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 Georgia

Washington, DC 

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

Final DRAFT – State of Georgia 

Update to the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission 

Report on the Nation’s Civil War Battlefields

State of Georgia

U.S. Department of the Interior 

National Park Service 

American Battlefield Protection Program 

Washington, DC 

June 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 

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

and Matthew Borders, American Battlefield Protection Program, NPS 

Respondents Steve Burke, Sons of Confederate Veterans (Waynesboro); Charlie Crawford, 

Georgia Battlefields Preservation Association, Inc.; Kevin McAuliff, Whitfield County Historic 

Preservation Commission; Jim Ogden, Chickamauga and Chattanooga National Military Park; Don 

Perkins, Jenkins County Historical Society; Mark Pollard and Michael Sabine, Friends of Nash Farm; 

Randy Wester, Fort Pulaski National Monument 

Acknowledgements For providing information throughout the report-writing process, the ABPP 

would like to thank Daniel J. Brown, Fort McAllister State Historic Park; Charlie Crawford, Georgia 

Battlefields Association, Inc.; John Culpepper, Georgia Civil War Commission; Mandy Elliott, Cobb 

County Community Development Agency; Willie Ray Johnson, Kennesaw National Battlefield Park; 

and Gordon Jones, Atlanta History Center. 

Cover: The Augusta and Savannah Railroad (now the Central of Georgia) as it runs 

through the Waynesborough battlefield. Railroads were vital to the strategic, tactical, 

and logistical movements of both armies throughout the war. Today, historic rail 

corridors are among the most important features at many of Georgia’s battlefields. 

Photograph by Kathleen Madigan, 2009. 
Update to the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission Report on the Nation’s Civil War Battlefields 

Final DRAFT – State of Georgia 

Table of Contents 

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

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

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

METHOD STATEMENT ......................................................................................... 9

RESEARCH AND FIELD SURVEYS .......................................................................................... 9 

QUESTIONNAIRES........................................................................................................... 13 

SUMMARY OF CONDITIONS OF GEORGIA’S CIVIL WAR BATTLEFIELDS ......... 14

QUANTIFIED LAND AREAS ............................................................................................... 14 

CONDITION ASSESSMENTS ............................................................................................... 15 

REGISTRATION............................................................................................................... 16 

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

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

PRESERVATION ADVOCACY ............................................................................................. 23

INDIVIDUAL BATTLEFIELD PROFILES..........................................................25 

APPENDICES .................................................................................................... 115

APPENDIX A. CIVIL WAR BATTLEFIELD PRESERVATION ACT OF 2002 .................................. 115 

APPENDIX B. BATTLEFIELD QUESTIONNAIRE .................................................................... 118 

APPENDIX C. CIVIL WAR BATTLEFIELD LAND ACQUISITION GRANTS.................................... 121 

APPENDIX D. AMERICAN BATTLEFIELD PROTECTION PROGRAM PLANNING GRANTS .............. 122 
Update to the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission Report on the Nation’s Civil War Battlefields 

Final DRAFT – State of Georgia 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 Georgia 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 Georgia 4

Figure 1. CWSAC battlefields in Georgia 

. 

Figure 2 (Inset). 

CWSAC battlefields in 

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

Final DRAFT – State of Georgia 5

Synopsis 

There are 27 CWSAC battlefields in the state of Georgia. Historically, these battlefields 

encompassed more than 231,500 acres.1

 Today, about 72,200 acres, or 31 percent, retain 

sufficient significance and integrity to make them worthy of preservation.2

 Nearly 17,700 

acres are permanently protected by governments and private nonprofit organizations (see 

Table 8). 

The rapid loss of battlefield land to modern development, especially in the metropolitan 

Atlanta area, has overwhelmed six of the 27 battlefields and left another eight badly 

fragmented. Only seven battlefields in Georgia survive with at least half of their historic 

landscapes intact. Of those seven, Buck Head Creek, Davis' Cross Roads, and 

Griswoldville have the least protection. These sites should be the focus of national, 

state, and local preservation efforts during the next decade. The six other battlefields 

include less than half of their historic landscape, but do retain enough important battle 

features to warrant continued preservation efforts. 

Of the battlefield land already protected in Georgia, almost all of it has been purchased in 

fee and placed in public ownership. According to Georgia’s own conservation land data 

for 2009, only one conservation easement has been placed on a Civil War battlefield in the 

state (at Fort McAllister II).3

 Many other states provide tax incentives for private 

property owners who donate or sell conservation easements that will permanently protect 

historic land. Further exploration of this powerful preservation tool may be appropriate in 

Georgia. 

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; 

four are in Georgia. 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 eight more Georgia battlefields to the second tier, those considered 

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

good condition, [and] face few threats, but are relatively unprotected....” 

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

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

Six were in Georgia. 

The CWSAC’s fourth tier or 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 

 

1

Using GIS, and accounting for overlapping areas, the ABPP calculated that the Study Areas for the 27 battlefields in Georgia 

represent 231,528.98 acres. At Fort Pulaski, 3,159.06 more acres of the battlefield lie in South Carolina’s Jasper County. 

2

Using GIS, and accounting for overlapping areas, the ABPP calculated that the Potential National Register Boundaries for the 27

battlefields in Georgia represent 72,274.31 acres. At Fort Pulaski, 3,156.24 more potentially eligible acres lie in South Carolina’s 

Jasper County. 

3

 Georgia Conservation Lands 2009 (spatial data), Georgia Department of Natural Resources, WRD Nongame Conservation, 2009. 

