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 Ohio 

Washington, DC 

August 2009 
Update to the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission 

Report on the Nation’s Civil War Battlefields 

State of Ohio 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

National Park Service 

American Battlefield Protection Program 

Washington, DC 

August 2009 

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 and January Ruck, Reporting; Shannon Davis, Preservation Specialist; 

Matthew Borders, Historian; Renee S. Novak and Gweneth Langdon, Interns. 

Battlefield Surveyor(s) Joseph E. Brent, Mudpuppy and Waterdog, Inc. 

Respondents Franco Ruffini, Ohio Historical Society; George Kane, Ohio Historical 

Society; G. Michael Pratt, Heidelberg University; Ed Sharp and Eric J. Wittenberg, 

Buffington Island Battlefield Preservation Foundation. 

Cover: Historic Chester Road, Buffington Island battlefield, Meigs County, Ohio. 

Photograph by Joseph E. Brent, 2005.
Update to the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission Report on the Nation’s Civil War Battlefields 

Final DRAFT - State of Ohio 2

Table of Contents 

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

SYNOPSIS .......................................................................................................... 4

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

Research and Field Surveys ................................................................................... 6

Questionnaires ...................................................................................................... 9

SUMMARY OF CONDITIONS OF OHIO’S CIVIL WAR BATTLEFIELDS .............................. 10

Quantified Land Areas ........................................................................................ 10

Condition Assessments ........................................................................................ 10

Registration ......................................................................................................... 11

Stewardship ......................................................................................................... 12

Public Access and Interpretation ........................................................................ 13

Local Advocacy .................................................................................................... 14

INDIVIDUAL BATTLEFIELD PROFILES ...................................................................... 15

Buffington Island (OH001) .................................................................................. 16

Salineville (OH002) .............................................................................................. 19

APPENDICES ..................................................................................................... 22

Appendix A. Civil War Battlefield Preservation Act of 2002 ............................ 22

Appendix B. Battlefield Questionnaire ............................................................. 25

Appendix C. Civil War Battlefield Land Acquisition Grants ............................. 29

Appendix D. American Battlefield Protection Program Planning Grants ....... 30
Update to the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission Report on the Nation’s Civil War Battlefields 

Final DRAFT - State of Ohio 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 FY 2005 and FY 2007. 

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 Virginia 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 - State of Ohio 4

Synopsis

Although Buffington Island and Salineville were included in the 1993 report as among 

the most significant battles in the Civil War, the CWSAC did not survey these battlefields or 

evaluate their condition. In 2005, the ABPP surveyed Buffington Island and Salineville. 

This report provides new baseline information about both. ABPP found Ohio’s battlefields 

to be in good condition and worthy of preservation and protection. 

Since the Civil War, land use within most of the Buffington Island Study Area has 

remained agricultural. One exception is the gravel mining that is occurring in the heart of 

the Core Area. At Salineville, coal mining and residential development on portions of 

the battlefield have altered the landscape’s appearance more extensively, but many 

essential features, such as the ravine that offered concealment to Confederate forces, 

survive. 

Given the nature of these conditions and the potential for the expansion of existing 

threats to Ohio’s battlefields, land and cultural resource protection at Buffington Island

and Salineville should be the focus of intensified local, state, and federal battlefield 

preservation efforts within the next three to five years. 

Because no survey data was collected for Buffington Island and Salineville in 1993, the 

CWSAC was unable to assign Preservation Priority rankings within its original study for the 

two battlefields. As part of the field research undertaken for this update, conditions at 

the two battlefields have been assessed and the ABPP has established boundaries for 

Buffington Island and Salineville. Once all CWSAC battlefields nationwide have been 

reassessed and all state updates have been completed, the National Park Service will 

establish relative priority rankings for Buffington Island and Salineville. 
Update to the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission Report on the Nation’s Civil War Battlefields 

Final DRAFT - State of Ohio 5

Figure 1. CWSAC Battlefields in Ohio – Buffington Island and Salineville. 
Update to the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission Report on the Nation’s Civil War Battlefields 

Final DRAFT - State of Ohio 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 site 

surveys of each battlefield and 2) prepared and sent out questionnaires to battlefield 

managers and advocacy organizations (see Appendix B). 

