The Mountain Pine Beetle Epidemic

and the Impact on Canada’s

Forest Products Industries

By Dan Stickney 1156808

Submitted to

Dr. Joseph Doucet BUEC 560

March 14, 2007

ii

Abstract

The mountain pine beetle (MPB) epidemic centered in British Columbia’s

lodgepole pine forests has resulted in unprecedented loss and damage, and threatens to

expand into Canada’s nation-wide boreal forests in northwestern Alberta. A combination

of milder winter temperatures and successful fire suppression regimes has created an

optimal environment for the MPB to thrive. In the MPB’s wake, millions of hectares of

primarily lodgepole pine forests have been decimated, converting a traditionally valuable

resource into a surplus volume supply of altered and less valued timber.

As a result, many processing and value recovery challenges are currently facing

the forest product industries of BC. Comparatively, beetle-kill wood is much drier than

traditional timber supply, therefore increasing machining and energy costs. Moreover, the

MPB initiates the colonization of bluestain fungi, which is not only responsible for the

wood moisture loss, but causes a bluish stain in the sapwood of attacked trees. This

reduces the aesthetic appeal of the wood, which results in a much lower marketability for

appearance grade products.

Provincial and federal aid packages are mitigating the economic impact of the

MPB in part by tailoring research initiatives towards potential uses for beetle-kill wood,

along with strategies to prevent further MPB advancement into other species of pine.

Although economic activity has significantly increased in communities impacted by the

MPB, there is concern as to the long-term consequences of the epidemic as the timber

volume will be significantly reduced from traditional levels.

iii

Table of Contents

Abstract ................................................................................................................... ii

Table of Contents................................................................................................... iii

List of Tables and Figures...................................................................................... iv

1.0 Introduction................................................................................................. 1

2.0 The Mountain Pine Beetle Epidemic .......................................................... 2

2.1 Life Cycle of the Mountain Pine Beetle ................................................. 3

2.2 Cause and Spread of Current Epidemic .................................................. 5

2.3 The Aftermath of Beetle Attack.............................................................. 7

2.4 Government Response ............................................................................ 9

3.0 Challenges in Utilizing Beetle-Kill Wood................................................ 13

3.1 Processing Challenges .......................................................................... 13

3.2 Product and Market Challenges ............................................................ 15

4.0 Conclusion ................................................................................................ 18

References............................................................................................................. 19

iv

List of Tables and Figures

List of Tables

Table 1. Shelf-life Scenarios and Deterioration Agents ......................................... 9

Table 2. Problems Cited in Processing MPB Wood............................................. 16

List of Figures

Figure 1. The Potential for Host Damage Caused by the MPB............................. 2

Figure 2. Life Cycle of the Mountain Pine Beetle .................................................. 4

Figure 3. Lodgepole and Jack Pine Hybrid Zone in Alberta .................................. 6

Figure 4. Horizontal Variation of Moisture Content in Lodgepole Pine ................ 8

Figure 5. MPB Primary Area of Concern ............................................................. 11

1

1.0 Introduction

The current mountain pine beetle (MPB) epidemic has, and continues to have an

enormous impact on the forest products industry in Canada with no potential end in sight.

Beginning in the mid-1990s, the epidemic has spread to such extent that the majority of

British Columbia’s (BC’s) lodgepole pine population is at risk and may be entirely

decimated in the next few years. More importantly, the MPB has extended beyond its

traditional habitat boundary in the last few years and is now threatening the jack pine

species, found abundantly throughout the boreal forests of Canada that stretch eastward

to Newfoundland.

The MPB has historically played a balancing role in the lodgepole pine forest

ecosystem, which also included regularly occurring forest fires. Older, weaker forests

would be preyed upon by this combination, making way for younger healthier forests.

Years of forest fire suppression combined with recent milder winters have created an

ideal environment for the MPB, as it depends upon more mature forests to perpetuate its

life cycle. In response, federal and provincial governments have developed strategy plans

to mitigate the effects of the MPB, and look for ways to curtail its advance.

