Agroforestry VOLUME 24 I S SUE 1 http://eepurl.com/4HKB1

Sign up for email updates:

Finding

in the

2014

FarmBill

Pg.6 Whole Farm 

Revenue 

Protection Pg.11Implementing 

Silvopasture with 

Farm Bill Programs
2 Inside Agroforestry ] Volume 24, Issue 1

NAC Director's Corner

A commentary on the status of agroforestry by Susan Stein, NAC Director

This issue of Inside Agroforestry provides 

examples of how USDA Farm Bill 

programs such as the Conservation Reserve 

Enhancement Program (CREP), the 

Environmental Quality Incentives Program 

(EQIP), and the Sustainable Agriculture 

Research & Education (SARE) grant program support 

agroforestry implementation, research and education. While 

critically important to the advancement of agroforestry and other 

sustainable agriculture practices, these programs represent only 

one slice of the pie. A vast array of Farm Bill programs support 

a host of other activities in America’s rural and urban areas. 

These include programs run by the US Forest Service in association 

with State Forestry agencies to conserve and sustain America’s 360 

million acres of private forest lands as well as those to restore 

public forest lands. In addition, Farm Bill programs support 

organic agriculture certification and implementation, markets 

for local and regional agriculture, new and beginning farmers, 

bioenergy research, rural housing, and so much more. Farm Bill 

programs are an effective tool to enhance the sustainability of our 

rural and urban landscapes through agroforestry and many other 

conservation practices. 

Finding Agroforestry Opportunities within SARE 

Article based on an interview with Rob Hedberg, Director, Sustainable Agriculture Research & Education

Kate MacFarland

USDA National Agroforestry Center

The mission of the Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education (SARE) program is to advance innovations that improve profitability, 

stewardship and quality of life by investing in groundbreaking research and education. Managed by the National Institute for Food and 

Agriculture (NIFA), the SARE program has a variety of opportunities available for landowners, natural resource professionals, researchers, 

non-profits, and others interested in agroforestry. 

Three programs that have provided significant support for agroforestry include:

Farmer/

Rancher 

Grants

Also referred to as producer grants in some regions, these grants are for farmers and ranchers who want to 

explore sustainable solutions to problems through on-farm research, demonstration, and education projects. 

They do not support establishing new farms or farm enterprises, but can be used for testing new ideas.

Professional 

Development 

Grants

These grants, which often use a train-the-trainer approach, support training for agricultural educators and service 

providers with the Natural Resources Conservation Service, or in the extension, private, or not-for-profit sectors. 

Projects often use farmers as educators. Some of the best professional development projects have included 

demonstrations of successful practices through a variety of means, including inviting successful farmers to speak 

at workshops or visiting farms to see, first-hand, how practices have been implemented.

Producer + 

Professional 

Grants

Also called partnership or on-farm grants, these are targeted at agricultural professionals (such as Cooperative 

Extension or Natural Resources Conservation Service staff) who coordinate a project, with a farmer or rancher 

serving as project advisor.

SARE also has grants for graduate students and researchers that can support projects related to agroforestry. As of 2015, SARE has funded 

sustainable agriculture work by over 500 graduate students, thus helping to support the next generation of sustainable agriculture professionals. 

Continued on page 10
Farm Bill

agroforestry 2014

On February 7, 2014, President Obama signed the Agricultural Act of 2014 (2014 Farm Bill). This bill provides numerous opportunities for landowners to get financial support for agroforestry through USDA programs. Although the Farm Bill includes many more funding 

programs than described here, the programs covered represent federal sources with the greatest application to agroforestry. The primary programs 

for agroforestry establishment are the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP), Conservation Stewardship Program, (CSP), Agricultural 

Conservation Easement Program (ACEP), Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), and Continuous Conservation Reserve Program (CCRP). 

F = Financial Assistance I = Incentive Payment R = Rental Payment E = Easement Payment S = Stewardship Payments

Alley

Cropping

Riparian

Forest Buffer Windbreak Silvopasture

Forest

Farming

Tree

Planting

EQIP F F F F F F

CSP - S S S S S

ACEP - F,E - F,E F,E F,E

CRP F,R F,R - - - F,R

CCRP - F,I,R F,I,R - - F,I,R

*not all practices or programs are available in all states

Other programs relevant to agroforestry producers:

Loans:

• Direct and Guaranteed Farm Loans 

• Down Payment Loans

• Microloans

• Conservation Loans 

• Farm Storage Facility Loans

Cost Share/Incentives:

• National Organic Certification Cost 

Share Program 

• Biomass Crop Assistance Program

Insurance:

• Organic Crop Insurance 

• Whole Farm Revenue Protection for 

Diversified Farms 

Processing & 

Selling Assistance: 

• Good Agricultural Practices and 

Good Handling Practices Audit 

Verification Program 

• Business and Industry Loan 

Guarantee Program’s Local and 

Regional Food Enterprise Provision 

• Value-Added Producer Grants

Other:

• Conservation Reserve Program – 

Transition Incentives Program 

• National Sustainable Agriculture 

Information Service/ATTRA 

For more information, 

please go to:

http://usda.gov/farmbill

Inside Agroforestry ] Volume 24, Issue 1 3
Financial assistance for living snow fences in Minnesota

Eric Ogdahl

University of Minnesota

“Save lives, save time, save money.” This phrase may sound like 

an overly optimistic advertisement for some new miracle drug but, 

in Minnesota and other cold-weather states, it’s actually seen on 

roadside signs next to rows of trees and shrubs, preceded by the 

words “Living Snow Fences”. 

