Update to the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission’s Report ...The American Battlefield Protection...

Update to the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission Report on the Nation’s Civil War Battlefields DRAFT v. 6 0

UUppddaattee ttoo tthhee CCiivviill WWaarr SSiitteess AAddvviissoorryy CCoommmmiissssiioonn RReeppoorrtt oonn tthhee NNaattiioonn’’ss CCiivviill WWaarr BBaattttlleeffiieellddss U.S. Department of the Interior National Park Service American Battlefield Protection Program Washington, DC September 2012

DRAFT v. 6 for Public Review


Cover photo: Captain Henry Guibor’s Battery (Confederate), Wilson’s Creek National Battlefield, Missouri. NPS photo. Authority The American Battlefield Protection Program Act of 1996, as amended by the Civil War Battlefield Preservation Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-359, 111 Stat. 3016, 17 December 2002), directs the Secretary of the Interior to update the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission (CWSAC) Report on the Nation’s Civil War Battlefields.

Project Team NPS Leadership Jonathan B. Jarvis, Director; Stephanie Smith Toothman, Ph.D., Associate Director, Cultural Resources, Partnerships, and Science; Jon Smith, Deputy Associate Director, Heritage Preservation Assistance Programs; H. Bryan Mitchell, Manager, Heritage Preservation Services. NPS Project Team Paul Hawke, Chief, American Battlefield Protection Program; Tanya M. Gossett, Project Leader and Report Author; Kathleen Madigan, Survey Coordinator; Matthew Borders, Historian; Shannon Davis, Kristie Kendall, January Ruck, and Lisa Rupple, Historic Preservation Specialists; Gweneth Langdon and Renee Novak, Interns. Battlefield Surveyors Joseph E. Brent, Mudpuppy & Waterdog, Inc.; Matthew Borders, Tanya Gossett, Paul Hawke, Kathleen Madigan, and Lisa Rupple, American Battlefield Protection Program, NPS; Mark Christ, Arkansas Division of Historic Preservation; Connie Langum, Wilson’s Creek National Battlefield, NPS; David W. Lowe, Cultural Resources Geographic Information Systems Office, NPS.

Acknowledgments The Project Team would like to thank the many people who provided information about the battlefields or reviewed and remarked upon this report. We are especially grateful for the time and attention given this project by our national and state partners. Their input was essential to the revised assessments of the battlefields and in directing our attention to important issues facing battlefields in different parts of the country. Alabama: Blanton Blankenship and Mike Bailey, Fort Morgan State Historic Site; Jo Ann Flirt, Historic Blakely State Park; Michael Henderson, Historic Fort Gaines; Mike Wise, Crooked Creek Civil War Museum; Bill Rambo, Confederate Memorial Park. Arkansas: Paul Butler, Sarah Jones, and Randy Roberson, Arkansas State Parks; Mark Christ and Ralph S. Wilcox, Arkansas Historic Preservation; Jessee Cox, Prairie Grove Battlefield State Park; Cathy Cunningham, Southern Bancorp Capital Partners; Thomas W. Dupree, Reed’s Bridge Battlefield Preservation Society; Bill Gurley, Civil War Roundtable of Arkansas; Peggy S. Lloyd, Southwest Arkansas Civil War Heritage Trail; Larry Puckett, Friends of Devil’s Backbone Ridge Battlefield; Alan Thompson, Northwest Arkansas Civil War Heritage Trail; Dennis Sharp, White River National Wildlife Refuge; Charles Walthall, Friends of Arkansas’ Battlefields. District of Columbia: Ruth Trocolli, District of Columbia Historic Preservation Office. Colorado: Jeff C. Campbell, Independent Historian. Florida: Barry Burch and Bert Hickey, Natural Bridge Battlefield Historic State Park; Rodney Kite-Powell, Tampa Bay History Center’s Saunders Foundation. Georgia: Steve Burke, Sons of Confederate Veterans (Waynesboro); William Clark, Catoosa County Commission; Charlie Crawford, Georgia Battlefields Preservation Association, Inc.; Gordon Jones, Atlanta History Center; Kevin McAuliff, Whitfield County Historic Preservation Commission; Don Perkins, Jenkins County Historical Society; Mark Pollard and Michael Sabine, Friends of Nash Farm; Daniel J. Brown, Fort McAllister State Historic Park; John Culpepper, Georgia Civil War Commission; Mandy Elliott, Cobb County Community Development Agency; Bobbie Perra, Walker County Commissioner's Office. Indiana: Claudia Howard, Harrison County Parks and Recreation Department; Frank D. Hurdis Jr., Indiana Department of Natural Resources, Division of Historic Preservation and Archaeology. Kansas: Julie McPike and Judy Billings, Freedom’s Frontier National heritage Area; Arnold W. Schofield, Mine Creek Battlefield State Historic Site. Kentucky: James Cass, Camp Wildcat Preservation Foundation; Betty Cole, Barbourville Tourist and Recreation Commission; John Downs, Kentucky Heritage Council; Frank Fitzpatrick, Middle Creek National Battlefield Foundation, Inc.; Kurt Holman, Perryville State Historic Site; Joan House, Kentucky Department of Parks; William A. Penn, independent historian; Rob Rumpke, Battle of Richmond Association; Tres Seymour, Battle for the Bridge Historic Preserve/Hart County Historical Society. Louisiana: Steve Bounds, Mansfield State Historic


Site; Corey Buie, Fort Jackson Museum; Andrew Capone, Fort Butler Foundation; Michelle L. Eppley, Plaquemines Parish; Mike Fraering, Port Hudson State Historic Site; Gregory leggio, Old Arsenal Museum; Steven M. Mayeux, Friends of Fort DeRussy, Inc.; Sarah McKee, Fort Jackson Park; Chris Pena, Nicholls State University; Gregg Potts, Port Hudson State Historic Site; Roland R. Stansbury, Young-Sanders Center for the Study of the War Between the States in Louisiana; Scott Dearman, Mansfield State Historic Site; Patricia Duncan, Louisiana Division of Historic Preservation; Chip McGimsey, Ph.D., and Duke Rivet, Louisiana Division of Archaeology. Maryland: Robert Bailey and Al Preston, South Mountain Battlefield State Park; John Nelson, Hager House Museum. Minnesota: Tom Ellig, Minnesota Historical Society; Ben Leonard, Nicolett County Historical Association; Larry Whitaker, Wood Lake Battlefield Preservation Association. Mississippi: Rebecca Blackwell Drake, The Sid J. Champion Heritage Foundation; Patsy Gregory, Friends of the Battle of Okolona; Ray Herndon, The Conservation Fund; Parker Hills, Friends of Raymond; Harry McMillin, Friends of Vicksburg National Military Park; Thomas Ross, Grand Gulf Military Monument Commission; Jim Woodrick, Mississippi Department of Archives and History. Missouri: Craig Asbury, Kirksville Battlefield; Lois Bowman, Wright County Historical Society; Walter Busch, Fort Davidson State Historic Site; William J. Bryan, Missouri State Parks; Michael Calvert, Civil War Roundtable of Western Missouri; Janae Fuller, Battle of Lexington State Historic Site; Daniel Hadley and Alinda Miller, Lone Jack Historical Society; Tom Higdon, Russ Hively, and Jim Ridenour, Newtonia Battlefields Protection Association, Inc.; Scott House, Cape Girardeau Historic Preservation Commission; Cindy Lynch, Columbus Belmont State Park; Carole Magnus, Foundation for Historic Preservation; Mary Ellen McVicker, Scholar; Pam Myers, Battle of Carthage State Historic Site; Tiffany Patterson, Missouri State Historic Preservation Office; Paul Rorvig, Ph.D., University of Central Missouri; John Rutherford, Springfield-Greene County Library; Daniel Smith, Monnett Battle of Westport Fund, Inc.; Melanie Smith, City of Kirksville; Arnold Schofield, Mine Creek State Historic Site. New Mexico: Jeff Hanson, Signa Larralde, and Brenda Wilkenson, Bureau of Land Management. North Carolina: Paul Branch, Fort Macon State Park; Mike Dumont, New Bern Historical Society; Charles L. Heath and Jeffrey D. Irwin, Fort Bragg Cultural Resources Management Program; Delores Hall, North Carolina Office of State Archaeology; L. Lyle Holland and Jane Phillips, Historical Preservation Group, Inc.; Richard Long, Independent Historian; Jim McKee, Brunswick Town/Fort Anderson State Historic Site; Peter Sandbeck and Ann Swallow, North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office; Randy Sauls, Goldsborough Bridge Battlefield Association; Walt Smith, Averasboro Battlefield Commission, Inc.; Jim Steele, Fort Fisher State Historic Site; Donny Taylor, Bentonville Battlefield State Historic Site. North Dakota: Keith Giesler, Whitestone Hill Battlefield Historical Society; Diane Rogness, State Historical Society of North Dakota; Paul Van Ningen, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; Jeb R. Williams, North Dakota Game and Fish Department. Ohio: George Kane, Ohio Historical Society; G. Michael Pratt, Heidelberg University; Franco Ruffini, Ohio Historic Preservation Office; Ed Sharp and Eric J. Wittenberg, Buffington Island Battlefield Preservation Foundation. Oklahoma: Whit Edwards and Lynda Schwan, Oklahoma Historical Society; Ralph Jones, Honey Springs Battlefield Historic Site; Leonard Logan and Herman Stinnett, Friends of Cabin Creek Battlefield, Inc.; Jennifer Scott, Private Landowner; Gwen Walker, Atoka Confederate Museum. Pennsylvania: Elliott Gruber, Gettysburg Foundation; Sarah Kipp, The Land Conservancy of Adams County; Susan Star Paddock, No Casino Gettysburg; Kathi Schue, Gettysburg Battlefield Preservation Association; Larry Wallace, Gettysburg Licensed Battlefield Guide. South Carolina: Daniel Bell, South Carolina Department of Parks, Recreation, and Tourism; Brian Long, South Carolina Department of Natural Resources; Bill Stephen and Robert Williams, Friends of Rivers Bridge; Stephen Wise, University of South Carolina. Tennessee: Jamie M. Bennett, USDA Forest Service; David Fraley, Carter House; Tim Heath, Battle of Hartsville Preservation Association; Alton Kelley, Middle Tennessee Convention and Visitor’s Center; Dot Kelley, Knoxville Civil War Roundtable; Steve McDaniel, Parker’s Crossroads Battlefield Association; Lee Miller, General N.B. Forrest Historical Society; Fred Prouty, Tennessee Wars Commission; Mary Pearce, Heritage Foundation of Franklin and Williamson County; Albert Samsel, City of Bean Station; David E. Simpson, Robert H. Hatton CAMP #723; Claudette Stager and Brian Beadles, Tennessee Historical Commission; Robby Tidwell, Fort Pillow State Historic Park; Malcolm Wilcox, Salem Cemetery Battlefield; Herbert Wood, Davis Bridge Preservation Association. Texas: Denise Alexander, Jami Durham, and Dwayne Jones, Galveston Historical Foundation; Ed Cotham, Friends of Sabine Pass Battleground; Brett Cruse, Texas Historical Commission; Casey Edward Greene, Rosenberg Library; Bryan Winton, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; Carol Wood, Rosenberg Library. Virginia: Larry Allamong, Private Landowner; Emilia Arnold and Jennifer Esler, Museum of the Shenandoah Valley; David Blake, Buckland Preservation Society; Dave Born, Bristoe Station Battlefield Heritage Park; John Clark, Town of Marion; Sarah Cooleen, Association for the Preservation of Virginia Antiquities; Larry Duncan, Kernstown Battlefield Association, Inc.; George L. Fickett Jr., Chesterfield Historical Society; John Goddard, Texas Brigade Historian; Leslie Grayson, Jeff Matthews, and Jennifer Perkins, Virginia Outdoors Foundation; Clark “Bud” Hall, Author; Gerald Hallow, Trevilian Station Battlefield Foundation; Brendon Hanafin, Prince William County; Mike Henry, Colvin Run Mill Historic Site; Kermit Hobbs, Riddick's Folly, Inc.; Don Hower, McDowell Battlefield; John Johnson, Wytheville Training School Cultural Center; Chuck Johnston, Clarke County; Kathleen Kilpatrick, Quattro Hubbard, Wendy Musumeci, and Marc Wagner, Virginia Department of Historic Resources; Howard Kittell, Elizabeth Stern, John Hutchinson, Nancy Long, and Patrick "Chase" Milner, Shenandoah Valley Battlefields Foundation; Bob Luddy, Brandy Station Foundation; Troy Marshall, New Market Battlefield State Historical Park; Lloyd Matthews, independent historian; Paul McCray, Northern Virginia Regional Park Authority; Erik Nelson, Central Virginia Battlefields Trust; Michelle Olgers, Private


Landowner; Patrick Olienyk, Pamplin Historical Park; Judy Pfeiffer, Warren Heritage Society; John Quarstein, Virginia War Memorial Museum; Jeff Randolf, Bull Run Regional Park; Anne L. Reeder, Sayler's Creek Battlefield Park; Kate Rudacille and Rick Stevens, Northern Virginia Regional Park Authority; John Rutherford, Fairfax County Park Authority; John Salmon, Consultant; Sue Sheer, Private Landowner; Pam Sheets, Shenandoah County; Camilla B. Shover and Judy L. Sokolowski, Stafford County; Greg Starbuck, Historic Sandusky Foundation; George E. Tabb Jr., Ball’s Bluff Battlefield Regional Park; Michael Taylor, Hampton Roads Naval Museum; Charlie “Bill" Totten, Town of Saltville; Robert Whisonant, Ph.D., and Cliff Boyd, Ph.D., Radford University; Kin Yancy, Waynesboro Heritage Museum; James E. Zanarini, Staunton River Battlefield State Park; and Paul Ziluca, Citizens Committee for the Civil War Cavalry Battles of Aldie, Middleburg and Upperville. West Virginia: John Calabrese, Monogahela National Forest; Bethany Canfield and Carolyn Kender, West Virginia State Historic Preservation Office; Sam Cawell, Carnifex Ferry Battlefield State Park; Michelle Depp, Rich Mountain Battlefield Foundation, Inc.; Edward Dunleavy, Shepherdstown Battlefield Preservation Foundation, Inc.; Hunter Lesser, Independent Historian; Tom Ressler, Falling Waters Battlefield Foundation, Inc. The Civil War Trust: From securing Congressional approval and funding for this study to collaborating with the ABPP staff regarding land protection and site assessment information, the Trust has been a steadfast partner in this project since 2002. The ABPP would like to thank especially James O. Lighthizer, Jim Campi, Tom Gilmore, Kathy Robertson, Nicholas Redding, Rick Shaffer, and Alan Wehler for their support and contributions. The National Park Service: Stacy Allen, Shiloh National Military Park; Patrick Andrus, Lisa Deline, James Gabbert, Linda McClelland, Barbara Wyatt, Paul Lusignan, Turkiya Lowe, and Erika Martin-Siebert, National Register of Historic Places; Adrienne Applewhaite-Coleman and Simone Moffett, Rock Creek Park; Troy Banzhaf, Pea Ridge National Military Park; Kathy Billings, Pecos National Historic Site; Gail Bishop, Gulf Islands National Seashore; William N. Black, Fort Smith National Historic Site; Ray Brown, Jim Burgess, and Bob Sutton, Manassas National Battlefield Park; Chris Calkins, Petersburg National Battlefield; Greg Coco, Brion Fitzgerald, Troy Harman, Scott Hartwig, and Katie Lawhon, Gettysburg National Military Park; Diane Depew, Colonial National Historic Park; Robert Dodson and Rick Dorrance, Fort Sumter National Monument; Kevin Foster, National Maritime Heritage Program; Natalie Franz, Midwest Regional Office; Dennis Frye, Harpers Ferry National Historical Park; Susan Frye, Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National Historical Park; Rolando Garza and Doug Murphy, Palo Alto National Historical Park; Laura Gates, Cane River National Historical Park; Woody Harrell, Shiloh National Military Park; Rick Hatcher, Charles Pinckney National Historic Site; John Hennessy, Eric Mink, and Greg Mertz, Fredericksburg and Spotsylvania National Military Park; Ted Hillmer, Jeff Patrick, and Gary Sullivan, Wilson’s Creek National Battlefield; John Howard and Ted Alexander, Antietam National Battlefield; Diann Jacox and Chris Stubbs, Cedar Creek and Belle Grove National Historical Park; Jimmy Jobe, Fort Donelson National Battlefield; Stuart Johnson and Gib Backlund, Stones River National Battlefield; Willie Ray Johnson, Kennesaw National Battlefield Park; Robie Lange, National Historic Landmarks Survey; Michael Madell and Terrence Winschel, Vicksburg National Military Park; Alden Miller, Sand Creek Massacre National Historic Site; Jim Ogden, Chickamauga and Chattanooga National Military Park; Dale Phillips, Lincoln Home National Historic Site; C. Casey Reese and Pamela Underhill, Appalachian National Scenic Trail; David Ruth and Robert E. L. Krick, Richmond National Battlefield Park; Patrick A. Schroeder, Appomattox Court House National Historic Park; Cameron Sholly, Natchez Trace Parkway; Doug Stover, Cape Hatteras National Seashore; Susan Trail, Joy Beasley, Cathy Beeler, and Todd Stanton, Monocacy National Battlefield; Randy Wester and June Devisfruto, Fort Pulaski National Monument; Perry Wheelock, National Capitol Region; John C. Whitehurst, Timucuan Ecological and Historic Preserve; and Ed Wood, Arkansas Post National Memorial.


CCeeddaarr MMoouunnttaaiinn bbaattttlleeffiieelldd,, CCuullppeeppeerr CCoouunnttyy,, VViirrggiinniiaa.. 448800 aaccrreess pprrootteecctteedd,, 99,,110000 aaccrreess uunnpprrootteecctteedd.. NNPPSS pphhoottoo..


Table of Contents

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ............................................................................................................................................ 1

INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................................................... 7

SYNOPSIS ............................................................................................................................................................... 8

METHOD STATEMENT .......................................................................................................................................... 12

FIELD SURVEYS ............................................................................................................................................................ 12 Study Areas and Core Areas ............................................................................................................................. 13 Potential National Register Boundaries ........................................................................................................... 15

QUESTIONNAIRES ......................................................................................................................................................... 19

SUMMARY OF CONDITIONS AT THE NATION’S CIVIL WAR BATTLEFIELDS ............................................................ 21

QUANTIFYING THE BATTLEFIELDS .................................................................................................................................... 21 CONDITION ASSESSMENTS ............................................................................................................................................. 22 REGISTRATION ............................................................................................................................................................. 23 STEWARDSHIP ............................................................................................................................................................. 26 PUBLIC ACCESS AND INTERPRETATION .............................................................................................................................. 33 ADVOCACY ................................................................................................................................................................. 36

UPDATED PRIORITIES ........................................................................................................................................... 39

CHANGES AT PRIORITY I SITES ........................................................................................................................................ 40 CHANGES AT PRIORITY II SITES ....................................................................................................................................... 41 CHANGES AT PRIORITY III SITES ...................................................................................................................................... 41 CHANGES AT PRIORITY IV SITES ...................................................................................................................................... 43 PRIORITY V SITES ......................................................................................................................................................... 44 UNCLASSIFIED BATTLEFIELDS .......................................................................................................................................... 45

THE SESQUICENTENNIAL AND BEYOND................................................................................................................ 59

SUGGESTED ACTIONS .................................................................................................................................................... 62

APPENDICES......................................................................................................................................................... 65

APPENDIX A. CIVIL WAR BATTLEFIELD LAND ACQUISITION GRANTS ...................................................................................... 65 APPENDIX B. AMERICAN BATTLEFIELD PROTECTION PROGRAM PLANNING GRANTS ................................................................. 67 APPENDIX C. CIVIL WAR BATTLEFIELD PRESERVATION ACT OF 2002 ..................................................................................... 69 APPENDIX D. BATTLEFIELD QUESTIONNAIRE ..................................................................................................................... 72 APPENDIX E. STATE STATISTICAL TABLES .......................................................................................................................... 75


CChhaannttiillllyy bbaattttlleeffiieelldd,, FFaaiirrffaaxx CCoouunnttyy,, VViirrggiinniiaa.. 1133 aaccrreess pprrootteecctteedd,, rreemmaaiinniinngg llaannddssccaappee ddeevveellooppeedd.. NNPPSS pphhoottoo..


