DRAFT

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

OPENING of HUNTING

for

Buffalo Lake National Wildlife Refuge

Randall County

Texas 

For Further Information, Contact:

Refuge Manager

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Buffalo Lake National Wildlife Refuge

P.O. Box 179

Umbarger, Texas 79091

fw2_rw_buffalolake@fws.gov

Prepared by:

U.S. Department of the Interior

Fish and Wildlife Service

Umbarger, Texas

March 15, 2006
DRAFT

B2

BUFFALO LAKE NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

I. Purpose and Need for Action

The purpose of this action is to permit hunting on the Buffalo Lake National Wildlife Refuge

(NWR), Randall County, Texas. Hunting in the context of this environmental assessment is

defined as Big Game Hunting. In order to meet specific Refuge and other biological orders U.

S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) directives, the following purposes were established for

Buffalo Lake NWR:

The Buffalo Lake NWR Purposes are:

“... for use as an inviolate sanctuary,...for any other management purposes, ...for migratory

birds.” Migratory Bird Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 712d).

“...for use and administration under applicable laws as a refuge for migratory birds and other

wildlife...” Secretarial order 2843, dated November 17, 1959.

The Refuge Recreation Act (16 U.S.C. 460-1) states that each refuge is:

“...suitable for fish and wildlife oriented recreational development, the protection of natural

resources, and the conservation of endangered and threatened species.”

The Refuge System mission is:

 “...to administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation, management, and

where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats within

the United States for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans” (National

Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, Public law 105-57).

As a management objective, hunting provides the public with an opportunity to utilize a

renewable resource. Hunting is compatible with Refuge purpose and mission of the system and

is in the public’s interest on Buffalo Lake NWR as described under the National Wildlife Refuge

System Improvement Act of 1997.

II. Alternatives

This action will allow the public to hunt on Buffalo Lake NWR according to established

regulations. Three Alternatives were considered for Big Game hunting on the Refuge. They

included:

A. No Action
DRAFT

B4

B. Limited Hunting (during State seasons)

C. Open Hunting (during State seasons)

Criteria for evaluation of alternatives include:

1. Compatibility with Refuge purposes

2. Inviting public comment in planning process

3. Refuge cost

A. No Action Alternative

Under Alternative A, big game hunting would continue to be closed on Buffalo Lake NWR. 

Big game hunting has never been allowed on the refuge. This alternative would basically follow

the “status quo”of current management. As seen in the hunting plan, the mule deer population

would rise and fall dependent on habitat conditions. This natural cycle would likely to continue

through time, until populations reached a maximum level at which time a large die off could

occur from disease or starvation. Then populations would once again balance. 

Not allowing big game hunting would result in the loss of a recreational opportunity that is

compatible with Refuge purposes. Implementation of this Alternative would generally not be in

compliance with the Improvement Act of 1997 in regards to compatible public recreation. There

would be no additional cost to the Refuge under this alternative.

B. Limited Hunting (during State seasons)

Alternative B will allow limited participation of youth hunting at Buffalo Lake NWR using

restricted methods such as: assigning youth hunters through lottery draws; allowing only certain

species to be hunted; limiting to certain firearms; allowing hunting on limited days; and/or

limiting tracts or time periods of Big Game hunting. This hunting program is designed to

contribute to, or be compatible with, Refuge objectives. It will provide a recreational experience

to the general public and the opportunity to utilize a renewable resource. It could also maintain

some wildlife populations at managed levels. The seasons, species, and bag limits will be within

the framework of the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department’s (TPWD) regular state seasons and

further regulated by Refuge regulations according to Fish and Wildlife Service policy. Refuge

management goals and objectives may require occasional modifications to the hunting program

as harvest data, public use pressure, and Refuge programs, are developed. As currently proposed,

it is estimated that Refuge costs would be a $10,000 initially and about $6,000 per year

thereafter, for Big Game hunting, program implementation, facility maintenance, and compliance

checks under Alternative B. Under this Alternative, we will rely on Texas Parks and Wildlife for

law enforcement and the local special agent located in Lubbock. 

