ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY
Clints-Wells Game Management Study
Unit, 5B
Carrie Wick, Shae Meyer, Cody Mosley
12/14/2009
Wick et al.
INTRODUCTION
Our proposal is to provide a management plan to improve the current condition of the
Clints-Wells game management study unit, 5B. Past management has included commercial
timber harvest, livestock grazing and minimal maintenance of water tanks, allowing tanks to
become in need of repair. Elk and deer are the primary game species in the area and other
wildlife include coyotes, bobcats, and mountain lions. Our objectives for the study unit are as
follows:
1. Determine stocking rates of the area
2. Decrease deer herd populations while increasing elk herd populations
3. Overtime, remove livestock grazing from the area
4. Suspend commercial timber harvesting
5. Remove sage from shrub lands while increasing higher protein quality forb species
6. Repair water tanks
STUDY AREA
Location
Our game management study unit (GMSU) is located in north central Arizona, in the unit
5B in Coconino country and is 125 km northwest of Phoenix, AZ is on 110 degrees 52’30” W
Longitude by 45 degrees 7’ 30” N Latitude. It is about 24.6km² of U.S. Forest Service land with
small areas of private ownership (Figure 1).
2
Figure
1. Geographic location of Clint Wells, unit 5B, located in north central Arizona, Coconino
Wick
et al.
county (AZGFD 2009).
Physical components
Slope ranges from 0 to 15% on the mesa tops with the elevation ranging from 1900 to
2200m. Areas surrounding the mesa tops have a slope from 20 to 70% (Figure 2).
The GMSU has a variety of intermittent and perennial streams; the main drainage area is the
Long Valley, which drains to the Verde River. Many water tanks as seen in figure 2, are
available for wildlife and livestock, however they are old and in need of repair.
3
Wick et al.
Figure 2. Elevation values, road location, and stock tank locations of Clint-Wells game management
study unit 5B, located in north central Arizona, Coconino county.
Climate
The mean annual precipitation for the GMSU ranges from 18 cm. at the lower elevations
to 40 cm. in the higher elevations. From the months of mid March to May, 40% of the
precipitation occurs. In the winter months, the majority of the moisture is from the Pacific
Ocean. During the winter, storms produce 1 to 1.5 m of snowfall. In the summer and fall there is
less than 2 cm precipitation per month from June to September, windy conditions are high during
4
Wick et al.
these dry months. Summer temperatures range from 9 to 37°C, while winter temperatures range
from -25 to 5°C. October first is the average date of the first frost with the last frost occurring in
late April.
Soils
The main soil in the GMSU is Bolliar, a stony clay loam (Argic Cryoborolls) with 0 to
10% slope. The uplands have McVickers, which is a very fine loam (Typic Cryoboralfs) with 0
to 10% slope and has Hogg fine sandy loam (Mollic Eutroboraoufs) with 0 to 20% slope. All
three of these soils are considered fertile, have a moderate infiltration rate and moderate to slow
permeability with a moderate erosion hazard. They are moderately deep, and considered good for
timber and forage production. Limestone, sandstone, granite, and basalt are the main rock types
of the GMSU, with limestone and granite found in the uplands and basalt and sandstone in the
valleys.
VEGETATION COMMUNITIES
The vegetation of the area consists of three community types: Ponderosa Pine/Arizona
fescue, Juniper/blue gamma grassland, and Juniper/blue Gamble oak shrubland (Figure 3).
The largest of these communities is the Ponderosa Pine/Arizona fescue type, which is
dominated by Ponderosa Pine (Pinus ponderosa) with an under story of Arizona fescue (Festuca
arizonica) and mountain muhly (Muhlenbergi montansis). Little blue stem (Schizocarium
scosparius), western wheatgrass (Elymus smithii) and Kentucky bluegrass (Poa partensis) are the
other grasses that make up this community. Cudweed sagewheat (Artimisia ludivisina), Arizona
5
Wick et al.
ragweed (Ambrosia physilostacia), fillary (Erodium circutariuim), and yarrow (Achillea
milifolium) are the dominant forbs of the community.