Introduction In 1993, the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission (CWSAC) produced a report that outlined the need for action to save the nation’s Civil War battlefields before those historic landscapes were forever lost to modern land development. The recommendations in the Report on the Nation’s Civil War Battlefields have guided decisions about the allocation of limited public and private sector resources for nearly 20 years. Since the release of the CWSAC report, much has been accomplished. Tens of thousands of battlefield acres have been saved. More than 70 local advocacy groups have stepped forward to champion these battlefields. Federal and state legislators have passed and continue to pass laws that advance battlefield preservation. At the same time, however, thousands of battlefield acres have been destroyed. Explosive growth in the 1990s and early 2000s replaced battlefield land with residential, commercial, and industrial development. This updated report reviews the work accomplished by hundreds of individuals, organizations, and agencies throughout the past 20 years and discusses further needs for protecting the nation’s dwindling battlefield landscapes. In the Civil War Battlefield Preservation Act of 2002,1 Congress directed the Secretary of the Interior, acting through the American Battlefield Protection Program (ABPP) of the National Park Service, to review the status of the 383 battlefields listed in the CWSAC report. The Act required the Secretary to note 1) preservation activities carried out at the 383 battlefields identified by the CWSAC during the period between 1993 and the update; 2) changes in the condition of the battlefields during that period; and 3) any other relevant developments relating to the battlefields during that period. In accordance with the legislation, this report presents updated information about Civil War battlefields in the United States for use by Congress, federal, state, and local government agencies, landowners, and other interest groups. This report provide detailed information about the size, condition, extent of protection, and preservation potential of each Civil War battlefield listed in the CWSAC report. It also proposes new protection recommendations in keeping with nearly two decades of battlefield preservation practice and documented changes to the battlefields themselves. (Supplementary state-by-state reports, available on the ABPP’s website, provide additional details about the individual battlefields and state-specific issues that affect them.) Because this study did not include archeological investigations, this report does not assess the archeological significance or integrity of the battlefields. Based on this information, public and private preservation groups and willing landowners will be able to act quickly to preserve and protect the nation’s principal Civil War battlefields through conservation easements and fee simple purchases. The findings and recommendations may also help solidify existing partnerships and kindle new ones among state and local governments, regional entities, and the private sector to preserve, conserve, and enhance the battlefields. As the nation commemorates the 150th anniversary of the Civil War (2011-2015), such efforts take on even greater relevance and offer unequaled opportunity for success.

1 Pub. L. 107-359, Dec. 17, 2002, 116 Stat. 3016; 16 U.S.C. 469k note.


PPoorrtt HHuuddssoonn NNaattiioonnaall CCeemmeetteerryy oonn tthhee PPoorrtt HHuuddssoonn bbaattttlleeffiieelldd,, EEaasstt BBaattoonn RRoouuggee aanndd EEaasstt FFeelliicciiaa PPaarriisshheess,, LLoouuiissiiaannaa..

11,,000000 aaccrreess pprrootteecctteedd,, 55,,330000 aaccrreess uunnpprrootteecctteedd.. NNPPSS pphhoottoo..


Synopsis In 1993, the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission (CWSAC) identified and evaluated 383 principal battlefields of the Civil War.2 After reviewing the CWSAC data, the American Battlefield Protection Program (ABPP) made two adjustments to the CWSAC list, although the total number of battlefields studied remains 383.3 Historically, these 383 battlefields encompassed 3.7 million acres of land and water. Today, approximately two million acres, or 54%, retain sufficient significance and integrity to be worthy of preservation.4 Of those surviving battlefield acres, 280,000 have already been protected through fee simple ownership or perpetual conservation easements. An estimated 300,000 more represent bodies of water—the Atlantic Ocean, the Mississippi River, large natural and man-made lakes, etc.5 By subtracting protected parcels and water areas, the ABPP determined that approximately 1.4 million acres of battlefield land with integrity remain unprotected. While great strides have been made in the past 20 years to protect battlefields, much more needs to be done.

• At 31 battlefields, more than half of the surviving landscape is set aside permanently for preservation or conservation purposes.

• At 227 sites, less than half of the surviving landscape is permanently protected. • Sixty-five battlefields have no protection at all. • Fifty-eight battlefields have been overwhelmed by development since the Civil

War. These battlefields landscapes are no longer candidates for preservation, although small reservations of protected land or battle features may be present, such as a surviving building or a segment of military earthwork.

• The locations, and therefore protection status, of two battlefields remain unknown.

In order to distinguish among battlefields of differing character and physical integrity, the ABPP developed new national priorities for preservation and protection (see Appendix E, Table 1). Like the CWSAC, the ABPP looked at a combination of historic significance, current condition, and level of threat to determine priorities for preservation among the battlefields. In addition, the ABPP expanded its assessment to examine whether and to what extent each landscape retained historic integrity, and whether and to what extent each battlefield was already protected. Analysis of these factors was accomplished with Geographic Information System (GIS) software, a tool used rarely in historic preservation in the early 1990s. Using GIS, the ABPP examined each battlefield in more detail than would have been possible for the CWSAC. The result is a more accurate portrayal of all 383 battlefields reviewed.

2 Civil War Sites Advisory Commission, Report on the Nation’s Civil War Battlefields, Prepared for the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, Committee on Natural Resources, United States House of Representatives, and The Secretary of the Interior (Washington, DC: National Park Service, 1993). Upon review of the CWSAC data, the ABPP determined that the CWSAC miscounted by one the total number of battlefields in its Report, which states 384 principal sites. 3 During this study, the ABPP combined VA020a and VA020b, White Oak Swamp and Glendale, into a single battlefield as VA020. The ABPP also added AR018, Bayou Meto (Reed’s Bridge), which was not identified as a principal site by the CWSAC in 1993, but since that time has been evaluated by the National Register of Historic Places as a nationally significant battlefield. 4All consolidated acreage figures in this report are unmerged. Overlapping acreage is counted per battlefield, not just once. For example, a protected parcel of 100 acres at Manassas I may also protect 25 acres at Manassas II because those two battlefield boundaries overlap. For the purposes of this study, the ABPP counts that 100-acre parcel as protecting 125 acres. 5 While water itself defies preservation in place, water bodies may contain underwater resources associated with a battle that need to be identified and protected in situ if possible.


To address the requirements of the Civil War Battlefield Preservation Act of 2002, the ABPP first reviewed the CWSAC’s original battlefield maps and survey data. The scope of the CWSAC’s work was and continues to be a landmark effort in the history of battlefield preservation. The ABPP found, however, that the CWSAC information was often incomplete, and occasionally inaccurate. This is not surprising. The CWSAC had only two years in which to gather information about 383 battlefields nationwide, hold public meetings in 10 states and the District of Columbia, compile preservation practice guidance, and write and submit a final report to Congress. Fifteen battlefields in the Shenandoah Valley were mapped and evaluated using a geographic information system.6 For all of the other battlefields, the CWSAC’s staff produced hand-drawn maps and evaluated landscape integrity on field observations and local feedback. During this re-assessment, the ABPP filled in gaps where the CWSAC was unable to complete surveys or gather resource information. The ABPP also checked the CWSAC survey boundaries for accuracy. Where more recent scholarship, archeological information, or terrain dictated, the ABPP revised boundaries to reflect a more detailed level of understanding of the historic terrain and the flow of armies over that terrain. In many cases, the ABPP increased the size of the battlefield Study Area (the historic extent of the battle) to include areas of approach, withdrawal, and maneuver that convey a more full understanding of the story and physical setting of the battle. Documentation for 51 CWSAC battlefields lacked Study Area boundaries, and 58 battlefields lacked Core Area boundaries. As part of this study, the ABPP was able to survey and map all but two battlefields. These two sites—Round Mountain and Middle Boggy Depot, both in Oklahoma—could not be positively identified due to contradictory interpretations among historians about the locations of the battlefields, and for want of archeological information about any of the possible battle sites. The lack of information about the physical character and setting of these two sites makes both vulnerable to development. Without accurate baseline information about the battlefields and their component resources, land use decision-makers will remain unable to gauge potential impacts to the battlefields. In the 20 years since the CWSAC began its work, public awareness of battlefield preservation has risen, public and private land protection efforts have increased and become more sophisticated, hundreds of willing landowners have stepped forward to conserve their historic properties, and communities nationwide have come to recognize the economic, educational, and ecological benefits of preserving and interpreting local battlefields. Most significantly, Congress has supported battlefield preservation through consistent appropriations of Land and Water Conservation Fund money since 1998 (see Appendix A). This program has leveraged state, local, and private funds and helped permanently protect 18,000 acres in 16 states.7 Congress has also authorized the use of federal transportation enhancement funds for purchasing battlefield land from willing sellers. Similarly, the states are consistently allowing the use of state conservation funds to buy land at Civil War battlefields. More and more local governments are establishing purchase of development rights (PDR) programs and applying those funds to battlefield preservation. The nonprofit Civil War Trust has matured into a powerful, vocal, and effective advocate for Civil War battlefields nationwide. Regional and local nonprofits have adopted 123 battlefields since 1993, and have garnered and applied available public

6 National Park Service, Study of Civil War Sites in the Shenandoah Valley of Virginia (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, 1992). The data from this study were merged into the CWSAC’s survey files. 7 American Battlefield Protection Program, National Park Service. LWCF data through FY2010.


and private resources to protect those battlefields. As a result, more than 280,000 acres of Civil War battlefield are now protected. Time and the pace of growth, however, still favor the destruction of these fragile historic landscapes. Most of the unprotected battlefield land identified in this study faces new or increasing development pressures. The ABPP noted rapid or accelerating development of all kinds—new subdivisions, mining operations, wastewater treatment plants, highways, large-scale commercial complexes, and high voltage power lines--erupting on or adjacent to nearly 200 battlefields. The 150th anniversary of the Civil War is at hand. Media, tourism, educational, and preservation efforts are underway to commemorate and reexamine the nation’s greatest struggle in a way that is relevant to and inclusive of people of different backgrounds, ethnicities, and perspectives on the war. To this end, 14 state governments have formed sesquicentennial commissions, committees, or boards and are actively promoting their states’ Civil War sites and stories. While only Arkansas, Oklahoma, and Tennessee declare historic site preservation as a goal of their sesquicentennial initiatives, all of the commissions are in excellent positions to spotlight the importance and fragility of the battlefield landscapes, and to support and facilitate battlefield protection through public-private partnerships. Sesquicentennial initiatives will continue to create renewed public and private interest in the war and its historic places; it is important for the battlefield preservation community to capitalize on that interest. Permanent protection of the nation’s Civil War battlefields will ensure a lasting legacy of historical knowledge, open space, and sustainable tourism revenue. Ideally, if significant attention and resources can be focused on land preservation, sesquicentennial initiatives will help secure that legacy.

Figure 1. Funding for structural repairs is needed at Fort Jackson in Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana. The southwest bastion and other features of the masonry fort were seriously damaged by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita in 2005, forcing the parish to close the fort to the public. The Confederate garrisons of Fort Jackson and Fort Saint Philip, an earthen fortification on the opposite shore of the Mississippi, unsuccessfully opposed the passage of Flag Officer David G. Farragut’s squadron as it headed for, and ultimately captured, New Orleans in April 1862. NPS photo.


Method Statement Congress instructed the Secretary of the Interior, acting through the American Battlefield Protection Program (ABPP), to report on changes in the condition of the battlefields since 1993 and on “preservation activities” and “other relevant developments” carried out at each battlefield since 1993. To fulfill those assignments, the ABPP conducted a site survey of each battlefield and prepared and sent out questionnaires to battlefield managers and advocacy organizations (see Appendix D). The ABPP did not revisit or change the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission’s (CWSAC) determinations of significance (see The Civil War Sites Advisory Commission’s Class Rankings sidebar). It did recognize, however, that some battlefields have been documented and evaluated through established historic preservation programs outside of the CWSAC study. If a battlefield met the criteria for and designated as a National Historic Landmark (NHL), or if a battlefield met the criteria for and was listed in the National Register of Historic Places at the national level of significance, the ABPP evaluated it as a nationally significant resource, regardless of the CWSAC’s 1993 ranking.8 Field Surveys The ABPP conducted field assessments of the 383 battlefields from 2005 to 2009. Surveys entailed review of CWSAC records, additional historical research, on-the-ground documentation and assessment of site conditions, identification of impending and potential threats to each battlefield, and site mapping. Surveyors used a Trimble®

GeoExplorer® 3 Global Positioning System (GPS) unit and a Ricoh® Caplio 500SE digital camera with integrated GPS to map historic features of each battlefield and used ESRI® ArcGISTM 9.0 – 9.3 to map site boundaries and evaluate ground conditions. The surveys did not include archeological investigations for reasons of time and expense. If published archeological studies were available about a battlefield’s subsurface resources, the ABPP included that information in its assessment.

8 The criteria for National Historic Landmark designation and the criteria for National Register listing at the national level of significance are different. The NHL criteria are more stringent and selective; NHL properties meet the highest standards for historical significance and physical integrity in the United States. National Register properties deemed to have national significance to the history of the nation are not NHLs, but are among the most important places of more than 87,000 listed buildings, structures, sites, districts, and objects across the country. While the two programs differ, they both require more exacting documentation and more in-depth analysis than the CWSAC’s assessments of battlefield significance. The CWSAC’s Class A and B battlefields (see definitions above) have been a main focus of preservation efforts since the CWSAC published its report 20 years ago. The ABPP wants to ensure that battlefields that have been formally evaluated against the NHL and National Register criteria and have been found to be nationally significant by either standard are given similar recognition in this update.

The Civil War Sites Advisory Commission’s Class Rankings The Commission ranked military importance of the battles (and their associated battlefield sites) according to the relative influence each had on the outcome of its operation, campaign, or on the war. The Class A and B battlefields represent the principal strategic operations of the war. The Class C and D battlefields usually represent operation with limited tactical objectives of enforcement and occupation. Class A – having a decisive influence on a campaign and a direct impact on the course of the war Class B – having a direct and decisive influence on their campaign. Class C – having observable influence on the outcome of a campaign Class D – having a limited influence on the outcome of their campaign or operation but achieving or affecting important local objectives Civil War Sites Advisory Commission Report on the Nation’s Civil War Battlefields, 16-17.


In addition to the field assessments, the ABPP also used satellite imagery to refine its boundaries, evaluate landscape integrity, identify potential threats perhaps not apparent to the field surveyors, and visually assess the progression and densities of development in and near the battlefields. Satellite imagery was critical to refining the ABPP’s understanding of the level of landscape fragmentation at each battlefield and to the ABPP’s ability to characterize ongoing threats to surviving land. Because many battlefields are entirely in private ownership and because physical access to large portions of the battlefields is limited to public right of ways, the ABPP reviewed publicly available satellite images of the battlefield Study Areas in order to confirm or supplement surveyors’ field observations about land use and landform integrity.9

Study Areas and Core Areas The CWSAC identified a Study Area and a Core Area for all but three of the principal battlefields (see ABPP Boundary Definitions sidebar).10 The CWSAC boundaries have proven invaluable as guides to local land and resource preservation efforts at Civil War battlefields. Since 1993, however, the National Park Service has refined its battlefield survey methodology, which includes reviewing recent research, working with site stewards, identifying and documenting lines of approach and withdrawal used by opposing forces, and applying the concepts of military terrain analysis to all battlefield landscapes. The ABPP’s Battlefield Survey Manual explains the field methods employed during this

9 The ABPP primarily used satellite images available from ESRI® ArcGIS Map Service, http://services.arcgisonline.com/arcgis/service, I3_Imagery_Prime_World_2D, and from Microsoft® BingTMMaps, Google MapsTM, and Yahoo!(R) Maps. The date range for the satellite images was 2007-2010. The level of detail in the satellite images varied depending upon each map service’s coverage of a specified area; image resolutions were generally highly detailed in urban and suburban areas and less detailed in rural areas. 10 CWSAC files indicate only 332 Study Areas and 325 Core Areas were assigned in 1993. The ABPP was able to assign both boundary types to all but three CWSAC battlefields. The locations of Round Mountain and Middle Boggy Depot in Oklahoma could not be confirmed. The events concerning the fall of the town of Meridan, Mississippi (February 14 through February 20, 1864), constitute d a military occupation, not a battle. Therefore, the ABPP did not assign a Core Area to Meridian.

ABPP Boundary Definitions The Study Area represents the historic extent of the battle as it unfolded across the landscape. The Study Area contains resources and locations that relate to or contribute to the battle event: where troops maneuvered and deployed immediately before, during, and after combat, and where they fought during combat. Historic accounts, terrain analysis, and feature identification inform the delineation of the Study Area boundary. The Study Area indicates the extent to which historic and archeological resources associated with the battle (areas of combat, command, communications, logistics, medical services, etc.) may be found. Surveyors delineated Study Area boundaries for every battle site that was positively identified through research and field survey, regardless of its present integrity. The Core Area represents the areas of fighting on the battlefield. Positions that delivered or received fire, and the intervening space and terrain between them, fall within the Core Area. Frequently described as “hallowed ground,” land within the Core Area is often the first to be targeted for protection. There may be more than one Core Area on a battlefield, but all lie within the Study Area. Unlike the Study and Core Areas, which are based only upon the interpretation of historic events, the Potential National Register (PotNR) boundary represents ABPP’s assessment of a Study Area’s current integrity (the surviving landscape and features that convey the site’s historic sense of place). The PotNR boundary may include all or some of the Study Area, and all or some of the Core Area. Lands within PotNR boundaries should be considered worthy of further attention, although future evaluations may reveal more or less integrity than indicated by the ABPP surveys.


Figures 2 and 3. ABPP boundaries for the Monocacy battlefield, Frederick, Maryland. The ABPP develops battlefields boundaries in layers. The ABPP begins with the Study Area (black line) and then establishes the Core Area (red line). Both boundaries are based on the historic record, military terrain analysis, identification of surviving cultural landscape features, and archeological findings (if available). The Study Area represents the spatial context of the battle, and includes the locations of actions taken by opposing forces prior to, during, and immediately after the battle. The Core Area, which may be one area or multiple areas depending on how the battle unfolded, expresses the extent to which significant fighting took place.

study.11 The surveys also incorporate the concepts recommended in the National Register of Historic Places’ Guidelines for Identifying, Evaluating, and Registering America’s Historic Battlefields, which was published in 1992 after the CWSAC completed its original assessments of the battlefields.12 Using its refined methodology, the ABPP was able to validate or adjust the CWSAC’s Study Area and Core Area boundaries to reflect more accurately the full nature and original resources of these battlefields (see Table 1). At many of the battlefields, the refined methodology resulted in significant increases to the sizes of the Study Area and Core Area. In particular, the original CWSAC surveys did not consistently include routes of approach and withdrawal or secondary actions that influenced the course or outcome of the battle.

11 American Battlefield Protection Program, “Battlefield Survey Manual,” (Washington, DC: National Park Service, revised 2007). 12 National Register of Historic Places Bulletin 40, Guidelines for Identifying, Evaluating, and Registering America’s Historic Battlefields, 1992 , Revised 1999 (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Interagency Resources Division), http://www.nps.gov/nr/publications/bulletins/pdfs/NRB40.pdf.


Figure 4. ABPP boundaries for the Monocacy battlefield, Frederick, Maryland. The final boundary assigned is the Potential National Register (PotNR) boundary (yellow shading). The PotNR boundary is based on the ABPP’s assessment of the landscape’s physical integrity within the Study Area. It indicates to what extent the battlefield retains its character and cohesion. In this case, the PotNR boundary overlaps the protected portion of the battlefield (Monocacy National Battlefield, light green shading) as well as unprotected portions in private ownership north of the park.

The revised boundaries take these movements and actions into account.13 It is important to note, however, that the Study Area and Core Area boundaries are simply historical boundaries that describe where the battle took place; neither indicates the current integrity of the battlefield landscape, so neither can be used on its own to identify surviving portions of battlefield land that may merit protection and preservation.

Potential National Register Boundaries To address the question of what part of the battlefield remains reasonably intact and warrants preservation, this study introduced a third boundary line that was not attempted by the CWSAC: the Potential National Register (PotNR) boundary. In assigning PotNR boundaries, the ABPP followed National Register of Historic Places guidelines when identifying and mapping areas that retain integrity and cohesion within the Study Areas.14 The PotNR boundary is designed to be used as a planning tool for government agencies and the public. It does not constitute a formal determination of eligibility by the Keeper of the National Register of Historic Places,15 nor does it place any restriction on private property use.

