**[1.0 Introduction to Study and Assessment]{.smallcaps}**

1.  **PUPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION**

The initiative for a Fort Donelson National Battlefield Boundary
Adjustment Study emanated from well-attended Vicksburg Campaign Trail
public meetings in Dover, Tennessee, and Murray, Kentucky, during
May-June 2002 that were conducted to discuss preservation of Civil War
sites in northern Tennessee and western Kentucky. In response to growing
public interest in the surviving resources associated with the Vicksburg
Campaign, the Vicksburg Campaign Trail Battlefields Preservation Act of
2000 (Public Law 106-487) authorized the Secretary of the Interior,
acting through the Director of the National Park Service, to complete a
three-year feasibility study to determine the most appropriate means of
managing, preserving, and interpreting Civil War battlefields and
related natural, cultural, and historic resources along the Vicksburg
Campaign Trail.

During the two aforementioned meetings, which were attended by
approximately 110 people, the majority of the expressed sentiments
related to the need for preserving resources and telling the "complete"
story associated with Forts Donelson, Henry, and Heiman (sometimes
referred to as the "Trilogy of Forts") and their significant
interrelated role in the Federal Penetration Up the Cumberland and
Tennessee Rivers Campaign in February 1862 that provided the Union Army
with an "open gate" to the Deep South.

Thus, the impetus for initiating the Boundary Adjustment Study is
predicated on the following:

-   Expansion of the current boundaries of Fort Donelson National
    Battlefield (FODO) is needed to tell a more complete story of the
    battle. The current acreage of the National Battlefield comprises
    only approximately 20 percent of the principal fighting ground
    associated with the battle. Moreover, at present, FODO primarily
    protects Confederate earthworks and relates to Confederate military
    operations at Fort Donelson.

-   Although Fort Henry is currently under Federal ownership and managed
    by the U.S. Forest Service, increased collaborative and cooperative
    efforts between the National Park Service and the U.S. Forest
    Service are needed to enhance interpretation at Fort Henry as well
    as its interrelationship with Fort Donelson.

-   Fort Heiman, currently unprotected, is critical to Fort Donelson
    National Battlefield. Along with Forts Henry and Donelson, Fort
    Heiman would protect resources that are associated with the struggle
    for control of the Tennessee and Cumberland rivers and tell the
    story of African-American involvement in the Union war effort.
    Furthermore, protection of the site would also provide the
    opportunity for interpreting the continuum of Civil War history in
    the area because of Fort Heiman's association with the Battle of
    Johnsonville in Forrest's Raid into West Tennessee in 1864.

Figure 1-1 shows all three forts relative to each other and the States
of Tennessee and Kentucky.

![](media/image1.jpeg){width="13.333333333333334in"
height="8.645833333333334in"}

**Figure 1-1. Regional map of Forts Donelson, Henry, and Heiman**

1.  **STUDY PROCESS AND ENVIRONMENTAL**

**ASSESSMENT**

Public Law 101-628, Section 1216, directs the Secretary of the Interior
to develop criteria to evaluate any proposed changes to the existing
boundaries of individual national parks. Those criteria were to include:

-   Analysis of whether the existing boundary provides for the adequate
    protection and preservation of the natural, historic, cultural,
    scenic, and recreational resources integral to the park

-   An evaluation of each parcel proposed for addition or deletion based
    on this analysis

-   An assessment of the impact of the potential boundary adjustments,
    taking into consideration the factors listed above as well as the
    effect of the adjustments on local communities and surrounding areas

Public Law 101-628, Section 1217, further requires that in proposing any
boundary change the Secretary of the Interior will:

-   Consult with affected agencies of state and local governments,
    surrounding communities, affected landowners, and organizations of
    concern

-   Apply the criteria-developed boundary adjustments and reflect the
    conclusions of the application of the criteria

-   Include a cost estimate of acquiring parcels proposed for addition
    to a park

On December 30, 1991, the National Park Service issued Special Directive
92-11 to provide guidance for implementing the provisions of Public Law
101-628. Section 3.5 of NPS *Management Policies 2001* describes
policies and criteria for boundary adjustments to national parks.

What follows is the application of the criteria in Special Directive
92-11 and Section 3.5 of the NPS *Management Policies 2001* to the
resource conditions at Forts Heiman and Henry to determine what
properties might be considered eligible for addition to Fort Donelson
National Battlefield. It should be noted that this is strictly a
technical evaluation and that specific action would be at the discretion
of Congress.

Property considered for inclusion in the national park system must be
evaluated against established criteria to determine if it meets
eligibility requirements prior to recommendation to Congress for formal
action. According to the established criteria, properties may be
recommended for the following reasons:

-   To include significant resources or opportunities for public
    enjoyment related to the purpose(s) of the park

-   To address such operational and management issues as access and
    boundary identification by topographic or other natural features and
    roads

-   To protect park resources critical to fulfilling the park's
    purpose(s)

The criteria also demand that properties be evaluated for the following
determinations:

-   It will be feasible to administer, considering size, configuration,
    ownership, costs, and other factors.

-   Other alternatives for management and resource protection are not
    adequate.

In this document, a Boundary Adjustment Study (BAS) and an Environmental
Assessment (EA) are integrated into one combined study/assessment. The
EA analyzes the environmental impacts that would result from the
alternatives considered, including the No Action alternative. The EA was
prepared in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
of 1969 (42 USC 4321 et seq.), the Council on Environmental Quality
(CEQ) regulations (40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 1500 through
1508) for implementing NEPA, the NPS NEPA compliance guidance handbook
(DO-12), and NPS Management Policies 2001 (NPS, 2001).

1.  **PROPOSED BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENTS**

**1.3.1 Fort Heiman, Calloway County, Kentucky**

####### Historic Context

When Confederate Brig. Gen. Lloyd Tilghman was sent to command hastily
constructed Fort Henry on the east side of the Tennessee River during
the winter of 1861-62, he realized immediately that the fort was
indefensible. It had been built on low ground that was susceptible to
flooding and was directly across the river from higher ground. In
January 1862, Gen. Albert Sidney Johnston ordered Tilghman to construct
a new fort -- known as Fort Hei­man after Col. Aldol­phus Hei­man of the
10th Tennes­see who com­manded the 1,100 troops at the fort -- on the
bluffs on the west bank (Ken­tucky side) of the river. African-American
laborers performed a significant role in the construction of the fort.
The new fort was still under con­struc­tion when Union Brig. Gen. Ulysses
S. Grant launched his offensive against Forts Henry and Donel­son in
early February 1862.

On Febru­ary 4-5, 1862, Grant landed his divisions in two differ­ent
loca­tions -- one on the east bank of the Tennessee River to prevent the
garrison at Fort Henry from escaping to or receiving reinforcements from
Fort Donelson and the other on the high ground on the Kentucky side to
ensure the fall of both Forts Heiman and Henry. With the arrival of some
15,000 Union troops along with Federal gunboats under the command of
Flag Officer Andrew H. Foote (ironclads were used for the first time in
these military operations) Tilghman, realizing that Fort Heiman could
not be held, recalled the 1,100 troops building Fort Heiman to cross the
river and assist the nearly 2,000 soldiers defending Fort Henry. The
Confederates hoped that the muddy roads would make it impossible for the
Union army to set up artillery on the partially completed Fort Heiman.
On February 6, Tilghman surrendered Fort Henry after 70 minutes of
bombardment, because it was flooded by rising water and could not be
supported by infantry. Tilghman decided to withdraw all troops from Fort
Henry to Fort Donelson with the exception of one battery, which he left
behind to delay the Union assault and secure his retreat. After the
capture of both Fort Henry and the uncompleted Fort Heiman, the latter
was occupied by Union troops under Brig. Gen. Lew Wallace on February 6.
Thus, the surrender of Forts Heiman and Henry enabled the Federals'
gunboats to ascend the Tennessee River south to Muscle Shoals, Alabama,
and set the stage for Grant's successful assault against Fort Donelson
11 miles to the east on the Cumberland River.

After the Confederate surrender of Fort Donelson on February 16, western
Kentucky and Tennessee continued to play a vital role in military
operations for the remainder of the Civil War. For the Union, the
Tennessee and Cumberland Rivers were vital supply lines that had to be
maintained. For the Confederates, the area between the rivers was a
sparsely defended region that cavalry raids and guerilla operations
could penetrate easily to disrupt Union communication and supply lines.
Thus, Federal troops occupied unfinished Fort Heiman until March 6,
1863, to afford Union protection to the people in the area and, perhaps
more importantly to the Union army, protect the vital supply lines that
the Tennessee and Cumberland Rivers had become.

During 1862-63 Fort Heiman was garrisoned by troops from the 5th Iowa
Cavalry under the command of Col. William W. Lowe. Forts Heiman, Henry,
and Donelson offered a haven for a growing number of refugees, most of
whom were slaves seeking safety within the Union lines. The Federals
housed the freedmen, who were officially termed "contraband of war,"
employing them as laborers at the forts and in the area's industries.

