Inside Agroforestry

Waterbreaks...page 2

Give the Floodplain a Break...page 3

Forest Buffers Provide Economic Benefits...page 4

Upcoming Workshops...page 5

Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station

Natural Resources Conservation Service

Inside This Issue

The Chesapeake Bay Program, How A

Collaborative Approach Works

SRWC’s in Linear

Plantings

Al Todd, Chesapeake Bay Program Liaison

(See CBP on page 6)

Albert Todd is a Forest Service Liaison

for the Chesapeake Bay Program. He

works for the Northeastern Area of the

USDA Forest Service and manages the

Forest Service’s efforts within the

Program, which is an intergovernmental/

interjurisdictional partnership. By profession he is a hydrologist/ ecologist and has

spent most of his 18-year Forest Service

career on watershed restoration.

Following is an interview with Al.

What is the Chesapeake Bay

Watershed Program (CBP) and what

problems does it address?

AT: The Chesapeake Bay Program is a

partnership of 14 federal agencies, states,

and a variety of public and private interest groups. The Bay’s watershed is about

64,000 square miles and includes portions

of the states of Maryland, Pennsylvaina,

Virginia, West Virginia, Delaware, New

York, and the District of Columbia. 

In 1983 an agreement, led by the

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),

was signed among the bay states, which

committed them to jointly cooperating to

solve water quality problems associated

with the bay. The program’s real measure

of success is the restoration of the bay,

especially living resources. This includes

fisheries, the crab population, and bay

grasses. The root of the problem is nitrogen and phosphorous pollution, which is

what spurred the EPA to take action.

How many partners are involved in

the CBP and how important is a collaborative approach?

AT: The CBP is a state-driven program. But, federal agencies, like the

Forest Service have an important role.

They can provide money, technical expertise, and also a regional view that can be

the glue to hold things together. There is

an executive council that provides leadership and a variety of technical and management committies that help with the

ongoing business of the program like setting goals, bringing science to the program, implementation across state lines,

and bringing in advice from citizen

groups and local governments, etc.

Finally, many private nonprofit organizations provide time and labor.

The CBP definitely leverages a lot of

resources. The beauty of a collaborative

“Short-rotation woody crops” (SRWC)

are leading the way for agroforestry by

changing attitudes about trees as a crop in

Minnesota. 

Short-rotation woody crops include

trees like hybrid poplars and willows

grown in block plantings for fuel and

fiber. Beyond conventional block plantings, SRWC can be applied as strip

plantings incorporated into agricultural

production systems. This includes 

practices like windbreaks, riparian 

buffer strips, alley cropping, field 

borders, and wastewater treatment 

plantings.

Some of the factors encouraging the

interest in SRWC in Minnesota include:

1) Minnesota’s unique geographic location, where the forest and prairie meet; 2)

its well-developed agriculture and forestbased industries and markets; 3) an

impending shortage of aspen from natural

forests; 4) socio-economic changes, particularly in the agricultural sector; 5)

environmental degradation; 6) supportive

policies; 7) a growing institutional framework to support agroforestry efforts, and

8) extensive on-going research support.

Nearly 30 years of intensive research

and developement of fast-growing disease-resistant clones of hybrid poplar, has

greatly aided the development of agroforestry in Minnesota. Landowners can

now choose from seven widely available,

reasonably dependable clones for outplanting. 

A number of farmers in northwest

Minnesota are now planting hybrid poplar

in wide strips on riparian lands enrolled

under the continuous CRP program.

There is huge potential to improve the

quality of the Minnesota River by planting riparian buffers with SRWC throughout the Minnesota River watershed. By

combining SRWC into riparian buffers,

(See SRWC on page 7)
Message From the Manager

2 Inside Agroforestry

What do waterbreaks, levees, hybrid poplars, and agroforestry

have in common? Answer: they can all be found on floodplains.

This issue of IA focuses on the opportunities for agroforestry in

riparian zones and floodplains. During the 1993 floods in the

Midwest, a lot of attention was focused on the levee system

along the Mississippi River and its tributaries — especially when

they broke. Out of that major disaster, one of the lessons learned

was that trees play many important roles on floodplains. Be sure

to read the article by Doug Wallace in this issue which reports

what they found out about trees and levees during the floods.