Research and Field Surveys 

The ABPP conducted the field assessments of Ohio battlefields in November 2005 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 Global Positioning System (GPS) to map historic features of each 

battlefield and used a Geographic Information System (GIS) 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 included Buffington Island and Salineville in its 1993 report as among the 

most significant battles of the Civil War. However, the CWSAC did not survey either site 

and so did not establish Study and Core Areas for these two battlefields. 

The ABPP applied its survey method to create new Study and Core Areas for Buffington

Island and Salineville. That method includes 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.1

 

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. 

However, 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 (see 

Figure 2). 

 

 

1

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

http://www.nps.gov/history/abpp/battlefieldsurveymanual.pdf , October 2008. 
Update to the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission Report on the Nation’s Civil War Battlefields 

Final DRAFT - State of Ohio 7

Figure 2: 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 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 and protected. 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. The Core Area lies 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 2). 

Looking at each Study Area, the surveyors 

assigned PotNR boundaries where they 

judged that enough of the battlefield 

landscape remained to convey the 

significance of the engagement. 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 guidelines when identifying and 

mapping areas that retain integrity and 

cohesion within the Study Areas.2

 

However, because the ABPP focuses only 

on areas of battle, the ABPP 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.

3

 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. 

 

2

 For general guidance about integrity issues and National Register 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. 3

 See 36 CFR 60.1- 14 for regulations about nominating a property to the National Register and 36 CFR 63 for regulations concerning 

Determinations of Eligibility for inclusion in the National Register. 
Update to the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission Report on the Nation’s Civil War Battlefields 

Final DRAFT - State of Ohio 8

The term integrity, as defined by the National Register of Historic Places, is “the ability of a 

property to convey its significance.”4

 While assessments of integrity are subjective, 

battlefields can have integrity only if they can be positively located through research and 

“ground-truthing,” and only if significant portions of the landscape’s historic terrain have 

not been substantially disturbed. 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 resources and the intervening terrain 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 communicate an authentic sense of the sweep and setting of the 

battle. 

Natural changes in vegetation—woods growing out of historic farm fields, for example—

do not necessarily diminish the landscape’s integrity. Significant changes in land use since 

the Civil War do affect integrity; the degree to which post-war development has altered 

and fragmented the historic landscape and destroyed historic features is critical when 

assessing integrity. Still, some post-battle development is expected; slight or moderate 

change within the battlefield may not substantially diminish a battlefield’s integrity. 

Often these post-battle “non-contributing” elements are included in the PotNR boundary 

in accordance with National Register of Historic Places guidelines. 

The Potential National Register boundaries therefore indicate which battlefields are likely

eligible for future listing in the National Register of Historic Places 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), it did not receive a PotNR boundary. In cases where a battlefield 

was already listed in the National Register, surveyors reassessed the existing 

documentation based on current scholarship and resource integrity, and, when 

appropriate, provided new information and proposed new boundaries as part of the 

surveys. As a result, some PotNR boundaries will contain lands already listed in the 

National Register of Historic Places. In other cases, PotNR boundaries will exclude listed 

lands that have lost integrity. (See Tables 5 and 6 for boundary comparisons for each 

battlefield.)5

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

research needed for a formal National Register nomination. Potential National Register 

 

4

 National Park Service, Guidelines for Identifying, Evaluating, and Registering America’s Historic Battlefields, 1992 (Washington, DC: 

U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Interagency Resources Division), 10. Archeological integrity was not 

examined during this study, but should be considered in future battlefield studies and formal nominations to the National Register. 5

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

Final DRAFT - State of Ohio 9

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 Act6

 and 

Environmental Impact Statements/Environmental Assessments required by the National 

Environmental Policy Act.7

 Likewise, more detailed research and assessments should take 

place when any battlefield is formally nominated to the National Register or proposed for 

designation as a National Historic Landmark. New research and intensive-level surveys of 

these sites will enlighten future preservation and compliance work. Agencies should 

continue to consult local and state experts for up-to-date information about these 

battlefields. 

