Soil Conservation & Natural Resources Conservation Service

The Soil Conservation Act of 1935 (16 U.S.C. §§ 590a–590q) declared soil erosion a national menace and established the federal program to combat it — now administered by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), a USDA agency that provides technical and financial assistance to farmers, ranchers, and landowners to conserve soil, water, and natural resources on private land. NRCS works through a partnership with approximately 3,000 local conservation districts covering virtually every county in America, delivering on-the-ground assistance to millions of landowners. Between direct NRCS programs and Farm Bill conservation programs (which NRCS administers), the federal government invests approximately $6–8 billion annually in conservation on private lands — making this one of the largest and most impactful environmental programs you've probably never heard of.

Current Law (2026)

Legal Authority

• 16 U.S.C. § 590a — Purpose (Congress declares that soil erosion on farm, range, and forest lands is a national menace; the Secretary of Agriculture is directed to coordinate and lead efforts to prevent erosion and preserve soil, water, and related natural resources)
• 16 U.S.C. § 590c — Conditions for benefits (before providing benefits on non-federal land, the Secretary may require steps to protect the land, including state or local laws mandating erosion prevention)
• 16 U.S.C. § 590g — Additional policies (authorizes soil and water conservation practices, land-use adjustments, reducing wasteful or unscientific farming, protecting rivers and harbors from siltation, and preserving natural resources — the foundation for cost-share conservation programs)
• 16 U.S.C. § 590b — Lands on which preventive measures may be taken (conservation actions may occur on federal land with the managing agency's consent, or on any other land with the landowner's permission or a legally valid easement)
• 16 U.S.C. § 590d — Cooperation with governmental agencies (Secretary of Agriculture may enlist other federal, state, and local agencies; may hire officers, employees, and experts; cross-agency cooperation is built into the program's structure through interagency agreements)
• 16 U.S.C. § 590f — Authorization of appropriations (authorizes "such sums as necessary" for the Secretary to carry out the Act; includes funds for nursery stock production through federal nurseries — which supply tree seedlings for windbreaks and restoration projects)
• 16 U.S.C. § 590h — Payments and grants (Secretary must provide technical assistance and make cost-share and incentive payments through conservation programs; funding delivered through conservation districts and county committees)
• 16 U.S.C. § 590q — Coverage and territorial application (the Act applies to all 50 states plus Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the Northern Mariana Islands, and the Virgin Islands; all U.S. territories are eligible for NRCS technical and financial assistance)

How It Works

Conservation Technical Assistance (CTA) is the oldest and most universal NRCS program. Any landowner, regardless of farm size or income, can walk into an NRCS service center and receive free technical guidance on soil health, erosion control, water management, wildlife habitat, nutrient management, and other conservation practices. NRCS conservationists develop conservation plans — site-specific blueprints identifying resource concerns and recommending practices tailored to the land. CTA is funded through the Soil Conservation Act's annual appropriation and is the entry point for all other NRCS programs.

Conservation districts are the local delivery mechanism. Created by state law (all 50 states have conservation district enabling legislation), these approximately 3,000 locally governed districts cover virtually every county. District supervisors — typically local farmers and ranchers elected or appointed at the county level — work with NRCS staff to set local conservation priorities and deliver programs. This federal-state-local partnership is one of the most decentralized governance structures in the federal government.

Farm Bill conservation programs administered by NRCS represent the major federal investment in private-land conservation. The Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) provides cost-share payments (typically 50-75% of practice cost) for conservation practices on working agricultural land — cover crops, no-till systems, irrigation efficiency, nutrient management, and hundreds of other practices. The Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP) pays farmers who are already at a high level of conservation to adopt additional enhancements. The Agricultural Conservation Easement Program (ACEP) protects farmland and wetlands through permanent or long-term easements. The Regional Conservation Partnership Program (RCPP) funds landscape-scale partnerships.

The Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), jointly administered with the Farm Service Agency, pays farmers an annual rental to voluntarily remove approximately 24 million acres of environmentally sensitive cropland from production and plant it in conservation cover (grass, trees, riparian buffers). CRP is one of the single largest federal conservation programs, providing significant habitat benefits for wildlife (particularly grassland birds) while reducing erosion and improving water quality.

Sodbuster and Swampbuster provisions (from the 1985 Farm Bill) condition eligibility for federal farm program payments on compliance with conservation requirements — farmers who plow highly erodible land without an approved conservation plan, or who drain wetlands, lose eligibility for crop insurance subsidies and other USDA agricultural subsidy payments.