We are all aware that riparian zones and floodplains are critical areas in the landscape. They exist by nature’s design to serve

many functions -- retard flooding, filter water, harbor wildlife,

and protect aquatic habitats -- but today a very high percentage

of our riparian zones and floodplains have been converted to

agriculture. Realistically, our challenge in dealing with problems

on floodplains is not to convert those lands back to pre-settlement conditions, but to find ways to make them more resistant to

flood damage and provide multiple benefits (including income)

to the farmer and to the environment. Agroforestry practices can

readily accomplish those objectives.

“Waterbreaks” on floodplains are designed like windbreaks,

but their job is to intercept flood debris and slow down floodwaters, reducing the scouring action on croplands. Since floodplains

are “home” to poplars, there are excellent opportunities to incorporate “short-rotation woody crops,” i.e., hybrid poplars, as linear plantings into production agriculture systems. The article on

page 1 of this issue discusses work being done in Minnesota to

explore and develop these agroforestry opportunities.

These and other examples in this issue illustrate the opportunities for agroforestry and why it is so exciting. Frankly, that’s

what “keeps our batteries charged” here at the Agroforestry

Center -- the opportunities for agroforestry are enormous!

On a personal note, this is my last issue of IA as NAC

Program Manager. I retired in November and my wife, Janet, and

I are moving to my home state of Colorado. My regrets in making my retirement decision are leaving agroforestry just as it is

coming to fruition, and also losing the numerous personal ties

with colleagues throughout the United States. In leaving, I want

to express my “thanks” for your friendship and cooperation in

working with me and supporting the Center over the years, and

yes, I will still be thinking about agroforestry while I’m backpacking and skiing in Colorado. I look forward to hearing about

your success stories.

A commentary on the status of agroforestry

as reported by Program Manager, Bill Rietveld

Waterbreaks

General guidelines are currently available on the management of streamside

areas for water quality control. However,

information is lacking on just how these

buffer zones should be designed to

accommodate site-specific characteristics.

Information is also lacking on how management alternatives may affect the water

quality functions of the buffers. 

To address this concern, the Riparian

Ecosystem Management Model (REMM),

a computer program, is being developed

by the Agricultural Research Service

(ARS) to assist natural resource professionals design riparian buffers. REMM

simulates hydrology, nutrient dynamics,

erosion/ sedimentation, and plant growth

in riparian areas. 

Besides its use by researchers to better

understand the interaction of ecosystem

components, REMM is intended for use

by planners as a decision-making tool to

assist in the effective management of

riparian zones.

REMM will help users analyze design

and management alternatives to achieve

desired results. Some of the design and

management alternatives may consist of

the width of buffer zones, types of vegetation in each buffer zone, fertilization,

tillage, and harvesting impacts.

REMM will then allow users to estimate the following results, based on site

condition, climate, and management

inputs: surface and subsurface nitrogen

and phosphorus loads into the stream,

sediment loads into the stream, vegetation

growth in the buffer system, amounts of

water and nutrient uptake by vegetation,

denitrification losses from the buffer system, amounts of sedimentation and erosion in the buffer system, and mineralization and immobilization of nutrients.

REMM will provide users with important information for the management of

effective riparian buffer systems.

REMM is expected to be out by July,

1998. Upon its release, training will be

provided to key NRCS personnel and

other conservation partners.

For more information, contact Jim

Robinson, Southeastern Area

Agroforester, Ft. Worth, TX at 817-334-

5232 ext. 3624 or Lyn Townsend, Forest

Ecologist at the NRCS Watershed

Institute, Seattle, WA at 206-616-8414.

Riparian Ecosystem Management Model Being Developed

REMM analyzes management options and

how the riparian zone is influenced or

impacts various environmental conditions.

Hydrology Sedimentation

& Erosion

Nutrient Dynamics

Plant

Growth
Inside Agroforestry 3

Give the Floodplain a Break — A Waterbreak

Try to picture a typical floodplain setting in the Midwest today and you’re likely to conjure up fields of corn, soybeans,

milo, and wheat, nonexistent or narrow

corridors of trees, and scattered farmsteads all protected by an elaborate (and

expensive) network of levees. 

Obviously, from an historical perspective the natural ecosystems on floodplains

have been highly altered. Whether it’s for

the good or bad continues to be debated.

Certainly the Great Midwest Flood of

1993, and to a lesser extent the Missouri

River flood of 1995, showed that even

with the best available floodplain management techniques, when the Missouri

River decides to flood - it will, and with

devastating consequences. 

