Farm Conservation Programs

The U.S. Department of Agriculture administers a suite of voluntary conservation programs — funded through the Farm Bill and codified at 7 U.S.C. §§ 1010–1997 — that pay farmers and landowners to adopt environmentally beneficial practices: reducing soil erosion, improving water quality, sequestering carbon, and protecting wildlife habitat. The four largest programs account for over $6 billion annually: the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) pays landowners rental rates to idle environmentally sensitive cropland under 10–15 year contracts; the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) provides cost-share payments and technical assistance for conservation practices on working agricultural land (up to $450,000 per entity over 6 years); the Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP) rewards existing conservation performance and incentivizes additional improvements; and the Agricultural Conservation Easement Program (ACEP) protects wetlands and agricultural land from development in perpetuity. The Inflation Reduction Act (2022) injected an additional $19.5 billion into conservation programs through FY2031 — the largest one-time conservation investment in U.S. history — with the bulk directed to EQIP and CSP projects with a climate benefit. These programs are deeply relevant to any agricultural landowner, beginning farmer, or rural property owner navigating cost-share opportunities and contract obligations.

Current Law (2026)

Legal Authority

• 7 U.S.C. § 1010 — Land conservation and utilization (Secretary's authority to address land-use problems)
• 7 U.S.C. § 1924 — Conservation loan and loan guarantee program (financing for on-farm conservation practices)
• 7 U.S.C. § 1997 — Conservation easements (contracts for wetland, upland, and highly erodible land)
• 7 U.S.C. § 6931 — Under Secretary for Farm Production and Conservation (oversees NRCS and FSA conservation programs)
• 7 U.S.C. § 6936 — Natural Resources Conservation Service (establishment and authorities)
• 7 U.S.C. § 1838 — Cropland conversion to conservation uses (multi-year contracts to idle cropland)

Conservation Reserve Program (16 U.S.C. §§ 3831–3835)

• 16 U.S.C. § 3831 — Conservation reserve (the Secretary must operate a conservation reserve program through annual contracts with landowners to protect and conserve soil, water, and related resources on environmentally sensitive cropland; contract periods of 10-15 years; national enrollment cap is 27 million acres)
• 16 U.S.C. § 3832 — Duties of owners and operators (enrollees must implement an approved conservation plan — typically establishing grass, trees, or shrubs on formerly cropped land; may not harvest, graze, or otherwise use the cover for commercial purposes without USDA approval)
• 16 U.S.C. § 3833 — Duties of the Secretary (the Secretary makes annual rental payments to enrolled landowners; provides cost-share assistance for establishing conservation cover; may terminate contracts for non-compliance)
• 16 U.S.C. § 3834 — Payments (annual rental payments are based on county dryland soil rental rates; cost-share payments for cover establishment may not exceed 50% of installation costs; sign-up incentive payments available for priority practices like wetland buffers and native grass)
• 16 U.S.C. § 3835 — Contracts (no contract may be made on land that changed ownership within the past year, unless transferred by will or inheritance; land is ineligible for CRP if not planted for 4 of the prior 6 years unless the land is cropland required as part of a conserving use)

Implementing Regulations (CFR)

• 7 CFR Part 1466 — Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) (37 sections — the NRCS/CCC rules governing the primary working-lands conservation cost-share program, which pays farmers to install conservation practices while keeping land in active production; implements 16 U.S.C. § 3839aa):

  • Applications and ranking (§§ 1466.20, 1466.23): EQIP applications are accepted at any time during the year; NRCS groups similar farm, forestry, and livestock applications for competitive ranking; NRCS selects practices based on cost-effectiveness, how well they address local resource priorities, and how many acres or animals will benefit; national and state conservation priorities are published annually, and each state's NRCS office sets local scoring criteria
  • Contracts and O&M (§§ 1466.21–1466.22): all EQIP financial assistance requires a written conservation contract specifying which practices will be installed, the timeline, who delivers technical assistance, and what cost-share rates apply; every contract includes an Operation and Maintenance (O&M) agreement requiring the participant to operate and maintain each funded practice so it works as intended for its full designed lifespan — failure to maintain can trigger recapture of payments
  • Payment limits (§ 1466.24): a person or entity may receive no more than $450,000 total from EQIP over fiscal years 2019–2023 (updated in Farm Bill cycles); payments linked to certified organic farming or transitioning to organic are separately capped at $140,000 for the same period; the caps apply per person/entity regardless of how many farms they operate
  • Conservation Innovation Grants (CIG) (§§ 1466.31–1466.38): a competitive grant sub-program funded from EQIP appropriations; CIG supports developing and scaling up new conservation technologies and approaches on farms; grants are scored by peer reviewers against announced national and state priorities; the Chief sets the CIG funding percentage each year; intellectual property rights for CIG-funded inventions follow the Bayh-Dole framework for small businesses; On-Farm Conservation Innovation Trials (OFCIT) use the CIG process to test innovations at multiple farms and scales, with a Soil Health Demonstration track specifically for practices that improve soil health metrics

• 7 CFR Part 1470 — Conservation Stewardship Program (25 sections — the NRCS rules governing CSP, the largest voluntary conservation program by enrolled acreage; unlike EQIP which funds initial adoption of practices, CSP rewards farms that already have strong conservation and pays them to do more; implements 16 U.S.C. § 3839aa):

