Ecological Indicators 10 (2010) 727733

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Ecological Indicators
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolind

Land-use proximity as a basis for assessing stream water quality in New York State (USA)
Christopher P. Tran a,*, Robert W. Bode b, Alexander J. Smith b, Gary S. Kleppel a
a b

Department of Biological Sciences, State University of New York at Albany, 1400 Washington Avenue, Albany, NY 12222, United States New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Stream Biomonitoring Unit, Albany NY 12233, United States

A R T I C L E I N F O

A B S T R A C T

Article history: Received 26 November 2008 Received in revised form 8 December 2009 Accepted 10 December 2009 Keywords: Water quality Land-use Habitat assessment

The inuence of the proximity of urbanization and agriculture to stream water quality is often difcult to quantify. The objectives of this study were to (1) compare the inuence of far-eld land-use, encompassing a watershed drainage area, to a near-eld, 200-m buffer on each side of the stream in an attempt to determine on which zone of inuence land-use has the largest impact on water quality, and (2) incorporate the EPAs Rapid Habitat Assessment Protocol (Barbour et al., 1999) to characterize the riparian and channel characteristics of a stream that inuence water quality, which can improve New York States monitoring protocols. Impacts were assessed through biological, chemical, and physicalhabitat data from 29 streams located within a variety of land-use categories. Land-use was identied through USGS National Land Cover Data (NLCD). Principal components analysis (PCA) indicated that land-use and water quality variables were associated with non-point source contaminants (e.g. nutrients and specic conductance). Using Spearmans rank correlation coefcient, signicant relationships between all three land-use types and stream water quality were determined at the 200-m buffer zone of inuence. At the watershed zone of inuence, water quality indicators did not correlate signicantly with land cover type. DO and BAP values within the 200-m buffer zone varied inversely with the percentage of urban-land cover. The stronger correlation between land cover and stream water quality at the 200-m proximity than that of the watershed suggests that the presence of a riparian buffer zone between streams and agricultural and urban areas is a signicant factor in reducing contamination from non-point source loading. Published by Elsevier Ltd.

1. Introduction Although the negative impacts of human land-use activities on surface water quality and aquatic ecosystems are well documented (Limburg and Schmidt, 1990; Woodcock et al., 2006, etc.), the importance of proximity of urbanization and agriculture to water bodies continues to be a topic of discussion. Numerous studies have suggested that surface water quality is affected by the land cover characteristics found within the watershed drainage areas of streams (Limburg and Schmidt, 1990; Jones et al., 1999; Bis et al., 2000; Riva-Murray et al., 2002; Woodcock et al., 2006). However, other studies have suggested that clear inuences of land-use impacts on water quality commonly occur within a shorter distance of the receiving body of water (Barling and Moore, 1994; Storey and Cowley, 1997; Harding et al., 1998). The objectives of this study were to (1) compare the inuence of far-eld land-use, encompassing a watershed drainage area, to a

near-eld, 200-m buffer on each side of the stream in an attempt to determine which proximity of land-use has the largest impact on water quality, and (2) incorporate the EPAs Rapid Habitat Assessment Protocol (Barbour et al., 1999) to characterize the riparian and channel characteristics of a stream which inuence water quality, but are often overlooked in New York States monitoring protocols. Accurate habitat assessments could add a new dimension of understanding to the biological and chemical data that is collected in New York State. 2. Methods 2.1. Study area Twenty-nine sampling sites were chosen in eastern (upper & lower Hudson Valley, Champlain Valley) New York State (Fig. 1) on the basis of the presence of three land cover types. Land cover information was derived from National Land Cover Data (NLCD 2001) at a 30-m resolution. The percentage of each land cover type was determined on two different zones of inuence using ArcGIS version 9.0. The 200-m buffer was chosen as a comparison to the

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 845 340 7846. E-mail addresses: chrisptran@gmail.com, tranc@dep.nyc.gov (C.P. Tran). 1470-160X/$ see front matter . Published by Elsevier Ltd. doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2009.12.002