Many challenges have resulted from the intensity of this MPB epidemic, forcing

the forest products industry in BC to adjust towards a substantial volume of beetle-kill

fibre supply. As this fibre supply significantly differs from traditional supply, industry is

coping with new processing and market challenges in particular. Should the epidemic go

national, the majority of provinces in Canada may have no choice other than to learn the

hard lessons imposed upon BC’s forest products industry.

2

2.0 The Mountain Pine Beetle Epidemic

The current MPB epidemic is the largest infestation ever recorded in North

America.1 There are a number of contributing factors that have provided ideal conditions

for this unprecedented epidemic, most notably an increase in both climatic suitability and

host susceptibility. Given the drivers of MPB’s life cycle in relation, the MPB has been

responsible for the loss of 400million m3 (approximately 22%) of British Columbia’s

merchantable lodgepole pine since the mid-1990s. At the current rate of spread, this

amount will increase to 80% by 2013.2 This has resulted in a significant supply of beetle-

killed pine and disruption of traditional timber supply. Moreover, the epidemic has grown

to such proportions that it now stretches into Alberta and threatens other pine species

such as jack pine, found abundantly in the northern boreal forests that stretch across

much of Canada as shown below in Figure 1.

Figure 1. The Potential for Host Damage Caused by the MPB (Source: British Columbia. Ministry of Forests. British Columbia’s Mountain Pine Beetle Action Plan 2006-2011. p 16. < http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfp/mountain%5Fpine%5Fbeetle/ >)

3

There are several impacts of the current epidemic on ecosystems, habitat,

watershed, and species mix in the forest, while many socioeconomic challenges are

emerging in communities and industries dependent on these forests. In particular, the

forest and wood processing industries face a significant challenge of how to best utilize

the increasing stock of affected timber supply, which has significantly different properties

than traditional supply. As a response, both the BC and Alberta governments have

developed strategies to deal with these challenges, while the federal government unveiled

its Mountain Pine Beetle Initiative (MPBI) in 2002 to complement these strategies.

2.1 Life Cycle of the Mountain Pine Beetle

The MPB plays a very important role in the life cycle of several species of

pine in Western Canada including lodgepole, ponderosa, and western white pine.

These species are the principal hosts for the MPB, although any native North

American pine within the MPB’s range can be a suitable host such as eastern

white and jack pine. The MPB typically interacts with pine forests by attacking

older or weakened trees that are then replaced by new healthy pine forests. These

trees provide not only a source of food and shelter, but provide a refuge for the

MPB to reproduce. In doing so, the host tree is typically killed if successfully

colonized.

Generally, the life cycle of a MPB is one year. Beginning in its initial

summer, adult MPBs will locate a suitable host and attack the tree by boring

through the bark to the sapwood, where they will mate and lay their eggs. During

the attack stage of infestation, the MPB will introduce a bluestain fungus, which

aids the MPB in resisting the tree’s defense of releasing pitch flow to fend off

4

attack. The mutualistic relationship between the MPB and bluestain continues as

the fungus also serves to cut the flow of water and nutrients off to the rest of the

tree and provide a source of food for the recently hatched MPB larvae. Within a

couple of weeks, the feeding action of the larvae and the spread of the bluestain

fungus kill the host tree.

Over the winter months, the larvae continue to grow under the bark of the

tree, surviving the winter temperatures due to the buildup of glycerol in their

blood. Depending on the stage of larvae development, MPB larvae can withstand

temperatures as low as -34 to -40˚C between the months of December to

February; however early or late cold spells can result in mass mortality as

glycerol levels may not be adequate.3 Following winter, the larvae transform into

pupae in the spring and finally emerge as adult MPBs in the early summer as

shown in Figure 2 below.

