Connecting Stories,

Landscapes, and People: 

Exploring the Delaware &

Lehigh National Heritage

Corridor Partnership

A Technical Assistance Project for the 

Delaware & Lehigh National Heritage Corridor 

Commission and the Delaware & Lehigh 

National Heritage Corridor, Inc.

National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

Conservation Study Institute

Northeast Region
Jim Thorpe, formerly Mauch Chunk,

was a center for commerce and

transportation.

This report is the ninth 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 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 helps the National Park Service and its partners stay in touch with

the evolving field of conservation and to develop more sophisticated

partnerships, new tools for community engagement, and new strategies for

the 21st century. The Institute is based at Marsh-Billings-Rockefeller

National Historical Park within the Northeast Region of the National Park

Service.

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

that you give appropriate citations and bibliographic credits. 

Recommended citation: Copping, Suzanne E., Philip B. Huffman, Daniel N.

Laven, Nora J. Mitchell, and Jacquelyn L. Tuxill. Connecting Stories,

Landscapes, and People: Exploring the Delaware & Lehigh National Heritage

Corridor. Sustainability Study Report. A Technical Assistance Project for the

Delaware & Lehigh National Heritage Corridor Commission and the

Delaware & Lehigh National Heritage Corridor, Inc. Woodstock, VT:

Conservation Study Institute, 2006.

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, 2004

No. 7 – Reflecting on the Past, Looking to the Future: Sustainability Study

Report. A Technical Assistance Report to the John H. Chafee Blackstone River

Valley National Heritage Corridor Commission, 2005

No. 8 – Keeping National Parks Relevant in the 21st Century, 2006 

All publications are available in PDF format at www.nps.gov/csi
Connecting Stories, 

Landscapes, and People: 

Exploring the Delaware & 

Lehigh National Heritage 

Corridor Partnership

Sustainability Study Report

A Technical Assistance Project for the 

Delaware & Lehigh National Heritage Corridor Commission

and the Delaware & Lehigh National Heritage Corridor, Inc.

Conducted by the

Conservation Study Institute

Northeast Region

National Park Service

Partially funded by the 

Pennsylvania Department of 

Conservation and Natural Resources

CONSERVATION AND STEWARDSHIP PUBLICATION NO. 9

Suzanne E. Copping, Philip B. Huffman, Daniel N. Laven, 

Nora J. Mitchell, and Jacquelyn L. Tuxill

Published by the Conservation Study Institute

Woodstock, Vermont

2006

Contents

Historic Bethlehem’s Colonial

Industrial Quarter is located at the

confluence of the Lehigh River and

Monocacy Creek.

Section I: Setting the Context 

Chapter 1: Background and Introduction to the

D&L Sustainability Study 5

A. The Scope and Methods of the D&L

Sustainability Study

B. The National Context

C. Organization of the Report

Chapter 2: Establishing the D&L National Heritage

Corridor 9

A. The Heritage of the D&L Corridor

B. The Origins of the Corridor Partnership

Chapter 3: The Existing Management Framework

for the D&L Corridor Partnership 15

A. Purpose, Vision, and Mission

B. Geographic Scope

C. Management Entity

D. Partners

E. Funding and Other Forms of Support

Section II: Assessing the D&L

Corridor Partnership 

Chapter 4: Pursuing the Corridor Vision: Progress,

Accomplishments, and Leverage 21

A. An Overview of Management Plan Progress

B. Observations on the D&L Corridor’s

Progress and Accomplishments

C. Program and Project Highlights

D. Investment and Leverage in the D&L

Corridor

E. The Corridor’s Influence on the Regional

Economy and Heritage Tourism

Chapter 5: Analyzing the Existing Management

Framework 39

A. Purpose, Vision, and Mission

B. Geographic Scope

C. Management Entity

D. Partners

E. Funding and Other Forms of Support

Chapter 6: Evaluating the D&L Partnership

System: The Partner Perspective 49

A. Perceived Strengths

B. Perceived Challenges

Section III: The Future of the D&L

Corridor 

Chapter 7: Identifying Critical Ingredients for

Sustained Success 58 

A. Structuring the Partnership System

B. Guiding the Partnership System

C. Cultivating the Partnership System

D. Considering Time in the Partnership System

Chapter 8: Management Options and

Opportunities 61

A. Management Entity Options

B. Options for Additional State, County, and

Municipal Government Involvement, with

Leadership by DCNR

C. Options for Additional National Park

Service Involvement

Chapter 9: Other Options and Opportunities for

the Future 67

A. Options and Opportunities for Investment

by the Management Entity

B. Options and Opportunities for Enhancing

Partnerships

C. Options and Opportunities Related to

Operations

D. Funding Considerations

Chapter 10: Closing Thoughts 73

Further Reading 74

Glossary of Terms and Acronyms

Used 75

Acknowledgments 76

Appendices 77

A. D&L Sustainability Study Methodology

B. Progress and Accomplishments in the D&L

Corridor
4 Connecting Stories, Landscapes, and People: Exploring the Delaware & Lehigh National Heritage Corridor Partnership 

RICKETTS GLEN

STATE PARK

13/57

206

206

Moon Lake Park

118

29

HARVEY'S LAKE

DALLAS

WEST WYOMING

WYOMING

FORTY FORT

EDWARDSVILLE

ASHLEY LAUREL RUN

PITTSTON

WILKES-BARRE

Swetland

Homestead

First Residents' Path

Anthracite Heritage Walk Wilkes-Barre/

Scranton Arena

Kirby Park

Huber Breaker

Seven Tubbs

Nature Area

118

309

309

115

292

91

91

FRANCES SLOCUM

STATE PARK

AVOCA

119/187

207 Crystal Lake

309

115

29 NANTICOKE

SHICKSHINNY

224

260

239

93

309

NESCOPECK

Council Cup Overlook

LUZERNE COUNTY SUSQUEHANNA RIVE R

119/187

NESCOPECK 

STATE PARK

WHITE HAVEN

EAST SIDE

149

40

129

Francis E. Walter Dam

Lake Harmony

Boulder Field National

Natural Landmark

HICKORY RUN

STATE PARK

940

437

534

534

903

141

141

141

LEHIGH GORGE

STATE PARK

LEHIGH GORGE

STATE PARK

ROCKPORT

WEATHERLY

NESQUEHONING

Eckley Miners' Village

AudubonAuto Tour

Audubon AutoTour

Lehigh Gorge Road

Eurana

Park

JIM THORPE

HAZLETON

93

93

CONYNGHAM

Audubon Auto Tour

BELTZVILLE

STATE PARK

LEHIGHTON

WEISSPORT

PARRYVILLE

PALMERTON

Lehigh Canal

Park

Mauch Chunk Lake Park

Carbon County Environmental Education Center

#9 Mine Museum

LANSFORD

SUMMIT

HILL

Molly McGuire Auto Tour

SwitchbackTrail

93

209

54

902

209

CARBON COUNTY

217

217

168

SLATINGTON

WALNUTPORT

Locktenders House

168

JACOBSBURG

STATE PARK

BATH NAZARETH

248 512

191

NORTHAMPTON COUNTY

33

191 512

611

Lake Minsi-Bear Swamp Park

Locktenders House

Locktenders House

EASTON

BETHLEHEM

FREEMANSBURG RAUBSVILLE

NORTHAMPTON

CATASAUQUA

33

611

22

145

Nor-B a thTrail

Troxell-Steckel

House

Saylor

Kilns Trexler-Lehigh County

Game Preserve

205

ALLENTOWN

JORDAN CREEK

106

217

Leaser Lake

LEHIGH COUNTY

309

143 309

100

22

309

222

100

309 378

Lehigh Valley Velodrome

Bob Rodale Fitness Park

ALBURTIS

EMMAUS

HELLERTOWN

RIEGELSVILLE

UPPER BLACK EDDY

UHLERSTOWN

Freemansburg Road

412

212

412

611

611

32 56

56

56

56

56

157

FRENCHTOWN, NJ

ERWINNA

DELAWARE CANAL

STATE PARK

NOCKAMIXON

STATE PARK

RALPH STOVER

STATE PARK

POINT PLEASANT

PIPERSVILLE

563

32

212

309

QUAKERTOWN

139

Old Bethlehem Pike

OldBethlehem Road

Lake Towhee

Park

196

139

PERKASIE DUBLIN

LUMBERVILLE

DOYLESTOWN

LAHASKA

CENTRE BRIDGE

NEW HOPE

Peace Valley

Park

Fonthill Park

Honey Hollow

Nature Center

Dark Hollow Park

Bowman's Hill

Wildflower Preserve

563 313

113

611 413

202

202

263

202

232

32

STOCKTON, NJ

LAMBERTVILLE, NJ

Washington's Crossing Historic Park

Churchville

Nature Center

Core Creek

Park

TYLER

STATE PARK

LANGHORNE

NEWTOWN YARDLEY

FALLSINGTON

TULLYTOWN

263

332

413

232

532

413

532

32

13

BUS

TRENTON, NJ

MORRISVILLE

BENSALEM BRISTOL

Pennsbury Manor

Silver Lake

Nature Center

Delaware River

Access

NESHAMINY

STATE PARK

NESH AMIN Y CREEK

D e l a w a r e R i v e r S c e n i c D r i v e

D e l a w a r e & R a r i t a n C a n a l ( N J ) Prahls Island

Tohickon Valley

D e l a w a r e R i v e r S c e n i c D r i v e

Palmer Rail-to_Trail

168

Carverton Road

BUCKS COUNTY

Airport

Bicycling

Canoe

Motor Boating

Camping

Canal Boat Rides

Covered Bridges

Equestrian

Fishing

Hiking

Historic Sites

Hostels

Information

Landings

Train Rides

Cross Country Skiing

Skiing

Snowmobile

Exit #

Trails

D & L Trail

New Jersey - PA Bridges

Interstates

Roads

Delaware & Raritan Cana

Delaware & Lehigh Canal

Auto Tours

D & L Drive

Major Watercourses

Local Parks

State Gamelands

State Parks

County Parks

Airport

Bicycling

Canoe

Motor Boating

Camping

Canal Boat Rides

Covered Bridges

Equestrian

Fishing

Hiking

Historic Sites

Hostels

Information

Landings

Train Rides

Cross Country Skiing

Skiing

Snowmobile

Exit #

Trails

D & L Trail

New Jersey - PA Bridges

Interstates

Roads

Delaware & Raritan Canal

Delaware & Lehigh Canals

Auto Tours

D & L Drive

Major Watercourses

Local Parks

State Gamelands

State Parks

County Parks

Delaware & Lehigh National Heritage Corridor 
SECTION I: SETTING THE CONTEXT

Chapter 1

Background and Introduction to the D&L Sustainability Study

1 Public Law 100-692.

2 See http://www.dcnr.state.pa.us/brc/heritageparks/ for further information on the Pennsylvania Heritage Parks Program.

At Weissport, remnants of a Lehigh

Canal lock make a great outdoor

classroom for the study of local

history and ecology.

Congress established the Delaware & Lehigh

National Heritage Corridor (Corridor) in 1988 as

the nation’s third national heritage area.1 In 1993

the Corridor was also designated as Pennsylvania’s third state heritage park.2 Located in the

eastern part of the state between Wilkes-Barre

and Bristol along 165 miles of rivers, canals, and

railroads, the Corridor conserves the historic

transportation network that brought anthracite

coal from the mines to the markets in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. 

The Corridor interprets the stories of the communities that grew up around the mountain

mines and along the transportation route, the

industries that flourished in the region because

of the availability of coal, and the people who

have lived and worked in the Corridor area. The

Corridor’s authorizing legislation also established the Delaware & Lehigh National Heritage

Corridor Commission (Commission) to assist

state and local authorities in preserving and

interpreting the Corridor’s historic and cultural

resources and in fostering compatible economic

development. The Commission’s authority is due

to expire in November 2007.

Facing the possible expiration of the Commission’s authority and federal funding, Corridor

management initiated the Delaware & Lehigh

(D&L) Sustainability Study in 2005 to document

accomplishments over the past 17 years, evaluate

how the Corridor partnership has worked, and

explore options for the future. Corridor management believed this study would help them make

better informed decisions about the future, provide a participatory approach that would engage

current and potential partners, and strengthen

the case for continued investment by key state

and federal partners. They also saw an opportunity to reflect on and learn from the past through

an approach that builds on research conducted

in other national heritage areas. By engaging in

this study, D&L management has demonstrated

a willingness to look critically at its accomplishments and consider adjustments to its partnership process in order to become more effective at

achieving Corridor goals. D&L management also

believes that its investment in a rigorous evaluation will inform the development of policy at the

national level that will benefit both existing and

emerging national heritage areas.

Chapter 1: Background and Introduction to the D&L Sustainability Study 5
6 Connecting Stories, Landscapes, and People: Exploring the Delaware & Lehigh National Heritage Corridor Partnership

Bethlehem Steel was a twentieth

century economic engine. In the

twenty-first century, it’s a key

heritage development opportunity.

A. The Scope and Methods of the D&L

Sustainability Study

The Commission asked the Conservation Study

Institute (Institute), a program of the National

Park Service Northeast Region, to provide technical assistance by conducting the sustainability

study, and identified four points that the study

should address:

• Evaluate progress toward accomplishing the

purposes of the Corridor’s authorizing legislation and the strategies set forth in the

Corridor’s Management Action Plan of 1993.

• Identify additional actions and work needed

to protect, enhance, and interpret the

Corridor and its nationally significant

resources.

• Analyze the National Park Service and

Pennsylvania Heritage Park Program (PHPP)

investments to determine the leverage and

impacts of these investments.

• Examine models, options, and opportunities

to enhance state and local partnerships and

to continue the NPS relationship, including

the possibility of a permanent NPS designation or a new framework to support the work

of the Corridor initiative.

In carrying out the study, the Institute’s project

team investigated three primary aspects of the

Corridor partnership’s efforts to date: (1) accomplishments and progress toward Corridor goals,

and the leveraging of public investments; (2) the

structure and operations of the current management framework; and (3) partners’ perspectives

on how the partnership has worked. The team

obtained data from various sources, including

the Corridor management plan, annual reports,

and other documentation of accomplishments

and leverage, and used a variety of participatory

techniques, including confidential interviews,

meetings, informal conversations, and focus

groups, to engage and gather insights from key

individuals. These included commissioners,

board members of the Commission’s nonprofit

operating partner Delaware & Lehigh National

Heritage Corridor, Inc. (D&L, Inc.), D&L staff,

Corridor partners, individuals who played

important roles in the Corridor’s formation, and

people with expertise in heritage areas and

partnerships. 

The study was carried out in three phases. Phase

one involved data collection in the three main

study areas identified above, followed by an

analysis of the strengths and challenges that

emerged from the data. In this phase individual

team members worked primarily within their

assigned study areas. In phase two the team

began a joint, iterative process of synthesis in

which each member shared insights from his or

her phase one analysis. Through joint analysis of

the study data, the team refined its understanding of the D&L partnership system and identified ingredients that are critical for sustaining

and enhancing this system in the future. In phase

three the team identified and analyzed options

and opportunities for sustaining and enhancing

the D&L partnership system. While the focus of

each phase was distinct, the three phases were

closely linked through the team’s collective synthesis, and the findings for each phase were

refined through the process of iterative analysis

as the study progressed. For more on the study

methodology, see appendix A.

B. The National Context

There is growing realization by Congress, the

National Park Service, and the public that heritage areas are an important direction in conservation. There are currently 27 national heritage

areas across the country, and legislation is pending in Congress to designate at least 17 new ones

and study eight more for possible designation.
With the number of national heritage areas

potentially about to double, in 2004 National

Park Service Director Fran Mainella asked the

National Park System Advisory Board to examine the future of national heritage areas and their

relationship to the National Park Service. The

board, composed of 13 citizens with various

kinds of expertise and a 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. 

After a year of deliberations, the board’s

Partnerships Committee reported its findings

and recommendations. The report finds that

among other things, “The national heritage area

approach, with its complex but essential networks of relationships and ability to leverage

resources for resource conservation and economic and community development, can serve

as a model for achieving NPS conservation goals

with multiple partners. The process, key elements, outcomes, and impacts need to be identified and better understood.” The report also recommends investing in research “to better understand the process of collaborative conservation

and partnership networks, and to better evaluate

the outcomes of designation and partnership on

resource conservation and community economic

development over time.” Finally, the committee

recommends establishing a legislative foundation

for a system of national heritage areas within the

National Park Service, including a policy requiring a study three years prior to the cessation of

federal funding authorization to make recommendations regarding future NPS involvement.3

The D&L Sustainability Study and a similar

study completed a year ago by the Conservation

Study Institute for the John H. Chafee

Blackstone River Valley National Heritage

Corridor Commission offer a model for how

such studies might be conducted.

C. Organization of the Report

The remainder of this report is organized as 

follows:

• Section I continues to set the context for

readers, with a retrospective on the origins of

the Corridor (chapter 2) and a description of

the current management framework (chapter 3).

• Section II, Assessing the D&L Corridor

Partnership, presents the results from the

phase one analyses, including a discussion of

accomplishments and leverage (chapter 4), an

analysis of the existing management framework (chapter 5), and a discussion of the

D&L partnership system from the perspective of the partners (chapter 6).

• Section III, The Future of the D&L Corridor,

describes the critical ingredients of the D&L

partnership system (chapter 7) and presents

options and opportunities for the future of

the D&L Corridor, including management

considerations (chapter 8) and other considerations (chapter 9). Chapter 10 presents closing thoughts.

To minimize confusion regarding terminology

and acronyms used in this report, readers are

encouraged to consult the glossary of terms that

begins on page 75.

The Lehigh River flows along the

western boundary of Hickory Run

State Park.

3 The advisory board’s report, Charting a Future for the National Heritage Areas, is currently in publication and will be available at

http://www.cr.nps.gov/heritageareas in early summer 2006.

Chapter 1: Background and Introduction to the D&L Sustainability Study 7
8 Connecting Stories, Landscapes, and People: Exploring the Delaware & Lehigh National Heritage Corridor Partnership

Scenes along the Delaware Canal near

New Hope have long delighted the eye.
Chapter 2: Establishing the D&L National Heritage Corridor 9

Chapter 2

Establishing the D&L National Heritage Corridor 

In Wilkes-Barre, an early twentieth

century miner’s family dressed for a

wedding celebration.

The Delaware & Lehigh National Heritage

Corridor was established because of its historical

significance in America’s early industrial expansion, its stories of human ingenuity and entrepreneurship, its social and cultural heritage, and the

lessons of environmental devastation and recovery that are present in the region’s landscape.

The Corridor’s national designation came about

because of the vision, leadership, and hard work

of many people and organizations. This chapter

examines the Corridor’s significance and the history leading up to its designation.

A. The Heritage of the D&L Corridor

When the efficiency of anthracite coal for both

domestic and industrial purposes was demonstrated in the early 1800s, the abundant deposits

in the Corridor’s northern reaches sparked the

development of the Lehigh Navigation System

(comprising a network of mountain railroads

and a canal along the Lehigh River) and the

Delaware Canal along the Delaware River. The

construction of this transportation system to

bring anthracite coal to the growing industrial

markets in Philadelphia and other coastal cities

dramatically changed the region’s landscape and

its people. With a new transportation system in

place, industry sprang up in what had been primarily an agricultural landscape and it did not

take long for the Lehigh Valley to be transformed. By the mid-1800s the valley had become

the nation’s leading iron-producing region, and

in 1873 the Bethlehem Iron Company made the

transition from iron to steel. Although iron making was dominant, other industries––portland

cement manufacturing, slate quarrying and processing, textile manufacturing, and zinc processing––were also important during the Corridor’s

industrial prominence.

Also important to the heritage of the D&L

Corridor are the stories of the communities that

grew up around the mines and the transportation route, and of the people who have lived and

worked in this region dating to precolonial times.

The industrial heritage overlies an earlier story

about principles of tolerance, respect, and individual freedom that were personified by William

Penn and characterized the culture of the fledgling state of Pennsylvania. The social and legal

reforms that Penn put in place drew people of

many backgrounds to the area. Native Americans, the early European settlers, and the immigrant workers who came during the Industrial

Revolution have all contributed to the ethnic

diversity that still characterizes the Corridor

region and its rich cultural heritage today.

A third aspect of the Corridor’s heritage relates

to its scenic and recreational importance and the 
10 Connecting Stories, Landscapes, and People: Exploring the Delaware & Lehigh National Heritage Corridor Partnership

lessons to be learned regarding restoration and

recovery of the landscape. The resource extraction and processing that were part of the 1800s

industrial boom led to a despoiled landscape

and polluted waters in many areas, with the

impacts still evident in some places today.

However, as forests have grown back and water

pollution laws have brought improved water

quality, the Corridor region has become a destination for people seeking high-quality recreation. In some areas where the impacts of pollution are still visible, efforts are underway to

restore the landscape. (See page 33 for one

example.) The importance of these cultural, natural, and historic resources led to the Corridor’s

designation as a national heritage area.

The National Significance of the D&L Corridor

The early nineteenth-century system of railroads, rivers, dams,

and canals, devised to move anthracite coal from the mines to

the markets, forms the central “spine” of the Corridor. The system, remarkable in its time for its engineering, daring, and

vision, is equally remarkable today for its endurance and integrity. The Corridor contains nationally significant and intact cultural, natural, and recreational resources that tell stories of the

early social development in America, the anthracite coal mining

era, the Industrial Revolution, the development of canal and rail

transportation, and the regeneration of natural resources. Some

highlights include the following:

• The Corridor contains sites that represent the earliest practices of the principles that became the foundation of the

American Constitution: religious freedom, the separation of

church and state, mutual responsibility between government

and the people, and equality. The region was a destination

for immigrants during the nineteenth century, and the landscapes, towns, and traditions created by the more than 50

ethnic groups that settled here are still intact.

• The scale of the anthracite industry that began here (and still

continues) resulted in numerous technological and commercial

innovations that transformed American business and industry.

The system built to transport coal was so efficient that the

Delaware and Lehigh canals were the longest- and last-operated towpath canals in America, with navigation continuing

until 1942. Most of the historic elements are still intact.

• Along with the story of the historic exploitation of natural

resources, the Corridor also illustrates the natural and cultural forces for regeneration that have given value to the

Corridor today as an outstanding recreational and scenic

resource. The region contains more than 100,000 acres of

public land, including many state, county, and local parks. In

addition to the D&L Trail that traces the historic transportation route, the Appalachian National Scenic Trail and five

other national recreational trails traverse the region. The

Corridor’s historic resources are enhanced by exceptionally

scenic settings along wide rivers and in gorges, mountains,

agricultural valleys, and small towns.

• Along with nine state parks, three state historical sites, 14

state scenic rivers, and 20 state game lands, the Corridor contains 13 national historic landmarks, two national natural

landmarks, and hundreds of sites listed on the National

Register of Historic Places. 

—Excerpted from Delaware & Lehigh Canal National Heritage

Corridor and State Heritage Park Management Action Plan (1993). 
B. The Origins of the Corridor

Partnership

To understand the factors and players who were

instrumental in the Corridor’s designation and to

capture the thinking about the heritage area

approach in its early years, the study team interviewed four people who were leaders in the early

formation of the D&L Corridor. Re-visiting the

formation of the Corridor through the eyes of its

pioneers enabled the team to explore the forces

that contributed to the Corridor’s creation and

provided a lens through which to view its

progress since establishment. The interviews also

provided an opportunity to probe the relationship of the Corridor’s designation to the national

heritage area movement and the formation of the

Pennsylvania Heritage Parks Program, and to

understand the early roles of current partners.

Efforts to preserve the Delaware and Lehigh

canals began as early as 1931 when Lehigh Coal

and Navigation, Inc. (LC&N), transferred 40

miles of the Delaware Canal to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Over the years, as

LC&N transferred additional segments of canal

into public and private hands, the declining condition of some sections caused residents to voice

their concern to local leaders. Many of these

people had a working connection with the

canals, and found value—environmental, recreational, aesthetic, and historical—in the canal

system. Concerned with threats to the integrity

of these waterways, some residents took action

into their own hands. In 1978, the nonprofit

organization Friends of the Delaware Canal

helped the canal to achieve national historic

landmark designation. 

The National Park Service first acknowledged

the canal system when it documented the

national significance of the Delaware and Lehigh

canals in a 1977 National Urban Recreation

Study. However, in the early 1980s the National

Park Service declined the Commonwealth’s offer

to transfer ownership and management of the

Delaware Canal to the NPS because of high

maintenance costs and the lack of a formal study

of this proposal. 

Throughout the 1980s, as preservation, parks,

and recreation leaders within Pennsylvania discussed the Delaware and Lehigh canals, their

ideas about the future of the region gradually

merged. The thinking of these leaders was

informed by visits to the Illinois & Michigan

Canal National Heritage Corridor, Blackstone

River Valley National Heritage Corridor,

Chesapeake & Ohio Canal National Historical

Construction of the Delaware Canal

was a major development for

Bristol’s economy.

There was a lot of interest from the environmental community, and

from people who cared

about the preservation

of history: ...local historical societies, local

environmental groups,

friends of the canal, you

name it. There was a

wide variety of individuals and groups who

gave this the energy and

the focus and the direction that it needed.

Chapter 2: Establishing the D&L National Heritage Corridor 11
12 Connecting Stories, Landscapes, and People: Exploring the Delaware & Lehigh National Heritage Corridor Partnership

Park, and Lowell National Historical Park,

where they saw the impacts of NPS involvement

on the preservation of historic canal resources.

These leaders adapted their observations to the

D&L region, where the concept of “regionalism”

and its inherent possibilities led to new collaborations between the state, the NPS, and neighboring jurisdictions such as Lehigh and

Northampton counties.

In 1988, the NPS and the Commonwealth of

Pennsylvania sponsored a seminar in Scranton to

discuss the idea of a heritage approach in the

Lackawanna Valley that would represent the

resources and themes that were related to, but

not included in, Steamtown National Historic

Site. The meeting brought together economic

development, historic preservation, trails, and

parks experts using a heritage area approach

elsewhere in the U.S. with practitioners interested in adopting this approach in Pennsylvania.

