Case Study

Community
Participation in Landscape Management in the United States:

A Case Study of the Erie
Canal

David Kay, Department
of Applied Economics and Management,
Cornell University, Ithaca NY,
14853, dlk2@cornell.edu

This paper appears as
Annex 5 in: Selman, Paul with contributions from Kay Booth (New
Zealand), Kristof Fatsar (Hungary), Jannemarie de Jonge
(Netherlands), David Kay (USA), Peter Kayner (Hungary), John
McDonagh (Ireland), Madeleine van Mansfeld (Netherlands), Gabor
Unvari (Hungary). July 2002. An Identification and Assessment
of Models of How Communities Outside the United Kingdom Participate
in the Management of their Landscapes. Countryside and
Community Research Unit, University of Gloustershire, UK. Final
Report to the Countryside Agency.

See also:

Community
Participation in the Planning and Management of Cultural Landscapes

Paul Selman. Journal
of Environmental Planning and Management Abingdon:May 2004. Vol.
47, Iss. 3, p. 365-392 

The signs are
that these tangled hierarchies which increasingly govern rural areas
in a complex web of interdependence are now the favored mechanisms
for rural policy formulation and service delivery at each level from
the local to the European. Official policy statements, at all
levels, emphasize the role of partnerships beyond the formal
structures of government.ⁱ

How, and with what
success, have whole communities and community groups in the United
States participated in the management of rural landscapes? This
paper does not attempt a comprehensive answer to this question.
Instead, it addresses select aspects of an answer by focusing largely
on a single case study, that of the historically significant
landscape defined by the Erie Canal corridor in upstate New York. The
case study depicts a premier and evolving American example of a
“tangled hierarchy” of governance. The central resource
in question, the Canal and land within the envelope of property
immediately surrounding it, is nearly all owned by the State of New
York. However, a variety of interest and community groups have become
increasingly involved in a coordinated Canalway revitalization
effort. This includes coordinated but locally based efforts to
benefit from and improve management of the publicly owned resource.
State and federal policy have greatly stimulated this involvement in
recent years. In a country where a multiplicity of local governments
regulate private land use and private property rights are exalted,
this example emphasizing community/private sector management of a
public resource was selected as a case study because it has greater
incidence on a landscape scale than its vanishingly rare mirror
image, namely private or community management of landscapes primarily
owned by private property interests.

The Canal itself was a
nineteenth century engineering triumph that harnessed the elemental
forces of gravity and water in the service of commerce, thereby
enabling a dramatic transformation of the natural landscape. The
vitality of both Canal and landscape dimmed in the modern era. This
case study first establishes a historical and a policy context
including an overview of attempts to reinvigorate the Canal on a
statewide basis. With reference to several community attempts to
recover the canal as a resource for trail and related uses, it then
elaborates on evolving community roles in managing the intertwined
physical, cultural, environmental, and economic elements of this
recovering and complex landscape system. I conclude by drawing on
several strains of relevant literature that can be fruitfully
referenced to help place a broader framework around the case.

The New York State
Canal System

The renowned Erie
Canal cuts like a thin ribbon through the topography of upstate New
York. The 348 mile long navigable portion of the historic waterway
connects the twin cities of the Tonawandas, just north of the once
great City of Buffalo in the westernmost reaches of New York State,
to the small village of Waterford (population 2,204) in the eastern
part of the state. Waterford, located at the juncture of the Hudson
and Mohawk rivers, proudly claims to be the oldest continuously
incorporated village in the United States. Three ancillary canals,
the Champlain, the Oswego, and the Cayuga-Seneca, append 176
additional navigable miles of canalized river and land-cut channel
segments to constitute the modern Barge Canal System. Counting
parts of the “old Erie” that are no longer navigable,
three-hundred and eighteen villages, towns, and cities are
immediately adjacent.

The Canal was dubbed
“Clinton’s Folly” by those who initially
disparaged Governor DeWitt Clinton’s zealous promotion of a
“bond of union” that would join the waters of Hudson
River, and thereby the Atlantic Ocean, to those of the Niagara River
and the Great Lakes. The mule- and man-constructed canal required
dozens of locks to overcome the elevation differential of more than
500 feet, and was designed to take advantage of channelized natural
stream flow while also depending on canal walls that had to be hewn
out of bedrock and constructed through stabilized wetlands.
“Clinton’s Ditch” was considered an engineering
marvel without parallel when it was completed two years ahead of
schedule in October 1825. Cutting the costs of overland freight by
a factor of ten, the success of the Canal surpassed expectations in
short order, with the entire costs of construction recovered in less
than a decade–approximately the same time that had been required to
build the Canal.ⁱⁱ

The Canal literally
transformed the face of New York State and beyond. By dramatically
reducing the overland travel time from the Atlantic Coast to the
Great Lakes, the mule-drawn vessels on the Erie Canal opened a
functional corridor into the heartland of the continent and
facilitated, as Clinton had predicted, “the greatest inland
trade ever witnessed”. The Canal generated vast public and
private wealth, lined the pockets of leading politicians of the
time, and was the proximate instrument of dispossession of the
native Iroquois peoples from their land.ⁱⁱⁱ Further realizing Clinton’s vision of New York City as “the
granary of the world, the emporium of commerce, the seat of
manufactures, the focus of great moneyed operations, and the
concentrating point of vast disposable, and accumulating capitals”^iv,
it established New York over other eastern settlements as the
premier city on the eastern seaboard, and served as the foundation
upon which the “Empire State” was built.

