nena masthead
SENA Home Staff & Editors For Readers For Authors

Rocky River Wetland Usage for Education and Recreation: Early Planning and Implementation in Anderson County, South Carolina
Thomas Kozel

Southeastern Naturalist, Volume 16, Special Issue 10 (2017): 109–131

Full-text pdf (Accessible only to subscribers.To subscribe click here.)

 



Access Journal Content

Open access browsing of table of contents and abstract pages. Full text pdfs available for download for subscribers.

Issue-in-Progress: Vol. 23 (1) ... early view

Current Issue: Vol. 22 (3)
SENA 22(3)

Check out SENA's latest Special Issue:

Special Issue 12
SENA 22(special issue 12)

All Regular Issues

Monographs

Special Issues

 

submit

 

subscribe

 

JSTOR logoClarivate logoWeb of science logoBioOne logo EbscoHOST logoProQuest logo


109 Rocky River Wetland Usage for Education and Recreation: Early Planning and Implementation in Anderson County, South Carolina Thomas Kozel* Abstract - The Rocky River Conservancy, Anderson University, the City and County of Anderson, SC, and local environmental groups are working in partnership to rehabilitate, preserve, and develop ~200 ha of forested and emergent wetland and contiguous upland located within the city limits of Anderson, SC. The goal of the project is to provide a natural resource usable by the local community for education, and passive and active recreation, while safeguarding this unique and dwindling natural habitat. The environmental advocacy organization, Upstate Forever (Greenville, SC), secured an EPA grant for a hydrology assessment and long-range planning for the site. The long-range vision includes plans for construction of boardwalks, observation platforms, and a discovery center. Anderson University faculty and students have been surveying the site’s flora and fauna and collecting water-quality data. Vertebrates documented include 21 species of fishes, 18 species of amphibians and reptiles, 120 species of birds, and 11 species of mammals. A tree-frog mark–recapture program has begun. Clearing of overgrown trails, opening sites for access to wetland margins, removal of trash, addition of trail signage, and trail enhancement are underway. Community and civic groups such as local garden clubs are being made aware of the resources available to them. The Anderson University Life-long Learning program, and local teachers have visited and used the site. Fund-raising, stepwise development without harming or altering the flora and fauna, and continuing to raise community awareness and buy-in of the value of this resource represent ongoing challenges. Introduction The crescent of Piedmont running roughly from Atlanta, GA, northeast to Charlotte, NC, comprises the Piedmont Atlantic “megaregion” in the southeastern US (US DOT 2014). Human activity has already had a large impact on this region and others like it, and these areas are projected to rapidly increase in population, ecosystem modification, and resource use. The preservation of natural areas in such regions is known to be especially important given the potential for their alteration and loss (Begon et al. 2006, Ehrlich 1988). Setting aside natural areas for public use and enjoyment and for the intrinsic value of their geologic features, flora, and fauna has a long and well-known history in our country. In the Southeast, conservation activists and visionaries such as Ernest Coe (Wilhelm 2010), W.C. Hafford (Okefenokee Swamp Park 2015), Marjory Stoneman Douglas (Stoneman Douglas 1947), Edward O. Wilson (E.O. Wilson Biodiversity Foundation 2013), and others understood that without public support and protection, priceless natural areas, large *Department of Biology, Anderson University, 316 Boulevard, Anderson, SC 29621; tkozel@andersonuniversity.edu. Manuscript Editor: Rocky Nation The Outdoor Classroom 2017 Southeastern Naturalist 16(Special Issue 10):109–131 Southeastern Naturalist T. Kozel 2017 110 Vol. 16 Special Issue 10 and small, would likely eventually succumb to human exploitation of their mineral, plant, animal, and spatial resources. At the local level, parks that allow public access and have acreage set aside for conservation of natural environments have been demonstrated to contribute to public health, environmental health, and economic growth (NRPA 2016). In spring 2010, the Rocky River Conservancy (RRC) was formed by a group of citizens in Anderson County, SC, to promote the conservation of the Rocky River and associated wetlands in and near the city of Anderson, SC. The RRC is a nonprofit 501(c)3 entity that is collaborating with Anderson County, the City of Anderson, Anderson University (AU), and other community partners to preserve ~160 ha for wildlife, birding, environmental education, hiking, and related compatible uses. Dr. Juan Brown, a retired physician, was the founder, inspirational leader, and original motivator of the group which included James Broyles (Principal, Design South Engineering), Dr. Annette Guiseppi-Elie (Principal Technical Specialist, DuPont Engineering), Ann Herbert (community volunteer), Julie Miller (retired teacher), Burris Nelson (Anderson County Economic Development Director), George Sands (attorney), Matt Schell (Anderson County Parks Department Manager), and Dean Woods (Vice-President for Institutional Advancement, AU). The conservation mindset of the original RRC team, growing local interest in the river, the properties’ potential to fit into nascent plans for a county trail system, and awareness of successful ongoing efforts to reclaim, preserve, and promote public appreciation and use of the Reedy River and Lake Conestee in adjacent Greenville County stimulated and encouraged the plan. A 2008 gift of ~50 ha of upland and wetland made to AU by John and Marie Pracht, and made available by the University to the RRC, was the physical nucleus of the project. The original RRC team enlisted the help and expertise of Upstate Forever (Greenville, SC), an environmental advocacy group with a record of success in protecting natural areas and securing grants for such work. During 2011 and 2012, the team also met with local officials from the city, county, USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service, and leaders from local civic groups and non-profits to determine their interest in the project and solicit their participation. To encourage public awareness of plans for the property, it was named the Rocky River Nature Park and signage was placed at the entrances. Working with the RRC, Upstate Forever was able to secure an Urban Waters Grant from the US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) for $60,000 in early 2013. The grant funded completion of a hydrologic assessment and development of a restoration plan that was subsequently amended to a master plan for conservation