Fish Inventory in Four National Park Service Units in South Carolina Job Title: and

Period Covered January 1, 2005 through December 30, 2006

Summary

South Carolina Department of Natural Resources Freshwater Fisheries staff inventoried

freshwater fishes during 2005-2006 for the National Park Service (NPS) in four Cumberland

Piedmont Network parks in South Carolina and North Carolina. The parks were: 1) Ninety Six

National Historic Site (NISI), 2) Kings Mountain National Military Park (KIMO), 3) Cowpens

National Battlefield (COWP), and 4) the Carl Sandburg Home National Historic Site (CARL). As

requested by NPS, each park is reported separately. Sample collections were made in all aquatic

habitat types identified on each park, including impoundments, ponds, perennial , ephemeral streams, and springs. A total of twenty-two species was collected in NISI, seven species in COWP, eighteen species in KIMO, and fourteen species from CARL.

Introduction

South Carolina Department of Natural Resources Freshwater Fisheries staff inventoried

freshwater fishes during 2005-2006 for the National Park Service in four Cumberland Piedmont

Network parks in South Carolina and North Carolina. The inventory comprised a series of tasks

that were addressed, as applicable:

(A) Identifying species richness (to a 90% level),

1 (B) Describing the distribution of each species within a park, (C) Determining abundance (particularly of sensitive species), (D) Collecting voucher specimens for those species where none exist or where species is not readily identifiable by photograph (no collecting of sensitive species), (E) Recording habitat variables and mapping observation coordinates (F) Collecting and organizing data to be compatible with existing databases, (G) Conducting representative sampling of common habitats and comprehensive coverage of specialized habitats, (H) Identifying fish species that are non-native to a park, (I) Reviewing Existing NPS Database Records for accuracy.

The Ninety Six National Historic Site (NISI) is located in western South Carolina near the

town of Ninety Six (Southern Outer Piedmont ecoregion). The frontier village of Ninety Six was

settled by Europeans in the mid-1700’s, and was later the site of a key Revolutionary War battle.

The park encompasses 989 acres, and its water resources are part of the Saluda drainage

(Santee River system). There is one large impoundment, Star Fort Lake, a small pond (well on its way to filling in as a marsh area), and a number of small streams on the property.

Kings Mountain National Military Park (KIMO) is a rocky spur of the Blue Ridge Mountains

that rises 46m above the surrounding area. In 1780, British Major Patrick Ferguson and his loyalist

militia were severely defeated by a small band of partriot forces, turning the tide of England’s

attempt to conquer the South. Congress established this 3,945 acre site to become a National

Military Park in 1931. The 3,945-acre park is located in Blacksburg, South Carolina (Piedmont

Region), 2.5 miles south of I-85 and 25 miles west of Gastonia, NC. The northern boundary of the

park is located approximately 1 mile south of the North Carolina/ South Carolina state line. KIMO’s

water resources are part of the Broad River drainage (Santee River system). There are numerous

small streams on the property that drain to Kings Creek and Long Branch.

2 The Cowpens National Battlefield (COWP) is located in Cowpens, South Carolina, within

the Southern Outer Piedmont ecoregion. The park encompasses 842 acres and contains a battlefield

that was the site of a decisive victory for Revolutionary War patriots. There are several small

headwater tributary streams on the property that are part of the Broad River drainage (Santee River system).

The Carl Sandburg Home National Historic Site (CARL) is located in western North

Carolina near the town of Flatrock (Blue Ridge ecoregion). The park honors the poet Carl

Sandburg, who moved his family to this farm, named Connemara, in 1945 and lived there 22 years.

The park encompasses 264 acres, and its water resources are part of the French Broad River drainage

(Tennessee River system). There are two impoundments, Front Lake and Side Lake, several small

ponds, a headwater spring, and a number of small streams on the property, all of which drain to

Meminger Creek.

Materials and Methods

I obtained topographic maps and aerial photos from National Park Service staff to

identify terrain features and hydrologic systems. Sites were initially selected using the maps and

photos; actual sampling sites were then visited to determine accessibility and appropriate

sampling methods. Freshwater habitats present were classified as reservoir, pond, spring, and

systems. Recommendations of National Park Service personnel were also considered in

selecting sampling locations. In determining where to sample stream systems, given that a

primary goal of the inventory is to collect a large percentage of species present on the park unit, I

weighted effort toward larger streams and downstream reaches because it is known that fish

diversity increases with stream size. A Geographic Positioning System unit (Garmin model

3 76CS, error typically reported +/- 4 to 12 m depending on topography and canopy cover) was

used to assign coordinates to selected sampling sites (decimal degrees using datum NAD83).

Fishes were sampled between June 2005 and June 2006. Fish sampling was conducted using

three techniques: backpack electrofishing gear in wadeable stream and pond habitat, seine hauls in

shallow pond habitat, and boat-mounted electrofishing gear in impoundments. Sampled stream lengths varied among sites, and were equivalent to at least 30 times the average stream width because this effort has been shown to approach an asymptote of species richness for stream fishes

(Angermeier & Smogor 1995). Each stream was sampled with one pass from downstream toward upstream, with thorough effort to collect all encountered fishes in all habitats. The ponds were either waded with a backpack electrofisher along shore and in open water areas, or a seine net was used.

Lakes were sampled with a complete shoreline circuit using boat electrofishing. All fish collected were identified to species, counted and released. Voucher specimens of some species were retained and stored in a 70% ethanol solution with remaining vouchers comprising digital photos. No species listed as threatened or endangered by state or federal agencies were collected.

Number of individuals of each species collected was recorded for each sample location.

Species relative abundance was calculated, determined by dividing the total number of fish of each species by the total number of fish collected at the site. Sites were pooled to give abundance and relative abundance by species for each park. I also report state conservation status of species as well as whether species were native or introduced to the system.

To give some likelihood that my effort captured 90% of fish species present on the park, I calculated the Chao1 estimator of total species richness from the park-wide sample data. This nonparametric estimator is based on the concept that rare species carry the most information about

4 the number of missing ones, and uses single- and double-occurring species to estimate the number of

species missing (Chao 2004). The Chao1 estimates of expected richness with 95% confidence

intervals were computed from my samples using the EstimateS software (Colwell 2005) and

estimates were compared to the richness I observed during the inventory.

I collected water quality and habitat variables at most sites at the time of sampling according

to SCDNR standard protocols. Geomorphic variables for stream channels included average depth

(m) and average wetted width (m, taken from water edge to water edge) of the reach, obtained by

taking widths and depths at five cross-section transects along the length of the sample reach. Water

quality usually measured at the time of fish collection included water temperature (°C), dissolved oxygen (mg/L), pH, conductivity (uS/cm), and turbidity (NTU).

Results

Ninety Six National Historic Site (NISI)

I sampled three streams (all tributaries of Ninety-Six Creek), one small pond, and Star

Fort Lake in Ninety-Six National Historic Site during spring/summer of 2005 (Figure NISI-1).

