Byrd et at: Standings as indicators of marine mammal biodiversity and human interactions 
3 
78'0'0"W 76“0'0"W 
(Upper left) Coast of North Carolina (NC) showing major bodies of water, land- 
marks, and bathymetry. The black boundary line around New River represents Camp 
Lejeune, property of the United States Marine Corps. (Lower right) Stratification of 
coastal beaches for spatial analysis by segment from the Virginia-NC border south 
to the NC-South Carolina (SC) border: north of Cape Hatteras (A1-A2), Cape Hat- 
teras to Cape Lookout (B1-B2), Cape Lookout to Cape Fear (C1-C2), and Cape Fear 
to SC (D). 
1997 through 2008 were exam- 
ined here. During those years, 
the state was divided into 2 pri- 
mary response areas with over- 
lap as needed. Responders from 
NMFS-Beaufort covered mainly 
the area north of New River 
Inlet to the NC-Virginia (VA) 
border, whereas responders from 
the University of North Carolina 
Wilmington covered predomi- 
nantly south of New River Inlet 
to the NC-South Carolina (SC) 
border (Fig. 1). Strandings were 
reported by means of a dedicated 
phone number or 24-hour pag- 
er, and came from a variety of 
sources, including the public, lo- 
cal municipalities, and state and 
federal agencies. Generally, pub- 
lic reporting was opportunistic. 
Some areas and seasons, how- 
ever, had more systematic cov- 
erage. For example, participants 
of the NC Sea Turtle Project re- 
ported strandings observed dur- 
ing daily surveys of ocean beach- 
es for sea turtle nests. These 
surveys occurred each year from 
May 1 through August 31 and 
were almost state-wide, includ- 
ing Onslow Beach. The only ex- 
ceptions were 2 barrier islands 
accessible only by boat (total- 
ing ~20 km) that were surveyed 
only twice per week and Brown’s 
Island, which was not surveyed 
because of live-fire exercises con- 
ducted by the U.S. Marine Corps. 
Outside of the sea turtle nesting 
season, national and state park 
rangers conducted weekly surveys within state and 
federal parks. 
Marine mammals were considered stranded if they 
were dead (either on land or in the water) or alive 
and in need of human intervention (e.g., cetaceans 
stranded on land, marine mammals entangled in fish- 
ing gear, sick or injured seals, seals that were relocated 
to a more secluded location due to human and animal 
welfare concerns). For each stranding, standard data 
(level A) (e.g., species, geographic coordinates, length, 
sex) and additional data (e.g., extensive morphomet- 
ries, life history) were collected when possible accord- 
ing to protocols reviewed in Geraci and Lounsbury 
(2005). Common and species names were taken from 
the list published by the Society for Marine Mammal- 
ogy [http://www.marinemammalscience.org]. Various 
samples were collected systematically (e.g., for genetic 
analysis or ad libitum (e.g., for histological, toxicologi- 
cal analysis) for sample banks or for further biological 
studies. 
Each stranding was assigned a human interac- 
tion (HI) category: yes, no, or could not be determined 
(CBD) (Read and Murray, 2000). Strandings were clas- 
sified as HI-CBD if 1) the carcass was too decomposed 
to determine presence or absence of HI evidence, 2) the 
carcass was not examined for HI evidence, 3) the re- 
quired information was not recorded, or 4) suspicious 
lesions could not be identified definitively as HI. A de- 
scription of HI evidence was recorded for most Hl-yes 
strandings, although recognizing that the interaction 
may not have caused the mortality. Hl-yes strand- 
ings were further stratified by HI-FI (fishery interac- 
tion) (e.g., evidence of entanglement lesions, including 
healed lesions, or gear present) or Hi-other (e.g., mu- 
tilations, propeller wounds, vessel strikes, gunshots, 
debris ingestion) (Byrd et al., 2008). Animals positive 
