USDA NRCS CIG On-Farm Conservation Innovation Trials FY2026

USDA NRCS CIG On-Farm Conservation Innovation Trials FY2026

The FY2026 Conservation Innovation Grants (CIG) On-Farm Conservation Innovation Trials competition was a Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) grant opportunity for organizations that could help agricultural producers adopt and evaluate conservation practices that have not yet reached broad use. The application window closed on July 27, 2026, at 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time. This page is now a historical reference for that completed round. It is not a live application route, and no FY2027 On-Farm Trials notice has been announced on the official NRCS CIG program page or in the verified FY2026 listing checked for this update.

The official opportunity listing remains the best record of the round: Conservation Innovation Grants (CIG) On-Farm Conservation Innovation Trials for FY2026. The underlying NRCS notice of funding opportunity identifies the funding opportunity number as USDA-NRCS-NHQ-CIGOFT-26-NOFO0001447. Because the deadline has passed, applicants should not treat the Grants.gov materials as permission to submit a late application. Watch the NRCS Conservation Innovation Grants program page for a later announcement.

FY2026 facts at a glance

The notice says that the expected federal funding amount was $50 million, but it also reserves agency discretion to award more or less. It expected between 20 and 30 awards, with an individual award ranging from $250,000 to $5 million. Applicants were asked to propose projects lasting three to five years and to plan around an estimated project start date of September 2026. These figures describe the FY2026 competition only; they should not be reused as a promise about a future CIG round.

What On-Farm Trials funded

On-Farm Trials was designed to move conservation approaches from promising practice to practical producer adoption. A successful project was expected to work with agricultural producers on private land, provide technical assistance, provide incentive payments, and evaluate what happened after the practice was implemented. Evaluation was not an optional research add-on. NRCS described it as a way to understand environmental, economic, and conservation effects and to inform future programs, technical tools, conservation practice standards, and agency business practices.

The FY2026 notice required each proposal to address at least one of four national priorities:

• irrigation water management technologies;
• new and innovative grazing land management solutions;
• nutrient management; or
• Soil Health Demonstration (SHD) trials.

A proposal could address more than one priority, but it had to select one primary priority. The primary choice determined which technical peer panel reviewed the application. NRCS also encouraged precision-agriculture projects when they clearly addressed one of those priorities.

The irrigation priority covered approaches that help producers monitor irrigation needs, schedule applications, use water more efficiently, and address adoption barriers such as installation cost or system access. Nutrient-management projects were expected to improve nutrient-use efficiency through site-specific, risk-informed conservation systems and measurable reductions in nutrient loss. Grazing proposals needed to focus on innovative management solutions rather than a general agricultural technology pitch. SHD proposals focused exclusively on conservation practices and systems that improve soil health and had to follow consistent soil-health assessment protocols.

The operating model matters when assessing fit. Awardees had to recruit more than one eligible producer, implement the chosen practice on participating producers’ land, provide technical assistance and incentives, and collect enough information for meaningful evaluation. A single demonstration site was not appropriate. The notice says past projects had ranged from four producers to more than a hundred, depending on the expense and complexity of the approach, but applicants still had to propose a participation level that matched their design.

Eligibility and producer requirements

The lead applicant had to be a single eligible entity. The notice listed non-Federal governmental organizations, federally recognized Native American tribal governments, other Native American tribal organizations, public and state-controlled institutions of higher education, private institutions of higher education, nonprofits with or without 501(c)(3) status, small businesses, and other for-profit organizations. For-profit entities were eligible when agriculture was their primary business. Nonprofit applicants needed experience working with agricultural producers. Partnerships or similar groupings could not apply as the lead entity, although a partner could participate as a subrecipient. Foreign organizations, foreign public entities, and individuals were ineligible.

The applicant also needed a real producer-recruitment pathway. Eligible entities had to have access to a producer network, recruit participants, and meet the participation goals in the proposal. NRCS would not recruit producers for the project. That makes letters, agreements, extension relationships, cooperative networks, or other documented recruitment channels important evidence of execution capacity, even though the notice did not prescribe one universal recruitment format.

Producers receiving On-Farm Trials incentive payments had additional requirements. They needed to satisfy the relevant EQIP eligibility provisions, comply with highly erodible land and wetland conservation rules, and have control of the land for the proposed contract period. The notice also states that a producer receiving a payment was subject to the adjusted gross income limitation and generally could not have adjusted gross income above $900,000, subject to the stated waiver process. The awardee had to work with NRCS to confirm producer eligibility before disbursing a federal incentive payment.

