Calibrating the data logger…
This is one of 12 scenarios the Centennial Campaign 2027 explores. It is an AI-generated planning artifact, not a forecast or an RMBL institutional commitment. The contingencies it depends on are named in its plausibility-caveats and (where applicable) upside or downside conditions sections. See the browse page for the full set, including the alternative scenarios.
Centennial Watershed-Anchored assumes the campaign comes in mid-range, and that RMBL bets the bulk of it on keeping the East River watershed operating as a coupled-systems testbed after the federal SAIL campaign winds down. The atmospheric instruments, snow and soil moisture stations, and biogeochemistry sampling that SAIL brought to the basin become permanent RMBL infrastructure, run by an expanded technical staff. The long records — the marmot study now in its eighth decade, the meadow phenology series, the snowmelt-driven plant work — continue without lapse, because those records are what give the watershed measurements their depth. A small data team grows alongside, enough to weave the instrument streams together. The scenario forgoes broad community co-production work, large financial reserves, and most mechanistic experimental platforms outside the watershed. It tests something specific: whether the watershed turn that defined basin science after 2016 can be made permanent at mid-magnitude, rather than waiting for a target-level campaign that may never come.
---
At mid-range magnitude, the campaign anchors on the watershed-Earth- systems work the SAIL campaign opened. Records are protected; data capacity grows; and the campaign keeps the East River atmospheric and biogeochemical measurement systems operational past the campaign window. The scenario tests whether the watershed turn can be made permanent at mid-magnitude rather than requiring target-level investment.
This scenario takes as its starting point a specific bet about what mattered most in the basin's recent past and what is most at risk of being lost. From 2021 onward, the Surface Atmosphere Integrated Field Laboratory transformed the East River watershed into a place where atmospheric scientists, hydrologists, soil microbiologists, and ecologists could share instruments and study reaches. The radars and radiometers and flux towers, combined with the basin's long biological records, made it possible to ask integrated questions that no other mountain site could support. SAIL was a federal campaign, time-limited by design.
The central question the scenario answers is what happens when that campaign winds down. The default outcome is dispersal: instruments are removed or transferred elsewhere, the scientific community that formed around the watershed scatters, and the integration retreats to the level of conference panels and review papers. This scenario chooses something different. The campaign comes in mid-range, and most of it goes toward keeping the watershed infrastructure operational past the federal window. RMBL takes on the instruments. RMBL hires the technicians who maintain them. RMBL builds the data systems that let the measurements be used.
The basin's long records — the marmot study, the meadow phenology series, the snowmelt-driven plant work — continue at current intensity. They are protected because they are part of what makes the watershed measurements valuable; a soil chemistry reading next to a fifty-year flowering record is a different kind of evidence than a soil chemistry reading alone. What the scenario does not do is expand into community partnership work, build large financial reserves, or launch new experimental platforms outside the watershed. The bet is concentration, not balance.
The campaign's first phase is dominated by the question of what stays. SAIL's federal funding cycle winds down across this period. RMBL leadership negotiates with the Department of Energy and partner institutions about which instruments transfer to RMBL ownership, which stay with their home institutions, and which are decommissioned. The campaign funds the technician hires needed to operate the inherited instruments — initially two new positions added to the existing technical core, with a third by the end of the phase. The basin's long records continue without disruption. The marmot study completes its sixty-fifth year of continuous observation in 2028. A small data engineering position is added to begin building the integrated platform that will let watershed instrument streams be queried alongside the long biological records. The renovation at RMBL365 is modest — winterized workspace for off-season data analysis and coordination meetings, not a community hub. By 2030 the inherited watershed instruments are running under RMBL operation and the first guest-scientist projects using them as permanent rather than campaign infrastructure are underway.
By the early 2030s the basin's watershed measurements are no longer a federal campaign with an expiration date. They are RMBL infrastructure that guest scientists plan multi-year work around. The technical staff has grown by about four positions from its 2026 baseline. The data platform is operational and lets a soil microbiologist, an atmospheric scientist, and an ecologist share the same measurement context. The first wave of guest-scientist publications using the post-SAIL infrastructure appears. The integrated questions the SAIL campaign opened — how snow microphysics, soil moisture, bedrock chemistry, and plant communities co-vary across the watershed — now have a sustained empirical base rather than a campaign-bounded one. Equipment replacement becomes a routine cost the campaign anticipated. The long records continue. The meadow phenology series enters its sixth decade. Archival digitization of historical field notebooks accelerates, and the data team begins building AI-assisted tools that let researchers query the digitized archive alongside live instrument streams. The scenario's bet is now visible: the watershed turn that defined basin science after 2016 has become permanent.
The final phase of the primary horizon is about what the sustained infrastructure produces. By 2036 the watershed has been operating as an RMBL-run integrated testbed for nearly a decade. Guest scientists who could not have proposed their work in 2026 — because the federal campaign was ending and the infrastructure's future was uncertain — now run multi-year projects using the coupled measurements. The basin's contribution to mountain-system science is no longer a campaign chapter but a sustained record. The long records remain the deep-time spine. The marmot study, the meadow phenology series, and the snowmelt-driven plant work continue under their existing partnerships, with archival and protocol support from RMBL staff. The data team's AI-assisted synthesis tools, modest by national standards, are tuned to the specific problem of reading a century of basin records alongside watershed instrument streams. The campaign closes in 2040 having done one thing well: it kept the East River operating as a coupled-systems testbed past the moment when, by default, it would have dispersed.
