The AFT-NRCS Soil Health Case Studies estimate the economic effects of implementing soil health practices by looking at the costs, benefits, and return on investment experienced by farmers who have adopted any one or a combination of soil health practices. The findings of these case studies are intended to give farmers confidence in adopting practices that have the potential to lessen agriculture’s impacts on water resources, address climate change, and increase farmer resilience and viability.

Case study methods
The economic impacts of implementing soil health practices on case study farms were derived using Partial Budget Analysis (PBA). A PBA estimates the economic effect—both benefits and costs—of variables affected by a change in a farming operation. For the Soil Heal Case Studies, the PBA compares costs and benefits “before” and “after” soil health practice implementation. To conduct this PBA, AFT developed a Retrospective Soil Health Economic Calculator (R-SHEC). R-SHEC is an Excel-based tool which was used to quantify the benefits and costs experienced by already “soil health successful” producers in the majority of the case studies. AFT has released a version for row crops and one for almonds. The row crop version of R-SHEC is designed to evaluate the economic effects of implementing no-till or reduced tillage, cover crops, nutrient management, and conservation crop rotation. The almond version of the tool evaluates the economic effects of cover crops, nutrient management, compost application, and mulching.

AFT also produced case studies using Cornell University’s Dairy Farm Business Summary (DFBS) survey.

Two tools were used to calculate the environmental impacts of implementing soil health practices. The USDA Nutrient Tracking Tool was used to estimate water quality impacts, and COMET-Farm for calculating the change in GHG emissions. Both tools are described below.

The economic impacts of soil health practices
The AFT-NRCS Soil Health Case Studies find that soil health successful farmers may experience net economic benefits, which can be achieved in two ways—through increases in income, through decreases in costs, or through a combination of the two. Increases in income can be attributed to yield increases. Decreases in costs, meanwhile, can be attributed to:

The case studies demonstrate that net return on investment varies from farm to farm as, in some instances, the economic benefits of implementing soil health practices may be offset by decreases in income due to increased costs, such as the cost of purchasing seed for cover crops and the learning costs associated with implementing new practices. These increases in cost may be attributed to variable rate application; increased soil testing; learning costs associated with the transition in soil health management; new machinery; those associated with implementing cover crops, including seed, planting, and harvest costs.

The environmental impacts of soil health practices
In addition to the benefits to individual farm and ranch operations, improving soil health can also provide environmental benefits for society at large. These include climate change mitigation—healthy soils have the capacity to store more carbon—and improved water quality due to greater infiltration and water holding capacity in the soil leading to lower runoff from fields. Increased soil stability can reduce flood damage in surrounding communities. The Nutrient Tracking Tool can estimate reductions in nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment losses associated with implementing soil health practices. Climate benefits can be evaluated with the help of COMET-Farm, which estimates the ‘carbon footprint’ for all or part of a farm or ranch operation. It also allows users to evaluate different options for reducing GHG emissions and sequestering more carbon.

When it comes to implementing new practices on producers’ land, it will be helpful to listen to farmers’ concerns; match examples of soil health success stories to the farm type and region; and be clear in your messaging and able to explain the basics of certain concepts, like partial budget analysis.

There are a variety of barriers to adoption that producers may face when attempting to implement new practices on their land. These include:

• Educational barriers, represented as learning costs in the case studies.
• Financial barriers, such as the cost of new equipment and soil testing.
• Technological barriers, including trial and error costs related to using new practices and machinery.
• Technical barriers, including the learning curve for new practices and time spent fine tuning a new crop management system.
• Agronomic barriers related to implementation of new cropping systems.
• Belief that they would spend more to implement soil health practices.
• Social barriers, including adjusting to a new way of farming.

You can use the case studies to address these barriers. Pointing to “soil health successful” farmers who have navigated these challenges may help with normalizing adoption. Highlight the return on investment for a similar operation to alleviate financial concerns.