  • § 1470.6 — Eligibility: to apply, participants must be the operator, owner, or tenant listed in FSA farm records; they must share in production risk and farm income; certain highly erodible land and wetland conservation compliance requirements apply — landowners who have violated Swampbuster or Sodbuster provisions are ineligible; adjusted gross income limits apply
  • § 1470.20 — Application process: CSP applications are accepted at any time during the year; to be competitive, an applicant must already meet or exceed stewardship performance thresholds in at least 2 resource concern areas (soil health, water quality, air quality, energy efficiency, wildlife habitat, etc.); NRCS ranks applications by conservation performance score and selects from the top down until state allocations are exhausted
  • § 1470.21 — Contract requirements: CSP contracts are 5 years in length and cover all eligible land in the farming operation (not just selected fields); participants must agree to maintain existing conservation performance AND add new conservation activities; contracts require a conservation stewardship plan developed with NRCS technical assistance
  • § 1470.22 — Conservation stewardship plan: each CSP participant must have a formal plan documenting their current conservation baseline, their goals, and the specific activities they commit to undertaking or maintaining during the contract; the plan guides what is monitored and what triggers payment
  • § 1470.23 — Operation and maintenance: participants must keep all conservation practices performing at least at the level they were when enrolled, for the entire 5-year contract period; any new practices added under the contract must also be maintained; O&M failures can trigger payment recapture
  • § 1470.24 — Payment structure: CSP annual payments have two components: (1) a base payment for existing conservation activities being maintained during the contract; and (2) an enhancement payment for new conservation activities adopted during the contract period; payments are calculated per acre using NRCS payment schedules, and the enhancement payment provides incentive to go beyond the baseline
  • § 1470.26 — Contract renewal: participants may apply to renew their contract during the first half of the fifth year (year 4.5 of the contract); renewal applications are ranked competitively against new applications — renewal is not automatic; if selected, the new 5-year contract incorporates updated conservation activities and payment schedules
  • § 1470.27 — Violations and termination: NRCS may terminate a contract for participant breach, for circumstances making contract continuation impossible, or by mutual agreement; upon termination for breach, the participant must repay all payments received plus interest; NRCS can also terminate contracts on environmentally sensitive land that converts to non-agricultural use
  • § 1470.28 — Grassland conservation initiative: a one-time enrollment opportunity (FY2019–2023) for landowners to maintain eligible cropland in grass cover for grazing, soil health, water quality, and wildlife; two payment options — annual rental payment (similar to CRP) or annual enhancement payment (similar to CSP); designed to prevent conversion of grassland to cropland in the Northern Plains
  • § 1470.37 — Environmental credits: CSP participants may sell environmental services credits — including carbon credits and water quality credits — from conservation improvements if the environmental credit market is designed to produce conservation benefits additive to what CSP already requires; participants cannot double-count payments (receiving CSP payment AND selling a carbon credit for the same conservation outcome is prohibited)

  CSP covers more acres than any other USDA conservation program — over 70 million acres enrolled nationally. Unlike EQIP's project-by-project cost-share structure, CSP pays for whole-farm conservation performance, making it particularly attractive to diversified farms with strong existing conservation systems. The Inflation Reduction Act (2022) directed a large share of its $19.5 billion conservation investment to CSP contracts with climate benefits. Recent rulemakings: 84 FR 60891 (November 2019) established the current CSP framework following its restructuring in the 2018 Farm Bill; 85 FR 64002 (October 2020) made technical corrections and added CSP grassland provisions.

• 7 CFR Part 652 — Technical Service Provider Assistance (25 sections in three subparts — the NRCS rules governing the certification and oversight of private-sector entities that deliver conservation technical assistance on behalf of NRCS; implements 16 U.S.C. § 3842). NRCS staff at county service centers is not the only source of conservation planning help — the Technical Service Provider (TSP) program allows certified private professionals and firms to deliver much of the same technical work, expanding the system's capacity and giving farmers more options:

  • Who can become a TSP (§§ 652.21–652.25): individuals, private-sector entities, public agencies, and Indian tribes may all become certified TSPs; individuals must show the right training, education, and experience for the specific conservation practices they want to work on, hold any required state or tribal professional licenses, and demonstrate familiarity with NRCS technical standards; private entities must have at least one individually certified person responsible for work performed; NRCS decides certification applications within 60 days of receipt; certifications run up to 3 years and must be renewed; NRCS may charge a certification fee under 31 U.S.C. § 9701
  • What TSPs can do: TSPs provide conservation planning, education and outreach, and design and implementation assistance for specific conservation practices on private land, Indian land, and (where program rules allow) public land; the scope of what a TSP is certified to do is tied to their specific practice categories — a civil engineer certified for terraces and waterways is not automatically certified for nutrient management planning
  • How participants engage TSPs (§ 652.1): under EQIP and CSP, a farmer may hire a TSP directly using program funds (the program contract authorizes payment for technical assistance from approved TSPs); alternatively, NRCS may engage TSPs through procurement contracts, contribution agreements, or cooperative agreements to serve a broader set of participants; participants who hire their own TSP outside of a program contract must use a technical service contract and receive no program funding for that work
  • Decertification (Subpart C — §§ 652.31+): NRCS may decertify a TSP for failing to maintain certification requirements, producing inaccurate or fraudulent plans, failing to follow NRCS standards, or engaging in conduct that compromises the integrity of conservation programs; decertification is practice-specific or full; NRCS provides written notice and an opportunity to respond before final decertification; decertification in one state does not automatically extend to other states but NRCS may take it into account

  The TSP program reflects a deliberate decision to privatize technical assistance delivery for farm conservation — rather than having NRCS field offices handle every plan and practice installation, NRCS sets standards and certifies competent private actors to do the work. This expands the system's throughput, reduces backlogs, and gives farmers who prefer to work with a local engineer or agronomist rather than a government office an option. Recent rulemakings: 75 FR 6845 (February 2010) established the current TSP framework; 79 FR 44640 (July 2014) updated certification and decertification procedures; 84 FR 19703 (May 2019) made clarifications to alternative application processes.

• 7 CFR Part 625 — Healthy Forests Reserve Program (HFRP) (20 sections — the NRCS rules implementing the Healthy Forests Reserve Program, a voluntary program that protects and restores private forestland through permanent easements, 30-year contracts, and 10-year cost-share agreements; implements the Healthy Forests Restoration Act):

  • § 625.1 — Purpose: HFRP helps private landowners restore, improve, and protect forestland on a voluntary basis; the program targets private forestland that can be managed to recover and sustain populations of endangered and threatened species, improve biodiversity, and enhance carbon sequestration and other environmental services
  • § 625.10 — Cost-share payments: NRCS pays a portion of the costs for landowners to carry out approved restoration activities under an HFRP restoration plan; eligible restoration work can include removing invasive species, controlled burns to restore fire-adapted ecosystems, replanting native trees, and habitat improvements for fish and wildlife; the restoration plan is the governing document for what cost-share work NRCS will fund
  • § 625.11 — Easement participation requirements: landowners who enroll under a permanent easement must convey an easement to the United States allowing NRCS and partner agencies access for monitoring and restoration; permanent easements restrict the land to uses compatible with forest restoration for perpetuity; 30-year easements follow the same requirements with a defined end date
  • § 625.12 — 30-year contracts: a landowner may enroll under a 30-year contract (instead of an easement) committing to restore, protect, and enhance the forestland for three decades; the contract requires adherence to the HFRP restoration plan and prohibits uses that undermine the restoration objectives
  • § 625.13 — Restoration plan development: NRCS works with the landowner, and in coordination with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and NMFS, to develop the site-specific restoration plan; the plan identifies the restoration activities, timeline, cost-share rates, and long-term management requirements; landowner protections in this section ensure that the plan is developed collaboratively — NRCS must explain its requirements and give the landowner an opportunity to participate in plan development
  • § 625.16 — Violations: if a landowner breaks an easement or contract, NRCS provides 30 days notice (or longer if needed) to fix the problem; NRCS may pursue legal remedies including court enforcement of perpetual easements or recapture of all payments received for contract violations