In a GIS, the ABPP compared the locations of conservation lands and the locations of ABPP-designated Study Areas to determine 

the size, type, and owner of conservation lands within the battlefields. 
Update to the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission Report on the Nation’s Civil War Battlefields 

Final DRAFT – State of Georgia 6

CWSAC Priority Battlefield County 

II Comprehensive Dalton I (GA006) Whitfield, Catoosa 

 Preservation Davis' Cross Roads (GA003) Dade, Walker, Catoosa 

 Possible Griswoldville (GA025) Jones, Twiggs 

 8 Battlefields Kolb's Farm (GA014) Cobb 

 Lovejoy's Station (GA021) Clayton, Henry 

 New Hope Church (GA010) Paulding 

 Resaca (GA008) Gordon, Whitfield 

 Rocky Face Ridge (GA007) Whitfield, Catoosa, Walker, 

 Gordon 

Table 2. CWSAC Preservation Priorities from 1993 – Second Tier 

Table 1. CWSAC Preservation Priorities from 1993 – First Tier 

CWSAC Priority Battlefield County 

I Critical Need Allatoona (GA023) Bartow, Cobb 

4 Battlefields Chickamauga (GA004) Catoosa, Walker; City of 

 Chattanooga, Tennessee 

 Kennesaw Mountain (GA015) Cobb 

 Ringgold Gap (GA005) Catoosa 

suitable for interpretation, museums, and commemoration.”4 In 1993, the CWSAC 

determined that eight Georgia battlefields had been substantially compromised by postwar development. 

Of Georgia’s first tier or top priorities battlefields from 1993, Chickamauga is the only 

one that remains severely threatened. Although about half of the surviving historic 

landscape is protected by the National Park Service, the other half, some 5,000 acres, is 

privately owned and under increasing development pressure. Land protection 

opportunities may last only a few more years. 

The ABPP found very few preservation opportunities left at Allatoona, Kennesaw 

Mountain, and Ringgold Gap. At Allatoona and Kennesaw Mountain, most of the 

remaining historic landscape is in Federal ownership—the Army Corps of Engineers’ Lake 

Allatoona and the National Park Service’s Kennesaw Mountain National Battlefield Park. 

At Ringgold Gap, only about 150 acres of the 3,100-acre battlefield retain integrity. 

Of the eight battlefields in the second tier – those noted as being “comprehensive 

preservation” opportunities in 1993 - five remain in good condition. These five—Davis’ 

Cross Roads, Griswoldville, Lovejoy’s Station, Resaca, and Rocky Face Ridge—

present some of the best possibilities for Civil War landscape preservation in Georgia. All 

five should be the focus of ongoing public-private preservation efforts at the national, 

state, and local levels. 

 

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 Georgia 7

CWSAC Priority Battlefield County 

III Additional Adairsville (GA009) Gordon, Bartow 

 Protection Buck Head Creek (GA026) Burke, Jenkins 

 Needed Fort McAllister I (GA002) Bryan, Chatham 

 6 Battlefields Fort McAllister II (GA028) Bryan, Chatham 

 Fort Pulaski (GA001) Chatham; Jasper County, 

 South Carolina 

 Pickett's Mill (GA012) Paulding 

Table 3. CWSAC Preservation Priorities from 1993 – Third Tier 

At Kolb’s Farm, much of the surviving battlefield is protected by the National Park 

Service. A few undeveloped private parcels also remain, but the explosive growth in Cobb 

County has left little else of this landscape to salvage. 

The ABPP found Dalton I and New Hope Church have lost all semblance of their historic 

appearance. Development of these battlefields for housing and commercial use has left 

little undisturbed land within the Study Areas. 

The ABPP’s review of third tier battlefields in Georgia found that all survive in good 

condition. The ABPP believes these battlefields should be viewed as higher priorities for 

preservation. All six are experiencing steady development within their Study Areas, the 

most disquieting examples being Pickett’s Mill--where suburban development is 

hemming in the state park--and Adairsville--where residential development is spreading 

south from the City of Calhoun and onto the battlefield. At Fort McAllister II, the center 

of the battlefield retains integrity, but development south of Richmond Hill and along Fort 

McAllister Road is eating away at the larger historic landscape. 

The Buck Head Creek battlefield is nearly undeveloped, but commercial logging 

operations in the northern portion of the Study Area are affecting the landscape. Further 

study is needed to assess the effects of logging on defining topographic features and 

archeological resources. 

At Fort McAllister I, the battlefield’s high degree of integrity is tied to the relatively 

unchanged nature and course of the Ogeechee River. Land and marshlands within the 

Study Area that are not already protected should be the focus of future preservation 

efforts. 

Much of the final third tier battlefield, Fort Pulaski, is protected in part by the National 

Park Service and the US Fish and Wildlife Service. Beyond the federal boundaries, the 

Savannah River Channel has been dredged, making possible its use by large commercial 

ships that cause wave damage to Cockspur Island. In addition land around the City of 

Tybee Island has lost integrity. Much of the land between the river channels, however, 

retains integrity and should be considered for permanent protection. The locations of the 

Union artillery positions may require additional archeological study to determine the 

possibilities for protection and interpretation of those sites. 
Update to the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission Report on the Nation’s Civil War Battlefields 

Final DRAFT – State of Georgia 8

CWSAC Priority Battlefield County/City 

IV Fragmented/ Atlanta (GA017) DeKalb, Fulton 

 Destroyed Dallas (GA011) Paulding

 8 Battlefields Ezra Church (GA018) Fulton

Jonesborough (GA022) Clayton 

 Marietta (GA013) Cobb, Fulton, Paulding 

 Peachtree Creek (GA016) Fulton 

 Utoy Creek (GA019) Fulton 

 Waynesborough (GA027) Burke 

Table 4. CWSAC Preservation Priorities from 1993 – Fourth Tier 

The ABPP confirmed most of the CWSAC’s assessments of Georgia’s severely fragmented 

and “lost” battlefields. Only Dallas, Marietta, and Waynesborough can be 

characterized as having some integrity. Small but significant parcels may still be identified 

and protected on those historic landscapes. The remaining battlefields in Georgia have 

changed dramatically since the Civil War. Atlanta, Ezra Church, Jonesborough, 

Peachtree Creek, and Utoy Creek provide opportunities for commemoration, but few 

opportunities for cultural resource preservation beyond what has been saved and 

maintained. 

