Cane River National Heritage Area: Linking People ... · Linking People, Traditions, and Landscapes...

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

Report Summary

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 preparedin 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.

We encourage you to share the information in this report, and request onlythat you give appropriate citations and bibliographic credits. Copyrightedimages are not placed in the public domain by their appearance in this doc-ument. They cannot be copied or otherwise reproduced except in theirprinted context within this publication without the written consent of thecopyright 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 Corridor Commission.

Report Summary. Woodstock, VT: Conservation Study Institute, 2008.

For additional copies, 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: Hunter’s African House murals tell the story of life along Cane Riverin the first half of the twentieth century. This panel depicts her view ofancestors of the Cane River Creole community and people who lived andworked at Melrose, including visiting artists. Credit: James Rosenthal, National ParkService, 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

Evaluation and Visioning ProjectReport Summary

A Technical Assistance Report for theCane River National Heritage Area Commission

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 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

I. Background and Context for the Cane River National Heritage Area Evaluation and Visioning Project 5

II. Cane River National Heritage Area: Accomplishments and Investments 7

A. Progress and accomplishments of the heritage area initiative

B. Highlights of selected heritage area projects and programs

C. Funding and other public investments in the heritage area

III. Strengths and Challenges of the Cane River Partnership System 13

A. Strengths of the current system: the management perspective

B. Strengths of the current system: the partner perspective

C. Challenges facing the current system

IV. Critical Ingredients for Sustaining the Cane River Partnership System 16

V. National Heritage Area Framework Options and Opportunities 18

A. Purposes, vision, and mission

B. Geographic scope/boundary

C. Management entity

D. Key governmental partnerships

E. Funding and other forms of support

VI. Other Options and Opportunities 23

A. Investment in programs

B. Investment in outreach and enhancing partnerships

C. Investment in operations

VII. Closing Thoughts 27

Contents

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

Located in northwestern Louisiana along theformer main channel of the Red River, CaneRiver National Heritage Area conserves andinterprets the rich multicultural legacy and land-scapes of the region. A vibrant cultural cross-roads in the 1700s and a base for early trade andsettlement by France and Spain, the Cane Riverregion eventually came under the control of theUnited States through its 1803 purchase of theLouisiana Territory from France. Cane RiverNational Heritage Area embodies the diversecultural traditions and stories of the people whohave lived in this region down through the cen-turies—American Indian, French, Spanish,African American, and Creole peoples. The heritage area includes parts of the city ofNatchitoches––the oldest permanent settlementin the Louisiana Purchase––and 116,000 acresalong both sides of the Cane River south of the city.

Congress established the Cane River NationalHeritage Area in 1994 in recognition of thenational significance of the region and its

cultural resources.1 In 2001, the Louisiana legis-lature passed a resolution declaring Cane Riverits second state heritage area. The federal author-ization also established Cane River CreoleNational Historical Park within the heritage area,and charged the two to work together to carryout a shared preservation and education mission.This establishment of a national park and nation-al heritage area in the same enabling legislation isunique. The legislation also established the CaneRiver National Heritage Area Commission toassist in implementing the purposes of the her-itage area. A broadly representative body, thecommission works with community interests,nonprofit organizations, private landowners, andlocal, 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.

In 2006, the Cane River National Heritage AreaCommission initiated the “Cane River NationalHeritage Area Evaluation and Visioning Project”

I. Background and Context for the Cane RiverNational Heritage Area Evaluation and VisioningProject

In establishing Cane River National Heritage Area and Cane River Creole National Historical Park, Congress

affirmed the national significance of the heritage area. The Cane River area 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 as a

result of early eighteenth-century French and Spanish interactions with people of American Indian and

African descent. 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 great variety of historical features with original elements in both

rural and urban settings, and a cultural landscape 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.2

The heritage area includes the 33-block Natchitoches National Historic Landmark District, which contains

more than 100 historic homes and buildings, several of which date to the eighteenth century. It also

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

National Park Service Conservation Study Institute 5

1 Public Law 103-49.2 Derived from Public Law 103-49, section 302.

to evaluate its accomplishments and help informits decisions about the heritage area’s future. Thecommission 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 National Park Service (NPS) invest-ments 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.

In response, the study team investigated threeaspects of the heritage area’s partnershipefforts: (1) accomplishments and investments

(to document progress toward heritage areagoals), (2) the structure and operations of thecurrent management framework, and (3) theperspectives of partners on how the heritage area initiative has worked.3 The team gatheredinformation from various written sources (e.g.,management plan, annual reports, project docu-ments) and used participatory techniques (e.g.,confidential interviews, meetings, informal conversations, visioning sessions) to engage andgather insights from key individuals. These indi-viduals included commissioners, commissionstaff, heritage area partners, and people withexpertise in heritage areas.

This report summary reviews heritage areaaccomplishments and investments (section II),discusses the strengths of the heritage area andthe challenges it faces in the near future (sectionIII), and presents critical ingredients for sustain-ing success in the future (section IV). These sections are followed by discussions of two setsof options, the first (section V) relating to theoverall heritage area framework, and the second(section VI) on other options and opportunities.4

Heritage areas are an important direction in conservation, as demonstrated by the growing interest in this

model across the U.S. There are currently 37 national heritage areas, 10 of which were authorized in 2006,

and as of January 2008 legislation has been introduced in Congress to designate 14 additional areas. In

2004, the director of the National Park Service asked the National Park System Advisory Board to examine

the future of national heritage areas and their relationship to the NPS. The board, composed of 13 citizens

with diverse expertise and a commitment to the NPS mission, has the statutory responsibility to advise the

NPS director and the secretary of the interior on policy and program matters. In 2006, the advisory board

reported its findings and recommendations. It proposed, among other things, that a legislative foundation

for a system of national heritage areas be established within the NPS, and that a study be required for

individual heritage areas three years prior to the end of their federal funding authorization to make recom-

mendations regarding future NPS involvement.5 Studies conducted by the Conservation Study Institute at

the request of the John H. Chafee Blackstone River Valley National Heritage Corridor Commission (2005)

and the Delaware & Lehigh National Heritage Corridor Commission (2006), as well as this Cane River

Evaluation and Visioning Project, may inform future evaluations at other national heritage areas.6

National Context for the Cane River Evaluation and Visioning Project

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

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 “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.

4 The full project report can be obtained from the Cane River National Heritage Area Commission (http://www.caneriverheritage.org/main_file.php/info.php.

5 The advisory board’s report, Charting a Future for the National Heritage Areas, can be found at http://www.cr.nps.gov/heritageareas/nhareport.pdf.

6 Reports on the Blackstone study (Reflecting on the Past, Looking to the Future) and the Delaware & Lehigh study (ConnectingStories, Landscapes, and People: Exploring the Delaware & Lehigh National Heritage Corridor Partnership) are available athttp://www.nps.gov/csi/pub_resources/pub.htm.

Jack

Bou

cher

, N

atio

nal P

ark

Serv

ice,

HA

BS/H

AER

/HA

LS


II. Cane River National Heritage Area:Accomplishments and Investments

Although Cane River National Heritage Area wasdesignated in 1994, Congress appropriated nofunding for the heritage area until 2000. In theintervening years, the NPS conducted severalpre-planning studies and undertook managementplanning for both the national park and the heritage area, the latter at the request of the commission. Progress was slow in the absence of federal funds for heritage area operations. In1998, however, the park provided 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 management 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 theregion’s history and resources; and (3) supportfor marketing a full range of heritage tourismopportunities.

A. Progress and accomplishments ofthe heritage area initiative

In 1999, with funding from the national park, thecommission hired staff and launched its compet-itive grants program as a key strategy for engagingpartners in the heritage area initiative. Since thisearly decision, the commission has invested thebulk of its funds through two separate but com-plementary tracks: the grants program and commission-initiated projects. Both have involvedworking with a wide range of partners, andtogether they have resulted in 177 projects being

undertaken between 1998 (beginning with themanagement plan) and 2007. Of these, 130 (73percent) have been completed, 38 (21 percent)are still underway, and 9 (5 percent) are consid-ered annual or ongoing.

Many of the projects address specific actionsincluded in the management plan’s implementa-tion categories. Through historic preservationprojects, 21 buildings have been restored orrehabilitated and numerous historic documentshave been conserved. Fifty-eight research projects have produced information about theregion’s various cultural groups. Among theseare oral histories (e.g., Caddo Indian, AfricanAmerican, Creole, civil rights), genealogicalstudies (e.g., Creole, African American, French),archeological studies, a database of Indian bas-ketry, and a digital library of Adaesaño Spanishrecordings.7 Sixty interpretation and educationprojects have led to exhibits and documentaries,children’s programs, online information, andbooks, brochures, and other publications. Asignage system and a GIS database have beendeveloped and implemented for the entire her-itage area, a concept plan for a joint visitor centerhas been prepared for the heritage area and thenational park, and map guides have been com-pleted for walking and driving tours.

