Opportunity Information: Apply for USDA NRCS CA 15 0009
Apply for USDA NRCS CA 15 0009
- The California State Office in the natural resources sector is offering a public funding opportunity titled "Conservation Innovation Grant 2015" and is now available to receive applicants.
- Interested and eligible applicants and submit their applications by referencing the CFDA number(s): 10.912 Environmental Quality Incentives Program.
- This funding opportunity was created on Mar 5, 2015 and posted on Mar 5, 2015.
- Applicants must submit their applications by Apr 10, 2015. (Agency may still review applications by suitable applicants for the remaining/unused allocated funding in 2026.)
- The funding agency has allocated a total of $375,000.00 to eligible and selected applicants.
- Each selected applicant is eligible to receive up to $75,000.00 in funding.
- The number of recipients for this funding is limited to 5 candidate(s).
- Eligible applicants include: Nonprofits having a 501(c)(3) status with the IRS, other than institutions of higher education Native American tribal governments (Federally recognized) Private institutions of higher education Individuals Small businesses County governments Special district governments City or township governments State governments.
[Watch] Creating a grant proposal using the step-by-step wizard inside the applicant portal:
Opportunity Summary:
The Conservation Innovation Grants (CIG) Fiscal Year 2015 opportunity is a USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) competitive grant program for California applicants designed to speed up the real-world adoption of innovative conservation approaches and technologies on working lands. It operates under the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) authority (CFDA 10.912) and is intended to leverage federal investment by pairing conservation gains with viable agricultural and forestry production. The central idea is not to fund basic or lab-style research, but to support practical, field-based demonstrations, pilot projects, on-farm conservation research (when built on statistically valid designs), and implementation approaches that can be scaled and replicated. NRCS is specifically looking for projects that help move proven or near-proven conservation tools into broader use, including eventual integration into NRCS technical guidance (manuals, practice standards, specifications, and planning tools) or uptake by the private sector.
Funding for the California CIG FY 2015 announcement was anticipated to total up to $375,000, with roughly five awards expected. Individual awards were projected to range from $25,000 to $75,000, and projects could run from one to three years. The funding instrument type is a cooperative agreement, and cost sharing or matching is required, meaning applicants must bring non-federal or otherwise allowable partner resources to help complete the work. Eligible applicants include a wide range of entities: federally recognized Tribal governments, state and local governments (including counties, cities/townships, special districts), nonprofits (including 501(c)(3) organizations), private institutions of higher education, small businesses, and individuals. The opportunity is California-focused in terms of eligibility and topic priorities, even though it is part of a broader nationwide CIG framework.
The application process is structured as a two-phase competition. In Phase 1, applicants submit a pre-proposal that is screened for completeness and compliance; incomplete or noncompliant submissions are removed from consideration. NRCS then evaluates eligible pre-proposals based on how well they use innovative technologies and/or approaches to address at least one of the specified California topic areas. Only applicants whose pre-proposals are selected are invited into Phase 2 to submit a full proposal. Full proposals are reviewed by a technical peer review panel using formal evaluation criteria, then forwarded with recommendations to a California Review Board. The Review Board makes recommendations to the NRCS State Conservationist, who makes the final funding decisions. For this FY 2015 cycle, pre-proposals were due by 4:30 p.m. on April 10, 2015; NRCS planned to announce selected pre-proposals by May 1, 2015; and invited applicants then had to submit full proposals by 4:30 p.m. on June 5, 2015.
CIG-funded projects must be conservation-forward and practical. The announcement emphasizes that projects should use proven technologies, or technologies studied enough to indicate a high likelihood of success, and then demonstrate, verify, or evaluate their environmental and operational performance in real field conditions. NRCS is looking for evidence that a proposed approach is effective, usable, affordable, and transferable. Strong concepts include adapting or improving existing practices to increase performance and adoption, bringing approaches from other regions or agricultural sectors into California where they can be tested and refined, or building adoption incentive systems, including market-based mechanisms. Throughout the project period, recipients must comply with all applicable federal, state, and local regulations.