The meeting strengthened political support for

heritage areas in the state and has been credited

with influencing the formation of the Pennsylvania Heritage Parks Program.1 

Bipartisan support from key members of

Congress was critical to the D&L Corridor’s

national designation. Congressman Peter

Kostmayer, a Democrat, first became involved in

1984 in response to constituent requests to “do

something” about the condition of the Delaware

Canal in Bucks County. He learned about

options for conserving canals from congressional colleagues with national heritage corridors

and urban historical parks in their districts.

Congressman Don Ritter, a Republican, became

involved through an economic development initiative to create a Lehigh River heritage corridor.

As pressure from their constituents grew in

breadth and intensity, Congressmen Kostmayer

and Ritter joined efforts and championed 

1 The Lackawanna Valley became Pennsylvania’s first state heritage park in 1991, and was designated by Congress as a national 

heritage area in 2000.

Camelback steam locomotives were

used for local hauling around coal and

rail yard operations.
legislation to establish a heritage corridor that 

encompassed the canals along both the

Delaware and Lehigh rivers. After the Scranton

seminar, in 1988 Kostmayer and Ritter, along

with the state, supported a heritage conference

in Bethlehem that focused specifically on the

D&L region, which influenced the movement of

the D&L’s federal legislation through Congress.

In addition to local activism and federal and

state leadership, another motivating force for the

D&L’s national designation was the inherent

quality of the resource. As one interviewee

described it, “It helps if the resource has a

strong, iconic image, an image that people relate

to.” The Corridor’s visible reminders of the past

made many residents strong advocates for

preservation, and their support made the designation and subsequent management planning

process clearly a public priority and effort.

After Corridor designation, the National Park

Service played an integral role in working with

partners and residents to develop a management

action plan that remains a model for heritage

area planning 13 years later. An NPS official

involved in the Corridor’s formation and initial

years characterizes the NPS role in the public

planning process in this way: “We were a partner, but we didn’t want to be the dominant partner. We didn’t want to dictate. ... More often

than not, our role was more to facilitate than to

be a seat at the table....” NPS expertise and facilitation were very helpful in empowering local

participants in the newly formed heritage corridor to define the Corridor’s boundaries and historical themes, the resources it would preserve,

the stories it would tell, and the network of partners it would involve. The planning process,

although at times arduous, built a consensus

among local leaders and residents that created

buy-in and a solid foundation of public support

for the Corridor. The management plan that

local individuals and organizations created to

carry out their collective vision for the future

remains a relevant, guiding document to this day.

The team effort...it’s

amazing, the hands on

this one—the local

leaders and public, the

experts from around

and from afar, people

from Congress, the

Senate, Pennsylvania,

NPS—a core of people

with expertise and

visions, and the skills.

...When you look at

who touched this...I

think those folks are the

reason that this effort

was successful.

The dam at White Haven was popular

with local swimmers and created

hydro-electric power.

Chapter 2: Establishing the D&L National Heritage Corridor 13
14 Connecting Stories, Landscapes, and People: Exploring the Delaware & Lehigh National Heritage Corridor Partnership

Local partners maintain towpath and

trail including this stretch of the

Lehigh Canal near Walnutport.
Chapter 3: The Existing Management Framework for the D&L Corridor Partnership 15

Chapter 3

The Existing Management Framework for the D&L Corridor Partnership

A central purpose of the D&L Corridor’s

authorizing legislation was to establish a management framework to facilitate implementation of

the Corridor initiative. That framework, as

refined through subsequent legislative amendments1 and the Corridor’s 1993 Management

Action Plan, consists of several interrelated 

components: 

• purpose, vision, and mission;

• geographic scope;

• management entity;

• partners;

• funding and other forms of support.

Each of these components is summarized below.

A. Purpose, Vision, and Mission

The starting point for the Corridor’s management framework is the purpose for which the

Corridor was established, as articulated in the

authorizing legislation: “...[to] preserve and

interpret 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 and surrounding the Delaware and Lehigh Navigation

Canal...”. The 1998 amendment also specified an

additional purpose of “enhancing economic

development within the context of preservation.”

Building on these purposes, the Management

Action Plan identified a “multi-faceted vision of

what residents and leaders want for the

Corridor” that emerged from the extensive public dialogue during the planning process. The

vision includes the following elements:

• “A region that becomes even more strongly

defined by the remarkable remnants of our

history, and that becomes even greener, with

towns centered on clean rivers;

• The continuation of the innovative capacity

that has always characterized the Corridor, a

capacity that ensures a healthy environment

and a visible heritage for us and our children;

• A robust economic future that is based on the

desirability and rarity of our singular natural

and cultural environment, a park-like setting; 

• Pride and an ethic of stewardship growing in

the heart of every resident—we will understand the meaning of what we have, and act

to uphold it.”

To achieve that vision, the management plan laid

out the following mission for the Corridor 

initiative:

• “To conserve the historic canals and amplify

the recreational and educational opportunities based on them;

• To broadly tell the story of the region by

strengthening the infrastructure for interpretation and education;

• To establish a framework for stewardship

which will preserve significant historic sites,

enhance recreation, and conserve the natural

and cultural environments; 

• To provide opportunities for capitalizing on

heritage development.”

Together, these purposes, vision, and mission

have provided the basic guiding direction for the

work that has occurred through the Corridor

initiative since its establishment.

B. Geographic Scope

The area included in the Corridor is another

basic building block of the 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. Based on the

direction of the authorizing legislation and further refinement in the management plan, the

Corridor stretches for 165 miles through five

counties in eastern Pennsylvania (Luzerne,

Carbon, Northampton, Lehigh, and Bucks),

from Wilkes-Barre in the north to Bristol in the

south. Altogether, there are more than 200

municipalities in the Corridor, ranging from

small townships and boroughs to some of

Pennsylvania’s larger cities. The Corridor’s

geographic extent is illustrated in the map on

page 4. 

1 Public Law 105-355 (November 6, 1998) and Public Law 108-199 (January 23, 2004).
16 Connecting Stories, Landscapes, and People: Exploring the Delaware & Lehigh National Heritage Corridor Partnership

C. Management Entity

For every national heritage area, the federal

authorizing legislation identifies an organization

that is given lead responsibility for coordinating

the initiative and for developing and implementing a management plan. This “management entity” is a central component of the overall management framework. The D&L Corridor’s

authorizing legislation created the Delaware &

Lehigh National Heritage Corridor Commission

to serve in this capacity. The Commission has 21

members who represent key governmental 

agencies and stakeholder interests across the

Corridor.2 Its members are appointed by the secretary of the interior based upon recommendations from the governor. The Commission was

originally authorized for ten years, but received

legislated extensions in 1998 and 2004. Its authority is now due to expire in November 2007. In

addition to being the federally authorized management entity, the Commission has been recognized by the Pennsylvania Heritage Parks Program

as the manager for the D&L State Heritage Park. 

While the Commission has served as the official

management entity since the establishment of

the Corridor, participants recognized early on

that a strong nonprofit partner was needed to

assist the Commission and potentially serve as its

successor. As a result, the nonprofit corporation

Delaware & Lehigh National Heritage Corridor,

Inc., was established in 2002, and the

Commission and D&L, Inc., have been working

in tandem ever since. They formalized their partnership for implementing the Corridor initiative

through a cooperative agreement in 2003.

The Commission and D&L, Inc., currently share

a staff of seven full-time and four part-time

employees. The staff covers a range of disciplines, expertise, and functions, including planning, facilitation, community and economic

development, resource conservation, historic

preservation, volunteer coordination, and

administration. 

2 The Commission’s membership was adjusted in the 1998 amendment to the Corridor’s authorizing legislation to include the following interests:

• Three representatives of state government, specifically from Pennsylvania’s Department of Conservation and Natural Resources,

Department of Community and Economic Development, and Historical and Museum Commission;

• Eight representatives of local government, including one each from a city, a borough, and a township, and one from each of the

five counties; 

• Nine representatives of the general public, including three each from the northern, central, and southern regions of the Corridor; 

• The director of the National Park Service or a designee.

Diverse natural areas and unique

geological formations make Hickory

Run State Park ideal for outdoor

education.
The Corridor’s authorizing legislation gives the

Commission certain powers to carry out its

responsibilities. As with all other national heritage area management entities, the Commission

has the authority to receive, use, and distribute

federal funds that are appropriated for the initiative. It also has a variety of administrative

authorities (e.g., to hire staff and consultants,

hold hearings, receive and use donations, enter

into cooperative agreements with other governmental agencies and private organizations, establish advisory groups). The Commission can

acquire land and property, but only by gift,

devise, or purchase from willing sellers using

funds specifically given for that purpose. In addition, it must transfer any property it acquires

under these terms to an appropriate public or

nonprofit entity as soon as practicable. The

Commission does not have authority to regulate

land use or acquire land through condemnation

(i.e., eminent domain). 

D. Partners

The Corridor initiative is fundamentally a

regional partnership involving all levels of government, private organizations, and individuals

to achieve the wide-ranging purposes, vision,

and mission. Following is a brief summary of the

ways in which each broad category of partners is

involved in the effort.

1. State government 

The Pennsylvania Department of Conservation

and Natural Resources (DCNR) is the lead state

agency in the Corridor partnership. DCNR has

been deeply engaged in Corridor activities in a

number of different ways, including:

• Managing Lehigh Gorge and Delaware Canal

state parks, which together encompass nearly

half of the Corridor’s spine;

• Providing financial and other support

through the Pennsylvania Heritage Parks

Program;

• Offering grants, technical assistance, and

other services for conservation and recreation initiatives; 

• Participating as a designated member of the

Commission. 

Several other state agencies are also actively

involved in the Corridor initiative. Most notably,

these include the Department of Community

and Economic Development (DCED), Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission

(PHMC), and the Department of Transportation

(PennDOT). These agencies have lead responsibility for many activities related to Corridor goals

(e.g., managing state historic sites, implementing

economic development programs, building

infrastructure), and also provide staff assistance

and/or funding to other collaborative projects

within the Corridor. 

2. Federal government

The Department of the Interior and, more

specifically, the National Park Service hold lead

responsibility on behalf of the federal government for assisting the Commission, D&L, Inc.,

and their partners. The secretary of the interior

Delaware and Lehigh River Sojourns

offer paddlers an opportunity to

discover the D&L’s waterways.

Chapter 3: The Existing Management Framework for the D&L Corridor Partnership 17
18 Connecting Stories, Landscapes, and People: Exploring the Delaware & Lehigh National Heritage Corridor Partnership

is responsible for appointing commissioners, and

federal funding appropriated specifically to the

Corridor initiative flows through the NPS

Heritage Partnership Programs. The NPS has

provided varying levels and types of technical

assistance and staff support to the initiative since

its establishment, particularly planning and

interpretive assistance. The NPS also participates

through its designated membership on the

Commission. 

Other federal agencies (e.g., the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Army Corps of

Engineers, Federal Highway Administration) also

are involved in some activities related to

Corridor goals, such as environmental restoration projects, canal maintenance, and transportation infrastructure development. In addition, the authorizing legislation requires all federal agencies to consult and cooperate with the

Commission and the secretary of the interior

(i.e., the NPS) regarding any activities affecting

the purposes of the Corridor initiative and, to

the maximum extent practicable, to ensure that

those activities are consistent with the management plan and the legislation.

3. Municipal and county government

The five counties and the multitude of municipalities in the Corridor have lead responsibility

for many activities related to Corridor goals (e.g.,

managing local parks and historic sites, implementing local regulations, building infrastructure), and participate in other collaborative projects within the Corridor. They also provide the

overall Corridor partnership with vital knowledge of the needs, priorities, and concerns of

local residents, businesses, and organizations.

Because of these important roles, local governments have eight designated seats on the Commission, or more than a third of its membership.

4. Nongovernmental partners 

Organizations and individuals outside of government, including nonprofit organizations, businesses, and Corridor citizens, are also central to

the partnership. These partners have lead

responsibility for many initiatives related to

Corridor goals (e.g., managing sites, economic

development planning, providing education and

interpretation), and contribute to other collaborative projects and programs within the

Corridor. Although specific nongovernmental

entities do not have dedicated membership on

the Commission, the nine regionally based seats

provide a mechanism for the representation of

these interests.

E. Funding and Other Forms of Support

As alluded to elsewhere in this chapter, support

for the Corridor initiative comes from all levels of

the partnership and in a variety of forms (financial

support, staff time, in-kind contributions, volunteer involvement, etc.). Indeed, this dependence

on a breadth of support and participation is a fundamental aspect of the D&L partnership model,

and of national heritage areas in general. 

The primary sources of direct financial support

for the Corridor initiative are federal funding

through the NPS Heritage Partnership Programs

budget and state funding through DCNR’s

Pennsylvania Heritage Parks Program. In accordance with the 1998 amendment to the authorizing

legislation, federal funding is authorized for up to

$1 million per year for operations of the Commission and up to $1 million per year in fiscal years

2000 through 2007 for implementation of the

management plan. Federal funds appropriated for

these purposes require at least a 1:1 match from

other sources. Matches can be in financial or nonfinancial form. As shown in figure 3.1, from fiscal

years 1989 through 2005 actual annual federal

appropriations through the NPS Heritage Partnership Programs budget ranged from $329,000 to

$844,000 and totaled $7.56 million overall.3 

During that same period, annual appropriations

to the Corridor initiative through the

Pennsylvania Heritage Parks Program ranged

from $150,000 to $829,000, with total program

funding to the Corridor of $6.59 million. (See

figure 3.1.) These funds have been provided

through grants for a variety of purposes, ranging

from early planning and Commission operations

to the implementation of on-the-ground projects

called for in the management plan. Grants of up

to $100,000 per year with no matching requirement (either cash or in-kind) have been provided for heritage park management (i.e., to support

the operations of the Commission and now

D&L, Inc.). Grants for planning, studies, and

implementation projects require matches from

other public and private sources of 25 to 50 percent of the total cost, and these matches must be

in cash rather than non-financial form. 

The Commission and D&L, Inc., distribute a

substantial amount of the NPS and DCNR funding to Corridor partners through re-granting

programs for various implementation projects.

(See chapter 4 for further discussion of these

programs.) For example, in 2005 a total of

$269,750 in DCNR and NPS funding was awarded to partner organizations.

3 In FY 2000, an additional $462,000 was provided through the NPS construction budget.
Figure 3.1. NPS and DCNR funding for the Corridor initiative, 1990–2005

Figure 3.2. Total funding for the Corridor initiative, 1990–2005

Chapter 3: The Existing Management Framework for the D&L Corridor Partnership 19
20 Connecting Stories, Landscapes, and People: Exploring the Delaware & Lehigh National Heritage Corridor Partnership

Jim Thorpe’s main street is part of a

National Historic District.

PHOTO CREDIT: BLAIR SEITZ
Chapter 4: Pursuing the Corridor Vision: Progress, Accomplishments, and Leverage 21

SECTION II: ASSESSING THE D&L CORRIDOR

PARTNERSHIP

Chapter 4

Pursuing the Corridor Vision: Progress, Accomplishments, and Leverage

1 Actions were rated “completed,” “ongoing” (e.g., actions that have no anticipated completion date), “underway” (e.g., actions that

have a proposed completion date or product, such as an interpretive plan), or “no activity.”

2 Figure B.1 (appendix B) provides a more in-depth illustration of the D&L Corridor’s progress toward implementing the actions outlined in its management action plan.

Individuals and organizations involved in developing the Management Action Plan of 1993

agreed to pursue a set of 175 strategies for

accomplishing the purposes stated in the D&L

Corridor’s legislation. Corridor management has

addressed many of these strategies through hundreds of projects and programs. The investments

of D&L partners in these activities have created

impressive financial and non-financial impacts.

Several methodologies were used to document

the D&L Corridor’s progress toward accomplishing its vision for the future. This chapter

describes the progress of the initiative through:

• an overview of management plan progress;

• observations on the D&L Corridor’s progress

and accomplishments; 

• program and project highlights; 

• investment and leverage in the D&L Corridor;

• influence on the regional economy and heritage tourism.

A. An Overview of Management Plan

Progress

The Management Action Plan of 1993 refers to

strategies as “actions” that will accomplish the

purposes stated in the D&L Corridor’s legislation. In the context of the plan, each action

describes an approach or a concrete project that

the partnership should implement. Project-specific actions direct the Corridor partnership to,

for example, “work with partners to design and

develop an Easton landing.” Other actions, such

as “support river and canal access improvement

projects,” have a broader intent and require a

range of projects or programs to complete. The

Corridor partnership has addressed a number of

both project-driven and broad-based actions

with a wide range of partners and various levels

of investment. Overall, the Corridor partnership

has divided its attention consistently among the

southern, central, and northern regions, as well

as Corridor-wide, but this was not always the

case. In the early years, almost half of the projects initiated were in the central region. As a

result of the growing partner network, however,

project locations now span the geographic

breadth of the Corridor.

A closer look at the 175 actions included in the

management plan reveals that Corridor management has succeeded in addressing 145, or 83 percent, of them. More than half of the actions

addressed are Corridor-wide in scope, making

their implementation more logistically challenging and time-consuming than individual local

projects. Even so, the D&L Corridor has already

addressed 92 percent of the Corridor-wide

actions in some way. Corridor management’s

involvement in some of these actions will continue indefinitely. The project team rated individual

actions according to their level of completion1

and found that 67 of the 145 projects addressed

are considered “ongoing.” For example, Corridor

management involvement in actions such as

“implement the Corridor-wide interpretive plan”

will never be completed. In addition, 88 percent

of the 67 ongoing actions are Corridor-wide in

scope. The D&L partnership has invested heavily in Corridor-wide actions that will require

ongoing commitment to maintain their achievements to date.

The management plan organizes the actions into

four categories (or priority areas): navigating,

understanding, conserving, and enriching. More

than a third of the actions focus on understanding (i.e., interpretation), of which a third have

been completed and only a few remain to be

addressed. Conservation activities are more challenging to complete because most involve coordination on a Corridor-wide scale and a longterm commitment, such as “assess the state of

water quality in the Delaware and Lehigh watersheds.” Of 53 conservation actions outlined in

the management plan, 5 have been completed,

and 37 are in various stages of completion.2

The passage of time has played a role in the continual expansion of the Corridor management’s

responsibilities and program focus. Early in the

development of the Corridor initiative, the focus

was on management and interpretive planning
22 Connecting Stories, Landscapes, and People: Exploring the Delaware & Lehigh National Heritage Corridor Partnership

and small formative projects (partly because the

partnership was in an early stage of development

and partly because of the influence of key individuals). Following this initial phase, the focus

was on implementing and expanding existing

projects and programs. In the last six years,

Corridor management has concentrated on

addressing the remaining management actions,

building staff and partner capacity, and making

small, strategic investments across the four priority areas, with most projects addressing multiple

priorities (i.e., navigating and conserving). Of the

more than 160 projects and programs undertaken since management plan implementation

began,3 at least 132 have been active at some

point in the past six years, and more than 100

have been initiated since 1999. 

These projects and programs vary in their scope

and in their level of staff involvement. They also

vary in their impacts on the region and on the

Corridor partnership itself. As discussed later in

this chapter (see section 4.C), some activities

have affected the way Corridor partners engage

with D&L management, with one another, and

with the Corridor’s resources. 

B. Observations on the D&L Corridor’s

Progress and Accomplishments

The characteristics that follow are often evident in

the Corridor initiative’s most successful activities.

These observations emerged from a broad review

of activities that the D&L initiative has undertaken and a detailed examination of selected projects. They are useful to keep in mind as D&L

management reflects on its accomplishments and

thinks about how to build on its achievements.

Projects and investments often address multiple objectives. All of the D&L Corridor’s activities address objectives in at least one of the

major categories in the management plan (i.e.,

navigating, interpreting, conserving, enriching),

and they often cross multiple categories. 

Projects benefit from opportune timing, availability of resources, and partner readiness.

The concurrent availability of resources (e.g.,

funding, willing and visionary partners, staff

expertise) has been critical to many successful

projects—i.e., the right people came together at

the right time and the money was there to make

things happen.

Some projects benefit from the passage of

time. Over time, relationships develop, new

technologies become available, and new and

unanticipated opportunities arise that create

windows of opportunity for advancing larger,

more complex, Corridor-wide initiatives.

D&L Corridor successes create demands for

staff assistance, a situation that requires careful consideration of how to invest staff time

and expertise. As the D&L partnership has

undertaken new projects and expanded its

reach, Corridor management is increasingly

selecting projects that minimize staff investment

and maximize impact—e.g., providing grants and

training that shift the responsibility for implementing activities to partners. The staff’s ability

to identify strategic investments with high potential impacts has been honed by years of working

in the region and knowledge of the strengths and

limitations of various partners.

The Wyoming Valley Levee System

provides an opportunity for recreation

and interpretation.

3 Figure B.2 (appendix B) inventories projects and programs that have been implemented to address management plan actions.
Partner capacity varies across the network,

and building capacity is a continual challenge.

Some partners are strong and have substantial

capacity, while others are more limited. As D&L

management has expanded its reach and focused

on shifting responsibility to partners, its staff has

provided more training and mentoring to those

partners most in need. While initially a timeconsuming investment, this support strengthens

the partner network over the long term.

The staff has played multiple roles and

demonstrated flexibility in response to project needs and partner capacity. D&L management often assumes different roles (as funder,

advisor, mentor, connector, facilitator, and

expert) over the life of a project. The staff assists

with projects at all scales and geographic locations, and identifies and fills gaps in financing or

partner capacity to get projects done.

Individuals in D&L management act successfully on their intuition. Leaders in D&L management who know the region intimately challenge others to see the growth potential in new

opportunities. The maintenance of strong and

open relationships has been critical to making

their intuition and vision effective. 

Long-term, trusting relationships with partners have contributed to the Corridor initiative’s success. The Corridor partnership has

benefited from the long-standing involvement of

key people over the years and the movement of

staff members and leadership among partner

organizations. Trusted personal relationships

transcend job changes, and can lead to new 

partnerships and lay the groundwork for new

projects.

Projects often result in partners’ increased

understanding of the Corridor’s resources. To

gain early consensus on the direction of a project, D&L staff members encourage people to

share and discuss their project visions and find

ways to integrate them. This consensus-based

planning approach can change partners’ understanding of and relationship to Corridor

resources, as they see their ideas incorporated

into projects that are larger in scale and positive

impact than they initially imagined.

PHPP and NPS funding have been critical to

facilitating projects. Annual PHPP and NPS

investments, which together have provided more

than 14 percent of the Corridor partnership’s total

funding, have been essential to implementing

projects and strengthening the partnership’s ability to leverage other funding sources. The funding

available for individual grants and projects, however, continues to be dispersed more thinly as the

Corridor initiative takes on more activities.

Corridor management’s ability to leverage

resources has been critical to project implementation. Most projects have leveraged financial

and non-financial resources far greater in value

than Corridor management’s initial investment. 

Geographic balance and a multidisciplinary

focus keep a diverse set of partners engaged

throughout the Corridor. Integrating local and

regionwide priorities and using conservation,

development, and interpretation strategies help

the partnership maintain political and programmatic support Corridor-wide. These approaches

encourage residents and local leaders to align

their goals with those of the Corridor initiative

to improve the region’s well-being. 

Partnership was crucial to re-opening

the No. Nine Mine in Lansford as a

visitor attraction.

Chapter 4: Pursuing the Corridor Vision: Progress, Accomplishments, and Leverage 23
24 Connecting Stories, Landscapes, and People: Exploring the Delaware & Lehigh National Heritage Corridor Partnership

C. Program and Project Highlights

Following are descriptions of several programs

and projects that illustrate the characteristics

described above. Collectively, these activities

span all three phases of the D&L Corridor’s

existence, reflect both Corridor-wide and locallevel work, and describe the range of approaches

used by the D&L initiative to address management plan actions. These activities also illustrate

the impacts of Corridor initiatives on the region’s

resources, people, and organizations.

Visually and Graphically Speaking

Project description 

In 1995, with guidance from an NPS interpretive

specialist, the Corridor partnership created

“Visually Speaking,” a graphic identity and interpretation system with design and production

guidelines and standards for interpretive panels,

directional signage, publications, and printed

materials. The system establishes a Corridor

“look” and helps visitors and residents navigate

and appreciate the region’s natural, cultural, and

historic resources. Additional graphic standards

were added in 1999 and the system is now called

“Visually and Graphically Speaking” (VGS).

Partners interested in using the D&L Corridor’s

graphic identity may request technical assistance,

including editing, fact-checking, and design

review. D&L management approves the final

design to ensure that the D&L Corridor “look”

is consistent and remains distinctive. Small

grants are available to fund content development

and sign production. 

Project impacts 

Throughout the Corridor, approximately 200

wayfinding and interpretive signs have been

installed. More than 34 publications have been

produced, including two audio tours and a 150-

page book, D&L Trail, Towns, and Culture: The

Stone Coal Way. The VGS plan is widely considered a model for guiding successful regional

interpretation. The requests for assistance in

using the D&L identity package have increased

in recent years, which should lead to enhanced

visibility and recognition of the Corridor initiative and the thematic connections among sites

across the region.

Corridor partnership investment and

leverage

Corridor management: $120,000 for the original

plan, technical assistance, training in end-product visualization, and project coordination. 

NPS: technical expertise (1990–1999) with development of Visually Speaking guidelines and an

interpretation and education plan, technical

assistance, matching VGS grant funding.

DCNR: $160,000 awarded over four phases and

re-allocated by Corridor management for individual interpretation and signage projects.

Municipal and nonprofit partners: matching

funding and project implementation.

Program or Project

Visually and Graphically Speaking

Project example: Wyoming Valley

Levee Trail

Corridor Market Towns

Project example: White Haven

Engine House

Two Rivers Landing

Municipal Assistance for

Conservation

Project example: New Hope

parking lot

D&L Trail/Trail Tenders

Lehigh Gap/Wildlife Information

Center

Management Plan Actions Addressed 

Navigating, understanding

Understanding, conserving, enriching 

Understanding, enriching

Conserving, enriching

Navigating, understanding, conserving 

Navigating, understanding, conserving 

Geographic Scope

Corridor-wide

North and north-central 

Central

Corridor-wide

Corridor-wide

Central

Time

1995–present

2000–present 

1994–1996

2000–present

1988–present

2004–present

Figure 4.1. D&L project highlights: time, disciplinary, and geographic distribution
Visually and Graphically Speaking

Project Example: The Wyoming Valley

Levee Trail

Project description 

In the mid-1990s a Luzerne County engineer

approached the Commission about installing a

sign to provide rules for trail use along the

Wyoming Valley levee, where the county had

planned a 22-mile trail network as part of an

Army Corps of Engineers levee restoration project. On a guided walk arranged by the NPS

interpretive staffer working with the D&L initiative, naturalists and historians recorded nearly

80 sites for signage, which were paired with photos and stories provided by local residents. On

seeing the proposed interpretive signs, the engineer, a descendant of anthracite coal miners,

became convinced of their power to tell the

regional story and persuaded the Army Corps of

Engineers to fund their installation. The panels

interpret the science and history of the levee system and its people along four themed routes.