  HFRP is NRCS's principal tool for private forest conservation — filling a gap between ACEP (which focuses on agricultural and wetland land) and CRP (which focuses on cropland). The program targets forest ecosystems where recovery of endangered or threatened species or improvement of watershed function is possible through voluntary landowner commitment. NRCS coordinates HFRP enrollment with FWS species recovery plans, meaning enrollment areas are often tied to specific species recovery objectives — spotted owl habitat in the Pacific Northwest, gopher tortoise habitat in the Southeast, salmon stream corridors in the Northeast. Recent rulemakings: 79 FR 65460 (November 2014) updated eligibility and enrollment procedures; 80 FR 60814 (October 2015) made conforming amendments to align HFRP with the 2014 Farm Bill's conservation program restructuring.

• 7 CFR Part 636 — Wildlife Habitat Incentive Program (WHIP) (21 sections — the NRCS rules governing a cost-share program for creating and improving fish and wildlife habitat on private agricultural and nonindustrial private forest land; now largely incorporated into EQIP but with a distinct legacy regulatory structure):

  • § 636.1 — Applicability: WHIP provides financial and technical assistance to help landowners develop, improve, and maintain wildlife habitat on private agricultural land, nonindustrial private forest land, and Indian land; eligible participants are agricultural producers who have land-use control over the enrolled acreage
  • § 636.2 — Administration: NRCS administers WHIP under the Chief's supervision, using Commodity Credit Corporation funding authority; State Conservationists administer state programs and may adjust national program criteria to address state-specific wildlife habitat priorities
  • § 636.10 — Modifications: a WHIP cost-share agreement and its plan of operations may be modified by mutual consent of both the participant and NRCS, subject to the agreement remaining consistent with NRCS standards; modifications are common when habitat conditions change or when new management opportunities arise during the agreement term
  • § 636.13 — Violations: if a participant violates a WHIP cost-share agreement, NRCS notifies all parties and allows at least 60 days (a longer notice period than many NRCS programs) to cure the violation; if uncured, NRCS may terminate the agreement and recapture payments
  • § 636.17 — Compliance with regulatory measures: participants implementing a WHIP plan of operations must independently obtain any permits, easements, or approvals required for the conservation work — including Section 404 (wetlands), ESA Section 7 consultation (if federally funded), and applicable state permits; NRCS cost-share does not transfer the regulatory burden to NRCS
  • § 636.18 — Technical services: NRCS may use certified Technical Service Providers (TSPs) to deliver technical assistance for WHIP participants, expanding the program's reach beyond NRCS field office capacity

  WHIP was a standalone NRCS program for wildlife habitat improvement on private land; it has been substantially absorbed into EQIP's wildlife habitat practice category, but Part 636's regulatory structure remains authoritative for agreements entered under the legacy program. The program filled a specific niche: EQIP is primarily a working-lands conservation program (soil health, water quality, nutrient management), while WHIP explicitly targeted wildlife habitat as the primary objective. Fish and wildlife agencies — state and federal — often partnered with NRCS on WHIP to identify priority habitat improvement areas and contribute technical assistance.

• 7 CFR Part 631 — Great Plains Conservation Program (GPCP) (18 sections — NRCS rules for a targeted cost-share program addressing severe soil and water problems specifically on Great Plains farmland; implements 16 U.S.C. § 590p, authority under the Soil Conservation and Domestic Allotment Act):

  • § 631.1 — Purpose: GPCP helps farmers, ranchers, and other land users fix severe soil and water problems on Great Plains agricultural land; it pays for changes to cropping systems, land use, and farming practices that address critical resource concerns like wind erosion, saline seep, and dryland farming instability; the program is geographically targeted to Great Plains states where dryland agriculture creates distinct conservation challenges not addressed by EQIP's national framework
  • § 631.2 — Definitions: "applicant" is an individual or entity requesting program participation; "conservation plan" specifies the conservation measures the participant must implement to address resource concerns on the identified land; "operating unit" is the farm or ranch on which the contract applies; the GPCP operates on the whole operating unit, not selected fields
  • § 631.10 — Contract participation: to join, all who control the land must sign the conservation contract, or one person with a valid power of attorney may sign for all; the contract binds all parties to implement the conservation plan for the full contract period; NRCS and the participant must agree on what practices are appropriate for the specific resource problems on the land
  • § 631.11 — Operation and maintenance requirement: participants must maintain any conservation practices or resource management systems put in place under the contract for its entire duration; if a practice was already in place before the contract began, it must be maintained at the same level; NRCS can inspect at any time to verify compliance
  • § 631.12 — Cost-share limits: the combined total of federal and state cost-share payments together must not exceed 100% of the cost of the practice; GPCP is designed to complement state cost-share programs common in Great Plains states; the 100% cap prevents participants from profiting on the conservation investment beyond the practice value
  • § 631.14 — Contract violations: if a contract is broken, the contract and its attachments specify how the problem is resolved and how to appeal; violations involving fraud are referred to appropriate investigative authorities and may result in criminal referral in addition to program repayment requirements

  The Great Plains Conservation Program addresses the specific ecology of dryland farming — where wind erosion, saline seep (salt accumulation from shallow water tables), and the boom-bust cycle of precipitation create conservation problems that require multiyear systemic changes in farming practice rather than single-practice installations. Unlike EQIP's practice-by-practice cost-share structure, GPCP funds comprehensive conservation plans that address the whole operating unit's resource condition. The program targets states in the traditional Great Plains farming belt and allows NRCS to concentrate resources on the most severe cases where soil loss or water problems threaten the long-term viability of agricultural land. No major rulemakings since the original program establishment; the GPCP regulatory framework has remained largely stable as EQIP has grown to provide parallel support nationally.