Because no survey data was collected for Dalton II, the CWSAC was unable to assign a 

Preservation Priority ranking for the battlefield in its 1993 report. As part of the field 

research undertaken for this update, the ABPP assigned site boundaries and assessed 

conditions at the battlefield. The battlefield lies primarily within the City of Dalton and 

growing Whitfield County. The battlefield does not retain integrity as a historic landscape. 

Only protected features survive as isolated remnants. 

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. 

Figure 3. Georgia State Parks and Historic Sites interpretive panel at 

Allatoona battlefield. Photograph by Kathleen Madigan, 2009. 
Update to the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission Report on the Nation’s Civil War Battlefields 

Final DRAFT – State of Georgia 9

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 B). 

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. 

Research and Field Surveys 

The ABPP conducted the field assessments of Georgia battlefields between January and 

September 2008. The surveys entailed additional historical research, on-the-ground 

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

each site, and site mapping. Surveyors used a Global Positioning System (GPS) receiver to 

map historic features of each battlefield and used a Geographic Information System (GIS) 

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

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

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

features, and boundaries described on USGS topographic maps. The surveys did not 

include archeological investigations for reasons of time and expense. 

Study Areas and Core Areas 

The CWSAC identified a Study Area and a Core Area for each principal battlefield in 

Georgia (see Figure 3 for definitions) except for Dalton II and Fort McAlister I. 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’ (NRHP) Guidelines for Identifying, Evaluating, and 

Registering America’s Historic Battlefields, which was published in 1992 after the CWSAC 

had completed its original assessments of the battlefields. 

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 Dalton II and Fort McAlister I, the ABPP 

researched and delineated new boundaries. For the other Georgia battlefields, the refined 

methodology resulted in significant increases in the size of Study Areas, Core Areas, or 

both. It is important to note, however, that the Study Area and Core Area boundaries are 

based on the review of historic source material, drawn to indicate where the battle took 

place, and convey only the location of the battlefield; neither takes the current condition 

nor alterations to the historic landscape into consideration. For this reason, they should 

not be used to define surviving portions of a battlefield that merit protection and 

preservation without further evaluation. 

 

5

 American Battlefield Protection Program, “Battlefield Survey Manual,” (Washington, DC: National Park Service, revised 2007), 
Update to the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission Report on the Nation’s Civil War Battlefields 

Final DRAFT – State of Georgia 10

Figure 3: Boundary Definitions

The Study Area represents the historic extent 

of the battle as it unfolded across the 

landscape. The Study Area contains resources 

known to relate to or contribute to the battle 

event: where troops maneuvered and 

deployed, immediately before and after 

combat, and where they fought during 

combat. Historic accounts, terrain analysis, 

and feature identification inform the 

delineation of the Study Area boundary. 

Historic setting, approaches, and natural 

features that figure importantly in the battle 

are defining elements. 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 direct 

engagement on the battlefield. Positions 

that delivered or received fire, and the space 

connecting 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 Area, 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. Although preparing a National Register 

of Historic Places nomination may require 

further assessment of historic integrity and 

more documentation than that provided by 

the ABPP survey, PotNR boundaries identify 

land that merits this additional effort. 

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.6

 Because the ABPP focuses only on 

areas of battle, 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.

7

 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. 

 

6

 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. 

7

 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 Georgia 11

The term integrity, as defined by the NRHP, is “the ability of a property to convey its 

significance.”8

 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.”9

 

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.10

Significant changes in land use since the Civil War do diminish the integrity of the 

battlefield landscape. Heavy residential, commercial, and industrial development; cellular 

 

8

 National Park Service, National Register of Historic Places Bulletin 40, Guidelines for Identifying, Evaluating, and Registering 

America’s Historic Battlefields, 1992, Revised 1999 (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, 

Interagency Resources Division), http://www.nps.gov/nr/publications/bulletins/pdfs/NRB40.pdf. Archeological integrity was not 

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

of Historic Places.

9 National Park Service, National Register of Historic Places Bulletin 40, Guidelines for Identifying, Evaluating, and Registering 

America’s Historic Battlefields, 1992, Revised 1999 (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, 

Interagency Resources Division). 

10 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 Georgia 12

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.11 

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.)12

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 13 and 

Environmental Impact Statements/Environmental Assessments required by the National 

Environmental Policy Act.14 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. 

Seven Georgia battlefields are already listed in the NRHP or are designated National 

Historic Landmarks (see Table 7). At each of these battlefields, the ABPP recommends a 

PotNR boundary of greater size than the existing NRHP boundary (although the PotNR 

may not trace the existing boundary exactly if previously registered land has lost integrity). 

 

11 National Park Service, National Register of Historic Places Bulletin 40, Guidelines for Identifying, Evaluating, and Registering 

America’s Historic Battlefields, 1992 , Revised 1999 (http://www.nps.gov/nr/publications/bulletins/pdfs/NRB40.pdf), offers 

recommendations regarding "Selecting Defensible Boundaries." While this document indicates that "generally, boundaries should 

not be drawn to include the portion of the route taken to the battlefield where there were no encounters," the Guidelines also state 

that "a basic principle is to include within the boundary all of the locations where opposing forces, either before, during or after the 

battle, took actions based on their assumption of being in the presence of the enemy." The ABPP interprets this latter guidance to 

mean all military activities that influenced the battle. See the individual battlefield profiles for information about military actions 

taken along the routes included. In accordance with the methodology of this study, if routes included in the Study Area retain

integrity, they are included within the Potential National Register boundary for the battlefield landscape. 12 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. 

13 16 USC 470f. 

14 42 USC 4331-4332.
Update to the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission Report on the Nation’s Civil War Battlefields 

Final DRAFT – State of Georgia 13

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 B. 

In Georgia, representatives of eight organizations completed and returned questionnaires. 

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

of conditions and activities at Georgia’s Civil War battlefields. 

