United States

Department of

Agriculture

Forest Service

Southern 

Research Station

Research Paper

SRS—51

Flat Branch Monitoring Project: 

Stream Water Temperature and 

Sediment Responses to Forest 

Cutting in the Riparian Zone 

Barton D. Clinton, James M. Vose, and 

Dick L. Fowler
The Authors:

Barton D. Clinton, Research Ecologist, James M. Vose,

Project Leader and Research Ecologist, and Dick L. Fowler,

Biological Scientist, U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest 

Service, Southern Research Station, Coweeta Hydrologic 

Laboratory, Otto, NC 28763.

August 2010

Southern Research Station 

200 W.T. Weaver Blvd. 

Asheville, NC 28804

Product Disclaimer 

The use of trade or firm names in this publication is for 

reader information and does not imply endorsement by the 

U.S. Department of Agriculture of any product or service.
Flat Branch Monitoring Project: Stream Water 

Temperature and Sediment Responses to Forest 

Cutting in the Riparian Zone 

Barton D. Clinton, James M. Vose, and Dick L. Fowler

Abstract

Stream water protection during timber-harvesting activities is of primary 

interest to forest managers. In this study, we examine the potential impacts 

of riparian zone tree cutting on water temperature and total suspended solids. 

We monitored stream water temperature and total suspended solids before and 

after timber harvesting along a second-order tributary of the Coleman River in 

northeastern Georgia, where logging with rubber-tired skidders was conducted 

in the riparian area along alternating 60-m stream reaches on the east side of 

the stream. We monitored temperature above the management unit (reference), 

at a location within the cut area (within cut), and at a third site 150 m below 

the cut area (below cut). We measured total suspended solids during base 

flow and storm flow, taking weekly stream water grab samples above the site 

and above and below each riparian area, for a total of six sampling locations. 

We found that stream water temperature following harvest increased within 

the cut area relative to the reference but decreased at the below sample site 

back to reference conditions. Overall, total suspended solids responses were 

minimal or nonexistent during base and storm flows within the cut relative 

to the reference site, and temperature responses were minimal. Unusually 

warm and dry weather existed for most of the logging period, which may have 

minimized the potential for runoff, erosion, and sediment; however, low flows 

may have contributed to the small increases in water temperature. Hence, we 

observed only marginal effects of riparian zone cutting on water temperature 

and total suspended solids in this study. 

Keywords: Forest cutting, streamside management zones, stream water 

temperature, total suspended solids. 

Introduction

Researchers have long been interested in the effects of timberharvesting activities on water quality (Knoepp and Clinton 

2009, Lieberman and Hoover 1948, Moore and others 2005, 

Swank and others 2001, Tebo 1955). For example, early 

studies at the Coweeta Hydrologic Laboratory focused on 

the impacts of historical land uses such as exploitive logging 

practices and mountain farming on stream water quality. The 

exploitive logging experiment at the Coweeta Hydrologic 

Laboratory (Lieberman and Hoover 1948) resulted in total 

suspended solids (TSS) values 20-fold greater than in an 

adjacent control watershed. Swift and Messer (1971) measured 

stream water temperature responses to forest removal on 

six small watersheds and reported no change in maximum 

summer temperature to as much as a 7 °C increase in streams 

draining the mountain farm. 

One key factor regulating water quality responses to 

management is how forest management impacts structural and 

functional processes in the riparian zones. Forested riparian 

areas mediate a number of terrestrial-aquatic linkages (Karr 

and Schlosser 1978) by influencing physical, chemical, 

and biological dimensions of materials that move from the 

terrestrial system to streams. Many studies have quantified the 

impacts of riparian zone management on aquatic resources in 

the Southern Appalachians (Greene 1950, Jones and others 

1999, Swift and Messer 1971, Webster and others 1992) 

with most of the studies focusing on the effects of removing 

(partially or completely) the vegetation from riparian zones. 

Results varied but, in general, indicated that manipulation of 

vegetation in steep mountain watersheds can alter thermal, 

sediment, and discharge regimes of the affected stream 

through reduced shading, soil disturbance, and water uptake. 