There was no cost-sharing requirement for this competition. If an applicant included cost share, the notice said it would not be considered in competitive review. That did not remove the need for a credible budget. Costs still had to be allowable, allocable, necessary, and tied to the proposed work. On-Farm Trials funds could not be used for administrative indirect expenses, and the budget had to make the producer incentive structure clear.

What an FY2026 application required

The notice did not require a pre-application or letter of intent. A complete application had to be submitted through Grants.gov using the forms and attachments in the opportunity package. The required core documents were:

1. Application for Federal Assistance (SF-424). This established the applicant and federal request.
2. Project narrative. The narrative could not exceed 18 pages, had to use the required section order, and needed a cover page. The cover page identified the applicant, project title and duration, requested amount, technical and administrative contacts, states, primary priority, possible duplicate submissions, estimated participating producers, and project synopsis.
3. Project abstract. The abstract was submitted using the Grants.gov application package instructions.
4. SF-424A and budget materials. The budget narrative had to justify each line-item total and connect spending to project activities. A separate budget table provided the annual breakdown and calculation check. The budget needed to show the overall incentive amount, the possible amount per producer, the composition of incentives, technical-assistance costs, and evaluation costs.
5. Other attachments and forms. The package called for current and pending support, GADSUM9 applicant contact information, and applicable subaward documentation. Letters of support were optional but welcomed. Conflict-of-interest disclosures were required when applicable.
6. Lobbying materials. Applicants had to provide the Grants.gov lobbying form and the Disclosure of Lobbying Activities (SF-LLL) as applicable.

The project narrative had to explain the conservation approach, its adoption barriers, the purpose and measurable objectives, methods, technical-assistance providers and qualifications, evaluation methods, producer involvement, incentive design, milestones, communications, geographic scope, project management, and environmental impacts. The notice also asked for plans to communicate results to producers and stakeholders. It required funded grantees to participate in at least one event during the grant period, provide a closing event such as a webinar, field day, or training event, and submit a final project overview.

Submission and review details

Applicants needed to satisfy Grants.gov registration and software requirements before submission. The application had to reach Grants.gov by 11:59:59 p.m. Eastern Time on July 27, 2026. The notice treated an application received at 12:00 a.m. Eastern Time as late and subject to rejection. Grants.gov supplied the electronic receipt and time stamp and sent status messages to the authorized organizational representative when a transmission failed, was received, or was retrieved by the agency. For technical submission problems, the notice directed applicants to Grants.gov Applicant Support at 1-800-518-4726 or [email protected].

The review process began with an administrative and eligibility screen. Applications had to be timely, complete, compliant with the notice, and submitted by an eligible entity. Technical peer-review panels then scored proposals on a 100-point scale: Project Purpose, Innovation, and Scientific Approach (30 points); Project Management (25 points); Evaluation Approach (20 points); and Project Outcomes (25 points). NRCS state conservationists reviewed proposed work for agency stewardship and possible duplication of conservation effort, and the NRCS Chief was the approving official for final selections. A risk review also considered SAM status, financial stability, financial-management systems, prior federal award performance, and whether proposed costs were allowable.

For a future round, the most useful preparation lesson from FY2026 is to build the producer and evaluation plan before polishing the technology description. The proposal had to show who would recruit producers, who would deliver conservation planning and other technical assistance, how incentives would be calculated and paid, how EQIP-related producer checks would be handled, and how results would be measured. A strong concept with no credible field network or with only a single demonstration site would not match the notice’s operating model.

Status of this page

The FY2026 application deadline was July 27, 2026, and that cycle is closed. The verified official listing and notice provide no FY2027 application deadline. This page therefore keeps the real FY2026 deadline in its metadata and uses historicalReference = true so the site presents it as an archive entry rather than as a missed live opportunity. Do not substitute rolling, a guessed future date, or the estimated award-selection timing for the actual closing date.

The NRCS CIG program hub describes On-Farm Trials as an ongoing national CIG funding category, but it does not announce a FY2027 round in the materials verified for this page. Organizations planning a new proposal should check that hub and the official Grants.gov or Simpler.Grants.gov listing for a new notice before preparing or submitting materials. The FY2026 notice’s contact for general CIG questions was [email protected]; Grants.gov Applicant Support remained the contact for platform problems.

Official sources

• FY2026 opportunity listing on Simpler.Grants.gov
• FY2026 NRCS Notice of Funding Opportunity PDF
• NRCS Conservation Innovation Grants program page