development and education. To celebrate receipt of the USEPA grant, the RRC and Upstate Forever held an outdoor meeting on 1 August 2013 at the main wetland site to announce the grant and provide the public an opportunity to hear plans for the project and meet those involved. The event was reported in the local media (Mayo 2013). Via a competitive bidding process, ICA Engineering (Columbia, SC) was chosen to produce a hydrological assessment and wetland restoration plan, and SeamonWhiteside (Greenville, SC) was chosen to produce master and education plans for the site. A design charrette and discussion session involving Southeastern Naturalist 111 T. Kozel 2017 Vol. 16, Special Issue 10 ICA, SeamonWhiteside, and stakeholders was held in December 2013. Early in 2014, the RRC website went live (RRC 2014). ICA delivered their final report in June 2014 and SeamonWhiteside submitted theirs in September. On 24 July 2014, the RRC held a public meeting at Anderson City Hall to announce the opening of the Rocky River Nature Park (Freishtat 2014). Trails had been cleared and the public was invited to begin using them for hiking, birding, and exercise. Administration of the RRC is by a 10-member board of directors, an advisory board of varying composition, a 6-member executive committee, and a paid parttime coordinator. Dana Leavitt, who has extensive experience working at Lake Conestee Nature Park and Upstate Forever, serves as the Coordinator. He plans, coordinates, and implements the day-to-day operation of the park and maintains contact and outreach with the local community. Since AU acquired the core property in 2008, Biology Department faculty and students have used the site for field classes and student research. An inventory of the site’s flora and fauna is ongoing, and students use the various habitats encompassed by the site as part of senior research projects. The City of Anderson installed a gravel parking area, trails have been cleared, and the Coordinator and volunteers have cut back invasive edge species such as Toxicodendron radicans (L.) Kuntze (Poison Ivy); T. pubescens (L.) (Poison Oak), Elaeagnus umbellata Thunb. (Autumn Olive), and E. pungens Thunb. (Silverthorn). Boy Scouts have installed Aix sponsa (L.) (Wood Duck) boxes, trail signage, and a pet-waste station donated by Anderson and Pickens Counties Stormwater Partners. A growing number of members of the community utilize the park for walking, watching birds, and exercising. Site Description Conservation, path development, and all teaching and educational-outreach projects have so far been done on the core property of ~50 ha, located in the City of Anderson, Anderson County, SC, and owned by AU. The Rocky River, a 3rd-order stream, runs through this core unit from northeast to southwest, and Cox Creek, a 1st-order stream along most of its length, comprises a major portion of the northwest border. In 2014, Nell Taylor donated ~15 ha of wetland property downstream along the Rocky River, and almost contiguous with the core. The remaining ~135 ha of property envisioned to become part of the Nature Park is also mostly wetland along the Rocky River either in the City of Anderson or Anderson County (Fig. 1; ICA Engineering 2014). The entire 200 ha is in the Southern Outer Piedmont Level IV ecoregion (Griffith, et al. 2002) and is part of the Rocky River/Lake Russell watershed (03060103-02) (SCDHEC 2014). The north gate (~34°30'43.08''N; 82°37'25.34''W) is located in Parcel 1490004001 (Fig. 1, ICA Engineering 2014), an upland comprised of early successional 2nd- and 3rd-growth oak-hickory forest. Dominant tree species include: Quercus alba L. (White Oak), Q. rubra L. (Northern Red Oak), Carya tomentosa (Poiret) Nuttall (Mockernut Hickory), C. cordiformis (Wang.) K. Koch (Bitternut Hickory), Liquidambar styraciflua L. (Sweetgum), Pinus taeda L. (Loblolly Pine), and P. echinata Miller (Short-leaf Pine). Ilex opaca Aiton (American Holly), Southeastern Naturalist T. Kozel 2017 112 Vol. 16 Special Issue 10 Cornus florida L. (Flowering Dogwood), and Cercis canadensis L. (Redbud) are conspicuous understory shrubs and trees. Edge habitats and the open understory are comprised of non-native and native species including: Rubus spp. (blackberries), Poison Ivy, Poison Oak, Smilax spp. (greenbriars), Ligustrum sinense Lour. (Chinese Privet), Autumn Olive, and Silverthorn (Spira 2011). Aerial photography of this parcel taken in 1947 shows the land almost entirely cleared and used for farming (Fig. 2; ICA Engineering 2014). Figure 1. Map of Rocky River Nature Park—current and proposed properties. The core area owned by Anderson University includes upland area to right of the Cox Creek label and wetlands A, B, and C. The star indicates the North Gate. Scale bar = 200 m. Southeastern Naturalist 113 T. Kozel 2017 Vol. 16, Special Issue 10 The other main component of the core area, Parcel 1490004002 (ICA Engineering 2014) includes the Rocky River floodplains and a palustrine emergent/persistent and scrub-shrub broadleaved deciduous wetland (locally known and misnamed as, “The Swamp”). This area is known as wetland C (center: ~34o30'23.1''N; Figure 2. 1947 aerial photograph of core site (ICA Engineering 2014). The star indicates the location of present-day emergent wetland C. Scale bar = 150 m. Southeastern Naturalist T. Kozel 2017 114 Vol. 16 Special Issue 10 82o37'03.93''W; Fig. 1) and it is seasonally to permanently flooded. Aerial photography from 1947 (Fig. 2) indicates that the river floodplain was forested bottomland hardwood, with some indication of the emergent wetland to the east (author’s pers. interpretation). The construction of berms with equalizer pipes in the 1970s or early 1980s, earlier channelization, dredging, and the installation of storm-sewer lines have encouraged the enlargement and maintenance of the emergent wetland due to its current marginal connection to the historic floodplain. This wetland supports Alnus serrulata (Ait.) Willd. (Common Alder), Acer negundo L. (Boxelder), A. rubrum L. (Red Maple), and Salix nigra Marshall (Black Willow) in patches along its margin, and herbaceous vegetation such as Juncus spp. (spikerushes), Scirpus spp. (bulrushes), Polygonum spp. (smartweeds), Ludwigia spp. (water primroses), Myriophyllum spp. (milfoil), and Typha latifolia L. (Common Cattail). Plant species present in the floodplain wetlands include Mockernut and Bitternut Hickory, Red Maple, Common Alder, Black Willow, Boxelder, Nyssa sylvatica L. (Black Gum), Arundinaria gigantea (Walter) Muhl. (Giant Cane), and Sagittaria latifolia Willd. (Arrowhead). These seasonal, palustrine emergent/persistent wetlands are known as wetlands A and B (Fig. 1). Methods AU student and faculty educational use of the wetlands and uplands, including biological inventory Shortly after the Pracht