hemorrhage could lead to death. 

The original analysis of potential 

impacts on marine mammals from 

SURTASS LFA sonar was developed by 

the Navy based on the results of a 

literature review; the Navy’s Low 

Frequency Sound Scientific Research 

Program (LFS SRP) (described later in 

this document); and a complex, 

comprehensive program of underwater 

acoustical modeling. 

To assess the potential impacts on 

marine mammals by the SURTASS LFA 

sonar source operating at a given site, it 

was necessary for the Navy to predict 

the sound field that a given marine 

mammal species could be exposed to 

over time. This is a multi-part process 

involving (1) the ability to measure or 

estimate an animal’s location in space 

and time, (2) the ability to measure or 

estimate the three-dimensional sound 

field at these times and locations, (3) the 

integration of these two data sets into 

the Acoustic Integration Model (AIM) to 

estimate the total acoustic exposure for 

each animal in the modeled population, 

(4) beginning the post-AIM analysis, 

converting the resultant cumulative 

exposures for a modeled population into 

an estimate of the risk from a significant 

disturbance of a biologically important 

behavior, and (5) using a risk continuum 

to convert these estimates of behavioral 

risk into an assessment of risk in terms 

of the level of potential biological 

removal. 

In the post-AIM analysis, as 

mentioned in numbers (4) and (5) above, 

a relationship was developed for 

converting the resultant cumulative 

exposures for a modeled population into 

an estimate of the risk to the entire 

population of a significant disruption of 

a biologically important behavior and of 

injury. This process assessed risk in 

relation to received level (RL) and 

repeated exposure. The resultant risk 

continuum is based on the assumption 

that the threshold of risk is variable and 

occurs over a range of conditions rather 

than at a single threshold. Taken 

together, the LFS SRP results, the 

acoustic propagation modeling, and the 

risk assessment provide an estimate of 

potential environmental impacts to 

marine mammals. The results of 4 years 

of monitoring (2002–2006) onboard the 

two SURTASS LFA sonar vessels 

support the use of this methodology. 

The acoustic propagation modeling 

was accomplished using the Navy’s 

standard acoustical performance 

prediction transmission loss modelParabolic Equation (PE) version 3.4. The 

results of this model are the primary 

input to the AIM. AIM was used to 

estimate marine mammal sound 

exposures. It integrates simulated 

movements (including dive patterns) of 

marine mammals, a schedule of 

SURTASS LFA sonar transmissions, and 

the predicted sound field for each 

transmission to estimate acoustic 

exposure during a hypothetical 

SURTASS LFA sonar operation. 

Description of the PE and AIM models, 

including AIM input parameters for 

animal movement, diving behavior, and 

marine mammal distribution, 

abundance, and density, are described 

in detail in the original Navy 

application and the Final EIS (see box, 

page 4.2–11) and are not discussed 

further in this document. 

The same analytical methodology 

utilized in the application for the first 

5-year rule and LOAs was utilized to 

provide reasonable and realistic 

estimates of the potential effects to 

marine mammals specific to the 

potential mission areas as presented in 

the application. Information on how the 

density and stock/abundance estimates 

are derived for the selected mission sites 

is in the Navy’s application. These data 

are derived from current, published 

source documentation, and provide 

general area information for each 

mission area with species-specific 

information on the animals that could 

occur in that area, including estimates 

for their stock abundance and density. 

Although this rule uses the same 

analysis that was used for the 2002–

2007 rule, the AIM analysis is 

continuously updated with new marine 

mammal biological data (behavior, 

distribution, abundance and density) 

whenever new information becomes 

available. It was recently independently 

reviewed by a panel of experts in 

mathematics, modeling, acoustics, and 

marine mammalogy convened by 

NMFS’ Center for Independent Experts 

(CIE). The task of the Panel was to 

evaluate whether AIM correctly 

implements the models and data on 

which it is based; whether animal 

movements are correctly implemented; 

and whether AIM meets the Council for 

Regulatory Environmental Monitoring 

(CREM) guidelines. As stated in their 

Report on AIM, the CIE Panel agreed 

that: (1) AIM appears to be correctly 

implemented; (2) the animal movement 

appears to be appropriately modeled; 

and (3) the principles of credible 

science had been addressed during the 

development of AIM and that AIM is a 

useful and credible tool for developing 

application models. A copy of the CIE 

report is available (see ADDRESSES). 

During the analytical process in the 

Final EIS, the Navy developed 31 

acoustic modeling scenarios for the 

major ocean regions. Locations were 

selected by the Navy to represent the 

greatest potential effects for each of the 

three major ocean acoustic regimes 

where SURTASS LFA sonar could 

potentially be used. These acoustic 

regimes were: (1) Deep-water 

convergence zone propagation, (2) near 

surface duct propagation, and (3) 

shallow water bottom interaction 

propagation. These sites were selected 

to model the greatest potential for 

effects from the use of SURTASS LFA 

sonar incorporating the following 

factors: (1) Closest plausible proximity 

to land (from SURTASS LFA sonar 

operations standpoint), and/or offshore 

biologically important areas (OBIAs) 

where biological densities are higher, 

particularly for animals most likely to 

be affected; (2) acoustic propagation 

conditions that allow minimum 

propagation loss, or transmission loss 

(TL) (i.e., longest acoustic transmission 

ranges); and (3) time of year selected for 

maximum animal abundance. These 

sites represent the upper bound of 

impacts (both in terms of possible 

acoustic propagation conditions, and in 

terms of marine mammal population 

and density) that can be expected from 

operation of the SURTASS LFA sonar 

system. Thus, if SURTASS LFA sonar 

operations are conducted in an area that 

was not acoustically modeled in the 

Final EIS, the potential effects would 

most likely be less than those analyzed 

for the most similar site in the analyses. 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with RULES3
46884 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 161 / Tuesday, August 21, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

The assumptions of the Final EIS are 

still valid and there are no new data to 

contradict the conclusions made in the 

Potential Impacts on Marine Mammals 

(Chapter 4) in the Final EIS. The chapter 

on impacts to marine mammals was 

incorporated by reference into the 

Navy’s Final SEIS. 

LFS SRP 

The goal of the 1997–1998 LFS SRP 

was to demonstrate the avoidance 

reaction of sensitive marine mammal 

species during critical biologically 

important behavior to the low frequency 

underwater sound produced by the LFA 

sonar system. Testing was conducted in 

three phases as summarized here from 

Clark et al. (1999). 

Phase I was conducted in September 

through October 1997. The objective of 

Phase I was to determine whether 

exposure to low frequency sounds 

elicited disturbance reactions from 

feeding blue and fin whales. The goal 

was to characterize how whale reactions 

to the sounds vary, depending on: (1) 

The received level of the sound; (2) 

changes in the received level; and (3) 

whether the system was operating at a 

relatively constant distance or 

approaching the whale. Full and 

reduced LFA sonar source power 

transmissions were used. The highest 

received levels at the animals were 

estimated to be 148 to 155 dB. In 19 

focal animal observations (4 blue and 15 

fin whales), no overt behavioral 

responses were observed. No changes in 

whale distribution could be related to 

LFA sonar operations, and whale the 

distributions correlated with the 

distribution of food. 

Phase II was conducted in January 

1998. The objectives were to quantify 

responses of migrating gray whales to 

low frequency sound signals, compare 

whale responses to different RLs, 

determine whether whales respond 

more strongly to RL, sound gradient, or 

distance from the source, and to 

compare whale avoidance responses to 

an LF source in the center of the 

migration corridor versus in the offshore 

portion of the migration corridor. A 

single source was used to broadcast LFA 

sonar sounds up to 200 dB. Whales 

showed some avoidance responses 

when the source was moored 1 mi (1.8 

km) offshore, in the migration path, but 

returned to their migration path when 

they were a few kilometers from the 

source. When the source was moored 2 

mi (3.7 km) offshore, responses were 

much less, even when the source level 

was increased to 200 dB, to achieve the 

same RL for most whales in the middle 

of the migration corridor. Also, offshore 

whales did not seem to avoid the louder 

offshore source. 

Phase III was conducted from 

February to March 1998. The objectives 

were to assess the potential effects of 

LFA sonar signals on behavior, 

vocalization and movement of 

humpback whales off the Kona coast in 

Hawaii. The maximum exposure levels 

in this phase were as high as 152 dB. 

Approximately half of the whales 

observed visually ceased their song 

during the transmissions, but many of 

them did so while joining a group of 

whales, which is the time that singing 

whales usually stop their songs 

naturally. All singers who interrupted 

their songs were observed to resume 

singing within tens of minutes. The 

analysis of one data set showed that 

whales increased their song lengths 

during LFA sonar transmissions, but a 

second analysis indicated that song 

length changes were more complicated 

and depended on the portion of the song 

that was overlapped by LFA sonar 

transmissions. Overall patterns of singer 

and cow-calf abundance were the same 

throughout the experiments as they had 

been during several years of prior study. 

Risk Analysis 

To determine the potential impacts 

that exposure to LF sound from 

SURTASS LFA sonar operations could 

have on marine mammals, biological 

risk standards were defined by the Navy 

with associated measurement 

parameters. Based on the MMPA, the 

potential for biological risk was defined 

as the probability for injury (Level A) or 

behavioral (Level B) harassment of 

marine mammals. In this analysis, 

behavioral (Level B) harassment is 

defined as a significant disturbance in a 

biologically important behavior (also 

referred to as a biologically significant 

response). NMFS believes that this is 

equivalent to the MMPA definition of 

Level B harassment for military 

readiness activities. The potential for 

biological risk is a function of an 

animal’s exposure to a sound that would 

potentially cause hearing, behavioral, 

psychological or physiological effects. 