Before evacuating the fort on March 6, 1863, as part of the buildup of
Union forces in the region, Lt. Col. Matthewson T. Patrick, in command
of the post at Fort Heiman, was ordered to level the river face of the
fort's earthworks. He reported that the earthworks fronting the river
were "very slight -- the fort never having been completed by the
rebels." Although the earthwork fortifica-tions along the river were
destroyed, largely intact outer earthworks along the crest of the
bluffs, an upper battery, and remnants of what may have been a powder
magazine remain onsite.

######### ![](media/image2.png){width="6.2625in" height="8.229166666666666in"}Figure 1-2. Vicinity Map of Fort Heiman and Fort Henry

######### 

![](media/image3.png){width="3.2368055555555557in"
height="4.010416666666667in"}Despite its strategic location, neither
side made a sustained effort to occupy Fort Heiman once the war moved
south into Tennessee. Perhaps the greatest Confederate military success
in the Fort Heiman vicinity occurred in late October 1864 when
Confederate Maj. Gen. Nathan Bedford Forrest occupied the fort with
3,500 men. On October 28, using the fort as their base, Forrest's
cavalrymen fired upon and captured the Union steamboat *Mazeppa*. Two
days later, the Confederates continued their assault on Union vessels
passing along the Tennessee River from Fort Heiman, firing on the
*Anna*, disabling the *Undine*, forcing the *Venus* to surrender, and
causing the *J.W. Cheeseman* to be abandoned. Thereafter, the
Confed­erates took a Union vessel and headed upriver where they engaged
the Union navy. Eventually Forrest burned all the seized boats once they
had been stripped of their cargoes of food and supplies. During these
encounters only one Confederate was wounded, while **Figure 1-3. Federal
Fort and Fort Heiman** eight Union troops were killed, 11 wounded,

and 43 captured, including one officer.

On November 4, Forrest launched his most successful raid during the
Civil War from his base at Fort Heiman, attacking the Union supply base
at Johnsonville, Tennessee, some 30 miles to the south at the western
terminus of the Nashville and Northwestern Railroad. During the raid,
Forrest's cavalrymen destroyed four Union gunboats, 14 transports, 20
barges, and 26 pieces of artillery; captured 150 Union soldiers. They
also burned millions of dollars' worth of stockpiled supplies bound for
Nashville and Union Maj. Gen. George H. Thomas' army. During this
encounter, Confederate losses were two killed and nine
wounded.![](media/image4.jpeg){width="3.6333333333333333in"
height="2.725in"}

### Significant Resources or Opportunities for Public Enjoyment

Fort Heiman was listed in the National Register of Historic Places on
December 12, 1976, under Criterion A because of its association with
events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns
of United States history.

The significance of Fort Heiman lies in its association with the Battles
of Fort Henry and Fort Donelson as well as the Battle of Johnsonville.
In 1993 the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission listed the Battle of
Fort Henry and the Battle of Fort Donelson as two of the 384 principal
battles of the Civil War. The commission designated the Battle of Fort
Henry as having Class B military importance, because it had a direct and
decisive influence on the "Federal Penetration Up the Cumberland and
Tennessee Rivers (1862)" Campaign of the Main Western Theater Minus the
Gulf Approach. The Battle of Fort Donelson was designated as having
Class A military importance, because it had a decisive influence on the
campaign and a direct impact on the course of the Civil War.

The Civil War Sites Advisory Commission also listed the Battle of
Johnsonville as one of the 384 principal battles of the Civil War. The
commission designated the battle as having Class B military importance,
because it had a direct and decisive influence on "Forrest's Raid into
West Tennessee (1864)," an important campaign associated with the Main
Western Theater Minus the Gulf Approach.

![](media/image5.png){width="4.182638888888889in"
height="5.260416666666667in"}During 1994-95, the Forrest C. Pogue Public
History Institute at Murray State University, Murray, Kentucky,
conducted the Jackson Purchase Civil War Sites Survey Project, with
funding provided by a grant from the Kentucky Heritage Council. The
study documented the general dimensions and extant historic features --
earthwork fortifications, including trench lines, an outer battery or
fortified redoubt, and a possible powder magazine, as well as historic
road traces and former grave sites -- at the Fort Heiman Site, a parcel
consisting of some 350 acres. **Figure 1-5. "Federal Fort" at Fort
Heiman**

In June 2002 David W. Lowe of the National Park Service's Cultural
Resources GIS Office directed a Global Positioning System (GPS) survey
of the Fort Heiman complex and prepared detailed maps of two areas of
interest -- Fort Heiman proper and the "Outer Battery" or "Federal Fort"
(Figure 1-5). In Fort Heiman proper, 593 meters (648 yards) of readily
visible and largely intact surviving earthworks were mapped. The
earthworks range in relief from 0.7 to about 2 meters (1-6 feet). At the
south end of the site, nine pits were mapped which are said to be graves
from which the bodies were later removed. Farther north is another
similar pit likely associated with a single burial. Between these
gravesites is a large rectangular hole thought to be the remains of the
fort's magazine. Adjacent is a smaller hole with a communication trench
leading down the bluff toward the water.

The "Outer Battery" or "Federal Fort" is sited where two historic roads
climbed out of the river bottom to join what is now Fort Heiman Road,
about 830 meters inland from the works at Fort Heiman proper. The fort
is an irregular redoubt designed to support 3 or 4 guns with an inner
perimeter (along the parapet) of 258 meters and an outer perimeter
(outer edge of the ditch) of 308 meters. The parapet encloses 2,766
square meters, nearly 0.7 acres, which make it comparable in size to
most of the Federal forts found along the Petersburg, Virginia, lines.
The ravine southeast of the fort contains what appear to be a hut pad
and several rectangular dugouts, suggesting that the area may have been
used as the garrison encampment. Taken together, these Civil War-era
resources represent an extensive intact fortification, encampment, and
road complex that are likely to yield significant archeological resource
information.

Thus, the site affords the opportunity to provide a more complete
interpretation of the significant aspects of the Battles of Forts Henry
and Donelson, as well as Johnsonville, and a more comprehensive
understanding of the important elements of Union and Confederate efforts
to control the two major water transportation routes -- the Tennessee
and Cumberland Rivers -- in the Confederate west. The site also affords
the opportunity to emphasize African-American involvement in both the
Union and Confederate war efforts.

![](media/image6.jpeg){width="3.7194444444444446in"
height="2.7895833333333333in"}

Many of the core Civil War-era resources associated with Fort Heiman
remain in woodlands; thus, the resources retain a relatively high degree
of integrity, although the area, largely denuded of trees during the
war, is now grown over and has been impacted by erosion, several roads
and houses, and other vestiges of real estate subdivision develop-ment,
particularly near the river (Figure 1-6). The boundary of the Fort
Heiman parcel would be adjusted to avoid land use conflicts. Fort Heiman
proper and the outer battery or Federal fort are relatively intact
because they are protected by woodlands on high bluffs overlooking
Kentucky Lake and the Tennessee River. Thus, the site retains a
relatively high potential to yield significant archeological
information.

The Fort Heiman site also provides scenic panoramic vistas overlooking
Fort Henry and a broad expanse of the Tennessee River Valley, as well as
the Land between the Lakes National Recreation Area (Figure 1-7), thus
presenting oppor-tunities for interpreting the struggle to control the
Tennessee and Cumberland Rivers throughout the Civil War. Because the
site overlooks Fort Henry, which is largely under the waters of Kentucky
Lake, it also presents the opportunity to interpret the Battle of Fort
Henry as well as the relationship between Forts Heiman and Henry.
![](media/image7.jpeg){width="4.333333333333333in" height="3.25in"}

Fort Heiman is critical to Fort Donelson National Battlefield because
it, along with Forts Henry and Donelson, would protect resources that
are: (1) associated with significant military operations in the "Federal
Penetration Up the Cumberland and Tennessee Rivers (1862)" in the
Western Theater of Operations and that are two of the 384 principal
battlefields of the Civil War as identified by the Civil War Sites
Advisory Commission, and (2) associated with significant military
activities and the Battle of Johnsonville in "Forrest's Raid into West
Tennessee (1864)" in the Western Theater of Operations and that is also
one of the 384 principal battlefields of the Civil War. Thus, Fort
Heiman affords the opportunity to: (1) relate the story of Fort Heiman
to both the Battles of Fort Henry and Donelson as well as the subsequent
Battle of Johnsonville, (2) interpret the struggle for the control of
the Tennessee and Cumberland Rivers during the Civil War, and (3) tell
the story of African-American involvement in the Union and Confederate
war efforts. Thus, protection of the site provides the opportunity for
interpreting the continuum of Civil War history in the area as well as
providing a more complete interpretive story of the Fort Henry and the
Donelson Campaign.

Critical resources include the aforementioned extant historic features
at Fort Heiman that retain a high degree of historic integrity as well
as the panoramic vistas of the Kentucky Lake-Tennessee River Valley and
Land Between the Lakes National Recreation Area from the site that
provide the historic context for interpreting the Battle of Fort Henry
and the struggle to control the river as a major transportation artery
in the Confederate west.

