Reflecting on the Past,

Looking to the Future

A Technical Assistance Report to the

John H. Chafee Blackstone River Valley 

National Heritage Corridor Commission

National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

Conservation Study Institute
This report is the seventh in the Conservation and Stewardship

Publication Series produced by the Conservation Study Institute.

This series includes a variety of publications designed to provide

information on conservation history and current practice for 

professionals and the public. The series editor is Nora J. Mitchell,

director of the Conservation Study Institute. 

The Conservation Study Institute was established by the National

Park Service in 1998 to enhance leadership in the field of conservation.

A partnership with academic, government, and nonprofit organizations, the institute provides a forum for the National Park Service, 

the conservation community, and the public to discuss conservation

history, contemporary issues and practices, and future directions in

the field.

We encourage you to share the information in this report, and request

only that you give appropriate citations and bibliographic credits.

Copyrighted images are not placed in the public domain by their

appearance in this document. They cannot be copied or otherwise

reproduced except in their printed context within this publication

without the written consent of the copyright holders. The image on

page 8 is copyrighted by David Wells. Copyrighted images by

Jim McElholm are on the following pages: cover, 14, 20, 21, 22, 27, 30,

36, 37, 40 (bottom), 48, 51, 52, 62, and 67. Copyrighted images by

Donald Anderson are on the following pages: 18, 26, 46, 57, 58.

Recommended citation: Tuxill, Jacquelyn L., Nora J. Mitchell, Philip

B. Huffman, Daniel Laven, Suzanne Copping, and Gayle Gifford.

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. Woodstock,

Vermont: Conservation Study Institute, 2005.

For additional copies, contact:

Conservation Study Institute

54 Elm Street, Woodstock, VT 05091

Tel: (802) 457-3368 / Fax: (802) 457-3405

www.nps.gov/csi

Publications in the Conservation and Stewardship Publication Series:

No. 1 – Landscape Conservation: An International Working Session on

the Stewardship of Protected Landscapes, 2001

No. 2 – International Concepts in Protected Landscapes: Exploring

Their Values for Communities in the Northeast, 2001

No. 3 – Collaboration and Conservation: Lessons Learned in Areas

Managed through National Park Service Partnerships, 2001

No. 4 – Speaking of the Future: A Dialogue on Conservation, 2003

No. 5 – A Handbook for Managers of Cultural Landscapes with Natural

Resource Values, 2003 (web-based)

No. 6 – Collaboration and Conservation: Lessons Learned from National

Park Service Partnership Areas in the Western United States. A Report on a

Workshop March 18-19, 2003, Santa Fe, New Mexico, 2004

All publications are available in PDF format at ww.nps.gov/csi.
One Depot Square

Woonsocket, RI 02895

tel 401 762 0250

fax 401 762 0530

August 12, 2005

The John H. Chafee Blackstone River Valley National Heritage Corridor Commission is pleased to present the

enclosed evaluation report, Reflecting on the Past, Looking to the Future, as we envision the future of the

Blackstone River Valley. When the Commission considered its 2006 legislative sunset, we approached this

milestone with the same dedication to our mission demonstrated since we assumed our duties in May, 1988. 

The Blackstone River Valley is not only one of the nation’s richest and best preserved repositories of

landscapes, structures and sites attesting to the rise of industry in America. It is also the home of Slater Mill, the

virtual cradle of the industrial revolution. What Samuel Slater began in the Blackstone Valley over two centuries

ago profoundly transformed the American landscape, economy, and culture.

Congress recognized the national significance of the Blackstone Valley when it passed legislation in 1986 that

established the Heritage Corridor and Commission. The heritage area concept was new in 1986. Since that time the

lessons learned here in the Blackstone Valley have helped lead the way in developing a national model of

collaborative visioning and management for large, lived-in landscapes.

The Commission felt we could best assess the functioning and accomplishments of the Heritage Corridor and

consider options for the future through an evaluation conducted by an outside “third party.” To achieve this, we

requested technical assistance from the National Park Service Conservation Study Institute. We used this strategy

to look back at our past with a critical eye as we prepared for the future of the Corridor and its mission. We insisted

on an open, honest, and inclusive process.

This report, which is the culmination of that process, eloquently captures the dramatic impact of leveraging

energy and investment in a sophisticated partnership network to achieve preservation, stewardship, recreation, 

and community planning goals. In addition, it helped the Commission explore options for the management

framework that would best serve the present and future stakeholders who will carry out the mission embodied in

the original legislative designation. The Commission is indebted to the Conservation Study Institute’s team for 

their expert services in conducting the study and preparing the report.. The team’s design for the study, and their

analysis and presentation of the results, have been exceedingly important in the Commission’s decision-making

process regarding future management and direction of the Corridor. Just as the Blackstone Corridor has become 

a model for the heritage areas that followed it, we believe this study will become a model for heritage area review

and evaluation.

After many public meetings, much thoughtful reflection, and spirited debate, Commission members voted

unanimously to seek Congressional reauthorization of federal support for the Corridor for an additional twenty

years, including continuing the federal Commission and expanding its membership to include six additional voices

– three each from Massachusetts and Rhode Island. Also, we have committed ourselves to creating another 

ten-year plan which will focus on finishing the Northern Gateway Visitor Center, linking the planned bikeway and
riverway from Worcester to Providence, growing the tourism network, increasing local planning capacity, improving

the water quality of the Blackstone River to fishable and swimmable levels, and enhancing the sustainability of

projects throughout the Corridor.

Many projects remain on the drawing board or in a stage of partial completion that speak to the compelling

need to continue our work. A small sample includes:

City of Worcester, MA: The Worcester Historical Museum is considering a move to a new location that will

include a Visitors’ Center for the Heritage Corridor. The Museum’s estimate of this project is $20 million, plus

infrastructure improvements. The locale will link bikeway, greenway, and river elements, while providing a superior

gateway experience. Also within the City are exciting plans to create a Canal District with water features that will

interpret the Blackstone Canal. Indeed, the City of Worcester has integrated the vision of the Heritage Corridor in

its master planning that will take a decade or more to complete.

Bikeways in Mass and RI: The planned bikeway that will link the City of Worcester south to Providence 

(and eventually to the East Coat Greenway to Florida), is about 20% completed. A significant portion of the design

and construction will be completed in the next decade. The Heritage Corridor Commission and staff have acted 

in a crucial coordinating capacity to advance the bikeway link. The Study revealed that there is a large and diverse

constituency for the bikeway that depend upon the Commission’s role as coordinator to see this project through 

to completion.

Water Quality: The Commission is working with state and local partners to promote cleanup of the

Blackstone River. The campaign, entitled “Fishable/Swimmable by 2015,” has the goal of raising the Blackstone to

Class B water quality. This would allow swimming and the consumption of fish caught in the Blackstone. The target

date for achieving Class B status is 2015. Given the long lead time and complexity of partnerships required, it is

imperative the Commission continue as coordinator to achieve success in cleaning up the river.

Partners were particularly vocal in their support of retaining the federal Commission to continue the work that

has begun but has not been completed. The Commission framework has proven effective as a management entity

for this bi-state Corridor by engaging two state governments, twenty-four local governments, regional authorities,

nonprofit organizations, businesses, citizens, school children and other federal agencies. 

We wish to offer our sincere appreciation to everyone who contributed in the myriad ways necessary to

develop this comprehensive look. Having received recent notice that Congress has taken the next step toward new

legislative authority for the Commission, we look forward with enthusiasm to building on our record of past

achievement in order to fully realize the Corridor’s vision for the future.

Sincerely,

Louise M. Redding

Commission Chairman
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

CONSERVATION AND STEWARDSHIP PUBLICATION NO. 7

Jacquelyn L. Tuxill, Nora J. Mitchell, Philip B. Huffman, Daniel Laven,

Suzanne Copping, and Gayle Gifford 

Published by the Conservation Study Institute

Woodstock, Vermont

2005
Executive Summary 5

Background and Context

Chapter 1: The Purpose of the Blackstone

Sustainability Study 11

A. The Scope of the Blackstone Sustainability

Study

B. The National Context for the Sustainability

Study

C. Organization and Terminology Used in the

Report

Chapter 2: The National Heritage Area

“Experiment” in the Blackstone River Valley 15

A. The Antecedents of National Heritage Areas

B. The National Heritage in the Blackstone

Valley

C. The Heritage Corridor “Experiment”

Transforming the Blackstone

National Heritage Corridor

Chapter 3: Describing the Corridor’s Existing

Management Framework 21

A. Purpose and Vision

B. Geographic Scope

C. Management Entity

D. Partner Network

E. Funding and Other Support

Chapter 4: The Commission’s Accomplishments 

to Date 25

A. Program Accomplishments

B. Strategic Planning and Leverage

Examining the Blackstone Model

for Heritage Conservation and

Development

Chapter 5: Analyzing the Existing Management

Framework 37

A. Purpose and Vision

B. Geographic Scope

C. Management Entity

D. Partner Network

E. Funding and Other Support

Chapter 6: Probing How this Place-Based

Partnership Model Works 43

A. The Program Model

B. Partner Interviews

C. Insights from the Evaluation Process

Sustaining the Engines of Change

Chapter 7: Exploring Management Options for

the Future 55

Option 1: Extend the existing framework in its

current form

Option 2: Make adjustments to the existing

framework

Option 3: Establish a new management entity

Option 4: Establish a permanent NPS presence

in the Corridor

Option 5: Move forward without a federally

supported framework

Chapter 8: Identifying Critical Ingredients for

Sustained Success of the Partnership System 65

A. Organizing Ingredients

B. Guiding Elements

C. Time

Closing Thoughts

Chapter 9: Looking to the Future 69

A. Continuation of Corridor-Wide ProjectBased Initiatives

B. Ongoing Activities that Sustain the

Partnership Base

C. Management Considerations that Support

the Partnership System

D. Final Thoughts

Further Reading 75

Acknowledgments 76

The Blackstone Sustainability

Study Team 76

Appendices 77

Appendix A: Inventory of Accomplishments

Appendix B: Sustainability Study Methodology

Appendix C: Research Methods for Chapter 6

Contents
New England

VT

NH

Blackstone Valley

ME

MA

CT RI

WORCESTER

LEICESTER

GRAFTON

UPTON

NORTHBRIDGE

GLOCESTER

SMITHFIELD

CUMBERLAND

NORTH

SMITHFIELD

WOONSOCKET BURR ILLV ILLE

M ILLV ILLE

BLACKSTONE

MENDON

HOPEDALE

UXBRIDGE

DOUGLAS

SUTTON

LINCOLN

PROVIDENCE

PAWTUCKET

EAST

PROVIDENCE

MILLBURY

CENTRAL FALLS

Blackstone River Valley National Heritage Corridor Boundary
National Park Service Conservation Study Institute 5

other management alternatives for achieving

the national interest in the Blackstone Valley.

For the purposes of the study, the Institute’s

project team defined sustainability as the

strategy, framework, and resources necessary for

continuing and expanding the efforts to successfully achieve the stated goals of the Blackstone

River Valley National Heritage Corridor.

The Institute’s project team gathered information in three key areas:

• Heritage conservation and development

within the Corridor, documenting accomplishments and financial investment and

leverage, and assessing further actions and

commitments needed to fulfill the Corridor’s

purpose;

• The partnership process in the Corridor,

evaluating how the Commission, staff, and

partners work together toward Corridor goals,

and examining the impact of this collaboration

on the various organizations and individuals;

and

• The management framework for the Corridor,

analyzing the existing management framework,

and identifying and analyzing a range of

options for future management.

The project team obtained information from a

variety of sources, including Corridor management plans, annual reports, and other project

documentation of accomplishments and

leverage. The team engaged members of the

Commission, the Futures Committee, Corridor

partners, and the public through interviews and

meetings. To examine a range of management

frameworks and gather insights and ideas for

future conservation of the Corridor, the team

convened a joint meeting of leaders from the

Blackstone Valley and experts with diverse

national and international experience in heritage

areas and partnerships. After analyzing information from all the various components of the

study, the team identified key ingredients of a

successful partnership system in the Blackstone

Valley, and provided advice for enhancing and

sustaining this system. 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Background and Context

In 2004, the John H. Chafee Blackstone River

Valley National Heritage Corridor Commission

(Commission) initiated the Blackstone Sustainability Study to evaluate the past 18 years of work

in the National Heritage Corridor (Corridor)

and use this as a foundation for a dialogue about

future management of the Corridor. The

Commission and its Futures Committee,

desiring external review and a transparent evaluation process, asked the National Park Service

Conservation Study Institute (Institute) to

provide technical assistance by conducting the

Sustainability Study and providing opportunities

for input from partners and the general public. 

The Commission asked the Institute to examine

four aspects of the Commission’s work:

1. Evaluate the accomplishments of the Commission and the progress in achieving the strategies

and goals set forth in the Commission’s 1989

Cultural Heritage and Land Management Plan,

as amended; 

2. Analyze the National Park Service (NPS)

investment and determine how these funds

have leveraged additional funds;

3. Identify further actions and commitments that

are needed to protect, enhance, and interpret

the Corridor; and

4. Evaluate the Commission form of management,

and identify and evaluate options for a permanent National Park Service designation and

In 1986 Congress established the Blackstone River Valley National Heritage Corridor

to preserve and interpret the unique and significant contributions of the valley’s

resources and history to the nation’s heritage. The Blackstone River Valley is one of

the nation’s richest, best-preserved repositories of landscapes, structures, and sites

attesting to the rise of industry in America. The valley led in the social revolution

that transformed an agricultural society into an industrial giant. These two forces,

agriculture and industry, shaped the patterns of settlement, land use, and growth

in the valley. Thousands of structures and entire landscapes still exist that represent

the history of the American Industrial Revolution and the complex economic and

social relationships of the people who lived and worked here. 

Today, the most significant aspect of the Blackstone Valley is its “wholeness,”

the unique survival of representative elements of entire eighteenth- and nineteenth-century production systems. Few places exist where such a concentration of

integrated historic, cultural, and natural resources is as accessible to interpretation,

preservation, and other management strategies.

— From Cultural Heritage and Land Management Plan for the Blackstone River

Valley National Heritage Corridor (1989)

The National Significance of the Blackstone Valley
6 Reflecting on the Past, Looking to the Future: Sustainability Study Report for the John H. Chafee Blackstone River Valley National Heritage Corridor

Transforming the Blackstone National

Heritage Corridor: The Commission’s

Accomplishments and Leverage

Congress created a Commission to assist the two

states, the municipalities, and other partners to

develop cultural, historical, and land resource

management programs to retain, enhance, and

interpret the Corridor’s resource values. The

Commission, a bi-state, 19-member federally

appointed body, serves as the Corridor’s

managing entity and works through partnerships to implement the Corridor’s vision and

management plan. In 1986, the Commission was

originally authorized for five years with a fiveyear renewal. In 1996, after the first ten years,

the Commission received a ten-year extension

from Congress and a Corridor boundary expansion to the current 24 municipalities. At the

Commission’s request, the National Park Service

has provided staff to the Commission since soon

after the Corridor was established.

The Commission’s initial planning process

invited valley residents to share their priorities

and values, and to collaborate in drawing up a

unified vision for the Corridor’s future. The

Commission fostered a vision of the valley as a

cohesive region—an interdependent place

linked by cultural heritage and a common set of

economic, natural, and cultural resources. The

Commission then set an ambitious agenda for

the Corridor that encompasses heritage education, recreation development, ethnic and

cultural conservation, environmental conservation, historic preservation, land use planning,

and heritage-based economic development. 

To date, the Commission has directly sponsored

or participated in more than 400 projects within

the Corridor. Much of this work is managed

through cooperative agreements that identify

needs, common objectives, legal mandates, estimated time frames, and budget. The

Commission has entered into 284 agreements

with 87 Corridor partners to carry out the

management plan. The Commission staff also

provides technical assistance to other projects.

Combined, the Commission has leveraged

considerable public and private contributions,

making it possible to support many more

projects than could be supported by individual

organizations or the National Park Service

working alone.

The Corridor’s authorizing legislation requires

that the Commission’s financial and technical

assistance will be matched with private and

public investments. Since 1987 the Commission

has received a total of $23,638,600 from

National Park Service funding programs to

implement its management plan, of which $20

million has required a 1:1 match. Financial and

in-house commitments from the two states,

other federal agencies, communities, the private

sector, and nonprofit organizations have leveraged the Commission’s funds by an estimated 22

times—a public and private investment

exceeding $500 million that contributes to the

Corridor’s goals and is either directly or indirectly attributable to Commission action.

The Commission’s integrated approach and its

ongoing role as facilitator and “keeper of the

vision” encourage people to think and act across

disciplinary and jurisdictional boundaries. A

growing partnership base over time influences

the breadth, scope, and complexity of the

Corridor initiatives, often leading to a more

ambitious, integrated vision. 

Examining the Blackstone Model for

Heritage Conservation and Development

To explore how the Blackstone Corridor

programs work, the project team conducted an

evaluation that asked the following questions:

How do the programs deliver the Corridor’s

accomplishments? In what ways do programs

impact organizations and communities in the

valley? Are there ways the programs might be

strengthened or improved in the future? This

type of “process evaluation” is a well-developed,

systematic research method for understanding

how complex programs operate while documenting their impacts. 

Designation of national heritage areas began 20 years ago, and the Blackstone

National Heritage Corridor was the second nationally designated area. It is therefore one of the earliest “experiments” with this model of conservation. Today,

national heritage areas have become increasingly popular as a way of protecting

important landscapes that have a regional identity formed by natural systems and

shaped by history and culture. The heritage area concept is based in partnerships,

engaging every level of government and the people who live there.

This sustainability study presents an important opportunity to evaluate the

accomplishments of a national heritage area. It affords a chance to probe the way

this work is carried out and reflect on the key ingredients for ongoing success. A

better understanding of this collaborative approach can enhance development of

sustainable strategies. Consequently, the findings of this study may be relevant to

heritage areas nationwide and other places managed through partnerships, and to

those people working on national policy or who are otherwise interested in the

future of national heritage areas. 

The National Context for the Sustainability Study
National Park Service Conservation Study Institute 7

The evaluation is based on a “program model”

that explains the way that programs in the

Corridor achieve their goals. Interviews with 30

partners, conducted confidentially, were used to

test and refine the model. The results of the

evaluation suggest that the Commission is a

central, integrating hub and a key partner in a

complex and dynamic, multi-interest network.

The Commission is able to connect widely

differing interests in the Corridor while

engaging both state and local governments. The

Commission also adds significant credibility to

the work and goals of partner organizations

because of its federal stature and the connection

to the National Park Service. Federal designation underscores the importance of the

Corridor, while further reinforcing the regional

focus of the programs. 

Sustaining the Engines of Change

A. Exploring Management Options 

for the Futute

Building on an analysis of the existing framework, the project team examined a series of

management options for the future. The options

emerged from discussions with commissioners,

partners, and outside experts; an examination of

relevant models from other places; and considerations identified in evaluating the existing

framework. Many of these options are not

mutually exclusive and could be combined to

best suit the valley’s unique needs and circumstances.

1. Extend the existing framework in its

current form. The Commission and its partners are comfortable with the framework and

strongly support continuing it for at least

another ten years to provide more time to

sustain the momentum, strengthen the partner

network, and further evaluate long-term

options for Corridor management. 

2. Adjust the existing framework which could

include: (a) modifying or expanding the

Commission’s composition; (b) establishing an

advisory council; (c) narrowing or shifting the

staff’s focus; (d) establishing a bi-state compact;

and (e) cultivating a bi-state nonprofit organization to complement the Commission. More

representation on the Commission from local

governments and nongovernmental partners

would be desirable, and partners, commissioners, and staff generally agree that the

Commission’s size could be increased without
8 Reflecting on the Past, Looking to the Future: Sustainability Study Report for the John H. Chafee Blackstone River Valley National Heritage Corridor

adversely influencing its effectiveness. Establishing an advisory council would also provide

for broader stakeholder involvement.

Regarding staff responsibilities, the Commission, through administrative action, could shift

staff involvement to work more deeply in fewer

disciplines rather than being spread across a

wider array of initiatives. Lead responsibility

for certain priorities could be transferred to

other willing and able entities. A bi-state

compact established by the two governors

would formalize the states’ ongoing commitment to the Corridor and identify priority areas

for cooperation and mechanisms for continued

coordination and communication. A Corridorwide nonprofit organization, cultivated to

complement the Commission, could be more

entrepreneurial in generating revenues and

work toward a more diverse and secure

funding base for Corridor initiatives. 

3. Establish a new management entity to

replace the Commission as the central hub by

shifting to (a) a Corridor-wide nonprofit

management entity or (b) a bi-state coordinating entity created by the two states. Either of

these entities could receive federal standing

and funding and NPS staff support if congressionally authorized. A new Corridor-wide

nonprofit could be created for this purpose, or

an existing nonprofit could expand its mission,

structure, and capacity to play such a role. A

coordinating entity created by the states would

need formal joint action, such as a bi-state

compact or parallel legislation in both states. 

4. Establish a permanent NPS presence in

the Corridor which could take several forms:

(a) designate the Corridor as a permanent

program of the National Park System; (b)

designate a particular site or sites within the

Corridor as a new unit of the National Park

System; or (c) designate the entire Corridor as a

new National Park System unit. The case for a

permanent NPS presence is grounded in the

valley’s national significance, as reflected by

congressional establishment of the Corridor.

Any option involving a permanent NPS presence would require further evaluation by the

NPS through a “new area” or “special

resource” study, which would be conducted

through an open, public process and conclude

with a recommendation to Congress.

5. Move forward with a management framework established by the states as a

replacement for a federally supported framework. The states could establish a new

management framework through an interstate

compact or similar mechanism, with coordination provided by a Corridor-wide nonprofit

organization or a bi-state entity. Since the

national heritage corridor designation is

permanent, individual organizations and

partner networks could continue to pursue

Corridor goals under the umbrella of the designation.

B. Identifying Critical Incredients for

Sustained Success of the Corridor’s Partnership System

The sustainability study identified a set of critical ingredients acting in concert as a

“partnership system.” The critical ingredients of

the Corridor’s partnership system include (1)

heritage as a “platform” for civic engagement; (2)

a management framework that inspires trust and

collaboration; and (3) a commitment to partnerships and a participatory process. In addition,

the Corridor vision is central to the partnership

system, anchoring it and serving as a guiding,

sustaining force. Time is also an essential factor

since it takes time to build a complex partnership system over a large, diverse region and to

develop the effective partner relationships

needed to successfully carry out joint projects. A

strategic sequencing of projects over time is

important as well, with early projects setting the

stage for later work. Finally, time is required to

build the partner capacity and secure the

needed funding that will lead to sustainability. 

Although most of the critical ingredients have

been part of the Commission’s work to date, not

all are fully realized. Future investments can be

directed to support this partnership system over

the long term and enhance its capacity for

success. 

Looking to the Future

Thinking of the Blackstone National Heritage

Corridor as a partnership system has implications for a future heritage conservation and

development strategy within the Corridor. As

the Commission deliberates on the future of the

Corridor, it will need to consider how best to

build upon past success to create a framework

for the future. In order to complete valley-wide

projects that relate to Corridor goals (e.g., the

2015 Fishable-Swimmable Campaign, the

bikeway, addressing the challenges of land use

and growth) and support and sustain success

over the long term, two primary areas deserve

consideration:
National Park Service Conservation Study Institute 9

A. Sustaining and Building the Partnership

Capacity to Meet Future Challenges

Many initiatives and opportunities for engagement have created a strong sense of ownership

among partners throughout the Corridor. The

Commission’s careful attention to building partnerships has created a diverse network of

enthusiastic partners, but some organizations

and the network as a whole are still fragile. In

addition, many valley residents are still unaware

of the Corridor and its purpose. 

Partnerships have always been at the center of

the Commission’s strategy, with the idea that

partners would assume increasingly greater

responsibility over time. The following commitments are needed to meet the long-term

challenges of protecting the valley’s heritage

resources and character: (1) expand the partner

network through ongoing education and public

engagement; (2) build partner and network

capacity; (3) encourage new leaders; and (4)

foster stewardship by promoting the Corridor

vision. These activities represent essential

commitments that are needed to create a stable,

sustainable partnership system. Because the

Blackstone Valley is a living landscape, this work

is ongoing. There will always be ebb and flow in

the partnership system, and a need for sustaining

existing members and cultivating new ones.

B. Management Considerations That Support

the Partnership System

As the Corridor’s management entity, the

Commission has been a critical driver behind

the partner network’s accomplishments. Key

aspects of the Commission’s effectiveness

include (1) excellent partnership-building by

commissioners and staff, (2) a clear articulation

of the Corridor vision, (3) a sincere commitment

to public engagement, and (4) funding that

leverages other investments. The Commission’s

federal stature has enabled it to bridge effectively the political divides of a bi-state Corridor. 

One of the most important roles played to date

by the Commission and its NPS staff, and very

important for the growth and maturation of the

partner network, is the role of central hub.

Perhaps the most critical aspect of being an

effective central hub is the collective ability of

the Commission and staff to play a multitude of

roles in interacting with partners. Every individual partnership is unique, and part of the

sophistication needed to sustain the Corridor’s

partnership system is the ability to provide

different assistance and levels of support to

different partners. This surfaced strongly in the

partner interviews as important to building

partner capacity and strengthening the network.

In the future, as partner capacity increases and

stronger partners emerge as network leaders,

the roles and responsibilities of network

management may shift also. It will be important

for the Commission to monitor these changes

and adapt accordingly.

At this critical point in the evolution of the

Corridor’s partnership system, there is a clear

need to sustain an effective coordinating framework for the Corridor that bridges the 2 states

and 24 municipalities and supports the partnership system. This includes (1) a strong

management entity to carry forward the vision,

provide effective collaborative leadership, and

serve as the central network hub; (2) an ongoing

relationship with the NPS, given the Corridor’s

well-documented national significance; and (3)

secure, sustainable funding from diverse

sources.

Final Thoughts

The national heritage area “experiment” in the

Blackstone Valley is all about conservation at the

landscape scale. The Commission, its staff, and

the network of partners are helping to build an

understanding of how to conserve important

natural and cultural heritage in lived-in landscapes. They are fostering a partnership culture

in the Blackstone Valley that is leading to

conservation of an important story and unique

resources. At its core, their efforts revolve

around connecting people to heritage and place,

thereby kindling a sense of stewardship. In this

process, shared heritage becomes a bridge

between past, present, and future. 
10 Reflecting on the Past, Looking to the Future: Sustainability Study Report for the John H. Chafee Blackstone River Valley National Heritage Corridor
National Park Service Conservation Study Institute 11

In 2004, the Blackstone River Valley National

Heritage Corridor Commission (Commission)

formed a “Futures Committee” to address the

2006 sunset of the Commission. The Futures

Committee felt that it was important to begin by

assessing its past work as it began further

dialogue about its future. The congressional

delegation representing the Blackstone Valley

was also very interested in the Commission’s

progress toward implementing the programs

identified in the enabling legislation and associated planning documents. During the 108th

Congress, the delegation introduced identical

bills in both the Senate and the House (S. 2836

and H.R. 5014) that called for an evaluation of

Commission activities and recommendations for

future management of the Heritage Corridor.

Although legislation never passed, the Commission itself initiated the Blackstone Sustainability

Study to evaluate the past 18 years of work in the

John H. Chafee Blackstone River Valley National

Heritage Corridor (Corridor) in Rhode Island

and Massachusetts. 

The Commission, desiring external review and a

transparent evaluation process, asked the

National Park Service Conservation Study Institute (Institute) to provide technical assistance by

conducting the sustainability study and providing

opportunities for input from partners and the

general public. The Commission will use the

results of this technical assistance project to

inform the development of a strategy for future

management of the Corridor. 

CHAPTER 1

The Purpose of the Blackstone Sustainability Study
12 Reflecting on the Past, Looking to the Future: Sustainability Study Report for the John H. Chafee Blackstone River Valley National Heritage Corridor

A. The Scope of the 

Blackstone Sustainability Study

The Commission asked the Institute to examine

four items pertaining to the Commission’s work

that were identified in the pending House and

Senate bills:

1. Evaluate the accomplishments of the Commission and its progress in achieving the strategies

and goals set forth in its 1989 Cultural Heritage

and Land Management Plan, as amended; 

2. Analyze the National Park Service (NPS)

investment and determine how these funds

have leveraged additional funds;

3. Identify further actions and commitments that

are needed to protect, enhance, and interpret

the Corridor;

4. Evaluate the Commission as a form of management, and identify and evaluate options for a

permanent National Park Service designation

and other management alternatives for

achieving the national interest in the Blackstone

Valley.

To further clarify the study’s scope, the Institute

created a working definition of sustainability for

the purposes of the project, as follows:

The strategy, framework, and resources necessary

for achieving the stated purpose and goals of the

Blackstone River Valley National Heritage

Corridor.