Streamside management zones (SMZs) implement some of 

the more commonly recommended best management practices 

(BMPs) for water resource protection (Klapproth 1999). 

Development of SMZ practices was based primarily on two 

erosion-related issues: water quality and site productivity 

(Lakel and others 2006). Even though a wide range in 

requirements or recommendations exists across jurisdictions 

(Lee and others 2004), most States provide BMPs for forestmanagement activities that protect water quality and aquatic 

habitat. For example, guidelines for Georgia are published in 

“Georgia’s Best Management Practices for Forestry” by the 

Georgia Forestry Commission (1999). Numerous studies have 

examined the usefulness of BMPs in a variety of settings. 

Arthur and others (1998) compared the effectiveness of BMPs 

used during riparian and upland forest harvest in the Central 

Appalachians and found that properly implemented BMPs 

resulted in significantly lower amounts of post-harvest sediment 

compared with not using BMPs. Similarly, Kochenderfer 
2

and others (1997) examined the effectiveness of BMPs at 

minimizing sediment yield and stream temperature in a West 

Virginia watershed following timber harvest and, based on 

observed increases in sediment yield, concluded that sediment 

generated during the logging operation represented < 5 percent 

of total stream exports over an estimated 100-year rotation. 

Further, reducing basal area by 44 percent had a negligible 

effect on maximum growing season stream water temperature 

due to adequate shading by residual trees and understory 

shrubs. 

This study examines the cumulative effects of streamside 

forest management on water quality where forest harvesting 

was conducted in discrete patches along the stream. Our 

objectives were to examine the cumulative effects of forest 

harvesting in patches within the riparian zone on stream water 

temperature and TSS. 

Methods

Study Site Description

This study was conducted on the Chattooga Ranger District 

of the Chattahoochee-Oconee National Forest, Rabun County, 

Georgia (35° N, 83° W). The study stream is Flat Branch, a 

perennial second-order tributary of the Coleman River located 

in the headwaters of the Tallulah River Watershed (fifth level 

HUC 0306010207) within the Savannah River Basin (third 

level HUC 030601) (Seaber and others 1987). Stream grade 

for the study reach is approximately 4.1 percent, and the 

total contributing watershed area, including the cut area, is 

approximately 134 ha. The area receives abundant rainfall 

distributed evenly throughout the year and averages 1650 mm 

annually, with < 10 percent falling as snow or ice. Average 

annual air temperature is 14 °C and ranges from an average 

monthly minimum in January of -4 °C to an average monthly 

maximum in August of 25 °C. Elevation at the study site is 

approximately 900 m, and the topography is relatively flat 

to gently rolling. Soils in the area are of the Edneyville and 

Bradson series in the uplands, and Toccoa and Tusquitee series 

near the stream. 

Logging Description and Layout

Logging operations used a ground-based system that included 

rubber-tired grapple and cable skidders, rubber-tired feller 

and chainsaw felling, a knuckleboom log loader, and tractor 

trailer tree-length hauling. In figure 1, areas shown in solid 

gray were designated for shelterwood harvest, and areas in 

dark gray cross-hatch are streamside management zones 

(SMZs). Equipment was not permitted in the SMZ, and 

chainsaw-felled timber in these areas was removed by cabling 

to nearby shelterwood areas. Additionally, two 60-m strips 

along the east side of the stream, separated by 60 m of riparian 

zone management, were designated to receive shelterwood 

area timber harvest levels. The objective of this additional 

treatment was to produce streamside early successional habitat 

within the SMZ, and to examine potential impacts of this 

prescription on water quality.

Timber harvesting began in October 2007 and ended in July 

2008. A primary objective of the timber-harvesting project was 

to create habitat for species of wildlife dependent on highelevation and early-successional (< 20 years old) forest habitat, 

such as the golden-winged warbler (Vermivora chrystoptera)

and ruffed grouse (Bonasa umbellus), as well as other game 

and nongame species of wildlife. Secondary project objectives 

Figure 1—Map of monitoring area showing areas receiving 

shelterwood cuts within (dark gray cross-hatched) and outside (light 

gray cross-hatched) the riparian zone. Also shown are stream sample 

locations above and below the study area. 