13 The National Register of Historic Places Bulletin 40, Guidelines for Identifying, Evaluating, and Registering America’s Historic Battlefields s offer recommendations regarding “Selecting Defensible Boundaries.” While Bulletin 40 indicates that “generally, boundaries should not be drawn to include the portion of the route taken to the battlefield where there were no encounters” they also state that “a basic principle is to include within the boundary all of the locations where opposing forces, either before, during or after the battle, took actions based on their assumption of being in the presence of the enemy.” The ABPP interprets this latter guidance to mean all military activities that influenced the battle. 14 For general guidance about integrity issues and National Register of Historic Places properties, see National Park Service, How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, revised 1997). The survey evaluations described above do not meet the more stringent integrity standards for National Historic Landmark designation. See National Park Service, How to Prepare National Historic Landmark Nominations (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, 1999), 36-37. 15 See 36 CFR 60.1-14 for regulations about nominating a property to the National Register of Historic Places and 36 CFR 63 for regulations concerning Determinations of Eligibility for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places.


Looking at each Study Area, the surveyors assigned PotNR boundaries where they judged that the landscape retained enough integrity to convey the significance of the historic battle. The ABPP checked the surveyors’ impressions against commercial satellite imagery to identify more precisely portions of the landscape that might retain integrity. In a few cases, the PotNR boundary encompasses the entire Study Area. In most cases, however, the PotNR boundary includes less land than identified in the full Study Area. The term integrity, as defined by the National Register, is “the ability of a property to convey its significance.”16 While assessments of integrity are traditionally based on seven specific attributes – location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association – battlefields are unique cultural resources and require special evaluation. “Generally, the most important aspects of integrity for battlefields are location, setting, feeling and association.” A basic test for determining the integrity of any battlefield is “whether a participant in the battle would recognize the property as it exists today.”17 Other conditions contribute to the degree of integrity a battlefield retains:

• the quantity and quality of surviving battle-period resources (i.e., buildings, roads, fence lines, military structures, archeological features, vegetation, and hydrological features);

• the quantity and quality of the spatial relationships between and among those

historic resources and the landscape that connects them; • the extent to which current battlefield land use is similar to battle-period land

use; and • the extent to which a battlefield’s physical features and overall character are

able to visually communicate an authentic sense of the sweep and setting of the battle.

The degree to which post-war development has altered and fragmented the historic landscape or destroyed historic features and viewsheds is critical when assessing integrity. Changes in traditional land use over time do not generally diminish a battlefield’s integrity. For example, landscapes that were farmland during the Civil War do not need to be in agricultural use today to be considered eligible for listing in the National Register so long as the land retains its historic rural character. Similarly, natural changes in vegetation – woods growing out of historic farm fields, for example – do not necessarily lessen the landscape’s integrity. Some post-battle development is expected; slight or moderate change within the battlefield may not substantially diminish a battlefield’s integrity. A limited degree of residential, commercial, or industrial development is acceptable. These post-battle,

16 National Park Service, National Register of Historic Places Bulletin 40, Guidelines for Identifying, Evaluating, and Registering America’s Historic Battlefields, 1992, Revised 1999 (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Interagency Resources Division), http://www.nps.gov/nr/publications/bulletins/pdfs/NRB40.pdf. Archeological integrity was not examined during this study, but should be considered in future battlefield studies and formal nominations to the National Register of Historic Places. 17 National Park Service, National Register of Historic Places Bulletin 40, Guidelines for Identifying, Evaluating, and Registering America’s Historic Battlefields, 1992, Revised 1999 (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Interagency Resources Division).


“noncontributing” elements are often included in the PotNR boundary in accordance with National Register guidelines.18 Significant changes in land use since the Civil War do diminish the integrity of the battlefield landscape. Heavy residential, commercial, and industrial development; cellular tower and wind turbine installation; and large highway construction are common examples of such changes. Battlefield landscapes riddled with these types of changes have little or no integrity generally. While the ABPP attempted to omit developed or altered portions of the battlefields from the PotNR boundaries, it was sometimes necessary to include them as noncontributing elements in order to maintain cohesion amongst the portions of the battlefield that retained integrity and contributed to the historic character of the landscape. For example, the ABPP encountered numerous battlefields where only the center of a Study Area had been developed or otherwise significantly altered since the Civil War. If this development had occurred on the edge of the Study Area, the ABPP would have omitted it from the PotNR. Because the National Register does not allow holes in the middle of historic district boundaries (battlefields are a type of historic district for the purposes of the National Register), the ABPP included the developed areas in the midst of PotNRs in accordance with National Register requirements.

Figures 5 and 6. The ABPP’s PotNR boundary for the Wilderness battlefield (Fig. 5) excludes post-war development on the edges of the battlefield, but includes modern development in the center. Development on the edge of the Study Area can be omitted without fracturing portions of the battlefield with good integrity, while development in the middle cannot (Fig. 6). If the ABPP PotNR boundary in Figure 4 were proposed for formal listing in the National Register of Historic Places, the post-war development in the midst of the PotNR would be included but would be documented as not contributing to the historic character of the battlefield.

18 The ABPP looked only at the battle-related elements of a cultural landscape. Post-battle elements, while not contributing to the significance of the battlefield, may be eligible for separate listing in the National Register of Historic Places on their own merits and may contribute to the history and significance of the cultural landscape over decades or centuries.


The PotNR boundaries indicate which battlefields are likely eligible for future listing in the National Register and likely deserving of future preservation efforts.19 If a surveyor determined that a battlefield was entirely compromised by land use incompatible with the preservation of historic features (i.e., it has little or no integrity), the ABPP did not assign a PotNR boundary.20 In cases where a battlefield is already listed in the National Register, surveyors reassessed the existing documentation based on current scholarship and resource integrity, and, when appropriate, provided new information and proposed new boundaries as part of the surveys. As a result, some PotNR boundaries will contain or share a boundary with lands already listed in the National Register. In other cases, PotNR boundaries will exclude listed lands that have lost integrity.21 Because the ABPP focuses only on areas of battle, it did not evaluate lands adjacent to the Study Area that may contribute to a broader historical and chronological definition of “cultural landscape.” Lands outside of the Study Area associated with other historic events and cultural practices may need to be evaluated in preparation for a formal nomination of the broader cultural landscape to the National Register. The data from which all three boundaries are drawn do not necessarily reflect the full research needed for a formal National Register nomination. PotNR boundaries are based on an assessment of aboveground historic features associated with the cultural and natural landscape. The surveys did not include a professional archeological inventory or assessment of subsurface features or indications. In some cases, future archeological testing will help determine whether subsurface features remain, whether subsurface battle features convey important information about a battle or historic property, and whether that information may help to confirm, refine, or refute the boundaries previously determined by historic studies and terrain analysis.

19 Future nominations of battlefield land may take the form of districts (most common), or individual sites within a multiple property context (appropriate for battlefields with far-flung resources or for surviving portions of fragmented battlefields that no longer retain enough integrity to be listed as districts). The ABPP’s survey boundaries do not imply any one approach; they serve only as a starting point for discussions between the nominating agent and the State Historic Preservation Officer. 20 National Park Service, National Register of Historic Places Bulletin 40, Guidelines for Identifying, Evaluating, and Registering America’s Historic Battlefields, 1992 , Revised 1999 (http://www.nps.gov/nr/publications/bulletins/pdfs/NRB40.pdf), offers recommendations regarding "Selecting Defensible Boundaries." While this document indicates that "generally, boundaries should not be drawn to include the portion of the route taken to the battlefield where there were no encounters," the Guidelines also state that "a basic principle is to include within the boundary all of the locations where opposing forces, either before, during or after the battle, took actions based on their assumption of being in the presence of the enemy." The ABPP interprets this latter guidance to mean all military activities that influenced the battle. See the individual battlefield profiles for information about military actions taken along the routes included. In accordance with the methodology of this study, if routes included in the Study Area retain integrity, they are included within the Potential National Register boundary for the battlefield landscape. 21 The ABPP’s surveys and PotNR assessments do not constitute formal action on behalf of the office of the National Register of Historic Places. PotNR assessments are intended for planning purposes only; they do not carry the authority to add, change, or remove an official listing.


The ABPP survey information should be reassessed during future compliance processes such as the Section 106 process required by the National Historic Preservation Act 22 and Environmental Impact Statements and Environmental Assessments required by the National Environmental Policy Act.23 Likewise, more detailed research and assessments should take place when any battlefield is formally nominated to the National Register or proposed for designation as a National Historic Landmark. New research and intensive-level surveys of these sites will enlighten future preservation and compliance work. Agencies should continue to consult local and state experts for up-to-date information about these battlefields.

Questionnaires While the ABPP maintains data about its own program activities at Civil War battlefields, most preservation work occurs at the local level. Therefore, to answer Congress's directive for information about battlefield preservation activities, the ABPP sought input from local battlefield managers and advocacy organizations. The ABPP distributed questionnaires designed to gather information about the types of preservation activities that have taken place at the battlefields since 1993. The Questionnaire is reproduced in Appendix E. Across the country, representatives from 165 organizations responded to the ABPP’s inquiries. Their responses, combined with the survey findings, allowed the ABPP to create a profile of conditions and activities at the nation’s Civil War battlefields.

22 16 USC 470f. 23 42 USC 4331-4332.

Figure 7. A wind energy facility near the Whitestone Hill battlefield in Dickey County, North Dakota. The state’s five Civil War battlefields are increasingly vulnerable to energy development projects, especially natural gas extraction and wind farms. Federal and state agencies responsible for NEPA and NHPA reviews and parallel state requirements should identify and assess battlefield landscapes early in project planning to avoid and minimize physical and visual impacts to the state’s nearly pristine battlefields. NPS photo


FFoorrtt RRiiddggeellyy bbaattttlleeffiieelldd,, BBrroowwnn,, NNiiccoolllleett,, aanndd RReennvviillllee CCoouunnttiieess,, MMiinnnneessoottaa.. 2200 aaccrreess pprrootteecctteedd,,11,,228800 aaccrreess uunnpprrootteecctteedd.. NNPPSS pphhoottoo..


Summary of Conditions at the Nation’s Civil War Battlefields Quantifying the Battlefields Using Geographic Information Systems software, the ABPP calculated the amount of land historically associated with the battle (Study Area), the amount of land where forces were engaged (Core Area) within the Study Area, and the amount of land within the Study Area that may retain enough integrity to be eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places and that remains to be protected (Potential National Register boundary). As noted above, the Study Areas and Core Areas of the battlefields have been revised in many cases. Particular attention was paid to identifying the routes of approach and withdrawal associated with each battle, and to identifying areas of secondary action that influenced the course or outcome of the battles.24 The Study Area and Core Area boundaries established for each battlefield take these movements and actions into account, recognizing the extent to which theses ancillary areas serve as battlefield features. The ABPP’s acreage analysis of the battlefields, which includes both land and water, follows.

• The ABPP mapped 381 battlefields using GIS (two battlefields could not be located conclusively).

• The combined Study Areas total 3,727,200 acres.

• The combined Core Areas total 915,000 acres.

• The combined Potential National Register Boundaries total 2,010,300 acres. Appendix E, Table 1, compares the accumulated total acreage of Study Area, Core Area, and PotNR land by state. Note that the acreage totals include bodies of water within each boundary.

24 National Register of Historic Places Bulletin 40, Guidelines for Identifying, Evaluating, and Registering America's Historic Battlefields (http://www.nps.gov/nr/publications/bulletins/pdfs/NRB40.pdf), offers recommendations regarding "Selecting Defensible Boundaries." While this document indicates that "generally, boundaries should not be drawn to include the portion of the route taken to the battlefield where there were no encounters," the Guidelines also state that "a basic principle is to include within the boundary all of the locations where opposing forces, either before, during or after the battle, took actions based on their assumption of being in the presence of the enemy." The ABPP interprets this latter guidance to mean all military activities that influenced the battle. See the individual battlefield profiles for information about military actions taken along the routes included. In accordance with the methodology of this study, if routes included in the Study Area retain integrity, they are included within the Potential National Register boundary for the battlefield landscape.


Condition Assessments Using field survey data, satellite imagery, and USGS map data, the ABPP assessed the overall condition of 381 battlefield Study Areas.25 While no battlefield remains completely unaltered since the Civil War, 82 landscapes were classified as having changed little since the war. These battlefields have retained their character and defining features throughout the last 150 years. Another 145 battlefields are relatively intact landscapes that contain important battle-related features, despite having lost some portion of their terrain to post-war uses and alterations. These 227 battlefields represent the best opportunities for landscape preservation. Notable among states with the highest percentages (more than 60%) of battlefields in good condition are Arkansas, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, Minnesota, North Dakota, and Oklahoma. Many of the battlefields in these states have survived simply by being in rural areas. In Maryland, where development pressures near Civil War battlefields continues to accelerate, long-standing, consistent land protection efforts have effectively insulated several of the state’s most important battlefields from large-scale development. For example, more than 50% of the Core Areas of both Antietam and South Mountain is now either owned by public or nonprofit land conservation entities or is privately owned but protected through conservation easements. In aggregate, the protected lands pose a significant deterrent—both physically and legally--to future development within those two battlefields. Other states wishing to preserve historic battlefields should consider the types of programs Maryland has created—Program Open Space, Rural Legacy, and the Maryland Environmental Trust, among others—and adopt similar measures that will help ensure protection for battlefield landscapes in perpetuity. Conditions at 104 battlefields have eroded since 1993. These battlefields are now either moderately or severely fractured by modern roads, railroads, utility corridors and facilities, housing and commercial developments, and industrial operations. In some cases, natural forces have also contributed to the loss of historic terrain and battle features. Interspersed among the new and the changed, however, are portions of historic terrain survive to be preserved and interpreted. Nearly 50 battlefields (13%) are unrecognizable today. The historic character of these landscapes has been erased, replaced by all manner of post-war development. In these modern landscapes, however, small, isolated features of the battle period may survive—an historic building, a segment of earthwork, an old roadbed. These features may offer opportunities for interpretation of the battle story. As mentioned previously, the ABPP was unable to locate with certainty two of the seven battlefields in Oklahoma, Round Mountain and Middle Boggy Depot. Until their locations can be established, the condition of each remains unknown.

25 Only terrain and above-ground cultural features were assessed. Survey and evaluation of archeological resources was not attempted. Additional studies are needed to determine the degree of archeological integrity associated with subsurface battle deposits.


Figure 8. Approximately 60% of the land and water area of the nation’s principal Civil War battlefields retains integrity today.

Registration At the federal level, there are four methods of recognizing the significance of historic properties, including battlefields. Units of the National Park Systems are established by Congress. National monuments are established by the President.26 National Historic Landmarks (NHLs)–nationally significant historic places of exceptional value or quality in illustrating or interpreting the heritage of the United States–are designated by the Secretary of the Interior. The most inclusive program, however, is the National Register of Historic Places, the nation’s official list of cultural sites significant to the nation, a state, or a community, and worthy of preservation. Historic units of the National Park System and NHLs are automatically listed in the National Register.27 Listing a battlefield in the National Register is an important step in the preservation of the site. Sites and structures listed in the National Register meet national standards for documentation, physical integrity, and demonstrable significance to the history of the United States. The process of formally documenting the history and physical characteristics of a battlefield is useful in several ways.

• The required Statement of Significance presents information about the importance of the battle within the perspective of local, statewide, or national histories, thereby establishing the battlefield within a larger cultural context. This perspective helps establish why preservation of the battlefield is appropriate and relevant.

• Second, the required inventory of a battlefield’s natural and cultural features provides a basis upon which defensible site boundaries can be established.

26 Antiquities Act, 1906 (16 USC 431). 27 National Register Federal Program Regulations, U.S. Department of the Interior, revised July 1, 2004, 36 CFR 60.1.

22%

38%

28%

12%

Battlefield Condition Summary in 2011 (381 Battlefields Assessed)

Landscape and land use is little changed

Portions of the landscape are altered, butmost essential features remain

Much of the landscape is altered andfragmented, leaving some essential features

Landscape and terrain are altered beyondrecognition


Figure 9. The Saltville Battlefields Historic District in southwestern Virginia was listed in the National Register of Historic Places in 2010. The District documents a unique collection of Confederate hilltop fortifications, the ruins of one of the Confederacy’s most important salt works, and the landscapes of the two battles fought to control the salt works. NPS photo.

Boundaries based on features with verifiable historic significance are easily understood by public officials, landowners, and proponents.

• Finally, the required physical description of the overall character of the

battlefield identifies the qualities and features that must be preserved to maintain site integrity over time. National Register documentation is, essentially, a critical baseline from which decisions can be made about land use and cultural resource management on the battlefield.

National Register documentation allows project designers to quickly identify the battlefield and avoid or minimize impacts to the landscape. Federal, state, and local agencies use information from the National Register as a planning tool to identify and make decisions about cultural resources. Federal and state laws—most notably Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the National Environmental Policy Act—require agencies to account for the effects their projects (roads, wetland permits, quarrying, cell towers, etc.) may have on listed and eligible historic properties, including battlefields.

Recognition as a National Register listed battlefield can advance public understanding of and appreciation for the battlefield, and may encourage advocacy for its preservation. National Register status is honorary, not regulatory; private landowners within listed battlefields may do as they like with their properties (assuming no local regulatory zones overlap the National Register boundaries of the battlefields). In addition, there are incentives for listing properties in the National Register. Listed properties are eligible to


receive certain federal and state funds, such as funding for transportation enhancement projects (including purchasing protective easements on registered properties) and Historic Preservation Fund sub-grants for a variety of resource planning and bricks-and-mortar projects. Also, owners of National Register listed parcels are eligible to receive federal income tax deductions when they donate preservation easements on their properties.28 Of the 383 battlefields discussed in this report, 146 have been listed in the National Register to some degree. Those listings define some 180,000 acres. In many cases, these listings do not include the full extent of the surviving landscape. Too often, National Register listings include only small areas centered on prominent historic features, or include only those portions of the battlefield that are publicly owned. In these cases, the existing documentation does not express accurately the size or current integrity of the battlefield landscape.29 Using GIS software to compare existing National Register boundaries with its own assessment of battlefield integrity, the ABPP predicted how much more battlefield land may need to be evaluated for National Register listing. Among the 146 battlefields currently listed in the National Register, approximately 760,000 acres—land and bodies of water historically associated with the battles that retain physical integrity—are not currently included in the National Register documentation for the battlefields. Another 185 battlefields encompassing 1 million acres may be eligible for listing for the first time. Documenting battlefields to National Register standards can be challenging. It takes time, sometimes several years, to research a battle, inventory battlefield features, characterize the cultural landscape, cultivate landowner consensus, and write the nomination. The complexity of the resource—one of natural terrain, cultural features, and archeological deposits—often requires that a professional cultural resource specialist prepare the nomination. To successfully navigate the various state and federal requirements of the nomination process, battlefield proponents should work closely with their respective State Historic Preservation Offices to ensure that the entirety of an eligible battlefield landscape is listed in the National Register or determined eligible for listing.30 Appendix E, Table 3, compares the number and sizes of battlefields in each state that are already listed with the number and sizes of battlefields the ABPP believes could be listed in the future based on significance and physical integrity.

28 National Register listed battlefields are “certified historic structures” under Section 170(h)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code. Landowners within the National Register boundary may receive a federal income tax deduction for donating a conservation easement on their land if all other necessary conditions are met. Charles Fisher, Easements to Protect Historic Properties: A Useful Historic Preservation Tool with Potential Tax Benefits, National Park Service, Washington, DC, 2010, http://www.nps.gov/tps/tax-incentives/taxdocs/easements-historic-properties.pdf, 7. 29 Where the battlefield landscape has lost integrity, isolated battle features that survive may be eligible for listing as individual resources associated with the battle, but they could not represent the battlefield as a whole. 3036 CFR 60. The nomination process can result in three outcomes: formal listing in the National Register of Historic Places; a Determination of Eligibility, which indicates the battlefield meets National Register of Historic Places criteria but that a majority of landowners objected to a formal listing; or a returned nomination that failed to meet substantive or technical criteria. The ABPP recommends that battlefield proponents prepare nominations that cover the entire eligible landscape, regardless of the expected outcome.

http://www.nps.gov/tps/tax-incentives/taxdocs/easements-historic-properties.pdf

http://www.nps.gov/tps/tax-incentives/taxdocs/easements-historic-properties.pdf


9.3%

90.7%

National Register Listings Compared with Eligible Landscapes

Listed Battlefield Land(180,000 acres)

Additional BattlefieldLand Likely Eligible forListing (1,760,000 acres)

Stewardship For the purposes of this update, “protected land” means battlefield land that is in public or private non-profit ownership, or is under permanent protective easement, and is managed specifically for 1) the purposes of maintaining the historic character of the landscape and for preventing future impairment or destruction of the landscape and historic features, or for 2) a conservation purpose and use compatible with the goals of historic landscape preservation. The ABPP established this definition because, while public ownership of land often provides some level of protection for historic resources, it does not necessarily foreclose the potential for damage. Federal, state, and municipal ownership may prevent private development, and public ownership may require compliance with state and federal environmental laws, but the primary uses (military readiness, timber production, recreation, mineral extraction, impoundment, etc.) of that public land may not be compatible with the perpetual protection and appropriate management of a battlefield landscape. The ABPP identified only 32 Civil War battlefields where more than half of the surviving landscape is permanently protected. Most of the battlefields, some 292 sites, have less than 50% of their surviving landscapes under protection. Sixty-five of those sites have no protection at all. Fifty-eight battlefields have been overwhelmed by development since the Civil War. Not surprisingly, the Study Areas of these battlefields are either completely unprotected or include only small reservations of protected land. 31 The locations, and therefore stewardship status, of two battlefields remain unknown.