gift of the core property in 2008, AU faculty began to use the resource for many of the field experiences in classes such as ecology, wetlands biology, ornithology, invertebrate zoology, and field biology (NABT 2005). Senior research projects are required of all biology majors at AU (Russell et al. 2007), and projects utilizing the property appealed to students who previously were precluded from many potential projects due to lack of suitable nearby fiel d sites. For the past 7 years, ecology classes (taught during each fall semester) have been learning quadrat/plot, belt-transect, line-transect, and point-quarter sampling methods using trees and shrubs on the upland section of the site (Lei 2010). Students also use the nature park when learning basic techniques for atmospheric and soil analysis and studying microclimate structure and variation. At first, only the main trail was usable, and then only with some caution and effort because of dense growth of edge species such as Poison Ivy, Poison Oak, Greenbriar and Blackberry. Though still visible, secondary trails were completely overgrown and even the main trail required one pass with an AU grounds crew “bush hog” after a summer of unrestricted growth (Fig. 3). Wetlands, field biology, and the other classes listed are taught biennially, and students and faculty in these classes “pioneered” the property, both uplands and wetlands, discovering old trails and making new ones during the first few years of use. When the Rocky River property first opened, there were no funds available to develop it, and only the main trail from the gate to the Rocky River was cleared (~700 m). Access to other areas required manual vegetation removal using machetes, hand loppers, and clippers. Traversing the wetlands was possible only with the aid Southeastern Naturalist 115 T. Kozel 2017 Vol. 16, Special Issue 10 of 4–5-cm diameter, 2.5-m-long bamboo poles cut live by students from a stand on the main campus to provide support and leverage while walking through ~0.5-mdeep sticky muck substrate (Mitsch and Gosselink 2015); thus, study of much of the wetlands was nearly impossible (Fig. 4). As a result, wetlands and invertebrate zoology classes have collected many more specimens and samples from wetland margins than interior locations. Biology classes with a field component have made regular use of the core property since its acquisition. Other classes, such as microbiology, have collected samples there. The property’s organismal database continues to be enlarged and updated (T. Kozel, unpubl. data). Seniors who have ecologically oriented field projects have used, or plan to use, the site for their work. Baseline floral and faunal surveys conducted to date have been relatively brief and did not cover all communities at the site. Longer-term studies grounded with well-designed statistical sampling are needed. Two AU faculty members have become interested in the Georgia Adopt-AStream program and, because South Carolina does not presently have such a program, are using it as a model for data collection and education. Many of our biology majors have been trained in this program’s methods, and the streams bordering and running through the AU property provide opportunities for study. Since February 2014, senior research students have collected monthly data on Escherichia coli concentrations and several other water-quality parameters in the Rocky River Figure 3. The north gate, parking, and start of main trail before clearing. Southeastern Naturalist T. Kozel 2017 116 Vol. 16 Special Issue 10 and Cox Creek using Georgia Adopt-A-Stream methods (Georgia Adopt-A-Stream 2014). Aquatic insects and other macroinvertebrates have been sampled quarterly since October 2014 from the same streams also using that program’s methods. The field sites and our laboratory facilities have been recently used to train faculty from other institutions and community members in these procedures. Protozoans and micro- and macroinvertebrates have been collected using sampling methods such as dipnetting, trapping, and substrate coring in classes with field laboratories and senior research projects. Students learn fixation, preservation, and identification of specimens using standard methods and keys (Merritt and Cummins 1996, Thorp and Covich 2010). Fishes were collected from Cox Creek near the confluence with Rocky River (34o30'22.68''N; 82o37'22.13'W) using electrofishing, seines, and dipnets in October and November 2012; February, March, and April 2013; and November and December 2014 (Fig. 5). A 200-m reach of the Rocky River was also sampled in April 2012 and May 2015. Minnow traps were used to sample fishes in shoremargin vegetation during January and February 2013 in wetland A and the Rocky River, respectively. Wetland B was sampled by electrofishing in April 2012. Fishes were identified in the field and returned alive to the body of water from which they were captured. Some of the sampling was part of a senior biology research project to compare species diversity and richness among samples from Cox Creek, Rocky River, and wetlands A and B. Figure 4. Students Joseph Gambrell, Gleynnda Miller, Ethan Wilson (front) and faculty member Dr. Margarit Gray (rear) use bamboo poles to traverse wetlands. Southeastern Naturalist 117 T. Kozel 2017 Vol. 16, Special Issue 10 Amphibians and reptiles have been studied in and around the wetland sections of the property. A drift-fence (3-fence array) was erected between the northeastern margin of wetland A and the clay cliffs marking the historical limit of the Rocky River floodplain (Enge 1997). The array was operated for 8 weeks by a field biology class during Spring 2012. Coverboards and PVC pipes have been placed and examined sporadically since Spring 2012. Walking surveys occur periodically. All specimens are identified in the field and returned alive to the spot where captured. Two separate senior biology research projects involving herpetofauna utilized the RRC site. During July through October 2014, Anuran calls were recorded and analyzed, and the nocturnal-activity patterns of 2 Anurans, Hyla chrysocelis Cope (Cope’s Gray Treefrog) and H. cinerea (Schneider) (Green Treefrog), were studied in September and October 2014 and March 2015 using fluorescent d ye. Birds were identified by sight (binoculars and spotting scope) and/or call as observers walked the main and secondary trails and from the parking area overlooking wetland C. Birds were observed at irregular intervals from 2010 through 2014. All observations, beginning with the 25 species reported on 22 January 2015 by Dr. Brad Dalton (Greenville, SC, unpubl. data), have been submitted to Cornell Figure 5. Senior research student electrofishing in Cox Creek. Southeastern Naturalist T. Kozel 2017 118 Vol. 16 Special Issue 10 University’s