Figure 3. Vegetation distribution on the Clint-Wells game management study unit
5B, in north centralArizona
6
Wick et al.
`The Juniper/blue grama community is dominated by Juniper (Juniperus spp.) with blue grama
(Bouteloua gracilis), and black grama (B. eropidea) as the main grasses. Broome snakeweed
(Guterrizea sotheria) is another common species found in the community.
The Juniper/Gamble Oak community is co dominated by Allligator bark Juniper
(Juniperus depiana) and Gamble Oak (Quercus Gambelii) with Arizona fescue, mountain
muhley, cudweed sagewheat, and fillary consisting of the under story.
Table 1 and table 2 show the production of all three communities. Winter range
vegetation has been reduced by 50%, due to an increase of sagebrush in parts of area 1 (Figure
3).
Table 1. Vegetation type distribution and rough pasture layout for the GMSU 5B, north central
Arizona
Vegetaion Type
Ponderosa Pine/Arizona fescue
Juniper/blue Gramma Grassland
Juniper/ Gamble Oak shrubland
Area (Ha.)
2,000
94
373
Table 2. Mean net primary production and proper use factors for each vegetation type found on
GMSU 5B, north central Arizona
Forage Species
Ponderosa Pine
Arizona Fescue
Juniper/
Juniper/ Gamble
Blue Grama Oak PUF
Grass:
Wheatgrass spp.
3.4
5.6
1.9
60
Pine Dropseed
2.9
0
0
60
7
Wick et al.
Table 2. Continued
Sedge spp.
1
2.1
0
55
Orchard Grass
2.1
0
0
50
Arizona Fescue
4.6
0
0
60
Mountain Muhly
3.7
0
0
60
0
4.1
1.7
30
Bluegrass spp.
2.5
2.6
1.2
55
Little Bluestem
1.9
0
0.5
55
Blue Grama
0.3
3.2
1.9
60
Sideoats Grama
0.6
4.2
1.1
45
Cheatgrass
1.2
2.3
1.6
30
Red Brome
0.4
1.9
2.1
25
Squirrel-tail
0.8
1.6
0.9
60
Subtotal
25.4
27.6
12.9
Arizona Ragweed
0.9
1.2
0.9
30
Aster
1.6
1.6
1.1
45
0
0.6
0.3
50
Clover
2.6
2.5
1.6
60
Dandelion
0.6
0.6
0.2
50
Filarie
0.8
1.2
1.1
60
London Rocket
0.1
0.5
0.3
20
Lupin
2.7
1.9
1.4
60
Milkvetch
0.4
0.9
1.1
45
Ring Muhly
Forbs:
Bluedick
8
Wick et al.
Wooly Indian Wheat
0.1
0.4
0.3
50
Yarrow
0.3
0.2
0.3
60
9.8
11.4
8.3
Subtotal
9
Wick et al.
Table 2. Continued
Forage Species
Juniper/
Juniper/ Gamble
Blue Grama Oak PUF
Ponderosa Pine
Arizona Fescue
Broom Snakeweed
0.2
2.4
0.9
20
Buckbrush
3.4
2.1
1.6
60
Cliff Rose
2.1
0.9
2.3
55
Green Rabbitbrush
0.3
2.6
0.6
20
Mountain Mohagany
2.4
0
1.3
60
Serviceberry
3.1
1.1
1.6
60
Shrub Live Oak
0.3
0
2.3
25
Shrubby Buckwheat
0.1
0.5
0.9
55
Wrights Buckwheat
0.2
0.2
0.6
55
Gambel Oak
1.6
0
0
60
Juniper
0
0
0
Ponderosa Pine
0
0
0
Douglas Fir
0
0
0
Subtotal
13.7
9.8
12.1
48.9
48.8
33.3
Total
10
Wick et al.