Living snow fences (LSFs) are windbreaks planted to keep snow 

and ice from blowing off of farm fields and onto adjacent roads. 

They do this by creating wind turbulence along their length, causing 

blowing snow and ice particles to deposit in drifts around the barrier. 

Most of the drifts form downwind of the snow fence, requiring it to 

be set back a certain distance from the protected roadway. 

Indeed, LSFs have been shown to effectively reduce blowing snow 

and ice on roadways, which otherwise can require high snow removal 

costs, involve many road salt applications, increase travel time, and 

raise the risk of motorist accidents. The Minnesota Department of 

Transportation (MnDOT) estimates that an average of $17 in snow 

removal costs is saved for every dollar they invest in LSFs. However, 

in most cases, the state-owned rights-of-way are not wide enough 

to accommodate the necessary (or required) setback distance. 

Consequently, most LSFs are placed on private land. Many farmers 

lack time and money required to plant and maintain living snow 

fences. Fortunately, there are a number of state and federal programs 

that can financially assist farmers in installing and maintaining LSFs 

on their land. These include the Conservation Reserve Program 

(CRP), Environmental Quality and Incentives Program (EQIP), 

and MnDOT’s LSF program.

CRP and EQIP are two USDA programs included in the 2014 

Farm Bill that can be used to establish LSFs. These programs are 

administered by the Farm 

Service Agency (FSA) and 

A living snow fence in southern Minnesota. 

Photo by Gary Wyatt

Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), respectively. 

Both programs provide technical and financial assistance to eligible 

landowners to address conservation issues, such as reducing soil 

erosion or improving water quality, on their land. CRP primarily 

applies to cropland or pastureland, while EQIP is more flexible in 

its land eligibility requirements. With the continuous sign-up CRP 

LSF practice (Conservation Practice 17A), producers sign a 10 to 15 

year agreement to install and maintain a LSF. Under the continuous 

CRP they receive a sign-up incentive payment, partial compensation 

for the eligible costs of installing and maintaining a LSF, and annual 

land rental payments. 

EQIP contracts, on the other hand, vary in length and only provide 

partial compensation for the costs of installing and maintaining a 

LSF. While EQIP does not provide an annual rental payment, it 

is more flexible than CRP regarding the landowner’s management 

options. A key trade-off between CRP and EQIP is that the 

vegetation planted under EQIP can be harvested, given that it 

maintains full functionality, whereas this is not permitted under 

continuous CRP. For example, berries on a row of shrubs included 

in a LSF could be harvested under EQIP but not under CRP. 

In Minnesota, CRP and EQIP agreements can be used in 

coordination with an agreement from the Minnesota Department 

of Transportation (MnDOT) to assist landowners in installing and 

maintaining LSFs along sections of state roadways with blowing 

snow problems. Under MnDOT’s LSF program, landowners receive 

an annual payment based on the landowner’s snow storage area, an 

annual maintenance rate, and the Farm Product Price Index (FPPI). 

The snow storage rental rate is based on the acreage of the snow 

storage area. This is determined by multiplying the length of the 

snow fence by a 150 foot snow catch area directly downwind of the 

snow fence. If the snow catch area is planted into a native prairie 

mixture, MnDOT matches 100% of the Continuous Conservation 

Reserve Program (CCRP) soil rental rate for the land; otherwise, 

MnDOT matches 50 percent of the CCRP soil rental rate, paying 

no less than $50 per acre. 

In additon to the snow storage rate, MnDOT pays the landowner 

an annual fee of $155 per acre to maintain the LSF through watering, 

weed control, pruning, and other best management practices. 

Together, the annual snow storage rental rate and maintenance rate 

4 Inside Agroforestry ] Volume 24, Issue 1
create the baseline payment for MnDOT’s LSF agreement. This 

payment can be increased during the contract if the previous year’s 

FPPI, which reflects agricultural commodity values, increases above 

the FPPI of the year prior to sign-up. If the FPPI declines, MnDOT’s 

payments to the landowner will not fall below the baseline value at 

the time of sign-up. 

Considering that MnDOT’s payments occur on top of CRP or 

EQIP payments, Minnesota’s LSF program can provide substantial 

incentives for landowners to incorporate an agroforestry practice. 

However, there is still a large need for landowners to sign up. 

MnDOT has identified 3,841 areas, totaling 1,233 miles, along 

state roadways where blowing snow is a severe problem. Since 2002, 

when Minnesota’s collaborative LSF program began, MnDOT has 

issued 69 contracts, 10 to 15 years in length, through CRP or EQIP, 

resulting in the protection of 22 miles of state roads. While not a 

small accomplishment, this only represents approximately 2 percent 

of the problem areas. Thus, while Minnesota has developed a unique 

collaboration with two Farm Bill programs to assist landowners, 

more work is still needed to spread the word and help save lives, 

time, and money. Both CRP and EQIP support living snow fences in 

several other states, in addition to Minnesota. Landowners interested 

in this practice should contact their local FSA or NRCS office to 

determine their eligibility for these programs.

