HomeMy WebLinkAbout1980-88
lr
`rcrti, Ce,ntrai Texas uDUnal of 6overnmeIlls
r
- a O•awgr COG nr in
91~'+ 'pxa5 7FQQ5-7aaa
JUL' Z 7 sya3
FROM; John Promise, Director Of Environmental Resources '
DATE; July 20, 1983
T0: William J, Pitstick, Executive Director
SUBJECT; Corrside-ation of Resolution
for Lak e Ray P,oberts Endorsing Greenbelt.
As you know, the Environmental Resources Advi
and advice to the Executive Board Advisory Committee provides suPP
r and {sues. During its Jul on regional environmental si
~ lion a Y monthly meetin esources decisions {
proposed greenbelt corridor between this CO ~ttee heard a _
Ray Roberts Lave and the upper portion of t e dam under c°nstructi~o~sfora
the Trinity River, The greenbelt corridor Lake on the Elm Fork
Wildlife facilities at Ray Roberts Lake as well as r d of reational the local sponsors, the Cit will be financedccooperrativei
Wildlife Department; and City of Dallas and City of Denton- Y among
as Parks
proposal is the firs r, the U,S, Army Corps of Enoineers, the ein
and
of its kind in thn region.
novative
A cooperative vent
governments for ere such this one involving local
the aesthetic c and rneioving cal, state and federal bpnefit commendable, The 1963 Committee of the Future Re of the region is highly
recommends examination of existing and potential uses
1 E this region for the port, adopted by the Board,
c purpose of rec°rirtend of stream corridors in
i strategy, Therefore, the Environmental ResourceslAdvisornd achievable regional
formal motion and unanous vote rQ
endorsement of this commends the Executive Board'sep' upon
' pr? N ect, formal
~ So that Board members ma be
cities of Dallas and Denton have9informed of Chris Herten o the planned facilities, the
Lj i I F j g, City Manager of Denton arranged for a briefing at the Jul 2
Water Utilities, cC-ity ity
of Daiis will be and Michael Tubbs A y r meeting,
p resent to asst' sth the Director of
~ 1 look forward st with the briefing,
adoption forward to discussing this item with the Executive Board and requesting
the attached resolution as recommended b
Resources Advisory Committee,
y the Environmental '
JP;~a *rm_n_1I4SSe
Attachment
Centerc00 Two 6 16 Six F,
ags Drive 0aRa9)Fort WORn Metro 8 f 7
/461.3 300
JTI~N FNDOP.S; G GREE`1PEL7
FOR RAY ROPERTS LAKE
dHEREAS, a recognized purpose of the North Cen, al Texas Council of
Governments is to help local governments recoani7o regional opportunities,
resolve regional pro',lems, eliminate unnecessary ouplication, and make Join'.
regional decisions; and
WHEREAS, a ')CTCDG regional opan space elan indicates that the most hiohly
regarded natural resOUrces in this region lie in "environmental corridors" whirh
generally follow streamlines and which are ideally s;,ited for recreation; and
W EREAS, th, recently adopted North Central Texas Council of Governments
Committee of the Future, 19A3 RPDnrt recommends exaninat`an of exist.inn and
potentir, uses .of stream corridors or the purpose of recommendinq a re'al,'stic
and ach evable regional strategy; and
0 ERcAS, the ?)CTCOG Environmental Resources Advisory Committee, comprised
of public officials, private citizens, economic interests, and public interest
groups and providing advice to the Executive Roard on envirnnmental resources
1 decisions and issues, unanimously endorsed these recommendations on Jrlly R,
1983.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE EXECUTIVE SWA OF THE NORTH
CENTRAL TEXAS COUNCIL Of GOVERNMENTS:
{ I
SECTION 1. That the Executive board of the North :ral Texas
I _
Council of Governments endorses the proposed areenbelt
corridor for Ray Roberts Lake and the cooperative
financing of the entire project as innovative,
regionally sound, and a significant step in implement-
ing the regional open space plan,
i
SECTION 2, That the Exe,:utive Director is authorized to forward
this resolution to the appropriate officials at the
f ( City of Dallas, City of Denton, Texas Parks and We,-
life Department, U.S, Army Corps of Engineers, and
other interested agencies.
SECTION 3. That this resolution shall be id effect immediately
upon its adoption,
i'
i
1
otter Parsell, rest ent
North Central Texas Council of Governments
Councilman, City of Hurst
1 hereby certify that the resolution was adopted by the Executive Board of
the North Central Texas Council of Governments on July 28, 1983.
erry Ruc er, ecretary- reasurer
North Central Texas Council of Governments
Councilman, City of Dallas
>r
AGENDA
FORTH CENTRAL TEXAS COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS
Executive Board Meeting
NCTCOG Offices
July 20, 1983 - 12:30 p.m.
_.,Fester Pzirsell Florence Shapiro
-Wayne Ferguson
`Gerald Henigsman
_Gary Bruner Kathy Wetherby Lyn Gr
egory Herschel Winn
Jerry Rucker
Gary Skaggs _Gary Bennett ,Ted Ma--Master ,
Staff
1 Bill Pltstlck
j Linda Kelthley John Promise
'Fred Kefthfey
Charles Cason
f -Dan Johnson
,Gordon Shunk
ITEM NO. 1, ?u rovaI of Minutes and Ratlflcaifan of Acifon Taken at
ne 30 Execut ve Board eetln
f
ITEM N0. 1. GOVERNMENT
APPLICATIONS REVIEW -
Fa~iorable with Goonmrd - Water w.,d Sewer
R~ kmtions
I
2.1 Johnson Count Rural Water Su I
enera ystem mprovements S, stem - Cleburne
i
i i
2.2 Mountain Peak Water Su I Cor
stem im rovements ration -Midlothian Water
- 3-Orb-04p_1g
174varaWe with Gorrarerrt
- Human Set~ Gcations
2.3 Natlona! Conference of Executives ers: Tralnln for Develomen tal
sa t ana ationa 0C181 -
83-0 Q
2.4 Tarrant Count B'Nai B'Rith Section 202 Housin for Elderly
and an ca ort or2
- -----_-0 `-0 012
Pirm
Y
2.5 Lake -omo Church of Chris Section LUsf for Elderly
and Hand - F
icapped ort Worth -`07-04015
RecGOTIcrKled for Waiver
2.6 Tri-City Builders/All American Homes
4Yatauc~a 83-07-04500 -Quad Meadows
2.7 Northeast Construction Com an
and 9 - Nort RIFT` ch~ l~ HolldaY West Section 5, 6,
/ ui uI4501
2.8 Skinner/Bo d Partnership - Sherr Oaks - Ariln ton
4 / 83-0~7-04~502
;
1 2.9 Roden Pro erties - Shadowood Trail Condominiums -Cone vi11e
3 / 83-07-Oy50g
2.10 The Cedars, Ltd. - The Cedars Townhomes - Cedar Hill
83-07-0 504
I /
~I
' 2.11
U. S. Homes Curporatinn - Terrace Heights Condominiums
Irving 83-07-04505
2.17,
i Omnfomes, inc, - Huntfn ton Vflla e - Dallas 83-07-04506
2,13 Fox and _Iacobs -Bryan Place -Dallas 83 07 04507
2.14 A: P. Develo ment, Inc. - Kings Rld e - Frlsco 83-07-04508
2.15 Murra Bulidin Com an Inc. -Preston Ridge -Plano
83-07-04509
,~H4y
Fox af~d Jacobs..,- Heritage Hills Forne 83-07-04510
r
2.16
Fox and Jacobs - Glen Hollow - Allen 83-07-04511
2. 17
!
2 18 Prentice Glen Joint Venture - Flower hill - Rowlett 83-07-04512
1
MCR International Corporation - Timbercreek - Allen 83-07-04513
2.19
Marie P1 9g, Inc. - Timberlake Estates - Azle 83-07-04514
2.20
- The Landln Condominiums
2.21 Gar Baker Construction Com an
uncanvi a 83-07-04515
Delbert Stonebraker - DD-BarY - B Mobile Homes - Dallas 83-07-04516
2.22 -
f
Town and Country Develo rent Corp. - H19h Chaparral
2.23 d t on - Ke er 83-07-0451
I 1
r
~ Associated Pro exiles, Inc. - Saratoga Estates -Denton Count
2.24 3-0~ 7-OW451
1 1
I
Fox and Jacobs - Pecan Park - Garland 83-07-04520
2.25
- -
2.26 Fox and Jacobs - Easttieid - Dallas 83-07-04521
2.26
2.27 Fox and Jacobs Towne - Mes uite 83-07-04522
r
Y
Favorable - Mater and Sewer Applications
28 U. S. Corps of Engineers - Reconnaissance Report for West
For o_ Trinity _ Grand Prairie - Land Fill Site 83-07-0400 4
2.29 U. S. Corps of Engineers - Reconnaissance Report for West
ForK of Trinity__I_Crand Prairie - Myers Road - 83-07-04017
2.30 Trinity er Authority -_Facility Plan and EID for Ten Mlle Creek ,
83--07-04013
2.37 Texas Department of Health - Public Drlnkin Water Supply
Supervision Program - FY 1984 Continuation 83-06-04075
Favorable - Parks aisd Recreation
2.32 Sj onnis - Jaycee Park - Tennis Courts - 83-07-04007
2, 33 City of Plano - North Athletic Park Site 83-08-04003
i
2.34 City of Plano - West Athletic Park Site 83-08-04004
i
I
2.35 City of Commerce - Improvements to Commerce City Park
83 08-04 08
F.aromble - Health and Human 5ervkms Applimtions
2.36 Lovers Lane United Methodist Churst - Dallas - Runaway and
Homeless out ro ect -07- I 0
1
2.37 Y,M,C,A, of Dallas - Casa de los_Amigos - Runaway Youth
ro ect 8 - 7-04 01 "
r
I-J 2. 38 United 1Vay of Tarrant County - RSVP Program 83-07-04002
2.39 Univ, of Texas Health Science Center at Dallas - Long Term
are eronto ogy Center - Da as 8 3-0 05
2.40 Community Health Service Agency, Inc. - '7th Year Continuation
rant 83-07-04006
r
2.41 Child Stud Center - Child Development Program for Abused b
Neglected Chf dren 83-06-04012
2.42 Texas Department of Health - Surveillance of Nutritionally
t-Ris Patients --83-06-0402
I -
2.43 Community Services, Inc. - Corsicana - Purchase of 2 Vans
83-07-04014
Favorable - Transtaortation
Regional Trans ortation Council - 1983 Transportation
f 2.44
im rovement rogram, wa Section. Revision - U.S. 75 from
n o C}~-635 to~pring ree Parkway, Flano 83-0704018
j -
I ~
2.45 Regional Transportation Council - 1984 Trans orta.tlon Improvement
fro ram: HI 9 hwa Section Revisions - 20 rrom u en treet
I ~ io 287, ort or! an 289 from Collin-Dallas County
Line to 190 3-07-0 01
F
Regional Transportation Council - 1984 Transportation Improvement
2.46
Program: r'~ ansIt_ect on ev s on - Purchase o 3 vehicles otirr
City o r ngton to rep ace ex stn I equipment 83-07-04020_
-
Favorable - Assisted Housing
2.47 Chisum Trall Apartments, Ltd. - Rural Rental Housing, ectlon
515 56 units - Sanger, exas 3-07-04003
1
2. 48 Sabine Valley Industries - Justin Apartments, Ltd, - Justin_
Section 515 83-07-04011
2.49 First United Methodist Church of Plano - Section 102 Housing
for Elderly and Handicapped - Plano 83-07-04016
ndent School District
2.50 Environmental Review - Fort Worth InL-983-07-04021
a e o Par er Midd e c o0 omTACTION
ITEM NO. 3. Consideration of Resolution Endorsing Greenbelt for Lake Ray
O-Wins
t
ITEM NO. 4. Resolution Authorizing A Ilcatlon for Urban Mass Transportation
Administration Tuc n ca studies rant
i
ITEM NO, 5, Resolution AuthorizingA~roval_of a Contract to Conduct UMTA
Sponsored Demog- raphIc 5t~
j ITEM NO, 6. Local Government Hearin on 1984 Transportation Improvement
rogram
{ ~ I
ITEM NO, 7. Resolution Endorsing 1984 Aging Plan
s
ITEM NO. B. Resolution Authorizing Execution of Contract for Regional Crime
na ysis Study
"POI NTUElllrTS
ITEM No. 9, Nominations for Regional Review Committee for Texas Community
Development Program
`i
PROGRESS REPORTS
ITEM NO. 10. Progress Report on NCTCOG's role In Texas Community
uevelopment ro ram
ITEM N0. 11, Pro~cress Report on Regional Review of Spri~_nklers Flre ss,
a_nd l=rre Code Uses
ITEM NO, 12, Progress Report on Job Training Partnership Act
#AISCE( kNEOUS
ITEM NO. 13, Restatement of Policy Position on Regionalism
ITEM NO,
14, Future Calendar
1
I j
ITEM N0, 15, For Your Information
I I
ADJOURN
I {
I
t
I
i
RAY ROBERTS LAKE
i
I
1
it
t
1
1
1
11~
j
February, 1984
;
i
I
T
I;
4
t
1
US, so
GAINESVILLE
1 RAY
ROSERTSI COLUNSVILLE M
SHMAN
x HOWE!
- - - - c0ow co GRAYSAM VAN
! 0£NTQM Co. PI - AL3TYNE
I POINT } COLL/N CO,
p
j I f CELINA j
OENTON I MELISSA
3B0 I PROSPER M6NINNEY
I ~ I 1
I
I
i I I ALLEN
LEWISVILLE PLANO
LEW/SV/LLE
LEGElVG
® RAY ROBERTS LAKE
GREENBELT CORRIDOR
j
I
r
35
a
~ nG
n
m
r- im
p
z
00
_ `
_ nto
1 n ZN
i~
372
i
I
~a o
G ~
n ;U A
{I N
;U A M
` D apt
! D c
O n
r CD x 3rr
D m
:V G-q M
N R
N
N
1!
ti
~i
RAY ROBERTS LAKE
INFORMATION SHEET
* General Facts
- Location: On Elm Fork of Trinity River, in northeast Denton County
extending into Cooke and Grayson Counties. Dam site is 30 river
miles upstream from Lewisville Lake Dam.
- Storage: 799,600 are feet of water covering 37,630 acres of land
- Dam: Earth filled with concrete spillway and outlet works
- Total project size: 43,460 acres
X111 * Dallas and Denton are local spousors of project
Share
in water and share is costs 74X/26X
LWFYJ conducted Feasibility stud
y for local sponsors
- Looked at alternate reservoirs
- Looked at alternate financing
- Recommended contracting with Corps for Ray Roberts
E ' * Corps Contracts
- Federally financed
- Interest rate fixed at 7.21%
f - Pay back over 50 years
- Two contractst Water supply and Recreation
- Contract includes raising the elevation of Lake Lewisville by 7 feet
- Council authorized City Manager to enter into contracts January 30,
1980
Contracts signed September 16, 1980
Construction began 1980
-3-
i
i'
i'
* Estimated Costs (1983 dollars)
water supply Recreation Total
Dallas $131,921,280 $10,9102000+ $1422831,280
Denton 46,350,720 318330243+ 50,183,963
Corps 83 1759,000 15,2250757+ 98,984,757
TOTAL $2620031,000 $2999691000+ $292,000,000
+ a portion of this to be paid by Texas Parks and Wildlife Department
* Water Supply Contract
- Term is 100 years
~ - Corps to finance, build, operate, and maintain reservoir
i
- Cities reimburse Corps for 0&M expenses related to water supply
- Repayment of 48% of water supply capital costs can be deferred,
interest free, for 10 years
- Payment begins upon completion of dam, currently anticipated July
1986
* Recreation Contract
I `
I - Corps and local sponsors pay 50-50 of construction costs
- Local sponsors responsible for 160% of O&M
- Recreation facilities at Lewisville Lake as well as Ray Roberts
- Corps to develop Recreation Master Plan with local sponsor assistance
- Master Plan for Ray Roberts completed and approved, and design has
begun
* Recreation Master Plan
- 2 major parks developed initially - Johnson Branch and Isle du Bois
- 2 parks for future development - Culp Branch and Jordan
- 3 small parks/access points - Pecan Creek, Pond Creek, and Buck Creek
- Downstream access to park
- 7 wetland areas foz water fowl
--4-
{
1
r
i!
i!
- 8 fish rearing facilities
- Guaranteed 15 cfs minimum release to maintain downstream fish and
wildlife habitat
* Texas Parke and Wildlife Department Involvement
- Will finance and construct State Dark at Roberts
- Local sponsors finance and construct remaining recreational
facilities
- Texas Parks and Wildlife agreed to manage, operate, and maintain all
recreational facilities and lands
- Will rot manage, operate, and maintain park at Lewisville
j - Will manage, operate, and maintain Greenbelt Park
,
I
j
-5-
f
i
s~
k7
GREENBELT CORRIDOR
INFORMATION SHEET
I• General Background
* Possible park identified by Corp. 1974
* Dallas staff requested Corps to evaluate
conventional park required for greenbelt as Lewisville Lake alternative to
f-__" * State willing to fund 25% construction cost and to
and maintain
manage, operate,
* Corps found Greenbelt
in conventional offered recreational opportunities not
in co Park at Lewisville Laker canoeing, rafting
found
fishing) protection of environmental)
~ stream
Less Y sensitive area
*
acreage (1,860 acres compared to 2,900 acres)
f Leas costly (OpOg5f000 compared
f( Leas annual to $4,322,000)
0&
I M (50,000 compared to
Better cost $292,000)
to benefit ratio (10,2 to 1 compared o 4.5 to I,0)
II. Current status
* Corps drafted supplements to contracts and Master Plan
* Corps held
Public comment period
Property owners whose lands would be taken are opposed
*
Supported byt
i
- Texas Parks & WAIdlife Department
- Various environmental groups
i
- Dallas Parks & Recreation Department
- City of Dallas (Council Resolution 11-2-83)
- City of Denton (Council Resolution 10-4-83)
-6-
f
ti MM
1
li
111a1
1
* Corps conducted Public Hearing September 26, 1983
- 250 people attended
- 50-50 for and against
* r rps evaluated support for Greenbelt land and issued Public Notice
that Greenbelt Park Study will continue
* Corps will conduct public workshop in April
* Corps, State, and Cities still in process of negotiating an
acceptable Greenbelt Park concept
* Cities and Corps to develop Master Plan for Lewisville Lake and
Greenbelt by June 1984
i
I
,
t
j
I Li
i
-7-
I
i
PAY ROBERTS LAKE
INFORMATION SHEET
* Estimated Costs (1988 dollars)
Water Su 1 Recreation ~ Fish Wildlife
Dallas (74%) Tom
Denton {26%) 44,694,000 40079,682 129,350 48,902,932
State 1,911,800 1,9119800
Federal 8b,944'006 15563 494 , 1~ 492 $104,0'
L. I TOTAL ~W iiOyu
* Water Supply Contract
- Term is 100 years
Corps to finance,build, operate, and maintain reservoir
i
- Cities reimburse Corpa for 08M expenses related to water supply
- Repayment of 48% of water supply capital costs can be deferred, interest
k free, for 10 years
i
- Payment begins upon pool raise at Lake Lewisville (July 1988)
1
- Anticipate gate closure July 1987
* Recreation Contract
- Corps and local sponsors pay 50-50 of construction costs
- Local sponsors responsible for 100% of 03M
- Recreation facilities at Lewisville Lake as well as Ray Roberts
i
- Corps to develop Recreation Master Plan with local sponsor assistance
- Master Alan for Ray Roberts completed and approved, and design has begun
I
* Recreation Master Plan
- 2 major parks developed initially - Johnson Branch and Isle du 3ois
- 5 small parks/access points developed initially - Pecan Creek, Pond
Creek, Buck Creek, Wolf Island and Jordan Park
- 1 park for future development - Culp Branch
- Downstream access to park
i
- 7 wetland areas for water fowl
a
i
i
i
i.
.~f{
l
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
CON OFFICE OF THE. ASSISTANT SECRETARY~ WASHINGTON. DC 20310-0103
. or. pry
4ry'Ln M 78 DEC 1988
Honorable Ray Stevens DEC
Mayor of Denton
215 East McKinney Street DE TON
Denton, Texas 76201 M AGERSOFffCF
Dear Mayor Stevens:
I am pleased to inform you that the Administration
supports the proposed Greenbelt Corridor between
Lewisville and Ray Robert Lakes in Texas.
The Secretary of the Army has submitted a
recommendation to the Congress that the Congress
authorize the appropriate modifications to the
d Lewisville project.
Thank you for your expressed support for this
proposal.
Sincerely,
c
f
I
I
, Robert W. Page ~
f ? Assistant Secretary of the Army
(Civil Works)
i
y
S~
i,
s
w-j
CAA 1 619&3
CI1Y~f DEiifudl ~
~
CITY MANAGERS Off Iff
D
CITY of DENTON DENTON, TEXAS 76901
MEMORANDUM
DATE: August 15, 1988
TO: LLOYD RAkRELL, CITY MANAGER
FROM: R. E. Nelson, Executive Director of Utilities
RE: Greenbelt Progress _ __-M_____
/ _ Y ^
Last'week, the Secretary of the Army gave his endorsement of the
Greenbelt project and recommended its approval by Congress. The project
r+ j has been forwarded to the Office of Management and Budgat, (OMB) for
their review prior to going to Congress, to assure that the project meets
the administration's budget directives.
Denton and Dallas will need to continue our efforts on the congressional
j front to keep this project moving and get it to Congress for action.
Although we are pleased that the Secretary of the Army supported the
Greenbelt project, we would have preferred that he had taken it upon
himself to fully authorize the project to go forward, rather than going
y back to Congress to get the project reaffirmed or, as the Corps prefers
to explain it, to clear up any concerns that the original Ray Robert's
1 legislation did in fact authorize the expenditure of federal funds for a
project such as the Greenbelt.
The main emphasis at OMB will be to convince them that purchasing extra
land (which is opposite of the present Administration's directive) is f the
c, and Li indeed in the or sthe nFederal oGove nmenttl and the tcitiest ofs Denton Band
costly route r
Dallas.
y' Respe~ ul~,
5 R Nelson, P.E.
Executive Director of Utilities
t gar
a
)
gg b008U:5 J
S {
(
CITY of DENTON, TEXAS MUNICIPAL SU)LDING / DENTON, TEXAS 76207 i TELEFHQNE (817) 566.8200
MEMORANDUM
DATE: August 15, 1988
TO: LLOYD HARRELL, CITY MANAGER
FROM: R. E. Nelson, Executive Director of Utilities
RE; Greenbelt Progress
l Last week-,r the Secretary of the Arm
ave his endrsement of the
Greenbelt project and recommended its ga
pproval byo Congress, The
project has been forwarded to the Office
I (OMB for of Management a
their review prior to going to Congress, to assure d.hat
the project meets the administration's budget directives.
Denton and Dallas will. need to continue our efforts on the
congressional front to keep this project moving and get it to
Congress for action. Although we are pleased that the Secretary of
the Army supported the Greenbelt project, we would have preferred
that he had taken it upon himself to fully authorize the project to
go forward, rather than going back to Congress to
reaffirmed or, as the Corps prefers to explain it, totclearpupjany
g
concerns that the original Ray Robert's legislation did in fact
authorize the expenditure of federal funds for a project such as the
j Greenbelt.
~ j
The main emphasis at OMB will be to convince them that purchasing
( extra land (which is opposite of the present Administration's
directive) is indeed in the best interest of the public, and that it
is the least costly route for the Federal Government and the cities
of Denton and Dallas.
1 R!e_Uectfully,
R. E, Nelson, P.E.
Executive Director of Utilities
gcr
60080:5
1
i.
r
i
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20310-0103
2 AUG 1988
Honorable James C. Miller III
Director
office of Management and Budget
Washington, D. C. 20503
Dear Mr. Miller:
I am submitting a copy of the report of the Chief of
Engineers on Greenbelt Corridor Between Ray Roberts Dam and
Lewisville Lake, Texas, Together with other pertinent
reports. This is furni,aed in accordance with Executive
Order No. 12322 dated September 17, 1981. The recommended
plan modifies the construction authority for Ray Roberts
Lake, contained in Section 301 of Public Law 89-298.
Please provide information as to the relationship of
the Chief of Engineers report to the program of the
President. A proposed draft of a letter transmitting this
f report to Congress is enclosed.
j Sincerely,
i
Robert W. Page
Assistant Secretary of the Army
(Civil Works)
7 Enclosures
1 1. Proposed draft
ltr to Cong
Y 2. Cy ltr State TX to
OCE Oct 21, 87
3. Cy ltr Dept Int to
OCE Oct 16, 87
4. Cy ltr EPA to OCE
Aug 20, 87
5. Cy ltr Dept HUD to
OCE Aug 12, 87
6. Cy ltr FEMA to OCE
Sep 9, 87
7. Report
CF: Southwestern Division w/incls & dtd Cop, rept.
cc L la6t d J~? c Q
M;
iM ~1 1
STATE OF TEXAS
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR
AUSTIN. TEXAS 78711
WILLIAM M. CLEMENT9. JR.
GOVERNOR -
October 21, 1981
Lieutenant General E. R. Heiberg III
Chief of Engineers
ATTN: CECW-P
i Department of the Army
( Washington, D.C. 20314-1000
Dear General Heiberg:
The proposed report of the Chief of Engineers on the Greenbelt Corridor
r between Ray Roberts Dam and Lewisville Lake, Texas, has been circulated
for review among affected agencies.
The comments received expressed support of the Greenbelt Corridor
concept, which was seen as providing multiple benefits and addressing a
need for recreational resources in a major urban area. While not all
agencies have responded, I am transmitting the comments received to
facilitate the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers' review process.
Please feel free to contact me ' I can be of assistance.
I Sincerely,
I
T. C. Adams
State Single Paint of Contact
TCA/rbpon
i
f
y
,V of
MORMOM-M
United States Department of the Interior
OFFICE OF FV4'1ROMMENTAL PROJECT REVJE1V~
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20240
ER 87/992
Lieutenant General E. R. Heiberg III
- Chief of Engineers
ATTNr DAEN-Clsp
Department of the Army
Washington, D.C. 20314-1000
i Dear General Heiberg:
Thank you for your letter of August 4, 1987, requesting our review of the proposed report
Between of the Chief of Engineers, and other pertinent reports, on the Greenbelt Corridor
Fay Roberts Dam and Lewisville Lake, Dalton Count A '
comments are provided for your consideration, y' Texas The fo„3owing
We support the Corps of Engineers plan to develop the Greenbelt Corridor. The
Greenbelt Corridor would connect two large blocks of public land and would preserve
f significant stream and riparian habitats; both of which are rapidly diminishing within the
vicinity of the Dallas-Fort Worth metropolitan area. Recreational opportunities,
including stream fishing, hiking, nature study, canoeing, and primitive camping, would be
greatly enhanced by establishment of the Greenbelt Corridor.
9lncerely,
I
Bruce Blanch ,Director
j
i
r
10
J#
A V
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Q REGION VI
ALLIED BANK TOWEP AT FOUNTAIN PLACE
14A! ADS$ AVENUE
DALLAS. TEXAS 74202 '
AUG 2 0 1987
REPLY T0: 5E-FT
Lieutenant General E. R. Heiberg III
Chief of Engineers
ATTN: CECW-P
Department of the Army
Washington, D.C. 20314-1100
Gear general Aelberg: have. completed
- \
1 In canplyiag wit'i Section 309 of the Clean Air pct, we have. completed
our r:via,v of your agency's proposed report of the Cni-~f of Engineers on
Greenbelt Corridor Between Ray Roberts 'Jam and Lewisv?lle Lake, Texas, and
j the report of the District Engineer. The report also Included an Environ-
i mental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact on the Corridor.
3Ased upon jur evaluation of the environmental assossment Information
j providad, we have no objection to the proposed action as dascriE),id.
However, we ask that all reasonably precautions be taken to minimize
aswelatt0 environmental impacts.
Thank you for your coordination and eonlderation for the environment.
Sincerely yours,
Yorm Thomas
Chief
Federal Activities Branch (6E-F)
f
k
;t
OBSESSIONS
I
)
t
1
h
•Lr~
I U, S, Department of Housing and Urban Development
° Fort Worth Regional Otiice, Region VI
1600 Throckmorton
Fort Worth, Texas 76113•2aoS
Auo l 2 1997
Lieutenant General E. R. Heiberg III
Chief of Engineers
ATTN: CECW-p
Department of the Army
Washington, D. C. 20314-1000
Dear General Heiberg;
The Notification Report and Post Authorization Change
for Trinity River Basin, Elm Fork, Trinity River, Texas,
regarding a proposal for a Greenbelt Corridor between Ray
Roberts Dam and Lewisville Lake, dated April
reviewed by this Regional Office. 1985, has been
The approval of the
t authorization change would
assure the preservation oPos
the en
Ray Roberts Lake and LewisvillegLakobelt corridor between
corridor area de the Texas Park and WilManageDent of the
would be most desirable, rtment
In addition, the Environmental Impact Assessment pre-
pared by the Fort Worth District, U. S. Army Corps of Engi-
neers, was reviewed. We concur in your finding of no
significant impact.
The implementation of the
greenbelt corridor is an
j excellent example of intergovernmental coordination and
j cooperation. Participation and cost sharing on the parts
t aiiiiCthorpsCioftieEnsgofineers,
Denton are most commendable.
f 1
I Sincerely,
Sam R. Moseley
Regional Administrator—
Regional Housing commissioner
i
i
i
I
f
10
V ~«•w hip
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Region Vl, Federal Center, 800 North Loop 288
' Denton, Texas 76201.3698
September 9, 1987
Lt General E. R. Heiberg III
Chief of Engineers
AT TN: CECW-P
Department of the Army
Washington, D. C. 20314-1000
Dear General Heiberg;
Thank you for providing the opportunity for this Agency to
review and comment on the proposed Greenbelt Corridor between
Lake Ray Roberts Dam and Lewisville Lake, Texas.
E A major responsibility of the Federal Emergency Management Agency
is the administration of the National Flood Insurance Program.
At the regional level this effort involves direct interaction
with local governments in the implementation of floodplain manage-
went ordinances governing all development within identified flood
{ hazard areas. To reduce the potential of flood damages to the
greatest extent possible and also to reduce the expenditure of
Federal funds for disaster relief, communities are encouraged and
G advised to preserve as much of the designated floodplain areas
as possible for natural habitat and recreational purposes. The
designation of the COE's proposed Greenbelt Corridor between the
two subject lakes is in harmony with this Agency's goals and in
fact enhances our efforts to restrict development within the
flood hazard areas.
R
It is recommended that any public facilities such as public
restrooms located within the Greenbelt Corridor be elevated or
floodproofed to provide some degree of protection during periods
of flooding. This would address the provisions of Executive Order
11988 with regard to applying flood hazard reduction measures in
projects where certain facilities must be located within the iden-
tified flood hazard areas.
If you desire further information from this office concering the
above comments, please contact me at the above address or by tele-
phone at 817-898-9161.
Sincerely, `7
'Z
Mry tta Cunriit[gh
at ral Hazards li
Program Specialist
r
ii
r
D zn
C/TY at DENTOH
DENTON, rEXA8 76201
tvl=lvLlFtAt`Lx.dv1
TO: Lloyd Harrell, Clty Manager
FRW r R. E. Nelson, Executfve Director of Utilities
DATE: July 29, 1988
REr
1,000 KW HydroelectrIc Unit on Ray Roberts barn
We are nearing the time when we must make a °Go", "No-Co" decision
on the 1,000 KW Hydroelectric Unit on Roy Roberts Dem. On May 17,
1988, O^dinance 1188-090, the City Council approved a contract with
Black Veatch to make a final review of the feasibility of the
unit. Black & Veatch lies completed this review, and o copy of the
review Is attached. This was presented to the Public Utilities
Board on June 14, 1988.
f The Block & Veatch review Included threw }
alternatives. Ea ( ) dff
ch alternative ferant
i was allocat,on of payment for the $750,000pressuredplpoo that hefCorps
I:ietsIIad through the dam, so that Denton could tie the new water
plant and the hydro unit onto that pipe. It is anticipated that the
water plant will pay for this pipe since It was necessary anyway for
the plant, and this arrangement saved the water plant from building
I an expensive intake structure in the lake. Therefore, alternative I
! (Case 1) is the appropriate analysis and shows a positive annual
cash flow in the first year of operation (1991), an accumulative
positive cash flow by 1996? and nearly $1,000,000 positive
accumulative cash flow by the 10th year of operation. By 2001,
annual positive cash flows would be in excess of a $250,000, and
Increasing by $3U,000 per year.
Black & Veatch also refined the cost of the unit. The new estimated
cost fa $1,995,000 versus the $3,400,000 previous estimate. The
unit is expected to produce 7,500,000 KWH per year.
1
.
r
l
`r
1
I
I
d
ii
Lloyd harreli
Page 2
Based on the positive results of this review, the Public Utilities
Board has recommended to proceed with the project. Incidentally,
the 6% return on investment to the General Fund will be in excess of
$100,000 per year.
The original contract signed with black & Veatch covered the design
work for this project as well as the final review of feasibility.
Since this feasibility review was favorable, and since we are on a
fairly tight time line, 1 will plan to authorize Black & Veatch to
proceed with the next phrase of the contract unless you or the
Council has a concern.
R. E. Nelson, Executive Director
Department of Utilities
kkn
Attachment
i
i
II i
i
.562SU;1-2
it
July 14 , 1988
PUBLIC UTILITIES BOARD
TOs G-iAIRMAN AND MErvUERS OF THE PUBLIC UTILITIES BOARD
FROM: R. E. Nelson, Executive Director of Utilities
SUBJ: CCNSIDER RAY ROBERTS HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT (Purchase of 1
NIN Hydro Unit-Black & Veatch).
RECCMvENOAT ICN:
The Utilities Staff recommends that Black & Veatch be advised to
f,. proceed with the plane and specifications to purchase the I MTV
f hydro unit for subject project.
{ SLt* RY/BACKGR0UNDi
JJ The attached feasibility report by Black & Veatch for the Ray
Roberts 1 fvW hydroelectric project has been reviewed, and shows
that the project is feasible for each of the three cases shown.