CURRENT MANAGEMENT
Wildlife
Elk (Cervus elaphus) are the primary big game species to manage for with a large
number of mule deer, according to surveys conducted by AZGFD and Forest wildlife biologists
(Table 3). Both species of ungulates have overlapping habitat use with livestock, according to
pellet count analysis. Fawning and calving for mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus) occur in the
center of the management area, while fawning and calving for elk occur almost entirely in the
northern portion of the GMSU, which can be shown in table 3. The weight of both species have
been averaged from data reported from past hunter surveys. Elk and mule deer have their
parturition date of the last week of May through mid June. Tables 4 through 6 show the dietary
selection data for both wild ungulate and cattle.
Other wildlife in the GMSU include three pair of nesting spotted owls and two pair of
nesting goshawks, as reported by the Forest Service. The goshawks have produced young for the
past two years and the spotted owls produced young only two years ago. There are also a large
number of mice, chipmunks, squirrels and various other small rodents, predator species in the
GMSU include coyote (Canis latrans), bobcat (Felis rufus), and mountain lions (Felis concolor).
Table 3. Wildlife population parameters for GMSU 5B Clints Wells, Arizona.
Population
Male: Female
Winter Young
Birth
Survival (%)
Rate
Mean
Species
Size
Ratio
Elk
100
30:100
15
40:100
206
Mule Deer
500
26:100
12
28:100
73
Body
11
Weight (kg)
Wick et al.
Table 4. Summary of plant species composition of elk diets on the GMSU 5B, north central
Arizona.
Diet Composition
Forage Species
Spring
Summer
Fall
Winter
Wheatgrass spp.
5.6
8.6
4.6
1.3
Pine Dropseed
2.6
7.3
3.2
2
Sedge spp.
2.5
5.2
2.1
0.2
Orchard Grass
4.9
12.1
2.8
1.3
Arizona Fescue
3.2
10.2
21.3
5.2
Mountain Muhly
3.8
8.2
12.6
3.1
0
0
0.5
2.1
Bluegrass spp.
1.9
5.7
11.2
1.3
Little Bluestem
3.1
11.2
6.2
2.3
Blue Grama
3.6
4.3
1.2
3.4
Sideoats Grama
4.2
3.8
3.6
2.6
Cheatgrass
2.1
1.1
0.1
0
Red Brome
1.1
0.9
0.1
0
Squirrel-tail
2.5
3.5
2.6
1.9
Subtotal
41.1
82.1
72.1
26.7
Arizona Ragweed
1.1
1.2
0
0.2
Aster
2.3
2.9
0.5
0.2
Grass:
Ring Muhly
Forbs:
12
Wick et al.
Table 4. Continued
Bluedick
0.2
1.2
0
0
Clover
6.5
3.8
4.1
3.2
Dandelion
2.3
2.2
1
0.3
Filarie
2.1
0.5
0.1
0
London Rocket
1.2
0.2
0
0
Lupin
5.3
3.7
1.2
0
Milkvetch
1.5
0.9
0.3
2.6
Wooly Indian Wheat
0.9
0.6
0.1
0
Yarrow
1.3
0.7
2.1
2.7
Subtotal
24.7
17.9
9.4
9.2
Buckbrush
2.1
0
2.3
4.6
Cliff Rose
1.1
0
3.1
3.7
0
0
0.1
0.3
Mountain Mohagany
0.9
0
2
4.9
Serviceberry
3.5
0
4.5
9.2
Shrub Live Oak
0
0
0.2
3.9
Shrubby Buckwheat
0
0
0
1.1
Wrights Buckwheat
0
0
0
0.8
1.6
0
2.1
4.6
Juniper
0
0
0
8.2
Ponderosa Pine
12
0
4.2
12.1
Douglas Fir
13
0
0
9.7
Shrub/Trees:
Green Rabbitbrush
Gambel Oak
13
Wick et al.
Subtotal
34.2
0
18.5
64.1
Table 5. Summary of plant species composition of mule deer diets on the GMSU 5B, north
central Arizona.
Diet Composition
Forage Species
Spring
Summer
Fall
Winter
Grass:
Wheatgrass spp.
2.4
2.1
2.4
0.5
Pine Dropseed
1.7
1
1.6
0
0
1.2
0.5
0
Orchard Grass
1.8
4.3
2.1
1
Arizona Fescue
2.1
3.4
2.1
1.7
Mountain Muhly
0.9
0.5
1
0.8
0
0
0
0
Bluegrass spp.
5.1
2.6
0
0
Little Bluestem
2.3
1.2
0.5
0.4
Blue Grama
2.1
1.3
1.3
1.9
Sideoats Grama
4.7
2.3
3.2
3
Cheatgrass
0.3
0.1
0.1
0
Red Brome
0.1
0.2
0.1
0
Squirrel-tail
0
0.4
1.7
1.3
Subtotal
23.5
20.6
16.6
10.6
Sedge spp.
Ring Muhly
14
Wick et al.
Table 5. Continued
Forbs:
Arizona Ragweed
3.4
4.3
3.4
0.8
Aster
3.3
5.2
4.9
1.2
Bluedick
3.1
2.1
0.7
0
Clover
5.5
11.5
10.6
3.4
Dandelion
2.3
4.3
3.2
0.9
Filarie
4.6
2.6
2.1
0.9
London Rocket
4.3
2.1
1.3
0.8
Lupin
5.2
12.1
9.4
0.2
Milkvetch
3.1
4.6
4.2
2.2
Wooly Indian Wheat
4.2
5.3
2.1
0.5
Yarrow
4.6
7.6
6.3
1.9
43.6
61.7
48.2
12.8
0
0
0.5
1.2
Buckbrush
4.8
3.8
4.2
7.8
Cliff Rose
3.8
3.5
5.1
4.9
Green Rabbitbrush
0.2
0
0
0.6
Mountain Mohagany
4.2
2.9
5
6.2
Subtotal
Shrub/Trees:
Broom Snakeweed
15
Wick et al.
Table 5. Continued
Serviceberry
6.2
4.2
7.6
18.2
Shrub Live Oak
1.4
0.3
2.3
4
Shrubby Buckwheat
2.5
1.1
3.2
3.2
Wrights Buckwheat
1.6
0.8
3.2
2.2
Gambel Oak
1.3
1
2.3
2.5
Juniper
1.2
0
0
8.1
Ponderosa Pine
0.6
0
0
7.3
Douglas Fir
5.1
0.1
1.8
10.4
Subtotal
32.9
17.7
35.2
76.6
16
Wick et al.
Table 6. Summary of plant species composition of cattle diets on the GMSU 5B, north central
Arizona.
Diet Composition
Grass:
Wheatgrass spp.
13.2
Pine Dropseed
5.2
Sedge spp.
2.6
Orchard Grass
12.8
Arizona Fescue
8.6
Mountain Muhly
5.4
Ring Muhly
2.1
Bluegrass spp.
4.9
Little Bluestem
4.6
Blue Grama
6.9
Cheatgrass
2.4
Red Brome
1.2
Sideoats Grama
9.6
Squirrel-tail
2.9
Subtotal
82.4
17
Wick et al.
Table 6. continued
Forbs:
Arizona Ragweed
1
Aster
1
Bluedick
0.2
Clover
4.2
Dandelion
0.8
Filarie
0.2
London Rocket
0.1
Lupin
2.4
Milkvetch
1.9
Wooly Indian Wheat
0.4
Yarrow
0.5
Subtotal
12.7
Shrub/Trees:
Broom Snakeweed
0.1
Buckbrush
0.5
Cliff Rose
0.4
Green Rabbitbrush
0.1
Mountain Mohagany
0.3
Serviceberry
1.9
Shrub Live Oak
0.2
18
Wick et al.
Shrubby Buckwheat
0.3
Wrights Buckwheat
0.5
Table 6. continued
Gambel Oak
0.1
Juniper
0.3
Ponderosa Pine
0.1
Douglas Fir
0.1
Subtotal
4.9
Livestock
Historically, grazing season was from May 15 to October 1, with each pasture
independently grazed with one quarter of cattle in a season long grazing strategy. Cattle were let
into the pasture and moved to historic use areas with very little effort to ensure uniform
distribution. As a result of careless livestock management, grasslands communities in the GMSU
have diminished with the northeastern portions of the pasture are in fair conditions and the
northern and southern portions of pasture two are in poor condition. As previously stated,
dilapidated tanks forecasted a limited amount of water, which is the main reason for the previous
grazing patterns.