While a 4-acre portion of Buffington Island has already been listed in the National 

Register of Historic Places (see Table 3), the ABPP has identified a PotNR boundary within 

the battlefield’s Study Area that could guide efforts to expand Buffington Island’s

existing National Register boundary. Based on the ABPP’s evaluation, more than half of 

the total Study Area retains enough integrity to be included within the PotNR boundary. 

At Salineville, no known effort has been undertaken to recognize the battlefield’s 

historic significance by nominating it to the National Register of Historic Places. However, 

the ABPP believes approximately half of the total Study Area has enough integrity to merit 

listing. 

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 carry out the Congressional 

directive for information about activities at the battlefields, 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 B. 

In Ohio, representatives from three organizations completed and returned the 

questionnaires. Their responses, combined with the survey findings, allowed the ABPP to 

create a profile of conditions and activities at Ohio’s two Civil War battlefields. 

 

6

 16 USC 470f. 

7

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

Final DRAFT - State of Ohio 10

Summary of Conditions of Ohio’s Civil War Battlefields 

Quantified Land Areas 

Using a Geographic Information System (GIS), 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 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 Buffington 

Island and Salineville have been established in accordance with the 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. 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 facilitate 

greater understanding of the battle story. Please see the individual battlefield profiles at 

the end of this report for more information about the extent of and reasons for the 

established boundaries. 

Table 1. Battlefield Area Statistics 

 Battlefield Boundary 

Type 

Established Acres

 

 Buffington Island (OH001) Study Area 2009 14,130.43 

 Core Area 2009 1,235.82 

 PotNR 2009 11,071.99 

 

 Salineville (OH002) Study Area 2009 8,424.44 

 Core Area 2009 956.12 

 PotNR 2009 3,485.67 

 

 

Boundary figures reflect only those areas in Ohio. At Buffington Island, the Study Area, Core Area, and 

PotNR boundaries include portions of the Ohio River that are owned by the state of West Virginia (see 

Buffington Island’s Battlefield Profile for details). 

 

Condition Assessments 

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

Area. While no battlefield remains completely unaltered since the Civil War, Buffington 

Island has suffered little alteration within most of its landscape. While damage from 

mining operations has occurred within the Core Area, most of the battlefield’s Study Area 

retains its historic rural character. In the Study Area, most of the land is still used for 

agricultural purposes and very little of the area has been developed for residential and 

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

Final DRAFT - State of Ohio 11

Salineville has experienced moderate change to its terrain and aboveground battle 

features during the past 150 years.8

 During the time of battle, the area was rural. Today, 

less than half of the area is used for agricultural purposes. Nearly one quarter of the 

landscape has been transformed by coal strip mining, and a small portion of the battlefield 

has been developed. 

Table 2. Condition Summary

 Condition Battlefield 

 Land use is little changed (1) Buffington Island (OH001) 

 

 

Portions of landscape have been altered, but 

most essential features remain (1) Salineville (OH002) 

 

 

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 National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Registered battlefields 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 

National Register as a planning tool to identify and make decisions about cultural 

resources. Federal and state laws, most notably Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act 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 on the National Register are also eligible for numerous federal and state 

historic preservation grant programs. Recognition as a registered battlefield may also 

advance public understanding of and appreciation for the battlefield, and may encourage 

advocacy for its preservation.9

 

As Table 3 indicates, a tiny portion of Buffington Island is already listed in the NRHP. 

This piece was registered in 1970, prior to the CWSAC’s study in the early 1990s. The listed 

 

8

 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. 9

 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. National park

units and NHLs are also treated as listed in the National Register. 
Update to the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission Report on the Nation’s Civil War Battlefields 

Final DRAFT - State of Ohio 12

portion of Buffington Island includes only 4.00 acres. The ABPP’s surveys indicate that 

additional lands of more than 11,067.00 acres in Ohio may be eligible for NRHP listing. 