ebird website (e-bird 2015). A determined effort was made by faculty members and students at AU and several local birders, to add to the original list and a request was made, and granted, to have the site noted as an ebird “Hotspot.” Mammals were identified by sight along the trails and in the wetlands. Wetland A was used by 2 senior biology students to study tree species and diameter (DBH) preference of Castor canadensis Kuhl (American Beaver). The flora of the RRC core site has been poorly studied. The ICA Engineering (2014) report is the only study done on this ecologically fundamental group to date. Biology students and faculty talked about their activities at the RRC among their friends and colleagues, and gradually the latter became curious as to what the site looked like and how they might use it. Students were the first to visit, and as the trails were opened and cleared, they walked and jogged them. Students in painting and drawing fine arts classes at AU occasionally used the site to enhance their skills in rendering natural objects and scenes. During Fall 2015, one group of students in the ENG 431 Techniques of Persuasion class chose the Rocky River Conservancy as the conservation organization with which to partner to write a grant proposal. They performed some background research, visited the site, spoke with the Coordinator and then prepared a grant proposal for $40,000 to Bridgestone Americas Trust Fund to be submitted by the Coordinator. A major assignment in EDU 421 Methods and Materials for Teaching Science during Fall 2015 involved students drafting proposals to support problem-based science lessons and activities that involved the RRC site and aligned with the SC Academic Standards and Performance Indicators for Science. During Spring 2016, students either revised previous lessons and activities or developed additional ones based on feedback from local teachers and students. Hydrological assessment ICA Engineering (2014) completed their hydrological assessment using a combination of historical data and on-site observations. Master plan and education plan SeamonWhiteside (2014a, 2014b) completed their master plan and education plan using data from the hydrological assessment (ICA Engineering 2014), discussions with AU faculty and community stakeholders, and on-site observations. Results Educational outcomes and biological inventory During the last 7 years, the core RRC/AU upland and wetland property has been utilized by all of the AU courses that include a field component. As clearing of trails and opening several new ones has exposed additional habitats, faculty have used these areas for descriptive instruction and as places to identify and collect organisms. These habitats include terrestrial secondary deciduous forest/grassy field and human-sculpted trail edge (ecotone), 100-yr floodplain/river bluff, 5–10-year river Southeastern Naturalist 119 T. Kozel 2017 Vol. 16, Special Issue 10 floodplain, 2nd/3rd-growth mixed deciduous forest, vernal pools, beaver lodges and dams, seasonal palustrine emergent/persistent wetlands, and palustrine emergent/ persistent and scrub-shrub broadleaved deciduous wetland. Enhancement and trail-clearing combined with improved parking access has made the site desirable for classes in AU departments including english, education, and art, as well as encouraging students and the local community to utilize the resource. Appendix 1 lists the organisms observed and/or collected at the site and some of the senior research projects with which these collections are associated. Hydrological assessment The site description contains data on the current structure and classification of the core property. This section includes the observations and conclusions noted in the ICA Engineering (2014) assessment. Regression equations developed by the US Geologic Survey (USGS) indicate that the Rocky River watershed is 8% impervious, and therefore, is considered rural; the Cox Creek watershed is 25% impervious and classified as urban (USGS 2014). Data from the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SCDHEC) water-quality monitoring station on the Rocky River ~8 km downstream from the RRC land indicate that “… aquatic-life uses are not supported due to turbidity excursions.”, “Recreational uses are not supported due to fecal coliform bacteria …”, and 5-day biological oxygen demand and pH values are increasing (SCDHEC 2014). The reach of Rocky River flowing through the project area is on the 2012 SCDHEC 303d list of impaired waters. Development in the floodplain is negligible, although small subdivisions border the core property on the northeast and east. There is little development along the borders of the remainder of the current property or properties planned for acquisition. Most of the land is classified as wetland, and development on it has been restricted to highway, railroad, and pipeline crossings. Berms along the Rocky River constrain its flow and prevent normal flooding during periods of precipitation. Equalizer pipes connecting the river with wetland C have become clogged with debris and by the work of American Beavers. Return flow of water from wetland C to the Rocky River is therefore impeded and the wetland is being maintained in an emergent state. An elevated soil road crosses the seasonal palustrine emergent/persistent wetland to the north of the Rocky River forming wetlands A and B. Two small culverts connect these wetlands, but do not allow much flow between them. Hydric soil conditions were verified in the wetlands, and floodplains are underlain by Cartecay-Chewacla soils (ICA Engineering 2014). Muck, depleted matrix, and a depleted zone below the dark surface indicated hydric conditions. Upland soils are not hydric and are characterized mainly as Cecil sandy loam and Cecil- Urban complex (ICA Engineering 2014). The hydrological assessment report concluded “… that the limits of the wetland Southeastern Naturalist T. Kozel 2017 120 Vol. 16 Special Issue 10 areas on site have not been substantially altered from the historic boundaries.” (ICA Engineering 2014). Master plan SeamonWhiteside (2014b) created a master plan for the Rocky River Nature Park that incorporated the following recommendations. The current core property should incorporate the preservation of natural hydrology, flora, and fauna with development for use by the following constituencies: AU classes and outreach programs, local public and private primary and secondary schools, and nature-compatible public uses (e.g., hiking, kayaking). Infrastructure improvements on the core property should include: trail improvement, including the construction of boardwalks over portions of wetlands A and B; a pedestrian bridge over Cox Creek; a walking path linking the north gate entrance to the nearby AU Athletic Campus; a