For the purposes of this study, the sites were labeled as followed: Tolbert Branch, Spring Creek,

Henley Creek, Little Pond, and Star Fort Lake. Dates of sampling, site coordinates, habitat and

water quality measures taken at each site are presented in Table NISI-1. Water quality was

within normal limits at all stream sites, but dissolved oxygen was very low in the small pond,

likely due to warm temperatures and benthic oxygen demand from decay of dense aquatic

vegetation prevalent in the shallow pond.

I collected a total of 22 species from 5 families (Table NISI-2), three species of which are

listed in South Carolina’s Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy as priority

5 conservation species (SCDNR 2005): rosyface chub, flat bullhead (both moderate priority), and

Carolina darter (highest conservation priority). Three species I collected are exotic to the Saluda

River drainage: green sunfish, redear sunfish, and channel catfish (Warren et al. 2000). Two

additional species, rosyface chub and blackbanded darter, are at the periphery of their range in

the Saluda drainage, and there is some uncertainty as to whether they are native (Warren et al.

2000). However, both are native to the adjacent Savannah River drainage and I do not consider

them to be exotic or invasive. To obtain information on distribution, ecology, and conservation

status of any of the species mentioned in this report (as of the date of this publication),

NatureServe’s website http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/ could be searched by typing species

names (common or scientific) into the search field.

The site with greatest species richness was Tolbert Branch with 17 species, followed by

Henley Creek with 10 species (Table NISI-3). Both of these streams harbored native species

expected to be present in the outer piedmont region of the Saluda drainage, as well as exotic

species commonly introduced to waters of the Atlantic slope. Tolbert Branch was particularly

noteworthy not only for the high diversity but also abundance of the fauna for a stream its size

(161 individuals; Table NISI-4). The smallest stream, Spring Branch, contained only a single

creek chub, a common headwater species. Spring Branch may well be ephemeral, with water

present only part of the year. Creek chubs are considered ‘pioneering’ species due to their ability

to migrate into headwater streams.

The standing-water habitats were less diverse than the running waters on the park. Seven

species were found in Star Fort Lake, typically consisting of sunfish in the family Centrarchidae

(particularly bass and bluegill), channel catfish, and a cyprinid common in lakes, golden shiner.

This assemblage is consistent with the management of the lake for recreational fishing. Although

6 more fish were collected in Star Fort Lake than any other site (168 individuals; Table NISI-4), far more collecting effort was expended during the shoreline electrofishing compared to the stream sites, so fish densities were actually much lower in the lake. Little Pond was inhabited by high densities of mosquitofish, estimated at 75 individuals per square meter. Within a few years if left alone the pond is destined to become a wetland and extirpate the fish population altogether. No other species were encountered in Little Pond.

Relative abundance (defined as abundance by species divided by total catch) gives a measure of fish assemblage structure. Overall in the park, the most common species collected were bluegill and (Table NISI-5), due to the fact that these two species were dominant in Star Fort Lake. Yellowfin shiner ranked third most abundant overall, as it dominated the assemblage in Tolbert Branch, followed by redbreast sunfish, mosquitofish, and rosyface chub. Tolbert Branch was characterized by a healthy mix of shiners and chubs in the cyprinid family, two species of darters (one of which is on the state’s list of highest conservation concern), catfishes, sunfishes, and the live-bearing mosquitofish. Henley Creek was dominated by redbreast sunfish, followed by two darter species composing 22% of the assemblage. Similar to Tolbert Branch, Henley also supported rosyface chub, several members of the catfish and sunfish families, and mosquitofish. But unlike its tributary Tolbert Branch, Henley Creek was devoid of both yellowfin shiner and bluehead chub, a fairly uncommon condition for streams of this ecoregion as both species are widespread.

The occurrence of several species of state conservation concern in the park is noteworthy, as the three species listed as moderate or highest priority (SCDNR 2005) made up 17% and 20% of the fish assemblage, respectively, in Tolbert Branch and Henley Creek (Table NISI-5).

Rosyface chub and Carolina darter are endemic to the southern Atlantic Slope, with distributions

7 limited to the Roanoke, Santee, and Pee Dee River drainages of South Carolina, North Carolina,

and (Rohde et al. 1996). In particular, Carolina darter is an extremely range-restricted and uncommon species, with the Saluda drainage populations being disjunct from populations to the east and north. Both of these species face similar threats across their range: impacts from land development, deforestation, loss of riparian cover, siltation, and hydrologic alterations

(channelization and impoundment construction). Flat bullheads are more widespread and common in the state, but face threats in South Carolina from the introduced piscivore, flathead catfish Pylodictis olivaris (SCDNR 2005).

I assessed my inventory effort within the park by comparing the inventoried species number, targeted at 90% of total species richness, to Chao1 estimates of total richness generated from my sampling data (Table NISI-6). Observed richness within the park (22) was 93% of the computed expected richness value, and 60% and 99% of the upper and lower confidence limits, respectively.

Therefore I conclude that my effort in NISI was adequate to inventory the aquatic habitats supporting fishes.

Kings Mountain National Military Park (KIMO)

I sampled eight streams (all tributaries of Kings Creek and Long Branch) in Kings Mountain

National Military Park during summer of 2006 (Figure KIMO-1). For the purposes of this study, the sites were labeled as followed: KIMO1 - Kings Creek, KIMO2 - Long Branch, KIMO3 - Garner Br.,

KIMO4 - Stonehouse Br., KIMO5 - Dellingham Br., KIMO6 – tributary to Long Br., KIMO7 - trib

to Long Br., and KIMO8 - trib to Kings Cr. Dates of sampling, site coordinates, habitat and water

quality measures taken at each site are presented in Table KIMO-1. Water quality was within normal

limits at all stream sites, but some suspicious readings from the water quality meter occurred on

8 6/5/06. The meter subsequently had to be repaired so I have low confidence in the readings taken that day.

I collected a total of 18 species from 5 families (Table KIMO-2), five species of which are listed in South Carolina’s Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy as priority conservation species (SCDNR 2005). , greenfin shiner, and flat bullhead are moderate priority species, and seagreen darter and Carolina fantail darter are high conservation priority. One species I collected was exotic to the Broad River drainage:

(Warren et al. 2000). All other species are considered native.

The site with greatest species richness was KIMO1 Kings Creek with 16 species (Table

KIMO-3), which was not surprising given that it was the largest stream I sampled. KIMO2 Long

Branch was the second richest with 9 species. KIMO3 Garner Branch was remarkable with 8 species occurring in such a small stream. Perhaps even more remarkable, KIMO6 was smaller and had 7 species. Two sites (KIMO7 and KIMO8) were lowest in richness with two species in common, creek chub and rosyside dace (Table KIMO-3).