Figure 2. Life Cycle of the Mountain Pine Beetle (Source: <http://mpb.cfs.nrcan.gc.ca/biology/biology_e.html>)

5

2.2 Cause and Spread of Current Epidemic

One of the primary reasons attributed to the current MPB epidemic is the

milder winter temperature that the interior of BC has been experiencing in the

past decade. The absence of sustained cold spells during most of this period,

especially cold snaps in early fall and late winter, have resulted in low mortality

of the MPB. In the south and central interior of BC where the epidemic has hit

hardest, the average minimum winter temperature has increased in the range of

2.2-2.6˚C during the period from 1895 to 1995.4 Moreover, the MPB has

historically been restricted from migrating from its native lodgepole pine forests

of western North America by extreme continental climate to the north and east,

the Rocky Mountains, and non-forested prairies. Researchers have hypothesized

that the beetle’s suitable range is extending both north and eastward, and to higher

altitudes in light of recent global warming trends.5

Perhaps more significant than milder temperatures, successful fire

suppression programs of the past century have resulted in an increase of the age-

classes of lodgepole pine susceptible to beetle attack from 17% to approximately

55% in BC.6 In order for the MPB to locate optimal living conditions, host

selection is typically in the age range of 80 years or more. These older trees

exhibit increased bark and phloem thickness among other favourable attributes –

characteristics that provide more shelter and increase MPB reproductive rates.7 As

a result, the emergence of a more mature forest has provided a significant increase

in suitable habitat for the MPB.

6

Similarly, this combination of fire suppression and warmer winters has

resulted in outbreaks in Alberta’s western foothills area, and has extended the

MPB’s range as far north as the Peace Region. Furthermore, the epidemic now

threatens the jack pine species, as north-western Alberta is the only place in North

America where east and west species of pine are found to meet and hybridize as

illustrated in Figure 3 below.8 If the MPB is able to successfully colonize the

hybrid lodgepole-jack pine and pure jack pine forests, the MPB problem will

potentially become national in scope and leave Canada with a much larger

predicament.

Figure 3. Lodgepole and Jack Pine Hybrid Zone in Alberta (Source: Ono, H. 2004. “The Mountain Pine Beetle: Scope of the Problem and Key Issues in Alberta.” Page 65 in Challenges and Solutions: Proceedings of the Mountain Pine Beetle Symposium. Kelowna, British Columbia, Canada. October 30-31, 2003. Ed. Shore, T.L., J.E. Brooks and J.E. Stone. Natural Resources Canada, Canadian Forest Service, Pacific Forestry Centre, Victoria, BC. Information Report BC-X-399. 298 p.)

7

2.3 The Aftermath of Beetle Attack

The primary method of locating and determining the extent of a MPB

attack is through aerial surveys. Following the summer of a MPB attack, the

crown needles of affected trees will begin to turn a yellowish colour by late fall.

Within a year, the needles throughout the tree will turn a reddish colour and be

classified as “red attack”. During the second year, the needles will typically fall

off the tree, whereupon the tree is classified as “grey attack”. The changes of

colour are used to approximate the extent of damage to the stand as either light (1-

10% mortality), moderate (11-29% mortality), or severe (>30% mortality).9

Following a MPB attack, an important consideration is how much of the

affected timber can be salvaged and marketed. In post-attack trees, the recovery of

wood on-site is dependent on such factors as climate, standing trees versus fallen

trees, and bark condition among others. Particularly in wet climates, the wood

will begin to decay much sooner if it has fallen and is in contact with the ground.

Thus the “shelf-life” of standing post-attack lodgepole pine varies, with some

research indicating significant value losses after only 1 to 3 years10, while others

have found processing of standing “grey attack” trees with the bark still intact to

be profitable.11 Nonetheless, once the tree is killed it begins to deteriorate, and the

recovery of marketable wood decreases the longer the tree is left in the forest.

Another post-attack problem is the significant moisture loss that occurs in

the first year, due primarily to the bluestain fungus that spreads throughout the

sapwood, which is where the majority of water resides in a living tree. Figure 4 on

the next page illustrates the horizontal variation of moisture content (MC) found

8

in both infested (after one year) and non-infested lodgepole pine. The MC is

eventually reduced to a level below the fibre saturation point (FSP, which is

approximately 30%), which causes the wood itself to shrink. Below the FSP, the

shrinkage in the wood will often develop large checks (splits in the longitudinal

direction), which degrades the wood and further reduces value recovery. Table 1

on the next page summarizes the various shelf-life scenarios and the variables that

contribute to deterioration of post-attack wood.