{
1. Case 1 Positive cash flow in the first year of full
operation (1991) [Conduit-No Coat]
2. Case If Positive cash flow in the ninth year of full
operation (1998) (Outright Purchase of Conduit)
i 3. Case III Positive cash flow In the second year of full
operation (1992) (50 Year Payrnent)
J The deadline for beginning construction to meet the license
I requirement is March 200 1989. In order to meet this date, the
f ( } turbine generator needs to be ordered as soon as possible.
j PROGRAMS, DEPARTMENTS OR GROUPS AFFECTED:
1
The City of Denton Water Utility Customers, Purchasing.
f
I
G
i
t
v
1i
it
FISCAL IMPACTS
This project was approved as pert of the Five Year Capital
Improvements Plan in the amount of $3.4 million. The new
estimate is based on a projected cost of $1.995 million.
Res-tfuLlly, su mittod,--
R. E. Netaon, Executive
Director of Utilities
P tni Ere Tullos, P.E.
Director-Electric Services
Appr k- d 6R.
E. Nelson, P.E
Executive Director of Utilities
Ir,• i Exhibit I Feasibility Confirmation, Blk do Veatch, 7-11-88
{
5584U02
f
I
'I
i
- - -
Y!
i;
B L A C K & V E A T C H
ENGINEERS-ARCHITECTS TEL. 19131 339.2000
1500 MEADOW LAKE PARKWAY
MAILING ADDRESS P.O. BOX NO. 6405
KANSAS CITY. MISSOURI 64114
City of Denton B&V Project 10567
Ray Roberts Hydroelectric Project B&V File 14.0200
Feasibility Confirmation July 110 1988
City of Denton
Municipal Building, 901A Texas
Denton, Texas 76201
I
Attentions Mr. E. B. Tullos
Centlement
j
Economic aralyses presenting the annual cost and benefits of the Ray
Roberts Hydroelectric Project accompany this letter. The analyses are
based upon capital cost estimates prepared by Black & Veatch and economic
criteria transmitted in your May 25, 1988 letter.
i
j Three separate cases have been presented as a result of Article 32 of the
Ray Roberts FERC License. This article contains language that requires
Denton to reimburse the Corps for "construction costs that rsay be incurred
by the Corps for the specific and sole purpose of accommodating the
installation of power facilities at the existing Corps' dam". Since the 5
I foot diameter conduit constructed by the Corps is also to be used for water
{ supply purposes, we are not sure if the FERC License requires compensation
or if it does, what form it would take. Thus three cases have been
selected for your review.
CASE I - No compensation to the Corps for the conduit.
f CASE II - Compensation of $750,000 to the Corps in a lump sum
payment
j CASE III - Annual payments to the Corps for 50 years at 6 percent
interest to amortize $7501,000. Payments to begin in
the first year of operation.
The results of each case confirm the feasibility of the Ray Roberts
project. In all cases, the present worth of the net benefits far exceed the
capital cost of the project resulting in a favorable benefit cost ratio.
The annual cash flows for Case I and Case III is positive in the second and
third year of project operation, respectively. Positive cash flows are
continuous after the eighth year of operation for Case II. These analyses
indicate the Ray Roberts Hydroelectric Project will result in significant
j savings to your customers over the 45
years of operation under the current
FERC License.
{c
I
i
}
{
i r.Sn
E IL A C K a V E A r C H
ii
' City of Denton
M E, B. 2 8&V Project 10567
July 11, 1988
Please feel free to contact me if you require further information. We
look forward to receipt of your approval to proceed with the Turbine/
Generator Specification.
Very truly yours,
BLACK & VEATCH
B. A. Ainsworth
hkr
i
ccs A. M. Ellis
D. F. Cuyot +
i
i
i
I
r
r
ii
t1
City of Denton, Texas
Ray Roberts Hydroelectric Project 10567
ul-g8
Case I - Without Corps of Engineers Conduit Reimbursement
Table 1. Capital Cost Estimate
FERC
Account
No, Description
Cast
generation Plant 111000
331 Structures and Improvements 1
332 Intake and NaterMays 136.5
333 Water Wheels, Turbines, and generators 135,5
Turbine generator and kuxlllarlas 525
Turbine generator Installation 80
334 Accessory Electrical Equipment 373
335 Miscellaneous Porer Plant Equipment 64
r; 350 Transmission Line 30
I Total Direct Costs
7 lndirect Costs 154b
149
Total Project Costs ' - 1995-
i
i
f
l
i
I
i
1
f ,
I
I '
i
City of Denton, Texas 0567
Ray Roberts Hydroelectric Fro)ect Il-Jul-88
j Case I - Without Carps of Engineers Conduit hieburseeent
fable 2. Revenues
Unit Total
Annual Energy Energy
Year 8eneration Revnue Revenue
I
NHh $TNHh $1,000
1988 0 0.00 0
1989 0 49.25 0
1990 41521 49.51 224
1991 71150 49.72 185
1992 71750 50.09 388
1993 11750 51.69 401
1994 70150 54.07 419
1995 71750 56.43 437
1996 71750 58.32 452
E 1991 71150 60.87 472
1998 1,750 63.20 490
1999 71150 65.96 511
2000 1,750 68.83 533
2001 11750 11.83 557
2002 T1750 14.96 581
2003 11750 18.23 606
2004 15750 81.64 633
2005 11750 85.20 660
2095 11750 68.92 689
2007 71750 92.79 719
2008 71750 96.84 751
2009 71750 101106 7B3
2010 71750 105.47 817
f ! 2011 71750 110.07 853
i 2012 71750 114.87 890
2013 71750 119.67 929
2014 11750 125.10 970
I
2015 71750 130.56 11012
2016 71750 116.25 1,056
2017 11150 142.19 1,102
2018 11750 148.39 11150
2019 7,750 154.86 11200
2020 71150 161.61 11252
I
f
i
i
t
j 1
City of Denton, Texas 10567
Ray Roberts Rydroelectrlc Project . It -Jul 98
Case I - Withoot Corps of Engineers Candult Reidburseaent
` Table 3, Expenses wru4u
n,V IVVVSTw V.~'
Tay
Annual and FERC Total
Year 8eneration 0&M l ura a Fees Expenses
t -
NMh $11000 111000 $1,000 $1,000
1988 0 0.0 0 010 0
1989 0 010 0 010 0
1990 41521 11,9 70 1316 95
1991 71150 1215 117 23.3 153
1992 71750 131 li5 23,3 151
1994 1,150 13.7 113 2313 150
/ 1994 71150 14,4 110 23.3 148
1995 7,750 15.1 108 23,3 146
f 1996 71150 1519 105 23.3 144
1997 71750 16.7 103 23.3 143
1998 71750 17.5 lot 23,3 141
A 1999 71750 18.4 98 23.3 140
2000 11750 1913 96 2313 138
k 2001 71150 20,3 93 23.3 137
2002 71750 2113 91 23.3 06
2003 71750 2214 84 23.3 134
2004 71750 2315 R6 23,3 133
2005 71750 24.7 R4 2313 132
2006 71750 25.9 81 23,3 131
i
2007 71750 27.2 79 23.3 129
2008 7,750 28.6 77 23.3 128
{ 2009 11750 3010 74 234 127
2010 71150 31.5 72 23,3 127
2011 71750 33,1 69 2313 126
2012 11750 34.7 67 2313 125
2013 11150 36.5 0 23.3 124
2014 71750 36.3 62 2313 124
3 2015 71750 40.2 60 23.3 123
1 £ 2016 71750 42.2 57 23.3 123
2017 7,750 44,3 55 ?t13 123
2018 7,750 46.5 53 2313 122
2019 71750 4818 50 23.3 122
{ 2020 7,750 51.3 48 233 122
1
i
I
I
I
i
f
(i
ii
i,
i
City of Denton, Texas 10567
Ray Roberts Hydroelectric Project 11-Jul-88
Sue I - ItithOUt Corps of Engineers Conduit Reimbursement
Table 4, Debt Service
interest Net
Beginning Principal On Debt
Year Principal Payment Principal Service
$11000 $1,000 $11000 $11000
1988 11995 0 150 150
1989 11945 0 150 150
1990 11995 14.93 150 110
1991 11975 3919 148 188
1992 11935 f~ 1993 I,A95 39.9 145 185
E 1994 141 181
11855 34,4 134 179
1445 I,B15 84.775 136 226
1996 11726 89,775 129 219
1997 11636 89,775 127 212
1998 1,546 89,775 116 206
{ i 1949 11456 89,775 109 199 J
2000 1,367 89,775 102 I92 1
2001 1,271 99,775 96 186 1
2002 10187 89.775 89 179 1
2003 1,097 84,775 82 171
2004 11007 89,775 76 165
2005 918 89,775 69 159
2006 028 89,775 62
l 152
2007 738 99,775 55 145
{ 2008 648 89,775 49 138
2009 559 89,775 42 132
i 2010 469 89,775 35 125
2011 379 84,775 28 118
if 2012 289 69,775 22 i l l
2013 199 99,775 15 105
2014 110 89.775 6 98
2013 20 14,95 l 21
2016 0 0 0 0
2017 0 0 0 0
2018 0 0 0 0
2019 0 0
0
2020 0 0 0 0
t ,
f '
j 3
City of Denton, Texas 10561
Ray Roberts Hydroelectric Project 11-Jul-88
Case 1 - Althout Corps of Engineers Conduit Reimbursement
Table 5, Income Analysis Sumeary Table
Operating Net
ARRllal Annual Income Debt Net
Year Revenues Expenses (Rey - Exp) Service Cash
31,000 $11000 111000 $1,000 $1,000
1988 0 0 0 150 (150)
1909 0 0 0 150 (150)
1990 224 95 129 170 (411
1991 385 153 232 i88 44
1992 388 151 237 185 52
1993 401 150 251 181 69
/ 1994 419 148 271 179 92
1995 437 146 291 226 65
1996 452 144 J07 219 88
M7 472 143 329 212 116
1998 490 141 348 206 143
1999 511 140 371 199 172 i
2000 533 13a 395 192 203
2001 557 137 420 106 234
2002 581 136 445 179 267
2003 606 134 472 172 300
2004 633 133 500 165 334
2065 660 1T1 529 159 370
2006 609 131 559 152 407
2007 719 129 590 145 445
I 2008 751 128 622 138 484
2009 183 127 616 132 524
2010 817 127 691 125 566
2011 853 126 727 118 609
2012 090 125 765 111 654
2013 929 124 805 105 700
2014 970 124 646 98 740
2015 11012 123 889 21 067
2016 1,056 123 933 0 933
2017 1+142 123 414 0 477
19
2018 f,150 122 11028 0 11028
j 2019 11200 122 11078 0 11078
1 2020 11252 122 11130 0 11130.
i
E
1
r iF1 ~t
,j
City of Denton, Texas 10567
Ray Roberts Hydroelectric Project i!-Jul AA
Case 2 - Corps of Engineers Conduit Reimbursement Capitalized
table I, Capital cost Estimate
FERC
Account
NO, Description Cost
Y Rensration Plant 41'000
331 Structures and Improvements 381
332 Intake and waterways 137
333 water Mheels, Turbines, and Generators
Turbine Generator and Auxiliaries 525
Turbine generator Installation g0
334 Accessory Electrical Equipment
335 Miscellaneous Power Plant Equipment 364
350 Transmission Line 70
I
Subtotal Direct Costs
Indirect Costs 11596
399
Subtotal Project Costs - - -
CUE Conduit Reimbursement 1,750
~ 150
Total Project Costs
21745
S
t
i7
City of Denton, Texas 10567
Ray Roberts Hydroelectric Protect 11-Jul-88
Case 2 - Corps of Engineers Conduit Reiaborsearnt Capitalized
Table 2. Revenues
Unit Total
Annual Energy Energy
year generation Revwiv Revenue
MNh Sim 41,000
1988 0 4.00 0
1989 0 49.25 0
1990 4!521 49.51 224
1491 11750 49.72 385
1992 19750 50.09 388
1993 10150 51.69 401
r 1994 7,71' 0 54.07 419
1995 71150 56.43 437
1996 71750 58.32 452
1947 71750 60.07 472
1998 71150 63.20 490
1999 71150 65.96 511
2000 7,750 60.03 533
{ 2001 11730 71.83 557
2002 7,750 74.96 581
2003 11750 78.23 606
2004 71750 81,64 643
I 2005 71750 85.20 660
2006 71150 88.92 689
2007 71150 92.79 719
2008 71750 96.84 751
2009 71750 101,06 703
2010 7,750 105.47 017
2011 71150 110.07 053
2012 71750 114.97 890
j 2013 71750 119.87 929
j 2014 71750 125.10 970
j 2015 11750 130.56 11012
1 2016 71750 136.25 11056
4 2017 71750 142.19 1,102
2018 71750 140.39 11150
2014 11150 154.66 11200
4 2020 71150 161.61 11252
1 '
1
3
1
I
i
i
I~ `1
i,
i
City of Benton, Texas 10567
Ray Roberts Hydroelectric Project I1-JUI-88
Case 2 - Corps of Engineers Conduit Reieburseeent Capitalized
Table 3. Expenses
Taxes
Annual and FERC Total
Year Generation 8&M Insurance Fees Expenses
MM !1,000 11,000 $1,000 $1,000
1988 0 0.0 0 0.0 0
1999 0 0.0 0 010 0
090 41521 11.9 96 13.6 122
1991 71750 12.5 161 23.3 197
1992 11750 13.1 152 23.3 194
1993 71750 13.7 155 23.3 192
1994 7,750 14.4 152 23.3 169
1995 71750 15.1 148 2313 187
1996 71750 1519 145 2313 184
1991 11150 16.7 142 23.3 182
1998 7,750 17.5 13B 23.3 179
1999 71150 18.4 135 23.3 111
2000 71750 19.3 132 23.3 174
2001 71750 20.3 128 23.3 172
2002 71750 21.3 125 2313 170
2003 71750 22.4 122 2313 168
2004 71750 23.5 117 23.3 165
2005 71750 24.7 115 23.3 163
2006 1,750 25.9 112 23.3 161
2007 71750 27.2 109 23.3 159
2008 71750 28.6 105 2313 157
I 2009 19750 30.0 102 23.3 155
2010 71750 31.5 99 23.3 154
2011 71750 3311 96 2313 152
1 I 2012 71750 3417 92 23.3 150
2013 71750 36.5 89 23.3 149
2014 71750 38.3 86 2313 147
2015 71750 40.2 82 23.3 146
2016 71750 42.2 79 23.3 145
2017 71150 44.3 76 23.3 143
2018 71750 46.5 72 2313 142
2019 71750 48.8 69 23.3 141
2020 71750 51.3 66 23.3 140
f1
1i r
City of Canton, lexas 10567
Hay Roberts Hydroelectric Pruiect li Jul 8B
Case 2 - carps of Engineers Conduit Reieburseeent capitalized
table 4. Debt Service
Interest Net
leginning Principal an Debt
Year Principal Payeent Principal Service
44,000 31,000 511040 31,000
1900 23745 0 206 206
1989 21745 0 206 206
1990 2,745 27.45 206 233
1991 21718 5419 204 259
1992 21663 5419 200 255
1993 21608 54.9 196 250
1994 2}553 5419 191 246
1995 2,498 123.525 187 311
1996 21374 123 525 178 302
1997 21251 i23 525 169 292
1998 21127 123525 160 283
1999 21004 123.525 150 214
2000 11880 123.525 141 265
2001 11757 123.525 132 255
2002 1,633 123.525 122 246
2003 1,510 123,525 113 237
2004 11304 123.525 104 227
2005 10263 123,525 95 219
2004 11139 123.525 85 205
2007 t,Olb 123.525 76 200
2008 892 123.525 67 140
2009 769 123.525 58 181
2010 645 123.525 48 172
2011 522 123.525 39 143
I 4012 398 123.525 30 153
f 2013 274 123.525 21 144
2014 151 123.525 ll 135
2015 27 27.45 2
2014 0 0 0 0
2017 0 0 0 0
2010 0 0 0 0
2014 0 0 0 0
2020 0 0 0 0
i
Ii
1 1+1
I
1
City of Denton, Texas
Ray Roberts hydroelectric Project 10561
II 310561
-as
Case 2 - Corps of Engineers Conduit Reiaburseaent Capit
aii:ad
Table S. Incoae Analysis Suaaary Table
Operating Net
Annual Annual Incoae Debt Net
Year Revenues Expenses (Rev - Exp) Service Cash
$1,000 $1,000 41,000 41,000 f110U0
1988 0 0 0 206 (2061
1989 0 0 0 206 (2061
1990 224 122 102 233 (1311
1991 385 197 188 259 (711
1992 388 194 194 255 (611
1993 401 192 209 250 (421
I 1994 419 189 230 246 (17)
1995 437 187 251 311 (60).
1996 452 184 268 302 (34L
1991 472 182 290 292 (2)
1998 490 179 311 283 28
1999 511 177 334 274 61
2000 533 174 359 265 95
2001 557 172 385 255 129
2002 581 170 411 246 165
2003 606 169 439 237 202
2004 633 165 467 227 240
2005 660 163 497 kt8 279
2006 689 161 528 209 319
2007 714 159 560 200 360
f 2008 151 157 593 190 403
2009 783 155 628 181 447
2410 817 154 664 172 492
ILJ { 2011 853 152 701 163 539
2012 890 150 740 153 587
2013 929 149 780 144 636
j 2014 970 147 822 135 689
I 2015 11012 146 966 30 837
2016 11056 145 911 0 911
2017 11102 143 959 0 959
2018 11150 142 11009 0 11008
2419 1,200 141 11059 0 11059
2020 11252 140 11112 0 11112.
I
City of Denton, Teras 10567
Ray Roberts Hydroelectric Protect 11-Jul-C3
Case 3 - Corps of Engineers Conduit Reimbursement Annualized
Table 1. Capital Cost Estimate
FERC
Account
No. Description Cost
Sl,000
generation Plant
331 Structures and Improvements 380.5
332 intake and Waterways 136.5
333 Water Wheels, Turbines, and generators
Turbine Generator and Auxiliaries 525
f Turbine generator installation g0
334 Accessary Electrical Equipment 375
335 Miscellaneous Power Plant Equipment 64
350 Transmission line 30
r
Total Direct Casts 1596
Indirect Costs 399
E j Total Prolect Caste 1945
kl ~ '
I
{ I
t
I
1
I •
i~ •
E
•
City of Denton, rexas
Ray Roberts Hydroelectric project 10567
Case 3 Carps of Engineers Condult Reiebursee n1t8Annualited
Table 2. Revenues
Unit ratal
year Annual Energy Energy
8eneratian- Revenue Revenue-
MNh 4/RNh 11,00
198A
1489 0 0'40 p
i - 1490 0 49.25 p
149 41521 44.51 224
1992 71150 49.72 385
71750 . 1993 71750 510, 69 9
j 1994 71750 54.07
19
1945 71750 56.43 4437
1996 71750 58.32 451
"8 71750 60.87 472
7 750 63.10
k 1999 7,150 65.96 490
2400 1 511
1150 68.83 533
2401 71750 71.63 557
202 71750 74,96 581
2007
2003 71750 78.23 606
2005 1, )50 81.64 633
I~ 1 06 71750 85.20 660
I 2007 7x750 08.92 684
71750 42.19 714
2008 7,150 46.84 751
' 2009 71750 101.06 783
j 1010 71750 105.47 817
2011 71750 110.01 853
2012 7,750 164.87
2013 71750 119.87 890
89 929
2014 7, 750 125.10 970
2015 7,150 130.56 116f1
1017 71754 136.25 11056
71750 142.19 11102
2018 7,750 148.39
2019 71750 134.06 1120 0
2020 71750 161.61 1 0
1,zs2
i]
.y 5
Q, 11
si
City of OentDO, Texas
Ray Roberts Hydroelectric Project 10567
Cast 3 - Corps of Engineers Conduit Reiebursetent Annualized
Table 3. Expenses
Annual Tries
Year 8eneratia and FERC Total
QM Insurance Fees
Expenses
dkh 11,000 $1,000 $1,000 - fl, 000
1488
1 1904 0 0.0 0 0.0
0.0 0
1990 41521 U.9 0 0.0 0
1991 71710 12.5 70 13.6 95
1992 y so III 23.3 153
1993 ' 13,! !15 23.3 71150 13.7 113 23.3 151
r ' .1994 71150 14.4 110 190
1995 7,750 15,1 23.3 148
1996 11150 15.9 108 23.3 146
105
23.3 N4
1991 7,750 16.1
103 23.3 143
E 1999 1,150 17.5 101 23.3 141
10.4
2000 7,150 19.3 98 23.3 140
2001 1,750 1013 96 23.3 138
2002 93
{ 1003 11154 22.4 3 23,3 137
41 23.3 136
E i 2004 71750 23.5 96 23.3 134
2005 71150 24,7 23. J 133
84 23,3 132
2006 71710 2M
20007 71750 21.2 8q 23.3 131
1x150 28.6 77 23.3 129
2010 2009 71150 30.0 74 23.3 128
201 71190 31.5 23.3 127
71750 33. 12
69 23.3 127
2012 71150 34.7 7 126
2013 1 81 23.3 125
2014 ,190 36.5 65 23,3
11750 38.3 124
62
2015 23.3 124
2016 1,150 40.2 60 2513
2011 71150 42.2 23 3 113
2018 71750 44.3 57
23,3 123
11750 46.5 SS 123
2014 2020 11750 48,8 93 2323,.33 122
50
7,790 51.3 40 23.3 1122
22
f
10
II
„
City of Denton, Texas (0567
Ray Roberts Hydroelectric Project 11-du1-88
Case 3 - Carps of Engineers Conduit Releburseeent Annualized
Table 4, Debt Service
Interest Net
Beginning Principal On Debt
Year Principal Paysent Principal Service
-
11,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000
1988 1,995 0 150 150
1989 1,995 0 150 150
1990 11995 19195 150 170
1991 11975 39.9 U8 188
I 1992 11935 3919 145 185
1993 1,895 39.9 142 182
1994 1,853 3919 139 179
1995 11815 89.775 136 226
k 1946 11116 89.775 129 219
1997 11636 89.775 123 212
1998 (,546 89.775 116 206
1999 11456 89.775 109 199
iJ 2000 1,767 89.773 102 192
2001 1,271 K775 96 Ie6
2002 11187 84.115 89 179
2003 11097 89,775 82 172
2004 11007 89.775 76 165
{ f j 2005 918 89.775 69 159
2006 82a 89.775 62 152
2007 138 89.775 55 145
2008 648 69.175 49 138
2009 559 89.775 42 132
2010 469 89.775 35 125
2011 379 69.775 28 lie
2042 289 89.773 22 111
2013 199 89.775 15 105
{ 2014 110 89.175 8 98
2015 20 19.95 1 21
2016 0 0 0 0
2011 0 0 0 0
1 2013 0 0 0 0
2019 0 0 0 0
2010 0 0 0 0
1
r1
1
City of Denton, Texas 10567
Ray Roberts Hydroelectric Project lt-Jul-BB
Case 3 - Corps of Engineers Conduit Reiabursesent Annualized
Table S. Incoae Analysis Smary Table
Operating Net COE
Annual Annual Incoae Debt Conduit Net
Year Revenues Expenses (Rev - Exp) Service Reiaburseaent Cash
411000 41,000 $1,000 411000 $11000 511000
1988 0 0 150 0 1150)
1989 0 0 0 150 0 (150)
1990 224 95 129 170 41.5 t89)
1991 305 153 232 l88 47.5 (3)
1 1992 388 151 237 185 47.5 4
1993 401 150 251 182 47.5 22
1994 419 1,48 271 579. 47.5 45
f 1995 437 146 291 226 47.5 IB
1996 452 144 307 219 47.5 41
1997 472 143 329 212 47.5 69
1998 490 141 348 206 47.5 95
1999 511 140 371 199 47.5 125
2000 533 138 395 192 47.5 155
2001 557 137 420 186 47.5 187
2002 58l 136 445 179 4715 219
2003 606 134 472 172 41.5 253
2004 633 133 500 165 47.5 207
j j 2005 660 132 529 159 41.5 323
2006 689 131 559 152 47.5 359
2007 719 129 590 145 47.5 397
f 2008 751 128 622 138 47.5 436
? 2009 783 121 656 132 47.5 477
2410 817 127 691 125 47.5 518
2011 953 126 727 118 47.5 562
` LJ 2012 890 125 765 111 4745 606
I, 2013 929 124 805 105 47.5 652
2014 970 124 846 98 4715 700
2015 ]1012 123 8B9 21 47.5 820
2016 11056 123 933 0 47.5 886
2017 11102 123 979 0 47.5 932
2018 11150 122 11028 0 47.5 900
2019 11200 122 1,078 0 41.5 11030
2020 11252 122 11130 0 47.5 1JOR3
II
i
F,
RAY ROBERTS LAKE
INFORMATION SHEET
* General Facts
Location:
extending into Elmooke Fork
and Grayson Trinity River, net Denton County
upstream from Lewisville Lake Dam. Dam site is 34 river miles
Storage; 799,600 acre feet of water covering 37,630 acres of land
Dam: Earth filled fh concrete spillway and outlet works
- Total project size: 43,460 acres
* Dallas and Denton are local sponsors of project
- Share in water and share in costs 74%/26%
* LWFW conducted Feasibility Study for local sponsors
f - Looked at alternate reservoirs
- Looked at alternate financing
- Recommended contracting with Corps for Ray Roberts
* Corps Contracts
I I
- Federally financed
- Interest rate fixed at 7,21%
- Pay back over 50 years
- Three contracts; Water supply, Recreation and Fish and Wildlife (Pending)
- Contract includes raising the elevation of Lake Lewisville by 7 feet
- Council authorized City Manager to enter into contracts January 30, 1984
- Contracts signed September l6, 7980
- Construction began 1980
f
MAY 1
l
4
ij
RAY ROBERTS LAKE
INFORMATION SHEET
* Estimated Costs (1988 dollars)
Dallas (74%) Water Recreation Fish Wildlife
Denton n (26%) '977'- Total
State 44,694,000 4, 079, 582 124, 350 ,5U2g~
Federal 86 944 006 11'511,800 ,911,800
1911,800
TOTAL 5~4 1UrIMn
492 500 104 000 000
* Water Supply Contract
- Term is 100 years
- Corps to finance, build, operate, and maintain reservoir
- Cities reimburse Corps for 0&M
expenses related to water supply
' Repayment of 48% of water supply capital
r
free, for 10 years costs can ba deferred, interest
r
- Payment begins upon pool raise at Lake Lewisville (July 1988)
- Anticipate gate closure July 1987
4 * Recreation Contract
- Corps and local sponsors pay 50-50 of construction costs
- Local sponsors responsible for 100% of 0&M
P f
- Recreation facilities at Lewisville Lake as well as Ray Roberts
- Corps to develop Recreation Master Plan with local sponsor assistance
- Master Plan for Ray Roberts completed and approved, and design has begun
* Recreation Master Plan
2 maJor parks developed initially - Johnson Branch and Isle du Bois
1
5 small Parks/access points developed initially - Pecan Creek, Pond
j Creek, Buck Creek, Wolf Island and Jordan Park
- 1 park for future development - Culp Branch
- Downstream access to park
- 7 wetland areas for water fowl
1
i
MENNEENEW
1
jl
f~
1
RAY R05ERTS LAKE
INFORMATION SHECT
- Guaranteed 15 cfs minimum release to maintain fish and wildlife habitat
between Ray Roberts Lake and Lake Lewisville
* Texas Parks and Wildlife Department Involvement
- Local sponsors finance and construct remaining recreational facilities
- Will manage, operate, and maintain all recreational facilities and lands
- Will not manage, operate, and maintain park at Lewisville
- Will manage, operate, and maintain Greenbelt Park.
a
I k
t
i
1 ~
1
r
1690a
3
f~
1
}j
i4
F!
GREENBELT CORRIDOR
INFORMATION SHEET
General Back round
* Possible park identified by Corps 1974
* Dallas staff requested Corps to evaluate Greenbelt as alternative to
conventional park required for Lewisville Lake
* Stare willing to manage, operate, and maintain
* Corks found Greenbelt offered recreational
conventional park at Lewisville Lake; caOpportunities
found in
oejn9, nitie rasftinotng, stream
fishing, protection of environmentally sensitive area
- * Less acreage ;1,600 acres compared to 2,900 acres)
*
Less costly (63,096,000
compared to $4,322, DUO)
* Less annual 0&M ($50,000 compared to 6192,000)
* Better cost to benefit ratio 00,2 to 1 compared to 4,5 to 1,0)
II. Current Status
* Corps drafted supplement, to contracts and Master Plan
* Corps held public comment period
*
Some property owners whose lands would be taken are opposed
* Supported by;
I
- Texas Parks & Wildlife Department
- Various environmental
ff ~ groups
Dallas Parks & Recreation Department
- City of Dallas (Council Resolution 11-2-83)
- City of DLnton (Council Resolution 10-4-83)
* Corps conducted Public Nearing September 26, 1983
` 250 people attended
- 50-50 for and against
,
1i
I
J
i
i
f
i~
ll
l+
!1
GREENBELT CORRIDOR
INFORMATION SHEET
* Corps evaluated support for Greenbelt land and issued Public Notice
that Greenbelt, Park study will continue
* Corps conducted public workshop in April, 1984
* Cities and Corps agreed upon a Greenbelt plan
Corps issued a Public Notice in November, 1984 recommending development
of the Greenbelt Corridor. A 50-day comment period was allowed,
* SW Office sent recommended plan to OCE for approval,
* Givernor has returned the approved report to Washington.
* The OCE report is awaiting submittal to Congress for action (Fall 1987)
* Cost to Dallas has been tentatively estimated at $842,770
I
t
E
cp/1691 a
q
i
ii
ti
Q C*
t~
l1
5 TOTAL PROJECT STATUS
RAY ROBERTS LAKE
As of January, 1988
Project Category Percent Complete
Dam and Outlet Works 99%
Real Estate Acquisition 99%
Road and Rail Relocations 847, J
Reservoir Clearing, Grading 60%
Recreation facilities 5%
Cultural Resource Preservation 100%
j OVERALL PROJECT 80%
i
~J
I
II
l
I
cp/1690a
{
if
(I
f
i
V t ft
lMtIrAAN
OAINElYLlt ( ,
f COLLINSVILLE
R
J/ ~ O ERTS~
I A
s Nowt
1
COON CIO,
I "Nro# fp. piwa ALlfYNE
II POW I ro4N$ co
~f ~ tELINA j
ifo ! PROM" biolu"Nry
owe,
1 ~ i ALLtk
` tEW/SVILLE LtMf'SYELtI PLANO
LEGEN4
® RAY ROBERT5 LAKE
MM GREENBELT CORRIDOR
s
F'
3!
1
R~ .
1 h
!72
II
a
m
i
O
m
rn
A '
y+ i
Ij
ii
t i
ID u. r rr M W .max
s M
44 m
77
.~15 n W
M- PI
~ ~ r r r Q
X89 ~C~ fi R r 9
n r
w W FG!
10
R R K
C
~ ID r N W CA ~
m
I W
o K
V
FWsP 6 ' M
IW ~ W G Q(j~~
R r `'may' 1 O
~e Ne ~ m Q
ct~dvoCsr~Q+t~ 09~
41 Lb F
r w w r r r r M w w ~ ,
~ .Cqq•ri ~ tr w1 A ~ : I ~ R I 1
04
.elm ~rrr Rr~
2 ~ _ nC man .r ~
33s ~'+s$
W u IY IV W ID J•! .D
44_ 1T D
ID
p f
X1"7. $ ID I
~y;,r = iS W a
~~F~tSa ~ ~ R 0 • ~ ~ ~s~•3~ 1
31
a R ERp " R p=p i~m ~..6~
M $ 0 £ 61 8 tiFs r+~ ~
~rp
01
*j I i ! S y
!5. i~ ~R"ny r 0 '~D E 1 "S~ yGAt
a L4
R 1 r.."Io
y
i N
f ~ ~ ~ 17 G ~ IA~+s4D ~jV R R RR
M V 0 Y_ 1 ,9w '~S
P v.=
W
!f
A
CrE~vs C~ aT
~-1
R -nos
L7 L
~ a~
B c a @ pq
y r M.
p r
A~In ~ ~P
C
r
R
F 9;0;
X r~ V• ~ ~ ~ m N o r
r r R a yD (p4 ~
~js
4~ a tS~a~ ~ a
I ! 'y ~ ~ 8 ~ ~~r+~ ~ p N
C "p
44
Mr C? rr
f o & e~: ~ t4 c c C
Erg
0 r. F
m d9 p r r is
me- V.
' It
i
i
E~
fi
f7 „
QN ~ .r+ V 1 ~ ~
6 r~ M ~~j r A J.a
6
R7 .0 t ~ .w
a _
brR a
too
,
CT 21 -1 1
p Fi to Y; D row
wigs
go Tr
b
i~ r u
R J
C
L I
.
A
-
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
' FORT WORTH WSTRICT, CORPS OF ENGIN14ERS ~
P. O. BOX 17300
FORT WORTH, TEXAS 76102
REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF, March 15, 1984
Planning Division h1~R f ,tJ,?~
I
PUBLIC NOTICE
Proposed Greonbelt Corridor and Recreation
Planning for Lewisville Lake J
The purpose of this public notice is to advise all interested )artier l
that a Public Workshop will be held to discuss the proposed greenbelt
corridor between Ray Roberts Dam and Lewisville Lake, The public workshop
will also address recreation master planning, in general, at Lewisville
Lake,
I
! Background, Construction and operation of Ray Roberts Lake will
involve a foot raise in the pool elevation of Lewisville Lake which is
located just downstream of Ray Roberts Dam on the Elm Fork of the Trinity
River, Due to the effects of this pool raise on Lewisville Lake, Congress
hav authorized relocation of affected recreation facilities, development of
new facilities, and acquisition of bands for public use and access.
The concept of a greenbelt corridor between the lakes first surfaced
in 1974 as a recreation alternative at Lewisville Lake. In 19760 the Texas
Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD) requested that the Corps of Engineers
investigate the feasibility of such a corridor for stream-oriented
recreation pursuits and expressed an interest in cost-sharing. The concept
was not pursued further at that time pending resolution of water rights
isauea by the cities of Dallas and Denton, the non-'redoral sponsors of the
Ray Roberta Lake project,
r In January 1983, the city of Dallas requested that the Corps of
Engineers investigate feasibility of a greenbelt corridor in lieu of new
facilities at Lewisville Lake for which Dallas and Denton are contractu,o~'v
obligated. Studies by the ror.t Worth District indicated environmental ei.c.
economic feasibility; and in June 1983, the District issued Public Notice
of recommendation of the proposed corridor. Numerous comments were
received on the proposal and, subsequently, a Public Meeting was hold in
Aubrey, Texas, in September 1983, The proposal, at that time, consisted of
acquisition or flowage easement conversion to foe of about 1,860 acres of
mostly riparian woodlands for the purpose of stream-oriented recreation.
