Agroforestry

This year has produced an extraordinary 

amount of flooding across the United States, 

Canada, as well as many other countries 

throughout the world leading to deaths, 

damages, devastation and destruction.

Even with the best currently available 

flood management techniques, when rivers 

decide to flood—they will. While not 

a perfect solution, because agroforestry 

systems will never be able to eliminate 

flooding, agroforestry systems can help to 

Riparian forest buffer “apps”

for your smart farm

Volume 19 Issue 1

4

5

7

first aid app:

Just what the

doctor ordered

funding app:

Show me the

money

hip hop app:

Guaranteed

wart free

mitigate and lessen the flood damage that 

occurs from these flooding events.

In this issue of Inside Agroforestry you 

will find that people and groups all across 

the country are applying riparian forest 

buffers to benefit everything from toads 

to towns and farms to fishes. As an added 

app we’ve also included some highlights of 

the USDA National Agroforestry Center’s 

activities for 2010. Happy New Year!

Inside

see Apps, Page 11
NAC Director’s Corner

A commentary on the status of agroforestry by Andy Mason, NAC Director

2 Inside Agroforestry ] Volume 19, Issue 1

Riparian forest buffers mean cleaner water! But wait, 

there’s even more! They can be designed to meet a wide range 

of landowner objectives, including habitat for wildlife and 

fish, streambank stabilization, flood protection, as well as 

provide a place to grow economically valuable foods, florals, 

medicinals, and biomass for energy. You can read about a good 

example of “double duty” buffers, “Edible and Woody Floral 

Agroforestry Riparian Buffers”, co-authored by NAC Scientist 

Jim Chamberlain, in the Virginia Forest Landowner Update 

(Winter 2011) at: www.cnre.vt.edu/forestupdate/newsletters/

Volume%2025/25.1pdf.pdf.

I encourage you to think about how riparian forest buffers 

can do “double duty” as both a protector of natural resources 

and a producer of the food, fiber and energy products that 

provide new income sources for landowners and help keep our 

working lands working. Please feel free to share with me your 

thoughts about “double duty” riparian buffers at 

amason@fs.fed.us.

In the last Inside Agroforestry I talked about the Interagency 

Agroforestry Team (IAT) and the development of a USDAwide agroforestry strategic framework. We now have a draft 

framework that is being reviewed by the sponsoring agencies/

organizations. The draft framework has three goals: 1) increase 

adoption, 2) advance the science, and 3) integrate agroforestry 

into an all-lands approach to conservation. Read more at 

www.unl.edu/nac.

On a more personal note let me close with letting you know 

that in November 2010 the Forest Service appointed me as the 

permanent NAC director. I look forward more than ever to 

ensuring that NAC—and its many partners—will continue to 

develop the science and deliver the tools that natural resource 

professionals need to plan and apply agroforestry practices. 

Sincerely, 

Andy Mason

More than clean water

Included in this issue of Inside Agroforestry are 

highlights of the Summary Report of FY 2010 

activities of the USDA National Agroforestry Center. 

The full report contains details of significant research 

papers, technology transfer activities and publications, 

and other engagements by NAC in support of 

agroforestry nationwide. Most notable for NAC are the 

personnel changes of a new director, Andy Mason, and 

new NRCS lead agroforester, Doug Wallace. You can 

read or download the complete FY 2010 annual report 

at www.unl.edu/nac, check out the new publication on 

page 9. ]

What has NAC been up 

to lately?
 Volume 19, Issue 1 ] Inside Agroforestry 3

Restoring forest ecosystem services to 

agricultural landscapes is often a daunting 

challenge that stems from the impracticality 

of converting large tracts of foodproducing, agricultural land to forest 

cover. Resolving this issue requires finding 

a balance between public goals for food 

and ecosystem services and landowner and 

community desires to remain an agricultural 

enterprise. Natural and social science 

principles suggest that an appropriate 

balance and solution may be achieved 

through the use of riparian forest buffers.

A riparian forest buffer is a strip of 

forested area along the banks of streams 

and other water bodies that protects those 

water bodies from degrading impacts of 

adjacent land uses and provides other 

ecosystem services in landscapes dominated 

by agricultural land uses. It is a restoration 

practice designed for and managed in 

agricultural landscapes primarily to enhance 

ecosystem services such as water quality 

improvement, aquatic habitat enhancement, 

and to increase wildlife populations. 