In carrying out the study, the Institute’s project

team investigated the following three areas:

1. Heritage conservation and development

within the Corridor

The project team:

• Documented accomplishments toward

achieving the purpose of the Corridor set forth

in the authorizing legislation and the goals set

forth in the management plan; 

• Documented financial investment and leverage;

and

• Assessed further actions and commitments

needed to fulfill the Corridor’s purpose.

2. The partnership process in the Corridor

The project team evaluated the ways in which

the Commission, staff, and partners work

together toward Corridor goals and examined

the impact of this collaboration on the various

organizations and individuals.

3. The management framework for the Corridor

The project team: 

• Analyzed the existing management framework;

• Compared the existing framework with those

used in other selected nationally designated

areas that are managed through partnerships;

and 

• Identified and analyzed a range of future

options for the framework.

The project team obtained data from a variety of

sources, including Corridor management plans,

annual reports, and other project documentation

of accomplishments and leverage. The team

engaged members of the Commission, the

Futures Committee, Corridor partners, and the

public through interviews and meetings. To

examine a variety of management frameworks

and gather insights and ideas for future conservation of the Corridor, the team convened a joint

meeting of leaders from the Blackstone River

Valley and experts with diverse national and

international experience in heritage areas and

partnerships. For more information on project

methodology and public engagement, see

appendix B. 

After analyzing all of this information, the

project team identified the key ingredients of a

successful partnership system, and provided

thoughts for enhancing and sustaining this

system in the Blackstone Valley.

B. The National Context 

for the Sustainability Study

Heritage areas are an important direction in

conservation, as demonstrated by the growth in

the number of initiatives at every level in the U.S.

(see also chapter 2). Today, there are 27 congressionally designated heritage areas and corridors,

and many proposals for additional national

areas. Given this recent growth in public and

congressional interest in national heritage area

designation, NPS Director Fran Mainella asked

the National Park System Advisory Board to look

at the future of national heritage areas and their

relationship to the National Park Service. The

NPS Advisory Board, composed of 13 citizens

with expertise on and commitment to the

mission of the National Park Service, has the

statutory responsibility to advise the NPS

director and the secretary of the interior on

policy and program matters. The Blackstone

Sustainability Study will inform the work of the

Advisory Board’s Partnership Committee in

preparing its 2005 report. 
National Park Service Conservation Study Institute 13

The sustainability study presents an important

opportunity to evaluate not only the accomplishments of a national heritage area but also to

probe the way this work has been carried out

and reflect on the key ingredients for ongoing

success. There has been limited study of national

heritage areas to date, even though the number

of existing and proposed designations continues

to grow. A better understanding of this collaborative approach, which in the Blackstone

National Heritage Corridor is based on an inclusive partnership network and the ongoing active

engagement of valley citizens, can enhance

development of sustainable strategies. Consequently, the findings of this study may be useful

and relevant to other existing and potential

heritage areas nationwide and to other places

managed through partnerships, as well as to

those who are working on national policy or

interested in the future of national heritage areas. 

C. Organization and Terminology 

Used in the Report

There are five main sections in the remainder of

this report. Following the background on

national heritage areas and the Blackstone

National Heritage Corridor, the section entitled

“Transforming the Blackstone National Heritage

Corridor” describes what has been accomplished

by the Commission since its designation. The

next section, “Examining the Blackstone Model

for Heritage Conservation and Development,”

analyzes the management framework and

network of partners. “Sustaining the Engines of

Change” assesses the ingredients that make up

the Corridor’s partnership system and are essential to achieving Corridor goals over the long

term, and presents management options for the

Commission’s consideration as it deliberates the

Corridor’s future. The final chapter, “Looking to

the Future,” presents the closing thoughts of the

project team. 

Following is an explanation of the terms used in

the report:

Corridor: Refers to the physical place on the

ground; that which was defined geographically at

the time of designation in 1986, as amended in

1996; also, when used as an adjective, refers to

the entire initiative (e.g., Corridor goals,

Corridor purpose, Corridor vision).

Corridor programs: The collective body of

activities and projects carried out within the

Corridor to implement the management plan.

Commission: The federally appointed management body that coordinates the overall effort

within the Corridor; generally also encompasses

the National Park Service, which serves as staff

at the invitation of the Commission.

Corridor partnership: The network made up of

the Commission, staff, partners, and individuals

who collaborate in carrying out Corridor activities and initiatives; occasionally used to refer to

the Commission and its staff.

Corridor partner: An organization, institution,

agency, or individual who collaborates with the

Commission on specific initiatives that help

implement the management plan; includes both

“formal” partners (i.e., those working through

cooperative agreements) and informal partners,

who collaborate toward mutual goals (e.g., a

developer who renovates a historic mill for reuse).

Management framework: Collectively encompasses the Commission, staff, purpose and

vision, geographic scope, partner network, and

funding, as well as the authorities granted to the

Commission in order to carry out its mandate;

sometimes used interchangeably with “management structure,” although “management

framework” (the term used in the authorizing

legislation) is preferred.

Management entity: Refers to the specific body

authorized to carry out Corridor coordination

and management; in the Blackstone National

Heritage Corridor, the Commission. 

Partnership system: An interacting array of

critical ingredients that creates the collaborative

work in the Corridor.

A better understanding

of this collaborative

approach, which in the

Blackstone National

Heritage Corridor is

based on an inclusive

partnership network

and the ongoing active

engagement of valley

citizens, can enhance

development of sustainable strategies.
14 Reflecting on the Past, Looking to the Future: Sustainability Study Report for the John H. Chafee Blackstone River Valley National Heritage Corridor
National Park Service Conservation Study Institute 15

National heritage areas have become increasingly popular in the U.S. as a way of protecting

important landscapes that have a regional identity formed by natural systems and shaped by

history and culture. The heritage area concept is

based on partnerships, engaging every level of

government and the people who live there.

Designation of national heritage areas began 20

years ago, but has its origin in the preceding

decades. The Blackstone National Heritage

Corridor was the second nationally designated

area and is therefore one of the earliest “experiments” with this model of conservation.

A. The Antecedents of National 

Heritage Areas

The interest in heritage areas in recent decades

has been fueled by numerous trends in conservation, such as the emerging strength of

community-based conservation, driven by local

initiative; the growth of partnerships and collaborative management; the linkage between

conservation and social and economic objectives; the rise in place-based education; the

integration of cultural and natural conservation;

and the effectiveness of landscape-scale conservation. Among many other factors contributing

to the momentum were several national studies

conducted at the request of Congress in the

mid-1970s, which discussed the potential for

landscape conservation through local, state, and

federal partnerships. At the state level, Massachusetts, New York, and Pennsylvania created

state heritage parks.1

In the 1980s, Congress asked the National Park

Service to experiment with new models for

parks and protected areas. In doing so, Congress

was responding in part to the trends described

above, but also to an evolving concept of parks

and their purpose. These new park models

embrace a wide diversity of settings, ecosystems,

and stories across the country, including “livedin” heritage landscapes. This evolution in the

park concept reflects the extraordinary growth

and diversification of U.S. society and culture.

Today, parks conserve natural resources,

commemorate important historical events, and

reflect common experiences of American life

and transcendent ideas and values.2

Many of these more recent parks were established with nontraditional, partnership-based

management formulas.3 Although partnerships

were not new in the National Park Service and

have been used for a number of years, management by partnerships gained momentum in 1978

with the creation of Lowell National Historical

Park in Massachusetts. With Lowell’s successful

formula of mixing public and private investments

in heritage preservation with NPS expertise in

visitor services and interpretation, support grew

in Congress to pursue parks based on collaborations with other public and private interests. 

The first national heritage area designated by

Congress was the Illinois and Michigan Canal

National Heritage Corridor (I and M Canal) in

1984, followed two years later by the Blackstone

National Heritage Corridor. Today there are 27

national heritage areas. Currently, national

heritage areas receive federal funding and technical assistance from the National Park Service

for a limited period of time, typically ten years.

In some cases, such as the Blackstone and I and

M Canal Corridors, federal commissions have

been established to serve as the management

entity. Although the designation of the corridor

is permanent, federal support for these areas

(i.e., funding, NPS assistance, and the federal

commission) was originally anticipated to cease

at the end of the specified time period. In practice, local partners and other stakeholders in

national heritage areas have sought extensions

to the federal support. In 2004, the first instance

of the expiration of an area’s federal funding

and commission took place at the I and M

Canal, although work there is continuing

through the coordination of a nonprofit

management organization.

CHAPTER 2

The National Heritage Area “Experiment” in the Blackstone River Valley
as production skyrocketed, immigrants from

Ireland, Canada, Poland, Armenia, Holland, and

other nations found employment in the valley’s

mills. Ethnic diversity became a valley characteristic. Entire villages, including housing, schools,

and churches, grew up around many of the mills

and were often built or subsidized by the mill

owners themselves. These mill villages, clustered

along the river, were distinctive in architecture

and layout, contrasting with the hilltop and

crossroads villages that grew up as part of the

developing “trade routes” in the earlier agricultural era. 

The mills prospered for more than a century.

With the arrival of the Great Depression,

however, the mills began closing, one by one,

and a way of life faded. At the time of designation, the valley was in decline. Communities had

turned their backs on the badly polluted Blackstone River. Many of the abandoned mills and

other historic buildings were threatened with

demolition, and the valley’s heritage and unique

cultural landscape were at risk. With widespread

public concern over this decline and a desire to

revitalize the Blackstone Valley both environmentally and economically, and with the backing

of the Massachusetts and Rhode Island delegations, Congress in 1983 asked the National Park

Service to assist the two states in developing a

linear park system along the Blackstone River. At

the same time, Congress asked the NPS to assess

the potential eligibility of the valley for inclusion

in the National Park System and to explore the

opportunities for cooperative conservation efforts.4

The Blackstone River Valley is one of the nation’s richest and

best-preserved repositories of landscapes, structures, and sites

attesting to the rise of industry in America. Thousands of structures

and entire landscapes still exist that represent the history of the

American Industrial Revolution and the complex economic and

social relationships of the people who lived and worked here. The

Blackstone Valley’s distinguishing factors include:

• It was the birthplace of the American Industrial Revolution;

• It represents the first widespread industrial use of water power

in the U.S.;

• It was where the “Rhode Island System” of manufacturing was

developed;

• It was the first ethnically and religiously diverse area of New

England; and

• Its industrial and transportation systems were crucial to the

development of the second and third largest cities in New England.

Today, the most significant resource of the Blackstone Valley is its

“wholeness,” the unique survival of representative elements of

entire eighteenth- and nineteenth-century production systems. 

Few places exist where such a concentration of integrated historic,

cultural, and natural resources has survived and is accessible to

interpretation, preservation, and other management strategies.

— From Cultural Heritage and Land Management Plan for the

Blackstone River Valley National Heritage Corridor (1989)

B. The National Heritage 

in the Blackstone Valley

When Congress designated the Blackstone

National Heritage Corridor, it recognized the

valley’s nationally significant contributions to

the collective American experience (see box on

this page). As the acknowledged birthplace of

the American Industrial Revolution, the valley

was in the forefront of a social revolution that

transformed an agricultural society into an

industrial giant. These two forces, agriculture

and industry, shaped the patterns of settlement,

land use, and growth in the valley. It was the

uniqueness of the history and the fact that in the

1980s the heritage was still visible in the landscape (although in a declining state at the time)

that led to the valley’s designation as a national

heritage area. 

During much of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, the Blackstone Valley led the

nation in producing cotton and wool fabrics and

textile machinery. Valley towns also gained

prominence in manufacturing such specialized

products as wire, rubber goods, ladies’ hats, and

edge tools. More than 40 dams were built along

the Blackstone River and its tributaries to utilize

water power to fuel the mills that led the region

to prosperity and national prominence.

As manufacturing capability grew, the shift from

farm to factory took place throughout the valley.

Family after family abandoned the struggle with

the rocky soil in return for steady wages from

the mills. It was a shift that would be repeated in

other parts of the nation. Workers were initially

drawn from surrounding towns and farms, but,

The Blackstone River

Valley is one of the

nation’s richest and

best-preserved repositories of landscapes,

structures, and sites

attesting to the rise of

industry in America.

The National Significance of the Blackstone Valley

16 Reflecting on the Past, Looking to the Future: Sustainability Study Report for the John H. Chafee Blackstone River Valley National Heritage Corridor
National Park Service Conservation Study Institute 17

C. The Heritage Corridor “Experiment”

Congress established the Blackstone River Valley

National Heritage Corridor in 1986 to preserve

and interpret the unique and significant contributions of the valley’s resources and history to

the nation’s heritage.5 In the authorizing legislation, Congress created the Corridor

Commission to assist the two states, the municipalities within the Corridor, and other partners

to develop and implement integrated cultural,

historical, and land management programs to

retain, enhance, and interpret the Corridor’s

resource values. The legislation authorized the

Commission for an initial five years and

provided for a possible five-year extension,

which the Commission was granted. In 1996,

Congress extended the Commission for ten

more years, and expanded the Corridor’s

boundaries to the current 24 towns.6 The

current term for the Commission is set to expire

in November 2006.

The authorizing legislation mandated the preparation of a management plan containing policies,

programs, and strategies to accomplish the

Corridor's purpose. The plan was to be

approved by the governors of both states and

the secretary of the interior, and would complement state plans and unify historic preservation

and interpretation in the Corridor. The process

of preparing the plan provided an opportunity

for the general public and for stakeholders with

diverse interests to share their priorities and

values, and to collaborate on a unified vision

and an agreed-upon list of projects to achieve

that vision. Completed in 1989, the plan was

amended in 1998.7 Its implementation strategy

emphasizes “integrated, linked actions rather

than single, stand-alone projects,” and observes

that “balanced action in each of these areas is

critical to achieving harmony among preservation, recreation, and development.”8
18 Reflecting on the Past, Looking to the Future: Sustainability Study Report for the John H. Chafee Blackstone River Valley National Heritage Corridor

The Blackstone National Heritage Corridor

represented an ambitious, fresh approach to

thinking about regional places. Rather than

viewing the valley as a set of self-contained,

independent municipalities in two separate

states, the Commission began to help residents

envision the valley as a cohesive region—an

interdependent place linked by cultural heritage

and a common set of economic, natural, and

cultural resources. The premise was that understanding the valley as an interconnected system

might engender new attitudes that would help

revitalize the area as a place to visit, live, work,

and invest. 

The Commission set an ambitious agenda for

the Corridor: heritage education, recreation

development, ethnic and cultural conservation,

environmental conservation, historic preservation, land use planning, and heritage-based

economic development. Its most widely used

tools in advancing the regional vision have been

(1) public education; (2) partnerships that pool

local, state, and national resources; and (3)

targeted investments that focus scarce public

and private dollars on highly visible projects that

reinforce the valley’s national story and build

local pride and enthusiasm. 

Today, 18 years after designation, change is

visible throughout the valley. Many of the mills

and historic buildings have been renovated for

reuses such as housing, business space,

museums, and arts facilities. Along the Blackstone River, cleanup efforts have removed trash

and debris from the river and its shoreline, and

the river itself is beginning to recover. State and

federal governments, local jurisdictions, historical societies, environmental organizations,

businesses, sports groups, and private

landowners are collaborating to promote and

care for the qualities that make the area so

special. The Corridor Commission is providing a

model for how the federal government can work

in partnership with others toward common

goals of historic preservation, a cleaner environment, and revitalized communities. 

The Commission’s partnership work throughout

the valley has led to other recent national recognition that acknowledges both the importance

of the resources and the level of community

involvement:

• Designation of the river in 1998 as an 

American Heritage River, which brings

targeted federal assistance for economic 

revitalization, resource protection, and historic

and cultural preservation (U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency).

• Selection of the Blackstone River in 2003 as

one of four pilot projects in the Urban Rivers

Initiative, which will help coordinate river

cleanup and restoration and related economic

revitalization (Environmental Protection

Agency, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and

other agencies).

• Designation of the Corridor’s 24 communities

in 2004 as part of the Preserve America

initiative, which supports community efforts 

to preserve the nation’s cultural and natural

heritage (White House initiative).
National Park Service Conservation Study Institute 19

Notes

1. Charles E. Little, Greenline Parks: An Approach to Preserving Recreation Landscapes in Urban Areas (Washington, D.C.: Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress,

1975); National Park Service, National Urban Recreation Study, Technical Reports, Volume 1, Urban Open Space: Existing Conditions, Opportunities, and Issues

(Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Interior, 1978). For a more in-depth discussion, see Brenda Barrett and Nora Mitchell, editors, “Stewardship of Heritage Areas,” 

special issue, George Wright Forum 20, no. 2 (2003); and Brenda Barrett, guest editor, and Elizabeth Byrd Wood, editor, “Regional Heritage Areas: Connecting People to Places 

and History,” special issue, Forum Journal 17, no. 4 (2003), published by the Center for Preservation Leadership at the National Trust for Historic Preservation.

2. Paula A. Degen, Branching Out: Approaches in National Park Stewardship (Fort Washington, PA: Eastern National, 2003).

3. See Jacquelyn L. Tuxill and Nora J. Mitchell, editors, Collaboration and Conservation: Lessons Learned in Areas Managed through National Park Service Partnerships 

(Woodstock, VT: Conservation Study Institute, 2001); and Jacquelyn L. Tuxill, Nora J. Mitchell, and Jessica Brown, editors, Collaboration and Conservation: Lessons Learned from

National Park Service Partnership Areas in the Western United States (Woodstock, VT: Conservation Study Institute, 2004). Both publications are available at

http://www.nps.gov/csi. 

4. National Park Service and the Rhode Island and Massachusetts Departments of Environmental Management, Blackstone River Corridor Study: Conservation Options (Draft) 1985.

5. Public Law 99-647, November 10, 1986.

6. Public Law 104-333, November 12, 1996.

7. Cultural Heritage and Land Management Plan for the Blackstone River Valley National Heritage Corridor (Woonsocket, R.I.: Blackstone River Valley National Heritage 

Corridor, 1989); and The Next Ten Years: An Amendment to the Cultural Heritage and Land Management Plan (Woonsocket, R.I.: Blackstone River Valley National Heritage

Corridor Commission, 1998).

8. Cultural Heritage and Land Management Plan for the Blackstone River Valley National Heritage Corridor (1989).
20 Reflecting on the Past, Looking to the Future: Sustainability Study Report for the John H. Chafee Blackstone River Valley National Heritage Corridor
National Park Service Conservation Study Institute 21

The authorizing legislation for the Blackstone

National Heritage Corridor created a framework

to facilitate coordinated development and

implementation of a program to protect and

interpret the valley’s nationally significant

resources and story. That framework consists of

several components:

• purpose and vision;

• geographic scope;

• management entity;

• partner network; and

• funding and other support.

Each of these components is discussed briefly

below.

A. Purpose and Vision

The fundamental starting point for the

Corridor’s management framework is the

purpose for which the Corridor was established,

as articulated in the 1986 authorizing legislation:

“...preserving and interpreting for the educational and inspirational benefit of present and

future generations the unique and significant

contributions to our national heritage of certain

historic and cultural lands, waterways, and

structures within the Blackstone River Valley in

the States of Massachusetts and Rhode

Island...”. Through the planning process that

led to the initial management plan and its subsequent amendment, the Commission and its

partners built upon this broad legislated

purpose to define a far-reaching and yet integrated vision for the Corridor and the

partnership. In working to achieve this vision,

the Commission has concentrated its programming in five key areas:

• historic preservation,

• interpretation and education,

• river recovery and recreation,

• land use planning, and

• tourism and economic development.

B. Geographic Scope 

The area included in the Corridor is another of

the basic building blocks of its management

framework because it defines the geographic

scope of the resources to be addressed and the

political jurisdictions and public constituencies

that need to be involved in management. As

defined in the 1986 legislation and the 1996 

reauthorization, the Corridor includes approximately 400,000 acres across 13 towns and cities

in Massachusetts and 11 in Rhode Island. The

Corridor encompasses most of the watershed of

the Blackstone River, plus some thematically

linked areas downstream (in Providence and

East Providence). The map on page 4 illustrates

this geographic scope.

C. Management Entity

A central component of the framework created

by the authorizing legislation is the Corridor

Commission. This bi-state, federally appointed

representative body serves as the coordinating

entity for the Corridor and “assists federal, state,

and local authorities in the development and

implementation of an integrated resource

management plan...” Key aspects of the

Commission are summarized below.

1. Composition

The Commission consists of 19 members

appointed by the secretary of the interior. Each

state has nine members who are nominated by

the governors, including:

• four representatives of local government;

• three representatives of state government—

specifically, the heads of the state departments

of historic preservation, environmental

management/conservation and recreation, and

economic development;

• two “at large” members to represent other

interests.

CHAPTER 3

Describing the Corridor’s Existing Management Framework
22 Reflecting on the Past, Looking to the Future: Sustainability Study Report for the John H. Chafee Blackstone River Valley National Heritage Corridor

The remaining member is the director of the

National Park Service or his/her designee. 

2. Staff

At the Commission’s request, the NPS has

provided staff to the Commission since soon

after the Corridor was established. At the

moment, there are 14 NPS staff assigned to

Corridor activities. These include administrative

staff, planners and landscape architects,

resource management experts, and interpretive

specialists (park rangers). The NPS also has

several staff assigned to Roger Williams National

Memorial Site in Providence, located at the

southern end of the Corridor.

3. Authorities

The authorizing legislation specified the powers

of the Commission to carry out its purpose. As

is the case with designated management entities

for all other national heritage areas, the

Commission has the authority to receive and

disburse federal funds. The Commission also

has a variety of administrative authorities (e.g.,

to hire staff and consultants, hold hearings,

receive and dispose of gifts, enter into cooperative agreements with other governmental units

and organizations, establish advisory groups).

The Commission has authority to acquire land

and property, but only by gift, devise, or

purchase from willing sellers using non-federal

funding specifically given to the Commission for

that purpose. In addition, the Commission must

transfer any property it acquires under those

terms to an appropriate public or private land

managing entity as soon as practicable. The

Commission does not have authority to regulate

land use or acquire land through condemnation

(eminent domain).

4. Responsibilities and roles

At a general level, the Commission’s basic

responsibilities have been to: (1) develop, revise,

and implement a Corridor-wide management

plan in partnership with the two states, Corridor

communities, and other members of the partner

network; and (2) account for the use of federal

funds that have been appropriated to achieve

Corridor goals. In carrying out these broad

responsibilities, the Commission and its staff

have played a wide variety of roles ranging from

coordinator and convener to planner and strategist. The full range of these roles is discussed in

greater detail in chapter 6 of this report.

D. Partner Network 

The essence of the Corridor is a regional partnership between the Commission and all levels

of government, other organizations, and individuals in pursuing the realization of the diverse

goals identified in the authorizing legislation and

subsequent management plans. Following is a

brief summary of the ways in which each broad

category of the partnership is involved.

1. Federal government

The Department of the Interior (DOI) and the

NPS have lead federal responsibility for assisting

the Commission and other Corridor partners.

Federal funding appropriated specifically to the

Commission and the Corridor flows through the

DOI/NPS budget. The secretary of the interior

is responsible for appointing commissioners and

for approving the Commission’s management

plan and revisions. In addition to having a seat

on the Commission and serving as its staff, the

NPS provides discretionary funding and technical assistance to Corridor initiatives. 

Other federal agencies (e.g., U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Federal Highway Administration, U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Geological

Survey, and others) provide funding and staff

assistance to a variety of initiatives related to

Corridor goals. In addition, in accordance with

the authorizing legislation, all federal agencies

are required to consult with the secretary of the

interior and the Commission regarding any

activities affecting the Corridor and, to the

maximum extent practicable, conduct those

activities in a way that will not adversely affect

the Corridor. 

2. State government

Each state has three seats on the Commission

dedicated to specific agency heads (see

“Composition” above). In addition, these and

other state agencies have lead fiscal and management responsibility for many initiatives related

to Corridor goals (e.g., managing state parks and

historic sites, implementing state regulations,

building infrastructure), and provide funding

and staff assistance to other collaborative

projects within the Corridor. Also, the governors

are responsible for nominating the nine

Commission members from each of their states.
National Park Service Conservation Study Institute 23

3. Local government

The 24 towns and cities in the Corridor have a

total of eight representatives on the Commission

(four from each state). As with state agencies,

local governments also have lead responsibility

for many initiatives related to Corridor goals

(e.g., managing local parks and historic sites,

implementing local regulations, building infrastructure), and they participate in other

collaborative projects within the Corridor.

4. Nongovernmental partners

Organizations and individuals outside of

government, including nonprofit organizations,

businesses, coalitions, and valley citizens, also

are central to the Corridor partnership. These

interests do not have explicitly dedicated seats

on the Commission, but often have been nominated by the governors to fill “local government”

or “at large” positions. Nongovernmental partners have lead responsibility for many initiatives

related to Corridor goals (e.g., managing sites,

environmental restoration, economic development planning), and support other collaborative

projects and programs within the Corridor.

E. Funding and Other Support

Through the legislation that established the

Corridor and subsequent amendments,

Congress has authorized the appropriation of

federal funds to support the Commission’s 

operations and the development and implementation of the management plan as amended.

These federal funds are appropriated through

the NPS budget process. 

The Commission has received a total of

$23,638,600 in National Park Service funding

from fiscal years 1987-2004. Funding to support

the Commission has come through various

programs including: the NPS operations budget

(ONPS), Statutory Aid, Technical Assistance;

National Recreation and Preservation Program,

Heritage Partnership Program; and Line Item

Construction.

An important aspect of the Corridor’s partnership model is that support for Corridor

initiatives must be provided from all levels of the

partnership. In accordance with the authorizing

legislation, all federal funds provided directly to

the Commission for its operations and projects

require at least a 1:1 match. The additional

discretionary funds that the NPS has provided

through its operations budget do not require a

match. Matches can be in a variety of forms,

including financial assistance, in-kind contributions, and volunteer time. During FY1987–2004,

approximately $20 million in federal funds was

appropriated that required a match. (See chapter

4.B for a further discussion of the leveraging of

federal funds.)

The funding history chart below details the

funds received annually by the Commission

through FY2004. 

4,000,000

3,500,000

3,000,000

2,500,000

2,000,000

1,500,000

1,000,000

500,000

Fiscal Year 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

{ ■ Total Appropriations }

John H. Chafee Blackstone River Valley National Heritage Corridor Funding History
24 Reflecting on the Past, Looking to the Future: Sustainability Study Report for the John H. Chafee Blackstone River Valley National Heritage Corridor
National Park Service Conservation Study Institute 25

A. Program Accomplishments

The 1989 Corridor management plan explicitly

states that the Commission should give funding

and assistance priority to projects that address

multiple items on its agenda. The Commission’s

early projects ranged from developing inventories

of historic resources and assisting municipalities

with resource planning to fostering downtown

revitalization through public visioning and 

coordinating river clean-up events. By covering

such a broad range, these projects gave the

Commission an opportunity to share its vision

with different stakeholders, and gave residents

an opportunity to contribute their thoughts on

how to make the Blackstone Valley a better 

place to live. Early projects helped establish the

Commission’s reputation and also built the

outside capacity necessary for later activities that

would require a more committed and diverse

partnership base and funding strategy. The

Commission’s commitment to ongoing public

engagement and consensus-building often

expanded participation in these projects and

also broadened the project vision. The openness

and flexibility that enabled the Commission to

involve new partners as the project evolved

added complexity to the process, but it also

contributed to the project’s progress and created

the opportunity to affect a broader constituency.

Appendix A includes an inventory of the

Commission’s projects, both completed and

ongoing. Projects on this list have been gathered

from plans, project descriptions, annual reports,

budget reports, Commission archives, and staff

interviews. 

The purpose of this chapter is to provide a brief

overview of Corridor accomplishments and

highlight individual projects that demonstrate

how project vision and collaboration have 

typically evolved over time. The discussion is

organized according to the following key

program areas identified in the management

plan (although the projects often cross multiple

program areas because of the Commission’s

integrated approach):

• historic preservation,

• interpretation and education,

• river recovery and recreation,

• land use planning, and 

• tourism and economic development.

The highlighted projects illustrate the Commission’s role as a facilitator and a constant, yet

flexible, “keeper of the vision” across disciplinary and jurisdictional boundaries. In each

example, a growing partnership constituency

has caused the breadth, scope, and complexity

of the project to expand to fill an evolving and

ambitious vision. The projects demonstrate the

Commission’s ability to reach out to a multidisciplinary audience that by virtue of its diversity

has influenced the way residents and organizations with vastly different priorities identify with

the resources in the valley. These projects also

illustrate the commonalities that exist across

project focus areas and geographic scale, and

their attributes contribute to sustained success

for the Corridor (see chapter 8). Each of these

projects:

• initially required basic education and assistance, which built the capacity required for

project implementation;

• engaged an increasingly diverse (across jurisdictions and disciplines) mixture of partners

over time;

• evolved in scope and goal-setting as new 

partners joined;

• demonstrated management flexibility and willingness to share responsibilities with new

partners; and 

• reached out to residents, agencies, and organizations; aligned their interests; and engaged

them in the process.

