ANNOUNCEMENTS
We continue strong efforts to gain support and obtain federal funding for updates to the Corps of Engineers Lake Texoma 1976 Environmental Impact Statement, 1978 Master Plan and1996 Shoreline Management Plan and to address other issues and improvements indicated on this web site.
  • Texas and Oklahoma federal, state and local representatives and officials.
  • Lake Texoma area businesses and organizations.
  • Boaters, fishermen, hunters, other recreational and wildlife enthusiasts and their organizations.
  • Be involved, you can make a difference!

HOT ISSUES
Go button

Oklahoma Lake Texoma State Park (Oklahoma Land Conveyance) EIS Scoping Report Summary, See Appendices for project descriptions and public comments.
Go button Eagles at Lake Texoma
Witness the evolution of a cove under development.
Supplement to Lake Texoma Environmental Impact Statement is Required
Why We Are Losing Prime Boating, Fishing, Hunting and Outdoor Recreation Areas?
What Can We Do About the Issues?
Who to Write to?
Little Mineral EIS (Denison Land Conveyance) Scoping Report Summary, See Appendix D for proposed development drawings and Public Scoping Comments in Appendix F.

Lake Texoma is a wonderful and unique place for water activities, birding and camping. It is located near Denison, Texas, 70 miles north of Dallas. Its shorelines are surrounded by federal and state lands. Its south shore, particularly on the east end, has forested shorelines, tall cliffs and deep coves with sandy beaches. Fish, birds, eagles, deer, turkeys and other wildlife flourish in this relatively unspoiled natural environment. It is an important ecological area. People are enticed to the Lake by the unspoiled natural beauty of this area.

Unfortunately, there are plans for this to change. Economic interests plan to change the designation of pristine shoreline now designated as “Protected,” “Aesthetic” and “Limited Development” under the Shoreline Management Plan (“SMP”) to allow development. See yellow highlighted area on this map. The City of Denison has also proposed a 474 acre “park” for this shoreline in order to allow roads and golf courses for developers which the developers cannot do as private interests. All this is intended to pave the way for development of shoreline with roads, two golf courses, an exclusive yacht club and some 200 condominium boathouses. The Lake Texoma SMP should not be changed to allow this activity in “Protected” or “Aesthetic” areas. “Limited Development” areas in Little Mineral Cove East should not be changed to allow higher density development.

Without your comments and participation, a special area near Grandpappy Point may be lost. I urge you to send a message to economic interests that the unique hunting, fishing, boating and natural beauty of Little Mineral Cove East and Butterfly Cove should be preserved, that the “Protected” and “Aesthetic” designation should not be lifted for any part of the lake, that parks should not be placed in “Protected” or “Aesthetic” areas, that an environmental impact study be done before consideration of any development and that additional buoys or boathouses should not be allowed. Do this by providing your comments to the Corps of Engineers at the addresses set forth below, and by attending the SMP meeting when it is noticed later this fall by the Corps of Engineers. Check the web sites provided below for the date of meetings and further information. We urge you to act now, comment periods and meeting dates may pass quickly.

Development pressure on this shoreline area has come about because of a large development of some 2000 acres and some 3000 homes by Schuler Development (the “Development”) behind Grandpappy Point (“Grandpappy’s”). Area generally between #2,3 and 4 on attached map. The Development generally extends from West Butterfly cove past Little Mineral East Cove (the third (#3 on map) of three beautiful coves southwest of Grandpappy Point). The City of Denison sees the area as a tax and employment base. However the costs over the life cycle of this project and the reliability of the developers will likely create a liability for the City. Economic and political interests want to increase the value of their private land by direct road access to the water, two golf courses and a yacht club on some 474 acres of Corps land, as well as condominium boathouses. Once obtained, the developer will sell the property and rights to a big commercial interest and run. In contrast, we believe that the people of Denison, taxpayers, hunters, fishermen and outdoor enthusiasts will be ultimate losers in such development.

Development on shoreline and public land along the shoreline has been limited to date because the zoning for this property must first be changed to allow development. Furthermore, an Environmental Impact Statement (“EIS”) is necessary under the Environmental Policy Act before changes to the SMP can occur. An EIS covers the social, economic, environmental and recreational impact of development, will cost over $1 million and take more than a year to complete. However, the Corps may try and bypass an environmental impact statement if it concludes from an internal Environmental Assessment (“EA”) that the Development is not a significant impact.

An EIS is required because this Development is clearly a “significant impact” on the whole lake by itself. However, this Development when considered with many other future proposed developments causes a “cumulative effect” which must absolutely be a “significant impact.” Furthermore, no full EIS has ever been done on the lake. The last EIS in 1976 was limited to operations and maintenance. It is inadequate for development and outdated. A full EIS is therefore required as a rational platform for future development. We urge that a full environmental impact statement be required in order to establish a baseline before any development is considered.

