cane river national heritage area: linking people, …shared legacies in cane river national...

National Park Service Conservation Study Institute #

National Park ServiceU.S. Department of the Interior

Conservation Study Institute

Shared Legacies in Cane River National Heritage Area:Linking People, Traditions, and Landscapes

A Technical Assistance Report for theCane River National Heritage Area Commission

Cane River Evaluation and Visioning ProjectFinal Report

This report is the fifteenth in the Conservation and Stewardship PublicationSeries produced by the Conservation Study Institute. This series includes avariety of publications designed to provide information on conservationhistory and current practice for professionals and the public. The serieseditor is Nora J. Mitchell, director of the Institute. This volume was pre-pared in cooperation with the Quebec-Labrador Foundation (QLF)/AtlanticCenter for the Environment.

The Conservation Study Institute was established by the National ParkService in 1998 to enhance leadership in the field of conservation. A part-nership with academic, government, and nonprofit organizations, theInstitute helps the National Park Service and its partners stay in touch withthe evolving field of conservation and to develop more sophisticated part-nerships, new tools for community engagement, and new strategies for thetwenty-first century. The Institute serves the entire national system of parksand special places and is based at Marsh-Billings-Rockefeller NationalHistorical Park in the Northeast Region of the National Park Service.

This report is available in pdf format only; a report summary is available inprint and pdf formats. We encourage you to share the information in thisreport, and request only that you give appropriate citations and biblio-graphic credits. Copyrighted images are not placed in the public domain bytheir appearance in this document. They cannot be copied or otherwisereproduced except in their context within this publication without thewritten consent of the copyright holders.

Recommended citation: Tuxill, Jacquelyn L., Philip B. Huffman, Daniel N.Laven, and Nora J. Mitchell. Shared Legacies in Cane River National Heritage

Area: Linking People, Traditions, and Landscapes. A Technical Assistance

Report for the Cane River National Heritage Area Commission. Final Report.Woodstock, VT: Conservation Study Institute, 2008.

For print copies of the report summary or pdf files of both the final reportand the summary, contact:

Conservation Study Institute54 Elm StreetWoodstock, VT 05091Tel: (802) 457-3368 / Fax: (802) 457-3405www.nps.gov/csi

Other publications on national heritage area evaluations in the Conservationand Stewardship Publication Series:

No. 7 – Reflecting on the Past, Looking to the Future: Sustainability Study

Report. A Technical Assistance Report to the John H. Chafee Blackstone River

Valley National Heritage Corridor Commission, 2005

No. 9 – Connecting Stories, Landscapes, and People: Exploring the Delaware &

Lehigh National Heritage Corridor Partnership. A Technical Assistance Project

for the Delaware & Lehigh National Heritage Corridor Commission and the

Delaware & Lehigh National Heritage Corridor, Inc., 2006

For a full publications list, go to www.nps.gov/csi/pub_resources/pub.htm.

Above: From the 1930s until her death in 1988, Clementine Hunter docu-mented life on Cane River in her vibrant memory paintings. The grandchildof slaves, she worked at Melrose Plantation as a field hand and a cookbefore becoming an artist later in life.

Cover: Clementine Hunter’s African House murals tell the story of life alongthe Cane River in the first half of the twentieth century. This panel depictsher view of ancestors of the Cane River Creole community and people wholived and worked at Melrose, including visiting artists. Cover photo credit: JamesRosenthal, National Park Service, HABS/HAER/HALS.

Cou

rtes

y of

the

Cam

mie

G.

Hen

ry R

esea

rch

Cen

ter,

Nor

thw

este

rn S

tate

Uni

vers

ity o

f Lo

uisi

ana

Shared Legacies in Cane River National Heritage Area:Linking People, Traditions, and Landscapes

A Technical Assistance Report for theCane River National Heritage Area Commission

Cane River Evaluation and Visioning ProjectFinal Report

Prepared by theNational Park Service Conservation Study Institutein cooperation with QLF/Atlantic Center for the Environment

CONSERVATION AND STEWARDSHIP PUBLICATION NO. 15Jacquelyn L. Tuxill, Philip B. Huffman, Daniel N. Laven, and Nora J. MitchellPublished by the Conservation Study InstituteWoodstock, Vermont2008

The Conservation Study Institute team dedicates this report in memory of

Saidee W. Newell,

long-time co-chair of the Cane River National Heritage Area Commission,

for her many contributions to the preservation of cultural heritage—in the Cane River

region and the state of Louisiana, and at the national and international levels.

Section I. Setting the Context Chapter 1: Background and Introduction to the Cane RiverEvaluation and Visioning Project 5

A. The Scope and Methods of the Cane River Evaluation and Visioning Project

B. The National ContextC. Organization of the Report

Chapter 2: Establishing Cane River National Heritage Area 9A. The Heritage of the Cane River RegionB. The Origins of Cane River National Heritage Area

Chapter 3: The Existing Framework for the Cane River National Heritage Area Partnership 13

A. Purposes, Vision, and MissionB. Geographic ScopeC. Management EntityD. PartnersE. Funding and Other Forms of Support

Section II. Assessing the Cane RiverNational Heritage Area PartnershipChapter 4: Pursuing the Vision: Progress,Accomplishments, and Leverage 21

A. Observations on Progress and AccomplishmentsB. Program and Project HighlightsC. Funding and Other Public Investments in the

Heritage AreaD. Overall Observations from the Analysis of Heritage

Area AccomplishmentsChapter 5: Analyzing the Existing Heritage AreaFramework: Strengths and Challenges 33

A. Purposes, Vision, and MissionB. Geographic Scope/BoundaryC. Management EntityD. PartnersE. Funding and Other Forms of Support

Chapter 6: Evaluating the Cane River National HeritageArea Partnership System: The Partner Perspective 43

A. Perceived StrengthsB. Perceived Challenges

Section III. The Future of Cane RiverNational Heritage AreaChapter 7: Identifying Critical Ingredients for SustainedSuccess 55

A. Structuring the Partnership SystemB. Guiding the Partnership SystemC. Cultivating the Partnership SystemD. Considering the Role of Time in Development

of the Partnership SystemChapter 8: National Heritage Area Framework Options and Opportunities 61

A. Purposes, Vision, and MissionB. Geographic Scope/BoundaryC. Management EntityD. Partners/Key Governmental PartnershipsE. Funding and Other Forms of Support

Chapter 9: Other Options and Opportunities for the Future 77

A. Investment in ProgramsB. Investment in Outreach and Enhancing PartnershipsC. Investment in Operations

Chapter 10: Closing Thoughts 87

Further Reading 88

Glossary of Terms and Acronyms 90

Acknowledgments 91

Appendices 92 A. Cane River Evaluation and Visioning Project

MethodologyB. Cane River National Heritage Area Projects,

1998–2007

Contents

4 Shared Legacies in Cane River National Heritage Area: Linking People, Traditions, and Landscapes

Chapter 1: Background and Introduction to the Cane River Evaluation and Visioning Project 5

Cane River National Heritage Area conservesand interprets the rich multicultural legacy andlandscapes of a region that was a vibrant cross-roads in the 1700s and a base for early trade andsettlement in North America by France andSpain. Located in northwestern Louisiana alongthe former main channel of the Red River, theheritage area embodies the diverse cultural traditions and stories of the American Indian,Spanish, French, African American, and Creolepeoples who have lived in this region downthrough the centuries.

Congress established Cane River National Heri-tage Area in 1994 in recognition of the nationalsignificance of the region and its culturalresources.1 Seven years later, the Louisiana legis-lature designated Cane River a state heritage areaas well. The 1994 federal authorization alsoestablished Cane River Creole National HistoricalPark as a unit of the National Park System withinthe heritage area, and charged the heritage areaand the park to work in partnership to carry outa shared preservation and education mission.This establishment of a national park and anational heritage area in the same enabling legis-lation is unique in the country. In addition, thelegislation created the Cane River NationalHeritage Area Commission to assist in imple-menting the purposes of the heritage area. Abroadly representative body, the commissionworks with community interests, nonprofitorganizations, private landowners, and local,state, and federal authorities to carry out itsduties. The commission’s authority and federalfunding are due to expire in 2010; however, thenational heritage area designation is permanent.

To prepare for future decision making, the com-mission initiated the “Cane River NationalHeritage Area Evaluation and Visioning Project”to document its accomplishments over the past13 years, evaluate how the heritage area partner-ship has worked, and explore options for thefuture. The commission and heritage area staff

believed this project would help them makebetter-informed decisions about the future,provide an opportunity for enhanced engagementwith local stakeholders, and strengthen govern-mental and partner relationships that are key tothe future. The commission and staff also saw anopportunity to reflect on and learn from the pastthrough an approach that builds on researchconducted in other national heritage areas. Byengaging in this project, Cane River managementdemonstrated a willingness to look critically atits accomplishments and consider adjustments toits partnership process in order to become moreeffective at achieving heritage area goals. It alsobelieved that investment in a rigorous evaluationwould help to inform policy development at thenational level, with benefits for both existing andemerging national heritage areas.

A. The Scope and Methods of theCane River Evaluation and VisioningProject The commission asked the National Park ServiceConservation Study Institute to provide techni-cal assistance in implementing the project andidentified four points to be addressed:

• Evaluate progress toward achieving the purposes of the heritage area’s authorizinglegislation and the implementation strategiesset forth in the Cane River National HeritageArea Management Plan of 2003.

• Identify additional actions needed to protect,enhance, and interpret the heritage area andits nationally significant resources.

• Analyze the National Park Service (NPS)investments to determine their impacts.

• Examine models, options, and opportunitiesto enhance state and local partnerships,including consideration of a new manage-ment framework to support the work of theheritage area initiative.2

In response, the institute’s study team investigatedthree aspects of the heritage area’s partnership

SECTION I: SETTING THE CONTEXT

Chapter 1

Background and Introduction to the Cane River Evaluation and Visioning

Project

1 Public Law 103-49; see chapter 2 for more on the national significance of the Cane River region.2 “Heritage area initiative” refers to the collective body of activities and projects undertaken to implement the management plan,

and the people and organizations that carry them out.


efforts to date: (1) accomplishments and investments (to assess progress toward heritagearea goals), (2) the structure and operations ofthe current management framework, and (3) theperspectives of partners on how the heritagearea initiative has worked. The team gatheredinformation from various written sources (e.g.,the management plan, annual reports, projectdocuments) and used participatory techniques(e.g., confidential interviews, meetings, informalconversations, visioning sessions) to engage andgather insights from key individuals. These indi-viduals included commissioners, heritage areastaff, partners, people who played importantroles in the heritage area’s formation, and otherswith expertise in heritage areas.

The project was carried out in several phases.The first phase involved an initial visioningsession with the commission and data collectionin the three aspects identified above, followed byan analysis of the data to identify strengths andchallenges. In this phase individual team membersfocused primarily on their assigned researchareas. In the next phase the study team began ajoint, iterative process of synthesis in which eachmember shared insights from his or her phaseone analysis. Through joint analysis of theresearch data, the team refined its understandingof the Cane River partnership system,3 thestrengths of that system, and the challenges thatthe heritage area faces. The team also identified

ingredients that are critical for sustained successof the heritage area in the future. In the lastphase the team identified and analyzed optionsand opportunities for addressing the challengesand for sustaining and enhancing the Cane Riverpartnership system. While the focus of eachphase was distinct, the three phases were closelylinked through the team’s collective synthesis,and the findings for each phase were refinedthrough a process of iterative analysis as theproject progressed. For more on project method-ology, see appendix A.

B. The National ContextHeritage areas are an important direction in con-servation, as demonstrated by the growing inter-est in this model across the United States. As ofthis writing in January 2008, there are 37 nationalheritage areas, 10 of which were authorized in2006. Although the majority of national heritageareas are east of the Mississippi River, both thenumber of heritage areas and the interest in des-ignation is expanding in western states.Legislation has been introduced in Congress todesignate 14 additional new areas and to studyfour more for possible designation.

In 2004 the director of the National Park Serviceasked the National Park System Advisory Boardto examine the future of national heritage areasand their relationship to the National ParkService. The board, composed of 13 citizens withdiverse expertise and a commitment to themission of the NPS, has the statutory responsi-bility to advise the NPS director and the secre-tary of the interior on policy and programmatters. In 2006 the advisory board issued itsreport, Charting a Future for the National

Heritage Areas, which found in part that “thenational heritage area approach, with itscomplex but essential networks of relationshipsand ability to leverage resources for resourceconservation and economic and communitydevelopment, can serve as a model for achievingNPS conservation goals with multiple partners.The process, key elements, outcomes, andimpacts need to be identified and better under-stood.” The report recommends investing inresearch “to better understand the process ofcollaborative conservation and partnership net-works, and to better evaluate the outcomes ofdesignation and partnership on resource conser-vation and community development over time.” 4

The advisory board also recommended estab-lishing a legislative foundation for a system of

St. Augustine Catholic Church is theheart of the Cane River Creole com-munity. The congregation formed in1803, the first Roman Catholic churchin the U.S. established by and forpeople of color.

3 “Cane River partnership system” refers to the overall array of components, participants, and processes that interact as a system tomake possible the accomplishments of the heritage area. See chapter 7 for more details.

4 The advisory board’s report can be found at http://www.cr.nps.gov/heritageareas/nhareport.pdf.

Jack

Bou

cher

, N

atio

nal P

ark

Serv

ice,

HA

BS/H

AER

/HA

LS

Chapter 1: Background and Introduction to the Cane River Evaluation and Visioning Project 7

Front Street, Natchitoches’ historiccommercial quarter, lies within theNatchitoches National HistoricLandmark District. A shared historyand economy keep the city ofNatchitoches strongly connected tothe rural land downriver.

national heritage areas within the National ParkService, including a policy requiring a studythree years prior to the cessation of federalfunding authorization to make recommendationsregarding future NPS involvement. Studies con-ducted by the Conservation Study Institute at therequest of the John H. Chafee Blackstone RiverValley National Heritage Corridor Commissionin 2005 and the Delaware & Lehigh NationalHeritage Corridor Commission in 2006, as wellas this Cane River Evaluation and VisioningProject, may inform future evaluations at othernational heritage areas.

C. Organization of the ReportThe remainder of this report is organized asfollows:

• Section I continues to set the context forreaders, with a retrospective on the origins ofCane River National Heritage Area (chapter2) and a description of the current manage-ment framework (chapter 3).

• Section II, Assessing the Cane River NationalHeritage Area Partnership, presents theresults from the phase one analyses, includ-ing a discussion of accomplishments andinvestments (chapter 4), an analysis of theexisting heritage area framework (chapter 5),and a discussion of the Cane River partner-ship system from the perspective of partnersinvolved in the initiative (chapter 6).

• Section III, The Future of Cane RiverNational Heritage Area, describes the criticalingredients of the Cane River partnershipsystem (chapter 7) and presents options andopportunities for the future of the heritagearea, including management considerations(chapter 8) and other considerations (chapter9). Chapter 10 presents closing thoughts.

To minimize confusion regarding terminologyand acronyms used in this report, readers areencouraged to consult the glossary that beginson page 90.


This detail from a 1764 French map shows the colonial Natchitoches settlement along the Red River. The map includes Fort St. Jean Baptiste,established in 1716, and the Great Raft, a log jam that prevented navigation further north along the river channel.

Cou

rtes

y of

the

Cam

mie

G.

Hen

ry R

esea

rch

Cen

ter,

Nor

thw

este

rn S

tate

Uni

vers

ity o

f Lo

uisi

ana

Chapter 2: Establishing Cane River National Heritage Area 9

Chapter 2

Establishing Cane River National Heritage Area

Cane River National Heritage Area was establishedbecause of its rich, unique multicultural legacyand traditions, along with the landscapes thateven today reflect the region’s complex history.The leadership and vision of many organizationsand people led to national designation of theCane River region as a heritage area. This chapterexamines the significance of the region and theevents leading up to its designation.

A. The Heritage of the Cane RiverRegion5

Cane River, today a 37-mile-long oxbow lake innorthwestern Louisiana, was once the mainchannel of the Red River. In the late seventeenthcentury, French explorers found settlements ofNatchitoches Indians, a tribe of the largerCaddoan cultural group, all along the river in thisarea. The present-day city of Natchitoches,named after these Indians, is located at what wasthe intersection of major east-west and north-south trading routes of the Caddos and othertribes. The early French explorers, eager to tradewith American Indians, initiated social and polit-ical relations with the Natchitoches and othertribes in northwestern Louisiana. They estab-lished Fort St. Jean Baptiste in 1716 to supportcommercial trade, and soldiers, administrators,traders, and tradesmen came to the area.6 Fifteenmiles to the west, the Spanish (who were inter-ested in the region for reasons similar to theFrench) established a settlement and presidio (ormilitary fort), which served as a provincial capitalin New Spain from 1729 to 1772. Today the forthas become the Los Adaes State Historic Site,one of the heritage area’s outlying “satellite” areas.

As countries came together in this region, so didcultures. American Indians were joined byEuropean settlers, who brought African slaves tohelp grow indigo and tobacco, then the primarytrade crops. As these groups interacted, a dis-tinctive Creole culture developed that cut acrossracial categories, drawing from many traditionsbut remaining grounded in French colonialismand Catholicism.7 Over the years, the Creoleculture became centered in the plantations and

small communities along the river south of thetown of Natchitoches.

In 1803, when the United States purchased theLouisiana Territory from France, the Cane Riverregion was a thriving agricultural area, with thetown of Natchitoches its commercial center.Following the Louisiana Purchase, the areaattracted Anglo-European settlers, who broughtwith them the Protestant faith and cotton as anagricultural crop. Before long, cotton became thenew cash crop on the downriver plantations.

In the mid-1800s, the removal of a vast, naturallog jam on the Red River north of Natchitochescaused the river to change its course. Althoughthe main river now bypassed the town, CaneRiver remained the main transportation routebetween Natchitoches and the downriver planta-tions. In the aftermath of the Civil War, eco-nomic hardship and cultural change came to theregion as tenant farming and sharecroppingreplaced slavery. The agricultural economyremained dependent on human field labor untilthe ascendancy of mechanized farming followingWorld War II.

The Cane River region is unique in part becauseits complex history is still visible in the landscape.The plantation homes and other remaining his-toric structures, agricultural fields, live oak allées,and pecan groves––even the land divisions,fencerows, and road network––provide evidenceof the past. The region’s history is alive, too, inthe many cultural traditions that persist. CaneRiver National Heritage Area, in conjunctionwith Cane River Creole National Historical Park,was established to interpret this significant cul-tural landscape, help preserve and enhance thetraditions of the region, and provide for a cultur-ally sensitive approach to heritage preservation.

B. The Origins of Cane River NationalHeritage AreaTo understand the origins of Cane River NationalHeritage Area and to capture the early thinkingabout the approach to this particular heritage

5 This account has been drawn from various heritage area materials, including the Cane River National Heritage Area ManagementPlan (2003).

6 Although the original fort is no longer standing, a replica has been built in Natchitoches at what is today the Fort St. Jean BaptisteState Historic Site, where visitors can learn more about this phase in the area’s history.

7 According to the NPS brochure for Cane River Creole National Historical Park, “the term ‘Creole’ was originally defined as NewWorld products derived from Old World stock, and could be applied to people, architecture, or livestock. Regarding people, Creolehistorically referred to those born in Louisiana during the French and Spanish periods, regardless of their ethnicity. Today, as in thepast, Creole transcends racial boundaries. It connects people to their colonial roots, be they descendants of European settlers,enslaved Africans, or those of mixed heritage, which may include African, French, Spanish, and American Indian influences.”


8 Derived from Public Law 103-49, section 302.9 The other national historic landmark district in Louisiana is the French Quarter in New Orleans.

area, the study team interviewed five people whohelped shape the initiative. Revisiting the forma-tion of the heritage area through the eyes ofthese community leaders and visionaries enabledthe team to explore the events that contributedto the heritage area’s creation and provided alens through which to view its progress since itscreation in 1994. The interviews also providedan opportunity to probe the relationship of theheritage area’s designation to the establishmentof Cane River Creole National Historical Park,and to understand the early roles of currentpartners.

Some interviewees credit the birth of preserva-tion in the Cane River region to the preservationof the Lemée House in Natchitoches in the1930s, and the increasing activism after WorldWar II of the Association for the Preservation ofHistoric Natchitoches (APHN) in preserving thehomes and plantations of some of the region’slong-established landowning families. Many ofthe people involved in these historic preservationefforts had a living connection with the planta-tions and the development of the city of Natchi-toches. They found value—historic, economic,and social—in preserving the stories andresources that had shaped and continued todefine the cultural and economic character ofthe region. In the 1960s and 1970s the city workedwith APHN and other nonprofit organizations to

preserve a number of homes and structures inthe downtown, which became a national historiclandmark district, one of only two in the state.9

The National Park Service first documented theregion through studies by the Historic AmericanBuildings Survey in 1940. In the early 1990s theNPS conducted a special resource study and pre-pared alternatives for establishing a more perma-nent NPS role in preserving the region’s nation-ally important resources and stories. During thisperiod local residents, who were beginning tosupport a designation for the region thatincluded an enhanced federal role, and NPSplanners were both influenced by preservationefforts in Charleston, South Carolina; Savannah,Georgia; and the nearby Jean LaFitte NationalHistorical Park in New Orleans. In the latterinstance, rather than obtaining or owning histor-ically significant properties, the NPS establisheda unique presence as an interpretive specialist. In1994 several NPS leaders, including the deputydirector, toured the Natchitoches region, whichstrengthened NPS support for the creation of anew park area that would enrich the range ofstories and resources in the agency’s portfolio.

Interviewees highlighted the support of keymembers of Congress as critical to the passage oflegislation to authorize a dual role for the NPS inthe region. Senator J. Bennett Johnston, then

In establishing Cane River National Heritage Area and Cane River Creole

National Historical Park, Congress affirmed the national significance of the

Cane River region. The city of Natchitoches, established in 1714, is the

oldest permanent settlement in the 13-state territory that comprised the

Louisiana Purchase of 1803. Cane River served as the focal point for early

settlement of the region and as a transportation route by which commerce

and communication reached all parts of Louisiana. This area is also the locale

where Cane River Creole culture developed from interactions among people

of French, Spanish, Native American, and African descent beginning in the

early eighteenth century. Although Creole architecture exists elsewhere in

Louisiana and beyond, the Cane River region holds the most-intact Creole

plantations in the U.S., complete with their original outbuilding complexes.

The heritage area includes a wide variety of historical features with their original elements in both rural and urban settings, and a cultural land-

scape that exhibits aspects of the different cultures that have lived there since European settlement—particularly French, Spanish, African

American, and Creole. These assets provide the foundation for developing an understanding of the region’s history.8

The heritage area includes a 33-block national historic landmark district in downtown Natchitoches, which contains more than 100 historic homes

and buildings, several of which date to the eighteenth century. Furthermore, the region encompasses seven national historic landmarks, three

state historic sites, and more than two dozen properties listed on the National Register of Historic Places.

National Significance of the Cane River Region

Phili

p G

ould

Chapter 2: Establishing Cane River National Heritage Area 11

chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee(and with family ties to one of the region’s plan-tation families), introduced the bill to designateboth a national park and a national heritagearea. Johnston’s chief of staff, a well-respectedvisionary, played a key role in crafting thisunique legislation that established a permanentphysical presence for the NPS and a mechanismfor local residents to play a central role in decid-ing how the region would be preserved andinterpreted. Congressman Thomas “Jerry”Huckaby was equally vital to passing the legisla-tion that established a national park within thenational heritage area. This pairing strengthenedand legitimized the heritage area while recogniz-ing that the success of the park unit depended onits relationship with the communities beyond itsdesignated boundaries.

For several years following the 1994 designation,a lack of dedicated funding for the heritage areaand management from afar of the national parkcreated significant financial, political, opera-tional, and communication challenges for bothsites. In 1996 the NPS planner who was leadingthe planning process for the park also began tofacilitate the development of the heritage area’smanagement plan, and in 1997 a new superin-tendent was assigned to lead the management ofthe park. The passion and professionalism thatthese two women brought to their work con-tributed to a more positive relationship between

the NPS and community leaders, and to thereengagement of Creole and other culturalgroups in planning for the park and heritagearea. The joint planning process that ensued wasvital to building a foundation of trust and leader-ship that enabled community groups to sharetheir hopes for increased tourism and quality oflife along with their concerns about propertyrights, traffic, and politics and power. Accordingto one person interviewed, the planning work-shops “changed priorities for the whole area…By the end of the process the local groups weretelling a unified story.” A local leader who hasplayed several roles during the heritage area’slifetime recalled how residents involved otherresidents in the work of the heritage area: “Webombarded every single property owner or voterin the whole parish …with what we weredoing …and they [became] a part of it.”10

Interviewees identified the National Park Servicerole in supporting the heritage area during themanagement planning as critical to enabling theheritage area to prioritize its goals and carry outinitial implementation activities. Engagement bythe NPS of diverse cultural and economic groupsin building a unified vision, along with the strongsupport and passion of local residents, hasenabled the heritage area to foster an equitable,authentic, and inclusive approach toward inter-preting the area’s complex heritage.

10 In Louisiana, the parish is the level of government between municipalities and the state (the equivalent of the county in otherstates).

The Badin-Roque House is one ofonly a few poteaux-en-terre (posts-in-the-ground) structures left in theU.S. It has been preserved through a partnership project led by St.Augustine Historical Society withassistance from Cane RIver NationalHistorical Park and the heritage area.


The quarters at Magnolia Plantation housed workers from 1853 through the 1960s. The national park shares the stories of all the familieswho lived on the plantation during colonial times, in the eras of slavery and sharecropping, and up to the mid-twentieth century.

Jack

Bou

cher

, N

atio

nal P

ark

Serv

ice,

HA

BS/H

AER

/HA

LS


Chapter 3

The Existing Framework for the Cane River National Heritage Area Partnership

A central purpose of the legislation that estab-lished Cane River National Heritage Area andCane River Creole National Historical Park wasto create a collaborative framework for imple-menting the heritage area initiative. This frame-work has been enhanced over the course of theinitiative’s lifetime through management plan-ning, visioning, and development of the area’spartnership system.

The heritage area’s framework consists of fivebasic, interrelated elements, as follows:

• purposes, vision, and mission: the “guidingdirection” for what the heritage area initiativeis designed to achieve;

• geographic scope: the physical area or regionthat encompasses the heritage area’s corestories and heritage assets;

• management entity: the organization givenlead responsibility through the authorizinglegislation to coordinate the initiative andspearhead the development and implementa-tion of a management plan;

• partners: the collection of public and privateorganizations and individuals from within theregion and beyond that are involved inhelping to fulfill the initiative’s purposes,vision, and mission;

• funding and other forms of support: thefinancial, human, in-kind, and otherresources provided by heritage area partnersthat enable progress toward achieving theinitiative’s purposes, vision, and mission.

The framework provides much of the underpin-ning for the Cane River partnership system,which is explored throughout the rest of thisreport. While partners actively involved in theheritage area initiative are already knowledgeableabout the framework elements, other readersmay be less familiar with them. Therefore, thischapter presents a brief description of the frame-work to ensure all readers have a commonunderstanding.

It is important to note that while all national her-itage areas have collaborative frameworks thatencompass these same five elements, the sub-stance of those elements differs in every individ-ual case. This is an inherent reflection of theunique heritage, geography, network of partners,

and socioeconomic and political contexts ofeach national heritage area.

A. Purposes, Vision, and MissionThe purposes for which the initiative was estab-lished provide the starting point for the heritagearea’s framework. These are to:

• complement Cane River Creole NationalHistorical Park;

• provide for a culturally sensitive approach tothe preservation of the heritage of the CaneRiver region;

• recognize areas important to the nation’s her-itage and identity;

• assist in the preservation and enhancement ofthe cultural landscape and traditions of theCane River region;

• provide a framework for those who livewithin this important, dynamic cultural land-scape to assist in preservation and education;

• minimize the need for federal land acquisitionand management.11

These legislated purposes were elaborated on inthe management plan and have been refined anddistilled by the Cane River National HeritageArea Commission in the years since. Currently,

11 Public Law 103-449, Title IV, section 401(b).

The National Park Service’s Historic American BuildingsSurvey (HABS) documented historic properties throughoutthe heritage area. The intern shown here helped createarchitectural drawings, which, along with photographsand written histories, are available in the HABS Collectionat the Library of Congress.


the commission articulates them in its missionstatement as follows: “The purposes of the CaneRiver National Heritage Area are to assist in thepreservation and enhancement of the culturallandscape and traditions of the Cane Riverregion, to complement Cane River CreoleNational Historical Park, and to improve theoverall quality of life of the current residents byincreasing economic benefits through promotionof the national heritage area to local, regional,and national audiences.”12

Also, in 2006 the commission refined its articu-lation of the heritage area’s overarching visionas follows:

A Vision for Cane River

Cane River National Heritage Area is theplace to experience the rich cultures thatdeveloped out of Louisiana’s past. Thelandscape holds stories of American Indianorigins, colonial exploration and settle-ment, plantation agriculture, and social andcultural change. People who call thisnationally significant place home remainconnected to these stories, and theirpresent-day lifestyles, traditions, and cele-brations reflect the region’s heritage.

Residents of the Cane River region enjoy aquality of life based on respect for tradi-tional lifestyles and on a strong, healthyeconomy and environment compatible withthe historic character of the region. Econo-mic benefits of heritage tourism assist in thelong-term preservation and enhancementof heritage area resources. Land use deci-sions remain at the local level.

Our work is accomplished through local,regional, state, and federal cooperation andpartnerships.

Together, these statements of purpose, vision,and mission provide the guiding direction for thework of the heritage area initiative.

B. Geographic ScopeThe geographic region included in a nationalheritage area helps to define the extent of theheritage assets to be addressed by the initiative,and the political jurisdictions, public constituen-cies, and other stakeholders that need to beinvolved in management and implementation.For Cane River National Heritage Area, theauthorizing legislation identified an initial area to

be included, but directed that the final geographicboundary be established during development ofthe management plan. The resulting area encom-passes 116,000 acres, including a concentrationof sites within the Natchitoches National HistoricLandmark District and a corridor extendingsouth from the outskirts of Natchitoches for 35miles along the Cane River. In addition, threesignificant state-managed historic sites areincluded in the heritage area: Los Adaes StateHistoric Site, Fort Jesup State Historic Site, andFort St. Jean Baptiste State Historic Site. All ofthe heritage area is within Natchitoches Parishexcept for Fort Jesup, which is in neighboringSabine Parish. (See map on page 4.) As a whole,this encompasses the bulk of the region’s signifi-cant historic sites and cultural landscapes thatare most closely tied to the heritage area’s corestories and themes.

C. Management EntityThe Cane River National Heritage AreaCommission serves as the management entityfor the initiative. This 19-member body wasestablished in the federal authorizing legislationand includes representatives of key interests inthe area:• cultural and historic preservation groups• education, recreation, and natural resource

organizations • tourism and business organizations• landowners• city, parish, and state governments• the National Park Service

Members of this federal body are appointed tothree-year, renewable terms by the secretary ofthe interior based upon nominations from thevarious interests. The commission was originallyauthorized for a period of ten years after its firstofficial meeting, and was subsequently extendedfor an additional five years by the secretary of theinterior. Its current authorization terminates onAugust 5, 2010.

At present the commission oversees a staff of fourfull-time employees, a part-time heritage ranger,and student interns. Full-time employees includean executive director, an assistant director, anadministrative assistant/office manager, and aproject coordinator. The staff covers a range ofdisciplines, expertise, and functions that reflectsthe breadth of the heritage area’s purposes andvision. Staff members work at the direction of thecommission but are employed by the city ofNatchitoches through a cooperative agreementbetween the city and the commission.

12 Cane River National Heritage Area 2006 Annual Report, p.3.


13 Public Law 103-449, Title IV, section 402(c)(4) and section 404(c). 14 Looking to the Future: Cane River National Heritage Area Management Plan Executive Summary, p. 17.15 Additional information on the range of partners and their roles is available on pages 37–45 of the Cane River National Heritage

Area Management Plan.

As is customary with all national heritage areamanagement entities, the commission has theauthority through its legislation to receive, use,and distribute federal funds that are appropri-ated for the heritage area. It can also use a varietyof administrative authorities to further the pur-poses of the initiative, such as hiring staff andconsultants, entering into cooperative agree-ments with other governmental agencies andprivate organizations, making grants, receivingand using donations of funds and services, andholding hearings.

In addition to its fundamental responsibilities ofcoordinating and spearheading implementationof the heritage area initiative, the commission isdirected under the authorizing legislation toidentify organizations that could replace it as themanagement entity after termination of itsauthority. More specifically, the legislationdirects that “the commission shall… identifyappropriate entities, such as a nonprofit corpo-ration, that could be established to assume theresponsibilities of the commission following itstermination,” and “recommend to the governor[of Louisiana] and the secretary [of the interior]appropriate entities, including the potential fora nonprofit corporation, to assume the responsi-bilities of the commission.”13 In light of this leg-islative mandate, consideration of potentialmanagement entities for the heritage area’s nextphase has been one important dimension ofthis evaluation and visioning project. Options

identified during the project are presented inchapter 8.

D. PartnersAt its core, the heritage area initiative is a regionalpublic-private partnership involving governmentsat all levels, nonprofit organizations, communitygroups, businesses, and individuals workingtogether to achieve the stated purposes, vision,and mission. As articulated in the managementplan executive summary, “The United StatesCongress, in creating Cane River NationalHeritage Area, knew that partnerships would bethe key to preserving and enhancing this specialregion. By bringing together the vision, expertise,and resources of the state of Louisiana, the cityand parish governments of Natchitoches, theNational Park Service and other federal agencies,and many area businesses and civic organiza-tions, great strides will be made toward the long-term protection and promotion of the region.”14

Within that context, a brief summary follows ofthe ways in which each broad category of part-ners is involved in the effort.15

1. Local government

City of NatchitochesThe city of Natchitoches is a central player in theheritage area initiative. As the largest municipal-ity within the heritage area and the seat of parishgovernment, it is the center for much of theregion’s population and economic activity, and

Historic preservation organizations are important partners in the heritage area initiative. The Kate Chopin House (left), home of the feminist author of The Awakening, is owned by the Association for the Preservation of Historic Natchitoches. The Roque House (right), built by a freed slave, is owned by theNatchitoches Historic Foundation.


key parts of the heritage area lie within itsboundary (e.g., the national historic landmarkdistrict). In light of this significance, the cityholds a dedicated seat on the commission. Alsoholding a dedicated seat is the NatchitochesHistoric District Commission, which was estab-lished under a municipal ordinance and chargedwith overseeing the protection of the landmarkdistrict (i .e., regulating historic renovations,repairs, and signage).

