DOCSLIB.ORG

Habitat Management Plan for Roanoke River National Wildlife Refuge

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Habitat Management Plan for Roanoke River National Wildlife Refuge U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR ROANOKE RIVER NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE Bertie County, North Carolina Southeast Region Roanoke River National Wildlife Refuge Habitat Management Plan U.S. Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service Southeast Region May 2013 Table of Contents HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN Executive Summary ................................................................................................................. 1 I. Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 2 Scope and Rationale .............................................................................................................. 2 Refuge Vision ......................................................................................................................... 2 Legal Mandates ...................................................................................................................... 3 Relationship to Other Plans .................................................................................................... 3 The North American Waterfowl Management Plan .............................................................. 4 The South Atlantic Migratory Bird Initiative Implementation Plan ......................................... 4 Partners in Flight Plan ......................................................................................................... 5 North Carolina Wildlife Action Plan ..................................................................................... 5 North American Waterbird Conservation Plan ..................................................................... 5 Strategic Habitat Conservation ............................................................................................... 5 Climate Change Predictions ................................................................................................... 8 Sea Level Rise .................................................................................................................... 8 Increased Temperatures ..................................................................................................... 9 II. Background and Environmental Setting .........................................................................10 Geographical Setting .............................................................................................................10 Refuge Location ....................................................................................................................10 Management Units ................................................................................................................10 Physical Features ..................................................................................................................12 Climate ..............................................................................................................................12 Geology .............................................................................................................................13 Hydrology...........................................................................................................................13 Fluvial Geomorphology and Topography ...........................................................................17 Soils ...................................................................................................................................18 Historical Perspective ............................................................................................................18 Pre-European settlement conditions ..................................................................................18 Post-European settlement and tract history ........................................................................19 Man-made levee breaches ....................................................................................................22 Post-colonial sediment deposition .........................................................................................22 Construction of Upstream Dams ............................................................................................23 Description of Vegetative Communities by Tract ...................................................................24 Description of Bottomland Forest Habitat on the Refuge ....................................................24 Table of Contents i Broadneck Swamp Tract ....................................................................................................24 Broadneck Unit ..................................................................................................................25 Rainbow Unit .....................................................................................................................25 Town Swamp Tract ............................................................................................................25 Company Swamp Tract ......................................................................................................26 Askew and Conine Island Tracts ........................................................................................27 Hampton Swamp, Great and Goodman Islands Tracts ......................................................28 Description of Tupelo Cypress Swamp Habitat on the Refuge ...............................................28 Broadneck and Town Swamp Tracts ..................................................................................28 Company Swamp Tract ......................................................................................................29 Askew and Conine Island tracts .........................................................................................29 Hampton Swamp and Great and Goodman Island tracts ...................................................30 Description of Swamp Blackgum, Mixed Peatland Forest ..................................................30 Hampton Swamp Tract ......................................................................................................31 Great, Goodman, and Sunken Islands Tracts ....................................................................31 Hydrologically Disconnected Floodplain Forest ..................................................................31 III. Resources of Concern .......................................................................................................32 Introduction ...........................................................................................................................32 Identified Species Guilds and Associated Focal Species .......................................................33 Migratory and Nesting Waterfowl .......................................................................................33 Migratory and Nesting Landbirds .......................................................................................33 Waterbirds .........................................................................................................................33 Aquatic Resources .............................................................................................................34 Resident Wildlife ................................................................................................................34 