U.S. Department of the Interior 

National Park Service 

American Battlefield Protection Program 

Update to the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission 

Report on the Nation’s Civil War Battlefields 

State of Minnesota 

Washington, DC 

December 2010
Update to the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission Report on the Nation’s Civil War Battlefields 

FINAL DRAFT – Minnesota 

Update to the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission 

Report on the Nation’s Civil War Battlefields 

State of Minnesota 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

National Park Service 

American Battlefield Protection Program 

Washington, DC 

December 2010 

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. 

Acknowledgments 

NPS Project Team Paul Hawke, Project Leader; Kathleen Madigan, Survey Coordinator; 

Tanya Gossett, Paul Hawke, and January Ruck, Reporting; Matthew Borders, Historian; 

Kristie Kendall, Program Assistant 

Battlefield Surveyor(s) Paul Hawke, American Battlefield Protection Program 

Respondents Tom Ellig, Minnesota Historical Society; Larry Whitaker, Wood Lake 

Battlefield Preservation Association 

Cover: View of the seasonal (dry) lake bed at Wood Lake battlefield. The lake bed is a defining 

feature on the landscape and was the location of the Federal encampment. 

 
Update to the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission Report on the Nation’s Civil War Battlefields 

FINAL DRAFT – Minnesota 

Table of Contents 

INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 3

SYNOPSIS ........................................................................................................................ 5

METHOD STATEMENT ..................................................................................................... 6

RESEARCH AND FIELD SURVEYS ...................................................................................................... 6 

QUESTIONNAIRES ....................................................................................................................... 10 

SUMMARY OF CONDITIONS OF CIVIL WAR BATTLEFIELDS IN MINNESOTA .............. 11

QUANTIFIED LAND AREAS ........................................................................................................... 11 

CONDITION ASSESSMENTS ........................................................................................................... 11 

REGISTRATION ........................................................................................................................... 12

STEWARDSHIP ............................................................................................................................ 13 

PUBLIC ACCESS AND INTERPRETATION........................................................................................... 15 

ADVOCACY ............................................................................................................................... 16 

INDIVIDUAL BATTLEFIELD PROFILES ........................................................................... 17

APPENDICES ................................................................................................................. 24

APPENDIX A. CIVIL WAR BATTLEFIELD LAND ACQUISITION GRANTS ................................................ 24 

APPENDIX B. AMERICAN BATTLEFIELD PROTECTION PROGRAM PLANNING GRANTS .......................... 25 

APPENDIX C. CIVIL WAR BATTLEFIELD PRESERVATION ACT OF 2002 ............................................... 26 

APPENDIX D. BATTLEFIELD QUESTIONNAIRE ................................................................................. 29 
Update to the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission Report on the Nation’s Civil War Battlefields 

FINAL DRAFT – Minnesota 3 

Introduction 

The information in this report fulfills, in part, the purposes of the Civil War Battlefield 

Preservation Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-359, 111 Stat. 3016). Those purposes 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. 

The Civil War Battlefield Preservation Act of 2002 directs the Secretary of the Interior, 

acting through the American Battlefield Protection Program (ABPP) of the National Park 

Service, to update the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission (CWSAC) Report on the Nation’s 

Civil War Battlefields. The CWSAC was established by Congress in 1991 and published its 

report in 1993. Congress provided funding for this update in FY2005 and FY2007. 

Congress asked that the updated report reflect the following: 

• Preservation activities carried out at the 384 battlefields identified by the CWSAC 

during the period between 1993 and the update; 

• Changes in the condition of the battlefields during that period; and 

• Any other relevant developments relating to the battlefields during that period. 

In accordance with the legislation, this report presents information about Civil War 

battlefields in Minnesota for use by Congress, federal, state, and local government 

agencies, landowners, and other interest groups. Other state reports will be issued as 

surveys and analyses are completed. 

. 
Update to the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission Report on the Nation’s Civil War Battlefields 

FINAL DRAFT – Minnesota 4 

Figure 1. Fort Ridgley and Wood Lake are the two CWSAC battlefields in Minnesota. 

 
Update to the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission Report on the Nation’s Civil War Battlefields 

FINAL DRAFT – Minnesota 5 

Synopsis

There are two CWSAC battlefields in Minnesota: Fort Ridgley and Wood Lake. 