728

C.P. Tran et al. / Ecological Indicators 10 (2010) 727733

sources during storm events may cause the loading of contaminants in amounts that would exceed probable levels of natural assimilative capacity, thus it was necessary to include all land-use upstream from sampling points. Urban (low-intensity developed, medium-intensity developed, high-intensity-developed, open space developed) sites were those which had >20% total area of impervious surface (watershed; N = 7, 200 m; N = 11). The agricultural (pasture, cropland) group consisted of sites with >25% total area of farmlands (watershed; N = 11, 200 m; N = 10). Sites which consisted <20% urban area, and <25% agricultural area, but consisted of >40% forested land were considered forested (deciduous, evergreen, mixed) sites (watershed; N = 10, 200 m; N = 8). Miscellaneous land cover types that did not fall into the forest, agriculture, or urban categories were not included in analyses. Therefore, land-use percentages for each site may not add up to one-hundred percent (Table 1). 2.2. Aquatic invertebrate communities
Fig. 1. D.E.C. RIBS sampling locations in New York State used in the study of the impacts of land-use on stream water quality.

watershed drainage area on the basis of ndings in previous research regarding the distance that land-use affects water quality (Hachmoller 1991; Houlahan and Findlay, 2004; Woodcock et al., 2006, etc.), as well as for the accuracy it provides when using GIS data at a resolution of 30 m. Land cover was rst determined on the far-eld by calculating the percentage of urban, agricultural, and forested land cover types within each streams watershed drainage area. The near-eld consisted of land-use within a 200-m buffer around existing stream boundaries. This buffer encompassed the entire length of the stream upstream of the sampling site. At some points located at a greater distance upstream, it is possible that in stream processes may have reset water quality variables before they reached the sampling point downstream. However, in many cases non-pointTable 1 Drainage areas and % land cover for the 29 sampling sites used in this study. Sampling site Drainage area (km2)

Invertebrate data for this project were provided by the Department of Environmental Conservation (D.E.C.) Stream Biomonitoring Unit. Benthic macroinvertebrates were sampled in accordance with the Rotating Integrated Basin Studies (RIBS) Ambient Water Quality Sampling Program. This data set was collected from each of the 29 stream sites between 2001 and 2005. Benthic macroinvertebrates were collected using a kick net during a 5-min traveling kick over a 5-m transect within a rife area. Samples were sieved in the eld using a U.S. no. 30 standard sieve, transferred to quart jars, and preserved in 95% aqueous ethanol. In the laboratory, the alcohol was removed with a U.S. no. 60 sieve. A random sub-sample was collected from each sample and placed in a 90-mm petri dish. The sub-sample was examined under a dissecting microscope and the rst 100 organisms >1.5 mm encountered were identied to the lowest possible taxonomic level, usually genus or species (Bode et al., 2002).

% Land-use watershed Forest Urban 15 23 12 0 1 3 0 4 31 0 61 1 0 1 39 1 2 1 1 1 0 0 61 0 55 5 20 0 0 Ag. 26 17 16 33 62 1 3 26 25 30 6 6 1 27 4 43 54 65 27 0 2 4 1 1 0 26 24 0 1

% Land-use 200-m buffer Forest 29 11 62 47 24 79 73 56 47 14 19 44 65 49 33 43 42 33 27 41 23 10 50 28 30 41 78 57 60 Urban 29 22 5 8 27 13 10 18 14 7 34 11 24 23 47 0 20 15 6 19 60 89 18 46 23 19 16 5 35 Ag. 16 27 9 34 15 4 2 14 8 66 5 42 5 23 8 29 28 38 44 26 1 0 7 1 36 26 0 36 1

Alplaus Kill Anthony Kill Ausable River Black Creek Canajoharie Creek Canopus Creek Cascade Brook Claverack Creek Dwaas Kill Fox Creek Lisha Kill Little Hoosic River Lower Esopus Creek Mettawee River Minisceongo Creek Ninemile Creek Oriskany Creek Otsquago Creek Poultney River Reall Creek Saranac River Saw Mill River Schroon River Spar Kill Sprout Creek Starch Factory Brook Upper Hudson River White Creek West Brook

138.0 162.0 145.3 97.9 177.8 41.1 279.7 442.0 50.4 271.5 45.4 193.4 1079.5 462.8 48.7 179.0 374.7 161.3 170.9 23.4 1615.3 65.4 1440.2 13.5 141.3 17.9 2188.6 125.6 23.9