The plan called for minimum facilities development to accommodate canoeing,
hiking, horseback riding, fishing, and primitive camping under management
of the TPWD, which would also share in the first cost, Strong support was
expressed for the proposal by the sponsors, TPWD, and environmental groups;
while strong objections were expressed primarily by landowners.
V' I
y
-2-
As a result of public involvement, on December 15, 1983, the District
issued Public Notice that study of feasibility of thr greenbelt corridor
would continue and that new recommendations would be made in an Update of
the Master Plan for Lewisville Lake. In order to continue public involve-
ment in the study process, a Public Workshop will be held in Aubrey, Texas,
on April 3, 1984.
Pur op ses of Public Workshop. The purposes of the Public Workshop will
be to obtain the viexs of the public on an array of alternative recreation
development plans for Lewisville Lake, to further identify issues of con-
cern, and to obtain some concensus on the best plan of development.
Alternatives to be discussed will include a new lake facilities plan,
a greenbelt only plan, and a combination plan which would consist of some
form of greenbelt and some new facilities development at Lewisville Lake.
New facilities at Lewisville Lake would consist of traditional recreation
facilities such as picnic tables, camp sites, and boat launch facilities.
Regardless of what plan for new development is ultimately selected, all
recreation facilities affected by the Lewisville pool raise will be relo-
cated. Workshop discussions will address both new facilities development
and facilities relocations associated with various plane for new develop-
ment. Variations of the proposed greenbelt corridor may include
i conservation/recreation easements, acquisition and lease back, and varying
corridor sizes. The attached project map shows the recreation areas which
will be the subject of the workshop.
Time and Place. Tho Public Workshop will be held at the Aubrey School
CafeCe_r1 n ubrey, Texas, on April 30 1984, starting at 7 pm. Attached
to this notice is a map of the meeting location. Depending upon the number
of people in attendance, the workshop may be divided into smaller working
groups so that there may be a more open exchange of ideas. For further
informatton, contact Mr. Roger Hamilton or. Mr. Paul Hathorn at (817)
334-2095.
scar
i
i
Theodore G. Stroup
Colonel, CL
District P.ngineer
I
I
C
11 /
II 1{•ML ~
1 /
! 1 ~ {r~,Lx a. L t
1 / IiGHSCt1UUL
~ 1 -
r,~ : 'I.i" - -11 111 11 r. •\11~ .
1
t I ♦ ~
r ,
A~l
r
_T r r
•IdL./ . , ~ Wnl
- -/l
Q l 1. V
_ I I
, Y
.v I
~I . j;yl 1 I. - l~
' I w,wl ~1 may. •/i± 'L
WWOON
~I Ny1 ;Y1 _ Y.w.M lu r., r.r.~i • I ,I n r•."•..~•.
TO FORT WORTH TO DALLYIS
I z a a K
APP/YWIrdATE AREA OF PMOMSFO
GREENBELT CORRIOOR
,~1 I 1„_1 It ` i
J h. f l y} J
1 JJ
Gc.Y' O^AAG'i
J A 'I
1
c
i
J
•1.. r `.~ei.;. r. FAm.AK
L .Iwo I
9 1 \ vi r
~j ru ~I'<lJl ANiI~ ~ 11 k.4'JY
y ffl lUF / A ~ ~
L.~~~'.a. ter".. J`.! t
I.r ter.. I: - ~I I
3
,r
~s
6 1 7-`- 10
F
r,
LEGEND
LAKE AREA AT CONSERVATION POOL
I ~ ?I~
J PROJECT FEE LANDS
E
if
0 EASEMENT LANDS
~ 31
PARK LANDS
c
I ti^
rilr9fn
jA
y
L
a
s,
,I
I
U I mwv vomcN Dswt, roof MIN
j 0 .5 t 2 tern a 104"ttl
d
LEWIf3VlLLE LAKE j
t. Qt1 r BLM F004K, TRINITY RIVER. TEXAS
1 NOTE! EASEMENT LANDS ARE ONLY ,1,„,
W*TN SHOWN IN VICINITY OF GREENBELT atvauvc+
;wilu;eM Nola aa a
CORRIDOR
Y
6 7 e
r
-r ,
n
4 1
mu es o Paradise
Proposed Greenbelt Corridor would be haven
PO'lici
Texas
AuBRE ' for those who enjoy the outdoors
The pro-
p i t Greenbelt BANGER ~:ly+aRar►+obarxtrr..
Corridor Is Iune«ew><,~e,
more of a
brown belt '
ANDY If l now, But
A '
he t
ANDERSON e erinng tconthe
t •i
OUTDOORS winter dam.
Area Dota,ted . • air A REY
age 10 the
(ollageand the tutbldityof theTrin' SANGER ---4~
Itv, it's easy to Imagine the poienilol, # AUBREY
v
' It's cosy to sec Iha dream, I ' DaD t y
I
The hikers, the bird watchers,
the fishermen, the canoeists and F KOUGERYILLE
r.r such see it as 14 river miles of natu t a> a law svup>
rnl beauty and tranquility with only ? /
limited vehicle Access rind primitive ~s ' art
trails. It would extend from the base re
of the tinder-constructlop Ray RoM 1
girls dam, northwest of Aubrey, FORT r
southward along the Trinity's Eim WORTH DALLAS
j Fnrk to the headwaters of what '
would then be a )urger Lake Lewis aNtaaetewtevrrr,-
vine.
However, the landowners who
would lose their river property are studies call for agencies to set aside
I against the pro he landowners ore against it, l l' of course, said Roger Hamilton, a Ing~planit and wildlife habitat when
The plans, several of them, have wildlife biologist and chief of the takes are built, this corridor's pyr-
been drawn. There has been a rare Environmental Resource Branch of
Mond of cooperation between four the Fort Worth District Corps of En Poea would rnerofy be for recce
Dgencies from every i4vel of govern. gineers. "You really can't blame ational functions, and wildlife and
Ment.
meat (federal, state and municipal them for not wanting to give up nature enhmet w
ould be
in an attempt to bring about a riverfront lend. And, there's An- Access points wou purposely limited, project that would be a first in the
other controversy, too, planned with tns)Or access ereae
fi. tanned for PM 453, which wl0 he
11 Lake Lewisville will be raised
involved And working toward seven feet when Ray Roberts is com• inundated and rerouted across the
some sort of nalor0l, gr^.en corridor pleted, There are those who want Ray Roberta dam and U.3, 350,
-whichmost'lexasenvlronmenlal the funds the various agencles which currently doss" the Elm
ngoncies and groups deem th., most. would put into the Ureenbelt Corrf• Fork east of e W4 41E alaU
needed ty)v of recreational fuclllty dor to go toward enlargement of the crow the river r west O of 1(rvger•
in Texas - are the cities of Dallas recreational facilities for Lewis Y111e.
raid Denton, which will command Ville." A few horse and loot to
the water from Ray Robert, the Unlike Lewisville, Ray Roberts bosh might o built over what are now re
Army Corps of F.ngtneers, which Is will have no ma)Or flood control wise entry up and downs the coal-
hntlding the Lake and has some ease. function. It was authorized as a wa• dor would be by primitive footpaths
ment rights (here and at Lewisville, ter supply, recreational, and fish on either side of the river or on the
And the Texas Parks and Wildlife and wildlife enhancementfaelllty. river itself,
UvyiNriment, which is considering "The Greenbelt Idea is certainly A proposal to teainhitn a constant
m,e or too state parks for the area not new," said Hamilton, "It was water flow in the river from the
and would be in charge of the fish broached some 10 years ago, at least. Roberts dam to t,ewisvllle - eight
to the lakes, and river and wildlife But about a year ago, the citia of miles of the stream would be free.
along ihecorridor. Dallas and Denton asked us and flowing before hitting Lewisville's t
The Engineers would be Involved other interested parties to get se• backwater - has excited canoeists,
to developing the area, but maintai. rious in drawing up plans for such a floaters and fishermen,
nonce would be the responsibilty, of corridor." Marty Hathorn, a fisheries bfolo•
the cities and the state, Although current laws that have gists with the Corps of Engineers, 1
grown out of envh ontiental impact said the current proposal calls tot a
pucks, fish nds, marshes? a Creeabelt arm like Ns," HLai1.
tJOcublrlfeet.per eecond now % too Said. "Not with aU tb
percent of the UM and A "mlaf•' ?aliasofwyely trails oneitherside
muse"flow theolhes twoperunL odaralatireJY cleanm tranqu'lriver a8c'n~b'%6~ fi 1'+N with ou mour vehicles in sight? A happee. The state for otse hoe
"as ~ set
~ SW )"a park or two with fishing for mine Tti4~'~. f
astlti¢1 pot ai W tbi kfpe even the bandiwpped) ltsattertalle wlda
DW wail as dllchaa mans by Two elides, the national and state Untate of about a t tulle fi~6[
&I the
dam buildmt.U,6 a method Sim* governments working together slbls) below which It does tsot rMa~
to the on* told before the opassfttf toward a common goal) to be involved So maybe if we des
it happen? Anything is I get the full corridor - rams
of Lake Pork In East Texas When Can
. p0 you can't please everyone acrd th
lbe dam IS closed - prnliminary im• bie Will Itttappen? ors those landowners then a
poundment (diverting the river) Is 11y never been dope before, note least some version of It will bwpoeai
slated for June 1983 with' deliberate
Impoundment" set for Seplember
1986 - the stocked ftsh will be re-
leased into tbs lake as the water
level reaches the ponds and ditches. "
On the two proposed state tracfa.. t'
where parks my planJbe
tould int hatcheries for
it * ri
cer with gyfish. A large pond e13be an Ideal "puf Jeatioaal fisheryfof pubhorn said the Net ferexcellent fishiadBvennow,flsh
migrate upstrem ftom i.ewWA1kJ%l
Sand bass, hybrid stripers and can
fish habitually move upstream In
the spring for spawning, nr, in to
case of the catfish, into murky flood-
waters '
River bottom vsriea from grsval. ,•r~v~
to rocky 14) Just plain silt from thAt blackland farming country drains. Since Roberts would be a rat- ;
atlvelyshallowlake, pe WIOnly60 r
feel deep ar $o Al the dam, the water
1 released into the river would not be
cold enough to maintaln trOnt, AS is ' ?
The cav: to the winter at Possum'•
Kingdom oral Canyon Lykes
ftathorn believes, however, that the
lake would act as a settling basin,
and the constanl flow would soon
flush the river to provide water
Ith a reasonable clarity,
.,Our plans call for leaving the
channel as natural as possible," be
sald. "We will have to go in and re
move a few 109 Jams and some
stumps with debris oa them
ibom that complelely block passage
IIOW," wAL~, ! C p,t
The Wildlife Division Of Texas u•: %
Parks and wildlife has worked w11h JJ
the Army on yet one other unique T v * s" '
aspect for Ray Robaris. The flatness I sv{ y
-411
of the land lends itself to some eca , , .s t^ " ~+>la , i
nnmteally feasible floodtag behind
low-cost dirt levcc.: in the upper
end. Seven areas, ranging from 30 to 9o acres, are in the blueprints. The
areas would become marshes be y~..«•~ '
hind the levees, shallow enough to p,, r
attract and hold ducks. Dlscusslotss r
have included hunting and Tess the DoileIArornfruNewr:AndyAndarsm
Ing" the various marshes (in water,
fowl season) on alternate days. A county road bridge is a bit worn, but the rood wouI
became a polni of access to the river under the pro
project,
T
r
CITY of DENT4N, TEXAS MUNICIPAL BUILDING / DENTON, TEXAS 742017 TELEPNON( (817) 566.8200
- :1~,i s~..~
M E AI O RAN D U M
NOV d ?91I~
TO: File-Greenbelt Corridor
;R 01M R. L. ,Nelson, Director of Utilities
DATE: November 22, 1.983
RE; A11 a"ith Corps of Engineers City of Dallas, City of Denton,
I and Texas )ept, 4~, c t e ovem er_
+ PARTICIPANITS : Alike Day, City of Dallas
Larry M161 niels, City of Dallas
Tom Taylor, City of Dallas
Bob Bounds, Texas Department of Parks F, Wild'iife
\like Herring, Texas Department of Parks e, Wildlife
Denner Mills, Corps of Engineers
Marty Hawthorn, Corps of. Engineers
Steve Wilde, :'ores of Engineers
Jack NI, Corps of Engineers
Dill , Corps of Engineers
R. E,~~lson, City of Denton
+ 11 State reviewed proposed clearing plan, regarding county line
boundary as clearing line.
j -Corps concerned about liability, ',)ut otherwise dil not see
a problem. They will review with Federal legal,
I 2. Corps aunts plan for Isle DuBois by December. State agreed
but would have to be preliminary until after Texas Parks & '
Wildlife Commission meets and approves in January, 1984,
i
3. Greenbelt
a) Dallas' and Denton agree to continue exploring Greenbelt,
but strongly desire to use as trade off to Lewisville.
b) Dallas and Denton plan to work with legis3ation to
1
c'-rify authorization for Greenbelt,
! c) Corps' Division claims they can't allots substitution of
Greenbelt for Lewisville "flat water recreation",
E
1
i
1
~i
„
C;reenbeit. Corridor '.Itg,-November 21, 1953
page 2
r ~
d) Dallas and Denton expressed that they did not believe
Greenbelt was a substitution, but rather was an authorized
park plan; that it provides a better benefit, and t.ha'; if
someone in the Corps'Division has "pre decided" that
the Greenbelt alternative is not allowable as part of
the initial authorization, that the planning process that
Denton and Dallas is responsible .for, is being denied,
e) Corps needs to advise public of status of the Greenbelt.
They need to make statement such tE-'t the reason for not
proceeding is funding and not the public's desire for a
Greenbelt,
f R. E, e].son, erector ~+f~i3it es
i
REN/p.1
I ~
cc:File
C
I
1
i
t
i
I
i
i
i1
I
t ,
j ,
r, ,
. ,
~r
j
'
~ ~ , ~ '
C , , ~
~1~ n~/ ~ r,, r!
Q- MEETING WITk GEN, DACY ~ .~r•• '
Thursday, December 15, 1983
8;00 a,m,
Southwest Division, Corps of Engineers
Pur~osa
1, Greet and get acquainted with new commander of Southwest Division,
2. Discuss Greenbelt Park.
3, Discuss Clearing Plan,
Greenbelt Park
,
~ ! i Problem:
~ ' 1, Corps not sure Greenbelt Park can be de~~eloped under existing
'i project authorization,
1 f
~ ~ 2. Corps feels neer+ fog typical lake type rereation.
! I JJ Discussion.
I, I 1, Ga over hand out on Greenbelt,
~ ~ 2. Contract provides local sponsors to develop Master Plan - locale
I ~ allowed Cnrps to develop plan with close consultation.
~ s
. ? 3, Master Plan is to identify park sites and facilities,
4. feel Greenbelt Park should he the park required for Lewisville,
5, Corps feels it is a substitution for standard lake facilities.
6, It is not a substitution unless Corps identified parks before
1 Master Planning process and locked into the,ro, ~
~ 7, Locals cannot support Master Plan with standard facilities,
8, Corps is closing existing lake facilities at Lewisville already.
Why make locals make up for those closings
9, Greenbelt will save everyone money including Federal Government,
i
i 10, Supported by State, U.S. Fish Wildlife Service, and Environmental
i commun i t,y,
11. Will have multiple sponsors since State will participate in
Greenbelt. Lake facilities wi11 not have State participation.
12. Locals feel existing authoriratian does allow for Greenbelt Fark.
r
f
j
r
sl
~i
13. Greenbelt is last chance to obtain and protect a environmentally
sensitive Greenbelt Area. lake facilities can always be added
later if necessary. Greenbelt
14. Will seek Congressional Clarification/authorization if required,
15, Already in contact with Congressman Vandergriff and he will support
this,
16. However, do not feel it needs to go that far. Corps can resolve,
Clearing Plan
Problem; State and local sponsors recommend an alternate plan. '
State wants alternate plan or risk losing their
participation in project.
Discussion; 1. State feels clearing should be stopped at
Cooke/Denton County line, Provide more critical
j fish habitat.
2. Slow boating ordinance could be passed for all
Cooke County. Easier to enforce rules that way.
3. Locals agree
4. Wish Corps to consider accepting alternate,
i
' I
i
i
I
i
i .
I
i
t;
RAY ROBERTS LAKE r
RECREATIONAL DEVELOPMENT
* Lake pro,iect authorized - August 25, 1965
i
* Authorization provided for;
- Development of Ray Roberts Lake and recreational facilities
- Transfer of flood storage from Lewisville to Puberts
- Relocation of existing recreational facilities/Lewisville
- Development of new recreational facilities/Lewisville
* Dallas and Denton/local sponsors
* Recreational Master Plan developed it accordance with Cor s s o
contract p / p nsors
i I
- Identified recreational facilities for Ray Roberts
r." - Greenbelt Park recommended as fulfillment of new recreational facility
requirements of contracts/Lewisville
I
* Greenbelt Park;
- Located along an 8 mile river corridor between Lewisville and Roberts
for hiking/camping/fishing/canoeing/etc,
- Endorsed by Dallas and Denton Councils
- Endorsed by Texas Parks & Wildlife Department
Endorsed by environmental community
j Low capital ($3.1 milion vs, $4,3 million) and 0&M ($338,460/yr, vs,
i $154,876/yr.) costs with more benefits (10,2 to 1 vs, 4.5 to 11) as com-
pared to traditional lake facilities
I
I
i
T` ~ T
- a f ~tA,.
xfi' n
Z ~ ~9L'l a.: A
A O m
r-c~-'-~7 / S v~~F
•~y z
4'b
,
N
mo !7J' ` fa
m
2 '
r I
f -
L,
I
J.c
t { S ~z
m
i ~
{
i
f ~ .
6
I
i .
I
1 Jon.
93 ~ '
A~
A r -t__ " ~ i b r jL7--..-•~i-ti.__~ a
m ~ z 1 ~
y
r-
!i
i
CITY OF DALLAS
November 8, 1983 C'r+.
Colonel Theodore G. Stroup, C,E, NOV 1C~3
District Engineer
Department of the Army
Fort Worth District, Corps of Engineers
P. 0, Box 17300
Fort Worth, Texas 76102
Dear Colonel Stroup;
Attached for your information and files is a COPY
approved November 1983 Dallas City Council resolution approving
Recreational Master Plan for the Ray Roberts Lake Project
Dallas City Manager to execute the , authorizing the
Supplement to Dallas' Recreation
Contract, and authorizing the appropriate area Congressional leaders be
contacted regarding sponsorship of authorizing legislation for the
Greenbelt Corridor Park,
strong support for the GreenbelteCorrtdo r is also a statement of Dallast
i Park and its substitution n for
he proposed new Lewisville Lake recreational facilities. This
i substitution represents a significant cost savings to Dallas as well ae
l~ Denton and the Corps of Engineers and provides some much needed, unique
recreational opportunities,
F I f In conversation with your staff in the past few days 1
i the substitution of one park for the other is now bein understand that
1 Division Office, I hope that this potential barrier can gbesovercome
either through compromise or through legislation, Without the aspect ofur 1
II substitution, Dallas may withdraw its su ort for this Gr)t hope this does not happen since this park is too valuableeanbideaPark,
I
recreationally, onvironmentall
Y, and economically to be discarded,
I look forward to working with you and
i months to see to the mutua your staff in the comin
l1
f y satisfactory completion of this pro;f
ect,and
Sincerely,
J
I
I Victor C. Suhm
i Ass'.stant City Manager
City of Dallas
1 c. Bob Nelson
UobNe of Utilities Charles D. Travis
City of Uenton Ut Executfve Director
Texas Parks & Wildlife Department
Thomas E, Taylor
{ Director
Dallas Water Utilities
E
III
OFM E 0£ THE CITY MANAOeA CITY HALL DALLAS 1aAg 76n, TEQPI/ONf 214,W,3} 14
F 10
4 ,
II
1
00NCIL CHAMBER
O 335_9T
Q ~mber 2, 1483
WHEREAS, on September 16, 1980, the City of Dallas, the 'ity of Denton, and
the U,S. Army Corps of Engineers entered into contracts for the
construction of Ray Roberts Lake; and,
WHEREAS, as part of the recreational contract, a master plan for facilities
was to be developed; and
WHEREAS, this master plan has been completed identifying-required proposed
recreational facilities at Ray Roberts Lake and is ready for City of Dallas
approval; and,
WHEREAS, the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department has agreed to relieve a
portion of the local sponsors contractual obligations through the financing +
and development of one State Park as well as the operation, maintenance,
and management of all recreational facilities and water surface areas at ~
F 1 Pay Roberts Lake; arid,
WHEREAS, the local sponsors must supplement their contracts to recognize
the State's assumption of these obligations; and,
{
WHEREAS, in order to achieve the State's participation, the local sponsors
and the Corps have agreed to include and finance fish rearing facilities
and wetland areas as part of a supplement to the master plan with the Corps
financing 75% and the local sponsors 25%; and,
WHEREAS, as an alternative to required new recreational facilities required
as part of this project at Lewisville Lake, a Greenbelt Corridor Park
E r between the two lakes, has been included in this supplement to the master
plan; and,
{ WHEREAS, the State has agreed to operate, maintain, and manage this
Greenbelt Park as well as finance a half of the local sponsors share of ~i1e
tests and the Corps has ident'fied this park as being cheaper, more test
I e=lective, and reaching a broader segment of the public recreational needs;
i ant,
r;k;EP,EAS, the Corps has yet to determine if this park is i.rithin .he ream of
i the original congressional prc,iect authorization and cannot proceed until
this determination has been made; and,
iIHEREAS, the City of Dallas can insure the Greenbelt Parlk's fruition by
seeking additional congressional authorization; Now, Therefore,
SE 1! RESOLVED BY THE C17Y CO(NCIL OF THE CITY OF DALLAS:
E Section 1. That the City Council of the City of Dallas approves the
Recreational Master Plan and the Supplement to that Plar,
including the Greenbelt Corridor Park.
I
%
E
if
F
ii
COUNCIL CHAMBER
83359-7
N. amber 2, 1983
Section P, That the ri-,y Manager is authorized to execute a supplemental
recreational contract with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for
the assumption by the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department of a
portion of the City of Dallas' recreational capital obligations
as well as all of its operation, maintenance, and replacement
obligations, after contract documents are approved by the City
Attorney,
Section 3. That the appropriate area congressional leaders be contacted
regarding sponsorship of appropriate legislation authorizing the
Greenbelt Corridor Park as a part of the Ray Roberts project.
i
Section 4. That this resolution shall take effect immediately from and
after its passage in accordance with the provisions of the
Charter of the City of Dallas and it is accordingly so
resolved,
i
i
~ i
.
i
i
1
I
i
{
i
APPROVED BY
CITY COUNCIL
1,1011 2 fSb3
; he _r.-sv revs •ed Scr t`1c eac~~~,xiie
Is wen .'cYr er, trrartt 70 tht VOW
"e..". C 1 Of Gi'ryillil'i Crt r COr,'0.0uf 0.
I OrTV L.Ar~I~f R...
i ! , +a::; ~ G~ty hSanr.txfd~•ta;t~
EPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
-FORT WORTH DISTRICT, CORPS of ENGINEERS
L e y P, O, aox 17300
'
FORT WORTH. TEXAS EKAS 76102 , ' ''1 ~i' •1
REw.V To
TTT[NTION C W1 PUBLIC NOTICE
S F P 1 io3
GREENNSELT CORRIDOR
BETWEEN RAY ROBERTS DAM AND LEWISVILLE LAKE
This Public Notice is to advise all interested parties that the
District Engineer, Fort Worth District, US Army Corps of Engineers, has
determined that it wculd best serve the public interest to hold a public
meeting on the greenbelt proposal. Accordingly, this meeting is scheduled
for September 26, 1983, at 7;00 p.m., in the Aubrey High School Cafeteria,
Aubrey, Texas. A map indicating the location of the meeting site is
attached to this public notice.
On July 26, 1983, the Fort Worth District issued a Public Notice of
the proposal to implement a Greenbelt Corridor between Ray Roberts Dam and
Lewisville Lake in lieu of new, traditional, recreation development. This
public notice was mailed to 289 individuals, organizations, and governmen-
tal entities, Numerous responses were received as a result of the Public
Notice, indicating a high degree of public interest in the project. Many
requested that a public meeting be held. Also because of numerous
requests, the comment period on the proposal was extended by Public Notice
dated August 15, 1983. The official comment period ended on August 31,
1983.
In addition to formal comments received through the mail, a meeting
was held in Aubrey on August 18, 19830 at the request of a group of land-
owners, representatives of the Corpe of Engineers, Texas Parks and
Wildlife Department, US Fish and Wildlife Service, and cities of Dallas and
Denton were present for the purpose of answering questions. There were
about 100 people present and about 50% to 70% indicated that they owned
property in the vicinity. There were about 35 questions/statements pre-
aented by abvat 10 individuals. The overhelming mood of those present was
strong oppoaA'tions to the proposal for the reason of agricultural needs,
tax losses, perceived degradation of environmental quality, traditional
i
recreation needs all Lewisville, and the preliminarily appraised real estate 1
values.
Shortly after iseuance of the original Public Notice, a report con-
taining the proposal was forwarded to the Southwestern Division of the
Corps of Engineers for their review, Their technical review of the data
presented, along with analysis of public concerns, has indicated a need for
further evaluations. As a result, the greenbelt Corridor as a trade-off
for new facilities development at Lewisville Lake was not approved, The
Southwestern Division has stated, however, that if further support for a
determination that a greenbelt falls within the scope of the project
authorization, and if more detailed analysis and lnaal sponsorship supports
implementation of the ,greenbelt, it could be 'asubmitted for approval.
A public meeting is necessary to provide input to future evaluations,
and to determine what trade-off beat servos the public's needs in the North
;I
Central Texas area. if, in future evaluations by the Fort District, the
greenbelt continues to show economic and environmental feasibility, if the
issue of authorization can be resolved, and if lake recreation needs can be
addressed and landowners' concerns eased, the proposal will again be sub-
mitted to higher Corps authority for approval. It is possible that any new
proposal may differ in terms of size, costs, cost-sharing arrangments, and
possibly, sponsorship. In the event that the recreation development plan
for Lewisville Lake includes a greenbelt corridor in any form, a new
Environmental Impact Assessment will be prepared, public notice will be
given, and an additional public meeting may be held. No final decisions
will be made until public comments are considered.
If further information is required regarding this public notice,
please contact Roger Hamilton or Paul Hathorn of my staff at (817)
334-3095, or write to District Engineer, Fort Worth District, US Army Corps
of Engineers, 819 Taylor Street, Fort Worth, Texas 76102.
Since ,
e0 e • troup.
r~ Colapel, 09
District Engineer
i III
' k 1
j
I ~l
i
L'
Y:
j 2
Y' '
.1
I
. 1
1
I
I mar
1 ~1 Y
1 ~
I
%AM3 E V
H6HSCHOOL ~
I i
MWAMY
w.l
Yy
Im,
y
I f ~
I~ NM`u
f ; A t ~fj
f V
1 1 q it i
T I W_t U f ~t f
1 1~ I_
r ~ f 4 J
JI t
TO FORT WORTH -L I
TO DALLAS
1
I
I
i
f
I
DEPARTMENT (W THE ARMY !~1tt53-f LASS MA11.
If US ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, FORT WORTH PQSTA(16 4 Pg5 PAID
CORPS OF ENGINEERS, FORT WORTH DISTRICT DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
PO BOX 17900 Pum r Ho.' 6.5
FORT WORTH, TEXAS 78102
i
OFFICIAL BUSINESS
PENACIY RW PRII'4fE UYF $300
I 'te♦n
'w"L-R
PUBLIC NOTICE
E
- x
Iv - GREENBELT CORRIDOR
4,01. House Document 276, Section 301 of the Rivers and Harbors Act
approved 27 October 1965 (Public Law 89-298) contains authority for
construction of water resource development features described in the
Comprehensive Survey Report on Trinity River and Tributaries, Texas
(reprinted as House Document 276, 89th Cougress, 1st Session),
Within Volume I of House Document 276, p. 116, under the description
of the Comprehensive Plan of Development and, more specifically, under the
description of Aubrey Reservoir (including modification of Garza-Little Elm
Reservoir), is the statement;
I
"Additional lands acquired in fee simple for public
uie and access in the Aubrey (now Ray Roberts) and
Garza-Little Elm (now Lewisville) Reservoirs would
be about 4,200 acres,"
Within Volume V of House Document 276, which contains the appendix for
1 Recreation and Fish and Wildlife, the following statements are made coo-
terning the Aubrey (Ray Roberts) Project;
",,,,The total land acquired for public use and access
is estimated to be 6,100 acres, Of this amount, 4,800
acres would be acquired under the 1962 joint land
acquisition policy for project purposes. The remainder
j consists of 1,300 acres for public use and access for
Aubrey (Ray Roberts) Reservoir, In addition, about
2,900 acres, of which about 2,800 would be acquired in
fee title in lieu of existing flood flowage easements
and 100 acres in fee title above the upper guide contour
to meet requirements for public use at the modified Garza-
Little Elm (Lewisville) Reservoir.,,"
{ It should he noted that the acreages contained in the authorizing
document are based upon the 625.5 feet mel conservation elevation and sub-
sequent flood pool and upper guide-contour elevations for Ray Roberts Lake.
E At present, Ray Roberts Lake has an approved pool elevation of 632,5 feet
msl and a total of 1,921 acres of specific recreation lands are being
1 acquired for public use and access,
r
4-02. History of'Greenbelt Concept, The concept of a Greenbelt corridor
at Ray Roberts take is to preserve a narrow strip of riparian habitat sdja-
1 cent to the Elm Fork of the Trinity River between Ray Roberts Lake and
Lewisville Lake,for stream-oriented recreation purposes, The Greenbelt
would provide future generations with a remnant of the natural riveri.ie
system for stream oriented recreation and fishery and wildlife pursui.s,
a
The concept was originally proposed as a recreation alternative in the
September 1974 Supplemental Information Report (which addressed the Ray
Roberts pool raise to 632,5 feet msl). The concept was endorsed by the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in 1975 in commenting on the Supplemental
Information Report and Supplemental EIS, At that time, the Texas Parks and
v
i
iE
fi
'i
4
Wildlife ~
Department stated strong support for the proposal,
State agency, in addition to expressin
cost-sharin 76, the
e In 19
8, requested that be g an Interes, t in thbit
g8eedeing> camping, P'cnicking~ nefits stinclng udy udand siking , pyclingI ty of
stream fishing be investi-
4-03. Ex cessions
xLr of .,ocal Interest. g
in comments on a dr- aftt of -theMaster
Parks and Wildlife Department Plan for Ray Roberts Lakee Texas
provided the following statement;, th
Downstream recreational corridor
meetings with Corps staff - In subseQ11ent -
identified
potential Concept for joinipn ng the e down-
stream corridor to the Isle duBoi
idpasesntuifndieerd a the relocated
H, Department rtmenPat rk vie strengthens
Pass
under-
recreational and o 4.,5, which the Project. As Perational aspects of this poftio
a result, the Texas porton
i Wild-
life Department is willin Parks and 1 sponsoring the acquisition to seriously consider co-
sponsoring
i i recreational co and development of th
in conjuncti e oval sponsor." corridor on with the~ The city of Dallas, by letter dated January 28 14$3 formally
requested that the Corps lnvesttgate the stretch of
Roberts and Lewisville Lakes for its e Ra
Correspondence?. land between Ray
investigate fe Siecificall Potential la a park (Fee pertinent
Laonal development forywhichuDallas a greentand yDegreenbel greenbelt requested that the Corps ea- Additionally, the ctt g park for the re
E showed 'excess.beoefits be y of Dallas requested ethat iftthe at Lewin
sville
ties) those benefits be y nd thhose attributable to new greenbelt
credited opment atoaathe Ra Lewisville fato
ch8uce recreational devel
y Roberts Project in order to
Y Roberts Lake, Dallas further stated r
If upon conclusion of
'belt park your investi ati
es prove r on, the r
to be g esn-
ex of
r t
p ease he r
d by Dallas I a „ etcreational hat Dallas v oue
be Interested in ' m -onfident that w
would pursuing this m
a uld
` the city of Denton and theTexasfParksrandsWild-
life Department,"
As a result of these requests the
LJ feasibility, economic costs and benefits ' Corps undertook a study of the
effects of the proposed 0 and social and environmental
to delfneatth of a proposed greenbelt park, Close coordination with TPWD led
tl°° and fish and corridor
as described
wildlife, bare for the purposes of recree-
4-04, Location and DescrL tl
Greenbelt C-'jdoT wi l! bjLton' As illustrated by
erag tb
mile In width, It about six miles long and Plate
IV-1, he
to the headwaters oencompasses about eight will ava8e about 1/2
include Lake, Lan river miles from Ray Roberts Dam
about 1,310 acres Lands associated with the corridor
of riparian bottomlands and lb0 acres of post oak
l'- 2
, ,
woodlands in fee acquisition and about 390 acres of flood plain bottoms
converted from Lewisville flowage easement to Eee title, Although some of
the total 1,8b0 ;acres is in pasture or cropland, there is an almost con-
tinuous corridor of riparian woods, 'these woodlan.s are mostly mature, but
some areas are in various successional stages, Predominant overstory spe-
cies include American and cedar elm, hackber~;y, pecan, and Burr and Shuroard
oak, Throughout much of the stream reach, a dense canopy or partial canopy
is formed over the stream.
The stream, in this reach, under existing conditions provides a
quality fishery and during moderate flows is suitable for canoeing.