NRCS staff can assist with assessing soil health in the field. This will include a field visit, a conversation with the farmer on management, and use of the web soil survey. A web soil survey provides information on soil’s inherent, nonmanagement-influenced properties. While this is useful for gauging a “baseline,” management is the primary driver of whether a resource concern is present. When looking at indicators of soil health in the field, it is important to keep in mind both the soil properties and the management practices being used. Below are six of the major indicators to look for when assessing soil health in the field:

1. One indicator of soil health is aggregate stability. Soil aggregate stability is related to soil porosity and how well soil can resist raindrop impact and erosion. To assess aggregate stability in the field, one can conduct a slake test, a strainer test, or a Jornada soil aggregate stability test. These tests reveal healthy soils if at least 80% of the soil mass remains intact in a slake test; if the sample “stands up” for strainer test and runoff water is translucent; or if it meets the Jornada test criteria.
2. Plant roots and biopores are another feature of healthy soils. Roots influence the soil immediately adjacent to them through exudates, growing and leaving soil organic matter as they die. Root systems and root channels can help address aggregate instability, soil organism habitat loss or degradation, and soil organic matter depletion. To assess this indicator of soil health in the field, look for evidence of dark root channels or biopores left by previous plants or earthworms.
3. Healthy soils will also have adequate soil cover. Soil cover is the percent of the soil surface that is covered by plant residue, organic mulch, or live plants. Having adequate soil cover can help address aggregate instability, soil organism habitat loss or degradation, soil organic matter depletion, and surface compaction. Soil cover can be measured in the field using farmer interview, the photo estimation method or state-approved method, or the line intercept method. If the soil is more than 75% covered after planting, it meets the criteria for adequate soil cover.
4. Another indicator is surface crusts. Crusts form after rain or irrigation on soils with weak aggregate stability. Surface crusts are an indicator of similar resource concerns as adequate soil cover. Crusts can be evaluated by visual observation after rainfall/irrigation and drying. Note whether crusts are throughout the field or only in patches. Near the surface, the soil will be dense and show layered sediment deposits. Poor crop emergence and uneven stand are also signs of surface crusts. Healthy soils should have surface crusts on 5% or less of the field.
5. Evidence of ponding can be another indicator of soil health. Ponding involves areas of the field that collect and hold runoff water from other parts of the field. Ponding may play a role in aggregate instability and surface compaction and can be measured by farmer interview or visual observation after rainfall or irrigation. Note evidence of crop residue deposits, evidence of ponding from observation or on recent aerial photos, and poor crop conditions, especially yellowing. Healthy soils should show evidence of ponding 24 hours or less after a typical rain event.
6. Another indicator or soil health is penetration resistance, or management-induced reduction of large pores and degraded structure (i.e., platy) that results in a decrease in root depth, plant growth, and soil biological habitat and activity. Penetration resistance contributes to aggregate instability, organic matter depletion, and surface compaction. To assess this feature of soil structure, one can evaluate multiple representative locations in the field, ideally when the soil moisture is near field capacity, and record the depths of restrictive layers and PSI readings, evaluate root development and distribution, and look for platy structure. In healthy soils, this evaluation should reveal granular structure, appropriate PSI readings, and vertical channels or roots. Health roots show unrestricted root growth and may have many fine roots.

For further description of these soil health indicators, see the NRCS Cropland In-Field Soil Health Assessment Guide Technical Note.

Lab tests will look for different indicators of soil health than in a field assessment. These indicators are standardized and have been chosen for their agronomic relevance. A laboratory test for soil health may evaluate these indicators:

1. Soil structural stability and water partitioning. An indicator of aggregate stability, this is an important part of water infiltration and determining available water capacity.
2. Soil organic matter cycling is an indicator of soil organic carbon. This assists with carbon cycling and sequestration.
3. Carbon food source, as permanganate oxidizable carbon (or active carbon). This active carbon is a source of food for essential soil organisms.
4. Microbial activity is an indicator of short-term carbon mineralization, or respiration. This reflects organism activity in the soil.
5. Bioavailable nitrogen is an acid citrate extractable protein. This is an indicator of an organically bound, environmentally stable soil nitrogen pool.

