Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 4


Franco Ruffini

Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2005 10:54 AM To:Mark Epstein Subject: FW: Senate Bill 193 - potential affect on OHS Mark, Would you please look over the bill attached below (see Todds note I think he meant you rather than Martha). I looked it over and there is a provision that all applicable state and federal laws are to be followed in the permitting process. Still this does open up additional land to development and where there is no federal handle, there is little consideration given to historic properties. Also, as I read it on can apply to log OHS administered, but state owned property. Thanks Franco Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer Ohio Historic Preservation Office 567 East Hudson Street Columbus, OH 43211-1030 614 298-2000 614 298-2037 -----Original Message----From: Todd Kleismit Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2005 2:59 PM To:Franco Ruffini Cc: Jim Strider Subject: Senate Bill 193 - potential affect on OHS Franco Would you or Martha mind looking over this legislation (SB 193), looking for anything that would concern you about logging affecting historic sites? I skimmed through it, but didnt see anything explicit. The story below gives me reason to suspect trouble.


This was in yesterdays Gongwer News.


Environmental groups took aim Monday at legislation they claimed would put states lands and forests at the mercy of commercial logging interests. The Department of Natural Resources also expressed concerns.

Introduced earlier this month, the bill (SB 193) would open up state forests, nature preserves, and historical sites to widespread logging, the Ohio Environmental Council and Voices of the Forest said. It would invite the timber industry to join petroleum producers in extracting natural resources from state lands.

This will not do a darn thing for the well over 90% of Ohioans who heat their homes with natural gas or electricity, OEC Director of Public Affairs said in a news conference call.

Sen. Jeffry Armbruster (R-North Ridgeville), a gas station and convenience store operator who introduced the proposal in response to recent spikes in energy prices, conceded that there would be more opposition to logging than to drilling, but maintained that it was necessary. How are you going to get a drilling rig to where its supposed to be without the ability to timber? What are you going to do, fly it in with a helicopter? he said.

Sen. Armbruster, chairman of the Highways & Transportation Committee, said he had no data to suggest that drilling on public lands would bring natural gas prices down. But any opportunity of getting more product to the gas and oil companies will enhance our position in the U.S. of being more self-sustainable rather than being held hostage to the cartel, he said.

Voices for the Forest founder Cheryl Carpenter said the bill would bring the trees down. With the timber industry controlling the logging in our state forests instead of the Division of Forestry, its going to be a chainsaw massacre, said.

The proposal (SB 193) would establish a board consisting of the chiefs of the divisions of forestry and mineral resources, representatives from the timber and petroleum industries, and an environmentalist to oversee the leasing of state land to oil, gas, and timber companies. The board would be required to consult with the agency that manages the land to before granting permission to drill or harvest.

Nonetheless, the ODNR also voiced concerns that the measure would give the leasing board the final decision over use of public lands. The five-person board would take management out of the hands of the local forest managers, who we believe know whats best for that forest, said agency spokesman Jim Lynch. Monetary incentive isnt there for us like it might be for the board.

Sen. Armbruster noted that ODNR managers would have influence on the leasing board and rejected the possibility that monetary incentive would skew the process. The timber industry is looking at this as an opportunity to move forward in helping the state to manage their forests. I see them to be responsible as well as I see the oil and gas industry to be responsible.

Mr. Shaner disagreed: This is about inviting extractive industries (to) turn a quick buck at the expense of our treasured lands. He added that the measure could allow companies, if denied a permit, to hold the state liable for a takings claim.

I dont see that in the bill, Sen. Armbruster responded. Wheres the liability come from? Theyve already adjudicated it. You cant adjudicate something thats never been adjudicated before.

Mr. Lynch, whose agency has been held liable for several takings claims, confirmed that ODNR was also concerned. We dont want to be held liable if the board approves a lease but we dont give them a permit because of environmental concerns or whatever, he said.

Mr. Lynch suggested that language be added to the bill ensuring that approval of a lease by the board wouldnt guarantee a permit to operate. He added that his agency is open to the possibility of limited drilling under the right circumstances but not in state nature preserves.

Sen. Armbruster noted that the money raised by leasing public lands would be prohibited from being used for operational expenses. Rather it would go into an endowment and the

interest would be used for capital improvements. You could even use it to increase the size of the park, he said.

My concern, said Mr. Shaner, is that the state gets used to the money it gets from fees such as this and theyll become addicted to the revenue.

The bill receives its first hearing Wednesday in the Senate Environment & Natural Resources Committee.

Todd Kleismit Ohio Historical Society Director of Government Relations 1982 Velma Ave. Columbus, OH 43211 (614) 297-2355 tkleismit@ohiohistory.org

Are you a member? www.ohiohistory.org/about/mem.html