A scientist working on snow physics, watershed hydrology, soil biogeochemistry, or mountain ecology gets something through this scenario that other basin scenarios do not provide: a coupled measurement context that continues past the federal campaign window. The radars and radiometers, the soil moisture stations, the stream chemistry sampling — these run as standing infrastructure that you can plan multi-year work around rather than racing to publish before the campaign ends. The basin's long biological records remain active, which means your watershed measurements sit next to a century of context. The trade is real. If your work depends on large common-garden experiments, expanded pollinator manipulation, or community co-production partnerships, this scenario gives you less than a sibling would. If your work depends on the East River operating as a coupled testbed, this is the scenario where it does.
Through this scenario, RMBL becomes a place that operates standing watershed infrastructure on the model that national laboratories and federal facilities used to. The technical staff is larger than it is in 2026 — four or so additional specialists, including instrumentation technicians and a watershed data engineer. The seasonal rhythm at Gothic continues, but a meaningful share of staff now works year-round on instrument maintenance, data integration, and equipment replacement cycles. The institution carries more recurring operating cost than it did before, balanced by the grant flow that the watershed infrastructure attracts. RMBL365 in Crested Butte is renovated modestly, used for off-season analysis and coordination rather than as a community hub. The institution's distinctive shape — small staff, guest-scientist research model, broad responsive infrastructure investment — holds, but the technical core is meaningfully larger and more specialized than it was at the campaign's start.
Your contribution joins a focused effort to keep the East River watershed operating as a coupled-systems testbed past the moment when, by default, it would have dispersed. From 2021 onward, a federal campaign brought instruments and scientists together in the basin to ask integrated questions about snow, water, soil, microbes, and biology. That campaign was time-limited. This scenario is the conditions under which the integration becomes permanent — under which the radars, the soil moisture stations, the stream chemistry sampling continue to operate, alongside the marmot study now in its eighth decade and the long meadow records. Your gift is part of inheriting infrastructure rather than building it from scratch. It is part of the technical staff who maintain the instruments and the data platform that lets researchers use them. A reader weighing this scenario against the others will see that it forgoes community partnership expansion, large reserves, and most experimental infrastructure outside the watershed frame. The bet here is depth in one place.
The scenario assumes that the Department of Energy and partner institutions will agree to transfer core SAIL instruments to RMBL operation rather than removing them or transferring them to another site. This negotiation is not guaranteed, and a less favorable outcome would partly hollow out the scenario's central bet. It assumes that grant flow tied to the watershed infrastructure continues at a level that funds equipment replacement and ongoing operation across the horizon. If federal watershed science funding contracts more sharply than the central case assumes, the campaign's mid-range scale is not sufficient to carry the recurring cost alone. It assumes that the technical specialists the scenario hires can be recruited and retained at competitive salaries in a mountain location with limited housing — a real challenge that the scenario addresses only modestly through RMBL365.
The characteristic way this scenario could go wrong is specific: the campaign succeeds in inheriting the instruments but fails to sustain the operating cost across the full horizon. RMBL ends 2040 holding infrastructure it cannot fully maintain, having forgone the community partnership work and the reserves that a different scenario would have built. This is the cost of concentration.
The structural blind spot is community. By choosing the watershed bet at mid-range, the scenario leaves community engagement at its current modest scale during a period when local water and climate concerns are intensifying. If community salience rises faster than the scenario anticipates, RMBL may find itself missing a strategic moment that a different scenario would have caught. The scenario also assumes that the guest-scientist community that formed around SAIL stays engaged with the basin after the campaign ends. If those scientists disperse to other sites despite the inherited infrastructure, the bet's value falls.
---
Speculative. Lower resolution than the primary horizon.
By 2050 the watershed measurements have been running as RMBL infrastructure for roughly two decades. The first generation of guest scientists who started multi-year projects under the post-campaign infrastructure has been replaced by a second generation who never knew the East River as a federal campaign — only as a place where coupled measurements were available. The marmot study has crossed a hundred and twenty years. The meadow phenology series is approaching seven decades. The data platform that the campaign built is older and the AI tools that read across the records are deeper than what the 2030s could support. What the scenario cannot say is whether the recurring operating cost remained sustainable across the full quarter-century, or whether the institution eventually had to choose between watershed maintenance and the long records. That choice may not have been forced. It may have been. The scenario's coda is honest about the unknowability of that further future, while naming what it bet on: that depth in one place, sustained past the moment of natural dispersal, was worth the things it did not pursue.
In 2040, RMBL matters because the East River has continued operating as a coupled-systems testbed where guest scientists ask integrated questions about snow, water, soil, microbes, and biology that no other site supports at this depth. The SAIL era is no longer a campaign; it is permanent basin infrastructure.