## 3 Results  
A classified raster was created for each HUC 14 watershed to delineate and characterize land cover classes within each watershed (Figure 4). The classified raster for each stream site was extracted by mask from the overall study area raster, with separate calculations for land class percentages. Sites 2, 3, and 4 (Woodcocks Branch, Little Sixmile Creek, and Indian Fork Creek, respectively) are in the Forested watershed (predominantly forest cover), while Sites 6, 7, and 8 (Mulberry Creek, East Clear Creek, and Lutz Run Creek, respectively) are in the agriculture watershed (agricultural land use predominates). Sites 2 and 3 exhibited significantly higher land cover percentages for each stream drainage area (68.12% and 60.0%, respectively) of the forested land class (Table 1). Site 4 also resulted in a dominant forested area of 32.8%, which was primarily a riparian zone. Forested watershed stream sites showed minimal cropland, developed/impervious, and water/shadows classes. In the agriculture watershed, cropland dominated, with Site 7 having the highest percentage (54.2%), followed by Site 8 (43.27%) and Site 6 (39.2%). Sites 6 and 8 showed higher forested and pasture/grassland percentages than Site 7. Water/shadows and developed/impervious classes are minimal in all agriculture watershed stream sites. Forested land near streams was limited, occurring mainly in isolated pockets within each stream drainage area away from the actual stream. Water quality parameters were compared between forested and agricultural streams to determine if any significant differences occurred between the cover types (Table 2). Dissolved oxygen (DO) was found to be significantly lower (\(p<0.0001\)) for the agricultural \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Land Cover Class** & **Site 2** & **Site 3** & **Site 4** & **Site 6** & **Site 7** & **Site 8** \\  & **(\%)** & **(\%)** & **(\%)** & **(\%)** & **(\%)** & **(\%)** & **(\%)** \\ \hline Water/shadows & 4.15 & 3.21 & 1.13 & 2.81 & 2.45 & 3.99 \\ Impervious/developed & 0.97 & 1.21 & 7.89 & 4.29 & 2.77 & 1.22 \\ Forest & 68.12 & 59.99 & 32.8 & 25.32 & 16.73 & 20.91 \\ Cropland & 4.08 & 6.06 & 17.35 & 39.20 & 54.20 & 43.27 \\ Pasture/grassland & 22.68 & 29.33 & 40.83 & 28.38 & 23.85 & 30.60 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 1: Land cover percentages of sampled stream sites. Figure 4: **(a)** Site 2—Woodcocks branch classified raster; **(b)** Site 3—Little Sixmile Creek classified raster; **(c)** Site 4—Indian Fork Creek classified raster; **(d)** Site 6—Mulberry Creek classified raster; **(e)** Site 7—East Clear Creek classified raster; **(f)** Site 8—Lutz Run Creek classified raster. streams (8.15 mg/L) compared to forested streams (8.98 mg/L). There was no significant difference found in regard to stream temperature (\(p\) = 0.1409). The stream pH was significantly lower (\(p\) = 0.0480) for agricultural streams (7.67) than forested streams (7.72). Total suspended solids (TSS) were significantly greater (\(p\) = 0.0083) for agricultural streams (45.76 mg/L) compared to forested streams (38.06 mg/L). The TSS discharge was also found to be significantly higher for agricultural streams (8000.58 mg/s) than forested streams (2847.66 mg/s). Lastly, the stream flow was significantly greater for the agricultural streams (4.73 m\({}^{3}\)/s) than the forested streams (1.63 m\({}^{3}\)/s). Letters 'A' and 'B' represents groupings that are not significantly different from each other according to [PERSON]'s LSD test. Water quality parameters were also evaluated by season (spring, summer, and fall) and land cover to determine if any differences occurred by season in the agricultural and forested streams (Table 3). The same water quality parameters were assessed with the addition of season to the model. All two-way ANOVA models were significant (\(p\) < 0.05); however, there were no significant interactions between land cover (ag/forested) and season. Significant seasonal differences occurred for the pH.