sanitation. Now, new research suggests

that streamside (or riparian) forests play a

critical, and previously unacknowledged,

role in protecting the world's fresh water.

Policies aimed at providing sufficient

and clean fresh water have historically

focused on massive and expensive engineering projects, such as dams and filtration plants. In doing so, they have often

overlooked the substantial benefits that

natural ecosystems provide. The Stroud

Water Research Center in Avondale, PA

recently completed new research that

documents the considerable value of the

InsideAgroforestrySummer 2005

National

Agroforestry

Center

Inside 

3 HISTORY LESSON:

AMERICA’S WATERWAYS

5

More than 20 percent of the world's

population lack access to clean drinking

water. In fact, more than 2.2 million

people die each year from diseases caused

by contaminated drinking water and poor

Riparian forests: improving 

water quality within the stream

Keep pollutants out of

streams, help process

those that are in them

Bern Sweeney

Director/Senior Research Scientist

Stroud Water Research Center

Avondale, Pennsylvania

see Riparian on page 4

Aglass of water may be analogous to how peoplelook at life, but a bigger question is, Would you

drink the water? Clean water is not only important

for drinking, it’s also important to the land and

wildlife. 

Everyone lives upstream from somebody else.

What we do on our land affects the quality of the

water that we send downstream to our neighbors.

With 73 percent of the United States in private ownership, landowners play a critical role in determining

the fate of water quality.

This issue of “Inside Agroforestry” highlights collaborative efforts that are making a difference to protect our Nation’s water. You'll also find interesting

information and tools for you to use in local

efforts to protect the resource we depend

upon the most – water.

6-7 WHITE WATER

TO BLUE WATER

Half-full or half-empty of what? USDA NRCS
The new “Working Trees for Water

Quality” (WTWQ) brochures are out

there and working hard! Over 21,000

have been distributed worldwide since

November 2004. Nancy Hammond

manages NAC’s database and handles

brochure requests. She says that this

brochure is reaching a wide audience

that consists of schools, garden clubs,

community board groups, in addition to

natural resource professionals. Nancy

says, "water quality is an important issue

and it’s great that we can fill a niche and

supply the public and working professionals with the tools that they need to

help us protect our nation's fresh water."

All of the Working Trees brochures

are written and designed at a level to

help inform and educate your clients

including community members,

landowners, youth, and others. They are

developed to aid you with publicity and

A need to restore ecosystem 

services

NAC Director’s Corner

A commentary on the status of agroforestry 

by Dr. Greg Ruark, NAC Program Manager

2 Inside Agroforestry |Summer 2005

Historically, trees and shrubs naturally occurred in theriparian zones along most streams and rivers

throughout the United States. Widespread forested riparian

zones were even documented in the Great Plains in the

mid-1800s. These riparian areas were essential for providing

ecosystem services that protected water quality and provided wildlife habitat. However, today’s intensive agricultural production systems have transformed our landscapes

to the degree that most streams coursing through croplands

are essentially devoid of perennial vegetation. In many

watersheds, the hydrologic cycle has been significantly

altered, stream channel erosion has increased, and nonpoint-source pollution of surface waters has become a

major problem. In fact, a recent report by the National

Research Council (“Riparian Areas: Functions and

Strategies for Management,” 2002) advocated that the

restoration of America’s riparian areas should be a national

goal. But as this issue of “Inside Agroforestry” illustrates, it

is often not sufficient to simply stop cropping adjacent to a

stream or to only plant grass and other non-woody vegetation. If ecosystem services are to be restored to any substantive degree, then riparian forest buffers that incorporate

trees, shrubs, grasses, and other vegetation are needed.

Increasingly, improving or maintaining water quality

will also depend on the extent to which rural and

urban efforts within a watershed are coordinated.

Water quality brochures hard-at-work

technology transfer to get Working

Trees applied on the ground. The

WTWQ brochure introduces readers to

how agroforestry can help protect water

quality while at the same time achieve

both landowner and community 

objectives. More specifically, the WTWQ

publication addresses sources of water

resource problems and how to strategically incorporate Working Trees into the

landscape to restore ecosystem services.

All of NAC’s national scope Working

Trees brochures have an accompanying

display designed to assist with public

information and education efforts. All

displays are available on a first-comefirst-served basis for conferences, workshops, fairs, and other events. To

schedule use of a display, call Ryan Dee

at 402–437–5178 ext. 14.