How It Affects You

If you're a farmer or rancher interested in conservation programs: Start at your local NRCS service center — walk in, and an NRCS conservationist will conduct a free site visit and develop a conservation plan tailored to your operation's specific resource concerns. No cost for the planning assistance. From there, the two programs that pay out the most direct cost-share are EQIP (Environmental Quality Incentives Program) and CSP (Conservation Stewardship Program). EQIP covers 50–75% of the cost of approved conservation practices — cover crops, no-till conversion, fencing for rotational grazing, irrigation efficiency, nutrient management plans. Historically underserved producers (beginning farmers, socially disadvantaged, veteran farmers) get enhanced cost-share rates. CSP pays existing high-conservation-performance farmers to add enhancements — it's a performance-based stewardship payment, not a cost-share for new practices. If you're interested in taking land out of production, CRP (Conservation Reserve Program) pays an annual rental on environmentally sensitive cropland enrolled in conservation cover — currently about 24 million acres nationally. CRP signup is competitive; USDA announces enrollment periods. Find your local NRCS service center at nrcs.usda.gov/contact and check current EQIP funding availability at nrcs.usda.gov/programs-initiatives/eqip.

If you farm highly erodible land or own wetlands and receive federal farm program benefits: The Sodbuster and Swampbuster provisions of the 1985 Farm Bill are compliance requirements, not optional programs. If you receive federal farm program payments — crop insurance premium subsidies, ARC/PLC commodity payments, or disaster assistance — you must comply with both. Sodbuster: you cannot bring highly erodible land into production without an approved conservation plan from NRCS. Swampbuster: you cannot drain, dredge, or otherwise convert wetlands on your farm to crop production without losing eligibility for all federal farm program benefits. Violations can result in full benefit loss — including retroactive repayment of crop insurance subsidies. If you've inherited land or recently purchased a farm, have NRCS check whether the land has highly erodible land (HEL) or wetland determinations on file before you make any tillage or drainage changes. The Agricultural Conservation Easement Program (ACEP) can compensate you for permanently protecting wetlands — typically paying the difference between agricultural and wetland-protected land value — if you want to voluntarily lock in wetland protection while receiving fair compensation.

If you're a hunter, angler, or wildlife enthusiast: NRCS programs are among the most effective wildlife habitat programs in the federal government — not because they're wildlife programs, but because they work on the private land where most wildlife actually lives. CRP's approximately 24 million acres of grassland cover is credited with dramatically recovering populations of ring-necked pheasants, northern bobwhite quail, waterfowl, and grassland songbirds across the Great Plains and Midwest. NRCS's Working Lands for Wildlife initiative targets specific at-risk species (sage-grouse, monarch butterfly, gopher tortoise, striped newt) by paying farmers to adopt practices that protect habitat on working farms. The RCPP (Regional Conservation Partnership Program) funds large-scale landscape partnerships — many led by hunting organizations like Ducks Unlimited, Pheasants Forever, and Quail Forever — that pool NRCS funding with private match to deliver habitat restoration at scale. Find active RCPP projects near you at nrcs.usda.gov/programs-initiatives/rcpp.

If you live downstream of agricultural land or rely on rural water sources: Every ton of soil that stays on the field is a ton that doesn't fill your reservoir, stream, or drinking water intake with sediment. NRCS conservation programs — particularly cover crops, conservation buffers, and nutrient management — reduce the agricultural nonpoint source pollution that is the leading cause of water quality impairment in U.S. rivers and streams. Riparian buffers funded through EQIP and ACEP create vegetated strips between cropland and waterways that filter runoff before it reaches streams. The Conservation Reserve Program's streamside filter strips provide similar benefits. If you're a water utility, watershed protection district, or local government concerned about agricultural runoff affecting water quality or flood risk, NRCS's Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations program (Section 11a/11b of the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act) provides technical and cost-share assistance for watershed protection projects — these are community-scale projects, not just farm-scale. Contact your state's NRCS state conservationist at nrcs.usda.gov/contact to discuss watershed-scale options.

State Variations

Federal soil conservation is delivered through state and local partnerships:

• Each state has a conservation district enabling law governing district creation, governance, and authority
• State conservation agencies provide additional technical and financial assistance
• State soil loss limits and erosion control requirements vary
• Some states have mandatory soil conservation standards (T values); others rely on voluntary programs
• State water quality programs interact with federal conservation programs to address agricultural nonpoint source pollution

Implementing Regulations

• 7 CFR Part 610–614 — NRCS conservation programs (technical standards, conservation practice standards, conservation planning)

• 7 CFR Part 12 — Highly erodible land and wetland conservation (sodbuster/swampbuster compliance, conservation plan requirements for farm program eligibility)

• 7 CFR Part 1410 — Conservation Reserve Program (CRP enrollment, rental payments, eligible practices, contract terms)