1. Historic Preservation

One of the Commission’s greatest challenges is

preserving the character of a landscape within

which people live and work. The valley is

currently experiencing rapid growth, which

brings a new sense of urgency to the need to

preserve historic resources. As the Commission

has no land use authority, its preservation

strategy must rely upon economic, educational,

and heritage values. The Commission works

with universities, state preservation offices, the

NPS, and the private sector to develop preservation plans for historic sites and landscapes;

provides funding for restoration of critical sites;

works with communities on visioning exercises;

and markets the economic benefits associated

with preservation. It also hosts statewide and

regional forums such as the “Red Brick

Elephants Conference,” which brought together

preservationists, bankers, developers, and businesses to tackle the issue of adaptive mill reuse.

CHAPTER 4

The Commission’s Accomplishments to Date
26 Reflecting on the Past, Looking to the Future: Sustainability Study Report for the John H. Chafee Blackstone River Valley National Heritage Corridor

Education is key to gaining local support for

adoption of sensitive land use policies, and is

integral to the funding and technical assistance

strategy. Education about preservation tools and

opportunities has motivated elected officials,

planners, residents, and businesses to designate

historic districts and adopt preservation plans.

Early educational outreach, advocacy, and leadership have built the constituency necessary to

embark on more complex projects that require

broad regional consensus. More recent projects

also utilize historic preservation as part of a

strategy that integrates recreation, tourism, and

land conservation.

2. Interpretation and Education

Interpretation and education programs help

residents and visitors understand the meaning of

the region’s historic resources through stories

and techniques that make the history of the

American Industrial Revolution relevant to residents and visitors. The Corridor’s identity

system, an early component of the Commission’s interpretive strategy, enables residents and

visitors to understand partner sites, activities,

and publications as part of a cohesive landscape

and story. The Commission has also provided

assistance to organizations to enable them to

provide their own professional interpretative

and educational programming. A monthly cable

television show, “Along the Blackstone,” was

developed by NPS staff to highlight local stories

Description: Originally following Native American

trails and later becoming one of the earliest colonial roads in America, the Great Road opened up

the North Woods for settlement. Designated a

National Register Historic District in 1974, the

Great Road’s buildings and viewsheds illustrate

the layering of history that has taken place in the

corridor. Within the three-mile section of road,

one can see examples of frontier homesteads and

buildings from the early Industrial Revolution.

The Town of Lincoln, Rhode Island, and local

organizations began concentrating land acquisition in the 1980s

along the Great Road to preserve six historic properties and more

than 100 acres of farmland. The Commission became involved in

the work occurring in this living landscape to facilitate communication and encourage stakeholders to align their interests and goals

in a unified interpretation and preservation strategy.

The overall landscape is now interpreted and promoted collaboratively through special events, tours, guidebooks, exhibits, and living history. Preservation and coordinated interpretation are ongoing at the Moffett Mill (now fully restored), Hearthside, Arnold

House, and Valentine Whitman House. A gateway park provides

parking and site access along a trail that will connect the string of

historic sites. The partnership between the town, state agencies,

Historic New England, and local organizations demonstrates integrated heritage preservation and interpretation activities within a

defined landscape. For example, visitor services include a monthly

open house when sites are open to the public and offer interpretive programming. An annual open house every October provides

additional visitor opportunities, such as a free shuttle service and

special activities. Chase Farm sponsors seasonal open-air concerts

that showcase the Rhode Island Philharmonic, among other groups. 

Initial project intent/goals:

Preserve open space and 

the historic character of 

the community.

Critical to the process: 

The purchase of properties by

the Town of Lincoln and the

coming together of individual

heritage sites.

Commission investment:

Preservation planning; partial

financial assistance in preservation planning, interpretation planning, and exhibit development.

Match: Federal enhancements from the Rhode Island Department

of Transportation, purchase of historic properties by the Town of

Lincoln, Friends of Hearthside operations support and fundraising

efforts, Roger Williams University staff and student support. 

Later additions: Transportation enhancements, park and trail 

development, special events, story-telling, preservation and educational

leadership from local organizations.

Unintended consequences: Integrated activities among historic

preservation, tourism, and transportation agencies.

Partners (initial partners in italics):

Federal: National Park Service, Federal Highway Administration

State: Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management,

Rhode Island Department of Transportation, and Rhode Island

Historic Preservation and Heritage Commission

Local: Town of Lincoln

Nonprofit: Friends of Hearthside, Historic New England, Blackstone

River Theatre, Blackstone Historical Society, Friends of Valentine

Whitman House

Other: Private property owners, local historians

Historic Preservation Project Highlight: Great Road Historic District
and places and make thematic connections

throughout the Corridor. A network of visitor

centers (highlighted later in this chapter)

provides information that enables residents and

visitors to explore the region’s resources. The

Blackstone Valley Education Network connects

valley organizations that offer interpretive and

educational programming and provides teachers

with resources and tools that use valley resources

to teach history and environmental science.

For visitors and residents, NPS rangers

personify the valley’s national significance. The

rangers have played a major role in interpreting

a historic landscape that is difficult to decipher

without a comprehensive understanding of individual features. They have developed and

presented tours, coordinated and presented

special events, organized volunteers, provided

training to volunteers and professionals in

partner organizations, and integrated interpretation into preservation and development

projects. The inherent challenges to interpreting

a historic landscape that contains modern development demand innovation and creativity. Two

Blackstone rangers have received the NPS

Freeman Tilden “Excellence in Interpretation”

award in recognition of their ability to meet this

challenge.

Description: Since 1984, the

musical ensemble Pendragon

has been playing Celtic-inspired

music that celebrates the stories and cultural traditions of

the Irish, Scottish, French

Canadian, and other immigrant

groups in the Blackstone Valley.

In 1996, Pendragon signed a

lease with the Town of

Cumberland to renovate the

former Unity Masonic Lodge

into a cultural arts center committed to promoting the valley’s immigrant heritage.

Pendragon coordinated and led

a group of volunteers to restore the derelict lodge into the

Blackstone River Theatre, a nonprofit institution for music, dance,

and folk arts traditions in the valley. The Commission, the Town 

of Cumberland, and several local businesses helped finance the 

renovation. Volunteer efforts since 1996 now total 19,000 hours

and have averaged 2,000 hours per year since the theatre’s 

opening in 2000.

The Blackstone River Theatre presents concert series, folk

dances, children’s events, and special events year-round. As part of

its Heritage Arts Studio initiative, the theatre offers arts education

outreach through classes and workshops. This school for the traditional arts encourages the local community to discover or reconnect

with traditional art forms and become participants in the area’s

arts heritage. Since opening, more than 25,000 people have attended more than 350 events. 

Initial project intent/goals: To establish a locally

based artisan center where the music, dance, and

folk arts traditions of the Blackstone Valley could

be showcased, preserved, and taught.

Critical to the process: The ability of the founding theatre team to communicate its vision to

others, dedicated volunteers, the Town of

Cumberland’s provision of a “free” lease agreement and financial support for building and

property improvements, volunteer assistants who

staff events and continue renovation.

Commission investment: Technical assistance and

matching funds for infrastructure improvements,

performances, and educational programming.

Match: Grants from the Rhode Island state legislative grant program, Town of Cumberland, various foundations.

Later additions: The Heritage Arts Studio, an outgrowth of the 

theatre, offers instructional classes in traditional art forms such as

dance, music, theatre, weaving, and sculpture.

Unintended consequences: Sharing traditional arts through 

connections with culturally diverse audiences and other nonprofits.

Partners (initial partners in italics):

State: Rhode Island State Council on the Arts, Rhode Island State

Legislature

Local: Town of Cumberland

Nonprofit: Friends of Hearthside, Slater Mill Historic Site

Other: Pendragon, national and international groups and individuals

in the performing arts

Interpretation and Education Project Highlight: Blackstone River Theatre, Cumberland, Rhode Island

National Park Service Conservation Study Institute 27
3. River Recovery and Recreation

The river and its ecosystem are beginning to

recover due to extensive clean-up efforts and

changing perceptions of valley residents about

the value of the river. Over the years, the

Commission has advocated its potential as a

clean river to a range of partners and prospective partners, from economic developers to

environmental groups. The strategy has included

interpreting the river as the core of a

“riverway”—an integrated system of water, land,

recreational opportunities, and resources.

Aligning the interests of multiple partners is

integral to making the riverway a destination,

complete with a bikeway, boat launches, redeveloped mills, and healthy water in which residents

can fish and swim. This vision is being achieved

as increasing numbers of people use the bikeway

and paddle and fish the river.

River cleanup efforts began during the 1960s,

when Lincoln, Rhode Island, residents formed

the Committee for the Advancement of Natural

Areas in Lincoln to address pollution issues. In

the 1970s, Project ZAP attracted 10,000 volunteers who built parks, planted trees, and

retrieved tires, debris, cars, and appliances out

of the river. The Blackstone’s designation as an

American Heritage River in 1998 spurred the

adoption of new goals, including balancing

water flows, bringing anadromous fisheries back

to the Lonsdale Marsh, ensuring that waste

water treatment plants met standards for

effluent, and educating residents about

nonpoint source pollution and land use impacts

on the watershed.

Expedition 2000, a four-day paddling journey

from Worcester, Massachusetts, to Narragansett

Bay, fueled the creation of the Blackstone River

Coalition and its Campaign for a Fishable/

Swimmable Blackstone River by 2015. Since

2003, the Commission has provided funding,

staffing, and technical assistance to the coalition’s Volunteer Water Quality Monitoring

Program, in which more than 75 volunteers

sample more than 80 sites.

The Blackstone River Coalition has also formed

a marketing campaign entitled “Jump In! The

Water’s (Going to be) Fine” to recruit members

and build awareness of water quality issues, and

hired a consultant to coordinate interagency

issues and gain funding support at all levels. The

coalition unites organizations, agencies, and

communities in a common vision to achieve a

fishable/swimmable river by 2015. Partners

include the Environmental Protection Agency;

U.S. Geological Survey; Natural Resources

Conservation Service; U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service; Army Corps of Engineers; NPS Rivers,

Trails, and Conservation Assistance Program;

Rhode Island Department of Environment;

Massachusetts Department of Environmental

Protection; watershed groups; tourism councils;

and universities.

28 Reflecting on the Past, Looking to the Future: Sustainability Study Report for the John H. Chafee Blackstone River Valley National Heritage Corridor
Description: Education, coalition-building, and cleanup and monitoring projects are improving people’s perceptions of the river.

Integrating the development of trails and river access points with

the use and interpretation of adjacent sites fosters appreciation

and stewardship of resources and infrastructure throughout the

riverway. The 48-mile Blackstone River Bikeway, when completed,

will connect Providence to Worcester, with side trails linking

Corridor municipalities. State and federal funds have contributed

greatly to this $40-million bikeway project, which has increased the

river’s value and catalyzed development along its banks. The

Commission’s comprehensive river access plan calls for publicly

accessible sites for boating and recreation, and includes water

access sites, portage trails, park improvements, parking, river safety,

and interpretive exhibits. In Rhode Island, the Commission is coordinating the development of five river landing sites with the support

of the Blackstone Valley Tourism Council, Department of

Transportation, Friends of the Blackstone, and local communities.

The first river access site opened in Central Falls in 2004. These sites

accommodate public tour boats and provide boating access to the

river. NPS rangers have developed corresponding interpretive programming that lets people experience the river while educating

them about its history and recreational opportunities. The

Commission has assisted the Massachusetts Audubon Society and

the Friends of the Blackstone with purchasing canoes to provide

programs that spread river awareness and advocacy. The Corridor

sponsors a seasonal paddle club that teaches paddling skills to participants as they explore the river and nearby mill ponds. This

twice-weekly gathering attracts novice paddlers and creates river

advocates, many of whom later assist with the construction and

maintenance of access sites. 

Initial project intent/goals: Build a greenway along the river to

develop and connect parklands and build constituencies for 

restoring the waterway.

Critical to the process: An overall strategy for public access to the

river, funding and technical assistance to communities, funneling

local support and local energies into volunteer-driven development

projects, fostering public awareness through events and programming, and creating river stewards and advocates by providing

opportunities for residents to experience the river.

Commission investment: Funding for design and project management; indirect funding for programming and events; direct 

funding for publications, such as the river and bikeway guide and

the website.

Match: In-kind services and funding from state agencies, transportation enhancement funding, in-kind assistance from local communities, volunteer in-kind assistance from local watershed groups.

Later additions: Created constituencies to maintain and support

river access sites and support partnership and stewardship activities,

fostered stronger connections among agencies, and secured East

Coast Greenway designation. Currently incorporating streambank

restoration projects with development of river access points,

installing interpretive signage, and continually increasing the number of river and riverway stewards. 

Unintended consequences: Connecting and integrating historic

resource preservation, the bikeway, and interpretation into the

development of access sites; aligning and building the capacity of

related organizations; raising awareness of and engaging private

landowners and developers in preserving and creating riverway

features. 

Partners (initial partners in italics):

Federal/regional: Federal Highway Administration, Environmental

Protection Agency

State: Rhode Island Departments of Transportation, Environmental

Management, and Historic Preservation; Massachusetts

Departments of Conservation and Recreation, Highway, and Historic

Preservation Commission, Massachusetts Public Access Board

Local: Municipalities, planners and elected officials, Blackstone

Valley Tourism Council, Blackstone Valley Chamber of Commerce

Nonprofit: Blackstone River Watershed Association, Watershed

Coalition, Massachusetts Audubon Society, Greater Worcester Land

Trust, Rhode Island

River Rescue, Trust For

Public Land, Friends of

the Blackstone,

Metacomet Land Trust,

Grafton Land Trust,

CorridorKeepers,

Blackstone Valley

Chamber of Commerce

Other: Private landowners

and businesses

River Recovery and Recreation Project Highlight: Riverway Development

National Park Service Conservation Study Institute 29
30 Reflecting on the Past, Looking to the Future: Sustainability Study Report for the John H. Chafee Blackstone River Valley National Heritage Corridor

4. Land Use Planning

The legislation creating the Blackstone Corridor

precluded the Commission from using its

authority to regulate or acquire land. Yet it challenged the Commission to protect historic and

natural resources and the character of the

region’s distinctive landscape. Land use planning was therefore encouraged among local

governments and residents through education

and technical assistance to communities. Public

visioning exercises, including Visions for the

Future: The Second Revolution (1995) and a

series of river visioning meetings (2003), have

engaged residents and organizations in actively

planning for their future. In 2001, the first Interstate Community Preservation SuperSummit

attracted 250 residents to a day-long forum

about the future of the Blackstone Valley. The

event included a growth build-out analysis and a

discussion of suggested strategies for managing

future growth.

One outcome of years of working with communities and conducting facilitated workshops and

visioning sessions has been the creation of the

Blackstone Valley Institute. Through workshops

and forums, one-on-one consulting, and technical assistance, the institute provides planners,

local leaders, organizations, and citizens with

the tools to discuss and tackle relevant land use

issues. The institute’s website provides the

public with preservation, planning, and revitalization case studies; design review guidelines;

examples of by-laws and ordinances; and links

to zoning regulations and other planning

resources.

Description: Leadership

Blackstone Valley, an educational

initiative of the Blackstone Valley

Institute, is an intensive, handson program that has cultivated

more than 80 community leaders

throughout the area. The initiative was developed in partnership with the Blackstone Valley

Chamber of Commerce Education Foundation and Northern Rhode

Island Chamber of Commerce to provide emerging local leaders

with opportunities to engage on issues that affect communities

and the region as a whole. Now in its fifth class, the program has

attracted business persons, residents, government and elected officials, and others to develop their leadership skills through an eightmonth curriculum that is paid for jointly by the participant and his

or her employer. The course exposes participants to the valley’s 

history and resources and the national heritage corridor’s history

and future goals. It also provides participants with the knowledge

and skills to address economic development issues, changing demographics and diversity, natural resources management, and citizen

engagement. The goal is to graduate local leaders who will be 

valley advocates and who will guide land and resource conservation in their organizations and municipalities.

Initial project intent/goals: To develop a network of leaders to take

on leadership roles within state, local government, and nonprofit

entities and programs throughout the region.

Critical to the process: Aggressive recruitment by all parties, 

community support, Leadership Blackstone Valley Alumni

Association support.

Commission investment: The Commission supports the leadership

program through both staff support and direct funding assistance.

Development of the program was supported by the Commission

and the Blackstone Valley Chamber of Commerce as part of each

organization’s desire to understand issues surrounding growth and

development and to build stewards for the valley.

Match: Annual program fees, grants, and private donations.

Later additions: The initial program was offered every two years in

eight half-day sessions. In response to participant feedback, the

program is now offered annually in eight full-day sessions, allowing

for a more intensive experience.

Unintended consequences: The Leadership Blackstone Valley Alumni

Association, created by the first graduating class, has become a

major recruiter for the program. The association publishes a

newsletter and has established the CorridorKeepers, an advocacy

organization that is seeking support for the continuation of the

Commission. The Blackstone Valley Youth Leadership Academy, a

recent outgrowth of Leadership Blackstone Valley, enhances the

leadership skills of ninth- and tenth-grade students and strengthens

their connections to the valley. The academy will run after school

for ten sessions from December 2004 to May 2005. 

Partners (initial partners in italics):

State: Blackstone Valley Chamber of Commerce Education

Foundation, Northern Rhode Island Chamber of Commerce, state

agencies

Local: Municipalities

Nonprofit: Local nonprofits involved in cultural development,

tourism, and regional conservation 

Other: Rhode Island Foundation, Worcester Community

Foundation, private businesses

Land Use Planning Project Highlight: Leadership Blackstone Valley
5. Tourism and Economic Development

Heritage tourism has been used as an economic

development tool in many community and river

revitalization efforts. Over the years, the

Commission has built solid working relations

with chambers of commerce and tourism organizations in the Corridor. Tourism marketing,

promotion, and development is now coordinated within the valley through the Tourism

Triangle, a coalition of the two state regional

tourism organizations and the Commission.

Engaging valley residents, who represent additional tourism potential, brings added benefits

to the region.

Since designation, the Commission has encouraged historic preservation planning and has

hosted public visioning exercises that articulated

a future for the valley through resource-based

economic development. As Boston metropolitan

growth began to expand into the Blackstone

Valley in the late 1990s, developers became

increasingly interested in the adaptive reuse of

mill properties and brownfield redevelopment,

which had been of little interest a few years

before. The increased demand for housing is

creating the kind of economic development that

the region has sought for years, but is also

placing new pressures on the land and historic

structures that give the region its sense of place.

As riverway recovery and recreation, mill reuse,

and redevelopment projects continue, qualityof-life issues are being monitored, assessed, and

addressed through visioning workshops and

public planning exercises such as the SuperSummit. Through workshops and discussions

with residents and businesses, the Commission

has adopted a strategy called Making Places,

which promotes the tools that affect valley

quality of life, including good jobs, provisions

for parks, recreational opportunities, vital town

and city centers, growth patterns that support

good design principles and sensitivity to

community character and the environment,

cultural activities, and access to transportation

modes. Tourism and economic development

create both opportunities and challenges for the

Commission as it makes decisions about which

projects to support and advocate.

National Park Service Conservation Study Institute 31
Description: A network of visitor centers provides residents and 

visitors with information about heritage corridor history, historic

and recreational sites, events, visitor services, and programs. The

network is a set of strategically located, interconnected hubs that

provide visitors with information on the valley and its resources

and direct them to nearby sites. The four main hubs are the

Blackstone Valley Visitor Center in Pawtucket, Rhode Island; the

Museum of Work and Culture in Woonsocket, Rhode Island; River

Bend Farm in Uxbridge, Massachusetts; and the Northern Gateway

Center, under design in Worcester. Other visitor information sites

exist at partner locations that include the Blackstone River and

Canal Transportation Museum

in Lincoln, Rhode Island, Broad

Meadow Brook Sanctuary in

Worcester, and Worcester

Historical Museum. 

The Commission works with

visitor center managers and

other partners to design and

implement exhibits and to

coordinate an information 

dissemination plan at each site.

The network is supported by

individual communities, the

state heritage parks, and private nonprofit organizations

that provide matching financial

or in-kind support, including

site maintenance and staffing.

Once a visitor center opens, the Commission continues to support

the site by providing for the distribution of tourism materials,

information kiosks at tourism sites, assistance with exhibit design

and fabrication, nearby way-finding signage and radio-transmitted

messages, printed visitor guides and event calendars, web-based

information, and professional marketing services.

Initial project intent/goals: Develop a strategic network of sites

throughout the Corridor from which to provide visitors with basic

information on resources, interpret the history of the Blackstone

Valley, and encourage visitors to explore multiple sites and activities.

Critical to the process: Commitment by the host city, state park, or

nonprofit to belong to the network; a willingness to seek outside

development funds to match those of the Commission. 

Commission investment: Assistance with exhibit design and fabrication and visitor support services. As the Commission’s authorization

mandates the support and development of visitor services and

interpretation in the region, approximately $3.5 million has been

dedicated toward tourism infrastructure and education projects. 

Match: Approximately $15 million toward development of centers

and services. Partners have provided annual operating funds to

manage sites.

Later additions: Smaller visitor information sites, way-finding signage, and radio-transmitted messages were introduced to expand

coverage and availability of information. Tourism-related businesses

agreed to serve as hospitality sites. The sites train staff to disseminate information and support the regional tourism strategy advocated by the Commission.

Unintended consequences: Planning and development involved

public and private organizations and sites and enabled the

Commission to expand the

geographic scope of its interpretive infrastructure and services. Many sites are standalone destinations, and provide supplemental education

and interpretation activities.

Others have become community meeting places for other

activities, such as paddling,

walks, and gallery openings.

The kiosks, way-finding and

site identification signage, and

information distribution services at hospitality sites and in

outlying areas reinforce the

corridor’s regional identity and

benefit individual sites. Sites

benefit from working under such a coordinated branding and marketing strategy because they are able to cross-market their products and programs and share resources and ideas. Their association

with a region-wide network provides visitors with a context within

which to understand the contributions of individual sites.

Partners (initial partners in italics):

Federal/regional: Federal Highway Administration, National

Endowment for the Humanities

State: Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation,

Massachusetts Department of Transportation, Rhode Island

Department of Environmental Management, Rhode Island State

Parks, Massachusetts State Parks

Local: City of Pawtucket, City of Woonsocket, City of Worcester

Nonprofit: Old Slater Mill Association, Blackstone Valley Tourism

Council, Rhode Island Historical Society, Massachusetts Audubon

Society, Worcester Historical Museum, Waters Farm Preservation, Inc.,

Woonsocket Industrial Development Corporation

Other: Private donors and foundations

Tourism and Economic Development Project Highlight: Creating a Tourism-Centered Corridor Network

32 Reflecting on the Past, Looking to the Future: Sustainability Study Report for the John H. Chafee Blackstone River Valley National Heritage Corridor
National Park Service Conservation Study Institute 33

B.Strategic Planning and Leverage

This section analyzes and documents the NPS

investment in the Blackstone National Heritage

Corridor and attempts to demonstrate how

these federal funds have leveraged both private

and public investments during the Commission’s

tenure. Although the project team was able to

compile preliminary leverage figures and estimates for the program areas, it was not possible

within the constraints of the sustainability study

to conduct a more rigorous assessment. The

Commission is committed to undertaking an

analysis in the near future that will more thoroughly examine the “total economic value”

associated with the Corridor’s designation and

Commission investments and leverage.

Within its broad agenda, the Commission takes

guidance for setting priorities from its enabling

legislation and from the 1989 Cultural Heritage

and Land Management Plan and its 1998

amendment. Since 1987 the Commission has

received a total of $23,638,600 from various

National Park Service funding programs. Of this

amount, the Commission has been required to

demonstrate a match of 1:1 for $20 million that

has gone into Corridor operations and development programs.

Research indicates that financial and in-house

commitments from Massachusetts and Rhode

Island, other federal agencies, communities, the

private sector, and nonprofit organizations

supporting Corridor goals have created an

impressive leveraging portfolio. To date, the

Commission has directly sponsored or participated in more than 400 projects within the

Corridor. A conservative estimate for the

Commission’s leverage of NPS funds indicates a

22:1 match—a public and private investment in

excess of $500 million attributable to either

direct or indirect Commission involvement that

contributes to the goals set forth in the management plan.

Taking direction from the two primary planning

documents, the Commission has put in place

processes and an organizational structure that

have worked strategically toward both immediate preservation needs and long-term strategies.

The Commission has an active strategic planning

subcommittee that regularly examines the

Commission’s goals, active projects, and future

needs in setting its annual work plans.

One issue that surfaced during the study is the

uncertainty of annual fund allocations. Although

the Commission has been successful over the

years in receiving funds for operations and

implementing its management plan, these funds

fluctuate and are not considered “base-funded,”

meaning that the Commission begins each fiscal

year with an uncertain funding amount. This

hampers the Commission’s ability to plan for

and commit to longer-term programs and

projects. Another issue is the difficulty of

aligning partner and Commission funds during

the same time frame. Commission money is

frequently used as seed money to jumpstart

projects. Often the upfront money and the later

phased funding needs, coupled with the annual

uncertainties, make it difficult for the Commission to place its funds strategically within a

projected time frame.

Projects involving Commission funds are

primarily managed through formal cooperative

agreements that identify needs, common objectives, legal mandates, estimated time frames, and

budgets. To date, the Commission has entered

into 284 partner agreements with 87 Corridor

partners in order to carry out the management

plan. The Commission staff also provides technical assistance to numerous other projects.

Combined, the Commission has leveraged its

funds against other much larger public and

private contributions, making it possible to

support many more projects than could be

supported by individual organizations or the

National Park Service working alone.
A sampling of community leaders was interviewed during the study, and they identified

three major ways in which the Commission

provides assistance and has leveraged greater

inputs: direct funding, technical and professional expertise, and political clout.

Direct funding works in several ways. It very

often provides an organization with an allimportant match for a grant, or with funds for

initial permitting or for a study needed to

receive approval for a project, or with seed

money to make a project viable. The Commission, through its call for proposals process,

challenges organizations and communities to

think about their individual projects within the

larger regional efforts, and encourages collaborative endeavors that contribute to Corridor

goals. As one respondent stated:

The money is an incentive for people to think in

terms of how they can put programs together and

what kinds of programs are consistent with

Corridor goals. ...I think it leverages human

commitment [and] intellect, and that is important

capital... . It basically opens doors to leveraging

individual money in a way that integrates and

draws people into the process.

The professional and technical expertise the

Commission brings to the valley and its ability to

forge partnerships across jurisdictional lines is

seen as a regional advantage. 

It is also important to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the management structure. At the Commission’s request, the NPS serves as

staff and coordinates and implements the management plan, working primarily through partnerships to protect the valley’s nationally

important resources. The original assumption of the designation

was that the heritage corridor management framework would be a

less costly alternative to a traditional national park designation.

While it may be difficult to compare the operations of a national

heritage corridor and national park, it nonetheless demonstrates

different funding scenarios and provides insights to the added

value the NPS achieves through partnership management strategies. Below, we compare two national parks with the Blackstone

National Heritage Corridor in terms of annual operating budget

and staffing. The Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National Historical

Park is a linear canalway traversing several states, and Lowell

National Historical Park is an urban partnership park focused on

industrial heritage. 

Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National Historical Park follows 

the route of the Potomac River for 184 miles from Washington, D.C.,

to Cumberland, Maryland, and encompasses 20,000 acres. The park

manages a complex historic and natural resources program with an

annual operating budget of $8.4 million and 122 full-time employees.

Lowell National Historical Park encompasses 141 acres within

the City of Lowell, Massachusetts, and is responsible for preserving

and interpreting numerous historic and cultural resources and 

celebrating the beginnings of America’s industrial heritage. Lowell

has an annual operating budget of $8.5 million and 112 full-time

employees.

Blackstone River Valley National Heritage Corridor encompasses

an entire watershed of 400,000 acres and includes 24 cities and

towns. It has a very broad mandate for the preservation, redevelopment, and interpretation of the cultural landscape. Blackstone

has a current annual operating budget of approximately $1 million

and 14 full-time employees. 

The Cost-Effectiveness of the Corridor’s Management Structure

I think the fact that the...Corridor [Commission]

is engaged in these projects helps to make them

successful.... The technical assistance is indeed

important because ...the technical skills that the

Corridor [Commission] is able to field are not

typically present in the communities in the Blackstone Valley.