In reviewing heritage area accomplishments andinvestments, the study team analyzed projects bytheir relationships to geography and culturalgroups and by their purposes. Figure 1 (page 8)shows how project investment has been distrib-uted across the heritage area geographically,using the 177 projects undertaken between 1998and 2007. Figure 2 (page 8) shows how projectinvestment has been distributed across theprimary cultural groups that have historic con-nections to the Cane River area. Projects wereanalyzed as to whether their focus was AfricanAmerican, American (i.e., referring to the set-tlers—and their cultural influences––who cameto the region following the Louisiana Purchase in1803), American Indian, Creole, French, Spanish,“mixed groups” (i.e., more than one culturalgroup but not encompassing all of them), or “allgroups.”8 Both figures aggregate grants programprojects, commission-initiated projects, and thefunds leveraged by both.

Cane River, once the main channel ofthe Red River, winds through theregion’s agricultural landscape.

7 “Adaesaños” refers loosely to descendants of Los Adaes, the eighteenth-century Spanish mission and presidio (or fort), that servedas a provincial capital in New Spain. Today the Los Adaes State Historic Site is one of the heritage area’s “satellites.”

8 These categories were developed by the study team in consultation with heritage area staff.

Phili

p G

ould

B. Highlights of selected heritagearea projects and programs

To better understand how the commission conducts its work, the study team examined indepth two projects (interpretive planning for theheritage area and rehabilitation of the Texas andPacific Railway Depot) and one program (com-petitive grants). The narratives that follow weredeveloped with the assistance of commissionstaff and are meant to complement the analysisof investments and progress described in theprevious section.

1. Interpretive planning for Cane RiverNational Heritage AreaThe methods used to develop the Cane RiverNational Heritage Area Master Interpretive Plandemonstrate the commission’s inclusive approachto planning and to involving stakeholders ingeneral. In 2000, the commission funded thedevelopment of a plan to refine and expand theinterpretive themes identified during manage-ment planning and present a unified approach totelling the region’s stories. Twenty people repre-senting diverse perspectives were invited to serveon an interpretive committee. They included


Based on its overall analysis of accomplishmentsand project investments, the study team madethe following observations:

• On the whole, there has been a relatively evenspread of the $6.5-million total investment inrelationship to both geography and culturalgroups.

• Through its direct investments, the commis-sion has emphasized projects that applyarea-wide to all cultural groups and provide a broad foundation for future work and activities. Examples include heritage areabrochures, the master interpretive plan, andcreation of a logo and signage.

• The study team’s analysis reveals that projectsaddressing multiple purposes have increasedover time. Of the 17 projects begun in 2001, 3 (18 percent) were multipurpose, while 16 of the 31 projects in 2006 (52 percent) weremultipurpose. Research at other heritageareas suggests that increased integration ofgoals within individual projects reflects thecontinuing maturation of the heritage area.

• The commission’s early decision to establish a grants program to engage partners hashelped build the involvement and capacityof collaborating organizations.

• The commission has increasingly demonstratedthe ability to undertake and complete complex,large-scale projects.

Figure 2. Total project investment bycultural group, fiscal years 1998through 2007.

Figure 1. Total project investment bygeographic area, fiscal years 1998through 2007.

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

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

Satellite Area Projects$100,259 (2%)

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

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

Total Project Investment 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%)


The “Landmarks in Time” exhibit, developed through an inclusive interpretive process, orients visitorsto the region’s stories and places.

9 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.

managers of historic sites, representatives of cultural organizations, community leaders, scholars, local historians, commissioners, andstaff from the national park. Finalized in 2003,the master interpretive plan that resulted fromthe committee’s deliberations contained strategiesapplicable throughout the region as well as site-specific information and recommendations.

Of 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 along

because 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, the historicsite partners, the national park, and the commis-sion. This trust and respect have carried overinto many other aspects of the commission’swork, and this inclusive process has becomestandard practice for all commission projects.

2. The Texas and Pacific Railway Depot rehabilitation projectThe Texas and Pacific Railway Depot, a passengerand 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 otherfew surviving urban train depots in Louisiana.Located in the heart of a predominantly AfricanAmerican residential section of the city, thedepot saw its passenger heyday when trains werethe primary transportation mode for soldiersserving in World War II and laborers leavingplantations during the “Great Migration.”9 Bythe late 1960s, service had dwindled to freightonly; Union-Pacific closed the depot and gavethe building to the city of Natchitoches in the1980s. An early effort to raise restoration fundsfailed because the city did not own the land, butin the mid-1990s Union-Pacific donated the landto the city, sparking renewed interest in preserv-ing the building.

Today, a major partnership project seeks to rehabilitate the depot as an African Americanheritage center and multimodal transportationhub. The building is close to the downtownNatchitoches National Historic LandmarkDistrict and could potentially provide parkingand easy access to transportation, both of whichare otherwise problems in the district. The ideaof a heritage center evolved in part from theimportance of rail travel to African Americans ata time when the mechanization of agriculturewas increasing and they were leaving in search ofjobs and greater economic opportunity elsewhere.Furthermore, the depot holds cultural significanceas one of the few Natchitoches buildings 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 in

the region is interpreted, thus complementingand connecting with the interpretation ofAfrican American history at other sites in theheritage area.

Since 2000, the commission has worked collabo-ratively on depot restoration with the city ofNatchitoches, the Ben D. Johnson EducationalFoundation (a local nonprofit organizationworking in the African American community),and the National Park Service. Between 2000and 2007, the commission invested considerablestaff time in community outreach and fundraising,and committed $66,000 in direct funding for stabilization, architectural documentation, andpreservation planning. The commission has alsopledged $100,000 to match federal transportationenhancement funding.10 Grants received include$15,000 from the Great American Station Found-ation in 2001 (matched by $3,000 from the city);a $24,500 Louisiana Historic PreservationEmergency Rescue Grant, also in 2001; $5,000from the Louisiana Main Street Program in 2003;and, in 2006, $274,000 for preservation planningfrom federal transportation enhancement fundsprovided by the Louisiana Department ofTransportation and Development. In 2007 thecity of Natchitoches requested $1 million incapital outlay funding from the state of Louisiana

and $282,000 in transportation enhancementfunding for construction. In January 2008 thecity received the first $100,000 (for planning)from its capital outlay request.

Although at times the project appeared stalled dueto lack of funds and the daunting rehabilitationtask, momentum has been building in recentyears. In 2006, the Louisiana PreservationAlliance designated the depot one of the “TenMost Endangered Historic Sites in Louisiana.” In2007, grassroots involvement increased rapidlyas a result of preservation planning, whichinvited significant community input. As this plan-ning proceeded, community members formed a committee to spearhead development of the heritage center within the structure. The processalso sparked interest in developing an AfricanAmerican historic district for potential listing onthe National Register of Historic Places, whichwould allow residents of the district to seek taxcredits for preservation and development.

The scale and complexity of the depot projecthave challenged the commission and its partners.Although periodic project delays due to lack offunding caused some distrust among depot-arearesidents, the commission’s work over the yearshas helped foster an environment where residents,


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.

10 States receive transportation enhancement funding as a percentage of their annual Surface Transportation Program appropriationfrom the Federal Highway Administration, then reapportion these funds to eligible local projects. See http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/te/index.htm for more information.

Cam

mie

G.

Hen

ry R

esea

rch

Cen

ter,

Nor

thw

este

rn S

tate

Uni

vers

ityPh

ilip

B. H

uffm

an


the city, and nonprofit organizations can worktogether to create something greater than any ofthese groups could have done alone.

3. Cane River National Heritage Area competitive grants program Competitive grants, the commission’s longestrunning program, has strengthened partnercapacity, advanced heritage area purposes, provided 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 public participation 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 frustrations were high on the part ofcommission members as the heritage area hadreceived no federal appropriations since itsestablishment in 1994. Funding provided by thepark to the heritage area late that year through aninteragency agreement enabled the commissionto begin its grants program, thus helping to alle-viate these frustrations. In 1999 the commissionawarded grants to four highly visible historicpreservation projects managed by four localnonprofit organizations. Two of the projects werein Natchitoches and two were downriver, andtogether they encompassed the region’s majorcultural groups.

During the program’s early years, the applicationprocess remained simple—a committee of com-missioners reviewed the one-page applicationsand recommended grant awards to the full commission. In late 2001, the commission hireda grants manager to develop a formal applicationprocess, manage the existing grants, and promotethe program. As a result, program goals andguidelines were developed and applicationsbecame more rigorous. The application form wasrevamped to better ensure that projects wouldfurther heritage area goals and that applicantswere capable of carrying out their plans.

