1. Risk Analysis Framework 1. Risk assessment Triggers pest commodity pathway ecosystem Identify threat Estimate likelihood of occurrence Estimate magnitude of consequences Develop conclusions and Describe uncertainty 2. Risk response Identify mitigation options Evaluate mitigation options efficacy feasibility impacts Develop recommendations and Describe uncertainty Decision 3. Risk communication Communication Strategic (policy advice) Public Science (feedback to process)

2. Identifying the threat Does MPB pose a threat to the boreal?  2006 long-distance dispersal event  Invasion of the Alberta plateau  Lodgepole-jack pine hybrid zone  Invasion corridor to the boreal forest?  2006 long-distance dispersal event  Invasion of the Alberta plateau  Lodgepole-jack pine hybrid zone  Invasion corridor to the boreal forest?

3. Identifying the threat  Pine-leading stands (working forest) = 35 million ha, 4.6 billion m 3 Source: D. McKenney and D. Yemshanov, unpublished results of host distribution research based on CanFI and EOSD data. <0.1 0.1 - 2 3 - 5 6 - 10 11 - 20 21 - 40 41 - 80 81 - 120 121 - 250 251 - 500 Little's distribution range Pine (lodgepole and jack) volume (m 3 /ha)

4. Uncertainty oHistoric range = very low; FIDS surveys oExpanded range = moderately low; incomplete/unconfirmed surveys Likelihood of occurrence There has been a recent change in the geographic range of MPB

5. Likelihood of occurrence  Successful reproduction in virtually all Pinus species (native or introduced)  Measures of performance identical in lodgepole and jack pines (lab studies)  Ophiostomatoid fungal mutualists successful in jack pine  Successful reproduction in virtually all Pinus species (native or introduced)  Measures of performance identical in lodgepole and jack pines (lab studies)  Ophiostomatoid fungal mutualists successful in jack pine MPB has a wide range of host species (Pinus), including jack pine Uncertainty oJack pine suitability = moderately low; lab/arboreta studies

6. Likelihood of occurrence  Pine forests less contiguous within the boreal zone vs BC  Stands capable of sustaining epidemic beetles fragmented  BC vs boreal differences = climate, soils, fire suppression, selective harvesting  Pine forests less contiguous within the boreal zone vs BC  Stands capable of sustaining epidemic beetles fragmented  BC vs boreal differences = climate, soils, fire suppression, selective harvesting The demographics of boreal pines is suboptimal for epidemic MPB Pine-leading (>50%) stands Pine-leading (>50%) stands, pine volume >40m 3 /ha CanFI data Uncertainty oForest inventory data = moderately high; timber supply analyses oForest inventory relevance = moderate; applicability of BC models

7. Likelihood of occurrence  Climatic suitability high in area of recent outbreaks  Suitability relatively high in northern AB and SK, but declines in all models in central and eastern Canada  Isolated zones of suitability in ON, QC and NL  Northward shift in suitability with additional climate change  Climatic suitability high in area of recent outbreaks  Suitability relatively high in northern AB and SK, but declines in all models in central and eastern Canada  Isolated zones of suitability in ON, QC and NL  Northward shift in suitability with additional climate change Climatic suitability is highest in the west, and decreases eastward Logan’s univoltinism (modified) Safranyik’s (modified) Régnière & Bentz cold tolerance Geometric mean Likelihood … - 0.1 0.1 - 0.2 0.2 - 0.3 0.3 - 0.4 0.4 - 0.5 0.5 - 0.6 0.6 - 0.7 0.7 - 0.8 0.8 - 0.9 0.9 - … … - 0.1 0.1 - 0.2 0.2 - 0.3 0.3 - 0.4 0.4 - 0.5 0.5 - 0.6 0.6 - 0.7 0.7 - 0.8 0.8 - 0.9 0.9 - … … - 0.1 0.1 - 0.2 0.2 - 0.3 0.3 - 0.4 0.4 - 0.5 0.5 - 0.6 0.6 - 0.7 0.7 - 0.8 0.8 - 0.9 0.9 - … … - 0.1 0.1 - 0.2 0.2 - 0.3 0.3 - 0.4 0.4 - 0.5 0.5 - 0.6 0.6 - 0.7 0.7 - 0.8 0.8 - 0.9 0.9 - … Uncertainty oClimatic suitability models = moderate; relevance to boreal conditions oCC projections = moderate; GCM limitations Régnière et al., unpublished