The Commission’s standing as a bi-state

nonpartisan entity and its affiliation with the

National Park Service provide a level of credibility that allows communities and organizations

access to state and federal agencies they might

not otherwise have.

Political power—when you can get four U.S.

senators and eight congressmen all in support of a

common vision for the Blackstone Valley—

that speaks. When I’m out and about and my

congressman looks me in the eye and says,

“How’s everything in the valley?” THAT speaks.

34 Reflecting on the Past, Looking to the Future: Sustainability Study Report for the John H. Chafee Blackstone River Valley National Heritage Corridor
National Park Service Conservation Study Institute 35

Historic Preservation: The Commission has

invested approximately $3,560,000 with an 

estimated return on this investment that exceeds

$132,705,000. These projects include such 

activities as historic preservation of nationalregister-eligible properties, cultural landscape

assessments, collection management and curation of historic objects, archaeological studies,

and community preservation plans. 

Interpretation, Education and Tourism

Development: The Commission has invested

approximately $9,966,000 in historical research,

interpretive and cultural programs, and educational programs, with an estimated return on

this investment that exceeds $17,700,000. These

projects include such activities as NPS-rangerguided tours and lectures, visitor center and

museum development, exhibit design and fabrication, interpretive master plans for heritage

sites and communities, curriculum development,

support for cultural arts education and

programming, development of interpretive

brochures and websites, tourism marketing and

promotion, a unified identity system, and public

information program. 

Community Planning and Economic Development: The Commission has invested

approximately $4,667,000 to assist communities

in developing strategies and plans that help to

support Corridor heritage preservation and

development goals. It is difficult to put a definitive dollar value on much of the leverage to this

investment. An estimated $292,371,000 in

leverage contributed toward community revitalization projects, regional visions, transportation

improvements, master planning for historic mill

villages, land preservation, regional economic

development plans, revitalization of historic

industrial properties, and the redevelopment of

historic mills.

River Recovery and Recreation: The Commission has invested approximately $4,684,000,

which has leveraged $79,121,000. These activities

include developing parks, constructing the

Blackstone River Bikeway, developing river landings and public access sites for boating and

fishing, constructing trails, developing plans for

the restoration of migratory fish, wetland and

streambank restoration projects, upgrades to

wastewater treatment plants, watershed-wide

education programs, and water quality monitoring and protection programs.

Commission Leverage

Commission Investment Partnership Leverage

■ Historic Preservation $ 3,559,810 $132,704,834

■ Interpretation, Education and Tourism $ 9,965,629 $ 17,713,372

■ Community Planning and Economic Development $ 4,666,497 $292,370,886

■ River Recovery and Recreation $ 4,684,340 $ 79,120,938
36 Reflecting on the Past, Looking to the Future: Sustainability Study Report for the John H. Chafee Blackstone River Valley National Heritage Corridor
National Park Service Conservation Study Institute 37

As discussed in chapter 3, a central purpose of

the Corridor’s authorizing legislation was to

create a coordinating framework to develop and

implement a program to protect and interpret

the valley’s heritage resources. As the Corridor

approaches its twentieth anniversary and the

scheduled termination of that framework, a critical aspect of the sustainability study involved

reflecting on the effectiveness of the existing

framework and presenting management alternatives for the Commission to consider for the

Corridor in the future. To that end, this chapter

provides an analysis of the existing management

framework. Possible options for future management of the Corridor are discussed in chapter 7.

For a review of the methods and sources used in

conducting this analysis, see appendix B.

A. Purpose and Vision

The Corridor’s broad purpose and vision serve

as the foundation for the management framework. The broad scope reflects a holistic,

integrated strategy for retaining those things that

make the Blackstone Valley significant, sharing

its story with the world, and fostering a sustainable future for its inhabitants. Moreover, the

vision embraces a conviction that effective

heritage conservation and development in the

valley’s lived-in, working landscape require an

integrated approach across multiple disciplines

(historic preservation, environmental restoration, community and economic development,

etc.), rather than a more traditional approach

that would address each of those concerns independently. 

The Corridor’s broad scope also represents an

ambitious and demanding agenda, and is predicated on working through partnerships, which

can be time-consuming and challenging. These

factors have implications for staffing, as

discussed below. Also, while the Commission

and its partners have made considerable

progress with limited resources in a relatively

short amount of time, it is clear that the attainment of Corridor goals and the integrated vision

is a long-term proposition. The breadth of the

Corridor’s mandate, the inherent challenges of

cross-disciplinary work in a lived-in landscape,

and the commitment to a partnership-based

approach all require sustained energy, expertise,

and resources over time if success is to be

achieved and maintained. 

B. Geographic Scope

The Corridor’s geographic scale presents both

challenges and opportunities. The challenges lie

in the fact that it encompasses a large area of

two states with a vast array of stakeholders,

which makes managing a broad, integrated

effort even more demanding. The opportunities

result from the greater energy, capacity, funding,

political clout, resilience, and similar characteristics that are inherent in a large, bi-state

initiative relative to smaller, single-state ones.

Within the backdrop of those challenges and

opportunities, there appears to be a general

consensus among Corridor partners that the

current boundary is appropriate. Some suggest

that certain areas within the boundary may be

only tenuously connected to the primary aspects

of the Corridor’s significance, but those individuals also acknowledge that there is no need for

nor any likely advantage to be gained from

adjusting the boundary accordingly. It is important to note that the Corridor’s bi-state scale has

significant implications for other aspects of the

management framework, particularly in relation

to the management entity. 

C. Management Entity

In general terms, all indications suggest that the

Commission, with its NPS staff, has been very

effective as the corridor’s management entity.

Together with partners throughout the valley,

the Commission and its staff have achieved an

extensive record of accomplishments toward the

realization of Corridor goals (see chapter 4.A),

used their federal funding to leverage substantial

investments by others (chapter 4.B), and established the Corridor as a national and

international leader in the heritage movement.

Moreover, the Commission and its staff are

widely credited for their professionalism and

integrity, which have earned them overwhelming

support among Corridor partners.

1. Composition

Given the Corridor’s broad geographic and

programmatic scope, its national significance,

and its federal support, the balanced bi-state

membership and federal representation

provided through the Commission are clearly

necessary and desirable characteristics of the

management entity. For an initiative as big and

diverse as the Corridor, and in comparison to

the management entities for some other national

heritage areas, the Commission’s 19-member size

CHAPTER 5

Analyzing the Existing Management Framework
38 Reflecting on the Past, Looking to the Future: Sustainability Study Report for the John H. Chafee Blackstone River Valley National Heritage Corridor

is relatively modest. This can be seen as a

strength because it may help to make the

Commission more manageable than a larger

group might be. However, there are also potential

drawbacks to the current size and composition.

For instance, the number of local representatives (8) is relatively limited for the number of

municipalities (24) within the Corridor. In addition, the lack of seats explicitly dedicated to

nongovernmental partners means this critical

component of the partnership is at best only

lightly represented on the Commission (and

only if the “at large” or local government representatives also happen to have such affiliations).

It is also worth noting that there is frustration

among commissioners and staff with the

cumbersome nature of the nomination and

appointment process, which is typical for federal

commissions. The process is long and staffintensive, and has frequently resulted in extended

vacancies, which raises problems because of

the Commission’s relatively small size.

2. Staff

The Commission’s NPS staff has clearly been

among the most important factors in the

Corridor’s success to date. The NPS staff presence is widely seen as providing a variety of

benefits, including credibility, expertise, leveraging ability, visibility, and energy. As a result,

the staff is often characterized as the Corridor’s

“glue.” Had the Commission chosen to hire

other staff that did not have the “imprimatur” of

the National Park Service, it seems unlikely that

the full range of benefits provided by the NPS

staff would have been realized.

Corridor partners emphasized the importance

of having the “right” kinds of people on staff

because of the challenges presented by the

Commission’s broad, integrated agenda, its

commitment to a partnership approach, and the

realities of working in a large, lived-in landscape.

Staff members must have diverse skills

(including excellent “people” skills); must be

patient, flexible, and “light on their feet”; and

must possess the sophistication to work in a

complex, constantly changing environment.

Also, given the integrated agenda, some staff

members are inevitably involved in initiatives

that extend beyond the NPS’s traditional areas

of expertise (e.g., economic development).

While this presents challenges and means that

finding qualified candidates may be difficult, it

also is seen as a strength that has helped to

attract very dynamic, talented individuals to the

Blackstone.

In addition, some Corridor participants

suggested that the staff may be spread too thinly.

This is an issue the Commission may wish to

consider more directly. If a need for action is

identified, the Commission could seek to

expand the staff and/or reevaluate priorities and

the staffing structure.

3. Authorities

The Commission’s authorities are similar to

those of other federal commissions that serve as

management entities for other national heritage

areas. These authorities appear to be adequate

and appropriate for the Commission’s responsibilities. 

4. Responsibilities and roles

By all indications, it appears the Commission

has very effectively filled the niche that was

envisioned for it: providing coordination and

leadership that transcend the Corridor’s political

boundaries and span the diverse range of

programmatic commitments. The Commission’s

federal stature and diverse bi-state composition

are seen as key factors in its success, giving it a

level of impartiality, credibility, and political

clout that no other organization within the

Corridor is perceived to have. A further part of

the Commission’s effectiveness appears to stem

from the fact that it is a governmental body with

a clear connection to the Department of the

Interior and the National Park Service, yet it has

a degree of independence and thus is less

encumbered than if it were completely within a

governmental bureaucracy (e.g., the Commission is not wholly tied to the DOI/NPS chain of

command). This helps the Commission to act

effectively as a catalyst in initiating and

supporting action by Corridor partners, both

governmental and nongovernmental. As one

partner expressed it in an interview, the

Commission “acts more like an entity just outside

of government, and...I have learned in my work

that the point of gravity for a lot of the

[Corridor’s] actions and campaigns needs to lie

just outside of government.” 

The Commission/NPS partnership has been

very successful in raising awareness of the

Corridor, and has acted as the primary protector

of, and advocate for, an integrated, regional

vision for the Corridor. (In fact, many partners

have used the Corridor vision and goals to help

define their own strategic organizational goals.)

The Commission’s strong sense of fiduciary

responsibility and commitment to meaningful

public engagement also are viewed as strengths. 

By all indications, it

appears the Commission

has very effectively

filled the niche that 

was envisioned for it:

providing coordination

and leadership that

transcend the Corridor’s

political boundaries

and span the diverse

range of programmatic

commitments.
National Park Service Conservation Study Institute 39

While the Commission and its NPS staff have

filled their niche with great success, certain

considerations are important to note for the

future. In particular, a significant dependency on

the Commission and the staff is evident among

the partner network. Many Corridor partners

feel that if the Commission and NPS involvement were to terminate in 2006, the network

would at the very least be significantly weakened

and could regress toward the much less functional and productive state that existed before

the Corridor’s establishment. Beyond highlighting the significance of the Commission and

the NPS, this finding illuminates two important

points: first, that it takes a considerable amount

of time and nurturing to build a durable partner

network; and second, strengthening the network

should be a high priority for the Corridor’s next

phase.

See chapter 6 for further discussion of the roles

that the Commission and NPS staff have filled

over the lifetime of the Corridor.

D. Partner Network

1. Federal government

Between its agreement to provide staff for the

Commission and its commitment of discretionary funding and technical assistance, the

NPS has made a significant investment in the

Blackstone National Heritage Corridor. The

NPS investment and on-the-ground presence in

the Corridor are widely viewed among the partnership both as a crucial element in the success

to date and as an appropriate commitment by

the agency in light of the Corridor’s documented national significance. 

Other federal agencies, including the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the Army Corps

of Engineers, the Federal Highway Administration, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the

Natural Resource Conservation Service, and 

the U.S. Geological Survey have also made

important contributions thus far with their

commitments of substantial funding and other

assistance to Corridor initiatives. The additional

federal recognitions that have been given to the

Blackstone since the Corridor’s establishment

(e.g., American Heritage River, Urban River

Initiative) have been critical in stimulating many

of those federal commitments. Regardless of

what may be done with respect to the management framework in the future, there is a strong

desire and rationale for ensuring the continuation of these commitments. In addition, there is

some interest in greater involvement by the U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service. 

2. State government

State government in both Massachusetts and

Rhode Island clearly has been instrumental in

the success of the Corridor to date. Elected and

agency officials from both states played key roles

in the Corridor’s creation, and have continued

to provide essential support during the time

since—particularly to large-scale initiatives such

as state parks, the bikeway, and the Route 146

enhancements at the northern gateway in

Worcester. Nonetheless, there is interest in

securing greater and more consistent involvement from both state governments that is less

subject to political shifts over time. 
Enhanced state involvement could entail: 

• A more consistent commitment to the Corridor

over time by the governors of the two states,

including more direct involvement in Corridor

affairs and greater accessibility for partners; 

• Further involvement by both states’ economic

development agencies, which are perceived by

some partners to be somewhat less consistently

engaged in Corridor-related initiatives than

other relevant state agencies; 

• Additional outreach by the Commission to the

governors and the state economic development

agencies to encourage the enhanced involvement envisioned above; and

• Possible inclusion of the state transportation

agency directors on the Commission.

3. Local government

The 24 towns and cities within the Corridor also

have been an essential part of the partnership

and its success. Much of the on-the-ground

work toward Corridor goals occurs at the local

level, as is evident in Pawtucket’s riverfront revitalization, the adoption and implementation of

land use policies and regulations in some

communities, and many other initiatives. 

Yet there are inherent challenges in working with

24 different municipalities in two different New

England states that have affected the degree of

success with local initiatives in the Corridor. Local

leadership, staff, resources, and issues change

frequently, making it difficult to sustain consistent

involvement and direction from any given community, let alone all 24. Also, local government in New

England often tends to be inward-looking rather

than regional or collaborative, and even various

boards within a given community may not coordinate closely on issues that cut across their

jurisdictions. These factors combine to present a

significant challenge to developing and sustaining a

consistent and effective local stewardship strategy

throughout the Corridor.

Looking to the future, there is a case to be made

for increased local representation on the

Commission, as noted above in the discussion of

the Commission’s composition. Also, recognizing both the importance of retaining

landscape and community character throughout

the valley and the primary authority of local

governments for land use planning and growth

management, there is widespread interest in

seeking additional ways to support and enhance

the capacity of local governments in these

efforts. Given the challenges described above,

time, patience, and sustained attention to local

partners will be crucial to achieving further

success at the local level.

40 Reflecting on the Past, Looking to the Future: Sustainability Study Report for the John H. Chafee Blackstone River Valley National Heritage Corridor
National Park Service Conservation Study Institute 41

4. Nongovernmental partners

Nongovernmental organizations in the Corridor

have been an indispensable component of the

overall partnership and its accomplishments to

date. They complement and enhance the work

of the Commission and governmental partners,

providing crucial energy, capacity, financial

resources, and advocacy on behalf of Corridor

goals and initiatives. There is general agreement

that some guaranteed representation of

nongovernmental partners on the Commission

would be desirable. In addition, the degree of

organizational and financial development and

stability varies widely among these partners,

with some being well-established and stable

while others remain quite fragile. As a result, a

strong consensus exists about the need for additional attention to building partner capacity and

leadership.

E. Funding and Other Support

The federal commitment of nearly $24 million to

the Commission through the National Park

Service, and the matching contributions and

other investments those funds have leveraged,

have had a huge impact on the Blackstone Valley

over the past 18 years. Yet while this federal

support has been critically important, the

existing funding system is not necessarily ideal.

In particular, the Commission has had to lobby

for almost all of its budget each year because its

only relatively secure “base funding” has come

from the discretionary ONPS (Operations of the

NPS) funds that the NPS has provided (which

have averaged around $300,000 per year over

the past five years). The very limited amount of

secure funding has been a significant obstacle

for the Commission because the uncertainty it

creates makes long-range strategic planning,

implementation of multi-year projects, and staff

retention very difficult. 

Looking to the future, another significant

consideration with the existing funding system is

that fully two-thirds of the Commission’s total

federal funding would be lost if the NPS were

not part of the management framework for the

Corridor. Thus, while the Commission and its

partners clearly have achieved a great deal within

the existing context, the challenges described

here point to a pressing need to pursue more

secure, predictable, and sustainable funding.
42 Reflecting on the Past, Looking to the Future: Sustainability Study Report for the John H. Chafee Blackstone River Valley National Heritage Corridor
National Park Service Conservation Study Institute 43

This chapter focuses on how the Blackstone

National Heritage Corridor programs work. In

other words, how do the programs deliver the

accomplishments described in Chapter 4-A? In

what ways do the programs have an impact on

organizations and communities in the Blackstone Valley? Are there areas in which the

programs might be strengthened or improved in

the future? To explore these issues, the sustainability study team conducted a research project

called a “process evaluation” of Corridor

programs. A process evaluation is designed to

examine how complex programs function and

to document their impacts. This research effort

had two phases: the first phase was designed to

build a model of how the Corridor programs

operate, and the second phase tested this model

through a series of interviews with Corridor

partners (see Appendix C for a discussion of

research methods).

The program model (presented on page 38) is a

powerful tool in several important ways. First, it

is a representation of how Corridor programs

achieve their long-term goals and objectives.

This model is useful since it characterizes a

highly complex program in a simple yet logical

manner. Such information gives the Commission

and Corridor stakeholders an opportunity to

reflect on how the Corridor programs have

evolved and where the Corridor might be

headed. In addition, the model provides a basis

for evaluating the effectiveness of the Corridor

because it represents the underlying logic of the

programs. As such, it establishes a basis for

tracking progress over time and can be a helpful

adaptive management tool. Finally, the process

of developing and testing the model is, in its

own right, a useful public engagement tool.

Developing models of this type requires

thoughtful, reflective input from key stakeholders on issues relating to program objectives

and previous and current program activities, as

well as strategic planning for future directions.

CHAPTER 6

Probing How this Place-Based Partnership Model Works1
44 Reflecting on the Past, Looking to the Future: Sustainability Study Report for the John H. Chafee Blackstone River Valley National Heritage Corridor

The model is a simplified theory of how the Corridor programs operate in a highly complex, real-world setting. In this way, the model can

help us understand how Corridor programs achieve their goals. The model is organized into five linked components.

The first component, “Blackstone Heritage,” posits that heritage acts as an underlying, unifying concept for Corridor objectives and activities (Figure 6.1). Heritage creates a context for Corridor initiatives and provides a platform for engaging prospective partners. In this way,

heritage has the potential to link people to place.

Figure 6.1

The second component of the model suggests that the Corridor and the Commission together provide a venue for a collaborative 

framework and a common vision for organizations throughout the Blackstone Valley region (Figure 6.2). Organizations with seemingly

different missions appear to share a vision, or have realigned their vision, with that of the Corridor programs and have become partners 

in accomplishing the objectives.

Figure 6.2

The third component of the model implies that the National Park Service adds value to, and increases the effectiveness of, Corridor

programs (Figure 6.3). This value lies with the agency’s expertise in interpretation and in managing natural and cultural resources, 

as well as its national identity or “brand.” 

Figure 6.3

The fourth component of the model suggests that the first three steps contribute to a strong network of partners (Figure 6.4). 

This network consists of community leaders, municipal officials, state and federal agencies, and the business community, as well as 

environmental and preservation organizations. The network is knit together by the Corridor’s shared, heritage-based vision, which helps

to sustain the network while encouraging organizations to work across areas of interest. The network is also the primary instrument

through which the Commission accomplishes projects. 

Figure 6.4

The fifth component of the model indicates that, over time, a sustainable network system could develop (Figure 6.5). This network system

would have the ability to undertake long-term projects while integrating economic and community development needs with resource

conservation. As a result, a sustainable network system would significantly enhance the stewardship capacity of the Corridor programs.

Figure 6.5

Ultimately, the components described above work together in leading to the achievement of the Corridor’s long-term goals (Figure 6.6).

Figure 6.6

A. The Program Model

Blackstone

Heritage

Collaborative

Framework

NPS

Connection

Blackstone

Heritage

Collaborative

Framework

NPS

Connection

Building a

Network

Blackstone

Heritage

Collaborative

Framework

NPS

Connection

Building a

Network

A Sustainable

Network System

Blackstone

Heritage

Collaborative

Framework

NPS

Connection

Building a

Network

A Sustainable

Network System

Long-Term

Goals

Blackstone

Heritage

Blackstone

Heritage

Collaborative

Framework
National Park Service Conservation Study Institute 45

B. Partner Interviews

Thirty Corridor partners were interviewed to

test the program model. They included representatives from the business community,

municipal governments, state and federal agencies, nonprofit organizations, and community

leadership. Some of the study participants have

been connected with the Corridor for many

years, while others are new partners. The interviews were done in a confidential manner and

were designed to help the study team understand how Corridor programs work from the

perspective of its partners. Analysis of interview

data revealed five interwoven, related themes: 

1) heritage: linking people to place; 2) basis for

collaboration; 3) federal connection; 4) building

a partner network; and 5) unintended consequences. The remainder of this section discusses

these themes and related subthemes.

1. Heritage: Linking people to place

Subtheme: The story

Corridor partners emphasized the importance

of understanding the “entire story” of the Blackstone Valley region. The story tells of the rise,

decline, and reemergence of the Blackstone

Valley. It emphasizes the impacts this cycle has

had on the human and natural communities,

while placing many of the Corridor’s programs

and objectives into a meaningful, contemporary

context. One Corridor partner described it 

this way:

I think that the story of Worcester is the story of

transformation from an agrarian to a manufacturing society. Like all of the old manufacturing

cities in the Northeast, it had gone through a

period of decline, with a kind of negative legacy.

There is the ability to transform that perspective

by talking about the positive changes that have

happened and the opportunities to improve upon

the past, and to repair some of what was broken

during that process. I think of the Blackstone River

and the opportunity to do some environmental

remediation along it. That’s why people have been

embracing the story, because they do see the

opportunity and they increasingly understand

that their heritage can be a cornerstone for future

prosperity.

Numerous partners describe the story as “the

glue” that holds the region together. Thus,

understanding the story not only helps to create

a meaningful context for Corridor projects, it

also serves as an organizing concept for the

myriad groups and interests in the valley.

Another partner described how the story

provides a way for different people and organizations to engage each other around a shared

sense of history. In this way, the story has the

potential to transcend time and culture, and

become a unifying theme within the valley:

It’s telling the stories. Today, it’s the same situation

as [100 years ago]. You keep getting different

waves of immigrant groups coming in. But guess

what? Although they’re doing different jobs, they’re

all probably in the same mills facing the same

experiences and facing the same prejudices as

previous immigrants. It’s a very common experience and we find that when we delve into the

different traditions, there’s such a huge commonality when you get these groups together. I really

think it serves to break down some of the natural

barriers that people set up. So getting that story

out there but not trying to sugarcoat it is important. There’s a lot of bad stuff. But you know

what? It’s what we are, and it deserves to be told.

That’s what this really is about.

Several study participants also attributed direct,

programmatic results to their greater understanding of Blackstone Valley heritage. In other

words, the story is a “call to action” for partners,

and Corridor programs and activities serve to

underscore this call. A participant reflected on

the process in this way:
46 Reflecting on the Past, Looking to the Future: Sustainability Study Report for the John H. Chafee Blackstone River Valley National Heritage Corridor

This was all the result of greater appreciation for

the history of our mill villages and the cultural

heritage that our mill villages represent. There is

about to be an initial planning meeting for one of

the hilltop villages of the Blackstone Valley, which

was the original European settlement pattern in

the area when [it] was first settled for farming. So,

there are two major planning efforts that were the

result of a greater awareness of the cultural

heritage of our area, and came out of the work of

the Corridor [Commission] in instilling that sense

of cultural identity.

Subtheme: Sense of pride and place

The notion of Blackstone Valley heritage

continues to instill a strong sense of pride and

place among Corridor partners. This has had a

powerful impact on many Corridor partners,

both as organizations and individuals. On an

organizational level, a sense of place has helped

to introduce the regional focus of Corridor

programs to individual towns and local businesses. A number of study participants

discussed how this has enabled them to think

“more broadly” in terms of their organizational

goals and objectives. While the Commission

does not, in and of itself, create a sense of pride

and place, there is a strong sense that Corridor

activities have played a key role in moving this

agenda forward among partner organizations.

One study participant described it in this way:

We look at the pride that’s been developed

throughout the valley. People no longer slur the

Blackstone Valley when they say where they are

from. They practically wear it on their sleeve, “I’m

from the Blackstone Valley,” or “I’m from the

Blackstone River”.... Is the Corridor Commission

a hundred percent responsible for all of that? No,

but it’s that coalescing force that the Commission

has brought about that has pushed this process

along so much faster than it might [have gone]

without.... The Commission has enabled people to

think large and to think broadly and to not be

afraid of talking to the people from another town.

Other study participants identified the Corridor

programs’ indirect, yet empowering role as an

important factor for revitalizing the Blackstone

Valley. Through supporting various improvement initiatives, the Commission has helped to

cultivate a stronger sense of pride and place.

This, in turn, has helped create a climate where

organizations with seemingly different goals can

find common ground:

I think the Corridor [Commission] has had an

enormous impact because [it has] helped businesses and organizations that want to improve the

infrastructure in the community. By pulling

together people from different organizations with

different goals, [it has] brought the community

back to a place where [people] have a pride in

being from the Blackstone Valley. This was really

not there for many generations. The Blackstone

Valley 20 years ago was a repressed, depressed

area and not so many people claimed with pride

the fact that they lived in the Blackstone Valley.

Now that’s changed. Not only are the people

whose families have lived there for six and seven

generations proud to be from the Blackstone

Valley, but professional people are seeking to live

there, too. It’s now a destination community

rather than the community of last choice.

For many individuals, this sense of pride has

created opportunities for community engagement and revitalization efforts. Study

participants who have lived in the valley for

several decades describe this in terms of a

psychological reemergence:

Rethinking our history and bringing it back up has

been psychologically beneficial to people who were

born and raised here... saying “Okay, the mills

aren’t going full steam any more,” but you know

something? They were a huge benefit to the whole

nation at one time. For example, wool was made

here for Civil War uniforms. This also gives that

pride of place to the newcomer who says, “Well,

this is really neat.” I mean you can actually see

people’s faces light up when they hear some of the

specific stories of the valley, and they tell those to

their kids, and then that leads again to this pride

of place.

Subtheme: Regional identity

The notion of heritage plays a strong role in

creating a regional identity throughout the 24

cities and towns that comprise the Corridor.

Several town officials described “local politics”

as a potential impediment to undertaking longterm projects. For these Corridor partners, the

notion of heritage provides political leverage

with which to pursue objectives that are of

town-level as well as regional interest. In

describing the role of heritage, one town official

said it “gives me a base [from] which to discuss

my municipal and town projects.” Other study

participants described the ways in which the

notion of heritage has helped to create energy

for regional-scale projects:
National Park Service Conservation Study Institute 47

There’s a psychological impact of being from the

Blackstone Valley, and it gets you thinking in

different ways. It gets you thinking about that bike

trail and wouldn’t it be great to link all of our towns

together with a recreational resource? It gets you

thinking about the canal and what that means to all

of us as a common link in our history. It gets you

thinking about all of the mills up and down the

valley that, even though each had its own separate

village, were part of an economic system that was

internally consistent. Grafton’s history is Northbridge’s

history, is Uxbridge’s history, and so on.

Study participants also revealed the ways in

which heritage has shaped or aligned their organizational visions. In many instances, this has

reinforced the regional nature of Corridor goals

and programs and fostered the sharing of

resources across organizations:

Heritage brings the people in the region closer

together. I think what it ends up doing is that, for a

lack of a better term, we piggyback, so to speak.

We actually gravitate toward supporting the

Corridor’s mission instead of expecting them to

support us because our missions end up being

entwined. Our organizations complement each

other.... I guess that’s a great way to look at it.

They complement each other.

A number of Corridor partners describe

heritage as the “defining” element for their organizations. For some, heritage is not something

that necessarily affects day-to-day operations,

but it is “present” because it helps reinforce

organizational goals and objectives. For others,

heritage is very much an explicit part of their

identity and mission. One Corridor partner

described the importance of heritage in this

way:

Heritage defines the region and that is instrumental

to our goals. If there is no regional entity, regional

glue, then we are something totally different. The

regional goal is bringing us together as a network.

That’s why our mission is about developing the

network and community stewards. And it all goes

back to what defines the Blackstone Valley: the

national heritage and the natural resources.

2. Basis for collaboration

Subtheme: A vision for the future

Much of the Commission’s value lies in its ability

to engage a diverse set of partners in pursuit of a

common vision. In doing so, the Commission

has helped find points of consensus while facilitating dialogue between town officials, the

business community, nonprofit organizations,

state and federal government agencies, and a

host of other partners. Study participants use

words like “facilitator,” “convener,” “mediator,”

and “communicator” when describing the

Commission in this capacity. One study participant

explained the Commission’s role like this:

I think the Commission does a lot of work to identify who the stakeholders are, and then does a lot

of work to identify what the consensus points are.

