collecting and consulting

[Robin W. Scribailo]

Taxacomers,

My original message was not meant to be disparaging towards the Sierra
Club. I really commend their efforts but just question the approach.

Some added points to the discussion on collecting;

        So do people agree that maybe we should be spending some funding on plant
presses for our citizen groups and teach them proper collecting methods for
vouchers?
Although I would agree that virtual id sites are very helpful the fact is
the majority of the public will not be able to distinguish closely related
species where one could be rare and the other common. Most virtual sites
provide the common species with low mag, low resolution color photos.
Developing the neccessary skills for id takes training and in many cases
years of experience (just to understand a group well enough) and access to
many different manuals to confirm character differences. It is possible
though to create a manual or virtual site that IS comprehensive enough to
emphasize key characters (and most importantly) illustrate these well. The
problem once again is to obtain funding for this.

In relation to the discussion on consulting;
        I have been consulting on wetlands and lakes for about 15 years and have
been doing wetland delineations for the last eight years. Proper
identification takes time and with consulting firms "time is money" so only
the quickest method tends to be used. In wetland delineation for example,
although rare species are supposed to be noted, the ARCOE methodology only
requires species constituting 20 percent or more of a vegetation layer for
distinguishing an area as wetland. From experience most developers are
"cranky" that they even have to be bothered with the wetlands they want to
fill and certainly are not interested in paying for anything but a bare
minimum assessment. There are some good consulting firms out there but no
matter how "well intentioned" the fact is that when you are in business you
can't afford to being doing "extra stuff" that isn't going to help you meet
the bottom line.
        The same applies to lake surveys where vascular plants are often not even
considered in indices. A list of five aquatic plant species does not
constitute an inventory and few consulting firms have people with the
taxonomic expertise to do this work. Most of the lake assessments I have
seen done by consulting firms are very superficial given the amount being
paid out. Since many of these firms have a "vested interest" in proposing
construction projects they are often very biased reports.
        Ironically, I have found it easier to obtain money for lake surveys from
local lake associations than having to write a ten page grant for even the
smallest state or conservation group funding. I inform the lake assocation
that to be thorough I will collect on three occasions from late spring to
early fall to make sure I have flowers or fruits of all species for
positive ID. In return I map the vegetation and propose best lake
management practices. I also encourage invertebrate sampling and algae
surveys.

I agree with Doug that consultanting firms might be interested in paying
for ID's but usually they expect to pay an absolute minimum relative to the
profits they are making.

In relation to vouchers,

        I have offered with a number of wetland citizen projects to house the
specimens and confirm the id's but to no avail. Again, the attitude seems
to be that we do not want citizens collecting because they might (I guess)
pick the last remaining specimen of some endangered species. The topic of
my original email has drifted but I still contend we are losing so much
valuable information by this approach. Our herbarium of aquatic vascular
plants is very small here and we have no budget. I raise money thorugh
plant sales and steal from the greenhouse budget. I rely on students for
most of the gluing and labelling.

In relation to paying for vouchers;

If even a modest amount of money could be paid (say $2.00 per specimen it
would help pay for paper etc..,) it is not a bad idea. Much depends on the
operating budget of the herbarium.

In relation to comments on familial level id's particularly with
invertebrates;

The trend towards indices of biotic integrity and rapid survey methods is
growing since the adage is "too many wetlands too little time" for
comprehensive surveys. The argument that is made is that a rapid survey
WILL distinguish high quality habitat which is more likely to harbor rare
species. My argument would be that with the amount of money that has been
pumped into developing rapid survey protocols we probably could have
comprehensively surveyed everything by now. The argument that is made is
that we have to standardize sampling methods and levels of rigor otherwise
we cannot compare data sets and make regional assessments. I understand
that this is a valid concern but the pendulum has swung too far (as it
always does with trendy science) in one direction. The problem with
invertebrates is that species level id's are so laborious that they are
done very infrequently.

The problem is that i would love the opportunity to survey aquatic plants
of all of the lakes in Indiana comprehensively. With limited funding I can
only spend a fraction of my time doing this and teach way more then I would
like to in the summer. I pass all of my records on to DNR. Nevertheless I
constantly receive ARCOE permit application for wetlands and lake shoreline
for breakwater etc..,. Many of these sites I have not gotten to and worry
what is being lost before it is surveyed. I have the satisfaction that a
few construction projects have been stopped because of endangered species
information I have provided.

The problem I see in part is that NSF and other funding agencies will
readily fund studies in tropical countires but it is very hard to justify a
survey within the midwest. Grants come back with statements of how this
survey is unlikely to come up with new taxa. Meanwhile development pressure
east of Chicago in Northwest Indiana is eating up one wetland after another
to be replaced by wetlands in mitigation banks. Part of the problem in
Indiana is that the majority of states are way ahead of us in providing
funding for conservation or evaluation of habitat.
        Mitigation banking (in my humble opinion) is an example of prodevelopment
pressure that is meant to speed up the permitting process. The argument is
made that these larger wetlands will be more sustainable. My argument is
that they will not have the habitat diversity of the highly individual
pothole wetlands they are meant to replace in which rare species have not
even been identified. It just allows consultants to make a lot more money
by  flooding 20 or 30 acres of prior converted farmland and selling it off
as mitigation credits. This will speed up permitting grealty and make it
even less likely that habitat of rare species will be saved in time.

        An issue that hasn't even been broached is even if you can get things
identified we know nothing about the "importance" of different populations
from a genetic diversity standpoint. This is an issue that worries me
greatly in the midwest with isolated pothole wetlands being filled and
replaced by nondescript "mitigation banking" wetlands with seed source not
even being considered. I have tried to encourage the collection of seed or
soil from the original site being used as a wetland mulch for the
mitigation site but timing is usually not correct.



Dr. Robin Scribailo
Associate Professor of Biology
Biological Sciences and Chemistry Section
Purdue University North Central
1401 S. US 421, Westville
IN 46391-9528
(219) 785-5255