Historically, these battlefields encompassed more than 2,500 acres.1

 Today, one hundred 

percent (100%) of the historic landscapes associated with these battles retain their historic 

character.2

 

In 1993, the CWSAC used a four-tiered system that combined historic significance, current 

condition, and level of threat to determine priorities for preservation among the 

battlefields. While the CWSAC did not physically survey the two Minnesota battlefields in 

1993, they did rank them within their four-tier system. The CWSAC ranked both 

battlefields as needing additional protection, placing them in the third tier of preservation 

priorities. Today, the landscape and setting of Wood Lake have changed little from the 

time of the battle. While portions of Fort Ridgely’s landscape have been altered, most 

essential features remain. 

 

After surveying the battlefields for this updated report, the American Battlefield 

Protection Program (ABPP) has found that the entire Study Areas of both Fort Ridgely

and Wood Lake maintain integrity. Wood Lake’s landscape is nearly pristine, marred 

only by a few residential buildings and farm structures. At Fort Ridgely modern 

residential buildings and farm structures intrude on the landscape and kaolin and gravel 

mining in the area threaten to alter the battlefield’s topography. Construction associated 

with the refurbishment of a 1920’s era golf course located within the Fort Ridgely State 

Park, is also of concern. Additional changes to the landscapes of both battlefields will 

continue as large farms are subdivided into smaller parcels. Due to the isolated locations 

of the two battlefields, subdivision can be considered a long-term threat. 

Figure 2: View of 

Sioux positions 

along the bluffs to 

the north of the 

Minnesota 

Volunteers’ camp 

at Wood Lake

battlefield. 

Photograph by 

Paul Hawke, 2007. 

 

 

1

Using a GIS program, the ABPP calculated that the Study Areas for the two battlefields in Minnesota represent 2,501.04 acres. 2

 Using a GIS prgram, the ABPP calculated that the Potential National Register Boundaries for the two battlefields in Minnesota 

represent 2,501.04 acres. 
Update to the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission Report on the Nation’s Civil War Battlefields 

FINAL DRAFT – Minnesota 6 

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 1) conducted a site 

survey of each battlefield, and 2) prepared and sent out questionnaires to battlefield 

managers and advocacy organizations (see Appendix D). 

Research and Field Surveys 

The surveys entailed additional historical research, on-the-ground documentation and 

assessment of site conditions, identification of impending threats to each site, and site 

mapping. Surveyors used a Global Positioning System (GPS) receiver to map historic 

features of each battlefield and used a Geographic Information System (GIS) program to 

draw site boundaries. The ABPP retains all final survey materials. Each battlefield survey 

file includes a survey form (field notes, list of defining features, list of documentary 

sources, and a photo log), photographs, spatial coordinates of significant features, and 

boundaries described on USGS topographic maps. The surveys did not include 

archeological investigations for reasons of time and expense. 

Study Areas and Core Areas 

The CWSAC identified a Study Area and a Core Area for each of the principal battlefields it 

surveyed (see Figure 3). 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 include 

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 study.3

 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.4

Using its refined methodology, ABPP was able to research and delineate new boundaries 

on the previously un-surveyed Civil War battlefields in Minnesota (see Table 1). At each of 

the battlefields, application of the refined methodology resulted a Study Area and Core 

Area that reflect the historical area of the battle and area of heaviest fighting respectively. 

It is important to note 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. 

 

3

 American Battlefield Protection Program, “Battlefield Survey Manual,” (Washington, DC: National Park Service, revised 2007). 4

 National Register 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).
Update to the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission Report on the Nation’s Civil War Battlefields 

FINAL DRAFT – Minnesota 7 

Figure 3: Boundary Definitions

The Study Area represents the historic 

extent of the battle as it unfolded across the 

landscape. The Study Area contains resources 

known to 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. 

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 boundary (see Figure 3).

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. 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. 

In assigning PotNR boundaries, the ABPP 

followed National Register of Historic Places 

(NRHP) guidelines when identifying and 

mapping areas that retain integrity and 

cohesion within the Study Areas.5

 Because the 

ABPP focuses only on areas of battle however, 

the Program 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 cultural landscape. 

Most importantly, the PotNR boundary does 

not constitute a formal determination of 

eligibility by the Keeper of the National 

Register of Historic Places.

6

 The PotNR 

boundary is designed to be used as a planning 

tool for government agencies and the public. 

Like the Study and Core Area boundaries, the 

PotNR boundary places no restriction on 

private property use. 