As the program evolved, formal criteria wereadopted and the grants committee was expandedto include non-commissioners with pertinentexpertise. Applicants were required to showleverage, either financial or nonfinancial, andlater to quantify the nonfinancial match. Perhapsmost importantly, the grants manager improvedthe services available to applicants, providing

assistance throughout the grant process. Thistechnical assistance has been significant, as manypotential applicants are unfamiliar with theprocess of preparing grant proposals and carry-ing out projects. The grants manager not onlyraised the standards of the program, but alsohelped build capacity so that individuals andorganizations could meet those standards.

The grants program has especially benefited cultural stewardship in the region by providingfunding for cultural groups and organizations toconduct projects on topics they identify asimportant (while also helping the commission toaccomplish its mandates). The politics of culturalidentity and stewardship are complex, and allow-ing the control of grant projects to remain withthe grantees is significant for these groups. Theprojects reflect the breadth of partners’ prioritiesand interests, and partners have gained impor-tant knowledge through the process of applyingfor funds and implementing projects. Completedgrant projects have made major contributions toaccomplishing the heritage area’s mission of preserving and promoting the resources of theCane River region.

On an annual basis, grant projects often producethe largest portion of leveraged support. Overall,the grants program has provided nearly $1 millionin funding to 89 projects, leveraging more than$1.3 million in cash from partners as well as in-kind support valued at $632,000. This is a significant investment by partners given the smallscale of most grants and the relatively poor, ruralsetting of the heritage area.

C. Funding and other public invest-ments in the heritage area

The legislation establishing the heritage area didnot require that federal funds appropriated byCongress be matched by other funding sources,nor did it specify an authorization ceiling forfederal funds. Most national heritage areasreceive federal appropriations through the NPSHeritage Partnership Programs (HPP) budget.While this has been the case in recent years forCane River, its funding through HPP did notbegin until fiscal year 2001, seven years after des-ignation. What is unusual at Cane River is thefunding and other support provided by CaneRiver Creole National Historical Park in theyears prior to the beginning of direct federalappropriations. In 1998, the park allocated$400,000 to the NPS Denver Service Center forprofessional assistance on the heritage area’smanagement plan. In addition, a 1998 interagencyagreement between the park and the heritage


Figure 3. Total federal funding appropriated to Cane River NationalHeritage Area, fiscal years 2000through 2007 (through the budget of Cane River Creole NationalHistorical Park in 2000 and throughNPS Heritage Partnership Programsthereafter).

$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

Figure 4. Sources of leveraged funds,fiscal years 1998 through 2007.

11 In fiscal year 2002, the heritage area’s budget included a congressionally-designated pass-through of $250,000 for the CreoleHeritage Center (CHC) at Northwestern State University of Louisiana. These funds were transferred to CHC and do not appear inthe figures cited here.

area allowed the park to transfer $300,000 to theheritage area—$100,000 for operations and$200,000 for projects in 1999 and 2000. Thisfunding 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 appropriations toCane River through HPP ranged from $379,050to $888,000. Federal funds directed by Congressto Cane River National Heritage Area duringthese years totaled $4.75 million (see figure 3).11

The commission has invested nearly $3.08 millionin projects on the ground (just under $1 millionthrough the grants program and $2.1 million incommission-initiated projects). This investmenthas leveraged $3.4 million in cash ($1.3 millionthrough the grants program and $2.1 millionfrom commission projects). The leveraged fundshave come from diverse sources, as shown infigure 4. At nearly $1.2 million, private sectorfunding has been the single largest source ofleveraged funds (91 percent of which has comethrough historic preservation projects). CaneRiver Creole National Historical Park has been

an important funding partner, which is oneimportant dimension among many of thepark–heritage area relationship. Beyond NPSgrants, the commission has recently obtainedseveral large federal awards, most notably the$274,000 in 2006 federal transportationenhancement funds for the depot project, and a $197,000 grant in 2007 from the U.S. Environ-mental Protection Agency Brownfields Program.Efforts to engage the state of Louisiana as afunding partner have begun to bear fruitrecently, as shown by the legislature’s 2008budget approval of $110,000 for the heritage areaand the $100,000 provided in January 2008 inresponse to the city’s $1 million capital outlayfunding request for the depot project (neither isincluded in figure 4).

In addition to financial leverage, the commissionhas collected information on nonfinancialpartner support, at first anecdotally and morerecently with associated dollar values. Of the 177projects undertaken by the commission and itspartners, 158 (89 percent) show some type ofnonfinancial support, with a total reported valueof more than $1.4 million. This figure isundoubtedly low, however, due to sporadicreporting prior to 2003.

Total Sources of Leveraged Funds$3,430,745

State of Louisiana$540,264 (16%)

Private$1,191,416 (35%)

City of Natchitoches$83,170 (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%)


The strengths of the Cane River partnershipsystem12 from the perspectives of heritage areamanagement (the commission and its staff) andpartners are presented separately below. Thoseobservations are followed by an integrated discussion of challenges that reflects both per-spectives. The management perspective is drawnfrom meetings and conversations with commis-sioners, staff, and individuals knowledgeableabout the commission, and from two commis-sion visioning sessions. The partner perspectiveis drawn from confidential interviews conductedwith 30 partners.13

A. Strengths of the current system:the management perspective

A fundamental strength of the current partner-ship system, according to study participants, liesin the breadth of the Cane River vision (i.e., preserving historic sites, conserving culturallandscapes and traditions, providing economicbenefits, enhancing quality of life). A broad, integrated vision provides an important founda-tion for ongoing work and a tool for engagingdiverse audiences.

The heritage area’s relatively small size is alsoseen as a strength. Many of the key players havelong, well-established relationships, and the corestories are encompassed by the heritage area’sgeographic boundary, which benefits interpreta-tion and education. In addition, coordinationand logistics are more manageable, limitedresources can have a greater effect, and it is easierto reach a higher percentage of the populationthan in similar initiatives involving larger areas.

Study participants saw the commission and itsstaff as a strong feature of the partnership system.The commission transcends the agendas andinterests of individual commissioners and theorganizations they represent, and fulfills a widerange of roles that no one else plays in the region.It is able to partner effectively with diverse inter-ests; it is not allied with any one organization orinterest; and it is not viewed as a competitor forfunding. The commission’s federal status brings anumber of key attributes, including clout, credi-bility, respect, and leveraging ability. Participants

observed that the commission fills a unique andcritical niche, and that no other existing entitycould be as effective in leading the work of theheritage area: no other organization has anequally broad mandate or the ability to bring dif-ferent interests together. Also, the commission’sstaff is highly regarded by local, regional, andnational partners. Staff members are seen ascapable, dedicated, professional, and culturallysensitive, and they understand how to workeffectively through partnerships.

One of the heritage area’s greatest strengths is itsrelationship with Cane River Creole NationalHistorical Park. With interwoven missions established by their shared authorizing legisla-tion, the heritage area and the park have createda strong, mutually beneficial partnership thatenables them to achieve more together thaneither could accomplish alone. The park providesa variety of support to the Commission and her-itage area partners, including technical and inter-pretive assistance, legal guidance, administrativeservices, and funding for projects. The NPSNational Center for Preservation Technologyand Training (NCPTT) based at NorthwesternState University in Natchitoches also worksclosely with the park and the heritage area.Although NCPTT provides services nationwide,its expertise, capacity, and resources have bene-fited local projects as well. The remarkable complementarity and synergy that have existedin recent years among the staff leaders of theheritage area and the park, and also withNCPTT, are widely seen by study participants as vital to their collective accomplishments.

Partnerships with other key governmental bodiesand private sector interests have also been essen-tial to the accomplishments of the heritage area.In particular, the commission has developed astrong, mutually beneficial relationship with thecity of Natchitoches. There is good alignment ofgoals and priorities; the city has provided crucialcapacity, leadership, and leveraging ability; andthe two staffs have had close, productive workingrelationships. Some arms of Louisiana’s stategovernment have played important partnershiproles; these include nearby state park units, theDivisions of Historic Preservation and

III. Strengths and Challenges of the Cane RiverPartnership System

12 “Cane River partnership system” refers to the overall array of components, participants, and processes that interact as a systemwithin the heritage area. See section IV for more details.

13 Throughout the remainder of this report, the term “study participants” is used to denote the people who participated in thesemeetings, conversations, and interviews.

Children at Main Street’s summercamp learn about history and architecture at Melrose Plantation. A heritage area grant supported the program.


Archeology, the Department of Transportationand Development, Northwestern State University,and the Louisiana School of Math, Science, andthe Arts. From the private sector, area nonprofitorganizations, businesses, and other groups haveprovided valuable leadership, capacity, leverage,political clout, and grassroots connections.

Substantial contributions of funding and otherforms of support from diverse public and privatepartners have been essential to the heritage area’ssuccess to date. Core NPS Heritage PartnershipPrograms funding for the heritage area has beenparticularly important in supporting operationsand in leveraging additional investments.

