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

2. 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

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

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

5. Alternative 1 - Current Practice/No Change

6. Alternative 2 - Membership Model

7. Alternative 3 - Alliance Partner Model

8. 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.

9. 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.

10. 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.

11. 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?

12. 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.

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

14. 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

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

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