Resources

The University of Minnesota’s Blowing Snow Control Tools website: 

http://snowcontroltools.umn.edu/

The Minnesota Department of Transportation’s living snow fence webpage: 

http://www.dot.state.mn.us/environment/livingsnowfence/

Converting Planted Pine to Silvopasture: 

Benefits Cattle and Timber

Inside Agroforestry ] Volume 24, Issue 1 5

Michael Goodchild 

Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences Extension

University of Florida

Silvopasture is an agroforestry practice 

that combines trees, forage, and livestock 

to optimize production of all three. The 

term “silvopasture” means “forest-pasture,” 

where “silvo” is derived from a Latin word 

that means “forest.” Silvopasture can be 

established by planting trees in an existing 

pasture, or by planting forage in an 

existing stand of trees. This article provides 

recommendations for converting planted 

pines to silvopasture. 

In Walton County, Florida, fully stocked 

pine stands and previously thinned 

pine stands have been transitioned into 

silvopasture over a two year period with 

proper management. Thinning pine stands 

to a 40-60 basal area, or approximately 150 

trees per acre is ideal. The diameter of your 

trees at breast height (DBH) determines 

basal area and how many trees per acre you 

will have. A prism (10 factor for our area, 

cost around $40) is used to calculate the 

basal area. Contact your local state forester or 

consulting forester to show you how to use 

the prism to determine basal area.

The most common design for a new 

silvopasture stand is 2-3 solid rows of trees 

with 40 feet or more of open space between 

each set of rows. Make sure diseased and dead 

trees are removed from each row to keep the 

understory clean for forage production. Tree 

size and health needs to be considered per 

stand. Initial planning and management 

is important before logging commences. 

Natural pine stands can also be converted to 

silvopasture, but the focus of this article is on 

conversion from planted pines.

Once the stand has been thinned, prescribed 

burning is the next step, followed by a 

shallow disking (4-6 inches) to avoid tree 

root damage. In some situations, a herbicide 

application may be needed to kill underbrush 

like yaupon holly and privet, if fire doesn’t 

do the job.

Soil testing to determine liming requirements 

is important as most pine stands have acidic 

soils. A pH of 5.5–6 would be ideal; a higher 

pH could negatively affect the growth of 

your pine trees.

Pensacola bahiagrass, combined with 

overseeded ryegrass in the winter are a 

proven combination for silvopasture in this 

area, both for establishment and financial 

considerations. Other varieties will work, 

but may be less adaptable or cost more. 

Depending on ground cover, various types 

of planting methods can be used to get your 

grass established. No-till drills, three-point 

PTO spreaders, or even cows can be used to 

stomp in your seed. Different types of clover 

can also be planted with the ryegrass in the 

fall to provide a nitrogen source that will 

benefit both trees and grass. Also the partial 

shade provided from the planted pines will 

extend the growing season for some of the 

less heat tolerant varieties of clover.

Stocking rates for cattle will depend on the 

amount of forage in the stand. Initially it will 

be low until the forage is established.

In summary, research has shown that 

timber production and cattle production 

can work well together, if managed properly. 

Diversification of agricultural land helps 

manage market risks, and can increase income 

over the long term. Cost-share programs for 

silvopasture may be available in your county 

through the Natural Resource Conservation 

Service (NRCS) Environmental Quality 

Incentives Program, to help offset some of 

the establishment costs. 

For more information on converting 

expiring CRP into silvopasture, 

please see NAC’s Working Trees 

Information Sheet:

http://bit.ly/1OmFOmU
Whole-Farm Revenue Protection:

Reforming Risk Management for Diversified Farming Operations

Photo: Nicolas A. Tonelli

James Robinson 

Rural Advancement Foundation International - USA

Risk Management, Credit, and Crop Insurance 

Historically, farmers managing specialty crop and diversified farm 

operations often have not had access to crop insurance or were not 

able to insure their crop at the price point of high-value markets. Lack 

of access put producers at an obvious risk-management disadvantage. 

This higher risk also made it more difficult for these producers to 

access the credit needed to start and grow their agricultural operations. 

Because crop insurance, in most cases, guarantees some revenue, 

credit providers consider producers with crop insurance to be a safer 

bet. Consequently, farmers without access to crop insurance were at 

a two-fold disadvantage. 

For more than a decade, USDA’s Risk Management Agency (RMA) 

provided whole-farm insurance called Adjusted Gross Revenue (AGR) 

and Adjusted Gross Revenue-Lite (AGR-Lite). AGR and AGR-Lite 

had many attractive features for farmers that had been historically 

underserved by crop insurance. These programs could cover the entire 

revenue of a farm rather than one crop and provided a premium 

discount for diversifying income across multiple crops. However, 

availability of these policies was geographically limited and farmers 

reported additional access barriers, including cost and coverage 

levels. As a result, AGR and AGR-Lite were underutilized by eligible 

farmers. For example, in North Carolina only three AGR-Lite policies 

were sold in each of the last three years of the program. 