The term integrity, as defined by the NRHP, is 

“the ability of a property to convey its 

 

5

 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. 

6

 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.
Update to the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission Report on the Nation’s Civil War Battlefields 

FINAL DRAFT – Minnesota 8 

significance.”7 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,” and the most basic test for determining the integrity of any battlefield is to 

assess “whether a participant in the battle would recognize the property as it exists 

today.”8

 

Other conditions contribute to the degree of integrity a battlefield retains: 

• the quantity and quality of surviving battle-period resources (e.g., 

buildings, roads, fence lines, military structures, and archeological 

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 

visually communicates 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 NRHP 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 “noncontributing” elements are often included in the PotNR boundary in accordance with 

NRHP guidelines.9

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 with these types of changes are 

generally considered as having little or no integrity. 

 

7

 National Park Service, National Register 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. 8 National Park Service, National Register 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). 

9

 The ABPP looks 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 on their own merits.
Update to the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission Report on the Nation’s Civil War Battlefields 

FINAL DRAFT – Minnesota 9 

The PotNR boundaries therefore indicate which battlefields are likely eligible for future 

listing in the NRHP and likely deserving of future preservation efforts. 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.10 

In cases where a battlefield is already listed in the NRHP, 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 NRHP. In other cases, PotNR boundaries will exclude listed lands that 

have lost integrity (see Table 3.)11

The data from which all three boundaries are drawn do not necessarily reflect the full 

research needed for a formal NRHP 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. 

The ABPP survey information should be reassessed during future compliance processes 

such as the Section 106 process required by the National Historic Preservation Act 12 and 

Environmental Impact Statements/Environmental Assessments required by the National 

Environmental Policy Act.13 Likewise, more detailed research and assessments should take 

place when any battlefield is formally nominated to the NRHP or proposed for designation 

as a National Historic Landmark (NHL). 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. 

On the Fort Ridgely battlefield, the 440 acres of the Fort Ridgely State Park have been 

listed in the NRHP. The area was listed for its overall place in history and not specifically for 

the Civil War battle. 

1,113.38 acres of the Wood Lake battlefield was listed in the NRHP in 2010 as the Wood 

Lake Battlefield Historic District. The area was specifically listed as a battlefield landscape 

for its association with the Civil War battle of Wood Lake. 

 

10 National Park Service, National Register 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. 11 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. 

12 16 USC 470f. 

13 42 USC 4331-4332.
Update to the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission Report on the Nation’s Civil War Battlefields 

FINAL DRAFT – Minnesota 10 

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 D. 

In Minnesota, representatives from two organizations provided information. Their 

responses, combined with the survey findings, allowed the ABPP to create a profile of 

conditions and activities at Fort Ridgely and Wood Lake. 

Figure 4. The ravine used by the Santee Sioux to advance on Fort Ridgely from the north. The 

ravine is within the boundaries of Fort Ridgely State Park. Photograph by Paul Hawke, 2007 
Update to the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission Report on the Nation’s Civil War Battlefields 

FINAL DRAFT – Minnesota 11 

Summary of Conditions of Civil War Battlefields in Minnesota 

Quantified Land Areas 

Using a Geographic Information Systems program, the ABPP calculated the amount of land 

historically associated with the battle (Study Area), the amount of land where forces were 

engaged (Core Area), and the amount of land that may retain enough integrity to be 

eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) and that remains to be 

protected (Potential National Register boundary). 

As noted above and as Table 1 illustrates, the Study Areas and Core Areas of Minnesota’s 

Civil War battlefields have been established in accordance with ABPP research and field 

survey methodology. 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.14 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. 

Table 1. Battlefield Area Statistics

Battlefield Study Area Core Area PotNR 

Boundary 

Fort Ridgely (MN001) 1,307.13 242.85 1,307.13 

Wood Lake (MN002)* 1,774.99 701.24 1,774.99 

*No CWSAC boundaries were established in 1993. The ABPP established new boundaries in 2010.

Condition Assessments 

Using field survey data, the ABPP assessed the overall condition of each battlefield’s Study 

Area.

15 While no battlefield remains completely unaltered since the Civil War, Wood Lake

has suffered little alteration to the character-defining features of its landscape. Portions 

of Fort Ridgely’s landscape has been altered by mining and development, but most of its 

battlefield defining features remain intact. 

Wood Lake is in excellent condition. Land use here is little changed since the time of the 

Civil War. Only a few modern residences and roads intrude on the landscape. Subdivision 

of large farms into smaller parcels could pose a threat to the battlefield, but changes to 

the landscape appear to be slow and accumulative. 

