Public works director reports Winship Bridge replacement cleared NEPA; residents press for more hydraulic detail

Public Works Director Richard Siminich gave the council a technical status update on the Winship Avenue bridge replacement project and answered resident questions about hydraulics, environmental review and the permitting timeline.

Siminich described why the town pursued full replacement rather than narrower rehabilitation: the existing earth‑filled arch proved structurally compromised, does not meet Federal Highway Administration tolerable limits for lane and sidewalk width and freeboard, and poses a risk of scour, cracking and potential catastrophic failure. He said the town’s CEQA review concluded with a 2020 adopted initial study/mitigated negative declaration (ISMND) and a mitigation‑monitoring and reporting program that will be enforced in construction documents and special conditions.

Because the town received federal Highway Bridge Program funding, the project required NEPA review; Caltrans approved a NEPA categorical exclusion in July 2026, Siminich said. The town also obtained a conditional FEMA no‑rise certification based on the FEMA corrected effective model; the certification requires that as‑built geometry verify the modeled channel profiles and elevations after construction. Siminich said the Stetson 1D/2D model used earlier in the IS/MND showed no significant hydraulic impacts for the proposed design, and the FEMA model is being used for regulatory floodway compliance.

Residents pressed staff for a clearer comparison between the Winship project modeling and earlier large‑scale analyses tied to the SAFER project (a county flood‑control EIR from 2018). Multiple commenters said public materials and pictures circulated outside town hall had conflated removal of obstructions on other projects with local effects at Winship and called for a side‑by‑side table showing the hydraulic assumptions and outcomes from the 2018 EIR, the 2017 Stetson model referenced in the IS/MND and the FEMA corrected effective model used for no‑rise certification.

Siminich said the town is not proposing to “dig out” the channel; rather, Stetson identified a prior detail in the Quincy design that proposed a scooped channel bottom under the structure; the town’s current approach keeps the channel bottom closer to existing elevations and incorporates minor geometry changes to avoid turbulent transitions that could show local rises in certain model variants. He noted the no‑rise certification is conditional: after construction the town must show the as‑built channel matches the model and, if necessary, correct any discrepancies.

Staff told the council the next steps include finalizing right‑of‑way and temporary construction easements for a small number of adjacent properties, completing final design and the environmental commitment record required by NEPA (fish relocation, dewatering and revegetation plans), and preparing bid documents. Siminich emphasized the project’s safety rationale and the desire to move toward construction while complying with federal and state permitting obligations.

Council members and residents asked for additional public presentations and documentation comparing older SAFER EIR results to the town’s IS/MND and the FEMA no‑rise inputs, and staff said final design materials and mitigation plans will be shared prior to bidding so neighbors can review construction‑phase requirements and post‑construction verification plans.