Figure 4. The rural, scenic Davis’ Cross Roads battlefield. Photograph by Joseph E. Brent, 2008. 
Update to the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission Report on the Nation’s Civil War Battlefields 

Final DRAFT – State of Georgia 14

Summary of Conditions of Georgia’s Civil War Battlefields 

Quantified Land Areas 

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

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

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

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

protected (Potential National Register [PotNR] 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.15 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. Because Civil War armies waged numerous battles in Georgia over the same 

ground, the total number of battlefield acres in Georgia is lower than a straight tally 

would indicate. Calculating for the overlapping areas of the battlefields, there are 231,500 

total Study Area acres, 59,300 total Core Area acres, and 72,200 total acres likely eligible 

for listing in the NRHP in Georgia.

Table 5. Battlefield Area Statistics

Battlefield Study Area Core Area PotNR Boundary

Adairsville (GA009) 6,975.76 715.88 2,950.39

Allatoona (GA023) 1,067.73 416.36 294.59

Atlanta (GA017) 6,986.79 3,043.83 0.00

Buck Head Creek (GA026) 3,137.32 298.86 3,137.32

Chickamauga (GA004) 29,978.67 9,796.38 9,881.28

Dallas (GA011) 2,965.42 852.47 0.00

Dalton I (GA006) 7,011.40 669.48 1,866.79

Dalton II (GA020) 6,002.08 523.24 0.00

Davis' Cross Roads (GA003) 23,267.17 6,063.47 21,406.65

Ezra Church (GA018) 2,719.21 1,053.07 0.00

 

15 National Register of Historic Places Bulletin 40, Guidelines for Identifying, Evaluating, and Registering America's Historic 

Battlefields (http://www.nps.gov/nr/publications/bulletins/pdfs/NRB40.pdf), offers recommendations regarding "Selecting 

Defensible Boundaries." While this document indicates that "generally, boundaries should not be drawn to include the portion of 

the route taken to the battlefield where there were no encounters," the Guidelines also state that "a basic principle is to include 

within the boundary all of the locations where opposing forces, either before, during or after the battle, took actions based on their 

assumption of being in the presence of the enemy." The ABPP interprets this latter guidance to mean all military activities that 

influenced the battle. See the individual battlefield profiles for information about military actions taken along the routes included. 

In accordance with the methodology of this study, if routes included in the Study Area retain integrity, they are included within the 

Potential National Register boundary for the battlefield landscape. 
Update to the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission Report on the Nation’s Civil War Battlefields 

Final DRAFT – State of Georgia 15

Fort McAllister I (GA002) 2,494.48 563.51 2,463.59

Fort McAllister II (GA028) 4,198.44 1,552.41 2,514.54

Fort Pulaski (GA001)* 8,529.53 3,657.49 7,862.00

Griswoldville (GA025) 7,880.25 1,627.79 5,700.33

Jonesborough (GA022) 4,656.82 2,343.84 0.00

Kennesaw Mountain 15,940.66 5,498.21 3,039.31

Kolb's Farm (GA014) 3,745.22 1,894.70 836.87

Lovejoy's Station (GA021) 3,880.28 1,135.86 1,179.98

Marietta (GA013) 60,906.60 7,935.61 0.00

New Hope Church (GA010) 2,753.88 490.26 0.00

Peachtree Creek (GA016) 6,097.03 2,092.04 0.00

Pickett's Mill (GA012) 1,773.40 295.34 851.20

Resaca (GA008) 7,596.32 3,574.48 4,617.90

Ringgold Gap (GA005) 3,143.04 580.64 148.69

Rocky Face Ridge (GA007) 16,250.89 2,482.24 3,598.68

Utoy Creek (GA019) 2,826.68 930.38 0.00

Waynesborough (GA027) 10,572.55 1,293.37 4,907.14

*Statistics for Fort Pulaski include land in Jasper County, South Carolina.

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, 13 of 

Georgia’s 27 battlefields have experienced relatively little or only moderate change to 

their terrain and aboveground battle features in nearly 150 years.16

The rapid loss of battlefield land to modern development, especially in the metropolitan 

Atlanta area, has overwhelmed six battlefields (Atlanta, Dalton II, Ezra Church, New 

Hope Church, Peachtree Creek, and Utoy Creek) and left another eight badly 

fragmented (Allatoona, Dallas, Dalton I, Jonesborough, Kennesaw Mountain, 

Kolb's Farm, Lovejoy's Station, and Marietta). 

Only seven battlefields in Georgia survive with at least half of their historic landscapes 

intact: Buck Head Creek, Davis' Cross Roads, Fort McAllister I, Fort McAllister II,

Fort Pulaski, Griswoldville, and Resaca. Of those seven, Buck Head Creek, Davis' 

Cross Roads, and Griswoldville have the least protection. These sites should be the 

focus of national, state, and local preservation efforts during the next decade. 

At six other battlefields, less than half of the historic landscape survives. Chickamauga, 

Pickett’s Mill, and Rocky Face Ridge already enjoy protection by federal, state, and 

local governments, but endangered battlefield land outside of those public holdings 

warrants continued preservation efforts. Very little land at Adairsville, Ringgold Gap, 

and Waynesborough is protected. 

 

16 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 Georgia 16

Table 6: Battlefield Condition Summary 

Condition Battlefield 

Land use and terrain is little 

changed (3)

Buck Head Creek, Davis’ Cross Roads, 

Griswoldville 

Portions of landscape have been 

altered, but most essential features 

remain (10)

Adairsville, Allatoona, Chickamauga, Fort 

McAllister I, Fort McAllister II, Fort Pulaski, 

Pickett's Mill, Ringgold Gap, Resaca, Rocky Face 

Ridge 

Much of the landscape has been 

altered and fragmented, leaving some 

essential features (8)

Dallas, Dalton I, Jonesborough, Kennesaw 

Mountain, Kolb’s Farm, Lovejoy’s Station, 

Marietta, Waynesborough 

Landscape and terrain have been 

altered beyond recognition (6) 

Atlanta, Dalton II, Ezra Church, New Hope 

Church, Peachtree Creek, Utoy Creek 

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). As of April 2010, approximately 9,600 acres at 8 Georgia Civil 

War battlefields have been listed in the NRHP. 17 At Chickamauga, Fort Pulaski, 

Kennesaw Mountain, Kolb’s Farm, and Pickett’s Mill, large portions of the battlefield 

landscape are listed. At Fort McAllister I and Fort McAllister II, only the historic post 

itself is listed, leaving much of the remaining battlefield unlisted and unrecognized. At 

Marietta, separate listings for Johnston’s River Line and the Gilgal Church engagement 

area represent only a fraction of the sweeping Marietta Operations. 