Reservoir'routings performed by the city of Dallas on theft proposed we ter
supply release plan indicates that releases from Ray Roberts Dam will. be at
least 130 cis in excess of 90 percent of the time. In addition, in coo~-
dination with the 11.5. Fish and Wildlife Service, the cities of Dallas and
Denton have formally agreed, by Memorandum of Agreement, to maintain Che
following continuous minimum discharges:
Minimum Continuous Discharges
' ~ From Rny Robarts Lake (cis)
{
f
I I JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN
I2 I8 30 25 ~39 32
JUL_ AUG SEP OCT NOV DEG
i b 3 5 6 7 7
The guaranteed releases during the first half of the year will be ade-
yuate to marginal for canoeing, but should provide more than sufficient ~
31i I survival habitat for maintenance of a quality stream fishery, This is
especially true consid~•ring the diverse subsCratea and riffle and pool
complexes through the stream ranch, The proposed water supply/hydropower
releases by Dallas and Dan ton, however, should provide an excellent etream
~ j fishery and canoaing ?xperieuce, Access provided by the Greenbelt will
' enhance the availability and quality of those stream-oriented recreation
i, experiences,
Canoe launching and take out points will be provided just below Ray
Roberta Dam and at the two major highway crossings ups~reem of Lewisville
Lake, Additionally, ten primitive camping sites will be interspersed along
the stream course, An equestrian and hiking trail is dealgnad to take
advantage of the rse stream-oriented terrestrial resources of the
Greenbelt Corridor, The trail system will consist of a total of about 12
miles of separate hiking paths and equestrian trails, Roraeback r.rails
will be in the Eorm of large designated areas rather than specifically
developed and designated trails, There wi).1 also be three bridges in aasuw
elation with the trail systems so Chst trails will meander estheticall+~
i~
through the entl.r2 corridor,
i
1
j IV-3
!i t
it
1
4-05, Greenbelt Benefits and Costs. Significant demand for such types of
low-densiry recreation as hiking, nature study, canoeing, horseback riding,
and primitive camping exists throughout Texas in general, and the Dallas/
Fort Worth Metroplex in particular. Interest in these types of activities
is indicated by a number of sources. The Texas Outdoor Recreation Plan
(TORP) states that:
"In the greater Dallas/Fort Worth metropolitan area, securing large
tracts of Land for present and future needs is a tremendous problem, The
need for large regional parks, open space, and natural areas in, or close
to, the metropolitan area is a high priority."
In a survey conducted by the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department -
during the public involvement process for the development of recreational
facilities at Ray Roberts Lace, 74.2% of the respondents indicated that
hiking trails are "desirable," Additionally, 64.52 responded that primi-
tive campsites are desirable and 45.2% indicated that horseback riding
trails ore desirable.
A second survey, of more limited geographical scope, was conducted as
part of a petition against development of a marina in Johnson Branch Park.
There were 332 respondents to this survey, as opposed to 62 in the TPWD
survey. When asked to list their favorite leisure time activities, the
r responses were as follows: 66,6% indicated "just getting away"; 50.3%
indicated horseback riding; 49.4% indicated hiking; 40,8% indicated
fishing; 37.72 indicated primitive camping; 34.3: indicated backpacking;
30.7% indicated nature study; and 26,5% indicated canoeing.
In addition to these surveys, the TORP also projects a significant
demand for these types of recreational activities. Projected participation
and also the projected deficit in recreation facilities caused by the pro-
jectec; demand for the years,1985 and 2000, as identified by the TORP, are
displayed below:
I ,
I
Projected Recreation Demands
and Regional Facilities Needs
i
1985 2000
Demands Needs Demands Needs
1~.._.✓) (visitor- (stream/ (Visitor- (Stream/
Days) Trail Mi,)_ Days) _ Trail Mi.)
Canoeing, Kayaking,
Rafting 2'13,000 473 500,000 867
Stream Fishing 1,215,000 10.1 1,7381000 12.7
Horseback Riding 1,769,000 33 3,632,000 42
Walking, Hiking,
Nature Study 1,044,000 126 1,844,000 161
IV-4
t ~I
;
f
a
The proposed Elm Fork Greenbelt presents a unique opportunity to
contrtbut< toward meeting these demonstrated needs. It is located in an
undeveloped area close to and readily accessible i:om a large metropolitan
area. It would connect two larg-: blocks of public land and provide public
access to a significant portion of the Elm Fork of the Trinity River. The
Elm Fork of the Trinity River is identified as a potential trail resource
both in the TORP, and in Texas Trailways, A Feasibility Report on a System
of Trails :n Texas. Texas Trailways states that, "the flood plain of the.
Elm Fork could provide sufficient resources for the development of a
quality recreational trail." The TORP states that "A Trinity River Green-
belt would be one such regional recreation area which has the potential for
meeting the needs for hike and bike trails, passive recreation, and other
regional needs."
1 Recreation benefits for the proposed greenbelt were estimated using
the travel cost method, as outlined in the Water Resources Councils'
j Procedures for Valuation of the Contribution of Recreation to National
Economic Development. T118 methodology is based on the assumption that
individuals will respond to an increase in the travel cost to a particular
recreation site in th,~ same manner as they would to an increase in the cost
of any other normal good, It follows then, that trip cost is a legitimate
proxy for price. A general`_zed relationship between trip cost and visita-
tion, developed from an existing (similar) project, is applied to the proj-
act under evaluation in order to generate a demand curve.
This demand curve is derived by hypothetically tncreasing the trip
cost from each point of origin to the amount at which visitation becomes
zero, and then summing the visitation for each increment of added cost.
The consumer surplus, or the amount visitors would be willing to pay, (but
do not have to), can be estimated from the area under the derived demand
curve, and is assumed to be equivalent to the project's recreation
benefits, +
E
In the case of the proposed Ray Roberts greenbelt, benefits for each
activity were computed separately and then susumed. The data used to
approximate the hiking, walking, and nature study activities were obtained
by the city of Fort Worth during a use study on the Trinity River greenbelt
within the city limits. Canoeing activities and horseback riding use were
estimated using data obtained by the Sacramento District, U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers on the American River in Sacramento. Stream fishing benefits
were estimated from data collected on the Buffalo River in Arkansas,
Regression analyses of the visitation data, as applied to the 1980
population of the Greenbelt market area, provide estimates of visitor par-
ticipation, Based upon the willingness-to-pay exhibited by the visitors in
market areas for similar projects, estimates were made of annual benefits
for each type of activity, Estimated visitor participation and annual
recreation benefits for the Greenbelt are as follows;
~ M
` Estimated Visitor Participation and
Annual Benefits of the Greenbelt
Visitor Annual
days/year Benefits
Canncing/Rafting 146,600 $ 320,000
Stream Fishing 248,200 $ 996,000
Horseback Riding 23,163 $ 135,000
Hiking/Walking 19,139 $ 137,000
Thus, the total annual recreation benefits for the Greenbelt are esti-
mated to be $1,587,000, These benefits are exclusive of benefits which
will be provided by access facilities just below Ray Roberts Dam.
In their letters dated 27, 28, and 29 June 1983, Dallas, Denton, and
the TPWD, respectively, all provided assurances of their intent to share in
the initial development costs of the Greenbelt Corridor. Additionally, all
three sponsors were in agreement that this feature waa of such significance
to the region that they would attempt to arrange for up-`rout financing of
the local share of initial development costs. The Texas ,'arks and Wildlife
Department expressed a willingness to contribute 25% of the total first
cost and all operation and maintenaact costs. The cities of Dallas and
Denton expressed a desire to sliare the remainder of the local share of
first costs at a ratio proportionate to joint project costs,
' First costs of the Greenbelt Corridor will include lands, fencing,
development of trails, primative camping areas, canoe take-out points, and
some landscaping/reforestation. With contingencies and overhead, the esti-
mated total first cost is about $3,095,000 at October 1982 price levels.
I j These costs are itemized i.n'Section VII - (Cost bstimates) of this Supple-
ment to the Master Plan, Contingency costs included in the estimate may
I include such items as removal of snags, downed trees, etc., from the stream
for esthetics and canoeing purposes,
1 4-06, Lewisville Recreation Facilitities, To caeet the requirements for
public use at the modified Lewisville Lake (pool elevation 522 feet msl),
it was proposed in the October 1973 General Design Memorandum (GDM) for
Aubrey (Ray Roberts) Lake to acquire additional lands adjacent to eight
existing park area's totaling about 42 acres, The GDM also proposes
acquisition of two 5 acre tracts of land to provide public access to the
Elm Fork adjacent to the Denton County Road and FM Road 428 that cross the
Elm Fork in the reach between Ray Roberts Dam and the upper limits of
Lewisville Lake., New facilities development At Lewisville Lake to accom-
modate the pool raise, as identified in the GDM, would include 74 picnic
units, 133 camping units, and 9 boat lanes, Total first cost of lands and
developments proposed in the GDM are estimated at $4,322,400 when updated
to October 1982 prices,
Real Estate Design Memorandum No. 4A, Lands for Lake Area, dated May
1974, in addition to referencing the 42 acres, states:
IV-6
I
,i
ii
,
"Investigations are underway to arrive at a plan that will
provide protection for discharges of the 100-year flood in
the reach of the Elm Fork below Aubrey (Ray Roberts] Dam
and upstream of the limits of Lewisville Lake, Preliminary
studies indicate that disch,*ge of the 100-year flood from
the uncontrolled spillway at Aubrey [Ray Roberts] will
reach a peak of 8,000 cfs. On the basis of an 8,000 cfs
delineation, the existing channel. capacity of the Elm Fork
would be exceeded and approximately 955 acres in the flood
plain, including the existing channel, would be inundated.
With the necessary blocking-out any acquisition of fee and/or
easement estates within this area would likely approach 1,200
acres. A recommended plan including alternatives and estimated
costs, will be the subject of a subsequent design memorandum."
Subsequent hydrologic analyses performed in April 1983 indicate that in
excess of 2,000 acres of flood plain lands between the lake could be inun-
dated at the 100-year discharges, For the most part, however, flooding
will be infrequent and the Ray Roberts Dam will provide a possibly inflated
sense of protection from flooding.
The September 1974 Supplemental Information Report made no reference
to acreage but included dollar amounts equivalent to the total 2,900 acres
and facilities development addressed in MD 276,
None of the endorsements to the GDM, the Supplemental Information
Report, or Real Estate DM No, 4A by higher Corps authority approved acqui-
sition of any specific acreage amount associated with the Elm Fork below
Ray Roberts Dam and Lewisville Lake, Instead, all endorsements to both
i DM's (2 April 1975) and the Supplemental Information Report (6 May 1975)
were in concurrence that any acreage figures along the Elm Fork or asso-
elated with the Lewisville Pool raise should be deleted from those reports
and included in separate appropriate DM's. All endorsements did approve
dollar amounts for lands and facilities. No separate DM's which specifiy
acreages for recreation have been approved to date. The 15 August 1980
Recreation Contract with the cities of Dallas and Denton, however, includes
commitments to cost sharing, developme~it, and management of recreation
f I lands at Lewisville Lake, the dollar amount of which corresponds to devel-
opment proposed in the GAM,
` 4-07. Trade-Off Analysis, As stated in Paragraph 4-03 of this Supplement,
the Fort Worth District initiated an analysis of the Greenbelt in lieu of
land acquisition for public use and acceas and facilities development at
Lewisville Lake for which Dallas and Denton are contractually obligated.
That analysis is summarized here at October 1982 prices,
i
i
T
Lewisville Greenbelt
Facilities Corridor
First Cost Qty Cost tx Cost
Lands (ac) 42 $1,900,000 1,859 $2,610,500
Development All 2,422,400 All 484,600
Total First Cost $4,322,400 $3,095,100
Annual Charges Fed Local Fed Local
Amortization (3-1/4%) $73,230 $ 73,230 $52,438 $ 52,438
OM6R 0 192,000 0 50,000
Total $73,230 $ 265,230 $52,438 $ 1020438
Annual Benefits
Boating/Canoeing $ 43,117 $ 320,000
Fishing/Stream Fishing .45,050 996,000
Picnicking 626,838 0
Sightseeing 121,885 0
Swimming 250,562 0
Camping 435,739 0
Hiking 0 136,812
Horseback Riding 0 134,614
f "Other" 25,704 0
Total $1,548',895 $1,587,426
Benefit to Cost
Incremental
4,5 10,2
1 ,
Benefits for Lewisville Lake facilities were calculated on the assump-
tion that new development sponsored by Dallas and Denton would follow
recent management philosophies of fewer but larger and more manageable park '
areas. Hickory Creek Park at Lewisville take was assumed to be the
targeted park for new lands and development and benefits were calculated in
a manner similar to that in which the Greenbelt benefits were calculated,
The entire lake recreation benefits for the year 1980 were estimated to be
$19,741,697, These benefits were apportioned to Hickory Creek Park based
on its percentage of the total land and facilities. The Hickory Creek Park
benefits were further apportionee to various activities based oo the per-
centage of lake visitors and facilities types. The resulting unit benefits
were multiplied by the number of new facilities which were preliminarily
identified in the GDM, The benefit analysis indicates that the Greenbelt
can be favorably substituted (economically) for new recreation facilities
development at Lewisville Lake, The Greenbelt will not reduce demands at
Ray Roberts Lake or the facilities development requirements to meet those
demands.
As is evident from the summary above, the Greenbelt will have a larger
land acreage requirement than the proposed recreation development at
Lewisville Lake. It should be noted that the approved GDM cost estimate as
well as the present estimate above for the 42 acres proposed in the GDM are
actually updated dollar values for the entire 2,900 acres identified in HD
IV-8
i
?i
276. Although the dollar amount was approved, the 42 acres was not, The
GUM identifies the 42 acres (2,900 acres) as a separable recreation cost to
be shared 50-50 while the 1974 Final EIS addresses the 42 acres as
necessary for relocation of existing recreation facilities. Cost estimates
for the Greenbelt acreage are from an April 1983 gross Appraisal Report.
It should also be pointed out that the 42 acre proposal has not been
approved by higher Corps authority nor is it consistent with current park
management philosophies of fewer and larger parks, Additionally, lands
acquired for the Greenbelt will serve a joint purpose of protecting against
unwise development and potential flood damages in the flood plain after -
construction of Ray Roberts Dam,
In purely economic terms, the Greenbelt is much more cost effective
than facilities development at Lewisville Lake. The Greenbelt will result
in a monetary savings to the Federal Government in that it has a lower
total first cost. Annual charges to both the Federal Government and local
sponsors will be reduced since it has a lower first cost and lower opera-
tion, maintenance, and replacement costs, Benefits of the Greenbelt are
not as diverse as the more traditional benefits of lake recreation facili-
ties but they will satisfy needs that are Identified by several sources as
being greater due to their unique nature. By providing more unique oppor-
tunities,, the more traditional demands of the same general public will be
reduced, It is primarily due to this uniqueness and rarity of resources
r~
~ that the dollar value of the benefits associated with the Greenbelt are
comparable to thoee associated with lake facilities development.
4-08, Initial Development, The developmental concept for the Greenbelt
Corridor is to emphasize the natural resource by providing ample access
with a minimum of physical or constructed facilities. Two access points
1 with pa,rking will be provided at locations central to all activities. In
F 4 addition, access will be enhanced by s primary access point at the outlet
works which is a part of the Isle duBois recreation development plan,
f Parking facilities and canoe access will be provided at each access point,
A primitive camping area will be provided within the corridor. All access
points and camping areas will be linked by either trails or by the stream
itself,
Costs of initial development and lands for the corridor will be shared
four ways as specified by letters of assurance and by contractual
I agreement, As provided by PL 89-72, the Federal Government will be respon-
sible for 50% of the total first cost, The state of Texas will assume 25%
of the first costs and the cities of Dallas and Denton will split the
remaining 25% proportionate to their respective shares of costs project
costs, Real estate acquisition, preparation of Plans and Specifications,
and administration of Initial development construction contv,,:ts will be
the responsibility of the Federal Government, These activities will be
coordinated with the local sponsors.
Although implementation of the Greenbelt Corridor is recommended in
lieu of new recreation facilities development at Lewisville Lake, the Ray
Roberts project sponsors will remain obligated to share in costs of facili-
ties relo-atior.s at Lewisville, A feature of the operation of Ray Roberts
IV-9
~i I
Y'r
1
and Lewisville Lakes in tandem will be a pool raise of Lewisville to eleva-
tion 522 feet msl. That pool raise will adversely affect certain existing
recreation facilities and will require that the sponsors for the project
share in the costs of their relocation or replacement. The majority of the
facilities affected will be boat launching facilities, but there will be a
necessity to relocate some camping and picnic sites, There may also be a
need to relocate or assist in relocation of concession activities such as
marinas. All relocations at Lewisville Lake that are a result of the Ra
Roberts authorization will be addressed separately in an update of the
Master Plan for Lewisville Lake. In the event that the Greenbelt Cor
y
is not approved and implemented, the cities of Dallas and Denton willridor
remain obligated to inieial development, a operation, and maintenance of new T
fcili-Lies, at Plan for Lewisville Leke will address new facilitiesudevelopmente(andter
specific recreation land re
I facilities affected b pool raise.
as well as relocation of existing
by the pool raise.
i
4-09. 0 erasion arj Maintenance, The Texas Parks and Wildlife Department
will assume responsibility for all operations, maintenance
costs associated with the Greenbelt Corridor, S and replacement
Pacific terms of the 0,4&R
requirements will be included in the lease agreement between the Corps and
the TPWD.
I
4-10. Local Assurances, Section V of this Supplement to the Master P
contains copies of the letters of assurance from Dallas, Denton, and they
TPWD, regarding initial development and 0M6R for the Greenbelt Corridor,
4-11, to e of Pro'ect ChanRe, The Cor e
Notebook, in Engineerin Regulation (ER) p110f Engineers' Planning Guidance 5-2 g provides guidance for
approving and processing changes that field operating activities recommend
to uncompleted projects authorized by Congress, Division Commanders are
delegated approval authority for changes to authorized projects if such
changes meet all of the criteria listed below.
I
(1) Increase or decrease in scope no greater than 25
scope last authorized by Congress. If the scope percent a the
parameters, and the change in any one parameter exceeds b defined by several
change must be approved by the Commander,USACE,xceeds 25 percent, the
(2) Change in the location or the design of the project to the
extent that the location and magnitude of the impacts of the change are
determined to be insignificant compared to the impacts asb..ssed for the
authorized project, unless HQ, USACE approval is required by ER
1110-2-1150,
(3) Increase in total project cost, or costs allocated to any one
project purpose, no greater than 25 percent, exclusive of price level
changes, from the estimate last presented to Congress regardless of the
dollar amount; increases in total project costs no greater than $3 million,
regardless of the percentage of the c,ist, (Note exception on paragraph
2-5c(4) for projects authorized under Section 201),
TV-10
r
,
(4) Change does not add or delete a project purpose, except dele-
tion of water quality where the benefits attributed to that purpose are .
less than 15 percent of the total project benefits, pursuant to Section 65,
P1. 93-251 (See Appendix A).
(5) Addition of fish and wildlife mitigation measures which do not
require acquisition of additional lands, or where the required lands will
be acquired voluntarily by local interests; this delegation applies only to
projects not substantially completed by August 12, 1958, pursuant to 16
U.S.C. 662(8).
The most recent Congressional document authorizing the Ray Roberts
project is HD 276, That document provides for acquisition or easement con-
version of 2,900 acres for public use purposes at Lewisville Lake. The
Greenbelt will involve acquisition or easement conversion of 1,859 acres.
HD 276 does not specify the location of the authorized public use lands,
f but hydrologically it would be desirable to acquire lands with the greatest
flood risk upstream and adjacent to Lewisville Lake lands. Such lands
would also have a lower cost than lands adjacent to the main body of
Lewisville Lake.
The Greenbelt.will result in an overall reduction in project costs as
authorized. HD 276 authorizes $824,000 for 2,900 acres of land and
$500,000 for new recreatioo facilities (1965 price levels - see Table'2,
page 17, Volume V of HD 276). When updated to October 1982 prices, this
amounts to a total authorized recreation cost at Lewisville Lake of
S3,701,000. This compares to a total estimated cost of $3,095,100 for the
Greenbelt.
r
The Greenbelt purposes are Recreation and Fish and Wildlife which are ;
authorized project purposes. It is not considered to be a mitigation
measure and therefore' authorization is not being sought for mitigation pur-
poses. Because lend acreages and costs are less than authorized and
because :ecreation/fish and wildlife are authorized purposes and no mitigs-
tion is being sought, acquisition and development of the Greenbelt is con-
sistent with Congressional intent, Further, implementation appears to be
within the Division Commander's discretionary authority.
i
I
i
1
1
h IV-11
i ,
{
s,
Is
Z-d
N µ n
n ~ n
lc 14 wwroo wwl-'po n
I-~ b r w +-r•• o r w Y
hOn M 0
C c
m L
=5 Lrl
C 7 n
It N G a n N 0.~ ro
o ro o7 n 0 v a b m n
m» m
n Vr ID c m (V rL Ny o m m C
N G IUD m 6 "Z' 'o
N N n G' N M W 1+. r~ CN 0 fD rt 0
o 'f 1-1 W M
X K w n w W O n W 0 0000 O N N N 0000 o 0 00 n Co
to of M QI n M n N M n V,
A N g n N N ~ 0 n N
N
{Mt M Q. G W W M a GL W R+ r.
97' 0 W a W N•r r r? ro ~ V b
n N p, M n n V M a N n n tY
W ID 9 N P. N 1-' fD 6 V1 µ PO F+
0 W W W m W 0 1+• W N W
n µ Y M N C n µ µ 0 0 n
5
l K p m wN a rt Nvoi
? t-t eD
W n ro M W N
1 d ,O /rt+W M tY n ary~
E a n CN3 C N a 0 0 rD
r CL A~ M
W v N
r1f 1 ro
po r? p N M M m y
M H re r
N V
G U)
O i-I
O M ~~CrNS} zy
E d
j I i r tD w H t n 'yyy99y'~y
j
to 47) 4J., 1-4 W W d tG h M H LO
w > F y y C
i E r r r+ ro
II[ v w + li LA
~~t~ ro o v 1+ +rr~N p wv+ j1-h o N Iit n
1 ONtn C Z O OD N w H 00N PV N 000 V t~ { ~p
Y' W 0 Fro+ H W Y W W pD N 1. 'u V J O IJ N N to
I 0 0 0 0 O 000000 000
0 0 O b v y yr
hT O 000006 0000Oo ~ 7hC1
I O O O N O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N
i y
z yy
j N O~ F" iAy y ry G
p H
j rya o. M i rWo0~ ko ~J M
ro C r. ~ ~ w
v co
yo ry to v V 1-+ N r n
0 0 0 r o~ 0 0000 i+ z
0 00 00 o 0000
0
s o 0000
°
e
n
i
M CS
juh 'CA 4A •Vi to .y ~ WI
Y V V O
N h N IJ ~
V W + W N Y W V~
{ owp V V wrv+t7 C
C* ~ N O wY~to VN~D In V 11 n
N W ~D M ~
N N NY Inw O~ 1--'Ol~Ito Y
O Op OO 00 OO 0000 ~ 1-+
oO p 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
i O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 co 0 0 0 0
1 ~ I
f
I
~t
Z-~
. n n
.y Y 1+ H^
r M O
N 11 li II C' ~ V ri
r O O 9 Y N~ ~ u v " rd ~ W ~v a N P'C1 ~ ~ pOj H
O v d~ t I rt 17 w t', .i H'•K ii H ti C Ci O ro R p F~
r ~n r v~ n E o~ p p v N r ~ m 9 p a N
O T O : n R t (RHD r. N (p ro .b C a yA~"-
N yN. O F'• .d f" n tD f~J W N N G M M G rt p F+ C
r V'' ILJ• r' 0 •F, p' Ur n n nJ' n p H N p w" O rD
t✓ N lD r) G U 0 M A N N "O (9
g x
D Y Y r
t v ° p, bHG ti° w n W k 4+ ? pi. ri N W N
N
Il 11 ON N Y a frt9 N N ° V N. C7 O m
rrty N.
M M
O p W G M y N 2 M N V) p ~ W W M M k
W r lh K v O
~ n H b n< N rt
O ro
O Ntp n~A' p G'C p W N•Y C O N Y• ro
1 ro H O V P. O O N M n Cu
LO 'a I~s
a~O b N N N. N f) M M p s rt H N H 'D
N p U p.N r.ro
p tt N p r+
O N a W. rT
a rt u n N f) a M
N
H
r C y N % rp z o r' 4 ly
n H N N O w N N to rt N U ro
r•'_• ` N fµi N C O. N Q, .0i n rt0 "t
O
1 f) G F N P 0
7 KN rt n rt d rt w rt N 0 0 N In
N W N W' O rt
pi ri F•'• N £ " ~r "G O p
(r W Vi p N
rt fl
f y Y• Y W 0' F+ ✓j A f~D W M
r&t
04 Il p li 11 N p
m M d O a N
p w N C •Vi P.
tri N a N M N n µ OD N O~ Y M
~ rD (D o p
c m?, ° t) CD H ~I- ANN P b
kA H H rt Y n wy tD to
T N ro n N tro-~ to y 0° t.1 v V' e C
fri
v, In
i? 1~1
ON n rrt V) rt
rt 0 0 0
N 'q H O w ro N rN Sri a p 0 0 0 O rOy
~ C rtVT' ~ H h n n ~ H ~a?. Y 1~~p
U. ro~ r C N F'' N µ X N F-' C
i ~ H rt N W 4+ y f) 7' ~ rt
N Y
.,I i "p ~ d fND p n
I ~ vw r°nc ~ tna ap'
H N. 04 N iD N N F+S
N d V O ~ u C n rt ~ C
ro ro W .y V+ H
I NN O O ppp vn V N 'd P. ~O r F W ro
I W U Y
C) 0
u
f) W I'Dt M O 0 N F1 H D u f-I
D W 04
' 0 m~ y v M C Kt a ~0 0 0 c G bb
1 ri O n d o ~ropp „ U 'yct'~
N
W e N W G
! W ri
Y IO
I N N C p ''I Ilr'n 1-u N 4 ts7
I Ohh rt j.J N F' 0 rr? W 4t O a
W O ro H O
r co IT w Ni~c w cy,
W
14 4 H, f) rl
J"' 00 Orr q C o p
~ p
cr, H rt ~ W 000
II N
H
1
r.
CITY OF OENTON
Q b1 CiN CI Ctr -
51 CiNsr.:.rvsGr'u r~.
D71Ltrity M E M O R A N D U M , . J 1 vv
Girl. ,li r
TO: FILE - RAY ROBERTS GREENBELT CORRIDOR AUG 2 3 1983
FROM: R. E. Nelson, Director of Utilities
DATE: August 22, 1983
RE: Meeting with Landowners, Thursday,_August 18, 1983
Roger Hamilton, Steve Wilde, Marty Hathorn, Becky Doby and 3 other
representatives of the Corps of Engineers, and Mike Herring and
Bob from the 'Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, plus
Larry c an1-e7s of the Dallas Watar Utilities, and Jack Anderson of
w j the Dallas Parks Department and myself met at 5:00 p.m. to review
issues regarding the landowner's meeting to be held at 7:30 p.m. at
the Aubrey Community Center, Aubrey, Texas.
The meeting with the landowners consisted of approximately 100
people, which included primarily landowners plus Yvonne Jenkins and
2 other staff members from Congressman Vandergriff's office, plus
Tip Hall, State Representative, plus Mr. Porter, Mayor of Pilot
Paint, plus representatives of the local news media. Jackie Fuller,
a landowner along the Greenbelt Corridor, presided over the
meeting. The general tone of the meeting was that the landowners
I were searching for all possible opportunities to prohibit the
Greenbelt Corridor's development. Roger Hamilton presented the
history of Lake Ray Roberts, including the laws by which it is
s authorized, and the laws by which recreational purposes are included
in the Lake and such facilities as the Greenbelt Corridor. He
advised that the City of Denton and Dallas have an obligation to
U provide certain levels of recreation, not only at Ray Roberts, but
also at Lake Lewisville. He advised that the cities of Dallas and
Denton had requested that the Corps investigate the possibility of
transferring the cities' responsibilities for recreational
development in Lewisville to the development of a Greenbelt Corridor
between Lewisville and Ray Roberts. He advised that this request
was in keeping with a State recreational needs study of some ten
years ago which identified the need for such a Greenbelt Corridor
with primitive trails, camping sites and canoeing opportunities.
The Corps of Engineers advised that the Greenbelt Corridor is still
a proposal and that it will itoL be finalized until the following
steps are taken:
2376U/1
r
Rad Roberts Greenbelt Corridor
Page 2
a) Col. Stroup of the Ft. worth region approves the project
and sends the project to division headquarters in Dallas for
their approval.
b) That either the division headquarters in Dallas must
approve the project, or if they choose, they may send it to
the Chief of the Army in Washington for approval.
C) The City Council of Denton and Dallas approve the
Supplemental Agreements to the Contracts which would alter
the original recreation contracts to include the Greenbelt
1 Corridor area and delete some of the recreational facilities
on Lewisville Lake.
d) The State of Texas approve the maintenance and operation
4 of the Greenbelt Corridor.
Mr. Hamilton had noted in his presentation that the Cities'
responsibility at Lewisville was two-fold. One, relocate
existing recreational facilities, such as boat-ramps, picnic tables,
etc., at such locations where the seven foot increased water
elevation would inundate those facilities, the possible purchase of
some 2,900 acres, plus the construction of 1.33 new campsitas plus
several other facilities to accommodate the increased recreational
demand that could be expected on Lewisville with the higher water
! levels.
I
c1r. Hamilton advised that the Cities would still continue to be
responsible for relocating the facilities inundated by water, but
that the other recreational facilities could be substituted by the
Greenbelt Corridor. The Greenbelt Corridor is much expensive
than recreational facilities on Lewisville, plus the Corps Engineers is authorized to fund 75% of those facilities,
and the
Cities would share the 25%, whereas on Lake Lewisville, it would in
a 50% Corps participation and a 50% Cities
the Greenbelt Corridor, the State would extend its operation and
maintenance to the Greenbelt Corridor area, whereas on Lewisville
Lake, the Cities' would be responsible for the future operation and
maintenance of those park facilities.
The general concerns expressed by the people at rtz meeting were:
1. The Corps of Engineers presentl is
reaches very poor
Robertsa
of the government lands in the uppe
failing to maintain the land properly and denying access to
the land. The landowners asked whether the Greenbelt
Corridor would become just an extension of this problem that
the residents see in the upper reaches of Lewisville Lake.
II
1
iRay Roberts Greenbelt Corridor
Page 3
{
2. Why was this program possibility not better publicized
several years ago, so that the landowners would not have
invested and made substantial plans in the area, now only to
find that their lands will be utilized for a Greenbelt
Corridor?
3. Why was the notification time so limited, i.e., owners
of the property were the only ones to receive notice, and
they received notice only 15 days prior to the close of the
comment period for requesting a public hearing.
(Roger Hamilton advised that notices were sent to over 300
parties such as Cities, County, State and Federal people plus
published in the newspar,ers.)
t
r~ 4. One of the purposes of the Greenbelt Corridor is to be
wildlife enhancement. Several of the residents commented
that various wildlife species, such as pheasants, had been
placed in the upper reaches of Lewisville, but there are
insufficient grain type feeds to allow such wildlife species
E to survive, and they migrate out of the areas into the
surrounding, better maintained farmlands. Therefore, the
concern is, will the Greenbelt Corridor really provide the
enhancement to wildlife that is proposed?
5. Substantial concern was voiced over the Corps' projected
$3.9 million cost for this project, which would include some
1,990 acres, 1,500 of which would be purchased from
landowners, 400 would be part of the upper reaches of the
present Lewisville Reservoir. Landowners were concerned that
{ if only $3.9 million were spent, this would represent only
$1,600 per acre if all of the funds were utilized for land
purchases. Some documents presented indicated that the
Co:-pe' appraisal values were approximately $1,100 per acre.
Many residents represented that the lands were actually worth
$5,000 to $6,000 per acre.
(The Corps did not have confirmation of these figures and
advised they could not discuss appraisal values.)
6. Some concern existed about the amount of tax money that
I
would be lost due to government purchasing of the land.
(Yvonne Jenkins advised that there is a government program
that subsidizes local school districts and counties for Such
losses in. tax revenues. A local landowner, who is also an
employee of the county edvised, however, that this does not
fully compensate.)
i
2376U/3
i
i
II
r
10
I~
I
Ray Roberts Greenbelt Corridor
Page 4
i
7, Concern was expressed over the riparian water rights
along the river with some landowners wondering why they were
denied any water rights from the Trinity River, Others
such presently corridors wethe
water, and cattle
for concern drinking that their
re
river expressed
constructed, that it would place an economic hardship on the
adjoining ranchers to either drill wells or provide water by
some other means.
(The group was advised that the: City of Dallas had acquired
the water rights to the Elm Foxk of the Trinity River in the
early 1900`s and that the acquisition of water from a river
is accomplished through the permitting process with the Texas
Water Rights Commission.)
( 8. Concern was expressed over the security that would exist
in the Greenbelt Corridor with residents expressing concern
over the possibility of wild parties, illegal activities,
etc., that now exist at some of the park facilities on
Lewisville Lake.
(The State advised that they will provide security in the
area on a regular basis, but could not guarantee a continuous
security force along the entire region.)
9. Concern was expressed aver utilizing funds previously
designated for Lewisville Lake recreation activities in the
Greenbelt Corridor area, siteing that Lewisville Lake is t.n
need of additional recreational facilities to handle the
large crowds on the lake. One of the local landowners
suggested that, since Lewisville Lake needs and wants
additional recreation and that the owners along the Greenbelt
I Corridov don't want such a place the facility on e Lewisvilln Lake. seems more
logical
(The group was advised by the Corps that: this type fo
Greenbelt facility would be well utilized and that the
cost/benefit: ratio was better than on Lewisville.)
10, A landowner asked what type of dividing boundary 1.'.ne
would exist.
entire Greenbelt Corridore)atrand barbed wire
(The fence 0aroundadvised
2376U/4
Ray Roberts Greenbelt Corridor
Page 5
I
11. some farmers and ranchers expressed concern that they
have suffered under flood type conditions for all of these
years, and now when the opportunity exists to be able to
takproductively harvest en in the Greenbelt Corrsidor~nds, that now
the safely land may be and
12. Mr. Herndon, an attorney from Dallas, expressed concerns
as to why Col. Stroup and Congressman Vandergriff were not at
the meeting, especially Col. Stroup since he was to make the
initial decision.