Visit NAC's Web site for a preview of

any Working Trees brochures or coordinating displays, www.unl.edu/nac. You

can order publications from the Web

site or, if you prefer, contact Nancy

Hammond at nhammond@fs.

fed.us or fax her at

402–437–5712.
Summer 2005 | Inside Agroforestry 3

see Historical on page 11

absence of timber was how it has always been. Rather,

in many situations, the lack of trees was the consequence of some of the most rapid and wrenching

changes that the region has ever known. The land came

under great pressure in the mid-1800s from the simultaneous and cumulative impact of Indians, gold seekers,

soldiers, railroad crews, and settlers. 

To begin to understand what settlers

who arrived early in the 1800s found,

we need to begin a long, long time ago

... prior to the construction of the

transcontinental railroad spur lines in

the 1860s; before the 1859 Denver

gold rush; before the great westward

movement of the 1840s along the

Oregon Trail; and before Native

Americans incorporated horses into

their culture. These events all played

important roles in determining the way

riparian areas look today. 

Given historical documentation from the

19th century, only a fraction of what is presented

here, there can be no doubt that trees were commonly found along Plains streams. Riparian

groves were safe harbors for Plains inhabitants

during the winter months, when sudden 

Today, riparian areas along rivers and streams withinthe Great Plains region of the United States typically contain only narrow bands of forests. In some cases

riparian areas have no woody vegetation, and in far too

many cases, are farmed up to the edge with row crops

and grains. Natural resource professionals understand

that disturbing vegetation in riparian zones greatly minimizes their ecological functioning. But, they may not

agree on how to manage these

areas now and into the future.

Knowing the historical

makeup of Plains riparian

areas is vital to understanding

the important ecosystem services that those streams provided. To achieve these same

ecosystem services, management

can then become essentially a

restoration effort. So, historically,

what native plant communities

were found in the riparian zones

of the Great Plains? The answer

to this question depends to a large

extent on the time period that is

used as a reference.

Many accounts from the early

1900s describe treeless or thinly

represented tree conditions along

watercourses. No one should conclude from these records that the

{ A riparian history }

..
4 Inside Agroforestry |Summer 2005

services that nature delivers free of charge.

Perhaps nowhere is that value more evident

than in streams and rivers, where the riparian

forest teams up with trillions of tiny aquatic

organisms to work constantly to clean the

water. For some time, scientists and policymakers have recognized the role that riparian

forests play in filtering pollutants before they

enter the stream.

What the Stroud Center’s research discovered is that such forests also play a vital role

in protecting the health of the stream itself by

enhancing the ability of its ecosystem to

process organic matter and pollutants such as

nitrogen. Conversely, the deforestation of

riparian lands compromises both the quantity

and the quality of a stream’s ecosystem,

thereby reducing its ability to deliver important services to humans. 

The real significance of these instream

findings is that it suggests that riparian forest

buffers, which heretofore have been considered a best management practice for mitigating nonpoint pollution, are also effective

for mitigating point-source pollutants. After

all, if a given reach of stream is 10 times

better at processing nitrogen because of a

riparian forest, it will do it whether the

nitrogen molecules come from an agriculture

field or a sewage treatment plant.

In the study of 16 streams in the Piedmont

of Pennsylvania and northern Maryland, the

scientists found that stream sections flowing

through forested areas are wider and shallower than those in meadowlands, their beds

are rougher and have more habitat, and water

moves more slowly through them. These factors, along with other riparian forest benefits,

such as a greater variety of organic food and

more natural temperature patterns, produce a

richer and more natural ecosystem than do

deforested streams, and the increased abundance of bacteria, algae, invertebrates, and

fish enables them to better process certain

pollutants. The study showed, for example,

that the uptake of nitrogen was 2 to 10 times

higher in forested reaches relative to deforested reaches. 

Because the study was conducted on small

streams, which comprise more than 90 percent of all streams in the United States, the

implications for improving water quality by

planting trees along streambanks are enormous, for forested streams can deliver cleaner

water to downstream rivers, estuaries and,

ultimately, oceans. Furthermore, while these

findings are based on detailed studies in

eastern North America, there is a growing

body of independent data that suggests they

are applicable across North America and on a

global scale. The Stroud Center results reinforce U.S. policies that endorse riparian forest

buffers as best management practices along

small streams, as well as public programs that

subsidize riparian reforestation.