55 25 73 65 36 93 95 64 40 67 28 93 99 68 51 54 41 34 69 95 96 85 37 93 44 62 55 92 93

C.P. Tran et al. / Ecological Indicators 10 (2010) 727733

729

Five macroinvertebrate community indices were calculated for each sample: (1) Species Richness (SPP; total number of species found), (2) Hilsenhoff Biotic Index (HBI, an indicator of organic pollution) (Hilsenhoff, 1987), (3) Percent Model Afnity (PMA, compared the sample community to what is considered a regionally ideal invertebrate community and provided an analysis of similarity between the two) (Novak and Bode, 1992), (4) Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and Trichoptera taxa (EPT, number of pollution intolerant species) (Lenat, 1993), (5) Biological Assessment Prole (BAP, overall integrity of the biotic community was determined by normalizing the four biotic indices previously described to a common scale ranging from 1 to 10 and taking the mean). Sites with high BAP scores (on a scale of 110) are considered to have good water quality (Bode et al., 2002). 2.3. Water and sediment quality Water quality samples were collected and analyzed at an interval of 12 times per month from April to November of the years 20012005. Mean values were used in statistical analyses. Water temperature, pH, dissolved oxygen (DO) and conductivity were measured with a Hydrolab Surveyer 4 multi-parameter sensor at a depth of approximately 1 m. Water was collected for the measurement of nutrients (nitrite (NO2), nitrate (NO3), and total phosphorus (TP)), total suspended solids (TSS) and fecal coliform counts with a ow-orienting, depth integrating sampling nozzle on a 1 L plastic bottle at multiple vertical transects across the stream. Analyses were performed by a NYSDEC contract laboratory using U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) methods for water quality analysis. 2.4. Rapid habitat assessment Habitat assessments including detailed observation and estimation of the condition of riparian habitat and stream channel at each site were performed in June and July of 2006. Sites were scored using the EPA Rapid Bioassessment Protocol for Use in Streams and Wadeable Rivers Habitat Assessment Field Data Sheet (Barbour et al., 1999). Each of 10 habitat categories were scored from 0 (poor) to 20 (optimal), giving a possible total score of 200. The categories were: (1) epifaunal substrate/available cover, (2) pool substrate characterization, (3) pool variability, (4) sediment deposition, (5) channel ow status, (6) channel alteration, (7) channel sinuosity, (8) bank stability, (9) vegetative protection, (10) riparian vegetative zone. Since the invertebrate and water sampling was conducted at an earlier date than the habitat assessment, current habitat was compared to photographs taken at the time of invertebrate and water sampling to ensure that no signicant changes in land-use occurred between the two time periods. Detailed eld reconnaissance and observations were made in order to give consideration to the possible presence of piped point-sources (i.e. waste water treatment efuent & storm water), which could add signicant levels of contamination at the sites. 2.5. Statistical analyses Principal components analysis (PCA) was used to identify key biological, chemical, and physical sources of variation among the sampling sites. Relationships among strongly loaded variables were quantied using Spearmans rank correlation coefcient in order to account for the possible presence of non-normal distribution (Helsel and Hirsch, 2002). Breakpoint regression was used to explore a potential threshold in the correlation between forested area and habitat score within the 200-m buffer. A one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to test the null hypothesis that communities representing the three land cover

