Management plan for sea turtles and marine mammals in Virginia

[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]

Tosk l4b FINAL PRODUCT DGIF
FY 1993 conserv. Pign for Wrine mgmmals teg,
Lrtles

llo@

MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR SEA TURTLES

AND MARINE MAMMALS IN VIRGINIA

m $4,",
vtrr
MMA'
to
Nig

U M
j- W',

K1
2,

.5;
Kv
lit;
j
jggp
Li
Ri
J9
Igh,
p -

MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR SEA TURTLES
AND MARINE MAMMALS
IN VIRGUWA

PREPARED BY:

THE VIRGINIA SEA TURTLE/MARINE MAMMAL CONSERVATION TEAM

@0 as part of a grant to
_7

The Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries
I.CY)
I
R
The Virginia Institute of Marine Science

This project was funded by a grant/cooperative agreement from the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The views expressed
herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of
<* NOAA or any sub-agencies.

PREFACE

This management plan is intended to serve as a guide that delineates and schedules those actions
believed necessary to manage for sea turtles and marine mammals in Virginia. It is recognized
that this plan is an important first step in a long-term process. Some of the tasks listed are
already underway and their inclusion represents an awareness of their importance as well as
recognition of progess towards that goal. The plan represents a cooperative private/public effort
to identify, prioritize, and implement those steps necessary to conserve this important assem-
blage of species in Virginia. The team members were:

David Bower, Virginia Marine Resources Commission
Colleen Coogan, National Marine Fisheries Service
Laurie Halpern,. Center for Marine Conservation
William Hester, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Roy Insley, Virginia Marine Resources Commission
Sherman Jones III, Christopher Newport University
John Keinath, Virginia Institute of Marine Science
Laura McKay, Department of Environmental Quality
William McLellan, James Madison University
James Mead, Nati. Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution
Richard Muller, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Jack Musick, Virginia Institute of Marine Science
Kathy O'Hara, Center for Marine Conservation
Anne Pabst, James Madison University
Mike Payne, National Marine Fisheries Service
Mike Pinder, Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries
Charles Potter, Natural Museum of Natural History
Mark Swingle, Virginia Marine Science Museum
Karen Terwilliger, Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisherie's
Michael Vaughn, Virginia Polytechnic and State University
Tom Wilcox, Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries
Nina Young, Center for Marine Conservation

This document should be cited as follows:
Terwilliger, K. and J. A. Musick (co-chairs), Virginia Sea Turtle and Marine
Mammal Conservation Team. 1995. Management Plan for Sea Turtles and
Marine Mammals in Virginia, Final Report to the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration. 56 pp.

ITABLE OF CONTENTS

1. EXECUTIVE SUNRvLkRY ..........................

II. INTRODUCTION ........ I ............................................ 3

POPULATION FACTORS AFFECTING TBESE SPECIES IN VIRGINIA .............. 16

SYNOPSIS OF EXISTING LEGISLATION AND REGULATIONS IN VIRGINIA ............ 19

SYNOPSIS OF EXISTING CONSERVATION PROGRAMS IN VIRGINIA ................. 22

SYNOPSIS OF CURRENT PUBLIC INFORMATION AND EDUCATION EFFORTS ...... 24

11L STEPDOWN OUTLINE ............................................... 27

IV. STEPDOWN OUTLINE NARRATIVE ................................... 33 5

V. LITERATURE CITED ................................................ 47

VI. EMPLEMENTATION SCIHEDULE ...................................... 56

VII. APPENDICES ....................................................... 57

JEXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Five species of sea turtles (the loggerhead, leatherback, Atlantic green, Atlantic
hawksbill, and Kemp's ridley ) and 30 species of marine mammals (harbor porpoise, Atlantic
bottlenose dolphin, striped dolphin, saddleback dolphin, Atlantic spotted dolphin, Atlantic white-
sided dolphin, Risso's dolphin, rough-toothed dolphin, short-finned pilot whale, long-finned pilot
whale, pygmy sperm whale, dwarf sperm whale, sperm whale, fin whale, minke whale,
humpback whale, northern right whale, goosebeaked whale, dense-beaked whale, Antillean
beaked whale, Gervais' beaked whale, true's beaked whale, blue whale, sei whale, Bryde's whale,
West Indian manatee, gray seal, harbor seal, harp seal, and hooded seal) have been recorded as
strandings or live observations in Virginia. Of these 35 species, all five sea turtles and 8 of the
marine mammals are listed or proposed as endangered or threatened under the Endangered
Species Act and one additional marine mammal is listed as depleted under the Marine Mammal
-Protection Act. The waters of the Chesapeake Bay, its tributaries and our coast therefore play a
significant though seasonal role in contributing to the global recovery of these imperiled species.
This plan focuses on the most commonly occurring ten species (four sea turtles and six marine
mammals) but encompasses all species since they share common life history or habitat needs
while in Virginia waters.

Two natural resource agencies in Virginia regulate conservation and management of
these species: the Virginia Marine Resources Commission (VMRC) and the Department of
Game and Inland Fisheries (VDGIF). VMRC is charged (�28.2-101) with the conservation of
marine life, and VDGIF is charged with implementation of the ESA (�29.563 )) and management
of all wildlife and inland fish (�29.1-109). A third state institution, the Virginia Institute of
Marine Science (VIMS), has conservation responsibilities as well. The federal Endangered
Species Act is administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) through VDGIF,
and the Marine Mammal Protection Act by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMF S) at the
federal level; therefore both USFWS and NMFS share conservation authority. In all, five
agencies share responsibility for the protection and management of sea turtles and marine
mammals in Virginia.

A number of other public and private entities have ongoing conservation programs
including Universities conducting research, and private organizations conducting research,
education and stranding network activities. Volunteer stranding networks have been organized
for both sea turtles and marine mammals. The combined efforts of these parties have provided
the Commonwealth with a foundation for responsible stewardship of this diverse and fragile

resource.

This management plan seeks to provide a balanced and comprehensive approach to the
conservation of these unique animals. Even though their needs vary from species to species, they
share many commonalities which can be approached in a more efficient and complete manner by
addressing the systems upon which they all depend. The needs of many of these species are

Conseivation Plan/ Page I

addressed in their individual recovery or conservation plans developed through the Endangered
Species Act or the Marine Mammal Protection Act, but those plans do not address the specific
needs of these species while utilizing Virginia waters. By focusing on their commonalities and
utilization of similar habitats which Virginia provides them year round, more effective and
comprehensive management will result.

This plan developed from 'a need to better define, coordinate, and direct the multiple
efforts and programs of the Commonwealth. Its goal is to enhance the survival and recovery of
marine mammals and sea turtles utilizing Virginia waters, thereby contributing to their global
recovery.

This will be accomplished through these four objectives:

I . Protect, manage, and enhance sea turtle and marine mammal populations by assessing
population status and trends as well as the life history needs of these species utilizing
Virginia waters.

2. Protect, manage, and enhance the habitats of sea turtles and marine mammals by
identifying, documenting, and then minimizing impacts to the habitats and populations.

3. Identify and coordinate existing roles, responsibilities, and activities of the various
parties and promote improved coordination.

4. Improve and promote education and public participation.

The intent and desire of all partners in this plan is to provide the Commonwealth with an
effective and balanced conservation program for sea turtles and marine mammals in Virginia.

Conservation Plan/ Page 2

INTRODUCTION

SEA TURTLES AND MARINE MAMMALS IN VIRGINIA WATERS

SEA TURTLES

Five species of sea turtles utilize the Chesapeake Bay and our coastal waters. One
species, the Atlantic hawksbill, has recently been recorded only once in Virginia. Accounts for
the four more regularly occurring species follow.

Loggerhead Sea Turtle, Caretta caretta (Linnaeus):

Descriptio -. Loggerheads mature at about 80 cm carapace length and 140 kg weight
(Ernst and Barbour, 1972), but may reach up to 270 kg (Pritchard, 1979). In Virginia's waters,
loggerhead carapace lengths range from 20 to over 120 cm (curved carapace length, notch to
notch) and, except for hatchlings which may be found on the Atlantic coast during hatching
season (August-October), weigh 20 to 140 kg (Lutcavage, 1981; Lutcavage and Musick, 1985).
The dorsum of the carapace (upper shell) and appendages is mahogany to reddish brown, usually
with encrusting barnacles and other organisms, and the plastron (lower shell) and venter
(underside) of the appendages are crearn-yellow (Musick, 1988). Four scutes (plates) occur
between the eyes and there are five lateral carapacial scutes (pleurals) on each side. The cervical
scute touches the first pleural scute on each side. Loggerheads usually have three bridge scutes
(inframarginals: scutes which connect the carapace to the plastron) (Carr, 1952; Musick, 1988).

Loggerheads are distinguished from ridleys and green sea turtles by coloration, carapace
shape, and scutation. The loggerhead is the only reddish brown sea turtle in our waters (Ernst
and Barbour, 1972), green turtles being dark green or brown, and ridleys grey to green on the
dorsal surfaces. The ventral surface of loggerheads is cream-yellow, while other species are
white. Loggerheads, like ridleys, have four prefrontal and five lateral scutes, while greens have
two prefrontal and four lateral scutes. Loggerheads are distinguished from ridleys by coloration
and inframarginal scute number and morphology: Loggerheads usually have three non-pored
bridge scutes, whereas ridleys have four pored bridge scutes.

Distribution: Loggerhead sea turtles are found worldwide in tropical and temperate
marine and estuarine waters. In the western Atlantic, they are found from Argentina north to
Nova Scotia (Carr, 1952). Loggerheads, the most abundant sea turtle in the waters of Virginia,
are found in Chesapeake Bay from Baltimore south, in the estuarine parts of all the major rivers,
along Virginia's entire Atlantic Coast, and into the channels and lagoons between and landward
of the barrier islands (Brady, 1925; Fowler, 1925; Lutcavage, 1981; Lutcavage and Musick,

Conservation Plan I Page 3

1985; Keinath et al., 1987; Byles, 1988). Between 1979 and 1989 more than 1000 dead and 250
live loggerheads have been recorded from the waters of Virginia and Maryland, from Baltimore
south and along Virginia's entire seaboard (Keinath et al., 1987). Nesting females utilize the
Atlantic beaches.

Habitat: Hatchling loggerheads inhabit Sargassum driftlines in major oceanic currents,
such as the North Atlantic Gyre (Carr, 1987a). Juvenile loggerheads are ubiquitous in ternp erate
waters, occurring from far offshore into estuaries and rivers (Carr@ 1952; Pritchard, 1979;
Keinath et al., 1987; Musick, 1988). In Chesapeake Bay, loggerheads and Kemp's ridleys
effectively partition both depth and food habitat between themselves - loggerheads reside in
deeper channels, usually at river mouths or in the open Bay (Keinath et al., 1987- Byles, 1988.
Musick, 1988) while Kemp's ridleys are found in the shallows (Lutcavage and Musick, 1985.-
Bellmund et al., 1987; Keinath et al., 1987; Byles, 1988). Loggerheads are normally found in
Virginia's waters from May through November (Bellmund et al., 1987).

Life HistoEy: Loggerhead nesting is described as "antitropical" (adjacent to the tropics-,
Pritchard, 1979). Nesting normally occurs in the United States from Florida to Virginia Beach,
Virginia, with records as far north as New Jersey (Pritchard, 1979; Brandner, 1983, Keinath et
al., 1991 a). Up to nine nests per year on the Atlantic Coast of Virginia have been reported, but
normally only two or three per year are found (Crouse et al., 1987; Bellmund et al., 1987;
Musick, 1988). Loggerhead nests are most commonly reported from Virginia Beach, but nests,
have been reported from the eastern shore of Virginia. Once loggerheads hatch, they swim away
from land for two to three days in what has been termed the "swimming frenzy." The only
known neonate habitat in the north Atlantic is the Gulf Stream and its associated currents where
the turtles find food and refuge within floating mats of Sargassum (Caldwell, 1968; Carr, 1986,
1987a). The juveniles make one or more trips around the north Atlantic gyre, until they reach
lengths of approximately 40 cm (Carr, 1986), after which they depart from their pelagic
existence and enter inshore habitats, especially estuaries, during summer months. Klinger
(1988) estimated that loggerheads found in Chesapeake Bay are 7 to 15 years old, and that.
individuals reach sexual maturity between 20 and 30 years of age.

Some loggerheads travel from south of Cape Hatteras to Chesapeake Bay during April
and May, where they establish foraging areas in deeper channels (Keinath et al., 1987; Byles,
1988). While in Chesapeake Bay, loggerheads drift passively with the tides within a relatively
restricted range (Byles, 1988), foraging on their preferred prey, horseshoe crabs (Limuhis
polyphemus) (Lutcavage, 1981; Lutcavage and Musick, 1985; Keinath et al., 1987).

Up to 9,000 loggerheads may inhabit the Bay during summer (Byles, 1988). The turtles
depart the Bay in the fall with the onset of cold weather, usually during October and November,
and travel south along the coast to south of Cape Hatteras (Bellmund et al., 1987; Keinath et al.,
1987). After passing Cape Hatteras, satellite telemetry suggests some loggerheads may enter the
warm Gulf Stream and travel north during the cold months (Byles, 1988; Keinath et al., 1989);
others may overwinter off Florida. Some may spend the winter off North Carolina at the edge of

Conservation Plan/ Page 4

the Gulf Stream (Keinath, 1993).

It was thought that juvenile turtles left estuarine habitats for coastal habitats at sexual
maturity (Bellmund et al., 1987; Keinath et al., 1987), but recent evidence suggests that some
adults regularly utilize habitats in Chesapeake Bay (Keinath and Musick, in press)

Status: The loggerhead is the most common sea turtle in Virginia and the only known
sea turtle to nest here. It is a seasonal visitor to the Chesapeake Bay and its estuarine tributaries
during warmer months. It is listed as threatened both in Virginia and federally. The loggerhead
was listed as threatened in 1978 by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service under the Endangered
Species Act of 19733 (CFR, 1987). This status was adopted by the Virginia Department of Game
and Inland Fisheries in 1987. Because of the importance of juvenile turtles to potential recovery
of the population, the advisory taxonomic committee recommended that the status should be
raised-from threatened to endangered in Virginia, with commensurate increase in penalties for
violating endangered species laws.

Kemp's Ridley Sea Turtle, Lepidochelys kempii (Garman)

Description: Kemp's ridley sea turtles mature at about 65 cm carapace length and weigh
up to 5 0 kg (Pritchard, 1979), but those found in Virginia's waters are juveniles of 20 to 5 8 cm
carapace length and weigh less than 20 kg (Lutcavage and Musick, 1985; Barnard et al., 1989).
The dorsurn of the carapace and appendages is charcoal grey to drab olive green, and the
plastron and lower surfaces of appendages are white. In older specimens the white coloration
extends onto dorsal areas (Musick, 1988). Four prefrontal scutes occur on the head and there are
five pleural scutes. The cervical scute touches the first pleural scute on each side. Ridleys have
four inframarginals, each with a pore posteriorly (Carr, 1952; Musick, 1988). See the logger-
head account for characteristics which distinguish ridleys from other species of sea turtles.

Grant (1946, in Carr, 1952) described an unusual method to identify ridleys from other
species of sea turtle. A rap with the knuckles on the carapace of a ridley sounds hollow, like a
dead log, while other species sound like "living things." This is true of Chesapeake Bay
specimens (JA. Keinath, pers. obs.)

Distribution: Kemp's ridley sea turtles are known from the Gulf of Mexico (but not the
Caribbean), north along the east coast of the United States (but not in the Bahamas) to Massa-
chusetts and eastward to Bermuda, the Azores, and the Atlantic Coast of Europe (Carr, 1952;
Ernst and Barbour, 1972). Kemp's ridley, found along the Atlantic Coast of Virginia and
throughout the lower Chesapeake Bay (Hardy, 1962; Keinath et al., 1987; Barnard et al., 1989,
Keinath et al., 1991b) is the second most abundant sea turtle in Virginia (Keinath et al., 1987;
Barnard et al., 1989). Over 60 dead and 35 live Kemp's ridleys from the Potomac River, the
lower Chesapeake Bay, and the Atlantic coast of Virginia have been examined between 1979
and 1989 (Barnard et al., 1989).

Conservation Plan IPage 5

Habitat: Hatchling Kemp's ri dleys probably inhabit weedlines of offshore currents and
later shift to a nearshore benthic existence with increasing age (Meylan, 1986; Phillips, 1989).
In Chesapeake Bay, Kemp's ridleys are found in shallow, near-shore sea grass beds, especially
where their preferred food, blue crabs (Callinectes sapidus), are found (liellmund et al., 1987;
Keinath et al., 1987; Byles, 1988). Reports from crab fishermen confirm this habitat preference.
Live ridleys normally occur in Virginia's waters from May through November (Lutcavage and
Musick, 1985; Barnard et al., 1989).

Life Histgry: Kemp's ridley has been the most mysterious of the sea turtles. The nesting
grounds of this species were unknown to science until 1963 when Hildebrand found that a 10
kilometer Rancho Nuevo beach was the only major nesting area known for Kemp's ridley,
although sporadic nesting has occurred from Texas (Hildebrand, 1963; Carr, 1979, King et al.,
1985) to the state of Veracruz, Mexico (Hildebrand, 1981; Ross et al., 1989; Ruiz, 1989).

Hatchlings probably adopt a pelagic existence in weedlines of major currents in the Gulf
of Mexico and North Atlantic Ocean (Meylan, 1986; Ross et al., 1989). Recent data suggests
that juvenile ridleys utilize northern estuaries (such as Chesapeake Bay and Long Island Sound)
for summer foraging (Meylan, 1986; Keinath et al., 1987; Ross et al., 1989). Ridleys eat benthic
invertebrates, primarily blue crabs; in Virginia's waters (Lutcavage, i 98 1 - Lutcavage and
Musick, 1985; Bellmund et al., 1987; Keinath et al., 1987). Musick (1988) estimated the
Chesapeake Bay summer population to be "probably in the hundreds."