Figure 4. Horizontal Variation of Moisture Content in Lodgepole Pine (Source: Reid, R.W. 1961. Moisture Changes in the Lodgepole Pine Before and After Attack by the Mountain Pine Beetle. For. Chron. 34:368-375.)

9

Table 1. Shelf-life Scenarios and Deterioration Agents (Source: Adapted from: Lewis, Kathy J.; Hartley, Ian. 2005. Rate of Deterioration, Degrade and fall of Trees Killed by Mountain Pine Beetle: A Synthesis of the Literature and Experiential Knowledge. Natural Resources Canada, Canadian Forest Service, Pacific Forestry Centre, Victoria, BC. Mountain Pine Beetle Initiative working paper 2005-14. 34 p.)

PROPERTY CHANGE FROM GREEN

CONDITION

TIME-SINCE-DEATH

VARIABLES THAT CAN INFLUENCE PROPERTY

Moisture content

sapwood

Reduced < 20% Dry sub-zones = 12 months

Wet sub zones = > 24 months

Time of attack – late in seasons, moisture content drops to the fibre saturation point (30% MC)

within 2 months

Moisture content -

heartwood

No change N/A N/A

Checking Checking develops in

standing trees

Dry sub zones = 12 months

Wet sub zones > 24 months

Wet sub zones – checking may be straighter Cooler sub zones – onset of checking may be

delayed

Bluestain 40% of sapwood 100% of sapwood

2 months 9 months

For large diameter trees, bluestain affects less overall volume than for smaller diameter trees

Decay – standing trees

Initiation of sap rot

Dry sub zones = 10

years Wet sub zones

> 7 years

Tree diameter – large trees = less proportional loss

Moisture content – dry wood limits fungal development, most decay will be at the base of

the tree where it contacts the ground Stand density – increased density = increased

decay Tree fall 40% of infected

trees down Dry sub zones = 10 years Wet sub zones > 7 years

Wet sub zones – expect 90% down within 15 years

Tree diameter – increased diameter = decreased fall rate

Soil moisture regime – increased mortality rate = increased soil moisture = increased fall rate

Increased MPB tree fall – increased risk to wind throw of entire stand

2.4 Government Response

The pine timber supply in BC has traditionally accounted for 25-30% of

the provinces annual timber supply, and upwards of 50% of supply in areas

affected most by the MPB.12 In November 2001, the BC provincial government

formally announced a strategic action plan to deal with the MPB epidemic. The

10

plan focused on protection of forest health and the economic well being of

communities directly impacted by the infestation, and contained input from

government, industry, and independent consultation. As well, the government also

mandated a significant increase in the provincial annual allowable cut (AAC) in

the regions hardest hit by the MPB in an attempt to salvage as much timber as

possible. By 2003, the AAC attributed to beetle-kill wood was 9% of the

provincial AAC of 74.4 million m3/year, or approximately 23% of the AAC of

MPB affected areas.13

Over the short-term, this has significantly increased the economic activity

in areas handling beetle-kill timber processing; however the government is facing

challenges of how to mitigate the inevitable depression of economic activity

following the salvage. In their most recent action plan, the BC government

anticipates that forestry-related incomes may decline 25% from current levels

after the salvage.14 In an effort to minimize the impact, the BC government’s

action plan outlines an economic diversification strategy in those communities

affected by the MPB.

Compared to BC, the Alberta government has approached the MPB

epidemic differently as the MPB has yet to become firmly entrenched in Alberta’s

bordering forests. Thus the focus has been on prevention and containment of the

pest, ever since MPB outbreaks became a concern in the late 1990s. In addition to

the potential risk of the MPB to neighbouring boreal forests, approximately two

million hectares of pine forests along Alberta’s eastern border are at risk with an

estimated commercial value of $23 billion.15 Between 2002 and 2004, an average

11

of 1000 infested trees were discovered in Alberta each year. In 2005 however, this

number escalated dramatically to 19,000 infected trees followed by an estimate of

800,000 to 1.5 million infested trees by 2006.16 Following a massive flight of

MPB into Alberta from BC in July 2006, the Alberta government released their

version of a MPB action plan in September 2006, which focuses on control,

prevention, and if required, salvage operations similar to what are currently

underway in BC. The current area of concern in Alberta for MPB infestation is

shown in Figure 5 below.