types do not differ in habitat quality, invertebrate community composition, and water chemistry on either zone of inuence. Sites were placed into forest, urban, or agricultural groups based upon what was considered the dominant land cover type present. Tukeys multiple comparison test identied between-group differences in the data set. The three groups (forest, agriculture, urban) were compared against one another for each water/habitat quality parameter, for a total of 30 comparisons. Results of this analysis are presented with the statistics F (comparison of variance between-group factors to variance within-group factors), d.f. (degrees of freedom), and p (probability that the factor has no effect). 3. Results 3.1. Comparison of 200-m buffer and watershed zone of inuence A PCA performed on stream water quality data served as a means to group several potentially correlated variables into fewer sets of principal components which are uncorrelated with one another. The rst principal component accounts for the largest amount of variability in the data, and each successive principal component accounts for less. Results indicate that the water quality variables that make up a principal component axis share a common inuence. The rst two principal components explained 60% of the variability in the data set (Fig. 2). Habitat score and BAP had a strong negative loading on principal component (PC) 1, while TSS, NO3, conductivity, and TP were positively loaded on this axis. The water quality indicators which were positively loaded on PC 1 are commonly associated with urban and agricultural development, suggesting that this axis may be an indicator of alteration from the natural habitat of streams. The negative loadings of habitat score and BAP further indicate the inuence of the alteration of habitat and water quality. The frequency with which land-use types correlated with water quality differed depending on the zone of proximity (Table 2). The results of the Spearmans rank correlation coefcient analysis indicate that at the far-eld (watershed) zone of inuence land cover was not signicantly correlated with water quality variables, including stream invertebrate community structure. Correlations were more frequent within the near-eld (200-m buffer), with a signicant relationship occurring for decreases in DO concentrations with % urban-land cover (Table 2). Urban areas were also signicantly inversely correlated with BAP. DO concentrations were positively correlated with the presence of agriculture. The presence of forested area within the 200-m buffer was correlated with indicators of good water quality. This was observed with increases in habitat score, as well as decreases in conductivity, TSS,

Fig. 2. Ordination of principle components of water quality indicators used in this study, dominated by non-point source loading.

730

C.P. Tran et al. / Ecological Indicators 10 (2010) 727733

Table 2 A comparison of signicant correlations between land cover type and water quality indicators within the 200-m zone of inuence based on Spearmans rank correlation coefcient (r) (p < 0.05). Land cover category Forest Water quality parameter Habitat score Conductivity TSS TP Turbidity DO BAP DO r-Value 0.52 0.53 0.64 0.46 0.53 0.53 0.44 0.47 N 29 22 23 22 23 22 29 22

Agriculture Urban

TP, and turbidity. The relationship between forest area and habitat score is observed in Fig. 3. Breakpoint regression suggests that a threshold exists at approximately 42% forested area (N = 29, breakpoint 41.95, r = 0.83, 68% variance explained, p < 0.05), at which point habitat score does not signicantly increase with forested area. Regression models performed separately on data points below this threshold (N = 14, r = 0.38, p < 0.05) were stronger than those above it (N = 15, r = 0.01, p < 0.05). A difference in observed relationships between forest area and conductivity can be found in Fig. 4. ANOVA identied signicant differences between land cover types in TP, TSS, DO and turbidity within the 200-m buffer (TP, F = 4.44, d.f. = 2, p < 0.05; TSS, F = 4.03, d.f. = 2, p < 0.05; DO, F = 3.58, d.f. = 2, p < 0.05; turbidity, F = 3.87, d.f. = 2, p < 0.05). Tukeys test indicated that TP concentrations of streams buffered by forests were lower than in streams in urban buffer areas (Fig. 5). Forested areas also had lower values than agricultural areas in TSS concentrations (Fig. 6) and turbidity (mean difference = 8.29, d.f. = 2, p < 0.05). Measurements of DO at urban and agricultural sites were signicantly different (mean difference = 2.02, d.f. = 2, p < 0.05). ANOVA for land cover type on the watershed zones of inuence revealed signicant differences between groups only in temperature (F = 2.24, d.f. = 2, p < 0.05). A signicant difference in temperature was observed between the forest and agricultural groups using Tukeys test (mean difference = 4.40, d.f. = 2, p < 0.05).

Fig. 4. Conductivity concentrations decrease with forest area within the 200-m buffer (A), but shows little correlation on the watershed scale (B).

Fig. 3. The results of breakpoint regression suggest that a threshold exists at approximately 42% forest cover (breakpoint 41.95, r = 0.83, 68% variance explained, p < 0.05), at which point habitat score does not signicantly increase with % forest cover.

Fig. 5. Box plots displaying the signicant difference in median total phosphorus measurements between the forest and urban groups (mean difference = .038, d.f. = 2, p < 0.05).