That’s been valuable. And I think those two points

are very important to any organization that’s

trying to affect progress in an area. From my

perspective, those are two principal areas where

I’d say the Corridor’s been a big success.

In many instances, participation in this dialogue

encourages organizations to redefine or readjust

their ways of working. There are numerous

examples in the interview data where study

participants talk about a “light bulb going on”

after participating in a Corridor-sponsored

planning exercise. While individual organizations, businesses, and government agencies may

still pursue their own objectives, these stakeholders are beginning to recognize the strategic

advantages in working across multiple interests.

For some, the experience has been quite

humorous: 

It’s funny, and I almost have to laugh because the

Corridor has done the impossible here. They’ve

gotten our town’s land trust talking with the

Economic Development Committee.

Over time, this kind of dialogue may alter the

way in which organizations and community

leaders think about the future of the Blackstone

Valley region. For the majority of study participants, this vision is now inclusive and integrates

economic revitalization, community development, and natural/cultural resource stewardship: 

When you ask municipal officials about integrating economic development, community

development, and resource conservation, it’s

broadly understood these days that in fact all three

of these areas are entirely mutually inclusive.

Environmental quality actually helps drive

economic revitalization.

Subtheme: Venue for partnerships

The Corridor also provides a place for partnership activities to occur. In addition, the

Commission is a unique entity in the Blackstone

Valley region and the combination of its regional

focus and multi-interest objectives creates

numerous partnership opportunities. Study

participants noted that having an entity dedicated specifically to partnership activities has

been very effective:

It’s funny, and I almost

have to laugh because

the Corridor has 

done the impossible

here. They’ve gotten 

our town’s land trust

talking with the

Economic Development

Committee.
48 Reflecting on the Past, Looking to the Future: Sustainability Study Report for the John H. Chafee Blackstone River Valley National Heritage Corridor

What the Corridor [Commission] has done is

open up a number of constituencies. It brought

them under an umbrella and that had not

happened in the past. This has allowed a number

of organizations to find opportunities to plug into

various projects and programs.

For some partners, Corridor initiatives simply

provide opportunities for reflection. This allows

organizations to assess their strategies and goals

in a broader context. One study participant

commented on how this affected her work: 

The Corridor hasn’t really changed the landscape

or the wild areas itself. But sometimes it has

allowed communities to step back through various

planning activities, and say, “Yes, these specific

goals are part of our broader mission, which is

community character.” And there has been a little

space in time and place in which local residents

can think about the big picture.

The Corridor and the programs are, in many

ways, both a physical venue and a conceptual

space for various organizations to connect. This

creates opportunities for ongoing dialogue and

engagement, and resembles the function of a

community center or town hall: 

The Corridor is the place where the vision gets

sorted out. And when I say “the Corridor,” I don’t

mean the Corridor itself. What I mean is the

events and the people they [the Commission]

convene. They’re sort of this lovely umbrella, and

they invite everybody under to talk about things.

And it’s just wonderful, absolutely terrific.

Subtheme: Integrating objectives

Along with creating the context for broad-based

partnership activities, the Commission has

helped link economic and community development with the conservation of natural, cultural,

and historic resources in numerous projects.

Study participants talked about this integration

on different scales, ranging from small efforts to

massive redevelopment projects (e.g., the Route

146 project). Most study participants talk about

this integration in terms of their own direct

experience:

The mill project in our community is a good

example. I’m not sure we would have taken it on

12 years ago because it was more communitybased, and at the time we were certainly focused

[on] the traditional areas of economic development. Quite frankly, what’s caught our eye over

the years is that the Corridor [Commission] not

only says [it’s] going to do something, [it] actually

do[es] it.

Study participants from the business community

recognize the value of environmental restoration

efforts along the Blackstone River. The river is

now considered an amenity and this has created

opportunities for economic development. One

participant described it this way: 
National Park Service Conservation Study Institute 49

The river was full of chemicals over the 20 years

that I guess the Corridor has been in existence. The

money and the focus that they’ve been able to

create to bring the river quality back is essential....

Clearly, I would not be able to sell my building if

that river were very polluted. So, the water

quality and the condition of the river are critical

to my ability to do this.

Through efforts to link economic development

with resource stewardship, the Commission has

become a credible, relevant partner for environmental, community, business, and preservation

interests. According to study participants, this

approach has allowed the Commission to integrate these potentially exclusive values across a

variety of projects:

The Commission is extremely interesting in that

[it] works with businesses, historic properties,

unity groups, and preservation groups as well as

environmental groups. What impresses me beyond

comprehension is that [it has] a strong allegiance

to the economic welfare of the valley, as [it does]

with the environmental, as [it does] with the

private restoration, as [it does] with groups like

the chamber of commerce.

3. Federal connection

Subtheme: Major National Park Service roles

The National Park Service plays several important roles in the Corridor programs. First, NPS

embodies the federal connection within the

Corridor partnership, thereby reinforcing the

notion that this is a bi-state, “umbrella” effort of

national significance. Second, NPS provides an

array of technical assistance and expertise in

planning and management. As discussed in

previous chapters, the Corridor contains a

wealth of natural, cultural, recreational, and

historic resources. Many of the partners responsible for managing these resources benefit from

this relationship with the National Park Service.

In some cases, NPS has directly “taught” various

partners how to meet specific resource management needs. In other cases, NPS has connected

Corridor partners with the appropriate expertise required for their particular projects. Third,

study participants frequently acknowledged the

work of specific individuals on the NPS staff.

While this chapter has taken a systems-level

focus, it is important to note that people play an

extremely important role in Corridor programs.

There is a strong sense among study participants

that having the “right people in the mix” is a

critical factor for success. Fourth, there is a

strong sense that the NPS connection increases

the credibility of the partnership because of its

technical expertise and identity. For example,

when study participants want to make “a strong

impression,” they request the services of an NPS

ranger because there is something “special”

about that presence. Finally, NPS is the leading

federal agency in terms of interpreting natural

and culture resources. This expertise is especially important because many Corridor

programs use heritage to link people to place in

the Blackstone Valley. For this to happen, the

various interpretive sites within the Corridor

must tell their stories in an effective and regionally coherent manner. Perhaps the most

appropriate way to describe the NPS role is that

of a “general resource provider.” The agency is

many different things to many different partners

throughout the valley. One study participant put

it this way:

You know, this is about injecting yourself in the

veins of a community in every aspect. It’s like

looking at a body with all of its intricate parts and

ways that the blood flows through. The Park

Service has turned itself into that.... If you take

away that life support of the blood out of a body, it

falls apart. That is probably the best analogy at

this point.

Subtheme: Branding and credibility

Many study participants commented on the

value that federal designation brings to the

region as well as to their specific organizational

objectives. Some partners use the federal designation as a type of branding in an effort to

create economic development opportunities.

One member of the business community

described the Corridor designation in these

terms:

I entertain clients that are thinking about moving

into the area–companies, businesses–and I give

them a tour and they say, “It’s beautiful here.” I

say, “Well, you’re in the Blackstone River Valley

National Heritage Corridor and there are so

many cultural opportunities.” They’re concerned

about quality of life for their employees. So the

first thing I do is roll out all the information I have

for the Blackstone River Valley National Heritage

Corridor for this coming weekend and say, “This

weekend, here’s what we’ve got going on in the

Blackstone River Valley” within 30, 40 miles. And

they look at you like, “Wow, I didn’t know that.”

And so this makes my job so much easier in trying

to attract quality companies with new jobs and

employees to this region.
50 Reflecting on the Past, Looking to the Future: Sustainability Study Report for the John H. Chafee Blackstone River Valley National Heritage Corridor

For other partners, the designation works as a

leveraging and credibility tool. One study participant described how the designation affects his

work in this way: 

I think it’s fair to say that the designation allows

me to demand more from certain entities, in

particular, federal government agencies, and to

some extent state agencies as well. For example,

when an agency says, “Well, we have so many

things to deal with right now, we can’t deal with

the Blackstone,” I can respond by saying, “Well,

you know Congress made this an important

project and we therefore need to get a little bit

more than what you just said.” 

The value of federal designation, like the role of

the NPS itself, is complex and means something

different to different partners. Despite these

differences, most study participants felt that

federal designation reinforces and brands the

regional identity of the Blackstone Valley while

providing credibility to Corridor partner

programs, activities, and objectives:

I am always aware that I’m working in a special

circumstance. I think the way you could probably

describe it best is that you behave one way in a

McDonald’s and another in a five-star restaurant.

Well, similarly here. There’s something special

about the area.

4. Building a partner network

Subtheme: Central hub

Corridor programs have helped to build a

complex network of partners in the Blackstone

Valley region. The network is the primary

instrument for achieving resource stewardship

goals that are integrated into economic and

community development initiatives. Some study

participants use terms like “foundation,” “catalyst,” “leader,” and “sustainer” when describing

the Corridor Commission’s role in the network.

Others describe it as “agenda setter,” “advocate,”

“convener,” or “strategist.” (See sidebar for the 31

terms used by partners to describe the roles

played by the Commissioners and staff in the

partner network.) Some partners rely on the

Commission for seed funding or technical assistance, while others use it as a source of

information, a marketing tool, or as a link to

policy makers. The point is that different partners are connected in different ways at different

times in a highly dynamic system. However,

interview data suggest that the Commission is

the “central hub,” serving as the umbrella organization that maintains network functioning.

Furthermore, nearly every study participant

indicated that, at the present time, no other

organization is capable of replacing the

Commission in this capacity. One study participant described the Commission’s role this way:

The Corridor has become the focal point for all

these activities and it’s provided the place for

people to connect. There used to be all these individual groups running around on their own, and

they were not really connected. The Corridor has

since given them the ability to connect to each

other, and I think there have been tremendous

cooperative efforts as a result. I know the watershed groups in both states are now meeting on a

regular basis. I know some of the environmental

groups are now meeting on a regular basis. I know

the activities relative to the annual cleanup are

now coordinated across the length and breadth of

the river. I think the Corridor [Commission] has

really become the focal point for all of these efforts

over the years.

Subtheme: Building capacity

According to study participants, the Commission plays a major role in building the capacity

of partner organizations. Capacity building can

come in many forms. For some organizations,

capacity refers to their actual ability to do

project work. One study participant described

the Commission’s capacity-building efforts in

these terms:

There is a capacity-building role that no one else

in this region provides, which works in two principal ways. The first is direct capacity building

within the Corridor region by the importation of

the energy, talent, and expertise of the people

working in the Blackstone Valley because of the

creation of the Corridor. The NPS staff brings a

huge increase in talent and human capital into

this region. The second thing is that through [the

Commission’s] grant making, local organizations

have been able to build their own capacity. The

goal, obviously, is to create capacity within

Corridor organizations in terms of training,

professionalism, expertise, etc., to do the work on

the ground, on an organization[al], town-bytown, city-by-city basis.

For other organizations, capacity building refers

to efforts aimed at improving organizational

management and operations. Many partner

organizations are small nonprofits that may lack

professional experience, sophistication, and

training in organizational management. For

these partners, the Commission’s efforts have

helped increase their capacity to be more effective organizations:

Roles Played by the

Commission and Staff in

the Partner Network 

Advocate

Agenda setter

Capacity increaser

Communicator

Convener

Coordinator

Credibility broker

Catalyst

Empowerer

Direct funder

Facilitator

Foundation

General resource provider

Glue

Inspiration provider

Institutional memory provider

Knowledge provider

Leader

Leverager

Mediator

Networker

Owner

Partner

Planner

Promoter

Strategist

Staff experience/guide

Sustainer

Technical assistance provider

Teacher

Vision holder
National Park Service Conservation Study Institute 51

The Corridor [Commission] has provided training

to us as an organization on internal organizational

matters. How do we do brainstorming effectively?

How do we write a management plan? How do

we learn about management planning processes?

This has helped us grow as an organization and

allowed us to do more.

The strength and effectiveness of the partnership network depends significantly on the

stability of individual partner organizations, and

on their ability to deliver results. In this way,

building the capacity of individual organizations

can strengthen and improve the network over

time. This, in turn, may increase the likelihood

of realizing long-term Corridor goals and objectives. One study participant put it this way:

The Corridor [Commission] provided us with

consultancy help and organizational development

help in this past year. For example, they connected

us with a consultant who’s listened to us and given

us feedback as we reflect on our work. This has

helped put things in perspective. So there’s a

resource that you wouldn’t think that the National

Park Service provides. Providing an organizational development consultant for a private

nonprofit organization? But the Corridor

[Commission] understands that the sustainability

of your partner organizations is critical to the

long-term health of what you’re trying to accomplish. If we fold up, then they’ve lost a partner.

Subtheme: Critical factors

The interview data produced three critical

factors that study participants deemed essential

for growing and sustaining the network into the

future. First, each study participant referenced

time as a critical factor. It takes time for partner

organizations to build sufficient trust to engage

in partnerships. It takes time for new organizations to build enough capacity to be active in the

network. It takes time for more “traditional,”

established organizations to see value in working

across areas of interest. And it takes time to integrate resource conservation objectives with

community and economic development goals.

Next, the ability to identify and secure sustainable sources of funding surfaced as a critical

factor for many study participants. The reasons

for this are obvious—funding affects staff size,

training and equipment budgets, and an organization’s ability to make long-term project

commitments. The constant pressure to secure

funding may cripple smaller organizations in the

network because it is very labor-intensive,

thereby pulling limited staff resources away

from project work. Finally, the notion of sophistication surfaced as a third critical factor. As

discussed earlier, the Corridor program plays a

multitude of roles in a complex and dynamic

network system. This requires a high degree of

sophistication, because failure to play the right

role at the right time with the right partner can

greatly reduce the overall effectiveness of

Corridor initiatives and activities. 
5. Unintended consequences

The term “unintended consequences” refers to

impacts or outcomes that study participants did

not anticipate from their involvement in the

Corridor. In other words, what happened that

Corridor partners did not expect? Study participants tended to express unintended

consequences in either positive or negative terms.

Subtheme: Positive consequences

Most study participants described unintended

consequences in very positive terms. Many partners did not anticipate the Corridor programs to

generate so much “positive” momentum, energy,

and success. Some described this as “personally

sustaining,” while others cited benefits this

momentum has had on their organizations in

terms of networking and capacity building. One

study participant described it this way:

I never imagined that there would be so much

positive activity and energy. I never imagined that

I would know, or care, so much about what’s

going on in Rhode Island.... The Corridor

[Commission] organized the expedition in 2000

and that was a major catalyst for future success in

the Blackstone Valley because it knit people

together in ways they hadn’t been knit before. And

people got excited about the river. So I honestly

never imagined that there would be this degree of

activity going on. And I link everything back to the

Corridor [Commission] because I just never imagined it would get to this point without them.

For other study participants, the fact that organizations with diverse interests and political

orientations could actually work together

proved wholly unexpected: 

The unintended consequence is to take the strong

liberal environmental groups and to integrate

them more thoroughly with the business community. And I never expected to be able to see the

Audubon Society work with the chamber of

commerce in concert with economic development,

to enable both parties to get their long-term 

objectives accomplished. That was exceptionally

unexpected. The other unexpected thing that

happened is the ability [of] lawmakers, both

Republicans and Democrats, to work together for

a common goal. The consistent Park Service

program has transcended party lines and enabled

lawmakers to get results because of its bipartisan

approach. Everyone has agreed with the objectives

of the Corridor, whether Republican or Democrat,

and because of that we have had tremendous

results that we didn’t expect.

A number of study participants were surprised

by the degree to which the Corridor Commission could be a responsive federal government

partner. For some, this represents a unique,

successful way of working:

I sense the Corridor [Commission’s] program as

being much more grassroots than anything else

I’ve seen, and yet it’s the federal government,

which is insane! I mean, wait a minute, a federal

effort that is grassroots? Maybe they’ve turned the

system upside down.

Subtheme: Negative consequences

Study participants described “negative” unintended consequences in highly varied and

specific terms. Although this resulted in no

single, coherent “negative” subtheme, documenting these individual experiences may help

improve the Corridor programs. 

One study participant “hates” the paperwork

associated with the partnership, especially with

respect to cooperative agreements. Another

study participant felt that she often receives

“mixed messages” from Commission staff. Her

sense is that communication among Commission staff could be improved. Another study

participant felt “extremely frustrated” when the

Commission highlighted and strongly encouraged their partnership, then did not provide

seed funding for an important project. 

52 Reflecting on the Past, Looking to the Future: Sustainability Study Report for the John H. Chafee Blackstone River Valley National Heritage Corridor
Perhaps the most salient “negative” unintended

consequence is the issue of “too much success.”

One study participant noted that this may have

stretched the Commission’s capacity to follow

through on every new idea:

One of the things you always realize is that you

bump up against limited resources. There has been

an explosion of ideas and programs, some of

which are very good. One of the issues in terms of

the success has been the limited capacity, to some

degree, of the Corridor program to provide new

services that continue to emerge. As a result of

that, there are some initiatives that didn’t get as

far as people had hoped.

Another study participant described it this way:

The success of the Corridor programs has

increased the value of being in the region–living,

working, and playing. This has led to more pressure to further develop the Corridor region. So, I

don’t know if that’s unintended or just a consequence of better planning and better management.

But it has occurred and it increases the pressure

for additional development. If not done wisely,

this development could undermine what we’re

trying to do.

C. Insights from the Evaluation Process

Several themes emerged from the partner interviews that together reconfirm the program

model, although without an organization like the

Corridor Commission and its staff, it is unclear

if the network can be stable and sustainable into

the future. There are several reasons for this.

First, study findings suggest that the Commission is the central, integrating hub in a complex

and dynamic, multi-interest network.2 The

Corridor is able to connect the business

community with the resource conservation

community while engaging 24 municipal and

two state governments. Second, the Commission

functions as a key partner in the network. Study

participants used 31 different terms to describe

what the Commission does for their specific

organization. Finally, the Commission adds

significant credibility to the work and goals of

partner organizations because of its federal

stature and the connection to the National Park

Service. Federal designation also underscores

the importance of the Corridor, while further

reinforcing the regional focus of the programs.

In addition, study participants strongly felt that

the National Park Service plays a critical role in

the Corridor partnership. For some, NPS

embodies and symbolizes the Corridor’s federal

status. For others, NPS provides a wealth of

technical and staff expertise, and is seen to bring

“the right people to the mix.”

For study participants, three critical factors are

essential for sustaining the network into the

future. These critical factors are time, sustainable funding, and sophistication. First, the work

of building an integrated, stable network of

partners takes a great deal of time. Organizations need time to form partnerships and adjust

to working across areas of interest. Second,

securing sustainable sources of funding is a critical factor because this affects an organization’s

ability to make long-term project commitments

and investments. Finally, the notion of sophistication surfaced as a critical factor. Because the

Corridor plays a multitude of roles in a complex

network system, this requires a high degree of

sophistication. Failure to play the right role at

the right time with the right partner can greatly

reduce the overall effectiveness of Corridor

initiatives and activities. 

Notes

1. The authors would like to thank Professors Robert Manning, Curtis Ventriss, Jennifer Jewiss, and Daniel Krymkowski at the University of Vermont for their contributions

to this chapter.

2. While study findings provide insight into the structure and function of the network, a network analysis can provide a more complete picture of the network and may be

warranted. See D. Knoke, and J. Kuklinksi, Network Analysis (Beverly, CA: Sage Publications, 1982).

National Park Service Conservation Study Institute 53
54 Reflecting on the Past, Looking to the Future: Sustainability Study Report for the John H. Chafee Blackstone River Valley National Heritage Corridor
National Park Service Conservation Study Institute 55

As described in the previous chapters, the

Blackstone’s existing federally supported

management framework has been very effective

and has contributed in many crucial ways to the

progress made throughout the Corridor over the

past 18 years. With that backdrop, this chapter

explores a range of options for the Commission

to consider in determining what framework

would be most desirable for the future. 

The options fall into five broad categories:

1. Extend the existing framework in its current

form; 

2. Make adjustments to the existing framework; 

3. Establish a new management entity; 

4. Establish a permanent NPS presence in the

Corridor; and

5. Move forward without a federally supported

framework. 

Within several of those categories, more specific

sub-options are presented. For each option and

sub-option, a brief description of the concept is

provided, followed by an analysis of important

considerations. It is important to note that many

of the options are not mutually exclusive, and

selected ones could be combined in a package to

best suit the unique needs and circumstances of

the Blackstone Valley. The study team is not

recommending any given option or combination

of options, but instead is presenting information

on the range of options for the Commission’s

consideration as it deliberates how best to

proceed in the future.

The options presented in this chapter emerged

from conversations held during the sustainability study, the team’s examination of relevant

models from other places, and its evaluation of

the existing framework (see chapter 5). Readers

are encouraged to refer to appendix B, which

contains a synopsis of the workshop on future

management of the Corridor held in Providence, Rhode Island, on October 26, 2004.

Option 1: Extend the existing 

framework in its current form

Description: The first option is to seek reauthorization of the current structure as is, continuing

the key elements of the Commission with its

current composition, NPS staff support, annual

federal funding specifically allocated to the

Corridor (both earmarks for the Commission

and discretionary funding from NPS), and the

current range of core commitments. This could

be done on a temporary basis for perhaps 5, 10,

or 20 more years to provide more time to sustain

current momentum toward Corridor goals,

strengthen the partner network, and further

evaluate long-term options for Corridor

management and federal involvement. Alternatively, a push could be made to try to make the

current framework permanent. 

Analysis: In some respects, this would be the

simplest option because it would merely

continue the framework that is already in place.

The existing framework has clearly worked well

thus far, and there is no reason to expect it

would not continue to do so. Both the Commission and its partners are comfortable with the

framework, and indeed are overwhelmingly

supportive of continuing it for at least another

ten years. (As several people suggested during

the sustainability study, “If it ain’t broke, don’t

fix it.”) 

Nonetheless, reauthorizing the existing framework would not address certain shortcomings of

the current approach, such as the limited representation of local and nongovernmental

partners on the Commission, the at-timesinconsistent involvement of the two states, and

particularly the lack of secure funding over time.

It is important to note that even a temporary

reauthorization of the existing framework, to say

nothing of a permanent one, would represent a

precedent for national heritage areas nationwide. To date, no other such area has received

federal funding and other assistance for more

than 20 years,1 and many participants in and

observers of national heritage areas, including

some members of Congress, argue strongly that

federal support to these areas should only be for

a limited duration. 

CHAPTER 7

Exploring Management Options for the Future
56 Reflecting on the Past, Looking to the Future: Sustainability Study Report for the John H. Chafee Blackstone River Valley National Heritage Corridor

Option 2: Make adjustments 

to the existing framework

There are a number of options that would

involve retaining much of the current framework (including the Commission as management

entity) to build upon its strengths, while making

adjustments to address some of its limitations.

Some of these adjustments could be fairly

modest and straightforward, while others would

be ambitious and significant. 

Authorization of a modified version of the

existing framework could be sought on either a

temporary or permanent basis. As with Option 1,

any extension of federal support for the

Corridor would represent a precedent among

national heritage areas.

Option 2.A: “Tweak” certain aspects of

the existing structure to improve the

Commission’s functionality

Description: Two primary ideas emerged that

would represent relatively modest changes in the

current framework. First, the Commission’s

composition could be modified or expanded to

provide better representation of key stakeholders

in the Corridor; and second, authorization of

interim appointments by the governors could be

sought to avoid extended vacancies during the

appointment process. Both of these changes

would need to be made legislatively by Congress

as part of a reauthorization of the Commission

and the broader federally supported framework.

Analysis: There appears to be general agreement

among the Commission, staff, and partners that

the Commission’s size could be increased somewhat (perhaps by as many as 10–12 members)

without adversely affecting its functionality, and

that more representation from local governments and nongovernmental partners would be

desirable—both to address the existing shortage

of such representation and because that is where

some of the greatest energy in the Corridor

resides. Some interest was expressed in possibly

altering the composition of state government

representation on the Commission (e.g., adding

the transportation agencies), but no clear

consensus emerged. Some partners expressed

frustration over what they perceived as the

limited participation of the states’ economic

development representatives in Commission

meetings over time, but others felt it was appropriate and useful to keep those dedicated seats

because of both the importance of economic

issues to the overall Corridor vision and the

other valuable ways in which those agencies

have contributed.

If the Commission is retained as the management entity, the authorization of interim

appointments by the governors would seem to

be a small but useful step that could help the

Commission to operate more effectively and

efficiently. However, this idea could encounter

resistance because of jurisdictional concerns

and the question of whether it is constitutional

for governors to make interim appointments to a

federally established commission.

Option 2.B: Establish an advisory council

Description: Instead of expanding the Commission’s membership, an advisory council to the

Commission could be established to provide a

formal mechanism for broader stakeholder

involvement in Corridor management. This

approach is used at the Boston Harbor Islands

national park area, where a 28-member federally

established advisory council provides advice and

recommendations to the “Islands Partnership”

that serves as coordinating body for the park.

The advisory council has two seats in the Islands

Partnership, and serves as the partnership’s

primary mechanism for engaging with the public

on park planning and management. Members of

the council include representatives of municipalities, educational and cultural institutions,

environmental organizations, business and

commercial interests, advocacy organizations,

and Native American groups. (See www.bostonislands.org/manage for further description of

the Boston Harbor Islands national park area

approach.)

Analysis: Congress could create an advisory

council legislatively as part of a reauthorization

of federal support for the Corridor, or the

Commission could establish one administratively under its existing authority.2 Under either

mechanism, an important consideration is that

the council would likely be subject to the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act,

which requires advance notification of all meetings in the Federal Register along with other

administrative procedures. If the council were

created legislatively, it would also be subject to a

similar nomination and appointment process to

that which the Commission currently follows.

These requirements, which are invariably timeand labor-intensive, would add a considerable

administrative burden to the Commission’s staff. 
National Park Service Conservation Study Institute 57

Nonetheless, the concept of an advisory council

merits consideration in light of the broad range

of stakeholders who share an interest in the

management of the Corridor, and the need to

keep the size of the actual management entity

(i.e., the Commission) to a manageable number.

It is also possible that broader regular stakeholder involvement with the Commission could

be achieved through the less formal establishment of an external “friends group” or similar

body, which would not necessarily be subject to

the administrative requirements of an advisory

council.

Option 2.C: Narrow or shift the staff’s focus

Description: Two distinct concepts fall under this

option. First, rather than continuing to play a

lead role across the full spectrum of programmatic commitments, the Commission could

focus its staff involvement primarily on a

targeted subset of programs. Lead responsibility

for other priorities on a Corridor-wide basis

could gradually be transferred to other interested entities if they were willing and able—

perhaps the Tourism Triangle for tourism-related

initiatives, the Blackstone River Watershed 

Coalition for environmental protection and

restoration, or a new “regional regeneration

authority” for economic development. While

other entities would thus assume the lead role

for certain efforts, the Commission could

continue to provide funding to help support

them, and could retain lead responsibility for

ensuring integration of the full range of

programmatic commitments into an overall

vision and agenda for the Corridor.

Second, rather than continuing to focus

primarily on supporting and implementing

projects related to the core commitments, the

Commission could shift its role, both in the use

of its funding and staff support, to place greater

emphasis on building organizational capacity

and stability among the Corridor’s nonprofit

partners. This could take several forms,

including: 

• providing direct financial support for this

purpose; 

• helping to generate financial support from

other sources;

• providing staff assistance, training, information, and other non-financial support;

• partnering with other capacity-building organizations (e.g., community foundations) in a

more formal or structured way. 

Analysis: Either (or both) of these changes

would be most appropriately implemented

through administrative action by the Commission. (These changes could also conceivably be

folded into legislation authorizing further

federal support for the Corridor, but doing so is

not necessary and could be limiting in the

future.) The concept of narrowing the staff’s

focus was raised in several conversations during

the study team’s research, and would enable the

staff to work more deeply in fewer disciplines

rather than being spread more thinly across a

wider array of initiatives. This approach would

also help to reduce the dependency on the

Commission that currently exists for leadership

across all aspects of the Corridor’s broad agenda. 
Shifting to a greater emphasis on building organizational capacity and stability among

nonprofit partners would help to address what

is generally acknowledged to be one of the

Corridor’s most pressing needs. At the moment,

some of these partners are very strong and

stable, while others are much less so. Part of the

dependency on the Commission that has developed is a result of this disparity in capacity, with

less stable nonprofit partners relying more

heavily on the Commission and staff. Also, there

appears to be a relatively limited supply of philanthropic support for nonprofits in the

Blackstone Valley,3 which adds to the challenge

for those organizations that have less capacity to

start with. 

