Designing Riparian Buffers for Northfield - Guidelines and

Suggestions for the Northfield Comprehensive Plan Revision

Contents:
Summary
Context
Riparian buffer proposal
Specific guidelines for Spring Brook (Rice) Creek
References Cited and other references
Summary of protection resources available to landowners and municipalities
Maps showing buffers in the Spring Brook Creek/Heath Creek corridor

Prepared by: Oona Rokyta, Eric Shoemaker, Jacob Limmer, Greg Rafert, Lauren Miller, Arijit
Guha, Noah Brenner, all Carleton students
Assisted by: Mary Savina, Professor of Geology, Chris Robbins, Northfield citizen, Lisa Lukis,
Cannon River Watershed Partnership
November 16, 2000
Summary
The process leading to the comprehensive plan revision is an opportunity to recognize and protect
the natural resources such as streams within the Northfield expansion area.

There is an abundance of scientific and technical literature documenting the ways that riparian 
buffer zones protect streams, water quality, fish and animal habitat. (see list below for three 
excellent web resources). We have developed seven criteria to guide the establishment of riparian 
buffers along Cannon River tributaries:
~Criterion 1: Identify the floodplain and include all of it in the riparian buffer zone.
~Criterion 2: Incorporate current woodland areas in the buffer zone as much as possible (and
consider planting buffers into trees).
~Criterion 3: Protect steep slopes above the floodplain in the buffer zone and include some distance
of higher, flatter ground in buffer.
~Criterion 4: Include stream tributary drainages, swales, and springs in the buffer zone.
~Criterion 5: Incorporate riparian wetlands in the buffer zone.
~Criterion 6: No storm water should be channeled through buffer zones or directly into the streams.
~Criterion 7: Educate landowners, developers, and everyone else through zoning ordinances and
other means

Using these criteria, we recommend that the Northfield comprehensive plan map and text establish
a minimum riparian buffer width of 75 m (250 ft.) on each side of the tributary streams with a
wider zone as needed to fulfill the criteria completely. Buffers should be planted in trees and dense
grass with deep roots. Riparian buffers are compatible with a variety of passive recreational uses.

Special consideration should be given to the Spring Brook (Rice) Creek, the only cold-water trout
stream in Rice County. In addition to strict adherence to the criteria above, the stream channel
itself should not be affected in any way by development and the spring inflow should be protected.

Many organizations have created grants and other financing programs to assist communities and
private landowners with the costs of buffering projects. The organizations with the most available
money include the Environmental Protection Agency, the US Department of Agriculture, the
National Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources and the
Nature Conservancy. Grants normally cover 25-100% of the total cost of the project.

Three useful web references:

Palone, Roxane and Albert Todd, eds., 1998, Chesapeake Bay Riparian Handbook: A Guide for
Establishing and Maintaining Riparian Buffers: USDA NA-TP-02-97, 481 p. (The handbook is
downloadable as a .pdf file from
http://www.fs.fed.us/na/morgantown/frm/water/riphbk/riphbkdl.htm)

Schueler, Tom, 1995, The Architecture of Stream Buffers: Watershed Protection Techniques, v. 1, 8
p. (available on-line at http://www/pipeline.com/~mrrunoff/buffer.htm and at
http://www.cwp.org/)

University of Maryland web site on riparian buffers: http://www.riparianbuffers.umd.edu/

Context

Northfield is currently revising its comprehensive plan, anticipating the changing needs of the City
over the next 20 years. The planning process leading to the revision is an opportunity to recognize
and protect the natural resources within the City limits and in the directions that the City is likely to
grow. One of these natural resources is the waterways, including the Cannon River and its
tributaries.

Water quality in the Cannon River watershed - and throughout the Upper Mississippi River basin -
affects habitat both locally and globally. High nutrient levels throughout streams in the Upper
Mississippi are now known to contribute to hypoxia in the Gulf of Mexico (Downing et al., 1999).
The water quality in the Upper Mississippi is controlled by the water quality in the major tributaries
such as the Cannon River. Water quality on the Cannon River, in turn, is controlled largely by the
water quality in its tributaries, streams like Heath Creek, Prairie Creek, Wolf Creek, Spring Creek
and Spring Brook (or Rice) Creek that flow through or near Northfield. Although these streams are
all unique, one of them, Spring Brook (Rice) Creek is a coldwater stream that supports a native
population of brook trout.