Based on the ABPP’s findings of integrity, additional historically significant land, some 

18,000 acres, could be added to existing listings. The ABPP also found that portions of 11 

other battlefields, encompassing some 49,000 acres, may also be eligible for listing. To 

date, no Civil War battlefield in Georgia has been designated as a National Historic 

Landmark. 

Registered battlefields meet national standards for documentation, physical integrity, and 

demonstrable significance to the history of the nation. Federal, state, and local agencies 

use information from the NRHP as a planning tool to identify and make decisions about 

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

Historic Preservation Act of 1966, require agencies to account for the effects their projects 

(roads, wetland permits, quarrying, cell towers, etc.) may have on listed and eligible 

historic properties, such as battlefields. Listing allows project designers to quickly identify 

the battlefield and avoid or minimize impacts to the landscape. 

Properties listed in the NRHP are also eligible for numerous federal and state historic 

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

 

17 National Register of Historic Places, National Park Service, Washington, DC. The exact sum of listed lands is 9,655.73 

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 Georgia 17

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

for its preservation.18

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. 

As noted earlier, several Georgia battlefields overlap in land area. Therefore, the total 

amount of intact land potentially eligible for listing is lower than a simple tally of the 

data.19 

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 

Registerted

Adairsville (GA009) 2,950.39 0.00 2,950.39

Allatoona (GA023) 294.59 0.00 294.59

Atlanta (GA017) 0.00 0.00 0.00

Buck Head Creek (GA026) 3,137.32 0.00 3,137.32

Chickamauga (GA004) NRHP 9,881.28 5,509.51 4,371.77

Dallas (GA011) 0.00 0.00 0.00

Dalton I (GA006) 1,866.79 0.00 1,866.79

Dalton II (GA020) 0.00 0.00 0.00

Davis' Cross Roads (GA003) 21,406.65 0.00 21,406.65

Ezra Church (GA018) 0.00 0.00 0.00

Fort McAllister I (GA002) NRHP 2,463.59 30.00 2,433.59

Fort McAllister II (GA028) NRHP 2,514.54 30.00 2,484.54

Fort Pulaski (GA001)* NRHP 7,862.00 260.00 7,602.00

Griswoldville (GA025)** 5,700.33 0.00 5,700.33

Jonesborough (GA022) 0.00 0.00 0.00

Kennesaw Mountain NRHP 3,089.31 2,884.00 205.31

Kolb's Farm (GA014) NRHP 836.87 751.00 836.87

Lovejoy's Station (GA021) 1,179.98 0.00 1,179.98

Marietta (GA013) NRHP 0.00 21.22 0.00

New Hope Church (GA010) 0.00 0.00 0.00

Peachtree Creek (GA016) 0.00 0.00 0.00

Pickett's Mill (GA012) NRHP 851.20 200.00 651.20

Resaca (GA008) 4,617.90 0.00 4,617.90

Ringgold Gap (GA005)*** 148.69 0.00 148.69

 

18 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, which 

are automatically listed in the National Register of Historic Places. The Secretary of the Interior designates National Historic 

Landmarks (NHL) – nationally significant historic sites – for their exceptional value or quality in illustrating or interpreting the 

heritage of the United States. The National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) is the nation’s official list of cultural sites significant 

at the national, state, or local level and worthy of preservation. Historic units of the National Park System and NHLs are also listed 

in the National Register of Historic Places. 

19 Using GIS, and accounting for overlapping areas, the ABPP calculated that the Potential National Register Boundaries (inclusive of 

existing listings) for the 27 battlefields in Georgia represent 72,274.31 acres. 
Update to the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission Report on the Nation’s Civil War Battlefields 

Final DRAFT – State of Georgia 18

Rocky Face Ridge (GA007) 3,598.68 0.00 3,598.68

Utoy Creek (GA019) 0.00 0.00 0.00

Waynesborough (GA027) 4,907.14 0.00 4,907.14

*Statistics for Fort Pulaski include land in Jasper County, South Carolina. 

**While the battlefield landscape at Griswoldville is not listed in the National Register of Historic Places, 

several individual historic features associated with the battle contribute to the National Register of Historic 

Places listing for Ocmulgee National Monument. 

***A nomination for 150 acres of the Ringgold Gap battlefield is pending approval by the National Register 

of Historic Places as of April 2010. 

Stewardship 

Georgia is home to the nation’s first national military park. President Benjamin Harrison 

signed the bill establishing the Chickamauga and Chattanooga National Military Park on 

August 18, 1890. The stated purpose of the park is “preserving and suitably marking for 

historical and professional military study the fields of some of the most remarkable 

maneuvers and most brilliant fighting in the war of the rebellion....” To accomplish this 

purpose, the legislation authorized purchase of approximately 7,600 acres of land within 

prescribed boundaries that included the battlefield, eight highways, scenes of battlefield 

maneuvers, and approaches to the park. Today, the legacy of this remarkable legislation is 

the largest single battlefield in the National Park System: more than 5,500 protected acres. 

The battlefields within Fort Pulaski National Monument and Kennesaw Mountain National 

Battlefield Park, and small portions of Atlanta Campaign sites within the Chattahoochee 

River National Recreation Area, are also protected by the National Park Service. 

