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 Arkansas

Washington, DC 

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

Final DRAFT – State of Arkansas 

Update to the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission 

Report on the Nation’s Civil War Battlefields

State of Arkansas

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 and January Ruck, Reporting; Matthew Borders, Historian; Kristie Kendall, Program 

Assistant 

Respondents William N. Black, Fort Smith National Historic Site; Paul Butler and Sarah Jones, 

Arkansas State Parks; Mark Christ, Arkansas Historic Preservation Program; Cathy Cunningham, 

Southern Bancorp Capital Partners; Thomas W. Dupree, Reed’s Bridge Battlefield Preservation 

Society; Bill Gurley, Civil War Roundtable of Arkansas; Peggy S. Lloyd, Southwest Arkansas Civil War 

Heritage Trail; Alan Thompson, Northwest Arkansas Civil War Heritage Trail 

Acknowledgements The ABPP gratefully acknowledges the assistance of the following people 

who provided information for this report: Troy Banzhaf, Pea Ridge National Military Park; Mark 

Christ and Ralph S. Wilcox, Arkansas Historic Preservation Program; Jessee Cox, Prairie Grove 

Battlefield State Park; Cathy Cunningham, Southern Bancorp Capital Partners; Jim Gabbert, National 

Register of Historic Places, NPS; Randy Roberson, Arkansas State Parks; Dennis Sharp, White River 

National Wildlife Refuge; and Charles Walthall, Friends of Arkansas’ Battlefields. 

Cover: Pea Ridge National Military Park. The National Park Service manages 4,300 acres of the Pea 

Ridge battlefield, making it the largest permanently protected Civil War landscape in Arkansas. 

Photograph by the National Park Service, 2008. 
Update to the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission Report on the Nation’s Civil War Battlefields 

Final DRAFT – State of Arkansas 

Table of Contents 

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

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

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

METHOD STATEMENT ................................................................................................... 10

RESEARCH AND FIELD SURVEYS .................................................................................................... 10 

QUESTIONNAIRES ....................................................................................................................... 14 

SUMMARY OF CONDITIONS OF ARKANSAS’S CIVIL WAR BATTLEFIELDS .................. 15

QUANTIFIED LAND AREAS ........................................................................................................... 15 

CONDITION ASSESSMENTS ........................................................................................................... 16 

REGISTRATION ........................................................................................................................... 17

STEWARDSHIP ............................................................................................................................ 18 

PUBLIC ACCESS AND INTERPRETATION........................................................................................... 22 

ADVOCACY ............................................................................................................................... 23

INDIVIDUAL BATTLEFIELD PROFILES.....................................................................26

APPENDICES ................................................................................................................. 80

APPENDIX A. CIVIL WAR BATTLEFIELD LAND ACQUISITION GRANTS ................................................ 80 

APPENDIX B. AMERICAN BATTLEFIELD PROTECTION PROGRAM PLANNING GRANTS .......................... 81 

APPENDIX C. CIVIL WAR BATTLEFIELD PRESERVATION ACT OF 2002 ............................................... 82 

APPENDIX D. BATTLEFIELD QUESTIONNAIRE ................................................................................. 85 
Update to the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission Report on the Nation’s Civil War Battlefields 

Final DRAFT – State of Arkansas 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 Louisiana 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 Arkansas 4

Figure 1. CWSAC battlefields in Arkansas. One additional battlefield, Bayou Meto, is 

included for the purposes of this report because it was listed in the National Register of 

Historic Places as a nationally significant battlefield in 2002. 
Update to the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission Report on the Nation’s Civil War Battlefields 

Final DRAFT – State of Arkansas 5

Synopsis 

There are 17 CWSAC battlefields in the state of Arkansas. One other battlefield, Bayou 

Meto (also known as Reed’s Bridge), will also be addressed in this report. Historically, 

these 18 battlefields encompassed more than 139,000 acres.1

 Today, about 89,800 acres, or 

64 percent, retain sufficient significance and integrity to make them worthy of 

preservation.2

 More than 9,600 acres are permanently protected by governments and 

private nonprofit organizations (see Table 8). 

While no battlefield remains completely unaltered since the Civil War, 12 of Arkansas’s 18 

battlefields have experienced relatively little or only moderate change to their terrain and 

aboveground battle features in nearly 150 years (see Table 6).3

 Despite this wealth of 

resources, protection of these landscapes has been uneven. While 82 percent of the Saint 

Charles battlefield is protected from development by the US Fish and Wildlife Service and 

43 percent of the Pea Ridge battlefield is protected by the National Park Service, the 

other ten battlefields with good integrity have, on average, only seven percent of their 

land permanently protected. All 12 sites should continue to be the focus of national, state, 

and local preservation efforts during the next decade. 

Nearly all of Arkansas’ protected battlefield land has been purchased in fee and placed in 

public ownership. Many other states provide tax credits for private property owners who 

donate conservation easements that will permanently protect historic land. Further 

exploration of this powerful preservation tool is appropriate in Arkansas, where a strong 

network of local and state battlefield support already exists. 

During its assessment, 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. Nationwide, the CWSAC identified 50 top priority battlefields; 

one, Prairie Grove, is in Arkansas. The CWSAC viewed these battlefields as the most 

historically significant of the war, the most endangered in 1993, and having a “critical 

need for action.” 

The CWSAC assigned five more Arkansas battlefields to the second highest priority, those 

considered “opportunities for comprehensive preservation.” These were battlefields “in 

relatively good condition,” that faced face few threats, and were “relatively unprotected.” 

The third priority included battlefields “that already have substantial historic land under 

protection and face limited threats,” but that needed “some additional land protection.” 

Seven were in Arkansas. 

