I & M Canal National Heritage Corridor Management Plan Public Meetings February 23 & 24, 2011

Opening Remarks Last round of meetings - Lockport and LaSalle Four previous rounds since November 2009 12 different places in the Corridor Tonight Management structure alternatives Plan goals Plan update and schedule

Management Structure Alternatives Three proposed models Required by NPS process Posted on the web site, February 8 Critical to get comments from the public

Management Structure Alternatives Alternative 1: Continuation of Current Practices/No Action Alternative 2: IMCNHC Membership Model Alternative 3: IMCNHC Alliance Partner Model

Alternative 1 - Current Practice/No Change

Alternative 2 - Membership Model

Alternative 3 - Alliance Partner Model

Alternative 1 - Current Practice / No Change Pros: This alternative is the simplest to implement. Cons: The Canal Corridor Association alone will raise all local match funds. There will be little synergy from work already being done by other organizations The process doesn’t allow for inclusions of all groups/individuals throughout the Corridor.

Alternative 2 - Membership Model Pros: This model is known and used by many groups. Those organizations with the capacity to implement the plan will raise the local match money to carry out the plan. The local match will be met by memberships and grant projects. Cons: Those organizations without the funds for dues will be left out. This model favors the work of individual members over larger regional projects. The model will only benefit the parts of the IMCNHC that are represented by members. Staff will be needed to promote and generate membership. CONS Those organizations without the funds for dues will be left out. If the dues are set high then there will be potential members who will decide not to participate in the network for financial reasons. This model favors the work of individual members over larger regional projects as any collaborative projects will need to be designed and organized by individual members for the collective good. The model will only benefit the parts of the IMCNHC that are represented by members. This model will favor the larger, richer communities, organizations, and sites within the IMCNHC. Staff will be needed to promote and generate membership.

Alternative 3 - Alliance Partner Model Pros: The organization of the IMCNHC will be inclusive, allowing the greatest opportunity for participation. The process will encourage collaborative regional projects. The process also allows for local projects, programs, and activities. Cons: The organization of the IMCNHC will be complex. Staff will be needed to coordinate all the people involved throughout the Corridor.

Discussion and Survey Which one do you favor? Why do you favor it? What do you like or dislike about any of them? Are there any other Pros or Cons?

Goals Stories Special Places Recreation Conservation Economic Impact Sustainability Review/Comments STORIES Goal: The rich and complex stories of the history and continuing importance of the I&M Canal Corridor will be told through increasingly accurate, compelling, and interesting ways to larger audiences. SPECIAL PLACE Goal: The Corridor’s distinctive sense of place and natural, cultural, and historic resources will be recognized, embraced and protected. RECREATION Goal: The Corridor’s recreational opportunities will be increased in quantity and quality and will be enjoyed by more people. CONSERVATION Goal: The stewardship of the corridor’s natural resources will be improved. Both the number of stewards and the commitment level and involvement of stewards will be increased. ECONOMIC IMPACT Goal: The Corridor’s economic growth will be built through heritage tourism and heritage development. There will be more history and cultural based venues in the corridor and the existing ones will be enhanced through increased interpretation, use of new technologies, and increases in visitor services and marketing. SUSTAINABILITY Goal: The work of the IMCNHC will be sustained after 2021 by engaging more people in increasingly intense roles and securing sustainable funding sources.

Management Plan Update Draft of Plan and Environmental Assessment Posted by March 14 Please comment on our Blog

Timeline The Alternatives have 30 days for comments The Plan and Environmental Assessment have 30 days for comments June 1 submit Plan to National Park Service June to November - Final review / approval by Secretary of the Interior

Future Meetings/Forums Plan to initiate meetings, forums and workshops What would you want to see/learn? Interest level of plan implementation updates?

Find us at: The Canal Corridor Association is at www.canalcor.org The Management Plan is at www.iandmcanal.org The Management Plan Blog is at iandmcanal.wordpress.com. This presentation is on the Management Plan website REMEMBER to contribute your comments