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

2. Why are we here? Understand your needs Create a useful product DSS for Ironwood Applicable Elsewhere

3. Agenda – Day One  Present prototype models for Ironwood  How the model works  Inputs  Scenario Outputs  Breakout Groups  Needs and requirements for a DSS  Developing scenarios (Decisions and Uncertainties)  Discussion  Presentation on Helicopter Study

4. Agenda – Day Two  Presentation of additional scenario outputs  Presentation on treatment effectiveness at Saguaro National Park  Presentation to decision makers  Discussion Product  Factsheet – Workshop outcomes and scenario Results

5. 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? $

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

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

8. Catalina Study Area

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 – reduced inventory  Mortality  Based on precipitation

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

21. Double Budget  Intensive inventory frequency – 7 to 3 years  Backpack spraying – 200 to 300 acres  Added more costly contract hand pulling  Accessible – 30 acres  Remote – 10 Acres  Follow-up maintenance – 80 to 160 acres

22. Double Budget

23. Management Everywhere  Same ratio of mgmt as current scenario  Lower probability of inventory

24. Mortality and Growth  Index used to spatially alter probability of mortality and growth

25. Mortality  Same as current mgmnt + mortality

26. Detected vs. Undetected

27. Inventory and Control Costs

28. Management Costs

29. Management Efficiency

30. Updates to be incorporated  Inventory needs to be updated.  Affects the amount acres that are detected. When it is updated there will be more inventory occurring, and potentially more buffelgrass found.  Update the effectiveness of spraying  Explore inventory vs. control  Calibrate with Tucson Mountain data  Explore more scenarios