Project Description – Planning Workshop Proposal
“Creating a Global Network of Mountain Observatories”
Objective:
Establish a global network of mountain observatories.
Statement of need
Mountains are high-value features within the Earth system. They cover a quarter of the
Earth’s terrestrial surface. Their vertical extension creates great habitat over short
distances, increases precipitation relative to adjacent lowlands and favors large water
reservoirs in the form of glaciers, snowpack and permafrost. While often seen as
resource-rich but forbidding in temperate and boreal climates, mountains are prime
human habitat in tropical regions with much higher population densities than in adjacent
lowland forests, plains, or deserts.
Mountain regions are experiencing profound environmental changes, which translate into
serious challenges to society because of the tight coupling between social and ecological
systems1. The reduction in water stored as snow and ice, driven by the shift from snow to
rain as well as reductions in amount, reduce groundwater recharge in mountainous areas
as well as the timing and amount of streamflow. These impacts are felt locally but also in
cities and agricultural areas far downstream that rely on mountain water in regions as
diverse as western North America, the altiplano in South America, Central Asia, and
China. Increasingly destructive wildfire, degraded wildlife habitat, and wildland-urban
interface conflict are additional challenges to mountain economies and communities,
especially in Europe and North America. Disease vectors, invasive species, biodiversity
loss and water pollution similarly afflict disparate regions around the world. These socialecological problems exist worldwide with a great deal of regional differentiation, but also
with many common features.
Bringing science to bear on these issues requires more comprehensive, long term data on
mountain systems around the world, not only to understand the nuances in each system,
but also to identify the commonalities and the possible responses to management
decisions.
A global network of observatories on mountain social-ecological systems is a key step
toward obtaining these data and promoting these analyses. Observatories of various types
exist already in mountains around the world; the key is to bring them into communication
with each other and to move toward congruent observing methodologies that reveal the
complexity of these social-ecological systems.
Ostrom, E. 2009. A general framework for analyzing sustainability of socialecological systems. Science, 325 (419) DOI: 10.1126/science.1172133
1
A network of observatories accelerates innovation and aligns methodologies. A network
promotes exchange on questions and methods, by making members’ work more explicit,
and transparent and by breaking barriers between disciplines and cultures. A network can
also develop data analysis and management tools to support “silo-breaking” and to
accelerate learning.. Members within the network build stronger contacts, see different
solutions, and learn whom they can work with to find help with their challenges.
A network of mountain observatories that explicitly promotes inclusion of stakeholders
will be far more effective at informing practice and policy. Many of the environmental
issues facing mountain regions have massive social implications. Observatories can serve
as “active sites” where researchers can engage with and learn from advocates, business,
and elected officials. Such a network will also encourage active engagement with their
communities, k-12 groups, NGO’s and institutions of higher learning.
List of workshop topics
Discussion topics will include some of the following. The final list of topics will be
developed in collaboration with the invited participants via email prior to the event. The
focus will be to address tractable as well as urgent socio-ecological issues that can be
addressed by a network of field stations.
1) Topical questions:
What are the key science questions that influence the organization
and operation of the network?
2) Organization/Structure:
How should the network be structured?
What is the minimum level of organization needed to move the
network agenda forward?
What kinds of services should this network make available to its
members?
What lessons can we learn from other similar networks such as
The Global Lake Ecological Observatory Network (GLEON)?
How should the network engage with existing related science
organizations and events? (e.g. National Park Service Inventory &
Monitoring, National Ecological Observatory Network (NEON), National
Phenology Network (NPN), Organization of Biological Field Stations
(OBFS), Perth Conference, The Mountains of our Future Earth, American
Geophysical Union (AGU), Ecological Society of America (ESA), etc.)
How can we incorporate the findings and suggestions outlined by
the NAS report 2
3) Research Design/Methods:
"Enhancing the Value and Sustainability of Field Stations and Marine Labs in the
21st Century". National Academy of Sciences, 2014.
2
What are key variables now and for the future?
What are cutting-edge sensing technologies in the biophysical
realm and how can this cutting edge become accessible and uniform
across sites?
What is the state of the art in observing social-ecological systems?