A total of 1,368 individuals were collected during the inventory, the highest number of the Cumberland-Piedmont Network Parks I inventoried (Table KIMO-4). The site with the greatest number of fish was KIMO2 Long Branch (458 individuals), followed by the tiny

KIMO6 (269) and Kings Creek (227). The density of fish of the headwater KIMO6 calculates to approximately 18 fish per square meter, an order of magnitude higher than KIMO2 and one of the highest densities I have ever encountered.

Relative abundance (defined as abundance by species divided by total catch) gives a measure of fish assemblage structure. Overall in the park, the most common species collected were rosyside dace and bluehead chub (Table KIMO-5). Creek chub and yellowfin shiner were

9 also abundant. Creek chubs were the only fish to occur at all sampling sites. They are considered

‘pioneering’ species due to their ability to migrate into headwater streams, so would be expected

in these headwater streams. Creek chubs made up only two percent of the catch in the larger

KIMO1 Kings Cr., but 98% of the catch in the smallest stream KIMO7. The least abundant species were the flat bullhead and introduced smallmouth bass, each represented by only a single individual.

The occurrence of several species of state conservation concern in the park is noteworthy.

Although these species made up only 7.5% of the park’s fish fauna, they made up over 17% of the assemblage in KIMO6. Highback chub, greenfin shiner, seagreen darter, and Carolina fantail darter are endemic to the southern Atlantic Slope. All of these species face similar threats across their range: impacts from land development, deforestation, loss of riparian cover, siltation, and hydrologic alterations (channelization and impoundment construction). Flat bullheads are more widespread and common in the state, but face threats in South Carolina from the introduced piscivore, flathead catfish Pylodictis olivaris (SCDNR 2005).

I assessed my inventory effort within the park by comparing the inventoried species number,

targeted at 90% of total species richness, to Chao1 estimates of total richness generated from my

sampling data (Table KIMO-6). Observed richness within the park (18) was 97% of the computed

expected richness value, and 68% and 99% of the upper and lower confidence limits, respectively.

Therefore I conclude that my effort in KIMO was adequate to inventory the aquatic habitats

supporting fishes.

10 Cowpens National Battlefield (COWP)

I sampled four unnamed headwater streams in Cowpens National Battlefield on July 6, 2005

(Figure COWP-1). For the purposes of this study, the streams were labeled as followed: C0WP1 -

Suck Creek # 2; COWP2 - Suck Creek # 1; COWP3 – Long Branch of Island Creek; COWP4 -

Zekial Creek. Site coordinates, habitat and water quality measures taken at each site are presented in

Table COWP-1. The only water quality parameter falling outside of normal levels was dissolved oxygen at COWP4, likely due to lack of flow at the site during this period (standing water in pools).

Even though these were all very small streams, several of which may be ephemeral, fishes were present at most sites.

I collected a total of 7 species from 2 families (Table COWP-2), two species of which are listed in South Carolina’s Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy as priority conservation species (SCDNR 2005). Fishes were patchily distributed among sites, and distribution patterns appeared to be associated with size and water quality of the streams (Table COWP-3, Table COWP-

1). The two larger streams (COWP1 and COWP3; > 1 m wetted width) each contained six species, whereas the smallest stream (COWP2; less than 0.4 m width and 0.05 m depth) was devoid of fish.

Site COWP4 harbored only creek chubs, a generalist headwater species tolerant of dissolved oxygen levels of only 2.46 mg/L (Table COWP-3, Table COWP-1).

Abundance of individual species also followed stream size rankings, as over 99% of the total

507 individuals collected in the park were found in the two larger streams (Table COWP-4).

Numbers of fish correlated directly with channel width. The greatest number of fish, nearly 88%, were collected at COWP3, and most of the remainder were found at COWP1. Only two individual creek chubs were encountered in COWP4.

11 Relative abundance (defined as abundance by species divided by total catch) gives some picture of fish assemblage structure. Overall in the park, the most common species collected, in order of abundance, were: rosyside dace, blue head chub, creek chub, and highback chub (Table

COWP-5). At COWP1, creek chub dominated the assemblage (62%), followed by rosyside dace

(18%) and highback chub (10%). COWP 3 contained a more even assemblage; the most abundant species were rosyside dace (41%), bluehead chub (21%), and highback chub (16%). These results for the most part are unsurprising, as rosyside dace is widely distributed in high-quality headwater streams of the uplands in South Carolina and both creek chub and bluehead chub are extremely widespread and common in the ecoregions above the fall line.

However, the occurrence of highback chub as a major part of the park’s fish assemblage

(15%; Table COWP-5) is noteworthy as it is listed as a species of state conservation concern of moderate priority (SCDNR 2005). Moreover, the presence of Carolina fantail darter is of interest as it is a high conservation priority species. Both species are endemic to the southern Atlantic Slope, with distributions limited to the Santee and Pee Dee River drainages of South Carolina, North

Carolina, and Virginia (Rohde et al. 1996). Both face similar threats across their range: impacts from land development, deforestation, loss of riparian cover, siltation, and hydrologic alterations

(channelization and impoundment construction).

I assessed my inventory effort by comparing the inventoried species number, targeted at

90% of total species richness within the park, to Chao1 estimates generated from my sampling data.

The computed expected value and confidence limits all converged on my observed value of seven species (Table COWP-6). Therefore I conclude that my effort was more than adequate to inventory these small headwater streams.

12 Carl Sandburg Home National Historic Site (CARL)

I sampled eight sites on CARL, all of which drained to Meminger Creek. Two streams

(Meminger Creek and an unnamed tributary), two small ponds, and a small spring and its reservoir

were sampled in the summer of 2005 (Figure CARL-1). I sampled both Front and Side Lakes during

spring 2006. For the purposes of this study, the sites were labeled as followed: CARL1 – Meminger

Creek, CARL 2 – unnamed tributary of Meminger Cr., Spring and Reservoir, Duck Pond, Trout

Pond, Front Lake and Side Lake (Figure CARL-1). Dates of sampling, site coordinates, habitat and

water quality measures taken at each site are presented in Table CARL-1. Water quality was within

normal limits at most sites, but dissolved oxygen and pH was low in the spring and reservoir.

I collected a total of 14 species from 5 families (Table CARL-2). None of the species I

collected are listed in North Carolina’s Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Plan as priority

conservation species (NCWRC 2005), nor are any species listed as imperiled on federal or state

agency lists. Two species I collected are not native to the French Broad River drainage and thus

exotic to the park; redbreast sunfish and flat bullhead are both native to Atlantic Slope drainages

(Warren et al. 2000).

