Risk Analysis FrameworkRisk Analysis Framework

1. Risk assessment

Triggers• pest• commodity• pathway• ecosystem

Identify threat

Estimate likelihood of occurrence

Estimate magnitude of

consequences

Develop conclusionsand

Describe uncertainty

2. Risk response

Identify mitigation options

Evaluate mitigation options• efficacy• feasibility• impacts

Develop recommendationsand

Describe uncertainty

Decision

3. Risk communication

Communication

Strategic(policy advice)

Public

Science(feedback to process)

Identifying the threat Does MPB pose a threat to the boreal?

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?

Identifying the threatIdentifying the threat

Pine-leading stands (working forest) = 35 million ha, 4.6 billion m3 Pine-leading stands (working forest) = 35 million ha, 4.6 billion m3

Source: D. McKenney and D. Yemshanov, unpublished results of host distribution research based on CanFI and EOSD data.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 (m3/ha)

Uncertaintyo Historic range = very low; FIDS surveyso Expanded range = moderately low; incomplete/unconfirmed

surveys

Likelihood of occurrence

There has been a recent change in the geographic range of MPB

Likelihood of occurrenceLikelihood 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

Uncertaintyo Jack pine suitability = moderately low; lab/arboreta

studies

Likelihood of occurrenceLikelihood 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 >40m3/ha

CanFI data

Uncertaintyo Forest inventory data = moderately high; timber supply

analyseso Forest inventory relevance = moderate; applicability of BC

models

Likelihood of occurrenceLikelihood 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

… - 0.10.1 - 0.20.2 - 0.30.3 - 0.40.4 - 0.50.5 - 0.60.6 - 0.70.7 - 0.80.8 - 0.90.9 - …

… - 0.10.1 - 0.20.2 - 0.30.3 - 0.40.4 - 0.50.5 - 0.60.6 - 0.70.7 - 0.80.8 - 0.90.9 - …

… - 0.10.1 - 0.20.2 - 0.30.3 - 0.40.4 - 0.50.5 - 0.60.6 - 0.70.7 - 0.80.8 - 0.90.9 - …

… - 0.10.1 - 0.20.2 - 0.30.3 - 0.40.4 - 0.50.5 - 0.60.6 - 0.70.7 - 0.80.8 - 0.90.9 - …

Uncertaintyo Climatic suitability models = moderate; relevance to boreal

conditionso CC projections = moderate; GCM limitations

Régnière et al., unpublished

Magnitude of consequencesMagnitude 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

Uncertaintyo Forest 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 (m3/ha)

2.36.9

0.7

11.4

43.3

25.2

2.16.1

23.5

87.0

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

NLNSPENBQCONMBSKABBC

Ha

rve

st (

mill

ion

m3 )

Harvest volumes by province

Source: CFS (2006)

Magnitude of consequencesMagnitude 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 0.440.51

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

Can

ada

NB

BC

QC

NS

NL

ON

MB

AB

SK

“Nature-related” jobs as a proportionof direct jobs in forestry

Pro

port

ion

Source: Env’t Canada (2000); CFS (1997)

Uncertaintyo Non-timber impacts =

low

Magnitude of consequencesMagnitude 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

Uncertaintyo Increased fire risk =

moderate

The bottom lineThe 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

Action recommended because…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