31 These sites may contain isolated historic features or archeological resources worthy of documentation, protection, and interpretation. Previously developed or disturbed parcels within these battlefields may provide options for reclamation--the post-war structures removed and the landforms rehabilitated for interpretive use. But the Civil War landscape, often thousands of acres, is no longer recognizable or possible to preserve.

Figure 10. Only about 10% of the nation’s Civil War battlefield landscapes are documented to National Register standards.


Figure 11. The US Fish and Wildlife Service’s refuge system protects 19,400 acres of Civil War battlefield

land in 12 states. The Marais des Cygnes National Wildlife Refuge in Kansas preserves nearly 800 acres

where Union cavalry helped seal the fate of Confederate General Sterling Price’s expedition in

Missouri. NPS photo.

Of the approximately 1.7 million acres of Civil War battlefield land that retains integrity, about 287,000 acres, or 17%, is permanently protected. Federal agencies own and manage nearly half of that. The most prominent federal steward is the National Park Service, which administers more than 100,000 acres at 106 Civil War battlefields.32 The battlefields fall within or overlap 28 National Park System units created to protect Civil War battlefields and resources specifically, and 15 units created for other purposes, such as Gauley National Recreation Area, Eisenhower National Historic Site, Ocmulgee National Monument, and the Appalachian National Scenic Trail. The US Fish and Wildlife Service and the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service own and manage about 19,000 acres and 17,000 acres respectively. These agencies manage land for specific conservation purposes and uses and they are required under the National Historic Preservation Act, as amended, to document and preserve historic properties on their lands. Therefore, their missions and goals are generally compatible with the goals of battlefield landscape preservation. In some cases, especially where these agencies own a substantial or particularly significant part of a battlefield, these agencies are aware of and actively manage and interpret the battlefields. Good examples of this level of stewardship can be found in the USDA Forest Service’s efforts to study, protect, and interpret the Camp Allegheny battlefield in West Virginia and the Camp Wildcat battlefield in Kentucky. In other cases, the agencies may not be aware that their holdings include battlefield terrain and features. Under Section 110 of the National Historic Preservation Act, these agencies should identify, evaluate, and, where appropriate, nominate federally owned battlefields and related features to the National Register of Historic Places. Further, where a federally owned battlefield is listed in or determined eligible for the National Register, the Act requires federal agencies to manage and maintain those historic properties “in a way that considers the preservation of their historic, archaeological, architectural, and cultural values….”33 The States protect more than 80,000 acres of battlefield land. Most of that, 49,000 acres, is state-owned land. The other 31,000 acres are held in conservation easements by the states. The three largest state holdings on Civil War battlefields are conservation easements, not state parks or state historic sites. The Virginia Outdoors Foundation holds conservation easements on 4,800 acres at Upperville and 3,000 acres at Rappahannock Station I. Maryland’s Department of Natural Resources also holds 3,000 acres in easement at Antietam. The next largest state holdings are wildlife management areas at Marais

32 The CWSAC identified only 58 battlefields within or overlapping units of the National Park System, but admitted that it was “unable to determine the precise intersection and overlap between park boundaries and historic battlefields in time for use in this [1993] report.” Civil War Sites Advisory Commission, Report, 28. The ABPP’s conclusion results from three changes since 1993: 1) the addition of new park units; 2) the increased size of most of the battlefield Study Areas; and 3) the application of GIS technology. 33 16 U.S. C. 470h-2(a)(B).


Des Cygnes in Kansas,34 Irish Bend in Louisiana, and Columbia in Tennessee. Each helps protect 2,500 to 2,800 acres of battlefield land. The largest state park or historic site dedicated specifically for the purposes of protecting and interpreting a Civil War battlefield is the 1,600-acre Fort Blakely State Park in Alabama. Given that most state easement programs have been in existence for less than 20 years, these examples indicate that if historic land retains integrity and advances other conservation values—such as farmland protection, aquifer protection, open space, and wildlife habitat—states may be better able to help protect and monitor battlefields from development or inappropriate uses by holding perpetual conservation easements than by the more traditional protection process of acquiring, managing, and interpreting a battlefield as a public historic site. Because easements represent interests in land, rather than all rights to the land, they are less costly to purchase than land in fee. State easement programs are gaining political support because they are designed to work only with willing sellers or donors, and because the programs are cost effective ways to protect natural and cultural resources and to conserve farmland important to the environmental health and economy of the states. Easements are also less expensive to manage; they usually only require that the state, as the easement holder, provide periodic site monitoring. In contrast, state historic sites require daily property management, resource security, public amenities, and on-site staff. The trend of using easements to protect battlefields therefore is expected to increase as states look for the most efficient use of funds for resource protection. The Civil War battlefields discussed in this report lie within the boundaries of 337 counties or independent cities. Despite this geographic spread, only 63 discrete municipalities (19 %) are currently acting as stewards of Civil War battlefields. They own land or easements totaling some 25,700 acres. Most impressive among local stewards is the City of Newport News, Virginia. The city’s Newport News Park protects 7,600 acres35 of the Yorktown battlefield, including surviving earthworks associated with the month-long siege of 1862. Newport News Park is the largest single battlefield holding in the nation, larger even than the Gettysburg National Military Park by some 1,600 acres. Most local battlefield historic sites are more humble, averaging 91 acres per holding (both fee and easement properties). In recent years, local governments, like their parent states, have moved to protect historic land through the purchase of development rights (easements). Leading this trend are municipalities in the eastern states of North Carolina, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia. According to the data collected by the ABPP, locally held easements on battlefields average 200 acres per holding, while the average holding for traditional fee simple parks and historic sites is 125 acres.36

Nonprofit organizations have become increasingly important and vocal owners, managers, and interpreters of Civil War battlefields since 1993. Nationwide, nonprofits own 38,600 acres of land and easements at 136 battlefields. These organizations range in size, mission, and available resources, but each is doing its part to help protect the nation’s Civil War heritage. Organizations created for the purposes of protecting Civil War resources have saved 21,500 acres of battlefield land. But equally important are conservation and general interest groups, especially land trusts, which have permanently protected 17,100 acres at Civil War battlefields. 34 The Kansas Department of Fish and Wildlife manages the Marais Des Cygnes Wildlife Area, which is adjacent to the US Fish and Wildlife refuge. The state holding protects nearly 2,600 battlefield acres; the federal property about 800 acres. 35 Created in 1966, Newport News Park exceeds 8,000 acres in total. Of that, 7,600 acres are managed in a manner compatible with the goals of battlefield preservation. 36 The fee simple average does not include Newport News Park, which is a statistical anomaly among municipal holdings.


The Civil War Trust is the national leader among battlefield nonprofits. The 55,000-member organization itself owns more than 12,400 acres at 53 battlefields, and it works daily with federal, state, and local government agencies to secure battlefield land for the public sector. Other national conservation organizations such as The Conservation Fund and the Nature Conservancy have succeeded in protecting 2,900 acres at 17 battlefields. In addition to national organizations, numerous regional nonprofits have emerged since 1993 to expedite land preservation efforts among discrete sets of battlefields. These include the Central Virginia Battlefields Trust, the Shenandoah Valley Battlefields Foundation, and the South Carolina Battleground Preservation Trust. Regional land trusts have also contributed to the protection of geographically related sites. The Lowcountry Open Land Trust in South Carolina, the North Carolina Coastal Land Trust, and Piedmont Environmental Council in Virginia, and the Land Trust of the Eastern Panhandle in West Virginia are examples of nonprofit organizations working to increase the amount of historic and conservation land in their self-described regions. The remaining nonprofit groups are committed to local preservation projects. Again, some of these groups were established specifically to preserve and promote individual battlefields. Other local organizations have related goals compatible with battlefield preservation. Through focused leadership, responsible administration, partnerships, and sustained commitment to the goal of battlefield preservation, these groups have proven that they can successfully manage large portions of historic battlefield landscapes. Several effective local battlefield stewards are noted below. • The Mill Springs Battlefield Foundation in Kentucky, an organization formed in

1992, now owns, manages, and interprets 410 acres of battlefield land as well as a visitor center and museum completed in 2006.

• The Brice’s Crossroads Battlefield Commission in Mississippi, founded in 1994, now cares for more than 1,300 acres and a visitor center.

• The Trevelian Station Battlefield Foundation in Virginia, a small group established in 1996, owns 675 acres of rural battlefield, supported the Civil War Trust’s acquisition of another 250 acres, and helped broker a conservation easement on an additional 1,000 acres.

Each of these started out as a small group of citizens concerned for the fate of their community’s Civil War history and landscape.


There is one other important class of battlefield steward, the private landowner. Private landowners have made and will continue to make the most lasting preservation decisions about Civil War battlefields: whether, when, and to whom to sell or donate their historic land holdings or development rights. For those who choose to donate their land or their development rights, there are federal income and estate tax benefits (and sometimes state and local property tax benefits), but the decision is not made lightly or without a sense of purpose. Used in conjunction with or instead of a traditional fee simple purchase, conservation easements are one of the most successful preservation and stewardship tools available for protecting battlefields. This type of easement allows private property owners to keep their land while receiving federal income tax credits for donating the easement. Easements are becoming increasingly popular with landowners who want to restrict the future development of their property. Preservation advocates need to combine forces with land trusts and willing sellers to apply this powerful tool at Civil War battlefields across the United States. As of 2010, private landowners in 12 states (see Appendix E, Table 5) have chosen to relinquish the development rights to more than 49,000 acres of Civil War battlefield land. It is in their interest, and in the public interest, that the protections agreed to by the owners be upheld rigorously. Public and nonprofit easement holders should ensure that these battlefield parcels are routinely monitored, that the historic features and values inherent to those parcels are protected from any potential disturbance from allowable land uses, and that penalties for unauthorized disturbances be strictly enforced. It is important to note that despite past and current efforts to protect Civil War battlefields, only 7 of the 383 in this study were found to have more than 50% of their historic landscape (Study Areas) under protection.37 The prevailing misconception that

37 Based on the ABPP’s criteria for integrity, seven battlefields were assessed to retain 100% physical integrity. Most battlefields, however, are not pristine and have lost physical integrity over the years. The ABPP identified 25 battlefields of where more than half of the surviving landscape (Potential National Register boundary) is protected for preservation or conservation purposes.

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

Federal State Local Nonprofit

Acres of Civil War Battlefield Land Protected by the Public and Private Sectors

Figure 12. This chart represents the amount of battlefield land owned and legally controlled by each tier of government and nonprofit organizations, plus battlefield land under permanent conservation easement to those entities.


Figure 13. Bear River battlefield, Idaho. View across the Bear River to the US cavalry position on the ridge (middle ground), with the Bear River Mountains in the distance. Today, almost the entire battlefield is privately owned and used for ranching.

federal or state stewards own the entirety of a battlefield persists in the public’s collective mind. This mischaracterization often leads to politically sensitive debates about the need for additional protection of battlefield land beyond public holdings. At Gettysburg, for example, the ABPP identified nearly 34,000 acres of historic ground that likely retains integrity as part of the historic landscape. The National Park Service manages nearly 6,000 acres within the Gettysburg National Military Park, the largest single Federal holding identified in this study. Despite the size of the park and the presence of 2,500 acres of other conserved land, more than 25,000 acres of the world-famous battlefield remain unprotected. Modern skirmishes about land use and growth, especially where large-scale conversion of open space and farmland is at stake, flair up frequently on those 25,000 acres.


Clearly, the story of Civil War battlefield preservation is not one story written by one hand. The days of large public land purchases for parks, forests, and preserves are waning. In these early years of the twenty-first century, the emerging practice is for public and nonprofit entities, private landowners, and interested citizens to tailor solutions to protect, manage, and use battlefield landscapes. This type of “partnership” battlefield is epitomized by the Cedar Creek and Belle Grove National Historical Park, established by Congress in 2002. Although there are more than 3,700 acres within the park's authorized boundary, half are privately owned. Therefore, much of the battlefield is not accessible to the public. Nearly all of the remaining land (approximately 1,400 acres) and buildings are preserved and administered by “Key Partners:” The National Trust for Historic Preservation, Belle Grove, Inc., Shenandoah Valley Battlefields Foundation, Cedar Creek Battlefield Foundation, and Shenandoah County, Virginia.38 Through collaborative partnerships among federal, state, and local governments, civic organizations, nonprofit groups and private individuals, significant protective measures have been and can continue to be effective across the nation. Opportunities for concerted action on the part of private landowners and land conservation groups are especially ripe at 38 battlefields where the historic landscapes have good physical integrity, are privately owned, and are unprotected.39 Notable examples include Bear River, Chustenahlah, Fair Garden, Liberty, Pleasant Hill, Prairie D’Ane, and Saint Mary’s Church. The greatest concentrations of these coherent but unprotected battlefields are in Louisiana (8), Missouri (5), Tennessee (5), and Virginia (6). Appendix E, Table 5, compares the mechanisms used to protect battlefield land from development. Table 5 also indicates the approximate amount of battlefield land left to protect in each state. This information may serve planners and preservation advocates as a tool for prioritizing future preservation initiatives.

38 National Park Service, Cedar Creek and Belle Grove National Historical Park website, http://www.nps.gov/cebe/, September 2011. 39 Based on the number of battlefields with Potential National Register boundaries of 1,000 acres or more and with no land in the Study Area under protection.

http://www.nps.gov/cebe/


Figure 14. An attractive interpretive display at Parker’s Cross Road’s battlefield, Tennessee. Wayside panels

and tables are the most prevalent form of on-site interpretive media at Civil War battlefields. NPS photo.

Public Access and Interpretation In its questionnaire (see Appendix D), the ABPP asked battlefield stewards about the types of public access and interpretation available at the battlefields. The ABPP did not collect information about the purpose or intent of the interpretation and access, such as whether a wayside exhibit was developed for purely educational reasons, to promote heritage tourism, or to boost local economic development. Across the country, visitors can physically accesses portions of 298 Civil War battlefields, or 78% of the battlefields in this study. Not every opportunity to walk the historic landscape, view a surviving earthwork, or enter a historic house is the same. The robustness of a visitor’s experience depends on what entity owns the battlefield land being visited, and on the extent to which that entity provides interpretation and resource management geared toward public education and appreciation. Predictably, most of the accessible land is public land.40 Federal, state, and local government holdings on Civil War battlefields account for at least 215,000 acres open to the public. Nonprofit and private holdings offer another 23,000 acres for public enjoyment and education. Almost all of this land is owned in fee simple. It is important to note, however, that some of this land does not meet the ABPP’s definition of “protected,” nor does it necessarily fall within the ABPP’s Potential National Register boundaries. Land set aside for recreational use, for example, may not meet either definition, but may still allow visitor access to topographic and cultural features that were important to the combatants during the battle. These accessible places may also offer scenic views of other portions of the battlefield. Easement land is generally more restricted. The ABPP identified only a handful of easement properties that allowed direct public access to the land. There are several reasons for this. Most battlefield easement properties are privately owned, so public access to those properties is often limited to existing right-of-ways or to periodic opportunities for public visitation. Also, many easements are designed to protect fragile natural resources or working farmland, rather than historic resources associated with a battle. The terms of those easements often restrict public access to help protect the identified conservation values. Easements conveyed solely to protect historic and archeological battlefield resources may purposefully restrict public access in order to limit physical wear and tear on the resources. Appendix E, Table 6, lists the minimum acreage identified by the ABPP as publicly accessible at Civil War battlefields in each state.

40 The ABPP’s inventory of accessible land is not a complete canvass of each battlefield Study Area. The ABPP collected accessibility information from questionnaires it received, partner organizations, and the various spatial datasets used to identify protected land on the battlefields. The totals presented likely under-represent the amount of battlefield land physically accessible to the public.


0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

Number of Battlefields with

Each Type of Interpretion

Summary of Battlefield Interpretation Efforts as of 2010

The first step one must take to preserve a battlefield is to identify it. The next step is public outreach, which must articulate the story of the battle, express its importance in local and national history, and advance the human and natural benefits of preserving it. Battlefield advocates do this through interpretation and educational programs at most battlefields across the country. The ABPP asked respondents to indicate the type of interpretation available at or about the battlefield since 1993. The categories included brochures, driving tours, living history demonstrations, maintained historic features or areas, walking tours and trails, wayside exhibits, websites, and other specialized programs. The results indicate that 332 Civil War battlefields offer some degree of public interpretation, including 113 with staffed visitor center facilities. Not surprisingly, the most profuse type of interpretation at battlefields is the affordable wayside marker. Since 1993, 315 battlefields have been marked with at least one roadside sign or exhibit. Successful heritage tourism programs like the prolific Civil War Trails have made battlefield wayfinding much easier throughout the past 20 years. A literal battlefield trailblazer, the often-emulated Civil War Trails program has installed more than 1,000 interpretive markers at Civil War sites in Maryland, North Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia since 1993. The nonprofit organization works with local governments, tourism agencies, local battlefield groups, and professional historians to provide readily accessible information to interested tourists. Well marketed and distinctively branded signs, brochures, webpages, and mobile apps tie together a remarkable amount of accurate information about battlefields and related sites to visitors, even when physical access to the battlefield is limited to public right-of-ways.

Figure 15. Eighty-six percent of the Civil War battlefields in this study offer some degree of public interpretation.


More in-depth interpretation depends on land ownership and management. Walking tours, maintained historic features, visitor centers, and intra-site driving tours are usually only found at battlefields where sufficient land is protected and made accessible to the public, such as at national or state historic sites. A recent trend in Civil War battlefield interpretation and tourism is the mobile app. The Civil War Trust, the National Park Service, Civil War Trails, Inc., The History Channel, and others are now producing mobile apps about specific battles and general history content about the war. The Civil War Trust’s apps are designed especially for visitors to use on the battlefield, and provide considerably more information than traditional brochures or wayside markers could easily contain. As technologies and social media practices evolve, Civil War interpretation can be expected to evolve with them. Since the CWSAC issued its report in 1993, interpretation strategies have shifted toward more inclusive storytelling and tourism efforts. More and more, battlefield interpretation is packaged at the county or regional level, so that visitors learn about more than just one famous battle. This kind of contextual interpretation weaves together information about related historic sites, stories about the impact of war on local communities, and tourism opportunities beyond the primary battlefield destination. Congress has established the following national heritage areas that provide this type of interpretation.

• Shenandoah Valley Battlefields National Historic District (1996;14 CWSAC battlefields)

• Tennessee Civil War National Heritage Area (1996; 38 CWSAC battlefields)

• Freedom’s Frontier National Heritage Area (2006; 13 CWSAC battlefields)

• The Journey Through Hallowed Ground National Heritage Area (2008; 16 CWSAC battlefields)

Within each heritage area, the growth of new collaborative partnerships among federal, state, and local governments, civic organizations, nonprofit groups and private individuals, has the potential to significantly increase the amount of battlefield land protected and interpreted in Kansas, Maryland, Missouri, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, and Virginia.


Figure 16. In 2008, members of the Historical Preservation Group, Inc., a friends group for the Kinston and Wyse Fork battlefields, meet with North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office staff to discuss a proposed National Register nomination for Wyse Fork. NPS photo.