Flat Branch

Shelterwood Areas Outside

and Within Riparian Zones

Water sample locations designated for shelterwood harvest

Shelterwood areas within riparian zone designated as SMZs

Shelterwood areas outside riparian zones

Forest Service roads Pat Hopton

7/02/09
3

included improving native brook trout habitat and reducing 

risk of southern pine beetle (Dendroctonus frontalis) attacks.1

Stream Water Temperature

Hourly stream water temperature (°C) was measured 

continuously throughout the spring, summer, and fall of 

2006, 2007, and 2008. Hourly measurements were taken 

by submersible temperature sensors (HOBO® Pro v2 Data 

Loggers, Onset Computer Corporation) placed above the 

timber harvest area at the midpoint within the harvest area, and 

at a location 150 m below the cut. Care was taken to ensure 

that all temperature sensors remained submerged during the 

study period.

Suspended Solids

Stream water grab samples were collected weekly adjacent 

to each water temperature data collection station and at four 

additional stations along the stream reach within the cut area. 

Samples were collected with 1-L Nalgene® sample bottles. 

Sample stations within the cut area included all but the upper 

and lower stations (fig. 1). To minimize the impacts on TSS 

that might come from disturbing the stream bottom while 

walking in the stream, grab samples were taken by beginning 

each collection at the most downstream sample location 

and then working upstream, i.e., samples were taken while 

walking upstream. In addition, care was taken to ensure that 

no contact was made between the lip of the sample bottle 

and submerged objects. Bottles were clearly labeled with the 

sample location (i.e., reference, within cut, below cut) and 

the collection date. Storm samples were collected using the 

sampling design above, and as soon after storm initiation as 

possible. Because of the remote nature of the study site, it 

was not always known at what point during storm flow (i.e., 

increasing or decreasing discharge) samples were actually 

retrieved, and only one sample was taken at each collection 

station for each storm event. Previous studies in the region 

suggest that TSS can be higher on the rising limb of the 

hydrograph versus the recession limb (Riedel and others 

2004). Our sampling took about 45 minutes to complete, so 

it is likely that storm-flow sampling sometimes occurred on 

the rising limb of the hydrograph and sometimes occurred 

on the falling limb of the hydrograph (Riedel and others 

2004). While this introduces variability into the storm flow 

TSS data, it does not bias the sampling results, because we 

averaged across sample collections, thereby including samples 

collected on both rising and falling limbs of the hydrograph 

(see Data Analysis section). All weekly sample collections 

were refrigerated until analyzed. Filtration of stream samples 

for estimating concentrations of TSS (mg L-1) were conducted 

at the analytical lab of the Coweeta Hydrologic Laboratory 

in accordance with established Coweeta QA/QC Laboratory 

protocols (Coweeta QA/QC Manual, Analytical Laboratory 

publication2).

Data Analysis

Values for TSS within the cut area (all locations excluding 

the upper and lower locations, see fig. 1) were averaged 

to determine an overall within-cut value for both baseflow and storm-flow conditions. Comparisons were made 

among the three sample/monitoring locations (reference, 

within-cut, below-cut) to test for treatment effects on TSS 

using a repeated measures analysis given AR(1) covariance 

structure (PROC MIXED, SAS Institute 2008). TSS data 

were analyzed for differences between sites before and after 

harvest for both base-flow and storm-flow conditions. Stream 

water temperature data were analyzed for treatment effects 

using PROC GLM (SAS Institute 2008). Where treatment 

effects were detected for both analyses above, least square 

means were computed and Tukey’s pairwise comparisons 

were performed using an experiment-wise alpha of 0.05. For 

temporal responses, water temperature and TSS were analyzed 

at each sample location independently for changes between 

pre- and post-harvest conditions at those locations. A graphical 

analysis of stream water temperature was made by examining 

the difference between the reference and within-cut and 

below-cut sites. For this analysis, values greater than zero for 

within-cut or below-cut sites were interpreted as being greater 

than the reference. Significant differences were evaluated at 

the α=0.05 level of significance.