For more information on lab indicators of soil health, see the NRCS Technical Note on Recommended Soil Health Indicators and Associated Laboratory Procedures.

Regional calibration of soil health indicators is iterative and is now available for most indicators through the NRCS Soil Testing Conservation Activity 216.

Once the properties of the soil have been identified through in-field or laboratory assessment, one can begin to address soil health resource concerns. NRCS defines a resource concern as “an existing or expected degradation of the soil, water, air, plant, or animal resource base to the extent that the sustainability or intended use of the resource is impaired.”

These concerns can be addressed through soil health management planning. There are both short-term and long-term management options for improving soil health. For example, if the soil displays poor aggregate stability, this could be addressed immediately by incorporating fresh organic materials into the soil, using shallow-rooted crops or cover crops in these areas, and adding manure, green manure, or mulch to the field. Longer-term means of improving aggregate stability include reducing tillage, using surface mulch on fields, and rotating sod crops with mycorrhizal host plants. Once the appropriate management practices have been implemented in the field, the next steps are to observe the effects of the new practices and adapt management practices as needed. Conducting soil health assessments periodically allows for ongoing improvement to soil health as management practices are further refined and continually adapted to address the current conditions of the soil.

Beyond helping to address resource constraints, a soil assessment can also:

• Measure soil improvement or degradation from management practices over time
• Facilitate applied research to identify successful soil health measures
• Improve awareness of soil health and its benefits
• Enable valuation of farmland based on management practices
• Inform an assessment of farming system risk
• Enable policy recommendations that are science-based

COMET is comprised of several components: COMET-Energy, COMET-Planner, and COMET-Farm. COMET offers many training resources, such as those that can help one decide which COMET component to use. The COMET components continue to be updated regularly.

COMET-Planner

COMET-Planner is a quick and easy assessment that provides estimates of the GHG mitigation impacts of implementing conservation practices. It is intended to be used for planning purposes. It is based on a larger-scale area, estimating impacts over Major Land Resource Areas (MLRAs). A positive value generated by COMET-Planner represents an increase in carbon sequestered or decrease in GHG emissions. A negative value generated would represent either a decrease in sequestered carbon or an increase in GHG emissions. Watch the COMET-Planner Demonstration for an overview of how to use this tool.

The output of the COMET-Planner calculator will be in tons of CO₂ sequestered or released. To make sense of this number, the EPA’s Greenhouse Gas Equivalencies Calculator can be used to translate tons of CO₂ into more concrete terms, such as the annual CO₂ emissions of cars, households, and power plants. This component can be useful in communicating when developing a conservation plan or evaluating targets.

COMET-Farm

COMET-Farm is an in-depth, site-based, whole farm assessment that accounts for soil properties, weather, farming systems, and management strategies. COMET-Farm can be used for all types of operations, including more complex production systems. The COMET-Farm tool requires more input on the front end, so may take more time to set up, but the reports generated by the tool are more detailed, providing users with projected estimates of baseline “business as usual” emissions, future management scenario emissions, and the change in emissions between these two scenarios.

COMET-Energy

COMET-Energy allows one to calculate the reductions in GHG emissions based on fuel savings. This would often be used as a supplement to COMET-Planner or COMET-Farm because some of the practices in these tools do not incorporate fuel savings. You can enter annual energy savings in gallons, CCF, or kilowatts and COMET-Energy will generate a summary of energy savings, measured either in MMBTU or CO₂-reduced.

The COMET suite has provided the groundwork for additional tools for identifying GHG-reducing agricultural practices. For example, the USDA’s Climate-Smart Agriculture and Forestry (CSAF) Mitigation Activities List, which includes 13 practices that have a quantifiable mitigative benefit, is informed by the COMET platform. The COMET emissions calculations also inform the Carbon Reduction Potential Evaluation Tool (CaRPE), a tool designed by AFT and ARS scientists to estimate how we can maximize the benefits of soil health practices, including those on the CSAF Mitigation Activities List, by increasing adoption. Estimates can then be scaled-up from the county-level to state, regional, and national levels (see AFT’s CaRPE Briefs for States).