The city administration includes several branchesand programs that are closely connected to var-ious aspects of the heritage area’s mission. These

include the Mayor’s Office, the CommunityDevelopment Department, the Main StreetProgram, and the Planning and ZoningDepartment. Staff from these offices haveworked collaboratively with the commission,heritage area employees, and other partners onvarious projects involving historic preservation,heritage tourism, economic development, andother relevant goals.

Natchitoches ParishNatchitoches Parish is another important playerin the heritage area initiative. Most of the heritagearea lies within the parish , and its governing

This wooden screw press was used toproduce 500-pound bales of cotton atMagnolia Plantation (now part ofCane River Creole National HistoricalPark). The press is the only one of itskind left on its original site in NorthAmerica.

Phili

p G

ould


body, the Natchitoches Parish Police Jury, isresponsible for overseeing land use and devel-opment, local roads, and transportation outsidethe Natchitoches city limits. Because of theimportance of these roles, the police jury has adedicated seat on the commission. As with thecity, the parish administration includes severalbranches that are involved in issues of direct rel-evance to the heritage area initiative. Theseinclude the Planning and Zoning Commission,the Tourist Commission, and the NatchitochesArea Convention and Visitors Bureau.

2. State governmentThe state of Louisiana has been involved as apartner in the heritage area initiative in a varietyof ways. First, one member of the commission isnominated by the governor. In addition, the her-itage area’s authorizing legislation required thegovernor’s review and approval of the manage-ment plan. The governor approved the plan inNovember 2002, and expressed the state’senthusiasm for assisting the commission inimplementing the plan.

The Louisiana legislature has taken severalnoteworthy actions directed specifically towardsupporting the heritage area. In 2001 the legisla-ture passed a resolution recognizing the CaneRiver region as one of only two state heritageareas in Louisiana. More recently, the legislaturefor the first time appropriated funding in the2008 budget specifically to support Cane RiverNational Heritage Area programs, and establish-ed a tax credit program for heritage-related smallbusinesses within the area’s boundary.

Beyond these policy-level actions by the governorand the legislature, several branches of state gov-ernment are involved in the initiative on anongoing basis. The most active to date include:

• The Department of Culture, Recreation, andTourism (CRT), which encompasses theOffice of State Parks, Louisiana StateMuseums, and Office of Tourism (amongother branches) as well as the Divisions ofHistoric Preservation, Archeology, and theArts. With a wide range of relevant program-ming, management responsibilities, and regu-latory authorities under its various branches,CRT is the state agency most closely con-nected to the heritage area’s mission.

• The Department of Transportation andDevelopment (DOTD), which providesfunding, technical assistance, project manage-ment, and implementation capacity for trans-portation and water resources projects.

• Northwestern State University of Lousiana(NSU) in Natchitoches, which provides

funding and in-kind support for heritage areaprojects, resources for scholarly research andtechnical assistance, and a home for theCreole Heritage Center (CHC) and the NPSNational Center for Preservation Technologyand Training (NCPTT). There is also a strong,mutually beneficial relationship between theheritage area and NSU’s new Master of Artsin Heritage Resources program, and severalstudents from the program have interned withthe commission in recent years.

• The Louisiana School for Math, Science, andthe Arts, a state-supported residential highschool for high-achieving students, which haspartnered in educational projects and in pre-serving the historic building in Natchitocheswhere the school is housed.

In addition, there are two state-authorized com-missions that are directly connected to the her-itage area initiative: the Cane River WaterwayCommission (CRWC), which is charged withmaintaining a navigable waterway system onCane River; and the Natchitoches HistoricDistrict Development Commission (HDDC),which is responsible for planning, tourism devel-opment, and helping to maintain historicintegrity in the Natchitoches National HistoricLandmark District. Because of the link betweentheir purviews and the mission of the heritagearea, each of these commissions has a dedicatedseat on the Cane River National Heritage AreaCommission and participates in heritage areaprojects as appropriate.

3. Federal government

National Park ServiceAs is the case with all national heritage areas, theNational Park Service (Department of theInterior) is the lead federal partner in the heritagearea initiative. As such , the NPS has a legislatedseat on the commission. The secretary of theinterior is responsible for appointing commission-ers and reviewing and approving the heritage areamanagement plan. Annual federal fundingappropriated specifically for Cane River NationalHeritage Area flows through the NPS HeritagePartnership Programs (HPP) budget. Over theyears since 1994, the NPS has also provided theheritage area with technical assistance and staffsupport for planning, policy, and other effortsthrough its centralized offices and programs(e.g., Southeast Region, Washington headquar-ters, Denver Service Center, Historic AmericanBuildings Survey/Historic American EngineeringRecord/Historic American Landscapes Survey).

What is most noteworthy about NPS involve-ment in the Cane River region relative to many


national heritage areas, however, is the agency’ssignificant local presence and activity throughCane River Creole National Historical Park. Thepark and the heritage area have a unique relation-ship in that they were created simultaneouslythrough the same authorizing legislation, withthe explicit intent of complementing each otherin the preservation and interpretation of theregion’s heritage. The park provides support tothe commission and heritage area partners inmany forms (e.g., funding for collaborative proj-ects, technical and interpretive assistance, legalguidance, administrative services), and the parksuperintendent serves as the NPS representativeon the commission.

The National Center for Preservation Tech-nology and Training adds to the NPS’s stronglocal presence from its base at NorthwesternState University. While NCPTT has a broadmandate to provide training and technical assis-tance in historic preservation nationwide, it hasapplied its expertise, capacity, and resources tolocal efforts as well, thus becoming an importantpartner in the Cane River network.

Other federal agencies In addition to the NPS, a number of otherfederal agencies have a site-based presence orother important responsibilities in the CaneRiver region, with varying connections to her-itage area goals and activities. These agenciesinclude the following:

• U.S. Forest Service (Department of Agri-culture), which manages the KisatchieNational Forest. A significant portion of theforest’s Kisatchie Ranger District lies to thewest of Interstate 49 and adjacent to the her-itage area’s central corridor.

• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Department ofthe Interior), which manages the Natchi-toches National Fish Hatchery and the

recently established Red River NationalWildlife Refuge. One of the refuge’s fourunits, and a focus area for land acquisitionefforts, lies within the heritage area boundaryalong the Lower Cane River.

• U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Departmentof Defense), which manages the Red RiverWaterway and the Grand Ecore Visitor Centernorth of Natchitoches. The Army Corps alsoadministers permitting for development proj-ects in wetlands under section 404 of theClean Water Act.

• Natural Resources Conservation Service(Department of Agriculture), which providestechnical assistance and education to helpprivate landowners conserve and enhancenatural resources on their lands.

• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency(EPA), which oversees implementation offederal environmental quality laws and initiatives.

• Twin Valley Resource Conservation andDevelopment Area, the local nonprofit branchof the U.S. Department of Agriculture’sResource Conservation and DevelopmentProgram.

Senior staff members from the heritage area, thepark, NCPTT, and several of the other federalagencies, including Kisatchie National Forest,Natchitoches National Fish Hatchery, and RedRiver National Wildlife Refuge, have met regu-larly in recent years to stay abreast of eachother’s activities and explore opportunities forpotential collaboration.

Cane River’s authorizing legislation requires allfederal agencies to consult with the commissionand the secretary of the interior (i .e., the NPS)regarding any activities affecting the heritage areaand, to the maximum extent practicable, to coor-dinate those activities with the commission inorder to minimize potential negative impacts.

Figure 3.1. Total federal fundingappropriated to Cane River NationalHeritage Area, fiscal years 2000through 2007 (through the Cane RiverCreole National Historical Park budg-et in 2000 and through NPS HeritagePartnership Programs thereafter).

$0

$100,000

$200,000

$300,000

$400,000

$500,000

$600,000

$700,000

$800,000

$900,000

$1,000,000

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007


16 In fiscal year 2002, the heritage area’s budget included a congressionally designated pass-through of $250,000 for the CreoleHeritage Center at Northwestern State University. These funds were transferred to CHC; they were not included in this study or thefigures in this report.

17 State transportation departments receive transportation enhancement funding as a percentage of their annual SurfaceTransportation Program appropriation from the Federal Highway Administration, then reapportion these funds to eligible projects.For more information, see http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/te/index.htm.

4. Nongovernmental interests Organizations and individuals outside of govern-ment, including nonprofit organizations, busi-nesses, community groups, landowners, andother residents, are also central to the CaneRiver partnership. In fact, nearly two-thirds ofthe seats on the commission are dedicated tonongovernmental interests from across the her-itage area. Many of these interests have beeninvolved in historic preservation, cultural con-servation, and heritage-based economic develop-ment in the Cane River region since well beforethe heritage area was established. They continueto have lead responsibility for many initiativesrelated to heritage area goals (such as preserving,restoring, and managing certain sites, and pro-viding education and interpretation) and theyalso contribute to other collaborative projectsand programs within the heritage area.

E. Funding and Other Forms ofSupport As alluded to elsewhere in this chapter, supportfor the heritage area initiative comes from alllevels of the partnership and in a variety offorms (e.g., financial support, staff time, in-kindcontributions, volunteer involvement). Indeed,this dependence on broad support and partici-pation is a fundamental aspect of the Cane Riverpartnership model and of national heritage areasin general.

Most national heritage areas receive federalappropriations through the NPS HeritagePartnership Programs budget. While this hasbeen the case in recent years for Cane River, itsfunding through HPP did not begin until fiscalyear 2001, seven years after designation. What isunusual at Cane River is the funding and othersupport provided by Cane River Creole NationalHistorical Park in the years prior to the begin-ning of direct federal appropriations. In 1998the park allocated nearly $402,000 to the NPSDenver Service Center for professional assis-tance with the heritage area’s management plan.Late that same year, the park and the heritagearea signed an interagency agreement to allowthe transfer of $300,000 from the park to the her-itage area––$100,000 for operations and$200,000 for projects in 1999 and 2000. Thesefunds enabled the commission to hire staff andbegin its work.

The first federal appropriation (of $100,000)specifically designated for the heritage area wasincluded in the park’s budget in 2000. From 2001through 2007, annual federal appropriationsdirected to Cane River through HPP ranged from$379,050 to $888,000. In all, federal funds directedby Congress to Cane River National HeritageArea during fiscal years 2000 through 2007totaled $4.75 million (see figure 3.1 on page 18).16

The legislation that established Cane RiverNational Heritage Area did not require that fed-eral funds appropriated by Congress be matchedby other funding sources, nor did it specify anauthorization ceiling for federal funds. Never-theless, the commission has actively sought toleverage funds from other sources. (See box forexplanation of leverage.) To date, the commis-sion’s total cash investment of $3.08 million inprojects carried out since 1998 has leveraged$3.43 million in cash from diverse public andprivate sources. Furthermore, these projects haveleveraged nonfinancial support (e.g., partnerstaff time, in-kind contributions, and volunteerassistance) conservatively worth $1.4 million.(See chapter 4, section C for further discussion.)

The commission has taken steps to diversify itsfunding sources, with several important resultsin the last two years. The heritage area wasawarded $274,000 in federal transportationenhancement funds17 by DOTD in 2006 forrehabilitation and preservation of the Texas andPacific Railway Depot in Natchitoches (see dis-cussion in chapter 4, beginning on page 21), anda $198,000 grant in 2007 from EPA’s brownfieldsprogram to assist with rehabilitation at St.Matthews School in Melrose. In addition, inAugust 2007 the Louisiana legislature appropri-ated $110,000 in the state’s 2008 budget for CaneRiver National Heritage Area projects, which thecommission hopes will be the beginning ofannual state appropriations to the heritage area.Also, in 2007 the city of Natchitoches requestedan additional $282,000 in transportationenhancement funding and $1 million in capitaloutlay funding from the state of Louisiana, bothfor the railway depot project. In January 2008 thecity received an initial allocation of $100,000 (forplanning) from its capital outlay request.

“Leverage,” used as a

verb, refers to the process

of obtaining additional

financial and/or nonfinan-

cial commitments from

others in response to an

initial investment. It can

also refer to the power or

ability to influence people,

decisions, or ideas. Used as

a noun, leverage refers to

the additional financial

and/or nonfinancial re-

sources that are committed

by others in response to an

initial investment.

Leverage


The Prud’homme family occupied the main house at Oakland Plantation from its construction in 1821 until 1998, when the National Park Service acquired the workingcore of the plantation. Today, Oakland’s 44 historic structures and associated landscapes make up one unit of Cane River Creole National Historical Park. The park andthe heritage area work closely together to conserve the landscapes and traditions of the region, and to share its nationally important stories with the public.

Jack

Bou

cher

, N

atio

nal P

ark

Serv

ice,

HA

BS/H

AER

/HA

LS

Chapter 4: Pursuing the Vision: Progress, Accomplishments, and Leverage 21

Congress designated Cane River NationalHeritage Area in 1994, but appropriated nofunding until 2000. In the intervening years, theNational Park Service conducted preliminarystudies—including a cultural landscape inventory,archeological surveys, ethnographic reports, andhistoric structure documentation–– to informplanning and preservation efforts for both theheritage area and Cane River Creole NationalHistorical Park.18 Management planning for theheritage area began in 1996, with the NationalPark Service taking the lead at the request of theheritage area commission. However, progresswas slow in the absence of federal funds. In1998, the national park provided the funding tocomplete management planning for the heritagearea; the final management plan was signed bythe governor of Louisiana in 2002 and approvedby the secretary of the interior in 2003.

The approved plan has three primary thrusts: (1) conservation, preservation, and research tohelp ensure the long-term integrity of heritageresources, including traditions, landscapes, andstructures; (2) education and interpretation tofoster public support and appreciation for CaneRiver history and resources; and (3) support formarketing a full range of heritage tourism oppor-tunities. In order to accomplish these objectives,the management plan specifies 11 implementa-tion categories: cultural landscape protection,research, technical and financial assistance, con-servation of cultural traditions, marketing, visitorinformation and wayfinding, interpretation,visitor facilities, volunteer services, transporta-tion, and natural resource protection. The imple-mentation program also lists more than 50 part-ners and additional potential partners.

A. Observations on Progress andAccomplishmentsThe commission has made considerableprogress in most of the implementation cate-gories since 1999, when funding from thenational park enabled it to hire staff and beginwork. That year the commission provided

grants to four organizations for preservationprojects, thus launching its competitive grantsprogram. Since then, the commission hasinvested the bulk of its funds via two separatebut complementary tracks: the grants programand commission-initiated projects. Both haveinvolved working with a wide range of partnersand both have leveraged additional cash andnonfinancial support (see discussion beginningon page 29 of this chapter).

The two tracks have supported the initiation of 177 projects. Of these, 130 (73 percent) havebeen completed, 38 (21 percent) are still under-way, and 9 (5 percent) are considered annual or ongoing. Five additional projects, all fromthe grants program, were initially funded butwere subsequently withdrawn and the fundsreturned. Many of the projects address specificactions in the management plan’s implementa-tion categories, especially in the areas ofresearch , technical and financial assistance,conservation of cultural traditions, visitor infor-mation and wayfinding, interpretation, visitorfacilities, and transportation. In addition toprojects, the commission and heritage area staffhave addressed other implementation aspectson an ongoing basis, such as providing informa-tion and technical assistance, coordinating withpartners on joint marketing efforts, or workingto establish a heritage area friends group.

The study team reviewed ten years of projectdata covering the years 1998–2007, beginningwith the management planning funded by thepark. Through historic preservation projects, 21buildings have been restored or rehabilitated andnumerous historic documents have been con-served. Fifty-eight research projects have pro-duced information about the region’s variouscultural groups. Among these are oral histories(e.g., Caddo Indian, African American, Creole,civil rights), genealogical studies (e.g., Creole,African American, French), archeologicalstudies, a database of Indian basketry, and adigital library of Adaesaño Spanish recordings.19

18 Personal correspondence with Ann Van Huizen, National Park Service planner, Denver Service Center.19 “Adaesaños” refers generally to descendants of the inhabitants of Los Adaes, the eighteenth-century Spanish mission and presidio

that served as a provincial capital in New Spain and is today the Los Adaes State Historic Site.

SECTION II: ASSESSING THE CANE RIVERNATIONAL HERITAGE AREA PARTNERSHIP

Chapter 4

Pursuing the Vision: Progress, Accomplishments, and Leverage


Sixty interpretation and education projects haveled to exhibits and documentaries, children’sprograms, online information, and books,brochures, and other publications. A signagesystem and a GIS database have been developedand implemented for the entire heritage area, aconcept plan for a joint visitor center has beenprepared for the heritage area and the nationalpark, and map guides have been completed forwalking and driving tours.

Because the commission made an early strategicdecision to establish the grants program, thestudy team first divided projects into two groups:those undertaken through the grants program(89 projects) and those in which the commissioninvested funds or staff time directly (88 projects).The two groups of projects were then analyzedin several ways: by purpose and by relationshipto geography and cultural groups.

1. Analysis by project purposesWith the assistance of heritage area staff, projectswere classified according to eight main purposesthat correspond with commission recordkeeping:interpretation and education, documentation(i .e., research), historic preservation, visitor serv-ices, marketing, land conservation, transporta-tion, and administration (see table 4.1). Becausesome projects address two or more purposes, thetotals add up to more than 177.

The following observations were made related toproject purposes:

• Of the 177 projects, 107 (60 percent) address-ed a single purpose; 70 projects (40 percent)addressed two or more purposes.

• Of the commission’s 88 projects, 44 (50percent) have integrated two or more pur-poses; these projects in total have addressed

all purposes except historic preservation.(The commission has initiated 13 single-purpose historic preservation projects.)

• Of the 89 projects in the grants program, 26(29 percent) have integrated two or more pur-poses; of these, 24 have included some aspectof historic preservation, documentation, orinterpretation and education.

• Of the 9 land conservation projects, 8 havebeen undertaken within the past three years.

2. Analysis of project investments by geographyIn order to see how project investments havebeen distributed across the heritage area, thestudy team analyzed project investments bywhether the project was focused area-wide,20

downriver, in the city of Natchitoches, or in theseveral “satellite” areas that lie outside the mainheritage area boundary (e.g., Los Adaes StateHistoric Site). Figure 4.1 (on page 23) shows howproject investments have been distributed acrossthe heritage area geographically, using the 177projects undertaken from 1998 through 2007. Inthis case, grants program projects, commission-initiated projects, and the funds leveraged byboth are aggregated.

Beginning in 2003 and continuing through 2007,the commission chose to make a major annualcontribution to the Creole Heritage Center as itschief direct investment in Creole-related projects.(Creole-related projects initiated by partnershave been funded through the grants programsince its inception in 1999.) The commissiondirected that its funds to CHC be used only tosupport work within the heritage area and notCHC’s work nationally. Because Cane RiverCreole culture and resources are centered in thedownriver portion of the heritage area, thisfunding to CHC is included with the downriverprojects in figure 4.1.21

20 Examples of area-wide projects include the management plan, the master interpretive plan, signage, website development, devel-opment of GIS resources, and this evaluation.

21 Since some of the commission’s funding to CHC was intended for administration, the actual investment in downriver projects maybe somewhat less than that shown in figures 4.1 and 4.2.

Commission Projects Grants Program Projects Totals

Interpretation and education 31 29 60

Documentation 19 39 58

Historic preservation 13 35 48

Visitor services 27 10 37

Marketing 22 3 25

Land conservation 8 1 9

Transportation 7 1 8

Administration 7 1 8

Table 4.1. Project classification by purpose


Figure 4.2 compares the geographic distributionof the two investment tracks (i.e., the grantsprogram and commission-initiated projects), dis-playing only the area-wide, downriver, and in-town categories that comprise 98 percent of thegeographic investments and showing the dollarsleveraged by each investment track. In figure 4.2the commission’s contributions to CHC arereported separately.

Study data indicate that heritage area investmentshave been relatively evenly distributed across theheritage area. Looking at how the different typesof projects (as determined by project purpose)are distributed geographically, the followingobservations were made:

• A total of $3.05 million was invested in his-toric preservation projects. Of this, $.023million (1 percent) was invested in area-wideprojects (for conservation of historic records),

$1.38 million (45 percent) in downriver projects, and $1.65 million (54 percent) inNatchitoches projects.

• Of the 60 interpretation and education projects, 42 (70 percent) were focused area-wide, 9 (15 percent) were downriver, 7 (12percent) in Natchitoches, and 2 (3 percent) in satellite areas.

• Of the 58 projects related to documentation,33 (57 percent) were area-wide in focus, 10(17 percent) were downriver, 9 (16 percent)were in Natchitoches, and 6 (10 percent) tookplace in satellite areas.

3. Analysis of project investments by culturalgroupBecause the commission is charged in part withproviding “a culturally sensitive approach to pre-serving the region’s heritage,” and assisting “inthe preservation and enhancement of the cul-tural landscape and traditions of the region,” the

0

200000

400000

600000

800000

1000000

1200000

$1.91 million Area-wide

$1.74 millionDownriver

$0.73 million CHC

$2.04 millionNatchitoches

Cane River Grants Program

Commission Direct Investments

$ Leveraged by Grants Program

$ Leveraged by Commission Direct Investments

Figure 4.1. Total project investmentsby geographic area, fiscal years 1998through 2007.

Figure 4.2. Geographic distribution ofcommission investments and lever-age, fiscal years 1998 through 2007.

Total Project Investments by Geographic Area$6,509,755

Geographic Distribution of Commission Investments and Leverage

Natchitoches Projects$2,041,986 (31%)

Satellite Area Projects$100,259 (2%)

Area-wide Projects$1,905,525 (29%)

Downriver Projects$2,461,985 (38%)


study team assessed how project investmentswere distributed across the different culturalgroups that have historic connections to theCane River area. Projects were analyzed as towhether their focus was African American,American,22 American Indian, Creole, French,Spanish , “mixed groups” (i .e., more than onecultural group but not encompassing all ofthem), or “all groups.”23 The distribution ofinvestments overall, aggregating grants programprojects, commission-initiated projects, and thefunds leveraged by both, is shown in figure 4.3.

Figure 4.4 on page 25 compares the distributionacross cultural groups of the investments madethrough the two tracks and the leverage fromeach. (Note that only the six largest categories—excluding American Indian and Spanish––thatcomprise 98 percent of the total investmentshave been included.) As with the geographicanalysis, the commission’s direct support of theCreole Heritage Center is shown separately fromthe other Creole-related investments. Projects inthe “area-wide” category (see footnote 20 onpage 22) also make up much of the “all groups”category in figures 4.3 and 4.4.

Looking at the distribution of investments acrosscultural groups, the following observations weremade:

• Of the 58 projects focused on documentation,15 (26 percent) addressed all cultural groups;14 (24 percent) related to African Americans;10 (17 percent) served a mixture of groups(e.g., Creole–French, Creole–American–African American, Spanish–American Indian);7 (12 percent) focused on Creole subjects;and the remaining 12 (21 percent total) werespread fairly evenly among American Indian,French, Spanish, and American groups.

• Of the 60 projects related to interpretationand education, 31 (52 percent) included allcultural groups, 9 (15 percent) addressed amixture, 8 (13 percent) focused on AfricanAmericans, 6 (10 percent) on AmericanIndians, 5 (8 percent) on Creole subjects, and1 (2 percent) on American culture (as definedin footnote 22 on this page).

This analysis, combined with the commission’sinvestments in marketing, visitor services, andtransportation that serve all groups, reinforces thenotion that heritage area investments have beenrelatively evenly distributed across the primarycultural affiliations in the Cane River region today.

B. Program and Project HighlightsTo better understand how the commission con-ducts its work, the study team examined in depthtwo projects (interpretive planning for the heritagearea and rehabilitation of the Texas and PacificRailway Depot) and one program (competitivegrants). The narratives that follow were developedwith the assistance of heritage area staff and aremeant to complement the analysis of progress andinvestments presented in the previous section.

1. Interpretive planning for Cane RiverNational Heritage AreaThe methods used to develop the Cane RiverNational Heritage Area Master Interpretive Plan demonstrate the commission’s inclusiveapproach to planning and to involving stake-holders in general. In 2000 the commissionfunded the development of an interpretive planto refine and expand the interpretive themesidentified during management planning and topresent a unified approach to telling the region’sstories. Twenty people representing diverse per-spectives were invited to serve on an interpretivecommittee. They included managers of historic

22 Refers to the period that began with the influx of settlers following the 1803 Louisiana Purchase.23 These categories were developed by the study team in consultation with heritage area staff.

Figure 4.3. Total project investmentsby cultural group, fiscal years 1998through 2007.

Total Project Investments by Cultural Group$6,509,755

Spanish$27,450 (0.5%)

French$618,270 (9.5%)

Creole$1,083,576 (17%)

Mixed Groups$1,027,295 (16%)

All Groups$1,906,335 (29%)

American Indian$63,809 (1%)

American$801,569 (12%)

African American$981,451 (15%)


sites, representatives of cultural organizations,community leaders, scholars, local historians,and interpretive staff from the national park. Thecommittee met several times over the course of ayear to strategize how best to accomplish thetasks described above.

Finalized in 2003, the master interpretive plan thatresulted from the committee’s deliberations con-tained strategies applicable throughout the region,as well as site-specific information and recom-mendations. Many of its elements have been putinto practice. Some organizations have used theplan to leverage grant funding to implement rec-ommendations found within. For example, theAssociation for the Preservation of HistoricNatchitoches received grant funding from thecommission and the National Trust for HistoricPreservation to enhance interpretation at MelrosePlantation and the Kate Chopin House.

Other benefitsOf equal importance to the plan itself was theprocess by which it was developed. The interpre-tive committee brought together people ofdiverse cultural backgrounds who had neverbefore sat at the same table to talk about theirshared and often difficult past. For the first time,descendants of slaveholders and of slaves cametogether to discuss how their ancestors’ historywas part of a national story and why it wasimportant to share that history. Slavery was butone of several complex historical and culturalissues discussed by the committee. “Jim Crow”segregation, the definition of “Creole,” theromanticism of the Old South, local legendversus historical accuracy, and the question ofwhich sites and cultural groups “owned” certainstories are other examples of topics with widelydivergent perspectives.

At one point during the meetings, an olderAfrican American participant pointed out thedifficulty of having such discussions, stating thatin Natchitoches people had always gotten alongbecause they didn’t talk about the differences ofthe past. By creating a safe environment in whichpeople felt they could open up, the interpretiveplanning process helped to establish trust andrespect between the cultural groups, historic sitepartners, national park, and commission. Thistrust and respect have carried over into manyother aspects of the commission’s work, and thisinclusive process has become standard practicefor all commission projects.

Unanticipated challengesSome unanticipated challenges arose duringimplementation of the plan. While a group ofstakeholders can make recommendations aboutwhich stories should be interpreted at which his-toric sites, ultimately the site owners themselvesare responsible for their own interpretation. Forexample, local stakeholders had a very differentvision of what should be interpreted at sitesmanaged by the Louisiana Office of State Parksthan did state employees in Baton Rouge.Managers and interpreters at sites where inter-pretation was well-established also had difficultyin accepting the recommendations in the plan,especially in cases where they felt that legendmade a more compelling story than reality. Overtime, however, it appears that historical accuracyhas made headway in the region.

Heritage area partnership investments andleverageThe commission funded development of theinterpretive plan in its entirety at a cost of$43,750. Commissioners, heritage area staff, andpartners all provided significant time to the

0

100000

200000

300000

400000

500000

600000

700000

800000

900000

1000000

AfricanAmerican

$0.98million

American$0.80million

Creole$0.36million

CHC $0.73million

French$0.62million

MixedGroups$1.03million

All Groups$1.91million


Figure 4.4. Distribution of commissioninvestments and leverage relative tocultural group, fiscal years 1998through 2007.

Investments and Leverage by Cultural Group


Commission Direct Investments

$ Leveraged by Grants Program

$ Leveraged by Commission Direct Investments


project, although the amount of contributedtime was not tracked.

2. The Texas and Pacific Railway Depot rehabilitation projectThe Texas and Pacific Railway Depot, a passen-ger and freight facility built in 1927, is a landmarkNatchitoches structure. One of the city’s finestbuildings, its Spanish Revival–Italian Renaissancedesign is quite different from that of the fewother surviving urban train depots in Louisiana.Rehabilitation of the depot is recommended inthe management plan and is perhaps the heritagearea’s most complex project, serving resourcepreservation, interpretation and education,transportation, and visitor services objectives.

Located in the heart of a predominantly AfricanAmerican residential section of the city, the depotsaw its passenger heyday when trains were theprimary mode of transportation for soldiersserving in World War II and laborers leavingplantations during the “Great Migration.”24 Bythe late 1960s, service had dwindled to freightonly; Union-Pacific closed the depot in the 1980sand gave the building to the city of Natchitoches.An early effort to raise restoration funds failedbecause the city did not own the land, but in themid-1990s Union-Pacific gave the land to the

city, sparking renewed interest in preserving thebuilding. Today, a major partnership projectseeks to rehabilitate the depot as an AfricanAmerican heritage center and multimodal trans-portation hub.

The depot is close to the downtown NatchitochesNational Historic Landmark District and couldpotentially provide parking and easy access totransportation, both of which are otherwiseproblems in the district. The idea of a heritagecenter evolved in part from the importance ofrail travel to African Americans at a time whenthe mechanization of agriculture was increasingand they were leaving in search of jobs andgreater economic opportunities elsewhere.Furthermore, the depot holds cultural significanceas one of the few buildings in Natchitoches inwhich the “Jim Crow” policy of racial segregationis apparent in its architectural design. Separate“white” and “colored” entrances, ticket windows,waiting rooms, and restrooms remain as a testa-ment to this practice. Through the rehabilitationproject, the depot will become the primary loca-tion where the African American experience inthe region is interpreted, thus complementingand connecting with interpretation of AfricanAmerican history at other sites in the heritagearea. Transportation services, including potential

24 When applied to African Americans, “Great Migration” refers to the movement of seven million people between 1916 and 1970from the rural South to urban areas in the North, upper Midwest, and West, with the largest population shift (about five millionpeople) taking place between 1940 and 1970.

The Texas and Pacific Railway Depotrehabilitation project is a communityeffort. Residents, the city ofNatchitoches, the heritage area, andthe park are working together togive the building new life.

Cam

mie

G.

Hen

ry R

esea

rch

Cen

ter,

Nor

thw

este

rn S

tate

Uni

vers

ityPh

ilip

B. H

uffm

an


revenue from a transportation tax, eventuallymay help to support the depot’s function as aheritage interpretation facility.

Since 2000, the commission has worked collab-oratively on the depot project with the city ofNatchitoches, the Ben D. Johnson EducationalFoundation (a local nonprofit organizationworking in the African American community),and the National Park Service. Staffers fromthe heritage area and the city have shared thetasks of writing grants, submitting requests forfunds, and community outreach , and both thecommission and the city have committed fundsat key times. Cane River Creole NationalHistorical Park has provided technical assis-tance in planning and stabilization efforts, andthe Ben D. Johnson Foundation and the BlackHeritage Committee have provided valuableleadership and outreach efforts in the AfricanAmerican community.

Although at times the project appeared stalleddue to lack of funds and the daunting rehabili-tation task, momentum has been building inrecent years. In 2006 the Louisiana PreservationAlliance designated the depot one of the “TenMost Endangered Historic Sites in Louisiana.”Also that year, a preservation planning processinvited significant community input, and grass-roots involvement increased rapidly. As thisplanning proceeded, community membersformed a committee to spearhead developmentof a heritage center within the depot. Thepreservation plan will guide the project as itunfolds and can be used to leverage additionalproject funding.

Other benefitsThe scale and complexity of the depot projecthave encouraged big-picture thinking by thecommission and its partners, and progress inrecent years has created momentum for otherprojects throughout the community. As anexample, the preservation planning processsparked interest in developing an AfricanAmerican historic district for placement in theNational Register of Historic Places, whichwould allow residents of the district to seek taxcredits for preservation and development.

Unanticipated challengesThe amount of funding needed and the time re-quired to secure major funding have been chal-lenging for all partners. As a result, interest in theproject has waxed and waned over time. In addi-tion, public meetings throughout the project havemade clear that residents of the depot area do notfully trust the intentions of the city administration.

Heritage area partnership investments andleverageFrom 2000 through 2007, the commissioninvested considerable staff time in communityoutreach and fundraising, and committed$66,000 in direct funding for stabilization, archi-tectural documentation, and preservation plan-ning. The commission also pledged an additional$100,000 to match transportation enhancementfunding. Grants received include $15,000 fromthe Great American Station Foundation in 2001(matched by $3,000 from the city); a $24,500Louisiana Historic Preservation EmergencyRescue Grant, also in 2001; $5,000 from theLouisiana Main Street Program in 2003; and$274,000 in 2006 federal transportation enhance-ment funds for preservation planning. In 2007the city of Natchitoches requested an additional$282,000 in transportation enhancement fundingfrom DOTD and $1 million in capital outlayfunding from the state of Louisiana, both for con-struction. An initial $100,000 of the capital outlayrequest was received in January 2008.

3. Cane River National Heritage Area competitive grants program The commission’s longest running program,competitive grants, has strengthened partnercapacity, advanced heritage area purposes, pro-vided an important source of leverage, andraised public awareness about the heritage area.Program objectives include (1) conserving, inter-preting, and promoting Cane River resources,cultural landscapes, and history; (2) interpretingand promoting understanding of the region’scultures; (3) increasing visitation and publicparticipation through programs and events; (4)providing opportunities for residents to assist inpreservation and education; and (5) promotinglocal partnerships with organizations, educa-tional institutions, businesses, and individuals.

In 1998 frustration was high among commissionmembers, as the heritage area had received nofederal appropriations since its establishment in1994. Late that year, funding provided by thepark to the commission through an interagencyagreement enabled the commission to begin itsgrants program, thus helping to alleviate thefrustration. In 1999 the commission awardedgrants to four highly visible historic preservationprojects managed by four local nonprofit organi-zations. Two of the projects were in Natchi-toches and two were downriver, and togetherthey encompassed the region’s major culturalgroups. Since these first awards, the program hasevolved to meet management plan goals andrespond to the changing needs of the community.


During the program’s early years, the applicationprocess remained simple: a committee of com-missioners reviewed the one-page applicationsand made recommendations on grant awards tothe full commission. In late 2001, the commissionhired a grants manager to develop a formal appli-cation process, manage the existing grants,oversee compliance with federal regulations, andpromote the program. As a result, program goalsand guidelines were developed and applicationsbecame more rigorous. The application form wasrevamped to better ensure that projects wouldfurther heritage area goals and applicants wouldbe capable of carrying out their plans.