This towering legacy
waned in accord with the great cycles of change in transportation
and energy technology (animal, water, coal, and later
petroleum-fueled) manifested in the unfolding of the industrial
revolution. Competition from the railroads, and much later from the
St. Lawrence Seaway and the interstate highway system, thoroughly
undermined the Canal’s significance as an engine of commerce.
Commercial traffic on the Canal reached its pinnacle in the 1870’s
and declined precipitously through 1920. Canal reconstruction
enabled a modern resurgence that achieved a lesser peak in 1951.
During the latter quarter of the 20^th Century, commercial
tonnage nearly disappeared from the Canal, abandoning the waterway
almost exclusively to a modestly sized fleet of recreational
boaters.

In tandem with its
declining commercial importance, the canal system also receded into
the landscape as a physical presence. The original canal was a
standardized width of only 40 feet and was four feet deep. After a
series of realignments and improvements the modern Barge Canal
channels vary in width from 75 feet to 200 feet in river
sections^v–still
less than the minimum right-of-way width of the New York State
Thruway. Many of the lateral canal segments that existed at the
height of the canal-building era are now buried under earth, debris,
or buildings and are identifiable only to the most discerning eye or
because a business name or roadside plaque is rooted in Canal
history. As the end of the 20^th Century approached, many
of the remaining navigable sections of the Canal had also visibly
diminished into decay, disuse, neglect, and irrelevance.
Recognizing a critical juncture, federal funds in the 1980’s
were required to quite simply “save the system from impending
closure and ruin.”^vi Once a symbol of wealth, power, and success, the contemporary Canal,
where noticed at all, more often signified stagnation and
obsolescence.^vii

Nonetheless, even
modern maps of New York State that do not include the blue line of
the waterway vividly portray its bequest to the present. The Canal
is indicated in a palimpsest wherein the Canal is hidden behind the
parallel and successor transportation systems of rail and road.
Map displays of many variables signal the Canal’s presence.
With only a couple of exceptions, for example, every major city and
more than three-fourths of the inhabitants of New York State are
located along the former New York City to Buffalo trade route. The
Canal Corridor transect links urban and rural in a rhythmic necklace
of the large and small communities the Canal nurtured in their
infancies. The maps show less desirable legacies, too. As at many
older working waterfronts with a history of intensive commercial and
industrial use, along with the history and the artifacts, hidden
under the weeds and silence of the land and waters, are troublesome
caches of toxic chemicals and other pollutants. In this ignored
landscape one finds cesspool along with jewel.

The visual imprint of
the legacy is also largely captured in representations of the frayed
economy of upstate New York, which lately has suffered alongside the
long-since neglected Canal. In recent decades the dominant ills,
driven by factors as diverse as weather, technology, and corporate
globalism, have been evident in deindustrialization and the shift to
a low-wage service-based economy, an aging population and
infrastructure, persistently high unemployment, the decaying
downtowns and creeping suburban sprawl of the “thinning
metropolis”^viii,
municipal fiscal stress, and absent to sluggish population, income,
and economic growth. While more rural and isolated parts of the
state have been even more disadvantaged, the pulse of commerce
through the Canal Corridor at the turn of the century remained
notably weak. Whether the metric is population or poverty, the
Canal’s fingerprints on the landscape remain far more visible
than the Canal itself.

Canal and Policy:
State and Federal Revitalization Programs

On December 21, 2000,
the United States Congress signed into law the Erie Canalway
National Heritage Corridor Act. The new Erie Canalway National
Heritage Corridor, like several others around the country,
represents an extraordinary institutional evolution within the
system of national parks. The nation’s 23 Heritage Corridors
are distinguished from most parks operated by the National Park
Service by the fact that the federal government does not own or
manage any significant land or resources. Nor does it wield any
regulatory authority over the “municipalities, businesses,
nonprofit historical and environmental organizations, educational
institutions, [and] many private citizens” that work with the
Heritage Corridor Commission “in partnerships to protect the
[Corridor’s] special identity and prepare for its future.”^ix

This Erie Canalway
National Heritage Corridor act represented the culmination to date
of decades of dreams and effort to invest new value in the natural
and constructed resource that had lain for many years like a virtual
discard on the rubbish heap of transportation history.^x Community leaders, individual history buffs and local heritage
associations, canalside and recreational business interests,
government agencies at all levels, and politicians representing the
Canal Corridor communities all had a role. Part of the motivating
force, and more of the associated rhetoric, was applied to the
vision of revitalizing the economically struggling communities that
once thrived alongside the Canal.

