National Association of RC&D

Councils (NARC&DC) Report:

RC&D Survey of Agroforestry Practices

Spring, 2000
This report summarizes the results of a national survey on agroforestry that was completed by

Resource Conservation and Development (RC&D) Councils during the summer of 1999. The survey

was designed to determine the extent and geographic location of agroforestry throughout the United

States. Maps and graphs are used to illustrate where agroforestry practices are being used, where

RC&D Councils are involved in agroforestry projects, and where there are opportunities to apply more

agroforestry. It also suggests what types of assistance will be needed to enable landowners and support

agencies to better advance the adoption of agroforestry.

Agroforestry is the integration of agriculture and forestry practices 

into land use systems that can conserve and develop natural resources 

while increasing economic diversity at both the farm and community level. 

Agroforestry does not convert agricultural land to forests, 

but rather leaves the land in production agriculture, 

while integrating trees into farm/ranch operations. 

It can provide solutions for agricultural producers on both 

large and small farms and ranches, 

and also provide benefits for rural communities.
Executive Summary

i

Of the 315 RC&D's in the United States, 222 completed the survey (71% return). Of these, two-thirds

have had direct involvement in agroforestry projects. The survey showed that the use of, interest in,

and demand for agroforestry is extremely high in all regions of the country. The report provides details

on the six major agroforestry practices of: 

1) alley cropping, 

2) forest farming, 

3) windbreaks, 

4) riparian forest buffers, 

5) silvopasture, and 

6) special applications. 

To better promote all of these practices, four common elements were identified as needing increased

attention. 

Markets — Markets need to be developed or expanded to increase the adoption of some 

agroforestry practices. Some RC&D's are already working with partners to identify or create niche 

markets, but greater involvement by USDA agencies, like the Agricultural Marketing Service and 

Rural Development is needed. 

Landowner Information and Education — There is a need to demonstrate the economic benefits 

of many agroforestry applications. RC&D areas can help local partners reach the landowner, but 

need support to develop educational material. The USDA National Agroforestry Center and other 

technical organizations should work closely with RC&Ds to better assist landowners. 

General Public Education — Increased effort is needed to inform the public about the benefits 

they receive from agroforestry. RC&D Councils can incorporate this information into their regular 

education program where agroforestry fits their goals and objectives. 

Assistance to RC&D — RC&D's need more financial resources to allow them to bring together 

landowners and communities with the relevant local, state, and federal partners.

This report was prepared by the National Association of Resource Conservation and Development Councils (NARC&DC),

which represents the 315 RC&D Councils throughout the Unites States and its territories. The RC&D Councils represent

multi-county areas that work to improve the natural resources, economic viability, and standard of living in their area. All

programs and assistance are available without regard to race, color, national origin, age, sex, religion, marital status, or

disability. 

g

g

g

g
Table of Contents

ii

Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .i

Table of Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii

Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1

Map 1 RC&D Survey on Agroforestry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1

Map 2 RC&D Areas With Agroforestry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2

Graph I Frequency of Agroforestry Practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Alley Cropping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5

Map 3 Alley Cropping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5

Graph II Frequency of Alley Cropping Reported . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6

Graph III Issues Addressed by Alley Cropping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Forest Farming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9

Map 4 Forest Farming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Graph IV Frequency of Forest Farming Reported . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10

Map 5 Map of Ginseng Reported . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Map 6 Map of Mushrooms Reported . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Windbreaks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13

Map 7 Windbreaks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13

Graph V Frequency of Windbreaks Reported . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14

Graph VI Issues addressed by Windbreaks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14

Riparian Forest Buffers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Map 8 Riparian Forest Buffers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Graph VII Issues Addressed by Riparian Forest Buffers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18

Silvopasture Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21

Map 9 Silvopasture Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21

Graph VIII Issues Addressed by Silvopasture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22

Special Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25

Map 10 Special Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25

Graph IX Issues Addressed by Special Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26

Sources of Assistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .29
This report is the result of a public/private partnership to collect, compile, and analyze information about agroforestry in the United States. The

report is one of the steps towards achieving the

NARC&DC vision of "RC&D - Partnerships

Serving America's Communities."