There are two areas of concern. The first is not to allow “Protected” or “Aesthetic” shoreline to be subject to parks, golf courses, boathouses, buoys or development of any kind. “Limited Development” area should not be changed to high density development for boathouses and yacht clubs. It should be preserved for hunting, fishing and recreation. The second is to stop and reverse the use of deep coves, particularly coves near this area, which allow limited development for boathouses.

With respect to the first concern, the City of Denison proposes that its “park” (essentially two golf courses and an exclusive yacht club) cover a substantial area of shoreline southwest of Grandpappy’s now designated as “Protected” or “Aesthetic.” See, attached map. It includes the third cove southwest of Grandpappy’s, i.e., Little Mineral East Cove (#3 on map). Once this third cove is gone, a first and second cove in this area will follow (#2 and #3 on map). These deep coves are a prime hunting, fishing, wildlife and overnight cruising destinations. These coves have deep estuaries and beaches for minnow habitat and nesting, shoreline-timber-grass interfaces that cause significant edge affects for wildlife concentration and two vintage historical sites. Over 100 deer hunters use this specific area each year. Turkeys and eagles are plentiful. For these reasons most of the area is designated as “Protected.” Any kind of park development, including roads and buildings, will not only eliminate hunting and wildlife, but is a step toward establishing marinas, golf courses and boat docks over the entire area.

We are not in favor of any development in any “Protected” or “Aesthetic” area. We do not believe the pubic will have any meaningful or free access to the shoreline though this proposed “park” area. Taxpayers will simply lose a unique area to private interests. Wildlife will loose its home and will have nowhere to go. Let the developers do their Development on their own private property.

With respect to the second concern, I note that West Butterfly Cove, and the First, Second and Third cove southwest of Grandpappy’s have the nicest beaches and coves for anchorages and families on the Lake. They support a large eagle habitat. They also constitute the vast majority of the safe overnight mooring coves on the south side of the Lake. Over twenty- five buoys and at least one condominium boathouse was placed by developers with Corps permit in West Butterfly Cove and the Third Cove at one time. The buoy permits also apparently allow boat houses and boat condominiums to be built. These buoys and boathouses are in a “Limited Development” zone of the SMP where buoys and boathouses are currently permitted. However, the permits take up all available buoy/boathouse sites in those coves. And even though the boathouses have not yet been built where the buoys are, the buoys restrict overnight anchoring, interfere with navigation and fishing, and actually restrict use of the Lake and beaches by boaters. When boathouses are built they will eliminate public use of beaches, fishing and use of the coves as anchorages by eliminating space and seclusion.

Loss of these areas will severely impact these special coves, wildlife and beaches which are a major factor in drawing people to the Lake. Buoys and boathouses should be restricted and even removed wherever possible. At best, only property owners with directly adjacent property should be allowed permits for buoys, and then only without boathouses. The SMP should be changed to be more restrictive before these areas are completely lost.

We also note that boat condominiums compete unfairly with marinas. Not only are current marinas vastly underutilized, but private boat condominiums do not pay taxes as do marinas. This is a loophole that is not only a loss of revenue for the community, but is unfair to current commercial interests. Boat condominiums as well as single private boathouses should not be allowed in these areas.

We urge you to provide comment to the Corps of Engineers that:

1. Shoreline designated as “Protected” or “Aesthetic,” nor adjacent public land designated as low density, should not be developed for parks, golf courses or otherwise. Such shoreline and public land on Little Mineral Arm should remain natural for hunting, fishing and aesthetic beauty. “Limited Development” shoreline in Little Mineral Cove East should not be changed to allow more development and should be changed to “Protected” shoreline.

2. An Environmental Impact Statement (“EIS”) must be made for the entire lake, and must include all public lands around the lake, before any further development on the lake is considered. The proposed Development and other developments to come pose a cumulative effect which requires an EIS. A full EIS will serve as a basis for discussion and is the only way to determine what impact these proposals will have on the lake.

3. In general, development of lake shoreline and adjacent public land beyond what it is now should be limited and controlled. The public should not be asked to fund an EIS for private developers.
4. The Corps should change the SMP to limit buoys and prevent boathouses in East and West Butterfly coves, as well as in Little Mineral East Cove or along any protected area. Whenever possible, buoys should be removed from these coves permanently.
5. There are many problems involved in the City of Denison Park Proposal. There is no guarantee of control, funding, maintenance, quality or public access. It should be denied. In the long run, the greatest economic benefit will be achieved by leaving the land as it is.

6. Any part of the area from Grandpappy’s lease to the end of Little Mineral Cove East which is not designated as “Aesthetic” or “Protected” should be designated a “Protected Area.”

It is the stated purpose of the Lake Texoma SMP to restrict development, protect wildlife and natural shoreline. People come to Lake Texoma precisely because of its natural beauty and wildlife. Development of areas designated as “Protected” or “Aesthetic,” and overdevelopment of “Limited Development” areas used for anchorages will ultimately decrease use of the Lake and result in loss of a unique natural resource for our children. Let the Corps of Engineers know your views on these issues.