Figure 5. MPB Primary Area of Concern (Source: Alberta. Sustainable Resource Development. 2006. p 3. Mountain Pine Beetle Action Plan for Alberta. Available online: <http://www.srd.gov.ab.ca/forests/health/directives.html>)

12

Within a year of BC’s announced action plan, the federal government

announced its Mountain Pine Beetle Initiative (MPBI), which pledged $40 million

of assistance to mitigate the impact and spread of the MPB in BC. This was

followed by another $100 million injection in March of 2005.17 Subsequently, the

new federal Conservative government announced The Federal Mountain Pine

Beetle Program in January 2007, which contributed an additional $200 million to

combat the effects of the MPB.18

The initial MPBI divided funding into land-based and research programs,

with part of the land-based program designed to assist private, non-industrial

forest owners. The second part of the land-based program is to address beetle-kill

harvesting and forest restoration. The research component is to be used to develop

knowledge to monitor, control, and respond to the increasing threat of the MPB.

Additionally, the research funding also provided resources to reduce the

ecological, economic, and social repercussions of the epidemic. Similarly, the

most recent funding continues the fight against the MPB epidemic, with focus on

slowing the spread, recovering economic value, and protecting communities and

forest resources.19

13

3.0 Challenges in Utilizing Beetle-Kill Wood

Canada’s federal and provincial economies rely heavily on the forest industry as

this sector accounted for 11.6% of all exports (for which BC accounted for 33%) and

contributed 3.1% (23% of all natural resources) or $36.8 billion to Canada’s total gross

domestic product (GDP) in 2004.20 Most notably, BC and Alberta account for over 43%

of Canada’s aggregate AAC, which pine forests are a significant portion.21 Consequently,

the MPB epidemic is significantly impacting BC’s forest products sector, and threatens to

do the same in Alberta.

There are a number of challenges faced by the forest sector resulting from the

current MPB epidemic. The aftermath of beetle-kill leaves a fibre resource that differs

significantly from traditional supply, which affects every stage of fibre processing from

the source of the timber through to the processing of end products. Furthermore, the

different properties exhibited by MPB-affected fibre often have an impact on the integrity

of the traditional products manufactured from pine and the markets that they serve. In

light of the current MPB epidemic, government and industry involvement has contributed

to a surge in research to determine how best to utilize the significant and growing beetle-

kill fibre supply.

3.1 Processing Challenges

The processing of beetle-kill logs presents many challenges from

extracting the logs from the forest through to sawmilling. Primarily, the culprit is

the substantial reduction in MC that these logs exhibit due mainly to growth of

bluestain fungi in the sapwood following a MPB attack. As a result, the logs

become very brittle causing them to break more easily when handled. During the

14

extraction-to-mill process, the largest value losses occur as beetle-kill logs

undergo a significant amount of handling.22 The logs are extracted and handled

with large machinery in the forest, are loaded onto trucks, and are handled again

during off-loading at the mill; all that increase the chance for log breakage. Thus,

the resulting value losses come in the form of shorter lumber lengths, which

already is of lower value due to the internal checking caused by reduced MC and

growth of bluestain. Moreover, additional value losses may occur as increased

time may be required to gather logs from a forest mixture of standing and fallen

trees, as opposed to a more orderly standing forest.

During the sawmilling stage of processing, a number of further losses

occur attributable to both a decrease in lumber recovery and increases in wear on

processing machinery. Ordinarily, the majority of logs processed by a mill will

arrive at the mill in a “green” condition, possessing a MC substantially above the

fibre saturation point (>30%). Logs are processed in this condition as the moisture

provides the benefit of reduced friction and wear on cutting blades and thereby

less energy to cut the wood. Furthermore, green logs are much less brittle, thus

reducing the incidence of material breakage and jamming during milling, which

decreases mill downtime costs. Another critical factor in value recovery of beetle-

kill logs is that scanning and optimizing equipment used in sawmills do not take

log checking into account, thereby increasing the output of lower value grades of