The CWSAC’s fourth and lowest priority was for “fragmented” battlefields. The CWSAC 

explained, “While some lost battlefields are truly obliterated, important remnants of 

others still exist....” Although these sites “to varying degrees no longer convey an 

authentic sense of the sweep and setting of the battle, they often remain important areas 

suitable for interpretation, museums, and commemoration.”4

 In 1993, the CWSAC 

 

1

Using GIS software and accounting for overlapping areas, the ABPP calculated that the Study Areas for the 18 battlefields in 

Arkansas represent 139,003.66 acres. At Chalk Bluff, 554.45 more acres of the battlefield lie in Missouri’s Dunklin County. 2

Using GIS software and accounting for overlapping areas, the ABPP calculated that the Potential National Register Boundaries for 

the 18 battlefields in Arkansas represent 89,837.08 acres. At Chalk Bluff, 554.45 more potentially eligible acres lie in Missouri’s 

Dunklin County. 

3

 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. 4

Civil War Sites Advisory Commission, Report on the Nation’s Civil War Battlefields, Washington, DC: National Park Service, U.S. 

Department of the Interior, 1993, 22-23.
Update to the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission Report on the Nation’s Civil War Battlefields 

Final DRAFT – State of Arkansas 6

determined that four Arkansas battlefields had been substantially compromised by postwar development. 

Table 1. CWSAC Preservation Priorities from 1993 – First Tier

CWSAC Priority Battlefield County

I Critical Need 

 1 Battlefield

Prairie Grove (AR005) Washington 

 Arkansas’s only top priority from 1993, Prairie Grove, remains severely threatened. 

Although more than 800 acres of the surviving historic landscape are protected by the 

State at Prairie Grove Battlefield State Park, another 3,600 acres of battlefield are privately 

owned and under increasing development pressure. Land protection efforts need to 

continue to save what remains of this nationally significant landscape. 

Figure 2. The land in this view, located within the Prarie Grove Study Area, was purchased by the 

State of Arkansas in 1993 and is now managed as part of the Prairie Grove Battlefield State Park. 

Note the development at the edge of the parkland in the distance, which affects the viewshed of 

the battlefield. Photograph by Jessie Cox, Prairie Grove Battlefield State Park, 2007.
Update to the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission Report on the Nation’s Civil War Battlefields 

Final DRAFT – State of Arkansas 7

Table 2. CWSAC Preservation Priorities from 1993 – Second Tier 

CWSAC Priority Battlefield County

II Comprehensive Chalk Bluff (AR007) Clay 

Preservation Devil’s Backbone (AR009) Sebastian 

Possible Elkin’s Ferry (AR012) Nevada, Clark 

 5 Battlefields Marks’ Mills (AR015) Cleveland 

 Prairie D’Ane (AR013 Nevada 

All five battlefields noted as being “comprehensive preservation” opportunities in 1993 

remain so today. The most endangered among the five is Prairie D’Ane, which faces a 

steady threat of development around the town of Prescott and Interstate 30. The 

continuing conversion of rural and agricultural land to residential and commercial uses 

makes Prairie D’Ane the most threatened battlefield in this group. At Marks’ Mills,

large-scale timbering operations continue to damage the archeological resources and 

historic terrain. Protection and stewardship efforts at both Marks’ Mills and Prairie 

D’Ane need to be accelerated to avoid the loss of more battlefield land to uses that are 

incompatible with historic preservation. The other three battlefields are under limited 

development pressure, which makes them all excellent opportunities for planned and 

coordinated protection and management efforts over the long term. 

Table 3. CWSAC Preservation Priorities from 1993 – Third Tier 

CWSAC Priority Battlefield County

III Additional Cane Hill (AR004) Washington 

 Protection Hill's Plantation (AR003) Woodruff 

 Needed Jenkin's Ferry (AR016) Grant 

 7 Battlefields Old River Lake (AR017) Chicot 

 Pea Ridge (AR001) Benton 

 Poison Spring (AR014) Ouachita 

 Saint Charles (AR002) Arkansas 

The ABPP’s review of third tier battlefields in Arkansas found that all seven survive in 

excellent or good condition. The two best-protected battlefields in Arkansas, Saint 

Charles and Pea Ridge, are in this category. The White River National Wildlife Refuge 

and the Arkansas Natural Heritage Commission protect more than 82 percent of the Saint 

Charles battlefield; however, an additional 10 percent of the battlefield needs further 

protection. Pea Ridge National Military Park protects 4,300 acres (43 percent) of the 

historic terrain associated with the March 1862 battle of Pea Ridge. Unlike at Saint 

Charles, protection efforts are far from complete at Pea Ridge. The ABPP found an 

additional 3,700 acres beyond the national military park’s boundary that could be targeted 

for permanent protection, whether in the form of public ownership or conservation 

easements. 

Cane Hill, Hill’s Plantation, Jenkins’ Ferry, and Poison Spring also are protected to 

varying degrees by state or federal agencies, but at each, more than 89 percent of the 

surviving battlefield remains in private, unprotected hands. Jenkin’s Ferry and Poison 

Spring are threatened by large-scale timbering operations. All four of these battlefields 

should be viewed as higher priorities for protection than they were in 1993. Most of the 
Update to the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission Report on the Nation’s Civil War Battlefields 

Final DRAFT – State of Arkansas 8

land within the Core Area of Old River Lake battlefield retains good integrity, but none 

of that land has been protected. 

Table 4. CWSAC Preservation Priorities from 1993 – Fourth Tier 

CWSAC Priority Battlefield County

IV Fragmented/ Arkansas Post (AR006) Arkansas 

 Destroyed Helena (AR008) Phillips 

 4 Battlefields Bayou Fourche (AR010) Pulaski 

 Pine Bluff (AR011) Jefferson 

Of the battlefields ranked as severely fragmented or “lost” by the CWSAC, the ABPP 

confirmed that one, Pine Bluff, is beyond hope of meaningful preservation. Three others, 

however, do retain integrity to varying degrees and are appropriate subjects for 

protection. 

Changes in the course of the Arkansas River have altered significant portions of the 

Arkansas Post battlefield. Other rural land within the Study Area, however, has excellent 

integrity. The National Park Service protects 758 acres of the battlefield at the Arkansas 

Post National Memorial; however, more than 1,300 acres of historic land – 64 percent of 

the battlefield - lie outside the boundaries of the national park and are unprotected. 