California-specific priorities are extensive and organized by resource concern areas, with an overarching expectation that projects align with NRCS practice standards, assessment tools, and planning criteria, and produce results that can augment NRCS technical guidance (with reference to the California electronic Field Office Technical Guide). In soil health, the state sought integrated systems that increase soil organic matter in high-intensity vegetable systems, innovative management to improve soil health in annual and perennial crops, low-water-use cover crops, links between soil health and irrigation efficiency, and forestland practice suites that improve site quality and long-term productivity. In water quality, priorities included reducing nutrient, pesticide, and sediment losses from irrigated cropland using systems such as irrigated water management approaches, bioreactors, biological pest control, and vegetated ditches; improving manure application rates, timing, and uniformity; grazing prescriptions that improve rangeland and pasture water quality; forest management prescriptions that improve forestland water quality; calibrating NRCS tools like the Water Quality Index for Agriculture; pairing pollinator habitat with runoff and erosion control; nitrogen management systems to reduce nitrate leaching; beneficial reuse of nitrate-laden groundwater; and approaches to reduce salinity (TDS) in water used in, and discharged from, specialty crop production.
In water quantity, the announcement highlighted projects that improve irrigation flow measurement for scheduling and performance evaluation, develop and demonstrate irrigation scheduling tools, and evaluate subsurface drip irrigation performance. It also included forest vegetation management strategies intended to increase water yield and improve downstream release timing while maintaining ecosystem services, plus rangeland practices and livestock management that improve water retention and storage while also addressing water quality. Plant quality priorities included development of forest health indicators for the California Forest Health Scorecard by forest type and planned stocking levels, balancing ecosystem services and economic viability. Oak woodland health priorities focused on documenting or demonstrating oak woodland treatments implemented with EQIP assistance that could update NRCS Practice 666 (Forest Stand Improvement) and/or Practice 645 (Upland Wildlife Habitat Management), along with decision support tools to improve assessment and site selection for those practices.
Air quality, climate change, energy, waste recycling/resource conservation, and wildlife were also prominent. Climate-related priorities included soil amendments such as compost or biochar to improve water holding capacity and soil organic matter, paired with monitoring methods to estimate greenhouse gas reductions, carbon sequestration, or soil decontamination benefits; drought adaptation strategies for crop systems (including salinity intrusion and phenology mismatches like flowering and pollination timing), with an example of adjusting pollinator hedgerow mixes to improve resilience; conservation tillage demonstrations that also quantify benefits like improved soil moisture capacity, reduced fuel use, and emissions reductions; rangeland practices to reduce greenhouse gases; and evaluation of technologies such as infrared sensing and aerial imagery that can provide real-time data to plan conservation practices and track emissions-related outcomes using GIS or other tools. Energy conservation priorities included on-farm renewable energy systems that displace fossil fuel use, innovations that increase uptake of energy audits and efficiency upgrades across buildings/equipment and field-scale operations, irrigation energy savings enabled by telemetry soil moisture networks and automated controls, and adaptive cropping systems (including rotations with legumes and grasses in long-term no-till) that improve nutrient cycling through soil biological activity. Waste recycling/resource conservation topics focused on biomass recycling and conversion to useful products (including biochar and energy products), developing waste management system plans that reduce costs and improve conservation benefits (including fire hazard reduction), clarifying biomass retention thresholds for wildlife and soil/water quality, and implementing California-relevant guidance tied to the national conservation practice standard for Waste Recycling (Practice 633), including example specifications, job sheets, and planning templates. Wildlife priorities ranged from integrating habitat management into working lands for broader ecosystem services, to practical infrastructure modifications (raptor perch alternatives on fence corners; safer approaches to cap open pipes to prevent bird and wildlife entrapment), building ecological site description databases linking wildlife species to land resource units, evaluating grazing as a sage-grouse habitat tool, documenting benefits of pollinator habitat to other wildlife, and improving forage mix distribution and relevance (including almond-related plant components) to expand and strengthen pollinator resources.
