Risk Analysis Framework

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

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?

3. Identifying the threat <0.1 0.1 - 2 3 - 5 6 - 10 Pine (lodgepole and jack) volume (m3/ha) 11 - 20 21 - 40 41 - 80 81 - 120 121 - 250 251 - 500 Little's distribution range Source: D. McKenney and D. Yemshanov, unpublished results of host distribution research based on CanFI and EOSD data. • Pine-leading stands (working forest) = 35 million ha, 4.6 billion m3

4. Uncertainty • Historic range = very low; FIDS surveys • Expanded 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 Uncertainty • Jack pine suitability = moderately low; lab/arboreta studies MPB has a wide range of host species (Pinus), including 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

6. Likelihood of occurrence Uncertainty • Forest inventory data = moderately high; timber supply analyses • Forest inventory relevance = moderate; applicability of BC models The demographics of boreal pines is suboptimal for epidemic MPB Pine-leading (>50%) stands • 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-leading (>50%) stands, pine volume >40m3/ha CanFI data

7. Likelihood of occurrence … - 0.1 … - 0.1 … - 0.1 … - 0.1 0.1 - 0.2 0.1 - 0.2 0.1 - 0.2 0.1 - 0.2 0.2 - 0.3 0.2 - 0.3 0.2 - 0.3 0.2 - 0.3 0.3 - 0.4 0.3 - 0.4 0.3 - 0.4 0.3 - 0.4 0.4 - 0.5 0.4 - 0.5 0.4 - 0.5 0.4 - 0.5 0.5 - 0.6 0.5 - 0.6 0.5 - 0.6 0.5 - 0.6 0.6 - 0.7 0.6 - 0.7 0.6 - 0.7 0.6 - 0.7 0.7 - 0.8 0.7 - 0.8 0.7 - 0.8 0.7 - 0.8 0.8 - 0.9 0.8 - 0.9 0.8 - 0.9 0.8 - 0.9 0.9 - … 0.9 - … 0.9 - … 0.9 - … Uncertainty • Climatic suitability models = moderate; relevance to boreal conditions • CC projections = moderate; GCM limitations Logan’s univoltinism (modified) Likelihood Climatic suitability is highest in the west, and decreases eastward Safranyik’s (modified) • 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 Régnière & Bentz cold tolerance Geometric mean Régnière et al., unpublished

8. Magnitude of consequences <0.1 0.1 - 2 3 - 5 6 - 10 11 - 20 Uncertainty • Forest inventory data = moderate to low; timber supply analyses Expected volume losses in the boreal forests of AB/SK/MB less than BC Pine (lodgepole and jack) volume (m3/ha) 21 - 40 41 - 80 81 - 120 121 - 250 251 - 500 • Lower pine volume in stands east of BC • Scale of threatened timber supply much lower • MPB may threaten operability of marginal, low-volume stands 100 90 87.0 Harvest volumes by province 80 70 60 Harvest (million m3) 50 43.3 40 30 25.2 23.5 20 11.4 10 6.9 6.1 2.3 2.1 0.7 0 Source: CFS (2006) BC AB SK MB ON QC NB PE NS NL

9. Magnitude of consequences Uncertainty • Non-timber impacts = low Non-timber impacts will be relatively greater in the prairie region vs BC “Nature-related” jobs as a proportion of direct jobs in forestry 1.8 • 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 1.6 1.56 1.4 1.2 1.12 1.0 0.96 Proportion 0.88 0.8 0.6 0.55 0.51 0.44 0.44 0.4 0.34 0.23 0.2 0 NL AB SK NB BC NS QC ON MB Canada Source: Env’t Canada (2000); CFS (1997)

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

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

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