C.P. Tran et al. / Ecological Indicators 10 (2010) 727733

731

4. Discussion 4.1. Inuence of the 200-m zone of inuence on water quality The proximity at which land-use inuences water quality has been studied in several different ways with varying results (Limburg and Schmidt, 1990; Sponseller et al., 2001; Woodcock et al., 2006, etc.). Results suggest that for this particular study area and catchment size, there was a stronger correlation among water and habitat quality characteristics and land-use characteristics within the 200-m buffer zone than over the entire watershed. Urbanization had the strongest negative inuence over water quality in this study. Since surface water contamination is highly dependent on storm water runoff, it is not surprising that contaminants located in close proximity are more likely to reach water bodies than those located at a further distance within the watershed. Phillips and Hanchar (1996) estimated that the Hudson River Basin, where many of the sites in our study are located, receives 2030 inches of storm water runoff annually from impervious surfaces. It was observed during eld surveys that the urban sites in this study had very little or no vegetated riparian zone, therefore increasing the probability that concentrations of these contaminants increased after storm events. The contaminants and increased temperature in this runoff likely contributed to low DO values and a sharp decrease in BAP values within the 200-m buffer analyses. Low DO values have traditionally been associated with the elimination of sensitive taxa from streams (Closs and Lake, 1994). Sponseller et al. (2001) found that in a comparison between catchment and local proximity land-use, the strongest relationships with temperature, EPT richness, and overall invertebrate diversity occurred within a 200-m buffer. It is also possible that the drop-off of invertebrate communities in this study may have been a result of increases in sedimentation after storm events. Sediment deposition has been known to cause shifts in invertebrate communities from tolerant to intolerant species by reducing the amount of available habitat, which in most cases is rocky substrate (Lenat et al., 1981). It is important to note that in some instances contaminant loading can be independent of land-use proximity, and may not be a direct reection of adjacent land-use. It is possible that storm water runoff, as well as efuent from waste water treatment plants can be piped past the forested areas and directly into streams. However, the presence of piped infrastructure was not observed at the sampling sites of this study during eld reconnaissance. It was also taken into account that this piped point source infrastructure could be present upstream from the area that was surveyed during the habitat assessment. Piped infrastructure did not appear to have a signicant inuence on water quality in the areas that were observed directly and there is not sufcient evidence of contaminant loading through piped infrastructure in areas that were not observed. This suggests that water quality in this study is linked to non-point source loading in storm water runoff, particularly in areas with impervious surface, and is being offset by the ability of riparian zones to act as a buffer. Several of the urban sites in this study displayed signs of channel alteration and a loss of natural sinuosity, typically consisting of straightened channels and the removal of natural woody debris and bank vegetation (Wall et al., 1998). This trend was observed at sites urbanized within the 200-m buffer such as Anthony Kill and Canojoharie Creek, where the natural stream banks had been replaced by cement walls. These channelized streams displayed poor water quality and decreased ability to support a diversity of biota. Results of the habitat assessment suggest that high conductivity and TSS values, as well as decreased BAP, EPT, PMA, and HBI values were evident in streams with channels altered from their natural states. It is possible that

Fig. 6. Box plots displaying signicant difference in total suspended solids count between the forest and agriculture groups. High variability is displayed within the urban and agriculture groups, suggesting that there are a variety of sub-groups within each land cover type (mean difference = 11.3, d.f. = 2, p < 0.05).

3.2. Rapid habitat assessment Total habitat scores for the 29 sampling sites ranged from 84 to 180 out of a possible 200. There was a signicant relationship between the rapid habitat scores and the measured water quality indicators that was consistent with the physical-habitat characteristics observed within the 200-m buffer. Many of the land-use characteristics that inuenced water quality within the 200-m buffer were visually evident while performing the rapid habitat assessment. Five of the strongest correlations between habitat assessment metrics and biological and chemical variables are displayed in Table 3. Sites located in a channel which has been physically altered from its natural state (i.e. cement banks, straightened channel, etc.) reected increased TSS, nitrite and conductivity values. Results suggest that macroinvertebrate communities are highly dependent on natural channel characteristics, as EPT and BAP values were higher in channels that were not signicantly altered by human activity.