Results and Discussion

Stream Temperature

There was no significant difference in summertime mean or 

minimum temperature between cut and uncut areas (table 

1). A small but statistically significant increase in monthly 

summer maximum stream water temperature occurred within 

the cut area following harvest (F=3.69, P=0.05), but water 

temperatures were not different from reference levels at the 

below-cut site (table 1). In figure 2 we compare mean water 

temperature at the within- and below-cut sites to the reference 

site by subtracting out water temperature at the reference site. 

1 Personal communication. 2008. David Jensen, District Ranger, U.S. Forest 

Service, Chattooga RD, 9975 Highway 441 South, Lakemont, GA 30552.

2 U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service. [N.d.]. Coweeta QA/QC 

Manual, Analytical Laboratory Publication. Internal report. On file with: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Southern Research Station, 

Coweeta Hydrologic Laboratory, 3160 Coweeta Lab Road, Otto, NC 28763.
4

Values above the “zero” line represent water temperatures 

greater than the reference. In this comparison (fig. 2), there 

was an increase of approximately 2 °C within the harvest area 

during the summer of 2008, although this increase was not 

statistically significant. Comparing that same location within 

the cut area to a point 150 m below the lower boundary of the 

cut, the observed increase dissipated and was not different 

from the reference location. 

Monthly maximum stream water temperatures were greatest 

during the summer within the cut area compared with the 

reference and below the cut, and the reference and below the 

Figure 2—Stream water temperature (°C) at Flat Branch. Values are differences in temperature between sample sites (within 

cut and below cut) and the reference site. Positive values indicate temperatures greater than the reference and negative 

values indicate temperatures lower than the reference. 

4-2006

8-2006

5-2007

8-2007

11-2007

5-2008

9-2008

Flat Branch Stream Water Temperature

Time

Treatment minus Reference (oC)

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

Within cut minus reference

Below cut minus reference

Harvest Begins

Table 1—Monthly summer (June through September) mean, minimum, and maximum 

stream water temperature for the three sample locations during pre- and post-harvest 

periods 

Site

Mean Minimum Maximum

Pre-cut Post-cut Pre-cut Post-cut Pre-cut Post-cut

Reference 16.0a 15.9a 15.7a 15.6a 16.5a 16.2a

Within cut 16.4a 16.5a 16.0a 15.9a 17.0a 17.1b

Below cut 15.9a 15.9a 15.4a 15.5a 16.4a 16.3a

Note: values for mean, minimum, and maximum temperatures with the same letter superscript within preor post-cut periods are not significantly different at α=0.05.
5

cut were similar throughout the study period (fig. 3). Although 

maximum water temperature increased by 2 °C within the 

cut area, the absolute maximum of 19.9 °C was below the 

temperature threshold considered detrimental to reproduction 

and to the establishment of young among all species of trout 

(e.g., 22.3 °C for brook trout [Salvelinus frontinalis], 24.0 

°C for rainbow trout [Oncorhynchus mykiss], and 24.1 °C 

for brown trout [Salma truta]) found in the region (Eaton 

and others 1995). Ringler and Hall (1975) reported increases 

in water temperature after logging in an Oregon watershed, 

and attributed the increase to reduced forest cover over the 

stream surface. Similarly, Johnson and Jones (2000) reported 

increases in stream maximum summertime temperature 

that remained elevated for 15 years following harvest, and 

attributed the increase to removal of riparian vegetation. 

Swift (1983) reported that daily maximum summertime 

temperatures increased by 3.3 °C for the first 2 years following 

harvest, including riparian vegetation, on a south-facing 

watershed, with daily maximum temperature increases falling 

over the following 3 years to 1.2 °C on average. In that study, 

over 950 m2

 of stream were exposed on a south-facing slope 

following logging. In contrast in our study, exposed stream 

area was approximately 300 m2. The observed increase in 

daily maximum temperatures in our study (2 °C) immediately 

after harvest is consistent with the pattern reported by Swift 

(1983), but the magnitude of increase is much lower given the 

smaller exposed stream surface area on our study site. 

