TMA Institutional Collection Plan 3.pdf

The Maritime Aquarium at Norwalk Institutional Collection Plan 3rd ed.

The Maritime Aquarium at Norwalk

Institutional Collection Plan Including Policies on Population Management, Animal Acquisition, and Living Collections Sustainability

Version 3.0, Revised January 2022. The Maritime Aquarium at Norwalk. 10 N. Water St. Norwalk, CT 06854

The Maritime Aquarium at Norwalk: Institutional Collection Plan

Version 3.0, Updated July 2022, Minor Revisions April 2023

Table of Contents

Document and Revision History………………………………………………………………………….………………………………….……….2

1. Scope and Purpose………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..…….3

1.1 Definitions……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….…..4

2. Institutional Population Management Policy…………………………………………………………………………….…………….…..5

2.1 Acquisition/Disposition of Living Animals…………………………………………………………………………….……….5

2.2 Vendor Selection Criteria………………………………………………………………………………………….………………….6

2.3 Sustainability of Wild Populations…………………………………………………………………………….………………….8

2.4 Donations from Private Individuals……………………………………………………………………………….…..……….11

2.5 Release of Animals to Wild…………………………………………………………………………………………….…..………12

2.6 Disposition of Deceased Specimens and Biomaterials………………………………………………………..………13

3. SSP and Animal Program Participation……………………………………………………………………………………………..……….15

4. Diversity and Size of Living Collections……………………………………………………………………………………………..……….16

5. Species Selection Criteria……………………………………………………………………………………………………………..….……….24

5.1 Philosophy…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..……….……24

5.2 Primary Considerations…………………………………………………………………………………………………….……….27

5.3 Secondary Considerations…………………………………………………………………………………………………..…….28

5.4 Species Scoring Matrix………………………………………………………………………………………………..….…………29

6. Current and Future Spaces Analysis……………………………………………………………………………………………….…..…….31

7. Breeding Analysis…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………...………..36

7.1 S-Index Calculations……………………………………………………………………………………………………….………….36

7.2 Species bred at TMA……………………………………………………………………………………………………….…..…….38

8. Implementation of ICP 2018-2022…………………………………………………………………………………………….…….………..48

8.1 Case Study: Nudibranchs……………………………………………………………………………………………….……..……49

8.2 Case Study: Shark Haven……………………………………………………………………………………………….…………..49

8.3 Case Study: Goldfish……………………………………………………………………………………………………...………….50

8.4 Case Study: Untouchable………………………………………………………………………………………..….……………..50

8.5 Case Study: Atlantic Sturgeon……………………………………………………………………………………….……………51

8.6 Case Study: Pinniped Cove………………………………………………………………………………………….………………51

8.7 Case Study: Shark and Ray Touch Tank………………………………………………………………………….……………51

8.8 Case Study: Striped Bass……………………………………………………………………………………………….….………..51

8.9 Case Study: Gulf Stream Orphans…………………………………………………………………………………..…………..52

9. Sustainability of Seafood Species used in Animal Diets……………………………………………………………….……………..54

10. References………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..…….57

Appendix I: Animal Transaction Confirmation (ATC) Form………………………………………………………………….………….60

Appendix II: Vendor Site Visit Form …………………………………………………………………………………………………………..….61

Appendix III: Vendor Profile Form……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….…64

Appendix IV: Non-AZA Disposition Application………………………………………………………………………………………………67

Appendix V: Biomaterials Transfer Agreement……………………………………………………………………………………………..72

Appendix VI: Approved and Disapproved Non-AZA Facilities (Current to Jan 2022)……………………………………….73

Appendix VII: TMA Living Collection Inventory (Current to Jan 2022)………………………………………………………….…74

Appendix VIII: Species Selection Criteria from TMA ICP v2.0……………………………………………………………………….…86

Document and Revision History

The initial (v. 1.0) institutional collection plan (ICP) of The Maritime Aquarium at Norwalk (TMA) was prepared in 2012 and was a traditional document, in that it was essentially a list of species held in the living collection. In 2017 the ICP was updated to include some criteria for species selection (v. 2.0), and while this was sufficient for the 2017-2018 AZA accreditation process, it was felt that a more rigorous process was needed for collection planning to encompass modern zoological best practices in the context of the following key areas:

1) Animal Welfare. Including, but not limited to, greater to focus on the space requirements, social groupings, and essential needs of animals to provide a modern standard of welfare.

2) Cradle to Grave Planning. It is the position of the Maritime Aquarium’s animal husbandry management team that ensuring we are able to care for animals for the duration of their lifespan is accounted for in our collection planning.

3) Empirical Data. Good collection planning requires the critical analysis of data and cannot be a wholly subjective process. Collection planning should consider data on species richness, relative diversity, total numbers of animals, demography of flagship species, S-Index metrics, and trends in these data over time.

Additionally, certain related policies that have direct bearing on proper collection planning, and as such, are included in this document. The ICP of the Maritime Aquarium will include the institutional Policy on

Responsible Population Management, and policies on Sustainability of Animal Acquisitions and seafood purchasing. Collection planning cannot be completed in a vacuum, it must be done in context of population management and sustainability goals. These two major areas are intrinsically linked to collection management and it makes sense that they be grouped together so that they are re-evaluated and updated on the same five year cycle.

Future updates and major revisions to this document will be summarized here. Key elements of the prior ICP (v.2.0) are included in the appendices of this document.