Submission methods included mail, express/overnight delivery, and electronic submission through Grants.gov or via email to the state CIG contact. The listed program contact for this California announcement was Erik Beardsley, State CIG Program Manager, based in Davis, California, with a phone number and email provided for applicant support. Overall, the opportunity is best understood as a short-to-mid-term, field-driven funding mechanism for applicants who can prove that a conservation innovation is ready to be demonstrated at operational scale, measured credibly, and translated into guidance and adoption pathways that producers, land managers, and conservation partners can actually use.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
Program basics
What is the Conservation Innovation Grants (CIG) FY 2015 opportunity in California?
The Conservation Innovation Grants (CIG) Fiscal Year 2015 opportunity is a USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) competitive grant program for California applicants. It is designed to speed up the real-world adoption of innovative conservation approaches and technologies on working lands, while pairing conservation gains with viable agricultural and forestry production.
What authority does this grant program operate under?
This opportunity operates under the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) authority and is listed under CFDA 10.912.
What is the main purpose of CIG funding?
The main purpose is to move proven or near-proven conservation approaches into broader use through practical, field-based efforts. NRCS is looking for projects that demonstrate, verify, or evaluate performance under real conditions and that can be scaled and replicated, including potential integration into NRCS technical guidance (manuals, practice standards, specifications, and planning tools) or adoption by the private sector.
Is this program meant to fund basic research?
No. The announcement emphasizes that CIG is not intended to fund basic or lab-style research. Instead, it supports practical demonstrations, pilot projects, field-based implementation approaches, and on-farm conservation research when built on statistically valid designs.
What kinds of project activities does NRCS want to fund?
Examples described in the announcement include field-based demonstrations, pilot projects, on-farm conservation research (with statistically valid designs), and implementation approaches that can be scaled and replicated. NRCS is especially interested in projects that help transition proven or near-proven tools into wider use.
What does NRCS mean by “innovative” in this context?
Based on the announcement, innovation can include adapting or improving existing practices to increase performance and adoption, bringing approaches from other regions or agricultural sectors into California to test and refine them, or building adoption incentive systems (including market-based mechanisms). The emphasis is on practical innovations that are ready for real-world verification and broader uptake.
Does the opportunity focus specifically on California?
Yes. While CIG is part of a broader nationwide framework, this FY 2015 announcement is California-focused in eligibility and topic priorities.
Funding and award details
How much total funding was anticipated for the California CIG FY 2015 announcement?
The announcement anticipated up to $375,000 in total funding for California.
How many awards were expected?
Approximately five awards were expected.
What was the expected award size?
Individual awards were projected to range from $25,000 to $75,000.
How long can a project last?
Projects could run from one to three years.
What type of funding instrument is used?
The funding instrument type for this opportunity is a cooperative agreement.
Is cost sharing or matching required?
Yes. Cost sharing (matching) is required. Applicants must provide non-federal or otherwise allowable partner resources to help complete the work.
Eligibility
Who is eligible to apply?
Eligible applicants include federally recognized Tribal governments, state and local governments (including counties, cities/townships, special districts), nonprofits (including 501(c)(3) organizations), private institutions of higher education, small businesses, and individuals.
Are individuals allowed to apply, or is it only for organizations?
Individuals are explicitly listed among eligible applicants, along with multiple organization types.
Can Tribes apply?
Yes. Federally recognized Tribal governments are listed as eligible applicants.
Is this opportunity limited to California applicants?
The announcement describes the program as designed for California applicants and includes California-specific topic priorities.
Application process and timeline
How does the application process work?
The application process is a two-phase competition. Phase 1 requires a pre-proposal that is screened for completeness and compliance. Only applicants with selected pre-proposals are invited to Phase 2 to submit a full proposal.
What happens if a Phase 1 pre-proposal is incomplete or noncompliant?
Incomplete or noncompliant submissions are removed from consideration during Phase 1 screening.
How are Phase 1 pre-proposals evaluated?
NRCS evaluates eligible pre-proposals based on how well they use innovative technologies and/or approaches to address at least one of the specified California topic areas.
What happens in Phase 2?
Invited applicants submit a full proposal. Full proposals are reviewed by a technical peer review panel using formal evaluation criteria, then forwarded with recommendations to a California Review Board.
Who makes the final funding decision?
The California Review Board makes recommendations to the NRCS State Conservationist, and the NRCS State Conservationist makes the final funding decisions.
What were the key deadlines for the FY 2015 cycle?
Pre-proposals were due by 4:30 p.m. on April 10, 2015. NRCS planned to announce selected pre-proposals by May 1, 2015. Invited applicants had to submit full proposals by 4:30 p.m. on June 5, 2015.
Project expectations and compliance
What kinds of technologies or approaches are considered appropriate for CIG projects?
The announcement emphasizes proven technologies, or technologies that have been studied enough to indicate a high likelihood of success. The project should then demonstrate, verify, or evaluate environmental and operational performance in real field conditions.
What kind of evidence is NRCS looking for in proposed projects?
NRCS is looking for evidence that the approach is effective, usable, affordable, and transferable, and that it can be scaled and replicated.
Do projects need to align with NRCS standards or guidance?
Yes. The announcement indicates an overarching expectation that projects align with NRCS practice standards, assessment tools, and planning criteria, and produce results that can augment NRCS technical guidance, referencing the California electronic Field Office Technical Guide.
Are there regulatory compliance requirements during the project?
Yes. Recipients must comply with all applicable federal, state, and local regulations throughout the project period.
California topic priorities (what NRCS was looking for)
What topic areas were eligible or prioritized in California for this announcement?
The announcement lists extensive California-specific priorities organized by resource concern areas. These include soil health; water quality; water quantity; plant quality (including forest health indicators); oak woodland health; air quality; climate change; energy; waste recycling/resource conservation; and wildlife.
What were the soil health priorities?
Soil health priorities included integrated systems to increase soil organic matter in high-intensity vegetable systems; innovative management to improve soil health in annual and perennial crops; low-water-use cover crops; linkages between soil health and irrigation efficiency; and forestland practice suites that improve site quality and long-term productivity.
What were the water quality priorities?
Water quality priorities included reducing nutrient, pesticide, and sediment losses from irrigated cropland (including irrigated water management approaches, bioreactors, biological pest control, and vegetated ditches); improving manure application rates, timing, and uniformity; grazing prescriptions that improve rangeland and pasture water quality; forest management prescriptions to improve forestland water quality; calibrating NRCS tools such as the Water Quality Index for Agriculture; pairing pollinator habitat with runoff and erosion control; nitrogen management systems to reduce nitrate leaching; beneficial reuse of nitrate-laden groundwater; and approaches to reduce salinity (TDS) in water used in and discharged from specialty crop production.
What were the water quantity priorities?
Water quantity priorities included improving irrigation flow measurement for scheduling and performance evaluation; developing and demonstrating irrigation scheduling tools; evaluating subsurface drip irrigation performance; forest vegetation management strategies to increase water yield and improve downstream release timing while maintaining ecosystem services; and rangeland practices and livestock management that improve water retention and storage while also addressing water quality.
What were the plant quality priorities mentioned?
Plant quality priorities included developing forest health indicators for the California Forest Health Scorecard by forest type and planned stocking levels, while balancing ecosystem services and economic viability.
What were the oak woodland health priorities?
Oak woodland health priorities focused on documenting or demonstrating oak woodland treatments implemented with EQIP assistance that could update NRCS Practice 666 (Forest Stand Improvement) and/or Practice 645 (Upland Wildlife Habitat Management), along with decision support tools to improve assessment and site selection for those practices.
What climate change-related priorities were included?
Climate-related priorities included soil amendments such as compost or biochar to improve water holding capacity and soil organic matter, paired with monitoring methods to estimate greenhouse gas reductions, carbon sequestration, or soil decontamination benefits; drought adaptation strategies for crop systems (including salinity intrusion and phenology mismatches like flowering and pollination timing), with an example of adjusting pollinator hedgerow mixes; conservation tillage demonstrations that also quantify benefits like improved soil moisture capacity, reduced fuel use, and emissions reductions; rangeland practices to reduce greenhouse gases; and evaluation of technologies such as infrared sensing and aerial imagery for real-time data and tracking emissions-related outcomes using GIS or other tools.
What energy priorities were included?
Energy conservation priorities included on-farm renewable energy systems that displace fossil fuel use; innovations that increase uptake of energy audits and efficiency upgrades across buildings/equipment and field-scale operations; irrigation energy savings enabled by telemetry soil moisture networks and automated controls; and adaptive cropping systems (including rotations with legumes and grasses in long-term no-till) that improve nutrient cycling through soil biological activity.
What waste recycling/resource conservation priorities were included?
Topics included biomass recycling and conversion to useful products (including biochar and energy products); developing waste management system plans that reduce costs and improve conservation benefits (including fire hazard reduction); clarifying biomass retention thresholds for wildlife and soil/water quality; and implementing California-relevant guidance tied to the national conservation practice standard for Waste Recycling (Practice 633), including example specifications, job sheets, and planning templates.
What wildlife priorities were included?
Wildlife priorities included integrating habitat management into working lands for broader ecosystem services; practical infrastructure modifications (such as raptor perch alternatives on fence corners and safer ways to cap open pipes to prevent bird and wildlife entrapment); building ecological site description databases linking wildlife species to land resource units; evaluating grazing as a sage-grouse habitat tool; documenting benefits of pollinator habitat to other wildlife; and improving forage mix distribution and relevance (including almond-related plant components) to expand and strengthen pollinator resources.
Submission and contact
How could applicants submit their applications?
Submission methods included mail, express/overnight delivery, and electronic submission through Grants.gov or via email to the state CIG contact.
Who was the listed contact for the California announcement?
The program contact listed was Erik Beardsley, State CIG Program Manager, based in Davis, California. The announcement provided a phone number and email for applicant support.
Browse more opportunities from the same category: Natural Resources
Next opportunity: Software Infrastructure for Sustained Innovation S2I2
Previous opportunity: Vegetation Classification and Mapping Project at Niobrara National Scenic River and Missouri National Recreation River
USGrants.org Applicant Portal:
Are you interested in learning about about how to apply for this government funding opportunity? You can create a free applicant account and receive instant access to our applicant portal that many business owners like you have benefited from.
Apply for USDA NRCS CA 15 0009
[Watch] how do funding administrators access proposals?
Applicants also applied for:
Applicants who have applied for this opportunity (USDA NRCS CA 15 0009) also looked into and applied for these:
| Funding Opportunity |
|---|
| South Shore Service Yard California State Parks Apply for 15AN20006 Funding Number: 15AN20006 Agency: Bureau of Reclamation Category: Natural Resources Funding Amount: $1,383,451 |
| Open Space Management Apply for R15AN20014 Funding Number: R15AN20014 Agency: Bureau of Reclamation Category: Natural Resources Funding Amount: $49,755 |
| Endangered Species Program Support Upper Klamath Lake (UKL) Apply for R15AN20010 Funding Number: R15AN20010 Agency: Bureau of Reclamation Category: Natural Resources Funding Amount: $2,651,656 |
| Extending Alaska Region National Hydrography Dataset Editing Protocols and Data Production to Accommodate Wetlands and other Value Added Attributes Apply for NPS DOIP15AC00448 Funding Number: NPS DOIP15AC00448 Agency: National Park Service Category: Natural Resources Funding Amount: $400,000 |
| Westside Regional Drainage Plan San Joaquin River Salinity Management 2015 Financial Assistance Agreement Apply for R15AN20005 Funding Number: R15AN20005 Agency: Bureau of Reclamation Category: Natural Resources Funding Amount: $3,750,000 |
| Watershed Rehabilitation and Sediment Control Apply for R15AN20026 Funding Number: R15AN20026 Agency: Bureau of Reclamation Category: Natural Resources Funding Amount: $1,331,126 |
| Weed Management and Jobs Creation Project, Phase 2 Apply for R15AN20017 Funding Number: R15AN20017 Agency: Bureau of Reclamation Category: Natural Resources Funding Amount: $1,499,181 |
| WLCI Support of Watershed Management Habitat Enhancement for Triple Creek Forage Reserve Apply for RFA WY08 9012 Funding Number: RFA WY08 9012 Agency: Bureau of Land Management Category: Natural Resources Funding Amount: $75,000 |
| Georgia Resource Conservation Development Projects Apply for USDA NRCS GA 08 03 Funding Number: USDA NRCS GA 08 03 Agency: Georgia State Office Category: Natural Resources Funding Amount: $50,000 |
| CESU Quantify Thickness of Harding Icefield Apply for J9845100013 Funding Number: J9845100013 Agency: National Park Service Category: Natural Resources Funding Amount: Case Dependent |
| Farm Bill Assistance in Trinity County, CA Apply for USDA NRCS CA 10 0004 Funding Number: USDA NRCS CA 10 0004 Agency: California State Office Category: Natural Resources Funding Amount: $25,000 |
| Farm Bill Assistance in Kern County, CA Apply for USDA NRCS CA 10 0005 Funding Number: USDA NRCS CA 10 0005 Agency: California State Office Category: Natural Resources Funding Amount: $50,000 |
| Herbarium Study of Plant Samples from the Arctic Network of Alaskas National Parks Apply for J9840100052 Funding Number: J9840100052 Agency: National Park Service Category: Natural Resources Funding Amount: $50,000 |
| Hemlock Woolly Adelgid Systemic Treatment Research Study Letters of Interest Apply for NPS LIGRSM100104 Funding Number: NPS LIGRSM100104 Agency: National Park Service Category: Natural Resources Funding Amount: $80,000 |
| Vascular and non vascular plant specimen identification, curation, and technical support for vegetation monitoring in the Southwest Alaska Network Apply for J2101100015 Funding Number: J2101100015 Agency: National Park Service Category: Natural Resources Funding Amount: $50,000 |
| A Technical Plan to Conduct a Landcover (Vegetation) Inventory for Alagnak Wild River Apply for J2141L0003 Funding Number: J2141L0003 Agency: National Park Service Category: Natural Resources Funding Amount: $103,968 |
| WETLAND RESTORATION ASSISTANCE Apply for USDA NRCS IA 10 02 Funding Number: USDA NRCS IA 10 02 Agency: USDA NRCS Iowa State Office Category: Natural Resources Funding Amount: Case Dependent |
| Landbird Monitoring 2010 Option Apply for NPS NOINOCAJ9471101071 Funding Number: NPS NOINOCAJ9471101071 Agency: National Park Service Category: Natural Resources Funding Amount: $47,283 |
| Farm Bill Assistance in San Joaquin County, CA Apply for USDA NRCS CA 10 0006 Funding Number: USDA NRCS CA 10 0006 Agency: California State Office Category: Natural Resources Funding Amount: $100,000 |
| Halibut Research Publication Apply for J9815100510 Funding Number: J9815100510 Agency: National Park Service Category: Natural Resources Funding Amount: $15,000 |
Grant application guides and resources
It is always free to apply for government grants. However the process may be very complex depending on the funding opportunity you are applying for. Let us help you!
Apply for Grants
Premium leads for funding administrators, grant writers, and loan issuers
Thousands of people visit our website for their funding needs every day. When a user creates a grant proposal and files for submission, we pass the information on to funding administrators, grant writers, and government loan issuers.
If you manage government grant programs, provide grant writing services, or issue personal or government loans, we can help you reach your audience.
Subscribe to Leads
Request more information:
Would you like to learn more about this funding opportunity, similar opportunities to "USDA NRCS CA 15 0009", eligibility, application service, and/or application tips? Submit an inquiry below:
Don't forget to subscribe to our grant alerts mailing list to receive weekly alerts on new and updated grant funding opportunities like this one in your email.