Status: Kemp's ridley is the most endangered sea turtle, yet it is the second most
abundant sea turtle in Virginia's waters. There is one major nesting beach known worldwide and
no nesting occurs in Virginia. Kemp's ridley was considered endangered by the Federal
Government in 1970, and was listed as such in the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Federal
Register, 1987). This status was adopted by the Virginia Department of Game and Inland
Fisheries in 1987. Kemp's ridley sea turtle is in severe danger of extinction (Carr, 1977, Keinath
et al., 199 1 e). I ;

Atlantic Green Turtle, Chelonia mydas mydas (Linnaeus)

Description: Mature green turtles have carapace lengths of about 100 cm and weights of
150 kg (Pritchard, 1979) but weights up to 340 kg have been reported (Carr, 1952). Individuals,
found in Virginia's waters have carapace lengths ranging from 20 to 50 cm and weigh less than
20 kg (Barnard et al., 1989). The dorsum. of the carapace and appendages is dark green to
brown, often with lines radiating from the posterior margin of each carapace scute. The plastron
and venter of the appendages are cream-white. Yellow may occur at the interface between
'dorsal and ventral coloration in some specimens. There are two prefrontal and four. lateral
pleural scutes. The cervical scute does not touch the pleural scutes (Carr, 1952; Musick, 1989).
See the loggerhead account for characteristics which distinguish greens from other species of sea
turtles.

Conservation Plan I Page 6

Distribution: Green sea turtles range throughout the tropical oceans and estuaries. In the
western Atlantic, they occur from Argentina north to New England (Carr, 1952). Although
historically reported as abundant in Virginia's waters (Brady, 1925), only two live individuals
have been reported between 1979 and 1989, one from the York River and one from the Potomac
River. However, six dead individuals have been found in Virginia: three from the lower
Chesapeake Bay, one from the Eastern Shore, and two from Virginia Beach. All specimens
from Virginia were small (20 - 50 cm carapace length) juveniles (Keinath et al., 1987; Barnard
et al., 1989).

Habitat- Hatchling green turtles take up a pelagic existence in Sargassum mats in major
ocean currents, such as the Gulf Stream (Carr, 1987a). Adult green turtles nest in the tropics as
far north as Florida and can migrate over long distances and deep water to reach nesting sites.
Non-migrating green turtles prefer sea grass fl 'ats (Carr, 1952) such as occur in shallow areas of
Chesapeake Bay. Dead green turtles have been found in Virginia's waters between August and
December, and live individuals were recorded between June and September (Barnard et al.,
1989). All green turtles from Virginia were juveniles (Keinath et al., 1987; Barnard et al.,
1989). It is not known if green turtles in Virginia's waters are vagrants or migrants, and little
else is known of green turtle habits in Virginia.

Life Hia1gry: Green turtles nest on tropical beaches of the Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean
Sea, as well as those of the Atlantic Coast of Florida (Carr, 1952, 1984; Ernst and Barbour,
1972). Hatchlings take,refuge in weedlines in the open ocean (Carr, 1987a) and travel with the
currents. Juvenile green turtles can be found in temperate areas, while adult green turtles, noted
for long migrations and remarkable navigation abilities, are strictly tropical north to Florida
(Carr, 1952, Keinath et al., 1991c). Adults tagged while nesting at Ascension Island have been
recaptured along the South American coast more than 3000 kilometers away (Carr, 1984, King,
198 1). Juveniles are reportedly omnivorous, and include invertebrates in their diet (Ernst and
Barbour, 1972), whereas adults are herbivorous and feed primarily on vascular sea grasses (Carr,
1952). Stomach contents of individuals stranded in Virginia included both eelgrass (Zostera)
and macroalgae, especially the sea lettuce Ulva (Bellmund et al., 1987).

Status: Green sea turtles are extremely rare in Virginia along the Atlantic Coast. Green
turtles were considered threatened throughout their range, but endangered at breeding colonies
in Florida and on the Pacific coast of Mexico, by the Federal Government in 1970. They were
listed as such in the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (CFR, 1987). This status was adopted by
the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries in 1987.

Remarks: The green turtle's common name is derived from the color of the fat inside the
plastron, called calipee, not from external coloration. Calipee is the principal ingredient in clear
turtle soup and it is the demand for calipee that is responsible for the extinction of many
populations of green turtles.

Conservatio n Plan/ Page 7

Leatherback Sea Turtle, Dermochelys coriacea Linnaeus,

Description: The leatherback is the world's largest sea turtle and is rarely confused with
other sea creatures (Carr, 1952). A leatherback sea turtle which washed ashore in Wales, United
Kingdom, in October 1988 weighed over 900 kg (Morgan, 1989). Typically, adults reach 155
cm. carapace length and weigh 360 kg (Pritchard, 1979). Specimens from Virginia were usually
140 to 270 kg (although the larger individuals were not weighed), with carapace lengths of 120
to 180 cm (Barnard et al., 1989). The carapace and body have no horny scutes, but are covered
with smooth, delicate skin that feels and looks rubbery or leathery (Carr, 1952; Musick, 1988).
The carapace has seven longitudinal ridges, and the body is black on the dorsum, with white,
yellow, or pink ventral areas (Carr, 1952). White or pink spots encroach onto the dorsal surface
on some. individuals.

Distributio : Leatherback turtles, ranging throughout tropical and temperate oceans of
the world, into boreal waters (Carr, 1952) are the most widely distributed of all reptiles
(Pritchard, 1980). In the western Atlantic, leatherbacks occur from Cape Horn, Argentina (Carr,
1952) north to Baffin Island, Canada (Shoop, 1980; see Keinath, 1986 for summary of northwest
Atlantic sightings). Many leatherbacks are observed on routine aerial surveys conducted by the
Virginia Institute of Marine Science Sea Turtle Research Project, especially off the mouth of
Chesapeake Bay, where they presumably feed on the abundance of jellyfish washing out of the
Bay (Keinath et al., 1987; Musick, 1988). Leatherbacks have been observed in the Chesapeake
Bay (Hardy, 1969; Musick, 1988) as far north as Saxis, Tangier Island, the Patuxent River
(Barnard et al., 1989), and Reedville (Reed,'1957). Live leatherbacks have commonly been
reported in Chesapeake Bay by fishermen (Bellmund et al., 1987) and recreational boaters (J.A.
Keinath, Pers. Obs.). A live leatherback was reported from Saxis, Virginia, in 1987 and another
was captured in a pound net off the mouth of the York River in 1985 (Keinath and Musick,
1991 d). Between 1979 and 1989, 25 dead leatherbacks have been reported from the Potomac
River southward and along the Atlantic coast of Virginia (Barnard et al., 1989).

Habitat: Leatherbacks, the most pelagic of the sea turtles (Carr, 1952; Ernst and
Barbour, 1972), forage in coastal and offshore waters but occasionally wander close to shore
(Keinath, 1986) and into estuaries (Bellmund et al., 1987; Keinath et al., 198.7; Musick, 1988)'
Very little is known of hatchling or juvenile leatherback habits, but they are assumed to be
offshore pelagic animals (Pritchard, 1979). Leatherbacks occur in Virginia's waters primarily
during warmer months (May - September), but are observed earlier in the year (April; J.A.
Keinath, pers. obs.) and linger longer into the autumn (to December) than do other species of sea
turtles (Barnard et al., 1989).

Life Histofy- Although leatherbacks venture into boreal waters to feed, all nesting areas
are tropical north to Florida (Pritchard, 1971, 1980). The leatherback is the only extant turtle
known to be endothermic (able to keep its body temperature above the ambient temperature)
(Mrosovsky and Pritchard, 197 1; Frair et al., 1972; Standora et al., 1984), a trait which permits
its survival in cool waters. The western North Atlantic population nests primarily on Caribbean

Conseivation Plan I Page 8

shores (Pritchard, 1980; Sternberg, 1981, Keinath et al., 1991d), with some nesting occurring on
coast of the Gulf of Mexico and the Atlantic Coast of the southeast United States (Pritchard,
1971, 1980). Juvenile leatherbacks 'are rarely observed, thus little is known of their habits
(Pritchard, 1979). Leatherbacks feed on soft-bodied pelagic invertebrates (Brongersma, 1969,
1972; Pritchard, 1971, 1980), primarily the sea nettle (Chrysaora quinquecirrha) and moon
jellyfish (Aurelia aurita) in Virginia's waters (Keinath et al., 1987; Musick, 1988; Keinath and
Musick, in press).

Status: The leatherback sea turtle is rare throughout its range. The leatherback sea turtle
was considered endangered by the United States Federal Government in 1970, and was listed as
such in the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (CFF, 1987). This status was adopted by the
Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries in 1987.

Remarks: While leatherbacks were once common visitors to Chesapeake Bay (Hardy,
1969), very few are now sighted within the Bay. Although decreased water quality may be a
factor, the Chesapeake Bay Bridge Tunnel may also act as a physical deterrent to leatherbacks
entering the Bay. A tremendous amount of jellyfish must be consumed to support leatherback
activity and growth (Pritchard, 1979).

MARINE NUAINULS

There are 75 species of whales and dolphins (order Cetacea), and they are categorized
into two groups, the baleen whales (suborder Mysticeti - the right, blue whale, fin, sei, minke,
and humpback whales) and the toothed whales (suborder Odontoceti), which includes other
whales, porpoises, and dolphins. Twenty five cetacean species have been recorded from Virginia
waters. In addition, five other marine mammals - gray seals, harbor seals, harp seals, and
hooded seals (order Pinnipedia) and the West Indian manatee (order Sirenia) wander into
Virginia. The following species have been sighted in Virginia waters or stranded upon our
beaches: harbor porpoise, Atlantic bottlenose dolphin, striped dolphin, saddleback dolphin,
Atlantic spotted dolphin, Atlantic white-sided dolphin, Risso's dolphin, rough-toothed dolphin,'
short-finned pilot whale, long-finned pilot whale, pygmy sperm whale, dwarf sperm whale,
sperm whale, fin whale, Minke whale, humpback whale, northern right whale, goosebeaked
whale, dense-beaked whale, Antillean beaked whale, Gervais'beaked whale, True's beaked
whale, blue whale, Sei whale, Bryde's whale, West Indian manatee, gray seal, harbor seal, harp
seal, and hooded seal.

Following are descriptions of the six most commonly stranded or observed marine mammals
known in Virginia's coastal waters. The remaining species are encompassed by this plan in that
their life history or habitat needs overlap to some extent the six species addressed here.

Conservation Plan I Page 9

Fin whale, Balaenopteraphysalus (Linnaeus)

Description: Adult fin whales reach a maximum length of 24 in. and may weigh up to 75
tons (Jefferson et al., 1993). The lifespan of the fin whale is thought to be approximately 90
years with sexual maturity attained at the age of 5-6 years (Blaycock, 1985; Bruenderman and
Terwilliger, 1994). Fin whales have a streamline body shape. The coloration of the fin is
distinctive with a black/dark grey dorsal body color and white ventral surface. The head and
body color are asymmetrical; unique to the fin whale is a white upper lip and rearward white
blaze on the right side. Fin whales are baleen whales with 260-480 baleen plates per side. The
throat pleats are long, often reaching the navel, and number 50-100 per whale (Jefferson, et al.,
1993). The blow of fin whales is a distinguishing characteristic, a thin blow of 4-6 in tall is the
shape of an inverted cone (Blaycock, 1985; Bruenderman and Terwilliger, 1994).

Distribution: Fin whales inhabit oceanic waters. In the North Atlantic, fin whales
summer from Cape Cod to the Arctic Circle and winter south to Florida and the greater Antilles
(Leatherwood and Reeves, 1983). Thus fin whale stocks migrate through Virginia waters
annually from summer feeding grounds to winter breeding grounds and back again (Gambel,
1985; Mitchell, 1975; Morgan et al, 1994; Sergeant, 1976; Jefferson et al., 1992).

Life Hia!Qfy: Fin whales travel in pods of two to seven individuals (Leatherwood and
Reeves, 1983; Jefferson et al., 1993) and several pods can be seen gathered in one area. Fin
whales mate and calve in the wintering grounds and females bear a single calf every 2 to 3 years
(gestation periods lasting 12 months).

Fin whales are considered deep divers for the baleen whales, sometimes diving as deep as
230 in (Blaylock, 1985). Moreover, fin whales are regarded as the fastest of the large whales,
reaching speeds in excess of 32 km/hr (Leatherwood and Reeves, 1983).

Fin whales feed on schooling fish (herring, capelin, etc.), squid, krill, and copepods.
Depending on type of prey, fin whales employ a variety of methods for catching prey, from
lunge feeding euphasids to engulf feeding a school of fish (Evans, 1990; Jefferson et al., 1993).
The fifty-five foot male, struck by a ship and stranded at Virginia Beach has 140 kg. of
menhaden in the stomach.

Status: Fin whale is listed as endangered in Virginia and federally. Fin whales are also
protected by the Marine Mammal Protection Act.

Humpback Whale, Megaptera novaeangliae (Borowski)

Description: Females grow to 16 in while males grow to 15 in in length (Leatherwood
and Reeves, 1983). Humpback whales are black to grey in color with white on the ventral
surface of the body, flippers, and flukes. The coloration and patterns on the ventral fluke surface

Conservation Plan /Page 10

can be used to distinguish individuals (Glockner and Venus, 1983; Katona and Whitehead, 198 1;
Kaufman et al., 1987). The flippers are long (nearly one-third the body length) with rounded
knobs along the leading edge (Leatherwood and Reeves, 1983). The head is broad with knobby
protuberance on the tip of the lower jaw and on top of the head.

Humpback whales are distinguished from other whales in the family Balaenopteridae by
their long flippers, robust body with knobby protuberances, fewer throat grooves (14 to 3 5) and
variable position of the dorsal fin. Furthermore, humpback whales have elaborate and repetitive
vocalizations during courtship (Payne and McVay, 1971)

Distribution: Humpbacks occur in all oceans, spending the summer on feeding grounds
in polar seas where the productivity is high, and the winter in tropical and subtropical coastal
breeding grounds (Evans, 1987). In summer, the Gulf of Main humpback whale stock frequents
the northeast coast north of 40 degrees N Latitude with the greatest concentrations found along
100-meter depth contour of the Great South Channel, northwest of Georges Bank, all the way to
Stellwagen Bank and Jeffrey's Ledge, in the western Gulf of Maine (CETAP, 1982).

In winter the Gulf of Maine stock joins other feeding stocks on the breeding grounds
around the Greater and Lesser Antilles, east coast of the Dominican Republic, Silver and
Navidat Bank, and the eastern end of the Bahamian Archipelago (Mattila et al., 1989). It is
during this migration that humpack whales are seen off the coast of Virginia in offshore waters,
at the shelf edge, or beyond. Juvenile humpback whales have been observed in winter in
increased numbers in recent years (Potter, 1991; Barco et al., 1993). Two years of observations
beginning in 1991 have identified 18 different individuals with a significant number of animal
returning to the same area each year (Swingle et al., 1993). The large number of forage fishes
(menhaden, bay anchovy, herring etc.) probably provides ample food for the animal (Swingle, et
al., 1993).

Life Hia!Qry: Most humpback whales appear to return to specific breeding grounds every
year and occupy the breeding grounds between January and April. Songs produced by the male
in the wintering ground appear to have courtship significance and sexually mature males
'compete for access to females (Baker and Herman et al, 1983) Females normally give birth
every two the three years, though some have been known to give birth in successive years
(Leatherwood and Reeves, 1983). The gestation period is one year, and the female gives birth to
only one calf Most females with a calf are accompanied by a male escort in their winter range
(Glockner and Venus, 1983; Glockner, 1983; Herman and Antinoja, 1977). The calf is nursed
for ten months to a year. Some juveniles may overwinter in areas north of the breeding grounds
and a number have returned to the same area in successive years (Swingle et al., 1993).

Humpback whales are not fast swimmers yet can gain enough speed to leap out of the
water, or "breach". Humpbacks have also been known to slap the water with the flukes or
flippers; neither behavior have been explained. Humpbacks feed on krill, herring, capelin,
mackerel, and other schooling fish. Feeding behavior can consist of a pod of whales creating a

Conse?vation Plan /Page I I

"bubble net"; encircle the school of fish by producing a bubble curtain as they ascend to the
surface. The bubble net entraps prey and allows the humpback to charge into the net and engulf
the food (Leatherwood and Reeves, 1983).

Status: The humpback whale was placed on the endangered species list in 1973 when the
I
Endangered Species Act was passed by Congress. Humpbacks are also protected by the Marine
Mammal Protection Act.

Harbor Porpoise, Phoceanaphocoena (Linnaeus)

Description: The harbor porpoise is the only true porpoise in the North Atlantic. This
species usually only reaches a length of about 1.5 m and a weight of 45-60 kg. Females are
slightly larger than males. They have 19 to 28 pairs of small, spatulate teeth in each jaw
(Jefferson et al., 1993). It is usually dark brown or grey on the back, lighter grayish brown on
the sides, and white on the belly, with the white extending farther up on the sides of the animal
in front of the dorsal fin. It has a small, triangular dorsal fin. The flippers are dark in color,
with a narrow dark stripe extending from the flipper to the eye area (Leatherwood and Reeves,
1983). Distribution: Harbor porpoises are found in the western North Atlantic from Cape
Hatteras to Greenland, almost always in the shallow waters on the continental shelf (Katona, et
al., 1993), including bays, estuaries, and tidal channels (Hoyt, 1984). Although sometimes seen
in groups of 50 or more, group size is normally no more than 8-10 animals. They may exhibit
an inshore and off shore alteration of range, with movement offshore occurring during the winter
months (Hoyt, 1984). In Virginia waters, the harbor porpoise is seen mainly in the winter and
may be coincident with'the spring shad run (Blaylock, 1995).