Table 3 Signicant correlations between habitat scoring categories and water quality parameters based on Spearmans rank correlation coefcient (r) (p < 0.05, N = 29). Habitat scoring category Channel alteration Water quality parameter BAP HBI EPT PMA Conductivity Nitrite TSS Fecal coliform Nitrite Fecal coliform PMA Conductivity Nitrite TSS r-Value 0.38 0.60 0.47 0.52 0.65 0.45 0.45 0.68 0.57 0.55 0.49 0.54 0.60 0.51

Channel sinuosity

Vegetative protection Pool substrate Characterization

732

C.P. Tran et al. / Ecological Indicators 10 (2010) 727733

channels that lose their natural form and integrity have a decreased capacity to assimilate contaminants through natural processes. The alteration of stream channels and hydrologic regime is a trend that is not always reective of land-use within the broad spectrum of a watershed, but is more likely to be evident within the immediate stream channel and the habitat directly adjacent to it (200-m buffer width). This suggests that for water quality assessment, an attempt to increase focus on local habitat assessment may be very effective in understanding stream ecosystem functioning and detecting negative water quality issues. Agricultural land-use was signicantly different from forested land-use within the 200-m buffer, particularly through the contribution of TSS which has been known to transport various pathogens and contaminants (Wall et al., 1998). Total suspended solid levels were highly variable in the agricultural areas within the 200-m buffer (Fig. 4), due in part to the variety of agricultural types. It was observed that sites that were forested within the 200m buffer had signicant decreases in TSS, most likely due to the bank stability and erosion prevention that is provided by the rooting of vegetation (Rosgen, 2001). It seems counterintuitive that DO levels were positively correlated with the presence of agriculture in this study. One possible explanation for this observation is that many of the agricultural sites in this study maintained a ow regime that consisted of either rife/run or rife/pool sequences. Particularly in the shallow stream types where there is less vertical stratication of the water column, a relatively turbulent ow regime consisting of rifes where the water surface is broken by ow can provide adequate aeration and mixing of atmospheric oxygen in the water column (Matthews and Berg, 1997). It is possible that the presence of rife sequences at the agricultural sites resulted in the high oxygen levels which were observed. 4.2. Inuence of the watershed zone of inuence on water quality Land-use assessed on the watershed zone of inuence did not have a signicant inuence over water quality indicators in this study. One possible explanation for the difference seen between zones of inuence is that although a watershed can be predominantly forested, there may still be some urban or agricultural activity that is inuencing water quality within a few hundred meters of the stream. Five of the sites in this study; West Brook, Saranac River, Spar Kill, Minisceongo Creek, and Lower Esopus Creek were initially thought to have been dominated by forested area based on land cover within their respective watersheds, but were determined to be highly urbanized when land cover was calculated within a 200-m buffer of the streams (Table 1). A similar trend was noted by Sponseller et al. (2001), who observed that one of their south-western Virginia sampling sites was >90% forested within its catchment, but only $75% forested within a 200-m buffer of the stream. This difference in forested area can have a strong inuence over water quality, and further suggests that attempting a single-zone of inuence approach to studying land-use may yield inaccurate results. It is possible that the distance over which land-use impacts water quality may be highly dependent upon the size of the streams under study. Woodcock et al. (2006) found that invertebrate communities in Adirondack (NY) headwater streams were more signicantly inuenced by land-use within the entire watershed catchment than within smaller patches located nearsite. However, it is likely that in the smaller drainage areas of headwater streams (<25 km2), land-use is located in relatively close proximity to the water and is thus more likely to have an inuence over water quality and ecosystem functioning. A greater percentage of the land cover in the larger watersheds used in our study (most >25 km2) is located a larger distance away from the