(Roger Hamilton advised that it was the Corps staff
responsibility to work with the landowners in such a
meeting. Mr. Hamilton did advise that he would probably
recommend to the Col. that a public hearing be held on the
Greenbelt Corridor project. The addresses of the region and
division headquarters were noted for the meeting
participants, and Mr. Hamilton strongly urged anyone who
desired, to send their comments to the Corps regarding the
project. A landowner also advised that the NCTCOG would be
considering a resolution supporting the Greenbelt Corridor at
their next meeting and encouraged any local landowners to
1 express their feelings to the COG board.)
13. A resident of Dallas, whose father owns land along the
Greenbelt Corridor area, expressed a concern about the City
of Dallas Water Department being a participant in funding a
i project such as this.
k (Representatives of Dallas advised that their primary concern
was water supply, and that a requirement of obtaining such a
water supply is participation in the recreation development.
Since the Greenbelt Corridor cost is less to the City of
Dallas supported the Greenbelt Corridor recreational development,
(This is also Denton's position.)
14. State Representative, Tip Hall, addressed the meeting
advising that he opposed the taking of more land in Denton
County, that ht, as a member of the Appropriations Committee,
would do everything possible to prevent the State Parks and
Wildlife Departmt~nt from receiving funding for any operation
agreeable that G settlement Corridor, ' be ndreacthat h d hwithtrusted Cthat coif
st
Engineers in thiE project.
i
2376'0/5
1
C~
Ray Roberts Greenbelt Corridor
Page 6
Prior to adjournment, the group was advised that the time period for
comment regarding the Greenbelt Corridor had been extended from the
August 15, 1983, deadline to an August 31, 1983, deadline, and that
it was probable that a public hearing would be held.
I
e son, rec or o' ucIlMe-S
REN/gcr
E
4
e
f ~
i
2376U/6
,
t
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
FORT WORTH D16TRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P. O BOX 17300
FORT WORTH. TEXAS 76102
1 V
1983
11 August 15,
AUG 9 !zW
~ PII_ gLIC NOTICE
Greenbelt Corridor
Between Ray Roberts Dam and Lewisville Lake
ies
The purpose of this public Notice is to advise all interesteofpartineers
that the District Engineer, Fort Worth District, U.S. Army Corps
is extending the comment period On our records greenbelt corridor
Ray Roberts Dam and Lewisville T ate that
,
mailed a copy of the original Public Notice dated July 26, 1983..
Comments regarding the proposed action should be addressed to the i
District Engineer, Fort Worth District, 819 Taylor Street, ro port proposal Worth,'
will be,
. p. to the p
i
Texas be.
by
Texaas s c76102. onsidered All factors which may be relevant All comments received
! considered in arriving at a final decision.
+ close of business on August 31, 1983, will be considered. For further
I information or for copies of the Environmental Impact Assessment$ contact
Mr. Roger Hamilton or Mr. Paul Hathorn, Planning Division, Fort Worth
District, at (817) 334-2095.
c j
E
o re troup
colonel, CE
District Engineer
I
I
i {
1
i
i
1 ~
i
i
M.
+i
/ /y'• DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
s FORT WORTH DISTRICT. CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P. O. BOX 17300
FORT WORTH. TEXAS
AS 78102
RCrIY TO
A~RMn70N (WI
July 25, 1983
JUL 2 8 1983
°ubli_ 'cCe
Greenbelt Corridor
Between Ray Roberts Dam
and Lewisville Lake
The purpose of this Public Notice is to advise all interested parties
that the District Engineer, Fort Worth District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
proposes to implement a greenbelt corridor between Ray Roberts Dam and
Lewisville Lake. This proposed action is in lieu of development of conven-
tional lake recreation facilities at Lewisville Lake.
" History and Pur ose. Section 301 of the Rivers and Harbors Act approved
i 27 October 1965 Public Law 89-298) contains authority for construction of
water resource development features described in the Comprehensive Survey
Report on Trinity River and Tributaries, Texas (reprinted as House
Document 276, 89th Congress, 1st Seas ion). House Document 276 provides for a
7 foot raise (from 515 to 522 feet msl) in the pool elevation of Lewisville
Lake to allow for tandem flood control and water supply operation with Ray
f R
oberts Lake. It also provides for acquisition or easement conversion of
2,900
existing facilitfeas affected k public use for relocation of
g by the raise, and for new
of n Ray at Lewisville
associated with construction development
Roberts sville dam. pool i,ae a result of the pool raise
The concept of a greenbelt corridor is to preserve a narrow strip of
I riparian habitat adjacent to the Elm Fork of the Trinity River between Ray
Roberts Lake and Lewisville Lake for stream oriented recreation purposes. The
greenbelt would provide future generations with a remnant of the natural
riverine system for stream oriented recreation and fishery and wildlife pur-
suits. The concept was originally proposed as a recreation alternative in the
f September 1974 Supplemental Information Report (which addressed the Ray
Roberts pool raise to 632.5 Feet msl), The concept was endorsed by the US
Fish and Wildlife Service in 1975 in commenting on the Supplemental
Information Report and Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, At that
tiae, the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department stated strop support
proposal. In 1976, the State agency, in addition to expressing aninfor the
terest in
the possibility of coat sharing, requested that benefits, including hiking,
bicycling, canoeing, camping, picnicking, nature study, and stream fishing, be
investigated,
By letter dated December 21, 19821 in comments on a draft of the Master
Plan for Ray Roberts Lake, the Texas Parka and Wildlife Department provided
the following statement.
{
-2-
"Downstream recreational corridor - in subsequent
meetings with Corps staff, Department planners have
identified a potential concept for joining the down=
stream corridor to the Isle duBois Park via an under-
pass under the relocated Highway 455, which strengthens
the recreational and operational aspects of this portion
of the project. As a result, the Texas Parks and Wild-
life Department is willing to seriously consider co-
sponsoring the acquisition and development of the down-
stream recreational corridor in conjunction with the
local sponsor."
The city of Dallas, by letter dated January 28, 1983, formally requested
that the Corps investigate the stretch of land between Ray Roberto and
Lewisville Lakes for its potential as a park. Specifically, the city of
Dallas requested that the Corps investigate feasibility of substituting a
greenbelt park for the recreational development for which Dallas and Denton
are contractually committed at Lewisville Lake. Additionally, the city of
Dallas requested that if the greenbelt showed excess benefits beyond those
attributable to new Lewisville facilities, those benefits be credited to the
Ray Roberta project in order to reduce recreational development at,Ray Roberts
Lake. Dallas further stated that,.
{
"If upon conclusion of your investigation, the green-
belt park does prove to be of the recreational value
expressed by Dallas, I am confident that Dallas would
be interested in pursuing this matter further, as
would the city of Denton and the Texas Parka and Wild-
life Department."
As a result of these requests, the Corps undertook a study of the,fessi-
bility, economic costa and benefits, and social and environmental effects of
the proposed ;ceenbelt park in lieu of conventional facilities development at
{ Lewisville ',aka. Close coordination with Texas Parks and Wildlife Department
led to delineation of a corridor as described herein for the purposes of
recreation and fish and wildlife.
Proposed Action. he illustrated by the attached map, the greenbelt corridor
would be out 6 miles long and would average about one-half mile in width.
It encompasses about 8 river miles from Ray Roberts Dam to the headwaters of
Lewisville Lake. Lands associated with the corridor include about 1,310 acres
of riparian bottomlands and 160 acres of post oak woodlands in fee acquisition
and about 390 acres of flood plain bottoms converted grow Lewisville flowage
easement to fee title. Although some of the total 1,860 acres are in pasture
or cropland, there is an almost continuous corridor of riparian woods. These
woodlands are mostly mature, but some areas are in various successional sta-
ges. Predominant overstory species include American and cedar elm, hackberry,
pecan, and Burr and Shumard oak. Throughout much of the.stream reach, a dense
canopy or partial canopy is formed over the stream,
The stream in this reach under existing conditions provides a quality
fishery and during moderate flows is suitable for canoeing. Reservoir
M
'
-3-
routings performed by the city of Dallas on its proposed water supply release
plan indicate that releases from Ray Roberts dam will be at least 130 cfs in
excess of 90 percent of the time. In addition, in coordination with the DS
Fish and Wildlife. Service, the cities of Dallas and Denton have formally
agreed, by Memorandum of Agreement, to maintain the following continuous mini-
mum discharges.
Minimum Continuous Discharges
from Ray Roberts Lake (cfs)
Jan Feb Her AAA Maw Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
12 18 30 25 ~9 32 6 3 5 6 7 7 '
The guaranteed releases during the first half of the year will be ade-
quate to marginal for canoeing but should provide more than sufficient sur-
vival habitat for maintenance of a quality stream fishery. This is especially
true considering the diverse substrates and riffle and pool complexes through
the stream reach. The proposed water supply/hydropower releases by Dallas
Ir.~ and Denton, however, should provide an excellent stream fishery and canoeing
experience. Access provided by the greenbelt will enhance the availability
and quality of those stream oriented recreation experiences.
R
Canoe launching and take-out points will be provided just below Ray
Roberts dam and at the two major highway crossings upstream of Lewisville
Lake. Additionally. 10 primitive camping sites will be interspersed along the
stream course. An equestrian and hiking trail is designed to take advantage
j of the diverse stream oriented terrestrial resources of the greenbelt corri-
dor. The trail system will consist of a total of about 12 miles of separate
hiking paths and equestrian trails. Horseback trails will be in the form of
larger designated areas rather than specifically developed and designated
trails. There will also be three bridges in association with the trail
systems so that trails will meander esthetically through t`e entire corridor.
~ j
i Significant demand for such types of low density recreation as hiking,
r nature study, canoeing, horseback riding, and primitive camping exists
throughout Texas in genoral and the Dallas/Fort Worth Metroplex in particular.
Interest in theme types of activities is indicated by a number of sources.
The proposed Elm Fork greenbelt presents a unique opportunity to contri-
bute toward meeting these demonstrated needs. It is located in an undeveloped
area close to and readily accessible from a large metropolitan area. It
would connect two large blocks of public land and provide public access to a
significant portion of the Elm Fork if the Trinity River. The Elm Fork of the
Trinity River is identified as a potential trail resource both in the Texas
Outdoor Recreation Plan and in Texas Trailways A Feasibility. Report on a
System of Trails in Texas. Texas Trailways states that the flood plain of
the Elm Fork could provide sufficient resources for the development of a
quality recreational trail." The Texas Outdoor Recreation Plan states that
"A Trinity River Greenbelt would be one such regional recreation area which
has the potential for meeting the needs for hike and bike trails, passive
recreation, and other regional needs."
r
.
-4-
First costa of the greenbelt corridor would include lands, fencing, deve-
lopment of trails, primitive camping, areas, canoe take-out points, and some
landscaping/reforestation. With contingencies and overhead, the estimated
total first cost is about $3,095,000 at October 1982 price levels. Contingency
costs included in the estimate may include such items as removal of snags,
downed trees, etc. from the stream for esthetics and canoeing purposes.
Benefits for the greenbelt are estimated to be $1,587,000. These benefits are
exclusive of benefits which will be provided by access facilities just below Ray
Roberts dam.
Previously proposed facilities development at Lewisville Lake to accom-
modate the pool raise would include acquisition or easement conversion of
2,900 acres, 74 new picnic unite, 133 new camping units, and 9 new boat lanes.
Total first cost of lands and developments is estimated at $4,322,400 when
updated to October 1982 prices. Benefits for Lewisville Lake facilities were
calculated on the assumption that new development sponsored by Dallas and
Denton would follow recent management philosophies of fewer but larger and
more manageable park areas. Other assumptions included; Ray Roberts Lake and
Joe Pool Lake facilities to be in place, Texas Park and Wildlife Department's
facilities development of Hackberry Park (Lewisville Lake) in place, and effi-
cient relocation of existing Lewisville Lake facilities affected by the
Lewisville Lake pool raise and by the park realignment program. Under those
assumptions, annual benefits for facilities development previously proposed
for Lewisville Lake are estimated at $1,548,895.
In purely economic terms, the greenbelt is much more coat effective than
facilities development at Lewisville Lake. The greenbelt will result in a
monetary savings ro the Federal Government in that it has a lower total first
cost. Annual charges to both the Federal Government and local sponsors will
be reduced since it has a lower first cost and lower operation, maintenance,
and replacement costs. Benefits of the greenbelt will satisfy needs that are
identified by several sources as being greater due to their unique nature. By
providing more unique opportunities, the more traditional lake demands of the
same general public will be slightly reduced. It is partially due to this
uniqueness and rarity of resources that the dollar value of the benefits aaeo-
crated with the greenbelt is comparable to those associated with lake facili-
ties development. Benefit-to-cost ratios for the greenbelt corridor and
Lewisville Lake facilities are 10.2 and 4.5, respectively.
In their letters dated June 27, 289 and 29, 1983, respectively, Dallas,
Denton, and the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department all provided assurances of
their intent to share in the initial development costs of the greenbelt corri-
dor. Additionally, all three sponsors ware in agreement that this feature was
of such significance to the region that they would attempt to arrange for up-
front financing of the local share of initial development costs. The Texas
Parks and Wildlife Department expressed a willingness to contribute 25 percent
of the total first cost and all operation and maintenance costs. The cities
of Dallas and Denton expressed a desire to share the remainder of the local
share of first costs at a ratio proportionate to joint project costa. The
Texas Parks and Wildlife. Department will assume responsibility for all opera-
tion, maintenance, and replacement costa associated with the greenbelt corri-
dor. Involvement of the Texas Parka and Wildlife Department will, of course,
;i
„
E
f
be contingent upon approval of the Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission.
Implementation of the proposed action is subject to the approval of higher
Corps of Engineers authorities.
An Environmental Impact Assessment has been made of the proposed action
pursuant to the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act. As a
result of these evaluations, I have made the preliminary determination that
the proposed action will not have a significant adverse impact on the human
environment nor is it significantly controversial.
This public notice is being distributed to all known interested parties r
in order to assist in developing facts upon which a final decision by the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers may be based. A public meeting has not been 44heduled
but will be considered if a justifiable request is received in writing prior
to the close of the comment period. Copies of the Environmental Impact
Assessment and preliminary Finding of No Significant Impact may be obtained by
contacting Mr. Roger Hamilton or Mr. Paul Hathorn at telephone number (817)
334-2095. Comments regarding this Public Notice dr the Environmental Impact
Assessment should be addressed to the District Engineer, Fort Worth District,
819 Taylor Street, Fort Worth, Texas 76102. All factors which may be rele-
vant to the proposal will.be considered. Within 15 working days of the date
of this notice, if no significant comments are received, it will be considered
that there are no objection
THEODORE G. STROUP
Colonel, CE
District Engineer
i
i
J
i
i `
i
I~
f
f ~
c
GAIIISVIInIE Swr *WA
CRY
r v 1 wom
RAY ROBERTS LAKE
At An ,
NJ
D~ f
35 =
~ a Ic o .
19 p o
PILOT POINT~r~ 1
J
U
I I ~"S- ~ e f
° c UNGER
I ~ ~ jw o
PROPOSED GREENBELT
nI I ~ ° Q
11 r / / ~
LEWIsvii LE LAkE ,
0 4
8 O
DEN ON ♦ ~/fV ~ A
r~ ~ I I
r
r AI ?J I^ ;
North Central Texas sound of hover ents
P O Dfawer COG ArGnglon, Texas 76005-5888
llu~ C3
FROM: John Promise, Director of Environmental DATE: July 28, 1983
resources
TO: Honorable Wayne Ferguson, Mayor, City of Lewisville
and Director, NCTCOG Executive Board
SUBJECT: Review of Proposed Ray Roberts Lake/Lewisville Lake
Recreation Projects
I am sorry that your questions were not adequately addressed at the Executive
Board meeting today regarding the proposed Ray Roberts Lake/Lewisville Lake
recreation projects being sponsored by the Cities of Dallas and Denton; Texas
Parks and Wildlife Department; and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
i
Attached please find the material distributed to the NCTCOG Environmental
Resources Advisory Committee on July 8, 1983. At that meeting, I believe it
was stated by the Corps or Engineers representative that recreation facilities
equal to those being inundated due to the seven foot pool raise in Lewisville
Lake are required and would be developed by the Corps and sponsoring entities.
The ERAC recommendation of endorsement of the greenbelt concept and overall
program was made with this assumption in mind.
I
i
After the ERAC meeting, I asked Chris Hartung to personally contact your city
to insure your support for the proposed program. Chris told me before the
Executive Board meeting, as he noted at the meeting, that he discussed the
program with Mr. Darwin McGi,1 and had the impression that everything was
' alright.
I i
j Obviously I cannot speak to whether the issue of the relocations was addressed
in their conversations. Unfortunately, the attached material indicates that
the Corps Master Plan for those relocations will not be submitted until June
1984. Thus it is reasonable to assume that no specific sites will be available
i for your review prior to next month's Board meeting.
I would be happy,to have this matter brought back to the ERAC at their meeting
next Friday morning for further discussion, and to have a representative from
Lewisville attend and participate in the committee discussions. I would also
be glad to seek whatever assurances we can from the Corps and sponsoring
cities that facilities of equal quality and location will be provided at Lake
Lewisville.
Please let me know how we assist in getting speedy answers to your questions.
~o m se
JP:ja
cc: Chris Hartung, City of Denton
Mike Tubbs, City of Dallas 1
Roger Hamilton. !1S ATLCoros of Engineers~T
Centerooira Two 616 Six Flags Drive Dallas/Fort Worth Melro 817/461.3300
`r+i t t W- AA 4..t 'f CJ la F ICJ
RAY ROBERTS LAKE RECREATION
o The project local sponsors (cities of Dallas and Denton) have assumed the
responsibility for recreation development at Ray Roberts and Lewisville
Lakes under the terms of the approved recreation contracts signed by the
Secretary of the A*my on 16 September 1980.
o The Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD) currently intends to assume
a portion of the cities' recreation responsibility and cost share with
the Corps of Engineers for lands and development, at Isle du8ois Park and
25`/. of lands and develupment cost for the proposed greenbelt corridor,
0 1171 ictcnds t: or,~o t maI7 ',tt it , .rre..t I
1 S 'ter of i i 1•;C(. 1.. ~'C• r - , ~f r..~r
o a recreation contr3rt with the Corps and TPWD, and a supplement to the
existing recreation contracts with the cities of Dallas and Denton have
f~ been drafted.
o A Master Plan for Ray Roberts Lake has been prepared and
Southwestern Division (SWD) of the Corps of Engineers. Final esubmittal
e
of the Master Plan is expected in early July 1983.
o Planned recreation facility development at Ray Roberts Lake basically
cocsists of swimming beaches, boat ramps, camping, picnic, hiking, and
! horseback riding trails, roads and sanitary facilities. Initial develop-
ment costs are approximately $36,000,000.
o A Master Plan update for Lewisville Lake which will primarily address
required recreation facility relocations due to seven foot pool raise C--
will be prepared and submitted to SWD in June of 1984.
I
I
i '
Y
1.~
i
GREENBELT CORRIDOR BETWEEN
RAY ROBERTS AND LEWISVILLE LAKES
o The concept was originally reported as a recreation alternative in the
1974 Supplemental Information Report to the GDM for Ray Roberta Lake.
o The concept was heartily endorsed in 1975 and 1976 by the USFWS and
TPWD. In 1976 TPWD expressed an interest in cost sharing and requested
that the Corps initiate a study of its feasibility.
o By letter dated January 28, 1982, the city of Da119s formally requested
that the Fort Worth District investigate the feasibility of a Greenbelt
Park in lieu of recreation facilities development at Lewisville Lake for
which the cities of Dallas and Denton are contractually obligated.
o Coordination with TPWD in early 1983 led to delineation of the proposed
corridor as illustrated on the attached map. The plan includes 1,860
r acres of riparian habitats in a corridor roughly six miles long and half
a mile vide encompassing eight river miles.
r
o Facilities development inc'udes twelve mi' , of trail, two access
points
with parking and canoeljon boat launching, and a ten unit primitive camp
site.
1
o Proposed releases from Ray Roberts Lake are ideal. for canoeing, tubing,
and stream fishing. The st,:eam and associated trail systems will pro-
vide access for the aquatic pursuits listed above as well as hiking,
horseback riding, camping, and nature study,
j' o First coat of the plan is estimated at $3,095,000 (compared to
$4,322,000 for new facilities at Lewisville). Benefits are estimated at
$1,587,400 annually (compared to $1,548,900 for Lewisville facilities).
I
o By letters dated June 27, 28, and 29, the cities of Dallas and Denton
and the TPWD have expressed their interest in cost-sharing in the
initial development of the Greenbelt. Dallas and Denton would sponsor
E the Greenbelt in substitution for their facilities obligations at
i Lewisville. TPWD would provide 25% financin; up-front and would assure
j all OM6R.
J .
o The Fort Worth District will submit a Supplemental Master Plan for Ray
Roberts Lake to Southwestern Division in late July 1983 which will seek
approval of the Greenbelt Recommendation. Also submitted will be a
draft supplement to the GDM and draft contracts with the local sponsors.
A Public Notice of availabi;ity of the EIA and draft FONSI will be
isaued at About the same time,
M
_t c«G it T''" am,.Y r_^lrrfYl`Y'+!t; Tir k T:S..T'^7nlr w
~ v~~ ~r r wtkFi TY^Hy~clW+4~. r4'h ~?,S(nrAi~'4/R +(br1f. r..¢.,r twgTJU
t l tr. 7C Z
20
rw
P r
C
-471 ol:
r
f 14
Z
rNnN., ~ p 'Gr
r
re 99
t . A_AZA SL
U
~ I
v
c
`n
3 r
•90r
' H a:SMt~i,~ ir.t
t ~
V Y IAA
l_~ ltA i V W1
•fv.. rte Ya'y f•~.~,._ I^~'fi.
~ ~ _ - t4i• r~'~99
:tom 1'1i ; ~
r
I
+ ~ 3 V/
z
J c
Trl
I~ m
t; Z D
n ~ iIs ~ m r
71
p
f.
1;
r? ,
r j
R
r~
5'f LEWISVILLE LAKE POOL RAISE
u Lewisville Lake currently operates at a conservation pool elevation of
515 feet mel. The Ray Roberts Lake project will Peaterin tandem with
Lewisville for flood control and water supply. A pool
Lewisville to elevation 522 feet msl has been approved under the Ray
Roberts authorization,
o The pool raise at Lewisville will increase the lake by 6,500 acres from
22,480 to 28,980 acres. In addition to inundation of project lands, the
increased pool size will require conversion of some :xiscing flowage
easement and some fee acquisition to the 529 feat ms! elevation,
o The local sponsors for the project are contractually obligated to cost-
share in (1) land required to accommodate the pool raise (2) relocation
of recreation facilities affected by the raise, and (3) recreation lands
required to accommodate new facilities and/or facilities relocations (up
to 2,900 acres).
o The Fort Worth District is currently initiating mapping activities in
preparation of a Real Estate Assign Memorandum. The Real Estate DM will
be submitted to Southwestern Division for approval about the end of
1984.
o If the Fort Worth District's recommendation on the Greenbelt Corridor is
not approved by higher Corps authority, the master plan update for
Lewisville will also include new recreation facilities development for
which Dallas and Denton are contractually obligated,
i
f
f
ff
f
f
j
I '
i
i
i
10
, Le
r..
d 11'
r
k"I
y
T5y'L`r 1 / r
Y jr ' •
1. A-`'l_
v
+F i. 1
.
m
t: 3 of J J i x tJ~, Y Si . I~ r •l ~ 7 i7J
, 1 I J It t .
;~a:.
t'
141 -2'~
RAY ROBERTS LAKE RECREATION
o The project local sponsors (cities of Dallas and Denton) have assumed the
responsibility for recreation development at Ray Roberts and Lewisville
Lakes under the terms of the approved recreation contracts signed by the
Secretary of the Army on 16 September 1980.
o The Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD) currently intends to assume
a portion of the cities' recreation responsibility anC cost share with
the Corps of Engineers for lands and development at Isle duBois Park and
25% of lands and development cost for the proposed greenbelt corridor.
o TPWD intends toeoperate:.and'maintain all recreation development including
parks developed by the Corps and cities of Dallas and Denton at Ray Roberts
Lake. TPWD further intends to manage all remaining p'o,ject lands and '
water areas exclusive of the embankment at Ray Roberts Lake,
o A recreation contract with the Corps and TPWD, and a supplement to the
j existing recreation contracts with the cities of Dallas and Denton have
been drafted.
J o A Master Plan for Ray Roberts lake has been prepared and reviewed by the
Southwestern Division (SW) of the Corps of Engineers. Final submittel
of the. Master Plan is expected in early July 1983.
c Planned recreation facility development at Ray Roberts Lake basically
conaists of swimming beaches., boat ramps, camping, picrAc, hiking, and
horseback riding trails, roads and sanitary facilities. Initial develop-
ment costs are approximately $360000,000.
{ o A Master Plan update for Lewisville Lake which will primar.'ly address
%equired recreation facility relocations due to seven foot pool raise
will be prepared and submitted to SWD in June of 1984.
~ j
i
r
If
r
+ i 11 P
1 ~
o U o•, °'i
u ( ~r 1 MOOF(tH DALLAS
4 r !I
, 111~dA o ~ ~ ~ CI ~k•
RAY ROBE RTS LAKE ~
VVV }I
4A P'
L
I I 1 / ,.J a V
1 1` • V
.b r i'
1
~ I
\ JI t~~~ ~ C._ 0
.ti
f
4~ D
1
S. LEwisviLLE LAKE ,
five
n l ~ .
k r ~ -
11
1wD.l !V~ ~ V C I.1~ I M~~ r ~ ,r > -T ~IST~t
Y
Y,~ ~ ~_lr~l
K r I Ili 1 C I r l f7f lI / 1 l ik "
~!Y! 5i, I~ ~r .y:, ; ; ~ d}, '~j i`y . ~ ~~~a~~~F p~~ µ(f 2 1 ~ I,~ r i-.''" '
t i 1, 1 ~ f ~~`zry ';n t ~y ~Sn 1 +~ti~~ ~ v~.. t',•iq~j , I -t \ ~ (I j to ry~l~l jr h f. { I
J i .f 1., ~1
i
I~ ~ ~~1'•.~ \ y~' ~,r` I~. k i~, ~~"'`~r~~~rtl~ c. ~ ~ ~Sl~1v.c~~.~„~~..f`~~~~~'i7r~~ i~~i~~ti i
5.st.!ti. `~'~5a.c.f--~ t MJT R, alp Imo,
VALLEY VIEW f ~L , ~I 1~• ,rr f ~a 1 v~ l s,l
All
i E C,~V'f l1~ ~i, ) ~ ' ♦ ~y1µq'~~~~4 ' ~ ~.5 I I r. rl .1
f w
f? ~ j r)' 1 i
lj~
j
01 1
SANGER t ±~I ,Fy r
s'~ y i" re,tS T~ i_.
I{ ~~~{ryry{yy f j ~ PR
\ , f Jr it ~ f
F ~
A'Sr1~JSLE~ dough {
C_11LR1 Vvli_!~i f' 1216
7 I. 1` l b, . f AUBREY
9
~'iPYr I 1 ' H DAn, RAY ROBERTS LAKE
`Y r y' 1I4!i-V r E
k 1 iOOO F ~ ~ I J' ( ~ ~ fVPFCC IFACIED
.EM01q ik ` AFI1 Flll
r1 ),.t. T/ 4 I ~ ~ ~ - HEICFH " CLUDINGA 591llWAV
15,750100E
r J 1 E _1 I , •5, !LOTH 0I cIJ,'^ ABOVE SIREAMBEU
E „ ~t I 1, 12i { I>. SPILLWAY RGwrl I
Yvy M 1l
L 1 J6
FEE fEEI
Y I J
wf7j LEI COLL~NSVILLE / 1LD RO UCRES T, +e
IEV ~ION'E ABOV(M1!dEAt<~ IW FEET
a'17+(I'.'~ `I F fIY, 1 A yr Cir,I SEA OUTLET ' R
n~
1 w,v1 /v...ti I~ ~ j r' OUTLET WORKS 6455FEE[
CAT['CONrRpu ED CCNCUIr
OFA"q TER
+ 533] ( ~"J R CGNIROi 26 ET.:I?
_.'i• U / j.V~ F,'' ""E ( r .K• 4-:ro Sl1DF GAIEE. fFEt aERVICE
NT
IiVI i~ 1 CIE I t IAKE
1
I
NYE
RF EIEVAIIOH, ABOJ
MEAN S
c p t'' fA lE1'EI ' F
LAKE 551 FEET
i 11111 ` r I FLOOD CON1R01 PCot
y _ r
> eJ Ir ^ I ELEVADON ABOVE MEAN SEA IEVEI
~1- y a ly [ ( 4 _ CAPACITY 6403 FEEL
I V
"I r , I ,n I r rr. , ✓ti✓v ^ II + SURFACE AA 760,8W ACAS -FEET
r + }I, h~ ' FV r C9NSER1AZ, 4001 36,900 ACRES
L EUVAIION AB
,?U F OVf "LAN SEA lE4El
f IS r F, CAPaCIIY 632.5 IEEE
f l L I, fl 1 1 SURFACE AREA 749,200 ACR E, F EEI
F v Yn SEDInEfNT STORAGE 39.350 ACRES
X t I A }~12 '4j, -eM IGfAL CaNFROIIED S10RA 54, 600 ACRE.FEET
1,061, 600 ACRE FEET
yti' ~ F r 1 I F C" I SIREAM4.ED APPRO.YI!AATE ECIEEYAItON
ABOYE !1EAN SEA IEVEII
'.r II 1 526fEE1
F, r I _ ;t ,a FLOOD CONTR01 POOL:FI y r f~'
EL 6 9 J y
j ( A 40S S4'r
LY L 4 1 ,l l
TfOG A
t,b n f/ F, yr( Jl ^ ~wl~~
k' t CONSERVATION POOL El 632
r
F ! i Ldlll iS-
K CREEK 1' RK
t
f
)ROAN PARK
I~ 7 •~e iti I
I
Mfor POINT
}I B t' Jt, l I LEGEND
IAIE AREA PARK AREA
rv Ar ~ L ~ L
I J I 7 f ,1 T r ~ ! ~ !I _ iR.S<t9
! vROleCi LANDS R Ur
I
14POSED RELOCATED F M,• 455 4S !
! J U w-~ " 1) Nk THE NEVAUONS AND DATA SHOWN ARE
r
1ARK YREWMNARS' AI40 SUBJECT !0 REVISION WHEN
'1!'}~ I All DETAILED STUDIES ARE COMPIE FED
i 77 777 i
1 r Z TRINITY RJ4ER BASIN
F E' EIAl. FORK, 10,NITY RIVER, TE>A$
u ' 2 it S I~ nA; RAY ROBERTS LAKE
't r W/ f J U$ ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, FORT WORN
CORPS OF ENOINFERS
fl " Box 11300
I •Y iQRi P70PIH, TEXAS 76102
1982
jt
GREENBELT CORRIDOR BUTWEKK
RAY ROBERTS AND LEWISVILLE LAKES
o The concept was originally reported as a recreation alternative in the
1974 Supplemental Information Report to the GDM for Ray Roberts Lake.
,o The concept was heartily endorsed in 1975 and 1976 by the USFW3 and
TPWD. In 1976 TPWD expressed an interest in cost sharing and requested
that the Corps initiate a study of its feasibility,
o By letter dated January 28, 1982, the city of Dallas formally requested
that the Fort Worth District investigate the feasibility of a Greenbelt ~
Park in lieu of recreatL)n facilities development at Lewisville Lake for
1 which the cities of Dallas and Denton are contractually obligated.
J o Coordination with TPWD in early 1983 led to delineation of the proposed
corridor as illustrated on the attached map. The plan includes 1,860
S acres of riparian habitats in a corridor roughly six miles long and half
~s a mile wide encompassing eight river miles.
I
,o Facilities development includes twelve miles of trail, two access points
with parking and canoe/Jon boat launching, and a ten unit primitive camp
site.
C o Proposed releases from Ray Roberts Lake are ideal for canoeing, tubing,
and stream fishing. The stream and associated trail systems will pro-
vide access for the aquatic pursuits listed above as well as hiking,
horseback riding, camping, and nature study.
o First cost of the plan Is estimated at $3,095,000 (compared to
$4,322,000 for new facilities at Lewisville). Benefits are estimated at
$1,587,400 annually (compared to $1,548,900 for Lewisville facilities).
o 'By letters dated June 27, 280 ant' 29, the cities of Dallas and Denton
Li and the TPWD have expressed their interest in coat-sharing in the
initial development of the Greenbelt. Dallas and Denton would sponsor
the Greenbelt in substitution for their facilities obligations at
Lewisville. TPWD would provide 25% financing up-front and would assure
' all AMER.
r o The Fort. Worth District will submit a Supplemental Master Plan for Ray
Roberts Lake to Southwestern Division in late July 1983 which will seek
approval of the C-eenbelt Recommenoation. Also submitted will be a
draft supplement to the CDM and draft contracts with the local sponsors.