The measurement parameters for 

determining exposure were RLs in dB, 

the pulse repetition interval (time 

between pings), and the number of 

pings received. 

Before the biological risk standards 

could be applied to realistic SURTASS 

LFA sonar operational scenarios, two 

factors had to be considered by the 

Navy: (1) How does risk vary with 

repeated sound exposure? and (2) how 

does risk vary with RL? The Navy 

addressed these questions by 

developing a function that translates the 

history of repeated exposures (as 

calculated in the AIM) into an 

equivalent RL for a single exposure with 

a comparable risk. This dual-question 

method is similar to those adopted by 

previous studies of risk to human 

hearing (Richardson et al., 1995; 

Crocker, 1997). 

It is intuitive to assume that effects on 

marine mammals would be greater with 

repeated exposures than for a single 

ping. However, no published data on 

repeated exposures of LF sound on 

marine mammals exist. Based on 

discussions in Richardson et al. (1995) 

and consistent with Crocker (1997), the 

Navy determined that the best scientific 

information available is based on the 

potential for effects of repeated 

exposure on human models. 

The formula L + 5 log10(N) (where L 

= ping level in dB and N is the number 

of pings) defines the single ping 

equivalent (SPE). This formula is 

considered appropriate for assessing the 

risk to a marine mammal of a significant 

disturbance of a biologically important 

behavior from LF sound like SURTASS 

LFA sonar transmissions. 

Behavioral Harassment 

For reasons explained in detail in the 

Final EIS (Section 4.2.5), the Navy 

interpreted the results of the LFS SRP to 

support use of unlimited exposure to 

119 dB during an LFA sonar mission as 

the lowest value for risk. Below this 

level, the risk of a biologically 

significant behavioral response from 

marine mammals approaches zero. It is 

important to note that risk varies with 

both received level and number of 

exposures. 

Because the LFS SRP did not 

document a biologically significant 

response at maximum RLs up to 150 dB, 

the Navy determined there was a 2.5- 

percent risk of an animal incurring a 

disruption of biologically important 

behavior at an SPL of 150 dB, a 50- 

percent risk at 165 dB, and a 95-percent 

risk at 180 dB. For more detailed 

information, see Chapter 4.2.5 of the 

Final EIS and Navy’s Technical Report 

#1 (Navy, 2001). The Navy used this risk 

continuum analysis as an alternative to 

an all-or-nothing use of standard 

thresholds for the onset of behavioral 

change or injury. NMFS has reviewed 

and agrees with this approach. The 

subsequent discussion of risk function 

emphasizes the advantages of using a 

smoothly varying model of biological 

risk in relation to sound exposure. 

These results are analogous to doseresponse curves that are accepted as the 

best practice in disciplines such as 

epidemiology, toxicology, and 

pharmacology. 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 161 / Tuesday, August 21, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 46885 

Changes in Hearing Sensitivity 

In NMFS’s 2002 rule, NMFS and the 

Navy based their estimate of take by 

injury or the significant potential for 

such take (Level A harassment) on the 

criterion of 180 dB. NMFS continues to 

believe this is a scientifically 

supportable value for preventing 

auditory injury or the significant 

potential for such injury (Level A 

harassment), as it represents a value less 

than where the potential onset of a 

minor TTS in hearing might occur based 

on Schlundt et al. (2000) research (see 

Navy Final Comprehensive Report 

Tables 5 through 8). Also, an SPL of 180 

dB is considered a scientifically 

supportable level for preventing 

auditory injury because there is general 

scientific agreement with NMFS’s 

position that TTS is not an injury (i.e., 

does not result in tissue damage), but 

rather a temporary impairment to 

hearing (i.e., results in an increased 

elevation or decreased sensitivity in 

hearing) that may last for a few minutes 

to a few days, depending upon the level 

and duration of exposure. In addition, 

there is no evidence that TTS would 

occur in marine mammals at an SPL of 

180 dB. In fact, Schlundt et al. (2000) 

indicates that onset TTS for at least 

some species occurs at significantly 

higher SPLs. 

Schlundt et al.’s (2000) measurement 

with bottlenose dolphins and belugas at 

1-second signal duration implies that 

the TTS threshold for a 100-second 

signal would be approximately 184 dB 

(Table 1–4, Final EIS). For the 400-Hz 

signal, Schlundt et al. found no TTS at 

193 dB, the highest level of exposure. 

Therefore, NMFS believes that 

establishing onset TTS as the upper 

bound of Level B harassment, but using 

180 dB as the beginning of the zone for 

establishing mitigation measures to 

prevent auditory injury, is warranted by 

the science. 

With three levels of mitigation 

monitoring for detecting marine 

mammals (described later in this 

document), NMFS and the Navy believe 

it is unlikely that any marine mammal 

would be exposed to received levels of 

180 dB before being detected and the 

SURTASS LFA sonar shut down. 

However, because the probability is not 

zero, the Navy has included Level A 

harassment in its authorization request. 

Unlike with behavioral responses, an 

‘‘injury continuum’’ is not necessary 

because of the very low numbers of 

individual marine mammals that could 

potentially experience high received 

sound levels, and the high level of 

effectiveness of the monitoring and 

shutdown protocols. For this action, all 

marine mammals exposed to an SPL of 

180 dB or above are considered to be 

injured even though the best scientific 

data available indicate a marine 

mammal would need to receive an SPL 

significantly higher than 180 dB to be 

injured. 

When SURTASS LFA sonar transmits, 

there is a boundary that encloses a 

volume of water where received levels 

equal or exceed 180 dB, and a volume 

of water outside this boundary where 

received levels are below 180 dB. In this 

analysis, the 180-dB SPL boundary is 

emphasized because it represents a 

single-ping RL that is a scientifically 

supportable estimate for the potential 

onset of injury. Therefore, the level of 

risk for marine mammals depends on 

their location in relation to SURTASS 

LFA sonar. Under this rule, a marine 

mammal would have to receive one ping 

greater than or equal to 180 dB to be 

considered to have been injured or have 

the potential to incur an injury. 

Although TTS is not considered Level 

A harassment, PTS is considered Level 

A harassment. The onset of PTS for 

marine mammals may be 15–20 dB 

above TTS levels. However, mitigation 

measures, such as mitigation zones and 

shutdown protocols, are required where 

there is the potential for a marine 

mammal to incur TTS so as to prevent 

an animal from incurring a PTS. 

Potential for Non-Auditory Injury 

Since the release of the Final EIS, an 

investigation by Cudahy and Ellison 

(2002) hypothesized that the threshold 

for in vivo tissue damage (including 

lung damage and hemorrhaging) from 

LF sound can be on the order of 180 to 

190 dB. Balance and equilibrium could 

be affected, but may not result in injury. 

These effects are based on studies of 

humans. Vestibular (balance and 

equilibrium) function was investigated 

by the Navy during its Diver’s Study 

and the results reported in LFS SRP 

Technical Report 3. Measurable 

performance decrements in vestibular 

function were observed for guinea pigs 

using 160 dB SPL signals at lung 

resonance and 190 dB SPL signals at 

500 Hz. Because guinea pigs are not 

aquatic species, like humans, they are 

not as robust to pressure changes as 

marine mammals and, therefore, are 

likely more susceptible to injury at 

lower SPLs than marine mammals. 

Presently, there is controversy among 

researchers over whether marine 

mammals can suffer from 

decompression sickness. It is theorized 

that this may be caused by diving and 

then surfacing too quickly, forcing 

nitrogen bubbles to form in the 

bloodstream and tissues. Cox et al. 

(2006) stated that gas-bubble disease, 

induced in supersaturated tissues by a 

behavioral response to acoustic 

exposure, is a plausible pathologic 

mechanism for the morbidity and 

mortality seen in cetaceans associated 

with sonar exposure. The authors also 

stated that it is premature to judge 

acoustically mediated bubble growth as 

a potential mechanism and 

recommended further studies to 

investigate the possibility. 

As stated in Crum and Mao (1996) 

and as discussed in the Final EIS (pages 

10–137) and the Final SEIS (pages 4–

31), researchers hypothesized that RLs 

would have to exceed 190 dB for there 

to be the possibility of non-auditory 

trauma due to supersaturation of gases 

in the blood. Such non-auditory traumas 

are not expected to occur from sound 

exposure below SPLs of 180 dB. 

In light of the high detection rate of 

the high-frequency marine mammal 

monitoring (HF/M3) sonar, ensuring 

required SURTASS LFA sonar 

shutdown when any marine mammal 

approaches or enters the 180-dB 

isopleth from LFA sonar, the risks of 

these traumas to a marine mammal 

approach zero. 

Additional research published in the 

peer-reviewed journal Ultrasound in 

Medicine and Biology supports the 180- 

dB criterion for injury as being a 

scientifically supportable level for 

assessing potential non-auditory injury 

to marine mammals (Laurer et al., 2002). 