The site with greatest species richness was Meminger Creek (CARL1) with 11 species,

followed by CARL2 with 8 species (Table CARL-3). Both of these streams harbored native species

expected to be present in the upper French Broad drainage, such as , warpaint shiner,

creek chub, and central stoneroller (Rohde et al. 1996). There were as well non-native species,

redbreast sunfish and flat bullhead. The standing-water habitats were less diverse than the running

waters on the park. The headwater spring and its reservoir did not produce any fish, which is not surprising given the fact that the site is upstream of a very high gradient section that likely acts as a barrier to colonization by fish. The Trout Pond also did not yield fish with my shoreline

13 electrofishing, although it is much deeper and therefore more difficult to sample efficiently. As such,

the possibility that some fish were in deeper refuges within the pond cannot be ruled out. Just downstream, the Duck Pond contained only a population of creek chub, a common headwater species. Creek chubs are considered ‘pioneering’ species due to their ability to migrate into headwater streams. The same assemblage of four species was found in Front and Side Lakes, consisting of several species of sunfish and bass in the family Centrarchidae. An additional species, grass carp, was not collected during sampling but was observed in Front Lake (at least two individuals). This herbivorous fish is native to eastern Asia and has been imported for control of aquatic vegetation. The state of North Carolina permits stocking this fish but requires that they be sterile triploid forms, therefore after a typical lifespan of 10 years the grass carp will be extirpated from the lake, barring additional stocking. I do not know when these particular fish were stocked.

Overall, the assemblage in the lakes is typical of impoundments managed for recreational fishing.

Although I have no evidence, I speculate that the redbreast sunfish may have been stocked into Front and/or Side Lakes, from which it colonized the streams.

A total of 566 individuals were collected in the park, with the most found at CARL2 (186 individuals; Table CARL-4), followed by CARL1 (160) and Front Lake (132). However, far more collecting effort was expended during the shoreline electrofishing in the lakes compared to the stream sites, so fish densities were actually much lower in the lakes. Fifty-eight fish were collected in Side Lake, and 30 creek chubs in Duck Pond.

Relative abundance (defined as number of fish by species divided by total catch) gives a measure of fish assemblage structure. Overall in the park, the most common species collected were bluegill and river chub (Table CARL-5), respectively making up 35% and 22% of my collection.

River chub only occurred in the stream sites whereas bluegill were found in four of the five sites that

14 had fish. Creek chub (15% relative abundance) occurred at both of the stream sites and also in the

Duck Pond. Largemouth bass were major components of the lake assemblages, after bluegill, but

were not present in the stream samples. Two native species found only in the stream samples are

noteworthy in that their native ranges are restricted to the Appalachian highlands: warpaint shiner

and smoky sculpin. The two species are a minor component of the park’s fish fauna but are

representative of a group of endemic Appalachian fishes that make the regional assemblage unique

(Scott and Helfman 2001). This group of highland endemics appears to be sensitive to habitat alteration and water quality degradation.

I assessed my inventory effort within the park by comparing the inventoried species number, targeted at 90% of total species richness, to Chao1 estimates of total richness generated from my sampling data (Table CARL-6). Observed richness within the park (14) was over 97% of the computed expected richness value, and 70% and 99% of the upper and lower confidence limits, respectively. Therefore I conclude that my effort on CARL was adequate to inventory the aquatic habitats supporting fishes.

Discussion

Ninety Six National Historic Site

The Ninety Six National Historic Site was found to contain several tributary streams of

the Saluda River, one large impoundment (Star Fort Lake), and one small pond. The fish

inventory of these aquatic habitats produced 433 individuals of 22 species. Common stream and

reservoir species were encountered along with three species of conservation concern to the South

Carolina Department of Natural Resources.

15 The fact that the fish assemblage inhabiting the park includes three of South Carolina’s priority conservation species, making up of about 11% of the park’s fish fauna, is a good indicator.

In particular, Tolbert Branch and Henley Creek assemblages are composed of nearly 20% of these sensitive species. The fisheries section of SCDNR has an interest in monitoring “reference” stream conditions throughout the state, and these two NISI sites are certainly candidates. Land management is critical to aquatic systems, particularly headwater streams, since ecosystem processes such as hydrologic regime, carbon inputs and processing, and nutrient dynamics are highly influenced by the terrestrial drainage. Management to conserve aquatic ecosystem integrity includes restrictions on land development, maintenance of forested riparian zones to the maximum extent practical in keeping with cultural values of the park, and maintenance of natural hydrology and water quality.

The role of the National Park System as good steward of these headwater streams is valuable and plays an important part in the future persistence of our native fishes in South Carolina.

Kings Mountain National Military Park

The Kings Mountain National Military Park was found to contain several headwater and tributary streams of Kings Creek and Long Branch, all part of the Broad River basin. The fish inventory of these aquatic habitats produced 1,329 individuals of 19 species. The assemblages were characterized by classic stream-dwelling species along with six species of conservation concern to the South Carolina Department of Natural Resources. The overall composition of the fish fauna suggests that these aquatic systems are among the highest quality in the state, reflecting the fact that the park protects the headwaters of these streams (except Kings Creek, which originates off-site and drains private lands). The fisheries section of SCDNR has an interest in monitoring “reference” stream conditions throughout the state, and several KIMO sites are certainly candidates.

16 The fact that the fish assemblage inhabiting the park includes six of South Carolina’s priority conservation species, making up of about 8% of the park’s fish fauna, is an excellent indicator of the ecological integrity of aquatic systems on KIMO. Land management is critical to aquatic systems, particularly headwater streams, since ecosystem processes such as hydrologic regime, carbon inputs and processing, and nutrient dynamics are highly influenced by the terrestrial drainage. Management to conserve aquatic ecosystem integrity includes restrictions on land development, maintenance of forested riparian zones to the maximum extent practical in keeping with cultural values of the park, and maintenance of natural hydrology and water quality. The role of the National Park System as good steward of these headwater streams is highly valuable and plays an important part in the future persistence of our native fishes in South Carolina.

Cowpens National Battlefield

The Cowpens National Battlefield was found to contain several small headwater streams, four which were sampled and found to harbor a surprising number of fishes, seven species. The number of fishes was tied to the size of the stream, in keeping with standard theory and practice.

Common headwater species were encountered along with two species of conservation concern to the South Carolina Department of Natural Resources.

The fact that the fish assemblage inhabiting the park includes two of South Carolina’s priority conservation species, making up of about 15% of the park’s fish fauna, is a good indicator.

Land management is critical to aquatic systems, particularly headwater streams, since ecosystem

processes such as hydrologic regime, carbon flow, and nutrient dynamics are highly influenced by

the terrestrial drainage. Management to conserve aquatic ecosystem integrity includes restrictions on

land development, maintenance of forested riparian zones to the maximum extent practical in

keeping with cultural values of the park, and maintenance of natural hydrology and water quality.

17 The role of the National Park System as good steward of these headwater streams is valuable and

plays a part in the future persistence of our native fishes.

Carl Sandburg Home National Historic Site

The Carl Sandburg Home National Historic Site was drained by Meminger Creek, a

tributary stream within the French Broad River system. The Meminger Creek drainage contained

a headwater spring and its reservoir, Trout Pond, Duck Pond, Front Lake, and Side Lake. The fish inventory of these aquatic habitats produced 566 individuals of 14 species, and one other species (grass carp) was observed but not collected during the inventory. Common stream and reservoir species were encountered along with two introduced species.