Farmer networks are an important—and often trusted—source of information for producers. Building networks for producers and tapping into existing farmer networks can be effective ways to communicate information related to land management and conservation practice implementation. This may involve collaborating with leaders in the agricultural community to build social norms and to leverage trusted information-sharing networks. You may also want to prioritize farmer-led resources when communicating with a producer, such as pointing them to field days or farmer-led organizations in their area.

As you work to establish these networks and producer relationships, it is helpful to recognize farmers’ other trusted information sources and think about how these sources can be integrated into the network. Farmers may rely on neighbors, local farmers’ cooperatives, their local land trust, cooperative extension services, or their local NRCS office for information.

One example of a farmer network is the Genesee River Demonstration Farms Network in Western New York State. This partnership, spearheaded by AFT and NRCS, involves collaboration between researchers, agricultural and conservation organizations, and the farming community within the Genesee River Watershed. The goal of the network is to allow farms in the region to learn from one another and to see which practices are most cost effective and have the biggest impact on conservation. A soil health evaluation is conducted on the network farms to identify the resource constraints and understand the impacts of management techniques. The network’s participants are invited to share their stories and findings in online webinars and in-person field days.  Demonstration plot videos and online documentation of the field trials help make demonstrations more widely available.

The findings from several of the demonstration farms are captured in the New York. The case studies can be used by farmers and the members of the farm conservation community to learn about the costs and benefits of adopting soil health practices and the potential for a return on investment. This information ideally gives farmers the confidence to adopt soil health practices that will increase farm resilience and viability, lessen agricultural impacts on water resources, and address climate change.

Finding producers willing and well-positioned to participate in a farmer demonstration network can play an important role in a network’s success. These producers will serve as “messengers” for the network, leading communication within their communities around on-farm practices and demonstration findings. The following are qualities to keep in mind when identifying these network messengers:

• Key leaders in an agricultural community will likely be well-connected and well-respected by other producers.
• Farmers who have expressed an interest in soil health and its environmental benefits may be more open to adopting new practices on their operation.
• Those who have been farming for multiple years may have experiences that are seen as being more credible.
• Producers with good recordkeeping can provide valuable information on their operation over time.
• Farmers who have implemented soil health practices with significant “before and after” contrasts will have more impactful stories to convey.
• A producer with other conservation practices in place or one who implements best practices may have an operation more readily able to serve as a model farm.
• Participants must be willing to share their experience publicly—including what didn’t work on their farm.
• Ideal participants are willing to travel and speak about their process in front of their peers.

Finding producers prepared to serve as soil health messengers and building relationships with these partners will take time. Patience is key! To begin identifying these essential communicators, you may want to tap into existing networks. It can help to have a running list of producers in the area who fit the requirements and/or have expressed interest in sharing their experiences and expertise.

Strategic communication around soil health practices can make information sharing with farmers more effective. Approaching your outreach as an opportunity to foster a relationship with a farmer may help to build a foundation of trust; you can then provide information as appropriate. At any stage in your communications, keep in mind that soil health is likely just one part of the bigger picture for the producer, who may be navigating multiple, concurrent day-to-day challenges on their farm. The following are specific strategies for communicating with producers about soil health:

1. Provide evidence of soil health practice benefits. When communicating with a producer about the benefits of implementing soil health practices, it may be helpful to have specific examples to point to, either from a local farmer or publications such as AFT’s Soil Health Case Studies. When visiting a farm or speaking in-person, having a printout of the information to leave with the farmer allows them to revisit the resources on their own time. In addition to printouts, podcasts, YouTube, and other more widely accessible (and “multi-taskable”) resources may prove helpful for producers with limited time. Pointing to specific resources may also help to address common misconceptions around soil health practices.
2. Tailor your message to the farm and their specific concerns. One way to approach the conversation is by asking the farmer about their recent successes and challenges. This allows you to acknowledge what is working well for them. If the producer seems receptive, you can offer suggestions in response to their identified challenges. Having knowledge of the programs and practices most relevant to your audience may result in more meaningful conversation.
   You can also bring prior knowledge of a producer’s operation into the conversation. For example: Do they have highly erodible land? Do they have more than one crop in rotation? If so, your audience may be more receptive to implementing soil health practices, as both are shown to be predictors of conservation practice adoption.
   Considering the terminology being used by the producer is another means of tailoring the conversation to your audience. For example, farmers may speak of weather-related challenges, without talking about climate change. In that case, building on-farm resiliency in the face of extreme weather might be one entry point to discussing soil health. Lastly, keep in mind that the farm is their livelihood, so when providing suggestions or talking about soil health, it can be a personal conversation.
3. Build trust over time with your audience. Approach your conversations with producers as a partner, and be sure to indicate support, especially when offering input or suggestions—avoid telling the farmer how to farm. Offering to tour the property with the landowner or producer may make for more impactful visits and if there are issues to be addressed, talking through concerns can be more productive in a face-to-face meeting. If you represent the entity responsible for monitoring an easement, let the producer know ahead of time when you’ll be visiting the farm, and invite them to join you. To avoid the intimidation factor, you could have a third party, such as another producer from the area, join for the inspection as well. If possible, having one staff member from a monitoring entity who specializes in building long-term relationships with producers in the area can help to facilitate trust. Lastly, having patience is important. Keep in mind that farmer decision making is complex, and you likely won’t convince a producer to overhaul their practices with one visit.

While one-on-one conversations may be the most direct means of relaying information, other forms of communication may be more effective in sharing about soil health practices with a broader audience. In particular, field days are a good way to communicate information to producers in a region and demonstrate what practices are working for other farmers in their area. Below are some tips for organizing a field day:

• Consider the time of the year: farmers might have more time to attend a field day in the winter, though there may be less in production on the farm. So for farm demonstrations, the end of August may also be a good time, as the visit may be more impactful if participants can see the operation in full swing.
• Look for producer contact lists: some states have lists of producer contacts for purchase for a nominal fee.
• Communicate through different avenues: in addition to digital promotion of your field day, consider sending out postcards or mailings to reach a wider audience.
• Have partners: invite partner organizations to present and have them help with outreach. This may make for a more engaging field day and assist with attracting a wider audience.
• Consider your audience: pick topics that are relevant to farmers in the area and vary the topics and presenters if planning for multiple field days.
• Engage producers: having a farmer panel where producers can share their experience may be valuable, as they can speak to the concerns and interests of farmers in the area.
• Keep it brief: depending on the size and demonstration, allotting four hours for your field day should be plenty. Providing lunch or coffee and unstructured time for farmers to talk to each other can be valuable.

Understanding the challenges specific to Black, Indigenous, and People of Color—or BIPOC—landowners and producers; women landowners and producers; and operators with insecure land tenure is a crucial step towards working with and supporting these groups.

The USDA and many states use “socially disadvantaged” to refer to some of these producer groups. The USDA defines socially disadvantaged as “a farmer or rancher who is a member of one or more of the following groups whose members have been subjected to racial or ethnic prejudice because of their identity as members of a group without regard to their individual qualities.” Note that women aren’t usually included in this definition of “socially disadvantaged”, unless they also fall into one of the following groups:

• African Americans
• American Indians
• Alaskan Natives
• Asians
• Hispanics
• Pacific Islanders
• Veterans

A closer look at landowner and operator demographics can offer insight into the challenges faced by underrepresented and minority producers and landowners in the U.S.

Women in Agriculture

Nearly 40 percent of farmland in the U.S. is rented or leased out by non-operating landlords, or NOLs. Given this, NOLs are an important audience to engage in farmland protection. Research shows that many NOLs have a high level of trust in their farm operators and may be willing to make changes to support conservation practices. Most importantly, many of these NOLs want to keep farmland in farming. Despite this, NOLs tend to be under-represented and under-engaged in farmland protection programs. This is particularly true of women landowners, which is significant given that nearly 40 percent of NOLs are women, and in some parts of the U.S., the proportion of women NOLs is closer to 50 percent.

