RTK Records: PA SHPO
RTK Records: PA SHPO
Embedded Files
The released emails show that Bishop Road Bridge preservation was being actively explored in early 2026 through direct coordination with PHMC, Cumberland County, PennDOT, and township representatives. The correspondence reflects discussion of several alternatives to demolition, including rehabilitation, careful disassembly, storage, and possible transfer to a new owner, while agencies worked through the funding and legal questions tied to those options.
The released emails show that Bishop Road Bridge preservation was being actively explored in early 2026 through direct coordination with PHMC, Cumberland County, PennDOT, and township representatives. The correspondence reflects discussion of several alternatives to demolition, including rehabilitation, careful disassembly, storage, and possible transfer to a new owner, while agencies worked through the funding and legal questions tied to those options.
A January 5 email from PHMC’s Tyra Guyton to Eric Fairchild outlined possible funding and review paths, including Keystone Historic Preservation grants, PennDOT-related programs, and the difference between state historic review and federal Section 106 review depending on what permits or funding were involved. Later emails show Eric Fairchild continuing to share bridge materials and preservation examples with PHMC, including historic images and Wrought Iron Bridge Works documents that PHMC said would be added to the bridge record.
A January 5 email from PHMC’s Tyra Guyton to Eric Fairchild outlined possible funding and review paths, including Keystone Historic Preservation grants, PennDOT-related programs, and the difference between state historic review and federal Section 106 review depending on what permits or funding were involved. Later emails show Eric Fairchild continuing to share bridge materials and preservation examples with PHMC, including historic images and Wrought Iron Bridge Works documents that PHMC said would be added to the bridge record.
The strongest theme in the emails is funding eligibility. In mid-January, Eric Fairchild raised questions about whether county funding tied to demolition could instead support careful disassembly if the bridge were ultimately preserved for vehicular use. By late January, Cumberland County Planning Director Kirk Stoner formally asked PennDOT and other agency contacts for written guidance on whether county liquid fuels or $5 Local Use Fee money could be used for disassembly and storage, depending on the bridge’s final use.
The strongest theme in the emails is funding eligibility. In mid-January, Eric Fairchild raised questions about whether county funding tied to demolition could instead support careful disassembly if the bridge were ultimately preserved for vehicular use. By late January, Cumberland County Planning Director Kirk Stoner formally asked PennDOT and other agency contacts for written guidance on whether county liquid fuels or $5 Local Use Fee money could be used for disassembly and storage, depending on the bridge’s final use.
Email Communication Timeline
Email Communication Timeline
To read the official email, please click on the title of each email thread.
Sent by: Tyra Guyton (PHMC)
To: Eric Fairchild
CC: Karen Arnold, Emily Rebert, Kara Harris
What it says: Tyra follows up after a phone call with Eric and shares possible grant and funding paths for bridge rehabilitation, including Keystone Historic Preservation grants and PennDOT-related programs. She also explains possible historic review paths depending on whether the project involves DEP or federal permits.
Original forwarded by: Eric Fairchild
Forwarded to: Tyra Guyton
Original forward addressed to: Chad Krebs
Response by: Tyra Guyton on January 14
What it says: Eric sent Tyra a slideshow/email package with rehabilitation examples, bridge-related images, Wrought Iron Bridge Works materials, cost references, and funding slides. Tyra responded that the historic photo and original Wrought Iron Bridge Works documents were valuable and said she would upload them into the bridge record.
Sent by: Eric Fairchild
To: Tyra Guyton
CC: Joshua Bonn and Kara Harris
Response by: Tyra Guyton
What Eric asked: Eric raised questions about whether roughly $275,000 in county demolition-related funds could be made available sooner if the bridge were preserved for future vehicular use, and whether careful disassembly could be re-bid if needed. He said the funding issue was important for board support and public concern about township-only costs.
What Tyra said back: Tyra said Kara Harris would likely be better positioned to answer and mentioned that PennDOT has used retro-reimbursement structures on other projects.
Sent by: Tyra Guyton
To: Eric Fairchild
What it says: Tyra sent Eric the PHMC letter that had been provided to Cumberland County regarding coordination with PHMC. This appears to be a direct informational follow-up, not a debate email. There are two uploaded copies of this same email.
Sent by: Kirk D. Stoner (Cumberland County)
To: Sims, Kristen; Levan, Rick; Tyra Guyton; Martin, Veronica; Harris, Kara
CC: Heather Bitner and Eric Fairchild
What it says: Kirk explains that the counties had bid the project, discovered the wrong permit issue, consulted PHMC, and received options to minimize adverse effects. He lays out the key funding question: whether county liquid fuels or $5 Local Use Fee money can be used for disassembly/storage depending on the bridge’s eventual use.
Sent by: Tyra Guyton
To: Kirk Stoner, Kristen Sims, Rick Levan, Veronica Martin, Kara Harris, Barbara Frederick, Emily Rebert
CC: Heather Bitner and Eric Fairchild
What it says: Tyra asks Kirk to confirm whether the counties can use those funds to demolish the bridge but not to carefully disassemble it, and notes that she is interested in hearing PennDOT’s response as well.
Sent by: Kirk D. Stoner
To: Tyra Guyton and the same group
CC: Heather Bitner and Eric Fairchild
What it says: Kirk responds that the counties already have guidance saying liquid fuels and $5 fee money cannot be used for pedestrian or emergency-access bridges. He says the real issue is whether the county would have to repay those funds if the bridge were disassembled using eligible funds but later reassembled for a non-vehicular use.
Sent by: Kirk D. Stoner
To: Tyra Guyton and the same agency group
CC: Heather Bitner and Eric Fairchild
What it says: Kirk sends a reminder saying they still had not received a response to the information request, aside from Tyra’s question.
Sent by: Tyra Guyton
To: Kirk Stoner and the same PennDOT/agency group
CC: Heather Bitner and Eric Fairchild
What it says: Tyra recirculates Kirk’s question and explicitly asks someone from PennDOT to respond or forward it to the right person who can answer the funding issue.
Original sent by: Andrea MacDonald
To: Tyra Guyton
Forwarded by: Tyra Guyton
To: Eric Fairchild
What it says: Andrea sent Tyra a “Good news!” article about the Downingtown Trestle Bridge. Tyra then forwarded it to Eric and noted that the group saving that bridge had received DCNR grants.
11. February 18, 2026 — “Re: Downingtown Trestle Bridge”
Sent by: Eric Fairchild
To: Tyra Guyton
Response by: Tyra Guyton
What Eric said: Eric thanked Tyra, said the example was informative and encouraging, said he planned to give a mini update at that night’s Board of Commissioners meeting, and noted they were still seeking clarification on use of funds. He also said he had left Kara a voicemail on February 6 and had not yet heard back.
What Tyra said back: Tyra thanked Eric for sharing and said she had also “poked Kara” in hopes he would get a call back soon.
Page updated
Google Sites
Report abuse