This research was conducted by a multidisciplinary team of researchers and led by scientists from the Stroud Center. The study was

funded jointly by the National Science

Foundation and U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, and their findings, which

were recently published in the prestigious

“Proceedings of the National Academy of

Sciences,” have significant implications

for a world that is facing a huge and

growing freshwater crisis.

Deforested reaches of 16

small Piedmont streams 

such as Birch Run in

Pennsylvania (left photo) is

shown to have much narrower channels than forested

reaches located immediately

upstream or downstream

(right photo). The channel

narrowing results in less

stream habitat and

ecosystem per unit length of

stream and compromises instream ecosystem services

such as the processing of

pollutants. 

Photos courtesy Stroud 

Water Research Center.

Riparian

continued from the front page
participants will learn how to construct a

waterspout garden and how to utilize it as

a school and/or community educational

resource. 

We believe this is a unique piece of

curriculum that not only provides a strong

environmental education tool for teachers,

but will involve students in addressing the

stormwater and nonpoint-source pollution issues within their communities. The

waterspout garden curriculum is also a

great tool for developing outdoor learning

sites at local schools that actively engage

students in hands-on learning about water

in their communities.

Educators and community leaders

involved in the workshops taking place

throughout 2005 will serve as field testers

for the curriculum materials. When the field

tests are complete, a final version of the

curriculum will be made available through

KACEE's Web site, www.kacee.org. The

creators of waterspout garden curriculum

would welcome additional field tests. If

you are interested, contact Laura

Downey (KACEE) at ldowney@

oznet.ksu.edu or call 785–532–3322. 

An outdoor learning experience:

Laura Downey

Executive Director, Kansas Association

for Conservation and Environmental

Education, Topeka, Kansas

Engaging students in real life explorations of their environment can make

learning both motivating and meaningful.

A new, hands-on activity guide is being

developed that uses a waterspout garden to

educate students and, at the same time,

improve your community. The project,

suitable for elementary, middle, and high

school students, is in the latter stages of

development and will meet Kansas State

Core Curricular Standards in reading,

writing, math, science, and social studies.

Every school has downspouts that collect water from roofs to send it out to the

street, down storm drains, or over grassed

areas around the school. This stormwater

runoff is a relevant and real-life problem

that students can explore and investigate. A

waterspout garden is a planted area with a

shallow indentation that collects and holds

runoff before it reaches the storm drain. A

local waterspout garden not only provides

an outdoor learning space, but can be a

community strategy to raise awareness

about personal and community actions that

can reduce runoff and the pollution it carries into local streams. 

This project is being developed by the

Kansas Association for Conservation and

Environmental Education (KACEE) and

Green Topeka (a project in Topeka, KS,

through the city’s Division of Water,

Water Pollution Control, that utilizes green

infrastructure as a method of addressing

urban stormwater issues). Additional

funding was provided in part by the

USDA National Agroforestry Center and

the U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency. 

Currently, KACEE and Green Topeka

are offering a series of educational workshops targeted toward educators and 

neighborhood and community

leaders, where 

Students can

learn about their

environment and

water quality at

their own school.

Photo courtesy 

USDA NRCS.
6 Inside Agroforestry |Summer 2005

Rich Straight

NAC Lead Agroforester

Lincoln, Nebraska

It’s one thing to clean up the water in a stock pond – a

little fencing here and reestablish some grass around the

pond’s edge there. But, try scaling up that effort to improve

water quality in a large reservoir, or in this case, the Gulf of

Mexico. That’s the goal of a recent international initiative

called White Water to Blue Water (WW2BW). “White

water” is a reference to snow melt and rain that flows across

land and “blue water” refers to marine and coastal waters.

You might wonder if the work you do in your county or district can affect water quality in something as large as the

Gulf of Mexico. The answer is, yes! Over the years, individual activities on farms, ranches, and in towns have created a seasonal hypoxic zone (oxygen-depleted area caused

by excessive nitrogen where normal populations of fish and

shellfish cannot survive) the size of Massachusetts in the

gulf at the mouth of the Mississippi River. Just as many individual land use actions caused the problem, those many

individuals living within the Mississippi River Basin (MRB)

are also the solution.

The problem

The mighty Mississippi originates as a tiny outlet stream

from Lake Itasca in northern Minnesota. This tiny stream

goes on to become one of the world's greatest river systems,

draining all or parts of 31 States and 2,350 square miles before

it finally reaches the Gulf of Mexico. More than 400 species

of wildlife call the Mississippi their home, including some of

the most ancient lineages of fish.