As the program evolved, formal criteria wereadopted to assess the feasibility of proposedprojects and their applicability to heritage areapurposes. The grants committee was expandedto include non-commissioners with pertinentexpertise, such as historic preservation and cul-tural conservation. Applicants were required toshow leverage, either financial or nonfinancial,and later to quantify the nonfinancial match .Perhaps most importantly, the grants managerimproved the services available to applicants,providing assistance throughout the grantprocess from application preparation to projectimplementation. This technical assistance hasbeen significant, as many potential applicantsare unfamiliar with the process of preparinggrant proposals and carrying out projects. Thegrants manager not only raised the standards ofthe program, but also helped build capacity sothat individuals and organizations could meetthose standards.

Overall, completed grant projects have mademajor contributions to accomplishing the heritage

area’s mission to preserve and promote theresources of the Cane River region, with particu-lar benefits for cultural stewardship. Historicpreservation projects have played an importantrole in this, as historic properties are where thehistory of the region’s cultures has played out.Finally, more than any other commission action,providing grant funding to partners has helpedraise public awareness about the heritage area.

Other benefitsAlthough grants projects help the commissionaccomplish its mandates, the grants also help cul-tural groups and organizations conduct projectson topics they identify as important. The politicsof cultural identity and stewardship are complex,and allowing the control of grant projects toremain with the grantees is significant for thesegroups. As an example, the oral history projectscarried out in the African American, Cane RiverCreole, Caddo, French, and Spanish communi-ties encouraged residents to tell their own storiesin their own words. Through the grants, groupshave documented living traditions in the region,and scholars have expanded understanding of theregion’s cultural groups through archeological,archival, and genealogical projects. The projectsreflect the breadth of partners’ priorities andinterests, and partners have gained much techni-cal knowledge through the process of applyingfor and implementing these grants.

Unanticipated challengesThe grants program faces several challenges. Withthe heritage area’s small geographic size, there area limited number of individuals, organizations,and institutions able to undertake matchinggrants. In carrying out projects over the past eightyears, many partner organizations have stretched

Through a Cane River NationalHeritage Area grant to the CreoleHeritage Center, artist GilbertFletcher’s work was exhibited locallyand in Creole communities acrossLouisiana. Fletcher painted peopleand places special to the Cane RiverCreole community.


themselves to their organizational and financiallimits and need to rebuild their resources beforetaking on more projects. Also, the earlier, lessstructured process for awarding grants has led tolingering perceptions that some organizationshave better access to grant funding than others.Although the more thorough application processand availability of technical assistance may behelping to mitigate this perception of differentialaccess, nevertheless some entities may be over-represented in the applicant pool because theyhave skilled grant writers on staff.

Heritage area partnership investments and leverageOn an annual basis, grant projects often producethe largest portion of leveraged support. Overall,the competitive grants program has providednearly $1 million in funding to 89 projects, lever-aging more than $1.3 million in cash from partnersas well as in-kind support valued at $632,000.This is a significant investment by partners, giventhe small scale of most grants and the relativelypoor, rural setting of the heritage area.

C. Funding and Other PublicInvestments in the Heritage AreaExamination of investments and leverage forCane River National Heritage Area involves bothfinancial and nonfinancial aspects. Although thecommission is not required to match its federalfunding with other financial or nonfinancialsupport, it has nonetheless sought leverage asmuch as possible. The sections that follow firstdescribe financial investments and leverage andthen nonfinancial support.

1. Financial investments and leverageIn fiscal years 2000 through 2007, the commissionreceived $4,748,120 in federal funds specificallyappropriated to the heritage area (see page 18 formore details). In addition, in late 1998 Cane RiverCreole National Historical Park transferred

$300,000 of its federal funds to the heritage areafor operations and programming. Of this total$5,048,120 in federal support, the commission hasinvested $3,079,030 (61 percent) in projectsthroughout the heritage area, either through thegrants program or through direct initiation ofprojects. The remaining $1,969,090 (39 percent)was used for administration and staffing. It shouldbe noted, however, that a good portion of heritagearea staff time has been committed to pursuinggrant funding and to building partner capacity toplan and implement projects effectively, both ofwhich have resulted in cash leveraged. No attempthas been made to put a dollar value on this time.

These investments in projects have leveraged thefollowing:

• In the grants program, the commission hasinvested a total of $966,498, which has lever-aged $1,320,384 in cash for a total of$2,286,882.

• In its direct investments, the commission hasinvested $2,112,532 plus unspecified stafftime in projects, which has leveraged$2,110,341 in cash for a total of $4,222,873.

• Combined, the commission’s investment of$3,079,030 and the resulting $3,430,725 inleveraged funds add up to a total projectinvestment of $6,509,755.

The leveraged funds have come from diversesources in the private and public sectors, as illustrated in figure 4.5. At nearly $1.2 million,private sector funding has been the single largest source of leveraged funds, $1.1 million(91 percent) of which has come through historicpreservation projects. Cane River CreoleNational Historical Park has been a key fundingpartner, especially in its early commitment to getthe heritage area up and running. In the yearssince, the park has been instrumental in helpingthe heritage area access other NPS funding

Figure 4.5. Sources of leveragedfunds, fiscal years 1998 through 2007.

Total Sources of Leveraged Funds$3,430,725

State of Louisiana$540,264 (16%)

Private$1,191,416 (35%)

City of Natchitoches$83,150 (2%)

Other State/Local Public$47,782 (1%)

Historic District Development Commission$81,000 (2%)

Other NPS$565,438 (16%)

Other Federal$489,275 (14%)

Cane River National Historical Park$432,400 (13%)


sources (e.g., the Lower Mississippi Delta RegionInitiative and the Save America’s Treasures andPreserve America programs). Beyond the NPSgrants, in the last several years the commissionhas recently obtained several large federalawards, most notably the $274,000 in 2006federal transportation enhancement funds forthe depot project and the $198,000 grant in 2007from the EPA brownfields program for the St.Matthews School rehabilitation project. Effortsto engage the state of Louisiana as a fundingpartner have begun to bear fruit recently, asshown by the legislature’s 2008 budget approvalof $110,000 for the heritage area, and the$100,000 provided in January 2008 in responseto the city’s request for $1 million in capitaloutlay funding for the depot project. (These 2008funds are not included in figure 4.5).

2. Nonfinancial leverageIn the first years of project work, the heritagearea collected only general information on non-financial partner support (i .e., an acknowledg-ment that volunteer time, partner staff time, orother in-kind support had been contributed),with no quantification as to number of hours ordollar value. The staff first began to documentdollar value in 2001, although quantification wasstill sporadic. In 2003 reporting of nonfinancialpartner support was made a requirement for allgrants provided by the commission. Since thennearly all grant projects and one-third of com-mission-initiated projects have documented adollar value for nonfinancial partner support. Ofthe 177 projects undertaken by the commissionand its partners since 1998, 158 (89 percent)showed some type of nonfinancial support, witha total reported value of more than $1.41 million.This figure is undoubtedly low, however, due tothe sporadic reporting prior to 2003.

D. Overall Observations from theAnalysis of Heritage AreaAccomplishmentsThe observations that follow have emerged fromthe overall analysis of accomplishments.

Through its direct investments, the commis-sion has emphasized area-wide projects that apply to all cultural groups and providea broad foundation for future work andactivities.These include such initiatives as a logo andsignage that establish a graphic identity andpresence for the heritage area, brochures and acomprehensive GIS database that provideinformation on the heritage area and itsresources, and documents such as the masterinterpretive plan and a tourism marketing plan

that provide a resource to partners throughoutthe heritage area.

The commission’s early decision to establisha grants program to engage partners hashelped build the involvement of partnerorganizations and enhanced partner capacity.The incentives offered by the grants program(e.g., funding to take on a project that a partnerthinks is important, the availability of technicalassistance) have increased the involvement ofpartners, their understanding of what the her-itage area is about, and their capacity to carryout projects effectively. Over time, this may leadto a sense of enhanced pride in their heritageand a greater stake in the success of the heritagearea, both important elements of a strongpartner network.

Projects and investments increasinglyaddress multiple objectives.In both the grants program and the commission’sdirect investments, the number of projects withtwo or more objectives has increased over time.For example, all of the early historic preservationprojects were single-purpose. In the last twoyears, five grants were awarded to projects thatcombined historic preservation and documenta-tion objectives. A similar trend can also be seenwith both grant projects and commission proj-ects that combine documentation with interpre-tation and education. Similar data gathered atother national heritage areas suggest that thistrend of integrating objectives or goals in proj-ects may be an indication of maturation andgrowing sophistication in the heritage area’spartnership system.

The commission’s inclusive, collaborativeapproach has provided a means for the dif-ferent cultural groups to talk about andbridge their difficult history.The trust established among people and organiza-tions that share a difficult history suggests that thecommission’s collaborative approach—designedto achieve a culturally sensitive approach to pre-serving Cane River’s heritage––has been effective.The relatively even spread of investments acrosscultural groups and geography reinforces thecommission’s inclusive approach.

The heritage area and the national parkhave established a strong, mutually benefi-cial partnership.Establishing a national park and a national heritage area within the same legislationappears to have created a reciprocal relation-ship that allows each entity to accomplish moretoward its mission than it could by working


alone. The park’s timely provision of suchthings as funding and technical assistance (e.g.,support with interpretation and preservation,liaison with other levels of the NPS, administra-tive assistance, collections management) hasbeen complemented by the heritage area’saccess to and engagement with the communityand area grassroots organizations, its sharing ofinterpretive staff, and the regional context pro-vided for the park and its stories.

The commission has demonstrated its capac-ity to take on and accomplish complex,large-scale projects.Projects such as the depot restoration, heritagearea signage, and pursuit of major grantsrequire vision, strategic planning, the ability toobtain and coordinate the cooperation of localgovernment and grassroots stakeholders, andpersistence in carrying out the necessaryimplementation steps. Success in carrying outsuch complex projects indicates the maturationand increased capacity of the commission andstaff over time.

Although the grants program has enhancedpartner capacity, the issues of partner lead-ership and capacity remain a challenge.

The grants program has played an important rolein enhancing partner capacity and ensuring thatpartner projects are carried out successfully.However, the challenge of building capacity isongoing. Although any network will display anebb and flow of partner activity, the small size ofthe Cane River heritage area makes its partnernetwork more vulnerable to this tendency.Related to this is the ongoing need to identifyfuture leaders within the partner network and toprovide a means for enhancing their leadershipskills to ensure that the network remains strongand vibrant.

The commission has begun to address cul-tural landscape conservation in recent years,but much remains to be done in this impor-tant implementation category.Protecting the heritage area’s nationally signifi-cant cultural landscapes poses one of the biggestchallenges to the heritage area initiative.Although the commission has made progress inlaying groundwork for future conservation ofCane River’s cultural landscapes, the commis-sion and its partners have not yet mounted a cultural landscape initiative that engages all thenecessary partners in addressing the threats tolandscape integrity.

The “Landmarks in Time” exhibit,developed through an inclusive inter-pretive process, orients visitors to theregion’s stories and places.


Split cane and split oak baskets are traditional products of American Indians in this area. The Caddo Nation of Oklahoma and the Adai community in westernNatchitoches Parish trace their ancestry to this region, and tribal leaders work with local partners to share stories and traditions.

Chapter 5: Analyzing the Existing Heritage Area Framework: Strengths and Challenges 33

As described in chapter 3, the legislation thatestablished Cane River National Heritage Areacreated a federally authorized framework toassist public and private partners in protectingand interpreting the region’s rich heritage andusing that heritage as a foundation for commu-nity enhancement. With the existing frameworkdue to expire in August 2010, part of this studyinvolved examining the strengths and challengesassociated with the framework as a precursor to identifying possible options for the future.This chapter summarizes the findings of thatanalysis, organized by the five main frameworkcomponents. The analysis draws particularly ondiscussions with heritage area commissioners,staff, and other individuals knowledgeable aboutthe commission;25 two commission visioning ses-sions; and the study team’s knowledge of similarinitiatives elsewhere. Additional information onthe methods and sources used in the analysis ispresented in appendix A.

A. Purposes, Vision, and MissionThe purposes, vision, and mission described inchapter 3 provide a solid, vital foundation forthe heritage area’s work. This “guiding direc-tion” integrates many different dimensions:conserving the region’s cultural landscapes,sites, and traditions; enhancing the quality oflife for residents; providing economic benefitsto the community; and promoting the heritagearea within the region and beyond.

The heritage area’s broad, integrated vision, arti-culated on page 14, is seen by study participantsas an important strength—in one individual’swords, it “has been incredibly effective here.”The different aspects complement and reinforceeach other, and provide a platform for engagingdiverse constituencies and fostering partnershipswith a range of people and organizations. Onestudy participant summarized the importance ofthis point in the following way: “Unless you havethe big [integrated] vision, you don’t maintaininclusiveness.” This inclusiveness is especiallyimportant at Cane River because of the region’scultural complexity.

While the broad, integrated nature of the visionis a key strength , it also presents certain chal-lenges. It is an ambitious mandate and, coupledwith the realities of working in partnerships,

makes progress difficult to sustain through alldimensions simultaneously. Furthermore, thebreadth of the vision requires maintaining abalance among the different aspects (e.g.,ensuring that the region’s underlying heritageassets are not compromised by economic con-siderations), and stretches the heritage area’slimited capacity by spreading the staff acrossthe various dimensions.

There are also challenges associated with spe-cific aspects of the guiding direction. Forinstance, the cultural and ethnic heritage at theheart of Cane River’s stories and purposes iscomplicated and sensitive, and in the past wasoften misunderstood and/or misinterpreted tothe public. Working effectively in this contextrequires ongoing sensitivity, openness, profes-sionalism, patience, and tolerance from heritagearea participants, including the commission,staff, and partners. Also, it can be difficult tomeasure progress in enhancing the quality oflife for local residents and to determine thedegree to which the heritage area initiative ishaving tangible, lasting impacts on people’s livesin the region.

In addition to the strengths and challengesdescribed above, a few other observations areworth noting. First, unlike other national heritageareas, natural resource conservation and recre-ational enhancements are not explicitly includedin Cane River’s guiding direction. Second, thereis no explicit discussion of heritage-related eco-nomic and community development in the her-itage area’s legislated purposes (although theyhave been incorporated in the commission’svision and mission statements). Finally, someaspects of the commission’s authorities from theenabling legislation (specifically those related tocooperative agreements, grants, and assistance topartners) appear to be more narrowly definedthan might be desirable in light of the breadthand integrated nature of the purposes, mission,and vision. Each of these points is addressedfurther in chapter 8.

B. Geographic Scope/BoundaryRelative to most national heritage areas, CaneRiver National Heritage Area encompasses afairly small geographic area with a modest popu-lation size and few political jurisdictions (one

25 Throughout the remainder of this report, the term “study participants” is used to denote the people who participated in the meet-ings, discussions, and interviews that were a part of this study.

Chapter 5

Analyzing the Existing Heritage Area Framework: Strengths and Challenges


26 By comparison, the Blackstone River Valley National Heritage Corridor contains 24 cities and towns in two states (Rhode Island andMassachusetts), while the Delaware & Lehigh National Heritage Corridor (Pennsylvania) contains more than 200 municipalities.

major municipality, one parish, and one state).26

This geographic scope presents both strengthsand challenges.

A primary strength is that the region includedwithin the heritage area’s current boundary istightly connected to its core stories and associ-ated landscapes. That is, the boundary has beendetermined primarily by thematic rather thanpolitical or jurisdictional considerations. Onestudy participant explained the value of this inthe following way: “We have an incredibly tightstory…in a very small area…and that makes it[easier] to accomplish things, and to keep ourstory straight, and to explain to the public whowe are and what we are.”

Cane River’s relatively small size is more man-ageable and makes possible a more concentratedimpact in comparison to many larger nationalheritage areas that encompass dozens of localcommunities, multiple counties, and in somecases parts of two or more states. This has anumber of associated benefits:

• Limited funding and other forms of capacitycan have a greater and faster effect than in alarger area, where similar resources would bespread more thinly.

• There is likely a more manageable array ofneeds and opportunities to address, whichcan make strategic planning and selectionamong potential programs and projects somewhat more straightforward.

• The heritage area’s smaller population sizeprovides an opportunity to connect with agreater percentage of residents and engagethem more deeply than may be possible inother situations.

• Implementation is less complicated logisti-cally (e.g., in convening meetings and estab-lishing and maintaining an informed “ear tothe ground”).

In addition, the more modest scale of CaneRiver compared to larger national heritage areasmay have benefited the initial development andmanagement of the partner network. Forexample, many players in the area know eachother well and have been working togethereffectively for a long time. Also, there is asmaller universe of potential new partners thanin larger, more densely populated areas. Thesefactors can create synergies over time, reducethe investment of time and energy required todevelop new partnerships, and foster a tightlywoven network.

A further, practical strength of the currentboundary is that it is generally defined by physicalfeatures that are readily identifiable, such as theRed River levee, Interstate 49, and WaterwellRoad. Study participants noted that this is lessarbitrary and easier to identify than the originalparameter included in the authorizing legislationof “approximately one mile on both sides ofCane River.”

In contrast to these strengths, Cane River’s smallsize and population create a number of notewor-thy challenges relative to larger national heritageareas and other similar initiatives:

• A smaller pool of potential new participantsand partners to infuse fresh ideas, energy,capacity, resources, and connections. Thismay constrain the growth and developmentof the partner network over time.

• Less political clout at the state and federallevels due to the limited number of localjurisdictions and constituents.

• Less access to funding and other resourcesbecause of the smaller array of partners andfunders, and the initiative’s more limitedpolitical clout.

• The potential for stagnation, perpetuation ofinefficiencies, and similar detrimental dynam-ics because of the more limited number ofexisting and potential partners and leaders.

In a more site-specific context, some study par-ticipants suggested that the Fort Jesup StateHistoric Site may not be as tightly connected tothe heritage area’s core stories as the other placeswithin the current boundary. Meanwhile, thereare areas to the north and west of the boundarythat connect to the core stories but are notincluded within the heritage area. Also, somestudy participants believe the current gap in theboundary between the Natchitoches NationalHistoric Landmark District and the bulk of theheritage area to the south of Natchitoches alongthe river is somewhat awkward for public under-standing and implementation.

C. Management EntityStudy data suggest that as the management entitythe commission has provided critical leadershipand coordination for the partner network acrossthe breadth of the multifaceted mission. Workingwith the initiative’s public and private partners,the commission and heritage area staff have beeninstrumental to the accomplishments, leverage,and investments described in chapter 4. With agrowing record of progress in a complex and


sensitive setting and a strong reputation of pro-fessionalism and expertise, the commission andstaff have established Cane River NationalHeritage Area as a leader in the heritage areamovement nationwide.

One of the commission’s essential strengths isin providing formal, balanced representation ofdiverse interests. Study participants emphasizedthat by giving key stakeholders an equal seat atthe table, the commission has been able to tran-scend the agendas and interests of individualcommissioners and the organizations they rep-resent. This is especially important given thecultural, organizational, and geographic contextof the Cane River region—with its complex mixof racial and ethnic heritage, a well-establishedarray of groups working on different aspects ofthe heritage area mission, and strong distinctionsbetween “in-town” and “downriver” perspectives.

The commission’s federal status appears to havebeen an important factor in its effectiveness to

date. Study participants observed that this statusbrings a number of key attributes, includingclout, credibility, respect, and leveraging ability.Also, the federal stature instills in local membersof the commission a sense of prestige, pride,power, and responsibility—recognition that theyare part of something that is larger than theirlocal context. Yet at the same time, the prepon-derance of local commissioners ensures thatalthough it is a federal entity, its work, decisionmaking, and strategies reflect local needs andpriorities (i .e., it provides for local control).From a different angle, as a federally establishedentity with its own source of funding (federalappropriations), the commission is able topartner effectively with a wide range of organiza-tions because it does not compete with them forfunding or members.

The staff that has served the commission overthe past several years has clearly been a greatasset to the heritage area initiative and has playeda critical role in the accomplishments to date.

Many sites in the heritage area hostlocal children to learn about the cultural and natural history of theregion. The children at right, visitingMelrose Plantation, are participantsin the Main Street summer camp,which was funded in part through a heritage area grant.


Staff members are seen by study participants ascapable, dedicated, professional, and culturallysensitive. Their achievements with limited re-sources are substantial, and they understand howto work effectively through partnerships in acomplex, ever changing environment. As a result,the staff is highly regarded by local, regional, andnational partners, and has contributed to thecredibility, respect, and confidence that the com-mission has engendered, enhancing its effective-ness as the heritage area’s management entity.

The commission and staff have played diverseroles as they coordinate the implementation ofthe management plan and facilitate the function-ing of the Cane River partnership system. Theseinclude such functions as creating and sustainingconnections among partner organizations andwith the broader community; fostering widerappreciation of the region’s diverse stories andcultures; strengthening the links between her-itage preservation, public understanding, andcompatible community development; providingassistance and resources for on-the-groundprojects; and raising the capacity and profession-alism of partners. The range and significance ofthe commission’s various roles are discussedfurther in chapter 6, in the section entitled“Partnership system facilitator.”

While the commission’s strengths are consider-able, there are challenges and limitations thathave affected its functioning and effectiveness:

• Administrative challenges associated with thefederal appointment process for commissioners,

which have created frustrations, inefficiencies,and operational hurdles.

• Limitations on the commission’s ability torespond to changes in the local communityand organizational context because of itslegislated composition and the challengesassociated with replacing members.

• Variable participation in commission affairsby some of its members.

• The inability of some commissioners to serveas effective liaisons between the commissionand the organizations and interests they rep-resent, because they lack close ties and/or donot maintain regular communication andreporting with their constituent organizationsand interests.

• The perception that some member organiza-tions may no longer be as vibrant as when thecommission was established, and thereforemay no longer be the best organizations torepresent their constituencies.

• The need for turnover within the commis-sion’s membership and the related need toattract and cultivate new members andleaders.

• The need for closer relationships with certainkey governmental partners (discussed in thenext section).

• The perception among some stakeholdersthat the commission is too “town-bound”(i .e., that it is weighted toward interests asso-ciated with the city of Natchitoches).

• The commission’s inability as a federal body toeffectively access funding from certain sources,such as private contributions from individuals,corporations, and foundations, and earned

More than 20 partners participated inthe design and implementation ofthe comprehensive signage program,which visually connects the heritagearea’s resources.


income generation (e.g., product sales).• The limited capacity of the staff given the

breadth of the commission’s mission andniche. As a result, the staff is spread fairly thinlyacross different roles and responsibilities.

Despite these challenges and limitations, studydata suggest that the commission has been veryeffective in its role as management entity. Indeed,study participants observed that the commissionfills a unique and critical niche, one that wasvacant before the heritage area was created andwould otherwise be vacant now.

D. Partners Much of the heritage area initiative’s success todate has been due to the involvement and invest-ments of a wide range of public and private part-ners. This reliance on a broad-based partnershipapproach is a fundamental aspect of the heritagearea model, and clearly was envisioned in CaneRiver’s authorizing legislation. Relationships withcertain partners have varied over the lifetime ofthe initiative, but overall the partnership approachappears to have worked well and resulted in farmore accomplishments on the ground than thecommission or any of the partners could haveachieved alone. Within that backdrop, the involve-ment of key partners is examined further below,organized according to the different partner cate-gories identified in chapter 3.

1. Local government

City of NatchitochesThe city is one of several vital governmentalpartners in the heritage area initiative, and itsstrong support over time has been critical tomany aspects of the success to date. In additionto providing important logistical support byemploying the heritage area staff under a coop-erative agreement with the commission, thecity’s essential contributions include capacity,leadership, leveraging ability, and funding . Thecity has been an important partner in numeroussuccessful joint efforts, including nationalawards from the Preserve America and MainStreet programs, which have heightened theregion’s visibility, credibility, local pride, andsupport. There has been good alignment ofgoals and priorities between the city and theheritage area, especially with respect to historicpreservation, heritage-based economic devel-opment, and work in specific areas such as thenational historic landmark district and alongWaterwell Road. This alignment has stemmedin part from the shared roots of the heritagearea approach and certain city initiatives (e.g.,the Main Street Program), and the strong rela-tionships, synergy, and complementarity that

have developed at the staff level between theheritage area and the city.

Perhaps the biggest challenge associated with thispartnership lies in sustaining the strength andeffectiveness of the relationship over time, giventhe inevitable changes for both parties in such keyfactors as leadership, priorities, budget pressures,and political dynamics. A related challenge will bethe difficulty of maintaining over time a solidunderstanding among city officials (both electedand appointed) of what the heritage area initiativeis and the benefits it offers the city and the region(e.g., heightening the area’s visibility and imageand enhancing tourism and local quality of life).

Natchitoches ParishIn contrast to its strong partnership with the city,the heritage area’s relationship with Natchi-toches Parish has been more limited and muchless constructive and mutually beneficial. Clearly,the parish is one of the central governmentalplayers in the region, and it has the purview andauthority to play a vital role on such pressingheritage area issues as landscape conservationand compatible economic development outsidethe city of Natchitoches. However, a number ofobstacles appear to have hindered the develop-ment of a more effective partnership betweenthe heritage area and the parish.

First, the heritage area encompasses a relativelysmall part of the parish overall, and is within thedistrict of a single member of the Parish PoliceJury. Study participants suggested that as a resultmost police jurors have only limited ties to orawareness of the heritage area. This has likelycontributed to the difficulty in engaging themmeaningfully and having them see the concernsof the heritage area initiative as priorities for theparish. This dynamic has been reinforced by theparish’s modest budget and competing prioritiesfor funding, which limits the police jury’s abilityto actively support the heritage area initiative.Study participants also noted tensions in therelationship between the police jury and the city,which may have some spillover effect on theheritage area initiative. Compounding thesechallenges, the parish’s representative on thecommission has not been a member of the policejury and, as a result, has had difficulty serving asan effective liaison between the two entities.Overcoming these obstacles and building astrong partnership with the parish is clearly oneof the most significant needs and challengesfacing the heritage area initiative.

2. State government The partnership between the heritage area ini-tiative and the state of Louisiana can perhaps


best be described as partially developed: thestate’s involvement has been strong and helpfulin some respects, but less supportive and lessengaged in others.

With respect to the strengths of the state’s partic-ipation, some aspects have become well estab-lished over the course of the heritage area’s life-time. For instance, several branches of theDepartment of Culture, Recreation, and Tourismhave played important partnership roles with theheritage area. These include the local state parkunits (e.g., Fort St. Jean Baptiste) and theDivisions of Historic Preservation and Archeology(which have assisted with preservation work andimplementation of section 106 of the NationalHistoric Preservation Act). Also, the Departmentof Transportation and Development has playedan important part in transportation-related proj-ects, and will be a key player in development ofthe new joint visitor center for the heritage areaand the national park. The state’s local academicbranches, Northwestern State University and theLouisiana School for Math , Science, and theArts, have provided valuable capacity, expertise,and assistance to the commission and other her-itage area partners.

Recent developments have strengthened thestate’s connections to the heritage area and pro-vide a broader platform for enhancing the part-nership in the future. Perhaps most noteworthyare the legislature’s first-time direct appropriationfor heritage area programs and establishment ofa state tax credit program for heritage-relatedsmall businesses within the area’s boundary.These actions, which build upon the past recog-nition of Cane River as a state heritage area andthe governor’s approval of the management plan,represent an important commitment to address-ing some of the heritage area’s pressing needs.Also, there is good alignment between heritagearea goals and current statewide priorities, suchas those related to heritage tourism and Louis-iana’s “cultural economy” that are incorporatedin CRT’s strategic plan, “Louisiana Rebirth.” Inaddition, the new statewide memorandum ofunderstanding between CRT and the NationalPark Service may offer an opportunity forstrengthening CRT’s involvement at Cane River.There may be similar new opportunities for col-laboration, leverage, and shared learningbetween Cane River National Heritage Area andCRT in conjunction with Atchafalaya State andNational Heritage Area, given the latter’s recent(2006) national designation.

Despite these strengths, there have been signifi-cant challenges associated with the state’s in-volvement. In general, the state does not appear

to have been as broadly or consistently involvedover time as might have been desirable, and therehas been no clearly identified lead agency toadvance partnership efforts with the commis-sion. Study participants observed that this lackof consistent support from the state has been anobstacle to progress and a source of frustration.Many believe that the heritage area initiative hasnot received the support it deserves from thestate given (1) the significance of the region’sheritage, (2) the connections between localstories and those of other parts of Louisiana, (3)the heritage area’s role in serving as a model forsimilar efforts elsewhere in the state, and (4) theinitiative’s potential to enhance the well-being ofthe Cane River region and to complement her-itage development activities statewide. There is aperception that the state tends not to focusresources and support in areas that are doingreasonably well on their own—particularly in thenorthern part of Louisiana and especially afterHurricanes Katrina and Rita—even if therecould be mutual benefit from greater stateinvolvement.

There are also challenges associated with thestate’s involvement on the commission. Unlike atsome other national heritage areas, there are nodedicated seats for any key agencies. With only asingle representative of the state (nominated bythe governor), it is necessary for that commis-sioner to be an effective liaison between thecommission, the governor, and key agencies onan ongoing basis.

In sum, the state is clearly an important govern-mental partner for the heritage area and has provided valuable support to the initiative, butthe partnership is not as fully developed as itcould be. Evidence from other national heritageareas suggests that establishing a stronger, moreconsistent “anchoring connection” with the stateand identifying a lead state agency to advance thepartnership could be valuable in furthering CaneRiver’s integrated vision for heritage conserva-tion and development.

3. Federal government

National Park ServiceThe NPS clearly has been one of the keys to theheritage area’s success. The agency’s presenceand affiliation with the heritage area bringnational and international attention and recogni-tion, helping to put Cane River “on the map.”Through its visible, multifaceted local presenceat Cane River Creole National Historical Park,the NPS has established a substantial and synergistic involvement in the heritage area initiative. Overall synthesis of the study’s data


analyses indicates that the park is the heritagearea’s most important partner, and the strongpartnership that has been established appears to be truly of mutual benefit.

A number of factors have contributed to thiscomplementary dynamic:

• The missions of the park and heritage areawere closely intertwined by their joint author-izing legislation, and both entities influenceeach other in ways that enable them to betterachieve those missions; in other words,together they are able to achieve more thaneither could alone.

• The park provides valuable technical assistance and expertise to local partners,including assistance with preservation andinterpretation, and in so doing helps to buildthe capacity of those organizations and facili-tate a preservation mindset throughout thecommunity.

• The park provides information on NPSfunding sources and other programs, and has itself contributed essential funding at key times, most notably during the heritagearea’s start-up phase.

• The heritage area provides the park with anentrée into the community and the partnernetwork that would be difficult if not impos-sible to replicate on its own.

• The commission serves as a sounding boardfor park staff and provides information onCane River history and culture that is invaluable to the park’s interpretive activities.

• The individual commissioners, through their

skills, experience, and professional ties, offernetworking potential of national and interna-tional scope and a built-in support system,both of which have benefited park projectsand joint park–heritage area projects.

• The heritage area provides a broader, regionalcontext for the park’s resources and “roundsout” the stories told at the park.

• The relationship in recent years between thestaff leaders of the park and heritage area,which has been characterized by remarkablesynergy and complementarity, is widelyviewed as a critical factor in their collectiveaccomplishments.

• The park superintendent has provided invaluable leadership, vision, connections,guidance, resources, and other assets to thecommission, staff, and partners.

• The park provides a permanent local NPSpresence in the heritage area initiative and theregion more generally, unlike the situation inmany other national heritage areas.

The National Center for Preservation Techno-logy and Training also works closely with thepark and the heritage area, adding to the stronglocal NPS presence. Its expertise, capacity, andresources have benefited local partners and proj-ects. NCPTT’s staff has worked closely with her-itage area and park staff, contributing to thestrong synergy, and study participants acknowl-edged NCPTT as an important contributor to thecollective success of the heritage area initiative.

While the NPS has played a vital role in the heritage area’s evolution and accomplishments

The heritage area partnered with thecity of Natchitoches to develop a landuse plan for the Louisiana Highway478 corridor (Waterwell Road). Atright, city officials review suggestedfuture development.


to date, it is important to note certain challengesassociated with the agency’s involvement overtime. For instance, study participants observedthat NPS participation was more mixed in earlierstages, without the recent synergy between thestaff leaders of the park and heritage area. Also,there is apparently still some confusion locallyover the distinction between the park and theheritage area, as well as some concern about thepotential for sites managed by local partners tobe overwhelmed by the larger NPS presence.

In a broader context, there was some frustrationin prior years with the administrative fee levied bythe NPS Southeast Region on the heritage area’sannual budget, because local participants felt theheritage area was not receiving a comparablevalue of assistance in return. This sentiment hasdeclined in the past year or two, but study partici-pants still see a need for additional capacity in theSoutheast Region and the Washington headquar-ters to provide greater support to heritage areas inthe region and nationwide.

Looking forward, perhaps the biggest challengefor the NPS–heritage area partnership will be tosustain the synergy of the past several years inthe face of changes in personnel, priorities, andresources over time. Overcoming this challengewill likely hinge on a combination of factors,some of which may be within the control of thetwo entities (e.g., learning from the success ofthe recent past and keeping the “right” kind ofpeople in leadership positions), and otherswhich may not (e.g., changes in federal budgetsand evolving support for national heritage areas).

Other federal agencies As noted in chapter 3, there is a substantialfederal presence in the Cane River region givenits relatively limited size. Although the NPS is theonly agency that has become deeply involved inthe heritage area partnership to date, the presence

of the whole suite of agencies creates the potentialfor significant collaboration and leveraging ofresources and political support. As a startingpoint, senior on-site managers from several ofthe agencies have developed good relationshipsand regular dialogue in recent years.

Nonetheless, it may be difficult to establish andmaintain closer alignment among the variousagencies given their respective areas of focus,priorities, budgets, schedules, and changes inpersonnel over time. This appears to have beenthe case in recent years with the inability to moveforward on a shared visitor center. Instead of asingle facility shared by several agencies, it nowappears that there will be multiple major visitorcenters within an hour’s drive of each other. Theagencies are still likely to collaborate to someextent on exhibits and marketing, but the possi-bility of capitalizing more broadly on their col-lective needs, presence, and resources has notmaterialized to date.

On a separate front, the recent sizable EPA grant for clean-up at St. Matthews School andthe transportation enhancement funding for thedepot restoration are promising evidence of sig-nificant opportunities for heritage area partnersto tap into a broader range of federal fundingsources. This possibility is explored further inthe chapter 8 discussion of funding options.