• 7 CFR 2.43 — Chief, Natural Resources Conservation Service (delegated authorities for NRCS conservation program administration)

• 7 CFR Part 1416 — Emergency Agricultural Disaster Assistance Programs (Livestock Indemnity, Livestock Forage Disaster, Emergency Assistance for Livestock/Honeybees/Farm-Raised Fish, and Tree Assistance programs; payment calculations, eligibility, and administration; 45 sections)

• 7 CFR Part 701 — Emergency Conservation Program (ECP) and Emergency Forest Restoration Program (EFRP) (38 sections — the FSA rules governing post-disaster cost-share assistance for agricultural producers and private forest landowners recovering from natural disasters; implements 16 U.S.C. §§ 2201–2206):

  • ECP — what it covers (§§ 701.103–701.112): FSA pays a portion of the cost to repair or restore farmland damaged by natural disasters — wind erosion, floods, hurricanes, wildfire, or other qualifying events; covered practices include repairing fences and conservation structures, restoring land to productive farming, and providing emergency water for livestock during drought; ECP covers only damage that would meaningfully harm or endanger the land, lower its long-term productivity, or cause offsite damage if left unaddressed (§ 701.105); state- or federally-owned land is covered only where a lessee has a qualifying interest and responsibility for costs (§ 701.106)
  • Cost-share rates and caps (§§ 701.126–701.128): standard cost-share rate is 75% of approved practice costs; limited-resource, socially disadvantaged, and beginning farmers may receive up to 90% cost-share; each person or entity may receive no more than $500,000 per natural disaster (§ 701.127); an advance of up to 25% of projected payments is available for eligible participants who need upfront funding to begin work (§ 701.128)
  • Program mechanics (§§ 701.13–701.16): FSA sets a submission period after funds are available; practice work must not begin before the cost-share request is submitted to the county FSA office — prior actions are generally ineligible; an on-site inspection is required before approval (waivable only for catastrophic damage where safety prevents access); FSA prioritizes requests by severity of damage, necessity of the fix, and available resources
  • EFRP — forest restoration (§§ 701.203–701.226): the Emergency Forest Restoration Program provides parallel cost-share for nonindustrial private forest land damaged by natural disasters; eligible landowners must own land that had trees and could support them; 75% cost-share cap (§ 701.226); duplicate federal benefit prohibition — cannot receive EFRP and ECP money for the same costs (§ 701.211)
  • Maintenance requirement (§ 701.31): recipients must maintain funded conservation practices for their designed life span; a practice that is destroyed or abandoned before that period may trigger recapture of cost-share payments unless the loss was caused by another qualifying natural disaster

• 7 CFR Part 1468 — Agricultural Conservation Easement Program (ACEP) (29 sections in three subparts — the NRCS/CCC rules governing permanent land protection through Agricultural Land Easements (ALE) and Wetland Reserve Easements (WRE); implements 16 U.S.C. §§ 3865–3865d). ACEP is NRCS's primary tool for protecting farmland and wetlands from permanent development or conversion:

  • ALE federal cost share (§ 1468.20): for Agricultural Land Easements, NRCS pays no more than 50% of the fair market value of the easement; an eligible entity (land trust, state or local government, or Indian tribe) must provide the remaining match — at least 50% of easement value. The partner entity holds and enforces the easement deed. NRCS's contribution is paid directly to the landowner at closing.
  • Ranking and national criteria (§ 1468.22): NRCS evaluates ALE applications using a scoring rubric in which national criteria must account for at least 50% of the final ranking score; states may add local criteria for the remaining portion. National criteria weight factors such as threats to agricultural viability, soil productivity, water quality, and proximity to existing protected land. Applications compete statewide within each funding pool.
  • Appraisals (§ 1468.24): every ALE requiring federal funds must be supported by an appraisal meeting the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP) and NRCS appraisal standards; the federal share ceiling is calculated against the appraised value, not the purchase price or assessed value.
  • Permanent easements required (§ 1468.25): ALE deeds must be permanent — running with the land in perpetuity — unless NRCS determines that a permanent easement is not appropriate for a specific parcel (e.g., Tribal land with trust restrictions); 30-year term easements are available in limited circumstances.
  • Entity certification and Buy-Protect-Sell (§§ 1468.26–1468.27): land trusts and other entities must be certified by NRCS to participate, providing a written 7-point certification addressing their capacity, organizational status, commitment, and enforcement ability. The Buy-Protect-Sell transaction mechanism allows a certified entity to purchase a farm outright, place an ACEP-funded ALE on it while in the entity's ownership, and then re-sell the farm to a qualified farmer — the easement protects the land before the resale, keeping the farmland affordable and agricultural.
  • Easement violation enforcement (§ 1468.28): if a landowner violates easement terms (conversion, development, unauthorized activities), the easement holder must provide written notice to the landowner and notify NRCS; if the violation is not corrected, NRCS may take enforcement action including referral to DOJ; NRCS retains a third-party enforcement right on all ALE deeds.
  • WRE — Wetland Reserve Easements (§ 1468.30): for Wetland Reserve Easements, NRCS pays up to 100% of easement value plus the full cost of wetland restoration; eligible land includes prior converted cropland, farmed wetlands, and degraded wetlands where restoration is feasible. Permanent WRE easements are the standard; 30-year term easements are available to agricultural producers and are the required option for Indian tribes who choose to participate. Landowners must agree to a wetland restoration plan prepared by NRCS and allow NRCS access to implement and maintain restoration activities.
  • Environmental credit stacking (§ 1468.10): ACEP does not preclude landowners from selling or generating environmental credits (carbon, wetland mitigation, water quality) from the enrolled land, provided the environmental benefits are additional to — not already required by — the easement terms; NRCS must concur that the credit activity is compatible with the easement and does not undermine its conservation purpose.