Proceeding from a
mandate to support “preservation of the Canalway’s
cultural and natural resources and economic revitalization”,
the Act authorized $10 million of federal assistance over a ten year
period. The modest federal investment is expected to provide the
basis for leveraging additional resources. With administrative
authority vested in a newly created National Heritage Corridor
Commission, this seed money was granted in order to develop and
begin to implement a fresh, systemwide “Canalway Plan”
that would help :

• Identify, preserve,
  promote, maintain, and interpret the historical, natural, cultural,
  scenic and recreational resources of the Erie Canalway
• Build a partnership
  between the State of New York, the federal government, and the
  communities within the Heritage corridor to develop integrated
  cultural, historical, recreational, and tourism-related economic and
  community development programs to enhance and interpret the unique
  and nationally significant resources of the Erie Canalway.

The still emerging
National Heritage Corridor Commission consists of 27 members
including seven state agency representatives, the US Secretary of
the Interior, and 19 “community representatives”. The
latter, 13 of whom were selected directly by their Congressional
representatives, represent in nearly equal proportions public and
private sector interests and expertise ranging across local
government and regional planning, economic and community
development, historic preservation and cultural management, and
education and tourism. One of the six at-large members is
explicitly required to “have knowledge and experience”
of the pre-existing and ongoing, state-directed Canal Recreationway
Commission.^xi

About a decade before
the creation of the national Heritage Corridor, dedicated advocates
had first succeeded in raising the public profile of the Canal
legacy to a state-wide level. In 1992, the New York State
Legislature declared that “it is essential that the beauty,
historic character, and environmental integrity of the canals be
preserved for future generations.”^xii Building on the less public and antecedent efforts of the 1980’s
to rescue the state-owned Canal infrastructure from “ruin”,
the legislation shifted oversight of the system of locks, canals,
and feeder reservoirs out of the massive state transportation
bureaucracy and into the jurisdiction of the independent,
toll-funded Thruway Authority. The legislature’s actions
followed hard on the heels of a direct public effort to shore up the
financial future of the Canal; during the 1991 general election 57%
of the voters of the state had approved a constitutional revision to
permit long-term leasing of state-owned Canal land and the
re-imposition of a long absent toll system.

Significantly, the
Legislature recognized that the future of the canal was linked to
its viability as a tourism and recreation-oriented resource. With
this in mind, the legislation mandated creation of a “Canal
Recreationway Commission” and completion by 1994 of a
canalwide “Recreationway Plan.” Assigned several
classic citizen planning commission roles, the newly formed
Commission was established as the body responsible for preparation
and stewardship of the Plan, and was also charged with advising the
Thruway Authority’s Canal Corporation on its new
responsibilities for the management of state-owned Canal property
and facilities. The Commission is comprised of 24 members. The
fourteen voting members include representatives with interests in
canal preservation and enhancement from local government, key state
agencies, and the private and business sectors. Nonvoting members
represent several other state agencies and eight regional planning
boards.

Between these major
state and federal legislative events, several other important policy
and program elements in support of Canal revitalization were also
developed.^xiii Implementing the State’s mandate, in late 1995 the
Recreationway Commission and Canal Corporation Board adopted a
Recreationway Plan.^xiv The Plan employed a definition of the Recreationway as “a
linear park to be developed for boating and other recreational use,
taking advantage of the Canal’s historic heritage, conserving
its beauty and natural character, and utilizing recreationway
improvements to enhance the economic development potential of the
Canal.”^xv The Plan was funded by the state and produced by professional
planning consultants. It drew from regional plans that had been
prepared by Regional Planning Boards, and the Commission solicited
additional public input through a series of public meetings and
regional focus groups involving citizens, businesses, and a variety
of canal interest groups. It was in this sense a participatory and
cumulative process, though as in many “upstream” and
largely noncontroversial planning and economic development efforts,
the level of awareness and engagement of the broad population of the
extensive region was varied across the region’s geography.

In 1996 a five year
$32.3 million “Revitalization Program” was adopted for
implementation of the State plan. Linked to key Plan priorities,
the Revitalization Program emphasized marketing the recreational
features of the Canal, provision of boating services and related
recreation amenities at seven “gateway harbors” and many
smaller “service ports”, and work on a Canalway bicycle
and pedestrian trail system.

