The Draft Study states that the Loess hills is not
feasible for National Park or Monument Status because
there is no Federally owned land in the Loess
Hills(Congress could appropriate money to buy some
from willing sellers!),the area is too large(Special
Landscape Areas could be bought) and the local
landowners(although not necessarily local county
residents) are opposed to Federal Acquisition of Land.

The preferred alternative-the step up plan from local
collabaration,to Joint Powers Board,to Comprehensive
plan,to National Reserve is a lot of hoops to jump
through, any which that fails would prevent a National
Reserve.

It is  clear to me that alternative 4, Special
landscape Areas would protect the sicnificant areas of
the Loess Hills more efficiently. 17 per cent is
already protected. It was rejected partly because it
would permit mining and development outside the
Special Landscape Areas

Charlie winterwood

--- Cindy Hildebrand <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Re the National Park Service study:  I certainly
> understand the desire for
> National Park status for the Hills.   However, I
> think that the study, if
> followed by funding, could result in a much better
> future for the Hills,
> regardless of whether national park status is
> recommended.
>
> The most ecologically significant resources in the
> Hills are the prairie
> remnants.  At this point, the major threats to the
> prairies include sprawl,
> fill dirt removal, and invasion by woody species.
> The last threat is
> currently the worst in many areas, including some
> public land.  All these
> threats could be addressed by helping private and
> public landowners with good
> land management, and by encouraging and supporting
> conservation easements.
>
> There is deep fear about public land acquisition,
> especially federal
> acquisition, among some Hills landowners.   That
> fear has political
> implications.   Instead of battles over land
> acquisition, it would be more
> productive to put energy into helping private owners
> take care of their land.
>    Many private landowners really need and want help
> with controlled burning,
> cedar removal, and other management.   Many
> landowners would be interested in
> conservation easements if they understood what
> easements could do for them,
> for their land, and for the future.    And some
> landowners are willing to
> sell their land for conservation purposes, if the
> land will be owned by
> private organizations or by state or local agencies.
>
> In addition, designating a portion of the Hills as a
> national park would not
> address the issue of what happens to the natural
> resources in the rest of the
> Hills.   The entire landform is ecologically
> valuable and needs help.   From
> the conservation point of view, the most important
> thing is what happens to
> Loess Hills land, not who owns it.
>
> I am very grateful for the good work that Senator
> Harkin and his staff have
> done in regard to the National Park Service study of
> the Loess Hills.
> Already there is more good land management underway
> in the Hills as a result.
>   If this study results in a better future for the
> Hills and their resources,
> which is much more likely if funding is found, the
> study will be a success,
> whether that future includes national park status or
> not.
>
>
>
> Cindy Hildebrand
> [log in to unmask]
> Ames, IA  50010
>
> "The scenery of the prairie is striking, and never
> fails to cause an
> exclamation of surprise.   The extent of the
> prospect is exhilarating.   The
> verdure and the flowers are beautiful, the absence
> of shade, and consequent
> appearance of light, produce a gaiety which animates
> the beholder...."  (J.
> Plumbe, Jr.)
>
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> - - - - - -
> For SC email list T-and-C, send: GET
> TERMS-AND-CONDITIONS.CURRENT
> to [log in to unmask]


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger
http://phonecard.yahoo.com/

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
For SC email list T-and-C, send: GET TERMS-AND-CONDITIONS.CURRENT
to [log in to unmask]