On the operator side, close to 36 percent of the country’s producers are women, and more than half of all farms in the U.S. have a principal female producer. Counties with the highest proportion of female-operated farms are largely in the West and Northeast U.S.

Women-run farms, on average, operate on smaller acreage and earn 40 percent less farm income than those operated by men, after controlling for farm and operator characteristics. Childcare responsibilities, compounded by a lack of access to childcare, may limit women’s ability to advance their skills and expand their farm operation.

While farming is still one of the most unequal professions in the U.S. in terms of gender diversity, a growing portion of new and beginning farmers identify as women and/or as racially or ethnically diverse. With around 40 percent of farmland due to change hands over the next two decades, this indicates we can expect a more diverse future for agriculture, with more women present in the industry.

BIPOC Producers and Landowners

Heirs’ property is when land is not clearly delineated to future heirs and so there are many people with claim to the land. This makes the land susceptible to conversion to non-farm uses and poses legal and financial challenges that can prevent the land from being held by the family, who, in many instances, are BIPOC or low-income. Heirs’ property disputes often require a lawyer to facilitate a resolution in the courts. Some states have adopted the Uniform Partition of Heirs Property Act, which provides additional due process protections for heirs. You can see if your state has adopted this act using the Uniform Law Commission’s dashboard.

Heirs’ property impacts about 3.5 million acres across the Southern U.S. and pertains to more than one third of Black-owned land in the South. This is a critical issue that affects the ability of Black farmers to hold on to the land, and to think about the long-term protection and stewardship of that land. It is estimated that 90 percent of the land that was in the hands of African American families in the 1900s has been lost to these families. Today, less than two percent of agricultural landowners in the U.S. are non-white. Compounding this, Black farmers have historically experienced discrimination in getting support from federal farm programs. Efforts to address land loss—in the form of land return, reparations, and rematriation—are being made; resources for more information on these efforts are linked.

Whether working with producers, NOLs, or other diverse audiences, listening to the needs of your collaborator is important. Understanding and respecting differences in experience, while highlighting shared goals, can go a long way in connecting diverse audiences and building networks of trusted advisors. As a part of this network building, it is crucial to consider who are the trusted leaders in a space, and whether there are existing networks that your collaborators already turn to.

In outreach and education, it is worth considering whether diverse audiences see themselves in the existing resources. Uplifting the stories of the “average” producer—not only those who excel—and highlighting work that may be happening in more incremental steps—rather than extraordinary successes—is also important for connecting with those who have historically been under-engaged and under-represented in the agriculture and conservation spheres. For NOLs, outlining incremental steps towards conservation may help engage those who think of themselves as an “outsider” in the conservation and/or landownership realm.

Ultimately, to center the work of BIPOC, women, and other minority groups in agriculture, we not only need to rethink the “success” stories being told, but also the very metrics for success. Results-oriented initiatives that prioritize cost- or time-saving deliverables may overlook the often-marginalized work of under-represented groups in agriculture. Instead, orienting initiatives towards long-term results, recognizing incremental change, and grounding goals in the experience and knowledge of diverse producers and landowners can foster more inclusive work.
Some questions to consider as you strive to engage more diverse producers and landowners in your work include:

• How are you currently engaging socially disadvantaged producers and landowners in farmland protection? How might you further this work?
• What challenges will you face doing this work?
• What opportunities might arise from further engaging in this work?
• What entities might you partner with to make this work more impactful?
• What training or resources do you have or need to advance this work?

USDA NRCS provides one-on-one guidance to operators and landowners on conservation techniques and tools via Conservation Technical Assistance, or CTA. The technical assistance offered through CTA often leads to the development of a conservation plan, which is a system of practices that addresses identified resource concerns and the needs of the producer. Resource concerns are issues related to natural resources on the farm that can be improved through conservation practices.