4. Nongovernmental interests Nongovernmental interests (including nonprofitorganizations, businesses, community groups,landowners, and other local citizens) have beenresponsible for much of the heritage preservationand development work in the Cane River regionover the past several decades. Likewise, non-governmental interests have comprised an indispensable element of the heritage area initiative and its accomplishments to date. Theycomplement the commission’s governmental

A corn crib and cistern at OaklandPlantation form part of the culturallandscape of Cane River CreoleNational Historical Park. The nationalpark consists of 63 acres and 67 his-toric structures on two former cottonplantations in the heritage area.


partners and provide leadership, energy, capacity,political clout, grassroots connections, financialresources, and other support (e.g., volunteers)on behalf of heritage area goals and activities.

Through its competitive grants program, thecommission has worked to build the capacity ofthese organizations, funding projects that mightnot otherwise be accomplished and providingassistance to potential applicants to help themcompete for funding from this and othersources. Also, study participants observed thatalthough the commission and staff have madegood progress in building relationships with thebusiness community, further outreach and edu-cation are needed.

Despite the commission’s efforts through thegrants program, the limited capacity of non-governmental partners in the region remains achallenge, and many study participants notedthe need for further attention to this issue.There is also a perceived need for additionalengagement with the African American commu-nity. Good progress has been made on this frontrecently with initiatives like the train depot andSt. Matthews School projects, but more atten-tion may be warranted given the importance ofthis constituency.

E. Funding and Other Forms ofSupportThe substantial contributions of funding andother support from partners, as described inchapter 3.D and chapter 4, have been essential toCane River’s success to date. Given that the heritage area initiative’s access to resources islimited (due to such factors as size and popula-tion base, the region’s limited number of founda-tions and corporations, and competition withother priorities in Louisiana, especially afterHurricanes Katrina and Rita) and that it has nolegislated matching requirement for its federalfunds, the commission and its partners have beenquite effective in leveraging various forms of sup-port and making good use of what they have had.

Core federal funding through the NPS HeritagePartnership Programs has clearly been critical insupporting the commission’s operations and thegrants program, and has been a catalyst in lever-aging investments by others. However, as hasbeen evident in the last two budget cycles andwith the approaching sunset of Cane River’scurrent federal authorization, this funding is notpredictable or assured either year-to-year or overthe longer term.

These challenges are compounded by the commission’s difficulty in accessing funding

from nonfederal sources for its core operationsand programs. This dynamic has been observedat other national heritage areas managed byfederal commissions, in part because thesefederal entities are limited in their ability toraise funds from private sources (e.g., individu-als, corporations, foundations) and generateearned income (e.g., product sales, fee-for-service work). An additional factor has been thelimited support over time from other key gov-ernmental partners, particularly the state ofLouisiana. The legislature’s first-ever appropri-ation of $110,000 to the heritage area for fiscalyear 2008 is a promising sign that this latterpattern could be changing. For the moment,however, the initiative’s heavy reliance onfederal appropriations for core funding createssignificant vulnerability, especially with a diffi-cult budget climate and no overall legislativeauthorization for a nationwide national heritagearea program.

The lack of a stable, secure, and predictablefunding base presents operational challengeswith respect to such considerations as planning,budgeting, and staff retention. Moreover, thesechallenges can play out in at least three differenttime frames: within a given year (because of theunpredictable timing of federal appropriations),from year to year, and over longer periods.

While the federal funding situation is difficult,Cane River does have a significant advantagerelative to many other national heritage areas inthat Cane River Creole National Historical Parkprovides an existing and comparatively securebase for the sustained presence and involvementof the National Park Service. Given how essen-tial the park’s assistance (both financial andnonfinancial) has been to the heritage area’ssuccess, this relative security is an importantreassurance for the future (recognizing that thecontinued effectiveness of the NPS’s involve-ment will depend not only on having a presence,but on how that presence is implemented by theindividuals involved).

Finally, it is perhaps worth reiterating a pointfirst touched on in chapter 3—that the lack ofdedicated federal funding for the heritage areain its early years made its start-up very difficultand slow, and created frustration among thecommission and its partners. While this is nolonger significant for the heritage area itself, it isan important point in the broader nationalcontext as new heritage area initiatives are estab-lished and try to begin making a difference onthe ground.


Lair LaCour, known on Cane River as “Mama Lair,” holds portraits of her parents. Cane River Creole culture is anchored by a strong sense of family.

Phili

p G

ould

Chapter 6: Evaluating the Cane River National Heritage Area Partnership System: The Partner Perspective 43

This chapter focuses on understanding from theperspective of partners how the Cane River part-nership system operates. In other words, how doCane River partners work with the commissionand heritage area staff to deliver the accomplish-ments described in chapter 4? In what ways doheritage area programs, activities, and investmentshave an impact on partners (i .e., organizationsand communities) in the Cane River region? Arethere opportunities for strengthening or improv-ing the partnership system in the future?

To explore these issues, the study team conduct-ed confidential interviews with 30 partners,including representatives from the businesscommunity, municipal governments, state andfederal agencies, nonprofit organizations, com-munity leadership, and Cane River staff.27 Someof these partners have long been connectedwith the heritage area initiative and others arenew. In the discussion that follows, the findingsare presented in two broad categories: perceivedstrengths and perceived challenges.

A. Perceived StrengthsAnalysis of interview data revealed four inter-connected themes that characterize the per-ceived strengths of the Cane River partnership:(1) heritage: linking history, people, and place,(2) a collaborative framework, (3) the NationalPark Service connection, and (4) a partnernetwork. Collectively, these themes identify andexplain the process by which the partnershipsystem works from the perspective of heritagearea partners. Each theme is defined by sub-themes that articulate different dimensions. It isimportant to note that the themes and theirsubthemes are tightly interwoven.

1. Heritage: linking history, people, and placeThe notion of heritage serves to link history,people, and place in the Cane River region. In thisway, it is an important organizing concept for theheritage area initiative’s activities, investments,and programs. This theme is defined by the fol-lowing subthemes: heritage stories, sense of place,and context for civic and community engagement.

Heritage storiesPartners emphasized the value of their own her-itage stories, and the importance of preserving and

telling all of the stories associated with the CaneRiver region. Cane River’s heritage stories collec-tively describe significant chapters in Americanhistory. These experiences have shaped theregion’s human and natural communities andcreated a meaningful context for heritage area pro-grams and activities. One partner said it this way:

We have a structure, or a set of buildings that

people look at. That is not the story that we talk

about. The real story is how the people got here,

what they did when they got here, whom they

met, how all these different people interacted,

and how that developed into what we have

here today. That’s the story that we talk about.

Many study participants acknowledged the waysthat Cane River’s stories link different culturalgroups to the same place. There is a generalunderstanding among partners of the impor-tance of recognizing the experiences of these different groups. For many, preservation of thesestories is the first, critical step in thinking aboutheritage-based conservation and development.One study participant observed:

[The commission and staff] made it quite clear

that our story is just as important, or equally

important as anyone else’s…Building a legacy

in this community about the black experience is

a very difficult thing…There exists no written

history, per se, about our experience here in the

Cane River area…Somewhere, somehow,

someone has to [document our story so it] can

be passed [to the next] generation.

The notion of cultural heritage links the complexmosaic of natural, cultural, and historic resourcesthroughout the Cane River region. In describingthe role of heritage in her work, one study partici-pant noted that “heritage is the thread that ties itall together.” Other partners use heritage storiesas lenses for defining Cane River resources in aregionally distinct way, as explained by this studyparticipant:

[Among] Louisianans, Southerners in particu-

lar, there is a notion that if you didn’t have a

big antebellum home, if you didn’t have some

sort of Civil War history, then you didn’t have

any history at all because we let Hollywood

27 See appendix B for a full discussion of the research methodologies employed in this chapter.

Chapter 6

Evaluating the Cane River National Heritage Area Partnership System:

The Partner Perspective


Northwestern State University ofLouisiana, founded in 1884 as thestate’s normal school, is an importantpartner in preserving the region’sresources. University scholars haveassisted the national park and theheritage area with research through-out the region.

dictate what the history of the South has been.

The reality is that our area has a wonderful,

almost unique, history…We all share this won-

derful heritage and lineage…It’s something to

be more proud of than the nonsense that people

assume to be the history of the South.

Sense of placeFor many study participants, the notion of cul-tural heritage fosters a strong sense of place. Anumber of partners described how this conceptaffects their work. While the heritage area doesnot, on its own, create a sense of place, severalstudy participants described how commissionefforts have helped to move a heritage-basedagenda forward among partner organizations.This, in turn, has helped protect and enhancethe resources that create a sense of place. Onecommunity leader expressed it this way:

I’ve used [heritage] to twist the arms of the

political gurus in order to get [the outcomes]

we want at times. You have to realize that

even though we are so culturally rich in this

area, our city fathers really were not on board

[in terms of heritage-based conservation and

development]. We have lost a whole lot…[But

when] you talk about heritage tourism, you’re

talking about economic development. You’re

talking about interest in the community that

we haven’t had before…It’s [about] using the

heritage area to work with our political

leaders and our community leaders in order

to help them understand what they can do.

Other study participants underscored the valuein working with the heritage area initiativebecause of its commitment to heritage-basedeconomic development. Many partners felt thatworking with Cane River staffers was effectivebecause “they get things on the agenda” and then“they get the right people in the room.” Overtime, such facilitation may encourage economicdevelopment strategies that respect and reinforcethe region’s strong sense of place. One local offi-cial explained it as follows:

If you used the term “heritage tourism” five or

six years ago, you would hardly find anybody

who knew what you meant…The more that

[concept] is promoted nationwide, [the more]

you start to find people turning inward and

back to their roots…To me, there is a complete

resurgence of looking back at where you came

from, where you’ve been, and what you’ve left

behind. That is why, to me, the term “heritage

[tourism]” is so important.

Ultimately, sense of place is about understandingand preserving the different meanings of whatotherwise might be viewed as unimportantactivities, objects, or sites. One study participantobserved:

The idea of heritage in what I do translates to

tradition. Whether it’s building traditions, the

built environment, the natural environment and

what you do with it, material culture, oral tradi-

tion—whatever it happens to be—it’s all bound


to a place in one respect or another. So, the idea

of heritage, (i.e., the idea of tradition), is an easy

sell in small communities. When I go and say,

“Oh, you don’t want to paint this building

purple because this building was originally not

painted, and the reason it wasn’t…,” there’s a

tradition behind it, there’s a story behind it,

[and] there’s a rationale for preservation. So

consequently, in terms of our material tradition,

like building or making walking sticks, or what-

ever it happens to be, there’s a reason and a

value for continuing it and maintaining it.

While I don’t use the word “heritage” very

often, I use the word “tradition” and it [basi-

cally] translates to the same thing.

A context for civic and community engagementHeritage can play an important role in engagingdiverse communities throughout the Cane Riverregion. Several partners described how workingwith the commission and staff on a heritage-based agenda has helped create partnershipopportunities between groups that traditionallymay not have worked together. While acknowl-edging that more work remains, one communityleader described how the heritage area staff hasdone an excellent job of reaching out to under-represented groups. This is especially importantgiven the complexity and sensitivity of the region’shistory. A study participant reflected that:

Whenever you actually work with people who

are really serious about their heritage, you

have to have some type of understanding of

what that heritage is. It’s a two-way street…

The more I worked with people in the area, the

more I really got to understand their heritage.

We worked better together [as a result].

For other partners, heritage preservation itself isa form of civic engagement. When used in thisway, heritage area programs and activities helpcreate the context and impetus for community-based action. One local leader said:

I think [heritage] is the most motivating

portion of the presentation to the black com-

munity. It means that you need to become

involved. It is timely for you to become

involved. It is a loss if you do not become

involved because your heritage is at stake.

Your heritage has not been properly recorded

and interpreted, so here is the opportunity. It’s

finally come, so [now] you can be recognized—

your people, your ancestors, your family, your

racial group. [Heritage] helps to encourage

people to become a part of the preservation

movement…Now, they’re saying, “Hey, my

heritage is being recognized too, and it’s

worthy of being studied and being funded, and

to have experts come and be sure that it’s prop-

erly recorded and preserved.”

Some study participants described how workingwith heritage area programs and staff has helpedto “foster dialogue” around difficult issues.Other study participants noted that “attitudeshave changed” as a result of activities and pro-grams. Meaningful civic and community engage-ment is about being relevant in a diverse society.Cane River National Heritage Area can play anincreasingly vital role in the region by serving asa vehicle for heritage-based conservation anddevelopment that reflect the diversity of thearea’s communities. One community partnerdescribed the use of heritage as follows:

Sometimes I use heritage as a unifier. [For

example] if I want to talk about the greatness

of Natchitoches, then heritage is a unifier and I

can talk about all of the various cultures that

made Natchitoches what it is [today], and how

all of these people are essentially related, or

have very close ties from a historical perspec-

tive. So, in that way, I can use [heritage] in a

really positive way. Other times I use heritage

to break down groups, to say, this particular

cultural group is being ignored, or we have

very little information on this group, yet we

know they were important in the area. So, it

can be used in that way to single out problem

areas and things we [as a community] need to

work on more.

2. A collaborative frameworkInterview data suggest that the heritage area ini-tiative serves as a framework for collaboration,providing the opportunity and mechanism fordifferent organizations to develop partnerships.This theme is defined by the following sub-themes: a critical friend, a shared mission, andvision and leadership.

A critical friendNumerous study participants explained that theheritage area staff serves as a strategic “soundingboard” or “critical friend.” In conversations withpartners, staffers introduce new ideas, communi-cate best practices, and demonstrate new ways ofworking. This information, in turn, can affecthow individual partner organizations understandtheir roles in developing a regional, heritage-based agenda. One governmental partnerexplained his experience as follows:

[Working with the heritage area] really showed

me that you can get a lot more done if you can

actually get people on the same page,…get


people moving in the same direction. One thing

that was neat about Natchitoches was there

was almost an unending flow of resources that

we kept discovering and kept discovering, and

it really showed me that if you get out there

and you really dig, you’ll find allies in the least

likely of places.

While there is a strong and successful legacy ofhistoric preservation in the area, there is alsogrowing recognition that traditional historicpreservation activities, while necessary, are notsufficient for capturing the rich cultural diversitythat defines this region. Commission investmentsand activities have helped partner organizationsthink more broadly about heritage conservation.When this shift in thinking occurs, it greatlyexpands opportunities for collaboration. Onepartner remarked:

Some groups in Natchitoches probably were

predisposed a little bit to working together,

[particularly] in historic preservation. But in

terms of other things, there wasn’t [much col-

laborative work]. And what the heritage area

has helped do is expand beyond just historic

preservation. I don’t know if, in the past, the

historic district would have worked with some

of the outlying plantations 20 miles away. It’s a

definite, very significant impact. [The heritage

area] really elevated the term “partnership” to

something that people can understand.

According to several study participants, her-itage area management offers an “outside” yetempowering perspective. This perspectiveallows partner organizations to explore andcraft new ideas in innovative ways. A number of local initiatives have been developed and/orenhanced through interaction with Cane Riverstaff. One city official reflected on the processthis way:

[There are] things that you might have worked

toward for a number of years, [but] you couldn’t

quite get off center because you always had

those individuals that were somewhat negative

within the community—a “that’s not gonna

happen in your lifetime” attitude. “You’re

thinking too big. Come on, you’re in Natchi-

toches.” That’s what changes [with the heritage

area] because you’re dealing with individuals

who are more worldly than the city of Natchi-

toches. They’ve had exposure in many other

areas of the country and even other parts of

the world, and you start kicking around these

harebrained concepts which are just extempo-

raneous, but you’re drawing on 30 years of

background, …and the next thing you know

you have a new concept that moves forward.

That, to me, is where the real payoff is, because

I’m not out there by myself doing things anymore.

A shared missionMuch of the heritage area’s value lies in its abilityto engage a diverse set of partners in developinga shared mission for the region. In doing so, theCane River staff has helped residents find areasof mutual interest while facilitating dialogueamong town officials, the business community,nonprofit organizations, state and federal agen-cies, and a host of other partners. Study partici-pants used words like “connector,” “networker,”and “convener” when describing the commissionand staff in this capacity. One local officialdescribed the impact in this way:

People tend to look to their own little island

[and they think], “What’s going on on my

island and how do I protect that?” I have seen

better cooperation because we have so many

different groups and organizations represented

on the commission. So you’re beginning to

have more of an understanding. The prime

example would be the Caddo Adai Indians,

and what has been done to cultivate more of

an understanding of how we can all work

together to increase their presence and increase

their visibility and enhance what they’re doing.

And at the same time, help the Creoles down

the river, and help the people who live in the

landmark district. Everybody has the same

goal. Very often you’re just getting to it in dif-

ferent ways.

For some partners, Cane River programs pro-vide coordination and consistency for embarkingon regional, heritage-based development. Thisallows smaller partners to connect their effortswith broader heritage area goals and initiatives,while reducing redundancy and duplication. Amanager of a local historic site explained:

One thing that really does help is having the

heritage area here to pull it all together, [and

to] be a focal point for these different partners

in town that sometimes duplicate efforts.

Having the heritage area to pull everybody

together lets us think about these things…It

brings value to the community because I’m just

one partner in this whole area, and it gives all

of us a better umbrella to work under instead

of just being an individual entity among many

others. We’re all working for the same purpose,

to develop this area right here.

A majority of study participants felt that the her-itage area is a unique entity in the region, and the


combination of its regional focus and integratedapproach creates opportunities for robust part-nerships. There are numerous examples in theinterview data where study participants notedthat having an entity (i.e., commission and staff)dedicated specifically to partnership building hasbeen very effective. For some organizations,working with heritage area management hasenhanced their ability to work in partnership, asthis study participant expressed:

[The heritage area staff] brings a lot because [it

is] probably the broadest player in the commu-

nity…If we work together on a project with

them, we can make sure that we’re communi-

cating with all the different segments of the

community…They work very hard to connect

with all different segments of our community

and their board represents a broad cross-

section of the community. They address diversity

issues, [in] both economic and ethnic [terms].

That would be hard for us and our small staff

to do.

Vision and leadershipNearly every study participant noted the role thatthe Cane River staff plays in the heritage area ini-tiative, using words like “vision” and “leader-ship” when discussing the contributions of staffto programs and projects. There is a strong senseamong study participants that individuals on theheritage area staff “get it.” One study participantmade the following observation:

I think what the heritage area needed was

leadership that actually could craft a vision

and then put it on the ground, and not just be a

caretaker of a historic property or something

like that. The mission of a heritage area direc-

tor and its staff needs to be more than just site-

specific. And that’s quite hard to do if you’re

trained only in specific conservation measures.

You have to roll with the punches and be able

to move and be flexible and give people that do

that type of work—very site-specific conserva-

tion or preservation work—the leeway and the

latitude to do it while you’re out there making

things happen in order to enable them to get

their work done…Nancy and her staff have

helped that organization and that region grow

in ways that, when they were getting into this,

they never anticipated.

For other study participants, the heritage areastaff provides vision and leadership during theformative stages of specific projects. This type offeedback not only improves project outcomes,but also builds trust and reinforces the importantrole that community-based efforts play in CaneRiver’s regional, multicultural mission. One localleader explained:

They’ve been able to focus on some things that

allowed us to then focus on them, too, so that

they’ve given us some leadership and pointed

us in some directions that were easy for all of

us to work on and acceptable to all sides com-

fortably. For example, their work on the rail-

road depot here is critical. A lot of people talked

about [the railroad depot], a lot of people men-

tioned it, but I think the only substantive work

that’s been done on that project has come

through the commission. That’s a good rallying

point—a good focal point—for us to be able to

Ferry crossings were common through-out the historic landscape of the CaneRiver region until the early twentiethcentury. Today, although the locationsof past crossings are known, the land-ings themselves have been absorbedinto the modern landscape.

Cou

rtes

y of

the

Cam

mie

G.

Hen

ry R

esea

rch

Cen

ter,

Nor

thw

este

rn S

tate

Uni

vers

ity o

f Lo

uisi

ana


work together effectively. [It pulls in] all these

different cultural areas.

Perhaps most importantly, the heritage area staffhelps to navigate a complex sea of histories,stories, and values. One local official describedthe role of the staff as “an essential go-between.”Another local leader explained that the staff’scommitment to “professionalism” was essentialfor maintaining their joint efforts. Study findingslike these suggest that working successfully inmultidimensional partnership environments re-quires a special kind of organizational cultureand leadership philosophy. Another local officialobserved:

I just consider [the heritage area initiative] top-

quality work. And it’s not just the quality of

their work, it’s the spirit in which it’s done. It’s

always a cooperative spirit, it’s never a spirit in

which Nancy or her people say, “Well, here’s the

way we are going to do this.” [Their approach]

is always to ask us how we can best do this.

3. The National Park Service connectionAs discussed in chapters 3 and 5, Cane RiverNational Heritage Area has a special connectionto the NPS, primarily through Cane RiverCreole National Historical Park. This specialconnection with the NPS has two importantattributes or subthemes: a strong tie and brand-ing and credibility.

A strong tieRegarding the active presence of the NPS in theCane River region, many study participantsacknowledged the benefits of having a robust,collaborative relationship between the heritagearea and the national park.28 The resultingsynergy creates new opportunities that neitherthe park nor the heritage area could deliverindependently. One member of the universitycommunity noted:

We just think we have a model that ought to be

studied carefully, because I think the federal

government could obtain far more leverage out

of just [this] situation—where you have a na-

tional park embedded within a heritage area

and in proximity to a college or university.

Other study participants described how the heritage area and the park reinforce and comple-ment each other. This kind of cooperationhappens on many levels, ranging from joint programming to the development of a regional,heritage-based vision:

In my humble opinion, it’s also been most

successful in that [the heritage area and Cane

River Creole National Historical Park] have a

wonderful relationship. Oftentimes these are

people-driven, and the individuals in charge of

those two different entities today work very

well together. The other side of the heritage

area is that it’s a complement to the park. It

allows the stories that the park is responsible

[for] telling to be told in a larger area because

of the heritage area involvement. [The heritage

area] brings more hands to the table in getting

out that information and it brings more advo-

cates for the park. Again, the bottom line is that

the heritage area allows the culture and the

story of that area to be told better than NPS

could do in separate little sites.

The national park helps to anchor the heritagearea, and the park’s resources represent impor-tant elements of this cultural landscape. TheNPS also provides technical assistance in termsof site conservation and interpretation (includ-ing the capacity offered by NCPTT, as describedin chapter 3). The heritage area, in turn, providesthe park with additional tools for civic and com-munity engagement as well as a platform forexploring ways to link conservation with devel-opment over a larger landscape. One studyparticipant reflected on it in these terms:

There needs to be more education [about] what

heritage areas are and the incredible benefits

that heritage areas can provide to [the man-

agement of] federal lands. We constantly work

with multiple partners that are either repre-

sented on the commission or others in the

neighborhood. Federal lands for so long [repre-

sented] very distinct boundaries. But that’s not

how we can afford to do business anymore. To

make everything work, we’re going to have to

partner, and we’re going to have to build con-

stituencies that might not have been thought of

20 years ago.

Branding and credibilityNumerous study participants commented on thevalue that national heritage area designationbrings to the region as well as to their specificorganizational objectives. For many study partic-ipants, the designation validates, in an inclusivemanner, the history and experience of all the cul-tural communities in the region. Interview dataare particularly striking in this regard, and it is dif-ficult to overstate the credibility and significanceconveyed by national heritage area designation.One local government official explained it this way:

28 While study participants described the current relationship with the NPS in very positive terms, a number of interviewees alsoreflected on the challenges in working with the NPS. These challenges are discussed in chapter 5.


Does [federal designation] mean anything? In

the area that I represent it means an awful lot.

It means that Congress thought enough of the

history here to grant us a national designation.

It solidifies the significance of where we began

and the part we played in the history of this

country…It carries more weight to have the

national designation. It means somebody else

thinks it’s a significant point of interest other

than the people of the community.

Federal designation also adds value as a “brand.”According to study participants, this “branding”effect is extremely important to heritage-basedtourism and economic development. One long-time member of the business community said:

[Federal designation] adds that legitimacy to

everything I’m trying to do. We include the fact

that we’ve got a national heritage area and a

national park in almost every piece of literature

that goes out, every press release, every ad,

every radio [advertisement].

The value of federal designation means differentthings to different partners. Despite these differ-ences, most partners interviewed felt that thefederal designation communicates the legitimacyand credibility of heritage area programs, activi-ties, and objectives. One community partnersummarized it thus:

Well, it’s a recognition of the area’s cultural

importance to the nation.

4. A partner network Many of the commission’s activities and invest-ments have been directed toward building anetwork of partners. The Cane River initiative’sability to achieve its long-term goals depends

Plantation stores, such as this one atthe Oakland Plantation unit of thenational park, were gathering placesfor all classes and cultures. Storesalso served as an extension of earliereconomic oppression—laborers wererequired to purchase farming suppliesat the store on the plantation wherethey worked.

Jack

Bou

cher

, N

atio

nal P

ark

Serv

ice,

HA

BS/H

AER

/HA

LS


Advocate

Capacity builder

Opportunity creator

Catalyst

Communicator

Convener

Connector

Consensus builder

Coordinator

Credibility broker

Critical friend

Direct investor

Empowerer

Facilitator

Framework (or organizing

concept) provider

General resource provider

Glue

Inspiration provider

Idea generator

Information provider

Leverager

Networker

Navigator

Nucleus

Partner

Planner

Promoter

Sounding board

Strategist

Technical assistance provider

Roles Played by Cane RiverManagement

significantly on the strength and effectiveness ofthis partner network. This theme is defined bythe following subthemes: enhancing partnercapacity, partnership system facilitator, and keynetwork factors.

Enhancing partner capacityAccording to many study participants, CaneRiver programs play an important role in build-ing the capacity of partner organizations. Capa-city building can come in many forms. For someorganizations, capacity refers to their actualability to manage cultural or natural resourceseffectively. One study participant described theimpact that heritage area efforts had on hisorganization’s ability to do work:

[The heritage area] helped us fund our inter-

pretive plan [with help from] a group from out

of state. When the group came in and looked at

our historic sites, they said we not only need to

recommend interpretation, we need to recom-

mend management practices. So we are chang-

ing the structure of our organization to reflect

those recommendations…So [Cane River staff

members] are helping us to understand that

our focus is sort of shifting from educating

others to really realizing that most of our

resources go into stewardship of our sites.

For other organizations, capacity building refersto efforts aimed at improving organizationalmanagement and operations. Many partnerorganizations are small nonprofits that may lackprofessional experience and training in securingand managing grant funding. For these partners,the heritage area has helped increase their capac-ity to be effective:

Well, I think [the heritage area staff] makes you

aware that there are guidelines or parame-

ters…[For example], if you’re going to do a

project and you want to make it accurate and

make it good, you need to do it [in a certain]

way, as opposed to me saying, “I don’t think

we need to spend that kind of money on this

component of the project.” Well, that’s just a

personal call by me, and I have no background

to know whether that’s right or wrong. If [the

heritage area staff] comes in and says, “We’ve

studied that kind of stuff and we know if

you’re going to do it, this is the way it needs to

be done,” that helps us because we’re not inter-

ested in doing an inaccurate project and we’re

not interested in wasting anybody’s money.

That helps us make sure that the money that

we do spend, and we spend a lot of our own

money, gets directed the right way.

The strength and effectiveness of the heritagearea’s partner network depends significantly onthe stability of individual partner organizationsand their ability to deliver results. Building thecapacity of individual organizations can strength-en and improve the network over time. This, inturn, may increase the likelihood of leveragingadditional investments toward long-term heritagearea goals and objectives. One local governmentofficial put it this way:

We use [the heritage area staff] as a resource

quite a bit—even [in] projects that they’re not

involved in, we ask for their advice or their

input. We’re currently working with the fed-

eral government and the state government to

develop a rest area and an interpretive center

that would be located along I-49…at one of

the exchanges here in Natchitoches. Again, [the

heritage area staff] has been a big part in

working with us on that, and it’s a unique situ-

ation. It’s a situation where you bring local

government, state government, and the federal

government together, which is a cost savings

for everyone. And, at the same time, everyone

infuses ideas and makes it more workable.

Partnership system facilitatorHeritage area activities have helped to link acomplex network of partners (and their stories)in the Cane River region. This network is theprimary instrument for achieving integratedresource stewardship and community develop-ment goals. Many study participants describedthe role of heritage area management in thenetwork using terms like “facilitator,” “commu-nicator,” and “connector.” (See sidebar for the30 terms used by partners to describe the differ-ent roles played by heritage area management.)Several study participants noted the high valuethey place on the Cane River staff’s ability toprovide information. Some partners rely on thecommission and staff for seed funding or techni-cal assistance, while others use them as a sourceof information, a marketing tool, or as a link tostate and federal policy makers. The point is thatdifferent partners are connected in differentways at different times in a highly dynamicsystem. Interview data suggest that, as an organi-zation in this system, Cane River managementfunctions as the “system facilitator” or network“hub,” serving as the primary entity that commu-nicates, coordinates, guides, and encouragesnetwork activity. Nearly every study participantindicated that at the present time no otherorganization in the region is capable of replacingthe commission and staff in this capacity. Onestudy participant made the point in this way:


I think the other entities tend to be so factional-

ized and they tend to only represent certain

groups. I have not seen one entity that’s totally

inclusive. And, because of that, I think the her-

itage area can serve as a more level playing

field and I think that’s a critical component of

what it does in bringing voices to the table.

Key network factors29

Analysis of study data also suggested that threekey factors are essential for growing and sustain-ing the heritage area partner network into thefuture. First, nearly every study participant referenced the importance of time. It takes timefor partner organizations to build sufficient trustto engage in partnerships. It takes time for neworganizations to build enough capacity to beactive in the network. It takes time for more “traditional,” established organizations to seevalue in working across areas of interest. And ittakes time to integrate resource conservationobjectives with community and economic development goals.

Next, the ability to identify and procure sustain-

able sources of funding surfaced as another keyfactor for many study participants. The reasonsfor this are obvious—funding affects partner

organizations’ staff size, training and equipmentbudgets, and ability to make long-term projectcommitments. The constant pressure to securefunding may limit the effectiveness of someorganizations in the network because it is verylabor-intensive, thereby pulling limited staffresources away from project work.

Finally, system facilitation emerged as a third key factor. As discussed earlier, heritage areamanagement plays numerous roles in a complexand dynamic network system. The need forsystem facilitation is essential—failing to connectin the right way at the right time with the rightpartner can greatly reduce the ability of thepartner network to accomplish heritage areagoals and objectives.

B. Perceived ChallengesAnalysis of interview data revealed six issues thatare perceived by heritage area partners as theprimary challenges facing the Cane River region:(1) long-term funding strategy, (2) land use plan-ning, (3) institutional barriers, (4) visibility andrelevancy, (5) ability to access the resources ofthe heritage area initiative, and (6) independentperspective. The remainder of this chapter dis-cusses these issues.

29 While these key network factors are not strengths per se of the Cane River partnership system, study participants identified themas important elements in supporting the network of heritage area partners and therefore they are included in this section of thereport. See chapter 7 for a broader discussion of the critical ingredients associated with the Cane River partnership system.

The Old Courthouse, built in 1896, isan example of the RichardsonianRomanesque style, one of manyarchitectural styles to be found in the Natchitoches National HistoricLandmark District. Today the buildingis home to the Old CourthouseMuseum, a branch of the LouisianaState Museum and a heritage areapartner.


1. Long-term funding strategyAlthough the issue of sustainable funding wasaddressed in the previous section, nearly everystudy participant identified the need for thecommission to develop a long-term fundingstrategy. Failure to develop such a strategy mayreduce network efficacy. One partner explainedit like this:

My concern is that when the funding gets tight

we’re going to get scrapping with each other,

which will really hurt…As resources begin to

dry up, unless we find alternatives, it’s going to

be hard. I think we need to focus and I think we

need to be smart and far-seeking.

2. Land use planningMany study participants identified issues associ-ated with land use planning and development asa significant threat facing the heritage area. Thisis particularly acute along the river corridor,where development has increased rapidly overthe last five years. One study participantexpressed fear that there will be “too much‘Mickey-Mouse’ development” in the area.Another study participant described the situa-tion this way:

It’s a wonderful community and we have won-

derful resources. But we could wake up in 20

years and go, “Well, what happened to it?” We

need to figure out a way to help our commu-

nity keep our community in a way that people

really want it…The primary threat here is sub-

urban development of the river corridor, [and]

we are at a watershed moment. It’s great that

the heritage area is here, but it’s going to take

some hard, heartfelt action if we’re going to

still have it…In 20 years, it won’t be here at all

unless the whole community gets together and

joins hands and decides to do something.

3. Institutional barriersMany study participants highlighted the needfor the commission to better engage the policejury, echoing what the study team heard in theconversations and meetings focused on the her-itage area framework (discussed in chapter 5).Within the context of land use planning, zoning,and river corridor issues, study participantsnoted the necessity of the police jury being amore active participant in the Cane River partnernetwork, given its authority to enact and enforcezoning. In addition, many study participants feltthat the heritage area lacked adequate and/orongoing support from state government. Whileseveral state agencies maintain sites that are

active heritage area partners, there is a senseamong study participants that state governmentis generally ambivalent about Cane RiverNational Heritage Area. This relationship is particularly complicated by the short- and long-term effects of Hurricane Katrina. Two partnersportrayed these institutional barriers as follows:

[Heritage area management] needs to have

more interactive business with the parish police

jury. We need to engage them…We’ve got to

get involved with them and somehow get [trac-

tion] on the zoning and planning [issues]—we

can’t do it on our own.

We’ve fought for a number of years to try and

get some acknowledgment on the state level. It’s

not so much the money as much as being able

to say that we have everybody on board. The

state is not unsupportive, but some flow of

additional funds [is important] to be able to

argue that we have additional matched monies

locally to help continue the flow of federal

funding. We can make the case with the city in

terms of in-kind [contributions] as well as hard

cash, but we [cannot make] the argument in

terms of state support.30

4. Visibility and relevancyThere is a strong sense among study participantsthat the heritage area needs to become “morevisible” in the region. Some observed that CaneRiver’s federal stature may appear threateningin some locales, suggesting that additionalengagement with those communities mayincrease understanding of the heritage area’srole and mission. In other cases, study partici-pants described visibility in terms of marketing,promotion, and identity building. While the her-itage area’s activities have engaged a diverse setof partners, study data suggest that continuedeffort may be needed to broaden the relevancyof the heritage area. One partner explained it inthese terms:

I know what their strengths are because I

infused myself into the organization. I took the

time to find out who they were and what they

do because I didn’t know—it is a new concept.