1.0 Scope and Purpose

The main purpose of this ICP is not to dictate which species should be included in the collection, but to identify a process to subjectively evaluate whether a given species is eligible for inclusion in the living collections of TMA following both the requirements of the AZA Policy on Responsible Population

Management (RPM) and the institutional RPM policies, included herein. This assessment is made in the context of legal and ethical acquisition, sustainability of harvest, suitability for the tank(s) or enclosures available at TMA, suitability of potential tankmates already in the collection, ability to care for the species while providing a high standard of welfare, and ability to house the species for the duration of its life and up to its maximum size.

This document is not intended to be a list of species, but rather a framework for eligibility for inclusion in the collection. Whether or not an eligible species is added to the collection is a curatorial decision and will be made in the context of whether the species fits the exhibits at TMA from a biogeographical, conservation-oriented, or educational capacity with strong ties to the mission of the institution.

This ICP will also provide justification for the current living collections within the RPM framework as described above, and will present a thoughtful analysis of the living collections at TMA. Metrics such as relative diversity and species richness will be calculated every 5 years as this document is revised to place the data regarding collection size in context. Demography of the living collections will also be summarized with each ICP revision, allowing for proactive collection planning regarding end-of-life considerations and animal replacement needs. Drivers of change in the living collections will be calculated using S-Indices to assess the influence of acquisition, disposition, reproduction, and mortality on key taxonomic groupings, and the ratios of animal production vs. consumption within the greater aquarium and zoo community. Percentage of species actively reproducing at TMA will also be assessed and case studies of ICP implementation over the last 5 years will be presented.

Finally, the policies on sustainability as it relates to seafood species acquisition will be analyzed. It is impossible for a zoological institution utilizing seafood products to wholly assess sustainability without also considering the viability of its food harvest. Towards this end a sustainability index (Sf Index) has been developed in-house to make a subjective assessment of seafood sustainability and from which recommendations and future goals for improvement will be developed.

It is the hope that all of these analyses described above will make a more thoughtful, data-driven analysis of collection planning for TMA, and allow for animal acquisitions to be more proactive than reactive while minimizing animal disposition outside of captive breeding programs.

1.1 Definitions

APMC – Animal Population Management Committee, formerly the WCMC (Wildlife Conservation

Management Committee) of AZA, the group which oversees TAGs and all animal programs.

B&TP – Breeding and Transfer Plan, the recommendations put forth for SSP species for which individuals of an SSP should breed with which, and also which individual animals should not breed.

CITES – Convention of International Trade in Endangered Species, treaty which restricts international commerce in imperiled animals

Diversity – A function of species richness and population numbers, often confused with species richness alone in zoological collections, but not synonymous. Calculated through the Shannon-Weiner Index.

ESA – United States Endangered Species Act, designates species within the US for protection by virtue of their conservation status.

H’ – A metric of diversity calculated through the methods of the Shannon-Weiner Index

LSS – Life Support Systems, the filtration which purifies the water through mechanical, biological, and chemical filtration.

NIMM – National Inventory of Marine Mammals, database of marine mammals in captivity maintained by NOAA.

NOAA – National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, government agency which compiles the NIMM

S-Index – Index used to assess whether a facility is a producer or consumer of animals based on the work of Lynch (2019).

Sf index – Index used for in-house assessment of seafood sustainability in TMA nutrition program using the Monterey Bay Aquarium Seafood Watch ratings which are based on empirical fisheries data.

Seafood Watch – Program administered by the Monterey Bay Aquarium to rate sustainability of fisheries based on fisheries data and ancillary concerns with fishing methodology.

SSP – Species Survival Plan, a cooperative effort of AZA institutions and other partners to manage a given species for maximum possible genetic diversity to ensure sustainability of captive breeding efforts.

Species Richness – The number of species in an ecosystem or zoological collection, not to be confused with diversity.

TAG – Taxon Advisory Group, a group of professionals from AZA institutions which cooperatively manage SSPs and animal programs for the animals within their taxonomic purview.

TMA – The Maritime Aquarium

USDA- United States Department of Agriculture, ensures compliance with the Animal Welfare Act.

USFWS – United States Fish and Wildlife Service, issues permits and regulates endangered species.

Zoological Nomenclature – Method of counting Males, Females, and Unknown as M:F:U (ex: 1.2.0)

2.0 Institutional Population Management Policy (RPM)

The purpose of the TMA RPM is to ensure that the acquisition and disposition of all living animals and biomaterials is done in accordance with all state and federal legal obligations, and that moreover meet and exceed the higher standards set forth by the AZA RPM policy. For any question as to population management not answered here TMA staff will default to the AZA RPM policy. The following policies are designed with the intention of ensuring the following key criteria:

1) Animals are acquired in a legal and ethical manner.

2) Animal acquisition and dispositions do not cause unreasonable detriment to wild populations.

3) Any animals leaving the TMA collection are placed only with organizations or individuals qualified to properly care for them and attend to a rigorous standard of health and welfare.

2.1 Acquisition/Disposition of Living Animals

The authority to authorize the acquisition or disposition of any living animals lies with the Director of

Animal Husbandry, who shall make these decisions in consultation with the Veterinarian and key members of curatorial staff such as the Associate Director of Animal Husbandry. Authorization to acquire or disposition an animal may also be superseded by the Chief Operating Officer (COO) or Chief

Executive Officer (CEO), but in no case shall the governing authority (Board of Directors) have the authority to make decisions regarding the animal collection, their care, or welfare.

The Director of Animal Husbandry shall act as the Registrar for TMA and ensure all records are appropriately maintained. This includes the following:

1) Electronic animal records kept in the TRACKS database.