Laurer et al. (2002) exposed rats to 5 

minutes of continuous high-intensity, 

low-frequency (underwater) sound (HILFS) either at 180 dB SPL re 1 μPa at 

150 Hz or 194 dB SPL re 1 μPa at 250 

Hz, and found no overt histological 

damage in brains of any group. Also, 

blood gases, heart rate, and main arterial 

blood pressure were not significantly 

influenced by HI-LFS, suggesting that 

there was no pulmonary dysfunction 

due to exposure. This published paper 

was based on work performed in 

support of Technical Report #3 of the 

SURTASS LFA sonar Final EIS. 

Strandings 

Marine mammal strandings are not a 

rare occurrence in nature. The Cetacean 

Stranding Database (http:// 

www.legaard.org/strandings/index.html 

formerly http://www.strandings.net) 

registered over one hundred strandings 

worldwide in 2004. However, mass 

strandings, particularly multi-species 

mass strandings, are relatively rare. 

Acoustic systems are becoming 

increasingly implicated in marine 

mammal strandings. In particular, a 

number of mass strandings have been 

linked to mid-frequency sonars (see, e.g. 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with RULES3
46886 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 161 / Tuesday, August 21, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

Joint Interim Report on the Bahamas 

Marine Mammal Stranding Event of 15–

16 March 2000, DOC and DON, 2001). 

Many theories exist as to why noise may 

be a factor in marine mammal 

strandings. It is theorized that marine 

mammals become disoriented, or that 

the sound forces them to surface too 

quickly, which may cause symptoms 

similar to decompression sickness, or 

that they are physically injured by the 

sound pressure. The biological 

mechanisms for effects that lead to 

strandings must be determined through 

scientific research. 

There is no record of SURTASS LFA 

sonar ever being implicated in any 

stranding event since LFA sonar 

prototype systems were first operated in 

the late 1980s. Moreover, the system 

acoustic characteristics differ between 

LF and mid-frequency (MF) sonars: LFA 

sonars use frequencies generally below 

1,000 Hz, with relatively long signals 

(pulses) on the order of 60 sec; while 

MF sonars use frequencies greater than 

1,000 Hz, with relatively short signals 

on the order of 1 sec. Cox et al. (2006) 

provided a summary of common 

features shared by the strandings events 

in Greece (1996), Bahamas (2000), and 

Canary Islands (2002). These included 

operation of MF sonar, deep water close 

to land (such as offshore canyons), 

presence of an acoustic waveguide 

(surface duct conditions), and periodic 

sequences of transient pulses (i.e., rapid 

onset and decay times) generated at 

depths less than 10 m (32.8 ft) by sound 

sources moving at speeds of 2.6 m/s (5.1 

knots) or more during sonar operations 

(D’Spain et al., 2006). These features do 

not relate to LFA sonar operations. First, 

no MF-sonar component will be in 

operation. Second, the SURTASS LFA 

sonar vessel operates with a horizontal 

line array of 1,500 m (4,921 ft) length at 

depths below 150 m (492 ft) and a 

vertical line array (LFA sonar source) at 

depths greater than 100 m (328 ft). 

Third, operations are limited by 

mitigation protocols to at least 22 km 

(12 nm) offshore. For these reasons, 

SURTASS LFA sonar cannot be 

operated in deep water that is close to 

land. Also, the LFA sonar signal is 

transmitted at depths well below 10 m 

(32.8 ft), and the vessel has a slow speed 

of advance of 1.5 m/s (3 knots). 

While there was an LF component in 

the Greek stranding in 1996, only midfrequency components were present in 

the strandings in the Bahamas in 2000, 

Madeira 2000, and Canaries in 2002. 

This supports the conclusion that the LF 

component in the Greek stranding was 

not causative (ICES, 2005; Cox et al., 

2006). In its discussion of the Bahamas 

stranding, Cox et al. (2006) stated: ‘‘The 

event raised the question of whether the 

mid-frequency component of the sonar 

in Greece in 1996 was implicated in the 

stranding, rather than the low-frequency 

component proposed by Frantzis 

(1998).’’ The ICES in its ‘‘Report of the 

Ad-Hoc Group on the Impacts of Sonar 

on Cetaceans and Fish’’ raised the same 

issues as Cox et al., stating that the 

consistent association of MF sonar in 

the Bahamas, Madeira, and Canary 

Islands strandings suggests that it was 

the MF component, not the LF 

component, in the NATO sonar that 

triggered the Greek stranding of 1996 

(ICES, 2005). The ICES (2005) report 

concluded that no strandings, injury, or 

major behavioral changes have been 

associated with the exclusive use of LF 

sonar. 

Beaked whales have been the subject 

of particular concern in connection with 

strandings. Like most odontocetes, they 

have relatively sharply decreasing 

hearing sensitivity below 2 kHz (Cook et 

al. (2006), Richardson et al. (1995) and 

Finneran et al. (2002)). The SURTASS 

LFA sonar source frequency is below 

500 Hz. If a cetacean cannot hear a 

sound or hears it poorly, the sound is 

unlikely to have a significant behavioral 

impact (Ketten, 2001). Therefore, it is 

unlikely that LF transmissions from 

LFA sonar would induce behavioral 

reactions from animals that have poor 

LF hearing. Though highly unlikely, the 

sounds could damage tissues even if the 

animal does not hear the sound, but this 

would have to be within 1,000 m (3,280 

ft) of the array, where detection would 

be very likely, triggering shutdown. 

Estimates of Potential Effects on Marine 

Mammals 

The effects on marine mammals from 

operation of SURTASS LFA sonar will 

not be the lethal removal of animals. In 

addition, while possible, Level A 

harassment, if it occurs at all, is 

expected to be so minimal as to have no 

effect on rates of reproduction or 

survival of affected marine mammal 

species. Based on AIM modeling results, 

the primary effects would be the 

potential for Level B harassment. The 

Final SEIS Subchapter 4.4 provides the 

risk assessment methodology applied to 

SURTASS LFA sonar operations for the 

annual LOA applications for proposed 

operational areas. 

Tables 4.4–2 through 4.4–10 in the 

Final SEIS provide, through a case study 

based on the results of the Navy’s 2005–

2006 LOA, estimates of the percentage 

of stocks potentially affected for 

SURTASS LFA sonar operations, which 

are based on reasonable and realistic 

estimates of the potential effects to 

marine mammal stocks specific to the 

potential mission areas. Also, Tables 5 

through 8 in the Navy’s Final 

Comprehensive Report for the 2002–

2007 rule provide annual total estimates 

of percentages of marine mammal stocks 

potentially affected annually during the 

first four years of LFA sonar operations, 

based on actual operations during the 

period of the LOAs. 

The scenarios chosen by the Navy are 

not the only possible combinations of 

areas where the SURTASS LFA sonar 

will operate. The potential effects from 

other scenarios can be estimated by 

making a best prediction of the areas in 

which the Navy would conduct 

SURTASS LFA sonar operations 

annually in each oceanic basin area, 

determining from Tables 4.4–2 through 

4.4–10 in the Final SEIS the percentage 

of each stock that may potentially be 

affected, and adding those percentages 

together for each affected stock. Tables 

5–8 in the Navy’s Comprehensive 

Report indicate that annually Level B 

harassment may affect 0 to 6 percent for 

most marine mammal stocks, rising to 

just over 11 percent annually for other 

species (e.g., common dolphins (6.4 

percent), Risso’s dolphins (6–8 percent), 

short-finned pilot whales (6 to 9 

percent), false killer whales (5 to 10 

percent), Pacific white-sided dolphins 

(6 to 11 percent) and melon-headed 

whales (11.2 percent)). 

Also, using updated modeling where 

appropriate, the Navy will rerun AIM 

when planning missions and, if 

necessary, modify annual LOA requests 

with an analysis of take estimates prior 

to any mission in a new/different area. 

For this rule, NMFS is adopting the 

Navy estimates shown in Final SEIS 

(Tables 4.4–2 through 4.4–10) as the 

best scientific information currently 

available. 

As with the 2002 rule, Navy will limit 

operation of LFA sonar to ensure no 

stocks will be subject to more than 12 

percent of takes (by Level B harassment) 

annually, although most stocks are 

estimated to incur a lower percentage of 

takes. This per-stock cap applies 

regardless of the number of ships 

operating with LFA sonar or the overall 

increased number of hours of LFA sonar 

operations. The Navy will use the 12 

percent take cap to guide its mission 

planning and annual LOA applications. 

Mitigation for Marine Mammals 

NMFS is requiring the same visual, 

passive acoustic, and active acoustic 

monitoring of the area surrounding the 

SURTASS LFA sonar array, as required 

for the current 2002–2007 rule and 

LOAs, to prevent the incidental injury 

of marine mammals that might enter the 

180-dB isopleth from the SURTASS 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 161 / Tuesday, August 21, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 46887 

LFA sonar. These three monitoring 

systems are described in the next 

section of this document. NMFS has 

implemented the same protocols as in 

the 2002–2007 rule. Prior to each active 

sonar exercise, the distance from the 

SURTASS LFA sonar source to the 180- 

dB isopleth will be determined. If, 

through monitoring, a marine mammal 

is detected within the 180-dB isopleth, 

the Navy proposes to shut down or 

immediately suspend SURTASS LFA 

sonar transmissions. Transmissions may 

commence/resume 15 minutes after the 

marine mammal has left the area of the 

180-dB isopleth or there is no further 

detection of the animal within the 180- 

dB isopleth. The protocol established by 

the Navy for implementing this 

temporary shut-down is described in the 

application. As an added safety 

measure, NMFS is again requiring a 

‘‘buffer zone’’ extending an additional 1 

km (0.54 nm) beyond the 180-dB 

isopleth. This 180-dB plus 1 km (0.54 

nm) distance will be the established 

mitigation zone for that exercise. If a 

marine mammal is detected by the HF/ 

M3 sonar, the SURTASS LFA sonar will 

be either turned off or not turned on. 