Surviving portions of the historic landscape at Bayou Fourche and Helena are threatened 

by development. At Bayou Fourche, the eastern engagement area where the Federal 

cavalry crossed the Arkansas River is being converted for lakeside residential uses. At 

Helena, the northern portion of the Study Area is protected within the St. Francis National 

Forest. The southern portion of the battlefield has been compromised to some degree by 

low-density residential development, but several sections of the Federal defensive works 

survive. The Archeological Conservancy owns Battery D, but three other identified 

earthworks, listed in the NRHP, and their hilly settings are unprotected. If the remaining 

unprotected portions of Bayou Fourche and Helena are to be preserved, immediate 

coordination is needed among local, state, and national advocates and heritage tourism 

proponents. 

The landscape at Pine Bluff has changed dramatically since the Civil War. Growth of the 

City of Pine Bluff has destroyed the battlefield. Development of commemorative events 

and interpretive media within the city is the most appropriate treatment for this 

battlefield. 

 

The CWSAC did not list Bayou Meto (Reed’s Bridge) as one of the principal battles of the 

Civil War. In 2002, however, the battlefield was listed in the National Register of Historic 

Places as a nationally significant historic property. Given the high level of significance 

conferred by the NRHP listing, the ABPP decided, as part of the fieldwork undertaken for 

this update, to assess conditions at Bayou Meto. The battlefield has suffered greatly from 

the inexorable growth of Jacksonville, a bedroom community east of Little Rock. 

See the Individual Battlefield Profiles for detailed condition assessments and preservation 

recommendations. The National Park Service will issue updated priorities after all CWSAC 

battlefields nationwide have been surveyed and all state reports have been completed. 
Update to the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission Report on the Nation’s Civil War Battlefields 

Final DRAFT – State of Arkansas 9

Figure 3. While much of the landscape has been compromised by growth around the City of 

Little Rock, the eastern portion of the Bayou Fourche battlefield retains its integrity. 

Photograph courtesy of the Arkansas Historic Preservation Program. 
Update to the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission Report on the Nation’s Civil War Battlefields 

Final DRAFT – State of Arkansas 10

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). 

The 1993 significance rankings for each battlefield stand. Significance was assigned by the 

Civil War Sites Advisory Commission and the ABPP sustains the CWSAC’s opinions as to the 

relevant importance of each battle within the larger context of the war. In Arkansas, 

there is one exception. The CWSAC did not list Bayou Meto (Reed’s Bridge) as one of the 

principal battles of the Civil War in its 1993 Report. In 2002, however, that battlefield was 

listed in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) as a nationally significant historic 

property. Given the high level of significance conferred by the NRHP listing, the ABPP 

decided to include Bayou Meto in this report. 

Research and Field Surveys 

In 2009 and 2010, the ABPP worked with the Arkansas Historic Preservation Program 

(AHPP) to collect information about the 18 Civil War battlefields in Arkansas. 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 Geographic Information System (GIS) program to draw site boundaries. 

Based on recent site assessments made by Mark Christ of the AHPP and additional research 

conducted by ABPP staff, the ABPP was able to determine historic boundaries for the 

battlefields. Using commercially available satellite imagery, the ABPP was able to 

corroborate condition assessments provided by the AHPP. The ABPP retains all final 

research and mapping materials, including GIS generated spatial data for each battlefield. 

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 battlefield in Arkansas (see 

Figure 4 for definitions) except Bayou Meto. 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 techniques, 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.5

 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.6

Using its refined methodology, the ABPP was able to validate or adjust the CWSAC’s Study 

Area and Core Area boundaries to reflect more accurately the full nature and original 

resources of the battlefields (see Table 5). For Bayou Meto, the ABPP researched and 

delineated new boundaries based on the 2002 NRHP documentation. For the other 

Arkansas battlefields, the refined methodology resulted in significant increases in the size 

 

5

 American Battlefield Protection Program, “Battlefield Survey Manual,” (Washington, DC: National Park Service, revised 2007). 6

 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 – State of Arkansas 11

Figure 4: 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. 

of Study Areas, Core Areas, or both. It is 

important to note however, that the Study 

Area and Core Area boundaries are simply 

historical boundaries that describe where 

the battle took place; neither indicates the 

current integrity of the battlefield 

landscape, so neither can be used on its 

own to identify surviving portions of 

battlefield land that may merit protection 

and preservation. 

Potential National Register Boundaries 

To address the question of what part of 

the battlefield remains reasonably intact 

and warrants preservation, this study 

introduced a third boundary line that was 

not attempted by the CWSAC: the 

Potential National Register boundary (see 

Figure 4).

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 NRHP guidelines when 

identifying and mapping areas that retain 

integrity and cohesion within the Study 

Areas.7

 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.

8

 The PotNR 

 

7

 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. 

8

 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 – State of Arkansas 12

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 

significance.”9

 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.”10 

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 communicate an authentic sense of the sweep and setting of the 

battle. 

The degree to which post-war development has altered and fragmented the historic 

landscape or destroyed historic features and viewsheds is critical when assessing integrity. 

Changes in traditional land use over time do not generally diminish a battlefield’s 

integrity. For example, landscapes that were farmland during the Civil War do not need to 

be in agricultural use today to be considered eligible for listing in the 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.11

 

9

 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 of Historic Places. 10 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). 

11 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 of Historic Places on their own merits. 
Update to the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission Report on the Nation’s Civil War Battlefields 

Final DRAFT – State of Arkansas 13

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. 

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.12 

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 7 for boundary comparisons.)13

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 14 and 

Environmental Impact Statements/Environmental Assessments required by the National 

Environmental Policy Act.15 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. 

Thirteen of Arkansas’ battlefields are already listed in the NRHP or are designated as 

National Historic Landmarks (see Table 7). These battlefield listings total approximately 

20,170 acres, more than in any other state except Virginia.16 At each of the battlefields in 

 

12 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. 13 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. 

14 16 USC 470f. 

15 42 USC 4331-4332.