What are the protocols and standards?
Is there an existing catalog of methods?
What are key data gaps when looking across stations?
What technologies are currently available for the network?
4) Data/Information Management and Communication:
What kinds of internal communications should the network
establish?
How does one bring together data from many different sites?
What can be done now with existing data?
What technologies are currently available for the network?
What is the ideal information system that we would like for the
network in the future?
5) Modeling
Are there modeling frameworks that could serve to unify
approaches?
How does scale up to a larger regional context?
6) Tech Transfer and Education
What are best practices for engaging with local stakeholders and
policy actors?
What is the ideal communication platform that we would like for
the network in the future?
How do we engage broader audiences in both the design of the
network and how information derived from the network serves a much
broader purpose. These would include land managers, the public, the K-12
community, institutions of higher learning, etc.
Recent meetings
Within the last few years there have been several meetings internationally and within the
US with managers/scientists representing facilities on most of the continents to discuss
the relevance and importance of establishing a network of observatories within the
mountainous regions of the planet. These meetings and workshops have been a grassroots effort leading to this proposal.
● The Mountain Research Initiative and the University of Nevada Reno hosted the
Global Fair and Workshop on Observatories of Mountain Social-Ecological
Systems from 16-19 July 2014 in Reno, Nevada. Roughly 175 researchers
participated in this event with one third of the participants traveling from outside
of the US. There is broad consensus among the participants to move forward with
defining and creating a mountain observatories network.
● At the Organization of Biological Field Stations (OBFS) annual meeting in
September 2014, an ad hoc committee was established to explore interest in such
a network from existing member field stations. There is strong interest. A steering
group was formed to set this two day meeting to create the network, just prior to
the 2015 OBFS annual meeting.
Chairperson and members of organizing committee and their organizational
affiliations
Chairperson:
● Jeff Brown, Director, Central Sierra Field Research Stations (Sagehen Creek Field
Station, Central Sierra Snow Laboratory, Onion Creek Experimental Forest, North
Fork Association Properties, Chickering Reserve), University of California –
Berkeley, CA USA, and chair of the OBFS ad hoc committee: Mountain
Observatories.
Committee members:
● Ian Billick, Executive Director, Rocky Mountain Biological Laboratory (RMBL),
Gothic, CO USA; Past OBFS President
● Gregory Greenwood, Director, Mountain Research Initiative (MRI), Institute of
Geography, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland
● Art McKee, Mountain Social Ecological Observatory Network (MtnSEON), and
Flathead Lake Biological Station, University of Montana
● Faerthen Felix, Assistant Manager, Sagehen Creek Field Station, Truckee, CA
USA
Potential Workshop Invitees:
Last
First
Affiliation
Brown
Jeffrey
U C Berkeley - Sagehen Creek Field Station
Felix
Faerthen
U C Berkeley - Sagehen Creek Field Station
Kirchner
James
ETH - Zurich, Switzerland
Billick
Ian
Rocky Mountain Biological Laboratory
McKee
Art
Mtn SEON
Greenwood
Greg
Mountain Research Initiative
Gropp
Robert
American Institute for Biological Sciences
Hamilton
Michael
U C Berkeley - Blue Oak Ranch Reserve
Millar
Connie
United States Forest Service
Harpold
Adrian
University of Nevada, Reno
Lohr
Steve
USFS - National Partnership Office
Power
Mary
University of California, Berkeley
Dawson
Todd
University of California, Berkeley
Bowie
Rauri
University of California, Berkeley
Stine
Peter
United States Forest Service - Pacific Southwest