actual stream, therefore reducing the possibility that it will have a greater inuence on water quality than land-use that is in closer proximity. 4.3. Rapid habitat assessment as a tool for water quality analysis The results of the rapid habitat assessment further suggest the importance of including a study of the near-eld when viewing the impacts of land-use on water quality. The scoring systems negative correlations with conductivity, TSS, and turbidity are consistent with results of land-use within the 200-m buffer. PCA results also display habitat score as negatively associated with indicators of poor water quality, indicating that the rapid habitat assessment may be used as an accurate and efcient predictor of how land-use within the near-eld is inuencing water quality. The rapid habitat assessment is not intended to be used as a stand alone metric for the assessment of stream habitat or water quality. Stream water quality assessments which include biological and chemical sampling, which is the common practice in NYS, can benet from incorporating the rapid habitat assessment because it can add an important dimension of data that can make biomonitoring data more multi faceted, while adding little cost to projects. The habitat assessment in this study proved to be highly dependent on the presence of an adequate riparian area. The dense bank vegetation of the riparian zone prevented excess sediment deposition due to bank erosion, while also preventing contaminants from entering the streams during runoff events (Storey and Cowley, 1997). While conducting a similar habitat assessment, Roth et al. (1996) also found that sites that were lacking riparian cover displayed lower habitat scores. Therefore, it is not surprising that the lowest habitat scores in our study came from sites located in urban areas with poor water quality. The Rapid Habitat Assessment Protocol allows the sampler to examine the most current physical condition of a stream, and when combined with current protocols for biological and chemical sampling, can provide a well rounded and efcient assessment of overall stream integrity. Some contradiction exists as to whether habitat should be assessed at a single section of a stream, or as an average of multiple sections (Rabeni, 2000). In our study, all biological and chemical samples were taken using protocols for rapid assessment from a single transect. Therefore, in the interest of efciency and consistency of data, a single habitat assessment for each site taken in the same location as the biological and chemical samples was the most logical procedure. This protocol can be performed in approximately 510 min per site. A noticeable drawback to this method is that it is subjective in nature, possibly allowing a margin of error between different samplers. However, Hannaford et al. (1997) found that preassessment training of the observer does in fact reduce variability in results. Proper training, in addition to the simplicity of the ten categories included in this assessment should ensure that scores obtained by various samplers would most likely be within a similar range. 5. Conclusions The results of this study demonstrate the importance of considering the proximity of land-use in stream water quality assessment. Urbanization and agriculture signicantly inuenced stream water quality, particularly through the removal of riparian habitat and the alteration of stream channels that accompanies these land-uses. The understanding of this important link between land-use and stream water quality is critical to the management of healthy ecosystems. However, it should be understood that although the preservation or restoration of riparian habitat can

C.P. Tran et al. / Ecological Indicators 10 (2010) 727733

733

effectively reduce non-point source pollution, it will not eliminate all water quality issues resulting from urban and agricultural development. Although not evident in this study, there can be cases where a signicant amount of contaminants are being piped into streams. In these instances, a wide riparian buffer alone cannot counteract decreases in water quality. Until both point- and non-point-sources of contamination are addressed along with the alteration of hydrologic regime, streams are not likely to maintain integrity. This study suggests that near-eld development is more strongly correlated than far-eld development with water quality in streams and that the preservation of a high quality riparian zone directly adjacent to a stream can provide considerable protection from the loading of non-point source contaminants, particularly in areas with a high presence of impervious surfaces. Results suggest that a rapid habitat assessment (i.e. Barbour et al., 1999) could add important data to water quality monitoring programs regarding the physical characteristics of streams, and may increase the understanding of biological and chemical processes. Acknowledgments The authors would like to thank the NYSDEC Stream Biomonitoring Unit for providing data and continuous assistance with the development of this study; Douglas Burns and Karen Murray of the USGS, Monika Calef of SUNY at Albany, and Tim Mihuc of the Lake Champlain Research Institute for providing assistance with development, statistical analyses, and editing of this manuscript. References
Barbour, M.T., Gerritsen, J., Snyder, B.D., Stribling, J.B., 1999. Rapid Bioassessment Protocols for Use in Streams and Wadeable Rivers: Periphyton Benthic Macroinvertebrates and Fish, second ed. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Ofce of Water, Washington, DC (EPA 841-B-99-002). Barling, R.D., Moore, I.D., 1994. Role of buffer strips in management of waterway pollution: a review. Journal of Environmental Management 18 (4), 543558. Bis, B., Zdanowicz, A., Zalewski, M., 2000. Effects of catchment properties on hydrochemistry, habitat complexity and invertebrate community structure in a Lowland River. Hydrobiology 422 (423), 369387. Bode, R.W., Novak, M.A., Abele, L.E., Heitzman, D.L., Smith, A.J., 2002. Quality Assurance Work Plan for Biological Stream Monitoring in New York State. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Albany, NY, 115 pp. Closs, G.P., Lake, P.S., 1994. Spatial and temporal variation in the structure of an intermittent-stream food web. Ecological Monographs 64 (1), 121.