####### Operational and Management Issues

County roads, landownership patterns, and topographical features define
the boundary of the Fort Heiman site. The site includes some 350 acres
on which the aforementioned extant historic features associated with the
fort are located.

Access to the site is by Calloway County roads. Although portions of the
site have been cleared and subdivided into lots for residential
purposes, only one modern residence (Figure 1-8) and one partially
completed house (Figure 1-7), along with associated roads, are currently
on Fort Heiman. With the exception of these two structures and
associated roads, the site, as well as adjacent land use, is primarily
pastoral and woodlands with much of the adjoining land being
administered by the Ten-nessee Valley Authority (TVA). The site provides
opportunities for interpretive/ recreational trails, water-related
activity and access, interpretive media, small-scale parking, and
non-personal services. Although a visitor contact facility would be
needed at the site, no housing would be needed.
![](media/image8.jpeg){width="3.7194444444444446in"
height="2.7895833333333333in"}

Due to its relative isolation and the distance of Fort Heiman from Fort
Donelson headquarters, there might be a need for some maintenance or
other administrative facilities near Fort Heiman.

####### Protection of Park Resources

Although only two modern structures and associated roads have been
constructed on Fort Heiman, some 20 acres of the historic property have
been cleared and subdivided for residential lots. Recent clear-cut
logging operations north of the outer battery (Figures 1-9 and 1-10) has
obliterated the old road trace leading through the parcel, and future
clear-cutting operations could adversely impact the historic setting.
Construction of more homes and other structures in the area or further
subdivision and development of Fort Heiman property could substantially
change the historic setting that is essential for interpreting the
fort's significance.

####### Feasibility of Administration![](media/image9.jpeg){width="4.088888888888889in" height="2.7180555555555554in"}

Although geographically separated from Fort Donelson, the land on which
Fort Heiman is located would be managed without substantial costs.
Management of the site would be facilitated by the fact that there is
one road ingress and egress to the site. The immediate surroundings of
the site retain much of their historic pastoral/ woodland character. The
site is entirely in private ownership, and the ownership pattern is
known. Some funds are already available from the Commonwealth of
Kentucky, the Land and Water Conservation Fund, and the principal
landowner at the site for the acquisition of land. Some land acquisition
is already occurring. The total dollar figure dedicated to land
acquisition from the Commonwealth of Kentucky has been \$750,000 to
date. Thus, it is understood that acquisition costs would be modest and
that there would be few, if any, obstacles in acquiring the property on
a willing-seller basis. While historic resources and their preservation
would drive the final boundary configuration of the historic site, to
avoid conflicts, private residential properties would not be acquired
unless specific critical resource protection or visitor use needs were
identified.

![](media/image10.jpeg){width="2.6319444444444446in" height="3.28125in"}

Partnerships with state, local, and private organizations would be
established at the earliest possible time. Partnerships to advance
mutually beneficial goals in education and interpretation would be
aggressively pursued in Calloway County, Kentucky, and Stewart County,
Tennessee. The potential to use shared facilities would be explored as
well.

Management costs for Fort Heiman would be modest, including periodic
mowing, routine law enforcement patrols, trash collection, and perhaps
partnerships with local governments and/or private organizations to
obtain services for development of a seasonal educational/ interpretive
program and personal visitor services. Aside from acquisition

> **Figure 1-10. Area of clearcut logging**

costs, there would be no perceived short-term development costs.
Long-term development costs would result from interpretive/recreational
trail development and construction of a visitor contact facility,
waysides and other interpretive media, and a small-scale parking area.
Modest expenditures would also be needed to rehabilitate and afford
preservation treatment to some of the historic resources.

####### Alternatives to National Park Service Management

Although various state and local entities are actively interested in
protecting and interpreting Fort Heiman, all have limited resources and
none envision long-term management of the property. It is the stated
intention of these entities to have the site included in the national
park system as part of Fort Donelson National Battlefield. No other
management entity capable of providing for the necessary levels of
resource protection and visitor use at Fort Heiman has emerged. Other
regulatory mechanisms for the protection of the site, such as county
zoning, are significantly limited.

**1.3.2 Fort Henry, Stewart County, Tennessee**

####### Historic Context

Cairo, Illinois, at the confluence of the Ohio and the Mississippi
rivers, was vital to the United States because of its location and the
operations base established there. The Western Flotilla had nine new
ironclad gunboats, seven of which were the creation of James B. Eads, a
boat builder in St. Louis. Each of the seven had 13 guns, a flat bottom,
and shallow draft. Protection was provided by a sloping casemate covered
with iron armor 2.5 inches thick designed by Samuel Pook. One of the
most notable of "Pook's Turtles" was the USS *Carondelet*.

The first test of three of these new warships was against Fort Henry, an
earthen fort that the Confederates had hastily constructed on the east
(Tennessee) bank of the Tennessee River during the winter of 1861-62.
When Confederate Brig. Gen. Lloyd Tilghman was sent to command the fort,
he immediately realized that Fort Henry was indefensible, because it was
constructed on low ground susceptible to flooding and was directly
across the river from high ground. In January 1862, he ordered the
construction of a new fort on the high ground on the west (Kentucky)
side of the Tennessee River, known as Fort Heiman. The new fort was
still under construction when Union Brig. Gen. Ulysses S. Grant launched
his offensive against Forts Henry and Donelson in early February 1862.

In a joint army-navy operation a fleet of seven gunboats -- four
ironclads and three wooden ones -- under Union naval Flag Officer Andrew
H. Foote steamed out of Cairo, Illinois, on February 2, leading the
transports carrying Grant's force. On February 4-5, Grant landed his
divisions in two different locations, one on the east bank of the
Tennessee River to prevent the garrison at Fort Henry from escaping to
Fort Donelson and the other to occupy the high ground on the Kentucky
side to ensure the fall of both Forts Heiman and Henry. After Foote's
gunboats began bombarding the forts, Tilghman recalled the troops
building Fort Heiman to assist in the defense of Fort Henry. Tilghman
soon realized that he could not hold Fort Henry. Thus, he ordered his
barbette-mounted cannon to hold off the Union fleet while he sent most
of his men to Fort Donelson, 11 miles away (Figure 1-11).

![](media/image11.jpeg){width="6.389583333333333in"
height="2.7708333333333335in"}

On February 6, the Union gunboats steamed to within 200 yards of Fort
Henry and knocked out 13 of its 17 heavy guns. Confederate fire exploded
the boiler of the *Essex*, a converted ironclad, causing 38 casualties.
Tilghman surrendered both Forts Henry and Heiman after 70 minutes of
bombardment, enabling the Federal gunboats to ascend the Tennessee River
south to Muscle Shoals, Alabama. After the fall of Fort Donelson on the
Cumberland River, ten days later, the two major water transportation
routes in the Confederate west, bounded by the Appalachians on the east
and the Mississippi River on the west, became Union highways for
movement of troops and material.

**Significant Resources or Opportunities for Public Enjoyment**

The Battle of Fort Henry, along with the Battle of Fort Donelson,
constituted the first major victory of the Union forces in the Civil War
and the outcome that earned Brig. Gen. Ulysses S. Grant his promotion to
major general of volunteers and the nickname "Unconditional Surrender
Grant."

The Fort Henry site was listed in the National Register of Historic
Places on October 10, 1975, under Criterion D because of its potential
for yielding information important in United States history.

In 1993, the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission listed the Battle of
Fort Henry as one of the 384 principal battles of the Civil War. The
commission designated the battle as having Class B military importance,
because it had a direct and decisive influence on the "Federal
Penetration Up The Cumberland and Tennessee Rivers (1862)" Campaign of
the Main Western Theater Minus the Gulf Approach.

The Fort Henry Site has been designated by the Tennessee Historical
Commission (THC) as one of the state's 38 most significant Civil War
sites.

During 2001, the Land Between the Lakes Association, Golden Pond,
Kentucky, prepared a study, "The Preservation of Fort Henry and
Associated Sites," with funding provided by a grant from the American
Battlefield Protection Program, National Park Service. The study
documented the general dimensions and historic features at the Fort
Henry site.

Thus, the site, which is managed by the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) as
part of Land Between the Lakes (LBL) National Recreation Area, affords
the opportunity to relate significant aspects of the Battle of Fort
Henry. The site, along with Forts Donelson and Heiman, also provides the
opportunity to interpret Union efforts to control the two major water
transportation routes -- the Tennessee and Cumberland Rivers -- in the
Confederate west.