trailhead outdoor education outpost and improved parking area at the north gate; a pedestrian bridge over the Rocky River connecting the current main trail with wetland C; a boardwalk and overlook in wetland C; trail connections to the larger property; and a discovery center on the small bluff overlooking wetland C. Long-range highlights related to the full 200-ha proposed park include trails and boardwalks on future acquisitions, connections to other proposed urban trails, a kayak-launching area on the Rocky River, a small chapel on the upland site, and a pavilion on the wetland now owned by the County (Fig. 6). Education plan SeamonWhiteside (2014a) created an education plan that integrated the goals of conserving the natural features of the site and educating students and the public. Anderson University undergraduate classes would continue to be the primary users of the Rocky River Nature Park (Fig. 7). Groups and projects with philosophies compatible with the goals of the RRC, such as K–12 outdoor-education outreach, summer nature programs for young children, nature activities for youth summer camps (currently housed each summer on the AU campus), scouting activity sites and projects (such as those mentioned in the introduction), AU outreach programs (e.g., Life-long Learning), community groups (e.g., local garden clubs), and community events will be encouraged to use the site. Life-long Learning at AU has sponsored 2-day birding weekends in the spring and fall for 2 years. Two professors from AU have led groups of 6–12 individuals in the field at these events. A local garden club has donated $500 that will be used to plant native plants in a meadow at the upland site. Discussion Hydrologic assessment The RRC’s vision of protecting a natural area, mainly comprised of wetlands within an urban setting, and providing the public with an accessible location in which to study and enjoy nature, required that the area selected be altered as little Southeastern Naturalist 121 T. Kozel 2017 Vol. 16, Special Issue 10 as practical if the hydrological study indicated no significant changes from historic boundaries or hydrologic conditions. The study concluded “… that the site contains minimal opportunity for true wetland restoration activities …” but did suggest “… there are opportunities for various enhancements to these areas that will improve the existing hydrology, vegetation, habitat, and diversity of these areas.” The following project goals were presented in the hydrological assessment and are dependent on cost, technical feasibility, and time: 1. Maintain existing wetland hydrology, soils, and vegetation Figure 6. Diagram of Rocky River Nature Park master plan overlain on aerial photography. Southeastern Naturalist T. Kozel 2017 122 Vol. 16 Special Issue 10 2. Improve hydrological connectivity to floodplains 3. Improve downstream return-flow from wetlands 4. Restore historic woody vegetation in riparian floodplains 5. Improve wildlife habitat 6. Increase habitat diversity 7. Insure that goals 1–6 are compatible with the master plan for the RRC Nature Park Upon completion of their study, ICA Engineering (2014) recommended that the soil roadway that crosses the palustrine wetlands A and B be removed and an elevated walkway replace it so that hydrologic connectivity between the 2 wetlands could be returned. The report also suggested a reduction in the height of part of the berm along the west side of the Rocky River to restore hydrologic connectivity between the wetlands and the river, which would reduce retention time of water in wetlands A and B, and allow reestablishment of natural woody vegetation more typical of a floodplain system than the more open system that currently exists. Supplemental plantings of lowland tree species to augment natural regeneration was also suggested. The report also recommended plugging the current corrugated equalizer pipes connecting wetland C with the Rocky River and installing water-control structures along the existing berm to regulate flooding timing and frequency. Wildlife attrac- Figure 7. Freshman volunteers painting the north gate. Note new gravel placed by City of Anderson. Southeastern Naturalist 123 T. Kozel 2017 Vol. 16, Special Issue 10 tors such as Wood Duck nesting boxes were also suggested for this wetland. Wetlands downstream of the core property were also studied, and the principal recommendation was that managers consider control of very active American Beaver populations in these areas. The RRC Executive Board carefully considered these recommendations and their economic and environmental costs, and concluded that removal of the roadway between wetlands A and B roadway was impractical. They determined that the financial cost was prohibitive and the environmental alterations accompanying the use of heavy equipment to remove the roadway were unacceptable. They agreed that the source of water flowing into these wetlands is upstream of wetland A, and the predicted flow and retention time into wetland A and then into wetland B was the reason that these wetlands were in an emergent state tending to early succession to lowland forest. Thus, increasing throughput by lowering the berm would likely favor forest development. Overbank flow along the entire berm length of wetlands A and B has been observed once or twice each year for the last 5 years (T. Kozel, pers. observ.); more water is entering these areas than might be supposed if only the upstream entrance is considered. Flowing water 20–30 cm deep has been observed to cross the berms and roadway during periods of heavy rainfall. Given this information and considering the projected human use of wetlands A and B for classes, birding, and observing nature, the Executive Board has recommended that the roadway remain intact, with small pedestrian bridges installed where 2 corrugated equalizer pipes are now placed. A grant of $30,000 from Duke Energy was received in December 2015 to install a small solar pumping system to enhance the addition of water into wetland B in an attempt to shift the hydrology to promote development of an open-water system, rather than closed-canopy vegetation. As part of the proposal, AU faculty and students will plan and implement a study to document the flora and fauna of this wetland pre- and post-flooding. This study will provide a wonderful opportunity for students to participate in all aspects of a well-designed, long-term ecological study. This type of study has not previously been possible at the site. The addition of habitat for fish, amphibians, aquatic macroinvertebrates and wading birds is in good alignment with the projected citizen uses of the Park. The parking area and bluff overlooking wetland C has been a very popular location for birding and it is the starting point for the trail around the eastern