16 In Virginia, 34 battlefields are listed in the National Register. They encompass approximately 24,200 acres. 
Update to the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission Report on the Nation’s Civil War Battlefields 

Final DRAFT – State of Arkansas 14

Arkansas, the ABPP recommends a PotNR boundary of greater size than the existing NRHP 

boundary. The PotNR, however, may not trace the existing boundary exactly if land 

previously listed in the NRHP has lost integrity or the ABPP Study Area limits the PotNR. 

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 Arkansas, representatives of seven organizations completed and returned 

questionnaires. Their responses, combined with information from the Arkansas Historic 

Preservation Program, allowed the ABPP to create a profile of conditions and activities at 

Arkansas’s Civil War battlefields. 

Figure 5. View of the City of Helena, part of the Helena battlefield, from Union Battery C. 

Three historic batteries are protected in Helena: Batteries A and C are owned by the city; 

Battery D is owned by the Archeological Conservancy. Photograph by Joseph E. Brent, 2009. 
Update to the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission Report on the Nation’s Civil War Battlefields 

Final DRAFT – State of Arkansas 15

Summary of Conditions of Arkansas’s Civil War Battlefields 

Quantified Land Areas 

Using Geographic Information Systems (GIS) software, the ABPP calculated the amount of 

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

were engaged (Core Area), 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, Study Areas and Core Areas have been revised in many cases. In 

particular, the original CWSAC surveys did not consistently include routes of approach and 

withdrawal or secondary actions that influenced the course or outcome of the battle. The 

revised boundaries take these movements and actions into account.17 In some instances, 

new or additional research has sharpened historical understanding of battle events. 

Therefore, the ABPP determined that additional lands belong appropriately in the Study 

and Core Areas because they lend additional understanding to the battle story. The 

individual battlefield profiles at the end of this report provide additional information 

about the extent of and reasons for any revisions to the CWSAC Study Area and Core Area 

boundaries. 

Table 5 lists the size of the three boundaries, as determined by the ABPP, for each 

battlefield. At Cane Hill and Prairie Grove, and at Elkin’s Ferry and Prairie D’Ane, the 

armies moved over the same ground on seperate occasions. At Chalk Bluff, two-thirds of 

the battlefield lies in Missouri. For these reasons, the total number of battlefield acres in 

Arkansas is lower than a straight tally of the data in Table 5 would indicate. Calculating 

for overlapping lands and subtracting the Missouri acreage, there are 139,000 total Study 

Area acres, 40,200 total Core Area acres, and 89,800 total acres likely eligible for listing in 

the NRHP in Arkansas. 

Table 5. Battlefield Area Statistics

Battlefield Study Area Core Area PotNR Boundary

Arkansas Post (AR006) 3,097.18 976.50 2,118.26 

Bayou Fourche (AR010) 9,666.26 1,700.51 1,895.61 

Bayou Meto (AR018) 3,220.59 833.58 715.17 

Cane Hill (AR004) 9,007.96 3,254.99 6,929.53 

Chalk Bluff (AR007)* 217.07 64.60 217.07 

Devil's Backbone (AR009) 2,538.32 1,101.02 1,776.97 

Elkin's Ferry (AR012) 9,221.77 2,120.90 9,209.94 

Helena (AR008) 7,600.04 2,298.65 3,361.83 

Hill's Plantation (AR003) 3,528.55 1,025.92 3,528.55 

Jenkin's Ferry (AR016) 7,796.37 3,078.09 4,510.69 

 

17 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. 
Update to the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission Report on the Nation’s Civil War Battlefields 

Final DRAFT – State of Arkansas 16

Marks' Mills (AR015) 16,534.56 4,620.16 11,395.14 

Old River Lake (AR017) 7,763.14 2,570.04 3,839.77 

Pea Ridge (AR001) 9,834.22 2,078.97 8,063.74 

Pine Bluff (AR011) 7,633.37 108.42 0.00 

Poison Spring (AR014) 11,628.13 3,337.86 11,374.27 

Prairie D'Ane (AR013) 17,318.69 7,671.57 14,201.03 

Prairie Grove (AR005) 14,708.69 2,450.54 4,410.01 

Saint Charles (AR002) 1,830.99 853.69 1,735.05 

*A significant portion of the Chalk Bluff battlefield extends into Missouri: Study Area = 554.45 acres, Core 

Area = 128.78 acres and PotNR Boundary = 554.45 acres. 

Condition Assessments 

Using information provided by the Arkansas Historic Preservation Program and 

commercially available satellite imagery, the ABPP assessed the overall condition of each 

battlefield’s Study Area. While no battlefield remains completely unaltered since the Civil 

War, 12 of Arkansas’s 18 battlefields have experienced relatively little or only moderate 

change to their terrain and aboveground battle features in nearly 150 years.18

Arkansas is fortunate to have lost so few of its Civil War battlefields to twentieth century 

urban development. The battlefields associated with the Union army’s 1863 campaign to 

take Little Rock—Bayou Fourche, Bayou Meto, and Pine Bluff—have been destroyed or 

severely fragmented by growth around the capital city. Significant portions of the 

landscapes at Helena and Prairie Grove have been lost to urban development. 

Protection of the surviving terrain and features is an immediate concern. 

Most of the state’s other battlefields, including all five of the Camden Expedition sites, 

remain in rural, slowly developing areas. Ten of these more rural battlefields already 

enjoy some level of protection by federal, state, and local governments or nonprofit 

organizations. Battlefield lands outside of those public holdings, however, warrant 

continued preservation efforts. Principal threats to these rural battlefields are commercial 

timbering operations (which alter the terrain features and disturb or destroy archeological 

evidence of the battle) and aggressive relic hunting (which strips the battlefield of its 

archeological record artifact by artifact). Several of the nationally significant battlefields 

of the Camden Expedition are located in areas of intensive timber production. The Core 

Areas of the Jenkin’s Ferry, Marks’ Mill, and Poison Spring battlefields have been 

damaged by ongoing pine and hardwood forestry management techniques. Immediate 

efforts to develop and implement plans to minimize damage to battlefield terrain and 

archeological resources during forestry operations is needed. 