products.23

The final stages of primary processing include kiln drying and planing,

which also present challenges in lumber recovery and processing costs. In

15

particular, kiln drying lumber is generally associated as being the process where

the largest losses of lumber value occur due to the stresses formed when the wood

shrinks, resulting in degrade including checks and splits. During the drying phase,

over-drying may occur to beetle-kill wood as the MC has already been

significantly reduced, which exacerbates the problems already found when drying

green wood. Moisture sorting lumber prior to drying is a method of mitigation, as

a customized drying schedule can be employed to minimize lumber degrades in

beetle-kill wood. These efforts however, may not offset the increased costs

associated with the additional handling and sorting required. Finally, the planing

process results in cost increases and value losses similar to sawmilling in that

blade life is reduced, and the incidence of material jams and energy used

increases. Table 2 on the next page summarizes sawmill-processing problems

associated with beetle-kill wood. Other log processors such as oriented strand

board (OSB) and plywood manufacturers, face similar processing challenges as

described with sawmilling.

3.2 Product and Market Challenges

Perhaps the largest challenges to overcome in utilizing MPB-affected

wood is determining the suitability of the fibre supply for various products, and

then gaining product acceptance in a discerning marketplace. Compared to

healthy wood, beetle-kill wood used for dimensional lumber exhibits similar

structural strength and dimensional stability properties; however it displays

increased permeability due to the effects of bluestain.24 Although the structural

integrity of beetle-kill wood is not significantly affected by bluestain, the markets

16

for appearance grade lumber are, as there have been previous attempts to market

bluestain wood without lasting success. Furthermore, certain markets such as the

Japanese, or J-grade market are negatively affected by the aesthetics of bluestain,

as it is perceived to be an early sign of wood decay.25 Primarily, the lack of

aesthetic appeal of bluestain limits affected wood to niche markets such as log

cabins.

Table 2. Problems Cited in Processing MPB Wood (Source: Nielson, R.W.; Wright, D.M. 1984. Utilization of Beetle-killed Lodgepole Pine. Forintek Canada, Western Division, Vancouver, BC. Report.)

17

Panelboard products such as OSB and medium-density fibreboard (MDF),

and veneer products such as plywood have potential to utilize some of the

bluestain fibre, as this has already been the case with MDF in past MPB

epidemics in the 1980’s.26 What is currently unclear is if panel boards could meet

required standards using 100% bluestain fibre only. The limited research that has

been done suggests that plywood may be feasible, but OSB and MDF would

likely prove more costly due to lumber recovery losses and the substantial

increase in adhesive required.27, 28

Currently, a flurry of research activity to determine possible end-uses for

MPB affected wood is underway. Funded by federal and provincial initiatives,

organizations such as Forintek, Natural Resources Canada, and the Forest

Engineering Research Institute of Canada (FERIC) have been studying potential

utilization strategies for the substantial and increasing supply of MPB wood. In

the short-term, any progress and discoveries will be welcomed in light of the

current surplus of beetle-kill timber in BC. Should the epidemic spread into

Canada’s boreal forests, the initiatives taken to utilize this altered resource will

become even more meaningful. In the long-term however, stakeholders in the

forest products industry must prepare and adopt products, processes, and markets

that will allow them to eventually revert back to a more traditional and possibly

reduced fibre supply at minimal cost.

18

4.0 Conclusion

The current MPB epidemic is responsible for unprecedented devastation to the

lodgepole pine forests that make up a substantial portion of BC’s timber supply. An ideal

combination of milder winters and mature lodgepole pine has created optimal conditions

for the MPB to thrive and extend its traditional habitat boundary farther northward and

eastward than was believed possible. Now at the boreal forest’s doorstep in Alberta,

should the MPB successfully gain a foothold in the abundant jack pine population, the

MPB dilemma will likely become a national epidemic.

There are a number of challenges that Canada’s forest product industries have

encountered due to the affected fibre supply. Most notably, significantly higher volumes

of wood with altered MC and aesthetic properties now require processing in the short-

term. To this end, processing costs are bound to increase as the lower MC logs require

more energy and tooling to machine, while value recovery decreases due to shorter

lumber lengths and unfavorable aesthetic properties attributed to bluestain.