Riparian forest buffers can also help to create 

visually pleasing landscapes, provide erosion 

control, and other benefits in agriculturedominated landscapes. Even narrow buffers 

can have a large impact on water quality and 

wildlife in agricultural landscapes.

Riparian areas generally constitute less 

than 5 percent of the total land area in the 

U.S., but are disproportionally effective 

lands for providing forest ecosystem services. 

Because of these special qualities, riparian 

zones are uniquely capable of producing 

high levels of multiple ecosystem services 

in otherwise non-forested landscapes. 

Restoration of forest ecosystem services 

in agricultural landscapes may not require 

restoration of large forest tracts. Small forest 

Holding it all together

Gary Bentrup

FS Research Landscape Planner

Lincoln, NE

Mike Dosskey

FS Research Riparian Ecologist

Lincoln, NE

Gary Wells

Retired NRCS Landscape Architect

Lincoln, NE

Michele Schoeneberger

FS Research Program Leader / Soil 

Scientist

Lincoln, NE

Small forest patches and strips, 

and even individual trees, 

restored in the right places 

and configurations can restore 

significant levels of functions.

patches and strips, and even individual 

trees, restored in the right places and 

configurations can restore significant levels 

of forest functions that are associated with 

larger forest tracts.

Enhancing ecosystem services using 

riparian forest restoration on agricultural 

lands often requires a larger planning 

area than individual farms and ranches. 

Coordinated and cumulative action 

on several properties is often necessary 

to achieve desired levels of ecosystem 

services. To accomplish this task, an 

effective landscape-scale planning process 

is needed to pull together landowner 

and public concerns, needs and goals 

while incorporating the opportunities 

and constraints dictated by the existing 

landscape conditions. ]

When properly 

designed and placed, 

riparian forest buffers 

can restore numerous 

ecosystem services 

in agricultural 

landscapes. USDA 

National Agroforestry 

Center file photos.
4 Inside Agroforestry ] Volume 19, Issue 1

Doug Wallace

NRCS Lead Agroforester

Lincoln, NE

And the winner is...

The use of agroforestry practices should never be based on a popularity 

contest, but if there was one clear winner it would be riparian forest buffers. 

This practice is the most frequently planned and applied agroforestry 

practice within NRCS. Riparian forest buffers are funded through many 

federal conservation programs, including CRP, EQIP, CSP, and WHIP. It 

is also the only agroforestry practice since 2008 that has been applied and 

reported in every NRCS region, the Pacific Island Area, the Caribbean Area, 

and in 47 states. No other NRCS agroforestry practice has such wide spread 

acceptance and use. ]

Applied and reported riparian forest buffer 

practice (Code 391) for FY 2008, 2009, 

and 2010 for all land uses and all programs

Source: NRCS IDEA (Integrated Data for Enterprise Analysis) Report date, 13 

November 2010.

Location

National

 East Region

Central Region

West Region

Acres Applied

122,846

42,768

55,100

24,978

Number Applied

12,730

7,008

4,665

1,057

Flood related problems identified 

within the City of Piedmont and in the 

McKenzie Creek floodplain in the 1990’s 

included damages to 200 residential and 

commercial buildings and properties; threats 

to human health and safety; increases in 

local government service costs; streambank 

erosion and degradation; and detrimental 

effects on water quality. Other identified 

problems included a lack of communityoriented recreational facilities 

and the need for improved 

riparian corridors and fish 

and wildlife habitat. Average 

annual flood damages were 

estimated at $584,600. To 

address these local concerns, the 

“McKenzie Creek Watershed Plan 

and Environmental Assessment” 

was prepared under authority 

of the Watershed Protection and Flood 

Prevention Act, Public Law 83-566. The 

plan was signed by the City of Piedmont, 

R es t o ratio n app :

McKenzie Creek floodplain recovery

the Wayne County Soil and Water 

Conservation District, and the USDA 

Natural Resources Conservation 

Service on July 7, 1998.

The project consisted 

of voluntary acquisition and 

demolition of frequently 

flooded 126 residential 

and commercial properties; 

relocation of residents to floodfree area; and development of the acquired 

floodplain into 50 acres of greenway 

Doug Wallace

NRCS Lead Agroforester

Lincoln, NE

(recreational) areas which includes two 

city parks with shelter buildings, picnic 

tables, park benches, baseball fields, soccer 

fields, restrooms, playground equipment, 

riparian tree plantings, and a gazebo for 

entertainment and social functions.