Advocacy Nonprofit organizations play important roles in protecting historic battlefields. These organizations step in to preserve historic sites when public funding and management for historic preservation are absent. When public funding is available, nonprofits serve as vital partners in public-private preservation efforts, acting as conduits for public funds, raising critical private matching funds, keeping history and preservation in the public eye, and working with landowners and elected officials to find ways to protect battlefield parcels. Present at all levels of battlefield preservation is the Civil War Trust. Originally chartered in 1991 as the private counterpart to the ABPP,41 the nonprofit Civil War Trust has matured into a national leader and powerful advocate for Civil War battlefields everywhere. The 55,000-member organization has secured or contributed to the protection of more than 12,400 acres at 53 battlefields, and its staff works daily with federal, state, and local government agencies to secure battlefield land for the public sector. It supports local groups as well, often providing matching funds for local protection projects and helping less experienced groups with real estate transactions. The Trust is the also the voice of Civil War battlefields on Capitol Hill and in the statehouses. It successfully lobbied Congress for the use of Land and Water Conservation Fund monies to purchase battlefield land and easements, and secured Congressional approval and funding for this study. The Trust has proven how vital an effective national nonprofit is to battlefield protection efforts in the United States. As predicted by the CWSAC in 1993, the Trust has given “battlefield preservation the necessary high national visibility to attract very significant amounts of private funding support” for protection efforts.42 Since 1993, various types of advocacy groups have emerged, including local friends groups, regional and state organizations, and heritage area management entities. The ABPP identified 113 nonprofit friends groups currently working to preserve, interpret, and promote 170 Civil War battlefields. Of these groups, 73 (65%) formed after the CWSAC issued its report in 1993. These groups “adopted” 123 battlefields in the past 18 years, a remarkable testament to local concern for nationally important historic places. Some of

these groups focus on a single battlefield, such as the Averasborough Battlefield Commission (1994), while others attend to several or multiple battlefields, such the Georgia Battlefields Preservation Association (1995). Organizational priorities vary as well. Some groups are committed fully to land and resource protection and interpretation, others to research, public education, and public advocacy. Many do all these things.

41 CWSAC, Report on the Nation’s Civil War Battlefields, 36. 42 Ibid.


Perhaps most importantly, these groups put a local face on the national issue of Civil War battlefield preservation. Often steeped in the details of battlefield histories and resources, these groups act as sentinels of battlefield landscapes. When threats arise, they are able to notify other public and nonprofit partners and mobilize the battlefield preservation community to address the threats. They serve, quite literally, as the battlefields’ first line of defense. More information about friends groups at specific battlefields can be found in state-by-state reports on the ABPP’s website. In addition to nonprofit advocates, tribal governments are critical partners in preservation and interpretation of certain battlefields. Fourteen battlefields west of the Mississippi River were scenes of fighting between Union and constituent tribal forces.43 In several cases, these fights turned to slaughters of warriors and noncombatants. The cultural ties the tribes have to the battlefields and massacre sites are powerful and complex. At Bear River (Northwest Band Shoshone Tribe), Sand Creek (Northern Cheyenne and Northern Arapaho tribes), and Whitestone Hill (Rosebud Sioux Tribe, Sisseton-Wahpeton Oyate, Standing Rock Sioux Tribe), tribal governments have ensured that preservation and interpretation decisions reflect the tribes’ perspective on the history and cultural significance of each battle or massacre. There are 11 other battlefields—Big Mound, Cabin Creek, Chustenahlah, Chusto-Talasah, Dead Buffalo Lake, Fort Ridgeley, Honey Springs, Killdeer Mountain, Middle Boggy Depot, Round Mountain, and Wood Lake—at which descendant tribes could make valuable contributions to preservation and interpretation efforts.

With the advent of the Sesquicentennial comes the hope that new and effective battlefield friends groups will emerge. Local groups are needed especially at “unclaimed” battlefields that have good physical integrity—for example, the Red River Campaign sites of Mansura, Monett’s Ferry, Pleasant Hill, and Yellow Bayou in Louisiana—and those that are especially vulnerable to insensitive development or mineral extraction—such as Carthage in Missouri, Killdeer Mountain in North Dakota, Fair Garden and Spring Hill in Tennessee, North Anna and Saint Mary’s Church in Virginia, and Moorefield and Summit Point in West Virginia.

Social media has the potential to revolutionize the way citizens and organizations communicate with the broader community. An informal review of internet resources indicates that the Civil War Trust, the National Park Service, many local battlefield friends groups, and other history-related organizations are using social media to interpret Civil War battles, notify their communities about the need and opportunities for battlefield protection, and engender greater public interest and support for battlefield preservation projects.44 The ABPP encourages all battlefield groups to explore the use of social media to build public constituencies for the preservation of the nation’s Civil War battlefields.

43 As individuals or in small groups, American Indians fought in numerous battles in the ranks of both Union and Confederate forces. At the 14 battles noted here, tribal forces acted as the sanctioned military arm of the tribe or band itself. 44 The ABPP did not gather data about the use of social media sites for interpretation, advocacy, and public outreach.


PPeeaa RRiiddggee bbaattttlleeffiieelldd,, BBeennttoonn CCoouunnttyy,, AArrkkaannssaass.. 44,,330000 aaccrreess pprrootteecctteedd,, 33,,776600 aaccrreess uunnpprrootteecctteedd.. NNPPSS pphhoottoo..


Updated Priorities The CWSAC chose to list the sites of 383 battles from among some 10,500 engagements that occurred during the Civil War. The CWSAC called these sites the “principal” battlefields of the war. These principal battlefields, which represent the top four percent of all sites of military engagement, are all important places that help tell the stories of the war, its costs, its outcome, and its legacy to the people of the United States. Each provide different opportunities for preservation, interpretation, and commemoration, and each has its own unique qualities and limitations. To help guide decisions about allocating limited public and private resources for battlefield preservation, the CWSAC developed a tiered list of preservation priority categories.45 For nearly 20 years, battlefield preservationists have looked to the preservation priority levels established by the CWSAC in its 1993 report. The CWSAC created that list “after evaluating alternative combinations of significance, condition, and threats” at the original 383 battlefields. “These levels reflect the Commission’s view of the most effective sequence of preservation to achieve maximum overall battlefield protection.”46 Two decades later, circumstances at many battlefields have changed, but the CWSAC’s “sequence” continues to be a useful archetype for battlefield preservation efforts nationwide. As part of this study, the ABPP updated the priority lists. Like the CWSAC, the ABPP used significance, current condition, and degree of threat to assign each battlefield to an appropriate priority level. Like the CWASC, the ABPP priorities place the greatest emphasis on preserving nationally significant battlefields and on protecting physically and visually cohesive battlefield landscapes, places where battle-period features and the overall character of that landscape can visually communicate “an authentic sense of the sweep and setting of the battle.”47 Battlefields found to be significantly altered or fragmented were given less weight because broad landscape preservation is no longer possible at these sites. The priorities do not discount, however, the value of protecting isolated resources—such as earthworks, historic buildings, key battle terrain, and significant archeological sites—that survive amid modern roads, housing developments, shopping centers, and industrial parks. When such features represent the last undamaged, authentic pieces of a battlefield, they should be viewed as worthy of protection and interpretation as singular historic resources. ABPP expanded the CWSAC’s priority system in an effort to better distinguish among battlefields the CWSAC termed “fragmented,” and those having “poor or lost integrity.” Since 1993, battlefield preservation groups have argued that certain battlefields on the CWSAC’s Priority IV list should, in fact, be raised up in the priority rankings due to their better-than-realized integrity and overall significance. Some communities have even invested substantial time and money to rehabilitate battlefield land built on after the Civil War, notably in Franklin, Tennessee, and Independence, Missouri. In 2009, Congress established the River Raisin Battlefield National Battlefield Park in Monroe, Michigan, a War of 1812 battlefield, despite the construction of a paper mill on the site circa 1911.48

45 Civil War Sites Advisory Commission, Report, 41. 46 Ibid. 47 Ibid., 22. 48 Public Law 111-11, Sec. 7003, River Raisin National Battlefield Park. Archeological evidence indicated that the terrain underlying the plant had been overfilled, but retained archeological integrity, so that if the plant and the fill dirt were removed, the battlefield could be substantially restored. River Raisin National Battlefield Park Study an d Boundary Assessment, US Department of the Interior, National Park Service, 2009, 4-5; G. Michael Pratt and William E Rutter, Archeological Assessment of Selected Areas of the River Raisin Battlefield, Monroe, Michigan (Maumee, OH: The Mannik & Smith Group), 2004.


Figure 17. The Five Civilized Tribes monument at Honey Springs Battlefield, Oklahoma. Honey Springs remains one of the most historically significant, physically intact, and threatened Civil War battlefields in the nation. Even in cases where the terrain has been altered by significant development, some archeological evidence of the battle may survive, and localities may seek ways to rehabilitate battlefield sites to commemorate the battle and provide opportunities for heritage tourism and interpretation. It is therefore difficult to say that any battlefield is “lost” forever. Given the trend to rehabilitate portions of historic battlefields, the ABPP developed a fifth priority level. It includes battlefields that are too damaged to be preserved as coherent historic landscapes, but which could be rehabilitated and interpreted in places if so desired by the local community. Changes at Priority I Sites The CWSAC listed 50 battlefields as top preservation priorities in 1993. The Priority I sites were, in the opinion of the CWSAC, “Battlefields with critical need for coordinated nationwide action by the Year 2000.” They were Class A and B battlefields that retained good or fair integrity as landscapes and that faced high or moderate threats in the early 1990s. Thirty-one of those battlefields are in the same situation today, and so remain in the Priority I category. Examples include Chickamauga, Gettysburg, Mill Springs, and the Wilderness, all of which are partially protected, have active preservation constituencies, and continue to face substantial development threats. The ABPP reassigned the other 19 Priority I sites from 1993 based on changed circumstances--either the battlefields are better protected and less vulnerable to destruction today, they are less threatened than they were in 1993, or they are now more developed and altered than in 1993.

• Ten of the CWSAC’s Priority I battlefields are less threatened today than they were in 1993. In some cases, this is due to a general lack of land development in the area of the battlefield. In other cases, the battlefields have benefitted from determined land conservation efforts over the past 20 years. These battlefields still need attention and preservation, but enough of their landscapes have been protected that the threats posed by development are diminished. Among these success stories are Antietam, Bentonville, Brice’s Cross Roads, and Honey Springs.

• The other nine Priority I sites from 1993 have not been as fortunate. Despite the CWSAC’s call to action, these battlefield landscapes have been altered and fragmented by recent development. At these sites, surviving physical features and modern visual character can no longer convey an authentic sense of the sweep and setting of the battle. Most contain some protected land, but very little else of the historic landscape is left to preserve. Any unprotected land and


features that do endure, especially in Core Areas, should be targeted for permanent protection. Among partially protected but substantially developed battlefields are Chattanooga III, Fort Davidson, Kennesaw Mountain, and Vicksburg.

Changes at Priority II Sites The CWSAC’s second tier of priority battlefields included 78 sites that offered “opportunities for comprehensive preservation” in 1993. All had good or fair integrity at that time. Twenty-four of the Priority II battlefields were of high significance (Class A or B) and faced limited threats; the other 54 battlefields in this category were of relatively lower significance (Class C or D) but faced high or moderate threats.49 The ABPP found that 8 Class A or B battlefields and 27 Class C or D battlefields remain similarly situated today, and so confirmed them as Priority II sites. After re-evaluating the Class A and B battlefields in the CWSAC’s Priority II list, the ABPP determined that 12 now face more serious threats than they did in 1993. These sites have been elevated to Priority I status. They include the critically threatened battlefields at Cedar Mountain, Cross Keys, Mansfield, and Prairie D’Ane. Two Class A or B sites have lost physical and visual integrity since 1993: Richmond (Kentucky) and Petersburg II. The ABPP has assigned them to Priority III because of their diminished integrity. At both Hampton Roads and Sabine Pass II, water makes up a majority of the Study Area. Preservation opportunities on land at these two battlefields are limited: only previously protected features and isolated landscape remnants survive. The ABPP assigned these two battlefields to Priority V. Of the Class C and D battlefields in the CWSAC’s Priority II list, the ABPP found that nine face minimal threats today. These include Devil’s Backbone, Newtonia I, and Parker’s Cross Roads. They remain good candidates for comprehensive landscape preservation because they are relatively unthreatened. These are stable landscapes that the preservation community can address over time. Two other sites, Saltville I and Marks’ Mills, were elevated to Priority I because both have been determined nationally significant since 1993. White Oak Swamp, which the ABPP combined with Glendale as a single battlefield (VA020), was elevated with Glendale to the Priority I category as well. Fourteen Class C and D battlefields have suffered significant alteration and fragmentation from development and industrial activities since 1993. Only small, isolated areas of battlefields such as Brentwood, Kolb’s Farm, Lone Jack, and Murfreesboro II survive to be protected, interpreted, and promoted. Two battlefields from this grouping have been completely overwhelmed by development since 1993. Lexington I, which is partially protected by the Missouri State Parks, and New Hope Church, which has been devastated by sprawling development in recent decades, offer no further possibility of broad landscape preservation. They may, however, be candidates for limited rehabilitation and interpretation. Changes at Priority III Sites The CWSAC’s third tier included battlefields “needing some additional protection.” The 108 battlefields in the Priority III list all had good or fair integrity and low threats in 1993. The CWSAC noted that more than 20% of the Core Areas of the 23 Class A and B battlefields in this category were already protected. Although development was not a major concern, the CWSAC appropriately recommended protection of additional land to

4949 CWSAC Report, 41, 49-50.


fully preserve these historic landscapes. The 85 Class C and D sites did not generally enjoy that same level of protection, but were located in rural or semi-rural areas where development pressures had not yet come to bear in the early 1990s. The CWSAC recommended that state and local preservation groups concentrate their efforts on these battlefields.50 The ABPP elevated 12 of these battlefields to Priority I. These sites are nationally significant (either Class A or B sites or determined nationally significant since 1993), have good or fair integrity, and are experiencing steady development pressures. The new Priority I sites include Averasborough, Poison Spring, Thoroughfare Gap, and Wilson’s Creek. The ABPP elevated 45 of the CWSAC’s Priority III sites to the Priority II category. Among these are 12 Class A or B or nationally significant battlefields that continue to survive with excellent integrity because they face few threats. The amount of land protected at each site varies; some, like Shiloh and Cheat Mountain, are well protected, with more than 50% of their Core Areas protected by federal or state park systems. Some additional land protection is needed to “complete” the preservation of the surviving battlefield. Others, such as Big Black River Bridge and Champion Hill, are relatively unprotected. If these sites are to retain their cohesion and historic character, aggressive and sustained protection efforts must target land in the Core Areas and endangered land and features outside the Core Area but within the Potential National Register boundaries. The ABPP also moved 33 Class C and D sites to the Priority II category. Most were elevated because development is now occurring on the battlefields. The Liberty battlefield in Missouri is the most severely threatened of these sites. At Liberty, construction of new housing developments and ongoing industrial activities along the Missouri River have destroyed most of the historic landscape. Improbably, the battlefield’s Core Area has been spared. Liberty and the other now endangered battlefields—such as Cabin Creek, Corydon, Day’s Gap, and Hanover Courthouse—need as much attention as they can get from the preservation community before large portions of those landscapes are lost forever. The ABPP determined that three highly significant battlefields in Virginia—Ball’s Bluff (partially in Maryland), First Manassas, and Williamsburg—should remain Priority III sites. While significant portions of these battlefields are already protected, development of the unprotected land has altered or broken up the historic landscape, leaving only isolated pockets of undisturbed land available for future protection. Thirty-four Class C and D sites also remain in Priority III. These battlefields have good integrity and are experiencing little or no development pressure. Notable among this group are Buck Head Creek, Camp Allegheny, McDowell, Mine Creek, and Wood Lake. Fourteen of the original Priority III sites have lost integrity by degrees since 1993. The ABPP assigned five of those to Priority IV because there is still the possibility that significant battlefield features can be preserved, although those features are surrounded, or will soon be overtaken, by development. Nine more battlefields, each composed primarily of water, already include some previously protected features, but most of the land in the Study Area has been developed or otherwise altered. These sites offer only a chance to rehabilitate altered features and will require that interpretation or to interpret the battle through means and media other than preservation of the landscape. 50 Ibid., 41, 50-51. Big Black River Bridge (MS010), Old Church (VA059), and Williamsport (MD004) were accidently omitted in the Priority III list on page 51.


Changes at Priority IV Sites The CWSAC assigned 136 battlefields to its lowest priority level, Priority IV. These were battlefields of all levels of significance deem fragmented or lost by CWSAC in the early 1990s. The CWSAC explained its position.

Some very important sites are represented in the poor and lost integrity groups. However, it is the Commission’s conclusion that, on the whole, the intensity of present-day conflicts and monetary costs associated with protecting the remains of these sites as a major national priority generally do not justify the expected results. The trade-off probably would be a diminished national capability to focus on the good and fair integrity sites also under severe threats. Therefore, these sites are given the lowest priority. Poor and lost integrity battlefields should be reviewed carefully and seriously by Federal, [sic.] state, and local officials to see if there are sufficiently important parcels or structures remaining that can be incorporated in local preservation programs and heritage tourism planning.51

The ABPP concurs with this philosophy, but found that the CWSAC may have been hasty in its judgment about the conditions of 39 battlefields it assigned to this category. After updating battlefield boundaries and conducting inspections of land within those boundaries, the ABPP identified five nationally significant sites as having good or fair integrity and moderate to high threats. By definition, therefore, those five—Forts Jackson and Saint Philip, Globe Tavern, Iuka, New Market, and Rappahannock Station II—now constitute Priority I sites requiring immediate and ongoing national attention. The National Historic Landmarks of Fort Jackson and Fort Saint Philip are both in serious disrepair, but both retain tremendous integrity and interpretive value and need to be preserved and restored. The CWSAC never produced a map of the Iuka battlefield, so the ABPP established a battlefield boundary based on the historic record for this study. In evaluating the newly delineated battlefield, the ABPP found that while much of the landscape retains its essential historic features, construction in the late-20th century of three transportation features—U.S. Route 72, the State Route 25 bypass, and the 72/25 interchange--have destroyed significant portions of the primary Core Area. Preservation efforts must be swift at Iuka. Further development will fragment Iuka so severely that it will be unidentifiable as a battlefield landscape. The three Virginia battlefields in question continue to be steadily developed. The primary threat to the New Market battlefield is the proposed widening of Interstate 81. Globe Tavern faces ongoing expansion of industrial complexes and new housing developments. Rappahannock Station II, the most intact landscape of this set, has and continues to see new housing development within the primary Core Area.52 Another 34 Priority IV battlefields have been altered somewhat but retain most of their essential cultural landscape features and character. Eighteen are Class A and B battlefields threatened by accelerating or rapid land use changes within their Study Areas. These sites were reassigned to Priority III based on the need to act quickly to save the remaining land and features at these nationally significant sites. This set includes Bayou Fourche, Fredericksburg I, Opequon, Stones River, and Tupelo.

51 Ibid., 41. 52 Fauquier County is mitigating growth on the battlefield by negotiating with developers to set aside as much battlefield land as can be agreed upon, but growth continues nonetheless. Like 302 other battlefields in this study, the Study Area of the Rappahannock Station II battlefield falls within two counties, so that land use planning decisions and political interest are not consistent within the battlefield.


Each of the 16 Class C and D battlefields found to retain relatively good integrity was reassigned to the Priority II or Priority III category based on its significance and degree of vulnerability to current or proposed development projects. The two most threatened of battlefields are Chusto-Talasah in Oklahoma and Moorefield in West Virginia. Chusto-Talasah faces expanding sand quarrying operations in the Core Area and increasing housing development pressures due to its proximity to Tulsa. The Moorefield battlefield was damaged seriously when US Route 48 and new interchange were constructed though the Core Area. Commercial development is now taking place around the new interchange, and plans for a regional wastewater treatment plant at the northern end of the Core Area continue to concern battlefield advocates. Conditions at 35 of the CWSAC’s Priority IV sites are relatively unchanged; the ABPP recommends that those sites remain Priority IV sites. These battlefields are badly fragmented, but do retain some surviving land and features. Though isolated from one another, these features can be preserved and interpreted in ways that promote the history of the site through heritage tourism and other local preservation efforts. The most significant among these battlefields are Appomattox Station, Fort Henry, Helena, and New Madrid/Island Number 10. The ABPP was able to confirm that 62 battlefields on the CWSAC’s Priority IV list have been overwhelmed by development. Archeological evidence of the battle may survive in places, and local advocates may be able to rehabilitate key pieces of these battlefields, but preservation of undisturbed landscape is impossible at these sites. These sites have been moved into a new category, Priority V. Priority V Sites The 80 battlefields in this category are of two types. The first type includes 33 where previously protected land is all that remains of the historic landscape. Often, the protected portion is surrounded by development, water, or both. In these cases, no additional land protection efforts will significantly improve the character or historic sense of place the battlefield had before it was developed. The second type includes 47 sites where no land is known to be protected and where opportunities for landscape preservation have passed. These battlefields have been overwhelmed by post-war development. They do, however, have the potential for commemoration and active interpretation. If feasible and appropriate, local decision-makers may also choose to rehabilitate developed or disturbed land or features in order to provide a more visually pleasing visitor experience on these now modern landscapes.