• 7 CFR Part 622 — Watershed Projects: implements the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act (Pub. L. 83-566), NRCS's authority to plan and fund infrastructure projects that reduce flooding and improve watershed health. Key provisions:

  • § 622.10 — Local sponsorship requirement: every watershed project must have at least one local sponsor — a conservation district, municipality, county government, or Indian tribe legally organized under state law; the sponsor takes responsibility for land rights, local cost share, and long-term operation and maintenance; NRCS cannot implement a project without an active, committed local sponsor
  • § 622.11 — Eligibility: a watershed project must fall within a defined watershed area per the NRCS National Watersheds Manual; the project must address a documented water or land resource problem (flooding, erosion, water quality, water supply); economic analysis must show that benefits justify costs; projects must not interfere with interstate water compacts
  • § 622.30 — Environmental protection: watershed projects must be planned to cause as little harm as possible to fish, wildlife, and other natural resources; unavoidable damage must be minimized and mitigated; coordination with FWS and state wildlife agencies is required; projects that may significantly affect the environment require NEPA review
  • § 622.31 — Planning initiation: when NRCS receives an application, it conducts field studies and prepares a report; the Chief of NRCS must approve initiation of planning before detailed design work begins
  • § 622.32 — Environmental review: the watershed plan must include either an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) or an Environmental Assessment (EA) that goes through internal technical review, sponsor review, and public comment before the plan is approved

  Watershed projects under this Part are distinct from the farm-level EQIP and CSP conservation programs — they are community-scale infrastructure projects (flood control dams, grade stabilization structures, stream channel improvements, detention basins) that protect farmland and rural communities from flood damage and improve water quality at the watershed scale. NRCS provides both engineering design and federal cost-share for eligible structures; local sponsors must secure the land rights and cover operation costs after construction. The watershed program has been active since the 1950s and funded thousands of small dams and flood control structures across rural America.

• 7 CFR Part 632 — Rural Abandoned Mine Program (RAMP): implements the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act's authorization for NRCS to reclaim coal-mined land abandoned before August 3, 1977. Key provisions:

  • § 632.10 — Eligibility: RAMP applies to counties or areas that had coal-mined land abandoned or not properly reclaimed before August 3, 1977 (the date SMCRA was enacted); post-SMCRA mine sites are handled through the Office of Surface Mining, not NRCS
  • § 632.11 — Funding: money is available only when Congress appropriates it from the Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fund; up to 20% of state OSMRE funds may be transferred to NRCS for RAMP work; funding is competitive and depends on annual appropriations
  • § 632.12 — Priority system: the State Conservationist ranks eligible applications by funding priority and subpriority — projects addressing the most serious health, safety, and environmental hazards receive the highest priority; ranking determines which projects get funded when money is limited
  • § 632.13 — Eligible land: RAMP can fund reclamation of coal-mined lands and water areas affected by coal mining that were abandoned before 1977 and have not been reclaimed; eligible problems include mine subsidence, open portals, water pollution from acid mine drainage, eroding spoil piles, and hazardous slopes
  • § 632.14 — Who can participate: surface landowners, residents, tenants, or agents who control eligible land; landowners without surface rights can participate if they agree to assist in obtaining needed permissions; NRCS works with whoever controls the land to implement reclamation work
  • § 632.17 — Cost-share rates: for the first 120 acres, the federal government can pay up to the full cost of reclamation; for areas beyond 120 acres, a landowner cost-share requirement applies; the Administrator sets specific rates; special projects authorized by the State Conservationist may have adjusted cost-share arrangements

  RAMP fills a specific gap: pre-SMCRA coal mining left tens of thousands of acres of hazardous, unreclaimed land across Appalachia and other coal regions — abandoned portals, acid drainage ponds, unstable spoil banks — that posed ongoing risks to neighboring properties, waterways, and communities. Because these sites predate modern reclamation law, the responsible mining companies often no longer exist. NRCS used RAMP to bring pre-existing agricultural land treatment expertise to bear on mine reclamation, treating abandoned mine sites as a land resource problem requiring conservation intervention. The program has reclaimed hundreds of thousands of acres of abandoned mine land since the 1970s.