Fort Ridgely is in very good condition with some modern intrusions, but the topography 

still easily conveys the landscape’s historic character. Within the Study Area, the State of 

 

14 National Register 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.

15 The condition of archeological resources within the battlefields was not assessed. Future studies are needed to determine the

degree of archeological integrity associated with subsurface battle deposits. 
Update to the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission Report on the Nation’s Civil War Battlefields 

FINAL DRAFT – Minnesota 12 

Minnesota’s Fort Ridgely State Park encompasses more than 649 acres, 20 acres of which 

are administered by the Minnesota Historical Society as the Fort Ridgely Historic Site. The 

remaining 629 acres of the state park are used for recreation. Amenities include a 1920’s 

era nine hole golf course, camping and picnic areas, and a playground. In 2007, 

construction was begun on the restoration of the nine hole golf course which surrounds 

the 20 acre historic site. Modern construction methods could present a threat to the 

landscape around the fort and may result in damage to the battlefield terrain and 

archeological resources. Gravel and kaolin mining impact the battlefield and any new 

mines will decimate portions of the landscape. There is also new residential construction 

in the area as farms subdivide into smaller parcels. 

Table 2. Condition Summary

Condition Battlefield 

Land use is little Changed (1) Wood Lake 

Portions of landscape have been altered, but most 

essential features remain (1) Fort Ridgely 

Much of the landscape has been altered and fragmented, 

leaving some essential features (0) N/A 

Landscape and terrain have been altered beyond 

recognition (0) N/A 

Battlefields that were not assessed (0) N/A 

Registration 

The nation’s official method for recognizing historic properties worthy of preservation is 

listing in the NRHP. Registered battlefields (those listed in the NRHP) meet national 

standards for documentation, physical integrity, and demonstrable significance to the 

history of our nation. Federal, state, and local agencies use information from the NRHP 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 of 1966, require 

agencies to account for the effects their projects (roads, wetland permits, quarrying, cell 

towers, etc.) may have on listed and eligible historic properties, such as battlefields. Listing 

allows project designers to quickly identify the battlefield and avoid or minimize impacts 

to the landscape. 

Properties listed in the NRHP may also be eligible for federal and state historic 

preservation grant programs. Recognition as an NRHP listed battlefield can advance public 

understanding of and appreciation for the battlefield, and may encourage advocacy for its 

preservation.16 

 

16 There are three levels of federal recognition for historic properties: Congressional designations such as national park units, 

National Historic Landmarks, and listings in the National Register of Historic Places. Congress creates national park units. The 

Secretary of the Interior designates National Historic Landmarks (NHL) – nationally significant historic sites – for their exceptional 

value or quality in illustrating or interpreting the heritage of the United States. The National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) is 

the nation’s official list of cultural sites significant at the national, state, or local level and worthy of preservation. Historic units of 

the National Park System and NHLs are also listed in the National Register of Historic Places. 
Update to the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission Report on the Nation’s Civil War Battlefields 

FINAL DRAFT – Minnesota 13 

Fort Ridgely is listed in the NRHP as an historic district for its contribution to U.S. history 

from 1850–1874. While the Civil War battle is discussed in the Fort Ridgely NRHP 

nomination, the nomination is for the fort itself and not for the battle specifically. The 

battlefield landscape merits its own listing in the NRHP inclusive of lands nominated in 

1970 under the Fort Ridgely historic district. The 1,307 acres of the Study Area, all of 

which retain integrity, should be considered for inclusion in the NRHP as a battlefield 

landscape. 

Wood Lake’s entire 1,774.99 acre Study Area retains integrity and 1,113.38 acres (63 

percent) have been listed in the NRHP. The remaining 661.61 acres, 37 percent of the 

battlefield are not listed and should be considered for inclusion in the existing NRHP 

listing. 

 Table 3. Acres Registered Compared with Acres Potentially 

Eligible to be Registered

Battlefield Designation ABPP PotNR 

Acres

Existing 

Registered 

Acres 

Acres 

Potentially 

Eligible to be 

Registerted

Fort Ridgely (MN001) NRHP 1,307.13 409.68 819.63

Wood Lake (MN002) NRHP 1,774.99 1,113.38 661.61

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 Minnesota Historical Society owns one acre of land at Wood Lake, which Is 

maintained as a roadside commemorative area. At Fort Ridgely, the Minnesota 

Department of Natural Resources manages 649 acres within the 1,307 acre Study Area as 

Fort Ridgely State Park. The park is used primarily as a recreational facility. In agreement 

with the state park, 20 acres are administered by the Minnesota Historical Society as the 

Fort Ridgely Historic Site. The Minnesota Historical Society has given day-to-day operation 

of the historic site to the Nicolette County Historical Society. 

