DCS submitted extensive comments on the Skinners Falls Bridge to PennDOT and the Federal Highway Administration on Feb. 3, 2025, outlining their “persistent refusal to follow established statutory and regulatory environmental and historic preservation review processes”. The introduction to these comments follows below.

Download the full DCS Feb. 3 comment letter as a pdf
Download supporting documentation as a pdf
Download portfolio of work by Wrought Iron Bridge Works as a pdf

PennDOT has made much of Governor Shapiro’s supposed “Emergency Declaration”, issued Dec. 16, 2024. However, the Governor’s letter expressly states: “This declaration is not a Proclamation of Disaster Emergency made under the authority vested in me pursuant to the Pennsylvania Constitution and Title 35 of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes.” See page 16 of the DCS comments for more information.

Introduction

Damascus Citizens for Sustainability (“DCS”) submits this comment letter, once again objecting to PennDOT’s proposed destruction of the National Register-listed Skinners Falls Bridge (“Bridge”), which is also part of the National Register-listed Milanville Historic District.

DCS notes that the present comment period was announced for the purposes of comment on mitigation measures under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (“Section 106”, “NHPA”), and the NY SHPO’s request for HAER II.  PennDOT has made it extremely difficult to respond to that request for comments for the reasons set forth in this comment and DCS’s prior comments.  While DCS has comments to offer regarding mitigation, it is premature to provide those for the reasons stated in this comment.

In short, PennDOT and the Federal Highway Administration (“FHWA”)’s persistent refusal to follow established statutory and regulatory environmental and historic preservation review processes, including information disclosure for the purposes of meaningful comment, prevents DCS from even considering what mitigation is appropriate.  Mitigation is supposed to come after attempts to avoid and minimize impacts, and both PennDOT and FHWA have thrown those stages of the process out the window.

The process here cannot continue to advance as it presently stands.  PennDOT and the FHWA have deliberately ignored extensive statutory and regulatory requirements, precluding meaningful and informed public commenting.  Both agencies are fast-tracking the proposed Bridge demolition in a bad faith effort to evade public input and required legal procedures designed to protect the environment and historic resources.  The relevant laws and regulations are clear: if PennDOT and the FHWA want to destroy the Skinners Falls Bridge, they must follow established legal processes.  Because they have not, those processes must be restarted, formally initiated (in the case of NEPA and other related federal mandates) and/or supplemented to remedy the flagrant violations of practically every applicable standard from federal and state law.

PennDOT presents this situation as an emergency and the FHWA and Governor Shapiro have rubber-stamped this approach.  DCS continues to contest this so-called “emergency”, as emergencies are the result of unexpected events.  In contrast, purposeful neglect, such as PennDOT’s conduct toward the Bridge, produces expected outcomes such as what we are presently faced with.  Even if the so-called “emergency” were true, which DCS disputes, the legal reality is that PennDOT and the FHWA have failed to comply with mandated procedural and substantive requirements of the numerous laws, including but not limited to: the Endangered Species Act (“ESA”), the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”), Section 4(f), the NHPA, and the Article I, Section 27 of the Pennsylvania Constitution (“Environmental Rights Amendment”).

PennDOT and the FHWA have deliberately obstructed and/or refused to provide Section 106 consulting parties and the public with necessary information for informed comment and participation, including but not limited to: (1) the nature, scope, and extent of the Bridge demolition; (2) whether there will be a new Bridge; (3) the environmental impact of the proposed Bridge demolition (e.g., the impact of operations on endangered species, water quality, and long-term impacts to the Upper Delaware River); and (4) PennDOT’s full, unredacted inspection reports.  Many of these documents have been provided to other agencies without redactions, and with far more detail while illegally excluding the information from the public for no justifiable reason.  Meanwhile, the non-governmental (“NGO”) Section 106 parties and the public have not been given the respect the law demands and their participation/comments have been treated as perfunctory at best.

Due to the numerous violations of state and federal laws designed to afford meaningful public input in PennDOT and the FHWA’s decision-making, and that are intended to ensure that environmental and historic resources impacts are avoided, minimized, and mitigated, PennDOT and FHWA must: (1) enlarge the commenting period (for at least thirty days); (2) disclose the full administrative record for the public to review; and (3) start the comment period only after the full record is disclosed for review.  Enlarging the time is the only way to afford the public a meaningful opportunity to be informed and comment, which is the core intent of NEPA and Section 106.  The Pennsylvania Constitution also prevents PennDOT from acting contrary to the rights protected by Article I, Section 27, including by taking ill-informed actions that harm public natural resources and fail to avoid, minimize, and mitigate environmental harm. Pa. Envtl. Def. Found’n v.  Com., 161 A.3d 911 (Pa. 2017); Robinson Twp. v. Com., 83 A.3d 901 (Pa. 2013).  Further, the FHWA and PennDOT must immediately and formally initiate NEPA and Section 7 ESA formal consultation, in order to preclude PennDOT from making a decision on its preferred alternative before the federal processes have even started (i.e., predetermined outcome before NEPA and Section 7 formal consultation has occurred).  Finally, PennDOT and the FHWA must provide all information the public and Section 106 consulting parties need in order to provide meaningful, informed comment.