• 7 CFR Part 621 — River Basin Investigations and Surveys: NRCS's framework for conducting watershed-scale water and land studies in cooperation with federal, state, and local governments — the planning foundation for watershed protection and flood management programs. Key provisions:

  • § 621.2 — Four types of USDA river basin work: (1) cooperative river basin surveys with federal/state/local agencies; (2) floodplain management assistance; (3) joint investigations and reports with the Army Corps of Engineers authorized by Congress; and (4) water resources policy coordination among federal agencies
  • § 621.10 — Cooperative studies: NRCS cooperates with any federal, state, or local agency to study watershed problems — checking water and land conditions, measuring resource problems, and developing alternative plans (including land treatment, structural, or non-structural solutions); the studies inform whether a watershed protection project under the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act is warranted
  • § 621.11 — Who can request cooperative studies: conservation districts, communities, county governments, regional planning boards, and state or federal agencies may request NRCS cooperative watershed studies; local groups must channel requests through the governor or a state/federal agency with jurisdiction
  • § 621.12 — Request process: a governor or state/federal agency submits a written request plus a Proposal to Study (PTS) through the State Conservationist to the NRCS Chief; the State Conservationist helps prepare the PTS and provides a recommendation; the Chief approves studies, ranking them by application date, agency readiness, problem severity, and potential benefit
  • § 621.14 — Lead agency responsibility: the agency requesting the study must organize a multi-agency study team and publish draft reports for public review; NRCS provides technical expertise and carries out the field investigations; the cooperative structure ensures that the resulting plan reflects the needs of all agencies with jurisdiction in the basin
  • § 621.20–621.25 — Floodplain management assistance: NRCS provides technical help to state and local governments developing floodplain management programs; eligible requesters include all levels of government and planning agencies; the State Conservationist approves studies, and NRCS leads the technical work, prepares study reports, and helps communities interpret findings for local decision-making
  • § 621.30–621.34 — Joint Army Corps investigations: when the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee or House Public Works Committee authorizes a joint USDA-Army Corps study (under P.L. 87-639), USDA and the Corps cooperate on a single integrated watershed report; NRCS represents USDA on the joint team; state and local governments participate in setting goals, reviewing data, and developing plans; public involvement is required throughout
  • § 621.40–621.45 — Water policy coordination: NRCS represents USDA on interagency water resources committees and regional planning bodies; NRCS provides USDA's liaison officer to the Delaware River Basin Commission and the Susquehanna River Basin Commission; NRCS conducts National Flood Insurance Program technical studies for FEMA when requested

  Part 621 establishes NRCS as the USDA's primary watershed planning and river basin coordination agency. The cooperative study framework is the front-end of the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act pipeline: a Part 621 cooperative study assesses whether problems are severe enough to warrant a full watershed project funded under Part 622. The flood insurance study work for FEMA is a notably different partnership — NRCS's soil survey and watershed mapping expertise translates directly into the flood zone determinations that set flood insurance rates under the National Flood Insurance Program.

• 7 CFR Part 654 — Operation and Maintenance of Watershed and RC&D Measures: NRCS rules establishing the long-term stewardship obligations of local sponsors for watershed protection infrastructure built with federal cost-share — the companion to the Part 622 construction rules (implements 16 U.S.C. §§ 1001–1008, 1006a, 590a, 590p; 33 U.S.C. § 701b):

  • § 654.10 — O&M agreement prerequisite: an authorized official for the local sponsor must sign an Operation and Maintenance (O&M) agreement with NRCS before NRCS provides any financial assistance for a watershed or Resource Conservation and Development project; the O&M agreement is the binding commitment from the sponsor to maintain federal infrastructure in perpetuity
  • § 654.11 — Sponsor financial responsibility: sponsors must pay for and perform all upkeep of project features on non-federal land entirely at their own expense — the federal government cannot be charged for O&M costs; on federal land, the managing agency bears O&M responsibility; cost sharing between federal and non-federal sponsors is proportional to the benefits each party receives from the project measure
  • § 654.12 — Financing O&M: the watershed or RC&D project plan must identify funding sources for all operation and maintenance activities for the entire duration of the O&M agreement; local sponsors must demonstrate sustainable long-term funding before NRCS will approve construction
  • § 654.14 — O&M responsibility start: sponsors must begin operating and maintaining a completed project measure when the contractor's work on that portion is finished and accepted; for force-account work done by the sponsor, responsibility starts on the date NRCS certifies the work or portion as complete; from that point forward, the sponsor bears full responsibility for performance and safety
  • § 654.15 — O&M performance standards: sponsors must operate and maintain finished project features so they continue to function as designed and meet their authorized purposes; they must comply with all federal, state, and local laws and any conditions in land-rights agreements; sponsors must avoid harming the environment and must not modify or abandon project features without NRCS approval
  • § 654.17 — Inspection requirements: sponsors must inspect built structures (dams, channels, detention basins) at least once per year and immediately after any major storm or unusual event that could cause damage; inspections must follow the operation and maintenance plan, and the sponsor must report deficiencies to NRCS
  • § 654.18 — NRCS compliance monitoring: NRCS helps sponsors prepare O&M agreements and plans; NRCS notifies sponsors of non-compliance with O&M agreements and may suspend future assistance if violations continue

  Part 654 addresses a critical infrastructure governance gap: the federal government funds construction of watershed dams, grade stabilization structures, and channel improvements — but has no permanent maintenance authority after construction ends. Local sponsors (typically soil and water conservation districts, municipalities, or counties) sign the O&M agreement accepting permanent responsibility. When sponsors fail to maintain structures — deferring inspections, ignoring erosion, allowing unauthorized modifications — the federal investment degrades over time. NRCS estimates that tens of thousands of watershed structures built in the 1950s-1980s are now past their evaluated design life and require rehabilitation or removal, most of which falls on local sponsors who may lack the technical capacity or financial resources to address aging infrastructure.