Life Hia!Qry: Age at sexual maturity is estimated at three to six years (Katona et al.,
1993) and life span probably does not exceed 15 years (Leatherwood and Reeves, 1983). Most
calves are born from spring to mid-summer (Jefferson et al, 1993). Gestation time is approxi-
mately 11 months, and females tend to give birth to one calf every one or two years. Nursing
lasts about 8 months (Hoyt, 1984)

Harbor porpoises are known to feed on a variety of fish such as small cods, herring and
sole, as well as squid and crustaceans (Hoyt, 1984). Harbor porpoises stranded in Virginia have
had stomach contents of bay anchovy and otoliths of other small fish in their stomachs
(Blaylock, 1985). Communal feeding behaviors have been observed (Hoyt, 1984).

Status: While the world population of harbor porpoises is not well studied, populations
appear to be declining. The NMFS has suggested that the species be listed as threatened in U.S.
waters,.as.it already is in Canadian water (Katona et al., 1993).

Conservation Plan/ Page 12

'Bottlenose Dolphin, Tursiops truncatus (Montagu)

Description: This species is one of the best known of all dolphin species, due to its
prevalence in captivity and the commonness of sightings near-shore. It has a robust body with a
relatively tall, falcate dorsal fin. Counter-shading on individuals varies from light grey to nearly
black dorsally, fading to white, even pinkish on the belly. The rostrum is short to moderate in
length, and is clearly demarcated from the melon by a sharp crease. Adults range from 1.8 to
3.9 in and may weigh as much as 650 kg, although most are much smaller. Bottlenose dolphins
have .18 to 26 pairs of teeth in each jaw, some of which may be wom down or missing in older
animals (Jefferson et al, 1993).

Distribution: Most bottlenose dolphins observed in Virginia belong to the coastal
migratory stock of the Atlantic population (Scott et al., 1988). This stock is most likely
distributed from New Jersey to northern Florida (Wang et al., 1994). North of Cape Hatteras,
North Carolina, coastal migratory dolphins occur seasonally. Virginia is the southernmost state
with seasonal and not year-round dolphin presence. Although dolphins are found throughout the
state, they appear to be concentrated at the mouth of the Chesapeake Bay and all of Assateague
Island (Swingle et al., 1993). Calving occurs throughout the summer and may peak in June and
August. "Operation Dolphin", through shore-based boat observations, has generated preliminary
information on status and distribution of this species in Virginia (Swingle et al., 1993; Swingle
and Barco, in press).

Stranding records include some bottlenose dolphin strandings in the winter and early
spring. These individuals are most likely members of the offshore population which occur along
the continental shelf edge year-round (Kenney, 1990). In 1987, a mass mortality may have
decreased the coastal migratory stock by up to 50% (Scott et al., 1988). For this reason, the
National Marine Fisheries Service listed this stock as depleted in April 1993 and is currently
developing a conservation plan (Wang et al., 1994). 1

Life HistoLy: Growth patterns are described in Read et al. (1993). The age of sexual
maturity for males is 10 to 12 years, for females 5 to 12. Gestation is approximately 12 months
and reproducing females have one calf every 2 to 3 years. Calves are nursed for a year or
longer, and average lifespan ranges from 25 to 3 5 years (Wells et al., 1983; Katona et al., 1993
Geraci, 1989). Rittmaster and Thayer (1991) describe North Carolina reproductive rates and
Scott et al. 1990 describe population dynamics of western Florida dolphins.

Bottlenose dolphins are usually found in pods of less than 10 individuals in the coastal
shore form, and less than 25 in the offshore, though herds of several hundred have been seen
both offshore and in Chesapeake Bay (Leatherwood and Reeves, 1983; Kenney, 1990; Wang et
al., 1994). Dolphins often segregate into groups by sex and age, though some intermixing does
occur, and strong bonds seem only to occur between the mother-calf pair (Wells et al., 1983
Wells, 1991; Katona et al, 1993).

Conservation Plan/ Page 13

Feeding occurs as a group activity in which schools of fish are herded together (Jefferson
et al., 1993). While varied in their feeding habits, analysis of gut contents of stranded bottlenose
dolphins indicates that croakers, sea trout and spot are the main prey items in the Northwestern
Atlantic (Blaylock, 1985, Mead and Potter, 1990). Use of echolocation appears to play a major
role in locating prey, and at high intensities, may also be used to immobilize prey.

Status: The bottlenose dolphin was listed as depleted under the Marine Mammal
Protection Act in 1993.

Harbor Seal, Phoca vitulina

Description: Harbor seals mature at about 1.8 m. Coloration is widely variable, ranging
from white or light gray with dark spots, black, dark grey or brown with white rings or an
intermediate between the two. The nostril is v-shaped and there are no externally visible ears.
Harbor seals may often be distinguished from other seals when hauled out on land by a charac-
teristic arched posture. The head and hind flippers are raised into the air (Jefferson et al., 1993).

Distribution: Harbor seals are confined to temperate and subartic regions of the Northern
Hemispheres, mostly in the western North Atlantic. Small local populations may be found in
some rivers and lakes of W. Hudson Bay, where they may move as far as 240 kni inland, and is
the most frequently reported seal in New England. Harbor seals normally bask and sleep during
low tides on coastal Islands and ledges, and forage during high tides. In Virginia, an occasional
seal hauls out in Virginia Beach around Linkhorn Bay and event at Hopewell on the James
River. They can be seen in Virginia near the islands of the Chesapeake Bay Bridge tunnel
during the winter and spring months (Young et al., 1993).

Harbor seals may be hauled out in large groups at low tide on intertidal ledges, rocky
islets, reefs, mud flats, log rafts, piers, and isolated beaches. They forage at high tide for fish
and@ invertebrates in benthic, midwater, and surface habitats. The may be seen alone or in small
groups at sea (Reeves, et al., 1992).

LifeHisto : Harbor seals live 30-35 years and reach sexual maturity at three to six
years (Bruenderman & Terwilliger, 1994). They pup in spring and summer from the arctic to
New Hampshire. The pup rides on its mother's back for the first week of life. Nursing can take
place both on land and in water, and pups are weaned usually after four weeks.

A harbor seal diet is varied, including benthic and pelagic fish (including herring, squid,
and alewife), crustaceans and copepods. Moreover, harbor seals probably consume 6-10% of
their body weight everyday in order to maintain a reserve of insulating blubber (Reeves et al.,
1992; Bruenderman & Terwilliger, 1994).

Harbor seals are gregarious while on land; thousands may congregate at one haul out site.

Conservation Plan/ Page 14

Hauling out periods are primarily used for sleeping and molting though aggressive behaviors
have been observed during a haul out (Reeves et al., 1992).

Harbor seals are becoming more common in Virginia water in recent years. Based on
stranding and sighting records, they are commonly sighted along Eastern Shore islands, the
Chesapeake Bay mouth, and throughout Virginia Beach coastal and inlet waters. Live seal
strandings are a common occurrence in winter and some examples of intentional wounding
(gunshot) and mortalities related'to disease have occurred in Virginia. Phocine distemper virus
in harbor seals has been identified as a significant disease in the western,North Atlantic
population and has been bound in seals from Virginia waters.

Status: The harbor seal population seems to be recovering. The level of annual
mortalities is unknown.

Common Manatee, Trichechus manatus (Linnaeus)

Description: Adults average 3.5 m in length and weigh up to 500 kg. Manatees have
thick skin that is grey and hairless ("elephant like") and a broad paddle-like tall with no medial
notch. The head is small in proportion to the body, the lips are large and fleshy and overhang
the jaw, and the muzzle is covered with colorless bristles. The pectoral flippers are long,
flexible, and have nails, allowing the manatee to manipulate food (Reeves et al., 1992; Jefferson
et al., 1993 ; Bruenderman and Terwilliger, 1994)

Distribution: The West Indian manatee is distributed from Brazil to the Carolinas and
occasionally the Chesapeake Bay and Virginia. There have been seven confirmed sightings in
the Bay and along the Eastern Shore of Virginia since 1992 (Morgan and Musick, 1994; S.
Moein, pers. obs.). Manatees inhabit mainly coastal ocean areas, rivers, and creeks and typically
have been found congregated near electrical power plants due to their warm water discharge
(Blaylock, 1985)

During the 1990's, manatees h ave been sighted in Virginia waters each year. One
animal, photo-identified as an animal living in Florida, was one of the two found in the
freshwater locks of the intercoastal waterway.

Life HistoEy: In cold weather, manatees can be found congregated in large numbers,
normally when near warm water discharge. Otherwise, they do not appear to be social animals.
Mating occurs in all seasons, gestation lasts from 12 to 14 months and the calf is not normally
weaned until after one to two years (Reeves, et. al., 1992). West Indian manatees are herbivo-
rous and mainly eat submerged aquatic vegetation (such as water hyacinth and hydrilla) (Reeves
et al., 1992). Manatees have been observed, however, beaching themselves in order to reach a
food item (such as grasses) growing on the shore (Reeves, et al., 1992).

Conservation Plan IPage 15

Manatees are vocal animals (sounds ranging from 600 Hz to 16 kHz) and may use sound
recognition for communication. It is believed that mother and calf may recognize each other
through calls (Reeves et al., 1992).

Status: The West Indian manatee is federally listed as endangered and is protected by the
U.S. Fish and Wild life Service.

POPULATION FACTORS AFFECTING
THESE SPEcr-ES AS A GROUP

A variety of both natural and anthropogenic factors are responsible for the overall decline
of this large assemblage of species rangewide. Historically, the most significant impact on
marine mammals and sea turtles was subsistence hunting and use of the animals by humans
(Frazier, 1981; Ross, 1981). Through a combination of protective legislation, education, and
enforcement, taking of these animals has been restricted, and in some cases prohibited, in order
t
o provide for sustainable and recovering populations.

Today, a host of factors affect both the populations and, their habitats. The growth and
subsequent expansion of the human population has been well documented resulting in a decline
in protected, quality breeding, migration, or foraging habitat throughout these species' ranges.
In
In Virginia, coastal and estuarine habitat loss and degradation have affected overall species
diversity, abundance, and distribution in the Bay and its tributaries (Wells, et. al., 1983). The
loss of water quality, functional habitat, and prey availability have ultimately affected top
consumers in the food web. Predators such as bottlenose dolphin and harbor porpoise are
susceptible to bio-magnification of toxins and other pollutants and have been documented with
high levels of contaminants across their range (Katona et al., 1993; Evans 1987; Jefferson et al.,
1993 Leatherwood and Reeves, 1993 Hoyt, 1984). However, the Chesapeake Bay Program, a
multi-state cooperative effort, has.set water quality. and other resource goals and developed a
plan of action to monitor and restore the Bay (Ches. Bay Exec. Council, 1988; Wells, et al.,
1983; Heck and Thoman, 1984; Year 2020 Panel, 1988; Funderburke, et al., 1991; Ches. Bay
Program, 1992)

The Commonwealth's natural shoreline continues to be modified and Virginia has been
ranked as the fifth leading state in the nation for coastal residential construction and sixth for
commercial construction (NOAA, 1990, 1992c). Shoreline development, stabilization, and other
modifications have rendered portions of the Virginia shoreline functionally unavailable and
unsuitable to these species, particularly to nesting sea turtles. Artificial lighting and increased
human recreation and traffic along these beaches continue to threaten the productivity and
survival of loggerheads as they attempt to nest along our beaches (Witham, 1981; Sternberg,
198 1). The coastline of Virginia's Eastern Shore, however, has remained relatively unchanged

Conservation Plan/ Page 16

due in large part to cooperative public - private protection of the barrier island system.

Virginia coastal waters, including those of the Bay, have been subject to an increase in
public use, both recreational and commercial. Sea turtles and marine mammals are all suscepti-
ble to watercraft disturbance and injury. Large whales are susceptible to watercraft disturbance'
and injury. Larger whales are susceptible to boat strikes and virtually all sea turtles and marine
mammals can be injured by boats and their propellers (Beach and Weinrich, 1989). Boat traffic
(including wave runners and a variety of watercraft) can disturb the feeding, breeding, and social
behavior by close or prolonged approach to these animals (Baker et al, 1983; Blaylock, 1985;
Young et al., 1993).

Commercial traffic has also been documented as a threat to sea turtles and marine
mammals. Large whales are susceptible to ship collisions as they sleep on the surface of the .
water (Beach and Weinrich, 1989; Blaylock, 1985; Morgan et al., 1995). Acoustic disturbance
of humpback whales by larger watercraft has been documented (Baker et al., 1983; Baker et al.,
1988; Hall, 1982) resulting in disruption of courtship, nursing, calving, etc. Even smaller
commercial whale watching vessels pose a threat if they approach animals too closely or stay too
long in the area.

Another rangewide threat to this group of animals is that posed by commercial fishing
industries (Read and Gaskin, 1988; NOAA, 1992a, 1994c; Keinath et al., 1994; Read, in press).
Sea turtles have been caught or entangled in trawl nets, crab pot lines, gill nets, and pound net
leader hedging in Virginia (Bellmund, et al., 1987; Keinath, 1987; Barnard et al., 1989) and
rangewide (Balazs, 1982, Lien, et al., 1989, N.A. S., 1990). Incidental catch of harbor porpoise
and other cetaceans in gill nets, purse seines, and traps has also been documented from Virginia
(Read, in press; Read and Gaskin, 1988; Young et al., 1993). Entanglement in fishing gear has
also been documented on the increase in fin whales (Evans, 1987) and humpback whales (Lien,
et al., 1989; Ohara et al., 1986). Similarly, capture in shrimp trawlers is a major threat to
Kemp's ridleys, but has begun to be addressed by TED's (Murphy and Hopkins-Murphy, 1989;
Ross et al., 1989, Fed. Register, 1987; Seidel and McVei, 198 1 - Phillips, 1989). Commercial
fishing activities have been documented to be the largest single source of sea turtle mortality in,
the coastal U.S. (Natl. Res. Coun., 1990).

A stranding network represents one toot used to determine and monitor the causes o f
mortality. Such a network was established in 1979 by VIMS and now comprises over 100
cooperating individuals and organizations. Recent involvement by VMSM has provided
improved coverage of coastal Virginia, especially for marine mammals. Through this network,
dead and live stranded sea turtles and marine mammals are identified, and data are collected on a
variety of life history parameters. Necropsies allow determination of the cause of death, food
habits,age, sex, growth etc. (Lutcavage and Musick, 1985; Musick et al, 1985; Hare and Mead,
1987; Bellmund et al., 1987; Keinath et al., 1987- Klinger, 1988, Lutcavage, 1981; Morgan et
al., .19-94).

Conservation Plan/ Page 17

In temporal and geographic analysis of 413 cetacean and manatee strandings and
sightings during 1983-1989, Morgan et al. (1995) found that 34 (8. 1%) exhibited signs of
adverse interactions related to humans. Most of the causes of death were classified as unknown
as in many cases body decomposition did not allow,,for determination of mortality. In addition,
most (72.7%) of the specimens were Tursiops and 70% of these specimens were reported in
association with the 1987 die off. Cetacean strandings exhibit temporal patterns. Harbor
porpoise mortality was most prevalent during the late winter and early spring. Swingle et al.
1993 observed increase in Tursiops from 1988 to 1993 and recorded similar seasonal peaks in
mortality. In an analysis of stranding and mortality of humpbacks in the mid-Atlantic and
southeast U.S. from 1985-1992, Wiley et al. 1995 found that significantly more strandings
occurred along 170 km. of coastline between the Chesapeake Bay, Virginia, and Cape Hatteras,
North Carolina (x = 70.67, df =1, p<0.01) than occurred in the rest of the study area. In the
twenty animals where cause of death was determinable, 30% were attributable to ship strikes and
25% to entanglement in fishing gear. The'authors note that the possibility that some animals
sustained these anthropogenic factors after death could not be ruled out. Young et al. (1993)
listed the incidental take by fisheries on harbor seals as a significant effect on the population.

Sea turtle stranding data also exhibit temporal and geographic patterns (Maps 1-10). In
general, high sea turtle mortalities have been documented during spring migration in late May
and early June from 1979 through 1986 (Keinath et al., 1987). A number of these mortalities
were associated with entanglement in fishing gear (Bellmund et al., 1987, Musick et al., 1985,
Byles, 1988). Apparent cause of death was determinable in 50% of 920 sea turtle carcasses
collected from strandings between 1979 and 1986 (Keinath et. al. 1987). Decomposition and
lack of visible wounds precluded concrete determination of the cause of death in the remaining
50% of specimens examined. All of the explainable deaths (50%) were attributed to human
interactions. Propeller wounds were observed in 10% of the turtle carcasses and two individuals
had gunshot wounds. 40% of the examined carcasses were either found entangled in gill or
pound nets, or with constriction marks on the flippers or neck suggesting entanglement
Bellmund et al, 1987; Musick et al. 1985).

Additional types of human activity may potentially impact sea turtle and marine
mammals. Military activities along the coast which involve beach disturbance or aquatic
acoustic disturbances such as target bombing and hovercraft maneuvers have the potential -to
disrupt or injure animals in the area. Hopper dredging has been shown to be a major source of
mortality for sea turtles in channels along the southeast coast of the U.S. (Dickerson et al., 199 1;
Joyce, 1992).

Purposeful injury and mortality of sea turtles and marine mammals has declined
significantly in response to education, enforcement, and protective legislation. Unfortunately,
occasional animals are found with signs of purposeful human harm. Ingestion of plastics and
other pollutants remains a problem (Stanley, et al., 1988; Lutz, 1989) It is hoped that continuing
education efforts will be the remedy with law enforcement as a deterrent (Paust, 1988).