Conservation planning is the foundation for NRCS financial assistance: producers or landowners applying for these programs work with NRCS state staff to either revise an existing conservation plan or develop a new plan that identifies the natural resource concerns specific to their operation. Those who work with NRCS to implement conservation plans may be directed toward NRCS financial assistance programs, should their resource concerns align with available funding.

USDA NRCS offers several financial assistance programs for implementing conservation practices, all of which can be accessed through the NRCS Conservation Program Application. This section focuses on EQIP and CSP, two NRCS programs that most directly address implementation of conservation practices on working lands. 

Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) 

EQIP provides financial and technical assistance for implementing practices that address natural resource concerns and improve working lands. Through EQIP, NRCS works one-on-one with to producers and landowners to install NRCS-approved conservation practices, many of which support soil health.  

Under EQIP, each NRCS conservation practice has an associated payment rate, which is the rate at which producers will be reimbursed for implementation. In addition to NRCS national resource concern priorities, each state also maintains a list of priority conservation practices for funding; applications that address national and/or state conservation priorities will generally be ranked higher for funding. EQIP also offers higher payment rates for historically underserved participants, including socially disadvantaged, beginning, limited resource, and veteran beginning farmers.  

Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP) 

Producers who have already implemented conservation practices and want to build upon their efforts can enroll in CSP. Through CSP, NRCS works with producers to develop a conservation plan that enhances existing practices. CSP participants earn payments for maintaining their existing conservation work and for incorporating new conservation practices and/or enhancements into their operation. For example, a producer who plants cover crops may choose to enhance this practice by incorporating multi-species or deep-rooting cover crops.  

Through both EQIP and CSP, NRCS technical assistance is offered at no cost. NRCS Technical Service Providers help enrolled producers with developing conservation activity plans to improve their operations, and with planning, designing, and implementing conservation practices. More information on these programs can be found on the NRCS EQIP and CSP pages online.  

Applying to NRCS Conservation Programs 

A landowner or producer interested in EQIP or CSP should reach out to their local NRCS field office. NRCS staff or a conservation planner can work with them to evaluate the current management system, natural resource concerns, and the resources available to them. When applying for a conservation program, the producer, the land, and the practice must all meet NRCS eligibility criteria. Field office staff can assist prospective applicants with determining eligibility. 

Before receiving financial assistance through NRCS, the producer or landowner will also need to establish farm and producer records with the Farm Service Agency (FSA). NRCS can work with an applicant to establish their farm records. 

Once a landowner or producer decides to apply, they can submit a Conservation Program Application (NRCS-CPA-1200) to their local field office and NRCS will work with them to either revise an existing conservation plan or develop a new conservation plan. Keep in mind that states announce sign-up deadlines for consideration for funding. There are typically multiple continuous cut-off dates for each program. 

Applications may be prioritized through a screening process to identify those that have maximum conservation benefits. Applications are then ranked based on alignment with national and state resource concerns. The highest-ranking applications are selected for funding, until available funding is exhausted. An accepted application results in a contract. The participant then arranges to install, implement, or construct the practices. After implementation, NRCS field staff will certify the implementation/installation prior to authorizing reimbursement. The producer is expected to maintain the practice for the duration of the practice lifespan specified by NRCS. 

Funding Opportunities for Entities 

NRCS also offers partnership programs geared towards entities. The Regional Conservation Partnership Program (RCPP), which addresses natural resource concerns on agricultural land, is one such program. When an organization applies for RCPP funding, they identify the specific resource concerns they want to address and the value of cash or in-kind contributions they can provide as match. Landowners can then apply to the funded RCPP projects in their region if their resource conservation concerns align with the project. Conservation Innovation Grants (CIG) is another program for entities. CIG is a targeted grant program; proposed projects must meet the description of innovative conservation projects or activities published in the annual funding notice. 

State Departments of Agriculture or Departments of Natural Resources may also offer funding to entities or landowners to do conservation work. By maximizing existing sources of conservation funding, an entity can better support landowners implementing soil health practices. Offering producer grants designed to supplement existing sources of funding is another way entities can make the most of available conservation dollars.