DCS has asked that you copy us with your comments to PennDOT regarding the Skinners Falls Bridge project. This was done so DCS could follow up and make sure that your comments are taken into consideration. It appears that PennDOT did not take the first round of comments into consideration in drafting their Purpose and Need Document, as the overwhelming concerns of commenters, such as the importance of historic preservation, is given no weight in the draft. Below is the DCS letter to PennDOT demanding that they respond to the comments that you have sent them.

DCS has also compiled a document of all letters sent to PennDOT by organizations such as the National Park Service and the Upper Delaware Council.

February 7, 2022

Heather Gerling, Kris Thompson
Cultural Resources Section, Environmental Policy & Development Section
Pennsylvania Dept. of Transportation, P.O. Box 3790, Harrisburg, PA 17105-3790
Via email: hgerling@pa.gov, krthompson@pa.gov

Susan Williams, Senior Civil Engineer Supervisor Transportation
Engineering District 4-0 Liaison Unit, Pennsylvania Dept. of Transportation
55 Keystone Industrial Park, Dunmore, PA 18512-1516
Via email: susawillia@pa.gov, Skinnersfallsbridge@aecom.com

RE: Milanville-Skinners Falls Bridge (Bridge #5)
Project PA SHPO Project No. 2013-8011-127 PennDOT District 4-0

Dear PennDOT Employees and Representatives:

We are providing these comments and survey responses again because the draft Purpose and Need statement fails to reflect the input provided in these materials and PennDOT has failed to explain anywhere why it is ignoring the weight of the comments. These comments were given to DCS so that we could follow up and make sure PennDOT properly addressed them. There have been additional new comments submitted that PennDOT must answer as well.

Further:

• PennDOT’s letter of 1-20-2022 provides no comfort to DCS that PennDOT intends to explicate its reasoning for rejecting the overwhelming concerns of commenters, such as the importance of historic preservation, which was emphasized by commenters ranging from the National Park Service and UDC to local residents.
• A true comment/response document is not a “summary” of comments received – it explains to the public why PennDOT has or has not accepted the issues presented in the comments and why PennDOT has chosen to draft the Purpose and Need statement a certain way.
• As it presently stands, the draft Purpose and Need statement is being shaped from the get-go to predetermine an outcome of bridge replacement given what PennDOT has included in the draft, and what it has ignored.
• DCS’s lawyer, Lauren Williams adds, “The draft Purpose and Need Statement and PennDOT’s actions are contrary to the weight of the comments, the requirements of the law (see our previous letters and those from other entities), and the key role this bridge plays in the local and regional setting, as well as its national historic significance.”

In reviewing the comments attached, I am so impressed with the clarity and relevance of them – and the obvious effort and time it took for their preparation. That they have been completely ignored is infuriating and so wrong.

Sincerely yours,
Barbara Arrindell, Director
Damascus Citizens for Sustainability