The greenway was developed consisting 

of open spaces; walking/bicycle trails; picnic 

areas; baseball and soccer facilities; riparian 

tree and shrub plantings; fish and wildlife 

habitat enhancement; and streambank 

restoration through the installation of 

bioengineered erosion protection measures.

Partners/Collaborators included the City 

of Piedmont, Missouri, Wayne County Soil 

& Water Conservation District, USDA 

Natural Resources Conservation Service 

(NRCS), Big Springs RC&D Council, Inc., 

Missouri Department of Conservation; 

U.S. Forest Service, Federal Emergency 

Management Agency, State of Missouri 

Emergency Management Agency, Missouri 

Department of Economic Development, 

Wayne County Heart Coalition, Missouri 

Department of Transportation, and 

the Ozark Foothills Regional Planning 

Commission. ]

Informational sign along MacKenzie Creek 

restoration area in Piedmont, MO. Photo 

courtesy NRCS Missouri.
 Volume 19, Issue 1 ] Inside Agroforestry 5

Houston Toad – Buffo houstonensis. 

Photo copyright © Gary Nafis.

The

Cooperative 

Conservation 

Partnership 

Initiative (CCPI) is a 

voluntary conservation 

initiative that was established as 

a new program in the 2008 Farm 

Bill. CCPI enables the use of EQIP, 

CSP and WHIP funds, along with the 

resources of eligible partners, to provide 

financial and technical assistance to 

owners and operators of agricultural and 

nonindustrial private forest lands to achieve 

specific natural resource objectives.

In June 2009 the Environmental Defense 

Fund (EDF) entered into a partnership 

agreement with NRCS to establish the 

Houston Toad Cooperative Conservation 

Partnership Initiative (Houston Toad CCPI).

Conservation priorities of the Houston 

Toad CCPI include facilitating the recovery 

of the federally endangered Houston 

toad, improving water 

quality in Alum Creek, 

sequestering carbon 

through reforestation 

and sustainable forest 

management, and 

developing habitatsensitive fire breaks 

so as to facilitate the 

implementation of prescribed 

burning and minimize the potential 

for catastrophic wildfire.

Within the 105,000-acre project 

area EDF and its partners have the 

following objectives:

	 •	 Restoring/enhancing 13,500 acres of

 forest habitats that will benefit the 

h i p h o p app :

Houston Toad CCPI

Doug Wallace

NRCS Lead Agroforester

Lincoln, NE

 Houston toad through the 

 implementation of various 

 conservation practices including forest 

 stand improvement, prescribed burning, 

 prescribed forestry, and others.

	 •	 Creating 20 linear miles of habitat-

 sensitive fire breaks

	 •	 Restoring 12,000 linear feet (length) of

 riparian forest buffer along Alum Creek 

 at widths ranging from 35 to 200 feet.

	 •	 Quantifying the carbon sequestration

 value of re-forestation and sustainable 

 forestry projects and facilitating the 

 aggregation and sale of associated 

 carbon credits.

	 •	 Educating landowners about

 appropriate conservation practices, 

 resources that are available to them, and 

 carbon markets.

Restoration and enhancement of forest 

habitats in the Lost Pines Ecosystem will 

facilitate recovery of the federally endangered 

Houston toad and benefit a variety of 

other wildlife including quail and turkey. 

The quantification of carbon sequestration 

that results from these forest projects will 

facilitate the participation of producers in 

carbon markets. Fire breaks will be created 

in such a manner as to minimize soil 

disturbance and maintain tree canopy. These 

“habitat-sensitive” fire breaks will minimize 

any potential for harm to the Houston toad 

while still facilitating the implementation of 

prescribed burning and limiting the ability 

of wildfires to spread across the landscape. 

The restoration of riparian forest buffer will 

provide habitat for neo-tropical migrant 

songbirds and other wildlife. These forest 

buffers will also enhance water quality in 

Alum Creek, which is an important source 

of water for wetlands and ponds that support 

Houston toad breeding. ]

Ephemeral ponds and slow moving shallow 

streams are critical habitat for the Houston 

Toad. Photo courtesy Karan A. Rawlins.
6 Inside Agroforestry ] Volume 19, Issue 1

While water quality is a primary purpose 

for installing riparian buffers and filter strips, 

the vast majority are installed without a 

planning for a specific improvement such as 

20% reduction in dissolved nitrogen or 50% 

increase in sediment trapping. This is partly 

due to the fact that the conservation buffer 

science is still developing and that rules for 

conservation programs that encourage buffer 

installation often lag behind the science that 

supports them. However, as regulations and 

expectations of agricultural lands increase 

and local water quality needs become 

more clearly defined, specific water quality 

improvements for conservation buffers 

should follow.