8. Magnitude of consequences  Lower pine volume in stands east of BC  Scale of threatened timber supply much lower  MPB may threaten operability of marginal, low-volume stands  Lower pine volume in stands east of BC  Scale of threatened timber supply much lower  MPB may threaten operability of marginal, low-volume stands Expected volume losses in the boreal forests of AB/SK/MB less than BC Uncertainty oForest inventory data = moderate to low; timber supply analyses <0.1 0.1 - 2 3 - 5 6 - 10 11 - 20 21 - 40 41 - 80 81 - 120 121 - 250 251 - 500 Pine (lodgepole and jack) volume (m 3 /ha) 2.3 6.9 0.7 11.4 43.3 25.2 2.1 6.1 23.5 87.0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 NLNSPENBQCONMBSKABBC Harvest (million m 3 ) Harvest volumes by province Source: CFS (2006)

9. Magnitude of consequences  Boreal/eastern pine forests = significant source of non-timber revenues (e.g. tourism, recreation, trapping)  Smaller scale of forestry in prairie region = greater relative significance of non-timber resources  MPB-related forest management interventions may conflict with these values  Boreal/eastern pine forests = significant source of non-timber revenues (e.g. tourism, recreation, trapping)  Smaller scale of forestry in prairie region = greater relative significance of non-timber resources  MPB-related forest management interventions may conflict with these values Non-timber impacts will be relatively greater in the prairie region vs BC 0.55 0.23 0.34 0.44 0.51 0.88 0.96 1.12 1.56 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 Canada NBBC QC NS NL ONMB ABSK “Nature-related” jobs as a proportion of direct jobs in forestry Proportion Source: Env’t Canada (2000); CFS (1997) Uncertainty oNon-timber impacts = low

10. Magnitude of consequences  Dead pine may increase fuels for wildfire  Potential impacts complex – time dependent, and beetle dependent  Salvage harvesting may increase risk  Interactions with CC?  Dead pine may increase fuels for wildfire  Potential impacts complex – time dependent, and beetle dependent  Salvage harvesting may increase risk  Interactions with CC? Additional wildfire risk may be present in post-MPB stands Uncertainty oIncreased fire risk = moderate

11. The bottom line  MPB has expanded its range: milder winters and an abundance of susceptible trees has favored an unprecedented build-up of populations in BC and subsequent emigration to AB  There are few apparent biological impediments to successful completion of life history in eastern pine species (e.g. jack pine)  Spread and impacts in the boreal will likely be less than observed in BC but risks of further spread and damage are now significantly higher than previously  Control actions can reduce, but not eliminate the threat  MPB has expanded its range: milder winters and an abundance of susceptible trees has favored an unprecedented build-up of populations in BC and subsequent emigration to AB  There are few apparent biological impediments to successful completion of life history in eastern pine species (e.g. jack pine)  Spread and impacts in the boreal will likely be less than observed in BC but risks of further spread and damage are now significantly higher than previously  Control actions can reduce, but not eliminate the threat

12. Action recommended because…  MPB is a new threat in the boreal, and its potential and unpredictable impacts are high  With less than ideal climate and forest structure in boreal forest, slowing the spread may be feasible  Control at the leading edge has proved more successful than control of outbreaks  The source area for beetle emigrants is decreasing, therefore control may only be required for a short time  MPB is a new threat in the boreal, and its potential and unpredictable impacts are high  With less than ideal climate and forest structure in boreal forest, slowing the spread may be feasible  Control at the leading edge has proved more successful than control of outbreaks  The source area for beetle emigrants is decreasing, therefore control may only be required for a short time