The USDA National Agroforestry Center (NAC),

established in 1992, is a partnership of the Natural

Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) and the

Forest Service (FS). The NAC wanted to learn

more about the extent of agroforestry across the

country and increase the agroforestry awareness

Methodology

RC&D Survey on Agroforestry

1 

Map 1 Surveys were mailed to 315 RC&D coordinators. Of these, 222 returned their survey for a

71% response rate.
of RC&D Councils. Consequently, the

NARC&DC worked cooperatively with NAC to

develop an agroforestry survey. 

The NRCS, which supervises the RC&D coordinators, distributed the survey nationally to all 315

coordinators. The surveys were returned to NAC

and the results were entered into an electronic

database. The NARC&DC then analyzed this

database and published this report, which is being

distributed to all RC&D Councils, interested

agencies, and the public. A comprehensive presentation of the results was given at the National

RC&D Conference at Ogden, Utah in June of

2000. 

RC&D areas cover most of the United States

(Map 1). The white areas are the only areas that

do not have a formally recognized council. There

were 222 RC&D's of a possible 315 that 

Methodology

2 

RC&D Areas with Agroforestry 

Map 2 There were 151 RC&D Councils that have directly promoted one or more agroforestry projects in their area. This represented two-thirds of the RC&D Councils that responded.

Observed - RC&D promotes 1 or more practice

Observed - RC&D not involved
responded to the survey, for a return rate of 71%.

The map shows that the responses are well distributed geographically. Therefore the survey

should provide a good representation of national 

trends. Map 2 further illustrates that 67% of the

RC&D's responding were directly involved with

agroforestry projects. 

The report is presented in six sections that follow

the major groupings of agroforestry practices.

These are:

1) Alley Cropping, 

2) Forest Farming, 

3) Windbreaks, 

4) Riparian Forest Buffers, 

5) Silvopasture, and 

6) Special Applications. 

Graph I indicates the percentage of RC&D's that

reported the occurrence of one or more agroforestry practices in their area. Each section of

the report contains a map of where a practice is

being applied, where an RC&D is directly 

involved in agroforestry, and where there was a

perceived potential for greater adoption of an

agroforestry practice. 

Methodology

3 

Graph I Frequency of agroforestry practices observed in the RC&D areas.

Alley Cropping

Forest Farming

Riparian Buffers

Silvopasture

Special Applications

Windbreaks
4 
Alley Cropping

Alley Cropping

5

Map 3 Alley cropping was observed in 13% of the RC&D areas and 8 RC&D Councils were directly involved in projects.

Alley cropping is the growing of an annual or perennial crop between rows of high

value trees. The agricultural crop generates annual income while the longer-term tree

crop matures. Examples include growing soybeans between rows of black walnut trees

or hay between rows of fast growing pine or poplar. The type of annual crop grown

varies as the trees grow larger and produce more shade. 
Thirteen percent of the 

RC&D's (from 22 states) 

responded that alley 

cropping is utilized in 

their areas (Map 3). 

Many RC&D's indicated 

there was a potential for 

expanding the use of this 

practice. 

Single and multiple-row 

hardwoods are most 

frequently used for alley 

cropping, but there are 

also locations that use 

single or multiple-row 

softwoods. Alley 

cropping is generally 

found in the eastern half 

of the country with three 

exceptions: Oregon, 

Washington, and Texas. 

Minnesota and Kentucky 

reported the use of short 

rotation hardwood 

species, such as hybrid 

poplar, in alley cropping 

systems (Graph II).

Improving farm 

economics was the 

motivating issue in 66% 

of the RC&D areas

reporting alley cropping. 

Field erosion control, 

improving water quality and improving 

wildlife habitat were addressed in less than one

half of the areas. Additional reasons for using 

alley cropping included conversion of cropland

to trees, improved crop yields, establishing 

orchards, and revegetating coal-mined areas 

(Graph III).

Alley Cropping

Graph II

6 

Frequency that each type of alley cropping was observed in

the 29 RC&D areas reporting the practice.

Graph III

Alley cropping addresses a variety of issues in the 29 RC&D

areas. This graph shows the reported frequency of issues

motivating the use of alley cropping.

g

g

g

Single or

Multiple Row

Softwoods

Short

Rotation

Hardwoods

Multiple Row

Hardwoods

Single Row

Hardwoods

Improved

Water Quality

Improved

Wildlife Habitat

In-Field

Erosion

Control

Improved 

“On-Farm”

Economics
Of the RC&D's with alley cropping, 69% see 

potential for expanding the practice. RC&D's 

promoted alley cropping in only 28% of the 

areas reporting the practice (Map 3). 

