Critical Zone Observatories | Apply Online

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) - NSF Critical Zone Observatories (CZO) (FON 12-575)

What is the NSF funding opportunity called?

The opportunity is titled Critical Zone Observatories and is identified as Funding Opportunity Number (FON) 12-575.

What is the "critical zone" as described in this opportunity?

NSF describes the critical zone as the living, reactive layer of the Earth that extends from the top of vegetation, down through soils, to the base of weathered bedrock. It is presented as central to human well-being because it is where freshwater moves and is stored, where rocks become soils, and where most terrestrial life and ecosystem services operate.

What was NSF trying to fund through the Critical Zone Observatories program?

NSF called for proposals to build a coordinated, U.S.-based network of terrestrial observatories focused on the Earths critical zone. The intent was to create sustained, place-based measurement platforms that enable long-term, integrated observation of critical zone processes that are difficult to see, measure, and predict using traditional Earth observing approaches alone.

Why did NSF emphasize the need for long-term, integrated observatories?

The solicitation notes that the critical zone is under increasing pressure from land use change, climate change, and other external stresses. Many key energy and material transfers in this zone are multi-scale and often hidden, making them difficult to observe and predict without long-term, integrated observation systems designed to capture processes over time (storms to decades) and space (pore scales to watersheds and regions).

What kinds of scientific disciplines were expected to be involved?

NSF sought interdisciplinary science linking fields such as geology, hydrology, chemistry, biology, geomorphology, sedimentology, and related disciplines, with the goal of understanding the critical zone as a coupled system.

How did NSF position CZOs relative to traditional Earth observing approaches?

NSF stated that approaches like satellites, river gauges, atmospheric sensors, and seismic networks are powerful but do not fully capture the multi-scale exchanges and feedbacks that control landscape evolution, soil formation and degradation, and subsurface movement of water and nutrients. CZOs were meant to fill this gap through sustained, place-based observations.

What were the three main network-wide expectations NSF set for the CZO program?

NSF listed three collective expectations for the CZO network:

1. Measure and quantify the most important critical-zone processes at the time and space scales needed to explain and compare system behavior.
2. Help develop a unifying theoretical framework integrating coupled processes, especially where hydrological, geochemical, geomorphic, sedimentary, and biological dynamics interact.
3. Develop, link, and validate system-level predictive models to forecast how critical zone behavior changes under external forcing (including human activities, climate variability and change, and potentially tectonic influences).

Was the program focused only on describing critical zone processes?

No. A recurring theme in the solicitation is moving beyond description into prediction. NSF emphasized identifying sensitivities and thresholds that could indicate abrupt or irreversible shifts in soil, water, and landscape function.

What types of external forcing were CZOs expected to address in predictive modeling?

The opportunity highlighted external forcing such as human activities, climate variability and climate change, and potentially tectonic influences.

What kinds of outcomes or decision-relevant impacts did NSF want the observatories to support?

NSF stated a major goal was for each observatory to strengthen the scientific basis for decision making tied to health, safety, and environmental outcomes. Examples mentioned include informing thinking about water availability and quality, soil sustainability and erosion, land management impacts, ecosystem change, and risks that emerge when critical zone processes shift (such as increased flooding or sediment loads, altered nutrient cycling, or degradation of soil and groundwater resources).

Were observatories expected to produce results that generalize beyond a single site?

Yes. While each site could focus on its own setting and hypotheses, NSF described a larger intent to produce findings that generalize beyond a single watershed or landscape type.

Where were the observatory sites expected to be located?

NSF anticipated multiple U.S.-based observatory sites across the 50 states and territories.

Did NSF encourage a particular network design or coverage strategy?

Yes. NSF encouraged strategies that diversify coverage by geography, geology, and environmental setting so the network can compare how different critical zones operate.

Were proposals expected to use existing infrastructure or data?

Yes. Proposals were expected to leverage existing infrastructure and legacy datasets where possible rather than rebuilding basic capabilities at every site.

How important was coordination across different observatories?

Coordination was a central emphasis. NSF stressed shared approaches to observations, modeling, education, and cross-site studies addressing common questions in multiple places. The solicitation frames major scientific gains as coming from combining deep local measurement with network-scale synthesis and intercomparison.

What did NSF say about data standards and data access?

Data standards and community access were presented as expectations rather than optional features. All CZOs were expected to collect a common set of baseline measurements in addition to site-specific measurements. NSF also anticipated common data management policies and shared tools across the network to support interoperability, consistent documentation, and broader reuse.

Were the CZOs intended to be a community resource beyond the funded teams?

Yes. The solicitation states that the network was intended to function as a community resource, enabling outside investigators to engage with CZO sites, data, and research opportunities to expand the impact of the investment.

What award mechanism was used for this opportunity?

The opportunity used a Cooperative Agreement mechanism, which typically signals substantial NSF involvement in oversight, coordination, or joint programmatic activities.

What was the estimated number of awards and total funding level?

The solicitation anticipated around 8 awards with an estimated total program funding of $8,000,000.

Was there an award minimum (floor) listed?

Yes. The award floor was stated as $5,000,000.

Was cost sharing or matching required?

No. The solicitation listed no cost sharing or matching requirement.

Who was eligible to apply based on the information provided?

Eligibility was described as unrestricted, meaning it was open to any type of entity, subject to any additional eligibility language in the full announcement.

How was this opportunity categorized administratively?

It was described as a discretionary NSF opportunity in the Science and Technology and other Research and Development category.

What CFDA program listing was referenced?

The CFDA listing referenced is 47.050 (Geosciences).

When was the opportunity posted, and what were the key dates?

The opportunity was posted on June 29, 2012. The full proposal deadline was February 5, 2013. The archive date was March 5, 2013.

What was the main scientific motivation behind creating a coordinated CZO network?

NSF emphasized that understanding the critical zone requires integrated, long-term observations capable of revealing hidden and coupled transfers of energy and materials across scales. The coordinated network concept was intended to enable cross-site comparison, synthesis, and intercomparison to accelerate development of generalizable understanding and predictive capability.

What kinds of measurements were CZOs expected to collect?

All observatories were expected to collect a common set of baseline measurements, plus site-specific measurements tailored to local conditions and hypotheses. The baseline measurements were expected to span geological, physical, chemical, hydrological, and biological characteristics needed to describe and interpret critical zone behavior.