Tag Archives: The Hofmann Forest Fiasco

SAVE HOFMANN FOREST!

Our newest campaign to save Hofmann Forest is getting off the ground! We have yard signs to distribute to help raise awareness of the Hofmann Forest fiasco. Please e-mail givemeasign@savehofmannfortest.org if you want to help get the word out!  We’ll deliver a sign to your door just for asking!

We also have a new mobile friendly website www.savehofmannforest.org to go with the yard sign campaign. Please check it out!

Many groups are now participating in this effort. Please visit the Groups page to see a list.

You can learn more about Hofmann Forest at the See Hofmann Forest page.

There is also a Facts page, giving a quick summary of Hofmann Forest and Sale facts.

Most importantly, there is a “What You Can Do” page!  Please visit it and help us out with this effort!

Thanks,

John

Share

Donate to NCSU? No Way!

I will never give a dime to NCSU after the attempted sale of Hofmann Forest! The sale is a betrayal of donors and people working to benefit the Unversity.  Too bad we can’t get comment from Julius Hofmann. Oh wait, we do have his intent in written form:

[Hofmann Forest was acquired] “…as a forestry laboratory, demonstration area and as a source of revenue to help carry on the forestry education work.”

“The Forestry Foundation is to hold this property for the sole interest and benefit of the Forestry Department of State College.”

— Julius Hofmann, July 17, 1933; Memorandum to President E.C. Brooks

This sale and donor/benefactor betrayal will send a chilling message to all future donors — the University does not respect donor wishes.  Stop the sale of Hofmann Forest and restore integrity to the University and the Endowment Fund!  Otherwise, look for a future decrease in donations and giving.

Write:

Annual Giving for NC State University
Alumni and Donor Records
Campus Box 7474
Raleigh, NC  27695-7474

Let them know what you think about future giving based on the sale of Hofmann Forest.  Please consider using the current direct mail campaign envelopes so they are sure to know that their fund raising targets and most likely donors don’t like the sale.

Share

Woodson talks Hofmann Forest with the Technician – Technician: Editorials

Woodson talks Hofmann Forest with the Technician – Technician: Editorials.

“I’m going to be real honest with you here. I always am,” Woodson said. “We can’t control everything that happens to the land after we sell it, but we could control the way it was sold, and finding a buyer that had the intent to manage it in a way consistent with the way it’s managed now … Twenty years down the road, I can’t predict what will be happening there and, candidly, if we restrict with covenants the way a person used it in perpetuity, no one would buy it.”

Technician: “So to you, Chancellor Woodson, we apologize. We apologize for not doing the research we should’ve to realize that the conservation of the Hofmann Forest was never a priority for you.”

Share

UNC Exceptions to Minimum Criteria, 6.c.

On our UNC Exceptions post, we outlined the UNC System Policy where the President, Chancellor, or their designees may determine that environmental documents under the NCEPA are required in any case where one of the findings applies to a proposed activity. We will be addressing those in turn, but not necessarily in order.  This post deals with Exception 6.c:

6.c. The proposed activity is of such an unusual nature or has such widespread implications that an uncommon concern for its environmental effects has been expressed to the University or the constituent institution.

  • Sale of the largest research forest in the world is of “an unusual nature.”
  • Sale of 80,000 acres, with no significant land use restrictions, impacting three already impaired watersheds has “widespread implications.”
  • “An uncommon concern for its environmental effects has been expressed to the University or the constituent institution.”

Based on Exception 6.c alone, the President, Chancellor, or their designee may determine that documents under the NCEPA should be prepared.

Going forward, we will address all of the Exceptions.  If only one Exception is sufficient, would it not be irresponsible of the the President, Chancellor, or their designee to determine that documents under the NCEPA should be prepared if several Exceptions can be demonstrated?

Share

UNC Exceptions to Minimum (Non-Major) Criteria

Minimum Environmental Criteria for the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act, NUMBER 369, DATE 5/5/97

UNC SEPA CRITERIA

6. Exceptions to Minimum (Non-Major) Criteria

Any activity falling within the parameters of the minimum criteria set out in this memorandum will not routinely be required to have environmental documentation under the NCEPA; however, the President, Chancellor, or their designees may determine that environmental documents under the NCEPA are required in any case where one of the following findings applies to a proposed activity.

a. The proposed activity could cause significant changes in industrial, commercial, residential, silviculture, or agricultural land-use concentrations or distributions which would be expected to create adverse water quality, air quality, or groundwater impacts, or affect long-term recreational benefits, shellfish, wildlife, or their natural habitats.

b. The proposed activity has indirect effect or is part of cumulative effects not generally covered in the approval process for state action and that may result in a potential risk to human health or the environment.

c. The proposed activity is of such an unusual nature or has such widespread implications that an uncommon concern for its environmental effects has been expressed to the University or the constituent institution.

d. The proposed activity may have a potential for significant, adverse, and direct effects on a “sensitive area” which include but are not limited to the following:

1) Wetlands delineated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in accordancewith 33 CFR 328.3 and 40 CFR 230.3;
2) Historical and Archeological sites protected by the National HistoricPreservation Act and National Executive Order 11593 and StateExecutive Order 16 administered by the N.C. Department of CulturalResources;
3) National Historic Landmarks as designated in accordance with theHistoric Site Act at 16 USC 461;
4) State Parks Lands administered in accordance with G.S. 113-44.9;
5) State-Owned Game Lands administered in accordance with G.S. 113-264and 306 (d);
6) State-Owned Forest Land administered in accordance with G.S. 113-22;
7) State Nature Preserves and Dedicated Natural Areas administered in accordance with G.S. 113A-164.1;
8) Primary and Secondary Nurseries designated in accordance with 15ANCAC 3R.0003 and 10C NCAC .0503, and Critical Habitat Areas designated in accordance with 15A NCAC 31.0001; and 101 NCAC .0001 (5);
9) State High-Quality Waters designated in accordance with 15A NCAC 2B.0201 (d); this includes waters classified as WS-I, WS-II, SA and ORW (Outstanding Resource Waters):
10) State Natural and Scenic Rivers designated in accordance with G.S.113A-30;
11) North Carolina Coastal Reserves designated in accordance with G.S. 113A-129.1;
12) State Lakes administered in accordance with G.S. 146-3; and
13) Lands which contain animal or plant species protected by the Federal Endangered Species Act (administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service), State Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Wildlife Species of Special Concern Act (G.S. 113-311 administered by the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission), State Plant Protection and Conservation Act (G.S. 106-202.12 administered by the North Carolina
Department of Agriculture).

Share

STATE RECORD OF DECISION US 17 Improvements

STATE RECORD OF DECISION
North Carolina Department of Transportation
US 17 Improvements
From SR 1330 / SR 1439 south of Belgrade to the New Bern Bypass
at the Jones / Craven County line
Onslow and Jones Counties
Project No. 34442
TIP No. R-2514 B, C, and D
In compliance with the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act of 1971
G.S. 113A-1 through 113A-13
June 2012

R2514_SROD

Share

Hofmann Forest Sale and Environmental Impacts (US 17 EIS)

Because no studies have been done on the impacts of the sale of Hofmann Forest, we can only take what is already in the public record and try to extrapolate or infer the possible consequences of this sale.  Fortunately, we do have a good and timely reference in the STATE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT, US 17 IMPROVEMENTS FROM SR 1330 / SR 1439 SOUTH OF BELGRADE TO THE NEW BERN BYPASS AT THE JONES / CRAVEN COUNTY LINE, ONSLOW AND JONES COUNTIES (US 17 EIS).

This is a large document, 522 pages, so it is broken up by bookmarks:

R2514_SFEIS-01-Signature Pages

R2514_SFEIS-02-Green Sheet

R2514_SFEIS-03-Intro Proj History

R2514_SFEIS-04-Executive Summary

R2514_SFEIS-05-Table of Contents

R2514_SFEIS-06-Chap 1 – Purpose & Need

R2514_SFEIS-07-Chap 2 – Alternatives Considered

R2514_SFEIS-08-Chap 3 – Existing Environment

R2514_SFEIS-09-Chap 4 – Environmental Resources

R2514_SFEIS-10-Chap 5 – Sections 4(f) & 6(f)

R2514_SFEIS-11-Chap 6 – List of Preparers

R2514_SFEIS-12-Chap 7 – List of Agencies, Orgs…

R2514_SFEIS-13-Appendix A -Coordination & Pub Involvement

R2514_SFEIS-14-Appendix B – Relocation Reports

 

Share