Comments indicated there was a lack of 

knowledge on how to make the best use of the 

practice. Many comments were related to the 

need to demonstrate favorable economic 

returns to increase farmer interest.

Alley cropping systems were reported to 

include the following: conventional row crops, 

commodity crops, herbs and medicinals, and 

hay and forage. 

Eight of the RC&D's have promoted alley 

cropping. Two used seminars and conferences, 

while others were involved with helping to 

grow herbs and medicinals, planting hazelnuts 

in contour strips, and cropping between rows 

of black walnut.

Alley Cropping

7

g

g

g

Alley Cropping

Hybrid Hazelnuts - The Limestone Bluffs RC&D in

Iowa started a demonstration project in 1995 to evaluate

hybrid hazelnuts as a potential commercial crop. One of

the larger demonstrations was established on the Gary

Petersen farm near Maquoketa in Jackson County, Iowa.

Hazelnuts were obtained from Badgerset Research Farm

in southeast Minnesota, which is developing hazelnut

cultivars for commercial scale production. The site

selected for the demonstration involved a contour buffer

strip system within a cropped field. The buffer strip is a

permanently vegetated strip 22 feet wide used for erosion

control. The purpose of the demonstration is to gather

information on production practices, hybrid varieties, and

economic benefits of growing hazelnuts as a potential

cash crop.

The hazelnuts were established in a single-row approximately 3 feet from the down hill edge of the existing

buffer strip system. The remainder of the buffer strip is

a mix of alfalfa and grasses that can be harvested for

hay. Small grains and no-till corn are being planted in

the crop strips between the buffers. The hazelnuts were

planted approximately 7 feet apart as tublings (a seedling

raised in a tube in a greenhouse environment.) 

The demonstration has been inspected periodically

through the growing season to check on progress, watch

for diseases, weeds, or pest problems. Weed control has

been provided mechanically with a rototiller or cultivator

or with some labeled herbicides. The Petersen site has

resulted in the establishment of a stand of hybrid hazelnuts. However, some lessons have been learned.

Significant damage occurred from deer browsing, limiting commercial scale nut production up to this point.

Other pest problems have involved rabbits and mice. The

site has also experienced some damage from herbicide

drift from the corn strips. 

For hazelnuts to be successful in a buffer strip system,

strategies to minimize deer damage in the initial years

should be considered. Hybrid hazelnuts can produce a

nut crop in as little as three to five years. 

- Limestone Bluffs RC&D, Maquoketa, Iowa
8 
Forest Farming

Forest Farming

9

Map 4 Forest farming was observed in 34% of RC&D areas and 44 RC&D Councils were directly

involved in projects.

Forest farming is the cultivation of high-value specialty crops under a forest canopy

that has been modified to provide the correct shade and microenvironment for the crop.

These specialty crops usually fall into three categories: medicinal, culinary, or 

ornamental. 
Thirty-four percent of 

the RC&D's (from 34 

states) reported forest 

farming practices in 

their areas, with the 

Midwest and Southeast 

encompassing 70% of 

the activity (Map 4). 

Some areas had more 

than one type of forest 

farming crop, however 

only one, Trinity 

RC&D in California, 

had all five types listed

in the survey. The 

survey asked about five

types of forest farming 

crops including: mushrooms, decorative ferns, 

ginseng, goldenseal, and bear grass. Graph IV

shows the frequency of each type. Mushrooms 

and ginseng are the most frequently grown and

many RC&D's are directly involved (Maps 5 

and 6). 

The distribution of types depends on the 

necessary conditions for the specific specialty 

product. For example, beargrass was reported 

in only 5 RC&D's in 5 states. Due to its special

environmental needs, it is found primarily in 

the Pacific Northwest. 

Forest Farming

Graph IV

10 

Frequency that each type of forest farming occurs in the 77

RC&D areas reporting the practice.

g

g

Shiitake Mushrooms - In the early 1990's AlaTom RC&D

Council was looking at mushroom production as a way to

develop alternative income for rural residents, to further diversify rural farm economy and to provide a value added commodity

with a low capital investment on an under utilized wood product.