Research Station
Osterhuber
Randall
U C Berkeley - Central Sierra Snow Laboratory
Schulze
Mark
Oregon State University - HJ Andrews EF
Nelson
Michael
Oregon State University - HJ Andrews EF
Gragson
Ted
University of Georgia - Coweeta EF
Fahey
Tim
Cornell Unversity - Hubbard Brook EF
Bourgeron
Patrick
University of Colorado - Niwot Ridge EF
Vanderbilt
Kristin
University of New Mexico - Sevilleta LTER
Crabtree
Bob
Yellowstone Ecological Research Cntr
Bansak
Tom
University of Montana - Flathead Lake Bio Station
Kennedy
Brian
University of Idaho - Taylor Ranch
Wisdom
Michael
USFS Starkey EF
Graham
Russell
USFS Priest River EF
Keane
Robert
USFS Tenderfoot Ck EF
McGlynn
Brian
USFS Tenderfoot Ck EF
KennedySutherland
Elaine
Loescher
Hank
NEON
Garman
Steve
USGS
Carroll
Rosemary
Desert Research Institute
Kauneckis
Derek
Ohio University
Flint
Courtney
Utah State University/iUtah
Williams
Dan
USFS Research
Tucker
Catherine
University of Indiana
Hooper
Richard
CUASHI
Bode
Collin
U C Berkeley - Angelo Reserve/CZO
Gaetani
Francesco
GEO/GNOME
Provenzale
Antonella
University of Turin/GNOME
Allison
Lee
Belmont e-infrastructure
Geller
Gary
JPL/GEO
Andersson
Krister
University of Colorado/IFRI
Chhetri
Netra
Arizona State University/Gandaki River Basin, Nepal
Brown
Renée
University of New Mexico - Sevilleta LTER
Jones
Amber
Utah State University, iUtah
Hart
Robbie
Missouri Botanical Gardens/China
Klein
Julia
Colorado State Univ/Mountain Sentinels RCN
Jackson-Smith
Douglas
Utah State University, iUtah
Kelsey
Eric
Plymouth State University
Holmquist
Jeff
University of California, Los Angeles
USFS Coram EF
Littell
Jeremy
United States Geological Survey
Strachan
Scotty
University of Nevada, Reno
Biondi
Franco
University of Nevada, Reno
Bode
Collin
University of Calfiornia - Berkeley Angelo CZO
Eubanks
Steve
USFS retired
Waide
Bob
LTER network office
Brunt
James
LTER network office data management
Williams
Mark
University of Colorado/INSTAAR
Bowman
Bill
University of Colorado/Niwot
Fenstermaker
Lynn
University of Nevada/DRI
ChungMacCoubrey
Alice
NPS/Sierra Nevada
Nesmith
Jonathan
NPS/Sierra Nevada
Hergarten
Chris
University of Central Asia/Naryn Learning Landscape
Carrascal
Daniel Ruiz
Escuela de Ingenieria de Antioquia/Los Nevados
(CO)
Peralvo
Manuel
CONDESAN/Tropical Andes
Gunya
Alexey
Russian Academy of Science/Mt. Elbrus
Vanacker
Veerle
University of Cuenca/Llavircay
Chang
Ruiyang
Chinese Academy of Science /Gongga Shan NP
Scheurer
Thomas
Swiss Academy of Science/Swiss NP and BR
Hemp
Andreas
University of Bayreuth/Kilimanjaro
Kanka
Robert
Slovak Academy of Sciences/Tatra NP
Galop
Didier
Université de Toulouse/OPHV (Pyrénées)
Spiegleberger
Thomas
IRSTEA/Col de Lauteret (Alpes)
Spehn
Eva
University of Basel/Alpine LTER
Nakileza
Bob
Makerere University/Mt. Elgon&Rwenzori
Timoshok
Eugenii
Russian Academy of Science/Altai
Shahgedanova
Maria
University of Reading/Caucasus&Central Asia
Nosenko
Gennady
Russian Academy of Science/Caucasus
Kutuzov
Stansilav
Russian Academy of Science/Caucasus
Bonet
Francisco
University of /Sierra Nevada(ES) NP
Schallhart
Nikolaus
University of Innsbruck/Obergürgl
Freppaz
Michele
University of Turin/Monte Rosa
Andrews
Christopher Centre for Ecology and Hydrology/Cairngorms
Qi
Xiaojing
Lanzhou University/Qilian Mountains
Ferguson
Willem
University of Pretoria/Mareipskop
Fontana
Veronika
EURAC/Matsch Valley
Franz
Helmut
BerchtesgadenNP
Venn
Susanna
ANU/Kosciusko NP
Ueno
Kenichi
Tsukuba University/Japanese Alps
Allsop
Nicky
South African Environmental Observing Network
Hiltbrunner
Erika
University of Basel/Furkapass
Wohlfahrt
Georg
University of Innsbruck/Neustift
Pauli
Harald
University of Vienna/GLORIA
Butyaert
Wouter
Imperial College London/Mountain-EVO
Boerst
Uwe
University of Boon/Karakorum
Dawes
Nick
SLF/Davos
Location and probable date(s) of the meeting
The Meeting will be held just prior to the OBFS annual meeting at RMBL, starting at
4pm on 13 September 2015 and ending at 5pm on 15 September 2015. RMBL has
confirmed availability.