Conservation Plan/ Page 18

Natural predation is also a factor affecting some of the small species or young individuals
of sea turtles and marine mammals. Most obvious is the predation of sea turtles nests by
mammals, birds, and even ghost crabs (Witham, 198 1; Pritchard, 1979). Loggerhead sea turtle
nests are frequently destroyed before hatching if nest management is not employed. Eggs are
young are easy prey for a host of avian and mammalian predators on the beach and birds and
fish species as they swim to the Sargassum. also concentrate natural predators, marine debris, and
petroleum and other pollutants (Witham, 1974; Fritts, 1982. Young as well as older turtles can
become entangled in or ingest this jetsam (Carr, 1986, 1987b; Balazs, 1985 - Vargo et al., 1986;
Plotkin and Amos, 1988; Stanley et al., 1988, Ross et al., 1989). Even'large turtles have been
observed with shark or large predator wound (Gudger, 1949; Caldwell and Caldwell, 1969;
Balazs, 1979;

SYNOPSIS OF EXISTING LEGISLATION
ANb REGULATIONS IN VIRGINIA

In total, five state and federal agencies have conservation authorities or in the case of
VIMS, conservation responsibilities for sea turtles and marine mammals in Virginia. Several
federal and state laws and regulations protect sea turtles and marine mammals in the
Commonwealth.

NATIONAL CONSERVATION AUTHORITIES

Endangered Species Act

At the federal level, comprehensive efforts to protect endangered and threatened species
began with the passage of the Endangered Species Preservation Act of 1966. (U.S. Department
of Commerce, 1994). The Endangered Species Conservation Act of 1969 strengthened these
initial provisions and the 1973 Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of
Wild Flora and Fauna followed to solidify conservation- efforts internationally. Congress then
recognized that a more comprehensive effort than that authorized in these acts was needed to
counteract continued loss of species. Finally, in 1973, the passage of the Endangered Species
Act enhanced federal abilities to protect endangered species and develop measures for their
recovery. During each reauthorization of the Endangered Species Act, amendments have been
added which reflect the experience and knowledge gained in administering its provisions. The.
1978 amendments require the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries
Service to develop and implement recovery plans for species under their jurisdiction. Between
1991 and 1993 recovery plans were completed for all five endangered and threatened sea turtles
(NMFS and USFWS, 1991a, 1991b; NMFS and USFWS, 1992, USFWS, 1993) and the
-Northern Right Whale (Eubelaena glacialis) (NMF S, 199 1) and Humpback whale (Mega@tera

Conservation Plan/ Page 19

novaeangliae) (NMFS, 1991, NOAA, 1994b). One species, the Harbor porpoise (Phoecena
phoecena) is presently proposed for listing. These recovery plans will drive conservation efforts
for these sea -turtles and marine mammal species range-wide.

The federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) (16 U.S.C. 1531 et. seq.) offers these
endangered and threatened species fairly comprehensive protection as administered by the
USFWS and NMFS. In addition to Section-4, which provides for the recovery planning process,
Section-6 provides for cooperative agreements with states to share the responsibility for
conservation within state boundaries. In Virginia, the Virginia Department of Game and Inland
Fisheries has a Section-6 agreement with USFWS to implement the Endangered Species Act but
no such agreement exists with NNES at this time. Also through the ESA, various impacts such
as dredging, fishery interactions, etc. are addressed under Section-7 through incidental take
statements for intergovernmental consultation. Section- 10 provides for the development of
habitat conservation plans and incidental take permits for private actions which impact these
species.

Marine Mammal Protection Act

The Marine Mammal Protection Act (NEMPA) (16 U. S. C. � 13 61-1407) is the other
significant federal legislation which provides protection and management for these species
primarily thru NMFS. The MIYIPA states that the Secretary of Commerce (the department in
which NOAA operates) has all responsibility, authority, funding, and duties with respect to
members of the order Cetacea and members, other than walruses, of the order Pinnipedia and
that the Secretary of Interior then administers all other marine mammals (NOAA, 1994a)

The Marine Mammal Protection Act provides that a species or stack may be listed as
depleted if 1). the Secretary, after consultation with the Marine Mammal Commission and the
Committee of Scientific Advisors on marine mammals (established under subchapter I 11)
determines that a species or population stock is below its optimum sustainable population; or 2)
a state [to which authority for the conservation and management of a species or population
stock is transferred under Section 1379] makes that determination; or 3). a species or population
stock is listed as endangered or threatened under the ESA. If such a determination is made, the
MIVIPA states that immediate measures should be taken for its replenishment and protection.

The MIAPA addresses this through a number of its sections including stranding networks
109(h)), marine mammal protection through individual stock assessments, incidental take
reduction plans, regulations governing take by commercial fisheries, scientific research permits
(�4), stranding and die-off response (Title IV). Under Section 115, the Secretary is responsible
for the review of species status and conservation planning and is to develop conservation plans
to "conserve and restore a species or stock to its optimum sustainable population".

Because of their joint responsibilities for this large and important group of animals,

Conservation Plan I Page 20

under the ESA and M1\,1PA, USFWS and NNE S, through a series of memoranda of
understanding, have delineated responsibilities and roles for these various species of animals.
Their memorandum of understanding for sea turtles states that when on land or in fresh water,
they fall under the jurisdiction of the USFWS. When in a marine (salt water ) habitat, they are
under NMFS jurisdiction. These memoranda of understanding further define the federal
agencies' cooperative roles in terms of impacts, consultation and permitting. These two federal
agencies also have delineated responsibility for marine mammal species as follows. The
USFWS has jurisdiction over the manatee, dugong, and several other furbearing marine
mammals (sea otter, walrus, polar bear and monk seal) while the NNES presides over the rest of
marine mammals.

NNE S has additional responsibilities and opportunities for marine mammal protection
through the federal Magnuson Fisheries Conservation and Management Act. Under this Act,
advisory councils are set up (as is the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council) and Fishery
Management Plans (FMP's) are required. FMP's have national standards, one of which requires
the FMP to address impacts to marine mammals and endangered or threatened species. One
such FMP which relates directly to Virginia's protection efforts of sea turtles and marine
mammals is the FMP for the summer flounder fishery ( NOAA, 1992) as the result of a study of
the Interactions between sea turtles and this fishery (NOAA and N.C. Dept.. of the Environment,
1992)

STATE CONSERVATION AUTHORITIES

At the state level, the Virginia Marine Resources Commission's (VMRC) legislation
(�28.2-101) provides comprehensive management authority to VN4RC for all marine organisms
and habitat. This includes sea turtles and marine mammals as well as the prey base upon which
they depend (�28.2-100, definitions). NMRC also regulates the take of many fin and shell fish
in Virginia waters including the establishment of fin and shell fish seasons, possession limits and
size restrictions.

Specifically, �28.2-101 states that the jurisdiction of the VN4RC includes the
Commonwealth's territorial sea and extends to the fall line of all tidal rivers and streams except
in the case of state owned bottomlands where jurisdiction then extends throu hout the
Commonwealth. It goes on to state that VNMC jurisdiction includes all commercial fishing and
all marine fish, marine shellfish, marine organisms, and habitat in such areas. Specifically the
code provides for VMRC to promulgate regulations which conserve and promote the seafood
and marine resources of the Commonwealth, to establish licenses and prepare fishery
management plans. VMRC's Enforcement, Fisheries, Habitat, and Statistics divisions are
responsible for development and implementation of programs which carry out these mandates.
VDGIF's state Endangered Species Act (�29.1-563-570) and subsequent regulations (�325.01-
13) provide for adoption of the federal endangered and threatened list, listing at the state level,
and protection of those species in the state. Further protective legislation for non-endangered

Conservation Plan I Page 21

species is found in �29.1-521 which provides for the protection of wild animals in general.
VDGIF's Wildlife, Fisheries, Law Enforcement, Public Relations, Resource Education,
Planning, Policy and Environment, Lands and Engineering, and Administrative divisions are
responsible for program development and implementation.

The Virginia Institute of Marine Science (VIMS), which is part of the College of
William and Mary (Chapter 5, �23-39 et seq., Title 23) has marine conservation duties under the
Code of Virginia (�28.1-195). Specifically, the duties of the Institute include advising VMRC,
other agencies and private groups on the conservation of fisheries resources (Hargis, 1989).
VIMS is to conduct research and provide technical assistance, advice and training to the boards
of Conservation and Development of Public Beaches on erosion of tidal shorelines and tidal
shoreline erosion to the Soil and Water Conservation Board. The Institute is to engage in - I
research in the marine sciences and conduct studies and investigations into marine resources
including the waters, beaches , bottoms, and wetlands as it pertains to the conservation,
development and replenishment of marine resources.

The Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), through its Coastal Zone
Management Program responsibilities, is also a partner worthy of recognition. NOAA's Coastal
Zone Protection program is administered through the Department of Environmental Quality in
Virginia. Many of its programs and activities directly and indirectly affect water quality
throughout the Coastal Plain. It was through a grant from this program that this planning effort
was made possible.

SYNOPSIS OF EXISTING CONSERVATION
PROGRAMS IN VIRGINIA

In addition to the mandated conservation programs of the above mentioned agencies,
several other organizations' efforts deserve special recognition for their outstanding contribution
to sea turtles and marine mammals conservation in Virginia. Summarized below are the major
organizations and partners who have actively participated in Virginia's sea turtle and marine
mammal conservation programs. Their contributions have made a significant impact on
conservation efforts in the Commonwealth and it is the intention and desire of all parties of the
team to further develop this joint and cooperative effort between public and private
governmental and non-govemmental partners.

Virginia Marine Science Museu in, Virginia Beach, Virginia

Stranding Program: Initiated in 1989 primarily due to the efforts of Mark Swingle this
program is dedicated to the rescue, rehabilitation, and research of marine animals. More than
3 )00 strandings of endangered and protected species such as dolphins, whales, and sea turtles on

Conservation Plan /Page 22

beaches from the Eastern Shore to North Carolina have been investigated, with the help of mor
than 10,000 hours of volunteer time. III or injured animals are transported for treatment, and
tissue and other samples from dead animals are sent to appropriate agencies such as the
Smithsonian Institution Marine Mammal Research Program or the VIMS Sea Turtle Program.

Operation Dolphin: Utilizing small boat surveys, shore-based surveys and photographic
identification (photo-ID), researcher have begun to characterize the distribution, movements and
population status of Virginia's coastal bottlenose dolphins. More than 250 individual dolphins
have been cataloged and comparisons with information collected in other states may provide
insight into their migration patterns.

Humpback Whale Research: Researchers have documented a dramatic increase in
humpback whales in the nearshore waters of Virginia. Photo-identification efforts have
identified 18 individuals, and five of these have returned to Virginia in two successive years.
P*rior to this work, only a few individuals were seen sighted annually.

Public Outreac : Perhaps the most important contribution of the museum to the
conservation of sea turtles and marine mammals is its public awareness program. More than
33 5,000 people, including 3 9,000 schoolchildren, visit the museum annually and learn through
creative, hands-on exhibits the importance of our environment to the health of these threatened
animals. Exhibits on sea turtles and marine mammals will be open to the public in 1996. The
museum also provides unique opportunities to the public to experience dolphins and whales in
their natural environments, through their marine mammal cruises in the Chesapeake Bay.

James Madison University, Department of Biology

Marine Mammal Research: Ann Pabst and William McLellan are involved in research
designed to learn how cetaceans are functionally adapted to their marine environment. They
approach these questions by conducting research from the "inside out" - that is, they dissect
cetaceans that have either stranded or been taken incidental to fishing operations. Each salvaged
animal in invaluable, yielding insights not only into how it may have died, but also how it made
its living. They use tissues to study the function and development of their locomotor,
reproductive and cardiovascular systems. This work has yielded valuable results. Their
cooperative research with the Smithsonian Institution has shown that the dorsal fin and flukes
are full of blood vessels that the animal uses to regulate its body temperature. Currently, these
researchers are working with others to minimize harmful effects of these tags to these animals.

Christopher Newport University, Field Studiesfor the College of Science and Technology,
Newport News, Virginia.

Dolphin Pro-jects: Since May, 1992, Sherman Jones and his staff have been involved

Conservation Plan I Page 23

with a small boat survey, photo-identification study of bottlenose dolphins in the Chesapeake
Bay. They have conducted a total of 150 cruises, taken nearly 5,000 photographs, and currently
have a catalog including 60 recognizable individual dolphins. Their photographic records also
include other marine mammals and sea turtles they encountered. CNU also sponsors a quarterly
newsletter for the Atlantic Dolphin Research Network, and offers courses on marine mammals,
including a "Bottlenose Dolphin Field School",'on Virginia's Eastern Shore.

National Museum ofNatural History, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D. C.

Marine Mammal Program: Apart from serving as an important national clearinghouse of
information on marine mammals, mammalogists at the National Museum of Natural History are
well-known for their long-term studies of the life history of the bottlenose dolphin, Tursiops
truncatus. James G.Mead and Charles W. Potter recently published the results of 15 years of
work in which they speculated on the existence of two or more populations of bottlenose
dolphins in the northwest Atlantic.

Virginia Tech, Virginia Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, National Biological
Survey, Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, Blacksburg, Virginia.

Their research addresses threats which are common to sea turtles in the coastal areas of
Virginia and elsewhere. The purpose of their six-year study on the coast of Florida was to
determine the importance of a 7 to 8-mile stretch of beach. Considered as a possible addition to
the Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge, Dr. Vaughan's research provided important
information needed for the acquisition of this beach to sea turtles. In a separate study in St.
Croix, these Virginia Tech scientists studied seasonal movements of hawksbill sea turtles.

SYNOPSIS OF CURRENT PUBLIC INFORMATION
AND EDUCATION EFFORTS-IN VIRGINIA

Marine mammal and sea turtle recoveries require long-term support over a large
geographic area, The public must be factually informed on the issues especially in situations
when anthropogenic activities such as beach development, public use of nesting beaches, and
fisheries may potentially conflict with the protection and management of species. Public
education is the foundation upon which a long-term management program will succeed or fail.
Existing sea turtle and marine mammal educational groups/ programs/efforts have contributed
significantly to the overall conservation of these spe cies and are listed below.

Conservation Plan IPage 2.4

The Virginia Bay Team, Virginia Institute of Marine Science (VIMS) - Gloucester Point,
Virginia

The Virginia Bay Team is statewide outreach education program about the Chesapeake
Bay. In addition, the Aquarium at Waterman's Hall - VIMS displays sea turtles and
access is provided through a self-guided tour. Two publications are available from
Virginia Sea Grant on sea turtles and marine mammals. Address: Sea Grant
Communications, VIMS, Gloucester Point, VA 23062. VIMS stranding program staff
provide educational programs to the public and conservation organizations, workshops,
training for the network cooperators, as well as state and local agency staff.

Virginia Marine Science Museum - Virginia Beach, Virginia

Specific curricula on sea turtles and marine mammals are presented at the Aquarium and,
through outreach programming. Education packets (i.e., traveling kits) are available for
loan to classroom teachers. Whale observation trips are available during the winter and
summer periods to observe migrating individuals. A team consisting of Aquarium
personnel and volunteers respond to sea turtle and marine mammal strandings for the
entire coastal area of Virginia. In addition, a team of educators also respond to each
stranding to do on-site educational programming (termed - "teachable moments"). The
Aquarium participates in a captive-rearing project of loggerhead sea turtles. These
individuals are eventually tagged and released, for satellite observations. Presently, the
Aquarium is expanding its facility to include additional sea turtle and marine mammal
exhibit space for juveniles and adults. These expansions are due to be completed by
Spring 1996.

Virginia Living Museum - Newport News, Virginia

The Virginia Living Museum exhibits juvenile loggerhead sea turtles and teaches marine
science programs. The Virginia Living Museum is part of the captive-rearing turtle
program, and turtles are released in Florida, approximately 20 miles from their natal site.
Whale watching trips are available to New England and Maryland.

Department of Game and Inland Fisheries (VDGIF) - Resource Education Division -
Richmond, Virginia

Through teacher in-services, educators can obtain activities (Project Wild) for the
classroom on sea turtles and marine mammals. An inflatable whale is used to teach
natural history facts on toothed and baleen whales. VDGIF will also assist schools in the
construction of a life size blue whale replicate (= 70ft) for their schools. Recently, the

Conservation Plan/ Page 25

VDGIF published facts sheets on state laws regulating the possession of sea turtle and
marine mammal parts.

Ocean Encounters - Mechanicsville, Virginia

Ocean Encounters offers a variety of outreach programs on marine mammals including
role playing, costumes and biofacts (dried/preserved parts - baleen, teeth, and vertebrae).

Centerfor Marine Conservation - Hampto n, Virginia and Washington D. C.

Hampton - A script/slide program on the effects of plastics on sea turtles is available for
a fee. WashingLon D.C. - A poster identifying sea turtle and marine mammal species,
coloring books, fact sheets, slide presentations, reports on fisheries conflicts with marine
mammals, and briefing documents of the International Whaling meeting are available.

Christopher Newport College (CNU) - Newport News, Virginia

Christopher Newport College offers a field course each spring to study dolphin biology.
A long-term study was adopted to photo-ID bottlenose dolphins in the Lower
Chesapeake Bay and at the mouths of the James, York, and Elizabeth Rivers. CNT-J also
sponsors a quarterly newsletter for the Atlantic Dolphin Research Network.

James Madison University - Harrisonburg, Virginia

Most of the education on marine mammals at James Madison University is through
faculty and student research. Dr. Anne Pabst and Dr. William A. McLellan, Department
of Biology, present marine mammal lectures to local groups in the Harrisonburg area.

Conservation Plan/ Page 26

STEPDOWN OUTLINE

Management Plan Goal: To enhance the survival and recovery of sea turtles and marine
mammals utilizing Virginia's waters thereby contributing to the
global recovery.

I Protect, manage, and enhance sea turtle and marine mammal populations in Virginia
waters.

1.1 To assess the status and trends of sea turtle and marine mammal populations both
spatially and temporally.

1.1.1 Monitor the relative abundance and distribution both spatially and
temporally of sea turtles and marine mammals in Virginia (utilizing
published protocols determined to be most effective).

1.1.2 Determine and monitor the age-class structure of sea turtles and marine
mammals in Virginia (including reproductive rates and indices).

1.1.3 Determine the genetic stock structure of sea turtles and marine mammals
in Virginia.

1.1.4 Determine and monitor the mortality rates or indices of sea turtles and
marine mammals in Virginia.

1.1.5 Determine the health, disease, and parasitism of sea turtles and marine
mammals in Virginia.

1.2 Assess the life history needs of sea turtles and marine mammals utilizing Virginia
waters.

1.2.1 Determine and monitor feeding ecology both spatially and temporally of
sea turtles and marine mammals in Virginia.

1.2.2 Determine and monitor the habitat utilization of sea turtles and marine
mammals in Virginia.

2 Manage, protect, and enhance the habitats of sea turtles and marine mammals in Virginia.

2.1 Identify and document known and potential impacts of habitat loss and alteration

Conservation Plan I Page 27

and to implement methods to minimize and or address these impac ts.

2.1.1 Identify and document known and potential impacts of dredging and
implement methods to minimize and address these impacts.

2.1.2 Identify and document known and potential impacts of beach replenish-
ment and stabilization and implement methods to minimize and address
these impacts.

2.1.3 Identify and document known and potential impacts of coastal develop-
ment (construction) and implement methods to minimize and address
these impacts.

2.1.4 Identify and document known and potential impacts of pollution (chemi-
cal, biological, and physical) and implement methods to minimize or
address these impacts.

2.1.5 Identify and document known and potential impacts of prey base loss and
implement methods to minimize or address these impacts.

2.2 Identify and document known and potential impacts of fisheries activities and
implement methods to minimize or address these impacts.

2.3 Identify, document, and minimize the impacts of military activities.

2.4 Identify, document, and minimize the impacts of commercial and recreational
activities.

2.5 Identify, document, and minimize the impacts from other intentional threats.

3 Identify and coordinate regulatory and conservation roles, responsibilities, and programs
and determine ways to promote coordination between parties.

3.1 Document and clarify existing legislation and regulations.

3.2 Document and clarify agencies' responsibilities.

3.3 Document and clarify existing federal, state, local, and academic programs.

3.4 Identify ways to promote coordination and response.

3.4.1 Develop action and response plans, i.e., dead stranding, live stranding, and
enforcement protocol.

Conservation Plan /Page 28

3.4.1.1 Develop and implement a dead and live sea turtle
and marine mammal stranding action plan/protocol.

3.4.1.2 Develop and implement a violation enforcement
and reporting action plan/protocol.

).4.2 Develop and MOA's or agreements among state and federal
agencies, i.e., Section-6 agreements.

3.4.2.1 Draft memorandum of understanding between
VMRC, VDGIF, and VIMS outlining these
agencies' roles and responsibilities.

3.4,2.2 Draft an MOU between VDG11F and VIMS
covering ESA activities.

1.4.2.3 Draft a Section-6 agreement with NNES and
VMRC, VIMS and VDGIF.

3.4.3 Establish E-mail and other systems of communication.

3.4.3.1 Establish an E-mail or Internet system of
communication.

3.4.3.2 Develop a correspondence copy policy or protocol.

3.4.4 Pursue training workshops.

4 Improve and promote education and public participation.

4.1 Deter-mine existing and potential educational programs and groups.

4.2 Identify and maintain communication with existing audiences. and target new
audiences.

4.2.1 Develop and maintain communication and coordination with commercial
fisherman.

4.2.2 Develop and maintain effective communication and coordination with
recreational users.

4.2.3 Develop and maintain effective communication and coordination with
legislators.

Conservation Plan /Page 29

4.2.4 Develop and maintain effective communication and coordination with the
media.

4.2.5 Develop and maintain effective communication and coordination with
other potential supporters.

4.3' Identify ways to promote and improve information dissemination.

4.3.1 Identify various media with which to distribute information.

4.3.2 Develop new publications, posters, and brochures.

4.3.3 Develop timely and effective data exchange between agencies and
organizations.

4.4 Determine ways to improve public participation.

Conseivation Plan Page 3 0

STEPDOWN OUTLINE NARRATIVE

I Protect, manage, and enhance sea turtle and marine mammal populations in Virginia
waters.

1.1 To assess the status and trends of sea turtle and marine mammal populktions both
spatially and temporally-

1.1.1 Monitor the relative abundance and distribution both spatiall3Land
temporally of sea turtles and marine mammals in Virginia (utilizinc-I
published protocols determined to be most effective .

in order to assess population increases (possibly due to conservation
efforts) or decreases, it is important that long-term monitoring data be
collected. It is recommended that the existing methods of monitoring
populations in the Bay be continued to establish trend data; specifically
the stranding network information, aerial surveys, and established
observation programs. It is also recommended that an effort be
undertaken to determine the most effective monitoring and survey
methods be determined and utilized. This task should be undertaken as an
immediate future effort of this management team and recommendations
should be produced as a result. .

1.1.2 Determine and monitor the age-class structure of sea turtles and marine
mammals in Virginia (including reproductive rates and indices .
A

The age and size structure.of sea turtles stranded dead, or incidentally
captured live in Virginia are and have been monitored by VI1\4S since
1979 and more recently by VMSM. In addition, data on sex and
reproductive state are collected on most stranded animals. Size, sex, and
reproductive state are also recorded for marine mammals. However, little
is known of the age structure of marine mammals in Virginia. In addition,
incidence of calves is recorded for bottlenose dolphins aerial surveys
when possible, and also as part of a separate beach and boat observation
program focused on this species by VMSM, James Madison University,
and Christopher Newport University. The management team should
determine the most effective methods of determining age-class structure
and provide recommendations on how best to accomplish this.

1.1.3 Determine the genetic stock structure of sea turtles and marine mammals
in Virginia.

Conservation Plan /Page 31

Only two species of sea turtles are sufficiently abundant in Virginia to
make genetic studies possible. Of these, the Kemp's ridley is comprised
of one breeding population (nesting at Rancho Nuevo in Tam' aulipas,
Mexico). The other, the loggerhead is composed of two western Atlantic
nesting populations (Bowen et. al., 1993). Studies have begun at VIMS
using mtDNA to determine the origin of thousands of juvenile
loggerheads that spend the summer in the Chesapeake Bay and should be
continued. Little is known of the genetics or stock structure of marine
mammals in Virginia. Studies are needed for harbor porpoise,
humpbacks, and the bottlenose dolphin. Biopsy sampling of cetaceans has
been used successfully in genetic studies and could be incorporated into
ongoing sampl ing and research in Virginia.

1.1.4 Determine and monitor the mortali1y rates or indices of sea turtles and
marine mammals in Virginia.

Frequency and causes of mortality of sea turtles have been monitored as
part of the Stranding Network in Virginia. Marine mammal mortalities
are recorded by both VIMS and VMSM for different areas of the state.
Virginia's stranding network should be continued and improved through
additional state coverage and support. This information should be
collected, compiled, summarized, and presented to the four regulatory
agencies annually. Cause of mortality should be documented, quantified,
and presented as part of this annual summary report.

1.1.5 DetermiLie the health, disease, and parasitism of sea turtles and marine
mammals in Virginia.

Health, disease, and parasitism of sea turtles have been monitored by
VIMS since 1979 and was the focus of a M.A. thesis study by Bellmund
(1988). Similar data are recorded for stranded marine mammals by both
VIMS, VMSM, and other researchers at NMFS, the Smithsonian, and
JMU. The importance of this information is evident in view of the serious
dolphin 1978 die-off. Future collection of such data, to a large extent, is
dependent upon the Stranding Network as it is the source of specimens
and study material. This research should be continued work with National
Marine Fisheries Service, the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology and the
existing tissue banks should help determine disease and contaminant
levels in sea turtles and marine mammals.

1.2 Assess the life histo[y needs of sea turtles and, marine mammals utilizing Virginia
waters.

Conseivation Plan/ Page 32

1.2.1 Determine and monitor feeding ecology-both spatially and temporally of
sea turtles and marine mammals- in Virginia.

The feeding ecology of sea turtles in Virginia has been studied in detail by
VIMS since 1979 (see citations above) and food habits data are routinely
collected by the Stranding Network. Similar foods habits data are
collected from stranded marine mammals by both VIMS and VMSM.
Some of these data have been analyzed and summarized for bottlenose
dolphins by Leatherwood et. al. (1976), and Blaylock (1985). Additional
information is needed particularly about the association of harbor
porpoise, bottlenosed dolphin, and humpback whales, respectively, with
various prey fishes. Trawl surveys and ongoing analysis of stomach
contents of stranded cetaceans has provided preliminary information but
more information is needed.

1.2.2 Determine and monitor the habitat utilization of sea turtles and marine
mammals in Virginia.

Habitat utilization by sea turtles and marine mammals in Virginia has
been studied by VIMS using aerial surveys since 198 1. In addition, other
VIMS studies using sonic, radio, and satellite telemetry have provided
more precise details about habitat utilization by loggerhead and Kemp's
ridley sea turtles in the state, and elsewhere in colder months after these
animals have migrated out"of Virginia waters. The aerial monitoring,
telemetry studies, and observation programs to record distribution,
abundance, and habitat utilization of sea turtles and marine mammals need
to continue. In addition, tracking studies are sorely needed on bottlenose
dolphins and harbor porpoise to more closely define habitat utilization in
Virginia and to determine the whereabouts of wintering grounds, calving,
and nursery areas.

2 Manage. protect, and enhance the habitats of sea turtles and marine mammals in Virginia.

2.1 @ Identify and document known and potential impacts of habitat loss and alteration
and to implement methods to Minimize and or gddress these impacts.

The marine and estuarine habitats occupied by sea turtles and marine mammals
are widespread and diverse, comprising the whole of the lower Bay, the lower 10
'km of the major tributaries, and all of the oceanfront. Loggerheads occupy
channels and channel edges and Kemp's ridleys prefer shallower "flats" areas near
seagrass beds where blue crabs (their preferred prey) are common. Activities that
occur in these habitats should be considered for their potential impacts on those
species.

Conservation Plan I Page 33

Marine mammals are most common along the oceanfront and bottlenose dolphins
regularly forage into the mid-Bay, but are most abundant along the coast and the
'Bay mouth. Increased survey efforts need to better define coastal distribution and
confirm this preliminary Information to be assured it is not a sampling artifact.
There appear to be local groups of bottlenose dolphin that associate with the areas
around Cape Henry and Cape Charles during the summer (Blaylock, 1984).
Further determination of their distribution and use of the area and habitats is
needed. A database of population parameters should be continually collected.
These parameters should include information from sightings, necropsies, and
photographs. Movements and migrationroutes should also be identified through
the use of radio, sonic, or satellite tags and photo identification programs.

Once determined, impacted should be minimized through state environmental
review process and the federal Section-7 process. Communication early on in the
planning phase of projects will be key to more efficient and effective
environmental review and Section-7 processes. Coordination between the state
and federal resource agencies will be critical in this process.

2.1.1 Identify and document known and potential impacts of dredging and
implement methods to minimize and address these impacts.

Hopper dredging has been shown to be a major source of mortality for sea
turtles in channels along the southeast coast of the U.S. In addition,
VIMS recorded loggerhead mortalities from hopper dredges in lower
Chesapeake Bay in the spring of 1994. Dredging activities should be
limited to the colder months (November - April) when sea turtles are rare
or absent in the Bay. Sea grass beds should be protected from dredging
and development, as these beds are habitat for both ridleys and their prey,
blue crabs, which utilize the beds as nursery areas (Heck and Thoman,
1984). In addition, recent development by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers in the construction of dredge heads that avoid catching sea
turtles may help to alleviate the problem in the future. Cooperation with
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers through support for surveys, observer,
and research programs, as well as coordination in the early project
planning stages, is recommended.

2.1.2 Identif
.y and document knawn and potential impacts of beach
replenishment and stabilization and implement methods to minimize and
address these impacts.

Beach replenishment can alter the suitability of beaches for sea turtle
nesting. Beach stabilization, particularly bulkheading, can completely
destroy nesting beaches. Impacts on nesting sea turtles should be

Conseivation Plan/ Page 34

considered through groper planning before beach replenishment or
stabilization projects are approved. Early and effective coordination
between local, state, and federal agencies in the environmental review
process will result in efficient permitting and proactive resource
management.

2.1.3 Identify and document known and 12ot ential impacts of coastal
development (construction) and implement methods to minimize and
address these impacts.

The potential impact of coastal development on endangered and
threatened sea turtles and marine mammals is addressed by both the
federal and state permitting processes. The effects of construction
activities such and underwater noises should be considered and evaluated
in addition to the potential impacts of permanent habitat manipulation or
loss. The effects of such impacts should be addressed early on in the
planning stages of any such activity in order to minimize the impacts most
effectively. E@arly and effective coordination between local, state, and
federal agencies in the environmental review process will result in
efficient permitting and proactive resource management.

2.1.4 Identify and document known and potential impacts of pollutioLl
(chgmical, biological. and physical) and implement methods to minimize
or address these impact@.

Potential impacts of pollution on sea turtles in Virginia have been studied
by VIMS in loggerhead sea turtles (primarily polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons and chlorinated hydrocarbons were found). The effects of
these pollutants on the animals were not apparent. The NNMS collected
information on body burdens of chemical pollutants on some of the
bottlenose dolphins sampled during the 1987 epizootic. Clearly much
more work is needed in this area. Efforts to improve water quality in
Virginia should continue, and it is imperative that petroleum products not
be released into the Bay. Deep channels should not be disturbed by
dredging during summer months.

2.1.5 Identify and document known and potential impacts of 12rey base loss and
implement methods to minimize or address these impacts.

Virtually no information is available on the effect of prey-base lost on sea
turtles and marine mammals in Virginia. As more information becomes
available about the diets of sea turtles and marine mammals in Virginia,
assessment should be made on the effects of prey-base loss (through

Conservation Plan I Page 35

pollution, fishing activities, etc.).

2.2 Identify and documen t known and potential impacts of fisheries activities and
implement methods to minimize or address these impacts.

In view of the observed and potential mortalities associated with fisheries
activities, research and monitoring programs should be conducted to document
these impacts. More quantitative information is needed on several Virginia
fisheries as well as their impacts on sea turtles and marine mammals. Preliminary
observations and evidence suggest that sea turtle and marine mammal mortalities
coincide temporally and spatially with certain fisheries. Statistics on the fisheries
themselves (i.e., fishing effort, dates, catch, by-catch etc. as summarized by
VMRC < 3 mile limit and National Marine Fisheries Service > 3 miles) should be
made available to the management team annually or as requested, to aid in this
determination.

Specifically, more information is needed on:
1) The fall flounder fishery and its effects on sea turtles, offshore Otter
trawling, and the mandatory use of TED's should be monitored and
quantified. Preliminary information suggests the use of TED's inshore (:S
20 miles) in otter trawls north of Oregon Inlet from April Ist - December
I St.

2) The fall spot gill net fishery and its affects on sea turtles.

3 ) The poundnet fishery and its affects on sea turtles.

4) The black drum fishery (spring gill netting) and its affects on sea turtles
and marine mammals in the spring.

5) Ocean gill net shad fishery and its effects on marine mammals in late
winter through spring.

Protective measures should be recommended from these studies, implemented,
and enforced in order to minimize such impacts. A program to encourage
cooperation with Virginia's commercial and recreational fisherman should be
implemented. A proactive, educational, approach is recommended in order to
avoid a reactive regulatory approach.

Protected species should be fully addressed in all state FMP's since recent
changes in the NEYWA require states to develop take reduction plans for strategic
stocks of marine mammals. In Virginia this includes dolphins and porpoises.

Conseivation Plan IPage 36

FAIPs and this documentprovide the opportunityfor state regulatory agencies to
manage, state programs with the understanding that both the US Fish and
Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service are authorized and
obligated to manage these resources if states do not meet their own obligations.

23 Identify, document, and minimize the impacts of militaEY activities.

The impacts of military activities on sea turtles and marine mammals in Virginia
are little known. The effects on sea turtles and marine mammals of activities like
target bombing in the marine environment, or intensive local vessel activities
such as hovercraft maneuvers should be studied. Cooperation of the Department
of Defense is encouraged and support for such work is encouraged and
recommended.

2.4 Identify, -document, and minimize the impacts of commercial and recreational
activities.

There has been an increased level of commercial whale watching and general
nature tours. Although protection and disturbance guidelines exist under the
Marine Mammal Protection Act, little information is known about these activities
and their effects on Virginia's populations of sea turtles and marine mammals. A
dramatic increase in recreational watercraft activities has caused great concern
over potential impacts and injury to marine mammals and sea turtles.
Particularly, fast moving recreational equipment such as waveriders have been
implicated in injuries and disturbance to thisgroup of species. Research is
needed into the impacts of these activities and protective measures should be
developed and enforced where appropriate. The impact of shipping traffic on
humpback whales as well as the determination of the amount of mortality
resulting from collision with ships should be investigated.

2.5 Identify. document, and minimize the impact from other intentional threats.

Purposeful mortality of sea turtles and marine mammals has declined
significantly since passage of the federal Endangered Species and Marine
Mammal Protection Acts. Regardless, sea turtles are still found stranded
occasionally with definite signs of purposeful human harm (gunshot wounds,
decapitation, etc.). Public education and stricter enforcement of existing federal
and state laws should help reduce these sources of mortality as well as those
incidental to fishing operations.

3 Identify and coordinate reglllatoEy and conservation roles, responsibilities, and programs
and determine ways to promote coordination between parties.

Conservation Plan /Page 3 7

This need was one of the driving forces behind the development of this plan. All parties
recognized the need to clearly state the seemingly redundant and overlapping mandates
and authorities of the federal and state agencies and to better define existing conservation
programs. Through this planning process, the regulatory and conservation roles and
responsibilities have been identified, documented and compiled into one document. Each
party was responsible for the review and inclusion of accurate and current information on
its program. Coordination. will need to become a priority for all parties involved in
order to communicate new information as it becomes available and to coordinate existing
programs most efficiently.

