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.