B. Strengths of the current system:the partner perspective

Cane River’s heritage resources and the storiesconnected with those resources link people toplace and to each other, and also link differentcultural groups to the same place. Study partici-pants expressed a strong sense of pride in theregion’s heritage resources. Many partners havea direct, personal connection with these resourcesthat derive from long-standing family ties to theland. The power in these linkages is one of theheritage area’s greatest strengths, because it provides a foundation for the work of the CaneRiver initiative and a context for engaging differ-ent cultural groups. Study participants describedhow working with heritage area programs andstaff has helped foster dialogue among differentcultural groups on some difficult issues, whichhas led to greater understanding of each others’stories. Such dialogue and enhanced understand-ing in turn strengthen the shared sense of placeand can lead to partnerships between groupsthat traditionally may not have worked together.

The ability of the commission and its staff to playa wide range of roles has empowered heritage areapartners, encouraged them to think more broadlyabout heritage conservation, and enhancedopportunities for collaboration. Study partici-pants cited such key roles as “sounding board,”“critical friend,” “facilitator,” “connector,” and“convener.”14 By fulfilling different needs wheninteracting with partners, passing along newideas, and demonstrating best practices or newways of working, the commission and its staffhave helped partners operate collaborativelytoward a common agenda. This is evidence thathaving an entity dedicated to partnership build-ing and applying a regional, integrated approachcan help build robust collaborations.

The strength and effectiveness of the partnernetwork depend on the stability of individualpartner groups and their ability to deliver results.Study participants reported that the commissionand its staff have strengthened partners’ abilityto manage cultural and natural resources,enhanced their organizational managementand operations, and improved their partneringskills. Interview data suggest that the commis-sion and staff serve as the primary entitythat communicates, coordinates, guides, andencourages network activity. Nearly every studyparticipant indicated that at the present time noother organization in the region is capable ofreplacing the commission and its staff as“system facilitator.”

In addition, study participants noted the visionand leadership provided by heritage area staff inprograms and projects, as well as their commit-ment to “professionalism.” In some instances,this occurs in working with partner organiza-tions during the formative stages of specificprojects. Staff feedback improves project outcomes, builds trust, and reinforces theimportance of community-based efforts in fulfilling the heritage area’s regional, multicul-tural mission. In other instances, heritage areastaff help navigate a complex sea of history,stories, and values, acting as “an essential go-between.” Study findings like these indicate thatworking successfully through multidimensionalpartnerships requires a certain organizationalculture and leadership philosophy.

As with the management perspective, partnersacknowledged the benefits of the NPS relation-ship, observing that the park and the heritagearea complement and reinforce each other onmany levels. Study data also suggest that thenational heritage area designation adds value tothe region. It validates the history and experienceof the different cultural communities, provides a“branding” effect that is important to heritage-based tourism and other economic development,and communicates the credibility of heritagearea programs, activities, and objectives.

C. Challenges facing the current system

There are important challenges facing CaneRiver National Heritage Area that affect theability of the commission and its partners toachieve the initiative’s broad, integrated mission.Some of these challenges concern the commis-sion’s internal operations, while others relate toexternal matters.

14 Study participants used 31 different terms to describe the roles that the commission and its staff play in interacting with partners.

Historic Preservation organizationsare important partners in the heritagearea initiative. The Kate ChopinHouse (top), home of the feministauthor of The Awakening, is ownedby the Association for the Preser-vation of Historic Natchitoches. The Roque House (bottom), built by a freed slave, is owned by theNatchitoches Historic Foundation.


1. Ensuring the integrity of the cultural landscapeMany study participants identified issues associ-ated with land use planning and development asa significant threat, particularly along the rivercorridor where development has increasedrapidly over the last five years. Cane River’sauthorizing legislation mentions landscapeintegrity as an element contributing to thenational significance of the region. Maintainingthe character and integrity of the cultural land-scape is essential to the heritage area’s purpose:without the cultural landscape, the region’s corestories will lose their context.

2. Improving management entity effectivenessStudy participants noted a number of challengesand limitations that affect the commission’sfunctioning and effectiveness. Many discussedthe commission’s composition, pointing out thatthere has been little turnover among members,that some commissioners do not serve as effec-tive liaisons between the commission and theorganizations they represent, and that certainmember organizations may not be as vibrant asthey were when the commission was establishedin 1994. Related to these issues is the perceivedneed to attract and cultivate new leaders. Therehave also been frustrations, inefficiencies, andoperational hurdles associated with the federalappointments process, as well as limitations onthe commission’s ability as a federal body to accessfunding from certain sources (such as privatecontributions and earned income generation).

3. Enhancing key partner relationshipsMany study participants highlighted the need forthe commission to better engage the NatchitochesParish Police Jury15 and encourage it to be a moreactive participant in the partner network. Thepolice jury has the authority to address land useplanning and growth management, which is par-ticularly important given the concerns aboutlandscape conservation. Study participants alsopointed to the need to strengthen the partner-ship with the state of Louisiana, which does notappear to have been as broadly or consistentlyinvolved in the heritage area in the past as mightbe desirable. There has been no clearly identifiedlead state agency to advance partnership effortswith the commission, and no dedicated seat(s)on the commission for key state agencies. Manystudy participants suggested that the Cane Riverheritage area deserves more state support giventhe significance of its history, the connectionsbetween local stories and those of other parts ofLouisiana, and its potential to complement

heritage development activities statewide. Finally,although the commission’s partnerships with thecity of Natchitoches and the NPS are generallystrong, there is an ongoing challenge to sustainand enhance these key relationships over time,especially in light of leadership transitions,changing priorities, budget pressures, and political dynamics.

4. Ensuring the effectiveness of the partnernetworkStudy data suggest three important challengesrelated to the Cane River partner network. These are the need to (1) build partner capacity,(2) develop the next generation of communityleaders, and (3) continually balance the distribu-tion of costs and benefits throughout thenetwork (i.e., ensure that the risks and rewardsrelated to the heritage area’s work are shared by all partners). The Cane River partner networkis highly dynamic. As organizations evolve, new opportunities and challenges arise, andother social, political, and economic forceschange, addressing these three key needs couldhelp ensure the long-term resilience of thepartner network.

5. Maintaining relevancy to a broad publicSome study participants suggested that there are still many residents who know little about the heritage area, and that the heritage area initiative needs to increase its visibility. This ispart of a broader need to maintain relevancyand ensure that the heritage area is “interfacing”with the public in ways that demonstrate its benefits to the region. Raising the public profileof the heritage area can also attract more part-ners to the network.

6. Securing stable funding from diverse sourcesNearly every study participant identified fundingas a pressing issue. The reliance on federal fundsfor core operations has made the heritage areavulnerable to the unpredictability of the federalappropriations process. The lack of a predictablefunding base affects the ongoing ability of CaneRiver management to plan and carry out pro-grams and has implications for staffing.

The discussions in sections V and VI beginningon page 18 offer options and identify opportuni-ties for addressing these challenges and capitaliz-ing on the identified strengths.

15 In Louisiana, a parish corresponds to a county and the police jury is its governing body.

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

Phili

p B.

Huf

fman

Through its analysis, the study team identified an array of complementary components andprocesses that are needed over time to sustainand enhance the effectiveness of the Cane Riverpartnership system. Many of these ingredientsare already in place and have been essential tothe heritage area’s accomplishments to date, butnot all are fully realized. The critical ingredientsare organized into four categories—structuring,guiding, and cultivating the partnership system,and the role of time in the system.

Structuring the partnership systemThe structural ingredients provide much of thecollaborative framework for implementation ofthe heritage area initiative. They include:

• A management entity that:– represents in a balanced way the diversity

of key interests associated with the heritage area;

– actively “stewards” the mission;– transcends organizational and political

interests;– inspires respect in its dealings with heritage

area partners, the general public, and those who comprise its authorizing environment;

– has credibility and clout;– plays a unique and necessary role as the hub

in a complex, multidimensional network.

• Strong governmental partners who help to“anchor” and thereby provide stability to thepartnership system, including:– the city of Natchitoches (partnership

generally well developed);– Natchitoches Parish (partnership not well

developed, but desirable);– the state of Louisiana (partnership partially

developed);– Cane River Creole National Historical Park

(partnership very well developed) and otherarms of the National Park Service (partner-ship generally well developed).

• A robust network of partners who help tocarry out projects, advance the purposes andvision, and provide a “seedbed” of futureleaders.

• Community energy and a sense of localownership of the heritage area initiative, bothof which help to maintain the vibrancy of thepartnership system.

• Secure, stable funding from diversesources, which buffers the uncertainties ofthe annual federal appropriations process and provides stability in planning and carry-ing out projects.

• The ability to leverage funds and resources,essential for building a diverse funding baseand strengthening partner involvement.

