Despite the numerous environmental benefits of conservation buffers and incentives offered by cost-share programs, adoption remains low. Typical buffer designs often take arable land out of production. Multifunctional conservation buffers (MCBs) offer an alternative that supports rather than excludes production. By incorporating non-timber forest products (NTFPs), edible or ornamental crops can be harvested for profit or home use, while retaining key environmental services. Beyond low adoption rates, little is known about the long-term retention of conservation buffers due in part to limited program evaluation funding. However, implementation of evaluation recommendations is imperative for buffer retention. With this in mind, we administered a mail survey to conservation buffer adopters throughout Virginia. The first objective was to evaluate post-adoption experiences with conservation buffers. We identified four landowner clusters with distinct differences in buffer perceptions and intentions to retain. Insights can help conservation agencies enhance programming to reduce negative buffer experiences and increase long-term retention. The second objective was to determine interest in and preferences for MCBs. We found respondents were somewhat to very interested in MCBs, and increases in this interest were influenced most by the buffer's potential to decrease soil loss. Respondents who found MCBs more appealing than traditional designs had supportive peers and higher expectations of MCB performance. Lastly, respondents preferred MCBs designed with nut or fruit producing trees that grow naturally. Findings can help inform future outreach and programming aimed at merging conservation and production in buffer zones. / Master of Science

<p>Field-edge buffers are a promising way to address nonpoint source pollution from agricultural runoff, but concentrated runoff flow often renders standard fixed-width linear buffers ineffective. AgBufferBuilder (ABB) is a tool within ESRI ArcMap Geographic Information Systems software that designs and evaluates targeted, nonlinear buffers based on hydrologic modeling and other field-specific parameters. We tested ABB on n=45 Areas of Interest (AOIs) stratified based on estimated sediment loading across three sub-watersheds within Michigan’s Saginaw Bay watershed to evaluate the effectiveness of ABB relative to existing practices across a wide range of landscape conditions. We modeled tractor movement around ABB buffer designs to assess more realistic versions of the likely final designs. ABB regularly failed to deliver the desired 75% sediment capture rate using default 9 m x 9 m output raster resolution, with Proposed buffers capturing from 0% to 68.49% of sediment within a given AOI (mean=37.56%). Differences in sediment capture between Proposed and Existing buffers (measured as Proposed – Existing) ranged from -48% to 66.81% of sediment (mean=24.70%). Proposed buffers were estimated to capture more sediment than Existing buffers in 37 of 45 AOIs, representing potential for real improvements over Existing buffers across the wider landscape. In 13 of 45 AOIs, ABB buffers modified for tractor movement captured more sediment than Existing buffers using less total buffer area. We conducted a collaborative design process with three Saginaw Bay watershed farmers to assess their willingness to implement ABB designs. Feedback indicated farmers may prefer in-field erosion control practices like cover cropping and grassed waterways over field-edge ABB designs. More farmer input is needed to better assess farmer perspectives on ABB buffers and to identify preferred data-based design alternatives. Engineered drainage systems with raised ditch berms and upslope catch basins piped underground directly into ditches were encountered several times during site visits. ABB only models surface flow and does not recognize drain output flow entering waterways. Modified ABB functionality that models buffers around drain inlets would greatly improve its functionality on drained sites. This may be accomplishable through modification of user-entered AOI margins but requires further investigation. Unfortunately, the existing tool is built for outdated software and is not widely accessible to non-expert users. We suggest that an update of this tool with additional functionality and user accessibility would be a useful addition in the toolbox of conservation professionals in agricultural landscapes.</p>