2) Health certificates for incoming and outgoing animals as required.

3) Animal Transfer Confirmation agreements (ATC).

4) Loan agreements from other zoological institutions to be updated annually.

5) Permits/licenses for animal collections from wild and transfer as required.

Additionally the Director of Animal Husbandry shall ensure animals from the TMA collection are never dispositioned to entities where they may be hunted, auctioned, or to the pet trade. While animals may never be dispositioned to the pet trade, there may be, in certain rare circumstances a time where animals can be placed with private individuals provided they are well known to TMA curatorial staff and can demonstrate the ability to meet the standards of care required by this policy (see non-AZA surplus policies below). AZA institutions will always be considered the first-choice alternative for any animal placements.

Animals may occasionally be transferred to researchers for use in biological research. In these cases the principal investigator (PI) must gain the written approval of their project from the TMA Institutional

Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC), the facility must be AAALAC registered, and they must demonstrate through the non-AZA vetting process their ability to responsibly care for the species in question. Additionally, animals from TMA will never be provided for terminal or highly invasive research activities unless said research would have a direct and tangible benefit to the conservation of the species. No requests for terminal or highly invasive research will be considered if they fail to meet this standard.

2.2 Vendor Selection Criteria

The Maritime Aquarium strives to obtain a clear knowledge of how all its suppliers collect, handle, manage and deliver animals to our facility. We have been working towards maintaining a more sustainable collection by propagating animals in-house whenever possible. However, this is not possible for every species in our collection, and in order to maintain our exhibits we must use suppliers that collect animals from the wild. All of our animal suppliers go through a vetting process before they are approved for use, during which time the Aquarium works to verify that animals are obtained in a legal, sustainable, and ethical manner. When animals are purchased, vendors are selected that obtain their animals from reputable supply chains, that source their stock from properly protected and regulated fisheries, and that provide proper support to those fishers and collectors.

Through these actions, the Maritime Aquarium supports those countries and nations that are managing their fisheries responsibly, such as those in Hawaii and Australia, and avoids unsustainable fisheries such as those in Indonesia. Suppliers themselves must also be able to demonstrate that they have the proper permits to legally collect animals from their collection sites, and any supplier with staff that has been convicted of a violation wildlife crime is rejected. The Maritime Aquarium’s vetting process for suppliers is extensive, and includes reference checks with aquarium industry colleagues, a review of the business’s facility and operations, and/or a facility site visit.

Below is a summary of the major aspects of the Maritime Aquarium’s vetting process for suppliers. This process can be adapted for use on animal suppliers, including non-AZA zoos and aquariums, and private individuals and hobbyists seeking to donate an animal. A copy of the site visit report can be found in

Appendix A, a copy of the vendor profile form can be found in Appendix B, and a copy of the Non-AZA profile form can be found in Appendix C.

2.2.1 Permitting

The Maritime Aquarium must ensure that all its suppliers and their collectors comply with relevant local, state/provincial, international and federal wildlife laws and regulation. The following items are considered before a supplier is used:

- Suppliers must show they have the proper permits (including exotic species, injurious wildlife, or state import permits) to conduct business, and provide copies of current permits and licenses. In

- Suppliers must disclose whether any of the species being sold are listed as endangered or threatened on the US Endangered Species Act (ESA), and provide evidence of appropriate permits secured from USFWS/NOAA.

- Suppliers must disclose whether any of the species are listed on appendix I, II, or III of CITES, or whether the animals will be shipped internationally. If so, CITES permit must be submitted with the form

- Suppliers must disclose whether or not the facility is a licensed USDA exhibitor, along with copies of the three most recent inspection reports

- Suppliers must disclose whether or not any employee, board member, or other person associated with the facility ever been convicted of any violation of federal, state, or local wildlife laws

2.2.2 Animal Handling

Animals must be housed and handled in a manner that supports their wellbeing and leads to a low mortality rate both while at their facility and after being shipped. Suppliers must also have an adequate number of staff, with enough depth of knowledge and experience working in the industry to endure animals are well cared for and have an adequate standard of general welfare. Animal transportation must be conducted in a manner that is safe, well-planned and coordinated, and minimizes risk to the animals. In order to verify this, the following items are considered before a supplier is used:

- Number of staff and combined years of experience of staff. Resumes of key animal staff must be submitted.

- Name, contact information, and CV of veterinarian on staff (if applicable), along with a description of how often the veterinarian addends to the animals on site

- Are animals kept in enclosures and appropriate groupings that meet their physical and social needs (where applicable).

- Does the facility ever disposition animals to be sold at auction?

- Does the facility ever use any animal for the purposes of sport hunting?

- How are animals packaged?

- How are incoming animals acclimated?

- Is animal housing humane?

2.2.3 Facility Information

The facility must have the infrastructure in place to maintain optimal environmental conditions for the animals they are housing at all times. They must demonstrate that they have a regular program of monitoring water quality for its fish and invertebrates, and must ensure that it is taking steps to prevent invasive species or pathogens from being released into the local environment. As part of the vetting process the Maritime Aquarium will also perform a site visit to the supplier’s facilities where feasible.

During the site visit the following items are verified:

- Does the facility have a formal water quality analysis program in place? What is their working water volume? Storage water volume?

- What kind of filtration does the facility use for its water? How is wastewater disposed?

- What kind of air supply is used?

- Does the facility have a backup generator?

- Does the facility have a formal record-keeping system in place?

- Are new animals subject to a minimum 30-day quarantine period?