• A thematic (rather than political or admin-istrative) boundary that encompasses thecore stories and significant resources of theheritage area.

Guiding the partnership systemThe guiding ingredients work together to providedirection and inspiration to heritage area par-ticipants and projects, and help to ensure thatprojects and programs focus on achieving heritagearea purposes. They include:

• Purposes, a vision, and a mission thatreflect the significance of the region’s heritageassets; are realistic regarding communityresources, needs, and constraints; and providea guiding direction for the partnership system.

• A vision that is broad, integrates the variousgoals, and embraces the diverse culturespresent in the region.

• A compelling story that is authentic, encom-passes the history of the different cultures,connects with local resources, inspires pride,and is relevant to people’s experiences today.

• A sense of shared heritage that provides abase for community engagement and partnerinitiatives and an organizing concept for collaboration.

• Leadership from the management entity thatfosters a partnership culture and includesvision, integrity, a sense of entrepreneurialism,a willingness to take risks, and the ability tothink creatively.

• A capacity to leverage ideas that encouragesbig-picture thinking, contributes to synergy,links partners in ways that strengthen thepartner network, and helps to maintain thevibrancy of the partnership system.

IV. Critical Ingredients for Sustaining the Cane RiverPartnership System



• A commitment to sustaining cultural andnatural resources, reinforced by the under-standing that these resources provide anessential context for the stories and are integralto the heritage area’s national significance.

Cultivating the partnership systemIn concert with the guiding ingredients listedabove, certain processes help to build collabora-tion and an effective partner network. Theyinclude:

• Collaborative leadership that engenders:– an open, inclusive, participatory approach;– trusting partner relationships;– transparent, flexible, adaptive operations;– a sense of common purpose and ownership

of the heritage area initiative.

• An ongoing commitment to meaningfulcommunity engagement that helps tosustain the vitality of the partner network.

• Responsiveness to local needs that buildsand sustains strong community relationshipsand ensures that the heritage area initiativeremains relevant over time.

• Attention to leveraging the full potential ofthe partnership system, including everyplayer and every component.

• An emphasis on building and enhancingpartner capacity and leadership so thateach partner is effective and contributes leadership to the initiative.

• An ongoing commitment to learning andadaptive management that continuallyimproves operations and programs and sustains the effectiveness of the partnershipsystem.

The role of time in development of the partnership systemIt takes time to build the necessary social infra-structure to effectively implement a partnershipsystem as complex as a national heritage area initiative—time for partnership building to bearfruit; time to build a strong, robust partnernetwork; time to integrate diverse objectives at a regional or landscape scale; and time for thepartnership system to evolve and mature.

Based on its analysis of strengths and challengesand the critical ingredients for sustained success,the study team identified options and opportuni-ties for the commission to consider for thefuture. These are discussed in the next two sections, with options related to the heritage areaframework discussed first, followed by otheroptions and opportunities.

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.

This section presents a series of options for the five components of the heritage area frame-work: (1) purposes, vision, and mission; (2) geographic scope/boundary; (3) manage-ment entity; (4) key governmental partnerships;and (5) funding and other forms of support (see figure 5). Many of the options are interre-lated and, while some are mutually exclusive,many could be undertaken simultaneously. Some options would require legislative action by one level of government or another, whileothers could be pursued administratively bythe commission and heritage area partners.The study team is not recommending anyspecific option or combination of options;instead, the options are provided for considera-tion by the commission and its partners inmaking decisions for the future. All of theoptions are discussed in greater depth in the full study report.

A. Purposes, vision, and mission

Cane River’s legislated purposes and vision andmission statements provide the guiding directionfor what the initiative is designed to achieve.16

Several options were identified for refining thisguiding direction as well as the commission’sassociated authorities.17

Option A.1. Add new dimensions to the purposes, vision, and mission. Two possibleadditions emerged during the study: conservingnatural resources and enhancing recreationalopportunities. Both are related to the heritagearea’s current priorities and activities, but neither is explicitly included in the guidingdirection and it does not appear that any otherentity is providing strong leadership on eitheracross the Cane River region.

Option A.2. Align the heritage area’s legislatedpurposes with its vision and mission statements.Two concepts were identified as possible addi-tions to the purposes: fostering compatibleeconomic development based on the region’sheritage assets and enhancing quality of life for local residents. Both are important elementsof the heritage area’s current vision and mission,but neither is addressed specifically in CaneRiver’s authorizing legislation.

Option A.3. Align the management entity’sauthorities with the purposes, vision, and mis-sion. Some of the commission’s legislated auth-orities are defined somewhat narrowly relative tothe breadth of the purposes, vision, and mission.Specific authorities that could be broadenedinclude those related to cooperative agreements,grant making, and the types of assistance thecommission can provide. Broadening theseauthorities could help to ensure that the com-mission or any successor management entityhas the flexibility it needs to optimize progresstoward the heritage area’s purposes, vision, and mission.

B. Geographic scope/boundary

The heritage area’s existing boundary is closelyrelated to the region’s core stories and generallyappears to have been workable for the heritagearea’s first phase. However, study participantsidentified a number of possible adjustments,including extending the boundary farther northand/or west, including more areas within the citylimits of Natchitoches, encompassing the entireCane River watershed, and eliminating FortJesup as a satellite site. Within this context, thestudy team identified two options that could bepursued sequentially, or the second one could bepursued alone. In deciding whether to undertakeeither of these options, perhaps the primaryquestion to consider is this: Does the boundaryas it is currently configured appropriately reflectand encompass Cane River’s core stories, themes,and significant heritage resources?

Option B.1. Conduct a boundary study. Amore thorough study of possible adjustments tothe boundary could be initiated, either as part ofa federal reauthorization package or administra-tively by the commission.

Option B.2. Pursue boundary changes legisla-tively through federal reauthorization, withoutfurther study. As an alternative to investing theadditional time, money, and energy required fora formal boundary study, the commission and itspartners could identify desired changes througha less involved but still open and public process,then seek to have those changes enacted directlyas part of federal reauthorizing legislation.

V. National Heritage Area Framework Options andOpportunities


16 The heritage area’s purposes are stated in the authorizing legislation; the vision and mission statements are articulated in the man-agement plan and in subsequent refinements by the commission.

17 The commission’s authorities (or powers) are defined in the heritage area’s enabling legislation.

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


C. Management entity

As the commission approaches the sunset of itsfederal authorization in 2010, one of the mostimportant questions is whether it or some otherorganization will serve as management entityfor the heritage area’s next phase. Indeed, theauthorizing legislation explicitly requires thecommission to “identify appropriate entities,such as a nonprofit corporation, that could beestablished to assume the responsibilities of thecommission following its termination.”

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

• the entity’s ability to embody the essentialcharacteristics described in section IV (critical ingredients)

• the importance of seeking and retaining adiverse mix of skills, backgrounds, andexpertise among members of the entity’s governing body

• the challenge of achieving the right balance ofinterests and the right mix of qualificationsamong members of the governing body

• the need for flexibility to adapt to changingcircumstances

• the ability and readiness to effectively fulfillthe responsibilities of the management entityin 2010

The study team identified six potential manage-ment entity options (listed below). The strengthsand challenges inherent in each of these options are discussed in the full project report.The selected organization would need to be

authorized by Congress as the managemententity in order to receive funding through NPSHeritage Partnership Programs; this could bespecified in the federal reauthorizing legislation.

Option C.1. Reauthorize the existing commis-sion. Under this option, the commission wouldcontinue as management entity with its currentcomposition for a specified duration (perhaps anadditional five, ten, or twenty years).

Option C.2. Modify the composition of the current federal commission. This option wouldinvolve reauthorizing the commission for a speci-fied duration but with changes to enhance itseffectiveness as a body representing the heritagearea’s full range of interests. Possible adjustmentsthat respond to concerns or needs identified bystudy participants include additional representa-tion of African Americans; Creoles; the LouisianaDepartment of Culture, Recreation, and Tourism;the Natchitoches Parish Tourist Commissionand/or the Natchitoches Area Convention andVisitors Bureau; and at-large interests.

Option C.3. Shift to a new state-authorizedcommission. As an alternative to the existing fed-eral commission, the Louisiana legislature couldestablish a state-level commission with similar representation of interests. Two examples of state-authorized commissions that currently work withthe heritage area initiative are the NatchitochesHistoric District Development Commission andthe Cane River Waterway Commission. While bothwere established through state legislation, each hasa strong local orientation and does not have day-to-day involvement with state government.