side of the wetland. Signage announcing the site as RRC property identifies it to the public. Clearing the corrugated pipes, rather than blocking them might be a better solution to keeping this wetland in emergent condition that is so vital to the waterfowl that visit it. In nearby Greenville County, SC, Lake Conestee Nature Park has served the RRC as a model for developing a wetland site for birding and other nature-related activities (LCNP 2016). Master and education plans The master and education plans have received much support from the Board of Directors and members of the public with whom they have been shared (Freishtat 2014). The next step in implementing the plan is the construction of boardwalks Southeastern Naturalist T. Kozel 2017 124 Vol. 16 Special Issue 10 and further improvement of the paths. A small grant has been received for the development of boardwalks across wetland B, but further funding is necessary to begin construction. A South Carolina Parks, Recreation, and Tourism Recreational Trails grant opportunity is currently available, and the RRC, with input from Dr. Dave Hargett, Executive Director at Lake Conestee Nature Park, Greenville, SC, has submitted an application to obtain boardwalk-construction funds. The master plan recommended establishment of a trailhead Outdoor Education Outpost. This structure would serve as a meeting place for groups walking the trails and could also be used as a storage site for AU field equipment. Signage at the Outpost would include a trails map and information about the natural and cultural history of the site. Signage indicating the names of trails and 4 kiosks with site maps and space for additional information have already been installed. Additional informative signage describing natural features and expected species are planned. Barcoding could tie the signage to a smartphone application with added audio and video content explaining the features present. The discovery center mentioned in the master plan will likely be the last piece of the park development puzzle to be placed, but also the crowning jewel. The building would serve as an interpretive center, classroom, and civic meeting space, and would include a wet laboratory and small library-collections room. Centers such as the one at Edisto Island, SC (Edisto Beach State Park, SC 2015), and near Augusta, GA (Reed Creek Park 2015), have demonstrated that these structures serve multiple public and private constituencies and help to anchor the site in the community. Connections with the local public and private K–12 schools is vital if the park is to realize its maximum civic usefulness. Several faculty in the Anderson University School of Education have recognized the value of having this resource ~1 km from campus and, with their students, are thoughtfully incorporating the site into their curriculum and as a place they can recommend to the local K–12 community. Members of the latter group can also find information regarding the use of local natural parks and preserves at sites such as the North American Association for Environmental Education (2016) and the Environmental Education Association of South Carolina (2016). Inventory AU professors have used the core site for several years in their field biology classes and for senior research projects. As the site continues to become more accessible through the opening and maintenance of trails, and species inventories become more complete, ideas for student and faculty projects should increase. Inventories of species on the site are a necessary and logical first step in understanding its ecology. The progress can seem painfully slow; several faculty members have suggested a “bioblitz” for various groups as has been so well done in the Smoky Mountains National Park (Cox 2007). Our association with the Georgia Adopt-A-Stream began, in part, because we have the RRC Nature Park as a study site and South Carolina had no comparable volunteer entity. AU biology faculty were able to work with the Georgia group beSoutheastern Naturalist 125 T. Kozel 2017 Vol. 16, Special Issue 10 cause of RRC’s proximity to Georgia and the presence of appropriate sample sites. Sampling at a station 8 km downstream showed that Escherichia coli counts did not exceed mandated limits, which contradicts the advisory listed by SCDHEC (2014). Birding has proved to be very popular at the RRC Nature Park. The site is close to several small cities and to Clemson University where, in both instances, birding, hiking, and outdoor activities are popular. The enthusiasm for birding on the site has validated the Board’s core philosophy that by preserving this overlooked natural area for its intrinsic properties that can serve as a learning center and a source of enjoyment for the public, they are protecting a valuable resource. The main challenges at this point in the RRC’s project are to maintain interest on the part of various constituencies and to raise funds. The mayor of the City of Anderson is a current Board member and several other members are influential in the civic and/or business communities in the County. The Board continues to investigate grant opportunities and write proposals, but the volunteer nature of the RRC, with the exception of the part-time Coordinator, limit the amount of time individuals spend on the complex project. Acquiring additional contiguous land parcels requires both money and willingness on the part of the landowner to recognize that the project can only move forward with their cooperation. Conservation easements have been thoroughly investigated for the core and contiguous properties, but the process has been slow and not all persons involved in decision-making with respect to their land favor the idea. For example, in one case, an important nearby parcel of wetland could be put into a conservation easement, but 1 of 4 relatives who own the property will not give consent. The seemingly simple process of determining ownership of a parcel has also sometimes been vexing. The registered deed for 1 nearby small piece of property has yet to be found, even after extensive search of public records. The brightest spot on the RRC’s and AU’s horizon may be the enthusiasm of the faculty in the AU School of Education. The biologists always hoped for such a site and use it extensively, but the non-biologists seem even more excited by the unexpected ideas and opportunities that the site offers them. Acknowledgments I thank the members of the Board of Directors of the RRC, especially Dr. Juan Brown, without whose inspiration and direction the project would not have begun or continued; Dana Leavitt, who has spent many more hours than his part-time pay as Coordinator will ever reimburse; the many folks at Upstate Forever, especially Erin Knight, Director of the Land Trust Program for extensive help with funding opportunities; Dr. Dave Hargett, Executive Director of Lake Conestee Nature Park, for continued help and advice on how to make this project work; Dr. Carrie Koenigstein, Associate Dean for Sciences and Associate Professor of Biology at Anderson University for starting the AU affiliation with Georgia Adopt-A-Stream and continuing to train and supervise research students using those methods; Dr. Frank “Andy” Norris for his continued support of, and interest in, the site’s birding activities; and my faculty and administration colleagues at AU, most notably, Dean Woods, Vice-President for Institutional Advancement and RRC Executive Board member, for his Southeastern Naturalist T. Kozel 2017 126 Vol. 16 Special Issue 10 tireless efforts to “make this happen”. Literature Cited Begon, M, C.R. Townsend, and J.L. Harper. 