At Arkansas Post, natural changes in the course of the Arkansas River and construction of 

the Arkansas Post Canal have altered portions of the battlefield’s Core Area dramatically. 

About 360 acres of battlefield land are now under water. A levee extending from the 

canal down to Notrebes Bend and modernized roads further diminish the integrity of the 

historic landscape. Despite the presence of this infrastructure on the landscape, about 

1,300 acres outside the boundaries of the Arkansas Post National Memorial remain rural 

and undeveloped, making the battlefield a good candidate for additional protection. 

 

18 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 – State of Arkansas 17

Table 6: Battlefield Condition Summary 

Condition Battlefield 

Land use and terrain is little 

changed (4)

Cane Hill, Chalk Bluff, Elkin’s Ferry, Hill’s 

Plantation 

Portions of landscape have been altered, 

but most essential features remain (8)

Devil’s Backbone, Jenkin’s Ferry, Marks’ 

Mills, Old River Lake, Pea Ridge, Prairie 

D’Ane, Poison Spring, St. Charles 

Much of the landscape has been altered 

and fragmented, leaving some essential 

features (5)

Arkansas Post, Bayou Fourche, Bayou Meto, 

Helena, Prairie Grove 

Landscape and terrain have been altered 

beyond recognition (1) 

Pine Bluff

Registration 

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

listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) or designation as a National 

Historic Landmark (NHL). Sites and structures 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. 

As of September 2010, more than 20,160 acres at 13 Arkansas Civil War battlefields have 

been listed in the NRHP. 19 Most of the Arkansas listings recognize expansive battlefield 

landscapes (where physical integrity allows for a comprehensive approach). As a result, 

Arkansas listings average an impressive 1,150 acres per battlefield. By comparison, the 34 

Civil War battlefields listed in the NRHP in Virginia average only 710 listed acres per 

battlefield. The largest NRHP battlefield listing in Arkansas is Cane Hill, with 5,750 acres. 

Arkansas’ approach to NRHP listings, one that seeks to include the entire eligible 

landscape, is a model that the ABPP commends to others seeking the approval of the NRHP 

and recognition of a battlefield landscape in federal projects. Because the ABPP has 

revised many of the battlefield Study Areas in Arkansas, it encourages battlefield 

advocates in the state to revisit the existing documentation and boundaries and update 

them where appropriate. This study indicates that more than 56,700 acres of historic 

battlefield could be added to existing NRHP listings. The ABPP also found that portions of 

Bayou Fourche, Devil’s Backbone, Hill’s Plantation, and Old River Lake, 

encompassing some 11,000 acres, may also be eligible for listing as battlefield landscapes. 

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 

 

19 National Register of Historic Places, National Park Service, Washington, DC. The exact sum of listed lands, based on 

National Register documentation, is 20,169.14 acres. Note that some lands listed in the National Register of Historic Places 

may have lost integrity since they were listed.
Update to the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission Report on the Nation’s Civil War Battlefields 

Final DRAFT – State of Arkansas 18

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

preservation.20 

Table 7 compares the number of acres already listed with the number of acres that are 

likely to meet the same criteria, but are not currently part of the existing NRHP boundary. 

Table 7. Acres Registered Compared with Acres Potentially 

Eligible to be Registered

Battlefield Designation 

ABPP 

PotNR Acres

Existing 

Registered 

Acres

Acres 

Potentially 

Eligible to be 

Registered

Arkansas Post (AR006) NPS, NHL 2,118.26 758.00 1,360.26 

Bayou Fourche (AR010) 1,895.61 0.00 1,895.61 

Bayou Meto (AR018) NRHP 715.17 412.00 303.17 

Cane Hill (AR004) NRHP 6,929.53 5,750.00 1,179.53 

Chalk Bluff (AR007)* NRHP 771.52 9.50 762.02 

Devil's Backbone (AR009) 1,776.97 0.00 1,776.97 

Elkin's Ferry (AR012) NHL 9,209.94 575.00 8,634.94 

Helena (AR008) NRHP 3,361.83 84.80 3,277.03 

Hill's Plantation (AR003) 3,528.55 0.00 3,528.55 

Jenkin's Ferry (AR016) NHL 4,510.69 1,900.00 2,610.69 

Marks' Mills (AR015) NHL 11,395.14 1,742.00 9,653.14 

Old River Lake (AR017) 3,839.77 0.00 3,839.77 

Pea Ridge (AR001) NPS, NRHP 8,063.74 4,300.00 3,763.74 

Pine Bluff (AR011) 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Poison Spring (AR014) NHL 11,374.27 1,120.00 10,254.27 

Prairie D'Ane (AR013) NHL 14,201.03 2,673.00 11,528.03 

Prairie Grove (AR005) NRHP 4,410.01 837.64 3,572.37 

Saint Charles (AR002) NRHP 1,735.05 9.00 1,726.05 

*554.45 acres of the potentially eligible land in the Chalk Bluff battlefield lie in Missouri. 

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 

 

20 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 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 – State of Arkansas 19

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. 

Most of the protected and managed land at Civil War battlefields in Arkansas falls under 

the auspices of the Federal and State governments. Very little land is controlled and 

managed by local governments or nonprofit organizations. 

Three federal agencies help protect more than 8,400 acres of Civil War battlefield land in 

Arkansas. The National Park Service manages two units created with historic preservation 

and interpretation as their primary objectives – Arkansas Post National Memorial (758 

acres) and Pea Ridge National Military Park (4,300 acres). Together, these National Park 

units make up 45 percent of all protected battlefield land in Arkansas. 

 

Other federal holdings in Arkansas have been set aside for conservation purposes and uses 

compatible with the goals of historic landscape preservation. The US Fish and Wildlife 

Service (USFWS) holds 376 acres at Hill’s Plantation and 1,454 acres at Saint Charles,

which permanently protects 82 percent of that battlefield’s Study Area. The third major 

federal steward is the USDA Forest Service, which owns 760 acres at Cane Hill and 820 

acres at Helena. While Forest Service lands are unavailable for private development, 

forestry activities can still damage the battlefield landscape. As federal land managers, 

both the USFWS and the USDA Forest Service need to inventory and document historic 

battlefield land within their holdings and plan for the preservation and appropriate 

treatment of that land in accordance with federal laws and policies, particularly the 

National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 as amended and the National Environmental 

Policy Act of 1969 as amended. 

Figure 6. The Cane 

Hill Cemetery is 

located in Cane Hill

battlefield’s 

northern Core Area. 

The cemetery 

existed at the time 

of battle and is 

considered one of 

the battlefields’ 

defining features. 

Photograph courtesy 

of the Arkansas 

Historic Preservation 

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

Final DRAFT – State of Arkansas 20

The State of Arkansas has also been successful in acquiring and managing battlefield 

property. It owns almost 1,100 acres at seven battlefields. Those holdings include four 

state parks at Jenkin’s Ferry, Marks’ Mills, Prairie Grove, and Poison Spring, three 

natural areas at Chalk Bluff, Poison Spring, and Saint Charles, and the Black Swamp 

Wildlife Management Area at Hill’s Plantation. In addition, the Missouri Department of 

Conservation owns 84 acres of the Chalk Bluff battlefield on the east side of the Missouri 

River. All of these state agencies need to be aware of the battlefield resources in their 

care in order to make appropriate treatment and management decisions as land stewards. 

Municipalities in Arkansas have historically played only a limited role in efforts to preserve 

battlefields; however, this appears to be changing. In the last decade, the City of 

Jacksonville has acquired 22 acres of the Bayou Meto battlefield in an effort to protect 

what remains of that landscape. The City of Helena, in partnership with the Downtown 

Helena Business Improvement District, owns the sites of two Federal batteries associated 

with the battle of Helena. The City is actively promoting and interpreting the sites and 

Helena’s Civil War history.21 More local government involvement will be necessary if 

public-private partnerships are to succeed in protecting Civil War battlefields at the local 

level. 

The ABPP found that only two nonprofit organizations—both national groups— 

hold and manage battlefield land in Arkansas. The Civil War Preservation Trust (CWPT) 

purchased 10.17 acres at Devil’s Backbone in 2008, and the Archeological Conservancy 

purchased 10 acres to protect Union Battery D at Helena in 2003. 

Table 8 compares total lands protected by federal, state, local, and nonprofit entities in 

Arkansas. 

Table 8: Summary of Battlefield Stewardship in Arkansas

Steward Battlefield at Which Land or 

Development Rights are Owned 

Acres 

Protected 

 

Federal Government Arkansas Post, Cane Hill, Helena, Hill’s 

Plantation, Pea Ridge, Saint Charles 

8,470.20

State Government* Chalk Bluff, Helena, Hill’s Plantation, Jenkin’s 

Ferry, Marks’ Mills, Poison Spring, Prairie 

Grove, Saint Charles 

1,093.17

Local Governments Bayou Fourche, Bayou Meto, Helena 44.10

Nonprofit Organizations Devil’s Backbone, Helena 20.17

Total 9,627.64

*The Missouri Department of Conservation owns an additional 84.35 acres of the Chalk Bluff battlefield in 

Missouri.

All of the battlefield land protected in Arkansas to date has been purchased in fee. With 

the current economy requiring both public and private organizations to limit there 

spending, conservation easements can be a more cost-effective way to protect historic 

battlefields. In 2005, the Arkansas General Assembly recognized the legality and purposes 

 

21 In July 2009, the city, the Helena-West Helena Advertising and Promotion Commission; the Delta Bridge Project (a countywide 

civic organization), Southern Bancorp Capital Partners, and the State’s Delta Cultural Center adopted and are implementing a Civil 

War interpretive plan for Helena. 
Update to the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission Report on the Nation’s Civil War Battlefields 

Final DRAFT – State of Arkansas 21

of conservation easements when it passed the Conservation Easement Act to protect 

“natural, scenic, or open-space values of real property; assur[e] its availability for 

agricultural, forest, recreational, or open-space use; protect natural resources; maintain or 

enhance[e] air or water quality; or preserv[e] the historical, architectural, archeological, or 

cultural aspects of real property.”22 

Used in conjunction with or instead of traditional fee simple purchase, conservation 

easements are becoming increasingly popular land protection tools across the country. 

Private property owners are allowed to keep their land and may receive tax credits for 

donating a permanent easement, but future development of the land is prohibited. In 

Arkansas, if a conservation easement is conveyed in a state-recognized riparian zone or 

wetland, owners may receive state tax credits.23 

Preservation advocates need to work with land trusts, public entities, and willing sellers to 

design and apply these powerful tools at Civil War battlefields. In addition, federal 

funding is available for easement acquisition through the ABPP, the Farm and Ranch Lands 

Protection Program of the Department of Agriculture, and transportation enhancement 

grants administered by the Arkansas State Highways and Transportation Department.24

Through the development of collaborative partnerships among federal, state, and local 

governments, nonprofit organizations, and private individuals, significant protective 

measures can continue to be effective in Arkansas. Such partnerships have worked well at 

Prairie Grove and Bayou Meto, where the State of Arkansas and the City of Jacksonville, 

respectively, have negotiated purchases for substantial portions of battlefield land with 

help from numerous interest groups. Opportunities for concerted action on the part of 

private landowners and land conservation groups are present at battlefields where most of 

the surviving land is privately owned and unprotected, such as at Elkin’s Ferry, Marks’ 

Mills, Old River Lake, and Prairie D’Ane. 

Figure 7. Elkin’s Ferry is one of 

the most pristine Civil War 

battlefields in Arkansas. The 

landscape is still primarily rural and 

looks much the same as it did 

during the battle. Photograph 

courtesy of the Arkansas Historic 

Preservation Program.

 

22 Ark. Code Ann. §§ 15-20-401 to 15-20-410 (2005). 

23 Act 351 of the Regular Session, State of Arkansas, 87th General Assembly, 2009. 24 Natural Resources Conservation Service, “Farm and Ranch Lands Protection Program,” http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/frpp/, updated July 

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

Final DRAFT – State of Arkansas 22

For each battlefield, Table 9 compares the amount of land permanently protected from 

development with the total amount of land that remains intact but is not protected.25 This 

information may serve planners as a tool for prioritizing future preservation initiatives. 

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 since 1993. The categories included brochures, driving tours, living history 

demonstrations, maintained historic features or areas, walking tours and trails, wayside 

exhibits, websites, and other specialized programs. The results, summarized in Table 10, 

indicate that 15 of Arkansas’s 18 Civil War battlefields have provided some degree of public 

interpretation and educational opportunities since 1993. 

These findings are especially important as the sesquicentennial of the Civil War nears in 

April 2011. Like many other states, Arkansas is heavily promoting the sesquicentennial for 

public education, community development, and heritage tourism. In 2007, the Arkansas 

 

25 The ABPP culled information about permanently protected lands from questionnaire respondents and numerous partner 

organizations, as well as spatial data provided by the State of Arkansas (1995). The data is not necessarily complete but provides an 

approximate idea of the amount of land protected at each battlefield as of 2010. 

Table 9: Protective Stewardship of Intact Battlefield Land

Battlefield 

Permanently 

Protected Acres

ABPP PotNR 

Acres

Unprotected, Intact 

Acres Remaining 

Arkansas Post (AR006) 758.00 2,118.26 1,360.26 

Bayou Fourche (AR010) 2.00 1,895.61 1,893.61 

Bayou Meto (AR018) 22.10 715.17 693.07 

Cane Hill (AR004) 762.40 6,929.53 6,167.13 

Chalk Bluff (AR007)* 139.28 771.52 632.24 

Devil's Backbone (AR009) 10.17 1,776.97 1,766.80 

Elkin's Ferry (AR012) 0.00 9,209.94 9,209.94 

Helena (AR008) 849.86 3,361.83 2,511.97 

Hill's Plantation (AR003) 381.47 3,528.55 3,147.08 

Jenkin's Ferry (AR016) 31.60 4,510.69 4,479.09 

Marks' Mills (AR015) 7.15 11,395.14 11,387.99 

Old River Lake (AR017) 0.00 3,839.77 3,839.77 

Pea Ridge (AR001) 4,300.00 8,063.74 3,763.74 

Pine Bluff (AR011) 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Poison Spring (AR014) 1,526.88 11,374.27 9,847.39 

Prairie D'Ane (AR013) 0.00 14,201.03 14,201.03 

Prairie Grove (AR005) 837.76 4,410.01 3,572.25 

Saint Charles (AR002) 1,508.18 1,735.05 226.87 

*Protected land at Chalk Bluff includes 84.35 acres in Missouri.
Update to the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission Report on the Nation’s Civil War Battlefields 

Final DRAFT – State of Arkansas 23

General Assembly created the Arkansas Civil War Sesquicentennial Commission. The 

purpose of the Commission is “to promote a suitable statewide observance of the 

sesquicentennial of the Civil War; cooperate and assist national, state and local 

organizations with programs and activities suitable for the sesquicentennial observance; 

ensure that any observance of the sesquicentennial of the Civil War is inclusive and 

appropriately recognizes the experiences and points of view of all people affected by the 

Civil War; and provide assistance for the development of programs, projects, and activities 

on the Civil War that have lasting educational value.”26 As part of its mission, “the 

Commission has developed interpretive themes for each year of the observance of the 

150th anniversary of the war to provide guidance to local governments, historical societies, 

museums and other organizations as they begin planning local events.” This structure, 

along with public interest in the Civil War, will likely lead to additional interpretive 

facilities and more inclusive interpretation at each of Arkansas’ battlefields. 

Table 10: Types of Interpretation at Arkansas Battlefields

On-site Interpretation Since 1993* Battlefield 

Battlefields with public interpretation, 

including visitors center (3) 

Arkansas Post, Pea Ridge, Prairie Grove

Battlefields with public interpretation, 

but no visitors center (12) 

Bayou Fourche, Bayou Meto, Cane Hill, Chalk 

Bluff, Elkin's Ferry, Helena, Jenkin's Ferry, 

Marks' Mills, Old River Lake, Poison Spring, 

Prairie D'Ane, Saint Charles 

Battlefields with no public 

interpretation (3) 

Devil’s Backbone, Hill’s Plantation, Pine Bluff

*For details, see each site's Individual Battlefield Profile 

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 public-private 

preservation efforts, acting as conduits for public funds, raising critical private matching 

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

find ways to protect battlefield parcels. 

Battlefield proponents are well organized in Arkansas. First conceived in the early 1990s, 

“The Arkansas Civil War Heritage Trail (ACWHT) is a network of regional private, 

nonprofit, volunteer organizations seeking to identify, protect, interpret, and promote 

Arkansas properties related to the state's Civil War experience. General guidance for the 

member groups is provided by the Arkansas Historic Preservation Program, an agency of 

the Department of Arkansas Heritage.”27 The ACWHT has six regional trail organizations 

designed to coordinate projects and events among local governments, nonprofit 

organizations, and the public. 

 

26 Arkansas Civil War Sesquicentennial Commission, “About Us,” http://www.arkansascivilwar150.com/about/ [last accessed 

September 8, 2010]. 