The federal and provincial governments of BC and Alberta have developed

strategies that attempt to mitigate the current devastation, while conducting research and

implementing preventative measures to halt the MPBs eastward advancement. Such

initiatives should include research to alter the landscape and controllable circumstances

that led towards the epidemic, and focus on processes that will help deliver maximum

value from an altered timber supply. More importantly, all stakeholders must prepare for

the long-term effects of the epidemic, which will likely see a lower than traditional

harvest level when the epidemic finally subsides.

19

References

1 Canada. Natural Resources Canada. The State of Canada’s Forests 2005-2006. Ottawa: Canadian Forest Service, 2006. p 58. <http://www.nrcan.gc.ca/cfs-scf/national/what-quoi/sof/latest_e.html> 2 British Columbia. Ministry of Forests. British Columbia’s Mountain Pine Beetle Action Plan 2006-2011. Victoria: MOF. p 3. < http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfp/mountain%5Fpine%5Fbeetle/ > 3 Logan, J.A.; et al. 1995. “Assessing the Effects of Changing Climate on Mountain Pine Beetle Dynamics”. Pages 92-105 in Proceedings of the Interior West Global Change Workshop, April 25-27, 1995, Fort Collins, Colorado. Ed. Tinus, R.W. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, General Technical Report RM-GTR-262.

4 British Columbia. Ministry of Environment. 2007. Accessed March 6, 2007. <http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/air/climate/indicat/maxmin_id1.html> 5 Logan, J.A.; Powell, J.A. 2001. Ghost Forests, Global Warming and The Mountain Pine Beetle. American Entomologist. 47: 160-173. 6 Taylor, Steve W. et al. “Forest, Climate and Mountain Pine Beetle Outbreaks in Western Canada.” Page 67 in The Mountain Pine Beetle A Synthesis of Biology, Management, and Impacts on Lodgepole Pine. Ed. Les Safranyik and Bill Wilson. Victoria: Natural Resources Canada, Canadian Forest Service, Pacific Forestry Centre, 2006. 317 p. 7 Sefranyik, Les; Carroll, Allan L. “The Biology and Epidemiology of the Mountain Pine Beetle in Lodgepole Pine Forests.” Page 18 in The Mountain Pine Beetle A Synthesis of Biology, Management, and Impacts on Lodgepole Pine. Ed. Les Safranyik and Bill Wilson. Victoria: Natural Resources Canada, Canadian Forest Service, Pacific Forestry Centre, 2006. 317 p. 8 Ono, H. 2004. “The Mountain Pine Beetle: Scope of the Problem and Key Issues in Alberta.” Page 65 in Challenges and Solutions: Proceedings of the Mountain Pine Beetle Symposium. Kelowna, British Columbia, Canada. October 30-31, 2003. Ed. Shore, T.L., J.E. Brooks and J.E. Stone. Natural Resources Canada, Canadian Forest Service, Pacific Forestry Centre, Victoria, BC. Information Report BC-X-399. 298 p.

9 British Columbia. Ministry of Forests. Timber Supply and the Mountain Pine Beetle Infestation in British Columbia. Victoria: MOF. 2003. p 4. <http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hts/pubs/beetledoc_oct29LO.pdf> 10 Fahey, T.D.; Snellgrove, T.A.; Plank, M.E. 1986. Changes in Product Recovery Between Live And Dead Lodgepole Pine: A Compendium. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR. Research Paper PNW-353. 25 p. 11 Dobie, J.; Wright, D.M. 1978. Lumber Values from Beetle-killed Lodgepole Pine. Forest Products Journal 28(6): 44–47. 12 British Columbia. Ministry of Forests. British Columbia’s Mountain Pine Beetle Action Plan 2006-2011. Victoria: MOF. p 3. < http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfp/mountain%5Fpine%5Fbeetle/ >