Fort Henry consisted of a series of outer earthworks and rifle pits in
addition to the main fort that consisted of five bastions augmented with
sandbags. Today the largest portion of the site is inundated by Kentucky
Lake -- a lake created by the TVA during the 1940s (Figures 1-12 and
1-13). However, most of the outer earthworks (consisting of 902 meters
\[986 yards\] of double ditched parapet that ranges in width from 4.2 to
4.9 meters \[14-16 feet\] and relief from 0.9 to 1.6 meters \[3-5 feet\]
on the average) of the original site remain intact and above water in
heavily forested terrain (Figure 1-14). Thus, the area of the outerworks
retains a relatively high degree of its historic character, although it
has been impacted by erosion, logging, high lake water, roads, and
construction of a boardwalk and interpretive trail during the 1970s. In
addition, five Confederate soldiers' graves have been identified and
marked to the east of the outerworks (Figures 1-15 and 1-16). The
largely pristine nature of the outerworks and portions of the main fort
that have been inundated have relatively high potential for
archeological survey and
research.![](media/image12.jpeg){width="3.933333333333333in"
height="2.95in"}

######### ![](media/image13.png){width="5.920138888888889in" height="4.277083333333334in"}Figure 1-13. Fort Henry submerged beneath Kentucky Lake

####### Operational and Management Issues![](media/image14.jpeg){width="4.156944444444444in" height="3.0555555555555554in"}

Although the boundary of the Fort Henry site is indistinct and mostly
submerged under the waters of Kentucky Lake, it is managed by the USFS
as part of LBL National Recreation Area. Extant Civil War-era resources
that are significant to and critical to an understanding of, the site
include the outer earthworks, fort remnants (both submerged and exposed
above the water line), Confederate graves, historic trails/roads, and
archeological resources associated with iron furnaces. Adjacent land use
consists of heavily wooded lands in the national recreation area. Public
access is assured, and the area provides opportunities for
interpretive/recreational trails, interpretive media, small-scale
parking, and non-personal services.

####### Protection of Park Resources

The Battles of Forts Henry and Donelson, as well as subsequent events in
the area during the Civil War, are integral parts of the efforts by both
the Confederates and Federals to control the two major water
transportation routes in the Confederate west. Thus, the Fort Henry site
would protect a resource associated with a key Civil War military
operation in the "Federal Penetration Up The Cumberland Rivers (1862)"
Campaign in the Main Western Theater Minus the Gulf Approach (one of the
384 principal battlefields of the Civil War as identified by the Civil
War Sites Advisory Commission) and would afford the opportunity to
relate the battle to both Forts Donelson and Heiman.

Critical resources include the outer earthworks, fort remnants (both
submerged and exposed above the water line), Confederate graves,
historic trails/roads, and archeological resources associated with the
area's iron furnaces. Although the historic setting of Fort Henry that
is essential for interpreting the significance of the battle has been
preserved as part of Land Between the Lakes National Recreation Area,
much of the fort remains lie beneath the waters of Kentucky Lake.
Interpretive/ recreational trails, as well as some historic road traces,
have fallen into disuse and become overgrown, and the outer earthworks,
although protected by the forest canopy, have been subjected to erosion,
high water from the lake, logging, and the road and trail construction.
Thus, the need for additional resource protection is necessary. Enhanced
protection of the historically significant resources associated with
Fort Henry can be better provided by the combined efforts of the U. S.
Forest Service and the National Park Service.
![](media/image15.jpeg){width="3.5881944444444445in"
height="2.5395833333333333in"}![](media/image16.jpeg){width="3.5909722222222222in"
height="2.4833333333333334in"}

####### Feasibility of Administration

The land on which Fort Henry sits is currently administered by the U.S.
Forest Service. Thus, no land acquisition costs would be involved with
the effort to enhance resource protection and interpretation at the
site. However, because the National Park Service could be involved with
resource preservation and interpretation, the agency could share in the
costs associated with such activities.

####### Alternatives to National Park Service Management

Fort Henry would continue to be administered by the United States Forest
Service. However, cooperative efforts between that agency and the
National Park Service could enhance resource preservation and visitor
use of the site. There is no other recognized management entity capable
of providing for resource protection, interpretation, and visitor use of
the Fort Henry site.

**1.3.3 Fort Donelson, Stewart County, Tennessee**

####### Historic Context

Fort Donelson, Tennessee, guarding the Cumberland River, became the site
of the first major Confederate defeat in the Civil War. Victory at
Donelson started Union Brig. Gen. Ulysses S. Grant on his road to
Appomattox and the White House. His cool judgment under pressure saved
the day after the Confederates threatened to break his lines, although
errors by his opponents handed him a victory that he did not fully earn.

Possession of much of Tennessee and Kentucky, both vital to the South,
depended on the outcome of the battle at Fort Donelson. When the war
began in April 1861, Kentucky declared its neutrality in response to
deep cleavages of opinion among its citizens. Considering neutrality
impossible to maintain, both the North and South maneuvered for position
once Kentucky was opened to military operations. The Confederates
constructed fortifications on both the Tennessee and Cumberland rivers
just south of the Kentucky line, building Fort Henry on the Tennessee
River, on ground susceptible to flooding, but choosing higher ground for
Fort Donelson on the Cumberland.

After the surrender of Forts Henry and Heiman to Union forces under
Grant on February 6, 1862, most of the Confederate troops fled to Fort
Donelson, 11 miles to the east. Grant followed, after sending the Union
gunboats back down the Tennessee River and over to the Cumberland.

Confederate Gen. Albert Sidney Johnston, overall commander in the West,
concentrated his troops at Fort Donelson, anticipating the loss of
Nashville if Donelson fell. Torn between defending and abandoning the
fort, Johnston took a middle course that led to disaster. He was
criticized later for sending so many troops to Donelson without sending
his entire force and taking command himself. By the time Grant arrived
with approximately 15,000 men, Donelson held nearly 15,000-17,000
Confederate soldiers under the command of three generals. Brig. Gen.
John B. Floyd, who was commanding Donelson, had been the Secretary of
War in the cabinet of President James Buchanan.

Brig. Gen. Gideon J. Pillow was second-in-command, but Brig. Gen. Simon
B. Buckner, a West Point graduate and old friend of Grant, was the only
professional soldier of the three.

Fort Donelson consisted of earthworks surrounding about 15 acres (Figure
1-17), where the garrison lived in huts. Two batteries -- the Lower and
Upper River batteries -- outside the fort commanded the river with their
12 heavy guns (Figure 1-18), and about two miles of fortifications,
protecting both the artillery encampment and the nearby hamlet of Dover,
stretched from Hickman Creek on the right to Lick Creek on the left. The
creeks, flooded in February, protected both flanks. Confed­erate officers
and engineers had complained continuously of shortages of men and
supplies to complete the fortifications, but Federal forces encountered
formidable earthworks fronted by trees felled, tangled, and sharpened to
impede attack.

Grant advanced on February 12 and began to encircle Fort Donelson the
next day, ordering Brig. Gen. Charles F. Smith's division to probe the
Confed­erate right, commanded by Buckner, and Brig. Gen. John A.
McClernand's division to probe the Confederate left, under Brig. Gen.
Bushrod R. Johnson. Grant found the Confederate lines too strong and
well positioned for assault. Relying on this strength, however, the
Confederates permitted Union troops to complete a virtual encirclement,
leaving only a small gap on their right, and to select high ground for
their base.

Union Flag Officer Andrew H. Foote's gunboat fleet, consisting of the
iron­clads, *St. Louis*, *Pittsburgh*, *Louisville*, and *Carondolet*,
and the timberclads, *Conestoga* and *Tyler*, arrived late at night,
carrying fresh troops, and a brigade commanded by Brig. Gen. Lewis
Wallace marched from Fort Henry. Ultimately, Grant's army numbered
approximately 27,000.

![](media/image17.jpeg){width="4.159722222222222in"
height="3.1145833333333335in"}

Both armies froze when overnight temperatures unexpectedly fell to 12
degrees. On February 14 Foote tested the water batteries with his six
vessels and the batteries prevailed, inflicting heavy damage on the
flotilla. Although heavily outgunned, artillerists found the range when
the gunboats came too close, and the fleet was forced to retreat.

During the morning of February 15 Grant consulted Foote on his flagship,
where he lay immobilized by a wound inflicted by the Confederate
batteries. While they discussed their next move, Pillow struck the Union
right with devastating force. Buckner's line was denuded as the
Confederates massed troops to break free of encirclement. McClernand's
right began to roll back on the center until reinforcements from Wallace
halted the advancing Confed­erates. When the fighting slackened, Pillow
held the Forge Road, leading toward Nashville and safety.

![](media/image18.jpeg){width="4.139583333333333in"
height="3.104861111111111in"}

Just as the way seemed clear for a Confederate breakout from Donelson,
the Southern troops were ordered to return to their entrenchments -- a
result of confusion and indecision among the Confed-erate commanders.
Stung by the morning offensive, the Union troops were confused and
demoralized until Grant returned. Inspecting the haversacks of fallen
Confed-erates, which contained rations for three days, Grant concluded
that the assault represented a desperate effort to escape. Grant
immediately launched a vigorous counter-attack, retaking most of the
lost ground and gaining new positions as well. Smith's division was
successful against Buckner's weakened line, which put Union troops
inside the Confed­erate fortifications and threatened the redoubt. The
way of escape for the Confederates was closed once more.

