INTRODUCTION TO COLLECTIONS-BASED FEDERAL ASSESSMENT PROGRAMS
John C. Kingston, USGS, National Water Quality Laboratory, Arvada, CO

As taxonomists associated with a Bureau that uses high-diversity aquatic assemblages (algae, benthic invertebrates and fishes) as environmental indicators, we see biodiversity value to continental-scale sampling programs that extend beyond original organizational objectives of resource interpretation. These large numbers of samples represent a significant taxonomic and biogeographic resource if made available to the scientific community. Although samples are collected for Bureau objectives, they have value beyond the original project's needs. We view this as a "triple-duty" scenario of value:

1. original assessment objectives
2. snapshot or time capsule view of biodiversity at a particular time and place, and
3. raw material for biodiversity research.

Should there be a Departmental policy to require the deposition of reference and/or voucher specimens in acknowledged repositories, with funds to cover accessioning, from any project performed by DOI or its Bureaus? We need to discuss the merits of establishing a policy to promote the creation of cooperative agreements or contracts at the initial stages of any taxonomically based assessment program to support the deposition of reference and voucher collections. Tracking mechanisms should be created within DOI bureau QA/QC Units to ensure that data have the required quality foundation, with a view to preventing the loss of this taxonomic resource as programs near completion.

This session presented the perspectives on the biodiversity value of federal samples by scientists at governmental agencies in both the U.S. and Canada, museum, the academic community and the professional organization representing the collections community. Although we used algal collections as the focal point of this discussion, these issues are applicable to virtually all biological assemblages.

ASPECTS OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN FEDERAL COLLECTIONS AND THE MUSEUM COMMUNITY
Edward C. Theriot, Director, Texas Memorial Museum, Austin, TX
Roberta Faul-Zeitler, Association of Systematics Collections, Washington, D.C.

The Association of Systematics Collections represents the concerns of a wide range of North American institutions that house natural history collections under governance structures that may be federal, state or local government or private, non-profit entities. Federal collections have many sources of origin, ranging from federal scientists conducting research on private and public lands in the U.S. to scientists at universities and private museums working on federal lands. Such collections are nominally the property of the U.S. government. Increasingly these collections are at risk. One solution is to house such collections at universities and private museums. However, museums often face similar resource issue-critical needs in maintenance/conservation of collections, institutional funding shortages, and reduced collections priorities. It may not always be in the best interest of the collections for museums to assume responsibility for materials and specimens not in their ownership or to which they have highly restricted rights. We discussed the ASC view of the meaning of ownership of such collections; how such collections might be shared; ASC's perspective on best museum practices in ecological studies; the relationship(s) between federal government and museums with regard to biological collections; and pros and cons of policies that require deposition of specimens collected at public expense.

IMMEDIATE AND LONG-TERM RETURNS FROM NATURAL HISTORY SPECIMENS
J.P. Kociolek, Executive Director, California Academy of Sciences, Golden Gate Park, San Francisco, CA

Biological specimens have been used to a great extent, and with much success, in short- and long-term monitoring and assessment studies. Specimens have added value in terms of representing a record of the original research (and offering the ability for future scientists to reproduce/re-examine the original study), as well as affording additional research opportunities to a diverse community of scientists. The storage, maintenance and accessibility of these specimens is critical to their overall value, yet programs for which they were originally procured may be ill-equipped to handle this function, in both the near and long term. Strategies are necessary to preserve, house and make accessible these specimens to the scientific community at large. Such strategies should include organizations that are able to handle the specimens, are known to the scientific community as repositories for natural history specimens, and those that can minimize costs associated with specimen care and distribution. Strategies with this component will maximize the scholarly and practical returns from the high initial investment costs of these information-rich resources and allow the monitoring/assessment programs to focus resources (space, personnel, materials, other budgetary items as well as intellectual) on their mission.

PROBLEMS FACED BY UNIVERSITY SCIENTISTS ENGAGED IN TAXONOMICALLY ORIENTED, FEDERALLY SPONSORED RESEARCH
Eugene F. Stoermer, Center for Great Lakes and Aquatic Sciences, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI

1. The University Side
   1. Reasonably good for charismatic groups
      1. Established tradition of study
      2. Well understood economic basis
      3. Most Universities have active researchers
      4. Most Universities have active collections
      5. Wide interest and recognition
         1. Good supply of highly trained people
         2. Some concerns for future field Biologists
   2. Poor to completely lacking for many less recognized groups
      1. Few have an established tradition of study
      2. Economic basis is poorly understood
      3. Few Universities have active researchers
      4. Very few universities have active collections
      5. Very low level of early student exposure
         1. Poor supply of future researchers
         2. Few with significant modern systematic training
2. The Agency Side
   1. Good for charismatic groups
      1. Well understood economic basis
         1. Clearly within agency missions
      2. Most agencies have had active researchers
         1. Some perception of decline in this function
      3. Widely variant Agency collection policies
         1. Current perception of serious decline in this function
      4. Wide and growing public interest
         1. Good supply of highly trained people
         2. Perceived decline in effective permanent positions
   2. Highly variable for less recognized groups
      1. For many, expertise historically only present in agency labs
         1. Perceived decline in highly recognized labs
      2. Economic basis is poorly understood
         1. Particularly in complex environmental problems
      3. Perceived decline in active researchers
      4. Perceived decline in active collections
      5. Perceived decline in desirable research positions
3. An Example (Diatoms)
   1. Characteristics
      1. Eukaryotic
      2. "Regular" evolutionary processes
         1. Evolve very rapidly
         2. Endemic floras in ancient lakes
         3. Widely distributed pan-boreal flora
   2. Primary producers
      1. First in line for ecological insults
   3. Widely distributed
      1. All habitats where free water exists, even periodically
      2. Large number of species
         1. Ca. 60,000 described
         2. On the order of 106 estimated
      3. Large number of individuals easily collectable
         1. Possibility of doing justifiable statistics
      4. Mineralized cell walls
         1. Easily preserved
         2. Easily curated
         3. Easily identified (compared to most microorganisms)
         4. Excellent fossil record for Tertiary, Quaternary and Recent
            • Widely used in reconstructive studies
            • Acid rain
            • Eutrophication
            • Climate change
4. History
   1. Ca. 1650 -1800
      1. Discovery with first light microscopes
   2. Ca. 1800 - 1900
      1. Grand period of growth
         1. Cutting edge science
         2. Many dynamic researchers
            • Privately wealthy
            • Supported by Royal Academies
            • Virtually no university support
            • Little formal training
   3. Ca. 1900 - 1950
      1. Period of regression
         1. Few, mostly self-trained, researchers
         2. Mostly supported by ecological concerns
            • Some agency support for applied studies
         3. Virtually no University involvement
            • Very few formally trained researchers
         4. Amateur tradition in U. S.
            • Most work done in Academies
         5. Taxonomic regression
            • Extremely broad generic concepts
            • Limited species recognition
            • Assumption of pandemic distribution
   4. Ca. 1950-2000
      1. Period of explosive growth
         1. Electronic revolution
            • Electron microscopes
            • Computer-enabled multivariate statistics
            • Rise in ecological concerns
              • Eutrophication
              • Acidification
              • Climate change
      2. Extensive Agency engagement
         • Mostly ecological interest
         • Some taxonomy
         • Little formal systematic training
      3. First university engagement
         • Question, rather than answer driven
         • Introduction of Phylogenetic Systematics

Current Situation

1. Massive changes in taxonomy and nomenclature
   1. Freshwater genera in common usage doubled since 1990
   2. Species described at ca. 500/yr and accelerating
      1. Mostly outside North America
   3. Few investigators trained to deal with these changes
      1. Limited number of University programs
      2. Most programs peripheral to mainstream
      3. Most not engaged in modern systematics
   4. Limited North American Literature
      1. Modern primary taxonomic literature largely European
      2. Modern monographic literature almost entirely European
2. Greater Agency need
   1. Poorly served by current University situation
      1. Unrealized opportunities
      2. Inability to implement fundamentally sound programs

Suggested Solutions

1. University side
   1. Leadership
      1. Realistic program assessment
      2. Stabilization of quality programs
      3. Adopting orphaned taxonomic groups
   2. Realistic economic assessment
2. The Agency side
   1. Direct investment in academic training
      1. Joint programs with NSF
   2. Direct investment in monographic research
      1. Current NSF PEET initiative
   3. Stable funding of well recognized research laboratories
   4. Quality rather than price criteria
      1. Rigorous review of laboratory qualifications
   5. Re-establishment of key Federal positions
      1. Greater cooperation with University training functions.
   6. Re-vitalizing and stabilizing infrastructure

NATIONAL COLLECTIONS: ARE THEY RELEVANT DATABASES FOR BIODIVERSITY AND ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING?
Paul Hamilton, Research Division, Canadian Museum of Nature, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

The importance of biological collections and their associated historical data as markers of our changing global environment is well documented. For example, the use of pre-atomic-bomb mollusk collections for accurate C14-dating illustrates the relevance of temporal biological collections. Although this foundation of biological markers is available from national collections, the present-day association between collections institutions and environmental monitoring programs is weak. In Canada, the development of monitoring programs and protocols is the jurisdiction of Environmental Canada while national collections are not associated with the same ministry. As we attempt to monitor anthropogenic changes in our global environment, the need to link biodiversity and environmental monitoring programs with national collections and collection databases is evident and relevant.