20

13 British Columbia. Ministry of Forests. Timber Supply and the Mountain Pine Beetle Infestation in British Columbia. Victoria: MOF. 2003. p 7. <http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hts/pubs/beetledoc_oct29LO.pdf> 14 British Columbia. Ministry of Forests. British Columbia’s Mountain Pine Beetle Action Plan 2006-2011. Victoria: MOF. p 5. < http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfp/mountain%5Fpine%5Fbeetle/ > 15 Alberta. Sustainable Resource Development. Beetle Bulletin. July 26, 2006. p 1. Available online: <http://www.srd.gov.ab.ca/forests/health/pdf/BeetleBulletin2006.pdf> 16 Alberta. Government of Alberta. News Release. Mountain Pine Beetle Numbers Climbing in Alberta. November 9, 2006. Accessed March 10, 2007. <http://www.gov.ab.ca/acn/200611/20785CE568FB2-D468-96C4-9E7F4A59BAE5275C.html> 17 Canada. Natural Resources Canada. The State of Canada’s Forests 2005-2006. Ottawa: Canadian Forest Service, 2006. p 59. < http://www.nrcan.gc.ca/cfs-scf/national/what-quoi/sof/latest_e.html> 18 Canada. Natural Resources Canada. 2007. Accessed March 10, 2007. <http://www.nrcan-rncan.gc.ca/media/newsreleases/2007/200755_e.htm> 19 Canada. Natural Resources Canada. Canadian Forest Service. 2007. Accessed March 10, 2007. <http://mpb.cfs.nrcan.gc.ca/about_e.html> 20 Canada. Natural Resources Canada. 2007. Accessed March 10, 2007. <http://www.nrcan.gc.ca/statistics/factsheet.htm> 21 Canada. Natural Resources Canada. The State of Canada’s Forests 2005-2006. Ottawa: Canadian Forest Service, 2006. pp 19-20. < http://www.nrcan.gc.ca/cfs-scf/national/what-quoi/sof/latest_e.html> 22 Byrne, Tony et al. “Characteristics and Utilization of Post-Mountain Pine Beetle Wood in Solid Wood Products.” Page 235 in The Mountain Pine Beetle A Synthesis of Biology, Management, and Impacts on Lodgepole Pine. Ed. Les Safranyik and Bill Wilson. Victoria: Natural Resources Canada, Canadian Forest Service, Pacific Forestry Centre, 2006. 317 p. 23 Byrne, Tony et al. “Characteristics and Utilization of Post-Mountain Pine Beetle Wood in Solid Wood Products.” Page 236 in The Mountain Pine Beetle A Synthesis of Biology, Management, and Impacts on Lodgepole Pine. Ed. Les Safranyik and Bill Wilson. Victoria: Natural Resources Canada, Canadian Forest Service, Pacific Forestry Centre, 2006. 317 p. 24 Byrne, Tony et al. “Characteristics and Utilization of Post-Mountain Pine Beetle Wood in Solid Wood Products.” Pages 240-241 in The Mountain Pine Beetle A Synthesis of Biology, Management, and Impacts on Lodgepole Pine. Ed. Les Safranyik and Bill Wilson. Victoria: Natural Resources Canada, Canadian Forest Service, Pacific Forestry Centre, 2006. 317 p. 25 Byrne, Tony et al. “Characteristics and Utilization of Post-Mountain Pine Beetle Wood in Solid Wood Products.” Page 238 in The Mountain Pine Beetle A Synthesis of Biology, Management, and Impacts on Lodgepole Pine. Ed. Les Safranyik and Bill Wilson. Victoria: Natural Resources Canada, Canadian Forest Service, Pacific Forestry Centre, 2006. 317 p. 26Koch, P. 1996. Lodgepole Pine in North America. 3 Vols. Forest Products Society, Madison, WI.

21

27 Wang, B.; Dai, C. 2004. Maximizing Value Recovery from Mountain Beetle-killed Pine for Veneer Products. Natural Resources Canada, Canadian Forest Service, Pacific Forestry Centre, Victoria, BC. Mountain Pine Beetle Initiative working paper 2005-9. 33 p.

28Knudson, R.M.; Chen, L. 2001. Effect of Aspen Log Moisture Content on Stranding, Strand Quality and Properties of OSB. Forintek Canada Corp., Western Division, Vancouver, BC. Contract No. 2001–2322.