The three days of fighting had left the armies close to their initial
positions. Grant's reinforcements, however, were much exaggerated in the
Confederate imagination, and Floyd and Pillow had squandered their only
opportunity to evacuate. During the evening of Febru­ary 15, the
Confederate commanders planned the surrender. Floyd relinquished command
to Pillow and Pillow to Buckner. The top brass slipped away to Nashville
by water with about 2,000 men. Col. Nathan Bedford Forest led his
cavalry and a few infantry safely by land to Nashville.

When Buckner asked Grant to appoint commissioners to negotiate the terms
of capitulation, Grant responded that, "no terms except an unconditional
and immediate surrender can be accepted." Although he denounced this
response as "ungenerous and unchivalrous," Buckner had little choice but
to surrender. Buckner and Grant met at the Dover Hotel (Figure 1-19) to
work out the details.

Grant lost 2,852 killed or wounded, and Floyd lost about 2,000. But
Grant took about 15,000 prisoners, 48 military pieces, and other war
materiel the South could not afford to lose. The surrender, which was
the first step toward the Confederate loss of the West, ensured that
Kentucky would stay in the Union as the Confederates fell back from the
southern part of that state and much of Middle and West Tennessee,
including Nashville. The Tennessee and Cumberland rivers, and railroads
in the area, became vital Federal supply lines and invasion routes to
the heartland of the South for the Union armies, and Nashville was
developed into a huge Federal supply depot. Grant won fame and promotion
to major general for his victory and attained stature in the Western
Theater, earning the *nom de guerre* "Unconditional Surrender," while
both Floyd and Pillow lost command.
![](media/image19.jpeg){width="4.252083333333333in"
height="2.834722222222222in"}

####### Significant Resources or Opportunities for Public Enjoyment

The Battle of Fort Donelson, along with the Battle of Fort Henry,
constituted the first major victory of the Union forces in the Civil War
and the outcome that earned Brig. Gen. Ulysses S. Grant his promotion to
major general and the nickname "Unconditional Surrender Grant." As a
result of the capture and occupation of these two forts, as well as Fort
Heiman, the Tennessee and Cumberland rivers --- two major transportation
routes in the Confederate west -- became Union highways for the
transport of men and material to the Deep South.

Fort Donelson was established by Congress as a national military park
and placed under the administration of the War Department on March 26,
1928. Administration of the national military park, along with its
adjacent national cemetery, was transferred to the National Park Service
on August 10, 1933. The Surrender House (Dover Hotel) and landing on the
Cumberland River were added to the park on September 8, 1960. On August
9, 1985, the national military park was redesignated by Congress as Fort
Donelson National Battlefield. Today, the national battlefield consists
of 551.69 acres, and the adjacent national cemetery (Figure 1-20)
consists of 15.34 acres.

In 1993, the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission listed the Battle of
Fort Donelson as one of the 384 principal battles of the Civil War. The
commission identified Fort Donelson as a Priority I.1. Class A
battlefield. This identification meant that there was critical need for
nationwide action to preserve and protect this battlefield because it
had fair integrity, was subject to a high level of threats, and
possessed less than 20 percent of the core area battlefield as
identified by American Battlefield Protection Program. Furthermore, the
commission designated the battle as having Class A military importance,
because it had a decisive influence on a campaign (Federal Penetration
Up the Tennessee and Cumberland Rivers, 1862) and a direct impact on the
course of the Civil War.

Fort Donelson National Battlefield, including extant earthworks, rifle
pits, and batteries, as well as lands on which military operations
occurred, affords the opportunity to relate significant aspects of the
Battle of Fort Donelson. Although impacted by erosion, minimal park
develop-ment, and expansion of the Dover commun-ity, the national
battle-field and cemetery, along with their immediate surroundings,
retain a high degree of their historic pastoral and woodlands character.
They are easily accessible by national and state highways and town and
county roads, and offer scenic vistas in which significant elements of
the battle can be interpreted. The battlefield, along with the Fort
Henry Site, also provides the opportunity to interpret Union efforts to
control the two major transportation routes -- the Cumberland and
Tennessee Rivers -- in the Confederate
west.![](media/image20.jpeg){width="4.61875in"
height="2.9965277777777777in"}

Nevertheless, the current acreage within the boundaries of the national
battlefield is inadequate to tell the full story of the battle. As
stated earlier, the lands within the current battlefield boundaries
comprise less than 20% of the core battlefield, and the battlefield
primarily protects Confed­erate earthworks and relates to Confederate
military operations at Fort Donelson. To enable the National Park
Service to interpret key elements of the Union story at the fort, and
thus provide visitors with a more comprehensive understanding of the
significant elements of the Battle of Fort Donelson, certain lands
should be added to the national battlefield. These parcels, described
below, are critical to the public's understanding of one of the
principal 384 Civil War battlefields.

####### Operational and Management Issues

The core area of Fort Donelson National Battlefield is one mile west of
downtown Dover, Tennessee (a town of nearly 1,500 residents and the seat
of Stewart County), and three miles east of Land Between the Lakes
National Recreation Area on the north side of U.S. 79. Portions of the
battlefield extend south of the highway west of Sandy Road and along a
narrow park road corridor that connects the Maney's Battery, French's
Battery, and Forge Road sites. The Dover Hotel is at the northeast edge
of the town along the shore of Lake Barkley.

Land use surrounding the battlefield consists of residential grid
development in the town and modest, low-density residential development
along the town and county roads that extend outward from the downtown
area. Outside of the downtown area much of the land in the vicinity of
the battlefield remains forested or pastoral. Opportunities for an
expanded visitor experience remain, including additional interpretive/
recreational trails, interpretive media, waysides, small-scale parking,
and non-personal services.

####### Protection of Park Resources

Although the historic resources within the current boundaries of Fort
Donel­son National Battlefield afford the opportunity to relate
significant aspects of the Battle of Fort Donelson, the resources relate
primarily to Confederate fortifications and operations. Moreover, the
current boundaries of the battlefield encompass only about 20% of the
core area of the historic battlefield as identified by the American
Battlefield Protection Program.

To enable the National Park Service to interpret key elements of the
Union story at the fort, and thus provide visitors with a more
comprehensive understanding of the significant elements of the historic
events that occurred at the battlefield, certain lands should be added
to the national battlefield. The recommendation to include lands into
Fort Donelson NB was based on a three-fold test. First, the area had to
be within the core area of the battlefield. Historic discussions of each
parcel follow this section. Second, the land must retain a high degree
of integrity. Third, the land must be owned by willing sellers. The
parcels listed in this study each meet this test.

As the map of the core area illustrates (Figure 1-21), there is much
land of the battlefield not included in these recommendations. While
this area would meet the historical test for inclusion, it would not
meet one or both of the other requirements. The following parcels
recommended for inclusion are critical for a complete interpretive story
of the important events occurring here in 1862.

**Forge Road Parcel.** The Confederate surrender of Fort Henry on
February 6, 1862 forced both armies to evaluate their positions. The
Union Army had to decide how to best take advantage of the victory while
the Confederate Army tried to deal with the defeat and loss of control
of the Tennessee River.

Realizing that Grant would likely attack Fort Donelson next and
believing that Fort Donelson could not be held against Grant\'s forces,
Confederate leaders decided to send reinforcements to Fort Donelson to
delay Grant while adjustments were made elsewhere along the Confederate
line. Thus, a much larger Confederate army was waiting when Grant\'s
army began arriving and surrounding Fort Donelson on February 12, 1862,
than had been at Fort Henry.

Grant surrounded Fort Donelson and waited for the Union gunboats to
attack. The gunboats attacked the river fortifications on February 14,
but Confederate positions proved too strong and

the boats fell back downstream. Grant began to contemplate a siege, but
the Confederate generals decided their army had delayed Grant long
enough. They decided to leave the safety of their earthworks and attack
the Union right flank to open an escape route to Nashville, Tennessee.
The Confederates decided to position most of their army opposite the
Union right flank, attack at daybreak, and open roads leading to
Nashville. At daybreak on February 15, the attack was launched. The
extreme Union right was pushed back fairly easily as this concentrated
Confederate attack pressed them. They fell back to other units of Brig.
Gen. John A. McClernand\'s division and began to hold. McClernand\'s
division turned and met the Confederate attack, and for about three
hours fought battle line to battle line while slowly and grudgingly
giving ground. Lack of ammunition and the determined Confederate attack
forced McClernand\'s division to give way.

This three-hour time period saw the heaviest infantry fighting of the
battle. In this general area near the Forge Road, 70 percent of the
Union casualties fell. Confederate casualty records are not as good, but
we can assume an equal or higher percentage of their casualties fell in
this same area. Visiting Fort Donelson National Battlefield and not
being able to see this area of the 1862 battlefield is like visiting
Shiloh and being denied access to the Hornets Nest, visiting Gettysburg
and not seeing the area of Pickett\'s Charge, or visiting Antietam and
not seeing Bloody Lane. Visitors cannot completely appreciate these
significant battles without viewing their critical areas. There are two
parcels of land for sale in the Forge Road area of approximately 162
acres --

in Figure 1-21, the Cherry and Bagard properties, respectively. Figure
1-22 shows a scene from the Bagard tract. The Civil War Preservation
Trust purchased one of these parcels; a portion of the other parcel was
sold for apartment construction. Acquisition of these parcels would
protect an important part of the battlefield from development and would
improve the visitor\'s understanding and appreciation of Fort Donelson
because the area would be added to the park\'s tour route.