The operational parameter under which the operator of this GMSU manages his/her herd
is as follows:
19
Wick et al.
1.
Calving takes place in late march prior to arrival on the summer GMSU. Past
performance records have shown the operation to have a 94% calving rate with a
90% weaning rate. Weaning normally takes place in late August/early
September.
2.
The Bull: Cow ratio of 1:15 has been effective with 20% of the bulls replaced
annually.
3.
Replacements are retained from within the herd with an annual culling rate of
12%. Culling takes place in October concurrent with sending calves to market.
Additionally, there has been an annual expected death loss of 3%.
Habitat Preference
Observations conclude that elk are avoiding the middle 1/3 of the slope and are selecting
for areas with drainages and areas on the upper 1 /3 of the slope. They are avoiding areas with a
north, north-east, and east facing slopes, with an aspect of 0-100°. Elk prefer aspects in range
between 200-250°, which is a south-west facing slope. Vegetation areas with only pine/bunch
community are avoided while areas with pine/juniper/bunchgrass and pine/juniper are selected
for.
Diet Analysis
Diet Analysis of the area shows that digestible protein intake is a current concern for the
herd. As shown in Figure 4, the digestible protein is not met for a great portion of the year with
the available forage. As shown with figure 5 our energy requirements are met just fine for most
of the year only being below needs in the heart of winter. In regards to the protein analysis of
20
Wick et al.
the diet, removal of cattle from the area should eliminate competition for the available species
with higher protein content during late summer months. According to our carrying capacity
calculations, we are currently over using our available production of forage species in the area.
In addition to this, the extended drought that Arizona has been in could play a major role in the
available green vegetation during late summer because of mild summer monsoon storms. Further
analysis as well as small scale habitat manipulations designed to allow for more native high
protein species should help in meeting this deficiency. As seen energy intake is not a current
concern because of the levels that are being achieved with current vegetation presence.
Figure 4. Digestible Protein intake and requirements for Elk in GMSU 5B
21
Wick et al.
Figure 5. Energy Requirements and intake for Elk in GMSU 5B
Carrying Capacity
Elk and mule deer are present in the GMSU year round. Their current animal units can be
observed in tables 7-8. In respect to forage, currently the elk population AU is 2842.6kg per year
of forage per animal. Mule deer population AU is 945.9kg per year of forage per animal. Cattle
are present year round, their AU is not based off of total population, but rather seasonal grazing,
their AU is 4106.25 of forage per animal per year. Table 9 shows the amount of forage
consumption for each of the grazing animals in the area and the results conclude that there is not
a sufficient amount of forage for all three.
Based on the carrying capacity and forage availability for the ungulates we propose elk
numbers should increase from 100 to 160, while mule deer numbers should decrease from 500 to
180. Overtime livestock should be eliminated from the area. We propose having the leases for
22
Wick et al.
the ranchers expire after a 5 year time period. As a result of these actions, our calculations result
in a more capable management approach to forage availability in the GMSU for wild ungulates
(Table 10).
In accordance to stocking rates, with the proposed 160 elk and 180 mule deer we
calculated stocking rate by first getting animal units all in number of elk. So each elk is
equivalent to 2.808219178 mule deer. This gives us a total animal number of 224.1 with a
stocking rate of 11 HA per elk Animal Unit. To find out the deer stocking rate we just divide 11
by 2.808219178 which gives us 3.9 HA per deer.
Table 7. Current elk population AU
Mature Bull AU
Cow Elk AU
Yearling Elk AU
Young Elk weaned AU
Elk Population AU
.45
1
.042
.018
1.51
Table 8. Current mule deer population AU
Mature Bull AU
Cow Elk AU
Yearling Elk AU
Young Elk weaned AU
Elk Population AU
.45
1
.042
.018
1.51
23
Wick et al.