The fact that the fish assemblage inhabiting the park includes two species endemic to the

Appalachian highlands is a good indicator. Land management is critical to aquatic systems, particularly headwater streams, since ecosystem processes such as hydrologic regime, carbon inputs and processing, and nutrient dynamics are highly influenced by the terrestrial drainage. Management to conserve aquatic ecosystem integrity includes restrictions on land development, maintenance of forested riparian zones to the maximum extent practical in keeping with cultural values of the park, and maintenance of natural hydrology and water quality. The role of the National Park System as good steward of these aquatic resources is valuable and plays an important part in the future persistence of our native fishes.

Literature Cited

Angermeier, P.L., and R.A. Smogor. 1995. Estimating number of species and relative abundances in stream-fish communities: effects of sampling effort and discontinuous spatial distributions. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 52:936-949.

Chao, A. 2004. Species richness estimation. In N. Balakrishnan, C. B. Read, and B. Vidakovic,

18 editors. Encyclopedia of Statistical Sciences. Wiley, New York.

Colwell, R. K. 2005. EstimateS: Statistical estimation of species richness and shared species from samples. Version 7.5. User's Guide and application published at: http://purl.oclc.org/estimates.

Rohde, F.C., R.G. Arndt, D.G. Lindquist, and J.F. Parnell. 1996. Freshwater Fishes of the Carolinas, Virginia, Maryland, and Delaware. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill. 228 pp.

NCWRC (North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission). 2005. Noth Carolina’s Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Plan. URL accessed November 22, 2006 http://www.ncwildlife.org/pg07_WildlifeSpeciesCon/pg7c1.htm

Scott, M.C., and G.S. Helfman. 2001. Native invasions, homogenization, and the mismeasure of integrity of fish assemblages. Fisheries 26(11):6-15.

SCDNR (South Carolina Department Of Natural Resources). 2005. Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy. http://www.dnr.sc.gov/cwcs/index.html

Warren, M.L. Jr., B.M. Burr, S.J. Walsh, H.L. Bart Jr., R.C. Cashner, D.A. Etnier, B.J. Freeman, B.R. Kuhajda, R.L. Mayden, H.W. Robison, S.T. Ross, and W.C. Starnes. 2000. Diversity, distribution, and conservation status of the native freshwater fishes of the southern . Fisheries 25(10):7-31.

Tables and figures on following pages.

19 Table NISI-1. Date of sampling, site coordinates in decimal degrees (datum NAD83), channel dimensions (meters), and water quality measures associated with each fish collection. Column abbreviations and measurement units are as follows: DO – dissolved oxygen (mg/L), CONDUC – conductivity (μS/cm), TURB – turbidity (nephelometric turbidity units), TEMP – temperature (°C).

NISI SITE ID FISH DATE LAT LONG LENGTH AVG WIDTH AVG DEPTH DO pH CONDUC TURB TEMP Tolbert Branch 7/5/2005 34.13195 82.02504 119 1.55 0.075 7.58 7.15 133 8.65 23.34 Spring Branch 7/5/2005 34.14452 82.02187 100 0.83 0.07 6.61 6.53 98 17.92 19.76 Henley Creek 8/15/2005 34.14360 82.00530 135 4.5 0.2 6.05 7.20 154 11.81 25.60 Little Pond 7/21/2005 34.14217 82.01421 na na 0.6 1.25 6.04 86 - 26.95 Star Fort Lake 6/8/2005 34.14490 82.00760 na na ------

Table NISI-2. Fish species collected from Ninety Six National Historic Site, including their conservation and range status. Native refers to a species being indigenous to the Saluda River drainage. Any of the species mentioned in this report could be searched via NatureServe’s website http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/ as of the date of this publication. Species names (common or scientific) can be typed into the search field to obtain information on distribution, ecology, and conservation status.

State Conservation Common Name Scientific Name Family Status Native/Introduced Voucher status bluegill Lepomis macrochirus Centrarchidae Native One specimen preserved green sunfish Lepomis cyanellus Centrarchidae Introduced Photo NISIgreensunfish.jpg redbreast sunfish Lepomis auritus Centrarchidae Native Photo NISIredbreast.jpg redear sunfish Lepomis microlophus Centrarchidae Introduced One specimen preserved warmouth Lepomis gulosus Centrarchidae Native Photo NISIwarmouth1.jpg largemouth bass Micropterus salmoides Centrarchidae Native One specimen preserved black crappie Pomoxis nigromaculatus Centrarchidae Native Photo NISIblcrappie.jpg bluehead chub leptocephalus Native 13 specimens preserved

20 State Conservation Common Name Scientific Name Family Status Native/Introduced Voucher status creek chub Semotilus atromaculatus Cyprinidae Native 2 specimens preserved rosyface chub Hybopsis rubrifrons Cyprinidae Moderate Priority Native with reservation 23 specimens preserved golden shiner Notemigonus crysoleucas Cyprinidae Native Photo NISIgoldenshiner.jpg sandbar shiner Notropis scepticus Cyprinidae Native 13 specimens preserved spottail shiner Notropis hudsonius Cyprinidae Native - yellowfin shiner Notropis lutipinnis Cyprinidae Native 2 specimens preserved yellow bullhead Ameiurus natalis Ictaluridae Native Photo NISIybullhead.jpg flat bullhead Ameiurus platycephalus Ictaluridae Moderate Priority Native Photo NISIflatbullhead.jpg channel catfish Ictalurus punctatus Ictaluridae Introduced - margined madtom Noturus insignis Ictaluridae Native - Carolina darter (Saluda form) Etheostoma collis Percidae Highest Priority Native 12 specimens preserved tesselated darter Etheostoma olmstedi Percidae Native - blackbanded darter Percina nigrofasciata Percidae Native with reservation One specimen preserved eastern mosquitofish Gambusia holbrooki Poeciliidae Native One specimen preserved

Table NISI-3. Species distributions among sites. Total number of fish species in NISI was twenty-two (22).

Tolbert Common Name Branch Spring Branch Henley Creek Little Pond Star Fort Lake Carolina darter (Saluda form) X yellowfin shiner X bluehead chub X bluegill X X X redbreast sunfish X X blackbanded darter X X creek chub X X green sunfish X X warmouth X X largemouth bass X X

21 Tolbert Common Name Branch Spring Branch Henley Creek Little Pond Star Fort Lake redear sunfish X X spottail shiner X sandbar shiner X rosyface chub X X black crappie X eastern mosquitofish X X X tesselated darter X golden shiner X margined madtom X channel catfish X flat bullhead X X yellow bullhead X X Number of Species 17 1 10 1 7

Table NISI-4. Abundance of each fish species by site and totals within NISI.

