Links to Bills as Introduced
NPS Response
NPS Senate Testimony
[A1]9-16-2026 SFR: The Department recognizes the historical significance of the Shenandoah Valley and the pivotal role its battlefields played in shaping our nation’s history. However, we do not support S. 5169, as it would divert NPS resources from higher priority operational responsibilities, including efforts to reduce the deferred maintenance backlog. Additionally, authorizing the District to seek technical assistance normally reserved for National Heritage Area System participants could place further strain on NPS resources and support capacity. https://www.doi.gov/ocl/pending-legislation-128
[A2]Recommend amending section 6001(a) of the Dingell Act to designate the Shenandoah Valley Battlefields National Historic District as a component of the National Heritage Area System, consistent with the approach used for other NHA designations.
[A3]Recommend requiring a management plan on the same 3-year timetable used for National Heritage Areas designated under section 6001.
[A4]Recommend striking special authorization language. The District would be funded similar to other National Heritage Areas and would be eligible for technical assistance, similar to all other NHAs.
[A5]The NPS recommends against this reporting requirement. The Shenandoah Valley Battlefields National Historic District already operates in a manner largely analogous to a National Heritage Area (NHA), with some exceptions. Congress has established a standardized and well‑tested partnership model for NHAs through the National Heritage Area Act (P.L. 117‑339), which provides consistent administrative structures, accountability mechanisms, and partnership expectations across more than 60 designated NHAs.
S. 5169 Shenandoah Valley Battlefields NHD - DOI TA (OCL Review 9.25.26)
S. 5169[A1.1]
To expand the boundaries of the Shenandoah Valley Battlefields National Historic District, to recognize and enhance the Shenandoah Valley Battlefields National Historic District partnership model, and for other purposes.
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
JULY 29, 2026
Mr. JUSTICE (for himself, Mrs. CAPITO, Mr. KAINE, and Mr. WARNER) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
A BILL
To expand the boundaries of the Shenandoah Valley Battlefields National Historic District, to recognize and enhance the Shenandoah Valley Battlefields National Historic District partnership model, and for other purposes.
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 “Shenandoah Valley Battlefields National Historic District Boundary Expansion and Partnership Act of 2026”.
SEC. 2. EXPANSION AND ADMINISTRATION OF SHENANDOAH VALLEY BATTLEFIELDS NATIONAL HISTORIC DISTRICT.
(a) DEFINITIONS.—In this section:
(1) DISTRICT.—The term “District” means the Shenandoah Valley Battlefields National Historic District established by subsection (e) of the Shenandoah Valley Battlefields National Historic District and Commission Act of 1996 (section 606 of division I of the Omnibus Parks and Public Lands Management Act of 1996) (54 U.S.C. 320101 note; Public Law 104–333) (as amended by subsection (b)).
(2) MANAGEMENT ENTITY; PLAN.—The terms “management entity” and “plan” have the meanings given those terms in subsection (d) of the Shenandoah Valley Battlefields National Historic District and Commission Act of 1996 (54 U.S.C. 320101 note; Public Law 104–333).
(b) BOUNDARY EXPANSION.—Subsection (e) of the Shenandoah Valley Battlefields National Historic District and Commission Act of 1996 (54 U.S.C. 320101 note; Public Law 104–333) is amended—
(1) in paragraph (1), by striking “Commonwealth of Virginia” and inserting “States of Virginia and West Virginia”; and
(2) in paragraph (2)—
(A) by striking “(A) The corridor shall consist of lands and interests therein as” and inserting the following:
“(A) IN GENERAL.—The District shall consist of—
“(i) land and interests in land, as”;
(B) in subparagraph (A)—
(i) in clause (i) (as so designated), by striking the period at the end and inserting a semicolon; and
(ii) by adding at the end the following:
“(ii) Rockbridge County, Virginia;
“(iii) Berkeley, Jefferson, and Morgan Counties, West Virginia; and”;
(C) in subparagraph (B)—
(i) by striking “subparagraph (A)” and inserting “clause (i) or any of the counties described in clauses (ii) and (iii)”; and
(ii) by striking “(B) The District shall consist of historic” and inserting the following:
“(iv) any historic”; and
(D) in subparagraph (C), by striking “(C) The map referred to in subparagraph (A)” and inserting the following:
“(B) AVAILABILITY OF MAP.—The map referred to in subparagraph (A)(i)”.