The major tributaries of the Cannon River that drain the area west of the Cannon may have initially 
been subglacial conduits draining the Des Moines Lobe glacier (Patterson and Hobbs, 1995). The 
valley landforms of Heath Creek and Wolf Creek  ­ wide floodplains bordered by short steep slopes 
­ formed during this period of high discharge from the melting glacier.  The area between these two 
valleys now drains into Spring Brook Creek. These valleys have wide floodplains  bordered by 
relatively steep slopes, features largely inherited from the glacial past.

There is an abundance of scientific and technical literature documenting the ways that riparian 
buffers protect streams, fish and animal habitat.  Regions such as the Chesapeake Bay drainage 
basin have been particularly advanced in designing buffers appropriate for urban and agricultural 
land. In the rest of this document, we try to define guidelines based on some of these studies to help 
the City of Northfield determine appropriate locations and widths for riparian buffers along its 
streams. 
Riparian Buffer Zone Proposal

We use the term "riparian buffer" to mean a vegetated zone of variable width near the stream
channel, managed to reduce the impact of adjacent development on the stream, its banks and its
floodplain and to preserve stream integrity. Among other benefits (Palone and Todd, 1998 and
other references listed below), riparian buffers help to prevent erosion, preserve channel integrity,
protect water quality by filtering agricultural and urban run-off and sediment (e.g. Komar and
Magner, 1996), provide effective passive flood control and provide habitat for wildlife. Some
workers consider a buffer network a "stream right-of-way," a useful approach to planning
(Schueler, 1995b).

For maximum effectiveness, buffers should be planted in trees and dense grass with deep roots.
The US Department of Agriculture has developed a three-zone buffer model with forest closest to
the stream (zones 1 and 2) and dense grass filter strips furthest from the stream (zone 3) (Palone
and Todd, 1998). Buffers should be continuous along the stream; breaks in buffers allow runoff
and sediment to cross into the stream corridor (Schueler, 1995b; Weller et al., 1998).

Riparian buffers are compatible with a variety of passive recreational uses, including hiking,
birdwatching, and fishing. In some instances buffers may be wide enough to accommodate paved
trails. Riparian buffers along creeks in Northfield should probably be publicly owned but may be
used in part as park dedication during development.

Note: When establishing buffer zones, it is important to keep in mind the variability of guidelines
depending on the specific geography of the area. Zones should be determined not by a pre-set
standard distance from the water’s edge, but by physically pertinent aspects of the area: natural
boundaries of sensitive areas such as flood plains, sloping areas, wetlands and established habitats.

Criteria for buffer establishment in the Northfield urban area:

~Criterion 1: Identify the floodplain and include all of it in the riparian buffer zone.
The entire floodplain must be included in the buffer zone because it is one of the most vulnerable
areas around the stream, and the floodplain and stream interact closely with one another. A
floodplain must have some cover protection and must be an unpolluted area or it will erode and
pollute the stream when it is flooded. Many communities require the buffer zone to include all of
the 100-year floodplain; a minimum base width of at least 100 feet is recommended (Schueler,
1995a; Smith and Hellmund, 1993).
~Criterion 2: Incorporate current woodland areas in the buffer zone as much as possible (and
consider planting buffers into trees).
Forests make the best buffer zones for a variety of reasons (see attached tables from Schueler,
1995b and Agroforestry Notes AF-4, 1997, cited in Tjaden and Weber, FS733):
~They are probably the most effective groundcover for preventing bank erosion, blocking wind and
intercepting rainfall, and holding dirt and sediment.
~Trees, as well as other vegetation, play an important role in nutrient uptake, not only from water
entering the stream from the side, but water coming from upstream.
~Shade helps to keep the water cool and decreases temperature fluctuation. This function is
particularly important for preservation of species that require cold water.
~Deep roots stabilize the stream bank. Root systems also slow water flow and keep the soil porous,
so water moves more slowly and is better absorbed. This reduces flooding and allows the water to
be slowly filtered before it hits the stream, as well as letting some into the groundwater.
~Fallen branches slow water and provide good habitats for fish and invertebrates. It is essential to
the stream ecosystem functions of the riparian buffer that this "large woody debris" remain in the
stream channel.
~Trees are a pleasant environment for both wildlife and humans; they provide good habitat for a
variety of animals and corridors for animal migration and human trail systems.
~Criterion 3: Protect steep slopes above the floodplain in the buffer zone and include some
distance of higher, flatter ground in buffer.
Steep slopes are especially vulnerable to erosion, as are the areas immediately above steep slopes.
This criterion also has direct benefits for farmers as it helps prevent valuable topsoil from washing
away, but is also necessary to protect streams in developed areas from excess sediment. All
undevelopable steep slopes should definitely be included, as these are extremely prone to soil loss
when not protected by groundcover. Schueler (1995a, 1995b) recommends including "all
undevelopable steep slopes (>25%) and steep slopes (5% to 25% slope at four additional feet of
slope per one percent increment of slope about 5%)" (Schueler, 1995b, p. 3). Note that the present
Northfield comprehensive plan identifies undevelopable steep slopes as those over 18%.
Protecting part of the higher, flatter ground above the steep slopes in the buffer helps to slow
runoff and prevent it from concentrating as it crosses the buffer.
~Criterion 4: Include stream tributary drainages, swales, and springs in the buffer zone.
Protecting headwaters and other water sources will offer the best water quality protection for the
water system as a whole (Smith and Hellmund, 1993). In addition, any areas where waterways
connect with one another are critical areas for wildlife.
~Criterion 5: Incorporate riparian wetlands in the buffer zone.
Wetlands are areas flooded or saturated with water, having hydric soils and supporting or able to
support aquatic vegetation. Wetlands are also tend to be excellent filters, their vegetation
absorbing high quantities of sediment, minerals and nutrients.
~Criterion 6: No storm water should be channeled through buffer zones or directly into the
streams.
Buffer zones can only do so much. Usually, a buffer can only treat run-off from less than 10% of a
stream’s contributing watershed because the other 90% of the water becomes concentrated into the
storm water system (Schueler, 1995b). Water quality can be greatly affected (both by toxic
chemicals and excessive nutrients) if storm water from developed areas is allowed to flow directly
into the streams. Water quality in Heath Creek and other non-trout creeks should be at least
maintained, if not improved.
~Criterion 7: Educate landowners, developers, and everyone else through zoning ordinances
and other means
Develop additional criteria to reduce the effects of concentrated and other drainage from
developments through the buffer: avoid storm sewers, seek infiltration areas or other alternatives,
limit impervious surfaces to <10% near buffer zones, avoid chemical use, etc. Make sure these
more specific criteria are listed in the environmental management section of the comprehensive
plan, the Northfield zoning ordinance and are made known to developers, realtors and the general
public.

Using these criteria, we recommend that the Northfield comprehensive plan map and text establish
a minimum riparian buffer width of 75 m (250 ft.) on each side of the streams with a wider zone
as needed to fulfill the criteria completely. This buffer should be included as "open space" and
 "wetland" on the comp plan map and legend. The "environmentally sensitive overlay" area should
extend well beyond the margins of the riparian buffer (as it does in the most recent comp plan
drafts).

Specific Recommendations for the Spring Brook/Rice Creek Watershed

Having discussed some of the methods and rationale behind riparian buffer zone construction, we
would now like to turn to some specific recommendations about the possible implementation of
riparian buffer zones on the Spring Brook/Rice Creek watershed. Given the strong possibility that
this watershed will be developed in the coming years, and the sensitivity of the cold-water
ecosystem, we feel that it is incumbent upon the city of Northfield and other involved parties to
begin to design the riparian buffer zones on this watershed (Spring Brook Committee Report,
1999). Thinking ahead on this issue may help to ensure proper planning of buffer zones that both
meet the needs of preserving fragile ecosystems while at the same time allowing for limited
development. Our recommendations for this watershed are as follows:

1) Riparian buffer zones in this watershed should be inclusive of the entire floodplain, the steep
slopes adjacent to the floodplain (back to the ridgeline) and some distance beyond this point.
No permanent structure development should take place within the floodplain limits.
2) The construction of buffer zones in this watershed should also include substantial streamside re-
vegetation. This helps to cool the water, preserving the ecosystem for native brook trout, and
mitigating for some of the negative warming effects that are usually associated with
development.
3) The stream channel itself should not be affected in any way by development. This includes the
construction of ponds, channelization, and the building of culverts.
4) Special attention should be paid to the fact the valuable coldwater ecosystem that exists in this
watershed is dependent on extensive spring inflow in the lower section of the creek. Any
development that takes place in this watershed should be mindful of this fact. Efforts should be
made to limit the construction of impermeable surfaces or anything else that may adversely
affect the functioning of these springs.

References Cited:

Downing, John A. and five others, task force members, 1999, Hypoxia in the Gulf of Mexico: Land
and Sea Interactions: Council for Agricultural Science and Technology, 44 p. Available at:
http://www.cast-science.org/pdf/hypo.pdf

Komor, S. C., Magner, J. A., 1996, Nitrate in groundwater and water sources used by riparian trees
in an agricultural watershed: A chemical and isotopic investigation in southern Minnesota: Water
Resources Research, v. 32, p. 1039-1050.