Also in late 1996, the
federal government’s Department of Housing and Urban
Development announced the “Canal Corridor Initiative”
(CCI). This high-profile initiative pledged over $100 million in
grants and loans to qualifying (generally smaller) Canal Corridor
communities in 32 New York counties. The CCI was creatively funded
out of several repackaged components of the nation’s
long-standing and largest source of federal community development
aid, the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program. Although
the CDBG program had several statutory and administrative
limitations that constrained its suitability for its intended
purposes,^xvi the CCI was aimed squarely at economic development along the Canal
Corridor, and in particular tourism and recreation-related job
creation. In this sense, although in several ways overlapping and
even competitive, the CCI had a much different emphasis than the
state programs which gave stronger weight to basic planning and to
development of waterfront infrastructure.

The CCI was also
touted as a program that would both create regional synergies across
the breadth of the Canal Corridor and be locally driven.^xvii “Local drive” was compatible with the flexible,
block-granted nature of the CDBG. The CDBG’s competitive
Small Cities Program, which was the main source of CCI grants, was
certainly capable of rewarding projects derived, as envisioned, from
“plans that are developed in each community, with maximum
citizen involvement.”^xviii Communities with strong grantsmanship and administrative capacities,
especially those that had been built through previous interactions
with the CDBG program, were in practice the most successful in
getting and using CCI funds to achieve local goals.^xix Citizen involvement in the CCI has not been systematically
analyzed. However, standard CDBG community solicitation,
notification, and hearing procedures were followed. Decisions on
proposed economic development projects and financial packages are
typically made by a local agency or authority with public review and
comment and final approval by the federal funding agency. Except in
unusual or controversial cases, participation in the process
typically does not extend beyond project principals and primary
affected stakeholders – landowners, agency representatives,
occasionally project neighbors or competing businesses.

The Canalway Trail

The state’s
Recreationway Plan identified an “end-to-end” 500 mile
off-road Canalway trail as the nascent Canal-related asset with the
second greatest recreational potential after boating. The trail,
insofar as feasible, would shadow the old mule tow paths along the
canal. The trail was conceptualized as a major feature in a future
greenway system to be created along the Canal so as to conserve open
space between existing development clusters. As of the mid-1990’s,
the Plan’s inventory identified 220 miles (40% of the total)
of trail as already extant, of which about half was complete and
half required improvements. Public agencies controlled the
right-of-way for about half of the undeveloped portion of the trail,
while another 150 miles needed to be acquired. The Plan identified
two major constraints to completion of the trail system: the
government’s lack of land ownership or management control on
significant portions of the canal route, and a general tendency for
adjacent property owners anxious about a host of possible intrusions
to question or resist public trail development.^xx

In an attempt to
engage the benefits of a unified trail system while accommodating
local diversity in land use contexts as well as diverse public
preferences, the Plan proposed that trail design and usage rules
balance uniformity with local flexibility. It recommended further
the maximization of opportunities for multiple and inclusive trail
uses. The Plan also called for the support of public/private formal
and informal partnerships to help formulate regional trail-use
guidelines, enforcement policies, and maintenance strategies.
Coordination and recruitment of local volunteers for the purposes of
trail development and maintenance through an Adopt-a-Trail
(“friends” of the trail) program was recommended^xxi;
as was a mechanism to recruit adjacent landowners to a trail
monitoring program.

Statewide
Structures of Support^xxii

The New York Parks and
Conservation Association (NYPCA), a pre-existing organization, was
hired as a consultant to the NYS Canal Corporation. It has taken on
several well defined roles, but primarily helps to manage the new
trails organization, the Canalway Trails Association of NYS. The
NYPCA both staffs the Association and provides it a non-profit
umbrella. Initially, NYPCA did research on existing organizational
structures that had been employed elsewhere, conducted a series of
nine public workshops across the state, sponsored a cross-state
bicycle tour, and conducted two annual statewide Canalway Trail
conferences. The NYPCA also drafted standardized design maintenance
and management guidelines. These activities culminated in submission
of a report to a 20 member steering committee^xxiii that had been established jointly by the National Park Service
(through its outreach-oriented Rivers, Trails and Conservation
Assistance Program) and the New York State Canal Corporation. The 20
person Steering Committee had broad membership, focusing most
importantly on current and potential trail users and representatives
of local governments (especially planners), as well as existing
local and regional organizations like the Finger Lakes Trail Council
and the local grassroots tourism promoting organization PACT
(Partners along the Canalway Trail).

The trail management
structure that was recommended and adopted has three levels. First,
an overall board of directors was formed and meets monthly on
statewide issues and broader policy and program development. The
board members are constituted by one elected representative from
each regional (normally county-based) group, and three at-large
members. Second are the regional Canalway Trail groups. These
exist at the county and local level. Membership is open and locally
determined, with a priority on trail users and major stakeholders
like municipal government. The regional groups are typically
comprised of local governments, some state agency representatives,
individual trail users, and representatives of any organized local
trail groups. Their primary roles are recruitment of local trail
groups, oversight and organization of trail maintenance, event
programming, and local planning. Their mandate includes preparation
of a local management plan.^xxiv The third level is the local “adopt-a-trail” groups.
These are the groups that “do” more than “talk”.
They work literally on the ground to monitor trail conditions in
specific locations, organize clean-up days, clear brush, maintain
signs, and similar activities.