The disadvantage faced by farmers lacking access to risk management 

programs was perhaps most acute during the North Carolina tobacco 

transition. Farmers found themselves needing to replace lost tobacco 

income in the late 90s, a consequence of ending the tobacco quota 

program. Replacing tobacco income often required diversifying 

crops and accessing high-value markets, such as farmers’ markets and 

markets for organic or specialty products. However, the lack of crop 

insurance for diverse, high-value operations stood in stark contrast to 

the extensive risk management available for tobacco. It also increased 

the risk of farming during the transition, especially from a lenders 

perspective. Vollmer Farm in Bunn, NC serves as a typical tobacco 

transition case study. John Vollmer, who passed away last year, served 

as president of the North Carolina Tobacco Growers Association in 

the 1980s, but foresaw the end of the tobacco quota program and 

transitioned his farm to a highly diverse fruit and vegetable operation, 

which is now run by his son Russ. Despite the success of the operation, 

John called the lack of risk management programs a challenge. 

Whole-Farm Revenue Protection

The 2014 Farm Bill required changes to whole-farm insurance, 

resulting in the development of Whole-Farm Revenue Protection 

(WFRP). RMA developed WFRP during 2014 and made the policy 

available for the first time in 2015, replacing AGR and AGR-Lite as 

RMA’s whole-farm insurance policy option. WFRP in 2015, thanks to 

RMA’s collaboration with diverse stakeholders within the agricultural 

community, made significant improvements over AGR and AGRLite. The maximum subsidy level was increased from 59 percent to 80 

percent, which reduced the cost for farmers. In addition, the program 

is available in all but five states and the coverage level was increased 

from a maximum of 72 percent to a maximum of 85 percent. 

Since the end of the sales closing period for 2015, preliminary data 

indicates that farmers approve of WFRP. Policies sold increased 34% 

across the country with the majority of new policies being sold in 

counties where AGR and AGR-Lite had previously been available. 

There was also a 100 percent increase in agricultural revenue insured 

(program liabilities) from prior years when AGR and AGR-lite were 

available (Chart I). 

The strong positive sales indicators demonstrate the demand for the 

program. However, long-term success of the policy depends on both 

farmers’ willingness to sign up for the policy and their experience 

with loss adjustment. 2015 claims will not be filed until farmers have 

filed their 2015 taxes. A full evaluation of WFRP’s performance, 

both as a safety net for farmers and an insurance program bound by 

actuarial soundness requirements, will not be possible until claims 

data is available. 

Chart I:

6 Inside Agroforestry ] Volume 24, Issue 1

Agricultural Revenue insured with WFRP in 2015 

compared to insured revenue under AGR and 

AGR-Lite in previous years. 

$472M

2011

$460M

2012

$469M

2013

$522M

2014

$1.04B

2015

Source: RAFI chart of USDA Summary of Business data as of 9/2/15
2016 Changes to WFRP

It is important to note that preliminary outcomes have been positive 

despite barriers that exist in the 2015 version of WFRP. For example, 

beginning farmers could not access the policy until developing five 

consecutive years of revenue history. Additionally, farmers missing 

one year of revenue history, even as the result of a medical condition 

or military deployment, were ineligible. 

In August 2015, RMA announced additional changes to WFRP 

for the 2016 crop insurance year that are designed to address these 

and other remaining barriers, starting with the 2016 crop year. These 

include reduced revenue history requirements for beginning farmers 

and farmers missing a year of revenue history as a result of illness 

or military deployment, as well as nationwide availability, a first for 

any RMA crop insurance policy. These changes further improve 

the potential for WFRP to be a successful program and, most 

importantly, further extend the agricultural safety net for historically 

underserved producers. “WFRP has the potential to have a dramatic 

impact on the success of a wide variety of farms in Texas, providing 

protection options that have not been available previously. Small fruit 

and vegetable operations as well as diversified farms have not really 

had any product that covered their entire operation in an affordable 

way,” says Susie Marshall, President of the Texas Organic Farmers and 

Gardeners Association. A detailed list of key changes made to wholefarm insurance in 2015 and 2016 can be found in Figure I. 

Figure 1 Whole Farm Revenue Protection (WFRP) Comparison 

WFRP 2016 WFRP 2015 AGR-Lite AGR

Type of coverage Revenue Revenue Revenue Revenue

Tax History 3 Years of Schedule 

F Forms

5 Years of Schedule 

F Forms

5 Years of Schedule 

F Forms

5 Years of Schedule 

F Forms

Maintain Eligibility 

if Missing Tax years 

Due to Physical 

Inability to Farm

Yes No No No

Diversification 

Incentive Yes Yes Yes Yes

Coverage Level 50%-85% 50%-85% 65%-80% 65%-80%

Payment Rate 100% 100% 75%-90% 75%-90%

Maximum Subsidy 80% 80% 59% 59%

Livestock Revenue 

Limits $1 million

35% of total revenue 

and no more than $1 

million

none 35% of total revenue

Nationwide 

Availability Yes No No No

Covers Post 

Production 

Expenses

Yes, on-farm, postproduction expenses 

that do not add 

value

Yes, on-farm, postproduction expenses 

that do not add 

value

No No

Liability Limit $8.5 Million $8.5 Million $1 million $6.5 million

Denotes changes to whole-farm insurance in 2015 and 2016. Source: Author's analysis of programs.

Inside Agroforestry ] Volume 24, Issue 1 7

Why Are the 2016 Changes So Important? 

The first iteration of WFRP expanded the availability and coverage 

options beyond what AGR and AGR-lite provided. However, 

beginning farmers still needed 5 years of farm revenue history to be 

eligible, proving a significant obstacle for beginning farmers seeking 

a risk management program. Farmers in five states in the Mid-South 

were also ineligible, putting some agricultural operations in those 

states at a competitive disadvantage with those in neighboring states. 

Thus, 2016 WFRP changes ensure earlier access and more equitable 

access, addressing some of the major objectives facing whole-farm 

insurance reformers when work began in 2013. Underscoring the 

importance of crop insurance reforms made through the development 

of WFRP, Dean Benson, Senior VP of Insurance Services at Farm 

Credit Northwest, says, “We feel [WFRP] is a very important risk 

management tool and have tried to get the word out to as many 

producers within our marketing territory as possible and will continue 

to do so for 2016.” 

The enrollment period for WFRP in 2016 began September 1, 

2015 and closes, depending on your state, in January, February 

or March of 2016. If you are interested in WFRP for your farm, 

further information is available on the USDA fact sheet about WFRP. 

Enrolling in WFRP is done through private crop insurance agents. 

If you do not have a crop insurance agent, you may find an agent 

through the USDA crop insurance agent locator. ]
Opportunities& Constraints Using federal cost-share 

programs for a multifunctional 

riparian buffer establishment

8 Inside Agroforestry ] Volume 24, Issue 1

Kate MacFarland

USDA National Agroforestry Center

Katie Commender

Virginia Tech

Riparian forest buffers have long been valued for many benefits, including 

water quality enhancement, stream bank 

stabilization, wildlife habitat, and cooling 

effects on streams. In more recent years, the 

potential economic benefits of conservation 

buffers are recognized as they can also include 

trees and shrubs that produce crops of native 

fruit, nuts, and florals. Landowners can harvest 

and sell these crops for additional income or 

consume them at home. Opportunities to 

use federal cost-share programs to establish 

these “multifunctional” riparian forest 

buffers are growing.

Recently, a non-profit organization, 

Appalachian Sustainable Development 

(ASD), and its partners have been working to 

create multifunctional riparian forest buffers 

in southwest Virginia. For many years, the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Partners for 

Fish and Wildlife (FWS PFW) Program has 

worked with landowners in the Clinch River 

watershed to enhance and restore habitat for 

threatened and endangered fish and mussel 

species. Although landowners were often 

on board with in-stream improvements and 

stream bank restorations, they were generally 

not interested in riparian forest buffers. 

Many expressed concern that a 35 foot 

riparian forest buffer would cut into their 

hay profits and reduce their farmable land.

ASD’s Non-Timber Forest Products 

program began partnering with the FWS 

PFW Program to establish multifunctional 

riparian forest buffers with edible and 

floral species. Landowners who were not 

initially interested in establishing riparian 

forest buffers became enthusiastic about 

adoption. By the end of 2016, nearly a 

dozen landowners will have established 

multifunctional riparian forest buffers 

covering 23 acres in the Clinch River, 

Holston River, and Powell River watersheds. 

These buffers include elderberry, pawpaw, 

hazelnuts, redosier dogwood, pussywillow, and 

persimmons, along with many others species.

In 2014, ASD partnered with Virginia Tech, 

the FWS PFW, and the USDA National 

Agroforestry Center (NAC) to continue this 

work through a Conservation Innovation 

Grant from the USDA Natural Resources 

Conservation Service. The grant supports 

the establishment of 10 to 15 acres of 

multifunctional riparian forest buffers and 

the development of outreach materials. These 

materials will cover technical and economic 

aspects of managing multifunctional 

buffers and marketing their products. Part 

of this work will also involve developing 

recommendations for buffer establishment 

and management for possible use in 

other efforts - the NRCS/Virginia Plant 

Establishment guide; the Farm Services 

Agency's Conservation Reserve Enhancement 

Program (CREP); the NRCS' Environmental 

Quality Incentives Program (EQIP); and 

the Virginia Department of Forestry's 

riparian forest buffer recommendations. 

A farmer mentor program will also 

be created to connect new, interested 

landowners with existing landowners who 

have already adopted the practice. This will 

include scheduled farm tours to existing 

multifunctional riparian forest buffers. Lastly, 

this project will update NAC’s Buffer$ tool 

so that landowners can compare profits from 

multifunctional riparian forest buffers with 

profits from crop production and traditional 

conservation buffers.