The battlefields at both Fort Ridgely and Wood Lake would benefit from comprehensive 

planning to foster coordination among public owners, private non-profits, and private 

landowners to preserve the historic landscapes. Because so much of these battlefields are 
Update to the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission Report on the Nation’s Civil War Battlefields 

FINAL DRAFT – Minnesota 14 

in good condition, there is an excellent opportunity for additional protective measures 

such as easement purchases. 

Landscape preservation efforts in other states have benefited greatly from the purchase of 

development rights in the form of conservation easements. 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 tax 

benefits for donating the easement. The federal government provides income tax credits 

to private property owners who donate conservation easements that permanently protect 

historic land. 

Today only 21 acres, 0.84 percent of Civil War battlefield land in Minnesota, is permanently 

protected for its historic significance. 

Table 4. Protective Stewardship of Intact Battlefield Land

Battlefield ABPP PotNR 

Acres 

Permanently 

Protected Acres

Unprotected, 

Intact Acres Remaining 

Fort Ridgely (MN001) 1,307.13 20.00* 1,287.13 

Wood Lake (MN002) 1,774.99 1.00 1,773.99 

Total 3,082.12 22.00 3,061.12 

*While 649 acres of the Fort Ridgely battlefield are protected as part of Fort Ridgely State Park , only 20 

acres are protected for their historic signifigance. 

Figure 5: The ruins and site of 

historic Fort Ridgely are 

administered by the Minnesota 

Historical Society as Fort Ridgely 

Historic Site. Photograph by Paul 

Hawke, 2007. 
Update to the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission Report on the Nation’s Civil War Battlefields 

FINAL DRAFT – Minnesota 15 

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 battlefield. 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. 

The ABPP asked respondents to indicate the type of interpretation available at or about 

the battlefield. 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 both of the 

Civil War battlefields in Minnesota offer some degree of public interpretation. 

There is limited interpretation at Wood Lake. The Minnesota Historical Society maintains 

a one-acre wayside exhibit. The pull-off includes a stone commemorative obelisk and 

interpretive markers. In addition, there is a brochure of the battle provided by the Wood 

Lake Battlefield Preservation Association and an easement on 54 acres of the battlefield 

that allows self-guided tours to a portion of the battle terrain. 

At Fort Ridgely the Fort Ridgely Historic Site contains the historic fort, which is the focus 

of interpretation of the battle. Numerous interpretive markers and a visitor center tell the 

story of the battle and the combatants. 

Additional details regarding the interpretation activities undertaken at the two 

battlefields are included in the Individual Battlefield Profiles section of this report. 

Figure 6: Interpretive 

ground markers 

showing the 

directional locations of 

both U.S. troops and 

Sioux warriors during 

the battle of Fort 

Ridgely. The Fort 

Ridgely Historic Site 

has numerous 

interpretive areas that 

allow visitors to 

discover and explore 

the history of the fort 

and the battle.
Advoca

Nonprof

organiza

historic p

partners

critical p

working

Both bat

Ridgely s

lands ins

advocate

educatin

and resto

While ot

roles in p

organiza

preserva

Figure 7: 

Update to

acy

fit organizat

ations step i

preservation

s in public-p

private matc

 with lando

ttlefields in 

supports the

side the stat

es for prese

ng the comm

oration of t

ther organiz

preserving M

ations in Mi

ation. 

