Brazos River Authority committee hears multi-year plan, major surveys for Allen's Creek Reservoir

The Brazos River Authority's committee on Allen's Creek heard a detailed status update and contracting plan on the reservoir project, including field studies, permitting strategy and a multi-year schedule. Rachel Lane, the project’s program manager, told the committee that the work authorized by the board in March 2025 is on task and that most major milestones are complete.

"I'm the program manager for the Allens Creek Reservoir Project," Lane said, and summarized the next steps: an alternatives analysis to narrow footprints and a permitting phase that will depend on agency reviews. She emphasized that the team is building the documentation the Corps of Engineers and other agencies will need so the authority can present "a defensible" preferred alternative.

Lane described the property as roughly 9,500 acres and said early field work has identified a mix of engineering, cultural and biological constraints. She said the project has begun an extensive archaeological program under a planned Texas Antiquities permit and that the team will run "the largest survey in the state of Texas this year" to better define the extents of known historic sites. On biological resources, staff reported seven threatened or possibly endangered species in the five-mile buffer around the site and said they accelerated a Houston toad breeding-season survey after realizing early cost savings could be applied to that work.

"We had over half a million dollars in savings and we were able to initiate this Houston toad survey," Lane said, noting the species-specific survey window (February–June) makes timing critical to avoid multi-year delays.

Consultant Scott Burch, Ganet Fleming’s program manager on the project, told directors that the Corps’ Section 404 permitting process is the "long pole in the tent" and will be the key driver of schedule risk. Burch and staff estimated roughly two-and-a-half years to prepare and submit a permit application under current rules and anticipated a multi-year Corps review thereafter; consultants said proposed regulatory changes could shorten that review if adopted.

To manage schedule and technical risk, the authority has negotiated a long-term, task-based contract with Ganet Fleming and HDR structured around annual work plans and protective caps. Lane said the initial 17-month work plan (remainder of the current fiscal year through the end of the next) is estimated at $18.88 million and covers intensive environmental and cultural fieldwork, baseline engineering and the alternatives analysis. Staff also cited agreed protective caps in draft contract language of $84 million for permitting-related services and $65 million for project design; construction pricing will be calculated later when scope is defined.

Directors pressed staff on trade-offs and incentives. Director Latimore asked how the Corps weighs practicability and cost; Lane said the Corps evaluates impacts to protected resources and will expect a defensible record that can withstand public and agency review. Directors also sought clarity about escalation of consultant rates, the not-to-exceed nature of annual authorizations, and independent technical oversight; staff said the contract is time-and-materials with negotiated rates, annual not-to-exceed authorizations for each work plan, and that the authority has retained an independent technical adviser (LAN) to review major deliverables.

Lane and Burch said the authority will not wait passively for permitting decisions: the alternatives analysis and much of the permit application documentation are being developed in parallel so that, where risk tolerance allows, design work can advance without waiting for final permit issuance. Burch characterized the design level at permit submission as roughly 20–30% and said higher confidence in permit outcomes would justify accelerating later design phases.

The committee asked staff to bring a clear set of schedule scenarios (best case and conservative case) and a decision point on contracting-delivery approach within the next 6–12 months, so the board can weigh risk tolerance alongside cost. Lane said the consultant contract is planned for board consideration at the March 30 meeting and that the annual work-plan process will provide repeated opportunities for the board to review costs, deliverables and risk trade-offs.

The meeting closed after questions and a short break; the committee adjourned at 12:11 p.m.