This is an effective mitigation measure 

since testing of the HF/M3 sonar 

indicates effective levels of detection up 

to 2 km (1.1 nm). At 2 km (1.1 nm), the 

SPL from the SURTASS LFA sonar will 

be approximately 174 dB, significantly 

below the 180 dB threshold for 

estimating onset of injury. SURTASS 

LFA sonar operators would be required 

to estimate SPLs before and during each 

operation to provide the information 

necessary to modify the operation, 

including delay or suspension of 

transmissions, so as not to exceed the 

mitigation sound field criteria. 

In addition to establishing a 

mitigation zone at 180 dB plus 1 km 

(0.54 nm) to protect marine mammals, 

the Navy has established a mitigation 

zone for human divers at 145 dB re 1 

microPa(rms) around all known human 

commercial and recreational diving 

sites. Although this geographic 

restriction is intended to protect human 

divers, it will also reduce the LF sound 

levels received by marine mammals 

located in the vicinity of known dive 

sites. 

The Navy also recommended 

establishing OBIAs for marine mammal 

protection in its Final EIS and SEIS. The 

Navy evaluated nine sites in its Final 

EIS and SEIS where marine animals of 

concern (marine animals listed under 

the ESA and other marine mammals) 

congregate to carry out biologically 

important activities. 

Based on the Navy’s evaluation, 

NMFS has designated these nine sites as 

OBIAs for LFA sonar. The nine areas 

are: (1) The North American East Coast 

between 28° N. and 50° N. from west of 

40° W. to the 200-m (656-ft) isobath 

year-round; (2) the Antarctic 

Convergence Zone, from 30° E. to 80° E. 

to 45° S., from 80° E. to 150° E. to 55° 

S., from 150° E. to 50° W. to 60° S., from 

50° W to 30° E. to 55° S. from October 

through March; (3) the Costa Rica Dome, 

centered at 9° N. and 88° W., yearround; (4) Hawaiian Islands Humpback 

Whale National Marine SanctuaryPenguin Bank, centered at 21° N. and 

157° 30′ W. from November 1 through 

May 1; (5) Cordell Bank National Marine 

Sanctuary, boundaries in accordance 15 

CFR 922.110 year-round; (6) Gulf of the 

Farallones National Marine Sanctuary, 

boundaries in accordance 15 CFR 

922.80 year-round; (7) Monterey Bay 

National Marine Sanctuary, boundaries 

in accordance with 15 CFR 922.30 yearround; (8) Olympic Coast National 

Marine Sanctuary, boundaries within 23 

nm of the coast from 47°07′ N. to 48°30′ 

N. latitude in December, January, 

March, and May; and (9) Flower Garden 

Banks National Marine Sanctuary, 

boundaries in accordance with 15 CFR 

922.120 year-round. 

NMFS has also designated an 

additional OBIA that was recommended 

by several commenters on the Draft 

SEIS: The Gully with boundaries at 

44°13′ N., 59°06′ W. to 43°47′ N., 58°35′ 

W. to 43°35′ N., 58°35′ W. to 43°35′ N., 

59°08′ W. to 44°06′ N., 59°20′ W., year 

round. NMFS believes this area is 

biologically important for marine 

mammals, based on its importance as 

habitat for several species of marine 

mammals, particularly the northern 

bottlenose whale. 

NMFS’’ proposed rule solicited public 

comments and information on marine 

mammal distribution, densities, and the 

specific biologically important activities 

that take place in the Northwestern 

Hawaiian Islands to determine whether 

certain areas should be designated as 

OBIAs. We did not receive public 

comment on this issue. Any additional 

OBIA designations would be made 

through a separate rulemaking process. 

NMFS is continuing the system 

established in the 2002–2007 rule for 

expanding the number of OBIAs, as 

described later in this document. While 

retaining the requirement to provide 

notice and an opportunity to comment, 

this final rule eliminates the specific 

length of time for public comment on 

proposed OBIAs. OBIAs are not 

intended to apply to other Navy 

activities and sonar operations, but 

rather as a mitigation measure to reduce 

incidental takings by SURTASS LFA 

sonar. 

These regulations require the Navy to 

refrain from operating the SURTASS 

LFA sonar within any OBIA and 

requires that the SURTASS LFA sonar 

vessel ensures that the 180 dB (re 1 

microPa(rms)) isopleth remains at least 

1 km (0.54 nm) seaward of the outer 

perimeter of the OBIA. 

Marine Mammal Monitoring 

In order to minimize risks to marine 

mammals that may be present in waters 

surrounding SURTASS LFA sonar, 

NMFS is again requiring the Navy to: (1) 

Conduct visual monitoring from the 

ship’s bridge during daylight hours, (2) 

use passive SURTASS sonar to listen for 

vocalizing marine mammals; and (3) use 

high frequency active sonar (i.e., similar 

to a commercial fish finder) to monitor/ 

locate/track marine mammals in relation 

to the SURTASS LFA sonar vessel and 

the sound field produced by the 

SURTASS LFA sonar source array. 

Through observation, acoustic 

tracking and implementation of shutdown criteria, the Navy will ensure, to 

the greatest extent practicable, that no 

marine mammals approach the 

SURTASS LFA sonar source close 

enough to be subjected to potentially 

injurious sound levels (inside the 180- 

dB sound field; approximately 1 km 

(0.54 nm) from the source). In the 

Navy’s Final EIS, as reanalyzed in the 

Final Comprehensive Report for 

SURTASS LFA sonar, the Navy assessed 

mitigation effectiveness. The overall 

effectiveness of detecting a marine 

mammal approaching the 180-dB sound 

field of the source array by at least one 

of these monitoring methods is above 95 

percent. This value is supported by 

analyses of field data in a sampling of 

6 missions between June 2004 and 

February 2006 (see the Navy’s Final 

Comprehensive Report for LFA sonar). 

The results of the visual, passive, and 

active monitoring for each LOA are 

discussed in the Annual Reports (most 

recently, Annual Report 5, 2007, 

Chapter 4). Mitigation effectiveness is 

described in Chapter 4 for the Final 

Comprehensive Report (2007) and in the 

Annual Reports. 

Visual monitoring consists of daylight 

observations for marine mammals from 

the vessel. Daylight is defined as 30 

minutes before sunrise until 30 minutes 

after sunset. Visual monitoring would 

begin 30 minutes before sunrise or 30 

minutes before the SURTASS LFA sonar 

is deployed. Monitoring would continue 

until 30 minutes after sunset or until the 

SURTASS LFA sonar is recovered. 

Observations will be made by personnel 

trained in detecting and identifying 

marine mammals. Marine mammal 

biologists qualified in conducting at-sea 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with RULES3
46888 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 161 / Tuesday, August 21, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

marine mammal visual monitoring from 

surface vessels train and qualify 

designated ship personnel to conduct atsea visual monitoring. The objective of 

these observations is to maintain a track 

of marine mammals observed and to 

ensure that none approach the source 

close enough to enter the LFA sonar 

mitigation zone (including the buffer 

zone). 

These personnel would maintain a 

topside watch and marine mammal 

observation log during operations that 

employ SURTASS LFA sonar in the 

active mode. The numbers and 

identification of marine mammals 

sighted, as well as any unusual 

behavior, will be entered into the log. A 

designated ship’s officer will monitor 

the conduct of the visual watches and 

periodically review the log entries. 

There are two potential visual 

monitoring scenarios. 

First, if a marine mammal is sighted 

outside of the LFA sonar mitigation 

zone, the observer will notify the 

Officer-in-Charge (OIC). The OIC then 

notifies the HF/M3 sonar operator to 

determine the range and projected track 

of the animal. If it is determined the 

animal will enter the LFA sonar 

mitigation zone, the OIC will order the 

delay or suspension of SURTASS LFA 

sonar transmissions when the animal 

enters the LFA sonar mitigation zone. 

Second, if the animal is visually 

observed within the mitigation zone, the 

OIC will order the immediate delay or 

suspension of SURTASS LFA sonar 

transmissions. The observer will 

continue visual monitoring/recording 

until the animal is no longer seen. 

Passive acoustic monitoring is 

conducted when SURTASS is deployed, 

using the SURTASS towed horizontal 

line array to listen for vocalizing marine 

mammals as an indicator of their 

presence. If the sound is estimated to be 

from a marine mammal that may be in 

the SURTASS LFA sonar mitigation 

zone, the technician will notify the OIC 

who will alert the HF/M3 sonar operator 

and visual observers. If a marine 

mammal is detected within or 

approaching the mitigation zone prior to 

or during transmissions, the OIC will 

order the delay or suspension of 

SURTASS LFA sonar transmissions. 

HF-active acoustic monitoring uses 

the HF/M3 sonar to detect, locate, and 

track marine mammals that could pass 

close enough to the SURTASS LFA 

sonar array to enter the LFA sonar 

mitigation zone. HF acoustic monitoring 

will begin 30 minutes before the first 

SURTASS LFA sonar transmission of a 

given mission is scheduled to 

commence and continue until 

transmissions are terminated. Prior to 

full-power operations, the HF/M3 sonar 

power level is ramped up over a period 

of 5 min from 180 dB SL in 10-dB 

increments until full power (if required) 

is attained to ensure that there are no 

inadvertent exposures of local animals 

to RLs greater than 180 dB from the HF/ 

M3 sonar. There are two potential 

scenarios for mitigation via active 

acoustic monitoring. 