I do think that the people in the historic preser-

vation field understand what the heritage area

is. I don’t think the general public does.

5. Ability to access the resources of the heritage area initiativeSeveral study participants noted that there areobstacles to accessing the Cane River initiative’s

30 As noted earlier in this report, the state legislature did include a first-time appropriation for the heritage area in the 2008 budget.This interview predated that action.


resources. This is closely related to the issue ofpartner capacity and experience, as some part-ner organizations do not have the capacity toapply for and manage federal funds. In this way,the partner network may be unnecessarilylimited. One study participant reflected on thesituation:

I’m thinking about the processes around

the grants. If you’re already professional-

minded…, it’s easy for you to sit down and

write a grant and know what you want to do

and how to compose it properly to get it

accepted. But many members of the African

American community don’t have [any experi-

ence] about how to go about writing a grant.

6. Independent perspectiveSeveral study participants described the need foran “independent perspective” on the commission’s

grants committee. This issue is, in part, a functionof the (comparatively) small size of the heritagearea, and the long history of historic preserva-tion activities within the region. The ability toprovide an independent perspective will lendadditional credibility to heritage area activitiesand investments, and is reinforced by the “criti-cal friend” role described earlier in this chapter.This issue also relates to the development of thenext generation of leaders within the heritagearea. One study participant observed:

There are the same people every time—they

need an outsider on the grants committee. It

doesn’t have to be the same outsider every

time, but it needs to be someone with no vested

interest. It’s a very small town and so we’re all

peripherally connected. So there needs to be

different people, and I really do think that they

need at least one outside person.

Increasing residential developmentalong Cane River poses a threat tothe integrity of the region’s culturallandscape.

Phili

p B.

Huf

fman


French and Spanish colonialism, including Catholicism, greatly influenced the Cane River region. The first Catholic church was associated with Fort St. JeanBaptiste. The Church of Immaculate Conception shown here, was built in Natchitoches between 1852 and 1889 and traces its history to the original congregationat the French fort.

Chapter 7: Identifying Critical Ingredients for Sustained Success 55

Earlier chapters of this report describe the ac-complishments of Cane River National HeritageArea, examine the existing heritage area frame-work, and discuss the strengths and challengesassociated with the partnership system. Buildingon the findings from these elements of the study,this chapter identifies critical ingredients for sus-taining and enhancing the partnership system inthe future. The ingredients are organized intofour categories: (a) structuring the partnershipsystem, (b) guiding the partnership system, (c)cultivating the partnership system, and (d) con-sidering the role of time in development of thepartnership system.

These ingredients encompass a diverse and com-plementary array of components and processesthat are needed over time to advance the heritagearea initiative. Many of these ingredients arealready in place and have been essential to theheritage area’s success to date, but not all arefully realized. The options and opportunitiespresented in chapters 8 and 9 offer ideas forhelping to fill some of these gaps.

A. Structuring the PartnershipSystemThe structural ingredients that follow constitutemuch of the collaborative framework for imple-menting the heritage area initiative.

• Management entityThe initiative’s success is influenced byhow the management entity and heritagearea staff operate and by the composition of the management entity. Ideally, thesecharacteristics are understood internally bymanagement and staff and also recognizedby partners and the general public. The man-agement entity must:

– represent in a balanced way the diversity ofkey interests associated with the heritagearea (i .e., cultural, geographic, economic,organizational, governmental);

– actively “steward” the mission;– transcend organizational and political

interests;

– inspire respect in its dealings with heritagearea partners, the general public, andthose who make up its authorizing environment;

– be perceived as having credibility and clout;– play a unique and necessary role as the

network hub, or “system facilitator,” in acomplex, multidimensional network (seethe discussion of “system facilitator” inchapter 6, page 50).

• Key governmental partnershipsStrong partnerships between the heritagearea and key governmental entities help to“anchor” the partnership system, therebyproviding stability. At Cane River, certain gov-ernmental partners are essential to achievingsuccess in the future and addressing the chal-lenges identified by the study team:

– the city of Natchitoches (partnership generally well developed)

– Natchitoches Parish (partnership not welldeveloped, but desirable)

– the state of Louisiana (partnership partiallydeveloped)

– Cane River Creole National Historical Park(partnership very well developed) andother arms of the National Park Service(partnership generally well developed)

• Partner networkA robust network of partners, representativeof the heritage area’s diversity, is essential tocarrying out projects and advancing the pur-poses and vision of the heritage area. Thisnetwork can also provide future leaders forthe heritage area.

• Community energy and a sense of localownership of the heritage area initiativeCane River National Heritage Area came intobeing because of local energy and leadership,which together resulted in a sense of owner-ship. This combination has been an importantfactor in the heritage area’s success to dateand will continue to be so in the future.Maintaining such grassroots vibrancy is an

SECTION III. The Future of Cane River NationalHeritage Area

Chapter 7

Identifying Critical Ingredients for Sustained Success


important theme in the sections that follow inthis chapter.

• Secure, stable funding from diversesourcesEstablishing a base of dependable funding iscritical to buffer the heritage area from theuncertainties of the annual federal appropria-tions process and to provide stability in plan-ning and carrying out projects.

• Mechanism(s) to leverage funds andresourcesThe ability to leverage funds and otherresources is fundamental to the heritage area model, and is essential for building adiverse base of support and strengtheningpartner involvement.

• Thematic boundariesHeritage area boundaries should continue to reflect thematic considerations rather than political or administrative considera-tions, and should encompass the core storiesand significant resources of the heritage area.

B. Guiding the Partnership SystemThe guiding ingredients work together toprovide direction and inspiration to heritagearea participants and activities, and help toensure that projects and programs focus onachieving heritage area purposes. Althoughthese guiding ingredients apply to the manage-ment entity (both governing board and staff)and partners, the management entity has aspecial responsibility for ensuring that theseingredients function in a way that effectivelyguides the partnership system.

• Guiding direction from overall purposes,vision, and missionThe purposes, vision, and mission of the heritage area should reflect the significance of the region; be realistic regarding commu-nity resources, needs, opportunities, and constraints; allow flexibility for the future;and provide a guiding direction for the partnership system.

• Broad, integrated visionA vision for the heritage area that is broad,integrates the various goals, and embraces the

Many African Americans labored inthe region’s agricultural fields fromthe eighteenth century to the middleof the twentieth century, first asslaves and later as tenant farmersand sharecroppers. The man shownhere plowed fields at MagnoliaPlantation, now part of the nationalpark.

Cou

rtes

y of

the

Cam

mie

G.

Hen

ry R

esea

rch

Cen

ter,

Nor

thw

este

rn S

tate

Uni

vers

ity o

f Lo

uisi

ana


diverse cultures present in the Cane Riverregion provides an overarching framework forengaging partners and aligning organizationalgoals. In such a vision, partner organizationscan understand how they fit into the overalleffort and how they complement the otherpartners in the network. The networkbecomes most effective and efficient overtime as the various partners better align thegoals of their organizations with the visionand mission of the overall network.

• Compelling storyA compelling story is authentic, encompassesthe history of the region’s different cultures,connects with local resources, and is relevantto people’s experiences today. Such a storyinspires pride and engages local partners andthe general public.

• Shared heritageA sense of shared heritage, which can be theresult of an inspiring vision and compellingstory, provides a base for community engage-ment and partner initiatives and an organizingconcept for collaboration.

• LeadershipPersonal leadership from the managemententity (both governing board and staff)—including vision, integrity, a sense of entrepre-neurialism, a willingness to take risks, and anability to think creatively—is essential to fos-tering a partnership culture and to buildingand sustaining the partner network.

• Capacity to leverage ideasA capacity to leverage ideas will encouragebig-picture thinking and entrepreneurialism,contribute to synergy, link partners in waysthat strengthen the partner network, and helpoverall to maintain the vibrancy of the part-nership system.

• Commitment to maintaining resourceintegrityThe cultural and natural resources of theCane River region, including the landscapes,provide the context for the heritage area’sunique stories and are integral to the heritagearea’s national significance. If the integrity ofthese resources is diminished or degradedover time, then the integrity of the contextand the ability to tell the region’s stories willbe diminished and degraded as well.

C. Cultivating the Partnership SystemIn concert with the guiding ingredients listedabove, certain processes and a style of leadership

help to build collaboration and an effectivepartner network. The management entity(including heritage area staff) is primarilyresponsible for ensuring that these processes andways of working operate within the Cane Riverpartnership system, and its leaders need tomodel the leadership style described below.However, evidence at other national heritageareas suggests that as the partnership systemmatures and evolves, partners often assumeincreased leadership responsibilities themselvesover time.

• Collaborative leadershipCollaborative leadership engenders an open,inclusive, participatory approach that helps tobuild trust in partner relationships. It includesoperating in a transparent, flexible, and adap-tive manner and interacting with partners inways that help them develop a sense ofcommon purpose and ownership of the her-itage area initiative.

• Commitment to meaningful communityengagementAn ongoing commitment to engaging part-ners, stakeholders, and the general public in meaningful ways is fundamental to thecommunity-based approach upon which heritage areas depend, and helps to sustainthe vitality of the partner network.

• Responsiveness to local needsBeing responsive to local needs and prioritiesbuilds and maintains strong community rela-tionships and helps to ensure that the heritagearea’s programs and activities remain relevantover time.

• Attention to leveraging the full potentialof the partnership systemWith the relatively small size of Cane RiverNational Heritage Area, it is essential to thinkstrategically about how to leverage the poten-tial of every player and every component inthe partnership system. This includes leverag-ing such diverse aspects as the clout of themanagement entity, the abilities of individualstaff members, the visibility of prestigiousawards, the strategic placement and connec-tions of key partners, the ideas of influentiallocal leaders, and funding.

• Commitment to building and enhancingpartner capacityRelated to the previous point, in an initiativepredicated on partnerships it is essential tobuild the capacity of partner organizations sothey can be as effective as possible. In addition


to enabling partners to better carry out theirown missions (which , in turn, contributes toachieving the overarching vision of the her-itage area), effective partner organizationshelp to create a robust partner network andprovide a “seedbed” of new leaders for theheritage area.

• Application of “governing by network”principlesIn a heritage area context, governing or man-aging by network involves managing throughinfluence rather than control. (See box on thenext page for more discussion on the conceptof governing by network.)

• Commitment to learning and adaptivemanagementAdaptive management can be defined as asystematic process for continually improvingmanagement by learning from the outcomesof operational programs.32 An ongoing com-mitment to learning and integrating newknowledge and understanding is an importantfactor for success—the more knowledge thatCane River’s management entity and partnershave about the partnership system, the moreeffective they will be in using that system toachieve heritage area goals and objectives.

D. Considering the Role of Time inDevelopment of the PartnershipSystemTime is another crucial factor for the future ofthe Cane River partnership system. It takes timeto build the necessary social infrastructure toeffectively implement a partnership system ascomplex as a national heritage area initiative. Ittakes time to establish effective individual part-nerships, and, because partner capacity varies,to build a strong network of partners. It takestime to integrate diverse objectives (e.g., linkingresource conservation with community andeconomic development) at a regional or land-scape scale. It takes time for the complex part-nership system of a national heritage area toevolve and mature.

With an ambitious agenda such as that containedin Cane River’s management plan, there is ofnecessity a strategic sequencing of projects, withearly ones catalyzing or setting the stage forthose that come later. As accomplishmentsaccrue and the relationships in the partnershipsystem become more robust, partners are able totake on more challenging, complex efforts—inessence the bar can be raised higher with time.As the partnership system matures, there is aneed for increased specialization, technical

32 B.T. Bormann, P.G. Cunningham, and J.C. Gordon, “Best management practices, adaptive management, or both?” Proceedingsfrom National Society of American Foresters Convention (Portland, ME, 1995).

Fragile elements like this historic fenceprovide substance and meaning tothe heritage area’s cultural landscape.The fence is located at OaklandPlantation within the national park.

Phili

p G

ould


All national heritage areas are set up through their authorizing legislation to work through

partnerships. Research conducted in national heritage areas has highlighted the importance

to effective management of using an approach commonly referred to as “governing by net-

work.”33 This requires shifting from simply managing a diverse array of partners to creating

and managing a networked structure.

Using an intentional networked approach involves, in part, engaging diverse partners and

stakeholders in ways that build a sense of common purpose and ownership in the ongoing

work so that partners become an integral part of the success of the heritage area. In the

most effective networks, an increasing number of partners over time align their efforts

directly with the heritage area’s goals and mission. It is particularly important to create a

management structure and policies that will channel the energy and capacity of the entire

group and build leadership capacity in both partners and managers.

The approach to leadership in networked environments is distinct from many other man-

agement settings. Some of the principles involved include:

• managing through influence rather than control, and understanding the key role of the

network “hub” or “system facilitator;”

• engaging partners through initiatives that catalyze further partner action and involvement;

• embracing an integrated, cross-cutting approach whereby projects address multiple goals;

• adopting a collaborative leadership style;

• applying lessons learned to ongoing management in order to improve the network.

Implementation of these principles relies on good communication, requires a flexible

approach, builds trust, and ultimately enhances shared responsibility and transparency in

network operations.

From Partnerships to Networks

33 Stephen Goldsmith and William D. Eggers, Governing by Network: The New Shape of the Public Sector (Washington, DC: TheBrookings Institution, 2004).

expertise, and capacity building in order tomaintain partner energy and general momentum.In addition, the nature of the relationshipbetween partners and the management entity

may change. Partners may be able to take ongreater leadership responsibility over time,which opens the door to further learning andstrengthening of the partnership system.


A successful collaboration among local, state, and federal partners led to the preservation of the bricks along historic Front Street in the Natchitoches NationalHistoric Landmark District.

Jack

Bou

cher

, N

atio

nal P

ark

Serv

ice,

HA

BS/H

AER

/HA

LS

Chapter 8: National Heritage Area Framework Options and Opportunities 61

Chapter 8

National Heritage Area Framework Options and Opportunities

To assist the commission, staff, and partners inthinking about the future of the Cane RiverNational Heritage Area initiative, this chapterexplores possible options for the heritage area’sframework. The approaching August 2010 sunsetof federal authorization and dedicated fundingprovides the commission and its partners withan opportunity to identify the most desirableframework and to pursue its implementationthrough legislative and/or administrative actionas appropriate.

The options presented in this chapter weredeveloped from several complementary streamsof information:

• conversations with heritage area commission-ers, the commission’s options committee, andstaff

• consideration of approaches used in othernational heritage areas and similar partner-ship initiatives

• reflection on the strengths and challengesassociated with the current heritage areaframework and partnership system (chapters5 and 6) and the critical ingredients for futuresuccess (chapter 7)

The full range of framework options is summariz-ed in figure 8.1 (see next page), organized underthe five major framework components describedin chapter 3. Several general points about theseoptions should be noted. First, many are interre-lated (e.g., decisions about the options related toCane River’s purposes, vision, and mission or itsgeographic scope could affect the desired com-position of the management entity’s governingbody). Also, some are mutually exclusive (e.g.,only one management entity would be chosenfrom the range of options identified), but manyothers are not (e.g., some or all of the optionsidentified for key governmental partnershipscould be pursued together). Finally, some wouldrequire legislative action at one level of govern-ment or another, while others could be pursuedadministratively by the commission and otherheritage area partners.

It is important to note that the study team wasnot charged with providing recommendations onthese options and has not done so. Instead, the

team worked to identify and analyze a reasonablerange of viable options to serve as food forthought about the heritage area’s future frame-work. It is now up to the commission and itspartners to decide what combination from thismenu of choices will create the most desirableframework for Cane River’s next phase.

A. Purposes, Vision, and MissionAs discussed in chapters 3 and 5, Cane River’slegislated purposes, along with the subsequentvision and mission statements developed by thecommission, provide the guiding direction forwhat the heritage area initiative is designed toachieve. As the commission and partners look tothe future, a number of questions related to thisguiding direction may be worth considering:

• Does the guiding direction encompass anappropriate and sufficient range of dimen-sions in light of the area’s heritage assets,resources, needs, opportunities, and constraints?

• Does it offer a safe, appropriate level offlexibility to accommodate future changesand growth?

• How does it compare to the scope andmandate of other national heritage areas?

• Do the vision and mission align sufficientlywith the heritage area’s legislated purposes?

• Are the commission’s authorities sufficient toachieve the guiding direction?

With these questions in mind, there are severaloptions to consider for possible adjustments tothe heritage area’s guiding direction and associ-ated authorities. Note that any changes to thelegislated purposes or management entity auth-orities would need to be addressed through fed-eral legislation, presumably as part of a federalreauthorization package, while any adjustmentsto the vision and mission statements could beadopted administratively.33

Option A.1. Add new dimensions to the purposes, vision, and missionThe commission could consider adding newelements that are not currently included ineither the legislated purposes or the vision andmission statements, but that connect with exist-ing heritage area activities. The two primary

33 Reauthorizing legislation to renew federal funding authorization, designate a management entity for the heritage area’s next phase, andaddress other aspects of the framework would need to be passed by Congress prior to their scheduled expiration in August 2010.


34 It should be noted that while neither natural resource conservation nor recreational enhancements are included in Cane River’sguiding direction, the authorizing legislation established that one seat on the commission would be filled by an individual with“experience in and knowledge of environmental, recreational, and conservation matters affecting the heritage area from recom-mendations submitted by the Natchitoches Sportsman’s Association and other local recreational and environmental organizations.”

possibilities that emerged during the study areconserving natural resources and enhancingrecreational opportunities.

Neither concept is explicitly included in theexisting enabling legislation or the vision andmission statements. However, in recent yearsboth concepts have received some attentionfrom the commission and its partners. They alsorelate to several current priorities including therecognized needs for additional attention tolandscape conservation and development ofsustainable heritage tourism in the region.34 Inaddition, it does not appear that any other entityis providing strong leadership on either issue inthe Cane River region. In many other nationalheritage areas, natural resource conservation andrecreational enhancements are vital componentsof the mandates, and evidence indicates thatintegrating them with other priorities can createimportant benefits, such as opportunities forbroader community support and engagement,and new synergies and cross-cutting relation-ships among partners.

On the other hand, broadening Cane River’sguiding direction by adding these componentscould spread limited staff and financial resourcesmore thinly, heightening an existing challenge,and could divert attention from the heritagearea’s core focus on preserving the region’s cul-tural resources and traditions.

Option A.2. Align the heritage area’s legis-lated purposes with its vision and missionstatementsAs part of a federal reauthorization package,the legislated purposes could be expanded toinclude additional aspects that are currentlyaddressed explicitly only in the vision andmission. The two most applicable concepts are:fostering compatible economic developmentbased on the region’s heritage assets, andenhancing quality of life for local residents. Bothare important elements of the current vision andmission, but neither is addressed specifically inCane River’s authorizing legislation.

Adding these concepts to the legislated purposeswould reinforce their importance and legitimacyas part of Cane River’s mandate, and couldstrengthen and clarify the connection betweenconserving the region’s heritage and enhancingits economic viability and attractiveness to bothresidents and visitors. This, in turn, could boostpartnership opportunities with other entities thatare focused on those topics (e.g., the LouisianaEconomic Development Department), and couldbetter position the heritage area to justify a shareof local revenue streams as an appropriate, sus-tainable funding source.

Some might argue that strengthening themandate for economic development could jeop-ardize the heritage area’s preservation efforts.

Figure 8.1. National heritage areaframework options and opportunities

Heritage Area Framework Options

A: Purposes,Vision, and Mission

B.1: conductboundary study

E.1: pursue continued federal funding through

reauthorization

E.2: pursue opportunitiesto diversify and stabilize

funding base

B.2: pursue changeslegislatively without

further study

B: GeographicScope/Boundary

C: ManagementEntity

D: Partners/KeyGovernmental Partnerships

E: Funding and OtherForms of Support

C.1: reauthorize existing commission

C.2: modify currentcommission

C.3: shift to newstate commission

C.4: shift to newcity commission

C.5: shift to nonprofitorganization

C.6: pursue hybridapproach

D.1: maintain and enhancepartnership with city

D.2: strengthen partnership with parish

D.3: strengthen partnership with state

D.4: maintain and enhancepartnership with NPS

D.5: develop intergovernmental

agreement

A.1: add newdimensions

A.2: align purposeswith vision/mission

A.3: align authoritieswith purposes/vision/mission


However, to date this does not appear to havebeen a major issue at either Cane River (giventhe inclusion of economic development in thevision and mission statements), or other nationalheritage areas with similarly broad mandates.The key is to seek opportunities for integratingpreservation and economic development goalsand activities in mutually reinforcing ways, ratherthan seeking to advance these goals in isolationor at the expense of one another.

Option A.3. Align the management entity’sauthorities with the purposes, vision, and missionAs described in chapter 5, some of the commis-sion’s authorized powers are defined somewhatnarrowly relative to the breadth of the purposes,vision, and mission. Specific authorities thatcould be broadened as part of federal reautho-rizing legislation include:

• The commission’s cooperative agreementauthority in section 402(d)(5), which is currently limited to “research, historic preser-vation, and education purposes.” (It shouldbe noted that there is broader treatment ofcooperative agreements under “Duties of theCommission,” section 402(c)(3), but this lan-guage is not carried over into the followingsection on “Powers of the Commission.”)

• The commission’s grant-making authority insection 402(d)(6), which is currently limitedto providing grants “to assist in the prepara-

tion of studies that identify, preserve, and planfor the management of the heritage area”(emphasis added).

• The commission’s assistance authority insection 402(d)(8), which is currently limitedto “assisting others in developing educational,informational, and interpretive programs andfacilities.”

The discrepancy between these authorities andthe heritage area’s guiding direction does notappear to have interfered with the commission’sefforts to pursue its mandate, and adjusting theauthorities to achieve closer alignment mighttherefore be considered a technicality. None-theless, it could still be desirable to address thismatter as part of federal reauthorizing legislation,thus ensuring that the commission or a successormanagement entity has the full authority andflexibility it needs to optimize progress towardthe heritage area’s purposes, vision, and mission.

B. Geographic Scope/BoundaryAs described in chapter 5, Cane River NationalHeritage Area has, on the whole, a boundary thatis tightly connected to the initiative’s core

stories—that is, it is based largely on thematicrather than political or administrative considera-tions. Having a boundary that reflects thematicconsiderations is one of the critical ingredientsfor success discussed in chapter 7.

While the existing boundary generally appears tohave been workable during the heritage area’sfirst phase, this project provided an opportunityto contemplate whether adjustments are neces-sary or desirable. In meetings and discussions,study participants identified a number of possi-ble boundary alterations. The study team hadneither the charge nor the capacity to explorethese ideas in depth, but did compile them tofacilitate future consideration as follows:

• expand the boundary to the north, whichcould include extending to the confluence ofthe Cane River with the Red River, to GrandEcore, to the Red River’s confluence withBayou Pierre, or to the Natchitoches Parishline on the Red River;

• extend the boundary farther west, perhaps to the Los Adaes State Historical Site or theAdai Indian Nation Cultural Center, encom-passing the Spanish Lake Lowlands, orexpanding the downriver area southwest of Interstate 49 to the Kisatchie foothills;

• adjust the boundary to encompass more ofthe city of Natchitoches, which could includethe full national historic landmark district, thearea between the landmark district and theheritage area’s existing downriver component(to eliminate the current gap), or the entirecity;

• expand the boundary to encompass the entireCane River watershed;

• narrow the current boundary by eliminatingFort Jesup State Historic Site as a satellitelocation.

Two general options were identified as a nextstep in considering potential boundary refine-ments. These options could be pursued sequen-tially or the second one could be pursued alone.

Option B.1. Conduct a boundary studyConduct a thorough boundary study to evaluatemore carefully the adjustments listed above andto identify and analyze other possibilities as well.A boundary study could be authorized legisla-tively as part of a federal reauthorization package,or the commission could initiate it administra-tively. The cost and duration of such a studywould likely depend on who will conduct it (i .e., through in-house capacity or with outsideassistance) and their familiarity with the region’score stories and cultural geography.


Option B.2. Pursue boundary changes legislatively through federal reauthorization,without further studyThe commission and its partners could identifydesired changes through a less involved but stillopen and public process, then seek to have thosechanges enacted directly as part of federal reau-thorizing legislation. The commission may wantand need to have some further, structured dis-cussion internally and with its partners aboutpossible changes, but this option would likelyrequire less investment of time, money, andenergy than a more formal study.

Under either of these options, the commissionwould need to weigh various considerationscarefully in deciding whether to pursue anychanges to the boundary. For instance, it isimportant not to dilute the existing tight connec-tion with Cane River’s core stories, while at thesame time ensuring that important aspects of theregion’s heritage are not left out. Also, there maybe a temptation to consider adding areas forpolitical or financial reasons, which might notproduce the intended benefit for the heritagearea and could compromise the close link to thecore stories and resources. With this in mind,perhaps the primary question in consideringwhether to make adjustments is this: Does theboundary as currently configured appropriately

reflect and encompass Cane River’s core stories,themes, and significant heritage resources?

C. Management EntityAs the 2010 sunset approaches, one of the biggestquestions facing the commission and the heritage

area initiative is whether the commission orsome other organization will serve as manage-ment entity for the heritage area’s next phase.Indeed, the authorizing legislation explicitlyrequires the commission to “identify appropriateentities, such as a nonprofit corporation, thatcould be established to assume the responsibili-ties of the commission following its termination,”and, prior to its termination, to provide recom-mendations to the governor of Louisiana and thesecretary of the interior on a successor. Withthese requirements in mind, one of the studyteam’s highest priorities was to propose potentialoptions for a future management entity.

The team identified key factors to keep in mindwhile considering management entity options:

• the entity’s ability to embody the essentialcharacteristics described in chapter 7, section A

• the importance of seeking and retaining adiverse mix of skills, backgrounds, andexpertise among members of the entity’s governing body, in light of the cross-cuttingnature of the heritage area’s mandate and the multiple roles that the management entity plays within the partner network (see chapter 6, page 43)

• the challenge of achieving the right balance of interests and the right mix of qualificationsamong members of the governing body, andassuring that this balance and mix will bemaintained over time, especially if the composition of the entity’s governing body isnot legislated

Fort St. Jean Baptiste State HistoricSite helps to bring colonial historyalive for visitors. The site is a replicaof the region’s early eighteenth-century French outpost.


• the need for flexibility to adapt to changingcircumstances—among the members of thegoverning body and the organizations theyrepresent, in the community at large, and inthe political environment at local, state, andfederal levels

• the ability and readiness to effectively fulfillthe responsibilities of the management entityby August 2010, without jeopardizing the heritage area’s forward momentum and thefunctionality of the partner network

The management entity options presentedbelow are mutually exclusive; only one wouldbe chosen for the heritage area’s next phase(although another might possibly be pursued atsome point in the future). Also, if the chosenorganization is to be federally authorized andrecognized as the management entity with theassociated powers and responsibilities (e.g.,receiving and distributing federal funds appro-priated for national heritage area operations andgrants), this would need to be incorporated aspart of federal reauthorizing legislation.

C.1. Reauthorize the existing commissionThe first option is to seek congressional reautho-rization of the existing commission, continuingits federal status and current composition. Thedesired duration of the reauthorization wouldneed to be identified—perhaps an additionalfive, ten, or twenty years to allow time for build-ing further momentum toward heritage areagoals, strengthening the partner network, andconsidering long-term options for managementand coordination of the initiative.

This approach would maintain the significantstrengths of the commission described in chapters 5 and 6 (e.g., formal, balanced repre-sentation of diverse interests; clout, credibility,and leverage; its ability to fill a critical niche that could not be filled by any other existingorganization). At the same time, pursuing thisoption would perpetuate the challenges associ-ated with the commission (e.g., the frustrationsand inefficiencies associated with the federalappointments process, the limitations posed by its legislated composition, and its inabilityto access funding from certain sources).

Recognizing its strengths and shortcomings,study participants appeared quite comfortablewith the possibility of the commission continuingas the management entity at least for the nearterm. At the same time, there has been a trendaway from federal commissions in recent years,and the majority of national heritage areas aremanaged by nonprofit organizations. However,

recent examples do exist of congressionalapproval of federal commissions. In 2006 theGullah/Geechee Cultural Heritage CorridorCommission was established (with an initial ten-year authorization), and the Blackstone RiverValley National Heritage Corridor Commissionwas reauthorized (for five years, or a total oftwenty-five years since its establishment).

Option C.2. Modify the composition of the current federal commissionAs an alternative to continuing the commissionin its current form, it could be reauthorized for aspecified duration but with changes to enhanceits effectiveness as a body representing the her-itage area’s full range of interests. This approachwould seek to retain and build upon the com-mission’s important strengths, while makingchanges to address challenges that have affectedits functioning (described in chapter 5).

A variety of adjustments to the commission’scomposition were identified during the studyprocess. The more general ideas include seekingcloser alignment between the commission’scomposition and the demographics of the CaneRiver region (i.e., more ethnic and socioeconomicdiversity), and creating greater flexibility in itscomposition so that all of the key interests arerepresented but not necessarily by specifiedorganizations. The more specific possibilitiesinclude:

• addition of an African American representative;• addition of a Creole representative;• addition of a representative from the Louis-

iana Department of Culture, Recreation, andTourism (This could be accomplished byadding a new seat on the commission or byspecifying that the governor’s existing discre-tionary seat be filled by a CRT representative.It would be desirable for the agency’s repre-sentative to be able to provide continuity overtime and to be well grounded in the range ofCRT’s responsibilities and activities that aremost relevant to the heritage area’s mission.);

• addition of a representative from theNatchitoches Parish Tourist Commissionand/or the Natchitoches Area Convention andVisitors Bureau, either by adding new seats orby specifying either or both of these organiza-tions for the two existing tourism seats on thecommission;

• addition of one or more seats for “at-large”representatives to help round out the diversity,expertise, and experience on the commission(A related issue is who would nominate thecandidates for these slots.);

• replacement of organizations that may not be


as relevant as they were at the time of thecommission’s establishment;

• term limits for members—for instance, amaximum of perhaps two or three consecu-tive three-year terms.

Challenges related to the commission’s currentcomposition and functioning that could beaddressed through this option include:

• the perceived need for turnover and “newblood” on the commission;

• the perception among some stakeholders thatthe commission is too heavily weighted to-ward interests in the city of Natchitoches (i .e., that it is too “town-bound”);

• the need to tighten key governmental relation-ships;

• the perception that some member organiza-tions may no longer be as vibrant as when thecommission was established, and thereforemay no longer be the best organizations torepresent their constituencies;

• the need for the composition to reflect theevolving community context and dynamics.

It should be noted that changes in the commis-sion’s legislated composition would not neces-sarily resolve all of the challenges that haveaffected its functioning and effectiveness. Theresolution of some challenges would be depend-ent on other factors, such as the individuals whoare appointed to serve on the commission andthe ever-evolving political dynamic with variouslevels of government. Other challenges, such asthe cumbersome appointments process andlimited flexibility to respond to changing localcircumstances, are intrinsic to all federal com-missions. Nonetheless, making modest adjust-ments to the current composition could addressa number of important factors and enhance thecommission’s effectiveness.

Option C.3. Shift to a new state-authorizedcommissionAs an alternative to the existing federal commis-sion, the Louisiana legislature could establish anew state-level commission with similar repre-sentation of interests. This commission could be designated by Congress to serve as the feder-ally authorized management entity for CaneRiver’s next phase if reauthorizing legislationgoes forward.

Two well-established examples of state-author-ized commissions that currently work with theheritage area initiative are the Natchitoches

Historic District Development Commission andthe Cane River Waterway Commission. Whileboth were established through state legislation,they each have a strong local orientation and donot have day-to-day involvement with state gov-ernment. Of the two, HDDC may be a more rel-evant model because it has a larger and morebroadly representative composition that is closerto that of the current federal commission. It isperhaps worth noting that both HDDC andCRWC have powers under their authorizingstatutes that extend beyond those of the currentfederal commission, such as the authority toacquire property and to issue bonds. Whetherthose or other authorities would be desirable orpossible for a new state-authorized commissionfor Cane River would need to be carefully consid-ered by heritage area leaders and their legislators.35

As with the current commission, this approachwould provide stakeholders with the assuranceof legislated representation of key interests. Ifthe right mix of interests were included, the newcommission could potentially continue thecurrent commission’s key strengths of filling animportant niche in the Cane River region andtranscending the individual agendas and per-spectives of its members. Shifting to a state-levelcommission would remove the administrativeand appointments challenges associated withfederal commissions and, depending on how theauthorizing statute was crafted, could simplify oreliminate the need altogether for an appoint-ments process. (For example, HDDC’s statutespecifies the positions represented on the com-mission and therefore avoids an appointmentprocess, while CRWC members are appointed bythe governor based on nominations from speci-fied interests.) Furthermore, it would avoid therisk of Congress not extending the authorizationof the current federal commission.

On the other hand, a new state-level commissioncould be affected more over time by politicalforces within the state than the current federalcommission. Heritage area participants wouldneed to evaluate the state-level political contextin the near term to determine the likelihood ofthe legislature’s authorizing a new commissionthat would meet Cane River’s needs. In addition,it is possible that a state-authorized commissionmight not command the same degree of clout,credibility, and respect that the federal commis-sion is perceived to hold (although if the newcommission were officially recognized as the fed-erally authorized management entity, this wouldlikely bolster its image and presence). It is also

35 HDDC’s authorizing statute, RS 25:791, is available online at http://www.legis.state.la.us/lss/lss.asp?doc=84579. CRWC’s authoriz-ing statute, RS 43:3261-3276, is available online at http://www.legis.state.la.us/lss/lss.asp?doc=92246 and subsequent sections.


possible that there might not be the same degreeof synergy and complementarity as currentlyexists between the federal commission and CaneRiver Creole National Historical Park, whichtrace their roots back to the same authorizinglegislation and which were explicitly designed tocomplement one another.

Option C.4. Shift to a new city-authorizedcommissionSimilarly, the Natchitoches City Council couldestablish a new representative commissionthrough a municipal ordinance. The Natchi-toches Historic District Commission, which isclosely connected to the heritage area’s missionand activities, is a well-established example of arepresentative body set up in this way. If reau-thorizing legislation goes forward, Congresscould designate this new municipal commissionas the management entity for the heritage area’snext phase.

