1. U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey Fort Collins Science Center Invasives Species Science Branch Science and Management Priorities for Mitigating the Impacts of Buffelgrass Invasion and Novel Fire Regimes in the Sonoran Desert First Annual Workshop, May 4-6, 2010 Tucson

2. U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey National Park Service Bureau of Land Management Forest Service Department Of Defense Fish & Wildlife Service Arizona State Lands Department Arizona State Parks Arizona DOT Pima County Administrator Pima County NR, Parks & Recreation Pima County DOT City of Tucson Town of Oro Valley Town of Marana Town of Sahuarita Pima Association Of Gov’ts Responsibility for Public Lands & Right-of-Ways in Pima County Tohono O’dham Nation

3. U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey Buffelgrass Scenarios for Ironwood Forest National Monument Tracy Holcombe, Leonardo Frid, Catherine Jarnevich

4. How can a DSS help?  Resources are limited  Alternative actions are expensive  Lag time between actions and results  How to get the highest return on investment? $

5. Alternative decisions Inventory - $$$$$ Treatment - $$$$$$$$$ Maintenance - $$$ Inventory - $$$$$$$$$$$ Treatment - $$ Maintenance - $$$$ OR?Where?

6. Multiple objectives  Public safety  Biodiversity  Tourism  Cost effective

7. Frid et al. ( in press) Invasive Plants Science & Management

8. Buffelgrass Spread Rates at 11 sites South slope Catalina Mts Olsson, Betancourt, Marsh & Crimmins, In Review, Journal of Arid Environments

9. Calibrating Spread

10. Questions?  What if control could happen in neighboring areas?  What if intensive surveys could be conducted more frequently?  What if budget could be increased?  What if treatment effectiveness could be increased? What would the cost be?

11. Questions?  How much buffelgrass is invading from neighboring lands?  What if volunteers were not available?  What if budgets were interrupted so treatment would only happen every two years?  Where is the biggest fire risk?  Where would the most effective treatment to reduce fire risk?

12. Model development process  Biology of species  Growth, Spread and Mortality  Management activities  Effectiveness  Amount  Cost  Scenarios  Change management actives  Change management amounts  Change uncertainties

13. State and Transition Model

14. Current Buffelgrass Invasion  Based on survey data  Classified into categories listed

15. Ironwood Land Ownership  Remote = 1 mile from roads  Units here define management actions

16. Habitat suitability  Classifies landscape into three categories  Used to change max density, probability of establishment and spread

17. Scenarios run  No Management  Current Management  Double Budget  Manager allocated  Manage everywhere

18. No Management  No management  No mortality

19. Management Input Management Activity<5% 5 to 50% >50% >50 partial Cost Per Acre Acres Per Yr Incidental Inventory1%50%90% $0.0612,000 Intensive Field Surveys90% 100% $0.10129,000 Vehicle Mounted Spraying50%* 25% $400.0010 Backpack Spraying (accessible)50%50%*50%25%* $125.00200 Volunteer Hand Pulling (accessible & remote) 90% 9% $68.6440 Follow-up maintenance (volunteer remote) 100%NA $68.6410 Follow-up maintenance (accessible)100%NA $112.0080 Effectiveness by percent cover *Have updated values not yet incorporated

20. Current Management 10-yr time step 2022-2062

21. No Management vs Current

22. Area Invaded

23. Cost of Treatment over 50 Years

24. Management Efficiency

25. NEXT STEPS  Acceptance of DSS as common framework  If yes, how do we extend to all jurisdictions?  Data and research needs (e.g., suitability, spread parameters, treatment effectiveness)  Consideration of short-term risks (fire)  Who will run the models? (consultant, USGS, agency staff)  Usability (software & web user interface)  Adoption of spreadsheet for regional planning