Palone, Roxane and Albert Todd, eds., 1998, Chesapeake Bay Riparian Handbook: A Guide for
Establishing and Maintaining Riparian Buffers: USDA Forest Service, NRCS, and Cooperative
State Research, Extension and Education, NA-TP-02-97, 481 p. (The handbook is downloadable
as a .pdf file from http://www.fs.fed.us/na/morgantown/frm/water/riphbk/riphbkdl.htm)

Patterson, Carrie J. and Howard C. Hobbs, 1995, Surficial Geology, Rice County Geological Atlas:
Minnesota Geological Survey, County Atlas Series, Atlas C-9, Part A, plate 3.
Schueler, Tom, 1995a, Site Planning for Urban Stream Protection: Silver Spring, MD, Center for
Watershed Protection, 320 pp.

Schueler, Tom, 1995b, The Architecture of Stream Buffers: Watershed Protection Techniques, v. 1,
8 p. (available on-line at http://www/pipeline.com/~mrrunoff/buffer.htm)

Smith, Daniel S. and Paul Cawood Hellmund, ed. 1993, Ecology of Greenways. Minneapolis, MN,
University of Minnesota Press, 222 pp.

Spring Brook Committee Report, 1999, 12 p. plus appendices.

Tjaden, Robert L. and Glenda M. Weber, Riparian Buffer Management: An Introduction to the
Riparian Forest Buffer, Fact Sheet 724. http://www.agnr.umd.edu/ces/pubs/html/fs724/fs724.html

Tjaden, Robert L. and Glenda M. Weber, Riparian Buffer Management: Riparian Buffer Systems,
Fact Sheet 733. http://www.agnr.umd.edu/ces/pubs/html/fs733.html

Weller, D. E., Jordan, T. E., Correll, D. L., 1998, Heuristic models for material discharge from
landscapes with riparian buffers: Ecological Applications, v. 8, p. 1156-1169.

Additional reference used: Black, Peter E., 1991, Watershed Hydrology: Englewood Cliffs, NJ,
Prentice-Hall, Inc., 408 pp.

Some additional sources/good websites for basic information on riparian buffers and other
waterway issues:

The first three sources are particularly valuable because they deal with riparian buffers in the
context of urban development as well as agriculture:

Center for Watershed Protection: http://www.cwp.org/

Site has several publications relevant to riparian buffers, including Schueler, 1995b, The
Architecture of Stream Buffers, a condensed excerpt from Site Planning for Urban Stream
Protection (see References Cited). The manual contains practical guidance on the design of
stream buffers, cluster development, narrower residential streets and green parking lots.)

Chesapeake Bay ~ downloadable handbook:

http://www.fs.fed.us/na/morgantown/frm/water/riphbk/riphbkdl.htm

University of Maryland: http://www.riparianbuffers.umd.edu/

The following sources deal mainly with the design and impact of buffers in agricultural areas:
Iowa State: http://www.ent.iastate.edu/ipm/icm/1999/6-14-1999/riparian.html

USDA (includes worksheet): http://muck.soils.ufl.edu/incentive/cp391.html

USDA ~ guidelines: http://neirtnt.ct.nrcs.usda.gov/tecguide/ripbuf.htm

Summary of protection resources available to landowners and municipalities

As humans develop more and more land for agricultural, industrial, and residential areas, the need
to buffer our waterways has become evident. Many organizations, both public and private, and on
both regional and national levels have created grants and other financing programs to assist
communities and private landowners with the costs of buffering projects. The organizations with
the most available money are, for the most part, governmental offices. The Environmental
Protection Agency, the US Department of Agriculture, the National Fish and Wildlife Service, and
the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources all have large amounts of funding available to
cover such costs as land acquisition, environmental consulting, and the implementation of a
buffer. Private organizations, such as the Nature Conservancy, also have money available. These
grants normally cover 25-100% of the total cost of the program. While there is a certain amount
of competition for the most lucrative grants, there are many grants that go unclaimed each year
because no one applies for them. A number of groups have studied the economic benefits of
buffers as well as the ecological benefits and found them to actually be profitable for the
landowner in many cases. For more information on this aspect of buffers please see
http://www.ctic.purdue.edu/Core4/Core4Main.html for a comprehensive cost analysis of several
types of buffers. While buffer projects can be very expensive, cost should not be viewed as a
hindrance to the implementation of a buffer plan because there are many funding options
available to help defray the cost of protecting our waterways.