![](media/image21.jpeg){width="4.179861111111111in"
height="3.1347222222222224in"}

**French's Battery and Erin Hollow Parcels.** Following the success of
the Confed-erates in the aforementioned Forge Road, McClernand\'s
division fell back hoping to regroup. Brig. Gen. Lew Wallace decided to
bring his division to McClernand\'s aid. To accomplish this, Wallace
left his position in the Union center, crossed Indian Creek, and formed
a battle line across Wynns Ferry Road. This line formed a new obstacle
for the attacking Confederate forces.

The French\'s Battery and Erin Hollow parcels are located between the
Confederate earthworks (park boundary) and the Wallace position along
Wynns Ferry Road (south of park boundary) and are contiguous to the
present park boundary. Men from Brig. Gen. Simon B. Buckner\'s Division
fell back to their earthworks to regroup and issue ammunition. Once they
were reformed into battle lines, they charged across these parcels and
attacked the Wallace position on Wynns Ferry Road. These attacks were
unsuccessful, and the Confederate offensive began to falter. Although
the desired escape routes were open, the Confederate generals decided
not to make their escape, but rather to return inside their earthworks
without leaving forces to protect those routes. This decision would
result in the capture of the Confederate force at Fort Donelson. This
Confederate withdrawal of forces crossed the French's Battery and Erin
Hollow parcels.

Fort Donelson National Battlefield is located within the city limits of
Dover, Tennessee. There are pressures from all directions to develop
property that is part of the battlefield and on property contiguous to
park boundaries. These two parcels -- the Bell and Carson properties in
Figure 1-21 -- are for sale. Acquiring them would protect and preserve
more of the battlefield and prevent some development next to the current
battlefield boundaries.

**Wynns Ferry Road Parcel (Grant Rallies the Troops).** Before daylight
on February 15, Grant decided to travel several miles downstream to the
riverbank where the Union gunboats had tied up. He was unaware of the
impending Confederate attack on his right flank. As the Confederate
attack pressed forward, riders were sent and eventually found Grant at
the river. They informed him of the dire situation, and Grant began
making his way back to his troubled lines. Hurrying along his lines,
Grant found McClernand\'s division trying to reform and Wallace\'s
division on Wynns Ferry Road. He found officers and men wandering around
not knowing what to do. Captured Confederate soldiers were brought to
Grant with bed rolls and rations and exclamations that the Confederates
were prepared to fight Union troops all the way back to Fort Henry.
Grant handled the situation well. He deduced quickly from the captured
soldiers that they were trying to leave. He also concluded that if the
Confederates hit hard in one place, other positions must be poorly
defended. He ordered that the area lost earlier in the day be retaken
and that a poorly defended position be attacked. Confederate inability
to take this position and Grant\'s ability to rally his troops assured a
Union victory.

Grant had been given a cigar while inspecting the gunboats. War
correspondents traveling with the Union Army described for their readers
how Grant, chewing on a dead cigar, rode up in a moment of destiny and
how he saved the battle by arriving just in time to turn defeat into
victory. These news accounts and the demand for an \"Unconditional
Surrender\" gave Grant a new nickname and helps to explain how a clerk
in a leather store could rise to major general in command of the Union
army and become its first hero in such a short time. Grant was propelled
into national prominence, eventually accepting Confederate surrender at
Appomattox. His popularity ultimately carried him to the White House.
The early victories he achieved had a great effect on Grant\'s career,
the outcome of the Civil War, and American history.

The effect the victory at Fort Donelson had on Grant\'s career is an
important interpretive theme for this park. This parcel (#6 in Figure
1-21) would protect some of the area where Wallace\'s division deployed
to stop the Confederate attack and the area where Grant rode up to his
moment of destiny. The visitor experience at Fort Donelson would be
improved by providing another opportunity to interpret this important
aspect of the battle.

This area is not contiguous to park boundaries. It is in an area of
development. It is important to take the opportunity now to protect,
preserve, and interpret this pristine part of the core battlefield for
future generations.

**Smith\'s Attack Parcel.** By daybreak on February 15, Confederate
generals had massed their forces opposite the Union right and were
preparing an attack in order to open an escape route to Nashville,
Tennessee. The attack was launched and was initially successful. The
Union right was pushed off the battlefield and the escape routes were
opened. When Grant reached the battlefield and made his assessment of
the situation, he concluded that the Confederates must have weakened
their lines someplace else to be able to hit him so hard in this
location. After rallying the troops on his right, he rode off to his
left flank occupied by Brig. Gen. Charles F. Smith\'s division. Smith
had been commandant of cadets at West Point when Grant was a cadet.
Thus, Grant felt a little strange giving orders to his former superior,
but he informed Smith that the enemy was trying to escape but had been
stopped and must be demoralized. Now was the time to attack and carry
the fort. Smith moved his division against the Confederate works in his
front. Because most of the Confederates were massed on the other side of
the earthworks (more than a mile away), Union soldiers were able to
climb the hill and sweep over the Confederate works. Reinforcements and
lateness in the day prevented Smith\'s division from taking the main
fort. Still, the Union had a firm grip on the Confederate right flank.
During the night of February 15, Union soldiers camped where Confederate
soldiers had camped the night before. This action gave the Confederate
generals another reason to consider surrender as they discussed their
next course of action.

During this attack a corporal in the color guard picked up the flag
after other color guards had been wounded. Although wounded himself, the
corporal bore the flag to the end of the engagement. For this feat
Voltaire Twombly was awarded the Medal of Honor. His Medal of Honor is
on display in the Fort Donelson National Battlefield Visitor Center.

This parcel is contiguous to the park boundary. This area was between
Union and Confederate lines. The right flank of Smith\'s division
crossed this area during the attack. It is also very near the visitor
center. Acquiring the parcel would bring more of the core battlefield
within the park boundary and further preservation of the cultural
landscape near the visitor center.

**Freedmen\'s Camp Parcel.** The effects of the fall of Fort Donelson
would be felt across the country economically, socially, and militarily.
In the middle Tennessee area, it had an immediate effect on the slave
population. The presence of the Union Army provided another opportunity
for slaves willing to seek freedom. Grant, lacking any established
policy from Washington, decided not to return slaves to their owners and
put them to work helping the Union Army. As word of the surrender went
out across the land, freedom-seeking slaves began leaving their owners
and traveling secretly to Dover, Tennessee, and the protection of the
Union Army. Before long, fugitive slaves were housed in sheds, cellars,
and barns in town. If not free to come and go as they pleased, they were
at least protected from their owners as long as they were under the
watchful eye of the Union army. Unofficial and later formal camps were
set up for them. Thousands of freedom-seeking former slaves came through
this camp during its existence. Some men were recruited into the Union
Army. Soldiers and civilians helped a few of the former slaves to travel
farther north in hopes of finding the freedom they so desperately
desired.

This parcel is contiguous to the park boundary and included the area of
the Freedmen\'s Camp. Acquiring this parcel would protect the site and
provide an excellent location to interpret this largely untold and
misunderstood story. Fort Donelson National Battlefield is a designated
site for the National Underground Railroad Network to Freedom program,
and this parcel would enable the National Park Service to interpret this
significant theme.

These additional areas have relatively high potential for archeological
survey and research, and they provide excellent opportunities for
interpretive/ recrea­tional trail possibilities, interpretive media,
waysides, related exhibits, small-scale off-road parking, and
non-personal services.

In addition, steps should be undertaken, in cooperation with the Corps
of Engineers, to protect and interpret the principal viewshed along the
west shore of Lake Barkley from the lower battery in the national
battlefield.

Although impacted by erosion and the expansion of the Dover community,
these lands, along with their immediate surroundings, retain a high
degree of their historic woodlands and pastoral character, are easily
accessible by national and state highways as well as by town and county
roads, and contain historically significant resources and scenic vistas
in which significant elements of the Battle of Fort Donelson can be
interpreted. The construction of more roads and homes and further
subdivision and development of these lands could compromise the
historically significant battlefield resources and substantially change
the historic setting that is essential to interpreting the significance
of this important Civil War battle.

####### Feasibility of Administration

Aside from the existing development in Dover and the residential
development along the roads that extend outward from the downtown area,
much of the battlefield area and its immediate surroundings retain their
historic woodland and pastoral character and could be easily managed.
The additional lands identified for acquisition are entirely in private
ownership. Some of the aforementioned lands recommended for addition to
the national battlefield are already under contract to the Civil War
Preservation Trust, which is purchasing them for donation to the
National Park Service. In addition, this organization and the State of
Tennessee have indicated interest in acquiring other historically
significant lands that are contiguous and noncontiguous to the
battlefield for donation to the National Park Service.