Total Suspended Solids

Forty sets of base-flow samples and 6 sets of storm-flow 

samples were taken during the pre-harvest period, and 31 

sets of base-flow samples and 4 sets of storm-flow samples 

were taken after harvest (fig. 4). Storm-flow samples were 

limited due to unusually dry weather patterns during both 

pre- and post-harvest periods. No significant differences in 

TSS were observed among sample locations before harvest 

and after harvest for base flow and storm flow; however, 

some differences were observed when comparing pre- and 

post-harvest within a measurement location. For example, 

at base flow, TSS at the reference location was significantly 

lower post-harvest (F = 4.26, P = 0.043) compared to preharvest. During storm flow, there was a significant increase 

in post-harvest TSS within the cut area (F = 5.33, P = 0.027) 

compared to pre-harvest. Although a large increase in TSS was 

also observed between pre- and post-harvest at the reference 

location during storm flow, high variability precluded 

detection of statistical significance. TSS increased within the 

cut area post-harvest, but there was no significant difference 

between pre- and post-harvest TSS during storm flow below 

the cut. 

Figure 3—Average monthly maximum stream water temperature 

(°C) for the reference, within cut, and below cut sites by month for 

2006 through 2008. Inset is the absolute maximum temperature 

each individual year. Means with an asterisk (*) superscript represent 

significantly greater average maximum water temperature within the 

cut area compared with the reference and/or below cut for that month 

at α=0.05. 

2006

absolute max = 19.2

X Data

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

Reference

Within cut

Below cut

2007

absolute max = 19.8

Stream Water Temperature (

oC)

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

2008

absolute max = 19.9

Month

2 4 6 8 10 12

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

Monthly average maximum stream water temperature at Flat Branch

*

*

*

* *

*

* *

*

*

Monthly average maximum stream water 

temperature at Flat Branch
6

Increases in TSS observed within the cut area during storm 

flow were likely a result of increased TSS at the reference 

site located above the cut area. The source of sediment from 

this upstream location is unknown, but it could be residual 

sediment from past land uses that continues to migrate 

downstream during storm events. For example, Swank and 

others (2001) reported increased sediment yield from a 

clearcut watershed compared with pre-harvest conditions 

for at least 15 years following harvest activity, due primarily 

to large pulses of sediment input resulting from two storms 

during road construction on that site. It is unlikely that the 

elevated TSS in the cut area was due to surface erosion and 

overland flow caused by the harvest operations, because the 

riparian zone in the Flat Branch study area is relatively flat. 

Within the entire harvested area, the maximum difference in 

elevation is approximately 15 m, and average slope is 

< 20 percent. Also, during the harvest operation and the year 

following the operation, the region experienced unusually hot 

and dry conditions that further reduced the probability of soil 

erosion and overland flow. The two dominant mechanisms 

for reductions in sediment delivery to streams are filtering 

through riparian vegetation (Cooper and Gilliam 1987) and 

particle size sorting as the overland flow velocity decreases 

as it passes through riparian vegetation (Cooper and others 

1987). Neary and others (1993) report that the effectiveness 

of these processes is a measure of the adequacy of the riparian 

buffer for protecting water quality.

Warm and dry weather during and after harvest may have 

influenced the temperature response in our study. Low 

rainfall decreases stream water discharge, which often leads 

to elevated water temperature. Although low stream flow may 

have contributed to the observed water temperature increase, 

cooler water below the cut suggests that the observed increase 

was also due to the removal of forest cover both over the 

stream and in areas adjacent to the stream. Story and others 

(2003) attributed downstream cooling below harvested areas 

to the interaction of subsurface hydrology with surface flow, 

speculating that the cooler subsurface flow did not interact 

sufficiently with the warmer surface water within the cut area 

to buffer localized heating brought on by increased direct 

solar radiation. Poole and Berman (2001) reported that stream 

Figure 4—Pre- and post-harvest total suspended solids (mg L-1) for the three sample sites at base flows and storm flows. Means with different 

letter superscripts are significantly different within sites for pre- and post-harvest values. For means with no superscript, significant differences 

were not found. There were no significant differences among sites during either base or storm flow. Error bars are one standard error.