• 7 CFR Part 624 — Emergency Watershed Protection (EWP): NRCS and the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) joint emergency program to remove public-safety threats and reduce runoff after natural disasters — implements 16 U.S.C. § 2203 and 33 U.S.C. § 701b:

  • § 624.2 — Program purpose: EWP authorizes NRCS (for non-federal lands) and USFS (for national forests) to undertake emergency recovery measures that slow storm runoff and prevent further damage to life and property after natural disasters — floods, fires, droughts, tornadoes, and similar events that destabilize watershed conditions
  • § 624.5 — FEMA coordination: in areas covered by a presidentially declared disaster, NRCS coordinates with FEMA to avoid duplication of federal assistance; NRCS's EWP may address watershed and slope stabilization needs that FEMA's public assistance program does not cover
  • § 624.6 — Eligible sponsors: only a legal subdivision of state government — a state agency, unit of local government, or tribal government — may sponsor an EWP project; private landowners cannot directly access EWP funding but can participate if a government entity sponsors the project on their behalf
  • § 624.7 — Federal cost-share: NRCS pays up to 75% of the cost of EWP construction and related work; the sponsoring entity must contribute at least 25% from non-federal sources; for limited-resource and impoverished communities, special provisions may allow a higher federal share
  • § 624.8 — Application deadline: sponsors must apply to NRCS within 60 days of the natural disaster event; late applications are not eligible; NRCS conducts a rapid field assessment to determine eligibility and prioritize work
  • § 624.10 — Floodplain easements: as an alternative to physical construction, NRCS may purchase permanent floodplain easements on land that experienced at least one flood; easements are owned by the United States in perpetuity; landowners voluntarily sell development rights in exchange for payment; land enrolled in easements is retired from development and managed for floodplain function, reducing future disaster losses

  EWP is NRCS's fastest-moving program — designed to act in the immediate aftermath of a disaster before secondary hazards materialize. Unlike NRCS's long-range watershed planning programs (Parts 621 and 622), EWP is reactive, with tight application windows and expedited review. The floodplain easement option represents a shift from restoring damaged land to retiring it: when repair isn't cost-effective or the land is repeatedly flooded, NRCS can buy out landowners permanently and allow the floodplain to return to natural function, reducing future federal disaster costs.

• 7 CFR Part 614 — NRCS Appeal Procedures: the informal appeals framework for farmers and landowners to challenge NRCS program decisions and technical findings in conservation programs — the procedural rights layer that sits beneath NRCS's EQIP, CSP, ACEP, and HEL/wetland conservation programs (implements 16 U.S.C. § 3822 — wetlands conservation compliance; 7 U.S.C. § 6932 — NAD jurisdiction):

  • § 614.3 — Decisions subject to appeal: participants in Title XII conservation programs (EQIP, CSP, RCPP, EWP, and others) may use informal appeals to challenge adverse program decisions (benefit denials, payment reductions, terminations) and adverse technical findings (HEL determinations, wetland delineations); the right to appeal is broad — if NRCS takes an action that hurts a participant, informal appeal is generally available
  • § 614.4 — Decisions not subject to informal appeal: NRCS cannot be challenged informally on general program rules that apply to everyone (how applications are ranked or screened, published soil surveys, conservation practice standards issued programwide); these are policy decisions, not individual adverse actions — appeals would have to go through federal court challenging the rulemaking itself
  • § 614.6 — Decision notices: NRCS must send a decision notice whenever it makes an adverse decision; the notice must include the factual basis, the applicable program rule, and information about how and when to appeal; the notice triggers the appeal clock — participants who do not act within the timeframe in the notice generally waive their informal appeal rights
  • § 614.7 — Preliminary HEL/wetland decisions: preliminary technical determinations under the HEL and wetland conservation (HELC/WC) provisions become final 30 days after the participant receives them unless the participant timely requests reconsideration or an appeal; the 30-day clock is strict — missing it means the preliminary determination becomes binding
  • § 614.9 — Program decision appeals: after receiving a final adverse program decision, a participant may appeal by requesting an informal NRCS hearing, seeking mediation, or requesting an informal hearing before the FSA county committee; the participant chooses the pathway
  • § 614.10 — FSA county committee: because NRCS and FSA administer conservation compliance jointly, the FSA county committee serves as an alternative informal appeal body for NRCS technical determinations and program decisions made under Title XII; county committee hearings give participants a local forum that may be more accessible than formal NAD hearings
  • § 614.11 — Mediation: a participant who wants mediation must request it within 30 days of receiving the decision notice; mediation fees are typically paid by the participant; a qualified mediator helps the parties reach a settlement without a formal hearing; mediation is voluntary and non-binding unless the parties agree otherwise
  • § 614.13 — Appealability review: when NRCS asserts that a particular decision is not adverse to the participant (and therefore not appealable), the participant may ask the NAD Director to review that appealability determination — ensuring NRCS cannot immunize its decisions from review by simply declaring they are not adverse
  • § 614.15 — Implementation of NAD decisions: NRCS must implement a final NAD determination within 30 days of it becoming the final USDA administrative decision; NRCS must also file biannual compliance reports with NAD documenting implementation of all final determinations