Luzerne County continues to maintain the levee

system, trails, and interpretive materials. The

signs were reproduced in a commemorative

book, A Story Runs Through It, to which the

Commission contributed $5,000 and Luzerne

County Flood Authority contributed $15,000.

Other partners included the City of WilkesBarre, the Wyoming Valley Historical Society,

and DCNR.

Project impacts 

The project introduced partners to the value of

historical interpretation. It has fostered new relationships between D&L management and local

authorities and has led to a new trail connecting

the levee with downtown Wilkes-Barre, where

the city has installed new historic waysides and a

new visitor center. Currently, Wilkes-Barre is

working with the D&L initiative on a $10-million

project to develop the “Susquehanna Landing,” a

future Corridor visitor center.

The landscape of the Wyoming

Valley Levee System.

Chapter 4: Pursuing the Corridor Vision: Progress, Accomplishments, and Leverage 25
26 Connecting Stories, Landscapes, and People: Exploring the Delaware & Lehigh National Heritage Corridor Partnership

D&L Corridor Market Towns 

Project description 

In 2000, the D&L Corridor partnered with

DCED and the Pennsylvania Downtown Center

(a statewide nonprofit), which together sought to

pilot a regional Main Street revitalization

approach. They introduced “Corridor Market

Towns” (CMT), an initiative to help communities build local capacity for future planning and

development projects that enhance downtown

activity. The six pilot towns completed a visioning exercise to establish a community consensus

for involvement and to help the D&L staff evaluate their readiness to undertake new projects.

The D&L staff currently provides assistance with

community visioning, preservation and tourism

planning, façade and streetscape improvements,

training, marketing, and program assessments.

Mini-grants are available for downtown revitalization. Successful implementation relies on the

readiness of towns to participate as lead partners

in Corridor Market Town strategies, and, since

the towns must request assistance, on public

understanding of the CMT program and the

benefits of participation. The staff’s professional

expertise and creativity has greatly influenced

the success of this pilot initiative.4 

Project impacts 

Direct products include 279 individual projects

and 137 facade renovations completed, underway, or planned. Since 2000, the six pilot towns

have seen a net gain of 33 businesses. Grants

awarded have leveraged up to 54 times their

value (e.g., the Jim Thorpe historic train station

rehabilitation received $650,000 in Transportation Enhancements [TE] funding),5 with an

average leverage of 3.4 times the grant amount.

The CMT initiative has been so successful

Race Street in Jim Thorpe is home to

several local artists.

4 More information on Corridor Market Towns can be found at http://www.markettowns.net.

5 States receive Transportation Enhancements (TE) funding as a percentage of their annual Surface Transportation Program appropriation from the Federal Highway Administration. TE funding is reapportioned by each state for local projects that fit within one of 12

eligible categories related to surface transportation improvements. The program, created in 1991 as part of the Intermodal Surface

Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA), was reauthorized in 1998 under the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21)

and again in 2005 under the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU).
that Pennsylvania Downtown Center and DCED

are implementing a similar small-town revitalization strategy in other regions of the state. The

D&L program is now providing assistance to

Corridor towns outside the original scope of the

CMT pilot.

Corridor partnership investment and

leverage

Corridor management: technical assistance,

mentoring, and fostering of partner relationships; mini-grants; funding for seasonal interns

from Kutztown and Lehigh universities. 

Pennsylvania Downtown Center: $160,000 over

four years.

DCED: $80,000 over four years for staff support

and façade improvement grants.

DCNR: matching funding of $40,000 over two

years.

PennDOT: TE funding.

Carbon County: Community Development Block

Grant funding and other support.

Boroughs of White Haven, Lansford, Jim Thorpe,

Lehighton, Palmerton, Slatington, and Coaldale:

project leadership, financial and in-kind support

and coordination.

Pennsylvania Power and Light: $15,000.

Heritage Conservancy: planning and technical

assistance.

Kutztown and Lehigh universities: provision of

seasonal interns.

Dozens of businesses, local organizations, and

local government entities: matching funding and

in-kind support for CMT projects.

Corridor Market Towns Project Example:

White Haven Engine House

Project description 

In 2003, the town of White Haven, which was

targeted for a D&L visitor center, was struggling

economically following a 1980s fire that engulfed

part of the downtown. Through CMT assistance,

the D&L staff was able to facilitate resolution of

some of the town’s post-disaster issues while

also forwarding Corridor goals. The assistance

came at a critical time: the White Haven Area

Community Library was looking for a larger

venue, the borough had income from sale of the

water company and wanted to create a visitor

center, and a local contractor was selling a historic railroad engine house adjacent to a planned

trailhead for the D&L Trail. D&L staff members

assisted White Haven in holding stakeholder

meetings that led to the borough’s purchase of

the engine house and a long-term lease for its

use by the library and as a visitor center. The

Corridor initiative helped to set the engine house

within the broader regional story, and community partners came together around a very complex project. The volunteer-run library association secured funding from many sources, including a county bond issue ($200,000), TE funding

($350,000), DCNR ($35,000), a PHMC Keystone

Grant ($90,000), and private contributions.

Although the D&L staff continues to provide

technical advice, the library association has

embraced the project and become largely selfsufficient. 

Project impacts 

The White Haven Engine House will house a

community library, visitor center, and exhibits

that describe how the railroad met the canal.

Librarians will provide visitor services and distribute tourism information. Since the engine

house project, the D&L initiative has worked

with White Haven on a streetscape improvement

plan and an interpretive trail that links the

downtown with the D&L Trail.

The former Lehigh Valley Railroad

Engine House will include the White

Haven Area Community Library and

Visitor Center.

Chapter 4: Pursuing the Corridor Vision: Progress, Accomplishments, and Leverage 27
28 Connecting Stories, Landscapes, and People: Exploring the Delaware & Lehigh National Heritage Corridor Partnership

Easton’s Two Rivers Landing Visitor

Center

Project description 

In 1994, with PHPP funds, the D&L Corridor

studied potential locations in Easton for the

Corridor’s first “landing” or visitor center. What

followed was an extraordinary confluence of

events. Easton was suffering economically, but

the newly elected mayor had promised downtown revitalization and wanted to build a landing

quickly. The president of Binney & Smith, Inc., a

Lehigh Valley native, wanted to relocate the

Crayola Crayon Discovery Center to downtown

Easton as part of a downtown historic redevelopment strategy. As the landing study proceeded,

outgoing governor Casey announced the availability of two capital budget programs for redevelopment assistance. An advisor to the governor

encouraged the D&L initiative to partner with

Centre Square in Easton has been a

gathering place since the 1700s.
Binney & Smith and Hugh Moore Historical

Park and Museums, Inc., to propose a project for

a vacant downtown building that would house

the Discovery Center, the National Canal

Museum (a project of Hugh Moore Park), and a

Corridor visitor center. With public support for

the proposal, the city purchased an adjacent

building and added to the proposal its plan to

renovate the building for city offices. The joint

project was awarded a $2.8-million capital grant,

and when Two Rivers Landing opened on July 4,

1995, Governor Ridge welcomed 40,000 visitors

at a ribbon-cutting ceremony.

Project impacts 

In its first year, the landing admitted 138,000 visitors. By 2001, Easton had gained a net of 43 businesses and almost 2,000 new jobs, with 39 new

full-time jobs in the landing alone. The city

garage was parking 67,000 cars annually, 10 times

more than in 1995. Today, Two Rivers Landing,

with 300,000 visitors per year, has anchored the

redevelopment of downtown Easton, and existing sites have benefited from the increased visitation (e.g., in 1999 Hugh Moore Park experienced

a twofold increase in canal boat ridership).

While the project required little D&L funding, it

put the D&L Corridor “on the map” and

demonstrated that the partnership approach to

preservation can create economic development.

Corridor partnership investment and

leverage

Corridor management: $38,000 for renovations

to and exhibits in the National Canal Museum

and Corridor visitor center, completion of the

landing study, technical assistance and coordination during planning and construction.

Pennsylvania: $2.8 million Redevelopment

Assistance Capital Program Grant.

DCNR: $37,500 for the landing study, $125,000

for the visitor center.

DCA: $187,000.

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban

Development (HUD): $1.1 million.

Binney & Smith, Inc.: $2 million.

Easton Economic Development Corporation Loan

Pool: $2.6 million.

City of Easton: funding and project coordination.

Northampton County: $50,000.

Hugh Moore Historical Park and Museums, Inc.:

$112,000 in fundraising.

Lafayette College: $130,000 for exhibits.

The D&L’s largest visitor center is

located in downtown Easton.

Chapter 4: Pursuing the Corridor Vision: Progress, Accomplishments, and Leverage 29
30 Connecting Stories, Landscapes, and People: Exploring the Delaware & Lehigh National Heritage Corridor Partnership

Municipal Assistance for Conservation 

Project description 

In 2000, DCNR awarded the D&L initiative

$30,000 for small local projects that address conservation and preservation goals. The resulting

Municipal Assistance for Conservation (MAC)

program provides flexible funding for small

technical assistance grants (under $5,000) to

help Corridor towns develop consensus on projects relating to local conservation and preservation. D&L staff members participate in the dialogue to ensure that residents discuss relevant

preservation and conservation issues. In return

for D&L assistance, recipient communities must

commit to implementing their projects. Corridor

management contracts with the Heritage

Conservancy (a nonprofit partner) or a private

consultant to facilitate stakeholder visioning

along with assistance in creating a concept plan

or sketch as a foundation for the next phase of

the project. This assistance often leads to new

design guidelines, streetscape plans, and development of public spaces. When the timing is critical, money and assistance can be obligated quickly through the MAC program to encourage a

town to think more broadly prior to submitting a

grant application or approving a municipal plan. 

Project impacts 

The MAC program has enabled the D&L initiative to be more engaged locally and to demonstrate its commitment to small towns in the

region. While the program is focused at the local

level, the strategy encourages communities to

think regionally and empowers them to develop

their own projects. In five of the six grant

instances to date, a follow-up plan or project has

been implemented within six months of completing a concept or action plan. 

Corridor partnership investment and

leverage

Corridor management: mentoring, technical

assistance, and communications expertise; following MAC project completion, limited technical assistance including review of grant applications, networking, and preservation and

fundraising advice. 

DCNR: $30,000, reallocated by D&L management in amounts up to $5,000.

Heritage Conservancy: $5,000 plus staff expertise.

William Penn Foundation: $5,000.

Recipient communities and organizations: matching funding, hosting public meetings and visioning exercises, project leadership during subsequent planning and implementation activities.

New Hope residents and businesses

take great pride in their properties.
Municipal Assistance for Conservation

Project Example: New Hope’s Bridge

Street Parking Facility

Project description 

In the first MAC project, the D&L staff challenged the town of New Hope to think more

broadly about the canal heritage and environmental impacts as it considered the future of a

public works storage area—the site of a proposed parking lot—adjacent to the canal and the

historic Union Camp mill. With $5,000 in MAC

funding and D&L staff assistance, the town held

a community visioning session that considered

the ecological and social impacts of various

parking lot alternatives. The concept selected

included ecological drainage design principles,

plantings of native plants and trees, and a D&L

kiosk to orient visitors and interpret the nearby

canal. After the visioning, New Hope secured

and matched a $333,000 HUD Economic

Development Initiative grant to build the facility.

New Hope also established a standing revitalization committee, giving the D&L initiative a seat,

to foster the development of new projects. In

2003 the project won an award from the Bucks

County Audubon Society for its environmentally

friendly development.

Project impacts 

The MAC program engaged residents in considering conservation values as a part of downtown

planning and decision making. The community

was able to see itself as part of a larger regional

economic development strategy, and, as a result

of the visioning process, has embraced the concept of heritage tourism as a way to provide a

quality experience for residents and visitors. The

project has leveraged several nearby improvements, including a new Canal Cultural Walk that

will connect the parking lot to the downtown,

renovation of the downtown visitor center, and

directional signs to improve pedestrian and 

traffic circulation, all of which include VGS 

elements. The walk has received $316,000 in TE

funding. 

The design of the Bridge Street

Parking Facility has leveraged nearby

interpretation and signage projects.

Chapter 4: Pursuing the Corridor Vision: Progress, Accomplishments, and Leverage 31
The D&L Trail/Trail Tenders Program 

Project description 

A top priority of Corridor management has been

working to acquire and reconstruct privately

owned sections of abandoned rail line in order

to complete the entire 165 miles of the D&L

Trail. Achieving its goal of 100 percent public

access is a challenge, as the Corridor staff must

engage with 31 separate landowners. Since 2004,

the D&L initiative has provided workshops for

trail owners, and future plans are to shift greater

responsibility for trail maintenance and monitoring to residents and users of the spine. TE funding of up to $2.6 million per project has been

critical to the acquisition and restoration of some

sections, especially in locations where road

obstructions require building a pedestrian bridge

or tunnel. In addition to acquisition, planning,

and construction, the D&L Trail project includes

use of VGS grants for wayfinding and interpretive signage and for promotional events. In 1998,

D&L management, in partnership with the

Wildlands Conservancy, helped create (and 

now coordinates) the D&L Trail Tenders, an 

all-volunteer organization responsible for trail

construction and maintenance. In 2005, D&L

management hired a full-time staff member 

to build the Trail Tenders’ capacity and create 

outreach programming and training on trail 

maintenance and stewardship. Since 1998,

approximately 5,000 Trail Tenders volunteers

have participated in trail construction, native

plant restoration, general cleanup, archeological

preservation and stabilization, and special events

and celebrations.

Project impacts 

When the Corridor was designated, 80 percent

of the spine was publicly accessible; now 98 percent has been secured for public access, and 82

percent of the trail has been completed. The trail

is gaining recognition as an economic tool that

generates recreation, tourism, and historic

preservation activities. Marketing the trail and

celebrating the completion of trail segments

helps to generate public enthusiasm as the D&L

works to complete it.

Corridor partnership investment and

leverage

Corridor management: acquisition, planning,

and improvement of sections of the D&L Trail;

funding for design and installation of interpretive signs; grants for planning, construction, and

interpretation of structures including canal boats

and lock houses; Trail Tenders coordination,

educational programming, and internships.

NPS: interpretation assistance through Visually

and Graphically Speaking.

DCNR: funding for a full-time “circuit rider” to

coordinate trail construction projects and secure

funding and access.

PennDOT: TE funding.

Municipalities: landowners and trail maintenance.

D&L Trail Tenders: almost 30,000 hours of trail

construction and maintenance; educational 

programming.

32 Connecting Stories, Landscapes, and People: Exploring the Delaware & Lehigh National Heritage Corridor Partnership

Honey Hollow Environmental

Education Center plays an important

role in promoting harmony with the

natural environment.
Lehigh Gap and the Wildlife Information

Center

Project description 

In 2002, the Wildlife Information Center, a small,

nonprofit educational and research organization,

was interested in purchasing and reclaiming

three contaminated parcels along the Kittatinny

Ridge for a wildlife refuge and a research and

educational facility. The site, which contained

three miles of the D&L Trail that was inaccessible under existing ownership, included diverse

habitat with forested slopes, ponds and wetlands,

cliffs, and savanna. The soil, however, contained

toxic quantities of zinc, cadmium, and lead from

past zinc smelting, and had been designated a

Superfund site by the EPA. Viacom, Inc., the former owner of the smelters, was responsible for

the cost of mitigation, but a restoration attempt

in the early 1990s had been unsuccessful. The

D&L staff provided guidance to the Wildlife

Information Center on acquiring the land and

helped it to connect with key organizations,

including The Nature Conservancy and the

Wildlands Conservancy, from which the center

received grants and technical assistance for

acquiring the land. While the center is a small

organization, with some mentoring its staff easily

grasped how to do a large-scale project and 

readily took on new challenges, asking for D&L 

assistance only when necessary. Following acquisition of the parcels, D&L staff facilitated the

design of the Lehigh Gap Wildlife Refuge master

site plan, which includes educational and

research initiatives and a 15-mile trail network.

With assistance from Viacom’s engineers and

approvals from the EPA and other agencies, the

center laid out 50 demonstration areas using EPA

standards for decontaminating brownfields. An

inexpensive revegetation strategy using native

grasses is being followed to restore the landscape. The site is gradually regaining its habitat

value as a stopover site for migratory birds,

including raptors and songbirds.

Project impacts 

The project integrates multiple nature, recreation, and cultural conservation activities.

Adjacent to state game lands, part of a proposed

state greenway, and a critical piece of the Lehigh

River watershed, the reforested landscape will

improve water quality, reduce erosion, and

encourage wildlife to return to the ridge. The

project provides a useful model for landscapescale conservation and restoration. Strip mines

in the area need similar treatment, and the

approach is one that inspires people in spite of

the scarred landscape. The project also provides

opportunities to link the D&L Trail with the

Appalachian National Scenic Trail, nearby downtowns and county parks, and rail-trails currently

under development. Having completed a

$900,000 campaign for land acquisition, the

Wildlife Information Center has created an environmental education partnership with neighboring towns, through which it holds monthly educational events, including hawk watches,

“HawkFests,” field trips, and open houses.

Corridor partnership investment and

leverage

Corridor management: no direct financial investment; staff assisted with grant writing, funding

advice, partner connections, and master site

planning. 

Wildlife Information Center: lead partner.

Viacom, Inc.: mitigation costs and engineering

expertise. 

The Nature Conservancy of Pennsylvania:

$200,000 loan.

DCNR: $33,000 for baseline ecological studies.

Natural Lands Trust: consultant.

Wildlands Conservancy: guidance with 

acquisition.

Annual raptor counts are taken along

the Kittatinny Ridge.

Chapter 4: Pursuing the Corridor Vision: Progress, Accomplishments, and Leverage 33
34 Connecting Stories, Landscapes, and People: Exploring the Delaware & Lehigh National Heritage Corridor Partnership

D. Investment and Leverage in the D&L

Corridor

As illustrated in the activities highlighted above,

financial and other support from a broad range

of partners is essential for implementing successful projects and programming. Through the NPS

Heritage Partnership Programs and the DCNR

Heritage Parks Program, the federal and state

governments have made critical financial investments in the daily operations of D&L management and in specific projects and programs.

Both organizations have also committed other

resources, such as staff time and expertise.

However, project planning and implementation

usually require additional funding and resources

beyond those provided through the NPS and

DCNR. 

NPS and DCNR investments in the Corridor initiative help to generate or “leverage” substantial

funding and resources from additional federal,

state, local, and private partners, as illustrated in

figure 4.2. “Leverage,” used as a verb, refers to

the process of obtaining additional financial

and/or non-financial commitments beyond the

initial investment. “Leverage” can also be used as

a noun, in which case it refers to the additional

resources that are committed in response to the

initial outlay. (Resources that are leveraged are

also considered the “match” to the Corridor

investment, as required in varying ways for NPS 

and DCNR funding.) For example, Corridor

management invested $5,000 in the White Haven 

Engine House project, which generated additional funding from the Borough of White

Haven, the Pennsylvania Historical and Museum

Commission, and PennDOT. Corridor management’s initial investment leveraged additional

funding, and that funding is considered leverage.

In implementing the management plan, the

Corridor initiative uses both financial and nonThe Walnutport Canal & Locktenders

House provides a museum and picnic

facilities.
financial resources and assets to leverage commitments from others, and these partner commitments can also come in financial and nonfinancial forms. The next sections explore further the D&L initiative’s leveraging activities,

looking at (1) leveraging financial resources, (2)

leveraging non-financial resources and assets,

and (3) indirect leverage.6 

1. Leveraging financial resources 

Since its establishment, Corridor management

has documented the funding received from various sources for projects it has helped to facilitate

(see figure 4.2). Through fiscal year 2005, the

total federal investment of $8.02 million provided through the National Park Service has leveraged nearly 12 times its financial value in direct

funding from other sources. State funding totaling $6.59 million through the Pennsylvania

Heritage Parks Program has leveraged more than

14 times its value. As a whole, Pennsylvania state

agencies have supplied more than 35 percent of

the funding invested in D&L Corridor projects.

These figures reflect funding for projects in

which Corridor management had a direct investment and/or a leadership role. Not included are

state, federal, and other investments in the

region in which Corridor management has been

integrally involved but has not played a leadership role. For example, the $9-million Two

Rivers Landing project in Easton is included, but

related projects (e.g., Easton public square, adjacent public buildings) totaling $7 million are not.

Also, the state invests substantial resources

through separate mechanisms for management

and operations of the Lehigh Gorge and

Delaware River state parks, which together

account for half the length of the D&L spine.

Similarly, the costs associated with maintaining

other state parks and game lands within the

Corridor’s boundaries are not included in these

figures. Figure 3.2 (in chapter 3) illustrates how

much the combination of NPS and PHPP funding has leveraged annually since 1990. 

Grants administered by D&L management

require a match but often leverage many times

that amount in other funding and resources. For

example, a Corridor Market Towns grant to

restore the Jim Thorpe historic train station

leveraged 54 times its value in other funding. The

grant leveraged non-financial resources (e.g.,

volunteer time by partners to implement the

project) as well. In 2005, the D&L awarded a

total of $550,500 in DCNR, DCED, and NPS

Heritage Partnership Programs funding. Eight

partner grants and 42 CMT façade grants were

awarded, which leveraged $11,500,000. 

$29,450,550 

Other State

29.1%

$7,561,675 

NPS Heritage Partnership

Programs 

7.5%

$6,586,114 

Pennsylvania Heritage

Parks Program 

6.5%

$14,641,497 

Private

14.5%

$10,975,711 

Local Government

10.8%

$462,000 

NPS Construction

0.5%

$31,520,526 

Other Federal

31.1%

Figure 4.2. D&L National Heritage Corridor partnership funding ($101,198,073 from FY 1989 through 

FY 2005)

6 The issue of leverage is complex and warrants a separate study and analysis. Findings from this study are largely descriptive, but

could inform future research on this topic.

Chapter 4: Pursuing the Corridor Vision: Progress, Accomplishments, and Leverage 35
36 Connecting Stories, Landscapes, and People: Exploring the Delaware & Lehigh National Heritage Corridor Partnership

2. Leveraging non-financial resources

and assets

Along with funding, the Corridor partnership

uses other assets to secure additional financial

and non-financial commitments. The partnership draws on, intentionally or otherwise, the

status associated with the NPS and state designations; the connections that various partners have

to sources of funding, expertise, and other

resources; the region’s history; personal or organizational connections and relationships; and

association with the D&L Corridor identity.

Sometimes the initiative utilizes its non-financial

resources to generate financial commitments

from project partners. For example, the involvement of Corridor staff in seeking National

Register of Historic Places eligibility for the

White Haven Engine House and connecting the

library association with funding sources was critical in securing a significant amount of state and

federal funding for that project. Sometimes the

D&L initiative’s investment of resources leverages non-financial matching commitments

including partner staff time, in-kind support,

and volunteer time. For example, Corridor management has invested staff time to coordinate the

D&L Trail Tenders. This investment has been

matched by financial contributions by partners

as well as tens of thousands of volunteer hours

to improve the D&L Trail. In addition, partners

in study interviews described the project and

partnership opportunities that the D&L’s ideas,

influence, clout, and credibility have created.

(See chapter 6 for further discussion.) While it is

difficult to quantify the impacts of non-financial

investments and leverage, it is important to

acknowledge their presence and their influence

on the Corridor’s residents and resources.7 

7 During this study, qualitative data on non-financial leverage was gathered through interviews with staff and project partners.

William Penn’s Delaware River home

was reconstructed in the late 1930s.
3. Indirect leverage

Indirect leverage, which exists in both financial

and non-financial forms, is created when partners or recipients of assistance from the D&L

partnership invest energy, money, and time in

new activities as a result of being involved in or

influenced by an earlier D&L partnership activity. For example, after receiving D&L assistance

through the MAC program for its parking lot

project, New Hope Borough is now investing

money and staff time in creating an interpretive

walk to connect the downtown and new heritage

attractions with the canal. This investment by the

borough in linking its resources and interpreting

its history is an example of indirect leverage and

demonstrates the ongoing influence of the

Corridor partnership’s expertise, vision, and

promotion of the canal story.

E. The Corridor’s Influence on the

Regional Economy and Heritage Tourism

The complexity and scale of the D&L initiative

make it difficult to determine the magnitude of

its influence on economic and tourism activity in

the region. Nonetheless, it is apparent that the

D&L initiative plays an important role in generating regional economic development. 

One relevant aspect is the economic impact of

heritage-related tourism in the Corridor. In 2005,

the D&L Corridor participated with four other

national heritage areas in a study to estimate visitor impacts, based on the “Revised Money

Generation Model” (or MGM2) used by national parks. This model provides a method for estimating the direct and indirect economic impacts

of visitation to communities in heritage areas

based on the money that visitors say they spend

when they visit the region’s natural, cultural, and

historic sites. Data collected from on-site visitor

surveys was put through a computer model

designed to generate the direct and indirect economic effects of visitation. The following results

from the MGM2 analysis for the D&L Corridor

are based on an estimated total of 3,876,980

annual visitors in 2005.

Direct effects of visitation within the Corridor:

• $144.5 million in sales

• 2.304 jobs

• $53.3 million in personal income from jobs

• $81.3 in total value added

Indirect effects:

• $236.1 million in sales

• 3,766 jobs

• $87.4 million in personal income from jobs

• $138.3 million in total value added8

Direct effects of visitation are based on the direct

economic impacts generated by visitor spending.

Indirect effects represent the secondary impact

of money and jobs on the regional economy.

“Total value added” is the sum of personal

income, profits and rents, and indirect business

taxes generated by visitor sales and added to the

local economy. While the extent of the economic

impacts of heritage tourism directly attributable

to the work of the Corridor initiative has not

been established, the results provided above

nonetheless demonstrate the clear significance of

tourism to the Corridor’s economy.