Landownership issues would drive the final configuration of the historic
national battlefield to avoid conflicts. Private residential properties
adjacent to the road networks would not be acquired unless specific
resource protection or visitor use needs are identified. Management
costs would be minimal, primarily including periodic mowing, routine law
enforcement patrols, trash collection, and perhaps partnerships with
local governments and/or private organizations to obtain services for
development of a seasonal educa­tional/interpretive program and personal
visitor services. Aside from acquisition costs, there would be no
perceived short-term development costs. Long-term developments costs
would result from interpretive/ recreational trail and access point
development, construction of waysides and other interpretive media, and
small-scale parking areas. Modest expenditures would also be needed to
rehabilitate and afford preservation treatment to some of the historic
resources.

####### Alternatives to National Park Service Management

The long-term preservation and visitor use of the aforementioned lands
in the vicinity of Fort Donelson National Battlefield are in jeopardy if
left in private ownership. Thus, various state and private entities,
such as the Civil War Preservation Trust and the State of Tennessee, are
actively interested in purchasing lands that are historically
significant to the national battlefield for donation to the National
Park Service. These lands, to be added to the national battlefield, are
contiguous as well as noncontiguous to the current battlefield
boundaries. No other recognized management entity capable of providing
for the necessary levels of resource preservation, interpretation, and
visitor use of these lands has emerged. Other regulatory mechanisms for
protection of these lands, such as county zoning, are significantly
limited.

**1.4 SCOPE OF THE BAS & EA**

This EA analyzes the potential environmental impacts resulting from
different management alternatives for possible boundary adjustment at
Fort Donelson National Battlefield that may be adopted by the National
Park Service (NPS). Two different management alternatives are considered
in this Boundary Adjustment Study and Environmental Assessment, and are
described in Section Two of the document. The decision to be made by the
lead agency, the NPS, involves determining whether or not to adjust the
boundaries of FODO to include privately-owned Fort Heiman and an
additional 10 private properties identified within the core area of the
battlefield. This decision may involve making recommendations to
Congress in the form of a legislative proposal.

If the boundaries of FODO are expanded to add any or all of these
properties, the NPS would likely undertake some appropriate development
at each of the additional properties to enhance visitor use and
experience. Details of any such developments are still in the
preliminary planning phase, and no site-specific development plans have
been determined. These developments will be discussed and analyzed in
detail in separate future NEPA documentation, once a management
alternative is selected and specific plans for development are
identified and more fully refined.

In order for this EA to serve also as a planning document, the analysis
of potential environmental and socioeconomic impacts that may result
from the different management alternatives will be supplemented by a
brief and broad description of potential impacts that should be
considered in subsequent NEPA documentation regarding potential
developments to enhance visitor experience. These potential impacts are
discussed by resource area under Connected Actions and Cumulative
Impacts throughout Section Four of this Boundary Adjustment Study and
Environmental Assessment (BAS & EA).

Since these developments are not part of the scope of this BAS & EA or
the decision to be made regarding the boundaries of FODO, the potential
impacts that should be considered during planning of these developments
will not affect the ratings or comparison of management alternatives
presented in this BAS & EA, or the selection of the environmentally
preferred alternative, discussed in Section 2.4. However, as a result of
these additional impact discussions, the range of issues and impact
topics to be analyzed in this EA (see Section 1.5 below) has been
broadened to include all resources that may be affected by future
developments, not just those resources that would be affected by the
management alternatives analyzed in detail in this EA.

**1.5 ISSUES AND IMPACT TOPICS**

Issues can be defined as the relationship between the Proposed Action or
its alternatives and the human and natural environment. Issues are used
to define which environmental resources may experience either
detrimental or beneficial consequences from an action; they do not
predict the degree or intensity of potential consequences that might
result from an action. Issues were identified by the NPS, State and
Federal agencies, a review of similar construction projects, and by the
public during the scoping process (see Appendix D of this BAS & EA).

From these issues, impact topics were developed for each affected
environmental resource area. Impact topics address the potential
consequences on the human and natural environment that might result from
the Proposed Action or its alternatives. Impact topics are used to
define and focus the discussion of the affected environment for each
resource area, and the analysis of the potential environmental
consequences of an action. These topics also derive from relevant
Federal laws, regulations, and orders, as well as NPS Management
Policies and resource area expertise. A summary of impact topics
analyzed and dismissed from further analysis is provided below, along
with the rationale for their inclusion or dismissal.

As discussed in Section 1.4 above, the analysis of potential
environmental and socioeconomic impacts that may result from the
different management alternatives will be supplemented by a brief and
broad description of potential impacts that should be considered in
subsequent NEPA documentation regarding potential NPS developments to
enhance visitor experience. As a result, the range of issues and impact
topics to be analyzed in this EA has been broadened to include all
resources that may be affected by future developments, not just those
resources that would be affected by the management alternatives analyzed
in detail in this EA.

**1.5.1 Impact Topics Analyzed**

The following issues and impact topics are analyzed in the environmental
assessment of this BAS & EA:

***Natural Resources***

[Soils and Topography]{.underline}: Soils and topography are anticipated
to be beneficially impacted as a result of the expansion of FODO's
boundaries, and NPS management of the affected properties. In addition,
potential impacts on these resources may result from future NPS
developments at Forts Heiman and the battlefield core area properties.
Therefore, soils and topography are included in this analysis.

[Water Resources]{.underline}: Water resources are anticipated to be
beneficially impacted as a result of the expansion of FODO's boundaries,
and NPS management of the affected properties. NPS Management Policies
(2001) require water quality protection consistent with the Clean Water
Act (CWA). In addition, potential impacts on these resources may result
from future NPS developments at Forts Heiman and the battlefield core
area properties. Therefore, water resources have been included in this
analysis.

[Air Quality]{.underline}: Air quality has the potential to be affected
by increased vehicular traffic and associated emissions as a result of
increased visitation to Fort Heiman and Fort Donelson. Consideration of
air quality impacts are required by the Clean Air Act (CAA) and NPS
Management Policies.

[Vegetation and Wildlife]{.underline}: Trampling of vegetation and
disturbance of wildlife may occur as a result of increased visitation
with the expansion of FODO's boundaries to include Fort Heiman and the
battlefield core area properties. Certain trees may also be removed at
either site to protect cultural resources present on those properties
(particularly surviving earthworks). In general, vegetation and wildlife
are anticipated to benefit as a result of NPS management of the affected
properties. In addition, impacts may occur on vegetation and wildlife as
a result of potential future NPS developments on properties at Fort
Heiman and the battlefield core area properties.

[Species of Special Concern (Threatened, Endangered, Candidate, and Rare
Species)]{.underline}: According to the United States Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS), four Federally listed threatened or endangered species
are documented from Calloway County, Kentucky, and six such organisms in
Stewart County, Tennessee. NPS management of Fort Heiman and the
battlefield core area properties may beneficially impact these species,
if present on the properties. In addition, potential future NPS
developments could affect these species, if present.

***Cultural Resources***

Consideration of cultural resource impacts is required under the
National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), NEPA, the 1916 NPS Organic
Act, and NPS Management Policies. Expansion of Fort Donelson's
boundaries to include Fort Heiman and the battlefield core area
properties, and associated NPS management, would enhance public
understanding and knowledge of the significance of historic/cultural
resources in the region, and allow for increased protection of cultural
resources. In addition, potential future NPS developments at Fort Heiman
or the battlefield core area properties have the potential to adversely
affect historic/cultural resources.

***Visitor Use and Experience***

Expansion of FODO's boundaries, and associated NPS management, would
enhance public understanding and knowledge of the significance of
historic/cultural resources in the region. Interpretive programs would
be developed by the NPS to enhance visitor experience in the area. The
Proposed Action investigated in this EA recognizes the need to promote
interpretation and visitor use of significant historic resources
associated with the battles of Fort Henry and Fort Donelson.

Expansion of FODO boundaries by adding Fort Heiman and the battlefield
core area properties will increase the amount and types of recreational
opportunities in the region, especially for "heritage tourism."
Increased area visitation may increase regional recreational use or
place constraints on existing area recreation. Recreation opportunities
also have the potential to be impacted as a result of future NPS
developments at Fort Heiman and the battlefield core area properties.

[]{.mark}

***Socioeconomic Environment***

[Population, Economy, and Social Conditions]{.underline}: The management
alternatives analyzed in this EA have the potential to create permanent
if modest employment opportunities and result in long-term increases in
local income, spending, and revenue in both Calloway County, KY and
Stewart County, TN. Increased visitation to the area as a result of
adding Fort Heiman and the battlefield core area properties to Fort
Donelson National Battlefield also has the potential to increase local
spending and generate revenues. Expansion of FODO by adding Fort Heiman
and the battlefield core area properties may change land values on
nearby private property. In addition, potential future NPS developments
at Fort Heiman and the battlefield core area properties may result in
temporary employment opportunities and increases in local income,
spending, and revenue.

[Utilities and Public Services]{.underline}: The need for utilities and
public services may increase modestly with increased area visitation as
a result of adding Fort Heiman and the battlefield core area properties
to FODO. In addition, utilities and public services have the potential
to be impacted to a modest extent by future NPS developments at Fort
Heiman and the battlefield core area properties.