While the
Recreationway Plan acknowledged the central role of the State’s
Canal Corporation, it and the NYPCA recommendations highlighted
partnership with other public and private sector organizations as a
key ingredient of successful trailway management. A number of
examples of pre-existing partnerships with local groups, other state
agencies, and municipal governments were cited and evaluated. Among
organizations mentioned in the Plan was the pre-existing Glen Falls
Feeder Canal Alliance. The community-based Alliance was held up as
one of several models of community-based organizations worthy of
cultivation and emulation canalwide.

Glen Falls Feeder
Canal Alliance^xxv

The Glen Falls Feeder
Canal Alliance (GFFCA) was founded in 1987. Part of the state’s
canal system, the Feeder Canal is a stone and concrete lined seven
mile length of canal that originates in Warren County and passes
through six municipalities to terminate in Washington County. Only a
couple of feet deep, it functions hydrologically as a water supply
“feeder” for the Champlain Canal. Five miles are
navigable by canoe, and after upgrades sought by the GFFCA and
implemented by NY State, it is now possible to bike or walk along
the entire length, with a short exception, on a 10 foot wide graded
towpath surfaced with stone dust. The path connects along an
additional four mile stretch into the village of Fort Edwards.

The GFFCA had its
origins in the late 1980’s. By then, a retired local
schoolteacher and environmentalist had grown distressed enough at
the deterioration of the Feeder Canal area to take action in
response. Inspired by canal development in nearby Canada, she began
to organize friends and neighbors who shared her concern about the
“eyesore” in the community. A handful of these local
citizens came together to start an informal organization, which
initially set a project driven agenda on a more or less meeting by
meeting basis. The dominant concerns of the group were environmental
and aesthetic, with clean-up of the canal and its environs a top
priority. Along with trash, additional environmental problems -
sewage leaks, industrial toxics contamination, and poorly managed
storm water drainage – were identified. Pride in community and
interest in promoting the Feeder Canal’s history were also
high. The group successfully found sponsors in local businesses,
and organized clean-ups to remove tons of rubbish on a volunteer
basis from the Canal.

From this
straightforward beginning, a larger organization with a broader
agenda, formal board, dues paying membership, and paid staff
emerged. With foundation support, an office was opened in 1990.
Part-time staff was hired in 1992. A strong interest in park,
recreational, and trail development of the Canal materialized
alongside the initial environmental concerns. Over time, the
Alliance has promoted awareness of the canal through
institutionalization of a number of festivals, exhibits, clean-up
days, historic biking and walking tours, canoe races, and similar
activities.

By 1990 six GFFCA
goals had been identified:

• Promote awareness of
  the heritage of the Canal
• Prevent further
  deterioration of the Canal
• Seek contemporary uses for
  the Canal
• Encourage the six
  municipalities, the State, and two Counties to work together to
  build, maintain, and preserve the Feeder Canal Park
• Support compatible
  development and recreational uses along the Feeder Canal
• Research the possibilities
  of physical restoration of the Feeder Canal

The GFFCA is now a
membership organization which boasts approximately 300 members and a
$38,000 annual budget. The budget is derived from memberships,
major fundraising events (e.g. an annual canoe race), corporate
sponsors, regional arts council and other government and foundation
grants, and sales of t-shirts, notecards, and mugs. The board of up
to fifteen members draws on supporters from several of the
communities along the Canal. It includes diverse individuals such
as retirees, teachers, cyclists, bankers, historians, professional
grant writers, local zoning board members, and staff working in city
hall. The organization regularly fields calls from individuals in
other Canal communities interested in starting something similar in
their community.

As elsewhere, the NYS
Canal Corporation owns the Feeder Canal and related structures
itself. Private citizens and corporations (e.g. a cement company, a
timber company) own immediately adjacent property. None of the
trail that has been developed crosses private property and a short
gap exists where one corporate owner was concerned about potential
liability issues.

The trail and park
areas are maintained cooperatively by GFFCA volunteers and the NYS
Canal Corporation. Major debris and overgrowth are cleared
annually, and historical interpretative signage has been installed
at key trail locations. A number of adjacent owners contribute to
trail aesthetics by planting flowers or allowing use of benches on
their property. There have been adjacent landowners on the Board in
the past, and the GFFCA has not received any negative comments from
property owners along the trail. The many trail users and adjacent
landowners contribute to the task of monitoring the condition of the
Canal and trail, and the more rural parts of the trail are more
difficult to police.