Hachmoller, B., Matthews, R.A., Brakke, D.F., 1991. Effects of riparian community structure, sediment size, and water quality on the macroinvertebrate communities in a small, suburban stream. Northwest Science 65 (3), 125132. Hannaford, M.J., Barbour, M.T., Resh, V.H., 1997. Training reduces observer variability in visual-based assessments of stream habitat. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 16 (4), 853860. Harding, J.S., Beneld, E.F., Bolstad, P.V., Helfman, G.S., Jones, E.B.D., 1998. Stream biodiversity: the ghost of land use past. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 95 (25), 1484314847. Helsel, D.R., Hirsch, R.M., 2002. Statistical methods in water resources. In: Techniques of Water Resources Investigations Book 4, U.S. Geological Survey, pp. 1 510 (Chapter A3). Hilsenhoff, W.L., 1987. An improved Biotic Index of organic stream pollution. Great Lakes Entomologist 20 (1), 3140. Houlahan, J.E., Findlay, C.S., 2004. Estimating the critical distance at which adjacent land-use degrades wetland water and sediment quality. Landscape Ecology 19, 677690. Jones, E.B.D., Helfman, G.S., Harper, J.O., Bolstad, P.V., 1999. Effects of riparian forest removal on sh assemblages in Southern Appalachian streams. Conservation Biology 13 (6), 14541465. Lenat, D.R., 1993. A biotic index for the Southeastern United States: derivation and list of tolerance values, with criteria for assigning water-quality ratings. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 12 (3), 279290. Lenat, D.R., Penrose, D.L., Eagleson, K.W., 1981. Variable effects of sediment addition on stream benthos. Hydrobiologia 79, 187194. Limburg, K.E., Schmidt, R.E., 1990. Patterns of sh spawning in Hudson River tributaries: response to an urban gradient? Ecology 71 (4), 12381245. Matthews, K.R., Berg, N.H., 1997. Rainbow trout responses to water temperature and dissolved oxygen stress in two Southern California stream pools. Journal of Fish Biology 50, 5067. Novak, M.A., Bode, R.W., 1992. Percent Model Afnity: a new measure of macroinvertebrate community composition. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 11 (1), 8085. Phillips, P.J., Hanchar, D.W., 1996. Water-Quality Assessment of the Hudson River Basin in New York and Adjacent States-Analysis of Available Nutrient, Pesticide, Volatile Organic Compound and Suspended-Sediment Data. U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Reports 96-4065. Rabeni, C.F., 2000. Evaluating physical habitat integrity in relation to the biological potential of streams. Hydrobiologia 422 (423), 245256. Riva-Murray, K., Bode, R.W., Phillips, P.J., Wall, G.L., 2002. Impact source determination with biomonitoring data in New York State: concordance with environmental data. Northeastern Naturalist 9 (2), 127162. Roth, N.E., Allan, J.D., Erickson, D.L., 1996. Landscape inuences on stream biotic integrity assessed at multiple spatial scales. Landscape Ecology 11, 141156. Rosgen, D.L., 2001. A stream channel stability assessment methodology. In: Proceedings of the Seventh Federal Interagency Sedimentation Conference, vol. 2. pp. 1118. Sponseller, R.A., Beneld, E.F., Valett, H.M., 2001. Relationships between land use, spatial scale and stream macroinvertebrate communities. Freshwater Biology 46, 14091424. Storey, R.G., Cowley, D.R., 1997. Recovery of three New Zealand rural streams as they pass through native forest remnants. Hydrobiologia 353, 6376. Wall, G.R., Murray, K.R., Phillips, P.J., 1998. Water Quality in the Hudson River Basin, 19921995. U.S. Geological Survey Circular, New York and Adjacent States, p. 1165. Woodcock, T., Mihuc, T., Romanowicz, E., Allen, E., 2006. Land-use effects on catchment and patch scale habitat and macroinvertebrate response in the Adirondack Uplands. American Fisheries Society Symposium 48, 395411.