(c) DESIGNATION AS COMPONENT OF NATIONAL HERITAGE AREA SYSTEM.—Section 6001(a) Public Law 116-9 is amended by adding at the end the following:[A2.1]
“(14) SHENANDOAH VALLEY BATTLEFIELDS NATIONAL HISTORIC DISTRICT.—
“(A) IN GENERAL.—There is established as a component of the National Heritage Area System the Shenandoah Valley Battlefields National Historic District in the States of Virginia and West Virginia, consisting of the District established under the Shenandoah Valley Battlefields National Historic District and Commission Act of 1996, as amended by subsection (b) of this Act (Public Law 104-333).
“(B) LOCAL COORDINATING ENTITY.—The local coordinating entity for the National Heritage Area designated by subparagraph (A) shall be the management entity designated in accordance with the Shenandoah Valley Battlefields National Historic District and Commission Act of 1996, as amended by subsection (b) of this Act (Public Law 104-333).
(d) MANAGEMENT PLAN.— The local coordinating entity for the Shenandoah Valley Battlefields National Historic District shall submit to the Secretary of the Interior for approval a proposed updated management plan for the District in accordance with section 6001(c) of Public Law 116-9.[A3.1]
(e) CONTINUED EFFECT OF EXISTING AUTHORITIES.—Except to the extent inconsistent with section 6001 of Public Law 116-9 or expressly amended by this Act, the Shenandoah Valley Battlefields National Historic District and Commission Act of 1996 shall remain in effect.
(c) ADMINISTRATION.—(1) IN GENERAL.—The District shall be managed and administered by the management entity—(A) as a distinct National Historic District partnership model; and(B) subject to paragraph (2), in accordance with—(i) the purposes described in subsection (c) of the Shenandoah Valley Battlefields National Historic District and Commission Act of 1996 (54 U.S.C. 320101 note; Public Law 104–333); and(ii) the plan, subject to the condition that the plan shall be updated as necessary to address interpretive measures, partnerships, and other resources and needs in the areas added to the District by the amendments made by subsection (b).(2)(f) CONFORMING REFERENCES.—Any reference contained in the Shenandoah Valley Battlefields National Historic District and Commission Act of 1996 (Public Law 104–333) or the plan to the “Commonwealth of Virginia” shall be considered to be a reference to the “States of Virginia and West Virginia”.(3) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER LAW.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the District shall not be subject to the administrative provisions or funding allocation formulas applicable to components of the National Heritage Area System under section 6001 of the John D. Dingell, Jr. Conservation, Management, and Recreation Act (54 U.S.C. 320101 note; Public Law 116–9[A4.1]).(4) ELIGIBILITY FOR FUNDING.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law, for fiscal year 2027 and each fiscal year thereafter, the District and the management entity shall continue—(A) to receive funding for purposes of management and administration of the District in an amount equal to not less than the amount provided for those purposes in fiscal year 2026; and(B) to be eligible for any technical assistance or grants otherwise available to National Heritage Areas.(d) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There are authorized to be appropriated—(1) for fiscal year 2027 and each fiscal year thereafter, $1,250,000 to the management entity, of which—(A) not more than $625,000 for each fiscal year shall be used for operations of the management entity; and(B) not more than $625,000 for each fiscal year shall be used for the operation and maintenance of the battlefield parks, visitor facilities, and preserved historic properties in the District; and(2) for each of fiscal years 2027 through 2033, $2,500,000 for—(A) grants and technical assistance under subsection (g) of the Shenandoah Valley Battlefields National Historic District and Commission Act of 1996 (54 U.S.C. 320101 note; Public Law 104–333); and(B) the acquisition from willing sellers of land and interests in land for the District.[A5.1](e) REPORT.—Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Interior shall submit to Congress a report that includes recommendations of the Secretary for methods to replicate the partnership model used in the District at other locations in the National Park System.[A
Rebuttal to NPS Response
Talking Points
What NPS said
S. 5169 would add Rockbridge County, Virginia, and Berkeley, Jefferson, and Morgan Counties, West Virginia, to the District; continue funding and assistance eligibility beginning in FY2027; authorize new appropriations through 2033; and direct the Secretary to report on whether the District’s partnership model could be used at other park sites.