3.1 Document and clarify existing legislation and regLilations.

Existing legislation and regulations have been documented and compiled through
this planning process. A summary of federal legislation and regulations have
been described in the Introduction. The ESA is pending reauthorization at this
time and changes or amendments may result. It is doubtful, however, that
changes in federal legislation or regulations will affect the way implementation of
conservation plans at the state level unless these changes are drastic.

It is the responsibility of each partner to inform and update the other agency
partners as new or additional info regarding their legal roles and authority
becomes available. Any clarification or additional MOA's that may clarify legal
mandates should be communicated to all partners immediately in order to
maintain effective conservation programs.

3.2 Document and clarify agencies' responsibilities.

State and federal agency partners now have a clearer understanding of each
other's roles and responsibilities in the protection of these species as a result of
this planning process. Specifically at this point in time, legislation and regulation
define and document that VMRC at the state level and NNff S at the federal level
have regulatory responsibility for all marine life, including sea turtles and marine
mammals. When sea turtles are on land, however, VDGIF and USFWS assumes
regulatory responsibility for these species. Stranding therefore becomes an area
of joint concern. Accordingly, VNMC and NWS have responsibility for all
marine mammals except the manatee, for which VDGIF and USFWS share
responsibility. It is recommended that MOU's be developed between VDGIF,
VNMC, and VIMS clearly stating their roles and responsibilities as well as their
recognition of such roles and to foster a cooperative management program
between these agencies. VIMS's role is scientific and advisory and its
responsibilities are to support the conservation and management of sea turtles and
marine mammals in Virginia.

Conservation Plan I Pag e 38

3. 3 Document and -clarify existing federal, state, local, and academic programs.

Aside from the management activities of the government agencies, a n umber of
governmental organizations have played and will hopefully continue to play a
critical role in Virginia's conservation efforts of sea turtles and marine mammals.
The Virginia Marine Science Museum has and should continue to provide
educational opportunities to Virginia residents and visitors alike. Their
contributions to the stranding network and research and other conservation efforts
are extremely important to Virginia's overall effort. The research and
conservation efforts of the academic institutions such as Christopher Newport
University, James Madison University, the Smithsonian Institution, and Virginia
Tech are also an invaluable part of the statewide effort to learn, analyze, evaluate
and record the new and existing information needed to conserve these species in
Virginia. The diverse, professional efforts of groups such as Center for Marine
Conservation are critical to Virginia efforts. Such conservation and academic
programs are encouraged and can be most beneficial to the Commonwealth if
they address the priorities and objectives identified in this plan as needed for the
state's program.

3.4 Identify ways to promote coordination and response.

Effective coordination and efficient response between and among agencies and
programs is critical to the delivery and implementation of this plan'in the
Commonwealth. It is incumbent upon each agency and program to communicate
any information which can assist in the implementation of another agency's
program.

Agency and organization contact persons should be established, this information
should be communicated to that respective agency staff as well as to the team.
This will provide for an effective communication network which can efficiently
transfer information within that agency/organization and amongst team members
as appropriate.

3.4.1 Develop action and response plans, i.e. dead stranding, live stranding, and
enforcement -protocol.

Action and response plans need to be developed for each identified
emergency need. Emergency needs include stranding (both live and dead
sea turtles and marine mammals) and law enforcement and violation
reporting.

3.4.1.1.1 Develop and implement a dead and livo sea turtle and
marine mammal stranding action plan/protocol.

Conservation Plan IPage 39

It is recommended that key staff and contact persons from
affected agencies and organizations meet and draft an
emergency action plan for sea turtles and marine mammals
dead and live stranding. This could be accomplished as a
function and responsibility of the team or a smaller group
or individuals assigned the responsibility, but it should be
approved by the team and the 5 conservation agencies.

3.4.1.2 DeveloR and implemeLit a violation enforcement and
reporting action plan/protocol.

A second emergency response plan should be developed to
address the need for effective and efficient law
enforcement and violation reporting response. All members
of each agency and organization's staff as well as key
public officials and the appropriate public should be
provided this information. It should be disseminated to
various interested and affected groups, i.e. volunteers,
commercial and recreational fisheries groups or
individuals, beachfront landowners, municipal officials
and staff, etc.

3.4.2 Develop and initiate MOA's or agreements among state and federal agencies, i.e.
Section-6 agreements,

Now that this research into the legal authorities and responsibilities has clarified
this issue, the responsible state agencies should officially recognize and state this
information in the form of formal interagency agreements or MOA's. Effective
law enforcement is a pressing problem with potential bycatch of healthy sea
turtles and marine mammals by certain commercial fisheries. The direct and
timely involvement of the appropriate agencies in enforcement of state and
federal laws relating to sea turtles and marine mammals can reduce or eliminate
these problems and is recommended in concert with public and user group
education.

3.4.2.1 Draft memorandum of understanding betw@en VN4RC, VDGI--F,
and VIMS outlining these agencies' roles and responsibilities.

It is recommended that an MOU be drafted through meetings and
close coordination by the staff of VMRC, VDGIF and VIMS
which clearly delineates the roles and responsibilities of each of

Conservation Plan IPage 40

the 3 state agencies. This MOU should be distributed to team
members, and all agency staff involved. Because sea turtle and
marine mammal conservation activities span many divisions of
VURC and VDGIF, it is recommended that staff from each
affected division be involved in the drafting of the agreement and
that all staff of those divisionsbe informed.

3.4.2.2 Draft an MOU between VDGIF and VE\4S covering ES
activities.

Since VDGIF maintains an active Section-6 agreement with
USFWS for ESA activities, VIMS activities need to be authorized
by VDGIF to perform its conservation work. It is recommended
that an MOU to be followed by annual letters of renewal to VIMS
upon receipt of VIMS reports. VMRC, USFWS, and NNTS will
be sent copies of these reports and accomplishment documentation
by VDGIF. This will ensure communication of activities during
that year.

.).4.2.3 Draft a Section 6 agreement with NNES and VMRC. VWS and
VDGIF.

A Section-6 agreement will allow the transfer of authority for
endangered and threatened species management to the state of
Virginia for the purposes of sea turtle and marine mammal
conservation. It will also facilitate and provide additional funding
source for conservation efforts in the state. This agreement can
use as its basis the state MOU delineating responsibilities and can
be modeled after other state Section-6 agreements to fit Virginia
needs.

3.4.3 Establish E-mail and other systems of communication.

Effective Communication systems will be essential to maintaining an effective
state program. Several options of communication should be explored, including
E-mail or Internet and the most effective one(s) implemented.

1.4.3.1 Establish an E-mail or Internet system of communication.

Information posted on E-mail or Internet could be directly and
quickly accessible to all parties and should be considered.
Pressing issues, stranding, violation, and other timely program
activities could be provided by team members arid interested

Conservation Plan I Page 41

parties.

3.4. 3. 2 Develop a correspondence copy -policy or protocol.

Another method of communicating timely or pressin g issues is for
agencies and organizations to copy team members and/or
appropriate parties on correspondence. Specifically, comments on
environmental reviews and project impacts should be copied
between VMRC, VDGIF, and VIMS to coordinate and support
agency activities.

3.4.4, Provide training workshQps

Workshops should be provided to agency staff, volunteers, and a wide variety of
affected pax-ties in order to gain their active participation in conservation
programs. In the past, VEYIS and VMSM provided such training workshops to
agency staff and others to improve sea turtle and marine mammal identification
and provide for more and accurate stranding reports. Such workshops and
training should continue and should focus on those groups most likely to
encounter stranded or breeding animals such as law enforcement, beach cleaning
officials, fisheries groups, etc.

4 Improve and promote education and public participation.

4.1 Determine existing and potentiql educational programs a nd groul2s.

Existing education programs in Virginia have been summarized in the
introduction. Research and compilation, of this information was the result of this
planning effort.

4.1.2 Potential educational programs and groups.

Each partner and participating organization should continue to develop
and promote the distribution of factual literature on sea turtles and marine
mammals for the general public and special interest groups. Additional
and new activities should be developed such as:

Develop a "what to do" brochure for dealing with strandings of sea turtles
and marine mammals. This would include a list of contact people, phone
numbers (e.g., law enforcement), and procedures for dealing with stranded
individuals as a result of the action developed in 3.4. 1. Another brochure
could deal with lighting modifications or measures to reduce hatchling
disorientation and approach guidelines for marine mammals and other

Conservation Plan/ Page 42

actions landowners or managers can do to help conserve sea turtles and
marine mammals.

Public participation in research and recovery activities (e.g., nesting
surveys) along the coastline can be an effective tool. However, guidelines
should be developed by the state resource agencies to provide for such
participation. Among other things, criteria must address group size and
frequency of surveys in order to maximize the effectiveness of survey and
educational experience.

Inventory existing and develop new brochures or fact sheets on laws
governing the possession of sea turtle and marine mammal parts and
perhaps details of recent changes in the Marine Mammal Protection Act,
and distribute to appropriate public and private entities within the Coastal
Plain. In addition, the brochures need to address the reasons for the
development of the sea turtle and marine mammal conservation programs
and marine protection laws. This brochure would have more focus than
the general Virginia Wildlife issue and reprint developed by the Virginia
Department of Game and Inland Fisheries.

Post information signs at public access points to important nesting beaches
and marine mammal concentration areas with contact numbers,and other
pertinent information. Public access points near nesting beaches provide
an excellent opportunity to inform the public of necessary precautions for
compatible public use on the nesting beach.

4.2 Identify and maintain communication with existing audiences and target new
audiences.

4.2.1 Develop and maintain communication and coordination with commercial
fisherman.

VMRC currently publishes a quarterly newsletter and should continue in
order to effectively communicate and coordinate with commercial
fisherman. Information on sea turtle'and marine mammal conservation
should be provided through this effective means' Information from
newsletters of Christopher Newport University, Virginia Marine Science
Museum, Virginia Institute of Marine Science, etc., can be incorporated
into this VMRC newsletter.

4.2.2 Develop and maintain ffective communication and coordination with
recreational users.

Conservation Plan/ Page 43

VMRC should expand communication and coordination regarding sea
turtles and marine mammals with recreational fishermen by maintaining a
current mailing list and developing a year-round newsletter. Presently, the
Saltwater Review is published during summer months. Publishing
additional issues will allow for more effective dissemination of current
information and policy changes and can be used to inform recreational
fisherman on sea turtle and marine mammal issues.

4.2.3 Develop and maintain effective communication and coordination with
legislators.

Organizations should develop and maintain communication and
coordination with appropriate legislative committees through providing
annual updates on current research efforts and management practices.
This approach will facilitate funding and public education opportunities.

4.2.4 Develop and maintain effective communication and coordination with tht
media.

Target newspapers more closely associated with coastal areas and any
smaller newspapers in the lower, middle and upper peninsula.
Disseminate news briefs on the management plan to interested city editors
of leading newspapers.

4.2.5 Develop and maintain effective communication and coordination with
other potential supporters.

Developand maintain effective communication and coordination with
other interest groups such as local environmental groups by i ncluding
these groups on mailing lists and keeping them informed of volunteer
opportunities that are available. This expanded network of public
education and coordination with the private sector (e.g. whale watching
industry) can be kept informed through, newsletters from Christopher
Newport College, the Virginia Marine Science Museum, the Virginia
Institute of Marine Science, Center for Marine Conservation, and other
publications. Through information presented in the appropriate format to
both the public and private sector can contribute to the recovery efforts
and reduce the potential for harassment of marine mammals and sea
turtles at-the same time,

4. 3 Identify ways to promote and improve information dissemination.

This could be a future effort of the management team. In the future, most

Conservation Plan /Page 44

information will be available by computers, therefore, continue to develop the
VDGIF dial-up system to access sea turtle and marine mammal information.
Information cal also be posted on computer bulletin boards (e.g., Internet,
CompuServe) so classrooms, the public, and private groups can access current
educational and-research efforts.

4.3 ). I Identif- i e information.
appropriate media and distribute a1212ropr at

Local coastal news media contacts should be identified and kept informed.

4.3.2 Develop new publications, posters. and brochures.

Develop videotapes to be disseminated in coastal areas pertaining to sea
turtle and marine mammal issues. A videotape for educational 'purposes
has been developed by VDGIF through a Department of Environmental
Quality NOAA grant. Videotapes should be made available and
encouraged to be used at public educational facilities in coastal areas.

4. 3. 3Develop timely and effective data exchange between agencies and
organizations.

- The Virginia Marine Science Museum now sends VDGIF locational data
on several marine mammal species. VDGIF is producing maps which will
be used in environmental project reviews and for display purposes at the
Aquarium. Similar maps are also being produced for the most abundant
sea turtles species in Virginia in cooperation with VIMS.

Each non-governmental organization should send copies of their
newsletter and appropriate correspondences to each other and to all
regulatory agencies to keep them properly informed. E-mail procedures
can assist in more rapid and widespread information dissemination
between federal and state agencies as well as other organizations.

Sea turtle and marine mammal workshops should be organized to bring
together research and educators for information sharing. Workshops
should emphasize research conducted in Virginia and other mid-Atlantic
states. For students, research information is scarce at local libraries and
bringing together the "experts" and the educator would fulfill a vacant
niche for students.

4.4 Determine ways to improve public participation.

Many creative programs exist nationwide which could be employed in Virginia.

Conservation Plan I Page 45

Such options include:

Schools and other organizations can partici pate in an "Adopt-a-Program" for
marine mammals. Since bottleno'se dolphins have been well photographed and
identified, a pictorial could be developed describing the individuals. This
pictorial could be in a computer format. Information on individuals could be sent
to student on calving frequency and presence/absence data, etc. Teachers are
interested in acquiring empirical data to reinforce the scientific method.

Dev elop a coastal area art contest on sea turtles and marine mammals. The art
could be converted into a poster or calendar and be sold as a fundraiser product.

Conservation Plan I Page 46

ILITERATURE CITED

Baker, C. S., L. A Herman, B. G. Bays, and G. B. Bauer. 1983. The impact of vessel traffic on the behavior of
humpback whales in Southeast Alaska: 1982 season. Report submitted to the National Marine Mammal
Laboratory, NNTS, Seattle, Washington. 30 pp.

Baker, C. S., A. Perry, and G. Vequist. 1988. Humpback whales of Glacier Bay, Alaska. Whalewatcher. Fall: 13-17.

Balazs, G. H. 1979. Loggerhead turtle recovered from a tiger shark at Kure Atoll. 'Elepaio 39:145-147.

Balazs, G. H. 1982. Driftnets catch leatherback turtles. Oryx 16(5):428-430.

Balazs,G.H. 1985. Impact of ocean debris on marine turtle: entanglement andingestion. Pp.387-429inShomuraand
Yoshida (eds.), Proceedings of the Workshop on the Fate and Impact of Marine Debris, Honolulu, Hawaii.
NOAA Technical Memorandum, NOAA-TM-NMFS-SWFC-54.

Barco, S. G., W. M. Swingle, M. C. Vang, and T. D. Pitchford. 1993. Juvenile humpback whales returning to the
nearshore waters of Virginia. Tenth Biennial Conference on the Biology of Marin Mammals, November 11-15,
Galveston, Texas.

Barnard, D. E., J. A. Keinath, and J. A. Musick. 1989. Distribution of ridley, green, and leatherback turtles in Chesapeake
Bay and adjacent waters, Pp. 201-203 in Eckert, Eckert, and Richardson (compilers), Proceedings of the 9th
Annual Workshop on Sea Turtle Conservation Biology. NOAA Tech. Mem. NNES-SEFC-232.

Beach, D. W. and M. T. Weinrich. 1989. Watching the whales: is an educational adventure for humans turning out the
be another threat for endangered species. Oceanus 32:84-88.

Bellmund, S. A., J. A. Musick, R. C. Klinger, R. A. Byles, J. A. Keinath, and D. E Barnard. 1987. Ecology of sea turtles
in Virginia. Virginia histitute of Marine Science Special Scientific Report No. 119. Virginia Institute of Marine
Science, Gloucester Point, Va. 48 pp.

Blaylock, R_ A. 1985. The marine marnmals of Virginia. Virginia Institute of Marine Science Education Series No. 35,
VSG-85-05. 35pp.

Bowen, B., J. C. Avise, J. I. Richardson, A.B. Meylan, D. Margaritoulis, and S. R_ Hopkins-Murphy. '1993. Population
structure of loggerhead turtles, Caretta carrett@, in the northwestern Atlantic Ocean and Mediterranean Sea.
Conservation Biology 7(4):834-844.

Brady, M. K. 1925. Notes on the herpetology of Hog Island. Copeia 1925(137):l 10-111.

Branduer, R. L. 1983. A sea turtle nesting at Island Beach State Park, Ocean County, New Jersey. Herpetological
Review 14:110.

Brongersma,L.D. 1969. Miscellaneous notes onturtles. 1113. Proceedings of the Koninklije Nederlandse Akademy
vanWetenSchappen. SerieC 72(l):90-102.

Brongersma, L. D. 1972. European Atlantic Turtles. Zoologische Verhandelingen, Rijksmuseum van Nataurlijke
Historie, Leiden. Nr. 121. 318 pp.

Conservation Plan IPage 47

Bruenderman, S. and K. Terwilliger. 1994. Swimming beyond the boundaries: the uncertain future of Virginia's marine
mammals and sea turtles. Virginia Wildlife. January: 11-27.

Byles, R. A. 1988. The behavior and ecology of sea Uirtles in Virginia. Unpublished PhD Dissertation. Virginia
Institute of Marine Science, College of William and Mary, Gloucester Point, Va. 112 pp.

Caldwell, D. K. 1968. Baby loggerhead turtles associated with Sargassum weed. Quarterly Journal of the Florida
Acadamy Science 31(4):271-272.

Caldwell, D. K. and M. Caldwell. 1969. Addition of the leatherback. sea turtle to the known prey o f the killer whale
Orcinus orca. Journal of Mammalogy 50(3):636.