To assist local conservationists and 

landowners in designing goal-oriented 

conservation buffers NAC scientists are 

refining tools for planning and designing 

riparian buffers. The Buffer Width Planning 

tool and a step-by-process for designing 

multi-functional buffers are now available 

online and as a part of the Conservation 

Buffer Guidelines field book available from 

NAC. Armed with these two apps natural 

resource professionals will be better equipped 

to design conservation buffers that can 

achieve specific and multiple goals for the 

landowner and local conservation districts.

The Buffer Width Tool is based on a 

wide range of research and on the ground 

verification. The process of using the 

tool begins by comparing the actual field 

condition to the seven reference field 

conditions represented by the seven curves 

on a graph. The specific conditions for 

each curve can be found in the tool. Field 

conditions are defined according to four field 

factors or conditions, one of three pollutant 

types to be controlled and with a 2.4 inch/

hour rainfall event.

	 •	 Field Length – Length of contributing 

 area to buffer

	 •	 Slope – Average slope of the buffer and 

 contributing area

	 •	 Soil Texture Categories – Coarse, 

 Medium, and Fine

	 •	 C-Factor (from Universal Soil Loss 

 Equation) – Combination of vegetation 

 cover and tillage practice

	 •	 Pollutant Type – Dissolved pollutants 

 include nitrates and pesticides, dissolved 

 P, and sediment

It is very unlikely that the actual field 

conditions will match exactly with any of 

the seven reference field conditions. The 

user needs to select the field condition that 

is most similar to the actual field condition 

and following the Line Adjustment 

Selection Rules for each field factor, see 

Table B in the Buffer Guide, determine the 

final line to use for determining the buffer 

design width. Now that a buffer width 

curve has been selected the user can apply 

the desired level of pollutant trapping to 

determine the recommended buffer width.

The final buffer width will be determined 

using information derived from the Buffer 

Width Tool, program guidelines, local 

regulations, and of course the landowner’s 

goals and limitations. Of course water 

quality may not be the only desired 

outcome from installing a riparian buffer.

Conservation buffers, including riparian 

forest buffers, can potentially provide 

many different benefits above and beyond 

water quality. As society’s and landowner’s 

demands and expectations from working

lands and conservation practices increase so 

does the complexity of land management. 

Just like your work calendar, the more 

you try to multi-task and fit into each 

week, the more complicated it becomes. 

The Conservation Buffer Guide can help. 

At first glance the Conservation Buffer 

Guide may seem a little daunting with its 

80+ guidelines divided into seven natural 

Rich Straight

USFS Lead Agroforester

Lincoln, NE

b uffer w i d t h app :

How wide is wide enough?

0 30 60 90 120 150 180

Buffer Width (ft.)

20

40

60

80

100

0

Trapping 

Efficiency (%)
 Volume 19, Issue 1 ] Inside Agroforestry 7

Nothing lost 

in translation

Since NAC’s 2009 release of the 

Conservation Buffers Guidelines over 10,000 

copies have been requested and distributed. 

In 2010 NAC released and printed a Spanish 

language version of the Buffer Guide along 

with a Chinese language version that will be 

printed in early 2011. Conservation agencies 

in other countries have also recognized the 

Buffer Guide’s usefulness and have done their 

own translations into Korean, Mongolian, 

significant portions into Hebrew and 

Agriculture Canada is working on a French 

version. You can download a PDF of the 

Conservation Buffer Guidelines at www.unl.

edu/nac/bufferguidelines. ]

Spanish

Chinese Korean

Mongolian

resource issues representing thirty-five 

different buffer functions. Where do you 

begin? Well, the Buffer Guide also has some 

useful instructions in a little known chapter 

called, “How to Use this Guide.”

The “How to Use this Guide” section of 

the Conservation Buffer Guide not only 

briefly describes how the Guide is organized 

it also walks the user through a step-bystep process of how to bring together the 

relevant buffer functions and guidelines to 

design multi-purpose conservation buffers. 

Working through this process it becomes 

easier to identify the most restrictive 

design elements and possibly desired 

buffer functions that are incompatible. 

The Conservation Buffer Guide combined 

with professional judgment, landowner 

experience, and program limitations can 

be a valuable tool in creating multi-tasking 

conservation buffers.