  The Part 614 appeal framework matters because HEL (highly erodible land) and wetland conservation compliance determinations have direct financial stakes: a farmer found to have violated conservation compliance requirements under § 3822 loses eligibility for virtually all USDA commodity and conservation program benefits — SNAP for farm households, crop insurance premium support, commodity loans, and direct payments. A mistaken wetland delineation or HEL determination can effectively exclude a farm from the federal support system. The informal appeal pathway lets participants contest technical findings before NRCS and FSA at the local level before escalating to the NAD's more formal proceedings.

• 7 CFR Part 611 — Soil Surveys: NRCS regulations governing the national soil survey program — a foundational data infrastructure that supports land use decisions, conservation planning, agricultural lending, zoning, and environmental review across the United States (implements 16 U.S.C. § 590a; 42 U.S.C. §§ 3272–3274):

  • § 611.1 — NRCS authority: NRCS is responsible for conducting and maintaining soil surveys on all non-federal land in the United States; the program operates cooperatively with state agricultural experiment stations and other state agencies; NRCS sets national standards but relies on state and local partnerships for fieldwork and data validation
  • § 611.10 — National standards and guidelines: all soil surveys must follow national standards for soil naming, classification, interpretation, and data sharing; the standards ensure that a soil series designation (like "Sassafras sandy loam") means the same thing in New Jersey as it does in Georgia; NRCS publishes technical guidelines covering field methods, laboratory analysis, and data quality
  • § 611.11 — Public access to soil information: NRCS releases soil survey information as soon as practical after fieldwork or other updates; the primary public delivery platform is the Web Soil Survey (websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov), which provides free access to county-level soil maps, interpretations (prime farmland designation, hydric soil status, flooding frequency, engineering uses), and downloadable data; soil survey data is also delivered through the Soil Survey Geographic Database (SSURGO) for GIS users
  • § 611.2 — Cooperative relationships: NRCS conducts soil surveys in partnership with state agricultural experiment stations, universities, and state resource agencies; partners contribute field staff, matching funds, and local expertise; cooperative soil survey work expands NRCS's reach and keeps local land-grant institutions engaged in the data infrastructure

  The NRCS soil survey program is the backbone of federal agricultural lending, conservation compliance, and land use planning. FSA uses prime farmland designations from soil surveys to determine eligibility for farm loans. NRCS uses hydric soil status and drainage class to identify regulated wetlands for conservation compliance purposes. Local governments use soil survey data for zoning, subdivision review, and septic system permitting. Floodplain managers use flood frequency and soil drainage data in floodplain mapping. The Web Soil Survey receives millions of queries each year from farmers, engineers, planners, real estate professionals, and researchers — making Part 611's data standards directly consequential for the quality of the information that flows from the program.

• 7 CFR Part 612 — Snow Surveys and Water Supply Forecasts: NRCS rules governing the cooperative program that measures snowpack and provides water supply outlooks critical to agricultural and municipal water planning in the western United States:

  • § 612.2 — Snow survey network: NRCS operates and maintains networks of manual and automated snow-measuring sites and weather stations in mountainous areas of western states; the SNOTEL (SNOwpack TELemetry) system provides near-real-time automated snowpack, precipitation, and temperature data from over 900 sites in 11 western states; manual snow courses provide supplementary measurements at specific sites going back decades, providing long-term baselines
  • § 612.3 — Data collected: NRCS collects snow water equivalent (the amount of water contained in the snowpack), precipitation, and temperature data; most sites combine snow course and automated measurements; NRCS integrates this with streamflow data to prepare water supply forecasts — projections of the seasonal water volume expected to flow through specific river segments as snowmelt occurs
  • § 612.4 — Eligible recipients: NRCS provides water supply forecasts on a regular basis to any person or group that uses significant water volumes and would benefit — including irrigators, municipal water managers, hydropower operators, fisheries managers, and flood control agencies; the service is free
  • § 612.5 — Monthly outlook reports: NRCS and its partners publish monthly water supply outlook reports with forecasts and basic data from January through June each year; reports are issued at the state and regional levels and include comparisons to historical averages; the reports are public and freely available on NRCS's website and through the National Water and Climate Center