Salineville is not currently listed in the NRHP, but the ABPP finds 3,480.00 acres of the 

battlefield may be eligible for listing. Table 3 compares the number of acres already 

designated or listed with the number of acres that are likely to meet the same criteria, but 

may not currently be part of an existing NRHP, NHL, or NPS boundary. 

Table 3: Acres Registered Compared with Acres Potentially 

Eligible to be Registered

Battlefield Designation PotNR 

Acres

Existing 

Registered 

Acres

Total Acres 

Unregistered 

but Potentially 

Eligible

Buffington Island 

(OH001) NR 11,071.99 4.00 11,067.99

Salineville (OH002) 3,485.67 0.00 3,485.67

All Battlefields 14,557.66 4.00 14,553.66

Boundary figures reflect only those areas in Ohio. See the Individual Battlefield Profiles for information about the size of 

battlefield lands that extend into West Virginia. 

 

Stewardship 

The majority of land associated with both Buffington Island and Salineville is held in 

private, unprotected ownership. However, 11.74 acres of Buffington Island are owned 

by the Ohio state government. A 4.00-acre site known as the “Buffington Island Memorial 

State Park,” which is managed by the Ohio Historical Society, commemorates the battle 

with a monument and offers visitors recreational space with facilities that include 

restrooms, a picnic shelter, and parking. In addition to resources associated with the Civil 

War battle at Buffington Island, there is a prehistoric Native American burial mound at 

the site.10 A separate 7.74-acre portion of the battlefield, which is administered by the 

Ohio Department of Natural Resources, provides public access to the Ohio River for 

recreational purposes. 

Table 4. Protective Stewardship of Intact Battlefield Land

 

Battlefield Permanently 

Protected Acres

ABPP 

PotNR 

Acres

Unprotected, 

Intact Acres 

Remaining

 Buffington Island (OH001) 11.74 11,071.99 11,060.25

 Salineville (OH002) 0.00 3,485.67 3,485.67

 All Battlefields 11.74 14,557.66 14,545.92

Boundary figures reflect only those areas in Ohio. At Buffington Island, the Study Area, Core Area, and PotNR boundaries 

include portions of the Ohio River that are owned by the state of West Virginia (see Buffington Island’s Battlefield Profile 

for details).

 

10 Gray & Pape, Inc., “Existing Conditions of the Battlefield and Environs,” Battle of Buffington Island Battlefield Preservation Plan, 10 

August 2006, (29 May 2009). http://ohsweb.ohiohistory.org/places/se03/bpp.pdf
Update to the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission Report on the Nation’s Civil War Battlefields 

Final DRAFT - State of Ohio 13

Public Access and Interpretation 

In its questionnaire (see Appendix B), the ABPP asked battlefield stewards about the types 

of public access and interpretation available at the battlefields. The ABPP did not collect 

information about the purpose or intent of the interpretation and access, such as whether 

development of wayside exhibit was 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, while there 

has been no effort to provide public interpretation at Salineville, the Ohio Historical 

Society’s management efforts at Buffington Island offer public interpretation and 

educational opportunities with a monument and interpretive signage that describes the 

battlefield’s history. Moreover, although there is no visitors’ center at Buffington Island, 

there is an on-going effort to develop a museum for additional site interpretation at a 

near-by community center north of the state memorial park. 

Figure 4. Monument and recreational facilities at Buffington Island State Memorial Park, Meigs 

County, Ohio. Photograph by Joseph E. Brent, 2005. 
Update to the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission Report on the Nation’s Civil War Battlefields 

Final DRAFT - State of Ohio 14

Local Advocacy 

Nonprofit organizations play important roles in protecting historic battlefields. They step 

in to preserve historic sites when public funding and management for historic preservation 

are absent. When public funding is available, nonprofits serve as vital partners in publicprivate preservation efforts, acting as conduits for public funds, raising critical private 

matching funds, keeping history and preservation in the public eye, and working with 

landowners to find ways to protect battlefield parcels. 