Recognizing this, floodplain management strategies should not be concerned

with how to control flooding but rather on

how to work with flooding. Clearly, from

a social and an economic standpoint,

allowing the floodplain to revert to a completely natural state would be a radical

and largely unpopular option. However,

creating a floodplain agricultural system

that accommodates flooding but still

maintains its economic and biological

attributes could be a supportable option.

“Floodplain management 

strategies should not be 

concerned with how

to control flooding but rather 

on how to work with flooding.”

——Doug Wallace

by Doug Wallace, State Staff Forester, NRCS, Columbia, Missouri

A key natural element in this latter

option, long overlooked and currently

deficient in the Midwest floodplain landscape, is simply trees - planned trees.

Four major flood events have occurred

along the Missouri River in the last 40

years. Estimated costs of reclaiming flood

damaged farmlands range from $25/acre

to over $3000/acre. Damage evaluations

and on site observations from the 1993

Midwest flood estimated that fields protected with tree corridors experienced 25

percent to 75 percent lower reclamation

costs. In light of this, damage to flooded

landscapes could be significantly reduced

if “waterbreaks” (bands of trees in the

floodplain to ameliorate flooding damage

- similar in principle to windbreaks on

upland sites) were established or maintained along river corridors and within

floodplains. 

Mature waterbreaks would provide

many benefits to floodplain agricultural

ecosystems. During flood events, properly designed waterbreaks would trap

debris, reduce sand deposition and scouring within interior crop fields, create a

more uniform distribution of sand and

silt, protect levees, divert flow currents,

and reduce damage to roads, ditches and

farmsteads. During non-flooded conditions, waterbreaks would increase wildlife

habitat, improve water quality by trapping

eroding sediments and field chemicals,

and provide additional farm income from

the sale of wood products. 

A typical waterbreak system (see figure 1) would include primary waterbreaks

that parallel major river courses in corridor widths of at least 300 feet. Secondary

or interior waterbreaks of 100 feet in

width could be established along field

borders or every half mile, whichever is

less, perpendicular to anticipated major

flood currents. Additional interior waterbreaks could be strategically planted to

divert potentially damaging flood currents

away from sensitive areas.

While initially appearing to be a costly

option, waterbreaks are economical,

based solely on the reduction of cropland

reclamation costs, assuming major floods

(See Waterbreak on page 7)

Scouring, sand deposition and levee damage from 1993 flood. Notice intact levee adjacent to

wide woody corridor.

Figure 1 — Simplified waterbreak layout

designed to reduce flooding damage to

farmland.
Spotlight On Success Oregon

4 Inside Agroforestry

Essential Buffers Provide Economic Benefits

Miller explained that they try to use native trees near the

banks of the streams and rivers because, “that land belongs to the

river,” while the more profitable, faster-growing hybrids are

adjacent to the farmland. 

Miller has found that harvesting the trees for biomass does

not reduce the effectiveness of the buffer. “Even after cutting,

the roots act as an anchor for the soil while still giving us a pretty intense crop,” Miller said.

Extensive research is performed at Mt. Jefferson Farms. This

allows Miller to improve his innovative ideas, while at the same

time reaping the benefits. Their nursery research has selected the

best native trees and the fastest-growing, most-profitable hybrids

for use in agricultural systems on their farm.

Miller explains, “Our experience in a riparian forest buffer

situation - with no fertilizers, irrigation, weed control or other

extraordinary agricultural practices being used -- is that the

natives grow about three to five feet per year in height with an

annual diameter of between 3/4 of an inch to one inch. The

hybrids grow between four to seven feet per year and have an

annual diameter increase between one to two inches.

“The hybrid poplars grow almost twice as fast as the native

species, which provides excellent economic benefits,” Miller

said. “But we are very careful to use trees that will fit the needs

of the soil.” 

Most landowners are concerned about the costs involved with

riparian plantings and the time investment it takes to see the economic and environmental benefits. As a businessman, Miller

faced these concerns too.

“Many folks have asked me about sustainability in these systems,” Miller said. “We are happy to say that we have achieved a

high level of sustained wood harvest from the 15- to 18-year-old

buffers without decreasing the effectiveness of the buffers.

“Sustainablility is a broad word in our systems in that many

of our alley cropping plantings are planted initially on very close

spacings (one foot by one foot apart) and then a thinning program follows. We actually reach a sustained harvest level the

very first year,” Miller said. “ This is because we are taking off

salable production cuttings at the end of the first year that we use

to supply our very large forest company contracts for planting

stock, and also various bioengineering products that we use ourselves or sell into the marketplace for erosion control purposes.”