• 7 CFR Part 1464 — Regional Conservation Partnership Program (RCPP) (the NRCS/CCC rules governing the partnership-based conservation model that concentrates federal resources in priority geographic areas through competitive multi-stakeholder proposals; implements 16 U.S.C. § 3871). Unlike EQIP or CSP, which are farmer-to-NRCS programs, RCPP is built around partnerships: NGOs, water districts, state agriculture agencies, tribes, and other entities propose multi-year conservation projects, NRCS selects proposals competitively, and then producers within the project area apply for program contracts funded through the partnership:

  • Competitive proposal process (§ 1464.20): RCPP proposals are submitted through a national competitive process; any eligible entity (land-grant university, state agency, tribe, water management district, environmental organization, farmer cooperative, or private entity with a conservation mission) may lead a proposal; proposals must identify a priority geographic area, describe targeted resource concerns, name all partners and their financial/technical commitments, and project how many acres and producers will benefit; proposals must show that partner contributions will leverage federal investment
  • Ranking criteria (§ 1464.21): NRCS scores RCPP proposals on multiple criteria; proposals that help producers meet existing natural resource regulations — such as state nutrient management requirements, clean water permits, or air quality rules — receive priority ranking under the statute; other high-scoring criteria include the presence of significant natural resource concerns in the area, the extent of non-federal matching funds, the number of producers engaged, and the proposal's geographic scope relative to the resource problem
  • Partnership agreements (§ 1464.22): selected lead partners sign a partnership agreement with NRCS or CCC specifying the project area, duration, resource concerns targeted, funding allocations, and each partner's obligations; the lead partner takes on coordination responsibilities — convening producers, delivering technical assistance, and reporting outcomes to NRCS; partnership agreements can run up to 5 years (with renewal options for multi-phase projects)
  • Producer program contracts (§§ 1464.23, 1464.30–1464.31): within the RCPP project area, individual producers apply to NRCS for program contracts to implement the conservation practices the partnership identified; these contracts work like EQIP contracts — cost-share payments for specific practices, O&M requirements, payment caps — but are funded through the RCPP project's allocated dollars; NRCS ranks producer applications competitively within the project area; a producer does not need to be affiliated with the lead partner to apply, only to be located in the eligible area
  • Alternative funding arrangements and grants (§ 1464.25): for broad-scale or innovative projects, RCPP allows alternative funding arrangements in which CCC provides funding directly to a partner entity (rather than to individual producers) to deliver conservation outcomes; the partner then sub-awards or contracts for on-the-ground work; this mechanism is used for large watershed projects, public benefit infrastructure (water quality trading systems, wetland banks), and landscape-scale restoration where individual producer contracts aren't the right delivery model; RCPP grants can be made to eligible entities for technical assistance, planning, and outreach

  RCPP is the vehicle through which large-scale conservation partnerships — such as the Chesapeake Bay multi-state water quality program, the Ogallala Aquifer Initiative, and major salmon habitat restoration efforts in the Pacific Northwest — receive concentrated NRCS funding. Rather than spreading EQIP dollars uniformly across the country, RCPP allows states, tribes, and conservation organizations to focus resources where the resource problem is most acute and the partners are most engaged. Recent rulemakings: 85 FR 8137 (February 2020) established the current RCPP framework following its consolidation in the 2018 Farm Bill; 86 FR 3744 (January 2021) made clarifications to partnership agreement procedures and alternative funding arrangement eligibility.

• 7 CFR Part 12 — Highly Erodible Land Conservation and Wetland Conservation: the cross-cutting compliance rules — often called "Sodbuster" and "Swampbuster" — that tie USDA program benefits to conservation behavior on highly erodible land and wetlands (implements 16 U.S.C. § 3801):

  • § 12.1 — Who loses benefits and why: a person who produces agricultural commodities on "highly erodible land" without an approved conservation plan, or who plants crops on a wetland converted after December 23, 1985, or who converts a wetland after November 28, 1990, becomes ineligible for most USDA program payments and federal crop insurance premium subsidies; this is the legal backbone of conservation compliance
  • § 12.21 — Highly erodible field determination: a field is classified as highly erodible if 33.33% or more of its acres are mapped as highly erodible soil, or if 50 or more acres in the field are highly erodible; the determination uses an erodibility index — estimated average annual erosion divided by the soil's tolerance (T value) — calculated using the Universal Soil Loss Equation for water erosion and similar wind erosion factors
  • § 12.22 — Field boundary adjustment: a landowner may request FSA to redraw field boundaries to separate highly erodible from non-erodible soils; this allows producers to avoid compliance burdens on the non-erodible portions of mixed fields
  • § 12.23 — Conservation plans: conservation plans on highly erodible cropland must be based on NRCS's field office technical guide and must target a "substantial reduction" in soil erosion; plans are developed by NRCS and must be fully implemented by the dates specified — failure to follow the plan triggers ineligibility
  • § 12.30 — NRCS wetland responsibilities: NRCS handles all technical wetland determinations using three criteria — hydric soils, wetland plants (hydrophytes), and wetland hydrology; all three must be present to classify land as wetland
  • § 12.31 — Wetland identification: wetland boundaries are established by on-site investigation; published county hydric soil lists, NRCS soil surveys, and the National Wetland Plant List all inform the determination; the December 23, 1985 baseline date (enactment of the Food Security Act) is the reference point for converted wetland status
  • § 12.33 — Use restrictions: landowners may continue to farm wetlands the way they were used on or before December 23, 1985; actions that worsen drainage or alter hydrology beyond the 1985 baseline trigger Swampbuster ineligibility unless NRCS determines that wetland values lost would be minimal and temporary
  • § 12.4 — Ineligibility consequences: violations result in loss of CCC loan program benefits, USDA direct payments, crop insurance premium subsidies, and other program benefits for the year the violation occurred; ineligibility can cascade to affiliated persons and entities under § 12.8
  • § 12.5 — Exemptions: land planted to crops in 1981–1985 is protected from initial compliance deadlines; land where restoration is impossible, or where compliance would create undue economic hardship, may receive temporary or permanent exemptions; good-faith compliance on advice of USDA staff is a complete defense under § 12.11

  The Sodbuster and Swampbuster provisions function as negative conditionality — not a payment, but a condition on receiving payments. Every producer who enrolls in EQIP, CRP, CSP, or ARC/PLC and receives federal crop insurance must certify annually on Form AD-1026 that they are complying with both programs. The 1985 baseline date is fixed in law; NRCS determinations from that era govern whether land was wetland before and after the Act. Disputes over wetland determinations and conservation plan adequacy are the most common sources of conservation compliance appeals.