2006. Ecology From Individuals to Ecosystems, 4th Edition. Blackwell Publishing, Malden, MA. 737 pp. Cox, P. (Ed.). 2007. The Great Smoky Mountains National Park All Taxa Biodiversity Inventory: A Search for Species in Our Own Backyard. Vol. 6 Special Issue 1. 238 pp. ebird. 2015. ebird. Cornell University, Ithaca, NY. Available online at http://ebird.org/content/ ebird/. Accessed 31 August 2015. Edisto Beach State Park, SC. 2015. Edisto Beach State Park Interpretive Center. Available online at http://www.southcarolinaparks.com/products/26355.aspx. Accessed 23 September 2015. Ehrlich, P.R. 1988. The loss of biodiversity. Pp. 21–27, In E.O. Wilson (Ed.). Biodiversity. National Academy Press, Washington, DC. 521 pp. Enge, K.M. 1997. A standardized protocol for drift-fence surveys. Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission. Technical Report No. 14. Tallahassee, FL. 69 pp + vi Environmental Education Association of South Carolina. 2016. EEASC home page. Available online at http://www.eeasc.org. Accessed 5 February 2016. E.O. Wilson Biodiversity Foundation. 2013. Celebrating Mobile Delta biodiversity. Available online at www.eowilsonfoundation.org. Accessed 5 September 2015. Freishtat, S. 2014. Rocky River swamp trails to be completed soon. Independent Mail, Anderson, SC. 22 July 2014. 4A. Georgia Adopt-A-Stream. 2014. Data forms. Available online at www.Georgiaadoptastream. com/db/Manuals.html. Accessed 17 September 2015. Georgia Adopt-A-Stream. 2015. Sites. Available online at www.Georgiaadoptastream.com/ db/Sites.html. Accessed 23 September 2015. Griffith, G.E., J.M. Omernik, J.A. Comstock, M.P. Schafale, W.H. McNab, D.R. Lenat, T.F. MacPherson, J.B. Glover, and V.B. Shelburne. 2002. Ecoregions of North Carolina and South Carolina (color poster with map [scale = 1:1,500,000], descriptive text, summary tables, and photographs). US Geological Survey, Reston, VA. ICA Engineering. 2014. Rocky River hydrological assessment and wetland restoration plan, Anderson County, SC. Prepared for Upstate Forever, Greenville, SC. Lake Conestee Nature Park (LCNP). 2016. Lake Conestee Nature Park home page. Available online at http://lakeconesteenature park.com. Accessed 5 February 2016. Lei, S.A. 2010. Field trips in college biology and ecology courses: Revisiting benefits and drawbacks. Journal of Instructional Psychology 37:42–48. Mayo, N. 2013. Rocky River advocates say park’s future is helped by grant. Independent Mail, Anderson, SC. 1 August 2013:3A. Merritt, R.W., and K.W. Cummins (Eds.). 1996. An Introduction to the Aquatic Insects of North America, 3rd Edition. Kendall/Hunt, Dubuque, IA. 862 pp. Mitsch, W.J., and J.G. Gosselink. 2015. Wetlands, 5th Edition. John Wiley and Sons, Hoboken, NJ. 736 pp. National Association of Biology Teachers (NABT). 2005. Role of laboratory and field instruction in biology education. Available online at http:www.nabt.org/websites/institution/ index.php?p=95. Accessed 5 February 2016. National Recreation and Park Association (NRPA). 2016. Research papers. Available online at http://www.nrpa.org/research-papers. Accessed 5 February 2016. North American Association for Environmental Education. 2016. NAAEE home page. Southeastern Naturalist 127 T. Kozel 2017 Vol. 16, Special Issue 10 Available on line at https://naaee.org/. Accessed 5 February 2016. Okefenokee Swamp Park. 2015. Okefenokee Swamp Park history. Available online at www. Okeswamp.com/about-the park/history. Accessed 5 September 2015. Reed Creek Park. 2015. Reed Creek Park, Columbia County, GA. Available online at http://www.columbiacountyga.gov/government-/departments-l-r/parks-recreationdepartment/ parks-facilities/reed-creek-nature-park-and-interpretive-center. Accessed 23 September 2015. Rocky River Conservancy (RRC). 2014. Rocky River Conservancy home page. Available online at http://rockyriverconservancy.org/. Accessed 24 September 2015. Russell, S.H., M.P. Hancock, and J. McCullough. 2007. Benefits of undergraduate research experiences. Science 316:548–549. SeamonWhiteside. 2014a. Education Plan: Rocky River Nature Park. Prepared for Upstate Forever, Greenville, SC. SeamonWhiteside. 2014b Master plan: Rocky River Nature Park. Prepared for Upstate Forever, Greenville, SC. South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SCDHEC). 2014. 03060103-02 (Rocky River/Lake Russell). Available online at www.scdhec.gov/Home- AndEnvironment/Docs/6010302.pdf. Accessed 6 September 2015. Spira, .A. 2011. Wildflowers and Plant Communities of the Southern Appalachian Mountains and Piedmont. The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC. 521 pp. Stoneman Douglas, M. 1947. The Everglades: River of Grass. Rinehart and Company, New York, NY. 480 pp. Thorp, J.H., and A.P. Covich (Eds). 2010. Ecology and Classification of North American Freshwater Invertebrates, 3rd Edition. Elsevier, London, UK. 1020 pp. US Department of Transportation (US DOT). 2014. Megaregions and multi-jurisdictional planning. Federal Highway Administration. Available online at www.fhwa.dot.gov/ planning/megaregions/index.cfm. Accessed 5 September 2015. US Geological Survey (USGS). 