In addition to innovative uses of agroforestry like the riparian

zone/hybrid poplar system, Mt. Jefferson Farms is home to an

experimental alley cropping system. Miller is growing tea bushes

in the shade provided by rows of poplars within the buffers.

Miller explains that the system has been a success so far and

they hope to continue experimenting.

It is evident that Miller has found a reasonable balance of

economic and ecological benefits on Mt. Jefferson Farms

through the use of agroforestry practices. He says he enjoys

helping the environment while growing a profitable crop and

reaping additional benefits for wildlife habitat.

Rarely do you find a landowner who incorporates such a large

number of diverse agricultural practices onto his farm to increase

economic gain, research new technologies, and benefit the environment. 

This privately-owned, diversified agricultural business, Mt.

Jefferson Farms near Salem, Oregon, is a unique company that

specializes in putting research to work in the fields, resulting in

the production of valuable crops. And, agroforestry plays a leading role in this success. 

Rob Miller, owner of Mt. Jefferson Farms, Inc., has implemented the use of agroforestry practices into the company’s production plan in several ways. A tour of the farm first finds the

use of riparian forest buffers to stabilize streambanks and filter

pollutants.

“There are a lot of streams and rivers that run throughout the

property,” Miller said. “We installed the riparian forest buffers

out of necessity.” Based on research and years of trials, Miller

believes that the tree-based buffers actually accomplish the

intended tasks better than artificial buffers. “We think riparian

forest buffers in a well-thought-out design,, coupled with technical assistance and bioengineering, they can provide us with a natural system that will do a better job than the rock systems that

have been used in the past,” Miller said. 

In an effort to benefit financially from these riparian areas

Miller has designed his riparian forest buffer in such a way that

portions of the buffer can be harvested. This intensive system,

which has been established on Mt. Jefferson Farms since about

1975, produces a

valuable cash

crop when the

rows of poplars

and willows are

harvested. The

products include

cuttings used for

specialty nursery

and bioengineering erosion control uses and logs

for traditional forest products.

“We’ve found

that if we use

trees in the riparian buffer that produce profitable

wood, we can

help the environment and make a

profit,” Miller

said. “We can

make this system

pay for itself.”

Hybrid poplar logs, planted in 1980, are being

harvested from a riparian area to be used for

veneer. 
Inside Agroforestry 5

National Conservation Buffers

Technology Conference 1998

January 26-28, 1998 • San Antonio, Texas

This national conference will synthesize the state of the science behind the design, installation, and maintenance of conservation buffers for agricultural lands.

“Conservation buffers provide many practical and lasting

benefits,” says John Hebblethwaite, Conservation

Technology Information Center (CTIC) Executive Director,

“these include protecting the soil, improving air and water

quality, enhancing fish and wildlife habitat, as well as adding

beauty to the landscape.”

The conference, co-sponsored by the CTIC, USDA

Natural Resources Conservation Service, USDA Forest

Service, and other partners in the National Conservation

Buffer Initiative. The conference will feature leading

researchers, educators, practitioners, and producers who will

address a wide array of subjects related to conservation buffer

practices and systems.

Conference attendees will include agribusiness representatives, agricultural and environmental organizations, agricultural consultants and advisors, consumer groups, farmers,

ranchers, local, state and federal program managers, technical

and communication specialists, policymakers, the media, and

others.

For more information or to receive a copy of the agenda,

contact Lyn Kirschner at 765-494-1827 or e-mail at kirschner@ctic.purdue.edu. The agenda and registration material is

available on the CTIC web site at http://www.ctic.purdue.

edu/

CTIC is a nonprofit information/data transfer center, located in West Lafayette, IN, that promotes environmentally and

economically beneficial natural resource systems.

Announcing the North American Conference on 

Enterprise Development Through

Agroforestry: Farming the Agroforest

for Specialty Products

October 4 - 7, 1998 • Minneapolis, Minnesota

Increasing numbers of landowners and farmers across

North America are interested in the emerging agroforestry

practice of “forest farming” -- the intentional culture of valuable special products in agroforestry practices. Producing specialty products in agroforestry practices can increase and

diversify income, increase wildlife, diversify farms and landscapes, and create new opportunities for small limited

resource farms, while protecting soil and water resources. 