Common Name Tolbert Branch Spring Branch Henley Creek Little Pond Star Fort Lake Park Total Carolina darter (Saluda form) 14 0 0 0 0 14 yellowfin shiner 45 0 0 0 0 45 blue head chub 19 0 0 0 0 19 bluegill 7 0 6 0 74 87 redbreast sunfish 1 0 34 0 0 35 blackbanded darter 1 0 11 0 0 12 creek chub 13 1 0 0 0 14 green sunfish 4 0 1 0 0 5 warmouth 4 0 0 0 1 5 largemouth bass 2 0 0 0 67 69 redear sunfish 5 0 0 0 7 12 spottail shiner 12 0 0 0 0 12

22 Common Name Tolbert Branch Spring Branch Henley Creek Little Pond Star Fort Lake Park Total sandbar shiner 13 0 0 0 0 13 rosyface chub 11 0 13 0 0 24 black crappie 0 0 0 0 6 6 eastern mosquitofish 8 0 18 X* 0 26 tessellated darter 0 0 11 0 0 11 golden shiner 0 0 0 0 1 1 margined madtom 0 0 1 0 0 1 channel catfish 0 0 0 0 12 12 flat bullhead 1 0 7 0 0 8 yellow bullhead 1 0 1 0 0 2 Number Individuals 161 1 103 * 168 433

Table NISI-5. Relative abundance of each fish species by site and overall within NISI.

Common Name Tolbert Branch Spring Branch Henley Creek Little Pond Star Fort Lake Park Overall Carolina darter (Saluda form) 9% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3.2% yellowfin shiner 28% 0% 0% 0% 0% 10.4% bluehead chub 12% 0% 0% 0% 0% 4.4% bluegill 4% 0% 6% 0%44% 20.1% redbreast sunfish 1% 0% 33% 0% 0% 8.1% blackbanded darter 1% 0% 11% 0% 0% 2.8% creek chub 8% 100% 0% 0% 0% 3.2% green sunfish 2% 0% 1% 0% 0% 1.2% warmouth 2% 0% 0% 0%1% 1.2% largemouth bass 1% 0% 0% 0% 40% 15.9% redear sunfish 3% 0% 0% 0% 4% 2.8% spottail shiner 7% 0% 0% 0% 0% 2.8% sandbar shiner 8% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3.0% rosyface chub 7% 0% 13% 0% 0% 5.5% black crappie 0% 0% 0% 0% 4% 1.4%

23 Common Name Tolbert Branch Spring Branch Henley Creek Little Pond Star Fort Lake Park Overall eastern mosquitofish 5% 0% 17% 100% 0% 6.0% tesselated darter 0% 0% 11% 0% 0% 2.5% golden shiner 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0.2% margined madtom 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0.2% channel catfish 0% 0% 0% 0% 7% 2.8% flat bullhead 1% 0% 7% 0% 0% 1.8% yellow bullhead 1% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0.5%

24 Table NISI-6. Observed fish species richness within NISI, computed Chao1 estimate of species richness with 95% confidence limits, and percentage of observed richness versus the estimates. Goal of the inventory effort was to document 90% of species expected within the park.

Observed Species Richness 22 % Observed vs.Estimated Richness Chao1 Expected Richness 23.5 93.6% Chao1 lower 95% CL 22.2 99.1% Chao1 upper 95% CL 36.5 60.3%

25 Table KIMO-1. Date of sampling, site coordinates in decimal degrees (datum NAD83), channel dimensions (meters), and water quality measures associated with each fish collection. Column abbreviations and measurement units are as follows: DO – dissolved oxygen (mg/L), CONDUC – conductivity (μS/cm), TURB – turbidity (nephelometric turbidity units), TEMP – temperature (°C).

AVG KIMO SITE ID FISH DATE LATTITUDE LONGITUDE LENGTH WIDTH DO PH CONDUC TURB TEMP KIMO1 - Kings Creek 5/31/2006 35.14471 81.41354 168 5.6 7.42 7.58 151 6.36 20.64 KIMO2 - Long Branch 6/1/2006 35.13700 81.35900 112 4.1 7.19 7.21 54 3.2 18.4 KIMO3 - Garner Br. 6/1/2006 35.11890 81.40930 45 1.5 7.36 7.29 54 1.66 19.8 KIMO4 - Stonehouse Br. 6/5/2006 35.14280 81.41300 50 1.7 8.77 5.98* 259* 1.59 16.54 KIMO5 - Dellingham Br. 6/5/2006 35.13640 81.41440 50 1.8 7.3 5.54* 212* 5.02 16.25 KIMO6 - trib to Long Br. 6/5/2006 35.12801 81.38473 21 0.7 8.25 6.69* 142* 3.07 17.89 KIMO7 - trib to Long Br. 6/5/2006 35.12665 81.38717 20 0.5 - - - - - KIMO8 - trib to Kings Cr. 6/5/2006 35.15540 81.39320 60 2 8.6 6.05* 118* 0.96 16.59

Table KIMO-2. Fish species collected from Kings Mountain National Military Park , including their conservation and range status. Native refers to a species being indigenous to the Broad River drainage.

State Conservation Common Name Scientific Name Family Status Native/Introduced Voucher status northern hogsucker Hypentelium nigricans Catostomidae Native One preserved specimen white sucker Catostomus commersoni Catostomidae Native photo P5310106.jpg striped jumprock Scartomyzon rupiscartes Catostomidae Native photo P5310133.jpg rosyside dace Clinostomus funduloides Cyprinidae Native photo P5310145.jpg sandbar shiner Notropis scepticus Cyprinidae Native One preserved specimen yellowfin shiner Notropis lutipinnis Cyprinidae Native 11 preserved specimens greenfin shiner Cyprinella chloristia Cyprinidae Moderate Priority Native 2 preserved specimens

26 State Conservation Common Name Scientific Name Family Status Native/Introduced Voucher status creek chub Semotilus atromaculatus Cyprinidae Native photo P5310113.jpg blue head chub Nocomis leptocephalus Cyprinidae Native 4 preserved specimens highback chub Hybopsis hypsinotus Cyprinidae Moderate Priority Native 3 preserved specimens redbreast sunfish Lepomis auritus Centrarchidae Native photo P5310105.jpg bluegill Lepomis macrochirus Centrarchidae Native - smallmouth bass Micropterus dolomieui Centrarchidae Introduced photo P5310114.jpg margined madtom Noturus insignis Ictaluridae Native photo P5310122.jpg flat bullhead Ameiurus platycephalus Ictaluridae Moderate Priority Native photo P5310125.jpg tessellated darter Etheostoma olmstedi Percidae Native One preserved specimen Carolina fantail darter Etheostoma flabellare complex Percidae High Priority Native photo P5310147.jpg seagreen darter Etheostoma thalassinum Percidae High Priority Native 2 preserved specimens

Table KIMO-3. Species distributions among sites. Total number of fish species collected in the park was eighteen (18).

Common Name KIMO 1 KIMO 2 KIMO 3 KIMO 4 KIMO 5 KIMO 6 KIMO 7 KIMO 8 northern hogsucker X sandbar shiner X yellowfin shiner X X X X X greenfin shiner X redbreast sunfish X X X X white sucker X bluegill X bluehead chub X X X X X X tessellated darter X X Carolina fantail darter X X X X creek chub X X X X X X X X seagreen darter X

27 Common Name KIMO 1 KIMO 2 KIMO 3 KIMO 4 KIMO 5 KIMO 6 KIMO 7 KIMO 8 margined madtom X X highback chub X X X X smallmouth bass X striped jumprock X X rosyside dace X X X X X X X flat bullhead X Number of Species 16 9 8 5 3 7 2 2

Table KIMO-4. Abundance of each fish species by site and totals within KIMO.

Common Name KIMO 1 KIMO 2 KIMO 3 KIMO 4 KIMO 5 KIMO 6 KIMO 7 KIMO 8 Park Total northern hogsucker 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 sandbar shiner 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 yellowfin shiner 20 94 9 35 0 40 0 0 198 greenfin shiner 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 redbreast sunfish 34 23 1 0 0 6 0 0 64 white sucker 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 bluegill 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 bluehead chub 82 128 12 43 1 30 0 0 296 tessellated darter 12 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 26 Carolina fantail darter 5 0 1 4 0 1 0 0 11 creek chub 5 40 26 8 43 56 45 34 257 seagreen darter 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 margined madtom 7 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 highback chub 4 27 1 0 0 47 0 0 79 smallmouth bass 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 striped jumprock 0 5 4 0 0 0 0 0 9 rosyside dace 0 123 55 8 36 89 1 47 359 flat bullhead 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

28 Common Name KIMO 1 KIMO 2 KIMO 3 KIMO 4 KIMO 5 KIMO 6 KIMO 7 KIMO 8 Park Total Number Individuals 227 458 109 98 80 269 46 81 1368

Table KIMO-5. Relative abundance of each fish species by site and overall within KIMO.

Common Name KIMO 1 KIMO 2 KIMO 3 KIMO 4 KIMO 5 KIMO 6 KIMO 7 KIMO 8 Park Overall northern hogsucker 7% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1.2% sandbar shiner 9% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1.5% yellowfin shiner 9% 21% 8% 36% 0% 15% 0% 0% 14.5% greenfin shiner 2% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0.3% redbreast sunfish 15% 5% 1% 0% 0% 2% 0% 0% 4.7% white sucker 2% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0.4% bluegill 1% 0%0% 0% 0% 0%0% 0% 0.1% bluehead chub 36% 28% 11% 44% 1% 11% 0% 0% 21.6% tessellated darter 5% 3% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1.9% Carolina fantail darter 2% 0% 1% 4% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0.8% creek chub 2% 9% 24% 8% 54% 21% 98% 42% 18.8% seagreen darter 3% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0.5% margined madtom 3% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0.8% highback chub 2% 6% 1% 0% 0% 17% 0% 0% 5.8% smallmouth bass 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0.1% striped jumprock 0% 1% 4% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0.7% rosyside dace 0% 27% 50% 8% 45% 33% 2% 58% 26.2% flat bullhead 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0.1%

29 Table KIMO-6. Observed fish species richness within KIMO, computed Chao1 estimate of species richness with 95% confidence limits, and percentage of observed richness versus the estimates. Goal of the inventory effort was to document 90% of species expected within the park.

Observed Species Richness 18 % Observed vs. Estimated Richness Chao1 Expected Richness 18.5 97.3% Chao1 lower 95% CL 18.03 99.8% Chao1 upper 95% CL 26.2 68.7%

30 Table COWP-1. Date of sampling, site coordinates in decimal degrees (datum NAD83), channel dimensions (meters), and water quality measures associated with each fish collection. Column abbreviations and measurement units are as follows: DO – dissolved oxygen (mg/L), CONDUC – conductivity (μS/cm), TURB – turbidity (nephelometric turbidity units), TEMP – temperature (°C).

AVG CONDUCTIVITY TURBIDITY TEMP SITE ID FISH DATE LATTITUDE LONGITUDE LENGTH AVG WIDTH DEPTH DO (mg/L) pH (uS/cm) (NTU) (C°) COWP1 7/6/2005 35.13970 81.81074 55 1.2 0.11 7.2 5.83 33 14.51 19.61 COWP2 7/6/2005 35.14118 81.81403 20 0.35 0.04 * * * * * COWP3 7/6/2005 35.11950 81.80454 100 1.4 0.16 8.23 5.71 29 6.72 20.2

COWP4 7/6/2005 35.13317 81.81995 28 0.8 0.12 2.46 6.52 88 19.2 19.81 * Site too shallow to submerge water quality instrument probe.

Table COWP-2. Fish species collected from Cowpens National Battlefield, including their conservation and range status. Native refers to a species being indigenous to the Saluda River drainage.

State Common Name Scientific Name Family Conservation Status Native/Introduced Voucher status redbreast sunfish Lepomis auritus Centrarchidae Native Photo DSCN1091.jpg bluehead chub Nocomis leptocephalus Cyprinidae Native One specimen preserved creek chub Semotilus atromaculatus Cyprinidae Native One specimen preserved highback chub Hybopsis hypsinotus Cyprinidae Moderate Priority Native Five specimens preserved rosyside dace Clinostomus funduloides Cyprinidae Native Two specimens preserved yellowfin shiner Notropis lutipinnis Cyprinidae Native Photo DSCN1092.jpg Carolina fantail darter Etheostoma flabellare complex Percidae Moderate Priority Native One specimen preserved

31 Table COWP -3. Species distributions among sites. Total number of fish species in the park was seven (7).

Common Name COWP1 COWP2 COWP3 COWP4 creek chub X X X bluehead chub X X fantail darter X rosyside dace X X highback chub X X redbreast sunfish X X yellowfin shiner X Number of Species 6 0 6 1

Table COWP-4. Abundance of each fish species by site and totals within COWP.

Number of Individuals Common Name COWP1 COWP2 COWP3 COWP4 Park total creek chub 38 0 54 2 94 bluehead chub 4 0 95 0 99 fantail darter 1 0 0 0 1 rosyside dace 11 0 184 0 195 highback chub 6 0 70 0 76 redbreast sunfish 1 0 2 0 3 yellowfin shiner 0 0 39 0 39 Number Individuals 61 0 444 2 507

Table COWP-5. Relative abundance of each fish species by site and overall within COWP.

Common Name COWP1 COWP2 COWP3 COWP4 Park Overall creek chub 62% 0% 12% 100% 18.5% bluehead chub 7% 0% 21% 0% 19.5% fantail darter 2% 0% 0 0% 0.2% rosyside dace 18% 0% 41% 0% 38.5% highback chub 10% 0% 16% 0% 15.0% redbreast sunfish 2% 0% 0% 0% 0.6% yellowfin shiner 0% 0% 9% 0% 7.7%

32 Table COWP-6. Observed fish species richness within COWP, computed Chao1 estimate of species richness with 95% confidence limits, and percentage of observed richness versus the estimates. Goal of the inventory effort was to document 90% of species expected within the park.