8 Economic Impacts of Visitor Spending in National Heritage Areas. West Chester, PA: Public Works, LLC, in press.

Mules tow passengers in authentic

canal boats in New Hope and Easton.

Chapter 4: Pursuing the Corridor Vision: Progress, Accomplishments, and Leverage 37
38 Connecting Stories, Landscapes, and People: Exploring the Delaware & Lehigh National Heritage Corridor Partnership

Hanover Township Canal Park.
Chapter 5

Analyzing the Existing Management Framework

As described in chapter 3, the legislation that

established the D&L National Heritage Corridor

created a federally authorized management

framework to assist public and private partners

in protecting and interpreting the region’s heritage resources and fostering compatible economic development. With the existing framework due to expire in 2007, part of the sustainability study involved an examination of the

framework’s strengths and challenges as a precursor to considering possible options for the

future. This chapter summarizes the findings of

that analysis. The analysis draws particularly on

meetings and conversations with commissioners,

board members of D&L, Inc., and Corridor staff,

as well as two focus group dialogues that were

held during the study. Additional information on

the methods and sources used in the analysis is

presented in appendix A.

A. Purpose, Vision, and Mission

The purposes, vision, and mission of the D&L

initiative represent a broad and ambitious mandate—integrating interpretation and education,

conservation, preservation, recreation, and economic revitalization, with a community-based

focus that emphasizes the importance of the

region’s heritage and story. This broad mandate,

which was directed by Congress in the authorizing legislation, helps to ensure the relevancy of

Corridor programs and activities. It also provides a “big tent” for collaborating and building

partnerships with diverse organizations and

individuals. Moreover, it reflects a conviction

that effective heritage conservation and development in the Corridor’s lived-in, working landscape require an integrated approach across

multiple disciplines, rather than a more traditional approach that might address each of these

concerns independently. This broad yet integrated mandate is a fundamental strength of the

D&L initiative.

Corridor participants recognize the importance

of the economic development and community

revitalization component within the overall mandate. Linking economic development with heritage conservation, recreation, and interpretation

can open up a variety of opportunities that might

not be available otherwise, such as:

• increasing the connection with local, state,

and federal policy and funding priorities;

• bringing in public agencies, businesses, and

community organizations that might not see

the relevance of a more narrowly focused

effort; 

• building support for other aspects of the

mandate from those who may be primarily or

initially focused on economic and community

development concerns. 

While the Corridor initiative’s broad, integrated

mandate is a key strength, it also presents certain

challenges. It is a demanding agenda and, coupled with the realities of working through partnerships, it can be difficult and time-consuming

to sustain progress on every dimension simultaneously. Moreover, while the Corridor partnership has made considerable progress with limited

resources in a relatively short amount of time, it

is clear that attaining the integrated vision outlined in the management plan 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 realized.

B. Geographic Scope

The Corridor’s substantial size and configuration

(i.e., encompassing the five counties but with 

an emphasis on the long, linear spine) are a logical reflection of the initiative’s primary interpretive themes, particularly the anthracite coal

transportation story. This broad geographic

scope presents some clear challenges to the

cohesiveness of the Corridor and to successful

implementation of the initiative over time, but

also offers some important strengths and 

opportunities. 

The challenges associated with the fact that the

Corridor stretches 165 miles through five counties and hundreds of municipalities include:

• logistics (for instance, the inherent difficulty

in convening meetings with stakeholders from

throughout the Corridor, and the challenge of

establishing and maintaining a meaningful

staff presence across such a sizeable area); 

• differing priorities and competition between

different regions, counties, and municipalities; 

• the time required to achieve meaningful

results in such a large area, especially across

all aspects of the Corridor’s broad purposes,

vision, and mission.

Chapter 5: Analyzing the Existing Management Framework 39
40 Connecting Stories, Landscapes, and People: Exploring the Delaware & Lehigh National Heritage Corridor Partnership

Multiple recreational opportunities

attract visitors to Hugh Moore Park

in Easton.

As a counterbalance to these challenges, the

Corridor’s size offers a variety of strengths from

the greater energy, capacity, funding, and political clout that are available through a large

regional initiative relative to a smaller one. 

The anthracite coal theme offers a potential

opportunity for the D&L initiative to link thematically with sites and organizations in the adjacent Lackawanna and Schuylkill national heritage areas, the Steamtown National Historic

Site, and other nearby areas (e.g., the Morris

Canal across the Delaware River in New Jersey)

that are also associated with the anthracite story.

While such collaboration could heighten some of

the challenges mentioned above, it could

enhance the overall interpretation of the story

and reinforce some strengths associated with

working at a large regional scale. (See chapter 8

for further discussion.)

C. Management Entity

Overall, it appears that the Commission has been

quite effective in its role as the Corridor’s management entity, providing coordination and leadership that transcend political boundaries and

span the broad scope of activities. Working with

diverse public and private partners, and in recent

years with its operating partner D&L, Inc., the

Commission and its staff have been instrumental

to the substantial progress toward Corridor goals

and the leveraging of public investments that

have occurred over the lifetime of the initiative.

(See chapter 4.) With this record of accomplishment and a perceived high level of professionalism, the Commission and staff have earned

widespread respect among their partners and

have helped to establish the D&L initiative as a

leader in the heritage area movement, both in

Pennsylvania and nationwide.

With the management partnership that now

exists between the Commission and D&L, Inc.,

the Corridor initiative effectively has a joint

management entity. Having the two organizations working in tandem has created a rather

complicated administrative arrangement, but the

process of getting the nonprofit up and running

and coordinating its relationship with the

Commission appears to have been fairly smooth.

Most importantly, the combination of the two

organizations has provided the Corridor initiative with the strengths and opportunities offered

by each. 

The Commission’s federal standing provides

stature, clout, credibility, and leveraging ability.

Commissioners, staff, and partners note the

importance of these attributes to such critical

functions as securing funding, obtaining access

to and having influence with key players (e.g.,

decision makers and regulatory agencies), and

providing a widely accepted forum that brings

diverse partners together. Also, with its legislatively specified representation of key interests, its

evenhanded leadership, and its Corridor-wide
The shape of Bear Mountain provided

the inspiration for naming Mauch Chunk.

perspective, the Commission is seen as having 

an unusual and valuable degree of impartiality

that helps to balance more narrowly defined

interests.

Meanwhile, as a nonprofit organization, D&L,

Inc., is less bureaucratic than the Commission

and provides the Corridor initiative with

enhanced flexibility and nimbleness in a number

of areas, including: 

• stakeholder representation (because the composition of the board is at the discretion of its

members and not directed by legislation);

• fundraising capacity (because it is more readily able to access private support from individuals, corporations, and foundations and to

generate revenue from sources such as real

estate investments); 

• staffing (because it is not bound by federal

hiring procedures or personnel policies); 

• longevity (because there is not the specter of

a legislated sunset). 

Together, the Commission and the board of

D&L, Inc., provide more opportunities for the

direct involvement of diverse stakeholder interests in the management structure than either

could provide on its own. However, the combined membership of both is not overly large

given the broad geographic and disciplinary

scope of the Corridor initiative. 

While these strengths are considerable, the

Commission and D&L, Inc., do have certain

challenges and limitations. In particular, the

Commission has struggled throughout its existence with what has been widely perceived to be

a trying, time-consuming, and politically challenging appointment process through the federal

government. The frustrations associated with

this process have led many commissioners and

some staff members to question whether the

benefits of having a federal Commission are

worth that effort. The Commission also has had

difficulties with other administrative aspects of

its federal status (for instance, regarding financial

management and staffing), but these difficulties

have eased as D&L, Inc., has taken on more

responsibilities and other adjustments have been

made. With respect to challenges associated with

D&L, Inc., there is the potential for competition

for funding and/or programming with other

nonprofits that are working toward Corridor

goals. Such competition, whether real or perceived, may be threatening to those other nonprofits, and could make it more difficult to build

and sustain effective partnerships with them.

Chapter 5: Analyzing the Existing Management Framework 41
42 Connecting Stories, Landscapes, and People: Exploring the Delaware & Lehigh National Heritage Corridor Partnership

The staff that serves the Commission and D&L,

Inc., has clearly been an important factor in the

success of the initiative thus far. The staff is hardworking, and has a number of attributes that are

well-suited to the challenges presented by the

Corridor initiative’s broad mandate and partnership approach. These include an extensive

knowledge of the Corridor, good relationships

with key players, technical expertise, political

savvy, energy, commitment, opportunism, skill at

building connections across the diverse aspects

of Corridor’s vision and mission, and the ability

to do a lot with limited resources. Also, the staff

has grown very adept at capitalizing on leverage

opportunities. In general, the staff’s ability to navigate the highly complex, dynamic partnership

system and integrate state and federal initiatives

with the needs of other partners is one of the

Corridor initiative’s greatest current strengths.

The most significant limitation associated with

the staff appears to be its small size relative to the

geographic scale of the Corridor, the breadth of

its mandate, and the number of existing and

potential partners. Corridor participants generally acknowledge that the staff is stretched thin,

although opinions vary about whether this is a

priority for action or how best to address it.

Two other important factors in the D&L’s success to date have been the consistently strong

composition of the Commission and the board

of D&L, Inc., and the sustained participation by

a number of key individuals (including certain

commissioners, board members, and staff) who

have provided continuity and institutional

knowledge. With respect to composition, in

addition to ensuring the representation of key

stakeholders as directed by the authorizing legislation, the Commission has had an effective mix

of members with diverse and complementary

skills, perspectives, and connections. The board

of D&L, Inc., is similarly strong, and has

expanded the circle of well-qualified individuals

that are now involved in Corridor management.

The sustained involvement of key individuals has

had important benefits for partnership-building,

leveraging, working effectively with key officials,

maintaining a focus on the Corridor mandate,

and learning from experience. The downside is

that the Corridor initiative has become somewhat dependent on a handful of key individuals

who will not be involved forever. With these factors in mind, it will be important for the

Commission and D&L, Inc., to continue to

recruit and nurture new leaders with the necessary qualifications to help carry the initiative forward and build on past accomplishments.

D. Partners

Involving a wide range of partners from the public and private sectors is a fundamental aspect of

the heritage area model, and much of the D&L

initiative’s success to date has been due to the

committed participation over time of many different organizations and individuals. Although

relationships with certain partners have varied

over the lifetime of the initiative, overall the

D&L partnership appears to have functioned

well and achieved far more than any of the partner entities or Corridor management could have

achieved alone. The involvement of key partners

in the D&L is examined further below, organized according to the different partner categories

identified in chapter 3.

1. State government 

As the lead state agency for the D&L initiative,

DCNR has been a critical anchoring connection.1

Each facet of DCNR’s involvement in the

Corridor has contributed significantly to the

accomplishments to date: its financial and other

support through the Pennsylvania Heritage Parks

Program, its management of Lehigh Gorge and

Delaware Canal state parks, its technical assistance and grant programs for conservation and

recreation initiatives, and its participation as a

member of the Commission. DCNR has also

played an important coordinating and catalytic

role with other state agencies and partners. The

agency’s support for the Corridor initiative has

been consistently strong, both from a funding

standpoint and with respect to its working relationships. This is in part due to the sustained

involvement of key staff members who understand and endorse the breadth of the Corridor

mandate, and who have consistently worked

within the system to further its success. Also,

there is a fundamental alignment between many

of DCNR’s statewide priorities (as articulated

most recently in its 2004 action agenda entitled

“Shaping a Sustainable Pennsylvania”) and those

of the Corridor initiative. This includes a mutual

emphasis on landscape-scale conservation, partnerships with the public and private sectors on

planning and implementation, and promotion of

compatible economic development and community well-being.

While DCNR’s involvement is widely acknowledged by Corridor participants to have been

overwhelmingly positive, a few considerations

1 Prior to DCNR’s establishment in 1995, the Department of Community Affairs played a similar anchoring role on behalf of the state.

DCA’s support was instrumental in the Corridor initiative’s formative stages leading up to and following its national 

designation.
have been raised that are worth noting in light of

its important role. First, there is concern that

DCNR’s support may not be assured in the

future after key staff retire. Also, there is a perception of some internal competition between

the Heritage Parks Program and other aspects of

DCNR’s operations, and a sense that some in

DCNR do not fully recognize or understand the

complementarity between heritage parks and the

rest of DCNR’s mission. These concerns are

heightened by the lack of an underlying legislative framework for the state’s Heritage Parks

Program. In addition, like all government agencies DCNR’s priorities continue to evolve, most

recently with less emphasis being placed on the

integrated approach of heritage development

and more on open space, greenways, and trails.

Given DCNR’s anchoring role, such policy

changes have implications for the Corridor partnership and its own priorities and strategies. On

a more technical level, some Corridor participants noted the complexity of certain DCNR

grant processes (such as the Community

Conservation Partnership Program, or “C2P2”),

which has discouraged some partners from seeking funding through these mechanisms. 

Other state agencies have also made important

contributions to the Corridor initiative. The

Pennsylvania Historical and Museum

Commission and the Department of Community

and Economic Development have participated in

Corridor management through their seats on the

Commission since its establishment, and each

has been actively involved in various on-theground activities. (One good example is the

Corridor Market Towns program, which, as

described in chapter 4, has received essential

financial and technical support from DCED and

is seen as a model for other areas across the

state.) Also, PennDOT has provided substantial

funding and staff support to a variety of transportation-related projects that have furthered

Corridor goals. At a broader level, Corridor participants suggest that the involvement of multiple

state agencies (those mentioned above as well as

others that have played somewhat lesser roles)

creates opportunities for synergy and integration

that extend beyond the normal purview of each

agency individually, with the possibility of more

substantial positive outcomes as a result.

Restored features enhance Delaware

Canal State Park.

Chapter 5: Analyzing the Existing Management Framework 43
There also have been challenges and unfulfilled

opportunities associated with the involvement of

other state agencies in the Corridor initiative.

Some participants hope for PHMC to play a

greater leadership role given the close alignment

between PHMC’s mission and many aspects of

the Corridor initiative’s mandate and activities.

Also, there is a perception that there may be a

need and an opportunity to more fully engage

DCED in Corridor activities, and to further reinforce the importance of the economic development and community revitalization component

of the Corridor mandate. Some participants cite

challenges in working with the complexity of

PennDOT programs, which in certain instances

has contributed to lost momentum and diminished confidence regarding promising projects.

For instance, the broader scope of transportation enhancement programs since the early

1990s has provided Corridor partners with an

expanded opportunity to complete the D&L

Trail. While PennDOT has been supportive of

this vision and generous with transportation

enhancement funding, the complexities of the

TE program and differences in working with

three independent district offices are confusing

and sometimes frustrating. Also, the lack of a

statewide wayfinding system has prevented the

D&L partnership from implementing a

Corridor-wide wayfinding system.

More generally, there is no explicit consultation

and consistency requirement for state agencies

similar to that required for federal agencies.

Establishing such a requirement could be a helpful means for ensuring that all state actions are in

keeping with Corridor goals.

2. Federal government

As has been the case with DCNR at the state

level, the NPS has been the critical anchoring

connection for the D&L initiative at the federal

level dating back to before its national designation. The Corridor’s connection to the NPS provides stature, credibility, and a valuable association with the widely recognized and respected

NPS “brand.” The NPS affiliation reinforces the

national significance of the D&L region and its

story in the eyes of partners, residents, and visitors. Meanwhile, NPS staff assistance has provided important technical expertise and capacity, particularly for the Corridor’s early planning

and subsequent interpretive activities. Federal

funding provided through the NPS Heritage

44 Connecting Stories, Landscapes, and People: Exploring the Delaware & Lehigh National Heritage Corridor Partnership

Canal and river flow side-by-side

through the Lehigh Valley.
Partnership Programs has been critical for

Corridor operations and management plan

implementation. This funding, and NPS involvement more generally, is seen as an important factor in leveraging support and participation by

others. The impact of NPS involvement in the

Corridor has been amplified because its contributions have been complemented by the strong,

sustained support provided by DCNR.

However, it should be noted that NPS support

for the Corridor and its working relationships

with the Commission and other partners have

varied over time. Many study participants

recounted their frustration at various times in

the Corridor’s history with certain aspects of

NPS administration, including personnel procedures and requirements and the administration

of federal funds for the Corridor. The

Commission has sought to alleviate these problems by conducting personnel management initially through a nonprofit Corridor partner and

now D&L, Inc., and by asking the General

Services Administration to administer the

Corridor’s federal funds. In addition, some

aspects of the interpretive assistance provided by

NPS personnel who worked with the Corridor

initiative were not always embraced by the more

established partners. For instance, some

Corridor participants noted what they perceived

to be inflexibility regarding issues of Corridor/

partner identity and a resistance to the interpretive standards of others if they differed from

those of NPS. While this issue was related in

part to the involvement of NPS personnel, it is

important to note that it was also tied to the

broader challenge inherent in integrating the

long-standing approaches of established partner

organizations with the newer overarching programs of the Corridor initiative. 

Other federal agencies have made important

contributions with commitments of substantial

funding and other assistance to Corridor projects—for instance, the Environmental Protection

Agency’s involvement in clean-up and mitigation

of the Superfund site at Lehigh Gap (as

described in chapter 4), the Army Corps of

Engineers’ support for interpretive signage on

the Wyoming Valley Levee Trail (also described

in chapter 4), and the Federal Highway

Administration’s funding for a variety of transportation projects under the TEA-21 program.2

However, there appears to have been less

engagement of other federal agencies as compared to similar situations elsewhere. Some

Corridor partners note that there have been

challenges in working with federal agencies.

2 See chapter 4, footnote 5 on page 26 for an explanation of the TEA-21 program.

Stewardship leads to opportunity

and prosperity: an underutilized

historic theater in Bristol is

re-developed for mixed use.

Chapter 5: Analyzing the Existing Management Framework 45
46 Connecting Stories, Landscapes, and People: Exploring the Delaware & Lehigh National Heritage Corridor Partnership

Regardless, there may be value in working to cultivate relationships with key staff from relevant

federal agencies (including those mentioned

above and possibly the Natural Resources

Conservation Service and the U.S. Geological

Survey) to open opportunities for future collaboration toward Corridor goals. 

It is also important to note that, although the

Commission has used it relatively infrequently, the

consultation and consistency requirement for all

federal agencies in the Corridor’s authorizing legislation is an important tool for ensuring that all

federal actions are in keeping with Corridor goals.

3. Municipal and county government

The five counties and dozens of municipalities

within the Corridor have been essential to the

success of the initiative to date. Much of the

work toward Corridor goals occurs at the local

level, and the counties and municipalities provide vital on-the-ground capacity for managing

and maintaining key resources, such as parks

that encompass significant parts of the spine.

Local and county governments have also contributed important financial and political support, and their investments have helped to leverage additional contributions from others.

The multitude of local jurisdictions in the

Corridor makes it challenging for Corridor management to be consistently aware of and responsive to the needs and circumstances of each

municipality. It is difficult to build and sustain

effective relationships with so many different

entities, particularly given the frequent turnover

among elected officials and staff at the local

level. In addition, many municipalities have very

limited resources in terms of funding and staff

and intense competing demands. There is often

considerable competition and a lack of communication even among neighboring municipalities

and among regions within the Corridor. These

factors combine to present a significant challenge to developing and sustaining a consistent,

effective local stewardship strategy across the

Corridor. Among other things, time, patience,

and sustained attention will be crucial to achieving further success at the local level.

4. Nongovernmental partners 

Nongovernmental partners in the D&L region

(including nonprofit organizations, businesses,

and local citizens) have been an indispensable

component of the Corridor partnership system

and its accomplishments thus far. They complement and enhance the work of the Commission,

D&L, Inc., and governmental partners, and provide crucial energy, capacity, financial resources,

Residents can again enjoy paddling

the peaceful Lehigh Canal.
other support (such as volunteers), and advocacy on behalf of Corridor goals and initiatives. 

The capacity of the D&L’s nonprofit partners

varies widely. Some are well-established and

financially stable, with sufficient staff to pursue

their missions effectively while also contributing

toward Corridor goals; others struggle on a

shoestring and are less able to make a significant

impact. This variability in capacity requires

Corridor staff to be adaptable in working with

different organizations. Many Corridor participants agree on the need for additional attention

to building partner capacity and leadership.

The sheer abundance of existing and potential

nongovernmental partners presents an ongoing

challenge to Corridor management in establishing and sustaining effective relationships. Given

the Corridor’s size and the breadth of its mandate, there will always be more potential nongovernmental partners than could become

engaged in Corridor activities.

E. Funding and Other Forms of Support

The substantial and sustained contributions of

funding and other support from diverse public

and private sources has been a fundamental

strength of the D&L initiative and a significant

reason for its success to date. The degree of state

support, particularly through DCNR but also

from other agencies, is noteworthy relative to

that provided to similar initiatives elsewhere in

the country. 

The substantial federal funds appropriated

through the NPS Heritage Partnership Programs

and state funds appropriated through the DCNR

Pennsylvania Heritage Parks Program have been

essential in supporting the operations of the

Commission (and now D&L, Inc.), and advancing specific activities related to management plan

implementation. By supporting both of these

indispensable aspects of the Corridor initiative,

the NPS and DCNR funds have been invaluable

in helping to leverage substantial contributions

(both financial and non-financial) from other

partners. In many instances, a comparatively

small investment of NPS and/or DCNR funds

for visioning, scoping, planning, or staff support

has resulted in contributions many times larger

from other sources. (See chapters 4 and 6 for

further discussion of this leverage.)

However, neither of these essential funding

sources is assured year-to-year or over the

longer term. This is due to the lack at both state

and federal levels of (1) secure “base” funding for

the D&L initiative itself, and (2) broader legislative authorization for the heritage area programs.

This absence of secure, relatively predictable

funding presents challenges, both for year-toyear activities and for longer-term considerations

such as strategic planning, implementation of

multiyear projects, and staff retention.

Another important aspect of the NPS and

DCNR funding is that they work in complementary ways. With the exception of its grants for

heritage park management, DCNR funding

through the Pennsylvania Heritage Parks

Program is more restrictive than NPS funding

because it is awarded for specific implementation projects and programs. In contrast, the NPS

funding can be used for whatever purposes the

Commission deems necessary. Thus, when looking to support a particular project or program,

Corridor management typically considers PHPP

funding first and then uses the more flexible

NPS funding to fill in financing gaps, cover

expenses that are restricted under PHPP policies, or support projects that the PHPP does not

fund. Many projects ultimately rely on a combination of funding from both sources to get started and to leverage support from other sources.

The Commission’s ability and commitment to

redistribute to partners substantial amounts of

the funding it receives through its grants programs has been important in the success of the

Corridor initiative to date. As described in chapter 4, these grants have helped to support a wide

array of on-the-ground projects that have contributed directly to the fulfillment of Corridor

goals. In many cases, the grants have also helped

to build the capacity of partner organizations,

and to draw new partners into the initiative. 

With respect to private funding sources, the

Commission has had limited success in obtaining

support from foundations, corporations, and

individuals. Corridor participants suggest that

this has been due mostly to a general reluctance

on the part of these potential funders to give to a

federal/governmental entity (i.e., the

Commission), and in some cases to specific policies restricting donations to public entities. With

the creation of the nonprofit D&L, Inc., the

Corridor initiative is now better positioned to

seek these sources, which could provide an

important complement to existing funds. The

nonprofit also offers the potential for revenue

generation for Corridor activities through other

mechanisms, such as real estate investments. In

pursuing funding from these sources in the

future, D&L, Inc., may want to look for opportunities to partner with other Corridor nonprofits as a way of reducing the likelihood of becoming a threat to them.

Chapter 5: Analyzing the Existing Management Framework 47
48 Connecting Stories, Landscapes, and People: Exploring the Delaware & Lehigh National Heritage Corridor Partnership

Many Corridor communities exhibit

pedestrian friendly amenities that

respect local history.
Chapter 6: Evaluating the D&L Partnership System: The Partner Perspective 49

Chapter 6

Evaluating the D&L Partnership System: The Partner Perspective

This chapter focuses on understanding how the

D&L partnership system operates from the perspective of Corridor partners. In other words,

how do Corridor partners work with the

Commission, D&L, Inc., and Corridor staff to

deliver the accomplishments described in chapter 4? In what ways do Corridor programs, activities, and investments have an impact on partners (i.e., organizations and communities) in the

D&L region? Are there opportunities for

strengthening or improving the D&L partnership system in the future?

To explore these issues, the sustainability study

team conducted research designed to understand how the Corridor initiative works from the

perspective of D&L partners. Thirty partners

were interviewed, including representatives from

the business community, municipal governments, state and federal agencies, nonprofit

organizations, and community leadership. Some

of these partners have been connected with the

Corridor initiative for many years, while others

are new. The interviews were done in a highly

confidential manner.1 

In the discussion that follows, the findings are

presented in two broad categories: perceived

strengths and perceived challenges. 

A. Perceived Strengths

Analysis of interview data revealed four interconnected themes that characterize the perceived strengths of the Corridor partnership: (1)

shared heritage: linking people to place; (2) collaborative framework; (3) anchoring connections; and (4) building a partner network.

Collectively, these themes identify and explain

the process by which the D&L partnership system works from the perspective of Corridor

partners. Each theme is defined by three subthemes that articulate the different dimensions

associated with each theme. It is important to

note that the themes and their subthemes are

interwoven tightly together. 

1. Shared heritage: linking people to

place

The notion of shared heritage serves to link people to place in the D&L region. In this way,

shared heritage is an important organizing concept for the Corridor initiative’s investments and

programming. This theme is defined by the following subthemes: (a) a story to tell, (b) thematic

boundaries, and (c) a context for civic and community engagement.

a. A story to tell

Corridor partners emphasized the importance of

preserving and telling the D&L heritage story.

The story describes the rise, decline, and subsequent legacy of the Industrial Revolution in the

D&L region. It acknowledges the impacts that

this experience has had on the region’s human

and natural communities, while creating a

meaningful context for Corridor programs and

activities. One Corridor partner said it this way:

Well, we’re the result of the Industrial

Revolution...The pollution that damaged the

mountainsides was a direct result of the zinc smelting. And we’re [now] dealing with the aftermath in

terms of the pollution. But, we have worked hard

to spotlight all of the positive things that the zinc

companies did for our communities as well. So

we’re helping to tell that historical story and our

current place in it, and that’s extremely vital to

what we’re doing.