  NRCS snow surveys are the primary data source for seasonal water supply planning in the 17 western states. Irrigators use the forecasts to plan planting decisions and water purchase agreements. Municipal water utilities use them to project reservoir levels and plan for potential shortages. State water agencies use them to negotiate water allocation among competing users. As western snowpacks have declined with warming temperatures, the SNOTEL network has become central to documenting climate change impacts on western water supply — the historical baseline from decades of snow course measurements provides the context for interpreting current snowpack anomalies.

• 7 CFR Part 657 — Prime and Unique Farmlands: NRCS's definitions and policies for identifying and inventorying the nation's most agriculturally productive land, implementing the Farmland Protection Policy Act and related authorities:

  • § 657.4 — NRCS responsibilities: State NRCS leaders must conduct and maintain inventories of important farmlands within their states, working with state agencies, Cooperative Extension, and USDA partners; NRCS identifies which soil mapping units in each state meet the criteria for prime farmland and publishes that information through the National Cooperative Soil Survey
  • § 657.5 — Definitions of important farmland: four categories of land with national or regional agricultural significance:
    • Prime farmland: the most productive farmland — land with the best combination of soil, growing season, and water (rainfall or irrigation) needed to produce high crop yields economically and sustainably; prime farmland can be cropland, pasture, range, forest, or other land, but not urban or water; the definition is soil-based, not current use-based — land in prime farmland soils is classified as prime regardless of whether it's currently farmed or could be converted back to agricultural use
    • Unique farmland: land other than prime farmland that produces specific high-value food and fiber crops — citrus, tree nuts, olives, cranberries, fruits, and vegetables — that requires special soil or climatic conditions not commonly found elsewhere in the nation; the "unique" designation covers specialty crops that cannot easily be grown elsewhere
    • Farmland of statewide importance: land that is important for producing food, feed, fiber, forage, and oilseed crops at the state level, as determined by each state's appropriate agency — these state-level designations capture productive farmland that doesn't meet the federal prime or unique criteria but matters significantly to the state's agricultural economy
    • Farmland of local importance: land of importance to specific local food production, local economies, or local character, as designated by local governments or other appropriate local bodies

  The Part 657 farmland classifications have legal significance beyond inventory: the Farmland Protection Policy Act (7 U.S.C. § 4201 et seq.) requires federal agencies to consider the impact of their actions on prime farmland before approving projects that could convert it to non-agricultural use. Federal agencies must complete a Form AD-1006 (Farmland Conversion Impact Rating) for any project that could convert significant amounts of prime or unique farmland — roads, pipelines, military installations, and federal land management decisions all trigger this analysis. The FPPA doesn't prohibit conversion of prime farmland, but it requires agencies to evaluate alternatives and document why conversion was unavoidable. Many state and local farmland protection programs use the Part 657 definitions as their baseline, making NRCS's soil survey data the foundational layer for farmland preservation planning nationwide.

• 7 CFR Part 658 — Farmland Protection Policy Act: NRCS's implementing regulations for the Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA), 7 U.S.C. §§ 4201–4209, which requires federal agencies to consider the effects of their programs and projects on prime and important farmland before converting it to non-agricultural uses. The Part works alongside the Part 657 farmland classification system — Part 657 identifies what qualifies as prime farmland; Part 658 governs when and how federal agencies must evaluate projects that would convert it.