2014. The national flood-frequency program: Methods for estimating flood magnitude and frequency in rural and urban areas in North Carolina. USGS Fact Sheet 007-00. Available online at http://pubs.water.usgs.gov/fs00700. Accessed 22 September 2015. Wilhelm, C. 2010. Prophet of the Glades: Ernest Coe and the Fight for Everglades. Electronic Theses, Treatises, and Dissertations. Paper 1011. Available online at http://diginole. lib.fsu.edu/islandora/object/fsu:175590. Accessed 5 September 2015. Southeastern Naturalist T. Kozel 2017 128 Vol. 16 Special Issue 10 Appendix 1. Species lists and results of senior research projects at the Rocky River Nature Park, Anderson, SC. Escherichia coli. Except closely following precipitation events, E. coli numbers have remained within normal limits at the monitoring sites in Cox Creek and the Rocky River. See Georgia Adopt-A-Stream (2015). Protozoans and microinvertebrates. Commonly collected protozoan genera include: Actinosphaerium spp., Amoeba spp., Arcella spp., Chilodonella spp., Chilomonas spp., Difflugia spp., Eudorina spp., Euglena spp., Oxytrichia spp., Pandorina spp., Paramecium spp., Peranema spp., Spirostomum spp., Volvox spp., and Vorticella spp. Many diatom groups were also collected and identification is ongoing. Microinvertebrates observed include: Rotifers, Dugesia spp., Stenostomum spp., Nematoda, Chaetogaster spp., Placobdella spp., Eubranchiopoda, Cladocera, Copepoda, Ostracoda, Amphipoda, Isopoda, Hydracarina, and Tardigrada. Aquatic insects and other macroinvertebrates. Aquatic insects from 7 orders and 21 families have been collected: Ephemeroptera: Baetidae, Heptageniidae Odonata: Gomphidae, Aeshnidae, Libellulidea, Coenagrionidae Plecoptera: Perlidae Hemiptera: Belostomatidae, Corixidae, Gerridae, Notonectidae, Nepidae Trichoptera: Hydropsychidae Coleoptera: Dytiscidae, Gyrinidae, Hydrophilidae Diptera: Chironomidae, Culicidae; Psychodidae; Tipulidae; Tabanidae Procambarus raneyi Hobbs is the only decapod crustacean collected. Fishes. Twenty-one species of fish in 7 families have been collected from wetlands A and B (W), Cox Creek (C) or Rocky River (R): Cyprinidae: Clinostomus funduloides Girard (Rosyside Dace)–R Cyprinella nivea (Cope) (Whitefin Shiner)–C Hybopsis rubrifrons (Jordan) (Rosyface Chub)–C, R Nocomis leptocephalus (Girard) (Bluehead Chub) –C, R Notropis hudsonius (Clinton) (Spottail Shiner)–C, R Notropis lutipinnus (Jordan and Brayton) (Yellowfin Shiner)–C, R Semotilus atromaculatus (Mitchill) (Creek Chub)–C, R Catostomidae: Hypentelium nigricans (Lesueur) (Northern Hogsucker)–C, R Moxostoma rupiscartes (Jordan and Jenkins) (Striped Jumprock)–C Ictaluridae: Ameiurus brunneus Jordan (Snail Bullhead)–R Ameiurus natalis (Lesueur) (Yellow Bullhead)–C, R Ameiurus nebulosus (Lesueur) (Brown Bullhead)–C, R Noturus insignis (Richardson) (Margined Madtom)–C, R Esocidae: Esox americanus Gmelin (Redfin Pickerel–R Southeastern Naturalist 129 T. Kozel 2017 Vol. 16, Special Issue 10 Poeciliidae: Gambusia holbrooki Girard (Eastern Mosquitofish)–W, C, R Centrarchidae: Centrarchus macropterus (Lacepede) (Flier)–W, R Lepomis gibbosus (L.) (Pumpkinseed)–C, R Lepomis gulosus (Cuvier) (Warmouth)–R Lepomis macrochirus Rafinesque (Bluegill)–C, R Micropterus salmoides (Lacepede) (Largemouth Bass)–C, R Percidae; Percina nigrofasciata (Agassiz) (Blackbanded Darter)–C, R Results from the Senior Biology research project to compare richness and diversity of fishes among Cox Creek, Rocky River and wetlands A and B revealed that Rocky River had the greatest richness (19 species) and greatest Shannon diversity index value (2.124). Cox Creek richness = 16 species and Shannon diversity index value = 1.788. Only 2 fish species were collected from wetlands A and B, which had a Shannon diversity = 0.689; most specimens were Eastern Mosquitofish. Amphibians and reptiles. Eighteen species of amphibians and reptiles in 11 families have been collected: Amphibia Plethodontidae: Eurycea guttolineata (Holbrook) (Three-lined Salamander) Ambystomatidae: Ambystoma opacum (Gravenhorst) (Marbled Salamander) Hylidae: Pseudacris crucifer (Wied-Neuwied) (Spring Peeper) Hyla cinerea (Schneider) (Green Treefrog) Hyla chrysoscelis Cope (Cope’s Gray Treefrog) Ranidae: Lithobates catesbeiana (Shaw) (American Bullfrog) Lithobates sphenocephalus (Cope) (Southern Leopard Frog) Lithobates clamitans (Latreille) (Green Frog) Reptilia Kinosternidae: Sternotherus odoratus (Latreille in Sonnini and Latreille) (Common Musk Turtle) Trionychidae: Apalone spinifera (Lesueur) (Spiny Softshell Turtle) Chelydridae: Chelydra serpentine (L.) (Common Snapping Turtle) Emydidae: Terrapene carolina (L.) (Eastern Box Turtle) Trachemys scripta (Schoepff) (Yellowbelly Slider) Chrysemys picta picta (Schneider) (Eastern Painted Turtle) Dactyloidae: Anolis carolinensis (Voigt) (Green Anole) Southeastern Naturalist T. Kozel 2017 130 Vol. 16 Special Issue 10 Scincidae: Scincella lateralis (Say in James) (Ground Skink) Colubridae: Coluber constrictor L. (Eastern Racer) Thamnophis sirtalis (L.) (Common Garter Snake) Vocalizations and advertisement calls of Cope’s Gray Treefrog were analyzed for pulse rate. Only data from September and October 2014 was of sufficient quality for statistical analysis. A Kruskal–Wallis test (K = 0.725; K = 0.854) indicated no significant difference in call rate between months (B. Crooks, Anderson University, unpubl. data). The nocturnal activity patterns of fluorescent-tagged Cope’s Gray Treefrog and Green Treefrogs studied in September and October 2014 and March 2015 revealed no statistical differences (unpaired t-test, P = 0.23) in travel lengths between the 2 species. In overnight observations, frogs moved 0–7 m. Data analysis was done with an unpaired t-test (A. Moorhouse, Anderson University, unpubl. data). Birds. Since 22 January 2015, one hundred twenty species of birds have been identified by sight and/or call. All species listed during this period had been recorded previously at the site. Species, numbers of individuals, and observer names can be viewed on e-bird (2015). A total of 12 Wood Duck boxes have been placed in the core wetlands. Mammals. The following 11 species of mammals in 10 families have been observed: Didelphidae: Didelphis virginiana Kerr (Virginia Opossum) Soricidae: Blarina brevicauda (Say) (Short-tailed Shrew) Castoridae: Castor Canadensis Kuhl (American Beaver) Sciuridae: Sciurus carolinensis Gmelin (Eastern Gray Squirrel) Tamias striatus (L.) (Eastern Chipmunk) Muridae: Rattus norvegicus (Berkenhout) (Brown Rat) Cricetidae: Peromyscus leucopus (Rafinesque) (White-footed Mouse) Canidae: Canis latrans Say (Coyote) Procyonidae: Procyon lotor (L.) (Northern Raccoon) Leporidae: Sylvilagus floridanus (J.A. Allen) (Eastern Cottontail) Cervidae: Odocoileus virginianus (Zimmermann) (White-tailed Deer) Results of the tree-preference study indicated American Beaver selected hickories of any diameter more often (χ2 = 2.34, P = 0.05) than other types of trees within the study area. Southeastern Naturalist 131 T. Kozel 2017 Vol. 16, Special Issue 10 Vegetation. The plant species reported in the site description represent the only inventory presently available for the site. Water quality. Monthly water-quality data has been reported to Georgia Adopt-A-Stream since February 2014 and is available on their website (Georgia Adopt-A-Stream 2015). Data indicate that, except for elevated turbidity levels after precipitation events, water-quality parameters measured are within normal expectations for 1st-order urban and 3rd-order, mainly rural, Piedmont streams. Data collected during fish sampling was within the variance of the Georgia Adopt-A-Stream data.