Unfortunately, the Salineville battlefield does not have a nonprofit group to advocate 

for preservation interests. At Buffington Island, however, the newly formed Buffington 

Island Battlefield Preservation Foundation has begun to build relationships with 

stakeholders at the state and local levels. The Buffington Island Battlefield Preservation 

Foundation plans to work cooperatively with the Ohio Historical Society, and with the 

support of the Meigs County Historical Society, to develop additional interpretive 

resources and expand preservation efforts at Buffington Island. 

While other organizations with more general historical interests may also play important 

roles in battlefield preservation, the Buffington Island Battlefield Preservation Foundation 

is the only known local organization in Ohio dedicated solely to the goals of battlefield 

preservation, interpretation, and promotion. 

Figure 3. Ocean Road, used by retreating Confederates during the battle of Salineville, 

Columbiana County, Ohio. Photograph by Joseph E. Brent, 2005.
Update to the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission Report on the Nation’s Civil War Battlefields 

Final DRAFT - State of Ohio 15

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 Acres within the Study Area (see Table 2), as determined by the ABPP, 

that represent the historic extent of the battle upon the landscape.

Potential National Acres of land that retain historic character and may be eligible for

Register Lands listing in the National Register of Historic Places (see Table 2). 

 

Protected Lands Estimated acres (based on questionnaires and GIS) of battlefield land 

set aside or placed under permanent easement since the Civil War for 

 the purposes of maintaining the historic character of the landscape 

 and for preventing future impairment or destruction of the landscape 

 and historic features. 

Publicly Accessible Estimated acres (based on responses to questionnaires) maintained 

Lands for public visitation. 

 

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

Since 1993 responses 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 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 - State of Ohio 16

Buffington Island (OH001) 

Location Meigs County 

Campaign Morgan’s Raid in Kentucky, Indiana, and Ohio (July 1863) 

Battle Date(s) July 19, 1863 

Principal Commanders Brig. Gen. Edward H. Hobson [US]; 

Brig. Gen. John Hunt Morgan [CS] 

Forces Engaged Brigade, 3,000 [US]; Brigade, 1,700 [CS] 

Results Union victory 

Study Area 19,725.64 acres (14,130.43 acres in Ohio; 5,595.21 acres in 

 West Virginia) 

 The Study Area encompasses the route taken by Morgan’s raiders as 

they attempted to reach and cross the ford at Buffington Island, and 

the multiple routes used by the Federal troops in pursuit. The Ohio 

River itself has been included because a Federal naval flotilla under 

the command of Lieutenant Commander LeRoy Fitch was patrolling 

the river looking for Morgan and guarding the various crossing points, 

including the ford at Buffington Island.

Potential National 12,826.28 acres (11,071.99 acres in Ohio; 1,754.28 acres in West 

Register Lands Virginia) 

 

Protected Lands 11.74 acres 

 Ohio Department of Natural Resources – Division of Wildlife, 

 7.74 acres, fee simple 

 Ohio Historical Society, 4.00 acres, fee simple 

 

Publicly Accessible Lands 11.74 acres 

 Ohio Department of Natural Resources – Division of Wildlife, 

 Portland Access, 7.74 acres, fee simple 

 Ohio Historical Society, Buffington Island State Memorial Park, 

 4.00 acres 

Management Area(s) Buffington Island State Memorial Park 

 Portland Access 

Friends Group(s) Buffington Island Battlefield Preservation Foundation

Preservation Activities Advocacy 

Since 1993 9 Cultural Resource Surveys and Inventories

 Fundraising 

 Interpretation Projects 

 Land or Development Rights Purchased 

 Legislation 

9 Planning Projects 

 Research and Documentation 

Public Interpretation Brochure(s) 

Since 1993 Driving Tour 

 Living History 

 Maintained Historic Features/Areas 
Update to the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission Report on the Nation’s Civil War Battlefields 

Final DRAFT - State of Ohio 17

 Visitor Center 

 Walking Tour/Trails 

9 Wayside Exhibits/Signs 

9 Website 

http://ohsweb.ohiohistory.org/places/se03/ 

9 Other 

Monument 

Condition Statement Agricultural land use is little changed since the period of 

significance with the exception of portions of the Core Area, 

which have been destroyed by recent mining operations. 