A concise version of the Buffer Width 

Tool, as a PowerPoint slide, can be 

downloaded from

www.unl.edu/nac/bufferwidth.htm, and the 

PDF version of the Conservation Buffer 

Guide containing both the “Buffer Width 

Tool” and “How to Use this Guide” can be 

viewed or downloaded from,

www.unl.edu/nac/bufferguidelines. ]

Pollutant Type

3 lines higher (+3) from dissolved pollutants to sediment

2 lines higher (+2) from dissolved pollutants to total P

1 line lower (-1) from sediment to total P

3 lines lower (-3) from sediment to dissolved pollutants

1 line higher (+1) for each halving of the field length

1 line lower (-1) for each doubling of the field length

1 line higher (+1) for each 2.5% lesser slope

1 line lower (-1) for each 2.5% greater slope

1 line higher (+1) for each soil category coarser

1 line lower (-1) for each soil category finer

1 line higher (+1) for each 0.35 lower C-Factor

1 line lower (-1) for each 0.35 higher C-Factor

 

Table B: Line Selection Adjustment Rules

Adjustment Rule

Field Length

Slope

Soil Texture

C-Factor

Soil Texture Categories

Coarse = Sandy loam, sandy clay loam, and fine sandy loam

Medium = Very fine sandy loam, loam, and silt loam

Fine = Clay loam, silty clay loam, and silt

C-Factor (from Universal Soil Loss Equation)

Cropland, clean tillage = 1.0 Cropland, plow tillage, low residue = 0.8

Pasture, permanent grass = 0.003 Forest, full canopy = 0.0001

Construction site, no mulch = 1.0 Construction site with secured mulch = 0.1 

Pollutant Type

Dissolved pollutants include nitrates, 

dissolved P, and soluble pesticides

Field Length

Length of contributing area to the 

buffer

Slope

Average slope of the buffer and 

contributing area
8 Inside Agroforestry ] Volume 19, Issue 1

fund i ng app :

Regional renovation & restoration

Shelterbelt (top right) and riparian forest 

buffer practices (bottom right). USDA National 

Agroforestry Center file photos.

Agriculture producers in 

North Dakota, South Dakota, 

Nebraska, and Kansas are eligible 

to renovate shelterbelts and 

restore forested riparian buffers 

as part of two Cooperative 

Conservation Partnership 

Initiative (CCPI) proposals. Signup 

began last July for the FY 2010 

funding. Producers who wish to enroll 

in one of the CCPI proposals should 

contact their local Natural Resources 

Conservation Service (NRCS) field 

office to schedule an appointment or to 

complete an application. 

“By partnering with the North Dakota 

Forest Service through the CCPI, we are 

helping farmers and ranchers maintain the 

benefits provided by shelterbelts and riparian 

forests into the future,” said Paul Sweeney, 

NRCS State Conservationist in North 

Dakota. “These proposals will 

stimulate natural resource 

conservation across the 

Central Great Plains.” 

The two CCPI proposals 

are part of a pool of 26 

projects in 15 states. 

Through CCPI, the USDA 

provided roughly $817,000 

in financial assistance 

in FY 2010, which is 

administered by NRCS. 

These projects will work 

though the existing 

Environmental Quality 

Incentives Program 

(EQIP) to leverage 

additional services and 

resources from the state forestry agencies of 

North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, 

and Kansas as well as other non-federal 

partners, to implement conservation on 

farms, ranches, and forest lands. 

“Many shelterbelts and riparian forests 

are no longer providing the benefits to 

agricultural producers that they have 

Tasha Gibby

NRCS Public Affairs Specialist

Bismarck, North Dakota

in the past. Renovation practices are 

needed to ensure shelterbelts control soil 

erosion, protect farmsteads, and conserve 

energy and riparian forests improve water 

quality, stabilize stream banks and reduce 

downstream flooding,” says North Dakota 

State Forester Larry Kotchman. 

Both CCPI proposals apply to all 

agricultural lands in the four states. For 

additional information about CCPI, 

please visit the Cooperative Conservation 

Partnership Initiative Web page at www.nrcs.

usda.gov/programs/ccpi/index.html. ]

By partnering with the North 

Dakota Forest Service through 

the CCPI, we are helping farmers 

and ranchers maintain benefits 

provided by shelterbelts and 

riparian forests into the future,” 

said Paul Sweeney, NRCS State Conservationist 

in North Dakota

“


 Volume 19, Issue 1 ] Inside Agroforestry 11

Apps

Continued from page 1

Clearly from a social and an economic 

standpoint, allowing the floodplain 

to revert to a completely natural state 

and allow flooding to occur whenever 

and where ever would be a radical and 

largely unpopular feat. If that alternative 

is not feasible or practical, then what 

alternatives are left for a landowner to 

consider? While not a perfect solution, 

because agroforestry systems will never be 

able to eliminate flooding, agroforestry 

systems can help to mitigate and lessen 

the flood damage that occurs from these 

flooding events. Creating an agroforestry 

floodplain system that accommodates, 

rather than eliminates flooding, but still 

maintains economic and biological values, 

can be an acceptable alternative. A key 

element in this option is reestablishing 

working trees along our river and 

stream systems.