• 7 CFR Part 1465 — Agricultural Management Assistance (AMA): an NRCS cost-share program for farmers in 16 states where participation in the federal crop insurance program is traditionally low, providing payments for conservation practices that reduce production risk and environmental damage (implements 7 U.S.C. § 1524):

  • § 1465.1 — Purpose and geographic scope: AMA operates in Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Utah, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wyoming — states underserved by other federal conservation cost-share programs; the program pays for water management structures, irrigation system improvements, integrated pest management practices, and other practices that reduce risk on farms with limited crop insurance options
  • § 1465.20 — Applications: producers may apply to the program at any USDA service center; applications are accepted throughout the year; where multiple producers on the same operation apply, they must file a joint application; NRCS publishes priorities and scoring for each state
  • § 1465.21 — Contracts: participation requires a contract covering all parts of the agricultural operation receiving AMA assistance (not just selected fields); contracts must include an operation and maintenance agreement for each funded practice; contracts may include technical service costs as eligible expenses
  • § 1465.22 — Operation and maintenance: participants must operate and maintain each funded practice for its full designed lifespan; if a practice was already in place before the contract, it must be maintained at the same standard; O&M failures can trigger payment recapture
  • § 1465.23 — Payment rates: for most participants, AMA pays up to 75% of estimated incurred cost (or 100% of NRCS's applicable payment rate); for limited-resource producers, the payment may reach 100% of incurred costs — a higher rate than EQIP's typical 75%, reflecting the program's targeted focus on underserved farm economies
  • § 1465.25 — Violations: NRCS provides 60 days notice to cure contract violations; uncured violations lead to contract termination and repayment of all payments received; false information, false claims, and fraudulent certifications result in immediate termination without a cure period
  • § 1465.32 — NRCS access: NRCS may enter the enrolled land to verify compliance, inspect conservation practices, and provide technical assistance during the contract term

  AMA fills a geographic gap in the NRCS conservation program portfolio. EQIP and CSP operate nationally, but their competitive ranking processes — driven by funding allocations that track production volume — consistently under-fund smaller-scale agricultural states where farm numbers are relatively low. AMA creates a dedicated funding stream for 16 of those states, allowing NRCS to offer conservation cost-share to dairy farmers in Vermont, apple orchardists in New York, and ranchers in Nevada who would otherwise find EQIP consistently oversubscribed.

• 7 CFR Part 1469 — Conservation Security Program (CSP legacy 2004–2013): the regulatory framework for the original Conservation Security Program — the predecessor to today's Conservation Stewardship Program (7 CFR Part 1470) — for contracts enrolled between 2004 and 2013 (implements 16 U.S.C. § 3838d as it existed before the 2014 Farm Bill restructuring). The 2014 Farm Bill replaced the Conservation Security Program with the renamed and restructured Conservation Stewardship Program; Part 1469 governs existing pre-2014 contracts still in force. Key legacy provisions:

  • § 1469.20 — Application: applicants submitted a self-assessment workbook, benchmark condition inventory, and conservation stewardship plan; the self-assessment demonstrated that the applicant already exceeded stewardship thresholds in at least two resource concern areas — the program rewarded existing conservation performers, not new adopters
  • § 1469.23 — Payment structure: payments had four components: a stewardship payment based on acres and land-use type; an existing-practice payment for maintaining practices already in place at enrollment; a new-practice payment for adopting additional conservation activities; and a resource-conserving crop rotation bonus; this multi-layered structure was the template for the enhanced CSP payment system under Part 1470
  • § 1469.30 — Tenant and sharecropper fairness: payment allocations must reflect the proportional interest of tenants and sharecroppers — NRCS must ensure fair treatment of non-owner operators when allocating contract benefits

• 7 CFR Part 1415 — Grasslands Reserve Program (GRP): a voluntary program that protects grasslands and their grazing, habitat, and environmental values through rental contracts and permanent easements on eligible private land (implements 16 U.S.C. § 3838n, now largely absorbed into ACEP and CSP grassland provisions):

  • § 1415.1 — Purpose: GRP helps landowners and ranchers protect and restore grasslands by paying for the right to limit incompatible uses; the program targets grazing lands, hayland, and rangeland — habitats that support biodiversity, carbon storage, and livestock production
  • § 1415.10 — Compensation: GRP pays landowners for permanent easements and for 10-, 15-, or 20-year rental contracts; for easements, payment may not exceed the land's fair market value minus its grazing value (the easement value); for rental contracts, payment is set by competitive ranking against other offers; NRCS determines which enrollment type fits each parcel
  • § 1415.11 — Restoration agreements: when an easement or rental contract is enrolled, NRCS may also enter a separate restoration agreement to fund active restoration work — removing invasive species, replanting native grasses, restoring hydrology; restoration under GRP is additive to the baseline protection of the easement or contract, not a substitute for it
  • § 1415.12 — Easement modification restrictions: recorded GRP easements are nearly permanent — major terms cannot be changed; minor modifications (correcting survey errors, adjusting minor boundaries) are permitted only if they do not convey or extinguish any property rights; rental contract terms may be adjusted by the State Conservationist if both parties agree and the change aligns with program goals
  • § 1415.13 — Land transfer: if enrolled land is sold before enrollment is complete, the offer is canceled unless the incoming owner assumes the obligations with State Conservationist approval; for completed easements, the easement runs with the land and is binding on any new owner
  • § 1415.14 — Violations: participants who violate rental contracts or provide false information may have to repay payments with interest and lose future program eligibility; contract terms govern the specific remedies and appeal process
  • § 1415.17 — Cooperative agreements: NRCS may enter cooperative agreements with land trusts and conservation organizations to allow them to use GRP funding to purchase, hold, and enforce grassland easements on USDA's behalf — leveraging non-government conservation infrastructure to expand program reach

  The Grasslands Reserve Program was a predecessor to the grassland conservation provisions now administered through ACEP (Agricultural Conservation Easement Program) and the CSP Grassland Conservation Initiative. GRP's regulatory framework remains in effect for pre-2014 contracts and easements; new grassland protection enrollments flow through ACEP's ALE (Agricultural Land Easement) process or CSP's whole-farm conservation framework. GRP established the policy architecture — permanent easements with fair-market-value compensation, rental contracts as a lighter alternative, and cooperative agreements with land trusts — that carries forward into the current programs.

• 7 CFR Part 1467 — Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP): NRCS's prior framework for protecting and restoring wetlands on private agricultural land through permanent easements, 30-year easements, and restoration cost-share agreements — now superseded by the Wetland Reserve Easement (WRE) component of ACEP (Part 1468), but governing all pre-2014 enrollments still in force (implements 16 U.S.C. § 3837):

  • § 1467.1 — Program scope: NRCS Chief runs the program, with authority to waive rules case-by-case when doing so better achieves environmental and cost goals; covers all 50 states, DC, Puerto Rico, and the Pacific Islands
  • § 1467.10 — Cost-share payments: NRCS pays at least 75% and up to 100% of the cost of implementing the Wetland Reserve Plan of Operations (WRPO) on permanently enrolled land; on non-permanent (30-year) easements and restoration cost-share agreements, NRCS pays a lower share with landowner contribution required; the 75%-100% range reflects the perpetual commitment required for permanent easements
  • § 1467.11 — Easement requirements: to enroll under a permanent or 30-year easement, the landowner must grant a conservation easement to the United States requiring the land to be restored, protected, enhanced, maintained, and managed for wetland values throughout the easement period; permanent easements bind all future owners
  • § 1467.12 — Wetland Reserve Plan of Operations (WRPO): local NRCS staff must develop the WRPO with input from the State Technical Committee and site-specific technical guidance from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Conservation District; the WRPO specifies how the enrolled land will be restored, the timeline, and who is responsible for each task
  • § 1467.13 — Easement modifications: easements can only be changed by mutual agreement of the Chief and the landowner; the Chief must consult with FWS and the local Conservation District before approving any modification; all approved changes must be recorded in the public record
  • § 1467.15 — Violations: if a landowner violates an easement, 30-year contract, or restoration agreement, NRCS provides written notice and 30 days to cure (with extensions if needed); unresolved violations allow NRCS to enter and carry out the required restoration at the landowner's expense
  • § 1467.19 — Scheme or device: if NRCS determines a participant used any strategy to circumvent program rules, NRCS may withhold or recover all program payments; evasion of payment limits, sham transfers, and misrepresentation are specifically targeted

  WRP created the precedent for large-scale private wetland restoration through easements on agricultural land. By the time it was absorbed into ACEP in the 2014 Farm Bill, WRP had enrolled over 2.8 million acres across 49 states — restoring wetland hydrology, filter strips, and waterfowl habitat on land that had been drained for row crop production. The program's success demonstrated that voluntary easement payments to willing landowners could achieve wetland conservation goals more cost-effectively than regulatory mandates alone. The WRPO-based restoration model — site-specific restoration plans co-developed by NRCS and FWS — carries forward directly into ACEP's Wetland Reserve Easement framework.

• 7 CFR Part 1491 — Farm and Ranch Lands Protection Program (FRPP) (predecessor to ACEP Agricultural Land Easements, authorized under 16 U.S.C. § 3838h; now superseded but regulations govern existing FRPP easements and cooperative agreements still in effect):

  • § 1491.2 — Administration and cost-share: NRCS administers FRPP through cooperative agreements with eligible entities — land trusts, state and local governments, and tribes; NRCS pays up to 50% of the appraised fair market value of the conservation easement, and the eligible entity must secure the remaining 50% or more from other sources; NRCS may also contribute up to 50% of the transaction costs (surveys, appraisals, title work) associated with easement acquisition
  • § 1491.20 — Cooperative agreements: NRCS makes a cooperative agreement with each selected eligible entity; the entity must work with the State Conservationist to finalize the agreement before NRCS commits funds; agreements specify the number of acres, the conservation easement requirements, and the monitoring and enforcement responsibilities the entity assumes
  • § 1491.21 — Funding: the State Conservationist and eligible entity jointly determine how much NRCS will contribute within the 50% cap; NRCS funding is drawn from Farm Bill mandatory appropriations; funding decisions consider local agricultural land loss pressure, conservation priority, and partner leverage (how much the entity can contribute beyond the required 50%)
  • § 1491.22 — Conservation easement deeds: landowners grant a conservation easement to the eligible entity; permanent easements are preferred — the land must remain in agricultural use and be managed consistent with FRPP goals for the duration of the easement; the easement deed is recorded in the public land records; NRCS retains a right of enforcement (an "enforcement collar") even when the eligible entity holds the easement
  • § 1491.30–1491.31 — Violations and appeals: if a landowner violates an easement, the eligible entity must notify the landowner and provide reasonable time to cure; if uncured, the entity may pursue legal remedies including court enforcement; appeals of FRPP eligibility and funding decisions go through NRCS's administrative appeal process

  FRPP was the primary federal tool for protecting agricultural land from development pressure before ACEP replaced it in the 2014 Farm Bill. FRPP's structure — NRCS pays up to 50%, a local land trust or government holds and monitors the easement — established the template that ACEP's Agricultural Land Easement component now follows. Existing FRPP easements run in perpetuity and are enforceable by the eligible entity (land trust or government) that holds them, with NRCS retaining an independent right of enforcement. For landowners who enrolled under FRPP, the conservation restrictions in their recorded easement deed remain binding regardless of the program's reauthorization status.

How It Works

USDA conservation programs pay farmers and ranchers to protect soil, water, air, wildlife habitat, and other natural resources on private working lands. These programs collectively touch over 140 million acres and represent billions in annual federal spending through the farm bill.

The Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) is the largest land retirement program: farmers voluntarily remove environmentally sensitive cropland from production for 10–15 years in exchange for annual rental payments based on county soil rental rates plus incentive payments for practices like native grass establishment or riparian buffers. CRP targets highly erodible land, wetlands, and buffer zones along waterways; enrollment is capped at 27 million acres; continuous signup is always open for high-priority practices while general signups occur periodically. The Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) is the primary cost-share program for conservation on working lands — land stays in production while EQIP pays up to 75% of implementing approved practices (nutrient management plans, irrigation efficiency upgrades, cover crops, rotational grazing, wildlife habitat improvements, and hundreds of others). Beginning, socially disadvantaged, veteran, and limited-resource farmers can receive up to 90% cost-share. The Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP) rewards farmers already practicing good conservation with payments to maintain and enhance their systems — unlike EQIP which funds initial adoption, CSP pays for ongoing commitment, and payments are based on the operation's conservation performance score.

The Agricultural Conservation Easement Program (ACEP) operates through two tracks: Agricultural Land Easements protect working farmland from development through permanent or 30-year easements (USDA pays up to 50% of fair market value with partner matching), while Wetland Reserve Easements restore and protect wetlands through permanent, 30-year, or term easements (USDA pays up to 100% of easement value plus restoration costs). All of these programs layer on top of mandatory conservation compliance requirements: to receive federal crop insurance premium subsidies and most USDA program payments, producers must implement an approved conservation plan on highly erodible land and cannot drain wetlands (swampbuster). The sodsaver provision reduces crop insurance subsidies for producers who convert native grassland to cropland — a targeted disincentive against breaking out prairie that provides habitat and carbon sequestration benefits.

How It Affects You

If you're a farmer or rancher: Conservation programs can provide substantial payments while improving your land's long-term productivity — but they're competitive, and timing matters. EQIP (Environmental Quality Incentives Program) provides cost-share payments covering 50–75% of the cost of specific on-farm practices: cover crops, nutrient management plans, irrigation upgrades, manure storage, fencing for rotational grazing, and dozens of others. EQIP applications are accepted continuously but ranked competitively at your local NRCS office — apply early before the ranking deadline. CRP (Conservation Reserve Program) pays annual rental rates on a per-acre basis for 10-15 year contracts on environmentally sensitive cropland taken out of production; rates vary by county and soil type. CSP (Conservation Stewardship Program) is for farmers who are already conserving and want to do more — it pays per acre plus bonuses for adopting new practices. The entry point for all three: your local NRCS or FSA office, findable at farmers.gov/contact. One visit can assess which programs fit your operation and whether your land qualifies.

If you're a beginning farmer or rancher: EQIP cost-share goes up to 90% for beginning farmers, socially disadvantaged producers, and veterans — making expensive infrastructure (irrigation systems, manure lagoons, terracing) financially viable in the early years. NRCS also gives beginning farmers priority ranking points, improving your odds in competitive application cycles. The Transition Incentives Program (TIP) pays retiring farmers to transition enrolled CRP land to beginning or socially disadvantaged farmers — relevant if you're taking over land from a neighbor or family member. Ask your local NRCS office explicitly for beginning farmer priority at your first visit; the enhanced terms are not always proactively offered.

If you're a landowner with farmland you're not actively farming: CRP converts marginal or highly erodible cropland into a paid conservation asset. Annual rental payments — based on the county's agricultural soil rental rate, typically $50–$250+ per acre depending on productivity and region — flow to you for a 10–15 year contract commitment to keep the land in approved uses (native grass, trees, wildlife habitat). You don't need to farm; USDA pays you to leave it alone and restore it. Conservation easements through ACEP (Agricultural Conservation Easement Program) provide larger lump-sum payments in exchange for a permanent deed restriction limiting future development. In areas with development pressure, easement payments can reach $500–$2,000+ per acre. Contact NRCS for an eligibility determination before assuming your land qualifies for either program.

If you hunt, fish, or track wildlife habitat trends: Conservation programs create and maintain tens of millions of acres of wildlife habitat on private land that would otherwise be farmed. CRP's approximately 24 million enrolled acres support pheasant, quail, whitetail deer, ducks, and migratory songbirds at landscape scale. Many CRP contracts specifically allow managed hunting access — ask the landowner whether they've enrolled in a public access agreement. RCPP (Regional Conservation Partnership Program) funds partnerships between NRCS and organizations like Ducks Unlimited, Pheasants Forever, Quail Forever, and The Nature Conservancy to concentrate EQIP and ACEP resources in priority geographic areas for specific species. If you're seeing habitat loss in your hunting area, your state's wildlife conservation organization can connect you with active RCPP partnerships targeting that region.

State Variations

Conservation programs are federal, but delivery is highly localized:

• State technical committees: Each state has a USDA technical committee that sets local conservation priorities
• EQIP ranking: States set ranking criteria that determine which practices and operations score highest for funding
• CRP rental rates: Based on county-level soil rental rates, creating significant geographic variation in payment levels
• State conservation programs: Many states operate complementary programs (state cost-share, conservation tax credits, water quality incentive payments)

Pending Legislation

• HR 6388 — Conservation Reserve Program Modernization Act: expands eligible land and changes payments to favor conservation buffers, wetlands, and grasslands. Status: Introduced.

Recent Developments

The Inflation Reduction Act (2022) provided an additional $19.5 billion for USDA conservation programs specifically targeting climate-smart agriculture — cover crops, nutrient management, conservation tillage, and other practices that reduce greenhouse gas emissions or sequester carbon. This was the largest single investment in agricultural conservation in U.S. history. Farm bill reauthorization discussions have focused on balancing conservation program demand (which consistently exceeds available funding) with commodity program spending.

• Trump administration strips IRA conservation climate conditions (2025): USDA under Secretary Brooke Rollins directed that IRA conservation program funding no longer require participating farmers to prioritize "climate-smart" practices — removing the climate targeting from EQIP and RCPP awards. The $19.5 billion in IRA funding remains available for conservation programs but can now be allocated toward any conservation practice, not just those reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Environmental groups challenged the reallocation as violating the IRA's statutory purpose; USDA argued it had discretion in prioritizing conservation practices.
• OBBBA conservation funding cuts: The "One Big Beautiful Bill Act" reconciliation package proposed reducing USDA conservation program mandatory spending — cutting EQIP baseline funding and CRP acreage limits. The farm lobby has historically protected conservation funding as a politically popular alternative to direct commodity subsidies; any significant cuts face resistance from rural legislators. OBBBA negotiations balanced commodity program reference price increases against conservation program reductions.
• CRP enrollment and climate: The Conservation Reserve Program — which pays farmers to idle environmentally sensitive land — reached approximately 22 million acres in 2025. CRP land provides carbon sequestration benefits independent of whether USDA labels them "climate-smart." High commodity prices historically reduce CRP enrollment (farmers prefer to plant); recent price moderation has supported enrollment. CRP contracts expire in 10-year increments; the 2025-2026 period has significant re-enrollment decisions as 2015-era contracts expire.
• Wetlands conservation and Sackett: The Supreme Court's Sackett v. EPA (2023) decision narrowed "waters of the United States" — removing jurisdiction over many wetlands that lack a continuous surface connection to traditionally navigable waters. The decision affects the Wetlands Reserve Easement (WRE) program under ACEP: wetlands that are no longer federally regulated may have reduced conservation easement value, though state conservation programs still provide protection incentives. USDA updated WRE eligibility guidance to reflect the post-Sackett landscape.