* The need for structural enhancements to reduce bank erosion should be assessed separately and may most commonly be associated with these two functional buffer classes. Output from the height-above-channel tool can help guide further assessment. Table 1 Summary of the riparian function assessment used to classify and map optimized buffer designs (simplified). Note these classes only refer to design of buffer vegetation. Adapted from Tomer et al. (2015).

is a research soil scientist for USDA Agricultural Research Service (ARS) National Laboratory for Agriculture and the Environment in Ames, Iowa. Jessica D. Van Horn is a physical science technician for USDA ARS National Laboratory for Agriculture and the Environment in Ames, Iowa.

is formerly a physical science technician with USDA ARS, National Laboratory for Agriculture and the Environment, currently a senior geographic information systems (GIS) analyst with Environmental Working Group, Minneapolis, Minnesota. David. E. James is a geographic information specialist for USDA ARS, National Laboratory for Agriculture and the Environment, Ames, Iowa. Jessica D. Van Horn (Beasley) is formerly a physical science technician with USDA ARS, currently senior GIS analyst, Geographic Technologies Group, Goldsboro, North Carolina.

Mark D. Tomer (corresponding author) is a research soil scientist, USDA Agricultural Research Service (ARS), National Laboratory for Agriculture and the Environment, Ames, Iowa. Jessica D. Van Horn (Beasley) is formerly a physical science technician with USDA ARS, currently senior geographic information systems (GIS) analyst, Geographic Technologies Group, Goldsboro, North Carolina. Sarah A. Porter is formerly a physical science technician with USDA ARS, currently senior GIS analyst, Environmental Working Group, Minneapolis, Minnesota. David E. James is a geographic information specialist, USDA ARS, Ames, Iowa. Jarad Niemi is an associate professor,

Riparian buffers can improve water quality, but watershed-scale evaluations of riparian buffering opportunities are rare. A landscape discretization tool called riparian catchments, part of the Agricultural Conservation Planning Framework (ACPF) version 3, was applied to evaluate functional riparian settings for 32 headwater watersheds representing three major land resource areas (MLRAs) in Iowa. Riparian settings of 250-m length were classified based on height above channel and upslope contributing area to show where to place buffers primarily designed to intercept runoff, treat nitrate in shallow groundwater, and/or protect streambanks. Riparian zones found below small riparian catchments were common, typically occupying >50% of streambank lengths in MLRA 103 (northern Iowa) and MLRA 108 (southeast Iowa). In these settings, narrow (6-10 m wide) buffers provide a buffer/contributing area ratio of >0.02 to filter surface runoff, while providing streambank protection. This similarity occurred despite these two MLRAs having contrasting landscapes.Whereas the narrow buffers suggested are associated with ditches and flat terrain in MLRA 103, they occur below short slopes along streams that have well dissected the watersheds in MLRA 108. In MLRA 104 of east-central Iowa, headwater alluvial streams often had broad low-lying riparian zones, where wide buffers (>25 m) may be placed to help mitigate nitrate transport in shallow groundwater. The ACPF riparian catchments approach enabled cross-watershed analyses of riparian settings, while providing spatial data to inform watershed-scale riparian planning efforts.