Option 2.D: Establish a bi-state compact

between Massachusetts and Rhode Island

Description: The governors of the two states

could establish a bi-state compact or agreement

that would formalize the states’ ongoing

commitment to the Corridor. This document

could identify shared goals, priority areas for

interstate cooperation, and mechanisms to

ensure continued coordination and communication. (In addition to continued participation in

the Commission, the latter topic might include

such things as a periodic “Blackstone Valley

Summit” involving the governors and staff from

all relevant state agencies to discuss key issues

and develop updated action agendas.) The

recent agreement between the two states on

management of Narragansett Bay could serve as

a model.

Analysis: A formal agreement between the two

states would further cement their already strong

commitment to the Corridor. It would help to

increase the consistency of the states’ involvement over time by making it less subject to

political changes within either state. Also, it

could provide a vehicle for elevating the profile

of the Corridor with the governors, and for

helping to ensure sustained, committed involvement by key state agencies over time. The

compact also could serve as the foundation for a

state-level management framework for the

Corridor, which likely would be the best alternative to a federally supported framework if it

were terminated in 2006 or sometime further

into the future. 

Option 2.E: Cultivate a parallel bi-state

nonprofit organization to complement the

Commission

Description: The Commission and its partners

could work to nurture a vigorous Corridor-wide

nonprofit that would help the partnership in

achieving its goals and vision for the Corridor.

For example, such a nonprofit could help to

secure additional funding and spearhead the

creation of an endowment for the Corridor. To

avoid competing directly with other organizations for current funding, the Corridor-wide

nonprofit could be an “organization of organizations” that would concentrate on accessing

funding from other sources that the Commission and its partners have difficulty obtaining

(such as from large foundations, corporate sponsors, and workplace giving). The bulk of these

funds could then be distributed to priority

initiatives across the Corridor through the types

of funding programs the Commission currently

uses. Another possible role for a Corridor-wide

nonprofit could be to take on leadership responsibility in areas in which the Commission might

wish to scale back its efforts (as discussed under

Option 2.C). For instance, the nonprofit could

take the lead for sustainable heritage-based

economic development in the Corridor, perhaps

as a “regional regeneration authority.” To achieve

these various roles effectively, it would be valuable for the nonprofit to be given “standing”

(i.e., recognition, credibility, and authority)

through federal and/or state legislation.

58 Reflecting on the Past, Looking to the Future: Sustainability Study Report for the John H. Chafee Blackstone River Valley National Heritage Corridor
National Park Service Conservation Study Institute 59

At the moment, the only existing nonprofit that

appears to have the requisite Corridor-wide

geographic focus to potentially play this complementary role to the Commission is the new

bi-state organization, Blackstone River Valley

CorridorKeepers. This group currently has a

relatively narrow mission (focused on securing

reauthorization of federal support for the

Corridor by 2006), but it is conceivable that the

organization could evolve into the much

broader type of role envisioned here over time.

Alternatively, a new nonprofit could be created

specifically for this purpose (either through

legislation or separate action by the Commission

and Corridor partners). 

Analysis: An effective Corridor-wide nonprofit

could be a valuable asset to the Commission and

its partners. Indeed, some of the outside experts

who participated in the workshop on October

26, 2004, saw the absence of such an organization as a significant flaw in the current

framework. Such organizations typically are able

to be more entrepreneurial in generating

revenues than are federal commissions, and thus

could help to reduce the partnership’s reliance

on federal funding and establish a more diverse,

secure, and sizable funding base for Corridor

initiatives. In addition, if a Corridor-wide

nonprofit were able to assume lead responsibility

for certain aspects of the Corridor’s agenda, it

could allow the Commission’s staff to focus

more on other aspects. (For instance, economic

development is currently demanding a substantial commitment of time and energy by the staff,

and lies outside the NPS’s traditional areas of

responsibility and expertise.) Also, a Corridorwide nonprofit could further complement the

Commission and the partnership by increasing

the visibility of Corridor initiatives in the region

and beyond, helping to broaden public understanding of the effort, and advocating for

desirable actions (e.g., funding and policy decisions) by governmental and other partners.

Further, an effective nonprofit working to

support diverse initiatives on a regional basis

could offer long-term stability for the Corridor

by providing a back-up to the Commission in

case it is terminated in the future. 

Despite these possible advantages, there are also

potential drawbacks and challenges to consider

in deciding whether to pursue this option. The

issue that generated the most concern among

Corridor partners was possible competition for

funding––that is, a fear that it would be difficult

to ensure that a Corridor-wide nonprofit would

not become a competitor to other nonprofits

seeking funding from sources the other organizations rely on. There are ways to attempt to

address this understandable concern as

discussed above, but it is nonetheless a significant consideration to keep in mind. Another

issue is possible overlap or duplication of effort

between the Corridor-wide nonprofit and the

Commission. To avoid this, careful and coordinated thought would be needed in carving out

the respective niches for both organizations, and

ongoing communication and coordination

between them would be essential. A further

issue is the current lack of a Corridor-wide

nonprofit that is ready to step quickly into the

type of role envisioned here. Undoubtedly, a

significant investment of time, energy, and

perhaps some start-up funding would be needed

to get a fledgling nonprofit to a stage where it

could make a meaningful contribution.

Option 3: Establish a new 

management entity

The Commission could be replaced by another

type of entity that would fill the central

hub/coordinating role the Commission currently

does. Given the political geography of the

Corridor, any new management entity would

need to be bi-state in nature. This could be

achieved in at least two different ways: shifting

to a Corridor-wide nonprofit management

entity, or shifting to a bi-state coordinating

entity established by joint action of the two

states. Either of these entities could receive

federal standing, funding, and NPS staff support

if authorized by Congress (although such

further federal involvement would be a precedent for national heritage areas because no

existing area has received federal support for

more than 20 years). If federal standing and

support were not provided, either of the alternative management entities would need state-level

standing, and funding would need to be

provided by the states and/or other sources. 

Option 3.A: Shift to a Corridor-wide

nonprofit organization

Description: For the majority of existing national

heritage areas, Congress has designated a

nonprofit organization to serve as the management entity (including the nearby examples of

the Essex National Heritage Area in Massachusetts and the Quinebaug-Shetucket Rivers Valley

National Heritage Corridor in Massachusetts

and Connecticut). For the Blackstone, a new

nonprofit organization could be created specifically to serve as the management entity, or

conceivably an existing nonprofit in the

Corridor could expand its mission, structure,

and capacity to play that role (e.g., Blackstone

River Valley CorridorKeepers).

An effective Corridorwide nonprofit could be

a valuable asset to the

Commission and its

partners.
60 Reflecting on the Past, Looking to the Future: Sustainability Study Report for the John H. Chafee Blackstone River Valley National Heritage Corridor

Building on examples from other national

heritage areas, the board of a nonprofit management entity for the Blackstone could take many

different forms. For example, it could be structured to mimic the current (relatively small)

membership of the Commission. (This approach

is underway at the Delaware and Lehigh

National Heritage Corridor in Pennsylvania,

where an existing federal commission that has

served as the management entity has helped to

create a new nonprofit whose board consists

mostly of the same stakeholders as the commission. Although the nonprofit does not yet serve

as the management entity, it provides a

promising back-up to the Delaware and Lehigh

Commission, which is facing a scheduled sunset

in 2008. See www.delawareandlehigh.org for

more information.) At the other end of the size

spectrum, the board of a nonprofit management

entity for the Blackstone could include a wide

range of public and private members, including

elected officials and agency representatives from

all levels of government, from businesses, and

from other nonprofits, as well as residents

throughout the Corridor. (A good model is the

nonprofit Essex National Heritage Commission,

which includes more than 125 commissioners.

See www.essexheritage.org for more information.) This more inclusive approach offers the

advantage of increasing stakeholder participation and “ownership” in the management entity,

but also raises potential logistical and administrative challenges. Another possibility is that the

board composition could be somewhere in

between those two ends of the spectrum, with

somewhat broader representation than the

current Corridor Commission but less so than

the Essex model.

Analysis: The potential strengths and drawbacks

related to a Corridor-wide nonprofit discussed

under Option 2.E above are generally relevant to

this option as well. In addition, based on observations from national heritage areas that have

nonprofit management entities, certain other

considerations are worth noting. For instance,

while these entities receive and disburse federal

funds for heritage area purposes, they typically

have more flexible fundraising and revenue

generating capacities and are not subject to

many of the constraints (e.g., cumbersome

appointment processes) as federally established

commissions. Also, unlike federal commissions,

nonprofit management entities are not subject to

termination at the end of a defined period

(although in all cases thus far their federal

funding and NPS support have been authorized

only for a limited duration). On the other hand,

however, no NPS personnel have been assigned

to serve as staff to any of the existing nonprofit

management entities. And a nonprofit likely

would not have the same degree of political

clout at the federal or state level as the Commission has had due to its federal stature.

Among the many existing nonprofits in the

Blackstone Valley, none appear ready to take

over as management entity in the near term due

to (1) insufficiently broad missions relative to the

integrated bi-state vision for the Corridor,

and/or (2) their stage of organizational development (i.e., not having sufficient organizational

capacity and stability to undertake this

demanding role). Therefore, this option seems

more viable as a longer-term possibility that

could be worked toward in the coming years,

rather than as an immediate replacement for the

Commission following its scheduled sunset in

2006. It is possible that a Corridor-wide

nonprofit cultivated to complement the

Commission under Option 2.E could eventually

become a strong candidate to take over as the

management entity.

Option 3.B: Shift to a bi-state coordinating

entity established through joint action by the

two states

Description: If the two states took formal joint

action focused on the Corridor (such as the

compact described in Option 2.D above or

parallel state-level legislation), a provision could

be included to establish a new bi-state coordinating entity that would assume management

duties if the Commission were terminated. 

This entity, which could be in the form of a 

bi-state committee or public corporation, would

be appointed by the governors and would

include representation from a cross-section of

the Corridor partnership in both states. The

NPS would not necessarily be included, unless

the states requested it and the NPS agreed to

participate. The governors (or state legislatures)

could assign particular agencies from each state

with lead responsibility for providing administrative support to the coordinating entity, or it

could hire its own staff if sufficient funding 

were available.

Analysis: A new bi-state coordinating entity

established through state rather than federal

action would be closely analogous to the

Commission, and could have some of the same

strengths (e.g., providing for substantive involvement of key partners throughout the Corridor)

while not being subject to the cumbersome

federal appointment process. It would likely

raise fewer concerns about competition for
National Park Service Conservation Study Institute 61

funding than a nonprofit management entity, but

it would be more vulnerable to the effects of

variable state budgets (including the level of

agency support available) than the Commission

or a nonprofit. Also, lacking federal authorization, it would not have the same political clout at

the federal level.

Option 4: Establish a permanent NPS

presence in the Corridor

Rather than having NPS involvement in the

Corridor tied primarily to the continued existence of the Commission, Congress could make

the NPS presence permanent. The case for a

permanent NPS presence is grounded in the

national significance of the Blackstone Valley’s

resources, as documented in the management

plan. This significance has been reflected in

several ways: by the congressional establishment

of the Corridor, at which time it was judged that

the Corridor met criteria for national significance; by the substantial investment the NPS

and the federal government have made to the

Corridor; and by the other federal recognitions

that have been conferred in recent years (e.g.,

American Heritage River, Preserve America

Initiative). 

A permanent NPS presence in the Corridor could

take one or more of several different forms: 

• designate the Corridor as a permanent

program of the National Park System;

• designate a particular site or sites within the

Corridor as a new unit of the National Park

System;

• designate the entire Corridor as a new unit of

the National Park System. 

These distinct concepts are described below. In

each case, ongoing base funding would be

provided through the operations budget of the

NPS budget to support the NPS operations in

the Corridor.

These options would require further evaluation

by the NPS through a “new area” or “special

resource” study, concluding with a recommendation to Congress. Such studies generally

involve an evaluation of resource significance,

consideration of the area’s suitability and feasibility for inclusion in the National Park System,

and an assessment of alternatives to NPS

management. In addition, a study would address

potential NPS role(s), authorities, type of NPS

unit, geographic scope, etc., and could explore

the possibility of combining two or more of the

options described in this section. The study

would be conducted through an open and

participatory process with a variety of opportunities for public input and thorough

consideration of any questions, concerns, or

suggestions that might be raised.4

It should be noted that Congress has been

somewhat hesitant to authorize such studies and

new NPS units in recent years due to budget

limitations, a maintenance backlog at existing

sites, and other priorities for funding. However,

the Blackstone National Heritage Corridor

would be well-positioned to argue for a study

given the area’s documented significance and

the NPS’s more than 20 years of experience in

the valley, which have given the agency a much

deeper understanding of the resources, issues,

opportunities, public attitudes, and other key

factors than it has at the outset of most new

area/special resource studies.

Option 4.A: Designate the Corridor as a

permanent program of the National Park

System

Description: Under this option, Congress would

authorize the NPS to provide ongoing assistance

to partners throughout the Blackstone Valley in

working toward the long-term vision for the

Corridor. This could include providing

continued staff support to the Commission if

Congress decided to extend its authorization.

The scope of the NPS role would be addressed

in the authorizing legislation. 

Analysis: The establishment of a permanent NPS

program under this option would not result in

the Corridor technically being labeled as a

“unit” of the National Park System (unlike in

Options 4.B and 4.C below). Nonetheless, this

option would ensure an ongoing NPS presence,

which many people in the Blackstone Valley see

as being one of the most crucial requirements

for long-term success. The magnitude of NPS’s

authorized activities would depend on the

amount of base funding appropriated annually

for the program, but the budget would not be

zeroed out at the beginning of each appropriations cycle (as is the case with most of the

federal funding currently provided to the

Corridor through the NPS).

The creation of a permanent program would be

a precedent for NPS involvement and federal

funding in a national heritage area because to

date those commitments have been only for

limited durations. However, such action would

be analogous to the NPS’s declared preference

to make permanent its involvement in the

Chesapeake Bay Gateways Network. (See the

Chesapeake Bay Special Resource Study Final

Report at www.chesapeakestudy.org .) The
62 Reflecting on the Past, Looking to the Future: Sustainability Study Report for the John H. Chafee Blackstone River Valley National Heritage Corridor

Gateways Network is a partnership system of

parks, refuges, museums, historic sites, and trails

in the Chesapeake Bay watershed, and shares

many similarities with the partnership network

in the Blackstone Valley. 

Option 4.B: Establish a permanent NPS site or

sites within the Corridor

Description: Congress could create a new unit of

the National Park System consisting of one or

more sites in the Corridor if they met established criteria.5 The NPS would assume

management responsibility for one or more of

the designated sites, although additional sites

managed by other public or nongovernmental

entities could be included in the designated unit

as well. (A good example is the Boston National

Historical Park or “Freedom Trail,” which is an

association of eight historic sites that are owned

and managed by federal, municipal, and private

entities.) In addition to managing and interpreting the site(s) under its direct stewardship,

the NPS could help other partners to “tell the

story” of the Corridor as a whole to the public.

And, if authorized by Congress, the NPS also

could provide technical and/or operational

assistance to other sites and organizations

throughout the Corridor. 

Analysis: The basic concept envisioned under

this option—of an NPS unit embedded within

the broader context of the Corridor, with the

NPS managing and interpreting one or more

sites—has precedents in several other national

heritage areas around the country. These include

Salem Maritime National Historical Site/Essex

National Heritage Area in Massachusetts, Cane

River Creole National Historical Park/Cane

River National Heritage Area in Louisiana, and

Cuyahoga Valley National Park/Ohio and Erie

Canal National Heritage Corridor in Ohio. 

Also, Cuyahoga Valley National Park represents

a situation where NPS has been given broader

authority by Congress to provide technical

and/or operational assistance to partner organizations in the surrounding national heritage

corridor. This authority is not unlimited, though—

the NPS must be invited to provide such assistance, it cannot acquire land outside the park

boundary, and its assistance is subject to available funding, which is less assured than funding

for park operations. (See www.nps.gov/cuya,

www.ohiocanal.org, and www.ohioeriecanal.org

for more information.) 

Implementing this option would ensure that the

NPS would have an enduring and visible presence in the Corridor, particularly at the site(s)

for which it would have direct management

responsibility. Indeed, this presence probably

would be more visible to tourists and the general

public than the more “behind-the-scenes” role

that NPS staff would likely play under Option

4.A. In addition, if Congress gave the NPS

broader authority to provide technical and/or

operational assistance to partners throughout

the Blackstone Valley, experience at Cuyahoga

Valley National Park/Ohio and Erie Canal

National Heritage Corridor suggests that NPS

assistance could contribute significantly to the

achievement of Corridor-wide goals.

Option 4.C: Designate the entire Corridor as

a new unit of the National Park System

Description: Rather than creating a new NPS

unit consisting of one or more sites within the

Corridor, Congress could designate the entire

Corridor as a new unit. Given the scale of the

Corridor, the population base, the amount of

private land, the long-established New England

tradition of local control over land use, and

other critical factors, this would need to be a

very different kind of national park unit than

most currently in the system. In this case, the

NPS would not own or manage much, if any,

land in the park. Instead, it would concentrate

on working with diverse partners to achieve

joint park/Corridor goals. The park/Corridor

would be managed through a cooperative partnership, with a bi-state representative body

(such as the Commission or a successor

nonprofit) serving as the management entity and

the NPS providing administrative support.

Authority over land use regulation would remain

in local hands. 

Analysis: In many respects this option is an

extension of the current situation, with the

significant difference that the Corridor would

officially become a full-fledged unit of the

National Park System. While at one level it does

not seem like a dramatic departure, this would

be a largely new model for a U.S. national park

unit. The concept has some parallels with

Boston Harbor Islands national park area, which

encompasses 34 islands owned by various public

and private entities and is managed by a

congressionally established partnership that

includes the NPS. But it is even more similar to

models used in other countries (for instance, the

United Kingdom and Italy), where it is common

practice for national parks to encompass

communities and lived-in landscapes. In those

countries, park goals explicitly include promoting

the social and economic well-being of residents

in addition to protecting park resources and

providing for public use and enjoyment. 

The case for a permanent NPS presence is

grounded in the

national significance of

the Blackstone Valley’s

resources.
National Park Service Conservation Study Institute 63

This approach would ensure significant ongoing

NPS involvement in the Corridor, and presumably the continuation of federal funding to

support the management entity for the

park/Corridor. In addition, establishing the

Corridor as a full unit of the National Park

System could provide a stronger tool for

marketing or “branding” the area, making the

Blackstone Valley’s significance more immediately evident to potential visitors and residents.

This could have important benefits for stimulating tourism-based economic development

and a stronger sense of place and pride among

valley residents. 

It should be noted that because this option in

some respects would be a new model for the

NPS, it would likely require a greater amount of

public and intra-agency dialogue than Options

4.A and 4.B to fully shape the concept and

address any questions or concerns.

Option 5: Move forward without a

federally supported framework

Description: The final option for the Corridor’s

future management beyond 2006 is to move

forward without any sort of federally supported

framework (i.e., without the Commission, its

NPS staff, the federal funding that has flowed

through the NPS, or the requirement that other

federal agencies must seek consistency with

Corridor goals in their actions). The national

heritage corridor designation is permanent and

thus would remain, and individual organizations

and partner networks would continue to pursue

Corridor goals. The states could establish a

substitute management framework (for instance,

through the interstate compact discussed in

Option 2.D), and coordination could be

provided by a nonprofit organization or a bistate entity as discussed in Options 3.A and 3.B,

respectively. Federal funding through other

agencies (e.g., for transportation and environmental restoration projects) would continue to

be available for initiatives within the Corridor,

and limited NPS technical assistance could be

available on a competitive basis through broader

programs (e.g., the Rivers and Trails Conservation Assistance Program).

Analysis: This option clearly would be a

dramatic setback at least in the short- to midterm for the Corridor partnership, and in all

likelihood would significantly slow the pace

toward realization of the broad, integrated

vision for the Corridor. It is possible that some

key characteristics of the current framework

could still be provided (for instance, a new

nonprofit or state-authorized management

entity could successfully transcend the

Corridor’s political boundaries, sectors, and

disciplines in a way similar to the Commission),

but much would depend on the willingness and

ability of the two states to play a greater leadership role and sustain it over time. And many

important elements (e.g., funding, leverage,

credibility) would be much more difficult, if not

impossible, to sustain at comparable levels. At

the very least, there would likely be a difficult

and perhaps extended transition period as

Corridor partners adjusted to life without the

Commission for the first time in 20 years.

Notes

1. Federal support for the Illinois and Michigan Canal National Heritage Corridor, the only national heritage area older than the Blackstone Corridor, terminated in August

2004 after 20 years.

2. Public Law 99-647, Sec. 5.(i).

3. For example, there is limited foundation support focused on the bi-state area encompassed within the Corridor, and Rhode Island and Massachusetts recently ranked 48th

and 49th, respectively, in personal giving to charities.

4. The factors and process that would be used in an NPS study are further described in the NPS’s “Criteria for Inclusion,” available on the web at

www.nps.gov/policy/mp/chapter1.htm. 

5. Corridor participants have mentioned Slater Mill Historic Site in Pawtucket most often among possible sites to be considered for inclusion in this type of NPS unit. The Old

Slater Mill Association commissioned a report in 2003 exploring this and other NPS-related possibilities, entitled “Slater Mill Historic Site: Building a Stronger Connection

with the National Park Service.”
64 Reflecting on the Past, Looking to the Future: Sustainability Study Report for the John H. Chafee Blackstone River Valley National Heritage Corridor
National Park Service Conservation Study Institute 65

Earlier sections of this report examined the

existing management framework, probed how

the Corridor programs developed and how the

Corridor partnerships are currently functioning,

and identified some of the important ingredients

and relationships. In order to assess what is

needed to sustain and enhance this work and

the progress toward Corridor goals in the future,

the project team thought further about the

essential components and how they work

together in this complex set of relationships. To

gather additional information, the project team

asked many people—commissioners, staff,

Corridor partners, and others with management

experience in partnership settings—to identify

the ingredients they believed were critical to

success.

The discussion that follows describes three

distinct categories of critical ingredients that act

in concert as a “partnership system” in the

Blackstone National Heritage Corridor to influence the work and overall progress in

accomplishing the Corridor’s purpose. It is

important to note that although most of the 

critical ingredients have been a part of the

Commission’s work to date, not all of the ingredients are fully realized (e.g., secure, sustainable

funding) although they are acknowledged as

essential to sustaining success over the long

term. This partnership system is dynamic, and

matures and changes over time. Although the

project team has grouped the critical ingredients

under organizing ingredients, guiding elements,

and time, in reality these ingredients are interconnected and interactive.

A. Organizing Ingredients

The organizing ingredients can be further

grouped as follows:

• Heritage as a “platform” for civic engagement;

• A management framework that inspires trust

and collaboration; and

• A commitment to partnerships and participatory processes.

1. Heritage as a “platform” for 

civic engagement

A critical element for any broad grassroots

action strategy is to build a common base of

understanding that inspires people to act individually and collectively toward a common

purpose. In the Corridor, this common platform

is the shared heritage that links people to place

and makes them aware of the significance of the

valley’s cultural landscape, providing opportunities for residents and visitors to better

understand and experience this national story.

Attention to telling the valley’s heritage story

helps to strengthen that link between people

and place where it exists and kindle it where it

does not. For valley residents and partners, this

greater understanding of their heritage and its

national significance has created a sense of pride

and place that helps to fuel participation in

Corridor projects and activities. Moreover,

telling a coordinated story that connects historic

sites and natural heritage Corridor-wide creates

a regional identity that encourages people and

communities to think and act from a broader

regional perspective. As the story is linked to

contemporary issues and concerns it becomes a

powerful motivator for stewardship. Telling the

story, and carrying out projects that integrate

preservation of historic and natural resources

with community revitalization and economic

development, has enabled the Commission to

engage a wide diversity of partners in Corridor

programs. 

2. A management framework that inspires

trust and collaboration

The Corridor’s national designation and

congressionally established framework provide 

a federal stature with many vital dimensions. 

The perception of the Commission as a

nonparochial, nonpartisan management entity

that transcends political boundaries and sectors

has been particularly important given the

Corridor’s 2 states and 24 municipalities. The

Commission acts as a central hub for the partner

network, an essential function given the diverse

set of partners that are involved in most

Corridor projects. With many partners in the

network and with personnel changes and

evolving partner relationships, maintaining

continuity and institutional memory is critical.

Also, partners place a very high value on the

roles the NPS plays: serving as staff to the

Commission, providing essential funding,

connecting partners with an array of needed

technical assistance and expertise, initiating and

facilitating collaboration, and symbolically

conveying the Corridor’s national significance

and providing credibility through the NPS

“brand.” Consequently, many partners stress a

CHAPTER 8

Identifying Critical Ingredients for Sustained Success of the Partnership System
66 Reflecting on the Past, Looking to the Future: Sustainability Study Report for the John H. Chafee Blackstone River Valley National Heritage Corridor

continuing NPS role as crucial for sustaining

success. Finally, secure, sustainable funding from

diverse sources is key to sustaining success, with

leveraging capacity an important part of the mix.

These latter two ingredients, in many ways

keystone ingredients, are not assured in the

Corridor’s partnership system.

3. A commitment to partnerships and 

participatory processes

With the Corridor’s programs predicated on

partnerships and an intent to expand the

network, attention to collaboration is essential.

This requires developing collaborative leadership

skills and building relationships with partners

that are based on trust, openness, respect, and

frequent communication. A commitment to

ongoing public engagement and a transparent

process are important to success, as is working

inclusively. Working across sectors and interests

is demanding and takes time. Capacity building

is essential because partner organizations need

to have the appropriate skills and organizational

stability to be effective participants in the network

over time. Having the right people involved, who

understand and are skilled at the process of

building partnerships, is essential.

B. Guiding Elements

Although all of the critical ingredients are interconnected as a system, the vision is central

because it anchors the system and serves as an

important guiding sustaining force. The guiding

vision for the Corridor is broad, inclusive, and

integrated, and is founded in the nationally

significant heritage of the region. Central to the

vision is the sense of shared heritage, which is

defined and reinvigorated over time through

ongoing dialogue among the Corridor partners

and the broader public. This sense of shared

heritage, elicited through broad public engagement, catalyzes a process through which the

vision is embraced throughout the Corridor by

partners with widely differing interests and

perspectives. Many partners can now articulate

the vision and see how they and their organizations fit into this larger picture. Moreover, they

see how organizations with missions quite

different from theirs also fit within the vision,

and they are inspired to work together. Because

the vision is so important to sustaining success,

partners have emphasized the value of the

“keeper of the vision” role played by the

Commission and staff. 
National Park Service Conservation Study Institute 67

The vision is supported by the preservation and

development implementation strategy that

provides tangible results. These accomplishments

contribute to the Corridor partnership system in

several ways. First, they serve as evidence of

progress toward long-term goals. Second, the

accomplishments are an essential part of a feedback mechanism. As projects are completed, the

vision and overall strategy can shift, as can the

partner network. Third, they provide an important focal point for celebrating successes and

can inspire further action.

C. Time

Passage of time influences the system in several

ways. First, it takes time to build a complex partnership system over a large, diverse region. It

also takes time to create a strong, sustainable

system because partner capacities vary and

partner relationships rely upon trust and effective communication to carry out joint projects

successfully. Second, in a partnership system

such as the Blackstone National Heritage

Corridor, there is a strategic sequencing to the

projects, with early projects setting the stage for

later work. In the Blackstone Valley necessary

first steps included education, building awareness, creating the "identity infrastructure" of

signs, and community visioning. Third, time is

required to build partner capacity and secure

the needed funding that will lead to sustainability. In such a system where time plays a

critical role, patience and flexibility are also key

to sustaining success.

All of these are part of a maturation process in

the partnership network—a growing sophistication and complexity that evolves over time. As

accomplishments are achieved and the relationships in the system become more robust, the

threshold for what is possible is raised and more

challenging, complex efforts can be undertaken.

A maturing partnership system, such as that of

the Corridor, brings with it a need for increasing

specialization, technical expertise, and capacity

building in order to sustain the momentum and

the partner energy. Maturation may also change

the nature of the Commission-partner relationship, with partners taking on greater leadership

over time. This can open the door to further

learning and strengthening of the network.