A small grant from the US Forest Service was provided to test

some different strains of mushrooms under different conditions.

The Ala-Tom RC&D Council in western Alabama decided to do

a few “show-n-tell” workshops and to follow-up with the producers. Shiitake mushrooms were grown under a pine canopy in

a wide variety of settings.

The mushrooms not only grew well in Alabama, but word of

mouth spread the idea so fast that demonstrations were put in

nearly every county in the state within a few years. RC&D

Councils individually and in concert with the statewide association conducted training demonstrations with volunteer labor and

with cooperation from partners at the Soil and Water

Conservation District and the extension system at Alabama

A&M and Auburn University. A statewide Shiitake Producers

Association (SPA) was formed as a nonprofit corporation.

Grower members share stories and techniques, pool product,

and share purchases. Tools were adapted to simplify the inoculation process. Some growers built fruiting sheds in an attempt

to develop a year round enterprise. 

The biggest hurdle was to develop and supply high income,

steady outlets for the mushrooms. A few very large [over 1,000

fruiting logs] producers have been able to recruit, service and

retain steady markets. Niche marketers, selling to gourmet

restaurants or to local mushroom lovers have also been able to

stay in business and to make a small but steady profit. Some of

the early “believers” expected high profits and easy markets

based on early successes. Few were prepared for the steady

manual labor demands of outdoor mushroom production, for the

vagaries of the weather and inconsistent markets. Those that

did plan for these circumstances or were able to flex up and

down with a seasonal market have continued production.

- Ala-Tom RC&D Council, Grove Hill, Alabama

Forest Farming

Mushrooms

Beargrass

Decorative

Goldenseal

Ginseng

Ferns
Of the RC&D's that reported forest

farming, 92% indicated they 

believe there is an opportunity for 

expansion. Many RC&D's (57%) 

reporting forest farming are 

directly promoting the practice, 

with 21 areas promoting it through 

seminars, conferences, tours, and 

demonstrations. Three have helped 

develop organizations such as 

cooperatives and associations to 

help market products.

A number of additional crops were 

identified as potential products. 

They were medicinals, wild 

flowers, nuts such as acorns and 

hazelnuts, grapevines for crafts, 

pine straw mulch, kenaf, maple 

syrup, wild blackberries, 

raspberries,and European truffles. 

Five RC&D's specifically 

mentioned the need for more 

information and education on 

forest farming, while one noted the

need for additional research. 

The application of forest farming 

has the most varied opportunities, 

but a need for market development 

was identified by 10% of the 

RC&D's. Profits will be necessary 

to encourage further adoption of 

forest farming. RC&D areas in 

three states indicated that small 

farms and acreages were especially

conducive to forest farming. 

Forest Farming

Map 6 Mushrooms are grown in 72% of the 77 RC&D

areas that reported forest farming.

Map 5 Ginseng is grown in 62% of the 77 RC&D areas

that reported forest farming. 

g

g

g

11
12 
Windbreaks

Windbreaks

13

Map 7 Windbreaks were observed in 68% of the RC&D areas and 65 RC&D councils were directly

involved in projects.

Windbreaks are planted to prevent soil erosion and to protect crops, livestock, 

buildings, work areas, roads, or communities from wind or snow. Living snowfences primarily protect roads but can also harvest snow to replenish soil moisture or fill ponds

and reservoirs. There are four basic types of windbreaks: farmstead/community, field,

livestock, and living snowfences. 
Windbreaks have been 

encouraged and used for 

many decades. This is 

reflected by 68% of the 

RC&D areas reporting 

the practice in forty-three

states. 

Of the RC&D's reporting 

windbreaks, 82% have 

farmstead/community 

windbreaks. The 

improved living 

conditions, particularly in

the winter, make them 

popular. Field 

windbreaks are present 

in 68% of those 

reporting windbreaks 

and livestock 

windbreaks were 

observed by 56% (Graph

V). Several RC&D's not

reporting the use of 

windbreaks indicated 

there was potential (Map

7). 

The issues most often 

addressed by windbreaks

are reducing wind 

velocity, lowering 

energy costs, habitat for 

wildlife, livestock 

protection, and reducing 

soil erosion (Graph VI). The availability of 

cost share programs has increased the adoption

of some windbreak practices. Many responses 

emphasized the importance of working with 

partners, such as Soil and Water Conservation

Districts (SWCD's), NRCS, university extension

and other state and federal agencies. RC&D's

have helped to promote and organize programs to

accelerate the planting of windbreaks. 

Windbreaks

Graph V

14 

Frequency that each type of windbreak occurring in the 164

RC&D areas reporting the practice.

Graph VI

Windbreaks in the 164 RC&D areas were used to address

several issues. This graph shows the reported frequency of

issues motivating the use of windbreaks.

g

g

g

Living 

Snowfence

Farmstead/

Communit

y

Livestock

Field

Crop Yield

Collect Snow

Distribute

Snow

Energy Costs

Water Quality

Wildlife

Habitat

Crop Quality

Soil Erosion

Wind
Several opportunities for expanded use of 

windbreaks were mentioned. Living 

snowfences are needed on more roadways, 

including the interstates. One RC&D area 

referred to a need for "windshed" treatment 

rather than scattered windbreaks. The interface 

between agriculture and communities was 

considered an area needing greater application.

Windbreaks have been planted in many areas 

since the 1930's and many have reached 

maturity. A number of RC&D areas pointed 

out that many trees are deteriorating and dying.

Also, many windbreaks have been removed 

due to changes in farm machinery and the 

adoption of center pivot irrigation. The high 

cost of establishing windbreaks may limit new 

plantings. Several comments referred to the 

need for funding programs to encourage 

renovating windbreaks or planting new ones.

Windbreaks

15

g

Windbreaks

Community Windbreaks - Prairie Country RC&D covers

a nine county area in West Central Minnesota. The RC&D

Council has been involved in promoting community windbreaks since 1992. At that time, the Council set a goal of

establishing one windbreak in each of their nine counties.

Since then, the Council has conducted workshops and

informational meetings and developed brochures on the

benefits of community windbreaks and resources available

to establish them. To date, Prairie Country has assisted

eight communities in obtaining funding to establish windbreaks.

The main goal of the project was to demonstrate to rural

communities how a properly designed, multi-row windbreak could provide them with multiple benefits. The

project also gave community members, including youth

and other volunteers, an opportunity to work together to

enhance the local environment and foster community spirit

and pride.

The windbreaks provided the following benefits:

• Reduced wind and blowing snow (by up to 85%)

• Reduced home heating cost (by 15 to 25%)

• Wildlife habitat

• Reduced soil erosion by wind

• Recreation and education benefits

• Increased aesthetic appeal of towns

• Substantially sequestered carbon 

Prairie Country obtained most of the funding to establish

the windbreaks through the Minnesota ReLeaf Program,

which provided approximately 75% of the cost. In-kind

and cash contributions from local communities, soil and

water conservation districts (SWCD’s), and other partners

covered the remaining costs. Also, due to the severe winter of 1996-97, the Federal Emergency Management

Agency (FEMA) provided some additional funding for

community windbreak projects to help alleviate snow

problems that continue to plague many rural communities.

About 25 rural communities in the Prairie Country RC&D

area still needs funding for the establishment of a community windbreak, so the Council continues to seek additional funding. Land acquisition has been the biggest obstacle

for most rural communities in windbreak establishment. 

- Prairie Country RC&D, Willmar, Minnesota

g
16 
Riparian Forest Buffers

Riparian Forest Buffers

17

Map 8 Riparian forest buffers were observed in 81% of the RC&D areas and 104 RC&D Councils

were directly involved in projects.

Riparian Forest Buffers are natural or planted streamside woodlands comprised of

trees, shrubs, and grasses. They are designed to buffer non-point source pollution, such

as excess nutrient and pesticide runoff, generated from adjacent land use. Riparian 

forest buffers also reduce stream bank erosion, enhance aquatic environments, augment

wildlife habitat, and provide aesthetic value.
Riparian forest buffers are the most frequently 

used of the agroforestry practices, with 81% of

the RC&D's reporting the practice. 

Opportunities for installing additional buffers 

are recognized in 93% of the RC&D areas 

(Map 8). Approximately 

the same number of 

forested riparian buffers 

were planted as were the 

result of maintaining 

naturally occurring 

vegetation. These buffers

are used to address more

than one issue at a time, 

with the dominant intent 

(89%) being to control 

streambank erosion, 

followed by controlling 

non-point source 

pollution at 83%, and 

enhancing wildlife 

habitat at 73% (Graph VII). In addition,

restoration, in-channel erosion, aquatic habitat, 

and aesthetics were all addressed more than 

50% of the time.

Riparian Forest Buffers

18 

Graph VII

Riparian forest buffers used in the 182 RC&D areas

addressed several issues. This graph shows the frequency of

each issue reported.

g

Conasauga River - The Conasauga River Alliance is a coalition of local citizens, businesses, conservation groups, and

government agencies who are working together to "maintain a

clean and beautiful Conasauga River - forever." The Alliance

was organized with the support of the Limestone Valley

RC&D Council, and its members include farmers, school

teachers, leaders of the forest products industry, conservation

groups like The Nature Conservancy and the Tennessee

Aquarium, and over a dozen state and federal agencies,

including the Georgia Department of Natural Resources, the

U.S. Forest Service, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Located in southeastern Tennessee and northwestern Georgia,

the Conasauga River watershed includes 500,000 acres and

125,000 people. The river and its tributaries provide water for

the dyeing process for two thirds of the nation's carpet production, drinking water for local families, water for crops and

livestock, swimming and boating opportunities, and habitat for

90 species of fish and 25 species of freshwater mussels.

The Conasauga River Alliance has led or assisted with more

than a dozen projects to maintain or improve more than 20

miles of riverside and streamside buffers These projects have

included land uses ranging from cropland and pasture to

power lines and recreation areas at a historic mill, and two

National Forest campgrounds. Examples of these efforts

include: tree planting and fencing to re-establish a buffer

along critical habitat for the blue shiner, while installing a well

and watering troughs to provide access for both humans and

their horses on U.S. Forest Service land; a streambank stabilization project that demonstrates several different techniques

to restore and protect eroding streambank areas and to reestablish a healthy streamside buffer; over 15 miles of buffers

through the Conservation Reserve Program; and 1.5 miles of

grassed buffer added to existing forest buffer on riverfront

cropland. Each project brought together different partners,

ranging from the Natural Resources Conservation Service and

the Farm Service Agency to the National Fish and Wildlife

Foundation, the Tennessee Valley Authority and of course

local landowners.

- Limestone Valley RC&D, Jasper, Georgia

Riparian Forest Buffers

Aesthetic

Aquatic 

Ecosystem

Wildlife Habitat

Inchannel 

Erosion

Reconstruct

Bank Erosion

Non-Point 

Pollution
A variety of opportunities for expanding the 

use of forested riparian buffers were listed. 

Most issues related to water quality. The 

additional uses point out that there are many 

and varied benefits. This makes designing 

buffers more complicated, but also can lead to 

greater adoption. 

While 19 comments pointed out how land 

owner assistance programs can help implement

this practice, some limitations were addressed.

Several noted that many of the riparian land 

areas are too small to warrant participation in 

existing programs. A need for more 

information and education on how to apply the 

practice and explain the benefits to society was

identified. 

The impact of grazing on riparian areas 

surfaced as a common concern across the 

country. More information is needed in New 

Mexico about the impacts of grazing at various

times of the year. A New York RC&D stated 

that an expanded Grazing Lands Conservation 

Initiative program would help the situation. 

Several comments stood out. It was noted that 

planting riparian forest buffers was a low cost 

solution to controlling streambank erosion. 

The arid Southwest could benefit by 

eliminating salt cedar trees and replacing them 

with native species, such as cottonwoods and 

black willow. Using poplar on marginal 

irrigated land could provide an alternate cash 

crop and protect the flood plain, but wood 

markets will need to be developed to achieve 

any large-scale planting. Of the 106 RC&D’s 

involved in projects, most work in partnership 

with the usual partners such as SWCD's, 

NRCS, Forest Service, and Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA). They are also 

working with watershed organizations, The 

Nature Conservancy, and Future Farmers of 

America chapters. 

g

g

Riparian Forest Buffers

19

g

g
20 
Silvopasture Systems

Silvopasture Systems

21

Map 9 Silvopasture systems were observed in 30% of the RC&D areas and 12 RC&D Councils

were directly involved in projects.