Water Quantity and Quality ................................................................................................35 Habitat Requirements for Resources of Concern ...................................................................41 Migratory and Nesting Waterfowl .......................................................................................42 Migratory and Nesting Landbirds .......................................................................................43 Waterbirds .........................................................................................................................45 Aquatic Resources .............................................................................................................46 Resident Wildlife ................................................................................................................47 Landscape Management Approach .......................................................................................48 Reconciling conflicting habitat needs .....................................................................................49 IV. Habitat Goals and Objectives .........................................................................................51 Background ...........................................................................................................................51 Habitat Goals and Objectives ................................................................................................53 ii Roanoke River National Wildlife Refuge Bottomland Hardwood Objective 1.1 ..................................................................................53 Bottomland Hardwood Objective 1.2 ..................................................................................54 Bottomland Hardwood Objective 1.3 ..................................................................................55 Bottomland Hardwood Objective 1.4 ..................................................................................56 Bottomland Hardwood Objective 1.5 ..................................................................................57
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Nanjemoy and Mattawoman Creek Watersheds
    Defining the Indigenous Cultural Landscape for The Nanjemoy and Mattawoman Creek Watersheds Prepared By: Scott M. Strickland Virginia R. Busby Julia A. King With Contributions From: Francis Gray • Diana Harley • Mervin Savoy • Piscataway Conoy Tribe of Maryland Mark Tayac • Piscataway Indian Nation Joan Watson • Piscataway Conoy Confederacy and Subtribes Rico Newman • Barry Wilson • Choptico Band of Piscataway Indians Hope Butler • Cedarville Band of Piscataway Indians Prepared For: The National Park Service Chesapeake Bay Annapolis, Maryland St. Mary’s College of Maryland St. Mary’s City, Maryland November 2015 ii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this project was to identify and represent the Indigenous Cultural Landscape for the Nanjemoy and Mattawoman creek watersheds on the north shore of the Potomac River in Charles and Prince George’s counties, Maryland. The project was undertaken as an initiative of the National Park Service Chesapeake Bay office, which supports and manages the Captain John Smith Chesapeake National Historic Trail. One of the goals of the Captain John Smith Trail is to interpret Native life in the Middle Atlantic in the early years of colonization by Europeans. The Indigenous Cultural Landscape (ICL) concept, developed as an important tool for identifying Native landscapes, has been incorporated into the Smith Trail’s Comprehensive Management Plan in an effort to identify Native communities along the trail as they existed in the early17th century and as they exist today. Identifying ICLs along the Smith Trail serves land and cultural conservation, education, historic preservation, and economic development goals. Identifying ICLs empowers descendant indigenous communities to participate fully in achieving these goals.
    [Show full text]
  • Geology and Mineral Deposits of the James River-Roanoke River Manganese District Virginia
    Geology and Mineral Deposits of the James River-Roanoke River Manganese District Virginia GEOLOGICAL SURVEY BULLETIN 1008 Geology and Mineral ·Deposits oftheJatnes River-Roanoke River Manganese District Virginia By GILBERT H. ESPENSHADE GEOLOGICAL SURVEY BULLETIN 1008 A description of the geology anq mineral deposits, particularly manganese, of the James River-Roanoke River district UNITED STAT.ES GOVERNMENT, PRINTING. OFFICE• WASHINGTON : 1954 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Douglas McKay, Secretary GEOLOGICAL SURVEY W. E. Wrather, Director For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U. S. Government Printing Office Washington 25, D. C. CONTENTS· Page Abstract---------------------------------------------------------- 1 Introduction______________________________________________________ 4 Location, accessibility, and culture_______________________________ 4 Topography, climate, and vegetation _______________ .,.. _______ ---___ 6 Field work and acknowledgments________________________________ 6 Previouswork_________________________________________________ 8 GeneralgeologY--------------------------------------------------- 9 Principal features ____________________________ -- __________ ---___ 9 Metamorphic rocks____________________________________________ 11 Generalstatement_________________________________________ 11 Lynchburg gneiss and associated igneous rocks________________ 12 Evington groUP------------------------------------------- 14 Candler formation_____________________________________ 14 Archer Creek formation________________________________
    [Show full text]
  • The Colorblind Turn in Indian Country: Lumbee Indians, Civil Rights, and Tribal State Formation
    The Colorblind Turn in Indian Country: Lumbee Indians, Civil Rights, and Tribal State Formation by Harold Walker Elliott A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy (History) in the University of Michigan 2019 Doctoral Committee: Professor Philip Deloria, Co-Chair, Harvard University Professor Matthew Lassiter, Co-Chair Associate Professor Matthew Countryman Professor Barbra Meek Professor Tiya Miles, Harvard University Harold Walker Elliott [email protected] ORCID iD 0000-0001-5387-3188 © Harold Walker Elliott 2019 DEDICATION To my father and mother, Hal and Lisa Elliott And for Lessie Sweatt McCloud, her ancestors, and her descendants ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This dissertation is the culmination of eight years of graduate study and nearly a decade of research, writing, and editing. The result is deeply imperfect. Its faults come from my many shortcomings as an author. For anything this project does accomplish, I owe credit to the many people who have helped me along the way. Completing this project would have been impossible without the love, support, and inspiration of my parents, Hal and Lisa Elliott. During my upbringing, they instilled the values that guided me through the moral choices that a project like this one entails. My mother and her family have always been the driving forces behind my research into Lumbee and American Indian history. My father, a reluctant physician, passed down his fondness for history and dream of writing it. In the many difficult moments over the past eight years, my parents steadied me with long hugs or reassuringly familiar, South Carolina-accented voices on the phone.