Each spring large quantities of nitrogen drain from the

MRB into the Gulf of Mexico. This triggers a biological chain

reaction that leads to a proliferation of algae. When the algae

die off in the late summer, the microbes that decompose

them consume the dissolved oxygen in the water. As hypoxic

conditions occur when the oxygen content of the water is

depleted, crabs and other slow-moving creatures are suffocated, while fish and shrimp try to escape to deeper waters or

waters further offshore.

The Mississippi River Basin (MRB) covers

41 percent of the continental United

States, and contains 47 percent of the

nation's rural population. Contaminants

from this entire area drain into the Gulf of

Mexico through the Mississippi River.

However, fewer than 11 percent of the

polled residents of the MRB were even

aware that problems exist in the gulf.

Sources of nitrogen in the MRB 

include agricultural fertilizers (31 percent), soil mineralization on croplands (31 percent), nitrogen-fixing 

legumes (21 percent), atmospheric 

deposition (7 percent), feedlot 

manure (6 percent), and municipal 

stormwater (1 percent). Not 

surprisingly, the majority of the 

nitrogen reaching the gulf has been 

determined to originate from 

agricultural lands. One of the 

reasons is that many of the streams 

flowing through croplands have little 

perennial vegetation along their banks. 

This allows much of the fertilizers, pesticides, 

and sediments to enter the streams unabated. 

Unfortunately, the mouth of the MRB is not the only

problem area in the Gulf of Mexico or in the Wider Caribbean

for that matter. Other sources of water quality problems in the

Caribbean include marine transportation and tourism along

with agricultural activity in the many islands and countries that

surround the Caribbean. The question then becomes how to

coordinate a Caribbean-wide water quality effort?

The approach

The WW2BW partnership was announced in 2002 at the

World Summit on Sustainable Development. This partnership is an international alliance of governments, organizations,

financial institutions, nongovernmental organizations

(NGOs), universities, and corporations seeking to integrate

the management of watersheds, coasts, and oceans. The

U.S.’s initial effort begins in the Wider Caribbean Region with

30 member countries. WW2BW is expected to protect and

restore precious marine resources and will serve as a blueprint

for future programs on watershed and marine ecosystembased management in Africa and the South Pacific.

The National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration

(NOAA) is the lead agency for the United States in the

WW2BW effort. The NOAA Web site, www.publicaffairs.

noaa.gov/worldsummit/blueandwhitewaterdocument.html, 

Riparian buffers in the 

A river r
Summer 2005 | Inside Agroforestry 7

The Gulf of Mexico hypoxic zone 

The hypoxic zone, from the mouth of the

Mississippi River to beyond the Texas border, is

a seasonal phenomenon. It is commonly referred

to as the Gulf of Mexico “Dead Zone,” because

oxygen levels within the zone are too low to support marine life. The Dead Zone was first

recorded in the early 1970s. It originally occurred

every 2 to 3 years, but now occurs annually. In

the summer of 1999, the Dead Zone reached its

peak, encompassing nearly 8,000 square miles off

the coast of Louisiana. 

Hypoxic conditions arise when dissolved

oxygen levels in the water fall below 2 mg/L of

water, too low to sustain animal life in the

bottom strata of the ocean. The Dead Zone

forms each spring as the Mississippi and

Atchafalaya Rivers empty into the gulf, bringing

nutrient-rich waters that form a layer of fresh

water above the existing salt water. It lasts until

late August or September when it is broken up

by hurricanes or tropical storms.

The hypoxic zone is not only an environmental problem but also an economic one.

Marine fisheries contribute more than $1 billion a

year to Louisiana’s economy. The fisheries are

important both commercially and for recreation.

Mississippi River Basin

• 2,302 miles long

• Area of basin = 1.2 million square miles = 

1/8 of North America

• 12 million people live in the 1,256 counties and 

parishes that border the Mississippi

• 612,000 cubic feet per second of water is 

discharged into the gulf

• Provides habitat for 241 fish species, 27 mussel 

species, 45 amphibians, 50 mammals, and 40 

percent of the Nation’s migratory birds

 Mississippi River Basin

uns to it

lists three primary goals for the 

Caribbean effort. The first is 

“strengthening national and regional

institutional capacity to implement 

cross-sectoral watershed and marine 

ecosystem management.” This goal 

recognizes that much is already being 

done to improve water quality throughout 

the private and public sectors in agriculture, 

forestry, urban development, livestock management, etc. However, by coordinating efforts 

between private, local, State, and Federal governmental organizations we can be more effective in addressing common goals. 