For some partners, the Corridor’s heritage story

links geographically dispersed communities

together. In this way, the story has the potential

to serve as a platform for collaboration between

communities and municipalities. For many partners, Corridor activities create the impetus for

collaboration by providing a regional and integrated perspective:

Well, I think the D&L2 has awakened the area to

the cultural, historic, and natural resources that

are here. And as a result, they have had a tremendous impact. Without the Corridor, there would be

far less happening in those areas...There are historical societies and there are organizations like

ours that would still be doing things, but without

the D&L, they would be on a lesser scale and also

not connected in any way with each other. The

D&L has brought it all together, so to speak.

Several partners underscored the value in working with the Corridor initiative because of its

ability to connect the story to local resources. In

this sense, the story helps to create community

development opportunities by giving meaning

1 See appendix B for a full discussion of the research methodologies employed in this chapter.

2 In this chapter only, “D&L” and “Corridor” are used in a generic way to refer to the Corridor initiative and staff, reflecting local and

partner terminology.
50 Connecting Stories, Landscapes, and People: Exploring the Delaware & Lehigh National Heritage Corridor Partnership

and texture to manufacturing infrastructure that

may not otherwise be economically viable. One

study participant described it like this:

We’re selling heritage—the concepts of heritage,

history, and legacy. [This project] will transform

our heritage into something that works for us,

while respecting and valuing what it had been in

the past. We’ll be perpetuating the whole heritage

aspect [of this place] through the restoration and

redevelopment of this site.

b. Thematic boundaries

Many partners emphasized the fact that the

D&L’s heritage and key interpretive themes transcend existing political and administrative

boundaries. This encourages diverse partnerships across a wide spectrum of organizations

because Corridor goals and activities reflect thematic interests rather than political agendas. As a

result, Corridor management has become a relevant partner to a variety of nonprofit, business,

and governmental entities because of its thematic focus. One Corridor partner explained it in

these terms:

No other organization has the ability to transcend

boundaries right now the way that the D&L does.

And because the Corridor’s boundaries are thematic rather than political, it really is a very powerful tool for organizing these [efforts].

For other partners, the thematic focus of

Corridor programs and investments is instrumental in creating the necessary momentum for

change. Some study participants described the

direct ways that heritage can help build “political

will” with community residents: 

To preserve what you have, you need hooks. We

certainly want to take advantage of our history

and not lose it. It kind of brings people together

because everybody that’s from this area has that

same basic past. I believe one of the ways to get

consensus...is look for places where people can

agree, and build on that. “Heritage” is one of those

places, and working with the D&L has helped me

to understand the strength of this approach.

Rather than [focusing on] what makes you different from me (i.e., Palmerton’s a lot different [from]

Slatington, which is a lot different [from] White

Haven), we must realize that we’ve all got the

Lehigh [region]. Building on that creates cooperation and a team spirit.

The notion of shared heritage underpins and

connects the complex mosaic of natural, cultural, and historic resources throughout the D&L

region. For some, heritage provides a vehicle for

linking people to place. Others use heritage as

the organizing principle for defining D&L

resources in a regionally distinct way. One study

participant described it like this:

Well, I think [heritage is] the key thread that ties

this whole regional approach together. It really is.

The most common element that we have is our

heritage and our culture, and there are significant

resources all up and down the D&L National

Heritage Corridor that connect those.

c. A context for civic and community 

engagement

Heritage can play an important role in engaging

communities throughout the D&L region.

Several partners described how working with the

Corridor initiative on a heritage-based agenda

has helped to link the shared experiences of the

past with a vision for community revitalization

and development. One local official described

how the D&L has done an exceptional job of

creating the idea that there “is something much

bigger” than simply an old canal “wandering

through town.” This is especially important given

the significant economic transformation that

many of the communities in the region now face.

A state official explained it in these terms:

Well, I use heritage as a form of community revitalization and economic development. When the

coal mines closed, all we were left with was a

scarred landscape and all the jobs were gone. It

was very difficult to attract a CEO into a region

where your landscape has been literally deep

mined and strip mined, and all of those holes were

left unattended. It was very difficult to get a second

look, and that’s where the D&L has helped so

much in the revitalization efforts. We have been

working with the federal and state governments to

get a lot of these abandoned mines filled, rehabilitated, and reclaimed in conjunction with trying to

redevelop the downtown communities. With the

D&L’s expertise and help, we’ve come a long way.

Today a lot of these communities look a thousand

percent better.

For other partners, heritage serves as a vehicle

for engaging culturally diverse communities

around a common set of goals. Working with the

Corridor initiative has helped to identify the

common ground that is essential for implementing community-based efforts. One local leader

reflected on it like this:

I use heritage a lot to leverage good feelings about

the community, and when I say “heritage,” I

include the D&L in my thinking. Heritage has

important value for the community and what we

Shad, striped bass and trout lure

fishermen to the Delaware River.

No other organization

has the ability to transcend boundaries right

now the way that the

D&L does. And because

the Corridor’s boundaries are thematic

rather than political, it

really is a very powerful

tool for organizing these

[efforts].
have here is just outstanding – it includes

Lebanese, Italian, African American, Jewish,

Scotch, and Irish influences, to name a few . So we

all use that. We like to talk about that because it

gives people value in their lives, we believe, and it

gets people empowered. I also believe [that understanding] heritage is part of the process for

improving neighborhoods. Talking about our heritage not only engages community members in

conversation, it gets results on the street when they

know that they’re helping to improve and protect

the heritage of our community.

Some study participants described how working

with Corridor programs and staff has helped to

connect “young people to our past.” Other study

participants noted that the “historical and regional context” provided by Corridor programming

was essential in creating energy for large-scale,

ecological restoration activities. Ultimately, heritage may be about fostering a sense of pride and

place. The Corridor initiative can play an increasingly vital role in the D&L region by telling the

story of this landscape. One long-time Corridor

partner reflected on it like this:

Well, [heritage] is a strong way of connecting the

residents of a community to the resources by telling

the story. In the anthracite region it’s a sense of

pride. There are so many negatives associated with

the scarring of the landscape and the historical

abuse of immigrant populations as they came into

this country to find work. But [heritage is] a way

of connecting the history of individuals and their

families and their ethnicity to the region to tell the

story, which makes it extremely compelling. It benefits not only the residents of an area, but connects

the story to families, friends, and visitors.

2. Collaborative framework

Interview data suggest that the Corridor initiative serves as a framework for collaboration. This

framework provides the opportunity and mechanism for different organizations to develop partnerships in the D&L region. This theme is

defined by the following subthemes: (a) a shared

mission; (b) cultivating partnerships; and (c)

vision and leadership.

a. A shared mission

Much of the Corridor initiative’s value lies in its

ability to engage a diverse set of partners in

developing a shared mission for the region. In

doing so, Corridor staff have helped residents

find areas of mutual interest 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,” “connector,” “networker,” and

“nucleus” when describing the Corridor in this

capacity. One local official explained the

Corridor’s impact like this:

Working with the D&L has broadened my horizons. They have made me look at things that I

knew I wasn’t good at, and sometimes you tend to

stay away from those. If you know somebody next

door that’s good at something that you’re not, it

affects you. Likewise, working with the D&L has

affected me by broadening my horizons and giving

me other things to look at and think about.

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 ways in which Corridor programs have “broadened” their perspective.

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. One study participant

reflected on it like this:

Initially I was somewhat resistant to the federal

government coming in...I thought it was just

another fire drill. This type of thing had happened

so often in the past. Now, after nearly 20 years,

they’re still providing the service and the support

that we thought should come out of this [kind of]

program, but so often doesn’t. So, I’ve grown to

appreciate them much more. I’ve grown to understand what they can do for us, and what we can

do for them. And the partnership has grown as a

result. We’re now attacking some of these longterm issues from multiple angles and we’re moving

in the same direction. I have come to embrace the

Corridor and I know what they can do for us. We

now offer help to them wherever we can.

Over time, these kinds of collaborative relationships may alter the way in which organizations

and community leaders think about the future of

the D&L region. For many study participants,

their vision is now an inclusive, partnershipbased approach that integrates economic revitalization, community development, and natural

and cultural resource stewardship:

I think what’s important about the D&L is that it’s

taken the focus of the region and integrated all of

the things that are important. They’re able to bring

the necessary players together (e.g., DCED,

DCNR). They’re able to bring more people to invest

in it, which I believe at the end of the day makes

people better stewards. People want to bike, walk,

Hugh Moore Park maintains a historic

locktender’s house, a reminder of the

days when the Lehigh Canal was a

working canal.

I use heritage a lot to

leverage good feelings

about the community,

and when I say “heritage,” I include the

D&L in my thinking.

Talking about our

heritage...gets results.

Chapter 6: Evaluating the D&L Partnership System: The Partner Perspective 51
52 Connecting Stories, Landscapes, and People: Exploring the Delaware & Lehigh National Heritage Corridor Partnership

jog, hike, work, and live in an environment that’s

restored and friendly. All of us want things that are

old to be new again, and [when] we get invested in

that, hopefully we become better stewards.

b. Cultivating partnerships

The Corridor initiative is unique in the D&L

region, and the combination of its regional focus

and integrated approach creates opportunities

for robust partnerships. A number of study participants noted that having an entity (i.e., the

Commission and now also D&L, Inc.) dedicated

specifically to partnership building has been very

effective. For some organizations, working with

Corridor management has enhanced their ability

to work in partnership while empowering them

to think boldly: 

The D&L opened up a wider world of opportunity.

[Working with] the D&L allows you to be more daring and creates the proper nest, or environment, for

partnership building. The opportunities [created] by

the Corridor allow you to think more expansively.

You can be more daring, bigger, and better than

what you could have been [on your own].

For some partners, Corridor programs simply

provide coordination in what otherwise might

be an overwhelming and fragmented organizational environment. This provides smaller partners with the opportunity to connect their

efforts with broader Corridor goals and initiatives. One study participant described the impact

on her work this way: 

We have seen a necessity to have the kind of coordination and collaboration that the D&L provides.

The things that we need to do on a local front are

often in sync with the goals of the D&L initiative.

We discovered that working together gives us results.

Over time, Corridor programs and activities help

build trust within a large and diverse partner

community. As levels of trust increase, relationships that initially developed around specific

projects evolve into long-term, strategic connections that integrate local goals into a region-wide

vision. One study participant reflected on his

connection to the Corridor like this: 

Initially we were not quite sure what their role

was, but as we got to know them we gained a better understanding. Our trust level has increased

dramatically and with that, of course, you get better communication and great interpersonal relationships. And then you start building on that, and

it extends, certainly not only to our organization,

but [also] to the other organizations in the area. So

now I think of it as a partnership and a cooperative relationship. Our project is only part of the

whole effort, so, as much as we can, we support

their initiatives on community-wide and regionwide levels.

c. Vision and leadership

Nearly every study participant noted the role

that the D&L staff plays in the Corridor initiative. Many study participants used words like

“vision” and “leadership” when discussing the

contributions of the Corridor staff to programs

and projects. There is a strong sense among

study participants that individuals on the

Corridor staff “make a difference.” One study

participant described the impact on his organization like this:

It was unheard of to do what they did, and it was

really thinking outside the box. Our organization,

as much as we want to do that, doesn’t always do

so. However, working with the Corridor forced us

because of their strong desire and push to do it.

Knowing that the Corridor staff has the ability to

[think creatively] really forced us to think outside

the box.

For other study participants, the Corridor staff

serves as a kind of “critical friend,” providing

vision and leadership during the formative stages

of specific projects. This type of feedback not

only improves project outcomes, but also builds

trust while reinforcing the important role that

community-based efforts play in the Corridor’s

regional mission. One study participant

described the process like this: 

I don’t think I realized the importance of the role

that they would play in helping us to develop our

project. Because of their initiative, talent, and

great people, they have really generated an awful

lot [of energy] for us. I didn’t expect that. In the

beginning, I wasn’t sure how we would be a part of

their big puzzle, and I didn’t even know what I

was doing. But now this partnership has developed, which allows me to call them at any time

and say, “What about this?” or “We’re trying to

accomplish this, what do you think of it?” It’s just

great rapport that we have.

Perhaps most importantly, Corridor staff help

navigate a complex sea of state, federal, nonprofit, and private entities for many partners. One

local official described the Corridor’s role as

providing “gentle guidance.” Another local

leader explained that the Corridor’s commitment to a “transparent process” was essential for

sustaining their joint efforts. Study findings like

these suggest that working successfully in multidimensional partnership environments requires

We have seen a necessity

to have the kind of coordination and collaboration that the D&L provides. The things that we

need to do on a local

front are often in sync

with the goals of the

D&L initiative. We discovered that working

together gives us results.
a special kind of organizational culture and leadership philosophy. Another local official

described it this way:

Well, with my long past in working with different

government agencies, it’s easy for me to be negative

at times. However, working with the D&L was very

positive for me personally. And that’s probably

because of the individuals involved at all levels of

their organization. They’re willing to help. If there’s

something that has to be explored or looked into,

you know they get it done. In this regard, they have

exceeded my expectations. Sometimes when you

have to work through the bureaucratic maze of government, you feel like a little mouse running around

a maze. It can be tough. In this case, much of that

maze was real simple because they had a path.

3. Utilizing the Corridor’s anchoring 

connections

As discussed in chapter 5, the Corridor initiative

is anchored by relationships with key state and

federal entities (specifically DCNR and NPS).

Interview data indicate that these anchoring

connections are essential. They enable the

Corridor initiative to connect levels of government and leverage additional investments

throughout the D&L region, while serving as

important cornerstones for the public/private

partnership that defines the Corridor initiative.

This theme is defined by the following subthemes: (a) integrated synergy; (b) branding and

credibility; and (c) a catalyst for leverage.

a. Integrated synergy

The Corridor management’s ability to work

between various levels of government is precisely what enables communities to play meaningful

roles in the Corridor partnership system. In this

way, the Corridor creates opportunities for integrating agency (state and/or federal) initiatives

with municipal and community needs. One state

official explained it like this:

They’ve brought together various state and federal

agencies to provide assistance to the smaller

municipalities and regions that would not otherwise have the capacity, knowledge, or networking

to tap into [existing state and federal] resources.

The Corridor has had tremendous impact in these

small communities in terms of development dollars

and capacity building.

Numerous study participants identified the

Corridor staff’s commitment to partnership

building as an essential element of successful

projects. Complex revitalization and restoration

initiatives typically require significant public/private investment and involvement. In this way, the

Corridor’s relationships with key state and federal entities serve as important building blocks for

strong public/private partnerships. One study

participant described it this way: 

The Corridor staff brings a lot of expertise to the

table, and the current leadership there is very

good. They have been finding partners for various

programs, in part because of their relationships

with Pennsylvania state government agencies like

DCNR. Folks at the Corridor know the people to

reach out to—whether it’s the National Park

Service or someone else—as partners for various

programs. And, in my mind, that’s the biggest

strength of the D&L. I think that they have a very

strong record of actually partnering and matching,

dollar for dollar, federal dollars to other sources of

money. Their ability to attract additional dollars

to match federal money raises eyebrows.

The Corridor staff’s ability to craft and sustain

public/private partnerships has been a valuable

resource for many partners. One study participant noted that other organizations in the D&L

region do not “speak the language” of local or

state government. Other study participants used

the term “synergy” when describing Corridor

management’s ability to marshal public and private interests in an integrated way. The vast

majority of study participants felt that no other

entity in the region could be more effective than

the Corridor in linking community needs with

state and federal initiatives. One local official

described it using these terms:

I don’t see a group that could play a better role. I

think the D&L can cut across [multiple sectors of

government] because they don’t have a political

agenda. I don’t see the D&L as a partisan entity,

and I think that’s a big advantage. Government

agencies usually say, “I’m with the government,

I’m here to help you,” and most times that gets a

laugh. But when they [the D&L] start talking,

nobody’s laughing.

b. Branding and credibility

Many study participants commented on the

value that state and federal heritage designations

bring to the region as well as to their specific

organizational objectives. In this way, relationships with key state and federal entities reinforce

the branding and credibility already associated

with Corridor activities. One member of the

business community described it in these terms:

The fact that the National Park Service has been

involved in the creation and management of the

Corridor has helped to add legitimacy to the individual projects that we have undertaken...The

They’ve brought

together various state

and federal agencies to

provide assistance to the

smaller municipalities

and regions that would

not otherwise have the

capacity, knowledge, or

networking to tap into

[existing state and

federal] resources.

Chapter 6: Evaluating the D&L Partnership System: The Partner Perspective 53
54 Connecting Stories, Landscapes, and People: Exploring the Delaware & Lehigh National Heritage Corridor Partnership

designations [also] give us a certain level of credibility. Being able to say that this is a national heritage corridor and that the story of our community is of national import has put our history into a

larger context. And it says that this context is

important enough to the history of the state, and

the nation, that you need to pay attention.

For other partners, the designations underscore

the Corridor region’s heritage-based identity and

brand. One community partner likened heritage

corridor designation to having an “extra gold

star.” Another partner referred to it like this:

Our community sits between several major destinations, and, while we have a rich industrial history, we have never been known as a tourism destination. It gives us an opportunity to have a theme,

and it gives us an opportunity to be associated

with some of the other, better known destinations

in the region.

The value of heritage designation means different things to different partners. Despite these

differences, most partners interviewed felt that

the state and federal designations communicate

that Corridor programs, activities, and objectives

add value to the region. One community partner

reflected on it like this:

Members of the D&L staff have participated in

numerous meetings where we’ve had people from

different bureaus in the state, local politicians, and

folks from business and industry. The Corridor has

been very valuable as an external source that has

validated our place in history. The D&L National

Heritage Corridor is recognized and respected,

and their support is powerful. Their support has

really helped validate us.

c. A catalyst for leverage

There is a strong sense among study participants

that Corridor investments and activities have

leveraged resources throughout the D&L

region.3 As noted in chapter 5, DCNR and NPS

anchor the Corridor initiative in part by providing flexible funding that can be applied to a

range of Corridor needs. In many instances,

Corridor management is able to direct these

funds in ways that have attracted substantial

amounts of additional monies. This kind of

direct, financial leverage happens because

Corridor investments enable preliminary visioning, scoping, planning, and staff support. These

investments serve as the foundation for building

robust public/private partnerships that, in turn,

leverage additional resources. One member of

the business community described the process

like this:

The D&L was able to come in and provide the seed

money to start the planning [for this project]. This

allowed the local community to work with planners and professionals to begin to look at how we

could pull this project together. Ultimately, through

the D&L’s facilitation, this project tied this site’s

natural and historic resources together. Once that

happened, we were able to bring in other partners.

The initial D&L contribution of $5,000 leveraged

a $400,000 public investment from other federal

sources, which ultimately leveraged a $10,000,000

private development. So, dollar for dollar, there’s

no greater ratio in terms of leveraging. The D&L’s

a good entity to work with because they understand the importance of bringing all those people

together.

Along with leveraging financial resources,

Corridor programs can also leverage non-financial investments (such as in-kind contributions

and volunteer support) and ideas throughout the

D&L partnership system. While it is difficult to

quantify, this kind of leverage is important

because it creates opportunities for new partnerships and projects while generating momentum

for moving existing initiatives forward:

Although the Two Rivers project wasn’t all

Corridor money, it was the Corridor’s idea that

basically was the catalyst. That’s probably the

biggest thing that happened, and I think it made

everybody else aware of what [resources] we have.

Finally, Corridor activities help to build “organizational capital” within the D&L partnership

system. Many study participants noted that their

initial experience in working with the Corridor

exceeded their expectations. As a result, these

organizations are more likely to work in partnership towards Corridor goals in the future. One

study participant described it this way:

Our first joint project wasn’t very sexy in terms of

preservation, but it was very important because it

addressed many issues in the borough. This project

also created a good story, which allowed me to

pursue [heritage preservation] projects in other

communities. Ultimately, my successful relationship with the D&L springboarded other opportunities down the road. For example, right now, our

company is trying to purchase an old powerhouse

building that was built back in the late 1800s. It’s

3 The perceptions of respondents regarding the extent to which Corridor investments have leveraged additional financial resources are

supported by additional study data on this topic. See chapter 4 for a discussion of financial leverage in the D&L partnership system. 
literally located on the Delaware Canal...We want

to preserve it, enhance it, and make the canal part

of that development. I doubt I’d be thinking that as

strongly today if not for my relationship with the

D&L initiative.

4. Building a partner network

Many Corridor activities and investments have

been directed at building a network of partners.

The Corridor initiative’s ability to achieve its

long-term goals depends significantly on the

strength and effectiveness of this partner network. This theme is defined by the following

subthemes: (a) partner capacity; (b) partnership

system navigator; and (c) key network factors 

a. Partner capacity

According to many study participants, Corridor

programs play important roles 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 impact that Corridor efforts had

on his organization’s ability to do work like this:

I want to be truthful about this—I don’t want to

over-praise them because you’re doing an assessment. But my gut feeling is that [the Corridor is]

probably essential as far as networking throughout

this region. Had they not been here, we would not

have accomplished some of the things that we have.

I really feel that way. They’ve provided support

where we’ve been unable to complete a project. In

one of our projects, they’ve provided us with some

help, relief, and they’ve been able to take on a portion of the work that we would otherwise have been

unable to accomplish. They were the “go-to” people

here, and they really came through in that respect.

For other organizations, capacity building refers

to efforts aimed at improving organizational

management and operations. Many partner

organizations are small nonprofits that may lack

Immersion Days—the hands-on way

for kids to learn about canal life.

Chapter 6: Evaluating the D&L Partnership System: The Partner Perspective 55
56 Connecting Stories, Landscapes, and People: Exploring the Delaware & Lehigh National Heritage Corridor Partnership

professional experience, savvy, and training in

securing and managing grant funding. For these

partners, Corridor activities have helped increase

their capacity to be more effective partners:

There were many small coal region towns as well

as communities along the entire Corridor that

really didn’t have the ability or wherewithal to

aggressively go after grant funding and conduct

visioning sessions...We didn’t have anybody in

place, on a day-to-day basis, that could manage,

facilitate, and coordinate all that’s necessary to

make community revitalization happen. And

that’s where the Corridor Market Towns initiative

came from. The D&L assigns two individuals that

go around to these communities to help write

grants, do studies and visioning, and all of the

other things that create [the capacity for] community revitalization.

The strength and effectiveness of the Corridor

partner 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 local government official put it this way:

Ultimately the municipalities need to have the

knowledge and the financial capacity to execute

their part of the development. The D&L has been

very helpful in both of those areas. They’re showing

the municipalities how to build and maintain capacity, while providing some money to get started.

b. Partnership system navigator

Corridor activities have helped to link a complex

network of partners in the D&L region. The network is the primary instrument for achieving

integrated resource stewardship and community

development goals. Many study participants

used terms like “facilitator,” “incubator,” and

“connector” when describing D&L management’s role in the network. Others described it

as “agenda setter,” “advocate,” “critical friend,”

or “strategist.” (See sidebar for the 34 terms used

by partners to describe the roles played by

Corridor management.) Some partners rely on

the Corridor for seed funding or technical assistance, while others use it as a source of information, a marketing tool, or as a link to state and

federal policy makers. The point is that different

partners are connected in different ways at different times in a highly dynamic system.

Interview data suggest that, as an organization in

this system, Corridor management functions as

the “system navigator,” serving as the primary

entity that facilitates, coordinates, and guides

network activity. As noted earlier, nearly every

study participant indicated that at the present

time no other organization in the region is capable of replacing the Corridor in this capacity. One

study participant made the point in this way:

Based on what I see, they’re willing to talk to anyone

and work with anyone. We were an extremely

unique partnership and I know that they have others

out there as well...I think the D&L can be a great

facilitator in forging those types of relationships.

c. Key network factors

Analysis of study data also suggests that three

key factors are essential for growing and sustaining the D&L partner network into the future.

First, each study participant referenced time as

critical. 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 key factor

for many study participants. The reasons for this

are obvious—funding affects partner organizations’ staff size, training and equipment budgets,

and ability to make long-term project commitments. The constant pressure to secure funding

may limit the effectiveness of some organizations

in the network because it is very labor intensive,

thereby pulling limited staff resources away from

project work. 

Finally, the ability to navigate the system surfaced

as a third key factor. As discussed earlier,

Corridor management plays a multitude of roles

in a complex and dynamic network system. The

ability to successfully navigate this type of system

is critical—failing to do so in the right way at the

right time for the right partner can greatly

reduce the ability of the partner network to

accomplish Corridor goals and objectives. 

B. Perceived Challenges

Analysis of interview data revealed five issues

that are perceived by Corridor partners as the

primary challenges facing the D&L initiative: (1)

the spine, (2) partner capacity, (3) Corridor geography and size, (4) institutional barriers, and (5)

network redundancy. The remainder of this

chapter discusses these issues.

1. The spine

Several study participants expressed concern

Roles Played by Corridor

Management 

Advocate

Capacity builder

Opportunity creator

Catalyst

Communicator

Convener

Connector

Consensus builder

Coordinator

Credibility broker

Critical friend

Direct investor

Empowerer

Facilitator

Framework (or organizing

concept) provider

General resource provider

Glue

Inspiration provider

Idea generator

Information provider

Knowledge provider

Leverager

Networker

Navigator

Nucleus

Partner

Planner

Promoter

Sounding board

Strategist

Supporter

Technical assistance 

provider

Teacher

Vision holder
over what they perceived to be a lack of progress

toward completing the spine (the recreational

trail that connects the entire length of the

Corridor along the canals). For some of these

partners, the Corridor represents primarily a

recreational resource, and their involvement in

the D&L partnership system is defined around

recreation-related issues. Completion of the trail

is essential for these Corridor partners because it

will physically link the entire Corridor and

enable them to market a unique, heritage-based

recreational experience. One study participant

described it in these terms:

If the spine was a completed entity, we could talk

more about [heritage tourism]. We can’t talk too

much about the Crayola factory or other things

down in Allentown because to get there you’ve got to

get off the spine and in the car and drive there. I

don’t see in my mind how to market this thing

because it’s incomplete. If the spine was done, we

could draw a big picture and say, “Hey, you can

visit this whole area, and you can see this, this, and

this,” and we’d have connections between the Lehigh

Valley, the Poconos, [and] the other counties.