 A one acre 

o the Civil War Si

tions play im

in to preserv

n are absen

private prese

ching funds,

owners to fi

Minnesota 

e state park

te park bou

rvation of t

munity, com

the battlefie

zations with

Minnesota’s

nnesota de

pull off on th

ites Advisory Com

FINAL D

mportant ro

ve historic s

t. When pu

ervation eff

, keeping h

nd ways to 

have local a

k operations

undary. The

the entire b

mmemoratin

eld landscap

h more gene

s battlefield

dicated sole

he Wood La

mmission Report 

DRAFT – Minneso

oles in prote

sites when p

ublic fundin

forts, acting

istory and p

protect bat

advocacy fr

s and advoc

e Wood Lake

attlefield at

ng the battl

pe. 

eral historic

ds, these two

ely to the go

ke battlefiel

on the Nation’s C

ota

ecting histo

public fundi

ng is availab

 as conduits

preservation

ttlefield par

iends group

cates for Fo

e Battlefield

t Wood Lak

e, and work

cal interests

o groups ar

oals of Civil

ld commemo

Civil War Battlefi

ric battlefie

ing and ma

ble, nonprof

s for public 

n in the pub

rcels. 

ps. The Frie

ort Ridgely

d Preservati

ke. It is inv

king toward

s may also p

re the only k

 War battle

orates the ba

elds 

elds. These 

nagement f

fits serve as 

funds, raisi

blic eye, and

ends of Fort 

battlefield 

on Associat

olved in 

d the protec

play importa

known loca

efield 

ttle. 

16 

for 

vital 

ng 

d

tion 

ction 

ant 

l 
Update to the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission Report on the Nation’s Civil War Battlefields 

FINAL DRAFT – Minnesota 17 

Individual Battlefield Profiles 

Battlefield Profile Glossary

Location County or city in which the battlefield is located. 

Campaign Name of military campaign of which the battle was part. Campaign 

 names are taken from The War of the Rebellion: a Compilation of 

 the Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies. 

 

Battle Date(s) Day or days upon which the battle took place, as determined by the 

 Civil War Sites Advisory Commission. 

Principal Commanders Ranking commanders of opposing forces during the battle. 

Forces Engaged Name or description of largest units engaged during the battle. 

Results Indicates battle victor or inconclusive outcome. 

Study Area Acreage determined by the ABPP to represent the full extent of land 

associated with the historic battle. 

Potential National Acreage of land that retains historic character and may be eligible for

Register Lands listing in the National Register of Historic Places. 

 

Protected Lands Estimated acreage (based on questionnaires and GIS) of 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. 

Publicly Accessible Estimated acreage (based on responses to questionnaires) 

Lands within the Study Area maintained for public visitation. 

 

Management Area Name of historic site, park, or other area maintained for battlefield 

resource protection and/or public visitation.

Friends Group(s) Name of local advocacy organization(s) that support preservation 

 activities at/for the battlefield. 

Preservation Indicates which types of preservation activities have taken place at 

Activities the battlefield since 1993 (based on responses to questionnaires). 

Since 1993 

 

Public Indicates which types of interpretation/educational activities have 

Interpretation taken place at the battlefield since 1993 (based on responses 

Since 1993 to questionnaires).

Condition Statement The ABPP’s assessment of the overall condition of the battlefield’s 

Study Area (based on field surveys and responses to questionnaires). 

Historical Designation Notes the most prestigious federal historical designation the 

battlefield has received (i.e. national park unit, National Historic 

Landmark, or National Register of Historic Places). 
Update to the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission Report on the Nation’s Civil War Battlefields 

FINAL DRAFT – Minnesota 18 

Fort Ridgely (MN001) 

Location Nicolett County

Campaign Operations to Suppress the Sioux Uprising 

Battle Date(s) August 20, 22, 1862 

Principal Commanders 1st Lieutenant Timothy J. Sheehan [US]; Chief Little Crow [I] 

Forces Engaged Company B and Company C (detachment), Fifth Minnesota 

Infantry, Renville Rangers, refugee civilians [US]; Santee Sioux [I] 

Results Union victory 

Study Area 1,307.13 acres 

The CWSAC did not deliniate a Study or Core Area in 1993. The newly 

drawn Study and Core Areas represent the fighting in two separate 

attacks on the fort (August 20 and 22). 

The Study Area includes the Sioux approach route from the west, and 

the areas of maneuver to the north, south, and east utilized by the 

Sioux after they split their forces to attack the fort. The site of the 

road used by the Federals to reinforce and supply the fort between 

the two attacks has also been included to the east. 

The newly drawn Core Area includes the site of Fort Ridgely, the areas 

of assault against the fort, and the ravines used by the Sioux for cover. 