First, if a ‘‘contact’’ is detected 

outside the LFA sonar mitigation zone, 

the HF/M3 sonar operator determines 

the range and projected track of the 

animal. If it is determined that the 

animal will enter the LFA sonar 

mitigation zone, the sonar operator 

notifies the OIC. The OIC then orders 

the delay or suspension of transmissions 

when the animal is predicted to enter 

the LFA sonar mitigation zone. If a 

contact is detected by the HF/M3 sonar 

within the LFA sonar mitigation zone, 

the observer notifies the OIC who 

promptly orders the immediate delay or 

suspension of transmissions. 

All contacts will be recorded in the 

log and provided as part of the LongTerm Monitoring (LTM) Program to 

monitor for potential long-term 

environmental effects. 

Research 

The Navy spends approximately $10 

to 14 million annually on marine 

mammal research programs. These 

research programs provide a means of 

learning about potential effects of 

anthropogenic underwater sound on 

marine mammals (including long-term) 

and ways to mitigate potential effects. 

During the first 4 years of LFA sonar 

operations, the Navy conducted 

research on several research areas. Table 

9 in the Navy’s Final Comprehensive 

Report for SURTASS LFA sonar 

provides the status of the research that 

is planned or underway. 

NMFS is requiring the Navy to 

continue researching the impacts of LF 

sounds on marine mammals to 

supplement its monitoring and increase 

knowledge of the species, and 

coordinate with others on additional 

research opportunities and activities. 

This includes cumulative impact 

analyses of the annual takes of marine 

mammals over the next 5 years and the 

continuation of scientific data collection 

during SURTASS LFA sonar operations. 

NMFS recommends that the Navy 

conduct, or continue to conduct, the 

following research regarding SURTASS 

LFA sonar over the second 5-year 

authorization period: 

1. Systematically observe SURTASS 

LFA sonar training exercises for injured 

or disabled marine mammals. 

2. Compare the effectiveness of the 

three forms of mitigation (visual, 

passive acoustic, HF/M3 sonar). 

3. Conduct research on the responses 

of deep-diving odontocete whales to LFsonar signals. These species are believed 

to be less sensitive to LF-sonar sounds 

than the species studied prior to the LFS 

SRP. However, enough questions exist 

that these species should be studied 

further. The Navy has applied for a 

Scientific Research Permit under section 

104 of the MMPA to conduct a 

behavioral response study on deepdiving cetacean species exposed to 

natural and artificial underwater sounds 

and quantify exposure conditions 

associated with various effects (72 FR 

19181, April 17, 2007). 

4. Conduct research on the habitat 

preferences of beaked whales. 

5. Conduct passive acoustic 

monitoring using bottom-mounted 

hydrophones before, during, and after 

LF sonar operations for the possible 

silencing of calls of large whales. 

6. Continue to evaluate the HF/M3 

mitigation sonar. This is the primary 

means of mitigation, and its efficacy 

must continue to be demonstrated. 

7. Continue to evaluate improvements 

in passive sonar capabilities. 

Reporting 

During routine operations of 

SURTASS LFA sonar, technical and 

environmental data would be collected 

and recorded, which, along with 

research, are part of the Navy’s LTM 

Program. These would include data 

from visual and acoustic monitoring, 

ocean environmental measurements, 

and technical operational inputs. 

First, a mission report would be 

provided to NMFS on a quarterly basis, 

with the report including all activemode missions completed 30 days or 

more prior to the date of the deadline 

for the report. Second, the Navy would 

submit an annual report no later than 45 

days after expiration of an LOA. Third, 

the Navy would submit a Final 

Comprehensive Report at least 240 days 

prior to expiration of these regulations. 

These reports are summarized here. 

Quarterly Report—On a quarterly 

basis, the Navy would provide NMFS 

with a classified report that includes all 

active-mode missions completed 30 

days or more prior to the date of the 

deadline for the report. The Navy must 

submit its quarterly mission reports to 

NMFS, no later than 30 days after the 

end of each quarter beginning on the 

date of effectiveness of an LOA or as 

specified in the appropriate LOA. 

Specifically, these reports will include 

dates/times of exercises, location of 

vessel, LOA province (as set forth in 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 161 / Tuesday, August 21, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 46889 

Longhurst (1998)), location of the 

mitigation zone in relation to the LFA 

sonar array, marine mammal 

observations, and records of any delays 

or suspensions of operations. Marine 

mammal observations would include 

animal type and/or species, number of 

animals sighted by species, date and 

time of observations, type of detection 

(visual, passive acoustic, HF/M3 sonar), 

the animal’s bearing and range from 

vessel, behavior, and remarks/narrative 

(as necessary). The report would 

include the Navy’s analysis of whether 

any Level A and/or Level B harassment 

taking occurred within the SURTASS 

LFA sonar 180-dB and 1 km (0.54 nm) 

mitigation zone and, if so, estimates of 

the percentage of marine mammal 

stocks affected (both for the quarter and 

cumulatively (to date) for the year 

covered by the LOA) by SURTASS LFA 

sonar operations. This analysis would 

include estimates of Level A and Level 

B harassment takes of marine mammals 

for within the mitigation zone, using 

predictive modeling based on operating 

locations, dates/times of operations, 

system characteristics, oceanographic 

environmental conditions, and animal 

demographics. In the event that no 

SURTASS LFA sonar missions are 

completed during a quarter, a report of 

negative activity would be provided. 

Annual Report—The annual report 

would provide NMFS with an 

unclassified summary of the year’s 

quarterly reports and will include the 

Navy’s analysis of whether any Level A 

and/or Level B harassment takings of 

marine mammals occurred within the 

SURTASS LFA sonar’s 180-dB and 1 km 

(0.54 nm) mitigation zones and, if so, 

estimates of the percentage of marine 

mammal stocks affected by SURTASS 

LFA sonar operations. This analysis 

would include estimates for both within 

and outside the 180-dB and 1 km (0.54 

nm) mitigation zone, using predictive 

modeling based on operating locations, 

dates/times of operations, system 

characteristics, oceanographic 

environmental conditions, and animal 

demographics. 

The annual report would also include: 

(1) Analysis of the effectiveness of the 

mitigation measures with 

recommendations for improvements 

where applicable; (2) assessment of any 

long-term effects from SURTASS LFA 

sonar operations; and (3) any 

discernible or estimated cumulative 

impacts from SURTASS LFA sonar 

operations. 

Comprehensive Report—NMFS is 

requiring the Navy to provide NMFS 

and the public with a final 

comprehensive report analyzing the 

impacts of SURTASS LFA sonar on 

marine mammal species and stocks. 

This report, which is due at least 240 

days prior to expiration of these 

regulations, would include an in-depth 

analysis of all monitoring and Navysupported research pertinent to 

SURTASS LFA sonar conducted during 

the 5-year period of these regulations, a 

scientific assessment of cumulative 

impacts on marine mammal stocks, and 

an analysis on the advancement of 

alternative (passive) technologies as a 

replacement for LFA sonar. This report 

would be an important document for 

NMFS’ review and assessment of 

impacts for any future rulemaking. 

Annual reports and the 

Comprehensive Report will be posted 

on the NMFS homepage (see 

ADDRESSES). 

Modification to Mitigation Measures 

Any substantial modifications to 

NMFS’ mitigation, monitoring, and 

reporting requirements will be proposed 

in the Federal Register with an 

opportunity for public comment prior to 

implementation (unless an emergency 

exists and modifications are necessary 

for the protection of marine mammals). 

Designation of Offshore Biologically 

Important Areas for Marine Mammals 

In addition to NMFS designating 

OBIAs independently, this rule 

describes a process for members of the 

public to petition NMFS to add an area 

to the list of OBIAs for marine 

mammals. To qualify for designation, an 

area must be of particular importance 

for marine mammals as an area for 

feeding, breeding, calving, or migration, 

and not simply an area occupied by 

marine mammals. The proposed area 

should not be within a previously 

designated OBIA or other 180-dB 

exclusion area. In order for NMFS to 

begin a rulemaking process for 

designating OBIAs, proponents must 

petition NMFS and submit the 

information described in 50 CFR 

216.191(a). If NMFS makes a 

preliminary determination that the area 

is biologically important for marine 

mammals, NMFS will publish a Federal 

Register document proposing to add the 

area as an OBIA. After review of public 

comments and information, NMFS will 

make a final decision on whether to 

designate the area as an OBIA and 

publish a Federal Register document of 

its decision. Proposals for designation of 

areas will not affect the status of LOAs 

while the rulemaking is in process. 

Waiver of Delay in Effectiveness Date 

NMFS has determined good cause 

exists to waive the delay in effectiveness 

date for this final rule. Regulations 

governing the current MMPA 

authorization for Navy SURTASS LFA 

sonar operations expires on August 15, 

2007. This final rule must therefore be 

effective by August 16, 2007 to avoid a 

gap in SURTASS LFA sonar operations. 

The Navy recently provided specific, 

credible, and verifiable information 

indicating that activities may occur on 

or after August 16, 2007 such that a gap 

in SURTASS LFA sonar operations 

would be detrimental to national 

security and reduce protection of U.S. 

and Allied naval forces from submarine 

threats. This rule, together with LOAs 

issued hereunder, will afford the Navy 

lawful incidental take coverage for 

marine mammals during SURTASS LFA 

sonar testing, training, and routine 

operations and avoid any gap in 

operations. The required mitigation and 

monitoring, which are designed to 

ensure the least practicable adverse 

impact on affected species or stocks will 

ensure that SURTASS LFA sonar will 

have a negligible impact on the affected 

species or stocks of marine mammals. 

Changes From the Proposed Rule 

NMFS has amended the proposed rule 

to add a 1-km (0.5-nm) buffer to the 

OBIA SPL restriction. Accordingly, the 

final rule requires the Navy to ensure 

SPLs do not exceed 180 dB (re 1 

microPa(rms)) at a distance of 1km (0.5 

nm) seaward of the outer perimeter of 

the OBIA. This measure will limit SPLs 

within OBIA to less than approximately 

174 dB. 

These regulations require the Navy to 

refrain from operating the SURTASS 

LFA sonar within any OBIA and further 

require the Navy to ensure SPLs do not 

exceed 180 dB (re 1 microPa(rms)) at a 

distance of 1km (0.5 nm) seaward of the 

outer perimeter of the OBIA. 

Determinations 

Based on the scientific analyses 

detailed in the Navy application and 

further supported by information and 

data contained in the Navy’s Final SEIS 

and Final EIS for SURTASS LFA sonar 

operations and summarized in this rule, 

NMFS has determined that the 

incidental taking of marine mammals 

resulting from SURTASS LFA sonar 

operations would have a negligible 

impact on the affected marine mammal 

species or stocks over the 5-year period 

of LFA sonar operations covered by 

these regulations. That assessment is 

based on a number of factors: (1) The 

best information available indicates that 

effects from SPLs less than 180 dB will 

be limited to short-term Level B 

behavioral harassment averaging less 

than 12 percent annually for all affected 

marine mammal species; (2) the 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with RULES3
46890 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 161 / Tuesday, August 21, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

mitigation and monitoring is highly 

effective in preventing exposures of 180 

dB or greater; (3) the results of 

monitoring as described in the Navy’s 

Comprehensive Report supports the 

conclusion that takings will be limited 

to Level B harassment and not have 

more than a negligible impact on 

affected species or stocks of marine 

mammals; (4) the small number of 

SURTASS LFA sonar systems (two 

systems in FY 2008 and FY 2009 

(totaling 864 hours of operation 

annually), 3 in FY 2010 (totaling 1296 

hours of operation annually), and 4 

systems in FY 2011 and FY 20012 

(totaling 1728 hours of operation 

annually)) that would be operating 

world-wide; (5) that the LFA sonar 

vessel must be underway while 

transmitting (in order to keep the 

receiver array deployed), limiting the 

duration of exposure for marine 

mammals to those few minutes when 

the SURTASS LFA sonar sound energy 

is moving through that part of the water 

column inhabited by marine mammals; 

(6) in the case of convergence zone (CZ) 

propagation, the characteristics of the 

acoustic sound path, which deflect the 

sound below the water depth inhabited 

by marine mammals for much of the 

sound propagation (see illustration 67 

FR page 46715 (July 16, 2002); (7) the 

findings of the SRP on LF sounds on 

marine mammals indicated no 

significant change in biologically 

important behavior from exposure to 

sound levels up to 155 dB; and (8) 

during the 40 LFA sonar missions 

between 2002 and 2006, there were only 

three visual observations of marine 

mammals and only 71 detections by the 

HF/M3 sonar, which all resulted in 

mitigation protocol suspensions in 

operations. These measures all indicate 

that while marine mammals will 

potentially be affected by the SURTASS 

LFA sonar sounds, these impacts will be 

short-term behavioral effects and are not 

likely to adversely affect marine 

mammal species or stocks through 

effects on annual rates of reproduction 

or survival. In addition, mortality of 

marine mammals is not expected to 

occur as a result of LFA sonar 

operations and is not authorized in 

these regulations nor in any LOA issued 

under this rule. 

Finally, because SURTASS LFA sonar 

operations will not take place in Arctic 

waters, it would not have an 

unmitigable adverse impact on the 

availability of marine mammals for 

subsistence uses identified in MMPA 

section 101(a)(5)(A)(i), 16 U.S.C. 1371(a) 

(5)(A)(i). 

NEPA 

On November 10, 2005 (70 FR 68443), 

the Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA) announced receipt of a Draft SEIS 

from the U.S. Navy on the deployment 

of SURTASS LFA sonar. This Final SEIS 

incorporated by reference the Navy’s 

Final EIS on SURTASS LFA sonar 

deployment. The public comment 

period on the Draft SEIS ended on 

February 10, 2006. On May 4, 2007 (72 

FR 25302), EPA announced receipt of a 

Final SEIS from the U.S. Navy on the 

deployment of SURTASS LFA sonar. 

NMFS was a cooperating agency, as 

defined by the Council on 

Environmental Quality (40 CFR 1501.6), 

in the preparation of these documents. 

NMFS reviewed the Navy’s Final SEIS, 

adopted the Navy Final EIS, as provided 

for in 40 CFR 1506.3, and has 

determined it is unnecessary to prepare 

additional NEPA analyses. The Navy’s 

Final SEIS is available at: http:// 

www.surtass-LFA sonar-eis.com. 

ESA 

On June 9, 2006, the Navy submitted 

a Biological Assessment to NMFS to 

initiate consultation under section 7 of 

the ESA for the 2007–2012 SURTASS 

LFA sonar activities and NMFS’’

authorization for incidental take under 

the MMPA. NMFS concluded 

consultation with the Navy on this 

action on August xx, 2007. The 

conclusion of that consultation was that 

operation of the SURTASS LFA sonar 

system for testing, training and military 

operations and the issuance by NMFS of 

MMPA incidental take authorizations 

for this activity are not likely to 

jeopardize the continued existence of 

any endangered or threatened species 

under the jurisdiction of NMFS or result 

in the destruction or adverse 

modification of critical habitat. 

Classification 

This action has been determined to be 

significant for purposes of Executive 

Order 12866. 

The Chief Counsel for Regulation of 

the Department of Commerce certified 

to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the 

Small Business Administration at the 

proposed rule stage, that this action 

would not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities within the meaning of the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act. If 

implemented, this rule would affect 

only the U.S. Navy which, by definition, 

is not a small business. Because of this 

certification, a regulatory flexibility 

analysis is not required. 

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 216 

Exports, Fish, Imports, Indians, 

Labeling, Marine mammals, Penalties, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Seafood, Transportation. 

Dated: August 14, 2007. 

William T. Hogarth, 

Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 

■ For reasons set forth in the preamble, 

50 CFR part 216 is amended as follows: 

PART 216—REGULATIONS 

GOVERNING THE TAKING AND 

IMPORTING OF MARINE MAMMALS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 216 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq., unless 

otherwise noted. 

■ 2. Subpart Q is added to part 216 to 

read as follows: 

Subpart Q—Taking of Marine Mammals 

Incidental to Navy Operations of 

Surveillance Towed Array Sensor System 

Low Frequency Active (SURTASS LFA 

sonar) Sonar 

Sec. 

216.180 Specified activity. 

216.181 Effective dates. 

216.182 Permissible methods of taking. 

216.183 Prohibitions. 

216.184 Mitigation. 

216.185 Requirements for monitoring. 

216.186 Requirements for reporting. 

216.187 Applications for Letters of 

Authorization. 

216.188 Letters of Authorization. 

216.189 Renewal of Letters of 

Authorization. 

216.190 Modifications to Letters of 

Authorization. 

216.191 Designation of Offshore 

Biologically Important Marine Mammal 

Areas. 

Subpart Q—Taking of Marine Mammals 

Incidental to Navy Operations of 

Surveillance Towed Array Sensor 

System Low Frequency Active 

(SURTASS LFA sonar) Sonar 

§ 216.180 Specified activity. 

Regulations in this subpart apply only 

to the incidental taking of those marine 

mammal species specified in paragraph 

(b) of this section by the U.S. Navy, 

Department of Defense, while engaged 

in the operation of no more than four 

SURTASS LFA sonar systems 

conducting active sonar operations, in 

areas specified in paragraph (a) of this 

section. The authorized activities, as 

specified in a Letter of Authorization 

issued under §§ 216.106 and 216.188, 

include the transmission of low 

frequency sounds from the SURTASS 

LFA sonar and the transmission of high 

frequency sounds from the mitigation 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 161 / Tuesday, August 21, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 46891 

sonar described in § 216.185 during 

training, testing, and routine military 

operations of SURTASS LFA sonar. 

(a) With the exception of those areas 

specified in § 216.183(d), the incidental 

taking by harassment may be authorized 

in the areas (biomes, provinces, and 

subprovinces) described in Longhurst 

(1998), as specified in a Letter of 

Authorization. 

(b) The incidental take, by Level A 

and Level B harassment, of marine 

mammals from the activity identified in 

this section is limited to the following 

species and species groups: 

(1) Mysticete whales—blue 

(Balaenoptera musculus), fin 

(Balaenoptera physalus), minke 

(Balaenoptera acutorostrata), Bryde’s 

(Balaenoptera edeni), sei (Balaenoptera 

borealis), humpback (Megaptera 

novaeangliae), North Atlantic right 

(Eubalaena glacialis), North Pacific right 

(Eubalena japonica) southern right 

(Eubalaena australis), pygmy right 

(Capera marginata), bowhead (Balaena 

mysticetus), and gray (Eschrichtius 

robustus) whales. 

(2) Odontocete whales—harbor 

porpoise (Phocoena phocoena), 

spectacled porpoise (Phocoena 

dioptrica), beluga (Dephinapterus 

leucas), Stenella spp., Risso’s dolphin 

(Grampus griseus), rough-toothed 

dolphin (Steno bredanensis), Fraser’s 

dolphin (Lagenodelphis hosei), northern 

right-whale dolphin (Lissodelphis 

borealis), southern right whale dolphin 

(Lissodelphis peronii), short-beaked 

common dolphin (Delphius delphis), 

long-beaked common dolphin 

(Delphinus capensis), very long-beaked 

common dolphin (Delphinus tropicalis), 

Lagenorhynchus spp., Cephalorhynchus 

spp., bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops 

truncatus), Dall’s porpoise 

(Phocoenoides dalli), melon-headed 

whale (Peponocephala spp.), beaked 

whales (Berardius spp., Hyperoodon 

spp., Mesoplodon spp., Cuvier’s beaked 

whale (Ziphius cavirostris), Shepard’s 

beaked whale (Tasmacetus shepherdi), 

Longman’s beaked whale (Indopacetus 

pacificus), killer whale (Orcinus orca), 

false killer whale (Pseudorca 

crassidens), pygmy killer whale (Feresa 

attenuata), sperm whale (Physeter 

macrocephalus), dwarf and pygmy 

sperm whales (Kogia simus and K. 

breviceps), and short-finned and longfinned pilot whales (Globicephala 

macrorhynchus and G. melas). 

(3) Pinnipeds—hooded seal 

(Cystophora cristata), harbor seal (Phoca 

vitulina), spotted seal (P. largha), ribbon 

seal (P. fasciata), gray seal (Halichoerus 

grypus), elephant seal (Mirounga 

angustirostris and M. leonina), 

Hawaiian monk seal (Monachus 

schauinslandi), Mediterranean monk 

seal (Monachus monachus), northern 

fur seal (Callorhinus ursinus), southern 

fur seal (Arctocephalus spp.), harp seal 

(Phoca groenlandica), Galapagos sea 

lion (Zalophus californianus 

wollebaeki), Japanese sea lion (Zalophus 

californianus japonicus), Steller sea lion 

(Eumetopias jubatus), California sea 

lion (Zalophus californianus), 

Australian sea lion (Neophoca cinerea), 

New Zealand sea lion (Phocarctos 

hookeri), and South American sea lion 

(Otaria flavescens). 

§ 216.181 Effective dates. 

Regulations in this subpart are 

effective from August 16, 2007 through 

August 15, 2012. 

§ 216.182 Permissible methods of taking. 

(a) Under Letters of Authorization 

issued pursuant to §§ 216.106 and 

216.188, the Holder of the Letter of 

Authorization may incidentally, but not 

intentionally, take marine mammals by 

Level A and Level B harassment within 

the areas described in § 216.180(a), 

provided the activity is in compliance 

with all terms, conditions, and 

requirements of these regulations and 

the appropriate Letter of Authorization. 

(b) The activities identified in 

§ 216.180 must be conducted in a 

manner that minimizes, to the greatest 

extent practicable, any adverse impacts 

on marine mammals and their habitat. 

§ 216.183 Prohibitions. 

No person in connection with the 

activities described in § 216.180 shall: 

(a) Take any marine mammal not 

specified in § 216.180(b); 

(b) Take any marine mammal 

specified in § 216.180(b) other than by 

incidental, unintentional Level A and 

Level B harassment; 

(c) Take a marine mammal specified 

in § 216.180(b) if such taking results in 

more than a negligible impact on the 

species or stocks of such marine 

mammal; or 

(d) Violate, or fail to comply with, the 

terms, conditions, and requirements of 

the regulations in this subpart or any 

Letter of Authorization issued under 

§§ 216.106 and 216.188. 

§ 216.184 Mitigation. 

The activity identified in § 216.180(a) 

must be conducted in a manner that 

minimizes, to the greatest extent 

practicable, adverse impacts on marine 

mammals and their habitats. When 

conducting operations identified in 

§ 216.180, the mitigation measures 

described in this section and in any 

Letter of Authorization issued under 

§§ 216.106 and 216.188 must be 

implemented. 

(a) Through monitoring described 

under § 216.185, the Holder of a Letter 

of Authorization must act to ensure, to 

the greatest extent practicable, that no 

marine mammal is subjected to a sound 

pressure level of 180 dB or greater. 

(b) If a marine mammal is detected 

within or about to enter the mitigation 

zone (the area subjected to sound 

pressure levels of 180 dB or greater plus 

the 1 km (0.54 nm) buffer zone 

extending beyond the 180-dB zone), 

SURTASS LFA sonar transmissions will 

be immediately delayed or suspended. 

Transmissions will not resume earlier 

than 15 minutes after: 

(1) All marine mammals have left the 

area of the mitigation and buffer zones; 

and 

(2) There is no further detection of 

any marine mammal within the 

mitigation and buffer zones as 

determined by the visual and/or passive 

or active acoustic monitoring described 

in § 216.185. 

(c) The high-frequency marine 

mammal monitoring sonar (HF/M3) 

described in § 216.185 will be rampedup slowly to operating levels over a 

period of no less than 5 minutes: 

(1) At least 30 minutes prior to any 

SURTASS LFA sonar transmissions; 

(2) Prior to any SURTASS LFA sonar 

calibrations or testings that are not part 

of regular SURTASS LFA sonar 

transmissions described in paragraph 

(c)(1) of this section; and 

(3) Anytime after the HF/M3 source 

has been powered down for more than 

2 minutes. 

(d) The HF/M3 sound pressure level 

will not be increased once a marine 

mammal is detected; ramp-up may 

resume once marine mammals are no 

longer detected. 

(e) The Holder of a Letter of 

Authorization will not operate the 

SURTASS LFA sonar, such that: 

(1) the SURTASS LFA sonar sound 

field exceeds 180 dB (re 1 microPa(rms)) 

at a distance less than 12 nautical miles 

(nm) (22 kilometers (km)) from any 

coastline, including offshore islands; 

(2) the SURTASS LFA sonar sound 

field exceeds 180 db (re 1 microPa(rms)) 

at a distance of 1 km (0.5 nm) seaward 

of the outer perimeter of any offshore 

biologically important area designated 

in 216.184(f) during the biologically 

important period specified. 

(f) The following areas have been 

designated by NMFS as Offshore 

Biologically Important Areas (OBIAs) 

for marine mammals (by season if 

appropriate): 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with RULES3
46892 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 161 / Tuesday, August 21, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

Name of area Location of area Months of importance 

(1) 200-m isobath North American East Coast .. From 28° N. to 50° N., west of 40° W ............. Year-round. 

(2) Antarctic Convergence Zone ........................ 30° E. to 80° E. to 45°; 80° E. to 150° E. to 

55°; S. 150° E. to 50° W. to 60° S.; 50° W. 

to 30° E. to 50° S.

October 1–March 31. 

(3) Costa Rica Dome ......................................... Centered at 9° N. and 88° W .......................... Year-round. 

(4) Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale National 

Marine Sanctuary-Penguin Bank.

Centered at 21° N. and 157° 30’ W ................ November 1 through May 1. 

(5) Cordell Bank National Marine Sanctuary ..... Boundaries in accordance with 15 CFR 

922.110.

Year-round. 

(6) Gulf of the Farallones National Marine 

Sanctuary.

Boundaries in accordance with 15 CFR 

922.80.

Year-round. 

(7) Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary .... Boundaries in accordance with 15 CFR 

922.30.

Year-round. 

(8) Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary ... Boundaries within 23 nm of the coast from 

47°07′ N. to 48°30′ N. latitude.

December January, March and May. 

(9) Flower Garden Banks National Marine 

Sanctuary.

Boundaries in accordance with 15 CFR 

922.120.

Year-round. 

(10) The Gully .................................................... 44°13′ N., 59°06′ W. to 43°47′ N.; 58°35′ W. 

to 43°35′ N.; 58°35′ W. to 43°35′ N.; 59°08′ 

W. to 44°06′ N.; 59°20′ W.

Year-round. 

§ 216.185 Requirements for monitoring. 

(a) In order to mitigate the taking of 

marine mammals by SURTASS LFA 

sonar to the greatest extent practicable, 

the Holder of a Letter of Authorization 

issued pursuant to §§ 216.106 and 

216.188 must: 

(1) Conduct visual monitoring from 

the ship’s bridge during all daylight 

hours (30 minutes before sunrise until 

30 minutes after sunset); 

(2) Use low frequency passive 

SURTASS sonar to listen for vocalizing 

marine mammals; and 

(3) Use the HF/M3 (high frequency) 

sonar developed to locate and track 

marine mammals in relation to the 

SURTASS LFA sonar vessel and the 

sound field produced by the SURTASS 

LFA sonar source array. 

(b) Monitoring under paragraph (a) of 

this section must: 

(1) Commence at least 30 minutes 

before the first SURTASS LFA sonar 

transmission; 

(2) Continue between transmission 

pings; and 

(3) Continue either for at least 15 

minutes after completion of the 

SURTASS LFA sonar transmission 

exercise, or, if marine mammals are 

exhibiting unusual changes in 

behavioral patterns, for a period of time 

until behavior patterns return to normal 

or conditions prevent continued 

observations; 

(c) Holders of Letters of Authorization 

for activities described in § 216.180 are 

required to cooperate with the National 

Marine Fisheries Service and any other 

federal agency for monitoring the 

impacts of the activity on marine 

mammals. 

(d) Holders of Letters of Authorization 

must designate qualified on-site 

individuals to conduct the mitigation, 

monitoring and reporting activities 

specified in the Letter of Authorization. 

(e) Holders of Letters of Authorization 

must conduct all monitoring required 

under the Letter of Authorization. 

§ 216.186 Requirements for reporting. 

(a) The Holder of the Letter of 

Authorization must submit quarterly 

mission reports to the Director, Office of 

Protected Resources, NMFS, no later 

than 30 days after the end of each 

quarter beginning on the date of 

effectiveness of a Letter of Authorization 

or as specified in the appropriate Letter 

of Authorization. Each quarterly 

mission report will include all activemode missions completed during that 

quarter. At a minimum, each classified 

mission report must contain the 

following information: 

(1) Dates, times, and location of each 

vessel during each mission; 

(2) Information on sonar 

transmissions during each mission; 

(3) Results of the marine mammal 

monitoring program specified in the 

Letter of Authorization; and 

(4) Estimates of the percentages of 

marine mammal species and stocks 

affected (both for the quarter and 

cumulatively for the year) covered by 

the Letter of Authorization. 

(b) The Holder of a Letter of 

Authorization must submit an annual 

report to the Director, Office of 

Protected Resources, NMFS, no later 

than 45 days after the expiration of a 

Letter of Authorization. This report 

must contain all the information 

required by the Letter of Authorization. 

(c) A final comprehensive report must 

be submitted to the Director, Office of 

Protected Resources, NMFS at least 240 

days prior to expiration of these 

regulations. In addition to containing all 

the information required by any final 

year Letter of Authorization, this report 

must contain an unclassified analysis of 

new passive sonar technologies and an 

assessment of whether such a system is 

feasible as an alternative to SURTASS 

LFA sonar. 

§ 216.187 Applications for Letters of 

Authorization. 

(a) To incidentally take marine 

mammals pursuant to these regulations, 

the U.S. Navy authority conducting the 

activity identified in § 216.180 must 

apply for and obtain a Letter of 

Authorization in accordance with 

§ 216.106. 

(b) The application for a Letter of 

Authorization must be submitted to the 

Director, Office of Protected Resources, 

NMFS, at least 60 days before the date 

that either the vessel is scheduled to 

begin conducting SURTASS LFA sonar 

operations or the previous Letter of 

Authorization is scheduled to expire. 

(c) All applications for a Letter of 

Authorization must include the 

following information: 

(1) The date(s), duration, and the 

area(s) where the vessel’s activity will 

occur; 

(2) The species and/or stock(s) of 

marine mammals likely to be found 

within each area; 

(3) The type of incidental taking 

authorization requested (i.e., take by 

Level A and/or Level B harassment); 

(4) The estimated percentage of 

marine mammal species/stocks 

potentially affected in each area for the 

12-month period of effectiveness of the 

Letter of Authorization; and 

(5) The means of accomplishing the 

necessary monitoring and reporting that 

will result in increased knowledge of 

the species and the level of taking or 

impacts on marine mammal 

populations. 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 161 / Tuesday, August 21, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 46893 

(d) The National Marine Fisheries 

Service will review an application for a 

Letter of Authorization in accordance 

with § 216.104(b) and, if adequate and 

complete, issue a Letter of 

Authorization. 

§ 216.188 Letters of Authorization. 

(a) A Letter of Authorization, unless 

suspended or revoked will be valid for 

a period of time not to exceed one year, 

but may be renewed annually subject to 

annual renewal conditions in § 216.189. 

(b) Each Letter of Authorization will 

set forth: 

(1) Permissible methods of incidental 

taking; 

(2) Authorized geographic areas for 

incidental takings; 

(3) Means of effecting the least 

practicable adverse impact on the 

species of marine mammals authorized 

for taking, their habitat, and the 

availability of the species for 

subsistence uses; and 

(4) Requirements for monitoring and 

reporting incidental takes. 

(c) Issuance of each Letter of 

Authorization will be based on a 

determination that the total number of 

marine mammals taken by the activity 

specified in § 216.180 as a whole will 

have no more than a negligible impact 

on the species or stocks of affected 

marine mammal(s), and that the total 

taking will not have an unmitigable 

adverse impact on the availability of 

species or stocks of marine mammals for 

taking for subsistence uses. 

(d) Notice of issuance or denial of an 

application for a Letter of Authorization 

will be published in the Federal 

Register within 30 days of a 

determination. 

§ 216.189 Renewal of Letters of 

Authorization. 

(a) A Letter of Authorization issued 

for the activity identified in § 216.180 

may be renewed annually upon: 

(1) Notification to NMFS that the 

activity described in the application 

submitted under § 216.187 will be 

undertaken and that there will not be a 

substantial modification to the 

described activity, mitigation or 

monitoring undertaken during the 

upcoming season; 

(2) Notification to NMFS of the 

information identified in § 216.187(c), 

including the planned geographic 

area(s), and anticipated duration of each 

SURTASS LFA sonar operation; 

(3) Timely receipt of the monitoring 

reports required under § 216.185, which 

have been reviewed by NMFS and 

determined to be acceptable; 

(4) A determination by NMFS that the 

mitigation, monitoring and reporting 

measures required under §§ 216.184 and 

216.185 and the previous Letter of 

Authorization were undertaken and will 

be undertaken during the upcoming 

annual period of validity of a renewed 

Letter of Authorization; and 

(5) A determination by NMFS that the 

number of marine mammals taken by 

the activity as a whole will have no 

more than a negligible impact on the 

species or stock of affected marine 

mammal(s), and that the total taking 

will not have an unmitigable adverse 

impact on the availability of species or 

stocks of marine mammals for taking for 

subsistence uses. 

(b) If a request for a renewal of a 

Letter of Authorization indicates that a 

substantial modification to the 

described work, mitigation or 

monitoring will occur, or if NMFS 

proposes a substantial modification to 

the Letter of Authorization, NMFS will 

provide a period of 30 days for public 

review and comment on the proposed 

modification. Amending the areas for 

upcoming SURTASS LFA sonar 

operations is not considered a 

substantial modification to the Letter of 

Authorization. 

(c) A notice of issuance or denial of 

a renewal of a Letter of Authorization 

will be published in the Federal 

Register within 30 days of a 

determination. 

§ 216.190 Modifications to Letters of 

Authorization. 

(a) Except as provided in paragraph 

(b) of this section, no substantial 

modification (including withdrawal or 

suspension) to a Letter of Authorization 

subject to the provisions of this subpart 

shall be made by NMFS until after 

notification and an opportunity for 

public comment has been provided. For 

purposes of this paragraph, a renewal of 

a Letter of Authorization, without 

modification, except for the period of 

validity and a listing of planned 

operating areas, or for moving the 

authorized SURTASS LFA sonar system 

from one ship to another, is not 

considered a substantial modification. 

(b) If the National Marine Fisheries 

Service determines that an emergency 

exists that poses a significant risk to the 

well-being of the species or stocks of 

marine mammals specified in 

§ 216.180(b), a Letter of Authorization 

may be substantially modified without 

prior notice and opportunity for public 

comment. Notification will be published 

in the Federal Register within 30 days 

of the action. 

§ 216.191 Designation of Offshore 

Biologically Important Marine Mammal 

Areas. 

(a) Offshore biologically important 

areas for marine mammals may be 

nominated under this paragraph by the 

National Marine Fisheries Service or by 

members of the public. 

(b) Proponents must petition NMFS 

by requesting an area be added to the 

list of offshore biologically important 

areas in § 216.184(f) and submitting the 

following information: 

(1) Geographic region proposed for 

consideration (including geographic 

boundaries); 

(2) A list of marine mammal species 

or stocks within the proposed 

geographic region; 

(3) Whether the proposal is for yearround designation or seasonal, and if 

seasonal, months of years for proposed 

designation; 

(4) Detailed information on the 

biology of marine mammals within the 

area, including estimated population 

size, distribution, density, status, and 

the principal biological activity during 

the proposed period of designation 

sufficient for NMFS to make a 

preliminary determination that the area 

is biologically important for marine 

mammals; and 

(5) Detailed information on the area 

with regard to its importance for 

feeding, breeding, or migration for those 

species of marine mammals that have 

the potential to be affected by low 

frequency sounds; 

(c) Areas within 12 nm (22 km) of any 

coastline, including offshore islands, or 

within non-operating areas for 

SURTASS LFA sonar are not eligible for 

consideration. 

(d) If a petition does not contain 

sufficient information for the National 

Marine Fisheries Service to proceed, 

NMFS will determine whether the 

nominated area warrants further study. 

If so, NMFS will begin a scientific 

review of the area. 

(e)(1) If through a petition or 

independently, NMFS makes a 

preliminary determination that an 

offshore area is biologically important 

for marine mammals and is not located 

within a previously designated area, 

NMFS will publish a Federal Register 

notice proposing to add the area to 

§ 216.184(f) and solicit public comment. 

(2) The National Marine Fisheries 

Service will publish its final 

determination in the Federal Register. 

[FR Doc. 07–4044 Filed 8–15–07; 9:44 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with RULES3