27 Civil War Roundtable of Arkansas, “Arkansas Civil War Trails,” http://www.civilwarbuff.org/Links/CivilWarHeritageTrails.html 

(created June 14, 2009). 
Update to the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission Report on the Nation’s Civil War Battlefields 

Final DRAFT – State of Arkansas 24

In addition to the regional trail organizations, there are five nonprofit friends groups 

dedicated to the preservation, interpretation, and promotion of a specific battlefield or 

battlefields (see Table 11). Most of the battlefield friends groups in Arkansas came into 

being after the CWSAC issued its report in 1993. That same year, the Friends of Prairie 

Grove Battlefield helped the State of Arkansas acquire more than 170 acres of the Prairie 

Grove battlefield, which was added to the Prairie Grove Battlefield State Park. The Reed’s 

Bridge Battlefield Preservation Society plays a similar role at Bayou Meto. Since 1999, the 

Society has worked with the City of Jacksonville and the Arkansas Historic Preservation 

Program to save 22 acres of battlefield land in an area under constant development 

pressure. Creation of grassroots organizations at other Arkansas battlefields could 

facilitate land protection at those sites. Given the physical integrity of the five Camden 

Campaign battlefields, a single friends group established to work with willing sellers and 

negotiate conservation easements within those historic landscapes could have a lasting 

influence on battlefield preservation in the state. The newly formed Friends of Arkansas’ 

Battlefields appears poised to fill that role. 

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

roles in preserving Arkansas’ Civil War battlefields, these five groups are the only known 

local organizations in Kansas dedicated solely to the goals of Civil War battlefield 

preservation. 

Table 11: Active Battlefield Friends Groups

Battlefield Friends Group Year 

Founded 

Arkansas Post (AR006) 

Bayou Fourche (AR010) 

Bayou Meto (AR018) Reed’s Bridge Battlefield Preservation Society 1997

Cane Hill (AR004) 

Chalk Bluff (AR007) 

Devil's Backbone (AR009) Friends of Devil’s Backbone Ridge Battlefield 2010

Elkin's Ferry (AR012) Friends of Arkansas’ Battlefields 2010

Helena (AR008) 

Hill's Plantation (AR003) 

Jenkin's Ferry (AR016) Friends of Arkansas’ Battlefields 2010

Marks' Mills (AR015) Friends of Arkansas’ Battlefields 2010

Old River Lake (AR017) 

Pea Ridge (AR001) Pea Ridge National Military Park Foundation 1994

Pine Bluff (AR011) 

Poison Spring (AR014) Friends of Arkansas’ Battlefields 2010

Prairie D'Ane (AR013) Friends of Arkansas’ Battlefields 2010

Prairie Grove (AR005) Friends of Prairie Grove Battlefield ca. 1991

Saint Charles (AR002) 
Update to the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission Report on the Nation’s Civil War Battlefields 

Final DRAFT – State of Arkansas 25

Figure 8. Except for utility lines running along County Road 223, this portion of the scenic Prairie 

D’Ane battlefield remains unimpaired by modern development. Photograph by Joseph E. Brent, 

2009. 
Update to the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission Report on the Nation’s Civil War Battlefields 

Final DRAFT – State of Arkansas 80

Appendices 

Appendix A. 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) Program. These grants have assisted in the permanent 

protection of more than 16,600 acres at 67 Civil War battlefields in 14 states. To date, only 

one Arkansas battlefield has received funding through this program. While all of the 

battlefields listed in this update are eligible for future CWBLAG funding, applications to 

protect land that retains integrity (within PotNR boundaries) will be the most competitive. 

Battlefield 

CWSAC 

Priority 

Total 

Acres 

Acquired

Total

CWBLAG

Funds

Total 

Non-Federal 

Leveraged 

Funds 

Total 

Acquisition

Costs

 

Prairie Grove I 261.77 $724,300.00 $724,300.00 $1,448,600.00
Update to the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission Report on the Nation’s Civil War Battlefields 

Final DRAFT – State of Arkansas 81

Appendix B. 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. The ABPP encourages applicants to work with 

partner organizations and government agencies in order to integrate their efforts into a 

comprehensive landscape protection strategy. The ABPP has awarded more than $350,000 

in planning grants to organizations working to preserve, interpret, and manage Civil War 

battlefields in Arkansas. 

Grantee Year Project Title Award

Arkansas Department of 

Parks and Tourism 

2010 Cultural Resource Studies for Prairie Grove 

Battlefield 

$82,000.00

 1999 Designs and Specifications for an Overlook 

at Prairie Grove 

$5,133.00

 1998 Land Appraisal at Prairie Grove for 

Acquisition/Easement Planning 

$16,300.00

 1997 Prairie Grove Battlefield Plans $10,000.00

 1993 Prairie Grove Enhanced Protection Plan $20,000.00

 1992 Land Appraisal at Prairie Grove Battlefield 

for Acquisition/Easement Planning 

$20,000.00

Arkansas Historic 

Preservation Program 

 1994 Public Workshops at Prairie Grove 

Battlefield and Implementation of Heritage 

Trail Plan 

 $10,000.00

 1993 Creation of Arkansas Civil War Heritage 

Trail 

$20,000.00

 1998 Implement the Arkansas Heritage Trail Plan 

 1996 Arkansas Civil War Heritage Trail 

Interpretation 

$10,000.00

Center for Applied 

Special Technology 

1993 Viewshed Study for Prairie Grove 

Battlefield 

$39,840.00

 1992 New Approaches to Battlefield Protection 

Planning Video

$15,000.00

Nevada County 

Industrial Development 

Corporation 

2007 Elkins Ferry and Prairie D'Ane Battlefield 

Preservation Plan 

$28,097.00

Reed's Bridge Battlefield 

Preservation Society 

2004 Bayou Meto (Reed's Bridge) Battlefield 

Preservation Plan 

$25,203.00

Southern Bancorp 

Capital Partners 

2009 Earthworks Restoration, Archeology, and 

Preservation Project 

$54,707.00

 Total ABPP Planning Grants as of FY2010 $356,280.00
Update to the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission Report on the Nation’s Civil War Battlefields 

Final DRAFT – State of Arkansas 82

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

Final DRAFT – State of Arkansas 83

 ``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. 

 ``(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 – State of Arkansas 84

 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 Arkansas 85

Appendix D. Battlefield Questionnaire 

State 

Battlefield 

Person Completing Form 

Date of completion 

I. Protected Lands of the Battlefield (“Protected lands” are those “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 Arkansas 86

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 

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

Final DRAFT – State of Arkansas 87

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 

 To support program activities? 

 To support land acquisition/easements? 

8) Other