- Does the facility have dedicated quarantine facilities separate from exhibit to house the animal(s) in question?

- Does the facility have appropriate chemical storage?

2.2.4 Sustainability of Wild Populations

Vendors that obtain their animals from the wild must make a good faith effort to ensure that collecting practices are both legal and sustainable. In order to verify this, vendors must provide information on:

- Reliance on captive propagation

- A statement from collectors stating they do not use destructive fishing practices, etc.

- The policies in place to ensure only reputable vendors are used to supply living animals, and that all animals are obtained legally (including chain of custody)

- Whether animals are self-collected, and how the vendor ensures sustainable harvest

- Which species held at the facility fall under established AZA Species Survival Programs (SSP), and whether these animals registered with the studbook(s) for that SSP.

2.3 Sustainability of Wild Populations

The sustainability of wild populations from which we acquire living specimens is of paramount importance to ethical operation and modern zoological practice. Unlike in the zoo world, aquariums must obtain a large number of their species from the wild. The inherent biological diversity with which we work means that refining of husbandry and breeding practices is ongoing, and the majority cannot reliably be bred in captivity. There are more than 31,000 species of fishes and over 1.3 million invertebrates known to inhabit the world’s oceans and freshwaters, under the purview of three Taxon

Advisory Groups (TAGs) of AZA. By comparison, terrestrial animals, overseen by 37 TAGs, comprise roughly 51,000 total species, a mere 3% of aquatic and marine biodiversity. Because there are fewer total species, and the logistics of caring for terrestrial animals are inherently simpler it would be expected that the art and science of breeding these species in captivity is more developed, and thus greater reliance on propagated animals is possible.

However, true sustainability in animal acquisitions need not be achieved through captive breeding, as so many with a terrestrial bias are guilty of promoting. Population management and captive propagation are certainly tools to increase sustainability, but in most cases, wild-caught animals can be equally sustainable. In certain cases, such as the Project Piaba fishes, the ecological benefits of patronizing artisanal tropical fisheries of the Amazon (who would otherwise find work logging) vastly outweigh the sustainability argument of acquiring domestically bred fishes.

Taking such considerations into account, the hierarchy of preference for fish collectors from the wild is established for TMA collections, from most preferable to least preferable route of acquisition, based on sustainability of wild fisheries and other considerations:

1) Amazonian Fishes

a. Animals with Project Piaba Certification

b. Surplus fishes from other institutions.

c. Captive-propagated fishes

d. Other wild-caught fishes from Brazil or Peru

e. Fishes wild-caught from Colombia, Venezuela or Suriname are not preferred due to lack of information on fisheries regulations and sustainability.

2) Caribbean Fishes

a. Locally-collected Gulf-Stream Orphans (GSO)

b. Fishes surplus from other institutions

c. Captive-propagated species

d. Fishes from a short-chain supplier collecting in Florida (e.g. Dynasty Marine)

3) Indo-Pacific Fishes

a. Captive-propagated species

b. Fishes surplus from other institutions

c. Fishes from a short-chain supplier collecting in Australia (e.g. Cairns Marine), Japan (e.g.

Blue Corner), or Hawai’i (as the fishery re-opens)

d. Fishes from endemic Indo-Pacific cultivation programs (e.g. Tridacnid clams, Gnathodon speciosus, Pterapogon kaudernii, et al.)

e. Fishes from a west-coast wholesaler (e.g. Sea Dwelling Creatures, Quality Marine, ConsistentSea) with known origin of Fiji, Tonga, Samoa, French Polynesia, New

Caledonia, or the Solomon Islands.

f. Fishes wild-caught in Papua New Guinea, the Philippines, Indonesia, and Malaysia are not preferred due to a lack of information on fisheries regulations and sustainability.

4) Long Island Sound and Northwestern Atlantic Fishes

a. Locally collected fishes from the LIS, Atlantic, and Gulf of Maine

b. Surplus fishes from other institutions

c. Fishes from a collector working within a well-regulated fishery (e.g. Marine Biological

Laboratory Woods Hole)

5) Northeastern Pacific Ocean

a. Surplus fishes from other institutions

b. Fishes from a collector working within a well-regulated fishery in California (e.g. Marinus

Scientific, ConsistentSea) or Canada (e.g. KYK Wong, Living Elements).

6) Other Fisheries

a. Surplus fishes from other institutions are preferable.

b. Captive-propagated fishes from a breeding program

c. Fishes from a collector working within a well-regulated fishery to be vetted by curatorial staff at TMA, shorter supply chains preferable.

With regards to sustainability of local species all collected animals will be done under permits and strict requirements on maximum take set by the Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental

Protection (CT DEEP), Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management (RI DEM), or New York

Department of Environmental Conservation (NY DEC). Species listed as endangered, threatened, or of special concern will not be taken from the wild without specific programmatic justification and additional permitting. By only harvesting from well-managed fisheries TMA can avoid negative impacts of animal collection on wild populations.

References Specific to Ornamental Fisheries:

Biondo, M.V. and Burki, R.P., 2020. A systematic review of the ornamental fish trade with emphasis on coral reef fishes—an impossible task. Animals, 10(11): 2014.

Cohen, F.P., Valenti, W.C. and Calado, R., 2013. Traceability issues in the trade of marine ornamental species. Reviews in Fisheries Science, 21(2): 98-111.

Cooke, S.J., Nguyen, V.M., Dettmers, J.M., Arlinghaus, Robert., Quist, M.C., Tweddle, D.E.N.I.S., Weyl, O.L., Raghavan, Rajeev., Portocarrero-Aya, Marcela., Cordoba, E.A. and Cowx, I.G., 2016.

Sustainable inland fisheries–perspectives from the recreational, commercial and subsistence sectors from around the globe. Conservation Biology, 20: 467-505.

Dee, L.E., Horii, S.S. and Thornhill, D.J., 2014. Conservation and management of ornamental coral reef wildlife: successes, shortcomings, and future directions. Biological Conservation, 169: 225-237.

Ferse, S.C., Knittweis, L., Krause, G., Maddusila, A. and Glaser, M., 2012. Livelihoods of ornamental coral fishermen in South Sulawesi/Indonesia: implications for management. Coastal

Management, 40(5): 525-555.

Fujita, R., Thornhill, D.J., Karr, K., Cooper, C.H. and Dee, L.E., 2014. Assessing and managing data‐ limited ornamental fisheries in coral reefs. Fish and Fisheries, 15(4): 661-675.

King, T.A., 2019. Wild caught ornamental fish: A perspective from the UK ornamental aquatic industry on the sustainability of aquatic organisms and livelihoods. Journal of Fish Biology, 94(6): 925-936.

Ladislau, D.S., Ribeiro, M.W.S., Castro, P.D.S., Aride, P.H.R., Paiva, A.J.V., Polese, M.F., Souza, A.B., Bassul, L.A., Lavander, H.D. and Oliveira, A.T., 2019. Ornamental fishing in the region of

Barcelos, Amazonas: socioeconomic description and scenario of activity in the view of

“piabeiros”. Brazilian Journal of Biology, 80: 544-556.

Máñez, K.S., Dandava, L. and Ekau, W., 2014. Fishing the last frontier: the introduction of the marine aquarium trade and its impact on local fishing communities in Papua New Guinea. Marine

Policy, 44: 279-286.

Moore, A., Ndobe, S. and Zamrud, M., 2011. Monitoring the Banggai cardinalfish, an endangered restricted range endemic species. Journal of Indonesia Coral Reefs, 1(2): 99-113.

Rhyne, A.L., Tlusty, M.F. and Kaufman, L., 2014. Is sustainable exploitation of coral reefs possible? A view from the standpoint of the marine aquarium trade. Current Opinion in Environmental

Sustainability, 7: 101-107.

Tlusty, M.F., Rhyne, A.L., Kaufman, L., Hutchins, M., Reid, G.M., Andrews, C., Boyle, P., Hemdal, J., McGilvray, F. and Dowd, S., 2013. Opportunities for public aquariums to increase the sustainability of the aquatic animal trade. Zoo biology, 32(1): 1-12.

2.4 Donations from Private Individuals

2.4.1 Purpose and Scope

The following policies define the donation of either living animals or biological specimens to the

Maritime Aquarium from private donors (i.e. those not affiliated with an aquarium, zoo, museum, university, conservation organization, or other entity). These policies will ensure that animals are only taken from donors if they are legally sourced and can be ethically housed and kept at TMA.

2.4.2 Operating Policies

1) All donations will be accompanied by a standard Animal Transaction Form (ATC).

a. Animals donated and their progeny will become the sole property of TMA.

b. Recipient must agree to provide all pertinent veterinary and care record(s).

c. TMA will not provide monetary valuations of any animal to donors.

2) TMA will only accept animals that have been legally obtained. The species must be legal to possess by a private party in the state of Connecticut, or documentation must be provided showing the specimen(s) was/were obtained legally.

a. Native species collected in Connecticut must be accompanied by an appropriate permit from DEEP to collect/possess the species.

b. Species that are ESA listed must be accompanied by proper permits, and a letter of authorization from the appropriate wildlife authority where state lines must be crossed to donate the specimen(s).

c. In cases where there is high likelihood that the animal(s) in question will be illegally released into the wild or there is a serious concern regarding the health and welfare of the animal(s), the Director of Animal Husbandry may decide to accept the donation and will immediately report the specimen(s) to the appropriate wildlife authority.

3) TMA will only accept biological specimens (shells, carcasses, hides, skeletons, et cetera) that have been legally obtained.

a. Donation inquiries for species that are ESA listed will be responded to with a request for appropriate permitting from the USFWS or NOAA before the offer is considered.

b. As an alternative to permits, the donation offer may be accompanied by documentation showing that the item(s) in question are grandfathered by virtue of having been obtained prior to the species’ listing on the ESA. An invoice, receipt, or bill of sale specifically listing the date and the species in question must be provided.

4) TMA can only accept animals that fit within our institutional collection plan, that being species that fit within the scope of our exhibits and current living collection.

a. In cases where there is high likelihood that the animal(s) in question will be illegally released into the wild or there is a serious concern regarding the health and welfare of the animal(s), the Director of Animal Husbandry may decide to accept the donation and attempt to place the specimen at another AZA facility or approved recipient.

i. Where animals cannot be placed or the quality of life of the specimen(s) is in question the Director of Animal Husbandry and/or Veterinarian may elect to euthanize the animal(s) subject to TMA euthanasia policies.

ii. Placement is still subject to acquisition/disposition polices outlined in Section

2.1 of this document.

2.5 Release of Animals into the Wild

It is the general policy of TMA that animals shall not be released into the wild once held in captivity in our facilities, with the exception of certain taxa that are part of organized programs that meet all of the biosecurity requirements to safely and ethically permit such re-introduction. Currently, the ONLY animals in the collection that are destined for potential restoration in the wild are the scleractinian corals held as part of the AZA Florida Reef Tract program (FRT) and the Barren’s topminnow that are bred for release in Tennessee as part of a restocking conservation program through the AZA FFTAG.