For Refuge-Specific Regulations, reference Section E.
DRAFT

B4

C. Open Hunting (during State seasons)

Alternative C will allow virtually unrestricted deer hunting to all participants who show up at

Buffalo Lake NWR during the entire State regulated season. Additionally, the entire Refuge

would be open to deer hunting. The seasons, species, and bag limits will be within the

framework of the TPWD’s regular state seasons and further regulated by Refuge regulations

according to Service policy. Refuge management goals and objectives may require occasional

modifications to the hunting program as harvest data, public use pressure, and Refuge programs,

are developed. As currently proposed, it is estimated that Refuge costs would be about $32,000

per year, for Big Game hunting for law enforcement from other neighboring Refuges in New

Mexico and Oklahoma, program implementation, facility maintenance, and compliance checks

under Alternative C. The State regulated season for mule deer both general and archery season

lasts more than 40 days. Substantial overtime would be necessary or the hiring of temporary staff

would be needed. Staff will randomly check hunters in or out over the various units that are

open for the season. Due to the nature of the frequently flooded and rutted dirt roads and parking

areas, constant maintenance would be necessary to minimize erosion and vehicle safety.

Under this alternative, it is likely that deer harvest rates will be high during the first hunting

season. Thereafter, doe/buck ratios will become highly skewed toward doe deer, which

depending on the ratio, may affect the proceeding year’s fawn population. If open hunting

continues the quality of the hunt will diminish. It is likely that hunting pressure under this

alternative will also diminish the quality of the hunting experience and pose a safety concern,

both of which is contrary to Service Policy. (8 RM 5.1, 5.2)

For Refuge-Specific Regulations, reference Section E.
DRAFT

B5

III. Description of the Affected Environment

Buffalo Lake National Wildlife Refuge was originally purchased under provisions of the

Bankhead-Jones Farm Tenant Act in 1937 by the Soil Conservation Service. First known as the

Tierra Blanca Water Conservation Project, the area was acquired to provide flood control and

recreation. Shortly after completion of the earthen Umbarger Dam, the area was turned over to

the U.S. Forest Service and renamed the Buffalo Lake Conservation Area. The project was

transferred from the U.S. Forest Service to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) on

November 6, 1958 by Executive Order #10787. Buffalo Lake National Wildlife Refuge was

established on November 17, 1959 under Secretarial Order #2843, using the Migratory Bird

Conservation Act as the authority. 

Tierra Blanca Creek and other natural springs fed Buffalo Lake until the 1970’s when irrigation

and urban water pumping depleted the aquifers to the point that perennial surface water no

longer existed. This draining of the aquifer was compounded by climatic drought which lowered

lake levels even further. Given these conditions the surface flows of Tierra Blanca Creek

eventually ceased and Buffalo Lake dried up. 

However, in 1978 a record flood within the Tierra Blanca Creek drainage filled Buffalo Lake to

capacity. Shortly after filling, Umbarger Dam was condemned resulting in the release of all

water within Buffalo Lake. Fourteen years later in 1992, Umbarger Dam was replaced with a

modern flood control structure able to withstand the torrential flooding that may occur within the

area. Current water quality suffers from upstream confined cattle feeder operations runoff. 

During a flood in 2004, water quality resulted in fecal coli form numbers too numerous to count

(>6000/L). Given this potential health hazard Buffalo Lake is no longer open to water activities

such as swimming, boating, or fishing. Therefore, public use at this time is limited to wildlife

viewing and camping. 

The Refuge Improvement Act states that each refuge will be managed to fulfill refuge purpose(s)

as well as to help fulfill the System mission. We will accomplish these purpose(s) and our

mission by ensuring that the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of each

refuge are maintained and, where appropriate, restored. Refuge purposes are the main drivers for

the management of a refuge and need to be kept at the forefront of all planning efforts and

management decisions. 

Landscape with Historic and Current Perspectives

In evaluating the wildlife and habitat management of the refuge, it is crucial to examine the

historic biological conditions of the refuge and the surrounding landscape. This information

provides a frame of reference for what the area can support in terms of wildlife and habitat, and

to help determine the best role of the refuge in the context of the surrounding lands.

The refuge is located in the southern portion of High Plains. This is a native short and mixed

grass prairie that once encompassed more than 350,000 square miles in 10 states, and stretched

along the eastern slope of the Rocky Mountains from Canada to southwestern Texas. The refuge
DRAFT

B6

is in a portion of the High Plains called the Llano Estacado, a large non-mountainous geological

region at the southern end of the High Plains. This area covers about 20 million acres and is

characterized by a flat, featureless, relatively high plateau that was virtually devoid of trees prior

to substantial development by man. Huge herds of bison and pronghorns roamed the plains, and

prairie dogs numbered in the millions. This prairie was adapted to grazing and periodic fire, and

developed under climatic conditions characterized by a small amount of effective precipitation.

By the late 1800’s, large portions of the original High Plains prairie were converted to

agriculture. By the early 1900’s, much of the original shortgrass prairie had been converted to

farm lands which increased with the onset of deep well irrigation. Today, Buffalo Lake National

Wildlife Refuge is located in Randall County which consists of 906,000 acres of land. As of

2002, 56 percent of the County was reported as farmland or a total of 512,309 acres (USDA

2002). In 2000, 10 percent of the county was reported in the Conservation Reserve Program

with a total reported acreage of 91,629 (USDA 2000). Buffalo Lake accounts for only 0.8

percent of the county. The remainder of Randall County remains managed for livestock grazing

with a small portion being considered urban or suburban. Therefore, this shift in land use over

the last 100 years has caused the extirpation several wildlife species such as the bison, gray wolf,

grizzly bear, pronghorn and elk. 
DRAFT

B7

IV. Environmental Consequences

This next section addresses the environmental impacts of the no action, limited hunting, and

open hunting alternatives as it relates to physical resources, biological resources, recreational

resources, socioeconomic resources, Improvement Act of 1997, and cultural resources.

A. No Action - Alternative A

Under this Alternative, big game hunting would continue to be closed on Buffalo Lake NWR.

a) Physical Resources

Physical resource impacts currently occurring within the Refuge are due to limited non-point

source pollution such as air borne particles from nearby grain elevators; runoff from roads and

farms; runoff from confined cattle operations (feed lots) and over bank flooding from the Terria

Blanca Creek. This alternative would not result in any new physical resource impacts.

b) Biological Resources

Being closed to big game hunting would minimize most adverse biological effects to flora and

fauna. It is possible that temporary over-population of deer resulting in habitat destruction could

occur without hunting.

c) Recreational Resources

This alternative would not provide the public with an opportunity to utilize a renewable resource

although hunting is compatible with Refuge objectives.

d) Socioeconomic Resources

Small businesses in the area would not benefit from hunters buying supplies, food or gas.

e) Improvement Act of 1997

Section 5(a)(3) of the Act states:

"(B) Compatible wildlife-dependent recreation is a legitimate and appropriate general public use

of the System, directly related to the mission of the System and the purposes of many refuges

and which generally fosters refuge management and through which the American public can

develop an appreciation for fish and wildlife;

(C) compatible wildlife-dependent recreational uses are the priority general public uses of the

System and shall receive priority consideration in refuge planning and management; and

(D) when the Secretary determines that a proposed wildlife-dependent recreational use is

compatible within a refuge, that activity should be facilitated, subject to such restrictions or

regulations as may be necessary, reasonable and appropriate." 

f) Cultural Resources

Cultural resources in the area would not be affected.
DRAFT

B8

B. Limited Hunting - Alternative B (Preferred Alternative)

Under Alternative B, hunting will be open on the Buffalo Lake NWR, with restrictions noted

below and under Section E, Refuge Specific Regulations.

a) Physical Resources

Physical resource impacts noted in Alternative A would continue under this alternative.

Alternative B will likely not increase deterioration of the limited Refuge dirt road system and

increase potential pollution from vehicular sources in the form of fumes and oil or radiator leaks

because of the limited number of hunters. In addition to a more complete list of Refuge Specific

Regulations listed under Section E, some of the restricted management practices that will be

used to minimize impacts include: 1) control the number of hunters (thus fewer cars); 2) limit the

length of the hunt season; 3) limit the tracts where hunting could potentially occur, especially on

roads/tracts that are constantly flooded during hunt season; 4) not allow the use of all terrain

vehicles; and 5) not allow the use of horses or pack animals.

b) Biological Resources

Likely little or no new biological impacts will occur during hunting activities to flora and fauna

under this alternative due to the limited number of hunters. Ways to minimize possible adverse

effects such as noise, trampling, and visual disturbances include many Refuge Specific

Regulations listed under Section E such as: 1) controlling the number of hunters (thus fewer

cars); 2) limiting the length of the hunt season; 3) limiting the tracts where hunting could

potentially occur, especially on roads/tracts that are constantly flooded during hunt season; 4)

not allow the use of all terrain vehicles or horses/pack animals; and 5) hunting during daylight

hours only. Additionally, increased presence by Refuge staff and law enforcement personnel

should help minimize biological impacts to the area through education.

c) Recreational Resources

Hunting in Texas is what many people consider as a way of life. Alternative B will provide a

limited opportunity for a wildlife-dependent recreational use of a renewable resource.