Silvopasture systems combine the growing of timber with forage and livestock production. The trees provide longer-term returns, while livestock grazing of the understory

generates an annual income. This combination of trees and forage often reduces stress

on livestock and provides a high level of forage production. 
This practice is increasingly

being applied to pine stands,

such as loblolly pine/bahiagrass or ponderosa

pine/native grass. To date,

there has been little research

to justify grazing within

hardwood stands, with a

notable exception being the

successful grazing of pecan

orchard/fescue grass systems.

Thirty percent (67 

RC&Ds in 32 states) of 

those replying to the 

survey reported 

silvopasture being used 

in their area (Map 9). 

About 60% of the areas using this practice 

occur in the Southeast. 

Improved farm economics was the 

perceived motivation for trying silvopasture in 

84% of the areas. Many of the RC&D areas 

indicate that the desire for economic 

diversification is an important issue that will 

increase interest in silvopasture opportunities. 

Other issues that were addressed to a lesser 

extent by silvopasture included erosion control,

water quality, and wildlife habitat (Graph 

VIII). 

Alaska indicates that the dairy and livestock 

industries are growing, resulting in more 

grazing of the native forests. 

Establishment of pecan orchards seems to 

provide an incentive in several areas. 

In some locations a high-density of pinionjuniper and cedar create problems with grazing

and technical assistance is needed. 

Silvopasture practices are being promoted by 

RC&D's using tours, meetings, brochures and 

grazing trials. One RC&D area holds an annual

forestry awareness week for youth, while 

another helps with grant writing to encourage 

the practice. 

Silvopasture Systems

22 

Graph VIII

Silvopasture systems used in 67 RC&D areas addressed

several issues. This graph shows the frequency of each issue

reported.

g

g

g

g

g

g

Conversion

Timber to Crop

Conversion

Crop to Timber

Wildlife Habitat

Water Quality

Farm

Economics

Erosion Control
Silvopasture Systems

23

The Sam Houston RC&D is helping landowners who have

pine forests to transition into silvopasture systems. The

Range Consultant/Planner of the Sam Houston RC&D in

Alvin, Texas serves as a “grazing doctor.” A landowner

comes in with a problem, questions, or goals; after careful

evaluation, a specific prescription for his or her situation is

developed. Prescriptions may include: fencing, tree thinning,

tree and grass planting, grazing, burning, and developing

watering areas for livestock.

In the past, landowners have been reluctant to develop comprehensive management plans because they are concerned

that land improvements may encourage endangered species,

mostly the red cockaded woodpecker, to set up residence on

their land. If this happens, management restrictions imposed

by the Endangered Species Act would soon follow. Now,

however, landowners can take advantage of the new Federal

Safe Harbor Program, which will allow them to develop their 

silvopasture system without the risk of incurring greater

endangered species management restrictions.

The Texas Parks & Wildlife Department and the Texas

Forest Service administer the Safe Harbor Program, while the

Sam Houston RC&D provides individual assistance. These

agencies establish a base line level for endangered species

populations on a landowner’s property. The landowner is

only responsible for maintaining this population level, while

still being able to apply the conservation practices in the prescribed silvopasture system. For instance, let’s say the base

line population of red cockaded woodpeckers is zero. If the

landowner implements a prescribed silvopasture system with

the RC&D, and red cockaded woodpeckers move onto the

property he or she is not required to manage the land to sustain the new woodpecker population. Prior to the Safe Harbor

Program, each landowner was responsible for maintaining all

populations of endangered species detected on their property.

- Sam Houston RC&D, Alvin, Texas

Silvopasture
24 
Special Applications

Special Applications

25

Map 10 Special application practices were observed in 52% of the RC&D areas and 60 RC&D

Councils were directly involved in projects.

Special applications address the many opportunities for utilizing trees and shrubs for

specific agricultural or rural community concerns. These special applications include

the disposal of community waste water or farm animal waste in poplar or pine wood

fiber plantations, visual screening, noise abatement, and odor control. 
Special Applications are tailored to meet a specific need, so there is much variation between applications of the same name. The RC&D's were

asked to identify which of the following eight

issues were being addressed in their areas: 1)

interface/greenbelts, 2) wood fiber, 3) noise, 4)

dust, 5) odor, 6) visual screening, 7) municipal

waste, and 8) animal waste. 