  • § 658.2 — Farmland definition: "farmland" under the FPPA means prime farmland, unique farmland, or farmland of statewide or local importance — including land that is cropland, pastureland, forest, or open space, but not land already committed to urban development or water uses; once land is rezoned or physically developed for non-farm use, it loses FPPA protection even if its soils would otherwise qualify as prime
  • § 658.3 — Applicability and exemptions: federal agencies must assess FPPA impacts for any action involving federal assistance, permits, licenses, or approvals that could convert farmland to non-agricultural use; exemptions cover projects in urbanized areas, areas zoned non-agricultural under state or local law, and projects where there is no viable agricultural alternative; NRCS field offices provide technical assistance to agencies trying to determine whether their projects trigger FPPA review
  • § 658.4 — Guidelines for use of criteria: agencies must use NRCS's farmland impact criteria to identify and weigh adverse effects on farmland and must seek alternatives that would cause less farmland conversion; they must coordinate their review with state and local farmland protection programs where those programs exist
  • § 658.5 — Criteria (Form AD-1006): NRCS provides each group of local soils a Relative Value of Farmland score from 0 to 100; the score is combined with other factors — proximity to urban centers, the proportion of the project footprint that is prime farmland, compatibility with state and local farmland programs — to produce a total site assessment score; projects scoring above 160 out of 260 points trigger the strongest consideration of alternatives, though FPPA does not create a hard prohibition at any score level
  • § 658.6 — Technical assistance: NRCS field offices provide agencies with soil maps, farmland designation data, and interpretive guidance to complete Form AD-1006; NRCS's Web Soil Survey and SSURGO databases are the primary data sources for the relative value scores
  • § 658.7 — Agency review of own policies: all federal departments and agencies must identify internal policies, rules, or procedures that conflict with FPPA requirements and develop plans to bring them into conformance with the Secretary of Agriculture's guidelines — with USDA assistance

  The FPPA is a consideration statute rather than a prohibition: federal agencies must evaluate farmland impacts and consider alternatives, but they are not barred from converting prime farmland even when scores are high. The practical effect comes through project design — agencies often adjust alignments, site selections, or project footprints to reduce farmland conversion in response to high FPPA scores. The Form AD-1006 requirement applies to a wide range of federal actions: highway projects funded with federal-aid highway funds, federally assisted water and sewer projects, military installation expansions, and federal land disposals. NRCS administers the FPPA jointly with all federal agencies that trigger it, serving as the technical resource for farmland data rather than a regulatory gatekeeper. No major amendments since the FPPA implementing regulations were finalized in the 1980s.

Pending Legislation

• HR 7474 / S 3820 — Soil CARE Act of 2026: strengthen soil health research, monitoring, and technical assistance programs. Status: Introduced.
• HR 6388 — Conservation Reserve Program Modernization Act: expand eligible land and prioritize conservation buffers, wetlands, and grasslands. Status: Introduced.
• HR 4412 — Joint Chiefs Reauthorization Act: reauthorize the NRCS-Forest Service Joint Chiefs' Landscape Restoration Partnership. Status: Introduced.

Recent Developments

The Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 provided $19.5 billion in additional funding for NRCS conservation programs — the largest single investment in agricultural conservation in history — with a focus on climate-smart agriculture (practices that reduce greenhouse gas emissions or sequester carbon). Soil health has become a central conservation priority, with cover crops, no-till farming, and soil carbon sequestration receiving increased emphasis and funding. NRCS has modernized its Conservation Practice Standards and expanded the list of eligible practices to address climate, water quality, and biodiversity goals. Demand for EQIP and other programs consistently exceeds available funding — approximately 60% of applications are turned away due to funding limitations, even after the IRA investment.

• Trump administration freezes IRA conservation funding — NRCS programs slowed (2025): The Trump USDA placed IRA conservation funding obligations under review in early 2025, slowing EQIP, RCPP, and ACEP contracts funded through the IRA's $18+ billion conservation investment. USDA Secretary Brooke Rollins ordered a review of IRA-funded contracts before allowing new obligations; signed contracts were honored but new contract approvals slowed significantly. Farmers who had applied for IRA-funded EQIP contracts in FY2025 faced delays as USDA worked through the review. By mid-2025, USDA resumed some IRA conservation contracting, but at a lower pace than under Biden's USDA, and with an emphasis on contracts with direct agricultural productivity benefits over climate-focused practices.
• OBBBA risk to IRA conservation title (2025): The One Big Beautiful Bill Act's budget reconciliation structure has raised concerns about whether IRA conservation funding could be reduced or rescinded as part of the overall budget package. The IRA directed approximately $18.05 billion to USDA conservation programs over 5 years (FY2023-FY2027) through mandatory spending — OBBBA could rescind unobligated mandatory balances. Farm groups have divided on IRA conservation funding: commodity groups generally support the farm income benefits of EQIP payments; some rural conservatives oppose the climate-conditioned aspects of IRA conservation practices. The final OBBBA treatment of IRA conservation funding is unresolved as of 2026.
• DOGE NRCS staffing and state office reductions (2025): DOGE-driven USDA staffing reductions affected NRCS state and county offices — the front-line staff who work directly with farmers on conservation plans. NRCS employed approximately 9,000 employees at the start of 2025; early retirement offers and hiring freezes have reduced capacity in several states. For farmers with pending EQIP or CSP applications, processing and payment timelines have lengthened. NRCS county service centers — which often serve as the only federal agricultural assistance point in rural counties — have seen reduced hours and reduced technical assistance staff availability.