Many of the potential considerations of a state-level commission discussed in option C .3would apply to this option as well, althoughpolitical considerations obviously would focuson the municipal context in Natchitoches ratherthan the state legislature. The city has been oneof the heritage area’s core partners throughoutits existence, and has a number of strengths thatcould help to support a new municipal commis-sion. These include its strong administrativestructure and the potential for closer ties andgreater synergy between the heritage area ini-tiative and the city’s relevant branches (e.g.,

Community Development Department, MainStreet Program, Planning and Zoning Depart-ment). In addition, shifting to a municipal commission would dovetail well with the her-itage area’s current staffing arrangement withthe city.

Perhaps the biggest concern about a municipalcommission is that it could reinforce perceptionsamong some stakeholders that the heritage areainitiative is oriented too heavily toward Natchi-toches. It would be essential for the authorizingordinance to ensure balanced representationamong interests throughout the heritage area,and for the city and other in-town interests toengage those downriver to ensure that the her-itage area initiative remains focused on the broadregional agenda and relevant to all of its diverseconstituents.

Option C.5. Shift to a nonprofit organizationAs suggested in Cane River’s authorizing legisla-tion, a nonprofit organization could replace thecurrent commission at its sunset. In reauthoriz-ing legislation, this organization could be desig-nated by Congress to serve as the managemententity for the heritage area’s next phase.

Nonprofits serve as management entities for themajority of national heritage areas around thecountry. They vary in size, age, capacity, budget,board composition, organizational structure,and other characteristics. Nonprofits offer anumber of advantages relative to governmentallyestablished commissions:

The heritage area assists in preserv-ing important historic properties inthe region. The Prudhomme-RouquierHouse, built about 1790, received aSave America’s Treasures preservationgrant through the heritage area.


• They are generally less bureaucratic and notsubject to administrative constraints such ascumbersome appointment processes.

• They can be more flexible and entrepreneur-ial in fundraising (e.g., by being better able toaccess private donations from individuals,corporations, and foundations as well as ableto generate revenue from sources such asproduct sales).

• They are not subject to legislated termination.• They are able to hold interest in land (e.g.,

easements and/or fee title), which can be animportant tool for helping to protect keyresources, conserve landscape integrity, andprovide recreational access.

• They can provide a mechanism, through orga-nizational memberships, for broadening thebase of people connected to national heritagearea management.

At the moment no nonprofit organization in theCane River region appears to be positioned orprepared to take on the role of managemententity. None of the well-established nonprofitshas a mission and scope (geographic and/or the-matic) of comparable breadth to that of the her-itage area, and study participants suggested thatnone could bring all of the diverse interests andperspectives together in the integrative, transcen-dent way that the federal commission has. It ispossible that the fledgling Friends of Cane Rivercould be nurtured to fill this role, but it isunclear at this time whether it will become aviable organization with a sufficiently broadvision and capacity to successfully take on therole of management entity. Alternatively, a newnonprofit organization could be created.

There are other potential considerations with anonprofit management entity:

• Many study participants felt that a nonprofitwould not have the same degree of clout andcredibility with governmental agencies andother partners as the current federal commis-sion has. The same could hold true, althoughperhaps to a lesser degree, with a nonprofitrelative to a new state- or municipally author-ized commission.

• It would be more difficult to ensure balancedrepresentation of key interests over time witha nonprofit relative to a governmental com-mission, since presumably the compositionof the nonprofit’s board would not be legislatively mandated but would instead be determined by the membership.

• Shifting to a nonprofit management entitycould create competition for funding withother nonprofits in the region. Some study

participants questioned whether the CaneRiver region is a big enough “market” tosupport another nonprofit. There are alreadya number of heritage-related groups in thearea, and many factors constrain the supportavailable to such organizations (e.g., a limitedpopulation base for potential donors, not asstrong a tradition of charitable giving as else-where in the U.S., a limited number of foun-dations in the region).

• As with a state- or municipally authorizedcommission, it is possible that a nonprofitmanagement entity might not have the samedegree of synergy and complementarity ascurrently exists between the federal commis-sion and Cane River Creole National Histor-ical Park, which has been essential to the heritage area’s success to date.

Option C.6. Pursue a hybrid approach thatcombines features of other managemententity optionsThere are at least two distinct hybrid managemententity options. Each is described and analyzedbelow.

Option C.6.a. Continue with the federalcommission for Cane River’s next phase,and cultivate and position another entity totake over at the commission’s next sunsetHeritage area partners could seek reauthoriza-tion of the existing commission for an additionalfive or ten years (through option C.1 or C.2).During that period, the commission and its part-ners would identify the most desirable alternatemanagement entity (e.g., options C.3 throughC.5) and move assertively to get that entity inplace, initially as an operating partner and thenas successor to the commission.

This process would need to be carefully plannedand implemented to ensure an orderly, effectivetransfer of institutional knowledge and capacityfrom one entity to the other. The Delaware &Lehigh National Heritage Corridor in Pennsyl-vania has pursued this approach successfullyover the past several years. Facing the secondsunset of its federal authorization at its twentiethanniversary, the Delaware & Lehigh NationalHeritage Corridor Commission formed a non-profit organization called Delaware & LehighNational Heritage Corridor, Inc., to assist thecommission and be positioned as its potentialsuccessor. The two organizations have beenworking together since 2002, with the commis-sion, its staff, and key partners implementing adeliberate strategy to build the organizationalcapacity of the nonprofit entity. This has in-cluded creating a board composition for the


nonprofit that closely mirrors the commission’smake-up, having a number of members serve on both governing bodies, and holding manyjoint meetings to ensure a viable transition. Thenonprofit has gradually taken on greater respon-sibility and visibility, and is now fully prepared toassume the responsibilities of managemententity.36

Pursuing this approach offers the advantage of aphased transition from one management entity toanother, rather than a more abrupt shift. The suc-cessor entity can be tailored thoughtfully in lightof local circumstances, and an orderly process canbe planned. In addition, during the transition theheritage area initiative can benefit from the com-bined strengths of both organizations.

On the other hand, orchestrating a smooth andeffective transition is complicated and time-consuming, and having two entities working intandem during the overlap can create a compli-cated administrative arrangement. Also, the heritage area initiative can be burdened by thecombined challenges of both entities while theyare working side by side.

Option C.6.b. Develop a nonprofit organiza-tion to complement the management entityand serve as a core operating partner inhelping to advance the heritage area initiativeThis would be a variation of options C .5 andC .6.a, wherein a nonprofit could be cultivated toplay a leadership role alongside the managemententity but without the explicit intent that itwould become the management entity itself. This scenario could be pursued in conjunctionwith any of options C.1 through C.4. Dependingon how it evolves organizationally, Friends ofCane River could be a candidate for the corepartner role.

Under this option, the nonprofit partner couldserve a number of functions to help the CaneRiver partnership achieve its goals and vision asfollows:

• provide more opportunities for diverse stake-holders to be meaningfully involved in her-itage area management at different levels,both through participation in the nonprofit’sboard and through general membership in the organization;

• increase the heritage area’s visibility in theregion and beyond, and help to broadenpublic understanding of its mission;

• advocate for desirable actions (e.g., fundingand policy decisions) by governmental entitiesand other partners;

• hold interest in land (easements and/or feetitle);

• help to access funding from sources that acommission, either federal or non-federal,would not be well positioned to obtain (e.g.,individual and corporate donations, work-place giving, product sales);

• offer stability by providing a back-up to thegovernmentally established managemententity in case of its eventual termination.

These and other similar roles could be valuableto the Cane River partnership regardless ofwhich type of commission is serving as manage-ment entity. However, there are important con-siderations to keep in mind. Care would beneeded to ensure that the nonprofit operatingpartner did not end up competing for fundingwith other heritage area partners. Also, it wouldbe important to avoid overlap and duplication of effort by the nonprofit and the managemententity. Careful forethought would be needed incarving out complementary niches for the twoorganizations, and close, ongoing communica-tion and coordination between them would be essential.

D. Partners/Key GovernmentalPartnershipsPartnerships with a rich mix of public andprivate organizations lie at the heart of CaneRiver National Heritage Area’s strategy. Of themany partners involved, several governmentalentities play particularly important roles in CaneRiver’s framework and have a significant bearingon the initiative’s effectiveness. However, asdescribed in chapters 5 and 6, some of these gov-ernmental relationships are well developed andserve as strong mutually beneficial connections,while others are not yet as firmly established.The study team worked with commissioners,staff, and partners to identify options for build-ing and enhancing these valuable relationships inthe future. (In addition to the discussion in thissection, other important partnership options andopportunities are addressed in chapter 9.)

Option D.1. Maintain and enhance the com-mission’s strong partnership with the city ofNatchitochesThe partnership with the city is one of the her-itage area’s strongest, and has been critical tomany aspects of the initiative’s success to date.

36 Further information on the Delaware & Lehigh Corridor’s organizational transition is available at http://www.delawareandlehigh.org/images/library/FINAL_NPS_CSI_REPORT.pdf


Small churches and their associatedcemeteries dot the Cane River land-scape. Many churches, such as St.Matthew Baptist Church (shownhere), provided a foundation for the religious, educational, and politicallives of African Americans followingEmancipation.

The challenge going forward will be to continueand reinforce this relationship in the face ofever-changing circumstances affecting each side(e.g., leadership transitions, budget pressures,political shifts).

One important element in meeting this challengewill be to maintain strong staff ties over time. Anumber of factors have contributed to the solidfoundation already in place, among them thelargely complementary goals and vision of bothentities, a history of collaborating on projects,and close working relationships between the twostaffs in recent years. With the current transitionin key staff positions on both sides (Cane River’sexecutive director and the city’s Main StreetProgram coordinator), there is an opportunity inthe near term to further enhance the relationshipas the new staff members settle into their posi-tions. (See discussion on transition managementin chapter 9, page 84.)

A second element in enhancing the heritagearea’s partnership with the city would be to seekfurther opportunities for institutionalizing therelationship. Here, too, a strong foundation is in place, with the existing cooperative agreementbetween the two parties through which the cityprovides certain administrative support, includ-ing employing Cane River staff. Establishing anintergovernmental partnership agreement wouldbe one possible mechanism for further bindingthe two entities together. This concept isdescribed in option D.5 below.

Option D.2. Strengthen the commission’spartnership with Natchitoches ParishAs described in chapters 5 and 6, the heritagearea initiative has not yet been able to build astrong, mutually beneficial partnership with theparish like the one it shares with the city. Withthe parish’s key role in land use planning andother matters important to the future of theregion and the heritage area initiative, it is clearlydesirable—if not imperative—to establish astronger, more effective relationship.

While it will undoubtedly take time and effort tobuild such a partnership, the commission couldtake actions in the near term to engage strategi-cally with the parish, such as:

• create a tighter connection and liaisonthrough the police jury’s representative on thecommission (or its successor), with regularreporting by the representative to both enti-ties at a minimum and with more strategicengagement;

• seek a closer relationship and regular commu-nication with the police juror whose districtencompasses the heritage area;

• initiate a regular commission presence atpolice jury and planning and zoning commis-sion meetings;

• engage both the police jury and the planningand zoning commission on matters of jointinterest;

• use the current leadership transitions in bothentities (e.g., Cane River’s new executive

Sonn

y C

arte

r


director and commission appointees in 2008,newly elected members of the police jury) asan opportunity for dialogue and building newworking relationships;

• pursue project opportunities of mutualbenefit, such as seeking assistance in develop-ing a sustainable land use plan for the heritagearea from the Center for Planning Excellence,a nonprofit organization based in BatonRouge that coordinates urban and rural plan-ning efforts in Louisiana (see also page 78 forfurther discussion on joint projects with theparish);37

• leverage funding from other sources toaddress mutual needs, thereby augmentingthe limited resources of both the parish andthe heritage area;

• develop an intergovernmental partnershipagreement involving both entities, amongothers. (See option D.5 below.)

Option D.3. Strengthen the heritage area’spartnership with the state of LouisianaCane River’s partnership with the state can becharacterized as partially developed at this point,and study participants have described the lack of clear, consistent state support as a significant impediment to greater progress. Evidence fromother national heritage areas suggests that astrong, “anchoring” connection with a lead stateagency can be invaluable in advancing an inte-grated vision for heritage conservation anddevelopment.

As discussed in chapter 5, a number of existingfactors provide a platform for building a strong-er, more synergistic partnership, including theconstructive relationships between the heritagearea and some branches of state government, thelegislative appropriation in the 2008 budget, andthe alignment with current statewide priorities asexpressed in the CRT plan, “Louisiana Rebirth .”Building from this base, there are many possibleactions that could strengthen the heritagearea–state partnership, such as:

• establish CRT as the official lead state agencyin the Cane River partner network;

• create a designated seat for CRT on the com-mission (or its successor);38

• seek opportunities to pursue specific collabo-rations that meet the needs or goals of bothpartners (e.g., linking with CRT statewide

initiatives related to Creole and AfricanAmerican heritage, development of a Louis-iana film and literature “trail” and birding“trail”);

• pursue the creation of a state-level heritagearea program within CRT, which couldprovide for more stable state support to CaneRiver and Atchafalaya state and national her-itage areas, and similar initiatives statewide;

• build ties with key staff in other state agenciesand seek opportunities to pursue need-basedcollaboration;39

• build closer relationships with the governorand the legislature, using opportunities pro-vided by the transitions in key leaders onboth sides (i .e., the newly elected governorand legislators from the area, and Cane River’snew executive director and commissionappointees in 2008);

• establish an intergovernmental partnershipagreement. (See option D.5 below.)

Option D.4. Maintain and enhance the heritage area’s strong partnership with the National Park ServiceThe heritage area’s relationship with the NPS iswell developed in many respects, anchored bythe close, mutually beneficial partnership withCane River Creole National Historical Park.Indeed, the strength of this local partnership hasclearly been one of the dominant reasons for theheritage area’s success to date, and is notablerelative to NPS’s involvement in other nationalheritage areas.

As with the heritage area’s partnership with thecity of Natchitoches, perhaps the biggest chal-lenge for the NPS relationship going forward isto sustain the synergy that has existed betweenthe heritage area and the park over the lastseveral years in the face of changes in personnel,priorities, resources, and other factors over time.Overcoming that challenge will undoubtedlyhinge in large part on the individuals involved,but there may be other ways that the NPS’s vitalinvolvement in and support for the heritage areacould be further strengthened and solidified.

One possible approach would be to seek addi-tional staff capacity to enable the national park toprovide broader assistance to the community andto heritage area partners. This could include addi-tional staff and funding support for interpretive

37 Further information on the Center for Planning Excellence is available at www.planningexcellence.org/about.38 As discussed in option C.2, whether accomplished by adding a new commission seat or specifying that the governor’s discretionary

seat be filled by a CRT representative, it would be desirable for the CRT representative to provide continuity over time and be well-grounded in CRT’s responsibilities and activities that are most relevant to Cane River’s mission.

39 State agencies that offer potential opportunities for such collaboration include Louisiana Economic Development, the Departmentof Transportation and Development, Department of Agriculture, Department of Environmental Quality, Department of Education,Endowment for the Humanities, Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, Secretary of State (for any area museums under its purview),and Red River Waterway Commission. (See option E.2 for further discussion.)


and educational programs, hands-on technicalassistance, and/or operational assistance. Thepark appears to have much of the authority itneeds to do this from its existing legislation, butit does not appear to have sufficient capacity toprovide the amount of assistance that studyparticipants indicated would be desirable.40

However, in considering these possibilities, it isimportant to note that study participantsemphasized the need to avoid creating anoverdependence on the park or diminishing thefunding or capacity for the heritage area.

A second possible approach would be to solidifythe heritage area’s relationship with and supportfrom the NPS’s Southeast Region and Washingtonoffices. Study participants suggested a variety ofpossible actions, such as:

• seek more frequent (at least annual) dialoguebetween the heritage area and NPS regionalleaders, through existing opportunities suchas the regional superintendents’ conferencesand/or separate one-on-one meetings;

• bring Cane River (and other national heritageareas) more closely into NPS decision makingon key issues such as budget allocations;

• seek opportunities for technical assistanceand other support to the heritage areathrough relevant NPS programs such as theRivers, Trails, and Conservation AssistanceProgram and the Conservation StudyInstitute;

• conduct occasional exchanges between her-itage area and NPS staffs to help foster mutualunderstanding of each other’s needs, skills,and contexts;

• explore opportunities in which the experi-ence and expertise of Cane River partnerscan inform NPS work regionally and nation-ally, e.g., in partnership-based activities andachieving meaningful conservation of lived-inlandscapes;

• consider other possible ways of providingadditional NPS staff support from the reg-ional and national levels to Cane River andother national heritage areas in the SoutheastRegion; for instance, study participants sug-gested the possibility of the NPS establishinga full-time national heritage area coordinatorfor the region (like the position that currentlyexists in the Northeast Region), noting thatsuch a position would be an appropriate useof the annual fee that the regional office hasretained in years past from the national her-itage areas within its jurisdiction.41

Option D.5. Develop an intergovernmentalpartnership agreementTo further strengthen relationships with its keygovernmental partners, the commission couldinitiate a written partnership agreement or mem-orandum of understanding that would bindthose partners (and potentially others) togethermore formally. The purpose of such an agree-ment would be to help solidify relationships andinstitutionalize the commitment of key govern-mental partners to participate in the heritagearea initiative. The document would be a broad,philosophical statement of shared goals and amutual commitment to work together in advanc-ing heritage area purposes, and need not beoverly long or detailed. It could also identify theroles and responsibilities of the participatingentities in helping to support the initiative.

Core signatories to the agreement would ideallyinclude the entities representing each level ofgovernment in the Cane River partner network:

• the city of Natchitoches (through the mayoror city council)

• Natchitoches Parish (through the police jury)• the state of Louisiana (through either the gov-

ernor, lieutenant governor, or CRT)• the National Park Service (presumably

through Cane River Creole NationalHistorical Park)

• the Cane River National Heritage AreaCommission (or its successor)

Other important agencies and commissions from various levels of government could also beinvited to join the agreement. Although eachadditional entity could make the agreement more powerful, it would add a layer of logisticaland potentially substantive complexity andwould require a significant investment of timeand energy by the commission and its staff, evenwith the core participants alone. Furthermore,there is no guarantee that the various partieswould all agree to participate, or that the agree-ment would not become watered down by thetime it was completed.

On the other hand, getting the key entities to signon would represent a significant expression ofsupport for the heritage area, and could help tomake their respective involvement more resilientto political change. The agreement could also bea powerful tool for leveraging further politicalsupport over time. Perhaps most fundamentally,the process of developing and building support

40 Providing operational assistance to partners outside the park’s boundaries could require broader authority. Cuyahoga ValleyNational Park offers an example in which NPS has this type of authority within the context of a surrounding national heritage area(Ohio and Erie Canal National Heritage Corridor).

41 This fee was not levied in fiscal year 2007.


for the agreement would provide a new opportu-nity for dialogue and relationship-building, espe-cially with those key governmental partners whohave not yet been fully involved.

E. Funding and Other Forms ofSupportAside from the future management entity, theother major question raised by the approachingsunset of federal authorization relates to fundingand whether federal appropriations for CaneRiver operations and programming will continue.Working with study participants, the projectteam identified two primary options related tofunding and other forms of support.

Option E.1. Pursue continued federalfunding through reauthorizing legislationThis option would permit continued annualappropriations to the heritage area through theNPS Heritage Partnership Programs budget.Such continued federal funding could be auth-orized for a limited period (e.g., an additional tenyears), or theoretically could be made permanent(although this has not occurred at any nationalheritage area to date).

As has been the case since the heritage areabegan receiving direct federal appropriations in2000, this funding would likely provide coresupport for ongoing operations and program-ming at least in the short term, since othersources of comparable funding have not yet beensecured. While there has been recent progress inobtaining greater support (e.g., the state legisla-ture’s appropriation of $110,000 in the 2008budget) and there are opportunities for expand-ing this in the future (see option E.2 below), itappears unlikely that other sources would meetthe heritage area’s funding needs in the next fewyears if annual federal appropriations are notrenewed.

At the same time, it is important to acknowledgethe current pressures on federal budgets bothgenerally and within HPP, as well as the ongoingnational policy dialogue about the nature andduration of the federal government’s role innational heritage areas. These are clearly impor-tant factors in the potential reauthorization offederal support for the heritage area.

Option E.2. Continue pursuing support froma broad mix of other sources, and seek newopportunities to diversify and stabilize theheritage area’s funding baseBuilding on the initiative’s record of supportfrom diverse sources (see page 29), this option

recognizes the need to reduce reliance onfederal appropriations and increase the supportcontributed by core partners and others. Thisoption would enhance the initiative’s ability andcapacity to achieve its mission, and wouldincrease its resiliency and durability over time.

Study participants and the project team identi-fied a number of opportunities to enhance CaneRiver’s funding and other types of support. Some of these sources have supported the her-itage area’s efforts in the past and hold promisefor additional support in the future, while othersare yet untapped by the commission. The studyteam did not have the charge or the capacity toexplore these ideas in depth , but compiled themto facilitate further consideration. These oppor-tunities have not been evaluated for potentialsignificance, priority, or viability, and they are not presented in any particular order relative tothese considerations.

Possible opportunities for further federalsupport include:

• Funding and other assistance from individual agencies for relevant heritagearea projects and activities

– Federal Lands Highways Program(www.fhwa.dot.gov/flh/index.htm), forroad and other transportation-related initiatives in or near Cane River CreoleNational Historical Park

– Small Business Administration(www.sba.gov/), for branding and market-ing initiatives related to local products andsupport for other heritage-based businesses

– Department of Agriculture (www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usdahome), for branding andmarketing initiatives of local agriculturalproducts

– Environmental Protection Agency(www.epa.gov/), for activities focused onenvironmental quality and restoration (suchas the St. Matthews School clean-up, forwhich EPA recently granted $198,000)

– Land and Water Conservation Fund(www.nps.gov/ncrc/programs/lwcf/), forthe acquisition and development of publicoutdoor recreation areas and facilities

– National Endowment for the Humanities(www.neh.gov/), for initiatives related tohistory, cultural anthropology, folklore, eth-nic studies, etc.

Possible opportunities for further state supportinclude:


• Annual appropriation from the state legislatureThis would build on the legislature’s fiscalyear 2008 appropriation to the heritage areaand would involve seeking ongoing supportfor both programming and operations.Future state appropriations to Cane Rivercould come through direct appropriations, orpossibly through a state-level heritage areaprogram if one were established by the legis-lature (see option D.3).

• Funding and other assistance from indi-vidual agencies for relevant heritage areaprojects and activities42

– Department of Culture, Recreation, andTourism (www.crt.state.la.us/), for activitiesrelated to historic preservation, tourismpromotion, outdoor recreation, heritageeducation, the arts, etc.

– Department of Transportation andDevelopment (www.dotd.state.la.us/), forscenic byways and transportation enhance-ments such as roadside pull-offs, bikeroutes, and the planned visitor center (andas illustrated by the $274,000 granted in2006 for the depot project in Natchitoches)

– Economic Development Department

(www.lded.state.la.us/), for communitydevelopment, branding, and other similarinitiatives

– Endowment for the Humanities(www.leh.org/html/aboutus.html), foractivities related to the fields mentionedabove in the discussion of the NationalEndowment for the Humanities

Possible opportunities for further local supportinclude:

• Existing local revenue streamsGiven the benefits that the heritage areaprovides to the region, a case could be madefor the local community to provide directfinancial support to the heritage area initia-tive. This contribution could be fundedfrom such sources as a small additionalincrement to the area’s hotel/motel tax, orallocation of a small percentage of the prop-erty tax.43

• Possible new local revenue streamsA local funding pool for the heritage areacould be created by establishing a new fee ondevelopments or property transfers within theheritage area.44

42 As discussed in option D.3, access to these types of opportunities could be enhanced by the development of strong working rela-tionships with key staff from the relevant agencies and by focusing on collaborations driven by the needs of the heritage area andits partners.

43 Other entities active in the Cane River region currently receive funding from the hotel/motel tax. These include the NatchitochesTourist Commission and the Natchitoches Historic District Development Commission.

44 Further research would be needed to determine what level(s) of government (i.e., city, parish, and/or state) would need to author-ize use of new or existing revenue streams to help support the heritage area.

Cotton was the cash crop thatbrought wealth to the Cane Riverregion. It remained the primary cropfrom the late eighteenth century tothe late twentieth century.

Phili

p G

ould


Possible opportunities for further private sectorsupport include:

• CorporationsCane River participants identified a numberof large corporations with a significant pres-ence in and/or connection to the Cane Riverregion that could be worth approaching forsupport. These include Weyerhaeuser, BoiseCascade, Alliance Compressors, Pilgrim’sPride, and Archer Daniels Midland.

• FoundationsWhile there is not the same density of charita-ble foundations in northwest Louisiana as inother parts of the country, study participantsidentified several foundations providingsupport to local initiatives that have a connec-tion to Cane River’s mission. These include theRapides Foundation in Alexandria, Louisiana(www.rapidesfoundation.org/site.php); theNational Park Foundation’s African AmericanExperience Fund (www.aaexperience.org/);the Foundation for the Mid South(http://www.fndmidsouth.org/); and theTunica-Biloxi Tribe’s Economic Develop-ment Corporation, Marksville, Louisiana(http://www.tunicabiloxi .org/economic_development_corporation.php).

• Revenue generation through a nonprofitoperating partner or friends groupAs discussed in option C .6.b, a nonprofitoperating partner could provide better accessto certain sources of revenue, such as charita-ble contributions from individuals and busi-nesses, workplace giving, and product sales(e.g., a Cane River National Heritage Areaguidebook).

The possible funding sources listed above rep-resent a mix of types. Many support specificprojects and activities, while some could pro-vide ongoing core support for heritage area oper-ations (e.g., continued state appropriations, asmall percentage contribution from existing ornew local revenue sources, and private sectorfundraising). None of these possibilities alonewould provide the heritage area with a stable,predictable base of funding for the future, butsome combination could significantly reduce theinitiative’s reliance on federal appropriations andenhance progress toward its vision for the CaneRiver region.

As with the other framework options presentedin this chapter, it will be up to the commission,staff, and partners to consider these and otherpossible ideas and then determine the appropri-ate mix to pursue in light of Cane River’s uniquecontext and circumstances.


Fishing along Cane River is one of many popular outdoor activities in the area’s rivers, lakes, and forests.

Sonn

y C

arte

r


Chapter 9

Other Options and Opportunities for the Future

In addition to the framework options presentedin the previous chapter, the study team identifiedother options and opportunities for enhancingand sustaining the Cane River partnershipsystem, grouped in three categories:

• investment in programs• investment in outreach and enhancing

partnerships• investment in operations

As with the framework options, these optionswere developed from several complementarystreams of information: conversations with studyparticipants, reflection on both the challengesfacing the heritage area initiative (identified inchapters 5 and 6) and the critical ingredients forthe future (described in chapter 7), and consid-eration of approaches used in other nationalheritage areas and similar initiatives. The studyteam is not recommending specific options;instead, it is presenting an array of ideas for consideration by the commission and its part-ners. The team acknowledges that the commis-sion and staff may already be working in some of these areas. Many of the options and oppor-tunities are interrelated, so some combinationmay best address the needs of the heritage area.Finally, decisions made among the options bythe commission may require trade-offs in termsof the allocation of limited staff and financialresources.

A. Investment in ProgramsAlthough the commission and its partners havemade considerable progress toward implement-ing the management plan, work remains, some ofit with significant associated challenges. In addi-tion, as the heritage area and its programs havematured, the opportunities for investment inprograms have shifted. This is in part becausethe “view” has changed in light of what has beenaccomplished, and in part because the commis-sion, its partners, and the Cane River partnershipsystem as a whole have developed enhancedcapacity and competencies. Some of the optionsbelow respond to the significant challenges thatremain and some to new opportunities that haveemerged, both of which categories are importantto future success.

Option A.1. Develop a long-term strategyand tools for cultural landscape stewardshipStudy participants repeatedly identified the

need to conserve the character of Cane River’snationally significant landscapes as the largest,near-term challenge facing the commission andits partners. The rural communities and agricul-tural landscapes on both sides of the river pro-vide an important visual and historical contextfor the heritage area’s stories and for the historicbuildings that have benefited from considerablefinancial investment by the commission and itspartners. The management plan implementationstrategy identifies the importance of culturallandscape protection, and the commission andstaff have taken steps to address this over the last several years. These include expanding thefocus of the competitive grants program toinclude landscape conservation, encouragingcompatible design of the entrance to LambreGin Estates across from the national park’sOakland Plantation unit, and completing theCane River cultural landscape guide, “FindingCommon Ground.”

With threats to the integrity of the downrivercultural landscape increasing, a long-term con-servation strategy is needed before the landscapeis compromised irreparably and the context forkey stories and historic structures is diminishedor lost entirely. Moreover, developing such astrategy offers an opportunity for realigning rele-vant partners in a more integrated way to helpaddress this pressing issue.

There are a number of steps that the commissioncan consider to address this land use challenge:

• Partner with an existing land trust fromoutside the region to conserve importantlandscapes in the short term, and establishlocal land trust capacity over the long termPriority landscapes for conservation couldinclude agricultural land, frontage along CaneRiver, key “viewsheds” for significant historicsites, and other open space. With no existinglocal organization available to work withlandowners on voluntary land conservationapproaches, it appears necessary to seekassistance from an established group fromoutside the area. Help could come fromnational land conservation groups withregional offices. Since all of the followingorganizations have distinct niches in landconservation, their involvement may dependon the character of the land and its resources,the project being considered (some ideas


45 See also page 73 for more information on this federal program, which is overseen by the NPS.

follow), and potential uses of the land as envisioned by the landowner:

– The Conservation Fund (http://www .conservationfund.org/southeast);

– American Farmland Trust (http://www.farmland.org/programs/protection/default.asp);

– Trust for Public Land (http://www.tpl.org/tier2_kad.cfm?folder_id=3129);

– The Nature Conservancy (http://www.nature.org/wherewework/northamerica/states/louisiana/).

In addition, the Land Trust Alliance could beof assistance in developing local capacity overthe long term (http://www.landtrustalliance.org/aboutus/index.html). The alliance spon-sors national and regional conferences andtraining sessions on all aspects of land trustwork, which could help the commission andkey partners learn about developing localcapacity.

• Offer workshops for landowners on conservation optionsWorkshops could provide information on theimportance and benefits of conserving thecultural landscapes of the Cane River region,as well as on various voluntary methods ofconserving land and what it means for thelandowner. This option could be pursued incollaboration with one or more of thenational land conservation organizationsmentioned above.

• Identify a supportive landowner with ahigh priority parcel who will participatein a pilot conservation easement projectLocating a willing landowner who is open toconsidering the donation or sale of a conser-vation easement could provide leverage inengaging one of the organizations listedabove. Such a project could be a potentialoutcome of a landowner workshop.

• Work with the parish and/or the city topreserve parks, open space, and publicaccess downriverEfforts to expand or enhance regionaltourism and recreational opportunities (bothland- and water-based) should be integratedwith a long-term land conservation strategy.Being proactive in this regard could help toensure that infrastructure development (e.g.,picnic areas, public access to the river, trailsor bike paths) occurs in a manner and loca-tion that is sensitive to the cultural landscape

values and overall quality of life, and benefitslocal residents along with visitors. Potentialsources of project funds and/or technicalassistance include:

– The state of Louisiana, especially federalgrants administered by CRT. One such fed-eral grant comes from the Land and WaterConservation Fund, which provides fundsto municipalities, counties, and recreationdistricts to acquire or develop property forpublic recreational purposes.45 A 50-percentlocal match is required (http://www.crt.state.la.us/parks/ioutdoorrec.aspx). Forother potential grant programs, see http://www.crt.state.la.us/DocumentArchive/grants/grantprogramsOLG-dcrt20071204.pdf and http://www.crt.state.la.us/ legislativeinitiatives/pdf/2007federal/smartgrowthopenspace.pdf.

– The NPS Rivers, Trails, and ConservationAssistance Program, which provides techni-cal assistance to community groups andgovernment agencies on specific projects toconserve rivers, develop trails, and preserveopen space (http://www.nps.gov/ncrc/ programs/rtca/index.htm).

• Partner with the U.S. Fish and WildlifeService to expand the interests of theRed River National Wildlife Refuge in theheritage areaThe refuge, established in 2002, has identifiedfour focus areas for land acquisition, one ofwhich lies within the heritage area along thelower Cane River. The refuge currentlymanages 600 acres of agricultural land usedby migrating birds and waterfowl along theriver. Partnering with the refuge and its“friends” group, the Red River RefugeAlliance (www.fws.gov/southeast/redriver and www.redriverrefugealliance.org), couldserve the interests of both the refuge and theheritage area.

• Cultivate broader understanding andappreciation of the significance of theregion’s resources among developersThe commission could build on its work todate (e.g., the “Finding Common Ground”booklet) by proactively meeting with develop-ers and related stakeholders (e.g., parish plan-ning and zoning commission) to explain thesignificance of the cultural landscape, availableresources, and the benefits of developmentthat is done with an eye to protecting the cul-tural landscape. Tools (e.g., an informativeDVD with case studies, a speakers’ bureau)


could be developed to educate developersand the public about the importance of thecultural landscape.

• Better integrate “bricks-and-mortar” historic preservation with broader conservation and stewardship of CaneRiver cultural landscapesThe Cane River region has a long and im-pressive tradition of historic preservationfocused largely on historic structures.Although the commission understands thenecessity of complementing this with protec-tion of associated cultural landscapes, thisawareness may be less prevalent amongothers in the preservation community andthe general public. It is essential to build aconstituency for landscape protection as animportant component of protecting culturalresources—in essence, broadening the “lens”beyond the built environment. The commis-sion could work proactively to advance thisperspective by bringing key people togetherto discuss the significance and value of cul-tural landscapes as the contextual backdropto the historic structures.

Option A.2. Explore tools and approaches toguide and manage growthIt is important to have local planning and zoningpolicies that reflect the vision of the communityat large and support conservation of the region’skey attributes. Tools available to communities tohelp reduce sprawl or development in sensitive

rural areas include conservation easements,scenic easements, purchase and/or transfer ofdevelopment rights, and tax incentives toencourage farmland retention. “Smart growth” is an increasingly popular approach to develop-ment that balances community needs with eco-nomic, environmental, and health concerns.Among other things, smart growth guides devel-opment toward existing settlements and awayfrom open space, scenic vistas, areas of criticalenvironmental importance, and lands valued bythe community. The commission could take anumber of steps toward guiding growth toprotect landscape character including:

• provide heritage area funding (and seekmatching support) for the NatchitochesParish Planning and Zoning Commission toconduct a heritage-area-wide land use study;

• pursue an “adjacent lands study” for CaneRiver Creole National Historical Park throughthe NPS;

• seek direct assistance from professionalorganizations with relevant expertise, such as:

– Center for Planning Excellence, which pro-vides services to Louisiana communities tobuild local capacity in community planning(www.planningexcellence.org/program/louisiana-community-planning.html);

– American Institute of Architects, whichoffers technical assistance services thatrelate to community and regional character(www.aia.org/liv_dat);

Cane River, once the main channel ofthe Red River, winds through theregion’s agricultural landscape.Development along the river isthreatening to disrupt long-standingagricultural patterns such as thatshown here.