A Public Notice of availability of the CIA and draft FONSI will be
issued at about the same time.
k y
CANOE LAUNCH x
PARKING 15
r v
TRAIL
4 ~P
y ~~7 r. r v 5: TO STILLING
P BASIN
ARKING A. REST
- ACcl
PARK,
2153
h,
~ gyro-;?9'
~ )1! ~ 7I11f~~~p
f
I 41f
r/ q ` 1 .ttII
7 ip•
r\ ~Iii~t !~1
/ 3 7 f S'i
t tl)b~ c 5 n ~ti?[y/ 2
s o~ t
q'f
4
i
I y
Is'y1 d i ~ A
I ~k
11~ti ~l r~ 4IP
~ r 1 Q11
f ~ c tb
~vt fl N ~ r
_ ~a r11 ~~t t y f rF~ ~ i4 t~r~t~
1~f' Sytiye~t' ~ tr + ~ t
t Y
Ra Rti t.~ f~yi,P y v f.. ~`t
`+~1 ~ t rya ~ t
' Ii1+1
E8 kOiNT • `
'ir~ca I6 ~ ` y
tl
f
0 1/4 1/2 I
a
i
LEGEND
( FLOWAGE EASEMENT LANDS
FEE LANDS
i
® SPECIFIC RECREATION LANDS
I
f LIMITS OF FLOWA(3E EASEMENT f
LIMITS OF GREENBELT CORRIDOR
Ntlfllll ~ ,
1
I
U.B AgMy F.NOINfEq plq 7gfCT, FORT WOR~rH
'f14
0b " OI CNtloi F[4h
_ f0~1 ~e1lnlIRIS
2mi RAY ROWRTS LAKE
'i+•~ 1' ELM F6RK tRINI'EY RIVER, TEAS
s_ Kltu
.Lr.ro - GREENBELT CORRIDOR
9! A ~4r~x+
_ xnurinv w6 _ _ 1__ 1
70 ACgGMIM111 6E5i6`I
o~ll
51EM(gA Hp UM Rp g fovielu xo y
u+7w-~r, CPxelA ~4~Tli"a-i' SepA'MI
ur 3
y
LEWISVILLE LAKE POOL RAISE
0 Lewisville. Lake currently operates at a conservation pool elevation of
515 feet msl. The Ray Roberts Lake project will upsets in tandem with
Lewisville for flood control and water supply, A pool raise at
Lewisville to elevation 522 feet mat has been approved under the Ray
Roberts authorization,
o The pool raise at Lewisville will increase the lake by 61500 acres from
22,480 to 28,980 acres. In addition to Inundation of project lands, the
increased pool size will require conversion of some existing flowage
easement and some fee acquisition to the 529 feet mal elevation.
o The local sponsors for the project are contractually obligated to cost-
share in (1) land required to accommodate the pool raise (2) relocation
of recreation facilities affected by the raise, and (3) recreation lands
required to accommodate new facilities and/or facilities relocations (up
to 2,900 acres).
i o The Fort Worth District is currently initiating mapping activities In
! preparation of a Real Estate Design Memorandum. The Real Estate DM will
be submitted to Southwestern Division for approval about the and of
1984.
j o If the Fort Worth District's recommendation on the Greenbelt Corr d
or Is
not approved by higher Corps authority, the master plan update for
Lewisville will also include new recreation facilities development for
which Dallas and Denton are contractually obligated,
I
~ I
r
t
i
I
i
J
I
r
I
I
i
1
i
1Y10ly FORM
10 A 340•
REFERENCE OR OFFICE 16; IA. Prep Oi .p.n cy is TAG O.
SYMBOL
SWFPL-R
ToX Conference Notes - Ra JUN 1
XXXX THRU SWFED-DC FROM " Y Roberts Lake Master plan 6 2J43
SWFPL ogre
TO SWFPL-R Files 24 May 1983 CMTf
Mr., wiyd/Pgw/4-209.5
discuss
A meeting was held at the offices of t Water UCilities a
r SWD comments on the he Dallas
Ray Roberts Lake Master Plan and currant ecreation development costa for n 17 may Y Roberts Laka, Y 1 s t to
n
The followin ~ efforts to reduce
Tom Taylor, Cit g were in attendance;
Tom Andnrson y of Dallas
Larry , City Of Dallas
McDaniel, City Of De21ae
Dave Ham, City of Denton
Roger Hamilton, Cor s of
Engineers Armstrong, Corps Of Engineers
f 1 Steve Wild Engineers
Corps of Engineers
2' The followin
t Pertinent
discussed; SWD comments on the Ray Roberts Lake Master Plan were
SWD Comment, Savings
area pullouts C8n be realized b '
Pullouts, This recommended uainb crushed by deleting asphalt
design can increase the carrying screenings paying on camte
to the park user. or similar mat Picnic
Ycapacity as well as quaIit oa all
Discussion, y of experience
It was explained that this
and Wildlife Department proposal had been
recreational facilities atP a who are currentl Prea
For the camping project, Y Planning Co operate
te and to the Texas Parks
TPWb ae and Picnic Using crushed limestone instead malant:sin all
a measure which wouldl require could save a
rejectsd q ire a higher degree $560,000 but wassphalt paving
Mr, Taylor felt
discussions with TPWD that this eaviins Of maintenance and was awed by
1r. Hamilton agreed wsa significant enou h , consequently, tly,
SWD Comment Bread to pursue the Issue with TPWD once agai
historical resources which are relevant to management needs, data on existing archaological_
Discussion.
- It was stated that the
of existing archeul°gical and Corps his is in the
these, a listing OF si s orical rc Process of cOmpilin
gnificant r sources for inclusion in the mastern inventory
recommended action will be eanurces worth
of
acquire existing atructuresawithfnetya Y of additional investigations andP n.
aea
the tje8
ch
It was further explained that an requests ea.
thakOtheir of Dallas and Denton Project be
prior to Covernma handled through•the indivdual
a Owners
restoring participation wou7 b nt acquisition, by
g Etch structures, Mr,Hamilloadtated°that excessive Mr' Anderson p
with the cost involved in m explains
Memorandum of A d
Roberts. greement I.
001 bein Feature Design moving and
g prepared for culturaMemorandum conuistent
l resources at Ray
SWD°- C-- ' Recommend consideration be
ddveloin According to the given to dei'ezzin
likely be ~ he area is development of Culp
P g the amount of vegetativee t almost devoid the revel
excessive at this time, cover nacessar dOf e ee tzoire be Cover,
Y to cre6~te a• dle The cost of
tmosphare would
)A ~AUQaa
. " P11aVioug EOITfONS WILL s .
a Usao
k U.S G P,O, lugp,
SWFPL-R
SUBJECT; Conference Notes -Rap Roberts Lake Master Plan 1
Discussion, It was explained that the Corps would defer plans for the initial develop-
ment of- C~ u- 1P Branch Park, resulting in an approximate $1,000,000 savings in initial devel-
opment costa, Dallas and Denton were in agreement with the deferrment plans. Other
alternative interim uses for the park were also discussed,
SWD Comment. If the Texas Parka and Wildlife Department assumes management of project
lands anted recreation development, it would appear logical that it would also assume respon-
sibility for fire control of those resources. Recommend the discussion be revised to
reflect that eventuality.
Discussion. ion. it was explained that the discussion in the master plan dealing with fire
protection reeponsibilities would be revised to indicate that TPWD would have the
responsibility for fire protection of the project with aid and cooperation from the Corps
of Engineers, primary
SWDSWD Cent. Discussion in the master plan speaks of the 130 cfa as a certainty. It
should reflect that part of the flow depends on the development of h dr
should be revised accordingly. y opower. Discussion
Discussio,
It was explained that this comment was in errur, as planned water, releases
V would b'done-for water supply purposes with hydropower simply taking advantage of these
releases. Mr. Taylor stated that releases may be planned to coincide with peak eloctrieal
use periods, however, this would not affect the net overall releases for water supply pur-
poses, The city of Dallas agreed to recheck the accuracy of the 130 cfe figure,
Comment. An explanation, identifying specific reasons, for the variance in esti-
mated cost between the P9-3 and current, estimate should be included.
Discussion.
It was stated that the Rrimary reasons for the increase in estimated
recreat onal costs for Rey Roberts Lake were; underestimation of utility costa, design
changes, and additional recreation features not
~ i previously identified,
' SWD Comment. Coat for park roads of $205,000/mi, appears to be excessive. When park
roast are sae fined in accordance with EM 1110-2-410, the coats should be reduced by at
mast $50,000/mi,
Discussion. The costs per mile for park roads were based on the Corps' last completed
project and indexed to current rice levels. The last completed
Corps
projects were
Granger and Georgetown Lakes, These drainage, soils, and topography, so itrwascfoltrthattthesunitacost per~~milenfigureewaswith
excessive'for the Ray Roberts project. It was explained that for matter planning purposes,
the Corps would use TPWD unit costs plus 15 percent for park roads,
per mile for primary park roads from $205,000 to $144,000, secondar This reduced thepuoat3175,000 to $121,000, ,and gravel roads from $1.30,000 to
l'^ y park roads £rom
i ,000,
3. Recreation Costs
General Discussion. It was explained that the Corps' efforte to
reduce the overall recreation costoriginally
resulted in a reduction of. $7,324,900 for a total initial eandnfuture rdevelopmentPcost
had
~ (excluding Isle duHoia Park) of $27
adopting 'g Isle unit cost amounts ,200 500. This reduction was primarily a result-of',
i
(Plus 15 percent) for roads, camping and picnic units, And
2
Y'7
es - Ray Roberts Lake Master plan
-velopment plans for Culp Branch Park, and miscellaneous corrections
was further explained that as a result of the dramatic increases in
lorpa and TPWD personnel involved in the recreation planning of Ray
cost conscious and would explore additional means of reducing
•:ire design documents were prepared. Mr. Taylor was generally
)f recreation cost reductions, however, emphasized the need to con-
i'_ton costs whenever the opportunity to do so exist. He noted that
' Fall substantially
=h the cities of Dallas greater and than
Denton. been originally projected in the
nt. Mr. Hamilton explained that progress on the proposed green-
rearing ponds was being made. Further coordination bey).weea all
iowever, required to determine 1) the leval and source of nou-
on on the greenbelt, and 2) water usage arrangements for the
)onds, and park irrigation. Mr. Hamiltou su
' '„!se topics with the cities of Denton and Dallas, and.TPWDtbefore
.•,i-,c•pcrated into the upcoming master plan supplement and draft coat
n':i desire to negotiate an agreement concerning the water use require-
recreation, and fish and wildlife features against the coat sharing
rs of each co-sponsor of the greenbelt, Mr. Taylor felt that an
ie request of TPWD for use of reservoir waters for irrigation and
' ass would be to allow such use if TPWD would agree to cost-share at
total greenbelt coats. Mr. Hamilton suggested
this point be
i i =:ty sponsors and TPWD du,.°,ng the next proposed ed m eating.
spared the cost benefit ratio of the
proposed development at Lewisville Lake, noting that thebintentaofsSWPhat
~;belt corridor inilieu of all new recreation development at
r,tlained that the coat of the greenbelt and Its associated develop-
;.5 million dollars lees than the anticipated recreation i!avelopment
at Lewisville.
He also noted that the benefits from the
.ar titan those to be realized from the Lewisville reereatioudevelop-
1' _ t g
':talized that with the additional recreation benefits to be realized
r- fit plan, a reduction in the recreational development of Ray Roberts
propoced Lewisville recreation development would be in order,
ideed the recreation benefits to be realized from the greenbelt
" lau those proposed to be deleted at Lewisville Lake, However, the
, associated with the
greenbelt were different than the types of use
_ sloped parks on Ray Roberts Lake. Although SWF felt it could
. _
.k development at Lewisvi.lla Lake in lieu of the greenbelt develop-
` of park development at Ray Roberts was felt to be unwarranted, In
t at Ray Roberts could incroase as a result of the greenbelt, since
expected to camp at Ray Robor.ts in order to float the greenbelt
i
1
i
3
SWFPL-R
SUBJECT: Conference Notes - Ray Roberts Lake Master Plan
The meeting was adjourned with the understanding that the Corps would respond to comments
made by Dallas and Denton on the Draft version of the Master Plan and would send copies of
the master plan final for their review and approval.
D. L XLLS
Chief, Planning Division
TOM TAYLOR 1 CHRI U C -
l City of Dallas J City of Denton
Copies Furnished:
Tom Taylor, City of Dallas
Chris Hartung, City of Denton
J
I .
j
~ I
l
1
f
i
I
I
i
f} ,
9
t
s 4
r
}
CITY OF DENTON
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: File-(iaj-RSjj`rEs`Recreati
FROM: R. E. Nelson, Director of Utilities
DATE: November 24, 1981
RE: Ray Roberts Recieation Plan
Meet ins of l]. 23 alp With the Cis Of -Engineers, Dallas
and Denton.
Present: Mr. F,ajiwara
Denver Mills
l Steve Wilde
Roger
Garry McDaniel
1"..E. Nelson
f 1. Mr. Fujiwara's staff explained the history of the plan.
a) Developed in 1973 originally had six parks, Isle duBois,
j Johnson Branch, Culp Branch, Jordan, Buck Creek, and Pecan
Creek. Isle duBois was to be the largest with over 1000
acres; Buck and Pecan to be 1.00 to 200 acres and the
remaining, Johnson, Culp and Jordan, to be 250-400 acres.
{ I
{ b) In the contract negotiations in 1980, the Corps agreed to
reduce the size of the parks by 208 which was determined to
f be the most optimum. The citiosi desired this to hold down
future operating costs.
I
c) in early 1981, the Texas Department of Parks tentatively
agreed to operate and maintain the parka provided they could
be grouped so that they could be controlled with limited
Li i access controlled entry gates. The State had previously
agreed to operate the large isle d1113oia Park. To
accommodate this desire, conoideration was givern to seducing
the number of parks from 6 to 3 and substanti'al'ly enlarging
t Johnson and Jordan parks and provide boat launching ramps
only at Culp, Buck and Pecan parks. Aiso, the Corps found it
} was necessary to increase the acreage to accommodate the
contract required camping and picnic facilities.
d) Certain local landowners objected to this plan, since it
took all or substantially more of their properties. A
re-evaluation was conducted and the present plan was
developed.
11~
i
G,
e) The present plan establishes four larger parks, three to be
developed at present, Isle duBois, Johnson Branch, and Culp
Branch, and Jordon to be developed later, but the land would
be purchased at present. Three minor park areas would also
be developed, Buck Creek, Pecan Creek and Spring Creek, with
approximately 25 picnic tables and four boat ramps in each.
These parks will have approximately the following acreage
and facilities:
Park Camp Pic Boat
Culp 100- 200- 0-
Pecan 0- 25- 4-
Johnson 430- 200•- 4-
Buck 0- 25- 4-
Jo!:dan 400- 0- 8-
Isle Dubois 900- 100•- 12
Spring Crk 0- 25- 4-
Acres
1132eciilc Project Total_
j 21053 1,470 31523
2. This plan takes into consideration local
property owner
j concerns, Corps of Engineers' space concerns for total facility
requirEw)nts, State of Texas controlled access and operation
concerns, and although it causes the cities to expend slightly
more for land then previously anticipated, it removes the long
term operational concerns. The plan appears to be a very good
plan for all concerned and Dallas and Denton agreed to support
the plan.
R. E, Nelson, Director of Utilities
gcr
- raP ~ r
oy"
I -,o
r
10- IN,
~nl/
3a 1~#,. t1 f "~'r1~~ I ~•A ~ AyRy,f~ 'I /~r 1 rl r~l v~ I\
q 1f _ f,
fl f a ' ^.•al, _:knr l ~ y~ i' f, } f: { Vfj'~ r,. 1,1
F t I I
GI ,1 n !l♦l, f f 111 I 1 ~l ~f ~ l
ilk
VALLEY VIEW
` ! V f 1 7 'R . 7 Kt I I E!
PC.CAN
:i1~ ru s~ CREEK
~ ~ w I I r ~'~1 b sA .~r r' iaRAR ♦ tiv,F
JOI INSON
ib, nt ~ ~ ~ 1 r •~I P/,RK
I I pp / I1fr Sr.
i1, i ♦ I f' ! J 1
3 1J 1'YS 11r rr \ .
I " I SANGER
~v
1
CULP IjRANC11 PARK
1. r•Ri 'or }r^ .1 AURREY
_w._, ~.11_~.,. ik_. ~ ``-~.=i<.._...LJi~ ( 7._.l•:~Y..._ l~~te ~,.`E~.~s.i.
_ ,1uBNEr LAKE:
w UW-~
- ~ I
„L F F(I u(
L i 1 Ll E (IUJ IL",'AY 15,250FEE1
T ' 1
J I I iE Ir II ,TAU. A ARO/F SIRE<,,tBLi( 141 Fill
:'D III OT (4D',. rl 46 FFF.T
TIFF N OiI IR OLICF) ENU DCFbPIV
A COIIINJV !LLE I ? ~J vil IT CREO1 Ioa rIET
I 1:, ~~k F- T1 C1r57 EIE'AIION .•6~.E sU,N
1 i it SEA LE El 6455 FEET
~I OUTLET WORKS
V F E' , I J cAIE(OFUROULO UriD(gl,
F 1 4 17 HE, jr: LN."AEIEN
13 f
lr ~ , CJ iP 7A FL - 17 ILiI SF 4VIiE
n !y
.
! f ~ ' h f. ' ' ~ I , ; 1 t' i St~uE ,)arFS
I471nE IN'- tNI I LEVANON AaQlE
--%E AN SE. LEVEL 551 FEET
a, ! I LAKE
1 I F.r1
I ~ A' ~ i1, I 1! F1UOD CONIROI POOL
I•. L 3N , L_. ~ Y ELf7A110.4 ABOVL ',)(AN SEA IE'I❑ 6405 F C E I
r-~-.1A 11t' ti• 269,900 ACRE FEEL
SURFAU AREA
16.900 ACRES
1 ! - / l 7 EIEIVATION ABCM 'AN SEA (EVEI 6375 FEET
u9`'~ CAPA( Tr 749 . 00 ACRE FEET
?6 t~
t F „J- , ? I SGiFACE ANL'A 79,350 ACRES
YY„ 1 SWIMENF STORAGE 51600 ACK FEET
V •,,;~ETF' , F a TOTAL CONFROLTEU 570RAGF. 1, 064,600 ACNE FEET
SIREAW D. APPR011 %AIF LLE\ACON
' r ( l,F ail ~FI F F~ ABOVE MEAN SEA LEVEL 574 FEET
t 1 f1 Ti,dr.~yF
Ii I k T I .r 14 ~..1 •-t~Y r T~{.,. __f ti...i
y fE h
TIO{GA ~ ~ FLOODL CONTROL POOL EL 640. 51 I• N L lk fi
L. CONSERVATION POOL EL 6325'
.
,
Q 4UCK fiEEK PARK
1; f R 'd S t.Ie'i*1t
N ..,JORDAN PARK ~ ty J ~ j
f S
f " F
PILOT POINT I,a~
I
~I
411k LANE AREA
i
, NOW PARK r1PFM1 ,
IW' 1 I~ II L vf" PROlE6F ,
- r r L r
PROPOSED RELOCATED F M, 455 i•` I , + NorF
J A l• „1 '.I TILE CTEVA110N5 ANU UAIA 9110W 1 ARE
NREDMINARI AND SUBJECT 10 RE'A510N WIIEI4
i lTO All DETAILED SLUDIE5 ARE MP -
U 15 PARK 1 t co u1E1
fL D 1 F,I ~ L~FJ 1 ~
f TRIrtliY RIVER BASIN
ELAI L(7RN, INFNITY RIVER, TEAS
RAY ROBERTS LAKE
US ARMY E,VGINTER UISIRICT FORT WORFN
1 I' I Sf h( I CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. onx 17300
1 1 , - I'•l, WRI 16109TN, 1EXA576102
f, 1 L 1, IJ, ',.N' 1491
v
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
+1 FORT WORTH DISTRICT. CORPS OF Et4rMrERS
P. 0 b0% 17300
L p1 ,y / FORT WORTH. TEXAS 7C6IO2
UPLY TO
ATTENTION Of,
SWFFD-PR 9 (ktober 1981
ll
~Ir. Chris Hartung OCT',4 lam,
City of Denton
Municiple Building ~
Denton, TX 76201 CITY OF DENTON
MANAGER'S OFFICE
Denr Mr. flartung:
Inclosed is a copy of the final DF) Subject: Conference Notes -
Lake Project, dated 2'1 July 1981, on the meeting of 5 June 1981 Ray Roberts
s
Sincerely,
I r`
I
l lncl S T J RtX
As stated '
i f, ,ngineering Division
f
I
I
(
1
1
1
i
v
r
r'
i
i!
- r.
' l ISPOSITION FORM
Per us* of this for X
_ m. se. AR 310•I5r the proponent op.ncy is TAGCEH.
Kt IERENCE ON OFFICE SY.MAOI. SJNNCI
SWFED-PR Conference Ngtga__-Ray11D}ie To SEE DISTRIBUTION FROM a _Puz)rtL
SIJFED-P
1W DATE 27 Jul 81 CMT I
Ms. wild/ajr/2095
11 A meeting'was held in the Executive Conference Room on 5 June 1981 to discuss
recreation responsibilities for the Ray Roberts Lake Project with representatives n
from the cities of Dallas and Denton and the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department
(TPWD)• The following were in attendance) µ
Corps of Engineers
ineers
Texas Parks and Wildlife
S. Fu,jiwara, Ch, Engrg Div
James Bell, Parka Director
D. L. Mills/ Ch, Ping Br Mike Herring, System Ping Br
Ray Losornio, Project Ngr
\ Pete Wersal, Ping Br'
l Steve Wild, Plug Br
Bud Rolfe, Ofe of Counsel
City of Denton City of Dallas
I Chris Hartung, City Manager Tom Taylor, Utilities Director
Steve Brickman, Parks & Rec
E Tom Anderson, Parks &Rec efa,:;,
Larry McDaniel, P1ng Dept
Bac_round. Prior discussions between the Corps of E
~ ngxneere, the pities of
E Dallas and Denton, and the TPWD dealt with the fo3.lotling conceptsr
as The potential for shifting the development of six relatively small parks to a
fewer number, possibly two or three large parks, at Ray Roberts Lake to reduce OM&R
and development costs.
b1 The possible need for additional specific recreation lands at Ray Roberts
Lake to adequately accommodate the amount of facility development needed for initial
and future nerdoo
1 c. The possibility of TPO developing and/or operating additional park areas and
project lands, over and above the State Park (Tale de Bois Park).
do The development ats Ray i Roberts Lae and designing
rand eimbursed conatructing
for all all te
the '~costs,iexcoptrthosen
related to the State Parke
e. Concern expressed at the public recreation workshop over the lack of
recreational development on the west side of Ray Roberts Lakes
f. Various plans for accomplishing OM&R for the additional recreation facilities
at Lewiavtlle Lake.
i
fit I I R), 2496 IIF.PI,ACE9 on Fort A 96, WIIICN IS OaSUI,ETE.
ii U. B.e P0; 1814611 fLPBf lA 129
:r
_ Y
shy en-PR
SUBJECT: Conference ;Votes - Ray Roberts Lake Project 27 Jul 81
36 The meeting opened with a presentation by Mr. Bell and Mr. Herring from TPWD in
which they presented a proposal of recreation facilities which they were prepared to
develop and/or operate at Ray Roberts Lake. The plan consisted of design and
construction by TPWD at the original, State Park site. OM&R would be done by the
State at State expense. The State would assume the OM&R on Johnson Branch Park if
the park could be expanded to the point where all the Initial recreation facilities
would be located within the two parks, except for several, small day use areas (access
areas), consisting of boat ramps, picnic, and sanitary facilities which would also be
operated and maintained by TPWD. The access areas would serve as a means of free
access to the west and east sides of the lake. Total specific, recreation lands for
the TPWD plan was estimated at 1,650 acres for the State Nark and Johnson Branch
Park. A third park area was diarussed as a possibility for future facilities and, if
needed, could be used as a low density recreation/wildlife management area on sit
interim basis. On the basis of past plans, the third park could be at Jordan Park,
Culp Branch, or elsewhere. TPWD proposed that they also assume operation and ,
maintenance of all fenced project lands in addition to the developed park areas.
Corps and local sponsors j
a
way to manage Ray Roberts recreation usage. ~t~ThepCorps sofnr{ng•Lneersewoulderetainized
operation and maintenance of the project operation areas, including the embankment.
k, The State plan that was agreed toy proposed that the TNWD would plan, design, and
construct the Isle de bois Park on a 50-50 cost share basis with the Corps, The TPWD
would also be responsible for conceptual site plans for Johnson Branch as well as all
access areas., The Corps stated the concepts for all parks and theme for the lake
would need to be compatible, The Corps and TPWD would cost share on a 50-50 basis
for these conceptual site plane. Conceptual site plans would need to be approved by
E the Corps through channels as part of internal coordination and approval process.
Further design end construction of Johnson Branch parks and access areas would be
done by the, Corps and cities on a 50-50 cost sharing basis. A further breakdown of
responsibilities is shown in Summary of Responsibilities.
f j 54 The Corps agreed to combine study of the two park system proposed by the TPWD for
1 Ray Roberts Lake into the overall proposed analysis of several different park
configurations.
I ~
6. Tom Taylor suggested that the cities of Dallas and Denton attempt to got the city
of Lewisville involved in 01.10. of the additional recreation fncilities required of
the local sponsors at Lewisville Lake, Mr. Taylor felt that If the facilities could
be located adjacent to the city of Lewisville, the city might be interooted in
operating a park. Cities would take the lead in opening discussions with the city of
Lewisville,
7. Actions to be taken.
a. Cor.pe to analyze advantages and disadvantages of planned park system versus
other and fewer parks,
b. Corps to begin work on Phase II of Master Plan schedule.
2
y
'i
A
SWFED-PR
SUBJECT: Conference Notes - Ray Robert Lake Project 21 Jul 81
C. Corps to supply TPWD with maps,
d. TPWD to begin work on recreation concepts and furnish concepts to the Corpa
by 1 Oct 81.
e. Modify Master Plan schedule to reflect TPWD involvement and time chain es
already encountered.
f. Initiate preparation of recreation contract for TPWD. Include provision for
cost sharing on expenditures made prior to the affective date of the contract.
4
g. Initiate preparation of supolement to Dallas and Denton recreation contracts
to reflect TPIJD becoming a sponsor,
h. Determine location of additional recreation facilities at Lewisville Lake,
i. Corps to begin on supplement to recreation appendix of GDM 112.
8. Summary of Responsibilities.
I
as Roberts Lake
Accomplished Payment
Action BY of coat
i Isle de Bois Park
Land acquisition (specific rec lands) Corps TPWD & Corps*
I Master Plan „
10
Recreation concepts
pp
II Plans and specs
Construction „
l Operation, maintenance, and replacement TPWD
i ~
Johnson Branch Park
Land acquisition (specific rec lands) Corps Cities & Corpa*
Master Plan 01 to
t Recreation concepts TPWD TPWD & Corps*
j Feature uesign Memorandum Corps Cities & Corps*
Plano and Speer;
Construecion
Operation, maii-enancep and replacement TPWD TPWD
3
I
Other Parks and Day Use Areas (access areas)
Master Plan Corps Cities & Corps*
Recreation Concepts TPWD TPWD & Corps*
Feature Design Memorandum Corps Cities & Corps*
Plana and specs „
Construction „
Operation, maintenance, and replacement TPWD TPWD
i
3
w
j
SWFLD-PR 27 Jul 81
SUBJECTt Conference Notes - Ray Roberts Lake Project
b. Lewisville Lake
Accomplished Payment
Action By of cost
Land acquisition (specific rec lands) Corps Cities & Corps*
Master Plan
Recreation concepts
Feature Design Memorandum
Plans and specs
1. !1
Construction
Operation, maintenance, and replacement Cities Cities
*50-50 cost sharing.
THOtIAS x. V~~
Acting Chief, Planning Branch
T M TAYL RI
City of Da as City of Denton
DISTRIBUTIONt
j Tom Taylor, City of Dallas
Chris Hartung, City of Denton
i Jim Bell, Texas Parke b Wildlife
S. Fujiwara, Corps of Engineers
r
ti
i
I ~
1
f
1
t
1
i
r _ ,
Y
I
j9l
loll 1s tuater utilities
100 YEARS Of WATER SERVICES
September 23, 1981 SE k' 2 1~ 3~
CITY OF DENTON
MANAGER'S OffICE.
Mr. Chris Hartung
City Manager
City of Denton
215 E, McKinney
-------1 Denton, Texas 76201
Dear Mr. Hartung:
The attached conference notes of the July 27th meeting between the Corps,
Local Sponsors, and the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department are for your
review and signature.
r
Dallas has reviewed this document, found it acceptable, and signed 1c.
Upon your review, if you find it acceptable, please sign Bind then forward
to tar, Corps.
ThavI you for your and your staff's usual excellent cooperation with the
Ray F tab orts Lake project,
Sincerely,
olf"
j Larict Danlel
Pro En gineer
Planning Division
LM:vv
Attachments
' i
City Hall DsPas, Texaa 7827?
I`
r
DISPOSITION FORM
Par via of Ih o fam, (aa AR J/0,15• th, proponant oganq I. TAG~C EN• _
AEPERU,(f pR rME ( OWWL ~ 1. F. tC
SWFED~-DC Conference Notes - Ray Roberts Lake
To SEE DISTRIBUTION FROv SWFED-D DATE 18 May 81 cMTt
Mr. Losornio/dk/2317
1. A meeting was held in the Executive Conference room on 6 April 198]., to discuss
hydropower and recreation at: Ray Roberts Lake with representatives of the cities of
Dallas and Denton, These conference notes pertain only to the discussions concerning
recreation. The attendees were:
Ci_~ of Dallas City of Denton Corps
Tom Taylor Chris Hartung Shig Fujiwara
Clarence Warnstaff Bob Nelson Bill Jobes
Larry McDaniel. Denver Mills
Tom Anderson David Killen
- Bill Fickel
Pilar Pena
James Perkins
Steve Wild
Weldon Scrivner
Ray Losornio
2, Mr. Fujiwara briefly discussed the three recreation plans that the Corps studied
as a result of the 15 Jan 81 meeting with representatives of the cities, State. and
the Corps. Plan 1 being the original six park system, plan 2 the three park system wi h
basically the same amount of lands as contained in plan 1, and plan 3 additional land
for a three park system initiated by the State,
3. Mra Wild explained that plan 2 was a compromise schema recommended by the Corps
that would require approximately an additional 250 acres of specific recreation land
j { over plan 1, but with a reduction in facilities to match the cost allocation. Mr. Wil
recommended rejecting plan 1 because of management problems of the parks as expressed
I by both the cities and the State. Plan 3 was recommended for rejection because an
I additional 2,000 acres of land would be required which would be excessive land
purchased to the amount of ta?ilities needed. The Corps had made the State aware of
{ the problema associated with plan 3 and the State had agreed to take another look at
their request.
I
4. Mr. Taylor expressed the desire to proceed with plan 2 which will Fa presented to
the public in a cities sponsored workshop to be held in Denton in mid-May, All partie
agreed to adopt plan 2, in concept, with details to be resolved at a later data.
E
i
R/\ F igM61 2496 REPLAG F.S pD CORM 96. WNIC 11 N OdIOLf*E.
DJ/"{ C U.G.U PO~i870.Q 3f 008fiB129
t.
II I"s
}I'
a , 5WFED-DC 18 May 1981
SUBJECT: conference Notes Rhy Roberts Lake
5. A field trip was planned to the proposed park areas prior to the public workshop
with representatives of the cities, State and Corps.
