| Most of us in the WV progressive community are pretty much up to speed regarding the controversy surrounding the listing and de-listing of Blair Mountain as a national treasure worth preserving from the devastation of surface mining. For those not so familiar, here's a brief overview:
On March 30, 2009, Blair Mountain was listed on the National Register of Historic Places, meaning that it was automatically off limits to any coal operations. After almost 20 years of effort by historians, the UMWA and environmental groups, the nomination withstood multiple challenges by the coal operators and their land companies who control the historic site. Since Blair Mountain's significance in the history of America's labor movement is indisputable, one might think that those running the WV Division of Culture and History would actually try to preserve it. But a review of the evidence discovered by my sources reveal that the Manchin-appointed administrators have done everything they possibly can to destroy it, apparently even committing what is legally described as constructive fraud*.
Although delisted based upon a highly questionable recommendation by the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), Blair Mountain is now officially deemed "eligible" to go back on the list, thanks the efforts of Barbara Rassmussen, a West Virginia University historian, and Harvard Ayers, an anthropologist at Appalachian State University who discovered 10 major battle sites along the 10-mile stretch covered by the designation, including hundreds of artifacts, especially along Crooked Creek near the crest of Blair Mountain. source
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer Susan Pierce asserted to one of my sources that since Blair Mountain is officially "eligible" for listing on the National Register of Historic Places, it is protected just the same as if it were on the list.
She is wrong.
According to The Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (aka "SMCRA"), since Blair Mountain has coal under it, it is entirely discretionary as to whether or not an eligible site will be protected.
If you doubt it, look up SMCRA 38 CSR 2-3.17 parts a, b, c, and d for yourself (thank you, Aaron Isherwood, Senior Staff Attorney, Sierra Club Environmental Law Program for the valuable input, and also attorneys Joe Lovett and Jim Hecker for your guidance and contribution).
It is no small wonder why four years ago the National Trust for Historic Preservation named Blair Mountain as one of America's 11 most endangered historic sites. Read the open letter below and it becomes blazingly apparent that the coalocrats running HillBilly Disneyland dug up zombies specifically to oppose the listing of Blair Mountain to be protected by the National Register of Historic Places:
February 5, 2010
Governor Joe Manchin
State Capitol Building
1900 Kanawha Blvd. E.
Charleston, WV 25305
Dear Governor Manchin:
I am Dr. Harvard Ayers, Archeologist at Appalachian State University in Boone, North Carolina. I conducted the archeological field investigations of the Blair Mountain Battlefield over the last several years, finding over 1,000 well-preserved artifacts that related to the 1921 battle in 17 different sites along the 10-mile battle front. My findings were instrumental in the decision of the Keeper of the National Register of Historic Places to place the battlefield on the National Register on March 30th of last year.
When the Keeper expressed intent to delist the battlefield, I immediately engaged title attorney John Kennedy Bailey of Charleston to research the property owner records in Logan County, so that we might determine the validity of the State Historic Preservation Officer's (SHPO) list of battlefield owners and objectors.
Amazingly, Mr. Bailey found two dead men on the list of owner-objectors, as well as two life estate holders (not fee-simple owners) and one woman who had sold her property two years before. Also, we discovered an additional 13 owners who had not been found by the SHPO's study. With these new data, and going from the SHPO's list, we determined that there were 62 owners and 25 objectors, a finding that would reverse the SHPO's attempt to have the Blair Mountain Battlefield delisted.
When Mr. Reid-Smith was told by the Keeper that it was his responsibility to take Mr. Bailey's analysis into account, he refused. So he stuck with a list that had two dead people, two life estates, and one seller of her property as evidence that the battlefield should be removed from the National Register. The Keeper, based solely on Mr. Reid-Smith's research, delisted the battlefield on December 30th. (bold italics added for emphasis -oc)
Why was our clear evidence to the contrary not reviewed and evaluated by Mr. Reid-Smith as requested by the federal authorities? You can't "just say no" in those circumstances. Did Mr. Reid-Smith want to rob the many men who fought and died at that historic battle the honor of their sacrifice?
I want you to know that Mr. Bailey and I are willing to testify concerning our property research, should there be hearings on this regrettable matter before the West Virginia House of Delegates. Such hearings have been recommended by Charleston Gazette Editor Jim Haught, and seem the only way out of this dilemma, given Mr. Reid-Smith's intransigence.
It has also come to my attention that displays at the Museum are not at all accurately presented, an embarrassment to all who know the history of those matters. A question I have is, was there adequate oversight of those important historic displays?
Respectfully,
[signature]
Harvard G. Ayers, Professor Emeritus
Department of Anthropology
Appalachian State University
Boone, NC 28608
Cc:
Mike Caputo, Majority Whip
Jim Haught, Editor, Charleston Gazette
John Kennedy Bailey, Esquire source
*Constructive Fraud: Constructive fraud can be proved by a showing of breach of legal duty (like using the trust funds held for another in an investment in one's own business) without direct proof of fraud or fraudulent intent. source
UPDATE: New evidence
There are a number of misleading statements on this document. I've highlighted two of them.
The source that provided the above letter is in the process of putting together a map and timeline of the historic labor struggles in and around West Virginia. He points out that Susan Pierce's statement is completely outrageous, considering that WV State Code ยง29-1-1. and the National Historic Preservation Act require her to have consulted with an historic archeologist before telling the DOH that abandonment won't adversely affect its historic resources. The part of the State Code she cleverly referenced is strictly for the protection of cemeteries, and is an obvious distortion of the duties required of the WV State Historic Officer, especially in light of the discoveries on that property by the Friends of Blair Mountain!
Although at the time Ms. Pierce wrote that letter, Blair Mountain was still on the list, it was through the recommendation of the State Historic Preservation Office's distortion of facts that it was downgraded to "eligible". So my source called the WV Department of Environmental Protection on Friday and asked for that agency's top SMCRA expert to get confirmation as to whether or not that law protects Blair Mountain while it is merely "eligible" to be listed, as Susan Pierce had reassured my source. The DEP's lawyer responded that SMCRA did not protect Blair Mountain under those circumstances.
Let me repeat that. According to the WV DEP's legal expert on SMCRA, Susan Pierce is completely wrong when she asserts that being officially "eligible" for protection under current Historic Preservation laws protects Blair Mountain's historic resources. In fact, after some "discussion," WV DEP's lawyer also begrudgingly confirmed in no uncertain terms that the protection of Blair Mountain at this point is entirely up to the decision of Commissioner of the Department of Highways!
There are many more details about the archeological and historic resources of Blair Mountain at this link.
UPDATE II:
In response to my post above and email campaign, I just received the following:
As the lead historian on the nomination of Blair to the NRHP, I feel confident that its confirmed eligibility for the register means that the Section 106 Process, as set out in the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 as amended, should be implemented by the SHPO immediately. The federal funds that the DOH receives are dependent upon cooperation with this federal mandate.
Sincerely,
Barbara E. Rasmussen PhD
Consulting Historian
Sorry Professor, but according to Deputy SHPO Susan Pierce (highlighted in the gray image of her letter above), "no further consultation is required!"
In other words, it's almost time to fire up them 'dozers, fellers! |
