United States 

Department of 

Agriculture

Forest Service

R1-06-28

August 2006

Whitebark Pine in Peril

A Case for Restoration

John W. Schwandt

USDA Forest Service

Forest Health Protection
Whitebark Pine in Peril: A Case for Restoration

John W. Schwandt

USDA Forest Service

Forest Health Protection

PREFACE

The purpose of this paper is to: 

1) provide a range-wide assessment of whitebark pine health, 

2) describe range-wide restoration strategies for conserving and restoring whitebark pine, 

3) provide a brief managers guide for selecting restoration strategies, and 

4) describe information needs and challenges to restoration.

The National Forest Management Act of 1976 and the Healthy Forest Restoration Act of 2003 

provide the statutory and regulatory support for developing restoration strategies to conserve, 

maintain, and restore whitebark pine on federal lands. Whitebark pine restoration also complements the National Fire Plan, National Invasives Species Strategy and Western Bark Beetle 

Reports by maintaining or restoring health and stability in ecosystems threatened by invasive 

species, fire, and bark beetles.

Development and implementation of whitebark pine restoration strategies may also provide 

useful information for application to other high elevation white pine species, such as foxtail, 

limber, and bristlecone pines, that face similar conditions.

For additional copies of this publication, contact:

John W. Schwandt

USDA Forest Service, FHP

Coeur d’Alene, Idaho

(208) 765-7415

jschwandt@fs.fed.us

This publication is also available at:

 www.fs.fed.us/r1-r4/spf/fhp/publications
ii 

WHITEBARK PINE IN PERIL: A CASE FOR RESTORATION ________________________________________________

CONTENTS

Executive Summary ..................................................................................................................... iii

Distribution .....................................................................................................................................1

Ecology and Biology .......................................................................................................................1

Current Health Assessment ...........................................................................................................3

Blister Rust Effects ....................................................................................................................4

Fire Effects .................................................................................................................................4

Mountain Pine Beetle Effects ....................................................................................................5

Climate Effects ...........................................................................................................................5

What Can Be Done? ......................................................................................................................6

Assess Forest Health ..................................................................................................................6

Conserve Genetic Diversity .......................................................................................................7

Harness Natural Resistance ........................................................................................................7

Reduce Competing Vegetation ...................................................................................................8

Enhance Natural Selection ........................................................................................................8

Prevent Bark Beetle Losses .......................................................................................................9

A Manager’s Guide to Selecting Whitebark Pine Restoration Strategies ...............................9

Scenario #1: Mature whitebark pine are present ......................................................................10

Scenario #2: Mature whitebark pine are absent from the stand but present nearby ................11

Scenario #3. Mature whitebark pine are absent but some natural regeneration is present .....11

Scenario #4: Whitebark pine-suitable site but no whitebark pine of any size are present 

in the stand or nearby .........................................................................................................11

Information Needs .......................................................................................................................12

Challenges .....................................................................................................................................13

Conclusions ...................................................................................................................................15

References .....................................................................................................................................16

Acknowledgements ......................................................................................................................20
_________________________________________________WHITEBARK PINE IN PERIL: A CASE FOR RESTORATION

iii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

THE ROLE OF WHITEBARK PINE

Whitebark pine is a keystone species of high elevation ecosystems throughout western North America. 

It is often the only tree species capable of surviving in harsh subalpine areas, and is crucial in stabilizing 

soil and moisture, and creating habitats that support a wide diversity of plants and animals. The large 

seeds are a primary food source for many animals including grizzly bears and the Clark’s nutcracker 

which is the main seed dispersal agent. Over 90 percent of whitebark pine occurs in remote roadless areas, wilderness, or national parks where 300- to 500-year-old gnarled relics define high elevation vistas 

and provide much of the character of the alpine experience.

THE THREAT OF WHITE PINE BLISTER RUST

The inadvertent introduction of white pine blister rust from Europe in 1910 has resulted in severe 

losses in nearly all of our native five-needled pines. It has now spread to these fragile whitebark pine 

ecosystems where it has dramatically disrupted natural regeneration. Whitebark pine is no longer able 

to recover from natural disturbances such as wild fires and as a result, it has already disappeared from 

up to 98 percent of parts of its historic range. The urgency of the situation has recently increased due 

to outbreaks of mountain pine beetle which may kill trees that harbor natural resistance to blister rust. 

Without direct intervention, the prognosis is bleak.

THE GOALS OF CONSERVATION AND RESTORATION

The ultimate goals of conservation and restoration are to protect and enhance existing populations, provide appropriate regeneration opportunities and increase the proportion of trees with natural resistance 

that will survive in the presence of white pine blister rust. Successful restoration will require a rangewide coordinated multi-agency effort with a long-term commitment.

Proposed Solutions

Successful range-wide restoration strategies will provide support to regional and site-specific 

strategies and will include the following:

- conduct rust surveys and monitoring to determine site conditions and prioritize restoration strategies 

- preserve gene pools by collecting and storing seed or pollen from isolated populations of 

whitebark pine

- identify and test trees for natural resistance to white pine blister rust

- plant blister rust-resistant seed or seedlings in appropriate areas

- use silvicultural methods such as fire to reduce competing vegetation and create planting 

sites

- encourage natural regeneration especially where mature trees are at risk

- treat blister rust-resistant trees to prevent bark beetle attacks 
iv 

WHITEBARK PINE IN PERIL: A CASE FOR RESTORATION ________________________________________________

Information Needs

- determine frequency of natural resistance across the range of whitebark pine

- identify resistance mechanisms, their heritability, frequency, and distribution

- further examine genetic variability in both the rust and whitebark pine populations

- develop guidelines for growing, testing, and regenerating seedlings at high elevations

- examine rust epidemiology and variation of infection to develop hazard rating models

- further examine relationships with nutcrackers, bark beetles, fire, and climate 

Challenges to Success

- implement conservation strategies for isolated stands

- develop ways to expand fire use to create regeneration opportunities

- find ways to accelerate germination, seedling growth, cone production, and testing for 

resistance

- develop and implement strategies in remote or wilderness areas

- identify, test, and protect blister rust-resistant trees, and deploy blister rust-resistant seed 

or seedlings

Photo: John Schwandt, USFS
_________________________________________________WHITEBARK PINE IN PERIL: A CASE FOR RESTORATION

1

help define the high mountain recreational 

experience. 