OLLI.i 1', JOBXS, C~1' , Design Branch
THOMAS E. TAYLOR, City of Dal]. s CtdRIG TCNG, C4ty n enton 011' J
DISTRIBUTION:
Tom Taylor, City of Dallas
Chris Hartung, City of Dentoa
r Shigeru Fujiwara, Corps of Engineers
I ! i
- ~ I s
} I ' 1
i
j
1
i
i
i
i
10,
t ;
I PUBLIC HEARING ON RAY ROBERTS RESERVOIR
PURPOSE OF MEETING &
BACKGROUND OF RECREATION PLANNING
PRESENTED BY
G. CHRIS HARTUNG, CITY MANAGER
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
MAY 13, 1981
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN;
MY NAME IS CHRIS HARTUNG, CITY MANAGER OF THE CITY OF
I DENTON, I WILL BE SERVING AS YOUR HOST TONIGHT,
r' THE PURPOSE OF TONIGHT'S MEETING IS TO RECEIVE
SUGGESTIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FROM YOU, THE PUBLIC, REGARDING THE
1 RECREATIONAL DEVELOPMENT OF RAY ROBERTS LAKE, THIS HEARING IS BEING
SPONSORED BY THE CITIES OF DENTON AND DALLAS AND WILL SERVE AS A
SOURCE OF INFORMATION WHICH WILL BE PROVIDED TO THE CORPS OF
ENGINEERS FOR THEIR DEVELOPMENT OF THE MASTER PLAN FOR RECREATION ON
I
1 RAY ROBERTS LAKE,
I
AS THE FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS, I WOULD LIKE TO INTRODUCE
THE VARIOUS PEOPLE THAT ARE HERE WITH ME TONIGHT, SOME OF WHOM WILL
BE SPEAKING WITH YOU LATER ON IN THE PROGRAM, AND OTHERS WHO ARE
HERE TO ANSWER SPECIFIC QUESTIONS THAT YOU MAY HAVE,
4 CITY OF DALLAS STATE OF TEXAS
CITY OF DENTON CORPS OF ENGINEERS
i
`I
i 3
i~Fd11tUC 1I=((`-t-~i
f, C
1
l fFN,o ; .v c t fir{ t t
f ~
t-
~ l II f
I
0) a V 'nI `
lti
i
i
AT THIS TIME, I WOULD LIKE TO CALL UPON MAYOR STEWART OF
DENTON FOR A FEW OPENING REMARKS,
(MAYOR'S SPEECH)
AS AN EXPLANATION OF THE FORMAT OF TONIGHT'S MEETING, I
WILL BE MAKING A FEW REMARKS REGARDING THE PURPOSE OF THE MEETING
AI4D THE BACKGROUND OF THE RECREATIONAL PLANNING,
REP
_ WILL THEN
DISCUSS SOME OF THE RECREATIONAL PLAN CONCEPTS AND POSSIBLE
ALTERNATIVES THEN, MR. Uge,~DIRECTOR OF THE PARKS DEPARTMENT
FOR THE STATE OF TEXAS, WILL SHOW A FEW SLIDES AND DISCUSS VARIOUS
PARK FACILITIES THAT HIS DEPARTMENT HAS DEVELOPED AROUND THE STATE
OF TEXAS, WE HOPE THAT THESE PRESENTATIONS WILL HELP US VISUALIZE
SOME OF THE ALTERNATIVES THAT ARE AVAILABLE, AFTER THESE
PRESENTATIONS, THE MEETING WILL THEN BE OPEN TO PUBLIC COMMENTS FROM
THE AUDIENCE,
NOW, 1 WOULD LIKE TO DISCUSS THE BACKGROUND OF THE RAY
ROBERTS RECREATIONAL PLANNING, THE CITIES OF DENTON AND DALLAS HAVE
FOR MANY YEARS PROMOTED THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE RAY ROBERTS PROJECT
} INCLUDED IN THIS HAS BEEN OUR INTEREST IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF -"*4td j"k
RECREATIONAL FACILITIES AROUND THE LAKE, THEREFORE, THE CITIES
I
z
i
e
n
1
ff 1
DECIDED TO CONDUCT THIS WORKSHOP TONIGHT, WITH THE ENDORSEMENT OF
THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS, AS A MEANS OF RECEIVING PUBLIC IDEAS
CONCERNING RECREATION, WE WANT TO ASSURE YOU THAT EVERY COMMENT
THAT IS PRESENTED THIS EVENING OR SUGGESTION LISTED ON THE COMMENT
SHEETS PASSED OUT EARLIER WILL RECEIVE SINCERE ATTENTION, ONLY BY
YOUR INPUT CAN WE BEST DETERMINE WHAT THE PUBLIC WANTS AND NEEDS IN
THE FORM OF RECREATIONAL FACILITIES ON
RAY ROBERTS LAKE,
THE RECREATIONAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR RAY ROBERTS LAKE IS
V ~ JUST NOW GETTING UNDERWAY,
THE PLAN MUST T BE DEVELOPED WITHIN THE
j NEVT SIX MONTHS TO A YEAR BY THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS WITH INPUT FROM
YOU, THE PUBLIC, AND THE CITIES OF DENTON AND DALLAS, NO FIRM
COMMITMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE TO DATE BY ANYONE REGARDING RECREATIONAL
FACILITIES AT RAY ROBERTS LAKE,
i ~
i
LET ME JUST 'FAKE A MOMENT TO MENTION SOME OF THE FACTS
ABOUT THE RAY ROBERTS PROJECT, IT IS INDEED A UNIQUE PROJECT IN THE
UNITED STATES,
I S ~f1=--
~?9~4',°` 1 ILL COMPARE IN SIZE WITH LEWISVILI E LAKE, RAY
ROBERTS WILL BE CONSTRUCTED AS A FEDERAL PROJECT BY THE CORPS OF
ENGINEERS, THE CITIES OF DENTON AND DALLAS ARE THE LOCAL SPONSORS
OF THE LAKE AND HAVE ENTERED INTO CONTRACTS WITH THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT AGREEING TO PAY BACK CERTAIN COSTS OF THE LAKE THAT ARE
F
RELATED TO WATER SUPPLY AND RECREATION RAY ROBERTS LAKE IS ALONG
THE FIRST FEDERALLY FINANCED LAKES WHERE THE LOCAL SPONSORS ARE
BEING REQUIRED TO PROVIDE MUCH OF THE. RECREATIONAL FACILITIES EACH
CITY HAS SIGNED A SEPARATE WATER SUPPLY AND RECREATIONAL CONTRACT,
THE RECREATIONAL CONTRACT THAT DENTON AND DALLAS SIGNED WITH THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT REQUIRES THAT THE CITIES PAY BACK y THE COSTS
RELATED TO RECREATION, IN ADDITION, THE CITIES ARE RESPONSIBLE, FOR
THE FULL OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE COSTS OF THE RECREATIONAL
FACILITIES ONCE THEY ARE COMPLETED,
I
- THE DESIGN OF THE RECREATIONAL FACILITIES AROUND RAY
ROBERTS AKE IS VERY IMPORTANT, THE FACILITIES MUST BE ,S f{-T"> PT
THE PUBLIC ENJOY AND WILL USE THEM. TH ITIES MUST ALSO
GENERATE NO REVENN HELP OFFS, E COST OFQtOPERATIONS AND
MAINTENANCE, ALTHOUGH BE REQUIRED SOME OF THE
t
FACILITIES, THERE WI SITES AROUND RR~6 TS LAKE WHICH WILL
NOT REQUIRE A FEES HOWEVER, IN TH FACILITY
I
AREAS T ARE HIGHLY DEVELOPED RECREATIONAL AREAS WITH PICNIC,
CAM I NG 110 H I K I N67AC I L I T I ES, SOME TYPE OF ENTRANCE OR USER CHARGE
WELL BE NECESSARY
a
rl
THE SITES THAT YOU SEE ON THE MAPS THAT WERE AVAILABLE ON
THE TABLE AS YOU CAME IN THIS EVENING, ARE PROPOSED SITES ONLY. THE
NUMBER OF PARK SITES, THE EXACT LOCATION, AND THE EXACT AREA OF THE
SITES HAVE NOT YET BEEN DETERMINED. IN SOME OF TIME INITIAL
CONSIDERATIONS OF RECREATIONAL FACILITIES AT RAY ROBERTS LAKE
INTRODUCED SEVERAL YEARS AGO, SIX SMALLER PARK SITE LOCATIONS WERE
CONSIDERED, THE MOST RECENT CONSIDERATION IS TO COMBINE THE SIX
SMALLER SITES INTO THREE MAJOR PARK SITES, THIS WILL FACILITATE
BETTER DEVELOPMENT AND BETTER OPERATING CONTROL OF THE RECREATIONAL
SITES, rt
-~TIIERE HAS BEEN NO DETERMINATION MADE AS TO ILIHAT
FACILITIES WILL BE INCLUDED IN THESE PARK SITES. THE CITIES AND THE
CORPS OF ENGINEERS HAVE BEEN WORKING WITH THE STATE OF TEXAS WHO
HAVE INDICATED AN INTEREST IN DEVELOPING THE 1400 ACRE ISLE DU BOIS
STATE PARK ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF RAY ROBERTS LAKE, THAT PARK
j AREA IS INDICATED ON THE MAPS, THE TEXAS PARKS DEPARTMENT PRESENTLY
a
PLANS TO CONSTRUCT AND OPERATE THIS FACILITY AS PART OF THE
RECREATIONAL. DEVELOPMENT OF RAY ROBERTS, IN EFFECT, THE CITIES OF
f DENTON AND DALLAS ARE SUBCONTRACTING THIS PARK SITE TO THE STATE OF
TEXAS FOR DEVELOPMENT AND OPERATION, THE STATE HAS NOT DEVELOPED ITS
PARK PLAN TO DATE BUT WILL BE DEVELOPING ITS PLAN IN THE VERY NEAR
FUTURE ALSO,
i
i
k
yJ~yi
Ri i t
i~
THE STATE OF TEXAS HAS ALSO INDICATED AN INTEREST IN 1
OPERATING AND MAINTAINING AL I. OF THE PARKS AND RECREATIONAL
FACILITIES LOCATED ON RAY ROBERTS LAKE. THE CITIES OF' DENTON AND
DALLAS ARE DISCUSSING THIS POSSIBILITY WITH THE STATE OF TEXAS AT
THE PRESENT TIME, THE CITIES ARE VERY INTERESTED AND ENTHUSED ABOUT
THIS POSSIBILITY, BECAUSE WITH ALL OF THE PARKS UNDER THE
JURISDICTION OF THE STATE OF TEXAS PARKS DEPARTMENT, THE PARKS WOULD
BE OPERATED IN A UNIFORM MANNER AND WOULD BE MAINTAINED WITH THE
SAME HIGH QUALITY STANDARDS THAI' EXIST IN ALL OTHER STATE OF TEXAS
PARKS,
THERE HAVE
BEEN QUESTIONS ABOUT THE PRIVATE LAND AROUND
THE LAKE AND QUESTIONS ABOUT WHAT INDIVIDUALS OR PRIVATE INTERESTS
CAN DO IN CONJUCTION WITH THE LAKE, ONE OF THE QUESTIONS THAT HA
? BEEN ASKED IS, "WOULD THERE BE LAKE FRONT DEVELOPMENT AT L E S
ROBERTSTHE CORPS OF ENGINEERS WILL ACQUIRE LAND AROUND THE LARAY
KE
j WHICH WILL BE UNDER CORPS' CONTROL, THIS LAND WILL
SERVE
AS A
i
BUFFER ZONE BETWEEN THE LAKE AND PRIVATELY OWNED LAND THAT SURROUNDS
THE LAKE, AS A GENERAL RULE, THE CORPS WILL PROVIDE SOME FENCE TO DESIGNATE THE PROJECT LANDS, THE FENCE MAY BE
MERELY POLES
IN THE GROUND WITH A CABLE BETWEEN THEM OR IT COULD POSSIBLY BE A
CHAIN LINK FENCE, THE PURPOSE OF THE FENCE IS TO GIVE THE COR
SOME CONTROL OVER THE PROPERTY, THE PURPOSE 1S NOT TO PREUF PS
.NT THE
i
F is
PUBLIC FROM GAINING ACCESS TO THE LAKE, BUT RATHER TO LIMIT VEHICLE
ACCESS ALL OVER THE LAKE, THE PUBLIC WILL S1ILL BE ABLE TO WALK DOWN
TO THE LAKE FROM ALMOST ANY POINT AROUND THE LAKE PROVIDED THEY CAN
GET ACCESS ACROSS THE PRIVATE LAND LEADING UP TO THE CORPS PROJECT
LANDS, OF COURSE, THIS CONTROL ACCESS WILL TEND TO ENCOURAGE PEOPLE i
TO UTILIZE THE DEVELOPED PARK FACILITIES THAT ARE BEING DISCUSSED
THIS EVENING, WITH THE PUBLIC BEING ENCOURAGED TO USE THE DEVELOPED
r \ PARKS, THIS WILL PROVIDE AN OPPORTUNITY TO RECOVER A PORTION OF 'THE.
PARK DEVELOPMENT COST THROUGH THE PARK USER FEES, HOWEVER, I WOULD
LIKE TO REPEAT AGAIN, THAT THERE WILL BE OTHER FREE ACCESS TO THE
LAKE, THERE M. I SEVERAL POINTS gROUND THE LAKE WHERE EXISTIN
ROADS LEAD TO THE LAKE,r s 40-e be, ~~tw srde^r.~ , ~'kere t
R,*S-, THIS, OF COURSE, WILL GIVE BOATERS AND FISHERMEN ACCESS TO
E THE LAKE AT MANY POINTS THROUGHOUT THE LAKE,
i
f Rl:CAUSE RECREATIONAL. DEVELOPMENT AT RAY ROBERTS LAKE IS
IN SUCH A VERY EARLY STAGE, THERE ARE MANY, MANY QUESTIONS YOU COULD
ASK FOR WHICH THERE ARE NO ANSWERS AT THE PRESENT TIME, NEITHER THE
CORPS OR THE: CITIES OF DENTON AND DALLAS HAVE ANY FIRM PLANS FOR
THESE DEVELOPMENTS, THEREFORE, WE SINCERELY SOLICIT YOUR INPUT THIS
f EVENING SO THAT WE MAY UTILIZE YOUR INPUT IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE
RECREATIONAL PLANS,
f
r'
s
BEFORE I INTRODUCE THE NEXT SPEAKER, I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE
A FEW SUGGESTIONS ON PROCEDURE FOR YOUR PUBLIC COMMENTS LATER, WE
WOULD LIKE FOR YOU TO COME TO THE SPEAKER'S STAND LOCATED IN THE
MIDDLE OF THE ISLE AND USE THE MICROPHONE SO THAT THE REST OF THE
AUDIENCE CAN HEAR AND ALSO SO THAT YOUR COMMENTS CAN BE RECORDED FOR 1
OUR LATER USE, WE WILL BE RECORDING ALL STATEMENTS TONIGHT, IF
ANYONE HAS PRINTED STATEMENTS, PLEASE READ YOUR STATEMENT AND TURN
IT IN TO OUR SECRETARY HERE, SO THAT WE MAY MAKE IT AVAILABLE TO THE
CORPS, WE WOULD ALSO REQUEST THAT YOU LIMIT YOUR COMMENTS
I RECREATIONAL ASPECTS, PLEASE UNDERSTAND THAT WE ARENOTHERE Y TO
DISCUSS OR DEBATE LAND VALUES THIS EVENING, THEREFORE, AGAIN, PLEASE
i
LIMIT YOUR STATEMENTS, QUESTIONS, AND INQUIRIES ONLY TO RECREATIONAL ASPECTS OF THE RAY ROBERTS LAKE, WE T
TO
REQUEST THAT YOU LIMIT YOUR COMMENTS TO FIVE MINUTESOULD THANK LIKE TO
Y(lU,
N04I, I WOULD LIKE
TO INTRODUCE ou~
ThE
CITY OF DALLAS WHO WILL DISCUSS RECREATIONAL PLAN CONCEPTS AND
ALTERNATIVES,
1
f
(DALLAS' SPEECH)
d
P,
li
`i
i
i
r ~
NOW WOUL LIKE TO INTRODUCE .II BELL, DI ECTO OF
PARKS FOR THE: ATE OF TEXAS, W /
PARK FAC 1L I T I ES~ THAT TH STAT - AS DEWiLL lliL VEL OPEDCAR UNO ME X IHE VAR OUS
AS,
f
(.11.1~'BELL' S '-s2Ea-M)
i
E NOW I WOULD LIKE TO ASK FOR
COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC,
AGAIN, LET ME MENTION THE PROCEDURE WE WOULD LIKE TO FOLLOW TONIGHT,
11 COME TO THE MICROPHONE AND PRESENT YOUR COMMENTS,
2, LIMIT YOUR COMMENTS TO FIVE MINUTES, j
31 IF YOU ARE PART OF A GROUP, SELECT A REPRESENTATIVE
AND HAVE THAT REPRESENTATIVE PRESENT YOUR GROUP'S
1 COMMENTS,
{ PLEASE LIMIT YOUR COMMENTS TO RECREATIONAL ASPECTS,
ct r n , ti wry He At e~~~ cc s lease ,
THANK YOU,
i ~
I
i
r
w
i
Y
:L A' d ti 'L E~ Y •k SS l x~ I(t~~',eji y{`~ ~ 6 n• IF' ~,.1 Ya! 4 f 1 / ~ p
(s'{' t /f t~ ~~F 1~ !1 ti, `r r r t ~t+' ' '~yi i
~ 1;7 ! ~ , t fi ;J~.r .Jj{ 1 f~l i ~ y, ( r1 :CQ'l., _
' i ` 111 .f ~ j , f ~1'•' t
, t ,j ~ r 1 t ~M.~ l~ ~j~ir ~t r' 1 f 't, i~ i.
fJ ; 'i'i"
rl Y'
f t I 't -r e r fi't' , , r Aj i- 1 yI~ (p~p" ' li rp r + b~ rl~
µ f 1 r I Y , I / \ I i I~
~~15~•~ I t~rdl 1 1 r ~ I. 4r 11 ~ L} S ~c~f"~ h~f r flI~,~l~ ~•1~~~ ~'V ~i
r~*~~ ,i ; 11 1,21. ~(y )iFr
fj r~i r
. ,~1iy~t~`}I'r., ..1 ~~s~i 1~ '411,+i1•:h.J ' t'W,•I...' ~I,4~~~/ ~1 , JR~' ~fl':'E •~J~`
Ail
N}
y tl 7~ I LH1 J x ! Y , BIZ ~Iw3 J {
)
pp11`'`?' vi". 1r ~J,'~` /'1 lti l 1 r .r'` .I, 1! .t~ IS 1
,
- f n 4
l I
S
l.t VALLEY VTW I ~ua_1
J~3
1it
r, ~ SC ~`R' v f~.. ~t r iS i' x~ijl~l JM.r'~~` ; rr' ` ~ 4•;~ t
7.•.~ 1 ~ 1 1 ~ yr_ FF"' „ , ~1 -
"Y
r ~ f
~ . ~ d7~ t~~' -li ilk", .~vy'"t ~I)t - v 'j'y
'All
f r~~
f7 k
i l ~ ~'>•,1~ p-~;t ~ ~P t, tx. rfr s,,ial~, I~~
4 JOHN., l7 N, „ 7
~1'~Y 7 i' ~I~I 1 It
i~ ,~J f:=,4~ J f.,. ( ~ ' .tl ,•~~iE3RANCl1;~ s1,
J' 1 !f-~61 r
~tE~ t i~r~FY eS
M 1 r.
f
v t r i• R{
SANGER
g
P~ !1 .lj'~~ •{i L~~~.l~y~/ L~ i;f...Vyl.lr.l ~ 1 i 1, ; i V ~'i~ ' ~I~r
{e•~~; i ill j_ q i, 1' 1
L \ , 4 { F ~
AUBREY,.
y., ' LI-.~•IW-..T. jil _ t~..FF{f' "i t 1 -e•~•...+.e--...~...~„n•I f .1..~.7,,,~-~-..~..
VA y
7 AUBREY LAKE
--F a r} - 1... - r DAM
/,yI
Wt (().APAUID EART4 F4L
LF~'It1 EFCI.I'ING SPIIA•AY 75-250FEET
+ n ..1' I 1 r f 1161( Hf I.IAMAWW. ABZ1YE iT;EAMB'..) ?41 FEET
X1. Vl ' 1 f J F. A, Vti1Jgi `c CROWN 46 FEEr
J ~'♦v .l.~.• -11_ I T! SPRLWAY
I y_ T •.t , S I+I 1 - t• l3 I vPF. UNCONIRpNfD aROn.oia15rro
~J9 +
T CC)LLINSVILLE 1
AOOAF. h1.Ar
}~l1 ` • I..1L.+ t FEE
r^`I~ OUTIE S I
lvtl 645 35 FEE[
(I I
VH' a I(„ 3't--L. j PI I r GATE CDNrROLto rONUUU, 1
IJ FELT IN DIAIAEIER
CONrRCIL 2-6 FT ..13 fffl SERVICE
•I n j A l "V yy 1 WDE GATES
INTAKE IN'VERF EI EVAIION, A OYE
2 I PtY ZI" ° " I,k .nC- I MEAN 5EA LEM 551 FEET
J I
l ' I 1 v r" fFl HOOD CONTROL POOL
I " 1 • ~ i X ELEVATION ABGI E MEAN 5 E A IEV'El MQ 5 FEET
rof CAPACITY 250,800 ACF61 EEI
SURFACE AREA 36900 ACA'ES
CONSE4t ATIDN POOL
ELEVATION ABOVE MEAN SEA TEYEI 692.MET
CAPACITY I-10,70) ACRE FELT
!j 2 7 F~ <<) F -.'E " Y { SWALE AREA 770950 ACRES
~'T , ,W-nT T 9 A 3 th I- 5EDWENT STORAGt 54,600 ACRE FEET
r4 I{ ( h Fi I E~ ' jt TOTAL CONTROLLED yTDR,A6E 1,064, 6(O ACREfEEI
- rNbr b { d~ t~IY~I } • 7 M SrREAMBED APPROXIMATE ELEVATION
Aso,; IAEhN SEA LEVEL 574 fEEI
• ~ ~ V~ )f~t~l ~ ( ~11 ~~f44~~ f ~IjS(U~~'I IIi~.'1F ~ 511j
e F);'r -~',,.1nEksl, E 1iFLOOD CONTROL POOL EL 640.5
~ ) . R
Pl,
I, I f
I '
I r ~ o + . ~I tJ r .
_.CONSERVATION, POOL EL 632.5 ~~lj ~ " ~ V
FI ~ ' j1 r I r ~ y.
Y' n Y I J i!
I 7• W ~ •4 ~ ( I 1114~..a ~ ~ ^'S
f / L
rT
I p 1 } I I `S~~ •t_I tiD E^x'.IY~ [ "~p-` " I F
4+ I J
J ,
1 ~ ~ Ir
r, 'N•
J Y ' .LA• h~h
.
q / ) r
{:yr JORD4Nr PARK r I • ~r-l .Tr~1 I 1 r~ry t
11 d,_ p
Y rr l f - Sr } ~ ~ I f Al f , ~4 Y{ ~ I
Y"11_•x+1 J,
PILOT POINT
r . y .If''I •,aI- Y~,L . ti i' rK i IEUEIVD ~l.
i~ T
*00 PARK AREA r'
h Y S1L?AY PRO)fCF UND$ .
4V //I 'A* r IJn~ A r~ ~~I
J"k
r, IJ ~~ti L~ ! f I dt~ f~~.
P
_ s 111 J (F' ~ NOR
'PROPOSED RELOCATED F, M, 455 N1f ENvAreON5 AND nun SHOW4 ARE
I~ PREEIMrNARY AND SIJR)ECT TO REVLSION WHEN
n.,
r F j J.,,, r y AG DE1N{EP STl1UlE5 ARE COUP{t rf fi
LtUIS PORK
II 1 ,1L(.. 4 6..1G J1 f I~ J l ~4
TRINITY RIVER BASIN
~I,/ r.. ' • I , r [UA FCRR. TRIN4Y CNf R, TEXAS
I.•' 4: RAY ROBERTS TAKE
t
`I' ~ ~ ~n UB JA'.N' F'N;;INFFR 0151RC1, TORt VIORTII
j ~ CUkA2 of Etlp{4EER5
~'•r _ lY' - iGaT ,NL RIII, IE7,A5 76)02
I~ i. ) 1 i I- - IIAY I~B1
ry...~~..--.r..1.a..~...L~.~~..-.u.-~~..A~.~r f r..r~-. 1.j ~~....•.~l~r.....1'.........r~•...~.~~~.~~..~v~ru...~~.n..~
f
i
SPOSITION FORM "
Fk wit Of this fan., so* AN 340.15, the P,aoenont Cooney it YACCFN.
EFEAEeCE OR5EiCE Sr w90
.
SWFED-DC Conference Notes - Ray Roberts Lake
TO SEE DISTRIB 1TU ON pRom _
SWFED-D DAT£ '15 Apr 81~ ~7T 1
Mr, Losornio/dk/2317
A meeting was held in the Dallas City Hall on 15 Jan 81 to discuss recreation at
Roy Roberts Lake with representative of the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, the
Cities of Dallas and Denton, and Fort Worth District Corps of Engineers present, The
attendees were:
City of Denton
C1~ of Dallas I
Chris Hartung, City Manager Tom Taylor, Utilities Director
Bob Nelson, Utilities Director Clarence Warnstaff, Planning Dept
Steve Brinkman, Parks & Recreation
Larry McDaniel, Planning Dept
Jack Robinson, Parks & Recreation
Tom Anderson, Parks & Recreation
\1 Texas Parks and Wildli°fe
C~ous of $n&ineers
~ Jim Bell, Parks Director
arrets, hief, De
Clarence Ham, Head, Master Planning Branch Sam hill
t Llann ng Bra. Branch
Mike Herring, System Planning Branch Garrett, Planning Branch
~ I Steve Wild, Planning Branch
Ray Losornio, Project Manager
j 2. After introductions, Mr. Taylor stated the purpse of th meeting (a) to bring the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department~ttogetherewit the
was two-fold,
(Dallas and Denton) with the Corps as facilitators, and b h the local sponsors
comprehensive planning workshop with ( ) to establish a date of a
public involvement,
{
3. Mr, Beall stated that the State would consider taking over operation an.' maintenane
of all park areas, including day use facilities at Ray Roberts Lake provided:
a. Major recreation development be limited to three m
at highway crossin;s. ain parks with 'I h boa
ff F, t ramps
I 1
b. The local sponaors would absorb the local portion of capital. costa of develgp-
ing all the parks with the exception of Isle du Bois Park, for which the State is
I negotiating an agreement with the Corps.
~ i
c. An agreement would need to be reached concerning the responsibility for
covering the 0614 costs over and above the State's revenues in fee collections, leases,
etc.
These proposals would necessitate acquisition of additional park lands in some areas
an8 deletion of lands in others. Mr. Taylor and Mr. Hartung agreed In concept to
.Hr. Bells prof>osal. The following points were also brought out in discussion of
Mr. Bell s proposal.
i
i
PO Rw Hr^~A
D/'A/~ 1 i Fit li 249$ CE5 Dp pow 96. waiCH ~5 ORSU S.C Yf..
U.5,4PD:t9>A63tppgt 1a129
i
i
i+
15 Apr 81
SWFSD-DC
SUBJECT: Conference Notes - Ray Roberts Lake ca ital funding,
a. If there were a question of additional 0&M responsibilities v.s.. A
the local sponsors would prefer to contribute capital monies (ecquisition and development.)
ong
all
sites b, State would bdevelopedibyetherCorpslwithnreviewsbyr~t.he Cities and Corps. The
State str Plan being
State, Cokp Co'o'pas and the local sponsors would need to mutually agree as to when future develop-
ment waslneeded. plan, which
might. State revenue producing facilities Co the p
prop osed is required
d. If additional land acquired over what the Coops had originally P P
to carry out the three park concept outlined by Mr. Bell, the Local sponsor s indicated t
the ahnatd,
Recreationro tet~ts PrL°heietipulationxIn theycontractcisithatrthecMasters Planhwilll
roads, facilities,
govern.
It was determi,led that a public involvement workshop would be held in 30 to 5 day,
preferably before e 4 4 Mar 81, in the Denton area. Data from surveys conducted by the tatc
i s to be provided to the Cities of Dallas and Denton and the Corps, by the State.
wa
i
5. Other items as a result of the meeting were as follows:
ct Theme
The Corps is to provide the State data on the ProTheme developed for the lake.
I b. A field trip to the expanded park area by representatives of the State, local
will be set up as soon as xight of entries can be obtained.
I a onsors and Corps
Ra Roberts/
p
C. The City of Dallas is to furnish the State the operational plan or the
Lewisville system.
e is still interested in exploring the possibility of establishing a
. The Stat
d
I corridor along the Elm Fork between Ray Loberts and Lewisville*
e will consider management of the remaining lands for wildlife management
r , The Stat
e
l,urposes. ark sites.
' f. The Corps stated that oil and gas drilling would be prohibited on All p
~ E
esign n Branch
WX~ P"'; JO , Chief, ll
RXS ty o At n
TOM TAYLOR, 01ty of Dallas
r
1 TO:
Tom Taylor, City of Dallas
Chris Hartung, City of Denton
j Jim Bell, Texas Parks & Wildlife 2
Shigeru Fujiwara, Corps of Engineers
j
1001,104s wlaw utihties .
100 YEARS OF WATER SERVICES
February 16, 1981
Mr. Ray Losornio
Corps of Engineers
P. 0. Box 17300
819 Taylor St.
Ft. Worth, TX 76102
Dear Ray:
Attached per your request are Dallas' comments on the draft conference
notes of the January 15, 1981 meeting.
If you have any questions, please call ire.
6~Larry cDaniel
i
Attachment
~II XC: ChrisHartann w/attach
City Manager ~ City of Denton
215 E. McKinney.
Denton, TX 76201
t
j! MY OF DENTON
MANWER'S OFFICE
j City Hail • 063%, Texas 76277
Y
4
Revised by Parks 6 Wildlife Department 1/29/g1
ki
SWFED-DC
f
-=BJECT•: •-Bern t Confer*nee •Notna -gay itobct'ts i~ke--
TO. SEE DISTRIBUTION FROM SWFEU-D DATE 22 San 81 CMT 1 f
Mr. Losornio/dk/2317
1. A meeting was held in the Dallas City Hall on 7.5 Jan 61 to discuss recreation at
Ray Roberts Lake with representatives of the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department,
the Cities of Dallas and Denton, and Fort Worth District Corps of Engineers present.
The attendees were:
City of Denton City of Dallas
Chris Hartung, City Manager Tom Taylor, Utilities Director
' I Bob Nelson,'Utilities Director Clarence Warnstaff, Plaiming Dept
Steve Brinkman, Parks & Recreation Larry McDaniel, Planning Dept
Jack Robinson, Parks & Recreation
Tom Anderson, Parks 6 Recreation
Texas Parks and Wildlife Corps of Fngineers
Jim Bell, Parka Director Bill Jobes, Chief, Design Branch
Clarence Ham, Gh+ef Head, Master Planning Sam Garrett, Planning Branch
5eet"s Branch Steve Wild, Planning Branch f
Mike Herring, Meteter System Planning Ray Loso:rod.o, Project Manager
Seet*ee Branch
2. Alter introductions,1Hr. Taylor stated the purpose of the meeting was tim-fold.
i c
f (a) to bring the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department: together with the local
~ j
sponsors (Dallas and Denton) with the Corps as facilitators, and (b) to establish
s date of a comprehensive planning workshop with public involvemmt.
3. Mr. Bell stated that the State would consider taking over operation and maintenance
i
of all park areas, including day use facilities at Ray Roberts Lake provided:
tE
a. Major recreation development be limited to three main parks with
s
boat ramps at highway crossings.
'.l
. _ , _
,
SF~'ED-AC
SUB3ECT: Draft Conference Notes - Rsy Robert hake 22 Jan 91
low fc r},an cj(
b. The local sponsors would absorb. thencapital costs of developing ell the
parks with the exception of Isle du Bois Paxk, for which the State ka~-e-prewFene
is negotiating aan- agreement wKth t},}e Corps, , f
~~(2Q.f*~?hY ~JBNICi r~,'.eC}'~~"' V~P~=~~:C'I CFnLChtinA rt',£~. nS~6 ~~'~r .r r cwer~~rq
c. - ' ' - .Jy-~ebser~b~the Ob.*1 costs ovJer cnd above the
State's revenues iii fee collections, leases, etc.
These pzaposaJs would necessitate acquisition of additional park lands in same
_ areas and deletion of lands in others. Mr. Taylor and '!r. Hartung agreed in concept
` Co rir. Rell's proposal.
~ The followi:,g, Dints we aalso b~-ou~.h~t..out in discussion of Mr. Bell's ro ovals
' S ~?4~(e ~Cfe.pitc~5 ion o on4i V;M f+~s~%ns~~ ~ ~ ~vs ~.5~ Ito u ~n~1
a.' ! rl..ln 1L..~
I I a. a'~'he local a~nsors would prefer to .;.ern--~-~..~i~ee-fie{~capitel
~ t
mcn,es _ . ..L _ _ ..ru
4ee~ta (acquisition itnd development , ra~E}aer _ _ _
s h. The State would be res onsible for develo,~ment pleas for ali park sites
(acto~'~ }o'er-rna-f r~1un bo•,,,9 J,e,rk b~,ll,eLorjhsT~-
^with review by Cities 6 Corps. The State 1 ,when future develo ent ~
rye. CorPS~4.•o~ ~ ILY.LL~ ~~115C~rJ (4K+µ nQ
was needed. ,r,µ}~1~y1 a9r~ ab f~
.
~ { c. The State could substitute or add reven_ue_producinR facilities to the
lea which sai¢ht not be eligible far reimbursement. ~
~ '
d. -~+e- ~f ditional
lend ac uirad over shat the Co shad on ina21 ro osedi3 ref~~red C°''~'y C"`~~'`
rr.e~ ~.oneC mw ;ned ~r htr, Lcil~ L2Y1le S and Den i.•elic~fet~ Pr(', lac-'~' ca~~~s
~,rov+ • or.FleNb,l'~~ i~4ilow~~~.q Pnojcc.~ws}s be}w~t!n land~r~acls~{'ao~lifi'e;eac ~.sf+p~la, cn
,n G c niroc7'', e. rr~ StYT lan k„Il~a~,ern~
~ ~ ~t was ~etis~rm~ed that ~ pub.lic invulvnment vorkshap would be held in 30
i
to GS days, preferably before 4 Mar 81, in the Denton area. Date from surveys
conducted by the Slate was to be provided to the Cities of Dalian and bentoa end
the Corps, by the State,.
4 5. Other items as a result-of th~ey_~meetiag were es follows:
~v ~ T y~
a. The Corps is to prov?~Q'the"State data on'the Prti~ect Theme de~~'iope~fox
the lake.
I ~
SS+`FED-DC
)UBJECTc Draft Conference Notes
` Ray koberts Lake
22 Jan
b, Afield trip to the expanded park areas by representatives of the State,
local sponsors and Corps will be set up a,; soon as right of entries
c• The csa be obtained.
city of Dallas is to furnish the State the operational plan for the
Ray.Roberts/Lewisville system. i
d. The State is still interested in evsl~orinB the possibilit of establish
a corr;Ldor alon the Trin, ibetween Ra
7 Roberts and Levistille,
a. The State will consider manaeema„r
Y 11 of the remainin lands for wit
mane ement u oses, ~ ~~ddl_
f--:_ she Corps stated that oil and ns drill in8 would bep
rohibited on all
park-. sites
I
' WILLIAM p.-70-B-ES
> Chief, Desi
~ gri Branch
TOM TA~YLD ,R City of Dallaa
CHRIS HARTUN', CG i of Denton
- a
j
i
+ SHICERU FUJIWARA
TQs Chief, Engineering Division
Toro Taylor; City of Dallas
Chris Hartung, City of Denton
1 Jim Bell, Texas Parks & Wildlife
Shigeru Fujiwara, Corps of Engineers
r
}
a
F
Y!
,
s
100 YEARS OF WATER SERVICES
February 3, 1981
Mr, James D. Bell, Director
Texas Parks and Wildlife Dept.
4?.00 Smith School Road
Austin, Texas 78744
Dear Mr, Bell: ,
Your- participation at the January 15, 1981, meeting at Dallas City Hall
on potential recreational opportunities at Ray Roberts Lake is greatly
appreciated, Prior to the January 15 meeting, Dallas had received
correspondence from your Department stating that there was interest in
developing a State Park at Ray Roberts Lake. We appreciated the opportunity
to discuss with you the State's continued interest.
The Texas Parks and Wildlife Department's policy towards development of
urban parks is encouraging. Specifically, your willingness to expand
State participation at Ray Roberts will be a major step forward. Bringing
the entire park system at the reservoir site under unified management by
Texas Parks and Wildlife makes a lot of sense. As we discussed, the
local sponsors could provide capital funding for two parks; state would
fund one as previously agreed.
If it would be mutually beneficial, members of the Dallas staff will be
i ` available to attend and provide support at future meetings you may have
with the State Commission. Dallas hopes proposed plans will receive
early favorable approval by the Commission. Please do not hesitate to
call me at area code 214/670-3144 if we can be of assistance to you.
