2 
Fishery Bulletin 112(1) 
(NCDMF 1 ). Commercial fishing gear, such as gill nets 
that entangle the endangered North Atlantic right 
whale ( Eubalaena glacialis ; hereafter ‘right whale’) 
(Kraus et ah, 2005) and the common bottlenose dolphin 
( Tursiops truncatus ; hereafter ‘bottlenose dolphin’) in 
NC waters (Byrd et ah, 2008), and longlines that en- 
tangle pilot whales ( Globicephala spp.) and Risso’s dol- 
phins ( Grampus griseus) (Garrison, 2007) pose risks 
for marine mammals. These risks, along with 2 major 
shipping ports and an active boating and recreational 
fishing community, intersect with a presumed high di- 
versity of marine mammals along the NC coast. 
Documenting and monitoring the biogeographic 
stratification and biodiversity of marine mammals of- 
ten requires large-scale aerial or shipboard surveys 
(e.g., Mullin and Fulling, 2003; Torres et al., 2005). 
Another mechanism for determining species presence, 
and potentially relative abundance, is the monitoring 
of stranded animals over time, especially when moni- 
toring can be conducted in a systematic way (Evans 
and Hammond, 2004; Pyenson, 2011). Marine mammal 
strandings (hereafter ‘strandings’) provide researchers 
with rare access to protected species and serve as an 
invaluable source of information on their spatiotem- 
poral distribution (e.g., Maldini et al., 2005; Nemiroff 
et al., 2010), and biology (e.g., Fernandez and Hohn, 
1998; Thayer et al., 2003; Gannon and Waples, 2004). 
In addition, stranding investigations have been criti- 
cal in documenting human-induced serious injuries and 
mortality, such as from vessel strikes (e.g., Campbell- 
Malone et al., 2008), fishery entanglements (e.g., Byrd 
et al., 2008; Cassoff et al., 2011), and sonar effects (e.g., 
Jepson et al., 2005). Changes in temporal or spatial 
patterns of strandings may serve as indicators of un- 
derlying changes in the source populations that were 
driven either by human causes (see previous referenc- 
es in this paragraph) or by naturally occurring events 
(e.g., Evans et al., 2005; Johnston et al., 2012; Peltier 
et al., 2013). 
We examined spatiotemporal patterns of marine 
mammal strandings in NC over a 12-yr period when 
stranding response effort was relatively consistent 
and high and examined whether those observed pat- 
terns, and patterns of species diversity, reflected pub- 
lished records of marine mammal populations off the 
NC coast. While in waters off NC, marine mammals 
are at risk of interactions with commercial fisheries; 
therefore, patterns of human interactions evident from 
1 NCDMF (North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries). 
2012. North Carolina License and Statistics Section sum- 
mary statistics of License and Permit Program, Commercial 
Trip Ticket Program, NC Marine Recreational Information 
Program, Striped Bass Creel Survey in the Central and 
Southern Management Area, NC Recreational Saltwater Ac- 
tivity Mail Survey, 399 p. [Available from NCDMF, 3441 Ar- 
endell St., Morehead City, NC 28557 or http://portal.ncdenr. 
org/c/document_library/get_file?uuid=6cd202a9-45e6-4e42- 
bb83-418ead9db653&group!d=38337, accessed June 2013.] 
strandings were also evaluated. This study is the first 
comprehensive overview of NC stranding records. 
Materials and methods 
North Carolina geography 
North Carolina’s ocean coastline (-537 km) (Fig. 1) is a 
series of barrier islands separated from the mainland 
by various sounds and the Intracoastal Waterway. Sev- 
eral state and federal parks and reserves (>227 km) 
occur on the barrier islands, some of which are acces- 
sible only by boat. In addition, property at the U.S. Ma- 
rine Corps base at Camp Lejeune is off-limits to unau- 
thorized personnel — an area that includes the inshore 
(defined here as inside the International Regulations 
for Preventing Collisions at Sea [COLREGS] demar- 
cation line 2 ) coastline at the base, Brown’s Island (-8 
km long), and Onslow Beach (-18 km long). All inshore 
coastline poses significant challenges for detection of 
and responses to stranded animals; the expansive es- 
tuary system has many remote areas and much of the 
shoreline consists of cordgrass (Spartina spp.) where 
carcasses may not be detected. 
Stranding response and data collection 
Although responses to strandings occurred intermit- 
tently in NC as early as the mid-1970s (Mead 3 ), cover- 
age by an extensive stranding network has been most 
consistent since 1997. From February 1997 through 
February 1998, researchers at the National Marine 
Fisheries Service, Beaufort Laboratory in NC (hereaf- 
ter ‘NMFS-Beaufort’) led a systematic, intensive, state- 
wide effort to document strandings that may have re- 
sulted from interactions with fisheries. Surveys were 
conducted weekly by driving the same route along 
ocean-side beaches. During that year, the network was 
expanded and strengthened to ensure that reporting of 
strandings would continue after conclusion of the proj- 
ect. From 1998 through 2008 the network continued 
a collaborative stranding response with multiple agen- 
cies in the state. In 2008 the NC stranding network 
underwent reorganization; therefore, only data from 
2 The line of demarcation delineating waters upon which mari- 
ners shall comply with the International Regulations for Pre- 
venting Collisions at Sea, 1972, and those waters upon which 
mariners must comply with the Inland Navigation Rules as 
described in 33 CFR part 80. [Available from http://www. 
gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2012-title33-voll/pdf/CFR-20 12-ti- 
tle33-voll-part80.pdf, accessed November 2013.] 
3 Mead, J. G. 1979. An analysis of cetacean strandings along 
the eastern coast of the United States. In Biology of marine 
mammals: insights through strandings (J. B. Geraci and J. 
St. Aubin, eds.), p. 54-68. Final report to the U.S. Marine 
Mammal Commission in fulfillment of Contract MM7AC020. 
Report Number PB-293890. [Available from the U.S. Ma- 
rine Mammal Commission, 1625 I St., NW, Washington, D.C. 
20006.] 