In the last 2 years there have been an increasing 

number of partnerships and initiatives created to 

enhance water-quality improvement. For example, 

the Upper Mississippi River Basin Association, 

www.umrba.org, was formed by the Governors of 

Iowa, Illinois, Minnesota, Missouri, and Wisconsin. 

This regional interstate program will help coordinate 

river-related programs and policies and facilitate efforts 

with Federal Agencies that have river responsibilities.

Another initiative called Green Lands, Blue Waters (GLBW),

www.greenlandsbluewaters.org, is a long-term comprehensive

effort whose mission is to support development of, and transition

to, a new generation of agricultural systems in the MRB that integrate more perennial plants and other continuous living cover

into the agricultural landscape. Agroforestry helps integrate perennial cover into agricultural systems. 

Agroforestry's role

Increasingly, society expects agriculture and forestry to provide

more than just products. Some level of social and environmental

responsibility goes along with producing food and wood products. Agroforestry practices are productive systems that can help

meet financial needs of the producer, as well as provide

ecosystem services like clean air and water, wildlife habitat, and

products. In fact, many agroforestry practices enhance

water quality and are supported by landowner assistance

programs in the Farm Bill.
8 Inside Agroforestry |Summer 2005

Riparian restoration

An example to follow

The Chesapeake Bay is a national treasure. It is the largest estuary (body of

water open at one end to the ocean) in

North America and one of the most productive in the world. Literally hundreds of

thousands of rivers, creeks, and streams

comprise the Chesapeake Bay watershed.

Because of its breadth, the watershed has

a wide range of natural environments and

climate. In addition to its abundance of

natural diversity, it is home to more than

16 million people, with more arriving

daily. The bay provides many important

economic, recreational, and educational

resources for those who live, work, and

vacation throughout the region. Because

of these pressures, the bay is ailing. Living

resources essential to the bay’s survival

are in precipitous decline primarily due to

nonpoint-source pollution. 

The Riparian Forest Buffer Initiative is

a part of the larger Chesapeake Bay

Program, a multiagency partnership organization that has set a worldwide standard

for watershed practices. The initiative

works to control nonpoint-source pollution (nutrient and sediment runoff) in

three primary ways: (1) conserving

existing forests, (2) expanding urban and

We’ve come a long way

In 1996 a Riparian Forest Buffer Initiative was launched to establish 2,010

miles of riparian forest buffers in the Chesapeake Bay basin. Despite initial

doubt in both the ability to establish so many miles, and the benefit of this practice, this goal was met 8 years ahead of schedule. The success of the campaign is

attributed to outstanding, collaborative efforts of Federal, State, local, and private agencies and groups. In 2003, a new goal was adopted upping the ante to

10,000 miles of buffers by the year 2010. Meeting this goal would mean that the

64,000-square-mile Chesapeake Bay watershed is on its way to having 70 percent of its riparian areas planted to forest buffers, trapping over 2.5 million

pounds of nitrogen per year from flowing downstream to the bay.

community tree canopies, and (3)

restoring riparian forest buffers on rural

land. In addition to managing nonpointsource pollution, buffers also help sustain

quality fisheries and aquatic habitat, provide terrestrial wildlife habitat, bank stability, recreation, and overall community

well-being. 

After almost a decade, support for the

Chesapeake Bay Watershed Riparian

Forest Buffer Initiative has become nearly

universal, but challenges continue to

mount. In order for the three primary bay

States (Virginia, Maryland, and

Pennsylvania) to meet the Total

Maximum Daily Load nutrient and sediment reductions required by the Clean

Water Act, they have recently identified a

higher goal – 50,000 miles collectively

(not just the current goal of 10,000 miles)

of new forest buffers that need to be

restored by the year 2010. This is part of

their strategy to avoid regulatory action.

The goal is staggering when one realizes

the effort necessary, logistically and financially, to get even a single mile established.

Already, an estimated $87 to $100 million

has been spent since 1996. What’s more,

about 100 acres of forest in the watershed

are lost per day, primarily to development.