This conference will provide participants an opportunity to

learn and share experiences about “cultivating” specialty

products in temperate agroforestry systems. There will be

special emphasis on markets and marketing, production systems, and financial and environmental costs and benefits.

Sessions will focus on three major areas of special products intentionally produced through forest farming: 1) botanicals and medicinals; 2) decorative and handicraft products;

and 3) food products (including nuts, herbs, oils, mushrooms,

fruits, flavor and smokewoods, etc.).

The conference is sponsored by NAC, CINRAM, AFTA,

USDA-FS State & Private Forestry, Minnesota Department of

Natural Resources, Minnesota Agroforestry Coalition,

Minnesota Institute for Sustainable Agriculture, and the

Center for Alternative Plant and Animal Products, U of MN.

For more information on the workshop agenda or presenting

posters and practictitioner displays and exhibits, contact: Scott

Josiah, 612-624-7418.

Agroforestry: Integrating Conservation, Crops, 

Livestock, and Trees in the Pacific Northwest

May 12 & 13, 1998, Richland, Washington

May 14 & 15, 1998, Portland, Oregon

For more information, contact: 

Gary Kuhn, NAC Western Representative, 206-616-7166, e-mail: kuhn@geology.washington.edu

Beverly Gonyea, University of Washington Conference Coordinator, 206-543-0867, e-mail: gonyea@u.washington.edu

Don Hanley, Washington State University Extension Forester, 206-685-4960, e-mail: dhanley@u.washington.edu

Sponsored by: 

National Agroforestry Center • NRCS • USFS Region 6 • Washington State University • University 

of Washington • CH2M Hill • Association for Temperate Agroforestry • Oregon State University, 

Cooperative Extension Service
6 Inside Agroforestry

(CBP from page 1)

from the farming community because this

is a new practice and requires “permanently” taking crop or pasture land out of

production. Its a challenge to get

landowners to think of the land being in a

different kind of production, which they

are not used to. 

In reality the barriers are different for

different landowners and economics is

almost always a barrier. Although we’ve

shown in analyses that often landowners

don’t really lose money by installing

riparian buffers, many don’t really make

money either. They must have a basic

committment to want to improve the

stream. 

The education process is important to

increase their knowledge about making

important choices about the other benefits

on their land — including wildife, water

quality,aesthetics, fisheries etc. — and to

many that is enough. First we faced the

institutional barriers and now we’re working to overcome landowner barriers.

From your experience, what is needed to get landowners to adopt riparian

forest buffers?

AT: Like any new practice, part of getting landowners to adopt a new practice is

related to education and outreach to dispell some of the myth and perceived

problems that may exist. Right now we’re

working on a brochure called The Top 10

Questions About Planting a Riparian

Forest Buffer. We’re trying to help

answer some of the typically-asked

landowner questions about cost, taking

land out of production, what riparian

buffers do for them, what they do for

stream management, etc. We need to

answer these questions so they can make

decisions based on reality versus perception. It is essential that they feel comfortable with the decision that they are making.

The next thing that you need to do is

provide a good range of incentives. Some

people just need the education, encouragement, or technical help. Others require

the right kind of financial incentives.

We’re trying to make sure that riparian

buffers get specific incentive programs

targeted for them. But, we also want to

integrate the practice in with a variety of

other conservation programs -- the conservation toolbox kind of approach --

using a variety of programs to address a

approach is that everyone unites to solve

common problems, and we all bring

something unique to the table. 

The CBP has been around for almost

15 years and it continually comes up as

one of the most successful, long-term collaborative partnerships of its kind. It has

gone from a bunch of people uniting

around common pollution problems to

almost an institutionalized cooperative to

solve those problems 

Where does agroforestry fit into this

program? What have been the barriers

and the rewards?

AT: One of the things we found is that

our traditional forestry focus was on lands

where forest management was already

occurring. But where we had great potential for rehabilitating the bay was to look

at restoring forests within areas that are

not primarily forested, especially in our

agricultural landscape. One of our key

missions is to find a better marriage

between traditional forestry and agriculture, and obviously agroforestry is a perfect match. 

Riparian forest buffers are the primary

agroforestry practice that we focus on.

They present a very promising and useful

tool in terms of nutrient removal, which is

our big focus for the bay. In addition they

provide multiple benefits by helping to

restore fisheries and stream systems, as

well as provide wildlife corridors. I like to

describe the Cheseapeake Bay as a heart,

and the stream systems and riparian areas

as the circulatory system connected to the

heart. The health of the circulatory system

plays a big role in the health of the heart

itself.

