Discover Life in America

Chuck Parker - 10 June, 1999

Re: Cost of ATBI

Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 12:12:52 -0400
From: Chuck_Parker@ccmail.itd.nps.gov (Chuck Parker)
Subject: Fwd:Re: Cost of ATBI
To: mnhen049@sivm.si.edu, pat_mccafferty@entm.purdue.edu, ktennessen@aol.com,
        bkondrat@ceres.agsci.colostate.edu, jmorse@clemson.edu


Ollie, Boris, Pat, and Ken,

Our plan for the DLIA's ATBI "Aquatic Insects TWiG" activities this first
summer is to "piggy back" on Becky Nichols' standard benthic monitoring
project in the Park (40 samples throughout the Park), adding ten+ light trap
samples, and adding some rearing efforts if we can keep the rearing
equipment functioning.  Hopefully, we will also get some emergence trap, 
sweep net, and other samples to supplement the light trap and benthic
samples.

We have been budgeted $4,000 for this first summer, about half of which
will go for a student helper and the remainder for supplies, travel support
for those of you who can schedule trips to the Park, and some compensation
for anticipated taxonomic efforts.  Hopefully, we will get word of
additional funds soon.

Later this summer, several DLIA Board members and others will meet to draft
a major proposal to the NSF Inventories program, with the "Aquatic Insects
TWiG" scheduled to be one of the early teams for funding in the 15-year
ATBI strategic plan.

Chuck and I will keep you posted as developments occur.  We will likely be
sending some samples for processing a little later in the summer and may
need your help in other aspects of the project, also, before the annual
meeting in December.

Feel free to "weigh in" on the discussion below this note if you wish!

John
jmorse@clemson.edu

and

Chuck
chuck_parker@nbs.gov

-----------------------------------------------

>Keith,
>
>Sorry that you are upset, but I beg to differ with you on several counts
>about the projected cost of the ATBI.
>
>No team decision has been taken regarding our strategic plan or budget, so
>I am hardly breaking ranks.  My recollection of the Board's response to my
>$25M+ per year estimate for the ATBI was that we may not be able to raise
>that amount, not that it was an unreasonable estimate to fund the taxonomy
>that we need.
>
>I suggest that you and others do the numbers and come up with better
>estimates that we can share in our strategic planning.  If it is $1 to $10
>million total, then consider the ATBI dead.  The taxonomists that I know
>are not willing to commit to a project of such limited scope.  They can
>each get more money working elsewhere.  Most taxonomists are looking for
>funding and not to volunteer in the Smokies.  If we estimate that it will
>take 1,000 taxonomists to clean up the names of 100,000 species, something
>that Norm, Mike, and I feel is a reasonable estimate, then we need to plan
>to fund that many.  If we don't fund that many, then we are either asking
>that they volunteer or we are not doing an "All-TBI".  As they won't
>volunteer en masse, and as we are planning an All-TBI, then we need to
>estimate how much it will cost per taxonomist to entice and fund them to
>work in the Smokies.  I think that $25K per year is a reasonable amount to
>fund a graduate student, travel, and minimal supplies, though I admit that
>you might be able to low-ball it and get some taxonomists to work for $15K
>per year.  Next we need to estimate how long it will take each taxonomist
>to sample, sort, clean up the names, build identification keys, check 100
>web pages for accuracy, etc.  Again, I am unsure how long this will take,
>but certainly no less than 4 years, based on my experience with Elizabeth
>and our wasps, and probably closer to 7 or more.  Thus, over $100M is my
>best "guess" for the taxonomy part of the ATBI, but we might be able to
>low-ball it for $60M.  Then we need to consider facilities, databasing,
>education, ...  In short, I challenge you or anyone else to come up with a
>realistic estimate under $100 million over 15 years for the Smokies ATBI.
>
>Finally, and more importantly, is the fact that we are generating public
>support because we have a grand vision -- a moon shot, if you wish.
>Jocelyn would not write a Science note about an ATBI that anticipated a
>budget of $10M.  Otherwise she should write about each of the 20 LTER sites
>and other projects of similar size.  The public and press are captivated by
>our vision -- knowing about ALL the creatures in one area.  This is a huge,
>magnificent undertaking with major payoffs to the Park, science, and
>society.  We must stop hiding the real cost.  Yes, we will have volunteers
>and contributions from scientists that are not in our budgeted cost, sweat
>equity in Dan's lingo, but I fear that underestimating or low-balling our
>budget at this point will result in the taxonomists, funding sources, and
>others not taking us seriously.
>
>Once we agree on about what it will cost, then we can develop a strategic
>plan to raise the money.  While I feel that we will ultimately need over
>$25M+ per year, I am quite aware that it will take 5 or more years to ramp
>up to that level.
>
>I am copying this to our Board, taxonomy leaders, and others for general
>consumption, because it is of such a critical concern to our credibility
>and planning.  I hope you and they will respond and add better estimates to
>the debate.  In particular, I hope the taxonomists as a 1,000 member
>community will tell us what it will cost for them to participate and
>succeed.  I will post this and everyones response on our website.
>
>Let our strategic planning begin.
>
>Cheers,
>Pick
>
>>Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1999 17:54:02 -0400
>>From: Keith_Langdon@ccmail.itd.nps.gov (Keith Langdon)
>>Subject: SCIENCE article
>>To: pick@pick.uga.edu
>>Cc: Chuck_Parker@ccmail.itd.nps.gov (Chuck Parker),
>>        Becky_Nichols@ccmail.itd.nps.gov (Becky Nichols), pswhite@unc.edu,
>>        wfharris@utk.edu
>>
>>
>>     Pick - As you know, J. Kaiser from SCIENCE, is doing a note on the
>>     ATBI. She called me today and asked if I would review what she had
>>     written.  She wanted me to check for factual errors, and wanted me
>>     specifically to comment on the draft that you had already worked on
>>     with her. I was given about 20 minutes to respond.  I was UPSET to see
>>     that you were quoted as saying the ATBI will cost "at least $100
>>     million".  I asked her to tone it down, and she agreed to add that
>>     others involved disputed that high a figure, which is not exactly what
>>     I wanted, but given the time constraints...
>>
>>     I was sure we had agreed to hold off on making "wild ass guesses"
>>     about how much this will cost until we actually undertake a detailed
>>     cost analysis for the strategic plan later this fall. This plan would
>>     have to have input from many of the scientists who have come to "scope
>>     out" the Park thus far.  As we have discussed, the Costa Rican
>>     estimates are not directly transferable to here for several important
>>     reasons.
>>
>>     I will admit to exasperation here.  I share your wish to put a figure
>>     on the ATBI, but what facts are your estimates based on ?  I don't
>>     want to "low ball" a figure, I just don't think the potential allies
>>     we have to win over in government, corporations, NGO's and others are
>>     served by everyone involved GUESSING that it will cost $250 million
>>     (your May guess) or over $100 milion or $1 million for that matter.
>>     This has the potential to seriously wound our efforts, I believe.
>>
>>     I've talked to several folks at the May board meeting whose
>>     recollection is the same as mine on this issue.  I don't understand
>>     why we can't stick to a team decision on this.  Please inform me if I
>>     am mistaken.
>>
>>     Keith






Discover Life in America | Science | Strategic Plan & Budget | Chuck Parker - 10 June, 1999