Thinking about the Corridor as a partnership

system operating within the realities of a living

landscape begins to redefine the Corridor

effort—not as a set of projects, but as a frame of

mind and a way of living and working that

revolves around the nationally significant

resources of the Blackstone Valley and the

opportunities those resources present. This

means that management concerns such as

providing ongoing vision, leadership, and

capacity building are critical to sustaining

success in the Corridor. Thus, the sustainability

of the Corridor’s partnership system in part

requires a management entity that works in a

process-oriented way, which is an important

consideration for the management structure that

will take the Corridor into the future. 
68 Reflecting on the Past, Looking to the Future: Sustainability Study Report for the John H. Chafee Blackstone River Valley National Heritage Corridor
National Park Service Conservation Study Institute 69

Since the inception of the Corridor, the

Commission, staff, and partners have created an

extraordinary foundation for future work

through strategic investment in key valley-wide

projects and partnerships. While a great deal has

been accomplished toward Corridor goals (as

reviewed in chapter 4-A), no one in the valley

considers the effort to be completed. There are

important projects underway that are essential

to finish in order to achieve the Corridor’s

purpose. Initiatives that have raised general

awareness and offered opportunities for engagement have created a strong sense of ownership

among partners Corridor-wide, yet many residents are still unaware of what the Corridor

does, or of the Corridor vision. Education will

be a never-ending need and will require an

expanded partnership network to further engage

people regarding their role in and understanding

of the Corridor. The Commission’s careful attention to building solid partnerships with many

different organizations, agencies, and institutions

has created a growing network of enthusiastic

partners, but some partner organizations and the

network as a whole are still fragile. 

As the Commission deliberates on the future of

the Corridor, it will need to consider how best

to build upon its past successes and create the

framework for the future that will best support

and sustain that success over the long term. 

In this final chapter, the study team offers

concluding thoughts on the primary challenges

facing the Commission and on further commitments that are needed. These are organized in

the following categories: a) continuation of

Corridor-wide, project-based initiatives, 

b) ongoing activities that sustain the partnership

base over time, and c) management considerations that support the partnership system.

A. Continuation of Corridor-Wide

Project-Based Initiatives

Because the Commission has effectively integrated its projects among the five program areas,

the discussion that follows will address projectbased initiatives in three general categories that

cut across program areas: 

• The riverway,

• Land use and growth, and

• Tourism and heritage-based economic 

development.

1. The riverway

In many ways the riverway is the flagship of the

Corridor. It is central to the story—past and

present—and is a touchstone for the natural and

built heritage and for degradation and recovery,

aesthetic values, recreational assets, and hope

for the future. The major Corridor-wide initiatives that are underway—the bikeway, the canal

restoration, the network of public access sites on

the river and canal, the state heritage parks, and

the 2015 Fishable-Swimmable Campaign—make

up a large portion of the Commission’s current

action agenda. Once these projects are in place,

it will be necessary to ensure ongoing preservation and maintenance in order to protect the

public investment. There will also be a continuing need to work with the municipalities along

the river and with the two states to ensure that

land uses complement and make accessible the

Corridor’s heritage resources (see section 2

below). Riverway assets will remain important

to ongoing public outreach and will offer

numerous opportunities for volunteer and

partner recruitment, as riverway users are

potential volunteers, partners, and stewards.

2. Land use and growth 

The Blackstone Valley, arguably in large part

because of Commission and partner efforts, is

now experiencing growth pressures spreading

from the three adjacent urban centers of Boston,

Providence, and Worcester (the three largest

cities in New England). This growth provides

economic opportunities but it must also be

guided through sound policies at the local level

in order to protect community and landscape

character. Bob Durand, former secretary of the

Massachusetts Executive Office of Environmental Affairs, predicted at a 2001 Blackstone

Valley land use summit that the landscape of the

Blackstone Valley National Heritage Corridor

will be defined in the next ten years.1

The need

to address such growth lends a special urgency

to the Commission’s ongoing efforts to promote

an integrated, regional approach to conserving

the Corridor’s nationally significant heritage

resources and landscape. The interviews and

public engagement sessions conducted through

the sustainability study indicate that there is

widespread concern over growth and possible

threats to the Corridor’s resources and character. Partners believe that the Commission

plays a vital nonpartisan role in these issues by

promoting regional thinking and action. 

CHAPTER 9

Looking to the Future
70 Reflecting on the Past, Looking to the Future: Sustainability Study Report for the John H. Chafee Blackstone River Valley National Heritage Corridor

By investing in research related to land use

impacts, and working directly with the communities on land use planning and such large-scale

projects as the Route 146 corridor, the Commission and staff have put considerable effort into

helping communities understand their relationship to a larger landscape and the role they can

play in protecting the cultural values and character of that landscape. The Commission’s

leadership and strategic integrated approach are

enabling people to find ways to seize exciting

economic opportunities, such as mill redevelopment, while also focusing on protecting heritage

resources. People are working together across

interests to protect what they value, something

quite different from the “environment or

economy” polarization that characteristically

pervades growth and development issues at the

community level. Commission initiatives such as

the Blackstone Valley Institute, Leadership

Blackstone Valley, and the four-town community

visioning project can help foster strategic thinking

and support the emergence of new leaders at the

local level who understand the importance of

collaborating regionally on these issues. This

work is long term, however, as it involves

changing how people and organizations think. 

Although the Commission is bringing valley

residents together to act on common values, the

critical mass for effective, sustainable action to

address land use and growth concerns is not yet

assembled, although the approach is bearing

fruit in many of the other program areas. There

is a continuing need to build local and regional

capacity and promote a broad, integrated vision

that will encourage the necessary stewardship

over the long term. This will remain a difficult

but crucial challenge in the foreseeable future if

the integrity of the unique landscape in the

Blackstone Valley is to be protected. 

3. Tourism and heritage-based economic

development

The Commission has made a significant investment to date in creating a strong interpretive

platform—including message content and infrastructure—through which visitors and residents

alike can learn about the Corridor and explore

the valley’s heritage. When the northern gateway

visitor center is completed, all the planned

anchor points for the Commission’s visitor

education infrastructure will be in place. There

is a continuing need, however, to ensure a seamless story and programs that link the four visitor

centers with the historic buildings and the other

visitor attractions that lie throughout the

Corridor.

Input from both Commissioners and partners

indicates that considerable work remains to

achieve the Corridor goals of a vibrant economy

that reinforces the heritage values, makes the

heritage accessible to residents and visitors, and

protects the valley’s historic, cultural, and

natural resources. The Commission has made

progress in laying the foundation for guiding

economic development, but much more remains

to be done to strengthen and integrate economic

development within the valley, and to boost

economic vitality while conserving the heritage

resources that contribute so much to the quality

of life. The Commission is well-positioned now,

with its partnerships, message, and vision, to

marshal a significant effort to bring economic

development interests more fully to the

Corridor “table.”

B. Ongoing Activities that Sustain 

the Partnership Base 

Partnerships have been at the center of the

strategy for the Corridor from the beginning,

with the concept being that partners would

assume increasingly greater responsibility over

time. For this strategy to be successful over the

long term in protecting the valley’s heritage

resources and landscape character, attention

and energy must be focused on the following

activities: 

• Expanding the partner network through

ongoing public engagement;

• Building partner and network capacity;

• Encouraging new leaders; and

• Fostering stewardship by promoting the

Corridor’s broad vision.

These activities are central to sustaining success

within the Corridor. They represent essential

inputs that are needed to create the long-term

capacity that will result in a sustainable partnership system. Furthermore, because the

Blackstone Valley is a living landscape that is

always changing, this work will be ongoing.

There will always be ebb and flow in a partnership system, and a need for sustaining existing

members and cultivating new ones.

1. Expanding the partner network through

ongoing public engagement

In order to realize a healthy, effective partner

network, both numbers and diversity are important. Together they provide the necessary

stability, continuity, and growth to achieve a

broad agenda that requires different perspectives and expertise. Today, despite the excellent

outreach efforts of the Commission and staff,

there is still a large segment of valley residents

The Commission has

made progress in laying

the foundation for

guiding economic development, but much more

remains to be done to

strengthen and integrate

economic development

within the valley, and to

boost economic vitality

while conserving the

heritage resources that

contribute so much to

the quality of life.
National Park Service Conservation Study Institute 71

who have little or no awareness of the Corridor

and its goals. Some partners have indicated that

the awareness exists primarily with conservation-oriented individuals and organizations.

There is a need in the short term to expand

awareness where it is still relatively low, either

among certain sectors or perhaps in certain

communities (geographic or ethnic) within the

Corridor. In addition, new people are moving

into the valley, and there will always be a certain

turnover in population. Expanding the network

and continually reaching out to engage new

audiences is critical to addressing the most challenging issues on the Commission’s agenda—

river cleanup, protecting community and landscape character, and economic growth and

development. A larger network means a stronger

voice on issues and more volunteer power. 

The project team heard from partners and

commissioners that there was a need to engage

and integrate the 2 states and 24 local communities more consistently in the Corridor

partnership. At both levels there can be periodic

turnover in personnel, which can affect the

degree of participation in and attention given to

a regional effort. At the state level, there are

statewide agendas that draw the attention of the

governors and state agencies. At the community

level, local authorities are often overworked and

may not be inclined to look beyond their local

boundaries. These challenges will always be

present to some degree, and it will require 

attention and ongoing communication to bring

these important partners into closer alignment.

2. Building partner and network capacity

The Commission and staff work with a diverse

set of partner organizations and institutions

spanning a wide spectrum of size, experience,

depth of expertise, and perspective. Considerable effort is involved in working with each

partner—such as helping them flesh out project

ideas and sort out issues, locating specific 

technical support, providing ongoing communication, and, at times, mentoring. This work has

had several results: greater understanding by

partners of the Corridor vision and the role they

can play in it; enhanced partner capability to

carry out that role; and considerable enthusiasm

among partners for contributing to Corridor

efforts. As the work in the Corridor has matured

and become more sophisticated, partner

capacity must also grow to sustain that success.

Assistance to strengthen capacity can include

leadership training, organizational development,

fundraising skills, strategic planning, and partnership building with other capacity-building

organizations such as community foundations.

In addition to working with individual partners,

there is a need to enhance the capacity of the

network as a whole. This involves connecting

and communicating across the partner network

as well as staying abreast of what is needed to

maintain and enhance efficiency as the network

grows. There are different theories about the

maturation of networks that can help explain

what is happening in the Corridor network.2 At

the time of designation, although there were

many organizations working in the valley—and

some of them working together—there was no

valley-wide network per se. As the Commission

and staff began working throughout the valley,

they soon became a Corridor-wide hub of

communication that linked the developing
72 Reflecting on the Past, Looking to the Future: Sustainability Study Report for the John H. Chafee Blackstone River Valley National Heritage Corridor

network of partners. Today, the Commission is

acknowledged as the central node of the

Corridor network. At the same time, certain

partners are beginning to take on a leadership

role, which, over time, could develop into

secondary nodes. The development of

secondary nodes could indicate that partner

organizations are assuming more responsibility

within the overall Corridor effort. According to

one network theorist, such increasing complexity

and diversity demonstrates network maturation,3

and at that stage effective management of the

network becomes essential to maintaining 

efficient communication and maximizing the

productivity of the network as a whole. 

Above all, it is important to understand the

partner network as a dynamic system that

requires management, awareness of and adaptability to changing circumstances, and

cultivation of emerging leaders. It will also be

important to track network development and, as

the network continues to evolve, adapt the

network management accordingly. 

3. Encouraging new leaders

Cultivating leadership within the network of

partners takes time, and is a critical aspect of

capacity building. Supporting emerging leaders

within the network will help over the long term

in transferring initiative from the Commission to

partners, which can help make the partnership

system more stable and sustainable. Partners, at

whatever level and whether individuals or organizations, cannot realistically take the initiative

until they understand what is at stake and can

envision the role they can play, in concert with

others, in achieving Corridor goals. The Blackstone Valley Institute and Leadership Blackstone

Valley have been playing an important role in

helping to foster this “transference of initiative”

process within the partner network. The

Commission may want to consider how

programs like these can be enhanced and

expanded to strategically assist this process. The

Commission could encourage partners to participate in courses offered by other support

organizations within the Corridor, such as the

Association of Fundraising Professionals, and

coordinate with these support organizations to

develop programs specifically targeted to the

needs of Corridor partners. Also, understanding

how the partner network operates and

managing the network with flexibility and periodic reflection will undoubtedly assist with the

process of partners taking on more initiative.

4. Fostering stewardship by promoting 

the vision

Fostering a sense of shared ownership of the

valley’s significant heritage, among both partners and individuals, is critical to engendering

stewardship over the long term. This is of

central importance to sustaining the partnership

system upon which the stewardship of the

Corridor is predicated. The Commission has

made a considerable investment in telling the

heritage story, researching untold stories, and

creating opportunities for experiencing the

Corridor’s heritage.4 It is this combination of

direct experience and engagement that will

further stimulate a sense of regional pride,

resulting in ever greater involvement and volunteerism on the part of valley residents. Fostering

these connections to place and heritage and

building the capacity for stewardship are crucial

ongoing functions of the Corridor partnership. 

Moreover, there will be a need to continually

refine and update the heritage story to foster

stewardship within a contemporary context. The

valley’s heritage story will always be about the

nationally significant events that happened 150

years ago and how they influenced life in the

valley down through the years. At the same time,

it is also about what valley residents can do,

guided by their vision for the Corridor, to

protect their heritage resources and the cultural

landscape. This contemporary stewardship

message must be constantly honed to retain its

freshness and application to the current situation. 

C. Management Considerations that

Support the Partnership System

At this critical point in the evolution of the

Corridor’s partnership system, there is a clear

need to maintain an effective coordinating

framework for the Corridor that bridges the 2

states and 24 municipalities and supports the

partnership system described in chapter 8. This

includes the following:

• A strong management entity to carry forward

the vision, provide effective collaborative leadership, and serve as the central network hub;

• An ongoing relationship with the NPS, given the

Corridor’s well-documented national significance; and

• Secure, sustainable funding from diverse

sources.
National Park Service Conservation Study Institute 73

1. A strong management entity to carry

forward the vision, provide effective 

collaborative leadership, and serve as the

central network hub

Coordinating a complex national heritage area

that spans 24 towns and 2 states is complicated,

requiring a strong management entity with

sophisticated management skills and expertise.

Until the partner network is ready to assume a

greater leadership role, the responsibility will

rest with the management entity to provide the

leadership and coordination necessary for the

partnership system to function effectively. This

includes continuing to promote the regional

vision as a coalescing force for the partner

network Corridor-wide; building partner diversity and engaging new audiences; nurturing

partner relationships and, where necessary,

bringing key partners into closer alignment;

fostering and modeling collaborative leadership;

and serving as the central hub in the Corridor’s

partner network.

2. An ongoing relationship with the National

Park Service, given the Corridor’s 

well-documented national significance

The nationally significant heritage in the Blackstone Valley is but one argument for an ongoing

role for the NPS. Clearly the presence of the

National Park Service has been an important

asset to the valley, and the NPS involvement as

staff to the Commission has been a central

factor in the Corridor's success. The Blackstone

Valley was described in the Cultural Heritage

and Land Management Plan as one of the nation’s

richest and best preserved repositories of landscapes, structures, and sites attesting to the rise

of industry in America. The greatest significance

of the valley is in the “wholeness” of these

elements that tell an important American story.

Few places exist where such a concentration of

resources has survived and is accessible to interpretation, preservation, and other management

strategies. There clearly seems to be support for

the National Park Service to have a continuing

presence in the Blackstone Valley, and an

ongoing role would provide a sustained and

visible acknowledgment of the significance of

this national story.

Even so, the present situation offers the

Commission an opportunity to think more

deeply about the partnership system in the

valley and the range of possible ways that the

NPS could participate as a Corridor partner. We

encourage the Commission to consider ways to

facilitate the transference of initiative discussed

in section B.3 above, and how that might be

accelerated or hindered by a shift in the NPSCorridor relationship.

There are also definite advantages to the

National Park Service from a continuing relationship with the Blackstone Valley. As

illustrated in this report, there are many lessons

to be learned from the Corridor partnership

about how to practice conservation in a lived-in

landscape. Since this approach is on the cutting

edge of conservation, the Corridor is in the

vanguard of this work. Lessons from the Blackstone Valley could be shared throughout the

National Park Service and with others doing

similar work. If a special resources study is

undertaken in the Corridor, there will be additional opportunities for exploration of the

potential for an enduring NPS presence in the

valley. The work that the NPS and Commission

have undertaken to date indicates that a permanent NPS role can be performed with

reasonable cost and administrative effectiveness

and efficiency.

3. Secure, sustainable funding from 

diverse sources 

Clearly, the direct federal investment in the

Corridor through the NPS has been essential to

the impressive progress made by the partnership

thus far, in no small part because of the 

substantial (22:1) leverage the federal funds have

generated (see chapter 4-B). Although this

demonstrates the considerable leveraging power

that the NPS funding brings to a partnership

setting such as the Corridor, the existing funding

arrangement is not ideal. Most of the operational

funding and the support for the management

hub come through variable annual appropriations and not through more secure and

predictable “base funding.” This lack of assurance

and predictability year-to-year not only puts the

critical hub function and the leveraging capacity

at risk, it also presents obstacles for strategic

planning, implementation of multi-year projects,

and staff retention. More predictable and secure

federal funding would help to alleviate these

problems and open the door to even greater

accomplishments in the future.
74 Reflecting on the Past, Looking to the Future: Sustainability Study Report for the John H. Chafee Blackstone River Valley National Heritage Corridor

The search for secure, sustainable funding should

extend well beyond direct federal commitments

to the Corridor. Partners at all levels will need to

continue to make the types of investments that

have been instrumental in the success to date,

and any opportunities for making those investments more secure over time should be sought.

Also, the partner network should consider

intensifying its efforts to obtain funding from

other sources that have not historically supported

Corridor initiatives (e.g., large foundations,

corporate sponsors). Ultimately, the network’s

ability to achieve Corridor goals in the future

will rest on its ability to attract secure, sustainable funding from a variety of sources. This is an

ongoing challenge for the Commission, and will

require a fundraising strategy that is comprehensive yet responds to partner concern about the

potential for competition.

D. Final Thoughts

A few core ideas emerged for the project team in

the course of conducting the sustainability study.

First, reflecting on the critical ingredients and

how they interact as a complex partnership

system has informed greatly the team’s understanding of the Commission’s success to date. 

As the management entity for the Corridor, the

Commission clearly has been a critical driver

behind the partner network’s accomplishments.

It has been well supported by the excellent partnership-building skills of both commissioners

and staff, a clear vision and the ability to articulate that vision, a sincere commitment to public

engagement, and funding that leverages other

investments. Furthermore, the Commission’s

federal stature has enabled it to bridge effectively the political divides of a bi-state Corridor.

It is essential, however, to recognize that the

management entity is just one piece of the

overall management framework, and that it

operates within the partnership system. It is

incumbent upon the Commission to ensure that

the full suite of critical ingredients comprising

the partnership system is part of the future

management framework for the Corridor.

Second, having an effective, sophisticated,

central hub is very important for the growth and

maturation of the partner network. This has

emerged as one of the most important roles

played to date by the Commission and its NPS

staff. Perhaps one of the most critical aspects of

being an effective central network hub is the

collective ability of the Commission and staff to

play a multitude of roles in their interactions

with partners. Every partnership is unique, and

part of the sophistication needed to sustain the

Corridor’s partnership system is the ability to

provide different types of assistance and levels

of support to different partners. This came out

most strongly in the partner interviews as

important to building partner capacity and

strengthening the network. In the future, as

partner capacity increases and stronger partners

emerge as leaders in the network, the roles and

responsibilities with respect to network management may shift also. It will be important to

monitor these changes and adapt accordingly.

We would be remiss at this point not to restate

the significant challenge facing valley residents

to guide growth in the Corridor in ways that

provide economic opportunity but do not

threaten the integrity of the heritage landscape.

If the landscape integrity is lost, then the story is

in jeopardy. The diligent efforts of the Commission and its NPS staff have built a foundation

that positions the partner network well for the

future, as long as attention is paid to the partnership system that keeps the momentum

moving forward.

Finally, the national heritage area “experiment”

in the Blackstone Valley is all about conservation

at the landscape scale. The Commission, its staff,

and the network of partners are helping us

understand how to conserve important natural

and cultural heritage in lived-in landscapes.

They are building a partnership culture in the

Blackstone Valley that is leading to conservation

of an important story and unique resources. It

has everything to do with people and

connecting them to heritage and place and

kindling a sense of stewardship. In this process,

a shared heritage becomes a bridge between

past, present, and future. 

Notes

1. SuperSummit 2001: Blackstone Valley Community Preservation was a conference on growth trends attended by 250 valley residents and sponsored by the Blackstone

Commission, the R.I. Department of Environmental Management, and the Massachusetts Executive Officer of Environmental Affairs.

2. The project team reviewed two theories that describe arrangements similar to the Corridor’s partner network. See Valdis Krebs and June Holley, “Building Sustainable

Communities through Network Building,” which can be found at http://www.orgnet.com. See also Gary E. Machlis and Jean E. McKendry, “The State of the CESU Network”

in The George Wright Forum, Vol 21, no. 3 (2004), which can be found at http://www.georgewright.org.

3. See Krebs and Holley, “Building Sustainable Communities through Network Building.”

4. See “Experiencing the Heritage Corridor,” The Next Ten Years: An Amendment to the Cultural Heritage and Land Management Plan. Blackstone River Valley National

Heritage Corridor Commission: Woonsocket, R.I. (1998).
National Park Service Conservation Study Institute 75

Avrami, Erica, and Randall Mason, eds. Values

and Heritage Conservation. Los Angeles: The

Getty Conservation Institute, 2000.

Barrett, Brenda, guest ed., and Elizabeth Byrd

Wood, ed. “Regional Heritage Areas:

Connecting People to Places and History.”

Special issue, Forum Journal 17, no. 4 (2003).

Published by the Center for Preservation Leadership at the National Trust for Historic

Preservation.

Barrett, Brenda, and Nora Mitchell, guest eds.

“Stewardship in Heritage Areas.” Special issue,

The George Wright Forum 20, no. 2 (June 2003).

www.georgewright.org/

Blackstone River Valley National Heritage

Corridor Commission. Cultural Heritage and

Land Management Plan for the Blackstone River

Valley National Heritage Corridor. Woonsocket,

RI: Blackstone River Valley National Heritage

Corridor Commission, 1989.

Blackstone River Valley National Heritage

Corridor Commission. The Next Ten Years: An

Amendment to the Cultural Heritage and Land

Management Plan for the Blackstone River Valley

National Heritage Corridor. Woonsocket, RI:

Blackstone River Valley National Heritage

Corridor Commission, 1998.

Borrini-Feyerabend, Grazia, with Dianne

Buchan. Beyond Fences: Seeking Social Sustainability in Conservation. Vol 1: A process

Companion. Vol 2: A Resource Book. Gland,

Switzerland: IUCN-The World Conservation

Union, 1997.

Brown, Jessica, Nora Mitchell, and Michael

Beresford, eds. The Protected Landscape

Approach: Linking Nature, Culture, and Community. Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK:

IUCN-The World Conservation Union, 2005.

Brown, Jessica, Nora Mitchell, and Fausto

Sarmiento, guest eds. “Landscape Stewardship:

New Directions in Conservation of Nature and

Culture.” Special issue, The George Wright

Forum 17, no. 1 (2000). www.georgewright.org/

Brown, Jessica, Nora Mitchell, and Jacquelyn

Tuxill. “Partnerships and Lived-In Landscapes:

An Evolving U.S. System of Parks and Protected

Areas.” Parks 13, no. 2 (2003): 31-41.

Cultural Landscapes: The Challenges of Conservation. World Heritage Papers 7. Paris:

UNESCO World Heritage Centre, 2003.

Degen, Paula A. Branching Out: Approaches in

National Park Stewardship. Fort Washington,

Pennsylvania: Eastern National, 2003.

Fowler, P.J. World Heritage Cultural Landscapes

1992-2002. World Heritage Papers 6. Paris:

UNESCO World Heritage Centre, 2003.

Krebs, Valdis, and June Holley. “Building

Sustainable Communities through Network

Building.” www.orgnet.com

Laven, Daniel N., Nora J. Mitchell, and Deane

Wang, guest eds. “Conservation at the Landscape Scale.” Special issue, The George Wright

Forum 22, no. 1 (2005). www.georgewright.org/

Linden, Russ. “The Discipline of Collaboration.”

Leader to Leader (Summer 2003): 41-47.

Little, Charles E. Greenline Parks: An Approach

to Preserving Recreation Landscapes in Urban

Areas. Washington, D.C.: Congressional

Research Service, Library of Congress, 1975. 

Machlis, Gary E., and Jean E. McKendry. “The

State of the CESU Network.” The George Wright

Forum 21, no. 3 (2004). www.georgewright.org.

Minteer, Ben A., and Robert E. Manning, eds.

Reconstructing Conservation: Finding Common

Ground. Washington, DC: Island Press, 2003.

Mitchell, Nora J., Leslie J. Hudson, and Deb

Jones, eds. Speaking of the Future: A Dialogue on

Conservation. Woodstock, VT: Conservation

StudyInstitute, 2003. www.nps.gov/csi/pdf/Speaking.pdf

National Park System Advisory Board. Findings

and Recommendations on the Future of the

National Heritage Areas in the National Park

System. Washington, DC: National Park Service,

2005. (Currently in production)

WEBSITES

Alliance of National Heritage Areas:

www.nationalheritageareas.com/

Conservation Study Institute: www.nps.gov/mabi/csi

John H. Chafee Blackstone River Valley National

Heritage Corridor: www.nps.gov/blac/home.htm

National Heritage Areas, National Park Service,

U.S. Department of the Interior:

www.cr.nps.gov/heritageareas/

Further Reading
76 Reflecting on the Past, Looking to the Future: Sustainability Study Report for the John H. Chafee Blackstone River Valley National Heritage Corridor

The project team expresses thanks to the

members of the John H. Chafee Blackstone River

Valley National Heritage Corridor Commission,

who welcomed us to the valley and invited us to

examine their work. It has been a fascinating six

months, and the Blackstone Valley will forever be

in our hearts. We thank especially those members

of the Commission’s Futures Committee, past and

present, who gave so generously of their time to

talk with us about the Commission’s vision and

work over the past 18 years. 

We are indebted to all the staff of the John H.

Chafee Blackstone River Valley National

Heritage Corridor for opening their files and

reports and for giving so generously of their time

in helping compile data for the study. They were

always available to answer questions and help us

with even the smallest detail. We extend a very

special thank-you to Michael Creasey, who

provided assistance in countless ways, including

acting as tour guide and showing us many special

places in the valley. We also thank the management team of Sue Andrews, Liz McConnell, and

Halford Welch, as well as Mark Jewell, for their

many contributions throughout the study, and

Pauline Lozeau for her varied logistical assistance, always offered in a gracious manner.

We are most appreciative of the many Corridor

partners who also welcomed us to the valley and

who, throughout the study, took the time to attend

the various public meetings and events and provide

input. We especially thank those partners who

participated in interviews and shared their experiences and their dreams for the Corridor’s future.

We are also grateful to the people, both valley residents and those who came from a distance, who

attended the October 26, 2004, workshop in Providence, Rhode Island. The thoughtful discussions

of this group and the experiences and ideas they

shared were very helpful to us in composing this

report. We also express our sincere thanks to

Marta de la Torre, Randy Mason, and David

Myers, who in the project’s formative stages

shared their thoughts on evaluating heritage sites,

based on their work with the Getty Conservation

Institute.

Last, but definitely not least, we gratefully

acknowledge the guidance and feedback provided

by Robert McIntosh, Terrence Moore, Brenda

Barrett, and Lawrence Gall throughout this technical assistance project. Their thoughtful advice

was always constructive and contributed greatly to

our articulation of key sections of the report. 

Robert Billington, Chairman *

The Honorable Richard T.

Moore, Vice-Chairman *

Donna Williams, Secretary *

Michael D. Cassidy, Treasurer *

Marie Rust

Matthew Amorello *

Katherine Abbott 

Dr. William Ankner

Barbara Berke

Kenneth Bianchi

Paul F. Clancy, Jr.

Mary K. Connor

Michael McMahon 

Patricia Mehrtens

Cara Metz

Louise M. Redding *

Edward Sanderson * 

Burton Stallwood

Fred Vincent

And former Commissioner

Nancy Benoit *

* member of the Commission’s

Futures Committee

The 2004-5 Corridor

Commission:

Acknowledgments

The Conservation Study Institute’s project team,

with their primary areas of responsibility,

included:

Suzanne Copping (assistant coordinator,

National Heritage Areas, National Park Service),

lead responsibility for documenting accomplishments

Gayle Gifford (president, Cause & Effect, Inc.),

lead responsibility for facilitating public engagement

Philip B. Huffman (independent consultant),

lead responsibility for management framework

components

Daniel Laven (doctoral student, University of

Vermont, and Conservation Study Institute

fellow), lead responsibility for process evaluation

Jacquelyn L. Tuxill (director of partnership

programs, Conservation Study Institute), project

manager and lead responsibility for synthesis

and report preparation

A team from the Blackstone National Heritage

Corridor staff worked to support the project

team by accessing and providing information,

reviewing documents for accuracy and completion, and assisting during report production.