Thank you for the new direction and leadership you are providing your
department, I look forward to working with you and your staff in the
months ahead,
Si erel
Thomas 1. Tayl Director mt-MV
~
C: Mr. Chris Hartung, City Manager ll
City of Denton f, 5 }gg}
Mr. Jack Robinson, Director
Park and Recreation Dept., Cit,, of Dallas CIfY a I)ENTpN
MANAGERS OFFICE,
Col. Donald J. Palladino, District Engineer
Ft. Worth District, Corps of Engineers
Cily Hall a Dallas, Texas 75277
~ i a r t, r ~r I , V r.•J J ~ ,
`1ta1
1 ' 1 !YT ~1 .('fir' l 1 ~ i
V~ „I. •~~YC1j 44
ff
11 k '
n w ti ! 1'
, ff lJ .~~~T(r 1• III lift"
f
i~'
VALLEY VIEW
r ' PECAN 13
CRFEK
PARK , E j
* ;JOHN..°iON'
l
BRANCH'
:PARK
i ~ 1, - : ~ ~ ~ -1
SANGER
ISLE 'd
! hJ t
C:ULP BRANCH PARK ~ ~ ~ ~ , ~ ~ ~ r~..[r - Rat, u, - ~ ~ jj~ l I,•
y r AOBR
y
AUBREY LAKE
N DATA
- nPECOMPACTED EARTH fill
T LEN -111i
"CIUDING SPILLWAY 15,730 FEET
HEI iHT MAXIMUM, AL10VE STAEAM8E0 IH FEET
X 1 V WIDTH OF CROWN 46 FEET
Y SPILLWAY
l r , / L I TYPE-UNCONipOL1ED BROA JCR[SFD
JI COLLINSVILLE LENGTO AT CREST 100 FEET
CAW ELCVA%ON, ABOVE MEAN
SEA LEVEL
Y A, I 64:.5 FEEi
F OUTLET WORKS
/ yi 1 7 1 GATE CONTROLLED comuir,
r 1j :d' 13 FECF IN DIAMEIEE
CDNFROL - 2.6 FI.a13 Feel SERVICE
SLIDE 6,VE5
y, /Y I INTAKE INVERT ELEVATION, ABOVE
1 ',l 1 A r ,A MEAN SEA LEVEL $51 FEET I
LAKE
' 1 FLOOD CONTIOL POOL
,i _I ' it 1' .I. • - t ' ELEVATION ABOVE MEAN SEA LEVEL 64(Y5 FEET
CAPACITY
260,800 ACRE FEET
f SURFACE AREA 36,900 ACRES
IC:ON,ERVAPON POOL
! I ~ ELEVATION ABOVE MEAN SEA LEVEL 677.5 FEEL
_ F fl f "I I ` CAPACITY 749,200 ACRE FEET
1.., r j 1 I SURFACE ARIA 29,350 ACRES
! V > r } SFOWENF ;10RAGE 54,600 ACRE-FEET
TOTAL CONNOILED STORAGE 1,064,600 ACRE FEET
,.v I 5" r SIREAIARE.D APPROXIMATE RLBVATION
1 A f ABOVE ME41,4 SEA LEVEL 524 FEE
p
FLOOD CONTROL FOOL EL 640.5
• 11
' i- hJl TIOGAJ:
t r. J 4 - 1
,
I I CONSERVATION POOL EL 632.5
1
'
r
f f _ s .5.~, ~A
jr BUCK CREEK PARK PUBLIC USE AREAS
I- I f J PARKS APPROXIMATE ACRES
} BUCK CREEK PARK 119 ACRES
'~'1S r CUSP BRANCII PARK 431 ACRES
l 1 - , _ ISLE doB01S PARK 1472 ACRES
A : ~.rtr,C CT r"" JOHNSON BRANCH PARK 246 ACRES
I ` 1 } - I_ V JOI'DO:N PARK 412 ACRES
JORDON PARK PECAN CREEK PARK 212 ACRES
1l V r I\
1
PILOT POINT %k
yll
I. 3't
ILAKE AREA
JAM PAR( AREA r ~
K , Wtw PROJECT IANDS
I r I E L .S .1 i 1'~.
fta ; _ l I Y
NOTE
PROPOSED RELOCATED F. M.. 455 THE EIEVAHOJIA AND DATA MOWN ARE
! j
'--5y PREL 14NNARY AND SUBJECT WHEN
.
70 REVISION W N
. tt ,
PA RV
`)h01 l Ail DETAILED STUDIES ART COMPlE1E0
f TR*MY RIVER BASIN
t- I 0' ii EIM FORK, TRINITY RIVER, TEXAS
` s AUBR Y LAKE
US ARMY ENGINEER DISIRICt, TORT 'NORTH
CORPS OF ENOINEEAS
` P.O. BOX 11301
FORT VYOAIFI, TEXAS 76102
EY Y JULY 1980
;
r
';j ' ~
'
o`~`*;.
C~.~
k
, ~ r~
~~i ~
f I
~ ~i'
y'
i ail' 'Y,Y
i
i ~
ti `
3~'~
~ ~ i
~ti~
{{Y i
F~ f
'
t~i~
f
~
t~ i
~~t~
yi~~~S(
~~~'1
l
~~A
'
ty"~
1~f1
~.,i
i
I~
SWFED-DC I
SUBJECT; Draft Conference Notes - Ray Roberts Lake
TO: SEE DISTRIBUTION FROM SWPED-D
DATE 22 Jan 81 CTIT 1
Mr. Losornio/dk/2317
1. A meeting was held in the Dallas City Hall. an 15 Jan 81 to discuss recreation at
Ray Roberts Lake with representatives of the Texas Parks and W11d1ife Department
the Cities of Dallas and Denton, and Fort Worth District Corps of Engineers present.
The attendees were:
City of Denton
City of Dallas
Chris Hartung, City Manager
Bob Nelson, Utilities Director Tom Taylor, Utilities Director
Steve Brinkman, Parks S Recreation Clarence n taff, Planning Dept
~ Larry McDaanielel,, Planning Dapt
Jack Robinson, Parks h Recreation
` Tom Anderson, Parks & Recreation
Texas Parks and Wildlife
J; Corps of Engineers
Jim Bell, Parks Director Bill Jobes, Chief, Design Branch
Clarence Ham, Chief, Master Planning Section Sam Garrett, Planning Branch
Mike Herring, Master Plannir,C Section
Steve Wild, Planning Branch
f j Ray Losornio, Project Manager
i
2. After introductions, Mr. Taylor stated the purpose of the meeting was two-fold,
ti
i
(a) to bring the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department together with the local sponsors
(Dallas and Denton) with the Corps as facilitators, and (b) to establish a date of
a comprehensive planning workshop with public involvement.
3. Mr. Bell stated that the State would consider taking over operation and maintenance
of all park areas, including day use facilities at Ray Roberts Lake provi&d:
i'
a. Major recreation development be limited to three main parks.
3
b. The local sponsors would absorb the capital costs of developing all the parks
with the exception of Isle du Bois Park, which the State has a previous agreement
with the Corps.
r,
j;
.
SWFED-DC 22 Jan 81.
SUBJECT: Draft Conference Notes Ray Roberts Lake
c. The local sponsors would possibly absorb the O&M costs over and above the
State's revenues in fee collections, leases, etc.
These proposals would necessitate acquisition of additional park lands in some areas
and deletion of lands in others. Mr. Taylor and Mr. Hartung agreed in concept to
Mr. Bell's proposal.
3. It was determined that a public involvement workshop would be held in 30 to 45
days, preferably before 4 Mar 81, in the Denton area. Data from surveys conducted
by the State was to be prov,tded to the Cities of Dallas and Denton and the Corps, by
the State.
i 4. Other items as a result of the meeting were as follows:
j
a. The Corps Is to provide the State data on the Project Theme developed for
the lake.
I
b. A field >
trip Co the expanded park arias by representatives of the State, local
i
sponsors and Corps will be set up as soon as right of entries can be obtained.
c. The City of Dallas is to furnish the State the operational plan for the
i
Ray Roberts/Lewisville system.
i
t WILLIAM P, JOBES, Chief, Design Branch
r
r
T0M TAYLOR City of Dallas
~ ~ Y CHRIS HARTUNG, City of Denton
SHOERU FUJIWARA
T0: Tom Taylor, City of Dallas Chief, Engineering Division
Chris Hartung, City of Denton
Jim Bell, Texas Parks & Wildlife
Shigeru Fujiwara, Corps of. Engineers
2
10
TEXAS
PARKS AND WILDLIFE DEPARTMENT
f NERS 1
Y R. BASS COMMISSIONERS
Chairmen, Fort Worth JOE K. FULTON
JAMES R, PAXTON Lubbock
Vice-chairman, Paiestine EDWIN L. COX, JR,
PEARCE JOHNSON CHARLES D. TRAVIS Dallas
A EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
Austin W. B.OSBORN, JR.
4200 Smith School Road Santa Flans
Austin, Tex►s 717744
January 17, 1980 t 4 g~ f
I
Mr. Thomas E, Taylor
Assistant Director
Dallas Watcr Utilities
City Hall
Dallas, Texas 75277
1
Dear Mr. Taylor:
With reference to your letter of December 20, 1974, the Department's
interest in assuming responsibility for certain recreation features
associated with the proposed Lake Aubrey in Denton County under provi-
sions of Public Law 89-72 continues. This interest, as was communicated
to the City of Dallas and to the Corps of Engineers in a letter dated
September 12, 1975, is subject to the availability of funds and the
ability to negotiate a cost sharing contract with the Corps of Engineers.
The Department has encountered major problems in the formulation of
mutually acceptable cost sharing contracts with the Corps of Engineers'
unde
i r provisions of Public Law 89-72 on similar projects. Apparently
{ the Corpst legal advice presents them with no alternative but to require
that the State unconditionally commit Itself to the development of
future recreation facilities althougu the Federal government itself
retains a contingency provision. Since Texas "pays as it goes", the
State cannot commit funds beyond the et+rrent appropriation period and,
therefore, cannot legally execute a contract calling for future facilities
at such time the Federal government has funds available. However, there
f does not seem to be any specific requirement in Public haw 89-72 making an
unconditional future recreation commitment mandatory, Rather, it would
appear that the Corps has chosen to take a very narrow interpretation of
Ii the Act.
The Department has worked successfully with the Corps in the past on
several projects around the State involving long-term leases and cost
sharing for facility development, Bone of these projects iias been subject
to provisions of Public Law 89-72. However, the Department does have a
proposed contract on Lakeview Reservoir pending in the. Corps' Washington
Office and its early execution by the Secretary of the Army ie expected.
the future funding requirement on the Lakeview Reservoir project is being
underwritten by the Trinity River Authority, who is the primary project
i
i
is
Mr, Thomas E. Taylor
Page Two
January 17, 1980
sponsor. You may wish to contact the Corps about a similar problem that
may be encountered on the proposed Lake Aubrey project.
In reference to your inquiry concerning management of the surface area of
Lake Aubrey, the Department is not in position to provide such services
beyond its normal responsibilities for water safety and law enforcement
on all public waters.
The Department appreciates the opportunity to coordinate with you on this
project and will appreciate being advised as the project advances.
Sin erely,
r 1
CHARLES D. VIS
Executive Director
CDT:WMG:plf
f
I
1
I
t
~ j
E
i
1
i
I f
i
f
I
J
l
i
k
I
.r
'i
Y
~
IV
AiEli'PING iJlTti COR[~S ()I LNGINP,I,HS - l & 'PX,
- - PARKS & l^1T!'.bI,IF,i;'
llalla's- bent on
PL_worth, 'fexCis ~ Deceinbe_r q, 19II0
Sant Garrett, Corp. of Engineers,4Chairman
DISCUSSION RLt State Park- Isle dti llois Park
1• State and Corps have inspected the area and appeared to be
agreement as to size and boundaries. in
j
2, dRet
lw.
evaiieesdfrroomadHswy,to455be provided by Corps plus park entranr,!e
3. Plan to et
deep enough tobhavewgoodorboaaljlr.ampm cove so that cove will he
q• Estimate summer, minimum lake .level to be 6211 ; Corps plans
j boat ramps to go down to elevation 597" which
estimated 10 year draw down, is 9" below
5. Corps will clear trees from ramp areas
of the main body of Lake, plus considerable areas
i
6. Reviewed Corps" desired quantity
sites, etc. Denton and Dallas of ramps, picnic unite, ram
believe these levels are hfy p
h,
f 7• State recommends mix of t
! ~ 1 Ypes of picnic and camp site areas,
8• Corps estimates 3 million visitors per per day in summer, in early 1990, p year, or 30,000 people
9. Tom Taylor, State and Denton believe more funds need to be
r spent on land and less on faciliLies„ Corps believes need
more facilities,
10. Tom Taylor
painted out that decision has not been made. as to
whether cities or Corps will do master plan,
1.1• State's master plan of their park
total master plan, i will be a sub part of Lhi;
r 12. Corps does not believe State has enough facilities included in
i Isle du Bois Park. State believes it is adequate for the
estimated 750 visitors per d~iy. State likes to restore park
areas to Texas natural life condit•ions rather than
subdivisions of airstreams.
13. State believes that. need to spend more for Lana and then
increase fac A.lit ic s in f`UtUre, if deemcd neGN.,;sary, State
asked about the pos:iibiIity of: adding Johnson Branch Park,
with increased size, to its park system around the Lake.
14. State asked if Dallas and Denton would scl.l water from Lake
for watering State parks. Response waS yest in reasonable
amounts at appropriate rates. It was painted out. t.h,,.it
irrigation is not an authorized use of the water rights;
however, an amendment to the water rights may be required,.
15. General concepts of Corps and respective city parks
department: have been that each city will own separate and
divided park properties. Denton expressed that it may be
better to have Dallas and Denton own such parks jointly and
that a separate organization be est•abli:hed to maintain and
operate the parks and such organization could be controlled by
a joint Denton/Dallas board or committee.
16. State asked if Denton and Dallas would be agreeablo to letting
the State develop and operate all parks. Response was yet,
provided a satisfactory contract could be developed, This
comment was a "feeler" only with no intent by the State to
offer such.
17. Reviewed schedule of construction. Deliberate impoundment
planned for September 1.985. (seems very optimistic)
f 18. Reviewed possible plans for obtaining imput from interested
parties such as bass clubs, boaters; campers, etc.
19. Corps advised the State that the cities want to review' the
contract between the Corps and the State. Advised the
contract will be similar to the Lakeview contract. Estimate
it will take one year before contract is approved.
i 20. Contract requires recreation expenditures of.
Aubrey $14 million & $9 million future-$23m (1979 est)
$26m (1980 est)
Land is 354 of this cost
21. Genera's provisions of Corps and State contract:
a) Corps buys all land for State and charges State for 508.
b) State buildu all recreation facilities
c) when recreation facility is completed, State is full
4 owner and is responsible for operation and maintenance
costs.
23. Manned to get policymaking people together at beginning of
i January 1981.
1
w
i
.y
i
24. Considerable: discu:;sion resulted between Dallas, Denton and 1
Corps regarding possibility of including the States' new
fIackberry Park to be located near the colony on Lewit.ai'I,le
Lake, as art of the cities' recreational
p facilfl:ac..,
requirements for the Aubrey/Lewisvii e Lake. Corp, does not
believe this to be possible, but would not rub out the idea.
I
1
i ,
{
i
i
1
i
t
t
~i
i!
~i
i
Y!
Memorandum
PATE December 4, 1980 CITY OF DALLAS
TO Aubrey File
bD°JECT Meeting with Corps and Texas Parks and Wildlife Department
The subject meeting took place today at 9:30 a,m. in the Corps office
in Ft. Worth with the following people in attendance:
Sam Garrett Corps of Engineers
Corky Cobern Corps of Engineers
Claude Johnson Corps of Engineers
Steve Wild Corps of Engineers
Richard Nader, Corps of Engineers
Fern Solis Corps of Engineers
Art McMahill Corps of Engineers
Tom Taylor Dallas Water Utilities
Larry McDaniel Dallas Water Utilities
Tom Anderson Dallas Parks and Recreation Dept.
Bob Nelson City of Denton
j Steve Brinkman City of Denton
Clarence Nam Texas Parks and Wildlife Dept.
Mike Herring Texas Parks and Wildlife Dept.
Bob Singleton Texas Parks and Wildlife Dept,
Don Koenig Texas Parks and Wildlife Dept.
The meeting was conducted by Mr. Garrett and began by discussing land and
road access details with the TPWD for Isle DuBois Park. Discussion then
I proceeded to the TPWD requesting the Corps to dredge or take barrow
material for the dam from the cove at Isle DuBois Park to give it extra
depth to allow it to always navigable. Mr. Taylor supported that position
stating that to have a good useable park area on such a fluctuating lake,
dredging this cove was a must.
j The Corps then passed out the attached proposed facility breakdown for
Dallas, Denton,,and..TPWD for Aubrey. This prompted discussion as to what
facilities and what level of development is needed. Mr. Taylor stressed
that until the Master'Plan is completed, needed lands, facilities, and type
recreational development are still not decided upon. TPWD then said they
may be interested in developing more park land at Joimson Branch Park.
Mr, Nelson then brought up the parks Dallas and Denton are to develop and
suggested that instead of seperate parks that the two cities develop the
parks jointly and create combined operational management staff for them,
I
6M 110.0011
10
_ Page 2
Aubrey File
instead of having seperate staffs, TPWD suggested that they would be
receptive to managing Dallas' and Denton'S parks in order to
uniformity in the parks about the have
lake.
TOR ther; brought up discussion of their proposed new park development
at Hackberry Park on Lake Lewisville and asked if Dallas and/or Denton
could provide water for the proposed golf course to be built at this
park. Also, could water be provided for parks at.Aubrey. Mr. Taylor
said something could be worked out for water, 71.~v
Finally, discussion centered around whether this development at Hackberry
Park could be credited to Dallas' and Denton's portion of Aubrey
Incremental Project required development. Mr. Garrett did not believe so,
but said that their lawyers would have to look into such a proposal.
Mr. Taylor wished to pursue that matter further. The meeting adjourned
at 12:30 with another meeting to be scheduled after January 1, 1981 between
the policy makers of Dallas, Denton, the Corps, and TPWD to discuss
potential park development by TPWD and the cities,
m /O
LcDaniel
i
XC: Clarence Warnstaff
Mike Tubbs
1'om Taylor
I
i ~
i
DEC 051980 P 5
WATER
ADMINISTRATION 6
r~
i
j
ti
AUBREY LAKE
FACILITY BREAKDOWN
Initial
Dallas Denton State
Picnic 125 4<< 170
Camp 647 227 125
Boat Lanes 27 10 5
Beaches (acres) 1.4 .60 0
Future
i
i
Picnic 189 66 85
Camp 577 202 220
A '
Boat Lanes 0 0 0
Beaches (acres) 1.7 .60 0
I ~
Total
I Picnic
{ 314 110 255
c
yy Camp 1,224 429 345
Boat Lanes 27 10
S
} Beaches (acres) 3.4 112 0
f
t
1
i
v
s
i
I
4
1
i~
i~
aY
AUBREY LAKE
'Proposed Facility Breakdown
Initial
Dallas Denton
State
Picnic 177
62 100
Camping 444
156 400
Boat Lanes 22
8 12
Beaches (acres) 1.7 •6 0
Future
r Picnic 214
75 50
Camping 518 182
300
Boat Lanes 0 0 0 {
Beaches (acres) 1.7
I! 6 0
.fatal.
Picnic 391 137 150
Camping 962
338 700
Boat Lanes
22 8 12
Beaches (acres) 3.4 1.2 0
f
I
{
1
I
sr
A U B R E Y RESERVOIR
RECENT EVENTS
WATER SUPPLY & RECREATION CONTRACTS SIGNED BY THE SECRETARY FOR THE
ARMY ON SEPTEMBER 16.
FIRST PARCEL OF LAND WAS PURCHASED SEPTEMBER 19.
WITH SIGNING OF THE CONTRACTS & PURCHASE OF LAND, THE PROJECT WAS OFFICIALLY
BEGUN.
BEGINNING THE PROJECT IN FY 198 (PRIOR TO OCTOBER 1, 1980) THE INTEREST
RATE - OVER THE LIFE OF THE PROJECT - !!",S ESTABLISHED AT 7,21%. THE
Rl INTEREST RATE FOR PROJECTS BEGUN AFTER OCTOBER 1 (FY 1981) IS 8,605%.
i
Ii AT TODAY'S CONSTRUCTION COST THE INTEREST SAVINGS IS $103 MILLION DOLLARS.,
P 1
DALLAS' PORTION IS
$76 MILLION
I
NEXT STEPS
i
- FUNDING ALREADY APPROVED BY CONGRESS; $7 MILLION
I
I - MASTER PLAN FOR RECREATION TO BE DEVELOPED
- CONTINUE PLANNING & ENGINEERING DESIGN
j - PURCHASE REAL ESTATE
i
- RELOCATIONS WITHIN THE RESERVOIR SITE
I!
1
ti
1
1L/ J/ VV
AUBREY
SERIES OF EVENTS
1) 1973 - Farmers Branch & Grand Prairie appealed Dallas' rate to
Texas Water Commission.
2) 1975 - Draft Contracts received fron Corps
3) Feb. 23, 1976 Da.llas"Cii Council resolution passed suspending further
capital improvements th.-: in any way are beneficial to
r customer cities until rate dispute is settled. Negotiations
on Aubre,Y halted,'
j ~
I
4) Sept. 11 1976 Texas Water Commission issued water rights permits to Dallas
and Denton for Aubrey Reservoir. City of Frisco filed suit
I contesting issuance of permit. Frisco had filed for permit
for Aubrey Oct. 28, 1975, but were turned down. 1
5) July 5, 1979 Texas Supreme Court ruled against Frisco's claim for water
j rights in Aubrey.
6) Aug. 23, 1979 Rate Case settled.
7) Sept. 5, 1979 Dallas City Council resolution authorizing LWFW, Inc.
Financial Feasibility Study for Aubrey Reservoir in cooperation
I with City of Denton. Negotiations on Aubrey resumed.
8)' Nov. 9, 1979 Received Draft Water Supply and Recreational Contracts for.
{ Aubrey Reservoir from Corps. Negotiated on contracts to come
r up with final draft to send forward to Washington, D.C. for approval
9) Jars. 22, 1980 Denton City Council resolution authorizing Mayor to enter
into contracts with the Corps for Aubrey Reservoir.
j. 10) Jan: 230 1980 Dallas City Council resolution receiving LWEW, Inc.
Financial Feasibility Study for Aubrey Reservoir.
11) .Jan. 300 1980 Dallas City Council resolution authorizing City Manager
to enter into contracts with Corps for Aubrey Reservoir.
12) M.- r. 28, 1980 Final meeting with Corps on contrbcts. After meeting,
Corps prepared contracts to be sent to Washington, U.C.
13) Apr. 1, 1980 Delegation from Dallas and Denton met Senate and House
Appropriations Subcommittees to request additional funding for
Aubrey Reservoir in 1981 Federal Budget.
huU-ey Jer•Ies o tventis
December 9, 1980
Page 2
14) Aug. 8, 1980 Dallas signed final contracts and returned them to the
Corps for signature.
r 15) Aug. 18, 1980 Dallas and Denton submitted a request for extension of
I` time on the state water permits to start and finish
construction on Aubrey.
16) Sept. 16, 1980 Assistant Secretary of the Army signed the final water
supply and recreation contracts. Aubrey Reservoir was '
official.
17) Sept, 19, 1980 The Corps purchased the first parcel of land, initiating
construction. This established the 1980 interest rate of
7.21% for the life of the project.
18) Oct. 21, 1980 Public hearing in Denton by the Corps to inform landowners
within the project site of the governments policies and
practices in acquiring land.
15) Nov. 17, 1980 Corps signed and put into effect the Memorandum of agree-
ment wad raoeei minimum water releases from Aubrey Reser-
voir. This was agreed to and signed by Dallas and Denton
in response to request by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
and Texas Parks and Wildlife Department requests.
. 20) Dec. 4,, 1980 Meeting with Corps and Texas Parks Wildlife Department on
lands for state park.
21) Jan. 4, 1981 Aubrey Reservoir officially becomes Lake Ray Roberts.
~ I
Y
f
i
t
i
i
December 3, 1980
Donald J. Palladino, Colonel, CE
District Engineer
Department of the Army
Fort Worth District Corps of Engineers
P. 0, Box 17300
Fort Worth, Texas 76102
Dear Colonel Palladino;
In your November 21, 1980 letter to me you offered to have your staff
prepare the Master Plan for Recreational Development at Aubrey Reservoir,
As you stated in your letter, Corps preparation of the Plan would be
advantageous due to your staff's familiarity with the planning process,
their expertise, and your access to the higher controlling authorities,
I
Your inclusion of a "statement of concurrence" to be signed i by Dallas and
Denton and placed is the Master Plan is appreciated. However, certain
i
j concerns should be addressed prior to accepting your offer.
I
j ! As you are aware Ar.1cle 2c of the Recreation Contract provides; "the City,
in cooperation with the government, will prepare a mutually acceptable Plan
IG
of Recreation Development and Management,,,". Dallas and Denton are charged
with and are responsible for development of the Master Plan by Contract.
Adequate review and approval by Dallas and Denton must be assurred prior
to Master Plan development by Corps staff.
The goal-of the Corps and local sponsors-is the development of a mutually
satisfactory Plan with input from and cooperation of all parties involved.
In develrpment of the Plan, agreement among all parties should be reached
before proceeding from one phase of the work to the next. Agreement can
be accomplished with a "signatory statement of ,incurrence" by all parties
after each phase and with a "final signatory statement of concurrence" by
all parties upon completion of the Maser Plan. Each of these statements
Y
t
3
k
Page 2
should be a part of the Master Plan with the final signatory statement
appearing at the beginning of the Plan,
Final approval of the Master Plan rests with the Government, however
prior to submitting the Master Plan to the Division office, total
agreement should be reached, as would he the case if the local sponsors
were to develop the Plan as provided for in the Recreation Contract.
r~__ _1f
III The review and approval sought by the local sponsors - with Corps
development of the Master Plan - is not intended to be a veto authority,
'i Disagreements between parties may develop, therefore some means of
ii
resolvement should be specified. One suggestion for resolvement is to
submit problem "issues" ' to
1 the Corps Division Office along with individual
i presentations from the parties involved of their points of view and allow
i j
the Division Office to resolve problem issues. Some means of resolvement
should be established.
i
In summary, please proceed with the Master Plan development if the
following assurrance can oe given to the 'local sponsors;
* Review and approval of each phase by a signatory statement of
r
concurrence of all parties
* Final signatory statement of concurrence by all parties upon
completion
* Unresolved issues - if any - to be presented to the Division
office along with presentations from the parties involved.
i
r
i
r.
Pa ge 3
If the above assurances are not viable then Dallas and Denton propose to
develop the Master Plan as provided for in the Recreation Contract with
your staff's cooperation and involvement as required.
Thank you for your offer of assistance in the Master Plan preparation and
for your continued cooperation.
r
{ Thomas E. Taylor
Director
DALLAS WATER UTILITIES
plc
I
xc: Chris Hartung
Jack Robinson
1
's
i
}
k
r
r
t
r
-r.
i
W►+o i~ay~ '~R~ 17EVECOr~ME1~1i
ILI
Fu
}tIC KoL>Y C_ tr EF-:K IPI .
-MEMORANDUM-
TO: King Cole
FROM Steve Brinkman
SUBJECT: Aubrey Project
DATE: November 6, 1980
After our discussion with Sam Garrett and Steve Wild from the Corps
of Engineers, many things will need to be accomplished in a short period
of time. These are:
1. Review the various sites offered as to topography and suitable
forestation and ground cover.
l
2. Discuss the type of development we would prefer to see at the
site we eventually select.
ppvrh D3termitte what other development is being planned for the area
1
ir((state park and Dallas parks).
4. Choose a site that will suit our needs.
? 5. Discuss our site selection and potential development with Corp
and Dallas.
6. Use the Corp or hire a consultant to work with us on a pork
master plan for our area.
7. Have public review of options for development.
i ~
i
8. Select and approve final plan for implementation.
I
Things that may assist us in accomplishing the above would be:
1. Fly and/or walk over sites in question.
2. Go to North Fork near Austin to get slides of a recent
Corp project.
i ✓I,;~r ixr~es , ua,~pnFe.
3. Get Park Board and Council involved in what types of
development they would like to see.
4, Discuss Lewisville development with Corp and Dallas.
r
{
i
i
1.
y y
i
1 l l1 11 A d
MAA.
rJv 1U ti
_ caa-~ ~,o, rte.
1- c Lk-Y
Zrf r
i
c~ j~JuA Pa to ~A c'( Nt Mc
JAI
r
s.t,~.~
~~.,~,a~- t~ ~J.~.t~ ~c.a~oww.y~ d w~~~.-~ Aski~
.
0
' I
~ { -
j r
I r
i
i
i ;
1
y
! r ' a 'r ~f r
r, l1 ; S 1 t
:
4 y (r''f I lir E _r If k,
r
IN,
A-Z
/ t 1 try I [~:(1 ✓
ff ra
~ri Oki,
10
1
,
r
VALLEY VfEW
dd 1 r ' r i M I ~'1
4/ ~ If.lw_
L
01,
PECAN ; S r
f
I
I
CREEK
h~ PARK '
JOHNSON"
BRANCH
I' .PARK.,.
i '
,
1
j,
I
~i
I J SANGER
L J t { COW BRANCH PARK
J~, q n f
a
:f N DAM AUBREY TAKE
TYPE COMPACTED EARTH III,,
LENGTH, EXCLUDING SPIIIWAY
IIEIOIIT, MAXIAIVAI, ABOVE STAEAMBLD 15,250 FEET
WIDTH OF CROWN 141 FEET
SPILLWAY 46 FEET
COWINISVILLE TYPE-UNCONTROLLED sR Y
T ' .t ;ENOTH AT CREST E AL -RESTED
+ CREST F:EVATION, ABOVE ME TOO FEET
SEA LEVEL AN
r
► i " 1 1 OUTLET WORKS 645 5 7EE
1 1 I) { GATF-CCNTROdEO CONDUIt,
13 r`• yl 't 4 S, Er IN DIAMETER
CONTROL . 1.6 Fr.13 FEET SERVICE
SLIDE GATES .
INTAKE INVE Ri ELEVATION, ABOVE
"K , ! , I < MEAN SEA LEVEL
LAKE 351 FEET
FLOOD CONTROL POOL
FLY
1 ATION ABOVE 61EAN $EA kEVEt
CAPACITY 610,5 FEET
SURFACE AREA 260,800 ACRE.FEEt
CONSERVATION POOL J6,900 ACRES
K / .A ELEVATION
ABOVE h1F.AN SEA lEVil
CAPACRY 6325 FEET ,
SURFACE AREA 789,200 ACRE,FEEr
Ir, SEDIMENT STORAOE 29,350 ACAF$
111 t r rOrAk CONTROLLED SICRACE 54.600 ACRE-F10
li.. T f t ',.1 T f I SIRE'AM8ED, APPROXIMAIE ELEVATION 1.06.1,600 ACRFfEET
,1. ,I ~Ir ABOVE MEAN SEA tEVEt
524 FEET
FLOOD CONTROL POOL EL 640.5"
t; If TIOGA f J . r
CONSERVATION POOL EL 632.5
II ' t j ~;y
f
BUCK CREEK PARK
PUBLIC USE AREAS A
PARKS
BUCK CREEK PARK APPROXIMATE ACRES
4 / : CUIn BRANCH PARK 119 ACRES
r
~a j l1Kl:ft 1 _ -
t ISLE duBOl9 PARK 431 ACRES
~ORDC~N 1O1114SON RRANC F 1428 ACRES
I PARK
I , PARK IORDON PARK 246 ACRES
PECAN CREEK PARK 412 ACRES
Fh r}{ J i. I I 212 ACRIF$
PILOT PORJT .
7 ',i I I 1°~ LEGEND
j, 6 ' ' .WENT LAKE AREA
r I L~1 I X11 PARK AREA
r r r 1 !J I I i 4 awl PAOIECr LAND$
(I'•I ...+•R'A. ' T r<
PROPOSED RELOCATED P.M. 455 ?
f
'.T 'I Il E
NOT
~l1QO~J I I/ •'F IRE EIEVAtIONS AND
RK PNkl l
p41117ARY AN DATA '"OWN N ARE
U $UO1FCf 1O REVISION
i. 4. + J , I- y 1 Ll DE rhIt EU STUDIES ARE COMPLETED rFl.'
rE0
TRINITY RIVER BlSIM
Y > IIA4 FOAX, IRINNY RIVER, TEXAS
AU
GREY LAKE
US ARMY ENGINEER 016ERILT, fORi V/O,4rp
LEY ' ,r - CORP5 OF kNOINEERS
FORT W
00- ORBOKTEXAS 76102
IF T JULY 1980
1
ii
fr'
rl
Memorandum
DATE January 4, 1980 CITY OF DALLAS
TD Jack Robinson, Director
Parks & Recreation Department
00JECT Aubrey Rgservoir - Recreation
This memo responds to your memo of December b, 1979 and confirms our ,
discussion of January 2. The Aubrey Project is looking quite favorable
at this time, and we anticipate Council consideration of the project
1 before the end of January, Tom Anderson has been participating in our
j meetings with the Corps of Engineers, and first drafts of their proposed
contracts (water and recreation) are attached,
i
It has been our strategy to determine the optimum amount of recreation
that will minimize the total local cost of the project. It appears that
the optimum amount will be approximately 20% less than that proposed by
the Federal Government, The draft contracts reflect the reduced level
of recreation.
a We have asked the Corps of Engineers to specify, in the contract, that
1 the local sponsors will mans a the master planning c f
recreational facilities, Noting that Lake Aubrey will have wide hfluctuations
in water level and will normally be less than full, we will need to be
very careful in the master planning process to develop only compatible
types of recreation,
f
1 Also, we anticipate that the State of Texas will develop a major state
park and will assume a major portion of the recreation 0 & M expenses.
i The remainder will be shared by the City of Dallas and the City of
Denton,
We are exploring the possibility of treating the capital cost of recreation
facilities as a cost of developing the water supply, However, I do not
anticipate the Writer Department assuming any responsibility for 0 & M
expenses for operating the recreation facilities, The 0 & M cost associated
with that portion of the facility operated by Dallas would appear to be
a proper item for the Park budget,
I
i
I
1 6M tIbL+011 .
.
7
j,
t
Aubrey Reservoir - Recreation
January 4, 1980
Page 2
If we go ahead with the Aubrey Project, it will be several months before
a contract can be consummated with the Federal Government. Shortly
after a contract is signed, we will need to begin the master planning
process for the recreational facilities. I would expect that you,
through the Park Board, would want to manage that effort using a task
force that includes representation from the City of Denton and the Water
Department. Any monies expended on the piaster planning process will be
credited against the commitments contained -in the agreement with the
federal government - one/half of which will be borne by the federal
_ government.
i
i 1 Tentatively, we expect to present the project to the City Council on
j January 23. Your preliminary reaction to the contract by January 14
will be appreciated. Then, we would like for you to finalize your
s comments by February 10. We will get another chance to review the contract
after the federal government has made its review.
i
r /
Thomas E. Tay 'or
Assistant Director
Water Utilities
I ~
mb
Attachment
s
C; Camille Cates
Assistant to the City Menager
(w/o att.)
I. M. Rice, Director
Water Utilities Department
J (w/o att.)
i
6USli
bit
JAN 09 1980
CITY OF DENTON
MANACER'S OFFICE
ti
1
I
I
1
•R
t 1
~n{(
11
rk~
Bf: