Brazos River Authority board delays vote on $18.8M Allens Creek initial work plan after hours of questions
Loading...
Summary
Program manager Rachel Lane told the board the Allens Creek Reservoir work plan would produce baseline studies and permitting prerequisites over 17 months with a not‑to‑exceed cap of $18,811,652. Several directors pressed staff for clarity on delivery method, design milestones and risk; the board paused action and sent the matter back for committee review.
Rachel Lane, the Brazos River Authority program manager for the Allens Creek Reservoir project, briefed the board on March 30 on the work completed to date and a proposed 17‑month “initial annual work plan” intended to establish baseline engineering, environmental and cultural studies needed to select a preferred reservoir configuration and a defensible permitting strategy.
Lane said the consolidated project site covers about 9,500 acres and that early field work and accelerated studies have identified key permitting drivers such as wetland delineation, potential protected species, and cultural‑resource occurrences. She described a phased approach in which permitting prerequisites (category 1) feed a conceptual alternative analysis, then more detailed design (category 2) and, eventually, construction (category 3). Lane said the proposed initial work plan carries a not‑to‑exceed cap of $18,811,652 and covers baseline studies, targeted field investigations and an annual task plan to be authorized by the board each year.
The presentation outlined schedule assumptions: an alternatives analysis and permitting pathway that could take 5 to 12.5 years, design of pump‑station and related infrastructure measured in years rather than months, and construction estimates that range from roughly 4 to 7 years depending on the final configuration. Lane and project consultants said some design elements must be pursued early to inform permitting, but that the team has tried to limit premature, costly rework by sequencing studies and approvals.
Several directors raised procedural and strategic objections. Director Weldon, chair of the Allens Creek committee, urged caution before the board signs off on a long‑term, multi‑category contract and called for a scoping session so the board can agree on high‑level goals and the preferred delivery method. “I'm about halfway there,” Weldon said of the briefing, and added he was concerned the resolution before the board assumed decisions — including a delivery model — that the committee had not finalized.
Some directors suggested a narrower approval limited to permitting‑prerequisite tasks (task 1) until alternatives analysis clarifies design needs; others said piecemealing could slow the schedule. Rachel Lane emphasized that many of the environmental and cultural surveys are prerequisites for permitting and for understanding what constraints the design must respect: “These determine what the following steps are to get the project off the ground,” she said.
Gannett Fleming project manager Scott Birch, who has Corps of Engineers experience, clarified permitting/design sequencing: a conceptual design (roughly 30% for permitting purposes) supports a Corps application and third‑party EIS evaluation; final permit decisions and a record of decision come as the design matures. Birch said, “The permitting process doesn't end until you get to that record of decision.”
After extended back‑and‑forth about procurement strategy, scope and risk tolerance, board leadership and several directors said they preferred additional committee work and a scoping workshop before committing to the full proposed funding path. The board took no formal vote on the Allens Creek resolution at the March 30 meeting and directed staff to return with refined materials and committee input; staff indicated a special or June meeting could be used if needed.
The next procedural step will be additional committee review and an updated annual work plan with clearer task breakdowns and decision milestones for the board to authorize.