ECOLOGY AND BIOLOGY

Whitebark pine is one of nine species of five-needled pines native to North America. This group 

includes eastern, western, and southwestern white pines as well as whitebark, foxtail, 

sugar, limber, and the long-lived Great Basin 

and Rocky Mountain bristlecone pines. All 

of these species are susceptible to white pine 

blister rust, an exotic fungal disease that was 

accidentally introduced into both coasts of 

North America around the turn of the twentieth century. European nurseries commonly 

grew white pine seed from North America 

to produce seedlings that were then shipped 

back with the undetected hitchhiker. White 

pine blister rust infects needles of pines from 

spores produced on its alternate host (usually a wild currant or gooseberry shrub) and 

then grows down the branches and into the 

stem, killing branches as it grows. Each spring 

“blisters” of yellow spores erupt through the 

DISTRIBUTION

The natural range of whitebark pine is 

one of the largest among conifers in 

North America, extending from the 

northern Rockies in Canada to the Sierra 

Nevada of California (Fig. 1: Little 1971). 

However, throughout its range, it only occurs 

in subalpine habitats, often near tree line (Fig. 

2). As a result, its occurrence in this broad 

geographic area is limited to the two major 

mountain ranges in the west: between 900 and 

2200 m elevation from the Cascades south to 

the Sierra Nevada and from about 1600 m to 

2300 m in the Rocky Mountains from Alberta 

and British Columbia south to western Wyoming (Ogilvie 1990).

About 98 percent of the range of whitebark 

pine in the United States is on public lands, 

including national parks, wilderness areas, 

national forests, Indian reservations, and state 

lands (Tomback and Achuff 2006). Whitebark 

pine communities are found in twenty-five 

national forests in the northern Rocky Mountains and in all but one of the western national 

parks, where they are major attractions and 

WHITEBARK PINE IN NORTH AMERICA

Figure 2. Whitebark pine, the 

keystone species of high 

elevations.

Photo: Sandra Kegley, USFS

Figure 1. Distribution of Whitebark 

pine in North America.
2

WHITEBARK PINE IN PERIL: A CASE FOR RESTORATION ________________________________________________

bark (Fig. 3), and spores may then travel long 

distances on prevailing winds before landing 

on the alternate host.

feet in diameter (Arno and Hoff 1989). Further down-slope, whitebark pine is gradually 

out-competed by more shade-tolerant conifers, such as spruce and subalpine fir. 

Whitebark pine has very large seeds, which 

cannot be wind-disseminated like other pine 

species. Instead, it relies almost exclusively on 

Clark’s nutcrackers for 

seed dispersal. 

The Clark’s 

nutcracker is a 

large jay-like 

bird (Fig. 5) 

that has a specially developed 

bill for extracting seeds from 

cones and a 

special pouch in 

its throat used 

for seed transport that can 

hold over 100 

seeds (Tomback 2001). 

Although most 

Figure 3. White pine blister rust 

sporulating on a small branch.

Photo: John Schwandt, USFS

Figure 5. Whitebark pine 

relies on the Clark’s 

nutcracker for seed 

dispersal.

Photo: Dave Menke, US Fish and Wildlife Service

Figure 4. Weather-beaten whitebark may be the only 

tree species capable of occupying harsh 

sites.

Photo: John Schwandt, USFS

Whitebark pine occurs as both a climax species at tree line as well as an early successional species and it contributes far more to 

these high elevation ecosystems than might 

be predicted solely based on its biomass or 

abundance. Therefore, whitebark pine is often 

called a keystone species because it is the pillar 

of alpine ecosystems, which depend on whitebark pine for their stability, diversity, and very 

existence (Primick 2006). It is the first successional step in turning disturbed inhospitable 

sites into thriving communities with diverse 

populations of plants and animals, from soil 

microorganisms to grizzly bears. Whitebark 

pine helps stabilize soil and acts to accumulate 

snow and retard spring runoff, thus reducing 

flooding and improving water quality at lower 

elevations (Farnes 1990). 

In the most extreme sites whitebark pine will 

be limited to short, weather-beaten shrubs 

termed “krummholz” (Fig. 4), but at lower 

elevations, it may grow as widely spaced individuals or as clumps in protected areas and 

even entire stands, contributing to diversity 

and stability in many other ecosystems (Rebertus 1991). On favorable sites, whitebark 

pine can live more than a thousand years, 

reaching over 100 feet in height and several 
_________________________________________________WHITEBARK PINE IN PERIL: A CASE FOR RESTORATION

3

of the seed is cached within a few kilometers, 

nutcrackers may carry the seed up to 20 km 

looking for good sites to cache seeds. In the 

Rocky Mountains, nutcrackers help regenerate burned areas as they prefer to cache seed 

in recent burns. In a good cone crop year, a 

single nutcracker may cache 35,000–80,000 

seeds and will return to retrieve up to 50 percent of them. However, when cone crops are 

poor, nutcrackers may eat all the seed or may 

simply move to other areas, severely limiting 

the possibility of natural regeneration (Lanner 

and Vander Wall 1980).

Because whitebark pine seeds have high 

nutrition value, they are also favorite foods 

for other animals, such as squirrels and the 

endangered grizzly bear. Squirrels will harvest large amounts of cones into storage areas 

called “middens,” where they can feed on seed 

during the long winters. However, grizzly 

bears also have found that these middens can 

provide them with a great source of nutrients. 

Studies around Yellowstone National Park 

found during years of abundant cone crops 

that grizzly bears forage almost exclusively 

on whitebark pine seeds and as a result have 

higher reproduction rates (Matteson et al. 

2001). Bears also tend to stay in the high-elevation whitebark zone resulting in dramatically fewer grizzly bear-human encounters. 

Historically in the Rocky Mountains most 

mature whitebark pine were killed by fires, 

mountain pine beetle, or were slowly outcompeted by other species. In their coastal 

range, fires were not as important, but the 

effects of mountain pine beetles and competing vegetation were quite similar (Siderius and 

Murray 2004). Mountain pine beetle is a native insect that exhibits periodic outbreaks in 

lodgepole pine, sugar pine, and western white 

pine as well as whitebark pine. Sentinels of 

old dead “gray ghosts” from beetle outbreaks 

dating back to the 1930s can still be found 

on many isolated ridges (Fig. 6) (Perkins and 

Sweetnam 1996).

Figure 6. A stand of dead whitebark pine—”gray 

ghosts”—in a high-elevation landscape.

Photo: John Schwandt, USFS

CURRENT HEALTH ASSESSMENT

Whitebark pine is now rapidly declining through most of its range, and it has disappeared entirely in some 

isolated locations (Kendall and Keane 1993). 

These losses initiated listing of whitebark pine 

as a species at risk in Canada (Wilson and 

Stuart-Smith 2002), and it was listed as a species of concern in western Washington by the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in 2004. This 

dramatic decline is due to a combination of 

several factors, including: 
4

WHITEBARK PINE IN PERIL: A CASE FOR RESTORATION ________________________________________________

1. white pine blister rust, 

2. wildfires and competing vegetation, 

which may be the result of fire suppression, 

3. outbreaks of mountain pine beetle, and

4. changing climatic effects. 

BLISTER RUST EFFECTS

The introduction of white pine blister rust 

greatly altered the historical regeneration 

pathway of whitebark pine. This disease kills 

small trees quickly and in areas with high 

levels of blister rust infection, most natural regeneration never survives to cone-bearing age. 

In mixed stands, this mortality greatly hastens 

succession as whitebark pine is replaced by 

other competing species. In areas with high 

levels of blister rust infection, most natural 

regeneration never survives to cone-bearing 

age. Large trees are killed much more slowly, 

but blister rust can also kill major portions 

of the crown (Fig. 7), thus eliminating most 

cone production and having a ripple effect on 

regeneration potential and the animals that 

depend on these seeds for food.

There has not been a thorough survey 

throughout the entire range of whitebark 

pine, but individual surveys are finding blister 

rust continues to show up in areas where conditions were once thought to be too extreme 

for it. With few exceptions, blister rust has 

now spread throughout the entire range of 

whitebark pine. Hardest-hit areas are generally in the northern Rockies, where infection 

levels are often over 70 percent (Table 1). 

However, disease incidence may vary widely 

from place to place and between large trees 

and small trees at the same site.

FIRE EFFECTS

Historically, fires have removed competing 

coniferous vegetation and created seedbeds 

for whitebark pine regeneration. However, 

fire suppression during the last 60 to 80 years 

may have contributed to stand conversion to 

other species that out-compete whitebark pine 

(Arno 2001). Natural ignitions in some alpine 

areas have been suppressed for fear that fires 

might run down slopes into more valuable 

timber or urban areas. Fires initiated on lower 

slopes in commercial timber stands have also 

been extinguished before they could reach the 

higher elevation whitebark stands. Before fire 

suppression in the Inland West, the average 

whitebark pine stand burned every 50 to 300 

years (Arno 2001). Even with prescribed and 

natural fires that have been allowed to burn in 

wilderness areas in the last 25 years, less than 

1 percent of whitebark pine sites have burned 

during that period.

Figure 7. Branch and topkill by blister 

rust can limit cone production.

Photo: John Schwandt, USFS
_________________________________________________WHITEBARK PINE IN PERIL: A CASE FOR RESTORATION

5

Fire suppression may also lead to increased 

fuels, which result in more intense fires that 

are more difficult to control. Isolated populations of whitebark pine have been eliminated 

by wildfires that burned all potential seed 

sources within the range of nutcrackers (Tom 

DeSpain pers. comm.).

MOUNTAIN PINE BEETLE EFFECTS

Although mountain pine beetle (MPB) is a 

native insect that historically recycled mature whitebark pine, an aerial survey of some 

recent outbreaks recorded over a million 

dead trees in 2005 (Fig. 8), and some of the 

few remaining whitebark pine stands are at 

high risk (Fig. 9) (Logan and Powell 2001). 

Because mountain pine beetle may be killing 

trees with natural blister rust resistance, there 

is increased urgency to implement restoration 

strategies to reduce losses and save at least 

some of the whitebark pine from beetle attack.

Table 1. Percentage of live trees with blister rust infection on plots/transects from recent surveys.

Figure 8. Whitebark pine mortality recorded during 

annual aerial surveys in Idaho, Montana, 

Washington, and Oregon.

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

# Trees (Thousands)

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Year

Whitebark Pine Killed by MPB

ID&MT WA&OR

Geographic Region - # reports - Reference Range of 

Infection Mean

British Columbia (rangewide) (Campbell & Antos 2000) 0 - 100% 50.0%

British Columbia (rangewide) (Zeglan 2002) 11 - 52.5% 38.0%

Northern Rocky Mountains (U.S., Canada) (Smith et al. 2006) 0-100% 43.6%

Selkirk Mountains, northern Idaho-5 stands (Kegley et al. 2004) 57-81% 70.0%

Colville NF, NE Washington -2 reports (Ward et al. 2006) 23-44% 41.4%

Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (GYWPMWG 2005) 0-100% 25.0%

Intermountain West (Id, Nev, Wy, Ca) (Smith and Hoffman 2000) 0-100% 35.0%

Blue Mountains, NE Oregon (Ward et al. 2006) 0-100% 64.0%

Coast Range; Olympic Mtns., Wa - 2 reports (Ward et al. 2006) 4-49% 19.0%

Western Cascades; Wa/Or – 6 reports (Ward et al. 2006) 0-100% 32.3%

Eastern Cascades; Wa/Or – 13 reports (Ward et al. 2006) 0-90% 32.3%

Coastal Mountains, southwest Oregon (Goheen et al. 2002) 0 - 100% 52.0 %

California—statewide (Maloney and Dunlap 2006) 0-71% 11.7%

CLIMATE EFFECTS

Whitebark pine is extremely long-lived and 

is capable of surviving extreme environments, but it may not be able to adapt to 

changing climates. Recent warming trends 

may also play a role in displacing whitebark 

pine as competing vegetation invades more 
6

WHITEBARK PINE IN PERIL: A CASE FOR RESTORATION ________________________________________________

of the natural range of whitebark (Bartlien et 

al. 1997). In addition, the long growth and 

maturation period of whitebark pine puts it at 

an adaptive disadvantage as it may not be able 

to respond to climate changes as rapidly as 

competitors that reproduce more frequently 

and at younger ages.

A warmer and moister weather pattern may 

also favor white pine blister rust by producing 

frequent “wave years” of conditions that promote massive numbers of infections (Koteen 

2002). Warmer weather may also favor mountain pine beetle, and recent outbreaks have 

been more intense due to several mild winters 

that allowed more of the bark beetle population to survive (Logan and Powell 2001). 

WHAT CAN BE DONE?

Because blister rust has spread nearly 

range-wide and is steadily increasing 

in severity, we must act now to develop and implement restoration strategies 

to maintain whitebark pine ecosystems. The 

goals of restoration and conservation are to be 

proactive in protecting and enhancing existing 

whitebark pine populations, as well as restoring populations where they have been lost. 

The ultimate goal is to increase the proportion 

of trees with natural blister rust resistance that 

will survive in the presence of white pine blister rust. This will require strategies to evaluate current whitebark health, conserve isolated gene pools, promote natural rust resistance, 

reduce competing vegetation, enhance natural 

regeneration opportunities, and minimize 

bark beetle losses.

Implementation of restoration strategies will 

require close cooperation of scientists and 

mangers from multiple agencies and departments as well as broad public support. The 

importance of whitebark pine restoration 

needs to be emphasized in management plans 

by all state and federal agencies, and field 

projects that meet multiple resource needs 

should be a high priority.

The following is a list of conservation and 

restoration strategies that can be employed, 

and this is followed by a manager’s guide that 

can be used to help select the best actions for 

particular sets of circumstances.

ASSESS FOREST HEALTH

A range-wide health assessment will help 

document current conditions and may be used 

as a basis for regional or local strategies.

To properly assess forest health conditions, 

we must conduct periodic surveys and establish permanent plots to accurately map occurrence and monitor the spread and intensification of blister rust and track mountain pine 

beetle populations. A national database has 

been created to maintain and consolidate this 

information and may contribute to developing 

rust hazard models (Lockman and DeNitto 

2006).

Figure 9. Mountain pine mortality from mountain 

pine beetle in Yellowstone National Park.

Photo: Ken Gibson, USFS
_________________________________________________WHITEBARK PINE IN PERIL: A CASE FOR RESTORATION

7

CONSERVE GENETIC DIVERSITY

Isolated populations of whitebark pine can be 

protected from possible extinction by collecting and archiving seed (Fig. 10) and pollen 

and by grafting selected trees at nurseries. In 

this way, the gene pool can be retained even 

if stands are lost to wildfire or other disturbances.

it, assuming that we have the resources to find 

such trees in what are often very remote and 

isolated areas.

Figure 10. Cones must be protected from predation so 

seeds can fully ripen before collecting for 

testing and restoration.

Photo: John Schwandt, USFS

Figure 11. Seedlings showing different 

levels of resistance to blister 

rust.

Photo: Richard Sneizko, USFS

HARNESS NATURAL RESISTANCE

There is little hope of preventing blister rust 

from spreading throughout the range of 

whitebark pine. Therefore, the most important strategies will help whitebark pine to survive in the presence of blister rust. Although 

rare, natural blister rust resistance has been 

found in sugar pine and western white pine; 

early tests of whitebark pine using similar 

methodology at Forest Service nurseries in 

Oregon and Idaho have found evidence (Fig. 

11) that natural resistance to blister rust also 

occurs in whitebark pine (Richard Sniezko, 

pers. comm.). However, once a tree has been 

identified as a candidate for possible blister 

rust resistance, it may take 7-10 years to test 

The best chance of finding the rare trees with 

natural blister rust resistance is in areas with 

the highest levels of blister rust infection (generally over 90 percent), where blister rust will 

likely have infected most of the susceptible 

trees and resistant trees will be easy to identify. Seed from all uninfected trees should be 

tested for blister rust resistance and could also 

be used to restock nearby sites where resistant 

trees cannot be found. 

A proactive strategy is finding trees with blister rust resistance in areas with lower levels of 

infection is even though they will be harder 

to detect. This strategy successfully found 

some blister rust resistance in a population of 

healthy southwestern white pine, and is also 

being tested with bristlecone pine, so it may 

have potential with whitebark pine in areas 

with low infection levels.
8

WHITEBARK PINE IN PERIL: A CASE FOR RESTORATION ________________________________________________

Once blister rust-resistant trees or seedlings 

are identified, they can be grown in seed orchards to produce seed that could be used for 

restoration purposes. However, current needs 

will have to focus on collecting seed from 

‘plus’ (potentially resistant) trees because orchards of new trees may not produce significant cone crops for 50 years or more (Arno 

and Hoff 1989, Bower 2006). 

Although whitebark pine has broad tolerance for planting within its range, to maintain 

genetic diversity, several seed transfer zones 

have been developed (Mahalovich and Hoff 

2000, Bower 2006), and it is important to find 

blister rust resistance in each zone.

REDUCE COMPETING VEGETATION

In areas with existing mature whitebark pine, 

coordinated projects with wildlife biologists 

seeking to improve browse by burning or cutting competing coniferous vegetation will also 

improve whitebark pine health as well as enhance opportunities for natural regeneration.

Burning areas without whitebark pine but 

where there is an adequate whitebark pine 

seed source nearby may be the best way to 

promote whitebark pine regeneration through 

seed-caching by nutcrackers. Coordination 

with fuels specialists can encourage prescriptive fire to help prevent buildup of catastrophic fuels as well as create seed beds (Fig. 12).

Even with a very aggressive planting program, 

only a small percentage of the range can be 

planted at a time, but a wildfire can create 

thousands of acres of sites that can be naturally planted by nutcrackers if an unburned seed 

source is within a few kilometers.

ENHANCE NATURAL SELECTION

Natural selection for blister rust resistance 

will be strongest in the younger trees, resulting in high mortality, yet survivors will likely 

have some level of genetic rust resistance. 

By increasing natural regeneration, we can 

improve the probability of having trees with 

natural blister rust resistance.

However, natural selection alone will not 

guarantee restoration of whitebark pine stands 

because of the low frequency of blister rust 

resistance and because other disturbances will 

remove resistant trees. Increasing natural 

regeneration is especially important in areas 

where cone-bearing trees are at risk or very 

scattered because natural regeneration will not 

occur if nutcrackers cannot find enough conebearing trees (McKinney and Tomback 2006).

Figure 12. Prescribed low-intensity 

fires can be used to reduce 

competing vegetation and 

create favorable regeneration 

sites.

Photo: John Schwandt, USFS
_________________________________________________WHITEBARK PINE IN PERIL: A CASE FOR RESTORATION

9

PREVENT BARK BEETLE LOSSES

Mountain pine beetle attacks in lodgepole 

pine have been reduced by thinning stands 

to improve their vigor, but this treatment is 

of little value in most whitebark pine stands, 

which largely consist of scattered individuals. 

However, scientists have discovered the chemical messenger (pheromone) used by mountain pine beetle to signal when a tree is full of 

beetles and are currently testing it to protect 

trees from bark beetle attacks. Early results 

are generally favorable, although additional 

tests will be needed to improve success (Kegley and Gibson 2004). Treating entire populations or stands of whitebark pine may not be 

realistic, but it may be of great use in protecting individual high-value trees in recreation 

sites or trees identified as blister rust-resistant. 

Bark beetle outbreaks typically last about five 

years, so treatment may only be necessary 

during years of high beetle populations.

A MANAGER’S GUIDE TO SELECTING WHITEBARK PINE 

RESTORATION STRATEGIES 

The strategies discussed above can be summarized into logical scenarios to help managers 

prioritize and select their options for specific areas. Restoration plans and site-specific restoration strategies are currently being developed by interdisciplinary teams in Idaho and Montana; 

Washington, Oregon, and California; and Canada. However, the following generalities will 

pertain to nearly all plans. To help prioritize stands for intervention and select the appropriate 

restoration strategies, each potential site should first be assessed for the following:

• stand conditions:

– the size and density of whitebark pine 

 presence of mature (cone-bearing) whitebark pine 

 presence of a cone crop

 presence of whitebark pine regeneration

– size and density of competing vegetation

• whitebark pine health

– level of blister rust infection

– level of mountain pine beetle activity

• site access and ownership, or management objectives that may influence management options (such as designated wilderness)

With this basic information in mind, one of the following general scenarios may be appropriate.
10 

WHITEBARK PINE IN PERIL: A CASE FOR RESTORATION ________________________________________________

SCENARIO #1: MATURE WHITEBARK PINE ARE PRESENT

The goal will be to maintain or improve the stand vigor and encourage more natural regeneration by selective girdling, thinning, and prescribed burning of competing vegetation as necessary (Figure 13): 

• If blister rust infection levels are low (<50 percent), stands should be monitored and natural regeneration should be encouraged, especially if mortality from mountain pine beetle 

is high.

• If blister rust infection levels are high (>90 percent), search for trees with no blister rust 

infection that may carry rust resistance and collect seed for resistance testing and restoration. If mortality from mountain pine beetle is high, it is critical to protect ‘plus’ (resistant-appearing) trees from attack (Fig. 14), and seed collection should be a very high 

priority.

• If blister rust levels are low to moderate, it may not be possible to select potentially resistant trees, but:

– If mortality from mountain pine beetle is high, collect seeds for blister rust resistance testing and restoration. Encourage natural regeneration to provide a larger 

population for natural selection to act upon.

– If mountain pine beetle populations are low, encourage more natural regeneration 

and monitor the stand for changes in rust or beetle populations.

Figure 13. Controlling competion by other species 

through cutting or girdling to improve the 

vigor of whitebark pine (left).

Photo: John Schwandt, USFS

Figure 14. Pouches of pheromones can 

be used to prevent bark beetle 

attacks.

Photo: John Schwandt, USFS
_________________________________________________WHITEBARK PINE IN PERIL: A CASE FOR RESTORATION

11

SCENARIO #2: MATURE WHITEBARK PINE ARE ABSENT FROM THE STAND BUT PRESENT NEARBY

This may frequently be the case after a fire or other disturbance has killed the mature whitebark pine. The goal will be to create sites for natural regeneration or planting nursery stock.

• Treat the site to attract nutcrackers to cache seed, burning competing vegetation if necessary (Fig. 15).

– If blister rust infection levels are high, look for ‘plus’ trees nearby to obtain seed 

for planting.

SCENARIO #3. MATURE WHITEBARK PINE ARE ABSENT BUT SOME NATURAL REGENERATION IS

PRESENT

This may occur in areas where most mature trees have been killed by mountain pine beetle or 

blister rust. The goal will be to maintain the stand by managing competing vegetation, if necessary, and to monitor it for blister rust levels. (Mountain pine beetle is not a concern in small 

trees.)

• If blister rust infection levels are high (Fig. 16), look for ‘plus’ trees nearby to obtain seed 

to augment natural regeneration.

SCENARIO #4: WHITEBARK PINE-SUITABLE SITE BUT NO WHITEBARK PINE OF ANY SIZE ARE

PRESENT IN THE STAND OR NEARBY

The goal will be to treat competing vegetation to create planting sites. If these sites are beyond 

the range of nutcrackers, they can only be restored by planting (Fig. 17).

• If trees with blister rust resistance have been identified for this area, they should be used 

to regenerate the site. 

Photo: John Schwandt, USFS

Figure 15. (Left) Low-intensity 

prescribed fire to 

remove competing 

vegetation and create 

attractive sites for 

nutcrackers to cache 

seeds.

Figure 16. (Right) In areas with 

high blister rust 

hazard, most small 

trees are rapidly 

killed.

Photo: John Schwandt, USFS
12

WHITEBARK PINE IN PERIL: A CASE FOR RESTORATION ________________________________________________

INFORMATION NEEDS

There are still many unanswered questions 

regarding whitebark pine restoration requiring practical information that can be used 

to prioritize stands for restoration based on 

potential ecosystem impacts. 

What is the frequency and genetic basis for 

white pine blister rust resistance?

If we knew the frequency of blister rust 

resistance in an area, we could determine 

how much regeneration would be needed for 

natural selection to be successful. Preliminary 

tests have shown that blister rust resistance 

does occur in whitebark pine, but we need 

to know if this is due to multiple resistance 

mechanisms, whether these mechanisms are 

controlled by one or many genes, the extent 

of their hereditability, and their geographic 

distribution of blister rust resistance across 

the range of whitebark pine. 

Further examination of the genetic variation 

in populations of both whitebark pine and the 

rust fungus would be very beneficial in helping refine seed transfer zones and identifying 

potential for new virulent races of the rust.

How can we accelerate testing and growing 

processes and address remoteness of sites?

Testing trees for blister rust resistance and 

growing seedlings are very time consuming processes and shortcuts such as grafting 

cone-bearing branches and treating seed to 

improve germination should be investigated. 

Whitebark pine seed generally take at least 

two years to germinate, but germination 

may be enhanced by scarifying the seed or 

treating it with warm water before planting. 

The logistics of restoring whitebark pine to 

remote areas may be simplified by planting 

seed rather than seedlings. One small seed 

planting test (Fig. 18) was established in 2005 

Figure 18. Pilot test to compare seed treatments for 

germination and protection from rodents.

Photo: John Schwandt, USFS

Figure 17. Whitebark pine seedlings 

will be grown 2-3 years 

before they can be 

outplanted.

Photo: John Schwandt, USFS
_________________________________________________WHITEBARK PINE IN PERIL: A CASE FOR RESTORATION

13

(Schwandt unpublished), and preliminary 

results indicate seed treatments may increase 

germination rates the first year, but additional 

tests are needed across the range of whitebark 

pine and monitoring survival of seedlings will 

also be important.

How do we define and model factors affecting infection?

Most surveys have found wide variation in 

rust infection levels, and if we understood 

the source of this variation, we could develop 

hazard rating models to help predict potential 

for infection on different sites. Hazard rating models will have to include the alternate 

hosts. We know that infections on whitebark 

pine come from spores produced on the alternate hosts (Fig. 19), but very little is known 

about the role of alternate hosts in these 

high-elevation ecosystems or if infections on 

whitebark are coming from local or distance 

sources. 

How is fire best used for restoration?

We know that fire can create large areas of potential seed beds, but we need a better understanding of fire behavior, its effects on alternate hosts, and how to safely use prescribed 

and wildland fires in these high elevations to 

reduce competing vegetation and create seed 

beds that will attract nutcrackers. 

What is the role of nutcrackers in declining 

stands?

The relationships between whitebark pine and 

nutcrackers are only partially understood. For 

example, we do not know what level of cone 

crop is necessary to have successful caching 

by nutcrackers and at what threshold they 

will simply move on.

How can we reduce mountain pine beetle 

impacts?

We have some preliminary information that 

indicates mountain pine beetles may prefer 

trees with blister rust at low population levels, 

but once they reach outbreak levels, beetles 

may actually prefer trees without rust (including rust-resistant trees) (Kegley and Schwandt 

2004). However, these relationships need 

further examination across the range of whitebark pine. Additional testing of anti-aggregant 

pheromones are needed to better refine their 

use and efficacy under varying field conditions. 

How rapidly do whitebark pine decline?

Additional permanent plots need to be established to monitor changes in rust infection levels or intensity, mortality, bark beetle 

populations, and document effects of potential 

climate change on whitebark pine ecosystems. 

Data from these plots needs to be added to a 

common database for sharing and analysis.

CHALLENGES

There are significant challenges to implementing whitebark pine restoration strategies. 

Some are biological or physical in nature—the 

Figure 19. Ribes, an alternate 

host in the life cycle 

of blister rust.

Photo: John Schwandt, USFS
14

WHITEBARK PINE IN PERIL: A CASE FOR RESTORATION ________________________________________________

remote location of whitebark pine and its 

slow biological ‘clock’—while other challenges are administrative or simply a challenge 

in allocating resources. 

A primary challenge is to implement restoration strategies in at least some isolated whitebark pine populations in each seed transfer 

zone before they are lost. Entire stands can be 

lost from wildfires overnight, and mountain 

pine beetle can kill most of the mature whitebark in a few years over wide areas. Other 

whitebark pine stands are slowly being lost 

due to a combination of blister rust and competition from other species that are normally 

held in check by low-intensity fires. If all 

whitebark are eliminated within the caching 

range of Clark’s nutcrackers (about 20 km), 

that piece of the whitebark range is lost unless 

it is replanted with nursery stock. If seed have 

not been collected from these areas, a small 

part of the gene pool may be lost forever. 

Major declines are already occurring over 

large portions of whitebark pine range. A 

recent northern Idaho study found that 

whitebark pine is only occupying 4,000 

acres of its historic range of 200,000 acres, a 

98 percent decline (Figs. 20 and 21). These 

dramatic losses pose a daunting challenge to 

restoration efforts, and planting efforts to 

date have only covered a few hundred acres. 

However, we do not need to restore every 

acre. If blister rust-resistant whitebark pine 

are available, they will eventually produce 

cones that the nutcracker will use to plant additional blister rust-resistant trees if historical 

disturbances such as fire cycles create suitable 

planting opportunities. Therefore, the use of 

prescribed and wildland fires to create large 

Figure 20. Historic area capable of supporting 

whitebark pine on all ownerships in 

northern Idaho and bordering forests.

Vegetation Response Units

Suitable for Whitebark Pine 0 1 5 0 20 30

Miles

Wallace

Kellogg

St Maries

Sandpoint

Post Falls

Priest River

Coeur d'Alene

Bonners Ferry Legend

County boundary

City or Town

Highway

Stream

Lake

National Forest

Whitebark pine suitable VRU

Figure 21. Current distribution of whitebark pine 

on federal ownership in northern 

Idaho and bordering forests.

0 1 5 0 20 30

Miles

Wallace

Kellogg

St Maries

Sandpoint

Post Falls

Priest River

Coeur d'Alene

Bonners Ferry Legend

County boundary

City or Town

Highway

Stream

Lake

National Forest

Whitebark pine stand

Whitebark Pine Stands

Maps: Gregory Tensmeyer, USFS
_________________________________________________WHITEBARK PINE IN PERIL: A CASE FOR RESTORATION

15

natural regeneration opportunities for caching 

by Clark’s nutcrackers needs strong support. 

Burning opportunities in high elevations 

are often extremely limited, but methods to 

expand the fire window have been developed 

and need broader application.

The slow biological clock that worked well 

for a species that can occupy sites for many 

hundreds of years now makes restoration a 

challenge because it takes whitebark pine so 

long to grow and produce seed. This makes it 

important to investigate methods to shorten 

germination time and increase growth so that 

seedlings can be available more quickly for 

rust testing or reforestation. Because good 

cone crops only occur every few years, it is 

important to act quickly to protect and collect 

cones during a good cone year.

Because so much whitebark occurs in remote 

or wilderness areas, the logistics of locating 

and protecting blister rust-resistant trees from 

mountain pine beetle may be a challenge. 

Logistics of planting seedlings or implementing treatments such as thinning or girdling 

competing vegetation can also be a challenge. 

However, it maybe possible to plant seeds 

instead of seedlings and to use wildland fire to 

accomplish restoration goals in remote areas. 

It will be important to work with wilderness 

administrators to develop restoration strategies that can be conducted in accordance 

with wilderness guidelines. Wilderness areas 

already have wildland fire and invasive weed 

control programs in place, but the invasion 

of blister rust poses a much greater long-term 

threat to these ecosystems. 

Some testing for blister rust resistance in 

whitebark pine is essential to determine the 

frequency of rust resistance genes across the 

range of whitebark pine. A complete breeding 

program would require a long-term commitment of resources, but it may be possible to 

create and protect local, in situ seed orchards 

of ‘plus’ trees as an alternative to offsite seed 

orchards.