Pre and Post Harvest TSS for the Study Period

Sample Locations

Reference Within Cut Below Cut

Total Suspended Solids (mg L-1)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60 Pre-cut Baseflow

Post-cut Baseflow

Pre-cut Stormflow

Post-cut Stormflow

a

b

a b
7

water temperature regimes are a function not only of external 

drivers such as direct solar radiation but also of the internal 

structure of the stream, which determines how heat and water 

will be distributed within and exchanged among a stream’s 

components, e.g., channel, alluvial aquifer, and riparian zone/

floodplain. 

The method of timber harvesting and care, given the resource, 

play important roles in the outcome of these activities. Other 

studies testing BMPs in steep terrain have shown only small 

or no increase in TSS following harvest. For example, Clinton 

(unpublished data3

) observed only small and temporary 

increases in TSS on sites receiving two-age silvicultural 

treatment and having buffer widths ranging from zero to 30 

m. In the Clinton (see footnote 3) study, timber harvesting 

was conducted using cable-yarding technology that keeps 

soil disturbance to a minimum and diminishes the effects of 

erosional processes associated directly with timber extraction. 

Summary and Conclusions

Timber-harvesting activities can result in increases in 

sediment yield where improper timber-extraction methods 

are used (Lieberman and Hoover 1948). However, with the 

development and proper implementation of BMPs, negative 

effects of harvesting timber on water quality can be minimal 

and short term. In our study, results of post-harvest monitoring 

indicated no substantial effect of timber harvesting in the 

riparian zone on water temperature and TSS. Care was taken 

during the operation to limit access by rubber-tired skidders to 

managed riparian shelterwood areas, and this limitation likely 

played a direct role in minimizing sediment delivery to the 

stream. TSS was highly variable, with no differences among 

sample locations (i.e., reference, within the harvested area, 

and below the harvested area) during base flow or storm flow. 

Some differences were found between pre-cut and post-cut 

within some sample locations. For example, within the cut 

area, TSS during storm flow increased significantly when 

pre-harvest and post-harvest measurements are compared; 

however, this response was most likely due to an increase 

in storm flow TSS in the upstream reference area. The low 

topographic relief on Flat Branch helped mitigate the potential 

for sediment delivery to the stream. Although a small increase 

in water temperature was observed, maximum temperatures 

remained below published maximum thresholds for common 

trout species in this region. Further, observed increases in 

water temperature within the harvested area dissipated within 

a few hundred meters downstream. The results suggest that 

thoughtful pre-harvest planning and effectively applied BMPs 

can minimize the negative impacts associated with timberharvesting activities.

Acknowledgments

We thank Dave Jensen, District Ranger on the Chattooga 

Ranger District of the Chattahoochee-Oconee National 

Forest, for facilitating this project; Pat Hopton and Charlene 

Breeden, both of the Chattahoochee-Oconee National 

Forest, for providing additional site description and stream 

characterization; and P. Edwards, J. Grace, and J. Boggs for 

helpful reviews of an earlier version of this manuscript.

Literature Cited

Arthur, M.A.; Coltharp, G.B.; Brown, D.L. 1998. Effects of best management 

practices on forest stream water quality in eastern Kentucky. Journal of the 

American Water Resources Association. 34(3): 481–495.

Cooper, J.R.; Gilliam, J.W. 1987. Phosphorus redistribution from cultivated 

fields into riparian zones. Soil Science Society of America Journal. 51: 

1600–1604.