These forests are often associated with

farm riparian areas that had been performing important water-quality functions. These need to be restored in order

Sally Claggett

Chesapeake Bay Program Coordinator,

USDA Forest Service

Annapolis, Maryland

The Chesapeake Bay watershed’s most successful initiative

After almost a decade,

support for the initiative

has become nearly 

universal.

Photo courtesy USDA NRCS
Summer 2005 | Inside Agroforestry 9

Buffering Water and Wind

An intense rain engulfs farms in a flood

and the life of the crops flow away.

High dollar fertilizers wash toward the creek

and pesticides flush elsewhere this day.

The water grows mosses that choke out the fish

and youngsters can't go for a swim

in water that might just cause them some harm

on the outside or deep from within.

The breeze picks up and now is a gale

and the blasts rip and grab at the farm.

The soil is dislodging from where it belongs

and the dust will choke and do harm

to the people who live far from the site

where the grit has begun its long ride.

it'll settle into places that it doesn't belong

both on towns and the houses inside.

We have the technology and knowledge 

to remedy this grave situation.

We plant landscape buffers to give some relief

and take away the inept aggravation.

The buffers can shield, absorb, and cushion

the forces that cause all the worry.

They can guard and protect people and things

and we certainly need to just hurry

and put in the windbreaks and streamside plants

that screen away the malfunctions

keep soil in its place, along creeks, in the field

and where farming and crops are the junction.

Giant plant pillows, the buffers can be

to protect people, belongings, and life.

They'll protect the land, water, and crops,

the children, the husband and wife.

So, cushion the wind and water and such

with the buffers we'll plant on the land.

and, we'll be better off, the economy will grow,

and life on the earth will be grand.

- Jerry (JB) Bratton, March 1998

to maintain the baseline upon which the

50,000-mile goal will be added.

The cleanup challenges are becoming

harder to meet. Restoring buffer ecosystems requires investments in land

rentals, pest protection, and substantial

technical assistance. The most willing

landowners have already signed up, so

there needs to be improved outreach

and education about the need for the

ecosystem services provided by riparian

forest buffers. The future of the bay still

hangs in the balance. Its health is dependent on the choices made every day by

the millions of people who live within

the bay watershed.

To learn more about the Chesapeake

Bay and the restoration efforts involved,

visit www.chesapeakebay.net.

Keeping track of the miles

Many groups are involved in

Chesapeake Bay forest buffer restoration efforts. Because of this, it has been

difficult to track progress. In order to

improve tracking, a Web-based tool that

includes a quality assurance and quality

control check was recently developed.

The online tracking tool was first used

during the 2005 season to document the

extent of riparian forest buffer restoration taking place throughout the watershed. Each State has a contact person

who verifies data being entered into the

system. You can find the online tracking

tool at www.chesapeakebay.net/rfb.

Besides being widely available, the

reporting is easy, and a popup mapping

option makes the reporting more accurate.

Ascertaining a baseline of existing

riparian forest buffers has posed an

additional challenge. Knowing where

riparian forests are being lost and at

what rate is necessary in order to determine restoration needs and to analyze

the benefits and targeting of future

restoration. Satellite imagery (LandSat) is

being used to assess existing buffers, but

those working with the program have

determined that it is not accurate

enough to identify a sinuous forest of

minimum buffering capacity. The next

step will be to attain high-resolution

imagery and analyze change in forest

cover over time in a sampling of

locations across the watershed.
a Buffer Capability Index which can be

used like a soil interpretation for waterquality buffers. The ratings enable comparison of different soil map units for

capability of a buffer to trap sediment and

dissolved pollutants from surface runoff.

An additional rating, based on hydric indicators and water table depth, enable comparison of map units for the potential for

buffers to interact with pollutants in

groundwater.

In their test analysis, the scientists were

able to compute ratings for all farmable

soil map units in the Eastern United States

based on a 12 m-wide grass buffer below a

200 m contour-cultivated field during a

two-year rainfall event. The results have

been mapped and show substantial differences in buffer capability across a small

watershed, a State, and major land resource

areas in the Eastern U.S. 

The scientists are now developing

interpretations based on the indexes that

planners will be able to use to enhance

the efficacy of buffer installations and

buffer programs for water-quality

improvement.

Location matters!

that determine field runoff generation

and buffer trapping capability. For

example, map units having lower-permeability soils or steeper slopes produce

greater field runoff loads and have relatively poorer trapping characteristics.