Controlling the number of hunters, tracts, and hunt days, would allow for a sustained quality deer

hunt.

d) Socioeconomic Resources

Small businesses in the area could benefit from some hunters renting hotels, buying supplies,

food or gas under this alternative. However, the benefits may be minimal. 
DRAFT

B9

e) Improvement Act of 1997

Section 5(a)(3) of the Act states:

"(B) Compatible wildlife-dependent recreation is a legitimate and appropriate general public use

of the System, directly related to the mission of the System and the purposes of many refuges

and which generally fosters refuge management and through which the American public can

develop an appreciation for fish and wildlife;

(C) compatible wildlife-dependent recreational uses are the priority general public uses of the

System and shall receive priority consideration in refuge planning and management; and

(D) when the Secretary determines that a proposed wildlife-dependent recreational use is

compatible within a refuge, that activity should be facilitated, subject to such restrictions or

regulations as may be necessary, reasonable and appropriate." 

f) Cultural Resources

Known cultural resources in the area should not be impacted.

C. Open Hunting - Alternative C

Under this Alternative, hunting would be open on all tracts of the Buffalo Lake NWR, during the

entire State season, seven days a week, with few refuge restrictions and unlimited number of

hunters.

a) Physical Resources

Physical resource impacts noted in Alternative A would continue under this alternative.

Alternative C will markedly increase deterioration of the limited Refuge dirt road system and

increase potential pollution from vehicular sources in the form of fumes and oil or radiator leaks

from unlimited hunter usage. Refuge Specific Regulations listed under Section E would be

limited under this Alternative. 

b) Biological Resources

Significant adverse biological impacts would occur during hunting activities to flora and fauna

under this Alternative. Although some ways to minimize major adverse effects would be

included under the Refuge Specific Regulations listed in Section E, most other restrictions

addressing the number of hunters, length of hunt season, and limits on which tracts that were

open would be eliminated under this alternative. Increased presence by Refuge staff and law

enforcement personnel may not be sufficient to minimize biological impacts to the area.

c) Recreational Resources

Hunting in Texas is what many people consider as a way of life. Alternative C would provide an

opportunity for a wildlife-dependent recreational use of a renewable resource. Without some

limitation of hunters, length of season, and which tracts are opened, degradation of such a

sustained hunt would occur. Being only half an hour away from Amarillo and more than 125,000 
DRAFT

B10

people have the potential to make this alternative very attractive to many hunters.

d) Socioeconomic Resources

Small businesses in the area could benefit from some hunters renting hotels, buying supplies,

food or gas under this alternative.

e) Improvement Act of 1997

Section 5(a)(3) of the Act states:

"(B) Compatible wildlife-dependent recreation is a legitimate and appropriate general public use

of the System, directly related to the mission of the System and the purposes of many refuges

and which generally fosters refuge management and through which the American public can

develop an appreciation for fish and wildlife;

(C) compatible wildlife-dependent recreational uses are the priority general public uses of the

System and shall receive priority consideration in refuge planning and management; and

(D) when the Secretary determines that a proposed wildlife-dependent recreational use is

compatible within a refuge, that activity should be facilitated, subject to such restrictions or

regulations as may be necessary, reasonable and appropriate." 

f) Cultural Resources

There is at least one cultural resource located on a Refuge tract. Under Alternative C, it would be

open to hunting, thus could be adversely affected.

V. Consultation and Coordination With Others
DRAFT

B11

VI. Summary

Summary of Impacts by Alternative

Impact Topics Alternative A

No Action

Alternative B

Limited Hunting

PREFERRED

ALTERNATIVE

Alternative C

Open Hunting

Physical Resources No new impacts. Some adverse impacts likely, but can

be minimized with maintenance and

enforcement.

Significant adverse impacts likely,

with limited controls for prevention

available.

Biological

Resources

No effect. Some adverse effects likely, but can

be controlled with refuge specific

regulations and enforcement.

Significant adverse impacts could

occur due to unlimited hunting and

reduced refuge specific regulations.

Recreational

Resources

Would not allow

a compatible,

recreational use.

Would allow a compatible, although

limited, recreational use.

Allows greater number of hunters

and hunting opportunity, but could

reduce quality aspects of hunt.

Socioeconomic

Resources

No benefit to area

economy.

Modest benefit to area economy. Greatest benefit to area economy.

Improvement Act of

1997

Partially met Met Partially met

Cultural Resources N/A N/A Could affect at least one known

cultural site.

Based on the review of the three alternatives, opening the Refuge to Limited Hunting,

Alternative B, was chosen as the Preferred Alternative. This alternative was selected because the

Service believes it offers the best type of public hunt with minimal impact on physical and

biological resources, while meeting the Congressionally mandated Improvement Act of 1997.