Potential National 1,307.13 acres 

Register Lands 

Protected Lands 20.00 acres 

 State of Minnesota, fee simple 

Publicly Accessible Lands 649.85 acres 

 State of Minnesota 

Management Area(s) 

Friends Group(s) Friends of Fort Ridgely, (2001)

Preservation Activities 9 Advocacy 

Since 1993 9 Cultural Resource Surveys and Inventories

 Fundraising 

9 Interpretation Projects 

9 Land or Development Rights Purchased 

9 Legislation 

9 Planning Projects 

9 Research and Documentation

Public Interpretation 9 Brochure(s)

Since 1993 Driving Tour 

 Living History 

9 Maintained Historic Features/Areas 

9 Visitor Center 

9 Walking Tour/Trails 

9 Wayside Exhibits/Signs 

 Website 

 Other 
Update to the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission Report on the Nation’s Civil War Battlefields 

FINAL DRAFT – Minnesota 19 

Condition Statement Fort Ridgely is in very good condition. Some residential 

development has occurred, but the main threat to battlefield lands 

outside of Fort Ridgely State Park is increased gravel and kaolin 

mining. New mines are planned within the Study Area and could 

decimate portions of the landscape. Within the state park 

reconstruction of a 1927 9-hole golf course and other recreational 

development and use are not compatible with maintaining an 

historic battlefield landscape and may result in damage to the 

battlefield terrain and archeological resources. 

 The Fort Ridgely battlefield would benefit from comprehensive 

planning to foster coordination among public owners, private nonprofits, and private landowners to preserve the historic landscapes. 

A portion of the Study Area is listed in the National Register of 

Historic Places (NRHP); however, the nomination is for the fort itself 

and not for the battle specifically. The entire 1,307 acre Study Area 

should be considered for inclusion in the NRHP as a battlefield 

landscape. 

 

Historical Designation National Register of Historic Places (Fort Ridgely, 1970) 

 
Update to the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission Report on the Nation’s Civil War Battlefields 

FINAL DRAFT – Minnesota 20 
Update to the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission Report on the Nation’s Civil War Battlefields 

FINAL DRAFT – Minnesota 21 

Wood Lake (MN002) 

Location Yellow Medicine County 

Campaign Operations to Suppress the Sioux Uprising (1862) 

Battle Date(s) September 23, 1862 

Principal Commanders Colonel Henry Hastings Sibley [US]; Chief Little Crow [I] 

Forces Engaged 6th Minnesota Volunteer Infantry, other volunteers [US]; Santee 

Sioux [I] 

Results Union Victory 

Study Area 1,193.91 acres 

 The CWSAC did not deliniate a Study or Core Area in 1993. The newly 

drawn Study Area includes the Federal encampment, the Sioux positions 

during their surprise attack, the areas of maneuver to the north, west, and 

southwest utilized by the Sioux, and the area of maneuver to the east and 

southeast utilized by the Federals. 

The newly drawn Core Area includes seasonal Wood Lake (which contained 

water at the time of the battle), the forward portion of the Federal 

encampment, the Federal artillery positions and fields of fire, the areas 

containing the Federal line of battle north of the encampment, and the 

bluffs used by the Sioux as high ground on which to form a line of battle. 

Potential National 1,193.91 acres 

Register Lands 

Protected Lands 1.00 acre, Minnesota Historical Society, fee simple 

 

Publicly Accessible Lands 1.00 acre, Minnesota Historical Society, fee simple

 

Management Area(s) None 

Friends Group(s) Wood Lake Battlefield Preservation Association (2006) 

Preservation Activities 9 Advocacy 

Since 1993 Cultural Resource Surveys and Inventories

 9 Fundraising

 Interpretation Projects 

 Land or Development Rights Purchased 

 Legislation 

 Planning Projects 

9 Research and Documentation 

Public Interpretation 9 Brochure(s)

Since 1993 Driving Tour

 Living History 

 Maintained Historic Features/Areas 

 Visitor Center 

 Walking Tour/Trails 

9 Wayside Exhibits/Signs 

9 Website: 

http://www.wlbpa.info 

 Other 
Update to the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission Report on the Nation’s Civil War Battlefields 

FINAL DRAFT – Minnesota 22 

Condition Statement Overall, Wood Lake is in excellent condition. The battlefield is 

primarily farm land with a few houses and farm buildings 

scattered throughout. Historic views are easy to see and 

understand. Most of the battlefield’s defining features, such as 

the bluffs occupied by the Sioux and the seasonal lakebed, are 

extant. Subdivision of large farms into smaller parcels, however, 

could pose a long term threat to the battlefield.