Some multifunctional riparian forest 

buffers have already been established 

with cost-share through the NRCS 

Environmental Quality Incentives Program 

(EQIP), which can be used to support buffer 

establishment costs and some management 

costs. It’s important to note that EQIP pays 

for conservation grade trees and shrubs, so 

the left-over cost of planting more expensive 

species and cultivars is borne by the 

landowner. Still, the program can provide 

support to landowners interested in planting 

these buffers.

Other USDA programs are less compatible 

with multifunctional riparian forest buffers 

in the short term. For example, while the 

Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) plays 

an important role in establishing riparian 

forest buffers across the country, this 

program’s guidelines prohibit harvesting and 

gaining income from land in a CRP contract 

and limit management opportunities. 

Certain edible and floral species are on 

the approved list for buffer plantings. As 

a result, CRP funding could be used to 

help establish these trees and shrubs, with 

harvest occurring after the contract period 

ends. However, this depends largely on the 

discretion of the conservation agent. This 

program is thus often not as good a fit for 

multifunctional riparian forest buffers.

Whatever the route to establishment, 

multifunctional riparian forest buffers can 

provide many benefits to landowners and 

society, including resource conservation 

and income. Native fruits and nuts can 

help to strengthen special connections 

with local tradition, culture, and folklore. 

Multifunctional riparian forest buffers also 

allow landowners the opportunity to think 

broadly about conservation and diversify 

their incomes as well as the foods they eat 

and/or sell.

Look for NAC’s upcoming Working Trees 

information sheet on “Why add edible and 

floral plants to riparian forest buffers?” to 

learn more about this important topic. ]
Sweetening the Pot for Conservation: 

Voucher Program to Accelerate use of Federal Programs for Forested Riparian Buffers and 

other Agricultural BMPs in Pennsylvania’s Portion of the Chesapeake Bay Watershed

Clair Ryan

Chesapeake Bay Foundation

Before and After photos of a buffer installation 

in Bradford, PA. Photo by Jen Johns

Before After

Inside Agroforestry ] Volume 24, Issue 1 9

The Chesapeake Bay Foundation (CBF) works closely with state, federal, local, and other not-for-profit partners to accelerate 

the planting of forested riparian buffers on agricultural land in 

Pennsylvania and other Chesapeake Bay states. Farmers have long been 

able to utilize U.S. Department of Agricultures (USDA) programs 

like Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) and the joint 

federal/state Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP) 

to receive cost share for implementing agricultural best management 

practices (BMPs). Through CREP, participating farmers earn annual 

rental payments for land taken out of production and put into 

conservation. However, during tough economic times and when milk 

and grain prices are largely stagnant, paying their portion of the initial 

establishment costs can be a difficult commitment for farmers. 

Cognizant of the difficult choices faced by Pennsylvania’s farmers 

and of the need to make marked reductions in agricultural pollution 

in order to meet Chesapeake Bay clean up goals, CBF developed 

a Buffer Bonus Program, through which the organization utilizes 

private foundation funds and state grants to offer cost share vouchers 

to farmers. 

Here’s how it works. If a farmer with streamside land agrees to plant 

a forested riparian buffer, usually with assistance through CREP, he 

or she then receives a voucher that can be used to pay for the farmer’s 

share of any BMPs identified in the farm’s manure management or 

nutrient management plan. Such practices might include installation 

of fencing, development of an alternate water source for livestock, 

heavy use area protection, stormwater diversion, improvement of 

manure storage facilities, implementation of rotational grazing, or 

the planting of cover crops. The caveat is that if the farm does not 

have the appropriate management plan, as required by state law for 

most commercial-scale farms that either generate or use manure, the 

farmer must first use the voucher for plan development. Thus, the 

voucher program makes forested buffers more palatable to farmers, 

helps decrease the sediment and nutrients leaving farms through 

buffers and other BMPs, helps improve the rate of farm compliance 

with state regulations, and can also help farmers’ bottom lines by 

improving herd and soil health. 

Participants in the Buffer Bonus Program have included Plain Sect 

(Amish and Mennonite) communities, who tend not to participate 

in government programs. Some farmers in these communities have 

established forested riparian buffers without government assistance in 

exchange for vouchers to be used for on-farm improvements. 

The Chesapeake Bay Foundation, administers its Pennsylvania 

Restoration Program, including the Buffer Bonus Program, from its 

office in Harrisburg, PA. In addition to a program manager, CBF 

employs six field staff who work in various locations throughout 

Pennsylvania’s portion of the Chesapeake Bay watershed. These staff 

work one-on-one with farmers in 19 counties to conduct outreach on 

the Buffer Bonus Program, CREP, and EQIP, while connecting farmers 

with additional resources available for farm conservation and nutrient 

management planning. Cumulatively, the work of CBF’s field staff 

resulted in PA farmers committing 152 acres to forested riparian buffer 

during the period July 1, 2014 – June 30, 2015. 

Response to the program varies by location. Lancaster, Juniata, and 

Bradford counties are three areas where CBF has seen high interest 

in the voucher program and greatly accelerated implementation of 

forested riparian buffers. In fact, CBF’s Jennifer Johns and Stephen 

Smith were recently awarded the Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay 

and U.S. Forest Service’s “Chesapeake Forest Champions” award 

recognizing on-the-ground impact for their work in Bradford County, 

alongside key partners from the Bradford County Conservation 

District and Natural Resources Conservation Service’s (NRCS) 

District Office. Since the inception of CREP in Bradford County 

in 2003, partners have worked with farmers to establish more than 

3,000 acres of buffer.