Using parts of the Revised Universal

Soil Loss Equation, calibrated using a

process-based filter strip model, the scientists have produced a rating system called

10 Inside Agroforestry |Summer 2005

When you buy or sell a home or business its physical location, in part, determines its market value. It turns out that

this is true with riparian buffers, too; where

it’s located in a watershed, in part, determines its conservation value.

Scientists at the USDA National

Agroforestry Center, the University of

Nebraska-Lincoln, and Iowa State

University are developing a method to

identify locations where buffers would

work better, thereby contributing more to

overall water quality.

It’s simple. Buffers will have greater

impact where they can: (1) intercept more

runoff and (2) function better to trap pollutants in runoff before it can enter a stream.

The method enables anyone with a

County soil survey map to compare different buffer locations to determine at

which site(s) a buffer would work most

efficiently. Soil surveys provide information on inherent landscape characteristics

– soil type, slope, and water table depth –

Mike Dosskey, PhD

NAC Research Riparian Ecologist

Lincoln, Nebraska

Session I

• Silvopasture options for small 

landowners

Dr. Kome Onokpise

Florida A&M University

• Forest farming

Dr. Charles Barden

Kansas State University

• Incorporating short-rotation 

willow biomass crops into 

agroforestry systems

Dr. Tim Volk 

SUNY Syracuse, New York

• Alley cropping potential for 

small landowners

Dr. Mike Bannister

University of Florida

2005 Society of

American Foresters

(SAF) National

Convention

Fort Worth, Texas

October 19–23, 2005

The agroforestry working group will be 

organizing two sessions at the SAF national

convention this year. Both sessions are entitled

“Agroforestry Options for Small Landowners.”

For more information on the convention, 

visit the Society of American Foresters 

Web site at: www.safnet.org/natcon-05/.

Session II

• Changing crops in Oregon's 

Grande Ronde Valley: growing 

hybrid poplar as an alternative

Paul Oester

Oregon State University 

Extension Service

• Changing how we define the 

forest products industry: NTFP 

enterprises in Southern U.S. 

James Chamberlain

USDA Forest Service

• National training on 

conservation buffers: 

integrating and driving 

changes in agroforestry

Dr. Lyn Townsend 

NRCS, Oregon

It’s true with real estate and now we know it’s true with riparian forest buffers:

Location! Location! Location!

Soil type is an excellent indicator of where to

locate buffers for maximum efficiency.

Photo courtesy USDA NRCS
Summer 2005 | Inside Agroforestry 11

Historical

continued from page 3

blizzards and bitterly cold temperatures threatened any

warmblooded creature caught in the open. And, for

Plains’ grazers – bison, deer, pronghorns, and elk – the

even slightly lower elevation of a stream bottom provided some shelter from the wintry blasts. 

A sampling of quotes prior to 1900 indicates that

substantial riparian trees were common:

There were, essentially, three sequential but overlapping

developments that help us understand what happened.

Indians and horses

The spread of horses out of the Southwest and the

rise of the Plains’ horse culture led to an increase in

Native American population residing in the Plains. This,

in turn, wore away at the resources of the river valleys.

In 1821, Jacob Fowler estimated that a winter camp in

the Big Timbers of the Arkansas hosted 20,000 horses;

27 years later an Indian agent reported Cheyenne and

Sioux villages along 80 miles of the South Platte River.

The amounts of wood cut and burned by these and

smaller camps were considerable.

Westward migration and gold rush

The second development, the overland migration of

white pioneers, took a much greater toll on some of the

Plains’ richest riverine woodlands. The losses were confined mostly to a few major streams – especially the

Platte, including the North and South Platte, and the

Arkansas – that offered level terrain for ox-drawn

wagons as well as water, forage, and (for a while) fuel

for cooking fires. While the Indians’ use was concentrated in the winters, the overlanders swarmed up trails

between February and July. It was a massive onslaught.

Between 1840 and 1860 an estimated third of a million

persons crossed the Plains en route to Oregon,

California, and Utah, and tens of thousands more

passed through on their way to Colorado and Montana

from 1859 to 1865 stripping virtually all trees from the

Platte valley.