Rolo

nda

Teal


– Southern Rural Development Center,which operates in conjunction with stateland grant universities and has initiativesand training programs focusing on ruralagriculture and community assets (http://srdc.msstate.edu/about/rdcenters.htm#);

– American Farmland Trust, which offerscommunities the tools and expertise to bal-ance growth while protecting productivefarmland (http://www.farmland.org/services/examples/default.asp#programs).

• Gather information on effective planning andgrowth management from sources such as:– Smart Growth Network (www.smartgrowth

.org/sgn) and Smart Growth Vermont(www.smartgrowthvermont.org)

– American Planning Association (www.planning.org) and its Louisiana chapter(www.louisiana-apa.org)

– American Society of Landscape Architects(http://www.asla.org/nonmembers/publicrelations/factshtpr.htm)

• Encourage participation by a Cane River teamin the national program “Balancing Natureand Commerce in Communities ThatNeighbor Public Lands” (http://conservationfund.org/node/458).46

Option A.3. Examine models and tools tostrengthen existing businesses and fosternew economic development that is compati-ble with heritage assetsEconomic development can happen in a way thatis compatible with maintaining resource authen-ticity and conserving important landscape fea-tures and character, but this rarely happenswithout the involvement of citizens who valuethe resources at risk. Economic strategies thatsupport the communities and cultural landscapesdownriver could be employed:

• Develop a Cane River “brand” thatcreates an identity for local productsA Cane River brand could be created forproducts that are associated with the CaneRiver area, recognized for their socially andenvironmentally responsible production, and/or related to the heritage area’s mission. AConservation Study Institute publication,Stewardship Begins with People: An Atlas of

Places, People, and Handmade Products,

provides examples of nationally designatedareas that have developed products that helppreserve traditional land uses and culturallandscapes.47 For example, Cuyahoga ValleyNational Park in Ohio has established theCuyahoga Countryside Initiative to advanceprivate, economically viable, and environ-mentally friendly approaches to agriculturalpractices on land within the park that had tra-ditionally been farmland. The initiative, apartnership between the national park, a non-profit organization, and area farmers, is“developing a network of sustainable farms,value-added strategies, and new markets fortheir products.”48 While the initiative takesplace on publicly owned land, many of theideas could be adapted to the Cane Riverregion. The necessary vision, leadership, andability to bring people together around suchideas can all be provided by the commission.

• Foster compatible and sustainable agri-cultural efforts that support the localresource-based economySupporting local production through initia-tives such as community supported agricul-ture (CSA) and farmers’ markets helps tokeep agricultural land in use.49 The impetusfor initiating demonstration CSA farmingmight lie in a paragraph of Cane River CreoleNational Historical Park’s general manage-ment plan and environmental impact state-ment, which refers to returning some of the[federal] acreage to agriculture, either fordemonstration purposes or for lease.50

• Support local, value-added products thatare high-quality, produced in a mannerconsistent with conservation goals, andassociated with placeThis step could be taken in addition to estab-lishing a specific Cane River “brand” (or only in the short term, until the brand isestablished). The heritage area initiative couldhelp in various ways, such as facilitating theflow of ideas and information, providing mar-keting and business development assistance,or offering low-interest loans for start-upenterprises. Examples of existing local prod-ucts associated with place include Cane Riverbasketry, Cane River pecans, and the cardsand books sold at Melrose Plantation display-ing Clementine Hunter’s artwork.

46The Conservation Study Institute is a partner, along with The Conservation Fund and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, in thisnational program.

47 Available from the Conservation Study Institute by emailing [email protected]. 48 For more information, go to http://www.nps.gov/archive/cuva/management/countryside/countrysideinitiative.pdf. 49 For more on community supported agriculture, see http://www.nal.usda.gov/afsic/pubs/csa/csadef.shtml.50 Cane River Creole National Historical Park General Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement, page 68.


Option A.4. Seek a multiple-property listingon the National Register of Historic Placesfor historic resources downriverThis option would focus attention on the arrayof cultural resources downriver (e.g., the culturallandscape, prehistoric through historic archeo-logical resources, historic properties) and help toconvey the integrated nature of Cane River’s her-itage assets. The document produced for thenomination would be an important resource andcontextual statement.

Option A.5. Support implementation of designguidelines for the Waterwell Road corridorThe commission and the city of Natchitochespartnered to develop these guidelines two yearsago following annexation of the I-49 interchangeand corridor by the city.

Option A.6. Capitalize on interpretive andmarketing opportunities to connect CaneRiver stories more broadlyOpportunities exist to connect Cane River storieswith initiatives beyond the region in ways that

could enhance tourism, broaden partnerships,and attract new audiences. Possibilities includecollaborating with Atchafalaya National HeritageArea; linking with Creole initiatives elsewhere in Louisiana and beyond; highlighting the CaneRiver region’s Civil War and World War II her-itages; and connecting with initiatives related tothe El Camino Real de los Tejas NationalHistoric Trail, the Louisiana African AmericanHeritage Trail, and the development of Frenchcolonial heritage in Missouri . (See also the CRTstatewide initiatives mentioned in chapter 8,option D.3.)

Option A.7. Participate in the establishmentof a regional collections conservation centerThis option would involve collaborating withCane River Creole National Historical Park, theNational Center for Preservation Technology andTraining, and Northwestern State University. Theresult would be a facility to care for NSU’sWilliamson Museum collection as well as theextensive historical collections received by theNPS with the Oakland and Magnolia Plantations.

Archeological research contributes tounderstanding the history of the her-itage area and the people who havelived here over time. This excavationat Melrose Plantation was undertak-en collaboratively with the UniversityCollege London, Northwestern StateUniversity of Louisiana, NationalCenter for Preservation Technologyand Training, and Association for thePreservation of Historic Natchitoches.

Sonn

y C

arte

r


B. Investment in Outreach andEnhancing PartnershipsThe commission works very effectively withdiverse partners in carrying out the heritagearea’s purposes. However, with the natural ebband flow of partner involvement in heritage areanetworks, frequent turnover in partner staff andvolunteers, and new opportunities for partner-ships, the commission might consider developinga strategic approach for ongoing partner engage-ment and outreach to ensure the strongest possi-ble network. There are various options thatwould fit into such an approach.

Option B.1. Develop a strategy for buildingand sustaining relationships with key stake-holders who are not yet fully engagedThis could include preparing materials targetedto different interests to make a case for enhancedcollaboration (i.e., explain the value the heritagearea brings to the region and identify commonobjectives, mutual benefits of collaboration, andspecific ideas for advancing shared concerns.)Key stakeholders not yet fully engaged in the her-itage area initiative include:

• the Natchitoches Parish Police Jury andNatchitoches Parish Planning and ZoningCommission, both essential to addressing thechallenges to the downriver landscapes (see

chapter 8, option D.2 for more discussion);• the African American community (recent

progress provides a platform for enhancing re-lationships with this important partner group);

• the business community and others involvedwith community and economic development.

Option B.2. Develop a strategy for strengthen-ing leadership skills and capacity in partnerorganizationsThis option would build depth and resiliencyin the partner network and help to cultivate thenext generation of leaders. Seeking opportuni-ties to enhance citizens’ abilities to lead withintheir communities and organizations wouldcomplement the commission’s project-relatedcapacity building through the grants program.Some national heritage areas have developedtheir own leadership training programs.51

Partnering with the newly designated Atcha-falaya National Heritage Area might provide an opportunity to develop specialized trainingbecause of the increased number of potentialparticipants (and could also help to leverage theresources needed to initiate a trainingprogram). There may also be opportunities todevelop specialized leadership training throughNSU’s heritage resources program or a specificheritage track within the following leadershipdevelopment programs:

51 See Leadership Blackstone Valley at www.blackstonevalley.org/leadership .

Agricultural fields contribute to CaneRiver’s special sense of place. On theright, Donald Balthazar rides alongstraight rows of young cotton.

Phili

p G

ould


• Community Development Works, offeredthrough the Rapides Foundation (www.communitydevelopmentworks.org);

• Leadership Louisiana, a one-year leadershipdevelopment program for emerging commu-nity leaders, offered by the Council for aBetter Louisiana (www.cabl.org/leadership);

• Southern Rural Development Center’s com-munity leadership training programs, offeredthrough state land grant universities in con-junction with the Pew Partnership for CivicChange’s LeadershipPlenty® Institute (http://srdc.msstate.edu/focusareas/civic/civic.htm andwww.pew-partnership.org/ lpinstitute.html);

• Heritage Development Institute’s trainingprograms (both basic and advanced levels)for people working in heritage development,coordinated through the Alliance of NationalHeritage Areas and the HeritageDevelopment Partnership (http://www.heritagedevelopmentinstitute.org/home).

Option B.3. Pursue closer partnership withAtchafalaya National Heritage AreaIn addition to leadership training, numerousopportunities exist to work collaboratively withAtchafalaya, including efforts at both the stateand federal levels that would benefit the two her-itage areas (e.g., establishing a state program onheritage areas; coordinating efforts to enhancerelationships with the NPS at the regional leveland in Washington, D.C., as discussed in chapter8, option D.4; and jointly cultivating relation-ships with Louisiana’s congressional delegation).Closer to home, the two heritage areas couldbuild peer relationships among members of theirstaffs, participate informally in each other’s com-mission meetings and public events, arrangereciprocal site visits, and pursue joint program-ming opportunities in overlapping subject areas.

Option B.4. Further capitalize on the substan-tial federal presence in the Cane River regionThe scale of the federal presence is unusual for aregion of this size. Although some regionalmanagers of the area’s federal agencies meetperiodically, there may be additional unrealizedopportunities to provide (1) combined clout,resources, and expertise to address pressingchallenges (e.g., landscape conservation), (2)closer coordination of services (with the heritagearea serving as an umbrella for better integration),and (3) further opportunities to weave storiestogether at exhibits and in public materials.

Option B.5. Provide additional leadershipfor partnership opportunities related torecreational enhancements

Possible enhancements such as a bike path,walking trails, a greenway along the river corri-dor, and water-based recreation represent unre-alized potential for both residents and visitors.Development of recreational opportunitieswould result in locations for interpretive kiosksto raise awareness of the heritage area andwould broaden the community developmentpotential for related services (e.g., food servicesdownriver, bike and boat rental facilities, use ofcentralized transportation). (See chapter 8,option A.1 for discussion on refining the heritagearea purposes, vision, and mission to includerecreation.)

Option B.6. Provide additional leadershipfor partnership opportunities and activitiesrelated to conservation of natural resourcesand prime agricultural landAlthough natural resource protection is includedin the implementation program of the heritagearea’s management plan, this has not been a high priority for the commission to date. Theattention now focused on landscape challengesraises a question about the need for closer attention to natural resources as an importantlandscape component. (See chapter 8, option A.1 for discussion on the framework option tobroaden the heritage area purposes, vision, and mission in this regard.) This option couldinvolve collaborating with local, state, andfederal agencies and the private sector on initia-tives related to these important resources. Onepossible joint initiative could be to conduct anatural heritage inventory within the heritagearea boundary to identify the types, locations,and significance of natural communities andwildlife habitats.

Option B.7. Publicize research opportunitiesnationally to the academic and otherresearch communitiesThis option could be pursued jointly withNorthwestern State University, the CreoleHeritage Center, and the National Center forPreservation Technology and Training. Theresearch conducted to date on Cane River’s heritage assets has added considerably to understanding of the interaction of cultures and traditions over time. No doubt much morecan be learned.

Option B.8. Seek opportunities to work withothers to engage more broadly with the general publicThe experience at some national parks suggestthat investing in opportunities to engage morebroadly with the public can lead to greater


participation in heritage area activities.52 Also,initiatives led by others might offer an opportu-nity for the heritage area to involve people whomight not otherwise be focused on the heritagearea’s core stories. Examples includeNatchitoches’s upcoming tricentennial in2013–2014, and activities related to the develop-ment of the Louisiana State Museum,Natchitoches Events Center, Louisiana Hall ofFame, and the new downtown hotel complex.

C. Investment in OperationsThere are steps the commission could take toimprove heritage area operations and enhance its ability to govern effectively in a “networked”environment. (See page 59 for more discussionon “governing by network.”)

Option C.1. Initiate measures to facilitate acommon understanding of commission rolesand responsibilities on the part of commis-sioners and the organizations they representStudy participants identified the need for commissioners to (1) have close ties to theorganizations they are appointed to represent,(2) understand the roles and responsibilities ofa commissioner, and (3) actively participate incommission meetings and initiatives. Steps thatcould be taken to address these concernsinclude:

• identify desired qualifications for potentialcommissioners and clarify expectations, roles,and responsibilities (including effectively rep-resenting the constituency on whose behalfthey have been nominated and acting as aneffective communication link) and convey thisinformation to nominating bodies;

• provide a primer for commissioners and theorganizations they represent that offers ageneral overview of “governing by network”and outlines the expectations, roles, andresponsibilities of commissioners within this context;

• develop a strategy for ongoing education andengagement of all commissioners and proxies,which could include an orientation course;periodic refreshers on heritage area history,policies, and process; and annual visioningand work planning. This strategy shouldinclude a process for transferring the knowl-edge gained by commissioners to the organi-zations they represent.

Option C.2. Develop a strategy for dealingeffectively with transitions

With inevitable changes in key partners, commis-sioners, and heritage area staff—and possibly ashift to a new management entity—it is critical toensure both the smooth functioning of ongoingprograms and partner relationships and themaintenance and transfer of institutional knowl-edge. Specific steps relevant to transitions in keyleaders are to:

• maintain network functionality and under-stand the essential roles the managemententity must continue to play as the primarynetwork hub;

• model existing staff relationships that havebeen key to success;

• convene meetings both internally and withpartners to discuss major transitions and min-imization of disruption to operations.

It is important to agree on a transparentapproach to planning for and managing transi-tions so that incoming leaders have ready accessto knowledge of the current situation (includingprior commitments and agreements) as well asan understanding of the key issues, priorities,and opportunities. This report, for example,could be of use in upcoming leadership shifts.

Option C.3. Conduct periodic evaluationand visioning exercises to keep programsand operations fresh and relevantWith the heritage area constantly evolving andmaturing, it is essential to use adaptive manage-ment (i .e., applying lessons learned to improvethe partnership system) to maintain and en-hance effectiveness. The commission coulddevelop a process for periodically assessing pro-grams and operations and deciding on actionsbased on how things have evolved. Such aprocess could include visioning sessions; reviewof the management plan, highlighting accom-plishments and prioritizing needs and actions;and development of a short-term strategic planto capitalize on unanticipated opportunities.

Option C.4. Develop a better system fortracking the impacts of the grants programand the leverage from grants and commission-initiated projectsDemonstrating leverage has become a measureof success that can be used in fundraising, but atracking system that makes this informationaccessible is essential. Such a system could alsodocument project impacts and outcomes of boththe grants program and commission-initiatedprojects, which would also have fundraising

52 As an example, Golden Gate National Parks Conservancy in San Francisco, a cooperating association for Golden Gate NationalRecreation Area, provides numerous volunteer opportunities through diverse park-related initiatives. See http://www .parksconservancy.org/our_work/index.asp.


value. One specific example highlights this needfor documentation: the funding provided by thecommission to the Creole Heritage Centerbetween 2003 and 2007. These funds, whichwere provided for CHC operations and pro-grams, represent a significant investment and theprimary means by which the commission hasinvested in Creole-related projects. The commis-sion funding has provided CHC with capacity itwould not otherwise have had to advance initia-tives contributing to the heritage area’s visionand mission. Without a mechanism for docu-menting the use of these funds and the resultingimpacts, it has been difficult to estimate accuratelythe full extent of the commission’s accomplish-ments in the Creole community.

Option C.5. Depending on funding, considerexpansion of staff capacity to meet wide-ranging demandsIf funding is available, expanding capacity in theareas of development (i.e., fundraising) and

communications would help address the needsto expand and diversify funding sources andengage more broadly with the general public.

Option C.6. Change the structure of com-mission leadership to chair and vice chairIn order to ensure continued mobility in com-mission leadership, a number of study partici-pants suggested that the co-chair arrangement bechanged to chair and vice chair.

Option C.7. Update the NPS “specialresource study” done prior to establishmentof the heritage area and park in 1994This would provide an opportunity to reevaluatethe region’s heritage resources in light of bothcurrent circumstances and changes since theinitial study. It could also allow for an assessmentof broader theme-based linkages withAtchafalaya National Heritage Area, other NPSunits, and other heritage-related initiatives.

The heritage area encourages culturalgroups to uphold their traditions.Caddo artisans displayed baskets atthe Cane River Green Market withsupport from grants to the heritagearea from the National Endowmentfor the Arts and the U.S. ForestService.


Oaklawn Plantation’s oak allée is one of the longest in Louisiana. Live oaks such as these often mark the formal entrance to the main houses at plantations in theregion.

Phili

p G

ould

Chapter 10: Closing Thoughts 87

The growth and evolution of the Cane RiverNational Heritage Area initiative are clearlyvisible in its accomplishments and the progressmade toward achieving its established purposes.Key milestones have included the completion ofthe management plan and other planning efforts(e.g., the interpretive plan); the identity and visi-bility achieved through the logo, signage,brochures, and other information; the carefulrelationship-building with a wide array of part-ners and the solid partnerships with key playerssuch as Cane River Creole National HistoricalPark, the National Park Service generally, the cityof Natchitoches, and Northwestern StateUniversity; and the numerous projects that haverestored heritage infrastructure and helped tocreate a greater understanding and appreciationof the region’s multicultural heritage. Together,these and other accomplishments have con-tributed to a solid foundation from which toview the future and consider next steps for theheritage area.

Much remains to be done to achieve the visionlaid out in the heritage area’s management plan,and there are significant challenges. The culturallandscapes that define the Cane River region’snational significance and provide a living, visualcontext for its rich stories and important historicstructures are threatened by development that isout of character and scale and jeopardizes land-scape integrity. While relationships with theNPS and the city are strong, other organizations,institutions, and constituencies that are key tolong-term success are not fully engaged in theheritage area partnership. Further investmentsare needed to build partner capacity and leader-ship skills in order to keep the network vibrantand strong . More secure, stable funding sourcesare needed to reduce the initiative’s dependencyon federal appropriations, increase the resiliencyof the partner network, and enhance the abilityof the initiative to achieve its purposes. In addi-tion, there are contributions that the heritagearea initiative can make within the realm ofheritage tourism and development, includinghelping key actors to develop and embrace a

vision that fully integrates heritage assets intotourism opportunities and services. Heritage-based tourism can provide substantial benefits,but this approach requires that resource conser-vation and community development goals bedefined in complementary, rather than mutuallyexclusive, terms.

This study and the approaching sunset of federalauthorization and funding create an opportunityfor the commission to think strategically aboutmoving forward into the heritage area’s nextphase. Key considerations for the commissionand its partners will include deciding what man-agement structure will best position the heritagearea to be successful over the long term; whatactions will sustain a strong effective partnernetwork; how to incorporate lessons learnedinto management practices and operations; howto secure sustainable funding; and what projectsand programming will fully leverage the heritagearea’s partnership system.

There is much that can be learned from theexperiences and accomplishments of the CaneRiver initiative. The strong, vibrant relationshipthat has been established with Cane River CreoleNational Historical Park demonstrates themutual value in having a close associationbetween a national park and a national heritagearea. The synergy that has resulted from the heritage area’s partnerships with the park andthe city of Natchitoches demonstrates that theserelationships are models for public-private partnerships. The careful building of trust andrespectful relationships across multiculturalgroups, and the success in working togetherthrough difficult subject matter, illustrate to amuch broader audience the importance ofaddressing, not avoiding, such issues. Finally, thelessons learned at Cane River about what can beaccomplished by approaching heritage conserva-tion and development collaboratively areinstructive not only to other national heritageareas but to others working in conservation andcommunity-based initiatives across the nationand beyond.

Chapter 10

Closing Thoughts


Avrami, Erica, and Randall Mason, eds. Values and

Heritage Conservation. Los Angeles: The GettyConservation Institute, 2000.

Barrett, Brenda, and Nora Mitchell, guest eds.“Stewardship in Heritage Areas.” Special issue, The

George Wright Forum 20, no. 2 (June 2003),www.georgewright.org/.

Barrett, Brenda, guest ed., and Elizabeth Byrd Wood,ed. “Regional Heritage Areas: Connecting People toPlaces and History.” Special issue, Forum Journal 17,no. 4 (2003).

Barrett, Brenda, Nancy I.M. Morgan, and LauraSoullière Gates. “National Heritage Areas: Developinga New Conservation Strategy.” In Art and Cultural

Heritage: Law, Policy, and Practice, edited by Barbara T.Hoffman. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press,2006.

Borrini-Feyerabend, Grazia, with Dianne Buchan.Beyond Fences: Seeking Social Sustainability in

Conservation. Vol. 1: A Process Companion. Vol. 2: AResource Book. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN-The WorldConservation Union, 1997.

Brown, Jessica, Nora Mitchell, and Michael Beresford,eds. The Protected Landscape Approach: Linking

Nature, Culture, and Community. Gland, Switzerland:IUCN-The World Conservation Union, 2005.

Brown, Jessica, Nora Mitchell, and Fausto Sarmiento,guest eds. “Landscape Stewardship: New Directions inConservation of Nature and Culture.” Special issue,The George Wright Forum 17, no. 1 (2000),www.georgewright.org/.

Brown, Jessica, Nora Mitchell, and Jacquelyn Tuxill.“Partnerships and Lived-In Landscapes: An EvolvingU.S. System of Parks and Protected Areas.” Parks 13,no. 2 (2003): 31–41.

Burton, Sophie H., and E. Todd Smith, eds. Colonial

Natchitoches: A Creole Community on the Louisiana-

Texas Frontier. Austin, TX: Texas A&M Press, 2008.

Copping, Suzanne E ., Philip B. Huffman, Daniel N.Laven, Nora J. Mitchell, and Jacquelyn L. Tuxill.Connecting Stories, Landscapes, and People: Exploring

the Delaware & Lehigh National Heritage Corridor

Partnership. A Technical Assistance Project for the

Delaware & Lehigh National Heritage Corridor

Commission and the Delaware & Lehigh National

Heritage Corridor, Inc. Woodstock, VT: ConservationStudy Institute, 2006.

Crespi, Muriel (Miki). A Brief Ethnography of Magnolia

Plantation: Planning for Cane River Creole National

Historical Park. Washington, DC: Archeology andEthnography Program, National Center for CulturalResources, National Park Service, 2004.

Cultural Landscapes: The Challenges of Conservation.World Heritage Papers 7. Paris: UNESCO WorldHeritage Centre, 2003.

Degen, Paula A. Branching Out: Approaches in National

Park Stewardship. Fort Washington, PA: EasternNational, 2003.

Diamant, Rolf, Jeffrey Roberts, Jacquelyn Tuxill, NoraMitchell, and Daniel Laven. Stewardship Begins with

People: An Atlas of Places, People, and Handmade

Products. Woodstock, VT: Conservation StudyInstitute, 2007.

Durney, Christopher P., J. Glenn Eugster, and John W.Wilson. “Social System Complexity: New Forms of U.S.Federal Agency Involvement.” In New Horizons in

Research on Sustainable Organizations, edited by MarkStarik, Sanjay Sharma, Carolyn Egri , and Rick BunchSheffield, 100–126. Sheffield, UK: GreenleafPublishing, 2005.

Fowler, P.J. World Heritage Cultural Landscapes

1992–2002. World Heritage Papers 6. Paris: UNESCOWorld Heritage Centre, 2003.

Goldsmith , Stephen, and William D. Eggers. Governing

by Network: The New Shape of the Public Sector.Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution Press,2004.

Gould, Philip, Richard Seale, Robert DeBlieux, andHarlan Mark Guidry. Natchitoches and Louisiana's

Timeless Cane River. Baton Rouge, LA: Louisiana StateUniversity Press, 2002.

Gregory, H.F., and Joseph Moran. “We Know Who We

Are”: An Ethnographic Overview of the Creole

Community and Traditions of Isle Brevelle and Cane

River, Louisiana. Report prepared for Jean LafitteNational Historical Park and Preserve, 1998.http://www.nps.gov/cari/historyculture/upload/weknowwhoweare.pdf.

Hajer, Maarten A., and Hendrik Wagenaar, eds.Deliberative Policy Analysis: Understanding Governance

in the Network Society. Cambridge, UK: CambridgeUniversity Press, 2003.

Harmon, David, and Allen Putney, eds. The Full Value

of Parks: From Economics to the Intangible. Lanham,MD: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 2003.

Johnson, Ludwell H. The Red River Campaign: Politics

and Cotton in the Civil War. Kent, OH: Kent StateUniversity Press, 1993.

Klier, Betje Black. Pavie in the Borderlands: The Journey

of Theodore Pavie to Louisiana and Texas in 1829–1830,

Including Portions of His “Souvenirs atlantiques.” BatonRouge, LA: Louisiana State University Press, 2000.

Further Reading

Further Reading 89

Koontz, Tomas M., Toddi A. Steelman, JoAnn Carmin,Katrina Smith Korfmacher, Cassandra Mosely, andCraig W. Thomas. Collaborative Environmental

Management: What Roles for Government? Washington,DC: Resources for the Future, 2004.

Krebs, Valdis, and June Holley. “Building SmartCommunities through Network Weaving.”www.orgnet.com/BuildingNetworks.pdf.

Laven, Daniel N., Nora J. Mitchell, and Deane Wang,guest eds. “Conservation at the Landscape Scale.”Special issue, The George Wright Forum 22, no. 1(2005), www.georgewright.org/.

Lawliss, Lucy, Cari Goetcheus, and David Hasty. Cane

River National Heritage Area: Cultural Landscape

Inventory and Assessment. Atlanta, GA: SoutheastRegion Office, National Park Service, 1997.

Linden, Russ. “The Discipline of Collaboration.”Leader to Leader (Summer 2003): 41–47.

Linden, Russell M. Working Across Boundaries: Making

Collaboration Work in Government and Nonprofit

Organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2002.

MacDonald, Kevin C ., David W. Morgan, and FionaJ.L. Handley. “The Cane River African DiasporaArcheological Project: Prospectus and Initial Results.”In African Re-Genesis: Confronting Social Issues in the

Diaspora, edited by J.B . Haviser and K.C . MacDonald,123–144. London: UCL Press, 2006.

Martin, Brenden. Cane River National Heritage Area

Master Interpretive Plan. Natchitoches, LA: Cane RiverNational Heritage Area Commission, 2003.

Mills, Elizabeth S., and Gary B. Mills. “Slaves andMasters: The Louisiana Metoyers.” National

Genealogical Society Quarterly 70, no. 3 (1982):163–189.

Mills, Gary B . The Forgotten People: Cane River’s

Creoles of Color. Baton Rouge, LA: Louisiana StateUniversity Press, 1977.

Minteer, Ben A ., and Robert E . Manning, eds.Reconstructing Conservation: Finding Common Ground.Washington, DC: Island Press, 2003.

Mitchell, Nora J., Leslie J. Hudson, and Deb Jones, eds.Speaking of the Future: A Dialogue on Conservation.Woodstock, VT: Conservation Study Institute, 2003.www.nps.gov/csi/pdf/ speaking.pdf.

National Park Service. Cane River Creole National

Historical Park Draft General Management Plan and

Environmental Impact Statement. Washington, DC: U.S.Department of the Interior, National Park Service, 2000.

National Park Service and Cane River NationalHeritage Area Commission. Cane River National

Heritage Area Management Plan. Natchitoches, LA:Cane River National Heritage Area Commission, 2003.

National Park Service and Cane River NationalHeritage Area Commission. Looking to the Future: Cane

River National Heritage Area Management Plan,

Executive Summary. Natchitoches, LA: Cane RiverNational Heritage Area Commission, 2003.

National Park System Advisory Board. Charting a

Future for National Heritage Areas. Washington, DC:National Park System Advisory Board, 2006. Also avail-able at www.nps.gov/policy/nhareport.htm.

Phillips, Adrian. Management Guidelines for IUCN

Category V Protected Areas: Protected Landscapes/

Seascapes. Washington, DC: Island Press, 2002.

Teal, Rolanda D. Natchitoches Parish, Louisiana. BlackAmerica Series. Charleston, SC: Arcadia Publishing,2007.

Tuxill, Jacquelyn L., Nora J. Mitchell, and JessicaBrown, eds. Collaboration and Conservation: Lessons

Learned from National Park Service Partnership Areas

in the Western United States. Woodstock, VT:Conservation Study Institute, 2004.

Tuxill, Jacquelyn L., Nora J. Mitchell, Philip B .Huffman, Daniel Laven, Suzanne Copping, and GayleGifford. Reflecting on the Past, Looking to the Future. A

Technical Assistance Report to the John H. Chafee

Blackstone River Valley National Heritage Corridor

Commission. Woodstock, VT: Conservation StudyInstitute, 2005.

Wondolleck, Julia M., and Steven L. Yaffee. Making

Collaboration Work: Lessons from Innovation in Natural

Resource Management. Washington, DC: Island Press,2000.


Authorizing (or enabling) legislation: The law(Public Law 103-49) passed by Congress in 1994 thatestablished Cane River National Heritage Area, theCane River National Heritage Area Commission, andCane River Creole National Historical Park, and setforth the purposes, scope, and authorities of each entity.

Cane River National Heritage Area Evaluation andVisioning Project: The technical assistance projectconducted by the National Park Service ConservationStudy Institute at the request of the Cane RiverNational Heritage Area Commission to assess heritagearea progress and accomplishments since 1994, evalu-ate how the heritage area works, and examine optionsand opportunities for the future.

Cane River partner: Any public or private organiza-tion, institution, agency, or individual that collaborateswith the Cane River National Heritage Area Commissionand staff on specific initiatives that help implement themanagement plan; includes both formal partners (i .e.,those who collaborate through cooperative agreements)and informal partners (i .e., those who contribute toheritage area goals without a formal agreement).

Cane River partnership system: The overall array ofcomponents (e.g., federal designation, public funding),participants, and processes that interact as a system tomake possible the accomplishments of the heritage area.

Commission: The federally appointed, representativebody that coordinates the overall effort within the her-itage area. Established in the 1994 enabling legislation,the commission is responsible for implementing theheritage area’s management plan.

Federal reauthorizing legislation: Legislation intro-duced into the U.S. Congress to renew the federalauthority and funding authorization for Cane RiverNational Heritage Area, which are due to expire inAugust 2010. The legislation could also address otheraspects of the heritage area framework, such as redes-ignating a management entity and changes to theboundary.

Guiding direction: The heritage area’s purposes, asset forth in Public Law 103-49, and the subsequentvision and mission statements that together provideoverall guidance for the work of the heritage area com-mission, staff, and partners.

Heritage area (or Cane River) initiative: The com-bined body of activities and projects undertaken toimplement the management plan, together with thepeople and organizations that carry them out.

Heritage area framework: Collectively the commis-sion, staff, partners, purpose, vision, geographic scope,and funding and other forms of support associatedwith the heritage area, as well as the authorities grantedto the commission in Public Law 103-49 in order tocarry out its mandate.

Heritage area management: The commission and theheritage area staff collectively.

Leverage: Used as a noun, the financial and nonfinan-cial investments committed to the heritage area initia-tive as a result of an initial investment of funds. Alsoused as a verb, in which case it refers to the process ofobtaining financial or nonfinancial commitments to theheritage area initiative.

Management entity: The specific body authorizedthrough federal legislation to carry out heritage areacoordination and management (i .e., the commission atthe present time), along with heritage area staff.

Management plan: The guiding document for theheritage area, completed in 2003 through a participa-tory process. Articulates a broad, integrated vision forthe future of the heritage area, and includes an imple-mentation program with actions to achieve this vision.

Partner network: The diverse array of public andprivate organizations and individuals that work withthe commission to carry out activities and projects toachieve heritage area purposes.

Study participants: Denotes the partners, commis-sioners, staff, and other individuals knowledgeableabout Cane River National Heritage Area who partici-pated in the meetings, discussions, and interviews thatwere a part of this study.

Acronyms Used

APHN: Association for the Preservation of HistoricNatchitochesCHC: Creole Heritage CenterCRT: Louisiana Department of Culture, Recreation,and TourismCRWC: Cane River Waterway CommissionDOTD: Louisiana Department of Transportation andDevelopmentEPA: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyHABS/HAER/HALS: Historic American BuildingsSurvey/Historic American EngineeringRecord/Historic American Landscapes SurveyHDDC: Natchitoches Historic District DevelopmentCommissionHPP: National Park Service Heritage PartnershipProgramsNCPTT: National Park Service National Center forPreservation Technology and TrainingNPS: National Park ServiceNSU: Northwestern State University of Lousiana

Glossary of Terms and Acronyms

Acknowledgments 91

The study team would like to express its sincereappreciation to the members of the Cane RiverNational Heritage Area Commission, who asked us toconduct visioning sessions and evaluate their work.They generously shared with us their commitment tothe Cane River region and their vision for its future,and their thoughtful dialogue during the visioningsessions and other project meetings contributedgreatly to our understanding of the heritage area.

We are indebted to the Cane River staff, who gave sowillingly of their time in providing both context andinformation for this study. We especially appreciatethe contributions of Nancy Morgan and KatherineJohnson, who provided invaluable guidance andknowledge throughout the study. A special thanksalso to Patricia Antley, who provided gracious assis-tance in preparations for the study team’s site visitsand meetings with commissioners. We are also mostappreciative of the perspectives and guidance pro-vided throughout the study by Laura Gates of CaneRiver Creole National Historical Park.

Many commissioners and partners welcomed us,participated in study discussions, and provided us

with behind-the-scenes tours of the region. We areespecially grateful to those who shared their reflec-tions and perspectives during interviews, meetings,and visioning sessions, and to those commissionerswho served on the options committee. Your com-ments provided a wealth of ideas.