Despite noticeable progress, CBF and other partners recognize that 

there is still a lot of work to be done, in cooperation with farmers, 

in order to meet Federal and State milestones for improving water 

quality in the Chesapeake Bay. 

CBF is committed to working with watershed partners to develop 

strategies to accelerate the adoption of on-farm practices that reduce 

erosion and nutrient loss, to the benefit of Pennsylvania’s streams and 

rivers, and ultimately, the Chesapeake Bay. ]
...Continued from page 2

Farmers may also get involved in projects through the Research and Education program, if 

they have working relationships with extension specialists or on-campus researchers. Research 

and Education projects provide replicated experiments and often rely on university resources 

to be accomplished.

One strength of the SARE program is that all projects include farmer engagement. Farmers 

are involved in identifying the problems to be addressed, the approach taken for the project, 

and mid-course corrections to improve the project. Farmer engagement in SARE projects 

ensures that information and resources produced by the projects are useful to farmers. While 

the national SARE website is a helpful gateway to the program, grants are administered through 

different SARE regions; specific information about each grant is available through the regional 

websites (see textbox). In addition to providing grants, SARE provides valuable reports on past 

projects supported with SARE funding. These can be accessed through the national website. 

To access agroforestry projects, search for agroforestry and then filter by project reports. ]

To find more information about SARE and stay informed of upcoming grant deadlines, join the SARE mailing list 

(http://www.sare.org/About-SARE/Join-Our-Mailing-List ) or follow the SARE regions on social media. 

Western SARE: 

http://www.westernsare.org/ 

North Central SARE: 

http://www.northcentralsare.org 

Northeast SARE: 

http://www.nesare.org

Southern SARE:

http://www.southernsare.org

North Central Northeast Southern Western

Researchers, educators, 

non-profits Research & Education Research & Education Research & Education Research & Education

Producers Farmer/Rancher Farmer Producer Farmer/Rancher

Extension, non-profits Professional 

Development

Professional 

Development

Professional 

Development

Professional 

Development

Graduate students Graduate Student Graduate Student Graduate Student Graduate Student

Community 

organizations, 

non-profits, extension

N/A N/A Sustainable 

Community N/A

Educators Youth Educator N/A N/A N/A

Ag researchers N/A Agroecosystems 

Research Large Systems N/A

SARE GRANT

OPPORTUNITIES Who can apply?

Types of Programs

Farmer/Rancher Grant Example

Direct Marketing Non-Traditional Perennial Berry Varieties: Expanding Eater Preferences and Grower Connections 

Problem: A growing number of organically managed orchards seek to 

diversify their farm production and product offerings. However, there 

are not many markets for small-sized fruits and fruit products. People 

express a desire for more fruit in CSA boxes and at local farmers’ 

markets (Minneapolis MN, Baraboo, WI, Ashland, WI), yet they are 

not familiar with berries such as saskatoon, let alone how they should 

be priced. Little research exists on processing options, marketing 

messages, and pricing for our areas and scale of operation. 

Solution: In this project, farmers Claire Hintz (Elsewhere Farm), 

Erin Schneider (Hilltop Community Farm), and Rachel Henderson 

(Mary Dirty Face Farm) addressed these marketing challenges by 

engaging, educating, and involving existing and future customers 

to determine uses, products, and pricing of less common small 

fruits. This information was used to identify the best markets and 

messages for small to mid-sized growers. Project participants built 

connections with local food enthusiasts. Fruits focused on included 

elderberry, currants (red, white, black), honeyberry, and saskatoon. 

Source: http://mysare.sare.org/MySare/ProjectReport.aspx?do=viewRept&pn=FNC12-864&y=2013&t=1

10 Inside Agroforestry ] Volume 24, Issue 1
Silvopasture in Missouri. Photo by Dusty Walter

Financial assistance for agricultural producers to implement conservation 

practices, including silvopasture, is available 

from several United States Department of 

Agriculture (USDA) Farm Bill programs. 

These include the Environmental Quality 

Incentives Program (EQIP) and Conservation 

Stewardship Program (CSP) managed by 

the Natural Resources Conservation Service 

(NRCS). Resource concerns addressed with 

silvopasture through these programs may 

include: soil erosion, soil quality degradation, 

water quality degradation, inadequate water 

quantity, inadequate wildlife habitat, and 

undesirable livestock productivity.

There are several possible strategies for 

establishing silvopasture and individual states 

are free to decide which ones best fit local 

conditions. Silvopastures can be created either 

by planting forages (grasses and legumes) into 

existing thinned forestland and plantations 

or by planting trees into an existing pasture. 

Existing forestland may be either hardwoods, 

conifers or some combination. Likewise, the 

aforementioned array of trees may be planted 

into existing pasture. There are also many 

choices of grasses and forbs that can be planted 

for forage into existing forestland.