After adjacent
municipalities, the New York State Department of Economic
Development, corporations, foundations, local service groups and
clubs, and individuals all contributed funds for a formal planning
effort, in July 1990 a Feeder Canal Park Master Plan was published,
incorporated into a regional Champlain Canal Corridor Study
published in 1993, and followed by a Master Plan update in October
2000. The original master plan was guided by a 30 member Advisory
Task force including representatives of the GFFCA; state, local, and
federal government politicians and agencies; historical and Canal
organizations; private sector individuals and consultants

The professionally
produced 1990 Master Plan included the area visible from the canal
towpath as its primary study area, an area encompassing natural,
rural, industrial, commercial, residential, and scenic features.
The Master Plan includes inventories and recommendations concerning
recreation and visual features, park preservation and operation,
interpretation and education, administration, funding, land and
easement acquisition, local zoning and legislative initiatives, and
promotion and economic development.

The locally conceived
master plan created the foundation for success in future projects,
grant writing, and strengthened partnerships with state and federal
agencies. Major accomplishments highlighted in the 2000 Plan update
include:

• Establishment of the
  Feeder Canal Park and recognition of Park status in the State’s
  Recreationway Plan
• Completion of the
  restoration of the Feeder Canal Towpath and on-street connections to
  the Warren County Bikeway
• Creation of a tri-county
  multi-use trail and advances made in bikeway development using
  federal TEA-21 Transporation Enhancement Grant funds
• Acceptance in May 2000 of
  Route 4 as a designated Scenic Byway, including the Feeder Canal

In all, nearly 100
specific accomplishments accomplished or stimulated by the GFFCA
between 1990 and 2000 are inventoried. They range from early
clean-up events to boat launch construction to recruitment of
companies and organizations for an Adopt-a-Canal Program; from local
plantings for visual screening to tow-path restoration to pedestrian
bridge construction; from creation of a self-guided Canal tour to
systematization of safety incident reporting with the NYS Police to
production of a folklore video; and from website creation to
acquisition of private property for the park to implementation of a
trail usage survey. Overall, the list of GFFCA milestones is one
showing evidence of increasing sophistication, breadth of capacity,
and success building upon success.

In existence years
before a statewide organizational structure was established, the
GFFCA has remained distinct from the formal organizational structure
of the Canalway Trails Association of NYS. Were its relationship to
be formalized, it would be the equivalent of a regional Canalway
Trail group. In sum, this is an organization has remained
fundamentally nested in its local origins, structure, and agenda
while successfully taking advantage of the many funding,
partnership, and implementation opportunities that have arisen as
first the state and then the nation as a whole turned their
attention and resources to the historic Canal system.

Regional Canalway
Trail Group for Monroe County

In contrast to the
GFFCA, the Monroe County case represents a situation in which the
locality has been formally drawn into the new statewide
organizational structure. David Schaeffer is the Monroe County
Regional Canalway Trail Group’s representative to the
statewide Canalway Trails Association.^xxvi Membership in the regional organization is open and 12-15 people
typically attend a given meeting. Most are trail users, with no
adjacent landowners involved. Participants even at the regional
level tend to be “doers” rather than “paper
workers”; work on a regional management plan is incomplete but
underway.

The organizational
interests at this regional level range from promoting community
spirit and monitoring trail conditions to maintaining viability of
the trail as an element contributing to the attractiveness of the
area as a tourism destination. Concerns about maintaining scenic,
pleasant viewshed have been expressed, and some attention has been
given to political and planning issues. Recommendations to the
County Environmental Management Council, for example, addressed land
use control issues along the Canal Corridor. Measures to support
Bed and Breakfast, café development, and the like were
supported, as was creation of special permits for signage and
protective zoning along the corridor. Especially within the context
of the Heritage Corridor designation, it is deemed important that
visitor “experience lives up to expectations”.

A relatively small
number of participants share a broader management agenda which is
expressed in part through Schaeffer’s representation on the
statewide organization. This is where lobbying for fundamental
trail use issues occurs: which sections should be paved, where
horses or snowmobilers ought to be allowed, statewide coordination
of trail etiquette rules, and so forth.

A retiree from Kodak
Corporation, Schaeffer has been involved in local trail promotion
for more than 30 years. A former member of the Town of Perinton
Conservation Advisory Board and then Town Planning Board, he helped
establish over 30 miles of footpaths linking protected open spaces
in the town. Much of this accomplishment was enabled through the
adaptive reuse of an interurban electric trolley bed that had been
in service between 1906 and 1931.^xxvii Schaeffer describes his role in large part as that of networker and
communicator. A former local conservation board, planning board,
and then recreation and parks commission member, he maintains
relations, and attends meetings, with many individuals and
organizations ranging from Canal Corporation regional staff to
concerned local citizens.