Cooper, J.R.; Gilliam, J.W.; Daniels, R.B. 1987. Riparian areas as filters 

for agricultural sediment. Soil Science Society of America Journal. 51: 

416–420.

Eaton, J.G.; McCormick, J.H.; Goodno, B.E. [and others]. 1995. A field 

information-based system for estimating fish temperature tolerances. 

Fisheries. 20(4): 10–18.

Georgia Forestry Commission. 1999. Georgia’s best management practices for 

forestry. Macon, GA: Georgia Forestry Commission. 71 p.

Greene, G.E. 1950. Land use and trout streams. Journal of Soil and Water 

Conservation. 5: 125–126. 

Johnson, S.L.; Jones, J.A. 2000. Stream temperature responses to forest 

harvest and debris flows in Western Cascades, Oregon. Canadian Journal of 

Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. 57: 30–39.

Jones, E.B.D., III; Helfman, G.S.; Harper, J.O.; Bolstad, P.V. 1999. Effects 

of riparian forest removal on fish assemblages in southern Appalachian 

streams. Conservation Biology. 13(6): 1454–1465.

Karr, J.R.; Schlosser, I.J. 1978. Water resources and the land-water interface. 

Science. 210(4352): 229–234.

Klapproth, J.C. 1999. Function, design, and establishment of riparian forest 

buffers: a review. Blacksburg, VA: Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State 

University. 109 p. M.F. Thesis.

3 Clinton, B.D. Stream water responses to forest cutting: riparian buffer width 

effectiveness. Unpublished data. On file with: U.S. Department of Agriculture 

Forest Service, Southern Research Station, Coweeta Hydrologic Laboratory, 

3160 Coweeta Lab Road, Otto, NC 28763.
8

Knoepp, J.D.; Clinton, B.D. 2009. Riparian zone structure and function in 

southern Appalachian first order catchments: carbon and nitrogen responses 

to forest cutting. Forest Ecology and Management. 258: 2282–2293.

Kochenderfer, J.N.; Edwards, P.J.; Wood, F. 1997. Hydrologic impacts of 

logging an Appalachian watershed using West Virginia’s best management 

practices. Northern Journal of Applied Forestry. 14(4): 207–218.

Lakel, W.A., III; Aust, W.M.; Dolloff, C.A.; Easterbrook, A.W. 2006. Soil 

erosion from harvested sites versus streamside management zone sediment 

deposition in the Piedmont of Virginia. In: Connor, K.F., ed. Proceedings 

of the 13th biennial southern silvicultural research conference. Gen. Tech. 

Rep. SRS-92. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest 

Service, Southern Research Station: 400–401. 

Lee, P.; Smyth, C.; Boutin, S. 2004. Quantitative review of riparian 

buffer width guidelines from Canada and the United States. Journal of 

Environmental Management. 70: 165–180.

Lieberman, J.A.; Hoover, M.D. 1948. The effect of uncontrolled logging on 

stream turbidity. Water and Sewage Works. 95(7): 255–258.

Moore, R.D.; Spittlehouse, D.L.; Story, A. 2005. Riparian microclimate and 

stream temperature response to forest harvesting: a review. Journal of the 

American Water Resources Association. 41(4): 813–834.

Neary, D.G.; Comerford, N.B.; Swift, L.W., Jr. 1993. Land and riparian 

interactions with sediment in the Southern United States. In: Proceedings 

of the technical workshop on sediments. Washington, DC: Terrene Institute: 

51–60. 

Poole, G.C.; Berman, G.H. 2001. An ecological perspective on in-stream 

temperature: natural heat dynamics and mechanisms of human-caused 

thermal degradation. Environmental Management. 27: 787–802.

Riedel, M.S.; Vose, J.M.; Bolstad, P.V. 2004. Characterizing hysteretic water 

quality in Southern Appalachian streams. In: Proceedings of the 2004 

national water quality monitoring conference: United States Advisory 

Committee on Water Information. Reston, VA: National Water Quality 

Monitoring Council: 12.1–12.15.

