United States Department of Agriculture’s Farm Bill conservation programs provide landowner incentives to remove less productive and environmentally sensitive lands from agricultural production and re-establish them in natural vegetation to achieve conservation objectives. However, removal of arable land from production imposes an opportunity cost associated with loss in revenue from commodities that otherwise would have been produced. The Habitat Buffers for Upland Birds practice (CP-33) under the Continuous Conservation Reserve Program is a targeted conservation practice designed to increase northern bobwhite populations in agricultural landscapes. However, establishing CP-33 buffers on profitable farmland may be incompatible with economic objectives of landowners. To determine how CP-33 enrollment influenced field profitability and bobwhite abundance; I simulated CP-33 buffers on crop fields across a range of commodity prices and modeled profitability and predicted bobwhite abundance. CP-33 increased field revenue on a percentage of fields at all commodity prices and increased bobwhite abundance up to 30%.

<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>