Figure 5. 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: Key GovernmentalPartnerships

E: Funding and Other 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: sustain and enhancepartnership with city

D.2: strengthen partnership with parish

D.3: strengthen partnership with state

D.4: sustain 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

Option C.4. Shift to a new city-authorizedcommission. Similarly, the Natchitoches CityCouncil could establish a new representativecommission through a municipal ordinance. TheNatchitoches Historic District Commission is awell-established example of a representativebody set up in this way. It would be essential forthe authorizing ordinance to ensure balancedrepresentation among interests throughout theheritage area, and for city and other in-towninterests to engage those downriver to ensurethat the heritage area initiative remains focusedon the broad regional agenda and relevant to allof its diverse constituents.

Option C.5. Shift to a nonprofit organization. Cane River’s authorizing legislation specificallymentions the possibility of a nonprofit as analternative to the commission, and nonprofitsserve as management entities for many nationalheritage areas around the country. However, atthe moment no nonprofit organization in theCane River region appears to be positioned orprepared to take on the role of the heritage area’smanagement entity. None of the well-establishednonprofits has a mission and scope of compara-ble breadth to that of the heritage area, and studyparticipants suggested that none could bring allof the diverse interests and perspectives togetherin the integrative, transcendent way that thefederal commission has. It is possible that thefledgling Friends of Cane River could be nurturedto fill this role; alternatively, a new nonprofitorganization could be created.

Option C.6. Pursue a hybrid approach thatcombines features of other management entityoptions.

• 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 sunset. Heritage area partners could seek reautho-rization of the commission for perhaps five orten years (through option C.1 or C.2). Duringthat period, the commission and its partnerswould 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 andthen as successor to the commission. Thisprocess would need to be carefully plannedand implemented to ensure an orderly, effec-tive transfer of institutional knowledge andcapacity from one entity to the other.18

• Option C.6.b. Develop a nonprofit organi-zation to complement the managemententity and serve as a core operatingpartner in advancing the Cane River initia-tive. Alternatively, a nonprofit could be culti-vated to play a leadership role alongside themanagement entity but without the explicitintent that it would become the managemententity itself. This scenario could be pursued inconjunction with any of options C.1 throughC.4. Careful forethought would be needed tocarve out complementary niches for the non-profit and the management entity, and close,ongoing communication between them wouldbe essential.

D. Key governmental partnerships

Partnerships with a rich mix of public andprivate organizations lie at the heart of CaneRiver National Heritage Area’s strategy. Of themany partners involved, several key governmen-tal partners play particularly important roles inCane River’s framework and have a significantbearing on the initiative’s effectiveness. Some ofthese governmental relationships are well devel-oped and serve as strong, mutually beneficialconnections, while others are not yet as firmlyestablished. Because of their importance, thestudy team worked with commissioners, staff,and partners to identify options for building andenhancing these relationships in the future.

Option D.1. Sustain and enhance the commis-sion’s strong partnership with the city ofNatchitoches. This option would build on existingstrengths and sustain the present synergy betweenthe city and the heritage area in the face of ever-changing circumstances. Key elementsinclude maintaining strong staff ties over timeand seeking further opportunities to institution-alize the relationship (for instance, through anintergovernmental agreement as described inoption D.5 below).

Option D.2. Strengthen the commission’s partnership with Natchitoches Parish. Thecommission 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 of importance to the heritagearea’s future, it is clearly desirable—if not imperative—to establish a stronger, more effec-tive relationship. The commission could move in that direction with strategic engagement that


18 The Delaware & Lehigh National Heritage Corridor in Pennsylvania has pursued this approach successfully over the past severalyears, with a gradual, carefully executed transition from a federal commission to a nonprofit management entity. Further informa-tion on the D&L’s transition is available at http://www.delawareandlehigh.org/images/library/final_nps_csi_report.pdf.

Lair LaCour, known on Cane River as“Mama Lair,” holds portraits of herparents. Cane River Creole culture isanchored by a strong sense of family.

Phili

p G

ould


(1) creates a tighter connection and liaisonthrough the police jury’s representative on thecommission, (2) seeks a closer relationship andregular communication with the police jurorwhose district encompasses the heritage area, (3) initiates a regular commission presence atpolice jury and Natchitoches Parish Planningand Zoning Commission meetings, (4) activelyengages both of those boards in discussing matters of joint interest, (5) pursues projectopportunities of mutual benefit, and (6) lever-ages funding to address mutual needs. An intergovernmental agreement (see option D.5)could also serve as a mechanism for building astronger partnership.

Option D.3. Strengthen the heritage area’spartnership with the state of Louisiana.Evidence from other national heritage areas sug-gests that a strong, “anchoring” connection witha lead state agency can be invaluable in advancingan integrated vision for heritage conservationand development. Because of complementaryobjectives and programs, it appears that theDepartment of Culture, Recreation, and Tourism(CRT) would be the most logical choice to serveas designated lead state agency in the heritagearea partner network. Other possible actions tostrengthen the partnership with the state includecreating a designated seat for CRT on the com-mission (or its successor), seeking opportunitiesto pursue “need-based” collaboration with CRTand other state agencies, pursuing the creation ofa state-level heritage area program within CRT,

building closer relationships with the governorand the legislature, and establishing an intergov-ernmental agreement (see option D.5).

Option D.4. Sustain and enhance the heritagearea’s strong partnership with the NationalPark Service. Anchored by its close, local tie withCane River Creole National Historical Park, theheritage area’s partnership with the NPS is welldeveloped in many respects and serves as a strong,mutually beneficial connection. Perhaps thelargest challenge for the NPS relationship will beto sustain the synergy of the past several years,given that changes in personnel, priorities, andresources are inevitable on both sides over time.Overcoming that challenge undoubtedly willhinge 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 approach would be to seek additional staffcapacity to enable the national park to providebroader assistance to the community and to her-itage area partners. This could include additionalstaff and funding support for interpretive andeducational programs, hands-on technical assis-tance, and/or operational assistance. A secondapproach would be to solidify the heritage area’srelationship with and support from NPS’sSoutheast Region and Washington offices. Studyparticipants suggested this might be achievedthrough (1) greater dialogue between heritagearea and NPS leaders; (2) additional technical

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.


assistance through relevant NPS programs, suchas the Rivers, Trails, and Conservation AssistanceProgram; (3) occasional staff exchanges; and (4) additional NPS regional- and national-levelstaff support for Cane River and other nationalheritage areas in the Southeast Region (e.g.,establishment of a full-time national heritagearea coordinator position for the SoutheastRegion comparable to the existing position in the Northeast Region). In addition, NPS couldproactively plan for future transitions in parkleadership and management (see section VI,option C.2).

Option D.5. Develop an intergovernmentalpartnership agreement. To further strengthenrelationships with its key governmental partners,the commission could initiate a written partnershipagreement or memorandum of understandingthat would bind those partners (and potentiallyothers) together more formally. The purpose ofsuch an agreement would be to help solidify rela-tionships and institutionalize the commitment ofkey governmental partners to participate in theheritage area initiative. It could also identify theroles and responsibilities of the participatingentities in helping to support the initiative.

E. Funding and other forms of support

Aside from the future management entity, theother major question raised by the approachingsunset of federal authorization relates to futurefunding and whether federal appropriations forCane River operations and programming will continue. Working with study participants, theproject team identified two primary options

Option E.1. Pursue continued federal fundingthrough reauthorizing legislation. This optionwould enable continued annual appropriationsto the heritage area through the NPS HeritagePartnership Programs budget. As has been thecase since Cane River began receiving federalappropriations in 2000, this funding would likelyprovide core support for ongoing operations andprogramming at least in the short term, sinceother sources of comparable funding have notyet been secured.

Option E.2. Continue pursuing support from abroad mix of other sources, and look for newopportunities to diversify and stabilize theheritage area’s funding base. This option recognizes the need to reduce reliance on federalappropriations and increase the support con-tributed by core partners and others. This optionwould enhance the initiative’s ability and capacityto achieve its mission and would increaseresiliency and durability over time. Potentialopportunities for further support include (1) funding and other assistance from federaland state agencies for relevant projects and activities; (2) an annual appropriation from thestate legislature; (3) existing and/or new localrevenue streams;19 and (4) private sector support(e.g., support from corporations, foundations,and individuals, and revenue generation througha nonprofit operating partner or friends group).Each of these is described in more detail in thefull project report.

The quarters at Magnolia Plantationhoused workers from 1853 throughthe 1960s. The national park sharesthe stories of all the families wholived on the plantation during colo-nial times, in the eras of slavery andsharecropping, and up to the mid-twentieth century.

19 Options for tapping existing local revenue streams could include the addition of a small increment to the area’s hotel/motel tax orallocation of a small percentage of the property tax. Options for a new local revenue stream could include a new fee on develop-ments or on property transfers within the heritage area.


In addition to the framework options, the studyteam identified other options and opportunitiesfor enhancing and sustaining the Cane River part-nership system. Grouped by (1) investment inprograms, (2) investment in outreach and enhanc-ing partnerships, and (3) investment in operations,these options emerged from the study team’s datacollection and its considerations of the challenges(section III) and the critical ingredients (sectionIV). As with the framework options in section V,the study team is not making specific recommen-dations; instead, it is presenting an array of ideasfor consideration. See the full report for a morein-depth discussion of these options.