Fifty-two percent reported special agroforestry 

applications in their RC&D areas. This 

included 28 states, of which more than onethird are located in the Southeast (Map 10). 

Eighty-six percent of the RC&D's mentioned 

that there were more opportunities for 

additional special applications (Map 10).

Visual screening of unsightly areas is the most 

common special application and was listed by 

58% of the RC&D's in 31 states. The need for 

interface buffers, such as greenbelts between 

agricultural activities and communities was 

identified by 51% in 29 states. Thirty-four 

percent used agroforestry to control noise in 21

states. The disposal of municipal waste was 

cited by 23% of the RC&D's, while the 

disposal of animal waste was 22%. Trees were 

used to control dust in 21% of the RC&D 

areas, while application for odor control was 

19 %. Woody biomass production was reported

in only 9% of the RC&D's and occurred in 9 

states. (GRAPH IX).

Special Applications

26 

Graph IX Special applications in the 115 RC&D areas address many issues. This graph shows the

observed frequency of each special application included in the survey.

g

g

g

Interface/Greenbelts

Wood Fiber

Noise

Dust

Odor

Visual Screening

Municipal Waste

Animal Waste
Biomass production may increase for several 

reasons. One RC&D wants to reduce fuel for 

wildfires and make a useful product. Another 

is working on ethanol from biomass. More 

than one area has an opportunity to make 

something useful from cedars. In some areas 

there is an established market for poplar and 

other hardwoods, but in most locations the 

absence of a wood market limits the planting 

of wood biomass crops. If carbon credit 

markets become available there will be 

increased interest in growing woody biomass. 

Special Applications

27

g

Special Applications

Recycling Irrigation Wastewater - The Ki-Yak RC&D is

working with several partners in Yakima County,

Washington to demonstrate how trees can be used to

treat irrigation wastewater. 

Farm crops in the watershed are furrow irrigated and

heavy applications of fertilizers and pesticides are used

throughout the growing season to grow grapes, hops, and

asparagus. Currently, the irrigation tailwater is collected

in drainage ditches and discarded into the Yakima River.

Nitrogen levels of up to 500 pounds per acre have been

measured. 

The project required the installation of two ponds.

Before it can enter the river, wastewater is pumped from

the ditch into a pond to allow sediments to settle. The

water is next pumped into a second pond where it is

routed through a set of filters into a spray irrigation system that services 50-acres of hybrid poplar, which were

planted in the spring of 1998. 

Fertilized and irrigated hybrid poplars grow rapidly and

can exceed 12-inch diameters and heights of 80 feet

within seven to 10 years. Numerous studies have documented the ability of hybrid poplars to absorb extremely

high levels of Nitrogen and Phosphorus. The project benefits the farmer by providing low cost water and nutrients to irrigate trees that can be harvested and sold in

less than 10 years. Water quality and growth of trees are

being monitored to test the economic and environmental

effectiveness of this approach.

- Ki-Yak RC&D, Yakima, Washington
28 
Sources of Assistance

29

There are several sources of assistance available to those that want to carry out agroforestry practices

on their land. Some of these are listed below for your benefit. You may be able to find leads to others

on these organizations home pages. 

National Association of RC&D Councils www.rcdnet.org

444 North Capitol Street

Suite # 345

Washington, DC 20001

USDA National Agroforestry Center www.unl.edu/nac

East Campus-UNL

Lincoln, NE 68583-0822

USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service www.nrcs.usda.gov

14th and Independence Ave.

Washington, DC 20250

USDA Forest Service www.fs.fed.us 

P.O Box 96090

Washington, DC 20090-6090

USDA Cooperative State Research, Education & Extension Service

Room 3328 South www.reeusda.gov

1400 Independence Ave SW

Washington, DC 20250-0900

National Association of Conservation Districts www.nacdnet.org

509 Capitol Court, NE

Washington, DC 20002-4946

National Association of State Foresters www.stateforesters.org

444 North Capitol Street, NW

Suite 540

Washington, DC 20001

USDA Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education (SARE)

ATTRA www.sare.org

10301 Baltimore Ave.

Beltsville, MN 20705-2351 
30