Figure 18. The Fort Stevens battlefield in Washington, DC, is partially protected by the National Park Service’s

Fort Circle Parks and Rock Creek Park. Beyond the boundary of the parks, however, urban development has destroyed and filled in the open landscape that existed at

the time of the Civil War. NPS photo.


Despite the loss of their historic landscapes, Priority V sites may retain archeological evidence of the battles. The Tennessee Division of Archaeology’s recent discovery of a portion of Union earthworks beneath the surface of an early-20th century neighborhood in Franklin bears this out.53 The potential for archeological discovery within any battlefield’s boundaries should be assessed at the start of federal compliance projects and landscape rehabilitation projects. Unclassified Battlefields The CWSAC did not assign priority rankings to 11 battlefields in its 1993 report because of a lack of data. When the ABPP reviewed these sites, it found four with good integrity and under varying degrees of development pressure. The most significant, Pleasant Hill, was classified as a Priority I battlefield. Buffington Island and Monett’s Ferry were added to the Priority II list, and Salineville to the Priority III list. The ABPP found that four other unranked sites were significantly altered. They fall under the definitions for Priority IV or V sites. One other battlefield, Memphis I, retains a portion of its historic landscape, which is made up primarily of waters of the Mississippi River. Because no further land protection is needed, Memphis I now ranks among the Priority V sites. Two battlefields remain unclassified. During this study, the ABPP was able to survey and map, or re-map, all but two battlefields, Round Mountain and Middle Boggy Depot, both in Oklahoma. The ABPP was unable to determine the locations of these sites due to contradictory interpretations among historians about the locations of the battlefields, and due to a lack of archeological information about any of the potential battle locales. Speculation about Round Mountain puts it either 15 miles west or 20 miles northeast of Tulsa. Middle Boggy Depot is generally understood to lie somewhere north and northwest of the town of Atoka. Both battles represent the story of divided loyalties among American Indian tribes during the Civil War. At Round Mountain, a Confederate force that included Choctaw, Chickasaw, Creek, and Seminole units, attacked Unionist Creeks and Seminoles under Chief Opothleyahola (Creek) in an effort to drive them from Indian Territory in late 1861. Many members of these tribes remained loyal to the Confederacy throughout the war. The engagement at Middle Boggy Depot represents one of the largest battles against Confederate Indian forces during Col. John F. Phillips’s Indian Territory expedition in 1864. In-depth historical research, tribal consultation, and archeological surveys of the potential locations of these battlefields are needed to accurately identify, document, evaluate, and preserve these two Civil War landscapes. The knowledge gap surrounding the physical character of these two sites makes both vulnerable to development. Without accurate baseline information about the battlefields and their component resources, local land use decision-makers will be unaware of possible impacts to the battlefields. The following table indicates the updated preservation priorities for each battlefield. Battlefields in each priority category are listed alphabetically.

53 Samuel D. Smith, Benjamin C. Nance, Emanuel Breitburg, Fred M. Prouty, and Robert Daniel Royse, Archaeological Investigations at the Carter House State Historic Site, Franklin, Tennessee, Report of Investigations No.14, Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation, Division of Archaeology, 2010.

http://www.google.com/search?tbo=p&tbm=bks&q=inauthor:%22Emanuel+Breitburg%22

http://www.google.com/search?tbo=p&tbm=bks&q=inauthor:%22Fred+M.+Prouty%22

http://www.google.com/search?tbo=p&tbm=bks&q=inauthor:%22Robert+Daniel+Royse%22


Updated Preservation Priorities for Civil War Battlefields

Class Key: Letters indicate original CWSAC significance rating. A = Decisive influence on a campaign and direct impact on the course of the War. B = Direct and decisive influence on a campaign. C = Observable influence on the outcome of a campaign. D = Limited influence on outcome of a campaign/operation but achieving or affecting important local objectives. (+) indicates that the battlefield has been listed in the National Register of Historic Places at the national level of significance or designated a National Historic Landmark. Condition Key: 1 = Landscape is little changed. 2 = Landscape is somewhat altered, but most essential features remain. 3 = Landscape is significantly altered/fragmented, few historic features remain. 4 = Landscape bears little or no resemblance to its Civil War appearance and character. Land Use Change/Threat Key: 1 = Rapid and widespread changes. 2 = Steady and accelerating changes. 3 = Slow and accumulative changes. 4 = Only isolated features and protected parcels survive. Priority Key: 1 = Immediate, Variable-scale Protection Opportunities, Critical Need for Coordinated Nationwide Action. 2 = Short-Range, Landscape-scale Protection Opportunities. 3 = Long-Range, Landscape-scale Protection Opportunities. 4 = Limited, Variable-scale Preservation Opportunities. 5 = Negligible, Parcel-scale Protection Opportunities. N/D = No Data, Protection Opportunities Unknown.

Battlefield Name

Battlefield

ID

Class

CWSAC

1993 Priority

2011

Condition

2011 Land

Use Change/ Threat

New

Priority I

Averasborough NC019 C (+) 3 1 2 1

Boydton Plank Road

VA079 B 1 2 1 1

Brandy Station VA035 B 1 2 1 1

Bristoe Station VA040 B 1 2 1 1

Carnifex Ferry WV006 B 3 2 2 1

Cedar Creek VA122 A (+) 1 2 1 1

Cedar Mountain VA022 B 2 2 2 1

Chaffin's Farm/New Market Heights

VA075 B (+) 1 2 2 1

Chancellorsville VA032 A (+) 1 2 1 1

Chickamauga GA004 A (+) 1 2 1 1

Chickasaw Bayou MS003 B 1 2 2 1

Chustenahlah OK003 B 2 2 2 1

Cold Harbor VA062 A (+) 1 2 2 1

Cross Keys VA105 B 2 1 2 1

Deep Bottom II VA071 B 1 1 2 1

Fisher's Hill VA120 B 1 2 2 1

Fort Blakeley AL006 A 3 2 2 1

Fort DeRussy LA017 B 2 2 2 1

Fort McAllister II GA028 B 3 2 2 1

Fort Pulaski GA001 B (+) 3 2 2 1

Forts Jackson and St. Philip

LA001 A (+) 4 2 2 1


Gaines' Mill VA017 A (+) 1 2 2 1

Gettysburg PA002 A (+) 1 2 1 1

Globe Tavern VA072 B (+) 4 2 1 1

Glorieta Pass NM002 A (+) 1 2 2 1

Harpers Ferry WV010 B (+) 1 2 2 1

Hartsville TN008 C (+) 3 2 2 1

Iuka MS001 C (+) 4 2 2 1

Kernstown I VA101 B 1 2 1 1

Malvern Hill VA021 A (+) 1 1 2 1

Manassas II VA026 A (+) 1 2 1 1

Mansfield LA018 A 2 2 1 1

Marks' Mills AR015 D (+) 2 2 2 1

Mill Springs KY006 B (+) 1 2 2 1

Mobile Bay AL003 A (+) 1 2 1 1

Monocacy MD007 B (+) 1 2 1 1

Munfordville KY008 B 2 2 2 1

Natural Bridge FL006 C (+) 3 1 2 1

New Market VA110 B 4 2 2 1

North Anna VA055 B 1 2 2 1

Palmeto Ranch TX005 D (+) 3 1 2 1

Peebles' Farm VA074 B 2 2 2 1

Pickett's Mill GA012 C (+) 3 2 2 1

Pleasant Hill LA019 B N/D 1 2 1

Poison Spring AR014 C (+) 3 2 2 1

Port Gibson MS006 B (+) 1 2 2 1

Port Hudson LA010 A (+) 1 2 2 1

Port Republic VA106 B 2 1 2 1

Prairie D'Ane AR013 B (+) 2 2 2 1

Rappahannock Station II

VA043 B 4 2 2 1

Raymond MS007 B 1 2 2 1

Ream's Station II VA073 B 2 1 2 1

Roanoke Island NC002 B 2 2 2 1

Saltville I VA076 C (+) 2 2 2 1

Siege of Corinth MS016 B (+) 1 2 2 1

Spotsylvania Court House

VA048 A (+) 1 2 2 1

Spring Hill TN035 B 1 2 1 1

Thoroughfare Gap VA025 C (+) 3 2 2 1

White Oak Road VA087 B 1 2 1 1

White Oak Swamp/Glendale

VA020 B (+) 2 1 2 1

Wilderness VA046 A (+) 1 2 2 1

Wilson's Creek MO004 A (+) 3 2 2 1


Battlefield Name

Battlefield

ID

Class

CWSAC

1993 Priority

2011

Condition

2011 Land

Use Change/ Threat

New

Priority II

Adairsville GA009 C 3 2 2 2

Aldie VA036 C 3 1 2 2

Allatoona GA023 B 1 2 3 2

Antietam MD003 A (+) 1 1 3 2

Appomattox Court House

VA097 A (+) 3 1 3 2

Auburn I VA039 D 3 1 2 2

Auburn II VA041 D 3 1 2 2

Bear River Massacre ID001 C (+) 3 1 3 2

Bentonville NC020 A (+) 1 1 3 2

Berryville VA118 C 2 2 2 2

Big Black River Bridge

MS010 B 3 2 3 2

Blue Springs TN020 D 4 2 2 2

Boonsboro MD006 D 2 2 2 2

Boonville MO001 C 3 2 2 2

Brice's Cross Roads MS014 B (+) 1 1 3 2

Buckland Mills VA042 D 2 2 1 2

Buffington Island OH001 C N/D 1 2 2

Cabin Creek OK006 C 3 1 2 2

Carthage MO002 C 2 2 1 2

Champion Hill MS009 A (+) 3 1 3 2

Cheat Mountain WV005 B (+) 3 1 3 2

Chusto-Talasah OK002 D 4 2 1 2

Cockpit Point VA100 C 3 2 2 2

Cool Spring VA114 C (+) 2 2 3 2

Corydon IN001 C 3 2 2 2

Cove Mountain VA109 D 3 1 2 2

Crater VA070 A (+) 3 2 3 2

Cumberland Church VA094 C 2 2 1 2

Davis' Cross Roads GA003 C 2 1 2 2

Day's Gap AL001 C 3 2 2 2

Deep Bottom I VA069 C 2 1 2 2

Dinwiddie Court House

VA086 C 2 2 2 2

Drewry's Bluff VA012 B (+) 3 1 3 2

Droop Mountain WV012 C 3 2 2 2

Fair Garden TN029 C 2 2 1 2

Five Forks VA088 A (+) 3 1 3 2

Fort Bisland LA006 D 4 2 2 2

Fort Pillow TN030 B (+) 3 1 3 2

Fort Ridgely MN001 C 3 2 2 2


Fort Stedman VA084 A (+) 3 2 3 2

Fredericktown MO007 D 2 2 2 2

Georgia Landing LA005 C 4 2 2 2

Grand Gulf MS004 C (+) 2 2 3 2

Greenbrier River WV007 D 3 2 2 2

Grimball's Landing SC006 D 2 2 1 2

Griswoldville GA025 B 2 1 3 2

Hanover Courthouse

VA013 C 3 2 2 2

Hatcher's Run VA083 B 2 2 3 2

Hatchie's Bridge TN007 C (+) 3 1 3 2

Honey Hill SC010 C 2 2 2 2

Haw's Shop VA058 C 2 1 2 2

Honey Springs OK007 B 1 1 3 2

Hoover's Gap TN017 C 3 2 2 2

Irish Bend LA007 C 2 1 2 2

Jackson TN009 D 3 2 2 2

Jenkin's Ferry AR016 C (+) 3 2 2 2

Kessler's Cross Lanes

WV004 D 3 2 2 2

Killdeer Mountain ND005 C 3 1 1 2

Kock's Plantation LA015 C 4 2 2 2

Liberty MO003 D 3 2 1 2

Manassas Gap VA108 D 3 2 2 2

Mansura LA022 C 2 2 1 2

Middle Creek KY005 C (+) 3 2 3 2

Middleburg VA037 C 3 1 2 2

Mine Run VA044 B 1 2 3 2

Monett's Ferry LA021 D N/D 2 2 2

Moorefield WV013 C 4 2 1 2

Mossy Creek TN027 D 4 2 2 2

Newtonia II MO029 B 1 2 3 2

Okolona MS013 B 2 2 3 2

Olustee FL005 B (+) 3 1 3 2

Pea Ridge AR001 A (+) 3 2 3 2

Perryville KY009 A (+) 1 1 3 2

Piedmont VA111 B 2 1 3 2

Plains Store LA009 C 3 2 2 2

Rappahannock Station I

VA023 D 2 2 2 2

Ream's Station I VA068 C 3 1 2 2

Resaca GA008 C 2 2 2 2

Rich Mountain WV003 B (+) 1 1 3 2

Rocky Face Ridge GA007 C 2 2 2 2

Rowlett’s Station KY004 D 3 2 2 2

Sailor's Creek VA093 B (+) 2 1 3 2


Saint Mary's Church VA066 B 3 1 3 2

Saltville II VA082 C (+) 2 2 2 2

Sand Creek Massacre

CO001 B (+) 2 1 3 2

Shepherdstown WV016 C 3 2 2 2

Shiloh TN003 A (+) 3 1 3 2

Smithfield Crossing WV015 D 2 2 2 2

Snyder's Bluff MS005 D 2 2 2 2

South Mountain MD002 B 1 1 3 2

Suffolk I VA030 C 4 2 2 2

Summit Point WV014 D 2 2 1 2

Sutherland's Station VA090 C 2 2 2 2

Thompson's Station TN013 C 2 2 1 2

Tom's Brook VA121 C 2 2 2 2

Tranter's Creek NC006 D 3 2 2 2

Trevilian Station VA099 B 2 1 3 2

Upperville VA038 C 3 1 2 2

Valverde NM001 B 2 2 3 2

Vaught's Hill TN014 D 3 1 2 2

Wyse Fork NC017 D 2 1 2 2

Yorktown VA009 B 4 2 3 2

Figure 19. Indiana’s only Civil War battlefield, Corydon, has good historic integrity but little protection. Harrison County’s Corydon Battlefield Park preserves and interprets five acres, but conversion of farmland for residential and commercial development is occurring on all sides of the park. This John Hunt Morgan Heritage Trail marker provides wayside information about the initial battle action at the Ohio River. NPS photo.


Battlefield Name

Battlefield

ID

Class

CWSAC

1993 Priority

2011

Condition

2011 Land

Use Change/ Threat

New

Priority III

Amelia Springs VA091 C 3 1 3 3

Aquia Creek VA002 D 2 2 3 3

Ball's Bluff VA006 B (+) 3 3 2 3

Bayou Fourche AR010 B 4 3 2 3

Bayou Meto AR018 B (+) N/A 3 2 3

Beaver Dam Creek VA016 B (+) 4 3 2 3

Belmont MO009 C 4 2 3 3

Big Mound ND001 C 3 1 3 3

Buck Head Creek GA026 C 3 1 3 3

Bull's Gap TN033 D 4 2 3 3

Camp Allegheny WV008 C (+) 3 1 3 3

Camp Wildcat KY002 C 3 1 3 3

Cane Hill AR004 C 3 1 3 3

Chalk Bluff AR007 D 2 1 3 3

Chattanooga III TN024 B (+) 1 3 1 3

Clark's Mill MO017 D 4 1 3 3

Cloyd's Mountain VA049 C 3 2 3 3

Corinth MS002 A (+) 4 3 2 3

Dead Buffalo Lake ND002 D 3 1 3 3

Devil's Backbone AR009 C 2 2 3 3

Dry Wood Creek MO005 D 3 1 3 3

Elkin's Ferry AR012 C (+) 2 1 3 3

Eltham's Landing/ Brickhouse Point

VA011 D 3 1 3 3

Fort Davidson MO021 B 1 3 2 3

Fort Donelson TN002 A (+) 1 3 2 3

Fredericksburg I VA028 A (+) 4 3 2 3

Goodrich's Landing LA014 D 4 2 3 3

Hancock MD001 D 3 2 3 3

High Bridge VA095 C 3 1 3 3

Hill's Plantation AR003 D 3 1 3 3

Jerusalem Plank Road

VA065 B 4 3 2 3

Kelly's Ford VA029 C 3 2 3 3

Kennesaw Mountain

GA015 B (+) 1 3 1 3

Kernstown II VA116 B 4 3 2 3

Lewis's Farm VA085 C 2 2 3 3

Manassas I VA005 A (+) 3 3 1 3

Manassas Station Operations

VA024 B 4 3 1 3

Marais des Cygnes KS004 C 3 1 3 3

Marietta GA013 B 4 3 1 3


Marmiton River MO028 D 3 1 3 3

McDowell VA102 C 3 1 3 3

Mine Creek KS003 C 3 1 3 3

Monroe's Cross Roads

NC018 D 2 2 3 3

Morton's Ford VA045 D 3 1 3 3

Namozine Church VA124 D 3 1 3 3

New Berne NC003 B 4 3 2 3

Newtonia I MO016 C 2 2 3 3

Old Church VA059 D 3 1 3 3

Old Fort Wayne OK004 D 3 2 3 3

Old River Lake AR017 D 3 2 3 3

Opequon VA119 A 4 3 2 3

Parker's Cross Roads TN011 C 2 2 3 3

Petersburg II VA063 A (+) 2 3 1 3

Petersburg III VA089 A (+) 1 3 1 3

Philippi WV001 D 4 2 3 3

Prairie Grove AR005 B (+) 1 3 2 3

Richmond KY007 B (+) 2 3 2 3

Ringgold Gap GA005 B 1 3 2 3

Rivers Bridge SC011 D 3 1 3 3

Roan's Tan Yard MO011 D 3 1 3 3

Saint Charles AR002 C 3 2 3 3

Salineville OH002 D N/D 2 3 3

Sappony Church VA067 D 3 2 3 3

South Mills NC005 D 3 1 3 3

Staunton River Bridge

VA113 C 3 1 3 3

Stirling's Plantation LA016 D 3 1 3 3

Stones River TN010 A (+) 4 3 1 3

Stony Lake ND003 D 3 1 3 3

Swift Creek VA050 B 2 3 2 3

Totopotomy Creek/ Bethesda Church

VA057 B (+) 4 3 2 3

Tupelo MS015 B (+) 4 3 1 3

Vicksburg MS011 A (+) 1 3 1 3

Walkerton VA125 C 3 1 3 3

Ware Bottom Church

VA054 B 2 3 2 3

Wauhatchie TN021 B 4 3 1 3

White Hall NC008 D 4 2 3 3

Whitestone Hill ND004 D 3 1 3 3

Williamsburg VA010 B 3 3 2 3

Wilson's Wharf VA056 C 4 1 3 3

Winchester II VA107 B 4 3 2 3

Wood Lake MN002 C 3 1 3 3

Yellow Bayou LA023 D 4 2 3 3


Battlefield Name

Battlefield

ID

Class

CWSAC

1993 Priority

2011

Condition

2011 Land

Use Change/ Threat

New

Priority IV

Appomattox Station

VA096 B 4 3 3 4

Arkansas Post AR006 C (+) 4 3 3 4

Athens AL002 D 4 3 2 4

Blackburn's Ford VA004 C 4 3 2 4

Blair's Landing LA020 C N/D 3 2 4

Blountsville TN019 D 4 3 1 4

Brentwood TN015 D 2 3 1 4

Columbia TN034 C 4 3 1 4

Cynthiana KY011 C 2 3 2 4

Dallas GA011 C 4 3 2 4

Dalton I GA006 C 2 3 2 4

Dandridge TN028 C 4 3 2 4

Darbytown and New Market

VA077 C 4 3 2 4

Darbytown Road VA078 D 4 3 2 4

Dover TN012 D 4 3 3 4

Fair Oaks & Darbytown Road

VA080 C 3 3 2 4

Folck's Mill MD008 D 4 3 2 4

Fort Anderson NC010 D 3 3 2 4

Fort Henry TN001 B 4 3 3 4

Fort Wagner I SC005 D (+) 4 3 1 4

Fredericksburg II VA034 C (+) 4 3 2 4

Garnett's & Golding's Farm

VA018 D 4 3 2 4

Glasgow MO022 C 4 3 1 4

Goldsborough Bridge

NC009 C 4 3 2 4

Guard Hill VA117 C 4 3 3 4

Hartville MO019 D 4 3 3 4

Helena AR008 B 4 3 3 4

Hoke's Run WV002 D 2 3 2 4

Johnsonville TN032 B 4 3 3 4

Kinston NC007 D 4 3 2 4

Kirksville MO013 D 4 3 3 4

Kolb's Farm GA014 C (+) 2 3 1 4

LaFourche Crossing LA012 D 2 3 2 4

Lexington II MO023 D 4 3 1 4

Little Blue River MO024 D 4 3 1 4

Lone Jack MO015 D 2 3 1 4

Lovejoy's Station GA021 D 2 3 1 4


Figure 20. An aerial view of the Lone Jack battlefield’s northern Core Area. The eastern portion is developed. The historically important West Field (upper left) remains in agricultural use, but is zoned for commercial development. West Field and other open spaces within the Study Area are immediate preservation needs amid this fracturing battlefield landscape. GoogleTMearth screenshot (imagery date June 5, 2011, ©2012 GeoEye, ©2012 DigitalGlobe).

Marion VA081 D 4 3 1 4

Milliken's Bend LA011 C 4 3 3 4

Mount Zion Church MO010 D 3 3 3 4

Murfreesboro II TN037 C 2 3 1 4

New Madrid-Island No. 10

MO012 A 4 3 3 4

Plymouth NC012 C 4 3 3 4

Port Walthall Junction

VA047 C 2 3 1 4

Proctor's Creek VA053 C 4 3 3 4

Rice's Station VA092 D 2 3 2 4

Rutherford's Farm VA115 D 4 3 1 4

Savage's Station VA019 D 4 3 2 4

Seven Pines VA014 C 4 3 2 4

Simmons Bluff SC003 D 3 3 2 4

Suffolk II VA031 C 2 3 2 4

Washington NC011 D 4 3 3 4

Waynesborough GA027 C 4 3 3 4

Williamsport MD004 D 3 3 2 4

Wilmington NC016 D 4 3 2 4


Battlefield Name

Battlefield

ID

Class

CWSAC

1993 Priority

2011

Condition

2011 Land

Use Change/ Threat

New

Priority V

Albemarle Sound NC013 C 3 1 4 5

Atlanta GA017 B 4 4 4 5

Barbourville KY001 D 4 4 4 5

Baton Rouge LA003 B 4 4 4 5

Baxter Springs KS002 C 4 4 4 5

Bean's Station TN026 D 4 4 4 5

Big Bethel VA003 C 4 4 4 5

Byram's Ford MO026 B 4 3 4 5

Campbell's Station TN023 D 4 4 4 5

Cape Girardeau MO020 D 4 4 4 5 Chantilly VA027 B 4 4 4 5

Charleston Harbor I SC004 C 3 2 4 5

Charleston Harbor II SC009 B (+) 3 2 4 5

Chattanooga I TN005 D 4 3 4 5

Chattanooga II TN018 D 4 4 4 5

Chester Station VA051 D 4 3 4 5

Collierville TN022 D 4 4 4 5

Dalton II GA020 D N/D 4 4 5

Decatur AL004 C 4 4 4 5

Donaldsonville I LA004 D 4 3 4 5

Donaldsonville II LA013 D 4 4 4 5

Dranesville VA007 C N/D 4 4 5

Ezra Church GA018 B 4 4 4 5

Fort Brooke FL004 D 4 4 4 5

Fort Fisher I NC014 C (+) 4 3 4 5

Fort Fisher II NC015 A (+) 4 3 4 5

Fort Macon NC004 C 3 2 4 5

Fort McAllister I GA002 C (+) 3 2 4 5

Fort Sanders TN025 B 4 4 4 5

Fort Stevens DC001 B (+) 4 3 4 5

Fort Sumter I SC001 A (+) 3 2 4 5

Fort Sumter II SC008 B (+) 3 2 4 5

Fort Wagner/Morris Island

SC007 B (+) 4 3 4 5

Franklin I TN016 D 4 3 4 5

Franklin II TN036 A (+) 4 3 4 5

Front Royal VA103 C 4 3 4 5

Galveston I TX002 D 4 4 4 5

Galveston II TX003 B 4 4 4 5

Hampton Roads VA008 B 2 2 4 5

Hanover PA001 C N/D 4 4 5


Hatteras Inlet Batteries

NC001 C 4 1 4 5

Independence I MO014 D 4 4 4 5

Independence II MO025 C 4 4 4 5

Ivy Mountain KY003 D 4 3 4 5

Jackson MS008 B 4 4 4 5

Jonesborough GA022 A 4 3 4 5

Lawrence KS001 C 4 4 4 5

Lexington I MO006 C 2 3 4 5

Lynchburg VA064 B 4 4 4 5

Memphis I TN004 B 4 2 4 5

Memphis II TN031 C N/D 4 4 5

Meridian MS012 C 4 4 4 5

Murfreesboro I TN006 C 4 4 4 5

Nashville TN038 A 4 4 4 5

New Hope Church GA010 C 2 4 4 5

New Orleans LA002 B 4 3 4 5

Oak Grove VA015 B 4 4 4 5

Paducah KY010 C 4 4 4 5

Peachtree Creek GA016 B 4 4 4 5

Petersburg I VA098 D (+) 4 4 4 5

Pine Bluff AR011 D 4 4 4 5

Princeton Courthouse

WV009 C 4 4 4 5

Sabine Pass TX001 C 3 3 4 5

Sabine Pass II TX006 B 2 3 4 5

Saint John's Bluff FL003 D (+) 4 3 4 5

Salem Church VA033 B (+) 4 4 4 5

Santa Rosa Island FL001 C (+) 3 2 4 5

Secessionville SC002 B (+) 1 3 4 5

Selma AL007 B 4 3 4 5

Sewell's Point VA001 D 4 2 4 5

Spanish Fort AL005 B 4 4 4 5

Springfield I MO008 D 4 4 4 5

Springfield II MO018 D 4 4 4 5

Tampa FL002 D 4 4 4 5

Utoy Creek GA019 C 4 4 4 5

Vermillion Bayou LA008 D 4 4 4 5

Waynesboro VA123 B 4 4 4 5

Westport MO027 A 4 3 4 5

Winchester I VA104 A 4 4 4 5

Yellow Tavern VA052 D 4 4 4 5


Battlefield Name

Battlefield

ID

Class

CWSAC

1993 Priority

2011

Condition

2011 Land

Use Change/ Threat

No

Priority

Middle Boggy Depot

OK005 D N/D N/D N/D N/D

Round Mountain OK001 D N/D N/D N/D N/D

Figure 21. During the battle of Fort Sanders in 1863, the fort’s defenders had a clear field of fire in all directions. By 1900, much of the Core Area was home to new residential subdivisions.

Today, the city of Knoxville has overwhelmed the Civil War landscape. A few scattered

monuments and interpretive signs mark the battlefield, but its historic sense of open space

and terrain is lost. Clockwise: Tennessee Historical Commission marker, NPS photo;

GoogleTMearth satellite view (imagery date October 8, 2010) of the Core Area; photograph of the battlefield four months after the battle,

Library of Congress.


DDeeccaattuurr bbaattttlleeffiieelldd,, LLaawwrreennccee,, LLiimmeessttoonnee,, aanndd MMoorrggaann CCoouunnttiieess,, AAllaabbaammaa.. 11,,665500 aaccrreess pprrootteecctteedd,, rreemmaaiinniinngg llaannddssccaappee ddeevveellooppeedd.. NNPPSS pphhoottoo..


The Sesquicentennial and Beyond

Of the 10,500 documented conflicts of the Civil War, 383 or 3.6 percent were named “principal” battle actions by the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission. The CWSAC deemed each battle to have either influenced the outcome of the war, its major campaigns, or important local operations. The landscapes of those battles, and the stories they remind us to heed, tell us a great deal more.

As a collection, the battlefields of the Civil War embody the saga of the greatest crisis in United States history. Individually, they are the authentic venues of a complex and divisive past. On battlefields, we find our forbearers in blue and butternut; we see how armies brought war and devastation to local farms, towns, and mountainsides; we laud or lament commanders’ decisions about the terrain and the host before them; and we finally begin to grasp the sacrifice made by so many Americans for comrade and country. The battlefield landscapes that survive today are silent and unbiased witnesses to the past. They have held the stories of the African Americans, American Indians, and civilians in their soil for 150 years. Our understanding and interpretation of them continues to evolve. They await rediscovery.

As the nation marks the 150th anniversary of the Civil War, 227 principal battlefields retain good or fair integrity. Two remain unidentified. The other 154 battlefields are fragmented or have been overwhelmed by development and other land uses incompatible with historic preservation. Of those with the best integrity, 127 are threatened from new and ongoing changes in land use. What are the best approaches to protecting those battlefields?

When the CWSAC issued its Report on the Nation’s Civil War Battlefields, it recommended several ways forward:

• adopt of a national policy promoting battlefield preservation; • coordinate leadership among federal, state, and local governments; • revise to the United States tax code to provide incentives and remove disincentives

for private owners to preserve battlefield land; and • establish a permanent source of federal funds to encourage the protection of

battlefield land in perpetuity.

Over the past 20 years, many of these ideas have taken form, although not exactly as the CWSAC may have predicted.

The CWSAC urged “the Federal government to lead the nation to implement a battlefield preservation program in partnership with states, local governments, and private organizations.” The Federal government did so, in two major acts.

In 1996, Congress officially authorized the American Battlefield Protection Program (ABPP),54 which had been operating as an initiative within the National Park Service since 1990. The ABPP offers annual planning grants to nonprofit organizations, academic institutions, and local, regional, state, and tribal governments to help protect battlefields located on American soil. The ABPP staff works with partner organizations and federal, state, and local government agencies across the country to promote and protect the battlefields of the Civil War and other conflicts. Since its inception, the ABPP has awarded 54 The American Battlefield Protection Act of 1996 (16 USC 469k).


$8.3 million to 144 organizations in 26 states and the District of Columbia. These grants have been used to undertake a wide range of community-based projects that support advocacy, research, surveys, documentation, planning, and interpretation at Civil War battlefields.

In 2002, Congress authorized the use of Land and Water Conservation Funds for the purchase of Civil War battlefield land from willing sellers.55 The ABPP administers the funds. Eligible battlefields are those listed in the CWSAC’s 1993 report. Funds may be used to buy land in fee (outright purchase) or to buy a permanent protective interest in land (a conservation easement). The federal share of these transactions is 50 percent. The other half of the funding must come from other public and private sources. These grants, totaling more than $60 million, have assisted in the permanent protection of nearly 20,000 acres at 79 Civil War battlefields in 16 states. On average, each historic acre has cost the federal government only $3,115, a surprising value given the significant differences in land prices across the United States.

The CWSAC was correct when it stated, “The goals of battlefield preservation can be reached through serious public/private partnerships. It is essential for all citizens—public officials, preservationists, developers, and property owners—to each recognize responsibility to be stewards of these important sites.”56 Battlefield preservation partnerships continue to evolve. When all interests are aligned, these collaborations have led to effective and measurable protection efforts.

• The ABPP and the State Historic Preservation Offices (SHPO) have and continue to provide leadership and services to local battlefield stakeholders and partner organizations. This report recalibrates national battlefield preservation priorities and the related battlefield-specific information on the ABPP’s website provides a basis for other constituencies to use when making decisions about battlefield protection and management.

• Numerous states have launched green space programs that recognize and preserve battlefield land as environmentally important resources. Among the most successful at targeting battlefields are Maryland’s Program Open Space and Rural Legacy Program, Florida’s Florida Forever program, and Virginia’s Office of Land Conservation.

• Federal agencies such as the Federal Highway Administration, the Army Corps of Engineers, the Federal Communication Commission, and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission make decisions frequently about whether, and to what extent, federal projects will affect Civil War battlefields. This is not always easy. Federal compliance requirements are complicated and nuanced. Battlefields are complex, multi-component resources. Expertise about both is required to make the best decisions. Federal agencies need training for regulatory staff and consultants that specifically focuses on battlefields as unique historic property types. Collaboration among the President’s Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, Federal Preservation Officers, State Historic Preservation Officers, and the ABPP is needed to develop and implement such training.

• Good local land use planning and preservation incentives are critical to protecting Civil War battlefields. Most states now require that local comprehensive plans address issues facing local historic and cultural resources. Local planners and

55 The Civil War Battlefield Preservation Act of 2002 (16 U.S.C. 469k). Congress first appropriated money for this program in 1998, but codified it in 2002. Congress reauthorized the use of LWCF monies for battlefield protection in the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009 (16 U.S.C. 469k-1). 56 Civil War Sites Advisory Commission, Report on the Nation’s Civil War Battlefields, 55.


battlefield advocates need to work together to ensure that historic battlefields are given due consideration in comprehensive plans and other municipal planning activities (land use plans, transportation plans, recreation plans, etc.). Localities should identify appropriate protection measures for the battlefields and craft incentives that encourage landowners to protect battlefield holdings voluntarily.

• The Sesquicentennial provides the ideal opportunity to advance the history of the battles, the legacies of the Civil War, and the importance of preserving battlefields as educational and heritage tourism assets. Numerous economic studies undertaken since 1993 indicate that heritage tourists, including highly focused battlefield tourists, spend more and stay longer than other types of visitors.57 Communities interested in cultivating that revenue stream should first consider how to protect and manage their battlefield landscape in a way that will provide visitors with an authentic and evocative experience. Communities should also consider ways to keep battlefield tourists in town, such as developing attractive “gateway” communities adjacent to the battlefield, promoting other nearby cultural and natural resources, and ensuring that adequate visitor services are available within a reasonable distance of the battlefield landscape.

• Private citizens and companies own the largest share of Civil War battlefield land nationwide. Without their support, there can be no serious battlefield protection. They need of better tools to enable them to be effective stewards. More and more battlefield landowners are recognizing the tax advantages of donating conservation easements on their historic parcels. Others have worked with preservation organizations and the banking community to receive a fair price for their land through various federal, state, and nonprofit funding sources. Still other owners are interested in learning how to manage their battlefield parcels themselves, and need guidance from the preservation community about how to do so effectively. Preservationists should build and sustain collegial relationships with private landowners at every Civil War battlefield to keep the lines of communication and support open.

• The greatest and continuing threat to Civil War battlefields is land development. Regulators and developers know that intensive modern land uses are inherently at odds with historic landscape preservation, but they do not always understand how they can improve the outcome for the battlefield and their own projects simultaneously. Early collaboration with preservationists and local planning and zoning officials about development projects can lead to more sustainable and sensitive development projects (i.e., clustered, walkable communities that respect the historic landscape) and bring reasonable returns on investments. When significant portions of the battlefields are saved and new development is thoughtfully planned, both private and public interests are well served.

These partnerships need to remain in place and be strengthened whenever possible. Perhaps most importantly, local battlefield stakeholders need to determine whether and to what extent the issues discussed in this report are occurring in their own communities and reach out to local, state, and national partners for assistance in tackling those issues.

57 Heritage Tourism Handbook: A How-to-Guide for Georgia, prepared by the Georgia Historic Preservation Division and the Georgia Tourism Division, 2010, http://www.georgia.org/SiteCollectionDocuments/Industries/Tourism/ Product%20Development/GA%20Heritage%20Tourism%20Handbook.pdf,6; Blue, Gray, and Green: A Battlefield Benefits Guide for Community Leaders, prepared by Davidson-Peterson Associates for the Civil War Preservation Trust, 2006, http://www.civilwar.org/land-preservation/blue-gray-and-green-report.pdf, 6, 8; Pennsylvania Heritage Tourism Study, prepared by D.K. Shifflet & Associates, Ltd. for The Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources et. al, 1999, http://www.dcnr.state.pa.us/recstudy/finalreport.pdf, 3, 30; Frances H. Kennedy and Douglas R. Porter, Dollars and $ense of Battlefield Preservation, The Economic Benefits of Protecting Civil War Battlefields, Washington, DC: The Preservation Press, 1994, 3.


As the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission did in 1993, the ABPP suggests the following actions be implemented in order to increase the likelihood that endangered Civil War battlefields—especially those in the updated Priority I, II, and III categories—survive as coherent historic landscapes. If fully implemented, these actions are likely to result in many of those vanishing landscapes being protected, documented, promoted, and made economically productive. Suggested Actions The Public Sector

• Congress ensures that the ABPP remains authorized and funded. • Congress ensures that LWCF monies continue to be made available through the

ABPP for the purpose of permanently protecting Civil War land. • The President’s Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, Federal Preservation

Officers, State Historic Preservation Officers, and the ABPP collaborate and develop specific training and guidance for the identification and evaluation of battlefield resources in the Section 106 process.

• The ABPP and SHPOs continue to lead by identifying preservation priorities, by developing and distributing policies and guidance about best practices in battlefield preservation, and providing technical assistance and support to local and private groups.

• Public agencies at all levels of government determine if Civil War battlefield resources are present within their existing holdings. (The ABPP will continue to share its Geographic Information Systems data to help implement this effort.)

• Public agencies at all levels of government update or implement new management policies to ensure the preservation of battlefield topography and cultural landscape features on public lands.

• Public agencies at all levels of government promote public understanding of and appreciation for battlefield resources on their lands.

• States enact laws and regulations that allow for the use of state open space and conservation funding for the purpose of permanently protecting Civil War battlefield land.

• States pass conservation easement authorization legislation so that private property owners may choose to convey easements on their properties if they wish (many states have done this already).

• States enact legislation that provides appropriate tax breaks to private battlefield owners willing to donate their land or their interests in land for permanent preservation in the public interest.

• Local officials recognize battlefields as community assets and heritage tourism attractions that, when appropriately managed, can be successful agents for maintaining and expanding local revenues.

• Local governments ensure that Civil War battlefields in their jurisdictions are addressed fully and appropriately in local land use plans.

Nonprofit Organizations

• Battlefield proponents work with their respective State Historic Preservation Officer to review existing listings and prepare new or expanded National Register documentation for eligible Civil War battlefield landscapes. (Funding for nomination projects may be available from the ABPP.)


• Easement holding organizations (e.g., land trusts) review their battlefield easements, determine if amendments to the easement language are needed to ensure resource protection, and determine if changes in monitoring procedures are needed in consultation with the ABPP and the State Historic Preservation Officers.

• Friends groups form to champion the cause of preservation and interpretation at unclaimed Civil War battlefields.

• Existing friends groups work with community officials, battlefield property owners, and state and national partners to identify and implement land protection opportunities.

The Private Sector

• Battlefield landowners seek out advice from their State Historic Preservation Officer or the ABPP regarding private stewardship of battlefield features.

• Developers collaborate with preservationists and local planning and zoning officials early in the development process to avoid or reduce physical impacts to historic battlefield landscapes.

• Local businesses work with local officials and preservation advocates to help develop local battlefields into heritage tourism attractions that generate revenue for the local economy.

Everyone

• Existing public and private preservation organizations encourage the formation of new grassroots groups at battlefields currently without local champions.

• Preservationists recognize that there must be a basis for continued economic viability in a battlefield area, but not at the expense of the integrity of the historic landscape.


SSttaauunnttoonn RRiivveerr BBrriiddggee bbaattttlleeffiieelldd,, CChhaarrlloottttee aanndd HHaalliiffaaxx CCoouunnttiieess,, VViirrggiinniiaa.. 330000 aaccrreess pprrootteecctteedd,, 33,,554400 aaccrreess uunnpprrootteecctteedd.. NNPPSS pphhoottoo..


Appendices Appendix A. Civil War Battlefield Land Acquisition Grants In 1998, Congress began to allow the American Battlefield Protection Program to offer matching grants from the federal Land and Water Conservation Fund to states and localities wishing to protect Civil War battlefield land through direct acquisition or purchase of conservation easements. In 2002, Congress codified the grant program in its amendments to the American Battlefield Protection Act of 1996 (16 USC 469k). Encouraged by the continued success of the Civil War Battlefield Land Acquisition Grants (CWBLAG) Program, Congress reauthorized it in 2009 (16 USC 469k-1). Since 1998, Congress has appropriated more than $60 million for the CWBLAG Program. These grants have leveraged more than $85 million in private and state funds to save endangered battlefield land. As of July 2012, these grants have made possible the permanent protection of more than 19,000 acres at 79 Civil War battlefields in 16 states. Eligible battlefields are those listed in the 1993 Report on the Nation’s Civil War Battlefields prepared by the Congressionally chartered Civil War Sites Advisory Commission (CWSAC). Eligible acquisition projects may be for fee interest in land or for a protective interest such as a perpetual easement. Because the funding for these grants comes through the Land and Water Conservation Fund, all land or interests acquired are subject to Section 6(f)(3) of the Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965 (16 USC 460l-4 et seq.). This provision restricts the conversion of the land from a conservation use to any other use—such as roads and other types of development—without the express, written permission of the Secretary of the Interior. The CWBLAG grants also require that where protected land is held by a local government or nonprofit entity, a conservation easement must be executed to run with the land in perpetuity. All of the battlefields listed in this update are eligible to apply for CWBLAG funding except for Bayou Meto, Arkansas.58 Applications to protect land that retains integrity (within PotNR boundaries) will be the most competitive.

58 Bayou Meto was not included in the 1993 Civil War Sites Advisory Commission’s Report on the Nation’s Civil War Battlefields. Current statute points to that publication as the master list of battlefields eligible for CWBLAG funding.


Civil War Battlefield Land Acquisition Grant Program Summary as of July 2012

Fiscal Year

Federal Award in

Dollars

Non-Federal Matching Share

in Dollars

Acres Protected

Battlefields Given

Awards

States in which Grants Were

Awarded

2012 2,587,148 3,086,014 538 7 2

2011 8,982,000 9,902,904 2,344 23 12

2010 9,000,000 11,423,639 1,410 18 6

2009 4,000,000 5,994,871 1,443 15 5

2008 0 0 0 0 0

2007 2,406,123 2,563,397 636 8 3

2006 3,000,000 10,984,818 307 4 2

2005 4,930,000 8,409,038 1,067 7 4

2004 1,447,703 1,938,922 1,466 3 2

2003 0 0 0 0 0

2002 10,000,000 11,030,150 4,272 21 10

2001 0 0 0 0 0

2000 0 0 0 0 0

1999 0 0 0 0 0

1998 8,000,000 23,847,488 6,017 27 13

TOTAL 54,352,974 89,181,241 19,500 * **

*Grants have been given to purchase land or easements on parcels at 79 battlefields. Numerous battlefields have been awarded more than one grant. ** Battlefields in 16 states have received Civil War Battlefield Land Acquisition Grants.


Appendix B. American Battlefield Protection Program Planning Grants

Since 1992, ABPP has offered annual planning grants to nonprofit organizations, academic institutions, and local, regional, state, and tribal governments to help protect battlefields located on American soil. Applicants are encouraged to work with partner organizations and federal, state, and local government agencies as early as possible to integrate their efforts into a larger battle site protection strategy. The ABPP has awarded $8.3 million to assist in a wide range of community-based projects that support advocacy, research, surveys, registration, planning, and interpretation.


ABPP Planning Grants Summary

State ABPP Planning Grants from FY92 Through FY12

Total Grant Awards to State Through FY12

AL 4 $87,612

AR 17 $399,995

CO 1 $43,533

DC 0 $0

FL 1 $51,750

GA 18 $560,749

ID 0 $0

IL 1 $40,000

IN 0 $0

KS 1 $20,000

KY 26 $589,220

LA 6 $141,000

MD 8 $172,450

MN 2 $89,478

MO 10 $224,000

MS 17 $362,277

NM 2 $58,000

NC 10 $257,115

ND 1 $26,843

OH 3 $106,760

OK 6 $142,200

PA 6 $117,410

SC 9 $327,413

TN 27 $584,317

TX 4 $140,175

VA 106 $3,266,902

WV 3 $103,320

SUBTOTAL 288 $7,912,519 Grants to Civil War Trust for Multi-state/Multi-battlefield projects $435,000 TOTAL Planning Grant Funding Through FY12 $8,347,519


Appendix C. Civil War Battlefield Preservation Act of 2002 Public Law 107-359, 111 Stat. 3016, 17 December 2002 Amends the American Battlefield Protection Program Act of 1996 (16 U.S.C. 469k) An Act To amend the American Battlefield Protection Act of 1996 to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to establish a battlefield acquisition grant program. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This Act may be cited as the ``Civil War Battlefield Preservation Act of 2002''. SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES. (a) Findings.--Congress finds the following (1) Civil War battlefields provide a means for the people of the United States to understand a tragic period in the history of the United States. (2) According to the Report on the Nation's Civil War Battlefields, prepared by the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission, and dated July 1993, of the 384 principal Civil War battlefields-- (A) almost 20 % are lost or fragmented; (B) 17 % are in poor condition; and (C) 60 % have been lost or are in imminent danger of being fragmented by development and lost as coherent historic sites. (b) Purposes.--The purposes of this Act are-- (1) to act quickly and proactively to preserve and protect nationally significant Civil War battlefields through conservation easements and fee-simple purchases of those battlefields from willing sellers; and (2) to create partnerships among State and local governments, regional entities, and the private sector to preserve, conserve, and enhance nationally significant Civil War battlefields. SEC. 3. BATTLEFIELD ACQUISITION GRANT PROGRAM. The American Battlefield Protection Act of 1996 (16 U.S.C. 469k) is amended-- (1) by redesignating subsection (d) as paragraph (3) of subsection (c), and indenting appropriately; (2) in paragraph (3) of subsection (c) (as redesignated by paragraph (1))--


(A) by striking `Àppropriations'' and inserting `àppropriations''; and (B) by striking ``section'' and inserting ``subsection''; (3) by inserting after subsection (c) the following ``(d) Battlefield Acquisition Grant Program.-- ``(1) Definitions.--In this subsection ``(A) Battlefield report.--The term `Battlefield Report' means the document entitled `Report on the Nation's Civil War Battlefields', prepared by the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission, and dated July 1993. ``(B) Eligible entity.--The term èligible entity' means a State or local government. ``(C) Eligible site.--The term èligible site' means a site-- ``(i) that is not within the exterior boundaries of a unit of the National Park System; and ``(ii) that is identified in the Battlefield Report. ``(D) Secretary.--The term `Secretary' means the Secretary of the Interior, acting through the American Battlefield Protection Program. ``(2) Establishment.--The Secretary shall establish a battlefield acquisition grant program under which the Secretary may provide grants to eligible entities to pay the Federal share of the cost of acquiring interests in eligible sites for the preservation and protection of those eligible sites. ``(3) Nonprofit partners.--An eligible entity may acquire an interest in an eligible site using a grant under this subsection in partnership with a nonprofit organization. ``(4) Non-federal share.--The non-Federal share of the total cost of acquiring an interest in an eligible site under this subsection shall be not less than 50 % . ``(5) Limitation on land use.--An interest in an eligible site acquired under this subsection shall be subject to section 6(f)(3) of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 (16 U.S.C. 460l-8(f)(3)). ``(6) Reports.-- ``(A) In general.--Not later than 5 years after the date of the enactment of this subparagraph, the Secretary shall submit to Congress a report on the activities carried out under this subsection. ``(B) Update of battlefield report.--Not later than 2 years after the date of the enactment of this subsection, the Secretary shall submit to Congress a report that updates the Battlefield Report to reflect-- ``(i) preservation activities carried out at the 384 battlefields during the period between publication of the Battlefield Report and the


update; ``(ii) changes in the condition of the battlefields during that period; and ``(iii) any other relevant developments relating to the battlefields during that period. ``(7) Authorization of appropriations.-- ``(A) In general.--There are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary from the Land and Water Conservation Fund to provide grants under this subsection $10,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2004 through 2008. ``(B) Update of battlefield report.--There are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary to carry out paragraph (6)(B), $500,000.''; and (4) in subsection (e)-- (A) in paragraph (1), by striking `às of'' and all that follows through the period and inserting `òn September 30, 2008.''; and (B) in paragraph (2), by inserting `ànd provide battlefield acquisition grants'' after ``studies''. -end-


Appendix D. Battlefield Questionnaire State Battlefield Person Completing Form Date of completion I. Protected Lands of the Battlefield (“Protected lands” are these “owned” for historic preservation or conservation purposes. Please provide information on land protected since 1993.) Identify protected lands by parcel since 1993. Then answer these questions about each parcel, following example in the chart below. What is the acreage of each parcel? Is parcel owned fee simple, by whom? Is there is an easement, if so name easement holder? Was the land purchased or the easement conveyed after 1993? What was cost of purchase or easement? What was source of funding and the amount that source contributed? Choose from these possible sources: Coin money, LWCF, Farm Bill, State Government, Local Government, Private Owner, Private Non-Profit (provide name), or Other (describe). Parcel Acres Owner Easement Year Cost Source Joe Smith Farm 194 Private SHPO 1995 $500,000 LWCF/$250,000 Private/$250,000 Sue Jones Tract 16 Battlefield Friends, Inc. No 2002 $41,000 State/$20,000 BFI/$21,000 2) Other public or non-profit lands within the battlefield? (Y/N) • If yes, describe • Name of public or non-profit owner or easement holder • Number of Acres owned/held 3) Is the information in a GIS? (Y/N) If yes, may NPS obtain a copy of the data? (Y/N)


II. Preservation Groups 1) Is there a formal interested entity (friends group, etc) associated with the battlefield? (Y/N) If yes Name Address Phone Fax E-mail Web site? (Y/N) If yes, what is the URL? Does the web site have a preservation message? (Y/N) What year did the group form? III. Public Access and Interpretation 1) Does the site have designated Public Access? (Y/N) (Count public roads if there are designated interpretive signs or pull-offs) If yes, what entity provides the public access (Access may occur on lands owned in fee or under easement to the above entities) Federal government State government Local government

Private Nonprofit organization Private owner Other

Name of entity (if applicable) Number of Acres Accessible to the Public (size of the area in which the public may physically visit without trespassing. Do not include viewsheds.) 2) Does the site have interpretation? (Y/N) If yes, what type of interpretation is available? Visitor Center Brochure(s) Wayside exhibits Driving Tour Walking Tour

Audio tour tapes Maintained historic features/areas Living History Website Other

IV. Registration Applies only to the battlefield landscape, not to individual contributing features of a battlefield (i.e., the individually listed Dunker Church property of .2 acres does not represent the Antietam battlefield for the purposes of this exercise) 1) Is the site a designated National Historic Landmark? (Y/N) If yes, NHL and ID Number 2) Is the site listed in the National Register? (Y/N) If yes, National Register Name and ID Number 3) Is the site listed in the State Register? (Y/N)


If yes, State Register Name and ID Number 4) Is the site in the State Inventory? (Y/N) If yes, State Inventory Name and ID Number 5) Is the site designated as a local landmark or historic site? (Y/N) Type of Designation/Listing V. Program Activities What types of preservation program activities have occurred at the battlefield? Provide final product name and date if applicable (e.g., Phase I Archeological Survey Report on the Piper Farm, 1994 and Antietam Preservation Plan, 2001, etc.) 1) Research and Documentation 2) Cultural Resource surveys and inventories (building/structure and landscape inventories, archeological surveys, landscape surveys, etc.) 3) Planning Projects (preservation plans, site management plans, cultural landscape reports, etc.) 4) Interpretation Projects (also includes education) 5) Advocacy (any project meant to engage the public in a way that would benefit the preservation of the site, e.g. PR, lobbying, public outreach, petitioning for action, etc.) 6) Legislation (any local, state, or federal legislation designed to encourage preservation of the battlefield individually or together with other similar sites) 7) Fundraising a. To support program activities? b. To support land acquisition/easements? 8) Other


Appendix E. State Statistical Tables The following tables summarize statewide battlefield information. The supporting data for individual battlefields is presented in state-by-state reports on the American Battlefield Protection Program’s website.

Table 1. Battlefield Area Totals by State (in Acres*)

State Number of Battlefields Study Area Totals Core Area Totals

Potential National Register Boundary

Totals

AL 7 104,800 31,300 45,400

AR 18 143,700 40,300 89,800

CO 1 34,400 2,300 34,400

DC 1 9,100 2,800 1,200

FL 6 25,900 5,100 14,700

GA 27 256,500 61,400 78,200

ID 1 2,000 500 2,000

IN 1 3,800 1,000 3,000

KS 4 18,800 3,600 13,800

KY 11 67,000 10,500 19,300

LA 23 199,400 46,800 81,300

MD 7 106,800 16,300 73,800

MN 2 3,100 900 3,100

MO 29 185,100 52,600 96,800

MS 16 214,600 53,500 119,500

NC 20 253,000 55,000 184,400

ND 5 44,400 13,000 44,400

NM 2 48,400 7,900 45,500

OH 2 28,200 2,500 16,300

OK 7 29,200 5,100 28,300

PA 2 49,700 9,300 34,000

SC 11 65,600 27,100 40,700

TN 38 445,700 95,900 132,700

TX 5 64,100 17,700 9,400

VA 122 1,206,700 327,500 740,800

WV 15 117,200 25,100 57,500

Totals 383 3,727,200 915,000 2,010,300

*Acreages rounded to the nearest hundred.


Table 2: Condition Summary by State

State Landscape

and land use is little

changed

Portions of landscape are altered, but

most essential features remain

Much of the landscape is altered and fragmented, leaving some

essential features

Landscape and terrain are altered

beyond recognition

Total Battlefields

AL - 3 2 2 7 AR 4 8 5 1 18

CO 1 - - - 1

DC - - 1 - 1

FL 2 1 1 2 6

GA 3 9 9 6 27

ID 1 - - - 1

IN - 1 - - 1

KS 2 - - 2 4

KY 2 4 3 2 11

LA 3 12 5 3 23

MD 2 3 2 - 7

MO 4 8 12 5 29

MN 1 1 - - 2

MS 2 9 3 2 16

NC 6 5 9 - 20

ND 5 - - - 5

NM - 2 - - 2

OH 1 1 - - 2

OK* 2 3 - - 5 of 7

PA - 1 - 1 2

SC 1 6 4 - 11

TN 4 11 15 8 38

TX 1 - 2 2 5

VA 32 47 33 10 122

WV 3 10 1 1 15

Totals 82 145 107 47 381

* Two battlefields in Oklahoma could not be located, so condition assessments could not be made.


Table 3. National Register of Historic Places Summary by State*

State Existing Listings

Compared to Total Battlefields with

Potential for Listing

Acres Potentially Eligible for Listing**

Listed Acres Unlisted Acres

Percentage of Potentially

Eligible Acres Listed

AL 3 of 4 45,410 9,672 35,738 21%

AR 13 of 17 89,280 20,171 69,109 23%

CO 1 of 1 37,470 7,360 30,110 20%

DC 1 of 1 1,170 4 1,166 <1%

FL 4 of 4 11,110 5,850 5,260 53%

GA 7 of 19 77,740 20,807 56,933 27%

ID 1 of 1 2,340 1,791 549 77%

IN 1 of 1 2,450 5 2,445 <1%

KS 1 of 2 13,790 180 13,610 1%

KY 7 of 8 18,840 12,551 6,289 67%

LA 4 of 19 81,310 1,896 79,414 2%

MD 2 of 7 62,200 4,901 57,299 8%

MN 2 of 2 3,080 1,047 2,033 34%

MO 7 of 24 94,100 14,367 79,733 15%

MS 13 of 14 119,630 6,017 113,613 5%

NC 7 of 20 184,380 10,037 174,343 5%

ND 0 of 5 44,500 0 44,500 0%

NM 2 of 2 52,240 3,918 48,322 8%

OH 1 of 2 14,500 4 14,496 <1%

OK*** 3 of 5 28,820 5,306 23,514 18%

PA 1 of 1 34,050 13,300 20,750 39%

SC 8 of 10 41,350 10,090 31,260 24%

TN 13 of 27 132,670 12,725 119,945 10%

TX 1 of 1 8,960 5,991 2,969 67%

VA 36 of 111 741,540 43,125 698,415 6%

WV 7 of 14 57,460 7,476 49,984 13%

*The National Register of Historic Places includes cultural units of the National Park System, properties designated as National Historic Landmarks, and properties listed in the National Register itself.

**Approximate acreage, rounded to the nearest whole number.

*** While Middle Boggy Depot is listed in the National Register as the Middle Boggy Battlefield Site and Confederate Cemetery, the ABPP could not confirm the location of the battlefield as proposed in the nomination.


Table 4. Summary of Battlefield Stewardship

Steward

Number of Battlefields on which Steward Holds Property

or Easements

Acres Protected*

Federal Government 139 142,300

State Governments 178 80,500

Local Governments 107 25,700

Nonprofit Organizations 137 38,600

Total* 287,100

* Acreage rounded to the nearest hundred.


Table 5. Battlefield Protection Assessment by State, in Acres*

State Protected in Fee

Only

Protected by Easement

Only

Protected in Fee and by Easement

Total Protected

Unprotected within PotNR

(excludes bodies of water)

AL 5,221 0 495 5,716 9,248

AR 11,537 0 0 11,537 78,115

CO 2,389 0 0 2,389 32,002

DC 1,424 0 0 1,424 0

FL 4,812 5 0 4,816 7,946

GA 21,350 234 0 21,584 55,918

ID 0 0 0 0 2,000

IN 5 0 0 5 2,520

KS 3,649 0 326 3,975 9,818

KY 1,744 0 819 2,563 17,002

LA 5,443 0 178 5,621 58,885

MD 8,762 10,297 0 19,059 57,477

MN 21 52 0 73 3,009

MO 5,622 172 0 5,794 73,255

MS 3,850 204 3,387 7,441 107,987

NC 9,734 1,250 0 10,983 89,928

ND 302 0 0 302 44,119

NM 4,166 0 0 4,166 41,465

OH 350 0 0 350 13,541

OK** 1,052 0 0 1,052 27,266

PA 7,026 1,607 0 8,633 25,444

SC 1,755 2,490 733 4,977 9,095

TN 22,585 267 0 22,852 102,548

TX 7,476 0 0 7,476 2,777

VA 76,867 31,014 9,898 117,779 566,778

WV 11,099 1,700 3,869 16,667 42,519

Totals 218,241 49,290 19,704 287,235 1,480,664

* Acreage rounded to the nearest whole number. ** Two battlefields in Oklahoma could not be located, so stewardship assessments could not be made.


Table 6: Publicly Accessible Land on Civil War Battlefields

State Accessible Acres

(Minimum) Battlefields Publicly

Accessible of All Battlefields in State

Percentage of Battlefields

Accessible in State

AL 5,758.34 6 of 7 86%

AR 11,897.20 15 of 18 83%

CO 2,389.27 1 of 1 100%

DC 1,424.11 1of 1 100%

FL 4,811.62 4 of 6 67%

GA 20,742.58 21 of 27 78%

ID 0 0 of 1 0%

IN 5 1 of 1 100%

KS 3,974.89 2 of 4 50%

KY 2,563.55 10 of 11 91%

LA 5,554.17 9 of 23 39%

MD 8,721.49 7 of 7 100%

MN 73 2 of 2 100%

MO 5,631.38 22 of 29 76%

MS 7,493.81 14 of 16 88%

NC 9,045.19 17 of 20 85%

ND 302.49 4 of 5 80%

NM 4,166.43 2 of 2 100%

OH 349.55 1 of 2 50%

OK* 1,051.62 2 of 7 29%

PA 7,026.05 1 of 2 50%

SC 2,487.28 9 of 11 82%

TN 22,768.29 26 of 38 68%

TX 7,476.23 3 of 5 60%

VA 88,649.49 107 of 122 88%

WV 14,735.42 11 of 15 73%

Totals 239,098.45 298 of 383 78%

* Two battlefields in Oklahoma could not be located, so accessibility assessments could not be made.


Table 7: Summary of On-site Battlefield Interpretation Efforts as of 2010

Wayside Exhibits/

Signs

Brochure(s) Walking Tour/ Trails

Website(s) Maintained Historic

Features/ Areas

Driving Tour

Living History

Programs

Visitor Center

315 169 166 162 161 129 116 113

Table 8: Battlefields with Friends Groups

State Total Battlefields

Battlefields with

Friends

Battlefields Adopted

Before 1993

Battlefields Adopted

Since 1993*

Percentage of Battlefields in

State with Friends

AL 7 2 1 1 29% AR 18 9 0 9 50% CO 1 1 1 0 100% DC 1 0 0 0 0% FL 6 2 1 1 33% GA 27 24 2 24 (2) 89% ID 1 1 1 0 100% IN 1 0 0 0 0% KS 4 2 2 0 50% KY 11 7 2 5 64% LA 23 3 0 3 13% MD 7 3 2 2 (1) 43% MN 2 2 0 2 100% MO 29 13 7 6 45% MS 16 9 1 8 56% NC 20 10 5 5 50% ND 5 1 1 0 20% NM 2 1 0 1 50% OH 2 1 1 1 (1) 50% OK 7 2 1 1 29% PA 2 1 1 1 (1) 50% SC 11 7 0 7 64% TN 38 13 6 8 (1) 34% TX 5 2 0 2 40% VA 122 51 22 34 (5) 42% WV 15 4 2 2 27%

*Parentheses indicates battlefields with more than one friends group.


National Park Service American Battlefield Protection Program

1201 Eye Street, NW, 6th Floor Washington, DC 20005

September 2012

Update to the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission’s Report ...The American Battlefield Protection...

Documents

Transcript of Update to the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission’s Report ...The American Battlefield Protection...