The other federal stewards in the state are the Army Corps of Engineers, which manages 

and interprets more than 400 acres at Allatoona , and the USDA Forest Service. More 

than 800 acres of the Chattahoochee National Forest fall within the Study Areas of Dalton 

I, Resaca, and Rocky Face Ridge. All told, the Federal Government owns and manages 

more than 11,000 acres of Civil War battlefield land in Georgia.20 

The State of Georgia owns more than 5,000 acres of battlefield land, distributed among 12 

different battlefields. Responsibility for this protected land falls to the Georgia 

Department of Natural Resources. The State’s holdings include historic sites, wildlife 

management areas, nature preserves, and state parks. At Fort McAllister and Pickett’s Mill, 

the state has established visitor centers, trails, and interpretive media. At Resaca, the State 

purchased more than 560 acres in 2009 and is developing visitor amenities and interpretive 

infrastructure. 

Five local governments have also stepped in to protect Georgia’s Civil War past. The City 

of Atlanta, Cobb County, Fulton County, Henry County, and Whitfield County have saved a 

combined total of 1,500 acres at Marietta, Lovejoy’s Station, Peachtree Creek, Rocky 

Face Ridge, and Utoy Creek. Future protection efforts could be bolstered with assistance 

from the Georgia Greenspace Program. The Greenspace Program was established in 2000 

to encourage counties to set aside at least 20 percent of their geographic area as 

protected greenspace. Battlefield protection counts toward greenspace goals under this 

program. When funding is available, State money can be used for fee simple acquisition 

or for the purchase of permanent conservation easements.21 If funded fully, the 

 

20 The US Fish and Wildlife Service owns an additional 640 acres of the Fort Pulaski battlefield in South Carolina. 21 Official Code of Georgia Annotated Sec. 36-22-1 et seq. While the Greenspace Program has been moribund since 1993, it 
Update to the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission Report on the Nation’s Civil War Battlefields 

Final DRAFT – State of Georgia 19

Greenspace Program can serve as an excellent vehicle and incentive for local battlefield 

preservation and planning efforts. 

Substantial land protection efforts are also being made by nonprofit organizations. In 

2008, The Trust for Public Land acquired more than 480 acres at Resaca, nearly doubling 

the amount of protected land at that battlefield. The Nature Conservancy of Georgia 

holds an easement on more than 230 acres of the Fort McAllister II battlefield. The 

Atlanta History Center purchased 18.12 acres at Marietta (Gilgal Church) and 14.20 acres 

at New Hope Church, the Jenkins County Historical Society owns 8.50 acres at Buck Head 

Creek, and the Georgia Battlefields Association owns 4.70 acres at New Hope Church. 

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

Georgia. 

Table 8: Summary of Battlefield Stewardship in Georgia

Steward Battlefield at Which Land or 

Development Rights are Owned 

Acres 

Protected 

 

Federal Government Allatoona, Buck Head Creek, Chickamauga, 

Dalton I, Fort Pulaski*, Griswoldville, 

Kennesaw Mountain, Kolb's Farm, Marietta, 

Peachtree Creek, Resaca, Rocky Face Ridge 

13,506.52

State Government Buck Head Creek, Davis Cross Roads, Fort 

McAllister I, Fort McAllister II, Fort Pulaski, 

Griswoldville, Peachtree Creek, Pickett's Mill, 

Resaca, Rocky Face Ridge, Waynesboro 

5,638.01

Local Governments Atlanta, Chickamauga, Dalton II, Fort 

McAllister II, Jonesborough, Lovejoy's 

Station, Marietta, Resaca, Ringgold Gap, 

Rocky Face Ridge, Utoy Creek 

1,514.64

Nonprofit Organizations Buck Head Creek, Fort McAllister II, Marietta, 

New Hope Church, Resaca 

761.33

Total 17,685.71**

* The Federal Government owns another 643.77 acres within the Fort Pulaski Study Area at Tybee National Wildlife 

Refuge. This land lies north of the Savannah River in South Carolina. 

**Some protected parcels help preserve more than one battlefield, such as state-owned land at Fort McAllister, the 

scene of two separate battles. In Georgia, 2,759.96 protected acres are “redundant” to a second battlefield. Therefore, 

the total number of acres protected is 20,446.84 acres less the redundant acres. For details, see each site's Individual 

Battlefield Profile. 

Of the battlefield land already protected in Georgia, almost all has been purchased in fee 

and placed in public ownership. According to Georgia’s own conservation land data for 

2009, only one conservation easement has been placed on a Civil War battlefield in the 

state (at Fort McAllister II).22 Used in conjunction with or instead of traditional fee 

 

22 Georgia Conservation Lands 2009 (spatial data), Georgia Department of Natural Resources, WRD Nongame Conservation, 2009. 

In a GIS, the ABPP compared the locations of conservation lands and the locations of ABPP-designated Study Areas to determine 

the size, type, and owner of conservation lands within the battlefields.
Update to the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission Report on the Nation’s Civil War Battlefields 

Final DRAFT – State of Georgia 20

simple purchase, conservation easements are becoming increasingly popular land 

protection tools. Private property owners keep their land and receive tax benefits for 

donating an easement, but future development of the land is prohibited. Georgia and the 

federal government provide tax incentives for private property owners who donate 

conservation easements that permanently protect historic land. Preservation advocates 

can work with the Georgia Land Conservation Program, land trusts, and willing sellers to 

apply these powerful tools at Civil War battlefields.23 

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 Georgia. Such partnerships have worked well at 

Resaca and Rocky Face Ridge, where the State and the county, 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 especially ripe at battlefields where most of the surviving 

land is privately owned and unprotected, such as at Adairsville, Buck Head Creek, 

Davis’ Cross Roads, Griswoldville, and Waynesborough. 

Figure 3. View of the 

parade grounds at 

Fort Pulaski. The 

National Park Service 

owns and maintains 

the historic masonry 

fortification and 

surrounding 

battlefield landscape. 

Photograph by 

Kathleen Madigan, 

2008.

