Optimizing the implementation of a forest fuel break network.

Methods and models to design, prioritize and evaluate fuel break networks have potential application in many fire-prone ecosystems where major increases in fuel management investments are planned in response to growing incidence of wildfires. A key question facing managers is how to scale treatments into manageable project areas that meet operational and administrative constraints, and then prioritize their implementation over time to maximize fire management outcomes. We developed and tested a spatial modeling system to optimize the implementation of a proposed 3,538 km fuel break network and explore tradeoffs between two implementation strategies on a 0.5 million ha national forest in the western US. We segmented the network into 2,766 treatment units and used a spatial optimization model to compare linear versus radial project implementation geometries. We hypothesized that linear projects were more efficient at intercepting individual fire events over larger spatial domains, whereas radial projects conferred a higher level of network redundancy in terms of the length of the fuel break exposed to fires. We simulated implementation of the alternative project geometries and then examined fuel break-wildfire spatial interactions using a library of simulated fires developed in prior work. The results supported the hypothesis, with linear projects exhibiting substantially greater efficiency in terms of intercepting fires over larger areas, whereas radial projects had a higher interception length given a fire encountered a project. Adding economic objectives made it more difficult to obtain alternative project geometries, but substantially increased net revenue from harvested trees. We discuss how the model and results can be used to further understand decision tradeoffs and optimize the implementation of planned fuel break networks in conjunction with landscape conservation, protection, and restoration management in fire prone regions.

Trade-offs and efficiencies in optimal budget-constrained multispecies corridor networks.

Conservation biologists recognize that a system of isolated protected areas will be necessary but insufficient to meet biodiversity objectives. Current approaches to connecting core conservation areas through corridors consider optimal corridor placement based on a single optimization goal: commonly, maximizing the movement for a target species across a network of protected areas. We show that designing corridors for single species based on purely ecological criteria leads to extremely expensive linkages that are suboptimal for multispecies connectivity objectives. Similarly, acquiring the least-expensive linkages leads to ecologically poor solutions. We developed algorithms for optimizing corridors for multispecies use given a specific budget. We applied our approach in western Montana to demonstrate how the solutions may be used to evaluate trade-offs in connectivity for 2 species with different habitat requirements, different core areas, and different conservation values under different budgets. We evaluated corridors that were optimal for each species individually and for both species jointly. Incorporating a budget constraint and jointly optimizing for both species resulted in corridors that were close to the individual species movement-potential optima but with substantial cost savings. Our approach produced corridors that were within 14% and 11% of the best possible corridor connectivity for grizzly bears (Ursus arctos) and wolverines (Gulo gulo), respectively, and saved 75% of the cost. Similarly, joint optimization under a combined budget resulted in improved connectivity for both species relative to splitting the budget in 2 to optimize for each species individually. Our results demonstrate economies of scale and complementarities conservation planners can achieve by optimizing corridor designs for financial costs and for multiple species connectivity jointly. We believe that our approach will facilitate corridor conservation by reducing acquisition costs and by allowing derived corridors to more closely reflect conservation priorities.