Proposed Revisions to the National Handbook of Conservation Practices

The National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition (NSAC) supports the proposed revisions to the NRCS conservation practice standards, particularly the efforts to simplify standards and align them with current resource concerns. However, they provide specific recommendations to reinstate certain deleted purposes, include more robust language for organic production systems, and clarify technical details across several specific practices.

Steel Dynamics, Inc. supports the proposed revisions to the National Handbook of Conservation Practices but requests specific modifications to CPS 591. The company argues for the inclusion of "physical (e.g., carbon-based sorbent) additives" in the definition to include their biocarbon product, and advocates for retaining "improve or protect animal health" as a listed purpose of the standard.

The Montana Prescribed Fire Council supports the NRCS's proposed revisions to Conservation Practice Standard 338 regarding prescribed burning. They argue that the updates provide a necessary, structured framework for managing wildfire risk and restoring ecosystems while offering clearer guidance for private landowners and practitioners.

The Agricultural Nutrient Policy Council (ANPC), a coalition of over 50 agricultural trade associations and agribusinesses, generally supports the proposed revisions to the National Handbook of Conservation Practices. They advocate for increased flexibility, practical and economically feasible requirements for producers, and the removal of unnecessarily prescriptive design mandates.

The American Seed Trade Association (ASTA) supports the proposed revisions to Practice 513 but expresses concern that the current language regarding pure live seed (PLS) testing standards could disqualify most forage seeds. They recommend adding a clarifying phrase to specify that PLS minimums should be met prior to seed treatment or suggest lowering the threshold for coated seeds.

Newtrient LLC, a company specializing in nutrient management and waste handling, submitted detailed technical comments and suggested revisions to the proposed 2026 NRCS Conservation Practice Standards. They argue for improvements in clarity, technical accuracy, and practicality across various standards to better support producers in achieving environmental and operational goals.

Pheasants Forever and Quail Forever, a nonprofit organization dedicated to upland habitat conservation, support the proposed revisions to the National Handbook of Conservation Practices. They provide specific recommendations to strengthen wildlife timing criteria, suggest additional practice combinations for prescribed burning, and advocate for language that prioritizes native forage and clarifies vegetation management goals.

The Virginia Association for Biological Farming (VABF), a non-governmental organization, supports the proposed revisions to the NRCS Conservation Practice Standards. They advocate for specific language additions to ensure the standards are compatible with USDA National Organic Program (NOP) requirements and recommend expanding the purposes and criteria for several practices to better address soil health, water quality, and organic production needs.

The Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies supports the proposed revisions to the National Handbook of Conservation Practices, particularly those emphasizing wildlife conservation and native plant species. They recommend specific clarifications to prevent the conversion of non-cropland to cropland and suggest removing requirements to identify specific individuals in prescribed burn plans to reduce administrative burdens.

The Tennessee NRCS Forestry Sub-Committee argues that the proposed revisions to several conservation practices (315, 338, 654, 381, and 490) may create administrative burdens, increase costs for landowners, and reduce the accessibility of forestry-specific benefits. They specifically express concern that narrowing the stated purposes of these practices or changing measurement units could make it harder for forest landowners to qualify for and implement necessary conservation projects.