CONCLUSIONS

This assessment has found that whitebark pine 

is clearly in peril across much of its range, and 

if steps are not taken to implement restoration 

strategies, we will continue to lose valuable 

ecosystem diversity and health in these fragile 

high-elevation sites. Blister rust will continue 

to expand and intensify throughout the entire 

range of whitebark pine, and the current outbreaks of mountain pine beetle will increase 

the urgency for action. However, we have 

biological evidence that restoration strategies 

can reverse this trend.

The general restoration concepts described 

here apply across the range of whitebark pine 

and provide guidelines for prioritizing restoration efforts under different stand conditions. 

Surveys across the range of whitebark pine 

have found that rust infection levels vary 

widely, so restoration needs are not restricted 

to a single region or area. Therefore, it will be 

important to identify stands at greatest risk of 

extirpation and collect seed to test for blister 

rust resistance and reforestation. 

Because whitebark pine is so important to all 

aspects of high-elevation ecosystems, it has 

attracted very broad interest and support for 

restoration. Therefore, it will be important 

to coordinate strategies with other resource 

managers to find areas of mutual interest and 

provide opportunities to combine resources. 

These concepts may also be of value in de-
16

WHITEBARK PINE IN PERIL: A CASE FOR RESTORATION ________________________________________________

veloping restoration strategies for other high 

elevation species that are also in jeopardy.

The biology of whitebark pine and the logistics of isolated populations present significant 

challenges but we have the technology and 

expertise to meet these challenges and create 

opportunities from them.

Whitebark pine losses have not occurred 

overnight, so there is no doubt restoring 

LITERATURE CITED

Arno, S.F. 2001. Community types and natural disturbance processes. In: Tomback, D.F., 

Arno, S.F., Keane, R.E. (eds.), Whitebark Pine Communities: Ecology and Restoration. 

Island Press, Washington, D.C., U.S.A., pp. 74-88.

Arno, S.F. and R. J. Hoff. 1989. Silvics of Whitebark Pine (Pinus albicaulis). USDA Forest 

Service, Intermountain Reseach Station. General Technical Report INT-253. Ogden, 

Utah. 11 p.

Bartlein, P.J., C. Whitlock, and S. L. Shafer. 1997. Future climate in the Yellowstone National 

Park Region and its potential impact on vegetation. Conservation Biology 11:782-792.

Bower, A.D. 2006. Ecological genetics: Effects of inbreeding and white pine blister rust in genetic structure of whitebark pine (Pinus albicaulis Engl.) PhD. Dissertation, University of 

British Columbia.

Campbell, E.M. and J.A. Antos. 2000. Distribution and severity of white pine blister rust and 

mountain pine beetle on whitebark pine in British Columbia. Canadian Journal of Forest 

Research 30:1051-59.

DeSpain, Tom. 2006. Personal communication. Area Geneticist, USDA Forest Service Pacific 

Northwest Region 6, Colville NF, Colville, Washington.

Farnes, P.E. 1990. SNOTEL and snow course data: describing the hydrology of whitebark pine 

ecosystems. In: Proceedings—Symposium on Whitebark Pine Ecosystems: Ecology and 

Management of a High-mountain Resource. Schmidt, W.C. and K.J. McDonald (comps.), 

USDA Forest Service, General Technical Report INT-270, Intermountain Research Station, Ogden, Utah, pp. 302-304.

whitebark pine will require long term implementation of restoration strategies. Whitebark 

pine is a sentinel species whose restoration 

is important to sustaining the diversity and 

health of high elevation ecosystems, and implementing range-wide restoration strategies 

represents a key step to reverse the current 

trends. If we can develop and maintain blister 

rust resistant whitebark pine populations in 

each seed transfer zone long enough, natural 

processes may eventually resume restoration.
_________________________________________________WHITEBARK PINE IN PERIL: A CASE FOR RESTORATION

17

Goheen, E.M., D.J. Goheen, K. Marshall, R.S. Danchok, J.A. Petrick, and D.E. White. 2002. 

The status of whitebark pine along the Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail on the Umpqua 

National Forest. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station Gen. Tech. 

Rep. PNW-GTR-530. Portland, Oregon. 21 p.

Greater Yellowstone Whitebark Pine Monitoring Working Group. 2006. Monitoring whitebark pine in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem: 2005 annual report. In: C.C. Schwartz, 

M.A. Haroldson, and K. West, (eds.), Yellowstone Grizzly Bear Investigations: Annual 

Report of the Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team, 2005, pp. 73-80.

Kegley, S. and K. Gibson. 2004. Protecting whitebark pine trees from mountain pine beetle attack using verbenone. USDA Forest Service, Northern Region, Forest Health Protection, 

Report 04-8, Missoula, Montana.

Kegley, S., J. Schwandt, K. Gibson. 2004. Forest health assessments in selected stands in the 

Selkirk Mountains of northern Idaho. USDA Forest Service, R-1 FHP Report 04-5.

Kendall, K.C., and R.E. Keane 2001. Whitebark pine decline: infection, mortality, and population trends. In: Tomback, D.F., S.F. Arno, and R.E. Keane (eds.), Whitebark Pine Communities: Ecology and Restoration. Island Press, Washington, D.C., U.S.A., pp. 221-242.

Koteen, L. 2002. Climate change, whitebark pine, and grizzly bears in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. In: Schneider, S.H., and T.L. Root, (eds.), Wildlife Responses to Climate Change: North American Case Studies. Island Press, Washington, D.C., U.S.A., pp. 

343-414.

Lanner, R.M. and S.B. VanderWall. 1980. Dispersal of limber pine seed by Clark’s nutcracker. 

Journal of Forestry 78:637-639

Little, E.L. 1971. Atlas of the United States Trees. Vol. 1: Conifers and Important Hardwoods. USDA Forest Service Misc. Pub No. 1146. Washington D.C.

Lockman, I.B. and G.A. DeNitto. 2006. Whitebark-Limber Pine Information System ver 1.0. 

USDA Forest Service, www/fs/fed/us/r1-r4/spf/fhp.

Logan, J. A. and J.A. Powell 2001. Ghost forests, global warming, and the mountain pine beetle 

(Coleoptera: Scolytidae). American Entomologist 47 (3):160-172.