A. Investment in programs

Option A.1. Develop a long-term strategy andtools for cultural landscape stewardship. Study participants repeatedly identified the needto conserve the character of Cane River’s nation-ally significant landscapes as the largest challengefacing the commission and its partners in the nearfuture. The rural communities and agriculturallandscapes on both sides of the river provide animportant visual and historical context for theheritage area’s stories and for the historic build-ings that have benefited from considerable financial investment by the commission and itspartners. Possible steps that the commission and its partners could take to address this landuse challenge include:

• Partner with an existing land trust fromoutside the region to conserve importantlandscapes in the short term, and establishlocal land trust capacity over the long term.

• Offer workshops for landowners on conser-vation options.

• Identify a supportive landowner with a high-priority parcel who will participate in a pilotconservation easement project.

• Work with the parish and/or the city to pre-serve parks, open space, and public accessdownriver. Possible sources of funding for suchan effort include the state, especially federallyfunded programs such as the Land and WaterConservation Fund (http://www.crt.state.la.us/parks/ioutdoorrec.aspx) that are administeredby the Department of Culture, Recreation,and Tourism.20 Technical assistance may beavailable through the NPS Rivers, Trails, andConservation Assistance Program

(http://www.nps.gov/ncrc/programs/rtca/).• Partner with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

to expand interests of the Red River NationalWildlife Refuge in the heritage area.

• Cultivate broader understanding and appreci-ation of the significance of the region’sresources among developers.

• Better integrate “bricks and mortar” historicpreservation with broader conservation andstewardship of Cane River cultural landscapes.

Option A.2. Explore tools and approaches toguide and manage growth. It is important thatplanning and zoning policies reflect the vision of the community at large and conserve keyattributes of the region. “Smart growth” is anincreasingly popular approach to developmentthat balances community needs with economic,environmental, and health concerns. The com-mission could take steps toward guiding growthto protect landscape character:

• Provide heritage area funding, and seekmatching support, for the Natchitoches ParishPlanning and Zoning Commission to conducta 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 asthe Center for Planning Excellence(www.planningexcellence.org/program/louisiana-community-planning.html), theAmerican Institute of Architects’ competitivedesign assessment program (www.aia.org/liv_dat), and the Southern Rural DevelopmentCenter’s program on smart growth and ruralagricultural areas (http://srdc.msstate.edu/).

• Gather information on effective planning and growth management from sources suchas the Smart Growth Network (www.smartgrowth.org/sgn), Smart Growth Vermont(www.smartgrowthvermont.org), the AmericanPlanning Association (www. planning.org) andits Louisiana chapter (www.louisiana-apa.org),and the American Society of LandscapeArchitects (www.asla.org).

• Pursue participation by a Cane River team inthe national program “Balancing Nature andCommerce in Communities That NeighborPublic Lands” (http://conservationfund.org/node/458).

VI. Other Options and Opportunities

20 See also http://www.crt.state.la.us/documentarchive/grants/grantprogramsolg-dcrt20071204.pdf andhttp://www.crt.state.la.us/legislativeinitiatives/pdf/2007federal/smartgrowthopenspace.pdf.


Option A.3. Examine models and tools tostrengthen existing businesses and foster new,compatible economic development. Economicstrategies are available that could help to sustain thecommunities and cultural landscapes downriver:

• Develop a Cane River “brand” that creates anidentity for local products that are associatedwith the Cane River area, recognized for theirsocially and environmentally responsible production, and related to the heritage areamission.21

• Foster compatible and sustainable agriculturalefforts that support the local resourceeconomy, such as community supported agriculture and farmers’ markets.22

• Support local, value-added products that arehigh-quality, produced in a manner that isconsistent with conservation goals, and associated with place.23

Option A.4. Seek a multiple-property listing on the National Register of Historic Places for historic resources downriver. Pursuingthis option, which would include cultural land-scapes, archeological resources (prehistoricthrough historic), and historic properties, could help to convey the integrated nature ofthe heritage assets.

Option A.5. Support implementation of designguidelines for the Waterwell Road corridor. The commission and the city partnered todevelop these guidelines two years ago followingthe annexation of the interchange and corridorby the city of Natchitoches.

Option A.6. Capitalize on interpretive andmarketing opportunities to connect CaneRiver stories more broadly. Pursuing thisoption could enhance tourism, increase heritage area visibility, broaden partnerships,and attract new audiences. Possible opportuni-ties include connecting with AtchafalayaNational Heritage Area; linking with Creole initiatives elsewhere in Louisiana and beyond;connecting with initiatives related to the ElCamino Real de los Tejas National HistoricTrail and the African American Heritage Trailin Louisiana, and the development of FrenchColonial heritage in Missouri; and highlightingthe Cane River region’s Civil War and WorldWar II heritage.

Option A.7. Participate in the establishment of a regional collections conservation center. This option would involve collaborating withCane River Creole National Historical Park, theNational Center for Preservation Technologyand Training, and Northwestern State Universityto establish a facility that would care for theextensive historical collections from the Oakland and Magnolia Plantations, managed by the NPS, and the university’s WilliamsonMuseum collection.

B. Investment in outreach andenhancing partnerships

Option B.1. Develop a strategy for buildingand sustaining relationships with key stake-holders who are not yet fully engaged. Thiscould include preparing materials targeted to different interests that would make a case forenhanced collaboration. It would explain thevalue the heritage area brings to the region andidentify common objectives, mutual benefits tocollaboration, and specific ideas for advancingshared concerns. Key stakeholders not yet fullyengaged in the heritage area include the Natch-itoches Parish Police Jury and NatchitochesParish Planning and Zoning Commission, theAfrican American community (recent progressprovides a foundation for enhancing relation-ships with this important partner group), and the business community and others involvedwith community and economic development.

Option B.2. Develop a strategy for strengthen-ing leadership skills and capacity in partnerorganizations. This option would build depthand resiliency in the partner network and help to cultivate the next generation of leaders.Seeking opportunities to enhance citizens’ abilities to lead within their communities andorganizations would complement the commis-sion’s project-related capacity building throughthe competitive grants program. Some nationalheritage areas have developed their own leader-ship training programs.24 Partnering with thenewly designated Atchafalaya National HeritageArea might provide an opportunity to developspecialized training because of the increasednumber of potential participants. There may alsobe opportunities to develop a specific heritagetrack within the following existing leadershipdevelopment programs:

21 For information on national park areas that have developed associated products to help preserve traditional land uses and culturallandscapes, see Stewardship Begins with People: An Atlas of Places, People, and Handmade Products, available from theConservation Study Institute by emailing [email protected].

22 For an explanation of community supported agriculture, see http://www.nal.usda.gov/afsic/pubs/csa/csadef.shtml. 23 Examples of existing local products associated with place include cards and books displaying the artwork of Clementine Hunter

(sold at Melrose Plantation), Cane River basketry, and Cane River pecans.24 See, for example, Leadership Blackstone Valley at www.blackstonevalley.org/leadership.

Split cane and split oak baskets aretraditional products of AmericanIndians in this area. The CaddoNation of Oklahoma traces ancestryto this region, and tribal leaders workwith local partners to share Caddostories and traditions.


• Community Development Works, offeredthrough the Rapides Foundation (www.communitydevelopmentworks.org);

• Leadership Louisiana, a one-year leadershipdevelopment program offered by the Councilfor a Better Louisiana (www.cabl.org/leadership.aspx);

• 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;www.pew-partnership.org/lpinstitute.html);

• Heritage Development Institute’s trainingprograms for people working in heritagedevelopment, coordinated through theAlliance of National Heritage Areas and theHeritage Development Partnership (http://www.heritagedevelopmentinstitute.org/home).

Option B.3. Pursue a closer partnership withAtchafalaya National Heritage Area. In addition to leadership training, numerous opportunities exist to work collaboratively withAtchafalaya, including efforts at both the stateand federal levels that would benefit the two heritage areas (e.g., establishing a state programon heritage areas and coordinating efforts toenhance relationships with the NPS at theregional level and in Washington, D.C.). Closer to home, the two heritage areas could build peerrelationships between their staffs, participateinformally in each other’s commission meetingsand public events, arrange reciprocal site visits,and pursue joint programming opportunities inoverlapping subject areas.

Option B.4. Further capitalize on the substan-tial federal presence in the Cane River region. Although the regional managers of the area’sfederal agencies meet periodically, there may beadditional unrealized opportunities that couldprovide (1) combined clout, resources, andexpertise to address pressing challenges (e.g.,landscape conservation), (2) closer coordinationof services (with the heritage area serving as anumbrella for better integration), and (3) furtheropportunities to weave stories together atexhibits and in public materials.