Riparian forest buffers, like all 

agroforestry practices, can be designed 

and applied to provide many different 

benefits depending on the site conditions, 

landowner goals, and available resources. 

Riparian forest buffers are also widely 

used because of the significant level 

of benefits that can be derived from 

relatively small investments of owner 

resources and land needed to create an 

effective and productive conservation 

buffer application. But like most 

conservation practices, riparian forest 

buffers are even more effective as part of 

a smart farm system rather than a stand 

alone, single purpose application. ]

Iowa

Damage to roads, bridges and other public facilities in 57 Iowa 

counties from this year’s flooding are close to $150 million. An 

average of 23.23 inches of rain fell from June through August—

making the season the second-soggiest on record. In 1993, the state 

recorded an average of 26.83 inches of rain during the same period.

Tennessee

Serious May flooding in Tennessee caused more than $2 billion 

in damage in Nashville alone. Record two-day rains swelled the 

Cumberland River. Even the heart of country music was underwater. 

The Grand Ole Opry, along with the Country Music Hall of Fame, 

was flooded. Priceless music memorabilia including recordings of 

stars like Hank Williams, Patsy Klein and Dolly Parton were in 

jeopardy. The Grand Ole Opry reopened on September 28.

California

Los Angeles’s latest December 2010 storm brought heavy flooding. 

Traffic was a nightmare, with portions of the 710 and 405 freeways 

inundated by several feet of water and the Grapevine and Cajon 

Pass closed by snow. Evacuations were ordered for more than 1,000 

homes. The back-to-back-to-back wallops have dropped more than 

3 inches of rain on downtown Los Angeles and more than 5 inches 

in Long Beach since Sunday. The precipitation has pushed L.A. into 

an above-average rainfall total for this time of year—with a total of 

8.23 inches since July.

Riparian forest buffers are 

widely used because of the 

significant level of benefits 

that can be derived from 

relatively small investments 

of owner resources.

Iowa 2010 flooding. USDA NRCS file photo.
Upcoming Events

Inside Agroforestry PRSRT STD

POSTAGE & FEES

PAID

USDA — FS

USDA National Agroforestry Center PERMIT NO G-40

East Campus–UNL

Lincoln, NE 68583–0822

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use, $300

Address Service Requested

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. It is administered by the Forest Service, Southern 

Research Station. NAC’s staff are located at the University of 

Nebraska, Lincoln, NE and in Blacksburg, VA. 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.

Policy

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.

“Inside Agroforestry” is published by the USDA 

 National Agroforestry Center. 

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

•		 Andy Mason, NAC Director (202-205-1694)

•		Michele Schoeneberger, FS Research Lead

 (ext. 4021)

•		Richard Straight, FS Lead Agroforester (ext 4024)

•		Doug Wallace, NRCS Lead Agroforester

 (ext. 4036)

www.unl.edu/nac

March 12, 2011

Tri-State Forest Stewardship Conference. 

Sinsinawa, WI.

www.extension.iastate.edu/forestry/tri_

state/introduction.html

April 18–20, 2011

2011 American Water Resources 

Association (AWRA) Spring Specialty 

Conference. Baltimore, MD.

www.awra.org/meetings/Baltimore2011/

April 19–20, 2011

Conservation Buffer Workshop. 

Portland, OR. www.swcs.org/index.

cfm?nodeID=29025&audienceID=1

June 4–9, 2011

12th North American Agroforestry 

Conference, “Agroforestry: A Profitable 

Land Use.” Athens, GA. http://hosting.

caes.uga.edu/2011NAAC/

July 6–8, 2011

North American Invasive Plant Ecology 

and Management Short Course. North 

Platte, NE. http://ipscourse.unl.edu/

For more upcoming events, visit our

website calendar: www.unl.edu/nac/

calendar.htm.

Volume 19, Issue 1