Mahalovich, M.F. 2006. Personal communication. Regional Geneticist, Regions 1,2,3,4, USDA 

Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Moscow, Idaho.
18 

WHITEBARK PINE IN PERIL: A CASE FOR RESTORATION ________________________________________________

Mahalovich, M.F. and G.A. Dickerson. 2004. Whitebark Pine genetic restoration program for 

the Intermountain West (United States). In: Sniezko, R.A., S. Salmon, S. Schlarbaum, and 

H.B. Kriebel (eds.), Proceedings, Breeding and Genetic Resouces of Five-needle Pines: 

Growth, Adapatability and Pest Resistance, July 23-27, 2001. USDA Forest Service 

Rocky Mountain Research Service, Fort Collins, Colorado. RMRS-P-32, pp. 181-187.

Mahalovich, M.F. and R.J. Hoff. 2000. Whitebark pine operational cone collection instructions and seed transfer guidelines. Nutcracker Notes 11:10-13.

Maloney, P. and J. Dunlap 2006. White pine blister rust and whitebark pine ecosystems in 

California. In: Proceedings, Whitebark Pine: A Pacific Coast Perspective. August 28-31, 

2006. Ashland, Oregon. (In press.)

Matteson, D.J., B.M. Blanchard, and R.R. Knight. 1992. Yellowstone grizzly bear mortality, human habituation, and whitebark pine seed crops. Journal of Wildlife Management

56:432-442.

Mattson, D.J., K.C. Kendall, and D.P. Reinhart. 2001. Whitebark pine, grizzly bears, and red 

squirrels. In: Tomback, D.F., S.F. Arno, and R.E. Keane (eds.), Whitebark Pine Communities: Ecology and Restoration. Island Press, Washington, D.C., U.S.A., pp. 121-136.

McKinney, S.T. and D. F. Tomback. 2006. The influence of white pine blister rust on seed 

dispersal in whitebark pine. (In press.)

Ogilvie, R.T. 1990. Distribution and ecology of whitebark pine in western Canada. In:

Schmidt, W.C. and K.J. McDonald (compilers), Proceedings—Symposium on Whitebark 

Pine Ecosystems: Ecology and Management of a High-mountain Resource. USDA Forest Service, General Technical Report INT-270, Intermountain Research Station, Ogden, 

Utah, pp. 54-60.

Paine, R.T. 1966. Food web complexity and species diversity. American Naturalist 100:65-75.

Perkins, D.L. and T.W. Sweetnam. 1996. A dendrochronology assessment of whitebark pine in 

the Sawtooth-Salmon River region, Idaho. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 26:2123-

2133.

Primick, R.B. 2006. Essentials of conservation biology. Fourth edition. Sinauer Assoc. Inc, 

publisher. Suderland, Massachusetts.

Rebertus, A.J., B.R. Burns, and T.T. Veblen. 1991. Stand dynamics of Pinus flexilis-dominated 

subalpine forests in the Colorado Front Range. Journal of Vegetation Science 2:445-458.

Schwandt, J. and S. Kegley. 2004. Mountain pine beetle, blister rust, and their interaction on 

whitebark pine at Trout Lake and Fisher Peak in northern Idaho from 2001-2003. USDA 

Forest Service, R-1 FHP Report 04-9.
_________________________________________________WHITEBARK PINE IN PERIL: A CASE FOR RESTORATION

19

Siderius, J. and M. Murray. 2004. An initial assessment of the fire histories of two whitebark 

pine sites in the Washington Cascades. In: Taylor, L. (ed.), Symposium Proceedings: 

Mixed Severity Fire Regimes: Ecology and Management. Washington State University, 

Pullman, Washington, pp. 137-147.

Smith, C. M., Wilson, B., Rasheed, S., Walker, R., Carolin, T., Dobson, B. 2006 (in press). 

Whitebark pine and blister rust in the Rocky Mountains of Canada and northern Montana. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 

Smith, J.P. and J.T. Hoffman. 2000. Status of white pine blister rust in the intermountain west. 

Western North American Naturalist 60 (2):165-179.

Sniezko, R.A. 2006. Personal communication. Center Geneticist, USDA Forest Service, 

Dorena Genetic Resource Center, Cottage Grove, Oregon.

Tomback, D.F. and P. Achuff. 2006. Blister rust and Western Forest Biodiversity: Ecology, Values, and Outlook for Five-needled White Pines. (MS.)

Tomback, D.F. 2001. Clark’s nutcracker: agent of regeneration. In: Tomback, D.F., S.F. Arno, 

and R.E. Keane (eds.), Whitebark Pine Communities: Ecology and Restoration. Island 

Press, Washington, D.C.., pp. 89-104.

Ward, K., R. Shoal, and C. Aubry. 2006. Whitebark pine in Washington and Oregon: A synthesis of current studies and historical data. USDA Forest Service Pacific Northwest 

Region Pacific Northwest Albicaulis Project. February 2006. 22p.

Wilson, B.C. and G.J. Stuart-Smith. 2002. Whitebark Pine Conservation for the Canadian 

Rocky Mountain National Parks. KNP-01. Cordilleran Ecological Research, Winlaw, 

British Columbia, Canada.

Zack, Art. 2006. Personal communication. Forest Ecologist, USDA Forest Service, Northern 

Region, Idaho Panhandle National Forests, Coeur d’Alene, Idaho.

Zeglen, S. 2002. Whitebark pine and white pine blister rust in British Comumbia, Canada. 

Canadian Journal of Forest Research 32:1265-74.
20 

WHITEBARK PINE IN PERIL: A CASE FOR RESTORATION ________________________________________________

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The development of this document required the collaboration and unselfish sharing of data, photos 

and information from numerous individuals within the Forest Service, other land management 

agencies and universities. The following individuals were especially helpful with direction and 

document review: Carol Aubry, Anna Schoettle, Diana Tomback, Holly Kearns, and Kerry Britton. Funding for this effort was provided by the Washington Office, State and Private Forestry, 

Forest Health Protection. Funding for the preparation including formatting and layout by Mark 

Riffe, Information Technology Experts, was provided by the Forest Health Technology Enterprise 

Team, Fort Collins, Colorado.

Photo: John Schwandt, USFS
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities 

on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, 

or marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities 

who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, 

etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at 202-720-2600 (voice and TDD).

To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326-W, 

Whitten Building, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, D.C. 20250-9410 or call 

202-720-5964 (voice and TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

The use of trade, firm, or corporation names in this publication is for information only 

and does not constitute an endorsement by the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Whitebark pine is a keystone species of high-elevation ecosystems 

throughout western North America. The introduction of white pine blister 

rust has led to dramatic declines in parts of its range, but implementation of 

restoration strategies can reverse this trend.

Photo: 

Mature whitebark pine struggling for survival in a high-elevation ecosystem (John W. Schwandt, USFS).