Option B.5. Provide additional leadership forpartnership opportunities related to recre-ational enhancements. Potential enhancementssuch as a bike path, walking trails, a greenwayalong the river corridor, and water-based recre-ation represent unrealized potential for both residents and visitors. Developing recreationalopportunities would broaden the community

development potential for services (e.g., foodservices downriver, bike and boat rental facili-ties, use of centralized transportation).

Option B.6. Provide additional leadership for partnership opportunities and activitiesrelated to conservation of natural resourcesand prime agricultural land. This option couldinvolve collaborating with local, state, and federalagencies and the private sector on initiativesrelated to these important resources. One possi-ble joint initiative could be to conduct a naturalheritage inventory within Cane River’s boundaryto identify the types, locations, and significanceof natural communities and wildlife habitats.

Option B.7. Publicize research opportunitiesnationally to the academic and research com-munities. This option could be pursued jointlywith Northwestern State University and theCreole Heritage Center. The research conductedto date involving Cane River’s heritage assets hasadded considerably to understanding of theinteraction of cultures and traditions over time,and no doubt much more can be learned.

Option B.8. Seek opportunities to work withothers to engage more broadly with the generalpublic. Participating in initiatives being led byothers could provide wider visibility for the her-itage area. Opportunities include the upcomingNatchitoches tricentenary in 2013–2014 andactivities related to the development of theLouisiana State Museum, Natchitoches EventsCenter, Louisiana Sports Hall of Fame, and thenew downtown hotel complex.

C. Investment in operations

There are steps that the commission could taketo improve heritage area operations and enhanceits ability to govern effectively in a “networked”environment.

Option C.1. Initiate measures to facilitate acommon understanding of commission rolesand responsibilities on the part of commission-ers and the organizations they represent. Study participants identified the need for com-missioners to have close ties to the organizationsthey represent, to understand their roles andresponsibilities as commissioners, and to part-icipate actively in commission meetings and initiatives. Steps that could be taken to addressthese concerns include:

• Identify desired qualifications for potentialcommissioners and clarify expectations, roles,and responsibilities (including the need to

Fishing along Cane River is one ofmany popular outdoor activities inthe area’s rivers, lakes, and forests.

Sonn

y C

arte

r


effectively represent the constituency onwhose behalf they have been nominated, andto act as an effective communication link) andconvey this information to nominating bodies.

• Prepare a primer for commissioners and theorganizations they represent that provides ageneral overview of “governing by network”and outlines the expectations, roles, andresponsibilities of the commissioners withinthis context.25

• 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 should in-clude a process for transferring the knowledgegained by commissioners to the organizationsthey represent.

Option C.2. Develop a strategy for dealingeffectively with transitions. With inevitabletransitions over time among partners, commis-sioners, and heritage area staff—and possibly atransition to a new management entity—it is critical to ensure both the smooth functioning of ongoing programs and partner relationshipsand the maintenance and transfer of institutionalknowledge. Specific steps relevant to transitionsin leadership of key actors are (1) to maintainnetwork functionality and understand the essen-tial roles the management entity must keep playing as primary network hub, (2) to modelexisting staff relationships that have been key tosuccess, and (3) to convene meetings both inter-nally and with partners to discuss each transitionand how to minimize disruption to operations. Itis important to agree on a transparent approachto planning for and managing the transition sothat incoming leaders have ready access toknowledge of the current situation (includingprior commitments and agreements), and anunderstanding of the key issues, priorities, andopportunities. This report, for example, could beof use in upcoming leadership shifts.

Option C.3. Conduct periodic evaluation andvisioning exercises to keep programs andoperations fresh and relevant. With the her-itage area constantly evolving and maturing, it isessential to use adaptive management (i.e., apply-ing lessons learned to improve the partnershipsystem) to maintain and enhance effectiveness.

The commission could develop a process forperiodically assessing programs and operationsand deciding on actions based on how thingshave evolved. Such a process could include (1) periodic visioning sessions; (2) reviewing themanagement plan, highlighting accomplishments,and prioritizing needs and actions; and (3) devel-oping a short-term strategic plan to capitalize onunanticipated opportunities.

Option C.4. Develop a better system for tracking the impacts of the grants programand the leverage from grants and commission-initiated projects. Although this option appliesgenerally to commission investments, one specif-ic example highlights this need: the funding provided by the commission to the CreoleHeritage Center between 2003 and 2007. Thesefunds, which were provided for CHC operationsand programs, represent a significant investmentand the primary means by which the commissionhas invested in Creole-related projects. Withouta mechanism for documenting the use of thesefunds and the resulting impacts, it is difficult toestimate accurately the full extent of the commis-sion’s accomplishments in the Creole community.

Option C.5. Depending on funding, considerexpansion of staff capacity to meet wide-ranging demands. If funding is available,expanding capacity in the areas of development(i.e., fundraising) and communications wouldhelp to address the needs to expand and diversify funding sources and engage morebroadly with the general public.

Option C.6. Change the structure of commissionleadership to chair and vice chair. In order toensure continued mobility in commission leader-ship, a number of study participants suggestedthat the co-chair arrangement be changed tochair and vice chair.

Option C.7. Update the NPS “special resourcestudy” that was done prior to establishment ofthe heritage area and the park in 1994. Thiswould provide an opportunity to evaluate theregion’s heritage resources in light of both cur-rent circumstances and changes since the initialstudy was done. It could also allow for an assess-ment of broader theme-based linkages withAtchafalaya National Heritage Area, other NPSunits, and other heritage-related initiatives.

25 See Stephen Goldsmith and William D. Eggers, Governing by Network: The New Shape of the Public Sector (Washington, DC: TheBrookings Institution, 2004). See also chapter 7 in the full study report.

Agricultural fields contribute to CaneRiver’s special sense of place. Above,Donald Balthazar rides along straightrows of young cotton.

Phili

p G

ould


The growth and evolution of the Cane RiverNational Heritage Area initiative are clearlyvisible in its accomplishments and the progressmade toward achieving its established purposes.Much remains to be done, however, to achievethe vision laid out in the heritage area’s manage-ment plan, and there are significant challenges.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 theexperience 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 her-itage area’s partnerships with the park and thecity of Natchitoches demonstrates that theserelationships are models for public-private part-nerships. 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 those working in conservation andcommunity-based initiatives across the nationand beyond.

VII. Closing Thoughts

Oaklawn Plantation’s oak allée is oneof the longest in Louisiana. Live oakssuch as these often mark the formalentrance to the main houses at plan-tations in the region. Ph

ilip

Gou

ld


The study team would like to express its sincere appre-ciation to the members of the Cane River NationalHeritage Area Commission, who asked us to conductvisioning sessions and evaluate their work. They gener-ously shared with us their commitment to the CaneRiver region and their vision for its future, and theirthoughtful dialogue during the visioning sessions andother project meetings contributed greatly to ourunderstanding of the heritage area.

We are indebted to the entire Cane River NationalHeritage Area staff, who gave so willingly of their timein providing both context and information for thisstudy. We especially appreciate the contributions ofNancy Morgan and Katherine Johnson, who providedinvaluable guidance and knowledge throughout thestudy. A special thanks also to Patricia Antley, who pro-vided gracious assistance in preparations for the studyteam’s site visits and meetings with commissioners. Weare also most appreciative of the perspectives andguidance provided throughout the study by LauraGates of Cane River 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 reflectionsand perspectives during interviews, meetings, andvisioning sessions; and to those commissioners whoserved on the options committee. Your comments provided a wealth of ideas.

To those leaders whose vision, initiative, and efforts led 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 are grate-ful to Chris Abbett, Suzanne Copping, and Ann VanHuizen of the National Park Service; and BrendaBarrett, formerly of the National Park Service, for providing advice and/or reviewing documents atvarious times during the study.

Finally, the study team thanks Jessica Brown and colleagues at the QLF/Atlantic Center for theEnvironment for their assistance and advice and for reviewing this report. Many thanks also to oureditor and designer.

Robert B. DeBlieux, co-chairNatchitoches HistoricFoundation

Saidee W. Newell, co-chairAssociation 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 Soulliere 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

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 responsi-bility for the following:

Philip B. Huffman (cooperator): description and analy-sis of the existing heritage area framework and theframework 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, and member of the project managementcommittee): 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 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 Soulliere 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 ManagementCommittee


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

Text printed on 50 percent recycled paper using soy-based inks.

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 AreaP.O. Box 1201Natchitoches, LA 71458318-356-5555www.caneriverheritage.orgwww.nps.gov/crha

National Park ServiceU.S. Department of the Interior

Cane River National Heritage Area: Linking People ... · Linking People, Traditions, and Landscapes...

Documents

Transcript of Cane River National Heritage Area: Linking People ... · Linking People, Traditions, and Landscapes...