The Department recognizes the Valley’s significance but does not support the bill. Its two objections are: (1) the bill would divert NPS resources from higher-priority operations, including the deferred-maintenance backlog; and (2) authorizing the District to seek technical assistance “normally reserved for National Heritage Area System participants” would further strain NPS capacity.
Bottom line (the line to lead with)
The Park Service would not feel this.
Fully appropriated, S. 5169 is $3.75 million in a peak year and $30 million over ten years. That is 0.11% of one year’s NPS discretionary budget ($3.267 billion in FY2026) and about 0.09% of that budget held flat over ten years.
Heritage Partnership Programs already run about $31 million a year — essentially 1% of the NPS budget. Fully funding S. 5169 moves that headline from just under 1% to just over 1% in the seven peak years. After FY2033 it falls back under 1%.
One sentence: $30 million over ten years is less than NPS has recently left sitting in a grant queue, less than one contested D.C. fountain package, and smaller than the agency’s own year-to-year appropriation swing. It does not register.
Two points to press
1. NPS would never feel the change
- Current heritage-area funding (62 NHAs plus NPS admin support): ~$31 million, or ~1% of the NPS budget.
- S. 5169 peak year: $1.25 million for management / park and facility O&M, plus $2.5 million (FY2027–FY2033 only) for grants, technical assistance, and willing-seller acquisition.
- An agency that can move $70 million between fiscal years, hold $362 million in a grant queue, and reassign tens of millions of recreation-fee revenue to D.C. projects does not feel a $3.75 million heritage line.
- The money does not hit Operation of the National Park System ($2.90 billion — 89% of the agency). It lives in the same neighborhood as National Recreation and Preservation ($91.6 million).
- No new NPS unit. No new federal FTE mandate. The dollars go to a non-federal management entity.
2. The technical-assistance claim is wrong
The District has been treated as part of the heritage-area funding world since Congress created it in 1996. It has been authorized to seek technical assistance as a heritage-area participant for thirty years this November.
NPS is incorrect that this bill creates that authorization. We have been in that program for three decades. We have been authorized for millions a year since 1996. It has not toppled the kingdom. In the last twelve years we have received no more than $500,000 a year of that authorized funding.
The “diverting resources” argument is the 1995 argument
This is the same case NPS made in 1995, when a traditional Shenandoah Valley Battlefields National Historical Park was proposed. NPS itself found 15 Valley battlefields nationally significant, suitable, and feasible as additions to the System — then opposed a new unit because it said it lacked funds to carry out its mission at existing parks.
Congress answered with the national historic district partnership model: protect the same resources the Service had already called worthy of the System, at pennies on the dollar of a traditional park unit. That was the funding compromise with NPS. It has worked.
- The District has brought tens of millions in private and state dollars to the NPS mission that would not otherwise have been on the table.
- This bill would strengthen the District’s ability to support Cedar Creek and Belle Grove National Historical Park, Harpers Ferry National Historical Park, and Antietam National Battlefield.
- Partnerships with those units can free NPS staff time and ease budget pressure through public-private projects — the opposite of “diverting resources.”
Using the 1995 argument again now would deny West Virginia and additional Virginia communities the economic benefits of interpretive trails, education, events, outdoor recreation, and protection of their Civil War landscapes. Had NPS prevailed in 1995–96, thousands of acres would not have been preserved, the Valley’s battlefield parks would not exist as they do, and the region’s heritage-tourism economy would never have been built.
On the NPS Reference to "backlog"
NPS cites limited resources and a maintenance backlog — a backlog that just received an enormous appropriation through the Great American Outdoors Act — while opposing one of the most cost-efficient ways the Service has achieved its mission since 1916.
The Inspector General has separately found NPS deferred-maintenance data unreliable (blanket markups, completed work still carried as open). That does not make the backlog imaginary. It does mean “we cannot afford this $3.75 million line because of the backlog” is a weak allocation argument.
If you only have 30 seconds
- This is not a new park and not a raid on park operations.
- It is a 30-year-old partnership Congress already chose instead of a traditional unit.
- Peak cost is $3.75 million a year; ten-year cost is $30 million — about 0.1% of NPS.
- Technical assistance is not new; we have had it since 1996 and have drawn at most $500,000 a year.
- The 1995 “we can’t afford it” argument produced the District. The District then delivered the mission cheaper, with private and state match. This bill extends that model into West Virginia and Rockbridge. NPS would not feel it.