Carr, A, 1152. Handbook of Turtles. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY. 542 pp.

Carr, A. 1977. Crisis for the Atlantic ridley. Marine Turtle Newsletter 4:2-3.

Carr, A. 1979. The Windward Road. 2nd ed. Florida State University Press. Tallahassee, FL. 258 pp.

Carr, A. 1984. So Excellent a Fishe. 2nd edition. University of Texas Press. Austin, TX. 280 pp.

Carr, A. 1986. Rips, fads, and little loggerheads. BioScience 36:92- 100.

Carr, A. 1987a. New perspectives on the pelagic stage of sea turtle development. Conservation Biology 1(2):103-121.

Carr, A. 1987b. Impact of nondegradable marine debris on the ecology and survival outlook of sea turtles. Marine
Pollution Bulletin 18(6b):352-356.

CETAP. 1982. A characterization of marine mammals and turtles in the mid- and north Atlantic areas of the U.S. Outer
Continental Shelf. Final Report of the Cetacean and Turtle Assessment Program, Bureau of Land Management,
CotnractNo.AA551-CT8-48. U.S Department of the Interior, Washington D.C. 450pp.

Chesapeake Bay Program. 1992. Annual Summary, Living Resources Subcommittee.

Chesapeake Bay Executive Council. 1988. Cheseapeake Bay basinwide toxics reduction strategy.

Crouse, D. T., L.B. Crouder, and H. Casw ell. 1987. A stage-based population model for loggerhead sea turtles and
implications for conservation. Ecology 68(5):1412-1423.

Dickerson, D. D., J. Richardson, J. Ferris, and M. Wolff. 199 1. Entrainment of sea turtles by hopper dredges in Cape
Canaveral and Kings Bay ship channels. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Information Exchange Bulletin, Vol.
D-91-3.

Ernst, C. H. and R. W. Barbour. 1972. Turtles of the United States. University Press, Kentucky. 347 pp.

Evans, P. G. H. 1987. The natural history of whales and dolphins. Facts on File, Oxford. 343 pp.

Federal Register. 1-987a. Sea turtle conservation; shrimp trawling requirements. 52(124);24244-24262.

Federal Register. 1987b. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. United States Government Printing Office.
32 pp.

Fowler, H. W. 1925. Records of amphibians and reptiles for Delaware, Maryland and Virginia, III. Virginia. Copeia
1925(146):65.-67.

Conservation Plan/ Page 48

Frair, W., R.G. Ackman, and N. Mrosovsky. 1972. Body temperature of Dermochelys coriacea: warm turtle from cold
water. Science 177:791-793.

Frazier, J. 1981. Subsistence hunting in the Indian Ocean. Pp. 391-396 In K.A. Bjorndal (Ed.), Biology and
Conservation of Sea Turtles. Smithsonian Institution Press, Wash. DC.

Fritts, T. H. 1982. Plastic bags in the intestinal tracts of leatherback marine turtles. Herpetological Review 13 (3):72-7 3

Funderburke, S. L., et al. 199.1. Habitat requirements for Chesapeake Bay living resources. Habitat Objective Workshop
fo the Living Resources Subcommittee and the Chesapeake Bay Research Consortium, Inc.

Gambell, R- 1985 . Fin whale Balaenoptera physalus (Linnaeus, 175 8), pp 171-192 in S. H. Ridgeway and R. J. Harrison
(eds), Handbook of marine mammals. Academic Press, London.

Geraci, J. R. 1989. Clinical investigations of the 1987-88 mass mortality of bottlenose dolphins along the U.S. Central
and south Atlantic coast. Final Report NMFS and ONR- 63 pp.

Glockner, D. A. And S. C. Venus. 1983a. Identification, growth rate, and behavior of humback whales (M
sea
@ptera
n2xmmZaa0 cows and calves in the waters of Maui, Hawaii. Pp. in R. Payne (ed.), Communication and
behavior of whales. Westview Press, Boulder.

Glockner, D. A. 19 83b. Determining the sex of humpback whales (Meaawera novacanbliae) in their natural
I environment. Pp. 447-464 in R- Payne (ed.), Communication and behavior of whales. Westvi.ew Press, Boulder.

qudger, E. W. 1949. Natural historynotes on tiger sharks, Galeocerdo tigrimis, caught at Key West, Floridawith
emphasis on food and feeding habits. Copeia 1949(l):3 9-47.

Haley, N. J. and A. J. Read. 1993. Summary of the workshops on harbor porpoise mortalities and human interactions.
U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Technical Memorandum, NNTS-F-NER-5, 32 pp.

Hall, J. D. 1982. Prince William Sound, Alaska: Humpback whale population and vessel traffic study. Final Report,
contractno. 81-ABG-00265. National Marine Fisheries Service, Juneau Management,Office, Juneau, Alaska.
14 pp.

Hardy, J. D., Jr. 1962. Comm nts on the Atlantic ridley turtle Lgpidochelys olivacea kg= , in the Chesapeake Bay.
Chesapeake Science 3:217-220.

Hardy, J. D, Jr. 1969. Records of the leatherback turtle, Dermoche.11s coriacea (Linnaeus), from the Chesapeake Bay.
Bulletin of the Maryland Herpetological Society 5:92-96.

Hare, M. P., and J. G. Mead. 1987. Handbook for determination of adverse human-marine mammal interactions from
necropsies. Northwest and Alaska Fisheries Center Report 87-06. National Marine Fisheries Service, Seattle.
35 pp.

Hargis, W. J., Jr. 1989. Mandates affecting the College of William and Mary and the Virginia Institute of Marine Science:
their signficance to the policies, programs, personnel, products, and productivity of the Institute and School of
Marine Science. Virginia Institute of Marine Science, Gloucester, Virginia. 261 pp.

Heck, K. L. and T. A. Thoman. 1984. The nursery role of sea grass meadows in the upper and lower reaches of the
Chesapeake Bay. Estuaries 7(l):70-92.

Herman, L. M. and R. C. Antinoja. 1977. Humpback whales in the Hawaiian breedingwaters: population and pod
characteristics. Scientific Report, Whales Research Institute, Tokyo, 29:59-85.

Conservation Plan /Page 49

Hildebrand, H. H. 1963. Hallazgo del area de anida..@ion de la tortuga marina "lord', Lepidochelys kempi (Garman), en
la costa occidental del Golfo de Mexico. Ciencia 22:105-122.

Hildebrand, H. H. 1981. A historical review of the status of sea turtle populations in the western Gulf of Mexico. P p
447-453 in Bjorndal (ed.) Biology and Conservation of Sea Turtles. Smithsonian Institution Press.. Washington
D.C.

Hoyt, E. 1984. The whale watcher's handbook. Madison Press, New York. 208 pp.

Jefferson, T. A., S. Leatherwood, and M. A. Webber. 1993. FAO species identification guide: marine mammals of the
world. FAO, Rome. 302 pp.

Joyce, J. C. 1982. Protecting sea turtles. The Military Engineer 481:282-285.

Katona, S. K. and H. P. Whitehead. 198 1. Identifying hurnpack whales using their natural markings. Polar Record
20:439-444.

Katona, S. K., V. Rough, and D. T. Richardson. 1983. A field guide to the whales, porpoises, and seals of the Gulf of
Maine and eastern Canada, Cape Cod to Newfoundland. Charles Scribner's Sons, New York. 255 pp.

Kaufman, G., M. A. Smultea, and P. Forestell. 1987. Use of lateral body pigmentation patterns for photo ID of east
Australian (Area V) humback whales. Cetus 7:5-13.

Keinath, J. A. 1986. A telernetric study of the surface and submersion activities of Dermochelys coriacea. and Caret,ta
caretta. Masters Thesis, University of Rhode Island, Kingston, R.I. 86 pp.

Keinath, J. A. 1993. Movements of wild and head-started sea turtles. Ph.D. Dissertation, School of Marine Science,
College of William and Mary, Williamsburg, VA. 199 pp.

Keinath, J.A. and J.A. Musick. In press. Dermochelys coriacea. (Leatherback sea turtle). Migration. Herpetological
Review.

Keinath, J. A., J. A. Musick, and R. A. Byles. 1987. -Aspects of the biology of Virginia's sea turtles: 1979-1986. Virginia
Journal of Science 38(4):329-336.

Keinath, J. A., R. A. Byles, and J. A. Musick. 1989. Satellite telemetry of loggerhead turtles in the western north
Atlantic. Pp. 75-76 in Eckert, Eckert, and Richardson (compilers), Proceedings of the 9th Annual Workshop
on Sea Turtle Conservation and Biology. NOAA Technical Memorandum, NNES-SEFC-232.

Keinath, J. A., R_ A- Byles, and J. A.. Musick. 1991a. Loggerhead sea turtle Caretta Caretta (Linnaeus). Pp.445-448in
K. Terwilliger (coordinator), Virginia's endangered species. McDonald and Woodward Publishing, Blacksburg,
Virginia.

Keinath, J. A., R_ A. Byles, and J. A. Musick. 1991b. Kemp's ridley sea turtle, Lgpidochelys keMp (Garman). Pp.451-
453 in K. Terwilliger (coordinator), Virginia's endangered species. McDonald and Woodward Publishing,
Blacksburg, Virginia.

KehiA, J. A., R. A. Byles, and J. A. Musick. 199 Ic. Atlantic green sea turtle, Chelonia mydas mydas (Linnaeus). Pp.
448-450 in K. Terwilliger (coordinator), Virginia's endangered species. McDonald and Woodward Publishing,
Blacksburg, Virginia.

Keinatli, J. A., R_ A. Byles, and J. A. Musick. 1991d. Leatherback sea turtle, Dermochelys coriacea. (Linnaeus). Pp. 453-

Conservation Plan I Page 50

455 in K. Terwilliger (coordinator), Virginia,s endangered species. McDonald and Woodward Publishing,
Blacksburg, Virginia.

Keinath, J. A., D. E. Barnard, and J. A. Musick. 1991e. Status of Kemp's ridley in Virginia and adjacent waters. Final
report to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Endangered Species, Alburquerque, New Mexico. 20 pp.

Keinath, J. A., J. A. Musick, D. E. Barnard, and S. E. Moein. 1994. The occurrence of sea turtles, marine mammals, and
fishing activities off Virginia's Eastern Shore, 20 April 1994. Report submitted to NOAANWS, northeast
region.

Keinath, J. A., D. E. Barnard, J. A. Musick, and B. A. Bell, (In press). Kemp's ridley sea turtles from Virginia's waters.
Proceedings 14th Annual Sea Turtle Symposium. 4 pp.

Kenney, R. D. 1990. Bottlenose dolphins off the northeastern United States, pp. 369-386 in S. Leatherwood and R.
Reeves (eds.), The bottlenose dolphin. Academic Press, New York.

King, F. W. 1981. Historical review of the decline of the green turtle and the hawksbill. Pp. 183-188 in K.A. Bjorndal
(ed.), Biology and Conservation of Sea Turtles. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington D.C.

King, R., P. Plotkin, Y.A. Weickum, D. Clark, and D.J. Shaver. 1985. Padre Island National Seashore 1985 Report:
Kemp's Ridley Sea Turtle Restoration and Enhancement Project Incubation and Imprinting Phase. National Park
Service, Department of the Interior. 168 pp.

Klinger, R.C. 1988. Age and growth of juvenile loggerheads, (Caretta caretta), from Chesapeake Bay. Unpublished
Masters Thesis. Virginia Institute of Marine Science, College of William and Mary, Gloucester Point, Va. 90
PR

Leatherwood, S. and R- R. Reeves. 1983. The Sierra Club handbook of whales and dolphins. Sierra Club Books, San
Francisco. 302 pp.

Leatherwood, S., D. K. Caldwell, and H. E. Winn. 1976. Whales, dolphins, and porpoises of the western North Atlantic:
a guide to their identification. NOAA Technical Report, National Marine Fisheries Service Circular 396. U.S.
Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 176 pp.

Lien, J., W. Ledwell, and J. Huntington. 1989. Whale and shark entrapments in inshore fishing gear in Newfoundland
and Labrador during 1989. Report to the Newfoundland and Labrador Department of Fisheries and the
Department of Fisheries and Oceans. 30 pp.

Lutcavage, M. 1981. The status of marine turtles in Chesapeake Bay and Virginia coastal waters. Masters thesis.
Virginia Institute of Marine Science, College of William and Mary, Gloucester Point, VA. 126 pp.

Lutcavage, M. and J. A. Musick. 1985. Aspects of the biology of sea turtles in Virginia. Copeia 1985:449-456.

Lutz, P, 1189, Pollution: The strange story of balloons and sea turtles. Presentation at the 11h Annual Workshop on
Sea Turtle Conservation and Biology. 7 -1 I'Feb., 1989.

Matfila, D. K., P. J. Clapham, S. K. Katona, and G. S. Storke. 1989. Humpback whales on Silver Bank, 1984: population
composition and habitat use. Canadian Journal of Zoology 67:281-285.

Mead J. G., and C. W. Potter. 1990. Natural History of bottlenose dolphins along the central Atlantic coast of the United
States. Pp. 165-191 in S, Leatherwood and R. Reeves (eds), The bottlenose dolphin. Academic Press, New
York.

Conservation Plan /Page 51

Meylan, A. 1986'. Riddle of the ridleys. Natural History Magazine (Nov) 1986:90-96.

Mitchell, E. D. 1975. Present status of northwest Atlantic fin and other whale stocks, pp. 108-169 in Schevill, W. E. (ed.),
The whale problem, a status report. Harvard University Press, Cambridge.

Morgan, P. J. 1989. Occurrence of leatherback turtles (Dermochelvs coriacea) in British waters 1988. Pp. 119-120 In
Eckert, Eckert, and Richardson (compilers), Proceedings of the 9th Annual Workshop on Sea Turtle
Conservation and Biology. NOAA Technical Memorandum, NMFS-SEFC-232.

Morgan, P. J., J. A. Musick, and C. W. Potter. 19,95. Virginia Marine Resources Report 95-3. Virginia Institute of
Marine.Science. 35pp.

Mrosovsky, N. and P.C.H. Pritchard. 1971. Body temperatures of Dermochelys coriacea and other sea turtles. Copeia
1971(4):624-631.

Murphy, T.M. and S. R.Hopkins-Murphy. 1989. Sea turtle and shrimp fishing interactions: a summary and critique
of relevant information. Center for Marine Conservation. WashingtonD.C. 52pp.

MusickjA. 1988. The sea turtles of Virginia, second revised edition. Virginia Sea Grant Program, Virginia Institute
I of Marine Science, Gloucester Point, Va. 20 pp.

Mus ick, J. A., R. A. Byles, R., C. Klinger, and S. A. Bellmund. 1985. Mortality and behavior of sea turtle in the
Chesapeake Bay. Summary Report for 1979-1983. Submitted to the National Marine Fisheries Service.
Virginia Institute of Marine Science, College of William and Mary, Gloucester Point, Virginia. 52pp.

National Marine Fisheries Service. 1991 a. Recovery plan for the humpback whale eggpteranovaeangliae). Prepared
by the Humpback Whale Recovery Team for the National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, Maryland.
105 pp.

National Marine Fisheries Service. 1991b. Recovery plan for the northern right whale ubaleana glacialis . Prepared
by the Right Whale Recovery Team for the National Mar ine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, Maryland. 86 pp.

National Marine Fisheries and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1991a. Recovery plan for U.S. population of loggerhead
turtle. National Marine Fisheries Service, Washington, D.C. 63pp.

National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1991b. Recovery plan for the U.S. population of
Atlantic green turtle. National Marine Fisheries Service, Washington, D.C. 51pp.

National Marine Fisheries Services and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1992a. Recovery plan for leatherback turtles in
the'U.S. Carribbean, Atlantic, and Gulf of Mexico. National Marine Fisheries Service, Washington, D.C. 65
pp-

National Marine Fisheries and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1992b. Recovery plan for the U.S. population of Kemp's
ridley sea turtle. National Marine Fisheries Service, Washington, D.C.

National Oceanic and Atinospheric Administration. 1990. Fifty years of population change along the nation's coast 1960-
2010.. Strategic Environmetal Assessments Division, Silver Spring, Maryland. 41 pp.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 1992a. Draft environmental impact statement for proposed
management measured for amendment 2 to the fishery management plan for the summer flounder fishery.
National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, Maryland. 156 pp.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 1992b. The right whale in the western North Atlantic: a science and

Conservation PIan I Page 52

management workshop. Reference Document 92-05. National Marine Fisheries Science Center, Woods Hole,
Massachusetts. 88 pp.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 1992c. Building along America's coasts: tweny years of building
permits, 1970-1989. Strategic Environmental Assessments Division, Silver Spring, Maryland. 49 pp.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 1992d. Interactions between sea turtles and the summer flounder
trawl fishery, November 1991 - February 1992. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-307. National
Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, Maryland. 58 pp.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Adrninist@tion. 1994a. Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 annual report,
January 1, 1992 - December 31, 1993. National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, Maryland. 136 pp.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 1994b. Status of recovery programs January, 1992 - June, 1994.
Endangered Species Act Biennal Report to Congress. National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring,
Maryland. 92 pp.

National Oceanic and Admospheric Administration. 1994c. NNTS observer programs: minutes and recommendations
from a workshop held in Galveston, Texas, November 10- 11, 1993. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-
OPR-9 I -I. National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, Maryland. 96 pp.

National Research Council. 1990. Decline of sea turtles: causes and prevention. National Academy Press, Washington,
D.C. 259 pp.

Paust, M. 1988. Man cited in turtle death. Daily Press (Newport News, Va.). Aug. 24:C L C3.

Payne, R. S. And S. McVay. 1971. Songs of humpback whales. Science 173:585-597.

Phillips, P. 1989. The Great Ridley Rescue. Mountain Press Publishing Company Missoula, MT. 180 pp.

Plotkin, P. and A.F. Amos. 1988. Entanglement in and ingestion of marine debris by sea turtles stranded along the south
Texas coast. Proceedings of the 8th Annual Workshop on Sea Turtle Conservation and Biology. NOAA
Technical Memorandum, NNES-SEFC-214.

Potter, C. W. 1991. Marine mammals. Pp. 603-607 in K. Terwilliger (coordinator), Virginia's endangered species.
McDonald and Woodward Publishing, Blacksburg, Virginia.

Pritchard, P. C. H. 1971. The Leatherback or Leathery Turtle Dermochelys coriacea. IUCN Monograph, Morges,
Switzerland. 39pp.

Pritchard, P. C. H. 1979. Encyclopedia of Turtles. T.F.H. Publishing, Neptune City, NJ 288 pp.

Pritchard, P. C. H. 1980. Dermochelys coriacea. Catalog of American Amphibians Reptiles 23 8:1-4.

Read, A. J. (in press). Interactions between cetaceans and gill net and trap fisheries in the Northwest Atlantic. In
Mortality of cetaceans in passive fishing nets and traps. International Whaling Commission Special Issue.

Read, A. J., and D. E. Gaskin. 1988. Incidental catch of harbor porpoises by gill nets. Journal of Wildlife Management
52(3):517-523.

Read, A, J., and D, E. Gaskin. 1990. Changes in growth and reproduction of harbor porpoises, Phocoena phocoena, from
the Bay of Fundy. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 47(11):2158-2163.

Conservation Plan /Page 53

Read, A. J., R. S. Wells, A. A. Hohn, and M. D. Scott. 1993. Patterns of growth in wild bottlenose dolphins, Tursiol2s
truncatus. Journal of Zoology 231:107-123.

Reed, C. F. 1957. Contributions to the herpetofauna of Virginia: 2: the reptiles and amphibians of the northern neck.
Washington Acadamy of Science 47(l):21-23.

Reeves, R. R_ B. S. Stewart, and S. Leatherwood. 1992. The Sierra Club handbook of seals and sirenians. Sierra Club
Books, San Francisco. 3 59 pp.

Rittmaster, K. A. and V. G. Thayer. 1991. Reproductive rates of bottlenose dolphin, Tursios truncatus, near Beaufort,
North Carolina following the 1987-1988 die-off. Presented to the Ninth Conference on the Biology of Marine
Mammals, Chicago, Illinois, December 1991.

Ross, J. P. 198 1. I-Estorical decline of loggerhead, ridlev, and leatherback sea turtles. Pp. 189-195 in K.A. BjorndaI
(ed.), Biology and Conservation of Sea Turtles. "Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.

Ross, J. P., S. Beavers, D. Mundell, and M. Airth-Kindree. 1989. The status of Kemp's ridley. Center for Marine
Conservation, Washington, D.C. 52 pp.

Ruiz, G. 1989. The Kemp's ridley conservation project in Tecoluda, Veracruz. Presentation at the 9th Annual Workshop
on Sea Turtle Conservation and Biology. 7-11 Feb., 1989.

Rybitsky, M. J., R_ Hale, and J. A. Musick. 1995. Distribution of ogranochlorine pollutants in Atlantic sea turtles. Copeia
2:379-390.

Scott, M. D., R_ S. Wells, and A. B. Irvine. 1990. A long-term study of bottlenose dolphins on the west coast of Florida.
Pp. 235-244 in S. Leatherwood and R. Reeves (eds.), The bottlenose dolphin. Academic Press, New York.

Seidel, WR. and C. McVea, Jr. 1981. Development of a sea turtle excluder shrimp trawl for the southeast U. S. penaeid
shrimp fishery. Pp. 497-502 In BJorndaI (Ed.) Biology and Conservation of Sea Turtles. Smithsonian Institution
Press, Washington D.C.

Shoop, C. R. 1980. Innuit tulle song: leatherback turtles near Baffin Island? Marine Turtle Newsletter 15:5-6.

Standora, E. A., J.R_ Spotila, J.A. Keinath, and C.R. Shoop. 1984. Body temperatures, diving cycles, and movement of
a subadult leatherback tur-de, Dennochelys coriacea. Herpetologica 40(2):169-176.

Stanley, K. M., E. K. Stabenau, and A. M. Landry. 1988. Debris ingestion by sea turtles along the Texas Coast.
Proceedings of the 8th Annual Workshop on Sea Turtle Conservation and Biology. NOAA Technical
Memorandum, NNTS-SEFC-214.

Sternberg, J. 1981. The Worldwide Distribution of Sea Turtle Nesting Beaches. Center for Environmental Education,
Washington, D.C. 12 pp.

Swingle, W. M., S. G. Barco, and T. D. Prichard. 1993. Appearance of juvenile humpack whales feeding in the nearshore
waters of Virginia. Marine Mammal Science 9:309-315.

Swingle, W. M., S. G. Barco, W. A. McLellan, D. A. Pabst. 1993. Appearance of juvenile humpback whales feeding in
the nearshore waters of Virginia. Marine Mammal Science 9(3):309-315.

Swingle, W. M., S. G. Barco, W. A. McLellan, D. A. Pabst (in press). Studying the migratory population of coastal
bottlenose dolphins Tursiol2s truncatus in Virginia.

Conservation Plan IPage 54

Terwilliger, K. (coordinator). 1991. Virginia's endangered species. McDonald and Woodward Publishing, Blacksburg,
Virginia. 672 pp.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1989. Florida manatee, Trichechus manatus latirostris, recovery plan. Prepared by the
Florida Manatee Recovery Team for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Atlanta, Georgia. 98 pp.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1993. Recovery plan for hawksbill tuides in the U.S. Carribean Sea, Atlantic Ocean, and
Gulf of Mexico. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Atlanta, Georgia. 52 pp.

Virginia Beach Marine Science Museum. 1994. Stranding report results for 1994. Virginia Marine Science Museum,
Virginia Beach, Virginia. 9 pp.

Vargo, S., P. Lutz, D. Odell, E. Van Vleet, and G. Bossart. 1986. Final Report of the Effects of Oil on Marine Turtles,
Volume I - Executive Summary. U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, MMS 14-12-
0001-30063. 12pp.

Wang, K. R., P.M. Payne, and V. G. Thayer (compilers). 1994. Coastal stock(s) of Atlantic bottlenose dolphin: status
review and management. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Technical Memorandum, NMFS-OPR-4. 121
PP.

Wells,R.S. 1991. The role of long-term study in understanding the social structure of a bottlenose dolphin community.
Pp. 199-255 in K. Pryor and K. Norris (eds.). Dolphin societies: discoveries of the puzzles. University of
California Press, Berkeley.

Wells, Jr., H. W., S. J. Katsanos, and F. H. Flanigan. 1983. In An introduction to the Chesapeake Bay: a framework for
action. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Chesapeake Bay Program.

Wiley, D. N., J. C. Jahoda, R_ A. Asmutis, D. Simser, 1. Baab, and M. Martin. 1993. Winter distribution of cetaceans and
human activity in coastal waters of the mid-Atlantic states. Presented at the Tenth Biennial Conference on the
Biology of Marine Mammals, Galveston, Texas, November 1993.

Wiley, D. N., R_ A. Asmutis, T. D. Pitchford, and D. P. Gannon. 1995. Stranding and mortality of the humpback whale,
Meagpteranovaeangliae, in the mid-Atlantic and southeast regions of the United States (1985-1992). Fisheries
Bulletin 93:196-205.

Witham, R. 1974. Neonate sea turtles from the stomach of a pelagic fish. Copeia 1974(2):548.

Witham, R. 1981. Disruption of sea turtle habitat with emphasis on human influence. Pp. 519-522 in Bjomdal (ed.)
Biology and Conservation of Sea Turtles. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington D.C.

Year 2020 Panel. 1988. Population growth and development in the Chesapeake Bay watershed to the year 2020:
summary. Report to the Chesapeake Executive Council.

Young, N. M., S. L. Iudicello, K. Evans, and D. Baur. 1993. The incidental capture of marine mammals in U.S. fisheres.
Center for Marine Conseration, Washington, D.C. 415 pp.

Conservation Plan I Page 55

IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE

TASK NAME PRIORITY FY I I`Y2 FY 3 FY 4 FY 5 DURATION COMMENT

1.1.1 Abundance/Distribution 1 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 annual surveys contracte
1.1 .2 Age-Class Structure 11 $35,000 $35,000 $35,000 $35,000 $35,000 contract
1.1.3 Genetics, Stock 11 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 existing s
1.1.4 Mortality Rates 1 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $5O,000 annually contract
1.1.5 Health, Disease, Parasatism 11 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 2-3 yr. study annuallen
1.2.1 Feeding Ecology 11 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 3-5 yr. study contract
1.2.2 Habitat Utilization 11 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 3-5 yr. study contract
2.1 Habitat Alteration, Loss 11 NAf R NAFR NAf R NAFR NAFR annual (incl. env. review) existing s
2.2 Fisheries 1 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $150'00O $150,000 95 & annual monitoring law enf.,observors,&contract
2.3 Military Activities 1 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 2 yrs. annual monitoring
2.4 Commercial, Recreation Activities 1 $25,000 $25,000 $2S,000 $25,000 $25,000 2 yrs. with annual monitoring
2.5 Other Intentional Acts 1 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 annual ongoing work of existing staff&coordinator
3.1 Clarify Legislation 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 init. inventory complete NAI` R-con
3.2 Document Agency Responsibilities 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 provide annual updates staff coordination
3.3 Document Existing Programs 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 provide annual updates contract
3.4 Promote Coordination 1 $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 annual contract
4.1 Education Programs, Groups 11 $10,000 NAFR NAFR NAI` R NAf R annual FYI-initial inventory, annual updates
4.2 Communication with Audience 11 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 annual ongoing work of existing staff& coordinator
4.3 Information Dissemination 11 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5'000 $5,000 annual ongoing work of existing staff& coordinator
4.4 Improve Public Participation 11 $5,000 $5'000 $5'000 $5,000 $5,000 annual ongoing work of existing staff&coordinator

NAFR no additional funding required

Conservation Plan/Page 56

I
I
1 -1
I I
I

I
I
I
I
I Appendix A. Sea Turtle Stranding Forms
I
I I
I
I -
I -
I
I
I

MARINE MAMMAL STRANDING REPORT SID#
(NMFS USE)
FIELD NO.: NMFS REGISTRATION NO.

COMMON NAME: GENUS: SPECIES:

EXAMINER
Name:, Agency: Phone:
Address:

LOCATION TYPE OF OCCURRENCE
ate: County: Mass,Stranding: (Yes) / (No) Animals
Human Interaction: (Yes) / (No)
Scity: Check one: -1. Boat collision
-2. Shot
Locality Details: -3. Fishery interaction
-4. Other

How determined:

Other Causes (if known):

*Latitude: N

*Longitude: -W

DATE OF INITIAL OBSERVATION: DATE OF*EXAMINATION:
yx Mo Day Yr Mo Day
CONDITION: Check one:-1.Alive CONDITION: Check one:-1.Alive
-2.Fresh dead -2.Fresh dead
-3.Moderate decomp. -3.Moderate decomp.
-4.Advanced decomp. -4.Advanced decomp.
-5.Mummified -S.Mummified
Unknown -? Unknown

LIVE ANIMAL - Condition and Disposition: TAGS APPLIED?: (Yes) (No)
Check one - I.Released at site TAGS PRESENT?: (Yes) (No)
or more: -2.Sick
-3.Injuied Dorsal Left Right
-4.Died
-5.Euthanized ag No.(s):
-6.Rehabilitated and released
? Unknown Color(s):
Tzansported-to Type:
(Died) (Released) Date: Placement Fiont/Reaz Front/Reaz

CARCASS Disposition, check one: MORPHOLOGICAL DATA:
Check one: -1.Left at site Sex - Check one: -I.Male
-2.Buried -2.Female
-3.Towed -7 Unknown
-4.Sci. collection (see below)
-5.Edu. collection (see below) traight Length: (cm)/'(in)/(est)
-6.Othez
*Weight: (kg)/(lb)/(est?)

-? Unknown PHOTOS TAKEN? (Yes) (No)
INECROPSIED? (Yes) / (No)

REMARKS:

DISPOSITION OF TISSUE/SKELETAL MATERIAL:

It is estimated that completion
*Record data if available of this form requires 20 minutes.

OMB#0648-0178, expires 01/31/94 tr 1992-630-1633

PROTOCOL FOR EVALUATING HUMAN INTERAC7IONS WITH
MARINE MAMMALS

FIELD NO. CATALOG NO.

SPECIES OBSERVATION DATE

EXAMINER PHOTOS TAKEN: YES/ NO

CARCASS CONDITION ? Smithsonian Institution Scale (1-5)

A. EXTERNAL SIGNS

Body condition? ROBUST EMACIATED CBD'a' MEN

External marks ? YES NO - CBD N/E

Describe (net/line or other obvious marks):

Penetrating wounds (marks, punctures, cuts) ? PRESENT ABSENT

Characterize wounds:

Mutilation:
Bodies slit ? YES NO CBD N/E

Describe:

Missing appendanges ? YES NO CBD N/E

Describe:

Scavenger damage ? YES NO CBD N/E

Describe:

[a] CM - CA=m ]k DewrminW, N/E Na E=mivAW

STRANDING AND SALVAGE NETWORK-STRANDING REPORT

PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY AND FILL IN ALL APPLICABLE BLANKS. Use codes below. Measurements may be straight line
(caliper) and/or over the curve (tape measure). Measure length from the center of the nuchol notch to the tip of the most
PoSterior marginal. Measure width of the widest point of carapace. CIRCLE THE UNITS USED. See diagram below. Please
ive a specific location description. INCLUDE LATITUDE AND LONGITUDE.

Observr's Full Name Stranding Date
year month day
Addres / Affiliation

roe Code Phone Number

Species -Turtle Number By Da y
llibility of 1. D.: (CIRCLE) Unsure Probable Positive Species Verified by State Coordinator? Yes No
Sex: (CIRCLE) Female Male Undetermined How was sex determined?
Ito to County

Location (be specific and include closest town)

titude Longitude

Condition of Turtle (use codes) Final Disposition of Turtle (use codes)

Tag Number(s) (include tog return address and disposition of tog)
marks (note if turtle was involved with tor or oil, gear or debris entanglement, wounds or mutilations, propellor damage,
papillomos, epizoo, etc.) continue on bock if necessary

CODES:
MEASUREMENTS: CIRCLE UNITS SPECIES:
CC =Loggerhead
Straight Length cm/in CM =Green
DC =Leatherback
Straight Width cm/in El =Hawksbill
I Nuchal LK=Kemp's ridley
Curved Length cm/in Notch LIN =Unidentified

urved Width cm/in CONDITION OF TURTLE:
0 =Alive
I =Fresh dead
2 =Moderately decomposed
3 =Severely decomposed
4 =Dried carcass
Mark
wounds, 5 =Skeleton, bones only
abnormalities,
and, tag locations FINAL DISPOSITION OF TURTLE:
I=Pointed, left on beach

2=Buried: on beach / off beach
3 =Salvaged specimen: all / port
A =Pulled up on beach or dune
Posterior 5=Unpainted, left on beach
Marginal Ti p 6=Alive, released
7 =Alive, taken to a holding facility

Appendix B. Maps of Sea Turtles Strandings in Virginia By Species

M M mmm M M m MON M M

Dermochelys coriacea: Leatherback Sea Turtle

LEGEND

[�_10bSeTvation or Stranding

IL5 0 t2h is 37.5 bo im.ew.

H DEPT. Of GAYLY AND INLAND PISMIRS -WORKING DRAFT-
IFIS tz _,5 _I 994

Caretta caTetta: Loggerhead Sea Turtle,

LEGEND

006servation or Siranding

IL6 0 124 is 373 60 KRd

VA DEPV. OF CANN AND INLAND FISHNAUS
-WORKING DRAFT-

Lepidochelys kempi: Kemp's Ridley Sea Turtle

LEGEND

0 Observation or Stranding

VA DBPT._OP_CAMI AND IMLAND FISHIA128 -WORKING DRAFT-
PUS 02 06 1096-

Chelonia mydasa: Atlantic Creen Sea Turtle

L E GEIVD

ElObservation Or Stranding

IL6 0 UA 25 .6 10 lm.@'.

F1 DIPt. OF CAME AND INLAND FISHIRINS -WORKINC DRAFT-

Phocoena phocoena: harbor porpoise

LE GEIVD

ElObservation or Siranding

lu 0 2.5 is 37.6 bg V..t

VA DSPF. Of CAME AND INLAND FISHRAIRS -WORKINC DRAFT-
FWIS of _22_, 996

Balaenoptera physalus: fin whale

L E CEATD

ElObservation or Stranding

IL5 0 UA is .5 60 Im.d..

VA DEPT. Of CAMN AND INLAND PISHERIES -WORKING DRAFT-
Iris of _Z 2 1996

Cy s top ho r a c r is t at a.: h o o d e d s e a

LE GEND

ElObservation or Siranding

11.5 0 12A to 3 .6 50 IM.O..

Yl DRPV. Of OAKS ASA IMLAMB FISHERIBS -WORKINC DRAFT-
FFIS of _2 1 19 9 6

Balaenoptera acutorostrat: minke whale

LEGEND

0 Observation or Stranding

0 9.6 is 31.5

YJ I)fPf._O?_GAMI AND INLAND FISHERINS -WORKING DRAFT-
FFIS Of 29 1996

Clobicephala sp.: pilot whale

A. LE CEND

ElObservation or Stranding

VA DRPF._OF_GAMN AND INLAND FISHBRINS -WORKING DRAFT-
Ms of 22 ,996

Stenella frontalis: spotted dolphin

LECEND

ElObservation or Stranding

U it 37J Kl-d,.,.

VA Axpr.-OP-0491 AMD IMIA" FiSHRAIRS -WORKINC DRAFT-

NOAA COASTAL SERVICES CTR LIBRARY

3 6668 14111745 9