Historical Designation National Register of Historic Places (1970) 
Update to the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission Report on the Nation’s Civil War Battlefields 

Final DRAFT - State of Ohio 18
Update to the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission Report on the Nation’s Civil War Battlefields 

Final DRAFT - State of Ohio 19

Salineville (OH002) 

Location Columbiana County 

Campaign Morgan’s Raid in Kentucky, Indiana, Ohio (July 1863) 

Battle Date(s) July 26, 1863 

Principal Commanders Brig. Gen. James Shackelford [US]; 

Brig. Gen. John Hunt Morgan [CS] 

Forces Engaged 9th Michigan Cavalry, 2,600 [US]; Confederate Army, 800 [CS] 

Results Union victory 

Study Area 8,424.44 acres 

The Study Area reflects the roundabout route taken by Morgan’s 

raiders as they attempted to find a safe crossing point along the Ohio 

River and escape their Federal pursuers. Morgan, although 

outnumbered, tried to cut his way through the Union troopers at 

Monroeville and again west of Salineville. The approach route to the 

southeast was added to include the movements of an additional 

column of Federal cavalry – the troopers who finally forced Morgan’s 

surrender in the two northern core areas. 

Potential National 3,485.67 acres 

Register Lands 

Protected Lands 0.00 acres 

Publicly Accessible Lands 0.00 acres 

Management Area(s) None 

Friends Group(s) None

Preservation Activities Advocacy 

Since 1993 Cultural Resource Surveys and Inventories 

 Fundraising 

 Interpretation Projects 

 Land or Development Rights Purchased 

 Legislation 

 Planning Projects 

 Research and Documentation 

Public Interpretation Brochure(s) 

Since 1993 Driving Tour 

 Living History 

 Maintained Historic Features/Areas 

 Visitor Center 

 Walking Tour/Trails 

 Wayside Exhibits/Signs 

 Website 

 Other 

Condition Statement Strip mining and residential development on portions of the 

battlefield have altered the landscape’s appearance, but essential 
Update to the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission Report on the Nation’s Civil War Battlefields 

Final DRAFT - State of Ohio 20

features, such as the ravine that offered concealment to 

Confederate forces, retain their historic character. 

Historical Designation None 
Update to the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission Report on the Nation’s Civil War Battlefields 

Final DRAFT - State of Ohio 21
Update to the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission Report on the Nation’s Civil War Battlefields 

Final DRAFT - State of Ohio 22

Appendices

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

Final DRAFT - State of Ohio 23

 ``appropriations''; and 

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

 ``subsection''; 

 (3) by inserting after subsection (c) the following 

 ``(d) Battlefield Acquisition Grant Program.-- 

 ``(1) Definitions.--In this subsection 

 ``(A) Battlefield report.--The term `Battlefield 

 Report' means the document entitled `Report on the 

 Nation's Civil War Battlefields', prepared by the Civil 

 War Sites Advisory Commission, and dated July 1993. 

 ``(B) Eligible entity.--The term `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. 
Update to the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission Report on the Nation’s Civil War Battlefields 

Final DRAFT - State of Ohio 24

 ``(7) Authorization of appropriations.-- 

 ``(A) In general.--There are authorized to be 

 appropriated to the Secretary from the Land and Water 

 Conservation Fund to provide grants under this 

 subsection $10,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2004 

 through 2008. 