Observed Species Richness 7 % Observed vs.Estimated Richness Chao1 Expected Richness 7 100% Chao1 lower 95% CL 7 100% Chao1 upper 95% CL 7 100%

33 Table CARL-1. Date of sampling, site coordinates in decimal degrees (datum NAD83), channel dimensions (meters), and water quality measures associated with each fish collection. Column abbreviations and measurement units are as follows: DO – dissolved oxygen (mg/L), CONDUC – conductivity (μS/cm), TURB – turbidity (nephelometric turbidity units), TEMP – temperature (°C).

AVG AVG CARL SITE ID FISH DATE LATTITUDE LONGITUDE LENGTH WIDTH DEPTH DO PH CONDUC TURB TEMP CARL1 Meminger Cr. 8/10/2005 35.27409 82.44598 75 3.5 0.2 6.55 6.57 42 2.15 24.5 CARL2 Unnamed Trib 8/10/2005 35.27420 82.44619 87 2.9 0.2 7.17 5.78 38 - 23.19 Spring & Reservoir 8/10/2005 35.26565 82.45102 na na 0.5 3.69 4.47 15 1.08 18.96 Trout pond 8/10/2005 35.26900 82.44927 na na - 6.375.11 14 - 18.56 Duck pond 8/10/2005 35.27127 82.45036 na na 0.5 14.07 5.93 21 - 22.13 Side Lake 5/17/2006 35.27370 82.44830 na na - 9.13 6.2 34.5 2.74 18.5 Front Lake 5/17/2006 35.27330 82.44580 na na - 7.24 6.45 47.5 5.04 17.5

Table CARL-2. Fish species collected or observed in Carl Sandburg Home National Historic Site, including their conservation and range status. Native refers to a species being indigenous to the French Broad River drainage.

State Conservation Common Name Scientific Name Family Status Native/Introduced Voucher status white sucker Catostomus commersoni Catostomidae None of Native photo CARLCcommersoni.jpg black crappie Pomoxis nigromaculatus Centrarchidae the species on Native photo DSCN1133.jpg bluegill Lepomis macrochirus Centrarchidae North Carolina's Native photo DSCN1126.jpg redbreast sunfish Lepomis auritus Centrarchidae priority Introduced One preserved specimen warmouth Lepomis gulosus Centrarchidae conservation Native photo CARLLgulosus.jpg redear sunfish Lepomis microlophus Centrarchidae list Native photo DSC06214.jpg largemouth bass Micropterus salmoides Centrarchidae Native photos DSC06213 & DSC06214 smoky sculpin Cottus sp. cf. bairdii Cottidae Native One preserved specimen

34 State Conservation Common Name Scientific Name Family Status Native/Introduced Voucher status central stoneroller Campostoma anomalum Cyprinidae Native photo DSCN1129.jpg creek chub Semotilus atromaculatus Cyprinidae Native photo CARLSatromaculatus.jpg golden shiner Notemigonus crysoleucas Cyprinidae Native photo DSCN1130.jpg river chub Nocomis micropogon Cyprinidae Native One preserved specimen warpaint shiner coccogenis Cyprinidae Native 6 preserved specimens grass carp Ctenopharyngodon idella Cyprinidae Introduced Visual observation only flat bullhead Amerius platycephalus Ictaluridae Introduced 5 preserved specimens

Table CARL-3. Species distributions among sites. Total number of fish species collected in the park was fourteen (14), plus observation was made of grass carp Ctenopharyngodon idella in Front Lake.

Occurrence of Fish Species by Site Common Name CARL 1 CARL 2 Spring& Reservoir Trout Pond Duck Pond Side Lake Front Lake river chub X X smoky sculpin X bluegill X X X X flat bullhead X X central stoneroller X X creek chub X X X warpaint shiner X X warmouth X black crappie X redbreast sunfish X X X X golden shiner X grass carp X largemouth bass X X redear sunfish X X white sucker X Number of Species 11 8 0 0 1 4 4

35 Table CARL-4. Abundance of each fish species by site and totals within CARL.

Common Name Number of Individuals CARL 1 CARL 2 Spring& Reservoir Trout Pond Duck Pond Side Lake Front Lake Park Total river chub 51 74 0 0 0 0 0 125 smoky sculpin 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 bluegill 69 19 0 0 0 40 71 199 flat bullhead 10 14 0 0 0 0 0 24 central stoneroller 11 1 0 0 0 0 0 12 creek chub 1 55 0 0 30 0 0 86 warpaint shiner 6 2 0 0 0 0 0 8 warmouth 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 black crappie 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 redbreast sunfish 4 20 0 0 0 1 23 48 golden shiner 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 largemouth bass 0 0 0 0 0 16 26 42 redear sunfish 0 0 0 0 0 1 12 13 white sucker 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 Total Individuals 160 186 0 0 30 58 132 566

36 Table CARL-5. Relative abundance of each fish species by site and overall within CARL.

Common Name Relative Abundance (%) CARL 1 CARL 2 Spring& Reservoir Trout Pond Duck Pond Side Lake Front Lake Park Total river chub 32% 40% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 22.1% smoky sculpin 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0.2% bluegill 44% 10% 0% 0% 0% 69% 53% 35.2% flat bullhead 6% 8% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 4.2% central stoneroller 7% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 2.1% creek chub 1% 30% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 15.2% warpaint shiner 3% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1.4% warmouth 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0.4% black crappie 2% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0.5% redbreast sunfish 3% 11% 0% 0% 0% 2% 17% 8.5% golden shiner 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0.4% largemouth bass 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 28% 20% 7.4% redear sunfish 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 2% 9% 2.3% white sucker 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0.2%

37 Table CARL-6. Observed fish species richness within CARL, computed Chao1 estimate of species richness with 95% confidence limits, and percentage of observed richness versus the estimates. Goal of the inventory effort was to document 90% of species expected within the park.

Observed Species Richness 14 % Observed vs.Estimated Richness Chao1 Expected Richness 14.3 97.7% Chao1 lower 95% CL 14.1 99.9% Chao1 upper 95% CL 19.9 70.3%

38

Figure NISI-1. Map of Ninety-Six National Historic Site, hydrological features, road network, and locations of fish collections.

39

Figure KIMO-1. Map of Kings Mountain National Military Park, hydrological features, road network, and locations of fish collections on eight streams.

40

Figure COWP-1. Map of Cowpens National Battlefield, hydrological features, road network, and locations of fish collections on four headwater streams.

41

Figure CARL-1. Map of Carl Sandburg Home National Historic Site, hydrological features, road network, and locations of fish collections.

Prepared By: Mark Scott Title: Fisheries Research Biologist

42