The Town had actually
promoted a major section of Canalway trail even before the statewide
Recreationway plan was developed. As summarized by a local
chronicler of the area movement to develop trails, interest in trail
development was ripe by the time the state’s plans had
matured:

Our trail revolution began
long ago but gained force in 1980 with the establishment of a
volunteer [501(c)3 nonprofit] organization called Crescent Trail
Hiking Association, Inc. Setting a precedent for our area, the
Crescent Trails group negotiated with private landowners and worked
with government officials in the town of Perinton to develop a
network of interconnected hiking trails. Within ten years they had
built over 27 miles of trails and earned the honorable title of
“Trail Town USA” for their efforts. It is a title bestowed
by the American Hiking Association to communities that use trails to
provide exercise for the body, stimulation of the mind and senses,
and a personal connection with the community’s natural beauty
and past history. ^xxviii

The same author also
establishes a broader, regional context that indicates the growing
regional motivation and interest in trail establishment and
restoration.

As the decades
passed… people longed to be reconnected with nature and
began to feel the need to save some natural lands from the
steam-roll of progress. And, so the revolution began. Crescent
Trails was one of the first in the Rochester area. It was quickly
followed by volunteer groups from many other towns, each patterning
their process after the Crescent Trail model. Victor Hiking Trails,
Pittsford Trails Coalition, Friends of Webster Trails, Macedon
Trails Committee, Ontario Pathways all began in the 1990s to
preserve and protect private lands, the canal towpaths, and
abandoned railways of our area.

The Crescent Trail
organization draws primarily on the Village of Fairport for its
approximately 200 person dues-paying membership base. The
organization generates income of about $2,300 per year, produces a
newsletter, and organizes a variety of events. It is volunteer-run,
but in certain respects is able to act as an official agent of the
town. The greater area trail system is on town-owned and private
land. Term easements or revocable permits are the common property
instruments used to establish public rights to trail use on private
land. No easements and permits established to date have terminated.

Schaeffer, active in
the local organization, had attended the state sponsored meetings
intended to mobilize Canalway Adopt-a-Trail volunteers statewide.
When the call for pilot communities came, Perinton volunteered its
existing trail system and Schaeffer helped recruit volunteers for a
local Adopt-a-Trail committee, targeting boy and girl scouts, high
schoolers, church groups, runners, walkers and other trail users.
Schaeffer collaborated closely with the economic development
director of the Village of Fairport on this effort. He also took
the state’s Adopt-a-Trail template language for working
agreements between localities and the Canal Corporation and adapted
it to local circumstances.

In Fall of 2000, the
Village announced its Adopt-a-Trail project. The Canalway Trail
section in the Village was divided into six segments for adoption,
with four groups initially expressing interest in adopting a portion
of the canal path: the office of Assemblyman David Koon, the Rotary
Interact Youth Group, Fairport High School Leo Club, and ten adult
volunteers. Since 2000, other businesses like pizza restaurants and
engineering firms have also understood the benefits of trail
promotion and adopted trail sections. A small trailside sign
acknowledges their contribution.

According to
Schaeffer, local trail maintenance activities have proceeded apace
even without the formal blessing of approved contractual language or
work permits by the State. Concerns were raised relating to
liability issues, but volunteer groups have now been granted general
liability and workers compensation protection by the Canal
Corporation. There have been other minor stresses trying to
reconcile the bureaucratic needs of the State with the enthusiasm
and “just do it” momentum of the volunteers. Typical
trail maintenance activities include trash removal, bramble
trimming, flower planting, fallen limb removal, and graffiti
removal, as well as work on kiosks and benches. Volunteers are
prohibited from interfering with Canal users or the infrastructure
of the Canal itself.

A summary description
of the status of the Monroe County Trailway group in many ways
echoes that of the GFFCA. There are certainly differences in
organizational structure and organizational development, but the
similarities are striking. By the time the state and then federal
government had established programs supporting Canal restoration and
redevelopment, community groups in both areas already had
established agendas and a grassroots organizational presence. Both
places represent successful models that the statewide organizational
superstructure is now trying to seed across the length of the
envisioned Canalway trail. In each case, much of the local interest
in Canal revitalization has been driven by local trail user
constituencies. Environmental, cultural, and open space protection
concerns have been important motivators of local groups. Key
organizers and personalities, as well as success in obtaining
support from local business and government, have helped stabilized
the successful membership based organizations. As the organizations
have matured, and no doubt partly in response to the programmatic
agendas of state and national promotion and funding opportunities,
local agendas and the extent of comprehensive planning efforts have
broadened.