 ``(B) Update of battlefield report.--There are 

 authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary to carry 

 out paragraph (6)(B), $500,000.''; and 

 (4) in subsection (e)-- 

 (A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``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 - State of Ohio 25

Appendix B. 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 - State of Ohio 26

II. Preservation Groups

1) Is there a formal interested entity (friends group, etc) associated with the battlefield? (Y/N)

 If yes 

 Name 

 Address 

 Phone 

 Fax 

 E-mail 

 Web site? (Y/N) 

• If yes, what is the URL? 

• Does the web site have a preservation message? (Y/N) 

• What year did the group form? 

III. Public Access and Interpretation

1) Does the site have designated Public Access? (Y/N) (Count public roads if there are designated 

interpretive signs or pull-offs) 

If yes, what entity provides the public access (Access may occur on lands owned in fee or under 

 easement to the above entities) 

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

Final DRAFT - State of Ohio

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

 If yes, State Register Name and ID Number 

4) Is the site in the State Inventory? (Y/N) 

 If yes, State Inventory Name and ID Number 

5) Is the site designated as a local landmark or historic site? (Y/N) 

 Type of Designation/Listing 

V. Program Activities

What types of preservation program activities have occurred at the battlefield? Provide 

final product name and date if applicable (e.g., Phase I Archeological Survey Report on the 

Piper Farm, 1994 and Antietam Preservation Plan, 2001, etc.) 

1) Research and Documentation 

2) Cultural Resource surveys and inventories (building/structure and landscape inventories, 

archeological surveys, landscape surveys, etc.) 

 

3) Planning Projects (preservation plans, site management plans, cultural landscape reports, 

etc.) 

 

4) Interpretation Projects (also includes education) 

5) Advocacy (any project meant to engage the public in a way that would benefit the 

preservation of the site, e.g. PR, lobbying, public outreach, petitioning for action, etc.) 

6) Legislation (any local, state, or federal legislation designed to encourage preservation of 

the battlefield individually or together with other similar sites) 
Update to the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission Report on the Nation’s Civil War Battlefields 

Final DRAFT - State of Ohio

7) Fundraising 

 To support program activities? 

 To support land acquisition/easements? 

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

Final DRAFT - State of Ohio

Appendix C. Civil War Battlefield Land Acquisition Grants 

The Civil War Battlefield Preservation Act of 2002 (PL 107-359) amended the American 

Battlefield Protection Act of 1996 (16 USC 469k) to authorize a matching grant program to 

assist States and local communities in acquiring significant Civil War battlefield lands for 

permanent protection. Most recently, Congress showed its continued support for these 

grants through its reauthorization of this program within the Omnibus Public Land 

Management Act of 2009 (PL 111-11). 

Eligible battlefields are those listed in the 1993 Report on the Nation’s Civil War 

Battlefields prepared by the Congressionally chartered Civil War Sites Advisory Commission 

(CWSAC). Eligible acquisition projects may be for fee interest in land or for a protective 

interest such as a perpetual easement. 

Since 1998, Congress has appropriated a total of $38.9 million for this Civil War Battlefield 

Land Acquisition Grants (CWBLAG). These grants have assisted in the permanent 

protection of more than 15,742 acres at 61 Civil War battlefields in 14 states. While there 

have been no CWBLAG grants awarded in Ohio to date, more than 12,820.00 acres of 

Buffington Island and 3,480.00 acres of Salineville may be eligible for land acquisition 

funding from this program. 
Update to the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission Report on the Nation’s Civil War Battlefields 

Final DRAFT - State of Ohio

Appendix D. American Battlefield Protection Program Planning 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. 

The ABPP has granted nearly $9.5 million to 379 projects throughout the country. Awards 

have included $75,000.00 for projects associated with Ohio’s Civil War battlefields. 

Grantee Year Project Title Award 

 

Heidelberg College 1999 Archeological Survey of Buffington Island $40,000.00

 

Ohio Historical Society 2004 Buffington Island Battlefield $35,000.00 

 Preservation Plan 

Total ABPP Planning Grants to Ohio Battlefields as of FY2009 $75,000.00