Ringler, N.H.; Hall, J.D. 1975. Effects of logging on water temperature and 

dissolved oxygen in spawning beds. Transactions of the American Fisheries 

Society. 104: 111–121.

SAS Institute Inc. 2008. SAS/STAT® 9.1 user’s guide. Cary, NC: SAS 

Institute Inc. 

Seaber, P.R.; Kapinos, F.P.; Knapp, G.L. 1987. Hydrologic unit maps: U.S. 

Geological Survey–water supply paper no. 2294, no. 41216. Denver, CO: 

U.S. Geological Survey, Federal Center. 61 p.

Swank, W.T.; Vose, J.M.; Elliott, K.J. 2001. Long-term hydrologic and water 

quality responses following commercial clearcutting of mixed hardwoods 

on a southern Appalachian catchment. Forest Ecology and Management. 

143: 163–178. 

Swift, L.W., Jr. 1983. Duration of stream temperature increases following 

forest cutting in the Southern Appalachian Mountains. In: Proceedings 

of the international symposium on hydrometeorology. Bethesda, MD: 

American Water Resource Association: 273-275. 

Swift, L.W., Jr.; Messer, J.B. 1971. Forest cuttings raise temperatures of 

small streams in the Southern Appalachians. Journal of Soil and Water 

Conservation. 26(3): 111–116.

Tebo, L.B. 1955. Effects of siltation, resulting from improper logging, on the 

bottom fauna of a small trout stream in the Southern Appalachians. The 

Progressive Fish-Culturalist. 17: 64–70.

Webster, J.R.; Galloday, S.W.; Benfield, E.F. [and others]. 1992. Catchment 

disturbance and stream response: overview of stream research at Coweeta 

Hydrologic Laboratory. In: Boon, P.J.; Calow, P.; Petts, G.E., eds. River 

conservation and management. New York: John Wiley: 231–253.
Clinton, Barton D.; Vose, James M.; Fowler, Dick L. 2010. Flat Branch monitoring project: 

stream water temperature and sediment responses to forest cutting in the riparian zone. Res. 

Pap. SRS–51. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Southern Research 

Station. 8 p. 

Stream water protection during timber-harvesting activities is of primary interest to forest 

managers. In this study, we examine the potential impacts of riparian zone tree cutting on water 

temperature and total suspended solids. We monitored stream water temperature and total 

suspended solids before and after timber harvesting along a second-order tributary of the Coleman 

River in northeastern Georgia, where logging with rubber-tired skidders was conducted in the 

riparian area along alternating 60-m stream reaches on the east side of the stream. We monitored 

temperature above the management unit (reference), at a location within the cut area (within cut), 

and at a third site 150 m below the cut area (below cut). We measured total suspended solids 

during base flow and storm flow, taking weekly stream water grab samples above the site and 

above and below each riparian area, for a total of six sampling locations. We found that stream 

water temperature following harvest increased within the cut area relative to the reference but 

decreased at the below sample site back to reference conditions. Overall, total suspended solids 

responses were minimal or nonexistent during base and storm flows within the cut relative to the 

reference site, and temperature responses were minimal. Unusually warm and dry weather existed 

for most of the logging period, which may have minimized the potential for runoff, erosion, and 

sediment; however, low flows may have contributed to the small increases in water temperature. 

Hence, we observed only marginal effects of riparian zone cutting on water temperature and total 

suspended solids in this study. 

Keywords: Forest cutting, streamside management zones, stream water temperature, total 

suspended solids. 
The Forest Service, United States Department of Agriculture 

(USDA), is dedicated to the principle of multiple use management 

of the Nation’s forest resources for sustained yields of wood, 

water, forage, wildlife, and recreation. Through forestry research, 

cooperation with the States and private forest owners, and 

management of the National Forests and National Grasslands, it strives—as 

directed by Congress—to provide increasingly greater service to a growing Nation.

The USDA prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the 

basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, 

marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic 

information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual’s 

income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases 

apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for 

communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should 

contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD).

To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil 

Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, D.C. 20250-9410, or call 

(800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity 

provider and employer.