    [Show full text]
  • DNA Evidence of a Croatian and Sephardic Jewish Settlement on the North Carolina Coast Dating from the Mid to Late 1500S Elizabeth C
    International Social Science Review Volume 95 | Issue 2 Article 2 DNA Evidence of a Croatian and Sephardic Jewish Settlement on the North Carolina Coast Dating from the Mid to Late 1500s Elizabeth C. Hirschman James A. Vance Jesse D. Harris Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.northgeorgia.edu/issr Part of the Anthropology Commons, Communication Commons, Genealogy Commons, Geography Commons, International and Area Studies Commons, Jewish Studies Commons, Political Science Commons, and the United States History Commons Recommended Citation Hirschman, Elizabeth C.; Vance, James A.; and Harris, Jesse D. () "DNA Evidence of a Croatian and Sephardic Jewish Settlement on the North Carolina Coast Dating from the Mid to Late 1500s," International Social Science Review: Vol. 95 : Iss. 2 , Article 2. Available at: https://digitalcommons.northgeorgia.edu/issr/vol95/iss2/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Nighthawks Open Institutional Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in International Social Science Review by an authorized editor of Nighthawks Open Institutional Repository. DNA Evidence of a Croatian and Sephardic Jewish Settlement on the North Carolina Coast Dating from the Mid to Late 1500s Cover Page Footnote Elizabeth C. Hirschman is the Hill Richmond Gott rP ofessor of Business at The nivU ersity of Virginia's College at Wise. James A. Vance is an Associate Professor of Mathematics at The nivU ersity of Virginia's College at Wise. Jesse D. Harris is a student studying Computer Science
    [Show full text]
  • Benthic TMDL Development for the Roanoke River, Virginia
    Benthic TMDL Development for the Roanoke River, Virginia Submitted to Virginia Department of Environmental Quality Prepared by 2300 N Street, NW Washington, DC 20037 March 2006 Benthic TMDL Development for Roanoke River Executive Summary Introduction As required by Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act and current EPA regulations, states are required to develop Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) for waterbodies that exceed water quality standards. The Roanoke River was included on Virginia’s 1996 Section 303(d) TMDL Priority List and Report (DEQ, 1996) because of violations of the General Standard (benthic impairment). The headwaters of the Roanoke River originate in southwest Virginia. The Roanoke River flows through southcentral Virginia before crossing the North Carolina state line and discharging into the Albemarle Sound in North Carolina. Impairment Listing The Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) uses biological monitoring of benthic macroinvertebrates as one method to assess support of the aquatic life use for a waterbody. Bioassessments of the benthic macroinvertebrate community of the Roanoke River were performed by DEQ using modified Rapid Bioassessment Protocols (EPA, 1999). Results of bioassessments indicated a moderately impaired benthic community at three monitoring stations on the river (4AROA202.20, 4AROA206.03, and 4AROA206.95). Therefore, since the river only partially supports the designated aquatic life use, the General Standard is being violated. As a result, the Roanoke River was included on the Section 303(d) list. Although biological assessments indicated the creek is impaired, additional analyses described in this report were required to identify the causal pollutant (stressor) and sources within the watershed.
