Smithsonian connection to wind site questioned

MONTEREY — Allegheny Mountain residents analyzing information from Highland New Wind Development last week urged their Congressman, Nick Rahall, to look into an archaeological study done by Dr. Linda Perry for the developer.

HNWD hired Perry to conduct an analysis of its project site where 19 wind turbines are slated for construction in Highland County.

Perry had provided her initial one-page report on stationery that noted her connection to the Smithsonian Institute.

In a letter from HNWD to Highland's Technical Review Commit- tee this summer, the developer also referred to Perry as being from the Smithsonian.

Pocahontas residents Dawn Brown Barrett and Richard and Marcia Laska cried foul, and asked Rahall to check into that connection.

"Concerned citizens of Pocahontas County, W.Va., and the nation have been closely watching developments in the twice-postponed hearing between the Virginia Department of Historic Resources and Highland New Wind Development," Barrett told Rahall. "At this hearing, now scheduled for Nov. 10, data regarding the visual, historic, and archaeological impact of HNWD's 400-foot tall wind turbines, to be located about a mile from Camp Allegheny, will be presented before the Virginia State Corporation Commission for the first time. I am writing to request your intervention, before Nov. 10, to insure that the Virginia SCC receives accurate data as they decide the fate of a site listed on the National Register of Historic Places and widely considered one of the best-preserved Civil War Battlefields in the nation. HNWD engaged 'Dr. Perry from the Smithsonian' to conduct a study which, when presented to the Virginia Department of Historic Resources, was determined by that agency not to meet Virginia's standards for a level one archaeological review.

"Dr. Perry presented a followup study to DHR on Oct. 9, which, although five pages longer, repeats the assertions of her initial onepage report, and includes none of the elements identified by DHR as essential to an archaeological study," she continued. "Dr. Linda Perry … has concluded that no archaeological sites of interest will be impacted by the 19-turbine wind utility. However, it appears that her superiors at the Smithsonian Institution did not, in fact, 'sign off' on her archaeological review of this Civil War Battlefield and surrounds. It appears that the name 'Smithsonian' is being used by the wind developer to validate the conclusions of an incomplete, and therefore fraudulent, scientific process. The Smithsonian must be made aware that the institute's name is attached to a report being used for something other than scientific intent. Please bring this matter to their attention. In so doing, you will provide the Smithsonian the opportunity to issue a statement to the Virginia SCC before Dr. Perry's report is presented on Nov. 10."

Rahall's chief of staff, Jim Zoia, did that immediately, contacting the Smithsonian to learn more.

Smithsonian Institute has a standard code of conduct for its staff and consultants. It stipulates that paid outside professional activities are allowed, but they must obtain written approval from a supervisor and clearance from an ethics counselor before engaging in those, with or without pay. Employees may refer to their association with the institute for the limited purpose of professional identification but "any such use of an employee's official title or association with the Smithsonian beyond mere professional identification or biographical data requires advance clearance."

Furthermore, the code states, "no such uses will be cleared if they may give the appearance that an employee's outside activities are endorsed by the Smithsonian or conducted under the auspices of the Smithsonian, or that the employee's Smithsonian position is being used for private gain."

Zoia said Perry's use of that connection was a valid concern expressed by Laska and Barrett. He consulted with Smithsonian officials, who emphasized Perry's survey was not connected with the Smithsonian.

Smithsonian director replied to Rahall, explaining Perry is not a full-time staff member of the institute. Director Cristian Sampler said he confirmed Perry is a research collaborator with the National Museum of National History's Department of Anthropology. "Research collaborators are not employees of the Smithsonian and are not authorized to represent the institution in any official capacity," Sampler said. "The findings detailed in Ms. Perry's correspondence are her own and in no way constitute an official opinion of the Smithsonian Institution."

Zoia said Rahall will communicate that information to Virginia's DHR, but DHR director Kathleen Kilpatrick said her agency was aware of Perry's position.

"DHR has never understood Dr. Perry to represent the Smithsonian in this matter," she said Wednesday. "Rather, we understood her to be an independent consultant to HNWD."

Barrett said she was not only concerned about Perry's use of the Smithsonian's name, but the survey work itself and the conclusions Perry reached.

"I am not an archaeologist; however, I remain concerned that Dr. Linda Perry's Oct. 9 report, although five pages longer than her May 19 report, does not meet the standards of a phase 1 archaeological survey as established by the Department of Historic Resources Guidelines for Conducting Cultural Resource Survey in Virginia," Bar

rett told The Recorder this week. "Common sense would dictate that a professional archaeological survey must be conducted in a systematic manner, and mapped to insure accuracy in the quantifiable coverage of the area to be disturbed."

Further, she said, "I am not a soils scientist; however, I own cleared ridgetop land at 4,000 feet, formerly grazed by sheep, where I have had the character-building experience of tree planting, gardening, and establishing a vineyard. Yes, this land is rocky, as the piles of stones from past generations of field clearing and plowing will attest, but there's dirt here, too. And once you dig down a bit, there are old farm implements and pieces of crockery and the occasional arrowhead. Dr. Perry's assertion that 'the thin top soils precluded standard shovel tests' is patently absurd. If, indeed, Tamarack Ridge and Red Oak Knob are covered in nothing but 'a thin layer of sediment over bedrock' how does it support cattle? And, if indeed, this sediment is so 'eroded' and 'thin' as to 'preclude shovel-testing,' then why does page 2 of Dr. Perry's report indicate the need for 'two locations for topsoil stockpiles'? If there is enough topsoil to stockpile, common sense tells me that it can be dug with a shovel."

Dr. Pamela Dodds, a geologist who has also analyzed the soils near the project area, noted if the soils are eroded, that only adds to concerns about stormwater runoff from construction. "It appears (Perry) has concentrated on the areas designated as disturbed areas in order to determine any archaeologically significant resources," she said. "The soils are described without reference to the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service soils map descriptions; therefore, the purpose for describing the soil depths in the areas designated as disturbed areas is apparently just for determining the potential for archaeological evidence. However, Ms. Perry's description of the soils clearly emphasizes the delicate condition of the soils. This supports the concept that increased stormwater discharge from the project will have negative impacts to the headwaters of Laurel Fork and, thus, ultimately to Laurel Fork."

"A line-by-line analysis of Dr. Perry's report would be cause for belly-laughs were her off-the-cuff conclusion that 'no archaeological resources of significance exist,' apparently reached solely on the basis of walking around," Barrett said.

"That a fellow at the Smithsonian Institution would allow herself, and the name Smithsonian to be used in a manner this abjectly unprofessional and unscientific is shocking to me," she added.