Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Flood Control topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Merced County advances Black Rascal Creek flood-control project; construction awaits federal permits
Summary
The Board approved staff actions to ready the Black Rascal Creek flood-control project for bidding and construction, while key federal Corps of Engineers permits and risk reviews remain outstanding.
Get email alerts on the Flood Control topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Merced County supervisors approved staff actions on Jan. 28 to advance the long-running Black Rascal Creek flood-control project, authorizing design consultant services to extend into bidding and construction and increasing the county's ability to acquire required mitigation credits.
The actions are intended to make the project "bid ready" once pending federal approvals are granted and to ensure the county can secure required environmental mitigation credits. The Board voted to approve the Department of Public Works items that include item 17, which covers the Black Rascal project.
The project, sited northeast of the city of Merced near East Yosemite and North Arbolito Avenue, is designed to detain about 2,500 acre-feet on roughly 300 acres and provide flood protection for the city of Merced and the Franklin/Beachwood area during a 200-year design event. Nathan Bray, Merced County director of public works, told the Board the consultant amendment will extend Jacobs Engineering's services into bidding and construction so consultants can "react quickly" once construction can begin.
Rob Tull of Jacobs Engineering, who said he has "been working on the Black Rascal project for over 12 years," outlined the project's hydraulic elements: embankments along the Fairfield Canal and East Yosemite Avenue, a principal ungated spillway, an auxiliary spillway sized for an extreme probable maximum flood, and a realignment of about 1,800 feet of creek channel. The design controls flows into the existing diversion channel to below about 3,000 cubic feet per second.
Bray and Tull told supervisors the project is largely designed (90% complete) but remains dependent on several federal permit processes. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' 404/408 reviews and a Corps risk-management committee decision are the primary outstanding items. The Corps determined the works meet its definition of a dam, which triggered a semi-quantitative risk assessment and an independent panel review that the project has completed.
Federal and state funding commitments were reported as follows: the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) authorized the project at the Office of the Chief level in November, making the county eligible for approximately $7,000,000 in NRCS construction funding; the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) awarded about $6,000,000 in grant funds that carry a roughly 15% local cost share. County staff said they are also seeking to reallocate funds from the state's small communities program to aid construction costs. Bray said staff will request NRCS funding as soon as permits are in hand.
Supervisors pressed staff on timing and risk. "I just want to put my frustration out there because I have a community ... we've had floods," said Supervisor McDaniel, noting repeated rainy seasons and urging urgency with the Corps. McDaniel and others described lengthy project history dating to a county feasibility study begun in February 2008 and expressed frustration that Corps procedures have delayed construction.
Project schedule presented to the Board aims for bid-ready design in June 2025 (final comments permitting), bid documents in July 2025, Corps letter of permission in November 2025, an encroachment permit from the flood board in December 2025 and construction start in December 2025 with a roughly 27-month construction period to completion in November 2027. County staff cautioned those dates are contingent on receiving the Corps permits and associated risk approvals.
The Board approved the public works motion to move forward on items 14 through 17, including the Black Rascal Creek actions; the motion passed on a recorded vote.