Settlers

The third development, the advance of farming and

stock-raising frontiers onto the Plains, compounded the

effects of the first two. Between 1870 and 1880, 16 new

counties were formed in central and western Kansas and

several more in western Nebraska. The population of

just 4 northwest Kansas counties increased in that

decade from 91 persons to more than 41,000, about

twice the peak population of Native Americans on the

entire central Plains. Settlers gravitated to streams for

basically the same reasons as Native Americans and

overlanders, but unlike the two other groups, they lived

there year-round. As the settler population expanded,

farmers occupied all creeks that offered any significant

timber. They did what they could to lessen their dependence on wood – sod houses and barbed wire fences are

the best known adaptations – but for some needs, most

importantly winter fuel, trees were an irresistible

resource.

Nowadays, considerable interest exists in restoring

riparian zones to reestablish “native” plant communities

that can better provide a range of ecosystem services to

manage water quality, flooding, and biodiversity. Trees

and shrubs have been shown to play an important role

in providing microclimate modifications and shading,

streambank stabilization, inputs of organic litter and

large woody debris to aquatic systems, water and

nutrient run overcycling, wildlife habitat, and general

food-web support for a wide range of aquatic and terrestrial organisms.

Fortunately, it is possible to piece together a history

of land use in the Great Plains and reconstruct a picture

of what riparian zones looked like and their condition.

Natural resource restoration efforts that target “natural”

condition need to use pre-1843 scenarios to accurately

depict the natural state of riparian zones in the Great

Plains. Although historical reference points do not necessarily instruct us in what to do, they can provide valuable insight as to what desired future conditions riparian

restorations should strive toward.

Extracted from the Journal of Soil and Water

Conservation, E. West and G. Ruark,

September/October 2004 (Volume 59, Number 5).
National Agroforestry Center

East Campus-UNL

Lincoln, NE 68583–0822

PRSRT STD

POSTAGE & FEES PAID

USDA — FS

PERMIT NO G-40

September 14–15, 2005

Plains & Prairie Forestry Association 

2005 Annual Meeting, “Plains 

Forestry Resource Development and 

Protection.” Amarillo, TX. Contact: 

www.nfs.unl.edu/ppfa.htm.

October 5, 2005

Tri-State Living Snowfence Workshop. 

Spokane, WA. Contact: Megan O’Shea,

206–543–9744, moshea@u.

washington.edu

October 17–20, 2005

4th National Small Farm Conference, 

"Creating Opportunities for Small 

Farmers and Ranchers." Greensboro, 

NC. Contact: Daniel Lyons, Sr., 

336–334–7734, daniell@ncat.edu. 

www.csrees.usda.gov/nea/ag_systems/

in_focus/smallfarms_if_conferences.

html.

October 19–23, 2005

Society of American Foresters (SAF) 

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use, $300

Address Service Requested

Summer 2005 | Agroforestry Inside

Upcoming Events

“Inside Agroforestry” is published quarterly by the 

USDA National Agroforestry Center. 

Phone: 402–437–5178; Fax: 402–437–5712.

• Greg Ruark

NAC Program Manager (256–372–4540)

• Michele Schoeneberger

FS Research Lead (ext. 21)

• Rich Straight

FS Lead Agroforester (ext. 24)

• Kimberly Stuhr

Technology Transfer Specialist/

“Inside Agroforestry” Editor (ext. 13)

• Ryan Dee

Technology Transfer Assistant (ext. 14)

www.unl.edu/nac

The USDA National Agroforestry Center (NAC) is a partnership of the Forest Service

(Research and Development and State and Private Forestry) and the Natural Resources

Conservation Service. It is administered by the Forest Service, Southern Research Station;

and its program manager and headquarters are located in Huntsville, AL, on the campus of

Alabama A&M University, while its research, clearinghouse, and technology transfer staff

are concentrated in Lincoln, NE, at the University of Nebraska. NAC’s purpose is to

accelerate the development and application of agroforestry technologies to attain more

economically, environmentally, and socially sustainable land use systems. To accomplish its

mission, NAC interacts 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 policy prohibits discrimination because of race, color, national origin, sex, age, religion, or handicapping condition. Any person who believes he or she has been discriminated against in any USDA-related activity should immediately

contact the Secretary of Agriculture, Washington, DC 20250.

Opinions expressed in “Inside Agroforestry” are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the policy of the

USDA Forest Service and the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service.

Mission

Natural Resources 

Conservation Service

National Convention. Fort Worth, TX. 

Contact: www.safnet.org/natcon-05/.

November 17-18, 2005

National Conference on Urban 

Ecosystems. Charlotte, NC. Contact: 

Donna Tschiffely, 703–904–7508, 

donna@amfor.org.