Scheduling this meeting in conjunction with the OBFS meeting facilitates participation
by field station personnel, reduces travel costs and lowers the meeting’s environmental
impact.
Method of announcement or invitation
We will invite workshop participants individually via email.
Workshop organization, structure and dissemination of results
The workshop will be organized in 3 main phases.
#1:
The opening on the evening of 09/12/15 will set the stage and layout the
expectations from the participants.
#2
The bulk of the two remaining days will tackle 6 major topics for creating the
network. These 6 major areas will be created from the draft list of 10 via consultation
with invited participants. These sessions will feature one or two invited speakers to
provide overviews or suggested solutions, with the rest of the session devoted to
discussion.
#3
The balance of the last day will be used to draft a statement, set next steps and
strategy for implementation.
A document summarizing results, goals, objectives, network structure and next steps will
be emailed to meeting participants, MRI, OBFS, MTSEON, and other groups identified
during the workshop and the final report will be submitted to NSF.
BUDGET JUSTIFICATION
Plan for recruitment of attendees
We currently have a list of over 50 candidates. The organizers expect to prioritize
invitations in order to address adequately disciplinary, institutional and information
technology concerns and to represent the major mountain regions of the world. We will
invite attendees individually based on priority until our target number of 45 attendees has
been met. Our invitee list (see above) is diverse in terms of representation of women and
minorities, and includes students and underrepresented groups in science. Solicitation of
interest in attending has begun and there are already 35 who have tentatively committed
to attend. So there is quite a bit of interest in this meeting and effort. Attendees will be
traveling to arrive at the Rocky Mountain biological Lab (RMBL) on 13 September 2015
and then traveling on the 16 September 2015 to return. Meals to begin with Dinner on 13
September through travel sack lunch 16 September with 3 nights lodging
Budget justification and estimate
● Meeting space costs for 3 days at $2,000 per day
● Catering for 45 participants including invited speakers
@ $40 per person per day for 3 days, beginning with dinner
on first night through bag lunch on departure day
● Coffee and snacks for 45 participants(including invited
speakers) for 2 days @ $6.95 per Person per day
● Lodging for 3 nights for 20 participants (including invited
speakers) is $35 per person per night (max 20 rooms at RMBL)
● Lodging for 3 nights for 25 participants (including invited
speakers) is $25 per person per night (max 20 rooms at RMBL)
● Invited speaker travel costs (4*750)
● US participants travel grants (12*500)
TOTAL NSF BUDGET REQUEST
$6,000
$5,400
$625
$2,100
$1,875
$3,000
$6,000
$25,000
Participant support costs are excluded from the indirect cost base in accordance with
NSF’s guidelines for Proposals for Conferences, Symposia and Workshops.
Indirect cost rate: The off-campus rate is 26%
Indirect costs (or facilities and administrative costs (F&A), or overhead) represent
project expenses that cannot be easily identified with any specific sponsored project but are
incurred for common or joint objectives related to all sponsored projects at UC Berkeley.
For example, it would not be feasible to calculate and charge every sponsored project an
exact amount for space and utilities used or for the amount of staff time associated with
processing payroll for project employees. Instead the university determines a rate to charge all
sponsored projects for the use of its facilities and administrative support services. For more
information, please visit: http://spo.berkeley.edu/policy/fa.html
Facilities
The Mountain Research Initiative (MRI) and MTSEON will will provide additional
support for additional participants, meals, travel and lodging.