2. Capacity of Corridor partners

A number of study participants noted that, as

Corridor partners, their organizations often lack

the capacity for the growing workload of the

D&L partnership. While study findings suggest

that many Corridor programs have helped to

address this issue, partner capacity continues to

be perceived as a significant challenge of the current D&L partnership system. One partner

explained it like this:

We’re just a little organization. We have great support but we’re all volunteers. Nobody gets paid one

penny. I put in nearly a thousand volunteer hours

a year, and managing this is getting to be a fulltime job. It’s getting to be a big problem.

3. Corridor geography and size

Several study participants referenced Corridor

size and geography as challenges for the D&L

partnership system. For some, interpreting the

Corridor’s story and linking Corridor themes in

a consistent way across such a large landscape

has proven difficult. For others, the sheer size of

the area means that it will take more time, energy, investment, and organizational capacity to

achieve long-term Corridor goals and objectives.

The delaying of key projects can pressure the

D&L partnership system in undesirable ways.

One study participant reflected on it like this:

What seems to be a challenge that we all face, is that

sometimes it takes so long to get things done. And

that’s frustrating. We’d like to see things happen or

we think they should happen faster, so we can point

to results and let people enjoy the product.

4. Institutional barriers

A number of study participants reported that

institutional barriers can impede the work of the

Corridor initiative in significant ways. Some

study participants expressed dismay at the

amount of “red tape” and “paperwork” associated with certain projects. Other study participants felt that not all of the government agencies

play the role that they are potentially positioned

to play or share a commitment to seeing

Corridor projects succeed. Like the issues of

geography and size (discussed above), institutional barriers can put pressure on the Corridor

partnership system by delaying key projects and

alienating Corridor partners. One local leader

put it in these terms:

We’ve got a project that took us a long time to

develop, and now it’s taking a significant amount

of time to build because the requirements that the

funding agency placed upon us have strung this

out more than anybody would have imagined.

And this, of course, is difficult to explain to the

public or [other key partners]. We’ve either built

the project or we haven’t. I can tell folks that we’re

getting closer, but my explanation doesn’t have any

meaning for them.

5. Network redundancy

Several study participants suggested that there

may be opportunities for closer relationships

among current Corridor partners. Some partners

fear that as D&L, Inc., takes on a greater role, it

may compete with existing partners for already

scarce resources. Other partners noted convergence in terms of mission, purpose, and focus

among several organizations in the current

Corridor partnership system. Although some

redundancy may provide stability to the partnership system, the challenge is to develop sufficient

redundancy for stability while not duplicating

efforts or competing for resources. One partner

explained it like this:

I’m very keen on the idea that there may be [an

opportunity for] a closer partnership between our

organizations. Each organization does somewhat

different things, but they’re related. I think in terms

of programs and planning, we could be doing a lot

more together. There’s a natural complement that

might merit exploring a merger of the two organizations...[Although] we each do different but related things, we might be a lot stronger doing them

together.

Based on what I see,

they’re willing to talk to

anyone and work with

anyone. We were an

extremely unique

partnership and I know

that they have others

out there as well...I

think the D&L can be

a great facilitator in

forging those types of

relationships.

Chapter 6: Evaluating the D&L Partnership System: The Partner Perspective 57
58 Connecting Stories, Landscapes, and People: Exploring the Delaware & Lehigh National Heritage Corridor Partnership

SECTION III: THE FUTURE OF THE D&L CORRIDOR

Chapter 7

Identifying Critical Ingredients for Sustained Success

Earlier chapters of this report describe Corridor

accomplishments and leverage, examine the

existing management framework, and discuss

the strengths and challenges of the D&L partnership system from the perspective of Corridor

partners. Building on the findings from these

components, this chapter identifies critical ingredients for sustaining and enhancing the D&L

partnership system in the future. These ingredients represent a diverse array of inputs and

processes that interact with and support each

other to make possible the accomplishments and

outcomes of the Corridor initiative. Put another

way, these ingredients act in concert to create

success and sustain the partnership work in the

Corridor. It is important to note that while most

of the ingredients are already in place, not all are

yet fully realized (e.g., secure, sustainable funding). The critical ingredients are divided into

four categories:

• structuring the partnership system

• guiding the partnership system

• cultivating the partnership system

• considering time in the partnership system

Historic suspension bridges in Bucks

County link communities and trails.
Chapter 7: Identifying Critical Ingredients for Sustained Success 59

A. Structuring the Partnership System

The anchoring state and federal government connections provided by the DCNR and the NPS are

extremely important to the stability and sustainability of the D&L partnership system. These

two partners have played critical and complementary roles in the Corridor partnership for a

long time—the DCNR since it was formed in

1993 and the NPS since the Corridor’s formative

stages. They provide credibility and reinforce the

importance of the Corridor initiative for partners and communities. Other state and federal

agencies play important roles in project support

and implementation. Working in tandem with

the anchoring agencies and the other agencies is

an effective management entity that is charged

with “stewarding” the mission. Public- and private-sector partners, other stakeholders, communities, and local residents perceive this entity

as evenhanded and nonpartisan, possessing clout

and credibility and inspiring respect. Another vital

component of the system is the network of partners who must have sufficient capacity to carry

out projects and take on leadership roles over

time. Other critical structural ingredients include

secure, stable funding from diverse sources and the

ability to leverage funds, resources, and ideas. It is

important to note that the ability to leverage

derives primarily from the funding and participation of the two anchoring state and federal

partners.

B. Guiding the Partnership System

The Corridor’s broad, integrated vision provides

an overarching framework for collaboration that

welcomes the diversity of D&L partners.

Reinforcing the vision is the management plan

that supports Corridor goals and is relevant to

community and stakeholder concerns. The

region’s shared heritage acts as an organizing

concept for collaboration and provides a common platform for project action. Tied to the

notion of heritage is the compelling regional story

that connects local resources, links people and

communities, and provides a further basis for

collaboration. Also important are Corridor goals

and boundaries that reflect thematic interests

rather than political agendas or constraints.

These allow the Corridor to be relevant to

diverse partners and facilitate bringing the necessary players together. The personal vision and

leadership provided by the Commission, D&L,

Inc., and Corridor staff help to create a partnership culture that values collaboration. A number

of key leadership characteristics are also

necessary, including creativity and “outside the

box” thinking, entrepreneurialism and a willingness to take risks, patience, mentoring skills,

integrity, and collaborative leadership skills.

C. Cultivating the Partnership System 

It is essential to establish collaborative processes

that enhance and reinvigorate the partnership

system. Such processes include meaningful community engagement on an ongoing basis, continually telling the story and promoting the vision in

ways that connect people and communities

across the Corridor, and responsiveness to local

needs and priorities. Operating with an open,

inclusive, collaborative approach is essential. This

involves effective listening and communication;

sincerity, honesty, respect, patience, and trust;

shared responsibility and transparent and flexible operations; and a willingness to try new

approaches. Over time, with good collaborative

processes, partner organizations redefine their

goals and ways of working to align with the

Corridor goals and vision. Finally, a commitment

to learning and to implementing the learning helps

to hone the dynamic partnership system as it

evolves and matures.

D. Considering Time in the Partnership

System

It takes time for a system as complex as the D&L

partnership to evolve and mature and for partnership-building to bear fruit. It takes time to

build a strong, sustainable system because partner capacity varies and partner relationships rely

on trust and effective communication for successful collaboration. It also takes time to integrate resource conservation with community and

economic development goals. With an ambitious

agenda such as that encompassed by the

Corridor vision, there is of necessity a strategic

sequencing to projects, with early projects catalyzing or setting the stage for later ones. (For

example, “Visually and Graphically Speaking,” a

program that created a graphic identity and

interpretation system, was a necessary precursor

to later efforts to develop wayfinding and interpretive signage within the Corridor.)

As accomplishments are achieved and the relationships in the partnership system become

more robust, partners may be able to take on

more challenging, complex efforts—in essence,

the bar can be raised higher with time. As the

partnership system matures, there is a need for

increased specialization, technical expertise, and

capacity building in order to sustain partner

energy and momentum in general. In addition,

the nature of the relationship between partners

and Corridor management may change. Partners

may be able to take on greater leadership responsibility over time, which can open the door to

further learning and to strengthening of the

partnership system.
60 Connecting Stories, Landscapes, and People: Exploring the Delaware & Lehigh National Heritage Corridor Partnership

Bucolic rural landscapes can be found

throughout the Corridor.
Chapter 8: Management Options and Opportunities 61

Chapter 8

Management Options and Opportunities

In anticipation of the approaching sunset of the

D&L Corridor’s existing federally authorized

management framework, this chapter explores

possible future options for the management

structure. These options have emerged from several complementary parts of the sustainability

study process, including the examination of

strengths and challenges of the existing framework, meetings and conversations with Corridor

participants and outside experts, consideration

of relevant partnership models in the conservation field and other disciplines, and the study

team’s identification of critical ingredients for

sustained success of the Corridor partnership

system (as presented in the previous chapter).

The management options fall into three categories related to:

• the Corridor’s management entity; 

• additional state, county, and municipal government involvement, with leadership by

DCNR; 

• additional National Park Service involvement.

Each of these categories addresses an important

component of the Corridor’s overall management framework, and together they encompass

the primary anchoring connections that are

essential for success. Because of their mutual

importance, some combination of ideas from

each category may ultimately best meet the

Corridor’s unique circumstances and needs.

The study team is not recommending any specific option or combination of options, but instead

is presenting a range of possibilities for the

Commission, D&L, Inc., and other Corridor

participants to consider as they structure a management framework for the future.

A. Management Entity Options

At the center of the management framework is

the management entity that is assigned responsibility for coordinating the implementation of

the management plan and for receiving and 

disbursing public funding dedicated to the 

initiative. With the Commission’s federal authorization due to expire in 2007, there are several

options for the management entity in the

Corridor’s next phase. Note that the options in

this category are mutually exclusive—that is, 

two or more of them would not be pursued

simultaneously.

The first four of the options below would

involve federal legislation that renews authorization of a management entity for the Corridor,

and presumably would be accompanied by the

reauthorization and subsequent appropriation of

continued federal funding for the Corridor

through the NPS Heritage Partnership Programs

budget. This funding would help support the

operation of the designated management entity

and the implementation of the management

plan. Continued federal funding could be

authorized for a limited period (e.g., an additional 10 years) or could be made permanent.

A.1. Continue the current management

partnership 

The Commission could be reauthorized as the

Corridor’s federal management entity, and could

continue its operating partnership with D&L,

Inc. This would sustain the strengths that the

Commission itself offers (e.g., credibility and

clout as a federal entity, legislated representation

of key interests), but would perpetuate its associated challenges (e.g., a cumbersome appointment process). Similarly, it would sustain the

strengths that the Commission and D&L, Inc.,

offer together (e.g., greater flexibility for

fundraising and revenue generation, broader

opportunities for formal stakeholder representation on the Commission and the nonprofit’s

board than through either individually), but

would perpetuate the complexities associated

with having the two entities operating in parallel.

A.2. Shift to D&L, Inc., only

D&L, Inc., could be authorized as the Corridor’s

federal management entity, replacing the

Commission after its expiration. This approach,

with a nonprofit organization as the designated

management entity, would be consistent with the

majority of existing national heritage areas.

Relative to the current situation, shifting management to D&L, Inc., alone would reduce

administrative and bureaucratic hurdles, simplify

the management structure, and make it more

nimble. However, without the Commission there

would be fewer opportunities for direct stakeholder involvement in the management entity,

and other nonprofits in the Corridor could view

D&L, Inc., as a greater competitor for funding

and programming. Furthermore, some Corridor

participants have expressed concern that D&L,

Inc., would have less stature and clout with the

National Park Service and other federal and 
62 Connecting Stories, Landscapes, and People: Exploring the Delaware & Lehigh National Heritage Corridor Partnership

state agencies than the Commission, and could

be somewhat more vulnerable than the

Commission to temporary interruptions in federal funding during budget impasses.1 

A.3. Shift to D&L, Inc., and create a new

legislatively established partnership 

committee

D&L, Inc., could be authorized as the Corridor’s

federal management entity, and the current

Commission could be replaced with a new representative body established through federal legislation to complement D&L, Inc. Unlike the

Commission, the new federal body would not

have direct management and financial responsibilities. Its primary functions would be to:

• sustain a legislated mechanism for bringing

key Corridor stakeholders together (including

governmental and private sector interests); 

• provide sustained federal stature and clout; 

• advise and support D&L, Inc., in coordinating the Corridor initiative.2 

This approach would offer most of the advantages of option A.2 and fewer limitations. The

new federal body would be subject to the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act and

to similar administrative requirements as the

current Commission (for instance, the federal

appointment process), but the consequences for

the Corridor initiative likely would be reduced

with the new body having no financial and management responsibilities.3

A.4. Shift to D&L, Inc., and create a new

advisory council through administrative

action

D&L, Inc., could be authorized as the

Corridor’s federal management entity, and its

board could create a new advisory body to provide an additional, formal mechanism for broader stakeholder participation after the

Commission’s expiration. Since this new body

would be advisory to the nonprofit rather than

to a federal agency, and since it would be established administratively rather than legislatively,

this approach would avoid the bureaucratic hurdles associated with federal advisory committees

and with commissions and other entities established through federal legislation. This option

also would offer similar advantages to those

described above for option A.2. However, it

would not address some of the vulnerabilities

identified for that option, such as the possible

perception of increased competition on the part

of other Corridor nonprofits and a reduction in

stature and clout relative to the Commission.4 

A.5. Move forward without a federally

authorized management entity and 

dedicated federal funding

Under this option, the Commission would

expire and federal authorization and support for

Corridor operations would cease. Although

there would be no new federal authorization,

individual organizations and partner networks

would presumably continue to work toward

Corridor goals, with D&L, Inc., likely playing a

lead role in coordinating Corridor-wide activities

and ongoing implementation of the management

plan. The national heritage corridor designation

is permanent and thus would remain, and the

state’s heritage park designation and significant

support to the Corridor would not necessarily

change. While federal funding through the NPS

Heritage Partnership Programs budget would

end, other federal funding (e.g., through transportation and environmental restoration programs) could continue to be available for 

relevant activities, and limited technical 

assistance from the NPS could be available on a

competitive basis through programs such as the

Rivers, Trails, and Conservation Assistance

Program.

Nonetheless, this scenario would be a significant

setback for the Corridor initiative, and in all likelihood would substantially slow the progress

toward achieving its broad mandate. Without

federal authorization, D&L, Inc., and the partnership overall could have reduced stature,

clout, and credibility with government agencies

and other stakeholders. Perhaps more importantly, the loss of dedicated federal funding

would leave a substantial void—both in direct

terms for Corridor operations and management

plan implementation, and indirectly in leveraging

support from others. D&L, Inc., would likely

need to scale back its staff and focus only on

core priorities. This would leave some parts of

the Corridor and the partner network without

the support they now receive, and could result in

some partners (e.g., those with lesser capacity)

having to reduce or eliminate their work toward

Corridor goals. The fact that the Corridor initiative is well-established and D&L, Inc., is fully

functional could help to soften the blow of this

1 If D&L, Inc., is federally authorized to become the management entity, consideration should be given to the authorities and requirements to be transferred from the Commission to D&L, Inc. (for example, the authority to receive and disburse federal funds, and the

requirement in Section 11 of the Corridor’s original authorizing legislation that federal entities must consult and cooperate with the

Commission regarding any activities affecting the purposes of the Corridor).

2 Although this new body would be considered an “advisory committee” in federal terminology, its functions would be broader and

therefore some other title might be more appropriate (e.g., “Corridor partnership committee”). 

3 See footnote 1.

4 See footnote 1. 
scenario, but it is questionable whether or when

the Corridor partnership might fully recover.

B. Options for Additional State, County,

and Municipal Government Involvement,

with Leadership by DCNR

From each of the sustainability study’s analytic

lenses, it is evident that much of the Corridor

initiative’s success is due to the substantial

involvement and support of the state, the five

counties, and the multitude of municipal governments. As discussed in chapters 5 and 6, the

involvement of DCNR, in particular, is clearly an

anchoring connection that has been critical to the

accomplishments to date. Although these partners have already made significant contributions,

two options emerged during the study that would

further cement their involvement in the Corridor

initiative. These options offer opportunities to

advance statewide priorities articulated in 2005

by DCNR (“Shaping a Sustainable Pennsylvania:

DCNR’s Blueprint for Action”) and the

Governor’s Economic Development Cabinet

(“Keystone Principles for Growth, Investment,

and Resource Conservation”). The two options

could be pursued simultaneously, and either or

both could be combined with options from the

two other categories in this chapter.

B.1. Establish an intergovernmental 

partnership agreement for the Corridor

To date, the Commission has served as the formal mechanism through which key state, county,

and local governmental bodies (among others)

have participated in the management of the

Corridor initiative. Regardless of whether the

Commission expires or is reauthorized, it may be

beneficial to create a formal partnership agreement to further bind these interests together and

solidify their commitment to the Corridor. This

agreement could be established administratively

or through state legislation, and would identify

the ongoing roles and responsibilities of the participating agencies in supporting and working

with the Corridor initiative.

At a minimum, the agreement would likely need

to include those state agencies that have been

most involved in Corridor activities (i.e., DCNR,

PHMC, DCED, and PennDOT), possibly other

state agencies connected with the Pennsylvania

Heritage Parks Program (including the

Department of Education, Council on the Arts,

and Center for Rural Pennsylvania), and the five

counties. Municipal governments could also be

involved, although their sheer number could

present a challenge in keeping the agreement

from becoming unwieldy. Because DCNR has

lead responsibility for the Pennsylvania Heritage

Parks Program and landscape conservation projects statewide and has long played a key anchoring role in the Corridor, it would be well positioned to lead the implementation of this option.

DCNR leadership likely would be essential for

securing the involvement of others, and for the

effectiveness of the agreement overall.5

B.2. Establish a new management agreement, and possibly a new state designation, for the spine of the Corridor 

With the Corridor’s spine now almost entirely

under public control, it may be desirable to

establish a formal agreement or compact

between the state, the counties, and the relevant

municipalities for managing and maintaining the

spine. This agreement could provide a mechanism to solidify the commitment of the various

parties, identify sources of support for management, and develop baseline standards for management and maintenance. In light of DCNR’s

ownership and management of roughly half the

spine (in Lehigh Gorge and Delaware Canal state

parks), its heightened emphasis on outdoor

recreation and related community and economic

revitalization, and its diverse technical and financial assistance programs, it would seem both

appropriate and desirable for DCNR to assume a

strong leadership role in developing and implementing such an agreement.6 

While this type of management agreement or

compact could be developed independently, it

also could be authorized in conjunction with a

new state designation focused on the spine that

would reflect its unique partnership arrangement for ownership and management (for

instance, a “state partnership park”). This would

help to further elevate the profile of the spine

and its associated resources, and could further

solidify the state’s commitment to the management partnership.

C. Options for Additional National Park

Service Involvement

There is a strong sense among many Corridor

participants that a broader, sustained affiliation

5 While the description of the intergovernmental agreement is oriented toward state, county, and possibly municipal participation, it

could be expanded to include relevant federal agencies as well (such as the National Park Service, Environmental Protection Agency,

Natural Resources Conservation Service, and Army Corps of Engineers). Expanding the membership could complicate the establishment and implementation of the agreement, but could benefit the Corridor initiative over time.

6 The Pennsylvania Economy League is currently investigating possible models and considerations for this type of agreement or compact as part of a broader contract with the Commission and D&L, Inc.

Chapter 8: Management Options and Opportunities 63
64 Connecting Stories, Landscapes, and People: Exploring the Delaware & Lehigh National Heritage Corridor Partnership

with the National Park Service is needed in some

form, both for the credibility and branding it can

provide and for the technical expertise, additional capacity, and other contributions that the NPS

could potentially offer. Moreover, those participants believe that sustained NPS involvement is

justified by the Corridor’s national significance,

which was confirmed by the congressional decision to give the D&L region its national designation in 1988. 

There are a number of possible forms that additional NPS involvement might take in the future,

some more modest and straightforward and others more involved. The first four options could

be achieved administratively, while the fifth

would require legislation. Two or more of these

options could be pursued simultaneously, and

any could be combined with options from the

previous categories.

C.1. Use available tools more broadly to

convey the NPS affiliation and brand

Because national heritage areas are under the

umbrella of the National Park Service, they are

able to use NPS public information tools to broaden awareness about their connection to the agency

and the National Park System. Using these tools to

display the connection to the NPS “brand” can

help convey an area’s significance to residents and

visitors, heighten local pride, and stimulate

increased visitation. Although the D&L Corridor

initiative has made some use of these tools, there

are several readily available opportunities for doing

more in the future. Examples include:

• Using the NPS’s distinctive arrowhead logo on

Corridor marketing and interpretive materials;

• Developing a new Corridor brochure using

the NPS’s well-recognized “unigrid” format;

• Broadening awareness of the D&L’s listing on

the NPS’s national heritage area website

(http://www.cr.nps.gov/heritageareas/), and

creating more linkages between that website

and Corridor-specific websites. 

C.2. Seek a stronger, more consistent

relationship with the NPS Northeast

Region

Since its establishment, the Corridor initiative’s

primary link with the NPS has been through the

Northeast Region office in Philadelphia. The

existing cooperative agreement between the

NPS, D&L, Inc., and the Hugh Moore Historical

Park and Museums provides a solid platform

from which to advance the relationship between

the Northeast Region and the Corridor initiative

in the coming years. Examples of ways in which

the relationship could be strengthened to mutual

advantage include:

• Regular meetings (at least annually) between

Corridor and NPS regional leaders;

• A sustained annual commitment by the

regional office to provide technical assistance

to specified Corridor projects through relevant NPS programs (e.g., the Rivers, Trails,

and Conservation Assistance Program and

the Preservation Assistance Program). This

could be accomplished through a collaboratively developed annual work plan that would

specify the nature and extent of the regional

office’s support;

• Staff exchanges to help foster mutual understanding of each other’s needs, skills, and

opportunities;

• Establishment of a dedicated NPS “circuit

rider” for the Corridor, a relatively senior

regional staff position assigned specifically to

help the D&L management entity and

Corridor partners navigate the NPS system

and access federal funding, specific expertise,

and other support. This position could be

shared with the adjacent national heritage

areas and possibly others in the Northeast

Region that would benefit;

• Collaborative exploration of opportunities to

draw on the experience of Corridor participants in addressing challenges that are

increasingly important for the NPS (such as

working successfully through partnerships,

achieving meaningful conservation in lived-in

landscapes, and developing effective landscape-scale interpretive programs).

C.3. Seek stronger relationships with

nearby NPS units

Unlike some national heritage areas, the D&L

Corridor does not have an established national

park unit within its borders. There may be

opportunities to build closer relationships with

nearby NPS units, which could help to broaden

awareness of the Corridor’s NPS connection

while tangibly contributing to Corridor goals and

furthering the NPS mission. Nearby NPS units

and examples of potential collaborative opportunities include the following:

• Steamtown National Historical Site

(Scranton, Pennsylvania)—possible interpretive initiatives related to the anthracite coal

transportation system;

• Appalachian National Scenic Trail (which

crosses the Lehigh River and the Lehigh

Canal at Lehigh Gap near Palmerton,

Pennsylvania)—possible initiatives related to

community outreach and engagement, and

the development of side trails;

• Delaware Water Gap National Recreation

Area (adjacent to the northeasternmost corner of Northampton County, along the 
Pennsylvania/New Jersey border)—possible

conservation and interpretation initiatives

related to watershed concepts and issues.

C.4. Pursue renewed NPS interpretive

support

Many Corridor participants believe that further

interpretive assistance from NPS could be very

helpful in advancing the Corridor initiative, and

suggest that such a role would be appropriate for

NPS given its widely recognized expertise in this

area and its past assistance with interpretive

efforts in the Corridor. Further NPS interpretive

support could be focused on providing:

• greater Corridor-wide interpretive cohesion

through assistance to partners that are associated

with the Corridor’s story (such as historic sites,

parks, museums, and local communities); 

• an on-the-ground, uniformed NPS interpretive presence in the Corridor.7 

Also, there may be an opportunity to obtain NPS

support for a collaborative project exploring the

challenges involved in achieving effective interpretation in large-scale initiatives. Such a project

could be undertaken in conjunction with other

national heritage areas (those adjacent to the

D&L Corridor or others further removed)

and/or other large-scale NPS initiatives with significant interpretive components (such as the

National Underground Railroad Network to

Freedom Program and the Route 66 Corridor

Preservation Program). 

C.5. Seek authorization of a “special

resource study” to explore potential permanent NPS involvement and additional

federal designations

A number of ideas emerged during this study

that relate to the possibility of a permanent NPS

presence in the Corridor and to other NPS-associated designations beyond the “national heritage corridor” title. These ideas would require

further consideration through a congressionally

authorized special resource study, followed by

additional federal authorizing legislation if a permanent NPS presence or further designation is

deemed appropriate and desirable. 

The NPS would conduct the study through an

open and participatory public process, in consultation and collaboration with the Corridor’s management entity and key partners. There would be

a variety of opportunities for input and thorough

consideration of questions, concerns, or suggestions that might be raised. The study would conclude with a recommendation by the NPS to the

president and Congress. Congress would then

decide whether to authorize, through subsequent

legislation, the actual implementation of any of

the ideas explored during the study. 

Examples of ideas for further NPS involvement

that could be considered in a special resource

study include:

• Designation of the D&L Trail as a national

historic trail (as recommended in the

Corridor’s 1993 Management Action Plan);

• Establishment of a permanent NPS site or

sites in the Corridor;

• An additional national designation to further

highlight the area’s significance and solidify a

permanent connection with the NPS;

• Consideration of broader opportunities related to the anthracite coal story (for instance,

possible linkages with the adjacent national

heritage areas and other appropriate sites

nearby, and/or potential establishment of a

permanent NPS program tied to the

anthracite story).