One barrier was gaining acceptance of

the scientific merits of riparian buffers

within state agencies and the regulatory

community. Often times it is tough for

researchers to look at a multiple objective

practice with a variety of benefits.

Research tends to focus on an individual

function rather than system functions. So,

any given buffer may accomplish one

goal well and another poorly. The real

value is looking at the composite of things

that it accomplishes.

A major barrier is changing landowner

attitudes. In 1992 we took a hard look at

how to get riparian forest buffers integrated into normal conservation practices

around the watershed. We have resistance

need. A lot of programs don’t integrate

riparian buffers. 

Next we need to make sure that we are

transferring the technology and information to field professionals. We are trying

to do a lot of that with technology transfer

materials and training that we’re putting

together. Many professionals don’t understand riparian forest buffers or how they

might use them. 

Finally, we need to begin to start

engaging private, nonprofit groups in this

initiative. This includes wildlife, fish, and

watershed organizations. In

Pennsylvania, for example, we’re working

with the nonprofit, privately funded

Riparian Tree Trust to generate private

funds to provide small grants to landowners and community groups to plant and

restore riparian forest buffers.

Government programs are often complicated or not coordinated. We need to

begin to coordinate and streamline these

so the landowners aren’t confused about

the requirements. They want it simple.

Complexity scares them away.

How have the riparian buffers

helped the water quality problem and

what do you see in the future regarding

the Chesapeake Bay?

AT: We have monitoring and scientific

studies on individual sites that can

demonstrate substantial water quality and

habitat improvements. How it’s helped

the overall problem for the Chesapeake

Bay is much harder to answer because

there are so many influences. Separating

out the effects of one practice is hard.

Another factor is that we haven’t been

working on restoration for that long.

We do have good data that show naturally protected streams are healthy. But,

we don’t have much experience with

restoring riparian environments and then

evaluating the improvement in water

quality and fisheries habitat on a watershed scale. Really, the science related to

riparian buffer function has only been

around for less than 15 years. Efforts to

restore riparian buffers on any large scale

have only been around for the last three to

five years. So, many of those trees are just

starting to grow.

We have one project in Maryland this

year that will complete the establishment

of riparian forest buffers on the entire

length of the Little Gunpowder Falls
Inside Agroforestry 7

(CBP from page 6) (SRWC from page 1) (Waterbreak from page 3)

of a 10 year frequency (the current average). In addition, research has found that

levees protected with woody corridors

between the levee and the river had a significantly lower failure rate, and as the

width of the woody corridor increased the

severity of levee failure decreased.

The strategic use of trees in floodplain

agricultural ecosystems is an important

key in mitigating flooding damage.

Restoring trees to these systems would

add economic stability, provide protection, increase habitat diversity, and compliment traditional agricultural systems.

River. So maybe in another five to ten

years we will be able to start saying

something about improving water quality

on this river. 

We’re in this for the long-term and

need to communicate this to people

involved. We’re in the business of restoring living, dynamic ecosystems as a

buffer and filter for adjacent land uses.

We have to put an investment into this

now, but the payoff is long-term. 

We’ve made some commitments for

the future of the Chesapeake Bay. We

plan to restore 2010 miles of riparian forest buffers by the year 2010 - a very

aggressive effort. We’ll be focusing a lot

on education, developing new incentive

programs, working on tax strategies, and

building partnerships to get the work

done. We plan to do it farm by farm and

community by community.

What can others learn from your

efforts, especially when a collaborative

approach is implemented? 

AT: I would say the first thing is to get

your science in order and make sure you

know what you’re talking about. You

won’t have all of the answers but you

need to bring together a good technical

and scientific foundation to be able to

move forward. Be inclusive and invite

people to be a part of the process. There

is no doubt in my mind that the collaborative approach is the only way to be successful. You won’t always end up where

you wanted to go, and you won’t always

get everything you wanted, but I’ve found

that over time getting there is part of the

reward. 

Incremental progress is something to

be proud of because progress doesn’t

always come in leaps and bounds.

Changing people’s attitudes about how

they steward the land is a long- term committment and you have to stay at it. 

Public information and involvement is

what gets things done. Set aggressive,

reachable goals. Keep people reaching for

something. Do a lot of outreach. Over the

last few years I’ve given about 100 presentations to groups all over the watershed.