 

23 The Georgia Land Conservation Program website, http://glcp.georgia.gov/02/glcp/home/0,2682,82613131,00.html, provides 

excellent information about easements and other land conservation tools. 
Update to the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission Report on the Nation’s Civil War Battlefields 

Final DRAFT – State of Georgia 21

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

development against the total amount of land that remains intact but unprotected.24 This 

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

 

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

organizations. 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 

ABPP PotNR 

Acres

Permanently 

Protected Acres 

Unprotected, 

Intact Acres 

Remaining

Adairsville (GA009) 2,950.39 0.00 2,950.39

Allatoona (GA023) 294.59 425.32 0.00

Atlanta (GA017) 0.00 0.00 0.00

Buck Head Creek (GA026) 3,137.32 33.27 3,104.05

Chickamauga (GA004) 9,881.28 5,509.51 4,371.77

Dallas (GA011) 0.00 20.00 0.00

Dalton I (GA006) 1,866.79 76.35 1,790.44

Dalton II (GA020) 0.00 0.00 0.00

Davis' Cross Roads (GA003) 21,406.65 1,029.54 20,377.11

Ezra Church (GA018) 0.00 0.00 0.00

Fort McAllister I (GA002) 2,463.59 423.90 2,039.69

Fort McAllister II (GA028) 2,514.54 2,136.55 377.99

Fort Pulaski (GA001)* 7,862.00 1,612.63 6,249.37

Griswoldville (GA025) 5,700.33 121.77 5,578.56

Jonesborough (GA022) 0.00 0.00 0.00

Kennesaw Mountain 3,089.31 2,922.34 166.97

Kolb's Farm (GA014) 836.87 751.00 85.87

Lovejoy's Station (GA021) 1,179.98 204.00 975.98

Marietta (GA013) 0.00 2,245.53 0.00

New Hope Church (GA010) 0.00 18.90 0.00

Peachtree Creek (GA016) 0.00 9.19 0.00

Pickett's Mill (GA012) 851.20 765.00 86.20

Resaca (GA008) 4,617.90 1,084.09 3,533.81

Ringgold Gap (GA005) 148.69 0.00 148.69

Rocky Face Ridge (GA007) 3,598.68 1,384.81 2,213.87

Utoy Creek (GA019) 0.00 120.00 0.00

Waynesborough (GA027) 4,907.14 195.76 4,685.54

*Statistics for Fort Pulaski include land in Jasper County, South Carolina.
Update to the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission Report on the Nation’s Civil War Battlefields 

Final DRAFT – State of Georgia 22

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 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 21 of Georgia’s 27 Civil War battlefields have provided some degree of public 

interpretation and educational opportunities since 1993. 

Table 10: Types of Interpretation at Georgia Battlefields

 

On-site Interpretation Since 1993* Battlefield

Battlefields with public 

interpretation, including 

visitors center (8) 

Chickamauga, Fort McAllister I, Fort McAllister II, 

Fort Pulaski, Kennesaw Mountain, Kolb’s 

Farm, Lovejoy's Station, Pickett's Mill 

Battlefields with public 

interpretation, but no visitors 

center (13) 

Allatoona, Atlanta, Buck Head Creek, Davis' Cross 

Roads, Ezra Church, Griswoldville, Jonesborough, 

Marietta, New Hope Church, Peachtree Creek, 

Resaca, Ringgold Gap, Utoy Creek 

Battlefields with no public 

interpretation (6) 

Adairsville, Dallas, Dalton I, Dalton II, Rocky Face 

Ridge, Waynesborough

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

Efforts to bring the story of the Civil War in Georgia to the traveling public go back to the 

Great Depression. In the 1930s, the National Park Service and the Works Progress 

Administration developed small parcels at five different battlefields associated with the 

Atlanta Campaign of 1864. Each parcel was developed as an interpretive “pavilion.” 

Works Progress Administration laborers built each masonry pavilion, which included a 

large bronze tablet inscribed with a battle description and a troop movement map. The 

NPS transferred these waysides to the State of Georgia in 1950. 25 These lasting 

monuments can still be found at New Hope Church, Resaca, Ringgold Gap, Rocky Face 

Ridge, and Cassville (the scene of an action on May 19, 1864, related to the Confederate 

withdrawal from Adairsville). 

 

25 National Park Service, “Former National Park System Units: An Analysis,” Barry Mackintosh, 1995, 

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/hisnps/NPSHistory/formerparks.htm. 
Update to the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission Report on the Nation’s Civil War Battlefields 

Final DRAFT – State of Georgia 23

Preservation 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. 

Georgia’s battlefields benefit from the efforts of numerous advocacy organizations. 

Spurred by the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission’s work, the Georgia General Assembly 

created the Georgia Civil War Commission in 1993. This State-funded commission exists 

“to coordinate planning, preservation, and promotion of structures, buildings, sites, and 

battlefields associated with this significant period of our common heritage.” The 

Commission also leads state efforts to “promote heritage tourism and provide incentives 

to local landowners and local governments to preserve Civil War battlefields and historic 

sites.” Perhaps most importantly, the Georgia Civil War Commission can “acquire or 

provide funds for the acquisition of Civil War battlefields, cemeteries, and other historic 

properties” and “receive and accept loans, gifts, grants, donations or contributions of 

property.”26 It is currently planning and promoting activities and events in Georgia for the 

upcoming Sesquicentennial of the Civil War. 

Working with the Commission and many national and local partners is the Georgia 

Battlefields Association, Inc. Founded in 1995, this statewide nonprofit organization 

facilitates land purchases, expands educational opportunities at battlefields, and sustains 

public awareness of the plight of the state’s disappearing Civil War landscapes. Its most 

valuable roll is as an information and advocacy hub: it keeps numerous groups across the 

state connected by sharing information about preservation successes and failures, and 

urges disparate groups to provide mutual political support. 

In addition to these statewide organizations, many local organizations help promote the 

battlefields by sponsoring public events and educational programs. The nonprofit friends 

groups identified in Table 11 are dedicated solely to the preservation, interpretation, and 

promotion of a specific battlefield or battlefields. The Kennesaw Mountain Battlefield 

Association, Inc., has been serving that battlefield’s interest for more than 60 years. Most of 

the battlefield friends groups in Georgia came into being after the CWSAC issued its report 

in 1993. In addition to the battlefield groups, numerous other organizations with general 

historical interests—county historical societies, Civil War roundtables, and community 

coalitions—are also actively promoting and preserving Georgia’s battlefields. 

