To: Jason D. Sharp, Esq.
Chief Counsel
Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT)

RE: Milanville-Skinners Falls Bridge (Bridge #5) Project
PEL Study Faulty Public Comment Process

Dear Chief Counsel Sharp:
We are writing on behalf of Damascus Citizens for Sustainability (“DCS”), a Section 106 consulting party, regarding PennDOT’s proposed work pertaining to the Milanville-Skinners Falls Bridge (“Bridge”).

DCS is writing out of great concern regarding PennDOT’s continued failure to engage in a real public participation process for the Skinners Falls Bridge “Planning and Environmental Linkages” (“PEL”) Study. Although PennDOT appears to seek to incorporate the PEL Study into a NEPA document in the future, PennDOT has failed to adhere to the federal public and agency participation standards and requirements governing the incorporation of, or reliance on, other planning documents in NEPA materials. PennDOT’s process thus far fails to comply with not only NEPA, but also the standards for public participation under Section 106 and Section 4(f).

PennDOT cannot rely on the flawed SurveyMonkey method (“Survey”) to replace actual public notice, participation, comment, and agency response, as contemplated by NEPA. PennDOT has declared that it has specifically excluded comments submitted to PennDOT via email or otherwise sent to PennDOT without a digital or printed Survey, including emails from key agencies and organizations. Given the large volume of correspondence that PennDOT received outside the confines of the Survey, and that were sent to PennDOT without a Survey, PennDOT has arbitrarily excluded a significant amount of relevant information that would very likely alter the outcome of the PEL Study. DCS has in its possession a substantial amount of the comments submitted outside of PennDOT’s Survey, which the commenters voluntarily provided to DCS. Based on DCS’s review, these comments overwhelmingly support Bridge rehabilitation.

The statutory and regulatory standards that PennDOT references confirm that the public process thus far is not sufficient.

Download the full letter as a pdf.

The letter concludes:

PennDOT must consider and address the information in all public comments that it has received – not just the narrow slice of data it sought via its Survey – in order for the PEL Study to be a legally sufficient document for incorporation into a NEPA analysis. Presently, PennDOT has not done so, and thus the PEL Study will not be appropriate for later inclusion in a NEPA study on the Bridge, opening PennDOT’s process and any NEPA analysis up to legal challenge by entities such as DCS or other consulting parties.

We strongly encourage PennDOT to correct the flaws in its process promptly in order to give the overwhelming public input in support of Bridge rehabilitation proper consideration before the NEPA and other required processes continue forward. The public, as well as various government agencies and regional entities, took extensive time to comment and write to PennDOT about the Bridge. Those comments deserve to be addressed and included in the PEL Study. As a result, in the coming weeks, DCS will be providing PennDOT with copies of all public comments in DCS’s possession (given to DCS by the commenters) to ensure that PennDOT incorporates those comments into the PEL Study.

Sincerely,
Lauren M. Williams, Esq.
For Greenworks Law and Consulting LLC