These corals are held in a biosecure exhibit with dedicated seawater makeup and protocols in place to prevent cross-contamination under the program requirements as set forth by AZA and overseen by

NOAA under federal permit no. FKNMS-2018-139-A1. In order to release animals into the wild ethically there need to be safeguards put in place consistent with the IUCN Guidelines for Reintroductions and

Other Conservation Translocations v. 1.0, the AZA Guidelines for Reintroduction of Animals Born of Held in Captivity (AZA, 1992), and/or the taxon-specific IUCN Guidelines for amphibian reintroductions and other conservation translocations, both published by the IUCN Species Survival Commission (SSC)

(IUCN/SSC 2013; Linhoff et al., 2021).

The IUCN guidelines include the following general provisions:

1) Animal translocations should be conducted for the purposes of population restoration, reintroduction, ecological replacement, or assisted colonization through a controlled program.

2) There should be strong evidence that the threat that caused extinction, extirpation, or reduction in population is ameliorated sufficient to ensure likelihood of survival.

3) Assessment of potential benefits and negative impacts has been conducted.

4) Rigorous assessment of animals’ performance and adaptation after release.

5) Potential for invasion or unintended consequences is understood and factored into risk assessments.

6) Animal welfare and wellbeing is considered and planned for, and a plan to mitigate stressors in place.

7) Management of disease and known pathogen transfer is fully understood and risks have been assessed.

8) Animals have been quarantined before release, and certified to be free of any communicable diseases.

9) Federal and/or state permitting has been secured to legally conduct release activities.

Due to the nature of aquatic organisms (i.e. living in water), and because TMA houses a variety of animals from around the world, many with unknown life histories, it is impossible to determine that there is no risk of accidental introduction of non-native microbes or parasites with any animal housed at

TMA (except FRT corals). Additionally, release of any aquatic animals into the wild in Connecticut is prohibited by state law (DEEP §26-55-6) without a Permit to Liberate Live Fish or Fish Eggs issued for a specific date, body of water, and species. As such, it the policy of TMA is that, excepting FRT corals, no animal may be released to the wild once it enters the living collection.

2.6 Disposition of Deceased Specimens and Biomaterials

Disposition of deceased animals will be done in accordance with all state and local regulations. In

Connecticut deceased animal remains up to 75lb may be disposed of with municipal trash, TMA also retains the services of BioServ, Inc. (10 Gramar Ave. Prospect, CT 06712) for disposal of animal cadavers, sharps, and other biomedical waste by incineration.

Preserved specimens slated for discard may be drained of preservative liquid and disposed of as biomedical waste if preserved in ethanol. Preserved specimens in formalin must be appropriately neutralized with aldehyde reducing agents before being drained to prevent the release of hazardous wastes.

Biomaterials are defined as any part of an animal belonging to the TMA living collection, including whole animal specimens, or parts thereof including but not limited to tissues, osseus structures, feathers, dentition, fins, vibrissae, claws, semen, ova, fur, scales, et cetera. Consistent with the AZA Policy on

Responsible Population Management (2016) (Section IV, B, 1-5) TMA will optimize the use and recovery of all animal remains and biomaterials. Disposition of biomaterials will be conducted in order of preference according to the hierarchy of needs listed below, no.1 being the most pressing need and other uses following in decreasing order:

1) Veterinary/Pathology. Remains or biomaterial(s) utilized in necropsy or post-mortem examinations to determine the cause of death, inherent health status , age, or other demographic factors to inform veterinary care or animal husbandry of the remaining collection.

2) TAG/SSP Requests. Biomaterial(s) not destroyed by necropsy will be first prioritized for disposition to duly-appointed representatives of an AZA TAG, SSP, or SAG to fulfill standing requests for samples or specimens.

3) Outside Research. Preference for biomaterial(s) not used in necropsy or requested by AZA

Animal Programs will next be prioritized for disposition to outside researchers with a standing request for such materials. Outside researchers requesting biomaterial(s) from TMA must have a bona-fide research interest in the specimen(s) and complete successful review of a TMA IACUC proposal before any biomaterial(s) are transferred.

4) Museum Collections. Biomaterial(s) not otherwise dispositioned as described above will be offered to museum collections, or the research collections of a university or similar scientific institution where standing requests exist or a specimen is of particular research value.

Collections selected to receive biomaterial(s) from TMA should be curated professionally and open to visiting researchers. This ensures valuable specimens are available in perpetuity for researchers, and helps rectify the research gap between living collections and museum collections that currently exists (Poo et al., 2022; Schultz et al., 2022).

Existing relationships exist with the Peabody Museum of Natural History at Yale University

(CT, USA), the American Museum of Natural History (NY, USA), the US National Parasite

Collection (DC, USA), the Manter Laboratory for Parasitology (IN, USA), Naturhistorisches

Museum Wien (Vienna, Austria), San Francisco State University (CA, USA), and the

University of Tampa (FL, USA), where TMA has deposited research specimens.

5) Educational Programming. Biomaterial(s) not dispositioned by other means above may be used in-house for educational programming or activities.

6) Transfer to Private Individuals. If none of the above criteria apply to biomaterial(s) may be dispositioned to a private individual (staff or volunteer) for nature study or inclusion in a private naturalist collection with written permission of the Director of Animal Husbandry.

The Director will exercise due diligence to ascertain that responsible use of the biomaterial(s) are made, under the following conditions:

a. The biomaterial(s) are not from a species which is listed on the US Endangered

Species Act, US Migratory Bird Act, Marine Mammal Protection Act, or protected by the state of Connecticut.

b. No permit(s) are required to possess the biomaterial(s), or if they are, copies of the applicable permits are on file at TMA.

c. The items will not be sold or offered for sale under any circumstances.

d. The requestor is well-known to TMA and has a valid scientific interest in the species from which the biomaterial(s) originated.

e. The requestor agrees not to transfer the biomaterial(s) to any third party, excepting that they may be deposited in a museum collection for future study.

Note: person(s) considered to have a valid scientific interest may include, but are not limited to, TMA personnel or colleagues in good standing who worked with the animal or species in question, or have private natural history collections for reference or personal naturalist study. If there is any question as to whether the biomaterial(s) requested may eventually end up being offered for sale or used in any other manner inconsistent with the above policies the Director of Animal Husbandry has a duty to reject the request in the interest of scientific integrity of the institution.

3. SSP and Animal Program Participation

For the living collections of TMA an Individual Representative (IR) is assigned to every TAG and SSP that corresponds to species held in our collection. We currently have an IR assigned to 16 TAGs and 9 SSPs as summarized in the table below. As a general rule, IRs from TMA will be supervisory-level staff or higher, and will be assigned to the TAG/SSPs which correspond either to the species in their charge, or to an animal program that aligns with their particular skill-set, particularly where it is mandated that that person be an IR for a given program as a condition of TAG or SSP leadership.

IRs Assigned to AZA Animal Programs Program Name Program Type Institutional Representative

(TAG/SSP) First Last

Aquatic Invertebrate TAG TAG Barrett Christie

Freshwater Fishes TAG TAG Barrett Christie

Terrestrial Invertebrate TAG TAG Barrett Christie

Marine Mammal TAG TAG Dylan Salamone

Meerkat SSP SSP Dylan Salamone

New World Primate TAG TAG Dylan Salamone

Otter North American River SSP SSP Dylan Salamone

Porcupine Prehensile-Tailed SSP SSP Dylan Salamone

Seal Harbor SSP SSP Dylan Salamone

Small Carnivore TAG TAG Dylan Salamone

Amphibian TAG TAG Sandi Schaefer-Padgett

Bat TAG TAG Sandi Schaefer-Padgett

Chelonian TAG TAG Sandi Schaefer-Padgett

Crocodilian TAG TAG Sandi Schaefer-Padgett

Lizard TAG TAG Sandi Schaefer-Padgett

Marine Fishes TAG TAG Sandi Schaefer-Padgett

Parrot TAG TAG Sandi Schaefer-Padgett

Raptor TAG TAG Sandi Schaefer-Padgett

Rodent Insectivore Lagomorph TAG TAG Sandi Schaefer-Padgett

Seahorse Lined SSP SSP Sandi Schaefer-Padgett

Shark Sand Tiger SSP SSP Sandi Schaefer-Padgett

Skink Prehensile-Tailed SSP SSP Sandi Schaefer-Padgett

Snake TAG TAG Sandi Schaefer-Padgett

Tortoise African Pancake SSP SSP Sandi Schaefer-Padgett

Turtle Spotted SSP SSP Sandi Schaefer-Padgett

4.0 Diversity and Size of Living Collections

Diversity in an animal collection is commonly estimated by the number of species held, however this is a crude estimate of true diversity, and is actually a measure of species richness. Diversity, as it is described in any living system, is estimated by the Shannon-Wiener Index (H’) and is a function of not only the number of species present, but the numbers of each species in a collection. This means that a collection of 10 species with 10 individuals per species is inherently more diverse than a collection of 10 species where 91 individuals are of one type and the other 9 species are represented by a single individual. For a zoological institution it is important to have a diversity of animals in the collection to appeal to (and ideally inspire) a large range of visitors, however there is a point of diminishing returns at which adding diversity for diversity’s sake does not achieve the intended goal. For example, an artificial reef display with 500 fishes of 100 species likely does not make more of an educational impact on the public than if it had 500 fishes of 50 species. (Andrews, 2018). In these cases it may be more productive to add diversity strategically, where results may not be apparent from an analysis of species count alone.

The size of the collection is at is face value a straightforward estimate, but is relevant to collection planning and meeting the needs of the institution in the context of diversity. A collection that contains

10,000 animals is certainly larger than a collection of 100 animal, but if there are very large numbers of a single species the ability of that collection to appeal to a large cross-section of the visiting public is diminished. It is for this reason that collection size is only relevant in the context of collection diversity.

As a practical example, TMA has a living collection that is routinely between 5,000-7,000 individual animals, larger than many aquariums of greater size, however when it is understood that 70-75% of those individuals are jellyfishes, the size of the collection is more in line with the size of the institution.

Historically, over the past 5 years the living collection at TMA has increased both in size, species richness, and diversity. The size of the collection has risen from roughly 3,500 individuals to close to

7,000 in the past five years, an increase of approximately 100%. Species richness has also risen, in 2018 we had 265 species in the collection, this has risen steadily to 367 species as of spring 2022. This is a cumulative increase of 38.5%, averaging 7.7% increase in species richness per year. Actual diversity as calculated by comparison of Shannon-Wiener indices, rose from an H’=3.00 to H’=3.25 during the same time period. This means that while species richness increased 38.5%, the true diversity of the collection rose by 8.3% over the same time interval. The disparity between species richness and true diversity is accounted for by the fact that some species are more heavily represented in the collection with the passage of time; though both numbers show an overall increase in the variety of animals presented to the public in the TMA living collection.

Where the diversity changes in the collection are more interesting are when major fauna are compared taxonomically. These data show changes over time in the scope of the living collection, and trends as to where components of our collection are growing or shrinking relative to one another. Invertebrates

(excluding the Coelenterata) saw the largest increase in species richness over the past 5y (215%) and third largest increase in diversity (ΔH’=25%). Jellyfishes saw the largest increase in diversity ΔH’=50% and second largest increase in species richness (73%) over the same time interval. Aves saw the second largest increase in diversity (ΔH’=26%) and are a novel taxonomic addition to the TMA living collection over this timeframe. Mammals saw a 43% increase in species richness but a 19% loss of diversity as a result of one species being introduced in large numbers (bats). Elasmobranchs saw a 7% loss of diversity and a 36% loss in species richness, owing to the fact that a number of species were phased out of the collection for welfare reasons; this is due to species such as Hypanus americana which were traditionally housed in the touch tank, but phased out of the collection as they did not meet the criteria for cradle-to-grave collection planning as adults had nowhere to go once they outgrew that enclosure. Other major taxa were relatively static, as summarized in the figures and table below.

Figure 1. Change in Species Richness 2019-2022

Number of Species in TMA Living Collection (2018-2022)

2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Invertebrates 57 59 207 136 129

Teleost Fishes 148 149 160 145 138

Elasmobranchs 17 17 9 9 10

Amphibians 13 13 16 15 15

Reptiles 22 24 27 24 24

Aves 3 3 5 4 4

Mammals 6 7 8 8 9

266 272 432 341 329

Number of Individual Specimens in TMA Living Collection (2018-2022)

2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Invertebrates 2496 2864 4068 3963 2939

Teleost Fishes 1441 1423 2687 1880 1715

Elasmobranchs 116 114 86 63 74

Amphibians 119 117 79 67 64

Reptiles 83 69 65 64 57

Aves 6 6 6 5 4

Mammals 17 19 59 54 56

4278 4612 7050 6096 4909

Figure 2. Species Held by Taxon 2018-2022

Figure 3. Individual Animals Held By Taxon 2018-2022

Diversity and Species Richness in the TMA Collections: Shannon-Wiener Analysis (H') of Relative Diversity

Species Individuals Change in Species Richness (Δ % spp.) Net Change H' H' Δ H'

2022 2022 2019 2020 2021 2022 2019-2022 2018 2022 (%)

Jellyfishes 14 1890 44% 69% -14% -26% 73% 0.8040 1.2134 50%

Invertebrates 129 1105 4% 251% -34% -5% 215% 3.1820 3.9809 25%

Teleosts 138 74 1% 7% -9% -5% -6% 3.9750 3.5837 -10%

Elasmobranchs 10 1715 0% -47% 0% 11% -36% 2.0425 1.8887 -7%

Amphibians 15 64 0% 23% -6% 0% 17% 1.9717 2.3728 20%

Reptiles 24 57 9% 13% -11% 0% 10% 2.8358 2.8005 -1%

Aves 4 4 0% 67% -20% 0% 47% 1.1011 1.3863 26%

Mammals 9 56 17% 14% 0% 13% 43% 1.7362 1.4037 -19%

Figure 4. Change in Relative Diversity for major Taxonomic Groups 2019-2022

0.8040

1.2134

3.1820

3.98093.9750

3.5837

2.0425

1.8887 1.9717

2.3728

2.8358 2.8005

0.0000

0.5000

1.0000

1.5000

2.0000

2.5000

3.0000

3.5000

4.0000

4.5000

2019 2022

R

EL

A

TI

V E

D

IV

ER

SI

TY

H

YEAR

CHANGE IN DIVERSITY BY TAXON 2019 -2022

Jellyfishes

Invertebrates

Teleosts

Elasmobranchs

Amphibians

Reptiles

Mammals

5. Species Selection Criteria

5.1 Philosophy

In general, it is an accepted truth that aquariums display many more species than are needed to meet their research, conservation, and educational goals (Andrews, 2018), and that significant numbers of species being displayed are not of conservation concern explicitly because aquaria and zoos must meet these programmatic needs (McCann and Powell, 2019).

Zoological collections have traditionally focused on a limited number of charismatic megafauna as the keystone species (Moss and Esson, 2010), and added secondary species which are often smaller and greater in number to ‘round out’ collections. Meta-analyses of zoological living collections have determined that this keystone model focused on megafauna is not congruent with how visitors interact with living collections (Moss and Esson, 2010; Brereton and Brereton, 2020; 2021; Mooney et al., 2020).

Notably, species size (or biomass) is not the only significant factor in visitor interactions, smaller

“accessory” species average twice the retention time of visitors on average, and some fishes had comparable attracting power compared to some keystone megafauna (Moss and Esson, 2010).

Overall fishes and amphibians were the only groups of lower vertebrates that had higher than mean attracting power to visitors in a zoo setting (Moss and Esson, 2010). Species richness does not have a statistical relationship with visitor attendance, however total number of animals does (Mooney et al., 2020). Species dissimilarity (in qualitative and morphological terms) is also related to attendance

(Mooney et al., 2020), and visitors have also shown preference for more colorful species and larger numbers of animals exhibited (Moss and Esson, 2010; Brereton and Brereton, 2020). Also, it is worth noting that species biomass has a negative effect on species richness and diversity in a living collection

(Mooney et al., 2020), which is unsurprising in the context that larger animals consume…