 

26 Official Code of Georgia Annotated § 50-7-60 et seq; The Georgia Civil War Commission, “Georgia Civil War Commission,” 2007, 

http://www.georgiacivilwar.org/. 
Update to the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission Report on the Nation’s Civil War Battlefields 

Final DRAFT – State of Georgia 24

Table 11: Active Battlefield Friends Groups 

Battlefield Friends Group Year Founded 

Adairsville (GA009) None 

Allatoona (GA023) 

Etowah Valley Historical Society (Allatoona 

Pass Battlefield Preservation Project) 1995 

Atlanta (GA017) None 

Buck Head Creek (GA026) None 

Chickamauga (GA004) Friends of the Park 1986 

Dallas (GA011) Friends of Civil War Paulding County 1993 

Dalton I (GA006) None 

Dalton II (GA020) None 

Davis' Cross Roads (GA003) None 

Ezra Church (GA018) None 

Fort McAllister I (GA002) Friends of Fort McAllister 2007 

Fort McAllister II (GA028) Friends of Fort McAllister 2007 

Fort Pulaski (GA001)* None 

Griswoldville (GA025) None 

Jonesborough (GA022) None 

Kennesaw Mountain 

Kennesaw Mountain Historical Association, 

Inc. 1948 

Kolb's Farm (GA014) Kolb Farm Coalition 2001 

Lovejoy's Station (GA021) Friends of Nash Farm 2006 

Marietta (GA013) None 

New Hope Church (GA010) Friends of Civil War Paulding County 1993 

Peachtree Creek (GA016) Friends of Tanyard Creek Park Unknown 

Pickett's Mill (GA012) Friends of Civil War Paulding County 1993 

Resaca (GA008) Friends of Resaca Battlefield 1996 

Ringgold Gap (GA005) None 

Rocky Face Ridge (GA007) None 

Utoy Creek (GA019) None 

Waynesborough (GA027) None 

*The Friends of Cockspur Lighthouse organized in 2007 to help restore the historic lighthouse, which is 

itself a defining feature of the 1862 battle of Fort Pulaski. The group is not dedicated to battlefield 

landscape protection and preservation, however, and so is not listed above. 
Update to the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission Report on the Nation’s Civil War Battlefields 

Final DRAFT – State of Georgia 115

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 Georgia 116

 ``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. 

 ``(7) Authorization of appropriations.-- 
Update to the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission Report on the Nation’s Civil War Battlefields 

Final DRAFT – State of Georgia 117

 ``(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 Georgia 118

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 Georgia 119

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

Final DRAFT – State of Georgia 120

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

 If yes, State Inventory Name and ID Number 

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

 Type of Designation/Listing 

V. Program Activities

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

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

1994 and Antietam Preservation Plan, 2001, etc.) 

1) Research and Documentation 

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

archeological surveys, landscape surveys, etc.) 

 

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

 

4) Interpretation Projects (also includes education) 

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

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

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

battlefield individually or together with other similar sites) 

7) Fundraising 

 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 Georgia 121

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) Program. These grants have assisted in the permanent 

protection of more than 15,550 acres at 62 Civil War battlefields in 14 states. To date, only 

two Georgia battlefields have 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

 

Resaca I 570.50 $488,058.00 $ 976,116.00 $ 1,464,174.00 

Rocky Face Ridge II 625.00 $257,000.00 $ 514,000.00 $771,000.00 

Total 1,195.50 $ 745,058.00 $ 1,490,116.00 $2,235,174.00 
Update to the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission Report on the Nation’s Civil War Battlefields 

Final DRAFT – State of Georgia 122

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. The ABPP encourages applicants to work with 

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

comprehensive landscape protection strategy. Georgia battlefields have received nearly 

$450,000 in planning grants. 

Grantee Year Project Title Award

Georgia Department of Natural 

Resources 

2009 National Register Eligibility Testing for 

the USS/CSS Water Witch

$61,833.00

Mableton Improvement 

Coalition, Inc. 

2009 Johnston's River Line Battlefield 

Inventory 

$45,000.00

Coweta County 2006 Battle of Brown's Mill Boundary 

Survey 

$16,810.00

Whitfield County Board of 

Commissioners 

2005 Georgia Gibratar Master Plan $26,110.00

Georgia Department of Natural 

Resources 

2004 Archeology of the Civil War Naval 

Operations on the Ogeechee River 

$39,996.00

Catoosa County 2000 Ringgold Gap Battlefield Protection 

Plan, Phase II: Consensus Building and 

Education 

$16,000.00

Dalton-Whitfield Chamber of 

Commerce 

1999 The Atlanta Campaign Guide $25,000.00

Georgia Civil War Commission 1996 Resaca Interpretive Plan $50,000.00

Etowah Valley Historical Society, 

Inc. 

1996 Comprehensive Battlefield Plan For 

Allatoona Battlefield 

$20,000.00

Catoosa County Historical 

Society, Inc. 

1996 Ringgold Gap Battlefield Survey $20,000.00

Georgia Department of Natural 

Resources 

1993 Survey and Preservation Planning for 

Chattanooga and Chickamauga Civil 

War Battlefields 

$6,000.00

Georgia Department of Natural 

Resources 

1993 Survey of Civil War Resources Related 

to the Atlanta Campaign 

$50,000.00

Georgia Department of Natural 

Resources 

1993 Conservation Easement Negotiation 

Training 

$10,000.00

The Coosa Valley Regional 

Development Center 

1995 Chattanooga Area Civil War Sites 

Assessment Project 

$2,000.00

Cobb County 1994 Survey of Johnston's Chattahoochee 

River Defense Line 

$10,000.00

Georgia Department of Natural 

Resources 

1993 Staff for Georgia Department of 

Natural Resources/ Preservation Plan 

For Resaca 

$47,000.00

 Total ABPP Planning Grants as of FY2010 $445,749.00