To those leaders whose vision, initiative, and effortsled to the creation of Cane River National HeritageArea, thank you for sharing your perspectives on howthe heritage area came to be. We also extend oursincere thanks to those people who served as projectadvisors and gave of their time in various ways andshared their knowledge and perspectives. We aregrateful to Chris Abbett, Suzanne Copping, and AnnVan Huizen of the National Park Service, and toBrenda Barrett, formerly of the National ParkService, for providing advice and/or reviewing docu-ments at various times during the study.

Finally, the study team thanks Jessica Brown and colleagues at QLF/Atlantic Center for the Environ-ment for their assistance and advice and for reviewing this report. Many thanks also to our editor and designer.

Robert B. DeBlieux, co-chairNatchitoches HistoricFoundation

Saidee W. Newell, co-chair*Association for thePreservation of HistoricNatchitoches

Kathleen Byrd, secretaryNorthwestern StateUniversity of Louisiana

James Durham, treasurerLouisiana Sportsman’sAssociation

Amanda ChenaultCloutierville citizen

Rufus DavisLos Adaes/Robeline area

Terrel A. Delphin, Jr.St. Augustine HistoricalSociety

Sharon GahaganNatchitoches Historic DistrictCommission

Laura Soulliére GatesNational Park Service

Steven HortonMuseum Contents, Inc.

Will JamesNatchitoches Parish PoliceJury

Betty JonesGovernor’s appointee

Gloria JonesLandowner

Victor JonesLandowner

Randy LaCazeMayor’s appointee

Jason StaggLocal tourism and business

John VandersypenCane River WaterwayCommission

Edward Ward, Jr.Black Heritage Committee

* Deceased

Cane River NationalHeritage AreaCommission

Acknowledgments

The study process was a team activity: all membersparticipated actively in study design, implementation,analysis, and report preparation. Within this overallapproach, individual team members had lead respon-sibility for the following:

Philip B . Huffman (cooperator): description andanalysis of the existing heritage area frameworkand the framework options

Daniel N. Laven (management assistant, ConservationStudy Institute): national context, evaluation of thepartnership system from the partner perspective,and description of critical ingredients

Nora J. Mitchell (director, Conservation StudyInstitute): project scope, regional coordination,financial management, and report review

Jacquelyn L. Tuxill (director of partnership programs,Conservation Study Institute, and cooperator):project management; background and context;documentation of accomplishments, investments,and leverage; other options and opportunities; andreport coordination

The Cane River Evaluation and Visioning Project Study Team

Jessica Brown (senior vice president for internationalprograms, QLF/Atlantic Center for the Environment)

Suzanne Copping (national heritage area coordinator,Northeast Region, National Park Service)

Project Advisors

Brenda Barrett (former national coordinator for heritage areas, National Park Service)

Laura Soullière Gates (superintendent, Cane RiverCreole National Historical Park)

Nora J. Mitchell (director, Conservation StudyInstitute)

Nancy I.M. Morgan (former executive director, CaneRiver National Heritage Area)

Project Management Committee


In conducting the Cane River Evaluation and Visioning Project, the projectteam employed a range of methods, as discussed generally on page 6 ofthis report. The discussion below provides more details on the methodsused to obtain the data reported in chapters 2.B, 4, 5, and 6.

1. Methods for Chapter 2.B The historical narrative in chapter 2.B is based on interviews with fourpeople selected in consultation with Cane River staff. They are represen-tative of the diverse perspectives and experiences of organizations andindividuals who played important roles in Cane River’s formative years,including the National Park Service, U.S. Congress, and local leaders.The interviews were semi-structured and retrospective in nature, askingparticipants to identify and describe significant moments leading up toand immediately following the heritage area’s designation by Congress in1994. Although discussion topics were identified and shared with theinterviewees beforehand, the questions varied according to the roleplayed by each individual in the heritage area’s formation. The discus-sions probed the chronology of events, the thinking at the time aboutconservation of the Cane River region, key factors that may have led tothe designation, and participants’ perspectives on the future of the her-itage area.

2. Methods for Chapter 4 Chapter 4 documents the Cane River initiative’s accomplishments as wellas its investments and leverage. The study team used a three-step approachto assess progress as accurately as possible, while acknowledging someinherent limitations to a comprehensive evaluation (e.g., varied record-keeping on leverage over ten years of projects, and a lack of documenta-tion on impacts of the commission’s contributions to the Creole HeritageCenter). It was not within the scope of this study to develop a methodolo-gy to account for such variations in investment and impact associated withactions by commission, staff, and partners.

The first step involved a compilation and analysis of projects undertakenbetween 1998 and 2007. With the assistance of Cane River staff, the studyteam compiled a project spreadsheet that contained the following infor-mation: (1) whether the project was commission-initiated or a partnerproject (i.e., part of the competitive grants program), (2) project pur-pose(s), (3) geographic scope, (4) cultural groups addressed, (5) commis-sion investment (i.e., financial, nonfinancial, or both), (6) leverage (finan-cial and/or nonfinancial) and source, (7) main partners, (8) source ofincoming grant (where applicable), (9) project status (i.e., complete,underway, ongoing), and (10) beginning and completion dates for theproject. In the case of a commission financial investment, the dollaramount was listed; a nonfinancial investment was not quantified. In thecase of financial leverage, the dollar amount was listed; nonfinancialleverage was quantified (e.g., the dollar value of contributed partner/vol-unteer time) when records permitted. A general cross-check of the proj-ects with the implementation strategy in the management plan allowed ageneral assessment of progress across the 11 implementation categories.Documents that informed this inventory and assessment included theheritage area’s management plan, annual reports, project reports, andfinancial documents.

The study team aggregated the projects according to whether they werecommission-initiated or part of the competitive grants program, whichallowed a comparison of the two investment tracks in the analysesdescribed below. The study team examined the aggregated data in threeways—by project purpose, geography, and cultural group affiliation:

• Project purposes were tallied (i.e., interpretation and education, docu-mentation, historic preservation, visitor services, marketing, land con-servation, transportation, and administration), counting each purposeseparately in a multipurpose project. A table was constructed to showthe overall tally of the grants program projects and the commissionprojects. A spreadsheet was also constructed that tallied single-purposeprojects, projects with two purposes, and projects with three purposes.This spreadsheet allowed the study team to assess the increase in multi-purpose projects over time and by purpose.

• Projects were sorted by geography (i.e., area-wide, downriver,Natchitoches, and satellite areas), which allowed the study team toassess the distribution of investment across geography over time as wellas by cultural affiliation and purpose.

• Projects were sorted by cultural group affiliation (i.e., AfricanAmerican, American, American Indian, Creole, French, Spanish, mixedgroups of two or more cultural affiliations, and all groups), whichallowed the study team to assess the distribution of investment acrosscultural groups over time as well as by geography and purpose.

In step two, to better understand how the commission and staff haveapproached their work and their relationships with partners as well as howtheir methods have evolved over time, the study team selected two projectsand one program to examine in greater depth. The team also developedproject narratives to highlight the heritage area’s work. The Cane Riverstaff assisted with selecting the projects and program and developing thenarratives included in chapter 4, section B.

Finally, to evaluate NPS investment and the leverage achieved by the her-itage area initiative, the study team analyzed the data contained in perti-nent sections of the project spreadsheet and gathered additional informa-tion from the staff and annual reports. The team reviewed the overallfinancial investments from the NPS (i.e., through Heritage PartnershipPrograms and Cane River Creole National Historical Park, including fundsthat the park made available to the heritage area through an interagencyagreement). It also assessed the matching funds and nonfinancial supportleveraged for projects and programs since 1998. With the data aggregatedaccording to commission projects and grants projects, the study team wasable to compare the leverage achieved through both investment tracks.

3. Methods for Chapter 5In analyzing the Cane River initiative’s existing framework, the study teamdrew on three primary sources of information. First, team members gainedan understanding of the framework through review of key documents(e.g., authorizing legislation, management plan, and commission bylaws).Second, team members held semi-structured conversations with individualcommissioners, senior heritage area staff, and key partners. Participants inthese conversations were selected in consultation with staff. The conversa-tions addressed a range of relevant topics related to the five components ofthe framework, such as the role and function of the commission, theinvolvement of key partners, and the geographic and thematic scope of theinitiative. Third, during several official meetings of the commission and itsoptions committee, the team gathered input on aspects of the framework.

The study team then analyzed the data obtained through these efforts toidentify what appeared to be the most significant strengths and challengesof the heritage area framework. Preliminary findings were refined throughan iterative process of discussion and further analysis, both within theteam and through additional dialogue with commissioners and Cane Riverstaff. Throughout this process, the team also drew upon its knowledge of

Appendix A

Cane River National Heritage Area Evaluation and Visioning Project Methodology

Appendix A 93

management structures from other national heritage areas and partnershipinitiatives as a comparative backdrop for analysis.

4. Methods for Chapter 6The study team employed a “process evaluation” approach for theresearch described in chapter 6. Process evaluation refers to a specific typeof evaluation research designed to examine the ways in which complexprograms function.1 Such studies are particularly helpful in facilitatingpolicy learning and adaptive management (i.e., helping programs improvetheir operations), and generally represent good examples of researchinforming management.2 This study also builds on previous evaluationresearch conducted at other national heritage areas.3

a. Research methodsThe research described in this chapter was conducted in two stages. Thefirst stage was designed to identify what Cane River partners perceived asthe strengths and challenges of the current partnership system. BetweenJanuary and February 2006, a total of thirty open-ended interviews withkey partners were conducted, of which twenty-nine were in person andone was by telephone. The complexity of the Cane River initiative andthe partner network suggested that a purposeful sampling design wouldbe most appropriate, and care was taken to invite a diversity of heritagearea partners to participate.4 With the consent of each respondent, allinterviews were recorded and transcribed (see consent form and inter-view protocol in sections b and c that follow). The interviews lastedapproximately one hour each and yielded transcripts ranging from 8 to30 pages. Data were analyzed using a content analysis for themes andpatterns across the 30 respondents.5 Collectively, these themes and pat-terns identified the strengths and challenges that study participants asso-ciate with the current Cane River partnership system. This stage ofresearch was very much an iterative process involving stakeholders andthe study team.6

The second stage was designed to better understand the structure of theCane River partnership system. Along with data obtained from the 30open-ended interviews, an additional 27 partners were asked only thefourth question from the interview protocol (see section c below). Theseinterviews were conducted by telephone and lasted approximately 15minutes. Once coded, these data were analyzed using a quantitative formof “social network analysis,” a method designed to understand relation-ships between organizations and/or individuals. This second interviewapproach was applied because there is increasing interest in usingnetwork theory and analysis in evaluations of community-based, collab-orative programs.7 Study findings from this analysis informed thedescription of strengths and challenges associated with the Cane Riverpartnership system.

b. Consent form At the beginning of each interview, the consent form below was read tothe study participant, and permission to conduct and record the interviewwas obtained.

CANE RIVER NATIONAL HERITAGE AREA STUDY PARTICIPANTCONSENT FORMAt the request of the Cane River National Heritage Area Commission, the

National Park Service is conducting a study to learn more about Cane

River National Heritage Area. Cane River National Heritage Area is

affiliated with the National Park Service, and the purpose of this study is

to learn how Cane River National Heritage Area actually works and

document the impact of the heritage area on the Cane River region. Study

findings will be used to inform future management of the heritage area as

well as contribute to development of the National Park Service’s Heritage

Areas Program.

As a result of your experience with the heritage area, you are in a unique

position to describe what the program does and how it affects organizations

like yours within the region. And that’s what the interview is about: your

experiences with Cane River National Heritage Area and your thoughts

about your experiences.

A total of 65 people will be interviewed and these responses will be com-

bined for the study. No individual or organization names will appear in

the written report or presentations. If you have any questions during the

interview, please feel free to ask. Or, if there’s anything you do not wish to

answer, just say so. Again, the purpose of the interview is to get your

insights into how the program operates and how it affects organizations

in this region.

Finally, I am requesting your permission to record the interview. It is very

important to capture your words exactly as you say them. The interview

will remain confidential—your name and/or your organization will be

removed from the transcript and replaced by a numbered code that will be

kept in a confidential manner and locked in a secure place. Once the inter-

view has been transcribed, the tapes will be destroyed. You will also receive

a draft copy of the study findings for your review. Furthermore, the

Paperwork Reduction Act requires approval of all federal government

surveys by the Office of Management and Budget. This survey has been

approved under this Act. The Office of Management and Budget control

number and expiration date are available at your request. Additional infor-

mation about this survey and its approval is available at your request.* The

interview will last about 40 minutes and, again, all of your answers are vol-

untary and confidential. If at any time during the interview you would like

me to turn the tape off, please let me know and I will do so. May I use the

tape recorder?

Any questions before we begin?

*OMB Approval Number: OMB Approval #1024-0224 (NPS #06-004)

Expiration Date: 6/30/06

Person Collecting and Analyzing Information:

Robert Manning/Daniel Laven351 Aiken CenterUniversity of Vermont Burlington, VT 05405(802) 656-3095

16 U.S.C. 1a-7 authorizes collection of this information. This informationwill be used by park managers to better serve the public. Response to thisrequest is voluntary. No action may be taken against you for refusing tosupply the information requested. No personal data will be recorded. Youmay direct comments on the number of minutes required to respond, oron any other aspect of this survey to:

1 Carol Weiss, Evaluation, 2nd ed. (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1998).2 Darlene Russ-Eft and Hallie Preskill, Evaluation in Organizations: A Systematic Approach to Enhancing Learning, Performance, and Change (Cambridge, MA: Perseus Publishing,

2001).3 Jacquelyn L. Tuxill, et al., Reflecting on the Past, Looking to the Future (Woodstock, VT: Conservation Study Institute, 2005) and Suzanne E. Copping, et al., Connecting Stories,

Landscapes, and People: Exploring the Delaware & Lehigh National Heritage Corridor Partnership (Woodstock, VT: Conservation Study Institute, 2006).4 Matthew Miles and Michael Huberman, Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Source Book (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1994). 5 Michael Patton, Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods, 3rd ed. (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 2002).6 Michael Patton, Utilization-focused Evaluation: The New Century Text (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1997). 7 Maryann M. Durland and Kimberly A. Fredericks, eds., “Social Network Analysis in Program Evaluation,” New Directions for Evaluation 107 (Fall 2005).


Information Collection Clearance OfficerWASO Administrative Program CenterNational Park Service1849 C Street, NWWashington, D.C. 20240

Study Participant Signature Date

c. Interview protocolThe protocol below was used to guide the interviews of the study partici-pants.

HERITAGE AREA STUDY INTERVIEW PROTOCOLThe first part of this interview is designed to help me learn about your current

relationship with Cane River National Heritage Area programs.

1. In what ways are you now connected, or do you currently work with theCane River National Heritage Area?

2. How long have you been working with Cane River National Heritage Area?

3. In your view, what role(s) does Cane River National Heritage Area playin this relationship?

(a) Provides funding directly?(b) Helps your organization to leverage funding from other sources?(c) Provides relevant information and good ideas?(d) Provides access to other potential partners (network conduit)?(e) Increases organizational capacity?(f) Provides additional credibility?(g) Role of leadership?(h). What other roles could be particularly helpful in the future?

4. Which other organizations, or people, do you work with in the region?

(a). What do you get from this relationship? (content of relationship)(b) How strong is this relationship? (intensity)(c) Which direction do these resources flow? (flows and directionality)(d) How often do these exchanges take place? (frequency)(e). How has this relationship changed over time? (temporal change)

5. How has, if at all, your relationship with Cane River National HeritageArea impacted the way you work?

(a) Creates a shared understanding of opportunities and challenges in theheritage area region?(b) Other unintended consequences? By unintended consequences, I amreferring to impacts that you didn’t expect or intend from this relationship.These can be either positive, negative, or neutral.

6. What formal, or informal, criteria do you use to evaluate the effective-ness of this relationship?

7. What factors influence you to continue to maintain this relationship?

8. What could Cane River National Heritage Area do to improve this rela-tionship in the future?

The next series of questions will help me to understand how you/your organi-

zation function(s) in the Cane River region.

9. What are your organizational goals/mission?

10. What specific factors, if any, would increase the likelihood of achievingthese goals? What specific factors would decrease the likelihood of achiev-ing these goals?

11. How do you/your organization measure your effectiveness in achievingthese goals?

This is the last section of the interview, and the questions are more general

and reflective in nature. This is an opportunity for me to learn from you, in

broad terms, about the impact of the Cane River National Heritage Area

program in the region. Are you ready?

12. In your opinion, over the life of Cane River National Heritage Area (thelast 7–10 years), what impact has it had on the following issues:

(a) Conservation and restoration of natural, cultural, and historic resources?(b) Creation of heritage-based tourism and recreation opportunitiesand/or infrastructure?(c) Community development within the Natchitoches and Cane Riverregion?(d) Created partnership opportunities?(e) Cultural conservation through interpretation and outreach concerningthe history and living traditions of area cultural groups?

13. How, from your perspective, has the heritage area program and/or staffintegrated these multiple goals?

14. How, if at all, does heritage area designation (state or federal) affect theway in which you work? For example, does this designation change your/oryour organization’s strategic thinking or long-term planning? How does thisdesignation change the way in which you/your organization prioritize(s)?

15. I’m interested in learning how various organizations in the Cane Riverregion have been influenced by the concept of “heritage.” By “heritage,” Iam referring to the history of this region and the cultures associated withthat history, along with the living cultures here today. What role does “her-itage” play in your work?

16. What is you/your organization’s “vision” for the Cane River region inthe future?

(a) What else, from your perspective, needs to be done in the region toachieve this vision?

17. What do you think the role of Cane River National Heritage Areashould be in realizing that vision?

18. As we think about how to move forward with this work in the CaneRiver region, do you see any other organizations (existing or potential) thatcould play that role as or more effectively than the national heritage area?

19. In the future, which other people, or organizations, would you like topartner with in the Cane River region but have yet to do so?

20. In your opinion, what has prevented these partnerships from occurringthus far?

21. That covers everything I wanted to ask. Is there any additional informa-tion you would like to provide?

Thank you so much for your valuable time. I really appreciate it.

Appendix B 95

Appendix B

Cane River National Heritage Area Projects, 1998-2007

The chart that follows lists the projects and activities carried out by theheritage area initiative from 1998 through 2007. The projects are groupedby their primary purpose, using the eight purposes listed in chapter 4,table 4.1 (see page 22) although many focus on multiple purposes. The

chart also shows the geographic area and cultural group(s) addressed bythe project and the year funded. Projects that were funded through theCane River National Heritage Area Competitive Grants Program areshown in italics.

KEY

PurposesA AdministrationD DocumentationHP Historic preservation I&E Interpretation and educationLC Land conservationM MarketingT TransportationV Visitor services

AcronymsCRNHA Cane River National Heritage AreaGIS Geographic Information SystemHABS Historic American Buildings SurveyHALS Historic American Landscapes SurveyNSU Northwestern State University of Louisiana

Administrative Projects

Management Plan: Draft Plan/ Environmental Assessment A Area-wide All groups 1998Management Plan: Final Plan A Area-wide All groups 1998Management Plan: Executive Summary A Area-wide All groups 2002Management Plan: American Planning Association Planning Award for Outstanding Collaborative Planning Project A Area-wide All groups 2003Creole Center Operations and Project Assistance A, D, I&E Downriver Creole 2003Creole Center Operations and Project Assistance A, D, I&E Downriver Creole 2004Creole Center Operations and Project Assistance A, D, I&E Downriver Creole 2005Historical Administration Seminar A, VS Town All groups 2005Creole Center Operations and Project Assistance A, D, I&E Downriver Creole 2006Grantsmanship Training A Area-wide All groups 2006Conservation Study Institute: Program Assessment and Visioning Study A Area-wide All groups 2006Conservation Study Institute: Program Assessment and Visioning Study A Area-wide All groups 2007Creole Center Operations and Project Assistance A, D, I&E Downriver Creole 2007

Documentation Projects

African American Oral History: ”Elder Utterances: An African American Oral History Remembrance” D Area-wide African American 1999Cane River Geneology Study D Downriver Creole 2000African American Oral History: Afro-Natchitoches Parish History and Genealogy (Gwendolyn Midlo Hall Workshop) D Area-wide African American 2001Surname Origins of Cane River Creole Families: Genealogy Study D Downriver Creole 2001Fort Jesup archaeology D Satellite American 2001HABS: CRNHA Architectural Documentation D Area-wide French / American / African American 2001GIS: Cane River Geographic Information System D, LC Area-wide All groups 2002HABS: Magnolia Plantation Architectural Documentation D Downriver French / African American 2002Caddo Oral History D Area-wide American Indian 2002African Diaspora Archaeology D Downriver Creole / African American 2002History of the Catholic Cemetery D, I&E Town French / American 2002Translation of 18th-Century French Courthouse Records (Phase 1) D Area-wide French 2002Translation of 18th-Century French Courthouse Records (Phase 2) D Area-wide French 2003St. Matthews School: Oral History Project D, I&E Downriver African American 2003Documenting Vestigial French in Cane River D Downriver Creole 2003Cane River Historic Documents D Area-wide All groups 2003“Did Your Grandparents Ever Tell You” Interview Reels D Area-wide All groups 2003HALS: Briarwood—The Caroline Dormon Nature Preserve D Satellite American 2003”Adaesaños - Our Culture Heritage and Traditions” D Satellite Spanish 2003Digital Library of Adaesaños Spanish Recordings (Phase 1) D Satellite Spanish 2003Digital Library of Adaesaños Spanish Recordings (Phase 2) D Satellite Spanish 2004HABS: Front Street Documentation D Town All groups 2004“John Gideon Lewis, Jr. “ D Town African American 2004Caddo Elders: Connecting the Past to the Present D Area-wide American Indian 2004Maiz to Maza: Maintaining the Traditional Method D, I&E Area-wide Spanish / American Indian 2004

Project Geographic Cultural Year PROJECT Purpose(s) Scope Groups Funded


HABS: Creole House Types D Area-wide Creole / French 2005HABS : Cherokee Plantation Documentation D Downriver French / American 2005Civil Rights Oral History Project D, I&E Area-wide African American / Creole 2005GIS: Geographic Information System Georeferencing D, LC Area-wide All groups 2005Historical Maps Project (Phases 1 and 2) D, LC Area-wide All groups 2005“Transcription, Inventory, & Mapping: Applying Data in CRNHA “ D, I&E Area-wide All groups 2005African American Genealogy of Natchitoches Parish (Phase 1) D Area-wide African American 2005African American Genealogy of Natchitoches Parish: Asbury Roots (Phase 2) D Town African American 2006GIS: Update and Training D, LC Area-wide All groups 2006GIS: Survey of Historic District Development D, LC Town All groups 2006Adai Indian Nation Cultural Center Collections Management D, I&E, VS Satellite American Indian 2006Natchitoches / NSU Folk Festival Narrative Sessions D, I&E Town All groups 2006Natchitoches Parish Clerk of Courts Colonial Records: Detailed Index and Accessibility (Phase 2) D, HP Town All groups 2007Archaeological Investigation of the Magnolia Plantation’s Quarters Community D Downriver African American 2007“Founding French Families of Natchitoches, 1714-2007” D Area-wide French 2007Acquisition of Sister Francis Jerome Wood Collection and Development of a Management Plan D Downriver Creole 2007Kate Chopin House: Preserving Nostalgia - Heritage Resources Management at the Bayou Folk Museum D, I&E, VS Area-wide French / American 2007Brown Bomber Hotel: Historical Research and Building Documentation D, HP Town African American 2007Southeastern Indian Basketry Database D, I&E Area-wide American Indian 2007

Historic Preservation Projects

Kate Chopin House HP Downriver French / American 1999Roque House HP Town Creole / African American 1999Badin-Roque House (Phases 1 and 2) HP Downriver Creole 1999Prudhomme-Rouquier House (Phases 1 and 2) HP Town French 1999Prudhomme-Rouquier House (Save America’s Treasures Grant) HP Town French 2000Melrose Plantation: Yucca and African Houses (Save America’s Treasures Grant) HP Downriver Creole / African American / American 2000Melrose Plantation: Yucca and African Houses HP Downriver Creole / African American / American 2001Roque House HP Town Creole / African American 2001Cherokee Plantation HP Downriver French / American 2001550 Second Street (Phase 1) HP Town American 2001Roque House HP Downriver Creole 2001American Cemetery: Fencing HP Town All groups 2001Texas and Pacific Railway Depot Rehabilitation (Great American Station Foundation Grant) HP Town African American 2001Texas and Pacific Railway Depot Rehabilitation (Louisiana Historic Preservation Emergency Rescue Grant) HP Town African American 2002Texas and Pacific Railway Depot Rehabilitation: Roof Repair HP Town African American 2002Prudhomme-Rouquier House (French Heritage Society Grant) HP Town French 2002550 Second Street (Phase 2) HP Town American 2002American Cemetery: Archeological Compliance HP Town All groups 2002American Cemetery: Interior Lighting HP, VS Town All groups 2002Professional Study of Two Cane River Structures HP Downriver Creole 2002Roque Brothers Store: Stabilization and Inventory HP Downriver Creole 2002Judge Porter House HP Town American 2002Magnolia Plantation HP Downriver French 2002St. Matthews School Rehabilitation: Feasibility Study HP Downriver African American 2003Front Street Bricks: Project Planning HP Town American 2003The Hankins House HP Town American 2003Texas and Pacific Railway Depot Rehabilitation: Masonry Repair HP Town African American 2003Texas and Pacific Railway Depot Rehabilitation: Graffiti Removal HP Town African American 2004St. Matthews School Rehabilitation: Windows HP Downriver African American 2004The Hankins House: Chimney HP Town American 2004Assumption of the The Blessed Virgin Mary: Painting Restoration HP Town French / American 2004Old Trade School: Exterior Restoration HP Town American 2005Grandpere Augustine Metoyer Painting: Enhancement of Environmental Conditions HP Downriver Creole 2005Melrose Plantation: Yucca and African Houses HP Downriver Creole / African American / American 2005Melrose Plantation: Yucca and African Houses HP Downriver Creole / African American / American 2006Texas and Pacific Railway Depot Rehabilitation (Transportation Enhancement Grant) HP Town African American 2006Natchitoches Parish Clerk of Courts Colonial Records: Conservation (Phase 1) HP, D Area-wide All groups 2006Williamson Museum: Curatorial Management Enhancement HP, D Area-wide All groups 2006“Police Jury Meeting Minutes, 1849-1921: Conservation” HP, D Area-wide All groups 2006Piece-Sur-Piece Slave Cabin HP Downriver African American 2006St. Charles Chapel HP Downriver French / American 2006Edsel Guesthouse Garage Rehabilitation HP Town American 2006226 Poete Street HP Town American 2006Melrose Plantation: Yucca and African Houses HP Downriver Creole / African American / American 2007St. Matthews School Rehabilitation (EPA Grant) HP Downriver African American 2007St. Matthews School Rehabilitation: Cultural Community Center Long-term Strategic Plan HP Downriver African American 2007


Appendix B 97

Interpretation and Education Projects

CRNHA Brochure I&E, M, VS Area-wide All groups 1999CRNHA Brochure Reprint I&E, M, VS Area-wide All groups 2000Cane River Traditions (Division of Arts) I&E, VS Town All groups 2000CRNHA Brochure Reprint I&E, M, VS Area-wide All groups 2001Master Interpretive Plan I&E, M, VS Area-wide All groups 2001Historic Black Churches of Natchitoches Parish brochure I&E, VS Area-wide African American 2001Natchitoches and Louisiana’s Timeless Cane River: Photographic Book I&E Area-wide All groups 2001Caddo Indian Exhibit I&E Area-wide American Indian 2001Cane River Heritage Website Development / NPS website update I&E, M, VS Area-wide All groups 2001Old Courthouse Museum: Children’s Programming I&E Area-wide All groups 2001Old Courthouse Museum: Children’s Programming I&E Area-wide All groups 2002Kate Chopin House/Melrose Plantation Brochures I&E, M Downriver Creole / French / American 2002National Park Service Brochure I&E Area-wide All groups 2002Cane River Ecosystem Informational WebQuest I&E Area-wide All groups 2002CRNHA Brochure Reprint I&E, M, VS Area-wide All groups 2003Kate Chopin House: Exhibit I&E Downriver French / American 2003Old Courthouse Museum: Children’s Programming I&E Area-wide All groups 2003”A Common Pot: Creole Cooking on Cane River”: Documentary I&E, D Area-wide Creole 2003”Louisiana for a Song”: Louisiana Purchase Exhibit at the Natchitoches Parish Library I&E, VS Town American 2003Annual ”Christmas Downriver” Program I&E, M, VS Downriver All groups 2003History of Creoles Brochure I&E Area-wide Creole 2003Adai Interactive Museum Exhibit I&E, VS Satellite American Indian 2003African American Oral History: Ethnographic Study Analysis I&E, D Area-wide African American 2004Old Courthouse Museum: Children’s Programming I&E Area-wide All groups 2004”Spirit of a Culture”: Documentary I&E, D Area-wide Creole 2004Great Tours! Workshop I&E Area-wide All groups 2004Fort Saint Jean Baptiste Electronic Kiosk I&E, M, VS Area-wide All groups 2004Cane River-Natchitoches Archeological Culture Exhibit I&E, VS Town American Indian 2004National Register Travel Itinerary I&E, VS Area-wide All groups 2004Badin Roque House: ”Glimpse of Real Living” Orientation Film I&E Downriver Creole 2005Melrose Plantation: Interpretive Plan I&E Downriver Creole / African American / American 2005Melrose Plantation: A Walk Through Melrose with Francois Mignon I&E Downriver Creole / African American / American 2005French Colonial Pottery Publication and Exhibit I&E, D Area-wide French 2005Lost Treasures of Louisiana Book I&E, D Area-wide All groups 2005Melrose Plantation: Clementine Hunter—The African House Murals Book I&E, D Downriver African American 2005Exhibition Documenting Creole Legacy in Cane River I&E, D, VS Area-wide Creole 2005Cane River Folkways and Traditions I&E, VS Area-wide All groups 2005Main Street Summer Camp I&E Town All groups 2005A Particular Place: Viewing the Natural & Cultural History of Natchitoches I&E Area-wide All groups 2005”Landmarks in Time”: Exhibit for the Natchitoches Events Center I&E, M, VS Area-wide All groups 2005”Landmarks in Time”: Exhibit for the Natchitoches Events Center I&E, M, VS Area-wide All groups 2006”Landmarks in Time”: Replica for the Historic Natchitoches Exhibit (Louisiana State Exhibit Museum) I&E, M, VS Area-wide All groups 2006African American Online Tour of Historically Significant Sites I&E, D, VS Area-wide African American 2006Old Courthouse Museum: Key Ingredients Exhibit I&E Area-wide All groups 2006”Making a Way Out of No Way”: Documentary I&E, D Area-wide African American 2006”Making a Way Out of No Way”: Documentary I&E, D Area-wide African American 2007African American Oral History: Natchitoches Parish (Publication in Black America Series) I&E, D Area-wide African American 2007Caddo Memorial Plaza I&E, VS Downriver American Indian 2007

Land Conservation Projects

Land Use Master Plan: Water Well Rd Annexed Area (Phases 1 and 2) LC, T Town All groups 2005Land Use Master Plan: Water Well Rd Annexed Area (Phase 3) LC, T Town All groups 2006Entryway for the Lambre’s Gin Estates LC Downriver American 2006”Finding Common Ground”: CRNHA Cultural Landscape Guide (pdf and brochure) LC, M Downriver All groups 2006

Marketing Projects

Annual ”Preservation in Your Community” Program M Area-wide All groups 2001Preserve America Community Designation M Area-wide All groups 2004Melrose Plantation: Artists’ Historic Homes Affiliated Site Designation M Downriver Creole / African American / American 2005National Trust for Historic Preservation’s Dozen Distinctive Destinations Award M Area-wide All groups 2005Texas and Pacific Railway Depot: 10 Most Endangered Sites Designation M Town African American 2006Marketing A Cane River Creole Tour M Downriver Creole 2006Tourism Regional Marketing Plan and Hospitality Training Development M Area-wide All groups 2006Great American Main Street Award M Town All groups 2006



Preserve America Presidential Award M Area-wide All groups 200750th Annual Caddo Conference M Town American Indian 2007

Transportation Projects

State Scenic Byway Designation T, M, VS Area-wide All groups 2006

Visitor Services Projects

Initial Signage Project: Installation of 60 directional signs VS, T Area-wide All groups 2000Old Courthouse Museum: Museum Equipment VS Town All groups 2001Cane River Audio Driving Tour VS Downriver All groups 2001Signage and Identity Initiative: Society for Environmental Graphic Design VS, T Area-wide All groups 2002Signage and Identity Initiative: Request for Proposals from Design Firms VS, T Area-wide All groups 2003Economic Impact Survey VS Area-wide All groups 2003Joint Visitor Center: Development Concept Plan VS, I&E Area-wide All groups 2003Annual Northwestern State University of Louisiana Tourism Summit VS, M Area-wide All groups 2004Signage and Identity Initiative: Directional and Interpretive Signage (Phase 1) VS, T Area-wide All groups 2004Signage and Identity Initiative: Directional and Interpretive Signage (Phase 2) VS, T Area-wide All groups 2005Signage and Identity Initiative: Implementation in National Historic Landmark District (Preserve America Grant) VS, T Town All groups 2006


The Cane River Evaluation and Visioning Project was conducted and this publication prepared through the following cooperative agreements:

Cooperative Agreement H1818-06-0003, Task Agreements J1818-06-A003 and J1818-07-B003 between the Conservation StudyInstitute and the Cane River National Heritage Area Commission

Cooperative Agreement H1818-06-0011, Task Agreement J1818-06-A011 between the Conservation Study Institute andQLF/Atlantic Center for the Environment

Jack

Bou

cher

, N

atio

nal P

ark

Serv

ice,

HA

BS/H

AER

/HA

LS

The Cane River Gin processed cotton from the surrounding family farms and plantations in the mid-twentieth century. Abandoned cotton gins dot Cane River’slandscape, reminders of the area’s agricultural legacy.

Northeast RegionNational Park ServiceU.S. Custom House200 Chestnut Street, 5th FloorPhiladelphia, PA 19106215-597-7385www.nps.gov/phso/

Conservation Study Institute54 Elm StreetWoodstock, VT 05091802-457-3368www.nps.gov/csi/

QLF/Atlantic Center for the Environment55 South Main StreetIpswich, MA 01938978-356-0038www.qlf.org

Cane River National Heritage Area452 Jefferson StreetNatchitoches, LA 71457318-356-5555www.caneriverheritage.orgwww.nps.gov/crha

National Park ServiceU.S. Department of the Interior