Table 9. Forage availability for the grazing animals in the GMSU, at current carrying capacity.
Species
Current level
Amount of Forage
Consumed HA
Amount left over HA
Elk
Mule Deer
Cattle
100
282,464.4
472948.8
246375
344,741
-128207.8
-374582
500
240
Table 10. Forage availability for the grazing animals in the GMSU, at proposed carrying
capacity.
Species
Obj. number
Amount of Forage Used
HA
Elk
Mule Deer
Cattle
160
180
0
451,943
170261.6
0
Amount left for other
Species HA
175,262
5000.4
5000.4
HABITAT MANIPULATION
Timber Management
The GMSU forest area has recently been used for commercial timber harvest in the last 3
years. During the winter months, unused timber harvest products was piled and burned. As a
result, disturbed sites have had significant soil disturbance. Spring precipitation has made for
even more soil loss as a result of overland flow.
Our proposal for forest of the GMSU is to suspend commercial timber harvest. The USFS
could hopefully perform a selective harvest on sapling and smaller trees on ½ of the 2,000
24
Wick et al.
hectare community while leaving 10-15 old growth pine trees/acre. We recommend to only cut
1000 acres because as previously stated, there are nesting location for the Mexican spotted owl
and goshawks which depend on old growth forests for their habitat. Habitat loss is the main
threat for both species. Keeping the oldest and largest trees will also help reestablish Arizona
fescue (Festuca arizonica) as the dominant and plentiful understory species.
In order to avoid uncontrolled wildfires, we propose having 10-20 controlled burns 50100 acres in size when conditions are appropriate through the course of a 10 year period. Early
summer burns are beneficial as they assist in seed penetration into the soil before monsoons and
after spring precipitation.
Water Tank Management
Water tanks in the GMSU are in desperate need of repair. Water availability is essential
to the production of wild ungulate populations, especially in current drought conditions. We
propose using a large part of our funding going towards repairing or modifying earthen water
tanks. Water tanks that are need of fewer repairs will have preference over those which repair is
greater, and water sources that can fill 3200 meter gaps between suitable habitats are very
important. In some instances, if tanks are in such poor condition that they are deemed unrepairable, they will be replaced with more efficient and effective water tanks or catchments if
adequate funding is available or not replaced at all. We understand that construction on the tanks
may result in soil disturbance in these areas, however in the long run water availability will be a
more important factor for the game and nongame species. Since we have proposed eliminating
25
Wick et al.
livestock from the GMSU, maintenance on water tanks after repair will be limited. Also the loss
of livestock from the GMSU will result in more water availability for elk and mule deer.
Sage Management
Sagebrush has become an invasive species with poor forage value in extended portions
(over 50%) of the winter rage portion of the study area. This treatment is anticipated to increase
winter forage value as well as replace nutrients in the soil. Spot treatments will be selected for by
identifying hectare blocks with greater than 60% sage brush density.
In order to alleviate protein deficiencies, we propose that white sagebrush (Artemisia
ludoviciana), should be removed from shrub lands and then be restored for more optimal grasses,
forbs, and shrubs. The grasses we would prefer to use would be Arizona fescue (Festuca
arizonica), Mountain muhly (Muhlenbergia montana), Ring muhly (Muhlenbergia torreyi). The
forbs would consist of Alfalfa (Medicago spp.) and various Lupines (Lupinus spp.). Shrubs
would be specific to various serviceberry (Amelanchier spp.), Antelope bitterbrush (Purshia
stansburiana), Mountain mahogany (Cercocarpus montana), and Desert ceonothus (Ceonothus
greggi). Removal of sage would be a process through prescribed burning as chaining methods
are not feasible in our study area. Aerial, broadcast seeding would be used for the re-seeding of
the grasses, forbs, and shrubs in a fixed-wing aircraft.
26
Wick et al.
LITERATURE CITED
Arizona Game and Fish Department. 2008. Game Management Unit 5b.
http://www.azgfd.gov/h_f/hunting_units_5b.shtml. 2 December 2009.
27