Some states offer Farm Bill financial 

assistance through EQIP to establish 

silvopasture as a stand-alone practice, with 

payment made when both trees and forages 

are fully established. Other states will use 

EQIP to contract for thinning or planting 

trees and then separately contract a second 

activity to establish forages. North Carolina 

is an example of state utilizing a strategy of 

separately contracting establishment actions. 

Additionally, CSP may be utilized to provide 

some assistance with silvopasture development 

and management. Although there are 

presently no CSP enhancements specifically 

for silvopasture, there are several that may be 

used to support silvopasture, such as “Intensive 

Rotational Grazing,” “Integrate Grazing into 

Crop and Forest Systems,” and “Prune Low 

Density Pine or Hardwood Trees for Improved 

Tree Quality and Wildlife Habitat.”

Individual states are also free to choose which 

conservation practices to offer for Farm Bill 

assistance and what priority to place on the 

practices that are offered. Some states do not 

offer Farm Bill assistance for silvopasture; 

some offer assistance but make silvopasture 

a relatively low priority. The best way to 

determine the situation in your state is to 

visit your local USDA Service Center and 

request assistance for silvopastoral practices. 

If you find that NRCS in your state does not 

support silvopasture, or has not prioritized 

it for Farm Bill programs, you can seek to 

elevate silvopasture through your state’s USDA 

State Technical Committee. State Technical 

Committees provide input to NRCS State 

Conservationists in administering Farm Bill 

programs. Contact your NRCS State Office 

and request to be placed on the next State 

Technical Committee meeting agenda so 

that you may request greater consideration of 

silvopasture among your state’s priorities for 

financial assistance funding. 

Silvopasture can provide many resource 

benefits. Compared with treeless pasture 

systems, silvopastured areas have less 

movement of water soluble phosphorous, 

greater capacity for phosphorous storage and 

retention, and higher water holding capacity. 

Compared with forage-free wooded systems, 

silvopastured land has greater filtration 

capacity, higher organic matter content, greater 

water holding capacity, and reduced runoff 

and erosion due to increased soil stability 

and filtration function. Additionally, when 

managed well, silvopasture areas can provide 

the benefits of increased quality of wildlife 

habitat and improved livestock production 

due to increased sheltering capacity. ]

There are several possible 

strategies for establishing 

silvopasture and individual 

states are free to decide which 

ones best fit local conditions.

Inside Agroforestry ] Volume 24, Issue 1 11
PRSRT STD

POSTAGE & FEES

PAID

USDA — FS

PERMIT NO G-40

Inside Agroforestry VOLUME 24, ISSUE 1

12 Inside Agroforestry ] Volume 24, Issue 1

USDA National Agroforestry Center

1945 N 38th St.

Lincoln, NE 68583–0822

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use, $300

Address Service Requested

Upcoming Events

February 3–6, 2016

Pennsylvania Association for 

Sustainable Agriculture Conference

State College, PA

http://conference.pasafarming.org/

February 20, 2016

Oregon Small Farms Conference

Corvallis, OR

http://smallfarms.oregonstate.edu/sfc

February 23–March 29, 2016

Farm Scale Mushroom Cultivation 

Online Course

http://bit.ly/1QgwYYw

For more upcoming events, visit our website calendar: http://nac.unl.edu/events

“Inside Agroforestry” is published by the USDA National 

Agroforestry Center. 

Phone: 402-437-5178; 

Fax: 402-437-5712.

• Susan Stein, NAC Director

• Michele Schoeneberger, FS Research Lead (ext. 4021)

• Richard Straight, FS Lead Agroforester (ext. 4024)

• Vacant - NRCS Lead Agroforester

• Kate MacFarland, FS Assistant Agroforester (ext. 4012)

• Joseph Banegas, Information Assistant/ 

 “Inside Agroforestry” Designer (ext. 4014)

http://nac.unl.edu

NAC Mission

The USDA National Agroforestry Center (NAC) is a partnership of the Forest Service (Research & Development and State & Private Forestry) 

and the Natural Resources Conservation Service. NAC’s staff is located at the University of Nebraska, Lincoln, NE. NAC’s purpose is to 

accelerate the development and application of agroforestry technologies to attain more economically, environmentally, and socially sustainable 

land use systems by working with a national network of partners and cooperators to conduct research, develop technologies and tools, establish 

demonstrations, and provide useful information to natural resource professionals.

USDA Non-Discrimination Policy

In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of 

Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, 

its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in 

or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating 

based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity 

(including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, 

marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public 

assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior 

civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by 

USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint 

filing deadlines vary by program or incident. 

Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of 

communication for program information (e.g., Braille, large print, 

audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the 

responsible Agency or USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 

(voice and TTY) or contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service 

at (800) 877-8339. Additionally, program information may be made 

available in languages other than English.

To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA 

Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD-3027, found online 

at http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html and at any 

USDA office or write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the 

letter all of the information requested in the form. To request a copy of 

the complaint form, call (866) 632-9992. Submit your completed form 

or letter to USDA by: (1) mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office 

of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, 

SW, Washington, D.C. 20250-9410; (2) fax: (202) 690-7442; or (3) 

email: program.intake@usda.gov.

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.