***Transportation***

If Fort Heiman and the battlefield core area properties were added to
FODO, increased visitation would create greater traffic volumes along
the Calloway County, Stewart County and LBL roads that provide access to
Fort Heiman, which could affect the level of service on these roads as
well as the perception on the part of the area's rural residents of
increased traffic. In addition, modest transportation impacts may result
from potential future NPS developments, particularly from construction
activities.

[]{.mark}

***Land Use***

Expansion of FODO's boundaries by adding Fort Heiman and the battlefield
core area properties would change land ownership and management,
especially at the former site, which is privately-owned and has already
been subdivided into a number of parcels. The management alternatives
have the potential to cause short- and long-term changes in land uses,
but are unlikely to conflict with zoning and planning in the region.
Land use also has the potential to be impacted as a result of future NPS
developments at Fort Heiman and the battlefield core area properties.

***Visual Resources***

Impacts on visual resources and aesthetics as a result of the
enlargement of FODO's boundaries to include Fort Heiman and the
battlefield core area properties, and associated NPS management of these
properties, may result from increased area visitation and associated
traffic, as well as the removal of some vegetation on the properties for
the protection of cultural resources. Both at Fort Heiman at the
battlefield core area properties, visual resources are likely be
impacted beneficially by stopping the further construction of private
dwellings and removal of trees to accommodate these. In addition, the
visual quality of some sites may be altered as a result of future NPS
developments.

***Human Health and Safety***

Addition of Fort Heiman and the battlefield core area properties to FODO
would likely increase traffic on several access roads to these
properties with attendant potential safety risks and conflicts between
visiting motorists and local motorists, pedestrians, and residents along
the affected roadways. In addition, potential impacts on health and
safety may result from future NPS developments at Forts Heiman and the
battlefield core area properties.

**1.5.2 Impact Topics Dismissed From Further Analysis**

The following issues and impact topics were dismissed from further
analysis in this EA:

***Natural Resources***

[Geology]{.underline}: None of the management alternatives analyzed in
this EA have the potential to affect the geology of the area. In
addition, none of the potential future NPS developments being considered
would involve any activities, such as blasting, that would alter the
geology of the area. Therefore, this topic is dismissed from further
analysis.

[Prime Farmlands]{.underline}: Neither the Fort Heiman nor the
battlefield core area properties contain prime farmlands. The former
consists of bluffs, hilltops, and steep slopes while the latter's
gentler slopes are Federally owned forestland; both site possess soils
that are particularly unsuited to agriculture, according to soils
surveys. Furthermore, the different management alternatives would result
in few or no adverse impacts to these soils. Therefore, this topic is
dismissed from further analysis.

[Wetlands]{.underline}: The Fort Heiman site includes one or more small
(\< 0.2 acre) forested wet areas, or palustrine wetlands, along stream
courses that could potentially qualify as jurisdictional wetlands. The
battlefield core area properties do not appear to contain any such
habitats. Because of NPS policies on wetland protection, wetlands at
Fort Heiman would not be adversely affected by NPS ownership and
management. Any future developments on the ground at either Fort Heiman
or the battlefield core area properties would strive to avoid delineated
wetlands entirely. Therefore, this topic is dismissed from further
analysis.

[Floodplains]{.underline}: While Fort Heiman borders Kentucky Lake, it
does not contain floodplains that would be impacted by the proposed
boundary adjustment or potential future developments on the ground.
Neither do the battlefield core area properties contain floodplains.
Therefore, this topic is dismissed from further analysis.

[Noise]{.underline}: Addition of Fort Heiman and the battlefield core
area properties to Fort Donelson National Battlefield could potentially
expose nearby residents along access routes to higher noise levels from
visitation-related automobile traffic. However, in the context of
existing traffic levels and the nature and volume of expected
visitation, the incremental increase in noise is anticipated to be
negligible. Therefore, this topic is dismissed from further analysis.

[Waste Management]{.underline}: Waste management is not expected to be
impacted substantially as a result of the management alternatives
analyzed in this EA, although a modest amount of solid waste and litter
may be generated as a result of increased area visitation. In addition,
any waste generated as a result of future NPS developments at Fort
Heiman and the battlefield core area properties will be small.
Therefore, this topic is dismissed from further analysis.

[Environmental Justice]{.underline}: Neither Fort Heiman, the
battlefield core area properties, nor their vicinities have
disproportionate concentrations of minorities or low-income residents
(USCB, 2002). Thus, no disproportionate, adverse impacts on low income
or minority groups are anticipated to result from any of the management
alternatives analyzed in this EA. Therefore, this topic is dismissed
from further analysis.

**1.6 ORGANIZATION OF THE BAS & EA**

A summary of the organization of this BAS & EA and the contents of the
sections is shown in Table 1-1 below. The Table of Contents provides a
more detailed outline of these chapters.

+-------------------+--------------------------------------------------+
| ##### Tab         |                                                  |
| le 1-1. Summary o |                                                  |
| f the Organizatio |                                                  |
| n of the BAS & EA |                                                  |
+-------------------+--------------------------------------------------+
| ######### Section | **Contents**                                     |
+-------------------+--------------------------------------------------+
| **2**             | -   Description of the alternatives, including   |
|                   |     the No Action alternative                    |
| Alternatives      |                                                  |
| Including the     | -   Alternatives considered, but eliminated from |
| Proposed Action   |     further study                                |
|                   |                                                  |
|                   | -   Mitigation measures                          |
|                   |                                                  |
|                   | -   Comparison of the impacts of the             |
|                   |     alternatives assessed                        |
+-------------------+--------------------------------------------------+
| **3**             | -   Description of the existing aspects of the   |
|                   |     natural and human environment, by resource   |
| Affected          |     area, that may be impacted by each           |
| Environment       |     alternative or by potential future NPS       |
|                   |     developments                                 |
+-------------------+--------------------------------------------------+
| **4**             | -   Description of the methodology used to       |
|                   |     analyze environmental impacts resulting from |
| Environmental     |     each alternative, including definitions of   |
| Consequences      |     impact terms                                 |
|                   |                                                  |
|                   | -   Analysis of potential direct, indirect, and  |
|                   |     cumulative impacts on the natural and human  |
|                   |     environment, by resource area, that would    |
|                   |     result from each alternative                 |
|                   |                                                  |
|                   | -   Brief and broad discussion of potential      |
|                   |     impacts from potential future NPS            |
|                   |     developments that should be considered in    |
|                   |     future NEPA documentation                    |
+-------------------+--------------------------------------------------+
| **5**             | -   Discusses relevant agency consultation       |
|                   |     during the BAS & EA development              |
| Consultation and  |                                                  |
| Coordination      | -   Provides a list of persons and agencies      |
|                   |     contacted for information during the BAS &   |
|                   |     EA development                               |
|                   |                                                  |
|                   | -   Describes public involvement activities      |
|                   |     implemented as part of the BAS & EA process  |
+-------------------+--------------------------------------------------+
| **6**             | -   Identifies regulatory compliance, including  |
|                   |     permits, necessary for implementation of the |
| Compliance With   |     project                                      |
| Federal and State |                                                  |
| Regulations       |                                                  |
+-------------------+--------------------------------------------------+
| **7**             | -   List of references cited within the BAS & EA |
|                   |                                                  |
| References Cited  |                                                  |
+-------------------+--------------------------------------------------+
| **8**             | -   Identifies the members of the                |
|                   |     interdisciplinary team that contributed to   |
| List of Preparers |     the preparation of the BAS & EA              |
+-------------------+--------------------------------------------------+
| Appendices:       | -   List of abbreviations (and their             |
|                   |     definitions) used within the BAS & EA        |
| -   A: Acronyms   |                                                  |
|     and           | -   Definitions of terms used within the BAS &   |
|     Abbreviations |     EA                                           |
|                   |                                                  |
| -   B: Glossary   | -   Relevant environmental laws and regulations  |
|                   |     for each resource area                       |
| -   C:            |                                                  |
|     Environmental | -   Provides supporting public involvement and   |
|     Laws and      |     agency consultation documents and            |
|     Regulations   |     information generated through the scoping    |
|                   |     process                                      |
| -   D: Public     |                                                  |
|     Scoping and   | -   Provides a description of the public comment |
|     Agency        |     period on the Draft BAS & EA; Will contain   |
|     Coordination  |     comments received from the public and        |
|                   |     agencies on the Draft BAS & EA               |
| -   E: Comments   |                                                  |
|     on the Draft  | -   Provides figures on visitation at other      |
|     BAS & EA      |     units of the national park system with a     |
|                   |     Civil War or other military historical theme |
| -   F: Visitation |     to aid in predicting visitation at Ft.       |
|     at other NPS  |     Heiman and new FODO units                    |
|     parks with    |                                                  |
|     military      |                                                  |
|     history       |                                                  |
|     themes        |                                                  |
+-------------------+--------------------------------------------------+

####