There likely are different ways that each of these

ideas could be crafted to best meet the needs

and circumstances of the D&L Corridor, and the

special resource study would provide an opportunity to do so in greater detail. While the

specifics of potential NPS involvement would be

examined during the study process, the general

emphasis would be to explore ideas involving a

partnership approach that might not involve

NPS ownership and management. Also, the ideas

listed above would not necessarily be mutually

exclusive, and the merits of possible combinations could be examined as part of the special

resource study.

7 Using part-time or seasonal staff could reduce the costs of uniformed personnel. Seasonal staff hired through the Student

Conservation Association have proven to be cost-effective in other NPS areas.

Colonial Moravian technological

ingenuity created America's first

industrial park in Bethlehem.

Chapter 8: Management Options and Opportunities 65
66 Connecting Stories, Landscapes, and People: Exploring the Delaware & Lehigh National Heritage Corridor Partnership

The Delaware and Lehigh River corridors

are natural transportation routes.
Chapter 9: Other Options and Opportunities for the Future 67

Chapter 9

Other Options and Opportunities for the Future

In addition to the management options presented in the previous chapter, the project team

identified a number of other options and opportunities that Corridor management could pursue

to enhance and sustain the D&L partnership

system. These fall into three categories:

• investment by the management entity;

• enhancing partnerships;

• operations.

Many of the options and opportunities are interrelated, so it is likely that some combination of

options will best address the Corridor’s needs. As

with the management options in chapter 8, the

study team is not recommending any specific

option(s), but is presenting an array for consideration. Following the discussion on the three categories of options, the final section in this chapter

addresses the subject of funding considerations. 

There are several things to note regarding the

options below. First, the study team acknowledges that Corridor management is already

working in some of these areas (e.g., building

partner capacity). However, placing greater

emphasis on this work could strengthen the

partnership system as described in chapter 7 and

enhance the overall success of the Corridor initiative. Also, decisions made by Corridor management among these options represent tradeoffs in terms of the allocation of limited staff and

financial resources. Similarly, action on any of

the opportunities below may have a bearing on

the management options discussed in the previous chapter, and vice versa.

A. Options and Opportunities for

Investment by the Management Entity

In deciding how to allocate its funding in the

coming years, D&L management may wish to

consider the following:

A.1. Begin a new strategic planning

process

With substantial progress made in addressing the

actions identified in the management plan, a new

strategic plan would complement (not replace)

the existing management plan by identifying

strategies to most effectively tackle the work that

remains to be done. This new plan would help

guide the future investment of Corridor staff and

funding, identify highest priorities, meet the current needs of the partner network, and take

advantage of new opportunities. A strategic

planning process would offer an opportunity to

engage communities and partners, both existing

and potential, in providing ideas for making the

partnership more effective. It could also help

identify opportunities for closer relationships

between D&L, Inc., and key nonprofit partners.

The sustainability study findings can help inform

the planning process, and the decisions made

regarding the management options would

undoubtedly influence the direction of the strategic plan. Many of the ideas that follow would be

appropriate for further consideration within a

strategic planning process if one is initiated.

A.2. Place greater emphasis on building

the capacity of nonprofit and local 

government partners

The long-term success and sustainability of the

Corridor initiative relies upon a strong network 

of partners who can step up to the plate, shoulder greater leadership responsibilities, and

implement the shared agenda. For this to happen, capacity building must become an even

greater investment priority, through such means

as leadership training, a mentoring program to

share best practices among Corridor partners,

and further efforts to help partners secure the

support, staffing, and expertise they need.

A.3. Make further use of the region’s

shared heritage to bind the Corridor

together

As discussed in chapter 6, the heritage that is

shared throughout the D&L region transcends

the Corridor’s geographical divides. It is important for the strength and resiliency of the partner

network—and ultimately the long-term sustainability of the overall Corridor initiative—that this

shared heritage is used effectively as an organizing principle and a platform for collaborative

action. A key role for Corridor management is to

continue building awareness of the region’s

shared heritage and story so that an even wider

array of partners come to see their missions as

relevant to each other and connected through

the broader regional story.

A.4. Develop a strategic interpretive plan

to identify the most important aspects of

the Corridor story and to set interpretive

priorities

The interpretation and education plan of June

1999, developed by the NPS interpreter assigned

for several years to the D&L Corridor, is an

important tool in helping to understand and
68 Connecting Stories, Landscapes, and People: Exploring the Delaware & Lehigh National Heritage Corridor Partnership

interpret the many stories of the D&L Corridor.

It is quite comprehensive and detailed, and, for

some partners, rather overwhelming. There

appears to be a need to complement this document with a targeted strategy that identifies interpretation priorities and the most important

aspects of the story to tell Corridor-wide.

Together, the existing plan and a new strategic

interpretation plan could provide Corridor staff

and partners with a stronger foundation for building the broader regional awareness of a shared

heritage envisioned in the previous paragraph.

A.5. Foster broader involvement of

diverse stakeholders in Corridor activities

Maintaining a vibrant partner network is essential to sustaining the Corridor initiative, and this

depends in part upon Corridor management

engaging with the range of Corridor stakeholders

and the general public on an ongoing basis.

While Corridor management has strong relations

with many stakeholders, additional outreach to

local governments, nonprofit organizations,

businesses, and others would help to broaden

and diversify the overall partnership and

enhance its ability to achieve Corridor goals.

Developing a strategy for further engagement of

diverse stakeholders in Corridor activities would

be an important aspect of the strategic planning

process described in option A.1 above.

A.6. Place greater emphasis on public

relations and marketing

Although the Corridor initiative is well known in

some circles within the D&L region, and certain

activities such as “Miles of Mules” have generated considerable publicity and awareness,

Corridor management should consider further

efforts to increase the initiative’s profile in the

region. Making greater use of NPS communication tools (see chapter 8) and developing a

strategic interpretive plan (as described above)

are two examples of possible approaches. These

and other strategies can help to build a broader

understanding of what the Corridor partnership

is trying to achieve, what it has accomplished to

date, and how all of this is connected with the

priorities of local, state, and federal government

and other partners. This, in turn, could help to

generate greater support for the Corridor initiative and attract new partners.

A.7. Emphasize the Corridor initiative as

a driver of economic development and

community revitalization

There is some recognition that the accomplishments of the Corridor partnership have

enhanced the region’s economy and quality of

life and may help draw new businesses and residents to the area. However, many Corridor participants believe more should be done to highlight this aspect of the partnership’s work, both

because of its intrinsic value and because it can

help to leverage further involvement of businesses and economically oriented public agencies at

all levels of government. Some of the options

described above (such as enhanced marketing

and developing a strategic interpretive plan)

could be used in part to emphasize how the

Corridor contributes to economic development

and community revitalization across the region.

A.8. Highlight ways in which Corridor

activities are consistent with and 

contribute to state and federal priorities

For example, D&L programs are very much in

line with the objectives of the Governor’s

“Keystone Principles for Growth, Investment, and

Resource Conservation” and DCNR’s “Shaping a

Sustainable Pennsylvania.” Demonstrating more

clearly how D&L programs help to further such

objectives could help to solidify support for the

Corridor initiative and open new opportunities

with governmental partners.

A.9. Expand in-house capacity to meet

the increasing range of demands

As discussed in chapter 5, there is a general sense

that Corridor staff are spread thin at a time when

demands are increasing. While there are differing opinions about whether or how to respond

to this situation, it seems appropriate for

Corridor management to weigh the merits of

some level of staff expansion. This could include

hiring staff for fundraising and development to

increase the funding base for the Corridor partnership, or for grant-writing, technical, and

other assistance to partners. (See box on page 71

for ideas related to funding opportunities.)

B. Options and Opportunities for

Enhancing Partnerships

The accomplishments of the D&L Corridor are

based on partnerships. There is inevitably an ebb

and flow in the makeup of the partner network

as organizations evolve and as projects are initiated, completed, or become more complex.

Within this dynamic context and to the extent

possible in light of other considerations,

Corridor management should continue to seek

to expand and enhance the partner network and

to build the capacity of partners to assume

greater leadership responsibilities. In looking to

the future, Corridor management may want to

consider initiating a strategic assessment of its

partnerships to determine if there is redundancy

in mission and effort, a thought that was raised

in several partner interviews. A certain amount

of redundancy can provide stability, but too

much could be inefficient and could lead to
counterproductive competition. Further analysis

of the partner network could uncover the different dimensions of connectivity within the network as well as the degree of similarity in missions.1 This information could provide the basis

for strengthening key existing partnerships and

developing new partnerships to address gaps in

the network. Such an assessment of partnerships

could be included in a broader strategic planning

process, as discussed earlier. 

In addition to the general idea of a strategic

assessment of key partnerships, more specific

options and opportunities related to partnerships that surfaced during the sustainability

study include:

B.1. Strengthen partnerships with DCED

and tourism entities

This could be tied to efforts to place greater

emphasis on economic development and community revitalization, as discussed in option A.7

above.

B.2. Pursue closer partnerships with

agencies (state and federal) that have not

been deeply involved in the Corridor initiative

The Corridor might benefit from the greater

involvement of state agencies such as the

Pennsylvania Historical and Museums

Commission and PennDOT, and federal agencies

such as the U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Army Corps of Engineers, and Natural

Resources Conservation Service.

B.3. Pursue further partnerships with

academic institutions

This could include larger projects undertaken

through a cooperative agreement with Lehigh

University and state and community colleges

within the Corridor.2

1 See, for example, Maryann M. Durland and Kimberly A. Fredericks, eds, “Social Network Analysis in Program Evaluation,” New

Directions for Evaluation 107 (2005). 2 As an example, the Schuylkill River National Heritage Area and Montgomery County Community College are partnering to develop

a comprehensive curriculum on national heritage areas that will include conservation, historic preservation, recreation, community

revitalization, and heritage tourism.

Scout groups volunteer at the

Wildlife Information Center, where

the D&L and Appalachian Trails

intersect.

Chapter 9: Other Options and Opportunities for the Future 69
70 Connecting Stories, Landscapes, and People: Exploring the Delaware & Lehigh National Heritage Corridor Partnership

B.4. Evaluate partnership opportunities

with like-minded organizations and initiatives in adjacent regions

Corridor participants suggested the Morris

Canal in New Jersey and the Lower Delaware

National Wild and Scenic River as potential 

partners.

C. Options and Opportunities Related to

Operations

Some of the options and opportunities related to

Corridor management’s operations are temporary in nature while others are more long-term

considerations. The latter could be considered

within a strategic planning process. 

C.1. Consider the merits of concentrating

more staff attention on completing the

D&L Trail and the spine

As discussed in chapter 6, some partners view

the Corridor as a recreational resource, and as

long as the trail is incomplete, they do not view

the Corridor initiative as successful. While this

may be in part a message “gap” that can be

addressed with greater attention to marketing

and highlighting the region’s shared heritage, it

remains a challenge that needs to be considered.

If the overall capacity of Corridor management

and staff can be increased, additional attention

on the spine might not need to come at the

expense of other priorities.

C.2. Consider decentralizing staff in

strategic locations

Some participants see the Corridor as too large

and diverse for individual staff to cover its

entirety for any given program area. Having staff

“closer to the ground” would enable them to

build stronger local relationships. One possibility

would be to have staff located in each of the

Corridor’s major regions (i.e., north, central, and

south).

New housing development is changing the landscape in Bucks County.
C.3. Consider the composition of the

D&L, Inc., board

In looking ahead to the possible termination of

the Commission and a transition to D&L, Inc., as

the management entity, the Commission and

board may want to think about the board’s composition. This would be especially important if

the Commission expires and no new representative entity is created. Considerations could

include board size, the degree to which it is representative of key stakeholder interests, and

whether other attributes are needed among its

membership (e.g., additional expertise, connections, access to funding).

C.4. In the case of Commission expiration, consider a temporary “transition

committee” for D&L, Inc., to provide

institutional knowledge

Although the Commission and the board have

been co-managing the Corridor initiative for the

past two years, there could still be benefit in

appointing a temporary committee made up of

past and current Commission members and

other past key players to advise the board for a

specified period of time if the Commission

expires.

C.5. Introduce a process for succession

planning in anticipation of the retirement of key individuals

With the anticipated retirement of key participants both within the Corridor management and

among some key partners, D&L management

might want to consider how best to ensure the

transfer of institutional knowledge and sustain

the smooth functioning of the Corridor’s ongoing initiatives and partner relationships. This is

especially important with a partnership-based

initiative in which much of the success of the

effort relies upon good interpersonal relations.

D. Funding Considerations 

As discussed elsewhere in this report, the financial investments by the state through the DCNR

Pennsylvania Heritage Parks Program and by the

federal government through the NPS Heritage

Partnership Programs have been essential to the

progress made to date by the D&L Corridor

partnership. Although these investments have

created an impressive record of leverage (see

charts on page 19), the existing funding arrangement is not ideal. The lack of assurance and predictability from year to year puts this leveraging

capacity at risk, and impedes strategic planning

and implementation of multiyear projects. For

the Corridor initiative to meet its full potential

there is a need to secure sustainable funding,

ideally from a diversified base. One step that

Corridor management could take to increase

fundraising capacity is to hire development staff,

as mentioned in option A.9 above. Other ideas of

possible funding opportunities that emerged

during the study are listed in the box below.

These ideas would require further consideration

to determine which might be best suited to the

circumstances of the D&L initiative.

Potential opportunities to expand funding sources

• Pursue greater support from corporations, foundations, and individuals

• Establish corporate sponsorships for the D&L Trail (e.g., bridges, trailheads)

• Investigate opportunities for funding economic development projects near gaming sites

through revenues from Pennsylvania’s new gaming legislation, which includes a provision for

multi-county cooperative applications and initiatives

• Investigate funding opportunities through state and regional authorities, tax credits, and

other public funding sources (e.g., new market tax credits through the Pennsylvania Housing

and Finance Agency, Multiuse Financing Facilities Investment)

• Pursue opportunities to generate earned income in partnership with others, such as rent from

rehabilitated structures (as has been done successfully in Lackawanna Valley National Heritage

Area)

• Pursue funding from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and/or Department of Energy

for educational centers (e.g., extending the EPA partnership in Lehigh Gorge to include the

planned educational center, as described on page 33)

Chapter 9: Other Options and Opportunities for the Future 71
72 Connecting Stories, Landscapes, and People: Exploring the Delaware & Lehigh National Heritage Corridor Partnership

The recreational benefits of the

Delaware Canal are enjoyed by visitors

and residents alike.
Chapter 10: Closing Thoughts 73

Chapter 10

Closing Thoughts

By effectively utilizing a collaborative approach

to landscape conservation that relies on the

active participation of partners from both the

public and private sectors, the D&L partnership

has become a model within and outside the

region and has contributed to the evolution of

heritage area programs at the state and federal

levels. The initiative has fostered preservation of

the region’s heritage through hundreds of projects and partnerships, broadened awareness of

the economic benefits and enhanced quality-oflife that protecting heritage resources can provide, and leveraged millions of dollars from public and private sources. The support and leadership of local people and the long-standing commitment by the state since before the Corridor’s

national designation have enabled the D&L partnership to mature and prosper. Yet while the initiative has addressed much of the broad mandate

from Congress articulated in its management

plan, there are still miles of trails to establish and

maintain, resources and stories to discover and

interpret, new partners to engage, and more residents to inspire. Engaging the public and new

leaders in the Corridor partnership and fostering

broader local stewardship of the Corridor’s

resources will be a continual challenge. This

report establishes a benchmark that will allow

Corridor management to chart its future

progress in terms of programs and partnerships.

The Corridor initiative’s work in building a

diverse partner network to achieve its multifaceted mandate is impressive, but considerable

work still remains to be done. As D&L management deliberates on the future of the Corridor, it

will need to consider how best to reinforce the

partnership system and employ it most effectively in order to build on past accomplishments.

One key consideration in this effort will be to

determine how to secure the vital anchoring

connections provided by DCNR and NPS.

Furthermore, the D&L initiative will continue to

face an ever-changing array of partners within

and outside the Corridor. Changes in the priorities, leadership, politics, capacity, and budgets of

both public and private partners will shift the

dynamics of relationships, creating new challenges and opportunities. These shifts will test

the strength of the partnership system and the

ability of Corridor management to guide it with

flexibility and creativity. Successfully navigating

and responding to change will be essential for

the Corridor initiative to continue to thrive over

time. The complexity and dynamic nature of this

partnership system highlights the need for continued organizational learning and adaptive

management.

In the bigger picture, developing a deeper understanding of the D&L initiative’s collaborative,

network-based approach is relevant to the future

of this heritage area and other regional landscape conservation initiatives. The D&L

Corridor’s experience can also inform the application of the emerging “governing by network”

concept in a variety of disciplines, and can help

in identifying essential roles for governmental

partners and other critical ingredients for success that may cut across disciplinary boundaries.1

In the end, a better understanding of the D&L

initiative will help inform the developing practice

of conserving lived-in landscapes far beyond the

D&L Corridor boundaries, both within and outside of designated heritage areas.

1 Network governance represents an increasingly popular model of program delivery and policy implementation. This topic is currently

receiving considerable attention in the public policy/administration literature, and numerous authors have identified the need to conduct additional research on this topic. For example, see Stephen Goldsmith and William D. Eggers, Governing by Network

(Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution, 2004); Maarten A. Hajer and Hendrik Wagenaar, eds., Deliberative Policy Analysis:

Understanding Governance in the Network Society (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2003); and The American Review of

Public Administration 36, no. 1 (March 2006).
74 Connecting Stories, Landscapes, and People: Exploring the Delaware & Lehigh National Heritage Corridor Partnership

Further Reading

Avrami, Erica, and Randall Mason, eds. Values and Heritage

Conservation. Los Angeles: The Getty Conservation Institute,

2000.

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/

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.

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: 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, PA: Eastern National, 2003.

Delaware & Lehigh National Heritage Corridor Commission.

Delaware & Lehigh Canal National Heritage Corridor and State

Heritage Park: Management Action Plan. Easton, PA: Delaware

& Lehigh National Heritage Corridor Commission, 1993.

Durney, Christopher P., J. Glenn Eugster, and John W. Wilson.

“Social System Complexity: New Forms of U.S. Federal Agency

Involvement.” In New Horizons in Research on Sustainable

Organizations, edited by Mark Starik, Sanjay Sharma, Carolyn

Egri, and Rick Bunch Sheffield, 100–126. Sheffield, UK:

Greenleaf Publishing, 2005.

Fowler, P. J. World Heritage Cultural Landscapes 1992–2002.

World Heritage Papers 6. Paris: UNESCO World Heritage

Centre, 2003.

Friends of the Delaware Canal. Delaware Canal Master Plan: A

Plan and Program to Preserve and Improve the Delaware Canal

and Roosevelt State Park. Point Pleasant, PA: Friends of the

Delaware Canal, 1987.

Goldsmith, Stephen, and William D. Eggers. Governing by

Network: The New Shape of the Public Sector. Washington, DC:

The Brookings Institution Press, 2004.

Hajer, Maarten A., and Hendrik Wagenaar, eds. Deliberative

Policy Analysis: Understanding Governance in the Network

Society. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2003.

Harmon, David, and Allen Putney, eds. The Full Value of Parks:

From Economics to the Intangible. Lanham, MD: Rowman &

Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 2003.

Koontz, Tomas M., Toddi A. Steelman, JoAnn Carmin, Katrina

Smith Korfmacher, Cassandra Mosely, and Craig W. Thomas.

Collaborative Environmental Management: What Roles for

Government? Washington, DC: Resources for the Future, 2004.

Krebs, Valdis, and June Holley. “Building Sustainable

Communities through Network Building.”

www.orgnet.com/BuildingNetworks.pdf

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, Russell M. Working Across Boundaries: Making

Collaboration Work in Government and Nonprofit

Organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2002. 

Marsden, Elissa G., ed. The Stone Coal Way. Easton, PA:

Delaware & Lehigh National Heritage Corridor, 2005.

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 Study Institute, 2003.

www.nps.gov/csi/pdf/speaking.pdf

National Park System Advisory Board. Charting a Future for the

National Heritage Areas. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of

the Interior, National Park Service, 2006, in press. 

National Park System Advisory Board. The Future of the

National Heritage Areas in the National Park System: An Interim

Report by the National Park System Advisory Board Partnerships

Committee. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior,

National Park Service, 2005. http://www.cr.nps.gov/heritageareas/REP/AB%20report.pdf

Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural

Resources. Shaping a Sustainable Pennsylvania: DCNR’s

Blueprint for Action. Harrisburg, PA: Pennsylvania Department

of Conservation and Natural Resources, 2005.

http://www.dcnr.state.pa.us/info/shapefuture/actionplanfinal.pdf

Pennsylvania Economic Development Cabinet. Keystone

Principles for Growth, Investment, and Resource Conservation.

Harrisburg, PA: Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 2005.

http://www.depweb.state.pa.us/pubpartcenter/lib/pubpartcenter/Keystone_Principles_and_Criteria.pdf

Pennsylvania Economy League, Inc. Delaware & Lehigh Canal

Heritage Corridor Maintenance Study. Wilkes-Barre, PA:

Pennsylvania Economy League, Inc., 2006, in press.

Perloff, Carol Benenson, ed. A Story Runs Through It: Wyoming

Valley Levee System. Wilkes-Barre, PA: Luzerne County Flood

Protection Authority, 2003.

Phillips, Adrian. Management Guidelines for IUCN Category V

Protected Areas: Protected Landscapes/Seascapes. Washington,

DC: Island Press, 2002.

Tuxill, Jacquelyn L., Nora J. Mitchell, and Jessica Brown, eds.

Collaboration and Conservation: Lessons Learned from

National Park Service Partnership Areas in the Western United

States. Woodstock, VT: Conservation Study Institute, 2004.

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, VT: Conservation Study Institute, 2005. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Heritage Conservation and

Recreation Service. Lehigh Canal: An HCRS Project Report.

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, Heritage

Conservation and Recreation Service, Publication Number 36,

1979.

Wondolleck, Julia M., and Steven L. Yaffee. Making

Collaboration Work: Lessons from Innovation in Natural

Resource Management. Washington, DC: Island Press, 2000.
Glossary of Terms and Acronyms Used 75

Glossary of Terms

Board: The governing body of the nonprofit Delaware &

Lehigh National Heritage Corridor, Inc., composed of members of the Commission and other key stakeholders.

Commission: The federally appointed management entity that

coordinates the overall effort within the corridor. Established

in the 1988 enabling legislation, the Commission is responsible

for implementing the Corridor’s management plan.

Corridor (or D&L): Refers to the physical place on the

ground; the geographic area that was broadly defined at the

time of designation in 1988 and further clarified in the 1993

Management Action Plan. Also used locally by partners and

others to refer to the entire endeavor; in this latter case (primarily in chapter 6), is synonymous with “Corridor (or D&L)

partnership” and “Corridor (or D&L) management.”

Corridor (or D&L) initiative: The collective body of activities

and projects undertaken to implement the management plan,

and the people and organizations that carry them out. Also

referred to as “Corridor (or D&L) partnership.”

Corridor (or D&L) management: The partnership between

the Commission, D&L, Inc., and the Corridor staff. More technically referred to as the “management entity.”

Corridor (or partner) network: The diverse array of public

and private organizations and individuals that are working with

the Commission and D&L, Inc., to carry out activities and

projects to achieve Corridor goals. 

Corridor (or D&L) partner: Any public or private organization, institution, agency, or individual that collaborates with the

Commission, board, and staff on specific initiatives that help

implement the management plan; includes both formal partners (i.e., those who collaborate through cooperative agreements) and informal partners (i.e., those who contribute to

Corridor goals without a formal agreement, such as a developer who renovates a historic mill for reuse). 

Corridor (or D&L) partnership: See Corridor initiative.

Corridor (or D&L) partnership system: The overall array of

inputs (federal designation, public funding, etc.), participants,

and processes that interact as a system to achieve accomplishments within the Corridor.

Corridor (or D&L) program(s): Specific activities, projects,

or investments of the Corridor initiative.

Delaware & Lehigh National Heritage Corridor, Inc. (D&L,

Inc.): The nonprofit organization created in 2002 to work with

the Commission and the partner network to implement the

1993 Management Action Plan. 

Leverage: Used as a noun, the funds or non-financial investments that are committed to the Corridor initiative as a result

of a primary investment of funds. Also used as a verb, in which

case it refers to the process of obtaining financial or non-financial commitments to the Corridor initiative.

Management Action Plan: The guiding document for the

Corridor, completed in 1993 through a participatory process

spearheaded by the Commission. Articulates a broad, integrated vision for the future of the Corridor, and lays out a detailed

range of actions to achieve the vision. Also referred to as “management plan.”

Management entity: Technically, the specific body authorized

through federal legislation to carry out Corridor coordination

and management; at the present time, the Commission.

However, in the case of the D&L Corridor, “management entity” is understood to include D&L, Inc., and the staff that

serves both organizations. Also referred to as “Corridor management.”

Management framework: Collectively encompasses the

Commission, board, staff, partners, purpose and vision, geographic scope, and funding and other support for the Corridor,

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.

Sustainability: For the purposes of this report, refers to the

strategy, framework, and resources necessary for achieving the

stated purpose and goals of the Delaware & Lehigh National

Heritage Corridor.

Sustainability study: The technical assistance project conducted by the NPS Conservation Study Institute to assess the

progress made toward Corridor goals since 1988, evaluate how

the Corridor partnership works, and examine options and

opportunities for the future. 

Acronyms Used

State Agencies

DCA: Pennsylvania Department of Community Affairs

DCED: Pennsylvania Department of Community and

Economic Development

DCNR: Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and

Natural Resources

PennDOT: Pennsylvania Department of Transportation

PHMC: Pennsylvania Historical and Museums Commission

PHPP: Pennsylvania Heritage Parks Program 

Other

CMT: Corridor Market Towns initiative

D&L: Delaware & Lehigh

EPA: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

HUD: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

MAC: The D&L Corridor’s Municipal Assistance to

Conservation program

MAP: D&L Corridor’s Management Action Plan of 1993

NPS: National Park Service

TE funding: Transportation enhancements funding, provided

to each state annually as part of the Surface Transportation

Program appropriation from the Federal Highway

Administration

TEA-21: Transportation Equity Act for the Twenty-first

Century

VGS: The D&L Corridor’s Visually and Graphically Speaking

program
76 Connecting Stories, Landscapes, and People: Exploring the Delaware & Lehigh National Heritage Corridor Partnership

Acknowledgments

The study team would like to express its sincere appreciation

to the members of the D&L Commission and D&L, Inc., who

asked us to evaluate their work. They generously shared with

us the region, and their reflections on the past and their vision

for its future . We give special thanks to Don Bernhard, Cliff

David, and Judy Borger for taking extra time to give us their

thoughts about the study and the D&L Corridor.