The Wood Lake battlefield would benefit from comprehensive 

planning to foster coordination among public owners, private 

non-profits, and private landowners to preserve the historic 

landscapes. While 63 percent of the Study Area has recently been 

listed in the National Register of Historic Places, the ABPP 

recommends that the remaining 37 percent be considered an 

eligible battlefield resource for purposes of planning and Section 

106 compliance. 

Historical Designation National Register of Historic Places (Wood Lake Battlefield Historic 

District, 2010) 
Update to the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission Report on the Nation’s Civil War Battlefields 

FINAL DRAFT – Minnesota 23 

 

Note: The Wood Lake Battlefield National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) boundary is not represented on this 

map. The boundary data is restricted by the NRHP. 
Update to the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission Report on the Nation’s Civil War Battlefields 

FINAL DRAFT – Minnesota 24 

Appendices 

Appendix A. Civil War Battlefield Land Acquisition Grants 

In 1998, the ABPP began its land acquisition grant program, which helps states and local 

communities purchase significant Civil War battlefield lands for permanent protection. In 

2002, Congress officially authorized the program.17 Eligible battlefields are those listed in 

the 1993 Report on the Nation’s Civil War Battlefields prepared by the Congressionallychartered CWSAC. Eligible acquisition projects may be for fee interest in land or for a 

protective interest such as a perpetual easement. 

Congress has appropriated a total of $34.9 million for this Civil War Battlefield Land 

Acquisition Grants. These grants have assisted in the permanent protection of 14,741 acres 

at 59 Civil War battlefields in 14 states. Although there have been no applicants for these 

grants from the State of Minnesota, both of the battlefields profiled in this report are 

eligible to receive funding. 

 

17 The Civil War Battlefield Preservation Act of 2002 (PL 107- 359) amended the American Battlefield Protection Act of 1996 (16 USC 

469k) to authorize the land acquisition grants. 
Update to the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission Report on the Nation’s Civil War Battlefields 

FINAL DRAFT – Minnesota 25 

Appendix B. American Battlefield Protection Program Planning Grants 

Through its American Battlefield Protection Program, the Federal government also 

provides grants and technical advice to communities working to preserve battlefields. The 

ABPP has two grant programs: planning grants and land acquisition grants. 

Since 1992, the 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. To date, Wood Lake

battlefield has received two ABPP grants totaling $89,478.00. Both of the battlefields 

profiled in this report are eligible for funding. 

Grantee Year Project Title Award

Woodlake Battlefield 

Preservation Association 2008 Documentation/Archeology $42,478.00

Woodlake Battlefield 

Preservation Association 2010 Historic Preservation Plan $47,000.00

Total $89,478.00
Update to the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission Report on the Nation’s Civil War Battlefields 

FINAL DRAFT – Minnesota 26 

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 percent are lost or fragmented; 

 (B) 17 percent are in poor condition; and 

 (C) 60 percent 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 ``Appropriations'' and inserting 

 ``appropriations''; and 

 (B) by striking ``section'' and inserting 

 ``subsection''; 
Update to the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission Report on the Nation’s Civil War Battlefields 

FINAL DRAFT – Minnesota 27 

 (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 `eligible entity' 

 means a State or local government. 

 ``(C) Eligible site.--The term `eligible 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 percent. 

 ``(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 
Update to the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission Report on the Nation’s Civil War Battlefields 

FINAL DRAFT – Minnesota 28 

 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 ``as of'' and all 

 that follows through the period and inserting ``on 

 September 30, 2008.''; and 

 (B) in paragraph (2), by inserting ``and provide 

 battlefield acquisition grants'' after ``studies''. 

-end- 
Update to the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission Report on the Nation’s Civil War Battlefields 

FINAL DRAFT – Minnesota 29 

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.) 

1) 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) 
Update to the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission Report on the Nation’s Civil War Battlefields 

FINAL DRAFT – Minnesota 30 

II. Preservation Groups

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) 

F Federal government 

F State government 

F Local government 

F Private Nonprofit organization 

F Private owner 

F 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? 

F Visitor Center 

F Brochure(s) 

F Wayside exhibits 

F Driving Tour 

F Walking Tour 

F Audio tour tapes 

F Maintained historic features/areas 

F Living History 

F Website 

F 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, NRHP Name and ID Number 

3) Is the site listed in the State Register? (Y/N) 

 If yes, State Register Name and ID Number 
Update to the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission Report on the Nation’s Civil War Battlefields 

FINAL DRAFT – Minnesota 31 

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