Looking beyond the
specifics of the Canal Recreationway Trail system, it is perhaps
fitting to close the case studies with a description of the Monroe
County “trail revolution” that might be fairly applied
to many other parts of state and even country:

The beauty of the
trail revolution is the head of steam it now has pushing it. All
over our area volunteer groups and government agencies are working
independently and in cooperative efforts to build sections of
trails. There is no overall master plan, no overarching
authoritative body directing the efforts. But, it’s clear to
all involved that the end will be far greater than the sum of all
the parts. The rail beds converted to trails converge with the canal
towpaths which link to the trails through our parks and private
lands. It creates a network of trails available for all of us to
enjoy on an afternoon’s stroll or a weeklong bicycling
holiday. Today the segments of trail available are scattered across
the region like jacks tossed from a child’s hand. With
continued work and generosity from landowners we’ll be able to
connect the loose jacks and achieve an interconnected trail
network.^xxix

i Cited in Goodwin, Mark, “The Governance of Rural Areas: Some
Emerging Research Issues and Agendas”, Journal of Rural
Studies, 14:1(5-12), January 1998.

ii Finch, Roy G. The Story of the New York State Canals: Historical
and Commercial Information, Albany New York, New York State
Canal Coproration, 1925.

iiiHauptman,
Laurence M., Conspiracy of Interests: Iroquois
dispossession and the rise of New York, Syracuse, N.Y. :
Syracuse University Press, 1999.

iv Quoted in Finch, op cit.

v NYS Canal Recreationway Commission, New York State Canal
Recreationway Plan, 1995:4.6.

vi Ryan, Thomas J., “The New Erie Canal”, State Council on
Waterways. See http://www.scow.net/scow_the_new_erie_canal.htm

vii Despite its commercial decline, the Canal system has continually
played a functionally significant if low profile role in hydrology
and water supply management, power generation, irrigation, flood
plain management, and (increasingly) recreation.

viii Rolf Pendall, “National Experts Convene at Cornell on the
Thinning Metropolis”, The
Thinning Metropolis Conference, Ithaca,
New York, September 8-9, 2000. See
http://www.lincolninst.edu/main.html

ix National Park Service, Blackstone River Valley National Heritage
Corridor. See http://www.nps.gov/blac/

x Michael Thompson, Rubbish Theory: The Creation and Destruction of
Value, New York, Toronto, and Melbourne, Oxford University
Press, 1979.

xi One new commission member (appointments were announced in April of
2002) in fact sits on the State Commission. Despite widespread
support for the national designation, the membership of the new
federal commission was a matter of some controversy and politicking.
Issues of state and local control versus federal control were in
evidence throughout the approval process, and the federal
legislation moved forward only after national elections presented
Republican Governor Pataki of New York State with a Republican
controlled Congress and White House. The politics were further
complicated by the fact that Canal revitalization efforts had
originated with the Democrat predecessor Governor Pataki had
defeated, Mario Cuomo. Moreover, Cuomo’s son Andrew, in his
role as Secretary of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development under President Clinton, had promoted canal
revitalization with federal funds (see discussion of the Canal
Corridor Initiative below) and shortly after leaving office became a
leading Democrat gubernatorial candidate challenging Pataki’s
reelection.

xii Chapter 766 of the Laws of 1992 as amended, New York State
Legislature

xiii NYS Canal Corporation, Canal Recreationway Commission. See
http://www.canals.state.ny.us/welcome/canalrec.html

xiv New York State Canal Recreationway Commission, New York State
Canal Recreationway Plan, New York State Canal Corporation,
August 1995.

xv Ibid.

xvi See Francis, Joe, David Kay, Ragendra de Sousa, and Kai Schafft,
“Economic Impacts of Federal Economic Development Funds:
Tracking the Canal Corridor Initiative”, Community
Development Research Briefs and Case Studies, Vol 9. No. 1.
Cornell Community and Rural Development Institute, Ithaca New York.
Fall 2001.

xvii Office of Community Planning and Development, Canal Corridor
Initiative: Connecting Communities, a Framework for Comprehensive
Development, US Department of Housing and Urban Development,
December 1996.

xviii Ibid.

xix Francis, et. al. (op. cit.).

xx NYS Canal Recreationway Commision, op. cit., 4.19.

xxi Inspiration came especially from the many well-established Adopt a
Highway programs and the NYS Department of Conservation’s
Adopt a Natural Resource Stewardship Program (Section 9-0113, NYS
Environmental Conservation Law; effective July 28, 1995.)

xxii Notes from conversation with David Adler, NYPCA, May 2002.

xxiiiCanalway
Trail Partnership Project, Canalway Trail Management
Organization: Report of Research Findings and Recommendations, April
2000.

xxiv . Cognizant that local land use authority in New York as a “home
rule” state is overwhelmingly vested in local cities, towns,
and villages, any state management recommendations remain as
“guidelines”.

xxv Sources include the GFFCA web site, the Feeder Canal Park Master
Plan (1990) and Update (2000), and interviews with GFFCA staff
person Kim Meade in May of 2002.

xxvi Much of the following is based on an interview with David Schaffer,
May 2002.

xxviiSee
http://www.footprintpress.com/Rochester/perintonHikeBike.htm

xxviii See Freeman, Sue, “A Trail Revolution” at
http://www.footprintpress.com/Articles/trailrevolution.htm

xxix Ibid