    [Show full text]
  • The Living History Classroom (Fall 2015)
    FALL 2015 Living History CLASSROOM Through the Wilderness Exploring North Carolina with Lawson, Tuscarora & the First Printing Press A Publication of Tryon Palace “The State of North Carolina from the best Authorities &c.” is a map drawn by Samuel Lewis in 1795. Does it look different from the North Carolina we see today? Mapping Our State Words to Know When traveling today, many of us chart our course by using , which GPS GPS: short for Global Positioning System, relies on information from satellites and maps to make sure we arrive at which uses satellites and maps to determine our intended destination. People living in the 17th and 18th centuries location could not use a computer system. To find their way, they relied on Cartography: the science of making maps for paper maps. defined transportation routes used to trade Cartography is a skill that combines mathematics, geography, and art goods on land and waterways to produce a physical map of the earth. Accurate maps define boundaries Cartographer: a person who combines and settle arguments over land. They also show dangerous waters and observation, math, and drawing to make maps coastlines to help save the lives of sailors. Land surveyor: a person whose job is to Cartographers in the 1600s and 1700s often used surveying skills. measure and examine an area of land Land surveyors used chains to measure the distance between two points. Theodolite: a surveying tool made from a Surveyor’s chains were 66 feet long with 100 links. Each link was about 8 telescope, it sits on a tripod and measures inches long.
    [Show full text]
  • Bacteria Tmdls for Wilson Creek, Ore Branch and Roanoke River Watersheds, Virginia
    Bacteria TMDLs for Wilson Creek, Ore Branch and Roanoke River Watersheds, Virginia Submitted by Virginia Department of Environmental Quality Prepared by and 2300 N Street, NW Washington, DC 20037 February 2006 Bacteria TMDLs for Wilson Creek, Ore Branch and Roanoke River Watersheds Executive Summary This report presents the development of Bacteria TMDLs for the Wilson Creek, Ore Branch and Roanoke River watersheds, located in the Upper Roanoke River Basin. Segments of Wilson Creek, Ore Branch and the Roanoke River were listed as impaired on Virginia’s 1998 303(d) Total Maximum Daily Load Priority List and Report (DEQ, 1998) because of violations of the state’s water quality standard for fecal coliform bacteria. These segments were also included on Virginia’s 2002 303(d) Report on Impaired Waters and 2004 305(b)/303(d) Water Quality Assessment Integrated Report. The impaired segments are located in the Upper Roanoke River Basin in southwestern Virginia. Description of the Study Area Wilson Creek is a tributary to the North Fork Roanoke River and is located in Montgomery County, while Ore Branch is a tributary to the Roanoke River and flows from Roanoke County into Roanoke City. The impaired segment of the Roanoke River begins in Salem City and flows through Roanoke City into Roanoke County. All three streams are located in the Upper Roanoke River Basin (USGS Cataloging Unit 03010101). The watershed is approximately 371,658 acres (580 square miles) and drains portions of Floyd, Montgomery, Roanoke, Botetourt, Bedford and Franklin Counties and all of Salem and Roanoke Cities. Bacteria TMDLs have already been approved for five impaired streams in the watershed: Carvin Creek, Glade Creek, Laymantown Creek, Lick Run and Tinker Creek.
    [Show full text]
  • Blue-Ridge-Parkway-Map.Pdf
    20 To Richmond 340 29 250 0 1 5 Km 10 Loft Mountain Information Center 33 CHARLOTTESVILLE 0 1 5 Miles 10 h HARRISONBURG a o d n r a e n v i e R North h S Shenandoah 250 276 National Park S (Entrance Fee) D k u y d l l 11 i e n 64 y e M 20 D t r n 256 S i o ve u Milepost along t h 20 98 Blue Ridge Parkway R iv er 340 Overlook 81 s Ch n rist i ia 29 a n t Tunnel under 13 feet s n u (located near southern o end of parkway) Rockfish Gap M C r 1900ft No direct access e 254 n e a 6 to parkway k 3 F 3 Northern End of Food service WAYNESBORO Blue Ridge Parkway 3 275 11 Picnic area 6 er 250 624 iv R 42 64 631 151 STAUNTON Lodging 15 sh fi 6 ck 250 Ro Humpback Rocks Campground 664 Visitor Center 81 340 Greenstone Trail 42 10 Wintergreen 254 Ravens Roost 11 Humpback 13 Mtn 252 664 n Sherando Lake t M 814 Woods 56 y Mountain a l d To Richmond 151 n i G L 701 F I Bald 20 R T J T Mountain am E L e A E Twenty s 24 T N Minute O Cliff R i R Crabtree v T e The r H Falls T N ye Priest O M R Tye River i R v O 56 er T Gap U 56 H N T 5 A Whetstone Ridge I N Steeles 30 29 60 M Tavern O 42 151 Wigwam U 11 The Friar Falls N 26 T Yankee Horse Ridge A The Cardinal S 81 o I u N t Irish Gap h GEORGE R i 252 v Amherst e 40 r WASHINGTON NATIONAL 23 Whites Gap T 39 Overlook FOREST 60 o b 2567ft a c 29 42 c 39 o BUENA Indian Gap R Forge 5 o Monroe VISTA w To Petersburg Mountain M 50 o er u iv n R t 460 39 ury 60 a 60 Ma in 6 130 64 20 Little R r House LEXINGTON Otter Creek James ive Mountain 10 Bluff 42 Mtn 60 Big House 501 Lowest Elevation 501 Mountain on Parkway 649ft
    [Show full text]
  • Conserving the Roanoke River
    Conserving the Roanoke River Conservation Action Plan November 2005 Preface The Lower Roanoke River Project (LRRP) Conservation Plan consists of five elelments. The first of these elements is this summary report containing the key components of a written conservation action plan. The second is a Conservation Action Planning Workbook (developed by TNC using a Microsoft Excel platform) in which information about stresses, threats, strategies, and strategic success is routinely updated with conservation partners. The third is a GIS-based database including land-ownership maps and many kinds of spatial data for illustrating and evaluating various conservation scenarios. The fourth is a set of models (public policy, flow, flood, and ecological response) that allow us to evaluate the way different strategies for management of the system’s hydrology produce ecological effects. The fifth is a site protection plan consisting of priority tract maps and a spreadsheet for tracking conservation progress on each of them, as well as all of them cumulatively. In developing and revising the Conservation Plan for the Lower Roanoke over the past several years, The Nature Conservancy has utilized a series of workshops to address conservation strategies at the site scale. The goal of these workshops was to apply The Nature Conservancy’s site conservation “5-S Framework” to the Roanoke River project area, thereby developing a conservation blueprint for action and a baseline from which to measure its success over time. Primary partners in the planning process have included the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the NC Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC), among others. During calendar year 2005, the TNC-NC Conservation staff revised the Roanoke plan through another series of workshops in collaboration with the Southeast Aquatic Resource Partnership (SARP).
    [Show full text]
  • Roanoke River Blueway Access Points
    h F !F ! KINZIE 4TH OAK Roanoke River BluewayMILLER RAMP HUMBERT CRAIGVALLEY WALNUT POPLAR GILLIE FIELDS KEFFER CATAWBA CREEK OLDE RT 604 SKY OLD TRAM MOUNTAIN !F MAPLE !| Blueway Access !F OAKWOOD BLUE RIDGE OAK COALING PARKVIEW BUGLE INTERSTATESIMMONS 81 FLINT SPRING HOLLOW ` 648 DOVE _ Æ SCALYBARK Hazard/Portage GIBSON RIDGE DEREK APACHE ÿ CASEY WATES CALDER RIDGE CARVINS COVE DOGAN LULA SUMMIT h TIMER PINE USGS Stream Gage RESERVOIR LAKEVIEW STONEBRIDGE MOUNTAIN PASS BRADSHAW BRYANT JENSEN N & W 2ND LACEY KIDDER LONGWOOD ¹ ALLTREE CATAWBA VALLEY!F WINDFALL !F VDGIF Birding & Wildlife Site UPDIKE MORNING DOVE INTERSTATE 81 HUNTERS FOXCROFT BLUEBIRD CLOVERDALE LEE COUGAR LAYMANTOWN BENDING OAK CHASE KEATON ANGEL DAN LAKERIDGE C FACULTY VISTA River/Stream MOORE AUTUMN GANDER a COOK DEER FAIRFIELD LOMAN r ENON v INDUSTRIAL COLONIAL in BRITISH WOODS I81 TOAD CLOVERDALE Carvins Cove BELLE HAVEN s RICHARDSON Stocked Trout Waters !F LILA MCINTOSH C HOPE FILLY APPLE Natural Reserve LABAN r STAYMAN e WILLIAMSON SHADWELL ARCHWAY SOFT e YORK TIMBERVIEW CALVERT HITECH k CAROLINA POST OAK GreenwayARABIAN BARRENS INDIAN TERESA KNOLLWOOD ALPINE PARK HUNTERS WEBSTER NEWPORT OLSEN WILLIAMSONDEXTER HUGH ROYCE Blue Ridge Parkway Loch Haven WEST Havens Wildlife Management Area JANEE VIVIAN EAST SERENITY BOXLEY HOLLINS WOOD HAVEN Botetourt County CRESTLAND QUAIL DOE RAY Road I81 BUCK MANOR SANDYRIDGE DUTCH OVEN HEDGELAWN OAKLANDELDEN THIRLANE OLD MOUNTAIN NELL DENT ROME LOCH HAVEN SHORE AIRPORT TINY CAPITO FLORIST SIERRA Interstate 00.5 1 2 RAM DAVIS BLACKSBURG
    [Show full text]
  • 8 Tribes, 1 State: Native Americans in North Carolina
    8 Tribes, 1 State: North Carolina’s Native Peoples As of 2014, North Carolina has 8 state and federally recognized Native American tribes. In this lesson, students will study various Native American tribes through a variety of activities, from a PowerPoint led discussion, to a study of Native American art. The lesson culminates with students putting on a Native American Art Show about the 8 recognized tribes. Grade 8 Materials “8 Tribes, 1 State: Native Americans in North Carolina” PowerPoint, available here: o http://civics.sites.unc.edu/files/2014/06/NCNativeAmericans1.pdf o To view this PDF as a projectable presentation, save the file, click “View” in the top menu bar of the file, and select “Full Screen Mode”; upon completion of presentation, hit ESC on your keyboard to exit the file o To request an editable PPT version of this presentation, send a request to [email protected] “Native American Art Handouts #1 – 7”, attached North Carolina Native American Tribe handouts, attached o Lumbee o Eastern Band of Cherokee o Coharie o Haliwa-­­‑ Saponi o Meherrin o Occaneechi Band of the Saponi Nation o Sappony o Waccamaw Siouan “Create a Native American Art Exhibition” handout, attached “Native Americans in North Carolina Fact Sheet”, attached Brown paper or brown shopping bags (for the culminating project) Graph paper (for the culminating project) Art supplies (markers, colored pencils, crayons, etc. Essential Questions: What was life like for Native Americans before the arrival of Europeans? What happened to most Native American tribes after European arrival? What hardships have Native Americans faced throughout their history? How many state and federally recognized tribes are in North Carolina today? Duration 90 – 120 minutes Teacher Preparation A note about terminology: For this lesson, the descriptions Native American and American Indian are 1 used interchangeably when referring to more than one specific tribe.
    [Show full text]
  • Early Settlers: Their Laws, Morals, Etc
    CHAPTER I Country west of the Blue Ridge, and the first settlers of Southwest Virginia – Their trouble with the Indians – Frontier warfare – Gradual formation of the various counties until 1861 – Primitive life of the early settlers: their laws, morals, etc. SOUTHWEST VIRGINIA AND SHENANDOAH VALLEY The Blue Ridge Mountains, as a landmark, have played an important part in Virginia’s history. Long before the fertile valleys and mineral hills west of these mountains were discovered, or the gaze of the white man rested upon New River, the eastern portion of the State had some 80,000 people, and Shenandoah Valley three or four hundred souls. The forefathers of the latter came into this valley by way of Harper’s Ferry from Pennsylvania, of whom we shall have more to say in the second part of this work. The threading of the labyrinth of Rosamond’s bower could scarcely have been more difficult than the tracing of the footsteps of these earlier settlers, in any chronological order, who first came into that country now known as Southwest Virginia. The want of all records, which the early settlers failed to preserve, reduces the chronicler of events to groping in the dark, and learning from uncertain sounds the paths trod by our forefathers. Several reasons may be assigned for this unfortunate state of affairs. The primitive, struggling life of those earlier pioneers was not conducive to the recordation of events, and the constant destruction of their settlements by the Indians was often a clean sweep, where the inhabitants could not even escape with their lives, to say nothing of records, if any were preserved.
    [Show full text]