The Corridor’s team included:

Sue Andrews (director of heritage preservation

and development)

Elizabeth McConnell (chief of administration)

The project management committee included:

Brenda Barrett (coordinator, National Heritage

Areas, National Park Service)

Michael Creasey (then executive director, 

John H. Chafee Blackstone River Valley National

Heritage Corridor)

Nora J. Mitchell (director, Conservation Study

Institute)

The Blackstone Sustainability Study Team
National Park Service Conservation Study Institute 77

The following is an extensive, though not

comprehensive, compilation of projects the

Commission has undertaken in partnership with

a broad range of organizations, individuals, and

local, state and federal agencies, or on its own in

order to fulfill its legislated mandate. Projects

were, and continue to be, selected based on the

established policies, actions, and strategies for

the priority areas as set forth in the Cultural

Heritage and Land Management Plan for the

Blackstone River Valley National Heritage

Corridor. The corresponding guiding policies,

actions and strategies are given for each program

area followed by a listing of individual projects

and/or initiatives.

Communities, civic groups, and individuals

struggle with the need to provide solid infrastructures and economic growth while retaining

the special characteristics of their village centers,

main streets, hilltop settlements, and river corridors. The Commission assists with these efforts

by providing professional assistance through

public workshops to develop comprehensive

plans that meet these needs and align with

Corridor goals. 

• Blackstone: Main Street revitalization plan

• Burrillville: Harrisville revitalization plan

• Douglas: Downtown design plan

• Glocester: Chepachet Village plan

• Leicester: Master plan

• Lincoln: Limerock Village land use plan

• Mendon: Land use plan

• Millbury: Downtown improvement initiative

• Millville: Riverfront redevelopment plan

• Northbridge: Whitinsville streetscaping

• Pawtucket: Downtown circulation design

• Smithfield: Greenspace forum

• Sutton: Historic landscape plan

• Uxbridge: Downtown revitalization plan

• Uxbridge: Stanley Woolen Mill brownfield

redevelopment

• Whitinsville: Historic Foundry Building 

redevelopment

• Woonsocket: Historic overlay district

• Worcester: Quinsigamond Village revitalization

plan

In addition to individual community plans, the

Commission has undertaken special studies and

developed a variety of regional plans that serve

to strengthen regional planning efforts.

• Heritage Corridor Plan amendment – 

“The Next Ten Years”

• Economic survey and impact

• Natural resource inventory (appendix to 10-

year plan)

• Land use planning manual

• Urban environmental design manual

• Economic development conference

A key component of the Commission’s preservation strategy is the development of the

Blackstone Valley Institute as a venue for educational outreach programs that offer ongoing

workshops and courses designed to address key

issues facing the valley. The Institute offers local

leaders, organizations, and interested citizens

both a forum to discuss topics of interest or

concern and a practical means to find solutions

to local issues.

• Growth management – Seminars to provide

latest data and techniques

• Leadership Blackstone Valley – Annual training

for community leaders

• See the Forest Program

• Institute seminar series

• Brownfields conference

• Preservation workshops

• Route 146 corridor visioning – Workshop to

explore development issues 

• Community visions – Conceptual designs for

village centers and key historic locations

• Four-Town Initiative – Planning collaborative

to address common issues

• Super Summit – Build-out analysis for each

Blackstone Valley community depicting current

zoning 

APPENDIX A

Inventory of Accomplishments

Policies:

The Commission and its partners will seek to identify or provide incentives, adopt

plans, and enact ordinances that preserve open space and the Blackstone River

Valley character, manifested through such distinctive features as mill villages, rural

landscapes, country lanes, and that encourage development consistent with that

objective.

Actions and Strategies:

• Integrate Corridor Cultural Heritage and Land Management Plan into existing

state and regional planning

• Provide information to the public about good land use practices

• Identify and inventory Corridor resources and conditions

• Enhance the character of the valley

Land Use Planning
78 Reflecting on the Past, Looking to the Future: Sustainability Study Report for the John H. Chafee Blackstone River Valley National Heritage Corridor

The linear nature of the Heritage Corridor

requires the development of a “critical mass” of

visitor sites, programs, and services which will

draw people to the valley and engage a diversity

of interests in the textile heritage theme. A

targeted investment in these core sites,

programs, and services will be the Corridor

Commission’s physical legacy for the future.

• Worcester: Northern Gateway Project – Development of northern terminus visitor center in

Worcester (planning underway)

• Pawtucket: Blackstone Valley Visitor Center –

Development of southern terminus visitor

center in Pawtucket (open)

• Woonsocket: Museum of Work & Culture –

Development of visitor center in Woonsocket

(open)

• Uxbridge: River Bend Farm & Visitor Center –

Development of visitor center in Uxbridge

(open)

• Worcester: Broad Meadow Brook Wildlife

Sanctuary – Support for interim visitor center

facility

• Grafton: Willard House & Clock Museum –

Support for historic museum that provides

visitor services

• Lincoln: Kelly House & Canal Museum –

Development of exhibits on transportation

themes and support visitor services along the

Blackstone River Bikeway, and the Blackstone

River and Canal

• Visitor Center Collaborative – Network of

heritage sites to provide consistent and integrated visitor services and information 

• Tourism development – Bi-state collaborative

to integrate tourism related initiatives

• Corridor signage, exhibits, and identity system

– Consistent signage program for village

centers, historic sites, bikeway, riverway, visitor

services, and interpretation

• Corridor Information and Communication

Program – Development of interpretive and

educational publications that include

brochures, newsletters, web pages, etc.

The celebration and understanding of the Blackstone Valley’s cultural legacy through education,

the traditional arts, festivals and events, and

coordinated activities among sites complement

the physical infrastructure being developed.

Heritage-related programming accommodates a

variety of ongoing and new initiatives.

• Blackstone Valley Chamber of Commerce

school program – “Blackstone Valley on the

Move”

• Community interpretation – focused interpretive activities in historic village centers of

Hopedale, Slatersville, and Whitinsville

• Slater Mill cultural and interpretive programming

• Blackstone River Theatre cultural arts education and performances

• Living history events and re-enactments such

as Settlers Days 

• Moffett Mill interpretive exhibits on early mill

construction and operations

• Valley Falls Heritage Park – Interpretation of

water power for manufacturing

• Blackstone Valley Explorer boat – Support for

49-passenger floating classroom

• Central Falls interpretive material – Interpretive

brochure of historic structures and sites

• Cumberland Company Theatre Group – Development of Blackstone Valley interpretive play

• Grafton oral history – Recording of oral histories of mill workers

• River Bend Farm – Concerts along the canal

• Heritage Harbor Museum – P&W Railroad

interpretive exhibit

• Pawtucket Preservation Society – Historic

district architecture brochure

• Explore & Discover Museum exhibits – Interactive exhibits for children of all ages

• Corridor interpretive plan 

• “Along the Blackstone” cable TV series – InterPolicies

Much of what is considered natural along the Blackstone River is, in fact, “cultural.”

Interpretation activities that pull together many elements will be emphasized.

Integrated approaches in communication will be emphasized as well, and the

Commission will find ways to encourage valley interpreters to share ideas.

Actions and Strategies:

• Seek the development of museums/information centers in Pawtucket,

Woonsocket, Uxbridge, and Worcester

• Develop consistent, Corridor-wide interpretation program

• Design and develop permanent, traveling, and wayside interpretive exhibits

• Sponsor ongoing historical research and publication

• Develop a sign program for the Corridor

• Design, produce, and distribute interpretive materials – such as maps, guidebooks, and brochures – that describe the historic, cultural, natural, and recreation resources of the Corridor

• Co-sponsor community interpretive-related programs and activities

• Train volunteer interpreters

• Establish a central repository of Blackstone Valley historical documentation,

such as maps, studies, photographs, papers, and oral histories

• Develop school programs to communicate the history and significance of the

Blackstone Valley

• Encourage the establishment of festivals for the celebration of art and culture

in the Corridor

• Encourage local initiatives consistent with Corridor goals

Interpretation and Education
National Park Service Conservation Study Institute 79

pretive and educational programming

• Ranger activities, services, and educational

programs, including lecture series, interpretive

walks and talks, river activities, environmental

education and river cleanups, and school

programs

• Paddle Club – Seasonal paddling club to

develop river stewards

• Special events – support for cultural festivals

and events

• Volunteer In Parks – development of volunteer

corps and coordination of individual site

volunteer activities

The Commission has been tasked with the

responsibility not only for interpreting, but for

identifying and preserving the historic, natural,

and cultural resources in the valley that enhance

the public’s understanding of the American

Industrial Revolution. The Commission’s funds

are targeted strategically to provide improvements to special places of interpretive value.

• Blackstone: BV Boys & Girls Club – Restore

mill into education center.

• Blackstone Federated Church – Stabilization

and restoration of 18th century structure

• Blackstone Grange – Investigation of structure

and history

• Blackstone: Daniel’s Farm

• Douglas: Old Douglas Common

• Douglas: E.N. Jenckes Store

• Glocester: Chepachet River Park

• Grafton: Fisherville Mill redevelopment

• Grafton: Hassanamesitt Woods preservation –

site of 17th century Native American praying

village

• Grafton Fire House research and restoration

• Hopedale: Little Red Shop – Historic structures

report and management plan 

• Hopedale: Draper Mill Complex – Adaptive reuse study

• Leicester: Towtaid Park

• Lincoln: Hearthside Mansion historic structures report

• Lincoln: Valentine Whitman House historic

structures report

• Lincoln: Moffett Mill historic structures report

and restoration, installation, and interpretation

of original machinery and artifacts

• Lincoln: Great Road Historic District – Master

plan for interpretation of historic sites along

historic road that developed from Native

American trail to modern roadway

• Millville: Chestnut Hill Meeting House preservation, restoration, and interpretation

• Northbridge: Whitin Machine Shop – Preservation and interpretation

• Northbridge: Whitin Park – Preservation of

historic site and development of interpretive

signs and brochure

• Northbridge: Whitinsville Community Center –

architectural services and restoration

• North Smithfield: Slatersville Mill, first planned

mill village in America

• Pawtucket: Slater Mill Historic Site

HABS/HAER Survey and Reports

• Pawtucket Armory – Restoration and re-use

• Sutton – Marions Camp

• Sutton – Waters Farm research, restoration,

master plan, barn restoration, and interpretation

• Sutton – Hancock-Hull House historic structures report

• Uxbridge: Preservation of New England

common and historical markers

• Uxbridge: Farnum House Museum restoration

• Uxbridge: Inn preservation, restoration and 

re-use

• Upton: Historic resources inventory

• Woonsocket: Stadium Theatre restoration

• Woonsocket: Providence & Worcester train

depot – Preservation and interpretation

• Woonsocket: Archaeology in the Blackstone

Valley – Discovering Woonsocket’s past

• Woonsocket: Cultural resource survey of Elder

Ballou Meeting House Road

• Worcester: Quinsigamond School – Preservation and re-use

• Mill inventory & conference

• Blackstone Canal preservation – ongoing

restoration and interpretation

• Waterways photographic exhibit – Salvatore

Mancini

Policies:

With its partners, the Commission will work to protect significant buildings, mill 

villages, districts, and the integrity of town, city, and rural areas. The Commission

will recognize and champion good restoration efforts and good design review 

procedures to encourage compatibly-designed infill projects, and provide good

maintenance and other information to the public. 

Actions and Strategies:

• Continue to inventory historical and archaeological resources as a first step in

safeguarding them

• Preserve key historic districts, properties, and sites that define the character of

the Blackstone River Valley

• Provide professional planning assistance to Corridor towns and cities

• Provide information to the public about available professional assistance,

grants, and guidelines for historic preservation, restoration, and maintenance

Historic Preservation
80 Reflecting on the Past, Looking to the Future: Sustainability Study Report for the John H. Chafee Blackstone River Valley National Heritage Corridor

The impacts of the industrial revolution on the

river system were extensive, leading today to

both challenges and opportunities. The

Commission focuses on education, support for

recovery programs at various governmental and

grassroots levels, and opportunities for the river

to become a vital part of community and

economic revitalization.

• Blackstone Gorge Bi-State Park – Development

that includes parking, trails, overlook and river

access

• River access program – Development of a

series of portages and access sites for boating

• Pawtucket Riverfront – Plan to incorporate

river-related activities with shopping, restaurants, businesses, and recreation

• Woonsocket Riverfront and Costa Park

• Trail development – Coordination of parks and

trails to create a greenway/riverway system

• Bikeway advocacy – Coordination of bi-state

Blackstone River Bikeway development

• Blackstone River Conservation Alliance –

Coordination of conservation efforts valley-wide

• Blackstone River Coalition – Coordination of

watershed-wide activities with local, state, and

federal agencies

• Water quality testing – Citizen corps of river

stewards to monitor the health of the river

• Lonsdale Marsh restoration – Conversion of

derelict drive-in theater to marsh conservation

area

• Anadromous fish restoration/fish ladders –

Development of fish passages on lower four

dams to allow migratory passage to Lonsdale

Marsh spawning grounds

• Pollution prevention program – Educational

program for homeowners on environmentally

safe alternatives to household cleaners, fertilizers, and pesticides

• Storm drain stenciling – Educational program

to minimize pollution from storm drains

• River cleanups – Annual trash removal from

river and riverbanks

• Clean Water Festival – Environmental awareness festival

• Greenway Challenge – Annual eco-challenge to

bring awareness to the Blackstone River and

Bikeway

• Expedition 2000 – Four-day canoe trip down

the Blackstone River to highlight issues

• Project ZAP—Multiple efforts to clean up the

river

• Blackstone River watershed education – High

school program to integrate watershed

concepts across disciplines

• Blackstone Valley Explorer – 49-passenger

educational tour boat 

• Central Falls Landing – Public river access site

• Fishable/Swimmable 2015 – Campaign to

restore the health of the Blackstone River

Policies:

Conservation actions will focus on Corridor-wide protection of water resources...to

enable Valley residents to take full advantage of the recreational opportunities on

and along the river. The Commission will support greater public access to and use

of the river-canal-towpath area...The Commission will work through state DEMs

and other appropriate state agencies to fund and implement these activities, and

will seek the help of interested nonprofit groups, the business community, and civic

institutions to complement and supplement state actions plans.

Actions and Strategies:

• Improve the water quality of the Blackstone River

• Identify natural sites that are threatened, in need of action or assistance, and/or

important to the completion or enhancement of state heritage parks

• Protect open space within the Corridor

• Support state, local, private, and individual efforts to enhance the environment

• Complete or enhance state and local parks and forests within the Corridor

• Implement construction, maintenance, and landscaping projects that provide

greater public use and access to the river

• Produce recreation publications

• Endorse special events and activities that are consistent and compatible with

Corridor goals

River Recovery and Recreational Development
National Park Service Conservation Study Institute 81

In carrying out the Blackstone Sustainability

Study, the project team gathered data through a

variety of means, including document review, a

“process evaluation,” and a variety of public

engagement activities. Each of these categories is

discussed in greater detail below. The information gathered from all of these sources

contributed to the project team’s collective

understanding of the Corridor partnership’s

effectiveness to date. Similarly, the team relied

on data and insights from all of the project

components, as well as a process of group

synthesis, in crafting its assessment of what is

needed in the future to achieve successfully the

goals of the Corridor.

B.1. Document Review 

The project team, with the assistance of

Corridor staff, reviewed many documents

related to Corridor history, legislative background, management, and accomplishments.

This included:

• Review of relevant Corridor materials, including

Corridor enabling legislation, management

plans, annual reports and budgets, project

reports, and partner agreements; examination

of public records; and reports from the series 

of Commission and staff retreats and partner

focus groups held in 2002. 

• Comparison of the Corridor’s existing management framework with those used in other

selected nationally designated areas that are

managed through partnerships (e.g., other

national heritage areas, partnership parks, etc.). 

• Review of other relevant documents, including

descriptions and analyses of possible management frameworks for other heritage initiatives

(e.g., Champlain Valley, Upper Housatonic

Valley).

B.2. Process Evaluation

The project team employed a type of evaluation

research called a “process evaluation” to

examine more closely how the Corridor’s partnerships and programs function. The work

involved designing a model of the Corridor

program that was then tested through confidential interviews with partners. Such an evaluation

is helpful in facilitating policy learning (i.e.,

helping programs to improve their operations).

See appendix C for a more in-depth discussion

of this research method

B.3. Public Engagement Activities

The team gathered information through a

variety of activities that engaged commissioners,

partners, and the general public, including the

following: 

• Individual interviews, conducted confidentially,

with the Commission’s Futures Committee,

senior Corridor staff, and selected partners.

• Public meetings with commissioners and

Corridor partners on September 16, 2004, in

Worcester, Massachusetts, and on September

29, 2004, in Lincoln, Rhode Island. 

• A day-long workshop with Blackstone Valley

leaders and outside experts with diverse

national and international experience in

heritage areas and partnerships on October 26,

2004, in Providence, Rhode Island. A synopsis

of the workshop follows in section B.4.

• Public Commission meeting on November 18,

2004, in Cumberland, Rhode Island, at which

the project team gathered feedback on preliminary options from commissioners and

Corridor partners.

• Public Commission meeting on February 2,

2005, in Whitinsville, Massachusetts, at which

team members presented the draft study report. 

B.4. Synopsis of October 26, 2004 

Workshop 

The workshop, “Reflecting on the Future: The

John H. Chafee Blackstone River Valley National

Heritage Corridor,” brought together 30 people

with diverse backgrounds from within and

outside the Blackstone Valley to explore issues

relating to the future management of the Blackstone National Heritage Corridor. The overall

goal of the workshop was to examine potential

alternatives for the Corridor’s future, including

possible changes to the current management

framework. The group discussed the strengths

of the current management framework and

opportunities for change, examined critical

ingredients for success that have been present in

the Commission’s work as well as in other partnership-based heritage initiatives, and discussed

possible alternative partnership frameworks that

might be applied, in whole or in part, to the

future management of the Corridor, both nearterm and long-term. The discussion during this

workshop was instrumental in formulating this

report. Participants included:

APPENDIX B

Sustainability Study Methodology
82 Reflecting on the Past, Looking to the Future: Sustainability Study Report for the John H. Chafee Blackstone River Valley National Heritage Corridor

Sue Andrews (director of heritage and planning,

Blackstone National Heritage Corridor) 

Brenda Barrett (coordinator, National Heritage

Areas, National Park Service)

Judith Benedict (land conservation and open

space planning consultant)

Robert Billington (chair, Blackstone National

Heritage Corridor Commission)

Paula Brouillette (vice president, Blackstone

River Valley CorridorKeepers)

Michael Cassidy (commissioner, Blackstone

National Heritage Corridor Commission)

Delia Clark (director of community engagement,

Conservation Study Institute)

Suzanne Copping (assistant coordinator,

National Heritage Areas, National Park Service)* 

Michael Creasey (then executive director, Blackstone National Heritage Corridor)

John Debo (superintendent, Cuyahoga Valley

National Park)

Marta de la Torre (former group director of

research, Values of Heritage Project, Getty

Conservation Institute)

Rolf Diamant (superintendent, Marsh-BillingsRockefeller National Historical Park)

Jonathan Doherty (project manager, Chesapeake

Bay Gateways Network, National Park Service)

Gayle Gifford (president, Cause & Effect, Inc.)*

Charles Hawkins (legislative assistant, The

Honorable Senator Lincoln D. Chafee – R.I.)

Philip Huffman (independent consultant)*

Daniel Laven (University of Vermont/Conservation Study Institute doctoral fellow)*

Elissa Marsden (heritage development manager,

Delaware and Lehigh National Heritage Corridor)

Elizabeth McConnell (chief of administration,

Blackstone National Heritage Corridor)

Mary Means (principal, Mary Means Associates)

Brent Mitchell (vice president, Stewardship,

QLF-Atlantic Center for the Environment)

Nora Mitchell (director, Conservation Study

Institute)

Terrence Moore (chief, Park Planning and

Special Studies, Northeast Region, NPS)

Art Norwalk (president, Slater Mill Association)

James Pepper (assistant regional director,

Strategic Planning, Northeast Region, NPS)

Louise M. Redding (commissioner, Blackstone

National Heritage Corridor Commission)

C. Allen Sachse (executive director, Delaware

and Lehigh National Heritage Corridor)

Edward Sanderson (commissioner, Blackstone

National Heritage Corridor Commission)

Jacquelyn Tuxill (director of partnership

programs, Conservation Study Institute)*

Halford Welch (director of special projects,

Blackstone National Heritage Corridor)

Donna Williams (commissioner, Blackstone

National Heritage Corridor Commission)

* denotes Blackstone Sustainability Study project

team 
National Park Service Conservation Study Institute 83

The Sustainability Study Team employed a

process evaluation approach for the research

described in Chapter 6. Process evaluation

refers to a well-developed, specific type of evaluation research designed to examine the ways in

which complex programs function. Such studies

are particularly helpful in facilitating policy

learning (i.e., helping programs to improve their

operations) and represent good examples of

research informing management. Process evaluation research has not previously been

conducted in the Blackstone National Heritage

Corridor. The first section that follows explains

the methodology of the process evaluation that

was carried out during the Blackstone Sustainability Study. The second section provides the

consent form agreed to by each partner interviewed, while the interview questions are set

forth in the last section.

C.1. Corridor Program Model

The process evaluation was conducted in two

phases. Phase I was designed to develop a model

of the Corridor program. The model identifies

the logic that underlies program actions and

explains the specific causal links connecting

program inputs to expected program outcomes.

Because the model represents the underlying

program logic, it serves as a “road map” for evaluating how the Corridor programs operate. The

model was developed from document analysis,

numerous site visits and participant observations, as well as informal interviews and meetings

with NPS staff, Corridor Commissioners, and

Corridor partners. This phase of research began

in June 2004, and was very much an iterative,

collaborative, stakeholder-driven process. 

Phase II of the process evaluation was designed

to test the model through confidential interviews with Corridor partners. During October

and November 2004, a total of 30 open-ended

interviews were conducted with key partners

over the phone. The complexity of the Corridor

program and associated partnership structures

suggested that a purposeful sampling design

would be most appropriate, and care was taken

to invite a diversity of Corridor partners to

participate. With the consent of each respondent, all interviews were recorded and

transcribed (see C.2 and C.3). Interviews lasted

approximately one hour and yielded transcripts

ranging from 8 to 20 pages. Using a content

analysis, data were analyzed for categories and

themes across the 30 respondents. 

C.2. Interview Consent Form

My name is Daniel Laven and I’m a graduate

student at the University of Vermont. At the

request of the Corridor Commission, I am

conducting a study with the National Park

Service to learn more about the Blackstone

River Valley National Heritage Corridor. The

purpose of this study is to learn how the Blackstone River Valley National Heritage Corridor

works and to document the impact of the

Corridor on the Blackstone Valley. As a result of

your experience with the Corridor, you are in a

unique position to describe what the program

does and how it affects organizations within the

Valley. And that’s what the interview is about:

your experiences with the Blackstone River

Valley National Heritage Corridor and your

thoughts about your experiences.

The responses from the 30 people I’m interviewing will be combined for my study. No

individual or organization names will appear in

the written report or presentations. As we go

through the interview, if you have any questions

about why I’m asking something, please feel free

to ask. Or, if there’s anything you don’t want to

answer, just say so. The purpose of the interview

is to get your insights into how the program

operates and how it affects organizations in the

Valley.

Finally, I’d like your permission to record the

interview so I don’t miss any of it. I’ll be taking

notes, but I also don’t want to slow the interview down, and it’s very important that I

capture your words exactly as you say them. The

interview will remain confidential – your name

and/or your organization will be removed from

the transcript and replaced by a numbered code

that will remain confidential. Once the interview

has been transcribed, the tapes will be

destroyed. I can also mail you a draft copy of

the study findings for your review. So, if you

don’t mind, I’d very much like to use the

recorder. If at any time during the interview you

would like me to turn the tape off, please let me

know and I will do so. May I use the tape

recorder?

Any questions before we begin?

APPENDIX C

Research Methods for Chapter 6
84 Reflecting on the Past, Looking to the Future: Sustainability Study Report for the John H. Chafee Blackstone River Valley National Heritage Corridor

C.3. Interview Protocol

The first part of this interview is designed to

help me learn about your current relationship with the Corridor Commission. By

Corridor Commission, I am referring to the

partnership, including the National Park

Service that manages the Blackstone River

Valley National Heritage Corridor

1. In what ways are you now connected, or do

you currently work with the Commission?

2. How long have you been working with the

Commission in this way?

3. In your view, what role(s) does the Commission play in this relationship?

A. Provides funding directly

B. Helps your organization to leverage

funding from other sources?

C. Provides relevant information and good

ideas?

D. Provides access to other potential partners (network conduit)?

E. Increase organizational capacity?

F. Provides additional credibility?

G. Role of leadership?

H. What other roles could the Commission

play in the future that could be particularly

helpful?

4. How has, if at all, your relationship with the

Commission impacted the way you work? 

A. Creates a shared understanding of opportunities and challenges in the Valley?

B. Other unintended consequences? By

unintended consequences, I am referring to

impacts that you didn’t expect, or intend

from this relationship. These can be either

positive, negative, or neutral.

5. What formal, or informal, criteria do you use

to evaluate the effectiveness of this relationship?

6. What factors influence you to continue to

maintain this relationship?

7. What could the Commission do to improve

this relationship in the future?

The next series of questions will help me to

understand how you or your organization

functions in the Blackstone Valley. 

8. What are your organizational goals/mission in

the Blackstone Valley? 

9. What specific factors, if any, would increase

the likelihood of achieving these goals? What

specific factors would decrease the likelihood of

achieving these goals? 

10. How do you or your organization measure

your effectiveness in achieving these goals?

This is the last section of the interview, and

the questions are more general and reflective

in nature. This is an opportunity for me to

learn from you, in broad terms, about the

impact of the Heritage Corridor Program in

the Blackstone Valley. 

11. In your opinion, over the life of the Corridor

(the last 18 years), what impact has the Commission had on the following issues:

A. Conservation and restoration of natural,

cultural, and historic resources?

B. Creation of heritage-based tourism and

recreation opportunities?

C. Community development within the Blackstone Valley?

12. How, from your perspective, has the

Commission integrated these multiple goals?

13. How, if at all, does National Heritage

Corridor designation affect the way in which

you work? For example, does this designation

change you or your organization’s, strategic

thinking or long-term planning? How does this

designation change the way in which you/your

organization prioritize objectives? 

14. I’m interested in learning how various organizations in the Blackstone Valley region have

been influenced by the concept of “Blackstone

Valley Heritage.” By Blackstone Valley Heritage,

I am referring to the industrial history and

legacy of this region. What role does “Blackstone Valley Heritage” play, from your

perspective, in the Heritage Corridor Program?

A. How do you think, if at all, the idea of

“Blackstone Valley Heritage” plays a role in

defining your organizational goals?
National Park Service Conservation Study Institute 85

15. What is your or your organization’s “vision”

for the Blackstone Valley Corridor region in the

future?

A. What else, from your perspective, needs

to be done in the Valley region to achieve this

vision?

16. What do you think the role of the Commission should be in realizing that vision?

17. As we think about how to move forward with

this work in the Blackstone Valley, do you see

any other organizations (existing or potential)

that could play that role as or more effectively

than the Commission?

18. Who do you consider to be your three most

critical strategic partners in the Blackstone

Valley? 

19. In the future, which other people, or organizations, would you like to partner with in the

Blackstone Valley but have yet to do so?

20. In your opinion, what has prevented these

partnerships from occurring thus far?

21. That covers everything I wanted to ask. What

else should I have asked you that I didn’t think

to ask?

Notes

1. Carol Weiss, Evaluation, 2nd ed. (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1998); Ellen Taylor-Powell, Boyd Rossing, and Jean Geran, Evaluating Collaboratives: Reaching the

Potential, (Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin-Extension, Cooperative Extension, 1998).

2. Darlene Russ-Eft and Hallie Preskill, Evaluation in Organizations: A Systematic Approach to Enhancing Learning, Performance, and Change (Cambridge, MA: Perseus

Publishing, 2001). 

3. In fact, little theoretical or empirical work has been done in this regard in any of the nationally designated heritage areas in the United States.

4. For detailed discussions of program theory models, see Leonard Bickman, ed., Using program theory in evaluation. New Directions for Program Evaluation Series, no. 33

(San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1987); Carol Weiss, Evaluation, 2nd ed. (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1998); Joseph Wholey, ed., Organizational Excellence: Stimulating

Quality and Communicating Value (Lexington, MA: Lexington Books, 1998). 

5. Michael Patton, Utilization-focused Evaluation: The New Century Text (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1997). 

6. Matthew Miles and Michael Huberman, Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Source Book (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1994). 

7. Michael Patton, Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods, 3rd ed. (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2002).