Be adaptable and flexible. Realize that

where you thought you were going may

not be where you end up. And you have

to be ok with changing your focus, as long

as you’re still heading towards your goals.

Tree Species for

Midwestern Floodplains

Midwest floodplain sites can support

a wide variety of tree species. Selection

should be based on which species are

capable of growing on the site, the

availability of planting stock, resource

protection needs, and landowner objectives. A minimum of three different

species should be planted in the waterbreaks to reduce insect and disease

risks and improve wildlife benefits.

Some suggested tree species for floodplain sites in the Midwest include:

• Eastern cottonwood

• American sycamore

• green ash

• silver maple

• swamp white oak

• red maple

• pecan

• bur oak

• bald cypress

• black willow

• pin oak

• hackberry

farmers can protect surface waters from

surface and subsurface contamination by

soil and agricultural chemical and fertilizers, and also generate income from the

sale of the trees (hybrid poplar) for energy or fiber. Thus, they feel that they are

not taking land out of production, but are

putting it into a different kind of crop

production.

Interest in timberbelts is also increasing. A timberbelt looks like a wide windbreak. Two innovative farmers in southwest Minnesota are planning to install a

total of 115 acres of timberbelts planted

to hybrid poplar and other woody species

(for wildlife). These will be harvested in

10-12 years for the pulp market, and in

the meantime will provide crop protection

from wind and prevent soil erosion across

the two farms. A second or third coppice

rotation are possible, considerably reducing costs.

The Center for Integrated Natural

Resources and Agricultural Management

(CINRAM) is currently working with the

National Agroforestry Center to evaluate

the economic viability of using SRWC in

linear agroforestry systems (windbreaks,

timberbelts, riparian buffers) across the

United States. This national assessment

will show whether this makes financial

sense to the farmer (can trees compete

with annual crops), and provide input on

the value of environmental services (e.g.

clean water) provided to the public by

riparian buffers established on private

lands, which is an important policy question.

Despite these positive trends, more

needs to be done. Markets and market

information need to be strengthened and

improved. The economic and financial

benefits of a range of agroforestry practices need to be clarified and publicized

to key decision makers in the agricultural

sector. We need to assess the impacts of

policies (local, state, and national) on

agroforestry adoption, and improve upon

them where necessary. And, we need to

continue to forge partnerships for effective and coordinated action.

Adapted from 

“The Dynamic Emergence of

Agroforestry Opportunities in

Minnesota” by Scott Josiah, 

CINRAM, St. Paul, MN.

Watch for 

Agroforestry Notes

on Short Rotation 

Woody Crops. 

...Coming Soon...
Upcoming Events We Need Your Help...

January 26-28, 1998

Conservation Buffers Technology 

Conference, San Antonio, TX. 

Contact Lyn Kirschner, 765-494-

1827.

May 12-13 and 14-15, 1998

Agroforestry: Integrating 

Conservation, Crops, Livestock, and 

Trees in the Pacific Northwest,

(12-13) Richland, WA and (14-15) 

Inside Agroforestry is published quarterly by the

National Agroforestry Center. Phone: 402-437-

5178; Fax: 402-437-5712.

Michele Schoeneberger, Research Program 

Leader and Soil Scientist, ext. 21

Jerry Bratton, FS Lead Agroforester, ext. 24

Bruce Wight, NRCS Lead Agroforester, ext. 36

Kim Isaacson, IA Editor, Technology Transfer 

Specialist, ext. 13

Clover Shelton, Technology Transfer Assistant, 

ext. 14

Jim Robinson, NRCS Agroforester located at Fort 

Worth, TX; phone: 817-334-5232, ext. 3624

Gary Kuhn, NRCS Agroforester located at Seattle,

WA; phone: 206-616-7166

Mission

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

the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service.The Center’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, the Center 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.

Portland, OR. Contact Gary Kuhn, 

206-616-7166

October 4-7, 1998

North American Conference on 

Enterprise Development Through 

Agroforestry: Farming the Forest & 

Agroforest for Specialty Products, 

Minneapolis, MN. Contact, Scott 

Josiah, 612-624-7418.

We are still in the process of updating

our database. You should have received a

postcard from us. Please fill this out if

you want to continue receiving Inside

Agroforestry and Agroforestry Notes. We

hope that you enjoy IA and thank you in

advance for helping the Center conserve

paper, postage, and time. Direct any questions about the database to Clover

Shelton at 402-437-5178 ext. 14.

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.