We are indebted to the D&L staff who shared how they

approach their work and envision the future, and who gave so

willingly of their time in providing both context and information for this study. We especially appreciate the contributions

of Allen Sachse and Elissa Marsden, who provided invaluable

guidance and knowledge throughout the study and who were

always thoughtful and often inspirational. A special thanks to

Bill Mineo, Rayne Schnabel, Sherry Acevedo, and Cindy Young

who consistently answered our inquiries with patience and

promptness, and provided gracious assistance. 

Many Corridor partners welcomed us, provided us with

behind-the-scenes tours, and contributed to study discussions.

We are especially grateful to those partners who shared their

reflections and perspectives during interviews and during the

management focus groups—your input provided a wealth of

ideas. Thank you to our meeting hosts at the Heritage 

Conservancy, Lehigh University, City of Bethlehem, and City of

Palmerton, and to the staff of the Pennsylvania Economy

League for their contributions. 

To those early leaders who inspired the creation of the

Corridor, thank you for sharing your perspectives on how the

Corridor came to be. We also extend our sincere thanks to

those people who served as project advisors and gave of their

time in various ways to share their knowledge and perspectives. To DCNR representatives Larry Williamson and Dennis

DeMara, your insights were invaluable, particularly in helping

us understand the past, present, and future of the

Commonwealth’s relationship to the D&L and the heritage

parks system. We are grateful to Bob McIntosh, John Maounis,

Brenda Barrett, and Glenn Eugster of the National Park

Service for providing advice and guidance throughout the

study. Your insights and feedback contributed greatly to the

articulation of key concepts in this report. 

Finally, the study team thanks our colleagues at the QuebecLabrador Foundation/Atlantic Center for the Environment and

the University of Vermont for their perspectives and advice.

And to our meticulous editor, transcriptionists, and designers

at Workhorse Design, thank you for cooperating with our tight

schedule and last-minute adjustments. 

The D&L Sustainability Study Team

The study process was very much a team activity. All members

participated actively in study design, implementation, analysis,

and report preparation. Within this overall approach, individual team members had lead responsibility for the following:

Suzanne Copping (assistant coordinator, National Heritage 

Areas, National Park Service; cooperator): study coordination; documentation of accomplishments, investments, and

leverage; retrospective and national context; support materials for final report

Philip Huffman (cooperator): description and analysis of the 

existing management framework and management options 

Daniel Laven (doctoral candidate, University of Vermont, and 

Conservation Study Institute fellow): evaluation of the

partnership system from the partner perspective

Nora Mitchell (director, Conservation Study Institute and 

member of the Project Management Committee): project

scope, national context, regional coordination, financial

management, and report review and editing

Jacquelyn Tuxill (director of partnership programs, 

Conservation Study Institute; cooperator): description of

critical ingredients, background and context, preparation

of interim report and executive summary, final report

coordination

Project Advisors

Michael Creasey (superintendent, Lowell National Historical 

Park)

Dennis DeMara (heritage parks district supervisor for eastern 

region, Bureau of Recreation and Conservation,

Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural

Resources)

Joe DiBello (manager, Partnership Programs, Northeast 

Region, National Park Service)

Deirdre Gibson (chief of planning and natural resources, 

Valley Forge National Historical Park)

Randall Mason (associate professor of architecture, Graduate 

Program in Historic Preservation

School of Design, University of Pennsylvania)

Kurt Zwikl (executive director, Schuylkill River National 

Heritage Area)

Project Management Committee

Brenda Barrett (national coordinator for heritage areas, 

National Park Service)

Allen Sachse (executive director, Delaware & Lehigh National 

Heritage Corridor)

Nora Mitchell (director, Conservation Study Institute)

Delaware & Lehigh

National Heritage

Corridor Commissioners

Donald M. Bernhard, chair

Clifford C. David, Jr., vicechair

Annie Sanders, secretary

J. Steven Humphrey, treasurer

Mary Bomar, regional director, Northeast Region, NPS

Frederic H. Brock

Charles W. Derr

Michael DiBerardinis, DCNR

William Mitchell

Elizabeth K. Orlemann

F. Charles Petrillo

Mickey Rowley, DCED

Susan H. Taylor

Donna Williams, PHMC

Ex-Officio Agency

Representatives:

Cindy Campbell, DCED

Dennis J. DeMara, DCNR

Joe DiBello, NPS

Peter Samuel, NPS

D&L, Inc. Board

Members

C. Allen Sachse, president

William Mitchell, chair

Clifford C. David, Jr., vice-chair

Frank Conyngham, secretary

F. Charles Petrillo, treasurer

Raymond S. Angeli

Judy L. Borger

Frederic H. Brock

Mary Ann Bungerz

Paul Fogal

Elizabeth K. Orlemann

Susan H. Taylor

Ex-Officio:

Dennis J. DeMara, DCNR

Joe DiBello, NPS

Peter Samuel, NPS

Donna Williams, PHMC
Appendix A 77

Appendix A 

D&L Sustainability Study Methodology

In conducting the D&L Sustainability Study, the project team employed a range of

methods, as discussed generally on page --- of this report. The discussion below provides more details on the methods used to obtain the data reported in chapters 2.B, 4,

5, and 6. 

1. Methods for Chapter 2.B 

The historical narrative in chapter 2.B is based on interviews with four individuals,

selected in consultation with D&L staff. They are representative of the diverse perspectives and experiences of organizations and individuals who played leadership

roles in the D&L Corridor’s formative years, including the NPS, Congress, the

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and local leaders. The interviews were semi-structured and retrospective in nature, asking participants to identify and describe significant moments leading up to and immediately following the Corridor’s designation by

Congress in 1988. Although discussion topics were identified and shared with the

interviewees prior to the interviews, the questions asked varied according to the roles

that the individuals had played in the Corridor’s formation. The discussions probed

the chronology of events, the thinking at the time about conservation of the canal

network, key factors that may have led to the designation, and participants’ perspectives on the future of the Corridor. 

2. Methods for Chapter 4 

Chapter 4 documents the Corridor partnership’s progress as well as investments and

leverage. The study team used a three-step approach to assess progress as accurately

as possible, while acknowledging some inherent limitations to the comprehensive

evaluation of accomplishments. For example, for 18 years the partnership has invested in many projects with differing levels of reporting associated with each. It was difficult to document early projects and programs with the same degree of accuracy as

current programs. It was not within the scope of this study to develop a methodology

to account for varying amounts of investment and impact associated with D&L

Corridor actions; therefore, the inventory of activities (see appendix B) reports

progress on actions that reflect varying degrees of investment and impact.

Step one involved assessing progress as it related to the 1993 Management Action

Plan. D&L staff reviewed and rated each of the 175 actions described in the management plan according to their level of completion as of fall 2005. Once the actions

were rated, the study team compiled and analyzed the information using a spreadsheet. These results are reported in appendix B, table 1. The study team also created

an inventory of D&L programs and projects that address management plan actions

(see appendix B, table 2). Documents that informed the inventory included the 1993

Management Action Plan, issues of the “Along the Corridor” newsletter, internal

financial and project documents, and reports produced by the D&L staff for partners. The D&L staff also provided information on early and undocumented activities

and reviewed the study team’s inventory for accuracy. 

In step two, in order to understand and report on how the Corridor activities and the

roles played by staff and partners have evolved over time, the study team developed

criteria for selecting projects that highlight the Corridor’s work. The D&L staff assisted the team in selecting the programs and projects that are highlighted in chapter 4.

Selection criteria included:

• geographic distribution;

• projects that address multiple categories of management plan actions;

• quantifiable financial leverage;

• resource-oriented quantifiable impacts (on buildings, people, businesses, etc.);

• projects that span the lifetime of the Corridor initiative; 

• evidence of “catalytic impacts” (i.e., influence on subsequent projects).

Finally, to evaluate PHPP and NPS investment and leverage in the Corridor initiative,

the study team gathered written documentation from D&L staff on the overall financial investments of these two partners, and the matching funding that was leveraged

for projects and programs in which D&L management has been directly involved

financially and administratively since designation. Data were gathered from internal

financial records that have been maintained since the heritage area’s establishment

and from annual and periodic reports on the leveraging impact of D&L programs.

3. Methods for Chapter 5

In analyzing the Corridor initiative’s existing management framework, the study team

drew on three primary sources of information. First, team members gained an understanding of the framework through review of key documents (e.g., authorizing legislation, management plan, bylaws of the Commission and D&L, Inc.). Second, team

members held semi-structured, individual conversations with commissioners, board

members of D&L, Inc., and senior Corridor staff. Participants in these conversations

were selected in consultation with Corridor staff. The conversations addressed a

range of relevant topics, such as the role and function of the Commission and D&L,

Inc., the involvement of key partners, and the scope of the Corridor initiative. Two

focus group dialogues facilitated by team members provided the third key source of

information. The first of these meetings involved more than 20 individuals identified

in consultation with Corridor staff; among them were commissioners, board members, staff, key partners, sustainability study advisors, and outside experts. The second meeting was held in conjunction with a joint meeting of the Commission and the

D&L, Inc., board, and included approximately 15 commissioners, board members,

and staff. Discussions during the two meetings covered issues related to the past and

future of the management framework, including aspects that have worked well and

others that could be improved, and how partnerships with key players (e.g., DCNR,

NPS, other state and federal agencies, county and municipal governments, nonprofit

organizations) might be strengthened.

The study team then analyzed the data obtained through these efforts to identify

what appear to be the most significant strengths and challenges of the management

framework. Preliminary findings were refined through an iterative process of discussion and further analysis both within the team and through additional dialogue with

commissioners, board members, and Corridor staff. Throughout this process, the

team also drew upon its knowledge of management structures from other national

heritage areas and partnership initiatives as a comparative backdrop for analyzing the

D&L’s framework.

4. Methods for Chapter 6

The study team employed a “process evaluation” approach for the research

described in chapter 6. Process evaluation refers to a specific type of evaluation

research designed to examine the ways in which complex programs function.1 Such

studies are particularly helpful in facilitating policy learning and adaptive management (i.e., helping programs improve their operations), and represent good examples

of research informing management.2 This study builds on previous evaluation

research conducted at other national heritage areas.3 

a. Research Methods

The research described in this chapter was conducted in two stages. The first stage

was designed to identify what Corridor partners perceive as the strengths and challenges of the current D&L partnership system. Between August and November 2005,

a total of 30 open-ended interviews with key partners were conducted by telephone.

The complexity of the Corridor initiative and the partner network suggested that a

purposeful sampling design would be most appropriate,4 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 consent form and interview protocol in the sections that immediately follow). Interviews lasted approximately one

hour and yielded transcripts ranging from 8 to 30 pages. Data were analyzed using a

content analysis for themes and patterns across the 30 respondents.5 Collectively,

these themes and patterns identify the strengths and challenges that study participants associate with the current D&L partnership system. This stage of research was

very much an iterative process involving stakeholders and the study team.6

The second stage was designed to better understand the structure of the D&L partnership system. Along with data obtained from the 30 open-ended interviews, an

additional 39 Corridor partners were asked only the fourth question from the interview protocol (see section c below). These interviews were also conducted by telephone and lasted approximately 15 minutes. Once coded, these data were analyzed

using a quantitative form of “social network analysis.” Social network analysis is a

method designed to understand relationships between organizations and/or individuals. There is increasing interest in using network theory and analysis in evaluations 

1 Carol Weiss, Evaluation, 2nd ed. (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 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 Jacquelyn Tuxill, et al., Reflecting on the Past, Looking to the Future (Woodstock, VT: Conservation Study Institute, 2005). 4 Matthew Miles and Michael Huberman, Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Source Book (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1994). 5 Michael Patton, Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods, 3rd ed. (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 2002). 6 Michael Patton, Utilization-focused Evaluation: The New Century Text (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1997). 
78 Connecting Stories, Landscapes, and People: Exploring the Delaware & Lehigh National Heritage Corridor Partnership

of community-based, collaborative programs.7 Study findings from this analysis

informed the description of D&L partnership system strengths and challenges. 

b. Consent Form 

At the beginning of each telephone interview, the consent form below was read to

the study participant, and consent to conduct the interview was obtained prior to

proceeding with the interview:

At the request of the Corridor Commission, the National Park Service is conducting

a study to learn more about the Delaware and Lehigh (D&L) National Heritage

Corridor. The D&L is affiliated with the National Park Service, and the purpose of

this study is to learn how the D&L National Heritage Corridor actually works and to

document the impact of the Corridor on the D&L region. Study findings will be used

to inform future management of the Corridor as well as contribute to development of

the National Park Service’s Heritage Areas Program.

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 like yours within the

Corridor. And that’s what the interview is about: your experiences with the D&L

National Heritage Corridor and your thoughts about your experiences.

A total of 30 people will be interviewed and these responses will be combined for the

study.8 No individual or organization names will appear in the written report or presentations. If you have any questions during the interview, please feel free to ask. Or,

if there’s anything you do not wish to answer, just say so. Again, the purpose of the

interview is to get your insights into how the program operates and how it affects

organizations in the region.

Finally, I am requesting your permission to record the interview. It is very important

to 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 be kept in a confidential manner and locked in

a secure place. Once the interview has been transcribed, the tapes will be destroyed.

You will also receive a draft copy of the study findings for your review. Furthermore,

the Paperwork Reduction Act requires approval of all federal government surveys by

the Office of Management and Budget. This survey has been approved under this act.

The Office of Management and Budget control number and expiration date are available at your request. Additional information about this survey and its approval is

available at your request. The interview will last about 40 minutes and, again, all of

your answers are voluntary and confidential. 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?

c. Interview Protocol

The protocol below was used to guide the semi-structured interviews that provided

the data for the analysis in chapter 6:

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

group that manages the Delaware and Lehigh (D&L) National Heritage Corridor.

1. In what ways are you now connected or do you currently work with the D&L

Corridor?

2. How long have you been working with the D&L Corridor 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. Which other organizations, or people, do you work with in the Corridor region?

(a) What do you get from this relationship (content of relationship)?

(b) How strong is this relationship (intensity)?

(c) Which direction do these resources flow (directionality)?

(d) How often do these exchanges take place (frequency)?

(e) How has this relationship changed over time (temporal change)? 

5. How has, if at all, your relationship with the D&L Corridor impacted the way you

work? 

(a) Creates a shared understanding of opportunities and challenges in the Corridor

region

(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.

6. What formal, or informal, criteria do you use to evaluate the effectiveness of this

relationship?

7. What factors influence you to continue to maintain this relationship?

8. What could the D&L Corridor do to improve this relationship in the future?

The next series of questions will help me to understand how you/your organization function in the D&L Corridor region.

9. What are your organizational goals/mission for the D&L Corridor region? 

10. What specific factors, if any, would increase the likelihood of achieving these

goals? What specific factors would decrease the likelihood of achieving these goals? 

11. How do you/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 D&L region. Are you ready?

12. In your opinion, over the life of the D&L 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 Delaware and Lehigh Corridor?

(d) Created partnership opportunities?

13. How, from your perspective, has the D&L Corridor staff integrated these multiple

goals?

14. How, if at all, does heritage corridor designation (state or federal) affect the way in

which you work? For example, does this designation change your/or your organization’s strategic thinking or long-term planning? How does this designation change

the way in which you/your organization prioritize objectives?

15. I’m interested in learning how various organizations in the D&L Corridor region

have been influenced by the concept of “D&L heritage.” By D&L heritage, I am

referring to the industrial history and its legacy to this five-county region. What role

does D&L heritage play in your work?

16. What is your/your organization’s vision for the D&L Corridor region in the

future?

What else, from your perspective, needs to be done in the region to achieve this

vision?

17. What do you think the role of the D & L Corridor should be in realizing that

vision?

18. As we think about how to move forward with this work in the D&L Corridor

region, do you see any other organizations (existing or potential) that could play that

role as or more effectively than the D&L Corridor?

19. In the future, which other people, or organizations, would you like to partner with

in the D&L Corridor region 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. Is there any additional information you

would like to provide?

Thank you so much for your valuable time. I really appreciate it.

7 C Maryann M. Durland and Kimberly A. Fredericks, eds., “Social Network Analysis in Program Evaluation,” New Directions for Evaluation 107 (Fall 2005). 8 An additional 39 respondents were only asked question #4 of the interview protocol
Appendix B 79

1 The action category refers to the four priority areas used to organize the actions in the management plan: (1) navigating the Corridor: providing physical connections, (2) understanding the Corridor: creating an interpretive system, (3) conserving the Corridor: protecting key resources, and (4) enriching the Corridor: capitalizing on heritage development. 2 Actions were rated “completed,” “ongoing” (i.e., actions that have no anticipated completion date), “underway” (i.e., actions that have a proposed completion date or product), or “no action.”

1. Progress toward Implementing Actions in the

Management Plan

Progress made toward implementing actions outlined in the 1993 Management

Action Plan (MAP) is depicted here according to action category,1 level of completion as of 2005,2 and primary region of impact. The northern region encompasses

Luzerne and Carbon counties and the Wyoming Valley, the central region includes

Lehigh and Northampton counties and the Lehigh Valley, and the southern region

includes Bucks County and the Delaware Valley, Delaware River, and Delaware

Canal. The methodology used to gather the information in this appendix is

described in appendix A. 

Action Category Action Status Region

Navigating Completed: 7 North: 5

Ongoing: 11 Central: 8

Underway: 12 South: 10

No Action: 10 Corridor-wide: 17

Total Actions : 40 40

Understanding Completed: 22 North: 9

Ongoing: 20 Central: 15

Underway: 14 South: 9

No Action: 6 Corridor-wide: 29

Total Actions: 62 62

Conserving Completed: 5 North: 5

Ongoing: 26 Central: 2

Underway: 11 South: 5

No Action: 11 Corridor-wide: 41

Total Actions: 53 53

Enriching Completed: 6 North: 3

Ongoing: 10 Central: 3

Underway: 2 South: 4

No Action: 2 Corridor-wide: 10

Total Actions: 20 20

Total MAP Actions: 175 175

Figure B.1. Progress toward implementing actions outlined in the 

management plan

2. Activities in the D&L Corridor That Address Management

Plan Actions

The following provides an extensive though not comprehensive inventory of the

D&L initiative’s projects and programs, organized by region and management plan

action category. Many activities that have occurred in one region address Corridorwide management plan actions. Many activities also bridge multiple action 

categories. 

NORTH

NAVIGATING

D&L Bridge Feasibility Study, Jim Thorpe to Lehigh Gorge

D&L Trail Final Design, Carbon County

Lehigh Canal Acquisition and Improvements, Carbon County

Lehigh River Water Trail

Lehigh-to-Susquehanna Trail Acquisition, White Haven

Nesquehoning Trestle

Packerton Yards Concept Plan

Panther Valley Trail Feasibility

White Haven Acquisition, Lehigh Gorge State Park

UNDERSTANDING

Audubon Auto Tour

Coaldale DCED Grant

D&L/Schuylkill River National Heritage Area Linkages Study

Dennison House

Eckley Miners’ Village Exhibits

Lehigh Canal Improvements and Signage

Lehigh Gorge State Park Signage

Molly McGuire Auto Tour Booklet (with Schuylkill River National Heritage

Area)

No. 9 Mine Planning and Exhibits

Panther Valley Auto Tour

White Haven Visitor Services

Wyoming Valley Levee Trail Book

CONSERVING

Ashley Planes 

Blue Coal Records

Dennison House

Dorrance Fans Relocation 

Eckley Miners’ Village Rehabilitation Study

Huber Breaker Park Feasibility Study

Luzerne County Natural Areas Inventory

No. 9 Mine Motor Barn Construction

Old Mauch Chunk Landing Roof Restoration

Rails-to-Trails Feasibility Study: Panther Valley Trail

Swetland Homestead

Weissport Acquisition

White Haven Engine House

ENRICHING

Corridor Market Towns Initiative

Corridor Market Towns Façade Improvements

Heritage Study and Visitor Services Improvements

Jim Thorpe Exhibits/Signage 

Lehighton High School Restoration and Improvements

No. 9 Mine Study

Palmerton Streetscape

Susquehanna River Landing, Irem Temple 

Switchback Gravity Railroad Trail Master Plan

Switchback Gravity Railroad Trail Improvements and Signage

Wilkes-Barre Redevelopment Project

Wyoming Valley Reach Landing

CENTRAL

NAVIGATING

Lehigh Canal Project, Allentown

Lehigh Canal Project, Bethlehem

Lehigh Canal Project, Catasauqua

Lehigh County Rail-Trail Acquisition

Lehigh Navigational Trail Design and Planning

Slatington–Northern Lehigh Slate Trail 

Walnutport Pavilion and Trail Improvements

UNDERSTANDING

Lehigh Landing Exhibits

Lehigh Valley Heritage Center D&L Exhibits

National Canal Museum Interactive Exhibits

Appendix B

Progress and Accomplishments in the D&L Corridor
80 Connecting Stories, Landscapes, and People: Exploring the Delaware & Lehigh National Heritage Corridor Partnership

National Canal Museum Play, My Name is Jeremiah

Pennsylvania Longrifle Association Exhibits and Cabinetry

River Environmental Education Center and Exhibits, Delaware Canal State Park

Sigal Building Design

Bachmann Tavern

Bieber Spring House Rehabilitation

Canal Boat Restoration, Easton

Canal Lock #32 Plan and Stabilization

Catasauqua Creek/Lehigh Canal Stabilization

Deily Coal Yard, Catasauqua

Easton Façade Restoration

Henry Homestead Complex, Jacobsburg High School Environmental Education

Center

Hugh Moore Park Master Site Plan

Ice House Restoration, Bethlehem

Lehigh Canal Acquisition and Improvements, Walnutport

Nain House Study and Restoration

Restoration of Locks 47/48, Hugh Moore Park

Saylor Park Cement Industry Museum, Coplay 

Spring House Renovations, Leni Lenape High School 

Steel Stax Project, Bethlehem Steel Works 

Wildlife Information Center Lehigh Gap Refuge Initiative

Williams Township Agricultural Conservation Plan

Bethlehem Architectural Lighting

Corridor Market Towns Façade Improvements

Lehigh Landing Visitor Center

Lehigh Valley Greenway Initiative

National Canal Museum Feasibility Study

Two Rivers Landing

Two Rivers Landing Exhibits

SOUTH

NAVIGATING

Brock Creek Corridor, Yardley Borough

CSX and Amtrak Tunnel

Cultural Canal Walk, New Hope

D&L Trail Tyburn Road Detour

Delaware Canal, Bristol

Lagoon Restoration, Bristol Borough

Levittown Shopping Center

Lock #11 Restoration and Preservation 

Lock #4 Stabilization 

Pedestrian Bridge over Route 13

UNDERSTANDING

Bucks County Audubon Society Visitor Center

Delaware Canal State Park Signage

Lock #11 Interpretive Signage

New Hope Signage

Washington Crossing Exhibits

Watershed Interpretive Exhibits, Honey Hollow Environmental Education 

Center

CONSERVING

Barn at Elm Lowne

Bristol Marsh Preservation and Interpretation

Canal Towns Historic Districts Study, Bucks County

Durham Mine Bat

Graystones Land Acquisition

Ground Hog Lock 22/23

Natural Areas Inventory/Open Space Preservation Plan

New Hope Lock House

Tohickon Aqueduct, Delaware Canal State Park

ENRICHING

Bridge Street Parking Facility, New Hope

Bristol Canal Visitor Center

Canal’s End Reach Visitor Center Feasibility Study

Conservation Enterprise Program

Delaware Canal and Train Station, Bristol

Delaware Canal–Spurline Park Linkage Trail, Bristol 

Mercer Museum Outreach Study, Lower Bucks

Morrisville Waterworks Complex 

New Hope Visitors Center

CORRIDOR-WIDE

NAVIGATING

D&L Drive Enhancements

D&L TRAIL (Trails, Recreation, Access, Interpretation, Linkages) Program

D&L Trail Guide, The Stone Coal Way

D&L Trail Plan and Design

D&L Trail Tenders

D&L Water Trail

Inventory and Assessment of the Trail System

NPS Trail Workbook

UNDERSTANDING

Corridor and Reach Maps

Corridor Directional Signage

Corridor Exhibit Plan

Corridor Interpretation and Education Plan

Corridor Map and Brochure

Education Partnership

Interactive Orientation Kiosks Development

Visually and Graphically Speaking Implementation

Visually and Graphically Speaking Plan

Visually Speaking, Additional Elements

Web-Accessible Information on D&L National Heritage Corridor

CONSERVING

Greenway Linkage Study

Municipal Assistance for Conservation 

Pennsylvania Greenway Sojourn 

Shaping the D&L Drive

ENRICHING

Corridor Market Towns Student Internships

D&L Consultant, Adjunct Historian

D&L Trail Partnership Study

DCNR Circuit Rider Grant, Trail Manager

Economic Indicators Study

Lehigh University Community Fellows Program

Mapping to Inform Decision Making 

Miles of Mules

Old House Road Show

Pennsylvania Heritage Tourism Development Plan

Preservation Pennsylvania/Allentown Preservation League

Trail Internships with Student Conservation Association

World Canal Conference Planning

Figure B.2. Projects and programs that address management plan

actions

Northeast Region

National Park Service 

U.S. Custom House

200 Chestnut St., 5th Floor

Philadelphia, PA 19106

215-597-7385

www.nps.gov/phso/

Conservation Study Institute

54 Elm Street

Woodstock, VT 05091

802-457-3368

www.nps.gov/csi/

Pennsylvania Heritage Parks Program 

Department of Conservation and Natural Resources 

Bureau of Recreation and Conservation 

Rachel Carson State Office Building 

P.O. Box 8475 

Harrisburg, PA 17105 

717-783-0988 

www.dcnr.state.pa.us/brc/heritageparks/ 

Delaware & Lehigh 

National Heritage Corridor

1 South Third Street

8th Floor

Easton, PA 18042

610-923-3548

www.delawareandlehigh.org

EXPERIENCE YOUR AMERICA

National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior